Author Topic: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3  (Read 1123257 times)

Offline zinfab

  • Space Junkie
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • North Carolina
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #200 on: 01/16/2009 06:12 pm »

And why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?

Because it isn't working and LM is the ET expert

And this, I suspect, more than anything else is why NASA brass are reluctant to adopt alternative solutions. It would require them, after the fact, to admit that the path they've chosen is not the most efficient. It would require them to partially abandon their goal to "reconstitute" design expertise within NASA and cede this ground to the contractors.

I believe that this is the biggest admission/change/hurdle NASA faces with the switch to Direct than any perceptions of "NIH syndrome" or "Griffin's Dream Rocket."

Again, I personally believe that this is only a perception, and not a reality. In Apollo, good ideas seemed to come from industry as well as NASA. Why can't it be the same today?

Offline cgrunska

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 248
  • Austin Tx
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #201 on: 01/16/2009 08:04 pm »
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30spac.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

Page 2

Direct 2.0 was mentioned in December, along with Ross in the new york times.

neat!

Offline GraphGuy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #202 on: 01/16/2009 08:08 pm »

And why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?

Because it isn't working and LM is the ET expert

And this, I suspect, more than anything else is why NASA brass are reluctant to adopt alternative solutions. It would require them, after the fact, to admit that the path they've chosen is not the most efficient. It would require them to partially abandon their goal to "reconstitute" design expertise within NASA and cede this ground to the contractors.

I believe that this is the biggest admission/change/hurdle NASA faces with the switch to Direct than any perceptions of "NIH syndrome" or "Griffin's Dream Rocket."

Again, I personally believe that this is only a perception, and not a reality. In Apollo, good ideas seemed to come from industry as well as NASA. Why can't it be the same today?

I think you are looking at history through rose colored glasses.  Lets not forget that NASA was argued into the Apollo LOR mission profile by one engineer.  Even during the Apollo heyday of good ideas you had NASA being dragged into the right thing to do.  And the pure O2 environment for Apollo wasn't the best idea.

NASA made mistakes back in its glory days and had to be argued into architecture changes then as well.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #203 on: 01/16/2009 08:16 pm »


Proof that rockets can be legos!

That is amazing work!

On another note, today is Dr. Griffin's last day at NASA, now maybe we'll get that review we have all have been hoping for.  :)

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #204 on: 01/16/2009 08:21 pm »
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30spac.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

Page 2

Direct 2.0 was mentioned in December, along with Ross in the new york times.

neat!

Quote
But that concept has gained few followers, and in April, Richard Gilbrech, NASA’s associate administrator for exploration systems at the time, testified before the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics that “we can’t justify, based on laws of physics, the performance” claimed by the plan’s proponents.

Really? Few followers?  ???

They basically just frame Direct as a dead-end in that article. And they use a quote when NASA looked at old data, not the new and updated Jupiter data.

And most of the editor's selections for comments call for the ending of manned spaceflight, and for NASA to focus on unmanned probes.

Thanks for posting the link, I think we need to go in there and set the story straight.


« Last Edit: 01/16/2009 08:23 pm by gladiator1332 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #205 on: 01/16/2009 08:23 pm »
another note, today is Dr. Griffin's last day at NASA, now maybe we'll get that review we have all have been hoping for.  :)

Fingers crossed. Griffin submitted his resignation, not because he wanted to, but because all of Bush's appointees were required to. Obama has not yet announced a new Administrator, permanent or interim, and it's always possible that he'll keep Griffin in place until he does. Let's hope not. It's time for all of President Bush's appointees to leave and make way for the new administration.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #206 on: 01/16/2009 08:50 pm »
another note, today is Dr. Griffin's last day at NASA, now maybe we'll get that review we have all have been hoping for.  :)

Fingers crossed. Griffin submitted his resignation, not because he wanted to, but because all of Bush's appointees were required to. Obama has not yet announced a new Administrator, permanent or interim, and it's always possible that he'll keep Griffin in place until he does. Let's hope not. It's time for all of President Bush's appointees to leave and make way for the new administration.

Yes, I was going to start parading around, screaming at the top of my lungs in the -30C weather outside : Goodbye Griffin, goodbye!!!!!  :)

But I have to wait now until I hear something announced.

