NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV/SLS) => Topic started by: kraisee on 05/10/2007 08:41 pm

Title: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/10/2007 08:41 pm
Announcing:
 
DIRECT Goes Live – version 2.0
 
www.directlauncher.com
 
10th May 2007
Cape Canaveral, FL
 
Today the team behind the 2006 DIRECT proposal issues a newly revised study seeking to persuade NASA to re-examine the decision to use two completely different Ares launchers to support NASA's new mandate of returning humans to the moon and taking them to explore the rest of our solar system.
 
At the end of last year, Dr. Doug Stanley, author of NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) Report provided a critique of the version 1 proposal. This revision is a direct result of that critique. All of his comments respecting the Direct launch vehicle were taken seriously, and the entire proposal was re-evaluated in that context.
 
After months of revised calculations, updates, feedback, and critical analysis of the constantly changing situation surrounding the Vision for Space Exploration, our new study identifies a launch vehicle even more closely matched to existing hardware, which we have named the "Jupiter" launch vehicle. Able to double Ares-I's payload performance to stable Low Earth Orbit, "Jupiter" scales, with the use of an upper stage and a 3rd engine, to also produce true heavy lift payload performance greater than 100 tons per flight.
 
This means that this single launch vehicle is capable of accomplishing all the roles expected of the two Ares vehicles, yet does so for less than half the development costs and on a faster schedule.
 
Specifically addressing concerns with our first proposal, we have selected only existing flight-proven engines to power the Jupiter, specifically the Space Shuttle's 4-segment SRB's and a man-rated version of the RS-68 from the Delta-IV program with no performance enhancements what-so-ever.
 
Our optional upper stage is powered by the lower specification J-2X "D" engine variant, but is not required to support the early ISS missions.   The new engines are now not required until the lunar phase of the Jupiter program – beginning around 2017.   This reduces the scheduling pressures and high investment costs currently plaguing Ares-I development while Shuttle operations continue.
 
"Jupiter" removes all of the key "long lead time" from the near-term budget, which would allow NASA, in these lean times, to afford to fund other important programs once again, while still accomplishing all of the VSE's objectives and importantly, doing so ahead of schedule.
 
With Jupiter as its new backbone, and with DIRECT's architecture, NASA could close the Shuttle/Orion gap to just two years, save half of its launch vehicle development costs over the next 10 years, while also benefiting from an increase in 2-launch lunar mission performance by as much as 42% compared to existing plans with Ares-I and Ares-V.
 
While DIRECT's architecture guarantees lunar access with NASA's very first new launch vehicle, the ultimate goal of the gargantuan Ares-V is not removed from the table - it remains a logical upgrade option for the future, because "Jupiter" does not cost any more to develop than Ares-I, yet Jupiter would benefit the Ares-V by pre-qualifying the RS-68 and the J-2XD engines, and creating a versatile Earth Departure Stage – all of which the Ares-V could utilize.
 
To learn more about the DIRECT Architecture and the Jupiter launcher, please visit our website at: www.directlauncher.com
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: RedSky on 05/10/2007 09:02 pm
To all involved in Direct 2... looks great.  But just a suggestion based on the intended audience: switch to American English spelling rather than UK English (e.g., maneuver for manoeuvre, etc.).  ;)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/10/2007 09:23 pm
Have you sent it to Michael Griffin again ? Maybe a copy to Doug Stanley (and Scott Horowitz) might be good too. Keep trying guys, I think either Ares I/V or DIRECT would do the job but yours looks cheaper and quicker if maybe slightly less safer. However with a looming Democrat President I would say DIRECT remains the only feasible political and economic one given the less enthusiasm to manned spaceflight they have with the obvious squeeze on funds that will produce which will mean the Chinese will get there first and take all the helium-3 while the Democrats drone on about Science and saving the Earth ;-).
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/10/2007 09:25 pm
Quote
RedSky - 10/5/2007  10:02 PM

To all involved in Direct 2... looks great.  But just a suggestion based on the intended audience: switch to American English spelling rather than UK English (e.g., maneuver for manoeuvre, etc.).  ;)

I've learnt to do that. Got to cater to your main audience :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: NotGncDude on 05/10/2007 09:45 pm
What's the Jupiter 242? I couldn't find it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/10/2007 10:08 pm
I assume you're referring to the reference to an 'optional vehicle upgrade' for use on future LOR-LOR mission profiles from page 10?

As the numbering designations would indicate, it is a four engined Core variant which could be constructed in the future if additional performance were ever required by NASA.   It is more powerful than the 232 but is NOT backward compatible to the 120, so it becomes a separate stand-alone design.   For achieving the current Lunar architecture payload requirements, however, the 232 is more than adequate, and can be used in 120 configuration to support safe, cost-effective manned operations in the near-term. Because of these reasons, the specific details of the 242 variant are really beyond the scope of this particular document.

What we have here are the two, least costly and safest variants - using the exact same Common Core for both - which accomplish all of the criteria set out in the original ESAS analysis.   The Jupiter-120 and the Jupiter-232 can match Ares-I/V's performance and offer a very easy method to actually improve noticeably upon them.   The 242 variant thus becomes an 'option' which can remain on the shelf for the future.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/10/2007 10:41 pm
Quote
RedSky - 10/5/2007  5:02 PM

To all involved in Direct 2... looks great.  But just a suggestion based on the intended audience: switch to American English spelling rather than UK English (e.g., maneuver for manoeuvre, etc.).  ;)

Thanks.   Good suggestion.   That was my error - I still have my UK English dictionary set up :)

Fixed now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 05/10/2007 10:44 pm

Congratulations on all of you hard work. I can appreciate all of the intense time and effort spent on the proposal. I stand in awe of your persistence and determination. Fantastic job! A minor question: How does the Jupiter 232 equal or beat the Ares V in LSAM mass with a less powerful launcher?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Celeritas on 05/10/2007 11:21 pm
If all of the above numbers are correct then DIRECT makes too much sense.  Hopefully not too much sense for NASA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/10/2007 11:28 pm
Marsman,
The 232 doesn't beat Ares-V in raw performance - but the 232 is still the *first* rocket - which is equivalent to Ares-I from a cost and schedule perspective.   If the 232 isn't powerful enough, there is no reason why NASA can not make the Ares-V to go with the Jupiter, and still not spend any more than they would for the Ares-I & Ares-V combo.

But if NASA's current budget is any indication, we may never be getting the Ares-V.   Which would you rather be 'stuck' with?   Ares-I or Jupiter?

The Jupiter approach protects against that eventuality.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/10/2007 11:31 pm
I wish you guys the best of luck with this.  Its obvious that a ton of work & passion went into this.   It going to be next to impossible to get the NASA managers to just up & change their plans over night.   Your work will have at least put the Direct launch system in position to be the alternative if Ares becomes unworkable due to major problems or a cutback in funds.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 05/10/2007 11:51 pm

Quote
kraisee - 10/5/2007 7:28 PM Marsman, The 232 doesn't beat Ares-V in raw performance - but the 232 is still the *first* rocket - which is equivalent to Ares-I from a cost and schedule perspective. If the 232 isn't powerful enough, there is no reason why NASA can not make the Ares-V to go with the Jupiter, and still not spend any more than they would for the Ares-I & Ares-V combo. But if NASA's current budget is any indication, we may never be getting the Ares-V. Which would you rather be 'stuck' with? Ares-I or Jupiter? The Jupiter approach protects against that eventuality. Ross.

Sorry for the poor phrasing, my question was that although the Jupiter 232 has less overall performance to LEO, how can it still put a 38-45mt LSAM on the Moon?

The easy part is over. Now you have to deal with the discussions ;)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/11/2007 12:53 am
Regarding the FAQ.  I think an obvious question would be something like, "were these configurations evaluated by NASA?"  If so, the next obvious question would be, "why weren't they selected?"  If not, the next question would be, "how are these configurations different from what was evaluated, and why are they better than those?".  You've already given plenty of why they are better than what was selected (from your point of view, of course).

Best of luck.

Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jon_Jones on 05/11/2007 01:41 am
What would it be like If the LSAM Ascent Stage was Launched with the Orion/Jupiter stack instead of the LASM Descent Stage on the second direct launch? I assume, since Jupiter would be able to get more than just Orion to a stable orbit, that  it could get orion and a lunar suface ascent stage there? Being in a stable orbit, Orion would then have the option of doing the classic Apollo/Saturn flip around to pull the LM off of the SIVB. Of course that would depend which way you want to leave earth orbit. I see that as being the main thing against an idea such as that. Perhaps if you used two Jupiter EDS stages, one on each launch. If it's not impossible, would that free up mass on the LSAM for a larger LSAM and therefore more equipment and/or more habitation. Just a thought.

Perhaps then tht would also allow a larger version of Orion. I personally would like to see a larger capsule for four astronauts. but th'ed probably only be in there for 7 days at the most. However, they would be spending a considerable larger portion of the mission on the surface.

Though, it occurs to me that a larger orion in LEO is a larger target for space debris, but that's true anywhere -pertaining to micromeorites.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/11/2007 02:39 am
Why "Jupiter"?  This name is associated with a short-lived U.S. nuke warhead ballistic missile system.  Why give it a name at all?

- Ed Kyle
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Ankle-bone12 on 05/11/2007 02:57 am
Im not a rocket scientist, in fact far from it, but I would assume that it could have something to do with the publics appeal to the flashy name of "Jupiter". It could also be viewed as a "next step up" from the Saturn family of rockets.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/11/2007 03:21 am
I won't be around tomorrow to field questions, but let me have a stab at these ones so far...

Marsman: The 232 can place a 38mT LSAM into LEO immediately and perform a routine EOR-LOR mission in precisely the same fashion as Ares-I/V.

However, with 45mT of lift capability, the CLV flight has a 'spare' 23mT of performance available on top of lifting the Orion to orbit.   This extra capacity is not initially required, but as the program evolves and confidence is built with the equipment, it could be utilised to increase performance later for almost no additional cost.

Extra payload can theoretically be transferred to the LSAM during the 3 day voyage between the Earth and the Moon.   The most logical material to transfer would be a single type of propellant or oxidixer.   Note: For safety only one or the other should be transferred, not both.

This general technique also applied to the 232/232 LOR-LOR mission profile available later too.   The first 232 is capable of launching a 48mT, partially fuelled LSAM to Lunar Orbit.   The second brings the 22mT Orion and 28mT of extra propellant to the LSAM.   The propellant is transferred to the LSAM prior to descent, and suddenly you have a 76mT LSAM in Lunar orbit and you're still only using a 2-launch strategy based on one single launch vehicle design.

Lee Jay - A variant of the LV-24/25 vehicle from ESAS, but with 2x RS-68's instead of 3x SSME's was considered, but has lower performance than the SSME version.   It never made it into the document because the LV-24/25 pair offered higher performance.   Neither the LV-24/25 nor the RS-68 variant was fully evaluated with an EDS flying on one flight though.   ESAS missed this option, but the LV-24/25 performance does show the "potential" by demonstrating the basic LV without EDS has a lot of performance available.

Jon Jones: You want to keep Orion's mass as low as possible still.   Always the minimum for the requirements when you're dealing with sensitive hardware on a mass budget for a lunar mission.   Every pound of material it uses in its struture is a pound of material you can't use elsewhere, like for propellant and useful cargo (people, experiments).   I understand that the current Orion is going to be quite "roomy" compared to Apollo, not to mention that the accompanying LSAM Ascent Module will also be fairly spacious.   A four man crew should be acceptably comfortable with the current configurations as is.   Just for the record, the CEV's mass is second only to the mass of the LSAM on the "critical" scale.   The CEV has to go all the way to the moon and back again.   Only the LSAM has to go down into the gravity well of the moon to the lunar surface though - so reducing mass on the LSAM is even more critical than on the CEV.

Orbital Propellant Transfer is a far less precarious option than attempting to integrate an LSAM Ascent Stage to a Descent Stage in orbit.   To make use of extra carrying capacity, this is probably the better alternative and allows NASA to integrate & checkout the LSAM completely on the ground before ever committing to a mission.

edkyle99The name was selected because we combined our DIRECT efforts with some of the members of the Team Vision proposal a while back.   DIRECT saw a lot of value in their Jupiter-1 concept, which was surprisingly similar to DIRECT in concept and execution.

I will let Steve comment on why Team Vision chose that name, but for me it represents the larger brother world to Saturn.   Our standard launch vehicles are designed to fly mostly in pairs to accomplish all mission objectives, and together they offer 262mT launch capability per pair .   262mT is almost double the performance of a single mighty Saturn-V, so seems a fitting name for a successor.

Also, in Roman mythology, Jupiter was the guardian and protector of all the other Gods.   We believe Jupiter will "protect" NASA from the worst of budgetary storms and "guard" our tax investment for the next three decades far better than other options.

And finally, Jupiter planetary systems, the Jovian system is the etmylogical root of the term "jovial" - which represents happiness.   We hope Jupiter will get a chance to make everyone happy ultimately.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: RedSky on 05/11/2007 03:35 am
Quote
Ankle-bone12 - 10/5/2007  9:57 PM
Im not a rocket scientist, in fact far from it, but I would assume that it could have something to do with the publics appeal to the flashy name of "Jupiter". It could also be viewed as a "next step up" from the Saturn family of rockets.

I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to name a rocket.  ;)  
Besides being an ICBM, a version called the Jupiter C was the rocket that launched the US's first satellite, Explorer I.  I think that model developed into the similar Redstone, that launched the first two manned Mercury suborbital flights.  Then 8 Redstone tanks were planned to be clustered around a Jupiter core.  They needed a name for the new advanced rocket, so the next planet out from Jupiter was Saturn, and that name stuck (it became the Saturn I).  Don't know how true that story is, but it sounds plausible. Of course, following that example the next step beyond Saturn would be... oh, never mind.  :laugh:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/11/2007 04:14 am
Quote
kraisee - 10/5/2007  9:21 PM
And finally, Jupiter planetary systems, the Jovian system is the etmylogical root of the term "jovial" - which represents happiness.   We how Jupiter will get a chance to make everyone happy ultimately.

You can bet that Griffin, Stanley & Horowitz aren't too jovial right about now.  Too many "independent thought alarms" going off at NASA headquarters for the management to be happy.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/11/2007 04:27 am
Quote
RedSky - 10/5/2007  10:35 PM

Quote
Ankle-bone12 - 10/5/2007  9:57 PM
Im not a rocket scientist, in fact far from it, but I would assume that it could have something to do with the publics appeal to the flashy name of "Jupiter". It could also be viewed as a "next step up" from the Saturn family of rockets.

I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to name a rocket.  ;)  

I'm suppose I'm just tired of the overused Greek and Roman naming conventions for rockets and missiles.  How about something original and different?  Weather phenomena ("Hurricane", "Thunder", etc)?, or a river ("Hudson", "Cumberland", "Potomac", etc),  or a bird ("Falcon", "Egret", "Kingfisher", etc.), or a beloved cartoon science fiction dog ("Astro"), etc.?  Or call it "Constellation Launch Vehicle", "Constellation" for short.

 - Ed Kyle

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Alpha Control on 05/11/2007 04:36 am
You know, I didn't find out the correct pronunciation of the 6th planet for many years.  In the original Greek, it is UR-an-us, with the accent on the 1st syllable. Uranus was one of the original gods, prior to the Olympian gods.

When I was growing up, the accent was always on the 2nd syllable, which of course provided endless mirth for school age boys.

But back to the naming scheme, since Ares represents Mars, you could say that Jupiter, being the next planet, would therefore be a step up.

David
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: bad_astra on 05/11/2007 05:12 am
Let NASA call it Ares 1b for all I care. This is tremendous work. I hope some politicians can get a look at this.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/11/2007 06:46 am
Regarding the issues of tank diameter and propellant load, I have to ask: are the tanks being milled thicker on the inner surface, as opposed to the outer surface? It seems to me that doing so (reducing the inner diameter) would lead to a small (but considerable) decrease in your propellant volume compared to the baseline ET.  OTOH, if the inner diameter was kept constant and the outer skins were beefed up, it would force changes to the SRB attach struts in order to keep the pad footprint the same.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/11/2007 10:07 am
If I understand that correctly you are requiring to scrap current Orion SM proposal.
For EOR-LOR DIRECT architecture Orion has to perform LOI.
For LOR-LOR DIRECT architecture Orion has the same weight as LSAM. Therefore, some propellants transfer between them will be required.
Also still mysterious is the Direct EDS which has the same dry weight as ESAS original EDS (with 2xJ2S+) but 40% more propellants.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/11/2007 10:34 am
Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2007  4:21 AM

I won't be around tomorrow to field questions, but let me have a stab at these ones so far...

Marsman: The 232 can place a 38mT LSAM into LEO immediately and perform a routine EOR-LOR mission in precisely the same fashion as Ares-I/V.

However, with 45mT of lift capability, the CLV flight has a 'spare' 23mT of performance available on top of lifting the Orion to orbit.   This extra capacity is not initially required, but as the program evolves and confidence is built with the equipment, it could be utilised to increase performance later for almost no additional cost.

Unfortunatelly the extra integration costs are not negligible. See current EELV launches.

Quote
Extra payload can theoretically be transferred to the LSAM during the 3 day voyage between the Earth and the Moon.   The most logical material to transfer would be a single type of propellant or oxidixer.   Note: For safety only one or the other should be transferred, not both.

From where?

Quote
This general technique also applied to the 232/232 LOR-LOR mission profile available later too.   The first 232 is capable of launching a 48mT, partially fuelled LSAM to Lunar Orbit.   The second brings the 22mT Orion and 28mT of extra propellant to the LSAM.   The propellant is transferred to the LSAM prior to descent, and suddenly you have a 76mT LSAM in Lunar orbit and you're still only using a 2-launch strategy based on one single launch vehicle design.

Again, you are not serious. This is just quick armchair idea which has nothing together with the mission architecture.
The second DIRECT launch brings 22mT Orion and 28mT extra popellant in a second new spaceship wighting 0mT?
Even if the first Direct is able to get 48mT LSAM to LLO and the second Direct 22mT Orion and 28mT(sic) second new spaceship to the LLO (that's 50mT together) I still can't see any 76mT LSAM.
Certainly not 76mT LSAM which could work.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/11/2007 10:51 am
What is the performance margin for the new components (EDS, Core, shrouds)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/11/2007 01:00 pm
Are those 3 RS-68 inline ... or in star :. arrangement?
If it is the star one there will be somewhat higher bending moment for the two engine core than for Ares 1 / Ares 5 config. Could the recent Orion with LSAM stand this lateral load?
If it is an inline config can 3 engine nozzles fit under the 27.5' core? Ofcourse, there could be some aerodynamic (debris) shield above them with wider and loger thrust structure.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2007 01:06 pm
There isn't a lateral load for a .: 3 engine configuration.  It is symmetrical
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/11/2007 01:09 pm

Quote
JIS - 11/5/2007 9:00 AM

Are those 3 RS-68 inline ... or in star :. arrangement?
If it is the star one there will be somewhat higher bending moment for the two engine core than for Ares 1 / Ares 5 config. Could the recent Orion with LSAM stand this lateral load?
If it is an inline config can 3 engine nozzles fit under the 27.5' core? Ofcourse, there could be some aerodynamic (debris) shield above them with wider and loger thrust structure.
3-Engine is in-line with aerodynamic skirts, like Saturn-V
Outboard engines gimbal, center engine fixed, again, like Saturn-V

"3-Engine

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/11/2007 01:17 pm
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2007  2:06 PM

There isn't a lateral load for a .: 3 engine configuration.  It is symmetrical
But there is also Direct with only two engines. Anyway, its inline config.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 05/11/2007 01:24 pm
Quote
JIS - 11/5/2007  8:17 AM

Quote
Jim - 11/5/2007  2:06 PM

There isn't a lateral load for a .: 3 engine configuration.  It is symmetrical
But there is also Direct with only two engines. Anyway, its inline config.
Right.  Like Chuck said, the 3-engine Jupiter has 3 inline engines with skirts around the outer two.  The 2-engine variant IS the 3-engine variant with the center engine removed and its feed lines plugged.

DIRECT team:  Nice presentation of some good detailed work.  Kudos.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/11/2007 01:32 pm
Quote
JIS - 11/5/2007  6:07 AM

If I understand that correctly you are requiring to scrap current Orion SM proposal.

Of course not.   That would be wasteful.

For the first generation, we can use whatever variant was planned to fly on Ares-I, although because Jupiter is far less sensitive to "growth" of a payload than Ares-I, at this stage they can now afford to steer away from highly expensive "exotic" solutions in favour of cheaper, slightly heavier items.   This will help to reduce the costs of the spacecraft manufacturing noticeably.

We can actually reduce the size of the MMH/N2O2 tanking in the Block I and Block II versions - because the CEV is no longer required to complete the ascent to LEO - Jupiter handles all that except the final circularization burn.   That means the CEV can carry 4 tons less propellant at liftoff than at present.

We need a little of that back (I don't have the current figure in front of me, but it's about 1.2 tons IIRC) for the LOI burn, but we have an overall mass benefit in the region of 2.8mT less propellant on every spacecraft.


For later missions, a Block III Service Module would include extra tanking for the LSAM's propellant.   That would be for around 2020, so is still quite a ways off.   In the interim trades would need to be done to figure out which propellant would be best to transfer.   If the SM and AS both use the same propellant, then MMH or N2O2 might be a fair choice.   Or perhaps 20+ tons of LOX would be better for the DS.   The only way we're going to know optimal performance is by examining suitable trade studies - and that would be NASA's purview over the next decade.

And there's nothing mysterious about our EDS.   For a start it does not "weight the same" as ESAS'.   It weighs about 2,200lb more, which is about 5% more.   It also doesn't use the same manufacturing approach.   Anyone can go read the AIAA papers into the ICES stage and you'll learn how it is noticably more efficient than the stage NASA designed for the ESAS CaLV.

ESAS used a methodology which assumed separate tanking, and old technologies for boiloff control.   ICES saves mass instantly by using a common bulkhead (which NASA learned was the way to go on the US for Ares-I too) and uses a number of new technology elements for boiloff control which are lighter in construction than ESAS ever planned.   A *LOT* has been learned from Centaur over the years, and ICES is the result.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2007 01:32 pm
Just a little encouragement for the Direct team.  Think of Direct 2.0 as your mulligan (golfers know what I am talking about).  Just as the Stick was non-viable (4 segments with SSME) in the beginning and it went through a "redesign".  So as a counter to the SSS website trashing Direct, just point out that Stick 1.0 wouldn't work either.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: NotGncDude on 05/11/2007 01:34 pm
Quote
clongton - 11/5/2007  9:09 AM

Quote
JIS - 11/5/2007 9:00 AM

Are those 3 RS-68 inline ... or in star :. arrangement?
If it is the star one there will be somewhat higher bending moment for the two engine core than for Ares 1 / Ares 5 config. Could the recent Orion with LSAM stand this lateral load?
If it is an inline config can 3 engine nozzles fit under the 27.5' core? Ofcourse, there could be some aerodynamic (debris) shield above them with wider and loger thrust structure.
3-Engine is in-line with aerodynamic skirts, like Saturn-V
Outboard engines gimbal, center engine fixed, again, like Saturn-V

"3-Engine


3 engines inline is also the Kistler's K1 config. BTW I love the D2 presentation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/11/2007 01:42 pm
Quote
JIS - 11/5/2007  6:51 AM

What is the performance margin for the new components (EDS, Core, shrouds)?

All ESAS GRA's and margins were matched initially, and then, as always with DIRECT analysis, we have added a further 2% margin on top of those, to give us even more margin.

Additionally, we are ***not*** utilizing the NASA Ares-V specification RS-68 (414.2s vac Isp), we are retaining the current 409s Isp performance variant, so we have additional and very realistic upgrades available to all performance numbers if/when required.   Not to mention the Delta-IV Regen engine with 418s Isp which is coming too (although is likely to be rather costly, so isn't so useful).

Nor are we using the higher specification J-2X with 293,000lb, 448s vac Isp, we are sticking with the lower spec, lower cost, and easier to achieve specification of the initial J-2X"D" variant with just 273,500lb, 448s performance.

These are two, very straight-forward and highly achievable upgrade paths available to us in the future, which would increase performance of the smaller vehicle to around 52mT to LEO, and of the larger to around 115mT, but we are not relying upon even those for this proposal.

We have more margin than either CLV or CaLV had originally, and have additional performance alternatives available almost immediately - which is something neither Ares-I nor Ares-V have.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/11/2007 01:50 pm
Just to clarify, the engines are mounted in-line to keep maximum distance between them and the SRB's.

While Chuck is correct that the center engine will not (probably) gimbal, it will actually still be an identical unit produced on the same production line as all the rest, only being a central engine, and will have the hardware allowing gimbal control, it simply isn't likely to be instructed to gimbal because the outboard engine pair offer greater control authority.

As you point out, the interchangeable common cores can also be flown without the central engine in the smaller 120 configuration.   The two outboard engines remain exactly where they are in either configuration.   The electrical & plumbing connections to the central engine will simply be capped & closed out that way for such flights.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/11/2007 02:01 pm
After examining the move and shock envelope around each engine, allowing for the full range of gimbal motion, plus margin, and addressing the design of an appropriate thrust structure, the distance between the two outboard engines, center to center, is approximately the same as NASA currently baselines for the Ares-V outboard engines. In addition, the engine skirt design used these same design parameters and closely resembles the engine skirts around the Saturn-V F1 engines.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/11/2007 02:10 pm
So Chris, any chance of getting Dr. Doug Stanley back to comment on Direct 2.0?

Good job Ross...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jon_Jones on 05/11/2007 02:17 pm
Thanks very much Ross for your considerate reply.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/11/2007 03:13 pm
Quote
kevin-rf - 11/5/2007  3:10 PM

So Chris, any chance of getting Dr. Doug Stanley back to comment on Direct 2.0?


Dr Stanley's a busy man, so it'd all depend on his time and his willingness.

Although, probably not, if it results in an ATK site - run by what appears to be a bunch of monkeys - then using his comments without correct sourcing, context or objectivity in some attempt to have a Stick group hug. However, I am encouraged to see that they've worked out how to copy and paste over there in ATK web propaganda HQ. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 05/11/2007 03:17 pm
Quote
CFE - 10/5/2007  11:46 PM

Regarding the issues of tank diameter and propellant load, I have to ask: are the tanks being milled thicker on the inner surface, as opposed to the outer surface? It seems to me that doing so (reducing the inner diameter) would lead to a small (but considerable) decrease in your propellant volume compared to the baseline ET.  OTOH, if the inner diameter was kept constant and the outer skins were beefed up, it would force changes to the SRB attach struts in order to keep the pad footprint the same.

CFE, the difference is actually negligible when taken as a percentage of total tankage volume.  We're talking about a tank that is quite big.  Basically, for every extra cm of thickness, you're losing 0.2% of propellant....and I don't think you need even a cm of extra material to take the loads.  It's an effect, but it's pretty much roundoff error.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Flightstar on 05/11/2007 03:34 pm
Good work on the presentation. Sure would help pad integration problems.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steve G on 05/11/2007 03:42 pm
If NASA did select Direct, and had a fresh look at the VSE, what would be the benefits and disadvantages of having a dual lunar launch scenario where the LSAM would be launched to a high lunar orbit storage orbit, and Orion launched separately.  Orion would use a larger (Apollo-type) SM engine and then take the LSAM to it’s final orbit, preserving weight on the lander.

Since weight would no longer be a constraint to Orion, and we’ve just saved $30 billion, a mission module could be added making it a more comfortable flight, a small lab for lunar orbit studies, and a full 6 crew could be launched, with two remaining aboard the Orion (safer than an unmanned version) and conduct in orbit studies and in a better position to react to a major malfunction on either spacecraft.

One obvious advantage would also be the launch window.  If the Orion launch had a major last minute delay after the LSAM reached earth orbit, there wouldn’t be a propellant boil off issue and lose the entire mission.  LSAM could be stored in lunar orbit indefinitely.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2007 04:07 pm
Don't start will mission modules.  They aren't needed and cloud the advantages of the proposal.  Room is not needed.  Use the excess capability to put instruments on the CEV, just as Apollo but unlike Apollo, it need not be manned

there still would be boiloff issues unless the LSAM went with storable propellants and in that case, its mass would greatly increase
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: NotGncDude on 05/11/2007 04:10 pm
Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2007  9:50 AM

Just to clarify, the engines are mounted in-line to keep maximum distance between them and the SRB's.

While Chuck is correct that the center engine will not (probably) gimbal, it will actually still be an identical unit produced on the same production line as all the rest, only being a central engine, and will have the hardware allowing gimbal control, it simply isn't likely to be instructed to gimbal because the outboard engine pair offer greater control authority.

As you point out, the interchangeable common cores can also be flown without the central engine in the smaller 120 configuration.   The two outboard engines remain exactly where they are in either configuration.   The electrical & plumbing connections to the central engine will simply be capped & closed out that way for such flights.

Ross.

A center engine has nearly the same control authority as the side engines for pitch and yaw. So, it adds you a nice extra margin if you want it, at the expense of having to develop two control algorithms for 2 vs. 3 engines. Actually scratch that, that's a negligible expense. You're better off by getting rid of all the gimbaling support, saving that weight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/11/2007 04:20 pm
Quote
GncDude - 11/5/2007  12:10 PM

Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2007  9:50 AM

Just to clarify, the engines are mounted in-line to keep maximum distance between them and the SRB's.

While Chuck is correct that the center engine will not (probably) gimbal, it will actually still be an identical unit produced on the same production line as all the rest, only being a central engine, and will have the hardware allowing gimbal control, it simply isn't likely to be instructed to gimbal because the outboard engine pair offer greater control authority.

As you point out, the interchangeable common cores can also be flown without the central engine in the smaller 120 configuration.   The two outboard engines remain exactly where they are in either configuration.   The electrical & plumbing connections to the central engine will simply be capped & closed out that way for such flights.

Ross.

A center engine has nearly the same control authority as the side engines for pitch and yaw. So, it adds you a nice extra margin if you want it, at the expense of having to develop two control algorithms for 2 vs. 3 engines. Actually scratch that, that's a negligible expense. You're better off by getting rid of all the gimbaling support, saving that weight.
From the point of view of commonality and interchangeability, we are better off leaving all three engines as identical. That makes everything easier. This launch vehicle has more than enough margin to allow the design to be simplified by commonality. That’s the beauty of fielding a launch vehicle that starts life with lots of margin vs. starting life already maxed out.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: NotGncDude on 05/11/2007 05:12 pm
Quote
clongton - 11/5/2007  12:20 PM

Quote
GncDude - 11/5/2007  12:10 PM

A center engine has nearly the same control authority as the side engines for pitch and yaw. So, it adds you a nice extra margin if you want it, at the expense of having to develop two control algorithms for 2 vs. 3 engines. Actually scratch that, that's a negligible expense. You're better off by getting rid of all the gimbaling support, saving that weight.
From the point of view of commonality and interchangeability, we are better off leaving all three engines as identical. That makes everything easier. This launch vehicle has more than enough margin to allow the design to be simplified by commonality. That’s the beauty of fielding a launch vehicle that starts life with lots of margin vs. starting life already maxed out.

In that case you may as well gimbal it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/11/2007 05:27 pm
That just makes it more complicated, more things to fail.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/11/2007 05:33 pm
Wouldn't you want to gimbal the center engine in a side engine-out situation?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Carl G on 05/11/2007 05:34 pm
On Direct 1, some people said it is a hybred of an MSFC concept. If this is true, what stops the MSFC version? Money, wrong time, showstoppers?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: NotGncDude on 05/11/2007 06:23 pm
Quote
veedriver22 - 11/5/2007  1:27 PM

That just makes it more complicated, more things to fail.

Not really. If you are going to have all the mechanisms there and active (for commonality), the fact that you're moving them around versus not moving them adds minimal complexity, and buys you control margin.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: NotGncDude on 05/11/2007 06:26 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 11/5/2007  1:33 PM

Wouldn't you want to gimbal the center engine in a side engine-out situation?

Yes, but I think if this happens in DIRECT you lose the mission anyway. Right? I don't know if the 232's have engine out capability. Haven't looked.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 05/11/2007 06:28 pm
Quote
Ankle-bone12 - 10/5/2007  7:57 PM

Im not a rocket scientist, in fact far from it, but I would assume that it could have something to do with the publics appeal to the flashy name of "Jupiter". It could also be viewed as a "next step up" from the Saturn family of rockets.

Why Jupiter?  First off if we used Ares in some other form it would confuse everyone.

Second, when I asked a number of non space enthusiast’s individuals about the prior lunar mission many of them knew that the rocket was the Saturn V.

When I asked them which planet was the largest in the solar system they said Jupiter.

So I felt that not only did the Jupiter embody a connection to the first Lunar program but also indicated doing more in this next phase.  The Jupiter-2 can put more in orbit than the Saturn V.

Next the name Jupiter.  Jupiter son is Mars.  NASA has attempted to make a sideways relation to Zeus son being Ares but nobody I talked to (outside of us space geeks) knew what I was talking about unlike the Saturn-Jupiter connection.

I also like the whole 2001 and 2010 a Space Odyssey connection with Jupiter.  The name also implies other missions beyond Mars indicating the whole “beyond” part of VSE.

Back to other legacy associations:

The name the Hindus gave the planet Jupiter was Guru or “knowledge seeker” a very good association.

In Romans mythology Jupiter was the ruler of the gods, and their guardian and protector.

In astrology Jupiter is associated with growth, expansion, higher education, prosperity, and protecting roles.   All very positive associations.  If we ever have an asteroid with our name on it the protecting role would also be most appropriate.

Onto Ares, he was the son of Zeus (the Greek king of the gods).  He is not so much the god of war but more accurately the god of savage or unnecessary war.  Associations which I think take a back seat to Jupiter in all ways.

Though savage and unnecessary certainly would describe the last two years to a tee so maybe Ares is good name after all for this point in time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/11/2007 06:33 pm
Quote
GncDude - 11/5/2007  2:26 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 11/5/2007  1:33 PM

Wouldn't you want to gimbal the center engine in a side engine-out situation?

Yes, but I think if this happens in DIRECT you lose the mission anyway. Right? I don't know if the 232's have engine out capability. Haven't looked.
The 232 does have engine-out capability, though not to the extent of the 120
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: zinfab on 05/11/2007 06:50 pm
Thanks for this update. I hope someone listens when it REALLY counts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/11/2007 07:03 pm
Quote
zinfab - 11/5/2007  1:50 PM

Thanks for this update. I hope someone listens when it REALLY counts.

I think the Democrats will listen and if they win the Presidency they will probably install an Administrator to drop Ares I/V for DIRECT as it will allow them to beef up Science in Nasa whilst still keeping VSE going well even on a flat budget. I have reluctantly come round to Jim's way of thinking in believing that Griffin and Horowitz are so in bed with ATK they will persist with the current architecture come what may and they probably will return there to collect their rewards in 2008. This DIRECT proposal should be continued regardless to shine a light on the current architecture's failings for possible use when a different NASA power base is established.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 05/11/2007 07:19 pm
Quote
marsavian - 11/5/2007  12:03 PM

Quote
zinfab - 11/5/2007  1:50 PM

Thanks for this update. I hope someone listens when it REALLY counts.

I think the Democrats will listen and if they win the Presidency they will probably install an Administrator to drop Ares I/V for DIRECT as it will allow them to beef up Science in Nasa whilst still keeping VSE going well even on a flat budget. I have reluctantly come round to Jim's way of thinking in believing that Griffin and Horowitz are so in bed with ATK they will persist with the current architecture come what may and they probably will return there to collect their rewards in 2008. This DIRECT proposal should be continued regardless to shine a light on the current architecture's failings for possible use when a different NASA power base is established.

ATK actual benefits more with DIRECT.  So Mike and Scott can still do the right thing and get rewarded for it all at the same time.  

Now how often does that happen? :)

Once again it’s better to lucky than smart.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/11/2007 07:21 pm
I think ATK want Ares I so they can use it commercially vs EELVs, that's the real reason I believe.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/11/2007 07:34 pm
Quote
marsavian - 11/5/2007  3:21 PM

I think ATK want Ares I so they can use it commercially vs EELVs, that's the real reason I believe.
The DIRECT Launch manifest on page 4 of the proposal shows (26) 4-segment flights between 2009 and 2017. That’s 8 years. How many Ares-1 flights (5-segment) will there be in that same time period? Anybody know? This is assuming of course, that Jupiter gets the same funding as Ares would have.

Let’s see:
26 Flights x 2 SRB’s each = 54 SRB’s
54 SRB’s x 4 segments each = 208 segments for ATK to refurbish and repack.

Vs. how many 5-segment SRB’s for Ares-1 in the same timeframe?
How much does ATK get paid for each refurbished 4-segment SRB? Does anybody know?

Bottom line – ATK makes one hell of a lot more money with the Jupiter than it does with the Ares-1, or even if they were to compete against Atlas and Delta. And, if the Falcon becomes viable, what percentage of the market could they realistically expect? Somebody needs to seriously re-teach the execs at ATK just what “bottom line” means to the shareholders.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/11/2007 07:42 pm
Heh,  perhaps  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 05/11/2007 07:42 pm
Quote
marsavian - 11/5/2007  12:21 PM

I think ATK want Ares I so they can use it commercially vs EELVs, that's the real reason I believe.

So instead of have two US based companies losing money we can have three?  Good idea ATK we'll lose money on each launch but make it up in the volume :)

If anything given the current launch volume we should be looking at some kind-of Cost plus contract consolidation or hybrid ELV.  Ideally coordinated with the DIRECT.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: zinfab on 05/11/2007 08:27 pm
Quote
clongton - 11/5/2007  3:34 PM

Quote
marsavian - 11/5/2007  3:21 PM

I think ATK want Ares I so they can use it commercially vs EELVs, that's the real reason I believe.
The DIRECT Launch manifest on page 4 of the proposal shows (26) 4-segment flights between 2009 and 2017. That’s 8 years. How many Ares-1 flights (5-segment) will there be in that same time period? That assumes Jupiter gets the same funding as Ares would have.

Let’s see:
26 Flights x 2 SRB’s each = 54 SRB’s
54 SRB’s x 4 segments each = 208 segments for ATK to refurbish and repack.

Vs. how many 5-segment SRB’s for Ares-1 in the same timeframe?
How much does ATK get paid for each refurbished 4-segment SRB? Does anybody know?

Bottom line – ATK makes one hell of a lot more money with the Jupiter than it does with the Ares-1, or even if they were to compete against Atlas and Delta. And, if the Falcon becomes viable, what percentage of the market could they realistically expect? Somebody needs to seriously re-teach the execs at ATK just what “bottom line” means to the shareholders.


That reminds me of the objection lawmakers had about "tax free space" proposals. If there's no one flying, there's no tax to be "lost." In the end, we get the worst of both worlds -- fear of losing taxes that wouldn't be there if you're charging tax.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Pete at Edwards on 05/11/2007 10:53 pm
Good effort guys.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 05/12/2007 05:35 am
My favorite of DIRECT 2.0 is the introduction page - it doesn't oversell, it addresses the basic objectives crisply. Any on the committee can "get it". The staffers read the rest and use it to advise for the "oversight" role. Sometimes its possible to "overdo a good thing" and miss the point.

Kudos to the DIRECT team - they didn't overreach, they worked to the correct goal. A very professional job.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 05/12/2007 05:28 pm
Quote
marsavian - 11/5/2007  3:03 PM

Quote
zinfab - 11/5/2007  1:50 PM

Thanks for this update. I hope someone listens when it REALLY counts.

I think the Democrats will listen and if they win the Presidency they will probably install an Administrator to drop Ares I/V for DIRECT as it will allow them to beef up Science in Nasa whilst still keeping VSE going well even on a flat budget. I have reluctantly come round to Jim's way of thinking in believing that Griffin and Horowitz are so in bed with ATK they will persist with the current architecture come what may and they probably will return there to collect their rewards in 2008. This DIRECT proposal should be continued regardless to shine a light on the current architecture's failings for possible use when a different NASA power base is established.

I agree with you 100% on this. Who would have thought we would be saying that the Dems would be the ones to save the VSE

I think Hillary and Obama will hold off on the Moon. They may go for a stripped down VSE where Orion just goes to the ISS on an EELV or on DIRECT (at least this keeps the Moon as a future option)

Richardson has shown support for spaceflight in New Mexico, he has supported the space port and the X-Prize Cup. While he does lean more towards the private sector of spaceflight, I feel he will push COTS along and will support the VSE if it is made cheaper with DIRECT.

Edwards I am unsure of, however, he is more into social programs and helping the poor. I would rope him in with Hillary and Obama, where he will support the Orion to ISS plan, but if DIRECT can make the VSE cheaper, I feel he would be all for this. He seems to be the "Dream Big" candidate, and what better way than to go back to the Moon.

To be on the safe side Hillary must be avoided at all costs if we want to go back to the Moon. Richardson is our best bet. One thing that all of the Dems have in common is that Griffin is toast.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: NotGncDude on 05/12/2007 05:59 pm
Quote
clongton - 11/5/2007  2:33 PM

Quote
GncDude - 11/5/2007  2:26 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 11/5/2007  1:33 PM

Wouldn't you want to gimbal the center engine in a side engine-out situation?

Yes, but I think if this happens in DIRECT you lose the mission anyway. Right? I don't know if the 232's have engine out capability. Haven't looked.
The 232 does have engine-out capability, though not to the extent of the 120

Awesome. Next time I read before talking. So you want identical engine due to commonality, and you want engine out capability, then you probably want that center engine gimbaling just like the others. I see no point on having it fixed.  Well, in any case these are just details details.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: bad_astra on 05/12/2007 06:03 pm
The next president will be the one who has the option of being "The president who killed manned spaceflight in America" Congressionally there's to much at risk to do that. The war, energy policy, whatever-pointless-social-leper-buzzword-the-neocons-come-up-with, are going to be the key issues in 2008, and I suspect with modifications, VSE will continue on with little attention, unless we loose another shuttle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/12/2007 07:35 pm
Flightstar:

Yes, we are well aware of the current Pad issues.   There is likely to be an appendix coming soon which will update the DIRECT v1 pad systems plans to v2 specification.   We are still collecting updated information, and figured it could wait until after this "Core Document" was released.

CFE and Jongoff:

The basic tank wall is only slightly thicker than 1/4" thick - with a milled grid structure inside that.   If the wall thickness were doubled (by milling less from the inside, always keeping the outer mouldline), the effect to capacity is minimal.   This is actually one of the changes performed between the original ET specification, the Light Weight Tank and ultimately the Super Lightweight Tank.   Think of DIRECT as going back to the original tank initially, until the dynamics are examined in real flight conditions and an optimization program can be implemented later for a Block II Core.   Our mass calculations have always assumed this approach.

GncDude:

The center engine will have the hardware to gimbal still.   We aren't specifying flying two different variants of RS-68.   Our plan specifically calls for all MPS units to be interchangeable for maximum flexibility during launch processing.   Our current information indicates the center engine shouldn't need to do any gimballing, but as you say, it offers extra margin.   Also it can obviously be useful in the case of any unexpected engine shutdown conditions.   DIRECT does have engine-out capability after all.

Carl G:

The original MSFC specification called for three SSME's, and didn't have an upper stage.   The SSME's are very expensive for a disposable launcher like this, so aren't ideally suited.   We can use 2 RS-68's and get very similar thrust, and they were always designed to be cheap enough to throw away.   We have also extrapolated the need for an EDS for lunar missions, and the use of it also during ascent to boost lift performance on the ESAS CaLV and later the Ares-V.   It is clearly the right approach, and works very well on this lifter.

Chuck Longton:

208 segments for ATK to refurbish on Jupiter boosters from 2009 thru 2017.   The same time frame on the Ares program will require them to refurbish the following segments:-

4 Ares-I test flights = 20 segments.
2 Ares-I support flights to ISS in 2015 = 10 segments.
2 Ares-I support flights to ISS in 2016 = 10 segments.
1 Ares-I flight to service Hubble (may not be done at all due to no payload being able to fly on the same flight and an EELV cost thus having to be added to the mission costs): = 5 segments.
1 Ares-V test flight - not confirmed yet, but possible no earlier than 2017 or 2018 = 10 segments.

TOTAL (including all 'optional' flights): 55 segments.


NOTE: Neither DIRECT, nor Ares numbers above include any static test firing unit numbers.


Marsavian:

I'm not convinced ATK suffers at all.   ATK make the ablative nozzle for all RS-68's currently, so flying a bunch more of those is certainly in ATK's interests.   Also, ATK's parent company is United Technologies - who also own Pratt & Whitney/Rocketdyne.

All talking about the politics:

I hope Griffin & the other administrators realize that the VSE's budget is going to be at risk long after they are off doing something else.   If they leave Ares-I as the first booster, there is a very real chance NASA will never get its second booster at all.   At that point NASA will have spent billions getting a nice shiny new launcher, but it won't ever be able to go to the moon.

DIRECT's Jupiter as the first booster would cost no more than Ares-I to make and certify, yet offers an instantly capable system which can still get NASA to the moon even if Ares-V went away.

Do NASA's current administration really wish to risk the future moon program on the 12 year long political gamble that Congress will fully fund Ares-V?

I can't see them winning that bet ultimately.

And if NASA loses that bet, Griffin's name will only ever be remembered, very bitterly, as the Administrator who got NASA stuck in LEO again while the Chinese continue their program to reach the moon.

"Faster, better, cheaper"'s legacy reflects incredibly badly today on Dan Goldin - today considered by most as NASA's #1 enemy, rivalling only Sen. Mondale.   Will "Safe, Simple, Soon" be remembered as bitterly by all future American generations?   I believe that Ares-I is the deciding issue which can sway that either way.

I don't think it's too late to change to a plan which removes that gamble entirely, but only if they pull their collective heads out of Ares-I's nozzle.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: NotGncDude on 05/12/2007 07:52 pm
Quote
kraisee - 12/5/2007  3:35 PM

Marsavian:

[...] more of those is certainly in ATK's interests.   Also, ATK's parent company is United Technologies - who also own Pratt & Whitney/Rocketdyne.


I don't think ATK is related to UTC.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/12/2007 08:15 pm
Quote
GncDude - 12/5/2007  3:52 PM

Quote
kraisee - 12/5/2007  3:35 PM

Marsavian:

[...] more of those is certainly in ATK's interests.   Also, ATK's parent company is United Technologies - who also own Pratt & Whitney/Rocketdyne.


I don't think ATK is related to UTC.

correct
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/12/2007 08:49 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 12/5/2007  11:28 AM
One thing that all of the Dems have in common is that Griffin is toast.

That's for certain.  NASA administrators are political animals, and are rarely retained when the party controlling the White House changes.  The only exceptions were Dan Goldin (who served for the entirety of the Clinton administration and briefly for both Bush administrations) and James Fletcher (serving Nixon, Ford, Carter, and returning under President Reagan to get the agency back on track after Challenger.)  A new Democrat president would probably sack Griffin for no other reason than his ties to President Bush.  Then again, there's a good shot that Mike Griffin's tenure might not make it to January 2009, if Richard Shelby's comments are any indication.

Both parties appear to be split on space exploration.  Among Democrats, there's a desire to appear "pro-science" by supporting certain space efforts, but there's also a belief that manned spaceflight steals money from social programs.  Republicans are spilt too; many feel nostalgia for "the good old days" when a nationalist-driven space program was a key aspect of foreign policy, but others view manned spaceflight as wasteful government spending that should be left to the private sector to handle.

In terms of finding support for DIRECT, I'm certain that very few politicians really care about it.  A few Senators like Mikulski, Hutchinson and Bill Nelson have expressed frustration about the gap between Shuttle and Orion, and they might be attracted to DIRECT.  The rest are either apathetic towards space, or they have the James Sensenbrenner attitude that "NASA's the big boys, and they know what they're doing."

As much as I like DIRECT, I think its odds of being adopted are a long-shot, at best.  While talking to legislative aides is worth a shot, I don't think that Congress will force NASA to take any corrective actions regarding VSE.  DIRECT's best shot is a change of leadership at NASA--something that's sorely needed, but not likely to come in time to stop The Stick.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 05/13/2007 02:53 am
Might I suggest that it would be a good idea to have a separate thread for DIRECT v2 speculation as versus Q&A on the baseline proposal?

That might reduce the confusion produced in the last Direct thread.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7900&posts=1&start=1


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 05/13/2007 03:50 am
Would it be possible to do a pro/con comparison between the DIRECT proposed EDS and the ESAS proposed EDS? JIS and others have raised this issue here and in the old thread and perhaps a more through analysis may shed some light on the selection. My concern is the development time especially.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 05/13/2007 06:22 am

Quote
CFE - 12/5/2007  3:49 PM  Then again, there's a good shot that Mike Griffin's tenure might not make it to January 2009, if Richard Shelby's comments are any indication.
Not everyone likes Mike ... anymore. Even if he does great speeches.

Both parties have segments that favor / disfavor space - for completely different reasons, with very specific agendas. Current administration in the short term fears losing control of the agenda, in the long term of being blamed for allowing China/Russia/whoever to have superseded the US by being too shortsighted (which is ironic considering Ares I). They alternate between panic (we're in trouble - pay any cost) and complacency (nothing really to worry about lets put things off and be cheap). Their rivals view it as an alternative that can sublimate other conflicts, so they can be viewed as strong nationally without needing to play the bully game, but get conflicted by competing agendas as they try to do too much with too little and overreach.
 

Both have constituents that consider space a waste of their time and of budget.  Both drive pork to favored groups. Both get hurt eventually by bad decisions. The pragmatists of either are where all the action is - they are realists, who can use DIRECT to hammer. The conformists like Sensenbrenner use ridicule to undercut any rationale for change, yet is himself vulnerable to ridicule - he turns about very fast when he's been undercut before.

Quote
As much as I like DIRECT, I think its odds of being adopted are a long-shot, at best.  While talking to legislative aides is worth a shot, I don't think that Congress will force NASA to take any corrective actions regarding VSE.  DIRECT's best shot is a change of leadership at NASA--something that's sorely needed, but not likely to come in time to stop The Stick.
Quite a fair conservative read, although it undervalues the malaise many feel of this moment. Also, DIRECT is very appealing for its simple directness that all politicos appreciate, and for that must certainly annoy HQ - like Man In Space Soonest, its very to the point, and when you kill it, you tend to kill parts of your current program too.

The Stick is as well cursed by too much of a "go slow" mentality that invariably leads to cancellation, as there's to little to work with conceptually to get somewhere fast enough (cf. complacency above). If it were a broader concept, it might simply be driven through to completion like some past projects. But one fears the "death of a thousand cuts" with it.

Still have considerable optimism of DIRECT getting a real chance, all said. Glad that good people have done a "Plan B" that's better than "Plan A" :laugh:  

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/13/2007 12:17 pm
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 12/5/2007  11:50 PM

Would it be possible to do a pro/con comparison between the DIRECT proposed EDS and the ESAS proposed EDS? JIS and others have raised this issue here and in the old thread and perhaps a more through analysis may shed some light on the selection. My concern is the development time especially.
The EDS in the DIRECT proposal is based on the LM ICES stage. While that stage is not yet flying, it is an actual piece of hardware that is already in development by the Atlas/Centaur Advanced Systems Development team. The ICES is a logical extension of already flying hardware, and introduces no "new" technology. While this is an over-simplification, it is essentially an up-scale of the existing stages, introducing greater flexability and lift capacity. Whether Direct uses it or not, the ICES is already planned to fly on the Atlas-V. It has been in the LM Business Plan for a while now. The main difference between the LM ICES and the Direct ICES is the power plant. The standard ICES uses the RL-10 engine, while Direct's Jupiter uses the J-2X. Communications with the Atlas/Centaur team confirm that this configuration is completely workable, but would remain only semi-compatable with the RL-10 version, because of the differences needed for the more powerful engine.

By contrast, the ESAS EDS is a completely new design, while the ICES is already in the works. It is an example of NASA's unwise practice of placing multiple new technologies on the critical path to enable a FIRST launch of anything. One of the mantras of the Direct team was, before we assembled ANYTHING, we took a long hard look around at what we already have that could be adapted. In the near term, there was no getting away from a J-2X powerplant, or its equivilant, but we concluded that there was no need whatsoever to create a brand new stage when the LM ICES was so near to completion and so completely compatable. Additionally, the ESAS EDS used separate tankage, while the ICES uses a common bulkhead, a far superior design. LM has vast experience in managing and controling boiloff, and we considered it exceptionally wastful to the extreme to ignore existing capability and go off and duplicate it by developing something completely new at great expense. But then again, isn't that exactly what they are doing with the Ares-I?

Don't forget that the upper stage being developed for the Ares-I isn't the same stage as the EDS. The Ares-I stage is a 5m stage with a single engine, while the EDS is much larger. NASA is developing a stage with no commonality to the Ares-V, excepting the engine. More wasteful new technology on the critical path.

I would also like to point out that totally related to NASA's practice of baselineing multiple new technologies on the critical path, is the 1st launch date for Orion. Because of the approach they are taking, the Orion cannot possibly become opperational before the fall of 2015 at the earliest, and will probably slip even further, to 2016 or beyond. In contrast, by using the common sence approach of adapting existing flight hardware in lieu of developing new, Orion can fly on the Jupiter by September of 2012, a full three years earlier than the earliest possible date on the Ares-I. If the trend at NASA continues, it's even possible that the Jupiter could actually be capable of flying a lunar mission before the Ares-I even gets off the ground with Orion. That's what happens when you put new technology on the critical path to a first flight. Direct needs no new technology by adapting what we already have. The J-2X, while new, is not on the critical path, and not needed until much later. It can be developed at a pace more in-line with existing budget realities.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 05/13/2007 03:57 pm
The Ares-V seems to have changed its design point from a 90-day on-orbit loiter time to a 14-day time.  There is a tremendous difference in assumed propellant boil-off rates for the EDS for these two different durations.

What is the projected reasonable loiter time for the Jupiter ICES EDS?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Graham on 05/13/2007 04:04 pm
Would it be feasable to carry, for example, a comsat with a PAM as a secondary payload on LEO flights with DIRECT? (if the comsat and PAM upper stage are carried in the space under the Orion spacecraft)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Kaputnik on 05/13/2007 04:14 pm
Quote
GW_Simulations - 13/5/2007  5:04 PM

Would it be feasable to carry, for example, a comsat with a PAM as a secondary payload on LEO flights with DIRECT? (if the comsat and PAM upper stage are carried in the space under the Orion spacecraft)

NASA's mantra is 'no crew and cargo'. In order to sell DIRECT to them it's best to avoid these sorts of suggestions.
The definition of 'no crew and cargo', and the rationale behind it, have been bashed out thoroughly in other threads already.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 05/13/2007 04:53 pm
Would the 120 launcher supporting a CEV with a upgraded SM containing extra consumables produce Orion mission capability for reaching NEO targets, Hubble service missions, and things of that nature? :D


In any case my question remains. If the Service Module can be more than doubled what kinds of mission capabilities does this bring to the Orion? I am not talking about a Mission module nor cargo per say but rather things like an eva tool box, repair parts for the Hubble/Web telescopes, possibly additional non-pressurized fittings for the ISS, replacement cameras and the like. Not to mention the possibility of the increased range for missions to the Lagrange points or NEO objects.

For unmanned cargo flights to the ISS a larger SM could haul pallets for external experiments for the Columbus and Kibo labs as well as repair parts that do not need to be in the pressurized capsule. By packing the available space in the SM with external garbage it might be possible to reduce the risky business of jetsoning parts over the side of the ISS and allow a more controled disposal of such items.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 05/13/2007 05:22 pm
Other than the planned AIAA presentation and word of mouth here and at other space forums what plans have been made for distribution of DIRECT v2? Candidates that occur to me are the union representitives at KSC and MAF (and possibly ATK) as well as the Congressmen of those locations. I suspect it is a bit early for me to print the proposal and mail it to my congressman and Senators but would such an effort be of value once the proposal has reached a mature state?

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/13/2007 08:03 pm
Quote
On a different thread, Norm Hartnett - 12/5/2007  10:56 PM

Might I suggest that it would be a good idea to have a separate thread for DIRECT v2 speculation as versus Q&A on the baseline proposal?

Would the 120 launcher supporting a CEV with a upgraded SM containing extra consumables produce Orion mission capability for reaching NEO targets, Hubble service missions, and things of that nature? :D

Hubble and all likely LEO missions should be supportable by the Jupiter 120 configuration.   The Jupiter has performance capability sufficient to launch about 23mT to orbit with a full CEV.

There are a number of missions which Jupiter-120 could immediately support, but which Ares-I makes impossible.   The three MPLM's which have proven so useful on Shuttle, could be flown to the ISS one more time - though they would not be recoverable afterwards.   They could offer a means of flying very heavy pressurized equipment & science racks to ISS after Shuttle retires.   The Russian Science Power Platform could actually be flown on a 120 mission.   And new cameras and heavy hardware could be flown to Hubble in the future to keep it serviceable.   Ares-I will always require an extra launch of one of the $150-250m EELV fleet to place the payload in orbit ahead of the crew flight.

NEO missions are trickier.   They are closer in requirements to a Lunar landing profile.   You need an Earth Departure Stage and a module designed to approach and land on the surface of an NEO, so you're likely to need a variant of the LSAM (an NEO Surface Access Module for want of a better name) to go with you.

Depending on the orbit of an NEO, it might be possible to fly the CEV, NSAM and EDS all on one flight of a 232 though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 05/13/2007 08:39 pm
Quote
Kaputnik - 13/5/2007  11:14 AM

Quote
GW_Simulations - 13/5/2007  5:04 PM

Would it be feasable to carry, for example, a comsat with a PAM as a secondary payload on LEO flights with DIRECT? (if the comsat and PAM upper stage are carried in the space under the Orion spacecraft)

NASA's mantra is 'no crew and cargo'. In order to sell DIRECT to them it's best to avoid these sorts of suggestions.
The definition of 'no crew and cargo', and the rationale behind it, have been bashed out thoroughly in other threads already.

Besides, what he's suggesting is illegal. The US government is forbidden from carrying commercial payloads on government launchers, with a narrowly defined exception for shuttle-unique payloads.
--
JRF
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Thorny on 05/13/2007 08:51 pm
Quote
Jorge - 13/5/2007  3:39 PM

Besides, what he's suggesting is illegal. The US government is forbidden from carrying commercial payloads on government launchers, with a narrowly defined exception for shuttle-unique payloads.
--
JRF

True, but if they wanted to, they might be able to double-talk their way around that problem by declaring Ares a USA/ULA vehicle and therefore commercial... afterall, Delta IV doesn't have any commercial customers, either.

Not that I'm advocating that idea.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/13/2007 09:19 pm
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 13/5/2007  12:53 PM

In any case my question remains. If the Service Module can be more than doubled what kinds of mission capabilities does this bring to the Orion? I am not talking about a Mission module nor cargo per say but rather things like an eva tool box, repair parts for the Hubble/Web telescopes, possibly additional non-pressurized fittings for the ISS, replacement cameras and the like. Not to mention the possibility of the increased range for missions to the Lagrange points or NEO objects.


Repair of spacecraft is not CEV mission.  And probability wouldn't be.  It is not economical, and there are very few spacecraft within range of it.  HST is not the norm for most spacecraft.  It was only placed in an orbit accessable by the shuttle so it can repair it.  If the orbit were based on science requirements, it would be in a much higher orbit (L2 for example)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/13/2007 09:22 pm
Quote
Thorny - 13/5/2007  4:51 PM


True, but if they wanted to, they might be able to double-talk their way around that problem by declaring Ares a USA/ULA vehicle and therefore commercial...


It can not  be a ULA nor a USA vehicle.
1.  ULA won't make any stages of Ares
2.  USA only operates the vehicle not own it
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/14/2007 12:41 am
It is a bit odd that Boeing and LockMart can team up for ULA, but they're competing against each other for the Ares I upper stage.

In terms of building Jupiter, it would appear that the contractors have already been picked out.  LockMart would build the core at Michoud, PW-Rocketdyne would produce the first stage engines, and ATK has the SRB's.  The upper stage could be subject to competitive bidding, but I assume that the ICES concept originated with LockMart, and it's little wonder who would win that contract.

Of course, the way to ensure Jupiter's survival through Congress is to make sure that all fifty states have at least one factory contributing to the new booster.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/14/2007 12:49 am
Quote
CFE - 13/5/2007  8:41 PM

It is a bit odd that Boeing and LockMart can team up for ULA, but they're competing against each other for the Ares I upper stage.

In terms of building Jupiter, it would appear that the contractors have already been picked out.  LockMart would build the core at Michoud, PW-Rocketdyne would produce the first stage engines, and ATK has the SRB's.  The upper stage could be subject to competitive bidding, but I assume that the ICES concept originated with LockMart, and it's little wonder who would win that contract.

Of course, the way to ensure Jupiter's survival through Congress is to make sure that all fifty states have at least one factory contributing to the new booster.

ULA is a separate company, just like USA.  From both companies but separate

Lockheed would NOT build the core.  Tust because they built the ET, There is no guarantee for them,
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Thorny on 05/14/2007 01:05 am
Quote
Jim - 13/5/2007  4:22 PM

Quote
Thorny - 13/5/2007  4:51 PM


True, but if they wanted to, they might be able to double-talk their way around that problem by declaring Ares a USA/ULA vehicle and therefore commercial...


It can not  be a ULA nor a USA vehicle.
1.  ULA won't make any stages of Ares
2.  USA only operates the vehicle not own it

Not as it is today (or is to be) but that's all just a paperwork issue. Not a ULA vehicle? The upper stage will either be Boeing or Lockmart at Michoud. It would take them, what, a few months to tweak the corporate structure to fold that operation under the ULA banner? They'd have to get ATK on board, but do you really think ATK would say, "No, sorry, we don't want to sell any more SRBs?" If USA in 2001 had told NASA, "You've cut us back to five Shuttle flights a year. We've demonstrated we can do seven or eight, so we'd like to foot the bill to launch commercial payloads on two or three flights a year." Do you honestly think NASA or Congress would have said, "No, we won't let you." They would have said "How soon can you implement this?" When challenged about the legality, they'd have said "We're not launching commercial payloads, USA is, and they're a commercial outfit."

NASA has bent the rules for Shuttle too many times to count. To say today that Ares I cannot be a ULA nor USA vehicle seems to me foolhardy. They can, and most likely will, do whatever they feel is in the best interest of Ares. (They've already totally ignored the EELVs, so Commercial Ares is only a minor step beyond that from their perspective.) There were various proposals, even after Challenger, for commercial operators to buy a fifth Shuttle for launching commercial payloads. They didn't go very far for many reasons, but it isn't immediately obvious that those reasons (high cost, crew requirements, low flight rate, etc.) are applicable to Ares I. I don't see the original poster's suggestion of "ride-along" comsat payloads as being realistic, but commercial flights of Ares I? I wouldn't dismiss that quite so readily. Especially if, say, Boeing pulls the plug on its money-losing Delta IV in the next couple of years.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/14/2007 01:29 am
Quote
Thorny - 13/5/2007  9:05 PM

Not as it is today (or is to be) but that's all just a paperwork issue. Not a ULA vehicle? The upper stage will either be Boeing or Lockmart at Michoud. It would take them, what, a few months to tweak the corporate structure to fold that operation under the ULA banner? They'd have to get ATK on board, but do you really think ATK would say, "No, sorry, we don't want to sell any more SRBs?" If USA in 2001 had told NASA, "You've cut us back to five Shuttle flights a year. We've demonstrated we can do seven or eight, so we'd like to foot the bill to launch commercial payloads on two or three flights a year." Do you honestly think NASA or Congress would have said, "No, we won't let you." They would have said "How soon can you implement this?" When challenged about the legality, they'd have said "We're not launching commercial payloads, USA is, and they're a commercial outfit."

NASA has bent the rules for Shuttle too many times to count. To say today that Ares I cannot be a ULA nor USA vehicle seems to me foolhardy. They can, and most likely will, do whatever they feel is in the best interest of Ares. (They've already totally ignored the EELVs, so Commercial Ares is only a minor step beyond that from their perspective.) There were various proposals, even after Challenger, for commercial operators to buy a fifth Shuttle for launching commercial payloads. They didn't go very far for many reasons, but it isn't immediately obvious that those reasons (high cost, crew requirements, low flight rate, etc.) are applicable to Ares I. I don't see the original poster's suggestion of "ride-along" comsat payloads as being realistic, but commercial flights of Ares I? I wouldn't dismiss that quite so readily. Especially if, say, Boeing pulls the plug on its money-losing Delta IV in the next couple of years.


All wrong.  More than a paperwork issue.  

ULA is not going to be given the upperstage work from Boeing or LM because they then they would have to split the profits.

ATK is not going to get onboard for the same reason, sharing profits.

ULA is for EELV's and nothing else.

USA thought about doing  that but 1.  shuttle is not a USA only vehicle, NASA provide alot of support.  and 2 it was against the law.  3.  USA is commercial but not the shuttle   4.  Costs would be too high  for users.  5.  No use of a manned vehicle for simple comsat launches

And congress would have said no, just like they keep telling NASA to use more commercially services:  COTS, EELV's

USA will launch the Ares but like the shuttle NASA is too involved.  

Ares I can't compete commerically costwise, legally and performance wise.
 (high cost,  low flight rate, etc.) are directly applicable to Ares I.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Thorny on 05/14/2007 02:12 am
Quote
Jim - 13/5/2007  8:29 PM

All wrong.  More than a paperwork issue.  

ULA is not going to be given the upperstage work from Boeing or LM because they then they would have to split the profits.

ATK is not going to get onboard for the same reason, sharing profits.

ULA is for EELV's and nothing else.

Today, yes.

Who among us five years ago dreamed ULA would even exist? Boeing and LockMart, arch-rivals, working in tandem to sell Deltas and Atlases? Unheard of! Never gonna happen! About as likely as Boeing and Airbus teaming up to build the new 737/A320 replacement, if you'd asked me...

Faced with losing all profit by not winning Ares I S2, is it inconceivable that Boeing and LockMart would decide to jointly bid on the contract through ULA? It wouldn't take all that much effort for NASA to tell them "we want ULA to build Ares I S2, make it happen or we're giving the contract to SpaceX or Orbital..."

Stranger things have happened. That's how we got ULA in the first place. (DoD strongarming when Boeing wanted to pull the plug on Delta IV.)

Quote
Jim - 13/5/2007  8:29 PM

And congress would have said no, just like they keep telling NASA to use more commercially services:  COTS, EELV's

Which NASA shrugged off when it came up with Ares. And NASA still has Cargo Orion on the backburner. Doesn't sound to me as though NASA cares all that much about Congress's direction, especially when a good lawyer can blur those "it's illegal" charges with some fancy, "But ULA is a commercial operator, we're just buying Orion launches from them..." language.

Quote
Jim - 13/5/2007  8:29 PM

Ares I can't compete commerically costwise, legally and performance wise.
 (high cost,  low flight rate, etc.) are directly applicable to Ares I.

I don't think "low flight rate" applies to Ares I at all, at least, not if it were open to commercial operations. We're already launching ten SRBs a year (five Shuttle flights) and Shuttle has gotten up to 8 per year in the last decade, that's 16 SRBs a year. That's a considerably higher flight rate than Atlas V or Delta IV have demonstrated.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/14/2007 02:16 am
Let's get back on-topic here please. This is not an Ares-I thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steve G on 05/14/2007 04:00 am
This is not a suggestion.  I’m just curious.
What would be;

a)   The performance of a 2 x standard SRB’s and a single RS-68 assuming the tank size would have a narrower diameter but the same height to be launch pad compatible.
b)   The performance for lunar and mars mission (Ballpark since Mars varies so much) with a Centaur upperstage or an J-2X "D"?
c)   Ballpark development cost (and is it even possible)

Like I said, just curious.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 05/14/2007 04:37 am
Quote
Steve G - 13/5/2007  11:00 PM

This is not a suggestion.  I’m just curious.
What would be;

a)   The performance of a 2 x standard SRB’s and a single RS-68 assuming the tank size would have a narrower diameter but the same height to be launch pad compatible.

I'm not sure I understand this statement. To be launch pad compatible the spacing between the SRBs needs to be the same, implying same diameter, not narrower.
--
JRF
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/14/2007 04:48 am
The vehicle described by Steve G would need longer struts between the SRB's and core, if it were to reuse the Shuttle MLP without changes to the SRB mounts.  I would think that these longer struts would need to be a lot beefier to resist the additional torsion.  It's really not worth it, IMHO.  

The number of engines on the Jupiter core was set as it was for a good reason.  It's the best combination of thrust to lift the vehicle off the pad and minimize gravity losses on ascent, without burdening the design by adding the extra mass and complexity that are associated with superfluous, additional engines.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steve G on 05/14/2007 05:04 am
I realized as I was writing this that the smaller diameter tank wouldn't fit the pad!  However, (I'm relying on a very distant memory here) I seem to recall that Hughes wanted to propose a Jarvis ELV for some Navy navigation satellites that the Delta II eventually won.  But it was based on 2 F1 engines and then a single J2.  Then, the final proposal changed to a standard shuttle stack with a single SSME at the base of the ET.  I’m assuming they were planning to use a standard ET to by flown only partially fuelled.

If a smaller single RS68 version of the Jupiter was proposed, it would be a lot easier (and less R&D) to keep a common tank and eat the lost performance for the sake of $Billions making a smaller tank.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steve G on 05/14/2007 05:40 am
As I stated in another thread, I’m no rocket scientist.  But I have been a space enthusiast for over 40 years and have scrap books going back as far with magazine and newspaper clippings.  I was a member of the Mars Society and when I lived in Montreal, got to meet Marc Garneau, the only astronaut I ever met.

Besides being a spaceflight and astronomy geek I was also involved in politics.  Being in Quebec, there’s no shortage and I started a group to fight the separation movement by trying to get the federal government to change it’s benign policy of putting its head in the dirt and pretending that separatists don’t exist, and set the rules.

I don’t want to bore you guy with the particulars, but I really got involved.  I had a bomb threat made on my home.  I joined a group headed by some of the best constitutional experts in the land.  The media and government thought we were dangerous radicals when all we proposed was a common sense proposal to set the rules of secession.  We had packed rallies that were blackballed by the media.  But when the separatists nearly won the 1995 referendum and our country was within a half percentage point of being split up, people started buying our message.  Including the prime minister.  They bought our program, the Supreme Court endorsed it and parliament passed a “Clarity Act” based nearly word for word from what we had been saying all along.  Of course, we never got the credit, it didn’t matter.  We won.

The Direct proposal isn’t brilliant.  It’s the only logical course to follow.  The proposal and work is brilliant.  All I’m saying is that if 12 people with enough passion can save a country, you guys can save your space program.  You have to blitz your proposal to the workers at all of the shuttle facilities whose job will be saved, to the mayors, congressmen, and governors whose state will be affected, to influential organizations such as the Planetary Society and even Larry King.

If John Young (what does he know, he’s only been to the moon TWICE!) that this month could be decisive.  Your plan serves the interest of not just the nation, but to the politicians whose constituents will retain their jobs.  You need to break some seemingly impenetrable barriers and it won’t be easy.  I know from experience that it can be done, and I tell you, that evening in January 1996 when we made our breakthrough, it makes it all worthwhile.  It felt damn good, like a first kiss.

Go for it.  America is counting on you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/14/2007 07:58 am
Amen!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: neviden on 05/14/2007 05:48 pm
I like this architecture more than Ares V/I. But to improve it, you should focus on things that it can do, that Ares V/I can’t do. To show possible paths for eventual cost reductions, for future missions, for extra capabilities. I would emphasize the following:

- CEV could have its tanks increased, so it could carry maximum Jupiter 120 load to ISS Delivery orbit. That would mean it would have delta-v capability of 3-4 km/s. This would not go against “no crew and cargo”, since the cargo would be propellant that would be in the CEV anyway. This could achive:

a) It could use this propellant to raise ISS orbit (“national laboratory” and all this, means it will be around for some time). NASA could “barter” that capacity for cargo deliveries on ATV/Progress/HTV (ATV could then carry more of the other things and not have to carry orbit raising propellant for example).

b) It would mean that there is one “stand-by” rescue CEV always on orbit (attached to ISS, raising it’s orbit only when it’s time to return the crew back to Earth on the end of it’s on orbit life.), ready to come to the rescue if there would be any problems on any other spaceships in any possible Earth orbit.

c) It could do some kind of “international” crew missions. It would deliver US crews to ISS. After 12 months (or whatever the ‘on-orbit storage’ time would be), the US crew returns with Soyuz (cheap), Russian crew rides on Orion to LLO. Moon crew exchange mission for a price of a Soyuz (and a lander of course).

- CEV could get into LLO earth orbit by itself. If the moon lander could be refilled (by moon propellants) and reused, that would mean cost reductions in the future.

- CEV itself could actually do TEI by itself and return by itself (it would be a little cramped, but could be done in an emergency).

- CEV could allow staging of future TEI missions from High Earth Orbits (L1, L2, HEEO). That would allow high isp/low thrust propulsions (NEP, SEP) to be more viable. Big spaceships could be assembled in LEO in 100 MT pieces, take it’s time to cycle through Van Allen radiation belt to High Earth Orbit (months). The crew could then go directly to that spaceship when it would be ready to start it’s manned mission (and would need only small thrust to achieve TEI).

High Earth Orbit is the key (in my opinion) to the sustainable space exploration and exploitation. This has nothing to do with DIRECT, but it would fit into it much better than the Ares V/I system. By showing that it could achieve more than the Ares V/I combination for less development money, be ready for major missions beyond Earth orbit and have capability for upgrades (5 segment boosters, engines) it would have a shoot at being seriously considered.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lunar Dreamer on 05/14/2007 05:59 pm
Bottom line, if NASA decided stop Ares I at the end of this year and set Direct up from Jan 2008, how soon would we have a Shuttle replacement ready to launch.

I know this is hugely unlikely, but just pretend in this scenario.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/14/2007 06:06 pm
Quote
Lunar Dreamer - 14/5/2007  1:59 PM

Bottom line, if NASA decided stop Ares I at the end of this year and set Direct up from Jan 2008, how soon would we have a Shuttle replacement ready to launch.

Current projections are that Orion would become operational by 2012.
That's only a 24 month gap after Shuttle , and a minimum of 3 years ahead of Ares-I, probably more.

And that's on a launch vehicle capable of taking Orion to the moon as soon as the upper stage is ready.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/14/2007 06:36 pm
NASA could move a lot faster by going straight to the experienced personnel working on the STS External Tank and getting their advice.

They have current experience with most of the elements right now, have experience of the changes to ET which occurred during the Light Weight Tank development program and later the Super Light Weight Tank development program - all of which is immediately applicable knowledge for Jupiter stage design.

MSFC's role should be oversight of course, so the DDT&E work for Jupiter Common Core stages should all go to Michoud.

That doesn't mean that MSFC loses work - hell no.   The team in place right now working on the Ares-I Upper Stage is *perfectly* placed to start work on the EDS.   They are currently working with industry to create a fairly large diameter upper stage, to be powered by a J-2X engine.   Who better to start on the EDS work?   With the ICES technology in the mix, I wouldn't be surprised if the team at Marshall could make the EDS fully operational for lunar missions noticeably sooner than 2017 - which is the current DIRECT manifested schedule.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/14/2007 06:57 pm
***************
CALL FOR CRITIQUE
***************   

Ok, everyone’s had some time to look this over and think about it.
Now what we are asking of you all is some serious critique. We need a solid peer review from the space community – from you folks.

Some of you are very highly placed in NASA, its field centers, and its contractors and some of you have academic pedigrees longer than my arm. Some of you are subject matter experts and very hands-on to the actual flight hardware. This is what you do. There are folks on this forum from Stennis, ATK, MSFC, Glenn, JPL, LM, Boeing, MAF, KSC and NASA HQ. Some of you are in congressional offices. I’m sure I missed some, so please accept my apologies. Some of you are just enthusiasts, but your knowledge of the space program spans decades and is an invaluable contribution. And some of you "just work there", but you know, see and hear things that are sometimes not common knowledge.

We need your expertise, all of you.

We have run the numbers every way we can think of, and used some of the most sophisticated tools that exist to do that. But output is no better than input, and hundreds of eyes are better than a dozen or so.

Please take this proposal apart, examine it closely, from every angle you can think of. Put new batteries in your calculators and run the numbers. Some of you have access to POST and can work the trajectories. Some of you have finances in your blood and you can run the financials. Some of you work intimately with the RS-68, and some of you know what ammonium perclorate smells like in your sleep. Some of you run equations in your heads just for fun. We need you, all of you, and in our opinion, the future of manned spaceflight in this country needs you as well.

Please, look this proposal over very carefully, and tell us what you find. If it’s a negative, we need to know that so we can fix it. We have been eating and sleeping this proposal for months now and we may very well have missed some things, simply because we are so very close to it. We need your objectivity.

Please take the proposal apart and put it back together again; see if you can find anything that is a showstopper. If you do, tell us. Put it out there for us all to discuss. We put this proposal together, but it isn't just ours. It's ALL of ours.

We have put together what we believe is a very good proposal. But who knows? Only you do. Obviously, we are biased in our opinion, but we can be and are open to instruction and correction, as required.

We place before you the DIRECT Alternative Architecture and the Jupiter Launch Vehicle for your very highly valued consideration.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: nathan.moeller on 05/14/2007 07:06 pm
Nice Chuck.  I believe I fall under 'enthusiast' ;)  But be straight with me.  What kind of odds would you give this proposal?  How likely is it that Direct will replace Ares?  Don't get me wrong.  I love this Direct system.  You guys have done so incredibly well putting this together and I'd love to see it someday.  But what are its chances?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/14/2007 07:25 pm
You know, you guys have some really beautiful artwork there.  How about sending some framed, "suitable for hanging on your wall" versions of it to some of the key decision-makers?  Having the bird hanging on their office walls could go a long, long way towards moving their thought process in the DIRECT direction.  Think of how much effect effect Chesley Bonestell's art had on the beginnings of the space program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: simcosmos on 05/14/2007 07:50 pm
About the feedback: I do have some comments, questions, etc that would like to do about Direct v2.0. Chuck (Direct Team), you will probably have something to read within some hours...

Thanks,
António
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/14/2007 07:54 pm
I am merely a follower of the space program.   I certainly can’t make any contribution on the designs or mission profiles.   I do have one concern for what its worth.   You project has become pretty high profile.   This may make it more difficult to have it looked at seriously.   You will definitely stepping on some toes.   Perhaps some input on how to approach the “sales job” would be helpful.   Anyone?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/14/2007 07:57 pm
Quote
Steve G - 13/5/2007  12:00 AM

This is not a suggestion.  I’m just curious. What would be;
a) The performance of a 2 x standard SRB’s and a single RS-68 assuming the tank size would have a narrower diameter but the same height to be launch pad compatible.
We actually worked that out, while keeping the ET diameter unchanged. It would be a Jupiter 110. It would be a direct competitor with the ELV fleet, so we decided not to go there. What Direct wants to do is to compliment and go beyond the ELV fleet, not compete with it.

At the end of the proposal and in this thread, we have alluded to the upcoming 2007 AIAA paper. In it are five driving imperatives which ultimately determined the design parameters of the Jupiter Launch Vehicle family.

From the paper (caution: WIP):

Imperative #3: Do not duplicate the lift capacity that is already available in the existing launch vehicles of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle fleet.

Rational: The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle fleet, or EELV’s, are composed of Lockheed Martin’s Atlas launch vehicle families and the Boeing Delta series launch vehicles. Together, these launch vehicles easily and dependably lift from 10 to 25mT of payload to LEO. In addition, already planned variants of these families will be able to launch between 40 to 50mT of payload to the same orbits. These launch vehicles were fielded with a great deal of effort and budget, and are today the mainstay of the civilian robotic space program. In addition, the United States military and the US government also contract to fly payloads on these vehicles, some to LEO, some to geostationary orbits, and in the case of the robotic probes of the civilian program, to interplanetary trajectories. But the bottom line is once again lift capacity.

Goal: Since these vehicles are already capable of the 25mT capacity of Shuttle, and planned variants will be capable of 40 to 50mT, the third goal of Phase 1 must be to field a new launch vehicle that will not wastefully duplicate this capacity. So the low end of the new launch vehicle capacity should be not less than 40 to 50mT to Low Earth Orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Ad Astra on 05/15/2007 04:04 am
Why wasn't this proposal written up the second the ESAS report came out? What was the delay? What will you do if Dr Stanley comes on here and slaps this out of the ballpark like Direct 1? Will there then be a Direct 3, and 4 and 5? Are you banking on a Democrat win so as to be an alternative cheaper solution when Ares is cancelled due to money?

Lots of questions here, but I am impressed with your presentation. On face value it looks a lot more obvious and sensible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/15/2007 04:14 am
If I tried to get in the shoes of a NASA debunker, what would I identify as DIRECT's weakness?  The most obvious is the structural masses of the EDS.  NASA will say that the EDS structure is too light to be true.

While were on the topic of upper stages, I have to ask where Jupiter's avionics will be located.  I assume it will be in a ring between the top of the vehicle and the payload adapter.  The avionics will probably be shuttle-derived, too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 05/15/2007 04:34 am
CFE,
Quote
If I tried to get in the shoes of a NASA debunker, what would I identify as DIRECT's weakness?  The most obvious is the structural masses of the EDS.  NASA will say that the EDS structure is too light to be true.

That's also what I would see as its key "weakness" in NASA's eyes.  Not that I don't believe those numbers are attainable (they are), but NASA didn't believe the ICES numbers the first time around during ESAS so they jacked the dry mass numbers up by IIRC a factor of ~2.  Of course, the danger for NASA in bringing this line of argument up is that *supposedly* their model also does not accurately predict the dry mass of the existing, flight-proven Centaur...so they could open up this line of debate, but they might be opening themselves up for claims of incompetence (or worse).  

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 05/15/2007 04:39 am
Quote
Ad Astra - 14/5/2007  11:04 PM

What will you do if Dr Stanley comes on here and slaps this out of the ballpark like Direct 1?
I wouldn't go so far as to say he slapped DIRECT 1 out of the ballpark.  What he did do is identify & point out that the high performance numbers were based on a version of the RS-68 that turned out not to be true.  The (now known to be non-existent) 435s isp regen version of the RS-68 was the weak spot of the original DIRECT.  Doug spent the balance of his reply defending Ares I--not trying to dismantle DIRECT.  

DIRECT II is based on all currently-existing engines, with the exception of the J-2X(D), and the specs being used for it are the same as is being published by NASA for Ares I (274,000klbf and 448s isp).  The team working on DIRECT II didn't want to leave anything to chance this time.  If engine upgrades are available later, they'll only help DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/15/2007 10:01 am
Quote
jongoff - 15/5/2007  5:34 AM

CFE,
Quote
If I tried to get in the shoes of a NASA debunker, what would I identify as DIRECT's weakness?  The most obvious is the structural masses of the EDS.  NASA will say that the EDS structure is too light to be true.

That's also what I would see as its key "weakness" in NASA's eyes.  Not that I don't believe those numbers are attainable (they are), but NASA didn't believe the ICES numbers the first time around during ESAS so they jacked the dry mass numbers up by IIRC a factor of ~2.  Of course, the danger for NASA in bringing this line of argument up is that *supposedly* their model also does not accurately predict the dry mass of the existing, flight-proven Centaur...so they could open up this line of debate, but they might be opening themselves up for claims of incompetence (or worse).  

~Jon

However, it is NASA who decides what EDS will fly on it's booster. As the EDS technology would be the same for Ares 5 or Jupiter the Direct claims towards Ares V are not comparing apples to apples again.
Not only the EDS weight seems to be a bit low. As the core with two or three RS-68 is around for a long time it would be interresting to compare the core weight with other studies too. Jupiter has very heavy EDS (400mT ? when fuelled) and 100mT payload on the top. I'm wondering who did the stress analysis for the Direct.

Even the Jupiter fairing weights about 2.7 mT (8.4m diameter) while Atlas V fairing is 2.3mT for 4m diameter and 4.1mT for "short" 5m diameter fairing.

Anyway, I think that the most important drawback of the Direct architecture is a lack of it. Changes in Orion SM or additional spaceship to utilise CLV, smaller Moon delivered cargo in one launch, LOC etc.

A big mistake is the claim that the Ares V could be developed from Jupiter. This is clearly not an option. Another false claim is that the Direct can prevent the cancellation of the VSE. The biggest expense is not in the boosters but in the payload and the Lunar moon assembly. Tthe key factor is the delivery of the moon base elements (or mars ship elements later). If there is no money for Ares V there won't be enough money for any accelerated Direct architecture.

I'm certainly not saying that the Jupiter can't work. I was long supporter of a SDV vehicle with two RS-68 engines and I found less issues in the new Direct study than in the old one. I'm really looking forward to  any reaction from NASA (and next version of the Direct study).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Kaputnik on 05/15/2007 10:36 am
Well, my comments are made on the assumption that it is Mike Griffin reading the proposal, not a member of congress of another non-connected person, and they really concern how you are 'selling' DIRECT.

Essentially, I think the proposal should outline DIRECT on its own merits first, and then include comparisons to Ares later on, perhaps in a tabular form so that the language cannot be construed as confrontational. At the moment it does appear a little arrogant, and in particular by discussing safety first, I think this could give the reader the wrong impression. The proposal should start by talking about the things that cannot be argued against- the increased commonality, reduced spaceflight gap, etc. A short discussion later in the proposal of the various aspects that are in DIRECT's favour when it comes to safety might be more appropriate.

That's all for just now... good luck!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/15/2007 12:01 pm
Quote
CFE - 14/5/2007  12:14 AM
  The avionics will probably be shuttle-derived, too.

They will  be new.  Shuttle avionics are outdated and hard to maintain
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 05/15/2007 02:08 pm
JIS,
Quote
However, it is NASA who decides what EDS will fly on it's booster. As the EDS technology would be the same for Ares 5 or Jupiter the Direct claims towards Ares V are not comparing apples to apples again.

Not so much.  Remember, the EDS that is currently being planned is not the same EDS that was discussed in ESAS.  The ESAS EDS (as has been pointed out repeatedly here) uses two separate tanks, and a much less efficient structure.  The currently planned EDS has moved to a common bulkhead (as has the Ares I US), because it is so much more mass efficient.  Compare the Delta-IV US vs the Centaur for instance.  If you compared the current EDS numbers (however one would get them) with the proposed DIRECT EDS numbers, I bet they would come out pretty close.

Quote
Not only the EDS weight seems to be a bit low. As the core with two or three RS-68 is around for a long time it would be interresting to compare the core weight with other studies too. Jupiter has very heavy EDS (400mT ? when fuelled) and 100mT payload on the top. I'm wondering who did the stress analysis for the Direct.

I don't know who did the analysis, but Ross and Chuck both stated that such analysis was performed, and honestly I believe them.  This is something that's been studied a lot in the past, and I'd be amazed if the numbers were in any way "magic" as you like to say.  They said the walls would have to be thickened up a bit.  As I'm seeing it, the listed "Core stage dry mass" for DIRECT v2.0 is over twice the dry mass of the existing Shuttle ET.  I don't have the tools to do a complete stress analysis, but that sounds like a plausible ball park.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: imfan on 05/15/2007 02:43 pm
Quote
Ad Astra - 15/5/2007  6:04 AM

Why wasn't this proposal written up the second the ESAS report came out? What was the delay?

Because originally ESAS seemed to be direct, being based on the same ideas, which were abandoned one by one
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 05/15/2007 03:27 pm
The Direct V2 document seems pretty sensible at first look.
Having the CEV do the LOI burn moves some mass from the unmanned launch to the manned one, which makes sense with Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/15/2007 03:29 pm
Quote
jongoff - 15/5/2007  3:08 PM
If you compared the current EDS numbers (however one would get them) with the proposed DIRECT EDS numbers, I bet they would come out pretty close.

Ares V EDS weights about 36,000lbs and can hold about 500,000lbs of propellants.
Jupiter EDS weights about 45,000lbs and can hold about 800,000lbs of propellants.
One extra J-2X engine is about 4000lbs. This leaves 5,000 lbs in dry mass for extra 300,000 lbs of propellants. It doesn't look to me as "pretty close".
 


Quote
I don't know who did the analysis, but Ross and Chuck both stated that such analysis was performed, and honestly I believe them.  This is something that's been studied a lot in the past, and I'd be amazed if the numbers were in any way "magic" as you like to say.

I'm not saying it's magic. I just don't believe inconsistent numbers. As for Jupiter core there were so many different studies of this subject I would be surprised if the very similar configuration were not studied by NASA or some aerospace major already before. Certainly authors compared those results.
When you look at their own work - Direct v1 - the core has dry weight of 137 klbs. Direct v2 has 153.4 klbs. The difference is 16.4klbs. One ablative RS-68 weights about 14.klbs without any plumbing. Direct v1 had two regen RS-68, Direct v2 has three albative RS-68 so the transferred forces are also higher.
There are bigger discrepancies when comparing numbers with studies done by others. Everybody can make his own opinion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 05/15/2007 04:05 pm
Quote
Ad Astra - 14/5/2007  9:04 PM

Why wasn't this proposal written up the second the ESAS report came out? What was the delay? What will you do if Dr Stanley comes on here and slaps this out of the ballpark like Direct 1? Will there then be a Direct 3, and 4 and 5? Are you banking on a Democrat win so as to be an alternative cheaper solution when Ares is cancelled due to money?

Lots of questions here, but I am impressed with your presentation. On face value it looks a lot more obvious and sensible.

I showed something very close to “Direct” once during Sean O’Keefe and three times during Mike Griffin (twice before ESAS and one time after ESAS).  The idea was solid then and has only improved with all the additional refinements in launch infrastructure modification, programmatic and configurational work others have added to it since then.

From the grass roots level to just below the NASA Executive level “Direct” is very popular (better than 2/3 roughly).  I’m as confused as you are as to the problem with Direct at the high level.

Based on my take on these prior NASA-HQ meetings Sean’s boys didn’t like it because they were clearly going towards the all ELV approach.  From Mike’s boys they didn’t like it because they are pretty much Mars firsters so they wanted the largest vehicle that they could get (ie the Ares V).

That was the genesis of the Jupiter-3 by the way.  I showed them how two Jupiter-1’s could be used as boosters putting a single launch Mars mission package of two total launches (ISRU+Return  followed by Crew) via chemical EDS at about 350mT IMLEO per launch.  If I said there response was sophomoric I would be generous.  The loading dynamics on the Jupiter-3 is as about as close to three rockets going up independently as you could hope for.

The key issue is the pitch and roll maneuver prior to entering the gravity turn.  That and the infrastructure issues at KSC but I generally envision the launches from sea for this bad boy.  KSC will be over 50 years old and who knows how long before a Hurricane with its name on it takes it out.  The Jupiter-3’s center engines basically feed off the out Jupiter-1’s tank draining them at a similar rate as the Jupiter-242 does allowing for a near optimal second stage switching the center engines prior to staging to the center 2nd stage tank.

Having the heavier lifter use a common core booster with the lower end family members is a big advantage from a fixed cost stand point.

Again the Jupiter-3 may never happen and if it did it would be +25 years from now.  Lunar staging of the Jupiter-2 may be the actual way we go to Mars.  But part of me hopes that the future space program would actually need a vehicle capable of +350mT.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 05/15/2007 05:17 pm
JIS,
Quote
Ares V EDS weights about 36,000lbs and can hold about 500,000lbs of propellants.
Jupiter EDS weights about 45,000lbs and can hold about 800,000lbs of propellants.
One extra J-2X engine is about 4000lbs. This leaves 5,000 lbs in dry mass for extra 300,000 lbs of propellants. It doesn't look to me as "pretty close".

Is that the ESAS Ares V EDS, or the current design Ares V EDS?  There should be a sizeable difference between the original ESAS Ares V EDS and the DIRECT EDS, since the DIRECT EDS uses a common bulkhead.  More importantly, it's jives pretty well with existing Centaur numbers I've seen.  The existing Centaur numbers have the tanks weighing in around 4% of the propellant mass (give or take), that would mean that after the tanks and the engines, you'd still have on the order of ~7000lb for the rest of the stage hardware like ACS systems, batteries, solar panels, etc, etc.

It could be that part of the EDS weight difference also stems from the fact that the Ares V EDS planned on using active cooling techniques because the tank manufacturing plan they had was a boiloff nightmare otherwise.

Between the fact that the DIRECT numbers jive well with actual flying hardware (the Centaur), and the other factors involved, I'm more inclined to believe the DIRECT numbers than the ESAS numbers.  The ESAS guys may be smart, but when their models disagree with existing hardware, their models are wrong.  Period.

Quote
When you look at their own work - Direct v1 - the core has dry weight of 137 klbs. Direct v2 has 153.4 klbs. The difference is 16.4klbs. One ablative RS-68 weights about 14.klbs without any plumbing. Direct v1 had two regen RS-68, Direct v2 has three albative RS-68 so the transferred forces are also higher.
There are bigger discrepancies when comparing numbers with studies done by others. Everybody can make his own opinion.

Wasn't DIRECT v1.0 also being designed with a 3 engine configuration in mind, and thus with the higher loads being factored in from the start just like DIRECT v2.0?  

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/15/2007 09:45 pm
Quote
SMetch - 15/5/2007  9:05 AM
From Mike’s boys they didn’t like it because they are pretty much Mars firsters so they wanted the largest vehicle that they could get (ie the Ares V).

Have you (the DIRECT team) looked at how much one could lift if they did a "maximally-evolved" Jupiter?  I.e., with regen RS-68's running at 106%, the best version of the J-2 now on the boards, maybe an extra engine or two, and the maximum stretch you can do to the core and upper stages while still using the existing facilities or minor improvements?  I'm wondering how that would compare with the Ares V, for the "I want the biggest BFR I can get" folks.

Something I've noticed, looking at things like Atlas Phase III, Jupiter 3, Nova, and other big launchers, is that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.  The Atlas Phase III that launches ~140 mT is basically 4 of the strap-on boosters used on the ~70 mT Phase II (which uses 2 boosters), and a core that's twice as big.  In other words, there's not really any economy of scale here.  Running the 70 mT vs. 140 mT example, all you're really saving is that you only have to run one launch instead of two, and you don't have to rendezvous to either transfer propellant or connect two pieces together.  But, the cost is that you have to spend huge $$$ to develop a rocket that you're only going to launch a few times.

My point here is, what does the lift capacity of Ares V do for you, vs. DIRECT?  It appears that it saves maybe one or two launches per Mars mission.  For, what, maybe three or four trips to Mars, total?  When you look at it that way, there's really not much gain at all for all that expense and schedule impact.

(By the way, does anybody have any clue what a dry Mars stack, exclusive of Orion, might mass out at?)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 05/15/2007 10:42 pm
One thing that is lacking in Direct v2 compared to Direct v1 is the detailed infrastructure cost comparisons.

Since one of the major advantages of Direct is the cost and time saved in upgrading infrastructure this should be included and detailed by Center and transportation links.

I. Ares V tank mfg vs Direct tank mfg costs (apples to apples comparison).

   A. MAF:
1. Retooling costs for 10m tank vs retooling for 8.5 Direct tank (presumably engines will be mounted at MAF?)
2. Tank handling equipment modification for both variants at MAF.

   B. Transport to KSC:
1. New cargo carrier for 10m vs modification of existing carrier (if possible) for Direct tank.
2. Tank handling equipment modification for both variants at MAF port.
3. Tank handling equipment modification for both variants at KSC port.

   C. KSC:
1. Tank handling equipment modification for both variants at KSC.

II. Ares I and Ares V vs Direct assembly facility costs at KSC (an apple & apple to apple comparison)

A.   VAB modifications compared

III. Ares I and Ares V vs Direct launch facilities costs at KSC (an apple & apple to apple comparison)

A.   MLP modifications
B.   Crawler modifications
C.   Pad modifications

IV. SRB recovery facility costs (apples to apples comparison).

A.   Ship modifications
B.   Dock modifications

Care should be taken to focus this section on only the costs of fixed assets and presumptions should be clearly spelled out. Tables should be clear and legible and should make clear where the comparisons are being made. The final conclusion should be as clear-cut as possible. I am sure I missed several other facilities cost catagories.

While Ross’ graphics were excellent in the original Direct they were not as effective as good cost tables would have been IMO.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 05/15/2007 10:54 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 15/5/2007  2:45 PM

Quote
SMetch - 15/5/2007  9:05 AM
From Mike’s boys they didn’t like it because they are pretty much Mars firsters so they wanted the largest vehicle that they could get (ie the Ares V).

Have you (the DIRECT team) looked at how much one could lift if they did a "maximally-evolved" Jupiter?  I.e., with regen RS-68's running at 106%, the best version of the J-2 now on the boards, maybe an extra engine or two, and the maximum stretch you can do to the core and upper stages while still using the existing facilities or minor improvements?  I'm wondering how that would compare with the Ares V, for the "I want the biggest BFR I can get" folks.

Something I've noticed, looking at things like Atlas Phase III and Jupiter 3, Nova, and other big launchers, is that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.  The Atlas Phase III that launches ~140 mT is basically 4 of the strap-on boosters used on the ~70 mT Phase II (which uses 2 boosters), and a core that's twice as big.  In other words, there's not really any economy of scale here.  Running the 70 mT vs. 140 mT example, all you're really saving is that you only have to run one launch instead of two, and you don't have to rendezvous to either transfer propellant or connect two pieces together.  But, the cost is that you have to spend huge $$$ to develop a rocket that you're only going to launch a few times.

My point here is, what does the lift capacity of Ares V do for you, vs. DIRECT?  It appears that it saves maybe one or two launches per Mars mission.  For, what, maybe three or four trips to Mars, total?  When you look at it that way, there's really not much gain at all for all that expense and schedule impact.

(By the way, does anybody have any clue what a dry Mars stack, exclusive of Orion, might mass out at?)

Yes a Jupiter-254 with a full high thrust second stage (final “3rd” stage does just the EOI and EDS like the Saturn V) can put more mass on a TLI than the Ares V.  The large 10m stretched tank of the Ares V takes longer to drain than the 8.4m standard length tank of the Jupiter so the Jupiter can take greater advantage of a true second stage (equal deltaV for equal ISP rocket 101 rule) increasing its payload mass fraction and total mass on a TLI (the only performance number that matters) over AresV.

On the built-up common core vehicles I agree.  It’s basically a trade off between LOM rate vs. common core integration/launch facilities vs. fewer if any Rendezvous/orbital timing issues (which bring up a whole host of LOM not related to the ascent).  Pick your poison.  It’s important to remember that spacecraft integration (cost, complexity, weight etc) is an issue with a more tinker toy approach.  Also payload volume and weight need to grow in a like fashion so 140mT under a 5m fairing doesn’t work.

Mars missions in a two launch architecture (Crew Ascent+ISRU) followed by (Crew+Surface Hab+In Space Return) range between 100 - 200mT each on a TMI depending on various assumptions.

The key is getting a Jupiter launch rate of between 4-10 per year.  That way we can burden a higher payload capacity (now possible by removing the worlds most complicated, expensive and heavy payload fairing ever – ie the Space Shuttle) over what is in fact a very high fixed cost of the KSC-STS system.  If you look at the actual money spent year to year on STS the launch rate has almost no influence on the total budget.  Work expands to fit the time available at NASA.  Whether its zero or eight launches per year the actual money spent changes only slightly.

A few more aluminum plates, more orange foam, a little more solid propellant, some LOX and LH2 doesn't drive the cost.  It’s the payroll, facilities maintenance, training etc. that drives the cost structure not the materials used by that largely fixed labor to make, field, fuel and fly the STS.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 05/16/2007 12:08 am

Quote
SMetch - 15/5/2007  11:05 AM  
Quote
Ad Astra - 14/5/2007  9:04 PM  Why wasn't this proposal written up the second the ESAS report came out?
 I showed something very close to “Direct” once during Sean O’Keefe and three times during Mike Griffin (twice before ESAS and one time after ESAS).  The idea was solid then and has only improved with all the additional refinements ...  I’m as confused as you are as to the problem with Direct at the high level...

It's all about agenda and staying on message at this level. Nothing can impact the agenda from outside or below HQ. Typically, either a frontal assault or cutting out the supports for the existing agenda are the only ways to tap shoulder to get the attention of such leadership. Or you can bide the time and await the self-destruction of said leadership, and/or the arrival of new leadership that desire a new direction.

Quote
Based on my take on these prior NASA-HQ meetings Sean’s boys didn’t like it because they were clearly going towards the all ELV approach.  From Mike’s boys they didn’t like it because they are pretty much Mars firsters so they wanted the largest vehicle that they could get (ie the Ares V)...

Mike can't bring off Ares I, let alone get Congressional approval for Ares V. Playing chicken and waiting for the other guy to blink isn't necessarily going to get a Mars rocket.

Quote
That was the genesis of the Jupiter-3 by the way.  I showed them how two Jupiter-1’s could be used as boosters putting a single launch Mars mission package of two total launches (ISRU+Return  followed by Crew) via chemical EDS at about 350mT IMLEO per launch.  If I said there response was sophomoric I would be generous.  

Typical of an overreaching agenda. If you don't have the votes, its "Plan B" or nothing. Looks like we are headed for "nothing" with Mike.

Point out he doesn't *need* to get Ares I. All he needs is the upgraded RSRB and CEV. If Ares 1 cancels after that, then he can push again for Ares V, and stretch out  Shuttle for another 5-10 years.

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/16/2007 12:33 am
Quote
RedSky - 10/5/2007  5:02 PM

To all involved in Direct 2... looks great.  But just a suggestion based on the intended audience: switch to American English spelling rather than UK English (e.g., maneuver for manoeuvre, etc.).  ;)

I disagree, the US could use more english and less of whatever it is that we use in this country.

As for v2.0 good to see persistence and evolution.  Perhaps this will happen yet.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/16/2007 02:58 am
Maybe this has been addressed before, but I'm a little sketchy on understanding how Jupiter-232 can put 108mT into the reference orbit, on top of the 23mT partly-fueled EDS.  I understand that Ares V will have a capability to put ~130mT into a 120nmi circular orbit.  While it's not a totally fair comparison to say that Jupiter-232 puts 131mT into orbit (because the Jupiter reference orbit is 30x120nmi,) it still doesn't seem realistic that Jupiter-232 could achieve such performance.  Nevertheless, I'll run the numbers tomorrow and see if they're in the ballpark.

Still, Jupiter gives NASA an easier evolution path towards Ares V.  I like to note how the 5-segment version with stretched tank from the V1 proposal looks a lot like the "ESAS V1" CaLV, minus "expendable SSME's."  If NASA can overcome its opposition to RD-0120 engines, an 8.4m CaLV would still be possible as an evolution of Jupiter.

Finally,
Quote
wannamoonbase - 15/5/2007  6:33 PM
I disagree, the US could use more english and less of whatever it is that we use in this country.

Blame Noah Webster.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/16/2007 10:28 am
Quote
SolarPowered - 15/5/2007  10:45 PM

Have you (the DIRECT team) looked at how much one could lift if they did a "maximally-evolved" Jupiter?  I.e., with regen RS-68's running at 106%, the best version of the J-2 now on the boards, maybe an extra engine or two, and the maximum stretch you can do to the core and upper stages while still using the existing facilities or minor improvements?  I'm wondering how that would compare with the Ares V, for the "I want the biggest BFR I can get" folks.

The only substantial difference between Jupiter and Ares V is the core size. The maximum size is dictated by 5seg SRBs and max diameter doable by Michoud factory (Saturn 1st stage diameter).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/16/2007 11:20 am
Quote
JIS - 16/5/2007  6:28 AM

Quote
SolarPowered - 15/5/2007  10:45 PM

Have you (the DIRECT team) looked at how much one could lift if they did a "maximally-evolved" Jupiter?  I.e., with regen RS-68's running at 106%, the best version of the J-2 now on the boards, maybe an extra engine or two, and the maximum stretch you can do to the core and upper stages while still using the existing facilities or minor improvements?  I'm wondering how that would compare with the Ares V, for the "I want the biggest BFR I can get" folks.

The only substantial difference between Jupiter and Ares V is the core size. The maximum size is dictated by 5seg SRB’s and max diameter doable by Michoud factory (Saturn 1st stage diameter).
The 10m core is a mistake because, as Steve pointed out above, it takes too long to drain and makes the *effective* use of a second stage problematic. By staying with the 8.4m core, the Jupiter drains its core efficiently, leaving lots of real work for an upper stage to do, now unhindered by the massive weight of the empty stage below. The Ares-V carries far too much dead weight to altitude to get the most "bang for the buck" from its RS-68's. It's fighting itself all the way up. The 8.4m Jupiter, on the other hand, reaches its sweet spot fairly quickly, sheds its "dead weight" (the empty core) and then lets an upper stage, maximized for vacuum operations, finish the job in a very efficient manner. The fact that the Jupiter can be configured to exceed the capability of the Ares-V by a large margin is testimony to the wisdom of not re-inventing the wheel and rolling with what we already own; the 8.4m tank, 4-segment SRB's and the standard RS-68.

The Jupiter-254 is already more powerful than the Ares-V, and *IF* any engine enhancements were to ever come down the road, it would leave the Ares-V in the dust, Lunar and Martian dust that is. The Ares-V is the Jupiter-254's "baby brother".  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/16/2007 12:05 pm
Quote
clongton - 16/5/2007  12:20 PM
The Jupiter-254 is already more powerful than the Ares-V, and *IF* any engine enhancements were to ever come down the road, it would leave the Ares-V in the dust, Lunar and Martian dust that is. The Ares-V is the Jupiter-254's "baby brother".  :)

EDS using 4 J-2X engines could be OK for very large LEO masses, although it's not clear whether the engines can fit inside the interstage. But, it will be much worse for TLI injection. There is a good reason why Atlas V doesn't use two engines for centaur when launching to GEO orbit. I'm still not convinced at all that the Jupiter performance is realistic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/16/2007 12:16 pm
Quote
JIS - 16/5/2007  8:05 AM

Quote
clongton - 16/5/2007  12:20 PM
The Jupiter-254 is already more powerful than the Ares-V, and *IF* any engine enhancements were to ever come down the road, it would leave the Ares-V in the dust, Lunar and Martian dust that is. The Ares-V is the Jupiter-254's "baby brother".  :)

EDS using 4 J-2X engines could be OK for very large LEO masses, although it's not clear whether the engines can fit inside the interstage. But, it will be much worse for TLI injection. There is a good reason why Atlas V doesn't use two engines for centaur when launching to GEO orbit. I'm still not convinced at all that the Jupiter performance is realistic.
4xJ2X do fit inside the interstage.
The performance numbers were extracted thru POST
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PMN1 on 05/16/2007 01:27 pm
If Direct 2.0 had been adopted form the start rather than what there is now, what kind of in service date would have been expected, how would going through Direct 1.0 first have added to that?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/16/2007 01:34 pm
Quote
PMN1 - 16/5/2007  9:27 AM

If Direct 2.0 had been adopted form the start rather than what there is now, what kind of in service date would have been expected, how would going through Direct 1.0 first have added to that?
First test article could have flown within 6 months of Shuttle stand down, first manned Orion within 12 months.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 05/16/2007 01:47 pm
Did you test with more nozzle extensions in the RS-68 engines? (Similar pressure as they have now). Sutton says roughly this about overexpansion:
Where p2 is nozzle exit pressure and p3 is ambient pressure:
1) when p32) when p3 is slightly bigger than p2 (p2>0.4p3), still full flow.
3) when external pressure is high, nozzle has flow separation (bad!)

As the Vulcain 2 has a chamber pressure of 116 bar and area ratio of 61 and is lit at the sea level AND flies in a Direct-like configuration, one should wonder would doing a similar nozzle expansion to the RS-68 96 improve performance significantly, as it currently runs at chamber pressure of 96 bars and area ratio of only 22. RS-68 is currently optimized for a first stage use but in the Direct application the majority of low altitude thrust would come from the solids. And indeed it seems Ariane 5 optimized to a high expansion, low thrust at sea level configuration. Though it flies GEO missions mainly.

RS-68 current
Thrust: sl 2.9 MN, vac 3.3 MN , about 14% more at altitude
Vulcain 2 current
Thrust: sl 0.94 MN, vac 1.3 MN, about 40% more at altitude
RS-68 extended
would have lower than current at sea level but better at altitude

A development program for an ablative nozzle's extension in the relatively cool expanded region shouldn't be as expensive as making some other engine work, say, with turbopumps or gas generators...

Of course, as an analysis side path only, I understand you want to stay as strictly off-the-shelf in the hardware department as possible in the Core Direct Philosophy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/16/2007 01:54 pm
Quote
meiza - 16/5/2007  9:47 AM

Did you test with more nozzle extensions in the RS-68 engines?
We did test with several possible configurations, to ensure that the base design provided the best path to possible growth options. However, as you have observed, the proposal uses stock performance numbers from existing flight-tested hardware. Enhansed performance designs were deliberately left out of the proposal, but the options do exist.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PMN1 on 05/16/2007 01:57 pm
Would what is being proposed have been possible technology-wise after the Challenger accident?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/16/2007 02:03 pm
Quote
PMN1 - 16/5/2007  9:57 AM

Would what is being proposed have been possible technology-wise after the Challenger accident?
RS-68 wasn't developed until 1998. But there was a similar proposal presented from MSFC that used the SSME instead.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/16/2007 02:06 pm
Quote
meiza - 16/5/2007  2:47 PM

As the Vulcain 2 has a chamber pressure of 116 bar and area ratio of 61 and is lit at the sea level AND flies in a Direct-like configuration, one should wonder would doing a similar nozzle expansion to the RS-68 96 improve performance significantly, as it currently runs at chamber pressure of 96 bars and area ratio of only 22.

Vulcain 2 is ducting generator gas back to the main nozzle unlike RS-68.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/16/2007 02:08 pm
Quote
clongton - 16/5/2007  1:16 PM

The performance numbers were extracted thru POST
The output can't be better than input.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/16/2007 02:20 pm
Quote
JIS - 16/5/2007  10:08 AM

Quote
clongton - 16/5/2007  1:16 PM

The performance numbers were extracted thru POST
The output can't be better than input.
You're quoting me  :)
That's precisely why we have asked for an in-depth critique from this community. Some of you have access to POST, and we would hope that would spur independent analysis of our numbers. If you have access, PM us (me, Steve, Ross). We want to be right, not famous. We think we're right. But numbers don't lie, and independent numbers are better yet. If you have independent analysis capability, step into our office. We want to talk with you. We need, and appriciate valid critics.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 05/16/2007 02:25 pm
JIS,
Quote
Vulcain 2 is ducting generator gas back to the main nozzle unlike RS-68.

But that has nothing to do with the expansion ratio you can achieve at takeoff.  The gas ducting
only gets you back a little potentially wasted performance, and helps cool part of the extension.
Even without gas ducting back into the engine, you probably could make an RS-68 extended
nozzle version without much trouble.  You might not get every last second available (as that gas
ducting is probably worth at least 1-2s), but you're going to greatly increase the mission average
Isp.  The main reason this wasn't done already has been already been discussed--RS-68 had to
be optimized for a lower altitude because in some configurations there are no strapons helping
out, so all the thrust comes from the RS-68.   Every other large LOX/LH2 vehicle that uses large
strapons has gone with a higher-altitude expansion ratio on their LOX/LH2 engine.  There's no
reason the same couldn't be done for RS-68.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/16/2007 03:50 pm
Quote
jongoff - 16/5/2007  3:25 PM

JIS,
Quote
Vulcain 2 is ducting generator gas back to the main nozzle unlike RS-68.

But that has nothing to do with the expansion ratio you can achieve at takeoff.
~Jon

I think it has some effect. The pressure in the nozzle downstream of the generator gas inlet is increased compared to “classic” nozzle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/16/2007 03:53 pm
Quote
clongton - 16/5/2007  3:20 PM

Quote
JIS - 16/5/2007  10:08 AM

Quote
clongton - 16/5/2007  1:16 PM

The performance numbers were extracted thru POST
The output can't be better than input.
You're quoting me  :)
That's precisely why we have asked for an in-depth critique from this community. Some of you have access to POST, and we would hope that would spur independent analysis of our numbers. If you have access, PM us (me, Steve, Ross). We want to be right, not famous. We think we're right. But numbers don't lie, and independent numbers are better yet. If you have independent analysis capability, step into our office. We want to talk with you. We need, and appriciate valid critics.

Glad to help. However, the only POST I'm using is the British one :-)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/16/2007 04:23 pm
Quote
CFE - 15/5/2007  8:58 PM
Maybe this has been addressed before, but I'm a little sketchy on understanding how Jupiter-232 can put 108mT into the reference orbit, on top of the 23mT partly-fueled EDS.  I understand that Ares V will have a capability to put ~130mT into a 120nmi circular orbit.  While it's not a totally fair comparison to say that Jupiter-232 puts 131mT into orbit (because the Jupiter reference orbit is 30x120nmi,) it still doesn't seem realistic that Jupiter-232 could achieve such performance.  Nevertheless, I'll run the numbers tomorrow and see if they're in the ballpark.

According to Wikipedia, STS-121 had mass to orbit of 121,092kg.  That's to the ISS orbit.  The RS-68s have lower ISP than the SSMEs, but higher thrust.  Given this information as a source of comparison rather than Ares V, and the addition of the EDS, does 131mT still seem unreasonable to the 28.5° 30x120 orbit?  I'm asking because I don't know.

Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 05/16/2007 05:26 pm
JIS,
Quote
I think it has some effect. The pressure in the nozzle downstream of the generator gas inlet is increased compared to “classic” nozzle.

Not by very much.  Gas generators typically only run a couple percent of the main flow, so I'd be surprised if it upped the nozzle pressure at outlet by more than a few percent.  Not enough to call into question that you could get a better expansion ratio on the RS-68 if you were designing a new nozzle extension intentionally for this use.  Heck, ATK makes those nozzle extensions, I'm sure they'd be glad to get paid to develop it if DIRECT went that way...

~Jon
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PMN1 on 05/16/2007 05:31 pm
Quote
Alpha Control - 10/5/2007  11:36 PM

When I was growing up, the accent was always on the 2nd syllable, which of course provided endless mirth for school age boys.


Who in the UK remember the Spitting Image sketch with the newscaster asking why the pronunciation had suddenly changed (IIRC Voyager was doing its flyby)

'Is it to save potential embarrassment when saying 'probing Uranus or the rings around Uranus'?'

 :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PMN1 on 05/16/2007 05:33 pm
Quote
clongton - 16/5/2007  9:03 AM

Quote
PMN1 - 16/5/2007  9:57 AM

Would what is being proposed have been possible technology-wise after the Challenger accident?
RS-68 wasn't developed until 1998. But there was a similar proposal presented from MSFC that used the SSME instead.

In-line payload or side mounted - the ones I've seen on the on Astronatix site seem to be all side mounted payload.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/16/2007 05:52 pm
Quote
PMN1 - 16/5/2007  1:33 PM

Quote
clongton - 16/5/2007  9:03 AM

Quote
PMN1 - 16/5/2007  9:57 AM

Would what is being proposed have been possible technology-wise after the Challenger accident?
RS-68 wasn't developed until 1998. But there was a similar proposal presented from MSFC that used the SSME instead.

In-line payload or side mounted - the ones I've seen on the on Astronatix site seem to be all side mounted payload.
Both were in the mix. The side-mounted was designated Shuttle-C and was favored because it was identical to the mounting of the orbiter. The inline was identified as being more efficient but more costly because of the changes needed to the ET (thrust structure, tank walls, etc). The effort was to do it as cheaply as possible, that's why the side-mount was favored; almost no changes to the sts stack at all.

In the end neither was adopted because Congress was willing to fund fixing the SRB's but not willing to fund replacing the orbiter.

Incidentally, this was one of the first serious efforts to separate crew from cargo, another one of the debates that has been raging since the CAIB Report came out. There is also a discussion thread on NSF about this as well. The cargo cannister, side or top mount, was not recoverable. Both versions were entirely ELV's.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Ad Astra on 05/16/2007 06:16 pm
Quote
SMetch - 15/5/2007  11:05 AM

Quote
Ad Astra - 14/5/2007  9:04 PM

Why wasn't this proposal written up the second the ESAS report came out? What was the delay? What will you do if Dr Stanley comes on here and slaps this out of the ballpark like Direct 1? Will there then be a Direct 3, and 4 and 5? Are you banking on a Democrat win so as to be an alternative cheaper solution when Ares is cancelled due to money?

Lots of questions here, but I am impressed with your presentation. On face value it looks a lot more obvious and sensible.

I showed something very close to “Direct” once during Sean O’Keefe and three times during Mike Griffin (twice before ESAS and one time after ESAS).  The idea was solid then and has only improved with all the additional refinements in launch infrastructure modification, programmatic and configurational work others have added to it since then.

From the grass roots level to just below the NASA Executive level “Direct” is very popular (better than 2/3 roughly).  I’m as confused as you are as to the problem with Direct at the high level.

Based on my take on these prior NASA-HQ meetings Sean’s boys didn’t like it because they were clearly going towards the all ELV approach.  From Mike’s boys they didn’t like it because they are pretty much Mars firsters so they wanted the largest vehicle that they could get (ie the Ares V).

That was the genesis of the Jupiter-3 by the way.  I showed them how two Jupiter-1’s could be used as boosters putting a single launch Mars mission package of two total launches (ISRU+Return  followed by Crew) via chemical EDS at about 350mT IMLEO per launch.  If I said there response was sophomoric I would be generous.  The loading dynamics on the Jupiter-3 is as about as close to three rockets going up independently as you could hope for.

The key issue is the pitch and roll maneuver prior to entering the gravity turn.  That and the infrastructure issues at KSC but I generally envision the launches from sea for this bad boy.  KSC will be over 50 years old and who knows how long before a Hurricane with its name on it takes it out.  The Jupiter-3’s center engines basically feed off the out Jupiter-1’s tank draining them at a similar rate as the Jupiter-242 does allowing for a near optimal second stage switching the center engines prior to staging to the center 2nd stage tank.

Having the heavier lifter use a common core booster with the lower end family members is a big advantage from a fixed cost stand point.

Again the Jupiter-3 may never happen and if it did it would be +25 years from now.  Lunar staging of the Jupiter-2 may be the actual way we go to Mars.  But part of me hopes that the future space program would actually need a vehicle capable of +350mT.


Thanks for your answer and good luck.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 05/16/2007 08:28 pm
Hi!  I've been reading the Direct goes Live thread and am up to about page 95, and this was asked around page 75 but not answered
(so far) though I'm still wading through it so here goes:

If the Ares I is underpowered due to the switch from the SSME upper stage to the J2X, requiring the switch to the 5 seg RSRB to make up
the difference, then it would seem that what would be the quickest fix would be a more powerful second stage motor than the J2X.  

Would it be possible to to put an RS-68 in the second stage instead of the J2X?  I'm sure this has been thought of by somebody but I don't
have enough information to know why it wouldn't be feasible.  Seems like from the discussion that the RS-68 is a lot closer to the performance
of the SSME than the J2X is.  I know there would probably be issues with airstarting an RS-68 or the lower ISP rating making it not 'optimal'
for use in an upperstage but if it got you the added power you need to switch back to the 4 seg RSRB then the problems might be more
'doable'.  I was going to add that developing it could allow it to be used for the EDS instead of the J2x but I bet it's not designed to be restarted
or for long cold soaks in orbit.  Oh well....

I'd really like to know why my idea sucks though :)  Yall take it easy!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/16/2007 08:31 pm
Quote
luke strawwalker - 16/5/2007  4:28 PM
  I know there would probably be issues with airstarting an RS-68 or the lower ISP rating making it not 'optimal'
for use in an upperstage
 but I bet it's not designed to be restarted
or for long cold soaks in orbit.  Oh well....


you are correct
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/16/2007 08:43 pm
Quote
luke strawwalker - 16/5/2007  4:28 PM
I know there would probably be issues with airstarting an RS-68
The idea doesn't suck. The RS-68 would make an awesome upper stage engine except for the air-start requirement. The Direct v2 team seriously considered it. It could certainly be done, but would require a major design effort on the part of PWR and would be very expensive.

Don't simply dismiss the concept. If we can get thru this transition from LEO on the Shuttle to the moon on the Jupiter in lieu of the Ares, the possibility could exist that funding could be made available for this. But if we end up staying the whole Ares route, NASA will be too poor to pay attention.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/16/2007 08:44 pm
Luke, the issue with a different engine to J-2X is to make Ares-I operational fast enough to close the gap after Shuttle retires.   When SSME was decided against, the next largest air-startable hi-efficiency (Isp) engine available was the J-2S - parts of which were already in development use on the Linear Aerospike XRS-2200 program which was going to power the X-33.

The J-2S already exists, and was in a position to be enhanced in performance above it's old Apollo specifications, so it was chosen.

NASA had the option to built something all-new, with higher performance than the J-2X, but the cost and the schedule delays made it a bad option given the targets they were trying to achieve.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/16/2007 08:44 pm
Steve and Chuck, thanks for your answers to my question about how much an evolved Jupiter might be able to lift.  I see that it could be extended quite a lot, if need be.

On the other hand, I've since been thinking about the "if need be" part, and it seems to me that building a Mars program around your current proposal, without doing any extensions, in fact makes a great deal of sense.  Suppose, for example, you want to assemble a 500 mT Mars mission.  Using currently-existing ELVs, which max out in the neighborhood of 20-25 mT, you would need 20 to 25 launches to lift that 500 mT.  In my opinion, that is an unworkable concept.

But, if we're talking Ares V and Jupiter, it comes down to Ares V requiring four launches, and an unevolved Jupiter requiring five launches.  There's really not much point in a whole deveopment program, whether it be Area V or an evolved Jupiter, to save one lanuch for each Mars mission.  You'd be much better off spending the money on more and bigger moon and Mars missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/16/2007 08:54 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 16/5/2007  4:44 PM

Steve and Chuck, thanks for your answers to my question about how much an evolved Jupiter might be able to lift.  I see that it could be extended quite a lot, if need be.

On the other hand, I've since been thinking about the "if need be" part, and it seems to me that building a Mars program around your current proposal, without doing any extensions, in fact makes a great deal of sense.  Suppose, for example, you want to assemble a 500 mT Mars mission.  Using currently-existing ELVs, which max out in the neighborhood of 20-25 mT, you would need 20 to 25 launches to lift that 500 mT.  In my opinion, that is an unworkable concept.

But, if we're talking Ares V and Jupiter, it comes down to Ares V requiring four launches, and an unevolved Jupiter requiring five launches.  There's really not much point in a whole deveopment program, whether it be Area V or an evolved Jupiter, to save one lanuch for each Mars mission.  You'd be much better off spending the money on more and bigger moon and Mars missions.
Well thought out consideration. You are correct in your assesment with a single correction. The EELV's are CURRENTLY capable of 20-25 mT lift, but planned variants will be capable of up to 45-50 mT of lift capability. But that doesn't change the basic correctness of your observation.

We can go to Mars with the Jupiter as proposed. IF a larger variant were needed, it would not be a big stretch to provide it. Family configurations, not discussed in the proposal, exceed 250mT of lift. But the question becomes one of economics. Such launch vehicles require a valid need to justify their development costs. That essentially boils down to launch rate, and then you're trading 2-3 Jupiter 232's off on 1-2 Jupiter 254's. Is it justifiable? Maybe - maybe not. It depends on the chosen architecture and future developments. It's just comforting to know that the Jupiter has this growth capacity designed into it from the very beginning, while Ares-V begins life already maxed out.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 05/16/2007 09:05 pm
There is another engine that could be used on the upper stage, that is the French Vulcain II.
It is a 300,000 pound thrust class engine with a vacuum isp of 434.
But, it is also a ground start engine.
It likely could be made into a air start capable engine, but at a cost of time and money.

A better solution would be to use two base line, Apollo era J2 engines on the upper stage, with a 4 segment booster.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/16/2007 09:25 pm
Quote
PMN1 - 16/5/2007  1:33 PM

Quote
clongton - 16/5/2007  9:03 AM

Quote
PMN1 - 16/5/2007  9:57 AM

Would what is being proposed have been possible technology-wise after the Challenger accident?
RS-68 wasn't developed until 1998. But there was a similar proposal presented from MSFC that used the SSME instead.

In-line payload or side mounted - the ones I've seen on the on Astronatix site seem to be all side mounted payload.

Following the 1986 loss of Challenger, the "Shuttle-C" concept gained a lot of momentum because it retained use of the RSS at the pad, and was completely compatible with Shuttle payloads, yet offered an unmanned launch solution.   At the time they still needed to launch a lot of satellites which had been designed to fly on Shuttle and it was a reasonable solution to that problem.

Anyhow, Shuttle-C was not the only proposal considered around 1986.   There was an in-line variant, with an 8.4m diameter payload shroud located on top of a modified External Tank. With three SSME's under the core, it offered approximately 75mT performance to LEO.   This configuration was actually assessed in the ESAS Report too - where they confirmed the same basic performance, but missed analysing its performance with an EDS Upper Stage.

Titan-IV was ultimately developed, and flew all those payloads and neither Shuttle-C nor the in-line version were developed.

The same basic concept was again proposed in 1991 as the National Launch System or NLS (image below, Credit: Astronautix.com).   It was a joint program between NASA and USAF.   Powered by standard SRB's, it had four new main engines called Space Transportation Main Engine (STME) which had 550,000lb vac thrust and 431s vac Isp.   While I can't get a specific reference, the STME appears to be a disposable variant of SSME.

Two RS-68's produce as much thrust as three SSME's, and offer similar efficiency to the STME, albeit slightly lower.   Because that engine exists already and is flight-ready, we chosen to use the RS-68 rather than have to develop a new engine.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/16/2007 09:31 pm
Quote
Scotty - 16/5/2007  5:05 PM

There is another engine that could be used on the upper stage, that is the French Vulcain II.
It is a 300,000 pound thrust class engine with a vacuum isp of 434.
But, it is also a ground start engine.
It likely could be made into a air start capable engine, but at a cost of time and money.

A better solution would be to use two base line, Apollo era J2 engines on the upper stage, with a 4 segment booster.

Even 434s vac Isp isn't as good as 448s.   The lower efficiency requires more propellant to be lifted to achieve the TLI burn, so I'm not sure there are any advantages to be had anywhere there.

Unless there is a major technical hitch to achieving 448s Isp, the J-2X is the way to go IMHO.

I wish the RL-60 was deployable now, because a cluster of 5 of those with 470s Isp would be an interesting alternative.   But it isn't.   Ho hum.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/16/2007 09:57 pm
Quote
meiza - 16/5/2007  9:47 AM

Did you test with more nozzle extensions in the RS-68 engines?

We had it in-work for v1.0 when the whole Stanley thing happened.   We have since received some hard data back, and actually have complete independent validation of the original Regen concept.   Oh well.

With no doubts at all, the current ablative nozzle could be redesigned to optimize for high altitude use, optimizing performance so it still avoids flow separation while at Sea Level.

This is still a "growth option" for Jupiter and promises a few extra % of performance.

There are a number of relatively simple options available to increase Jupiter performance further, but which we have deliberately removed from the critical path to enable the fastest possible deployment and the minimum number of risk elements.   This also helps delete all the points of criticism which were taken advantage of by opponents.

Operating the engine at 106%, as NASA proposes for Ares-V, offers additional performance in the region of 7mT extra to LEO per flight on the Jupiter-232.

Use of a regen nozzle (which should automatically include optimization for high altitude use) is still possible too, offering about 5mT of additional performance on the J-232 too.

And we have planned the DIRECT to use a "heavy" core like the original Shuttle ET.   We would expect an ongoing improvements program would result in a Light Weight Tank (LWT) and perhaps a Super Light Weight Tank (SLWT) becoming available in the future too, again offering greater performance.

If all these design changes were to be included, 55mT for the J-120 should be achievable, and 120mT should be possible for the J-232.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Kaputnik on 05/16/2007 10:40 pm
It seems like with v.2 you have done everything to be conservative (with the possible exception of the EDS, and even that is simply a conservative version of a Centaur rather than an ESAS EDS). You have chosen the basic J2, and the basic RS68 with no regen, no 106% power level, and no nozzle changes. You have chosen the old ET design rather than the SLWET. You have chosen fairly large margins apparently everywhere.
This all seems to be an effort to get DIRECT accepted- but it seems that the problem is not a technical one, it is a political one.

Is there some way that DIRECT can be 'peer reviewed' by somebody whose opinion is influencial? I think that this would be a crucial step.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/16/2007 11:02 pm
Quote
Kaputnik - 16/5/2007  3:40 PM

It seems like with v.2 you have done everything to be conservative (with the possible exception of the EDS, and even that is simply a conservative version of a Centaur rather than an ESAS EDS). You have chosen the basic J2, and the basic RS68 with no regen, no 106% power level, and no nozzle changes. You have chosen the old ET design rather than the SLWET. You have chosen fairly large margins apparently everywhere.
This all seems to be an effort to get DIRECT accepted- but it seems that the problem is not a technical one, it is a political one.

Is there some way that DIRECT can be 'peer reviewed' by somebody whose opinion is influencial? I think that this would be a crucial step.
As an outsider looking in, but who has many times been in a similar position in my own line of work, my opinion is that the "powers that be" have made up their minds about what they are going to do, and there is no power on earth or in Heaven that will persuade them otherwise.

The way this insanity works is that even if they encounter insurmountable obstacles to accomplishing their plans, they will change the objectives rather than abandon flawed plans.

There is, however, a substantial chance that there will be a change in leadership at NASA.  If at that time a well-developed DIRECT plan exists (which it does), and it is widely accepted within the lower ranks of NASA, there is a substantial chance that it will be adopted at that point in time.


(Edit to add: I'm really, really hoping that someone will post, telling me that I'm wrong, and that there is reason to hope that the current management might change direction.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: wingod on 05/16/2007 11:07 pm
Quote
kraisee - 16/5/2007  3:44 PM

Luke, the issue with a different engine to J-2X is to make Ares-I operational fast enough to close the gap after Shuttle retires.   When SSME was decided against, the next largest air-startable hi-efficiency (Isp) engine available was the J-2S - parts of which were already in development use on the Linear Aerospike XRS-2200 program which was going to power the X-33.

The J-2S already exists, and was in a position to be enhanced in performance above it's old Apollo specifications, so it was chosen.

NASA had the option to built something all-new, with higher performance than the J-2X, but the cost and the schedule delays made it a bad option given the targets they were trying to achieve.

Ross.

The only part of the J2 used on the X-33 aerospike was an unmodified turbopump.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/16/2007 11:25 pm
Quote
clongton - 16/5/2007  4:43 PM

Quote
luke strawwalker - 16/5/2007  4:28 PM
I know there would probably be issues with airstarting an RS-68
The idea doesn't suck. The RS-68 would make an awesome upper stage engine except for the air-start requirement. The Direct v2 team seriously considered it. It could certainly be done, but would require a major design effort on the part of PWR and would be very expensive.

.

restart would be even harder
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/17/2007 01:49 am
Quote
wingod - 16/5/2007  5:07 PM

Quote
kraisee - 16/5/2007  3:44 PM

Luke, the issue with a different engine to J-2X is to make Ares-I operational fast enough to close the gap after Shuttle retires.   When SSME was decided against, the next largest air-startable hi-efficiency (Isp) engine available was the J-2S - parts of which were already in development use on the Linear Aerospike XRS-2200 program which was going to power the X-33.

The J-2S already exists, and was in a position to be enhanced in performance above it's old Apollo specifications, so it was chosen.

NASA had the option to built something all-new, with higher performance than the J-2X, but the cost and the schedule delays made it a bad option given the targets they were trying to achieve.

Ross.

The only part of the J2 used on the X-33 aerospike was an unmodified turbopump.


Was there any modification of the J-2S turbopump when it was used for the XRS-2200?  I had read that, in regards to the J-2XD vs. the J-2X, the J-2XD will use the J-2S turbopumps while the final J-2X will use the XRS-2200 turbopump.  I thought the two were the same, but apparently the definitive J-2X will produce 14klbf more thrust than J-2XD.

Nevertheless, J-2X represents a large development plan, as the thrust chamber and nozzle will essentially be new hardware.  I'd go with the lower-Isp Vulcain 2, but only if I was certain that modifying it for air-start was cheaper than re-development of the J-2X.

While we're on the subject of adopting foreign-developed engines, I wanted to mention that the RD-0120 was  essentially the STME in terms of its specs.  I think that if NASA allowed for its use in VSE (assuming the Russians can still build it,) it would solve a lot of problems caused by the demise of "expendable SSME."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/17/2007 01:57 am
What is you're game plan for promoting direct 2.0 ?   There are many ways to approach it.   There are a number of groups that you can target, including personel at NASA, congressional members, retired astronauts, and even news organizations.  You can go directly to the decision makers or try to build support from proffesionals in the field  Are you going to try to arrange in person presentations, or do mailers or ?  
It might make sense to get some professional advice  on putting together a presentation or a marketing plan.  THat will cost you some dough of course.  

 When dealing with anyone at NASA they are going to want to know the credentials of those who are asking for their time and consideration.
A plan put together by model builders  might not go over to well.   If put together by people with serious aerospace engineering experience (and degrees) would have a better chance to get looked at.  
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/17/2007 02:36 am
Quote
veedriver22 - 16/5/2007  9:57 PM

A plan put together by model builders  might not go over to well.   If put together by people with serious aerospace engineering experience (and degrees) would have a better chance to get looked at.  
When a book or research volume is published, it is the result of collaboration between two professional forces:
1. The author(s), who are the heart and soul of the work. They are the source of the content of the work.
2. The editors, who are the ones who arrange and critique the format of the work, but not its contents.
It is the same with the Direct proposal. The authors are the scientists and design engineers who work for NASA, its Field Centers and its Contractors. It is THEY who are the technical brilliance and source of this work, not us.
We are editors, and, from the very beginning, went out of our way to make it crystal clear that the work was not ours, but theirs. They did the hard work, the analysis and tradeoff studies. It is they who tell us thru their work that "this would work, but if you did this, that would work also, and here is the difference". The brilliance of this work is properly credited to the design engineers and scientists at NASA, its Field Centers and Contractors, not us. We have been privileged to have a small part in arranging their work for presentation to you, the space community, to the NASA upper management and to the Congressional Committee members with responsibility for Space Policy oversight.

This work actually was, as you say, "put together by people with serious aerospace engineering experience (and degrees)". I would also add that just because we edited the body of the work, rather than authored it, it does not follow (as you have erroneously implied) that we ourselves are without "serious aerospace engineering experience (and degrees)". Some of us have been doing this kind of thing for a very long time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/17/2007 03:03 am
I am sorry if that is how that came across.   I did not mean to imply anything about anyone involved in Direct.  The work you guys are doing is tremendous.   My intent was to point out how certain individuals (such as NASA higher ups), might see it.   Sorry if I insulted anyone, that was not my intent.  Its just something I thought might be worth thinking about.    I really would like to know what your sales plan looks like if its something you can share.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/17/2007 03:09 am
Quote
veedriver22 - 16/5/2007  11:03 PM

I am sorry if that is how that came across.   I did not mean to imply anything about anyone involved in Direct.  The work you guys are doing is tremendous.   My intent was to point out how certain individuals (such as NASA higher ups), might see it.   Sorry if I insulted anyone, that was not my intent.
Not to worry. No danger of that. A couple of us are already very well known to the Administrator and his staff.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steve G on 05/17/2007 05:47 am
I assume that the upper management and even the administrator must be aware that this proposal exists and may even have read it.   If I was Griffin, I’d consider this a low level mutiny and act accordingly to get the team focused on the Ares program.

Has anyone heard of any rumblings from the top?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PMN1 on 05/17/2007 07:47 am
Ah yes, there were in-line varients, i've even got a print out from Astronautix of the one with a 10m shroud in a file I was lookig at yesterday....memory must be going.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PMN1 on 05/17/2007 07:50 am
Not to worry. No danger of that. A couple of us are already very well known to the Administrator and his staff.


Anyone woken up to find a horses head next to them????

 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/17/2007 09:01 am
Quote
kraisee - 16/5/2007  9:44 PM

The J-2S already exists, and was in a position to be enhanced in performance above it's old Apollo specifications, so it was chosen.


J-2X is not based on J-2S but J-2. J-2S is a dead end. Only the turbopumps are used for J-2XD but will be superseeded with new ones for J-2X.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Kaputnik on 05/17/2007 10:49 am
Quote
CFE - 17/5/2007  2:49 AM
While we're on the subject of adopting foreign-developed engines, I wanted to mention that the RD-0120 was  essentially the STME in terms of its specs.  I think that if NASA allowed for its use in VSE (assuming the Russians can still build it,) it would solve a lot of problems caused by the demise of "expendable SSME."

I mentioned this already in the first DIRECT thread. The RD-0120 could have been the air-startable, disposable SSME that NASA wanted back in the ESAS. If they used it, the stick would still have 4-segments, and the Ares-V would look a whole lot better too.
There are apparently some RD0120s mothballed at Baikonur but I have had no luck in unearthing informatin about how many, their condition, and whether anybody is still around to operate them.
Very sad, really- they must have been great engines.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/17/2007 05:24 pm
So what is the game plan from here? ...... or is that classified?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sandrot on 05/17/2007 09:05 pm
How many RD-0120 flown as of today?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: NotGncDude on 05/17/2007 10:01 pm
8? Two Energia flights?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/18/2007 04:34 am
AFAIK, it's been eight RD-0120's on both Energia flights.  I realize now that this engine is closer in performance to "expendable SSME" than STME.  The regen-cooled RS-68R from DIRECT V1 has very similar performance to STME.  I had wanted to examine alternative engine choices because of my concerns that Jupiter would fall short of its performance targets.  Fortunately, I think my former fears were unfounded.

I've done some rough calcs to verify the performance predicted for Jupiter-232.  While I'm currently looking for some validation of my work, I have confidence that Jupiter-232 can fill the Ares V role in the "1.5 launch" scenario.  Truth be told, Ares V is really overkill for this mission profile.

I'm concerned that the performance figures given in DIRECT V2 reflect a 30x120nmi orbit.  DIRECT's critics are really going to latch onto this.  I think it's best to give all performance figures in terms of a circular assembly orbit (such as the 120nmi orbit for Ares V.)  My concerns temporarily turned me into a "Doubting Thomas," hence my attempts to verify the performance numbers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Thomas ESA on 05/18/2007 08:55 am
Have you confidently identified your key weaknesses? This is important. Direct V1 failed to and was informed of it. Direct V2 needs to understand where it could be dismissed and already have alternatives/answers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 05/18/2007 10:00 am
Quote
Thomas ESA - 18/5/2007  9:55 AM

Have you confidently identified your key weaknesses? This is important. Direct V1 failed to and was informed of it. Direct V2 needs to understand where it could be dismissed and already have alternatives/answers.

Absolutely key point.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/18/2007 11:58 am
Quote
Thomas ESA - 18/5/2007  4:55 AM

Have you confidently identified your key weaknesses? This is important. Direct V1 failed to and was informed of it. Direct V2 needs to understand where it could be dismissed and already have alternatives/answers.
Tom (and everyone):
Please provide a list of what you see as key weaknesses.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/18/2007 01:08 pm
Quote
clongton - 18/5/2007  6:58 AM
Tom (and everyone):
Please provide a list of what you see as key weaknesses.

NIH (Not Invented Here, by upper Nasa management)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/18/2007 03:52 pm
Clongton,

Did you consider a Jupiter-110 with one centerline RS-68 purely for the ISS missions as the baseline Jupiter-120 looks overpowered for the job ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/18/2007 04:11 pm
Quote
marsavian - 18/5/2007  11:52 AM

Clongton,
Did you consider a Jupiter-110 with one centerline RS-68 purely for the ISS missions as the baseline Jupiter-120 looks overpowered for the job ?
We did. On page 8 of this thread, Steve G asked a very similar question.
My answer, in part, is pasted below. See page 8 for the entire answer.
--------
Quote
Steve G - 13/5/2007  12:00 AM

This is not a suggestion.  I’m just curious. What would be;
a) The performance of a 2 x standard SRB’s and a single RS-68 assuming the tank size would have a narrower diameter but the same height to be launch pad compatible.
We actually worked that out, while keeping the ET diameter unchanged. It would be a Jupiter 110. It would be a direct competitor with the ELV fleet, so we decided not to go there. What Direct wants to do is to compliment and go beyond the ELV fleet, not compete with it.

At the end of the proposal and in this thread, we have alluded to the upcoming 2007 AIAA paper. In it are five driving imperatives which ultimately determined the design parameters of the Jupiter Launch Vehicle family.

From the paper (caution: WIP):

Imperative #3: Do not duplicate the lift capacity that is already available in the existing launch vehicles of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle fleet.

-- more back on page 8 --
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/18/2007 04:19 pm
Quote
clongton - 18/5/2007  11:11 AM

Quote
marsavian - 18/5/2007  11:52 AM

Clongton,
Did you consider a Jupiter-110 with one centerline RS-68 purely for the ISS missions as the baseline Jupiter-120 looks overpowered for the job ?
We did. On page 8 of this thread, Steve G asked a very similar question.
My answer, in part, is pasted below. See page 8 for the entire answer.
--------
Quote
Steve G - 13/5/2007  12:00 AM

This is not a suggestion.  I’m just curious. What would be;
a) The performance of a 2 x standard SRB’s and a single RS-68 assuming the tank size would have a narrower diameter but the same height to be launch pad compatible.
We actually worked that out, while keeping the ET diameter unchanged. It would be a Jupiter 110. It would be a direct competitor with the ELV fleet, so we decided not to go there. What Direct wants to do is to compliment and go beyond the ELV fleet, not compete with it.

At the end of the proposal and in this thread, we have alluded to the upcoming 2007 AIAA paper. In it are five driving imperatives which ultimately determined the design parameters of the Jupiter Launch Vehicle family.

From the paper (caution: WIP):

Imperative #3: Do not duplicate the lift capacity that is already available in the existing launch vehicles of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle fleet.

-- more back on page 8 --


Surely the need must be for the most cost-effective SDLV solutions to *all* of NASA's needs whether it duplicates EELV capabilities or not ? If a Jupiter-110 is the most cost-effective solution for launching a CEV to and fro from the ISS than surely it should be included in the proposal as a man-rated EELV in that category is not on the cards for anyone in the forseeable future and even less likely to be adopted by NASA. It's also simpler too than the 120 which might appeal to the Ares I crowd ;-). You are after all trying to convince NASA and catering to their current mindset would help to sell DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/18/2007 04:47 pm
Quote
marsavian - 18/5/2007  11:52 AM

clongton,
Did you consider a Jupiter-110 with one centerline RS-68 purely for the ISS missions as the baseline Jupiter-120 looks overpowered for the job ?

We did (additional comments edited out - see above)

Quote
Surely the need must be for the most cost-effective SDLV solutions to *all* of NASA's needs whether it duplicates EELV capabilities or not. If a Jupiter-110 is the most cost-effective solution for launching a CEV to and fro from the ISS than surely it should be included in the proposal as a man-rated EELV in that category is not on the cards for anyone in the foreseeable future and even less likely to be adopted by NASA. It's also simpler too than the 120 which might appeal to the Ares I crowd ;-)

There are additional considerations, 2 of which are below:

1. We wanted to avoid the appearance that the Jupiter was a LEO launch vehicle. This is a MOON rocket and MARS rocket, and presenting the Jupiter-110 would detract from that. The danger is that if it were perceived as a LEO launch vehicle, it wouldn't be taken seriously for the lunar and Martian roles. We did not go into the lift capability of the other family members, but the Jupiter launch vehicle is capable of lifting in excess of 250mT to orbit if required, and we didn't want to risk loosing that perspective. It beats the pants off the Ares-V. But no one will notice that if they are all thinking "LEO launcher". The Mars guys should love this launch vehicle, because it gives them their interplanetary heavy lift launcher years ahead of the Ares-V, and still has plenty of room to grow if needed, while the Ares-V begins its life already maxed out at the limits of its capability. The Ares-V is very, very expensive, inefficient and uneconomical, while the Jupiter spreads its cost across the entire program, opening up all kinds of possibilities for interplanetary exploration.

2. The Jupiter-110 really only saves a single RS-68 engine and isn't that much simpler. The cost savings don't justify the loss of gaining flight experience with the Jupiter-120, because the 120 would become the LEO workhorse of choice, due to its lift capability.

Having said that, the 110 could be fielded if NASA wanted it. It would send 25-30mT to the ISS, more to a 28.5 degree orbit, directly competing with EELVs, something we chose not to do in this particular presentation.

Ok, the question: How many of you think the Jupiter-110 should be in the proposal - and more importantly, why?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 05/18/2007 04:53 pm
Quote
marsavian - 18/5/2007  8:52 AM

Clongton,

Did you consider a Jupiter-110 with one centerline RS-68 purely for the ISS missions as the baseline Jupiter-120 looks overpowered for the job ?

It worked for ISS provided we flew about half full.  The margins were lower and obviously we have no engine out capacity like the 120 but all things considered even the Jupiter-110 is safer than the Ares I.  So if you want to save the expense of one RS-68 engine and don’t use the full capability of the ET then this is a good option.  Hey it’s not half full or half empty its just over designed :)

Both the Jupiter-110 and 120 are safer than the Ares I by a wide margin due to the higher performance margins in both designs.  Given this is Scott’s primary argument against the ELV’s we felt the best way to defeat this argument is turning it back around on them with an even safer design.

Right now Scott is in the position of advocating a less safe vehicle than the Jupiter-120.  Add all the near term and long term advantages of starting with the Jupiter-120 vs. the Ares I in the first place and Direct is clearly the best choice all things considered.

Let's see Ares1/5 is now offically less safe, not simple and definitely not soon.  Other than that the current plan is great :)




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Pheogh on 05/18/2007 05:28 pm
SMetch, that brings up an interesting question. Have you guys thought about getting the astronauts themselves to start advocating DIRECT, based on safety margins alone. There must be an online forum of some type that the astronaut corp uses? Hopefully its not pre-mature to think so but after reading through the posts it would appear that it might be getting close to the time to start bringing together DIRECT's allies. Something similar to a "forward" of the proposal by more prominent individuals of the community.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 05/18/2007 05:38 pm

Quote
clongton - 18/5/2007  6:58 AM  Please provide a list of what you see as key weaknesses.

Let me try to play "Dr. Stanley" (actually more like thinking like CBO):

1. We've never flown adjustable number of engines inside a launch vehicle before - really you have two vehicles with a lot of commonality, but because of this we have to have complete verification, validation, and qualification as man rated launch vehicles, we have to have to duplicate resources to support launching either of them(both large), and your budget's too small for that - thank you for playing, SLAM!
 

2. We need to deal with a contingency of longer ISS life due to pressure from international partners, but want to low ball the cost of US access for flights beyond ISS end-of-life, and you're one SRB too costly than Ares-I, thus we can't cover our contingency while advancing VSE.

3. We don't want to fly Orion on a EELV - period. Not even for test - we don't want to undercut our position that we need an Ares to boost ANY Orion for any reason.

Its hard to come up with things to object to - go and work the list on DIRECT 2.0 and its hard to find things. I can't even hypothesize another missing/hidden spec like the rs68 "gotcha" on V.1. All I can find are these "stretches", which aren't great. Like I said, DIRECT 2 is a good job. I hope it gets the "gold star" it, our space program, and our country deserve.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/18/2007 05:53 pm
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 18/5/2007  10:38 AM
3. We don't want to fly Orion on a EELV - period. Not even for test - we don't want to undercut our position that we need an Ares to boost ANY Orion for any reason.

I was thinking the same thing as I was reading the proposal.  What is the point of the Delta IV/Orion launches?  Given that they appear to be trying to rule out EELVs, any flight that establishes an EELV/Orion capability would appear to be unacceptable.  (In other words, it is likely that people in Congress will say, "We already saw in 2009 that you can fly the Orion on a Delta IV.  Why don't we just use the Delta, cancel the Jupiter, and save ourselves a lot of money and time?")

Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that the purpose of the Delta IV/Orion launches is to accelerate the schedule?  What would it do to the schedule to stick with Jupiter launches exclusively?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/18/2007 06:02 pm
Doesn't COTS already do that?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/18/2007 06:19 pm
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 18/5/2007  1:38 PM

Quote
clongton - 18/5/2007  6:58 AM  Please provide a list of what you see as key weaknesses.

Let me try to play "Dr. Stanley" (actually more like thinking like CBO):



1. We've never flown adjustable number of engines inside a launch vehicle before - really you have is two vehicles with a lot of commonality, but because of this we have to have complete verification, validation, and qualification as man rated launch vehicles, we have to have to duplicate resources to support launching either of them(both large), and your budget's too small for that - thank you for playing, SLAM!
 

It’s far less expensive to qualify 2 launch vehicles that are part of the same family and nearly identical than it is to qualify 2 totally different launch vehicles, like the Ares-I and Ares-V, each of which requires its own resource pool, personnel and launch infrastructure. In addition, these “two” launch vehicles do not have “duplicate” resources, but operate from one single resource pool. The commonality between these two vehicles is so totally tight-knit, that in terms of support structure, personnel and launch infrastructure, they are the same vehicle. On the other hand, about the only thing the Ares-I and Ares-V will have in common is the name of the state they will launch from.

Quote
2. We need to deal with a contingency of longer ISS life due to pressure from international partners, but want to low ball the cost of US access for flights beyond ISS end-of-life, and you're one SRB too costly than Ares-I, thus we can't cover our contingency while advancing VSE.

The Jupiter-120 does cost a little more to fly, but only in terms of flight hardware, than the Ares-I. Per launch vehicle, that is not a lot. But then it’s designed to be capable of actually performing the mission of putting the Orion into orbit, something which the Ares-I was supposed to do, but cannot. The Jupiter is the only launch vehicle needed for the lunar mission, and once fielded, can wait as long as necessary as contingency planning proceeds with an extended-life ISS. In addition, flying on the Jupiter provides the experience for the ENTIRE lunar team, including manufacturers, astronauts and launch and processing personnel, that is going to be needed for the lunar missions. Flying on the Ares-I only covers ½ of the equation. The longer the ISS life is extended, the more distant and unlikely it becomes that the Ares-V will ever leave its power point presentations. Put Jupiter on the pad however, and the moon is put in the palm of your hand with the first operational launch.

Quote
3. We don't want to fly Orion on an EELV - period. Not even for test - we don't want to undercut our position that we need an Ares to boost ANY Orion for any reason.

The Delta will be used to qualify the man-rated RS-68 powerplant that even NASA needs for the Ares-V. That’s because the RS-68 IS the Delta powerplant. Regarding the Orion boilerplate, note that it is not a man-rated flight article. It is a boilerplate. It is designed to verify system integration, avionics, and things of that nature. The Delta used for these would not be a man-rated launch vehicle, something NASA has refused to pay for, and, so far, Boeing has chosen to not fund on its own nickel. Flight testing the Orion boilerplate on the same launch vehicle using the Jupiter flight engine makes the most economic and technical sense. Because it is available, it cannot be justified to wait an additional year to do the same testing on the Jupiter, unless it is NASA’s specific intent to delay fielding the Orion for as long as it can. I fail to see how that delay serves the national interests or the interests of the VSE.

Quote
Its hard to come up with things to object to - go and work the list on DIRECT 2.0 and its hard to find things. I can't even hypothesize another missing/hidden spec like the rs68 "gotcha" on V.1. All I can find are these "stretches", which aren't great. Like I said, DIRECT 2 is a good job. I hope it gets the "gold star" it, our space program, and our country deserve.


These thoughts are just off the top of my head and are "knee-jerk" reactions. If Stanley were to actually put forth such arguements, we are prepared to get very specific with technical answers, based on NASA's own data.

Thank you. Keep playing devils advocate. We appreciate it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/18/2007 06:38 pm
Quote
clongton - 18/5/2007  11:47 AM

2. The Jupiter-110 really only saves a single RS-68 engine and isn't that much simpler. The cost savings don't justify the loss of gaining flight experience with the Jupiter-120, because the 120 would become the LEO workhorse of choice, due to its lift capability.


Why not go the other way then and just have a 3 RS-68 Jupiter-130 single launch vehicle every time ? To me it seems you either have the 3 variations or just the full large version if you are concerned about continuous flight experience and real commonality between the base and EDS version. In other words stick to your original idea of one vehicle in DIRECT Vers 1 but with another engine, consider it engine-out capability on the Moon missions ;-).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/18/2007 06:52 pm
Quote
clongton - 18/5/2007  12:19 PM
Thank you. Keep playing devils advocate. We appreciate it.

CFE said this above, and I think it's worthy of a reply.

Quote
I'm concerned that the performance figures given in DIRECT V2 reflect a 30x120nmi orbit. DIRECT's critics are really going to latch onto this. I think it's best to give all performance figures in terms of a circular assembly orbit (such as the 120nmi orbit for Ares V.) My concerns temporarily turned me into a "Doubting Thomas," hence my attempts to verify the performance numbers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/18/2007 07:06 pm
30x120nm is NASA's current baseline altitude, so any flak we get can equally be directed towards NASA.

The fact is that the poor altitude baseline is caused by Ares-I.   Even the smallest DIRECT launcher can easily support a far better 160nm altitude baseline instead, but this way we get an easy to understand apples-to-apples comparison with NASA's launchers.

But for now, what's good enough for NASA is good enough for us too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/18/2007 07:06 pm
Quote
clongton - 18/5/2007  11:19 AM

Quote
3. We don't want to fly Orion on an EELV - period. Not even for test - we don't want to undercut our position that we need an Ares to boost ANY Orion for any reason.
The Delta will be used to qualify the man-rated RS-68 powerplant that even NASA needs for the Ares-V. That’s because the RS-68 IS the Delta powerplant. Regarding the Orion boilerplate, note that it is not a man-rated flight article. It is a boilerplate. It is designed to verify system integration, avionics, and things of that nature. The Delta used for these would not be a man-rated launch vehicle, something NASA has refused to pay for, and, so far, Boeing has chosen to not fund on its own nickel. Flight testing the Orion boilerplate on the same launch vehicle using the Jupiter flight engine makes the most economic and technical sense. Because it is available, it cannot be justified to wait an additional year to do the same testing on the Jupiter, unless it is NASA’s specific intent to delay fielding the Orion for as long as it can. I fail to see how that delay serves the national interests or the interests of the VSE.

Is there any reason to fly Orion on the RS-68 test flights?  Can you fly them on a D-IV without an Orion?  Again, I foresee that the Delta/Orion combination is going to be a big issue with respect to political positioning, and it would be best to avoid having people react to this problem.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/18/2007 07:25 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 18/5/2007  2:52 PM
Quote
clongton - 18/5/2007  12:19 PM
Thank you. Keep playing devils advocate. We appreciate it.

CFE said this above, and I think it's worthy of a reply.

Quote
I'm concerned that the performance figures given in DIRECT V2 reflect a 30x120nmi orbit. DIRECT's critics are really going to latch onto this. I think it's best to give all performance figures in terms of a circular assembly orbit (such as the 120nmi orbit for Ares V.) My concerns temporarily turned me into a "Doubting Thomas," hence my attempts to verify the performance numbers.
It is not the function of a launch vehicle to place a spacecraft into a circular orbit, but rather to place a spacecraft into an elliptical orbit with a high and low point. The spacecraft itself will circularize the orbit. The reasons for this are several, but the 3 main ones are:

1. An elliptical injection orbit increases the amount of mass for the IMLEO.
2. Circularizing the orbit is more efficiently accomplished by the spacecraft itself, once the launch vehicle places it into an elliptical injection orbit. It only has to power itself, and not all the dead weight of a nearly empty propellant tank.
3. It is much easier to dispose of the launch vehicle when it does not go into a circular orbit that might take years to decay, or would require the added complexity of ulage rockets to de-orbit the stage once the payload had been freed. The air resistance at the lower point serves to slow the stage to the point where it will drop into the ocean by itself. That assumes, of course, that the low point is actually within the boundary of the atmosphere. Otherwise this option doesn’t really buy us much and ulage motors would be needed to cause the orbit to decay sufficiently for stage disposal.

There are other reasons as well, but these are the chief ones.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/18/2007 07:28 pm
Quote
marsavian - 18/5/2007  2:38 PM

Why not go the other way then and just have a 3 RS-68 Jupiter-130 single launch vehicle every time ? To me it seems you either have the 3 variations or just the full large version if you are concerned about continuous flight experience and real commonality between the base and EDS version. In other words stick to your original idea of one vehicle in DIRECT Vers 1 but with another engine, consider it engine-out capability on the Moon missions ;-).

Also, the two RS-68 engines must already be throttled down towards the end of the ascent - as the propellant is burned away and the vehicle becomes lighter - in order to keep acceleration below 4g.   If you flew all three engines you would get much higher dynamic pressure around max-Q, and you would also have to shut one down and drag its dead weight along in the latter portion of the flight.   This dead weight directly reduces the mass of useful payload you can carry.   An RS-68 masses about 6.5 tons, so you reduce ultimate performance by that.

Additionally, you burn fuel a lot faster with three engines, and the ET isn't getting any larger.   I would have to run the numbers to confirm, but I believe the stage would run out of fuel before ever reaching orbital speeds.   That is why the 232 works so well.   The 3-engine core burns out before reaching orbit, and the EDS takes over for the last part of ascent.


The common core stage itself though, is exactly the same for either configuration.

Getting back to the source of this discussion point though, flying a single engined version - it is indeed doable - but adding a third configuration adds a third flight certification program also, and DIRECT's key goal has always been to avoid unnecessary development costs wherever possible.

The J-120 can do ISS missions, Hubble missions and Lunar missions with only one qualification program. It can even do early qualification test flights for the 232 configuration even before the EDS is ready.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/18/2007 07:39 pm
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 18/5/2007  1:38 PM

Quote
clongton - 18/5/2007  6:58 AM  Please provide a list of what you see as key weaknesses.

Let me try to play "Dr. Stanley" (actually more like thinking like CBO):

1. We've never flown adjustable number of engines inside a launch vehicle before - really you have two vehicles with a lot of commonality, but because of this we have to have complete verification, validation, and qualification as man rated launch vehicles, we have to have to duplicate resources to support launching either of them(both large), and your budget's too small for that - thank you for playing, SLAM!

What we propose is far less costly than fielding Ares-I and Ares-V together.   They not only require two qualification programs, but also two DDT&E programs and two operations programs to be funded.   DIRECT deletes one of each of those.

Quote
2. We need to deal with a contingency of longer ISS life due to pressure from international partners, but want to low ball the cost of US access for flights beyond ISS end-of-life, and you're one SRB too costly than Ares-I, thus we can't cover our contingency while advancing VSE.

For the $20 billion required between 2011 and 2017 to pay to develop Ares-V in addition to Ares-I, we could afford to fly more than 100 additional flights of the Jupiter 120.

100 Jupiter-120 flights can launch 4,800 tons to orbit (13 times the total mass of the fully completed ISS) for the total expenditure NASA plans to invests just to get the first Ares-V flying.


Quote
3. We don't want to fly Orion on a EELV - period. Not even for test - we don't want to undercut our position that we need an Ares to boost ANY Orion for any reason.

Orion can be tested on any vehicle.   However the man-rated RS-68 engine ought to be flight tested before flying people.   Delta-IV offers an ideal existing test-bed for such work.   It seems a waste not to utilize such a test flight without testing other valuable Constellation-related hardware at the same time.

