Author Topic: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2  (Read 1356785 times)

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #700 on: 06/16/2008 07:27 pm »
1.  What are the chances, supposing VSE and ESAS are cancelled next Spring, that a consortium of ATK/Boeing/P&W (at least) would see the wisdom of developing the Jupiter 120 partly on their own dime,

2.  with some support from USAF and

3.  NASA (assuming manned ISS and unmanned solar system exploration constituencies survive)?
4.  Might a commercial market for something like that evolve?

1.  Zero.  They make more money on ESAS systems.  The ET is LM territory and not Boeing.  Boeing upperstage is out for Direct until an EDS is needed.

2.  there is no "real" USAF interest in Direct. 

3.  Direct is too big for them.  They don't even use a D-IV heavy.  They actually try to avoid using it. 

4.  There is no commercial market for this capability.  Comsats haven't maxed out Ariane V yet or Atlas V or even D-IV Heavy

Your item 1 does rather beg the question. If ESAS is cancelled, then they will make nothing off ESAS systems. Do they really lack the wisdom to do anything on their own initiative? Maybe we donj't deserve to go to the Moon, or anywhere else, if that is so. For the rest of it, if it's true there is no commercial market for that capacity, are we saying there will never be such a market? I asked if one could evolve. Seems like you're saying no, never, can't happened, forget about it. Another reason maybe we don't deserve to go anywhere.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #701 on: 06/16/2008 07:33 pm »
4) I tend to agree with Jim, although with the proviso that Arianespace is showing a way where a commercial Jupiter-120 might offer some real advantages - dual manifest launches (or tri- or quad- too).
Ross, what would be the payload of a Jupiter 120 to TLI (DeltaV 1500 m/s) ?
I guess Jupiter 120 is more optimized for LEO (no upper stage) so what would it be with a Centaur stage for that kind of commercial launches ?

Everyone should get this point very clearly:

By law,  NASA may not offer a launch vehicle for sale competitive with commercial launch services.  (not that NASA could even be price competitive with private industry)

There will never be a commercial launch on an ARES or Direct vehicle, ever, without additional legislative intervention from congress.

That's not the question. Assuming ESAS is gone, meaning there would be no NASA launch vehicle called Ares, DIRECT, or Space Shuttle, would there be a market for a DIRECT-like commercial vehicle developed using the resources of the commerical entities that currently build the SRMs, ETs, and RS-68 engines? Really what we are talking about in Jupiter 120 is a second-generation EELV. Not to mention the fact that there IS no "commercial launch service" equivalent to Jupiter 120. It would be the first.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #702 on: 06/16/2008 07:43 pm »

That's not the question. Assuming ESAS is gone, meaning there would be no NASA launch vehicle called Ares, DIRECT, or Space Shuttle, would there be a market for a DIRECT-like commercial vehicle developed using the resources of the commerical entities that currently build the SRMs, ETs, and RS-68 engines? Really what we are talking about in Jupiter 120 is a second-generation EELV. Not to mention the fact that there IS no "commercial launch service" equivalent to Jupiter 120. It would be the first.

no,
1.  No market
2.  it still would need NASA resources

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #703 on: 06/16/2008 07:48 pm »
I believe that yes, a commercial market exists where Jupiter could be very competitive indeed.

However, it would require the contractors to be totally ready and waiting to "catch" the Shuttle infrastructure when it is "dropped" in September 2010.

And I don't see any attempts yet in that direction.   The truth is that if they aren't ready and waiting to catch that ball when it comes at them, the infrastructure and workforce will be lost with no way to retrieve it.   Trying to get it back even just 3 or 6 months after Shuttle has closed-down, would be nigh-on impossible IMHO.   I don't think it could realistically be done 'after the fact'.

There would be a one-time-only opportunity to grab it and run, but *nobody* is currently even looking at that option.   There is precious little time for that situation to turn around by Sept 2010 if they wanted to do it.   These sorts of negotiations and company agreements take time and if they aren't ready, it just wouldn't ever happen.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/16/2008 07:50 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #704 on: 06/16/2008 08:00 pm »
I believe that yes, a commercial market exists where Jupiter could be very competitive indeed.


What market?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #705 on: 06/16/2008 08:06 pm »
On a different topic, I'd like to ask the general opinions of any engineers familiar with the RS-68 and J-2X here what they think of us possibly re-baselining to the 108% RS-68 and the 294,000lb thrust J-2X.

