Author Topic: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3  (Read 1123317 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #160 on: 01/16/2009 12:33 am »
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.

Ya gots a place to put them up?  ;)


If he hasn't, I will host it.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #161 on: 01/16/2009 12:34 am »
Are 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.
« Last Edit: 01/16/2009 12:35 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #162 on: 01/16/2009 12:39 am »
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.pdf

It would be interesting to see.


Thanks for re-posting that.   We have the data, just not the charts yet.   I'll see what I can do, but I suffered a really bad computer crash last night and it may tale me some time to get straightened out again.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #163 on: 01/16/2009 12:59 am »
Are 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.

Thank you for the clarification.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #164 on: 01/16/2009 01:19 am »

Here I am literally flying the colors!!

Very sweet!
First confirmed flight of Direct  :)
One more image and we'd have first confirmed recovery ;)  :)

Offline rocketguy101

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
    • Strib's Rocket Page
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 888
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #165 on: 01/16/2009 01:31 am »

Here I am literally flying the colors!!

Very sweet!
First confirmed flight of Direct  :)
One more image and we'd have first confirmed recovery ;)  :)

video of the prep and flight here
David

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #166 on: 01/16/2009 01:33 am »
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.

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!

Yikes.   I hate photo's of myself.   You'll note that there is no image of me on the directlauncher website and on my Facebook entry there's only a low-res grainy image of me in the distance there too.   I don't want or crave the limelight and I don't think I look good in photo's.

So this is just about the only image of me anywhere on the 'net -- and you have no idea how reluctant I was posting it even here :)

But I guess once the dam has a hole in it, there's not much chance of patching it successfully :)

Go ahead.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/16/2009 04:18 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #167 on: 01/16/2009 01:38 am »
In 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.

And just like its EELV compatriot -- it weighs about 50% more than its Centaur-derived equivalent would.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/16/2009 04:19 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #168 on: 01/16/2009 01:47 am »
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.

It would *theoretically* offer an improvement, yes, but only very marginally.   I've seen figures showing only ~350kg difference in total -- which would benefit the Jupiter-120 performance a little, translates to only about 50kg improvement in Jupiter-232 performance so is not what I'd call "significant".


Having said that though, our performance calculations *all* assume the stronger Core Stage, even when flying the lighter EDS.   This approach ensures maximum flexibility for the system -- It can fly either and still not require re-design or re-qualifying.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #169 on: 01/16/2009 02:13 am »
In 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.
« Last Edit: 01/16/2009 02:13 am by Will »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #170 on: 01/16/2009 02:15 am »

The H-2A-2 and Delta III upper stages had a similar design.

Duh, they have the same LOX tank

Offline zapkitty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #171 on: 01/16/2009 02:19 am »

Actually, I have two places to put them up.
And a third would be a welcome thing.

... and for other Direct stuff as may be needed... okay, the mirror should be propagating... in fact it's probably sneaking up behind you as you read this...

http://somedirectstuff.nekoslovakia.net

... now all we need is stuff to put in it before it gets hungry... again...

Emailing you now.

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #172 on: 01/16/2009 02:29 am »

The H-2A-2 and Delta III upper stages had a similar design.

Duh, they have the same LOX tank

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?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #173 on: 01/16/2009 03:56 am »

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.

Unfortunately, and I'm sure unintentionally, you came in very much the same way that a couple of previous antagonists have -- appearing with all-guns blazing, making broad sweeping statements of what can and can't be right and beating away at topics which we had actually put to bed quite a long while ago.

The entire long-term readership here was instantly put on alert because we've seen people do exactly the same sort of thing and often with those people it became apparent really quickly that they weren't interested in listening to arguments or points which interfered with their stated beliefs, they weren't interested in examining DIRECT's claims in a reasonable manner.   Those previous antagonists quickly revealed themselves as having no other motive than to attack, attack, attack any option which wasn't Ares.   A few got so nasty with the vitriol that Chris/James have been forced to ban them permanently :(

Sadly, this has happened more than once over the last few years and each time it happens it makes us more and more 'guarded' whenever new people suddenly appear and start claiming that "this is implausible" or "that can't be right" etc etc.   We have become naturally very wary of any folk who just appear and just leap straight into making such definitive negative claims without first asking a whole bunch of questions about DIRECT and learning some of the real details.

It essentially boils down to the same difference between walking into a meeting two hours late and instantly saying "you can't do that" and being in the meeting for two hours discussing the subject and then asking "are you sure that can actually be done?".   It's a "TONE" thing -- and text-based forums like this are notoriously difficult to figure out a persons 'tone'.   In my experience you have to be 10 times more explicit with what you say in text than in speech if you want to get the 'tone' right and just typing what you're thinking without actively compensating for that will end up offending someone sooner or later.   Sadly that's just the nature of the 'net though.