While your mileage may vary, we see an Orion Launch Abort Test and parachute deployment/recovery test as being a useful secondary mission if required.   If this is politically unacceptable, then it can still be performed on another, more politically palatable, vehicle.


Quote
Its hard to come up with things to object to - go and work the list on DIRECT 2.0 and its hard to find things. I can't even hypothesize another missing/hidden spec like the rs68 "gotcha" on V.1. All I can find are these "stretches", which aren't great. Like I said, DIRECT 2 is a good job. I hope it gets the "gold star" it, our space program, and our country deserve.

You are not the first person to identify that there are very few things which detractors can grab a hold of on the new DIRECT plan.   It certainly appears to have a lot fewer hurdles than the existing Ares-I / V plan.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/18/2007 07:54 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 18/5/2007  3:06 PM

Quote
clongton - 18/5/2007  11:19 AM

Quote
3. We don't want to fly Orion on an EELV - period. Not even for test - we don't want to undercut our position that we need an Ares to boost ANY Orion for any reason.
The Delta will be used to qualify the man-rated RS-68 powerplant that even NASA needs for the Ares-V. That’s because the RS-68 IS the Delta powerplant. Regarding the Orion boilerplate, note that it is not a man-rated flight article. It is a boilerplate. It is designed to verify system integration, avionics, and things of that nature. The Delta used for these would not be a man-rated launch vehicle, something NASA has refused to pay for, and, so far, Boeing has chosen to not fund on its own nickel. Flight testing the Orion boilerplate on the same launch vehicle using the Jupiter flight engine makes the most economic and technical sense. Because it is available, it cannot be justified to wait an additional year to do the same testing on the Jupiter, unless it is NASA’s specific intent to delay fielding the Orion for as long as it can. I fail to see how that delay serves the national interests or the interests of the VSE.

Is there any reason to fly Orion on the RS-68 test flights?  Can you fly them on a D-IV without an Orion?  Again, I foresee that the Delta/Orion combination is going to be a big issue with respect to political positioning, and it would be best to avoid having people react to this problem.
1.   The RS-68 is the engine powering the Delta today. It absolutely IS the vehicle to test the man-rated version on. NASA won’t even argue that.
2.   Systems integrations testing between the Orion and a launch vehicle using the powerplant that will be sending it into space is the right thing to do. The Delta, with the man-rated RS-68, will be ready to do that about 1 to 1½ years before the Jupiter is ready to fly the Orion. Truth be told, the Orion that would be on the Delta would not be a flight-certified vehicle, only a boilerplate. The Delta doing the testing would not be capable of putting a fully outfitted Orion into orbit, so there is no “danger” on that score of undermining the Jupiter. There is no good reason not to do it, other than to deliberately delay fielding the spacecraft. The boilerplate can provide a lot of data that will be incorporated into the flight article on a Jupiter. No fully configured and fueled Orion spacecraft can be placed into orbit on the Deltas being used today. The full-up Orion spacecraft is too heavy. But preliminary testing can be done. There is simply no good reason not to do that. No one is going to be able to tell Congress “see, the Delta CAN launch Orion” because it can’t, not in the foreseeable future. Someday – yes, but not anytime soon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/18/2007 08:23 pm
Chuck, thanks for the explanation about Delta/Orion.  You've convinced me that it's not really going to be a serious political problem, and I now see the technical need for those flights.

Quote
clongton - 18/5/2007  9:47 AM
... the Jupiter launch vehicle is capable of lifting in excess of 250mT to orbit if required...

I was wondering what the configuration is that can lift 250 mT?  That sounds quite impressive!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/18/2007 08:25 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 18/5/2007  4:23 PM

Chuck, thanks for the explanation about Delta/Orion.  You've convinced me that it's not really going to be a serious political problem, and I now see the technical need for those flights.

Quote
clongton - 18/5/2007  9:47 AM
... the Jupiter launch vehicle is capable of lifting in excess of 250mT to orbit if required...

I was wondering what the configuration is that can lift 250 mT?  That sounds quite impressive!
It's a Jupiter-3xx. It may or may not ever be needed. But the fact that it CAN be flown, and is a direct derivative of the Jupiter family, is what is impressive. Having a lift requirement for 250mT is a problem I would LOVE to have. However, it is unlikely to be needed for a very, very long time. But it is on the table and available.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/18/2007 08:40 pm
Just for the record, I thought I would post the table from the unreleased internal version of the ESAS Report which assesses the RS-68 compared to the SSME.

It is useful for judging how reliable it is expected to be against an already well-proven man-rated engine, and indicates that needed changes are all fairly straight forward for man-rating the engine.

This table DOES NOT apply to the higher performance 106% power level RS-68 variant NASA has planned for the Ares-V - just for the RS-68 at standard performance levels.   Considerably more changes are required when operating the engine at the higher specification on a manned flight.



Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/18/2007 08:41 pm
Chuck, it is quite amazing that you'all have been able to come up with such a versatile system of rockets from the existing STS pieces, while the ARES system is quite the opposite.  I am quite impressed with your work.

Will there be a table available that shows the other useful configurations, like the 3xx versions?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/18/2007 08:42 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 18/5/2007  4:41 PM

Will there be a table available that shows these configurations?

Yes, we are planning an Appendix to be added in the future which will show many of the growth options.

It is not however a major effort right now, because our focus is currently on matching and beating Ares performance & costs primarily for the Lunar program and also the remaining ISS program.

The growth options are unnecessary for those requirements as the J-120 offers double Ares-I's performance and a pair of J-232's already offers 42% more performance than the Ares-I/V combo - and do so all for roughly half the development costs.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/18/2007 08:59 pm
If  Space-x comes through and builds a reliable ISS Rocket,  then all those BILLIONS spent on ARES I become a total waste.   Which is not the case with Direct.   I am at a loss to think of any advantage ARES I has except for momentum.   You guys seem to have a royal flush.  But NASA can set the rules for the card game.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/18/2007 09:08 pm
Quote
veedriver22 - 18/5/2007  4:59 PM

If  Space-x comes through and builds a reliable ISS Rocket,  then all those BILLIONS spent on ARES I become a total waste.   Which is not the case with Direct.   I am at a loss to think of any advantage ARES I has except for momentum.   You guys seem to have a royal flush.  But NASA can set the rules for the card game.


Big if.

COTS vehicles do not replace Orion flights to the ISS, they only supplement them (and maybe fill the gap).  There still needs be a way to launch the CEV into LEO
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/18/2007 09:12 pm
Quote
veedriver22 - 18/5/2007  4:59 PM

If  Space-x comes through and builds a reliable ISS Rocket,  then all those BILLIONS spent on ARES I become a total waste.   Which is not the case with Direct.   I am at a loss to think of any advantage ARES I has except for momentum.   You guys seem to have a royal flush.  But NASA can set the rules for the card game.
As much as I dislike the Ares-I, don't be so quick to dismiss it. If NASA can get it to work correctly, then it fits their philosophy of the 1.5 launch architecture; a small crew launcher (the 1/2 part) and a large cargo launcher. The trouble is that the entire architecture is inflexable, has no growth options, and is enormously expensive and wasteful to impliment, operate and maintain. But it can work. Even if SpaceX does as you say, the Ares-I can still send the Orion to meet the departing LSAM for the moon. That's the design intent, and it can work that way, just not efficiently. But if the Ares-V never gets built, then you are correct - all those billions for the Ares-I will have been wasted, because it can't do anything else.

Direct, on the other hand, has all the bases covered and can serve this nation in an enormously versitile manner for decades to come. It also has the ability, unlike the Ares architecture, to weather congressional budget difficulties, and still be capable of fulfilling the VSE. But for the Ares, as you saw recently, even a "little" hit can cause enormous difficulties. NASA didn't even have a cut in funding. All that happened to them was that they didn't get their raise, and look what happened. For Direct, that would have been a hiccup.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: imfan on 05/18/2007 10:05 pm
Quote
Jim - 18/5/2007  11:08 PM

Quote
veedriver22 - 18/5/2007  4:59 PM

If  Space-x comes through and builds a reliable ISS Rocket,  then all those BILLIONS spent on ARES I become a total waste.   Which is not the case with Direct.   I am at a loss to think of any advantage ARES I has except for momentum.   You guys seem to have a royal flush.  But NASA can set the rules for the card game.


Big if.

COTS vehicles do not replace Orion flights to the ISS, they only supplement them (and maybe fill the gap).  There still needs be a way to launch the CEV into LEO

CEV to ISS could be launched on manrated EELV. There might be problem with lift capacity, but may be solved a) by offloading pretty lot of fuel from CEV b)letting the CEV to do inject burn. what do we want to do with all that fuel in LEO?
There is a question if it is cost wise to have another launcher for CEV, but if not, you can lauch it on direct anyway
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/18/2007 10:20 pm
Quote
kraisee - 18/5/2007  1:28 PM
Also, the two RS-68 engines must already be throttled down towards the end of the ascent - as the propellant is burned away and the vehicle becomes lighter - in order to keep acceleration below 4g.   If you flew all three engines you would get much higher dynamic pressure around max-Q, and you would also have to shut one down and drag its dead weight along in the latter portion of the flight.   This dead weight directly reduces the mass of useful payload you can carry.   An RS-68 masses about 6.5 tons, so you reduce ultimate performance by that.

Additionally, you burn fuel a lot faster with three engines, and the ET isn't getting any larger.   I would have to run the numbers to confirm, but I believe the stage would run out of fuel before ever reaching orbital speeds.   That is why the 232 works so well.   The 3-engine core burns out before reaching orbit, and the EDS takes over for the last part of ascent.
Ross.

It would be possible to do a 130 with a blank (a really heavy one) for an upper stage as a test, correct?  I'm not saying that's necessary, but the whole thing would just go ballistic and then land in the Atlantic, correct?

Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/18/2007 11:36 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 18/5/2007  6:20 PM

It would be possible to do a 130 with a blank (a really heavy one) for an upper stage as a test, correct?  I'm not saying that's necessary, but the whole thing would just go ballistic and then land in the Atlantic, correct?

Lee Jay

Yes, absolutely.   We will need a test flight of the 3-engined configuration before the EDS is ready, and that would technically be a "Jupiter 130".

Two tests for an EDS with no engines and only a small amount of propellant on board (to test boiloff) are planned in our manifest already: May 2013 and May 2014 (see the manifest below).

These could be flown with three-engined cores instead of the two, although the engines would have to be flown throttled down and one would have to be switched off during the ascent to ensure acceleration g forces don't climb too high, but it is something to be examined.

Ross.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 05/19/2007 12:00 am
Quote
kraisee - 18/5/2007  4:36 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 18/5/2007  6:20 PM

It would be possible to do a 130 with a blank (a really heavy one) for an upper stage as a test, correct?  I'm not saying that's necessary, but the whole thing would just go ballistic and then land in the Atlantic, correct?

Lee Jay

Yes, absolutely.   We will need a test flight of the 3-engined configuration before the EDS is ready, and that would technically be a "Jupiter 130".

Two tests for an EDS with no engines and only a small amount of propellant on board (to test boiloff) are planned in our manifest already: May 2013 and May 2014 (see the manifest below).

These could be flown with three-engined cores instead of the two, although the engines would have to be flown throttled down and one would have to be switched off during the ascent to ensure acceleration g forces don't climb too high, but it is something to be examined.

Ross.



Having a planned engine shut down test would be great way to prove what the range of payload levels/ascent options where we could lose an engine and still save the mission.  Particularly important for the second launch.

In one scenario with the more expensive spacecraft elements (CEV+LSAM) going up on the second launch to rendezvous with the comparatively less expensive EDS this could be important capability to have.  Given the throttle back typical of most optimized ascents we would just run the two remaining engines at full to compensate for the lost engine.  Just make everything also works with a nominal 60% throttle back of three and we should be good to go.  In addition the second launches upper stage (below the LSAM) could be used to do the LOA and even PDI helping to keep the LSAM mass down.

Just some ideas.  It’s nice to have good mass levels on both 2xJupiter-xxx launches to work with.  The one size fits all ESAS is very limiting in terms of options now and in the future.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/19/2007 12:17 am
Quote
kraisee - 18/5/2007  5:36 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 18/5/2007  6:20 PM

It would be possible to do a 130 with a blank (a really heavy one) for an upper stage as a test, correct?  I'm not saying that's necessary, but the whole thing would just go ballistic and then land in the Atlantic, correct?

Lee Jay

Yes, absolutely.   We will need a test flight of the 3-engined configuration before the EDS is ready, and that would technically be a "Jupiter 130".

Two tests for an EDS with no engines and only a small amount of propellant on board (to test boiloff) are planned in our manifest already: May 2013 and May 2014 (see the manifest below).

A 230?

Quote
These could be flown with three-engined cores instead of the two, although the engines would have to be flown throttled down and one would have to be switched off during the ascent to ensure acceleration g forces don't climb too high, but it is something to be examined.

I guess the two engined one is a 220.

Why do you have to worry about g-forces during a test of this type?  Is there equipment on board that's sensitive to g's?

Lee Jay
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PMN1 on 05/19/2007 11:16 am
What is the largest payload (length and diameter) that Direct can launch without needing launch infrastructure changes?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/19/2007 12:45 pm
Quote
PMN1 - 19/5/2007  7:16 AM

What is the largest payload (length and diameter) that Direct can launch without needing launch infrastructure changes?

Trick question.  The infrastructure for processing and encapsulating Direct/Ares V type spacecraft has yet to be built.  Some might say the VAB hook height but if that were a constraint, then the payload could be installed at the pad by yet to be built infrastructure.

Controllability is the real design driver
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Justin Space on 05/19/2007 04:05 pm
Quote
Pheogh - 18/5/2007  12:28 PM

SMetch, that brings up an interesting question. Have you guys thought about getting the astronauts themselves to start advocating DIRECT, based on safety margins alone. There must be an online forum of some type that the astronaut corp uses? Hopefully its not pre-mature to think so but after reading through the posts it would appear that it might be getting close to the time to start bringing together DIRECT's allies. Something similar to a "forward" of the proposal by more prominent individuals of the community.

No, no and no.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/19/2007 04:32 pm
Quote
Justin Space - 19/5/2007  12:05 PM

Quote
Pheogh - 18/5/2007  12:28 PM

SMetch, that brings up an interesting question. Have you guys thought about getting the astronauts themselves to start advocating DIRECT, based on safety margins alone. There must be an online forum of some type that the astronaut corp uses? Hopefully its not pre-mature to think so but after reading through the posts it would appear that it might be getting close to the time to start bringing together DIRECT's allies. Something similar to a "forward" of the proposal by more prominent individuals of the community.

No, no and no.

The stick is suppose to be a design of the astronaut office
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: RedSky on 05/19/2007 06:02 pm
Quote
Jim - 19/5/2007  11:32 AM
The stick is suppose to be a design of the astronaut office

That was the "original" 4-seg SRB SSME US stick.  Maybe their feelings have changed for the all new Stick 2.
Besides, how many of the current astronauts are expected to be around in 2015... waiting so many years after STS before flying again.  If they are so concerned about safety (Stick vs Direct), then why would they even think of riding STS to orbit now?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 05/19/2007 06:20 pm
Quote
Jim - 19/5/2007  8:45 AM

Quote
PMN1 - 19/5/2007  7:16 AM

What is the largest payload (length and diameter) that Direct can launch without needing launch infrastructure changes?

Trick question.  The infrastructure for processing and encapsulating Direct/Ares V type spacecraft has yet to be built.  Some might say the VAB hook height but if that were a constraint, then the payload could be installed at the pad by yet to be built infrastructure.

Controllability is the real design driver

My recollection is, during the Apollo era, there was some discussion of variants (particularly the nuclear upper stage variants) that were too tall for VAB. There was some talk of putting a crane on top of the VAB to handle final assembly. I don't recall what was said about the launch tower, etc.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/19/2007 06:27 pm
Quote
PMN1 - 19/5/2007  7:16 AM

What is the largest payload (length and diameter) that Direct can launch without needing launch infrastructure changes?

Unless you continue to fly Shuttle, we're going to have to have some infrastructure changes.   The question becomes, how big those changes are to be.   NASA is currently planning an all-out replacement of virtually everything to support Ares-I and Ares-V.   We are not.

The Jupiter 120 and 232 launch vehicles which we have proposed require only reasonable and minimal changes to the existing Shuttle infrastructure.   We share commonality through retaining the 4-segment SRB's and an 8.4m diameter core tank structure, which means that *most* elements used to process those today can be reused again by Jupiter.   Changes are pretty-much limited to supporting the new engine location under the core, and the addition of 8.4m diameter payloads and upper stages above the tank.

Both Jupiter vehicles are already planned to fly with large payload shrouds allowing payloads of up to 24.5ft (7.46m) diameter.   The length of an allowable payload is determined by the length of the fairing.   We are planning two shrouds, a "short" allowing 48ft (14.5m) long payloads, and a "long" which can launch 75ft (23m) payloads.

The option exists to make a payload fairing even wider than the standard 8.4m diameter core too.   10m or 12m diameter payload fairings are possible, allowing even larger modules to be lifted. Those would require different work platforms to be installed in the upper levels of the VAB though - not an impossible proposition, just more expensive.

For now, we plan to stay at 8.4m diameter for all payload shrouds and upper stages.   This will allow any module to be processed in any of the VAB's highbays which support Jupiter vehicles.   They would be largely interchangeable.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/19/2007 06:37 pm
Payload processing facilities have to be built for any new heavy lift vehicle
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/19/2007 06:45 pm
Quote
Jim - 19/5/2007  2:37 PM

Payload processing facilities have to be built for any new heavy lift vehicle

Absolutely, one is needed for processing Orion's.   One is needed for processing LSAM's.   A place has to be found to process the EDS (possibly somewhere inside VAB).   And if other (currently unplanned) large payloads are required, space will have to be found for those also.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/19/2007 06:56 pm
CEV is using the SSPF for nonhazardous processing.  Hazardous processing will be done in the MPPF.

The LSAM might also use the SSPF for nonhazardous processing (depends on the final configuration and size).  A new facility will have to be built for encapsulation and fueling.

The EDS will be factory to pad just like the Ares I Upperstage.  No facility needed
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 05/19/2007 07:21 pm
How and where was the LM fueled, balanced, and encapsulated? Would the future LSAM be too large for the same locations and procedures?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/19/2007 07:39 pm
Quote
MKremer - 19/5/2007  3:21 PM

How and where was the LM fueled, balanced, and encapsulated? Would the future LSAM be too large for the same locations and procedures?

It was encapsulated in the O&C (where the CEV will be built) with the CSM on top.  They were all fueled at the pad using the MSS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 05/19/2007 08:19 pm
Quote
Jim - 19/5/2007  2:39 PM
It was encapsulated in the O&C (where the CEV will be built) with the CSM on top.  They were all fueled at the pad using the MSS.
Thanks.

Is pre-fueling (non-cryo) for the SM better in terms of time prior to final stacking/rollout, or does the extra safety precautions make that less efficient?

If it's deemed to be better to pre-fuel, then what was the reasoning behind making Apollo missions wait until at the pad to do that?
(Or, is it a case of "hindsight is 20/20" and it's proven to be better/more efficient/safer to fuel all non-cryo tanks prior to rollout to the pad?)


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/19/2007 08:28 pm
It reduces the infrastructure needed at the pad and reduces time on pad
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 05/19/2007 11:30 pm
The plan at this time is to have the entire Orion-Ares cycle to take 8 or less weeks.
That is: stack, check out, move to the pad, launch and get the ML moved back to the VAB ready to start the cycle again in under 8 weeks.
They want to be able to fly 5 times each year off the single new ML, with the option for 6 flights per year.
You do the math!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: nacnud on 05/20/2007 12:22 am
Sounds similar in timescale to an Ariane V launch campaign.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 05/20/2007 10:34 am
I reckon the Orion/EELV launches could be a hook to hang criticisms on. "we said no already, so we'll still say no" sort of thing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 05/20/2007 02:43 pm
Quote
Jim - 19/5/2007  9:32 AM

Quote
Justin Space - 19/5/2007  12:05 PM

Quote
Pheogh - 18/5/2007  12:28 PM

SMetch, that brings up an interesting question. Have you guys thought about getting the astronauts themselves to start advocating DIRECT, based on safety margins alone. There must be an online forum of some type that the astronaut corp uses? Hopefully its not pre-mature to think so but after reading through the posts it would appear that it might be getting close to the time to start bringing together DIRECT's allies. Something similar to a "forward" of the proposal by more prominent individuals of the community.

No, no and no.

The stick is suppose to be a design of the astronaut office

Jim, do you think this would be a good path to pursue?  The Juipter-120 has a lot of margin with proven equipment in direct contrast to the Ares I.

The fact that it also supports more of the current STS base while providing a foundation to build on towards the Moon is another nice feature.  Also we have had some interest from the unmanned exploration side of NASA (JPL,GSC) in terms of exciting missions now possible with a vehicle capable of placing a  +48mT +8m diameter mission in orbit.  Mars sample return and other Earth resolving telescopes for example.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/20/2007 03:03 pm
Quote
SMetch - 20/5/2007  9:43 AM

Quote
Jim - 19/5/2007  9:32 AM

Quote
Justin Space - 19/5/2007  12:05 PM

Quote
Pheogh - 18/5/2007  12:28 PM

SMetch, that brings up an interesting question. Have you guys thought about getting the astronauts themselves to start advocating DIRECT, based on safety margins alone. There must be an online forum of some type that the astronaut corp uses? Hopefully its not pre-mature to think so but after reading through the posts it would appear that it might be getting close to the time to start bringing together DIRECT's allies. Something similar to a "forward" of the proposal by more prominent individuals of the community.

No, no and no.

The stick is suppose to be a design of the astronaut office

Jim, do you think this would be a good path to pursue?  The Juipter-120 has a lot of margin with proven equipment in direct contrast to the Ares I.

The fact that it also supports more of the current STS base while providing a foundation to build on towards the Moon is another nice feature.  Also we have had some interest from the unmanned exploration side of NASA (JPL,GSC) in terms of exciting missions now possible with a vehicle capable of placing a  +48mT +8m diameter mission in orbit.  Mars sample return and other Earth resolving telescopes for example.


You have to convince both them and NASA that the crew would survive one SRB of DIRECT not lighting up at launch or one/both blowing up in flight. Once you do that, your design will be accepted. It really is that simple given the presumption that safety is the overriding issue here and main reason for Ares I.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/20/2007 03:14 pm
Isn't that the whole point of the crew escape system?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: RedSky on 05/20/2007 03:33 pm
Quote
marsavian - 20/5/2007  10:03 AM
You have to convince both them and NASA that the crew would survive one SRB of DIRECT not lighting up at launch or one/both blowing up in flight. Once you do that, your design will be accepted. It really is that simple given the presumption that safety is the overriding issue here and main reason for Ares I.

If that is such a concern for the astronauts, why are they willing to still ride the STS today (and without a Launch Abort System)?  Direct has many components with a history of flight experience and probably better understood flight and control characteristics compared to Ares I, which is much more of a completely new vehicle.  Saying it may be safer in one parameter does not mean other issues (flying characteristics, separation from a still thrusting SRB, etc) won't make it worse.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Thomas ESA on 05/20/2007 03:41 pm
Quote
clongton - 18/5/2007  6:58 AM

Quote
Thomas ESA - 18/5/2007  4:55 AM

Have you confidently identified your key weaknesses? This is important. Direct V1 failed to and was informed of it. Direct V2 needs to understand where it could be dismissed and already have alternatives/answers.
Tom (and everyone):
Please provide a list of what you see as key weaknesses.

No. I want you to list as your key weaknesses. I am very disapointed with your reply, as it seems you don't know.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/20/2007 03:56 pm
Quote
RedSky - 20/5/2007  10:33 AM

Quote
marsavian - 20/5/2007  10:03 AM
You have to convince both them and NASA that the crew would survive one SRB of DIRECT not lighting up at launch or one/both blowing up in flight. Once you do that, your design will be accepted. It really is that simple given the presumption that safety is the overriding issue here and main reason for Ares I.

If that is such a concern for the astronauts, why are they willing to still ride the STS today (and without a Launch Abort System)?  Direct has many components with a history of flight experience and probably better understood flight and control characteristics compared to Ares I, which is much more of a completely new vehicle.  Saying it may be safer in one parameter does not mean other issues (flying characteristics, separation from a still thrusting SRB, etc) won't make it worse.

Because they have no choice if they want to do the job they love. This is *the* critical weakness of DIRECT compared to Ares I. Assure everybody that the crew can more likely than not survive these scenarios and you have it sold.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/20/2007 03:58 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 20/5/2007  10:14 AM

Isn't that the whole point of the crew escape system?


Not really if it can't be deployed in time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MySDCUserID on 05/20/2007 05:40 pm
It would be nice to have a simple table that provides a quick comparison of DIRECT with Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Verio Fryar on 05/20/2007 06:01 pm

Quote
nacnud - 19/5/2007  2:22 AM

Sounds similar in timescale to an Ariane V launch campaign.

I think the Ariane V launch campaign is only 3 weeks:

http://www.arianespace.com/site/launcher/launcher_campaign.html

 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Kaputnik on 05/20/2007 06:11 pm
Quote
Thomas ESA - 20/5/2007  4:41 PM

Quote
clongton - 18/5/2007  6:58 AM

Quote
Thomas ESA - 18/5/2007  4:55 AM

Have you confidently identified your key weaknesses? This is important. Direct V1 failed to and was informed of it. Direct V2 needs to understand where it could be dismissed and already have alternatives/answers.
Tom (and everyone):
Please provide a list of what you see as key weaknesses.

No. I want you to list as your key weaknesses. I am very disapointed with your reply, as it seems you don't know.


I think you are being a little harsh. The DIRECT editors will have addressed the weaknesses that they found, and it really is best for a third party to identify remaining weaknesses that might have escaped attention.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/20/2007 06:36 pm
Quote
SMetch - 20/5/2007  10:43 AM

Jim, do you think this would be a good path to pursue?  The Juipter-120 has a lot of margin with proven equipment in direct contrast to the Ares I.

The fact that it also supports more of the current STS base while providing a foundation to build on towards the Moon is another nice feature.  Also we have had some interest from the unmanned exploration side of NASA (JPL,GSC) in terms of exciting missions now possible with a vehicle capable of placing a  +48mT +8m diameter mission in orbit.  Mars sample return and other Earth resolving telescopes for example.


Almost too big.  Those spacecraft will cost bilions
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 05/20/2007 07:06 pm
Quote
marsavian - 20/5/2007  10:03 AM

You have to convince both them and NASA that the crew would survive one SRB of DIRECT not lighting up at launch or one/both blowing up in flight. Once you do that, your design will be accepted. It really is that simple given the presumption that safety is the overriding issue here and main reason for Ares I.

The "SRB blowing up in flight" scenario is one both Ares-I and Jupiter 1&2 would have to deal with.  

The slight 1-million-pounds-of-lift imbalance of only one SRB lighting in a shuttle-esque stack would have much larger concerns than just the crew.  Can you imagine a cart-wheeling launch vehicle with a core stage quickly disintegrating and a recently liberated and now tumbling SRB (with a thrust/weight ratio of 1.75:1!!) bouncing around KSC...and then what happens when range safety blows it up?  If the LAS does make it away, the crew may be the only people near the pad that are safe.

I understand the concern, but what are the real chances that an SRB won't light?  Not zero, I realize, but it's gotta be darn low.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 05/20/2007 07:13 pm
The SRB's will light. There is something like quadruple redundancy in each system. The igniters have worked to perfection each time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/20/2007 07:50 pm
If I understand correctly, Range Safety has the ability to command an SRB to jettison its nozzle and nose cone.  If that is done, the SRB produces near zero thrust.  Even it that's not done, the thrust:weight ratio at liftoff with all engines burning is around 1.3:1; with a single solid going and the liquid engines shut down, I don't think there's enough thrust to pull the stack away from the hold-down clamps.

So, I don't think that a failure to light would necessarily be a disaster.  (Not to mention the fact that it's probably more likely that a random 747 will crash into the fueled stack than an SRB will fail to light.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 05/20/2007 08:04 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 20/5/2007  3:50 PM

If I understand correctly, Range Safety has the ability to command an SRB to jettison its nozzle and nose cone.  If that is done, the SRB produces near zero thrust.  Even it that's not done, the thrust:weight ratio at liftoff with all engines burning is around 1.3:1; with a single solid going and the liquid engines shut down, I don't think there's enough thrust to pull the stack away from the hold-down clamps.

So, I don't think that a failure to light would necessarily be a disaster.  (Not to mention the fact that it's probably more likely that a random 747 will crash into the fueled stack than an SRB will fail to light.)

Agreed..the only issue with all engines "shutdown", the hold down bolts would have fired at the time the inital signal was given to ignite the SRB's, so eh.. Timber?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/20/2007 08:08 pm
I just noticed something quite interesting:

Major expendables consumed per STS mission: 1 ET

Major expendables consumed per Jupiter 120 mission:  1 ET + 2 RS-68 engines.

Plus, with the STS you have a huge and complex shuttle orbiter that has to be refurbished after each mission, which is replaced with the much smaller and simpler Orion on Jupiter, and only on manned missions.

At this point, I'm really scratching my head about the "reusable" part of the STS concept...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/20/2007 08:11 pm
Quote
Avron - 20/5/2007  1:04 PM
Agreed..the only issue with all engines "shutdown", the hold down bolts would have fired at the time the inital signal was given to ignite the SRB's, so eh.. Timber?

Yah, I suppose that might be a problem...

I do wonder, though, whether it would be "Timber", or would it just sit there?  I'm sure somebody ran those numbers 30 years ago.

(Edit: Do they really release the holddowns at the same time they light the solids?  My recollection is that they release the clamps shortly thereafter, to give the thrust time to stabilize.  But this is just the hazy recollection of somebody who's not involved with the program.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Kaputnik on 05/20/2007 08:44 pm
AFAIK the Shuttle stack is held down by long pins which are pulled through holes by the thrust force. It isn't a hold-and-release system like SpaceX use.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/20/2007 08:58 pm
The STS is held down by four 3.5" diameter bolts on each SRB aft skirt.  There is a frangeable nut on top of each that is broken and captured at the same time the SRBs are ignited.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/20/2007 09:55 pm
Quote
Kaputnik - 20/5/2007  4:44 PM

AFAIK the Shuttle stack is held down by long pins which are pulled through holes by the thrust force. It isn't a hold-and-release system like SpaceX use.

Lee jay is right.  No pins
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/20/2007 09:59 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 20/5/2007  3:50 PM

If I understand correctly, Range Safety has the ability to command an SRB to jettison its nozzle and nose cone.  If that is done, the SRB produces near zero thrust.  Even it that's not done, the thrust:weight ratio at liftoff with all engines burning is around 1.3:1; with a single solid going and the liquid engines shut down, I don't think there's enough thrust to pull the stack away from the hold-down clamps.

So, I don't think that a failure to light would necessarily be a disaster.  (Not to mention the fact that it's probably more likely that a random 747 will crash into the fueled stack than an SRB will fail to light.)

Incorrect.

Range safety destruct charges run the length of the booster and would split the case.

If the SRB's light and the bolts don't go, the stack will still go.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: shostetler on 05/20/2007 10:49 pm
I'm curious about this whole Direct 2.0 and Ares/Orion. What happens if one of the Orion or Ares rockets meets a disaster similar to one of the shuttles? What are we going to do then? Will NASA come out and just give up? I don't think so. It seems everybody wants a fail safe method of getting into space. Granted the shuttle may have over extended it's use as it is aging significantly, but why doesn't NASA keep with the program as it knows works already and build on that? It's almost as though they just love to spend money.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/20/2007 11:02 pm
Quote
Thomas ESA - 20/5/2007  11:41 AM

Quote
clongton - 18/5/2007  6:58 AM

Quote
Thomas ESA - 18/5/2007  4:55 AM

Have you confidently identified your key weaknesses? This is important. Direct V1 failed to and was informed of it. Direct V2 needs to understand where it could be dismissed and already have alternatives/answers.
Tom (and everyone):
Please provide a list of what you see as key weaknesses.

No. I want you to list as your key weaknesses. I am very disapointed with your reply, as it seems you don't know.
We know what we think our weaknesses are and are working to mitigate them. But we have been so close to this project for so long that it is easy to overlook something that someone else with uncommitted eyes would see. That's why we asked for the peer review. Don't be disappointed in my answer. See it as an opportunity to see things we could have missed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/20/2007 11:12 pm
Quote
shostetler - 20/5/2007  6:49 PM
 Granted the shuttle may have over extended it's use as it is aging significantly, but why doesn't NASA keep with the program as it knows works already and build on that?

It doesn't "work".  It wastes lift capability and it is too expensive and on and on.  And it is not safe as it should be
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: braddock on 05/20/2007 11:44 pm
Quote
clongton - 20/5/2007  7:02 PM

Quote
Thomas ESA - 20/5/2007  11:41 AM

No. I want you to list as your key weaknesses. I am very disapointed with your reply, as it seems you don't know.
We know what we think our weaknesses are and are working to mitigate them. But we have been so close to this project for so long that it is easy to overlook something that someone else with uncommitted eyes would see. That's why we asked for the peer review. Don't be disappointed in my answer. See it as an opportunity to see things we could have missed.

Thomas is correct.  You need to be forthright about weaknesses you know about.  

It will also facilitate the feedback process better than "spot the weakness".

The whole point of Direct is to honestly examine the strengths and weaknesses of alternative options.
It is not (I hope) a sales pitch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/21/2007 01:39 am
I think that Jupiter's at a disadvantage from a safety standpoint due to the use of parallel staging.  Any SRB problem will snowball as did Challenger's.

At the same time, I think NASA exaggerates the inherent safety of the single-stick design on Ares I.  I skimmed the massive safety document that SAIC released in early 2006 which made the case for Ares I's safety.  Any crack in the propellant grain is going to accelerate the burn rate, possibly leading to a catastrophic failure.  If an O-ring burns through on Ares I, will the capsule still be able to make it to orbit?  Will the abort detection system be able to recognize the burn-through by the change in thrust and additional torques that will result?

The SAIC report made it clear that a catastrophic failure of Ares I's first stage is not survivable.  The report basically says that we should ignore that situation because it's so rare.  I suspect that it might be a bit more common than the statistics may let on.  At least with a liquid-fueled first stage, most failure modes develop slowly enough that the abort system would have time to activate.  And if NASA needs to add Castor SRM's to Ares I, the safety numbers for Ares I will take another hit.

I suspect that Jupiter's crew would be able to survive a Challenger-type scenario.  Michael Smith obviously saw that his tank pressure readings were dropping off before the main fireball was seen on video.  An automated abort system would likely be quick enough to detect the failure of the hydrogen tank and fire the escape tower.  Even if the explosion occurred too quickly to trigger an abort, the capsule could be strong enough to survive the initial explosion, as did Challenger's crew compartment.  The difference is that the capsule would have parachutes and other recovery systems, so it won't slam into the ocean at >200 mph.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/21/2007 01:53 am
Quote
CFE - 20/5/2007  9:39 PM

I think that Jupiter's at a disadvantage from a safety standpoint due to the use of parallel staging.  Any SRB problem will snowball as did Challenger's.

This is not an issue.   Only if the crew capsule is down on the same level
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pippin on 05/21/2007 08:31 am
Quote
CFE - 21/5/2007  3:39 AM

I suspect that Jupiter's crew would be able to survive a Challenger-type scenario.  Michael Smith obviously saw that his tank pressure readings were dropping off before the main fireball was seen on video.  An automated abort system would likely be quick enough to detect the failure of the hydrogen tank and fire the escape tower.  Even if the explosion occurred too quickly to trigger an abort, the capsule could be strong enough to survive the initial explosion, as did Challenger's crew compartment.  The difference is that the capsule would have parachutes and other recovery systems, so it won't slam into the ocean at >200 mph.

You definitely have to trigger an abort, or your chutes will not be usable (abort system is in the way). However, the abort system might even be able to work it's way out of an explosion, if the capsule is rubust enough.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/21/2007 02:45 pm
That would be quite a pressure situation.  If you see one reading dropping off do you assume a major problem or do you think maybe its instrumentation.   If you abort & its just instrumentation that’s one expensive abort.    If you had a second symptom, an unexpected noise perhaps, then you would know its time to abort.  In that situation you only have a couple of seconds to make that decision.  I guess it’s a matter of training.  I am sure they will be well versed in what conditions warrant an abort.
If you are the pilot you are going to put your crews safety first.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/21/2007 04:08 pm
Quote
veedriver22 - 21/5/2007  10:45 AM

That would be quite a pressure situation.  If you see one reading dropping off do you assume a major problem or do you think maybe its instrumentation.   If you abort & its just instrumentation that’s one expensive abort.    If you had a second symptom, an unexpected noise perhaps, then you would know its time to abort.  In that situation you only have a couple of seconds to make that decision.  I guess it’s a matter of training.  I am sure they will be well versed in what conditions warrant an abort.
If you are the pilot you are going to put your crews safety first.

There are automatic aborts without crew intervention.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/21/2007 04:26 pm
Quote
veedriver22 - 21/5/2007  10:45 AM

That would be quite a pressure situation.  If you see one reading dropping off do you assume a major problem or do you think maybe its instrumentation.   If you abort & its just instrumentation that’s one expensive abort.    If you had a second symptom, an unexpected noise perhaps, then you would know its time to abort.  In that situation you only have a couple of seconds to make that decision.  I guess it’s a matter of training.  I am sure they will be well versed in what conditions warrant an abort.
If you are the pilot you are going to put your crews safety first.
Catastrophic abort scenarios happen too fast for the pilot to respond. In any such condition, the abort sequence will be triggered automatically. Cascading events that can lead to the self-destruction of the launch vehicle happen in milliseconds and follow an identifiable sequence of events, all programmed in the flight computers. The abort sequence initiation programs could recognize them and respond before the pilot was even aware of the condition.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/21/2007 07:15 pm
Quote
Thomas ESA - 18/5/2007  4:55 AM

Have you confidently identified your key weaknesses? This is important. Direct V1 failed to and was informed of it. Direct V2 needs to understand where it could be dismissed and already have alternatives/answers.

Missed your previous post Tom, apologies.   While I agree with Kaputnic saying it is really for others to identify, I will put some thoughts together here anyway for all to see.

The key weaknesses are programmatic.   Ares-I has momentum currently within NASA, and getting NASA to turn that momentum around is only going to be possible in one of two ways:-

a) Internally driven change from the top - Griffin/Horowitz in particular.   I rate this as "unlikely" because Ares-I is the "Scotty Rocket".
b) Externally driven by Congress, probably resulting in NASA's current administration digging their heels in and then being forced out.   Not my personal preference, but I figure it is "more likely" given the personal preferences of Griffin/Horowitz.

The other category A critical weakness which we have is whether the EDS will ever be built or not.   On the current plan, there is a major concern that we will get the first vehicle (Ares-I) and then NASA' budget will be cut and we will never get the second vehicle.   While DIRECT's first vehicle is clearly the backbone needed to enable all of the Lunar missions later, we still need an EDS - which is going to be a seriously expensive piece of hardware whether it flies Ares or Jupiter.   If it is cancelled by a future government, it is still a major problem.


From a technical perspective the primary weakness in the entire system is not so obvious.   I believe that the use of highly toxic perchlorate in the SRB's is an issue that the EPA will turn its attention toward at some point in the near future and could cause the SRB's to be replaced.   This issue is far more likely to occur faster if a Democrat  is elected to the Oval Office next.   This issue affects DIRECT and Ares alike.   Liquid boosters (recoverable or not) are the ultimate solution to this, but ATK won't support that.   NASA currently has no money to develop liquid boosters while also building Ares-I and Ares-V.   DIRECT saves the entire development costs for the Ares-V program, so would have sufficient budget available to solve this issue.

Being brief, the technical breakdown of mean LOM contributors for a Jupiter-120 CLV flight is approximately thus:-

70% - Main Propulsion Systems (2 x RS-68 "Standard")
14% - RSRB (2x 4-segment)
8% - Spacecraft Adapter
8% - Other

Overall LOM is approximately 1 in 1,400.


From a reliability perspective, the 4-segment SRB has flown successfully 182 times since Challenger. The 5-segment SRB has never yet flown, let alone manned.   We have little to no idea of how safe it is going to be, especially given the radically different loads it will experience on Ares-I flights.   The twin-SRB configuration does add the "one doesn't start" risk, to crew flights but there are sufficient, already well proven on STS, backup systems to reduce this risk to very manageable levels.   NASA's current estimates for this form of failure are in the order of 1 in 280,000 flights - and this also effect the Ares-V - which will ultimately fly people too.   Ares-I's precise TVC control during ascent is a far bigger problem.

The J-2X is loosely based on the J-2S, neither of which have ever flown.   They in turn are based on the Apollo J-2, which suffered three in-flight failures in its 87 flight history.   If this engine does not start on Ares-I, it guarantees an abort scenario for the Crew - which itself is a dangerous event carrying many life-threatening risks and is something which ought to be avoided unless absolutely necessary.   Jupiter-120 ground-launches all engines, which is a major safety benefit which Shuttle has today.

So far the RS-68 has a perfect, albeit short, flight record.   Operating at a nominal 100% maximum power setting on Jupiter though, it is expected to be twice as reliable as the 106% power setting NASA is specifying for all Ares-V engines.


From a safety perspective, we are a match for Ares-I.   We have a different list of pro's and con's, but ultimately we're about equal.   While we have more engines and staging events than Ares-I, we have main engine-out capability for most of the flight, which can save missions and avoid aborts entirely.   We also have no air-start engines on Crew missions in the early phases of the program - allowing a major body of knowledge to be built with the new systems before ever risking crews to J-2X's which don't start.

Jupiter does not use the Orion's Service Module to reach orbit.   This reduces the number of times the OME engine must fire to accomplish a mission.   Ares-I requires a long firing to complete ascent to space, then two additional, shorter, burns to increase altitude to it's final stable orbit.   Jupiter requires only one single, short, burn of the SM to circularize the CEV's orbit.   No long burn is required during ascent.   This reduces the critical number of burns on the engine which will ultimately save all crews returning from the Moon.   Putting additional requirements on this engine is a potentially deadly mistake.

Jupiter also places the Crew Module a considerable extra distance away from the engines, and also away from the center-line of flight for the Crew Module - both of which actually benefit safety.   We are also using all-proven existing engines, not modified/updated ones, which means we start the program with greater safety margins because we have a large body of flight knowledge before the first flight.

We also have performance margin on our side - which makes everything a lot easier.   The spacecraft can be made from simpler, less exotic, less costly materials.   With more performance, more safety equipment can be utilized also.   For example, a new range-safety system could be flown designed to specifically stop any SRB from ever 'following' an Orion during an abort, even if it weighs quite a bit.   This is a real-world potential problem with Ares-I right now.   It will also be an issue for Ares-V and Jupiter crewed flights.   But Jupiter is the only system which offers surplus performance on all Crew flights, so additional systems (like those described in previous comments here) could be implemented.   We have 20-25 tons of surplus performance available on every CEV flight to "play with".   I'm sure there are many things which we have not imagined yet, which can be done with this extra performance but which Ares-I will never allow.


From an implementation perspective, we re-use more of the existing Shuttle manufacturing and processing hardware in use today, so again, we are in a stronger position than either Ares-I or Ares-V.


Politically speaking, by keeping as close to STS as possible, yet achieving all the performance objectives of the VSE, we guarantee the workforce far more effectively than Ares-I and Ares-V do.


In short, *ALL* of our weaknesses are ones shared by the Ares vehicles, we are using similar systems after all.   Typically though, we reduce the number of them.   Additionally, we are using immediately available assets (which are already proven) instead of new or re-worked ones and we do so in a simpler configuration too, all of which reduce the risks to more reasonable levels.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 05/21/2007 08:05 pm
After reading this,

Quote
kraisee - 21/5/2007  2:15 PM

The key weaknesses are programmatic.   Ares-I has momentum currently within NASA, and getting NASA to turn that momentum around is only going to be possible in one of two ways:-

a) Internally driven change from the top - Griffin/Horowitz in particular.   I rate this as "unlikely" because Ares-I is [paraphrase: a favorite of Scott Horowitz].
b) Externally driven by Congress, probably resulting in NASA's current administration digging their heels in and then being forced out.   Not my personal preference, but I figure it is "more likely" given the personal preferences of Griffin/Horowitz.

and especially this:

Quote
From an implementation perspective, we re-use more of the existing Shuttle manufacturing and processing hardware in use today, so again, we are in a stronger position than either Ares-I or Ares-V.

Politically speaking, by keeping as close to STS as possible, yet achieving all the performance objectives of the VSE, we guarantee the workforce far more effectively than Ares-I and Ares-V do.


A thought came to me about holding a "Direct-V2.x conference" in Washington combined with visits to Capitol Hill in the manner of the Moon-Mars Blitz. Hand deliver DirectV2.0 briefing packets to as many congressional offices as could be arranged.

2008 shall be a very volatile election season for Congress as well as the White House and therefore you might find a few politicians willing to carry your flag for you.

Now, that may be surgery with a Sawzall rather than a scalpel but it would garner attention.

= = =

PS -- I'd attend and carry Direct-V2.x briefing packets through the halls of the Congressional office buildings.


Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/21/2007 08:09 pm
Jumping in for a second. I don't want to see things like "Scotty Rocket" etc. It's starting to sound a bit derogatory of Mr Horowitz, and I'm not going to stand for that here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/21/2007 08:15 pm
Just to clarify, the name "Scotty Rocket" isn't mine, and is not derogatory.

It is from
an article by Guy Gugliotta of the Washington Post and is the result of an interview with Scott "Doc" Horowitz himself.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/21/2007 08:40 pm
Quote
kraisee - 21/5/2007  4:15 PM

Just to clarify, the name "Scotty Rocket" isn't mine, and is not derogatory.

It is from an article by Guy Gugliotta of the Washington Post and is the result of an interview with Scott "Doc" Horowitz himself.

Ross.
I've seen the Washington Post Article before, and what impresses me about it is not the term "Scotty Rocket", but how dedicated this man is to the space program. It's as if doing this is a passion that drives his every breath. This man lives the dream. He was fortunate to be able to actually do the things required that made his dreams of working with space flight come true; something most people can only dream about. The man is a brilliant engineer and designer. He has proven that time and again. He works extremely hard and his dedication to the cause of human spaceflight is beyond reproach.

Whatever one may think of the Ares-I rocket, it is not a pie-in-the-sky idea. Barring some unforseen insurmountable difficulty, it can work. It is based on solid physics and engineering. We, the proponents of the Direct architecture, go out of our way to NOT attack the Ares-I and would appriciate others doing the same.

We do, on the other hand, believe we have a proposal that will serve the VSE better than the architecture which depends on the Ares-I. Time will tell us if we are right or not. Like I said above, one may or may not like the Ares-I. I do like it. I just don't believe it is the right vehicle for this specific job, for a variety of reasons.

Dr Horowitz, on the other hand, is a man I admire for his skill, intelligence, insight and having the drive to pursue his dream by whatever avenues open to him, and when there are none, he makes them. In this, he is an example to all of us.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 05/21/2007 09:01 pm

Quote
Bill White - 21/5/2007  3:05 PM A thought came to me about holding a "Direct-V2.x conference" in Washington combined with visits to Capitol Hill in the manner of the Moon-Mars Blitz. Hand deliver DirectV2.0 briefing packets to as many congressional offices as could be arranged.  2008 shall be a very volatile election season for Congress as well as the White House and therefore you might find a few politicians willing to carry your flag for you.  Now, that may be surgery with a Sawzall rather than a scalpel but it would garner attention.  = = =  PS -- I'd attend and carry Direct-V2.x briefing packets through the halls of the Congressional office buildings.  

This is the "frontal assault" approach I was indirectly referring to. Staged appropriately and with appropriate news media present, it can be *very effective*. It's also very hard to ignore. Also very painful for an administrator when a project has had a shortfall, because the press has a tendency to smell blood in the water ... About as polite and subtle as a sledgehammer to the head, but ...
 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/21/2007 09:08 pm
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 21/5/2007  5:01 PM

Quote
Bill White - 21/5/2007  3:05 PM A thought came to me about holding a "Direct-V2.x conference" in Washington combined with visits to Capitol Hill in the manner of the Moon-Mars Blitz. Hand deliver DirectV2.0 briefing packets to as many congressional offices as could be arranged.  2008 shall be a very volatile election season for Congress as well as the White House and therefore you might find a few politicians willing to carry your flag for you.  Now, that may be surgery with a Sawzall rather than a scalpel but it would garner attention.  = = =  PS -- I'd attend and carry Direct-V2.x briefing packets through the halls of the Congressional office buildings.  

This is the "frontal assault" approach I was indirectly referring to. Staged appropriately and with appropriate news media present, it can be *very effective*. It's also very hard to ignore. Also very painful for an administrator when a project has had a shortfall, because the press has a tendency to smell blood in the water ... About as polite and subtle as a sledgehammer to the head, but ...
 

Better off to let the ongoing efforts proceed. A frontal assault type of action would be counter-productive at this point. Remember, this is not an "us vs. them" type of thing. We all want the same thing - a sustainable resumption of manned spaceflight ASAP, a return to the moon and on to Mars. Let diplomacy have its chance to work. There is no need to "rush off to war". An embarrassed person is more likely to defend entrenched positions than they are to be open to examining reasonable alternatives. Let the on-going efforts have their chance, undistracted.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 05/21/2007 09:10 pm
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 21/5/2007  4:01 PM

Quote
Bill White - 21/5/2007  3:05 PM A thought came to me about holding a "Direct-V2.x conference" in Washington combined with visits to Capitol Hill in the manner of the Moon-Mars Blitz. Hand deliver DirectV2.0 briefing packets to as many congressional offices as could be arranged.  2008 shall be a very volatile election season for Congress as well as the White House and therefore you might find a few politicians willing to carry your flag for you.  Now, that may be surgery with a Sawzall rather than a scalpel but it would garner attention.  = = =  PS -- I'd attend and carry Direct-V2.x briefing packets through the halls of the Congressional office buildings.  

This is the "frontal assault" approach I was indirectly referring to. Staged appropriately and with appropriate news media present, it can be *very effective*. It's also very hard to ignore. Also very painful for an administrator when a project has had a shortfall, because the press has a tendency to smell blood in the water ... About as polite and subtle as a sledgehammer to the head, but ...
 


Also, since DirectV2.x is actually a tweaking of ESAS rather than a scrapping of ESAS, as per this comment from clongton:

Quote
Whatever one may think of the Ares-I rocket, it is not a pie-in-the-sky idea. Barring some unforseen insurmountable difficulty, it can work. It is based on solid physics and engineering. We, the proponents of the Direct architecture, go out of our way to NOT attack the Ares-I and would appriciate others doing the same. We do, on the other hand, believe we have a proposal that will serve the VSE better than the architecture which depends on the Ares-I.

I could foresee one or another Presidential candidates taking interest as an opportunity to create a sliver of daylight between current policy and proposed policy while remaining essentially loyal to the VSE vision.

And that is the political genuis of Direct-V2.x, in my spectator's opinion. Well done.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 05/21/2007 09:13 pm
Quote
clongton - 21/5/2007  4:08 PM

Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 21/5/2007  5:01 PM

Quote
Bill White - 21/5/2007  3:05 PM A thought came to me about holding a "Direct-V2.x conference" in Washington combined with visits to Capitol Hill in the manner of the Moon-Mars Blitz. Hand deliver DirectV2.0 briefing packets to as many congressional offices as could be arranged.  2008 shall be a very volatile election season for Congress as well as the White House and therefore you might find a few politicians willing to carry your flag for you.  Now, that may be surgery with a Sawzall rather than a scalpel but it would garner attention.  = = =  PS -- I'd attend and carry Direct-V2.x briefing packets through the halls of the Congressional office buildings.  

This is the "frontal assault" approach I was indirectly referring to. Staged appropriately and with appropriate news media present, it can be *very effective*. It's also very hard to ignore. Also very painful for an administrator when a project has had a shortfall, because the press has a tendency to smell blood in the water ... About as polite and subtle as a sledgehammer to the head, but ...
 

Better off to let the ongoing efforts proceed. A frontal assault type of action would be counter-productive at this point. Remember, this is not an "us vs. them" type of thing. We all want the same thing - a sustainable resumption of manned spaceflight ASAP, a return to the moon and on to Mars. Let diplomacy have its chance to work. There is no need to "rush off to war". An embarrassed person is more likely to defend entrenched positions than they are to be open to examining reasonable alternatives. Let the on-going efforts have their chance, undistracted.

Fair enough -- nothing like this should happen without the blessing of the Direct team.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 05/21/2007 09:25 pm

Quote
Bill White - 21/5/2007  4:10 PM I could foresee one or another Presidential candidates taking interest as an opportunity to create a sliver of daylight between current policy and proposed policy while remaining essentially loyal to the VSE vision.

Understand your enthusiasm, but it would be unwise for any such to do so - they run the unnecessary risk of ridicule by the Sensenbrunner types in Congress, for little gain.

Better chance for advantage is in used as collateral for the "budgetary chicken" going on over Shuttle RTF rebudgetting/reimbursement. You get the Rep's in certain districts yelled at by certain constituents, and then they yell at the administration, who eventually has to choose its battles and yield when appropriate.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mmaroti on 05/21/2007 09:54 pm
Quote
clongton - 21/5/2007  4:08 PM
Better off to let the ongoing efforts proceed. A frontal assault type of action would be counter-productive at this point. Remember, this is not an "us vs. them" type of thing. We all want the same thing - a sustainable resumption of manned spaceflight ASAP, a return to the moon and on to Mars. Let diplomacy have its chance to work. There is no need to "rush off to war". An embarrassed person is more likely to defend entrenched positions than they are to be open to examining reasonable alternatives. Let the on-going efforts have their chance, undistracted.

Search your own experiences: how many times did you see an administrator give up a plan that is 1) technically feasible, 2) already in the works, 3) was heavily pushed by the leader's group, 4) blessed by  accounting, 5) but in certain aspects worse than another idea put forward by an outsider.

Get real! Non-ideal solutions are pushed through and ego wins against reason in almost all cases! If the administrator would reconsider (after so heavily invested in his own design) then he would just prove his incompetence! There is absolutely zero of that! The nasa administration desperately NEEDS A REASON to adopt Direct 2.0, and Congress is the only and ultimate reason (other than the president)! You better wait till more cuts are announced (or no raise is given), then build up a momentum with the media and get sided with a few congressman.

Miklos
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/21/2007 10:31 pm
Chuck is absolutely correct.   This is not, and never has been, an "Us vs. Them" proposal.   We just see a very serious danger that NASA is going to get stuck with nothing but an EELV class launch vehicle, and a budget which won't support the Ares-V at all - at which point we all lose the moon.   This would effectively cede the American superiority in space to someone else - probably China.

We don't see any advantages in NASA pursuing the Ares-I approach if the goal is to get America back to the moon in the shortest, most fiscally responsible manner possible, while realistically doing so within the politico-economic climate which NASA finds itself in today (think "workforce retention").

Spending big bucks just to building another EELV-class vehicle and then waiting half a decade for the heavy lift capability to follow it is massively politically risky, is sub-optimally uses the limited funds available to NASA, and creates a situation where NASA could be left with only a half-completed plan and no budget to fix it.

Jupiter allows Ares-V to still be made, and most importantly protects all of our goals even if Congress never funds the Ares-V.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/21/2007 10:58 pm
If you try to apply pressure outside of NASA (congressmen, etc.) you are in effect declaring war.   That a pretty risky way to try & promote it.
The only realistic way to promote it is by working with the decision makers within (as much as possible).   That will put direct in the best position of opportunity if there are major problems with Ares or major funding cutbacks.   The tough part of that is the more time that passes and contracts are signed, it becomes more and more entrenched.    But maybe you could send one copy to G.W.  :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: publiusr on 05/21/2007 11:15 pm
Quote
kraisee - 16/5/2007  4:25 PM

The same basic concept was again proposed in 1991 as the National Launch System or NLS (image below, Credit: Astronautix.com).   It was a joint program between NASA and USAF.  

Ross.

I remember that (ALS/NLS). I think it would be smart to call it Ares Ib. Go with the flow, lets forget the ATK bashing and say--

"look, we can have a larger Orion, and for every capsule ATK sells two solids not just one per mission. Also, we will take those rail-damaged SRBs off your hands--and how-about we use them in ground tests, or in a prototype Direct if they aren't in too bad shape? Call it Ares IB. Also at a later date it might be filled with kero and RD-180s used for the Atlas NOVA concept for true Ares V performance and a good hydrogen upper stage?"

It couldn't hurt to ask...


It might be interesting to see a hydrogen only Direct LV for crew lift with a kerosene Atlas/NOVA--Direct for the actual HLLV.

Thw two stacks would seem similar...thus the ET width core could have different propellants...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MySDCUserID on 05/21/2007 11:16 pm
Quote
veedriver22 - 21/5/2007  5:58 PM

If you try to apply pressure outside of NASA (congressmen, etc.) you are in effect declaring war.   That a pretty risky way to try & promote it.
The only realistic way to promote it is by working with the decision makers within (as much as possible).   That will put direct in the best position of opportunity if there are major problems with Ares or major funding cutbacks.   The tough part of that is the more time that passes and contracts are signed, it becomes more and more entrenched.    But maybe you could send one copy to G.W.  :)

I heavily support going straight to congressmen about this.  That is what they are there for.  They are our representatives.  I highly doubt the upper layers of management within NASA have not heard of DIRECT by now.  There's little possibility, IMHO, that you will be able to change their minds.  Congress, however, would have some influence.  The news media should also be asked to do an investigative report on this.  Start by letting the local NASA center news outlets report on it, such as Florida Today or the Houston Chronicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/21/2007 11:19 pm
When John Houbolt and his allies pushed Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, they did so by working within the confines of the agency, and not by taking their fight to Congress or the media.  The approach has worked before, and it can work again.  It will take a bit of internal persuasion to make the agency realize that Ares I will not fall within the scope of NASA's existing or foreseeable budgets.  Frankly, the "DIRECT vs. Ares" debate is too technical for the mainstream media to get excited about, and Congress is unlikely to micromanage NASA by dictating a launch vehicle to them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: publiusr on 05/21/2007 11:23 pm
I did contact Bill Richardsons office. At best, lets hope he is Hilary's VP, or Obama's...

Here is hoping Brownback or Duncan Hunter pulls some upsets, but I'm really a Kyl fan these days...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MySDCUserID on 05/21/2007 11:51 pm
Quote
CFE - 21/5/2007  6:19 PM

When John Houbolt and his allies pushed Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, they did so by working within the confines of the agency, and not by taking their fight to Congress or the media.  The approach has worked before, and it can work again.  It will take a bit of internal persuasion to make the agency realize that Ares I will not fall within the scope of NASA's existing or foreseeable budgets.  Frankly, the "DIRECT vs. Ares" debate is too technical for the mainstream media to get excited about, and Congress is unlikely to micromanage NASA by dictating a launch vehicle to them.

Different times, different people, different culture, different program.  

Houbolt was faced with the simple problem of even getting the word out to those who neededed to hear it let alone getting people to accept it.  Houbolt had to physically get hard copies of his report into the hands of those with influence.  It is not like today, where many industry experts and employees, and well educated space enthusiasts are able to get their message across through the internet.  NASA management has already acknowledged that they are aware of online "armchair rocket scientists" and alternative ideas, and the blatantly push them to the side and move forward with Ares I.  

Also, the media does not need to get into the real indepth engineering details.  It is fairly obvious to even the non-engineer that DIRECT and/or EELV are better alternatives to Ares I.  An investigative report type of story would suffice.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 05/22/2007 03:17 am

Quote
MySDCUserID - 21/5/2007  6:51 PM  Different times, different people, different culture, different program.

   Houbolt was faced with the simple problem of even getting the word out to those who needed to hear it let alone getting people to accept it.  Houbolt had to physically get hard copies of his report into the hands of those with influence.  It is not like today, where many industry experts and employees, and well educated space enthusiasts are able to get their message across through the internet.  NASA management has already acknowledged that they are aware of online "armchair rocket scientists" and alternative ideas, and the blatantly push them to the side and move forward with Ares I.    

Also, the media does not need to get into the real indepth engineering details.  It is fairly obvious to even the non-engineer that DIRECT and/or EELV are better alternatives to Ares I.  An investigative report type of story would suffice.

Very true and a correct assessment. Houbolt was struggling for recognition. That isn't the issue here - its "bloody mindedness".

As to what to do - I won't recommend a specific action.  

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 05/22/2007 03:27 am
Quote
CFE - 21/5/2007  6:19 PM

When John Houbolt and his allies pushed Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, they did so by working within the confines of the agency, and not by taking their fight to Congress or the media.  The approach has worked before, and it can work again.  It will take a bit of internal persuasion to make the agency realize that Ares I will not fall within the scope of NASA's existing or foreseeable budgets.  Frankly, the "DIRECT vs. Ares" debate is too technical for the mainstream media to get excited about, and Congress is unlikely to micromanage NASA by dictating a launch vehicle to them.
There is something to be said of someone within the organization handing a hardcopy proposal/presentation/white-paper/whatever to a senior person within the organization.

I wonder if John Young would be willing to step forward with it?  hmmm
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/22/2007 06:22 am
My comments in this particular post are my personal thoughts on this matter and may not represent the opinions of other members of the DIRECT team.   Please bear that in mind as I continue...

My own opinion is that Griffin & co are not stupid.   They are extremely bright and capable people, and I'm actually a bit of a closet fan.   I think Ares-I is a mistake, because I see Ares-V being cancelled before it ever flies and the first vehicle being the only thing America will fly people on for the next two or three decades - and we need the first vehicle to be a heckuva lot more powerful than the EELV-class Ares-I.   That is what I sincerely believe the current plan has in store for all future generations of Americans.

I am an enthusiast of the VSE, the goal of reaching back towards the moon and going on towards Mars and hopefully beyond.   Before the tragic loss of Columbia and her crew, I didn't think I would ever get to see a human walk on any other planetary body in my lifetime - Apollo was of my Parents generation - its pure "history" to mine.

I think it would be criminally negligent to support a plan which risks this important future dream on the "hope" that the current American political system will remain stable enough to build multiple new launch vehicles over the better part of a 20 year period.   Is there anyone reading this who seriously thinks the current system is *that* stable?

I think that idea is simply barking mad, and I think Griffin, deep down, knows it is the most risky part of the entire endeavour he helms today.

As I say, I'm a fan and an enthusiast.   But he's the boss of a multi-billion dollar government program, funded by us, the tax-payers.   If he can, in good conscience, assure us that there is no risk of Ares-V being cancelled and the entire VSE being scuppered in the process, then I wish him the best.   But I don't think he can promise that, because I don't think he believes that himself.   I bet he's very concerned by that, because I'm sure he's smart enough to have identified that risk already, and I'm sure he knows its a major one.

If he has serious reservations on this critical issue, then he has an obligation to the next two generations of Americans, to make sure NASA is on the best path for the nation.   He needs to weigh the "wish" for Ares-I leading to Ares-V against the "risk" of only ever getting Ares-I and leaving the US with no true Heavy Lift capability (100 tons +) at all.

Only he can decide that.   We can't.

What our little team is trying to do with DIRECT is to clearly point out this risk being taken now, and identify a "general" alternative path which is still open.   After all, not one singe piece of new hardware has gone into production yet.   In fact, very little of the new hardware is currently being tested.   The vast majority of Ares-I and Ares-V systems are still nothing but virtual simulations on a computer.   Five years from now, it will be a different story.

I'm going to be very blunt, and not very charming, when I say that I fear that ego is playing a part in NASA's current plans.   Sorry, but that's my personal opinion and I am explicitly exercising my right to free speech when I say that.   I have my own considerable reservations about the motives surrounding the choice of the Ares-I's configuration.   Don't get me wrong, I don't actually think anyone is being "evil" or that NASA is the new "Conspiracies R Us" organization, but I do believe that personal preferences for one vehicle configuration on the part of some specific people at NASA have been the driving force behind the directions chosen.    Sometimes strong leadership from on top is a good thing (von Braun).   But equally, sometimes it can lead to disaster (Goldin).

In this specific case I think Ares-I is a very bad thing for Americas space program because it risks everything on a gamble that Ares-V will also be built and nothing will derail it over the next 12 years before it is ready.   My concern is exacerbated because other, far less risky options exist, which fulfil every single one of the requirements, but appear to be ignored or disqualified for, what I perceive as, unusual reasons.

I desperately hope I am wrong.   I hope there are no personal agendas at work and that deep knowledge, sound engineering and dutiful responsibility are really in the drivers seat.   Griffin certainly does seem to possess all those qualities, but this single decision seems, to me, to be outside of his normal modus operandi.   I am left unconvinced and very concerned.


The key issue is Griffin's legacy in the minds of future generations.   He will be remembered for either his successes or his failures, and with that, all of our dreams go too.

The shape of Griffin's legacy rests entirely upon whether the US reaches the moon by 2020 or not.   For me, that boils down even further to one simple issue:   Whether America ever gets a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (100 tons+) or not. Without that, we aren't likely to be going anywhere at all except Low Earth Orbit.   I see three possible legacy outcomes from where we sit today:-

1)   Griffin gambles that everything goes according to plan, that Ares-I becomes operational on-time and on budget, thus convincing Congress to fund the Ares-V.   Both are ultimately completed, broadly on budget, schedule and they do deliver the safety and performance requirements.   In this scenario, Griffin's legacy is a good one: "Griffin was the Administrator who re-created NASA afresh and got us exploring once again"

2)   Something goes wrong and either Ares-I or Ares-V never come to fruition.   Congress cancels the VSE because of any number of reasons such as political wrangling between the two major sides of the aisle, budgetary problems, safety problems, management screw-ups, higher government funding priorities (Social Security? War? Trade Deficit? Foreign Borrowing Deficit? Delete as applicable), or technical hurdles prove too much (cost, time or politics).   Whatever the reason, the gamble doesn't pay off because NASA stretched too far and something snapped.   The result is that Ares-I probably flies, but we lose Ares-V and that means we completely lose the ability to reach for the moon & Mars. Griffin's legacy in this scenario becomes that of " the Administrator who closed down the Shuttle and left us with only the ability to fly a capsule to LEO with no ability to do anything else".

3) NASA takes the bank shot while it is still early enough, and builds one vehicle which can do both LEO work and also works for all the heavy lifting necessary for Lunar work later.   Even in the worst possible case here, with just the Jupiter-120, a political climate which turns against the VSE can be ridden out until the climate becomes favourable for a new Lunar push.   The J-120 services LEO, but when the political winds are favourable, it easy scales to the J-232 again.   Even without 100 ton lift capability, a J-120 could *still* support a 3-launch Lunar mission without ever building a new EDS.   Man-rated versions of existing Centaur stages could be used instead.   Such a J-120"C" isn't as good as a full J-232, but would still guarantee us the moon even in event of the worst budget cuts and political bad will against NASA imaginable.   If political will and economics do remain good, we can still evolve J-120 into the Ares-V, and do so on the current timeline if circumstances permit, thus getting the best of all worlds.   But we *never* ***EVER*** risk losing the ability to go to the moon.   Ares-I does risk that.   Griffin's legacy is safeguarded from virtually any eventuality: "Griffin turned Shuttle into a new system which got us back to the moon and on to Mars because he recognized the dangers of an ever-tightening budget early enough and did something about it.   We always had a moon rocket, right from the start".


Griffin's legacy in the above scenarios, to me, also represents the hopes & dreams of every pro-space enthusiast I have ever met.   If his legacy fails, we all fall with it.   If his legacy shines, we all have a bright future.

I feel that the programmatic risks surrounding building Ares-V after Ares-I are being deliberately ignored, and downplayed.   I believe that any plan which does not specifically protect against negative political and economic changes over a two decade period is simply begging for catastrophe.

If Griffin's current plan goes wrong, his name will be cast into shadow for all of history, and his decisions will possibly be held, for all eternity, against the fact that a reasonable alternative was suggested and was ignored.

I don't think NASA's current plan is a wise route.   It risks all, when those risks are actually unnecessary.   That doesn't seem sensible to me.   I believe DIRECT offers a reasonable alternative which deletes this major program risk completely, guaranteeing that with the first LV, we can reach the moon whether we build a second vehicle or not.  And this vehicle actually offers some interesting improvements over the current plan as a side-effect.

It is ultimately Griffin's decision, and he is the person actually casting the dice in this gamble.   I hope, for all our sakes, he doesn't gamble and lose.   If I were him, I would choose the option which still works even if you roll snake-eyes.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/22/2007 07:02 am
Well put, Ross!  I think you've hit the nail on the head in regards to NASA.  Good people sometimes make bad decisions for reasons that seem somewhat logical, at least in their minds.

The only thing I think you've neglected is a possible scenario where NASA and Congress initially commit to Ares I, but that program gets delayed and eventually canceled due to shifting budget priorities.  Assume that there's a major political shift which leaves the states with major space interests (predominantly "red states") out in the cold.  Assume we get a congress or president who views the world as a zero-sum game, and thinks that space steals money from social programs.  Assume that Ares I is delayed beyond 2015, and even NASA's most diehard congressional backers begin to lose hope.

The odds are certainly stacked against Ares V, but I'd say it's only a 50-50 shot that Ares I flies to orbit.  Getting a manned Orion flight safely into orbit, as quickly as possible, should be NASA's number one priority.  Whether it's Jupiter 120 or Atlas V under that capsule is of less consequence.  Get SOMETHING flying to get your foot in the door, and win the support of congress and the American people.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/22/2007 07:19 am
CFE, I doubt it would actually happen because that really would be catastrophic for the workforce retention goals which are Congresses primary interest.   If there were to be no Shuttle-derived launcher at all, there sure won't be any Shuttle-derived workforce being paid.

Congress has good reason to support NASA getting one shiny new launch vehicle, because Congress needs that.   But ***CONGRESS*** has no requirement at all for a second vehicle.

A second vehicle does not increase the workforce massively, so isn't a big issue for representatives of constituents.   A second vehicle is ***SOLELY*** a requirement for NASA and the VSE.   We aren't in a political fight for superiority against the "Ruskies" any more, so Congress has little interest beyond jobs programs.

Worse still, VSE was program originally sponsored by one political party.   That party's opponents are in the strong position these days, and look to be getting stronger almost every day at present.   Opponents will be numerous already simply due to party affiliations.

There are no negative "workforce retention" issues to cancelling Ares-V once Ares-I is flying.   But Ares-V requires a second round of investment measuring billions of dollars at a time when a lot of other issues will be tugging at the US Treasury's funding.

This is a very bad combination of circumstances IMHO, and I feel that anyone who ignores it does so at their peril.


And I agree.   One potential "abort scenario" which DIRECT offers the new program is the early man-rating of the existing RS-68 engine.   If the J-120 schedule were to slip too far, NASA would have the emergency option to pop a mostly un-fuelled 12 ton Orion up on a "quick'n'dirty" Delta-IV Medium in 2012/13/14 and rescue its political butt that way while the main vehicle is being finalized.   It's not ideal, but its certainly a potential option in the face of any serious political threats.   And again, no such backup is possible with Ares-I because it is an entirely proprietary system.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/22/2007 08:34 am
Quote
MySDCUserID - 22/5/2007  12:51 AM

NASA management has already acknowledged that they are aware of online "armchair rocket scientists" and alternative ideas, and the blatantly push them to the side and move forward with Ares I.  

Also, the media does not need to get into the real indepth engineering details.  It is fairly obvious to even the non-engineer that DIRECT and/or EELV are better alternatives to Ares I.  An investigative report type of story would suffice.

I agree this is not about engineering or science. Direct is about feeling.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/22/2007 01:41 pm
Ross,

Griffin and Horowitz have long made up their mind that this is the architecture they want and they will nail their careers on it. This is why they are currently crying wolf about the gap when it is clearly one of their own making given the choices they made. They also hope to make it a done deal by the time they leave in 2008. You need to concentrate your lobbying on the Democrat Presidential candidates and inform them completely and throroughly about DIRECT so that if one of them wins, which is more likely than not, they can appoint an administrator to carry DIRECT out. Lobby the Democrats in Congress next as they currently have the power and are more likely to buy into the lower cost of DIRECT whereas the Republicans will just follow Bush and his appointee Griffin's plan. They can perhaps set up a independent committee to double check ESAS given the changes in architecture since and the 3 year addition to the gap. Safe, Simple but Late, Costly, Inefficent and Inflexible and you have to spell this out about Ares I/V to those you lobby. Good luck :).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Kaputnik on 05/22/2007 01:45 pm
Quote
JIS - 22/5/2007  9:34 AM

Quote
MySDCUserID - 22/5/2007  12:51 AM

NASA management has already acknowledged that they are aware of online "armchair rocket scientists" and alternative ideas, and the blatantly push them to the side and move forward with Ares I.  

Also, the media does not need to get into the real indepth engineering details.  It is fairly obvious to even the non-engineer that DIRECT and/or EELV are better alternatives to Ares I.  An investigative report type of story would suffice.

I agree this is not about engineering or science. Direct is about feeling.


It is actually about politics, unfortunately.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: david-moon on 05/22/2007 02:30 pm
Getting back to the topic of weaknesses in the Direct V2.0 presentation, I see two that the Direct editors ought to consider.  Addressing the less important first:

It is not made as clear as it could be that the Jupiter-120 Crew Launch Vehicle has *no* second stage.  This is implied, and then is mentioned later, but in my opinion it should be stated up front that the 48 tons to LEO capability uses only the STS-derived tank and 4-segment solids; no upper stage.  This is an important schedule advantage and should not be buried.

More importantly, the obvious objection to J-120 as the Crew Launch Vehicle instead of Ares-1 is the cost per flight.  This has not yet been mentioned.  You have good arguments that the overall program cost of the VSE is less using Direct rather than Ares-1 and -5.  But the marginal cost of a Jupiter-120 flight is surely higher than the marginal cost of an Ares-1 flight, and this is an argument that you can bet will be used against Direct.  You need to discuss these costs explicitly, with the most accurate numbers you can come up with, and you need to argue why the higher marginal cost of a J-120 flight is not a problem and does not mean the overall spending level is higher.  This argument should be based on flight rates, expected number of years in service, and life cycle costs, including development, not on the greater capabilities of the J-120.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/22/2007 02:58 pm
I'm having a hard time understanding if Ares I really will have a lower cost per flight, all things considered.

Ares I as an ISS crew swap vehicle also requires several Progress launches to do the same job that the 120 would do on its own.

Ares I as a Moon rocket requires a much larger and more expensive companion than a 232.

Is that really a cheaper alternative even ignoring the development costs?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/22/2007 03:01 pm
Quote
david-moon - 22/5/2007  10:30 AM

Getting back to the topic of weaknesses in the Direct V2.0 presentation, I see two that the Direct editors ought to consider.  Addressing the less important first:

It is not made as clear as it could be that the Jupiter-120 Crew Launch Vehicle has *no* second stage.  This is implied, and then is mentioned later, but in my opinion it should be stated up front that the 48 tons to LEO capability uses only the STS-derived tank and 4-segment solids; no upper stage.  This is an important schedule advantage and should not be buried. ... (finance questions continue)
David; I'll address the first point:

On page 8 of the paper, it states in paragraph 2 "The first number represents the number of cryogenic stages used prior to Earth Orbit Insertion (EOI) ... The third number represents the number of engines on any upper stage - or '0' if no upper stage is to be flown".

In paragraph 3 it states "Thus a 'Jupiter-120' would be the designation for the initial variant, with one cryogenic stage, two main engines and no upper stage".

The variant designation number defines the number of stages to achieve orbit with the first number in the 3-digit designation. Thus a Jupiter-1xx has 1 main stage, a Jupiter-2xx has 2 main stages and a Jupiter-3xx would need 3 stages to reach orbit. A pair of solids is always assumed.

An important point to remember here is that the designation speaks to how many stages are used to achieve *ORBIT*. Any launch vehicle can carry an additional engine as part of the payload that is used *AFTER* orbit has been achieved, to continue the mission. Any such additional engines are not considered to be part of the launch vehicle. They belong to the Payload, not the launch vehicle.

In comparing the Jupiter-120 to the Ares-I, all Jupiter flight engines are ignited on the ground, no air start is required, while the Ares-I depends on the 2nd stage igniting at altitude.

I'll let Ross or Steve address the finances.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/22/2007 03:02 pm
Quote
Kaputnik - 22/5/2007  2:45 PM

Quote
JIS - 22/5/2007  9:34 AM

Quote
MySDCUserID - 22/5/2007  12:51 AM

NASA management has already acknowledged that they are aware of online "armchair rocket scientists" and alternative ideas, and the blatantly push them to the side and move forward with Ares I.  

Also, the media does not need to get into the real indepth engineering details.  It is fairly obvious to even the non-engineer that DIRECT and/or EELV are better alternatives to Ares I.  An investigative report type of story would suffice.

I agree this is not about engineering or science. Direct is about feeling.


It is actually about politics, unfortunately.

Presented Direct study is more about feeling. It doesn't present any technical or economical argument why the VSE architecture using alternative launcher should be cheaper than using Ares1 /Ares V. It's only about feeling.
I have the similar feeling that launcher using exactly the same SRBs as STS and RS-68 (from DIV) instead of J-2X could be available sooner than Ares 1 but it is somewhat irrelevant.
It doesn't project to cheaper alternative architecture of VSE at all.
VSE requires to finish ISS and retire STS by the end of 2010 and begin operation of the next space ship till 2015. The current architecture is well on track and so far the White House can be happy.
If DIRECT study is talking about alternative architecture with lower cost it's BS. I haven't seen any numbers confirming that. The only thing I've seen so far is a study of Shuttle derived family of launchers (omitting rumours proved false).
Choosing politic path to present this study is a wrong decision. The first DIRECT study already did a lot of damage to your cause. No politician can be sure whether the new DIRECT study could be crushed in the similar way to the previous one. They will be very cautious.
IMHO the right path would be to get reviewed all claims by independent experts. If you say that Jupiter can lift so many tons into LEO I don't believe you a word.
If you claim it saves so many billions $ I don't believe you.
Get sound names approving those numbers, somebody who can stand behind them and get them independently verified. If you won't be able to do that you have no chance to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/22/2007 03:18 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 22/5/2007  3:58 PM

I'm having a hard time understanding if Ares I really will have a lower cost per flight, all things considered.

Ares I as an ISS crew swap vehicle also requires several Progress launches to do the same job that the 120 would do on its own.

Ares 1 is not a crew vehicle. Orion is. I believe that Jupiter would be carying the same (similar) Orion as Ares 1 is.

Quote
Ares I as a Moon rocket requires a much larger and more expensive companion than a 232.

Is that really a cheaper alternative even ignoring the development costs?

I have a feeling that Jupiter 232 could be cheaper than Ares V indeed. However, it doesn't mean it's a better approach.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 05/22/2007 03:48 pm
JIS,
Quote
Presented Direct study is more about feeling. It doesn't present any technical or economical argument why the VSE architecture using alternative launcher should be cheaper than using Ares1 /Ares V. It's only about feeling.

Maybe its because the economic arguments are so obvious that they don't have to be made?  I mean do you really need to spell out that not developing a 5-segment SRB is going to be cheaper than developing it?  Unless developing that 5-segment SRB has a zero or negative cost, not having to develop it will by definition be cheaper.  The same applies to a brand new 10m diameter core stage, qualifying the RS-68s for operating at 106%, developing two upper stage instead of one, making two sets of all-new launch infrastructure instead of making slight modifications to the existing hardware, etc.  I'm sure that Ross et al could try spelling out the savings more explicitly, but it should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a clue that not developing something will cost less to develop than developing it.

Quote
I have the similar feeling that launcher using exactly the same SRBs as STS and RS-68 (from DIV) instead of J-2X could be available sooner than Ares 1 but it is somewhat irrelevant.
It doesn't project to cheaper alternative architecture of VSE at all.

It doesn't conclusively prove that the life-cycle costs will be less, you're right, but it makes a darned strong argument even without going into the details.  In order for ESAS to be less expensive, Ares I has to be so much marginally cheaper than DIRECT that it can make up for all of the excess development costs, the two standing armies, and all the infrastructure modifications.  Ross could try to give more specific numbers, but once again, its bleedingly obvious to anyone with a clue that it's going to be almost impossible for Ares I/V, with all their new required technologies, all the different tank sizes etc, all the pad changes, all of the extra people to run both of them, to be cost competitive with a single, unitary launcher.  Maybe if Ares I could've used a stock, barely modified SRB with an upper stage that used an existing engine, but as it is almost every single piece of hardware on Ares I and V is brand new, with most of it only loosely derived from existing hardware.  If I saw an economic analysis that didn't show DIRECT winning handily, I'd be extremely suspicious of the assumptions and methodology.

Quote
VSE requires to finish ISS and retire STS by the end of 2010 and begin operation of the next space ship till 2015. The current architecture is well on track and so far the White House can be happy.

Um the original operational date for Ares I/Orion was supposed to be 2012, not 2015 (and sliding).  Nobody is happy with the ever-widening gap.  

Anyhow, I just wonder what planet you're on sometimes.

Ross et al could try to give specific numbers for costs, but that's probably the most dangerous thing they could do.  NASA is an expert at playing numbers games and assumptions, and it would be quite easy for them to tweak the assumptions until it made DIRECT look more expensive.  These are after all the guys who when doing ESAS decided to make the Atlas V derivative upper stages have twice the dry mass because they "couldn't make the numbers work", and who also doubled the development cost.  Ross et al may have no choice but to try and eventually publish firm budget numbers, but it should be so obvious that developing one new vehicle that requires the minimum number of pad changes, the minimum number of new engines, and the minimum number of new stages or tank sizes is going to be cheaper.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 05/22/2007 04:13 pm
Quote
JIS - 22/5/2007  8:02 AM

Quote
Kaputnik - 22/5/2007  2:45 PM

Quote
JIS - 22/5/2007  9:34 AM

Quote
MySDCUserID - 22/5/2007  12:51 AM

NASA management has already acknowledged that they are aware of online "armchair rocket scientists" and alternative ideas, and the blatantly push them to the side and move forward with Ares I.  

Also, the media does not need to get into the real indepth engineering details.  It is fairly obvious to even the non-engineer that DIRECT and/or EELV are better alternatives to Ares I.  An investigative report type of story would suffice.

I agree this is not about engineering or science. Direct is about feeling.


It is actually about politics, unfortunately.

Presented Direct study is more about feeling. It doesn't present any technical or economical argument why the VSE architecture using alternative launcher should be cheaper than using Ares1 /Ares V. It's only about feeling.
I have the similar feeling that launcher using exactly the same SRBs as STS and RS-68 (from DIV) instead of J-2X could be available sooner than Ares 1 but it is somewhat irrelevant.
It doesn't project to cheaper alternative architecture of VSE at all.
VSE requires to finish ISS and retire STS by the end of 2010 and begin operation of the next space ship till 2015. The current architecture is well on track and so far the White House can be happy.
If DIRECT study is talking about alternative architecture with lower cost it's BS. I haven't seen any numbers confirming that. The only thing I've seen so far is a study of Shuttle derived family of launchers (omitting rumours proved false).
Choosing politic path to present this study is a wrong decision. The first DIRECT study already did a lot of damage to your cause. No politician can be sure whether the new DIRECT study could be crushed in the similar way to the previous one. They will be very cautious.
IMHO the right path would be to get reviewed all claims by independent experts. If you say that Jupiter can lift so many tons into LEO I don't believe you a word.
If you claim it saves so many billions $ I don't believe you.
Get sound names approving those numbers, somebody who can stand behind them and get them independently verified. If you won't be able to do that you have no chance to be taken seriously.

NASA won’t be able to ignore the CBO and OMB this time around.

Jupiter family will be significantly less expensive to develop and operate than the Ares family and the Jupiter-120 is safer than the Ares I.

So in summary NASA will be in the position of defending the argument that we should spend more money, destroy more STS facilities, layoff more of the NASA workforce, risk schedule to more new technology, and take longer to achieve the VSE objectives all in order to field a less safe, more expensive and less flexible launch vehicle family.  Then again this is a government program so maybe all the above is a good thing.

When you have a train headed for a cliff there is never a bad time to apply the brakes.

NASA/ATK's Safe, Simple and Soon is now Dangerous, Complicated, and Never

The real Safe, Simple and Soon is DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/22/2007 04:21 pm
JIS, the problem with the finances is that NASA has made everything ITAR over the last year, and I don't believe any of my colleagues wish to illegally place numbers in a public forum of any sort and break those sorts of export rules.   Don't expect our numbers until *after* NASA allows its own to be released publicly for critique.

However, the ESAS Report numbers *are* publicly available.   There is an ACI Draft of the ESAS which still includes the real numbers which was accidentally made available on NASAWatch a few years back.   It got pulled quickly, but not before some distribution took place.

In general terms, and given the changes to the vehicles along the way, comparing the findings of ESAS and the current "real numbers" , the ESAS ones are still in the right ballpark.

They also clearly demonstrate that a single LV-24/25 based design (closest to DIRECT, yet still more expensive due to the use of 3xSSME instead of 2xRS-68), flying a 2-launch approach, and using either an EOR-LOR or an LOR-only approach is cheaper than the 1.5 solution which was chosen to:

a) Implement a CLV in a speedy manner, and
b) To re-use the same vehicle, with an U/S to fly the bulk of necessary Cargo needed for Lunar missions.

I haven't played around with the ESAS numbers in quite a while, so forgive me, but it is going to take me time to extract all that data again, and to present it in a clear manner, to demonstrate all the cost comparisons accurately.

Be aware, right right from the start, that this will only be a 'guide' using 'old' numbers.   However, the comparison it creates is still ***proportionately*** correct.

If that is acceptable to you, I will put the time in and present it all.   So please let me know if that's "good enough" for us to use in this discussion, or not.   If it is not going to be, I won't waste time doing it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/22/2007 04:24 pm
Quote
JIS - 22/5/2007  9:18 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 22/5/2007  3:58 PM

I'm having a hard time understanding if Ares I really will have a lower cost per flight, all things considered.

Ares I as an ISS crew swap vehicle also requires several Progress launches to do the same job that the 120 would do on its own.

Ares 1 is not a crew vehicle. Orion is. I believe that Jupiter would be carying the same (similar) Orion as Ares 1 is.

Sorry for my imprecise language.  I meant using Ares I to launch Orion as a means of performing the ISS crew swap would also require one or more other launches by some other system for ISS resupply, while Orion on a 120 would potentially allow for cargo to be brought up at the same time thus saving the cost of the resupply launch(es).  So the question in my mind is "is Ares I + Orion + resupply launch(es) cheaper than Jupiter 120 with equivalent resupply capability?".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/22/2007 04:37 pm
The cargo capability to ISS should not be used to sell this.  There is no additional components for this.

The stick, Orion and progress should be compared to Direct, Orion and progress
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PMN1 on 05/22/2007 04:55 pm
Does China have the ability to build a vehicle in the 'Direct' class?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: david-moon on 05/22/2007 05:08 pm
Quote
clongton - 22/5/2007  11:01 AM

David; I'll address the first point:

On page 8 of the paper, it states ....

That is precisely my point.  It should be on page 2, not delayed until page 8.  The details can wait until page 8, but a person who doesn't read that far should still get the point that there is no upper stage needed for crew launch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/22/2007 05:09 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 22/5/2007  12:24 PM
Quote
JIS - 22/5/2007  9:18 AM
Quote
Lee Jay - 22/5/2007  3:58 PM

I'm having a hard time understanding if Ares I really will have a lower cost per flight, all things considered.

Ares I as an ISS crew swap vehicle also requires several Progress launches to do the same job that the 120 would do on its own.
Ares 1 is not a crew vehicle. Orion is. I believe that Jupiter would be carying the same (similar) Orion as Ares 1 is.

Sorry for my imprecise language.  I meant using Ares I to launch Orion as a means of performing the ISS crew swap would also require one or more other launches by some other system for ISS resupply, while Orion on a 120 would potentially allow for cargo to be brought up at the same time thus saving the cost of the resupply launch(es).  So the question in my mind is "is Ares I + Orion + resupply launch(es) cheaper than Jupiter 120 with equivalent resupply capability?".
Lee Jay

I don't have cost figures in front of me but even without them, it's obvious that launching a single Jupiter-120 would cost less than launching a pair of Ares-I's. Plus the costs of launch vehicle development and infrastructure changes would need to be factored in and depriciated over some agreed upon length of time. Neither are free, but the Ares development costs would exceed the Jupiter development costs by an order of magnatude, and the same goes for the infrastruction changes - an order of magnatude more expensive for the Ares. The fixed costs for both vehicles would be similar so for comparison purposes, you could just eliminate them. It will cost much much more to put the first operational Ares on the pad than it will to put the first operational Jupiter on the pad, and take decades to even come close to offsetting the expenses of the Ares development and infrastructure costs.

The Jupiter is far, far less expensive, from a program viewpoint, than the Ares.

All that being said, we must note that there are no cargo cannisters developed for the Jupiter to accompany an Orion into orbit, so your premise of resupply being on the same LV as crew rotation is not baseline. To do that would require first and formost a decision by NASA that such a flight did not violate the CAIB recommendation (another thread on this forum) and then to develop the cargo cannisters - not inexpensive. Something like the ATV for example, but it would need to be developed. Then the costs for that would need to be factored in as well. It's not as simple as just filling the SA up with resupply provisions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 05/22/2007 05:23 pm
Smetch,
Quote
NASA won’t be able to ignore the CBO and OMB this time around.

Now CBO and OMB may be just the right audience to send this information to.   Next time they do an analysis, if they also compare DIRECT to the Ares I/V and it comes out anywhere near as good as I think it would, that would help your cause a lot.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/22/2007 05:26 pm
Quote
david-moon - 22/5/2007  1:08 PM

Quote
clongton - 22/5/2007  11:01 AM

David; I'll address the first point:

On page 8 of the paper, it states ....

That is precisely my point.  It should be on page 2, not delayed until page 8.  The details can wait until page 8, but a person who doesn't read that far should still get the point that there is no upper stage needed for crew launch.
page 1 is the cover
page 2 is an overall introduction to the subject
page 3 & 4 discuss the architecture
page 5 - 7 talk about the STS hardware used for the architecture
page 8 is where the launch vehicle itself is introduced.

Direct is not about the rocket. The rocket is a tool.
It's about the whole architecture, and the rocket is only part of it.
Anyone who doesn't read the whole thing would quickly embarrass themselves with their posts because it would be obvious that they were speaking from uninformed opinion.

The paper is not that big, and a lot of it is interesting graphics. I've read articles in magazines that were longer than this.

The details of the rocket are presented in the proper place.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: david-moon on 05/22/2007 05:30 pm
Quote
clongton - 22/5/2007  1:26 PM

The details of the rocket are presented in the proper place.

I am sorry that you are not willing to listen to comments from people who have not been deeply involved in this for a long time and are coming at it from a naive perspective.

I will shut up now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/22/2007 05:42 pm
Quote
david-moon - 22/5/2007  1:30 PM

Quote
clongton - 22/5/2007  1:26 PM

The details of the rocket are presented in the proper place.

I am sorry that you are not willing to listen to comments from people who have not been deeply involved in this for a long time and are coming at it from a naive perspective.

I will shut up now.
Don't do that. Your comments and thoughts are equally as important as anyone else's.

I explained to you why the details you asked about were located where they are. Believe me, we went thru a lot of work to arrange everything into a product that would intellectually "flow", without making any one piece of the architecture be the star. We came to believe that putting the rocket in the front would detract from the rest of the paper. We couldn't make the rest of it flow that way. We did what we did, the way we did it, to create a "process" of thought, to lead to the rocket, so that by the time the reader gets to it, they already understand the reasoning behind why it is configured the way it is.

The thought process goes like this:

1. This is the situation
2. Here's an architecture that can address it
3. These are the advantages of this architecture
4. Here's what we already have that we can use so we dont have to make new stuff
5. This is the rocket we can build from those things
6. This is what we can do with that rocket

See how it flows logically from need to solution?
That's why things are where they are.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 05/22/2007 07:52 pm

Quote
jongoff - 22/5/2007  12:23 PM  Smetch,
Quote
NASA won’t be able to ignore the CBO and OMB this time around.
 Now CBO and OMB may be just the right audience to send this information to.   Next time they do an analysis, if they also compare DIRECT to the Ares I/V and it comes out anywhere near as good as I think it would, that would help your cause a lot.  ~Jon

Correct. Particularly the CBO this time.

Congress is dubious (both sides!) of a bloody minded administrator, fearing they'll take the blame for signing off on an open-ended deal they'll be stuck with for a while. They wait-off expecting to see more of what they want to see (actually, DIRECT has what they want to see in an obvious way). From time to time, they beat him up with CBO arguments, and expect him to come back with better.

One side holds the agenda, the other wants to, and each fears losing the initiative means loss of control in dictating the whole deal. No one is particularly enthused by new voices because it upsets the game. However, when something forces the situation, all adapt with new accommodations quickly. 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Kaputnik on 05/22/2007 08:21 pm
I mentioned this earlier but I don't think it was addressed.
In terms of presentation, I think you might be making a mistake in boldly asserting the superior safety of DIRECT over Ares-1. Remember, NASA already evaluated these two concepts and came to a different conclusion. You could instead say that NASA's analysis is slipping out of date/relevance as designs progress; that the ESAS safety numbers for a DIRECT-type vehicle were still masssively better than historic LOM/LOC figures; and also you could more subtly list those reasons that make DIRECT (in your eyes) safer than Ares (i.e. that the hardweare has flight history, amnogst other issues).
The current layout just seems a bit... arrogant.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: imcub on 05/22/2007 11:23 pm
Quote
Kaputnik - 22/5/2007  1:21 PM

I mentioned this earlier but I don't think it was addressed.
In terms of presentation, I think you might be making a mistake in boldly asserting the superior safety of DIRECT over Ares-1. Remember, NASA already evaluated these two concepts and came to a different conclusion. You could instead say that NASA's analysis is slipping out of date/relevance as designs progress; that the ESAS safety numbers for a DIRECT-type vehicle were still masssively better than historic LOM/LOC figures; and also you could more subtly list those reasons that make DIRECT (in your eyes) safer than Ares (i.e. that the hardweare has flight history, amnogst other issues).
The current layout just seems a bit... arrogant.

I went back and re-read the proposal and I have to agree with Kaputnik about references to safety.  If I remember things correctly (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am not), isn't NASA is quoting ARES/Orion as a LOC at 2000:1?  On the face of things, that's better than the 1400:1 being listed on direct.  

Yes, I know ... ARES is no longer using 4 segment SRB or the SSME and that it is going to be all new components except the SRB casings and that really invalidates the 2000:1 numbers being quoted.  I know that, but I visit this site everyday.  The intended audience, the people with the power and influence that might be able to alter NASA's chosen path, probably do not know this.  If NASA says ARES is shuttle derived and the LOC is 2000:1 ... then that's what your typical non-space geek audience will believe.    So ... a little more depth about why the Direct LOC numbers are better than ARES might be in order ... just a suggestion.

Slightly off the track ... has NASA changed the LOC/LOM numbers since they changed to a 5 segment SRB and J-2?  I don't recall seeing anyting different.

PS - I love the Mike Griffin quote at the beginning of the proposal ... he was spot on that day.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 05/23/2007 12:25 am
Quote
imcub - 22/5/2007  4:23 PM

Quote
Kaputnik - 22/5/2007  1:21 PM

I mentioned this earlier but I don't think it was addressed.
In terms of presentation, I think you might be making a mistake in boldly asserting the superior safety of DIRECT over Ares-1. Remember, NASA already evaluated these two concepts and came to a different conclusion. You could instead say that NASA's analysis is slipping out of date/relevance as designs progress; that the ESAS safety numbers for a DIRECT-type vehicle were still masssively better than historic LOM/LOC figures; and also you could more subtly list those reasons that make DIRECT (in your eyes) safer than Ares (i.e. that the hardweare has flight history, amnogst other issues).
The current layout just seems a bit... arrogant.

I went back and re-read the proposal and I have to agree with Kaputnik about references to safety.  If I remember things correctly (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am not), isn't NASA is quoting ARES/Orion as a LOC at 2000:1?  On the face of things, that's better than the 1400:1 being listed on direct.  

Yes, I know ... ARES is no longer using 4 segment SRB or the SSME and that it is going to be all new components except the SRB casings and that really invalidates the 2000:1 numbers being quoted.  I know that, but I visit this site everyday.  The intended audience, the people with the power and influence that might be able to alter NASA's chosen path, probably do not know this.  If NASA says ARES is shuttle derived and the LOC is 2000:1 ... then that's what your typical non-space geek audience will believe.    So ... a little more depth about why the Direct LOC numbers are better than ARES might be in order ... just a suggestion.

Slightly off the track ... has NASA changed the LOC/LOM numbers since they changed to a 5 segment SRB and J-2?  I don't recall seeing anyting different.

PS - I love the Mike Griffin quote at the beginning of the proposal ... he was spot on that day.


Good points, we’ll sharpen our pencils on this in the AIAA paper.

Mike is spot on over 95% of time in what he says.  What he does is another thing altogether.

Here is what he said just four years ago bout ELV’s being used for the Crew.

“Many, if not most, unmanned payloads are of very high value, both for the importance of their mission, as well as in simple economic terms. The relevant question may be posed quite simplistically: What, precisely, are the precautions that we would take to safeguard a human crew that we would deliberately omit when launching, say, a billion-dollar Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission? The answer is, of course, “none”. While we appropriately value human life very highly, the investment we make in most unmanned missions is quite sufficient to capture our full attention.” Testimony of Mike Griffin before the Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science May 8, 2003


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/23/2007 01:15 am
Of course, if the cost of launching a payload is substantially reduced, then it might make economic sense to not spend billions of dollars designing out the last microgram of mass.  It might make sense to design inexpensive payloads that fly on inexpensive rockets, with the understanding that there is a 1% or a 4% or whatever chance that the payload will be lost.  It's a reasonable engineering tradeoff.

You don't make that kind of tradeoff with people's lives.

Also, if we were to fuel things on orbit, the only real value of the fuel is its location; the intrinsic value of 100 mT of fuel and LOX is tens of thousands of dollars, which is, as Elon Musk put it, "an accounting error."


Edit to add:

I didn't really finish my thoughts here.  Here's the other half:

Existing launch systems tend to have a pretty poor reliability record, compared to what is acceptable for human risk.  For example, we've lost 2 Shuttles in just over 100 flights.  The record of the Delta family shows many failures over the years.  (The Atlas family has actually done a bit better, with >100 flights now with no failures.)

Given this, it is reasonable to go to extraordinary lengths to protect human launches, while it is reasonable to accept slightly greater risk for non-human launches.

For a concrete example, let's consider a manned lunar mission.  To launch the human beings, it makes sense to use a launch vehicle which has been highly verified, to minimize risk.  But, you might choose to launch the mission stack on a much bigger LV that's fairly new, and has only flown a couple times.

With this philosophy, I'd see something like the Atlas Phase II (or the existing Atlas 401 if you were to build a capsule smaller than Orion) for launching people.  You'd use the Phase II for humans after several cargo launches with it to verify that it's OK.  And the pattern of unmanned cargos it carries helps on an ongoing basis to improve the safety of human flights.

On the other hand, it's OK to launch the mission stack on a newly-developed Ares V.  Yes, the stack is very valuable, and you're going to do everything in your power to make sure that you don't lose it.  But, ultimately, it is more acceptable to lose that flight than it is to lose a crew.

Now, I'm deliberately not using DIRECT in this example, because I want to keep the philosopy discussion distinct from DIRECT.   In the case of DIRECT, I think that the Jupiter 120 is an OK approach to launching people.  But only  OK; I think (my very uninformed opinion) that Atlas has an edge over the Jupiter because of its track record, the lack of parallel staging, the single staging event (compared with two SRB separations), the lack of SRBs, and the greater experience base that comes with the continuing use of the same hardware for military and commercial launches.  On the other hand, the Jupiter 120 gets some check marks because of the "all engines running" launch and the good record of the SRBs following the Challenger corrections.

However, under the "must use Shuttle-derived" mantra, I think the Jupiter 120 has more going for it from a safety standpoint than the Ares I.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 05/23/2007 01:22 am
Quote
imcub - 22/5/2007  6:23 PM

Quote
Kaputnik - 22/5/2007  1:21 PM

I mentioned this earlier but I don't think it was addressed.
In terms of presentation, I think you might be making a mistake in boldly asserting the superior safety of DIRECT over Ares-1. Remember, NASA already evaluated these two concepts and came to a different conclusion. You could instead say that NASA's analysis is slipping out of date/relevance as designs progress; that the ESAS safety numbers for a DIRECT-type vehicle were still masssively better than historic LOM/LOC figures; and also you could more subtly list those reasons that make DIRECT (in your eyes) safer than Ares (i.e. that the hardweare has flight history, amnogst other issues).
The current layout just seems a bit... arrogant.

I went back and re-read the proposal and I have to agree with Kaputnik about references to safety.  If I remember things correctly (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am not), isn't NASA is quoting ARES/Orion as a LOC at 2000:1?  On the face of things, that's better than the 1400:1 being listed on direct.  

Yes, I know ... ARES is no longer using 4 segment SRB or the SSME and that it is going to be all new components except the SRB casings and that really invalidates the 2000:1 numbers being quoted.  I know that, but I visit this site everyday.  The intended audience, the people with the power and influence that might be able to alter NASA's chosen path, probably do not know this.  If NASA says ARES is shuttle derived and the LOC is 2000:1 ... then that's what your typical non-space geek audience will believe.    So ... a little more depth about why the Direct LOC numbers are better than ARES might be in order ... just a suggestion.

Slightly off the track ... has NASA changed the LOC/LOM numbers since they changed to a 5 segment SRB and J-2?  I don't recall seeing anyting different.

The 5-segment RSRB/J-2S option was in the original ESAS trade study (LV16). ESAS lists LOC as 1918:1.
-----
JRF
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/23/2007 01:49 am
Quote
Jorge - 22/5/2007  7:22 PM
The 5-segment RSRB/J-2S option was in the original ESAS trade study (LV16). ESAS lists LOC as 1918:1.
-----
JRF

It cracks me up that they put four significant digits on these numbers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 05/23/2007 02:39 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 22/5/2007  6:49 PM

Quote
Jorge - 22/5/2007  7:22 PM
The 5-segment RSRB/J-2S option was in the original ESAS trade study (LV16). ESAS lists LOC as 1918:1.
-----
JRF

It cracks me up that they put four significant digits on these numbers.

You too?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/23/2007 03:44 am
Quote
PMN1 - 22/5/2007  12:55 PM

Does China have the ability to build a vehicle in the 'Direct' class?

China has the ability to do anything it wants.   It isn't bogged down with workforce retention issues, inter-political party-squabbling and a contractor network already in place which needs to be reused.

Also, they have reasonable ties to the Russians, and could very easily side-step the development process for engines, instead opting to buy items which are already available off the shelf.

It isn't hard to imagine the Chinese buying RD-171 and RD-0120's, building three new stages and flying a Saturn-V class vehicle some time within the next decade.   They already have a few RD-170's which they have been reverse engineering for quite a while now, so I wouldn't be surprised if they don't field their own version independently at some point.

They only have to develop the technology to scale up their current tanks, and perfect the avionics and that gets them true heavy lift.   The engines, which are the most costly part of the whole venture, are available tomorrow for the right price.

Right now though, they are working on an evolution of the Long March - the 5 series, which will be firmly an EELV-class vehicle.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/23/2007 04:23 am
Quote
SolarPowered - 22/5/2007  9:15 PM

Of course, if the cost of launching a payload is substantially reduced, then it might make economic sense to not spend billions of dollars designing out the last microgram of mass.  It might make sense to design inexpensive payloads that fly on inexpensive rockets, with the understanding that there is a 1% or a 4% or whatever chance that the payload will be lost.  It's a reasonable engineering tradeoff.

Correct.   While this is somewhat off-topic, I would like to say that the EELV fleet was designed primarily to launch military communications platforms and spy birds.   The commercial sector was supposed to share some of the costs by flying a bunch of its own satellites, but they never stepped up to the plate as expected.

It's interesting, that rocket technology is largely a well-understood engineering issue these days and is a familiar tool for many countries around the world.   But the satellites typically being flown on them are virtually at the pinnacle of each countries engineering capabilities.   They are likely to have some of the most advanced hardware any nation is likely to be able to develop on board.   This means they cost a lot, and are incredibly valuable to that nation.

With the commercial sector being pretty slow these days, that means that the bulk of modern satellite launches are going to be in this "expensive" & "national asset" class.   With that much at stake, even a 1% failure rate would prove to be pretty costly, and that cost pushes the majority of payloads flown these days into a much closer safety category to that of manned flight safety.

I actually agree that Atlas-V is probably noticeably safer than Shuttle, and some variants of Atlas may be safer than Jupiter-120.   But those options completely ignore the political purse-string holders who have demanded that NASA retain the Shuttle Workforce during this transition.   Ignoring that is a road to nowhere, because without political support, NASA's budget dries up even more than it is doing today, and we end up with nothing at all.

And I don't even want to open up the can of worms involving using Russian engines to power America's new flagship missions...   That's a political "never in a million years" non-starter if ever I heard one.   Sorry, but it is.

The DIRECT team would probably agree that there are other alternatives which do better in some areas, such as "safety".   But we recognise the simple fact that "safety" is not the be-all and end-all of the decision making process.   Budget isn't the whole story.   Schedule isn't.   Technological development isn't.   Infrastructure isn't.   What is really needed is a solution which addresses all these factors (and others) and which does so in a way to satisfy all these different requirements.

DIRECT's architecture, while not a "perfect" solution in any specific field, does specifically address all the different forces pulling at NASA and attempts to create the "best fit" to accomplish all the goals to everyone's satisfaction, while improving on the existing solution.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/23/2007 04:30 am
Quote
jongoff - 22/5/2007  10:39 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 22/5/2007  6:49 PM

Quote
Jorge - 22/5/2007  7:22 PM
The 5-segment RSRB/J-2S option was in the original ESAS trade study (LV16). ESAS lists LOC as 1918:1.
-----
JRF

It cracks me up that they put four significant digits on these numbers.

You too?

I'm not convinced they are *that* unreasonable.

I don't believe that the vehicles themselves are an order of magnitude better than the "typical" 1:100 failure rates we've gotten used to, I believe that the escape system on top can probably account for 10 times the safety of something without (such as STS).

Shuttle had 82 flights (IIRC) between one loss and the next, so it has an LOM of 1:82 and an LOC of 1:82.

The Atlas family has had just over 74 flights since its last loss, so it has an LOM of 1:74 ish.

The Delta's have had quite a few more failures throughout their histories, as have the Titan's, so I'll leave them out for now.

The Russian R7 family of launchers (including Soyuz/Progress) has an incredible history with over 1,700 flights to its name, and has a better than 1:100 LOM rate today and a (so far) perfect LOC rate thanks to its Launch Escape System proving to have saved at least one crew (Soyuz T-10) already during launch operations.   All other Cosmonauts deaths have been outside of the ascent phase of the flight, so their loss can not be attributed to the launch vehicle safety ratings.

So lets say that 1:100 is achievable for a modern rocket.

But it is the inclusion of an LAS on any launch vehicle which offers orders of magnitude improvements in the realm of safety for crews.   An LAS ought to save at least 9 crews out of 10 in ten abort scenarios.

With a 1:100 LV, using an LAS reducing crew loss to 1 in 10 per abort - you could realistically achieve a 1 in 1000 LOC.

It's hypothetically possible.   Although I would expect in the real world, you could probably halve all the numbers and be a lot closer to the truth.

I for one don't believe the 1:2000 claims though.   I think that's pure hyperbole.   An all-new 1st stage, an all-new upper stage, a virtually all-new U/S main engine, in a configuration which has never even been practiced before, offering double the safety of anything else?   Not a chance.   Only the completely uninformed could be convinced by that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/23/2007 04:54 am
I think that it's somewhat of a crapshoot to try and quantify either the schedule or the budget for a major launch vehicle program such as Ares or Jupiter.  I even question whether it's fair to compare two vehicle designs on the basis of statistical failure rates or projected budgets.

In the field of space acquisition, budgets invariably balloon.  Many times this is because we're breaking new ground (technically and operationally) and can't really predict how much it will cost.  Other times, the program's supporters will use a lie in order to get the initial funding from congress.  After all, the sticker-shock from an accurate budget estimate would be enough to kill most space acquisition programs before they got off the drawing board.

At the same time, very few launch vehicles have flown enough times to validate loss-of-vehicle numbers.  Atlas II/III had a spotless record, but that group of vehicles only had 69 total launches.  On the other hand, the shuttle originally had loss-of-crew numbers that were better than 1-in-1000.  Statistically, it's 2-in-117.  To some extent, the original shuttle reliability numbers can't be faulted for ignoring human error.  The people who came up with the original reliability estimates didn't think that mission managers would be dumb enough to launch when the SRB's were below their minimum operating temperature.  They also failed to see (as did many in NASA, all the way until the cause of the Columbia disaster was established) that ET insulation had a fairly high probability of causing fatal TPS damage.

It's the extreme uncertainties of cost and safety estimates that make me favor the intuitive comparison that Jon Goff and others have taken in comparing Ares I to Jupiter 120.  Development of the 5-segment SRB, all-new launch facilities, an all-new upper stage, and a mostly-new cryogenic engine (all flying in a new configuration) should logically be more expensive than stock SRB's, a minimally-modified ET, off-the-shelf main engines, and moderately-modified facilities, all flying in a similar configuration to the shuttle.  As far as safety goes, we know that Jupiter 120 will be inherently safer than shuttle; due to the relocation of the TPS relative to ET foam, the use of post-Challenger SRB's, simplified main engines not running at >100% thrust, and smarter mission managers who are committed to safety, Jupiter 120 should avoid all of the problems that we've seen on the shuttle thus far.  The new configuration will certainly create new failure modes that will have to be caught, analyzed, and mitigated; the same is true for Ares I & Ares V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/23/2007 04:59 am
Well said CFE.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 05/23/2007 04:59 am
kraisee,
Quote
I for one don't believe the 1:2000 claims though.   I think that's pure hyperbole.

Exactly.  If I remember what I was reading correctly, they actually assumed that the actual Ares-I would only have a failure resulting in LOM about 1 in 400 flights (with enough of the potential failures being so catastrophic that the LAS is assumed to work only 20% of the time).  The vehicle is almost 100% clean-sheet design, but they're expecting it to be almost 4-5x more reliable than any other vehicle that's ever flown.  That smacks of hubris.  

Quoting the reliability numbers for this vehicle out to 4 significant figures--now that's just plain comedy.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Thorny on 05/23/2007 05:37 am
Quote
SolarPowered - 22/5/2007  8:15 PM
Existing launch systems tend to have a pretty poor reliability record, compared to what is acceptable for human risk.  For example, we've lost 2 Shuttles in just over 100 flights.  The record of the Delta family shows many failures over the years.  (The Atlas family has actually done a bit better, with >100 flights now with no failures.


No, the Atlas family is currently at 82 consecutive successes dating back to Atlas-Centaur 104 in 1993.

There were 63 Atlas IIs launched, none lost, however three Atlas Is were lost in the early '90s, including 2 consecutive failures (in 1992 and 1993) after Atlas II debuted. There were six Atlas IIIs, all successful. All nine Atlas Vs to date have been successful.

There have been 166 launches of Atlas-Centaur family rockets, although the new Atlas V has very little in common with the classic balloon-tank Atlas which was retired in 2005. (That doesn't stop LockMart bragging about "82 consecutive successes" though. What's next? The F-35 already has a fantastic combat record because its named Lightning II?  :laugh:



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/23/2007 07:00 am
Quote
Thorny - 22/5/2007  10:37 PM

Quote
SolarPowered - 22/5/2007  8:15 PM
Existing launch systems tend to have a pretty poor reliability record, compared to what is acceptable for human risk.  For example, we've lost 2 Shuttles in just over 100 flights.  The record of the Delta family shows many failures over the years.  (The Atlas family has actually done a bit better, with >100 flights now with no failures.


No, the Atlas family is currently at 82 consecutive successes dating back to Atlas-Centaur 104 in 1993.

There were 63 Atlas IIs launched, none lost, however three Atlas Is were lost in the early '90s, including 2 consecutive failures (in 1992 and 1993) after Atlas II debuted. There were six Atlas IIIs, all successful. All nine Atlas Vs to date have been successful.

There have been 166 launches of Atlas-Centaur family rockets, although the new Atlas V has very little in common with the classic balloon-tank Atlas which was retired in 2005. (That doesn't stop LockMart bragging about "82 consecutive successes" though. What's next? The F-35 already has a fantastic combat record because its named Lightning II?  :laugh:


OK, I stand corrected.  :)  I could have sworn that I read 100+, but I guess I'm getting old.  (I do actually remember the first landing on the moon. :laugh: )

I'll also agree that keeping count through multiple redesigns doesn't necessarily mean much about what they're building now.  On the other hand, I would imagine that many of the same people are involved, so there should be experience that carries over from one design to the next.

To restate, I think it's fair to say that LockMart has shown that they are capable of designing and building reliable rockets.  But, the Altas V hasn't been around long enough to really claim that it has a track record yet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 05/23/2007 08:18 am
clongton
Quote
- 11/5/2007  5:01 PM

After examining the move and shock envelope around each engine, allowing for the full range of gimbal motion, plus margin, and addressing the design of an appropriate thrust structure, the distance between the two outboard engines, center to center, is approximately the same as NASA currently baselines for the Ares-V outboard engines.
kraisee
Quote
- 11/5/2007  4:50 PM
Just to clarify, the engines are mounted in-line to keep maximum distance between them and the SRB's.

Just a benign comment...

I don't know what are the Ares V designers going to do about squeezing five RS-68 plumes between two 5-seg SRM plumes, but the Jupiter-120/232 designers will have to squeeze three RS-68 plumes between two 4-seg SRM plumes - by 2012.

This is new and a promise for spectacular. There never was, I'd say, a clear description of the interaction between such parallel plumes, featuring different exhaust speeds and close proximity. The "Shuttle-derived" aleviation does not apply !

Just open a picture of the Delta IV Heavy launch in an imaging software, stretch the 10 m between the "outboard engines" to the 8 m corresponding to Jupiter-232 and then copy/paste to a suitable picture of any Shuttle launch - now you see what I mean.

And another benign comment... related to this funny document:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/constellation/references/presentations/Space_Shuttle_Integration_Lessons_Learned.pdf

and speciffically to the "SRB Ignition Overpressure (IOP) Suppression Configuration"

The water spray needs to be adapted for Jupiter-120/232 (and Ares-V) since you have the three engines fireing between the SRB's. Also the IOP will manifest differently since the three RS-68 plumes will be right there. Different flame deflectors and ample modifications to the MLP IMHO.

One last comment... corrosive, I admit:

The strongest point of the Direct-2 proposal is also the weakest one. I mean, the two 120/232 look like they've been through the Procrustes' Bed. Twice.  First, because they retain the LH2 tank from the Shuttle (be it minimal "less milling" and all). Second, because they share the common "Jupiter Common Core" but have different missions - especially if you listen to Jim saying that the 120 will boost only the C E V. The case for a payload under the CEV is not clear.

Other than that I join many other forum members in congratulating your team and I express my admiration (and envy !) for your work. I understand that your effort is based on seeing an "clear and present danger" to the Ares-V promise.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/23/2007 08:30 am
Plume impingement between the RS-68's and SRB's shouldn't be a problem on Jupiter.  The spacing between SRB's and RS-68's is greater than on Delta IV Heavy due to the wider core, and because the RS-68s are in a line that's perpendicular to the line between the SRB's (as opposed to being co-linear.)  In Delta IV Heavy, spacing between engines (measured center-to-center) is ~5 meters.  On Jupiter, it's ~6 meters at the narrowest point (center engine on Jupiter 232 to SRB center.)

Additionally, impingement between RS-68's will not be an issue on Jupiter 120, due to the blank spot in the center of the core where the third RS-68 will be on Jupiter 232.  While impingement between RS-68's might be an issue on Jupiter 232, I don't suspect it's a showstopper by any stretch of the imagination.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/23/2007 08:37 am
Quote
jongoff - 22/5/2007  6:23 PM

Smetch,
Quote
NASA won’t be able to ignore the CBO and OMB this time around.

Now CBO and OMB may be just the right audience to send this information to.   Next time they do an analysis, if they also compare DIRECT to the Ares I/V and it comes out anywhere near as good as I think it would, that would help your cause a lot.

~Jon

CBO analysis would really help to gain some credibility. I think that the last CBO didn't fully incorporated NASA changes to the ESAS study. It could be really interresting to see updated estimations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/23/2007 11:36 am
Quote
SolarPowered - 22/5/2007  9:15 PM

Existing launch systems tend to have a pretty poor reliability record, compared to what is acceptable for human risk.  For example, we've lost 2 Shuttles in just over 100 flights.  The record of the Delta family shows many failures over the years.  (The Atlas family has actually done a bit better, with >100 flights now with no failures.)
.

Many failures?  Delta family is just as good as Atlas.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Drapper23 on 05/23/2007 12:56 pm
http://www.space.com/spacenews/spacenews_briefs.html  The 2008 Congressional Budget Resolution supports the VSE & the full Bush funding request for NASA. The budget resolution also supports NASA's goal of reducing the gap between retiring the space shuttle and fielding its successor.  This last statement is an opening that the Direct 2 supporters should size upon in. It provides the perfect rationale as to why a major effort should be made to contact Congressional offices about the advantages of Direct 2.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 05/23/2007 02:16 pm
CFE
Quote
- 23/5/2007  11:30 AM
I don't suspect it's a showstopper by any stretch of the imagination.

It was just a benign comment, that is a minor observation - what showstopper ?!

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/23/2007 02:22 pm
The biggest advantage to direct, IMHO is the cutting of years off of the development schedules.    Yes there are impressive cost savings,  but NASA’s annual budget  is going to remain fixed (at least in theory).  So the savings won’t occur until direct is flying.
Congress tends to be very short sighted in the budget department.  They mostly concern themselves with the spending over the next 4 years.   Since the cost savings won’t occur until 5 years down the road,  that might not be the biggest selling point.

 As far as the proposed schedule,  from 2009 to 2012 there is only one flight per year.
Why so few?  Is the limiting factor the completion of the CEV’s?    After the first flight there will be a lot of analysis,  design changes, etc.    But after the second launch it seems like the schedule could be more aggressive.

  At the end of the proposal is says that the plan is going to be presented in September  in Long Beach.   Is this at a conference?   And what is the purpose in stating this in the proposal
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 05/23/2007 02:44 pm
Quote
veedriver22 - 23/5/2007  7:22 AM

The biggest advantage to direct, IMHO is the cutting of years off of the development schedules.    Yes there are impressive cost savings,  but NASA’s annual budget  is going to remain fixed (at least in theory).  So the savings won’t occur until direct is flying.
Congress tends to be very short sighted in the budget department.  They mostly concern themselves with the spending over the next 4 years.   Since the cost savings won’t occur until 5 years down the road,  that might not be the biggest selling point.

 As far as the proposed schedule,  from 2009 to 2012 there is only one flight per year.
Why so few?  Is the limiting factor the completion of the CEV’s?    After the first flight there will be a lot of analysis,  design changes, etc.    But after the second launch it seems like the schedule could be more aggressive.

  At the end of the proposal is says that the plan is going to be presented in September  in Long Beach.   Is this at a conference?   And what is the purpose in stating this in the proposal

Yes AIAA Space 2007,  even Mike and/or Scott is supposed to be there.  Wouldn't it be great if they went to the presentation.  

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/23/2007 03:07 pm
Quote
SMetch - 23/5/2007  8:44 AM
Yes AIAA Space 2007,  even Mike and/or Scott is supposed to be there.  Wouldn't it be great if they went to the presentation.  

It has been my experience that engineers will attend virtually any meeting to which they are invited if they are offered free pastries.

Just a thought.

Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 05/23/2007 04:51 pm
Just saw that JWST is getting an Orion Docking ring.. what's the point if you're flying Orion on Ares 1???  There's NO way in the world it can get there can it?  I can't imagine them launching an Ares 5 in addition just to get an Orion out there.  plus would be available so far after JWST launch it wouldn't be much use.

What about Jupiter.. would the base configuration be capable of getting Orion to JWST?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/23/2007 05:02 pm
Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 23/5/2007  12:51 PM

Just saw that JWST is getting an Orion Docking ring
Your source?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tmckinley on 05/23/2007 05:03 pm
Ares V will be manrated, plus there's the chance of Ares IV. I believe that's how they plan on getting to NEO's if they ever have the money. An Ares I and V wouldn't both be launched.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 05/23/2007 05:09 pm
Quote
clongton - 23/5/2007  12:02 PM

Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 23/5/2007  12:51 PM

Just saw that JWST is getting an Orion Docking ring
Your source?
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070523_techwed_jwst_dock.html
-----
JRF
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/23/2007 05:18 pm
Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 23/5/2007  12:51 PM

Just saw that JWST is getting an Orion Docking ring.. what's the point if you're flying Orion on Ares 1???  There's NO way in the world it can get there can it?  I can't imagine them launching an Ares 5 in addition just to get an Orion out there.  plus would be available so far after JWST launch it wouldn't be much use.

What about Jupiter.. would the base configuration be capable of getting Orion to JWST?

A Jupiter 232 has more than sufficient performance to launch a 22mT CEV to James Webb, along with a substantial mission module mass.

With the performance of the J-120, we know it can place a CEV into High Earth Orbit already, and may even be able to deliver a CEV to Geostationary assuming it does not need all of its TLI propellant.

Ares-I is incapable of supporting any of these missions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: imcub on 05/23/2007 05:40 pm
Quote
CFE - 22/5/2007  9:54 PM
...   As far as safety goes, we know that Jupiter 120 will be inherently safer than shuttle ... simplified main engines not running at >100% thrust ...

Personally, I don't have a problem with engines running above their rated thrust levels ... Scotty did it dozens of times ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 05/23/2007 05:41 pm
Quote
tmckinley - 23/5/2007  1:03 PM

Ares V will be manrated, plus there's the chance of Ares IV. I believe that's how they plan on getting to NEO's if they ever have the money. An Ares I and V wouldn't both be launched.

But will either of those configurations really be flying in time to get Orion to JWST to assist with start-up issues (panel deployment and the like)?  That is the stated purpose for adding the docking ring to JWST since the rest of telescope is not servicable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/23/2007 05:48 pm
JWST is on its own until a Heavy Lifter is operational.

The Ares-V won't be available until 2019 at the earliest, and Ares-IV appears to require almost all of it's systems, so I just don't see it being available any sooner.   Perhaps 1 year sooner if they're lucky - but that assumes considerable development funds being redirected away from the Lunar missions and towards this.   I think that's very unlikely.

A Jupiter-232 could service JWST from around 2015 on.

A Jupiter-120 with a man-rated Centaur stage instead of the EDS could probably do it earlier if there were an actual requirement.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Alpha Control on 05/23/2007 06:09 pm
And the ship never did fly apart, despite the constant protestations of "she canna hold together"!

To keep this on topic, as a long-time space enthusiast (IT professional but non-engineer), I have been impressed with the work done on Direct 2.0.  I take the team at their word on their statements, and look forward to reading more responses from the various communities as the process moves ahead.

David
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Thorny on 05/23/2007 06:15 pm
Quote
kraisee - 23/5/2007  12:48 PM

The Ares-V won't be available until 2019 at the earliest, and Ares-IV appears to require almost all of it's systems, so I just don't see it being available any sooner.   Perhaps 1 year sooner if they're lucky - but that assumes considerable development funds being redirected away from the Lunar missions and towards this.   I think that's very unlikely.

Ross.

It might be possible to get Orion to JWST with two Ares I launches... one with the Orion, the other with no payload, just a docking adapter on the US. The two dock and relight the US engine.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Thorny on 05/23/2007 06:19 pm
Quote
CFE - 23/5/2007  3:30 AM

Plume impingement between the RS-68's and SRB's shouldn't be a problem on Jupiter.

Looks to me like it would be a challenge for the MLP, though. There sure isn't much space between the two SRB mounts on the existing MLP for a core flame duct. Or will Jupiter's RS-68s be air-lit?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 05/23/2007 06:23 pm
I'm afraid you're overpromising again, just as you did with v1.0. In the baseline Direct v2.0 lunar mission, one of your launches simply replaces the Ares I in launching the CEV, so your other launch has to do the same work as the Ares V. You seem to be using fundamentaly more optimistic assumptions in your calculations than the NASA baseline, both assuming that a smaller LSAM is just as good, and that you can get almost as much mass into LEO with a much smaller launcher for the EDS/LSAM.

There are ways to fix the problem, but they have costs and you haven't faced them.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/23/2007 06:23 pm
Quote
Thorny - 23/5/2007  2:19 PM

Quote
CFE - 23/5/2007  3:30 AM

Plume impingement between the RS-68's and SRB's shouldn't be a problem on Jupiter.

Looks to me like it would be a challenge for the MLP, though. There sure isn't much space between the two SRB mounts on the existing MLP for a core flame duct. Or will Jupiter's RS-68s be air-lit?
This was covered in detail on the v1 paper with some good graphical examples.
Grab a copy and check it out.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/23/2007 06:30 pm
Quote
Will - 23/5/2007  2:23 PM

I'm afraid you're overpromising again, just as you did with v1.0. In the baseline Direct v2.0 lunar mission, one of your launches simply replaces the Ares I in launching the CEV, so your other launch has to do the same work as the Ares V. You seem to be using fundamentaly more optimistic assumptions in your calculations than the NASA baseline, both assuming that a smaller LSAM is just as good, and that you can get almost as much mass into LEO with a much smaller launcher for the EDS/LSAM.
There are ways to fix the problem, but they have costs and you haven't faced them.
Will
Blanket criticisms don't help. Please be specific so that we may address your concerns.
What assumptions? As opposed to exactly which NASA assumptions?
Overpromising in what specific way?
What ways to fix what problems, and what specific costs have we not faced?
If you will provide those specifics, we will address them for you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: ACEMANN on 05/23/2007 06:43 pm
Hello all, long time lurker, first post.

I had to point this out. I just read the article about adding the Orion docking ring as well and was (sadly) amused at Griffin's response. Quoting the Space.com article:

"The decision to add a docking ring to the Webb telescope was news to Griffin. Asked about it May 16, he said: "A year or two ago I asked people if it wouldn't be smart to at least have some capability to dock Orion with James Webb such that if people wanted to service it, they could do so. It only seems to me to make sense to not preclude that. I didn't tell them to do it. So if they are doing it, they must have studied it and come to the conclusion that it is a worthwhile thing to do." "

IMO, seems like an "oh crap" moment when taking into account the limited capability that will exist when the JWST is deployed, approx. 2013. Interesting article.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 05/23/2007 07:23 pm
Your Jupiter 232 is similar to ESAS Launcher 29, except that launcher 29 has two more engines on the J-2 stage. 29 is estimated to have useful payload of 92 mT to 28.5 leo, 232 estimated useful payload of 108 mT.

232 is estimated to throw 50 mT useful payload to TLI, only 5 tonnes less than Ares V.

You estimate 38 mT LSAM is suitable for your baseline mission. ESAS assumed 45 mT .

Please explain why your useful payload assumptions seem to be more optimistic, and why you think a smaller LSAM is sufficient.

Will McLean
willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/23/2007 07:28 pm
Quote
Thorny - 23/5/2007  2:15 PM

Quote
kraisee - 23/5/2007  12:48 PM

The Ares-V won't be available until 2019 at the earliest, and Ares-IV appears to require almost all of it's systems, so I just don't see it being available any sooner.   Perhaps 1 year sooner if they're lucky - but that assumes considerable development funds being redirected away from the Lunar missions and towards this.   I think that's very unlikely.

Ross.

It might be possible to get Orion to JWST with two Ares I launches... one with the Orion, the other with no payload, just a docking adapter on the US. The two dock and relight the US engine.

The Ares I upperstage is a launch stage.  It doesn't have the capability to restart
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/23/2007 08:25 pm
Will the CEV be capable of doing an LOI burn?   If not a rescue mission with just a CEV would not be possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/23/2007 08:28 pm
Quote
veedriver22 - 23/5/2007  4:25 PM

Will the CEV be capable of doing an LOI burn?   If not a rescue mission with just a CEV would not be possible.

nope, just TEI
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/23/2007 08:48 pm
Will,
Thanks for finding that.   I had actually forgotten about LV-29 in ESAS (its in Section 6, Page 421 for everyone to see BTW).   I don't know who in ESAS came up with the LV-29 spec, but it is, frankly, quite ridiculous.

There is no reason at all to have four J-2S+'s.   The fact is, that a single engine is only *just* slightly underpowered for this configuration.   Two engines offer quite a surplus of necessary thrust.   Four is obscene overkill for this particular vehicle - not to mention that having that many engines causes higher safety concerns and greater recurring expenses too.

It is little wonder that LV-29 couldn't be made to perform all that well.   It has four large U/S engines, so the U/S instantly weighs a lot more than a 2-engine configuration (13 tons of engines alone, not including the additional structural mass needed to mount them).   Also, to create the necessary acceleration during the U/S phase of the ascent, it needs a LOT more propellant to fuel four powerplants all the way to orbit.   This again increases the mass of the tanking.

This much heavier EDS must then be lifted initially by the same SRB's and core stage.   The effective performance of the boosters and core stage phases of the flight is thus reduced noticably.   This leaves the U/S with even more work to do to achieve orbit.

Worse still, with four J-2X's, some will have to shut down half of the U/S engines later in the ascent to avoid breaking through 4g acceleration limit as the propellant drains and the thrust:weight ratio increases.   This then means that LV-29 ends up carrying at least 13 tons of dead engine weight to orbit every flight.   This is ultimately just an awful solution.

A 2-engined U/S is far more efficient at achieving the requirements.   It has *plenty* enough thrust, and doesn't require half of the U/S ascent propellant.

Given that LV-29 was briefly included, I have to wonder why a 2-engined variant wasn't assessed and included in the published ESAS Report.

As an aside, I also wondered why ESAS put that gargantuan payload shroud on top of LV-29?   It makes no sense to me.   Does *anyone* know why they did that?


Regarding the LSAM, we aren't actually proposing a smaller LSAM at all.   We are planning that a 2-launch J-120/J-232 mission will still be able to launch a 45mT (GLOW) LSAM - matching performance of the Ares-I and Ares-V for all regular missions.

However, the very first test flights *could* be flown without the need of propellant transfer.   *If* that is not utilized, that would result in regular LSAM, short-fuelled, massing 38mT (GLOW) for just those test flights.   This is an option which can be done to simplify the first few test flights while we "find our feet" in this new program.   Once we've gotten a few flights under the belt, and have confidence, the propellant transfer can be implemented and we instantly match Ares-I/V performance.

The propellant transfer then enables larger-that-Ares missions as soon as NASA wishes.   By flying the CLV flight on a J-232, and by rendezvousing close to the moon instead of Earth, the propellant transfer capability enables NASA to expand to a 78mT LSAM.

This three-step scalable program is unavailable to Ares-I/V combo where a 45mT LSAM is the only alternative, and because NASA has bought two new launch vehicles, there is not going to be cash available to do anything else anyway.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/23/2007 09:06 pm
The CEV not being able to perform a LOI could be a big deal.   If  anything happens to the CEV while the crew are on the surface or in the docking procedure the crew would be stranded.    For a rescue you would have to have two launches,  a CEV and another LSAM.    Getting both done & linked up would take some time.  

  There are going to be events that can lead to LOC.   You can’t eliminate all risks.  But in any situation that results in the crew being stranded & lost, that will cause a huge public outcry.   Take for instance Columbia.   When the public found out that the Columbia could not make its way to the ISS (even if the wing damage were apparent),  and therefore its only option was to reenter,  people went nuts.    And now they won’t fly the shuttle on missions away from the ISS.

 This could be a benefit for direct.   With its capacity I think you could give the CEV the capability to do an LOI burn giving you more options for rescue.          
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Thorny on 05/24/2007 01:40 am
Quote
Jim - 23/5/2007  2:28 PM

The Ares I upperstage is a launch stage.  It doesn't have the capability to restart

The changes between S-IVBs for Saturn IB and Saturn V weren't hugely complex, mostly just the big OAMS and extra batteries and helium bottles. The J-2X engine will already be capable of restart and Ares I-US already will have that honkin' big roll control system. And if Ares IV starts to look like a reality, those changes would have to be made anyway.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/24/2007 09:25 am
Quote
veedriver22 - 23/5/2007  9:25 PM

Will the CEV be capable of doing an LOI burn?   If not a rescue mission with just a CEV would not be possible.
Actually going from highly eliptical orbit to L2 sun-earth orbit is not demanding. The problem is a long loitering. Servicing of Web telescope is not a good idea as it is too far and it's not even serviceable. Some quick fix (refueling or helping with stacked sunshield or PV panel) could be possible with robotic mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/24/2007 11:11 am
Quote
kraisee - 23/5/2007  9:48 PM

Will,
Thanks for finding that.   I had actually forgotten about LV-29 in ESAS (its in Section 6, Page 421 for everyone to see BTW).   I don't know who in ESAS came up with the LV-29 spec, but it is, frankly, quite ridiculous.

There is no reason at all to have four J-2S+'s.  

They are very similar vehicles. Same SRBs, same core, same engines, same payload to LEO, similar US GLOW (381mT for Jupiter US, 350 mT for LV-29). The only difference is the t/w ratio. 1.09 for LV-29 US, 0.51 for Jupiter EDS. The T/W ratio doesn't need to be a problem if the core itself provides sufficient dV. (Ares V with extremelly big core has EDS with 0.44 T/W)
Wery suspicious difference is also in the vehicle GLOW which is 2450mT for LV-29 and 2372mT for Jupiter-232.
This means that LV-29 core+SRBs weights about 110mT more than the Jupiter Core+SRBs. As the SRBs are the same the difference is apparently in the core itself. This is consistent with my comments here earlier. I knew that DIRECT is uderestimating structural weight but I didn't expect such a big difference. For example the SDV proposal done by ATK (ET-size core with 4 x RS-68) has the core weighting 31mT more than Jupiter core. It is difficult to make proper analysis with limited info only.
Of course if the dV from the core is higher it is possible to have lower thrust (less engines) on US. With extremelly low US dry mass you get Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/24/2007 11:24 am
Quote
veedriver22 - 23/5/2007  10:06 PM

The CEV not being able to perform a LOI could be a big deal.   If  anything happens to the CEV while the crew are on the surface or in the docking procedure the crew would be stranded.    For a rescue you would have to have two launches,  a CEV and another LSAM.    Getting both done & linked up would take some time.  

  There are going to be events that can lead to LOC.   You can’t eliminate all risks.  But in any situation that results in the crew being stranded & lost, that will cause a huge public outcry.   Take for instance Columbia.   When the public found out that the Columbia could not make its way to the ISS (even if the wing damage were apparent),  and therefore its only option was to reenter,  people went nuts.    And now they won’t fly the shuttle on missions away from the ISS.

 This could be a benefit for direct.   With its capacity I think you could give the CEV the capability to do an LOI burn giving you more options for rescue.          

That's unrealistic. If the crew is stranded at the lunar base they have to wait for the next crew mission or extra supplies by Ares V/cargo LSAM. If they are stranded at LLO they die anyway. Orion & ascend stage of LM can't support them long enough. There is nothing you can do unless you have a spare manned mission prepared stright away.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/24/2007 12:09 pm
Quote
kraisee - 23/5/2007  9:48 PM

Will,
Thanks for finding that.   I had actually forgotten about LV-29 in ESAS (its in Section 6, Page 421 for everyone to see BTW).   I don't know who in ESAS came up with the LV-29 spec, but it is, frankly, quite ridiculous.

There is no reason at all to have four J-2S+'s.   The fact is, that a single engine is only *just* slightly underpowered for this configuration.   Two engines offer quite a surplus of necessary thrust.   Four is obscene overkill for this particular vehicle - not to mention that having that many engines causes higher safety concerns and greater recurring expenses too.

The burnout T/W ratio around 4 is nothing uncommon for US. It's actually required to get that payload to orbit.  

Quote
It is little wonder that LV-29 couldn't be made to perform all that well.   It has four large U/S engines, so the U/S instantly weighs a lot more than a 2-engine configuration (13 tons of engines alone, not including the additional structural mass needed to mount them).

One J-2X is max 2mT. One RS-68 is less than 7mT.

Quote
Also, to create the necessary acceleration during the U/S phase of the ascent, it needs a LOT more propellant to fuel four powerplants all the way to orbit.   This again increases the mass of the tanking.

It's not about propellants. It's about dV. Four engines have more acceleration and less gravity losses. Again 4g's acceleration is nothing uncommon for US.

Quote
This much heavier EDS must then be lifted initially by the same SRB's and core stage.   The effective performance of the boosters and core stage phases of the flight is thus reduced noticably.   This leaves the U/S with even more work to do to achieve orbit.

LV-29 second stage is actually lighter than Jupiter EDS.

Quote
Worse still, with four J-2X's, some will have to shut down half of the U/S engines later in the ascent to avoid breaking through 4g acceleration limit as the propellant drains and the thrust:weight ratio increases.   This then means that LV-29 ends up carrying at least 13 tons of dead engine weight to orbit every flight.   This is ultimately just an awful solution.

Wrong again. Extra J-2S+ weight less than 2mT each, the maximal accelartion of 4g is achieved at the burnout.

Quote
A 2-engined U/S is far more efficient at achieving the requirements.   It has *plenty* enough thrust, and doesn't require half of the U/S ascent propellant.

Less thrust US has high gravity losses and has to fly on more lofted trajectory. The only reason for EDS to have a low thurst is for TLI burns where a high thrust is not required.

Quote
Given that LV-29 was briefly included, I have to wonder why a 2-engined variant wasn't assessed and included in the published ESAS Report.

It wasn't apparently viable for 3xRS-68 core.

Quote
As an aside, I also wondered why ESAS put that gargantuan payload shroud on top of LV-29?   It makes no sense to me.   Does *anyone* know why they did that?

Ctr-C, Ctrl-V from LV-27?

It even looks as the RS-68 or SRBs are somewhat tweaked for LV-29 as it seems to have a higher liftoff thrust than expected for common RS-68 and SRBs

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/24/2007 01:28 pm
Quote
Thorny - 23/5/2007  9:40 PM

Quote
Jim - 23/5/2007  2:28 PM

The Ares I upperstage is a launch stage.  It doesn't have the capability to restart

The changes between S-IVBs for Saturn IB and Saturn V weren't hugely complex, mostly just the big OAMS and extra batteries and helium bottles. The J-2X engine will already be capable of restart and Ares I-US already will have that honkin' big roll control system. And if Ares IV starts to look like a reality, those changes would have to be made anyway.


It isn't that easy.
S-IVB's were designed and scarred for it from the beginning.    the Ares upperstage isn't design for it.

No posigrade thrusters, no zero g vent system, no recirculation system, stage insulation not designed for onorbit, no onorbit cooling for avionics and many more


OAMS flew on the Gemini spacecraft

BTW First stage roll control is on the interstage.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 05/24/2007 01:41 pm
Quote
kraisee - 23/5/2007  3:48 PM

Will,
Thanks for finding that.   I had actually forgotten about LV-29 in ESAS (its in Section 6, Page 421 for everyone to see BTW).   I don't know who in ESAS came up with the LV-29 spec, but it is, frankly, quite ridiculous.

There is no reason at all to have four J-2S+'s.   The fact is, that a single engine is only *just* slightly underpowered for this configuration.   Two engines offer quite a surplus of necessary thrust.   Four is obscene overkill for this particular vehicle - not to mention that having that many engines causes higher safety concerns and greater recurring expenses too.


Ross.

It sounds like you are assuming that the four J-2S stage is the upper/TLI Stage. I think it's clear from the ESAS report that like every other launcher except the  one finally selected, the TLI stage is in addition, and payload to LEO does not include a suborbital burn from the TLI stage. Thus the big shroud.

It's probably true that staging like 232 is superior for a lunar mission, if only on the basis of simplicity. That doesn't explain why 232 has superior LEO payload to LV-29: one would expect the reverse. A design that's optimized for TLI or GTO will be underpowered for lifting heavier payloads to LEO: that's why Atlas is designed to use two RL-10s on LEO missions rather than one.

Your report would be clearer if you specified whether payload estimates were net or gross, so comparisons could be made more easily with ESAS. Which is it?

Also, you need to be clearer that to reach operational capacity equivalent to the NASA baseline, you are assuming orbital cryogenic propellant transfer will be practical. That's a key point, since NASA has been very reluctant to design a baseline that depends on it.

Finally, you need a plan B: how would you carry out operations if cryogenic propellant transfer is not practical. One option would be using two 232s and EOR: one lifting the EDS, the other the CEV and LSAM.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/24/2007 04:19 pm
Quote
veedriver22 - 23/5/2007  5:06 PM

The CEV not being able to perform a LOI could be a big deal.

Agreed.   The Ares-I is only capable of placing a 20,186kg CEV into 120x120nm circular orbit.   This removes any chance of adding extra propellant for any purpose, such as LOI burns.

With approximately 46mT (in CLV configuration) of lift capability, the Jupiter-120 has the option to lift CEV's massing a lot more.   It allows for a CEV to be designed which *can* perform an LOI burn.

The limitation is not on the CEV - the limitiation is on the launch vehcile launching the CEV.   Ares-I imposes far more stringent limitations on what can be lifted than Jupiter-120.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 05/24/2007 04:33 pm
I've been lurking for a long time, but this is my first post so I'll give a little bit of background about where I'm coming from before I get onto my thoughts about DIRECT v2.0.

I think it's a huge waste of money to go back to the Moon with present technology that's not as hopelessly expensive as Apollo, but not that far short. Human spaceflight is just a kind of porn until the costs can be brought way down, as Elon Musk is trying to make a start on.

That's my political view. Personally, I like space porn and would enjoy watching astronauts on the Moon because I missed it the first time around. I know, though, that the vast majority of people aren't interested. They weren't even interested in Apollo after the first landing. Going back to the Moon isn't exciting. Even real human spaceflight enthusiasts only see it as a stepping stone to Mars.

Others have written about the budgetary challenges facing VSE and particularly the Ares plan. Ross's political analysis behind DIRECT is spot on. It's almost impossible to imagine that in 2016 or whenever Ares I finally flies (if it ever does) there will be enthusiasm for investing further billions in Ares V. The current plan is politically doomed, probably not long after 2008. Politically, the only slender hope for VSE is DIRECT or a variant. Even then, the cost of the LSAM will probably kill it.

I'm not an engineer, but when I read the DIRECT v2.0 proposal I was struck that Jupiter 232's payload to LEO seemed high compared to other LVs of that size in ESAS and even compared to DIRECT 1.0 Heavy. I remembered how DIRECT v1.0 turned out to be too good to be true. I was also worried about relying on propellant transfer in space.

JIS does come across as a curmudgeon, but he turned out to be dead right in his criticisms of DIRECT v1.0. He obviously does know a lot about what he's talking about. I remember how he said the regen RS-68 couldn't achieve the claimed ISP and was dismissed. Now he's saying that the upper stage has too little mass I find that very credible. He's also raised concerns about propellant transfer in space. Now Will is doing the same.

I remember that a few months ago Ross wrote that the *only* way to go was with two of what now is called the Jupiter-232. What happened to make him change his mind and decide that it could be done with a 232 and a 120?

In the proposal,  2x Jupiter-232s with LOR-LOR and no propellant transfer can support a 50MT LSAM. What's the equivalent figure with 2x Jupiter-232s using EOR-LOR as Will suggests?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/24/2007 04:38 pm
If they are stranded in lunar orbit is Houston going to just radio to them & thank them for their service?   No they wouldn’t.   They would pull out all the stops & do something/anything to try to save them.  

 If they are stranded on the surface & the next mission is carried out,  how are they going to get twice the crew back to the CEV,  and back home in the CEV with twice the number of crew?

 The way to cover as many situations as possible would be to have an emergency LSAM on the moon with emergency supplies.  It would be landed unmanned & would be there in case of emergencies.   I think the ascent stage uses hypergolics, so it could stay there for long periods.   If the astronauts become stranded they would make their way to the emergency LSAM.   Of course that assumes they have a  method of getting there from their original landing location.  

  If they somehow become stranded in lunar orbit you launch the emergency LSAM ascent stage which would be unmanned.   Assuming that it could meet up with crew in orbit, they would use the supplies stored in the emergency LSAM to survive until help arrives.  

 What do you do now?  Do you send another crew?   I don’t know if that makes any sense.   Are they going to perform their scheduled mission, and then pick up the stranded crew?  I doubt that is practical.   Plus on the return trip the CEV would somehow have to support 2 full crews (and reenter with them on board).

  So were back to a rescue mission.   Send an unmanned CEV on a mission to pick them up an get them home.   To do this you will either have to have a CEV that can perform a LOI burn,  or send a CEV with another LSAM.     Having such a limited CEV service module just seems like a bad idea.    And this is not the only rescue scenario that you could perform if you had a more capable service module, which would be possible with direct.      
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/24/2007 05:24 pm
Quote
Will - 24/5/2007  9:41 AM

It's probably true that staging like 232 is superior for a lunar mission, if only on the basis of simplicity. That doesn't explain why 232 has superior LEO payload to LV-29: one would expect the reverse.

Will, you do make a good point, that the LV-29's 91.9mT performance is without an EDS.   Quick back-of-the-envelope calculations would suggest that payload performance would actually climb to about 132mT with a suitable EDS on top.   But that middle stage adds a whole extra layer of dangerous events: 4 more air-starting engines, one extra separation, greater vehicle height, none of which are helpful.

The LV-29, without that gargantuan 4-engined upper stage, is fairly close to Jupiter-232's Core.

The middle stage is unnecessary though.   Placing an EDS straight on the Core vehicle offers sufficient performance for the Lunar requirement and is actually more optimal in configuration.

As for the "expectation" of different results, that's a subjective thing.   It is never going to be a substitute for carefully calculated results.

While the bigger Upper Stage on LV-29 offers lower performance than J-232, it is designed to lift an EDS on top.   It must thus have higher performance than the EDS itself, and must mass more because it must support all the extra weight on top.   The LV-29 U/S must mass somewhere about 32 tons at burnout.

Jupiter-232 is not launching a ~300 ton EDS & ~100 ton payload on top of the U/S, only the ~100 ton payload.   This means you need considerably less thrust (actually less than half)  to achieve the same performance.   This means that with half the number of engines you will actually get slightly better performance in real terms.   This allows you to reduce the mass of the support structures too.   Additionally, and probably most importantly, you also don't need propellant for 4 engines - only two.   Together, you can roughly halve the entire weight of the Upper Stage and still get similar results.

In our case, we are also using Centaur-derived technology to improve performance a little more too, and together that achieves 108mT of lift performance from the 232.

Just for the record, the performance simulations we have produced have already been validated in a number of different environments.   We are using professional trajectory optimization tools throughout the process (both v1 and v2)   I personally have tools sourced from the European Space Agency for calculating these trajectories, and can run a basic simulation in about 30 minutes, with a fully optimized analysis ready, often, in just a few hours.   Stephen has POST, which is even higher fidelity and is the tool NASA uses.   We have other people in the larger DIRECT team who also have POST, and some of those have access to the original ESAS analysis too.

The DIRECT vehicles are continually being compared to existing data sets, to ensure that we stay well within the same margins.   Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232 achieve every single one of the ESAS Ground Rules and Assumptions (actually with 2% higher margins than ESAS used, to give us extra safety margin).   We even achieve the <600psf max-Q targets which Ares-I doesn't even get close to achieving.

BTW, all Jupiter performance figures are NET, not Gross.   Gross is fairly meaningless, so we have never been interested in it.


There are a number of "backup" plans available with the lift capability provided by the Jupiter LV's.

For example, one option, if propellant transfer is not allowable, is to fly the "minimized ascent" (see below) LSAM's cargo pallet with the CEV.   The CEV and cargo perform the TLI still attached to the Spacecraft Adapter.   On the journey to the moon, the CEV separates and extracts the cargo.   It performs LOI and rendezvous with a ~50mT LSAM already in LLO.   The ~20mT cargo pallet is then attached to the LSAM, next to the Ascent Module, and the CEV docks.   There are a number of different procedural approaches to doing this attachment/docking, so I will deliberately refrain from specifying a preference at this time.

This allows non-dangerous cargo to fly with the CEV, yet still allows the full performance of the 2x232 LOR-LOR approach to be utilized.

There are many such options available - but all of these options depend on sufficient lift performance.   Ares-I's performance being in the mix denies all of these alternatives.

Ross.


Minimized Ascent LSAM - from NASA Tony Lavoie Exploration Conference Presentation, 2006
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 05/24/2007 05:45 pm
Quote
veedriver22
If they are stranded in lunar orbit is Houston going to just radio to them & thank them for their service? No they wouldn’t. They would pull out all the stops & do something/anything to try to save them.

If they are stranded on the surface & the next mission is carried out, how are they going to get twice the crew back to the CEV, and back home in the CEV with twice the number of crew?

Totally impractical (extra people and time required for: hardware/engineering/VAB/pad-prep logistics, extra mission pre-flight planning and programming, simulations/training for totally separate flight operations staff and console operators/back room crews, emergency range setup and range safety prep training and operations, emergency last-minute flight mission planning and full document prep's/printing specific to the circumstances/orbital/seasonal parameters, etc.)

Not to mention the horrific extra expenses for all that plus having any and all CEV/AI & LSAM/AV LON hardware not only in the pipeline but almost ready to fly before each manned mission launches. There just wouldn't be the necessary money/time/personnel to do all that unless you could convince both the NASA Administration and Congress all that was totally necessary and increase each yearly budget to cover all the extra costs involved and totally rewrite all the lunar mission plans and hardware requirements.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/24/2007 06:42 pm
You would build an launcher & CEV specifically for rescue & keep it on standby.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/24/2007 07:18 pm
Quote
anonymous - 24/5/2007  12:33 PM

I've been lurking for a long time, but this is my first post so I'll give a little bit of background about where I'm coming from before I get onto my thoughts about DIRECT v2.0.

Fair critical view.   This is the sort of thing we are looking for here, to help keep us on the rails correctly and soundly.   Thank-you.

There is a lot to deal with here, so let me just pile in...

I agree with your assessment regarding political will.   Ares-I is too small to impress anyone, let alone Congress.   Once it has completed its fight to be funded, NASA then wants billions for Ares-V and yet more billions for the EDS and also for the LSAM.   Congress isn't likely to be hugely enthusiastic having waited 12 years for "just" Ares-I...

For the record, we have data in hand, which we can't release, which appears to *prove* that the original RS-68 Regen performance figures we used were in fact pretty close to what *is* achievable from a RS-68 with an optimized regenerative nozzle.   Our 435s figure is within 5s vac Isp of what can be done.

Yet we have specifically avoided all such issues, not because they aren't technically achievable, but because they are targets for opponents to grab hold of.   If we avoid all of those issues, there's not much which can be fought against.

The U/S is actually well within margins for a Centaur-derived (ICES) design.   This is a massively more efficient design, and is proven already on Atlas launchers, than the designs used by the ESAS.   Believe me, we were caught out once before, and we have been very careful not to risk that again!   Our estimates are conservative at every level.   The current tanking is actually designed to be able to handle all of the ascent propellant, and to also contain 108mT of propellant.   This allows the full performance to be utilized for an orbital fuel depot.   It is actually larger than it needs to be for just Lunar missions, so there are actually immediate weight savings available if the priority is for maximum Lunar performance.

Propellant Transfer.   This is routinely done on ISS - with inherently more dangerous chemicals than LOX/LH2.   Hydrazine (AKA UDMH or N2H4) and Nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) are combustible if they just come into contact with each other.   They don't require heat, pressure or an ignition source - merely touch.   LOX/LH2 require an independant ignition source even if they are mixed together.   LOX/LH2 are tricky though, because they are cryogenic liquids.   This adds complexity, but it is nothing which can't be done if planned correctly from the start.   Thermal conditioning for the piping and valves is needed before the transfer, and launch pad-like disconnects are required when the modules are disconnected.   But cryo propellant loading can be routinely done with the correct design and procedures.

One alternative (outside of the real scope of DIRECT) to make propellant transfer even safer for the CEV & LSAM would be to use Methane/LOX.   The Methane does not require cryo storage, and actually offers some mass benefits due to its density too.   But Ares-I and Ares-V are already sucking-up so much budget that NASA has already been forced to abandon developing Methane engines.   With only one LV to develop instead of two, NASA should have funds to do this after all, and this is immediately an advantage for Mars missions later.

The key vehicle in the DIRECT proposal is indeed the J-232.   The decision to use the J-120 configuration was made in a bid to speed the first flight of the CEV.   The longest lead item for the J-232 is the J-2X needed for the EDS.   The J-120 doesn't have to wait for that.

Once the J-232 is made available, there is no reason to abandon the J-120.   It uses precisely the same parts and the parts are, in fact, designed to be interchangable.   It costs no more to keep J-120 available, yet offers a cheaper LV than J-232 for all payloads massing less than 48mT.   Many LEO missions can be flown without needing the costs of the EDS and the third MPS unit.   Also, the J-120, having fewer stages and fewer engines is going to be safer for crew launch operations - at least until sufficient confidence in all the systems has been established.

DIRECT v2.0's architecture has been designed to scale, in a two or three-step fashion, to an all J-232 approach for manned Lunar missions.   The J-120 simply offers the option of using a mid-way stepping-stone approach, and a cheaper vehicle for most LEO purposes.

Ultimately, whether we are talking Ares, or Jupiter, crews will *have* to fly on the Heavy Lift variant.   Eventually, a reusable lunar lander will be made, fuelled by In-Situ Resources found on the Lunar surface.   Crews will be launched from Earth aboard a single large vehicle, to rendezvous in Lunar orbit with that Lunar "taxi".   Be it Ares-V, or Jupiter-232, that vehicle will need a CEV and an EDS to get the crews to Lunar orbit.   This is the inevitable conclusion to the path the VSE is following, and either vehicle supports this, but Ares-V is more expensive.


As for 2x J-232's launching an EOR-LOR mission with no propellant transfer.   This, I have to say, has not been modelled fully, because LOR-LOR offers performance advantages if you are flying two EDS modules on two different flights.   All I can offer in this particular message are approximate answers.   Given that all I'm going to do is a "rough" work on this, here is a basic outline:-

Lift capability to 120nm circular: Cargo flight: 106.2mT, Crew flight: 105.0mT. (both plus EDS).

Additional Assumptions:
* CEV masses 20,186kg (same as Ares-I).
* EDS Burnout mass: 23,062kg
* Second EDS is unavailable for TLI on EOR profile
* No Propellant Transfer between CEV -> LSAM
* No Propellant Transfer between EDS-1 -> EDS-2
* "Rule of Thumb": TLI Using LOX/LH2 & 448s Isp, Propellant : Total Mass ratio must be 1 : 0.96 (1 ton propellant required for every 960kg of actual hardware).

So, we start with an initial breakdown:

Total lift capability (one EDS retained): 234.2mT.

Max Hardware to TLI: 114.7mT
Max Propellant for TLI: 119.5mT.   Note, this is 11.4mT more than the 232 is currently designed to carry, so without propellant transfer we immediately have to adjust these numbers down (sad waste):
-

Adjusted Total lift capability (one EDS retained): 211.8mT.

Adjusted Max Hardware to TLI: 103.7mT.
Adjusted Max Propellant for TLI: 108.1mT.

Unallocated hardware: 103.7mT - 20.2mT (CEV) = 83.5mT.

This looks pretty good to me for an LSAM Gross GLOW mass.   4mT is the harness which supports the LSAM on top of the EDS.   Effectively results in an LSAM massing about 66.2mT when it reaches LLO (LSAM performs LOI), but this would require the more risky LSAM > EDS docking in LEO (both EDS' need the harness) which we have deleted since v1.0 of DIRECT.

It's an option, but also isn't actually as safe as as an LOR-LOR profile using the same hardware.   And even that can bypass the issue of propellant transfer by transferring "safe" inert cargo from the CEV to the LSAM in LLO instead of propellant.

It's not bad, certainly an improvement over Ares-I/V - but the performance isn't as good as a 2x 232 LOR-LOR approach.   And there aren't really many alternatives that I can see so far without some form of propellant transfer.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/24/2007 07:37 pm
These rescue options are simplified under the DIRECT architecture.   Fundamentally, any Jupiter Core Stage & booster set can be used for any mission at all.   The only hardware which would have to be held aside is an EDS, Spacecraft Adapter and CEV to go on top in case of emergency.   These are all standard elements used on regular missions, and are a totally standard equipment flown regularly on the Jupiter-232 CLV configuration we are planning to use anyway.   So no new hardware is required for this special mission at all.

In the case of Ares, an Ares-I is currently required to lift the CEV and an Ares-V is also required to lift the EDS to support a rescue mission.   No third configuration exists currently with the CEV on top of the Ares-V, and none of the launch towers currently being designed appear to support access to a CEV at that height either.   Additionally, I'm unaware of any other way to connect a CEV to an EDS other than by using a very expensive LSAM in between.   For a crew trapped on a stranded CEV, this doesn't seem to be a good way to provide rescue capabilities.

I'm not sure there actually are any realistic options for launching two Ares vehicles in the time necessary for rescuing a crew 'lost' on a Lunar mission.

I think this may actually be a very critical safety point in DIRECT's favour because whatever the vehicle being prepared next, it is always going to be suitable to use for rescue ops.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/24/2007 08:07 pm
Quote
kraisee - 24/5/2007  12:18 PM
And there aren't really many alternatives that I can see so far without some form of propellant transfer.

Ross.
It seems to me that any serious lunar or planetary program is going to have to master orbital propellant transfer.  The other alternative is to have LVs that are so huge that you can launch entire missions, completely fueled, in one launch.  Trying to divide up missions into equally-sized, fully-fueled pieces that can be separately launched would seriously constrain what you are able to do.

I consider propellant transfer to be a fundamental ability, rather like the ability to rendezvous in orbit.  We did some Gemini missions to verify that we could do a successful rendezvous; we now need to master propellant transfer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/24/2007 08:12 pm
Actually there is one other alternative.   A way to bolt together propellant modules next to each other.

Imagine a cluster of 3 or 7 EDS modules attached together in orbit.   You wouldn't have to transfer propellant at all.

It's an idea I've been toying with, but I'm a touch nervous about parallel rendezvous & docking operations between two or more modules each containing 100 tons of highly explosive propellant, but which only have 1/4" thick skins.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 05/24/2007 08:42 pm
Ross writes:

"LOX/LH2 are tricky though, because they are cryogenic liquids. This adds complexity, but it is nothing which can't be done if planned correctly from the start."

The key point is that you can't use the techniques that have been proven for orbital transfer of storables, which involve flexible bladders within the tanks. At cryogenic temperatures, the bladders in use for storables shatter like glass.

So all you need in addition to the complications inherent in ground based cryogenic transfer, is a way to keep the propellant settled long enough to pump it from one tank to another. It's obviously possible: the simple way is to use propellant to create thrust while you run the pumps. How much propellant do you need to burn, and how much mass for the power source to run the pumps? Nobody knows for sure because as far as I know it's never been done in orbit. But it could be a significant penalty.