We've already got opinions from engineers within the team, but I'm really interested to hear other 'professionals' on this subject if they'd like to weigh-in on the discussion.   Non-pro's can chip in too, but the professionals are whom I'm really trying to canvas for their thoughts right now.


Our thinking is split currently on a number of different talking points, including...

RS-68:

Baselining the 102% RS-68 guarantees earlier operation, but would likely create a second production line at PWR for a while until the RS-68B is qualified later.

There are current units 'on the shelf' right now which NASA could purchase for qualification purposes and that would accelerate the human-rating process faster than waiting for USAF to finish developing the new variant.

We could use the 102% RS-68 on the early Jupiter-120 flights, and fairly easily qualify the more powerful variant in time for the Lunar missions around 2017 on a "Block-II" for Jupiter-232.


J-2X:

All J-2XD plans appear to have been completely dropped by NASA right now, so we aren't sure there is any tangible cost/schedule advantages any longer to sticking with the lower spec engines any further.


Both:

One thought we do have against any changes though, is that we *really* like having additional margins all over the place in this project because over on Ares we've clearly seen what can happen if you don't have enough margin and it ain't pretty.   These 'lower-spec engines' are handy margin to have in our back-pockets if we should ever need them.

Thoughts?   Opinions?

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/16/2008 08:07 pm 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 2
« Reply #706 on: 06/16/2008 08:30 pm »

What market?

Still under the assumption that Ares has already died, the market for a commercially operated Jupiter would thus be three-fold:-


NASA:

Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services.   NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more - they could just buy launch services for the missions instead.

The odd probe/satellite which can't be launched on a smaller rocket - like an 8m diameter replacement for Hubble, a Mars Sample Return mission or some new JIMO-class spacecraft could all be lifted by Jupiter-120 quite easily.   Operated as a commercial domestic launcher, Jupiter could certainly do things no other service can.

DoD

Jupiter-120 can match and beat the $ per kg to GTO price point of either EELV program today if it launches just three flights per year in a single-manifest usage mode.

DoD has flown dual manifest missions previously on Titan-IV.    A similar capability would be possible with Jupiter-120 too.   But it would have a much larger payload capacity allowing either more satellites or larger satellites - or a combination.

Part of a satellites basic cost is because it is designed down to a minimum mass for launch.   If that is no longer such a tight requirement, satellite development and manufacturing cost can actually be lowered.   Jupiter has sufficient capability to practically remove any such limitations, so there are a few less tangible benefits too.

Commercial

As a purely commercial entity the Jupiter-120 can directly compete with current Ariane-V costs at a flight rate of just 5 per year.

If Jupiter-120 were to provide dual-manifest, tri-manifest or even quad-manifest capabilities on the commercial international market it could undercut Arianespace's cost structure and compete very directly in their markets.

Utilized in this manner and at a very moderate flight rate of just 6 per year, Jupiter-120's cost per kg would rival both China and Russian cost structures and would thus be able to compete for the international business they are currently enjoying - a market all other current domestic US launchers are just too expensive to compete for.



Please understand, I personally don't think anything like a commercial Jupiter-120 will ever actually happen.   I really don't.   I just don't see how industry would be able to afford to develop it without NASA's money doing that hard part first.   But its cost numbers are surprisingly good if it were built.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/16/2008 08:41 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #707 on: 06/16/2008 08:47 pm »
NASA:

1.  Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services.   NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.

2.  The odd probe/satellite which can't be launched on a smaller rocket - like an 8m diameter replacement for Hubble or Mars Sample Return.   

DoD

3.  Jupiter-120 can match and beat the $ per kg to GTO price point of either EELV program today if it launches just three flights per year in a single-manifest usage mode.

4.  DoD has flown dual manifest missions previously on Titan-IV.    A similar capability would be possible with Jupiter-120 too.   But it would have a much larger payload capacity allowing either more satellites or larger satellites - or a combination.

5.  Part of a satellites basic cost is because it is designed down to a minimum mass for launch.   If that is no longer such a tight requirement, satellite development and manufacturing cost can actually be lowered.   Jupiter has sufficient capability to practically remove any such limitations, so there are a few less tangible benefits too.

Commercial

6.  As a purely commercial entity the Jupiter-120 can directly compete with current Ariane-V costs at a flight rate of just 5 per year.



