Quote from: Lancer525 on 01/14/2009 01:54 amI just wanted to jump in here, and say that I expect to have the plans and notes for the Jupiter Models ready to publish pretty soon.Ya gots a place to put them up?
I just wanted to jump in here, and say that I expect to have the plans and notes for the Jupiter Models ready to publish pretty soon.
Are you using then-year dollars or 2009 dollars for these numbers?
Just a bump of a question I asked on thread 2 before it was locked :Hi Ross, Chuck and all the team.Is there a graph showing payload mass vs C3 energy for the Jupiter 232 (without or with a Centaur third stage if possible) ?Something to compare to graph p24 there : http://event.arc.nasa.gov/aresv/ppt/Saturday/2Sumrall/2Sumrall.pdfIt would be interesting to see.
Quote from: Will on 01/15/2009 01:39 pmAre you using then-year dollars or 2009 dollars for these numbers?All these numbers are currently CY2008 adjusted figures. We have not yet re-adjusted to CY2009.Ross.
Here I am literally flying the colors!!
Quote from: rocketguy101 on 01/16/2009 12:01 amHere I am literally flying the colors!!Very sweet!First confirmed flight of Direct One more image and we'd have first confirmed recovery
Quote from: kraisee on 01/15/2009 04:57 amInspired by MJ's post, here is something I would like EVERYONE to take part in:I would like EVERYONE to post a photo to this thread showing some piece of DIRECT publicity material which you have on display at your workplace (or elsewhere).Here is my contribution: Chuck, myself and Stephen at NASA HQ last Friday. In the foreground are both of Lancer525's Jupiter models -- yes, we brought along the "paper rockets" I think Steve Cook keeps referring to.Ross.Oooh, oooh, ooh!Can I use this picture too? I have some T-shirt images I drew once, before I discovered the ones on Cafe Press, but I've never seen this photo before, so I'd like to ask permission to see if it can be posted at Zealot Hobby Forum and Paper Modelers forum, (the two biggest card modeling fora on the net) as "street cred" for the models, which I hope will increase interest in DIRECT.Woooooooot!
Inspired by MJ's post, here is something I would like EVERYONE to take part in:I would like EVERYONE to post a photo to this thread showing some piece of DIRECT publicity material which you have on display at your workplace (or elsewhere).Here is my contribution: Chuck, myself and Stephen at NASA HQ last Friday. In the foreground are both of Lancer525's Jupiter models -- yes, we brought along the "paper rockets" I think Steve Cook keeps referring to.Ross.
In terms of structural design, the Ares EDS stage is much more like the Delta IV US.
Ross, would the lighter EDS of the J-231 also allows to save some structure mass on the rocket core stage? If yes, that should result in a slightly higher payload mass for the J-120.
Quote from: Will on 01/15/2009 11:35 pmIn terms of structural design, the Ares EDS stage is much more like the Delta IV US.Agreed. The conceptual design is remarkably similar. The LH2 and LOX tanks are separate, they're different diameter, the LOX tank 'hangs' under the LH2 tank which is where it is supported by the Interstage and it has a single engine underneath. The current Ares-V EDS design is very much what you would end-up with by scaling-up the current Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage.Ross.
The H-2A-2 and Delta III upper stages had a similar design.
Actually, I have two places to put them up.And a third would be a welcome thing.
Quote from: Will on 01/16/2009 02:13 amThe H-2A-2 and Delta III upper stages had a similar design.Duh, they have the same LOX tank
That's very true. I've felt a tone in some of the responses to my questions that makes me suspect that questions I've raised are seen as attacks on the project.
I have nothing but admiration for Mr. Kutter, and I'm glad that people like him are flying real rockets.But the reality is that we haven't been building a lot of entirely new designs for upper stages. Boeing has flown a mostly new upper stage on the Delta IV, with heritage back to the Delta III and H-II. Lockheed has been flying variants of the classic Centaur, with an understandable disinclination to depart very far from the proven stainless steel balloon tank design.
To note that Lockheed hasn't flown a structurally stable hydrogen powered upper stage in decades isn't a criticism of Mr. Kutter. They just weren't able to close the business case.
Likewise for Boeing. They haven't flown a common bulkhead Hydrogen upper stage in decades either.
If Bernard Kutter says the mass estimate for the JUS is reasonable, I give that opinion considerable respect. I still have to ask what the production cost penalty is for a common bulkhead design , since Boeing has rejected that alternative in spite of the obvious payload benefit on the Delta IV. Also, if pressurization is required at any point prior to launch for a Centaur derived JUS, since that has been such a fundamental feature of the Centaur design to date.
Ah it's in the February issue! I was looking all over the newsstands for it, but it's not yet out.
now for all to read...http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4295233.html
Quote from: kraisee on 01/16/2009 04:13 amnow for all to read...http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4295233.html First impressions from the online version: 1) It makes a cleaner story to ignore the NLS heritage, but that (I think) does not help DIRECT.2) The beauty of the concept is clear when you think of hacksawing off the heavy shuttle and putting an equally massive useful payload on top. PM seems not to have made this clear in text or illustration.3) PM did not explain why NASA chose to rebut DIRECT after studying all those configurations.4) PM thinks Griffin is fighting to the end for Ares I??!!!? If you are going to speculate, speculate logically.As others have noted, the Rebel Alliance vs. Death Star sub-theme works well for DIRECT even while the article is mostly even-handed.I don't have a good feel for the PM audience. A casual reader might not understand that a bunch of quivering compass needles simultaneously pointed to a single lodestone. He might be left thinking that the ragtag, part time army has come up with the equivalent to one of the 1,700 configurations--every bit as good as the one that NASA chose--rather than followed the mysterious force lines to their logical center.Modification: Punctuation.
Thank you for that insight. And was there another radically different LOX tank they might have chosen that would have led to a very different design? Or were the dimensions of the LOX tank influenced by the amount of LOX required to perform the mission?