Will

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 05/24/2007 08:50 pm
SolarPowered,
Quote
It seems to me that any serious lunar or planetary program is going to have to master orbital propellant transfer.  The other alternative is to have LVs that are so huge that you can launch entire missions, completely fueled, in one launch.  Trying to divide up missions into equally-sized, fully-fueled pieces that can be separately launched would seriously constrain what you are able to do.

I consider propellant transfer to be a fundamental ability, rather like the ability to rendezvous in orbit.  We did some Gemini missions to verify that we could do a successful rendezvous; we now need to master propellant transfer.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it that way.  While they could've done Apollo without the ability to do orbital rendezvous, it would've been far more expensive, would've required much bigger boosters, and would've taken a lot longer than was necessary (while running the risk of the whole thing getting canceled at some point).  Orbital cryogenic propellant transfer seems to be the technology we really need to master now to make lunar transportation realistic.

Of course though, once you go with orbital propellant transfer...all of the sudden even a more affordable HLV like DIRECT starts looking less and less necessary.  Ares I/V even more so.  Which is why as far as NASA is concerned orbital propellant transfer is "far too tough to risk putting on the critical path".

I do find it ironic though that the technology that makes DIRECT the most competitive with Ares I/V is also the one that makes the whole case for Shuttle Derived HLVs look questionable.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/24/2007 09:18 pm
Could not the stack be put into a spin or tumble such that centrifugal force settles the liquids?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 05/24/2007 09:28 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 24/5/2007  4:18 PM

Could not the stack be put into a spin or tumble such that centrifugal force settles the liquids?
You're kidding, right?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/24/2007 09:31 pm
Quote
Will - 24/5/2007  4:42 PM

Ross writes:

"LOX/LH2 are tricky though, because they are cryogenic liquids. This adds complexity, but it is nothing which can't be done if planned correctly from the start."

The key point is that you can't use the techniques that have been proven for orbital transfer of storables, which involve flexible bladders within the tanks. At cryogenic temperatures, the bladders in use for storables shatter like glass.

So all you need in addition to the complications inherent in ground based cryogenic transfer, is a way to keep the propellant settled long enough to pump it from one tank to another. It's obviously possible: the simple way is to use propellant to create thrust while you run the pumps. How much propellant do you need to burn, and how much mass for the power source to run the pumps? Nobody knows for sure because as far as I know it's never been done in orbit. But it could be a significant penalty.

Will


This isn't a big deal.   Centaur does it every time it restarts in orbit.   Small thrusters are part of the Centaur and burn before every engine start.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 05/24/2007 09:58 pm

Quote
kraisee - 24/5/2007  3:12 PM  Actually there is one other alternative.   A way to bolt together propellant modules next to each other.  Imagine a cluster of 3 or 7 EDS modules attached together in orbit.   You wouldn't have to transfer propellant at all.  It's an idea I've been toying with, but I'm a touch nervous about parallel rendezvous & docking operations between two or more modules each containing 100 tons of highly explosive propellant, but which only have 1/4" thick skins.  Ross.

Autonomous rendezvous & docking is dangerous primarily for the human risk. If you assemble a cluster, you'd want to assemble similar mass objects (ones into twos, twos into fours, ...), and then add your CEV/LSAM axially last.

As to the tolerances and safety factors, there are many ways to make this acceptable.

I think this is a much better idea than cryogenic transfer. Also, you could conceivably handle boil-off loss by adding another module to make up for the loss.  

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/24/2007 10:00 pm
Quote
MKremer - 24/5/2007  3:28 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 24/5/2007  4:18 PM

Could not the stack be put into a spin or tumble such that centrifugal force settles the liquids?
You're kidding, right?

Thanks for the helpful information.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 05/24/2007 10:28 pm
Will,
Quote
So all you need in addition to the complications inherent in ground based cryogenic transfer, is a way to keep the propellant settled long enough to pump it from one tank to another. It's obviously possible: the simple way is to use propellant to create thrust while you run the pumps. How much propellant do you need to burn, and how much mass for the power source to run the pumps? Nobody knows for sure because as far as I know it's never been done in orbit. But it could be a significant penalty.

You mostly need enough force to overwhelm any perturbations and firmly settle the propellant.  If you can afford to take a little time (ie 30min-a couple of hours), this can be done with tens of microgees of acceleration.  There are lots of ways to skin the cat, but the LM guys think that just propulsively venting the LH2 boiloff should be more than adequate.  I've been investigating a couple of other alternatives.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 05/24/2007 10:31 pm
Quote
MKremer - 24/5/2007  2:28 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 24/5/2007  4:18 PM

Could not the stack be put into a spin or tumble such that centrifugal force settles the liquids?
You're kidding, right?

It's not entirely crazy.  A slow, controlled, end over end rotation could settle propellants.  You'd only need some tiny fraction of an RPM to make it work...but there are other ways to skin the cat.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 05/24/2007 10:38 pm
Nobodyofconsequence,
Quote
Autonomous rendezvous & docking is dangerous primarily for the human risk. If you assemble a cluster, you'd want to assemble similar mass objects (ones into twos, twos into fours, ...), and then add your CEV/LSAM axially last. As to the tolerances and safety factors, there are many ways to make this acceptable. I think this is a much better idea than cryogenic transfer. Also, you could conceivably handle boil-off loss by adding another module to make up for the loss.

Honestly, I think that cryogenic propellant transfer will be easier in the near term, but this idea isn't too bad either.  Honestly, I think the two ideas go well together.  Dry launch the individual modules, and then add additional parallel stages on-orbit as needed.  That would allow truly massive missions to be sent out without requiring much in the way of new hardware beyond a first generation Lunar Transfer Vehicle/EDS.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/24/2007 10:39 pm
Quote
jongoff - 24/5/2007  4:31 PM

Quote
MKremer - 24/5/2007  2:28 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 24/5/2007  4:18 PM

Could not the stack be put into a spin or tumble such that centrifugal force settles the liquids?
You're kidding, right?

It's not entirely crazy.  A slow, controlled, end over end rotation could settle propellants.  You'd only need some tiny fraction of an RPM to make it work...but there are other ways to skin the cat.

~Jon

You're other post said 10s of micro-g's.  Assuming 0.0005 m/s^2 and a 20 meter stack, you'd need to rotate only once every 15 minutes or so.

Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Thorny on 05/24/2007 10:42 pm
Quote
Jim - 24/5/2007  8:28 AM

It isn't that easy.
S-IVB's were designed and scarred for it from the beginning.    the Ares upperstage isn't design for it.

No posigrade thrusters, no zero g vent system, no recirculation system, stage insulation not designed for onorbit, no onorbit cooling for avionics and many more


OAMS flew on the Gemini spacecraft

BTW First stage roll control is on the interstage.


You're right. It was the APS (Auxillary Propulsion System) on the S-IVB.

Since Ares I-S2 is still only in design, how hard would it be to add the necessary scarring for orbital attitude control? That would seem to be a small price to pay for potential Ares IV or dual Ares I missions in the future.

Since roll control is on the interstage, how are they going to control roll with a single-engine during stage 2?



Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/24/2007 10:53 pm
Quote
jongoff - 24/5/2007  4:50 PM

I do find it ironic though that the technology that makes DIRECT the most competitive with Ares I/V is also the one that makes the whole case for Shuttle Derived HLVs look questionable.

~Jon

Jon, there is an issue with that thought though - scale.

A single Jupiter-232 can launch the equivalent of about 4 "Heavy" EELV's.   The question is, does it cost more?   And what about economies of scale?

Given the expected routine flight rates for both classes of vehicle, propellant supply would still be massively cheaper on the larger vehicle.   Let me explain.

Some basic assumptions to start explaining with:-

* 2 Manned Lunar missions per year (175mT IMLEO) per year
* 2 Cargo-only Lunar Missions per year (150mT IMLEO) per year
* 2 ISS Crew Rotations per year (20mT) per year
* 8 EELV flights average delivering DoD/NASA/Commercial payloads anyway per year.


The fixed costs for Jupiter would be between $900 - 1,200 per year.   Using most of the existing STS costs to derive our calculations, individual flight costs are expected to be $120-140m for a Jupiter-120 and $200-230m for a J-232 in the normal flight rates as listed above.

The costs are a little more difficult to assess for the military funded EELV program though.   Fixed costs for each of the EELV programs is known to be roughly $500m per year.

The individual flight cost can be derived from a careful study of the DoD SAR documentation for the program.   I spent a LONG time working it out a couple of years ago for an NSF article which I never published, but here are the results.   Interestingly, they are very close to those presented on astronautix.com.

* A Small EELV (example: Atlas 401, Delta-IV Medium, <15mT to LEO) is roughly $105m.
* A Medium (example: Atlas-V 551, Delta-IV Medium+ 5,2, 15-20mT to LEO) is approximately $130m.
* A Heavy (example: Atlas-V Heavy, Delta-IV Heavy, 20-30mT to LEO) is $190m.


Assuming normal economies of scale, where doubling production results in a 10% drop in unit cost, re-iteratively (2x = 90%, 4x = 89%, 8x = 73%) we can start making some comparisons.

Ignoring Fixed Costs for a moment, this translates to:

* Small EELV: $8,750 per kg to LEO
* Medium EELV: $6,500 per kg to LEO
* Heavy EELV: $7,303 per kg to LEO
* Jupiter-120: $2,916 per kg to LEO
* Jupiter-232: $2,129 per kg to LEO


Assuming 4 J-120's and 4 J-232's per year, and factoring in the fixed costs, the total cost would be $2,680m, launching a total of ~624,400kg.   That's about $4,292 per kg to LEO.

Assuming EELV's of the same type (Atlas or Delta, not both) and assuming a 'typical' distribution of say 3 Small, 3 Medium, 2 Heavy per year as 'regular', and factoring in the fixed costs of just one EELV program, the total cost would be $1,585m launching a total of ~148,000kg.   That's about $10,709 per kg to LEO.


For one single 100mT propellant flight, you would need about 4 Heavy EELV's on top of this, costing ~$171m each (I'm saying these 4 extra units equates to "doubling" to get the best out of the economies of scale, although it's only really half way there, I'm being kind!) and this 100mT of propellant costs $684m to launch.

One extra J-232 can do the same for $230m - roughly 1/3rd of the cost.


To get the EELV economies of scale down to this level, you'd have to halve costs at least.   Halving the costs requires 128 times the production numbers currently being achieved, or about 1,000 EELV launches per year - that's about three every single day of the year!

And that doesn't account for the fact that if that quantity of payload were ever needed, economies of scale also apply to the Jupiter vehicles too.   If 20,000 tons of material needed launching, you could do it on 185 Jupiter-232's, and that would drop unit costs down to about 60% of starting levels too.   EELV's don't ever catch up because of economies of scale.

There is no reasonable point where economies of scale allow the $/kg ratio of EELV match the raw Heavy Lift capability of the basic Shuttle Stack once you take the orbiter out of the equation - the Jupiter.

The Ares-I's $/kg can certainly be beaten by EELV, but that's a different topic and it's really for someone at MSFC to go handle.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 05/24/2007 11:00 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 24/5/2007  5:00 PM

Quote
MKremer - 24/5/2007  3:28 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 24/5/2007  4:18 PM

Could not the stack be put into a spin or tumble such that centrifugal force settles the liquids?
You're kidding, right?

Thanks for the helpful information.
At least think it through completely. OK, you establish a slow rotation to collect/settle the fuel at the end you need it at. Now what do you do?

It would turn out that you'd have to do all your fuel transfers during the rotation, and during that time you're 'stuck' until you either complete the transfer, or have to interrupt it (for whatever reason) and spend fuel/time to stop the rotation and resolve things, then re-start your rotation and fuel transfers again, then stop the rotation on completion.

That sure seems to me to be a lot more risk/time/effort than more straightforward ullage thrusters to settle the fuel for transfer, and also giving you much more simpler control/options for whatever fuelling disruptions that may occur.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/24/2007 11:05 pm
Just an aside, Cranfield jointed thrusters would provide an enormous amount of control authority during such a manoeuvre as this.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/24/2007 11:07 pm
I'm not experienced enough to determine which approach would be optimal for each possible stack configuration and mission profile.  I'm just saying it seems to me that it would be possible to do this with rotation instead of thrust if there were reason to do so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/24/2007 11:13 pm
Lee Jay,
I'm thinking that the centrifugal forces of rotation would probably force the propellant to the opposite end of the tanks (engine end) for transferring to a vehicle connected at the "top".   This would require longer transfer lines and larger pumps, which would represent a larger weight penalty.

I'm not sure which would trade better, more propellant for thrusters, or this heavier "plumbing".

If the centrifugal force could maybe be used to passively feed the propellant across, it might be the safer option, but I think the engineers would prefer not to spin the whole stack in this fashion and would opt to provide an active control system (thrusters) to generate all the forces required.

This would make for an interesting trade study none-the-less, especially given that spinning a vehicle like this is a real-world option for Mars-bound vehicles later.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: RedSky on 05/24/2007 11:32 pm
What with nearly 3000 hits on directlauncher.com since version 2...  people certainly have been looking in.  Here's a reference to Jupiter 120 on some blog I came across...

http://chairforceengineer.blogspot.com/2007/05/whats-up-dock.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/24/2007 11:56 pm
Quote
kraisee - 24/5/2007  5:13 PM
This would make for an interesting trade study none-the-less, especially given that spinning a vehicle like this is a real-world option for Mars-bound vehicles later.
Ross.

Sure.  As I said, I have no idea which would come out ahead given the wide variety of vehicle configurations that can be dreamt up.  As for control and preferences, the RPM seems to be repeatable and reliable for the Shuttle.  Given the number of spin-stabilized objects we have launched, I have little doubt that that approach could be made to work if there were a reason to do so.

There are lots of pretty heavy engineering, design, manufacturing, and operational challenges for a human flight to the moon.  Personally, I don't see propellant transfer as one of the high-risk issues.  It's not one of the trivial ones either, it's somewhere in the middle.  If there's a good reason to do it, they'll do it.  I wouldn't give up a major architecture improvement over this issue.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/25/2007 12:10 am
Quote
RedSky - 24/5/2007  6:32 PM

What with nearly 3000 hits on directlauncher.com since version 2...  people certainly have been looking in.  Here's a reference to Jupiter 120 on some blog I came across...

http://chairforceengineer.blogspot.com/2007/05/whats-up-dock.html

 What the article describes is precious.  They put a docking ring on JWST that an Ares launched CEV can't reach.   But a Direct launched CEV could possibly do it.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 05/25/2007 12:33 am
Jim writes, re. settling propellant in orbit:

"This isn't a big deal. Centaur does it every time it restarts in orbit. Small thrusters are part of the Centaur and burn before every engine start."

Yes, but only for long enough to start the engine. For propellant transfer, you need to keep the tank settled long enough to pump tons of propellant from one tank to another. And power to run the pump. Some people think it's an easy problem to solve, and they may be right.

Then again, some people thought that artificial gravity was simple: just spin two spacecraft on a tether. How hard can that be?

Will McLean
       
 
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/25/2007 12:34 am
1.  If I recall, someone said that the Ares V EDS has a single J-2X engine to avoid problems with off axis thrust (either due to engine misalignment, engine calibration, or engine out) causing loads through the Orion/LSAM interface.  If I remember right, that sources said that ESAS eliminated multiple-engine EDS concepts due to this constraint, severely limiting first stage options.  How does Direct address this issue?  What if a single-engine EDS were a requirement?

2.  Assuming we only get one chance in the next 30 years to develop a cargo launch vehicle ... what if there was a requirement to deliver 130MT+ to LEO to be compatible with Mars requirements.  How would Direct respond?  

3.  How does the design account for the increase in sensitivity to EDS mass?  This happens when too much of the ascent DV is offloaded to the upper stage, as it appears Jupiter 232 does.  Isn't it much more likely that you will see a 1 lb increase in EDS weight at 45000 lb rather than at 36000 lb ... and would that be a 1 lb reduction in weight delivered to lunar orbit?  This mass sensitivity would hit you during ascent, circularization, ED, and LOI burns.  I'm looking at an older Ares V, so maybe their EDS dry mass is closer to that of Direct now.

4.  What is the calculated LOC/LOM for Jupiter 120?  I think I saw that it meets the hypothetical 1:1000, and it looks like no problem with the number of engines/configuration, but I was wondering if the calcs had been done.

5.  Agree that Direct looks better for LOR than the current configuration.

6.  Have you done a year-by-year available budget analysis like ESAS did?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 05/25/2007 12:50 am
Quote
kraisee - 24/5/2007  2:18 PM


The U/S is actually well within margins for a Centaur-derived (ICES) design.   This is a massively more efficient design, and is proven already on Atlas launchers, than the designs used by the ESAS.  

Ross.


So you are using one set of assumptions for one set of launchers (Direct) and comparing it to a different set of launchers designed under different assumption. For a fair comparison, you would need to calculate how much mass Ares I and V would deliver to orbit if they simply used the same "massively more efficient" upper stage designs.

Will
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/25/2007 01:26 am
Does the massively more efficient upper stage design have the same margins as the Ares V EDS?

It threw me off to see that the Direct EDS had a PMF of .913 ... until I saw it was for ascent propellent only.  

532615/(532615+50843) =0.913

However, the mass fraction calculated for the ascent propellant does not compare fairly to Centaur, Ares V, et al.  If you could do that, you could make a super light stage of almost any size, partially fill it with some amount of propellant to get whatever PMF you wanted.

The gross propellant mass fraction calculated this way is pretty sporty

795077/(795077+44848)=.947

The total PMF for the 2006 Ares V EDS was 0.92, if I recall.

Others
Delta IV - 0.886 (single engine Centaur)
Atlas V - 0.911 (singe engine Centaur)
Titan IV - 0.884 (2 engine Centaur)
Saturn V - 0.889 (single J-2)

Assuming a 3100 lb J2-X and looking at a single-engine stage (for better comparison with the Ares V EDS), the fraction for this stage is even higher

795077/(795077+41748) = 0.95

I'm sure I've messed up the masses somewhere, but where does the precedent for this mass fraction come from?  And if Ares V used the same assumptions, what how would its performance increase, or better yet, how much does Direct suffer from a gross PMF of 0.92 (or lower)?  Looks you lose several MT to LEO at a minimum ...

I guess there have been advances in materials to allow this?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/25/2007 05:24 am
Quote
mars.is.wet - 24/5/2007  8:34 PM

1.  If I recall, someone said that the Ares V EDS has a single J-2X engine to avoid problems with off axis thrust (either due to engine misalignment, engine calibration, or engine out) causing loads through the Orion/LSAM interface.  If I remember right, that sources said that ESAS eliminated multiple-engine EDS concepts due to this constraint, severely limiting first stage options.  How does Direct address this issue?  What if a single-engine EDS were a requirement?

Firstly thanks for the informed questions.   This is valuable to us :)

There are a number of options.   Firstly, the issue only exists on EOR-LOR mission profiles because on LOR-LOR missions (more suited to Jupiter's performance) the CEV and LSAM fly on separate EDS's and aren't joined anyway.

Secondly, assuming the EOR-LOR missions are required in the early stages to develop initial confidence, you aren't suffering gravity losses on the TLI burn, so you don't have to use both J-2X engines.   You could use one, and keep the other in reserve, using the TVC to address the offset thrust.


Quote
2.  Assuming we only get one chance in the next 30 years to develop a cargo launch vehicle ... what if there was a requirement to deliver 130MT+ to LEO to be compatible with Mars requirements.  How would Direct respond?

Rather than spending something in the ballpark of $20 billion developing another launcher variant, I would suggest simply flying two Jupiters and one flies ~100mT of the needed cargo, and a J-120 brings up the rest.   The extra cost is around $140m.

Additionally, there is no singular item for any Mars mission profile which a 108mT launcher can't lift, but a 130mT lifter can.   The hab module and supplies, the landers, the propulsion module (NEP or whatever) are all well under 108mT as single part items for breaking down to launch individually.

Mars missions, by their nature, are going to be modular and will be launched in four or five flights.   Ares plans to do it in five (4 x Ares-V followed by one Ares-I).   Jupiter plans to also fly five (5 x Jupiter-232).   Both launch ~540mT to LEO.


Quote
3.  How does the design account for the increase in sensitivity to EDS mass?  This happens when too much of the ascent DV is offloaded to the upper stage, as it appears Jupiter 232 does.  Isn't it much more likely that you will see a 1 lb increase in EDS weight at 45000 lb rather than at 36000 lb ... and would that be a 1 lb reduction in weight delivered to lunar orbit?  This mass sensitivity would hit you during ascent, circularization, ED, and LOI burns.  I'm looking at an older Ares V, so maybe their EDS dry mass is closer to that of Direct now.

The EDS mass is optimally suited to the performance of the rest of the vehicle.   It is heavier than it could have been with more efficient MPS on the Core, but it is actually pretty reasonable in the grand scheme of things.

At the time of the TLI, the mass fraction is almost identical to that used by Ares.   Our EDS masses only 588kg more than the Ares-V (thanks to the use of Lockheed-Martin's ICES technology, itself derived from the highly efficient Centaur U/S), so assuming all other factors are the same, we need less than 0.5% extra propellant to offset this difference.   That is a minimal penalty to pay if you're increasing two-flight IMLEO by 42%!

And yes, in answer to a later question, the Jupiter EDS does conform to *all* of the ESAS GRA's.


Quote
4.  What is the calculated LOC/LOM for Jupiter 120?  I think I saw that it meets the hypothetical 1:1000, and it looks like no problem with the number of engines/configuration, but I was wondering if the calcs had been done.

Aside from the discussion of NASA's LOC/LOM numbers, using the same evaluation techniques as ESAS used simply to derive an useful apples-to-apples comparison number which we can use:

Jupiter-120 offers 1:1413 LOC and 1:234 LOM.
Jupiter-232 offers 1:1162 LOC and 1:173 LOM.

For direct comparison the ESAS equivalent determination for the current Ares configurations is:

Ares-I is 1:1918 LOC and 1:433 LOM.
Ares-V is 1:940 LOC and 1:148 LOM.


Quote
5.  Agree that Direct looks better for LOR than the current configuration.

Yes, it is really good at LOR missions.   But as my explanation above demonstrates, even when it is doing a sub-optimal EOR profile, it still manages to produce higher performance than Ares-I/V.


Quote
6.  Have you done a year-by-year available budget analysis like ESAS did?

It is not complete yet, which is why we couldn't include it in the proposal.   In the broadest of strokes, we save about $200-500m every year through 2015 while the LV's are developed, but when our Lunar program begins, the savings go up to around $2,500-3,000m every year after that.   This is mainly because we are no longer developing the Ares-V, and we are only operating one LV program annually, not two.

Our biggest problem is releasing NASA's costs for comparison.   The documentation we know of is all ITAR which means we can't release it.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/25/2007 05:44 am
Quote
Will - 24/5/2007  8:50 PM

Quote
kraisee - 24/5/2007  2:18 PM


The U/S is actually well within margins for a Centaur-derived (ICES) design.   This is a massively more efficient design, and is proven already on Atlas launchers, than the designs used by the ESAS.  

Ross.


So you are using one set of assumptions for one set of launchers (Direct) and comparing it to a different set of launchers designed under different assumption. For a fair comparison, you would need to calculate how much mass Ares I and V would deliver to orbit if they simply used the same "massively more efficient" upper stage designs.

Will

Actually, what we are using is data sets from a different source than NASA used.

NASA's ESAS team designed a traditional upper stage for the Ares-V's EDS, with separate tanks, Al-Li structure, traditional modular thrust structure, active cooling systems, exterior plumbing and, frankly, an old-style design philosophy.

The ICES takes a modern look at all of the existing Centaur technologies, which are already proven to be exceptionally efficient, and combines a number of very clever technologies which have previously never been brought together before.

This results in considerably lighter tanking structures (a common bulkhead is one of the most recognizable and obvious examples of this, but certainly not the only factor), lighter thrust structure integrated more closely into the stage, simpler plumbing which also weighs less etc, etc.   They are learning some of these lessons the hard way on Ares-I currently (note the change to common bulkhead design).   But MSFC has a 30-year long history of detesting the Centaur, so I can't imagine they could ever stomach purchasing an ICES licence rather than trying to develop solutions themselves, so they'll always be missing elements on Ares.

DIRECT deliberately ignores these politics in the interests of the program.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/25/2007 06:05 am
Why does Marshall dislike the Centaur so passionately?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/25/2007 06:11 am
Quote
mars.is.wet - 24/5/2007  9:26 PM

Does the massively more efficient upper stage design have the same margins as the Ares V EDS?

Yes.   It meets all of the ESAS GRA's.


Quote
Others
Delta IV - 0.886 (single engine Centaur)
Atlas V - 0.911 (singe engine Centaur)
Titan IV - 0.884 (2 engine Centaur)
Saturn V - 0.889 (single J-2)

Thanks for providing that list.

It nicely demonstrates what I just said, that the Centaur is noticeably more efficient than more "traditional" upper stages.   NASA used a traditional approach to designing the Ares-V's U/S.   We don't.

The ICES technology takes all of the different lessons learned from Centaur's 40+ years of operation and makes a new, design of stage, which is even more efficient.   And yes, it does use different materials, though not new materials for stages.   ICES doesn't use new hardware, it just uses a lot of different good tech together for the first time.   These technologies have never been brought together in one stage design before.

And actually, the Gross propellant pmf is actually 0.939 for the J-232.


Quote
where does the precedent for this mass fraction come from?

This is based on information from two sources within Lockheed who are familiar with both the ICES systems and the DIRECT proposal.   The two engineers independently offered their assistance privately and we took them up on the offer.   We fed our requirements to them in terms of propellant & payload loads, and provided data about flight environments and they independently provided the relevant data for an ICES stage which would be suitable for DIRECT.   These two sources proved to supply data which was almost an exact match for each other (no real surprise), and so we have confidence in the data we received.   We then added appropriate margins to ensure they were ESAS GRA compatible, and then added our own additional margins for additional safety above-and-beyond ESAS - as we have attempted to do throughout DIRECT's history.   This resulted in the stage data which we incorporated into our simulations, and which was presented in our proposal.

This data is entirely consistent with the scaling of a Centaur stage to this size, when you factor in the ICES technology which reduces mass and also improves boiloff conditions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/25/2007 06:27 am
Quote
SolarPowered - 25/5/2007  2:05 AM

Why does Marshall dislike the Centaur so passionately?

There was a massive rivalry in the mid 60's between MSFC who were conceptualizing the S-IV stage for Saturn-1 (later evolved for Sat-1B and Sat-V also) on the one hand and the team producing the Centaur (initially NASA Lewis, later Convair) as an evolution of the pressurized Atlas "balloon" tanking concept.

Both teams wanted to be responsible for the U/S to fly the Lunar missions and there was a lot of ego in the game with such a high profile mission at stake.   MSFC won out in the end and the S-IVB (manufactured by Douglas) flew the lunar missions.

This rivalry was strong and quite bitter at the time, and has never fully died in the 40+ years since.   Some of the current rivalry between Delta-IV and Atlas-V is actually attributable to this event too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/25/2007 09:26 am
Quote
kraisee - 24/5/2007  6:24 PM

Quote
Will - 24/5/2007  9:41 AM

It's probably true that staging like 232 is superior for a lunar mission, if only on the basis of simplicity. That doesn't explain why 232 has superior LEO payload to LV-29: one would expect the reverse.

Will, you do make a good point, that the LV-29's 91.9mT performance is without an EDS.   Quick back-of-the-envelope calculations would suggest that payload performance would actually climb to about 132mT with a suitable EDS on top.

This is not that simple. You can't simply put another stage atop the rocket. LV-29 has similar payload to LEO as Jupiter claims.
I think than LV-29 use HTPB in it's SRB which allows to carry more propellants. That's the main reason why the LV-29 core + SRB is so much heavier (by 110mT) than Jupiter core + SRBs. But I still think that LV-29 is more conservative in the core weight.
Don't forget that Direct v2 study take the core weight "directly" from DIRECT v1 study without allocation any weight growth for higher stresses caused by the aditional engine.
The reason why LV-29 is minor to Jupiter is simple - higher dry mass.    

Quote
While the bigger Upper Stage on LV-29 offers lower performance than J-232, it is designed to lift an EDS on top.   It must thus have higher performance than the EDS itself, and must mass more because it must support all the extra weight on top.   The LV-29 U/S must mass somewhere about 32 tons at burnout.

Jupiter-232 is not launching a ~300 ton EDS & ~100 ton payload on top of the U/S, only the ~100 ton payload.   This means you need considerably less thrust (actually less than half)  to achieve the same performance.   This means that with half the number of engines you will actually get slightly better performance in real terms.   This allows you to reduce the mass of the support structures too.   Additionally, and probably most importantly, you also don't need propellant for 4 engines - only two.   Together, you can roughly halve the entire weight of the Upper Stage and still get similar results.

This is certainly not right assuption. LV-29 carries 108mT payload (this could be anything, even another EDS) on the top. Nothing else. Jupiter-232 claims to carry up to also 108mT payload on the top. The only structural difference is caused by the maximum burnout "g" forces. For LV-29 second stage its 4g's. For Jupiter EDS its much less.

Quote
Just for the record, the performance simulations we have produced have already been validated in a number of different environments.   We are using professional trajectory optimization tools throughout the process (both v1 and v2)

I've put this question before. Who did the structural stress analysis? I suspect Jupiter core, EDS, fairing etc. masses being too low.

Quote
BTW, all Jupiter performance figures are NET, not Gross. Gross is fairly meaningless, so we have never been interested in it.

This is mysterious for me too. Gross payload in ESAS study. I'm starting to think that the "net payload" incorporates some extra payload margin.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/25/2007 09:45 am
Quote
kraisee - 24/5/2007  8:18 PM
As for 2x J-232's launching an EOR-LOR mission with no propellant transfer.   This, I have to say, has not been modelled fully, because LOR-LOR offers performance advantages if you are flying two EDS modules on two different flights.   All I can offer in this particular message are approximate answers.   Given that all I'm going to do is a "rough" work on this, here is a basic outline:-

Lift capability to 120nm circular: Cargo flight: 106.2mT, Crew flight: 105.0mT. (both plus EDS).

Additional Assumptions:
* CEV masses 20,186kg (same as Ares-I).
* EDS Burnout mass: 23,062kg
* Second EDS is unavailable for TLI on EOR profile
* No Propellant Transfer between CEV -> LSAM
* No Propellant Transfer between EDS-1 -> EDS-2
* "Rule of Thumb": TLI Using LOX/LH2 & 448s Isp, Propellant : Total Mass ratio must be 1 : 0.96 (1 ton propellant required for every 960kg of actual hardware).

So, we start with an initial breakdown:

Total lift capability (one EDS retained): 234.2mT.

Max Hardware to TLI: 114.7mT
Max Propellant for TLI: 119.5mT.   Note, this is 11.4mT more than the 232 is currently designed to carry, so without propellant transfer we immediately have to adjust these numbers down (sad waste):
-

Adjusted Total lift capability (one EDS retained): 211.8mT.

Adjusted Max Hardware to TLI: 103.7mT.
Adjusted Max Propellant for TLI: 108.1mT.

Unallocated hardware: 103.7mT - 20.2mT (CEV) = 83.5mT.

This looks pretty good to me for an LSAM Gross GLOW mass.   4mT is the harness which supports the LSAM on top of the EDS.   Effectively results in an LSAM massing about 66.2mT when it reaches LLO (LSAM performs LOI), but this would require the more risky LSAM > EDS docking in LEO (both EDS' need the harness) which we have deleted since v1.0 of DIRECT.

Ross.

Ross, this is a true armchair rocket science. It is good enough for chatting. I hope you are not going to present it anywhere else.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/25/2007 10:45 am
Quote
kraisee - 25/5/2007  7:11 AM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 24/5/2007  9:26 PM

Does the massively more efficient upper stage design have the same margins as the Ares V EDS?

Yes.   It meets all of the ESAS GRA's.


Quote
Others
Delta IV - 0.886 (single engine Centaur)
Atlas V - 0.911 (singe engine Centaur)
Titan IV - 0.884 (2 engine Centaur)
Saturn V - 0.889 (single J-2)

Thanks for providing that list.

It nicely demonstrates what I just said, that the Centaur is noticeably more efficient than more "traditional" upper stages.   NASA used a traditional approach to designing the Ares-V's U/S.   We don't.

The ICES technology takes all of the different lessons learned from Centaur's 40+ years of operation and makes a new, design of stage, which is even more efficient.   And yes, it does use different materials, though not new materials for stages.   ICES doesn't use new hardware, it just uses a lot of different good tech together for the first time.   These technologies have never been brought together in one stage design before.

And actually, the Gross propellant pmf is actually 0.939 for the J-232.

If you want to take only usable propellants against burnout mass then

ESAS EDS is 0.904
Ares V EDS in January 07 is 0.920
Jupiter 232 EDS is 0.938.  

Anyway, this comparsion is samewhat irrelevant as any NASA heavy launcher would use the same technology for EDS. Therefore, I would recommend to use pmf of 0.920 for Jupiter EDS along with J-2X spec for the next DIRECT study version. This would need additional 16klb (7.26mT) to the Jupiter EDS.
Also, you should look at the mass of the other structures.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/25/2007 11:29 am
Quote
kraisee - 25/5/2007  1:24 AM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 24/5/2007  8:34 PM

1.  If I recall, someone said that the Ares V EDS has a single J-2X engine to avoid problems with off axis thrust (either due to engine misalignment, engine calibration, or engine out) causing loads through the Orion/LSAM interface.  If I remember right, that sources said that ESAS eliminated multiple-engine EDS concepts due to this constraint, severely limiting first stage options.  How does Direct address this issue?  What if a single-engine EDS were a requirement?

Firstly thanks for the informed questions.   This is valuable to us :)

There are a number of options.   Firstly, the issue only exists on EOR-LOR mission profiles because on LOR-LOR missions (more suited to Jupiter's performance) the CEV and LSAM fly on separate EDS's and aren't joined anyway.

Secondly, assuming the EOR-LOR missions are required in the early stages to develop initial confidence, you aren't suffering gravity losses on the TLI burn, so you don't have to use both J-2X engines.   You could use one, and keep the other in reserve, using the TVC to address the offset thrust.


I don't think this solves the problem that was discussed.  Actually, I'm sure it doesn't.  Docking rings can't take any transverse loads, and aligning 2 engines (or 1 engine for 2 profiles adjusting for c.g. changes) needs to be addressed somehow.  I am pretty sure it is a show stopper.  If you had to go to a single-engine EDS, what is the performance loss?  Does the mission still close?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 05/25/2007 12:08 pm
Ross writes:

"And actually, the Gross propellant pmf is actually 0.939 for the J-232."

Ross, I like your proposal overall, but this sort of thing hurts its credibility.  That's a profoundly optimistic mass ratio compared to existing technology. I'll believe it when Lockmart retrofits Centaur to get the obvious benefits of improved payload.

I have to ask why the Centaur design philosophy isn't more popular. It isn't just Boeing: neither Ariane nor the Japanese have been able to get Centaur-like mass ratios in their upper stages. Aren't there some operational penalties and manufacturing complications from trying to get the lowest posible upper stage mass that way?

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/25/2007 01:00 pm
Quote
Thorny - 24/5/2007  6:42 PM

Since Ares I-S2 is still only in design, how hard would it be to add the necessary scarring for orbital attitude control? That would seem to be a small price to pay for potential Ares IV or dual Ares I missions in the future.

Since roll control is on the interstage, how are they going to control roll with a single-engine during stage 2?


There is a RCS system on the upperstage and it is use for rool control.  But it doesn't have axial thrusters.   But that is minor compared to all the other changes required for "restarting" the uppoerstage

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/25/2007 01:02 pm
Quote
Will - 24/5/2007  8:33 PM

Jim writes, re. settling propellant in orbit:
 
"This isn't a big deal. Centaur does it every time it restarts in orbit. Small thrusters are part of the Centaur and burn before every engine start."

Yes, but only for long enough to start the engine. For propellant transfer, you need to keep the tank settled long enough to pump tons of propellant from one tank to another. And power to run the pump. Some people think it's an easy problem to solve, and they may be right.
 

No, the thrusters burn thru the whole coast to keep the propellants settled.  As long as the thrusters are on, there is no issue.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/25/2007 01:03 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 24/5/2007  9:26 PM

Delta IV - 0.886 (single engine Centaur)


D-IV does not have a centaur
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 05/25/2007 02:44 pm
Quote
kraisee - 24/5/2007  11:11 PM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 24/5/2007  9:26 PM
where does the precedent for this mass fraction come from?

This is based on information from two sources within Lockheed who are familiar with both the ICES systems and the DIRECT proposal.   The two engineers independently offered their assistance privately and we took them up on the offer.   We fed our requirements to them in terms of propellant & payload loads, and provided data about flight environments and they independently provided the relevant data for an ICES stage which would be suitable for DIRECT.   These two sources proved to supply data which was almost an exact match for each other (no real surprise), and so we have confidence in the data we received.   We then added appropriate margins to ensure they were ESAS GRA compatible, and then added our own additional margins for additional safety above-and-beyond ESAS - as we have attempted to do throughout DIRECT's history.   This resulted in the stage data which we incorporated into our simulations, and which was presented in our proposal.

This data is entirely consistent with the scaling of a Centaur stage to this size, when you factor in the ICES technology which reduces mass and also improves boiloff conditions.

To add a little more detail to what Ross said (since I've been tangentially involved in that discussion), here are a couple of important details.  First off, as you could see from your own numbers, Centaur is a very efficient stage already.  However if you look at a detailed mass breakdown, it turns out that a good chunk of the dry mass of the centaur stage is taken up in hardware that doesn't really scale with stage size.  For instance, just because you double the amount of propellant, doesn't mean you need to double the size or number of flight computers, or batteries for those computers.

As they modeled all of their various improved Centaur designs they found that there were certain systems that just had a fixed weight, some systems like the tanks that scaled very linearly with the propellant volume, and others that had different scaling laws.  It turns out that even assuming you didn't go with the FSW Li-Al assumed by the ICES team, you could still get much of the mass fraction improvement discussed just by scaling the existing Centaur using existing technologies, since those fixed masses would take up a much smaller amount of the overall system mass.  I can't recall exactly what percentage of the dry mass of a current Centaur is in that fixed mass category, but IIRC I think its over 30%.

Just some thoughts.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/25/2007 04:00 pm
Quote
kraisee - 24/5/2007  11:27 PM

Quote
SolarPowered - 25/5/2007  2:05 AM

Why does Marshall dislike the Centaur so passionately?

There was a massive rivalry in the mid 60's between MSFC who were conceptualizing the S-IV stage for Saturn-1 (later evolved for Sat-1B and Sat-V also) on the one hand and the team producing the Centaur (initially NASA Lewis, later Convair) as an evolution of the pressurized Atlas "balloon" tanking concept.
...

This rivalry was strong and quite bitter at the time, and has never fully died in the 40+ years since.   Some of the current rivalry between Delta-IV and Atlas-V is actually attributable to this event too.

Ross.
Thanks for the expanation.  It sounds like these guys have been at it longer than the Hatfields and the McCoys (1878–1891)!  Perhaps it is time for an armistice.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/25/2007 04:46 pm
So the fuel transfer is needed to bring the LSAM  up to capacity that it will have on the Ares IV?    Why is that extra performance needed?  Is it to allow longer durations on the surface, to allow for more boil off over time???
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/25/2007 07:11 pm
Quote
JIS - 25/5/2007  5:26 AM
This is not that simple. You can't simply put another stage atop the rocket. LV-29 has similar payload to LEO as Jupiter claims.
I think than LV-29 use HTPB in it's SRB which allows to carry more propellants. That's the main reason why the LV-29 core + SRB is so much heavier (by 110mT) than Jupiter core + SRBs. But I still think that LV-29 is more conservative in the core weight.
Don't forget that Direct v2 study take the core weight "directly" from DIRECT v1 study without allocation any weight growth for higher stresses caused by the aditional engine.
The reason why LV-29 is minor to Jupiter is simple - higher dry mass.

Actually those are all completely incorrect assumptions.

First, the HTPB powered SRB's are lower performance than the PBAN.   The weight isn't actually that different, but the thrust is.   The reason why NASA was looking to change to HTPB was due to manufacturing issues.   PBAN is more expensive, and a little more dangerous - but it offers better performance.   When Ares-I started getting tight on performance they went back to PBAN.   We are sticking with it too.

Second, Why did you assume the Core of DIRECT v1 and v2 are the same?   The Core of DIRECT has changed considerably since v1.   The original Core only ever had two engines, and had a dry mass of 62,409kg and contained approximately 9% more propellant than STS does, with stretched LOX and LH2 tanks and had slightly heavier engines.   The current Core deliberately uses the exact same capacity as the STS ET (chosen specifically for manufacturing commonality and to address some of Dr. Stanley's issues), and the 2-engined variant has a dry mass of 61,353kg.

Just because the two designs look similar, don't confuse them as being the same.   They are not.


Quote
This is certainly not right assuption. LV-29 carries 108mT payload (this could be anything, even another EDS) on the top. Nothing else. Jupiter-232 claims to carry up to also 108mT payload on the top. The only structural difference is caused by the maximum burnout "g" forces. For LV-29 second stage its 4g's. For Jupiter EDS its much less.

LV-29 has been designed to carry an EDS on top in order to support Lunar missions - which is the key purpose of the document.

This requirement means that the U/S of LV-29 has been designed to handle the extra weight of an EDS + payload, not just the 108mT of payload it can lift *without the EDS*.

Needing an EDS on top changes the requirements on structure masses and performance for all the stages below quite considerably.   If an upper stage massing 'x' can handle 100mT of payload during a flight, it would crumple and expire horribly if a 300mT EDS is flown on top, plus the 100mT of payload.

Further, if it has just enough power to lift 100mT of payload, it is unlikely to have enough power to lift 300mT of higher stages plus the 100mT of payload.

The U/S of the LV-29 is designed (strengthened and made more powerful) specifically to allow it to launch a heavy extra stage on top (plus cargo payload) in order to support the Lunar program requirements of an EDS/LSAM Cargo flight.


The Jupiter-232 does not have an independent Upper Stage - it has an Earth Departure Stage on top.    It it is not an Upper Stage of the Core vehicle itself in this particular context where we are comparing it to LV's from the ESAS Report.

This EDS is *not* designed to have another stage on top (plus payload).   Only payload is supposed to fly on top of this.   This means this stage is not expected to carry any additional heavy stages in addition to payload, so does not have to be "beefed-up" in the same way as LV-29's U/S has to be to handle an additional EDS.

This is why we have always said that the "concept" of Jupiter is actually closer to that of LV-24/25, and not LV-29.   Jupiter does not have an Upper Stage.   It has an EDS instead.

In these terms, you should *only* look at the Jupiter-120 as being "compatible" with LV's in the tables presented in the ESAS Report (LV-27.3 being the sole exception to the rule of course).   Like every other vehicle there, it is designed to fly a highly optimized EDS (which is not shown in those ESAS tables), but which will also boost performance during the ascent phase.

And in that frame of reference, LV-24/25 is the closest comparison to Jupiter.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/25/2007 07:34 pm
Quote
JIS - 25/5/2007  6:45 AM

Anyway, this comparsion is samewhat irrelevant as any NASA heavy launcher would use the same technology for EDS. Therefore, I would recommend to use pmf of 0.920 for Jupiter EDS along with J-2X spec for the next DIRECT study version. This would need additional 16klb (7.26mT) to the Jupiter EDS.
Also, you should look at the mass of the other structures.

JIS,
   Actually, we're talking behind the scenes about doing a "traditional" stage, just to remove this as an item of objection entirely.

   While *we* have confidence in the ICES, it is still unfamiliar enough with the general readership that it may, as has been demonstrated here, be considered to be a flaw rather than the optimal approach.

   As you say, we could make a stage, around 30mT, using completely traditional methods which would probably be a lot more palletable to the general audience, and just keep the ICES as another of our "upgrade" paths.

   It's not like we don't have more than sufficient spare performance to absorb such a hit and still considerably out perform Ares-I/V.

   It's something we're considering.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/25/2007 07:41 pm
Quote
Will - 25/5/2007  8:08 AM

I have to ask why the Centaur design philosophy isn't more popular. It isn't just Boeing: neither Ariane nor the Japanese have been able to get Centaur-like mass ratios in their upper stages. Aren't there some operational penalties and manufacturing complications from trying to get the lowest posible upper stage mass that way?

Will, the fact is that Convair were the only company pursuing the concept hard enough to make it work.   They blew up a lot of early Atlas boosters in the process of trying to learn how to manage the pressurization of the tanks on that bird.   They are the only company who didn't just "give up", so they are the only company who got it in the end.

The Centaur is fundamentally one of those Atlas boosters, converted into an Upper Stage.

It has then gone through a 40+ year long evolutionary process, which has optimized and perfected the design over and over again.   Specific technologies have been developed for specific uses of the Centaur.   Long duration propellant storage is one example, highly efficient structures are another.   You could even argue that the incredibly efficient RL-10 is part of the Centaur's long development history - and those beasties these days can produce an astonishing 470s vac. Isp!

ICES is really just the next step in this evolutionary path of the Centaur.   All the individual mission modifications which have been used on different Centaurs in the past have never been implemented together on one single stage before.   ICES is the plan to do exactly that, and to integrate all of them into one design so that they compliment each other to the maximum possible extent.

ICES isn't all that revolutionary, it is just evolutionary.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/25/2007 07:48 pm
Quote
veedriver22 - 25/5/2007  12:46 PM

So the fuel transfer is needed to bring the LSAM  up to capacity that it will have on the Ares IV?    Why is that extra performance needed?  Is it to allow longer durations on the surface, to allow for more boil off over time???

Firstly, we aren't resolved to transferring propellant from the CEV to the LSAM.   It could be some form of inert cargo mass instead.   The trades have yet to be done to work out which is the best performance/safety/cost balance.


And it can be perfected in the early days when you fly the crew on a J-120 and the cargo on the J-232.

Once we've "found our feet" with a simpler, slightly smaller mission, the crew mission flight can be upgraded to a J-232 launcher as well and we also switch from an EOR-LOR mission profile to an LOR-LOR profile with the CEV flying on a separate EDS to the LSAM and rendezvousing occurs in Lunar orbit.

Doing that then allows the LSAM mass to be increased massively above and beyond that achievable by Ares-I/V.   We can place a 76mT (net) LSAM into 54nm LLO with the CEV, for anywhere-access.

Ares-I can not support an LOR-LOR profile at all, and there are no upgrade paths available to either Ares-I or Ares-V, so with Ares-I/V you will forever be stuck with an 39.3mT (net) LSAM in 54nm LLO with its CEV.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/25/2007 08:05 pm
Quote
kraisee - 25/5/2007  3:34 PM

 Actually, we're talking behind the scenes about doing a "traditional" stage, just to remove this as an item of objection entirely.

While *we* have confidence in the ICES, it is still unfamiliar enough with the general readership that it may, as has been demonstrated here, be considered to be a flaw rather than the optimal approach.

As you say, we could make a stage, around 30mT, using completely traditional methods which would probably be a lot more palletable to the general audience, and just keep the ICES as another of our "upgrade" paths.

Ross.
The ICES technology is not "new" technology. It has been around for a long time and all the "lessons learned" have been identified, adjudicated and incorporated. ICES works dependably well. LM has been flying this kind of stage for 40 years, longer than the Shuttle has been around. It's silly not to use this superior design in a new launch vehicle. Just plain silly. For anyone who needs more information on the ICES technology, there is a wealth of information available on publically accessable sites.

As Ross has indicated, we may offer a more traditional "standard" US "option", but make no mistake that the ICES is the preferred approach to the upper stage. It just plain offers more kg to orbit per kg of stage weight than the old-fashoned stand-by "standard" design.

We are going to be spending a lot of money to replace Shuttle and get back on track in space exploration. Let's get the best bang for the buck when we can. Let's use the best existing and flight-proven technology out there. That means ICES technology. This is no time to short-change our future. ICES is better than standard, it just is. While we can provide the option of spending our money on a less capable option, does it really make sense to do that?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/25/2007 08:15 pm
Quote
jongoff - 25/5/2007  10:44 AM

To add a little more detail to what Ross said (since I've been tangentially involved in that discussion) (SNIP)

All good points Jon, and your involvement and comments are highly valued by us.

One other factor, is that while tank mass tends to have a linear relationship to propellant volume, it is not a proportional fraction as you scale things up and down.   In the simplest terms, the larger you go, the smaller the fraction actually gets for the structure.

Purely as an example, the Centaur V1 currently used on Atlas-V masses about 1,859kg without its engine.   This can contain up to 20,799kg of LOX/LH2.   It's structural pmf is thus 0.917.

However, if you made a stage with ten times the propellant capacity, the mass of the tanking does not grow by 10 times as well.   It is a smaller fraction that that.   Now, I don't have a precise value for this example, but it's likely to be in the order of ~80% for this example.

Assuming 80% for the purposes of just a demonstration, you now have 207,990kg of propellant and a tank massing (1859*10*.8) 14,872kg - which gives your larger tank a higher pmf of 0.933.

This was factored in to the ICES figures by our sources within Lockheed.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/25/2007 08:37 pm
Quote
Jim - 25/5/2007  9:03 AM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 24/5/2007  9:26 PM

Delta IV - 0.886 (single engine Centaur)


D-IV does not have a centaur

Ooops.  OK (single RL-10 based upper stage).  Doesn't change that fact that ESAS is the most optimistic MF U/S I can find, and DIRECT is more optimistic by 3%.  Not exactly a "slam dunk" to borrow a catch phrase.

In any case, the high mass fraction makes me worry about what other optimistic assumptions were made.  That is one thing I can say about the evolved-ESAS, it is pretty vanilla from a technology standpoint ...

Still worried about the 2 engines on the EDS.  It was a core design principle on Apollo, was a core principle pre-ESAS, and is therefore (likely from heritage) a core Constellation principle. Will take some convincing (beyond hand waving) to say that those folks missed some easy solution (like TVC) that will make the transverse loads problem go away.  Ground rules are usually there for a reason.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 05/25/2007 09:16 pm
Ross writes:

"Ares-I can not support an LOR-LOR profile at all, and there are no upgrade paths available to either Ares-I or Ares-V, so with Ares-I/V you will forever be stuck with an 39.3mT (net) LSAM in 54nm LLO with its CEV. "

Upgrade paths have been quite explicitly discussed by Griffin. If propellant transfer is practical, then topping off the tanks of Ares V in LEO will allow a much greater payload to TLI, and the use of the EDS stage for LOI, allowing the LSAM to arrive in lunar orbit with the tanks full.

I'm puzzled by why you think LOR-LOR is desirable. If you launch two Jupiter 232s, you can have a rendezvous in LEO, with one carrying nothing but propellant to transfer to the EDS of the other. Since you only carry one EDS to TLI, you deliver that much more useable payload to TLI.

I agree that you should present calculations based on the same mass fraction upper stage as NASA. The key point is the tradeoffs in favor of one launcher/two launches as opposed to two launchers/1.5 launches. Using different assumptions is a distraction from the core argument.

Will
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 05/25/2007 09:47 pm
Ross, thanks very much for your detailed answers to my questions yesterday. I really appreciate it. I haven't had time to write again until now. My comments are in light of subsequent discussions.

Quote
kraisee - 24/5/2007  8:18 PM

For the record, we have data in hand, which we can't release, which appears to *prove* that the original RS-68 Regen performance figures we used were in fact pretty close to what *is* achievable from a RS-68 with an optimized regenerative nozzle.   Our 435s figure is within 5s vac Isp of what can be done.

It's a shame that the data can't be released because if that's possible it would enable a more elegant design like DIRECT 1.0 had.

Quote
The U/S is actually well within margins for a Centaur-derived (ICES) design.   This is a massively more efficient design, and is proven already on Atlas launchers, than the designs used by the ESAS.   Believe me, we were caught out once before, and we have been very careful not to risk that again!   Our estimates are conservative at every level.

I find your argument that you can do better with ICES convincing. It seems that the problem people are having believing it is because the payload mass fraction is higher than anything achieved before. I can see why it could be higher using ICES on a bigger stage, but to convince them it can be that high the calculations will probably have to be shown.

Quote
Propellant Transfer.   This is routinely done on ISS - with inherently more dangerous chemicals than LOX/LH2.   Hydrazine (AKA UDMH or N2H4) and Nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) are combustible if they just come into contact with each other.   They don't require heat, pressure or an ignition source - merely touch.   LOX/LH2 require an independant ignition source even if they are mixed together.   LOX/LH2 are tricky though, because they are cryogenic liquids.   This adds complexity, but it is nothing which can't be done if planned correctly from the start.   Thermal conditioning for the piping and valves is needed before the transfer, and launch pad-like disconnects are required when the modules are disconnected.   But cryo propellant loading can be routinely done with the correct design and procedures.

Maybe it can be made to work. You are proposing something that hasn't been done before and it's therefore the area that the proposal is actually most vulnerable.

If a technology's been successfully implemented before, you have a very strong argument that it can be used, as long as you can back up the details. I think that therefore the U/S issue is something you could make watertight if the numbers back you up.

If something's not been done before, people can always say that it can't be done for whatever reason or there's too much technical risk. That's why I think that DIRECT 2.0 is most vulnerable on this point even if you're right about everything technically. I don't see how you can prove it when it comes to cryogenic propellant transfer.

Quote
As for 2x J-232's launching an EOR-LOR mission with no propellant transfer.   This, I have to say, has not been modelled fully, because LOR-LOR offers performance advantages if you are flying two EDS modules on two different flights.   All I can offer in this particular message are approximate answers.   Given that all I'm going to do is a "rough" work on this, here is a basic outline:-

Lift capability to 120nm circular: Cargo flight: 106.2mT, Crew flight: 105.0mT. (both plus EDS).

Additional Assumptions:
* CEV masses 20,186kg (same as Ares-I).
* EDS Burnout mass: 23,062kg
* Second EDS is unavailable for TLI on EOR profile
* No Propellant Transfer between CEV -> LSAM
* No Propellant Transfer between EDS-1 -> EDS-2
* "Rule of Thumb": TLI Using LOX/LH2 & 448s Isp, Propellant : Total Mass ratio must be 1 : 0.96 (1 ton propellant required for every 960kg of actual hardware).

So, we start with an initial breakdown:

Total lift capability (one EDS retained): 234.2mT.

Max Hardware to TLI: 114.7mT
Max Propellant for TLI: 119.5mT.   Note, this is 11.4mT more than the 232 is currently designed to carry, so without propellant transfer we immediately have to adjust these numbers down (sad waste):
-

Adjusted Total lift capability (one EDS retained): 211.8mT.

Adjusted Max Hardware to TLI: 103.7mT.
Adjusted Max Propellant for TLI: 108.1mT.

Unallocated hardware: 103.7mT - 20.2mT (CEV) = 83.5mT.

This looks pretty good to me for an LSAM Gross GLOW mass.   4mT is the harness which supports the LSAM on top of the EDS.   Effectively results in an LSAM massing about 66.2mT when it reaches LLO (LSAM performs LOI), but this would require the more risky LSAM > EDS docking in LEO (both EDS' need the harness) which we have deleted since v1.0 of DIRECT.

Thanks very much for this rough estimate - and I'm sorry about the criticism you got. I was interested because of my feeling that politically, if not technically (I'm a policy wonk, not an engineer) in-flight refuelling was your biggest vulnerability.

Since then it's become apparent that any use of EOR-LOR may well be impossible for safety reasons for an EDS with two J-2Xs. In that case, LOR-LOR would be your only option anyway.

Quote
It's an option, but also isn't actually as safe as as an LOR-LOR profile using the same hardware.   And even that can bypass the issue of propellant transfer by transferring "safe" inert cargo from the CEV to the LSAM in LLO instead of propellant.

That's an interesting idea.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 05/25/2007 09:53 pm
Quote
Will - 25/5/2007  4:16 PM

Upgrade paths have been quite explicitly discussed by Griffin. If propellant transfer is practical, then topping off the tanks of Ares V in LEO will allow a much greater payload to TLI, and the use of the EDS stage for LOI, allowing the LSAM to arrive in lunar orbit with the tanks full.
Yes, but you have to have something there to fill the tanks with...  Is that another Ares-V?  Ares-I certainly doesn't have margin enough to launch additional propellant.  To me, this makes it sound like the upgrade path of Ares is to go from a 1.5 launch to a 2.5 launch.

Quote
I'm puzzled by why you think LOR-LOR is desirable. If you launch two Jupiter 232s, you can have a rendezvous in LEO, with one carrying nothing but propellant to transfer to the EDS of the other. Since you only carry one EDS to TLI, you deliver that much more useable payload to TLI.
This sounds much more practical than the "top off the Ares-V" idea

Quote
I agree that you should present calculations based on the same mass fraction upper stage as NASA. The key point is the tradeoffs in favor of one launcher/two launches as opposed to two launchers/1.5 launches. Using different assumptions is a distraction from the core argument.
I think showing the ICES concept in there is the right thing to do, but including an ESAS EDS will remove another sticking point.  In fact, it'll lend more credence to the ICES argument by being able to say, "here's the base model [ESAS], but here's the optimized stage, and look what it does to the performance."  At that point, if people still reject Centaur technology for political or personal reasons, it'll take more than documentation to change their minds.  Personally, I'm sold on the ICES concept.

...and this "1.5 launches" nomenclature still bugs me!!  There are *two* launches with Ares I/V.  Ask the ground support crew.  Not only that, but there are two different vehicles and two sets of infrastructure!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/25/2007 09:59 pm
Quote
rumble - 25/5/2007  2:53 PM

...and this "1.5 launches" nomenclature still bugs me!!  There are *two* launches with Ares I/V.  Ask the ground support crew.  Not only that, but there are two different vehicles and two sets of infrastructure!
Yah, but the Ares I is only half a launch vehicle.   :bleh:
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/25/2007 10:36 pm
It seems to me that the ICES upper stage is a major point of contention that DIRECT's detractors will latch onto.  Even if WE believe it will work, it will take a lot of convincing to get THEM to sign off on it.  I really don't have a good idea of how scalable Centaur technologies are towards an upper stage this large, but I assume that the DIRECT team has sources in ULA who have studied this concept.  These personnel may need to go public (in the form of a conference presentation, perhaps) to explain how it will all work.

Of course, Ares and Jupiter wouldn' have to quibble about upper stage mass fractions if we had better choices for first stage propulsion.

Quote
anonymous - 25/5/2007  3:47 PM
Quote
kraisee - 24/5/2007  8:18 PM

For the record, we have data in hand, which we can't release, which appears to *prove* that the original RS-68 Regen performance figures we used were in fact pretty close to what *is* achievable from a RS-68 with an optimized regenerative nozzle.   Our 435s figure is within 5s vac Isp of what can be done.

It's a shame that the data can't be released because if that's possible it would enable a more elegant design like DIRECT 1.0 had.

Such an engine would be a lot like the Space Transportation Main Engine study from 1988-1993.  I'd guess that if RS-68 got a new regen nozzle with a higher area ratio (~45.0,) it could bump the vacuum Isp up to from 409 sec to the 428.5 sec predicted for STME.

ESAS really worked itself into a corner by "betting the farm" on an expendable SSME that wasn't a viable solution.  We're now faced with significant architecture changes and heavier launch vehicles due to the switch to RS-68.  It may prove cheaper to design the new nozzle for RS-68 (in effect, creating a "cheap and dirty" STME) than it will to build the 10m core, redesign the MLP's, and procure the "super transporters" that will take Ares V to the launch site.  STME-like performance still falls short of SSME, but when combined with moderate reductions in LSAM mass, it will probably be good enough.

If NASA still continues to insist on an LSAM weighing over 43mT (instead of 38mT in DIRECT V2,) there's always an upgrade path available with Jupiter.  The 5-segment SRB's that NASA has always wanted can still be developed, and mated to a Jupiter 232 with stretched core.  Further performance can be gained back through the RS-68 nozzle upgrade.

It will be easier for NASA to get its foot in the door by authorizing Jupiter 120 and then upgrading to Ares V-level performance than it will to get very different rockets like Ares I and Ares V funded in an almost-sequential fashion.  That's the logic on how Congress could fund aircraft like the F-86D, F-84F, and F/A-18E.  If you sell it as an upgrade of an existing design (instead of a mostly-new design, as these were,) Congress is more likely to give you the money.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 05/25/2007 11:26 pm
Ross, you mentionned earlier that the Jupiter 120 has a LOC of 1:1413 and a LOM of 1:234. What would be the LOC and LOM for a Jupiter 110 (simplest Jupiter launcher to put a CEV in LEO).

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/26/2007 02:00 am
Quote
PaulL - 25/5/2007  7:26 PM

Ross, you mentionned earlier that the Jupiter 120 has a LOC of 1:1413 and a LOM of 1:234. What would be the LOC and LOM for a Jupiter 110 (simplest Jupiter launcher to put a CEV in LEO).

PaulL

I have no idea.   The LOC/LOM numbers I am using are supplied to me from a pair of guys who worked on the ESAS Report itself.   They have all the behind-the-scenes data and methodologies which were used to calculate numbers for the other vehicles.

They offered their time to me during v1.   I try to use their skills sparingly though, because they do other important work these days.   I try not to get them to do the calculations of configurations we aren't likely to use.   J-110 was one such which I have never asked them to work up simply because it didn't fit for supporting the Lunar objectives an J-120 could do everything it could (and more) for virtually the same cost.

My guess would be that the LOC would climb slightly higher, but the LOM might actually drop because there is no longer an engine-out capability, but that's just my own personal opinion.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/26/2007 02:27 am
Quote
mars.is.wet - 25/5/2007  7:29 AM
If you had to go to a single-engine EDS, what is the performance loss?

Interestingly both Stephen and myself have been working on exactly this thing recently - switching to a single engine EDS, but with a different ascent trajectory.

Current performance of the J-232 actually has it insert into its initial 30x120nm orbit at a fairly high altitude, ~116nm, which is very near the apogee, and wastes some performance in the process.   There are sometimes performance improvements possible if you re-target for inserting at a lower altitude, closer to the perigee.   Not always, but it is something worth checking once you've done your first round of optimizations.

That analysis was not ready in time for the publication of v2.0 so we went with what we had in hand at the time.   At this time, the analysis is ongoing still, so there are no confirmed results which I will talk about yet.

Anyhow, one of the results of this new profile; it looks like by heading for a considerably lower altitude we *might* be able to achieve a similar performance (>100mT to LEO) with a single J-2X on a smaller EDS.

Such a configuration, if indeed proven, would be an excellent solution, reducing complexity and cost and solving some of the issues you have mentioned in the EOR-LOR mission profiles.

It is still very much a work in progress, much the same as NASA's Ares vehicles are continually changing.   So, watch this space.


And just a thought regarding torque loads on the docking interface between the CEV & LSAM, on the Ares EOR profile, won't the LSAM's cluster of engines performing the LOI burn potentially cause even more unbalance than the two mounted on the EDS?   Especially if any one of the LSAM's units ever fails to ignite?   Won't the interface have to be designed to survive this sort of imbalance anyway because of this failure mode?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/26/2007 06:38 am
Quote

And just a thought regarding torque loads on the docking interface between the CEV & LSAM, on the Ares EOR profile, won't the LSAM's cluster of engines performing the LOI burn potentially cause even more unbalance than the two mounted on the EDS?   Especially if any one of the LSAM's units ever fails to ignite?   Won't the interface have to be designed to survive this sort of imbalance anyway because of this failure mode?

Ross.

Good question.  I assume it is either the smaller moment arm or, more likely, they only use 1 for LOI, but all for ascent.    Note that the Apollo lander only had a single engine ...

Maybe if Direct went to 3 or 4 it would be OK :-)

Won't be a big deal if the design can handle the performance loss of a single engine and mass fraction reduction ...

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 05/26/2007 09:37 am
mars.is.wet
Quote
- 25/5/2007  2:29 PM
Docking rings can't take any transverse loads
Is this true ?
I know LIDS and APAS are different, but please explain "any transverse loads".

Would an bending moment  of +/-346,800 to +/-577,000 (in-lbf) qualify as transverse load ?

from 42120.ISS.APAS.ICD.pdf

Quote
SPACE STATION PROGRAM
ANDROGYNOUS PERIPHERAL ASSEMBLY SYSTEM TO PRESSURIZED MATING ADAPTER
INTERFACE CONTROL DOCUMENT
PART 1 Core (APAS to PMA-2 & 3)

TABLE 3.2.1.2.1.3-1 APAS/PMA INTERFACE LOADS (ON-ORBIT)
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Axial (lbf) +/-1100 +/-1100 +/-3970
Shear (lbf) +/-1100 +/-1100 +/-3310
Bending Moment (in-lbf) +/-346,800 +/-577,000 +/-346,800
Torsion (in-lbf) +/-577,000 +/-346,800 +/-346,800
Note: All loads for each case apply concurrently in any combination.
Interface loads are defined at the PMA to Orbiter APAS mechanism interface.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/26/2007 01:51 pm
Quote
renclod - 26/5/2007  5:37 AM

I know LIDS and APAS are different, but please explain "any transverse loads".

Would an bending moment  of +/-346,800 to +/-577,000 (in-lbf) qualify as transverse load ?

from 42120.ISS.APAS.ICD.pdf


Good reference.  You are out of my element, so I don't know. I was just recalling a conversation I overheard with someone who I expect is in the know.  He did mention that it would be better if they used APAS than if they had LIDS, but both were bad.  Let's see if I can reconstruct the math.

Taking the APAS example, if J-2X has 275000 lb of thrust, an effective misalignment of 2 inches between the two engines would get you the edge of that range.  Assume EDS+LSAM is about 1000 inches (more, I think) and you get an alignment tolerance (between 2 engines) of 2/1000 = about 0.1 degrees per engine.  May also cumulatively be affected by variations in thrust (anyone know the max variation in thrust in a J-2X?).

Maybe they haven't transferred this knowledge to the LSAM yet, or maybe the factor of 5-7 reduction due to the much shorter moment arm (<200 inches) is enough to make up the difference.  Or maybe it is the fact that the LSAM engines have a fraction of the thrust (1/15th) of the J2-X and can be throttled for the LOI burn to reduce the loads.  Or maybe it is something else. But I think the ground rule for the EDS is a good one, and there are probably several others.

Also note that the ESAS EDS had 2 engines, but that it was changed shortly thereafter.  I speculate that this was one of the reasons, but I don't know.  

-------

This brings up my primary issues with putting a lot of stock in back of the envelope engineering.  It is relatively easy coming up with a design when you don't know all of the detailed constraints and ground rules (which not even ESAS had).   The problems come up in the later design phases, when the rubber hits the road and you learn of the the real-world things your particular design can't do.  Sometimes margin fixes things, sometimes it doesn't ...

That is why it is so dangerous to bag on a design that has hundreds of people contributing to it and compare it to a relatively immature design.  In my experience, once you change course, the sexy design of the day ends up looking just as bad (or worse) than the one you poured so much effort into getting out of Phase A.  Only difference is you are millions of dollars out the door and have lost a year of schedule.

It is my personal experience that it is very easy to put forth a "better" design, very hard to be right without having the team tell you all of the known gotchas, and finding your own gotchas through detailed (lots of people) design work.  Seems a bit one-sided to put forward a design that is superior on every point (I have not seen any real consideration to allow for the areas where the current architecture is superior), a design that is hundreds of thousands of hours less mature than the one you are comparing to.

As you can tell, I like armchair engineering as much as the next guy.  I just get worried when it goes from "hey this is fun" to "let's write our congress person" or "what's the next step".  Anyone who does that is likely sinking the whole program with no real chance of pushing DIRECT (or any other idea) through.  

Do YOU want a (small?) chance to go to the Moon, or do you want to do interminable design studies (which I have done) and provide more fodder for the critics to cut your budget?  When DIRECT v5.0 is accepted, and someone else proposes a radically different, "better" design a year later (which they always do) ... will you be just as gung-ho to change course to go with their proposal?   If you aren't there to defend them now ... there will be nobody there to defend you later.  By accounts, the political will on this thing is thin and a design change like this is the sort of thing that will get an Adminstrator fired, and a program cancelled.

We are rapidly passing the point of "go with the Army you got", if it is not already passed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 05/26/2007 02:35 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 26/5/2007  9:51 AM
 By accounts, the political will on this thing is thin and a design change like this is the sort of thing that will get an Adminstrator fired, and a program cancelled.

This might happen anyway
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Kayla on 05/26/2007 03:42 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 26/5/2007  8:51 AM
We are rapidly passing the point of "go with the Army you got", if it is not already passed.

When the "army" you have got was based on promises of the fastest, least expensive, most reliable solution and reality shows that it is none of these isn't it time to take heed and think of alternatives.  With Ares I at $10B and growing, under performing, late on schedule the current course is a disaster.

I agree that a lot of these alternatives don't have the foundation they need.  But when the next couple of decades of space exploration hangs in the balance maybe it is time to host an open competition (which NASA never did for Ares) and see what results.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/26/2007 04:09 pm
Mars.is.Wet,
   I agree with your general comments that one design concept vs. another is a reasonable comparison, but a concept vs. a real rocket is something else.

   NASA is indeed dealing with this on the Ares-I program as it starts the long process of trying to turn the Ares-I paper concept into a real rocket.

   However, there is still a major difference between using existing hardware with a lot of real-world flight experience vs. developing all new hardware for a rocket design which has never been tried before.

   Ares-I and Ares-V are both fundamentally all-new.   They don't use standard engines, tankage or SRB's.   They can't use existing manufacturing facilities, processing equipment or launch facilities without major modifications.   Every difference adds a new layer of "beyond expectation" to the entire process, and that is where it is most difficult to predict results.

   DIRECT v2 has explicitly gone out of its way to retain everything possible from existing flight-proven hardware with flight-proven data to back it up.   Not doing so on v1 was actually a major criticism from Dr. Stanley of all people!

   The SRB's are exactly the same as the last 182 boosters used on STS.   No new nozzles, TVC, parachutes, separation systems or recovery/refurbishment changes at all.

   The RS-68's we are using are unchanged from Delta-IV, except the addition of actuators to provide additional redundancy and the likely integration of the "smaller fireball" starting systems.

   Even the External Tank is about 70% the same as the proven hardware used today on STS.   It isn't a 5.5m diameter all-new stage, and it isn't a 10m all-new stage.   We can even use *all* of the existing manufacturing equipment and procedures used at Michoud, instantly, with no fundamental changes from what we do on STS right now.

   All of these elements of the Jupiter already have qualified, proven, flight data available in the same basic configuration which we intend to use.    So there are, in practice, a lot fewer "unknowns" with these critical elements of the Jupiter LV than on either Ares-I or Ares-V.

   The "unknowns" are mostly limited on Jupiter to the new integration process - but that's nothing Ares-V isn't going to have to tackle anyway, so I see no disadvantage at all.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/26/2007 04:22 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 26/5/2007  9:51 AM
By accounts, the political will on this thing is thin and a design change like this is the sort of thing that will get an Adminstrator fired, and a program cancelled.

The issue I have is that the Ares-I is coming in over budget and late on its intended schedule already, and we are only two years into an 8 year long process.

Are these not the factors Congress will prioritise above most others when deciding whether to fund Ares-V or not?   Is this situation not more likely than anything else to get Ares-V cancelled by Congress, irrelevant of any technical merits, good or bad?

And am I right or wrong, that if the first vehicle is the only one guaranteed, and that "political will on this thing is thin" already, that the second vehicle is going to be in serious jeopardy right through to the day it first flies or is abandoned permanently?

Isn't it a far better plan, to make damn sure that the first vehicle we build *can* enable lunar missions in case the second one is never delivered?

Ares-I alone can not enable moon or Mars missions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/26/2007 04:24 pm
Quote
Kayla - 26/5/2007  11:42 AM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 26/5/2007  8:51 AM
We are rapidly passing the point of "go with the Army you got", if it is not already passed.

When the "army" you have got was based on promises of the fastest, least expensive, most reliable solution and reality shows that it is none of these isn't it time to take heed and think of alternatives.  With Ares I at $10B and growing, under performing, late on schedule the current course is a disaster.

I agree that a lot of these alternatives don't have the foundation they need.  But when the next couple of decades of space exploration hangs in the balance maybe it is time to host an open competition (which NASA never did for Ares) and see what results.

How much of the slip do you attribute to the reduction in available funds?  The cool thing is that this Administrator is really willing to go as you pay.

I'm surprised you are willing to toss a bomb like 'disaster' out there, given the lack of public information on where things are.  I also wonder what the public discourse on this forum would have been like if opponents to the Apollo strategies (and there were many) selectively shared information to case their designs in a favorable light.   Would you have bailed out after the multiple technical and safety problems Apollo had early on?

how about this ... what if you put Direct up against an EELV / Ares V architecture vs. the current one ... compare cost, schedule, and risk and then iterate on those.  or maybe throw a few more in there, add a few visionary constraints and Von Braun-like "must do" statements from a person entrusted with the Vision ... have congress cut your available funds and put constrains for jobs and locations and you'll end up in a situation at least as bad as this one no matter which design you select.

I can't think of a NASA decision where the priorities were not constituency or politically driven rather than technically driven.  In my opinion, some time might be put into writing letters to Congress asking that the political procurement/management system be repealed, and that all caution for the NASA workforce be abandoned.

As much as I hate to admit it, that is the only way that the "best" technical solution MIGHT win.  And unless you concede they exist and factor those metrics into your decision process, you have little chance of providing a workable solution.

Just trying to put the thought out there that every road looks smooth on the map.  In this world of government acquisition that we are stuck with, few are.  



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/26/2007 04:38 pm
Quote
kraisee - 26/5/2007  12:22 PM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 26/5/2007  9:51 AM
By accounts, the political will on this thing is thin and a design change like this is the sort of thing that will get an Adminstrator fired, and a program cancelled.

The issue I have is that the Ares-I is coming in over budget and late on its intended schedule already, and we are only two years into an 8 year long process.

Is this fact not more likely than anything to get Ares-V cancelled by Congress, irrelevant of any technical merits, good or bad?

And am I right or wrong, that if the first vehicle is the only one guaranteed, and that "political will on this thing is thin" already, that the second vehicle is going to be in serious jeopardy.

Isn't it a far better plan, to make damn sure that the first vehicle we build *can* enable lunar missions in case the second one is never delivered?

Well, for the record, Ares-I alone can not enable moon or Mars missions.

Ross.

First issue is that "we" are 3.5 years in, not 2.  Congress does not generally give too many do-overs.   We do not have a Nunn-McCurdy breach on this one (yet).

Schedule issues are somewhat attributable to very near-term funding cuts.  Do you know how much?  If not ... do some research.

I agree that Ares V and the Moon are in trouble.  However, I'm in the camp of a slim chance being better than none.  There are no data to support one view over the other, it is just a realizationn on my part that NASA had its do-over.  It is past.  

Using the term "damn sure" indicates you have not lived through a project cancellation (or five).  By advocating changing course to a virtually unexamined (relatively) path, you are not heeding the warnings of NASA history.  By making that change you risk confirming the view that many in the U.S. have of NASA ... that they are technically wonderful but unable to follow through programmatically (X-33, X-34, X-37, X-38, SSF, ad infinitum, ad nasueum) on human and launch vehicle problems.  

In some ways, this in my view is a "last chance", and rarely do you get a chace to be 'damn sure' on those. When your mom gave you a last chance ... she rarely also gave you the benefit of the doubt two or three more times.  Again, YMMV.  That said, I would love to be "damn sure", but that time (in my opinion) has passed.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/26/2007 04:42 pm
Quote
kraisee - 26/5/2007  12:09 PM

   The "unknowns" are mostly limited on Jupiter to the new integration process - but that's nothing Ares-V isn't going to have to tackle anyway, so I see no disadvantage at all.

Ross.

Ross, please be very careful with that sort of language.  That is EXACTLY the line under which the X-37 was sold.  An integration of existing, known technologies. (the technology items were added later ... and were somewhat immaterial to the cost grown).  You are using the very arguements that Congress may see as "the same old NASA" to cancel the program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 05/26/2007 04:45 pm
Shuttle hardware (& infrastructure & techniques) is "the army we got."

Chase that "go with the army you got" and you end up with Jupiter 120.  Augment with an EDS and you get the Jupiter 232.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/26/2007 04:50 pm
Quote
Kayla - 26/5/2007  11:42 AM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 26/5/2007  8:51 AM
We are rapidly passing the point of "go with the Army you got", if it is not already passed.

When the "army" you have got was based on promises of the fastest, least expensive, most reliable solution and reality shows that it is none of these isn't it time to take heed and think of alternatives.  With Ares I at $10B and growing, under performing, late on schedule the current course is a disaster.

I agree that a lot of these alternatives don't have the foundation they need.  But when the next couple of decades of space exploration hangs in the balance maybe it is time to host an open competition (which NASA never did for Ares) and see what results.

How is Ares I not "most reliable" (from a LOC standpoint, which is NOT reliability)?  Do you have numbers?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/26/2007 04:57 pm
Quote
rumble - 26/5/2007  12:45 PM

Shuttle hardware (& infrastructure & techniques) is "the army we got."

Chase that "go with the army you got" and you end up with Jupiter 120.  Augment with an EDS and you get the Jupiter 232.

OK, poor analogy.  "plan you got".  Imagine an army where 1/3 the troops (to make up a number) were telling the captain how stupid he was as he chaged up the "wrong" side of the hill.  Phase A (and pre-Phase A) is for broad debate.  We are rapidly passing the point of support the plan or find a different hobby.  

This is NOT to silence the debate (which I could not do if I wanted to, which I don't).  It is simply the realities of where the team finds itself, programmatically and politically.  whether or not it is the "best" solution or plan eventually becomes irrelevant ... it is the plan.

It is not an intuitive part of reality, and it is certainly not compatible with the rigorous engineering process.  That is why the best program managers (and military leaders) are rarely engineers.  They end up overthinking the problem while the enemy overruns their position (or the program is cancelled due to apparent lack of direction).

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/26/2007 05:01 pm
That would actually be an interesting exercise.  

Does anyone have a specific programmatic plan for changing course TO Direct from where we are today that takes into account the political realities of Griffin's departure, upcoming elections, sunk effort, negotiation with the current and next White House, workforce transition, and coalitions that have been built both with industry and Congress?

it is a necessary part of any proposed plan.

Is that someone else's job?  If so, whose?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/26/2007 05:31 pm
Some of the outline exists, but without all the resources actually available to the 9th floor, we can only go so far on our own.

We do have some access at that level, which has come in very useful, but it is a finite resource to us.

In the broadest of strokes, the team currently producing the Ares-I U/S are switched to the EDS.   Nothing is wasted there at all.   ETA 2017.

J-2X work stays on its current course, but the budget can be stretched out a little thinner - allowing two extra years of development.   ETA 2017.

Orion work stays on target, but the team is given the option to reduce costs by using less mass-critical materials.   A number of high-cost options have had to be selected to support flights on the Ares-I which would no longer be necessary.    Additional information should be provided as early as possible  to the Orion team in order to support propellant transfer tanking options in the SM for the block-II configurations later.   ETA 2012.


MSFC/MAF/Stennis need to take it's current teams preparing the US testing of Ares-I and plan for an ET-sized stage instead.   The same people can be used and they are "up to speed" right now.   We believe we can easily get the political support of the politicial representatives in the New Orleans area to support an immediate ET-based development program instead of the Ares-I U/S switch.   ETA first hardware can start being produced immediately.

The RS-68 work being done right now for both Delta-IV and Ares-V can continue, unchanged.   But the requirement for 6% additional performance is unnecessary for the Jupiter.   This should help speed the development noticably, also reducing costs.   ETA 2012

ATK/Utah needs to be persuaded not to take the "sweetner" of developing the 5-segment booster yet.   The new sweetner is that between now and the end of 2017, they get to refurbish 208 SRB segments instead of just the 55 planned by Ares, and they are guaranteed 8 segments for every flight, instead of 5 for Ares-I and  10 only if Ares-V is ever successfully built.   ETA First new flight tests 2009, but the boosters are available today.

The "sell" can be made to the White House, Congress and the American people very easily:   We're reusing what we have to make a rocket more than twice as powerful as the Ares-I, and can do so as early as 2012, instead of 2015, and this vehicle can get us back to the moon two years early too.

That's a pretty convincing argument.   The public is accepting of "bigger rocket is better", and the politicians are normally pretty responsive to "we can do it for less cost".


The actual task of implementing these issues can equally be done by either Griffin if he wishes to remain in his current job, or by a replacement if Griffin doesn't want to be involved.   That choice isn't mine.   My personal preference would be to retain Griffin.   I'm a fan.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/26/2007 06:18 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 26/5/2007  12:38 PM

First issue is that "we" are 3.5 years in, not 2.
Wrong. We are only 2 years in. The VSE was delivered by Bush 3.5 years ago, but Griffin has not been administrator for all that time. The current effort didn't begin until Griffin took over, +/- 2 years. Before that was Sean, and a totally different program. We are 2 years in.

Quote
Schedule issues are somewhat attributable to very near-term funding cuts.
Long before there was *any* funding cuts of any kind the schedule for the 1st Orion flight slipped from 2011 to 2012, then to 2013, then to 2014, and then to 2015. That's 4 YEARS of schedule slip caused, not by funding, but by NASA's decision to abandon the Shuttle-Derived architecture that Congress authorized. Then along came the so-called funding "cut", which wasn't a "cut" at all. NASA simply didn't get it's "raise", that's all. Congress did ***NOT*** cut funds to NASA. But this so-called cut cause an additional 6-month slip from spring 2015 to fall 2015. But guess what - that 6 month schedule slip was ALREADY in the works when the so-called "cut" happened. So even the cut caused by funding shortfalls was really caused by NASA itself. NASA abandoning the congressionally authorized Shuttle-Derived approach caused 4 years of schedule slip, while funding "cuts" caused 6 months. It's all in the record if you care to read it.

Quote
I agree that Ares V and the Moon are in trouble.  However, I'm in the camp of a slim chance being better than none.
I'm not in that camp. I am not going to sit around quietly and hope against hope that the tooth fairy will leave me a nice suprise. I would rather bet on something that can actually work, rather than a "slim" chance on something that probably won't work.   When's the last time you actually spoke to your own congressman or senator and asked about congressional support for the Mars missions? Trust me, it's slim to none. I know that because I HAVE asked. Without that committment, Ares-V isn't going to happen, and if Ares-I is all we have, it wont be you and me, it'll be your kids or grandkids trying to get us back to the moon, 30 years from now.  

Want to do something constructive? Get in touch with your representatives and senators and lobby them to increase NASA's budget. Tell them that you want a nationall committment, in the form of a law, that says NASA's budget will be 1% of GNP. You don't have to be in favor of ANY architecture, just in favor of NASA having the money it needs to get the job done.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/26/2007 06:40 pm
Quote
clongton - 26/5/2007  12:18 PM
Want to do something constructive? Get in touch with your representatives and senators and lobby them to increase NASA's budget. Tell them that you want a nationall committment, in the form of a law, that says NASA's budget will be 1% of GNP.

That would be on the order of a factor of 10 increase, and would end up representing about 5% of the entire federal budget.  That seems a bit excessive.

I'd rather see a steady, consistent rise at, say, 5% per year every single year so appropriate planning could be done and budgets could be counted upon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/26/2007 07:10 pm
Regarding budget, I would like to see last years NASA budget tied directly to the base rate of inflation and fixed for the next 20 years due to the importance of the space program as a critical national asset.

But more importantly, I would actually like to see an Administrator manage to get back most of the pork spending NASA is forced to fund.

Griffin's original plan sounded good, but I haven't seen it actually happen.   He has said that there was no way to get rid of the pork spending, which is a realistic PoV.   But he wanted the spending re-directed towards things which actually benefit the important programs with NASA rather than random spending on items which do not actually benefit NASA at all.   I would like to see an Administrator really achieve the original goal by working with the key Congress members responsible.

If only the enormous pork spending (I've heard it accounts for over $1bn of yearly budget these days) could actually be made to positively contribute to NASA programs.   It would be like a $1bn cash injection to the program and everyone would actually benefit from it.

Anyway, the discussion of changing NASA's overall budget is really outside of the scope of this thread, so can we spin this particular discussion off into a separate thread if we wish to continue it.   I'd like to keep this thread on the topic of what DIRECT can do with what is in the available budget.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 05/26/2007 07:42 pm
I'll agree with a paraphrase of a theme I've heard a couple of times here:  Switching to "best" or "better" can sometimes cause people to lose a tremendous amount of credibility, even to the point that the better option chosen would then be subject to the "well, when is THIS one going to be abandoned also?" feelings.

Now, to apply that thought to DIRECT/Jupiter:
How could NASA change launcher architecture now without losing credibility?  It's not our intention to cause NASA to lose credibility.  We're not trying to throw Griffin overboard.  We're looking at a set of vehicles derived much more closely from existing technology, with a lower cost-to-"market," a less disruptive transition, and a quicker and less risky implementation, and I like how it looks.
To make a softer transition, instead of announcing it as tossing out what NASA's been working on for Ares, look at it as a physical scaling-back of the Ares-V, with ripple-through changes that take advantage of commonality that was impractical with a 10m core.

Try this on for size.
(begin quote) Stepping back to 4-segment boosters and an 8.4m core isn't wholely different our Ares-V in concept.  Where it does differ/benefit is from using existing tooling & scaling, and in that the infrastructure can be transitioned with far less pain.  So, if we do a minor scale-back of the Ares-V in size, we can fit much of our existing footprint.  This will yield schedule and cost benefits.
If we do that, and we're now flying with the 4-segment boosters, developing the 5-segment for only the Ares I makes less sense.  With that in mind, we're now looking at using the "newly modified/downsized" Ares V core with no EDS as a 1.5 stage crew launcher.  This will result in even more commonality in infrastructure, as well as giving us a common Ares core that shall be used on all LEO and Lunar flights, with many options in the configuration.
We're reserving the upgrade path to the 10m core for Mars missions, but for the near term, we're taking advantage of a path that looks to deliver the program we are committed to--and maybe more--while allowing us to defer some of our costs until significantly in the future.  We're making a change back to the original ESAS launch pad and VAB footprint (8.4m) for our cargo launcher, and we're taking advantage of that same reliable core in a simpler configuration for our crew launcher.
(end quote)

That has more of a "keep it in the family" feel to it.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 05/26/2007 07:58 pm
Recalculating Jupiter 232 for similar mass fraction to the Ares V EDS design as of January of ’07 adds 7.26 mT to burnout mass, and reduces payload by the same amount. It should then be able to put 101 mT of net payload into LEO, plus 30mT of upper stage and residual propellant. I assume that a 4 mT payload adapter for the LSAM is not counted in net payload or in stage mass.

Devoting the entire payload of that launcher to TLI fuel would allow it to launch about 97 mT to TLI. Deducting the burnout mass of the stage and payload adapter from the total allow 63 mT of useful payload to be launched to TLI: about the same as AresV+I. That payload, in the form of a CEV and LSAM could be carried on a second Jupiter 232 with plenty of extra left over for rendezvous fuel.

This indicates the degree which the comparison between Direct v2.0 and Ares V benefits from propellant transfer and aggressive upper stage mass fraction. It also shows how much that approach suffers from manifest inefficiency: the lunar stack doesn’t divide neatly into two equal units.

The obvious solution is propellant transfer. Assuming 5 mT of rendezvous fuel, the second 232 could carry 19 mT of additional propellant, allowing almost 19 mT of additional payload to TLI. However, orbital Cryogenic propellant transfer has never been demonstrated, would add additional operational complexity, and the hardware required would eat up some of the added payload.

Alternatively, the LSAM could have an adapter between it and the payload adapter on the EDS, with two oxygen tanks attached, and attachment fittings to connect them to the EDS. This would also require some extra mass that would be deducted from useful payload.

A third alternative would be to carry the extra propellant on the LSAM, and have it complete the TLI burn. This would require extra tank capacity on the LSAM, but the dead weight of the EDS stage would not be carried all the way to TLI. I haven’t done the calculations, but suspect that useful payload would actually increase This option would require an additional start for the LSAM engines, increasing LOM.

Will


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/26/2007 08:08 pm
Rumble, a good approach, but I would prefer to "spin" it from the perspective of "keeping the good parts of Shuttle unchanged" rather than "scaling down Ares-V".

One sounds like we're reusing existing assets & investments to save money, the other sounds somewhat like we're pulling the "steroids" from the new Apollo ;)

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/26/2007 08:31 pm
Quote
Will - 26/5/2007  3:58 PM

Recalculating Jupiter 232 for similar mass fraction to the Ares V EDS design as of January of ’07 adds 7.26 mT to burnout mass, and reduces payload by the same amount. It should then be able to put 101 mT of net payload into LEO, plus 30mT of upper stage and residual propellant. I assume that a 4 mT payload adapter for the LSAM is not counted in net payload or in stage mass.

Basically that would indeed be the approach we would use if we switch to promoting a more "traditional" EDS ahead of the ICES in order to gain more public acceptance.

And yes, just like Ares-V's performance the 3.9mT LSAM Cradle is part of the gross payload and must be removed to get a net LSAM mass.


Quote
Devoting the entire payload of that launcher to TLI fuel would allow it to launch about 97 mT to TLI. Deducting the burnout mass of the stage and payload adapter from the total allow 63 mT of useful payload to be launched to TLI: about the same as AresV+I. That payload, in the form of a CEV and LSAM could be carried on a second Jupiter 232 with plenty of extra left over for rendezvous fuel.

This was the sort of approach we used during Direct v1 - and requires the docking of the LSAM/CEV stack to an EDS in Low Earth Orbit.   This was one of the items directly criticized by Dr. Stanley so we are trying to avoid it in this version.

Also, you 'waste' 3.9mT of raw performance because you need one of these LSAM Cradles on both the ascent flight, but then also another one on the EDS going to the moon.   We have plenty of surplus performance available, but 3.9mT is a noticeable hit.


Quote
This indicates the degree which the comparison between Direct v2.0 and Ares V benefits from propellant transfer and aggressive upper stage mass fraction. It also shows how much that approach suffers from manifest inefficiency: the lunar stack doesn’t divide neatly into two equal units.

Yes, that has been one of the key factors at the forefront of all our planning.


Quote
The obvious solution is propellant transfer.

Yup.   That's what we figured too.   And better still, Griffin's comments seem to show he believes in it also.   If it's good enough for Ares, it's sure good enough for us.


Quote
Assuming 5 mT of rendezvous fuel, the second 232 could carry 19 mT of additional propellant, allowing almost 19 mT of additional payload to TLI. However, orbital Cryogenic propellant transfer has never been demonstrated, would add additional operational complexity, and the hardware required would eat up some of the added payload.

Docking a big and heavy EDS to another big & heavy EDS using the interface between the CEV and LSAM requires that the interface between the two spacecraft must be strengthened and this adds weight.

This is one of the major factors why we favour the LOR approach.   CEV and LSAM fly separately to the moon, both EDS' are discarded and docking a CEV carrying some spare propellant is a much more achievable alternative.   The key issue is if whether we *must* enable EOR missions first, to keep NASA happier or not.   *If* we could go straight to 2-launch J-232 LOR-LOR missions, we can bypass all of these problems and also get the maximum performance right from the start of the program.

I'm starting to think this is the best approach - to start the Lunar program the way we mean to go on: 2-launch J-232 LOR from the start.

I can't see any reason why we couldn't do all the initial testing and familiarization in LEO.   It is certainly possible to use a pair of J-120's to place a CEV and LSAM into LEO to get all the practice and confidence we feel we will need later.   Actually, we could do that even before the EDS has been fully qualified - which offers potential schedule advantages.


Quote
Alternatively, the LSAM could have an adapter between it and the payload adapter on the EDS, with two oxygen tanks attached, and attachment fittings to connect them to the EDS. This would also require some extra mass that would be deducted from useful payload.

Better performance from the LSAM if the adapter is on the EDS.


Quote
A third alternative would be to carry the extra propellant on the LSAM, and have it complete the TLI burn. This would require extra tank capacity on the LSAM, but the dead weight of the EDS stage would not be carried all the way to TLI. I haven’t done the calculations, but suspect that useful payload would actually increase This option would require an additional start for the LSAM engines, increasing LOM.

That's not a good approach.   It requires that the LSAM be heavier to contain all the extra propellant, and the LSAM is the most sensitive item of all to mass increases.   Every pound of mass in the structure of the LSAM means you lose about 1.2 pounds of useful payload to the surface of the moon on every flight.

LSAM mass increases should be the very last option of all to be considered.   The CEV's low mass has already forced the LSAM to perform the LOI burn on Ares-based manned missions.   When a CEV is available, it *should* be the CEV which performs this burn.   Another option is keeping a bit of propellant in the EDS and retaining it for the LOI burn because it has higher efficiency engines.   Calculations appear to show this offers even better performance even considering the higher mass due to the EDS mass itself.   Stephen has also tried using an EDS to perform the early phase of the Lunar descent too, with good results so far.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/26/2007 11:27 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 26/5/2007  2:40 PM

Quote
clongton - 26/5/2007  12:18 PM
Want to do something constructive? Get in touch with your representatives and senators and lobby them to increase NASA's budget. Tell them that you want a nationall committment, in the form of a law, that says NASA's budget will be 1% of GNP.

That would be on the order of a factor of 10 increase, and would end up representing about 5% of the entire federal budget.  That seems a bit excessive.

I'd rather see a steady, consistent rise at, say, 5% per year every single year so appropriate planning could be done and budgets could be counted upon.
My mistake - I meant 1% of the federal budget, not gnp.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 05/26/2007 11:52 pm

Quote
clongton - 26/5/2007  1:18 PM Long before there was *any* funding cuts of any kind the schedule for the 1st Orion flight slipped from 2011 to 2012, then to 2013, then to 2014, and then to 2015. That's 4 YEARS of schedule slip caused, not by funding, but by NASA's decision to abandon the Shuttle-Derived architecture that Congress authorized. Then along came the so-called funding "cut", which wasn't a "cut" at all. NASA simply didn't get it's "raise", that's all. Congress did ***NOT*** cut funds to NASA. But this so-called cut cause an additional 6-month slip from spring 2015 to fall 2015. But guess what - that 6 month schedule slip was ALREADY in the works when the so-called "cut" happened. So even the cut caused by funding shortfalls was really caused by NASA itself. NASA abandoning the congressionally authorized Shuttle-Derived approach caused 4 years of schedule slip, while funding "cuts" caused 6 months.

IMHO DIRECT is what Congress asked/asks Griffin for. The danger is that other budget priorities conspire to rob NASA of Shuttle and Ares V *both* - very real. From both sides of the aisle. Then the Chinese or others scare us with the Moon, and we get a costly/stupid program we race thru, attempting to play catchup with our back against the wall - a likely course. Lately the US hasn't been exactly showing its finer qualities to the world - it would be nice to not blunder here.

The political fallout is that for two years and $300M+, we've been going against the wind, having achieved little but discord. Had leadership chosen this DIRECTion, we'd have better results and more confidence instead now. Unity has a power quite valuable for our divided country right now. Especially as it shows skill and determination at renewing our space heritage with the moon that has been a key part of our national identity.  

DIRECT and CBO baseline assumptions work very well together and reinforce the picture. Its the best budgeting that can be done to reach the VSE objective,

Quote
Without that committment, Ares-V isn't going to happen, and if Ares-I is all we have, it wont be you and me, it'll be your kids or grandkids trying to get us back to the moon, 30 years from now.

Or much more. While our countrymen will never agree on everything, agreeing on some challenge would be an improvement.

Quote
Get in touch with your representatives and senators and lobby them to increase NASA's budget. Tell them that you want a nationall committment, in the form of a law, that says NASA's budget will be 1% of GNP.

Another is to explain to local political groups on both sides the long term cost of not having a rational policy for space - that holding it hostage for a false agenda cripples our nation to no ones advantage.  Then introduce budgeting and use the past "space race" as explaining what the returns are.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/27/2007 12:00 am
Quote
clongton - 26/5/2007  5:27 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 26/5/2007  2:40 PM

Quote
clongton - 26/5/2007  12:18 PM
Want to do something constructive? Get in touch with your representatives and senators and lobby them to increase NASA's budget. Tell them that you want a nationall committment, in the form of a law, that says NASA's budget will be 1% of GNP.

That would be on the order of a factor of 10 increase, and would end up representing about 5% of the entire federal budget.  That seems a bit excessive.

I'd rather see a steady, consistent rise at, say, 5% per year every single year so appropriate planning could be done and budgets could be counted upon.
My mistake - I meant 1% of the federal budget, not gnp.

Okay, so that would be $29 billion, up from $13 billion.  Still a lot to absorb.

Frankly, I'd rather see increases faster than GDP or inflation for a while, without the step-change.  If they had that, they'd know if they could afford Ares I and V or not, and if they couldn't they'd be more inclined to seek other options.

Lee Jay

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 05/27/2007 12:02 am
LOR-LOR doesn’t sound like a good solution for the Jupiter 232. Jupiter 232 with a conventional upper stage mass fraction could haul the upper stage, 69 mT of propellant and 32 mT of payload to a parking orbit and then launch the payload to TLI. Two separate launches could send a total of 64 mT to TLI: considerably less than the same two launches with propellant transfer in LEO. Further, the number of mission-critical propulsion starts for TLI and LOI is doubled. Further, orbital mechanics considerably complicate rendezvous in lunar orbit: opportunities to reach a particular non equatorial lunar orbit from earth without a plane change occur only once every two weeks.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/27/2007 02:04 am
There is one approach that I have never heard discussed,  so I imagine there are reasons that it is not considered.   Instead of LOR-LOR, why not dock before they get to lunar orbit?   The CEV/SM would carry the propellant to do the LOI burn.   That would allow the LSAM to save all of its fuel for the descent & increase is capacity pretty significantly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/27/2007 03:18 am
Quote
mars.is.wet - 26/5/2007  9:51 AM

Taking the APAS example, if J-2X has 275000 lb of thrust, an effective misalignment of 2 inches between the two engines would get you the edge of that range.  Assume EDS+LSAM is about 1000 inches (more, I think) and you get an alignment tolerance (between 2 engines) of 2/1000 = about 0.1 degrees per engine.  May also cumulatively be affected by variations in thrust (anyone know the max variation in thrust in a J-2X?).

Maybe they haven't transferred this knowledge to the LSAM yet, or maybe the factor of 5-7 reduction due to the much shorter moment arm (<200 inches) is enough to make up the difference.  Or maybe it is the fact that the LSAM engines have a fraction of the thrust (1/15th) of the J2-X and can be throttled for the LOI burn to reduce the loads.  Or maybe it is something else. But I think the ground rule for the EDS is a good one, and there are probably several others.


Anybody?  From my calcs, it looks like the 2 engine loads through the docking adapter is a showstopper (thanks for the APAS specs) ... is this strong enough to change Direct to a single engine EDS?  What is the performance reduction if you combine the lower EDS PMF and using 1 engine?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/27/2007 09:51 am
Quote
mars.is.wet - 26/5/2007  11:18 PM
... is this strong enough to change Direct to a single engine EDS?  What is the performance reduction if you combine the lower EDS PMF and using 1 engine?

Mars, I haven't seen any calculations on this particular issue myself, so I won't confirm what specific remedies may be required.

But, *if* there were a switch to a single J-2XD powered EDS for any reason, the optimizations show we can still get within ~5mT of standard 2-engine performance.

If this issue does prove to be as serious as your calcs would suggest, then this might be one option path.   Better performance is still available from the full J-2X spec engine of course, but we're keeping that as a performance upgrade, not relying upon it as a critical-path item.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/27/2007 09:56 am
Quote
Will - 26/5/2007  8:02 PM

LOR-LOR doesn’t sound like a good solution for the Jupiter 232. Jupiter 232 with a conventional upper stage mass fraction could haul the upper stage, 69 mT of propellant and 32 mT of payload to a parking orbit and then launch the payload to TLI.


You're starting to see the precise reason why we have been looking at the ICES.   It makes the most of an extremely mass sensitive item for Lunar missions.   Every pound of EDS stage mass is basically a pound you can't use on the LSAM.   Optimizing the performance of the EDS is critical to getting the most out of any Lunar LV.

If ICES can offer a pmf between 0.92-0.93, the Lunar performance increases considerably compared to a ~0.88 pmf "conventional" stage.   This sort of difference MUST be examined very carefully indeed to get the best out of all your systems.

Rather than spend billions on getting higher performance SRB's and 6% additional RS-68 performance - neither of which are going to the moon, so aren't anywhere close to as important to optimize as reducing the mass of the EDS.

The money *should* always be prioritized for far more critical items such as the EDS, LSAM and CEV rather than on the launcher.


Quote
Further, orbital mechanics considerably complicate rendezvous in lunar orbit: opportunities to reach a particular non equatorial lunar orbit from earth without a plane change occur only once every two weeks.

That's why neither NASA nor DIRECT have ever proposed missions without budgeting for plane change manoeuvres on all missions, supporting access to all lunar locations, at virtually any time.

Just for the record, we are adhering to ESAS's dV requirements, which include the full range of plane changes required to support all foreseeable mission profiles.   Table 6-19 of the ESAS Report demonstrates the dV's we have been working with - including 510m/s for plane changes to enable anywhere access on the Lunar surface.   These numbers are conservative and can be considered "worst case".   If we support these, we can actually get better performance for most of the missions we would actually fly.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/27/2007 10:02 am
Quote
veedriver22 - 26/5/2007  10:04 PM

There is one approach that I have never heard discussed,  so I imagine there are reasons that it is not considered.   Instead of LOR-LOR, why not dock before they get to lunar orbit?   The CEV/SM would carry the propellant to do the LOI burn.   That would allow the LSAM to save all of its fuel for the descent & increase is capacity pretty significantly.

Are you suggesting a 2-launch scenario, with two EDS' performing near simultaneous TLI burns happening so that the LSAM and CEV flown separately can rendezvous & dock after the TLI's, during the 2/3 day trip towards the moon, but before the LOI?

The logistics involved in that sort of incredible coordination scares me deeply.   Not to mention the increased dangers involved in having two space craft and two disposed-of EDS stages all in relatively close proximity to each other.   I don't think you really don't want to go there.

The only realistic options for rendezvous operations on the way to the moon are L2, L1, LLO and LEO.   I have listed these deliberately in order of best performance to worst performance.

I will say again, the Jupiters have the performance to support all of these approaches.

The Ares-I forces LEO rendezvous for all Ares missions, simply because the Ares-I is not powerful enough to ever send a CEV anywhere else.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 05/27/2007 01:55 pm
Ross writes:

"If ICES can offer a pmf between 0.92-0.93, the Lunar performance increases considerably compared to a ~0.88 pmf "conventional" stage. This sort of difference MUST be examined very carefully indeed to get the best out of all your systems."

If.

However, if you assume that you need to compare the trades against what Ares could do with the same assumptions.

Will



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/27/2007 02:21 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 26/5/2007  8:00 PM

Quote
clongton - 26/5/2007  5:27 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 26/5/2007  2:40 PM

Quote
clongton - 26/5/2007  12:18 PM
Want to do something constructive? Get in touch with your representatives and senators and lobby them to increase NASA's budget. Tell them that you want a nationall committment, in the form of a law, that says NASA's budget will be 1% of GNP.

That would be on the order of a factor of 10 increase, and would end up representing about 5% of the entire federal budget.  That seems a bit excessive.

I'd rather see a steady, consistent rise at, say, 5% per year every single year so appropriate planning could be done and budgets could be counted upon.
My mistake - I meant 1% of the federal budget, not gnp.

Okay, so that would be $29 billion, up from $13 billion.  Still a lot to absorb.

Frankly, I'd rather see increases faster than GDP or inflation for a while, without the step-change.  If they had that, they'd know if they could afford Ares I and V or not, and if they couldn't they'd be more inclined to seek other options.

Lee Jay
So target 1% of the federal budget as a goal to be achieved, say in 5 years. Incrementally increase the budget, by law, from the current paultry amount to the 1% figure and thereafter hold it there as the annual funding target. Extending the human presence throughout the solar system, as the VSE calls for, needs that kind of funding committment on the part of the government.

Things have forever changed. We may not actually have it in reality yet, but for better or worse, we are becoming a space-faring civilization. Fifty to one hundred years from now spaceflight will be as nominal as air travel today. It may not be as common, because of the expense, but it will be considered normal. That appears to be one of the underlying goals of the VSE, and for that to happen *with American leadership*, requires a dependable funding stream. The only way to accomplish that is some type of congressional act which establishes a definable, dependable funding stream. NASA will still need to justify the annual budget, or lose the unjustified portion, but it will be there to move the boundaries of the VSE forward.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/27/2007 03:23 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/5/2007  5:02 AM

Quote
veedriver22 - 26/5/2007  10:04 PM

There is one approach that I have never heard discussed,  so I imagine there are reasons that it is not considered.   Instead of LOR-LOR, why not dock before they get to lunar orbit?   The CEV/SM would carry the propellant to do the LOI burn.   That would allow the LSAM to save all of its fuel for the descent & increase is capacity pretty significantly.

Are you suggesting a 2-launch scenario, with two EDS' performing near simultaneous TLI burns happening so that the LSAM and CEV flown separately can rendezvous & dock after the TLI's, during the 2/3 day trip towards the moon, but before the LOI?

The logistics involved in that sort of incredible coordination scares me deeply.   Not to mention the increased dangers involved in having two space craft and two disposed-of EDS stages all in relatively close proximity to each other.   I don't think you really don't want to go there.

The only realistic options for rendezvous operations on the way to the moon are L2, L1, LLO and LEO.   I have listed these deliberately in order of best performance to worst performance.

I will say again, the Jupiters have the performance to support all of these approaches.

The Ares-I forces LEO rendezvous for all Ares missions, simply because the Ares-I is not powerful enough to ever send a CEV anywhere else.

Ross.

Basically what I was thinking of would be the L1 lagrange point.   I am curious about the L2 rendevous as that is first on the list by priority.   Is that true as the moons gravity helps slow down the spacecraft?   When would LOR-LOR be selected over L1-LOR or L2-LOR?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 05/27/2007 03:27 pm

I don’t see performing LOI with the EDS as the most efficient approach, assuming no propellant transfer in LEO. Consider the following simplified assumptions.

Starting with 60 mT before LOI, the LSAM can perform LOI and required plane changes with 15 mT of propellant. The optimal solution from the mission mass standpoint is to use drop tanks on the LSAM. If they mass 1.5 mT, that delivers a 43.5 mT LSAM in LO, delivering 19.5 mT to the lunar surface. If the tanks are retained on the lander for operational simplicity, useful payload drops to 18 mT.

Suppose instead that the EDS performs LOI. Using the optimistic assumptions of Direct v2.0, burnout mass and payload adapter for an EDS mass about half of useful payload to TLI, so now a total mass of 90 mT must perform the maneuver, using 22.5 mT of propellant. Optimistically assuming 1.5 mT of added mass to the EDS to hold the propellant, that puts a 36 mT LSAM in LO, capable of putting only 16 mT of useful payload on the surface.

Will


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/27/2007 03:55 pm
Quote
clongton - 27/5/2007  8:21 AM
Things have forever changed. We may not actually have it in reality yet, but for better or worse, we are becoming a space-faring civilization. Fifty to one hundred years from now spaceflight will be as nominal as air travel today. It may not be as common, because of the expense, but it will be considered normal. That appears to be one of the underlying goals of the VSE, and for that to happen *with American leadership*, requires a dependable funding stream. The only way to accomplish that is some type of congressional act which establishes a definable, dependable funding stream. NASA will still need to justify the annual budget, or lose the unjustified portion, but it will be there to move the boundaries of the VSE forward.

Space travel will *never* be as common or "nominal" as air travel is today with conventional chemical rockets.  The energy demands are too high, and the ISP is too low.  Without an order of magnitude or two improvement in ISP while maintaining the high thrust of todays systems, space travel will remain a fascinating curiosity.

Actually, this is the reason I'm not too fond of the VSE.  I don't care about designing conventional rockets and architectures that can get a few humans and their equipment to and from the Moon and Mars, I care about developing the technologies that *can* make space travel as common as air travel is today.

I actually think DIRECT is a great approach to this because it could give us a heavy-lift capacity to LEO, without the big spaceflight gap, where we could develop and test such technologies.  Being able to lift 6-10 meter diameter, 10-30 meter long, 50-150mT payloads several (many?) times per year, including the occasional group of humans, is something I see as necessary for developing, testing and proving such technologies.  Ares I has no such capability and never will.  The commercial sector is unlikely to develop such capabilities either.  This is where I think the government belongs - doing that which is necessary in the longer term, is very difficult, and is not going to get done by the commercial sector.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/27/2007 03:57 pm
Quote
Will - 27/5/2007  10:27 AM


I don’t see performing LOI with the EDS as the most efficient approach, assuming no propellant transfer in LEO. Consider the following simplified assumptions.

Starting with 60 mT before LOI, the LSAM can perform LOI and required plane changes with 15 mT of propellant. The optimal solution from the mission mass standpoint is to use drop tanks on the LSAM. If they mass 1.5 mT, that delivers a 43.5 mT LSAM in LO, delivering 19.5 mT to the lunar surface. If the tanks are retained on the lander for operational simplicity, useful payload drops to 18 mT.

Suppose instead that the EDS performs LOI. Using the optimistic assumptions of Direct v2.0, burnout mass and payload adapter for an EDS mass about half of useful payload to TLI, so now a total mass of 90 mT must perform the maneuver, using 22.5 mT of propellant. Optimistically assuming 1.5 mT of added mass to the EDS to hold the propellant, that puts a 36 mT LSAM in LO, capable of putting only 16 mT of useful payload on the surface.

Will


I was not suggesting that the EDS would perform LOI.  With direct you could have a larger service module on the CEV.  So the CEV service module would do the LOI burn with the LSAM docked to it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/27/2007 05:51 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/5/2007  11:55 AM

Quote
clongton - 27/5/2007  8:21 AM
Things have forever changed. We may not actually have it in reality yet, but for better or worse, we are becoming a space-faring civilization. Fifty to one hundred years from now spaceflight will be as nominal as air travel today. It may not be as common, because of the expense, but it will be considered normal. That appears to be one of the underlying goals of the VSE, and for that to happen *with American leadership*, requires a dependable funding stream. The only way to accomplish that is some type of congressional act which establishes a definable, dependable funding stream. NASA will still need to justify the annual budget, or lose the unjustified portion, but it will be there to move the boundaries of the VSE forward.

Space travel will *never* be as common or "nominal" as air travel is today with conventional chemical rockets.  The energy demands are too high, and the ISP is too low.  Without an order of magnitude or two improvement in ISP while maintaining the high thrust of todays systems, space travel will remain a fascinating curiosity.

Actually, this is the reason I'm not too fond of the VSE.  I don't care about designing conventional rockets and architectures that can get a few humans and their equipment to and from the Moon and Mars, I care about developing the technologies that *can* make space travel as common as air travel is today.

I actually think DIRECT is a great approach to this because it could give us a heavy-lift capacity to LEO, without the big spaceflight gap, where we could develop and test such technologies.  Being able to lift 6-10 meter diameter, 10-30 meter long, 50-150mT payloads several (many?) times per year, including the occasional group of humans, is something I see as necessary for developing, testing and proving such technologies.  Ares I has no such capability and never will.  The commercial sector is unlikely to develop such capabilities either.  This is where I think the government belongs - doing that which is necessary in the longer term, is very difficult, and is not going to get done by the commercial sector.
I agree with your assessment of conventional chemical engines. I didn't go into this because it's not part of this thread, but an umderlying principle behind my statement was exactly what you imply; far better engines than what are possible today. I seriously doubt that they will bear much resemblance to todays engines. We're on the same page, and my statement about space travel being considered as "normal" as air travel today was in that context.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Stephan on 05/27/2007 06:19 pm
Hello Ross.

Will we have in a second time some figures showing (for example) acceleration vs time, dyn pressure vs time, thrust vs time etc ?
Have you studied the abort scenarios (I bet yes but I have to ask) to avoid the "black zones" as we've seen on Atlas man-rated doc recently posted here ?
It's interesting info to have for space geeks ;)

Regards
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/27/2007 06:35 pm
Quote
veedriver22 - 27/5/2007  11:23 AM

Basically what I was thinking of would be the L1 lagrange point.   I am curious about the L2 rendevous as that is first on the list by priority.   Is that true as the moons gravity helps slow down the spacecraft?   When would LOR-LOR be selected over L1-LOR or L2-LOR?

NASA's current management has a preference for mission profiles directly opposing performance.   Their preference order is LEO, LLO, L1, L2!

Mostly the choice is political though, not merit based.

LEO > LLO is the largest performance benefit.   L1 slightly higher, and L2 slightly more again.   Getting the decision to go to anything other than LEO is the issue.

NASA's unlikely to even give it a thought though.   Their current dictate of Ares-I as the CLV cannot support anything other than LEO rendezvous.   Everything else is impossible with their chosen LV architecture, so they don't seem to be interested in anything else at all.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/27/2007 06:41 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/5/2007  1:35 PM

Quote
veedriver22 - 27/5/2007  11:23 AM

Basically what I was thinking of would be the L1 lagrange point.   I am curious about the L2 rendevous as that is first on the list by priority.   Is that true as the moons gravity helps slow down the spacecraft?   When would LOR-LOR be selected over L1-LOR or L2-LOR?

NASA's current management has a preference for mission profiles directly opposing performance.   Their preference order is LEO, LLO, L1, L2!

Mostly the choice is political though, not merit based.

LEO > LLO is the largest performance benefit.   L1 slightly higher, and L2 slightly more again.   Getting the decision to go to anything other than LEO is the issue.

NASA's unlikely to even give it a thought though.   Their current dictate of Ares-I as the CLV cannot support anything other than LEO rendezvous.   Everything else is impossible with their chosen LV architecture, so they don't seem to be interested in anything else at all.

Ross.

Isn't LEO safer though ? If you have any problems elsewhere isn't there less chance of abort or rescue ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 05/28/2007 02:59 am
Quote
clongton - 26/5/2007  11:18 AM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 26/5/2007  12:38 PM

First issue is that "we" are 3.5 years in, not 2.
Wrong. We are only 2 years in. The VSE was delivered by Bush 3.5 years ago, but Griffin has not been administrator for all that time. The current effort didn't begin until Griffin took over, +/- 2 years. Before that was Sean, and a totally different program. We are 2 years in.

I have to agree with mars.is.wet, the NASA VSE program has been underway for 3.5 years and that is certainly how Congress views it. The rest of his comment "Congress does not generally give too many do-overs." is relevant to evaluating whether NASA can afford to return to Congress with another do-over. The first do-over was from O’Keefe’s to Griffin’s but they were both the Administration’s and Griffin was brought in specifically to “fix” the VSE implementation. That is why I agree with rumble's suggestion that Direct/Jupiter should be spun by NASA as a re-creation of Ares I/V, (perhaps as Ares II and III) rather than a new do-over.

That said I have reached the conclusion that Griffin and Horowitz are going to ride Ares I down in flames, (think Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove) to the detriment of their NASA careers if not their professional careers. Whether they take the VSE with them remains to be seen.

I also applaud reconsidering the EDS construction. This thread was started to elicit a form of peer review and it appears as though that review is leaning toward re-evaluation of the ICES decision.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/28/2007 11:42 am
Quote
kraisee - 26/5/2007  5:22 PM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 26/5/2007  9:51 AM
By accounts, the political will on this thing is thin and a design change like this is the sort of thing that will get an Adminstrator fired, and a program cancelled.

The issue I have is that the Ares-I is coming in over budget

Any source?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 05/28/2007 12:06 pm
Quote
kraisee - 25/5/2007  8:11 PM

Quote
JIS - 25/5/2007  5:26 AM
This is not that simple. You can't simply put another stage atop the rocket. LV-29 has similar payload to LEO as Jupiter claims.
I think than LV-29 use HTPB in it's SRB which allows to carry more propellants. That's the main reason why the LV-29 core + SRB is so much heavier (by 110mT) than Jupiter core + SRBs. But I still think that LV-29 is more conservative in the core weight.
Don't forget that Direct v2 study take the core weight "directly" from DIRECT v1 study without allocation any weight growth for higher stresses caused by the aditional engine.
The reason why LV-29 is minor to Jupiter is simple - higher dry mass.

Actually those are all completely incorrect assumptions.

First, the HTPB powered SRB's are lower performance than the PBAN.   The weight isn't actually that different, but the thrust is.   The reason why NASA was looking to change to HTPB was due to manufacturing issues.   PBAN is more expensive, and a little more dangerous - but it offers better performance.   When Ares-I started getting tight on performance they went back to PBAN.   We are sticking with it too.


However, Ares V with HTPB has higher IMLEO than the same version with PBAN in SRBs. See NASA Ares V presentation.

This suggests that LV-29 (considered in ESAS study, LEO optimised) with better SRBs and higher thrust of the US should be superior to the Jupiter 232. It is not.
The reason is in either ESAS being too conservative or Direct being too optimistic (or both).
It is not only in the upper stage technology. I'm still wondering how did you estimate the Jupiter core, fairing and other structures weight. Could you give me some clue?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/28/2007 12:43 pm
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 27/5/2007  10:59 PM

Quote
clongton - 26/5/2007  11:18 AM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 26/5/2007  12:38 PM

First issue is that "we" are 3.5 years in, not 2.
Wrong. We are only 2 years in. The VSE was delivered by Bush 3.5 years ago, but Griffin has not been administrator for all that time. The current effort didn't begin until Griffin took over, +/- 2 years. Before that was Sean, and a totally different program. We are 2 years in.

I have to agree with mars.is.wet, the NASA VSE program has been underway for 3.5 years and that is certainly how Congress views it. The rest of his comment "Congress does not generally give too many do-overs." is relevant to evaluating whether NASA can afford to return to Congress with another do-over. The first do-over was from O’Keefe’s to Griffin’s but they were both the Administration’s and Griffin was brought in specifically to “fix” the VSE implementation. That is why I agree with rumble's suggestion that Direct/Jupiter should be spun by NASA as a re-creation of Ares I/V, (perhaps as Ares II and III) rather than a new do-over.

That said I have reached the conclusion that Griffin and Horowitz are going to ride Ares I down in flames, (think Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove) to the detriment of their NASA careers if not their professional careers. Whether they take the VSE with them remains to be seen.

I also applaud reconsidering the EDS construction. This thread was started to elicit a form of peer review and it appears as though that review is leaning toward re-evaluation of the ICES decision.
Not to be confused with negativity to the ICES design on the part of the Direct v2 team though. The team believes that the ICES is better than a traditional design. We are considering adding an option for the standard design, for the benefit of those who don't like the ICES, for whatever reason, in spite of over 40 years of successful operation. Our position is based on the belief (backed by research) that ICES technology on the upper stage, coupled with the J-2XD engine, will put more metric tons on a TLI than a standard design.

Aside: [We simply do not see the logic in a 40-year old rivalry between organizations, having now become nothing more than a political football with no technical merrit whatever, being the excuse to steal performance from a lunar launch vehicle.]

Having said that, if it can be shown, with the numbers, how a standard upper stage beats the ICES technology, then it will become the baseline, and ICES the option. Barring that, ICES technology is, for the time being, the baseline and the standard stage design will be the option. ICES is our preferred approach, but we are certainly not going to let it derail Direct if it can be shown that a standard design is better.

You are right. This thread was started to obtain peer review, and examination of the ICES technology is part of that. We thank those who suggest that the ICES isn't the right approach because they raised specific questions. We will do our best to answer them and provide an alternate design. Getting feedback like that is extremely helpful. We are working the specific numbers for a standard upper stage and will provide them when they are ready. And, unlike what many believe was the method used for launch vehicle selection, it won't be a stage design that is intended from the beginning to support our preferred position. It will be the best standard design we can put together. Then we will compare them. The goal is metric tons on a TLI. Whichever stage design does that best will either become or remain the baseline - by the numbers. We like the ICES technology - we really do. But we are not married to it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: braddock on 05/28/2007 01:25 pm
Quote
clongton - 28/5/2007  8:43 AM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 27/5/2007  10:59 PM

I also applaud reconsidering the EDS construction. This thread was started to elicit a form of peer review and it appears as though that review is leaning toward re-evaluation of the ICES decision.

Not to be confused with negativity to the ICES design on the part of the Direct v2 team though. The team believes that the ICES is better than a traditional design. We are considering adding an option for the standard design, for the benefit of those who don't like the ICES, for whatever reason, in spite of over 40 years of successful operation.

I think it would be very beneficial to Direct to prove a traditional stage design option would work.  

I have no technical expertise in stage design, but I see enough numbers and concerns being posted here that imply "Direct's EDS Stage would [must?] be the best ever built".  I hope it is, but that technical ambition immediately leads to doubts, and introduces risk and controversy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: WFS on 05/28/2007 02:39 pm
What performance would a Jupiter have assuming it used the latest NASA design for an upper stage instead of the superior ICES technology used in the Direct 2.01 proposal?  

If this would be enough to complete the mission then this would help sell the concept as it would remove the red herring about whether or not the ICES stage could be built.

Also, are there planetary missions that a Jupiter 221 (Juptier 120 with an off the shelf Centaur upper stage) could perform that would not be possible with any of the current ELVs?  This could get buy in from those interested in planetary science if you can show that DIRECT will allow a wider range of missions.  
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 05/28/2007 05:04 pm
Quote
clongton - 26/5/2007  11:18 AM
Not to be confused with negativity to the ICES design on the part of the Direct v2 team though.

I am not sure that most of the questioning of the ICES EDS selection represents negativity towards the design.

Direct v2 was baselined to use existing, flying hardware specifically to avoid any of the issues that arose in v1 with speculative, paper hardware. It is my understanding that no currently flying upper stage can meet the requirements of the EDS so some form of speculative hardware will needed but, as much as possible, care should be taken to extrapolate from existing flying hardware. My understanding of ICES is that it is an amalgamation of many bits of flying hardware but that they have never flown as a system. My understanding of the ESAS EDS is that it is an upsized version of existing, flying hardware. Is it possible to scale up the Centaur without adding all the hardware not currently integrated into the system?

Quote
clongton - 26/5/2007  11:18 AM
Having said that, if it can be shown, with the numbers, how a standard upper stage beats the ICES technology, then it will become the baseline, and ICES the option.
Quote
clongton - 26/5/2007  11:18 AM
The goal is metric tons on a TLI. Whichever stage design does that best will either become or remain the baseline - by the numbers.

The same was said about the inclusion of the RS-68 regenerative in Direct v1 and could be used to argue for it’s inclusion in Direct v2. My understanding of the goal of Direct v2 is to present a viable, affordable, timely option to the current Constellation program, not maximum metric tons to TLI. Now if Direct v2 can not match the ESAS goals without ICES then it must be included but if it is possible for Direct v2 to reach those parameters using a “standard” EDS then ICES should not be included. In fact it must not be included since it represents a vulnerability of the same order as the RS-68 regen.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 05/28/2007 05:13 pm
OBTW from page 2 para 1 first sentence of DIRECT STS Derivative v2.01;

The Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) represents a watershed opportunity to expand the breath and
depth of human exploration and development for this and future generations.

breath should be breadth

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 05/28/2007 05:46 pm
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 28/5/2007  10:13 AM

OBTW from page 2 para 1 first sentence of DIRECT STS Derivative v2.01;

The Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) represents a watershed opportunity to expand the breath and
depth of human exploration and development for this and future generations.

breath should be breadth


Spell check strikes again.  Thanks
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/28/2007 07:29 pm
I will repeat this post on this thread as I feel it is relevant :-

The Astronaut Office's position starts on p31 (p27 in the pdf) for those interested but definitely leans towards Ares I.

http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/spaceflighthrg-051805.pdf

If you can get them to buy into an alternative that would be key to getting that alternative accepted as I can't see anyone in NASA or Congress going against their wishes or CAIB unless strong evidence of equivalent safety is given. The DIRECT advocates should concentrate less on performance and more on demonstrating a safer theoretical launcher than Ares I. I think an upper stage that could perhaps survive SRBs/fuel tank blowing up  or a CEV that could survive the upper stage blowing up would be avenues to explore. Use the excess weight capacity in that way in the CLV version of that launcher. You have to out-safe the Ares I not out-perform it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/28/2007 07:35 pm
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 28/5/2007  1:04 PM

My understanding of the goal of Direct v2 is to present a viable, affordable, timely option to the current Constellation program, not maximum metric tons to TLI
Your understanding is partially correct.

However: One of Doug Stanley's objections was, in his opinion, Direct v1's inability to fulfill the ESAS lunar mission. That was an objection we worked hard at overcoming in v2. The proper way to do that is to optimize orbital insertion for maximum benefit to the TLI number. It is a fundamental precept for v2. Direct v2 is aimed, not at LEO, but at the Moon, Mars and beyond, and the hardware is selected with that in mind.

Step one is to replace Shuttle with a worthy successor.
Step two is to leave LEO far behind. The Jupiter launch vehicle family is optimized for deep space.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 05/28/2007 08:31 pm
Quote
marsavian - 11/5/2007  2:03 PM

Quote
zinfab - 11/5/2007  1:50 PM

Thanks for this update. I hope someone listens when it REALLY counts.

I think the Democrats will listen and if they win the Presidency they will probably install an Administrator to drop Ares I/V for DIRECT as it will allow them to beef up Science in Nasa whilst still keeping VSE going well even on a flat budget. I have reluctantly come round to Jim's way of thinking in believing that Griffin and Horowitz are so in bed with ATK they will persist with the current architecture come what may and they probably will return there to collect their rewards in 2008. This DIRECT proposal should be continued regardless to shine a light on the current architecture's failings for possible use when a different NASA power base is established.

That's what I think too.  Either the leadership at NASA is either crazy or crazy like a fox.   Personally I'm not sure which.  I think that politically whoever ends up in the Presidency next time is going to want to put as much distance between themselves and W as they possibly can, and dropping the ax on an overbudget and underperforming or at least problematic launch vehicle would be ANOTHER good way of doing that.  That is, IF the entire VSE doesn't go out the window as Bush's baby.   Fiscally the budget is doing to Ares what happened in the early 70's to the shuttle; forcing tradeoff after tradeoff of performance to attempt to reconcile with the available money and pushing the schedule farther and farther into the future.  

I just finished reading "The Space Shuttle Decision" (can't remember the author's name offhand) because I've always been perplexed WHY the original IDEA behind the shuttle and what it is and should do twisted and transformed into the dangerous money burning amalgamation of tradeoffs and compromises that it became; and that it strayed SO far from what it was originally CONCIEVED to be and do to what it EVENTUALLY turned out to be (and be capable of) that it should have occurred to people as smart as NASA's that the original idea was long lost somewhere along the way.  It was a very enlightening read and took one step by step through the political hailstorm and budgetary fallout of pursuing too high a goal with too little (and steadily dwindling) budget whilst trying to woo DOD on board to pay part of the bills while glossing over the ramifications that the necessary modifications to the design to satisfy DOD requirements would end up doing to the original idea.    Add in the grandiose visions of a Space Station, which was originally the purpose of the Shuttle and watching that idea go down in flames because of the budget; set aside for almost 15 years and then resurrected for political reasons, designed and redesigned for nearly another 15 before any hardware even flies, and now that its STILL two years from 'completion' plans are to mothball it after only another 6 years during which we'll have to bum a ride off somebody else to get to it.   I'm really starting to get a weird sense of deja vu.  

What really frightens me about the situation is that what we're seeing is the same old same old all over again.   Everybody says we need a plan, a Vision.  Just like the early 70's with the 'what do we do now after Apollo' was the 16 billion dollar question.  So, we have this broad and appealing idea to move forward that grabs interest and general support.  Now that it's time to work on the execution of that idea, the budgets dwindles repeatedly, the schedule slips again and again, and performance suffers as the design is whittled away from capabilities to absolute essentials to try to meet the fiscal realities.  Whether by intent or unconsciously, NASA chose to fly all cargo on the shuttle, essentially do away with all the ELV's probably out of the fear of its most ardent detractors talking about doing away with manned flight altogether
in the pre-Shuttle days.   What better way to prevent that than to ensure that you can't launch cargo EXCEPT on the Shuttle, which just so happens to require a crew to operate it.  (Nevermind that the Soviet Buran proved on its one and only flight that a crew wasn't necessary to operate a shuttle)   Now here we are 30 odd years later, and the argument is 'you can't fly cargo and crew on the same vehicle'.   So, we have the design of Ares I, which is so underpowered it can't even get the Orion up there without the crew taking a leak before strapping in.   Can't help but think the idea behind it is, "Well, we've GOT to have Ares V; its the cargo hauler and Ares I can't concievably do ANYTHING in orbit or anywhere else without it".  Kind of the extreme reverse of the 'launch all cargo on the manned Shuttle' concept.  

The only problem I see is, that, just like in the early 70's, the champaigne plans can't work on the beer budget, but that doesn't seem to be stopping anybody from trying.  I think (fear) what will eventually happen is that we'll get Ares I and some kind of stripped down VW Bug version of Orion to go on top of it, but it will have cost SO much and slipped SO far past it's original date that Ares V is DOA, and if anybody had really taken time to notice, had been for years.   And without Ares V Orion isn't going ANYWHERE but sightseeing trips in LEO and won't have much of anything to do when it gets there.  Just like with the Shuttle, all bets are being (mis)placed on future capabilities.  With the Shuttle it was on 'every other week flights leading to common access to space, with prices so cheap that virtually anything can (and by extension will) be flown'.   I also remember well all the pie in the sky talk of the 70's and nuclear power plants producing electricity 'too cheap to meter'.  We see how much traction that had!  Just like the original Space Station that the Shuttle was designed to serve died at the budget axeman's hands, so will Ares V.  And without Ares V we're stuck in LEO doing *nothing*.  

With any luck, the next President will drop the axe on the limp and overpriced stick but will have the wisdom to retain the 'vision' guiding space activities forward.  At that point, alternatives such as Direct II start looking awfully attractive, especially with the political ramifications of keeping the workforce intact but yet cutting costs.  Who knows, maybe even the scientific budget can even be restored after its gutting at Ares hands.  After all, science IS the reason we're exploring, right?  Otherwise we're just doing flags and footprints again aren't we?  I love manned flight, but not at the cost of the fantastic science missions and the results they've produced.   I see them as partners hand in hand in exploration.   But if things keep going in the deja vu of the 70's and STS all over again, I'm afraid we'll end up with a little bit of neither.  

Hope I'm just pessimistic.  Yall take it easy!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: aftercolumbia on 05/28/2007 09:04 pm
I haven't had the ability to sort this thread out, but I have read the report and found some disappointments:

- everything regarding the VAB and MLP modifications has gone AWOL.  I though those were some of the strongest arguments in favour of Direct in the original report.
- It is very short for such an important topic.

I think there are some additional variants that should work quite nicely:
- Jupiter 231: Same upper stage tanks and engine type, single engine.  This would be excellent for big high energy unmanned missions, such as robotic sample return missions and outer solar system orbiters (i.e. Uranus and Neptune).
- Jupiter 226: Uses six engine version of Centaur VI (i.e. Atlas VI, or what LM is calling "Phase 1 Evolution") with six times the current Centaur propellant load as a 3rd stage.  This would be analogous to the Saturn I.
- Jupiter 230: This configuration is mentioned, but not named in the report as "upper stage tank/boil-off test - No J-2X engines"  Obviously, the upper stage would need to be launched with a considerable off-load to make orbit, and the resulting launch would be just as much a test of the control system and interstage to handle the sloshing of its propellants.
- Jupiter 236: Just thought of it now, launching the upper stage without a payload, but with 6 RL10A-4 engines to complete ascent.  After achieving orbit, one of the experiments that could be done with it is a sunshine LOX vaporization to reduce the NPSH of both propellants to as low a value as one can light the engines with.  This could be used to detect any line cavitation such as Delta IV suffered.  It could also expand the flight qualified NPSH range of the RL10A-4 and RL10B-2 (if its machinery is close enough for QBS.)  I'm also pretty sure that Pratt & Whitney would love to be able to test six of their engines with a huge reserve of propellant to play around with in an experimental orbital environment where we really don't care if it blows up.
- Jupiter III: Teamvision has this huge mean looking mother which straps two stock Shuttle ETs onto an enormous core and two stock (4 segment) SRBs onto each of the Shuttle ETs (total 4 SRBs).  The ETs feed approximately seven RS-68s under the core.  This is the first known serious NOVA class SDV (some Orbiteers tinkered with big clusters of strapped ETs.  The one I tried had so much thrust and so little pitch control moment that I couldn't pitch it over properly, defaulting to a Juno I type ascent profile...the common feature of each is that they are ugly, mean looking beasts...the sort of ugly that would make Emperor Palpatine drool.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/28/2007 09:06 pm
Luke,

Actually the more I read and learn on the subject it's more like ATK are in bed with Griffin and Horowitz ;-). I do believe now that what drives them ultimately is conviction on their chosen architecture. I think that Ares V will eventually turn up regardless of who is in power but given the Democrats generally less enthusiastic willingness to spend money on Space you could be looking at a Moon mission more closer to 2025 than 2020. If that's ok with everyone ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/29/2007 03:59 am
Just to de-rail the argument about how far into the process we are right now, my earlier comment was:

Quote
kraisee - 26/5/2007  12:22 PM

The issue I have is that the Ares-I is coming in over budget and late on its intended schedule already, and we are only two years into an 8 year long process.

Note that the reference point was "Ares-I", not "VSE".   Ares-I didn't start development until the ESAS Report chose it, more that a year and a half after the VSE was announced.

The ESAS Report was not released until November 2005.

So to completely clarify, I will reissue my original comment.   It should have been:

"The issue I have is that the Ares-I is coming in over budget and late on its intended schedule already, and we are only 1.5 years into what is currently planned to be an 8 year long development process for this launcher."

If I had been referring to the "VSE", my timeline would actually have been 3.5 years into a 16 year long process (Jan 2004 > Jun 2019's first lunar landing).

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/29/2007 04:15 am
Quote
Will - 27/5/2007  11:27 AM


I don’t see performing LOI with the EDS as the most efficient approach, assuming no propellant transfer in LEO. (SNIP)

Let me make sure this isn't misunderstood: It is something we are investigating, but not something we are baselining.

As our proposal shows on page 9, all our initial plans do not use the EDS for the LOI for either EOR or LOR profiles.   Page 10 shows the LOI burn being performed by the EDS as an "Option" which can be considered for "Enhanced" missions later.

One of our team has been doing some analysis work of different approaches using Copernicus, one of NASA's tools for just this sort of job.

We have been getting good results from early test of a number of non-traditional approaches including this.   Actually we are getting sufficiently good results that we thought it was worth including in our proposal.   This was mainly to introduce the concept so we could get others, outside of our team, to go investigate it themselves and see the same benefits.

EDS LOI certainly isn't hard-wired by any means into the DIRECT plan.   It is something to be investigated in case it does offer performance benefits.

Thinking "outside of the box" was Houbolts gift to NASA in the 60's.   Because we've become a bit of a "rebel" team, we seem to have drawn quite a number of individuals who have also come up with ideas that don't fit in the "traditional" moulds.   Some of these ideas, when run through a real analysis, sure seem worth investigating further instead of just dismissing.

These ideas are certainly not all going to be successful in the end.   But some of them are surprisingly simple to implement, and are proving to be very effective according to the early analysis we've done.

If they were to fully proven, they might offer considerable benefits.   So we're spending time looking at them more deeply to get the best possible results out of the VSE's investments we can.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/29/2007 04:39 am
Quote
SMetch - 28/5/2007  1:46 PM
breath should be breadth


Spell check strikes again.  Thanks[/QUOTE]

I had that fixed for v2.0 of the doc, but it looks like it managed to sneak back in again.   I think we suffered from one of the problems of collaboration across the internet :)

Its fixed now.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/29/2007 05:06 am
Quote
marsavian - 28/5/2007  3:29 PM

I will repeat this post on this thread as I feel it is relevant :-

The Astronaut Office's position starts on p31 (p27 in the pdf) for those interested but definitely leans towards Ares I.

http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/spaceflighthrg-051805.pdf

If you can get them to buy into an alternative that would be key to getting that alternative accepted as I can't see anyone in NASA or Congress going against their wishes or CAIB unless strong evidence of equivalent safety is given. The DIRECT advocates should concentrate less on performance and more on demonstrating a safer theoretical launcher than Ares I. I think an upper stage that could perhaps survive SRBs/fuel tank blowing up  or a CEV that could survive the upper stage blowing up would be avenues to explore. Use the excess weight capacity in that way in the CLV version of that launcher. You have to out-safe the Ares I not out-perform it.

We really need an "in" within the astronaut corps.   Just sending the proposal to individual astronauts isn't likely to do anything useful.   We tried it during v1 and didn't get much in the way of a response.   I'm not even sure the proposals were ever read.

But I can well imagine that the idea of placing a 20 ton "shield" between your butt and a rocket filled with highly explosive fuel below, might gain some attention every single person deliberately putting themselves in that position.

The issue is how to get that simple message to the right people, and getting them thinking about it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/29/2007 05:14 am
Quote
luke strawwalker - 28/5/2007  4:31 PM

I just finished reading "The Space Shuttle Decision" (can't remember the author's name offhand)

That would be Thomas A. Heppenheimer.

The whole document is available on NASA's History site here: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htm


Anyone here who hasn't read it should take a few hours and go do so.

The similarities between the current decision making process and the one which resulted in Shuttle are shocking.   The process it describes has been directly responsible for killing 14 people already and should have been a prominent feature in the CAIB findings.   Sadly, it seems to have been overlooked though.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" -George Santayana

I can't help but feel that Ares-I falls into this immediate category.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 05/29/2007 05:35 am
The difference between Ares I and Shuttle is that Ares I is not breaking any new technological ground.  The shuttle was clearly a bridge too far, based on our inexperience with winged reentry vehicles and reusable spacecraft.

At the same time, I hear echoes of the broken promises of the shuttle program in discussions of Ares I.  The shuttle was supposed to "replace all launch vehicles except the very biggest & very smallest," fly every two weeks, possess a LOC rate better than 1:2000, and bring launch costs down by an order of magnitude.  None of that came to pass.  Now NASA is telling us that Ares I will be "Safe, Simple & Soon."  

Ares I may be fairly safe, but it now requires an extra burn of the SM engine and all the added risk that entails.  It also treats the 5-segment SRB as safe despite the booster's lack of flight history.  It's simpler now that "expendible SSME" has been dropped, but no launch vehicle is truly simple.  And we can clearly say that Ares I won't be soon; the spaceflight gap is at five years and counting.  If it reaches six years, it will be worse than the gap between ASTP & STS-1.

The truth is that Ares I is "maybe safe, maybe simple."  DIRECT should bill itself as "Safe Enough and Soon."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/29/2007 07:01 am
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 28/5/2007  1:04 PM
Is it possible to scale up the Centaur without adding all the hardware not currently integrated into the system?

Yes.   Fundamentally any source could be used for the EDS.

The EDS for Ares-V though is currently not borrowing from any non-MSFC source.   Like Ares-I, they are designing it themselves completely independently, from scratch - without input (at this point anyway) from the Centaur program.

The Centaur team is not likely to be invited to get involved in the Ares-V's EDS until such time as a contract is actually issued - and then only if that team actually wins the contract.   I wouldn't expect that decision for at least another five years, at the earliest.

We have a pure Centaur-derived EDS concept here, just with a J-2XD on it, not any breed of RL-10, suitable for a theoretical "Jupiter-231".   It masses 19.3mT and matches the existing proven Centaur's pmf value.   Using this J-231 we can still easily match and exceed lunar performance of Ares-I/V on an EOR profile - but we would require propellant transfer to use it.

Lunar performance is still definitely best using a pair of 232's and an Lunar Rendezvous approach (which remove the issue with CEV/LSAM docking hatch torque loads of the two-engine configuration).

Actually, there is a technique we are investigating currently which would potentially neutralize the two-engine torque loads completely.   One of our team has a possible solution and we are working out the full implications before announcing it.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/29/2007 08:29 am
Quote
kraisee - 28/5/2007  12:06 AM

Quote
marsavian - 28/5/2007  3:29 PM

I will repeat this post on this thread as I feel it is relevant :-

The Astronaut Office's position starts on p31 (p27 in the pdf) for those interested but definitely leans towards Ares I.

http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/spaceflighthrg-051805.pdf

If you can get them to buy into an alternative that would be key to getting that alternative accepted as I can't see anyone in NASA or Congress going against their wishes or CAIB unless strong evidence of equivalent safety is given. The DIRECT advocates should concentrate less on performance and more on demonstrating a safer theoretical launcher than Ares I. I think an upper stage that could perhaps survive SRBs/fuel tank blowing up  or a CEV that could survive the upper stage blowing up would be avenues to explore. Use the excess weight capacity in that way in the CLV version of that launcher. You have to out-safe the Ares I not out-perform it.

We really need an "in" within the astronaut corps.   Just sending the proposal to individual astronauts isn't likely to do anything useful.   We tried it during v1 and didn't get much in the way of a response.   I'm not even sure the proposals were ever read.

But I can well imagine that the idea of placing a 20 ton "shield" between your butt and a rocket filled with highly explosive fuel below, might gain some attention every single person deliberately putting themselves in that position.

The issue is how to get that simple message to the right people, and getting them thinking about it.

Ross.

Yeah, now that's the way to sell it ! Your No.1 priority must be to to beat the 1~2000 LOC figure Ares I has got and even Horowitz might be swayed ;-). Although funnily enough NASA don't seem to mind putting Astronauts on a Ares V which does smack of double standards ;-).

A couple more questions, you have not changed the price differences between Direct and Ares despite all the economic counter arguments Dr Stanley gave, did you not believe any of them ? The second question I have is I'm not quite clear how you can deliver the same mass LSAM with a Jupiter 232 compared to an Ares V given the odd 30mT difference in lift capability ?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/29/2007 11:44 am
Quote
kraisee - 29/5/2007  1:06 AM

We really need an "in" within the astronaut corps.
John Young?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 05/29/2007 02:56 pm
Thanks!  I'm working on "This New Ocean" by Burrows at the moment, when I'm not trying to catch up on the Direct II thread:)  Have a good one!  OL JR :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous.space on 05/29/2007 07:20 pm

In addition to John Young, the advocates of DIRECT 2 might also contact Dr. Paul Spudis at APL.  He gave a presentation at ISDC criticizing Ares, and he most favors a "Shuttle-C" type approach.

Here's a thread I started on Spudis's comments, with links to the article and his presentation:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8102&posts=2#M140822

i don't know if he's aware of DIRECT 2, but Spudis appears to be a kindred spirit with some decent name recognition.

FWIW...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 05/29/2007 08:05 pm
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 27/5/2007  7:59 PM

Quote
clongton - 26/5/2007  11:18 AM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 26/5/2007  12:38 PM

First issue is that "we" are 3.5 years in, not 2.
Wrong. We are only 2 years in. The VSE was delivered by Bush 3.5 years ago, but Griffin has not been administrator for all that time. The current effort didn't begin until Griffin took over, +/- 2 years. Before that was Sean, and a totally different program. We are 2 years in.

I have to agree with mars.is.wet, the NASA VSE program has been underway for 3.5 years and that is certainly how Congress views it. The rest of his comment "Congress does not generally give too many do-overs." is relevant to evaluating whether NASA can afford to return to Congress with another do-over. The first do-over was from O’Keefe’s to Griffin’s but they were both the Administration’s and Griffin was brought in specifically to “fix” the VSE implementation. That is why I agree with rumble's suggestion that Direct/Jupiter should be spun by NASA as a re-creation of Ares I/V, (perhaps as Ares II and III) rather than a new do-over.

That said I have reached the conclusion that Griffin and Horowitz are going to ride Ares I down in flames, (think Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove) to the detriment of their NASA careers if not their professional careers. Whether they take the VSE with them remains to be seen.

I also applaud reconsidering the EDS construction. This thread was started to elicit a form of peer review and it appears as though that review is leaning toward re-evaluation of the ICES decision.

LOL :)



Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/30/2007 12:48 am
Quote
marsavian - 29/5/2007  4:29 AM

Yeah, now that's the way to sell it ! Your No.1 priority must be to to beat the 1~2000 LOC figure Ares I has got and even Horowitz might be swayed ;-)

Well, for a Jupiter-120 flight, carrying a 20 ton ballistic shield, I've heard estimates of from doubling to quadrupling the safety for Crew.

In the absence of any available analytical method to evaluate such a "bullet proof vest" approach for actively protecting the CEV during catestrophic LV loss scenario's, a simple doubling or quadrupling of NASA's LOC figure generates 1:2,800 or 1:5,600 LOC.

I've asked my ESAS sources to generate a full evaluation, but this has simply never been done before on any launch vehicle, so they aren't sure how to assign it a value.   They certainly feel that it offers a very high level of protection for crews, but have no baseline to reference a 'number' from.

Of course, the LOM stays roughly where it is.   Mind you, even it isn't bad at all.


Quote
Although funnily enough NASA don't seem to mind putting Astronauts on a Ares V which does smack of double standards ;-).

Yeah.   I always found that hypocritical.   Especially as the LOC for Ares-V is below the "minimum" of 1:1000 LOC set by the ESAS.


Quote
A couple more questions, you have not changed the price differences between Direct and Ares despite all the economic counter arguments Dr Stanley gave, did you not believe any of them ?

We have an addendum to our core study coming soon dealing with that.


Quote
The second question I have is I'm not quite clear how you can deliver the same mass LSAM with a Jupiter 232 compared to an Ares V given the odd 30mT difference in lift capability ?

We are bringing only some of the LSAM's final mass up on the J-232, and the rest up with the Crew on the other flight.

Because the CEV masses only 20.2mT, and we have at least 46 tons of lift capability on even the smallest Jupiter-120, this allows about 20 extra tons to be brought up and then transferred to the LSAM in space.

This additional mass might be in the form of cargo or propellant, but when transferred, it makes an LSAM massing at least the same as Ares'.

Where the plan really benefits is in flying an EDS on the Crew flight as well - at which point the exact same technique creates an LSAM far bigger than anything Ares-I/V can ever hope to lift.

In short, for the "price" of learning new procedures of how to transfer mass (cargo or propellant) from the CEV to the LSAM in space, you can get a Lunar Lander about 40-50% larger than currently planned, and do so while paying for only one shiny new LV instead of two.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/30/2007 10:58 am
Ross,

Thanks for your answers. It does seem to me though that you are not taking account of the first part of your answer in the last part. If you use part or all of the 120's excess capacity as a ballistic shield then you can't use it to carry useful payload too. To me this implies that there should be no 120 only a 130 and a 231/2. This way you can still keep only one base launcher, have 10-20T of solid steel directly under the CEV and still have capacity to carry extra payload in the 130 underneath the shield. You said before the 130 wouldn't work, is that with a maximum theoretical payload ? Is a stretch of the tank such a no-no ? Of course the 231 wouldn't need the ballistic shield with just cargo flying. You really need to get your guys working the numbers, doing blast calculations and come up with a more rounded proposal which isn't just concentrating on performance and cost. Your deadline is 2008 when a new administrator takes over.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/30/2007 01:53 pm
Quote
marsavian - 30/5/2007  6:58 AM
 Your deadline is 2008 when a new administrator takes over.

Election is in 2008, president takes over in 2009, ... TBD how long (and if person is otherwise occupied or distracted IF) they replace the current Administrator.  NASA would certainly not be "first to fire" on anyone's list in THIS race, and NASA may not be on the radar for some candidates.

I imagine it could be mid-to-late 2009, but what do I know?  IMO this architecture will be well established before there is any change, if any occurs.

Anyone think Griffin would resign?  


Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 05/30/2007 02:04 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 30/5/2007  9:53 AM

Quote
marsavian - 30/5/2007  6:58 AM
 Your deadline is 2008 when a new administrator takes over.

Election is in 2008, president takes over in 2009, ... TBD how long (and if person is otherwise occupied or distracted IF) they replace the current Administrator.  NASA would certainly not be "first to fire" on anyone's list in THIS race, and NASA may not be on the radar for some candidates.

I imagine it could be mid-to-late 2009, but what do I know?  IMO this architecture will be well established before there is any change, if any occurs.

Anyone think Griffin would resign?  



I don't have a link or reference, but it's my recollection Griffin has said he doesn't intend to continue in office beyond the end of the current administration.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/30/2007 04:22 pm
Quote
William Barton - 30/5/2007  10:04 AM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 30/5/2007  9:53 AM

Quote
marsavian - 30/5/2007  6:58 AM
 Your deadline is 2008 when a new administrator takes over.

Election is in 2008, president takes over in 2009, ... TBD how long (and if person is otherwise occupied or distracted IF) they replace the current Administrator.  NASA would certainly not be "first to fire" on anyone's list in THIS race, and NASA may not be on the radar for some candidates.

I imagine it could be mid-to-late 2009, but what do I know?  IMO this architecture will be well established before there is any change, if any occurs.

Anyone think Griffin would resign?  



I don't have a link or reference, but it's my recollection Griffin has said he doesn't intend to continue in office beyond the end of the current administration.

May be the theory is like this.  If the new person likes space, and Griffin is doing a good job, they will put their own person in to take the credit.  If the new person likes space and Griffin is doing a "bad" job, he will be replaced on merit.  If the new person doesn't care about space or the Moon in specific, then Griffin would not want to work there.  In any case, it requires the person to evaluate NASA and the job Griffin is doing (and Griffin to evaluate their position) before any move is made.  This takes time ... Griffin never said he would leave if the Vision were alive ... he just said he didn't think he would at NASA.

My thought would be the new person sees that Griffin has made progress and is the right person for the job.  They don't think space is a huge priority, but even the lesser children need guidance.  Griffin would be allowed to stay to keep the ship on course until NASA rises in priority due to success or mis-management.

In any case, mid-2009 is the earliest one could hope for, if one hopes for these sorts of things.  The president changes the curtains in the oval office first, then the cabinet, then a bunch of other things ... he or she does not start with the head of NASA unless they are a space-nut.  Sometimes (see Dan Goldin), it matters so little to them that the person in place stays put ....

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/30/2007 04:38 pm
Quote
marsavian - 30/5/2007  6:58 AM

Ross,

Thanks for your answers. It does seem to me though that you are not taking account of the first part of your answer in the last part. If you use part or all of the 120's excess capacity as a ballistic shield then you can't use it to carry useful payload too.

It's a concious choice.   For simple crew rotation flights to ISS, where no additional performance is needed, the shield can be flown to provide maximum crew safety.   But for Lunar missions, where performance is a major factor, the shield is not flown and the payload is used for some other purpose.


Quote
To me this implies that there should be no 120 only a 130 and a 231/2. This way you can still keep only one base launcher, have 10-20T of solid steel directly under the CEV and still have capacity to carry extra payload in the 130 underneath the shield. You said before the 130 wouldn't work, is that with a maximum theoretical payload ? Is a stretch of the tank such a no-no ? Of course the 231 wouldn't need the ballistic shield with just cargo flying. You really need to get your guys working the numbers, doing blast calculations and come up with a more rounded proposal which isn't just concentrating on performance and cost. Your deadline is 2008 when a new administrator takes over.

A J-130 configuration (single cryo stage, 3xRS-68's) doesn't work so well.   Unless you shut down one of the engines fairly early in the flight you haven't got sufficient fuel to reach orbit in the ET.   And if you shut down one engine, you're dragging a dead engine along for most of the ride - and that doesn't assist your payload performance at all.   The J-120 outperforms the J-130 in any flight profile we can come up with.   In short, the 3-engine version needs an upper stage to work.

Our team of ~50 people have limited resources, so we're using them sparingly.   I'm not even sure if there is a way to test all the various ways a vehicle can explode.   Certain known critical failure modes can be simulated - and we have a number of such analysis in hand already courtesy of STS.

The biggest improvement which can be provided is the LAS - and that's already included.   The ballistic shield concept is something we can make use of, which Ares-I can't, and do so in many situations, but still probably not all.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/30/2007 04:48 pm
Griffin originally said (paraphrasing) he expected to stay as long as the current political masters were in office, but expected to leave when it was eventually replaced.   But he has also, more recently, said that he would like to stay longer if he were asked to.

Either way, I'm sure he can get a damn good pay check in the private sector whenever he does leave.   O'Keefe did.

From my perspective though, I think Ares-I will prove to be the first major make-or-break artefact in the new program.   It's success/failure will specifically dictate the shape of what's to come.

The more I hear about it internally from people actually working the development, and the more I see the shadow of Congress looming over the program, the lower my hopes dwindle for any chance of success.   For the first time, I now believe the VSE is below 50/50 chance of ever being completed, and the biggest chain dragging us down is the Ares-I.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/30/2007 04:52 pm
If the purpose of the shield is to provide very short-term protection from flying debris, why does it have to weigh 20 tons?  A 2cm-thick, 5m-diameter piece of Boron Carbide armor would weigh 1 ton (it's one of the materials used in the ceramic plates soldiers use to stop rifle bullets).  I don't really know much about the stuff, but it's a ceramic with a high melting point (> 2300°C), and so should provide at least some short-term thermal protection as well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/30/2007 05:01 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 30/5/2007  12:52 PM

If the purpose of the shield is to provide very short-term protection from flying debris, why does it have to weigh 20 tons?  A 2cm-thick, 5m-diameter piece of Boron Carbide armor would weigh 1 ton (it's one of the materials used in the ceramic plates soldiers use to stop rifle bullets).  I don't really know much about the stuff, but it's a ceramic with a high melting point (> 2300°C), and so should provide at least some short-term thermal protection as well.
Hmmm. With those properties, and Jupiter's margin, it could almost be included as a standard feature in the design, and still leave the vast majority of the margin available for other purposes. Time to go run some numbers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/30/2007 05:10 pm
Quote
clongton - 30/5/2007  11:01 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 30/5/2007  12:52 PM

If the purpose of the shield is to provide very short-term protection from flying debris, why does it have to weigh 20 tons?  A 2cm-thick, 5m-diameter piece of Boron Carbide armor would weigh 1 ton (it's one of the materials used in the ceramic plates soldiers use to stop rifle bullets).  I don't really know much about the stuff, but it's a ceramic with a high melting point (> 2300°C), and so should provide at least some short-term thermal protection as well.
Hmmm. With those properties, and Jupiter's margin, it could almost be included as a standard feature in the design, and still leave the vast majority of the margin available for other purposes. Time to go run some numbers.

Please take note of where I said, "I don't really know much about the stuff".  I've read about it a bit and I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation on mass.  I don't know if it makes sense as a shield or not, but 20 tons strikes me as 1/3 the mass of an M1A1 which is surrounded by huge amounts of Chobham armour - way heavier stuff.

Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 05/30/2007 05:10 pm
"ever being completed"

I agree if you refer to the current incarnation of VSE.  However, Griffin's "next 50 years" article makes it pretty clear that if human space flight remains any sort of priority, the budget will be enough that we won't be able to help but make it to the Moon and Mars within the next few generations.  If NASA's budget is cut or reprioritized (global warming?), all bets are off.

Depends on your time horizon.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/30/2007 05:10 pm
Ross,

Not having a ballistic shield every time you fly a crew and by inference a higher LOC figure than Ares I will be a weakness that your opponents will use against you. ISS configuration is a sideshow here compared to the Moon and Mars and is irrelevant in the long term. If there isn't enough fuel for a Jupiter 130 stretch the 8.4m tank until you do have enough. Work harder on your weaknesses than your strengths. It's your choice of course but you really need to beat the current architecture on *all* points otherwise it will just be continued to be ignored.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/30/2007 05:13 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 30/5/2007  9:52 AM

If the purpose of the shield is to provide very short-term protection from flying debris, why does it have to weigh 20 tons?  A 2cm-thick, 5m-diameter piece of Boron Carbide armor would weigh 1 ton (it's one of the materials used in the ceramic plates soldiers use to stop rifle bullets).  I don't really know much about the stuff, but it's a ceramic with a high melting point (> 2300°C), and so should provide at least some short-term thermal protection as well.

The primary purpose of the "shield" is to provide 20 tons of ballast in addition to the 25 ton CEV, because the rocket needs the 40+ tons of payload in order to stay within its designed trajectory and g-loading envelope.  The crew protection is just a desirable side-effect.

An actual shield does sound like an interesting idea, though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/30/2007 05:17 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 30/5/2007  11:13 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 30/5/2007  9:52 AM

If the purpose of the shield is to provide very short-term protection from flying debris, why does it have to weigh 20 tons?  A 2cm-thick, 5m-diameter piece of Boron Carbide armor would weigh 1 ton (it's one of the materials used in the ceramic plates soldiers use to stop rifle bullets).  I don't really know much about the stuff, but it's a ceramic with a high melting point (> 2300°C), and so should provide at least some short-term thermal protection as well.

The primary purpose of the "shield" is to provide 20 tons of ballast in addition to the 25 ton CEV, because the rocket needs the 40+ tons of payload in order to stay within its designed trajectory and g-loading envelope.  The crew protection is just a desirable side-effect.

An actual shield does sound like an interesting idea.

I realized that, but the thought of not having it because of needed payload on the lunar runs made me think about why you'd actually need to.  If you need 20 tons of ballast, you can make 19 tons of it water or something, and remove that during the more performance-limited launches, assuming a 1-ton (give or take) shield actually works and provides some useful amount of protection for increasing LOC numbers.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 05/30/2007 05:21 pm
Quote
marsavian - 30/5/2007  10:10 AM

If there isn't enough fuel for a Jupiter 130 stretch the 8.4m tank until you do have enough.

I believe that you are extremely limited in stretching the tank, because the SRB attachment is at a fixed location, which has to be in the "interstaging" between the LOX and LH2 tanks.

I understand that this issue is a large part of why they need the 5-segment SRBs for the Ares V.  The longer SRBs allow them to stretch the tanks in the core.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/30/2007 05:26 pm
Lee Jay,
I was wondering what other materials might be possible to use for a shield, but don't know much about any of the relevant materials.   Thanks for making the suggestion.

A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation does indeed confirm that a 5.0m diameter  Boron Carbon sheet, 2cm thick, would mass about 989kg assuming a 'nominal' 2.52grams/cm3 density.

I would strongly suggest locating the sheet between the CM heatshield and the SM body and accepting the performance hit throughout all missions.   My reasoning is that the Apollo-13 Service Module explosion did damage the Command Module's heatshield (although not sufficiently that we lost the crew, thank heavens) and a ballistic shield here would offer crew protection in the event of even a similar Service Module failure.

I don't know if 2cm is thick enough for this particular application, but considering we're talking about aluminium structures in the Core/EDS, this 'appears' like it might be sufficient.

A 1 ton performance hit like this still isn't possible using Ares-I, but if this addition were to just increase crew safety margins by 30%, we can match Ares-I's LOC figures.   Any more improvement than that and DIRECT goes into the lead.