1. If there is a commercial Jupiter, there is no NASA lunar program.  They are mutually exclusive.

2.  There is no 8m HST or MSR.  Therefore no market.  There has to be a market first.   The point is there is no market.  Didn't say that there weren't missions that could be done.

4.  There is a difference between dual manifested and multiple spacecraft. 

5.  bad reason.  You can't have this and multiple manifesting at the same time.  Bigger spacecraft have to pay for of the launch costs.  Also, since the launch costs are still relatively high, it still means that mass and size will be minimized for spacecraft.

3 & 6.  Your numbers are off or you are making the wrong comparison.

the 120 is not a GTO launcher.  You need to add the EDS
« Last Edit: 06/16/2008 08:48 pm by Jim »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #708 on: 06/16/2008 09:03 pm »
Jim,
I was including a standard EELV Upper Stage in the GTO comparison, not the full-up EDS from Jupiter-232.   I don't see any commercial entity ever developing the J-2X nor that large Upper Stage when they can borrow one from an EELV and get a good portion of the same performance.

At the end of the day, the Jupiter-120 offers more than double the performance of an EELV Heavy for the same cost as an EELV Medium.

That's what 25 years of continual budget cuts have done to the cost profile of the Shuttle ET and SRB systems.   Today they are *very* lean, mean and and highly competitive.   But they are totally overshadowed by the 200,000lb gorilla of a spaceplane which they're currently associated with.   Take that out of the equation and give them a chance to shine on their own, and they're quite a surprise.

There's a very good *potential* commercial opportunity there - just as long as you can afford to develop it first!   That's the bit where I don't think it would ever happen on its own though, not unless ATK has a spare $7bn burning a hole in their accounts currently...

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/16/2008 09:15 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline guru

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #709 on: 06/16/2008 09:41 pm »

There's a very good *potential* commercial opportunity there - just as long as you can afford to develop it first!   That's the bit where I don't think it would ever happen on its own though, not unless ATK has a spare $7bn burning a hole in their accounts currently...

Ross.

How much was ATK going to spend to buy MDA again?

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #710 on: 06/16/2008 09:42 pm »

That's not the question. Assuming ESAS is gone, meaning there would be no NASA launch vehicle called Ares, DIRECT, or Space Shuttle, would there be a market for a DIRECT-like commercial vehicle developed using the resources of the commerical entities that currently build the SRMs, ETs, and RS-68 engines? Really what we are talking about in Jupiter 120 is a second-generation EELV. Not to mention the fact that there IS no "commercial launch service" equivalent to Jupiter 120. It would be the first.

no,
1.  No market
2.  it still would need NASA resources

Item 1 is the usual chicken/egg conundrum. If you build it, will they come? Or should you wait til they come before you build anything? Companies go broke making both choices at the wrong time. Bigelow is developing a space station on the assumption if they do, a market will develop. But there's no market now.

As for item 2, if VSE is cancelled completely (not just ESAS, but the whole idea of going to the Moon, Mars, Beyond, and maybe even ISS in our own ships, what happens to those resources?

Of course, if somebody built Jupiter 120 on their own dime, then there's a market or two could evolve. ISS. Bigelow maybe. And Congress could then tell NASA, there's a moon rocket for sale. Buy some and go.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #711 on: 06/16/2008 09:43 pm »

There's a very good *potential* commercial opportunity there - just as long as you can afford to develop it first!   That's the bit where I don't think it would ever happen on its own though, not unless ATK has a spare $7bn burning a hole in their accounts currently...

Ross.

How much was ATK going to spend to buy MDA again?

$1.3bn I believe.   Still a *long* ways to go.

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

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #712 on: 06/16/2008 09:52 pm »
Jim,
I was including a standard EELV Upper Stage in the GTO comparison, not the full-up EDS from Jupiter-232.   I don't see any commercial entity ever developing the J-2X nor that large Upper Stage when they can borrow one from an EELV and get a good portion of the same performance.

At the end of the day, the Jupiter-120 offers more than double the performance of an EELV Heavy for the same cost as an EELV Medium.

That's what 25 years of continual budget cuts have done to the cost profile of the Shuttle ET and SRB systems.   Today they are *very* lean, mean and and highly competitive.   But they are totally overshadowed by the 200,000lb gorilla of a spaceplane which they're currently associated with.   Take that out of the equation and give them a chance to shine on their own, and they're quite a surprise.