Right now, I'm still trying to figure YOU out :)

While your comments sometimes come across as rather brusque and cutting, you have not revealed an anti-DIRECT "Battle-Standard" yet.   Most interestingly, we do seem to have managed to explain some facets of the plan and you seem to have accepted many of those explanations so far.   There are still a few more which we're 'doing the dance' with still, but that's okay.   All I ask is that you're still open to the "possibility".   As long as that's the case, I think we can convince you sooner or later ;)   We have been able to convince almost everyone who has approached the idea without having already made their mind up.

Forgive me, but right now I just can't tell yet whether you are merely 'cautious' or 'antagonistic'.   To me, you've managed to tread the extremely narrow tightrope between the two very well (that's a compliment actually -- that takes skill!)   And I've never been one to write anyone off without a real reason, so I keep trying to offer answers in the hope of persuading you.   I just hope you are still open to being persuaded :)


Quote
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.

The Centaur isn't all-new, no.   But it has not remained the same throughout the last 40 years.   There have been 12 major revisions to the design over the years, 6 of which have been made since 1990.   Each time the system has been revised the full suite of DDT&E work has to be applied.   You're certainly aware that even something as 'simple' as a tank stretch requires a full re-analysis of the entire structural load environment and a full re-certification program too.   In just the last ~6 years or so LM had to change the underlying launcher from Atlas-II/III to Atlas-V too -- and that wasn't a simple change either -- it was equally a major development program as anything else they've had to do.

But not to change the underlying concept, to make evolutionary upgrades instead of revolutionary ones, is a pretty good sign of a strong and capable underlying concept, wouldn't you agree?


It should be noted that while the current generation of Centaur is indeed Steel, their WBC/ICES designs (which DIRECT is proposing to use) is designed to use Al-Li 2195.   It seems that LM gained a great deal of experience using the friction-stir welded Al-Li for the Shuttle SLWT ET Project, and since then LM have been proposing to utilize that same proven technology for their future generations of Centaur derivatives.   Perhaps this explains why there is some confusion over this issue.[/quote]


Quote
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.

Actually that isn't correct.   Lockheed-Martin build the Shuttle External Tanks, which are the largest structurally stable hydrogen tanking structure in the world today.   To say they don't have experience with such systems is therefore incorrect -- they actually have experience with one of the most challenging of such systems.


Quote
Likewise for Boeing. They haven't flown a common bulkhead Hydrogen upper stage in decades either.

This is true.   But still, we should also try not ignore the fact that Boeing is contracted to produce the Ares-I US right now, which is intended to just be such a beast.   It's still very much in the design phase for sure, but I think we must be sure not to imply they currently have no experience at all.


Quote
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.

There is a higher cost during the testing phase of the development program, to ensure the common bulkhead design is stable (anyone recall the S-II common bulkhead which 'inverted' during testing?).   But it is quite marginal compared to the total development expenditure (<1%).

In production though, the materials and labor cost is actually LESS because it deletes all of the intricate hardware items which make-up the Intertank area.   Manufacturing costs can actually be cut by between 10-20% by utilizing a common bulkhead design instead of a separate-bulkhead, though again, compared to the total development cost this is pretty small.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/16/2009 04:23 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #174 on: 01/16/2009 04:13 am »
Not sure if anyone has posted it here already but the full Popular Mechanics article is up on their website now for all to read...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4295233.html

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline DarthVader

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 543
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #175 on: 01/16/2009 04:34 am »
Ah it's in the February issue! I was looking all over the newsstands for it, but it's not yet out.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #176 on: 01/16/2009 04:40 am »
Ah it's in the February issue! I was looking all over the newsstands for it, but it's not yet out.

You can find it in some places.   I know people were able to pick copies up last Friday in Providence CT, Seattle WA and Washington DC, so its 'out there' already.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline fotoguzzi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Phobos first!
  • PDX, Oregon, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #177 on: 01/16/2009 06:41 am »
now 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.
 
« Last Edit: 01/16/2009 06:45 am by fotoguzzi »
My other rocket is a DIRECT Project 2

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #178 on: 01/16/2009 11:21 am »
now 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.

Agreed. But for us, the focal point of the entire article was the statements by Mr Kutter. It allowed us to open the window just a wee bit on the caliber of assistance and/or support we have from within the professional industry itself. For almost 3 years we've been claiming that the design is professionally vetted without being able to back it up with names. Now at least some of that is visible. All I can say now is that the rest of the vehicle, representing all of the various design disciplines needed to create the design in its entirety, are supported and/or assisted by other equally qualified professionals. Our hope is to one day be able to put names to those sources as well. But as was the case with Mr Kutter, that is not our call. And please also notice, as was the case with Mr Kutter, it may not always be just an individual’s choice alone. Mr Kutter had to get permission to be quoted. Some of our remaining sources will also need the same kind of permission. For a lot of them it's not as simple as just asking them if they are willing to be identified.
« Last Edit: 01/16/2009 02:19 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #179 on: 01/16/2009 11:26 am »

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?

1.  don't know the trades involved
2.  yes

Tags:
 

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