The thing I really like about this is how relatively cheap such an improvement would be.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/30/2007 05:30 pm
Actually thinking about this a little more, a 0.5cm thick B/C shield on the Service Module would probably be sufficient, and then a 2cm thick second shield located below the Service Module would allow the SM to still perform Aborts after the LAS has been ejected, even if the LV itself suffers serious failures.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/30/2007 05:30 pm
Quote
marsavian - 30/5/2007  1:10 PM
If there isn't enough fuel for a Jupiter 130 stretch the 8.4m tank until you do have enough.
Fundamental premise of the Direct architecture is to use existing flight articles as close to "as-is" as can be. ET changes are limited to wall thickness milling differences and external mounting. To do things like stretching the ET takes us back to v1, which was a step-too-far. IF the Direct architecture, or something similar, gets adopted as baseline, lots of growth options become available. But for now, they are off the table.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/30/2007 05:37 pm
Quote
kraisee - 30/5/2007  1:30 PM

Actually thinking about this a little more, a 0.5cm thick B/C shield on the Service Module would probably be sufficient, and then a 2cm thick second shield located below the Service Module would allow the SM to still perform Aborts after the LAS has been ejected, even if the LV itself suffers serious failures.
Ross.
Oh the wonders of margin. Now that's why we refer to it as the holy grail of launch vehicle design. :)
Jupiter has it, Ares doesn't.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/30/2007 05:38 pm
I picked 2cm out of the air because I saw a shot on the Discovery channel where a guy held up a piece that looked to be a little under an inch thick and then fired a round from an AR-15 at it.  The round didn't go through.  That piece was wrapped with some cloth made out of one of the super fibers like Kevlar or Spectra or something, but that wasn't the stopping power for the unit.

I'm not clear on the failure modes for the abort system for the 1 in 10 times it fails to save the crew.  Without that knowledge, I don't know if even a 100% effective shield would eliminate any of them.  It's just a thought.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/30/2007 06:09 pm
Silicon Nitride and is already used in aerospace applications.

http://www.accuratus.com/silinit.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_nitride
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=53
http://designinsite.dk/htmsider/m1017.htm

Silicon nitride (Si3N4) is light, hard, and has low thermal expansion coefficent. It has high mechanical strength, fracture toughness, and it is resistant to deformation at room temperature as well as at elevated temperatures.

Si3N4 differs from other ceramics because it doesn't melt, but, between 1800 and 1900 °C, it decomposes and sublimates into Si and N. However, stabilised forms can be made.

The most common applications are for engine parts (valves, pistons, etc.), energy plants (gas turbines, diesel engines etc.), and ultra high-temperature applications. Particulary important is its corrosion resistance (jigs and tools).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/30/2007 06:09 pm
There appear to be a plethora of ballistic armour shield materials available.   Stuff such as carbon kevlar composites used for the Apache helicopter's fuselage look like possibilities too.

Trade studies would be required to find the right materials for the particular application we're after.   But I think we can provide data on one or two potential "examples" and integrate them into the basic proposal easily.

Perhaps we should simply 'budget' for something like a 300kg shield between the CM/SM, and then a 1mT shield between the SM/LV.   This should be more than sufficient mass allocation.

This would offer an extra layer of protection for both the Crew Module and the Service Module from virtually all likely explosive events.   Heck, the shield inside the SM would also offer additional micrometeorite protection for the CM heatshield during missions - even if the SM were damaged.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/30/2007 06:30 pm
marsavian - Is there any data about Si3N4 operating in cold-soak vacuum conditions such as those it would experience in space?

Whatever material is used it will have to work for >6 months in space conditions.   Being in next to the heatshield it is unlikely to be exposed to the sun, but in the shade it will experience very cold temperatures and needs to remain non-brittle in such an environment.

I don't have any such data on any of the materials suggested so far.   Trade Studies are needed.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/30/2007 06:34 pm
This is more like it Ross, giving DIRECT unique safety capabilities and factors Ares I hasn't got due to its lower lift capability. Just need to quantify it over time and keep working the numbers until the safety factor is greater than Ares I even in Lunar missions. Good luck !
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/30/2007 06:53 pm
A Blast Shield to protect Orion from a catastrophic LV failure.

That is such an obvious use for some of Jupiter’s margin that absolutely nobody on the Direct team thought of it. Talk about being too close to the forest to see the trees! Right from the very beginning of version 1, people were thinking of ways to use the margin in the launch vehicle, and all of us were oriented toward using it in mission mode. None of us ever thought about backing some of that margin back into the design to make the entire system safer.

It just goes to show us that none of us have all the answers, and that is one of the great strengths of a forum like this one, and a strength of a “team” approach to designing a launch vehicle, where everyone has an opinion or an idea, or a thought, and EVERYONE'S thoughts and opinions are valued. We are greater than the sum of our parts when we do things like this.

This thread was established in order to get feedback, critiques and suggestions. We have been getting all three, and all of it has been valuable. Thank you all, and thank you Lee Jay for showing us what was right in front of our face.

Everyone – thank you and please continue.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/30/2007 06:58 pm
Quote
kraisee - 30/5/2007  1:30 PM

marsavian - Is there any data about Si3N4 operating in cold-soak vacuum conditions such as those it would experience in space?

Whatever material is used it will have to work for >6 months in space conditions.   Being in next to the heatshield it is unlikely to be exposed to the sun, but in the shade it will experience very cold temperatures and needs to remain non-brittle in such an environment.

I don't have any such data on any of the materials suggested so far.   Trade Studies are needed.

Ross.

Is the SSME a good example ? ;-)

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/1995/xp-95-04.html


New shuttle main engine being readied for flight

NASA has successfully completed testing a new high pressure liquid oxidizer turbopump and is ready to fly an upgraded main engine for the first time this coming June.

Final certification of the new liquid oxygen high pressure turbopump took place on March 15. The new pumps underwent a test program that is equivalent to 40 space shuttle flights.

The high pressure liquid oxygen pumps used in the current SSME must be removed after each flight for inspection. The new pumps will not need any detailed inspection until they have flown 10 times. The new pumps also are expected to increase safety margins and reliability for the SSMEs. These engines provide about 1.5 million pounds of thrust during launch of the shuttles into low earth orbit.

The new pumps also incorporate state of the art technology in the design. The pump housing is produced through a casting process, thereby eliminating all but six of the 300 welds that exist in the current pump. Eliminating welds is one of the keys to increasing safety margins on the main engines.

A new ball bearing material - silicon nitride (a type of ceramic) - is also used on the new pump. Silicon nitride offers several advantages over the steel bearings currently in use. The material is 30 percent harder than steel and has an ultra-smooth finish which allows for less friction during pump operation. Friction creates heat that leads to wear on the bearings. These new ceramic bearings eliminate concerns over excessive wear to the pump-end ball bearing.


Along with the new turbopump, the upgraded engine will have a new two-duct powerhead. The new powerhead will significantly improve fluid flows within the engine system by decreasing pressure, reducing maintenance and enhancing overall performance of the engine. It will replace three smaller fuel ducts in the current design with two enlarged ducts to achieve improve engine performance.

On shuttle mission STS-70, planned for June, one SSME will be a new Block I engine, while the remaining two engines will be the standard SSME design. The first flight planned to incorporate the new pumps into all three engines is STS-73, currently targeted for launch next September.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/30/2007 06:59 pm
Quote
kraisee - 30/5/2007  12:09 PM
Trade studies would be required to find the right materials for the particular application we're after.   But I think we can provide data on one or two potential "examples" and integrate them into the basic proposal easily.

Wait a minute.  That question I mentioned above about understanding why the abort system would fail to save the lives of the crew needs to be answered first.  Adding a ballistic shield doesn't help if the failure mode is avionics, or g-load, or depresurization or whatever.

Are you sure that a shield would actually increase the LOC number?  Is there some known rationale behind that assumption?  If there is, and there have been some studies on this, then you can make a rational argument.  If not, I think there would need to be first.  Where did that 1 in 10 number for the abort system come from?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 05/30/2007 07:13 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 30/5/2007  2:59 PM

Quote
kraisee - 30/5/2007  12:09 PM
Trade studies would be required to find the right materials for the particular application we're after.   But I think we can provide data on one or two potential "examples" and integrate them into the basic proposal easily.

Wait a minute.  That question I mentioned above about understanding why the abort system would fail to save the lives of the crew needs to be answered first.  Adding a ballistic shield doesn't help if the failure mode is avionics, or g-load, or depresurization or whatever.

Are you sure that a shield would actually increase the LOC number?  Is there some known rationale behind that assumption?  If there is, and there have been some studies on this, then you can make a rational argument.  If not, I think there would need to be first.  Where did that 1 in 10 number for the abort system come from?
We understand that the original question remains valid and needs to be answered. It goes to the very heart of the abort system and how well it functions. The blast shield becomes a final line of defense in the case that the abort system does not function properly, and the LV explodes with Orion still attached. The blast shield would probably save the spacecraft and the crew, whereas without it, the safety of the crew would be no better than a similar event with an Ares launcher. So yes, the blast shield definately increases the LOC number, and the safety of the astronauts aboard Orion.

If Ares had the margin to do it, this technique could be employed by that launch vehicle as well. The fact is that it does not have the capability to carry a shield, leaving the crew without a critical safety feature that can be built into the Jupiter as standard hardware.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/30/2007 07:17 pm
Quote
marsavian - 30/5/2007  2:34 PM

This is more like it Ross, giving DIRECT unique safety capabilities and factors Ares I hasn't got due to its lower lift capability. Just need to quantify it over time and keep working the numbers until the safety factor is greater than Ares I even in Lunar missions. Good luck !

With the extra margin on performance all the DIRECT architectures support, we can easily implement these shields for all Lunar missions as well as LEO missions.

We can even carry one of these protective shields all the way through a Lunar mission to SM separation and re-entry.

I am already convinced that we have considerably better Lunar LOM numbers than Ares.

We absolutely have higher Lunar mission LOC numbers after the ascent phase already, and the CM/SM shield promises an increase there too.

Evaluating safety numbers for the ascent is the only "gray" area we have right this minute.   Analysis of this has already started in FIRST and is looking promising.   It is a unique concept though, with little in the way of previous precedent, so we shall see what comes of it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/30/2007 07:31 pm
Perhaps the blast shield could have shock absorbers to dampen a blast.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/30/2007 07:50 pm
The target is to provide as much protection during each phase of the mission.

The primary purpose of a shield below the Service Module would be to absorb any shrapnel strikes of any structures below coming up and damaging the CEV itself, and to also create a physical barrier for any explosion events immediately below the SM.

Challenger clearly demonstrates that the ET does not actually "explode" in these catastrophic events.   Liquid Hydrogen burns in localized areas, but not fast enough to actually qualify as a real explosion.   Still, these limited events and rapid depressurisations can send burning fuel and shrapnel in any direction, so we are trying really to protect the CEV from those events during the ascent phase of the mission.

The SM must be protected from the Launch Vehicle itself because after the LAS has been jettisoned, it is the Service Module which performs all the aborts from a failing vehicle.

Yet the CEV itself poses a danger, both on its own and also in catastrophic events.   It contains substantial quantities of explosive propellants and other pressurized materials - all of which are capable of damaging the Command Module located immediately above.   Be it a mechanical failure inside the SM itself (Apollo 13), or damage from shrapnel coming from another source (Challenger) or even failure due to micrometeorite strike, the SM is a very localized source of potential damage to a Crew Module.

This is where a shield on top of the SM comes in - a shield located on the top of teh SM, immediately below the Heatshield, should be able to protect the CM from almost anything the SM might throw at it.

LAS removes the CM during the early phases of the ascent, so both shields offer protection thorough that phase of the flight.

The CM/SM shield offers a crew protection from Service Module problems during the last half of ascent all the way through separation, circularization and all the way through to the end of the mission.

On LOR missions, with the EDS located to the aft, the SM/LV shield even offers protection from a catastrophic failure of the EDS during a TLI burn.

All of these are very important additional safety features Jupiter can support, but which Ares-I makes impossible to implement.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/30/2007 08:30 pm
Working with the blast shield it could deploy small fins at the base to help stabilize it.  Otherwise it might go into a tumble.
This is probably too much detail but thought I would throw it out there anyway.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 05/30/2007 08:49 pm
A blast shield doesn't need to be complex. Imagine a simple water tank, where the mass of the water is the shield.

You'd be surprised how effective just plain water can be. Besides, if you orbit it, you can use it too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/30/2007 09:07 pm
It would probably make more sense to put the fins there permanently.   Maybe 6 fairly small fins at the base of the service module.
AKA the KISS principle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/30/2007 11:28 pm
Ross,

Some hard comparison numbers between Boron Carbide and Silicon Nitride

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=2254
http://www.azom.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=2263

Boron Carbide is harder, lighter with greater elasticity whereas Silicon Nitride is stronger, non-porous and with greater heat/oxidizing resistance. Boron Carbide also stops Neutron radiation which might be useful in Space ;-).

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/30/2007 11:36 pm
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 30/5/2007  2:49 PM

A blast shield doesn't need to be complex. Imagine a simple water tank, where the mass of the water is the shield.

You'd be surprised how effective just plain water can be. Besides, if you orbit it, you can use it too.

Absolutely true, but an extremely heavy solution if you don't need the water.

Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/30/2007 11:40 pm
I'm not sure fins will be of much use.

The LAS rides on the LV all the way through the atmospheric portion of the ascent and is designed to operate in just a fraction of a second after an abort condition is detected, taking just the Crew Module off, and leaving the Service Module behind.

The SM only performs aborts much later in the ascent, once the LAS has been jettisoned away.

There just isn't a scenario where the SM performs any escape duties while still inside an atmospheric environment.


In either case, a ballistic shield would only really be of benefit for no more than a couple of seconds, while whatever escape system is utilised (LAS or SM) is fired and begins to move the CM away.

The shield under the SM would hopefully protect the SM sufficiently to act either as a "gap filler" between the failing LV and the CM while the LAS boosts it away, or it would act as a means of stopping shrapnel/blast-waves from damaging the J-2X while it ignites and gets the CM the heck out of dodge.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 05/31/2007 01:28 am
Quote
kraisee - 30/5/2007  6:40 PM

I'm not sure fins will be of much use.

Ross.

IMO fins will add nothing to control/safety; and would end up only adding extra booster mass, which accordingly takes away even more payload mass available to orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/31/2007 03:02 am
Quote
MKremer - 30/5/2007  8:28 PM

Quote
kraisee - 30/5/2007  6:40 PM

I'm not sure fins will be of much use.

Ross.

IMO fins will add nothing to control/safety; and would end up only adding extra booster mass, which accordingly takes away even more payload mass available to orbit.
My thinking was that if the booster exploded the forces of the blast would not be even & would throw the CEV/SM into a tumble.   If it turns just 90 degrees it might rip off tower.  I don't know, maybe its strong enough to withstand that.   Hopefully its not pointing the wrong way when the las motor fires.   It might take it right through the debris field.

 I was trying to think of a way to keep it pointing the right direction.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 05/31/2007 03:17 am
I should think it would be better to integrate this ballistic shield with the main CSM structure so as to also provide radiation shielding.  To loft  the thing with no purpose but ballistic protection in the unlikely event of a booster explosion, not specifically aimed at the CM seems somewhat wasteful to me.  As opposed to a high energy long rod KE penetrator aimed at a tank.  Enough KE can always be found to penetrate any armor, which is what a ballistic shield is anyway.  A somewhat less dense ceramic mix or mixture of Kevlar, Gortex, and other high density fabrics in addition to ceramics may be all that is necessary for an effective shield for a relatively low energy event  - not like a DU penetrator aimed at the target with velocities approaching 2 miles per second.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/31/2007 03:21 am
Veedriver22,
It's a fair point.   It wasn't the force of any "explosion" or the sudden depressurisation of the ET which caused Challenger to break up, it was the fact that when the ET started to fall apart, the struts mounting the orbiter in place also failed and pushed the spacecraft sideways to the rapidly moving airflow.

At just a little after max-Q, where the accident happened, the pressure is very high.   They are travelling at about 1.5 times the speed of sound, and going past 35,000ft altitude.   In these conditions, the vehicle suddenly found itself flying partially "sideways", and the air itself started ripping the whole orbiter apart.

Given this experience, it isn't unreasonable to think that a catastrophic LV failure below a CEV might cause it too, to be twisted off of it's nominal trajectory path.

The advantage I do see though, is that the Orion has a very stable aerodynamic shape, which ought to help re-align it naturally in a fairly quick fashion.

Of course, the LAS should be able to just yank the CM off within a fraction of a second of major problems occurring, and I suspect the force of its thrust is going to be the most considerable force being applied to the CM at the time.

I would suspect that the LAS & Orion teams are planning their designs in the full knowledge that the Orion's orientation may not actually be perfectly aligned with the nominal trajectory in the case of an emergency abort.   I'm sure its something they are already dealing with.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 05/31/2007 03:36 am
Quote
mike robel - 30/5/2007  11:17 PM

I should think it would be better to integrate this ballistic shield with the main CSM structure so as to also provide radiation shielding.  To loft  the thing with no purpose but ballistic protection in the unlikely event of a booster explosion, not specifically aimed at the CM seems somewhat wasteful to me.  As opposed to a high energy long rod KE penetrator aimed at a tank.  Enough KE can always be found to penetrate any armor, which is what a ballistic shield is anyway.  A somewhat less dense ceramic mix or mixture of Kevlar, Gortex, and other high density fabrics in addition to ceramics may be all that is necessary for an effective shield for a relatively low energy event  - not like a DU penetrator aimed at the target with velocities approaching 2 miles per second.

Agreed.   I think there's a lot of research which could be done in this area to protect crews.   the Boron Carbide looks like a fairly good radiation shielding in addition to it's ballistic properties, but a kevlar/carbon-fibre/Gortex also appear to be of great value too.   The most effective solution may well turn out to be a multi-layer composite material, with perhaps Silicone Nitride in one layer, together with a layer of something like Kevlar, and perhaps even a third layer of Silicone Nitride.   I'm not sure what order to place the different materials myself, but the overlapping performance characteristics of a multi-layer approach offers a lot of potential to this concept.

The DIRECT team is not really set-up to be able to research the particular materials ourselves, so we are researching a number of military sources for useful information currently to include in an addendum to our core report.   Data exists for all the armour types in use by the military today, and I'm sure the manufacturers of such things would be interested in a regular contract from NASA for their wares.

It is possible that we will take the approach of suggesting half a dozen different materials & composites which should be "trade studied" and then budget a reasonable mass allocation for such a system into our calculations, based on masses utilised in similar real-world applications.

This will allow us to press on without getting bogged down in the precise formulation of what the shield is actually made from.   We can present a series of basic safety numbers and costs based on a range of different materials, and then leave the rest to a deeper trade study later.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: zinfab on 05/31/2007 04:53 am
I'd suggest finding ANY reference to "space flown" for any materials you suggest. It may be a way to limit your scope. Lack of "space flown" nicks the armor of your argument, if you'll pardon my expression. You rely on "Direct" principles. NASA may have a hard time answering media/political questions like:

"Why didn't NASA think a shield was needed for Ares I?"

While I'm as excited about this feature as ICES, the politics of ANYTHING that isn't necessary or immediately "ready" from the shuttle-derived equipment risks weakening the larger argument. Be ready to GIVE NASA the sound-byte (and thought out) answers to questions like that in your report.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 05/31/2007 06:56 am
kraisee
Quote
- 30/5/2007  10:50 PM
 a shield located on the top of the SM, immediately below the Heatshield...  
You need to look at the footprint of debris from SM on entry.
A heavy armor plate might come down in one heavy piece surfing through the atmosphere.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 05/31/2007 08:11 am
Ross,

I think you probably have enough margin to completely encase the CM with a ballistic shield. I'm thinking of the benefit of general micrometeroid protection as well as a LV failure and MMods are the constant danger the longer you stay out in space. The weight applied in this place will do the most to decrease your LOC figure and the idea of a capsule shield is a potent concept that is easily understood and sold. It also makes your safety calculations much easier when you can rule out a whole class of MMods ;-).

We spend so much money sending Astronauts out in Space but once we do we rely on chance for their continued safety ! With modern technology we can do much better and should !! Along with your heavy SM bottom cap I think you now have the safety aspect sorted, you just need to quantify and solidify it now in the proposal. Fwiw I think you should have a Boron Carbide outer shield and a Silicon Nitride inner shield. The Boron Carbide will stop particle momentum and neutron radiation and the Silicon Nitride will stop thermal energy and provide the last strong defence of structural integrity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: neviden on 05/31/2007 09:35 am
Quote
renclod - 31/5/2007  8:56 AM

kraisee
Quote
- 30/5/2007  10:50 PM
 a shield located on the top of the SM, immediately below the Heatshield...  
You need to look at the footprint of debris from SM on entry.
A heavy armor plate might come down in one heavy piece surfing through the atmosphere.
Why dump it?

Keep it in LEO. I am sure the folks on ISS would be happy to have few of them postioned outside of their modules. It would sure reduce the chances of a meteroid puncture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 05/31/2007 01:18 pm
Quote
neviden - 31/5/2007  4:35 AM

Quote
renclod - 31/5/2007  8:56 AM

kraisee
Quote
- 30/5/2007  10:50 PM
 a shield located on the top of the SM, immediately below the Heatshield...  
You need to look at the footprint of debris from SM on entry.
A heavy armor plate might come down in one heavy piece surfing through the atmosphere.
Why dump it?

Keep it in LEO. I am sure the folks on ISS would be happy to have few of them postioned outside of their modules. It would sure reduce the chances of a meteroid puncture.
Except for ISS missions (and few are scheduled), the SM won't be anywhere near ISS, and a lunar or mars return, you'd have to brake it into orbit to even consider this.

Good point about the debris footprint.  A 1-ton heat-resistant 5m frisbee could land nearly intact, and could travel a significant distance outside the rest of the debris field.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 05/31/2007 03:18 pm
spacelogistics.mit.edu/pdf/Shull_IAC2006.pdf
Quote
AN INTEGRATED MODELING TOOL FOR SUSTAINABLE SPACE EXPLORATION
57th International Astronautical Congress 2006
Mrs. Sarah A. Shull; Ms. Erica L. Gralla; Mr. Nii Armar; Prof. Olivier de Weck, PhD Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.
This work was completed as part of the Interplanetary Supply Chain Management & Logistics Architectures project financially supported by NASA under contract NNK05OA50C.
Prof. Olivier de Weck and Prof. David Simchi-Levi, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, serve as the principal investigators, with Dr. Martin Steele from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center as COTR. Co-investigators are Dr. Robert Shishko (JPL) and Mr. Joe Parrish (Payload Systems
Inc.).
>>both the 1-launch equivalent and 2-launch architectures have better performance to cost ratios than the 1.5- launch baseline and should strongly be considered for use in Constellation.<<

Quote
1-LAUNCH EQUIVALENCY ARCHITECTURE

For the 1-launch equivalency architecture, it was found that either increasing LSAM DS propellant mass, increasing EDS propellant mass or some hybrid of the two, was sufficient to achieve mass closure (while keeping cargo and operations mass constant). After careful analysis, it was determined that a hybrid option, in which EDS propellant mass was increased by 18% and the LSAM DS propellant mass by 17% over the baseline, offered the best solution. This option best combines the robustness of the EDS modification strategy with the relatively
low launch mass and mass to LEO of the LSAM DS modification strategy. This option
was henceforth carried forward as the representative of the 1-launch Equivalency architecture and formed the basis of the Ares V+ launch vehicle.

2-LAUNCH ARCHITECTURE

The best 2-launch option was found to be what is nominally a 2 x 80mT architecture. In reality it is an asymmetric 87mT + 70mT to LEO architecture in which both launches share common boosters and core stages. The reduced size Ares V- LVs were modeled as a 4 segment solid rocket booster (SRB) instead of a 5 segment used in the 1.5-launch specification plus a 1.5-launch specification core stage with a slightly reduced propellant load. The EDS was reduced in size due to less suborbital burn time, but contains the same amount of propellant in LEO as the baseline EDS.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 05/31/2007 05:06 pm
Quote
rumble - 31/5/2007  8:18 AM

Quote
neviden - 31/5/2007  4:35 AM

Quote
renclod - 31/5/2007  8:56 AM

kraisee
Quote
- 30/5/2007  10:50 PM
 a shield located on the top of the SM, immediately below the Heatshield...  
You need to look at the footprint of debris from SM on entry.
A heavy armor plate might come down in one heavy piece surfing through the atmosphere.
Why dump it?

Keep it in LEO. I am sure the folks on ISS would be happy to have few of them postioned outside of their modules. It would sure reduce the chances of a meteroid puncture.
Except for ISS missions (and few are scheduled), the SM won't be anywhere near ISS, and a lunar or mars return, you'd have to brake it into orbit to even consider this.

Good point about the debris footprint.  A 1-ton heat-resistant 5m frisbee could land nearly intact, and could travel a significant distance outside the rest of the debris field.
They could be used on the moon base too.   Of course then you have to figure out how to get them on the moon surface.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: zinfab on 05/31/2007 09:02 pm
While I agree that a complete Orion encasement is a "good idea," this is VERY late in the design stage of Orion to introduce entirely new things (and expect to be accepted).
Title: Jupiter-232 1-Launch model?
Post by: BogoMIPS on 05/31/2007 09:22 pm
Wow, I went away for a while, and missed just about everything around here. ;)

I was originally going to post this in the DIRECTv2 thread, but as it's sufficiently off-topic, I decided to start it separately.

DIRECT v2 looks like a good step in the right, sensible direction.

One question I've always had about the VSE and Ares ideas is that it's going to take two launches every time you want to get a crew to a permanent lunar outpost, assuming we can get to that point.

It seems desirable that, at some point, there should be an ability to perform a single launch to rotate a crew at such a base.

For S's and G's, I'm curious.  If we came up with a smaller capsule/lander combo (probably modern Apollo/LEM combo for comparison's sake), the 232 looks just a shade short of performance to enable Apollo-style sorties.

Any thoughts on if one of the other variants of the Jupiter could enable a single-launch crew rotation capability for a lunar outpost?
Title: Re: Jupiter-232 1-Launch model?
Post by: kraisee on 05/31/2007 09:30 pm
This should probably be over in the DIRECT v2.0 thread.

Theoretically, yes.   But it isn't the best method.

Theoretically it would be possible to exactly duplicate Apollo missions, but using modern materials you could make all the hardware slightly lighter, and that could then probably fly on a single J-232.

But a 2-launch architecture is actually a more sensible approach.

In the early years of the program, a second launch vehicle costs perhaps 10% extra to the overall cost of each mission (the LSAM alone will costs more than double the cost of both LV's put together) and you basically get double the mass going to the moon.   This makes a 2-launch approach a very cost-effective solution.

In the future though, when the program is fully established, a single launcher solution is possible again.   You need ISRU fuel processing facilities on the Lunar surface, and something DC-X like as a reusable lander/launcher acting as a "Lunar Taxi" to and from Lunar orbit.   At that point you only need a single Heavy Lift Launcher to send a CEV, Crew and Cargo to meet the "Lunar Taxi".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 06/01/2007 12:09 am
Orion is meant to be used to explore the solar system for this whole century. It's never too late to get something right. Do we want to send Astronauts out in a tin can or a proper SPACEship ? There will be several iterations of Orion anyway for each mission so it is in constant development. It's also a very clear advantage DIRECT would have over Ares I, it will make the latter look obsolete 20th century technology and relying on chance for longterm crew safety. It also is something that could very easily capture the public's imagination, a true Apollo on Steroids, a spaceship that begins to resemble a bit more the fantasy ones that so capture our imagination in Star Trek, Star Wars etc, they all have 'shields' yeah ? ;-) It's the missing nail that this proposal needs to seal Ares I's coffin, at least on an intellectual level.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 06/01/2007 12:55 am

Quote
rumble - 31/5/2007  8:18 AM  A 1-ton heat-resistant 5m frisbee could land nearly intact, and could travel a significant distance outside the rest of the debris field.

Which is why I spoke of water. It's excellent for slowing fragments, absorbs enormous amounts of heat before vaporization, and by being incompressible is great for blunt force impacts. Not to mention necessary for life in space and on the moon, and useful  for radiation shielding.

Plus, if it falls apart, it disperses. Really simple stuff here. But its heavier than Kevlar. If you use it anyways, what does it matter its weight?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2007 04:30 am
A shield on top of the SM isn't too difficult to implement even at this stage of development.   Certainly one mounted under the SM, in the Spacecraft Adapter (SCA) would not affect the Orion's design at all.

An all-encompassing shield though, would probably have to go into a later version of Orion - perhaps the Block-II variant could use it.

It would seem to end up tipping the scales a little over 25mT though, so obviously, Ares-I couldn't ever successfully lift it.   It is out of the running if you want this sort of protection for crews.   You simply *must* have a more powerful launcher if you ever want this capability.

In the EELV world, you would probably need an upgraded Delta-IV to lift this sort of CEV.   In the EELV field you would need either Atlas-V Heavy or Atlas Phase 2, but EELV's don't retain the workforce so aren't going to be politically acceptable.   In the SDLV field, you need something like Jupiter-120, ESAS LV-24/25 or Ares-V - though the latter two are too expensive to develop as NASA's first generation booster.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 06/01/2007 09:08 am
marsavian
Quote
- 1/6/2007  3:09 AM

a tin can or a proper SPACEship ? ...at least on an intellectual level

On an engineering level, it is easyer to extract a "tin can" from the launch stack in an aborted ascent, experimenting high aerodynamic pressure and quite possibly an ugly angle of attack.

Every extra pound or kilo you put on the capsule makes so much more difficult to solve the LAS problem.

This is the reason why several contractors ( 2004 CEV study ) concluded that the way to go is to minimize the capsule that needs to be extracted in a launch abort, and adopt the Command Module + Service Module + Mission Module configuration.

Who ?

Andrews Space Inc., Seattle
Lockheed Martin Corp., Denver
Northrop Grumman Corp., El Segundo, Calif
The Boeing Co., Huntington Beach, Calif

The "tin can" Orion is just a taxi to take your crew to the "spaceship that begins to resemble a bit more the fantasy ones that so capture our imagination in Star Trek, Star Wars etc..."

In the Apollo era, the CM mass was 5,806 kg and the LES mass was 4,173 kg.

In the Orion era, so far, the CM is ~9,000 kg and the LAS is ~4,500 kg. And counting.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 06/01/2007 10:12 am
The command module is the lifeboat and is the only piece of equipment that is constant throughout the whole mission and that returns to Earth. The capsule shield would provide greater protection through atmospheric re-entry as well if the composition was constructed with that in mind too. It all adds to improving the LOC factor which is what it's all about. Adding weight in this direction is not wasted weight because losing crew will sour VSE and its support in the public's mind as Challenger and Columbia took the gloss of the Space Shuttle. DIRECT has margin to burn, 1-2 mT of it can be easily spared to overturn its only theoretical weakness against Ares I and use that against it. Just get a bigger more powerful LAS, weight is not a problem in DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/01/2007 01:45 pm
I'm puzzled by LOR-LOR figures in v2.0. Even using the optimistic mass fraction of the current design, EDS plus residuals is 23 mT, and payload adapter is four. Useful payload/departure propellant is 108, for a total IMLEO of 135. Propellant to send the stack to TLI would be about 69 mT so the stack would be 66 mT at burnout. Subtracting the EDS and payload mount gives 39 mT to TLI, not 50 to LOI.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 06/01/2007 02:23 pm
Quote
Quote
A heavy armor plate might come down in one heavy piece surfing through the atmosphere.
Good point about the debris footprint.  A 1-ton heat-resistant 5m frisbee could land nearly intact, and could travel a significant distance outside the rest of the debris field.
There's no fundamental reason that an energy absorbing shield _has_ to be monolithic. A shield made of overlapping/interlocking plates/fabrics will offer virtually as much protection while obviating any "re-entry frisbie" concerns. There are many design solutions to providing protection while permitting flexibility, burn-up or dispertion on re-entry. This is not a major issue.

As was said, this is not armour on an MBT looking to stop DU penetrators doing 3500 m/s. This is relatively low velocity stuff, much more akin to a "flak" vest than a bulletproof vest and there is a huge difference in the two.

Paul
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 06/01/2007 02:53 pm
Quote
renclod - 31/5/2007  11:18 AM

spacelogistics.mit.edu/pdf/Shull_IAC2006.pdf
Quote
AN INTEGRATED MODELING TOOL FOR SUSTAINABLE SPACE EXPLORATION
57th International Astronautical Congress 2006
Mrs. Sarah A. Shull; Ms. Erica L. Gralla; Mr. Nii Armar; Prof. Olivier de Weck, PhD Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.
This work was completed as part of the Interplanetary Supply Chain Management & Logistics Architectures project financially supported by NASA under contract NNK05OA50C.
Prof. Olivier de Weck and Prof. David Simchi-Levi, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, serve as the principal investigators, with Dr. Martin Steele from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center as COTR. Co-investigators are Dr. Robert Shishko (JPL) and Mr. Joe Parrish (Payload Systems
Inc.).
>>both the 1-launch equivalent and 2-launch architectures have better performance to cost ratios than the 1.5- launch baseline and should strongly be considered for use in Constellation.<<

Quote
1-LAUNCH EQUIVALENCY ARCHITECTURE

For the 1-launch equivalency architecture, it was found that either increasing LSAM DS propellant mass, increasing EDS propellant mass or some hybrid of the two, was sufficient to achieve mass closure (while keeping cargo and operations mass constant). After careful analysis, it was determined that a hybrid option, in which EDS propellant mass was increased by 18% and the LSAM DS propellant mass by 17% over the baseline, offered the best solution. This option best combines the robustness of the EDS modification strategy with the relatively
low launch mass and mass to LEO of the LSAM DS modification strategy. This option
was henceforth carried forward as the representative of the 1-launch Equivalency architecture and formed the basis of the Ares V+ launch vehicle.

2-LAUNCH ARCHITECTURE

The best 2-launch option was found to be what is nominally a 2 x 80mT architecture. In reality it is an asymmetric 87mT + 70mT to LEO architecture in which both launches share common boosters and core stages. The reduced size Ares V- LVs were modeled as a 4 segment solid rocket booster (SRB) instead of a 5 segment used in the 1.5-launch specification plus a 1.5-launch specification core stage with a slightly reduced propellant load. The EDS was reduced in size due to less suborbital burn time, but contains the same amount of propellant in LEO as the baseline EDS.





Ross and Smetch, why aren't you jumping all over this. Isn't it independent confirmation of the 2 launch scenario?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/01/2007 02:54 pm
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 31/5/2007  7:55 PM

Quote
rumble - 31/5/2007  8:18 AM  A 1-ton heat-resistant 5m frisbee could land nearly intact, and could travel a significant distance outside the rest of the debris field.

Which is why I spoke of water. It's excellent for slowing fragments, absorbs enormous amounts of heat before vaporization, and by being incompressible is great for blunt force impacts. Not to mention necessary for life in space and on the moon, and useful  for radiation shielding.

Plus, if it falls apart, it disperses. Really simple stuff here. But its heavier than Kevlar. If you use it anyways, what does it matter its weight?


Spare water in LEO would be a very, very valuable asset.

One idea would be to sell a used water based ballistic shield to a NewSpace fuel depot operator who could then crack it into H2 and O2 to sell back to NASA.

NASA could sell the water for the then current cost per kilo to lift mass via Proton and apply the proceeds to reduce the launch costs for Orion.

Toss in the external tank and Space Island Group is back in business! :-)

Of course, this undermines the idea of a NASA monopoly for LEO operations. Some would see this as a feature and others would see this as a bug.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 06/01/2007 03:25 pm
Quote
Bill White - 1/6/2007  10:54 AM

Spare water in LEO would be a very, very valuable asset.

One idea would be to sell a used water based ballistic shield to a NewSpace fuel depot operator who could then crack it into H2 and O2 to sell back to NASA.

NASA could sell the water for the then current cost per kilo to lift mass via Proton and apply the proceeds to reduce the launch costs for Orion.
.

???

This would mean another rendezous and more ops.  Anyways, don't need the Newspace middleman then.  The whole point of the depot was commercial launches.  Also NASA doen't need the depot for decades if it has Direct
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/01/2007 03:28 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 1/6/2007  8:23 AM

Quote
Quote
A heavy armor plate might come down in one heavy piece surfing through the atmosphere.
Good point about the debris footprint.  A 1-ton heat-resistant 5m frisbee could land nearly intact, and could travel a significant distance outside the rest of the debris field.
There's no fundamental reason that an energy absorbing shield _has_ to be monolithic.

Exactly.

http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/dragon-skin.php
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/01/2007 03:45 pm
Quote
Jim - 1/6/2007  7:53 AM

Quote
renclod - 31/5/2007  11:18 AM

spacelogistics.mit.edu/pdf/Shull_IAC2006.pdf
Quote
AN INTEGRATED MODELING TOOL FOR SUSTAINABLE SPACE EXPLORATION
57th International Astronautical Congress 2006
Mrs. Sarah A. Shull; Ms. Erica L. Gralla; Mr. Nii Armar; Prof. Olivier de Weck, PhD Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.
This work was completed as part of the Interplanetary Supply Chain Management & Logistics Architectures project financially supported by NASA under contract NNK05OA50C.
Prof. Olivier de Weck and Prof. David Simchi-Levi, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, serve as the principal investigators, with Dr. Martin Steele from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center as COTR. Co-investigators are Dr. Robert Shishko (JPL) and Mr. Joe Parrish (Payload Systems
Inc.).
>>both the 1-launch equivalent and 2-launch architectures have better performance to cost ratios than the 1.5- launch baseline and should strongly be considered for use in Constellation.<<

Quote
1-LAUNCH EQUIVALENCY ARCHITECTURE

For the 1-launch equivalency architecture, it was found that either increasing LSAM DS propellant mass, increasing EDS propellant mass or some hybrid of the two, was sufficient to achieve mass closure (while keeping cargo and operations mass constant). After careful analysis, it was determined that a hybrid option, in which EDS propellant mass was increased by 18% and the LSAM DS propellant mass by 17% over the baseline, offered the best solution. This option best combines the robustness of the EDS modification strategy with the relatively
low launch mass and mass to LEO of the LSAM DS modification strategy. This option
was henceforth carried forward as the representative of the 1-launch Equivalency architecture and formed the basis of the Ares V+ launch vehicle.

2-LAUNCH ARCHITECTURE

The best 2-launch option was found to be what is nominally a 2 x 80mT architecture. In reality it is an asymmetric 87mT + 70mT to LEO architecture in which both launches share common boosters and core stages. The reduced size Ares V- LVs were modeled as a 4 segment solid rocket booster (SRB) instead of a 5 segment used in the 1.5-launch specification plus a 1.5-launch specification core stage with a slightly reduced propellant load. The EDS was reduced in size due to less suborbital burn time, but contains the same amount of propellant in LEO as the baseline EDS.





Ross and Smetch, why aren't you jumping all over this. Isn't it independent confirmation of the 2 launch scenario?

Jim, we are expanding significantly on this important subject in the AIAA paper.  It represents yet another area where Direct’s 2xHLV approach complete overwhelms the best the Ares I/V approach could ever achieve.  From a mission planning stand point it not only improves significantly the mass to the lunar surface but increases the mission flexibility and protects or architecture against “unexpected” mass increases.  That way we don’t have to depend on “unscheduled” breakthroughs :)

Also this holistic approach used by MIT and us is something I tried to get ESAS to adopt but was obviously unsuccessful in that endeavor.  It was clear from my first discussions with the some of the key ESAS team members that Mike already had the answer. What Mike wanted from the ESAS team was the justification for those answers.

My mind begins to boggle at just how many more advantages we need to develop and detail in DIRECT in order for NASA’s upper management to get its collective head out of the sand.  It’s no small secret by those in the inner circle about who, how and why the Ares I/V   1.5 approach came about.

NASA is in a very uncomfortable state of collective cognitive dissonance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

"Put simply, the experimenters concluded that many human beings, when persuaded to lie without being given sufficient justification, will carry out the task by convincing themselves of the falsehood, rather than telling a bald lie."

The whole article is good read by the way.  It fits our present dilemma to a t.

The defending and promoting the truth is the only way out of this unholy mess.  Unfortunately about 99% of the people who can discern and credibly articulate this truth derived their lively hood from NASA in one form or another.

Hope springs eternal.


Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: RedSky on 06/01/2007 04:06 pm
Quote
SMetch - 1/6/2007  10:45 AM

"Put simply, the experimenters concluded that many human beings, when persuaded to lie without being given sufficient justification, will carry out the task by convincing themselves of the falsehood, rather than telling a bald lie."

The whole article is good read by the way.  It fits our present dilemma to a t.

The defending and promoting the truth is the only way out of this unholy mess.  Unfortunately about 99% of the people who can discern and credibly articulate this truth derived their lively hood from NASA in one form or another.

Hope springs eternal.

Unfortunately... this reminded me of this cartoon...

http://www.patandkat.com/pat/weblog/images/dilbert-lie.png
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/01/2007 04:54 pm
Quote
Jim - 1/6/2007  10:25 AM

Quote
Bill White - 1/6/2007  10:54 AM

Spare water in LEO would be a very, very valuable asset.

One idea would be to sell a used water based ballistic shield to a NewSpace fuel depot operator who could then crack it into H2 and O2 to sell back to NASA.

NASA could sell the water for the then current cost per kilo to lift mass via Proton and apply the proceeds to reduce the launch costs for Orion.
.

???

This would mean another rendezous and more ops.  Anyways, don't need the Newspace middleman then.  The whole point of the depot was commercial launches.  Also NASA doen't need the depot for decades if it has Direct

Yup, another NASA monopoly guy. What "NASA needs" is not co-extensive with what most benefits the American people and taxpayers.

If any fraction of the spare lift capability of Jupiter can be used to loft something sell-able to someone, that lowers the operational costs for NASA.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 06/01/2007 05:26 pm
Quote
Bill White - 1/6/2007  12:54 PM


Yup, another NASA monopoly guy. What "NASA needs" is not co-extensive with what most benefits the American people and taxpayer

No, just a realist.   I don't think NASA needs to provide service to LEO.  But I also newspace isn't anywhere close to provide anything real for awhile.

NASA selling and buying back water is just silly.  Also the extra logistics involved would make it  hardly worht the effort

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 06/01/2007 06:51 pm
Quote
If any fraction of the spare lift capability of Jupiter can be used to loft something sell-able to someone, that lowers the operational costs for NASA.

NASA are not allowed to sell launch services
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PMN1 on 06/01/2007 06:55 pm
If there had been more problems and delays with the orbitter part of the system in the late 70's and talk of cancellation, what are the chances of being able to salvage a Direct or an Ares I/V system from the work already done or is it more likley that everything would be cancelled?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PMN1 on 06/01/2007 07:18 pm
What happens to the attachment points on the ET for the orbitter in the Direct and the Ares V approach - are they removed or are they going to stay there (less the struts) as its not worth removing them?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 06/01/2007 07:20 pm
Quote
PMN1 - 1/6/2007 1:55 PM If there had been more problems and delays with the orbitter part of the system in the late 70's and talk of cancellation, what are the chances of being able to salvage a Direct or an Ares I/V system from the work already done or is it more likley that everything would be cancelled?
The politics were different then. We were committed to Shuttle, warts and all, it would *eventually* go through. Now however we aren't so. Remember G H W Bush's "mars program" that didn't do squat. That could be the fate of VSE given an Ares cancellation - could lose it all for a while. Which is why Ares I is so dumb.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/01/2007 07:26 pm
Quote
PMN1 - 1/6/2007  3:18 PM

What happens to the attachment points on the ET for the orbitter in the Direct and the Ares V approach - are they removed or are they going to stay there (less the struts) as its not worth removing them?
They go away.
Title: RE: Jupiter-232 1-Launch model?
Post by: Smatcha on 06/02/2007 06:18 am
Yes, the Jupiter-244 with a two man mission.

Title: Re: Jupiter-232 1-Launch model?
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/02/2007 03:12 pm
Quote
kraisee - 31/5/2007  4:30 PM

snip

In the future though, when the program is fully established, a single launcher solution is possible again.   You need ISRU fuel processing facilities on the Lunar surface, and something DC-X like as a reusable lander/launcher acting as a "Lunar Taxi" to and from Lunar orbit.   At that point you only need a single Heavy Lift Launcher to send a CEV, Crew and Cargo to meet the "Lunar Taxi".

Ross.

Now this would be a slick idea.  I wonder how much mass it would take to set up the mining and processing facilities.  

Danny Deger
Title: Re: Jupiter-232 1-Launch model?
Post by: Smatcha on 06/02/2007 03:56 pm
Quote
Danny Dot - 2/6/2007  8:12 AM

Quote
kraisee - 31/5/2007  4:30 PM

snip

In the future though, when the program is fully established, a single launcher solution is possible again.   You need ISRU fuel processing facilities on the Lunar surface, and something DC-X like as a reusable lander/launcher acting as a "Lunar Taxi" to and from Lunar orbit.   At that point you only need a single Heavy Lift Launcher to send a CEV, Crew and Cargo to meet the "Lunar Taxi".

Ross.

Now this would be a slick idea.  I wonder how much mass it would take to set up the mining and processing facilities.  

Danny Deger

Look at some of the references in our AIAA Space 2006 paper.

http://www.teamvisioninc.com/services-consulting-space-exploration-optimization.htm

Title: Re: Jupiter-232 1-Launch model?
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2007 06:58 pm
Quote
Danny Dot - 2/6/2007  11:12 AM


Now this would be a slick idea.  I wonder how much mass it would take to set up the mining and processing facilities.

Yeah, that's the big question.   I can imagine landing "mining modules" by Cargo landers courtesy of single HLV flights.   You need to dig the regolith & sort the elements (one module), store & transport them to a more thorough processing facility (a second), purify them at that facility (a third) and make sure they are at the right temperatures for long-term storage (fifth).   You then need some sort of reliable and robust fuelling system for the LV which can cope with Lunar dust and the differing possition of each landing (six).

It certainly is a challenge, but I see many advantages if it can be done.

IMHO, another future update would be an LEO > LLO (or L2) taxi craft, also fuelled from Lunar resources (brought to it by the Lunar lander craft).   It would never land anywhere and simply cycle materials between LEO and LLO.   This has potential benefits by launching all your TLI, LOI, TEI and EOI propellant mass from 1/6th gravity well w/ no drag effects.

An EELV class vehicle could bring crews up to LEO on their own.   A J-120 class vehicle could bring up crew and cargo for transit to the moon.   Rendezvous in LEO and transfer to the Obrital taxi.   At LLO (or L2), transfer to the Lunar Lander taxi and descend.

This profile maximizes Earth launch mass fractions, while sourcing propellant from a (potentially) better gravity well source than Earth.

This sort of infrastruture would allow for far bigger missions to occur, yet with fewer launches with easily achievable LV technology.

The key is you need to make sure you aren't blowing all your annual budget.   Developing and Operating two expensive LV's when one can do the job is a great way to waste money.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Jupiter-232 1-Launch model?
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2007 07:10 pm
Quote
SMetch - 2/6/2007  2:18 AM

Yes, the Jupiter-244 with a two man mission.

Actually the J-244 configuration is unnecessary.   The J-231 or J-232 are sufficient for a bare-bones two-man mission profile.   Also the J-244 configuration can not meet ESAS LOC criteria, so the arguments against that would be substantial.

But this option is already off the cards.   "Four people, one week" is the minimum acceptable requirement for Constellation.   Unless we build something in the Nova class (no cash, no will; no chance), that's going to mean two flights.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2007 07:31 pm
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 1/6/2007  3:20 PM

Quote
PMN1 - 1/6/2007 1:55 PM If there had been more problems and delays with the orbitter part of the system in the late 70's and talk of cancellation, what are the chances of being able to salvage a Direct or an Ares I/V system from the work already done or is it more likley that everything would be cancelled?
The politics were different then. We were committed to Shuttle, warts and all, it would *eventually* go through. Now however we aren't so. Remember G H W Bush's "mars program" that didn't do squat. That could be the fate of VSE given an Ares cancellation - could lose it all for a while. Which is why Ares I is so dumb.

Agreed.   Shuttle was forced through because Apollo was already dead.   The US still needed space access, and STS was the only real game in town.

The same basic thing is happening now, with STS being retired in 2010.   The US, again, needs a replacement.

But the replacement we are gettting first is Ares-I - which is no moon rocket.   There is no particular reason for Congress to support Ares-V as well.    Ares-I fulfills Congress' requirements of workforce retention and US astronauts flying on a home-grown vehicle.

As far as Congress is concerned, both the national pride box and the economics box are checked fully by Ares-I.

Make no mistake, Ares-V is not essential to anyone other than those in the space program who want to go back to the moon.   Congress has no "need" for Ares-V.   NASA does.   The two are not in conflict right now, but we have 12 years to go and changes of political will over that timeframe are innevitable.

All it takes is one of the 7 different Congresses, or one appointee in the Oval Office and we can lose the second vehicle and just be left with the first.

Ares-I as the first vehicle can not enable Lunar Missions - it requires a second "big brother".

Jupiter-120 as the first vehicle *can* support Lunar missions with only the development of an upper stage required.

The choice to change direction away from Ares-I and delete the risk of Ares-V cancellation must be made before long though.

And like I have said before: Jupiter-120 can still pave the way for Ares-V if the money & political will does continue.   But if it doesn't, we dont risk losing the moon.

Griffin has currently chosen a maximum cost "gamble".   We're trying to convince him to switch to a lower cost "sure-bet" instead.   The choice is his.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 06/02/2007 07:55 pm
Quote
kraisee - 2/6/2007  2:31 PM

snip

As far as Congress is concerned, both the national pride box and the economics box are checked fully by Ares-I.

snip
uh...  I might agree that as far as CONGRESS is concerned, there's some national pride there, but I tend to think the general public will look at Orion + Ares-I (if that's all we get), and the yawn will be deafening!

It'll be something like, "You mean we tossed out the shuttle (warts & all), and have downgraded from the ability to DO something in orbit to just ferrying people back & forth?  yahoo."

Joe 6-pack doesn't pay attention to most of what's going on, but if the perception is we've traded in the truck for a sub-compact, I don't think you'll get much cheering.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/02/2007 08:42 pm
Quote
rumble - 2/6/2007  1:55 PM
uh...  I might agree that as far as CONGRESS is concerned, there's some national pride there, but I tend to think the general public will look at Orion + Ares-I (if that's all we get), and the yawn will be deafening!

It'll be something like, "You mean we tossed out the shuttle (warts & all), and have downgraded from the ability to DO something in orbit to just ferrying people back & forth?  yahoo."

Joe 6-pack doesn't pay attention to most of what's going on, but if the perception is we've traded in the truck for a sub-compact, I don't think you'll get much cheering.

I agree.

On the other hand, if they hear we've traded the minivan with the DVD player for truck with twice the cargo capacity (J-120) or 4-times the cargo capacity (J-232/231), that might get some attention.

"This sucker can take the equivalent of 5 semi-loads of cargo from 0 to 100 in 3 seconds - straight up".  Yeah, that'll get more attention than, "this can put 6 people in space with the cloths on their backs and a week of food and water".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 06/02/2007 08:57 pm
yeah Ares I will be boring compared to the Shuttle because it can't carry anything and Ares V will be boring compared to Saturn V because no crew will be on it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2007 10:31 pm
The loud yawn we hear in response to Ares-I will come smack in the middle of the time NASA is spending billions developing Ares-V.

Is that going to help or hinder things?   I know my opinion.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Jupiter-232 1-Launch model?
Post by: Smatcha on 06/03/2007 01:36 am
Quote
kraisee - 2/6/2007  12:10 PM

Quote
SMetch - 2/6/2007  2:18 AM

Yes, the Jupiter-244 with a two man mission.

Actually the J-244 configuration is unnecessary.   The J-231 or J-232 are sufficient for a bare-bones two-man mission profile.   Also the J-244 configuration can not meet ESAS LOC criteria, so the arguments against that would be substantial.

But this option is already off the cards.   "Four people, one week" is the minimum acceptable requirement for Constellation.   Unless we build something in the Nova class (no cash, no will; no chance), that's going to mean two flights.

Ross.
 

LSR of 2xJupiter-244 solves the problem.  Unlike NASA’s current over focus on the Earth ascent portion of LOC the real LOC is based on the complete Earth to Moon and back LOC numbers.  A 2xJupiter-244 puts a lunar Hab down followed by a direct ascent/return capsule sized for four.  This approach would place four people on the Moon for months at a time or two for a lunar sortie of seven days to hook up with the robot rovers with samples gathered over a 1,000 sq mile area over 6 months.

The current LSAM is both too big for a sortie and too small for anything else.  By balancing the architecture we can balance the objectives of VSE.  The multi-faceted Jupiter Family and the 2xHLV approach provides a ton of options.  Options none of us may know about now but will none the less be discovered once we protect the STS base from Mikes hack job.

Options the dysfunctional Areas 1/5 1.5 family will never have.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 06/03/2007 02:09 am
Quote
kraisee - 2/6/2007  5:31 PM

The loud yawn we hear in response to Ares-I will come smack in the middle of the time NASA is spending billions developing Ares-V.
I think a lot will depend on how the MSM reporters/editors/producers take it - will it be:
 
"Look how much money NASA has spent and they still can barely make it to the ISS!!"...

or

"The U.S. now has 1/2 of its new Exploration hardware: we can get into orbit, but why can't we get to the moon yet??"

Um, I'm not betting on which it will be.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/03/2007 02:16 am
Stephen,

How far is it from a Jupiter 232 to a 244?  It would appear that the first stage would need to be strengthened somewhat to handle the thrust of the fourth engine, and the second stage would have to be considerably lengthened and strengthened.  That sounds to me like it could be a substantial development project, almost as big as developing the 232 in the first place.  Or is there something that makes developing a 244 when you have a 232 a lot easier?

Also, why four engines on the second stage?  I'm estimating that you're adding about 500,000 pounds to the second stage and the payload; it would seem like a single additional J-2x would be adequate to handle the additional mass.  Or is it a factor of the first stage burning out so soon that you're still fighting gravity losses, and you need the extra thrust to get the delta-V fast enough?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: WFS on 06/03/2007 03:52 am
Unless there is an expert in the field on the team I think it is a mistake to try and develop a detailed description of a possible safety system (water, kevlar, boron carbide or other materials as shielding) for the Jupiter 120. Unless you cando the analysis with the same rigor shown in the current Direct proposal you leave youself open to people who want to find fault with your ideas.  

Instead I would suggest you compare the LOM and LOC numbers for the Jupiter and the Ares I, discuss the reasons the the Ares I numbers have a greater range of uncertainty (more new technology means a less certain analysis) and point out that the Jupiter 120 has a considerable mass margin to allow for redundant safety systems is they are needed, while the Ares I is hard pressed to carry the exisitng Orion design.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/03/2007 05:23 am
Quote
SolarPowered - 2/6/2007  7:16 PM

Stephen,

How far is it from a Jupiter 232 to a 244?  It would appear that the first stage would need to be strengthened somewhat to handle the thrust of the fourth engine, and the second stage would have to be considerably lengthened and strengthened.  That sounds to me like it could be a substantial development project, almost as big as developing the 232 in the first place.  Or is there something that makes developing a 244 when you have a 232 a lot easier?

Also, why four engines on the second stage?  I'm estimating that you're adding about 500,000 pounds to the second stage and the payload; it would seem like a single additional J-2x would be adequate to handle the additional mass.  Or is it a factor of the first stage burning out so soon that you're still fighting gravity losses, and you need the extra thrust to get the delta-V fast enough?

Good questions, concerning the higher axial loads of a 4 vs 3 engine configuration.

First remember everything going on during an ascent is very dynamic.  The vehicle mass, dynamic pressure, acceleration, velocity, specific performance are all changing.  Some of these changes help you out from a structural load some don’t.

For example the SRB’s carry the bulk of the load above the intertank.  Draining the LOX tank 2x as fast as the current STS lowers the main stages LOX mass so that at SRB separation the LH2 tank doesn’t have as much LOX mass above.  Of coarse missing LOX mass is now replaced with a much heavier upperstage.  The Jupiter-244 would also have a full second stage with an upper stage (1xJ-2x) above it for EOI/EDS.

Again I know the LOC and LOM numbers will go up for the ascent portion of the mission but the reductions in EOR-LOR or LOR-LOR will compensate.  There something nice about leaving the Earth with everything you need to get back.  It’s even nicer when you can leave the Moon anytime to come home.  In the end we have to pick our poison.  If even 1/200 (one LOC every 100 years) keeps us on the Earth we have no business going into to space.

That’s not to say there won’t be any changes in the main tank but since we are staging sooner, due to the four main engines, a higher mass/thrust full second stage (the reason for four engines) is needed to take advantage of this.  The effect on final orbit mass due to the structural mass additions of a lower stage don’t have nearly the impact that they do on say a Jupiter-120 where the main stage goes further into orbit.

One of the key concepts of the Jupiter family is that we should plan for flexibility in the design to allow for say 2x shifts in load levels for key high mass components.  Ideally all we’ll need to change is the machining programs (thin it up for the Jupiter-120 and make it thicker for the Jupiter-254) and we are good to go with a lot of commonality between both the lower and upper stages ranging from the Jupiter-120 to the Jupiter-254.

I think a lot of this will happen in due coarse and when/if needed.  The important thing is we have a family concept that can adjust to the situation.  If we need to get small and only need 2x the best ELV we can do that with the Jupiter-120.  If we need to get big to do a direct/ascent return of a 2-man 7-day sortie mission we can do that to.  If we need to put up to +75mT on the lunar surface 2xJupiter-254 via LOR can do that to.

In comparison the Ares 1/5 1.5 looks like a one trick pony.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/03/2007 05:44 am
Quote
WFS - 2/6/2007  8:52 PM

Unless there is an expert in the field on the team I think it is a mistake to try and develop a detailed description of a possible safety system (water, kevlar, boron carbide or other materials as shielding) for the Jupiter 120. Unless you cando the analysis with the same rigor shown in the current Direct proposal you leave youself open to people who want to find fault with your ideas.  

Instead I would suggest you compare the LOM and LOC numbers for the Jupiter and the Ares I, discuss the reasons the the Ares I numbers have a greater range of uncertainty (more new technology means a less certain analysis) and point out that the Jupiter 120 has a considerable mass margin to allow for redundant safety systems is they are needed, while the Ares I is hard pressed to carry the exisitng Orion design.

I agree, if we dump some propellant we can run at even lower operational levels on the engines naturally increasing their safety.  Because the ELVs run at higher operational levels this builds a lot of inherent safety into manned launches of the Jupiter.  We also don’t have a staging event to a new engine/upper stage or require the Orion to do as many burns.

The biggest “problem” is the second SRB but they don’t add much to the LOC numbers based on the 4-Segment numbers NASA claims.  That’s’ why we are using them on the Ares 1  right Scott?  SRB’s good ELV’s bad?

Don’t think of the tank on the Jupiter-120 as half full or half empty think of it as over designed.  Over design is a good thing for safety, right Scott?  How is that whole over design for safety coming on the Stick?  Yet another problem the Stick is that it is going to be pushing all these new unproven systems right out of the box (not safe Scott) just to get the 3rd stage into a weak Orbit (not good Scott).  The third stage is better know as the Orion.

Sorry I had to ask the questions no one is asking them.  Maybe some could give me a good guess as to Scott’s answer.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/03/2007 01:54 pm
As I understand it, in the baseline figure 11 Direct Architecture, 68 mT of propellant in the EDS is supposed to send a 25 MT Cev, a 38 mT LSAM, a 23 mT EDS and a 4 mT payload adapter to TLI: a total of 90 mT.

This doesn't seem to fit the rocket equation and credible J-2 ISP. Explain, please.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/03/2007 05:28 pm
Quote
Will - 3/6/2007  6:54 AM

As I understand it, in the baseline figure 11 Direct Architecture, 68 mT of propellant in the EDS is supposed to send a 25 MT Cev, a 38 mT LSAM, a 23 mT EDS and a 4 mT payload adapter to TLI: a total of 90 mT.

This doesn't seem to fit the rocket equation and credible J-2 ISP. Explain, please.

Will

Will in the EOR-LOR option +30mT of fuel is transferred to the EDS.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/03/2007 05:49 pm
SMetch writes:

"Will in the EOR-LOR option +30mT of fuel is transferred to the EDS."

In EOR-LOr option in figure 11, Jupiter 120 only has 20 mT available for payload in addition to CEV. Not all of that is available for propllant, since mass must be allowed for propellant module, tanks, transfer equipment and rendezvous propellant.

Will


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/04/2007 12:47 am
Quote
Will - 3/6/2007  10:49 AM

SMetch writes:

"Will in the EOR-LOR option +30mT of fuel is transferred to the EDS."

In EOR-LOr option in figure 11, Jupiter 120 only has 20 mT available for payload in addition to CEV. Not all of that is available for propllant, since mass must be allowed for propellant module, tanks, transfer equipment and rendezvous propellant.

Will



That is with a safety margin 25-30mT might be closer.

See atttached DeltaV calcs.  Note this is a greater TLI than the current approach and we can still up grade to a Jupiter-232 and blow the current plan out of the water at anytime.






Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/04/2007 02:59 pm
Quote
Will - 3/6/2007  10:49 AM

SMetch writes:

"Will in the EOR-LOR option +30mT of fuel is transferred to the EDS."

In EOR-LOr option in figure 11, Jupiter 120 only has 20 mT available for payload in addition to CEV. Not all of that is available for propllant, since mass must be allowed for propellant module, tanks, transfer equipment and rendezvous propellant.

Will



Will, another option with more DV margin at a lower ISP assumption.  Note the Jupiter-120 has margin to cover shortfall plus some left over.  Unlike the Ares I and even Ares V for that matter.  The benefits of a 2xHLV Direct STS derivative is that relatively minor upgrades in the first or second launches could cover just about any reasonable short fall.  

In direct contrast any short fall in the Ares 1/5 1.5 plan means a reduction in mission scope and safety, sometimes both.

We will be expanding on this in the paper.

Good catch though all things considered we need to transfer +24mT of fuel to the EDS in order to an equivalent 1.5 plan with a safety margin.  Remember our CEV has a lot more mass than the current 1.5 plan because they use the Orion as 3rd stage to cover the Ares 1 shortfall.  None the less the good news is that we aren’t limited to the 1.5 and there are a number of more efficient approaches we can explore and will in the paper.

Another nice factor is we don’t even need to even know what the best option is right now the Jupiter Family can shrink or grow to cover what the best balance is for the mission/spacecraft elements.

See the mission of the Direct team is to go to moon not to protect the now obviously bad decision of Ares I.  Whether NASA can force the Ares I into some flexible definition of “success” is not the question.  The question is can VSE be successful using the capabilities Ares I will ultimately produce or is something like Direct the best way to go with our inherent ability to produce a significant increase in IMLEO over the 1.5 plan.


Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 06/04/2007 03:34 pm
If there's anything that will kill beyond-LEO manned spaceflight, then this is it.  A similar number was derived for SEI in the early 90s and that ended up being dead on arrival.  All the more reason for a solution other than Ares 1/5 family.

From FlightGlobal.com:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/05/214397/moon-and-mars-programme-costs-estimated-at-500bn.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/04/2007 04:28 pm
Note that NASA groundrules require the EDS to send a useful payload 65.5 mT to TLI, plus a 10% payload margin. Jupiter 130+232 only does 63, even assuming massless propellant tanks on 131, no propellant required for rendezvous, etc.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/04/2007 05:27 pm
Quote
Will - 4/6/2007  9:28 AM

Note that NASA groundrules require the EDS to send a useful payload 65.5 mT to TLI, plus a 10% payload margin. Jupiter 130+232 only does 63, even assuming massless propellant tanks on 131, no propellant required for rendezvous, etc.

Will

Okay, starting with the NASA “groundrules” which are different than normal groundrules in that NASA “groundrules” will change depending on what the Ares 1/5 1.5 plan that Mike/Scott came in with actually achieves.

NASA ground rules 66.5x 1.1 = 73.15mT

Looking at the attached chart for the Ares 1/5 1.5 plan using the best public info we have right now.  We are above their actual numbers at 63mT vs NASA 59mT.

Concerning public info NASA admitted at AIAA 2006 they have negative margins on their paper rockets as Kayla indicated and Jim has pointed out would kill current programs out of JPL requiring a complete reset of the requirements/mission.  Note JPL is the only organization to actually leave LEO for exploration for sometime.  That team has been there and been doing that for some time.

Our plan puts a net of 63mT on a TLI.  Converting some of the Jupiter-120 margin to more EDS fuel we can achieve this NASA 73mT “groundrule”.  Needed for global access anytime return.  If things get really bad we can always pull out a Jupiter-232 and do a dual EDS or save some LSAM mass by having the Orion EDS to do the LOA.  There are 10 good scenarios we could fall back on at least.

Again back to the NASA “groundrule” because the Ares 1/5 1.5 plan is coming up short they changed the mission to the Lunar poles (Ie little ISS on the crater rim) to help them on the DeltaV they need for plane change.  The problem is the Earth departure is now messed up but it’s really getting hard to keep up with all of NASA’s ever shifting “groundrules”.  Especially since they have yet to produce a mass statement for the Earth to the Moon and back like we are doing.

So that individuals such as yourself can perform the necessary second pair of eyes/minds needed to make sure we aren’t out to lunch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2007 05:30 pm
Will, agreed.   The J-120/23n combination is very much "borderline" in terms of mission performance.

We've been using it simply as an option for a first generation "entry level" mission, while we are still finding our feet, keeping lunar Crew launches on the slightly safer J-120 configuration.   It has always been a "stepping stone" used to get us to the 2xJ-23n architecture eventually.

The more I think about it though, the more I am thinking about deleting that "low end" option and diving straight into the more powerful 2x J-232 architecture and getting the full performance from day 1.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 06/04/2007 05:35 pm
Quote
kraisee - 30/5/2007  10:36 PM

Quote
mike robel - 30/5/2007  11:17 PM

I should think it would be better to integrate this ballistic shield with the main CSM structure so as to also provide radiation shielding.  To loft  the thing with no purpose but ballistic protection in the unlikely event of a booster explosion, not specifically aimed at the CM seems somewhat wasteful to me.  As opposed to a high energy long rod KE penetrator aimed at a tank.  Enough KE can always be found to penetrate any armor, which is what a ballistic shield is anyway.  A somewhat less dense ceramic mix or mixture of Kevlar, Gortex, and other high density fabrics in addition to ceramics may be all that is necessary for an effective shield for a relatively low energy event  - not like a DU penetrator aimed at the target with velocities approaching 2 miles per second.

Agreed.   I think there's a lot of research which could be done in this area to protect crews.   the Boron Carbide looks like a fairly good radiation shielding in addition to it's ballistic properties, but a kevlar/carbon-fibre/Gortex also appear to be of great value too.   The most effective solution may well turn out to be a multi-layer composite material, with perhaps Silicone Nitride in one layer, together with a layer of something like Kevlar, and perhaps even a third layer of Silicone Nitride.   I'm not sure what order to place the different materials myself, but the overlapping performance characteristics of a multi-layer approach offers a lot of potential to this concept.

The DIRECT team is not really set-up to be able to research the particular materials ourselves, so we are researching a number of military sources for useful information currently to include in an addendum to our core report.   Data exists for all the armour types in use by the military today, and I'm sure the manufacturers of such things would be interested in a regular contract from NASA for their wares.

It is possible that we will take the approach of suggesting half a dozen different materials & composites which should be "trade studied" and then budget a reasonable mass allocation for such a system into our calculations, based on masses utilised in similar real-world applications.

This will allow us to press on without getting bogged down in the precise formulation of what the shield is actually made from.   We can present a series of basic safety numbers and costs based on a range of different materials, and then leave the rest to a deeper trade study later.

Ross.

You can add Kevlar to your already used in Space list ;-). Doesn't look as if any of them will be a problem. Just remember Silicon Nitride is non-porous and would keep out hot liquids too if it retained its structural integrity which is why it should be your last line of defence IMO.*

 
http://www.space.com/news/ft_070604_aging_orbiters.html

Shuttle orbiters are equipped with 24 helium and nitrogen gas tanks that pressurize the shuttle's main propulsion system, orbital maneuvering engines and nose-and-tail steering thrusters.

The spherical tanks provide pressure needed to push rocket propellants into shuttle engines and thrusters at very specific rates required to keep the spaceship on its proper course. Some of the propellants are highly volatile and ignite on contact.

Ranging in diameter from 19 to 40 inches, the tanks have lightweight titanium or steel shells wrapped with the same type of fabric used to make bulletproof vests -- Kevlar -- or carbon graphite. They hold helium and nitrogen gas at extremely high pressures (up to 4,600 pounds per square inch) and are extraordinarily dangerous.

"You certainly wouldn't want a 4-foot-diameter helium bottle that's pressurized to about 4,000 psia to burst on you," Hale said. "That would be a bad thing."

A tank rupture on the ground could lead to a fire or explosion that could injure or kill workers in the launch pad area. A failure in flight could lead to the loss of a shuttle and the astronauts inside.


*
http://www.ignitersdirect.com/comparisons.htm


Longer usable life
Silicon Nitride does not react in any way like its silicon carbide counterpart. Unlike Silicon Carbide which has a porous construction, Silicon Nitride is non porous and does not oxidise with age. It is widely known that Silicon Carbide igniter elements must not be touched as the greases deposited produces 'HOT SPOTS' shortening the life of the igniter. Care must be taken not to allow cleaning agents to come into contact with Silicon Carbide igniter element. Silicon Nitride igniter’s display none of these problems, holding with the greasiest of hands will not do any harm whatsoever. Silicon Nitride igniter elements can be cleaned with even the most toughest of cleaners and can withstand strong alkali’s and acids.

Greater Physical Strength
The Silicon Nitride material is used by the largest bearing companies in the world. It is the only material to be approved for use in ball and roller bearings in NASA's space shuttle main engine liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen turbopumps - one of the most severe applications ever developed for rolling element bearings. It also helped the Thrust SSC car achieve its record-breaking Mach 1+ land speed run by allowing the wheel bearings to operate reliably at over 480,000 dN.

Furnace, Water Heater/ Boiler
The Igniter is a critical part of any appliance ignition system. Fitting the Glo-Stix ™ will ensure maximum performance and efficiency is maintained.

Typical characteristics of Silicon Nitride include:
High strength over a wide temperature range
High fracture toughness
High hardness
Outstanding wear resistance, both impingement and frictional modes
Good thermal shock resistance
Good chemical resistance

Silicon Nitride has totally different physical and chemical characteristics than Silicon Carbide. It is a robust new technology with low energy consumption.

 




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 06/04/2007 05:43 pm
and Boron Carbide too ...

Nuclear Reactors for Space

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf82.html

Heatpipe Power System (HPS) reactors are compact fast reactors producing up to 100 kWe for about ten years to power a spacecraft or planetary surface vehicle. They have been developed since 1994 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory as a robust and low technical risk system with an emphasis on high reliability and safety. They employ heatpipes to transfer energy from the reactor core to make electricity using Stirling or Brayton cycle converters.

Energy from fission is conducted from the fuel pins to the heatpipes filled with sodium vapour which carry it to the heat exchangers and thence in hot gas to the power conversion systems to make electricity. The gas is 72% helium and 28% xenon.

The reactor itself contains a number of heatpipe modules with the fuel. Each module has its central heatpipe with rhenium-clad fuel sleeves arranged around it. They are the same diameter and contain 97% enriched uranium nitride fuel, all within the cladding of the module. The modules form a compact hexagonal core.

Control is by six stainless steel clad beryllium drums each 11 or 13 cm diameter with boron carbide forming a 120 degree arc on each. The drums fit within the six sections of the beryllium radial neutron reflector surrounding the core, and rotate to effect control, moving the boron carbide in or out.

Shielding is dependent on the mission or application, but lithium hydride in stainless steel cans is the main neutron shielding.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 06/04/2007 05:49 pm
Quote
kraisee - 4/6/2007  12:30 PM

Will, agreed.   The J-120/23n combination is very much "borderline" in terms of mission performance.

We've been using it simply as an option for a first generation "entry level" mission, while we are still finding our feet, keeping lunar Crew launches on the slightly safer J-120 configuration.   It has always been a "stepping stone" used to get us to the 2xJ-23n architecture eventually.

The more I think about it though, the more I am thinking about deleting that "low end" option and diving straight into the more powerful 2x J-232 architecture and getting the full performance from day 1.

Ross.

Absolutely. One true base launcher giving you all the performance you need. You are going to get harangued for it not being simple anyway so go the whole way and do it once only and get your Moon mission even earlier which after all is the first end destination of VSE ;-).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/04/2007 05:55 pm
I thought the main purposes of the J-120 were to do near-term testing and, later to get Orion to ISS while the EDS was being developed for the J-232.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2007 06:01 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 4/6/2007  1:55 PM

I thought the main purposes of the J-120 were to do near-term testing and, later to get Orion to ISS while the EDS was being developed for the J-232.
Correct. But in the interest of "apples to apples" it was thought to be useful to compare the ERO-LOR architecture that NASA is stuck with. Remember, NASA can't do anything except EOR-LOR with the limited resources it plans on fielding.

EOR-LOR is not the baseline architecture for Direct. That's far to inefficient for a robust lunar program, that the Direct architecture makes possible, but it is the best that NASA can do. We were trying to dumb-down the approach a little to show the equivilant.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 06/04/2007 06:08 pm
Quote
kraisee - 4/6/2007  12:30 PM

Will, agreed.   The J-120/23n combination is very much "borderline" in terms of mission performance.

We've been using it simply as an option for a first generation "entry level" mission, while we are still finding our feet, keeping lunar Crew launches on the slightly safer J-120 configuration.   It has always been a "stepping stone" used to get us to the 2xJ-23n architecture eventually.

The more I think about it though, the more I am thinking about deleting that "low end" option and diving straight into the more powerful 2x J-232 architecture and getting the full performance from day 1.

Ross.

OTOH the politicians want their early ISS access. Perhaps an ISS only Jupiter-120 is the answer with VSE carried out solely by Jupiter-232s.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/04/2007 06:16 pm
Quote
marsavian - 4/6/2007  11:08 AM

Quote
kraisee - 4/6/2007  12:30 PM

Will, agreed.   The J-120/23n combination is very much "borderline" in terms of mission performance.

We've been using it simply as an option for a first generation "entry level" mission, while we are still finding our feet, keeping lunar Crew launches on the slightly safer J-120 configuration.   It has always been a "stepping stone" used to get us to the 2xJ-23n architecture eventually.

The more I think about it though, the more I am thinking about deleting that "low end" option and diving straight into the more powerful 2x J-232 architecture and getting the full performance from day 1.

Ross.

OTOH the politicians want their early ISS access. Perhaps an ISS only Jupiter-120 is the answer with VSE carried out solely by Jupiter-232s.

That’s the approach that seems to be forming.  It puts a number of important yet expensive technologies such as the J2x and Advanced Upper stage until after the Orion/Jupiter-120 is flying.  Right now we have our hands full just getting an ISS Orion + STS retargeted at VSE’s long term objectives.  All while given us a true Apollo+ program later.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/04/2007 06:17 pm
Quote
clongton - 4/6/2007  12:01 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 4/6/2007  1:55 PM

I thought the main purposes of the J-120 were to do near-term testing and, later to get Orion to ISS while the EDS was being developed for the J-232.
Correct. But in the interest of "apples to apples" it was thought to be useful to compare the ERO-LOR architecture that NASA is stuck with. Remember, NASA can't do any except EOR-LOR with the limited resources it plans on fielding.

EOR-LOR is not the baseline architecture for Direct. That's far to inefficient for a robust lunar program, but it is the best that NASA can do. We were trying to dumb-down to show an equivilant.

Just thinking out loud here, but if the J-120/J-232 lunar option is actually inferior to the Ares-I/Ares V lunar option in some performance fashion, then I'd probably delete the comparison and instead focus on the J-120 as a near-term STS replacement for ISS and a stepping stone to the J-232 - one that doesn't require further development of the core and support hardware like Ares V does.

Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2007 06:43 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 4/6/2007  2:17 PM

Quote
clongton - 4/6/2007  12:01 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 4/6/2007  1:55 PM

I thought the main purposes of the J-120 were to do near-term testing and, later to get Orion to ISS while the EDS was being developed for the J-232.
Correct. But in the interest of "apples to apples" it was thought to be useful to compare the ERO-LOR architecture that NASA is stuck with. Remember, NASA can't do any except EOR-LOR with the limited resources it plans on fielding.

EOR-LOR is not the baseline architecture for Direct. That's far to inefficient for a robust lunar program, but it is the best that NASA can do. We were trying to dumb-down to show an equivilant.

Just thinking out loud here, but if the J-120/J-232 lunar option is actually inferior to the Ares-I/Ares V lunar option in some performance fashion, then I'd probably delete the comparison and instead focus on the J-120 as a near-term STS replacement for ISS and a stepping stone to the J-232 - one that doesn't require further development of the core and support hardware like Ares V does. Lee Jay
It's not inferior, just difficult to lower the capabilities. Kinda like reaching the point of diminishing returns, only going the other way. Plus, even if it were (which it is not) it would still have all the political advantages going for it that Ares-I/V can't provide.

But you're right. Creating that kind of a comparison may not be worth the effort. It's sort of like trying to prove that a lotus elan is better than a vw beatle.  :)
The more stuff you remove from its performance, the harder it gets to drive.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/04/2007 06:46 pm
What sort of performance would you get from Jupiter 121 or 131, in which the upper stage is a CEV SM-based tug that fires suborbitally to put the payload into orbit? Thrust/weight would be poor, but I would think you'd gain a lot by not carrying the heavy RS-68 stage all the way to orbit. It could be ready relatively early, and the pressure fed storable engine should be more reliable than the J-2.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/04/2007 06:51 pm
SMetch writes:

"Looking at the attached chart for the Ares 1/5 1.5 plan using the best public info we have right now."

This is not legible on my screen.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2007 06:57 pm
Quote
Will - 4/6/2007  2:46 PM

What sort of performance would you get from Jupiter 121 or 131, in which the upper stage is a CEV SM-based tug that fires suborbitally to put the payload into orbit? Thrust/weight would be poor, but I would think you'd gain a lot by not carrying the heavy RS-68 stage all the way to orbit. It could be ready relatively early, and the pressure fed storable engine should be more reliable than the J-2.
Will, we thought about that but decided that for Shuttle transition, we really wanted to ignite all flight engines on the ground, like Shuttle. That makes for a much safer ascent to orbit until we have gained experience later with the J-2XD upper stage engine. We are confident that there will be no safety concern with the J-2XD, but we would prefer to put flight experience under our belts first, unlike Ares-I, which requires the upper stage ignition at altitude. Eventually, for the lunar missions, we will as well, but by then, there will be lots of flight history behind it before we commit a human crew to it. Ares-I commits to an upper stage ignition event from the very beginning, with no previous flight history. We would rather not commit the lives of a crew to the hoped-for ignition, half way to space, of a brand new engine until we have some flight history with it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/04/2007 08:00 pm
Quote
clongton - 4/6/2007  1:57 PM

 We would rather not commit the lives of a crew to the hoped-for ignition, half way to space, of a brand new engine until we have some flight history with it.


What do you need a new engine for? What's wrong with the Shuttle OME?

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 06/04/2007 08:11 pm
The OME does not have enough thrust for this application.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2007 08:42 pm
Quote
clongton - 4/6/2007  1:57 PM

Quote
Will - 4/6/2007  2:46 PM

What sort of performance would you get from Jupiter 121 or 131, in which the upper stage is a CEV SM-based tug that fires suborbitally to put the payload into orbit? Thrust/weight would be poor, but I would think you'd gain a lot by not carrying the heavy RS-68 stage all the way to orbit. It could be ready relatively early, and the pressure fed storable engine should be more reliable than the J-2.
Will, we thought about that but decided that for Shuttle transition, we really wanted to ignite all flight engines on the ground, like Shuttle. That makes for a much safer ascent to orbit until we have gained experience later with the J-2XD upper stage engine. We are confident that there will be no safety concern with the J-2XD, but we would prefer to put flight experience under our belts first, unlike Ares-I, which requires the upper stage ignition at altitude. Eventually, for the lunar missions, we will as well, but by then, there will be lots of flight history behind it before we commit a human crew to it. Ares-I commits to an upper stage ignition event from the very beginning, with no previous flight history. We would rather not commit the lives of a crew to the hoped-for ignition, half way to space, of a brand new engine until we have some flight history with it.

If the upper stage fails to ignite, the crew will do an abort.  

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2007 08:49 pm
Quote
Danny Dot - 4/6/2007  4:42 PM

Quote
clongton - 4/6/2007  1:57 PM

Quote
Will - 4/6/2007  2:46 PM

What sort of performance would you get from Jupiter 121 or 131, in which the upper stage is a CEV SM-based tug that fires suborbitally to put the payload into orbit? Thrust/weight would be poor, but I would think you'd gain a lot by not carrying the heavy RS-68 stage all the way to orbit. It could be ready relatively early, and the pressure fed storable engine should be more reliable than the J-2.
Will, we thought about that but decided that for Shuttle transition, we really wanted to ignite all flight engines on the ground, like Shuttle. That makes for a much safer ascent to orbit until we have gained experience later with the J-2XD upper stage engine. We are confident that there will be no safety concern with the J-2XD, but we would prefer to put flight experience under our belts first, unlike Ares-I, which requires the upper stage ignition at altitude. Eventually, for the lunar missions, we will as well, but by then, there will be lots of flight history behind it before we commit a human crew to it. Ares-I commits to an upper stage ignition event from the very beginning, with no previous flight history. We would rather not commit the lives of a crew to the hoped-for ignition, half way to space, of a brand new engine until we have some flight history with it.

If the upper stage fails to ignite, the crew will do an abort.  
Obviously, but that's not the point.
The fewer stanging events you MUST complete during the ascent, the safer the ascent is.
We have only flown Shuttle for more than 30 years. We're trying out something new. There is NO NEED to stage the launch vehicle, so why do it? Why make the ride to orbit more complex than it needs to be? Doesn't make any sense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 06/04/2007 09:28 pm
Plus, the aborts are inherently dangerous. Why subject the crew to such an extreme event when it can be avoided?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/04/2007 11:19 pm
Quote
Marsman - 4/6/2007  2:28 PM

Plus, the aborts are inherently dangerous. Why subject the crew to such an extreme event when it can be avoided?

Mission Abort – Definition:

A process of attempted suicide in order to avoid certain death. :)


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/05/2007 12:26 am
Quote
clongton - 4/6/2007  1:57 PM

 We are confident that there will be no safety concern with the J-2XD, but we would prefer to put flight experience under our belts first, unlike Ares-I, which requires the upper stage ignition at altitude. Eventually, for the lunar missions, we will as well, but by then, there will be lots of flight history behind it before we commit a human crew to it. Ares-I commits to an upper stage ignition event from the very beginning, with no previous flight history. We would rather not commit the lives of a crew to the hoped-for ignition, half way to space, of a brand new engine until we have some flight history with it.


However, the report also mentions an unmanned payload capacity for the Jupiter 120. The core stage and service module would both be ready for flight before the EDS, yes?. If the service module as upper stage increased unmanned payload to LEO, wouldn't that be positive information to present?

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2007 05:03 am
The SM could certainly be used in the same way as it is on Ares-I - as an extra stage, but doing so reduces the LOC/LOM numbers drastically - LOM for Cargo only missions.

While NASA claims an LOC of around 1:2000 for Ares-I, that is only an assessment of the first two stages - and does NOT include the risk factors of using the Orion's Service Module as a third stage completing the ascent.

Factoring this additional 'stage' in to the full assessment reduces the full LOC numbers for *ascent to insertion* considerably.   My own estimate (uncorroborated,  I freely admit) is that including the staging and air-starting of the OME engine during ascent is equivalent to dropping LOM by about 50 points, and dropping LOC by about 300 points.   While Ares-I itself might be 1:2000 in NASA's opinion - the full vehicle placing an Orion into an actual orbit is more like 1:1700.   This makes J-120's 1:1400 look quite acceptable for *completed ascent*.

The J-120 has sufficient performance to placing over 48mT of cargo into insertion orbit without using a third stage - which is inherently safer.

If you did wish to have more payload performance than that, and you accept the additional risks associated with making a CEV variant perform part of the ascent (quite possible), all the payload mass will have to be aboard the CEV (CM or SM) when it separates from the LV, ignites and performs the final ascent burn.   It could not be in a separate module, because there isn't any available time during an ascent to separate, turn around, dock with the module, extract it, turn back around again and complete the ascent.   So it must be within the final module when it separates from the LV.

Such a performance hike is only moderate.   A quick "back of the envelope" calculation indicates that only about 3mT of improvement is possible doing this, but it costs ~300 points of the final LOC for the full ascent.   This extra performance has become essential for Ares-I though, due to its inherent low performance.   Be aware that Ares-I is actually only an 18.1mT to 30x100nm, 28.5deg launcher system without the third stage - which is well below current EELV performance. This performance hike is not really worth considering for a launcher already capable of 48mT performance.

So theoretically, a CEV with extra propellant tanks could use this technique - but a CEV bringing up extra cargo separately could not.   This sort of ambiguity, where sometimes it is possible, and other time it is not, is the sort of thing which we're steering deliberately away from - so as to keep the waters less muddy.


But the Jupiter-120 is primarily designed in order to get us a J-232 configuration for supporting Lunar missions later.   That is the key to the entire plan - the first vehicle is the same one used for all the missions.    This completely removes the need for never-ending political & financial support for a second LV development program.


J-120 also offers a number of benefits in its own right.   It can be made available in a very acceptable time frame.   It has a very acceptable LOM/LOC through using the standard and proven 4-seg SRB's, and by reducing the number of MPS elements to two from three (SSME), and ground lighting all the engines.   It has extremely reasonable costs in terms of disposable engines and tankage structures for its performance.

And, as you say, such performance offers a great test-bed LV for testing of hardware prior to all the hardware being fully operational.

With all these under its belt, a J-120 is certainly more than sufficient for any LEO mission I can currently think of.

As you indicate, a J-120 could easily launch CEV's or test-LSAM's to LEO for test flights (unmanned or manned) before all the hardware is fully completed.

But J-232 is what we are really after - enabling Lunar missions.   J-120 only requires the EDS to enable those Lunar missions.   It does not require a whole extra LV to be developed - and that makes reduces the cash requirements for the whole program.   This means that political/financial strangling is protected against over the next 12 years.   And if cash *is* still available, it can still be used in a variety of ways - speeding up development of other elements, or still building Ares-V - whatever is a priority at that time in the future.

Here are the possible Lunar IMLEO mass performance combinations:

(CLV / CaLV)
Ares-I / Ares-I: No missions possible
Ares-I / Ares-V (EOR): ~175mT *
Jupiter-120 / Jupiter-232 (EOR): ~170mT
Jupiter-232 / Jupiter-232 (EOR): ~235mT
Jupiter-232 / Jupiter-232 (LOR): ~260mT
Jupiter-120 / Ares-V (EOR): ~200mT *
Jupiter-232 / Ares-V (EOR): ~265mT *
Jupiter-232 / Ares-V (LOR): ~285mT *

* - only possible with 2 different successful LV development programs

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 06/05/2007 12:38 pm
SMetch
Quote
- 1/6/2007  6:45 PM

Jim
Quote
- 1/6/2007  7:53 AM

renclod
Quote
- 31/5/2007  11:18 AM
spacelogistics.mit.edu/pdf/Shull_IAC2006.pdf
The best 2-launch option ... 87mT + 70mT to LEO ... The reduced size Ares V- LVs were modeled as a 4 segment solid rocket booster (SRB) instead of a 5 segment used in the 1.5-launch specification

plus a 1.5-launch specification core stage

Ross and Smetch, why aren't you jumping all over this. Isn't it independent confirmation of the 2 launch scenario?
Jim, we are expanding significantly on this important subject in the AIAA paper.  ...
In the MIT paper, both the 2-launch option and the 1-launch equivalent option are considering the 10 m dia core stage (if I understand correctly).

Direct-2/Jupiter retains the 8 m dia STS hidrogen tank, and this is a big issue.
A plus, if you hope to fly Constellation sooner.

A minus for the Moon/Mars/Asteroids out-years when you might wish you went with a larger core stage from the beginning.
IMHO

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/05/2007 01:14 pm
Quote
kraisee - 4/6/2007  11:03 PM
The J-120 has sufficient performance to placing over 48mT of cargo into insertion orbit without using a third stage - which is inherently safer.

Just a quick question about this.

The STS is sort of a J-120 - a cryo stage with roughly equivalent thrust and 2 4-segment SRBs, no upper stage.  Yet, the STS manages on the order of 125mT to insertion orbit (including the orbiter, of course).  Is this just because the SSMEs are more efficient?

Lee Jay
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2007 01:30 pm
Quote
renclod - 5/6/2007  8:38 AM

SMetch
Quote
- 1/6/2007  6:45 PM

Jim
Quote
- 1/6/2007  7:53 AM

renclod
Quote
- 31/5/2007  11:18 AM
spacelogistics.mit.edu/pdf/Shull_IAC2006.pdf
The best 2-launch option ... 87mT + 70mT to LEO ... The reduced size Ares V- LVs were modeled as a 4 segment solid rocket booster (SRB) instead of a 5 segment used in the 1.5-launch specification

plus a 1.5-launch specification core stage

Ross and Smetch, why aren't you jumping all over this. Isn't it independent confirmation of the 2 launch scenario?
Jim, we are expanding significantly on this important subject in the AIAA paper.  ...
In the MIT paper, both the 2-launch option and the 1-launch equivalent option are considering the 10 m dia core stage (if I understand correctly).

Direct-2/Jupiter retains the 8 m dia STS hidrogen tank, and this is a big issue.
A plus, if you hope to fly Constellation sooner.

A minus for the Moon/Mars/Asteroids out-years when you might wish you went with a larger core stage from the beginning.
IMHO
The fairing is essentially just volume. The Jupiter’s 8.4m core can easily accommodate a 10m fairing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/05/2007 01:37 pm
Quote
kraisee - 4/6/2007  12:03 AM

The SM could certainly be used in the same way as it is on Ares-I - as an extra stage, but doing so reduces the LOC/LOM numbers drastically - LOM for Cargo only missions.

While NASA claims an LOC of around 1:2000 for Ares-I, that is only an assessment of the first two stages - and does NOT include the risk factors of using the Orion's Service Module as a third stage completing the ascent.

Factoring this additional 'stage' in to the full assessment reduces the full LOC numbers for *ascent to insertion* considerably.   My own estimate (uncorroborated,  I freely admit) is that including the staging and air-starting of the OME engine during ascent is equivalent to dropping LOM by about 50 points, and dropping LOC by about 300 points.   While Ares-I itself might be 1:2000 in NASA's opinion - the full vehicle placing an Orion into an actual orbit is more like 1:1700.  

Ross.

Firing the Orion engine on ascent doesn't add a staging event: Orion needs to separate in any case.

It occurs to me that a Titan second stage would make an interesting interim upper stage for a Jupiter 131: it's in the right ballpark for thrust and mass and the stage is very reliable and has been man-rated in the past.

Are any of those still in mothballs or have they been scrapped?

If it was my program I'd go straight to the 130 rather than the 120. The performance hit is slight, you'd have better engine out capability, and flight experience would be more applicable to the 23n.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2007 01:50 pm
Quote
Will - 5/6/2007  9:37 AM

Quote
kraisee - 4/6/2007  12:03 AM

The SM could certainly be used in the same way as it is on Ares-I - as an extra stage, but doing so reduces the LOC/LOM numbers drastically - LOM for Cargo only missions.

While NASA claims an LOC of around 1:2000 for Ares-I, that is only an assessment of the first two stages - and does NOT include the risk factors of using the Orion's Service Module as a third stage completing the ascent.

Factoring this additional 'stage' in to the full assessment reduces the full LOC numbers for *ascent to insertion* considerably.   My own estimate (uncorroborated,  I freely admit) is that including the staging and air-starting of the OME engine during ascent is equivalent to dropping LOM by about 50 points, and dropping LOC by about 300 points.   While Ares-I itself might be 1:2000 in NASA's opinion - the full vehicle placing an Orion into an actual orbit is more like 1:1700.  

Ross.

Firing the Orion engine on ascent doesn't add a staging event: Orion needs to separate in any case.
Firing the Orion engine on ascent absolutely is a staging event because the spacecraft cannot achieve orbit without it. At the point of separation from Ares, Orion is in a SUBORBITAL trajectory, no different than what SpaceShip One did.

Shuttle fires the OMS engines to achieve orbit, not because it has to, but because that's a decision regarding ET disposal, not orbital insertion. Shuttle can achieve orbit without that, but then there would be the problem of the ET being in orbit instead of being disposed of in the ocean.

Orion, on the other hand, cannot be inserted into orbit by the Ares-I. Orion's service module engine has to burn, as a stage event, to achieve orbital velocity because the Ares launch vehicle is incapable of inserting it into orbit. Firing Orion’s engines imparts a huge velocity change to the spacecraft to enable reaching orbit. The Ares-I can’t put Orion into orbit. Orion has to do that itself. That’s the difference, and that is what makes it a stage event. That makes the Orion/Ares stack a 3 stage vehicle.

When flying on the Jupiter however, it becomes an identical situation as Shuttle. Orion will fire its engine to complete the orbital insertion, not because it has to, but to allow the ET to self-dispose, like Shuttle. In this case, Orion’s engine burn is not a stage event because it is not required. The core could easily insert Orion all by itself, but then we’d need to dispose of the core.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2007 05:57 pm
Separation during the ascent phase of a flight, with a very precise engine firing immediately following the separation, is a considerably more difficult proposition than simply separating shortly after inserting into a stable insertion orbit.

The LOM and LOC risks are higher for "staging" events such as the Orion ascent phase, compared to far more benign "payload deployment" events such as we're planning on all Jupiter flights.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2007 06:14 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 5/6/2007  9:14 AM

Just a quick question about this.

The STS is sort of a J-120 - a cryo stage with roughly equivalent thrust and 2 4-segment SRBs, no upper stage.  Yet, the STS manages on the order of 125mT to insertion orbit (including the orbiter, of course).  Is this just because the SSMEs are more efficient?

Lee, partially, yes.   The switch from 453s Isp SSME's to 409s Isp RS-68's does impact performance noticeably.   That's precisely why v1 of DIRECT was attempting to get the most out of the RS-68 as possible.

But there is also the fact that the Core is actually optimized for a different configuration of launcher - the J-232.   The Common Core is considerably stronger (thus heavier) than it needs to be for just J-120 flights, because it is actually designed to fly with 100+ tons of payload and a fully fuelled EDS on top, not just a CEV & 25 tons of cargo.

Even though the Core is actually sub-optimal for the J-120 configuration, it still offers twice the payload performance of any EELV or Ares-I, so would still be extremely effective.   We consider it a very fair trade-off indeed (BTW, all structure margins for the Core are over 2.1 for the J-120 configuration vs. 1.4 for Ares-I and 1.25 for EELV, which positively affects LOC/LOM).

We could optimize Cores just for J-120, and increase performance by about 10mT per flight, but that would really require a second production line at Michoud - but that is one of the specific cost reductions we have all-along been trying to delete from the current Ares plans.   DIRECT is all about one launcher performing all the roles instead of two.

BTW, I saw someone (you?) suggest a J-130 configuration.   I have run this configuration a number of different ways, and the bottom line is it doesn't work well.   The three main engines guzzle all the fuel too fast and the rocket doesn't reach orbital speeds with anything approaching a reasonable payload - about 24mT.   It also suffers from very high max-Q dynamic pressures & dangerously high g-forces unless you throttling them right down and also turn one engine off for about the last few minutes of the flight.

Jupiter-120 already has engine-out capability from about T+45s onwards with just the regular two engines.   A third engine won't change this much, but kills performance, costs more and detracts from safety.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2007 06:35 pm
Quote
renclod - 5/6/2007  8:38 AM

A minus for the Moon/Mars/Asteroids out-years when you might wish you went with a larger core stage from the beginning.
IMHO

Yes, there is a slight performance loss in some of these situations.   But you should really be thinking of Jupiter as the replacement to Ares-I, not a replacement for Ares-V.

We can still have Ares-V with Jupiter as the first vehicle.   Jupiter actually costs less to make than Ares-I.

But Jupiter protects the program if the second vehicle is cancelled for any reason over the next 12 years.   Jupiter still allows us to mount exploration missions even without Ares-V.   Ares-I can not do so without Ares-V.   So from a program risk perspective, which makes more sense?

But Ares-V is still not a bad "big brother" to Jupiter.   If Ares-I/V were a "1.5 solution", then Jupiter-120/Ares-V must be at least a "1.8 solution"! ;)

Alternatively, assuming Ares-V is not built, and only the single Jupiter were, for half the cost of Ares-I and Ares-V together, you save tens of billions of dollars in full-wrap development costs.  You save even more in the lower yearly running costs of one program vs. two: We have data in-hand which shows DIRECT's architecture saves more than $2 billion every single operational year compared to operating both Ares-I and Ares-V concurrently.

Couldn't these billions saved in development & operations go a long way towards paying for extra launches instead?   With $2 billion available in the budget every year, could NASA not then afford to fly two cargo missions where they were going to fly just one?   That would totally exceed the effectivel performance of a single Ares-V, no?

By my calculations, NASA could afford to fly at least 6-8 additional J-232 missions, including associated hardware costs (LSAM, CEV etc) every single year.

Also a higher flight rate means greater understanding of the launch vehicles and mission hardware in a shorter period of time, more cost effective manufacturing, larger workforce requirements (politically; a great thing), larger profits for the corporate sector (economically a good thing), and greater actual return for tax payers dollars.   I see everyone involved coming away with a smile of their faces.


Jupiter allows for NASA to follow either of these paths.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: riney on 06/05/2007 06:47 pm
This may well be a dumb question, and it's not intended to be any sort of objection to what you're saying; I'm just curious.

If you design your flight profile such that you don't have orbital velocity at CSM separation, so as to dump your second stage more easily, and you have to make a "third stage" SM burn to achieve it, what practical difference does it make whether your second stage _had_ (the operative word here) the extra performance to put you in your final orbit or not? It's not as though if something goes wrong with your SM engine you can get that second stage back. Why is it a negative that Orion has to burn if you're planning on doing it anyway? Is it an matter of wanting to hang on to more of the SM propellant for later use?

I understand of course that extra performance would be nice for higher orbits/heavier CSMs/whatever - I'm strictly trying to understand why it matters for the mission and spacecraft as designed.

--John Riney
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/05/2007 07:02 pm
Quote
kraisee - 5/6/2007  12:14 PM
BTW, I saw someone (you?) suggest a J-130 configuration.

Not me, but thanks for the info!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2007 07:13 pm
Quote
riney - 5/6/2007  2:47 PM

This may well be a dumb question, and it's not intended to be any sort of objection to what you're saying; I'm just curious.

If you design your flight profile such that you don't have orbital velocity at CSM separation, so as to dump your second stage more easily, and you have to make a "third stage" SM burn to achieve it, what practical difference does it make whether your second stage _had_ (the operative word here) the extra performance to put you in your final orbit or not? It's not as though if something goes wrong with your SM engine you can get that second stage back. Why is it a negative that Orion has to burn if you're planning on doing it anyway? Is it an matter of wanting to hang on to more of the SM propellant for later use?

I understand of course that extra performance would be nice for higher orbits/heavier CSMs/whatever - I'm strictly trying to understand why it matters for the mission and spacecraft as designed.

--John Riney

John,
The issue is that the same engine Ares-I fires three times just to reach a circular orbit, is the same engine which must work at the end of every Lunar visit in order to get a crew back - or else they die.   Components don't get much more critical than this.

This engine (based on the Shuttle OME) is expected to make one long burn (over 360 seconds!) and two short burns to get the CEV into circular orbit so it can dock with the LSAM/EDS correctly.

It then lays dormant for between 10 days (Lunar sortie missions) to up to 6 months (long duration stays) and then *must* make another long burn to get a crew home safely or we lose a crew.

6 months in orbit is quite a nasty environment for any materials, let alone Category A Critical engines which 4 people's lives will depend upon.   Whichever way you cut it, this is asking a lot of any engine.   The engineers we talk with feel that a long burn at the very start of the mission is just baiting the dragon in terms of risking failures of this engine.   Shuttle OME's have failed before, and we should expect no different here.

Jupiter flights require only a single short burn of this engine after insertion, to get the CEV into circular orbit.   That's it.

No long burn is required of this critical component.   And less than 10% of the total burn time is put on the engine compared to Ares-I flights.   Some of the team here actually just consider the single small circularization burn as a "useful test to make sure its working", but everyone here agrees that it isn't going to strain the engine anywhere near as much as the long ascent burn Ares-I flights require.   Doing that before cold soaking the engine for up to 6 months is begging for trouble.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/05/2007 07:29 pm
Ross,

What's the delta-V required for the circularization burn on Jupiter versus the burns that Ares-I requires?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2007 08:51 pm
I don't have precise numbers to hand right this second (I am getting them for a comparison because I believe that would be very useful), but a quick back of the envelope calculation of Ares-I's dV requirement on the SM for achieving circular 120x120nm orbit looks like it is in the ballpark of 640-660m/s for all three burns.

It's more like 50-55m/s for Jupiter's single circ. burn.

Both these assume the same CEV (although Jupiter's Orion could actually be lighter because it doesn't need the fuel tanks for all that propellant any more).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/05/2007 09:20 pm
Quote
kraisee - 5/6/2007  1:14 PM


BTW, I saw someone (you?) suggest a J-130 configuration.   I have run this configuration a number of different ways, and the bottom line is it doesn't work well.   The three main engines guzzle all the fuel too fast and the rocket doesn't reach orbital speeds with anything approaching a reasonable payload - about 24mT.   It also suffers from very high max-Q dynamic pressures & dangerously high g-forces unless you throttling them right down and also turn one engine off for about the last few minutes of the flight.

Jupiter-120 already has engine-out capability from about T+45s onwards with just the regular two engines.   A third engine won't change this much, but kills performance, costs more and detracts from safety.


That was me. If you start the three engines at 66% and shut off the middle one about where you throttle back in the two engine flight profile, wouldn't that give similar fuel consumption to the two engine model, and engine out all the way?

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2007 11:15 pm
It is similar, given the extra engine mass you're brining up detracts from payload performance.   You get about 38-39mT to insertion.

However, with all three engines already operating down at almost their minimum setting, at 66% vs 60%, overall thrust still exceeds the max-Q requirements (<600psf) ESAS specified.   The J-130 seems to peak around 720psf.

The trade between two & three engines ultimately boils down to this:-

J-130: Keep the Core specification exactly the same for every flight, with or without EDS, attempting to increase processing reliability and to provide engine-out coverage during the first 45 seconds of ascent.   Lower performance, higher max-Q and lower LOC/LOM numbers result.

vs.

J-120: Reduce launch cost by $20m. Reduce the number of MPS units which can go critically wrong, increasing LOC/LOM.   Increase performance.   Accept that an abort becomes necessary if one MPS engine fails between T+0 and T+45s.

We've chosen to go for the second option.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 06/06/2007 12:36 am
Quote
kraisee - 5/6/2007  6:15 PM

snip

J-120: Reduce launch cost by $20m. Reduce the number of MPS units which can go critically wrong, increasing LOC/LOM.   Increase performance.   Accept that an abort becomes necessary if one MPS engine fails between T+0 and T+45s.

We've chosen to go for the second option.

Ross.

An engine-out abort between T+0 and T+45...  how would this work out in real life?  Would you go ahead and fly the vehicle until SRB burnout and then do the abort?  In that case, you could actually warn the crew & give them a countdown to abort.   ...assuming the event that caused engine out isn't catastrophic...

I'm assuming a non-catastrophic early engine out makes reaching orbit impossible, but otherwise introduces nothing life-threatening...except the abort...   and if a 1/2 thrust abort was an option (use a bit of the Jupiter margin to add this?), then even the abort has better safety.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2007 12:45 am
Exactly, it all depends on how severe the engine-out is.   An engine-out in the first 45 seconds would mean you aren't going to orbit.

If it is serious enough, you start shutting down the remaining MPS elements while you abort immediately using the LAS.   Keep the SRB's attached to the Core and you shouldn't have any issues with the vehicle following you.

If it is a less serious, say an instrumentation problem causes an unexpected premature engine shut-down event (like occurred on STS-51F IIRC), then my guess would be that you would probably wish to ride out the SRB portion of the flight, separate them safely away from your trajectory and then shut everything down while you use the LAS then.

There are a number of different approaches available in different situations too.

I don't personally know precisely where the line is drawn between the the various scenarios.    I believe those sorts of details should be determined by the engineers who would actually design and build the final abort systems - they can quantify the benefits/risks far more effectively than I can.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/06/2007 03:16 am
Quote
kraisee - 5/6/2007  2:51 PM
It's more like 50-55m/s for Jupiter's single circ. burn.

Could this burn be accomplished other ways if the SM fails to ignite after MECO?

Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: riney on 06/06/2007 04:14 am
Quote
kraisee - 5/6/2007  2:13 PM
Doing that before cold soaking the engine for up to 6 months is begging for trouble.

Ross.

Thank you, Ross, for the very clear explanation. That description of your rationale makes perfect sense. However, it seems as though there is at least some flight experience with profiles of this sort (long burn -> long cold soak -> critical burn) - I'm thinking here of Soyuz TMA, which has to make something like 5 rendezvous burns to dock with ISS from its initial orbit - the first two of which are in the 300 second range (at least from the sketchy information I've been able to Google - this could of course be completely bogus and I could be an idiot for quoting it). It then has to cold-soak while docked for 6 months, and yet must be relied upon for a deorbit burn. I wonder how the safety numbers work out for that system? Admittedly, I'm sure we're talking about a whole lot less delta-v, and therefore less strain upon the propulsion system, than Orion would encounter.

--riney
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 06/06/2007 06:07 am
In DIRECT V2.x, does the mass of the Orion spacecraft take into account the fuel needed for the LOI burn?  I agree that it makes sense to offload the LOI burn requirement (and propellant mass) from the LSAM to the Orion CSM.  Because the DIRECT Orion isn't expected to burn as much propellant to achieve orbit, there would be a trade of LEO-insertion propellant mass for LOI propellant mass.  Would you expect the LOI propellant mass to be heavier or lighter than the amount of propellant saved during ascent?

In my view, DIRECT's biggest weakness is the inequity of masses between the two payloads that would have to dock in LEO.  Because Jupiter-232 still falls short of Ares V performance, that mass shortfall will have to be compensated with the Jupiter-120's performance advantage over Ares I.  However, if Jupiter 120 is only carrying the same payload mass that Ares I does, the performance advantages of the Jupiter family have been negated.  Perhaps if the LSAM ascent stage could be launched with the Orion capsule on the Jupiter 120, then docked to the LSAM descent stage and EDS that are launched on the Jupiter-232, the problem can be solved?  I know that NASA is going to laugh DIRECT out of existence if it relies on propellant transfer for the EOR-LOR mission.

I am not opposed to upgrading Jupiter-232 to Ares V-like performance, either.  Five-segment SRB's and a stretched core should all be considered, as the funding becomes available.  I'd also like to see a new, regen nozzle for the RS-68 with a higher area ratio.  It should come close to the Isp numbers predicted for STME, partially getting us back to the level of performance that was predicted for the 8.4m Ares V using "expendable SSME's."  

The beauty of the Jupiter concept is that it lends itself easily towards Michael Griffin's least-favorite buzzword: "Spiral Development."  The basic Jupiter 120 can probably be built on the money that NASA currently has budgeted for Ares I & V between now and 2012.  Upper stages, core stretches, longer SRB's and higher-Isp engines can all be added later when the money to develop them is available, beyond 2012.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2007 12:18 pm
Quote
riney - 5/6/2007  12:14 AM

I'm thinking here of Soyuz TMA, which has to make something like 5 rendezvous burns to dock with ISS from its initial orbit - the first two of which are in the 300 second range (at least from the sketchy information I've been able to Google - this could of course be completely bogus and I could be an idiot for quoting it). It then has to cold-soak while docked for 6 months, and yet must be relied upon for a deorbit burn.
Soyuz engine is hypergolic, using UDMH/Nitrogen Tetroxide. Hypergolics can cold soak for indefinate periods of time. Orion is not hypergolic and therefore more time and use-critical.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 06/06/2007 01:27 pm
Quote
clongton - 6/6/2007  8:18 AM

Soyuz engine is hypergolic, using UDMH/Nitrogen Tetroxide. Hypergolics can cold soak for indefinate periods of time. Orion is not hypergolic and therefore more time and use-critical.

Orion is hypergolic
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2007 01:37 pm
Quote
Jim - 6/6/2007  9:27 AM

Quote
clongton - 6/6/2007  8:18 AM

Soyuz engine is hypergolic, using UDMH/Nitrogen Tetroxide. Hypergolics can cold soak for indefinate periods of time. Orion is not hypergolic and therefore more time and use-critical.

Orion is hypergolic
I was speaking long term. I knew hypergols were being employed as an intrim, but the baseline remains hydrogen/oxygen, or eventually methane/oxygen. Has the decision been made to stay hypergol permanently, or is it still an intrim solution?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2007 02:46 pm
The Lockheed design has specified hypergolic MMH/N2O4 and is using a modified variant of the Shuttle OME used in the OMS Pods - which itself is actually a development of the original Apollo SPS used on the CSM!

This is the current baseline, but a methane alternative is still being considered for the distant future.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2007 03:14 pm
Quote
CFE - 6/6/2007  2:07 AM

In DIRECT V2.x, does the mass of the Orion spacecraft take into account the fuel needed for the LOI burn?  I agree that it makes sense to offload the LOI burn requirement (and propellant mass) from the LSAM to the Orion CSM.  Because the DIRECT Orion isn't expected to burn as much propellant to achieve orbit, there would be a trade of LEO-insertion propellant mass for LOI propellant mass.  Would you expect the LOI propellant mass to be heavier or lighter than the amount of propellant saved during ascent?

There are a number of different methods for performing the LOI.   Ares assumes the LSAM always does it, for both crewed and cargo flights alike.   You can get higher lunar surface mass performance if another module can perform it, such as the CEV on manned missions.   We are also investigating a very interesting option, of using the EDS to perform the LOI.   Current testing is ongoing, but early results are showing some very interesting positive results.   Additionally, there is a concept for using the EDS to perform the first phase of the descent too, which again is producing very interesting results in early testing.

Which option is finally chosen is still a decision "in work".

Quote
In my view, DIRECT's biggest weakness is the inequity of masses between the two payloads that would have to dock in LEO.  Because Jupiter-232 still falls short of Ares V performance, that mass shortfall will have to be compensated with the Jupiter-120's performance advantage over Ares I.  However, if Jupiter 120 is only carrying the same payload mass that Ares I does, the performance advantages of the Jupiter family have been negated.  Perhaps if the LSAM ascent stage could be launched with the Orion capsule on the Jupiter 120, then docked to the LSAM descent stage and EDS that are launched on the Jupiter-232, the problem can be solved?  I know that NASA is going to laugh DIRECT out of existence if it relies on propellant transfer for the EOR-LOR mission.

I tend to agree.   That's another of the reasons why my personal preference is for J-120 to only be used for LEO missions, and the Lunar program should go straight into an all-J-232 architecture.   EOR can still be supported if absolutely necessary, but LOR is the way to go as soon as confidence exists.


Quote
I am not opposed to upgrading Jupiter-232 to Ares V-like performance, either.  Five-segment SRB's and a stretched core should all be considered, as the funding becomes available.

Absolutely agree.   I still have to get the results optimised, but it looks like a 2x5seg SRB design, using a stretched 8.41m diameter ET-based Core with 4 RS-68's on it actually offers very similar performance to Ares-V - but starting from J-120 and creating that is far easier than developing Ares-V from Ares-I.


Quote
I'd also like to see a new, regen nozzle for the RS-68 with a higher area ratio.  It should come close to the Isp numbers predicted for STME, partially getting us back to the level of performance that was predicted for the 8.4m Ares V using "expendable SSME's."  

The base RS-68 which we are using in DIRECT v2.0 can indeed be upgraded.   For Ares-V, NASA has already baselined a new ablative nozzle upgrade version which is optimised for Sea-Level use on Delta-IV, but which offers 414.2s vac Isp and a 6% thrust increase.

A nozzle redesign (ablative or regenerative) optimised for higher altitude operation would offer increases too.

And a regeneratively cooled nozzle (optimised for high altitude) is still an upgrade option too.

All these upgrades are possible for Jupiter vehicles, and would increase performance above the current numbers we are proposing.   But we are specifically avoiding all such upgrades so that we don't have to pay for them in the short term, while cash is proving to be a problem and so that "new development" can not impact the schedule negatively.

I'm all-for upgrades as and when they are possible, but relying on them from the get-go isn't sensible.


Quote
The beauty of the Jupiter concept is that it lends itself easily towards Michael Griffin's least-favorite buzzword: "Spiral Development."  The basic Jupiter 120 can probably be built on the money that NASA currently has budgeted for Ares I & V between now and 2012.  Upper stages, core stretches, longer SRB's and higher-Isp engines can all be added later when the money to develop them is available, beyond 2012.

Jupiter-120 can actually be developed entirely on the less budget than Ares-I alone.

No Ares-V money is needed, so the billions for that can either be saved, used to speed up development of other parts of the program (EDS, LSAM), or even be used to build the Ares-V as a second LV if still needed.   My preference would be to speed up development of the EDS and LSAM and make the Lunar missions happen a few years earlier.

Jupiter-120 requires no changes at all to the current SRB's.   It requires only minimal changes to the existing RS-68 to man-rate it.   And it requires an "upgrade" program to the existing ET rather than a complete ground-up development program building an all-new Upper Stage with virtually brand-new air-start engine.   This approach reduces costs substantially compared to Ares-I.

Additionally, we save a lot of cash at the manufacturing and launch processing level by retaining existing compatibility with the existing 8.41m diameter tanking systems used for Shuttle today.   This means keeping most of the equipment at the manufacturing plant, deleting the current requirement for 2 brand-new MLP's for Ares-I, considerably fewer modifications to the MLP's (compared to widening the distance between SRB chambers by 6ft!) and considerably fewer changes to the work platforms inside the VAB.   The vast majority of systems in all these areas can be retained unchanged for Jupiter, but require heavy modification or outright replacement for Ares - and require it twice, not once.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 06/06/2007 03:26 pm
Ross,
Quote
Exactly, it all depends on how severe the engine-out is.   An engine-out in the first 45 seconds would mean you aren't going to orbit.

Silly thought.  If you're flying a 120 with the water shield payload you had previously talked about, you might still be able to reach orbit with an early engine out by opening a dump valve in the water tank section.  Drop the "payload" weight enough, and you might still be able to make orbit...

Just a crazy thought.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2007 03:38 pm
Interesting idea Jon.   I'm not sure dumping one of your key sources of protection would be wise on a vehicle which has already suffered a significant failure though. :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 06/06/2007 05:01 pm

Quote
Lee Jay - 5/6/2007 11:16 PM
Quote
kraisee - 5/6/2007 2:51 PM It's more like 50-55m/s for Jupiter's single circ. burn.
Could this burn be accomplished other ways if the SM fails to ignite after MECO? Lee Jay

Linear RCS thrusters are the back up for most burns.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/06/2007 05:19 pm
Quote
Marsman - 6/6/2007  11:01 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 5/6/2007 11:16 PM
Quote
kraisee - 5/6/2007 2:51 PM It's more like 50-55m/s for Jupiter's single circ. burn.
Could this burn be accomplished other ways if the SM fails to ignite after MECO? Lee Jay

Linear RCS thrusters are the back up for most burns.


That's what I had in mind.  It seems these might have the capacity to perform a 50m/s burn, but not a 600m/s burn.

If so, perhaps they could be given a bit more propellant for just such an event.  That could give you some time to do some on-orbit trouble-shooting of the SM.  I'm always impressed at what the engineers on the ground, in concert with the on-orbit crew, can get solved with some analysis, procedures, and software uplinks.

Another possible way to improve LOM/LOC by absorbing some margin?

Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 06/06/2007 06:01 pm
Quote
kraisee - 6/6/2007  8:38 AM

Interesting idea Jon.   I'm not sure dumping one of your key sources of protection would be wise on a vehicle which has already suffered a significant failure though. :)

You probably don't need to dump all of the water to still make orbit.  And if the engine failure is the benign sort (ie it shut down, but didn't explode), why would it be problematic?

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 06/06/2007 07:06 pm
Quote
kraisee - 5/6/2007  1:14 PM

[....]

Jupiter-120 already has engine-out capability from about T+45s onwards with just the regular two engines.   A third engine won't change this much, but kills performance, costs more and detracts from safety.

Would it be possible to carry less payload to have engine-out capability from the start ? Would obviously mean the engines would throttle back earlier in normal flight to avoid high-g but it all helps LOM figures ;-).

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2007 08:02 pm
Lee Jay:
I haven't got all the necessary details for the CEV's RCS system to be able to confirm whether it can be used as a backup for circularization.   I *guess* it might actually be possible, but I don't want to give anyone any false hope.

Jongoff & Marsavian:
Both offer interesting alternatives which would certainly allow full-coverage engine-out capability.

Precisely where the mass/performance line actually is has yet to be analysed.   I expect we can easily calculate a simple "fly only x tons and you full engine out capability from T+0.

But a detailed analysis of engine shutdowns at different times after launch, with a calculated proportion of overboard water is going to take too long for our small team here to completely calculate. We have a lot of other analysis to do ahead of that.   It might be possible, but I doubt there will be any numbers to prove it for a while :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/06/2007 08:27 pm
I wonder how much difference a shield aft of the spacecraft would make. The vast majority of launchers that failed in the past 20 years didn't fail by exploding, and for many of the remainder on a manned mission your launch escape system would have yanked the capsule to someplace where the shield didn't help before the rocket exploded. (Or, if you prefer, burned very, very fast)

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2007 08:36 pm
Quote
Will - 6/6/2007  4:27 PM

I wonder how much difference a shield aft of the spacecraft would make. The vast majority of launchers that failed in the past 20 years didn't fail by exploding, and for many of the remainder on a manned mission your launch escape system would have yanked the capsule to someplace where the shield didn't help before the rocket exploded. (Or, if you prefer, burned very, very fast)
In the case of a sudden catastrophic detonation, a blast shield would protect the spacecraft from flying debris which could be capable of damaging the LAS or the spacecraft’s own recovery mechanisms. An explosion of this magnitude would indicate something very, very wrong, and would occur suddenly, rather than as a cascading event. In that case, the abort algorithms would initiate the abort maneuver but the spacecraft would likely still be attached to the launch vehicle or be very, very close, because of the milliseconds of time we are talking about for this event to occur. A blast shield in this case would be very useful.

Also, don’t forget (as I did earlier today) that the Service Module engine is hypergolic. A launch vehicle explosion would certainly rupture the hypergolic tanks, exposing those fuels to each other and setting off a secondary explosion directly beneath the spacecraft itself, detonating and destroying the Service Module. This secondary explosion would likely be far more dangerous to Orion than the launch vehicle explosion because it would be occurring within the spacecraft stack itself. Having a blast shield between Orion and the launch vehicle would likely preclude this secondary extremely nasty event.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 06/06/2007 09:47 pm
Talking of blast shields I found this Army Ceramic Armor Database study

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA362926&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

more of the same including some vendors

http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/boron-carbide.htm
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8132/8132science.html
http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/TIB2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour
http://www.hexoloy.com/product-applications/armor
http://www.ceradyne.com/products/armor/aircraft-ballistics-panels.aspx
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 06/07/2007 10:15 am
The ISS's new Mmod shields are nothing more sophisticated than 1 inch aluminium plates.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/070606_exp15_eva2.html

Yurchikhin and Kotov attached 12 aluminum panels to a sensitive area of the space station's Russian-built Zvezda service module -- which houses the ISS crew quarters -- during their Wednesday spacewalk.

"Everything is excellent," Yurchikhin said during the installation. "I guess we're lucky."

The new panels, along with five others installed by the Expedition 15 crew during the May 30 spacewalk, give Zvezda additional protection against impacts from micrometeorites and orbital debris. NASA officials have said that such micrometeorite and orbital debris (MMOD) strikes represent a major risk to the ISS and NASA shuttles in Earth orbit.

"The number one risk for the shuttle is MMOD when it's on orbit," Kirk Shireman, NASA's deputy ISS program manager, said before today's spacewalk. "It's also that way for ISS, although the station was designed to live in a debris environment."

Each of the 17 aluminum plates installed by Yurchikhin and Kotov during their two spacewalks are about an inch (2.5 centimeters) thick and cover a two-foot by three-foot (0.6- by 0.9-meter) patch of the ISS, NASA officials have said. They join six other panels that were installed by ISS astronauts during a 2002 spacewalk.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sbt on 06/07/2007 10:30 pm

Armour should be designed for the application. Stuff designed to stop
125mm APFDS or Orbital Debris is not necessarily the most weight and
volume efficient way of protecting a spacecraft from a disintegrating
launcher.

Armour should be optimised based on the likely threat, acceptable mass
and the vulnerability of what is being protected. And that last works
both ways - for example is their any point in fitting a man with a
helmet that will protect his head from threats that would be 100% fatal
due to trauma to the rest of the body?

Rick
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 06/07/2007 11:31 pm
True, but you need starting points for your specific rocket application analyses in terms of materials and current barrier applications as I don't think anything like this has been attempted before in a rocket but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2007 05:32 pm
Even ahead of that, you need a launcher concept which has sufficient performance margin to makesit a possibility.   Right now we don't have that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: imfan on 06/08/2007 08:44 pm
Add RCS for circularization. To bet my few cents I would say it is possible since somewhere in ESAS there is part saying that RCS  are backup even for TEI(of course performed in more than one phase). Will try to look it up
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 06/08/2007 09:04 pm
Yes, the Orion's SM RCS is to be used as a back up for the SM main engine.
They will have the ability to use the RCS to make the TEI, but over a period of many Lunar orbits.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/09/2007 01:21 am
Quote
jongoff - 6/6/2007  11:01 AM

Quote
kraisee - 6/6/2007  8:38 AM

Interesting idea Jon.   I'm not sure dumping one of your key sources of protection would be wise on a vehicle which has already suffered a significant failure though. :)

You probably don't need to dump all of the water to still make orbit.  And if the engine failure is the benign sort (ie it shut down, but didn't explode), why would it be problematic?

~Jon

Does anyone know what Apollo 8 did?  The third stage, if fully loaded, could have sent them on a oneway trip to Pluto.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/09/2007 03:25 am
I notice that Direct's mass budget for the payload shroud is about half of what NASA assumes, for petty much the same volume. Why?

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2007 04:26 pm
Scotty,
For circularization, we only need to make ~50m/s burn total, but probably half of that could be applied on a per orbit basis.   It should still be safe, assuming the first burn raises the orbit to ~75x120nm then the second burn raises it to 120x120nm circular.

Can the 606 configuration Orion RCS provide that sort of impetus?   I'm guessing it can, but I don't have th enumbers in front of me.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2007 04:29 pm
Will,
Because we were working with old mass fraction numbers for that part, not the new ones generated for the April 07 Ares-V.   We now have those in hand and have already applied them in house.   We're simply going to use exactly the same PLF as Ares-V.

While we definitely lost mass performance there, it should be noted that at the same time we were also able to reduce the mass of our Interstage considerably, down to just 5,195kg from our original "super safe estimate" of somewhere around 9,800kg.

We are still retaining full ESAS margins, and about 10% extra all of our own, and no, it's not some new technology, just plain old Al-Li.   Interestingly, this mass actually matches the flown Saturn S-II aft Interstage mass - which was 10m diameter, not 8.4m, so we know this is a safe assessment.

When these two changes were applied, the overall performance remained almost exactly the same.   Some other changes are in the pipeline.   Just as we've witnessed with Ares, the Jupiter's are continually evolving.   A Work In Progress.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/10/2007 01:07 am
I was just doing some thinking.  (I know, I know... That's a dangerous thing.)

Someone (I think it is Ross) earlier mentioned that a 3-stage version of Jupiter could deliver 250 metric tonnes to orbit.  

For comparison, after almost a decade of construction, the ISS still masses less than 250 tonnes.  Think about it--you could launch the entire ISS in a single launch with the big Jupiter!  That opens up all kinds of new possibilities for what you can do in space.


Changing the subject slightly, I was wondering just what the 250 tonne-to-orbit Jupiter ends up being?  I did some fooling around in Excel, and came up with it being something like a Jupiter 3542 or 3652, with the third stage being essentially exactly the 232's second stange, and the new second stage being around 1 million to a million-and-a-half pounds.  And I'm wondering how close my crude spreadsheet came to what you guys have figured out?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Antares on 06/10/2007 03:15 am
I saw something about running engines at 66% (not sure which ones).  Running engines at some other level than what's advertised could bring Campbell problems.  RD-180 and SSME are the only continuously throttleable engines in the U.S. stable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 06/10/2007 03:59 am
Quote
SolarPowered - 10/6/2007  12:07 PM

I was just doing some thinking.  (I know, I know... That's a dangerous thing.)

Someone (I think it is Ross) earlier mentioned that a 3-stage version of Jupiter could deliver 250 metric tonnes to orbit.  

For comparison, after almost a decade of construction, the ISS still masses less than 250 tonnes.  Think about it--you could launch the entire ISS in a single launch with the big Jupiter!  That opens up all kinds of new possibilities for what you can do in space.


Changing the subject slightly, I was wondering just what the 250 tonne-to-orbit Jupiter ends up being?  I did some fooling around in Excel, and came up with it being something like a Jupiter 3542 or 3652, with the third stage being essentially exactly the 232's second stange, and the new second stage being around 1 million to a million-and-a-half pounds.  And I'm wondering how close my crude spreadsheet came to what you guys have figured out?

What about the second stage being a short-burn (stubby -- to keep the height down) powered by 4x J-2X and the third stage powered by the 232's 2x J-2X?. What would your first stage be --4x SRBs?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/10/2007 05:37 am
Matt, my crude spreadsheet said 2x SRBs.  The overall mass only went up by 1-1.5 million pounds over the 232, mostly for the new second stage.  So the 2-3 additional engines in the first stage is all you need to lift the the extra weight.

I was showing a very large gain from adding the additional stage.  (The extra Isp of the J-2x helps out a bit here.)

I readily admit that I'm an armchair rocket engineer, so my numbers could be completely wrong.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 06/10/2007 06:08 am
With an 8.4m diameter first stage (corestage), the most RS-68s you could practically fit would be 4. You'd need to stretch the corestage to get extra propellant for the 4x RS-68s and to fit 5-Segment boosters. Add a second stage with 4x J-2X (most that would fit) and a third stage with 2x J-2X and you'd get pretty much the most capable "big dumb booster" America could build -- that is with *most* of the available tooling. And the payload to a 28.5-degree, 150-mile orbit I would estimate to be 170 metric tons (give or take). If you did away with the solids and used a pair of 3x RD-180 powered strap-on boosters, you'd get about another 10 tons payload capacity.

BUT: How tall would such a monster be? Ares V is said to be 358 feet tall -- almost the same height as Saturn V. Would our prospective monster Jupiter reach 390+plus feet high? Looking at my old documents for the 1993 Mars mission reference study, they state that the tallest a combined crawler and tower could be to fit in the VAB, without major mods, would be 410 feet. Keeping a booster and its Crawler/Tower within this limit would be major challenge.

Ross's original Direct Ver. 1.1 idea for an enhanced, stretched Direct booster capable of launching 130+plus tons would be the best overall compromise.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: simcosmos on 06/10/2007 10:50 am
Quote
MATTBLAK - 10/6/2007  7:08 AM

BUT: How tall would such a monster be? Ares V is said to be 358 feet tall -- almost the same height as Saturn V. Would our prospective monster Jupiter reach 390+plus feet high? Looking at my old documents for the 1993 Mars mission reference study, they state that the tallest a combined crawler and tower could be to fit in the VAB, without major mods, would be 410 feet. Keeping a booster and its Crawler/Tower within this limit would be major challenge.


Hello,

I might be wrong - need to check - but think that the VAB's height limit of ~410 feet (~124m) is just for the launcher's height (having in mind that some part of the core engines / boosters would be  'inside' the MLP).

(Maybe time to revise / double-check some of the VAB/MLP calcs + research that made in an older thread at these forums, about the height of a 3 stage AresI vs VAB capability to support such launcher config)).

Note: what will write next is just me thinking loud :)

On another note, a way to work some height limitations would be to adopt ~10m diameter for upper stages and payload fairings but while still keeping the core at 8.4m diameter (for better compatibility with existing STS support facilities, MLP, etc), I mean: the VAB will probably need some kind of work in its higher bays anyway (yes / no?).

Introducing a different diameter for the upper stage(s) / PLF could mean a little of extra production / transport / integration brainstorms - when comparing with the current assumption of just using the same 8.4m diameter for such upper stages - but, on the other hand, the launchers would be shorter for the same payload mass (better use of the available volume for propellants), there would be more space for eventual extra upper stage engine configurations (assuming a common thrust structure) and there would be more 'height budget' available for eventual future three stage launcher variants (beyond the boosters, I mean), etc.

Side note: this seems to be even more evident if we think about the current AresV design, which already assumes a core at 10m diameter. I sometimes wonder why AresV is not baselined with the same 10m diameter for a common bulkhead upper stage design, already thinking in long-term exploration goals (beyond NEO / Moon).

António
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 06/10/2007 02:50 pm
Kraisee;
I had the exact numbers for the 604 version of the Orion, but I can not find my notes.
If I remember correctly; the SM needs to make about a 600 feet per second burn to get the Orion from the Ascent Target to the initial elliptical orbit.
Then needs to make about a 100 feet per second burn to place Orion in its final circular orbit.
The total number is around 700 feet per second that is needed out of the SM to place Orion into orbit.
I'll see if I can dig up the exact numbers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/10/2007 03:54 pm
Quote
MATTBLAK - 10/6/2007  2:08 AM

With an 8.4m diameter first stage (corestage), the most RS-68s you could practically fit would be 4.
MATT
We did a very detailed study and the 8.4m tank will fit 5 RS-68's. Just think of the Jupiter-23x and notice that it has 3 engines, with the outer 2 being protected by engine fairings like the Staturn-V.  Rotate/copy the 2 outer engines by 75 degrees and you've got a 5-engine core. That's also the identical configuration of engine arrangement used on the Ares-V. Why 75 and not 90 degrees? To keep the engine exhaust of the SRB's and the RS-68's from unduely impinging on each other. That also keeps the distance of all the RS-68 engines constant from each other across all 5 engines. But a 5-engine core was specifically studied and approved. It's just not included in the base proposal because it requires a different thrust structure. That structure would be based on the 3-engine but would weigh more in order to accomodate the additional 2 engines. That's a mass penalty of ~10mt not needed in the beginning. Note also that the 5-engine core can also be just 4 engines by omitting the center engine and blanking off its connections, in the same way as the Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-23x share the same common thrust structure.


The Jupiter family is capable of a lot more than what's covered in just the base proposal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 06/10/2007 06:57 pm
Quote
clongton - 10/6/2007  10:54 AM

Quote
MATTBLAK - 10/6/2007  2:08 AM

With an 8.4m diameter first stage (corestage), the most RS-68s you could practically fit would be 4.
MATT
We did a very detailed study and the 8.4m tank will fit 5 RS-68's. Just think of the Jupiter-23x and notice that it has 3 engines, with the outer 2 being protected by engine fairings like the Staturn-V.  Rotate/copy the 2 outer engines by 75 degrees and you've got a 5-engine core. That's also the identical configuration of engine arrangement used on the Ares-V. Why 75 and not 90 degrees? To keep the engine exhaust of the SRB's and the RS-68's from unduely impinging on each other. That also keeps the distance of all the RS-68 engines constant from each other across all 5 engines. But a 5-engine core was specifically studied and approved. It's just not included in the base proposal because it requires a different thrust structure. That structure would be based on the 3-engine but would weigh more in order to accomodate the additional 2 engines. That's a mass penalty of ~10mt not needed in the beginning. Note also that the 5-engine core can also be just 4 engines by omitting the center engine and blanking off its connections, in the same way as the Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-23x share the same common thrust structure.


The Jupiter family is capable of a lot more than what's covered in just the base proposal.

Do you mean 45 degrees instead of 75 degrees?  This would give you a "X" patern (SRBs are on each side) while a 90 degrees rotation would produce a "+" patern.


PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 06/11/2007 04:38 am
Before I begin, I'd like to apologize for steering this thread somewhat off-topic.

While the shuttle has to perform a roll maneuver, will Jupiter have to do the same when it lifts off?  I know that the shuttle roll has to do with the position of the flame ducts relative to the shuttle's trajectory.  With Jupiter going to an in-line configuration, will the flame ducts still be an issue?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 06/11/2007 05:06 am
Quote
CFE - 10/6/2007  11:38 PM

Before I begin, I'd like to apologize for steering this thread somewhat off-topic.

While the shuttle has to perform a roll maneuver, will Jupiter have to do the same when it lifts off?  I know that the shuttle roll has to do with the position of the flame ducts relative to the shuttle's trajectory.  With Jupiter going to an in-line configuration, will the flame ducts still be an issue?

Yes. Jupiter will roll so that when it begins pitching into the targeted trajectory, the SRBs are side-by-side, just as with the shuttle. For a typical due-east trajectory, this will be a 90-degree roll to the right off the pad.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 06/11/2007 06:19 am
Quote
clongton - 11/6/2007  2:54 AM

Quote
MATTBLAK - 10/6/2007  2:08 AM

With an 8.4m diameter first stage (corestage), the most RS-68s you could practically fit would be 4.
MATT
We did a very detailed study and the 8.4m tank will fit 5 RS-68's. Just think of the Jupiter-23x and notice that it has 3 engines, with the outer 2 being protected by engine fairings like the Staturn-V.  Rotate/copy the 2 outer engines by 75 degrees and you've got a 5-engine core. That's also the identical configuration of engine arrangement used on the Ares-V. Why 75 and not 90 degrees? To keep the engine exhaust of the SRB's and the RS-68's from unduely impinging on each other. That also keeps the distance of all the RS-68 engines constant from each other across all 5 engines. But a 5-engine core was specifically studied and approved. It's just not included in the base proposal because it requires a different thrust structure. That structure would be based on the 3-engine but would weigh more in order to accomodate the additional 2 engines. That's a mass penalty of ~10mt not needed in the beginning. Note also that the 5-engine core can also be just 4 engines by omitting the center engine and blanking off its connections, in the same way as the Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-23x share the same common thrust structure.


The Jupiter family is capable of a lot more than what's covered in just the base proposal.

5 would fit, eh? Good to know -- I certainly wasn't sure and don't mind being corrected!! But wouldn't such an 8.4m corestage have to be stretched too much, to get the required propellant to have a decent burn time? Or would this be a short-burning stage, even with a length to match 5-Segment boosters, therefore needing a bigger upper stage (EDS) with more engines?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/11/2007 01:38 pm
I think you'd basically end up with an 8.4m equivalent of the Ares V, where you add length instead of diameter to increase your fuel capacity to the same levels.

I'm completely unqualified to tell how the performance of and 8.4m Jupiter-25x would copmare to the equivalent 10m Ares V (assuming the same fuel capacity).  My guess is the limiting factor might be the height of the VAB.

Of course, the Ares V also adds 5-segment boosters, which invalidates my post entirely. =)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 06/11/2007 02:03 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 11/6/2007  8:38 AM

I think you'd basically end up with an 8.4m equivalent of the Ares V, where you add length instead of diameter to increase your fuel capacity to the same levels.

I'm completely unqualified to tell how the performance of and 8.4m Jupiter-25x would copmare to the equivalent 10m Ares V (assuming the same fuel capacity).  My guess is the limiting factor might be the height of the VAB.

Of course, the Ares V also adds 5-segment boosters, which invalidates my post entirely. =)

NASA thinks it's worth 10mT

p13-14

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070002798_2007001569.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: wingod on 06/11/2007 04:38 pm
Quote
MATTBLAK - 10/6/2007  1:08 AM

With an 8.4m diameter first stage (corestage), the most RS-68s you could practically fit would be 4. You'd need to stretch the corestage to get extra propellant for the 4x RS-68s and to fit 5-Segment boosters. Add a second stage with 4x J-2X (most that would fit) and a third stage with 2x J-2X and you'd get pretty much the most capable "big dumb booster" America could build -- that is with *most* of the available tooling. And the payload to a 28.5-degree, 150-mile orbit I would estimate to be 170 metric tons (give or take). If you did away with the solids and used a pair of 3x RD-180 powered strap-on boosters, you'd get about another 10 tons payload capacity.

BUT: How tall would such a monster be? Ares V is said to be 358 feet tall -- almost the same height as Saturn V. Would our prospective monster Jupiter reach 390+plus feet high? Looking at my old documents for the 1993 Mars mission reference study, they state that the tallest a combined crawler and tower could be to fit in the VAB, without major mods, would be 410 feet. Keeping a booster and its Crawler/Tower within this limit would be major challenge.

Ross's original Direct Ver. 1.1 idea for an enhanced, stretched Direct booster capable of launching 130+plus tons would be the best overall compromise.

With LOX/RP for the first stage, along with RD-180's this problem goes away.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/11/2007 04:40 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 11/6/2007  9:38 AM

I think you'd basically end up with an 8.4m equivalent of the Ares V, where you add length instead of diameter to increase your fuel capacity to the same levels.

I'm completely unqualified to tell how the performance of and 8.4m Jupiter-25x would copmare to the equivalent 10m Ares V (assuming the same fuel capacity).  My guess is the limiting factor might be the height of the VAB.

Of course, the Ares V also adds 5-segment boosters, which invalidates my post entirely. =)
There are a couple of different really good configurations of the 5-engine Jupiter, but the main point to remember, when comparing it to the Ares-V is that the Ares-V tries to do far too much with its lower stage, and that robs the entire system of performance. Rocket science is no where near far enough along to do heavy lift with SSTO, and the Jupiter doesn't even attempt that. An upper stage is needed in order to have good system performance for heavy lift, at least with today's state of capability, so the Jupiter maximizes the entire system to get the most from the lower/upper stage combination. When you approach it from this "system" pov, you'd be amazed what you can do with a Jupiter-254, which is a standard ET and 4-segment SRB's. Of course, one can always expand the system beyond that with several different options, including, but not limited to the stretched ET. But it's nice to know that we don't have to in order to get really substantial heavy lift from the system.

For really HEAVY heavy lift, the family supports Jupiter-3xx options, but the need for launch vehicles like that, which are 300mT+ to LEO, are not well defined at present, so we are not pushing them. But we did look at them enough to verify that the Jupiter-3xx is a viable member of the family for future needs, should the need for such a capacity ever become real. The Ares-V isn't capable of evolving to anything like that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 06/11/2007 05:36 pm
The thing that strikes me about the whole Ares architecture is that there is no engine-out facility
in any of it ! Lose an engine on anything and you lose the mission. Saturn V proved how useful having engine-out facility was in real world usage. It might be prudent for the DIRECT team to try and ensure that each Jupiter stage has engine-out facility to provide another glaring advantage over Ares even if you lose some mT in payload in the process.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/11/2007 05:59 pm
Quote
With LOX/RP for the first stage, along with RD-180's this problem goes away.

Agree whole-heartedly, but you add whole new non-technical (i.e. political) problems (no longer shuttle-derived, engine without US heritage, etc.) that are likely even harder to resolve.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/11/2007 06:32 pm
Quote
MATTBLAK - 9/6/2007  8:59 PM

Quote
SolarPowered - 10/6/2007  12:07 PM

I was just doing some thinking.  (I know, I know... That's a dangerous thing.)

Someone (I think it is Ross) earlier mentioned that a 3-stage version of Jupiter could deliver 250 metric tonnes to orbit.  

For comparison, after almost a decade of construction, the ISS still masses less than 250 tonnes.  Think about it--you could launch the entire ISS in a single launch with the big Jupiter!  That opens up all kinds of new possibilities for what you can do in space.


Changing the subject slightly, I was wondering just what the 250 tonne-to-orbit Jupiter ends up being?  I did some fooling around in Excel, and came up with it being something like a Jupiter 3542 or 3652, with the third stage being essentially exactly the 232's second stange, and the new second stage being around 1 million to a million-and-a-half pounds.  And I'm wondering how close my crude spreadsheet came to what you guys have figured out?

What about the second stage being a short-burn (stubby -- to keep the height down) powered by 4x J-2X and the third stage powered by the 232's 2x J-2X?. What would your first stage be --4x SRBs?

Matt,

I learned some really interesting things about stage size from my simple spreadsheet.  One of which was that the optimum mass ratio for both the second and the third stages is around 2.35.  If you go lower or higher, you end up with a heavier total launch weight.

For a three-stage, 250 mT launcher, that number makes the Jupiter 232's second stage almost perfect for a third stage.  (Obviously, you'd have to strengthen it a bit to support the additional payload.)

This is based on a really rough spreadsheet, with these assumptions: Total delta-V required, including allowances for gravitational loss and aerodynamic drag, is 9,000 meters/second.  Second and third stage were at vacuum Isp of 448 for the entire burn.  I lumped the solids and RS-68s in the first stage together and guessed a combined Isp of 380 assumed for the entire burn.  Second and third stage mass fractions are 0.94.  First stage mass fraction is 0.90.

This certainly isn't detailed enough to design an actual rocket that you'd spend billions of dollars on, but it was really interesting seeing how things interacted.  Adding a third stage made a big difference in how much you can launch with a given launch vehicle.  Depending on the exact assumptions, you could get down to launch weight/payload ratios in range of 10:1 or so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/11/2007 07:28 pm
Quote
marsavian - 11/6/2007  10:36 AM

The thing that strikes me about the whole Ares architecture is that there is no engine-out facility
in any of it ! Lose an engine on anything and you lose the mission. Saturn V proved how useful having engine-out facility was in real world usage. It might be prudent for the DIRECT team to try and ensure that each Jupiter stage has engine-out facility to provide another glaring advantage over Ares even if you lose some mT in payload in the process.

Actually the Jupiter-254 can beat the AresV on TLI which is the only number that really matters in the end.  I also like the Jupiter-244 because we can have an engine out capability on both stages for relatively low payload penalty provide we have a 3rd stage.  Though this configuration is more expensive.  The big question is a boost in TLI worth having true 3rd stage like the Saturn V had?  At the lower end of the Jupiter family like the Jupiter-221 and 232 it’s a wash or even a negative to have a 3rd stage but if you increase the power of the 1st stage (ie 4 – 5 engines) you need a heavier 2nd stage to take advantage of that which then gives you a negative return on TLI unless you use a true 3rd stage because that’s a lot of empty tank and heavy engines to send to the moon when one J2 and a smaller full tank will do the job.

The nice thing about the Jupiter Family is that it is a family with a number of downgrade and upgrade options.  The Ares V tank requires 5-Seg SRB and five engines to get it off the ground so the family is max out from the get go which is big problem should we have an over mass conditions for the spacecraft.  At which point the only way to reconnect up the Architecture is reduce the mission scope or go to a non-linear cost curve for the spacecraft for a minimal mass reduction
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 06/11/2007 10:10 pm
One thing you need to consider; there is a maximum stack height in the VAB.
The existing planned Ares V pushed the stack height to near the limits.
That is why the change to the 10 meter core, go wider not higher.
Remember the old car commercial "Wider is Better!"?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/12/2007 12:53 am
Quote
Scotty - 11/6/2007  3:10 PM

One thing you need to consider; there is a maximum stack height in the VAB.
The existing planned Ares V pushed the stack height to near the limits.
That is why the change to the 10 meter core, go wider not higher.
Remember the old car commercial "Wider is Better!"?

Understood.  So as long as we stay at or below the AresV we should be okay?

Which is below the SaturnV + Tower?

Why did they go to 10m?  I thought it was due to the 5 engine configuration and engine spacing requirements.

Have you noticed how little net thrust the five seg SRB produces over the four seg SRB for the first 30 seconds or so?

One thing I have noticed in trying to optimize the Ares V is that its low thrust to weight ratio prevents using a stronger 2nd stage.  The Jupiter on the other hand starts shorter and can have more power in the main engines allowing for a stronger second stage getting us closer to the equal deltaV for equal ISP rule.  Which is pretty close to a real life optimization.  

Ironically the best Ares V I have found is 10m standard length tank with 4 segment SRB.  But we can’t do that because we have to have to o’so precious stick.

Also is just me or does the aspect ratio of the 5 Seg look odd vs all other solid motors.  It would seem to me that the diameter and length ratio is optimal at a certain ratio?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/12/2007 01:02 am
PaulL & MATTBLAK:

Here are our suggested engine arrangement for 2, 3, 4 and 5 engine Core configurations.






As you can see, there is plenty of clearance all around - especially with regard to the SRB's.


MATTBLAK & BogoMIPS:

A triple stage vehicle is unlikely to ever be utilised due mainly to safety numbers - even for unmanned use.

Just to clarify, it would actually not be too difficult to make a three-stage cargo launcher fit below the ~405-410ft height level (there were Saturn-V upgrades planned to this height (363'+41.5') which would have worked without modifying the VAB).   If the safety weren't an issue, the LAS on top of the Orion means the PLF under the Orion might be a touch short, but still doable.

But this is not something we actually need for any of the planned missions we'd like to do.

With more than 100mT lift capability in the initial phases of the DIRECT architecture, there would have to be a very specific requirement to lift chunks in larger pieces than that to ever make it worthwhile developing a second, larger booster.

In short: For the cost of developing a second launcher, you could actually fly about 100 extra "existing" J-232 launchers instead, each lifting more than 100mT.   That means that for the cost of just developing (not actually including flying) the second launcher system, you can loft 10,000 tons in 100mT chunks.   That is far more cost effective.

The only requirement for a larger booster than J-232, would be to lift a heavy payload which can *not* be broken down into 100mT chunks.

I personally can't actually think of any items at all which *can't* be broken down into 100mT chunks, but which *can* break down into 150 or 170mT chunks to fly on such a larger launcher.

Nuclear propulsion modules break down fine, habitat modules do, unmanned probes certainly do, propellant modules easily do, even Lunar & Mars landers all do.   I can not think of a single specific example of a module which would force a launcher requirement larger than 100mT to LEO.


Wingod/BogoMIPS:

The problem with the RP1 Core is that you can't fly a Core without an Upper Stage.   RP-1 engines don't offer sufficient Isp to effectively work all the way to orbit.   That means you need one LOX/LH2 Core for the 45mT launcher and a different Core for the multi-stage launchers, which means we're back to having the cost of two LV's all over again.

I think the better solution would be to replace the SRB's with an RP1/LOX booster.   Assuming you have similar lift off thrust, having a much more constant thrust curve offers significantly better performance than the SRB's currently do.   A 15mT performance increase in performance is quite possible by replacing the solid boosters with RP1 based boosters.   Of course the politics of taking ATK/Utah out of the game might prove to be unworkable in the real world, but that's a different issue entirely.


marsavian:

The Jupiter-120 already has engine out capability from ~T+45 second onwards.   A few techniques are available to improve even on that, but we have not yet analysed them in detail.   Additionally, we ground light our main engines - just like STS - which adds an important layer of safety too.

The Jupiter-232 has engine out for both stages, although, again, it really needs the Core engines for about the first minute of flight.

From this perspective, we are already well ahead of both Ares-I and Ares-V.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/12/2007 02:13 am
Over on NASAWatch.com, Keith Cowing posted:-

Political Objections to Ares 1B Are Apparently On The Rise

Editor's note: Over the past several weeks I have had an opportunity to talk with people who are working space policy - and related issues - for both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates and party organizations. One common theme is readily apparent (so far) - on both sides: a greater use of private sector solutions - i.e. the use of commercial launch vehicles - specifically EELVs - as the launch vehicle of choice for the CEV. No one seems to be all that fond of continuing the development of Ares 1 (a government-owned solution) or the cost of developing something that already exists i.e. something you can buy now (EELVs). Of course, much can change between now and the election - and who will run NASA in 2009. But the writing on the wall is starting to become rather clear.

---=== End ===---

Wow.   I didn't realise Ares-I was getting that unpopular with the politico's.


Given our position on DIRECT is all about getting Heavy Lift, I would not have an objection to NASA concentrating on Jupiter or Ares-V and switching the CLV program over to an EELV.

I think there are going to be political objections to using the Russian RD-180 engine for such a high profile purpose (possibly solved by actually manufacturing US versions?), and there are certainly practical advantages to man-rating the Delta-IV's RS-68 & RL-10-B-2's, so I suspect Delta-IV may be ahead in such a choice.

But I could go for either EELV in such a CLV scenario, while working on an SDLV solution for the Heavy Lift.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 06/12/2007 02:13 am
The reason for the switch from the 8.4 meter core to 10 metes is that the RS68's are not a efficient as the SSME.
he original plan for Ares V was 5 SSME's.
The lower isp means the RS68's have to burn more fuel to get the same total impulse.
They could not make Ares V taller, so they made it fatter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/12/2007 02:22 am
Agreed Scotty.

The reason though, was that they had to have the largest booster possible to go with the puny Ares-I CLV.

If they "balanced" the CLV / CaLV performance proportions a little better (by making a more powerful CLV), the need for quite such a massive rocket goes away.

"Balancing" it better also brings the performance back within the ability of the existing 4-seg SRB's and an 8.4m diameter Core arrangement.   Being able to use the existing infrastructure in this way greatly reduces development costs and schedules massively and automatically leads to a solution broadly like DIRECT's.

The change to 10m diameter affects too many other things to be efficient.   Everything from manufacturing, transportation, VAB, MLP, Crawlers & Pad all need to be changed if ditching the existing 8.4m arrangement.   A lot can be saved by not having to go down that path in the first place.

But I'm preaching to the choir here :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: zinfab on 06/12/2007 02:42 am
Suddenly, DIRECT may turn into Griffin's last ticket to save the whole danged development project. If they go EELV for Orion, will NASA still get money for heavy-lift?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: RedSky on 06/12/2007 03:10 am
So with this news, what might tomorrow's 1pm EDT NASA-wide update with the administrator & deputy administrator be about?  Trying to defuse Ares I issues?  Or show what great progress there's been.  Or announce a change of plans?  Or hard line digging in?  Maybe its the consequence of JY's May 23rd prediction?   ;)   Is the Constellation-wide two week stand down still on?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/12/2007 03:48 am
Quote
zinfab - 11/6/2007  7:42 PM

Suddenly, DIRECT may turn into Griffin's last ticket to save the whole danged development project. If they go EELV for Orion, will NASA still get money for heavy-lift?

No, what Mike needs to do is drive towards the Jupiter-120.  After that add an upper stage (Jupiter-232) and you are good to go for a 2xHLV to the moon with more mass than the current Ares 1/5 plan.  With an ELV you are still stuck in LEO as with the Ares I but with a major STS workforce disruption.

I still think the ELV’s could help get the Orion up and running but only if it helps get the Jupiter off the ground.  If it takes resources away I’d rather deal with an excess performance issue for the ISS than an under performance.

Doing 10xELV everytime we go to the moon is a non-starter. Any significant payload increase to the ELV is new launch system.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/12/2007 04:00 am
Quote
Scotty - 11/6/2007  7:13 PM

The reason for the switch from the 8.4 meter core to 10 metes is that the RS68's are not a efficient as the SSME.
he original plan for Ares V was 5 SSME's.
The lower isp means the RS68's have to burn more fuel to get the same total impulse.
They could not make Ares V taller, so they made it fatter.

I actual showed Bill C’s boys the 10m 5xRS-68 4-Seg SRB version in Nov 2005.  Back when it was a 4-Seg SRB 8.4m 5xSSME.  The said that was the way to go ESAS has spoken RS-68 were bad.  Not three months latter it was RS-68 good SSME bad.

I understand the ISP issue but the 10m 4-Seg 5xRS-68 beats the AresV 5-Segment.  It’s just a better balance between first and second stages.  All that happens is that you stage earlier and closer to half the deltaV to orbit.

5-Seg Net Thrust vs 4-Seg Net Thrust first 30 seconds?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 06/12/2007 07:22 am
In regards to the politicos getting angry about Ares I being picked over commercial competitors, I am reminded of an interview with Jeff Hanley, recently published in AIAA's "Aerospace America" magazine.  He states that he envisions Ares I being transitioned to a private operator as time goes on, and states that NASA's not trying to compete with the private sector.

The overall interview is very interesting.  His comments sound like they're coming from the right place, but they beg the obvious question: why design Ares I in the first place, if you're not interested in competing with the private sector?  Too many people have bought off on the myth that EELV's are unsafe for manned spaceflight.  That should have all been refuted by the Atlas V human-rating study and the TeamVision report.

Turn back the clocks to early 2005, before Michael Griffin instituted ESAS.  Of the CE&R studies solicited by NASA, the majority favored EELV's for crew launch.  I particularly like the Boeing proposal (http://astronautix.com/craft/cevoeing.htm) which used a 4.5 meter diameter capsule (unlike the current Orion, which was seemingly designed with a "more volume is better" mentality) launched on a Delta IV with a 5 meter upper stage and six SRB's.

I think what Hanley is describing is an arrangement like United Space Alliance, where USA or another contractor would operate the vehicle, despite its lack of commercial viability.  Cynically, it sounds like an attempt to preserve the status quo, rather than a technically or economically sound decisions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 06/12/2007 02:47 pm
Here's the link for that Ares I commentary

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/06/political_objec.html

It's not surprising politicians are asking questions. They were promised SOON by Horowitz and it obviously isn't compared to EELVs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/12/2007 02:57 pm
kraisee writes:

Given our position on DIRECT is all about getting Heavy Lift, I would not have an objection to NASA concentrating on Jupiter or Ares-V and switching the CLV program over to an EELV.

Isn't there a risk that once an EELV CEV flies to ISS a future Congress will decide NOT to build any heavy lift? And once that infrastructure is dismantled, it will be difficult for an even later Congress to re-constitute that infrastructure.

Pad 39 for example. If we fly CEV on EELV and Pad 39 and the VAB and the crawlers decay, EELV only becomes a very real possibility.

I recall one of your objections to Ares 1 being the danger that Ares 1 could be all we might ever get. Would you be content with an EELV only program?



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/12/2007 03:09 pm
Quote
CFE - 12/6/2007  2:22 AM

In regards to the politicos getting angry about Ares I being picked over commercial competitors, I am reminded of an interview with Jeff Hanley, recently published in AIAA's "Aerospace America" magazine.  He states that he envisions Ares I being transitioned to a private operator as time goes on, and states that NASA's not trying to compete with the private sector.

The overall interview is very interesting.  His comments sound like they're coming from the right place, but they beg the obvious question: why design Ares I in the first place, if you're not interested in competing with the private sector?  Too many people have bought off on the myth that EELV's are unsafe for manned spaceflight.  That should have all been refuted by the Atlas V human-rating study and the TeamVision report.

Turn back the clocks to early 2005, before Michael Griffin instituted ESAS.  Of the CE&R studies solicited by NASA, the majority favored EELV's for crew launch.  I particularly like the Boeing proposal (http://astronautix.com/craft/cevoeing.htm) which used a 4.5 meter diameter capsule (unlike the current Orion, which was seemingly designed with a "more volume is better" mentality) launched on a Delta IV with a 5 meter upper stage and six SRB's.

I think what Hanley is describing is an arrangement like United Space Alliance, where USA or another contractor would operate the vehicle, despite its lack of commercial viability.  Cynically, it sounds like an attempt to preserve the status quo, rather than a technically or economically sound decisions.

And don't forget that Ares 1 is a NASA rocket.  Apparently Marshal Space Flight Center is acting as prime contractor for Ares 1.  Read into this lots of high level government jobs at Marshal to support Ares 1.  Of course NASA picked Ares 1 over EELVs -- it is their rocket.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 06/12/2007 03:18 pm
Quote
Bill White - 12/6/2007  10:57 AM
I recall one of your objections to Ares 1 being the danger that Ares 1 could be all we might ever get. Would you be content with an EELV only program?
Perhaps if NASA voluntarily swaps over to a Jupiter based HLV for lunar and beyond "real-soon-now" and endorsed an EELV based CLV, the funding and programs could be retained.

Of course, pigs will fly before NASA backs down off this one.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/12/2007 03:37 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 12/6/2007  10:18 AM

Quote
Bill White - 12/6/2007  10:57 AM
I recall one of your objections to Ares 1 being the danger that Ares 1 could be all we might ever get. Would you be content with an EELV only program?
Perhaps if NASA voluntarily swaps over to a Jupiter based HLV for lunar and beyond "real-soon-now" and endorsed an EELV based CLV, the funding and programs could be retained.

Of course, pigs will fly before NASA backs down off this one.

Paul

Would that be less expensive than an all-Jupiter program?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Davie OPF on 06/12/2007 04:23 pm
Quote
marsavian - 12/6/2007  9:47 AM

Here's the link for that Ares I commentary

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/06/political_objec.html

It's not surprising politicians are asking questions. They were promised SOON by Horowitz and it obviously isn't compared to EELVs.

" Editor's update: Contrary to what some of the space chat pages would suggest in response to this post last night, the individuals I have spoken with are not other space chat site posters whose opinions are pulled out of thin air. Rather, these are individuals, many of whom who work here in Washington, DC with significant positions in government, politics, industry, and academia. Many are seasoned political and campaign veterans."

Why does he have to be so insulting? This is not the first time and I'm not sure why people keep linking these rants.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/12/2007 06:00 pm
Quote
Bill White - 12/6/2007  7:57 AM

kraisee writes:

Given our position on DIRECT is all about getting Heavy Lift, I would not have an objection to NASA concentrating on Jupiter or Ares-V and switching the CLV program over to an EELV.

Isn't there a risk that once an EELV CEV flies to ISS a future Congress will decide NOT to build any heavy lift? And once that infrastructure is dismantled, it will be difficult for an even later Congress to re-constitute that infrastructure.

Pad 39 for example. If we fly CEV on EELV and Pad 39 and the VAB and the crawlers decay, EELV only becomes a very real possibility.

I recall one of your objections to Ares 1 being the danger that Ares 1 could be all we might ever get. Would you be content with an EELV only program?




Even with ELV’s we are still stuck in LEO even if it is a more efficient path to LEO than the Ares 1.  All ELV upgrades that get you anywhere close to the Jupiter-232 are new launch systems.  

The basic debate post Ares 1/5 will be whether DIRECT’s 2xHLV STS based solution makes more sense than a 10xELV.  NASA best line of defense will be DIRECT at that point because it will get NASA back to what it originally promised an STS based solution would do for the politicians.  I just don’t see the politics every aligning 100% against the STS base.  Where Mike and Company messed up is the current approach is only superficially STS based sharing almost none of the actual infrastructural advantages of being STS based.  I think it’s also important to point out some of the most expensive components are already off the shelf ELV components.  With a little more coordination even more ELV systems could be incorporated making the Jupiter a hybrid of the STS and ELV families.  Imaging a Jupiter-120 lofting a “full” ELV upper stage into orbit.  Instant hybrid with a 2x improvement over either the current STS or ELV fleet.

At the end of the day the budget will be the same for VSE regardless of how it is split up organizationally.  The only difference in any plan will be in what badge everyone is has on NASA, USA, Boeing, Lockheed/Martin, ATK etc.  The skills we need are what they are and generally in the same locations throughout the country.  There will be some transition but a good plan will use the natural attrition rate to make those shifts as painless as possible helping keep everyone focused on the difficult technical objectives of VSE and not their jobs, badges or homes.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/12/2007 08:06 pm
Quote
Bill White - 12/6/2007  10:57 AM

kraisee writes:

Given our position on DIRECT is all about getting Heavy Lift, I would not have an objection to NASA concentrating on Jupiter or Ares-V and switching the CLV program over to an EELV.