No way.  You are only counting on the incremental costs.  Most of the EELV cost is in the upper stage.  yes, the orbiter was the bulk of the cost, but you still have to fund the VAB, pads, CT, MLP's, JSC flight design, the IU is going to cost some bucks.  The thrust structure is going to have costs that will have to be amortized and will have high incremental

« Last Edit: 06/16/2008 10:04 pm by Jim »

Offline PaulL

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #713 on: 06/16/2008 11:02 pm »
On a different topic, I'd like to ask the general opinions of any engineers familiar with the RS-68 and J-2X here what they think of us possibly re-baselining to the 108% RS-68 and the 294,000lb thrust J-2X.

J-2X:

All J-2XD plans appear to have been completely dropped by NASA right now, so we aren't sure there is any tangible cost/schedule advantages any longer to sticking with the lower spec engines any further.

Thoughts?   Opinions?

Ross.

Ross, if you go to the more powerful J-2X engine for the EDS, one thing you could consider is to switch to a J-231 rocket. The extra thrust of the J-2X could particially compensate for the removal of one engine. A J-231 rocket would have less "pure" LEO capability (all EDS propellant used to reach LEO) than the J-232 but more TLI payload capability thanks to its lighter EDS.  It would also make your rocket a bit cheaper.

PaulL

Offline Zachstar

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2490
  • Washington State
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #714 on: 06/17/2008 01:57 pm »
I am a non-pro and this is just my thought.

I'd say scrap em both. There are better engine and thrust designs on the drawing board that would do better for Direct in the long run when more mass to LEO is needed for Mars missions.

At the rate things are going mixed in with the obvious red tape as NASA converts I just highly doubt that we are going to have a flight to LEO before 2015 anyway.

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #715 on: 06/17/2008 04:39 pm »
Why even bother with the J2-X?  J2-S performance levels could do the job.

At the rate Ares is going, I think RS-25d might not have been as expensive as initially thought...
« Last Edit: 06/17/2008 04:40 pm by BogoMIPS »

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #716 on: 06/17/2008 04:42 pm »
Using the same engines as are baselined for Ares V also helps on the "jobs" case, as PWR continues the same development work that they're already doing. In addition, it puts the emphasis on Direct being a more optimised configuration of Ares, rather than a completely different vehicle...

Simon ;)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #717 on: 06/17/2008 04:49 pm »
Using the same engines as are baselined for Ares V also helps on the "jobs" case, as PWR continues the same development work that they're already doing. In addition, it puts the emphasis on Direct being a more optimised configuration of Ares, rather than a completely different vehicle...

Simon ;)

Actually, I think that makes a lot of sense. In the beginning we tried to keep as much in sync as we could with the Ares, for comparison sake, while always taking the less stressful and most economical option. But now both the stronger RS-68 and the J2X are much further along and barring some major fubar, are likely to be available anyway. So why not baseline them? Makes sense to me.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #718 on: 06/17/2008 10:39 pm »
Dual J-2X (or dual J-2??? for that matter) EDS is problematic.

Quoting from 20080018610_2008018440.pdf @ ntrs :
Quote
For the EDS reignition, the J–2X will shift
to a secondary mode mixture ratio of 4.5 and attain roughly
241,000 lbf (1072 kN—82 percent) thrust to accommodate
load limits on the Orion/Altair lunar lander docking system
.

With the proposed dual engine EDS, and if the load limit issue stands, "Direct" would be forced to explore a bizzare single engine TLI / dual engine launch...



« Last Edit: 06/17/2008 10:45 pm by renclod »

Offline guru

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #719 on: 06/17/2008 11:01 pm »
Dual J-2X (or dual J-2??? for that matter) EDS is problematic.

Quoting from 20080018610_2008018440.pdf @ ntrs :
Quote
For the EDS reignition, the J–2X will shift
to a secondary mode mixture ratio of 4.5 and attain roughly
241,000 lbf (1072 kN—82 percent) thrust to accommodate
load limits on the Orion/Altair lunar lander docking system
.

With the proposed dual engine EDS, and if the load limit issue stands, "Direct" would be forced to explore a bizzare single engine TLI / dual engine launch...


... or the unthinkable beefing of up the docking system.


Tags:
 

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