Hopefully Monday brings a day truly of Change, regardless. Anxious to hear if there's anything in Obama's acceptance speech. I'm sure everyone here is.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #207 on: 01/16/2009 09:02 pm »
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30spac.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

Page 2

Direct 2.0 was mentioned in December, along with Ross in the new york times.

neat!

Quote
But that concept has gained few followers, and in April, Richard Gilbrech, NASA’s associate administrator for exploration systems at the time, testified before the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics that “we can’t justify, based on laws of physics, the performance” claimed by the plan’s proponents.

Really? Few followers?  ???

They basically just frame Direct as a dead-end in that article. And they use a quote when NASA looked at old data, not the new and updated Jupiter data.

And most of the editor's selections for comments call for the ending of manned spaceflight, and for NASA to focus on unmanned probes.

Thanks for posting the link, I think we need to go in there and set the story straight.


This is an old story, I don't know if they are still accepting comments.

As it is, comments No. 7 (me) and 18 are the only two that are strongly pro-DIRECT.  Most of the rest are, unfortunately, more anti-manned-spaceflight than anything else.

Mark S.

Offline cgrunska

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 248
  • Austin Tx
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #208 on: 01/16/2009 09:30 pm »
Guess i jumped the gun there. I stopped reading it and posted it here, and then work got busy!

Oh well. The new article pretty much eradicated that quote from the new york times with that lead designer guy stating it's possible.

I sure hope we don't botch outer space for another 40 years. That'll just be depressing.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #209 on: 01/16/2009 09:49 pm »
Guess i jumped the gun there. I stopped reading it and posted it here, and then work got busy!

Oh well. The new article pretty much eradicated that quote from the new york times with that lead designer guy stating it's possible.

I sure hope we don't botch outer space for another 40 years. That'll just be depressing.

That's okay, I was excited when I first saw the NYT article, too.  What I didn't like was the provocative title, "The Fight for NASA's Future", paired with a NASA PR office puff piece article.  They give DIRECT two sentences, say it has little support, then dismiss it with the typical condescending quote from a NASA rep saying is not possible under the laws of physics.  Bah.

Thank goodness the PM article came out with a story that actually tries to address the subject in a rational and impartial manner.  While they do slant the article with the David-vs-Goliath angle, in the end they leave it up to the reader to make up their own minds, based on the info presented.  That's good journalism.

Mark S.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #210 on: 01/16/2009 09:51 pm »
Guess i jumped the gun there. I stopped reading it and posted it here, and then work got busy!

Oh well. The new article pretty much eradicated that quote from the new york times with that lead designer guy stating it's possible.

I sure hope we don't botch outer space for another 40 years. That'll just be depressing.

That's okay, I was excited when I first saw the NYT article, too.  What I didn't like was the provocative title, "The Fight for NASA's Future", paired with a NASA PR office puff piece article.  They give DIRECT two sentences, say it has little support, then dismiss it with the typical condescending quote from a NASA rep saying is not possible under the laws of physics.  Bah.

Thank goodness the PM article came out with a story that actually tries to address the subject in a rational and impartial manner.  While they do slant the article with the David-vs-Goliath angle, in the end they leave it up to the reader to make up their own minds, based on the info presented.  That's good journalism.

Mark S.


I agree. If you are going to take the time to write an article, do a little research like PM did.
Thank god for Popular Mechanics, it was a great piece and allowed the reader to draw their own conclusions (but I felt an overall pro-Direct feeling to it).

On another note, updated the Direct-STS patch in my signature using the latest 120 baseball card. It looks much better now!  :)
« Last Edit: 01/16/2009 10:37 pm by gladiator1332 »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #211 on: 01/17/2009 12:42 am »
Hey,
Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.
It can boost about 45ton into LEO right?  Roughly twice the weight of Orion?
Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?
Again, I'm sort of thinking of other missions that it could do that would be both helpful to NASA, and help make the case for DIRECT, beyond just ISS ferries and the Moon. 
Jupiter will always look kind of overkill, and thus "more expensive" than Ares 1 for just ISS missions.  (That's why I like the Idea of using en EELV for only going to the ISS).
Here's my though.  Like the Shuttle servicing the Hubble, there is a use to have the Shuttle's successor go to satellites and service or repair them.  Or possibly even go set a dead one into a decaying orbit so it'll get it out of the sky.  (It's getting pretty crowded up there, and some of these satellites are large and dead and can't be controlled.  I think a lot of new satellites have the ability to degrade their orbit and burn up, but hundreds of old ones don't)
The Nice thing about the Shuttle was it's pretty big and roomy for an extended stay in orbit where you aren't at the ISS.  Technically, the Astronauts could hang out in the Orion Spam can for a couple week mission, but having another module which could have tools, components, a manipulator arm, and habitation space would be a bonus I would think.  Something along the lines of a SpaceHab module for the Shuttle or something.  Orion could dock with it like the LSAM, and then use the SM engine to boost into the required orbit, and then drop back to LEO.  Could it not?
I was thinking something along the lines of the main Kibo Lab.  A cylinder with a view port and manipulator arm on one end.  Orion could take the unit to a wayword satellite, capture it, and do the spacewalks to service it.  The Orion capsule could be used as an airlock while the rest of the astronauts resided in the new module, just like Dave Scott did in Apollo 9.  He exited through Apollo's hatch to spacewalk over to the LEM.  (Otherwise eveyone needs to be in a suit when you depressurize the capsule)