Isn't there a risk that once an EELV CEV flies to ISS a future Congress will decide NOT to build any heavy lift? And once that infrastructure is dismantled, it will be difficult for an even later Congress to re-constitute that infrastructure.

Pad 39 for example. If we fly CEV on EELV and Pad 39 and the VAB and the crawlers decay, EELV only becomes a very real possibility.

I recall one of your objections to Ares 1 being the danger that Ares 1 could be all we might ever get. Would you be content with an EELV only program?

A very valid point, and one I've thought long and hard about.

The simple fact is that, compared to Ares-I, either EELV is dirt cheap to get operating as a manned launcher.   I've heard numbers from inside LM (before ULA) that just $1bn, spread over a three year period would do the job for Atlas-V, and similar for Delta-IV.

If you did that, you could *afford* to spend the bulk of Ares-I's development money making something like DIRECT's Jupiter *at the same time*.   Unlike Ares, where the Lunar booster must wait until after the CLV, this solution would allow both CLV and Lunar booster to be developed in parallel.

At that point, you get a manned Orion flight around the time of the Shuttle's retirement, and you get three years of development for the Jupiter-120 done before STS retires too.

From there, you have the EELV launcher doing the 20mT CEV-only flights, and you *also* retain the 100,000+ STS workers around the country, now gainfully employed by the Jupiter Program which is - by then - half way to achieving Lunar missions.

That approach provides the US the ability to launch a CEV on any of: 12mT, 20mT, 45mT and 100mT launchers, and satisfies the two goals Congress has already approved: Humans into orbit again by 2014, and manned Lunar mission by 2018.   It removes the delays which would add significant political risks.

I can't really see it as anything other than a win-win.   The only disappointment I can see is that Horowitz's Stick launcher doesn't get built.

And all of that can happen for about same cost as developing just the Ares-I & the EDS.   It would save the entire cost for developing Ares-V (which has always been a separate cost to the EDS BTW).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 06/13/2007 04:52 am
I'm beginning to think that developing a manned Atlas or Delta alongside Jupiter isn't as good an idea as I used to think it was.  While I'd hope that a manned EELV would be ready to launch before Jupiter 120, it would create a temptation among members of Congress to cancel Jupiter and keep us stuck in LEO.

Conversely, if Congress is committed to preserving the shuttle infrastructure and jobs (and votes,) does it really make sense to fund the man-rating of the EELV's in addition to a shuttle-derived launcher?  I don't think the marginal costs of maintaining a manned EELV alongside Jupiter are that substantial (the basic EELV's will be sustained in any event by DoD and NASA, and man-rating will likely be funded by Bigelow or other private firms,) these costs are still non-zero.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 06/13/2007 05:35 am
Quote
kraisee - 12/6/2007  3:06 PM

From there, you have the EELV launcher doing the 20mT CEV-only flights, and you *also* retain the 100,000+ STS workers around the country, now gainfully employed by the Jupiter Program which is - by then - half way to achieving Lunar missions.

Ross.

Where'd you get that number? According to the CAIB report, the total shuttle workforce - NASA *and* contractors combined - was around 17,000 in 2002. And I doubt it's grown by a factor of six since then.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 06/13/2007 06:15 am

Quote
CFE - 12/6/2007  11:52 PM  ... While I'd hope that a manned EELV would be ready to launch before Jupiter 120, it would create a temptation among members of Congress to cancel Jupiter and keep us stuck in LEO.  ...
Exactly the danger.

Quote
Conversely, if Congress is committed to preserving the shuttle infrastructure and jobs (and votes,) does it really make sense to fund the man-rating of the EELV's in addition to a shuttle-derived launcher?  I don't think the marginal costs of maintaining a manned EELV alongside Jupiter are that substantial (the basic EELV's will be sustained in any event by DoD and NASA, and man-rating will likely be funded by Bigelow or other private firms,) these costs are still non-zero.
There would be a tendency to play them off against one and another. It would depend on how quickly a lunar or Mars program would develop around the Jupiter or Ares V or whatever.

If the EELV CLV got typecast as primarily the "ISS visit vehicle", much in the same way Soyuz is, this might not be a problem, because clearly the EELV doesn't look like a Saturn V.

The key observation was the avoidance of cargo to the ISS with EELV. Apparently this is the hot button issue, because it can be done too easily (assume ATV on EELV). So if you're in the ISS "Progress" business, then Congress will ask, why can't you be in the "Soyuz" side as well?

The real issue then becomes collateral to insure that there is a legit successor to the Shuttle, and that's not believable as a EELV. At a minimum, a lunar flyby would do it.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/13/2007 12:52 pm
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 13/6/2007  1:15 AM

Quote
CFE - 12/6/2007  11:52 PM  ... While I'd hope that a manned EELV would be ready to launch before Jupiter 120, it would create a temptation among members of Congress to cancel Jupiter and keep us stuck in LEO.  ...
Exactly the danger.

Quote
Conversely, if Congress is committed to preserving the shuttle infrastructure and jobs (and votes,) does it really make sense to fund the man-rating of the EELV's in addition to a shuttle-derived launcher?  I don't think the marginal costs of maintaining a manned EELV alongside Jupiter are that substantial (the basic EELV's will be sustained in any event by DoD and NASA, and man-rating will likely be funded by Bigelow or other private firms,) these costs are still non-zero.
There would be a tendency to play them off against one and another. It would depend on how quickly a lunar or Mars program would develop around the Jupiter or Ares V or whatever.

If the EELV CLV got typecast as primarily the "ISS visit vehicle", much in the same way Soyuz is, this might not be a problem, because clearly the EELV doesn't look like a Saturn V.


Using EELV as an alternate ISS crew taxi is a good idea (in my opinion) but if that vehicle is to be competitive/comparable with Soyuz, it will need to be smaller than a full sized CEV. Let LM man-rate Atlas V using enhanced COTS funding and Bigelow as their source of demand and funding  (Boeing too if they can accept those price points for their Delta line) but put the CEV on Jupiter.

But keeping CEV "too big" for routine ISS work would also help keep Jupiter as a Moon-Mars focused launch system and avoid the temptation to use more capable Moon-Mars systems for the less demanding LEO missions.

No need to drive the Cadillac to the corner grocery.

Jupiter 120 also has the lifting power to add functions/ mass to CEV. If CEV is required to be EELV launchable, that capability becomes less available.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/13/2007 06:14 pm
To muddy up the ISS taxi discussion a bit, I'll point out that there is an actual, committed, funded program to use the Falcon 9/Dragon as an ISS taxi.  I agree that it's quite speculative at this point whether they'll make it work, but the vehicles are actually in development, and launches have been manifested.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: NotGncDude on 06/13/2007 06:47 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 13/6/2007  2:14 PM

To muddy up the ISS taxi discussion a bit, I'll point out that there is an actual, committed, funded program to use the Falcon 9/Dragon as an ISS taxi.  I agree that it's quite speculative at this point whether they'll make it work, but the vehicles are actually in development, and launches have been manifested.

(...grumble...) And RPK's K1...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 06/15/2007 05:52 am

Quote
Bill White - 13/6/2007  7:52 AM But keeping CEV "too big" for routine ISS work would also help keep Jupiter as a Moon-Mars focused launch system and avoid the temptation to use more capable Moon-Mars systems for the less demanding LEO missions.  

Yes and no. There are advantages still in EELV for CLV with Orion.

However, suggest than Jupiter's lobbing first LSAM then CEV at the moon for LOR is way out of the reach of EELV, even scaled, and that avoids the temptation you so aptly describe.

And yes I know HQ doesn't like this. Nor do they like anything EELV as well.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/16/2007 12:22 am
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 15/6/2007  12:52 AM

Quote
Bill White - 13/6/2007  7:52 AM But keeping CEV "too big" for routine ISS work would also help keep Jupiter as a Moon-Mars focused launch system and avoid the temptation to use more capable Moon-Mars systems for the less demanding LEO missions.  

Yes and no. There are advantages still in EELV for CLV with Orion.

However, suggest than Jupiter's lobbing first LSAM then CEV at the moon for LOR is way out of the reach of EELV, even scaled, and that avoids the temptation you so aptly describe.

And yes I know HQ doesn't like this. Nor do they like anything EELV as well.


I agree that EELV together with an HLV works, and perhaps works better.

But for the politics.

I fear the risk of a future Administration deciding to go EELV-only to "save" money especially as it sure looked like the pre-Griffin VSE fully intended to scrap all the STS infrastructure.

Spirals begat ESAS (as a reaction) and hopefully ESAS can beget Jupiter and if George W. Bush had called for a Ju[piter program in January 2004, it would almost be flying today.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 06/16/2007 06:04 am
The big question is whether Congress is willing to totally shut down the shuttle facilities and send thousands of "disgruntled nerds" into the streets without jobs.  Politically, I think they would never do it, but I could always be wrong.  As long as Congress wants to keep the shuttle's standing army on the payrolls, there will always be some kind of vehicle flying from LC-39.

While some have suggested using LC-39 and the shuttle facilities for EELV's, this is really a non-starter.  EELV's already have facilities built, and they've been designed to minimize the size of the standing army.  From a congressional perspective, a manned launcher should be designed to maximize the standing army, rather than minimize it.

My thought on the KSC standing army is that we can afford to downsize it to a reasonable degree, primarily through regularly-scheduled retirements.  DIRECT does just this, by dispensing of orbiter-specific positions and retaining everybody else.  The standing army would probably grow as the upper stage begins flight testing, but these jobs could be filled by transitioning people off the orbiters wherever its practical.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/16/2007 11:21 am
Isn't it the case that for ISS duty much less fuel needs to be taken into orbit, removing nearly half the mass needed for a lunar version, so an Atlas V 402 would be the obvious choice to lift a Block 1 Orion with a mass of no more than 12.5 mt? It makes more sense to use a Block 1 Orion than to develop a completely different crew vehicle.

It would then be for the next Administration to decide whether they wanted to stick with the VSE. If they did, there are strong arguments that the only practical way to do it is with rockets big enough to do a lunar mission in one or two launches. They would have a choice between three possibilities:

1. A one-launch solution with an even heavier stretched version of Ares V, capable of lifting 150 mt, as suggested in the MIT report.

2. A two-launch shuttle-derived solution, along the lines of Jupiter.

3. A two-launch Atlas-derived solution, like either ESAS's Atlas Phase X (8m core) or Atlas Phase 3a (5.4m core).

Atlas Phase X would use shuttle ET-derived tanking and be able to re-use quite a lot of shuttle infrastructure. It might be an attractive option because it would share engines with the obvious ISS launcher (so only one lot of man-rating) and retain jobs in Florida and Louisiana. It would eliminate jobs in Utah, but why should a Democratic administration care about that? The loss of SRBs would also give significant environmental benefits. The first-stage engines are Russian, but they can be produced in the US instead. ESAS claims that it would be more expensive and less safe than a more shuttle-derived option, but can we believe any such estimates in ESAS? A new Administration certainly won't. What are the real pros and cons of Jupiter v. Atlas Phase X?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/16/2007 12:54 pm
Isn't it the case that for ISS duty much less fuel needs to be taken into orbit, removing nearly half the mass needed for a lunar version, so an Atlas V 402 would be the obvious choice to lift a Block 1 Orion with a mass of no more than 12.5 mt? It makes more sense to use a Block 1 Orion than to develop a completely different crew vehicle.

It would then be for the next Administration to decide whether they wanted to stick with the VSE.


If a functioning Jupiter were sitting on the launch pad come January 2009, the next Administration would have had a much harder time "choosing" to stay in LEO and not go to the Moon. This was the precise political calculation behind ESAS (IMHO) but unfortunately the Stick may not work out as promised.

Had we gone with Jupiter-esque vehicle back in 2004/2005, perhaps a payload of sand or water could have been test shot into the Indian Ocean to prove the thing worked before POTUS #44 was elected and then heavy lift would have been a fait accompli.

But now, if POTUS #44 is sworn in and notices that NASA has an operational Atlas V 402 crew taxi ready and able for ISS duty, maybe he (or she) simply says: "The Moon can wait"

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/16/2007 02:00 pm
Quote
Bill White - 16/6/2007  1:54 PM
But now, if POTUS #44 is sworn in and notices that NASA has an operational Atlas V 402 crew taxi ready and able for ISS duty, maybe he (or she) simply says: "The Moon can wait"

I wasn't suggesting that NASA should or would switch now to an Atlas V for ISS, but that the next administration will. I think it's unlikely that the next administration will continue with VSE. The fatal weakness was always that Bush announced a plan to go to the Moon ($100 billion) and Mars (at least $200 billion), but was prepared to spend only a few billion dollars on it himself. That is being spent on a vehicle that can't go beyond LEO. Why should his successors feel bound to spend so much when he did almost nothing to help them meet the objective?

It seems obvious now that to meet NASA's institutional objectives in terms of a vehicle it owns and which retains employees, Griffin should have gone for a Jupiter-esque vehicle in 2005 instead of the CLV. He could still switch to Jupiter, but it would probably be too late. There's only 19 months left before the next Administration.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/16/2007 02:08 pm
Quote
anonymous - 16/6/2007  7:21 AM

Isn't it the case that for ISS duty much less fuel needs to be taken into orbit, removing nearly half the mass needed for a lunar version
For an Ares-I launch, it is impossible to simply off-load the excess propellant, because then the upper stage, being too light, would cause Orion to exceed the safe g-load for a crew. Ares-I needs the extra weight to hold back the upper stage to keep it from harming the crew, which it most certainly would. That means that Orion is going to take more than twice the needed propellant to orbit than is needed, and then discard it by letting it burn up when the SM deorbits.

Ares-I for crew - Bad Idea.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/16/2007 02:23 pm
Quote
clongton - 16/6/2007  9:08 AM

For an Ares-I launch, it is impossible to simply off-load the excess propellant, because then the upper stage, being too light, would cause Orion to exceed the safe g-load for a crew. Ares-I needs the extra weight to hold back the upper stage to keep it from harming the crew, which it most certainly would. That means that Orion is going to take more than twice the needed propellant to orbit than is needed, and then discard it by letting it burn up when the SM deorbits.

Ares-I for crew - Bad Idea.

Bosh. Any extra propellant can be used for ISS reboost, allowing Progress and ATV to carry more other payload.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/16/2007 02:41 pm
Quote
clongton - 16/6/2007  3:08 PM
For an Ares-I launch, it is impossible to simply off-load the excess propellant, because then the upper stage, being too light, would cause Orion to exceed the safe g-load for a crew. Ares-I needs the extra weight to hold back the upper stage to keep it from harming the crew, which it most certainly would. That means that Orion is going to take more than twice the needed propellant to orbit than is needed, and then discard it by letting it burn up when the SM deorbits.

Ares-I for crew - Bad Idea.

I wasn't writing about Ares I, but about Atlas V. Incidentally, doesn't a similar argument to the one you've made about Ares I apply with Jupiter-120 to the ISS?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/16/2007 05:46 pm
Quote
anonymous - 16/6/2007  10:41 AM
Incidentally, doesn't a similar argument to the one you've made about Ares I apply with Jupiter-120 to the ISS?
No
Fuel can be offloaded from the Jupiter when the mission requires it, and Jupiters engines can be throttled all the way from the pad to orbit, once sufficient forward motion is established.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/16/2007 08:12 pm
Quote
Will - 16/6/2007  10:23 AM
Any extra propellant can be used for ISS reboost, allowing Progress and ATV to carry more other payload
A Jupiter-launched Orion could certainly carry a little extra propellant to do an ISS reboost, but that is not very much fuel at all. The Ares-boosted ISS Orion has to carry the entire lunar fuel load  because it's the only way to hold the upper stage back from squashing the crew. All that fuel will be burned up on SM re-entry. Wasted. Pure and simple.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/16/2007 08:18 pm
Quote
anonymous - 16/6/2007  10:41 AM

I wasn't writing about Ares I, but about Atlas V
I know. But your contention was the creation of a Block-1 and Block-2 spacecraft, one for ISS and another for Lunar missions. Essentially, that requires different service modules, with the CM being essentialy the same. Under NASA's current budget arrangement, that isn't possible, although I agree that it definately makes more sense.

The AIAA 2007 paper will elaborate more in depth on Block-1 and Block-2 spacecraft.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/16/2007 10:17 pm
Quote
clongton - 16/6/2007  3:12 PM

Quote
Will - 16/6/2007  10:23 AM
Any extra propellant can be used for ISS reboost, allowing Progress and ATV to carry more other payload
A Jupiter-launched Orion could certainly carry a little extra propellant to do an ISS reboost, but that is not very much fuel at all. The Ares-boosted ISS Orion has to carry the entire lunar fuel load  because it's the only way to hold the upper stage back from squashing the crew. All that fuel will be burned up on SM re-entry. Wasted. Pure and simple.


Squashing the crew with the mind-numbing force of, what, 4.3 g's? Just like all those poor dead Mercury and Gemini astronauts. Oh, the humanity.

Even if it did need to carry full fuel load, ISS needs, I think, about nine tons a year, so with two rotation flights a year you're not wasting that much. Also carrying extra fuel would significantly improve ATO options.


Will
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Oberon_Command on 06/16/2007 11:00 pm
Would it be possible for the CEV-SM to vent propellant it doesn't need after launch into some sort of special storage tank on orbit in case another mission needs to refuel on-orbit for some reason?

I mean, suppose that an ATO does occur, and the SM just barely had enough fuel to make the station, and not enough fuel to do deorbit afterwards, wouldn't such a thing potentially save the mission? And with a refuelling "depot" on orbit available, could perhaps even the range of the CEV be extended?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/17/2007 12:49 am
Quote
Will - 16/6/2007  5:17 PM

snip

Squashing the crew with the mind-numbing force of, what, 4.3 g's? Just like all those poor dead Mercury and Gemini astronauts. Oh, the humanity.

snip

Will

I was wondering what the G level for a partially filled SM would be.  I can't image a J2 engine with that big upperstage would hurt the crew.  In OSP, someone (at KSC I think) got the word out the ascent Gs had to be limited to 3.0 Gs.  It took me months to get the word out a trained crew member can take 20 Gs.  

Danny Deger
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/17/2007 01:31 am
Quote
Oberon_Command - 16/6/2007  6:00 PM

Would it be possible for the CEV-SM to vent propellant it doesn't need after launch into some sort of special storage tank on orbit in case another mission needs to refuel on-orbit for some reason?

I mean, suppose that an ATO does occur, and the SM just barely had enough fuel to make the station, and not enough fuel to do deorbit afterwards, wouldn't such a thing potentially save the mission? And with a refuelling "depot" on orbit available, could perhaps even the range of the CEV be extended?


It's certainly possible. Progress routinely transfers storable propellant to ISS. On the other hand, it does introduce some complexity and risk (since the storable propellants are quite toxic) to deal with a fairly unlikely eventuality.

If you really are worried about wasted payload on CEV trips to ISS, you could replace unneeded fuel tanks with water tanks. Water is always needed and relatively easy to transfer.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/17/2007 01:40 am
Quote
Danny Dot - 16/6/2007  8:49 PM

Quote
Will - 16/6/2007  5:17 PM

snip

Squashing the crew with the mind-numbing force of, what, 4.3 g's? Just like all those poor dead Mercury and Gemini astronauts. Oh, the humanity.

snip

Will

I was wondering what the G level for a partially filled SM would be.  I can't image a J2 engine with that big upperstage would hurt the crew.  In OSP, someone (at KSC I think) got the word out the ascent Gs had to be limited to 3.0 Gs.  It took me months to get the word out a trained crew member can take 20 Gs.
My comments about excessive G loads aren't intended to imply that they would kill the crew. That's a really - really stupid interpretation. NASA Safety office has limited the G load to 4.0 G's and anything in excess of that is considered excessive. Yes, a TRAINED crew member can take 20 G's, but not for very long. Only seconds, in fact. 4 G's is the threshold NASA has set where a sustained force is acceptable. Argue all you want to about whether it's 4.3 G's or how many angels will fit on the head of a pin. I don't care. Go have a ball. My comments are in relation to the official safety limit and not intended to imply, as some seem to think, that I'm talking about stepping on a bug. NASA has set 4.0 as the limit. If you want the crew to take more than that, go argue with them. I've pulled 4 g's. In fact I've pulled more than 6. It's not fun, trust me. I can't imagine enduring more than 4 for an extended period. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Before anyone goes off spouting how many G's the crew should be able to take, go pull out of a high speed dive in a fighter jet yourself and see what it feels like. Then you can come and talk to me about it. I'm serious about that. Go get some centrifuge time and then you're qualified to talk about it.

To the point: Ares-I cannot offload fuel to reduce the weight because doing that increases the G load beyond the acceptable level. 4.0 G's is acceptable. 4.3 is not, and certainly not 20. Thus saith NASA, for their own reasons. Go argue the point with them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/17/2007 02:31 am
Quote
clongton - 16/6/2007  8:40 PM

Quote
Danny Dot - 16/6/2007  8:49 PM

Quote
Will - 16/6/2007  5:17 PM

snip

Squashing the crew with the mind-numbing force of, what, 4.3 g's? Just like all those poor dead Mercury and Gemini astronauts. Oh, the humanity.

snip

Will

I was wondering what the G level for a partially filled SM would be.  I can't image a J2 engine with that big upperstage would hurt the crew.  In OSP, someone (at KSC I think) got the word out the ascent Gs had to be limited to 3.0 Gs.  It took me months to get the word out a trained crew member can take 20 Gs.
My comments about excessive G loads aren't intended to imply that they would kill the crew. That's a really - really stupid interpretation. NASA Safety office has limited the G load to 4.0 G's and anything in excess of that is considered excessive. Yes, a TRAINED crew member can take 20 G's, but not for very long. Only seconds, in fact. 4 G's is the threshold NASA has set where a sustained force is acceptable. Argue all you want to about whether it's 4.3 G's or how many angels will fit on the head of a pin. I don't care. Go have a ball. My comments are in relation to the official safety limit and not intended to imply, as some seem to think, that I'm talking about stepping on a bug. NASA has set 4.0 as the limit. If you want the crew to take more than that, go argue with them. I've pulled 4 g's. In fact I've pulled more than 6. It's not fun, trust me. I can't imagine enduring more than 4 for an extended period. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Before anyone goes off spouting how many G's the crew should be able to take, go pull out of a high speed dive in a fighter jet yourself and see what it feels like. Then you can come and talk to me about it. I'm serious about that. Go get some centrifuge time and then you're qualified to talk about it.

To the point: Ares-I cannot offload fuel to reduce the weight because doing that increases the G load beyond the acceptable level. 4.0 G's is acceptable. 4.3 is not, and certainly not 20. Thus saith NASA, for their own reasons. Go argue the point with them.

I believe you that someone at NASA has told you to limit ascent Gs to 4.0.  I fought this battle constantly while working OSP and CEV for NASA.  It sounds like the "G wimps" at NASA are telling unofficial limits to the contractors -- again!! The Life Science Section at JSC worked long and hard on updating NASA 3000, which contains the official G limits.  The 20 G limit was put in for aborts, but I am really sure nominal ascent limits were higher than 4.0.  Call Smith Johnston, 281-483-0453 at JSC, or get an official copy of the latest version of NASA 3000.  If he or it say 4.0 Gs on ascent, then that is the answer -- unless you have something in writing from a NASA official that overrides NASA 3000.  In OSP, the "official" 3.0 G limit was never in writing.

On having the right to talk about Gs only if I have pulled out of a dive in a fighter aircraft -- I have.  I used to fly the F-4.  I could pull 6.5 Gs eyeballs down all day long.  4.3 eyeballs in is MUCH easier and by the nature of ascent thrust, it is not held for long.

Here's a link to the old NASA 3000.  http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section05.htm#_5.3_ACCELERATION

It clearly shows the crew can go over 4.0 Gs, but you need to get a copy of the latest.

I hope this helps.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/17/2007 03:01 am
Quote
clongton - 16/6/2007  8:40 PM


To the point: Ares-I cannot offload fuel to reduce the weight because doing that increases the G load beyond the acceptable level. 4.0 G's is acceptable. 4.3 is not, and certainly not 20. Thus saith NASA, for their own reasons. Go argue the point with them.


Leaving aside the point that maximum G force will only occur for a brief period before MECO...

If 4 g's are acceptable, then a 133 mT thrust J-2 derivative  with a 15.4 mT dry weight upper stage can launch a CEV with a minimum mass of 18 mT at MECO. That's a substantial offload from the lunar version, particularly if the CEV is expected to make a significant suborbital burn.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: DMeader on 06/17/2007 03:26 am
Quote
clongton - 16/6/2007  9:40 PM
....go pull out of a high speed dive in a fighter jet yourself and see what it feels like. Then you can come and talk to me about it. I'm serious about that. Go get some centrifuge time and then you're qualified to talk about it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but "pull out of a high speed dive in a fighter jet" is eyeballs-down (pardon for not using the correct axis designations, it's late, I'm tired....) is it not? Drains blood out of the brain, etc.  Acceleration in a spacecraft is eyeballs-in. While no doubt unpleasant is that not more tolerable?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/17/2007 10:03 am
Little did I realise one innocent comment about Atlas V was going to lead to this furious argument about Ares I...

The question which I posed about the pros and cons of Atlas Phase X seems to have got lost here. If the next Administration cancels Ares I (which now seems very likely) and use Atlas V for ISS missions (which is the obvious choice), but continues with VSE (which seems unlikely, but you never know), would that make Atlas Phase X a more logical choice for a heavy lifter than Jupiter?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 06/17/2007 10:26 am
They wont get rid of the Shuttle infrastructure and all those jobs that easily. It's conceivable they might replace Ares 1 with Atlas V: Phase 2 as the crew launch vehicle. But the Cargo launcher might keep a  Jupiter-like 8.4m corestage as it is, powered by RS-68 engines, along with the standard, 4-Segment SRBs. Then, when Orion/ISS missions are eventually phased out they could upgrade the Cargo launcher by retiring the SRBs and replacing them with strap-ons derived from the Atlas V: Phase 2. Tightening environmental legislation might eventually force them to go with the hydrocarbon boosters anyway.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/17/2007 12:43 pm
Quote
Danny Dot - 16/6/2007  10:31 PM

I used to fly the F-4.
F-100 Super Saber - Vietnam
Thanks for the link
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/17/2007 02:54 pm
Quote
anonymous - 17/6/2007  5:03 AM

Little did I realise one innocent comment about Atlas V was going to lead to this furious argument about Ares I...

The question which I posed about the pros and cons of Atlas Phase X seems to have got lost here. If the next Administration cancels Ares I (which now seems very likely) and use Atlas V for ISS missions (which is the obvious choice), but continues with VSE (which seems unlikely, but you never know), would that make Atlas Phase X a more logical choice for a heavy lifter than Jupiter?

THE ESAS report indicates that NASA thinks the Atlas Phase X will cost more to develop, require more infrastructure changes and be less reliable than Ares or something like Jupiter. So no.

Nor is Atlas V the obvious choice for the CEV. A CEV that simply offloads propellant is probably a trifle heavy for the Atlas V 402, and requires a bigger hammerhead than that configuration has flown with. Americanizing the engines will be a challenge: the Russians have a lot of motivation to exact a high price for their cooperation.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/17/2007 03:48 pm
I really don’t see the appeal of the split mission direct to lunar orbit. If we assume as NASA does that a J-2 propelled stack in LEO can send 49% of its pre-TLI mass to TLI, and the current Direct assumptions (ultralight 23 mT EDS, 108 mT payload to LEO in addition to empty EDS, 4 mT payload adapter) then a Jupiter 232 can send a 39 mT LSAM to TLI, and a second launch can send a similar mass of CEV+ extra propellant and tanks to TLI, for a total of 78 mT.

Suppose instead that the first 232 puts the LSAM and a partially fueled EDS in LEO, and the second puts up the CEV and a full LOX tank. They dock, and LOX is transferred to the EDS from the first launch. Even if we assume that boiloff, tanks, rendezvous and ullage propellant, transfer losses and pump fuel consume 18 mT of payload, this mission can send 80 mT of CEV and LSAM to TLI. There is no need to expend precious mass in Lunar orbit on an initial rendezvous or propellant transfer or tanks to carry extra propellant with the CEV. The crew has the space and redundancy of the LSAM on their way to the moon. This mode seems clearly superior, and if the EDS turns out heavier, the superiority is even greater.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/17/2007 04:28 pm
Quote
MATTBLAK - 17/6/2007  11:26 AM

They wont get rid of the Shuttle infrastructure and all those jobs that easily. It's conceivable they might replace Ares 1 with Atlas V: Phase 2 as the crew launch vehicle.

Surely Atlas V Phase 2 is vulnerable like Ares I to the criticism that you're developing a new LV when an existing EELV can do the job.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/17/2007 04:45 pm
Quote
Will - 17/6/2007  3:54 PM

THE ESAS report indicates that NASA thinks the Atlas Phase X will cost more to develop, require more infrastructure changes and be less reliable than Ares or something like Jupiter. So no.

But the ESAS report is full of conclusions based on assumptions that turn out to be incorrect: the EELVs need new upper stages to launch the CEV, an SSME can be air-started easily, the SSME is an economical lower-stage engine so there's no need to do trades against the RS-68, etc.

Quote
Nor is Atlas V the obvious choice for the CEV. A CEV that simply offloads propellant is probably a trifle heavy for the Atlas V 402, and requires a bigger hammerhead than that configuration has flown with.

I wasn't talking about just offloading propellant, but about a simpler Block 1 SM for LEO.

The Atlas V 502 flies with a 5m fairing, so that shouldn't be an insuperable problem

Quote
Americanizing the engines will be a challenge: the Russians have a lot of motivation to exact a high price for their cooperation.

My understanding was that the Russians just have to be paid several hundred million dollars. I know that was a few years ago and with relations between Russia and the US getting worse, that might not be possible. If so, it would be too much of a political risk to rely on Russia continuing to  sell the engines. The only option left would be to use a Delta IV and the only one with enough oomph is the Delta IV Heavy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/17/2007 05:17 pm
Quote
anonymous - 17/6/2007  11:45 AM


The Atlas V 502 flies with a 5m fairing, so that shouldn't be an insuperable problem

Quote
Americanizing the engines will be a challenge: the Russians have a lot of motivation to exact a high price for their cooperation.

My understanding was that the Russians just have to be paid several hundred million dollars. I know that was a few years ago and with relations between Russia and the US getting worse, that might not be possible. If so, it would be too much of a political risk to rely on Russia continuing to  sell the engines. The only option left would be to use a Delta IV and the only one with enough oomph is the Delta IV Heavy.

Note that the 5m fairing starts at the top of the first stage, so it's considerably more massive and the 502 takes a payload hit as a result.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Kaputnik on 06/17/2007 05:27 pm
Quote
Will - 17/6/2007  4:48 PM

I really don’t see the appeal of the split mission direct to lunar orbit. If we assume as NASA does that a J-2 propelled stack in LEO can send 49% of its pre-TLI mass to TLI, and the current Direct assumptions (ultralight 23 mT EDS, 108 mT payload to LEO in addition to empty EDS, 4 mT payload adapter) then a Jupiter 232 can send a 39 mT LSAM to TLI, and a second launch can send a similar mass of CEV+ extra propellant and tanks to TLI, for a total of 78 mT.

Suppose instead that the first 232 puts the LSAM and a partially fueled EDS in LEO, and the second puts up the CEV and a full LOX tank. They dock, and LOX is transferred to the EDS from the first launch. Even if we assume that boiloff, tanks, rendezvous and ullage propellant, transfer losses and pump fuel consume 18 mT of payload, this mission can send 80 mT of CEV and LSAM to TLI. There is no need to expend precious mass in Lunar orbit on an initial rendezvous or propellant transfer or tanks to carry extra propellant with the CEV. The crew has the space and redundancy of the LSAM on their way to the moon. This mode seems clearly superior, and if the EDS turns out heavier, the superiority is even greater.

Will

If the LSAM/EDS is designed to reach the moon on its own, it maximises the payload of the unmanned landers needed to support a permanent base. Looking further still into the future, an ISRU-fuelled reusable lander could only be feasible if the CEV can place itself into LLO.

Secondly, the CEV has to be designed with enough systems redundancy without recourse to an LSAM lifeboat, otherwise the trip home becomes too dangerous. Of course, there is no harm in having the LSAM there as a further level of backup.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/17/2007 07:42 pm
Quote
Will - 17/6/2007  11:48 AM

Suppose instead that the first 232 puts the LSAM and a partially fueled EDS in LEO, and the second puts up the CEV and a full LOX tank. They dock, and LOX is transferred to the EDS from the first launch. Even if we assume that boiloff, tanks, rendezvous and ullage propellant, transfer losses and pump fuel consume 18 mT of payload, this mission can send 80 mT of CEV and LSAM to TLI. There is no need to expend precious mass in Lunar orbit on an initial rendezvous or propellant transfer or tanks to carry extra propellant with the CEV. The crew has the space and redundancy of the LSAM on their way to the moon. This mode seems clearly superior, and if the EDS turns out heavier, the superiority is even greater.

Will

That is basically the approach of the initial DIRECT EOR-LOR profiles - but due to the docking hatch load issues, this may ultimately require a single-engined EDS for TLI which would lower ultimate performance a bit.

In such a scenario, a J-120 used for the CLV flight can lift about 20mT of additional propellant (for the EDS or LSAM).    And a J-232 CLV flight could lift a payload mass of about 80mT worth of additional propellant (probably for EDS alone).

This approach certainly works, and is one of the variety of options which we are likely to put in the AIAA paper later in the year.

The very best performance (in terms of mass placed into Lunar orbit) still comes from the 2x J-232 LOR-LOR mission profile.   It allows for more than 100mT of net CEV & LSAM mass to TLI (compared to Ares-I/V @ 63.4mT to TLI).

Also, having the 2x J-232 LOR approach also starts with the correct architecture for any future variants of reusable LSAM.

The trades we are conducting clearly have 2x J-232 in the lead in almost every situation, but having an EOR profile available in the early years may be more palletable to NASA management.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/17/2007 07:54 pm
Quote
anonymous - 17/6/2007  6:03 AM

Little did I realise one innocent comment about Atlas V was going to lead to this furious argument about Ares I...

Just one of the regular effects of asking a question which has strong proponents on both sides of the fence.   It's okay though, because only by asking such questions can we all truly get to the bottom of these very complex issues.   Keep asking your questions - always.


Quote
The question which I posed about the pros and cons of Atlas Phase X seems to have got lost here. If the next Administration cancels Ares I (which now seems very likely) and use Atlas V for ISS missions (which is the obvious choice), but continues with VSE (which seems unlikely, but you never know), would that make Atlas Phase X a more logical choice for a heavy lifter than Jupiter?

That depends on Congress' reasons for cancelling Ares.   What it boils down to is one of these two options:-

1) If they wish to continue retaining Shuttle workforce, then EELV solutions will be locked out and Jupiter gets a great chance.

2) If the overriding plan is to cut NASA's budget down in order to fund other government activities, and they are willing to accept large workforce losses, then the EELV's have a damn good shot.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/17/2007 08:19 pm
Quote
kraisee - 17/6/2007  2:42 PM

The very best performance (in terms of mass placed into Lunar orbit) still comes from the 2x J-232 LOR-LOR mission profile.   It allows for more than 100mT of net CEV & LSAM mass to TLI (compared to Ares-I/V @ 63.4mT to TLI).


Ross.

How? Your  stated performance for the 232 is 108 mT to LEO. If each booster has 50 mT of net payload to TLI, that allows the EDS to carry 58 mT of propellant for the TLI burn. The gross mass sent to TLI is 50 mT of payload plus 23 mT of EDS plus 4 mT of adapter. With a pmf of .43, that seems well short of enough for TLI.

Will

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/18/2007 06:51 am
Nope, that's with a 3,175m/s dV budget, which is quite sufficient for the task (plus plane change budget etc).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/18/2007 11:21 am
Quote
kraisee - 17/6/2007  8:54 PM

That depends on Congress' reasons for cancelling Ares.   What it boils down to is one of these two options:-

1) If they wish to continue retaining Shuttle workforce, then EELV solutions will be locked out and Jupiter gets a great chance.

2) If the overriding plan is to cut NASA's budget down in order to fund other government activities, and they are willing to accept large workforce losses, then the EELV's have a damn good shot.

That's an admirably honest answer!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/18/2007 01:56 pm
Quote
anonymous - 18/6/2007  6:21 AM

Quote
kraisee - 17/6/2007  8:54 PM

That depends on Congress' reasons for cancelling Ares.   What it boils down to is one of these two options:-

1) If they wish to continue retaining Shuttle workforce, then EELV solutions will be locked out and Jupiter gets a great chance.

2) If the overriding plan is to cut NASA's budget down in order to fund other government activities, and they are willing to accept large workforce losses, then the EELV's have a damn good shot.

That's an admirably honest answer!

I find this answer to be blindingly obvious and submit that it needs to be the starting point for continuing analysis. If the 2nd prong of the fork comes true and we end up with an all EELV VSE then the challenge will be persuading NASA to actually go to the Moon rather than spending the "Moon money" on one or another mission to planet Earth. Or maybe on national health care or something like that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/18/2007 02:20 pm
Quote
Bill White - 18/6/2007  9:56 AM
I find this answer to be blindingly obvious and submit that it needs to be the starting point for continuing analysis. If the 2nd prong of the fork comes true and we end up with an all EELV VSE then the challenge will be persuading NASA to actually go to the Moon rather than spending the "Moon money" on one or another mission to planet Earth. Or maybe on national health care or something like that.

"persuading NASA" should be "persuading Congress" (and/or the Whitehouse), in my view.  And yes, a second (third) phase of Mission to Planet Earth is a real threat to the VSE.  For those that support strong funding for both global warming research and the VSE, realize that they may be at odds unless new money is allocated.

(the last 12 years and Griffin's approach have shown that NASA's budget is a zero sum, or go as you pay, game)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NASA_budget_linegraph_BH.PNG

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/18/2007 02:44 pm
Quote
kraisee - 18/6/2007  1:51 AM

Nope, that's with a 3,175m/s dV budget, which is quite sufficient for the task (plus plane change budget etc).

Ross.


With TLI propellant only 43% of starting mass, how do you manage to get 3,175 m/s dV?

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/18/2007 02:48 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 18/6/2007  10:20 AM

"persuading NASA" should be "persuading Congress" (and/or the Whitehouse), in my view.
Congress is already persuaded.
Don’t make the classic mistake of combining the VSE with NASA’s plan to implement the VSE, which is a separate matter. The VSE is now the law of the land and states that we are to return to the moon, and make plans to move on to Mars and other destinations in the solar system. Changing that would require a very specific act of congress to undo that by passing a new law that says we are NOT going to go to the moon and do the other things. I think the chances of that actually happening are slim to none. How NASA plans to go about doing that however, and in what timeframe, is a different matter, and is not part of the VSE proper. Congress could tell NASA that it’s not going to fund what they want to do, but that does not remove NASA’s lawful mandate to move in that direction. The president directed NASA to return to the moon and then to go to Mars, and the Congress gave that mandate the weight of law.

Things could change, however, and I fully expect a new administration to put it’s own stamp on the VSE, but I really don’t think the VSE itself will be cancelled. Congress could slow the process with the budget, but it won’t cancel the VSE.

Bush-1’s proposal (SEI) never made it into law. That’s a very big difference.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/18/2007 03:19 pm
Quote
Bill White - 18/6/2007  2:56 PM

Quote
anonymous - 18/6/2007  6:21 AM

Quote
kraisee - 17/6/2007  8:54 PM

That depends on Congress' reasons for cancelling Ares.   What it boils down to is one of these two options:-

1) If they wish to continue retaining Shuttle workforce, then EELV solutions will be locked out and Jupiter gets a great chance.

2) If the overriding plan is to cut NASA's budget down in order to fund other government activities, and they are willing to accept large workforce losses, then the EELV's have a damn good shot.

That's an admirably honest answer!

I find this answer to be blindingly obvious and submit that it needs to be the starting point for continuing analysis. If the 2nd prong of the fork comes true and we end up with an all EELV VSE then the challenge will be persuading NASA to actually go to the Moon rather than spending the "Moon money" on one or another mission to planet Earth. Or maybe on national health care or something like that.

It may be blindingly obvious to you, but Will had replied that Atlas would be more expensive than shuttle-derived.

I think the most likely outcome is that VSE isn't cancelled by the next Administration, but deferred. The original 2018 timetable assumed abandoning the ISS in 2016, which now seems to have been dropped. A new Administration, particularly a Democratic one, will be keen to maintain involvement in the ISS to please Europe and Japan, and to reduce the gap depending on the Russians after shuttle retirement. That's another reason for switching from Ares I to an EELV. They may or may not want to continue with the VSE, but they won't increase NASA's budget when they're struggling with the deficit Bush has left them. That will create a budget crunch. The financial pressure to push back development of the heavy lifter will make it harder to keep shuttle jobs because of the long gap between shuttle retirement and the heavy lifter. Hence the rationale for Jupiter as a cheaper way for NASA to develop a shuttle-derived heavy lifter. But whether that will work is anyone's guess. It will be hard to find the money for flights to the Moon until after involvement in the ISS ends, so there's a choice between pleasing the allies by going to the ISS or pleasing voters in central Florida by developing a heavy lifter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/18/2007 03:37 pm
Quote
clongton - 18/6/2007  10:48 AM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 18/6/2007  10:20 AM

"persuading NASA" should be "persuading Congress" (and/or the Whitehouse), in my view.
Congress is already persuaded.
Don’t make the classic mistake of combining the VSE with NASA’s plan to implement the VSE, which is a separate matter. The VSE is now the law of the land and states that we are to return to the moon, and make plans to move on to Mars and other destinations in the solar system. Changing that would require a very specific act of congress to undo that by passing a new law that says we are NOT going to go to the moon and do the other things. I think the chances of that actually happening are slim to none. How NASA plans to go about doing that however, and in what timeframe, is a different matter, and is not part of the VSE proper. Congress could tell NASA that it’s not going to fund what they want to do, but that does not remove NASA’s lawful mandate to move in that direction. The president directed NASA to return to the moon and then to go to Mars, and the Congress gave that mandate the weight of law.

Things could change, however, and I fully expect a new administration to put it’s own stamp on the VSE, but I really don’t think the VSE itself will be cancelled. Congress could slow the process with the budget, but it won’t cancel the VSE.

Bush-1’s proposal (SEI) never made it into law. That’s a very big difference.

There is a difference between Authorization and Appropriation, and in the end, many things are authorized that are not (properly) appropriated for.  It allows Congress to promise many more things than they ever spend money on.

NASA typically doesn't get re-authorized to do new stuff very often, but the appropriations must come every year.  The appropriations is where the lack of confidence first shows up.

The border fence is a perfect example.  Congress Authorized the fence, but may not appropriated sufficient funds to make it happen.  That way they can be for something, but also be against spending money on it.  Congress might even blame the Whitehouse for not doing what Congress authorized, despite not having consistently appropriated the right kinds of funds for it.  It might even be way for Congess and the WH to slow roll a hot political issue so that it is blunted.  You touch on this in your comment, but appear to underestimate how frequently this is done (particularly to NASA).

Likewise, Congress can be for the VSE, but also slow roll the funding to any tune they like while funding "other" priorities (such as Mission to Planet Earth - Global Warming) until a new broader authorization can be agreed upon.


In the end, it is each new Congress you need to convince to reapprove the dollars.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/18/2007 03:57 pm
Quote
Will - 18/6/2007  8:44 AM

Quote
kraisee - 18/6/2007  1:51 AM

Nope, that's with a 3,175m/s dV budget, which is quite sufficient for the task (plus plane change budget etc).

Ross.


With TLI propellant only 43% of starting mass, how do you manage to get 3,175 m/s dV?

Will

Have I done the math wrong (always a possibility)?  I get 384s ISP from those numbers - perfectly within the capabilities of such a stage with a good bit of margin.

Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/18/2007 05:26 pm
If the CEV as designed is too massive to fit on existing EELVs, Congress can either fund a rocket capable of lunar operations or they can terminate NASA based spaceflight and tell NASA to go back to the drawing board and start work on a smaller CEV.

I believe this is known as "salting the Earth"

My own political assessment is that going to the Moon will not give the Congress-critters enough benefit for the political pain of letting go of the standing army but if the savings from letting go of the standing army can be transferred to non VSE purposes, it will be easier to absorb the political hits in Florida and Texas and Utah and so on. Thus, all EELV means we stay in LEO and NASA gets a reduced budget.

Jupiter allows the standing army to remain AND we get to the Moon.

Merely my opinion, of course and thoughts such as these lead to my other very strongly held opinion is that human spaceflight needs funding that is NOT taxpayer sourced, whether its tourists or media/marketing or whatever.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/18/2007 05:59 pm
Quote
Bill White - 18/6/2007  6:26 PM

If the CEV as designed is too massive to fit on existing EELVs, Congress can either fund a rocket capable of lunar operations or they can terminate NASA based spaceflight and tell NASA to go back to the drawing board and start work on a smaller CEV.

Upgrading the Delta IV Heavy's upper stage for CEV lunar missions would be much cheaper than developing the Ares I. An unmodified Delta IV Heavy could easily fly Orion to the space station if it didn't carry the extra fuel for lunar missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/18/2007 06:14 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 18/6/2007  11:37 AM

There is a difference between Authorization and Appropriation, and in the end, many things are authorized that are not (properly) appropriated for.  It allows Congress to promise many more things than they ever spend money on.

NASA typically doesn't get re-authorized to do new stuff very often, but the appropriations must come every year.  The appropriations are where the lack of confidence first shows up.

The border fence is a perfect example.  Congress Authorized the fence, but may not appropriated sufficient funds to make it happen.  That way they can be for something, but also be against spending money on it.  Congress might even blame the Whitehouse for not doing what Congress authorized, despite not having consistently appropriated the right kinds of funds for it.  It might even be way for Congress and the WH to slow roll a hot political issue so that it is blunted.  You touch on this in your comment, but appear to underestimate how frequently this is done (particularly to NASA).

Likewise, Congress can be for the VSE, but also slow roll the funding to any tune they like while funding "other" priorities (such as Mission to Planet Earth - Global Warming) until a new broader authorization can be agreed upon.

In the end, it is each new Congress you need to convince to re-approve the dollars.
I haven’t underestimated how often this happens, just simplified the statement. I am well aware that it is pretty much SOP in the hallowed halls for any bill which both sides want to keep for the appearance, but want to redirect funding to a different project. It happens far too often, especially to NASA. The fact the WH has hardly mentioned the VSE sense it was first passed as law, doesn’t help either.

My main point was that once the VSE actually became law, that gives NASA the leg it needs to stand on to keep coming back to Congress, again and again, to fund the Lunar and Martian projects.  Without that, it would be just another pie-in-the-sky proposal competing with everything else for funding. Notice that once SEI was rejected, it never went back to Congress again. VSE won’t have that handicap. And I really don’t believe that Congress would repeal it with a new law that says we are NOT going to go there.

If nothing else, IMHO, the fact that the VSE became law tells me that we WILL go back to the moon and on to Mars. Congress is morally obligated to follow thru, in SOME fashion on this, because they passed the law. When, and in what spacecraft however, is another matter.

The danger is that if we go with an EELV CLV, that’s all we are likely to get for an extremely long time. It’s the same with the Ares-I. We are only going to get Congress to actually fund ONE launch vehicle. That’s why, IMO, it is so vital that they fund Jupiter. Not because it’s better than anything else, but because we will only get one rocket, and Jupiter can go to the moon. Ares-I cannot, and the heavy lift variants of the EELV’s, while capable, would need additional funding, which I don’t believe Congress will make available, for all the reasons you mentioned, and more.

We are only going to get one shot at this, and only one rocket. Under those circumstances, Congress will pay for (1) Ares-I and NO Ares-V, (2) EELV CLV and NO ELV Heavy, or (3) Jupiter. Ares-V and EELV-Heavy are in the same boat. They won’t get built. That leaves the Jupiter as the “last man standing”, and our only hope of returning to the moon anytime in this generation.

This isn't based on any technical analysis. It's based on pure political experience. And politics is where the money we need is. Nowhere else.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/18/2007 06:28 pm
I agree with this assessment:

We are only going to get one shot at this, and only one rocket. Under those circumstances, Congress will pay for (1) Ares-I and NO Ares-V, (2) EELV CLV and NO ELV Heavy, or (3) Jupiter. Ares-V and EELV-Heavy are in the same boat. They won’t get built. That leaves the Jupiter as the “last man standing”, and our only hope of returning to the moon anytime in this generation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: savuporo on 06/18/2007 06:54 pm
Quote
We are only going to get one shot at this, and only one rocket.
it looks to me, that NASA was given the shot opportunity, and they picked Ares I. Picking something else would be the second shot, and this wont come. Conclusion: no moon landing, by NASA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 06/18/2007 07:56 pm

Quote
clongton - 18/6/2007  1:14 PM We are only going to get Congress to actually fund ONE launch vehicle. That’s why, IMO, it is so vital that they fund Jupiter. Not because it’s better than anything else, but because we will only get one rocket, and Jupiter can go to the moon. Ares-I cannot, and the heavy lift variants of the EELV’s, while capable, would need additional funding, which I don’t believe Congress will make available, for all the reasons you mentioned, and more.  We are only going to get one shot at this, and only one rocket. Under those circumstances, Congress will pay for (1) Ares-I and NO Ares-V, (2) EELV CLV and NO ELV Heavy, or (3) Jupiter. Ares-V and EELV-Heavy are in the same boat. They won’t get built. That leaves the Jupiter as the “last man standing”, and our only hope of returning to the moon anytime in this generation.  This isn't based on any technical analysis. It's based on pure political experience. And politics is where the money we need is. Nowhere else.

Absolutely. You get one rocket, not two, for giving up Shuttle. Ares 1 isn't worth giving up Shuttle. Nor is Delta IVH. But in getting Jupiter, EELV can fill in gaps. Apparently cargo to ISS via EELV aggravates HQ here.

HQ will fight only for Ares 1. If EELV happens instead, they think, so be it - they've starved the beast.

Congress is stuck on SDLV. Jupiter is SDLV. Sensenbrunner et al won't buy Jupiter because Griffin doesn't endorse it. Other side veers away because they don't see the need to piss him off.

At some point this comes to a head, and people will press til it hurts.  Apparently there's a great tolerance for pain, so there's got to be a whole lotta more pain to be administered for action to occur - otherwise its SOP and Ares 1. Everything else is BS.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/18/2007 09:52 pm
Quote
clongton - 18/6/2007  7:14 PM

We are only going to get one shot at this, and only one rocket. Under those circumstances, Congress will pay for (1) Ares-I and NO Ares-V, (2) EELV CLV and NO ELV Heavy, or (3) Jupiter. Ares-V and EELV-Heavy are in the same boat. They won’t get built. That leaves the Jupiter as the “last man standing”, and our only hope of returning to the moon anytime in this generation.

That's right, but a second window of opportunity may open when the ISS comes to the end of its life. Nobody wants to build a second space station. Returning to the Moon will be the only thing left to do  to keep NASA human spaceflight going. Congress will be faced with a choice whether it wants to kill it or is prepared to pay for an EELV Heavy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/18/2007 11:07 pm
Quote
anonymous - 18/6/2007  3:52 PM
That's right, but a second window of opportunity may open when the ISS comes to the end of its life. Nobody wants to build a second space station....

I do.  And a third, and a fourth.  These would, however, be assembled in 2 years or less by a heavy lifter, not over decades by the relatively light weight STS.  That's where the J-class launch vehicles come in.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/18/2007 11:20 pm
All three would be targeted at moon and Mars programs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/19/2007 03:06 am
Quote
kraisee - 18/6/2007  1:51 AM

Nope, that's with a 3,175m/s dV budget, which is quite sufficient for the task (plus plane change budget etc).

Ross.

Delta-V (meters/sec) = 9.805 * ISP * ln(Mass Initial/Mass Final)

Stated performance for the Jupiter 232 is 108 mT to LEO. If each EDS has 50 mT of net payload to TLI, that allows the EDS to carry 58 mT of propellant for the TLI burn. The gross mass sent to TLI is 50 mT of payload plus 23 mT of EDS plus 4 mT of adapter.

TLI mass initial over mass final is 135/77

If ISP is 450, I get delta-v of 2477 m/s. (Before gravity loss) Not 3,175 m/s. Which of us is wrong, and why?

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/19/2007 06:23 am
Will, Lee Jay & Others,
Sorry I haven't been back on the group before now, I've been very busy today and couldn't correct myself until now.

I made a mistake - I was reading from a spreadsheet here which had accidentally been overwritten by a different configuration.   My bad.   I was reading data from an older EOR profile which had the wrong filename on it and didn't double-check it before commenting.   As I say, my bad.

With our latest J-232 CaLV configuration producing 108,120kg to insertion, we safely get at least 106,500kg to circular 120nm orbit ready for a 1, 2 or 3 orbit automated checkout going straight into TLI.   From here, 66,664kg of propellant allows 39,836kg of payload to TLI w/ 3,175m/s dV in our regular EDS.

The J-232 CLV flight is about one ton lower LEO performance than that, which is something like 350kg lower TLI performance (no, I haven't actually run the new numbers on that flight yet).

A 2-launch LOR-LOR mission would send about 78.5mT of CEV & LSAM mass through TLI.

An EOR rendezvous would possibly require the slightly less powerful single-engine EDS used on the J-231, which would allow about 80.3mT to be sent to TLI using the single EDS.

*If* the twin engine EDS could be used with EOR, that performance increases to 91.0mT, but we have yet to prove to our satisfaction that we can address the bending moments of the J-2X thrust effects on the docking hatch.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/19/2007 06:31 am
Quote
anonymous - 18/6/2007  5:52 PM

That's right, but a second window of opportunity may open when the ISS comes to the end of its life. Nobody wants to build a second space station. Returning to the Moon will be the only thing left to do  to keep NASA human spaceflight going. Congress will be faced with a choice whether it wants to kill it or is prepared to pay for an EELV Heavy.

At that time the inherent problems with social security, baby-boomer retirement, fuel costs and the national debt will be hurting the US Federal Reserve.

Am I right or wrong that NASA has always been considered by the political class to be a money pot for each of these in the past?

Having manned space access to an extended ISS program may actually be more than acceptable for a Congress dealing with those circumstances.   I can easily seen NASA's budget being reduced to suit that smaller mission and the money being reallocated completely away from space exploration.

I think we're going to get stuck with only Ares-I - an EELV-class vehicle - completely incapable of going to the moon.   And I think there is only one realistic alternative on the books to make an LV from stuff we have right now, which doesn't require any "big brother" LV to enable exploration - especially one that's on the never-never.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/19/2007 06:45 am
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 18/6/2007  3:56 PM
At some point this comes to a head, and people will press til it hurts.  Apparently there's a great tolerance for pain, so there's got to be a whole lotta more pain to be administered for action to occur - otherwise its SOP and Ares 1. Everything else is BS.

Yep.   Sadly this hole is being deliberately dug in order to guarantee the Ares-I is built.   And that seems to be done while knowingly and specifically putting the Ares-V at risk and the entire nation's plans with it.

I think that's bad risk management, at best.

I give NASA no better than 50:50 of making another human moon rocket before I die, and I'm in my early 30's.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/19/2007 08:21 am
No, they probably won't want to spend the money then because of the structural problems you mention. It's just that it is a slight window of opportunity, the one that the Ares I/Ares V plan seems to be relying on.

Jupiter-120 does make it much easier and cheaper to go on to Jupiter-232 than Ares I does to Ares V. The big stumbling block it faces on the way to the Moon is the cost of developing the LSAM. It's likely to cost a lot more than Ares V to develop and there doesn't seem to be a way round that. Why should Congress, faced with the challenges you listed, be prepared to spend tens of billions on LSAM? Jupiter-232 would still give you a lot more capability to launch a space station in LEO than Ares I or Delta IV Heavy or the shuttle. But is anyone except Lee Jay actually excited about that?

What happens next depends on what the next Administration wants to do. Will they want to develop Jupiter when they know that there probably isn't going to be the money for the LSAM later? Aren't they just storing up trouble for a second term? Wasn't the real point of Ares I that it's an SDLV that can't go to the Moon? I think that Ares I has developed the enormous problem that it's going to be so late as to be very embarrassing for the United States. The next president doesn't want to be like Carter, overseeing a US unable to send people into space. If you want to get an LV as quickly as possible, the EELVs are the option to take. I do see that the strength of Jupiter is that it's quicker than Ares I and retains more shuttle workforce than EELVs, so it could be a good political compromise. But it can really only work politically for the next Administration (which is who will decide on the plan much more than Congress) if from a start in 2009 it can realistically have astronauts flying on it by 2012. Otherwise, the temptation to go with an EELV is likely to be too great.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/19/2007 11:04 am
Quote
anonymous - 19/6/2007  4:21 AM
If you want to get an LV as quickly as possible, the EELVs are the option to take. I do see that the strength of Jupiter is that it's quicker than Ares I and retains more shuttle workforce than EELVs, so it could be a good political compromise.
The danger of going to the EELV for Crew Launch is, as I stated above, that it guarantees that we will NOT go to the moon. For all the reasons stated in the posts above, and many more, Congress is only going to buy ONE rocket. None of the EELV’s flying today are capable of taking us to the moon. Ares-I and EELV are in the same boat. They both require another rocket to be built later, at a huge cost, to go to the moon, and Congress is NOT going to buy one. Ares-I and EELV are both in the same boat. If either one of them becomes the official crew launch vehicle, we will remain stuck in LEO for another 35 years. That’s SEVENTY YEARS (yes – 70!) of staying in LEO after we went to the moon in 1969. That’s beyond troubling. It’s just plain sick.

So the question is not 'Do we want to get a launch vehicle as quickly as possible', but ‘DO WE WANT TO GO TO THE MOON OR NOT?' That’s the real question.

If the answer is ‘YES’ than build the Jupiter, not Ares-I or an EELV. It really is that simple. If the answer is 'no', then I am saddened beyond belief and totally ashamed of the leadership that steals this heritage from me, my kids, and my grandkids, indeed from all of us, from your kids and grandkids. Future generations will look back at us and say "how could they have been so incredibly stupid?'.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/19/2007 12:12 pm
Quote
clongton - 19/6/2007  12:04 PM

The danger of going to the EELV for Crew Launch is, as I stated above, that it guarantees that we will NOT go to the moon.

You misunderstand. I wasn't presenting it from the perspective of how to get to the Moon, but from the perspective of the next administration, which won't care about getting to the Moon. The reason the candidates are unenthusiastic about Ares I and thinking about an EELV is because Ares I is going to take so long and duplicates what Delta IV Heavy can already do.  They don't care about whether it's a good plan for getting to the Moon. The only things that they care about are having a vehicle to launch US astronauts again soon, not being seen to waste money pointlessly and jobs in Florida. That's how you have to pitch Jupiter at them, not in terms of it being a way to force them to spend billions more to go to the Moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/19/2007 12:35 pm
Quote
anonymous - 19/6/2007  8:12 AM

Quote
clongton - 19/6/2007  12:04 PM

The danger of going to the EELV for Crew Launch is, as I stated above, that it guarantees that we will NOT go to the moon.

You misunderstand. I wasn't presenting it from the perspective of how to get to the Moon, but from the perspective of the next administration, which won't care about getting to the Moon. The reason the candidates are unenthusiastic about Ares I and thinking about an EELV is because Ares I duplicates what Delta IV Heavy can already do.  They don't care about whether it's a good plan for getting to the Moon. The only things that they care about are having a vehicle to launch US astronauts again soon and jobs in Florida.
No, I didn’t misunderstand. I got your point.

It’s just that every time someone talks about the EELVs, there are several very good people here on the thread who seize upon it to once again revive the old debate of EELV vs. SDLV. Their point, which is well founded, I might add, is that we can do the crew launch with existing EELV launch vehicles, by man-rating them and doing some other minor things. The hell of it is that I completely agree. But the danger is, like I said in the post, in the current political climate, going that route guarantees the loss of the moon for another 35 years because Congress will buy ONLY ONE launch vehicle, congratulate themselves for having done their duty, and then forget about NASA. We’ll be stuck in LEO - AGAIN. So every time the EELV CLV comes up, I make it a point to remind folks of the ultimate consequence of that choice: we loose the moon because of the shortsightedness of the majority of Congress. Most of them don’t give a hoot if we go to the moon or not; they want to funnel the money to their own districts instead. Remember – they were elected by local people, on the basis of local issues. Very – very few of those local issues have anything to do with space. So don’t fault the members of Congress for not focusing on space. They are actually doing their job; which is to focus on the issues of the local people who elected them.

But they HAVE put themselves on the hook to replace Shuttle with a man-rated launcher by signing the VSE into law. They will do that and then walk away from it. They will buy ONE new launch vehicle to replace Shuttle, and leave the moon to future Congresses and administrations. So if THAT launcher isn’t capable of taking us to the moon, we can forget about the moon, because Congress will not fund another, lunar-capable launcher, in addition to a Shuttle replacement, to get us there. Congress will fund the effort to put American astronauts back into space and then forget about the rest. That’s why the rocket they buy is so important. It’s the only one we will get.

No, I got your point, and fundamentally I agree. But it’s a very slippery slope so I remind folks where that decision ultimately leads

That’s one of the reasons I have become so adamantly against the Ares-I. All it really does is duplicate the capability of the existing EELVs, leaving us in the same fix. We’re spending billions to duplicate a capability we already have which, by the way, can’t get us to the moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/19/2007 01:10 pm
Quote
anonymous - 19/6/2007  2:21 AM
Jupiter-232 would still give you a lot more capability to launch a space station in LEO than Ares I or Delta IV Heavy or the shuttle. But is anyone except Lee Jay actually excited about that?

As I said, all of the stations I proposed would be for moon and/or Mars purposes.  Is anyone excited about duplicating the Apollo program of going to the moon, dropping off a lander and coming back?  Why go at all?

Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/19/2007 01:17 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/6/2007  1:23 AM


*If* the twin engine EDS could be used with EOR, that performance increases to 91.0mT, but we have yet to prove to our satisfaction that we can address the bending moments of the J-2X thrust effects on the docking hatch.

Ross.

If the docking hatch is an issue, you can use a 231 to launch the EDS and LSAM, and a 232 for for the extra LOX and CEV.

By using the single engine EDS, you get lower LOM numbers.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/19/2007 03:37 pm
Quote
anonymous - 19/6/2007  8:12 AM
not being seen to waste money pointlessly and jobs in Florida.

I'd just like to take a second to clarify this - KSC in Florida is the "poor cousin" of the space centers.  

JSC in Texas has about ten times the number of workers than KSC.   MSFC has about six times the number.  Heck, I believe even Goddard has more than KSC!

The only reason KSC is better known to the public is because the launches are just about the only part of the entire process which ever gets on the TV, so KSC "appears" to be where its all happening.   But that is a distorted view.   Way more happens away from KSC than at KSC.

Believe me when I say that Florida is really just a bit-part player in the political landscape of NASA.   Texas, Alabama, Utah, Mississippi and California are the real heavyweights in this match these days.

I now return you to your regular viewing :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/19/2007 03:44 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 19/6/2007  9:10 AM
Is anyone excited about duplicating the Apollo program of going to the moon, dropping off a lander and coming back?  Why go at all?

Lee Jay

NASA's doing a p*ss poor job of selling the new Lunar program to the public IMHO.   Of course, they really need some spacecraft and launchers flying to grab anyone's attention, and that's still a minimum of 8 years away :(

But a "Flags & Footprints" plan would not work this time, and they seem to know this.   They are planning to get straight into Lunar colonization and mineral resource exploitation - which is the way to go.   There are many benefits which can be had from a suitable base on the moon and it truly is the key to opening up the rest of the solar system in an economically realistic way.

The moon is ultimately a stepping stone to the next real target: Mars.

It also enables a lot of other missions too because lifting propellant off the lunar surface instead of the Earth's surface can offer massive benefits for going anywhere else.

As part of the "bigger picture", across a time-frame of hundreds of years, the moon is very much needed and the sooner we start, the sooner we can get on with it.   Not to mention, that the ultimate colonization of other worlds is the *ONLY* way to guarantee human life continues.

All of us are at risk from such things as super-volcanoes, biological plagues, nuclear holocaust, meteor strikes.   Sooner or later the human race, as a whole, is going to face one or more of these events and there's no practical way to save everyone from all of us.

Without the survival of the species as the bottom-line goal of space exploration and colonization, what point is there in any of us doing anything at all?   When we do ultimately go, everything we are, everything we do, everything we stand for - will be lost forever. Unless we go to the stars.

Now, or in a hundred years, the moon and Mars are the first two steps on this path.   I think we should start walking.   YMMV.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/19/2007 04:51 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/6/2007  11:44 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 19/6/2007  9:10 AM
Is anyone excited about duplicating the Apollo program of going to the moon, dropping off a lander and coming back?  Why go at all?

Lee Jay

NASA's doing a p*ss poor job of selling the new Lunar program to the public IMHO.   Of course, they really need some spacecraft and launchers flying to grab anyone's attention, and that's still a minimum of 8 years away :(

But a "Flags & Footprints" plan would not work this time, and they seem to know this.   They are planning to get straight into Lunar colonization and mineral resource exploitation - which is the way to go.   There are many benefits which can be had from a suitable base on the moon and it truly is the key to opening up the rest of the solar system in an economically realistic way.

The moon is ultimately a stepping stone to the next real target: Mars.

It also enables a lot of other missions too because lifting propellant off the lunar surface instead of the Earth's surface can offer massive benefits for going anywhere else.

As part of the "bigger picture", across a time-frame of hundreds of years, the moon is very much needed and the sooner we start, the sooner we can get on with it.   Not to mention, that the ultimate colonization of other worlds is the *ONLY* way to guarantee human life continues.

All of us are at risk from such things as super-volcanoes, biological plagues, nuclear holocaust, meteor strikes.   Sooner or later the human race, as a whole, is going to face one or more of these events and there's no practical way to save everyone from all of us.

Without the survival of the species as the bottom-line goal of space exploration and colonization, what point is there in any of us doing anything at all?   When we do ultimately go, everything we are, everything we do, everything we stand for - will be lost forever. Unless we go to the stars.

Now, or in a hundred years, the moon and Mars are the first two steps on this path.   I think we should start walking.   YMMV.

Ross.
For all those reasons, we should go. But there’s more.

I remember when I was a kid and took off for the day in the summer. I would go for miles and miles and miles, just to see what was there. Sometimes there were really interesting things to see, sometimes not. But there was always another rock to scale, another hill to climb, another path to check out. Some of my fondest memories are of wandering where I had never been before, just to see what was there, if maybe I would run across another wanderer, and we would talk for a while, sip a coke and then part company and keep on going. Sometimes I’d see the same thing I saw back down the dusty road a bit, but arranged really differently. I had to stop and check it out, to see what made it different. Once in a while I would come across a scene that would just take my breath away. Human eyes didn’t evolve for just the purpose of collision avoidance. With those eyes we can appreciate all the beauty of strange new places we never saw before. With those eyes we can drink in the majesty of the vast creation. With these eyes I see new things, learn new things, and that makes me ask new questions, so I wander some more to find the answers. I would just keep going and going and going, until it got too dark to see. Then I’d go home, and while eating my supper, make new plans on where I would go tomorrow, how I would get there, what I would carry and what I could expect to find and be able to use along the way. I’d see hills, and valleys, meadows and plains, and I’d want to go there. Now I look into the sky, and I see the moon, and wonder what possibilities lay there, what sights I could see, and what experiences I could have.

I want to go to the moon because I have never been there before, that’s why.

Human life is not meant to be spent just keeping it alive. It doesn’t flourish that way. It DOES glow with great enthusiasm however when it’s exploring, seeing, tasting, learning, and experiencing.

Thirty five years ago a couple of men were on the moon, but I have never been there, so I want to go. You have never been there. Wouldn’t you like to go?

There are hundreds of technical and economic reasons to justify going, but to me, the big one is that I'm a human being. And humans are explorers. That's what we do. That's what we are. That's what it is to be human.

I look into the sky and I see the moon. It calls to me. It beckons to me and I have to go.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/19/2007 05:36 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/6/2007  4:37 PM

Quote
anonymous - 19/6/2007  8:12 AM
not being seen to waste money pointlessly and jobs in Florida.

I'd just like to take a second to clarify this - KSC in Florida is the "poor cousin" of the space centers.  

JSC in Texas has about ten times the number of workers than KSC.   MSFC has about six times the number.  Heck, I believe even Goddard has more than KSC!

The only reason KSC is better known to the public is because the launches are just about the only part of the entire process which ever gets on the TV, so KSC "appears" to be where its all happening.   But that is a distorted view.   Way more happens away from KSC than at KSC.

Believe me when I say that Florida is really just a bit-part player in the political landscape of NASA.   Texas, Alabama, Utah, Mississippi and California are the real heavyweights in this match these days.

I mentioned Florida not because I was unaware that NASA has more jobs in other states, but because I was writing about Presidential candidates. Florida is the only one of those states that's been seriously in play in recent Presidential elections. Texas, Alabama, Utah and Mississippi are all safely in the red column. The Republicans could nominate Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for President and VP and those states would be guaranteed to give them their electoral votes. California is safely in the blue column unless the Republicans nominate Arnold Vinick (and I'm aware he's a fictional character before anyone points that out to this poor ignorant foreigner). Presidential candidates only really care about states that are in play. A Democratic President would have no reason to care about any of the jobs in the shuttle programme except those in Florida and Louisiana (a red state at the Presidential level, but a purple state otherwise).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/19/2007 06:39 pm
Quote
clongton - 19/6/2007  5:35 AM

......That’s one of the reasons I have become so adamantly against the Ares-I. All it really does is duplicate the capability of the existing EELVs, leaving us in the same fix. We’re spending billions to duplicate a capability we already have which, by the way, can’t get us to the moon.

Yes two wrongs (Ares I or ELV-CLV) don’t make one right (Jupiter) :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/19/2007 06:56 pm
Hey, I think we should go to the Moon too, I just want the base of operations to be in Lunar orbit, not at KSC.  Same for Mars.  While it's not really necessary for the moon, I think it is for Mars - KSC is just too far away to go to get help.  I want to use LEO to develop the moon on-orbit base (station), and that station to develop the Mars on-orbit base (station).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/19/2007 10:36 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/6/2007  4:44 PM

They are planning to get straight into Lunar colonization and mineral resource exploitation - which is the way to go.   There are many benefits which can be had from a suitable base on the moon and it truly is the key to opening up the rest of the solar system in an economically realistic way.

The moon is ultimately a stepping stone to the next real target: Mars.

It also enables a lot of other missions too because lifting propellant off the lunar surface instead of the Earth's surface can offer massive benefits for going anywhere else.

Four people in an outpost at the Moon's south pole is all they hope to afford. Even that would be far more expensive than the ISS. It isn't economically possible to send enough material to really exploit lunar resources. The real problem is getting into Earth orbit is far too expensive with current technology, let alone Shuttle technology. What's really needed before anything like that can be contemplated is a reduction in the cost of space access by at least one or two orders of magnitude. The way to make that happen isn't to have a government programme spend $100 billion on having four guys living on the Moon or $200 billion on four guys living on Mars. That's not sustainable. The only way to make it happen is to work out how to make getting into Earth orbit much cheaper so that you actually can have sustainable settlements there.

Quote
As part of the "bigger picture", across a time-frame of hundreds of years, the moon is very much needed and the sooner we start, the sooner we can get on with it.   Not to mention, that the ultimate colonization of other worlds is the *ONLY* way to guarantee human life continues.

All of us are at risk from such things as super-volcanoes, biological plagues, nuclear holocaust, meteor strikes.   Sooner or later the human race, as a whole, is going to face one or more of these events and there's no practical way to save everyone from all of us.

Without the survival of the species as the bottom-line goal of space exploration and colonization, what point is there in any of us doing anything at all?   When we do ultimately go, everything we are, everything we do, everything we stand for - will be lost forever. Unless we go to the stars.

I agree, but it's of much more immediate use to try to stop those things from happening. The biggest risk right now is from global warming, which threatens the survival of our civilization this century if the feared positive feedbacks kick in. Having four people living in an outpost on Mars waiting for supply rockets from Earth isn't going to help. Spending hundreds of billions employing thousands of technologists on that when those resources could instead be deployed developing and implementing technologies to tackle global warming is a criminal waste.

The first priority has to be tackling threats to survival, not working out how a few people might be able to run away from them. The second priority is to work out how to be able to move significant amounts of people and infrastructure to support them off Earth in an affordable way in the long term. Spending billions a year on supporting a handful of people living on the Moon and Mars now and imagining that will somehow lead to something bigger is hopelessly premature. It doesn't scale, as they say in Silicon Valley.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Oberon_Command on 06/19/2007 10:44 pm
Quote
anonymous - 19/6/2007  3:36 PM
I agree, but it's of much more immediate use to try to stop those things from happening. The biggest risk right now is from global warming, which threatens the survival of our civilization this century if the feared positive feedbacks kick in. Having four people living in an outpost on Mars waiting for supply rockets from Earth isn't going to help. Spending hundreds of billions employing thousands of technologists on that when those resources could instead be deployed developing and implementing technologies to tackle global warming is a criminal waste.

Saying that it is a criminal waste, when we don't really have a decisive solution to the problem of climate change, is just as premature. Suppose the solution actually lies in space, and we spend all our resources down here on Earth trying to combat global warming and failing, when we could have spent those resources finding a quick solution in orbit or beyond?

The next generation might look back on the mistakes of this one and think them horribly stupid. The ones who have no love of space would certainly think that going into space in the first place is a stupid thing to do, for the reasons that you gave. But if the solution does lie beyond the atmosphere, and we don't pursue it because we completely ignore space as an option, would this same generation not look upon us and call us fools for not taking the path that could have solved problems?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/19/2007 11:14 pm
I've never thought of humainty as being concerned with only one thing at a time.   It has been my experience that the more aspects of life we can investigate and improve, the better it is likely to be for us all.

So not going to the moon so we can fix global warming makes no sense to me.   We should do *both*.

It's the same argument as stripping NASA's budget to pay to fix social security.   It doesn't actually work.   NASA's budget is a drop in the ocean for a start, and having the jobs via NASA pays lots of people's salaries, which allow people to spend money - which generate more taxes than were ever "spent" in the first place.   It helps strengthen the national economy - and THAT can fix social security far more effectively.

Apollo showed us that investing in new exploration hardware can easily be the driving force which creates new technology in related industries which can have benefits throughout normal people's lives.   In this particular context, the new Lunar and Martian exploration program could quite easily create new more efficient solar arrays.   New, cleaner, more efficient nuclear energy generation technologies likewise.   An economical means of extracting He3 from the Lunar regolith could solve all human energy source issues and vastly improve the effect humans have on our terran environment in the process.   Would that not be a worthwhile pursuit?

NASA's job is to blaze the initial trail to the new lands of opportunity, for others to follow later - commercial operations in particular.   But without the initial investment in a starting infrastructure we can ever hope to get any of it.   4 people will become 8, then 12 and so on.   Only three ships discovered the America's, but that's certainly not where the story ended.   Apollo isn't where the story ended either.   Nor will Constellation be the end.   Just the next logical step in the process.

Starting with four man crews isn't a bad way to begin such a difficult yet far-reaching program. It should lead to greater and greater capabilities as the technology evolves and we get better at the missions.   But it can't happen at all unless we start.

I say lets tackle global warming.   I say lets fix social security.   I say lets go back to the moon and on to Mars.   I don't say lets do one instead of another.   I think we should persue all of these goals as vigorously as each other.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 06/19/2007 11:15 pm
Quote
clongton - 19/6/2007  11:51 AM

snip

I want to go to the moon because I have never been there before, that’s why.

Human life is not meant to be spent just keeping it alive. It doesn’t flourish that way. It DOES glow with great enthusiasm however when it’s exploring, seeing, tasting, learning, and experiencing.

Thirty five years ago a couple of men were on the moon, but I have never been there, so I want to go. You have never been there. Wouldn’t you like to go?

There are hundreds of technical and economic reasons to justify going, but to me, the big one is that I'm a human being. And humans are explorers. That's what we do. That's what we are. That's what it is to be human.

I look into the sky and I see the moon. It calls to me. It beckons to me and I have to go.
BEAUTIFULLY stated!!

The only tiny addition I have is that the engineer in me also likes to see solutions to big problems.  And manned interplanetary travel scratches that itch for me in a way nothing else can.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/19/2007 11:53 pm
Quote
Oberon_Command - 19/6/2007  11:44 PM

Saying that it is a criminal waste, when we don't really have a decisive solution to the problem of climate change, is just as premature. Suppose the solution actually lies in space, and we spend all our resources down here on Earth trying to combat global warming and failing, when we could have spent those resources finding a quick solution in orbit or beyond?

We do know what the solutions to global warming are. We also know that time is very short and we will have to go with the technologies that are going to be economically competitive in the next few decades. We need to increase the price of carbon so that there are economic incentives to avoid emitting it into the atmosphere. The technologies are energy efficiency, renewable energy, some carbon capture and storage, maybe nuclear power (although that raises all sorts of problems) and electrical storage technology (I think probably lithium and vanadium batteries because the hydrogen fuel cell storage problem is very difficult). All those technologies exist now, all that we need to do is bring down costs a bit.

Space-based solar power has been suggested. The problem is that solar PV isn't a competitive technology here on earth. You can improve the efficiency by a few times in space, but the cost increases by a factor of thousands. You're looking at energy that costs thousands of times what it would cost generated on Earth. You also have the problem of microwave transmission losses and the hazards they involve. The whole Gerard K. O'Neill approach has been investigated and it's economic fantasy. The only way you could try to get round that is if you can propose some viable technology that would reduce the cost of space access by a few orders of magnitude in the next few decades. The space elevator is the only conceivable technology that could do that, but it's highly speculative. I'm all for spending money on nanotube technology, but I'm not going to bet everything on that when there are practical technologies already in existence that could deal with the problem just as effectively and without cooking the world with microwaves.

Getting helium-3 from the moon has also been proposed. There are two problems. One is that the D-He3 reaction requires much higher temperatures than D-T or D-D, so it's a lot more difficult to achieve. The other is that the fusion researchers themselves say D-T nuclear fusion is fifty years from being an economically viable technology - and they've been saying it's fifty years away all the time for the last fifty years.

Quote
The next generation might look back on the mistakes of this one and think them horribly stupid. The ones who have no love of space would certainly think that going into space in the first place is a stupid thing to do, for the reasons that you gave. But if the solution does lie beyond the atmosphere, and we don't pursue it because we completely ignore space as an option, would this same generation not look upon us and call us fools for not taking the path that could have solved problems?

Space hasn't been ignored. The people who work on this aren't stupid. It's that those approaches won't work in the time available to tackle the problem before it's too late.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/20/2007 12:07 am
Quote
anonymous - 19/6/2007  5:53 PM
We do know what the solutions to global warming are. We also know that time is very short and we will have to go with the technologies that are going to be economically competitive in the next few decades. We need to increase the price of carbon so that there are economic incentives to avoid emitting it into the atmosphere. The technologies are energy efficiency, renewable energy, some carbon capture and storage, maybe nuclear power (although that raises all sorts of problems) and electrical storage technology (I think probably lithium and vanadium batteries because the hydrogen fuel cell storage problem is very difficult). All those technologies exist now, all that we need to do is bring down costs a bit.

Wow.  I work in this industry and I can tell you it's highly unusual for someone to say so many correct things on this topic in a single paragraph.  My only comment would be that Lithium may not make a great large (utility-scale) battery for cost and reliability reasons (and maybe even material availability).  Zinc and Vanadium based technologies look a bit better to me, but things can change, as you know.

Quote
The only possible way that space could help is through space-based solar power.

Actually, one of my highest hopes for this area is a technology directly derived from space activities - the Nickel Hydrogen battery.  No, not the super-expensive space-qualified ones, but a variation of that technology for terrestrial use.  Using electrolyzers and fuel cells for on-grid energy storage is just plain silly (20-35% round-trip efficiency kills it).  For off-grid (like transportation), it tends to make much more sense, but batteries are way better for on-grid applications in my opinion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: James Lowe1 on 06/20/2007 02:24 am
We have threads in the advanced sections of this site's forum for some of the topics being raised here (though not Global warming!). Please keep this specific to Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 06/20/2007 02:49 am
Quote
kraisee - 19/6/2007  6:14 PM

I've never thought of humainty as being concerned with only one thing at a time.   It has been my experience that the more aspects of life we can investigate and improve, the better it is likely to be for us all.

So not going to the moon so we can fix global warming makes no sense to me.   We should do *both*.

It's the same argument as stripping NASA's budget to pay to fix social security.   It doesn't actually work.   NASA's budget is a drop in the ocean for a start, and having the jobs via NASA pays lots of people's salaries, which allow people to spend money - which generate more taxes than were ever "spent" in the first place.   It helps strengthen the national economy - and THAT can fix social security far more effectively.

Apollo showed us that investing in new exploration hardware can easily be the driving force which creates new technology in related industries which can have benefits throughout normal people's lives.   In this particular context, the new Lunar and Martian exploration program could quite easily create new more efficient solar arrays.   New, cleaner, more efficient nuclear energy generation technologies likewise.   An economical means of extracting He3 from the Lunar regolith could solve all human energy source issues and vastly improve the effect humans have on our terran environment in the process.   Would that not be a worthwhile pursuit?

NASA's job is to blaze the initial trail to the new lands of opportunity, for others to follow later - commercial operations in particular.   But without the initial investment in a starting infrastructure we can ever hope to get any of it.   4 people will become 8, then 12 and so on.   Only three ships discovered the America's, but that's certainly not where the story ended.   Apollo isn't where the story ended either.   Nor will Constellation be the end.   Just the next logical step in the process.

Starting with four man crews isn't a bad way to begin such a difficult yet far-reaching program. It should lead to greater and greater capabilities as the technology evolves and we get better at the missions.   But it can't happen at all unless we start.

I say lets tackle global warming.   I say lets fix social security.   I say lets go back to the moon and on to Mars.   I don't say lets do one instead of another.   I think we should persue all of these goals as vigorously as each other.

Ross.

As someone said once, we choose to go to the Moon AND do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.  Real problems on Earth do exist, but we should invest something in the future too.  If 16 billion a year would solve any of the problems on Earth, then let's do it.  But any real problem or issue needs more than just 16 billion to fix.  Space provides benefits for not too much money.  It's a drop in the federal budget.  The United States should do manned space exploration (and eventually settlement) of the solar system or it won't be done.  Russia, Europe, China, and India can't or won't do it for various reasons.  This is an area where the US should provide leadership for the benefit of ALL mankind.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 06/20/2007 05:24 am

Quote
kraisee - 19/6/2007  6:14 PM  I've never thought of humanity as being concerned with only one thing at a time.   It has been my experience that the more aspects of life we can investigate and improve, the better it is likely to be for us all.  So not going to the moon so we can fix global warming makes no sense to me.   We should do *both*.

Ross, agree that we should be fully engaged on all avenues of life - but have often found this rubs against the grain of many who prefer things to fit narrow "bumper sticker" ideologies of parsimoniously chosen few projects with cookie cutter solutions that often aren't examined for even "four function calculator" feasibility. Life is too short not to pursue the many answers we might need, all at once.

Definitely need more "kraisee"'s. The sentiment is welcome, even if the content is "Off Topic". Which applies to this post as well.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: savuporo on 06/20/2007 09:25 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 19/6/2007  3:07 PM
My only comment would be that Lithium may not make a great large (utility-scale) battery for cost and reliability reasons (and maybe even material availability).
Utility-scale: flywheels. They are ideal , zero maintenance, no life cycle issues. Those are currently being deployed as well.
You are also overlooking the fact that there is no single "lithium" battery, there are dozens of different chemistries. Your laptop very likely has lithium-cobalt cells. Their costs are dictated by price of cobalt, and its safety characteristis are between bad and horrible. However, there are alternative chemistries entering the market, like lithium phosphate, which have no safety or environmental issues to speak of, and can potentially be very cheap ( they are a bit expensive right now as demand is high and supply chains have just started )

sorry for off topic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/20/2007 09:46 am
I don't want to continue to stray off topic, but I want to answer Ross.

Quote
kraisee - 19/6/2007  12:14 AM

I've never thought of humainty as being concerned with only one thing at a time.   It has been my experience that the more aspects of life we can investigate and improve, the better it is likely to be for us all.

So not going to the moon so we can fix global warming makes no sense to me.   We should do *both*.

It's the same argument as stripping NASA's budget to pay to fix social security.   It doesn't actually work.   NASA's budget is a drop in the ocean for a start

NASA's budget is only about 1% of the US federal budget, but that's more money than the world spends on energy research. You have a President who says it would be too expensive to tackle global warming, but who is proposing to spend a sum on going to the Moon that if it was spent on incentives for improving energy technologies really could make an enormous difference. Bush is prepared to spend hundreds of billions on this, but much less on energy technologies to tackle global warming. Which is the more pressing problem?

I think that a lot of what NASA does is very useful. We need satellites monitoring the Earth, but that's been cut to pay for the Moon program. There is a direct conflict at the moment. The exploration of other planets has made people appreciate how precious life on Earth is. NASA does a lot of other scientifically useful and important things that I support, but they're being gutted to to pay for Apollo 2.

Quote
having the jobs via NASA pays lots of people's salaries, which allow people to spend money - which generate more taxes than were ever "spent" in the first place.   It helps strengthen the national economy - and THAT can fix social security far more effectively.

That's like the argument that getting one lot of people to dig holes and another lot of people to fill them in would generate wealth. It's more productive to spend that money on paying people to do something useful in itself. There is only a limited amount of technical talent available (indeed the US is desperately short of engineers). That scarce resource should be used productively. That doesn't mean that I don't think we should spend money on science or space. It means that we should spend the money cost effectively. The problem with sending people to the Moon isn't that it isn't worth doing. It's that the cost of Bush's program is so disproportionate to the benefit.

Quote
Apollo showed us that investing in new exploration hardware can easily be the driving force which creates new technology in related industries which can have benefits throughout normal people's lives.

It did, but it would have been more efficient to develop those spin-offs directly.

Quote
In this particular context, the new Lunar and Martian exploration program could quite easily create new more efficient solar arrays.

The problem with the solar arrays we have isn't really that they're not efficient enough. It's that they're too expensive. The current concentration of research is about making ones that are actually less efficient, but much cheaper. The Moon and Mars program isn't going to do anything for that.

Quote
New, cleaner, more efficient nuclear energy generation technologies likewise.   An economical means of extracting He3 from the Lunar regolith could solve all human energy source issues and vastly improve the effect humans have on our terran environment in the process.   Would that not be a worthwhile pursuit?

It would be, but it's at least several decades away from being practical. It would be worthwhile going to the Moon for that when that technology is within reach, but not now.

Quote
NASA's job is to blaze the initial trail to the new lands of opportunity, for others to follow later - commercial operations in particular.   But without the initial investment in a starting infrastructure we can ever hope to get any of it.   4 people will become 8, then 12 and so on.   Only three ships discovered the America's, but that's certainly not where the story ended.   Apollo isn't where the story ended either.   Nor will Constellation be the end.   Just the next logical step in the process.

As I've explained before, it doesn't scale that way. Getting into space in the first place is far too expensive. You're talking about spending several billion dollars a year on having 4 people living on the Moon. It doesn't get cheaper as you scale it up. A colony of several hundred people (like the US presence in Antarctica) would cost most of the federal budget with the technology you're using. It's also different from the New World in that there's nothing economically valuable enough to bring back to cover the cost, so you're simply not going to get private enterprise involved.

Quote
Starting with four man crews isn't a bad way to begin such a difficult yet far-reaching program. It should lead to greater and greater capabilities as the technology evolves and we get better at the missions. But it can't happen at all unless we start.

It doesn't scale. Everyone knows that. The promise about the shuttle was that it would make getting into space ten times cheaper. That didn't happen. It remained almost as ridiculously expensive as with Apollo. Jupiter is a repackaged shuttle requiring a standing army of thousands for a few launches a year. You can't scale that up and get significantly reduced costs. There isn't the money in the federal budget to scale it up in the first place.

It's a lot more exciting to send people to the Moon than do what Elon Musk is doing. But it's only following that approach that will open up space for sustainable settlement.

Quote
I say lets tackle global warming.   I say lets fix social security.   I say lets go back to the moon and on to Mars.   I don't say lets do one instead of another.   I think we should persue all of these goals as vigorously as each other.

At the time of Apollo it was widely assumed that it would lead to a future like the one portrayed in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Why didn't that happen? Firstly, because the Apollo program was so ruinously expensive that it couldn't be sustained politically. Secondly, because shuttle technology completely failed to meet the promises for it.

Emotionally, I find it extremely frustrating that people haven't been back to the Moon. I remember the promises made for the shuttle when I was a child in the seventies. Almost everyone assumed that it would lead to the opening up of space by bringing the cost down. It turned out that NASA always knew that the flight rates they were promising were completely unachievable. Rationally, I understand why people have become so disillusioned with NASA and its approach to space.

Doing the ISS at the lunar south pole with repackaged Shuttle technology isn't going to lead somehow to a thriving lunar colony because the economics won't allow it to scale. You're starting at the wrong end of the problem.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 06/20/2007 10:33 am
Comparing one anemic budget to another doesn't make for a very convincing argument. Rather compare the budget of NASA, NSF, or the budget for energy research to the money spent on the Iraq war. Back in the 1960s, whenever anybody made the social argument against space exploration (i.e., Apollo), I would point out that the Federal budgets for DoD and HEW were roughly the same, and that was 20 times what was being spent on space exploration. Nowadays, the disparity is even greater. Removing $10bln from DoD isn't going to make a big dent in defense. Adding $10bln a year to NASA is enormous. Whether it would be spent wisely is, of course, another matter entirely!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 06/20/2007 11:13 am
Quote
William Barton - 20/6/2007  11:33 AM

Comparing one anemic budget to another doesn't make for a very convincing argument. Rather compare the budget of NASA, NSF, or the budget for energy research to the money spent on the Iraq war. Back in the 1960s, whenever anybody made the social argument against space exploration (i.e., Apollo), I would point out that the Federal budgets for DoD and HEW were roughly the same, and that was 20 times what was being spent on space exploration. Nowadays, the disparity is even greater. Removing $10bln from DoD isn't going to make a big dent in defense. Adding $10bln a year to NASA is enormous. Whether it would be spent wisely is, of course, another matter entirely!

You're right it isn't much compared to the defence budget. It's that Ross was arguing for spending the money on the Moon program as an investment in species survival. I was pointing out that there are much better ways to spend the money on species survival and it's actually competing with them for technical talent as well as the money spent on science and technology. Even worse, I don't think it progresses species survival or long-term space travel at all. It just misdirects resources towards perpetuating the mistake that the shuttle turned out to be.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Hotdog on 06/20/2007 12:41 pm
The challenges and constraints of doing things in space stimulate creative minds. Many of the capabilities and technologies developed for the space programme probably would not have appeared in its absence, even with the same level of investment. - The Global Exploration Strategy
The Framework for Coordination
May 2007

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/20/2007 02:08 pm
Quote
anonymous - 20/6/2007  4:46 AM

I don't want to continue to stray off topic, but I want to answer Ross.

* * *

Doing the ISS at the lunar south pole with repackaged Shuttle technology isn't going to lead somehow to a thriving lunar colony because the economics won't allow it to scale. You're starting at the wrong end of the problem.

Exactly right, IMHO.

How can we create economic drivers so that space exploration does not depend on tax dollars? That is a pre-condition to a thriving lunar economy.

I favor DIRECT because its the only way NASA will get back to the moon but what I really really want from the VSE is lunar LOX extraction. Such ISRU can leverage a re-useable lunar lander whether or not there is harvestable water or hydrogen and since oxygen is 8/9ths by mass of the fuel needed for a LOX/H2 engine, bringing the H2 or CH4 from Earth is trivial in comparison.

Park a fully reuseable LSAM at EML-1 or EML-2 in between missions, deploy LOX plants on the lunar surface to re-fuel the oxygen needed to travel to/from the L point and the incremental cost of doing one more lunar surface mission falls through the floor.

Then, even lunar surface tourism comes close to being economically viable and that will make other economic models more feasible be they He3 or PGM or whatever.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/20/2007 03:28 pm
Quote
Bill White - 20/6/2007  10:08 AM

Quote
anonymous - 20/6/2007  4:46 AM

I don't want to continue to stray off topic, but I want to answer Ross.

* * *

Doing the ISS at the lunar south pole with repackaged Shuttle technology isn't going to lead somehow to a thriving lunar colony because the economics won't allow it to scale. You're starting at the wrong end of the problem.

Exactly right, IMHO.

How can we create economic drivers so that space exploration does not depend on tax dollars? That is a pre-condition to a thriving lunar economy.

I favor DIRECT because its the only way NASA will get back to the moon but what I really really want from the VSE is lunar LOX extraction. Such ISRU can leverage a re-useable lunar lander whether or not there is harvestable water or hydrogen and since oxygen is 8/9ths by mass of the fuel needed for a LOX/H2 engine, bringing the H2 or CH4 from Earth is trivial in comparison
Creating the infrastructure to support the new technologies is the excessively expensive part, not developing the technologies themselves. That’s where NASA should be stepping up to the plate. It’s similar to what Eisenhower did in the 1950’s by creating the Interstate Highway system. The automakers had no incentive to design and build long-haul trucks, for example, until there was some way to actually use them. The Interstates made that entire industry possible, and there was NO ONE capable of building it except the feds. In the same way, NASA’s focus should not be on creating all the bases and outposts to do the actual globe-wise exploration and colonization. They should be developing the means for commercial enterprises to get there and encouraging things by that route. The federal government didn’t create the interstate highways and then restrict their use to federal and military traffic. They spent BILLIONS to build it and then opened it to the public sector. That’s what NASA should be doing, because there aren’t any commercial entities today capable of doing that. There are SEVERAL capable of exploiting it, once the infrastructure exists, but NASA needs to build it. They should develop Jupiter and all the additional vehicle types needed to create the infrastructure, then make all that available to the commercial sector; to the mining companies, to the manufacturing sector, to industry of all kinds, to the tourist industry. The launch vehicles need to be developed and paid for by the feds, then made available for public use, for a fee of course, but NOT restricted to NASA-only use. The feds recovered most of the development cost thru putting tolls on the roads. NASA could do something similar. But NASA has to front the development cost, because nobody else can. Once the infrastructure is in place, which only NASA can afford to create by fronting the development costs, the commercial and industrial sectors can take advantage of it to create economic opportunity for development. NASA’s role in “exploration” should be specifically tied to making the solar system accessible to commercial and industrial exploitation. From that will come all the benefits we all envision and want. Right now the laws do not allow NASA to venture into this type of commercial activity. Current law only allows NASA to run NASA and DoD activities on NASA-developed vehicles. The laws need to be changed to enable this.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/20/2007 04:30 pm
I believe I am in agreement with clongton, here:

NASA’s focus should not be on creating all the bases and outposts to do the actual globe-wise exploration and colonization. They should be developing the means for commercial enterprises to get there and encouraging things by that route. The federal government didn’t create the interstate highways and then restrict their use to federal and military traffic.

As I said, if NASA builds a working lunar LOX extraction plant and then allows to the private sector to build exact copies while avoiding the R&D costs, those LOX plants can dot the lunar surface since suitable regolith exists across the entire Moon for LOX extraction. Not limited to the poles.  

Combine with privately owned reuseable LSAMS (again, NASA does the R&D and flys the prototype) and the private sector has unlimited access to the lunar surface if only they can reach EML-1 or EML-2.

And today, one Soyuz and one Proton with the functional equivalent of a Centaur can get you to EML-1 or EML-2 for ~$150 million or maybe ~$200 million. Today.

And Jupiter could toss large LSAMs to EML-1 / EML-2 with a single throw.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 06/20/2007 04:45 pm
All of this is OT - but excellent OT that is heartening. A debate about policy and direction that's been sorely lacking for years. If I heard this on the street corners, I'd feel more positive about space being more than an occasional aerospace jack-off session that it unfortunately too often devolves to.

However, space won't grow up and be a real industry (manned and unmanned - regardless the stupid quibbles) until sustainable economic advantage develops. Public, political, domestic, international, and industry mindsets are lightyears from this, even though it might be much closer than even a few decades ago was thought possible. We need to approach the matter from the pragmatics of sustainability and scalability, looking for the "bluebird" opportunity not yet in sight that could generate a return while we "explore".

Returning to topic, DIRECT as a project embodies in engineering a determined approach to scalable, sustainable manned spaceflight post Shuttle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/20/2007 05:07 pm
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 20/6/2007  12:45 PM

All of this is OT - but excellent OT that is heartening. A debate about policy and direction that's been sorely lacking for years. If I heard this on the street corners, I'd feel more positive about space being more than an occasional aerospace jack-off session that it unfortunately too often devolves to.

However, space won't grow up and be a real industry (manned and unmanned - regardless the stupid quibbles) until sustainable economic advantage develops. Public, political, domestic, international, and industry mindsets are lightyears from this, even though it might be much closer than even a few decades ago was thought possible. We need to approach the matter from the pragmatics of sustainability and scalability, looking for the "bluebird" opportunity not yet in sight that could generate a return while we "explore".

Returning to topic, DIRECT as a project embodies in engineering a determined approach to scalable, sustainable manned spaceflight post Shuttle.
As you said, all this, while "related", is really off topic. However, I for one, would not mind continuing to pursue this line of thought on a different thread created for that purpose. How many here want to do that? If so, I'll create a new thread and ask Chris to transfer the appropriate posts to it, or if there's not interest, we'll just kill the conversation here.

Either way, it's past due time to return to the topic of the thread, which is the Direct Architecture and the Jupiter launch vehicle family.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/20/2007 05:09 pm
Jupiter gives America the heavy lift capability which Russia cannot build without major investment in industrial infrastructure. Using EELV gives us light to medium lift that Russia can match at 20% of the price using Soyuz/Proton.

In a global economy, and if the goal is to commercialize the Moon, tossing away our strength (genuine heavy lift) to compete with medium lift when our medium lift costs 4x to 5x more is just nuts.

= = =

Add: The proposed (and rejected) Boeing CEV architecture as summarized by Mark Wade would make an excellent starting point for a new thread, IMHO. Simply put, take that exact Boeing architecture and substitute Soyuz/Proton for Delta IVH and start running numbers.

I assert those numbers will look really really good.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/20/2007 05:59 pm
Quote
Bill White - 20/6/2007  12:30 PM

As I said, if NASA builds a working lunar LOX extraction plant and then allows to the private sector to build exact copies while avoiding the R&D costs, those LOX plants can dot the lunar surface since suitable regolith exists across the entire Moon for LOX extraction. Not limited to the poles.  

Combine with privately owned reuseable LSAMS (again, NASA does the R&D and flys the prototype) and the private sector has unlimited access to the lunar surface if only they can reach EML-1 or EML-2.


In general (classified programs excepted), contractors may offer their products commercially (and even to international governments) after the government pays for them.  This is typically done on the aircraft side in order to reduce recurring costs and increase corporate profits in exchange for projects that overrun.

The word "allows" indicates some sort of hinderance that I am unaware of.  Shuttle is not flown "commercially" because it requires government hardware.  Expendable LOX plants or LSAMs would not, and would therefore be available for purchase.  

However, I have not seen a business plan yet that would utilize such elements for profit, and it would be VERY useful to all involved if any such plans were put forward using exploration hardware (Jupiter or Ares, whatever).  I watched the testimony before Congress after the Vision was announced regarding commercial use of the Moon, and there was not a single, credible business idea (not to say someone with one would testify).  

Does anyone out there have a spreadsheet that shows how someone can make money within 5-10 years of investment given the lunar architecture (Ares or Jupiter) will be in place?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/20/2007 06:08 pm
Back on Topic, very specifically.

We are researching various ascent trajectory profiles, orbital insertion points, SRB separation parameters and recovery zones, and other related things. As part of our initial request for peer review, we would like to ask the following:

Could someone please provide a research direction or information about the following three STS External Tank related questions?

a) What is the historical average for total propellant amount (LH2 + LO2) at liftoff (T-0)?

b) What is the historical average for total propellant amount remaining at MECO?

c) What is the minimum possible / safe residuals amount (non useable propellants = zero performance reserves) at MECO?

The capacity of the ET does not always indicate how much propellant is actually loaded, which historical numbers we are attempting to verify.

Our research has provided several possible directions, and we are attempting to make sure we have all the bases covered. We would very much appreciate your participation.

Thanks in advance!
Antonio, Ross, Steve & Chuck
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 06/20/2007 08:41 pm
Quote
Bill White - 20/6/2007  1:09 PM

In a global economy, and if the goal is to commercialize the Moon, tossing away our strength (genuine heavy lift) to compete with medium lift when our medium lift costs 4x to 5x more is just nuts.


wrongs, ithe more use of medium líft lowers the per unit costs

BTW EELV's are not classified as "medium" lift but intermediate to heavy
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 06/20/2007 08:43 pm
Quote
clongton - 20/6/2007  2:08 PM

a) What is the historical average for total propellant amount (LH2 + LO2) at liftoff (T-0)?

b) What is the historical average for total propellant amount remaining at MECO?

c) What is the minimum possible / safe residuals amount (non useable propellants = zero performance reserves) at MECO?


A. it is basically the same load

I know where this is tabulated online  when I get back home
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/21/2007 02:49 am
Quote
Jim - 20/6/2007  3:41 PM

Quote
Bill White - 20/6/2007  1:09 PM

In a global economy, and if the goal is to commercialize the Moon, tossing away our strength (genuine heavy lift) to compete with medium lift when our medium lift costs 4x to 5x more is just nuts.


wrongs, ithe more use of medium líft lowers the per unit costs

BTW EELV's are not classified as "medium" lift but intermediate to heavy

I have started a new thread in the Russian section titled "Boeing Architecture using Russian rockets"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/21/2007 06:10 am
Quote
Bill White - 20/6/2007  10:08 AM

Quote
anonymous - 20/6/2007  4:46 AM

I don't want to continue to stray off topic, but I want to answer Ross.

* * *

Doing the ISS at the lunar south pole with repackaged Shuttle technology isn't going to lead somehow to a thriving lunar colony because the economics won't allow it to scale. You're starting at the wrong end of the problem.

Exactly right, IMHO.

How can we create economic drivers so that space exploration does not depend on tax dollars? That is a pre-condition to a thriving lunar economy.

I *somewhat* agree, but I have a bit of a different viewpoint.

Commercial enterprise has had 30+ years to go to the moon - and hasn't.   They've only just started to reach the edge of space, and have a long way to go to prove any degree of reliability yet.   So, while they are the ultimate driving force behind the future of space exploration we can't rely upon them *now*.

NASA has been given one opportunity to blaze a new trail to the moon.   They have the mandate in hand from the administration.   They should start the process and lay the foundations (albeit slowly) to create a new infrastructure.

Then, when the commercial guys are ready to move on this, there will be resources on the moon ready for them to use too.   Kinda like the space tourists visiting the ISS.   They pay for the ride, but the infrastructure (ISS) is already waiting for them.

NASA can start the ball rolling on the Lunar surface, preparing habitats, roving vehicles, mining & processing resources.   Commercial interests can then keep costs low by following up with far simpler systems designed to just get people & cargo delivered to that waiting infrastructure.

NASA has an incredibly tough job to start the process though.   4-people teams and unmanned landers are the way to get it started.   When they have something worth visiting, then commercial interests can take over and allow NASA to then turn its focus towards Mars.

Remember in the airline industry, it was not many of the key pioneers who invented the tech (The Wright's, Ader, Pearce, Jatho & Santos-Dumont to list but a few) who ever got to exploit it and bring it to market as a product for consumers.   That job was done by the second, third and subsequent generations of aviation pioneers following on the heels of people like Lindberg in planes like the Sikorsky Ilya Muromets or the Ford Trimotor.

NASA is a first tier flyer in this context.   Others will follow, but only once the path is clearer.

Anyway, followups need to split this off into a separate thread and return these good people back to DIRECT-related discussion here.   Thanks.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/21/2007 06:19 am
Quote
Bill White - 20/6/2007  1:09 PM

In a global economy, and if the goal is to commercialize the Moon, tossing away our strength (genuine heavy lift) to compete with medium lift when our medium lift costs 4x to 5x more is just nuts.


Especially the case when the new LV (Ares-I) "competes" at roughly double the annual cost of the other *existing* US assets, which, as you say, already cost 4x to 5x as much as other nation's products.

It's a total waste.   Making a new Atlas-V, Delta-IV, Ariane-V or Proton class booster first is class-A stupidity if it even slightly risks not getting the big brother launcher later.

The first vehicle NASA builds *must* be capable of reaching the moon on its own.   Doing otherwise does nothing but run the 12 year incredibly dangerous gauntlet of Congress' political and economic whims.   Does anyone seriously think that's a gamble worth taking?

Sticking your head in the sand and just hoping everything goes well is simply very bad management.

This sort of management & decision-making process is directly related to the management screw-ups which cost us the lives of both Challenger and Columbia crews.   High risk items were identified, but then ignored because "NASA knows best".   This is the same attitude again.

It's commonly called blind ignorance.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/21/2007 06:39 am
Quote
Jim - 20/6/2007  4:41 PM
more use of medium líft lowers the per unit costs

True, but the advantages aren't as great as some people think.

To reduce the costs by just 20%, you have to fly four times as many vehicles.   Given a flight rate of about 8 per year currently, you would need to fly 32 times per year to get 20% savings.

To reduce the costs by 40% you would have to fly about 120 times as many vehicles.   If you flew 120 times more launches than at present, that's 960 per year - you'd have to fly about three every single day of the year to achieve that!


Current costs are around $100m for the smallest EELV's going up to $250m for each Heavy.   To get the 40% discount, each launch would then cost you $60m to $150m, and your annual bill would be at least $60 *billion* using just the cheapest EELV's - but that's about 4 times NASA's entire annual budget, so who is going to pay for it?


The *very* best we could realistically hope for is about one flight every week.   At that flight rate costs would be about 75% of current levels - that means $75m to $185m - which would cost a minimum of $3.9 billion per year (assuming only flying the cheapest/smallest LV's).

But that places only $650 tons into orbit per year.

Five Ares-V's can do that, or six Jupiter-232's can do that, and the costs for those are a lot less than $3.9 billion - more like $2.0 to $2.5 billion per year.

And at a realistic "one loss per 100 flights", the EELV's flying every week would be suffering program-wide stand downs every two years.   The SDLV's could expect to fly 16 to 20 years at those flight rates and suffer only one standdown during that time period.

I just can't see any advantage in the current EELV corner myself.   Of course, the Phase-2 and Phase-3 Atlas variants were pretty interesting.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 06/21/2007 09:30 am
Quote
kraisee - 21/6/2007  7:39 AM

Quote
Jim - 20/6/2007  4:41 PM
more use of medium líft lowers the per unit costs

True, but the advantages aren't as great as some people think.

To reduce the costs by just 20%, you have to fly four times as many vehicles.   Given a flight rate of about 8 per year currently, you would need to fly 32 times per year to get 20% savings.

....etc

Ross.

Where do you get these numbers?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 06/21/2007 10:39 am
Some questions asked out of genuine ignorance on my part: Why is our medium lift 4x to 5x more than other nation's products? And is that really true, or only compared to Russia and China. Are Atlas V and Delta IV really more expensive than Ariane V and H-II? This discussion seems to argue for a reusable TSTO medium lift launcher with a very high flight rate. Which sounds like the rationale for the Shuttle in the first place.

Quote
kraisee - 21/6/2007  2:19 AM

Quote
Bill White - 20/6/2007  1:09 PM

In a global economy, and if the goal is to commercialize the Moon, tossing away our strength (genuine heavy lift) to compete with medium lift when our medium lift costs 4x to 5x more is just nuts.


Especially the case when the new LV (Ares-I) "competes" at roughly double the annual cost of the other *existing* US assets, which, as you say, already cost 4x to 5x as much as other nation's products.

It's a total waste.   Making a new Atlas-V, Delta-IV, Ariane-V or Proton class booster first is class-A stupidity if it even slightly risks not getting the big brother launcher later.

The first vehicle NASA builds *must* be capable of reaching the moon on its own.   Doing otherwise does nothing but run the 12 year incredibly dangerous gauntlet of Congress' political and economic whims.   Does anyone seriously think that's a gamble worth taking?

Sticking your head in the sand and just hoping everything goes well is simply very bad management.

This sort of management & decision-making process is directly related to the management screw-ups which cost us the lives of both Challenger and Columbia crews.   High risk items were identified, but then ignored because "NASA knows best".   This is the same attitude again.

It's commonly called blind ignorance.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Tony Rusi on 06/21/2007 10:51 am
Kraisee,

I just heard about Direct 2, for the first time tonight, on George Noori's nationally syndicated overnight radio show called "Coast To Coast AM" from his guests Dr. David Livingston, host of "The Space Show"

http://www.thespaceshow.com/

and Rick Sterling. Rick Sterling's name was hot linked to the direct launcher website.

http://www.directlauncher.com/

Can anyone here tell me more about Rick Sterling?

Even though this "Direct 2" system seems to be very promising at first blush. I am not sure why you think this is better than ORION, other than some assertion that this program could get us to Mars before 2018, when ORION is supposed to go to the moon for the first time. This is a very bold claim. And I am all for it! But you have to get the money for it out of Congress.  But I would like to see the basis for this assertion. It would seem to me, that this program, while appearing to be less expensive, and faster to its proponents, will also be riddled with delays in funding, and political meddling by CONGRESS, which is, and was, ultimately responsible for the Shuttle disasters by trying to build it on the cheap and cutting corners like liquid oxygen strap ons.

NASA isn't flawed. NASA is just a set of people. They are a bunch of engineers and scientists that are used to following the orders coming down from "on high", in a large organization. I have met Scott Horowitz. He is a very capable guy. He is more holistic in his thinking than most at NASA. He has built his own aircraft, in his own garage. AND his mind is open to new ideas. If your system is better, and you can prove it to him, I think he would sign on, and support it. You should start with him.

The real problem is "on high" in Congress, and in the Whitehouse. No one even knows for sure who came up with the "Whitehouse New Vision" And for some reason, the whole process seemed to be kept secret. Why?? It seems like Bush's people wanted this program to get bi-partisan support, so they did their level best to keep it out of the press. Well they succeeded! Now nobody cares about space. Not Democrats. or Repulicans.  It seems like the extreme left wants to kill the program and give the money to the poor, and the hard right wants to kill the program because it is a socialist program.

Back in the 1930's, when we had some big problems. There were some socialist programs that built some power plants that had real benefits to our entire country. One of those programs was the Hoover Dam. Now if we want to not slip into another depression, we might want to grow our own oil, and build alot of windmills, and solar plants. Part of that program should be a pilot solar satellite somewhere up in space, put up by the cheapest heavy lift launcher that we can come up with, from either NASA or the private sector.

And in the words of JFK...we must be bold! We can go to Mars. We can build fusion power plants. We can build electric cars and virtually eliminate all air pollution, worldwide. We can make sure everyone on the planet has clean water to drink. We can transmute all existing radioactive waste into safe elements.  Global Climate Change may be real or not, who cares! I know for a fact that millions of people all over the planet will be better off with virtually zero air pollution. These should be just some of our goals. Not just going back to the moon. We can do it all.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 06/21/2007 11:04 am
clongton
Quote
- 20/6/2007  9:08 PM
Back on Topic, very specifically.

b) What is the historical average for total propellant amount remaining at MECO?

c) What is the minimum possible / safe residuals amount (non useable propellants = zero performance reserves) at MECO?
Let me use this opportunity to let newer people here be aware of the Open Course Ware available from MIT.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Aeronautics-and-Astronautics/16-885JFall-2005/LectureNotes/index.htm

Out of these, the lecture on 10 nov 2005 by WAYNE HALE is of interest per your questions.

Listen to him, it's FASCINATING ! 1h49min of Wayne Hale... magic...

At about 21' into the lecture, you can hear this:

The target for residual propellants (Shuttle): 2500 pounds; 900 pounds of which is liquid H2.

What's left in the O2 tank at MECO: nothing; just prior to MECO the engines are running of what's left in the pipe...

Nominal mixture ratio is 6.039... in flight conditions, the mixture ratio shifts... each engine on each mission is tested at Stennis and each engine is a bit different and that's important... 1.5 sec Isp difference is HUGE in this business.. and on and on and on...

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 06/21/2007 05:04 pm
Ross,
Quote
True, but the advantages aren't as great as some people think.

To reduce the costs by just 20%, you have to fly four times as many vehicles.   Given a flight rate of about 8 per year currently, you would need to fly 32 times per year to get 20% savings.

I don't have a lot of time to refute this (we're pulling a heavy work load this week, and I need to get in), but I think there are some fundamental flaws with your approach to cost estimating here.  I'm assuming that you're getting this 10% reduction per doubling of units concept from the idea of manufacturing learning curves?  This ignores some rather important points for a system like EELV.  While this learning curve idea may describe the "hardware manufacturing cost" of an Atlas-V over time as they get more experience with it, for instance, it does not reflect the overall cost of an Atlas-V or Delta-IV launch dependent on flight volume.  It only describes the increased efficiency of manufacture and operations as time goes on for a product.

The total flight cost of an EELV might include the following categories: payroll, infrastructure costs, unit manufacturing costs, payload integration costs, insurance, range costs, etc.  Of those, most of those costs only weakly scale with flight rate, and are mostly yearly quantities.  Ie there are a certain number of people and pads and factor workers and production equipment you need to keep paying salary/wages for whether you launch once, not at all, or 10+ times.  Both of the EELV lines were designed to handle very large flight demands.  I can't remember what the numbers were for Atlas, but IIRC, with existing factories, Boeing was supposed to be able to crank out something like 60 Delta-IV cores per year, and theoretically to be able to launch at least 10-20 birds per year without needing new pads or personel.  Now, they've had no reason to push things that hard due to lack of a market, but that capacity was built in.

What this means is that at low flight rates, costs are dominated by payroll and fixed infrastructure expense.  As flight rate increases even moderately the fixed cost per vehicle drops fast.  Just to give you a solid example, LM (pre-ULA) was saying that they could make money selling $8-9M tickets to Bigelow flying in an 8 person capsule on top of an Atlas-V 401.  If you take the higher number for ticket price, and assume that all the people on board are paying passengers (ie a conservative high estimate for the revenue per flight), you get about $72M per flight.  Now, that includes about $10M for Bigelow's cut of the deal (covering the 1-2wk stay at Nautilus/Sundancer), as well as the cut of the capsule provider (LM wants someone else to partner with them so they don't have to risk the money on an internal capsule development program), lets call that $17M per flight.  That means that the cost plus some profit of an Atlas-V at that flight rate needs to be less than $45M.   More realistically, only 7 of those 8 people on the capsule are paying customers, and they claimed their case closed even at the lower, $8M amount (though they'd obviously prefer to charge a bit more and recoup their investment quicker) That would give numbers for the total Atlas-V flight in the $30M range.  The current rate is something like $70-105M depending on whose numbers you believe.

According to your prediction that would take 32-512 flights to get to $45M (depending on if you believe the 70M current price end or the 105M price end) to as much as 512-8000 flights.  

You're a really smart and talented guy Russ, but you're making a crappy argument that ignores a lot about how these things work.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/21/2007 05:53 pm
Jon Goff's argument demonstrates the need for yet another EELV versus HLLV thread. But here is my quick reply, if government is the customer, we will NOT realize the cost savings from high flight rates because the procurement process is not nimble enough to do that and Congress answers to stakeholders who care not a whit about efficient, low cost access to space.

I am reminded of a quip from the movie version of Contact: "Why buy one when you can buy two at twice the price?"

Perhaps (or perhaps not) Bigelow can leverage a $30 million price tag for an Atlas V flight and I would cheer heartily since we are now in Soyuz pricing territory which is where we need to be. If Lockheed PROMISED $30 million per flight for VSE purchases and put their market capitalization behind that promise, okay, I will reconsider my position on this topic.

BUT, the Congress-critters who pay for spaceflight will not achieve the savings from high flight rates since jobs and the "fair" distribution of pork is part of the mission. If a taxi cab company buys 200 Saturn taxis and tells Ford "sorry" that is just business. NASA does not have that luxury and changing that reality would be a harder mission than going to the Moon.

(Disagree? Ask Elon Musk about his lawsuit concerning EELV.)

Therefore, I agree with those who say Jupiter is the best we can do with a government procurement process and instead of fighting over access to Uncle Sugar's feed bag space advocates should be looking for non-taxpayer based sources of revenue.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/21/2007 10:03 pm
Quote
meiza - 21/6/2007  5:30 AM

Quote
kraisee - 21/6/2007  7:39 AM

Quote
Jim - 20/6/2007  4:41 PM
more use of medium líft lowers the per unit costs

True, but the advantages aren't as great as some people think.

To reduce the costs by just 20%, you have to fly four times as many vehicles.   Given a flight rate of about 8 per year currently, you would need to fly 32 times per year to get 20% savings.

....etc

Ross.

Where do you get these numbers?

Historical data for the aerospace industry tracks with general aeronautical data in this area, and the economies of scale are well documented.   The rule of thumb being a 10% reduction (recurring) in unit cost, every time you double production.   2x = 90%, 4x = 81%, 16x = 72.5% etc.

And Jon, what you're referring to are all fixed costs.   Fixed costs total only $500m per year for each of the separate Delta and Atlas programs.   To get the lights switched on and everyone's bum in their seats, that's already a pretty low cost in this business.

While savings are sure to be possible by spreading this cost over more launches, it still doesn't make that big of a difference.

In real terms, you're still never going to get a $60m EELV - even the smallest, cheapest one.   At that cost, Soyuz still beats you on the international market because its already man-rated with a 30+ year heritage, and the EELV's have yet to go through the expense of getting man-rated - let alone the recurring costs of manned operations.


Please don't get me wrong:   I see the EELV's, the Falcon's etc as being at the core of the second generation of Lunar-bound vehicles.   They are commercial programs and should be able to make great commercial use of their abilities once the government has put a suitable infrastructure in place to enable them.   I think that timeframe is about 5-10 years behind NASA though.   I just don't see anywhere in the current plan of beginning on this new path which suits their specific abilities in the first, non-commercial, wave.   Truly, the biggest hindrance they have is the political demands regarding STS workforce retention - and they don't do anything to assuage the political masters above NASA.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/21/2007 10:27 pm
Philip Metschan has created a truly beautiful rendering of a Jupiter-120 CLV being processed at the Pad.   I thought you might all want to see it.

Enjoy,

Ross.


Larger Image - 1.7Mb


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: yinzer on 06/21/2007 10:29 pm
Quote
kraisee - 21/6/2007  3:03 PM
Historical data for the aerospace industry tracks with general aeronautical data in this area, and the economies of scale are well documented.   The rule of thumb being a 10% reduction (recurring) in unit cost, every time you double production.   2x = 90%, 4x = 81%, 16x = 72.5% etc.

While this is generally true, it only applies in the case where you are free to reoptimize for your new production volumes.  If your infrastructure is relatively fixed, running it below capacity will drive up the cost-per-item much faster than 10% per halving of volume.  And increasing volume back up to the capacity of your infrastructure will decrease cost-per-item much faster than 10% per doubling.

Part-throttle cost efficiency of rocket factories is not much better than part-throttle fuel-efficiency of turbojet engines, and in both cases the off-nominal performance hit vastly swamps the broader returns to scale.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/21/2007 10:37 pm
That is indeed a beautiful rendering!

The scale of the guys in the foreground seems off though--they seem way too big.  Perhaps it is intended that there are much closer to us than the rocket is, but that isn't registering on my eyes.  Scaling off of the people, it appears that the whole Jupiter LV system from the SRB nozzles to the top of the escape tower is only about 60-70 feet tall.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HarryM on 06/21/2007 10:45 pm
Very nice rendering! Lighting even looks correct (cloudy/diffuse).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: yinzer on 06/21/2007 11:02 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 21/6/2007  3:37 PM

That is indeed a beautiful rendering!

The scale of the guys in the foreground seems off though--they seem way too big.  Perhaps it is intended that there are much closer to us than the rocket is, but that isn't registering on my eyes.  Scaling off of the people, it appears that the whole Jupiter LV system from the SRB nozzles to the top of the escape tower is only about 60-70 feet tall.

Without knowing how accurate little details of the image are, I feel pretty confident that the scale of the people in the foreground is spot on.  It's a photoshop of this picture, so those are actual people along with the actual SRBs that would be used on the Jupiter LV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/21/2007 11:37 pm
Quote
yinzer - 21/6/2007  4:02 PM

Quote
SolarPowered - 21/6/2007  3:37 PM

That is indeed a beautiful rendering!

The scale of the guys in the foreground seems off though--they seem way too big.  Perhaps it is intended that there are much closer to us than the rocket is, but that isn't registering on my eyes.  Scaling off of the people, it appears that the whole Jupiter LV system from the SRB nozzles to the top of the escape tower is only about 60-70 feet tall.

Without knowing how accurate little details of the image are, I feel pretty confident that the scale of the people in the foreground is spot on.  It's a photoshop of this picture, so those are actual people along with the actual SRBs that would be used on the Jupiter LV.

That is the difference between an accurate perspective drawing, and a photograph.  Depending on the camera position and the length of the lens, it is very possible for a photograph to give an impression that is false.  This was common in Hollywood before the advent of CGI, where miniatures in the foreground could be made to appear to be very large, and similar things.

In the case of the image we are talking about, my eyes continue to tell me that the rocket (in both the original and the photoshopped versions) is much smaller than it actually is.  I suspect that the original photo was taken with a wide-angle lens, from fairly close to the men on the platform.

I don't want to pick nits, though.  The rendering is beautiful!  The rocket is beautiful!  And I want to see it fly!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: neviden on 06/22/2007 12:50 am
The Jupiter 120 can get to either 46x120 nm or 30x220 nm (ISS inclination) with around 40 MT of payload.

How high could the core stage get with 20 MT payload?
Could it achive high enough orbit so that it does not burn up in the atmosfere soon and stays in orbit?

The core stage weighs 60 MT and could be used as a structural element (rotating space station?) or as a source of aluminium for any future space construction in LEO. Since it would get delivered to LEO as part of crew exchanges, the NASA could say "Sure, Soyuz TMA is 10x cheaper, but only we can put those big tanks that are used to make a practical space station"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/22/2007 01:02 am
Quote
neviden - 21/6/2007  8:50 PM

The core stage weighs 60 MT and could be used as a structural element (rotating space station?) or as a source of aluminium for any future space construction in LEO. Since it would get delivered to LEO as part of crew exchanges, the NASA could say "Sure, Soyuz TMA is 10x cheaper, but only we can put those big tanks that are used to make a practical space station"
The reality is that it is not economical to leave a used ET in orbit and expect to be able to make a space station out of it. Remember, it would have gone into orbit full of FUEL, and a station is actually a MACHINE that people live inside of. It would take many, many launches of disconnected parts that would have to be brought up to the ET and then painstakingly assembled inside the tank, after opening it up and cleaning it out. That is not the kind of EVA that the astronauts should be asked to do. It would be far cheaper to just create a station out of tank segments on the ground, install and checkout everything, launch it, and simply connect the station pieces. A space station of ANY kind is much much more than a populated shell.

No, leaving the ET in orbit to become a station is not anywhere near practical. It couldn't even be reasonably used as a tank for a fuel depot, because the depot would need specialized boiloff equipment installed inside the totally closed-off tank, something that could not be installed on orbit.

It's far better to jetison the tank just prior to orbital velocity and let it burn up in the atmosphere over the Indian ocean.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: libs0n on 06/22/2007 01:30 am
On a lark, what would the payload of a Jupiter-120 be if instead of two solid rocket boosters, two Jupiter-120 booster stages were attached, ala the Delta 4 Heavy?  And the payload to orbit of that configuration along with the upper stage proposed?

Truly fantastic pic above, btw.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/22/2007 01:35 am
Quote
libs0n - 21/6/2007  6:30 PM

On a lark, what would the payload of a Jupiter-120 be if instead of two solid rocket boosters, two Jupiter-120 booster stages were attached, ala the Delta 4 Heavy?  And the payload to orbit of that configuration along with the upper stage proposed?

Truly fantastic pic above, btw.
My guess is that it would never get off the pad.  Those two RS-68's have less thrust than the weight of the stage.  The two SRBs are needed in order to have enough thrust to get off the ground.

Now let's see what the experts say!  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: neviden on 06/22/2007 01:49 am
The fuel is Hydrogen and Oxygen. Gasses. What is there to clean up?

If the tanks were made so they could have built in hatch, you attach it to the ISS (or something like this). The work and everything else would be done on dedicated modules, the tanks would be used for what they are good for: space. A lot of space. And if nobody knows how to use empty space in space i have an idea: grow plants. 30 m2 of growing area per person is enough to make food and oxgen. Just plant them on the walls, put light in the middle of the tank and you are good to go. That should cut down the costs of delivering suplies to LEO to support people there. It would also alow the large increase in crew size (= more crew hours to do the work).

There would be no EVA's. Everything would be done inside a breathable atmosfere with no rush and no danger. And if anyone would be concerned about limited air circulation (CO2 buildup) before the fans would work - you can use scuba gear if you like.

Why dump it if you can use it?

Could Jupiter 120 deliver Orion (and the core stage itself) to the 500x500 nm (ISS) orbit?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: libs0n on 06/22/2007 05:00 am
Quote
SolarPowered - 21/6/2007  8:35 PM

Quote
libs0n - 21/6/2007  6:30 PM

On a lark, what would the payload of a Jupiter-120 be if instead of two solid rocket boosters, two Jupiter-120 booster stages were attached, ala the Delta 4 Heavy?  And the payload to orbit of that configuration along with the upper stage proposed?

Truly fantastic pic above, btw.
My guess is that it would never get off the pad.  Those two RS-68's have less thrust than the weight of the stage.  The two SRBs are needed in order to have enough thrust to get off the ground.

Now let's see what the experts say!  ;)

Uh oh, perhaps I should now go ask this question in an Ares V thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 06/22/2007 05:22 am
The amusing thing to me, reading about all the 'plans' for external tank use in orbit, is that just about everybody doesn't take into account the need for keeping the tank in a stable orientation during or after propellant pressure depletion, and how much extra mass for additional batteries/comm hardware/possible RCS needs & controllers would be required *just* to get the tank into a stable orientation to dock with some type of tug to get it where it needs to be.

(Oh, yeah, forgot that additional mass for docking hardware and electronics/controls - plus extra mass for launch/booster thermal protections for all of that prior to orbit - as well).

Seems to me that the large amount of additional mass needed to be added to an ET to just be able to *use* it once in orbit, and how those extra (rather large) mass penalties actually detract from the useful mass a Shuttle orbiter can bring to orbit make it pretty cost-ineffective from an overall launch budget viewpoint.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/22/2007 05:22 am
Yikes, lots to deal with, so I'll just pile in :)

libs0n & neviden:

The idea of a "wet workshop" as you're discussing was considered during the Apollo Applications Program after the Lunar landings had taken place.   It was again re-visited a number of years ago to try to make a "wheel space station".   It is theoretically possible, but is an extremely tricky proposition because of a number of reasons.   In no particular order, the residual propellant leave a reside on everything inside the tank, even if vented and 'encouraged' to leave the tank (don't ask!), not everything will go, so cleaning up the LH2 tank is a big job.   Then there is the fact that the foam on the exterior is not designed to be in space for any length of time without falling to pieces in the harsh environment.   This creates a debris field all around your new space station, which in not a good thing.   Then there are the concerns of attaching docking systems to highly pressurized vessels and the weaknesses this introduces into the structure during the high-g loads of ascent.   You also can't fly the tank initially with anything else in it but propellant.   Everything you wish to put inside must be carried up separately.

All told, a "wet workshop" does not offer as many advantages as a "dry workshop" does.   The EDS for Jupiter-232 could very easily be converted into a space station - just like the original SkyLab was a converted S-IVB stage.   It could be lifted on a J-232, and massing about 60-70mT with all the solar arrays, docking hatches and life support equipment etc (SkyLab-like), can still contain about 40-50mT of truly useful equipment & materials at the time of launch.   That is probably the best way to put station elements up in the future IMHO.

SolarPowered:

Correct.   The Core boosters themselves can't lift the full mass of the complete stage.   They do need the SRB's to do the initial work.

But there is a lot of mileage in considering a liquid fuelled booster instead of the SRB's as a later "upgrade".   One of the many variants of Jupiter Core Stage is the J-5xx series, which has five RS-68's under it.   Each of those has 3,250,000lb thrust - which is in the same ballpark of a 4-segment SRB (3,331,400lbf).   Assuming it were short-fuelled to somewhere around 70% (I don't have the precise numbers to hand), that could theoretically be an alternative.   I have never run a simulation of such a massive beast though, and suspect there would be issues (reliability) with 12 engines all firing together at liftoff!

My personally preferred option would be to use a LOX/Kerosene booster instead.   Possibly powered by four RD-180's, three RS-84's or possibly just two new F-1 derivatives (F-1X anyone?), such a pair of boosters could offer some serious performance advantages (20%+ perhaps) over the SRB's and still be well within the budget being spent currently making Ares-I and Ares-V together.

neviden:

Actually, the ISS is (nominally) more like 220x220nm orbit, but at a more difficult to reach inclination of 51.6deg instead of the more common 28.5deg.   Currently (mainly due to few boosts since STS-107 was lost), the station is languishing very low - at just 172.6x187.3nm, 51.63deg orbit.

The J-120 can actually place more than 40mT of useful payload directly into a 220x220nm circular, 51.6deg ISS-compatible orbit, with the payload still attached to the Core.   That payload could be just a CEV, or perhaps a 20mT CEV along with a 20+mT "delivery" of some sorts for the station.   Remember: Shuttle can only bring up ~16mT modules to the station, and only modules which fit in it's 5m diameter payload bay, so this is clearly better.

J-120 is actually capable of launching a standard Lunar-spec CEV (20,186Kg) to insertion orbit of 80x2035nm, 28.5deg, where the CEV's TEI fuel load would seem to be sufficient to circularize into a legitimate Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) of 2035nm circular!   I can't quite see Ares-I ever managing that.

And of course, with the EDS on top, the same Jupiter vehicle can easily send a fully fuelled CEV (25mT) to the James Webb Space Telescope all the way out at the Earth-Sun Lagrange-2 point!



Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: neviden on 06/22/2007 08:37 am
MKremer:
The use of a Shuttle external tank is tricky, since it is designed to be as light as possible because it needs to put 100 mT Shuttle into orbit. As you point out, anything that adds weight cuts into payload and the payload is small at it is already (not to mention being scraped in a few years).

I am talking about Jupiter 120 core first stage, that has 20 mT “wasted” capacity when delivering Orion into LEO. Any modifications that would add weight would not limit any part in an actual mission.

kraisee:
“wet workshop”: Put CBM on the top of the Core stage (maybe only for a Jupiter 120), dock it to the ISS, cut through the tanks (or open the hatch) to get inside. Replace foam with something heavier and sturdier that would not disintegrate once in orbit and would provide radiation and micrometeoroid protection, thermal insulation (that would be the primary task for the tank anyway). As for the residual that would be left after Hydrogen I don’t know, since I don’t know what it is, but I am sure this would not be insurmountable problem (it’s hydrogen.. combine it with Oxygen?)

The Jupiter 120 seems too big (expensive) for a simple “crew to LEO” task. But that is true only if you look at the payload itself. What if you looked from the “mass to LEO” point of view:

Jupiter 120 or 130: Make the core stage stronger, better insulated, with a view to reuse as either source of aluminium or well insulated pressure vessel. This would of course make it heavier, but it would mean it could also be made cheaper and safer (better tolerances, no falling foam). It should be able to lift 20+ mt Orion to the destination orbit (any inclination, 200 – 1000 km LEO) with some propellant still onboard. If the gasses (H2, O2) would not be needed, you could combine them to make water (= efficient space storable radiation shield, life support). That way, the “wasted” capacity would not be wasted. And since anything that is put into LEO costs more than it’s weight in gold, this would mean that we put 20 mT Orion + 60 mT core stage + 20 mT left over propellant (that could be combined together to make water if the H2 and O2 would not be needed). Since this would be launched anyway it would be “free” and if designed from the start to be used like this it would cost no more than the “classical” design.

Jupiter 232: Use the same strong, heavy core, but put as big (and light) of an EDS on top of it as it is possible. The core stage would not reach the orbit and would burn up in the atmosphere, but the upper stage would bring 100+ mt payload to LEO.

I know the ISS has 220x220nm orbit, but this is done mainly because otherwise the Shuttle could not have reached it. It also means it is encountering drag and needs to be reboosted all the time. The heavier the station, more propellant you need for reboosts. If there are no needs for reboosts, there is no limit on weight of a station. If there is no limit, then put one 100 mT base (with everything complicated inside) module to witch you could dock many “free” stages (“free” as in already built and delivered to LEO) for a lot of volume. If you could put ISS to higher orbit there would be no need for reboosts, since there would be no more drag. You would still want to put it bellow Van Allen belt (800 km LEO?) but otherwise as high as possible. And since you need more propellant to reach 800 km LEO then the 300 km LEO you must have this planed for. The Soyuz TMA could reach it with upgraded Soyuz 2-1b, Orion could reach it with Jupiter 120, ATV has enough propellant as it is (since its job is also to reboost the ISS).

2035x2035nm is in the Van Allen belt.

Earth-Sun Lagrange-2 point accessibility is nice, but more important is that it can reach Earth-Moon Lagrange-1 and 2 points. Send JWST to EML-2 for repairs/refits and back to ESL-2 once this would be done. They are only few days travel away from the Earth and the delta-v from ESL-2 and EML-2 is 50 m/s.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/22/2007 01:22 pm
Quote
neviden - 22/6/2007  4:37 AM

Earth-Sun Lagrange-2 point accessibility is nice, but more important is that it can reach Earth-Moon Lagrange-1 and 2 points. Send JWST to EML-2 for repairs/refits and back to ESL-2 once this would be done. They are only few days travel away from the Earth and the delta-v from ESL-2 and EML-2 is 50 m/s.

50 m/s may not sound like much to a rocket guy, but to spacecraft it is the whole budget.

JWST has less than 100 m/s on board delta-v, with 2/3 of that allocated to launch and early orbit corrections.

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/22/2007 01:37 pm
Quote
neviden - 22/6/2007  4:37 AM

Earth-Sun Lagrange-2 point accessibility is nice, but more important is that it can reach Earth-Moon Lagrange-1 and 2 points. Send JWST to EML-2 for repairs/refits and back to ESL-2 once this would be done. They are only few days travel away from the Earth and the delta-v from ESL-2 and EML-2 is 50 m/s.
JWST is not designed to be serviced and doesn't have the fuel to make the transit.

This line of thought is straying far from the topic thread. Very far.
Please move continuing discussions of all things not "DIRECTLY" related to the Direct architecture or the Jupiter launch vehicle to a different thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 06/22/2007 02:54 pm
Quote
Bill White - 21/6/2007  1:53 PM

J. But here is my quick reply, if government is the customer, we will NOT realize the cost savings from high flight rates because the procurement process is not nimble enough to do that and Congress answers to stakeholders who care not a whit about efficient, low cost access to space.


You have no basis for your claim.  Each NASA ELV procurement is based on existing costs, buld buys and would take advantage higher flight rates
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 06/22/2007 02:57 pm
Ross,
Quote
And Jon, what you're referring to are all fixed costs.   Fixed costs total only $500m per year for each of the separate Delta and Atlas programs.   To get the lights switched on and everyone's bum in their seats, that's already a pretty low cost in this business.

While savings are sure to be possible by spreading this cost over more launches, it still doesn't make that big of a difference.

What do you mean it doesn't make a big difference?  When you try to spread $500M out over at most half a dozen launches in a year, that ends up being as much as $80-100M extra per launch to cover the overhead.  The $500M fixed cost may be low in this industry, but it's still high enough that at the flight rate we're at, most of the cost per given flight is the fixed cost.  Since these are privately run production programs, they have to amortize their fixed costs out into the cost (and price) of the individual flights.  They can't play the same kind of goofy games that NASA does with fixed vs marginal costs.

Quote
In real terms, you're still never going to get a $60m EELV - even the smallest, cheapest one.

I disagree strongly.  If the current prices for Atlas V 401s are really in the $70-100M range, even at this low of a flight rate, that means that the marginal cost for one of them is probably much less than $40M, possibly as little as $25-30M.  The more you fly more vehicles (up to the capacity of the current infrastructure), you're going to have a per-vehicle fixed+marginal cost that starts approaching that marginal cost.

This isn't anything particularly unknown here.  LM has said as much on many occasions (that at this flight rate most of their cost is fixed costs, not marginal), and they firmly believe that they can get their Atlas V cheap enough to make money on Bigelow flights where the total revenue per flight is less than $60M (and that has to pay for a capsule and $10M for Bigelow as well).

Basically I still think you're completely wrong on this point.  Everyone I know at ULA says that most of their per-flight cost is fixed infrastructure right now and that by upping the flight rate even modestly, the per-flight cost is going to drop rapidly because that can get divided up over more flights.  This isn't particularly controversial.  Your discussion of learning curves is perfectly right for the marginal cost of products.  But even with "only $500M" per year in fixed costs, those fixed costs dominate the equations at the current flight rates.

Quote
At that cost, Soyuz still beats you on the international market because its already man-rated with a 30+ year heritage, and the EELV's have yet to go through the expense of getting man-rated - let alone the recurring costs of manned operations.

The cost of "man-rating" EELVs is not that high at all.  For Atlas V, their current estimate, including all the pad work for getting people up onto a capsule, and for handling a manned capsule, is on the order of $100M.  That's really not a lot, especially if the market turns out to be as big as hoped for.  Soyuz may be relatively cheap at the moment, but the per-seat price on an Atlas-V 401/402 or Falcon 9 based system is going to be substantially cheaper.   Newer capsule designs can pack more people into a single flight, and the actual flight cost isn't that much higher than Soyuz's.

Quote
Please don't get me wrong:   I see the EELV's, the Falcon's etc as being at the core of the second generation of Lunar-bound vehicles.   They are commercial programs and should be able to make great commercial use of their abilities once the government has put a suitable infrastructure in place to enable them.   I think that timeframe is about 5-10 years behind NASA though.   I just don't see anywhere in the current plan of beginning on this new path which suits their specific abilities in the first, non-commercial, wave.   Truly, the biggest hindrance they have is the political demands regarding STS workforce retention - and they don't do anything to assuage the political masters above NASA.

The problem as I see it is that neither ESAS nor DIRECT really develops much in the way of commercially-useful infrastructure.  The only infrastructure either of them is going to (at best) create is going to be an expensive ISS-esque base on the moon.  One that is likely expensive enough to make commercial applications tricky at best.  Real, commercial applications aren't going to be using Heavy Lift vehicles of any sort.  Unlike NASA that has some paranoid fear of orbital rendezvous and orbital propellant operations, commercial cislunar transportation doesn't have the luxury of being that wasteful.  They will likely use depots in LEO, as well as L1/L2/LUNO to allow for smaller, more frequent trips using smaller launch vehicles.  You'll likely see reusable transportation between LEO and LUNO, and LUNO and the lunar surface.  And many of those commercial applications will likely land their own modules for their own stations.  

Basically as I see it, there's nothing in the main ESAS or DIRECT plan that is really even remotely relevant to the eventual commercial development and exploitation of cislunar space.  Both of them are damage to be routed around as far as I'm concerned.  The only reasons I support DIRECT over ESAS are that a) it makes more technical sense, and b) it leaves more money available for real space development, instead of sucking up all the resources into an Shuttle-Derived HLV hole.  The best we can hope is that something like DIRECT will free up enough resources to help spur on the technologies that really matter.

~Jon
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/22/2007 04:01 pm
Ares V vs. Direct?

Can someone point me to a link to explain the difference between Ares V and Direct?  From just looking at the two concepts, I don't see that much of a difference from a "hard to build" point of view.  I certainly have problems with the thought Direct can be fielded much sooner than Ares V.  There is a LOT of work to develop Direct, just like there is to develop Ares V.

Danny Deger
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: bad_astra on 06/22/2007 04:04 pm
Quote
Danny Dot - 22/6/2007  11:01 AM

Ares V vs. Direct?

Can someone point me to a link to explain the difference between Ares V and Direct?  From just looking at the two concepts, I don't see that much of a difference from a "hard to build" point of view.  I certainly have problems with the thought Direct can be fielded much sooner than Ares V.  There is a LOT of work to develop Direct, just like there is to develop Ares V.

Danny Deger

No need initially for 5 seg RSRMs initially, minimal tank retooling, minimal infrastructure mods. Minimal engine mods. That's what came to mind in the first second, I'm sure there's more.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: neviden on 06/22/2007 04:20 pm
Quote
clongton - 22/6/2007  3:37 PM
This line of thought is straying far from the topic thread. Very far.
Please move continuing discussions of all things not "DIRECTLY" related to the Direct architecture or the Jupiter launch vehicle to a different thread.
I am trying to find a reason why there should be DIRECT at all, since it is better then the Shuttle and Ares I/V, but still worse then the Multiple medium launchers. If Shuttle derived is “political reality”, then at least we could do it make the best that we can possibly make of it. And the only way to change NASA’s mind right now would be something that is truly better.

If the marginal costs of building larger rocket compared to building smaller rocket is not that different (cheap propellant), then build the larger rocket. Even more, build it even bigger so that you can put most of the MASS into high enough orbit (no reboosts!). And you do need that MASS in LEO to create useful space station. $100 billion for 6 person ISS is crazy. $100 billion for 100-1000 permanent (built to last a century) person rotating space station that could support the basic life functions on itself (food, air, water, gravitation, space, long term living) would be less crazy. People would get there on different kinds of vehicles (Soyuz TMA, Orion, Dragon) with the cost per person $10-40. This would still be very expensive, but It’s a start..
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/22/2007 04:26 pm
Quote
bad_astra - 22/6/2007  12:04 PM

Quote
Danny Dot - 22/6/2007  11:01 AM

Ares V vs. Direct?

Can someone point me to a link to explain the difference between Ares V and Direct?  From just looking at the two concepts, I don't see that much of a difference from a "hard to build" point of view.  I certainly have problems with the thought Direct can be fielded much sooner than Ares V.  There is a LOT of work to develop Direct, just like there is to develop Ares V.

Danny Deger

No need initially for 5 seg RSRMs initially, minimal tank retooling, minimal infrastructure mods. Minimal engine mods. That's what came to mind in the first second, I'm sure there's more.

"Initially"?  Direct doesn't use 5 segment solids at all, does it?  The core would then be different as well, right?

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/22/2007 04:31 pm
Quote
neviden - 22/6/2007  12:20 PM
MASS in LEO to create useful space station. $100 billion for 6 person ISS is crazy. $100 billion for 100-1000 permanent (built to last a century) person rotating space station that could support the basic life functions on itself (food, air, water, gravitation, space, long term living) would be less crazy. People would get there on different kinds of vehicles (Soyuz TMA, Orion, Dragon) with the cost per person $10-40. This would still be very expensive, but It’s a start..

Direct or no, if a 6 person ISS costs $100B (and that is, by definition, what it costs) ... it is the suggestion that a permanent space station (that's no moon, that's a ...) with basic life support is pure science fiction.  Wishin' and hopin' (and writing novels) does not bring the cost down (and please don't give me the idea of an order of magnitude waste in government projects).
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/22/2007 04:41 pm
Quote
neviden - 22/6/2007  12:20 PM

Quote
clongton - 22/6/2007  3:37 PM
This line of thought is straying far from the topic thread. Very far.
Please move continuing discussions of all things not "DIRECTLY" related to the Direct architecture or the Jupiter launch vehicle to a different thread.
I am trying to find a reason why there should be DIRECT at all, since it is better then the Shuttle and Ares I/V, but still worse then the Multiple medium launchers. If Shuttle derived is “political reality”, then at least we could do it make the best that we can possibly make of it. And the only way to change NASA’s mind right now would be something that is truly better.

If the marginal costs of building larger rocket compared to building smaller rocket is not that different (cheap propellant), then build the larger rocket. Even more, build it even bigger so that you can put most of the MASS into high enough orbit (no reboosts!). And you do need that MASS in LEO to create useful space station. $100 billion for 6 person ISS is crazy. $100 billion for 100-1000 permanent (built to last a century) person rotating space station that could support the basic life functions on itself (food, air, water, gravitation, space, long term living) would be less crazy. People would get there on different kinds of vehicles (Soyuz TMA, Orion, Dragon) with the cost per person $10-40. This would still be very expensive, but It’s a start..
The points you make are worth discussion *but not on this thread*. For better or worse, the argument for  EELV vs. SDLV was fought two years ago and lost. This is not the place to open that wound. NASA is proceeding to spend $billions on a SDLV and this thread is about a BETTER way to use existing STS infrastructure and flight articles in a Shuttle Derived architecture. That’s it. Nothing else. If you really want to discuss those other things, please start a new thread for them. There are many people who would be glad to continue the discussion with you *on a thread started for that purpose*.  This thread has nothing to do with them and they are a pure and unnecessary distraction to the topic of this thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/22/2007 04:48 pm
Quote
Jim - 20/6/2007  4:43 PM

Quote
clongton - 20/6/2007  2:08 PM

a) What is the historical average for total propellant amount (LH2 + LO2) at liftoff (T-0)?

b) What is the historical average for total propellant amount remaining at MECO?

c) What is the minimum possible / safe residuals amount (non useable propellants = zero performance reserves) at MECO?


A. it is basically the same load

I know where this is tabulated online  when I get back home
Jim, did you locate the tabulations?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/22/2007 05:10 pm
Quote
bad_astra - 22/6/2007  11:04 AM

Quote
Danny Dot - 22/6/2007  11:01 AM

Ares V vs. Direct?

Can someone point me to a link to explain the difference between Ares V and Direct?  From just looking at the two concepts, I don't see that much of a difference from a "hard to build" point of view.  I certainly have problems with the thought Direct can be fielded much sooner than Ares V.  There is a LOT of work to develop Direct, just like there is to develop Ares V.

Danny Deger

No need initially for 5 seg RSRMs initially, minimal tank retooling, minimal infrastructure mods. Minimal engine mods. That's what came to mind in the first second, I'm sure there's more.

Thanks.  I found a Direct proposal in the L2 section, but I don't see the version to carry Orion being that much easier than Ares 1.  Moving the engines to the base of the ET is a HUGE engineering job.  It is probably easier than Ares 1 work, but not by an order of magnitude.

I do think total operation costs of the two Direct rockets will be less than total operating costs of Ares 1 and Ares V.  

I heard on "Coast to Coast AM" someone saying NASA does NOT really want to go to the moon and is designing certain failure into the program with Ares 1 and V.  I can't say I agree with this, but it does explain a lot :-)

Danny Deger
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/22/2007 06:44 pm
Quote
Danny Dot - 22/6/2007 12:01 PM

Ares V vs. Direct?

Can someone point me to a link to explain the difference between Ares V and Direct? From just looking at the two concepts, I don't see that much of a difference from a "hard to build" point of view. I certainly have problems with the thought Direct can be fielded much sooner than Ares V. There is a LOT of work to develop Direct, just like there is to develop Ares V.

Danny Deger
Let’s see – where to start :)
If you go to www.directlauncher.com you can download the latest version of Direct v2.0. However, that specific document doesn't go into as much detail as the v1.0 document did as regards infrastructure and budget. We are creating a paper for the upcoming AIAA conference that will expand on the architecture in great detail; much more than what's in the v1.0 document. We deliberately confined the v2.0 paper to the Jupiter launch vehicle itself, but all of the infrastructure information in the v1.0 document is still valid.

Essentially the base philosophy of the Direct architecture is to reuse as much as possible the existing STS infrastructure and existing flight articles with the ONLY changes being integration among the flight articles and supporting structures. That saves many billions of dollars and moves the schedule to the left by several years.

Understand that “Direct” is the name of the architecture, while “Jupiter” is the name of the launch vehicle the Direct architecture uses.

1. Jupiter uses existing 8.4m dia ET – Ares-V needs a brand new 10m ET. Jupiter eliminates this development expense.

2. Jupiter uses existing 4-segment SRB’s essentially “as-is” – Ares-I and V need a new 5-segment SRB. Jupiter eliminates this development expense. It also eliminates the schedule hit it takes to develop them. Remember; Ares-I was initially suppose to use the existing 4-segment SRB. Now ATK has to go off and develop, create and certify a new SRB. Translation: TIME and money. Original development effort for Ares-I was MOSTLY the J-2X engine and the new upper stage it would power. Now the SAME funding (now reduced by Congress) has to be divided between J-2X upper stage and 5-segment SRB development. That slows everything down.

3. Jupiter uses existing RS-68 engines – Ares-V requires development of regen versions. Jupiter eliminates this development expense.

4. Jupiter requires minimal changes to the VAB because it uses the STS footprint – Ares-V requires major demolition and new construction. Jupiter eliminates this development expense.

5. Using Jupiter all four high bays in the VAB will be identical, sharing costs, while under Ares, Ares-I and Ares-V will have two unique high bays each, costing millions to create and maintain. Jupiter eliminates this expense.

6. Jupiter reuses existing MPL’s for ALL variants with minimal changes, primarily to the flame trench – Ares discards the existing MLP’s and requires 2 each of brand new MLP’s, one for the Ares-I and another very different one for the Ares-V. Jupiter eliminates this development expense.

7. Jupiter requires the installation of a simple and small Atlas-V style LUT on the existing MPL. The structural hard points on the MLP already exist. Ares-V, on the other hand, requires building a pair of completely new LUTs, capable of servicing such a massive launch vehicle. Jupiter eliminates this development expense.

8. Ares-V requires the construction of all new 6-truck Crawler-Transporters because of the extreme weight. Jupiter does not need these and eliminates this expense.

9. Jupiter will fit on existing ocean-going Pegasus barge for transport to KSC – Ares discards the existing barge and requires a brand new, much bigger ocean-going barge. Jupiter eliminates this development expense.

10. Jupiter uses existing facilities and tooling at Michoud – Ares discards much of the existing equipment and tooling and requires all new tooling. Jupiter eliminates this development expense.

11. Jupiter implementation schedule allows STS workforce to be reduced primarily thru attrition, while Ares will decimate the existing STS workforce due to non activity and a multi-year stand down between it and Shuttle. This will cause a devastating lose of experienced talent, similar to what happened between Saturn and Shuttle, only worse. Jupiter prevents this disaster.

12. All variations of the Jupiter share workforce and infrastructure across the board – Ares requires two completely independent sets of infrastructure for the Ares-I and the Ares-V and only shares some of the workforce.

13. Because the RS-68’s on the Jupiter are the same as the ones flown on the Delta, the flight history of the engine and its safety profile are increased by the Delta flights. Ares-V would be using a different engine, a regen version, so it’s flight history would be limited to the flights it can make which, according to the published flight manifest, is very few.

14. Because the Jupiter has engine-out capability, an Orion ascent to orbit is more likely to survive an engine anomaly than Ares-I, which for the Ares would trigger an immediate and possibly catastrophic in-flight abort.

15. The Jupiter can run its engines at far less than 100% for the majority of the ascent to orbit, making for an easier, safer and more predictable ascent profile, while the Ares-V must run its more expensive engines at the maximum power rating of 106% almost all the way up, increasing the possibility of an engine anomaly causing LOM.

16. A Jupiter could probably complete payload orbital insertion after an engine out during ascent, because of the built-in engine out capability, but engine out for the Ares-V would probably cause LOM.

17. The first Jupiter put on the launch pad puts a lunar-capable launch vehicle into operation in late 2011, while the existing Ares approach requires a wait until AT LEAST 2017-2018 for the Ares-V, assuming the plan even survives several different Congresses and Presidents.

18. The Jupiter is an expandable rocket family, not a single rocket, capable of being reconfigured in the out years to lift over 300mT to LEO, without major infrastructure and workforce changes while the Ares-V, limited to ~135mT maximum, starts life already maxed out, incapable of growing at all, even if the nation needed it. The Jupiter can grow to meet the nations spaceflight needs while the Ares cannot.

I could go on for quite a while, but the bottom line is that by switching launch vehicles while retaining the same ESAS architecture, the Jupiter launch vehicle detailed in the Direct architecture retains the vast majority of existing STS infrastructure and workforce without major stand down. It minimizes the gap between Shuttle and Orion to 2 years and does this for the price of creating the Ares-I alone, making Orion operational by 2012, could put Americans on the moon as early as 2015 (notice: Ares-I projected FIRST operational flight) but not later than 2017 without the additional expense of creating an additional lunar-capable launcher (Ares-V), frees huge sums of funding that can be redirected either into a faster implementation of manned access to space or returned to the science programs that were decimated by the Ares concept (more likely a combination) and leverages the nations investment in existing capability by use of existing infrastructure and engines - already bought and paid for.

If it has to be Shuttle Derived – well – you can make your own choice. Nothing else in the American Launch Vehicle family can put a Lunar-capable Heavy Lift launch vehicle on the pad by 2011, but Jupiter can. I think the facts on the ground pretty much speak for themselves.

Like a famous man once said: Do we want to go to the Moon or not?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 06/22/2007 07:12 pm
Quote
clongton - 22/6/2007  12:48 PM

Quote
Jim - 20/6/2007  4:43 PM

Quote
clongton - 20/6/2007  2:08 PM

a) What is the historical average for total propellant amount (LH2 + LO2) at liftoff (T-0)?

b) What is the historical average for total propellant amount remaining at MECO?

c) What is the minimum possible / safe residuals amount (non useable propellants = zero performance reserves) at MECO?


A. it is basically the same load

I know where this is tabulated online  when I get back home
Jim, did you locate the tabulations?

http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/green/

Everything but what you what.  Bu
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 06/22/2007 08:10 pm
Concise and hard to argue with, Chuck. Jupiter/Direct is how it should go, it seems so simple if all is weighed up. Even if Jupiter takes longer to implement, it might still beat Ares 1 into space. Heck, I even wouldn't mind if they changed the names to "Ares 2 & 4" to save a g-string's worth of face. ;)

Also, if you published your fact sheet with the line "Jupiter eliminates this development expense" in bold and italic, it'd have a lot of impact.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/22/2007 09:03 pm
Quote
Danny Dot - 22/6/2007  12:01 PM

Ares V vs. Direct?

Can someone point me to a link to explain the difference between Ares V and Direct?  From just looking at the two concepts, I don't see that much of a difference from a "hard to build" point of view.  I certainly have problems with the thought Direct can be fielded much sooner than Ares V.  There is a LOT of work to develop Direct, just like there is to develop Ares V.

Danny Deger

Danny, the basic philosophy is different at the most fundamental level.

Ares-V has taken the approach of "what have we got that we can modify, and extend, to get the biggest honking booster possible".

That is great for ultimate performance, but pretty expensive &  time consuming considering all the changes which have to be done (especially considering this approach requires two LV development programs instead of just one):-

* 5-segment SRB's need to have all new nozzles, frustum, TVC, parachutes, avionics and a complete program of development & testing to qualify for flight.
* Modify the RS-68's to squeeze another 6% performance from them, all-new testing & re-qualification is thus needed.
* Critical Path requires all-new versions of the Apollo J-2 engines, in two flavours; J-2XD for Ares-I and J-2X for Ares-V.
* Switch from existing 8.4m diameter tank manufacturing & processing to 10m tanking
* Build all-new infrastructure to fit such a larger stage too:
 - MLP SRB chambers must be relocated 6ft wider apart
 - VAB work platforms must all be replaced
 - Crawlers can't handle the mass of Ares-I + LUT, let alone Ares-V + LUT.
 - Pegasus barge can't handle Ares-V Core Stage.


DIRECT's approach to the problem has been "what do we have right now that can be re-used as-is, or with the least possible amount of change".

This has meant we are not requiring most of those changes:
* Performance changes to the RS-68's are not required.   Only redundant backup actuators and testing of those is required.   This is a Critical Path item we are removing.
* The J-2X is removed from the Critical Path for CLV operations, and only requires the lower spec "D" variant to support the later Lunar architectures.
* SRB's remain exactly as flown today; again removing all associated Critical Path problems/delays.
* MAF are ready to start building many parts for Jupiter Cores immediately.   Over 70% of the structure is immediately common to STS, and requires little to no changes at all.   Most new parts (PLF, PLI) are not even items which are likely to delay the Critical Path.   Compared to Ares-I where the J-2X is the lead Critical Path item, the Thrust Structure would be "promoted" to the highest Critical Path item - yet is certainly no more difficult than Ares-I's U/S or Ares-V's Core Thrust Structures.
* Other infrastructure changes include:
 - VAB work platforms can remain unchanged except for around the top of the ET.
 - Crawlers carry less mass to the Pad for both Jupiter configurations than they currently do for STS.
 - Pegasus can carry a Jupiter Core immediately.
 - MLP retains SRB mountings, but fits a hole between to fire the Core MPS through.   The Structure is already suited to this modification and no primary structural elements would be be affected.

The downside, is you ultimately get "only" 108mT performance instead of 131mT per flight and that instead of killing a crew once every 500 years of operation, you now risk them once every 350 years according to NASA's own methodology and expected flight rates.

But you are also only building one LV instead of two.   This saves an awful lot more money, which you can use to fly extra flights to easily make up any difference.   The cost saving of developing the single Jupiter vehicle compared to developing both Ares-I & V together, is equivalent to over 100 additional flights.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/22/2007 09:12 pm
Quote
jongoff - 22/6/2007  10:57 AM

...

The best we can hope is that something like DIRECT will free up enough resources to help spur on the technologies that really matter.

~Jon

I have now spun this particular conversation off into a separate thread located here.

All further comments regarding this subject should be moved there please.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/22/2007 09:14 pm
Quote
kraisee - 22/6/2007  5:03 PM

Quote
Danny Dot - 22/6/2007  12:01 PM

Ares V vs. Direct?

Can someone point me to a link to explain the difference between Ares V and Direct?  From just looking at the two concepts, I don't see that much of a difference from a "hard to build" point of view.  I certainly have problems with the thought Direct can be fielded much sooner than Ares V.  There is a LOT of work to develop Direct, just like there is to develop Ares V.

Danny Deger
(snip)

The downside, is you ultimately get "only" 108mT performance instead of 131mT per flight
And that is without any of the performance enhansing developments that are all possible "down the road" should NASA see a need for them, like the J-2X vs. the J-2XD, and the RS-68 Regen nozzel, optimized for vacuum operation. There are many others, but if they were ever incorporated into the Jupiter, even that lift difference would evaporate rather quickly.

Jupiter is not only the equal of Ares-V, it is its superior.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/22/2007 09:22 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 22/6/2007  12:26 PM
The core would then be different as well, right?

We aren't planning on using 5-segments, although they do remain one of the future growth option if extra performance were ever required.   If they were ever used, a relatively simple "barrel stretch" to the tanks would allow 5-segs to be utilised & optimizing performance.


The Jupiter Core which we are currently promoting (primarily designed for the J-232, just flown in J-120 configuration sooner) remains very similar to the current Shuttle ET.   The length of the barrel sections, the size & arrangement fo the Interstage, the LOX feedline all remain largely unchanged.

The tank walls are all strengthened by milling less material from them during manufacture, and they are about (IIRC, please don't quote me) 25% stronger than the current ET.

New Y-rings are required at the top of the LOX tank, and at the bottom of the LH2 tank, but these can easily be based on the existing items used around the Interstage.

Even the upper LOX tank dome can be based on the existing lower dome.

The only truly all-new parts required is the fwd skirt & integrated payload attachment ring and the aft skirt with integrated Thrust Structure.   That and a re-routing of the plumbing to suit the new engine layout.

MAF could start *tomorrow* to fabricate many sub-systems, such as suitable tank domes, tank barrels & even complete interstages if the order ever came down from 'on high'.   Much of the manufacturing could even be done while STS ET production continues, on the same production line.

All they really need is a "go" command.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/22/2007 09:59 pm
Quote
Danny Dot - 22/6/2007  1:10 PM

Thanks.  I found a Direct proposal in the L2 section, but I don't see the version to carry Orion being that much easier than Ares 1.  Moving the engines to the base of the ET is a HUGE engineering job.  It is probably easier than Ares 1 work, but not by an order of magnitude.

*Totally* agreed Danny.   Our in-hand estimates put us about 10-15% below Ares-I's development costs, and that is packed with lots and lots of margins (above & beyond ESAS ones).

Where Ares-I's key drivers are the new config for the SRB, and the (virtually all-new) J-2X engine, we have deleted all of the major development programs in the areas of propulsion to enable the early CEV flights.

We also don't need the J-2X until significantly later in our program, and we're keeping the existing Delta-IV spec RS-68's performance unchanged and simply adding a few backup actuation systems to make it acceptable for man-rating.   Our testing is therefore also significantly less demanding that the testing required for the 106% performance RS-68 variant NASA needs for Ares-V.

Our key driver is developing the new Thrust Structure suitable for the J-232 configuration and working out how to re-develop the existing ET structures into the new Core with the minimum of infrastructure changes as possible.

Much of the current ET manufacturing techniques lend themselves very nicely to the changes we need to get a Jupiter Core booster.


Quote
I do think total operation costs of the two Direct rockets will be less than total operating costs of Ares 1 and Ares V.

Our numbers show it makes a big difference.   The J-120 configuration isn't much more expensive to fly than Ares-I will be, but the J-232 is actually better cost than Ares-V.

But we're only paying for one set of fixed costs, not two.   At roughly a billion bucks for each vehicle, we're seriously better off.

And as I've said before, we delete half the development cost by making one LV instead of two.   That pays for a lot of other things, like useful missions.


Quote
I heard on "Coast to Coast AM" someone saying NASA does NOT really want to go to the moon and is designing certain failure into the program with Ares 1 and V.  I can't say I agree with this, but it does explain a lot :-)

That suspicion is something I can't subscribe to.   It sounds nuts to me.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/23/2007 02:16 am
Here is a very preliminary glimpse at some of the many growth options which are possible with the Jupiter Architecture.

J-120 and J-232 are top left and are all we really need.   But this demonstrates much of the future potential - which includes Ares-V (top right).

Enjoy

Ross.


Larger Image
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/23/2007 05:14 am
Well, Ross, you pretty well have the Cartesian product of all the possibilities there!  I have a few questions:

1.  What is the max lift to LEO of the configuration at the far right of the pale yellow strip (4-seg boosters)?

2.  What is the max lift to LEO of the configuration at the far right of the medium yellow strip (5-seg boosters)?

3.  What is the max lift to LEO of the far right Ares V configuration?

4.  What booster engine are you using on the bottom row?

Thanks!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/23/2007 05:39 am
Solar,
We have not yet completed full analysis of all the options I've just shown.   We're still concentrating almost all of our current efforts on the core products in our proposal (J-120 and J-232).   But we have initial numbers from rudimentary testing of some of the more 'interesting' configurations :)

Having clarified that before stating any performance numbers, here y' go:-

1) The J-544 at the far right of the pale yellow strip has 2x standard 4-segment SRB's, 5x RS-68's on a standard ET-sized Core, a true second stage with up to four J-2X's and an Upper/Earth Departure Stage with either one or two more J-2X's, or a cluster of four RL-10's.  on it  This sort of configuration is capable of launching a massive payload somewhere in the region of 180mT per flight.   Having so many stages and engine though, makes this a Cargo-only booster unsuitable for Crew ops.

2) The J-544 "Heavy" ("Heavy" being the designation we use for 5-segment SRB's) is the one you you identify at the far right of the medium-yellow strip.   The 5-segment SRB's and the stretched Core Stage add about 20-25mT of additional performance over its brother described above.

3) The Ares-V in the top right is the standard Ares-V.   At last estimate, it seemed capable of lifting around 133mT.   Mind you, I haven't actually shown it there, but Ares-V could even have another smaller stage on top of it too.   There is still at least another 33ft of clearance inside the VAB to enable it.   I probably won't show it because this diagram is already complex enough, but it's certainly possible.

4) The bottom row is still open to a lot of development work.   It indicates a LOX/Kerosene booster configuration (not flybacks) producing ~2.5-3.5m lb thrust.   Engine options include either three or four RD-180's, two RD-170's, two or three RS-84's, two re-created F-1A's or a newly developed & upgraded F-1X (do the equivalent to F-1A what PWR are doing to J-2S currently).

The booster itself would logically be based on Atlas designs, designed for this purpose.   Performance for all these LOX/Kero booster arrangements increases performance by about 10-15% over it's SRB equivalent (for example the K-544 "Heavy" performance would be around 230mT to LEO.   The liquid engines can also be shut down in abort situations too, so potentially offer some advantages for crew safety too.

Specifically by not developing a second LV for Constellation, Jupiter can actually afford to build the Liquid boosters too, so the K-120 and K-232 (bottom far left) are actually realistic within NASA's current budget for Ares-I and Ares-V.


Hope that helps.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 06/23/2007 10:01 am
Ross,

This may interest you with respect to blast shields.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

"First Stage

The Falcon 9 tank walls and domes are made from aluminum 2198. SpaceX uses an all friction stir welded tank, the highest strength and most reliable welding technique available. Like Falcon 1, the interstage, which connects the upper and lower stage for Falcon 9, is a carbon fiber aluminum core composite structure. The separation system is a larger version of what is used on Falcon 1 – pneumatic pushers with pyrotechnic release bolts.

Nine SpaceX Merlin engines power the Falcon 9 first stage with 101,900 lbs-f sea level thrust per engine for a total thrust on liftoff of just under 1 Million lbs-f. After engine start, Falcon is held down until all vehicle systems are verified to be functioning normally before release for liftoff. Although in-flight failures are very rarely explosive, a Kevlar shield protects each engine from debris in the event of its neighbor failing. "
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/23/2007 07:29 pm
marsavian,
Yes I had seen that before.   It is something I've been considering, but I'm trying to get engineering data on the potential failure modes of a much larger engine than Merlin.

I'm pretty sure that if an RS-68 or J-2X "goes", it would be a far more spectacular event than a Merlin.   Somehow, we need to gather some data on the forces involved in such events and  the thickness & mass of protection materials which could handle those forces.   Only then could we work out the tradeoff to see if it's worthwhile.

As it is, the RS-68 uses a lot of lessons learned in the SSME, and does with 80% fewer parts to go wrong.   This *should* result in the engine being pretty safe anyway.   With a LAS available to save the crew, it simply might not actually be worth adding lots of protective material and reducing payload carrying capacity of every flight.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/24/2007 12:11 am
Cross-quoting Jim from the "Ares-Lite" thread:

Quote
There is no" rescue" CEV planned like the shuttle LON. The CEV is not going to use the same docking system as the ISS. It is going to use LIDS.

The CEV uses one pad and one MLP. There isn't enough time to prep another one if a CEV is stranded in LEO. And the ISS crew probably won't have EVA suits, only LES.

The Pad/MLP limitation... This seems to be more related to the Ares-I infrastructure than the Orion itself.

From my armchair, it seems like DIRECT enables the potential for a LON mission, since the existing MLPs and pads are both used.

Is this another advantage of Jupiter-120 over Ares-I, or am I missing something else?

Thanks!

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 06/24/2007 12:52 am
LON missions are only unique to the current shuttle.  It is not SOP
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 06/24/2007 03:02 am
The idea is not to *need* LON missions or planning. As Jim just said above, LON is specific to Shuttle and primarily because of the recognition of the fragility of the always-exposed orbiter TPS to launch and MMOD debris impacts. Orion is along the lines, or better than, Apollo wrt launch and orbital TPS vulnerabilities (not to mention the multiple redundancies for environmental systems, and de-orbit/re-entry options).

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PMN1 on 06/24/2007 10:34 am
Out of intrest, what would be the biggest reusable space plane that you could put on top of the Jupiter launcher without neededing structural reworking of the VAB etc?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: AntiKev on 06/24/2007 11:19 am
Probably couldn't.  If you're mounting it on top, it will not fit through the VAB doors planform out, and it won't fit in the cells planform perpendicular to the door.  I could be wrong about the second point, but in that case you run into height issues.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 06/24/2007 12:05 pm
Ross, in looking at the thrust for the Atlas V, which has as you know, a single RD-180 with about 990,000 lbs of thrust at liftoff as compared to a shuttle SRB with about 2.2 – 2.5 million lbs of thrust.  So I am a little confused and have some questions:

1.  You show 2 liquid strap ons on the bottom left with 2 nozzles each so I assume you mean it would essentially be an Atlas V Core.  You go on to say that it could be 2 or 3 RD-180s meaning 2 or 3 strap ons?   Or do you mean a new booster with 2 RD-180 each (4 nozzles).  3 Strap ons would radically change the MLP….

2.   How could the bottom left version lift the same payload as the upper left version with the thrust difference?  Heck, even an F-1 only has about ½ the thrust of a shuttle SRB.

The profusion of boosters you have provided almost buggers the mind.  Probably to indecision.  ?

Thanks.

Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 06/24/2007 02:26 pm
Since they would not be flying the super heavy lift versions of Direct often, the booster could be stacked and checked out within the VAB, and the payload could be added at the pad.
There is nothing new to this concept, and it is still done all the time with Atlas and Delta.
This would be a simple work around the VAB's height restrictions.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2007 11:18 pm
Quote
PMN1 - 24/6/2007  6:34 AM

Out of intrest, what would be the biggest reusable space plane that you could put on top of the Jupiter launcher without neededing structural reworking of the VAB etc?

Any suitable payload below our weight limit can be lifted.   If a requirement emerged to launch a winged spaceplane again, there's no particular reason why a Jupiter could not do the job.

But I personally don't see the requirement for wings ever coming back for NASA in my lifetime.   I think it will require a whole new level of technology using something other than chemical combustion rockets, before winged spaceplanes will get a serious chance of a look in.   But this is a topic for a different thread entirely please!!!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2007 11:30 pm
Quote
mike robel - 24/6/2007  8:05 AM

Ross, in looking at the thrust for the Atlas V, which has as you know, a single RD-180 with about 990,000 lbs of thrust at liftoff as compared to a shuttle SRB with about 2.2 – 2.5 million lbs of thrust.  So I am a little confused and have some questions:

Actually, the Shuttle SRB's have more like 2.8m pound of thrust at liftoff, which is why I stated a wide range to encapsulate that (2.5m to 3.5m pounds).


Quote
1.  You show 2 liquid strap ons on the bottom left with 2 nozzles each so I assume you mean it would essentially be an Atlas V Core.  You go on to say that it could be 2 or 3 RD-180s meaning 2 or 3 strap ons?   Or do you mean a new booster with 2 RD-180 each (4 nozzles).  3 Strap ons would radically change the MLP….

The existing Atlas-V Core is considerably different to what I'm proposing here.   This would be a completely new design, although the Atlas team is well placed to produce these as there is a lot of similarity.

Also the engines on there are only representations, not specific choices.

This is meant to show the wide range of possibilites which are enabled by the DIRECT architecture choice of cutting the development requirements down to building just one LV instead of two.


Quote
2.   How could the bottom left version lift the same payload as the upper left version with the thrust difference?  Heck, even an F-1 only has about ½ the thrust of a shuttle SRB.

I think that the layout of that image might perhaps have led to the assumption that the power is a progression along the top line and continuing on the bottom one.   This is not the case and I apologies if it gave that impression.

It is two separate "families".   The way to look at it is the top row is the family of variants possible with SRB's, and the lower row is the "equivalent" family of variants using liquid boosters instead.   Performance for the vehicles in the bottom row are typically about 10-15% higher than the similar rocket pictured immediately above in the top row.



Quote
The profusion of boosters you have provided almost buggers the mind.  Probably to indecision.  ?

It could be.   We have no particular plans to use any other variants than J-120 and J-232.   They can already out-perform Ares-I / V, and they enable 500mT Mars missions in five launches, just as Ares-I/V do too.

Those are the only requirements we have right now, and we already do better than Ares, so there's no reason we need to pay for any of these upgrades yet.

We would like to use some of the savings of building the second LV to pay for an eventual switch to liquid booster equivalents at some point in the future, but that is probably decades away still, and won't need to happen until EPA gets really annoyed with perchlorate levels.

As I say, this is simply a demonstration of what is enabled with the choice of the DIRECT architecture if it were adopted instead of the Ares vehicles.

Ares-I and Ares-V are pretty-much at their design limits as we look at them right now.   There isn't much we can do to them to get any more out of them.   DIRECT's initial vehicles have a lot of growth potential still in reserve if the future ever needs it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/24/2007 11:41 pm
Quote
kraisee - 24/6/2007  4:30 PM

and won't need to happen until EPA gets really annoyed with perchlorate levels.
How much perchlorate remains after combustion?  I would think it would be essentially nil.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 06/25/2007 12:05 am
Ross, thanks for the reply.  I didn't really think you were getting more power from left to right and top to bottom, but I was thinking that the left hand vehicles in each row were essentially equal in terms of lift capability.

I am sure you are aware there was a Saturn V variant proposed that had four (4!) strap-on, each with TWO (2!!!) F-1s to augment a Saturn V, as can be seen here.

http://astronautix.com/lvs/satnv24l.htm

Also a large pdf discussing many Saturn Variants is avalilable on the astronautix.com home page at the top left titled Saturn V INT-20 (large pdf!).

I should think that to get the performance you need, you would need such a capability.

Anyway, it is a fascinating family of vehicles to consider and could drive my budget for modeling straight to hell.  :)

So far as the EPA is concerned, I doubt that we will ever generate a flight rate that really drives them to concern.  Of course, if we ever got to the point where we were lighting one off every three or four weeks for 9 months, then they might get a big concerned.

Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/25/2007 02:33 am
Mike, thanks for the pointer to that PDF.

That document raised a question that I hope isn't too far off-topic for this thread.  (The question is to anyone, not just Mike.)  I noticed several mentions of 260-inch-diameter components, which reminds me that I've also noticed several mentions of the same dimension in discussions of alternatives to Ares.  What is the significance of 260 inches?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/25/2007 04:54 pm
Quote
mike robel - 24/6/2007  8:05 PM

Ross, thanks for the reply.  I didn't really think you were getting more power from left to right and top to bottom, but I was thinking that the left hand vehicles in each row were essentially equal in terms of lift capability.

I am sure you are aware there was a Saturn V variant proposed that had four (4!) strap-on, each with TWO (2!!!) F-1s to augment a Saturn V, as can be seen here.

Yep.   And the variant which had four S-IC and four S-II stages strapped together.   an incredible 20 F-1 engines at liftoff!

Quote
...

I should think that to get the performance you need, you would need such a capability.

It is a tricky balancing act getting rocket performance to where you want it to be.   But the real key is deciding how much payload you want to lift.   From there you can choose how to do it.

In this case, I agree with the first part of ESAS' choice: To launch the ~175mT for these missions on two boosters instead of one really expensive one.

But I disagree with their next finding that flying the crew on a smaller booster and the cargo on a much larger one is right.   It costs twice as much, lowers the flight rate, which affects safety negatively, and risks that one or other of the two boosters may never get built - yet both are essential to get anywhere.

The safety issue doesn't hold water either, because ESAS' *requirement* was to find a solution which offered 5 times the safety level of Shuttle (at 1:200 LOC according to NASA's methodology).   In point of fact the simple switch to capsules with launch abort systems fulfills that requirement immediately.

So the driving force *should* then have been cost and schedule - both of which are in the red column for building a 1.5 launch architecture and in the black for a 2-launch strategy.

The simple fact is that over two launches, we need to lift 175mT including the weight of the EDS itself.   That can just be done by Ares-1 (20mT) combined with Ares-V (133+23).   Considerably more performance can actually be achieved by a pair of Jupiter-232's (100+100+23), yet the development budget would be half, the Lunar mission schedule is accomplished when the first vehicle starts flying, the yearly costs for operating one vehicle are obviously less than two and the vehicle flies more often - which breeds knowledge, which breeds greater safety.

The US space program does not currently have any requirement for a launcher with more performance than J-232 at any time in the next twenty to thirty years.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/25/2007 04:58 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 24/6/2007  10:33 PM

Mike, thanks for the pointer to that PDF.

That document raised a question that I hope isn't too far off-topic for this thread.  (The question is to anyone, not just Mike.)  I noticed several mentions of 260-inch-diameter components, which reminds me that I've also noticed several mentions of the same dimension in discussions of alternatives to Ares.  What is the significance of 260 inches?

It is the diameter of the S-IVB stage - which served the purpose of an EDS on the Saturn-V.

It was the basic diameter of the Saturn-IB booster too, and a solid rocket first stage was being designed and tested in West Palm Beach around the end of the Apollo program.

And it was also the diameter of the SkyLab module, which was basically a converted S-IVB stage.

The S-IVB stage was even being considered as a basis for a single-stage to orbit launcher, but that never came to fruition either.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HarryM on 06/25/2007 06:25 pm
185,900 kg to TLI, you could do some stuff with that. I am always wondering if the plug-nozzle Rombus SSTO's would have worked. They sure looked cool on paper and made for some great concept paintings. Were they ever seriously evaluated as far as potential performance? Of course they would have required some massive infrastructure.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/25/2007 06:49 pm
HarryM,
   There were lots of plans "back in the day" for really big launchers.   Some of the Saturn evolutions and Nova's would have been truly spectacular if they had ever been built.   That sort of capability will probably never happen, because the cost today would be insane.   At least I guess it is unlikely in my lifetime.

We're actually lucky to have a chance to do some pretty cool stuff right now based on existing systems though.

2 x J-232's can send over 80mT to TLI.   To get 185,900kg, you could do it with 5 J-232's, for a total LV cost of about $1 billion - which isn't too bad given the limitations we have today.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HarryM on 06/25/2007 07:06 pm
I would be happy if we could back at least close to a Saturn-V class payload to TLI, let alone exceed it by a large margin. So I think Direct is, in general,  a good idea in achieving that, as opposed to being stuck stooging around in low-earth orbit for several more years while funding for Ares V or it's equivalent is nibbled away at or otherwise squandered.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/25/2007 07:20 pm
Saturn-V could send about 47mT to TLI.
Jupiter-232 can send about 40mT to TLI.
Ares-V can send about 56mT to TLI.

But remember this: Jupiter is the *first* vehicle - replacing Ares-I - not Ares-V.

Ares-V can still be built *as well*, and for ZERO additional cost.

DIRECT's architecture choice makes the first LV capable of going to the moon to guarantee the VSE can continue even if the second vehicle is canceled.   If NASA's hoped-for money over the next 12 years does still become available, DIRECT allows us to actually get Jupiter with Ares-V following as a later upgrade.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/25/2007 07:26 pm
I think the Griffin quote that y'all put at the front of the DIRECT proposal really says it all: "As NASA Administrator, I already own a Heavy Lifter (in) the Space Shuttle stack. I will not give that up lightly and, in fact, can't responsibly do so because .... any other solution for getting 100 tons into orbit is going to be more expensive than efficiently utilizing what we already own."

There are three major points that all point in the direction of DIRECT:
1) DIRECT is the lowest-cost way we have of getting ~100 tons into LEO, because it is a system that already largely exists.
2) There is nothing on the boards, nor are there any reasonable proposals, for anything that can't be launched in 100 ton pieces.
3) In any foreseeable NASA run rate, any launcher larger than DIRECT will cost more than DIRECT per pound of payload.  (Note that there really isn't any economy of scale in a larger launcher--you end up with as many engines on a big rocket as you would have on N smaller rockets to launch the same mass.)


Or, to state this another way, if you can launch 108 tonnes at a good cost, there really is not much point to expending a huge amount of resources to get a launcher that will launch 133 or 143 or 180 tonnes.  A couple launches of the 108 tonne launcher and/or its little brother already does those jobs quite well, at far better cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/25/2007 07:32 pm
Quote
HarryM - 25/6/2007  3:06 PM

I would be happy if we could back at least close to a Saturn-V class payload to TLI, let alone exceed it by a large margin. So I think Direct is, in general,  a good idea in achieving that, as opposed to being stuck stooging around in low-earth orbit for several more years while funding for Ares V or it's equivalent is nibbled away at or otherwise squandered.
The Saturn-V was capable of putting 118mT into a 185km circular orbit, and the Jupiter certainly comes close to that.  Not as much, but close. The Ares-V would put approximately the same in that orbit, using a MUCH bigger rocket than the Jupiter, for the same basic performance. But, IMHO, the day of the gargantuan launch vehicle, be it the Saturn-V or the Ares-V, is gone. Personally I don’t believe the Ares-V will ever be built. It’s too big and technically unnecessary. The Ares-V is a dinosaur, the last gasp of an age when bigger automatically meant better. That is no longer true.

Technological advances have come so far since the days of Saturn that we don’t HAVE to put that much up in a single launch just to do one mission. The only justification for such a launch capacity would be to make the orbited payload physically bigger for some reason. And with proper design, that is just not necessary. It may be something we might want to do, but shouldn’t be something we HAVE to do. And a decade from now, when we’ll just be starting to think about the Ares-V, it will be even truer. The day may come someday when we WANT to lift bigger things. That’s a different story, and has no relevance to the VSE.

No, I believe that we will learn that we can do just fine with the capacity of the Jupiter, for a long time to come. And by the time we HAVE to make bigger spaceships, I LIKE to think that we will have moved beyond chemical propulsion, with all of its incumbent limitations. But that’s a subject for a different thread.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MySDCUserID on 06/26/2007 01:17 am
I know in the past people have wondered if Griffin may ever visit this site... in regards to finding out about DIRECT here.  I thought this post was interesting:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/06/todays_ask_the_10.html#more
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MySDCUserID on 06/26/2007 01:18 am
I know in the past people have wondered if Griffin may ever visit this site... in regards to finding out about DIRECT here.  I thought this post was interesting:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/06/todays_ask_the_10.html#more
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/26/2007 01:33 am
Quote
kraisee - 25/6/2007  10:54 AM
The US space program does not currently have any requirement for a launcher with more performance than J-232 at any time in the next twenty to thirty years.

This is a bit of an odd statement, Ross.  "Currently" combined with "next twenty to thirty years" is a bit of a contradiction.  You, nor I, nor anyone else know what will be needed during such a long period of time.  Lots of things could happen to alter current thinking and plans.

I feel this is an advantage for the Jupiter class of launch vehicles - they seem more adaptable that either Ares I or V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 06/26/2007 02:43 am
Quote
HarryM - 25/6/2007  2:06 PM

I would be happy if we could back at least close to a Saturn-V class payload to TLI, let alone exceed it by a large margin. So I think Direct is, in general,  a good idea in achieving that, as opposed to being stuck stooging around in low-earth orbit for several more years while funding for Ares V or it's equivalent is nibbled away at or otherwise squandered.

If Direct was to use the Ares V engines (improved RS-68 and J-2X instead of J-2XD), it would probably achieve or at least be very close to the Saturn V payload numbers.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2007 03:26 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 25/6/2007  9:33 PM

Quote
kraisee - 25/6/2007  10:54 AM
The US space program does not currently have any requirement for a launcher with more performance than J-232 at any time in the next twenty to thirty years.

This is a bit of an odd statement, Ross.  "Currently" combined with "next twenty to thirty years" is a bit of a contradiction.  You, nor I, nor anyone else know what will be needed during such a long period of time.  Lots of things could happen to alter current thinking and plans.

Sorry if my comment seemed contradictory - it's difficult to get emphasis right in a text-based format!   What I was trying to say was that today, we aren't predicting any requirements which J-120 and J-232 can't do just as well as Ares-I & V together.


Quote
I feel this is an advantage for the Jupiter class of launch vehicles - they seem more adaptable that either Ares I or V.

I wholeheartedly agree! :)

I could actually 'fly' for Ares-V, but there is no way to get to Ares-V within the timeframe needed to either retain the STS workforce, or get the CEV flying by 2014.

Jupiter-120 could fly as early as Ares-I, perhaps even sooner.   But it can also be the booster getting us back to the moon moon without spending all that money on a second LV.   That money could be used better elsewhere IMHO because there is no practical reason in either the current Lunar or current Mars plans why Jupiter can't do *everything* Ares-I/V can - and do so for less.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2007 03:28 am
Quote
PaulL - 25/6/2007  10:43 PM

Quote
HarryM - 25/6/2007  2:06 PM

I would be happy if we could back at least close to a Saturn-V class payload to TLI, let alone exceed it by a large margin. So I think Direct is, in general,  a good idea in achieving that, as opposed to being stuck stooging around in low-earth orbit for several more years while funding for Ares V or it's equivalent is nibbled away at or otherwise squandered.

If Direct was to use the Ares V engines (improved RS-68 and J-2X instead of J-2XD), it would probably achieve or at least be very close to the Saturn V payload numbers.

PaulL

Actually the performance increase is only about 5-6% over the standard RS-68.   This doesn't translate to an awful lot more payload into orbit.   A bit for sure, but I'm far from convinced enough to really warrant the costs if not essential.

Ares-V though *must* have the extra performance because it's partner vehicle is, frankly, rather anaemic in performance terms.   Ares-V is forced to do all the *serious* lifting all on its own because Ares-I is incapable of helping out at all.

Jupiter splits the lift requirements far more evenly across both launchers going to the moon rather than putting so much reliance on just one.

That doesn't mean that the upgraded engines aren't useful for Jupiter too - but it does mean they are not essential to success.   Likewise, we are also keeping the J-2X full upgrade (to 294,000lb thrust) on the back burner also.   It is unnecessary, and the baseline J-2XD variant (273,500lb thrust) is more than sufficient to out-perform the Ares-I/V pair.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 06/26/2007 12:10 pm
kraisee
Quote
- 23/6/2007  12:22 AM
The Jupiter Core which we are currently promoting (primarily designed for the J-232, just flown in J-120 configuration sooner) remains very similar to the current Shuttle ET.   The length of the barrel sections, the size & arrangement fo the Interstage, the LOX feedline all remain largely unchanged.

The tank walls are all strengthened by milling less material from them during manufacture, and they are about (IIRC, please don't quote me) 25% stronger than the current ET.

New Y-rings are required at the top of the LOX tank, and at the bottom of the LH2 tank, but these can easily be based on the existing items used around the Interstage.

Even the upper LOX tank dome can be based on the existing lower dome.

The only truly all-new parts required is the fwd skirt & integrated payload attachment ring and the aft skirt with integrated Thrust Structure.   That and a re-routing of the plumbing to suit the new engine layout.

MAF could start *tomorrow* to fabricate many sub-systems, such as suitable tank domes, tank barrels & even complete interstages if the order ever came down from 'on high'.   Much of the manufacturing could even be done while STS ET production continues, on the same production line.

All they really need is a "go" command.

Ross.

You seem to imply that the LO2 tank for the Jupiter common core is just :
- aft dome (including spherical dome cap, etc.)
- aft Y ring
- several barrel sections, thicker than STS ET's
- forward Y ring
- forward dome, somewhat similar with the aft dome

You seem to imply that the Y rings are for thrust/loads.

The STS ET LO2 tank description in NASA SLWT analysis documents:
Quote
The LO 2 tank also has a forward T-ring and an aft Y-ring frame that support a slosh baffle that prevents the fuel from sloshing during ascent. The slosh baffle, a lightweight  (approximately 455 Ib), thin-walled structure, is supported by two deep, thin-walled rings at each end that attach to the forward T-ring and the aft Y-ring frame.

To me it looks like in order to support the payload (J-232) Jupiter's O2 tank needs new thrust panels and flanges, not existing barrel sections and Y rings.

Some more of "The only truly all-new parts required".

I suggest it is realistic to asess the Jupiter common core as new development, closer to what's needed for Ares-V and significantly different from the STS ET.


Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 06/26/2007 12:49 pm
kraisee
Quote
- 22/6/2007  12:03 AM
DIRECT's approach to the problem has been "what do we have right now that can be re-used as-is, or with the least possible amount of change".

This has meant we are not requiring most of those changes:
* Performance changes to the RS-68's are not required.   Only redundant backup actuators and testing of those is required.   This is a Critical Path item we are removing.
from 20070002794_2007001555.pdf
Quote
RS-68 Engine Recommendations

The Commonality Assessment panel also discussed modifying the RS-68 for use in the Ares V core stage, both for performance gains and for safety improvements.

A number of changes are necessary to mitigate or eliminate known issues - chiefly, reduction of free hydrogen at engine start and the engine’s current excessive helium requirements for operations.
Do you acknowledge the helium issue, or is it tolerable ?
Quote

Following are examples of RS-68 engine changes:

The current RS-68 bfisk ues an asymmetric turbine nozzle design, which creates high loading on the blades. In order to attain the 106% power level, a 3D first stage nozzle will be incorporated on both the oxidizer and fuel turbopump turbines to reduce the risk of blade cracking.
OK now, Jupiter shows the power level at 100% so this is not really needed...
Quote
Increased element density in the main injector will allow for improved propellant mixing and increased combustion efficiency. Testing has been performed with both 28-element and 40- element injectors to ascertain the most advantageous injector density.
Same here...
Quote
A material change in the engine bearings is recommended fiom the current 44OC to Cronidur 30 in order to address a known issue with stress corrosion cracking on the bearings.
I guess this one is requested
Quote
The current RS-68 turbine exhaust ducts extend out from the engine to a sufficient degree to
impact the planned five-engine configuration. Trade studies should be conducted regarding the
manifolding of these exhaust ducts, exploring various design concepts to determine the best
solution. There is a potential performance risk associated with manifolding the exhaust ducts, as it can create turbine pressure ratio problems.
Do you think Jupiter 232 has no problem with the turbine exhaust ?
Quote
The current ablative nozzle of the RS-68 must be modified for Ares V use. A thicker nozzle wall
will be required due to the increased bum time of the Ares V over that of the Delta IV

Optimization of the inner nozzle contour may also be desirable from a performance standpoint.
However, the thicker nozzle wall may cause a significant weight increase per engine
(approximately 500 pounds)..
Same concern for Jupiter ?

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 06/26/2007 01:14 pm
kraisee
Quote
- 22/6/2007  12:03 AM
DIRECT's approach to the problem has been "what do we have right now that can be re-used as-is, or with the least possible amount of change".

This has meant we are not requiring most of those changes:
...
 - MLP retains SRB mountings, but fits a hole between to fire the Core MPS through.   The Structure is already suited to this modification and no primary structural elements would be be affected.

From DIRECT_Launcher_Release_v1.1.2.pdf :
Quote
Additional strengthening may be necessary to brace the inner SRB mount points. This author would suggest two structural beams across the Core Stage Exhaust Chamber, with blast shielding over them - somewhat akin to a flame deflector. This structure should obviously be designed with protection sufficient to ensure the thrust from the RS-68’s is not be able to damage this beams.

To be or not to be : major mods to MLP required for Jupiter as for Ares-V ?

How can you just open a new hole apt to receive the blast of three RS-68 right between the existing holes for SRBs without major structural mods ?


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Hotdog on 06/26/2007 06:28 pm
Ross,

What would be the TLI performance of the Jupiter-232 with the uprated RS-68 and the J-2X full upgrade? I realise you are avoiding this in the proposal after Direct 1.0 but just out of interest.



Quote
kraisee - 24/6/2007  8:20 PM

Saturn-V could send about 47mT to TLI.
Jupiter-232 can send about 40mT to TLI.
Ares-V can send about 56mT to TLI.

But remember this: Jupiter is the *first* vehicle - replacing Ares-I - not Ares-V.

Ares-V can still be built *as well*, and for ZERO additional cost.

DIRECT's architecture choice makes the first LV capable of going to the moon to guarantee the VSE can continue even if the second vehicle is canceled.   If NASA's hoped-for money over the next 12 years does still become available, DIRECT allows us to actually get Jupiter with Ares-V following as a later upgrade.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2007 09:03 pm
Quote
renclod - 26/6/2007  8:10 AM

I suggest it is realistic to asess the Jupiter common core as new development, closer to what's needed for Ares-V and significantly different from the STS ET.

What I'm trying to say is that we look at what we have, work out the new loads for each element in the new configuration, and then examine the best method to change what we make today into something suitable.

Use this approach on every element, and you can save a LOT of time and money instead of starting with a clean sheet.

If we're starting with a clean sheet, then lets stop messing with any STS or EELV hardware at all and build us a Nova and just be done with it.   There were a number of designs which were single stage to orbit, with very large, but fairly simple engines powering it.

Either you stick with what you've got or you don't IMHO.   If you're sticking with it, then do it right.   Use what you've got with the minimum number of changes possible.

If you're not stickign with existing hardware, then you need to choose to start again without typing yourself to existing limitations.   IMHO that's the recipe for disaster which will befall Ares-V ultimately.   It's neither one, nor the other.   It's limited by every one of the current hardware limitations, and yet costs as much as something brand-new.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2007 09:10 pm
Quote
renclod - 26/6/2007  9:14 AM

From DIRECT_Launcher_Release_v1.1.2.pdf :
Quote
Additional strengthening may be necessary to brace the inner SRB mount points. This author would suggest two structural beams across the Core Stage Exhaust Chamber, with blast shielding over them - somewhat akin to a flame deflector. This structure should obviously be designed with protection sufficient to ensure the thrust from the RS-68’s is not be able to damage this beams.

To be or not to be : major mods to MLP required for Jupiter as for Ares-V ?

How can you just open a new hole apt to receive the blast of three RS-68 right between the existing holes for SRBs without major structural mods ?

The diagram below (apologies to 56K users for the size of the image, but I need to show this in sufficient detail) shows the arrangement of the major structural walls/beams inside the MLP today.   There are four running longitudinally along each of the long walls of the SRB chambers right now.   They are the primary strengthening beams of the whole structure and which carry the entire weight of the Shuttle Stack today - including the forces of the "twang" at launch.

Between those run lateral beams at various locations.   As can clearly be seen in the second diagram, there are two of these lateral structures between the SRB chambers.

For DIRECT we propose they be "simply" (yes, I know!) relocated slightly further apart than at present.   This allows the strength to be retained completely, and allows for the opening of a relatively "natural" gap between the SRB chambers.   Obviously this needs to be blast shielded as any other chamber does, but the three RS-68 engines in a row arrangement provides lots of clearance allowing this to be done without too many difficulties.   Additional bracing will be needed internally, but this sort of engineering is not actually rocket science.

As you copied above, a cross brace may be found to still be necessary between the SRB chambers - going through the RS-68 flame exhaust chambers to prevent flexing of the "walls".   There are a number of ways to achieve this.   For example in the diagram below, imagine diagonal beams in all four corners of the Jupiter MPS chamber,   Or perhaps a cross brace could be installed inside the exhaust chamber itself - in the flame path.   Such a thing can be included without many problems, covered by a carefully shaped blast shield designed to protect it.   In fact, Ares-V may well require exactly this same sort of structural bracing itself too, especially given the size of the central exhaust chamber needed and the extra weight of the substantially larger vehicle.


Now, consider that for Ares-V, the SRB chambers must be completely relocated - each moved three feet wider apart from centerline than at present to accommodate the 33ft wide Core tank instead of the current 27ft wide ET.   This poses far more problems than Jupiter requires regarding modifying the current arrangement.

Virtually every wall inside the MLP's structure will have to be removed and replaced because nothing fits the current structure at all.   Thats a much more formidable job.   There is a staggeringly enormous difference between moving 2 internal structures and opening a new hole instead of moving about 12 walls and cutting three new holes.

As I said in my previous missive, its about using what you've got with the least possible number of changes.

Oh, and finally, we plan to delete the LUT tower from the platform and continue utilizing the FSS at the Pads today (minus the RSS).   This means that the existing Crawlers could carry even the J-232 to the Pads.

In short, we require fewer changes to the MLP's, no new MLP's (Ares-I will get two brand new ones all of its own making five in total!) and don't require that the Crawlers be replaced - at least not in the short term while cash is a concern.

Ross.



Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2007 09:48 pm
Quote
Hotdog - 26/6/2007  2:28 PM

Ross,

What would be the TLI performance of the Jupiter-232 with the uprated RS-68 and the J-2X full upgrade? I realise you are avoiding this in the proposal after Direct 1.0 but just out of interest.

We get a little over 7mT extra performance to LEO, which means, maybe as much as 3mT extra to TLI.

The cost of a second development program for J-2X and the whole extra re-qualification program for RS-68 doesn't seem worth it to me, unless there is a specific need.   And we haven't identified any such need yet.

There's another of the many upgrade options we have waiting on the shelf.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 06/27/2007 03:09 pm
The Direct Team may wish to contact Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) (http://martinez.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=InNews.View&ContentRecord_id=5686&CFID=11926615&CFTOKEN=16786515) and provide his office with a briefing packet to answer these concerns of his:

Quote
June 26, 2007 -
U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez on Monday pledged to help minimize the time between the end of NASA's shuttle program and the first flights of new Apollo-style spacecraft.

In a news conference after meeting with Kennedy Space Center officials, Martinez said a gap longer than the five-year hiatus now envisioned would be devastating to the state of Florida.

"The economic impact that (KSC) has on the region's economy -- and I'm not just talking about Cocoa and the surrounding areas, I'm talking about all of Central Florida and frankly, all of Florida -- would be dramatic. It would be stark," said Martinez, R-Orlando. "And so what we need to do is make sure that we continue to be there and fight for the program. . . to ensure that the worst-case scenario doesn't happen. We don't want to get there."

A six-year hiatus in U.S. human space flight between the close of the Apollo program in 1975 and the first shuttle flight in 1981 triggered a severe economic depression in Brevard County.

"Jupiter!" is the obvious answer to the challenges Martinez describes while "delay orbiter retirement past 2010" will be the answer if we stick with Ares 1 or seek to go all-EELV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/27/2007 03:32 pm
Quote
Bill White - 27/6/2007  10:09 AM

The Direct Team may wish to contact Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) (http://martinez.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=InNews.View&ContentRecord_id=5686&CFID=11926615&CFTOKEN=16786515) and provide his office with a briefing packet to answer these concerns of his:

Quote
June 26, 2007 -
U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez on Monday pledged to help minimize the time between the end of NASA's shuttle program and the first flights of new Apollo-style spacecraft.

In a news conference after meeting with Kennedy Space Center officials, Martinez said a gap longer than the five-year hiatus now envisioned would be devastating to the state of Florida.

"The economic impact that (KSC) has on the region's economy -- and I'm not just talking about Cocoa and the surrounding areas, I'm talking about all of Central Florida and frankly, all of Florida -- would be dramatic. It would be stark," said Martinez, R-Orlando. "And so what we need to do is make sure that we continue to be there and fight for the program. . . to ensure that the worst-case scenario doesn't happen. We don't want to get there."

A six-year hiatus in U.S. human space flight between the close of the Apollo program in 1975 and the first shuttle flight in 1981 triggered a severe economic depression in Brevard County.

"Jupiter!" is the obvious answer to the challenges Martinez describes while "delay orbiter retirement past 2010" will be the answer if we stick with Ares 1 or seek to go all-EELV.

I agree.  I started out a fan of EELVs but an coming around to Jupiter.  Jupiter certainly solves a lot of problems Ares 1/Ares V have.  One problem is, due to complexity, the probability of a failure, thus a loss of crew, has got to be greater.  Ares 1 has only one SRB and one upper stage enine.  Jupiter has two SRBs and two big liguid engines.  How do we convince the world this is OK?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HarryM on 06/27/2007 03:58 pm
Biggest is probably not just the overall number of engines/components but that one of the unofficial design mantras behind Ares I seems to be "thou shalt not place SRBs adjacent to LH2 or LOX tankage".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/27/2007 04:35 pm
Quote
HarryM - 27/6/2007  10:58 AM

Biggest is probably not just the overall number of engines/components but that one of the unofficial design mantras behind Ares I seems to be "thou shalt not place SRBs adjacent to LH2 or LOX tankage".

But, the upper stage of Ares 1 is close enough to the SRB to fail if the SRB fails and Orion is close enough to the LH2 and LOX of the upperstage to be destroyed if the upper stage fails.  Ares 1 does not solve the problem of LH2 and LOX next to an SRB.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HarryM on 06/27/2007 04:53 pm
Yes, but if you are looking at a Challenger type burn through (which they obviously are) then the mantra applies.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 06/27/2007 05:00 pm
Quote
HarryM - 27/6/2007  11:53 AM

Yes, but if you are looking at a Challenger type burn through (which they obviously are) then the mantra applies.

If that was still a concern, then the Shuttle would been grounded permanently in 1986.  Obviously it doesn't seem to be a problem for NASA anymore.  We're still flying with foam coming off.  Of course it could be the wonderful NASA management ethos that we're dealing with here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HarryM on 06/27/2007 05:06 pm
Just playing devil's advocate here, trying to figure out why Ares I is the chosen design, for whatever reason. Obviously they couldn't redesign the shuttle to either not have the SRB adjacent (not enough $ for a LFBB), add an all-envelope escape system etc. , and they couldn't outright cancel it for a host of practical, economic and political reasons.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/27/2007 05:19 pm
Quote
Danny Dot - 27/6/2007  11:32 AM

I agree.  I started out a fan of EELVs but am coming around to Jupiter.  Jupiter certainly solves a lot of problems Ares 1/Ares V have.  One problem is, due to complexity, the probability of a failure, thus a loss of crew, has got to be greater.  Ares 1 has only one SRB and one upper stage engine.  Jupiter has two SRB’s and two big liquid engines.  How do we convince the world this is OK?
The Jupiter has the ability to survive an engine-out condition on its ascent to orbit, even to the point of being able to actually go all the way to orbit after ~T+45. It can do this because of having twin engines that are running at far below maximum power output. After an engine-out condition, the second engine simply powers up to 100% and continues the flight. The Ares, on the other hand, would suffer an immediate LOM and trigger a potentially catastrophic abort maneuver in the case of an engine out. The Ares would not survive, while the Jupiter most probably would.

In addition, the Ares commits the crew to being totally dependant on the ignition of a brand new engine, with no flight history, at altitude in its second stage. In contrast, all of the Jupiter-120's flight engines are ignited on the ground before the vehicle is released to fly. The J-2X, while having Saturn-V heritage, is really a new engine, based on the old designs but with new technology integrated, and as such, is completely new with no flight history. The Ares commits the safety of the crew, right from the start, to this unproven engine. The Jupiter, in contrast, will not commit a lunar crew to this engine until it has much flight history behind it launching cargo, satellites, and other payloads. By the time a crew launches on the Jupiter 232, the flight characteristics of this engine will be proven and well known. Not so for the Ares flights.

Even on the Jupiter-232, the launch vehicle could put the crew safely in orbit after an engine-out of the second stage, for the same reason as it could for the first stage – flight engines running at lower power ratings coupled with redundancy. The Ares as NO redundancy at all - none. On the Ares, everything has to work perfectly, every time, or the mission is lost, and possibly the crew as well. That is NOT the case with the Jupiter. The Jupiter launch vehicle is a safer launch vehicle than the Ares BECAUSE of this redundancy, which you refer to as “complexity”. When I fly to Dallas, Denver or Cheyenne, I am comforted by knowing that there are more than one engine on the plane, and that if one flamed out, the plane could still fly to a safe haven. The parallel to Jupiter is obvious.

Personally, I would MUCH rather launch to orbit on a launch vehicle  with proven engines and that I KNEW could get me there in case something went wrong. That would be Jupiter. On Ares, I’d be needing perfection on every flight. How often can we statistically count on that? I would ride the Jupiter in a heartbeat. I’d be really hesitant about the Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/27/2007 05:27 pm
Quote
clongton - 27/6/2007  12:19 PM

Quote
Danny Dot - 27/6/2007  11:32 AM

I agree.  I started out a fan of EELVs but am coming around to Jupiter.  Jupiter certainly solves a lot of problems Ares 1/Ares V have.  One problem is, due to complexity, the probability of a failure, thus a loss of crew, has got to be greater.  Ares 1 has only one SRB and one upper stage engine.  Jupiter has two SRB’s and two big liquid engines.  How do we convince the world this is OK?
The Jupiter has the ability to survive an engine-out condition on its ascent to orbit, even to the point of being able to actually go all the way to orbit after ~T+45. It can do this because of having twin engines that are running at far below maximum power output. After an engine-out condition, the second engine simply powers up to 100% and continues the flight. The Ares, on the other hand, would suffer an immediate LOM and trigger a potentially catastrophic abort maneuver in the case of an engine out. The Ares would not survive, while the Jupiter most probably would.

In addition, the Ares commits the crew to being totally dependant on the ignition of a brand new engine, with no flight history, at altitude in its second stage. In contrast, all of the Jupiter-120's flight engines are ignited on the ground before the vehicle is released to fly. The J-2X, while having Saturn-V heritage, is really a new engine, based on the old designs but with new technology integrated, and as such, is completely new with no flight history. The Ares commits the safety of the crew, right from the start, to this unproven engine. The Jupiter, in contrast, will not commit a lunar crew to this engine until it has much flight history behind it launching cargo, satellites, and other payloads. By the time a crew launches on the Jupiter 232, the flight characteristics of this engine will be proven and well known. Not so for the Ares flights.

Personally, I would MUCH rather launch to orbit on a launch vehicle  with proven engines and that I KNEW could get me there in case something went wrong. That would be Jupiter. On Ares, I’d be needing perfection on every flight. How often can we statistically count on that? I would ride the Jupiter in a heartbeat. I’d be really hesitant about the Ares.

Good points.  Engine out capability and not having to rely on an upperstage ignition are very good features for Crew Survival.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 06/27/2007 05:42 pm
I recall that Ross stated that DIRECT is ten times more safe than the shuttle, putting it at 1:750 while NASA estimate that ARES-1 is 1:1500 .. 1:1750LOC. I know they're paper, but I dont believe these figures are made without a risk analysis including more scenarios than "engine out".  I don't know if NASA has made the ARES analysis available to the public, but either DIRECT needs to do a similar analysis of both systems and say that its just as safe as ARES ... or it argues that the cost to the US manned space programme of pursuing ARES is not worth the doubling in safety acquired over DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HarryM on 06/27/2007 05:47 pm
See, those are good counterpoints to the "Ares I is inherently safer" argument. The Ares I adherant will always be ready to throw at you: "Yes, that's all very nice ($, less gap, easier) but we are really thinking about the crew's SAFETY first and foremost..." You must be prepared for that and have an answer. I would try to phrase it in simpler terms that your average politician can understand. "If one engine fails with Direct or a heavy lift EELV, we can continue the mission. With Ares I, the mission is a failure, the vehicle is lost, and the crew must abort. By using the launch escape system, this immediately puts the crew at risk. We ARE thinking about the crew's safety first and foremost with Direct..."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/27/2007 05:48 pm
Quote
Achilles - 27/6/2007  1:42 PM

I recall that Ross stated that DIRECT is ten times more safe than the shuttle, putting it at 1:750 while NASA estimate that ARES-1 is 1:1500 .. 1:1750LOC. I know they're paper, but I dont believe these figures are made without a risk analysis including more scenarios than "engine out".  I don't know if NASA has made the ARES analysis available to the public, but either DIRECT needs to do a similar analysis of both systems and say that its just as safe as ARES ... or it argues that the cost to the US manned space programme of pursuing ARES is not worth the doubling in safety acquired over DIRECT.
It comes down to the latter. The "theoretical" paper safety numbers have the Ares safer than the Jupiter, but those numbers are calculated the same way as the numbers were done in the 1980's when they said the safety numbers for the Shuttle were 1:200. We all know how accurate that turned out to be.

Paper numbers are one thing but honest-to-god common sense is another.
The difference in the theoretical numbers is not worth the additional expense. Jupiter is safer than Shuttle by an order of magnatude, and only a little less safer than Ares. Theoretically speaking.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/27/2007 05:52 pm
Quote
Danny Dot - 27/6/2007  11:32 AM

I agree.  I started out a fan of EELVs but an coming around to Jupiter.  Jupiter certainly solves a lot of problems Ares 1/Ares V have.  One problem is, due to complexity, the probability of a failure, thus a loss of crew, has got to be greater.  Ares 1 has only one SRB and one upper stage enine.  Jupiter has two SRBs and two big liguid engines.  How do we convince the world this is OK?

I agree Danny.   In pure math terms, we don't achieve the same number as Ares-I.   But the question is, do we still achieve an acceptable number?   And do we offer safety features which aren't available with Ares-I/V?

NASA's own numbers show the way.

ESAS defined a methodology which (irrelevant of whether you believe the raw number produced) is very useful for comparing different vehicles on a fairly even yardstick.

Their methodology identified STS as having an LOC representative number of ~1:200.   So the target for an acceptable vehicle had to be above that.   An arbitrary decision was to go for five times the safety, or 1:1000 as being acceptable.

Using the current methodology, both Ares-I (1:2012) and Jupiter (1:1436) achieve this target (BTW, our number was created by two NASA guys who also prepared the original ESAS numbers).

Jupiter is a simplified version of the LV-24/25 vehicle from ESAS' own report, which achieved an LOC of 1:1170.   But we have simpler engines (80% fewer parts) and fewer of them (2 vs. 3).

Sure, Jupiter still isn't quite as high.   We have never denied otherwise, and it would be foolish of us to try.

But the question is: Is it acceptable?   Most certainly so.   It exceeds NASA's requirements by over 40%.

And as Chuck has already mentioned the advantages don't end there.   LCC are significantly improved by starting all your engines on the Pad.   Also, by keeping the 4-segment SRB's completely unchanged you instantly start the DIRECT architecture with an active database of 186 flown missions under your belt.   This database is only partially applicable to the Ares - only the SRB case segments are retained from STS - everything else is new, so has no flight history.   Ditto with the J-2X and ditto with the upgraded RS-68 for Ares-V too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/27/2007 05:56 pm
Quote
HarryM - 27/6/2007  1:47 PM

See, those are good counterpoints to the "Ares I is inherently safer" argument. The Ares I adherant will always be ready to throw at you: "Yes, that's all very nice ($, less gap, easier) but we are really thinking about the crew's SAFETY first and foremost..." You must be prepared for that and have an answer. I would try to phrase it in simpler terms that your average politician can understand. "If one engine fails with Direct or a heavy lift EELV, we can continue the mission. With Ares I, the mission is a failure, the vehicle is lost, and the crew must abort. By using the launch escape system, this immediately puts the crew at risk. We ARE thinking about the crew's safety first and foremost with Direct..."

That's a good way to phrase it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/27/2007 06:05 pm
Quote
HarryM - 27/6/2007  1:06 PM

Just playing devil's advocate here, trying to figure out why Ares I is the chosen design, for whatever reason. Obviously they couldn't redesign the shuttle to either not have the SRB adjacent (not enough $ for a LFBB), add an all-envelope escape system etc. , and they couldn't outright cancel it for a host of practical, economic and political reasons.

My personal belief is that the idea of two stages, with a single engine on each caught the attention of a certain former astronaut who worked at ATK a few years back.   He promoted it heavily within the astronaut corps and a few other places.

I'm sure his motives were partially to do with safety for crew (it looked a lot simpler in those days than it does now), but his day job was primarily to create new business for his company.   Is it a surprise that ATK is getting a lot of development money?   Is it a surprise that all future boosters will have 25% extra segments and thus 25% additional costs (& profit) to refurbish?   I doubt it.

When the choice was made to go with The Stick, this individual was the logical choice to run the program because he was the strongest proponent of the concept and already had the most familiarity with it.

From some angles, it makes sense.   From mine, I think it is a stupid idea to spend such ridiculous amounts of tax payers money just to create a third launch vehicle in the EELV performance range.   It also costs more to run two LV programs for the next 30 years than one.   Safety requirements could be achieved a different way, much faster, and with much lower cost.   This would have allowed more cash to be used more wisely than at present.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/27/2007 06:40 pm
It's natural for Jupiter enthusiasts to convince themselves that the Jupiter 120 will be safer than Ares I, particularly if they're part of the design team that came up with the configuration they think is the best thing since sliced bread. But I doubt it.

Yes, the 120 doesn't have an air started hydrogen engine. It still has twice as many SRBs and a pair of RS-68s, which haven't exactly covered themselves with reliability glory with one mission failure in seven flights (most of them the simpler single core version). Also, there are more separation events and failure modes, including the one that destroyed Challenger.

Yes, engine out capability is great if the failure happens in the right way at the right time. There are lots of ways for propulsion systems to fail, besides the benign failure of a single engine. Note the Delta IV-H failure, or the system failure of Apollo 6 and the near miss on Apollo 13.

If you use NASA's methodology, Jupiter 120 will be somewhat less reliable than Ares I. If you use a more realistic estimate based on historical systems, they'll both be considerably less reliable, but Ares I will still be the safer launcher of the pair.

The real problem comes if the 232 + 120 scenario proves too marginal for a lunar mission, which is all too likely. Because by any sensible estimate, 232 will be at least twice as likely to need an abort as Ares I.

Generally, I think the Direct team is fooling themselves into thinking the Jupiter launcher isn't a mostly new vehicle because they reuse some heritage components. The load paths, the thrust structure, the propulsion system, the interaction between components and the basic configuration will be essentially new. Jupiter would be a lot less like the shuttle than Delta III was similar to Delta II...and we know how much reliability *that* launcher inherited.

Ares I is a mostly new launcher with some heritage benefit from Shuttle and Saturn. Jupiter 120 would be a mostly new launcher with some heritage from the Shuttle and the not very mature or reliable Delta IV. And Jupiter is bigger and more complicated.

Not only do I not think Jupiter 120 will be more reliable than Ares I, I don't think it will take less time to develop, for the same reasons
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/27/2007 07:53 pm
Quote
Will - 27/6/2007  1:40 PM

snip

Not only do I not think Jupiter 120 will be more reliable than Ares I, I don't think it will take less time to develop, for the same reasons

In an earlier post to me about Jupiter vs. Ares 1, one of the Jupiter people said this -- Jupiter will be a little easier than Ares 1, but not by a lot.  But, I agree with the Jupiter people that the two Jupiters will be easier than the two Ares launchers.  I think it is only when you look at the two Jupiters vs. the two Ares that the Jupiters make any since.

But it isn't going to happen.  NASA is committed to a path.  I wish NASA well, but I don't see us having a manned launcher anytime soon after shuttle.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/27/2007 07:54 pm
Quote
Will - 27/6/2007  2:40 PM

It's natural for Jupiter enthusiasts to convince themselves that the Jupiter 120 will be safer than Ares I, particularly if they're part of the design team that came up with the configuration they think is the best thing since sliced bread. But I doubt it.

Yes, the 120 doesn't have an air started hydrogen engine. It still has twice as many SRBs and a pair of RS-68s, which haven't exactly covered themselves with reliability glory with one mission failure in seven flights (most of them the simpler single core version). Also, there are more separation events and failure modes, including the one that destroyed Challenger.

Yes, engine out capability is great if the failure happens in the right way at the right time. There are lots of ways for propulsion systems to fail, besides the benign failure of a single engine. Note the Delta IV-H failure, or the system failure of Apollo 6 and the near miss on Apollo 13.

If you use NASA's methodology, Jupiter 120 will be somewhat less reliable than Ares I. If you use a more realistic estimate based on historical systems, they'll both be considerably less reliable, but Ares I will still be the safer launcher of the pair.

The real problem comes if the 232 + 120 scenario proves too marginal for a lunar mission, which is all too likely. Because by any sensible estimate, 232 will be at least twice as likely to need an abort as Ares I.

Generally, I think the Direct team is fooling themselves into thinking the Jupiter launcher isn't a mostly new vehicle because they reuse some heritage components. The load paths, the thrust structure, the propulsion system, the interaction between components and the basic configuration will be essentially new. Jupiter would be a lot less like the shuttle than Delta III was similar to Delta II...and we know how much reliability *that* launcher inherited.

Ares I is a mostly new launcher with some heritage benefit from Shuttle and Saturn. Jupiter 120 would be a mostly new launcher with some heritage from the Shuttle and the not very mature or reliable Delta IV. And Jupiter is bigger and more complicated.

Not only do I not think Jupiter 120 will be more reliable than Ares I, I don't think it will take less time to develop, for the same reasons
I don't even know where to start on this. It sounds like you havn't actually gone back and read all of the discussions on BOTH Direct v1 and Direct v2. Everything you bring up has already gone thru the wringer and been satifactorly addressed.

I'm not putting you down, mind you. Just suggesting that before you bring up what actually ARE very good questions, that you take the time to go back over the conversations in the 2 threads that got us all to this point. These things have all been brought up before and discussed in a LOT of detail, which would take far too much space to simply re-hash here. Please recheck the 2 threads - from the beginning. It'll be a fascinating read, I promise.

If you will take the time to do that, then re-form your questions with all that knowledge in-hand, any of us will be happy to address them to your satisfaction.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/27/2007 09:01 pm
Quote
clongton - 27/6/2007  2:54 PM

.

If you will take the time to do that, then re-form your questions with all that knowledge in-hand, any of us will be happy to address them to your satisfaction.

I hope you're not expecting me to go back through all the stuff based on the mythical RS-68 performance figures.

Question 1): When will the PDF version of the proposal reflect the fact that your claimed total payload for the double LOR mission with your baseline lightweight EDS to TLI is not 100mt, but less than 80?

2) Do you agree that Jupiter 120 will have a higher chance of killing a crew than Ares I?

3) Do you agree that the 232 will have a higher chance of killing a crew than the 120? In any case, what numbers do you project for the 232?

4) Do you think the NASA estimates of LOC are in the right ballpark, or do you think the actual numbers will be different? If so, what?

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 06/27/2007 09:27 pm
Quote
Will - 27/6/2007  2:40 PM

Yes, the 120 doesn't have an air started hydrogen engine. It still has twice as many SRBs and a pair of RS-68s, which haven't exactly covered themselves with reliability glory with one mission failure in seven flights (most of them the simpler single core version). Also, there are more separation events and failure modes, including the one that destroyed Challenger.

Ares I is a mostly new launcher with some heritage benefit from Shuttle and Saturn. Jupiter 120 would be a mostly new launcher with some heritage from the Shuttle and the not very mature or reliable Delta IV. And Jupiter is bigger and more complicated.

Not only do I not think Jupiter 120 will be more reliable than Ares I, I don't think it will take less time to develop, for the same reasons

1.  The D-IV failure has no applicability to Direct
2.  The Challenger failure mode has no applicability to Direct due to the vehicle being  inline and the presence of a LAS
3.  The only thing Direct and D-IV share is an engine, there are no other systems or structure use.  So tying Direct to D-IV is wrong.
4.  It is not mostly new, read the proposal
5.  It will take less time.  again read the proposal.  J-2 and pad development are the long pole for Ares I, these don't exist for Direct.  The remaining "new" hardware would be the tank and avionics which should be the same as Ares upperstage and avionics wrt to development.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 06/27/2007 09:29 pm
Quote
Will - 27/6/2007  5:01 PM

A.  I hope you're not expecting me to go back through all the stuff based on the mythical RS-68 performance figures.

Question 1): When will the PDF version of the proposal reflect the fact that your claimed total payload for the double LOR mission with your baseline lightweight EDS to TLI is not 100mt, but less than 80?

2) Do you agree that Jupiter 120 will have a higher chance of killing a crew than Ares I?

3) Do you agree that the 232 will have a higher chance of killing a crew than the 120? In any case, what numbers do you project for the 232?

4) Do you think the NASA estimates of LOC are in the right ballpark, or do you think the actual numbers will be different? If so, what?

Will

A.  They are using the actual performance numbers

2&3 are assnine questions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/27/2007 09:55 pm
Quote
HarryM - 27/6/2007  12:47 PM

See, those are good counterpoints to the "Ares I is inherently safer" argument. The Ares I adherant will always be ready to throw at you: "Yes, that's all very nice ($, less gap, easier) but we are really thinking about the crew's SAFETY first and foremost..." You must be prepared for that and have an answer. I would try to phrase it in simpler terms that your average politician can understand. "If one engine fails with Direct or a heavy lift EELV, we can continue the mission. With Ares I, the mission is a failure, the vehicle is lost, and the crew must abort. By using the launch escape system, this immediately puts the crew at risk. We ARE thinking about the crew's safety first and foremost with Direct..."

Well put.  The Ares 1 folks will cry, "But think of the crew's safety".  Direct/Jupiter must be able to counter this argument.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 06/27/2007 10:20 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/6/2007  10:29 AM

Quote
Will - 27/6/2007  5:01 PM

2) Do you agree that Jupiter 120 will have a higher chance of killing a crew than Ares I?

3) Do you agree that the 232 will have a higher chance of killing a crew than the 120? In any case, what numbers do you project for the 232?

Will

2&3 are assnine questions.

I can just imagine all those congressmen saying to themselves "oh what a dumb-ass I am" because after all the benefits of DIRECT have been explained to them, thats exactly the question they are going to ask.

I hope DIRECT succeeds, because I think it is in the best solution within acceptable risk limits.  However I know which rocket I would ride given the choice .... DIRECT :) I might actually be heading somewhere other than LEO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HarryM on 06/27/2007 10:28 pm
Assuming 4 flights per year.
1/1000 = 1 LOC per 250 years of operation
1/2000 = 1 LOC per 500 years of operation
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/28/2007 12:55 am
Quote
Jim - 27/6/2007 4:27 PM


1. The D-IV failure has no applicability to Direct
2. The Challenger failure mode has no applicability to Direct due to the vehicle being inline and the presence of a LAS
3. The only thing Direct and D-IV share is an engine, there are no other systems or structure use. So tying Direct to D-IV is wrong.
4. It is not mostly new, read the proposal
5. It will take less time. again read the proposal. J-2 and pad development are the long pole for Ares I, these don't exist for Direct. The remaining "new" hardware would be the tank and avionics which should be the same as Ares upperstage and avionics wrt to development.

1. On the contrary. it has several implications. Neither Delta IV nor RS-68 are mature. Also, hardware reliability in one configuration doesn't guarantee system reliability in a different configuration. Almost all the hardware on the Delta IV-H had already flown: nonetheless the system failed. Likewise for Delta III.

2. Generally, having a jet of flame shoot into your fuel tank is a bad thing, even if you have a LAS.

3. See 1.

4. Changing the engines, number of engines, location of the engines, load paths, and payload from side mount to in-line are a lot of changes, even if you keep tank diameter the same. RS-68s are not mature engines, and do not have the level of testing that NASA expects from engines that will launch a crew. Man-rating the Rs-68 was a significant pacing item for the man-rated Delta IV.

5. Doug Stanley disagrees. He has stated that J-2 is not the long pole for Ares I, annual funding level is. Also that a Jupiter style launcher would take more time to develop than Ares I, not less.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/28/2007 01:19 am
Quote
HarryM - 27/6/2007  5:28 PM

Assuming 4 flights per year.
1/1000 = 1 LOC per 250 years of operation
1/2000 = 1 LOC per 500 years of operation

Yes. The benefit from reducing LOC crew from 1/1000 to 1/2000 is not worth spending billions of dollars to achieve, by any rational calculation.

Congress is not funding the space program on the basis of rational economic cost/benefit analysis. Congress is paying for pride, prestige and symbolism, among other things. On those scales, dead astronauts weigh heavy: and probably heavier than they should. Congress is paying the piper, and NASA has to dance to the tune they choose.

I would add that NASA's estimates of the chance of LOC are probably stilll optimistic, even if the relative relationship between launchers is probably about right. I'd be happy to discover I was wrong, but I would guess that if Ares I flies, it will have a probablity of LOC closer to 1/1000 than 1/2000.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/28/2007 01:39 am
Quote
Will - 27/6/2007  5:01 PM

Quote
clongton - 27/6/2007  2:54 PM

.

If you will take the time to do that, then re-form your questions with all that knowledge in-hand, any of us will be happy to address them to your satisfaction.

I hope you're not expecting me to go back through all the stuff based on the mythical RS-68 performance figures.
Why not? It's good background and is extremely contextual. It's part of the history of how we got here. So yes, if you really want to understand, then read it all. Unless you don't want to, in which case you'll never know when you are about to say something that might make you blush afterward and wish you had read it. Besides, we now posess information which totally validates our original assertions.

Quote
Question 1): When will the PDF version of the proposal reflect the fact that your claimed total payload for the double LOR mission with your baseline lightweight EDS to TLI is not 100mt, but less than 80?

2) Do you agree that Jupiter 120 will have a higher chance of killing a crew than Ares I?

3) Do you agree that the 232 will have a higher chance of killing a crew than the 120? In any case, what numbers do you project for the 232?

4) Do you think the NASA estimates of LOC are in the right ballpark, or do you think the actual numbers will be different? If so, what?

Will
1. We are using actual numbers
2. ABSOLUTELY NOT!
3. ABSOLUTELY NOT!
4. NASA's LOC/LOM numbers are really misnomers. What they actually are is identification of potential failure points on a probability curve. They do not represent real life because they do not take into consideration the real weak point in the system: human lack of procedural integrity. To the point- NASA's numbers said the Shuttle would fly 200 times before it had an accident. That's not a FLEET flight number but individual vehicle flights. Challenger did not fly 200 times before it's accident. Columbia did not fly 200 times before its accident. Both losses were caused not by technical failure, but by human failure to obey the rules of flight which resulted in technical breakdown. Don't confuse those numbers with how safe a vehicle actually is, because it's perfectly ligitimate to have a higher number of potential failure points that never fail because the procedures are followed and obeyed. You do the best you can to design and build a safe vehicle, but safety ultimately boils down to human integrity, not theoretical numbers on a graph.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/28/2007 02:07 am
Quote
clongton - 27/6/2007  8:39 PM


Quote
Question 1): When will the PDF version of the proposal reflect the fact that your claimed total payload for the double LOR mission with your baseline lightweight EDS to TLI is not 100mt, but less than 80?

2) Do you agree that Jupiter 120 will have a higher chance of killing a crew than Ares I?

3) Do you agree that the 232 will have a higher chance of killing a crew than the 120? In any case, what numbers do you project for the 232?

4) Do you think the NASA estimates of LOC are in the right ballpark, or do you think the actual numbers will be different? If so, what?

Will
1. We are using actual numbers
2. ABSOLUTELY NOT!
3. ABSOLUTELY NOT!
.

Re. # 3. So you add an air started cryogenic upper stage, and an extra engine to the core, and the reliability impact is zero? You amaze me. I am sure your ability to design cryogenic upper stages with a 0% failure rate is in great demand, so you may not find time to respond, but how do you do it?

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 06/28/2007 02:18 am
Quote
Will - 27/6/2007  8:55 PM
1. On the contrary. it has several implications. Neither Delta IV nor RS-68 are mature. Also, hardware reliability in one configuration doesn't guarantee system reliability in a different configuration. Almost all the hardware on the Delta IV-H had already flown: nonetheless the system failed. Likewise for Delta III.

2. Generally, having a jet of flame shoot into your fuel tank is a bad thing, even if you have a LAS.

3. See 1.

4. Changing the engines, number of engines, location of the engines, load paths, and payload from side mount to in-line are a lot of changes, even if you keep tank diameter the same. RS-68s are not mature engines, and do not have the level of testing that NASA expects from engines that will launch a crew. Man-rating the Rs-68 was a significant pacing item for the man-rated Delta IV.

5. Doug Stanley disagrees. He has stated that J-2 is not the long pole for Ares I, annual funding level is. Also that a Jupiter style launcher would take more time to develop than Ares I, not less.

1.  Huh?  You do not know what you are talking about.  D-IV is not Direct .  Not the same parts, not the same engineering, there is no related systems.  There is no comparsion.

2.  Still, Challenger is not applicable to Direct.  The side mount of the orbiter was the problem  not the jet.  Any type of breakup would affect the orbiter.  NASA discounts this also,  Ares V is to be manrated

3.  There are more things that don't change.  Also the tooling doesn't change

4.  The RS-68 is closer to manrating than the J-2S.  The RS-68 has to be manrated for the Ares V anyways

5.  Thus the J-2 is the pacing item.  Direct has jump on Ares I still.  Minimal KSC and MAF mods


You haven't qualifed yourself to make thes comments either.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 06/28/2007 02:27 am
Quote
Will - 27/6/2007  9:19 PM


Congress is not funding the space program on the basis of rational economic cost/benefit analysis. Congress is paying for pride, prestige and symbolism, among other things. On those scales, dead astronauts weigh heavy: and probably heavier than they should. Congress is paying the piper, and NASA has to dance to the tune they choose.


Congress doesn't know what it is funding.    EELV's were ok with them for OSP.  So Congress really doesn't matter wrt relative safety of a crew launcher.  Congress is more concerned about jobs in their districts/states
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/28/2007 02:57 am
Will,
You've obviously been against the idea from the start, but I welcome informed questions, and while some of yours could be answered by going back and reading the wealth of information which has already been discussed, the rest are quite valid and well worth answering again.   Your questions help demonstrate the sorts of questions which people completely unfamiliar with the concept are going to have.   In this context I find they actually help me fine-tune the best responses.   You aren't the first to ask these questions, and you certainly won't be the last.   While it can sometimes feel a bit repetitious, it does helping us clarify our message, and that is actually useful for us.

Briefly, my own answers to your five questions:


Quote
Will - 27/6/2007  5:01 PM

Question 1): When will the PDF version of the proposal reflect the fact that your claimed total payload for the double LOR mission with your baseline lightweight EDS to TLI is not 100mt, but less than 80?

The total mass sent to TLI can actually be above 100mT in some situations.   We are working on six different key scenario's presently which are capable of placing LSAM's massing between 30-80mT together with CEV's massing between 20-25mT into Lunar orbit.

It is a long and very drawn out process of analysis, comparison and then re-analysis over and over again, and is taking time to work out which scenario to baseline as the initial version to use at the start of the program, and if/how to switch to a different configuration later.

There are pro's and con's with each, and striking the right balance is going to take a while longer.

For now, we can still achieve our published figures with some of these configurations, so there is no need to change the data already presented.   If we were to find we couldn't meet the expected performance in any configuration, then we would find it necessary to change the current proposal - but we have not had to yet.


Quote
2) Do you agree that Jupiter 120 will have a higher chance of killing a crew than Ares I?

NASA's methodology would seem to indicate that Jupiter-120 has higher risk than Ares-I.   However, Ares-I has had a lot of additional problems since it's concept was finalized, and these have detracted from its theoretical safety, so the ESAS numbers are not the be-all and end all of the story.   Jupiter's have advantages which the numbers don't show.   Overall, I personally believe we are currently about 90% of the way to Ares-I's safety in real terms.   Perhaps that's optimistic of me, but I have my reasons, based in data, why I believe that to be the case.

I have previously indicated these, but I will mention a few again here briefly; the re-use of the existing tankage and SRB's adds a lot of "flight knowledge" to Jupiter which is not available to Ares-I or Ares-V.   Twenty years of experience and two "critical learning" events, have tripled STS's safety, and this additional safety knowledge can be mostly transferable straight to Jupiter (which shares about 70-80% of the exact same systems).   Also, as Chuck has mentioned to Danny already, the ignition of the Jupiter liquid stage on the Pad is another critical factor which Ares-I's liquid stage does not offer, and which can remove some in-flight abort scenarios completely (which are dangerous in and of themselves, as I mention again in a minute).   Neither of these are accounted for in NASA's LOC methodology calculations.   But these add a significant level of extra safety in the real world, away from the PDF presentations.   I can go on, but its late and I'm pretty tired.   Do you want to discuss these individually further or are you already familiar enough with how these features improve safety and how they have not been accounted for in ESAS numbers?


Quote
3) Do you agree that the 232 will have a higher chance of killing a crew than the 120? In any case, what numbers do you project for the 232?

With an extra stage, and extra engines, a J-232 is about 87% as safe as the J-120 - using NASA's methodology for calculating such things.   I think that a ~13% difference is about right in the real world too.

But the real fact is that even the J-232 is still 25% above NASA's published requirements for crew safety for new Constellation vehicle concepts.

So let me ask the question:    Is there any reason why that would be unacceptable?   NASA's numbers indicate it is acceptable for crew use.   I'm not aware of anyone disputing this.


Quote
4) Do you think the NASA estimates of LOC are in the right ballpark, or do you think the actual numbers will be different? If so, what?

Given NASA's previous "guesses", no, I don't think the ESAS numbers are going to be borne out in real life.   I think they are probably about half an order of magnitude too optimistic.   If you quarter all the ESAS LOC and LOM numbers, for every vehicle, I think that would get you much closer to what the real world will actually hand you.

But again, that's still not the entire story either.   The EELV guys are very fond of saying that actual Flight experience teaches you lessons, and they are absolutely spot on the mark.

Shuttle actually demonstrates this fairly well.   We had only 24 "safe" flights before the first accident.   Then, after those lessons were learned, we had more than three times as many "safe" flights before the next accident - 87 to be precise.   While it's certainly an ever-diminishing curve, the trend data (albeit limited to two data points) indicates that it could be anything up to about 300 flights before we may have another Shuttle accident.   I personally think 300 more flights is highly unlikely myself, but with all the lessons they are now aware of, I would not be surprised if they couldn't get an improvement over the 87 - maybe 100.

The point is that real flight use, and learning events like accidents, help improve safety massively more than we account for.   Because Jupiter shares far more commonality to the existing STS system than Ares, we can take advantage of most of the current lessons learned.

Conversely, Ares-I's engines are all-new, staging events are all-new, upper stage is all new, booster configuration is all-new, and the booster is so underpowered that the spacecraft itself is forced to complete ascent too.   This is all new territory.   While some parts bear a resemblance to STS items of Apollo items, there is NO actual hardware in common with any previously flown items except the J-2S turbopumps (never actually flown, only tested) and SRB segment casings (never flown with payload loads balanced on top).   Therefore there is zero actual heritabe under Ares-I at all.   Because of this, less than 25 safe flights before the first accident is back on the cards with Ares-I - and that crew's lives will depend on how safe the never before flown LAS behaves.


There seems to be a practical limit, no matter which country, no matter the budget invested and the checks implemented, which holds true of every rocket program anywhere in the world:   You lose about 1% of all launch vehicles.

I believe NASA has sufficient checks on its vehicles to be at the very upper end of this scale, but I just can't see them bettering this by any significant amount.   This is for the simple reason that riding a controlled explosion of millions of pounds of fiery death is never going to be totally safe.   Nobody can realistically expect this business to be complete safety.

Even the simplest vehicle, is unlikely to actually achieve a Real-world Loss Of Vehicle (what I will refer to as "RLOV" as opposed to NASA's "LOM" methodology) of 1:100.   Given the fact that the Orion LAS is going to be one of the best LAS systems ever developed, it is a frightening fact that 10-20% of crew aborts from a vehicle are NOT expected to be able to save the crew's lives.   And that's based on NASA's own data!

So, assuming the highest RLOV ever achieved is around 1:100, and that was only achieved after a series of failures in earlier versions teaching the program valuable lessons, and given the fact that NASA expects to lose up to 1 in 5 crews who have to go through an abort, I can't see *ANY* realistic vehicle getting above 1 in 500 "RLOC" (Real-world Loss of Crew).

I predict the first generation of Ares-I will have an RLOV of about 1:70, and an RLOC of around 1:350.   After the first accident, I predict that will then climb to around 1:90 RLOV & 1:450 RLOC.

Jupiter mostly uses existing Shuttle flight hardware, with few modifications (now likely to be around 1:90 RLOV & the same RLOC because it has no LAS).   That means most of the systems already have 25 years of experience and two critical "learning events" under their belts.   I predict that the first generation of Jupiter would probably be about 20% lower than STS is currently, or around 1:70 RLOV and 1:340 RLOC.   After the first Jupiter accident, I would expect that to be able to climb higher than Ares-I, to around 1:95 RLOV & 1:470 RLOC also, simply because of the extra "learning experiences" from the previous 25 years of STS operations.


Anyone who buys the 1 in 2000 has clearly never looked at any data.   Amazingly enough though, 1:2000 is the same number MSFC published for Shuttle at the start of that program too!   Perhaps that's just a coincidence, perhaps not.   Only time, and flights can actually answer that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/28/2007 03:59 am
Quote
clongton - 27/6/2007  8:39 PM

snip
 
4. NASA's LOC/LOM numbers are really misnomers. What they actually are is identification of potential failure points on a probability curve. They do not represent real life because they do not take into consideration the real weak point in the system: human lack of procedural integrity. To the point- NASA's numbers said the Shuttle would fly 200 times before it had an accident. That's not a FLEET flight number but individual vehicle flights. Challenger did not fly 200 times before it's accident. Columbia did not fly 200 times before its accident. Both losses were caused not by technical failure, but by human failure to obey the rules of flight which resulted in technical breakdown. Don't confuse those numbers with how safe a vehicle actually is, because it's perfectly ligitimate to have a higher number of potential failure points that never fail because the procedures are followed and obeyed. You do the best you can to design and build a safe vehicle, but safety ultimately boils down to human integrity, not theoretical numbers on a graph.

The two accident investigations after the two shuttle failures agree with you.  I hope people at NASA learned from their mistakes.  If a typical NASA engineer saw a manager making an unsafe decision, would they speak up?

Danny Deger
www.dannydeger.net
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/28/2007 04:00 am
Quote
Jim - 27/6/2007  10:27 PM

Quote
Will - 27/6/2007  9:19 PM


Congress is not funding the space program on the basis of rational economic cost/benefit analysis. Congress is paying for pride, prestige and symbolism, among other things. On those scales, dead astronauts weigh heavy: and probably heavier than they should. Congress is paying the piper, and NASA has to dance to the tune they choose.


Congress doesn't know what it is funding.    EELV's were ok with them for OSP.  So Congress really doesn't matter wrt relative safety of a crew launcher.  Congress is more concerned about jobs in their districts/states

Agreed.   They wouldn't know an SRB TVC from a gimbal system on an SSME even if you showed them a lovely pretty powerpoint presentation on it.   They (mostly) aren't engineers, and virtually nobody in Washington is a bonafide rocket scientist.

They are relying upon the fox to provide all the data about securing the henhouse and then paying to build it.


BTW, OSP was okay with Congress because it didn't result in any STS job losses.   It was supplemental to STS, not replacing it.   As long as the STS workforce is retained, Congress is pretty-much okay whatever the technology is.

Of course, there would probably be a question raised by some about using Russian engines for the US flagship space program in the case of Atlas launching CEV, but even that could probably be argued as long as it retains the workforce.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/28/2007 04:06 am
Quote
Danny Dot - 27/6/2007  11:59 PM

The two accident investigations after the two shuttle failures agree with you.  I hope people at NASA learned from their mistakes.  If a typical NASA engineer saw a manager making an unsafe decision, would they speak up?

From what I have seen, I believe that guys like Wayne Hale have managed to change the underlying attitude of the whole team considerably since Columbia was lost.   The STS program we have today does not appear, to me, to be the same one we had before 2003.

Whether the rest of NASA has changed at all is still to be demonstrated.   I believe at the engineering level the team members pay a lot more attention, but management in many areas still seems to have issues.   I hear lots of complaints about MSFC in particular, mostly originating from staff inside the center, but a fair number complaining about MSFC systematically ignoring other centers recommendations.   Being local to KSC, I hear a lot of stories about launch processing recommendations from the guys in-the-field being completely steamrollered by the "desk jockeys in Huntsville" (their term, not mine).   It seems to be a regular topic of conversation over a pint these days.

This leads me to doubt things have really changed outside of the STS program - and Constellation is outside of STS :(

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/28/2007 04:13 am
Quote
kraisee - 27/6/2007  9:57 PM

snip

Even the simplest vehicle, is unlikely to actually achieve a Real-world Loss Of Vehicle (what I will refer to as "RLOV" as opposed to NASA's "LOM" methodology) of 1:100.   Given the fact that the Orion LAS is going to be one of the best LAS systems ever developed, it is a frightening fact that 10-20% of crew aborts from a vehicle are NOT expected to be able to save the crew's lives.   And that's based on NASA's own data!

So, assuming the highest RLOV ever achieved is around 1:100, and that was only achieved after a series of failures in earlier versions teaching the program valuable lessons, and given the fact that NASA expects to lose up to 1 in 5 crews who have to go through an abort, I can't see *ANY* realistic vehicle getting above 1 in 500 "RLOC" (Real-world Loss of Crew).

I predict the first generation of Ares-I will have an RLOV of about 1:70, and an RLOC of around 1:350.   After the first accident, I predict that will then climb to around 1:90 RLOV & 1:450 RLOC.

snip

Anyone who buys the 1 in 2000 has clearly never looked at any data.   Amazingly enough though, 1:2000 is the same number MSFC published for Shuttle at the start of that program too!   Perhaps that's just a coincidence, perhaps not.   Only time, and flights can actually answer that.

Ross.

As a Crew Survival engineer at NASA, I had a chance to work a lot with the guys that generated the numbers.  They agreed that a major flaw in their analysis is an inability to calculate the probability of a design flaw (e.g. o-rings that unseat at ignition, or all of the redundant computers have the same overly sensitive over-volt protection).  I think your RLOV and RLOC values have great merit.

Danny Deger
www.dannydeger.net
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/28/2007 11:54 am
Quote
Will - 27/6/2007  10:07 PM

Re. # 3. So you add an air started cryogenic upper stage, and an extra engine to the core, and the reliability impact is zero? You amaze me. I am sure your ability to design cryogenic upper stages with a 0% failure rate is in great demand, so you may not find time to respond, but how do you do it?
:) It's all about the "magic" engines. That's a joke - you're supposed to smile. You would need to read the v1 thread to get it.

Really Will, I do recommend that if you're really interested in understanding how we got to this point and what is driving the design decisions that define the Jupiter, that you take the time to read the whole thing. That's a lot - I know. But you will find it instructional.

Ross took the time to actually address a couple of your questions above. That was good. Take what he said to heart and apply it to a systems pov. The Jupiter is not a perfect answer to NASA's launch vehicle needs, not by any means, nor is it the only practical answer, but it is a very good answer and, in our opinion, a better answer than the Ares-1/V. Why we whole-heartedly believe that is really a process we went thru as we developed v1 and then v2. I recommend that you actually take the time to read the whole thing, even the stuff about the "magic" engine. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/28/2007 03:15 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/6/2007  9:57 PM

Will,
You've obviously been against the idea from the start, but I welcome informed questions, and while some of yours could be answered by going back and reading the wealth of information which has already been discussed, the rest are quite valid and well worth answering again.  
Ross.


Ross:
You misunderstand me. I think a two-launch solution roughly along the lines of Direct will have lower life cycle costs, and that the increased chance of loss of crew is acceptable to me, given the inherent dangers of space flight at our current level of technology and the potential savings of a two-launch approach.

I do think you are overoptimistic about a number of the details, and this hurts the credibility of the proposal. And I think there are a number of places where you've made suboptimal choices.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/28/2007 03:38 pm
Quote
Will - 28/6/2007  11:15 AM

Ross:
You misunderstand me. I think a two-launch solution roughly along the lines of Direct will have lower life cycle costs, and that the increased chance of loss of crew is acceptable to me, given the inherent dangers of space flight at our current level of technology and the potential savings of a two-launch approach.

I do think you are overoptimistic about a number of the details, and this hurts the credibility of the proposal. And I think there are a number of places where you've made suboptimal choices.
Will, when we opened this thread for Direct v2, it was with a request for critical examination, a “peer review” of sorts from the folks who are on this thread. Take a look at the kinds of folks we were asking for participation from. I am positive that you will find yourself in the list somewhere. It really doesn’t matter to us where. The only thing we ask when critique is given is that it be well thought out and genuinely critical. Think about what you see in the proposal, look thru the thread(s) to see if it has been addressed before, or if there were similar questions that may possibly inform your own thinking in some manner. Craft your thoughts reasonably carefully, in such a way that it requires all of us to think and research in order to provide an answer that satisfies the question in some form or another. We are not afraid of anything you may ask, and actually welcome critical thought because it requires us to go back and sharpen our own pencils. That is good for us, but more importantly, it is good for the proposal. There are several lines of thought that have been followed through on, first presented to us by participants of this thread, which have required us to either revise something we had already done, or create new parameters we had not previously addressed. We can’t think of everything by ourselves and welcome the honest participation of good folks, like you.

In that spirit, please tell us where you think we have come up short, and more importantly, why. The why part is most important, because it drives us to the underlying assumptions which inform the design.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/28/2007 04:08 pm
Just saw the safesimplesoon.com site....congratulations on the mention there. ;)  While it is not exactly a positive opinion it is nice to see that DIRECT has ATK shaking in their boots enough for them to add it to the "Myth Busters" section of their "Stick-(sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)." site. (Maybe someone should tell Discovery channel about that one, as I am pretty sure that title is copyrighted)

I suggest you send the DIRECT v2 to them, you know, just so they have the most up to date info on DIRECT on their "debunking section".

If the real myth busters were looking at DIRECT 2, I think this would go from "Myth Busted" to "Myth Plausible".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/28/2007 04:18 pm
One major problem I see with the proposal in its current form is the mass fraction of the EDS. That's radically lighter than any cyrogenic upper stage that has flown, and considerably more optimistic than NASA's own assumptions.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/28/2007 04:20 pm
Quote
Will - 28/6/2007  11:15 AM

I do think you are overoptimistic about a number of the details, and this hurts the credibility of the proposal. And I think there are a number of places where you've made suboptimal choices.

So lets discuss those concerns you have in some more detail.   Why don't you start the ball rolling with your number 1 concern, and give me a handle on your reasoning and any evidence you can bring to support the concern.

I will then do my best to address that concern and we can discuss the rationale for the choices we've made so far, and where relevant, I will discuss the range of options we have already considered.

We'll just tackle one issue at a time, until it is satisfied - one way or the other.   That will keep the discussion focussed and on-track for all to review later and make sure no items get lost in a storm of discussion.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/28/2007 04:59 pm
Quote
Will - 28/6/2007  12:18 PM

One major problem I see with the proposal in its current form is the mass fraction of the EDS. That's radically lighter than any cyrogenic upper stage that has flown, and considerably more optimistic than NASA's own assumptions.

Will

Okay, good place to start.

We have data in hand from LM personnel working on their Centaur growth options, who produced the ICES AIAA presentations.   Our mass fraction in the published report is based on their numbers for a stage containing that much propellant, and does include suitable margins.

However, the point has been made that this is still a "tricky sell" to many people, simply because no ICES has ever flown.

So, internally, we have gone back, looked at our other alternatives and chosen to create a number of alternatives which are more palatable.   Please understand, we believe the ICES is still the way to go, but if a Centaur-like pmf gains us greater acceptance, thats the way we will go - at first.

The Centaur-V1 currently flown on the Atlas-V, without engines, currently has a pmf of 0.9179.   We have an Upper Stage configuration which matches that, and it has become our internal "baseline".

The Wide Body Centaur being planned as an upgrade in the next few years for Atlas-V has a greater pmf of 0.94.   We can match that too.

And as a point of reference, it should be noted that the current flown STS Super Light Weight External Tank (obviously with no engines) has an absolutely astonishing 0.9648 pmf - and it is man-rated flight hardware   We are *not* planning such a stage pmf for our U/S.


While it doesn't appear related, we have been finalizing the performance of the Core stage recently.   This actually plays a major role in what the optimal propellant load of the U/S needs to be.   While it is still most definitely a "Work in Progress", one of the best configurations we are looking at right now has meant the new U/S ascent load can be roughly 20% lower than the one in DIRECT 2.0's proposal.   This improves the mass of the stage noticeably.

Additionally, we are finding that we are now in a good position to consider switching to a single engine EDS.   This configuration is still being investigated, but is looking optimistic.

But only when these analysis are complete can we trade them against each other in the context of how they can support actual missions, can we decide which is best - and this is what we are still working on right now.

As I speak (subject to change of course) our new "baseline" U/S (0.9179) is being designed for this improved trajectory and it is what will go into our AIAA paper later in the year.   We are simply keeping the Wide Body Centaur variant and an ICES stage included as the primary recommended "growth options".

We are holding off publishing the new U/S numbers until we have finished the full analysis, but the performance to LEO ends up being pretty similar to before.   As soon as we have numbers we are confident in, we will publish them here first.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/28/2007 05:20 pm
How do the Wide Body Centaur and the ICES differ from each other?  In reading LM's literature, I've been under the impression that they are different names for the same thing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/28/2007 05:54 pm
One of the primary requirements for the launch architecture (derived from the conversation with the President that led to the program) was the capability to support Mars missions.

Although this requirement may not be valid now (and certainly will be less valid in 24 months), it was a primary driver for the Ares V 130mT configuration.  Having an "upgrade path" for a larger launcher was not allowed, although an upgrade path for human rating Ares V was apparently (see RS-68) permitted.  At 130mT you need 5-6 launches for a Mars mission (by my estimate), at 80mT-100mt you may need more than 10.  This would violate a ground rule (backed up by data) that more than 3 or 4 rendezvous are unacceptable for lots of reasons.

What is your reaction if NASA management is keeping this requirement, or if the Administration is holding them to it?  What if Mars is the whole point, and without it, there is no lunar program (I suggest this because it is possible, and because the President mentioned Mars specifically in his announcement).  

Options for response as I see them (add your own variation, of course)

1.  "That's a bad requirement, we won't address it.  Two missions at a time is enough (ISS, lunar) without designing for a third.  We can always upgrade later."

2.  "We have data that shows that an 80-100mT capability is enough for Mars, NASA leadership is wrong in their requirement for a 130mT capability.  We can always upgrade later if necessary."

3.  "We can meet the 130mT requirement now.  Here is the architecure, costs, risks, etc. and how it fits under the budget through 2025...."

I would suggest that your paper talk about what elements are directly applicable (GSE, infrastructure, etc.) to 130mT launchers and which are not and the costs to upgrade.  As I understand it 130mT WAS a real requirement (and may still be) and an upgrade path was not an option (NASA only gets a chance to develop a new launch vehicle every 30 years, and keeping the developers (as opposed to the operators) on hand is expensive).

Remember, NASA responds to the Administration, and if they have a requirement, NASA is responsible for carrying out their directives and vision, even if some people think they are far fetched or irresponsible (see other threads).  They don't get a vote.

thoughts?



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/28/2007 07:04 pm
Mars,

You're saying, "80-100mT."  It sounds like you're disputing the DIRECT team's 108 mT number?  It so, it would be nice to see your reasoning, rather than just slipping the statement in like it was an established fact.

Taking your statement that "At 130mT you need 5-6 launches for a Mars mission" at face value, that would be 650 to 780 mT.  With DIRECT, that amount of mass will require 6 to 8 (7.2, so it's almost 7) launches to Ares' 5 to 6.  In other words, one more launch in most scenarios, with two in the worst case.  That doesn't seem like a particularly big deal to me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 06/28/2007 07:13 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 28/6/2007  12:54 PM

One of the primary requirements for the launch architecture (derived from the conversation with the President that led to the program) was the capability to support Mars missions.

Although this requirement may not be valid now (and certainly will be less valid in 24 months), it was a primary driver for the Ares V 130mT configuration.  Having an "upgrade path" for a larger launcher was not allowed, although an upgrade path for human rating Ares V was apparently (see RS-68) permitted.  At 130mT you need 5-6 launches for a Mars mission (by my estimate), at 80mT-100mt you may need more than 10.  This would violate a ground rule (backed up by data) that more than 3 or 4 rendezvous are unacceptable for lots of reasons.

What is your reaction if NASA management is keeping this requirement, or if the Administration is holding them to it?  What if Mars is the whole point, and without it, there is no lunar program (I suggest this because it is possible, and because the President mentioned Mars specifically in his announcement).  

Options for response as I see them (add your own variation, of course)

1.  "That's a bad requirement, we won't address it.  Two missions at a time is enough (ISS, lunar) without designing for a third.  We can always upgrade later."

2.  "We have data that shows that an 80-100mT capability is enough for Mars, NASA leadership is wrong in their requirement for a 130mT capability.  We can always upgrade later if necessary."

3.  "We can meet the 130mT requirement now.  Here is the architecure, costs, risks, etc. and how it fits under the budget through 2025...."

I would suggest that your paper talk about what elements are directly applicable (GSE, infrastructure, etc.) to 130mT launchers and which are not and the costs to upgrade.  As I understand it 130mT WAS a real requirement (and may still be) and an upgrade path was not an option (NASA only gets a chance to develop a new launch vehicle every 30 years, and keeping the developers (as opposed to the operators) on hand is expensive).

Remember, NASA responds to the Administration, and if they have a requirement, NASA is responsible for carrying out their directives and vision, even if some people think they are far fetched or irresponsible (see other threads).  They don't get a vote.

thoughts?




If NASA is really that keen on Mars, then we'd be going to Mars.  I'm not sure we should worry about Mars at this point too much if it is 30 years away.   If getting funding for the first elements of VSE is hard, how realistic is it at this point to assume a Mars mission will happen?  Besides where are the hard Mars requirements to design to? I doubt any real requirements exist at this point.  NASA needs to focus nearer term first.  If we can't get to the Moon, then Mars is out of the question.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/28/2007 07:16 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 28/6/2007  10:54 AM

One of the primary requirements for the launch architecture (derived from the conversation with the President that led to the program) was the capability to support Mars missions.

Although this requirement may not be valid now (and certainly will be less valid in 24 months), it was a primary driver for the Ares V 130mT configuration.  Having an "upgrade path" for a larger launcher was not allowed, although an upgrade path for human rating Ares V was apparently (see RS-68) permitted.  At 130mT you need 5-6 launches for a Mars mission (by my estimate), at 80mT-100mt you may need more than 10.  This would violate a ground rule (backed up by data) that more than 3 or 4 rendezvous are unacceptable for lots of reasons.

What is your reaction if NASA management is keeping this requirement, or if the Administration is holding them to it?  What if Mars is the whole point, and without it, there is no lunar program (I suggest this because it is possible, and because the President mentioned Mars specifically in his announcement).  

Options for response as I see them (add your own variation, of course)

1.  "That's a bad requirement, we won't address it.  Two missions at a time is enough (ISS, lunar) without designing for a third.  We can always upgrade later."

2.  "We have data that shows that an 80-100mT capability is enough for Mars, NASA leadership is wrong in their requirement for a 130mT capability.  We can always upgrade later if necessary."

3.  "We can meet the 130mT requirement now.  Here is the architecure, costs, risks, etc. and how it fits under the budget through 2025...."

I would suggest that your paper talk about what elements are directly applicable (GSE, infrastructure, etc.) to 130mT launchers and which are not and the costs to upgrade.  As I understand it 130mT WAS a real requirement (and may still be) and an upgrade path was not an option (NASA only gets a chance to develop a new launch vehicle every 30 years, and keeping the developers (as opposed to the operators) on hand is expensive).

Remember, NASA responds to the Administration, and if they have a requirement, NASA is responsible for carrying out their directives and vision, even if some people think they are far fetched or irresponsible (see other threads).  They don't get a vote.

thoughts?




Good questions.  When I showed a variation of Direct in 2004 at HQ we got the same push back.  Hence, why we came up with the Jupiter-3 which puts more than 300mT in orbit via a Sea Launch platform that utilizes direct derivates of the Jupiter-1 and Jupiter-2 launch systems.  This keeps the fixed cost per launch lower via the higher flight rate of the lower end J-1 & J-2 variants.  Basically the J-3 requires a new UT/MLP, crawler and crawler way to the sea platform.  The J-3 is no wider than the J-1/2 and no taller than the Ares V so the VAB could still be used with upgraded floors or a third bay which ever works best.

I’ll give you one guess as to why they didn’t like it.

Yep that’s right they did a “Goldilocks and the Three Bears” routine.  See the Jupiter-2 is too small the Jupiter-3 is too big but the glorious Ares-V is just right.  That’s right we are at least forty years from the first manned Mars mission and we already know that 100mT is too small and 300mT is just too darn big but at a divine/magical 130mT all the stars align and the angels in heaven sing.  With only one slight problem, the Ares V has only superficially commonality with the current STS and has only one payload setting targeted for a mission that may not happen in our lifetimes at the present rate.

Heck I would be happy if the current plan could actually go to the moon in my lifetime let alone Mars.  Right now the Ares-I can’t even deliver Orion with enough propellant for TEI…

(important safety tip for all you astronauts out there in getting back home from the moon, then again what do they know at the present rate under Mike they are only about three years old so we’ll tell them the bad news once the get older)

….and the Ares-V which is already maxed out unless the want to go with a wholesale redesign of the RS-68 for a significantly higher ISP that “Doug FUD aside” is in fact attainable and doesn’t require the suspension of the laws of physics.

Which of course planning for a real upgrade of the RS-68 would then make the Jupiter-2 “more” powerfully than the Ares-V with the currently planned minor upgrade RS-68 engines at which point why bother with the Ares-V.  This was the real reason they didn’t like that engine in the DIRECT V1 plan because it effectively killed Ares-V and along with it their little dog too the Ares-1.

I think an ELV coordinated “real" upgrade of the RS-68 ISP would be well worth it.  “If” we could ditch the superficial STS derived Ares-V beat its payload to Orbit all while using an actual near term direct derivative of STS as a CLV (ie Jupiter-120) that is safer than the stick.

What's not to love.  Way cool, flys high, lasts long :)

Now.....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 06/28/2007 07:27 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 28/6/2007  12:04 PM

Mars,

You're saying, "80-100mT."  It sounds like you're disputing the DIRECT team's 108 mT number?  It so, it would be nice to see your reasoning, rather than just slipping the statement in like it was an established fact.

Taking your statement that "At 130mT you need 5-6 launches for a Mars mission" at face value, that would be 650 to 780 mT.  With DIRECT, that amount of mass will require 6 to 8 (7.2, so it's almost 7) launches to Ares' 5 to 6.  In other words, one more launch in most scenarios, with two in the worst case.  That doesn't seem like a particularly big deal to me.

108mT is the safe number even with the stock RS-68 engines and lower performance J-2XD.

Unlike NASA we are planning "with" margins not "at" the margins.  While realistic planning based on real numbers, real margins, and lower technology clearly puts DIRECT V2 at a disadvantage vs NASA’s fantasy island plans we don’t think tattoo will be there to save us in the end so we are making our decision based on proven approaches used on all prior successful mission design management/planning and the laws of physics.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/28/2007 07:40 pm
Quote
texas_space - 28/6/2007  3:13 PM

If NASA is really that keen on Mars, then we'd be going to Mars.  I'm not sure we should worry about Mars at this point too much if it is 30 years away.   If getting funding for the first elements of VSE is hard, how realistic is it at this point to assume a Mars mission will happen?  Besides where are the hard Mars requirements to design to? I doubt any real requirements exist at this point.  NASA needs to focus nearer term first.  If we can't get to the Moon, then Mars is out of the question.
Speaking strictly from personal opinion, I believe that it is a very good thing to have Mars actually in the plan, because it prevents the stagnation of effort once we actually set up shop on the moon. It gives purpose to the lunar effort, because, in spite of the permanent outposts and settlements that will eventually dot the surface, we will know that we are not staying, that we are there in order to go someplace else; Mars. Everyone will know that we are continuing on – out to Mars. Having that goal prevents the VSE from drying up on the vine once the lunar goal is achieved.

Having said that; the Martian effort cannot even begin to be defined yet. We don’t have a clue what we will need to do to get there. The closest we can come is to “speculate” about a lot of things, but in spite of the fact that the speculation is being done by some of the brightest minds in the world, it is still speculation none-the-less. It would be the height of foolhardiness to attempt, at this point in time, to give any definition to the Martian mission requirements beyond the obvious need to provide food, clothing and shelter, air, water and radiation protection. How we will do that in 30-40 years is anybody’s guess. Pick a number. Ask Isaac Asimov or Robert Heinlein to tell us. At this point in time, that far into the future is science fiction.

Without loosing sight of the details of these first baby steps, don’t loose sight of the big picture. Remember why we’re doing this. It is not just to get to the moon. That is only the first step. After that we are going to Mars. Don’t forget the “Beyond” part, either. We are doing this in order for humankind to move out into the solar system, populate it to the extent possible; to become a space-based civilization. Eventually, as knowledge permits, to also move beyond our own solar system to other systems as well.

It would be a very big mistake to ignore the Martian element of the VSE. It would be an equally big mistake to try, at this time, to define what we will need to do, have or launch in order to get there.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/28/2007 07:45 pm
Quote
SMetch - 28/6/2007  3:27 PM
fantasy island plans we don’t think tattoo will be there to save us
tushk - tushk Steve - poor Tattoo. He may be a little guy, but you forgot to capitalize his name. Somebody might think he's just a little ink watermark  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 06/28/2007 07:57 pm
Mars Mission Planning is always 30 years in the future.  Check the history of past proposals.

Quote
texas_space - 28/6/2007  3:13 PM

[
If NASA is really that keen on Mars, then we'd be going to Mars.  I'm not sure we should worry about Mars at this point too much if it is 30 years away.   If getting funding for the first elements of VSE is hard, how realistic is it at this point to assume a Mars mission will happen?  Besides where are the hard Mars requirements to design to? I doubt any real requirements exist at this point.  NASA needs to focus nearer term first.  If we can't get to the Moon, then Mars is out of the question.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 06/28/2007 08:09 pm
Chuck,
My apologies if my post gave the impression that Mars isn't important.  IMHO, that is where we will actually do settlements and not the Moon.  Going to the moon is necessary to regain our space legs (and worthwhile itself IMO).  My point was that we shouldn't focus so hard on the far future (30 yrs is a long time for me since I'm not even 30 yet) that the present gets neglected.  If we don't get something flying soon even to LEO, support from Congress for the VSE could wither.  If we can get to the Moon sooner with DIRECT, then we should pursue that route.  Years more of not flying and then only flying to LEO will not sustain public support for beyond LEO missions.  

At least with DIRECT we have options for upgrades in launch vehicles down the roads.  As marsiswet pointed out, we need to answer adequately that a 130mT launcher isn't really needed if you have a medium heavy lift vehicle in the form of DIRECT.  The adaptability and flexibility of DIRECT are points in its favor over Ares-V.  As long as the technical data in the DIRECT proposal is  good, it can be pitched successfully to Congress.  As many others have pointed out, the political and monetary considerations are more important than the technical ones.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/28/2007 08:12 pm
Quote
mike robel - 28/6/2007  3:57 PM

Mars Mission Planning is always 30 years in the future.  Check the history of past proposals.
It's been 30 years in the future for over 100 years. That proves my point. Nothing we can do at this point is going to accomplish much beyond delaying the lunar effort. There simply isn't the funding to even begin. We know we are going - that's concrete. And that's a lot more than anybody could say in all those 30-year efforts for the past 100 years.

At this point we don't even have a clue what the propulsion plant will be. Will it be chemical, nuclear, plasma, solar electric, or something else? That single piece of knowledge makes a HUGE difference in planning - H-U-G-E. And we just don't know. That one piece of data will define, more than anything else, the mission needs and parameters. There is no way we can even begin - at this time - to define what that will be. Even the crew size will ultimately be a function of that.

Let's get to the moon and learn what we can about staying alive someplace other than Earth. Let's start developing things on the moon that we know, or much more likely, figure out along the way, that we are likely going to need for Mars. But by all means, let's not delay the moon. We know that this time we're going. That's a start, and one that nobody else has ever had before.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 06/28/2007 08:15 pm
Quote
clongton - 28/6/2007  3:12 PM

Quote
mike robel - 28/6/2007  3:57 PM

Mars Mission Planning is always 30 years in the future.  Check the history of past proposals.
It's been 30 years in the future for over 100 years. That proves my point. Nothing we can do at this point is going to accomplish much beyond delaying the lunar effort. There simply isn't the funding to even begin. We know we are going - that's concrete. And that's a lot more than anybody could say in all those 30-year efforts for the past 100 years.

At this point we don't even have a clue what the propulsion plant will be. Will it be chemical, nuclear, plasma, solar electric, or something else? That single piece of knowledge makes a HUGE difference in planning - H-U-G-E. And we just don't know. That one piece of data will define, more than anything else, the mission needs and parameters. There is no way we can even begin - at this time - to define what that will be. Even the crew size will ultimately be a function of that.

Let's get to the moon and learn what we can about staying alive someplace other than Earth. Let's start developing things on the moon that we know, or much more likely, figure out along the way, that we are likely going to need for Mars. But by all means, let's not delay the moon. We're know that this time we're going. That's a start, and one that nobody else has ever had before.

It appears that we are in violent agreement  ;) As someone on forum said, Moon or Mars let's go!
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/28/2007 11:05 pm
Both the 120+232 mission and the 2 X 232 mission assume rendezvous and propellant transfer to achieve full payload. It would seem that this would require some allowance for tanks, rendezvous propellant, ullage propellant, pump fuel, transfer equipment, transfer losses, loiter boiloff,etc. What do you think is a reasonable mass allowance for these factors, and why?

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/28/2007 11:24 pm
Quote
SMetch - 28/6/2007  3:27 PM

Quote
SolarPowered - 28/6/2007  12:04 PM

Mars,

You're saying, "80-100mT."  It sounds like you're disputing the DIRECT team's 108 mT number?  It so, it would be nice to see your reasoning, rather than just slipping the statement in like it was an established fact.

Taking your statement that "At 130mT you need 5-6 launches for a Mars mission" at face value, that would be 650 to 780 mT.  With DIRECT, that amount of mass will require 6 to 8 (7.2, so it's almost 7) launches to Ares' 5 to 6.  In other words, one more launch in most scenarios, with two in the worst case.  That doesn't seem like a particularly big deal to me.

108mT is the safe number even with the stock RS-68 engines and lower performance J-2XD.


My fault.  108mT is right.  I got the numbers mixed up and didn't fact check.

IN any case, it is 25-30%, requiring an extra launch or two as you suggest.  That is a big deal when you start applying the reliability equation and sequencing launches according to the work I've seen.  4 is about as much as you would do, so you would want to reduce the 5-6 launches to 4-5 (the extra launch is likely an extra lander and maybe can be done earlier)

Once again, my apologies for a not-so-photographic memory in this case.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/28/2007 11:42 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 28/6/2007  5:24 PM

Quote
SMetch - 28/6/2007  3:27 PM

Quote
SolarPowered - 28/6/2007  12:04 PM

Mars,

You're saying, "80-100mT."  It sounds like you're disputing the DIRECT team's 108 mT number?  It so, it would be nice to see your reasoning, rather than just slipping the statement in like it was an established fact.

Taking your statement that "At 130mT you need 5-6 launches for a Mars mission" at face value, that would be 650 to 780 mT.  With DIRECT, that amount of mass will require 6 to 8 (7.2, so it's almost 7) launches to Ares' 5 to 6.  In other words, one more launch in most scenarios, with two in the worst case.  That doesn't seem like a particularly big deal to me.

108mT is the safe number even with the stock RS-68 engines and lower performance J-2XD.


My fault.  108mT is right.  I got the numbers mixed up and didn't fact check.

IN any case, it is 25-30%, requiring an extra launch or two as you suggest.  That is a big deal when you start applying the reliability equation and sequencing launches according to the work I've seen.  4 is about as much as you would do, so you would want to reduce the 5-6 launches to 4-5 (the extra launch is likely an extra lander and maybe can be done earlier)

Once again, my apologies for a not-so-photographic memory in this case.


Since this architecture has many options for future payload increases and since a manned Mars program is far into the future, I see no trouble in adopting this architecture now with the intention to expand it in the future as needs change, assuming technology doesn't surpass chemical rockets sometime between now and then which would render both architectures obsolete anyway.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/28/2007 11:48 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 28/6/2007  4:24 PM

My fault.  108mT is right.  I got the numbers mixed up and didn't fact check.

IN any case, it is 25-30%, requiring an extra launch or two as you suggest.  That is a big deal when you start applying the reliability equation and sequencing launches according to the work I've seen.  4 is about as much as you would do, so you would want to reduce the 5-6 launches to 4-5 (the extra launch is likely an extra lander and maybe can be done earlier)

Once again, my apologies for a not-so-photographic memory in this case.


Actually, 108 is only 17% less than 130.  ;)

But, I think the Ares folks are talking about a wee bit more than 130 mT; 133 if I remember correctly.  Which probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the grand scheme of things.

Until there is a real mission design, I don't think one can say whether that 17% will matter.  I stand by my earlier view from 30,000 feet, which says that there's not really much difference between 5 launches and 6 launches, or between 6 and 7.

If it turns out that it actually does matter, the Jupiter 542 or 544 configuration will get you something like 180 mT to LEO, and is not a huge additional development beyond the Jupiter 232.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/29/2007 12:46 am
Quote
SolarPowered - 28/6/2007 7:48 PM

 If it turns out that it actually does matter, the Jupiter 542 or 544 configuration will get you something like 180 mT to LEO, and is not a huge additional development beyond the Jupiter 232.
The difference boils down to an upgraded thrust structure for the core stage and a slightly stronger ET to mount a 4th or 5th main engine. More performance can also be achieved with this launch vehicle by including a 3rd stage that is actually a fully-fueled mission stage. The launch vehicle would still have just the core and upper stage, the "3rd" stage would actually be the fully fueled payload. That's the view from 30k feet, but essentially, that's the difference and you've got your 180mT payload. It's really not that big a stretch. The Jupiter-42x & 52x are essentially the "big brothers" in the family, but even these are not the "heavy". The heavy can double the lift capacity of the Ares-V, and possible more. We haven't spent a lot of time refining the numbers, but the Jupiter Heavy configurations "could" be capable of lifting ~300mT, more or less. It's unlikely that kind of capacity will ever be needed, but it's really nice to know that this launch vehicle CAN be reconfigured to do that. It wouldn't be cheap, but would cost an order of magnitude less to do than creating a new launch vehicle to do that, should the nation ever identify a need to do so. Highly unlikely, but that's what the Jupiter can do. Ares is no match - period. If Mars needs a genuine heavy lift, then Jupiter is it - not Ares. Compared to what Jupiter can do, Ares is a big firecracker.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/29/2007 02:00 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 28/6/2007  7:42 PM

Since this architecture has many options for future payload increases and since a manned Mars program is far into the future, I see no trouble in adopting this architecture now with the intention to expand it in the future as needs change, assuming technology doesn't surpass chemical rockets sometime between now and then which would render both architectures obsolete anyway.

OK, so we have 1 vote for option #2.  Wait until later no matter what the President says.  

Thank you Mr. ex-Administrator.

again, its a hypothetical ... that may just be true.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/29/2007 02:26 am
Again, the way I see it, the President wanted Mars, and NASA studies suggested that it took a MINIMUM of 130mT to get under 4 launches.  The big launcher may also useful for MSR.  A Direct-like architecture is suboptimal for achieving these goals, and therefore would not be selected while the current decision makers are in place.  Worse yet (if Direct is superior for the near term), by the time the leadership changes and the new folks get their attention on NASA ... it will be mid- to-late 2009 or maybe even 2010 ... and this architecture will be entrenched.

I'm not saying right and wrong, because I haven't done the trades ... I am suggesting that it is really easy to cast aspersions on the intelligence and heredity of the decision makers without having heard the goals and contraints they operate under.  I know that many of the decisions I have had to make would look very silly to outsiders with 1/10th of the available information.

I'm suggesting that Direct MAY be a great solution to the problem YOU want to solve.  But it may be infeasible for reasons we don't understand, or it may be less desirable due to any number of contraints.  What I am having trouble with is the fact that you have made two assumptions in your assessment that Direct is the "best" (to those of you that do)

1.  You have all the constraints and objectives
2.  All constraints and objectives are technical

Given the NASA history I understand, both are rare.   Your work to date is fantastic, but lots of posts on this thread (not necessarily from the authors) are distinctly holier-than-thou.  And not all objectives can be documented (although the engineer in me wishes they could be).

Realize that people may have lots of good reasons that they will never share for why decisions were (and continue to be) made, at least until there is a change of leadership.  While this may be disappointing, this is not wrong or right, it simply is.  And we will likely never know why until the next series of books comes out 30 years from now...  

But looking at the road in front of us and the statements of leadership ... there is no way guidance will change in time to make changing tracks feasible UNLESS someone shakes things up with an expose or gets to speak directly with someone more powerful than the current Administrator -- AND can convince them that things need to change (to Direct?) now.

I think you have done more than enough great and admirable conceptual work on the technical solutions.  If you want this implemented, I think you need to work on solving that problem -- a problem that is much tougher than the technical one think you have solved here.  Additional technical work is window dressing, even if the Adminstrator himself is reading these posts (which he claims he doesn't) ;-)

IMO, of course.






Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/29/2007 03:14 am
Quote
SolarPowered - 28/6/2007  1:20 PM

How do the Wide Body Centaur and the ICES differ from each other?  In reading LM's literature, I've been under the impression that they are different names for the same thing.

Wide Body Centaur is certainly the basis for ICES, yes.   But WBC is not designed with long duration propellant management in mind.   That is where the ICES stage forks the development path.

And actually, for this 8.41m diameter form, this would probably have to be called the "Super" Wide Body Centaur ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/29/2007 03:36 am
Quote
mars.is.wet - 28/6/2007  8:00 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 28/6/2007  7:42 PM

Since this architecture has many options for future payload increases and since a manned Mars program is far into the future, I see no trouble in adopting this architecture now with the intention to expand it in the future as needs change, assuming technology doesn't surpass chemical rockets sometime between now and then which would render both architectures obsolete anyway.

OK, so we have 1 vote for option #2.  Wait until later no matter what the President says.  

Thank you Mr. ex-Administrator.

again, its a hypothetical ... that may just be true.


Whatever this President says, you have a better than 90% chance of doing the right thing if you do the opposite.  I'm fortunate not in a position where I have to be one of his pets on the cabinet or in another appointed position.  How'd you like to have a job like that?  Do what you're told even though you know it's wrong, or be dumb enough not to even know it's wrong.  Nice choice.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 06/29/2007 03:42 am
Quote
clongton - 28/6/2007  3:12 PM

It's been 30 years in the future for over 100 years. That proves my point. Nothing we can do at this point is going to accomplish much beyond delaying the lunar effort. There simply isn't the funding to even begin. We know we are going - that's concrete. And that's a lot more than anybody could say in all those 30-year efforts for the past 100 years.

At this point we don't even have a clue what the propulsion plant will be. Will it be chemical, nuclear, plasma, solar electric, or something else? That single piece of knowledge makes a HUGE difference in planning - H-U-G-E. And we just don't know. That one piece of data will define, more than anything else, the mission needs and parameters. There is no way we can even begin - at this time - to define what that will be. Even the crew size will ultimately be a function of that.

Let's get to the moon and learn what we can about staying alive someplace other than Earth. Let's start developing things on the moon that we know, or much more likely, figure out along the way, that we are likely going to need for Mars. But by all means, let's not delay the moon. We know that this time we're going. That's a start, and one that nobody else has ever had before.

Yes, but...  as the phrase goes, "Necessity is the mother of invention"  (and the corollary, "Invention is a mother!" :) ).  We built much of the rocket technology we have to get us to the moon.  Having a goal and a deadline generates all kinds of creativity!  Simply waiting for the technology to show up won't drive anything.  A manned mars trip IS the only thing driving the technology where it needs to be.

I look at it this way:  
Need to send a manned lander to the moon?  Use what we've already got (or have had)!  No rush...just launch the craft on TLI and wait 3 days.  Apollo/Saturn... Orion/(Direct|Ares).  But the technology was developed for the first lunar landing in the 60's.
Need to send an unmanned probe to Mars?  Use what we've already got, sent the craft on TMI, and just wait a long time!  We just took a couple of Titan 3E's in 1975 and landed the Viking probes on Mars.  Technology developed in the 60's.

Now... Need to send a MANNED vehicle to the surface of Mars?  "Just launch on TMI and wait" is a much bigger deal.  Like you say, Chuck, we don't even know what the propulsion unit is going to be.  And we're not just trying to shorten the trip as much as possible, but we have to make a successful return trip as well, as quickly as possible.

If we make a concrete commitment to go to Mars and set a goal date (especially if we have a competitor to keep us on track), I think many of these questions will be answered in a MUCH shorter timeframe than we're thinking.  Which I'm sure won't be too much of a surprise to most of us.  We all know that a lot of this technology is close (and some of it has been since the 60's!)...it just hasn't been put to this task yet, and we haven't had the focus or the will.

I wish we'd just set our eyes on the goal and get on with it...and stop with all the power-play crap.  Look at the constraints, look at the physics, look at what we have, and accomplish our goal as best we can (ahem...Jupiter).  Ideal is rarely practical, so do the best you can.


(I'm thinking further in as I write)  Maybe one of the reasons we have Ares I/V on the plate is because our goal is too small & too far away.  And it barely fits.  Maybe Jupiter does the job too well.  
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/29/2007 04:14 am
Quote
mars.is.wet - 28/6/2007  1:54 PM

One of the primary requirements for the launch architecture (derived from the conversation with the President that led to the program) was the capability to support Mars missions.

Although this requirement may not be valid now (and certainly will be less valid in 24 months), it was a primary driver for the Ares V 130mT configuration.  Having an "upgrade path" for a larger launcher was not allowed, although an upgrade path for human rating Ares V was apparently (see RS-68) permitted.  At 130mT you need 5-6 launches for a Mars mission (by my estimate), at 80mT-100mt you may need more than 10.  This would violate a ground rule (backed up by data) that more than 3 or 4 rendezvous are unacceptable for lots of reasons.

Ares-I would still have to be in the mix for an Ares-based Mars mission - bringing the crew & Mars-spec CEV up once the heavy stuff has been launched.   NASA doesn't seem willing to acknowledge that Ares-V does *NOT* achieve NASA's minimum requirement of 1:1000 LOC numbers.   Ares-V is around 1:920 currently in a manned configuration - which is lower than Atlas-V and Delta-IV - which were both deemed 'unsafe' by NASA.   This will mean that NASA must add one extra mission to the Ares mission requirements on top of the heavy lift launches.

Comparatively, the Jupiter-232 does have greater than 1:1000 LOC numbers (1:1250), so it would be perfectly acceptable for launching crews as part of the heavy lift flights.

So lets look at the number of launches actually required for a range of mission sizes, and lets also compare costs (Orion & spacecraft costs not included, only vehicles.   Annual fixed costs would likely be shared with the parallel Lunar program, but variable costs are for each Mars mission) at the same time.

"Small" 400mT IMLEO Mars Mission:

Ares:
3 x Ares-V's Cargo, plus one Ares-I Crew launch:
- Total launched payload mass ~410mT.
- Annual vehicle program fixed costs (1500 + 1800): $3,300m.
- Total Mars vehicle variable cost: (350x3 + 240) $1,290m.
- Average Lunar vehicle variable cost (2 crewed, 2 cargo): (350x4 + 240x2) $1,880m.
- Total Combined Lunar & Mars annual cost (fixed + variable): $6,470m.

DIRECT v2.0:
4 x Jupiter 232's, with the crew riding as one part of the payload on the last.
- Total launched payload mass: ~432mT.
- Annual vehicle program fixed costs: $1,600m.
- Total Mars vehicle variable cost: (310x4) $1,240m.
- Average Lunar vehicle variable cost (2 crewed, 2 cargo): (310x6) $1,860m.
- Total Combined Lunar & Mars annual cost (fixed + variable): $4,700m.
Difference: $1,770m.


"Average" 500mt IMLEO Mars Mission:

Ares:
4 x Ares-V's Cargo, plus one Ares-I Crew launch:
- Total launched payload mass ~540mT.
- Annual vehicle program fixed costs (1500 + 1800): $3,300m.
- Total Mars vehicle variable cost: (350x4 + 240) $1,640m.
- Average Lunar vehicle variable cost (2 crewed, 2 cargo): (350x4 + 240x2) $1,880m.
- Total Combined Lunar & Mars annual cost (fixed + variable): $6,820m.

DIRECT v2.0:
5 x Jupiter 232's, with the crew riding as one part of the payload on the last.
- Total launched payload mass: ~540mT.
- Annual vehicle program fixed costs: $1,600m.
- Total Mars vehicle variable cost: (310x5) $1,550m.
- Average Lunar vehicle variable cost (2 crewed, 2 cargo): (310x6) $1,860m.
- Total Combined Lunar & Mars annual cost (fixed + variable): $5,010m.
Difference: $1,810m.


"Advanced" 600mt IMLEO Mars Mission:

Ares:
5 x Ares-V's Cargo, plus one Ares-I Crew launch:
- Total launched payload mass ~670mT.
- Annual vehicle program fixed costs (1500 + 1800): $3,300m.
- Total Mars vehicle variable cost: (350x5 + 240) $1,990m.
- Average Lunar vehicle variable cost (2 crewed, 2 cargo): (350x4 + 240x2) $1,880m.
- Total Combined Lunar & Mars annual cost (fixed + variable): $7,170m.

DIRECT v2.0:
6 x Jupiter 232's, with the crew riding as one part of the payload on the last.
- Total launched payload mass: ~648mT.
- Annual vehicle program fixed costs: $1,600m.
- Total Mars vehicle variable cost: (310x6) $1,860m.
- Average Lunar vehicle variable cost (2 crewed, 2 cargo): (310x6) $1,860m.
- Total Combined Lunar & Mars annual cost (fixed + variable): $5,320m.
Difference: $1,850m.


The numbers speak for themselves.

I just don't see any advantage in having Ares-V plus Ares-I instead of just Jupiter-232 in any of these architecture comparisons.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/29/2007 04:46 am
Quote
Will - 28/6/2007  7:05 PM

Both the 120+232 mission and the 2 X 232 mission assume rendezvous and propellant transfer to achieve full payload. It would seem that this would require some allowance for tanks, rendezvous propellant, ullage propellant, pump fuel, transfer equipment, transfer losses, loiter boiloff,etc. What do you think is a reasonable mass allowance for these factors, and why?

Will

The actual mass allowance for the propellant is a calculation based on a number of factors, such as the time spent in LEO prior to the TLI, the maximum journey time to the moon, time spent in Lunar proximity before descent, the location and quantity of propellant to be transferred, which modules are involved in the transfer (CEV > LSAM, CEV to EDS via LSAM, EDS to EDS direct, EDS to EDS via CEV+LSAM, EDS to LSAM etc).

The hardware for the propellant transfer is also highly dependent on which modules are involved and the quantities of propellant being transferred.   In the simplest terms, the longer the lines, the greater the weight, and this is not a simple linear calculation because the longer the transfer distance, the more insulation you need across the whole thing.

One option we are looking into to address the extra heating which might be encountered during the transfer process might be to use super-cold LOX instead of regular LOX.   This would allow for a certain amount of heating with no detrimental effects at all, and because it is higher density in the super cold state, the tankage mass *could* also be positively affected too, but that's of secondary concern.

Then the exact method of transfer is, again, very dependent on which modules are involved.   One example (of many) is that propellant transfer involving the EDS tend to mean that a set of propellant settling thrusters would need to fire for longer, which means they are heavier than if just the CEV and LSAM are transferring propellant in Lunar Orbit having discarded the EDS already.

All of this is up in the air to a large degree until we pin down the best performance combinations for the LV's.   So far, the only thing which is absolutely pinned down is that we are assuming the LSAM DS and the EDS both use a combination of LOX/LH2.


We have mass numbers for RCS-based propellant settling systems, transfer lines and pumps (including suitable additional power supplies where applicable).   We have mass fractions for reserves, residuals and boiloff (although with the ICES option, the boiloff virtually becomes a non-issue).

We have different mass fractions for the EDS if it uses all it's propellant within a few hours of launch - going virtually straight into TLI for LOR mission modes.   We have different sets if it has to loiter in LEO, and another set if it takes propellant to LLO for transfer there.

We have tankage data for LOX and LH2 tanks suitable to be integrated into the CEV's design, for both the EOR and the LOR arrangements (they are different).

As if that weren't enough, we also have most of what we need to provide results suitable for L2 Rendezvous options also, although there are some aspects which are still unfixed, so we are using calculations to get ballpark figures and packing those with large margins to handle any errors.


While we have a wealth of data on all these different subjects, ready to pool together into simulations, and while we can also calculate numbers fairly quickly, the fact is that until we have a fairly solid fix on the LV's LEO performance, it is tough to work out the exact masses of the rest of the components for the architecture with any accuracy.

If the LV ultimately produces 106.5mT of lift performance to circular orbit, the optimal numbers generated for are quite different to a vehicle arrangement that offers, say, 103.0mT of orbital performance.   That sort of change could be sufficient to make EOR better than LOR mission modes.

We still have confidence in the ICES-based numbers published in our v2.0 proposal, so leaving those in the public domain is fine - for now.

Our AIAA paper will expand on those options and detail the new higher-mass EDS stage variants in our current baseline too.   But until our latest set of LV evaluations are actually completed, publishing new hard numbers about those would not be wise.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 06/29/2007 05:11 am
Quote
kraisee - 28/6/2007  11:59 AM

While it doesn't appear related, we have been finalizing the performance of the Core stage recently.   This actually plays a major role in what the optimal propellant load of the U/S needs to be.   While it is still most definitely a "Work in Progress", one of the best configurations we are looking at right now has meant the new U/S ascent load can be roughly 20% lower than the one in DIRECT 2.0's proposal.   This improves the mass of the stage noticeably.

Additionally, we are finding that we are now in a good position to consider switching to a single engine EDS.   This configuration is still being investigated, but is looking optimistic.

Ross.

Ross, are considering switching to the J-2X engine instead of the J-2XD for your single engine EDS under consideration?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/29/2007 05:23 am
Quote
PaulL - 29/6/2007  1:11 AM

Ross, are considering switching to the J-2X engine instead of the J-2XD for your single engine EDS under consideration?

PaulL,
We are trying not to in a bid to save costs and schedule.   The J-2XD can be deployed faster and cheaper, so it is our baseline.

While obviously "nice", the performance advantage is not that high when switching to J-2X though.   We're looking at only one or two tons of additional payload, but to do that we're talking about a whole extra development program for replacing the turbopumps, and then a whole extra set of component and integrated testing, re-qualification and man-rating testing has to be conducted - all of which is *very* costly.

It just isn't a very good return on the investment dollars.   I would far rather spend that money on developing a "Super Light Weight Tank" (SLWT) program for the EDS.   That would improve both ascent and TLI performance far more than just upgrading the thrust of the J-2XD from 273,500lbf to J-2X's 294,000lbf - a change which only really benefits ascent performance and doesn't change vacuum Isp at all.

J-2XD to J-2X upgrade is a "future growth option" for us, not a necessity upon which our program succeeds or fails.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 06/29/2007 05:53 am
Quote
kraisee - 29/6/2007  12:23 AM

Quote
PaulL - 29/6/2007  1:11 AM

Ross, are considering switching to the J-2X engine instead of the J-2XD for your single engine EDS under consideration?

PaulL,
We are trying not to in a bid to save costs and schedule.   The J-2XD can be deployed faster and cheaper, so it is our baseline.

While obviously "nice", the performance advantage is not that high when switching to J-2X though.   We're looking at only one or two tons of additional payload, but to do that we're talking about a whole extra development program for replacing the turbopumps, and then a whole extra set of component and integrated testing, re-qualification and man-rating testing has to be conducted - all of which is *very* costly.

It just isn't a very good return on the investment dollars.   I would far rather spend that money on developing a "Super Light Weight Tank" (SLWT) program for the EDS.   That would improve both ascent and TLI performance far more than just upgrading the thrust of the J-2XD from 273,500lbf to J-2X's 294,000lbf - a change which only really benefits ascent performance and doesn't change vacuum Isp at all.

J-2XD to J-2X upgrade is a "future growth option" for us, not a necessity upon which our program succeeds or fails.

Ross.

So Ross, based on the fact that you are considering cutting in half the thrust of your EDS, does that mean that you have found a way to do more of the ascent work with the core stage of the Direct rocket and are, therefore, less worried about gravity losses during the ascent work of the EDS?

PaulL

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/29/2007 06:14 am
Quote
PaulL - 29/6/2007  1:53 AM

So Ross, based on the fact that you are considering cutting in half the thrust of your EDS, does that mean that you have found a way to do more of the ascent work with the core stage of the Direct rocket and are, therefore, less worried about gravity losses during the ascent work of the EDS?

It's more of a trajectory change thing.

Our old insertion points were close to the apogee of the initial 30x120nm orbit, inserting at 110+nm altitude.   By flying a different trajectory, we can insert closer to perigee (still on the 'upslope' of course).   We are currently working on a minimum insertion altitude no lower than 80nm, to avoid heating and drag effects.

This sort of insertion is affected less by gravity losses, and in fact gravity can be your friend in some situations where a peak is reached fairly early in the ascent, and you aim slightly downwards to use gravity to boost your acceleration.   Shuttle uses this sort of approach for some missions, and so too does Ares-I.

Flying to the higher insertion orbits does require the two J-2XD engines, but flying to the lower altitudes is proving to be almost the same performance, yet uses just one.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/29/2007 04:22 pm
Quote
kraisee - 28/6/2007  11:46 PM


Our AIAA paper will expand on those options and detail the new higher-mass EDS stage variants in our current baseline too.   But until our latest set of LV evaluations are actually completed, publishing new hard numbers about those would not be wise.

Ross.

I certainly look forward to more details on the mass allocated to rendezvous, tankage and propellant transfer. It is more than a little misleading to say that the Jupiter 120 has 20 mT of extra payload available for extra propellant for transfer to the LSAM (or EDS) without noting that the net amount of propellant that actually ends up in the tanks after transfer operations will be significantly less than that.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/29/2007 05:37 pm
Quote
kraisee - 28/6/2007  12:14 AM

The numbers speak for themselves.

I just don't see any advantage in having Ares-V plus Ares-I instead of just Jupiter-232 in any of these architecture comparisons.

Ross.

I appreciate the detail.  I'm not sure it hits the point, because again, the issues I am discussing are not specifically technical.

I agree that the Direct architecture has merit.  But your work in improving the technical merits of the concept won't gain you any more ground at this point.  I think several other people have mentioned this same point in this thread, but I'll try it again.

1.  Even assuming you have the PERFECT technical concept, in my view the Administrator is unlikely to change course (again, if you count ESAS from Steidle) with less than 2 years on your tenure.  It would leave you very little progress to show at the end, and the very attempt would jeopardize his and NASA's credibility ...  Imagine if you failed in your attempt to affect this change.  This is the PERSONAL angle, and may be overcome with a personal choice (see also, sacrifice).

2.  Even if you wanted to change course to the technically better (paper) concept, there is the minor chore of reselling the concept to the political establishment, because they likely just now reaching equilibrium in where the work is going to land.  Note the change of the LRO program office as an example.  This is the CONGRESSIONAL angle, and is a huge deal.  Maybe impossible.

3.  Even if you solve that problem, and Direct was still superior and didn't effect the target dates adversely (after the political alignment necessary to resell it using the rest of your capital), you would need to sell the change of course to a White House that has shown an unwillingness to change course on matters far more grave than a trip to the Moon.  Not saying they wouldn't ... but let's look at the odds.  This is the WH angle and seems almost untenable.

4.  And then, if everyone decides to make this change internally, how do you sell (what will appear as a second change of course to most people) it to the public?  How do you avoid the Washington Post or NYT headlines?  "NASA changes course again, space program in disarray and without clear direction".  How do you avoid the perceived risk?

Of course, a perfect leader would ignore all of these things (assuming he had a clearly superior concept, which we have assumed here) ... but I'm guessing we don't have perfect leadership up and down the chain and in Congress.

--------------

OK, so a thought experiment.  You are the Administrator and have spent the last 4 years selling this (and only this) path as the right one.  You have made some truthful statements that may (taken broadly) lock out some options (such as 130mT perhaps, or statements about the optimality of the current architecture).  You are facing the realities listed above.  What do you do? Do you really take on 1), 2), 3), and 4) in your last 18-24 months?  

Do you pitch what is currently a (again, assumed to be excellent) paper design against 36 months of full-court NASA effort?  Do you risk your entire career and NASA's reputation on trying to sell this change?  Because again, any of 1-4) above may cause you to lose the gambit ... and then all is lost.  Is it worth that risk to you (as the Administrator)?

Restating, the technical progress you have made is wonderful.  How do you solve the real problems of making this change?

---------------------

(as an aside since I can't stay non-technical)

Ares V would be used to launch crew for Mars even if only in its current configuration because the risk of the Mars mission makes the LOC differene between Ares I and Ares V meaningless.  That is, LOC for a Mars mission will be hard to get under 1-100 ... so it doesn't matter if your crew LV is 1-1000 or 1-2000.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/29/2007 06:14 pm
Quote
kraisee - 28/6/2007  11:14 PM


Ares-I would still have to be in the mix for an Ares-based Mars mission - bringing the crew & Mars-spec CEV up once the heavy stuff has been launched.   NASA doesn't seem willing to acknowledge that Ares-V does *NOT* achieve NASA's minimum requirement of 1:1000 LOC numbers.   Ares-V is around 1:920 currently in a manned configuration - which is lower than Atlas-V and Delta-IV - which were both deemed 'unsafe' by NASA.   This will mean that NASA must add one extra mission to the Ares mission requirements on top of the heavy lift launches.

Comparatively, the Jupiter-232 does have greater than 1:1000 LOC numbers (1:1250), so it would be perfectly acceptable for launching crews as part of the heavy lift flights.


Ross.

The number for the 232 seems improbable. In 2.0 you quote the 120 as having a loss of crew of 1/1400, which, using the figures for LOM/LOC on the similar ESAS vehicles 24/25, would seem to imply a LOM of about 1/210. NASA seemed to think the ESAS CLV upper stage would have a failure rate of about 1/600, and that reliability of the J-2 variant would be roughly similar.  Just adding a single engine upper stage, then, would bring LOM to 1/160 and LOC to 1/1050. The extra RS-68 and and J-2 should make the 232 a bit worse than that.


Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/29/2007 06:43 pm
Quote
Will - 29/6/2007  2:14 PM

Quote
kraisee - 28/6/2007  11:14 PM


Ares-I would still have to be in the mix for an Ares-based Mars mission - bringing the crew & Mars-spec CEV up once the heavy stuff has been launched.   NASA doesn't seem willing to acknowledge that Ares-V does *NOT* achieve NASA's minimum requirement of 1:1000 LOC numbers.   Ares-V is around 1:920 currently in a manned configuration - which is lower than Atlas-V and Delta-IV - which were both deemed 'unsafe' by NASA.   This will mean that NASA must add one extra mission to the Ares mission requirements on top of the heavy lift launches.

Comparatively, the Jupiter-232 does have greater than 1:1000 LOC numbers (1:1250), so it would be perfectly acceptable for launching crews as part of the heavy lift flights.


Ross.

The number for the 232 seems improbable. In 2.0 you quote the 120 as having a loss of crew of 1/1400, which, using the figures for LOM/LOC on the similar ESAS vehicles 24/25, would seem to imply a LOM of about 1/210. NASA seemed to think the ESAS CLV upper stage would have a failure rate of about 1/600, and that reliability of the J-2 variant would be roughly similar.  Just adding a single engine upper stage, then, would bring LOM to 1/160 and LOC to 1/1050. The extra RS-68 and and J-2 should make the 232 a bit worse than that.
Will,
Adjusting the LOM/LOC numbers is a 2-way process, and is more complicated than the math you‘ve done. I don’t have the stuff in front of me to provide specifics with this post, but I would offer the observation that, in general, you have correctly added in the additional potential failure points that lower the numbers, but have failed to factor in the offsetting benefits which raise the numbers, such as engine-out survivability, engines running at 65% instead of 106%, pre-established flight history of all major flight articles, all flight engines running on the ground for the 120 before launch commit, and not committed to a crew without flight history for the 232, etc. All that stuff counts, because the probability algorithms need to consider ALL the conditions. There are many more, but I’m just trying to give you a flavor. In the Jupiter design there are benefits that accompany every negative. Some are a net minus, but most are a net plus. But your observations, as far as they went, are more or less correct. There’s just more to it than that. Keep looking at it. We appriciate it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/29/2007 07:27 pm
What is the next step with Direct 2.0?  Present at AIAA and then what?  Do you have a plan to get this to happen?

I guess people want a great plan, but what good is a plan if there is no plan to implement it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: James Lowe1 on 06/29/2007 07:56 pm
Adhering to alerts created on this thread, external linking deemed as advertising need to be pre-approved by either myself, or other forum moderators.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/29/2007 08:50 pm
Quote
clongton - 29/6/2007  1:43 PM

Quote
Will - 29/6/2007  2:14 PM

Quote
kraisee - 28/6/2007  11:14 PM


Ares-I would still have to be in the mix for an Ares-based Mars mission - bringing the crew & Mars-spec CEV up once the heavy stuff has been launched.   NASA doesn't seem willing to acknowledge that Ares-V does *NOT* achieve NASA's minimum requirement of 1:1000 LOC numbers.   Ares-V is around 1:920 currently in a manned configuration - which is lower than Atlas-V and Delta-IV - which were both deemed 'unsafe' by NASA.   This will mean that NASA must add one extra mission to the Ares mission requirements on top of the heavy lift launches.

Comparatively, the Jupiter-232 does have greater than 1:1000 LOC numbers (1:1250), so it would be perfectly acceptable for launching crews as part of the heavy lift flights.


Ross.

The number for the 232 seems improbable. In 2.0 you quote the 120 as having a loss of crew of 1/1400, which, using the figures for LOM/LOC on the similar ESAS vehicles 24/25, would seem to imply a LOM of about 1/210. NASA seemed to think the ESAS CLV upper stage would have a failure rate of about 1/600, and that reliability of the J-2 variant would be roughly similar.  Just adding a single engine upper stage, then, would bring LOM to 1/160 and LOC to 1/1050. The extra RS-68 and and J-2 should make the 232 a bit worse than that.
Will,
Adjusting the LOM/LOC numbers is a 2-way process, and is more complicated than the math you‘ve done. I don’t have the stuff in front of me to provide specifics with this post, but I would offer the observation that, in general, you have correctly added in the additional potential failure points that lower the numbers, but have failed to factor in the offsetting benefits which raise the numbers, such as engine-out survivability, engines running at 65% instead of 106%, pre-established flight history of all major flight articles, all flight engines running on the ground for the 120 before launch commit, and not committed to a crew without flight history for the 232, etc.

All those positive factors are already built into your estimate of reliability for the 120, yes? So the upper stage should decrease reliability from that point, by at least the amount that I have stated.

I assume that the quoted reliability methodology behind the 1/1400 LOC figure for the 120 is approximately the same as NASA's. Is that the case?

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/29/2007 09:57 pm
Quote
Will - 29/6/2007  4:50 PM

The number for the 232 seems improbable.

To you, perhaps.   But the numbers tell a different story.   YMMV, but I know I'll stick with calculated numbers rather than hunches every day of the week.

Quote
...

All those positive factors are already built into your estimate of reliability for the 120, yes? So the upper stage should decrease reliability from that point, by at least the amount that I have stated.

I assume that the quoted reliability methodology behind the 1/1400 LOC figure for the 120 is approximately the same as NASA's. Is that the case?

It isn't approximately the same - it is *precisely* the same.   The methodology is exactly the same as NASA's.   Jupiter's LOC and LOM numbers are calculated for us by two of the ESAS guys who devised the numbers for the original ESAS Report.   If you can suggest a more authentic way to get an apples-to-apples comparison than that, I'd love to hear it.

While *I* don't understand the exact details of how the numbers are worked out myself, it seems that the addition of an upper stage like we are using only affects the number by roughly 100 to 120 points - depending on vehicle.   I guess that the real FOM's are a lot lower than your guesses.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/29/2007 10:08 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 29/6/2007  1:37 PM

I appreciate the detail.  I'm not sure it hits the point, because again, the issues I am discussing are not specifically technical.

Mars, yes I do get this part of your question too, and do agree that this may be the harder part to address.   There are number of different angles to approach this, but I think the most likely is the change in administration.

My PoV on this is that I just can't see the VSE surviving in an all-Democrat administration.   One would have to be horribly naïve to expect an all-Democrat government to leave Bush's VSE intact.   VSE is going to be a target very early on in the new administration, because it is a very high profile creation of 'the other side' and is actually pretty easy to change.   It also does not have much in the way of public support yet.

All the Dems have to do is deny NASA having two LV's, and limit them to just one - intended to service the ISS alone.   That move is already apparent to anyone doing thorough research into the candidates.   Without that, NASA will get only three options:-

1) Continue Ares-I, but to LEO only.
2) Switch to EELV to LEO only.
3) Switch, erly enough, to A. N. Other system capable of going to ISS *and* beyond LEO.

If NASA isn't ready to go to option 3 *BEFORE* this change, then they are likely only to get the choice of the first two options.

NASA's first LV is likely to be the only one which will ever actually get built.   There's a good chance it can be an SDLV because of the workforce retention issues, but the second LV is already as good as dead in a Democrat administration by all indications.

So that means that, assuming no switch to EELV's, the *first* SDLV better be able to get us to the moon, or we simply won't be capable of going.   The simple fact is that Ares-I does not enable Lunar missions, and Jupiter would.

Russia's Korolev was smart enough to make the R-7 a much more capable booster than it needed to be for Sputnik.   That decision to make something more powerful than the initial mission required served the Russians very well because it is still in use today as the Soyuz launcher.   NASA must do the exact same thing now to protect any chance of going back to the moon.

Recognizing the risk in time is currently up to NASA management.   They better be smart enough to see the writing on the wall instead of banking on mere "hopes" and "prayers" to get what they want.

The moon plans rest on Griffin's shoulders right now, until the end of the Bush administration.   After the next election, that decision will rest in the hands of Congress.   They will appoint a NASA Administrator who supports their goals - and those goals are unlikely to be VSE-supporting.

I just hope NASA's management isn't stupid enough to leave us holding the can with nothing better than Ares-I.

There are already a few Senators and Representatives who recognize this reality and have been monitoring DIRECT very closely for a while already.   I can't say much more about that at this time though.

Switching to Jupiter now can be sold as an "upgrade" in performance and cost terms, and guarantees moon missions are possible, before Congress gets a grip on NASA's throat in 2009.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/29/2007 11:06 pm
Quote
kraisee - 29/6/2007  4:57 PM


It isn't approximately the same - it is *precisely* the same.   The methodology is exactly the same as NASA's.   Jupiter's LOC and LOM numbers are calculated for us by two of the ESAS guys who devised the numbers for the original ESAS Report.   If you can suggest a more authentic way to get an apples-to-apples comparison than that, I'd love to hear it.

While *I* don't understand the exact details of how the numbers are worked out myself, it seems that the addition of an upper stage like we are using only affects the number by roughly 100 to 120 points - depending on vehicle.   I guess that the real FOM's are a lot lower than your guesses.

Ross.

The ESAS report gives enough detail that I can understand how they got to the LOM numbers for the proposed vehicles. The 120 numbers you give seem to fit that methodolgy. The 232 numbers don't, so they'd be more credible with more explanation of the assumptions that led to the figures. An identified source is also more useful than "two of the ESAS guys"

LOM numbers would also be helpfull.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/29/2007 11:12 pm
Quote
kraisee - 29/6/2007  6:08 PM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 29/6/2007  1:37 PM

I appreciate the detail.  I'm not sure it hits the point, because again, the issues I am discussing are not specifically technical.

Mars, yes I do get this part of your question too, and do agree that this may be the harder part to address.   There are number of different angles to approach this, but I think the most likely is the change in administration.

Ross.

I guess maybe it is obvious, but I'd like to see answers to the question.  Given where the current Administrator is and the situation (with his own career, Congress, WH, and the people) ... what would you do?  Remember, trying to get it done does not mean it will get done.

In some ways it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of situation (even if Direct works technically, which would require about 6-12 months before the normal warts would appear).  The way I see it, the risk is higher to this Administrator (and his vision) changing course than it is staying the course (pun intended).

But you would try to make the change if you were he?  Right now and full steam ahead, even if you got push back from inside and outside of NASA?  Where would you start?  WH?  Congress?  Centers?  I don't see a path that closes.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/30/2007 03:18 am
Quote
Will - 29/6/2007  7:06 PM
An identified source is also more useful than "two of the ESAS guys"

Sorry, these two have explicitly asked for anonymity (as have most of our contributors), and I'm not going to compromise that confidence.   They are scared to be identified as assisting any project that hasn't been deemed "acceptable" by their management - that's one of the quickest ways to lose your job in this business.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/30/2007 03:37 am
ESAS comparison:

Jupiter-120:
LOM: 1:207
LOC: 1:1,436

Jupiter-232:
LOM: 1:185
LOC: 1:1,250

Ares-I (launch vehicle only, does not include CEV SM risks for completing ascent):
LOM: 1:435
LOC: 1:2,012

Ares-V:
LOM: 1:133
LOC: 1:920 <<< Below ESAS minimum of 1:1000 for Crew use.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 06/30/2007 03:55 am
Quote
mars.is.wet - 29/6/2007  7:12 PM

I guess maybe it is obvious, but I'd like to see answers to the question.  Given where the current Administrator is and the situation (with his own career, Congress, WH, and the people) ... what would you do?  Remember, trying to get it done does not mean it will get done.

If it were me, I'd pull my head out of the sand and decide I was going to do something - anything - to *try* to head off the coming storm.

Consciously choosing to just ignore it and continue on the present path just because its easier, is not what true leaders are about.   Von Braun sure as hell wouldn't have.   Leaders take the initiative.   They use the available knowledge and change the plan to get the best of everyone's contributions so far.

If it were me, I would inform teh WH, but then go straight to the pro-NASA members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and in both Houses.   Tell them what you'd like to do - and why - and do it in person.   Explain the oncoming train wreck which everyone involved will suffer from, and explain the clear options (the three above).   Show them why you prefer option 3 and ask for their support in transitioning.

Also make a point of explaining, in extreme detail, how the workforce in those politicians states are likely to suffer if we do ultimately get stuck with just Ares-I or an EELV going nowhere but LEO.

Most of them will support you as soon as they realize you are trying to make things work better for their own interests.

Then I would go headlong into getting the management team working Ares-I & V to change direction.   Ignore trying to sell it internally, just tell them this is what we're doing.

ATK can be brought on board by pointing out the significantly larger number of profitable SRB segments they will be processing with Jupiter's instead of Ares (big difference, in favour of Jupiter, between now and 2020).   Profit is a truly awesome motivator.

Similarly LM, Boeing and ULA can all be convinced, especially including all of their political supporters, to help by issuing contracts for specific hardware.   We have the Core structure, the EDS, the LSAM, Lunar rovers, Payload carriers etc.   There's certainly enough work to go around.

Virtually *nothing* done so far can't be turned into positive contributions towards an SDLV solution along the lines of DIRECT.


Whatever else, burying your head in the sand, sticking your fingers in your ears and humming real loud is the best way to ensure this problem does not go away - and I believe that's what is going on right now.

Griffin, by just sticking with the current arrangements and following them to a bad end will only be remembered as short sighted, overly hopeful and, frankly, ignorant in the face of disaster.

If he were proactive, and actually tries to fix what's broken before his tenure is up, I think he may actually be seen to be a man of action and determination.   That might be the only way to keep him in the driving seat after 2009.

Von Braun changed *all* the Apollo plans at about this point of the process too.   He would simply be following in the footsteps of greatness.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 06/30/2007 01:38 pm
Too bad you can't mass-produce some pre-assembled Direct kits to send congressional reps along with your proposal. Along with those Photoshopped pictures, they would put NASA's Ares models to shame. Eye-candy is good advertising.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 06/30/2007 02:01 pm
Quote
kraisee - 29/6/2007  10:37 PM

ESAS comparison:

Jupiter-120:
LOM: 1:207
LOC: 1:1,436

Jupiter-232:
LOM: 1:185
LOC: 1:1,250


..which implies a failure rate for the extra RS-68 and the upper stage of only one in 1740. That's so completely diifferent from the Ares I upper stage failure rate that I have to wonder if the figure includes upper stage reliability at all. You should go back to your anonymous source and ask him to explain.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 06/30/2007 02:50 pm
Quote
Will - 30/6/2007  7:01 AM

..which implies a failure rate for the extra RS-68 and the upper stage of only one in 1740. That's so completely diifferent from the Ares I upper stage failure rate that I have to wonder if the figure includes upper stage reliability at all. You should go back to your anonymous source and ask him to explain.

Will

That makes sense for the extra RS-68.  It is verified to be correctly operating before committing to liftoff, and you only need to have all three engines running for a fairly short period of time.  After that period of time, you can tolerate an engine failure.  The probability of a failure during that window reasonably seems to be pretty small.  And you probably pick up an advantage because a 232 running on two engines is in somewhat better shape than a 120 running on a single engine.

It is interesting that the addition of the upper stage doesn't appear to have much effect on the reliability calculation.  I too am curious as to why this would be.  (In my case, a thumbnail sketch of the logic would suffice to satisfy my curiosity.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 06/30/2007 04:25 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 30/6/2007  10:50 AM

Quote
Will - 30/6/2007  7:01 AM

..which implies a failure rate for the extra RS-68 and the upper stage of only one in 1740. That's so completely diifferent from the Ares I upper stage failure rate that I have to wonder if the figure includes upper stage reliability at all. You should go back to your anonymous source and ask him to explain.

Will

That makes sense for the extra RS-68.  It is verified to be correctly operating before committing to liftoff, and you only need to have all three engines running for a fairly short period of time.  After that period of time, you can tolerate an engine failure.  
~T+45 seconds  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 07/01/2007 12:14 am
Quote
rsp1202 - 30/6/2007  6:38 AM

Too bad you can't mass-produce some pre-assembled Direct kits to send congressional reps along with your proposal. Along with those Photoshopped pictures, they would put NASA's Ares models to shame. Eye-candy is good advertising.

Ironically, about 80% of the Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-2xx is already complete and in mass production ie a full stack Space Shuttle kit.  The Ares 1 & 5 kit requires major re-tooling for the model makers just like in the real world :)

I’ve already made a Jupiter-5 at 1/144 scale and Jupiter-3 at 1/72 scale (thank you Ebay).  Once I get some time I’ll make a Jupiter-1 and Jupiter-2 at 1/72 and 1/144 scale.  

But it’s a great idea. Maybe the Direct team could put a kit together.  One for Mike and Scott for Christmas 07.  That way in Christmas 08 they won’t have lump of coal in their stockings.  A win win for everyone.

I love it when a plan comes together:)



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 07/01/2007 01:59 am
Quote
SMetch - 30/6/2007  5:14 PM

But it’s a great idea. Maybe the Direct team could put a kit together.  One for Mike and Scott for Christmas 07.  

What about ++++++?  Doesn't she get one?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 07/01/2007 02:58 am
Quote
kraisee - 28/6/2007  12:14 AM

The numbers speak for themselves.

I just don't see any advantage in having Ares-V plus Ares-I instead of just Jupiter-232 in any of these architecture comparisons.

Ross.
I particularly like the indication that Jupiter/Direct can deliver a 600mT Mars mission for less than Ares I/V can deliver a 400mT mission. ($5,320m vs $6,470m Difference: $1,150) :D

m.i.w, let me take a swing at addressing your points

Quote
mars.is.wet - 29/6/2007  10:37 AM
1.  Even assuming you have the PERFECT technical concept, in my view the Administrator is unlikely to change course (again, if you count ESAS from Steidle) with less than 2 years on your tenure.
Actually Dr. Griffin has advocated this path for a great deal longer than 4 years. But the path he has advocated is the utilization of the existing heavy lift infrastructure for a new family of safer, simpler, sooner LVs, DIRECT/Jupiter addresses this as well or better than Ares I/V. It would not be a stretch to present Jupiter 120 as Ares II and Jupiter 232 as Ares III and it would not be perceived as a change in course. The “leak” of Ares IV has neatly laid the groundwork for such a presentation. This and other methods of NASA co-opting Direct has been discussed in the DIRECT I thread.

Quote
mars.is.wet
2.  Even if you wanted to change course to the technically better (paper) concept, there is the minor chore of reselling the concept to the political establishment.
As Ross has pointed out Congress is aware of Direct/Jupiter (certainly my congressman and Senators are). Once again Direct/Jupiter can be presented as being a natural development of the engineering process, Dr. Griffin’s “follow the numbers/ follow the engineering” concept, the basics of the concept are in the ESAS report. So long as they are all getting their slice of the pork (and what has the potential to be an even bigger slice) and meets the sooner criteria Congress doesn’t care what LV is being used.

Quote
mars.is.wet
3.  Even if you solve that problem, and Direct was still superior and didn't effect the target dates adversely (after the political alignment necessary to resell it using the rest of your capital), you would need to sell the change of course to a White House…
Recent support from the White House has been lackluster to say the least, I doubt that it would be a blip on their radar. Again, if presented correctly, the transition from Ares I/V to Ares II/III is seamless.

Quote
mars.is.wet
4.  And then, if everyone decides to make this change internally, how do you sell (what will appear as a second change of course to most people) it to the public
I doubt if 1 out of 100 people know the difference between Ares I and Ares V let alone the actual architecture of each. Transitioning to another design would be viewed, if noticed at all, as a continuing process of development and one that brings a lower price tag and flight ready hardware sooner.

I truly hope that somewhere in a backroom at NASA some dedicated guys are already working on co-opting Direct/Jupiter because I am pretty sure if they are not NASA is going to become irrelevant. With only the stick to get to LEO their day will be done.

Quote
mars.is.wet
Is it worth that risk to you (as the Administrator)?
God, I hope so. If Mike meant what he said in the quote in my signature then the numbers and the engineering *and* the public would expect him to take that risk.


Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/01/2007 03:17 am
Ares II & Ares III, I like that and is surely the best way for NASA to pitch it if they ever go this route. It implies an evolution of their original ideas which is what it is in effect. I was ok with Ares I as long as it could do the basic job of lifting the CEV but hearing they are thinking of cutting back on
radiation shielding, propellant tanks, TPS, MMOD protection etc  to make the weight shows that it is
impinging now on basis CEV functionality and really has to go. Jim was right all along, it can't do the job ! ;-)

p32-34
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2007/2007.05.23.LienClosure.pdf


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 07/01/2007 04:23 am
Yipes! That doesn't paint a pretty picture at all. I wonder how I missed that when it was published.

I misspoke above when I said "...NASA is going to become irrelevant..." what I meant to say was that NASA is going to become irrelevant in manned space flight. The robotics program is something to be very proud of and hopefully will continue to be.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/01/2007 04:56 am
and that's purely at the early design stage ! Ares II (Jupiter 120) would allow for a decent fully functional CEV that can be boosted to all sorts of useful orbits as well as keeping the ET folks continuously busy with work while removing the J2-X critical path to allow ISS crew access to be maintained on Shuttle retirement. Scotty's rocket was a nice idea but it really is proving a straitjacket on the CEV now and has to be gracefully retired with no disgrace as a good try but a tad short for the job.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 07/01/2007 05:13 am
I'm thinking an obvious counterargument to DIRECT is a shoot-from-the-hip statement that "Well, I'm sure these guys did their best with their proposal, but in real life you're going to end up with 5%-10%-15% (pick out any number you like) less performance than what they're figuring."

I want to make it clear that I don't think that's the case, but that is the sort of off-the-cuff dismissal I would expect from what I've seen of organizational behavior.

One good counter-counter-argument to that is the fallback positions.  Clearly, the Jupiter 120 has enough lift for Orion even with a HUGE shrinkage in performance, so that base is covered.  I'm thinking that the fallback for the J-232 would be something like the J-242 or J-252, the two of which are a fairly small change from the 3-engine first stage design.

So, I'm wondering what kind of mass to LEO is expected for these configurations, if anyone has those figures handy?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/01/2007 05:34 am
The drawback of DIRECT is not Jupiter 120, which could probably lift 2 CEVs, but not having the single launch capability of Ares V which allows for lifting a big LSAM and a fully tanked EDS good to go after a simple docking with the CEV in LEO. How about this for a wild idea to match that: send the CEV and LSAM already mated on land in one Jupiter 231 and then get an EDS and its tank sent up on a Jupiter 232 then you simply mate the CEV/LSAM to the EDS in LEO and you are good to go without any propellant transfer manoeuvre. The CEV and LSAM could both be a lot bigger than the current 65mT combined total like by about 50% and so could your EDS fuel capacity by 20mT as you gain by that amount when you drop the LSAM from the EDS even though the Jupiter 232 has less capability than Ares V. Truly a win-win on all grounds without needing the big Ares V and you are free to make sure the CEV and LSAM are as good as they can be without being shackled by the Ares I-Ares V combined mT restrictions. It's also cheaper and sooner too ;-).

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Oberon_Command on 07/01/2007 06:10 am
Quote
marsavian - 30/6/2007  10:34 PM

The drawback of DIRECT is not Jupiter 120, which could probably lift 2 CEVs, but not having the single launch capability of Ares V which allows for lifting a big LSAM and a fully tanked EDS good to go after a simple docking with the CEV in LEO. How about this for a wild idea to match that: send the CEV and LSAM already mated on land in one Jupiter 231 and then get an EDS and its tank sent up on another Jupiter 231 then you simply mate the CEV/LSAM to the EDS in LEO and you are good to go without any propellant transfer manoeuvre. The CEV and LSAM could both be a lot bigger than the current 65mT combined total like by about 50% and so could your EDS fuel capacity by 20mT as you gain by that amount when you drop the LSAM from the EDS even though the Jupiter 231 has less capability than Ares V. Truly a win-win on all grounds without needing the big Ares V and you are free to make sure the CEV and LSAM are as good as they can be without being shackled by the Ares I-Ares V combined mT restrictions. It's also cheaper and sooner too ;-).