In my opion, you only really give up three abilities by retiring the Shuttle.  1)   Habitation space for long duration non-ISS stays in Orbit (for moon shots, the LSAM acts as a habitation module, as the old LEM did for Apollo) 
2)  The ability to return cargo to Earth. 
3)  Having a vehical with it's own airlock and manipulator arm for EVA's.
Can't do much about #2 with the return to a capsule, but we would do something about #1 and #3 with an additional "service module".

Maybe there's 100 reasons this isn't feasable that I don't see because I don't understand the details of space travel as well as Ross and some others, so that's why I'm asking.  Such an ability would be a big selling point to Jupiter.  Ares 1 can barely launch Orion, and Ares V would be too big for such a mission.  But if Jupiter 120 can boost A fully fueled Orion (Lunar config weight) plus say a 20 ton "Utility module", and that bundle could boost to higher orbits and reach satellites for servicing missions, what are thre reasons that wouldn't work?  would the SM have enough fuel to boost that to a higher orbit them back to LEO? (As the Shuttle's OMS's do for Hubble servicing missiosn).
The Utility Module could be ether a low-cost expendable module, or a more robust unit meant to remain in space parked in orbit and be reused.  If it had solar panels and and OMS system, don't know why it couldn't be, but would a future Orion mission be able to dock with it and take it to a different satellite?  Or would it need an entirely different orbital path for a different satellite?  Suppose if you have enough propellent, you can go anywhere you want from anywhere.   Just don't know enough about orbital mechanics to know if this is viable or impractical for ORion's SM to do.
If there's not enough fuel in the SM to pick up the Utility Module in a parking orbit and go to another Satillite, then a cheaper, simpler unit that would be expended would be the logical way to go, and just bring it up with each Mission.  If it just had some habitation space, supplies, some simple grappler lock to the target, and could house the astronauts who weren't doing the EVA's, that could probably be done pretty inexpensively.  Not much more than the expendable SM anyway.

I mean, obviously we've used the shuttle to service satellites in the past, so there's no reason not to think we wouldn't want to do it again some time if we have the ability.  But the Shuttle has a manipulator arm, an airlock, and habitation volume (and could carry a SpaceHab module for even more room).  If you just sent Orion to service a satillite, it can't grab onto the satillite, and you have to decompress the module for EVA's so everyone would need to be in pressure suits, like Apollo or Gemini.  And if the mission is a couple weeks long, that's a long time to spend with 3 or 4 astronauts in the Orion capsule.
Seems like this would be something that would be useful.  Another arrow in the quiver for Jupiter I'd think.

Is the idea viable?  Or crazy?

Online Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #212 on: 01/17/2009 12:42 am »

And why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?

Because it isn't working and LM is the ET expert

And this, I suspect, more than anything else is why NASA brass are reluctant to adopt alternative solutions. It would require them, after the fact, to admit that the path they've chosen is not the most efficient. It would require them to partially abandon their goal to "reconstitute" design expertise within NASA and cede this ground to the contractors.

I believe that this is the biggest admission/change/hurdle NASA faces with the switch to Direct than any perceptions of "NIH syndrome" or "Griffin's Dream Rocket."

Again, I personally believe that this is only a perception, and not a reality. In Apollo, good ideas seemed to come from industry as well as NASA. Why can't it be the same today?