Darn, you posted it before I did. :D

I've been thinking about this exact same thing, and it's occured to me that this could work for NEO/planetary flybys as well, similar to the Venus flyby that was planned for the Apollo Applications program. Replace the LSAM with a habitation module, and if you like dock the whole setup to the EDS after the injection burn and convert the EDS to a wet-workshop hab module, though that shouldn't be necessary with the hab module that's already provided. I suppose you could theoretically get a space station similar to the wet-workshop Skylab concepts at L2 (or any of the other Lagrange points for that matter) as well. Then again, that can be done with Ares V as well, but this way you can (theoretically, assuming you do things right) have the burn taking you out of LEO done eyeballs-in, which I assume would be more comfortable for the crew. :P

Either way, I think that's an idea that should be included in the proposal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/01/2007 06:25 am
I know one thing, I sure as hell would not be cutting back on MMOD shielding, Radiation shielding, TPS thickness for the sake of theoretical ascent safety but adding to it ! I want to give the CEV a complete kevlar/boron carbide/silicon nitride shield after all ;-). Just think what we could do with an extra 50mT of payload as well for each 2 launch lunar mission, it truly would be Apollo on Steroids then instead of just Apollo on Vitamin supplements ;-). Thinking further on it, perhaps the best Direct Lunar combination is a 231 for the CEV/LSAM stack for the lowest LOC figures and a 232 for the EDS for the lowest LOM and even lower LOC figure as the 2 rocket upper stage would be the EDS in this case and having an extra J2 is a useful thing to have when it has to get you all the way to the Moon especially if one suddenly decides to stop working along the way ;-). Edited my original post accordingly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/01/2007 07:40 am
Thinking further you couldn't mate the CEV and LSAM on the ground for abort reasons so you would have to dock the CEV and LSAM first in LEO before docking with the EDS from the other launch. However having the 45mT LSAM between the CEV and the upper stage of a Jupiter 231 (Ares III) has to be some sort of physical barrier that helps lower LOC figures ;-). The downside is an extra dock in LEO to get 50mT of extra performance, seems a fair exchange to me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 07/01/2007 12:42 pm
I'm not saying it can't be done, but it does seem dicey to be maneuvering and delicately docking a large CEV/LSAM stack (as proposed in the NASA illustrations) to an EDS. Working those problems out in the simulations is another critical item to be addressed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 07/01/2007 04:22 pm
I wonder if a double docking, CEV to LSAM and stack to EDS, would be easier, safer, and weigh less than any form of fuel transfer.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 07/01/2007 04:26 pm
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 30/6/2007  7:58 PM

Quote
kraisee - 28/6/2007  12:14 AM

The numbers speak for themselves.

I just don't see any advantage in having Ares-V plus Ares-I instead of just Jupiter-232 in any of these architecture comparisons.

Ross.
I particularly like the indication that Jupiter/Direct can deliver a 600mT Mars mission for less than Ares I/V can deliver a 400mT mission. ($5,320m vs $6,470m Difference: $1,150) :D

m.i.w, let me take a swing at addressing your points

Quote
mars.is.wet - 29/6/2007  10:37 AM
1.  Even assuming you have the PERFECT technical concept, in my view the Administrator is unlikely to change course (again, if you count ESAS from Steidle) with less than 2 years on your tenure.
Actually Dr. Griffin has advocated this path for a great deal longer than 4 years. But the path he has advocated is the utilization of the existing heavy lift infrastructure for a new family of safer, simpler, sooner LVs, DIRECT/Jupiter addresses this as well or better than Ares I/V. It would not be a stretch to present Jupiter 120 as Ares II and Jupiter 232 as Ares III and it would not be perceived as a change in course. The “leak” of Ares IV has neatly laid the groundwork for such a presentation. This and other methods of NASA co-opting Direct has been discussed in the DIRECT I thread.

Quote
mars.is.wet
2.  Even if you wanted to change course to the technically better (paper) concept, there is the minor chore of reselling the concept to the political establishment.
As Ross has pointed out Congress is aware of Direct/Jupiter (certainly my congressman and Senators are). Once again Direct/Jupiter can be presented as being a natural development of the engineering process, Dr. Griffin’s “follow the numbers/ follow the engineering” concept, the basics of the concept are in the ESAS report. So long as they are all getting their slice of the pork (and what has the potential to be an even bigger slice) and meets the sooner criteria Congress doesn’t care what LV is being used.

Quote
mars.is.wet
3.  Even if you solve that problem, and Direct was still superior and didn't effect the target dates adversely (after the political alignment necessary to resell it using the rest of your capital), you would need to sell the change of course to a White House…
Recent support from the White House has been lackluster to say the least, I doubt that it would be a blip on their radar. Again, if presented correctly, the transition from Ares I/V to Ares II/III is seamless.

Quote
mars.is.wet
4.  And then, if everyone decides to make this change internally, how do you sell (what will appear as a second change of course to most people) it to the public
I doubt if 1 out of 100 people know the difference between Ares I and Ares V let alone the actual architecture of each. Transitioning to another design would be viewed, if noticed at all, as a continuing process of development and one that brings a lower price tag and flight ready hardware sooner.

I truly hope that somewhere in a backroom at NASA some dedicated guys are already working on co-opting Direct/Jupiter because I am pretty sure if they are not NASA is going to become irrelevant. With only the stick to get to LEO their day will be done.

Quote
mars.is.wet
Is it worth that risk to you (as the Administrator)?
God, I hope so. If Mike meant what he said in the quote in my signature then the numbers and the engineering *and* the public would expect him to take that risk.



Good insights.  That was one of the reasons for the name change to Jupiter.  It left the current NASA leadership the face saving opening of naming the Jupiter-120 as the Ares 2 (for 2 engines) and Jupiter-23x as the Ares 3 (for 3 engines) and so on.  That way they can say that the Ares 2 and the Jupiter-120 are “radically” different concepts and the DIRECT team had nothing to do with the switch.  DIRECT team? never heard of them.

Or in scenario 2 the Mike/Scott Ares -1 goes down in flames and the next NASA administration picks up the DIRECT concept to save NASA.  At which point the new admin will want a new name like Jupiter to assure everyone that this isn’t the failed Ares approach.

While I think the Jupiter name is far superior to Ares for a number of reasons I would gladly change to Ares if it meant that the current admin got its collective head out of the sand now rather than American having to wait another two years for a clearer think leadership appointed to clean up their Ares mess.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/01/2007 05:20 pm
We still have the option to do as suggested and fly the CEV & LSAM on one flight, and then join up to the EDS in orbit.   Depending on when the transition occurs, depends on how best to accomplish it.   It does remove the need for propellant transfer, but does add another docking event in LEO.

This isn't so bad though, because the LSAM is already designed to 'descend' towards an object, and will have sensitive tracking radar and cameras pointed in the correct direction (downward) already.   And while docking is a tricky procedure, it has *lots* of successful heritage behind it, so should not be too much of a headache.

Abort options are still available during this maneuver.   If the Spacecraft Adapter were retained for the docking, the CEV and LSAM arrangement need not change through the docking, and all abort options can be kept in the Service Module.   Transition could then occur after the LSAM>EDS docking.

Alternatively, if the transition occurs before the EDS docking, then the LSAM Ascent Stage could offer a degree of abort options to the CEV - although is significantly less powerful.

Ross.

Just for reference, here are four of the various options (from the DIRECT v1 Proposal) for everyone to consider:


Click for Larger Image
"Transition pre-Docking"


Click for Larger Image
"Post-TLI Transition"


Click for Larger Image
"Pre-Circularization Transition" AKA "Fast Transition"


Click for Larger Image
"Lunar Orbit Rendezvous"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/01/2007 05:42 pm
Cool, then DIRECT is good to go with no weaknesses. I would recommend putting this option before the fuel transfer one as that sounds messy, risky and inefficient compared to a mechanical docking. In fact this option is so much better with DIRECT 2 because with 231/2s pushing both stacks you will have ~210 mT payload performance to play with. Sooner, cheaper and much more powerful ;-). Backed up of course by its fully capable Earth taxi brother, the Jupiter 120, which can look after the ISS properly in the meantime.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: dbhyslop on 07/01/2007 06:34 pm
Quote
kraisee - 1/7/2007  1:20 PM

We still have the option to do as suggested and fly the CEV & LSAM on one flight, and then join up to the EDS in orbit.   Depending on when the transition occurs, depends on how best to accomplish it.   It does remove the need for propellant transfer, but does add another docking event in LEO.

Speaking as an amateur, I would think launching the LSAM with the CEV together would be advantageous.   If you launch the cargo vehicle but for whatever reason cannot launch the crew vehicle on time, you only stand to lose the EDS, rather than the EDS + pricey LSAM.

Would another docking event be that big of a fly in the ointment?  It would be similar to the Apollo TDE and could be performed while waiting on the EDS rendezvous.  Would docking twice in this phase of the mission be excessively stressful on crew or equipment, or would your audience just grimace at the added complexity?

Dan
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/01/2007 06:51 pm
Heh good point, yet another weakness of the current plan overcome. Btw on page 35 of that document the Ka-Band and GPS are also due for the first cut chop.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/01/2007 07:03 pm
Extra docking maneuvers add extra risks - there is no denying that.

We would prefer not to add any unless there is a real need.   In this case, we are studying the trade between propellant transfer options and an extra docking (CEV+LSAM to EDS) because there appear to be significant performance benefits which are worthwhile.

I have no doubts that either option can be done safely, and that NASA's family of contractors are more than capable of designing whatever is selected as the best solution.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/01/2007 07:34 pm
Another thing to consider in your deliberations in terms of safety is would you rather have the CEV on top of the LSAM or unused propellant all the way upto when the propellant is transferred ?

Am I also right in assuming this makes a 75-80mT LSAM possible ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/01/2007 10:04 pm
Mars,
If you mean an EOR mission with CEV & LSAM on one flight, and EDS on the other, then yes, we are indeed still in the 70-80mT LSAM range.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: ryan mccabe on 07/01/2007 10:18 pm
Ross, a question regarding "secondary" payloads on the Jupiter 120. I know has been asked before, although I could not find where it was answered:

I assume that the CEV/payload are inserted into an orbit to facilitate disposal of the Jupiter core stage. It would seem that capturing the secondary payload (be it the LASM, mission module, etc) would be a highly time-sensitive maneuver, or the payload would be accidentally disposed along with the expended Jupiter.

Since the LASM has independent propulsion and guidance, it could likely stabilize its own orbit using autonomous control. But other payloads like a mission module or Hubble repair kit would probably lack propulsion. What consideration has the Direct team given for these circumstances? Might any off-the-shelf upper stage options (like the PAM) provide enough delta-V to stabilize the orbit of a hypothetical secondary payload?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/02/2007 01:52 am
Ryan,
   Yes, we now have over 180 pages of comments spread between the two DIRECT threads.   It is getting pretty large!

   There are two solutions to this.

1) We fly a regular mission, inserting into a "typical" 30x120 or 30x220nm orbit at a point which is fairly close to the Perigee (low point).   This gives us about 30 to 45 minutes to get ready for the circularization burn as we "climb" towards the Apogee.   Apollo demonstrated that CSM separation, transition and extraction of the LM took less than 15 minutes.   So 30 minutes or more should be sufficient to separate the Orion, perform a transition and then extract whatever payload is required.   It would certainly be a busy period for the crew, but there aren't any significant problems with the basic scenario.

2) We fly the Jupiter Core directly into full circularized orbit, and take our time extracting the payload once there.   When the Core is disposed of, some fairly small thrusters (either solid motors, or thrusters designed to use the last of the residual LOX & LH2 aboard the Core) would de-orbit the stage in a controlled way to re-enter wherever NASA chooses.   We lose about 5-10% payload performance this way, but the time constraints disappear.

Jupiter can support either arrangement, and the decision would probably fall to the specific requirements of the exact payload being flown.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/02/2007 02:00 am
I would discount solution #1.  Apollo 14 as an example why not.
#2 was the way NASA did it
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/02/2007 02:08 am
I would like to mention that Stephen, Chuck and myself were interviewed today by Dr. David Livingston of The Space Show about the DIRECT proposal.

I think we covered a lot of different subjects, and the broadcast is now up for anyone to download.

On behalf of the three of us I would like to thank Dr. Livingston for giving us the chance to talk about the proposal on his show, and to answer some of the questions from his listeners.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 07/02/2007 02:09 am
With longer battery life spec's and more robust (software/tracking/monitoring) control&guidance hardware, wouldn't residual prop venting timing and cooridinated residual roll control/RCS thruster firings be enough to send the stage into a controlled tumble and targeted reentry without sacrificing that much (5-10%) payload performance?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mboeller on 07/02/2007 10:48 am
Quote
108mT is the safe number even with the stock RS-68 engines and lower performance J-2XD.

I'm still wondering about the 108mt payload.

When I use the diagram on page 8 of the directV2 proposal the payload is 116,3mt ( 360,641 - 241,590 - 2,72 =  116,331 ). The payload of 108.1mt seems to be the payload after the boiloff period ( ~70days) in LEO.  

Is this correct?


Manfred
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/02/2007 11:34 am
Quote
kraisee - 1/7/2007  5:04 PM

Mars,
If you mean an EOR mission with CEV & LSAM on one flight, and EDS on the other, then yes, we are indeed still in the 70-80mT LSAM range.

Ross.

That's very good, twice the payload for each 2 launch mission, sure makes the myopic 1.5 solution look the inferior option it is. You also have enough margin I think to sell engine-out capability as a standard feature not only in the RS-68s but also the J2s if you keep with the pair. This is a feature that has actually proved itself with Saturn V and is well worth resurrecting and adds to the proposal even if the odd mT is sacrificed. It all helps to bolster the real-world LOM figures which should be very good.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/02/2007 01:41 pm
Thanks to those that responded to the "if you were the Administrator" hypothetical.  

Norm - "Actually, Dr. Griffin has advocated this path for a great deal longer than ..."

-- This still does not address the fact that NASA changed course in ESAS, and a change to Jupiter WOULD be perceived as a major change.  Basically, conceptual design work would need to start again.  You can SAY that it would not be a major change, but it is.  Saying don't make it so, and if it weren't a major change, you wouldn't be advocating for it.

Norm - "Congress is aware".

-- This is what gets me frustrated.  I can't begin to tell you the difference between "Congress is aware" and "Congress cares".  Congress is aware of the lots of things.  You are missing the whole gamut of political opportunists and Earth-firsters who would love to kill the VSE.  Not to mention those (watch the testimony) frustrated with NASA for any number of reasons.

Norm - "I doubt it would be a blip on their [the WH] radar"

This, along with #1 (perception of a course change) and #2 (Congress is a friendly entity looking for nothing but pork) misses the reality, IMO.  You are right, if there is no change (and no negative press) the WH will be happy to ride out the current plan.  If there is a change, and negative fallout ... THAT is what they are trying to avoid.

Norm - "I doubt if [the public] knows the difference between Ares I and Ares V."

I'm not sure they do either.  Point is not the people, it is the press and how they will lead the people.  There are so many priorities and agendae out there ... Global Warming, Universe, Dark Energy, Planet Finding, Asteroids, Comets, the Solar System, the Sun .... Changes like this are what make, or break a program.  And enemies of the current Administration will have a field day with "another" mistake.

Norm - "God, I hope so. If Mike meant what he said in the quote in my signature then the numbers and the engineering *and* the public would expect him to take that risk."

You miss the point of the question.  It is called risk-and-reward ... His view of the world is obviously that the risk is not worth the reward, and he has all of the information.  Your view (and that of some others) is that the risk of NOT acting is so great, that it is worth it, as evidenced by

Norm - "I am pretty sure if they are not NASA is going to become irrelevant."

I can't find a stick of evidence to support this claim.  It is the sort of hyperbole that is not helpful to making good technical and political decisions.

If you dismissed technical issues as readily as you do political and social ones, you wouldn't have a problem with the current plan for Ares.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 07/02/2007 03:23 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 2/7/2007  6:41 AM
Norm - "Actually, Dr. Griffin has advocated this path for a great deal longer than ..."

-- This still does not address the fact that NASA changed course in ESAS, and a change to Jupiter WOULD be perceived as a major change.  Basically, conceptual design work would need to start again.  You can SAY that it would not be a major change, but it is.  Saying don't make it so, and if it weren't a major change, you wouldn't be advocating for it.

Since this seems to be the major point of contention I will attempt to address it.

The first change of course was nothing like changing from Ares I/V to Ares II/III (or Jupiter120/232 or Direct/Direct Heavy). The initial VSE implementation was a private industry competition with spiral development and the change of course was mandated by the concerns of both Congress and the White House. It necessitated the replacement of the NASA Administrator and the creation of ESAS.
Changing to DIRECT/Jupiter from Constellation/Ares is a major change but it is not an overall program change. The basic concept, utilization of the existing STS to develop a new heavy lift LV for the Moon, Mars and beyond, is retained. The general structural elements of Ares I and Ares V are retained as is the general gist of the ESAS report. Conceptual design work would not need to start again since much of it has already been done by many studies done in house at NASA in the past as well as the work that has already been done on Constellation which is directly applicable to DIRECT. (Not to mention the current efforts of the DIRECT team).

If NASA continues to pursue Ares I/V and the results are as expensive and under performing as seems to be indicated by the naysayers I would expect that with the next Administration will mandate another change of course and that will result in the replacement of Dr. Griffin. This is much more likely to open the doors to cancellation of the VSE than switching to Ares II (Jupiter120).

Switching from Ares I to Ares II (Jupiter120) can, as I said before, be presented as a natural outgrowth of the engineering process. All that needs to happen is that Ares I fails one of the upcoming reviews. NASA goes back to the drawing board and Ares II is born.

My comment about NASA’s growing irrelevance was inappropriate to this thread, I invite you to view Plan B for Outer Space on SpaceRef.com.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/02/2007 04:51 pm
FYI
Two events announced yesterday:
1. Griffin has publicly stated that NASA must cut “content” in the face of dwindling budgets.
2. Griffin has announced the permanent closing of the NIAC (NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, again as a “budget” consideration.

So content is being cut, like radiation shielding for Orion, for example. The NIAC is the wing of NASA that is responsible for keeping the agency on the path of what is reasonable and possible within reasonable timeframes. It’s also the entry point into NASA’s corporate thinking for “out of the box” ideas that make spaceflight possible.

IMHO, “content” isn't the problem, it's the architecture. It’s broken. It’s overblown, too expensive and politically untenable. All things completely solved by the DIRECT architecture, for less money.

Does anybody have any idea how to actually get thru to the Administrator?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/02/2007 06:14 pm
Chuck,
There is also a piece on SpaceRef about how NASA doesn't appear to be able to pay for LSAM development and is likely to put off all work  until the 2011/2012 timeframe, completely bypassing the regular phase A/B process.

What picture is all this painting for everyone?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 07/02/2007 06:14 pm
WRT to docking and extrtacting the LM/LSAM.  Remember that Apollo did this after TLI, not in a decaying Earth Orbit.  They could have waited a day to extract the LM if they wanted to.  Clearly, in the orbit that we are talking about for AresI/V, you don't have that kind of time, so I would advocate, circulize the orbit, THEN play with the extraction.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Will on 07/02/2007 06:15 pm
Quote
marsavian - 2/7/2007  6:34 AM

Quote
kraisee - 1/7/2007  5:04 PM

Mars,
If you mean an EOR mission with CEV & LSAM on one flight, and EDS on the other, then yes, we are indeed still in the 70-80mT LSAM range.

Ross.

That's very good, twice the payload for each 2 launch mission, sure makes the myopic 1.5 solution look the inferior option it is.

I think Ross needs to be more specific about the assumptions behind that 70-80 mT LSAM. It sounds like he needs both orbital propellant transfer and a supelightweight EDS to get that kind of performance. Without those, TLI payload is *much* lower, because the necessary mass is split unevenly between EDS and CEV+LSAM, and because every extra ton on the EDS cuts payload to LEO, and is deducted from useful payload at TLI.

Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/02/2007 06:18 pm
Griffin and Horowitz are just not interested. Scott wants his rocket and Mike wants his super Mars launcher and to hell with the cost, time and lost opportunity it takes. Looks like the ISS and Moon get to pay the price for their biases. Just keep the proposal alive and kicking for when their 2008 replacements can have a fresh look at them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/02/2007 06:32 pm
Quote
Will - 2/7/2007  1:15 PM

Quote
marsavian - 2/7/2007  6:34 AM

Quote
kraisee - 1/7/2007  5:04 PM

Mars,
If you mean an EOR mission with CEV & LSAM on one flight, and EDS on the other, then yes, we are indeed still in the 70-80mT LSAM range.

Ross.

That's very good, twice the payload for each 2 launch mission, sure makes the myopic 1.5 solution look the inferior option it is.

I think Ross needs to be more specific about the assumptions behind that 70-80 mT LSAM. It sounds like he needs both orbital propellant transfer and a supelightweight EDS to get that kind of performance. Without those, TLI payload is *much* lower, because the necessary mass is split unevenly between EDS and CEV+LSAM, and because every extra ton on the EDS cuts payload to LEO, and is deducted from useful payload at TLI.

Will


Removing the ESAS LSAM from the EDS and switching to a Jupiter 232 from an Ares V gives you about a 20mT extra propellant EDS over what an Ares V EDS would have. Is that enough to push a 90-100mT Jupiter 232 CEV/LSAM stack compared to the 65mT one that the Ares V EDS would have to push, that's the real question.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/02/2007 06:36 pm
btw Ross was this double docking ever considered in ESAS ? Seems to me marrying the LSAM to the EDS before launch kinds of loads the dice in favor of Ares I/V to start with.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/02/2007 07:42 pm
Quote
marsavian - 2/7/2007  2:36 PM

btw Ross was this double docking ever considered in ESAS ? Seems to me marrying the LSAM to the EDS before launch kinds of loads the dice in favor of Ares I/V to start with.

Yes it is in the ESAS Report.   It was considered acceptable for missions being analyzed, until the selection was made that the Crew couldn't fly on anything larger than an EELV.   At that point the low performance of the CLV's being analyzed prevented the idea being considered any further.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 07/03/2007 07:39 am
kraisee
Quote
- 26/6/2007  12:10 AM

renclod
Quote
- 26/6/2007  9:14 AM
To be or not to be : major mods to MLP required for Jupiter as for Ares-V ?

How can you just open a new hole apt to receive the blast of three RS-68 right between the existing holes for SRBs without major structural mods ?
For DIRECT we propose they be "simply" (yes, I know!) relocated slightly further apart than at present.   This allows the strength to be retained completely, and allows for the opening of a relatively "natural" gap between the SRB chambers.  
Are you sure this "natural" gap is good for 3 x RS-68 ?
Quote
 
Or perhaps a cross brace could be installed inside the exhaust chamber itself - in the flame path.  
I'm not buying this. Anything in the flame path , just under the nozzle, should be avoided.
Quote
Now, consider that for Ares-V, ...  There is a staggeringly enormous difference between moving 2 internal structures and opening a new hole instead of moving about 12 walls and cutting three new holes. ?
Agreed, the MLP mods for ARES-V are far larger than what's envisioned for J-232. But the difference is not orders of magnitude - IMHO . Plus, when you "grow" Jupiter to more than 3 engines you might need to cut and move the girders around, again.
Quote
In short, we require fewer changes to the MLP's, no new MLP's (Ares-I will get two brand new ones all of its own making five in total!)?
Steel builders need some business too  ;)

Note: original picture at
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/gallery/photos/1976/high/KSC-76C-2754.jpg
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/03/2007 07:56 am
Has a docking in space ever failed because I can't remember one that did.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 07/03/2007 09:06 am
kraisee
Quote
- 23/6/2007  12:22 AM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 22/6/2007  12:26 PM
The core would then be different as well, right?
We aren't planning on using 5-segments, although they do remain one of the future growth option if extra performance were ever required.   If they were ever used, a relatively simple "barrel stretch" to the tanks would allow 5-segs to be utilised & optimizing performance.
How "simple" is in fact the "barrel stretch" ?
What is the most expensive :
1/ to re-tool for a larger diameter tank ?
or
2/ to re-tool for a higher tank ?

1/ Look at ntrs.nasa.gov for 19720015846_1972015846.pdf - from North American Rockwell
Quote
SATURN S-II
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS TECHNIQUES
PRODUCTION WELDING
Volume II1 - Circumferential Welding
Of course, this is not friction stir welding, but arc welding. Anyway, it looks like the procedures and discipline involved are driving the cost more than anything else.
Quote
Production of defect-free weldments in 2000 series aluminum
assemblies demands quality workmanship.

The most important operation of the entire circumferential welding
sequence is the cleaning which is accomplished prior to welding operations.
While many of the operations are automatic or semi-automatic, cleaning is
completely manual. No machines have been designed which are capable of
exercising the care and judgment required to create perfect welds.

Clean white nylon gloves are worn during all cleaning functions.
This is to assure that no organic particles, including lint and fingerprints,
contact the weld surface

Material is removed by filing in one cutting direction only. Long
strokes are used and the file is not dragged back across the cleaned surface
during the return stroke....

2/ Look at ntrs.nasa.gov for 19930013987_1993013987.pdf - from Martin Marietta
Quote
Cycle 0 (CY1991)
NLS Trade Studies and Analyses Report
The first part of this document is about the cost of stretching the ET at the Michoud Assembly Facility.
And the conclusion is something like this:
- 5 ft. stretch requires minor or no modifications
- up to 11 ft. is possible with facility modifications and an estimated cost impact of $30M (1991)
- new facilities/major mods are required above 11 ft., and an ET downtime greater than 9 months; an estimated cost impact of $150M (1991).

So my reading into this : stretching the tankage is by no means simple, in cost and downtime.
The best time do it is in the inter-regnum, after the STS program ending and before the new heavy starts flying.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/03/2007 01:12 pm
Quote
marsavian - 3/7/2007  3:56 AM

Has a docking in space ever failed because I can't remember one that did.

Depends on what you classify as a "failure" or a docking

Broadly using those terms, these all qualify by my guess

- Progress / Mir collision (subsequently successful)
- Orbital Express startup issues (subsequently successful)
- DART
- Gemini VI failed to dock with Agena (target failed)
- Soyuz 3 failed to dock with Soyuz 2
- Soyuz 6-8 failed to dock with each other
- Soyuz 10 failed to dock with Salyut
- Soyuz 23 failed to dock with Salyut 5
- Soyuz 25 failed to dock with Salyut 6
- Prograss M failed to re-dock with Mir

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 07/03/2007 01:20 pm
If you're counting Gemini VI a failure because the Agena failed, you also have to include Gemini IX twice: once for Agena failure, once for shroud non-deploy on Augmented Target Docking Adapter.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2007 02:01 pm
Quote
renclod - 3/7/2007  5:06 AM

The first part of this document is about the cost of stretching the ET at the Michoud Assembly Facility.
And the conclusion is something like this:
- 5 ft. stretch requires minor or no modifications
- up to 11 ft. is possible with facility modifications and an estimated cost impact of $30M (1991)
- new facilities/major mods are required above 11 ft., and an ET downtime greater than 9 months; an estimated cost impact of $150M (1991).

So my reading into this : stretching the tankage is by no means simple, in cost and downtime.
The best time do it is in the inter-regnum, after the STS program ending and before the new heavy starts flying.
Nobody claims that a barrel stretch is cheap, but you're forgetting that the ET length or diameter change doesnt happen in a vacuum. Stretch the ET and there are little, if any changes needed elsewhere in the transportation and launch complex. Change the ET diameter, and everything else has to change with it. A partial list:

1. Brand new MLP for new footprint of 10m tank vs 8.4m tank, with SRB's further apart,
2. Brand new ocean-going barge to transport ET to KSC (current one is maxed for the 8.4m)
3. Brand new working structure inside the VAB at KSC to wrap around the new footprint of 10m ET with SRB's further apart.
4. Brand new manufacturing facilities at MAF, because the current ones could not be reasonably "adapted" to the new diameter.

Remember, nothing about a launch vehicle change happens by itself. Every change one makes affects a whole range of other things. Stretching the ET also changes some things, but not to the enormous extent of a diameter change.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/03/2007 02:21 pm
Quote
clongton - 3/7/2007  8:01 AM
2. Brand new ocean-going barge to transport ET to KSC (current one is maxed for the 8.4m)

Are you saying the current barge could handle a stretch to the 8.4m tank without modification?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2007 02:29 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 3/7/2007  10:21 AM

Quote
clongton - 3/7/2007  8:01 AM
2. Brand new ocean-going barge to transport ET to KSC (current one is maxed for the 8.4m)

Are you saying the current barge could handle a stretch to the 8.4m tank without modification?
No.
What I'm saying is that the current barge can be modified for a stretched tank, but a 10m diameter ET would require a brand new barge. The existing barge cannot be modified for a 10m diameter ET.
The current barge is maxed for the 8.4m DIAMETER tank, and can't accomodate 10m diameter.
Modification for length is less expensive than a complete replacement.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/03/2007 02:36 pm
I concur with that assessment.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: aftercolumbia on 07/03/2007 09:42 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 3/7/2007  7:12 AM

Quote
marsavian - 3/7/2007  3:56 AM

Has a docking in space ever failed because I can't remember one that did.

Depends on what you classify as a "failure" or a docking

Broadly using those terms, these all qualify by my guess

- Progress / Mir collision (subsequently successful)
- Orbital Express startup issues (subsequently successful)
- DART
- Gemini VI failed to dock with Agena (target failed)
- Soyuz 3 failed to dock with Soyuz 2
- Soyuz 6-8 failed to dock with each other
- Soyuz 10 failed to dock with Salyut
- Soyuz 23 failed to dock with Salyut 5
- Soyuz 25 failed to dock with Salyut 6
- Prograss M failed to re-dock with Mir


Progress M-34 collided with Mir in July 1997, it was not "subsequently successful".  Spektr was practically lost, and the station itself was nearly lost.  Far from being a success, this collision was recovered from quite well, but was still nothing less disasterous than Apollo XIII.

I've also had much worse disasters in Orbiter.  The best recovery I had was when I tried to dock a Soyuz to the zenith port on Zarya...but...uh...hmm...there is no zenith port on Zarya.  I managed to divert around Zarya barely in time, threading precariously between the Zarya and Zvezda solar panels, scared to touch the RCS thrusters lest I blow them or the radiators off.  After drifting through the ISS superstructure thus and getting a good forty metres clear on the other side, I turned it around and came into the Zarya nadir port...one that does exist.  If it were real, it would have been really scary.  I also would have been grounded/fired/court marshalled/etc. for making such a stupid mistake.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MySDCUserID on 07/04/2007 01:16 am
Couldn't you name it something other than Jupiter?  There was already a rocket with that name.  Why not stick with Ares and just give it a different number?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Martin FL on 07/04/2007 01:48 am
Quote
MySDCUserID - 3/7/2007  8:16 PM

Couldn't you name it something other than Jupiter?  There was already a rocket with that name.  Why not stick with Ares and just give it a different number?

It's a rival concept to Ares, that would be the LAST thing to name it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MySDCUserID on 07/04/2007 02:02 am
Quote
Martin FL - 3/7/2007  9:48 PM

Quote
MySDCUserID - 3/7/2007  8:16 PM

Couldn't you name it something other than Jupiter?  There was already a rocket with that name.  Why not stick with Ares and just give it a different number?

It's a rival concept to Ares, that would be the LAST thing to name it.

Bah!  I look at it as just a different proposed configuration for what Ares could be.  Well, anything but Jupiter.  It's too early to start reusing names of flown systems.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 07/04/2007 02:46 am
I really like NEPTUNE as the name for a booster.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Oberon_Command on 07/04/2007 02:51 am
Quote
mike robel - 3/7/2007  7:46 PM

I really like NEPTUNE as the name for a booster.  :)

Better than 'Uranus'? :P
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/04/2007 02:58 am
Quote
MySDCUserID - 3/7/2007  9:16 PM

Couldn't you name it something other than Jupiter?  There was already a rocket with that name.  Why not stick with Ares and just give it a different number?

Stephen originally came up with that name while he was working on the Team Vision proposal.    Team Vision's and DIRECT v1's first boosters were virtually identical, so when he joined the DIRECT effort it was a very easy name to retain.

While I personally quite like the Jupiter moniker, I have thought that if NASA chose to change direction, they could easily "claim it as their own" simply by re-naming the vehicles Ares-II and Ares-III.

That is still my preference - for NASA to take it and run with it, rather than wait for the election and the inevitable review which will follow that.

I have no problem with either naming convention, as long as we get good value for money out of NASA's rocket launchers for a change.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 07/04/2007 03:16 am
Quote
mars.is.wet - 2/7/2007  8:41 AM

Thanks to those that responded to the "if you were the Administrator" hypothetical.  

Norm - "Actually, Dr. Griffin has advocated this path for a great deal longer than ..."

-- This still does not address the fact that NASA changed course in ESAS, and a change to Jupiter WOULD be perceived as a major change.  Basically, conceptual design work would need to start again.  You can SAY that it would not be a major change, but it is.  Saying don't make it so, and if it weren't a major change, you wouldn't be advocating for it.

Norm - "Congress is aware".

-- This is what gets me frustrated.  I can't begin to tell you the difference between "Congress is aware" and "Congress cares".  Congress is aware of the lots of things.  You are missing the whole gamut of political opportunists and Earth-firsters who would love to kill the VSE.  Not to mention those (watch the testimony) frustrated with NASA for any number of reasons.

Norm - "I doubt it would be a blip on their [the WH] radar"

This, along with #1 (perception of a course change) and #2 (Congress is a friendly entity looking for nothing but pork) misses the reality, IMO.  You are right, if there is no change (and no negative press) the WH will be happy to ride out the current plan.  If there is a change, and negative fallout ... THAT is what they are trying to avoid.

Norm - "I doubt if [the public] knows the difference between Ares I and Ares V."

I'm not sure they do either.  Point is not the people, it is the press and how they will lead the people.  There are so many priorities and agendae out there ... Global Warming, Universe, Dark Energy, Planet Finding, Asteroids, Comets, the Solar System, the Sun .... Changes like this are what make, or break a program.  And enemies of the current Administration will have a field day with "another" mistake.

Norm - "God, I hope so. If Mike meant what he said in the quote in my signature then the numbers and the engineering *and* the public would expect him to take that risk."

You miss the point of the question.  It is called risk-and-reward ... His view of the world is obviously that the risk is not worth the reward, and he has all of the information.  Your view (and that of some others) is that the risk of NOT acting is so great, that it is worth it, as evidenced by

Norm - "I am pretty sure if they are not NASA is going to become irrelevant."

I can't find a stick of evidence to support this claim.  It is the sort of hyperbole that is not helpful to making good technical and political decisions.

If you dismissed technical issues as readily as you do political and social ones, you wouldn't have a problem with the current plan for Ares.

I understand mars.is.wet argument above about the risk to VSE that could result from a transfer to Direct from Ares I/V. However, if NASA was to get hit by another budget cut, they would be in a good position to change architecture without loosing face. They could then claim that the change is not caused by any Ares technical issue or NASA mistake in selecting their current architecture but rather that they are adapting to a new financial reality imposed on them by Congress.  It would not make sence for Congress to cancel VSE in such a scenario as their reduced budget allocation would be perceived as the originating cause the architecture change.

PaulL

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 07/04/2007 04:02 am
Quote
MySDCUserID - 3/7/2007  6:16 PM

Couldn't you name it something other than Jupiter?  There was already a rocket with that name.  Why not stick with Ares and just give it a different number?

Previous Post;

Good insights. That was one of the reasons for the name change to Jupiter. It left the current NASA leadership the face saving opening of naming the Jupiter-120 as the Ares 2 (for 2 engines) and Jupiter-23x as the Ares 3 (for 3 engines) and so on. That way they can say that the Ares 2 and the Jupiter-120 are “radically” different concepts and the DIRECT team had nothing to do with the switch. DIRECT team? never heard of them.

Or in scenario 2 the Mike/Scott Ares -1 goes down in flames and the next NASA administration picks up the DIRECT concept to save NASA. At which point the new admin will want a new name like Jupiter to assure everyone that this isn’t the failed Ares approach.

While I think the Jupiter name is far superior to Ares for a number of reasons I would gladly change to Ares if it meant that the current admin got its collective head out of the sand now rather than American having to wait another two years for a clearer think leadership appointed to clean up their Ares mess.

End Previous Post

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 07/04/2007 04:22 am
Quote
MySDCUserID - 3/7/2007  7:02 PM

Quote
Martin FL - 3/7/2007  9:48 PM

Quote
MySDCUserID - 3/7/2007  8:16 PM

Couldn't you name it something other than Jupiter?  There was already a rocket with that name.  Why not stick with Ares and just give it a different number?

It's a rival concept to Ares, that would be the LAST thing to name it.

Bah!  I look at it as just a different proposed configuration for what Ares could be.  Well, anything but Jupiter.  It's too early to start reusing names of flown systems.

I think Jupiter is a good name for the HLV for a number of reasons.

The son of Jupiter is Mars.

Ares (NASA current name) is the Son of Zeus with only a side ways relation to (Greek/Roman)
Jupiter/Zeus (Primary god) and Mars/Ares (sons of primary gods)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares

"Among the Hellenes, Ares was always mistrusted: his birthplace and true home was placed far off, among the barbarous and warlike. Though Ares' half-sister Athena was also considered to be a war deity, Athena's stance was that of strategic warfare while Ares' tended to be that of war for the sake of war."

In summary, Ares is probable a better name for Nuclear Missile.  War for the sake of war is a good description of what is happening though since their are more strategic ways to produce an STS derivative.

The planet Jupiter is also called Guru "Seeker of Knowledge" in Hindu. Given our increasing alignment with India this would also be a good association.

In western astrology Jupiter is associated with the principles of growth, expansion, higher education, prosperity and protecting roles. Again good associations.

In astrology Mars/Ares is associated with over confidence, aggression, energy, ambition, and impulsiveness. Bad associations for VSE but in perfect alignment with the current approach.

Jupiter also has a stronger public name association with Saturn and represents the largest planet = largest rocket. It also indicates longer term goals even beyond Mars. The movies 2001 and 2010 come to mind.  More people on the street will "get" these associations over Ares.

Also version naming is based on separate Cyro-Stages to Orbit not engines.  There is a Jupiter-V which can put over 1,000mT in orbit in on shot.  1,000mT should be enough for anyone.

I actually like the fact that the Jupiter-C helped begin America's exploration of space.  

Besides four successful launches of something that can only put 11kg in LEO is not worthy of retiring a name as strong as Jupiter.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/04/2007 11:45 am
Quote
PaulL - 3/7/2007  11:16 PM

I understand mars.is.wet argument above about the risk to VSE that could result from a transfer to Direct from Ares I/V. However, if NASA was to get hit by another budget cut, they would be in a good position to change architecture without loosing face. They could then claim that the change is not caused by any Ares technical issue or NASA mistake in selecting their current architecture but rather that they are adapting to a new financial reality imposed on them by Congress.  It would not make sence for Congress to cancel VSE in such a scenario as their reduced budget allocation would be perceived as the originating cause the architecture change.

PaulL


Agreed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 07/04/2007 12:29 pm
In some ways the Jupiter name would be most appropriate because of the name's history of re- (and mis-) direction. Redstone + upper stages = Jupiter-C (for Composite) so it could pretend to be part of the Jupiter IRBM program. Then when the real Jupiter came along, the Jupiter-C was renamed Juno I and the Jupiter IRBM + upper stages was named Juno II. My favorite historical rocket name is Thorad (for Thor-augmented delta), predecessor to just going with Delta as a name. And I still think given it is no longer strictly Shuttle-derived, the Ares V should be renamed Delta V, the perfect launch vehicle name.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/04/2007 01:05 pm
During the Direct v1 effort, there was a poll conducted for renaming the launch vehicle. There were many very good suggestions, most of them serious, a couple sort of funny. The vast majority were reasonably well split between Ares-II/III and Jupiter. In the end, it was decided to retain "Direct" because there was so much name recognition out there at that time, including members of Congress. It made sense.

For Direct v2, what we did was keep the name "Direct" to describe the architecture, and selected "Jupiter" as the launch vehicle name because the Team Vision launch vehicle, which was nearly identical to Direct, already had that name, and that maintained continuity for both the v1 effort (Direct Architecture) and the Team Vision effort (Jupiter launch vehicle).

This left the path open to NASA to adopt this launch vehicle, or something else like it, and slide it into the Ares family by using Ares-2xx, Ares-3xx, Ares-4xx and Ares-5xx. In the Ares naming scheme, the 1st number is the number of main stage engines, the 2nd number is the number of stages, and the 3rd number is the number of 2nd stage engines. Thus the Jupiter-120 becomes the Ares-210 (2 main engines, 1 stage, 0 2nd stage engines), the Jupiter-232 becomes the Ares-322 (3 main engines, 2 stages, 2 2nd stage engines), the Jupiter 244 becomes the Ares-424 (4 main engines, 2 stages, 4 2nd stage engines), and so on. Later, if a 3rd stage is added, it could simply be designated "Heavy". Thus a Jupiter-254 with a 3rd stage becomes an Ares-534 Heavy (5 main engines, 3 stages, and 4 2nd stage engines). It works.

By not adopting the Ares name for the proposal, we have deliberately left that option open to NASA. Should NASA ultimately realize that the Ares-1 just isn't going to cut it, they are going to need a way to change direction in as painless a way possible, both from a program pov and from a face-saving pov. We are not interested in embarrassing NASA in the slightest. We are interested in helping NASA, where that is reasonable, to create and maintain a robust manned spaceflight program. Any method they want to choose to switch from the current Ares-1/5 program to the Direct architecture (or something else which resembles it or is based on Direct's core values) is completely fine with us. By not adopting "Ares" for the Direct architecture, we have at least left that option open to them.

Ultimately all we are hoping for is for NASA to succeed. We believe we have put together a proposal that will do that in a timely and economic way, that will fully accomplish the VSE mandates. In the end, we don't really care what they call the launch vehicle. We don't even care if they ever acknowledge any effort on the part of anyone else except themselves. As long as it flies, flies well, and keeps the United States preeminent and at the cutting edge of the space exploration effort.

We believe Direct can do that. But Direct is not the only proposal out there - there are others which also have merit. Direct is the best known and, we believe, the most heavily researched and documented, thus the one most likely to be adoptable, should NASA decide to make a change. They can call it anything they like and disavow any knowledge of us. That’s fine. As long as our civilian space agency, NASA, succeeds.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 07/04/2007 05:41 pm
Also the Jupiter Family was conceived of as a more capable system than the Ares Family (engine number based).  The Jupiter Family the dash number indicates how many cryo-stages are used to achieve orbit (not counting EOI).  With all Jupiter Family rocket variants using the STS core as a common core booster ranging from 50mT to 1,000mT.  Again 1,000mT should be enough for anyone :)  Imagine putting up the ISS in one shot vs the +40 launches now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 07/06/2007 09:38 am
Is there any progress in removing the basic flaws in Direct v2?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/06/2007 10:59 am
Quote
JIS - 6/7/2007 5:38 AM

Is there any progress in removing the basic flaws in Direct v2?
There are no flaws in Direct v2.
Everything about the concept has been checked, rechecked and checked again, and again, and again. There are no flaws in Direct v2.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 07/06/2007 11:34 am
Quote
clongton - 6/7/2007  11:59 AM

Quote
JIS - 6/7/2007 5:38 AM

Is there any progress in removing the basic flaws in Direct v2?
There are no flaws in Direct v2.
Everything about the concept has been checked, rechecked and checked again, and again, and again. There are no flaws in Direct v2.

Really interesting approach ...
There are always flaws in any design and Direct is not very detailed study.
I thought that you will attempt to fix the known problems. I mentioned them before but nobody apparently care. No problem for me. I just asked.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/06/2007 11:58 am
Quote
JIS - 6/7/2007  7:34 AM

There are always flaws in any design and Direct is not very detailed study.
For every page in the published proposal, there are hundreds of pages of analysis, and untold communications back and forth with design engineers and analysts inside the Ares and Orion programs at NASA, its field centers and at the contractors. It is an EXTREMELY detailed study. The only remaining “flaw” is political: how to get around an entrenched administrator unwilling to consider anything NIH.

JIS, don't get me wrong. Direct is not perfect. There are lots of things in the proposal that are based on compromises that could have been done better if we were not constrained by the political climate we find ourselves in. We did lots of trade-offs and came up with something that actually works. Could it be better? Yes. Were there difficulties encountered that needed to be addressed? Yes. Were there "flaws" in the approach? Definitely yes. But we were extremely honest with ourselves and addressed them with an open mind.

To the best of our knowledge, there are no remaining flaws other than political. We have addressed everything conceivable that we can think of, and also addressed every potential "flaw" pointed out by folks like you on this thread. We appreciated your previous comments and those of others as well, and took them all seriously. Some of the comments even uncovered potential “flaws” which gave us pause and we had to work on them. We examined every critique offered, in detail, and they have all been adjudicated.

To the best of our knowledge, there are no remaining “flaws” other than political. Please explicity expand on what you believe are the remaining flaws needing to be addressed. We are always looking for ways and ideas to improve the basic DIRECT STS derived approach.

Best regards
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kevwalsh on 07/06/2007 01:09 pm
Quote
Jim - 5/7/2007  12:43 PM
There is only one remaining basic flaw, Doc Whorowitz didn't come up with Direct.

Before we go further with the name-calling: he must be doing something right. He's the one running the till while we DIRECT supporters are the ones with our noses pressed against the shop window :-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/06/2007 01:16 pm
Quote
kevwalsh - 6/7/2007  9:09 AM

Quote
Jim - 5/7/2007  12:43 PM
There is only one remaining basic flaw, Doc Whorowitz didn't come up with Direct.

Before we go further with the name-calling: he must be doing something right. He's the one running the till while we DIRECT supporters are the ones with our noses pressed against the shop window :-)
That doesn’t make him right or us wrong. It only speaks to the power of having influential friends. Besides, if they hadn't subsequently abandoned the original Shuttle Derived concept that they sold Congress on, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kevwalsh on 07/06/2007 01:22 pm
Quote
That doesn’t make him right or us wrong.

Agree 100%.  And maybe events may push the direction of US spaceflight towards Direct.  Politics and patterns of influence can change like the wind.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 07/06/2007 03:13 pm
Quote
kevwalsh - 6/7/2007  6:22 AM

Quote
That doesn’t make him right or us wrong.

Agree 100%.  And maybe events may push the direction of US spaceflight towards Direct.  Politics and patterns of influence can change like the wind.

There are not permanent alliances just permanent interests.  If and when the legislators become convinced that DIRECT will do a better job at protecting the STS jobs in their district it will become the law of the land.  Ironically DIRECT gets Mike and Company back to what they had originally promised to deliver but can’t because the Ares 1/5 is only superficially STS based.  The Jupiter-120 (Ares 2) is a reasonable first step extension of STS given the constrained budget we are operating under.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 07/06/2007 04:29 pm
I'm fairly new to this site, so I will plead ignorance here as I ask some questions about the Direct v2.0 proposal:
-Does the Direct Team have a plan in place for getting the proposal in front of decision makers in NASA or the contractor community?
-If the proposal has been offered, were there specific issues with the proposal that led to its rejection?
-Are the objections issues that can be fixed or are they too basic to the proposal?
-Has the proposal been floated to respected Aerospace media outlets (i.e. AWST)?
-Does the proposal have any support among members of congress or the administration?

It just seems, that from what I read so far the idea just makes good sense from the standpoint of reduced retooling costs and modifications to the launch processing infrastructure.  Given the opportunity to achieve manned flight of the CEV sooner and at less cost, I would hope someone would want to consider the proposal carefully.

I also understand that there may be people examining Direct v2.0 who can't be named on a public site.  Just curious.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MySDCUserID on 07/06/2007 10:06 pm
Based on what I have read, I think that DIRECT may be the best thing since sliced bread when it comes to possible launch vehicles for Constellation.

However, I think your success will only go so far with your current methods.  

1.  Remember, Mr. Houbolt did not hide behind anonymity to get his idea across to leadership.  Remember that scene in "Spider" when Houbolt's co-workers were talking about him.  One mentioned "I heard he was going to write to Seamans".  The other co-worker replied with "He doesn't report to Seamans.  He could get canned."  Sure there was probably some artistic license in that scene, but Houbolt did put his name on that report, and I'm sure his background and reputation helped lend the idea a lot of credibility.  The members of the DIRECT team, those who contributed to the hardcore engineering work, need to get their names on that document.  Yeah, it's risky.  Yeah, one would wish that the current names on the report would suffice, but I don't think the current names provide sufficient credibility.  I mean no offense.  I know ALL worked hard on this.

2.  Houbolt wrote a lengthy technical report for his proposal, not just a bunch of view foils/charts.  The DIRECT proposal lacks detail.  Sure, you show pretty graphs that supplement the claims for the big picture, but where did these come from?  Sure you can say "many people in the industry labored over this data", but without actually providing that analysis somewhere, how can anybody really go and look at it to verify it.  Why not post the raw data, tests, analysis on the DIRECT website for those who wish to look through it at thier liesure.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kevwalsh on 07/06/2007 10:16 pm
Quote
Why not post the raw data, tests, analysis on the DIRECT website for those who wish to look through it at thier liesure.

Agreed, good ideas aren't always enough, they need marketing to make them influence events which at the end of the day is all that matters.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/06/2007 10:25 pm
Quote
MySDCUserID - 6/7/2007  6:06 PM

Based on what I have read, I think that DIRECT may be the best thing since sliced bread when it comes to possible launch vehicles for Constellation.

However, I think your success will only go so far with your current methods.  

1.  Remember, Mr. Houbolt did not hide behind anonymity to get his idea across to leadership.  Remember that scene in "Spider" when Houbolts co-workers were talking about him.  One mentioned, "I heard he was going to write to Seamans".  The other co-worker replied with "He doesn't report to Seamans.  He could get canned."  Sure there was probably some artistic license in that scene, but Houbolt did put his name on that report, and I'm sure his background and reputation helped lend the idea a lot of credibility.  The members of the DIRECT team, those who contributed to the hardcore engineering work, need to get their names on that document.  Yeah, it's risky.  Yeah, one would wish that the current names on the report would suffice, but I don't think the current names provide sufficient credibility.  I mean no offense.  I know ALL worked hard on this.

2.  Houbolt wrote a lengthy technical report for his proposal, not just a bunch of view foils/charts.  The DIRECT proposal lacks detail.  Sure, you show pretty graphs that supplement the claims for the big picture, but where did these come from?  Sure you can say "many people in the industry labored over this data", but without actually providing that analysis somewhere, how can anybody really go and look at it to verify it.  Why not post the raw data, tests, analysis on the DIRECT website for those who wish to look through it at their leisure.
1. Without their specific permission we cannot put their names on the document. It was part of the agreement with some of them in the first place, that they would provide the needed technical support, but they had to remain anonymous.

2. We are very aware of the "shortcomings" in the Direct proposal. In fact we were having a conversation about that very subject this afternoon among ourselves. There is SO much that has been going on behind the scenes and the proposal, such as it is, is dearly lacking in supporting technical detail. Remember however, that when we released it, we stated right up front that it was a “high level overview”, and the detail would be in the AIAA paper in September. The AIAA 2007 technical paper will have all the supporting technical detail you could ask for. That will be in September, and is a major undertaking. To date, it is approaching over 80 pages of enough data, charts, graphs, spreadsheets and technical presentations to make an analyst’s head spin. In the mean time, we will "attempt" (no promises) to add a little more to the proposal, as time (extremely limited) permits. But we can’t and do not promise that! Baring that, we will answer your questions online here on this forum.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MySDCUserID on 07/06/2007 10:59 pm
Clongton,

1.  I totally understand that you cannot just go and slap their names on there without permission, and certainly wouldn't encourage you to do so, but perhaps you may ask them to reconsider.  It certainly would give it a little more credibility.

2.  Right on!!   :cool:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/07/2007 02:04 am
I really like the way that you have put together Direct 2.0.  I remember reading last year NASA saying to the big aerospace companies not to present anything at AIAA that could hurt the NASA program.  

1. Have you heard anything back from NASA as to how they feel about your possible presentation this year?  
2. How do you think the NASA Admin. might react to the paper(s)?
3. Will you/have you prepare(d) fallback options depending on how NASA reacts to the paper?
4. Have you asked Dr. Stanley to look over Direct 2.0 (technical side) or are you going to wait till after the presentation to have him look at it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 07/07/2007 01:29 pm
Will the DIRECT proposal be the subject of a presentation at the September AIAA conference, or will the paper stand alone?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/08/2007 02:41 am
Quote
CFE - 7/7/2007  9:29 AM

Will the DIRECT proposal be the subject of a presentation at the September AIAA conference, or will the paper stand alone?
The Direct proposal is the foundation of the AIAA paper in September. In the paper the proposal is totally fleshed out, with all the technical data to support it. In addition, the AIAA paper will go beyond the limits of the Direct proposal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 07/08/2007 05:31 pm
Ross, in your DIRECT STS Derivative v2.01 document, you show the CEV performing the LOI burn for the Lunar EOR-LOR mission(figure 11).  Is this an error in the document (LOI burn to be done by LSAM) or are you advocating a bigger Orion SM able to do both the LOI and TEI burns?

By the way, when are you planning to update your document? I remember that in an earlier reply that your were looking at increasing your aero fairing mass and reducing the interstage mass.  This is not reflected in the current version of your document.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Launch Fan on 07/09/2007 02:55 am
Quote
clongton - 7/7/2007  9:41 PM

Quote
CFE - 7/7/2007  9:29 AM

Will the DIRECT proposal be the subject of a presentation at the September AIAA conference, or will the paper stand alone?
The Direct proposal is the foundation of the AIAA paper in September. In the paper the proposal is totally fleshed out, with all the technical data to support it. In addition, the AIAA paper will go beyond the limits of the Direct proposal.

Who is writing that AIAA paper and does that mean we won't get to see it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 07/09/2007 10:14 am
Quote
PaulL - 8/7/2007  6:31 PM

By the way, when are you planning to update your document? I remember that in an earlier reply that your were looking at increasing your aero fairing mass and reducing the interstage mass.  This is not reflected in the current version of your document.

PaulL

One of the big unanswered question is how did they get those masses (in case of fairing unrealistic at first sight).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/10/2007 07:55 pm
Quote
Launch Fan - 8/7/2007  10:55 PM

Quote
clongton - 7/7/2007  9:41 PM

Quote
CFE - 7/7/2007  9:29 AM

Will the DIRECT proposal be the subject of a presentation at the September AIAA conference, or will the paper stand alone?
The Direct proposal is the foundation of the AIAA paper in September. In the paper the proposal is totally fleshed out, with all the technical data to support it. In addition, the AIAA paper will go beyond the limits of the Direct proposal.

Who is writing that AIAA paper and does that mean we won't get to see it?
The Direct Team is writing the AIAA 2007 paper.
We haven't worked out the details yet, but you'll get the data here in some fashion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/11/2007 03:35 pm
A hidden requirement of the Ares V may be that it has to lift bigger loads than the Saturn V rocket.  I was alerted to this requirement by a NASA webpage on telescopes.

“How big? Consider the following: Ares V will be able to place almost 130,000 kg (284,000 lbs; 8% more than the Saturn V rocket of the 1960s) into low Earth orbit. {snip}”

So  could any of the heavy Jupiters lift at least 10% more than the Saturn V preferably whilst being man rated?  A third Jupiter with a payload of more than 290,000 lbs (133,000 kg) would  give the Jupiter family a big advantage in being chosen.  Its development plans can be included in an appendix starting after the Jupiter 232 flies.

The picture of all the Jupiter rockets was nice but a table should how much each variant can lift to LEO (and GEO) will be needed in the sales brochure so customers can work out which one they need.

Andrew Swallow
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/11/2007 07:38 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 11/7/2007  11:35 AM

A hidden requirement of the Ares V may be that it has to lift bigger loads than the Saturn V rocket.  I was alerted to this requirement by a NASA webpage on telescopes.

“How big? Consider the following: Ares V will be able to place almost 130,000 kg (284,000 lbs; 8% more than the Saturn V rocket of the 1960s) into low Earth orbit. {snip}”

So  could any of the heavy Jupiters lift at least 10% more than the Saturn V preferably whilst being man rated?  A third Jupiter with a payload of more than 290,000 lbs (133,000 kg) would  give the Jupiter family a big advantage in being chosen.  Its development plans can be included in an appendix starting after the Jupiter 232 flies.

The picture of all the Jupiter rockets was nice but a table should how much each variant can lift to LEO (and GEO) will be needed in the sales brochure so customers can work out which one they need.

Andrew Swallow
Upper ranges of lift capability for the Jupiter family exceed 300mT to LEO. Additional variants are also possible that approach the 1,000mT mark. It is highly unlikely that we will ever need to lift such mass in a single flight, but the Jupiter CAN be configured to do it, while the Ares-V cannot. Such a configuration would be very expensive, but would be an order of magnatude less than the cost to develop a specific launch vehicle for the task.

But exceeding 300mT would not be difficult nor exceptionally expensive. The Jupiter launch vehicle family already has this lifter in the mix of potential upgrades.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/11/2007 07:47 pm
Quote
clongton - 11/7/2007  1:38 PM
It is highly unlikely that we will ever need to lift such mass in a single flight, but the Jupiter CAN be configured to do it, while the Ares-V cannot.

I've never understood this argument.  Essentially, the Ares-V is a member of the Jupiter family.  Why can the J-232 be configured for larger lifts, but the Ares-V cannot be similarly reconfigured, with a third-stage, with improved boosters, etc.?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/11/2007 08:12 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 11/7/2007  3:47 PM

Quote
clongton - 11/7/2007  1:38 PM
It is highly unlikely that we will ever need to lift such mass in a single flight, but the Jupiter CAN be configured to do it, while the Ares-V cannot.

I've never understood this argument.  Essentially, the Ares-V is a member of the Jupiter family.  Why can the J-232 be configured for larger lifts, but the Ares-V cannot be similarly reconfigured, with a third-stage, with improved boosters, etc.?
The Ares-V is similar to the Jupiter family in appearance only, of which it is definitely not a member. It is not structurally capable of such a reconfiguration. Having such a massive lower stage severely limits any options for expansion. It is already designed for its maximum potential performance. Any additional performance it could get would require a complete redesign and probably would require replacing the RS-68 H2Lox engines with LoxKero like the RS-84. Essentially, improving it would mean replacing it.

The Jupiter on the other hand, is providing lift capability in the Direct architecture that is below its maximum potential. The core stage, unlike the Ares-V, is not designed to provide such a large percentage of the performance of the launch vehicle. It reaches a point during ascent where it is appropriate, from a system point of view, to transfer lift to an upper stage and drop the dead weight of the emptying tank; a sweet spot of performance. This leaves many options open for what to do with upper stages, options that the Ares-V can’t take advantage of.

It’s in the philosophy of the design. If you provide a massive lower stage, you maximize the lift capacity for that “specific” launch vehicle, at the expense of upper stage options. Ares-V has maximized its lower stage, limiting what upper stages can add; therefore the performance of the launch vehicle is already at its maximum potential. It can’t get much better, because it’s dragging so much dead weight in its emptying 1st stage tank while on ascent. The Jupiter tank is discarded during ascent at roughly the sweet spot where its weight would begin to degrade performance. Ares-V however, goes beyond that and as a result, its 1st stage performance is negatively affected by its mass.

The designers of Shuttle got the mass ratio right when they designed the ET. Jupiter uses that ET, essentially unaltered, and inherits that design performance, an advantage the Ares lost when it switched to the 10m ET.

There's much more to it, of course, but that's the basic difference and the reason for the advantage of Jupiter over Ares.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/11/2007 08:19 pm
Quote
kraisee - 22/6/2007  8:16 PM

Here is a very preliminary glimpse at some of the many growth options which are possible with the Jupiter Architecture.

J-120 and J-232 are top left and are all we really need.   But this demonstrates much of the future potential - which includes Ares-V (top right).

Enjoy

Ross.


Larger Image

If the Ares V isn't part of the Jupiter family, why did Ross say it was on that image?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/11/2007 08:31 pm
Perhaps I'm being unclear about my confusion.  If the fourth launcher from the top left can work (J-3442 with 8.4 meter core and 4 segment SRBs?) can work, why couldn't the upper-right launcher, the Ares V, which we might call a J-252 with 10 meter core and 5 segment SRBs work after conversion to a J-3542 with 10 meter core and 5 segment SRBs?  It has more launch weight because of the additional cryo fuel in the first stage, but it also has around 20% more liftoff thrust.  It seems like such a system could lift more mass to LEO than the Ares V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/11/2007 08:51 pm
The Ares-V could be flown with an additional Upper Stage if required.   There's nothing particularly stopping that.

But it should be noted that putting an extra stage on top of any vehicle already as tall as the Ares-V is likely to cause issues with fitting everything through the VAB doors and allowing the cranes inside to lift everything safely.   Not to mention that the Pad itself is in critical danger of not being able to handle the weight.   The tallest pair of LV's in the Jupiter growth range (#10 and #12 and their equivalents underneath) also have the same issue.

The coloured bands in the diagram Lee Jay copied above does a good job of showing the complexity involved in supporting the vehicles.

Each row has three coloured bands.   The left (lighter) end is "relatively easy" to support using existing STS infrastructure and requires fairly little in the way of changes.

The middle band (medium colour) expands upon that and requires additional changes to support any of those configurations - largely due to having a much longer core stage - although retaining the current 8.4m diameter tanking.

The far right section (darkest) requires the most infrastructure changes because the diameter change to 10m core means everything has to be changed because none of the current systems fit anywhere.

I have never been against Ares-V - I actually think it would be a damn good booster.   My problem is that to get to it, you have to develop Ares-I first (making Ares-V first would take too long and cost too much what with the costs of 5-segments, 106% RS-68's, J-2X's and 10m Core tanking all involved together), and that costs twice as much, delays everything and adds the risk of the second (most important vehicle) being killed by political wind shifts.

The Jupiter's make a lot more sense for a first booster instead of the Ares-I, and actually the Jupiter's offer a better range of options *if* NASA still wants the even bigger booster if & when they finally do get the money and if they choose not to spend that money on something else - like more actual missions.

But spending your money on an 20mT EELV class launcher instead of affordable 100mT Heavy Lifter (using existing tanking, engines and boosters) guarantees you the moon even if the politico's don't co-operate.

That's the key, right there:   The first booster you build gets you the moon.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/11/2007 09:08 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 11/7/2007  4:19 PM

If the Ares V isn't part of the Jupiter family, why did Ross say it was on that image?
Ross wasn't saying that the Ares-V is part of the Jupiter family. He was showing how the Ares-V could still be in the mix of future launch vehicles if the Direct architecture was adopted.
To be a member of the "family", the basic requirement would be to maintain the STS core flight article of the Shuttle ET, at 8.4m diameter. The Ares-V has abandoned that article and replaced it with a brand new 10m ET. It is not a "family" member. But adopting the Direct architecture does not preclude eventually building the Ares-V as a future growth potential in NASA's launch vehicle stable. Ross was clearly showing that the Jupiter development makes room for a future Ares-V, if NASA wanted it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/11/2007 09:28 pm
Okay, so the Ares-V does have upgrade options, including Kerosene boosters, and an upper stage.  No one (I hope) is disputing that developing the Ares-V is far more complex and costly than developing the J-232, and that expanding that capability would be costlier yet.  The question is, can a J-class launcher be developed that has the same or more lifting capacity than the Ares-V, and still cost less and take less time to develop?  It's unclear to me which J-232 upgrade option would get to the same lifting capacity as the Ares-V, and do so in the least-expensive manner.  I realize that you all are not proposing that the J-232 replace the Ares-V, but rather that 2 J-232s replace Ares-I + Ares-V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/11/2007 11:23 pm
Quote
clongton - 11/7/2007  8:38 PM
Upper ranges of lift capability for the Jupiter family exceed 300mT to LEO. Additional variants are also possible that approach the 1,000mT mark. It is highly unlikely that we will ever need to lift such mass in a single flight, but the Jupiter CAN be configured to do it, while the Ares-V cannot. Such a configuration would be very expensive, but would be an order of magnatude less than the cost to develop a specific launch vehicle for the task.

But exceeding 300mT would not be difficult nor exceptionally expensive. The Jupiter launch vehicle family already has this lifter in the mix of potential upgrades.

300 mT is twice Ares V's payload - a big advantage for the third Jupiter size.

Ref 1,000 mT.  I can remember electronic engineers saying "No one will ever need 32k of memory".  Using it was easy - for instance the video card you are using to read this probably contains several million bytes of memory.

Some things we would like to launch on a single rocket:
a. A Mars village.
b. Heavy mining and refining equipment to a moon base.
c. 500 people to the moon, in the rocket equivalent of a jumbo jet.

Inventing big loads is not difficult although getting money to pay for them is a little harder.

Andrew Swallow
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 07/11/2007 11:45 pm
The computer industry is compleatly different from the launch vehicle industry. Our payloads aren't doubling in size every 18 months.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/12/2007 12:05 am
Quote
Marsman - 11/7/2007  5:45 PM

The computer industry is compleatly different from the launch vehicle industry. Our payloads aren't doubling in size every 18 months.

Nor halving.  ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 07/12/2007 12:45 am
Big dumb booster proponents have always said that if you build capability for it someone will want to us it...  But I think back to the recent Mars science missions.  These missions have not been sized to use Shuttle or EELV class capability, but old reliable Delta II.  It's resulted in more focused science missions, but in return the Mars science has been able to easily absorb the loss of two missions back-to-back.  If they were the old everything in one basket approach you be talking about lossing two to four times as much science due to one mission failure.  It's always better to spread out the risk (this isn't like hoping on your local American Airlines yet)...  Let alone the fact that one generalist always will give less science than three specialists.  And remember the Saturn V was planned to launch both Viking landers at once, and while more expensive to put them on seperate Titan launches it still got done.  And this doesn't begin to touch the budget minefield...  Once a spacecraft reaches a certain budget level the risk of it getting canceled by congress increases exponentially.  So smaller craft with focused primary missions ends up being the right way to go...  We've never had such a variety of science goign on at the same time (with smaller budgets).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/12/2007 01:54 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 11/7/2007  7:23 PM

Some things we would like to launch on a single rocket:
a. A Mars village.
b. Heavy mining and refining equipment to a moon base.
c. 500 people to the moon, in the rocket equivalent of a jumbo jet.


A. Why a village
b.  no reason to do it all at once,
c.  Never  on this vehicle or any derivatives.  By the time that many people are going into space,  RLV's will be up and running
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: EE Scott on 07/12/2007 03:18 pm
Quote
TrueGrit - 11/7/2007  8:45 PM

Big dumb booster proponents have always said that if you build capability for it someone will want to us it...  But I think back to the recent Mars science missions.  These missions have not been sized to use Shuttle or EELV class capability, but old reliable Delta II.  It's resulted in more focused science missions, but in return the Mars science has been able to easily absorb the loss of two missions back-to-back.  If they were the old everything in one basket approach you be talking about lossing two to four times as much science due to one mission failure.  It's always better to spread out the risk (this isn't like hoping on your local American Airlines yet)...  Let alone the fact that one generalist always will give less science than three specialists.  And remember the Saturn V was planned to launch both Viking landers at once, and while more expensive to put them on seperate Titan launches it still got done.  And this doesn't begin to touch the budget minefield...  Once a spacecraft reaches a certain budget level the risk of it getting canceled by congress increases exponentially.  So smaller craft with focused primary missions ends up being the right way to go...  We've never had such a variety of science goign on at the same time (with smaller budgets).

Interesting points.  Just a few comments.  Direct/Ares V are not big dumb boosters.  Those are a different breed of cat entirely.  Ares V is big, but not of the big dumb booster school of design.

The Delta II was/is a great booster, and I will miss it when it goes. So reliable, and I love the nine solid config, with three solids airstarted -- that is a unique profile.  However more capacity (from EELVs or Direct) allows for more and/or better science.  I will not miss the Delta II's limited lifting capacity, which has really dictated many unfortunate design constraints/compromises.

I must agree with your comment about the variety of space science going on right now.  It does feel like the pace of exploration missions has been rather brisk the past few years.  Unfortunately the VSE is about to cut off the flow of funding into robotic exploration missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 07/12/2007 03:47 pm
One reason I support HLLV for NASA is that the Russians have us beat hands down on price per kg to LEO in the EELV-sized market segment.

We can deploy HLLV and as of today, Russia cannot.

Now, IF Musk does deploy medium-heavy lift and sells it at Proton price levels THEN my support for doing a more modular architecture would increase. Doing a modular architecture (dry-launch and LEO assembly, etc. . .) at Proton and Soyuz pricing does make a whole lot of sense. At Delta IVH pricing? Not so much.

The other reason is political. Doing Jupiter rather than all EELV gives reasons for Congress-critters to stay the course for the benefit of their local economies. The GOP Senator from Florida has explained the importance of local jobs quite explicitly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 07/12/2007 04:33 pm
Is Direct going to keep up with Ares V change of injection orbit to 120nm circular? This saves the circularisation maneuvre.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 07/12/2007 04:38 pm
The 120 nmi circular is for moon flights where the EDS does not have to be discarded in the ocean, so Jupiter would also fly to a circular orbit for a moon flight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 07/12/2007 04:40 pm
How far is Russia, really, from an HLLV? I'm not talking about ressurecting Energiya. If they were to take a Zenit 2/3 core vehicle and add four Zenit 1 strap-ons, they'd have something like an S-1C stage without undertaking a really enormous development program. I realize it's not a simple as sticking the bits together, since there's no launch infrastructure, among many other things, but are they really any farther from an HLLV than we are?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/12/2007 04:41 pm
Quote
Bill White - 12/7/2007  11:47 AM
the Russians have us beat hands down on price per kg to LEO in the EELV-sized market segment.

.

So what?  It doesn't matter.  NASA doesn't/can't buy launches on the global market.  The price of Proton and Soyuz launches (or any other foreign launcher) does mean anything to NASA.   The more NASA use of EELV's, the better it is for the US gov't and the US overall by lowering the unit price of the EELV's.  

Also  NASA didn't care about the price per kg with the stick.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 07/12/2007 04:57 pm
One thing to mention about the price of a launch is the "extras" that the DoD and NASA place on top of a launch provider.  These multi-year launch service contracts that verify everything down to the lot material of the bolts is extremely expensive.  While EELVs are more expensive even when you pull out the government clear to launch reviews, that is because internally there is one single process for all launches.  There isn't a seperate "easy" processs for a commercial costumer and a "detailed" process for a government costumer...  Same way everytime needs to be followed for quality control reasons.   So commericial costumers flying on ULA get the same level of review that the DoD and NASA get, and there's a price premium.  My understnading SpaceX has not had to support this type of scrutiny in their process and there price points will climb dramaticaly once they encounter it.  And don't even mention DARPA because their small price points and experiemental nature allow them to run pretty much open loop.  When it's a NRO payload or a planetary probe the level intensity is beyond anything SpaceX has had to deal with.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/12/2007 05:15 pm
Quote
Jim - 12/7/2007  2:54 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 11/7/2007  7:23 PM

Some things we would like to launch on a single rocket:
a. A Mars village.
b. Heavy mining and refining equipment to a moon base.
c. 500 people to the moon, in the rocket equivalent of a jumbo jet.


A. Why a village

1. We are launch Mars villages because we are not yet ready to send entire towns.

2. As for launching each building separately NASA just does not have the infrastructure for it.  Heathrow Airport can launch an aircraft every 90 seconds but, as show by the Shuttles, Kennedy Space Centre has difficulty launching every 90 days.  At 2 launches a year a Mars village containing 10 building would take 10/2 = 5 years just to get to LEO.  After the long trip the buildings have to be made to land near the others without crashing, followed by the people.

Quote
b.  no reason to do it all at once,


Proper mining equipment is very heavy, for instance a typical dragline excavator weighs about 2000 metric tons.  At one launch every 6 months it will take 1000 mT payload rockets a year just to get it into space.  Split it up into 100 mT loads and it takes 10 years.  Then the big truck to take the soil away will need launching.  Followed by the factory to process the material.  These time scales are getting too long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragline_excavator

Quote
c.  Never  on this vehicle or any derivatives.  By the time that many people are going into space,  RLV's will be up and running

As for developing a family of even bigger transports to replace the Jupiters, that is long term job security.

Andrew Swallow
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/12/2007 07:10 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 12/7/2007  1:15 PM


1. We are launch Mars villages because we are not yet ready to send entire towns.

2. As for launching each building separately NASA just does not have the infrastructure for it.  Heathrow Airport can launch an aircraft every 90 seconds but, as show by the Shuttles, Kennedy Space Centre has difficulty launching every 90 days.  At 2 launches a year a Mars village containing 10 building would take 10/2 = 5 years just to get to LEO.  After the long trip the buildings have to be made to land near the others without crashing, followed by the people.

3.  Proper mining equipment is very heavy, for instance a typical dragline excavator weighs about 2000 metric tons.  At one launch every 6 months it will take 1000 mT payload rockets a year just to get it into space.  Split it up into 100 mT loads and it takes 10 years.  Then the big truck to take the soil away will need launching.  Followed by the factory to process the material.  These time scales are getting too long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragline_excavator

4.  As for developing a family of even bigger transports to replace the Jupiters, that is long term job security.


1.  There is no need for villages to go on a single rocket?  By the time, we are ready to colonize Mars, shelters will be built using Martian resources.  vs being built on earth
2.  Shuttle system  nor current launch infrastructure and launch rates has no bearing on progams launching in 2020-2030.    Shuttle will be gone and the others can be upgraded.  

3.  A lunar or Martian excavatiing equipment would have to be built as strong as ones for earth since the gravity is weaker.  Therefore they will be lighter.  

4.  They won't be bigger LVs, there will be more  LV's, flying more frequently and there for the need for RLV's


Your whole premise of two launches a year is wrong
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/12/2007 08:04 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 11/7/2007  5:28 PM

Okay, so the Ares-V does have upgrade options, including Kerosene boosters, and an upper stage.  No one (I hope) is disputing that developing the Ares-V is far more complex and costly than developing the J-232, and that expanding that capability would be costlier yet.  The question is, can a J-class launcher be developed that has the same or more lifting capacity than the Ares-V, and still cost less and take less time to develop?  It's unclear to me which J-232 upgrade option would get to the same lifting capacity as the Ares-V, and do so in the least-expensive manner.  I realize that you all are not proposing that the J-232 replace the Ares-V, but rather that 2 J-232s replace Ares-I + Ares-V.

Lee Jay,
Before I answer that particular question, let me ask what is the actual requirement for the Ares-V's lift performance?   It isn't required for a 2-launch 20mT Orion & 45mT LSAM mission profile because the "smaller" CLV in the Jupiter arrangement can take some of the payload, so the CaLV doesn't have to to get the same payload to the moon.

Ares-V is required to lift 130+mT only because the Ares-I can only lift about 20mT of the total payload needed.   If the CLV is capable of lifting another 20 or 40 tons, then the CaLV's doesn't *have* to lift that - which means CaLV performance can be as low as 90 or 110mT and still perform the same 2-launch missions.

Ares-V isn't even required for a 6-launch >500mT Mars mission profile either, because the J-232 achieves NASA's minimum LOC requirement of 1:1000, while Ares-V can not, so Ares-V still requires one extra CLV flight, where the crew can fly with cargo on a J-232.   Ultimately a Mars mission requires the same final number of flights whether using Ares or Jupiter LV's.

The only place where J-232 can't match Ares-V is for 1-launch cargo-only LSAM flights.   Even there, the J-232 can do about 80% of the same performance, so isn't a long way off.


What I'm trying to get at is that the *requirements* don't seem to require an LV with 130+mT performance.   Before answering the question I want to make sure that this question is purely for hypothetical curiosity and isn't actually a critical keystone of what the VSE is actually trying to do.


So, with that in mind, to answer your question, my recommendation for upgrading the Jupiter-120/232 into a booster comparable to Ares-V, I would opt to build Liquid Boosters, powered by a couple of RD-180's, or new RS-84's or all-new engine equivalent to the F-1A (my preference).

Without changing the Core or Upper Stage significantly, these would add about 20% additional performance.   Basically make the 2nd booster from the bottom left in that diagram.   Performance would be around 130mT to LEO.

If you are forced to keep SRB's for some reason (say to keep political allies) then the upgrade to 5-segment boosters with a stretched Core (vehicle #8 from the left on the top row of the diagram) can also do similar without damaging LOC/LOM numbers by very much at all.

You *could* upgrade to more Core engines at the same time and gain a bit more performance, but that gets a lot more costly, and more engines means lower safety, so I'm not hugely in favour of this without a real need.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/12/2007 08:17 pm
Quote
EE Scott - 12/7/2007  11:18 AM

I must agree with your comment about the variety of space science going on right now.  It does feel like the pace of exploration missions has been rather brisk the past few years.  Unfortunately the VSE is about to cut off the flow of funding into robotic exploration missions.

Forgive me, but I have a slight problem with the statement above.

The "flow of funding" is not being dictated specifically by the "VSE".   It is the huge costs of developing Ares-I's new hardware which is killing NASA's budget in all other departments.

If the costs of developing a brand-new J-2X, brand-new 5-segment solid boosters, an all-new Upper Stage and the large variety of infrastructure changes it requires can be reduced then the "VSE" can still be accomplished, but without damaging any of the other NASA directorates.

Bottom line: The VSE itself is wonderful for the US space program, but NASA desperately needs to stop developing all-new hardware, and instead must concentrate on using what it already has to keep the costs (and schedule) down without re-inventing the wheel.

The problem is the Ares-I, not the VSE.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/12/2007 08:24 pm
The reason for asking was the branch of this thread regarding building Ares V because it could out-perform Saturn V.  I don't think any actual needs were applied to it, just the idea that someone, somewhere may want to beat the Saturn V for emotional or bragging rights reasons.  I'm not supporting that idea, I want heavy lift because its useful, not because it makes me feel cool or something.  And lets not forget that J-232 out-performs the STS by a factor of roughly 5 with regards to heavy lift of cargo.

That said, STS has lasted nearly 30 years, and did go through several small upgrades to its performance.  Yet it's still very much performance limited.  So the question is still valid speaking hypothetically about what may come about during a long operational period - thanks for your answers.

It seems to me like the likely upgrades to an operational J-232 as currently envisioned include an optimization of the tank (if that would help), regenerative engines, and improved upper-stage engines.  These would be minor upgrades, and your next level of more significant upgrades seem reasonable, though I don't know about what ATK would think.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/12/2007 08:28 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 12/7/2007  4:24 PM

It seems to me like the likely upgrades to an operational J-232 as currently envisioned include an optimization of the tank (if that would help), regenerative engines, and improved upper-stage engines.  These would be minor upgrades, and your next level of more significant upgrades seem reasonable, though I don't know about what ATK would think.
You could also potentially add common bulkhead for the ET and LoxKero boosters, both of which would have a noticable impact on performance.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/12/2007 08:29 pm
Quote
JIS - 12/7/2007  12:33 PM

Is Direct going to keep up with Ares V change of injection orbit to 120nm circular? This saves the circularisation maneuvre.

It is one of the many analysis we have run.   It's not actually a bad one because it reduces the complexity slightly by deleting the requirement for a circularization burn.

However, the best payload performance still comes from inserting into an elliptical orbit and then circularizing, and given that the J-2X must be designed to re-start anyway for the TLI, the requirement doesn't change the spec of the engine at all.   Only a few residuals are needed for the extra purge, chill-down and start cycles.

On J-232, launching into a 30x120nm initial orbit increases payload performance by about 2mT compared to inserting directly into 120x120nm.   Also, the circular insertion method requires additional motors on the Core to de-orbit it later - which further reduces the payload performance.

The elliptical orbit insertion method has already proven very effectively on every Shuttle flight since 1981, so isn't exactly "out" of our current experience base for manned and unmanned operations.

Either works, but for now we are going to stick with the elliptical insertion orbit approach first as our baseline.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/12/2007 08:37 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 12/7/2007  4:24 PM

It seems to me like the likely upgrades to an operational J-232 as currently envisioned include an optimization of the tank (if that would help), regenerative engines, and improved upper-stage engines.  These would be minor upgrades, and your next level of more significant upgrades seem reasonable, though I don't know about what ATK would think.

Agreed.   There is about 10-12mT worth of additional performance to be had through the changes you mention.   Upgrading to 5-segment SRB's would add about another 10-15mT, even without any extension to the Core stage (using a similar approach to the original 5-segments to be used on STS, but which never happened).

That is an upgrade path for Jupiter-232 which gets us pretty close to Ares-V performance without any *major* changes at all.

We seem to have hit a real sweet-spot, in performance terms, by choosing to use the External Tank size with 3 x RS-68's.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/12/2007 08:48 pm
Quote
clongton - 12/7/2007  4:28 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 12/7/2007  4:24 PM

It seems to me like the likely upgrades to an operational J-232 as currently envisioned include an optimization of the tank (if that would help), regenerative engines, and improved upper-stage engines.  These would be minor upgrades, and your next level of more significant upgrades seem reasonable, though I don't know about what ATK would think.
You could also potentially add common bulkhead for the ET and LoxKero boosters, both of which would have a noticable impact on performance.

Before anyone else gets there - yes - a common bulkhead for the ET would be a real job.   In particular, integrating the big, heavy cross-brace structure for the fwd SRB attachments into a common bulkhead would certainly be a job and a half.   We are under no illusions regarding the complexity of such an upgrade.   While a very big change, it could still be done.

Perhaps a better method of overcoming this issue would be to make the common bulkhead, and thereby shorten the stage.   Then stretch the SRB's (to 5-segment variants perhaps) and move the Fwd attachment to somewhere around the Fwd section of the stage instead of in the intertank area.   It might prove simpler than integrating the attachment into a common bulkhead.

But this is all hypothetical, and is not being seriously considered by our team at this time.   We are concentrating on turning STS hardware into a Heavy Lift solution suitable for all current VSE goals at the lowest possible cost.   This particular issue is well outside of that perspective.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/13/2007 01:09 am
I have to say NASA really has gotten itself into a pickle with Ares I. If they keep with the 5 seg, they will have to keep stripping Orion down (just to get the thing into space). If they go back to a 4 seg, all of the problems with Ares I are fixed, but then they lose commonality with Ares V, ballgame over...goodbye Moon.
It is time to throw politics aside, and for NASA to realize that DIRECT is not a "My Rocket Vs. Your Rocket" issue, it is a valid argument for a VSE that will actually leave the drawing board, instead of the doomed architecture we have now.
DIRECT Version 1 had its flaws, but V2 is even stronger and better than the first. Let's just hope the right people are reading and listening.
Someone is going to take over for Horowitz soon...let's hope he gets a copy of the DIRECT proposal, to remind him that Ares I & 5 are not the only act in town. Then again, that is not for me to do, that is up to the DIRECT Team.
With their permission, we could start writing our Congressmen, and start turning up the heat on this issue. HQ is playing Dirty with the "Safe Simple Soon" site, maybe DIRECT should go where the money is handed out, and make congress aware that their funding towards NASA is being wasted needlessly. Tell them to stop the waste and force an architecture like DIRECT that will get things done sooner and for a lot less.
I think DIRECT is something that Congress will approve of. They don't like to hand out cash and see it wasted. DIRECT can provide a return on their investment sooner and for a lot less than Ares I and Ares V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 07/13/2007 01:33 am
Just when and where is this AIAA event in September?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/13/2007 01:42 am
Quote
Scotty - 12/7/2007  9:33 PM

Just when and where is this AIAA event in September?
http://www.aiaa.org/space2007/
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 07/13/2007 09:47 am
Quote
kraisee - 12/7/2007  9:29 PM

Quote
JIS - 12/7/2007  12:33 PM

Is Direct going to keep up with Ares V change of injection orbit to 120nm circular? This saves the circularisation maneuvre.

It is one of the many analysis we have run.   It's not actually a bad one because it reduces the complexity slightly by deleting the requirement for a circularization burn.

However, the best payload performance still comes from inserting into an elliptical orbit and then circularizing, and given that the J-2X must be designed to re-start anyway for the TLI, the requirement doesn't change the spec of the engine at all.   Only a few residuals are needed for the extra purge, chill-down and start cycles.

It depends on the way how the J-2 is started (extra solid props gas dgenerator + extra ullage motors or RCS fire). Circularisation burn (for Ares V EDS) takes about 3mT of propellants and 10s burn of J-2X. Alternativelly, some sort of RCS can be used.

Quote
On J-232, launching into a 30x120nm initial orbit increases payload performance by about 2mT compared to inserting directly into 120x120nm.   Also, the circular insertion method requires additional motors on the Core to de-orbit it later - which further reduces the payload performance.

Even Jupiter core doesn't go to circular orbit.

Quote
The elliptical orbit insertion method has already proven very effectively on every Shuttle flight since 1981, so isn't exactly "out" of our current experience base for manned and unmanned operations.

Shuttle has OMS which are not available at EDS. EDS would have to use it's RCS or J-2X. Both are samewhat unsuitable for that work, so I think that insertion to the circular orbit is the right approach.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/13/2007 11:59 am
Quote
JIS - 13/7/2007  5:47 AM

{snip} so I think that insertion to the circular orbit is the right approach.
Jiri, pick up one of the simulators out there and run the trajectories. Direct circular orbit insertion is NOT the right approach.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/13/2007 12:23 pm
Quote
JIS - 13/7/2007  5:47 AM


It depends on the way how the J-2 is started (extra solid props gas dgenerator + extra ullage motors or RCS fire). Circularisation burn (for Ares V EDS) takes about 3mT of propellants and 10s burn of J-2X. Alternativelly, some sort of RCS can be used.
.

Shuttle has OMS which are not available at EDS. EDS would have to use it's RCS or J-2X. Both are samewhat unsuitable for that work, so I think that insertion to the circular orbit is the right approach.

That is exactly what the J-2 is for.  The J-2 uses is own propellants to start the gas generator.  There are no extra ullage rockets, that is what the RCS is for.   This is the same as the S-IVB
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 07/13/2007 01:35 pm
Quote
Jim - 13/7/2007  1:23 PM

Quote
JIS - 13/7/2007  5:47 AM


It depends on the way how the J-2 is started (extra solid props gas dgenerator + extra ullage motors or RCS fire). Circularisation burn (for Ares V EDS) takes about 3mT of propellants and 10s burn of J-2X. Alternativelly, some sort of RCS can be used.
.

Shuttle has OMS which are not available at EDS. EDS would have to use it's RCS or J-2X. Both are samewhat unsuitable for that work, so I think that insertion to the circular orbit is the right approach.

That is exactly what the J-2 is for.  The J-2 uses is own propellants to start the gas generator.  There are no extra ullage rockets, that is what the RCS is for.   This is the same as the S-IVB

Are you sure that J-2 doesn't use solid prop gas generator?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/13/2007 01:36 pm
Quote
JIS - 13/7/2007  9:35 AM

Quote
Jim - 13/7/2007  1:23 PM

Quote
JIS - 13/7/2007  5:47 AM


It depends on the way how the J-2 is started (extra solid props gas dgenerator + extra ullage motors or RCS fire). Circularisation burn (for Ares V EDS) takes about 3mT of propellants and 10s burn of J-2X. Alternativelly, some sort of RCS can be used.
.

Shuttle has OMS which are not available at EDS. EDS would have to use it's RCS or J-2X. Both are samewhat unsuitable for that work, so I think that insertion to the circular orbit is the right approach.

That is exactly what the J-2 is for.  The J-2 uses is own propellants to start the gas generator.  There are no extra ullage rockets, that is what the RCS is for.   This is the same as the S-IVB

Are you sure that J-2 doesn't use solid prop gas generator?

Not the restartable one.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 07/13/2007 03:20 pm
Quote
kraisee - 12/7/2007  3:48 PM

Quote
clongton - 12/7/2007  4:28 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 12/7/2007  4:24 PM

It seems to me like the likely upgrades to an operational J-232 as currently envisioned include an optimization of the tank (if that would help), regenerative engines, and improved upper-stage engines.  These would be minor upgrades, and your next level of more significant upgrades seem reasonable, though I don't know about what ATK would think.
You could also potentially add common bulkhead for the ET and LoxKero boosters, both of which would have a noticable impact on performance.

Before anyone else gets there - yes - a common bulkhead for the ET would be a real job.   In particular, integrating the big, heavy cross-brace structure for the fwd SRB attachments into a common bulkhead would certainly be a job and a half.   We are under no illusions regarding the complexity of such an upgrade.   While a very big change, it could still be done.

Perhaps a better method of overcoming this issue would be to make the common bulkhead, and thereby shorten the stage.   Then stretch the SRB's (to 5-segment variants perhaps) and move the Fwd attachment to somewhere around the Fwd section of the stage instead of in the intertank area.   It might prove simpler than integrating the attachment into a common bulkhead.

But this is all hypothetical, and is not being seriously considered by our team at this time.   We are concentrating on turning STS hardware into a Heavy Lift solution suitable for all current VSE goals at the lowest possible cost.   This particular issue is well outside of that perspective.

Ross.

Has anybody ever consider having 2 LH2 tanks in the ET? A large one below the fwd SRBs attachment beam and a smaller one above it. This upper LH2 tank could then have a common bulkhead with the LO2 tank above it.  This would be a way to add significant quantity of propellant (and possibly more engines) to the ET while keeping it compatible to the 4 segments SRBs.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/13/2007 04:11 pm
Quote
PaulL - 13/7/2007  11:20 AM

Has anybody ever consider having 2 LH2 tanks in the ET? A large one below the fwd SRBs attachment beam and a smaller one above it. This upper LH2 tank could then have a common bulkhead with the LO2 tank above it.  This would be a way to add significant quantity of propellant (and possibly more engines) to the ET while keeping it compatible to the 4 segments SRBs.

PaulL

Extra mass and complexity probably negates any savings.  

2 feed pipes
2 vents
2 fill and drain valves
2 propellant utilization systems
CG considerations
Additional bulkhead
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/13/2007 04:18 pm
The original Apollo S-IVB used either two or three Thiokol TX-280 solid motors to settle the propellant during ascent.

However also during ascent, it was found that both the S-II engines could be safely started within a few seconds of the separation events without problem, because the few seconds of free-fall between stages did not allow sufficient time for the propellant in the feedlines to go anywhere significant.   The ullage motors were gradually deleted from the interstages as the program proceeded, and the last Saturn-V's flew without any being used during the ascent phase.

We believe that the EDS for Jupiter would be closer to S-II in this regard.

For TLI, the propellant was settled in the S-IVB by bleeding off some of the boiloff cryo propellant gasses and feeding them out of nozzles on the aft of the stage.   This produced sufficient low level thrust to settle the propellant in the tanks & feedlines so the J-2 could be safely re-started.

The J-2S was being designed with an active "Idle Mode" system, which would have used a small quantity of cryo propellant to generate a small acceleration force through the engine itself.   This would settle the propellant that way instead.   While J-2S did complete testing, it never actually flew so there is no flight experience with the Idle Mode.

BTW, I am hearing that the Idle Mode may have been deleted from the J-2X specification in order to save weight on Ares-I.  But that remains to be confirmed.   It may only affect the J-2XD spec being planned for Ares-I, and be planned to be re-included in the full J-2X spec for the Ares-V.   Either way, I think it's a good system to have for Jupiter.


For J-232, our nominal plan is to use the EDS RCS system to settle the propellants for TLI.   We we believe it would also be smart to fire the RCS through the separation event also.   While we are reasonably sure we can do without the RCS during ascent separation, it would take real flight data to prove that we are okay.   In the absence of that, I would certainly prefer to err on the side of caution.

A good redundant backup system would be to route the boiloff gas system just like S-IVB did.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/13/2007 04:24 pm
Quote
Jim - 13/7/2007  9:36 AM

Quote
JIS - 13/7/2007  9:35 AM

Quote
Jim - 13/7/2007  1:23 PM

Quote
JIS - 13/7/2007  5:47 AM


It depends on the way how the J-2 is started (extra solid props gas dgenerator + extra ullage motors or RCS fire). Circularisation burn (for Ares V EDS) takes about 3mT of propellants and 10s burn of J-2X. Alternativelly, some sort of RCS can be used.
.

Shuttle has OMS which are not available at EDS. EDS would have to use it's RCS or J-2X. Both are samewhat unsuitable for that work, so I think that insertion to the circular orbit is the right approach.

That is exactly what the J-2 is for.  The J-2 uses is own propellants to start the gas generator.  There are no extra ullage rockets, that is what the RCS is for.   This is the same as the S-IVB

Are you sure that J-2 doesn't use solid prop gas generator?

Not the restartable one.

Jim, when did the spec change?   I thought solid gas generator starter motors inside the J-2X were still baselined as recently as March.

What system are they switching to in order to get the engine started for TLI?

This might explain the technical reason why they are considering dropping the circularisation burn.   If this is a significant change it may limit them to restart the engine only once.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/13/2007 04:28 pm
Quote
PaulL - 13/7/2007  11:20 AM

Has anybody ever consider having 2 LH2 tanks in the ET? A large one below the fwd SRBs attachment beam and a smaller one above it. This upper LH2 tank could then have a common bulkhead with the LO2 tank above it.  This would be a way to add significant quantity of propellant (and possibly more engines) to the ET while keeping it compatible to the 4 segments SRBs.

PaulL

Adding what would amount to a third tank would add a lot of weight penalties, and add quite a bit of complexity too (such as feedlines, venting systems and pressurization lines from upper tank to lower one).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/13/2007 04:32 pm
Quote
kraisee - 13/7/2007  12:24 PM

Jim, when did the spec change?   I thought solid gas generator starter motors inside the J-2X were still baselined as recently as March.

What system are they switching to in order to get the engine started for TLI?

This might explain the technical reason why they are considering dropping the circularisation burn.   If this is a significant change it may limit them to restart the engine only once.

Ross.

Let me go back and look.  I though the EDS J-2 was more like the S-IVB J-2
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/13/2007 04:34 pm
Quote
kraisee - 13/7/2007  12:18 PM

For TLI, the propellant was settled in the S-IVB by bleeding off some of the boiloff cryo propellant gasses and feeding them out of nozzles on the aft of the stage.   This produced sufficient low level thrust to settle the propellant in the tanks & feedlines so the J-2 could be safely re-started.

.

The S-IVB ACS was used for settling.  The Saturn V version had aft thrusters
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 07/13/2007 05:18 pm
Quote
Jim - 13/7/2007  11:11 AM

Quote
PaulL - 13/7/2007  11:20 AM

Has anybody ever consider having 2 LH2 tanks in the ET? A large one below the fwd SRBs attachment beam and a smaller one above it. This upper LH2 tank could then have a common bulkhead with the LO2 tank above it.  This would be a way to add significant quantity of propellant (and possibly more engines) to the ET while keeping it compatible to the 4 segments SRBs.

PaulL

Extra mass and complexity probably negates any savings.  

2 feed pipes
2 vents
2 fill and drain valves
2 propellant utilization systems
CG considerations
Additional bulkhead

Would it be possible to have the upper LH2 tank drain directly through the top of the lower LH2 tank? This would allow all LH2 fueling and gas venting to be done from the upper tank and all engines feed from the lower tank.
 
I realize that such a two LH2 tanks ET would be more complex that a standard one LH2 tank ET, but I think it could make a great Jupiter-252 rocket with a LEO payload capability probably at par with Ares V.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: publiusr on 07/13/2007 07:29 pm
Quote
Bill White - 12/7/2007  10:47 AM


The other reason is political. Doing Jupiter rather than all EELV gives reasons for Congress-critters to stay the course for the benefit of their local economies. The GOP Senator from Florida has explained the importance of local jobs quite explicitly.

Agreed. Also, Ares V/Direct/Jupiter cuts down on the number of engines, pad delays, etc--but really gets humanity in a position to move into space for real. Delta II missions do nothing about goetting our eggs off this one basket.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/13/2007 08:06 pm
Quote
PaulL - 13/7/2007  1:18 PM

Quote
Jim - 13/7/2007  11:11 AM

Quote
PaulL - 13/7/2007  11:20 AM

Has anybody ever consider having 2 LH2 tanks in the ET? A large one below the fwd SRBs attachment beam and a smaller one above it. This upper LH2 tank could then have a common bulkhead with the LO2 tank above it.  This would be a way to add significant quantity of propellant (and possibly more engines) to the ET while keeping it compatible to the 4 segments SRBs.

PaulL

Extra mass and complexity probably negates any savings.  

2 feed pipes
2 vents
2 fill and drain valves
2 propellant utilization systems
CG considerations
Additional bulkhead

Would it be possible to have the upper LH2 tank drain directly through the top of the lower LH2 tank? This would allow all LH2 fueling and gas venting to be done from the upper tank and all engines feed from the lower tank.
 
I realize that such a two LH2 tanks ET would be more complex that a standard one LH2 tank ET, but I think it could make a great Jupiter-252 rocket with a LEO payload capability probably at par with Ares V.

PaulL

You still have the weight of the plumbing going through the LOX tank that now has to be insulated to prevent slushing of the LOX.  

Remember LOX is much denser than LH shifting your CG back even further. The shuttle has the LOX tank on top of the ET for a reason, a CG reason. Wasn't one of the complaints about ARES-I that the CG was to far aft?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 07/13/2007 08:35 pm
Ross,
Quote
For TLI, the propellant was settled in the S-IVB by bleeding off some of the boiloff cryo propellant gasses and feeding them out of nozzles on the aft of the stage.   This produced sufficient low level thrust to settle the propellant in the tanks & feedlines so the J-2 could be safely re-started.

..snip..

A good redundant backup system would be to route the boiloff gas system just like S-IVB did.

As I understand it, this is how Centaur settles is propellants before relighting the engine.  They've only done this what 200 some odd times?  :-)

Of course, the ability to settle propellants has more interesting uses than just relighting engines...

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 07/13/2007 08:45 pm
Publiusr,
Quote
Agreed. Also, Ares V/Direct/Jupiter cuts down on the number of engines, pad delays, etc--but really gets humanity in a position to move into space for real.

I couldn't disagree with you more.  While big expendable HLVs may be a semi-reasonable way to pursue a low flight-rate minimalist lunar exploration program, it's no way to move any sizeable part of humanity into space.  While flying some people to the moon is better than the status quo, sticking with an architecture that's forever going to be too expensive for anyone but a few government employees to use is not my idea of "getting humanity in a position to move into space for real".

Now, EELV-based architectures themselves don't get us much closer to the goal of becoming a truly spacefaring civilization (as opposed to an occasionally space visiting one).  However, the implications of an EELV-based architecture does, especially if it's based around dry-launch plus orbital propellant transfer.  An EELV based dry-launch architecture opens the door for future RLV systems to fly the people, light cargo, and propellants to orbit.  It makes a modular enough system that reusing the landers and transfer vehicles becomes an option.  These are the kinds of things that have to happen before we have anything much more than a round-off-error manned space program.

And HLVs of any flavor do very little for any of that.   The main good thing about DIRECT over Ares V is that because it doesn't suck *all* the air out of the room, it leaves some money for funding work on some of these medium-risk, high-reward programs.  I'm not so much a fan of DIRECT because I have some sort of SDV/HLV fetish, but because it actually leaves the door open for more sensible approaches in the future.

Quote
Delta II missions do nothing about goetting our eggs off this one basket.

What does Delta II have to do with anything?

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 07/13/2007 10:13 pm
Quote
jongoff - 13/7/2007  1:45 PM

I couldn't disagree with you more.  While big expendable HLVs may be a semi-reasonable way to pursue a low flight-rate minimalist lunar exploration program, it's no way to move any sizeable part of humanity into space.  While flying some people to the moon is better than the status quo, sticking with an architecture that's forever going to be too expensive for anyone but a few government employees to use is not my idea of "getting humanity in a position to move into space for real".
~Jon
Looking at what NASA has[n't] accomplished since the departure of von Braun, my opinion is that NASA never will make mankind into a spacefaring race.  I would love to be proven wrong, but that is what I have seen.

Take the Shuttle for example.  In any reasonable private-enterprise invironment, after about the thrid Shuttle flight they would have been working on the Mark II version, which would have included the lessons learned in the first three flights of what was a first-attempt engineering prototype.  Instead, we've spent a quarter century flying the prototypes.

They knew after STS-001 that stuff was coming off the ET and damaging the Orbiter's TPS.  In a quarter century, they've never fixed the problem.

It is well-understood that government bureaucracies are incompetent.  Note all the DMV and Post Office jokes on late-night TV.


If people are seriously expecting much from NASA, they are going to be disappointed.  Wernher von Braun is gone, and I've not seen anyone remotely close to his equal who has risen to drive the program through his combination of vision and sheer power of will.

Any serious progress into space is going to have to come from the private sector.  And that isn't going to come until there is some economic reason for large-scale operations in space.

At this point, my imagination fails me as to what the might be.  Even finding diamonds the size of your fist laying around on the surface of the moon probably isn't profitable enough to pay for the expense of getting there.  There is currently the start of a space turism market.  There aren't many folks around who are able to pay $100M to loop around the moon.  Perhaps costs can be improved enough that prices can drop to tap a lower tier in the market.  So far, we haven't seen it.

I really do want to see us become a spacefaring people.  Having watched NASA go through Hubble/Challenger/Columbia/ARES I/Horowitz/Griffen, I really don't have any rational reason to hope that this end will be acheived by NASA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 07/13/2007 10:19 pm
Quote
jongoff - 13/7/2007  1:45 PM

The main good thing about DIRECT over Ares V is that because it doesn't suck *all* the air out of the room, it leaves some money for funding work on some of these medium-risk, high-reward programs.  I'm not so much a fan of DIRECT because I have some sort of SDV/HLV fetish, but because it actually leaves the door open for more sensible approaches in the future.

Agreed.  In spades.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Thorny on 07/13/2007 10:45 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 13/7/2007  5:13 PM
It is well-understood that government bureaucracies are incompetent.  Note all the DMV and Post Office jokes on late-night TV.

That isn't "well-understood" at all. Late-night comedians go for laughs, not accuracy. The DMV and Post Office are omnipresent in American society, that makes them easy targets for laughs everyone will understand (which also explains all the McDonalds, WalMart and Taco Bell jokes by Leno & Co.) The comedians make jokes about standing in line at the DMV for hours. The last time I renewed my license, I waited about 15 minutes. The comedians make jokes about letters showing up in the mail 12 years later, because it happens to the one out of every gazilion parcels sent through the US Mail, but has this happened to anyone you know? They joke that some guy who attacks his boss has "gone postal" because, sometime 20 years ago, a mailman did the same. (Does anyone even remember when/where the incidents that led to "going postal" originated? I thought not.)

Yes, there are incompetent folks in the US government. The same as there are in the private sector (New Coke, anyone? Anyone want to fly Eastern Airlines or Pan Am? Looking for Microsoft Bob 2007? How about the publisher who tried to print "If I Did It?" surely not a shining example of competence there...)


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pippin on 07/13/2007 10:50 pm
Problem with government institutions is they have no competition and are funded by, well, the government. Which means they tend to stick around. In contrast to Pan Am or Microsoft Bob.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 07/13/2007 10:51 pm
Quote
Thorny - 13/7/2007  3:45 PM

Quote
SolarPowered - 13/7/2007  5:13 PM
It is well-understood that government bureaucracies are incompetent.  Note all the DMV and Post Office jokes on late-night TV.

That isn't "well-understood" at all.
...

(...How about the publisher who tried to print "If I Did It?" surely not a shining example of competence there...)
Go ahead, stick your head in the sand and ignore the obvious if you want to.  It's a free country.

In the meantime, you provided a perfect example to illustrate the point.  What happened the to publisher who tried to print If I Did It?  She was fired.  That's what happens in competent organizations.  If she were in government, it would not have been atypical for her to have been promoted to head up NPR.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 07/13/2007 11:41 pm
Back to rocket science...  There's no reason to split the LH2 tank just to have a SRB attach point.  Delta has been putting the forward attach point for the solid boosters mid-tank for what?  43 yrs (Delta D first flight in 1964)...  You just plan to have to put in a strengthening ring and bracing.  Remember the KISS principle.  Rocket science is difficult enough without playing trick games.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2007 02:46 am
Quote
TrueGrit - 13/7/2007  7:41 PM

Back to rocket science...  There's no reason to split the LH2 tank just to have a SRB attach point.  Delta has been putting the forward attach point for the solid boosters mid-tank for what?  43 yrs (Delta D first flight in 1964)...  You just plan to have to put in a strengthening ring and bracing.  Remember the KISS principle.  Rocket science is difficult enough without playing trick games.

Incorrect.  totally different load paths and designs.  The Delta SRM forward attachment  is a sway brace.  The Delta SRM's  lift from the aft attachment.  The  shuttle SRB's lift from the forward attachment and the aft is a sway brace.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2007 02:47 am
Quote
SolarPowered - 13/7/2007  6:13 PM

Take the Shuttle for example.  In any reasonable private-enterprise invironment, after about the thrid Shuttle flight they would have been working on the Mark II version, which would have included the lessons learned in the first three flights of what was a first-attempt engineering prototype.  Instead, we've spent a quarter century flying the prototypes.

Wrong.  they wouldn't have have the money either to make the changes
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2007 02:51 am
Quote
SolarPowered - 13/7/2007  6:51 PM

Quote
Thorny - 13/7/2007  3:45 PM

Quote
SolarPowered - 13/7/2007  5:13 PM
It is well-understood that government bureaucracies are incompetent.  Note all the DMV and Post Office jokes on late-night TV.

That isn't "well-understood" at all.
...

(...How about the publisher who tried to print "If I Did It?" surely not a shining example of competence there...)
Go ahead, stick your head in the sand and ignore the obvious if you want to.  It's a free country.

.

I guess yours is there too.


MER, HST repair,  MRO, Voyager, Viking, Cassini, EOS, pathfinder.

The same issues exist every where:  Big Dig, Edsel,  etc.

" spacefaring people" was never NASA's job.  That is the private sector.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Thorny on 07/14/2007 03:01 am
Quote
SolarPowered - 13/7/2007  5:51 PM

Go ahead, stick your head in the sand and ignore the obvious if you want to.  It's a free country.

In the meantime, you provided a perfect example to illustrate the point.  What happened the to publisher who tried to print If I Did It?  She was fired.  That's what happens in competent organizations.  If she were in government, it would not have been atypical for her to have been promoted to head up NPR.

I can't help but notice that you failed to justify, at all, your assertion that the DMV and the Post Office are incompetent. You paint with broad strokes and then tell others they have their head in the sand. Astounding.

Worse, you claim "If I Did It" as supporting evidence for your assertion. It is nothing of the sort. The prospective publisher of "If I Did It" (Harper-Collins) is still in business, going strong. The manager who okayed the deal is gone. This is different from Doc Horowicz being shown the door (oh sure, he left to "spend time with the family", yeah, right) how exactly?

There is a lot of incompetence in goverment, that much is certain. But there is almost as much in private industry. "The Peter Principle" didn't originate with government personnel, remember. If one of us has his head in the sand, it isn't me.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/14/2007 03:31 am
Quote
Jim - 12/7/2007  8:10 PM

Your whole premise of two launches a year is wrong

Then examine it the other way.
The Mars trips are talking about using 6 off J-232 (or Ares-V) launches for every trip.  To get the parts in LEO within half a year a new rocket will have to be manufactured and launch every month.  That will require major changes to the way NASA works.

If moon base is being sent heavy equipment the time between launches drops to two weeks.  By not staying Apollo may have got away with large gaps between the trips but a Moon Base and Mars Base are the equivalent of supporting two International Space Stations.  The second Moon Base may be built using local resources but the first will get most things from Earth.

The Moon and Mars may have weaker gravity but land vehicles are designed for horizontal acceleration, which is the same, so they will only be a little lighter.

If a load is split over 6 (or 10) launches then the LOM drops dramatically because there is now 6 times as much hardware to fail plus 5 rendezvous.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/14/2007 03:34 am
Quote
Jim - 14/7/2007  3:47 AM

Quote
SolarPowered - 13/7/2007  6:13 PM

Take the Shuttle for example.  In any reasonable private-enterprise invironment, after about the thrid Shuttle flight they would have been working on the Mark II version, which would have included the lessons learned in the first three flights of what was a first-attempt engineering prototype.  Instead, we've spent a quarter century flying the prototypes.

Wrong.  they wouldn't have have the money either to make the changes

True.  For instance the Model T Ford was made by a private sector company.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2007 03:40 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/7/2007  11:31 PM

Then examine it the other way.
The Mars trips are talking about using 6 off J-232 (or Ares-V) launches for every trip.  To get the parts in LEO within half a year a new rocket will have to be manufactured and launch every month.  That will require major changes to the way NASA works.


No, there aren't any changes required.  The facilities have the capacity for more than 12 flights a years.  

Shuttle is not the proper analogy.  Delta is
The orbiter is the limiting factor for the shuttle
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2007 03:45 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/7/2007  11:31 PM

If moon base is being sent heavy equipment the time between launches drops to two weeks.  By not staying Apollo may have got away with large gaps between the trips but a Moon Base and Mars Base are the equivalent of supporting two International Space Stations.  The second Moon Base may be built using local resources but the first will get most things from Earth.


By the time we need to fly that many times a years, it won't be big rockets doing the work.  It will be RLV's to LEO with orbital tugs go to and from the moon and Mars.  

Multiple bases aren't going to be supported by direct launches from earth
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/14/2007 03:56 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/7/2007  11:31 PM

Quote
Jim - 12/7/2007  8:10 PM

Your whole premise of two launches a year is wrong

Then examine it the other way.
The Mars trips are talking about using 6 off J-232 (or Ares-V) launches for every trip.  To get the parts in LEO within half a year a new rocket will have to be manufactured and launch every month.  That will require major changes to the way NASA works.

This is an area where NASA's current plans are actually pretty good.   They are aiming for a 10 day turnaround at the Pad, and a highly expedited checkout and stacking concept inside the VAB - and it looks to me as though they might actually achieve these goals.

These targets are equally applicable to Jupiter as they are to Ares launchers, so I'm more than happy to apply the work being done currently to our plans too.

With a ten day turnaround per Pad, two Pads, and up to four High Bays processing launch vehicles, I can see full Mars missions being realistically being launched in a two month period.   That's pretty good for 500 tons of payload.


Now, my personal preference would be to utilise a reusable MTV and save having to launch that every time you go to Mars.   At that point, a refueling depot in Earth Orbit would be a more logical solution, and that can be fed by either NASA-owned assets or competitively priced commercial assets - if available.   This could potentially open up a tremendous new market for the alt.space firms whenever their systems are able to prove themselves.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 07/14/2007 03:57 am
Quote
Jim - 13/7/2007  8:45 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/7/2007  11:31 PM

If moon base is being sent heavy equipment the time between launches drops to two weeks.  By not staying Apollo may have got away with large gaps between the trips but a Moon Base and Mars Base are the equivalent of supporting two International Space Stations.  The second Moon Base may be built using local resources but the first will get most things from Earth.


By the time we need to fly that many times a years, it won't be big rockets doing the work.  It will be RLV's to LEO with orbital tugs go to and from the moon and Mars.  

Multiple bases aren't going to be supported by direct launches from earth

Sorry I got things off-topic back there, but what Jim's saying here was what I was trying to imply.  The only realistic way to support large amounts of people off-planet involves RLVs and orbital operations, not big herkin HLVs.  While HLVs *might* in some cases make it easier to say return to the moon quickly, they're a technological dead-end.  In the long run you really want to move to RLVs and orbital operations for anything serious in space, with the orbital tugs being fully reusable as well.

~Jon

Anyhow, I got to get back to writing my thesis.  Sorry for taking this thread so far off-topic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/14/2007 04:12 am
Quote
jongoff - 13/7/2007  4:45 PM
The main good thing about DIRECT over Ares V is that because it doesn't suck *all* the air out of the room, it leaves some money for funding work on some of these medium-risk, high-reward programs.  I'm not so much a fan of DIRECT because I have some sort of SDV/HLV fetish, but because it actually leaves the door open for more sensible approaches in the future.

Jon,
   It may seem a bit weird of me to say this given my strong promotion of DIRECT, but I agree with you 100%.

   DIRECT isn't the most awesome answer in the world, and given a blank cheque, no politics and a totally free hand, I would choose something else entirely.

   I believe that NASA does needs Heavy Lift (which I define as 100+mT to LEO) in order to get the ball rolling on human exploration again.   We need to send big machinery to the moon to start mining its resources.   From there we get an awful lot of potential benefits for enabling expansion beyond Earth Orbit.

   If we can find an economical way to do Heavy Lift, then we can afford to do other things.   I'd like to see Prometheus re-started for a start, because I believe it could offer major advantages in the future.

   With spare cash and Heavy Lift capability together, we could probably afford to send the heavy machinery to the moon which we will need if we're going to seriously mine any of the resources on the Lunar surface.   That can provide means to launch all that heavy propellant from 1/6th gravity well, and with no aerodynamic drag effects - both of which make launching anything from Earth so darned expensive.

   DIRECT would seem to potentially enable both of these alternatives, and fits the political, economic and technical realities NASA exists within today.   That's why I really stand behind it so strongly.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/14/2007 11:14 am
I've been running a lot of simulations this night, in preparation for an update to the pdf on our site, and our AIAA papers.

For a variety of reasons (read: I was bored and wanted some sh*ts & giggles), I decided to take a look at an old variant which had not quite worked out with some previous assumptions, but I thought it might be interesting to see what it can do with our deeper level of analysis which we have on the more "modern" Jupiter boosters we are working on in-house here.

Anyway, the configuration would be called the J-221 - two RS-68's on the Core, but with a relatively small Upper Stage flying a single J-2XD on it.

The maximum performance isn't going make the heart beat faster at just 86mT, but what was *very* interesting was the weight of the EDS - just 16mT assuming Wide Body Centaur structures!

That low weight improves TLI performance considerably, and basically creates a 38mT to TLI 1-launch package which is relatively speaking, very safe, and very inexpensive.

While I'm still waiting for the rest of the team to wake up and log on to see this, I just thought I would tease the readers here :)

And no, please don't expect this J-221 to be baselined.   There's still a huge amount of analysis which would have to be done to get from my simple nocturnal simulation runs to actually working out whether there is a realistically feasible architecture that fits this particular LV.   If it does go somewhere, I'll be sure to let our good readers know.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 07/14/2007 12:43 pm
It would be somewhat interesting to think that Jupiter/Direct or Ares V might be the last truly heavy lift boosters deployed, the way that the B-2 Spirit bomber may be the last manned strategic bomber we will see historically. Once the frontier of Moon/Mars/Asteroids is open and RLVs, propellant depots, and nuclear-thermal/nuclear-electric technology becomes not only de-rigeur but normal -- then we'll see boosters both reusable and expendable in the 50-ton class doing what it used to take a Saturn V or an Ares V to do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2007 01:03 pm
Quote
MATTBLAK - 14/7/2007  8:43 AM

It would be somewhat interesting to think that Jupiter/Direct or Ares V might be the last truly heavy lift boosters deployed, the way that the B-2 Spirit bomber may be the last manned strategic bomber we will see historically. Once the frontier of Moon/Mars/Asteroids is open and RLVs, propellant depots, and nuclear-thermal/nuclear-electric technology becomes not only de-rigeur but normal -- then we'll see boosters both reusable and expendable in the 50-ton class doing what it used to take a Saturn V or an Ares V to do.
I agree 100%. It takes the heavy lift boosters to actually get the space-based civilization started, to get the really heavy stuff off-world. But a space-based civilization is just that, and not ground-based. The future belongs to completely reusable spacecraft that never touch a planetary surface, but run back and forth to their destinations, and are refueled in space with propellants made available in orbital depots. But consider this: Just as today the nations truck fleet is by far vastly dominated by the 18-wheeler on the highways, note that there still continues to exist the very-very large truck used in places like mining and construction; trucks whose tire diameter is higher than the 18-wheeler drivers cab and the driver needs an elevator to get to their seat. In the future, launch vehicles in the small and medium lift class, only reusable, will dominate the market and be the backbone of the industry. But there will always be the need for the occasional heavy lift, so they will never go completely away. They will simply become the least used launch vehicle, but one that will remain relevant far into the future. The most economical way to have that capacity is for at least one of the medium lift launchers to be capable of being reconfigured for the occasional heavy lift, the way Jupiter is, rather than developing a new hllv every time. There is always going to be the need to occasionally lift something very heavy, which will then be serviced/used by the rest of the industry. Those launches will be few and far between, and probably make the newspapers and the evening news broadcasts, while the thousands of small and medium lift RLV launches will become as commonplace as today’s airline schedule. But that’s the future. We need to get there first, and the heavy lift is the tool to enable that. But once out of the earth’s gravity well, look out, because we’re coming!  :cool:

My personal dream, which I will never see in my lifetime, is for chemical launch vehicles to be replaced with something else, more powerful and efficient. With the state of technology available today, I believe that would be nuclear, but as of now they wouldn’t be used for ground launch; maybe for an upper stage, but not from the ground. But once the technology becomes dependably safe and radiation free, even that will happen. But that’s a ways off. For now, the heavy lift will get us off world and then bow out to make way for the small to medium lv to run the industry and the economy, like the trucks do today.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 07/14/2007 01:33 pm
Using your Jupiter 221, I can see a safer LOR profile for flying Orion to the moon as the LSAM is sent on a J-232. An alternative would be sending Orion and a small payload of fuel or oxidiser (whatever can't be manufactured ISRU) for crew rotation at a lunar base. The J-221 would send Orion and its payload to a lunar station or to meet a reuseable LSAM where the fuel or oxidiser would be transfered to the LSAM.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2007 01:52 pm
Quote
Marsman - 14/7/2007  9:33 AM

Using your Jupiter 221, I can see a safer LOR profile for flying Orion to the moon as the LSAM is sent on a J-232. An alternative would be sending Orion and a small payload of fuel or oxidizer (whatever can't be manufactured ISRU) for crew rotation at a lunar base. The J-221 would send Orion and its payload to a lunar station or to meet a reusable LSAM where the fuel or oxidizer would be transferred to the LSAM.
I expect that one day we will see Orion, or its successor, launch into LEO, where the crew will transfer to a nuclear powered NTP LSAM, leaving Orion in LEO, and go directly from LEO to the lunar surface. For the return trip, the LSAM (which is a single-stage vehicle) will lift off the lunar surface and return to LEO, breaking into LEO with its nuclear engine and meet up with the waiting Orion. The crew will transfer to Orion and re-enter the atmosphere, leaving the LSAM in LEO for refueling (probably H2) and servicing for the next crew. There would be no reason for the Orion itself to go to the moon. It would become a true taxi to meet up with the true spaceship – the LSAM.

Orion would no longer need to be lunar mission duration capable, which means a lighter and smaller Service Module. It would only need to be capable of loiter in LEO for the required lunar mission time. This begins to put the Orion into the EELV launch vehicle class and lessens the need for heavy lift all the time. Like I said above, medium lift is the future, but we need the heavy lift to get us there.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/14/2007 02:08 pm
Quote
clongton - 14/7/2007  8:03 AM

My personal dream, which I will never see in my lifetime, is for chemical launch vehicles to be replaced with something else, more powerful and efficient. With the state of technology available today, I believe that would be nuclear, but as of now they wouldn’t be used for ground launch; maybe for an upper stage, but not from the ground. But once the technology becomes dependably safe and radiation free, even that will happen.

I just don't understand how a nuclear thermal rocket could ever be considered "efficient".  It has a higher exhaust velocity, but this is almost entirely from the use of hydrogen with its lower molecular weight (the temperature in the chamber of the NTR being lower than a LH2/LOX engine).

But from the standpoint of using the available energy of the fissile material, the nuclear thermal rocket is unbelievably wasteful.  A well-designed chemical rocket will turn nearly all of the inherent chemical energy into directed kinetic energy.  A nuclear thermal rocket will only turn a tiny fraction of 1% of the inherent nuclear energy into directed kinetic energy.  That's not efficiency in my opinion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2007 02:17 pm
Quote
vanilla - 14/7/2007  10:08 AM

Quote
clongton - 14/7/2007  8:03 AM

My personal dream, which I will never see in my lifetime, is for chemical launch vehicles to be replaced with something else, more powerful and efficient. With the state of technology available today, I believe that would be nuclear, but as of now they wouldn’t be used for ground launch; maybe for an upper stage, but not from the ground. But once the technology becomes dependably safe and radiation free, even that will happen.

I just don't understand how a nuclear thermal rocket could ever be considered "efficient".  It has a higher exhaust velocity, but this is almost entirely from the use of hydrogen with its lower molecular weight (the temperature in the chamber of the NTR being lower than a LH2/LOX engine).

But from the standpoint of using the available energy of the fissile material, the nuclear thermal rocket is unbelievably wasteful.  A well-designed chemical rocket will turn nearly all of the inherent chemical energy into directed kinetic energy.  A nuclear thermal rocket will only turn a tiny fraction of 1% of the inherent nuclear energy into directed kinetic energy.  That's not efficiency in my opinion.
Using today's technology I agree completely. With today's capability, it is not practical. I am suggesting beginning with where we are and developing the capability. Then it can become efficient. I am thinking in terms of a gas core based engine, not solid core, which is just about as good as it can get now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/14/2007 05:20 pm
I think the first generation of nuclear rocket engines will not be as efficient as they can get.   There has to be lots of room for improvements. Just as everything from the internal combustion engine to the Jet, to the liquid rocket engine have all experienced a period of efficiency improvement as they grew in use, I suspect NTP and other Nuke technologies are still in very early days with a lot more potential to be released ultimately.

Of course, for now, we can't baseline such technologies into our plans - so chemical rocketry has to be the primary focus initially - but as mentioned previously, always with an eye towards saving sufficient cash in the budget to allow developments of these newer technologies and not strangle-off development.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 07/14/2007 07:28 pm
Even the first generation nuclear thermal propulsion rocket engines like NERVA had isp's in the 600 to 650 range.
Later generation engines like Timber Wind were pushing over 1000 isp.
Today, isp in the 1100 to 1150 range would be doable.
The flat out best you can get from chemical propulsion systems is about 475 isp.
If the Ares I J2 was replaced with even a NERVA type engine, the lift to orbit for Ares I would go to something like 31 tons.
Put in a Timber Wind type engine, and you would be at around 40 tons.
Direct with a Nuclear Thermal upper stage would really be something.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2007 07:48 pm
Quote
Scotty - 14/7/2007  3:28 PM

Even the first generation nuclear thermal propulsion rocket engines like NERVA had isp's in the 600 to 650 range.
Later generation engines like Timber Wind were pushing over 1000 isp.
Today, isp in the 1100 to 1150 range would be doable.
The flat out best you can get from chemical propulsion systems is about 475 isp.
If the Ares I J2 was replaced with even a NERVA type engine, the lift to orbit for Ares I would go to something like 31 tons.
Put in a Timber Wind type engine, and you would be at around 40 tons.
Direct with a Nuclear Thermal upper stage would really be something.
Have you been peeking? Just Kidding  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/14/2007 08:51 pm
If you want today's capability then there is Solar Electric.  A design like the one on my website would get 125 mT payload to Mars in less than a year.
http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/HTML/Daffodil_Transporter.html

The HiPEP thruster and solar cells exist.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2007 09:10 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 14/7/2007  4:51 PM

If you want today's capability then there is Solar Electric.  A design like the one on my website would get 125 mT payload to Mars in less than a year.
http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/HTML/Daffodil_Transporter.html

The HiPEP thruster and solar cells exist.
That's fine for noncritical cargo, but not for people.
For people we need to send the reactor critical, feed in the H2 and go; 3 days powering out, turn around decelerate for 3 days and enter Mars orbit. That's how it should go for ntp manned interplanetary. Six days - each way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/14/2007 09:29 pm
Quote
Scotty - 14/7/2007  2:28 PM

Even the first generation nuclear thermal propulsion rocket engines like NERVA had isp's in the 600 to 650 range.
Later generation engines like Timber Wind were pushing over 1000 isp.
Today, isp in the 1100 to 1150 range would be doable.
The flat out best you can get from chemical propulsion systems is about 475 isp.
If the Ares I J2 was replaced with even a NERVA type engine, the lift to orbit for Ares I would go to something like 31 tons.
Put in a Timber Wind type engine, and you would be at around 40 tons.
Direct with a Nuclear Thermal upper stage would really be something.

Could you have the crew that close to the reactor?

Danny Deger
http://www.dannydeger.net
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 07/15/2007 12:00 am
Sure.
NERVA was very close to being manrated when the programs funding was cut off in the early 1970's.
NERVA was intended to replace the Saturn V's third stage J2.
The vehicle would then be called Nova, and it was to be the heavy mover for a Moon base, and then the prime mover for the manned Mars program.
Too bad Viet Nam caused all the funding to dry up.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 07/15/2007 12:51 am
Quote
clongton - 14/7/2007  12:03 AM

Quote
MATTBLAK - 14/7/2007  8:43 AM

It would be somewhat interesting to think that Jupiter/Direct or Ares V might be the last truly heavy lift boosters deployed, the way that the B-2 Spirit bomber may be the last manned strategic bomber we will see historically. Once the frontier of Moon/Mars/Asteroids is open and RLVs, propellant depots, and nuclear-thermal/nuclear-electric technology becomes not only de-rigeur but normal -- then we'll see boosters both reusable and expendable in the 50-ton class doing what it used to take a Saturn V or an Ares V to do.
I agree 100%. It takes the heavy lift boosters to actually get the space-based civilization started, to get the really heavy stuff off-world. But a space-based civilization is just that, and not ground-based. The future belongs to completely reusable spacecraft that never touch a planetary surface, but run back and forth to their destinations, and are refueled in space with propellants made available in orbital depots. But consider this: Just as today the nations truck fleet is by far vastly dominated by the 18-wheeler on the highways, note that there still continues to exist the very-very large truck used in places like mining and construction; trucks whose tire diameter is higher than the 18-wheeler drivers cab and the driver needs an elevator to get to their seat. In the future, launch vehicles in the small and medium lift class, only reusable, will dominate the market and be the backbone of the industry. But there will always be the need for the occasional heavy lift, so they will never go completely away. They will simply become the least used launch vehicle, but one that will remain relevant far into the future. The most economical way to have that capacity is for at least one of the medium lift launchers to be capable of being reconfigured for the occasional heavy lift, the way Jupiter is, rather than developing a new hllv every time. There is always going to be the need to occasionally lift something very heavy, which will then be serviced/used by the rest of the industry. Those launches will be few and far between, and probably make the newspapers and the evening news broadcasts, while the thousands of small and medium lift RLV launches will become as commonplace as today’s airline schedule. But that’s the future. We need to get there first, and the heavy lift is the tool to enable that. But once out of the earth’s gravity well, look out, because we’re coming!  :cool:

My personal dream, which I will never see in my lifetime, is for chemical launch vehicles to be replaced with something else, more powerful and efficient. With the state of technology available today, I believe that would be nuclear, but as of now they wouldn’t be used for ground launch; maybe for an upper stage, but not from the ground. But once the technology becomes dependably safe and radiation free, even that will happen. But that’s a ways off. For now, the heavy lift will get us off world and then bow out to make way for the small to medium lv to run the industry and the economy, like the trucks do today.

Beautifully said, Chuck. From your mouth to God's (and Congress') ears!! :cool:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/15/2007 01:17 am
Quote
Scotty - 14/7/2007  2:28 PM

Even the first generation nuclear thermal propulsion rocket engines like NERVA had isp's in the 600 to 650 range.
Later generation engines like Timber Wind were pushing over 1000 isp.
Today, isp in the 1100 to 1150 range would be doable.
The flat out best you can get from chemical propulsion systems is about 475 isp.
If the Ares I J2 was replaced with even a NERVA type engine, the lift to orbit for Ares I would go to something like 31 tons.
Put in a Timber Wind type engine, and you would be at around 40 tons.
Direct with a Nuclear Thermal upper stage would really be something.

The best practical Isp that you could achieve with solid-core nuclear thermal would utilize NERVA type fuel elements and get about 850 sec Isp.  Forget that 917 sec Isp BS that Stan Borowski always quotes.  It's built around imaginary Russian fuel elements.

The Timberwind concept is dynamically unstable and would disintegrate within seconds after startup, probably killing the crew.  Don't put any hope into Timberwind (particle-bed reactor).  But don't believe me--talk to the actual nuclear engineers who ran tests on Timberwind fuel and ask them about the sintering of fuel elements during powered operation, and the implications for hydrogen flow, reactor cooling, and reactivity control.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2007 01:38 am
Quote
vanilla - 14/7/2007  9:17 PM

Quote
Scotty - 14/7/2007  2:28 PM

Even the first generation nuclear thermal propulsion rocket engines like NERVA had isp's in the 600 to 650 range.
Later generation engines like Timber Wind were pushing over 1000 isp.
Today, isp in the 1100 to 1150 range would be doable.
The flat out best you can get from chemical propulsion systems is about 475 isp.
If the Ares I J2 was replaced with even a NERVA type engine, the lift to orbit for Ares I would go to something like 31 tons.
Put in a Timber Wind type engine, and you would be at around 40 tons.
Direct with a Nuclear Thermal upper stage would really be something.

The best practical Isp that you could achieve with solid-core nuclear thermal would utilize NERVA type fuel elements and get about 850 sec Isp.  Forget that 917 sec Isp BS that Stan Borowski always quotes.  It's built around imaginary Russian fuel elements.

The Timberwind concept is dynamically unstable and would disintegrate within seconds after startup, probably killing the crew.  Don't put any hope into Timberwind (particle-bed reactor).  But don't believe me--talk to the actual nuclear engineers who ran tests on Timberwind fuel and ask them about the sintering of fuel elements during powered operation, and the implications for hydrogen flow, reactor cooling, and reactivity control.
vanilla is right about that. Timberwind is not stable and probably never could be. NERVA type solid core is not the future for ntp engines; the increase in isp is not sufficient to justify the risks. With what we know today, if ntp is to be the engine of spaceflight, it will probably be gas core. We know theoretically how to do that. I believe there was even some successful early testing done until funding was withdrawn. Theory is a long way from practice. But it is gas core which holds the key to ntp, not solid core.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 07/15/2007 06:45 pm
Quote
clongton - 14/7/2007  2:10 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 14/7/2007  4:51 PM

If you want today's capability then there is Solar Electric.  A design like the one on my website would get 125 mT payload to Mars in less than a year.
http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/HTML/Daffodil_Transporter.html

The HiPEP thruster and solar cells exist.
That's fine for noncritical cargo, but not for people.
For people we need to send the reactor critical, feed in the H2 and go; 3 days powering out, turn around decelerate for 3 days and enter Mars orbit. That's how it should go for ntp manned interplanetary. Six days - each way.

For a ~one year voyage using Solar Electric you have to address radiation mitigation and low-g physiological issues.

For a 6 day voyage using NTP you have to address radiation mitigation and very high speed collision avoidance.

None of which are within our grasp as yet.

As for heavy lift vs multiple lift the answer has to be cheap lift. It has been said dozens of times, if we could cut the cost of a kilo to space by 10 to 100 times then and only then will you see space exploration take off. Certainly no NASA program has ever addressed cheaper lift, the AF RS-68 program was the only US Gov program I can think of that even tried. So far as I know the Russians still have the cheapest price per kilo to LEO and that’s on a system that is decades old. Why hasn’t our government pushed for this as a goal? Why haven’t the major US launch providers pushed for this as a profitable line?

I am puzzled.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: bad_astra on 07/15/2007 07:07 pm
Quote
Why haven’t the major US launch providers pushed for this as a profitable line?

I am puzzled.



Perhaps not a major launch provider, but a major launch purchaser is involved with the Aquarius lv.  Aquarius vehicles would be perfect for use in a fuel depot system.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/15/2007 08:38 pm
Quote
kraisee - 1/7/2007  12:20 PM

We still have the option to do as suggested and fly the CEV & LSAM on one flight, and then join up to the EDS in orbit.   Depending on when the transition occurs, depends on how best to accomplish it.   It does remove the need for propellant transfer, but does add another docking event in LEO.

This isn't so bad though, because the LSAM is already designed to 'descend' towards an object, and will have sensitive tracking radar and cameras pointed in the correct direction (downward) already.   And while docking is a tricky procedure, it has *lots* of successful heritage behind it, so should not be too much of a headache.

Abort options are still available during this maneuver.   If the Spacecraft Adapter were retained for the docking, the CEV and LSAM arrangement need not change through the docking, and all abort options can be kept in the Service Module.   Transition could then occur after the LSAM>EDS docking.

Alternatively, if the transition occurs before the EDS docking, then the LSAM Ascent Stage could offer a degree of abort options to the CEV - although is significantly less powerful.

Ross.

Just for reference, here are four of the various options (from the DIRECT v1 Proposal) for everyone to consider:


Click for Larger Image
"Transition pre-Docking"


Click for Larger Image
"Post-TLI Transition"


Click for Larger Image
"Pre-Circularization Transition" AKA "Fast Transition"


Click for Larger Image
"Lunar Orbit Rendezvous"

NASA have not ruled this out themselves. At 51min of the Langley Stanley lecture he talks about a 100mT Ares V first stage lifting a CEV and LSAM which then rendezvous with an EDS sent up by a standard Ares V.

http://www.nianet.org/seminarscolloquia/stanley_111405.php
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2007 09:04 pm
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 15/7/2007  2:45 PM
1. Certainly no NASA program has ever addressed cheaper lift,
2. Why hasn’t our government pushed for this as a goal?
3. Why haven’t the major US launch providers pushed for this as a profitable line?
1. NASA is a federal burocracy. Inexpensive operations are not even in their vocabulary.
2. The federal government is not a business. It has no concept of cost effective ROI.
3. To the major launch providers, this would be a bad move. They have unfettered access right now to a cash cow with bottomless resources. Why would they even consider replacing that with something that has to justify itself in terms of fiscal responsibility? They would be cutting their own throats. The sharholders would not allow and will not such a condition to evolve unless and until alt.space forces them to compete and justify their costs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/15/2007 11:55 pm
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 15/7/2007  7:45 PM

Quote
clongton - 14/7/2007  2:10 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 14/7/2007  4:51 PM

If you want today's capability then there is Solar Electric.  A design like the one on my website would get 125 mT payload to Mars in less than a year.
http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/HTML/Daffodil_Transporter.html

The HiPEP thruster and solar cells exist.
That's fine for noncritical cargo, but not for people.
For people we need to send the reactor critical, feed in the H2 and go; 3 days powering out, turn around decelerate for 3 days and enter Mars orbit. That's how it should go for ntp manned interplanetary. Six days - each way.

For a ~one year voyage using Solar Electric you have to address radiation mitigation and low-g physiological issues.

{snip}

The current plan is for multiple launches to get the Mars ship into space, so for the first time in NASA's history it is only half weight limited.  Have an extra ground launch and use the mass to provide the astronauts with safe working conditions.

Water is a good radiation barrier, 15 centimetres (6") walls should reduce the radiation level to Earth normal.  When the detailed calculations are performed 3" may be sufficient.

If low-g physiological issues are going to be significant, say producing men unable to stand up, then its time for artificial gravity.  A suggestion - split the craft into 3 parts.  A central section containing the main thrusters and fuel with 2 parts rotating around it.  Connect them with cables or ribbons.  House the people in one of the capsules and say stores for the return journey in the third part.  The Orion capsule is too small for a multi year journey and the Mars cabin does not need to be areodynamic so this is a natural fit.

Using a = v^2 / R or v = SQRT(a R)
a = g = 9.81 m/s/s

For 100 metre cables a velocity of 31.3 m/s produces 1 g.
1000 metre cables need 99 m/s.

Adding small thrusters to produce a tangential delta_v of 0.099 km/s is not hard.  It may also be the easiest way of opening the tethers.

Andrew Swallow
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 07/16/2007 12:16 am

Quote
marsavian - 15/7/2007 4:38 PM"
NASA have not ruled this out themselves. At 51min of the Langley Stanley lecture he talks about a 100mT Ares V first stage lifting a CEV and LSAM which then rendezvous with an EDS sent up by a standard Ares V. http://www.nianet.org/seminarscolloquia/stanley_111405.php[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

 

That presentation is from 2005, and still uses the 4 seg/SSME Ares I and SSME Ares V. He was trying to say EOR was more effective than LOR. I don't know how he got to that assumption...

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/16/2007 01:01 am
Hey everyone. This stuff is getting REALLY off topic. Please either move it to an appropriate thread or start a new one for it. Let's keep this thread on topic please. Direct v2. The Jupiter launch vehicle, the Direct architecture.

I personally will gladly continue discussion on these things, just not in this thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 07/16/2007 01:41 am
Quote
clongton - 15/7/2007  8:01 PM

Hey everyone. This stuff is getting REALLY off topic. Please either move it to an appropriate thread or start a new one for it. Let's keep this thread on topic please. Direct v2. The Jupiter launch vehicle, the Direct architecture.

I personally will gladly continue discussion on these things, just not in this thread.

I agree - as long as the anti-Ares folks do the same for the "Supporting Ares I" thread. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2007 05:25 am
Quote
clongton - 16/7/2007  2:01 AM

Hey everyone. This stuff is getting REALLY off topic. Please either move it to an appropriate thread or start a new one for it. Let's keep this thread on topic please. Direct v2. The Jupiter launch vehicle, the Direct architecture.

I personally will gladly continue discussion on these things, just not in this thread.

New thread called "MTV propulsion, artificial gravity and radiation" created in the MTV section.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/16/2007 03:28 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 16/7/2007  12:25 AM

snip

New thread called "MTV propulsion, artificial gravity and radiation" created in the MTV section.

Thanks, we needed to move, but what is MTV?  I couldn't find the new thread.

Never mind I found it.

Danny Deger
http://www.dannydeger.net
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - OT
Post by: on 07/17/2007 12:21 am

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 15/7/2007  6:55 PM  

Water is a good radiation barrier, 15 centimetres (6") walls should reduce the radiation level to Earth normal.

Off topic - While water is excellent shielding for the weight, this claim is unbelievable. In no way do you get to "Earth normal". What you get is during the average day in space, comparable levels to jet aircraft exposure levels.

Where this fails miserably is with high energy charged particles, currently screened by Van Allen belts. Given the secondary decays from the skin hits, you still have serious radiation getting through the water. Not to mention the UHE gammas.

Don't oversell the shielding. This is still a serious concern. We haven't sent living tissue past lunar orbit, most accum exposure is in LEO, and we've no good living LDEF studies. Health record of lunar astronauts already is of concern.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - OT
Post by: SolarPowered on 07/17/2007 12:40 am
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 16/7/2007  5:21 PM

Health record of lunar astronauts already is of concern.

Could you elaborate on that?  I believe that Armstrong and Aldrin are still alive, and I don't know anything about the other lunar astronauts.  Have they been dying young due to radiation-related maladies?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/17/2007 12:53 am
That discussion was off topic, and moved here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8838&start=1 - please post any responses into that thread. We'll delete this thread back to Direct comments later.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Seattle Dave on 07/17/2007 03:05 am
On Direct, what is the main weaknesses that need to be overcome by way of making it something NASA would seriously entertain (assuming Ares was failing and they were looking at alternatives)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 07/17/2007 02:38 pm
Quote
Seattle Dave - 16/7/2007  11:05 PM

On Direct, what is the main weaknesses that need to be overcome by way of making it something NASA would seriously entertain (assuming Ares was failing and they were looking at alternatives)?

NIH

The boys have covered pretty much everything else in as much detail as it needs at this stage. Remember, you don't need to design the thing in detail, just get a good handle on the parameters and the assumptions. There seems to be some concern over some of the assumed weights for stages, but it's in the weeds compared to the overall numbers.

If NASA was to go looking for a new concept, I think they'd latch on to Direct like a drowning man to a liferaft. However, (using the same analogy) they may prefer to die rather than admit they are drowning. And there's bugger all we can do at that point.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/17/2007 02:55 pm
Ross and other Direct developers: I finally took the time to read through the full 2.0 proposal last night, I was surprised and happy to see the differences and improvements from 1.0.  This is looks to be a more solid proposal and the level of effort and coordination involved between the writers is inspiring.

The idea of not having to squeeze the Orion design should be appealing to many.

Keep chipping away at the walls and you will get in.  (At least parts of the plan will anyway.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2007 05:04 pm
Wanna,
Thanks for taking the time to read it.   I appreciate you also commenting that it was "surprising".   Maybe that will prompt others who haven't seen it yet, to go have a look at the new version too.

Mind you, there are another round of changes since the 2.0.x documents.

We have been spending a lot more time gathering really accurate data on the central Core and SRB's, to ensure we aren't overestimating or underestimating anything.   STS data has proven to be very detailed!   Then we have also been spending an extraordinary number of design cycles on the Upper/EDS.   Litterally months of time has been spent working out all the different combinations (small, large, 1 or 2 J-2XD engines, flying on Core with 2 engines or 3, and to a variety of orbits).

Additionally, we have been optimizing performance for different Lunar mission profiles (EOR, LOR, 1-flight Cargo).

The work is ongoing, but has changed noticeably since the last 2.0.2 update.

While we are heavily focussed on teh AIAA paper, I am wanting to do a "quick" update to the site and include a "2.1" version with the new specifications.

But the problem I really have is the comparison to Ares-V.   When you do all the math for the Lunar flights, neither Ares-V nor Jupiter is getting performance we really want.   Ares-I/V is 13mT below it's targets of 63.4mT to TLI, and we are lower than we originally hoped - but still higher than 63.4mT to TLI even with the 10% margins the Ares-V doesn't seem to account for.

This makes the system appear low performance to anyone who actually believes the published Ares-V numbers.   The bottom line is that a pair of Jupiter-232's performance is about 50% higher than the real Ares-I/V combo.   But presenting the data in the wrong way would be subject to all sorts of FUD, so we're holding off.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 07/17/2007 05:05 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 17/7/2007  9:38 AM

Quote
Seattle Dave - 16/7/2007  11:05 PM

On Direct, what is the main weaknesses that need to be overcome by way of making it something NASA would seriously entertain (assuming Ares was failing and they were looking at alternatives)?

NIH

{snip}

I'm sure that's part of it.  But what's ironic about that answer is that most of the fundamentals of the DIRECT concept actually were invented at NASA.  

The only real difference is that the DIRECT/Jupiter guys have taken the concept farther than it appears NASA ever took it.

But if NASA decides to move forward with an expandable and flexible architecture based on DIRECT 2.0 (the Jupiter vehicles), I think many people would see it as a step forward instead of NASA admitting defeat.  It will be them using one of their own concepts that a group of enthusiasts and actual rocket scientists have dusted off and tinkered with a bit.  When it's considered holistically (technically, politically, financially, as well as its recycling of existing assets), it's a great thing.

To me, the best part about the Jupiter series of SDLV launchers is that it seems its possibilities just keep increasing.  The more we probe and examine what this core vehicle is capable of doing with "simple" reconfigurations, it's obvious Jupiter is a platform that could support US manned space travel for many years into the future.  Its flexibility is extremely comforting.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2007 05:18 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 17/7/2007  10:38 AM

Quote
Seattle Dave - 16/7/2007  11:05 PM

On Direct, what is the main weaknesses that need to be overcome by way of making it something NASA would seriously entertain (assuming Ares was failing and they were looking at alternatives)?

NIH

Sadly, this is the perception of some in NASA, but the truth is that this idea is based on NASA's own work following the Challenger accident.   The Shuttle-C concept is well known to most people, but there was an in-line concept proposed at the same time by MSFC - and DIRECT is fundamentally that launcher, just with a pair of RS-68's instead of three SSME's.


Quote
There seems to be some concern over some of the assumed weights for stages, but it's in the weeds compared to the overall numbers.

While we haven't published data on this yet, we have solved this issue.   We have a variety of stages in the analysis we are currently doing.   They range from 15mT to 33mT, depending on the configuration and what they are actually designed to do.

We have currently baselined a stage mass based on the Centaur-V1's structural pmf (without engines) of 0.917918.   We have a strongly recommended upgrade path to a "super light weight" version based on the Lockheed Wide Body Centaur (WBC) figures, but with much larger margins (0.935000 structural pmf compared to 0.940000 total mass pmf [including engines]).

To flesh this out a little, our new J-221 concept EDS masses 17.8mT with a single J-2XD and contains 134mT of propellant.   This is the version matching the current Centaur pmf.   If we use the higher WBC+margin figures, this mass drops to 15.1mT.   And if we use Lockheed's pure WBC figures, this mass could drop as low as 11.5mT.

In this example, we are currently baselining the higher 17.8mT figure, but recommending we spend the extra cash to build the 15.1mT version.


Quote
If NASA was to go looking for a new concept, I think they'd latch on to Direct like a drowning man to a liferaft. However, (using the same analogy) they may prefer to die rather than admit they are drowning. And there's bugger all we can do at that point.

I agree completely.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2007 09:15 pm
I have reason to believe that DIRECT may have a realistic chance in the near future.

What concerns me currently is how NASA should go about presenting such a major change to its own workforce, Congress and the public at large.

I don't just mean in broad strokes like "present it as an upgrade", but I mean the nitty-gritty of how can NASA go about presenting it the various groups in order to gain the maximum possible support from all fields?

I have my own ideas (shock, horror!), but before I throw my opinions in the pot, I would dearly like to hear from others, especially those inside the "NASA family".

How would you attempt to handle such a huge transition?   What pitfalls do you predict should be kept an eye upon?   Do you have a unique perspective on this which could benefit?

I'd like to get a feel for what would have to be done to succeed, all assuming it does happen, of course.

Thanks in advance,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/17/2007 09:40 pm
Workforce aside, I think Congress and the public are non-issues.  While such a shift will generate endless discussion here and other similar places, in the far broader views of Congress and the public, this would be seen as a footnote.  "Oh...NASA is building a Shuttle replacement?  And it's changing?  Well, okay, what did it look like before?  Oh I see, both of them have two little thingies on the side now, instead of just one of them.  How's (insert celebrity name here) doing in/out of jail?"  I'd guess there aren't more than 10 members of congress (probably less) that could correctly identify the big blocks of the current plan (5-seg SRBs, RS-68s, upper stage, yada, yada, yada).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - OT
Post by: on 07/18/2007 01:12 am

Quote
SolarPowered - 16/7/2007  7:40 PM  
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 16/7/2007  5:21 PM  Health record of lunar astronauts already is of concern.
 Could you elaborate on that?  I believe that Armstrong and Aldrin are still alive, and I don't know anything about the other lunar astronauts.  Have they been dying young due to radiation-related maladies?

Replied to on this thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8838&st...

Please go there to read/respond. 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/18/2007 01:23 am
Quote
kraisee - 17/7/2007  6:04 PM

But the problem I really have is the comparison to Ares-V.   When you do all the math for the Lunar flights, neither Ares-V nor Jupiter is getting performance we really want.   Ares-I/V is 13mT below it's targets of 63.4mT to TLI, and we are lower than we originally hoped - but still higher than 63.4mT to TLI even with the 10% margins the Ares-V doesn't seem to account for.

Which member(s) of the Jupiter family can supply the 63.4 mT to TLI performance?

I am assuming that it is one or more of the heavies.  The problems with the heavies are that they are very expensive to develop and that NASA will have got back to the Moon using J-232s before the first heavy is ready for its test flight.

This would not preclude the heavy being developed later, there are plenty of large payloads.

Andrew Swallow
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: EE Scott on 07/18/2007 01:34 am
Quote
kraisee - 17/7/2007  5:15 PM

I have reason to believe that DIRECT may have a realistic chance in the near future.

What concerns me currently is how NASA should go about presenting such a major change to its own workforce, Congress and the public at large.

I don't just mean in broad strokes like "present it as an upgrade", but I mean the nitty-gritty of how can NASA go about presenting it the various groups in order to gain the maximum possible support from all fields?

How would you attempt to handle such a huge transition?   What pitfalls do you predict should be kept an eye upon?   Do you have a unique perspective on this which could benefit?

I'd like to get a feel for what would have to be done to succeed, all assuming it does happen, of course.

Thanks in advance,

Ross.

Most of the stuff I can think of has already been brought up on this forum by others.  There is quite an impressive list of rational reasons to make the change to Direct, and you have been doing a good job communication them up to this point.  I am guessing that you are looking at how best to communicate a potential change to Direct to all the major players in VSE such that they view it positively, or at least not freak out.  One would have to know the psychology within each group (i.e., design centers, contractors, etc.) to know what points to emphasize, and what points to de-emphasize, and that would be where an insider might add the most value.  From what I have read on this forum, you couldn't go wrong to continue to remind folks about the workforce retention aspects of Direct.   At this point there does seem to be a lot of ways to potentially offend people who have invested energy in the AresI/V config.  So...er...gook luck with that!   ;)

Sorry I can't be more helpful.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 07/18/2007 01:54 am

Quote
kraisee - 17/7/2007  4:15 PM  How would you attempt to handle such a huge transition?   What pitfalls do you predict should be kept an eye upon?

Not as huge a transition. Simple restructuring. Best viewed as a means to bring in the schedule / budget, and build consensus. You let the stick program become a development program for enhanced heavy lift (e.g. the bigger SRB's) longer term (that way no one wasted money), you cancel/rebid the upper stage contract in a new form, and you announce the improvements to MLP schedule as an immediate boost to a wary workforce.

The key to it is to buy in all groups related to Shuttle, and make it a part of the genuine evolution of Shuttle, unlike the disingenuous  "bait and switch" aspect of the Stick.

What should (but won't) happen is an outreach program to encourage critical review across centers  of the "new" program, with an open airing of a variety of POV's and crackpot ideas that are given some debate, then open plan revision, then buy-in from the responsible groups at each center. Why this won't happen, of course, is the fear that it will cause more chaos than do good (e.g. it looks like HQ isn't leading), when in fact it is the best medicine to get everything out in the open, and listen - then act. Great opportunity to get unity.

 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2007 02:15 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 17/7/2007  9:23 PM


This would not preclude the heavy being developed later, there are plenty of large payloads.

Andrew Swallow

Where, and how.  There are none that will be viable in the next 20 years.  Just the simple lunar sorties will be spending all the money
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/18/2007 03:19 am
Quote
Jim - 18/7/2007  3:15 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 17/7/2007  9:23 PM


This would not preclude the heavy being developed later, there are plenty of large payloads.

Andrew Swallow

Where, and how.  There are none that will be viable in the next 20 years.  Just the simple lunar sorties will be spending all the money

All the currently planned money.  20 years is 5 Presidential elections away, way outside the political planning cycle.  With a minimum of 3 new Presidents anything can happen.

Politicians like having things named after them.  Satellites, Moon bases, buildings on Mars and large machines give plenty of room for their egos.

Mining and factories on the Moon and Mars are going to need big machines.

NASA is not the only customer for large rockets.  Other government departments want satellites.

Space is no longer a government monopoly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/18/2007 03:44 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 17/7/2007  9:23 PM

Which member(s) of the Jupiter family can supply the 63.4 mT to TLI performance?

I am assuming that it is one or more of the heavies.  The problems with the heavies are that they are very expensive to develop and that NASA will have got back to the Moon using J-232s before the first heavy is ready for its test flight.

This would not preclude the heavy being developed later, there are plenty of large payloads.

Andrew,
   Actually we are not banking on any of the "heavies".   Our baseline boosters stop at the Jupiter-232.   Anything beyond that is beyond the scope of what we are proposing and falls into the realm of "speculative future upgrade options, which are possible, but are frankly unlikely to ever see the light of day".

   All we need is a pair of J-232's to place more than 63mT payload to TLI, and that assumes 10% payload margins.   It does require propellant transfer though.   Without propellant transfer, the performance is around 43mT, and for that we could actually just use the J-120 for the CLV flight.

   Honestly, don't expect anything bigger than the J-232 ever being built.   We don't.   Perhaps a 5-segment, stretched version may happen eventually, but it would still likely be a J-232 configuration due to launch pad facilities.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Formant on 07/18/2007 04:17 am
I can't possibly speak for selling DIRECT to the workforce, but I would imagine the idea of not being laid off while waiting for the Stick to get off the ground has got to count for something. Facing a layoff when the Shuttle is retired must really do a number on morale.

Congress is another issue. From a raw pork perspective, DIRECT will keep the cash flowing in pretty familiar patterns with less disturbances and interruptions. There will be people at ATK-Thiokol and with connections to them who will be disappointed to lose the huge development budget for the Stick's first stage. This is because it is far easier for large chunks of money to be funneled inappropriately into individual pockets from a big development project than it is from an established manufacturing process. This is why some at ATK prefer the Stick, even if DIRECT ends up sending the same or larger quantity of cash into company coffers. Fortunately, political support for this sort of corruption is usually not very broad. Most congresspersons would prefer that while some of the pork goes to enrich some buddies, most of it ends up filtering down to regular constituents' paychecks. It is even better if the money is going to fund undertakings that offer steady employment for large workforces.

Selling to the public is even easier. Most non-rocket-scientists who bother to follow these things look at the Stick and think "Damn, that can never fly. . .it is up-side-down!". When DIRECT is unveiled they will think "Now this one might be able to fly! At least it is right-side-up! I'm not even a rocket scientist and I knew that old bottle-rocket thing would never work".

Another big selling point for the public is eliminating or at least reducing the time between the Shuttle retirement and having a replacement available. The Shuttle represents a capability that most Americans take for granted. Not having the capability to do Big Things in Space makes many people a little nervous. After all, how would Bruce Willis save America from an asteroid if we don't have the Shuttle or its replacement?

Furthermore, if the public is informed that NASA has decided to go with a cheaper, more powerful alternative to the Stick, the public will think, "Ah! Tightening their belt like the rest of us. . .and they're getting a better machine out of the deal. They finally decided 'No more wincing about with that fancy sh!t. Let's just make a big rocket.' Now that is the American way! Cool!".

I honestly can't really see the number of people who would have a problem with the transition to DIRECT being all that large. The biggest concerns might be the wasted time and effort that went into Ares I. The impression that one rocket is being abandoned after a very large investment to start another one from scratch is pretty much the biggest concern that people who don't know any better will have. Many people may believe that the Ares I development effort is far more advanced than it currently seems to be. You may have to clearly argue how what has been invested so far will not go to waste with this change and perhaps indicating the "point of no return", ie. the rough date or point in the development process at which abandoning the Stick no longer makes economic sense and we should just keep going and hope to someday get the Ares V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2007 11:16 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 17/7/2007  11:19 PM

1,  All the currently planned money.  20 years is 5 Presidential elections away, way outside the political planning cycle.  With a minimum of 3 new Presidents anything can happen.

2.  Mining and factories on the Moon and Mars are going to need big machines.

3.  NASA is not the only customer for large rockets.  Other government departments want satellites.

4. Space is no longer a government monopoly.


1.  None are planned for now.  The lunar lander hasn't even been designed.  Nothing past the lunar sorties has been potted.   The few lunar base studies use the same lander and the 'base" is only consists of about 5 landers.  

Yes, 20 years is 5 elections away, but the trend is in the opposite direction.  Less money for space.  Things aren't going to get better.  The lunar landing isn't going to be earlier

2.  Mining and factories on the Moon and Mars are at least 30-40 years away

3.  NASA IS the ONLY customer for large rockets.  The other gov't agencies are avoiding Ares

4.  Correct space isn't but Big rockets and Big payloads are

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 07/18/2007 11:31 am
Quote
kraisee - 17/7/2007  10:15 PM

What concerns me currently is how NASA should go about presenting such a major change to its own workforce, Congress and the public at large.
Tailor it to each audience (whilst making it consistent overall), and find out what each audience is interested in and make sure you address those interests and not those of the designers.

The workforce will be mainly interested in the amount of employment and job security, so lead on that (if it's positive!) - though you might get some interest in the technology from the engineers.

The general public don't care and therefore don't count, frankly. Don't waste your time.

Congress - money (cost and campaign contributions) and votes (in Congress and of their constituents). Don't forget the continued demand for solid propellant (quote the lbs) - keep the military happy!

Keep the engineers off the presentation. Nothing kills presentation faster than enthusiastic engineers! :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/18/2007 11:49 am
Quote
kraisee - 17/7/2007  4:15 PM

I have reason to believe that DIRECT may have a realistic chance in the near future.

What concerns me currently is how NASA should go about presenting such a major change to its own workforce, Congress and the public at large.

I don't just mean in broad strokes like "present it as an upgrade", but I mean the nitty-gritty of how can NASA go about presenting it the various groups in order to gain the maximum possible support from all fields?

I have my own ideas (shock, horror!), but before I throw my opinions in the pot, I would dearly like to hear from others, especially those inside the "NASA family".

How would you attempt to handle such a huge transition?   What pitfalls do you predict should be kept an eye upon?   Do you have a unique perspective on this which could benefit?

I'd like to get a feel for what would have to be done to succeed, all assuming it does happen, of course.

Thanks in advance,

Ross.

How about this for a new slant, is there a scenario where both Ares I and Direct could co-exist ? Ares I used as a ISS taxi as planned and where its upperstage and 5-seg SRB are used on a Jupiter 231 with a standard size but stretched 8.4m ET tank ? In other words we have an Ares I, Ares II and an Ares III. Absolutely nothing is wasted in terms of current development but we go to the Moon on any combination of a Ares I, Ares II (Jupiter-120 with 5-seg SRB) or Ares III (Jupiter-231 with 5-seg SRB and a larger modified Ares I upperstage). The Ares II could also be used as a LEO CaLV for say the ISS. No one loses face and you get a cheaper more cost effective HLV more quickly. Everyone wins as both Ares I and a directly derived shuttle cargo launch vehicle are produced without the upheaveal a 10m tank would produce.

Failing that if Ares I is to be canned as a Lunar LV, it can be stated that it just doesn't have the necessary safety margin (10%) to successfully carry out the Lunar Mission and that other features will be incorporated in the HLV carrying crew to mitigate safety i.e. engine out, ballistic protection, maybe having LSAM as physical barrier between the fuel and CEV. Ideally you would want a HLV CLV which didn't need an upper stage so that it wasn't relying on that firing. Once you lit up all the RS68s and then the SRBs and if you have engine out as well you are pretty certain to get the crew into orbit unless there was a major unforseen problem.  I'm thinking that you might need a 3 launch approach to be on the safe side of not mixing crew with cargo :- A Jupiter-120 (Ares II) for the CEV, a Jupiter-120 for the LSAM and a Jupiter 231 (Ares III) where the upper stage is the EDS.

p.s. I wonder also with a stretched tank and 5-seg SRBs whether a 130 would now be possible.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 07/18/2007 01:27 pm
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 18/7/2007  6:31 AM

Quote
kraisee - 17/7/2007  10:15 PM

What concerns me currently is how NASA should go about presenting such a major change to its own workforce, Congress and the public at large.
Tailor it to each audience (whilst making it consistent overall)

{snip}

The general public don't care and therefore don't count, frankly. Don't waste your time.

{snip}
There will always be segments of the population that just don't care.  However, there are some that know about the Apollo landings and Skylab and the shuttle program (which was underscored by two LOC events!!).

For the general public, I think an important point is pointing out how this is an order of magnitude (more?) increase in safety from the shuttle.  Mention the "easy to catch" reasons:  redesigned SRBs to prevent Challenger-style failures; no crew compartment/reentry vehicle below any part of the booster to prevent Columbia-style LOC's; then you add a LAS...

BUT at the same time, point out that the new system uses understood components and powerful infrastructure from the shuttle program, the dynamics of which are well understood with almost 30 years of flight experience & improvements.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 07/18/2007 01:58 pm
Quote
marsavian - 18/7/2007  7:49 AM
How about this for a new slant, is there a scenario where both Ares I and Direct could co-exist ?
Isn't the whole  to build just _one_ launcher? Ares I is significantly different than Jupiter/Ares II. If you build Ares I you will have spent the money we are trying to save for Jupiter. I agree that we'll eveer see another booster, so the only one we/NASA builds better be capable of going to the moon.

Ares I must die.


(I think I'll get that on a T-shirt if I go to the AIAA conference...)

Paul
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/18/2007 02:07 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 18/7/2007  8:58 AM

Quote
marsavian - 18/7/2007  7:49 AM
How about this for a new slant, is there a scenario where both Ares I and Direct could co-exist ?
Isn't the whole  to build just _one_ launcher? Ares I is significantly different than Jupiter/Ares II. If you build Ares I you will have spent the money we are trying to save for Jupiter. I agree that we'll eveer see another booster, so the only one we/NASA builds better be capable of going to the moon.