I think you are looking at history through rose colored glasses.  Lets not forget that NASA was argued into the Apollo LOR mission profile by one engineer.  Even during the Apollo heyday of good ideas you had NASA being dragged into the right thing to do.  And the pure O2 environment for Apollo wasn't the best idea.

NASA made mistakes back in its glory days and had to be argued into architecture changes then as well.

Exactly. LOR came from John Houbolt, who was NASA/Langley. Not exactly "outside", considering the STG hadn't even completely moved from Langley to Houston yet.

And the NAA/X-15 guys warned the NAA/Apollo guys about the hazards of a high-pressure O2 environment. *That* was ignored. So "not invented here" is not a new thing at NASA.

I'd really like to hear any concrete examples zinfab has to share about "good ideas from industry" that were adopted for Apollo. I doubt there were any major ones.
JRF

Online Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #213 on: 01/17/2009 12:57 am »
Hey,
Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.
It can boost about 45ton into LEO right?  Roughly twice the weight of Orion?
Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?

Yes, already discussed many times, search "SSPDM".
JRF

Offline ballew

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • Tennessee
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #214 on: 01/17/2009 02:45 am »
What size and type of unmanned missions would be possible to Mars or to the outer solar system using a Jupiter 120 or 130 along with an existing US as a launch vehicle that would not be possible using the launch vehicles currently available. I'm thinking that some of the later unmanned test flights could be used to send missions to deep space.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #215 on: 01/17/2009 02:47 am »
What size and type of unmanned missions would be possible to Mars or to the outer solar system using a Jupiter 120 or 130 along with an existing US as a launch vehicle that would not be possible using the launch vehicles currently available. I'm thinking that some of the later unmanned test flights could be used to send missions to deep space.


For starters, a REAL Mars Sample Return.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #216 on: 01/17/2009 03:11 am »

With Ares NASA picks a design, does a detailed review of it and hands it to the contractors to execute,

That's the way it used to be, but not under Mike Griffin.
Under his leadership, NASA is not "picking a design and doing a detailed review of it". They are doing the actual detail design using designers that have never done it before with no design input from the contractors with the experience. Don't get me wrong, these are smart designers, among the best in the world. But there is design and there is design. What Griffin has done is similar to taking a bunch of exceptionally good jet fighter aircraft designers, putting them in a room behind locked doors and telling them to design a nuclear-powered submarine. They don't know how. Will they come up with a working design? Yes. Will it be anywhere near as technically good and cost efficient as what they could get from industry directly? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

As I understand it, you seem to be bringing together three entirely separable questions:

1) Is two launches better than 1.5?
2) Is a common bulkhead a better solution than an intertank?
3) Should NASA do less designing and the contractors more?

Direct seems to assume that the answer to all three questions is yes, and that accepting the Direct proposal will mean that NASA capitulates on all three questions, with wonderful savings on each point.

I don't see how that follows.

For example, I could see an independent study agreeing yes to 1) but not to 2) and 3).





Offline Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #217 on: 01/17/2009 03:24 am »
What are 1.5 launches?  Ares I = 1 launch, and Ares V = 1 launch.
1+1 = 2 launches.  I've got a bridge to sell anyone who buys that "1.5 launch" red herring.
F=ma


As I understand it, you seem to be bringing together three entirely separable questions:

1) Is two launches better than 1.5?


Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #218 on: 01/17/2009 03:39 am »
What are 1.5 launches?  Ares I = 1 launch, and Ares V = 1 launch.
1+1 = 2 launches.  I've got a bridge to sell anyone who buys that "1.5 launch" red herring.
F=ma


As I understand it, you seem to be bringing together three entirely separable questions:

1) Is two launches better than 1.5?


I can understand your frustration, but do you have a more concise way to distinguish between:

1) two launches on the same size launcher

and

2) two launches, with one on a much larger launcher and one on a much smaller launcher?

Because the costs, LOC and LOM numbers can be very different.

Yes, they both launch twice. But what is the most convenient way to distinguish the two options?


Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #219 on: 01/17/2009 04:14 am »
What are 1.5 launches?  Ares I = 1 launch, and Ares V = 1 launch.
1+1 = 2 launches.  I've got a bridge to sell anyone who buys that "1.5 launch" red herring.
F=ma

True.  The Ares I is not half of an Ares V.

More like 1.167
;)
« Last Edit: 01/17/2009 04:14 am by A_M_Swallow »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0