Ares I must die.


(I think I'll get that on a T-shirt if I go to the AIAA conference...)

Paul

Sure but not many influential people want it dead. A cheaper more affordable CaLV that doubles up as a lunar CLV maybe the best compromise here especially if Ares V isn't cutting it in a 1.5 launch system as Ross keeps intimating.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/18/2007 02:09 pm
Quote
marsavian - 18/7/2007  7:49 AM

How about this for a new slant, is there a scenario where both Ares I and Direct could co-exist ?
No. Ares-I is incompatable with the entire philosophy of the Direct Architecture.
If there *MUST* be a launch vehicle with lower performance than the J-120, then offload some propellant, remove one engine from the J-120 and fly it with center engine only, a Jupiter-110. We have actually looked at this and determined that for the price of one less engine, there is no advantage to doing this. All that would have been accomplished is to duplicate the performance of already existing launch vehicles in the EELV family.

A prime consideration of Direct is to "compliment" the EELV's, not "compete" with them.
The EELV launchers are a national treasure and should not have to compete with *ANY* NASA launch vehicle. An EELV launch in the lift capacity of a J-110 would be less expensive than a J-110 launch. It doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Tergenev on 07/18/2007 02:16 pm
I think Formant is correct in his assessment of how to sell such a change to Direct to the general public.

But it needs to be kept simple.

It comes down to this. . . .

"Hi everybody, this is NASA. Yeah, the Space Shuttle people. . . . well the Shuttles are wearing out and we need to replace them with something better. We came up with a plan to do that, and we've been working on it really hard. But we know we're not perfect and we wanted to be sure to listen to other people's ideas. A bunch of really smart people came up with another way to replace the shuttle. And you know what? They came up with something that makes more sense. It'll do more, it'll be more adaptable, and it may even save us a bunch of money. "
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/18/2007 02:19 pm
The reality though is that Ares I contracts keep getting anounced so one day you maybe forced to live with it and getting a cheaper more efficient CaLV maybe all that's left to play for.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 07/18/2007 02:30 pm
I don't think we should get hung up on contracts.  They can be changed, modified, cancelled as needed- i.e. Dyna Soar, MOL.  The solution just needs to be cost effective and safe.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/18/2007 02:33 pm
Quote
marsavian - 18/7/2007  10:19 AM

The reality though is that Ares I contracts keep getting anounced so one day you maybe forced to live with it and getting a cheaper more efficient CaLV maybe all that's left to play for.
The contracts have been in the works for some time. Besides, unless and until there is an official change in architecture, as Ross has said above, the Ares-I contracts will continue to be issued. Were such an architecture change actually executed, the contracts would be modified. Remember, there is almost nothing going on with Ares-I contractual developments that are not directly applicable to the Jupiter launch vehicle, excepting the 5-segment SRB. With that single exception, nothing has been wasted. It all just slides to the Jupiter, virtually unchanged.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/18/2007 02:47 pm
You should at least consider DIRECT options with 5-seg SRBs if it's already been bought and paid for. After all this is about using what is available and they might be available very soon.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/18/2007 02:52 pm
Quote
marsavian - 18/7/2007  10:47 AM

You should at least consider DIRECT options with 5-seg SRBs if it's already been bought and paid for. After all this is about using what is available and they might be available very soon.
Ross has previously posted a graphic which showed the variations in the Jupiter family. If you notice, the 5-segemnt SRB is already included in the potential mix.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/18/2007 02:53 pm
But, is there a way to use the 5-seg SRBs without extending the tank?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: EE Scott on 07/18/2007 03:00 pm
FYI, the five-segment SRB is nowhere near being bought and paid for.  It is still a long way off from being developed.  Almost no meaningful work has been done on this.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 07/18/2007 03:19 pm
Quote
clongton - 18/7/2007  3:33 PM

Quote
marsavian - 18/7/2007  10:19 AM

The reality though is that Ares I contracts keep getting anounced so one day you maybe forced to live with it and getting a cheaper more efficient CaLV maybe all that's left to play for.
The contracts have been in the works for some time. Besides, unless and until there is an official change in architecture, as Ross has said above, the Ares-I contracts will continue to be issued. Were such an architecture change actually executed, the contracts would be modified.

As an engineer I tell you that whenever customer changes requirements the first thing to do is to raise "a change request" to ask for more money.
There are many subcontractors which would be affected.

Quote
Remember, there is almost nothing going on with Ares-I contractual developments that are not directly applicable to the Jupiter launch vehicle, excepting the 5-segment SRB. With that single exception, nothing has been wasted. It all just slides to the Jupiter, virtually unchanged.

Virtually unchanged? What about planning, study and design work for LAS, US, MPLs, launchpad, Ares 1-X test flight etc? This would have to be scraped and begin with the other design from scratch.
All contractor and subcontractor contracts would have to be terminated or modified, all bidding processes scraped or postponed.

5seg SRB work would be wasted, possibly paying termination fees to ATK.

Orion would certainly need to return to PDR stage and be delayed.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 07/18/2007 03:24 pm
Quote
EE Scott - 18/7/2007  4:00 PM

FYI, the five-segment SRB is nowhere near being bought and paid for.  It is still a long way off from being developed.  Almost no meaningful work has been done on this.

You say that all design cycles up to now had no meaning? The 5 seg SRBs might not been built yet but ATK is contracted to perform the design and fabrication work. They have to be paid for work done and contract termination fee.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/18/2007 03:32 pm
JIS
Nobody is implying that there would not be costs associated with contract cancellations and modifications. Of course there would be. It’s not like NASA hasn’t done this before. What would be new THIS TIME is that any costs associated with such an architecture change would be more than offset by fielding a more capable and less expensive architecture. Even ATK would make money on the deal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2007 03:33 pm
Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  11:24 AM

You say that all design cycles up to now had no meaning? The 5 seg SRBs might not been built yet but ATK is contracted to perform the design and fabrication work. They have to be paid for work done and contract termination fee.

$ wise, yes, they have no meaning.  The bulk of the money has yet to be spent and  ATK has already been paid for their work to this point. The CLV has only gone through SRR.  It is still at a point were cancelling is no big deal
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 07/18/2007 03:51 pm
Quote
clongton - 18/7/2007  4:32 PM

JIS
Nobody is implying that there would not be costs associated with contract cancellations and modifications. Of course there would be. It’s not like NASA hasn’t done this before. What would be new THIS TIME is that any costs associated with such an architecture change would be more than offset by fielding a more capable and less expensive architecture. Even ATK would make money on the deal.

What I'm trying to say that there is a big momentum gained trough the last two years (or maybe even longer). This is not easy to divert and argument of wasted money will be used against any such attempt.
There is no will for change in white house, congress/senate or NASA HQ. I can't imagine that the course can be changed without some major political or economical event in the USA.
Even if the NASA administrator would like to cancel Ares 1 he would need to justify that before congress by cost or schedule problems. I'm not convinced that Ares 1 is in such troubles.
As somebody said before: the current Congress doesn't care whether Orion can do lunar flights. They want manned missions to ISS soon after STS retirement and there is no reason why Ares 1 can't provide that capability even if Orion is another ton overweight (or Ares 1 performance is less).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/18/2007 04:35 pm
JIS continuing on a troubled path and use the end result of that for the next 20 or 30 years just because you have put two years of work into it is a little crazy.  No one likes changing direction after work is done, but sometimes it is much smarter to change to a better course than to stay on a troubled one.

That is where Leadership and intelligence comes in (as well as real knowledge and not gossip or rumors we get hear, although I know there are informed people on this forum but not all the content is accurate to be sure.)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/18/2007 04:59 pm
Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  11:51 AM

Quote
clongton - 18/7/2007  4:32 PM

JIS
Nobody is implying that there would not be costs associated with contract cancellations and modifications. Of course there would be. It’s not like NASA hasn’t done this before. What would be new THIS TIME is that any costs associated with such an architecture change would be more than offset by fielding a more capable and less expensive architecture. Even ATK would make money on the deal.

1. What I'm trying to say that there is a big momentum gained through the last two years (or maybe even longer). This is not easy to divert and argument of wasted money will be used against any such attempt.

2. There is no will for change in white house, congress/senate or NASA HQ. I can't imagine that the course can be changed without some major political or economical event in the USA.

3. Even if the NASA administrator would like to cancel Ares 1 he would need to justify that before congress by cost or schedule problems. I'm not convinced that Ares 1 is in such troubles.

4. As somebody said before: the current Congress doesn't care whether Orion can do lunar flights. They want manned missions to ISS soon after STS retirement and there is no reason why Ares 1 can't provide that capability even if Orion is another ton overweight (or Ares 1 performance is less).

1. You are correct in that it is not an easy task to change direction, but “wasted money” will not be a valid argument against Direct because a large percentage of expenditures will have direct application to the Jupiter. These monies have not been wasted. The Administrator would even be free to say that he planned expenditures in such a way so as to minimize potential waste should a change prove necessary. He could even say that because of his foresight, most of the effort to date had direct application to the new direction, with very little impact to the ongoing effort. He would then look like a hero.

2. Will for Change:
... 2a. The White House will back whatever makes it look good. The VSE has always been, for the WH at least, nothing more than a political tool. If NASA wanted to change direction because it had “discovered” that the current course was not delivering on the expected performance, then the White House would see that as an opportunity to display that it was actively monitoring events and guiding things toward a good output for the American people. GW would love that. (Maybe I should apply to be his speech writer)

... 2b. The Congress will likewise back anything that makes it appear in the eyes of the electorate that it is properly exercising its mandate of oversight. Should they learn, in the process of exercising this mandate, that a change of direction was needed, the leaders of the House and Senate would be only too happy to make sure the American people were aware of how vigilant they had been.

... 2c. NASA HQ would most likely be the agent of the change. Either the current administrator would initiate the change cycle, or his successor. That would most likely be after the ’08 elections, because Mike Griffin has stated that he has no plans to continue at NASA beyond the current administration.

3. The NASA administrator would not initiate such a change unless the Ares program was indeed in trouble. If a change were forthcoming, you can bet it is because of the difficulties with the Ares-I performance.

4. That would be me, most recently, but many others have also said that. If there were no viable alternative to the Ares-I path for ISS access, you would be correct. But there are at least two (2).

... 4a. EELV: The EELV fleet is perfectly capable of lifting a downsized version of the Orion spacecraft right now. Most of the “overweight” issues with Orion have to do with adding a large amount of propellant to make up for the shortfall in the Ares-I launch vehicle. Due to the performance shortfalls in the Ares-I, the Orion Service Module needed to do a 6.5 minute ascent burn, effectively making it a 3rd stage for the Ares. That was more than 4mT of propellant. If an EELV were to be the selected launcher, that additional mass penalty would no longer exist, putting Orion right into the lift capacity of the EELV. This would be the most efficient solution. Lunar programs are certainly possible with derivatives of existing EELVs so even the lunar and Martian programs would not be adversely affected. However, it does nothing for the political fallout that would ensue due to employment losses at the various centers which depend on the STS architecture for their jobs. Job losses equate directly to vote losses for those in Congress at re-election time, so it is unlikely Congress will back this solution. Mike Griffin was brought in specifically to prevent this solution and force acceptance of the Shuttle-Derived solution. This resulted in the retention of a large number of STS jobs that would otherwise have vanished, and the current Ares architecture. Those who mandated that the EELV would not dominate the VSE are still the political masters of NASA. Getting them to accept an EELV Crew Launcher would be a daunting task. It could be done, but most likely only within the context of a shuttle-derived heavy lifter. Not impossible, but very difficult.

... 4b. Direct/Jupiter: For approximately the same money as is being allocated for the Ares-I, the Jupiter can directly replace every function the Ares-I was designed to perform but can’t. In addition, it is also capable of fulfilling the lunar and Martian missions that the Ares-V was supposed to be able to perform, without the added expense of developing that launch vehicle. Add to that the fact that the political problem of job-retention in the STS sector is eliminated, makes the Direct architecture attractive as an Ares replacement. Given these two options, Congress would most likely choose this one over the EELV, even if the EELV is more cost effective. Remember, Congress is not looking for cost effective answers. They are looking to be re-elected.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/18/2007 05:10 pm
Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  9:51 AM
As somebody said before: the current Congress doesn't care whether Orion can do lunar flights. They want manned missions to ISS soon after STS retirement and there is no reason why Ares 1 can't provide that capability even if Orion is another ton overweight (or Ares 1 performance is less).

You consider 5 years and growing "soon"?  I sure don't.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 07/18/2007 05:28 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 18/7/2007  6:10 PM

Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  9:51 AM
As somebody said before: the current Congress doesn't care whether Orion can do lunar flights. They want manned missions to ISS soon after STS retirement and there is no reason why Ares 1 can't provide that capability even if Orion is another ton overweight (or Ares 1 performance is less).

You consider 5 years and growing "soon"?  I sure don't.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5167

quotes the first unmanned flight in sep 2012, first manned in Oct 2013 and first operational in 2014. I don't know whether this schedule is realistic or not but Congress will be happy to see that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/18/2007 05:32 pm
Quote
Jim - 18/7/2007  12:16 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 17/7/2007  11:19 PM

1,  All the currently planned money.  20 years is 5 Presidential elections away, way outside the political planning cycle.  With a minimum of 3 new Presidents anything can happen.

2.  Mining and factories on the Moon and Mars are going to need big machines.

3.  NASA is not the only customer for large rockets.  Other government departments want satellites.

4. Space is no longer a government monopoly.


1.  None are planned for now.  The lunar lander hasn't even been designed.  Nothing past the lunar sorties has been potted.   The few lunar base studies use the same lander and the 'base" is only consists of about 5 landers.  

Yes, 20 years is 5 elections away, but the trend is in the opposite direction.  Less money for space.  Things aren't going to get better.  The lunar landing isn't going to be earlier

One of the main reasons money is short is that you are not giving the general public anything that they want.

The Ares/Jupiter rockets are being financed as part of the Moon landing programme.  A bigger rocket would need a different programme to finance it.

Quote
2.  Mining and factories on the Moon and Mars are at least 30-40 years away

3.  NASA IS the ONLY customer for large rockets.  The other gov't agencies are avoiding Ares

A wise decision.  Anything away from your main mission buy off the shelf, made to measure is just too expansive.  When it flies Aries becomes off the shelf.

Quote
4.  Correct space isn't but Big rockets and Big payloads are

Currently.

Example - many hotels contain hundreds of rooms.  The prototype space hotel is little more than a boarding house.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/18/2007 05:34 pm
Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  1:28 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 18/7/2007  6:10 PM

Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  9:51 AM
As somebody said before: the current Congress doesn't care whether Orion can do lunar flights. They want manned missions to ISS soon after STS retirement and there is no reason why Ares 1 can't provide that capability even if Orion is another ton overweight (or Ares 1 performance is less).

You consider 5 years and growing "soon"?  I sure don't.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5167

quotes the first unmanned flight in sep 2012, first manned in Oct 2013 and first operational in 2014. I don't know whether this schedule is realistic or not but Congress will be happy to see that.
The original target for the first operational manned Orion was early 2011. The current schedule is now September 2015. The way things are going, that will most likely slip to April 2016 at the earliest. That last part is a personal observation, but based on conditions inside the program.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2007 05:45 pm
Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  11:19 AM

1. Virtually unchanged? What about planning, study and design work for LAS, US, MPLs, launchpad, Ares 1-X test flight etc? This would have to be scraped and begin with the other design from scratch.
2.  All contractor and subcontractor contracts would have to be terminated or modified, all bidding processes scraped or postponed.

3.  5seg SRB work would be wasted, possibly paying termination fees to ATK.

4.  Orion would certainly need to return to PDR stage and be delayed.


1.  LAS, MLP, and Pad work is still applicable.   Ares 1-X is a waste and cancelling it would save money.

2.  See X-33, OSP, JIMO.  It happens all the time

3.  See above

4.  NO.  and it just got past SRR.  PDR is still in the future.   It is the least affected by a change.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/18/2007 05:46 pm
Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  11:28 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 18/7/2007  6:10 PM

Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  9:51 AM
As somebody said before: the current Congress doesn't care whether Orion can do lunar flights. They want manned missions to ISS soon after STS retirement and there is no reason why Ares 1 can't provide that capability even if Orion is another ton overweight (or Ares 1 performance is less).

You consider 5 years and growing "soon"?  I sure don't.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5167

quotes the first unmanned flight in sep 2012, first manned in Oct 2013 and first operational in 2014. I don't know whether this schedule is realistic or not but Congress will be happy to see that.

Even if 2014 is true for first operational missions (I doubt it), that's still 3 1/2 to 4 years of no manned spaceflight missions to ISS by NASA vehicles.  With slippage, that's likely to go to 4-6 years.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 07/18/2007 05:47 pm
Quote
clongton - 18/7/2007  6:34 PM

Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  1:28 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 18/7/2007  6:10 PM

Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  9:51 AM
As somebody said before: the current Congress doesn't care whether Orion can do lunar flights. They want manned missions to ISS soon after STS retirement and there is no reason why Ares 1 can't provide that capability even if Orion is another ton overweight (or Ares 1 performance is less).

You consider 5 years and growing "soon"?  I sure don't.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5167

quotes the first unmanned flight in sep 2012, first manned in Oct 2013 and first operational in 2014. I don't know whether this schedule is realistic or not but Congress will be happy to see that.
The original target for the first operational manned Orion was early 2011. The current schedule is now September 2015. The way things are going, that will most likely slip to April 2016 at the earliest. That last part is a personal observation, but based on conditions inside the program.

I agree, the slippage to 2016 would certainly be a strong reason to cancel the program.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 07/18/2007 05:52 pm
Quote
Jim - 18/7/2007  6:45 PM

Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  11:19 AM

1. Virtually unchanged? What about planning, study and design work for LAS, US, MPLs, launchpad, Ares 1-X test flight etc? This would have to be scraped and begin with the other design from scratch.
2.  All contractor and subcontractor contracts would have to be terminated or modified, all bidding processes scraped or postponed.

3.  5seg SRB work would be wasted, possibly paying termination fees to ATK.

4.  Orion would certainly need to return to PDR stage and be delayed.


1.  LAS, MLP, and Pad work is still applicable.   Ares 1-X is a waste and cancelling it would save money.

2.  See X-33, OSP, JIMO.  It happens all the time

3.  See above

4.  NO.  and it just got past SRR.  PDR is still in the future.   It is the least affected by a change.

4. You're right. My mistake.
If the change in the launch vehicle would spare a lot of cash the Orion development can be easily accelerated.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2007 05:55 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 18/7/2007  1:32 PM

1.  One of the main reasons money is short is that you are not giving the general public anything that they want.

2.  The Ares/Jupiter rockets are being financed as part of the Moon landing programme.  A bigger rocket would need a different programme to finance it.

3.  A wise decision.  Anything away from your main mission buy off the shelf, made to measure is just too expansive.  When it flies Aries becomes off the shelf.

Quote
4.  Correct space isn't but Big rockets and Big payloads are

Currently.

5. Example - many hotels contain hundreds of rooms.  The prototype space hotel is little more than a boarding house.

All your answers are totally unrealistic.  The US Gov't is not going to substantially increase budget for spaceflight (NASA)

1.  There isn't anything that would increase NASA's budget

2.  What different progrm?   There isn't going to be one.  NASA isn't going to fund two programs

3.  There still isn't money for other payloads, whether Ares V exists or not

4.  The other agencies won't be looking at Ares V.  a.  they don't have the money for the payloads.  b.  they don't have the need. c.  they don't want to work with NASA again.

5.  Not applicable.  NASA isn't going to launch hotels.  Anyways large hotels are not going to happen for decades

Anything you are talking about is 20 years or more away

This thread is about Direct.   NASA launch vehicles are not for commercial users
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Formant on 07/19/2007 05:11 am
Quote
JIS - 19/7/2007  12:51 AM

Quote
clongton - 18/7/2007  4:32 PM

JIS
Nobody is implying that there would not be costs associated with contract cancellations and modifications. Of course there would be. It’s not like NASA hasn’t done this before. What would be new THIS TIME is that any costs associated with such an architecture change would be more than offset by fielding a more capable and less expensive architecture. Even ATK would make money on the deal.

What I'm trying to say that there is a big momentum gained trough the last two years (or maybe even longer). This is not easy to divert and argument of wasted money will be used against any such attempt.
There is no will for change in white house, congress/senate or NASA HQ. I can't imagine that the course can be changed without some major political or economical event in the USA.

Any 'momentum' that the Ares I program may have acquired is certainly not visible to the public. Beyond the locked doors behind which this 'momentum' is (or is not, as the case may be) accumulating, there is no indication that any progress is being made with Ares I at all.

It is true that there is no 'will' for change in the White House or Congress at the moment. If NASA can keep a VERY low profile, this condition may well continue for a short while more. The belief that this condition will outlive the 2008 elections, on the other hand, requires a profound lack of insight into the current political realities in the United States. The truth is that whoever wins the White House in the coming elections will do so at least partially by proclaiming how completely unlike the current administration they are. After taking office, they will have to demonstrate to the public that they really are different. There are many policies of the current administration that are very unpopular with the public that the next administration may be hesitant to radically alter. The VSE is quite the opposite. There is NOTHING about the VSE that is politically dangerous for the next administration to change, so long as NASA is given some sort of mission to replace it. This makes high profile changes at NASA a given, regardless of who is elected. This is doubly true if there is a party change in the White House and the new occupants want to go on a corruption hunt to damage the credibility of their opponents.

There WILL be a major political event in 2008 in the United States. . .the 2008 elections. Whoever wins will rhetorically distance themselves from the current administration, and they will be desperately searching for anything that the current administration has touched so that they can change it and prove that they are proponents of a new direction. NASA is the easiest of changes to make, particularly when all you need to do is swap the Ares I for Jupiter. They are so visually different that all the new administration has to do is rename the VSE to IME (Initiative for Mars Exploration), trash the Ares and adopt Direct (no details needed. . .just images of the launch vehicles for the press release). The public will believe it to be a complete overhaul of NASA and the new administration will automatically win popularity points. The only way to avoid this is if everything that the current administration touches starts turning to gold from here on out. . .very unlikely.

The Ares I is tainted from its association with the VSE. The VSE is tainted from being 'championed' by an extremely unpopular President. Even ignoring the harm that Ares may be doing to NASA's budget, mission potential, and workforce, Ares is a political liability to the next administration.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: NASA_Twix_JSC on 07/19/2007 06:06 am
Quote
Formant - 18/7/2007  12:11 AM


Any 'momentum' that the Ares I program may have acquired is certainly not visible to the public. Beyond the locked doors behind which this 'momentum' is (or is not, as the case may be) accumulating, there is no indication that any progress is being made with Ares I at all.

Not the case if you've got L2 access, where one can gain an educated overview of where things stand via documentation. Without that, and the articles http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/cat.asp?cid=16 that are produced out of some of the L2 information, we'd be in a worse position to make informed judgements.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 07/19/2007 06:52 am
One danger I see is the "wait for the new administration" argument for implementing DIRECT.  If we care about the post-shuttle spaceflight gap, we'll have to change gears quickly.  Every day that NASA continues to pursue Ares I is a day that could be spent making DIRECT a reality.  While 2012 is predicted as a first flight date for the Orion/Jupiter 120 stack, that figure has to be based on an assumed start date to the project.  By stalling on a commitment to DIRECT, we're delaying DIRECT's schedule and negating any schedule advantages it has over Ares I.

Realistically, I think that Orion is placed on the critical path (if it isn't there already) should DIRECT be adopted.  Remember that the Apollo CSM contract was awarded in November 1961, and the capsule didn't achieve its first manned flight until October 1968.  That's almost seven years.  If the same holds true, we won't see a manned Orion flight until summer 2013.  The question is how long it will take to re-invent Apollo, taking into account the lessons that were hopefully learned from the first time that Apollo was invented.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 07/19/2007 11:38 am
Quote
rumble - 18/7/2007  2:27 PM

Quote
CuddlyRocket - 18/7/2007  6:31 AM

The general public don't care and therefore don't count, frankly. Don't waste your time.
There will always be segments of the population that just don't care.  However, there are some that know about the Apollo landings and Skylab and the shuttle program ...
Knowing and caring are two different things. It's not 'segments of the population' that don't care. The overwhelming majority of the US public don't care which launch vehicle NASA uses. They're not interested in it beyond a news bite. Attempting to get some great groundswell of public opinion in favour of Direct is a waste of time and effort.

Quote
For the general public, I think an important point is pointing out how this is an order of magnitude (more?) increase in safety from the shuttle.
The aim is to get Direct adopted in place of ESAS, which also claims safety improvements. The argument for replacing the Shuttle has been won. Don't repeat yourselves.

Quote
Formant - 19/7/2007  6:11 AM

It is true that there is no 'will' for change in the White House or Congress at the moment. If NASA can keep a VERY low profile, this condition may well continue for a short while more.
This belief that NASA is trying to pursue its own agenda beneath Congress' or the Administration's radar takes some killing off doesn't it? :) I suppose it's a better conspiracy theory.

The fundamental drive for Ares I comes from Congress. The Administration simply goes along with it - either because they agree, or they don't think it worth fighting against.

Quote
There is NOTHING about the VSE that is politically dangerous for the next administration to change, so long as NASA is given some sort of mission to replace it.
Do we want the VSE to change? I thought this was about replacing the ESAS proposal with the Direct proposal to fulfil the VSE?

Quote
Even ignoring the harm that Ares may be doing to NASA's budget, mission potential, and workforce, Ares is a political liability to the next administration.
Not if Ares is supported by the Congress, in which case trying to change it will be politically damaging to the new Administration. Will such a fight really be a priority? I sincerely doubt it.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/19/2007 11:47 am
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 19/7/2007  7:38 AM

The fundamental drive for Ares I comes from Congress.
It's not the Ares-I that Congress wants. It's Shuttle-Derived. They could care less what it looks like or what it's called as long as it doesn't unduely upset the Shuttle employment workforce.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/19/2007 12:06 pm
Quote
clongton - 19/7/2007  7:47 AM

Quote
CuddlyRocket - 19/7/2007  7:38 AM

The fundamental drive for Ares I comes from Congress.
It's not the Ares-I that Congress wants. It's Shuttle-Derived. They could care less what it looks like or what it's called as long as it doesn't unduely upset the Shuttle employment workforce.

Which also means the "shuttle" workforce doesn't have to work on shuttle derived hardware.  It just has to be employed
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/19/2007 12:44 pm
Quote
Jim - 19/7/2007  8:06 AM

Quote
clongton - 19/7/2007  7:47 AM

Quote
CuddlyRocket - 19/7/2007  7:38 AM

The fundamental drive for Ares I comes from Congress.
It's not the Ares-I that Congress wants. It's Shuttle-Derived. They could care less what it looks like or what it's called as long as it doesn't unduely upset the Shuttle employment workforce.

Which also means the "shuttle" workforce doesn't have to work on shuttle derived hardware.  It just has to be employed
That’s a true statement, but the “impression” in the congressional mind is working on shuttle-derived hardware. It could just as easily include EELV hardware. However it is done, whatever they transit to for employment, it has to EXCLUDE a layoff, because that looses votes. And that is the bottom line for congressional support of any project – votes. Transit the worker to a different job without them being laid off and the vote is retained. But if they loose their job, even for as short a time as a month, the vote is probably lost.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 07/19/2007 02:41 pm
Quote
clongton - 19/7/2007  8:44 AM
However it is done, whatever they transit to for employment, it has to EXCLUDE a layoff,

I suspect it also has to preclude _moving_ the worker out of the particular congresscritter's district, which is what tends to make the "shuttle derived" thing important. A congresscritter isn't going to care a toss for any program that gets _another_ congresscritter a vote.  Keeping the workers _where_ they are pretty much means them doing something very similar to what they are doing now.

Pork begets pork.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 07/19/2007 04:16 pm

Quote
Jim - 19/7/2007  7:06 AM  
Quote
clongton - 19/7/2007  7:47 AM  
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 19/7/2007  7:38 AM  The fundamental drive for Ares I comes from Congress.
It's not the Ares-I that Congress wants. It's Shuttle-Derived. They could care less what it looks like or what it's called as long as it doesn't unduely upset the Shuttle employment workforce.
 Which also means the "shuttle" workforce doesn't have to work on shuttle derived hardware.  It just has to be employed

All of this was known from the beginning. All Ares I has been an "head fake" and a waste of time.

Congress was explicit on this, many years ago. Griffin has a tin ear.

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/19/2007 05:02 pm
Quote
Jim - 19/7/2007  7:06 AM

Quote
clongton - 19/7/2007  7:47 AM

Quote
CuddlyRocket - 19/7/2007  7:38 AM

The fundamental drive for Ares I comes from Congress.
It's not the Ares-I that Congress wants. It's Shuttle-Derived. They could care less what it looks like or what it's called as long as it doesn't unduely upset the Shuttle employment workforce.

Which also means the "shuttle" workforce doesn't have to work on shuttle derived hardware.  It just has to be employed

I agree with this.  For congress it is money and jobs.  I think they would like Jupiter just as much as Ares 1 on this.  

Danny Deger
You can download my book on Air Force flying and working at NASA at:
http://www.dannydeger.net
You can also get a copy of my Deger Dots shuttle simulation
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/19/2007 05:59 pm
Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  1:52 PM

If the change in the launch vehicle would spare a lot of cash the Orion development can be easily accelerated.

Only $1-2bn savings compared to Ares-I will see the Jupiter-120 fly.   Mostly because we delete development work on the SRB's and new J-2X engine, and only redevelop the ET into a stage (not so different, cost-wise, from making an all-new U/S for Ares-I), and re-use the existing RS-68 with zero performance changes.

But we completely eliminate the $16bn costs involved in designing & developing the Ares-V.

Note that the EDS costs are separate to Ares-V anyway, and we need it too.   The cost to develop isn't any different.   We just fly it on our equivalent of the Ares-I instead of needing a second LV.

I think $18bn might qualify as "spare[ing] a lot of cash".   Not to mention saving more than $1bn every year in fixed operational costs during the actual program itself.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/19/2007 06:10 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 18/7/2007  10:53 AM

But, is there a way to use the 5-seg SRBs without extending the tank?

The simple answer is "Yes".

A 5-segment upgrade was being planned since the 1990's for Shuttle - without a tank stretch.   All of the test fired 5-segment boosters so far are all to that specification - not the one now required for the Ares launchers.

The Fwd and Aft attachment points on the ET remain exactly where they are.

Here is a 2.4Mb document all about it.

But we are not baselining it into the Jupiter proposal.   We plan to do Lunar missions without that additional cost.   5-segs can still be done later if we ever do need extra performance, but we are removing them (and as many other expensive engine developments as possible) from the critical path.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 07/19/2007 08:28 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/7/2007  11:10 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 18/7/2007  10:53 AM

But, is there a way to use the 5-seg SRBs without extending the tank?

The simple answer is "Yes".

A 5-segment upgrade was being planned since the 1990's for Shuttle - without a tank stretch.   All of the test fired 5-segment boosters so far are all to that specification - not the one now required for the Ares launchers.

The Fwd and Aft attachment points on the ET remain exactly where they are.

Here is a 2.4Mb document all about it.

But we are not baselining it into the Jupiter proposal.   We plan to do Lunar missions without that additional cost.   5-segs can still be done later if we ever do need extra performance, but we are removing them (and as many other expensive engine developments as possible) from the critical path.

Ross.

Looking at the charts in that document, I'm wondering if that 5-seg SRB would make things better, or if it might actually make things worse for a well-designed rocket.  It appears that the liftoff thrust is only a tiny bit higher than for the 4-seg SRB, which means that the maximum total launch mass is pretty much the same.  So the net effect is that you are substituting low-Isp solid fuel in place of high-Isp liquid fuel.  Which I would expect to result in less mass to LEO.  (This is assuming that you have full control of upper-stage design, and can use an upper stage that is optimally-sized for your boosters and first stage.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/19/2007 09:39 pm
Then there is also the basic tenet that the 4-segs are ready to go right now.   They are man-rated already.   They have all the facilities and staff in place to continue using them beyond 2010.   They are in use on an active launch system already.   And in their current configuration, they have proven to be very reliable since they were redesigned following Challenger.

None of which applies to the 5-segment variant.

So why should we have to spend ANY money replacing them at all?   That's the key reason why the 5-segs remain as an "optional future upgrade" for DIRECT and are not in the baseline.   We just don't need them, so they have been removed from the critical path.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 07/20/2007 06:02 am

Quote
kraisee - 19/7/2007  4:39 PM  Then there is also the basic tenet that the 4-segs are ready to go right now.   They are man-rated already.   They have all the facilities and staff in place to continue using them beyond 2010.   They are in use on an active launch system already.   And in their current configuration, they have proven to be very reliable since they were redesigned following Challenger.

Perfectly said. Don't mess with something well designed that works and is already in plan. 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/20/2007 09:36 pm
By the way everybody, happy 38th anniversary since the first moon landing - July 20, 1969  :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Hotdog on 07/22/2007 05:12 pm
Ross

I have been following this thread since the inception of DIRECT 1. It has been fascinating reading and as a design it all seems to make such sense. The DIRECT 1 thread prompted me to download Orbiter and fly the rocket. Great fun! Wish I could be on it! I haven't really contributed until now but thought it was time to add my two cents worth.

After the problems following the discussion with Doug Stanley you guys have really cleaned up the design. It does seem from the numbers you have shown that you guys have hit a sweet spot. As has been stated by you and everyone else, the problems ahead are probably mostly political, not technical.

It seems to me that one of the big advantages of DIRECT is the greater STS workforce retention. If you are going to get the support of the US Congress, I think you need to illustrate this clearly.

Does DIRECT retain more STS workforce than Ares I/V? Is it possible to do a detailed comparison between the two plans and show an estimate of the number of jobs lost in each state due to the current Ares I/V development plan and give a breakdown of how those losses are less with DIRECT? For both plans there will be a gap in manufacturing and launch processing between 2010 and whenever they first fly. Is it possible to maintain workforce during those periods?

I would think that this would be something valuable that could be added to your AIAA paper or DIRECT proposal.

I look forward to reading the AIAA paper when it comes out.





Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2007 09:11 pm
Quote
Hotdog - 22/7/2007  1:12 PM

Does DIRECT retain more STS workforce that Ares I/V? Is it possible to do a detailed comparison between the two plans and show an estimate of the number of jobs lost in each state due to the current Ares I/V development plan and give a breakdown of how those losses are less with DIRECT? For both plans there will be a gap in manufacturing and launch processing between 2010 and whenever they first fly. Is it possible to maintain workforce during those periods?

I would think that this would be something valuable that could be added to your AIAA paper or DIRECT proposal.

I look forward to reading the AIAA paper when it comes out.

Thanks for the support.

The work retention question is a difficult one to quantify in precise terms, but I will do my best.

SRB:
In terms of manufacturing and processing of SRB's - absolutely nothing changes at all.   *Everyone* working those, throughout the country (in particular Utah and Kennedy) would be retained very easily by either Ares or Jupiter programs.

ET:
Staff at Marshall, Michoud and Kennedy would all be totally secure with the Jupiter program.   We will clearly require the entire team STS ET workforce to be retained.   In addition, many of those people processing currently SSME on the Orbiters today will *have* to be moved over to the "Core Stage" team to process the RS-68's there.   This may require some retraining, but these guys really are rocket scientists, so I see no cause for concern there at all.

This is not so the case with Ares-I though:   The Ares-I U/S is a lot smaller than ET, and is being designed to delete much of the preparation work required by STS ET's.   So I would expect Ares-I will cause significant job losses in that area.   I am hearing that NASA hopes to reduce numbers to 50-75% of current levels, mostly by natural attrition (retirement).

Ares-V is ultimately hoped to "pick up this slack", but nobody expects the first Ares-V Core stages to come off the production line until 2017 for fitment tests at KSC.   So there will be a 7+ year gap there and I can't see NASA or the contractors paying all those excess salaries (not required for Ares-I U/S processing) that long while we are waiting for Ares-V's parts to come off the production lines.


Orbiter:
This is the big one.   The Orbiter requires so many staff to keep it operational.   It is so complex and requires so much maintenance that it keeps the real bulk of NASA's staff busy.

Orion isn't going to require anywhere near that many staff to process, but it will require new staff to be building them on a production line regularly.

So with either program there are going to be difficulties with keeping the Orbiter staff busy.   Jupiter has a clear advantage here though.

LSAM is going to be complex enough to certainly use most of the Orbiter & Payload Processing staff around the country.

But with the combined development costs of both Ares-I & Ares-V together, I don't expect much cash will be available to speed up development of LSAM much.   Nothing will happen in manufacturing or operational processing departments until the design teams have largely finished their jobs, so the question becomes how fast they can get their work done.   As I say, there won't be much cash available to speed this process up with the current Ares booster development work sucking up so much of the annual budget though.

But Jupiter frees up about $1-3billion of NASA's budget every single year compared to Ares-I & V together.   I feel that could best be used to speed up LSAM development and close the Orbiter workforce > LSAM workforce "gap" considerably.   I'm sure there will be a "gap" no matter what, but a 2 or 3 year gap would be far more acceptable and manageable than a 7 year gap.

NASA could retain all the knowledgeable staff for three years and would undoubtedly find "something useful" for all those people to get on with (why not get these people to start preparing the vast library of new procedures which they will have to use for the new vehicles?).   YMMV, I can see NASA/Contractors retaining staff for 3 years, but I just can't see that happening for 7 years.


Of course, this also assumes that political winds don't change and that Ares-V and the Lunar program aren't outright canceled by any one of the four Presidents/Congresses who will sit in power before the end of 2020.   Staying on the Ares-I/V path allows the cancellation of the whole thing, and that risks everyone's jobs.

With Jupiter, once the first launcher is built, the Moon question then becomes "when", not "if".   And that, IMHO, is *far* better outlook for the workforce.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Hotdog on 07/22/2007 09:44 pm
Thanks for the breakdown.

Seven years would be way too long to keep the workforce. Even three years I'm sure would see a loss of skilled workers.

If the LSAM processing can be used to employ the ex-Orbiter staff, that is fantastic motivation for getting to the moon earlier. I'm sure there won't be too many complaints on this site!

I definitely think your team should push this point.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/22/2007 10:25 pm
Quote
kraisee - 22/7/2007  5:11 PM

ET:
Staff at Marshall, Michoud and Kennedy would all be totally secure with the Jupiter program.   We will clearly require the entire team STS ET workforce to be retained.   In addition, many of those people processing currently SSME on the Orbiters today will *have* to be moved over to the "Core Stage" team to process the RS-68's there.   This may require some retraining, but these guys really are rocket scientists, so I see no cause for concern there at all.

Orion

LSAM




Ross,

You keep bringing up that the RS-68 needs a workforce at the center.  It doesn't need any processing at the launch site.  Any work needed on it is done by the vehicle contractor.  There are no RS-68 workers supporting Delta-IV.  PWR just maintains a few people in a "resident" office for engineering support (no techs)

Orion will be assembled by Lockheed so any shuttle workers that they would employ would have to quit USA and be hired.  

Orion will be processed for flight by the same people that are prepping the ISS components, which is currently Boeing until the CAPPS contract.  The contract will be updated and recompeted but the same workers would still be around.  

LSAM may or may not be assembled at or near KSC, but at any rate it will be done by the winning contractor.  Again, shuttle workers would have to quit USA.   Just like the Orion case, the LSAM will be processed by CAPPS followon contractor.

The build up and processing of the ISS took a fair amount of people, so the transition from ISS to CEV and LSAM will have probably no net change in the employment of the CAPPS workers.  With the SRB people having the same jobs, the ET people transitioning to Ares I upperstage, the orbiter and SSME people are going to be SOL.   The Ares V core and EDS will add some more jobs but many years later and still at low levels.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 07/22/2007 11:29 pm
Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  12:47 PM

Quote
clongton - 18/7/2007  6:34 PM

Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  1:28 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 18/7/2007  6:10 PM

Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  9:51 AM
As somebody said before: the current Congress doesn't care whether Orion can do lunar flights. They want manned missions to ISS soon after STS retirement and there is no reason why Ares 1 can't provide that capability even if Orion is another ton overweight (or Ares 1 performance is less).

You consider 5 years and growing "soon"?  I sure don't.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5167



     

quotes the first unmanned flight in sep 2012, first manned in Oct 2013 and first operational in 2014. I don't know whether this schedule is realistic or not but Congress will be happy to see that.
The original target for the first operational manned Orion was early 2011. The current schedule is now September 2015. The way things are going, that will most likely slip to April 2016 at the earliest. That last part is a personal observation, but based on conditions inside the program.

I agree, the slippage to 2016 would certainly be a strong reason to cancel the program.

Ya know the things pointed out here may really end up giving NASA a black eye.  There have been a lot of problems pointed out here with the existing plan that can make a LOT of political hay.  It sure would look bad on NASA TV or CSPAN, with the administrator, whomever that might be at the time, being called to account for the fact that Congress was sold a plan to replace shuttle with Orion on ISS missions and instead of results all we got were schedule slips and budget busters and the ignominy of the US having to thumb a ride on Russian boosters until ISS 'retirement' in 2016.  At this rate NASA is going to put itself out of the human spaceflight business.  If they can't even get a crew taxi to ISS before it's 'turned over to the international partners', how can we ever expect to get to the Moon?  Politically, it's going to look really really bad and SOMEBODY is certainly going to be very tempted to make political hay out of it.  Maybe if NASA is lucky they can buy a ride from Bigelow or China.

Bush's popularity is lower than alligator excrement in the Banana River so keep on plugging DIRECT.  Whomever replaces him will undoubtedly want to distance themselves as much as possible from W's plans and DIRECT is a lot better prospect, politically, than EELV's.  Maybe if we're extremely lucky the baby won't go out with the bathwater and we can salvage at least parts of the VSE.  The way it's going we'll be lucky to see a giant yawn when the Stick finally drags a stripped down Orion to LEO in 2018 with no prospects or capability of doing anything else anywhere else for a long time.  JMHO  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2007 01:50 am
Quote
Hotdog - 22/7/2007  5:44 PM

Thanks for the breakdown.

Seven years would be way too long to keep the workforce. Even three years I'm sure would see a loss of skilled workers.

The whole STS-107 saga resulted in many people throughout the STS workforce doing awfully little for four years.

I would say a repeat of that 4-years is about the practical maximum *anyone* could possibly expect to keep a workforce "busy" without actually doing much in the way of what they are supposed to be doing.   There is only so much "preparing for changes" and "re-training" which can fill that sort of time.




Quote
If the LSAM processing can be used to employ the ex-Orbiter staff, that is fantastic motivation for getting to the moon earlier. I'm sure there won't be too many complaints on this site!

I definitely think your team should push this point.

I agree.   We are trying hard to push the information in the right channels.   I'm not 100% sure that the AIAA paper is the right place for it though.

A full and prosperous Lunar Program, along with a handful of ISS visits and perhaps the odd Hubble Servicing Mission thrown in, will be more than enough to keep everyone currently employed by STS & ISS in work.   There will be at least the same amount of work to do, probably more.

I would certainly expect a number of staff will need to change whom their paychecks come from, but anyone not expecting that is deluding themselves.   The bottom line though, is that the current Shuttle & ISS programs are still going to be smaller than any full Lunar program.   I see the workforce as "safe" for as long as the VSE is "safe".

Right now though, I see Ares-I as the biggest risk to the VSE.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2007 02:08 am
Quote
Jim - 22/7/2007  6:25 PM
Ross,

You keep bringing up that the RS-68 needs a workforce at the center.  It doesn't need any processing at the launch site.  Any work needed on it is done by the vehicle contractor.  There are no RS-68 workers supporting Delta-IV.  PWR just maintains a few people in a "resident" office for engineering support (no techs)

Jim,
There is a team right now capable of removing RS-68's and replacing them near the Pad for the Delta-IV program.   I don't know who they are paid by, but their job is to be there in case of significant problems during checkout, or stacking, or countdown demonstration tests or even launch attempts which have to be aborted due to some mechanical failure or other.   Irrelevant of who holds the contract for the work, be it PWR, DoD, Boeing, ULA or any flavor of contractor, there are people there, permanently specifically located at CCAFS for doing that work.

For example, if a valve goes wrong on a Delta-IV RS-68 LOX line and must be replaced, they sure as heck don't ship the whole stage back to Decatur to be fixed.   That would be uneconomical and would result in huge delays to schedules.   They fix such things at CCAFS unless there is absolutely no choice.   Field engineers are at CCAFS capable of doing almost any such work, right up to removing the whole MPS and replacing it.   These are the sorts of people I am talking about.


KSC has a similar team of people capable of maintaining and replacing SSME's at the Pad.   They are the same people who also do such work in the OPF's too, but that specific aspect does not translate to Delta-IV or Jupiter launchers because we are talking about a Core Stage, not an Orbiter.

The Jupiter Core Stages would be supplied by barge directly from Michoud with either two or three RS-68's engines already attached.   But depending mostly on schedule requirements, a launcher being assembled on an MLP in the VAB or even at the Pad, may need an engine removed and/or replaced - sometimes at reasonably short notice.

This is especially true in the case of a flight profile change from J-120 configuration to J-232 (or visa versa) where the central engine of the Jupiter will have to be a field mount operation.   It is an important "feature" of the Jupiter launch vehicles that any vehicle being prepared can be re-configured for any flight requirement right up to the time its payload is integrated.   This ensures the maximum level of flexibility with the new system for mission planners/schedulers.

Who better could you recommend to do such work as this, than the current SSME team?   Are they not the most ideally placed group to perform such work?


As for ISS teams, most have been let go already.   There are currently only a few dozen people left now keeping the last few ISS modules in good condition in the SSPF ready to fly, and only a dozen or so more supporting them.   That's it for ISS right now.

Those guys are probably in a good position to offer their services for final checkout operations preparing Orion's for flight at KSC over in the O&C, but yes, they are going to have to apply for those new jobs.   Was *anyone* under the illusion that their current jobs, with their current employers weren't going to change when everything else is changing?   Well if they were, they better wake up and smell the coffee pretty soon or someone else will apply for the various new positions faster than they do.


New modules for a Lunar colony would require a new group similar to the current ISS guys (both launch processing at KSC and manufacturing at various other sites around the country), but right now the requirement for ISS is already virtually extinct.

If you wish to rebuild that team, surely getting the Lunar lifter sooner with something like Jupiter would "fill" that workforce out again sooner than Ares-V can? Yes?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/23/2007 02:24 am
there will be no more HST servicing missions  Just a decommissioning mission
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2007 02:34 am
Quote
Jim - 22/7/2007  10:24 PM

there will be no more HST missions

I suspect not.   But I think the limiting factor is really whether the CLV can lift more than just the bare Orion or not.

Right now Ares-I couldn't carry up all the tools to open the telescope up, let alone bring tons of new scientific instruments, gyros, computers and other such things to actually perform real "maintenance".   I think that's the real reason why they aren't planning any more HSM's - because Ares-I simply can't do it.

But Jupiter-120 sure could.   J-120 could bring up a reusable airlock module, allowing the CEV to remain permanently pressurized.   It could also bring up spare propellant for Hubble to use.   J-120 has over 23mT of spare payload capacity for things like new imagers, new computers and data relays.

I'd sure love to hear what the HST folk could come up with for an HSM flight offering that sort of lift capability.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 07/23/2007 02:41 am
This is just an exercise in logic and I don’t have any hard numbers or detailed insider information. Feel free to shoot holes in it.

SRB
ATK – Utah – Constellation – so far as I can guess ATK would see an increase in activity in engineering, design, and testing while there would be a drastic decrease in processing activity. Rate of processing would be 2 SRB during the hiatus eventually rising to 2 SRB per year and much later to 6 SRB per year.
ATK – Utah – Direct – An initial decrease in processing, 2 SRBs per year, followed by an increase to 8 to 10 SRB per year.
It would appear that SRB manufacturing and processing personnel would be likelier to retain their jobs under Direct, while under Constellation there might be an increase in the engineering staff.
KSC – Constellation – Current plans have a couple of “dummy” Ares flying, one in 2009 and one in, I think, 2011. I don’t know if this pace would justify retaining the SRB assembly crew until operations commence in 2013-15.
KSC – Direct – Current plans have a “fitment test” listed for 2009 and one flight each year from 2010 until operations commence in 2013.  
It would appear that for SRB assembly crews (USA?) Direct would offer substantially higher employee retention.
All in all Direct would seem to offer greater employee retention both in Utah and Florida due to the more active interim phase and due to the earlier operational startup

ET
Michoud – Louisiana – Constellation - Massive retooling would employ large numbers of personnel but the low flight rate and long delay would result in lower production.
Michoud – Louisiana – Direct – Moderate retooling would not greatly increase staff but a production rate of one tank per year would help with retention until operations commence. Possibly get ahead tank construction could help.
It appears that Constellation would offer more immediate job opportunities while Direct may offer long-term advantages.
KSC - Constellation – No ET operations are planned until Ares V is initiated.
KSC – Direct – With build up of the fitment test article in 2009 and launches planned for each year until operations commence all ET processing employees would likely be retained.
Direct would retain most current KSC ET processing employees, Constellation none.
All in all Constellation would likely produce a surge in employment at Michoud while laying off employees at KSC while Direct would offer a more stable job outlook at both locations. (EDS manufacturing would be deferred under Direct while ET manufacturing would be deferred under Constellation.)

Orion
I am assuming that Orion employee impacts would be the same for both programs but that with Direct’s projected earlier operational commencement and higher flight rate Direct would have the better employee outlook.

KSC Florida
KSC Facilities – Constellation – With the massive changes required to the launch systems: new MLPs, new crawler transports, major changes to flame trenches and VAB it is likely that there would be a major influx of contractors over the entire transition period. At the same time operational personnel would have little to do and would probably suffer cutbacks.
KSC Facilities – Direct – The moderate changes that Direct requires would bring in some contractors but the more active interim phase and greater operational pace would probably guarantee substantial operational personnel retention.
Shuttle processing personnel – As Jim said these folks are going to be looking for work under either program. About the same number could be absorbed into Orion processing under either program but, again, Direct’s faster tempo could lead to more jobs. It is also possible that, with retirements and natural turnover, some of these employees could be absorbed into Facilities, SRB operations, ET operations, etc, and again Direct offers the better outlook.
KSC Launch Operations – With the slow pace of Constellation launches combined with the financial burden that Constellation places on NASA overall reducing the number of science missions undertaken it appears that there will be a cutback on launch operations and a reduction of jobs in this area.
All in all Direct seems to offer a more stable employment environment while Constellation offers some major construction opportunities, and the jobs that go with them, at the cost of employee retention.

Other NASA Centers
Direct’s faster tempo and possible high cost savings are likely to lead to more job retention at all of the other NASA Centers.

It may be a mistake to take on NASA on the question of job retention since they have all the hard numbers and all the transition plans in development. Be that as it may my initial take on the question is that Direct offers a much more stable transition environment than Constellation. Constellation may actually offer more jobs, but they are likely to be short term contractor jobs that will not retain current employees.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/23/2007 03:10 am
Quote
kraisee - 22/7/2007  10:34 PM

I'd sure love to hear what the HST folk could come up with for an HSM flight offering that sort of lift capability.

Ross.

nothing but all the money is going to JWST
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/23/2007 03:13 am
The KSC ET people can be the Ares I upperstage people
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 07/23/2007 03:37 am
Quote
Jim - 22/7/2007  8:13 PM

The KSC ET people can be the Ares I upperstage people

Good point.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2007 03:38 am
Norm, an excellent round-up of the situation, and one I would fundamentally agree with completely.

One quick, but important, correction under the ET section:


Quote
Norm Hartnett - 22/7/2007  10:41 PM
Direct would retain most current KSC ET processing employees, Constellation none.
All in all Constellation would likely produce a surge in employment at Michoud while laying off employees at KSC while Direct would offer a more stable job outlook at both locations. (EDS manufacturing would be deferred under Direct while ET manufacturing would be deferred under Constellation.)

I would like to suggest:

Michoud - Louisiana:
EDS manufacturing would not start on Ares-V until ~2015.
EDS manufacturing would not start on Jupiter-232 until ~2011.

KSC - Florida:
EDS operations for Ares-V would start around 2017.
EDS operations for Jupiter-232 would start in 2013.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2007 03:42 am
Quote
Jim - 22/7/2007  11:10 PM

Quote
kraisee - 22/7/2007  10:34 PM

I'd sure love to hear what the HST folk could come up with for an HSM flight offering that sort of lift capability.

Ross.

nothing but all the money is going to JWST

True.

But remember that the single Jupiter development program saves NASA ~$20bn compared to the two Ares development programs.   Could not both to be paid for from that?   Two telescopes are surely better than one.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2007 03:44 am
Quote
Jim - 22/7/2007  11:13 PM

The KSC ET people can be the Ares I upperstage people

Not quite.

Ares-I is supposed to be delivered "ready to fly".   Minimal checkout and processing is the order of the day according to MSFC, right?   I'm hearing five to ten days from KSC delivery to stacking is the current target, with no units going into "checkout cells" or anything like that.

What do you imagine is the likely effect of that "minimized procedural work" planned for Ares-I on the workforce at KSC?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/23/2007 07:05 am
Quote
Jim - 23/7/2007  4:10 AM

Quote
kraisee - 22/7/2007  10:34 PM

I'd sure love to hear what the HST folk could come up with for an HSM flight offering that sort of lift capability.

Ross.

nothing but all the money is going to JWST

Given a "free" rocket and a "free" launch the astronomers would be in a good position to ask Congress for more money.

Andrew Swallow
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/23/2007 11:30 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 23/7/2007  3:05 AM

Quote
Jim - 23/7/2007  4:10 AM

Quote
kraisee - 22/7/2007  10:34 PM

I'd sure love to hear what the HST folk could come up with for an HSM flight offering that sort of lift capability.

Ross.

nothing but all the money is going to JWST

Given a "free" rocket and a "free" launch the astronomers would be in a good position to ask Congress for more money.

Andrew Swallow

Doesn't work that way.  It isn't a free rocket and launch.   The spacecraft project would still have to pay for their flight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/23/2007 11:34 am
Quote
kraisee - 22/7/2007  11:44 PM

Quote
Jim - 22/7/2007  11:13 PM

The KSC ET people can be the Ares I upperstage people

Not quite.

Ares-I is supposed to be delivered "ready to fly".   Minimal checkout and processing is the order of the day according to MSFC, right?   I'm hearing five to ten days from KSC delivery to stacking is the current target, with no units going into "checkout cells" or anything like that.

What do you imagine is the likely effect of that "minimized procedural work" planned for Ares-I on the workforce at KSC?

Ross.

Actually, the ET people would the right people to do the Aers I upperstage.

The upperstage has no checkout but the ET has miminal checkout and work.  Other than that, they share many of the same operations.   Roll off the barge, rotate to vertical and lift, stack on vehicle are the same tasks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2007 05:38 pm
Quote
Jim - 23/7/2007  7:30 AM

Doesn't work that way.  It isn't a free rocket and launch.   The spacecraft project would still have to pay for their flight.

Absolutely.   A theoretical HSM-5 would have to pay for the launch vehicle and the cost for using the CEV.   Also training the astronauts and producing the customized equipment necessary.

I would expect Jupiter/Orion could halve the cost of a Shuttle based HSM, but STS-125 will cost about $1,000m, so half of that is still not cheap.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 07/23/2007 05:52 pm
Quote
kraisee - 23/7/2007  12:38 PM

Quote
Jim - 23/7/2007  7:30 AM

Doesn't work that way.  It isn't a free rocket and launch.   The spacecraft project would still have to pay for their flight.

Absolutely.   A theoretical HSM-5 would have to pay for the launch vehicle and the cost for using the CEV.   Also training the astronauts and producing the customized equipment necessary.

I would expect Jupiter/Orion could halve the cost of a Shuttle based HSM, but STS-125 will cost about $1,000m, so half of that is still not cheap.

You have got to be kidding. A Jupiter/Orion based HST servicing mission will require a custom bus to carry all the servicing equipment. That *alone* will cost more than you're quoting for the entire mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/23/2007 06:13 pm
Ah!  You were talking about an extra flight rather than a test flight for the Orion.  Test flights being paid for by the moon mission,

Such a flight would cost an arm - the new one needed to grab hold of the telescope.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 07/23/2007 06:24 pm
Quote
kraisee - 23/7/2007  10:38 AM

I would expect Jupiter/Orion could halve the cost of a Shuttle based HSM, but STS-125 will cost about $1,000m, so half of that is still not cheap.

Ross.

Wow.  That's a lot of $$$.  I wonder what it would cost to just launch a new telescope every time, instead of servicing the old one.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/23/2007 07:03 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 23/7/2007  1:24 PM

Quote
kraisee - 23/7/2007  10:38 AM

I would expect Jupiter/Orion could halve the cost of a Shuttle based HSM, but STS-125 will cost about $1,000m, so half of that is still not cheap.

Ross.

Wow.  That's a lot of $$$.  I wonder what it would cost to just launch a new telescope every time, instead of servicing the old one.

This is one of the problems selling the shuttle for its satellite repair and recovery capabilities.  The repair and recovery missions cost about as much as launching a replacement.  And a launch of a replacement on an expendable does not risk the life of the crew.  I will admit though, the video of satellite repair and recovery is GREAT!!!  I will never forget the pictures of those 3 astronauts in the payload bay grabbing that satellite.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/23/2007 09:43 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 23/7/2007  2:13 PM

Ah!  You were talking about an extra flight rather than a test flight for the Orion.  Test flights being paid for by the moon mission,

Such a flight would cost an arm - the new one needed to grab hold of the telescope.

There is no room on a test mission.  The first one is suborbital and the next goes to the moon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/23/2007 09:44 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 23/7/2007  2:24 PM

Quote
kraisee - 23/7/2007  10:38 AM

I would expect Jupiter/Orion could halve the cost of a Shuttle based HSM, but STS-125 will cost about $1,000m, so half of that is still not cheap.

Ross.

Wow.  That's a lot of $$$.  I wonder what it would cost to just launch a new telescope every time, instead of servicing the old one.

That has been many people's position that new spacecraft would be better than HST repair missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sandrot on 07/23/2007 10:02 pm
JWST will cost in eccess of 4.5B$. Chances are servicing would be cheaper than replacing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/23/2007 10:27 pm
Quote
sandrot - 23/7/2007  6:02 PM

JWST will cost in eccess of 4.5B$. Chances are servicing would be cheaper than replacing.

The point was more smaller spacecraft
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 07/23/2007 10:41 pm
JWST is not made to be serviceable and will not be in a serviceable orbit
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/24/2007 12:00 am
Quote
mike robel - 23/7/2007  4:41 PM

JWST is not made to be serviceable and will not be in a serviceable orbit

Then why are they putting an Orion docking ring on it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/24/2007 12:01 am
Quote
Jim - 23/7/2007  4:27 PM

Quote
sandrot - 23/7/2007  6:02 PM

JWST will cost in eccess of 4.5B$. Chances are servicing would be cheaper than replacing.

The point was more smaller spacecraft

Where telescopes are concerned, bigger is generally preferable to more.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/24/2007 12:06 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 23/7/2007  8:00 PM

Quote
mike robel - 23/7/2007  4:41 PM

JWST is not made to be serviceable and will not be in a serviceable orbit

Then why are they putting an Orion docking ring on it?

Just in case.  But it still isn't serviceable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/24/2007 12:06 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 23/7/2007  8:01 PM

Quote
Jim - 23/7/2007  4:27 PM

Quote
sandrot - 23/7/2007  6:02 PM

JWST will cost in eccess of 4.5B$. Chances are servicing would be cheaper than replacing.

The point was more smaller spacecraft

Where telescopes are concerned, bigger is generally preferable to more.

Not so, VLA
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: yinzer on 07/24/2007 12:18 am
Quote
Jim - 23/7/2007  5:06 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 23/7/2007  8:01 PM

Quote
Jim - 23/7/2007  4:27 PM

Quote
sandrot - 23/7/2007  6:02 PM

JWST will cost in eccess of 4.5B$. Chances are servicing would be cheaper than replacing.

The point was more smaller spacecraft

Where telescopes are concerned, bigger is generally preferable to more.

Not so, VLA

Hard to do long-baseline optical interferometry.  Irrelevant.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/24/2007 12:42 am
Quote
Jim - 23/7/2007  6:06 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 23/7/2007  8:01 PM

Quote
Jim - 23/7/2007  4:27 PM

Quote
sandrot - 23/7/2007  6:02 PM

JWST will cost in eccess of 4.5B$. Chances are servicing would be cheaper than replacing.

The point was more smaller spacecraft

Where telescopes are concerned, bigger is generally preferable to more.

Not so, VLA

VLA is a single, 22-mile baseline synthetic aperture telescope (or, it can be arranged as one).  A whole bunch of independent optical scopes not arrayed as an interferometer are not as useful for many purposes as a single large scope.  Sky surveys and searches for NEOs are better with lots of little scopes, all on Earth, while big long-distance astronomy is better off with small numbers of very large, very capable installations, like HST, JWST and Keck.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/24/2007 01:02 am
Quote
sandrot - 23/7/2007  6:02 PM

JWST will cost in eccess of 4.5B$. Chances are servicing would be cheaper than replacing.

Servicing JWST would be over a billion not including instruments and other parts.  Building another one from the design documents would cost far less than the original 4.5 billion.  

Could you service it? Yes.
Would you want to?  No.
Solution, build it right the first time.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sandrot on 07/24/2007 02:07 am
Still, JWST has a docking ring and Ares V is considered an enabler for a servicing mission.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18825023/

Not only the servicing mission cost is to be considered, but also the cost of "lost science". Is it costing more to wait until a servicing mission is ready or to wait until a replacement is ready?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2007 02:41 am
Quote
SolarPowered - 23/7/2007  2:24 PM

Quote
kraisee - 23/7/2007  10:38 AM

I would expect Jupiter/Orion could halve the cost of a Shuttle based HSM, but STS-125 will cost about $1,000m, so half of that is still not cheap.

Ross.

Wow.  That's a lot of $$$.  I wonder what it would cost to just launch a new telescope every time, instead of servicing the old one.

I'm in total agreement.   I wonder how much additional science they could have possibly had if they had launched four Hubble replicas instead of four Servicing Missions.

But there is another critical issue at work here that most people ignore:   The public loves "Hubble".

HSM-3 and the new HSM-4 were, and are, only done due to the fact that Hubble buys NASA a *vast* amount of public, and thus political, support.   And that boils-down to extra annual budget.

In both political terms, and economic terms, Hubble's Servicing Missions have actually ended up paying for themselves multiple times over.   And this will continue to be the case for as long as Hubble remains loved by the tax payers.

While replacing Hubble is better in pure engineering terms, to look the Hubble cash-cow gift horse in the mouth but replacing it with something else, would be stupid of NASA.

And I believe a HSM for Orion/Jupiter could bring a huge amount of political & financial support to NASA at the start of the new program - ultimately being far more valuable than any mission cost.

This is the whole reason why NASA is even considering doing STS-125 in the first place.

I doubt most people would fully grok that, but it is reality.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2007 02:48 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 23/7/2007  8:00 PM

Quote
mike robel - 23/7/2007  4:41 PM

JWST is not made to be serviceable and will not be in a serviceable orbit

Then why are they putting an Orion docking ring on it?

To try to show that Orion can do more than ISS & Lunar stuff.

But don't forget, Ares-I couldn't ever send Orion to JWST.   No way, no how.   Ares-I would have to rendezvous with an Ares-V EDS/payload to get to JWST (unless NASA breaks its own rules and flies crew on the Ares-V which is below 1:1000 LOC).   With two LV's in the mix, any Ares-based JWST-SM starts getting darned expensive.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 07/24/2007 03:26 am
I would assume that Ares IV would be NASA's launcher of choice for a JWST servicing mission.  It would probably come in slightly cheaper than an Ares V.

You may recall, a few years back, it was proposed that Hubble be replaced with a "cheaper, faster, better" replacement called "Hubble Origins Probe."  At the time, I was enthusiastic about the idea.  As I've learned more about the way that space acquisition works, I've realized that the cost and schedule growth that could be anticipated for HOP might negate any apparent cost benefits over a Hubble servicing mission like SM4.

Much has been said about the potential of deployable mirrors, like the one on JWST.  I have a lot of hope for this technology, but we'll have to see how JWST unfolds (pun intended.)  There's a lot that can go wrong, and it's not very easy to simulate aspects of the JWST mission prior to launch.  But if everything works as intended, there's a whole world of astronomy that can be opened up.  A telescope with the same capabilities as Hubble could be made to fit on a Minotaur.  Perhaps a telescope that takes advantage of the 8.4m fairing on Ares V or Jupiter, in addition to folding optics, could search for terrestrial planets around distant stars.  

In fact, I think the telescope mission favors Jupiter 120 over Ares V; I suspect that space telescopes are constrained more by fairing diameter than LV performance. With foldable optics, a lightweight but powerful space telescope could fit within the modest performance of Jupiter 120.  Bear in mind that Jupiter 120 still has enough performance to put two HST's in orbit; its only limitation is the payload envelope.  But what if our telescope needed to go to L2 instead of LEO?  Simply upgrade to Jupiter 232 and use the EDS to give you the extra propulsive boost necessary for the mission.  It should still be cheaper than Ares V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2007 03:53 am
Quote
CFE - 23/7/2007  11:26 PM

I would assume that Ares IV would be NASA's launcher of choice for a JWST servicing mission.  It would probably come in slightly cheaper than an Ares V.

Ares-IV can't do it.

You still need an Earth Departure Stage roughly the size of the Lunar EDS to get the CEV all the way out to the Helocentric Orbit around Earth-Sun Lagrange 2 point where JWST's will reside.   Ares-IV, by its very nature, is an Ares-V without such an EDS.

The dV required to get to James Webb at the E/S L2 point will be about 3,350m/s.   To put that into perspective, you need about 3,150m/s dV to do the TLI burn for the more familiar Lunar missions.

Even the Jupiter-120, with double the lifting capability of Ares-I, won't have nearly enough muscle to send a CEV to JWST.   But the J-221 or J-232's certainly can - and the Jupiter launchers both *do* achieve NASA's requirement of > 1:1000 LOC numbers.

Below is an interesting picture showing (roughly) where JWST will go.   Note that it is well beyond the Moon's orbit.



Source: NASA's JWST web site.

Ross.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 07/24/2007 04:32 am
Quote
Jim - 23/7/2007  7:06 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 23/7/2007  8:00 PM

Quote
mike robel - 23/7/2007  4:41 PM

JWST is not made to be serviceable and will not be in a serviceable orbit

Then why are they putting an Orion docking ring on it?

Just in case.  But it still isn't serviceable.

Right. The docking ring is a fig leaf. The JWST design has no EVA handrails, no consideration for safety hazards like sharp edges and EVA suit touch-temperature limits, and no consideration for serviceability like standardized fasteners that are accessible using EVA tools. When the EVA office and S&MA get a look at that, their reaction will be not just "no", not just "hell no", but "no f**king way in f**king hell are we signing off on letting EVA astronauts near that f**king thing, and if NASA does so anyway it will be over our protests and without our signatures on the CoFR."

Bottom line is that this is an "optional" mission. Unlike HST, JWST hasn't been sold as human-serviceable, and unlike the Shuttle, Orion isn't being sold for its spacecraft servicing capabilities. No amount of positive PR from a JWST servicing mission would be worth the tremendous cost and risk.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/24/2007 08:35 am
Quote
kraisee - 24/7/2007  4:53 AM
The dV required to get to James Webb at the E/S L2 point will be about 3,350m/s.   To put that into perspective, you need about 3,150m/s dV to do the TLI burn for the more familiar Lunar missions.

Even the Jupiter-120, with double the lifting capability of Ares-I, won't have nearly enough muscle to send a CEV to JWST.   But the J-221 or J-232's certainly can - and the Jupiter launchers both *do* achieve NASA's requirement of > 1:1000 LOC numbers.

The Jupiter-120 may not be able to send the CEV to the James Webb Telescope but it could send a second 32.5 metric tonne telescope to join it.  The Earth Departure Stage would need replacing by a Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) Tug.

The SEP Tug could consist of 6 Hall thrusters, cooling panels, electronics and 2 photovoltaic blankets.  Depending on the thruster chosen (available) the journey would take between 7 months and 2 years.  A 620 day burn for six Busek BHT-20k Hall Thrusters would use 6.5 mT of xenon (or krypton) fuel.
http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/HTML/Ion_Truck.html
(Hall thrusters used to get inside 7.46 metre fairing.)

Dry weight of SEP Tub = 5 mT
Xenon fuel = 6.5 mT
Fuel tank = 1 mT

Total = 5 + 6.5 + 1 = 12.5 mT

Comparison, dry mass of EDS = 19.3 mT

Reserve = 1 mT

Payload of J-120 = 46 mT
Assuming the 3000 kg fairing does not form part of the payload mass.

Available mass for telescope = 46 mT - 12.5 mT - 1 mT = 32.5 mT


Flight time

Delta_V = 3,350 m/s
Thrust of BHT-20k = 1.0 N, 6 off = 6.0 N
F = m a
v = u + a t  or  t = Delta_V / a
giving t = (Delta_V * m) / F = (3,350 * 46,000) / 6 = 25,680,000 sec
Multiply by 2 to allow for time in darkness and convert gives 595 days.

(Payload adjusted for 46 mT lift of J-120)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/24/2007 11:51 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 24/7/2007  4:35 AM


The Jupiter-120 may not be able to send the CEV to the James Webb Telescope but it could send a second 34.5 metric tonne telescope to join it.  The Earth Departure Stage would need replacing by a Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) Tug.

The SEP Tug could consist of 6 Hall thrusters, cooling panels, electronics and 2 photovoltaic blankets.  Depending on the thruster chosen (available) the journey would take between 7 months and 2 years.  A 620 day burn for six Busek BHT-20k Hall Thrusters would use 6.5 mT of xenon (or krypton) fuel.


Undoable.  The EDS is needed to put the payload into LEO first.  The EDS always does 2 burns, LEO insertion and earth escape
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/24/2007 12:49 pm

Quote
Lee Jay - 23/7/2007  8:00 PM
Then why are they putting an Orion docking ring on it?

Does leave the door open for an unmanned Orbital Express like mission to dispose of the JWST at the end of it's life. Why polute L2 if you do not have to.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kool-aid on 07/24/2007 12:53 pm
Quote
Jorge - 23/7/2007  11:32 PM

Right. The docking ring is a fig leaf. The JWST design has no EVA handrails, no consideration for safety hazards like sharp edges and EVA suit touch-temperature limits, and no consideration for serviceability like standardized fasteners that are accessible using EVA tools. When the EVA office and S&MA get a look at that, their reaction will be not just "no", not just "hell no", but "no f**king way in f**king hell are we signing off on letting EVA astronauts near that f**king thing, and if NASA does so anyway it will be over our protests and without our signatures on the CoFR."

"No, no, no"...the JSC reaction to anything different.  Keep your astros nice and safe on the ground.  Let em wear their blue suits and fly their shiny white jets and tell schoolkids how great it might be to fly in space...someday.

What happened to the astros who grabbed a spinning comsat with their gloves on Endeavour's maiden voyage and drug it into the payload bay?  Sounds like those kind of b*lls don't exist anymore.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 07/24/2007 01:38 pm
Quote
kool-aid - 24/7/2007  7:53 AM

What happened to the astros who grabbed a spinning comsat with their gloves on Endeavour's maiden voyage and drug it into the payload bay?  Sounds like those kind of b*lls don't exist anymore.

Those b*lls disappeared in the skies above Texas on February 1, 2003. Get used to it, bub, it ain't changing any time soon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pippin on 07/24/2007 02:02 pm
Quote
kevin-rf - 24/7/2007  2:49 PM


Quote
Lee Jay - 23/7/2007  8:00 PM
Then why are they putting an Orion docking ring on it?

Does leave the door open for an unmanned Orbital Express like mission to dispose of the JWST at the end of it's life. Why polute L2 if you do not have to.

L2 is not stable. Will not stay there for long anyway, if left alone.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kool-aid on 07/24/2007 02:42 pm
Quote
Jorge - 24/7/2007  8:38 AM

Quote
kool-aid - 24/7/2007  7:53 AM

What happened to the astros who grabbed a spinning comsat with their gloves on Endeavour's maiden voyage and drug it into the payload bay?  Sounds like those kind of b*lls don't exist anymore.

Those b*lls disappeared in the skies above Texas on February 1, 2003. Get used to it, bub, it ain't changing any time soon.

Well, in that case, we might as well pack it all in--this whole human "exploration" thing.  Because if we mean to explore space, there will be more dead astronauts.  If we can't handle that, then let's stop fooling around with it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 07/24/2007 02:54 pm
Quote
kool-aid - 24/7/2007  8:53 AM

Quote
Jorge - 23/7/2007  11:32 PM

Right. The docking ring is a fig leaf. The JWST design has no EVA handrails, no consideration for safety hazards like sharp edges and EVA suit touch-temperature limits, and no consideration for serviceability like standardized fasteners that are accessible using EVA tools. When the EVA office and S&MA get a look at that, their reaction will be not just "no", not just "hell no", but "no f**king way in f**king hell are we signing off on letting EVA astronauts near that f**king thing, and if NASA does so anyway it will be over our protests and without our signatures on the CoFR."

"No, no, no"...the JSC reaction to anything different.  Keep your astros nice and safe on the ground.  Let em wear their blue suits and fly their shiny white jets and tell schoolkids how great it might be to fly in space...someday.

What happened to the astros who grabbed a spinning comsat with their gloves on Endeavour's maiden voyage and drug it into the payload bay?  Sounds like those kind of b*lls don't exist anymore.

You might be using a bad example about b*lls in this case.  I am sure the idea of a three person EVA to manually grasp the satellite was well thought out and simulated on the ground before giving the crew the go ahead to do it.  The risk was judged as acceptable and the outcome desirable.  If it was deemed as too great a risk, they would not have been allowed to do it.  

I agree with your point about risk tolerance, but I don't think this is a good example.  Now if you want to talk about Apollo 12 going on to the Moon after taking a lightning hit on launch- that's another story...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/24/2007 03:25 pm
Quote
Jorge - 23/7/2007  11:32 PM

Quote
Jim - 23/7/2007  7:06 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 23/7/2007  8:00 PM

Quote
mike robel - 23/7/2007  4:41 PM

JWST is not made to be serviceable and will not be in a serviceable orbit

Then why are they putting an Orion docking ring on it?

Just in case.  But it still isn't serviceable.

Right. The docking ring is a fig leaf. The JWST design has no EVA handrails, no consideration for safety hazards like sharp edges and EVA suit touch-temperature limits, and no consideration for serviceability like standardized fasteners that are accessible using EVA tools. When the EVA office and S&MA get a look at that, their reaction will be not just "no", not just "hell no", but "no f**king way in f**king hell are we signing off on letting EVA astronauts near that f**king thing, and if NASA does so anyway it will be over our protests and without our signatures on the CoFR."

Bottom line is that this is an "optional" mission. Unlike HST, JWST hasn't been sold as human-serviceable, and unlike the Shuttle, Orion isn't being sold for its spacecraft servicing capabilities. No amount of positive PR from a JWST servicing mission would be worth the tremendous cost and risk.

I think you encapsulate the kind of reasons it would be hard to get anything other than Ares I accepted now. Who is going to be the Administrator or Politician brave enough to say yeah let's abandon the safest ascent launcher you can possible design for the sake of money or efficiency ? Unless its replacement was safer you have very little chance. It will have to physically fail to do its job before it's replaced now and the current Administration is quite happy to define that job as ISS resupply to save it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/24/2007 03:43 pm
Quote
marsavian - 24/7/2007  11:25 AM

I think you encapsulate the kind of reasons it would be hard to get anything other than Ares I accepted now. Who is going to be the Administrator or Politician brave enough to say yeah let's abandon the safest ascent launcher you can possible design for the sake of money or efficiency ?

That is not a proven fact.  The stick numbers or any other numbers were not subjected to any scrutiny.    It isn't doesn't even live up to the numbers they stated, since the SM is now a 3rd stage and must be included in the LOM/LOC numbers.  It is actually worse than a liquid booster with 2 engines in the 1st stage and one engine in the 2nd stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sandrot on 07/24/2007 04:18 pm
Quote
brihath - 24/7/2007  10:54 AM

You might be using a bad example about b*lls in this case.  I am sure the idea of a three person EVA to manually grasp the satellite was well thought out and simulated on the ground before giving the crew the go ahead to do it.  The risk was judged as acceptable and the outcome desirable.  If it was deemed as too great a risk, they would not have been allowed to do it.  

I agree with your point about risk tolerance, but I don't think this is a good example.  Now if you want to talk about Apollo 12 going on to the Moon after taking a lightning hit on launch- that's another story...

I believe the three person EVA was a backup, the original satellite retrieval procedure was completely different. I'm not sure how much the EVA was thought out and simulated. Mission was STS-49 in 1992. By the way, in 1997 another satellite (Spartan) was retrieved through EVA after the Canadarm hit it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sandrot on 07/24/2007 04:26 pm
Quote
Jorge - 24/7/2007  12:32 AM

[...] The docking ring is a fig leaf. The JWST design has no EVA handrails, no consideration for safety hazards like sharp edges and EVA suit touch-temperature limits, and no consideration for serviceability like standardized fasteners that are accessible using EVA tools. When the EVA office and S&MA get a look at that, their reaction will be not just "no", not just "hell no", but "no f**king way in f**king hell are we signing off on letting EVA astronauts near that f**king thing, and if NASA does so anyway it will be over our protests and without our signatures on the CoFR. [...]

Well, so are not serviceable Shuttle underbelly tiles or OMS pods. Looks like they're being "serviced" every mission, now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/24/2007 04:45 pm
Quote
Jim - 24/7/2007  10:43 AM

Quote
marsavian - 24/7/2007  11:25 AM

I think you encapsulate the kind of reasons it would be hard to get anything other than Ares I accepted now. Who is going to be the Administrator or Politician brave enough to say yeah let's abandon the safest ascent launcher you can possible design for the sake of money or efficiency ?

That is not a proven fact.  The stick numbers or any other numbers were not subjected to any scrutiny.    It isn't doesn't even live up to the numbers they stated, since the SM is now a 3rd stage and must be included in the LOM/LOC numbers.  It is actually worse than a liquid booster with 2 engines in the 1st stage and one engine in the 2nd stage.

Of course these things are always open to debate and can never be proven intrinsically or definitely with any theory as actual practice is the ultimate judge and truth. However if you want to assume the worst case in a launcher malfunction in each case then a SRB/J2-X blowing up seems a safer proposition to extricate a CEV from than either a 3 liquid engine EELV or a big ET Direct vehicle igniting. These are simple scenarios that anybody from a politician to an astronaut can understand and will be hard to combat on a simple emotional level which often decide these matters.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/24/2007 05:28 pm
Quote
marsavian - 24/7/2007  12:45 PM
 However if you want to assume the worst case in a launcher malfunction in each case then a SRB/J2-X blowing up seems a safer proposition to extricate a CEV from than either a 3 liquid engine EELV or a big ET Direct vehicle igniting. .

Actually, it is safer to extricate a CEV from than a 3 liquid engine EELV than the stick.  The EELV engines can be shut down, the stick's SRB continues to chase the CEV
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/24/2007 05:32 pm
Quote
Jim - 24/7/2007  12:28 PM

Quote
marsavian - 24/7/2007  12:45 PM
 However if you want to assume the worst case in a launcher malfunction in each case then a SRB/J2-X blowing up seems a safer proposition to extricate a CEV from than either a 3 liquid engine EELV or a big ET Direct vehicle igniting. .

Actually, it is safer to extricate a CEV from than a 3 liquid engine EELV than the stick.  The EELV engines can be shut down, the stick's SRB continues to chase the CEV

How about the case where the whole lower and upper stages blow up, true worst-case scenario ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/24/2007 05:36 pm
Quote
marsavian - 24/7/2007  1:32 PM

Quote
Jim - 24/7/2007  12:28 PM

Quote
marsavian - 24/7/2007  12:45 PM
 However if you want to assume the worst case in a launcher malfunction in each case then a SRB/J2-X blowing up seems a safer proposition to extricate a CEV from than either a 3 liquid engine EELV or a big ET Direct vehicle igniting. .

Actually, it is safer to extricate a CEV from than a 3 liquid engine EELV than the stick.  The EELV engines can be shut down, the stick's SRB continues to chase the CEV

How about the case where the whole lower and upper stages blow up, true worst-case scenario ?

the lower stage doesn't contribute that much, the upperstage is the main contributor
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 07/24/2007 05:39 pm
Quote
sandrot - 24/7/2007  12:18 PM

Quote
brihath - 24/7/2007  10:54 AM

You might be using a bad example about b*lls in this case.  I am sure the idea of a three person EVA to manually grasp the satellite was well thought out and simulated on the ground before giving the crew the go ahead to do it.  The risk was judged as acceptable and the outcome desirable.  If it was deemed as too great a risk, they would not have been allowed to do it.  

I agree with your point about risk tolerance, but I don't think this is a good example.  Now if you want to talk about Apollo 12 going on to the Moon after taking a lightning hit on launch- that's another story...

I believe the three person EVA was a backup, the original satellite retrieval procedure was completely different. I'm not sure how much the EVA was thought out and simulated. Mission was STS-49 in 1992. By the way, in 1997 another satellite (Spartan) was retrieved through EVA after the Canadarm hit it.

Here's a quote from Wikipedia about the EVA:

"The capture required three EVAs: a planned one by astronaut Pierre J. Thuot and Richard J. Hieb who were unable to attach a capture bar to the satellite from a position on the RMS; a second unscheduled but identical attempt the following day; and finally an unscheduled but successful hand capture by Pierre J. Thuot and fellow crewmen Richard J. Hieb and Thomas D. Akers as commander Daniel C. Brandenstein delicately maneuvered the orbiter to within a few feet of the 4215 kg communications satellite. An ASEM structure was erected in the cargo bay by the crew to serve as a platform to aid in the hand capture and subsequent attachment of the capture bar."

This fits what I remember about the mission- an issue with a capture bar that wouldn't fit, so the three astronaut EVA was a backup plan.  I know this is getting off topic, but there was some planning on the ground before this was approved.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sandrot on 07/24/2007 05:43 pm
Quote
Jim - 24/7/2007  1:28 PM

[...] The EELV engines can be shut down, the stick's SRB continues to chase the CEV

Can you elaborate on that? Isn't SRB thrust terminated by detonating charges that will open holes on the SRB casings?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 07/24/2007 05:47 pm
Quote
sandrot - 24/7/2007  1:43 PM

Quote
Jim - 24/7/2007  1:28 PM

[...] The EELV engines can be shut down, the stick's SRB continues to chase the CEV

Can you elaborate on that? Isn't SRB thrust terminated by detonating charges that will open holes on the SRB casings?

Wouldn't the abort sequence be to separate the CM from the Stick first and then range safety destruction?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sandrot on 07/24/2007 06:02 pm
If shrapnels are a concern maybe the SRB nozzle can be blown first? A linear charge for that purpose exists already.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/24/2007 06:06 pm
Quote
brihath - 24/7/2007  1:47 PM

Quote
sandrot - 24/7/2007  1:43 PM

Quote
Jim - 24/7/2007  1:28 PM

[...] The EELV engines can be shut down, the stick's SRB continues to chase the CEV

Can you elaborate on that? Isn't SRB thrust terminated by detonating charges that will open holes on the SRB casings?

Wouldn't the abort sequence be to separate the CM from the Stick first and then range safety destruction?

With regular ELV's, the sequence is shutdown engines, fire LAS and then send RS functions.

Can't do that with a solid
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HarryM on 07/24/2007 06:06 pm
Assuming that the abort happens while the SRB is still thrusting then if you seperate the CM/LAS from the stack you would still have the mass of the fully fueled upper stage and service module attached to the SRB, so it probably wouldn't be too big of a deal. (regarding SRB "chasing" the CM).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 07/24/2007 06:15 pm
What about acceleration loads imparted to the CM and crew from the vehicle below coming apart after SRB descruction?  I don't know if that is significant or not when factored in with acceleration from the escape system.  Has that been determined in evaluating the abort sequence?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 07/24/2007 06:50 pm
Quote
Jim - 24/7/2007  8:28 PM

Actually, it is safer to extricate a CEV from than a 3 liquid engine EELV than the stick.  The EELV engines can be shut down, the stick's SRB continues to chase the CEV

Jim: what kind of failure are you talking about ?

All this talk about the SRB chaseing the running capsule !

Why not command the SRB to rotate a limited angle so that the remaining thrust works in your favour ? Is this about a multiple/total failure of the SRB control hardware ? software ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/24/2007 07:10 pm
Quote
renclod - 24/7/2007  1:50 PM

Quote
Jim - 24/7/2007  8:28 PM

Actually, it is safer to extricate a CEV from than a 3 liquid engine EELV than the stick.  The EELV engines can be shut down, the stick's SRB continues to chase the CEV

Jim: what kind of failure are you talking about ?

All this talk about the SRB chaseing the running capsule !

Why not command the SRB to rotate a limited angle so that the remaining thrust works in your favour ? Is this about a multiple/total failure of the SRB control hardware ? software ?

I don't know the current plan, but the plan last year at the time I left NASA was to fire the abort motor to separate, wait about a second, then terminate SRB thrust using the range destruct package.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 07/25/2007 03:13 am
Quote
Jim - 24/7/2007  2:06 PM

Quote
brihath - 24/7/2007  1:47 PM

Quote
sandrot - 24/7/2007  1:43 PM

Quote
Jim - 24/7/2007  1:28 PM

[...] The EELV engines can be shut down, the stick's SRB continues to chase the CEV

Can you elaborate on that? Isn't SRB thrust terminated by detonating charges that will open holes on the SRB casings?

Wouldn't the abort sequence be to separate the CM from the Stick first and then range safety destruction?

With regular ELV's, the sequence is shutdown engines, fire LAS and then send RS functions.

Can't do that with a solid

I was under the impression that the top of the SRB was blown off to produce a net zero thrust, thus terminating its flight?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/25/2007 03:17 am
nope.  It is split along its length
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 07/25/2007 05:10 am
Quote
kool-aid - 24/7/2007  9:42 AM

Quote
Jorge - 24/7/2007  8:38 AM

Quote
kool-aid - 24/7/2007  7:53 AM

What happened to the astros who grabbed a spinning comsat with their gloves on Endeavour's maiden voyage and drug it into the payload bay?  Sounds like those kind of b*lls don't exist anymore.

Those b*lls disappeared in the skies above Texas on February 1, 2003. Get used to it, bub, it ain't changing any time soon.

Well, in that case, we might as well pack it all in--this whole human "exploration" thing.  Because if we mean to explore space, there will be more dead astronauts.  If we can't handle that, then let's stop fooling around with it.

You missed my point in the second paragraph of my original post. There are risks that are central to an organization's mission and those that are not.

Satellite servicing was one of the capabilities that was used to sell the shuttle. During the period between 51L and the start of ISS assembly (which included both the Intelsat rescue and the first HST servicing mission), it was practically the raison d'etre of the shuttle program. Therefore it was central to the program's mission, and so were its risks. So those risks were accepted as the price of keeping the program alive.

Lunar/Mars exploration is the central capability that is being used to sell Orion. Those missions will be risky. But those risks are central to the mission and will therefore be accepted. Satellite servicing was not one of those central capabilities of Orion, and conversely, JWST was originally designed not to be human serviceable. The risks associated with an Orion-based JWST servicing mission are therefore not central to Orion's mission. In fact they will be an expensive diversion from Orion's central mission. Therefore those risks will not be accepted. NASA will barely have enough budget to get Orion to the moon by 2020 - diverting a lot of that funding to service JWST will jeopardize that goal, and will therefore not happen.

Although NASA has become more risk-averse since 2003, the difference is not as much as one might think. The manual capture of Intelsat was on the third EVA, after two attempts using the capture bar had failed. It was risky but deemed acceptable because most of the risk of a shuttle flight was in the ascent/entry phase so the crew had essentially "absorbed" that risk already. The decision-making process is quite different prior to launch. Had NASA known in 1990 that a manual capture of Intelsat would be required, it is quite likely they would not have attempted the mission in the first place. It is also worth pointing out that after Intelsat (but before the 107 accident), NASA was approached about another spacecraft rescue/repair using the shuttle, but they ultimately declined it. I forget the name of the spacecraft in question.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 07/25/2007 05:12 am
Quote
marsavian - 24/7/2007  10:25 AM

Quote
Jorge - 23/7/2007  11:32 PM

Quote
Jim - 23/7/2007  7:06 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 23/7/2007  8:00 PM

Quote
mike robel - 23/7/2007  4:41 PM

JWST is not made to be serviceable and will not be in a serviceable orbit

Then why are they putting an Orion docking ring on it?

Just in case.  But it still isn't serviceable.

Right. The docking ring is a fig leaf. The JWST design has no EVA handrails, no consideration for safety hazards like sharp edges and EVA suit touch-temperature limits, and no consideration for serviceability like standardized fasteners that are accessible using EVA tools. When the EVA office and S&MA get a look at that, their reaction will be not just "no", not just "hell no", but "no f**king way in f**king hell are we signing off on letting EVA astronauts near that f**king thing, and if NASA does so anyway it will be over our protests and without our signatures on the CoFR."

Bottom line is that this is an "optional" mission. Unlike HST, JWST hasn't been sold as human-serviceable, and unlike the Shuttle, Orion isn't being sold for its spacecraft servicing capabilities. No amount of positive PR from a JWST servicing mission would be worth the tremendous cost and risk.

I think you encapsulate the kind of reasons it would be hard to get anything other than Ares I accepted now. Who is going to be the Administrator or Politician brave enough to say yeah let's abandon the safest ascent launcher you can possible design for the sake of money or efficiency ?

Nope, very different risk trades.

Going to a cheaper launcher from Ares I increases risks but saves money.

Undertaking a JWST servicing mission increases risks and costs money. A lot of money.

Big difference.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 07/25/2007 05:20 am
Quote
sandrot - 24/7/2007  11:26 AM

Quote
Jorge - 24/7/2007  12:32 AM

[...] The docking ring is a fig leaf. The JWST design has no EVA handrails, no consideration for safety hazards like sharp edges and EVA suit touch-temperature limits, and no consideration for serviceability like standardized fasteners that are accessible using EVA tools. When the EVA office and S&MA get a look at that, their reaction will be not just "no", not just "hell no", but "no f**king way in f**king hell are we signing off on letting EVA astronauts near that f**king thing, and if NASA does so anyway it will be over our protests and without our signatures on the CoFR. [...]

Well, so are not serviceable Shuttle underbelly tiles or OMS pods. Looks like they're being "serviced" every mission, now.

Because the CAIB recommended that NASA develop such a capability prior to return-to-flight of the shuttle.

That choice was between accepting that risk versus not flying the shuttle at all.

This choice is between using all Orions to go to the moon (which is Orion's core mission) versus diverting one Orion to service JWST (which is not Orion's core mission). And make no mistake about it, it is an either-or choice - the JWST program certainly will not pony up the ten-figure price for the flight. It will come out of ESMD's hide, which means deleting one of the lunar flights (an ISS flight wouldn't be capable of reaching JWST).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 07/25/2007 06:28 am
The odds of an Orion flight to JWST are almost zero, if the current plan is adhered to.  JWST is supposed to launch in 2013, which is 2-3 years before Orion's first manned flight.  NASA's made it clear that the purpose of a human mission would be to fix any problems that would occur when JWST is first deployed.  If JWST has a problem unfolding its mirror, it will likely die while Orion is still on the ground in an unfinished state.

I think NASA owes the public some clarification on what plans, if any, it has for sending Orion to JWST.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/25/2007 11:13 am
Guys - Please return the discussion to Direct.
JWST is a vital program and this discussion should continue, but please create a separate thread for it.
Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 07/25/2007 01:30 pm
Okay, I'm not sure if ESAS or DIRECTv1 covered this (can't find it in a search), and I want to play a little devil's advocate here.  

You're saying that DIRECT is "more shuttle-derived" than Ares as currently envisioned.  But it still "doesn't look like Shuttle".  By that, I mean that it's not carrying anything on it's side anymore.

It seems like moving the core stage engines from alongside the ET (ala STS) to underneath an ET-derived core stage is a large chunk of the work for DIRECT.

The Shuttle-C concept was kicked around for a long time.  How much thought has been given to this type of an arrangement, where the engines are in the STS-typical location (i.e. a tandem engine pod)?  I know ESAS looked at this for the Cargo launch point-of-view (LV 22), but as far as I can tell, it wasn't considered for crew launch.

I know we don't want crew alongside tankage anymore, but with escape capability, it seems like you could mount the EDS alongside the ET, put a CEV on top, and eliminate ET modification and MLP modification from the plan as well.  The CEV would likely be "above" the ET in this configuration (as in it would sit higher than the top of the tank), and still have a launch escape system.

Heck, with a tandem EDS, would you be able to eliminate a set of engines... i.e. use the J-2X engines from liftoff on.

Obviously, I'm the first to admit I'm not an aerospace engineer, and it's not Legos we're playing with here.  But it seems like a question an uneducated congress person might ask.  

How would such a configuration impact:

- LOM/LOC
- ET Modifications
- MLP Modifications
- Payload to ISS LEO
- Payload to TLI/LLO
- Time to implement

From my uneducated point-of-view, it seems like this would have a negative impact for your total net payload in an apples-to-apples comparison (i.e. if you look at J-232-class two rockets with identical mass, one with 3 RS-68s underneath and an EDS on top, one with 3-RS-68s and an EDS alongside, the series rocket will perform better), but how much?  Enought to require more than 2 launches for a LOR mission?

The cost savings from using the same ET/MLP might make this something worth a more serious look.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Thorny on 07/25/2007 02:00 pm
Quote
Jorge - 24/7/2007  12:10 AM
It is also worth pointing out that after Intelsat (but before the 107 accident), NASA was approached about another spacecraft rescue/repair using the shuttle, but they ultimately declined it. I forget the name of the spacecraft in question.

Orion F3 from the second Delta III failiure.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: bad_astra on 07/25/2007 02:09 pm
Quote
The Shuttle-C concept was kicked around for a long time.  How much thought has been given to this type of an arrangement, where the engines are in the STS-typical location (i.e. a tandem engine pod)?  I know ESAS looked at this for the Cargo launch point-of-view (LV 22), but as far as I can tell, it wasn't considered for crew launch.


Politics. After Columbia they're not going to design another side-mounted launcher on purpose.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 07/25/2007 02:11 pm
Quote
Thorny - 25/7/2007  9:00 AM

Quote
Jorge - 24/7/2007  12:10 AM
It is also worth pointing out that after Intelsat (but before the 107 accident), NASA was approached about another spacecraft rescue/repair using the shuttle, but they ultimately declined it. I forget the name of the spacecraft in question.

Orion F3 from the second Delta III failiure.

Yes, that was it. Thanks!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/25/2007 02:50 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 25/7/2007  9:30 AM

You're saying that DIRECT is "more shuttle-derived" than Ares as currently envisioned.  But it still "doesn't look like Shuttle".  By that, I mean that it's not carrying anything on it's side anymore.

u.

Creating a side mounted upperstage increases the mass of the upperstage and induces different loads into the spacecraft.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/25/2007 03:17 pm
This will suit your 1-word answer style, Jim.

Let's say the Orbiter was mounted to the tank at the top of the tank via an attachment where the SSMEs are now, and the SSMEs were on the bottom of the tank.  Do you believe the orbiter would be destroyed in a Challenger-like failure?  I'm guessing the answer is "yes".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pippin on 07/25/2007 03:22 pm
The answer is: you don't know.
Columbia-like accident wouldn't happen, however.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/25/2007 04:07 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 25/7/2007  11:17 AM

This will suit your 1-word answer style, Jim.

Let's say the Orbiter was mounted to the tank at the top of the tank via an attachment where the SSMEs are now, and the SSMEs were on the bottom of the tank.  Do you believe the orbiter would be destroyed in a Challenger-like failure?  I'm guessing the answer is "yes".
correct.   The orbiter broke up from aeroloads, which would still happen
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/25/2007 05:27 pm
Yeah...I was thinking it wouldn't be easy to keep the orbiter at a safe AOA and yaw angle while the tank was disintegrating below, even using the OMS and RCS systems, plus the aero surfaces.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pippin on 07/25/2007 06:09 pm
Quote
Jim - 25/7/2007  6:07 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 25/7/2007  11:17 AM

This will suit your 1-word answer style, Jim.

Let's say the Orbiter was mounted to the tank at the top of the tank via an attachment where the SSMEs are now, and the SSMEs were on the bottom of the tank.  Do you believe the orbiter would be destroyed in a Challenger-like failure?  I'm guessing the answer is "yes".
correct.   The orbiter broke up from aeroloads, which would still happen

You can't know. Challenger's wing was hit by the SRB and if it was mounted at the top the whole aerodynamic setup would be different, even if it had the same shape. For example the aerodynamic load would be on the orbiter the whole time whereas with the current setup it sits within ETs shockwave.

You can't answer this question without having a more detailed setup. Chances you could design it to withstand something like Challenger are better as with the sidemount.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 07/25/2007 06:21 pm
Sorry, I didn't mean to get us off of DIRECT again... I was trying to ask how an EDS/Orion side-mount Jupiter with LES would compare to the proposed Jupiter.  I can imagine the LOC/LOM being somewhat lower (though the LES should mitigate LOC).  In a Challenger-type scenario, the LES should pull the crew away just as in the in-line model, though being in a different distance/orientation to the shockwave might make it moot.

I was more curious if the benefits of staying side-mount (less ET/MLP mods, shorter in VAB, etc.) outweigh the detractions (lower LOC/LOM, lower performance), and how different the performance would be.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/25/2007 06:31 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 25/7/2007  9:30 AM

The Shuttle-C concept was kicked around for a long time.  How much thought has been given to this type of an arrangement, where the engines are in the STS-typical location (i.e. a tandem engine pod)?  I know ESAS looked at this for the Cargo launch point-of-view (LV 22), but as far as I can tell, it wasn't considered for crew launch.

Correct - this was the key problem with the Shuttle-C concept - Crew Abort is very dangerous from a position starting next to a potentially disintegrating External Tank.

The bottom line is that in the event of a contingency resulting in ET destruction, somewhat like Challenger, the time the LAS activates and starts moving the Crew Module away, the ET can already be producing shrapnel in the immediate path of LAS flight.

The basic idea was dismissed as too dangerous, so Shuttle-C was always exclusively considered to be exactly what it's name suggests Shuttle-"Cargo".

To be most effective, the LAS should be in-line with the vehicle, and at the very top, with nothing next to it.


ESAS determined that Shuttle-C required a separate Crew Launch Vehicle.    Yet even then it still didn't offer the lift performance of Ares-V, so would require two Cargo flights instead of one - ultimately making it a 3-launch solution.

Now, adding an extra stage (EDS) on the side gets real complicated, and real costly, real fast.   When you examine the trade studies in detail, it is actually considerably cheaper to modify the MLP a moderate amount, and create an in-line version, than to fully implement a Shuttle-C system with the capability to launch an EDS on the side.   And the in-line also offers about 5mT extra performance to obit every flight also.


Quote
How would such a configuration impact:

- LOM/LOC
- ET Modifications
- MLP Modifications
- Payload to ISS LEO
- Payload to TLI/LLO
- Time to implement


- LOM is about equal to Jupiter-120, Shuttle-C based LOC is below 1:500, even with a LAS.
- ET must be strengthened to handle weight of EDS.
- MLP can stay "as is", but VAB and RSS must still be altered due to change in shape of payload module.
- Payload to ISS LEO: ~75mT w/ SSME.   39mT w/ RS-68 MPS.
- Payload to TLI/LLO: 3-launch can achieve ~175mT ESAS minimum.   2-launch can't.
- No shorter than DIRECT.

In Summary:

Final development cost is about same as DIRECT.
Performance is considerably lower.
Safety is considerably lower.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/25/2007 06:33 pm
I think the discussion was on-topic, because it was on the top of whether or not side-mount really does decrease the LOC number.  I suspect it does for an Orion-style vehicle, but not as much for an orbiter, as the orbiter is just more fragile (or, perhaps that's an erroneous perception on my part).  However, with DIRECT having to compete with the Ares-I and its not-so-applicable-anymore 2000 LOC number, I think in-line is probably the way to go, even if it does mean a few MLP mods.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/25/2007 07:42 pm
Quote
pippin - 25/7/2007  2:09 PM

Quote
Jim - 25/7/2007  6:07 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 25/7/2007  11:17 AM

This will suit your 1-word answer style, Jim.

Let's say the Orbiter was mounted to the tank at the top of the tank via an attachment where the SSMEs are now, and the SSMEs were on the bottom of the tank.  Do you believe the orbiter would be destroyed in a Challenger-like failure?  I'm guessing the answer is "yes".
correct.   The orbiter broke up from aeroloads, which would still happen

You can't know. Challenger's wing was hit by the SRB and if it was mounted at the top the whole aerodynamic setup would be different, even if it had the same shape. For example the aerodynamic load would be on the orbiter the whole time whereas with the current setup it sits within ETs shockwave.
.

Challenger broke up from aeroloads, period

It would break up break on top of an ET.  It would be active and therefore have no control once the blast breaks it free
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pippin on 07/25/2007 07:47 pm
Quote
Jim - 25/7/2007  9:42 PM

(1) Challenger broke up from aeroloads, period

(2) It would break up break on top of an ET.  
(3) It would be active and therefore have no control once the blast breaks it free

(1) I know. I didn't challenge that

(2) If you say so

(3) I don't understand that
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/25/2007 08:05 pm
3. it would not be active.and therefore have no control (the orbiter is not passively stable) once the blast breaks it free.  The airloads would tear it up.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pippin on 07/25/2007 08:19 pm
OK. Now I understand. My point was I would assume it would have to be active if it sits on top of the ET because otherwise the aeroloads would probably tear the whole setup apart even without the ET coming off. But I assume that's philosophical since it would be a different animal with such a setup anyway.

I suppose it would look somewhat like this:

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/a/aria5her.jpg
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/25/2007 08:44 pm
I would like to put the Challenger/Side Mount topic to rest, but I think we can all agree that a vehicle the size of STS would have still had trouble whether it had been riding on top of the ET or on the side.

But I also believe that we can all agree that a capsule the size of Apollo/Orion should be in a much better situation if riding on top rather than in a potential debris field alongside an ET which is coming apart during a contingency.

In short, in-line offers greater safety and higher performance, yet costs no more in overall terms.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 07/26/2007 01:03 am
Recognizing I am off topic, but the Shuttle may have ended up looking like this concept:  http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/edin05.htm

There is also a version on top of a Saturn V in Jenkin's book as well as buried somewhere on astronautix.com and not as a top mount like Hermes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2007 04:24 am
Mike,
That still wouldn't have saved Columbia though :(

I think something like the original design Max Faget came up with might have been the only way to launch such a large winged spacecraft and still avoid the issues which have killed both Orbiters so far.   It had the Orbiter riding very high on the Tank, ahead of most of its airflow.   The Delta-winged Orbiter we have today would probably have been safe from that foam strike if it had bee placed like this:-



Mind you with a lot more liquid engines, it is quite possible it could have suffered a lot more MPS failures too.   I suppose we will never really know how safe that concept may have ultimately been.

What is for sure, placing the crew capsule on the very top, with a LAS, is the single greatest improvement which can be engineered into any launch system to increase the chance of saving the lives of the crew during ascent.

Mercury, Apollo and Soyuz have got it right.   Orion, very sensibly, promises to follow in those proven footsteps.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 07/26/2007 05:32 am
Quote
kraisee - 25/7/2007  11:24 PM

Mike,
That still wouldn't have saved Columbia though :(

I think something like the original design Max Faget came up with might have been the only way to launch such a large winged spacecraft and still avoid the issues which have killed both Orbiters so far.   It had the Orbiter riding very high on the Tank, ahead of most of its airflow.   The Delta-winged Orbiter we have today would probably have been safe from that foam strike if it had bee placed like this:-



Mind you with a lot more liquid engines, it is quite possible it could have suffered a lot more MPS failures too.   I suppose we will never really know how safe that concept may have ultimately been.

Especially if we aren't honest with ourselves about the risks involved with these alternative designs.

The Faget design would have been less vulnerable to Columbia-style damage to the TPS, sure. Especially because the internal tanks would have resulted in a "fluffier" vehicle during entry, which would have decelerated more quickly before it reached the thicker parts of the atmosphere. That would have allowed the orbiter to use a less-fragile TPS that would have been less prone to damage from ascent debris, even assuming debris could hit the orbiter in such a location in the first place.

But avoid a Challenger-style accident? Sure, if you define it narrowly enough to make the definition useless. The Faget design would not have been vulnerable to an SRB failure because it had no SRBs. On the other hand, a first-stage breakup or loss-of-control almost certainly would still have resulted in breakup of the orbiter due to aero loads. The forward placement of the orbiter would not have changed that.

And the Faget design was vulnerable to issues the current STS design is not. The two biggest concerns were transition from entry to TAEM, and landing performance. The Faget orbiter would have re-entered at high alpha (~80 degrees, compared to 40 for STS) and would have required a "belly flop" maneuver to transition to controlled flight after peak heating. The USAF was very concerned about the controllability of this maneuver with the primitive fly-by-wire control systems available at the time, and they were probably right.

With regard to landing performance, the internal tanks and stubby wings that would have served the Faget orbiter so well during entry would have worked against it during landing. The internal tanks would impart large roll moments in crosswinds and the stubby wings would provide very low control moments. The Faget orbiter would therefore have had much lower crosswind limits for landing than the STS orbiter - assuming it could have been landed at all with 70s-generation control systems.

That, combined with the Faget orbiter's much lower entry crossrange (~300 n.mi., compared to over 800 for STS) would have severely limited its operational flexibility. For a TAL abort, for example, the low crossrange would severely limit the number of TAL landing sites the orbiter could reach, and the low crosswind landing limit would reduce the probability of those TAL sites having acceptable weather. The Faget orbiter would therefore have a higher probability of weather scrubs. AOA aborts would probably not even be possible with the Faget orbiter. And even for nominal end-of-mission, the Faget orbiter would have had very limited landing opportunities on each day, compared to the 2-2-2 opportunities that are standard for STS. For these reasons, the shuttle program would probably have gone with the high-crossrange delta-wing orbiter even absent the USAF crossrange requirements.

Nevertheless, I still see a lot of the "grass is always greener" attitude regarding alternatives to STS. Not just in comparison to the Faget orbiter. But it always stems from a refusal to consider the potential disadvantages of these alternative designs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/26/2007 11:23 am
Please take all this off-topic discussion to its own thread.
This thread is for discussion of the Direct v2 proposal only.
While all this discussion is interesting, it has nothing to do with Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 07/26/2007 07:32 pm
clongton
Quote
- 26/7/2007  2:23 PM
This thread is for discussion of the Direct v2 proposal only.
Can you, please, more fully: explain how is it that it's faster to develope the Jupiter COMMON CORE than the Ares I upperstage; the Jupiter 120 than Ares I.

Please keep your focus like you are the mechanical wizzard, not the OMB boss.

The Jupiter COMMON CORE is a structure that realistically must carry
the J-120's payload
OR
the J-232's EDS and payload.

Any launcher project goes through extensive and costly software modeling/scale model building and testing/you name it...

Your take on this topic , to me, looks like a little on the lite side.

I'm on record in this thread asking Ross if his proposed simple fabrication of the O2 tank is based on facts, on knowledge from experts. If multiple EXISTING, LESS CHEMICALLY MILLED O2 tank barrel sections and another EXISTING O2 tank Y ring and a mirrored dome IS ALL YOU NEED.

I was asking about NEW, O2 TANK THRUST PANNELS AND FLANGES but Ross gets angry about : the right approach is to use what you have ! Why ? it's not about what you'd whish : it's about what you have-to.

Well... please reassure us the nay-sayers: the Jupiter COMMON CORE is piece of cake... 2012 like taking candy from a baby... the J-232 can throw better than Ares-V AND it's COMMON CORE can be MAF's next week wonder.

Don't you see any contradiction between "common core" and "2012" ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2007 07:54 pm
The Ares-I U/S needs new thrust structure, new LOX tanking, new LH2 tanking, new common bulkhead, new plumbing, new avionics.   Everything must be created afresh.

In contrast, the tanking fundamentally exists for ET now and can be modified (relatively speaking) fairly easily into the new tanking structures.   That is the basic theory behind Ares-V too, although far more extensive changes are required for that.   Ditto for the Interstage (no new common bulkhead design is required), the majority of the plumbing is ready to reuse.

All-new development on the new Core stage is limited to a new Thrust Structure, new Forward Skirt and avionics.


Additionally, Ares-I requires the expensive and difficult task of developing the new J-2X engine for the Upper Stage, which Jupiter-120 does not use.   Instead we use the existing RS-68 with no performance upgrades at all.   This is a far less costly approach than either J-2X or the 106% "upgraded" RS-68 planned for Ares-V.

And the deletion of the 5-segment SRB, and the conscious choice to reuse the existing man-rated 4-segment SRB's "as is" removes significant costs and schedule impacts from the development program.

Then there is the cost for the infrastructure changes necessary for Ares-I (2 all new ML/LUT's vs. moderately modified existing MLP), and all the other changes deleted at both KSC and MAF by sticking with the existing footprint arrangement.

It's all in the details, but it's a LOT less work at every level.

BTW, I don't get "angry" about the LOX tank panels, I just don't agree with you seeing it as a "glass half empty" situation.   I see changing the tanking as an opportunity, not a limitation.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/26/2007 07:58 pm
Quote
kraisee - 26/7/2007  3:54 PM


It's all in the details, but it's a LOT less work at every level.
So essentially, no. There is no contradiction with common core and 2012.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2007 08:10 pm
No contradiction.

The first "Battleship" Jupiter Common Core could be at Stennis for testing in less than two years from a decision point.   This would be mid-2009 if decided now.   First unmanned test flight out of KSC would be 18 months later.

The biggest benefit to accomplishing this is that there is no long-lead time propulsion systems in the critical path to fielding Orion.   The engines for this Jupiter variant all exist and are flown at their required power levels right now.

The second biggest advantage is that most of the manufacturing equipment is ready to start building major elements for the Jupiter Common Core almost immediately at Michoud, without requiring changes to the infrastructure.   Albeit a gross generalization, while the Thrust Structure design is being finalised, Battleship tanking walls and domes, Interstage structures and LOX feedline assembly can begin on the same production line that currently turns out Shuttle ET's without adverse effects.   "New" hardware would be assembled and integrated last.

There is no evolved J-2 air-start engine required for initial Orion use at all.   Those engines aren't needed until considerably later, exclusively for the Lunar phase of the VSE years after Orion begins flying.

The RS-68's can be flown "as they are today" throughout the testing phase, because the un-man-rated versions have precisely the same performance characteristics as planned for the man-rated versions.   As the man-rated version become available, field testing can move over to those.

Additionally, man-rated RS-68's can likely be flown on Delta-IV's ahead of integration to Jupiter.

And don't forget that the SRB's are exactly the same as ones we plan to fly on Endeavour in a few weeks time, no changes.   This remove all cost and delays surrounding the 5-segment SRB's.


The most critical limit to flying a manned Orion ultimately defaults away from the LV to the spacecraft itself.   Jupiter will be ready to field an Orion as soon as it is ready to fly.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 07/26/2007 09:01 pm
In general is structural developmental work relatively easy to do compared to propulsion developmental work? I believe this is what the DIRECT team is implying.  I'm inclined to believe that doing development work on new avionics and TWO new propulsion systems seems fraught for delays.  

It would appear to me using "off the shelf" propulsion RS-68s and SRBs would eliminate at least half the potential headaches involved with doing a new LV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 07/26/2007 09:39 pm
kraisee
Quote
- 26/7/2007  11:10 PM
No contradiction.

The first "Battleship" Jupiter Common Core could be at Stennis for testing in less than two years from a decision point. Ross.

The emphasize is on "common"...

The J-120 core is a 40mT-to-LEO syringe .

The J-232 is 70mT.

Please show one example of one launcher with similar *common* core structure, not to mention fielded in five years.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 07/26/2007 11:00 pm
Quote
renclod - 26/7/2007  2:39 PM

The J-232 is 70mT.
What??  When did the J-232 shrink to 70 mT?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/26/2007 11:30 pm
Quote
renclod - 26/7/2007  5:39 PM

The J-120 core is a 40mT-to-LEO syringe .

The J-232 is 70mT.
Cornel;
I'm not sure what document you are looking at but it's not correct.
J-120 lifts   46 metric tons to LEO
J-232 lifts 106 metric tons to LEO

I'm not sure why you feel so badly about "only" 40mT  performance. That's 2x Shuttle & Ares-I.
Best regards
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/26/2007 11:52 pm
Quote
clongton - 27/7/2007  12:30 AM

Cornel;
I'm not sure what document you are looking at but it's not correct.
J-120 lifts   46 metric tons to LEO
J-232 lifts 106 metric tons to LEO

I'm not sure why you feel so badly about "only" 40mT  performance. That's 2x Shuttle & Ares-I.
Best regards

Is that J-120 or J-120 with EDS lifts 46 metric tons to LEO?
That is a 3 section rocket.

If you remember this reply.

Quote
Quote

A_M_Swallow - 24/7/2007 4:35 AM


The Jupiter-120 may not be able to send the CEV to the James Webb Telescope but it could send a second 34.5 metric tonne telescope to join it. The Earth Departure Stage would need replacing by a Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) Tug.

The SEP Tug could consist of 6 Hall thrusters, cooling panels, electronics and 2 photovoltaic blankets. Depending on the thruster chosen (available) the journey would take between 7 months and 2 years. A 620 day burn for six Busek BHT-20k Hall Thrusters would use 6.5 mT of xenon (or krypton) fuel.
Jim Posted 24/7/2007 12:51 PM (#164239 - in reply to #164212)    

Undoable. The EDS is needed to put the payload into LEO first. The EDS always does 2 burns, LEO insertion and earth escape
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/27/2007 12:10 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 26/7/2007  7:52 PM

Quote
clongton - 27/7/2007  12:30 AM

Cornel;
I'm not sure what document you are looking at but it's not correct.
J-120 lifts   46 metric tons to LEO
J-232 lifts 106 metric tons to LEO

I'm not sure why you feel so badly about "only" 40mT  performance. That's 2x Shuttle & Ares-I.
Best regards

Is that J-120 or J-120 with EDS lifts 46 metric tons to LEO?
That is a 3 section rocket.

If you remember this reply.

Quote
Quote

A_M_Swallow - 24/7/2007 4:35 AM


The Jupiter-120 may not be able to send the CEV to the James Webb Telescope but it could send a second 34.5 metric tonne telescope to join it. The Earth Departure Stage would need replacing by a Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) Tug.

The SEP Tug could consist of 6 Hall thrusters, cooling panels, electronics and 2 photovoltaic blankets. Depending on the thruster chosen (available) the journey would take between 7 months and 2 years. A 620 day burn for six Busek BHT-20k Hall Thrusters would use 6.5 mT of xenon (or krypton) fuel.
Jim Posted 24/7/2007 12:51 PM (#164239 - in reply to #164212)    

Undoable. The EDS is needed to put the payload into LEO first. The EDS always does 2 burns, LEO insertion and earth escape
FYI, a J-120 WITH an EDS is not a J-120, it's a J-2XX. Remember the 1st digit identifies how many stages there are to bring the payload to the point of EOI. Including an EDS by definition makes it a 2-stage vehicle, thus a J-2xx.

Here's the J-120 - Enjoy
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/27/2007 12:19 am
Quote
Jim Posted 24/7/2007 12:51 PM (#164239 - in reply to #164212)    

Undoable. The EDS is needed to put the payload into LEO first. The EDS always does 2 burns, LEO insertion and earth escape

Boy Jim, you sure love to say no to things.  I guess it would be impossible for a Saturn-V, that has to use its S-IVB (EDS) to burn to get into LEO to put something in LEO without it.

Oh yeah, it was called Skylab.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 07/27/2007 01:09 am
Quote
renclod - 26/7/2007  2:39 PM

kraisee
Quote
- 26/7/2007  11:10 PM
No contradiction.

The first "Battleship" Jupiter Common Core could be at Stennis for testing in less than two years from a decision point. Ross.

The emphasize is on "common"...

The J-120 core is a 40mT-to-LEO syringe .

The J-232 is 70mT.

Please show one example of one launcher with similar *common* core structure, not to mention fielded in five years.
 

Renclod, I am a little confused about your point. Are you saying that because the tank is going to have to carry two different weights, 40mT and 106mT, that it isn't or couldn't be a common core?
I would assume that the tank would be designed to meet the higher weight requirements and thrust of the three engine configuration and that it's use in the J-120 configuration would have to accept a less than optimum configuration.
It certainly doesn't sound like a deal breaker to me, what am I missing?

If your argument is that the projected development time for the EDS seems much longer than the projected development time for the common core and therefore the projected development time for the common core is wrong, I think Ross has addressed that question.

If your argument is that the projected development time for the Ares V core seems much longer that the projected development time for the common core and therefore the projected development time for the common core is wrong, I think Ross has addressed that question also. Do you have specific counter points to his points?


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/27/2007 01:30 am
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 26/7/2007  9:09 PM

I would assume that the tank would be designed to meet the higher weight requirements and thrust of the three engine configuration and that it's use in the J-120 configuration would have to accept a less than optimum configuration.
It certainly doesn't sound like a deal breaker to me, what am I missing?
Norm, you are not missing anything because that is exactly what the process is. The common core is designed for optimal use on the heavy lift version and is used "as is" for the J-120. There is so much margin with this design that we are quite happy to absorb the mass penalty in trade for total commonality. Having a true common core that supports, unchanged, all versions of this launch vehicle is an enormous advantage. That is one of the many strengths of this design.

The wall thickness calculations are on the very conservative side with an eye to optimizing the tank even further as we gain flight experience with it. Right now the tank is stronger than it really needs to be, to give us the room to improve. This will allow us to increase overall performance even more going forward. Essentially, because we have more than enough margin to do so, we have "designed in" room to grow.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 07/27/2007 01:47 am
clongton, can you, without violating any confidentiality, confirm that you have folks involved in ET construction who have evaluated your redesign and confirmed that what you are projecting is possible? Have they reviewed your projected development time and confirmed that it is possible also?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 07/27/2007 01:50 am
Is there any plan to do a "Jupiter Heavy," in the same spirit of the Jupiter III in TeamVision's original paper?  I was thinking about it today, and my major sticking point was the complicated connections between the laterally-mounted ET's and the engines on the core.  I was thinking of a simplified variant today which I'll call "Jupiter Heavy," for lack of a better term.

The core would be similar to DIRECT's ET-derived core, with 3, 4 or 5 RS-68's.  The laterally-mounted boosters would also be similar to the DIRECT core, except that they'd use the original LOX tank tooling from the shuttle ET.  The laterally-mounted boosters would possess two laterally-mounted SRB's, in either 4-seg or 5-seg flavors.  The upper stage would initially be the same as the one on Jupiter 232, but could be upgraded to an S-II clone if the need for more payload emerged.

I realize that the DIRECT team is busy working on the AIAA Space 2007 paper, and a "Jupiter Heavy" probably won't be seriously studied unless the current Jupiter plans can find a sympathetic ear in NASA management.  I'm just throwing it out there because I remember how impressed I was in reading the original TeamVision proposal for distinct development spirals.  While the Mars development spiral isn't dependent on "Jupiter Heavy," it would probably benefit from having it.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 07/27/2007 02:19 am
Quote
kraisee - 22/6/2007  7:16 PM

Here is a very preliminary glimpse at some of the many growth options which are possible with the Jupiter Architecture.

J-120 and J-232 are top left and are all we really need.   But this demonstrates much of the future potential - which includes Ares-V (top right).

Enjoy

Ross.


Larger Image

CFE this was discussed starting here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7868&start=826 I think.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 07/27/2007 03:09 am
The use of three ET-derived cores in parallel hasn't been discussed in this forum yet.  It was brought up most recently in the TeamVision paper as "Jupiter III" (this was before the 3-digit numbering system came out.)  If Jupiter 232 is analogous to EELV with solid rocket boosters, Jupiter III is analogous to the "heavy" EELV's.

Don't get me wrong; a triple-body Jupiter would be incredibly expensive and eat up a lot of development dollars (especially for the new launch pad, and probably an entirely new launch complex.)  It's an option that only comes into play once we've got lunar ops under our belts and we're getting ready for Mars.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 07/27/2007 03:23 am
I think we covered three-core Jupiter-derivatives before here, and the resolution was that it didn't have the T/W ratio necessary, much like a Core-stage-only (i.e. no boosters) "light" model.  

The SRBs may not be the most efficient rockets in the world, but they do generate a heckuva lot of thrust at ignition.

Hence, the Jupiter variant diagram above with depicts replacing SRBs with LOX/RP-1 boosters.

I'll see if I can find the thread we covered this in and link it (I think it may have been the DIRECTv1 thread).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 07/27/2007 03:46 am
I was getting at a variant that used three ET-derived cores and four SRB's all igniting at the same time.  Look at the TeamVision report, in the section about the Mars development spiral.

I don't know if four SRB's are sufficient to assist three ET-derived cores in lifting off the ground.  Maybe it will require six SRB's, or turning the two outboard ET-derived cores into kerosene-burning boosters.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 07/27/2007 03:56 am
3 cores with 4-6 SRBs?  Yikes.

Maybe an interesting thought exercise, but way out of scope for the DIRECT proposal (trying to work with what we've already got)... Completely new pad and vehicle assembly infrastructure.

Probably better odds of successful launches with 3 individual Jupiter-232s (3 cores, 6 SRBs) assembling in orbit rather than a triple-core, 6-booster launch, (roughly) equivalent performance, and no new Pad / assembly building requirements.

The cost savings alone from not building the new pad / assembly infrastructure probably pays for the three smaller missions. =)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 07/27/2007 02:13 pm
Norm Hartnett
Quote
- 27/7/2007  4:09 AM
Renclod, I am a little confused about your point.

First - I appologize for the "70mT" error.

OK: common core for 46mT and 106mT; DDT&E for this is not in the critical path ? The answer from Chuck, Steven, Ross : NO.

DIRECT/Jupiter shall develope this common core for the heavy J-232 in two years. But the rest of J-232 is not there for testing and evaluation...just (barely) on the drawing board: interstage, EDS, spacecraft adaptor, LSAM, faring - nothing, because we focus on the J-120 and because there's no budget for both.

Still, it's a serious effort, HEAVY 106mT-to-LEO, man, no kidding ! Well... common is common, we're not going back to another DDT&E after 2012 when J-120 starts flying. So we'll test and evaluate in the model space of computers and be done with it.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/27/2007 02:45 pm
Quote
clongton - 26/7/2007  6:10 PM
Here's the J-120 - Enjoy

That's the CEV version, which includes the escape system.  What is a cargo-version of the J-120 capable of lifting to LEO?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 07/27/2007 02:46 pm
Quote
vanilla - 26/7/2007  8:19 PM

Quote
Jim Posted 24/7/2007 12:51 PM (#164239 - in reply to #164212)    

Undoable. The EDS is needed to put the payload into LEO first. The EDS always does 2 burns, LEO insertion and earth escape

Boy Jim, you sure love to say no to things.  I guess it would be impossible for a Saturn-V, that has to use its S-IVB (EDS) to burn to get into LEO to put something in LEO without it.

Oh yeah, it was called Skylab.
I think you're doing apples & oranges here. The two first stages of a Saturn V could put a heck of a lot into LEO on their own. That was used to get Sylab lofted.  Note, though, that another launch was needed to get the first crew to the lab. _That_ mass was too much for Saturn to loft without a 3rd stage.

Same with the original Lunar missions: put a CSM, LM and interstage structure into LEO with an EDS  and then even the Saturn V needed some help from that EDS to get the job done.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/27/2007 02:50 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/7/2007  10:45 AM

Quote
clongton - 26/7/2007  6:10 PM
Here's the J-120 - Enjoy

That's the CEV version, which includes the escape system.  What is a cargo-version of the J-120 capable of lifting to LEO?
46mT is the maximum *GROSS* payload. Configure it any way you like.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/27/2007 02:58 pm
Quote
clongton - 27/7/2007  8:50 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 27/7/2007  10:45 AM

Quote
clongton - 26/7/2007  6:10 PM
Here's the J-120 - Enjoy

That's the CEV version, which includes the escape system.  What is a cargo-version of the J-120 capable of lifting to LEO?
46mT is the maximum *GROSS* payload. Configure it any way you like.

Thanks.

You know what still bothers me?  The J-120 is basically an STS - 2 4-seg SRBs, Cryo core, no upper stage, 2 slightly bigger engines versus 3 slightly smaller ones.  Yet, the STS has managed to loft about 125mT to LEO at maximum (obviously, this does include the orbiter and the small OMS burn to circularize).  It just shocks me that the difference in ISP between the SSMEs and the RS-68s causes such an enormous difference in performance.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/27/2007 03:05 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/7/2007  10:58 AM

Quote
clongton - 27/7/2007  8:50 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 27/7/2007  10:45 AM

Quote
clongton - 26/7/2007  6:10 PM
Here's the J-120 - Enjoy

That's the CEV version, which includes the escape system.  What is a cargo-version of the J-120 capable of lifting to LEO?
46mT is the maximum *GROSS* payload. Configure it any way you like.

Thanks.

You know what still bothers me?  The J-120 is basically an STS - 2 4-seg SRBs, Cryo core, no upper stage, 2 slightly bigger engines versus 3 slightly smaller ones.  Yet, the STS has managed to loft about 125mT to LEO at maximum (obviously, this does include the orbiter and the small OMS burn to circularize).  It just shocks me that the difference in ISP between the SSMEs and the RS-68s causes such an enormous difference in performance.
Think of ISP as miles per gallon in your car.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/27/2007 03:09 pm
Quote
clongton - 27/7/2007  9:05 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 27/7/2007  10:58 AM
You know what still bothers me?  The J-120 is basically an STS - 2 4-seg SRBs, Cryo core, no upper stage, 2 slightly bigger engines versus 3 slightly smaller ones.  Yet, the STS has managed to loft about 125mT to LEO at maximum (obviously, this does include the orbiter and the small OMS burn to circularize).  It just shocks me that the difference in ISP between the SSMEs and the RS-68s causes such an enormous difference in performance.
Think of ISP as miles per gallon in your car.

I do, and I think that's the trouble.  If I get 45.3mpg instead of 40.9 mpg, I don't get to go 2 1/2 times as far on the same fuel nor can I carry 2 1/2 times more weight the same distance.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Giovanni DS on 07/27/2007 03:15 pm
Probably because the engines are part of the orbiter in STS and part of the launcher in J120. Is this the cause of the difference ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 07/27/2007 03:27 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 27/7/2007  10:46 AM

Note, though, that another launch was needed to get the first crew to the lab. _That_ mass was too much for Saturn to loft without a 3rd stage.

Paul
The crew launch was on a SaturnI-B, two stage vehicle

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sandrot on 07/27/2007 03:38 pm
Quote
Giovanni DS - 27/7/2007  11:15 AM

Probably because the engines are part of the orbiter in STS and part of the launcher in J120. Is this the cause of the difference ?

That is part of the problem, 3 SSME's are more or less 10T, and in the case of STS they are included in the gross payload.

On the other hand, improved aerodynamics is said to give a 5T bonus to Direct2
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pippin on 07/27/2007 03:40 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/7/2007  4:58 PM

Quote
clongton - 27/7/2007  8:50 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 27/7/2007  10:45 AM

Quote
clongton - 26/7/2007  6:10 PM
Here's the J-120 - Enjoy

That's the CEV version, which includes the escape system.  What is a cargo-version of the J-120 capable of lifting to LEO?
46mT is the maximum *GROSS* payload. Configure it any way you like.

Thanks.

You know what still bothers me?  The J-120 is basically an STS - 2 4-seg SRBs, Cryo core, no upper stage, 2 slightly bigger engines versus 3 slightly smaller ones.  Yet, the STS has managed to loft about 125mT to LEO at maximum (obviously, this does include the orbiter and the small OMS burn to circularize).  It just shocks me that the difference in ISP between the SSMEs and the RS-68s causes such an enormous difference in performance.
+ engines (mentioned before), included in your 125mt, not in your 46mT
+ OMS burn (for injection, not only circularization)
+ different orbit? (just speculating)
But difference in ISP can make quite a difference for an engine that burns all its way from sea level into orbit. It's not like with the car since you have to launch the additional fuel needed, too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 07/27/2007 03:45 pm
Quote
renclod - 27/7/2007  7:13 AM

Norm Hartnett
Quote
- 27/7/2007  4:09 AM
Renclod, I am a little confused about your point.

First - I appologize for the "70mT" error.

OK: common core for 46mT and 106mT; DDT&E for this is not in the critical path ? The answer from Chuck, Steven, Ross : NO.

DIRECT/Jupiter shall develope this common core for the heavy J-232 in two years. But the rest of J-232 is not there for testing and evaluation...just (barely) on the drawing board: interstage, EDS, spacecraft adaptor, LSAM, faring - nothing, because we focus on the J-120 and because there's no budget for both.

Still, it's a serious effort, HEAVY 106mT-to-LEO, man, no kidding ! Well... common is common, we're not going back to another DDT&E after 2012 when J-120 starts flying. So we'll test and evaluate in the model space of computers and be done with it.

My understanding from what Ross and Chuck have said is that the common core will be over designed for the J-232 much like the ET and SRBs were over designed for the STS. If I remember the Direct timeline correctly the first test article would be delivered to KSC in May 2009, which is 18 months from now. That does seem a little optimistic. The first flight core is supposed to be on the pad in November 2010, which is another 18 months so that gives them almost 36 months from now to get it together before the first unmanned test flight. There is another test flight 11 months after that and the first manned flight 11 months after that in September 2012. That gives them a total of 58 months from now to have the core operational with three prior test articles of which 2 will have flown.
That doesn’t strike me as unreasonable.

The first J-232 test flight is scheduled to fly in May 2013 and is followed by a series of three more test flights before the first unmanned operational flight in June of 2016 followed by the first manned flyby mission in December 2016.
So before the first J-232 test flight there will have been four flights of the common core and it is some 68 months from now. I am sure that design will evolve based on the data obtained from the previous flights. Before the first unmanned operational J-232 flight there will have been 18 flights of the common core four of which will be in the J-232 configuration and that will be 105 months from now.
This all strikes me as a very robust development and test regime.

There is no doubt that the common core is going to change, possibly a lot, between the first flight and the 19th flight but the STS ET and SRBs evolved too and did not have any test flights before the first manned mission.

Common core development is critical to Direct but there is a huge flight history with similar equipment and it is not the long pole in the tent. The long pole is the CEV and with the kind of margins the J-120 provides that program can accelerate too. The CEV developers will no longer have to worry about cutting “non critical” systems such as the radiation and MMOD protection nor will they have to consider building it from unobtainium and unaffordium. The CEV can be done sooner, safer, and cheaper within the Direct program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/27/2007 04:28 pm
Quote
pippin - 27/7/2007  9:40 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 27/7/2007  4:58 PM

Quote
clongton - 27/7/2007  8:50 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 27/7/2007  10:45 AM

Quote
clongton - 26/7/2007  6:10 PM
Here's the J-120 - Enjoy

That's the CEV version, which includes the escape system.  What is a cargo-version of the J-120 capable of lifting to LEO?
46mT is the maximum *GROSS* payload. Configure it any way you like.

Thanks.

You know what still bothers me?  The J-120 is basically an STS - 2 4-seg SRBs, Cryo core, no upper stage, 2 slightly bigger engines versus 3 slightly smaller ones.  Yet, the STS has managed to loft about 125mT to LEO at maximum (obviously, this does include the orbiter and the small OMS burn to circularize).  It just shocks me that the difference in ISP between the SSMEs and the RS-68s causes such an enormous difference in performance.
+ engines (mentioned before), included in your 125mt, not in your 46mT
+ OMS burn (for injection, not only circularization)
+ different orbit? (just speculating)
But difference in ISP can make quite a difference for an engine that burns all its way from sea level into orbit. It's not like with the car since you have to launch the additional fuel needed, too.

Fair enough on the engines - I didn't think of that.  But that's only 10T.

I can't imagine that an OMS assist burn adds much to the payload capacity of the STS.  They're relatively-tiny engines with low ISP.  Some yes, but not to get from 115T to 46T.

The orbits were both the 27° ones, and I think the altitudes are roughly the same.  Not nearly enough to cause 46T-115T anyway.

The common-core thing with the J-232 hasn't been mentioned, but I'm guessing that tank is way heavier than the super lightweight tank for STS, and it has to go all the way to orbit.

But I think it's mostly ISP and it's exactly because you have to haul all that fuel up hill.  It's just not intuitive that a 10% change in ISP can yield an *enormous* change in LEO payload capacity.

I wonder what the J-120 could do with 435s regenerative engines.  Is it like a 15-20T difference?

Anyway, I'm just trying to learn here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Giovanni DS on 07/27/2007 04:44 pm
Avionics ? Payload adapter ? the structure around the engines ? I imagine the tank should be really reinforced in that area, this is more mass that goes from the orbiter to the launcher.

If this is correct

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rs68.htm

then the weight of a single RS68 is around 6.5 tons, the total mass would be 13 tons for the J120 not 10.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 07/27/2007 05:07 pm
Wouldn't you be talking about the mass of the RS68s + the mass of the thrust structure + the mass of the interstage + the mass of a much heavier tank + the mass of the avionics + the difference in mass of the fuel to lift all this with less efficent engines + the mass of the the fuel to lift the mass of the fuel etc?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/27/2007 05:39 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/7/2007  12:28 PM

I wonder what the J-120 could do with 435s regenerative engines.  Is it like a 15-20T difference?

If you go back and take a look at version 1 of the proposal, you will see that DIRECT Basic, the rough equivalent of the Jupiter-120, was capable of placing ~71mT into a 60x160nm orbit.

As shown in the graphic from version 1 below, there were 2 variants of the Jupiter-120 equivalent. The first was with RS-68’s with a vacuum optimized nozzle, and the second was with that nozzle regenerativly cooled. Both launchers had a stretch ET, so it’s not exactly equivalent, but for comparison purposes, it’s within the ballpark.

Back toward the end of the year when Doug Stanley offered his critique, the entire critique was directed against the things we had claimed were wrong with the Ares-I, except for 2 items. His critique was actually more of a defense of the Ares-I than a critique of DIRECT. Be that as it may, the only 2 things he could say against the actual proposal were:

1. There wasn’t enough space under the stretched tank for a sufficiently robust thrust structure with all the plumbing and actuators required for good control authority.

2. The engines we were using were not capable of producing the 435 seconds of isp we were baselining, and he produced a P&W/R document showing the regenerativly cooled nozzle engine was only capable of 419 seconds isp.

With regard to #1, we believe that he was simply wrong, because we had paid a lot of attention to how things were laid out to ensure there was room. But that’s neither really here nor there at this point.

With regard to #2 however, it was not until a couple of weeks later that we realized that he had not included the optimization for vacuum operation we had been baselining along with the regen cooling. You see, the in-service RS-68 being used on the Delta-IV today is ablatively cooled and optimized for sea level operations. If you take that engine and do regenerative cooling in lieu of ablative, you get the 419 seconds that was documented by the P&W/R document. But if you then ALSO optimize the nozzle for vacuum, the isp comes up well above 430 seconds. So Dr Stanley had attacked an engine that we were not using, in order to discredit the proposal. By the time we realized the FUD that had been perpetrated on us, it was too late. The damage had been done and we had to start over.

But to answer your question in “general” terms, the condition you were wondering about would provide a major boost in performance and IMLEO.

Anticipating your next question: No – we do not have any plans to do any type of optimization on the engines. We plan to run them exactly as they are; ablative cooling and optimized for sea level operations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/27/2007 06:03 pm
Quote
clongton - 27/7/2007  11:39 AM
By the time we realized the FUD that had been perpetrated on us, it was too late. The damage had been done and we had to start over.

In a way, I'm glad this happened.  I think the new proposal is better.  If they'd just adopt the J-120 as the new Ares-I (Ares-II), it could be up and flying in a reasonable time, with plenty of margin to make Orion full-featured.  Unlike some, I'm not opposed at all to dragging a mission module full of logistics to the ISS along with Orion.

If bad luck strikes NASA's budget and there isn't money for a Moon/Mars program, or the development of the EDS, there are several step-wise upgrade plans - optimized tank, vac-optimized ablative engines, vac-optimized regen engines, 5-seg SRBs with the same attachments.  All-in-all, a pretty big rocket (yes, there are things I'd like to see done with such a vehicle).  If the money comes along, then developing the EDS and resulting J-2xx looks like a good path, with all the same upgrade options, and plenty of performance for Moon and Mars programs of varying architectures.

I like it.  Let's do it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 07/27/2007 07:15 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/7/2007  11:03 AM

Quote
clongton - 27/7/2007  11:39 AM
By the time we realized the FUD that had been perpetrated on us, it was too late. The damage had been done and we had to start over.

In a way, I'm glad this happened.  I think the new proposal is better.  If they'd just adopt the J-120 as the new Ares-I (Ares-II), it could be up and flying in a reasonable time, with plenty of margin to make Orion full-featured.  Unlike some, I'm not opposed at all to dragging a mission module full of logistics to the ISS along with Orion.

If bad luck strikes NASA's budget and there isn't money for a Moon/Mars program, or the development of the EDS, there are several step-wise upgrade plans - optimized tank, vac-optimized ablative engines, vac-optimized regen engines, 5-seg SRBs with the same attachments.  All-in-all, a pretty big rocket (yes, there are things I'd like to see done with such a vehicle).  If the money comes along, then developing the EDS and resulting J-2xx looks like a good path, with all the same upgrade options, and plenty of performance for Moon and Mars programs of varying architectures.

I like it.  Let's do it.

The engineers I have talked to would rather work the Jupiter-120 (Ares-2) than the shaft (Ares-1).  I mean who in their right mind ever wants to be given the shaft after all. :)

Why develop a lift system that is less capable than existing ELV's when you can develop something more capable than at any point since the Saturn V was turned into a NASA center lawn ornament.  Also the Jupiter-120 (Ares-2) enables a 4x Lunar Arch as is without a 2nd stage.  It also has some exciting unmanned mission capabilities without being an overkill solution like the Ares-V.  It would take the entire unmanned budget over a ten year period directed at spacecraft development just to fill up one Ares-V.  The Jupiter-120, at just over 2x the best ELV, is just right.

Now................
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/27/2007 07:22 pm
What happened to Ares II, III, and IV in the current numbering by NASA?  Did NASA like the I and V as used by Saturn?  Come to think about it, what happened to Saturn II, III, and IV?

Danny Deger
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 07/27/2007 07:38 pm
Quote
Danny Dot - 27/7/2007  3:22 PM

What happened to Ares II, III, and IV in the current numbering by NASA?  Did NASA like the I and V as used by Saturn?  Come to think about it, what happened to Saturn II, III, and IV?

Danny Deger
Both Ares-I & V, and Saturn V, were numbered to identify the number of main engines making up the base stage.

Should NASA adopt the DIRECT architecture, they would be free to rename the Jupiter launch vehicles any way they wished, and this scheme would certainly allow them to slip the Jupiters right in as Ares-II, Ares-III and Ares-IV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 07/27/2007 07:53 pm
SMetch
Quote
- 27/7/2007  10:15 PM
The engineers I have talked to would rather work the Jupiter-120 (Ares-2) than the shaft (Ares-1).
Lee Jay
Quote
- 27/7/2007  9:03 PM
I like it.  Let's do it.

From the devil's advocate:

INSTANT GRATIFICATION.

Procruste's Bed (Procruste's Common Core)

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 07/27/2007 07:57 pm
Quote
Danny Dot - 27/7/2007  12:22 PM

What happened to Ares II, III, and IV in the current numbering by NASA?  Did NASA like the I and V as used by Saturn?  Come to think about it, what happened to Saturn II, III, and IV?

Danny Deger

Our basic strategy for changing the name to Jupiter was two fold.

In the event that NASA’s current management final moves towards DIRECT we have given them a face saving way to say that the Ares-2 and Jupiter-120 have absolute nothing in common.  DIRECT team?? Never heard of them. Only about 0.01% percent of the American electorate and about 99% of the NSF readers would know that this is a crock s*** but the important thing is that we are going back to the moon.

In the event Slim Pickens rides the Ares-1 all the way down until it creates a big smoldering crater then the next Administrator can pick up the pieces using the name Jupiter to assure everyone that his plan has nothing to do with the failed Ares 1/5 debacle.  The DIRECT team may receive some credit (in From the Earth to Moon –part 2 thirty years from now) but we would be long gone by then.  Once again the important thing is that we are going back to the moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2007 09:54 pm
The reasons why Jupiter-120 not appearing to have a lot of performance are many-fold.   As Chuck indicates, after living through a FUD attack, we have LOTS of additional performance margin throughout our development to cover our butts in every possible way.

Also, we are now using the lower efficiency and non-optimized RS-68 directly off the Delta-IV, with no performance increases.   While the RS-68 can certainly be improved, we deliberately choosing to remove all of those schedule and cost impacts for deploying the Jupiter-120 with the first Orion in order to close the "gap".

The Core Tanking has to be heavier than STS, because it will have higher loads on it.   Three RS-68's can produce roughly 50% more thrust than the three SSME's do today, and these forces must be carried through the whole tank structure.   Also, the Core is expected to carry anything up to 400mt of payload (EDS & spacecraft) on top.

Additionally the weight which STS has for the Thrust Structure & plumbing in the Orbiter must now be moved to the Core.   It's more complex than that one-line description, of course, but the Thrust Structure and support equipment adds a lot of inert weight to the Core that the ET doesn't normally have - it is currently part of the Orbiter.


Additionally, we are assuming much heavier components than we could be.   The Jupiter Common Core Stage (JCCS) tanking which we are presenting should be thought of in terms of the earliest Shuttle ET's.   Think of the published JCCS as the Space Shuttle Standard Weight Tank (SWT) which only flew on the first handful of flights.   With real flight data in hand, the External Tank team were able to design another version, much lighter; the Light Weight Tank (LWT).   On STS, the LWT weighed about 12,000lb less than the SWT had.   The published JCCS figures are analogous to the SWT, and we expect a similar development path to a "LWT" version will be possible to improve Jupiter Cores.   Mind you, we *aren't* assuming we will get it.   It is an optional upgrade if money allows, but we assume the first generation Core weight for all of our Lunar missions - assuming we never get money to do the upgrade.


Similarly, the EDS figures we are publishing can also be improved upon too.   For example, one of our configurations (J-221 EOR-sized) has a mass allocation of about 17.3mT.   But our contacts in industry have officially indicated to us that this stage should really only mass about 9.1mT!   We're going with the 17.3mT for our calculations, just in case we can't afford to do the lower-weight version.

So as to remove any chance of future FUD attacks, and to delete as many new technology requirements from the cost/schedule, we are keeping with things like the 17.3mT EDS mass and the lower efficiency RS-68 "standard" engines and proving that we can achieve all of NASA's requirements without additional expense.   We are then moving all of these "upgrade options" to a section where we include our list of recommended upgrades for the administration to consider once the program has started.

These are some of the reasons why our published figures may initially appear "low" to some.   Remember that there is a LOT of room for improvement over what we are publishing.   Bottom line is that we aren't *assuming* we are getting the money for any of these upgrades.

If all of these options were to be selected, I wouldn't be at all surprised in the J-232 CaLV couldn't actually lift ~125-130mT of useful payload per flight - about 25mT more than we are baselining.   But we just don't need it to initially.   We can leave the ugrades for whenever the budget allows - not depend entirely on their success (as NASA is doing with every aspect of both both Ares-I and Ares-V) to achieve the targets of the VSE.

This actually fits more closely to NASA's stated goal of "pay as you go".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/27/2007 10:05 pm
Okay, I think I'm starting to get it.

For my own education only, let's just say the core of a J-120 has the same dry mass as the current STS tank and the 435s engines were used instead.  Roughly how much mass could be lifted to LEO given no propellant margin (run until ECO sensors say STOP!)?  If the answer is somewhere close to the 80-100T range, then I think I understand this a bit better than I did this morning.  And yes, I know we can't get there from here (tank loads, margin, etc.), I'm just trying to put an intuitive feel on the 40T-125T discrepancy.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2007 10:11 pm
Quote
Danny Dot - 27/7/2007  3:22 PM

What happened to Ares II, III, and IV in the current numbering by NASA?  Did NASA like the I and V as used by Saturn?  Come to think about it, what happened to Saturn II, III, and IV?

Danny Deger

They never existed for Ares.   The names were chosen to have immediate "recognition" with the public after Saturn.   They decided the number of liquid engines matched, so would be a good 'justification' for the choice.


As for Saturn-2, 3 and 4 (officially called Saturn C-2, Saturn C-3 and Saturn C-4), they did exist as design concepts, but were never built and flown.   They just went straight from Saturn C-1 to the Saturn C-5 and bypassed the vehicles configurations in between.

Astronautix.com has a pretty good description of how the choices were arrived at.

Ross.

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MySDCUserID on 07/27/2007 10:36 pm
I'd definately prefer a name that has not yet been used already for another flown system.  We've only been flying rockets for a few decades.  We shouldnt be reusing names already.  Since the overall program is called Constellation, why not name the launch vehicle after a Constellation instead of a planet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 07/27/2007 10:37 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/7/2007  11:27 AM

Quote
tankmodeler - 27/7/2007  10:46 AM

Note, though, that another launch was needed to get the first crew to the lab. _That_ mass was too much for Saturn to loft without a 3rd stage.

Paul
The crew launch was on a SaturnI-B, two stage vehicle

Yes, I know. Sorry, I must not have been clear in what I was saying. My thought was that the S-V could lift a lot to LEO with two stages, but not a Skylab plus the crew in a CSM. They needed a second launch (of an S-IB) to get the crew up as well.

Thanks for pointing that out in case I was confusing.

Paul
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/28/2007 03:16 am
Quote
MySDCUserID - 27/7/2007  6:36 PM

I'd definately prefer a name that has not yet been used already for another flown system.  We've only been flying rockets for a few decades.  We shouldnt be reusing names already.  Since the overall program is called Constellation, why not name the launch vehicle after a Constellation instead of a planet.

Personally I've always thought american rocket names should follow the manifest destiny era of american expansionism.

 Name the CEV launcher the 'John Henry'
 Name the Moon Rocket the 'Paul Bunyan'
 Name the Mars ship the 'Johnny Appleseed'

There is a long list of taller than life folk hero's in america's past. How many people think bazooka fired nuke when I say Davey Crockett? Don't you want to think about the Ares I every time someone says a name like General Custer?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 07/28/2007 04:08 am
Jupiter is a fine name. Gets public thinking more of Saturn, not Shuttle. Shuttle was sold as a utility vehicle. Jupiter is a Moon/Mars rocket.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 07/28/2007 04:46 am
Our tradition in rocket names has gravitated towards figures from Greco-Roman mythology.  But what if we used the names of real heroes from Greco-Roman history?  I'd like to see a "Leonidas" rocket.  The spirit of Leonidas is certainly alive with the DIRECT team: a small army facing impossible odds against the god-king and his hordes.  Even if DIRECT is killed, Xerxes (Michael Griffin) will eventually be defeated.  We will tell the Spartans of the incredible sacrifices the DIRECT team has made, regardless of the outcome.

I've also liked the name "Albatross," not only because of the qualities of the bird, but it's significance in "Rime of the Ancient Mariner."  A great white bird that hangs as a burden around our necks?  Sounds a lot like the shuttle orbiter to me.  It's probably a name that should be avoided for a shuttle-derived vehicle, for the same reasons it is so appropriate for the current shuttle system.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steve G on 07/28/2007 09:21 pm
How about some Arthurian mythology, such as Avalon or Excalibur?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pippin on 07/28/2007 09:26 pm
How about American mythology? Daisy sounds great to me...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: bad_astra on 07/28/2007 09:35 pm
Boone, Lewis, Clark, Sakagawea, Byrd, Henson, Boyd, Ballard
its an exploration ship. name them after american explorers
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/28/2007 09:42 pm
The final name would be up to NASA.   For now, we are sticking with DIRECT for the Architecture, and Jupiter for the LV family.   They have a high degree of familiarity with lots of space-related folk already, so changing at this point would be a negative move.

I suspect that there are two options for naming these if the proposal is selected:

1) NASA will want to make these vehicles part of the existing "family", so we will get Ares-II for the 2-engine version and Ares-III for the three-engined.

2) NASA may want to dis-associate the new architecture from the screwed-up "Ares" architecture.   This is only likely with a new Administration though, who may want to distance themselves.   At that point, Jupiter and all the other names are in the potential mix for naming selection.   I think Jupiter is good because the planet is bigger than Saturn, and so is the total Jupiter Lunar Mission capacity, but I also think a Constellation name would be very appropriate given the governing program name would still likely exist intact.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: cpcjr on 07/28/2007 10:29 pm
Quote
kraisee - 28/7/2007  5:42 PM
1) NASA will want to make these vehicles part of the existing "family", so we will get Ares-II for the 2-engine version and Ares-III for the three-engined.

I would say that this is the most likely possibility because, it does not requier NASA to admit that Ares I is failure. All they need to do is say that they are swiching to the AresII (Jupiter 120) becase they can get a better performing and safer vehical for less money.

And on top of all that for just the cost of adding an upper stage they get a moon rocket called the Ares II. With the Ares V still an option for the future.

They would come out looking really good. They get to Moon and for less money than origionaly thought.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 07/28/2007 11:06 pm
Ok another crazy idea - please tell me if this was suggested earlier (as I can't find it) or is too stupid for words. The second stage core almost makes it  into orbit, just like the ET now. Apart from the rs68 not being restartable, what keeps a propellant transfer from reusing the stage as an EDS? OK - now let me have it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nathan on 07/28/2007 11:10 pm
Ross,
Now that NASA has annouced that it is dropping the J-2XD (baselined in Direct v2.02) in favour of the higher thrust but revamped J-2X have you had a chance to look at the implications for the direct launcher? There may be a weight difference.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steve G on 07/28/2007 11:38 pm
The Apollo could have been launched with the Skylab had the Apollo Telescope Mount not been included.  But since you still needed to launch two additional crews, there would be no point and you'd lose your primary scientific payload.

The Direct version could be combined with a not so small lab for an extended single focused mission (Such as Columbia's last flight) and if they wanted to spend a few billion and build a west coast launch pad, have the first ever polar orbit laboratory.  Each Subsequent launch could add another piece to the station.

Though this may not be a practical scenario for Direct, it is a possible scenario, among many others, that are simply not possible with the currently planned architecture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/28/2007 11:46 pm
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 28/7/2007  7:06 PM

Ok another crazy idea - please tell me if this was suggested earlier (as I can't find it) or is too stupid for words. The second stage core almost makes it  into orbit, just like the ET now. Apart from the rs68 not being restartable, what keeps a propellant transfer from reusing the stage as an EDS? OK - now let me have it.

There are a number of issues.

First the RS-68 was never designed to be re-started.   Second, the RS-68 only has an vacuum Isp of ~409s, which is a lot less efficient than the J-2X at 448s.   This means that to do the same TLI maneuver, you need to lift more fuel somehow.   This causes big issues.

But the real killer is the weight.   The TLI is incredibly sensitive to the weight of the stage you use.    Every pound your stage needs is a pound of useful payload you can't send to the moon assuming the same amount of fuel.   Another way of looking at this is that being forced to push a ~65mT Core stage (+spacecraft) requires lots more propellant than having to push a ~17mT stage (+spacecraft) towards the moon.

Given all of this, you would probably have to refill the Core with about 4 Delta-IV Heavies worth of propellant - and at more than $250m each, that gets real expensive, real fast.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/28/2007 11:49 pm
Quote
Nathan - 28/7/2007  7:10 PM

Ross,
Now that NASA has annouced that it is dropping the J-2XD (baselined in Direct v2.02) in favour of the higher thrust but revamped J-2X have you had a chance to look at the implications for the direct launcher? There may be a weight difference.

Nathan, the J-2X / J-2XD issue is not completely clear to me yet.   The press is saying the J-2X has been baselined (294klbf), but from contacts inside the program I hear it is actually the J-2XD which has been baselined (274klbf).

Until we see something solid on this issue, we will assume the lower spec version - just to be safe.   It is cheaper anyway.

If the press turns out to be correct, then we can always upgrade our baseline spec later.   Mind you, we don't actually need the higher spec, we are actually good to go on the lower spec.   So it could be argued that this is still worth revisiting this as a less costly solution in Jupiter's favour.

Time will tell.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/28/2007 11:56 pm
Quote
Steve G - 28/7/2007  7:38 PM

The Apollo could have been launched with the Skylab had the Apollo Telescope Mount not been included.  But since you still needed to launch two additional crews, there would be no point and you'd lose your primary scientific payload.

The Direct version could be combined with a not so small lab for an extended single focused mission (Such as Columbia's last flight) and if they wanted to spend a few billion and build a west coast launch pad, have the first ever polar orbit laboratory.  Each Subsequent launch could add another piece to the station.

Though this may not be a practical scenario for Direct, it is a possible scenario, among many others, that are simply not possible with the currently planned architecture.

There is lots of such potential available with the DIRECT architecture.

We have already proposed such things back in v1.0 as a relatively inexpensive "cradle" mission module designed for launching payloads originally designed for STS' payload bay.   The launch environment is actually more benign than STS on the J-120, so a CEV could fly with a full ~20mT Shuttle Payload on a Jupiter-120.

I can see lots of uses for this sort of capability in addition to new "large" payloads designed specifically for the 7.46m diameter payload shrouds allowable on all Jupiter launchers.

Ross.


Click image above for larger version
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 07/29/2007 12:46 am
[Edit: Nevermind, I answered my own question.  Was going to suggest J-2X instead of RS-68 for core, ended up with Stumpy on Steroids, and it didn't go anywhere...]

Carry on... :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2007 01:13 am
We actually briefly toyed with an idea where we had two RS-68's and two J-2X's on the same Core.   All four engines were lit on the pad to be used during full ascent, but only the J-2X's were used to get the efficiency up for TLI.   It also required the Core to be stretched to carry all of the TLI propellant too.   It was a while ago, and I no longer have the simulation here, but IIRC it resulted in a NET loss of about 24mT of useful payload to TLI compared with the more 'traditional' J-232 dedicated EDS.

I also briefly toyed with the idea of having two of the very high Isp RL-10-B-2's on the EDS, leaving the J-2X as a dead engine after launch.   Again, carrying the J-2X "dead mass" adversely affected performance more than the Isp improvement to 459s for the RL-10.

The only half-descent option is a cluser of RL-60's (or whatever they are called these days), but they are still fundamentally just a paper engine, so we weren't going to baseline to anything like that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 07/29/2007 03:22 am
There have been many discussions on this thread of what to do with the extra 20 mT of LEO payload capability of the J-120 (EDS fueling transfer, extra supply for moon missions, ...) but nobody seems to have considered an increase mass of propellant in the SM. The current SM is only sized for completing LEO insertion of the CEV and TEI (about 1750 m/s of delta V). Assuming an engine ISP of 314 and a CM/SM dry mass of 15 mT,  a 40 mT CEV (J-232 TLI payload capability) would have a delta V capability of over 3000 m/s.

   The extra 1250 m/s of delta V would make the CEV much more capable and flexible than what is currently being designed by NASA.  For ISS missions, this would significantly increase ISS orbit boosting capability.  A 40 mT CEV launched on a J-232 would have plenty of delta V to accomplish maintenance support missions to the James Webb Space Telescope at L2 now that it is to be fitted with a docking ring.

   For proposed lunar LOR-LOR missions, a 40 mT CEV would be able to do both the LOI and TEI burns, therefore allowing simpler “Apollo-8” type missions than the ones requiring the EDS to do the LOI burn.  The extra propellant in the SM could also be used for EOR-LOR missions as follow: Assuming a starting circular LEO of 120 nm (orbital speed of 7780 m/s) , a 39 mT CEV (1 ton of propellant burned to go from a 40 x 120 nm orbit to a circular 120 nm orbit) and an EDS/LSAM of 129 mT, 15 mT of SM propellant could initially be burned to increase the CEV+EDS/LSAM assembly speed by 290 m/s to a 120 nm x 700 nm orbit with a period of about 100 minutes.  When back at perigee, the EDS would then do its TLI burn but it would have to produce only about 2800 m/s instead of the close to 3100 m/s normally required. This would be a much simpler solution to use the extra capability of the J-120 to assist TLI than a propellant transfer scheme.

   Another area where a 40 MT CEV would be useful is for manned missions to NEAs. The link  www.thespacereview.com/article/90/2 indicates that a 2 months NEA manned mission could be done with a delta V of 6100 m/s or a 3 months NEA mission done with a delta V of 4900 m/s. Considering that these delta Vs include the Earth escape velocity from LEO (3300 m/s) to be provided by the EDS, it is not hard to see that a 3000 m/s CEV would be very useful to accomplish manned NEA missions.  

   Considering the current rumor that NASA is looking at reducing even further the size/mass of the CM, advocating a 3000 m/s delta V SM and the CM to remain at 5 meters for Direct could represent a significant capability/flexibility advantage over the Ares-I scheme.


PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 07/29/2007 06:15 pm
My thought is that the excess capability on J-120 could be used to launch both the Orion and the LSAM ascent cabin.  That would address the performance shortfall on J-232 when compared with Ares V (although docking the ascent cabin to the rest of the LSAM when it arrives on the J-232 poses a challenge.)  Another idea is to launch Orion and the EDS on a J-232 and launch the ~43 mT LSAM on the J-120.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2007 06:20 pm
Interesting concept there Paul.

And actually one which would be enabled by one of our propellant transfer options too.

While it is not on our baseline, we have been looking at an LOR "upgrade" architecture where the CEV can bring about 10mT of additional mass to the LSAM.   This does not have to be Cryo LOX which is transferred though.   The LSAM Ascent Stage needs quite a bit of MMH/N2O4 - the same propellant the Orion SM uses.   So we have an architecture allowing the CEV to refill the Ascent Stage only.   This form of propellant transfer is done routinely on ISS currently, so we know it is more than possible.

If this is done then the baseline CEV MMH and N2O2 tanks simply need to grow, rather than have extra dedicated tanks.   This saves considerable weight.   That development version would instantly also create the CEV you describe above as a useful side-effect.


It becomes yet one more possibility we can use, but *only* if the CLV isn't pathetic in the performance arena.

It's way past time to ditch the stick.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 07/31/2007 02:29 am
Quote
kraisee - 28/7/2007  8:13 PM
We actually briefly toyed with an idea where we had two RS-68's and two J-2X's on the same Core.   All four engines were lit on the pad to be used during full ascent, but only the J-2X's were used to get the efficiency up for TLI.

Interesting thought, though a little different than what I was thinking.

As I recall, "Stumpy" was going to air-start it's core engines, and let the SRBs do all of the lifting for the first part of the launch.

So, a Jupiter with three/four/five J-2X's as the core stage was what I was think of along those lines, using the core as your EDS.

Whether the simplification for separate stages / tankage / engines is enough to offset the extra fuel/oxidizer mass for the added bulk of a Core TLI is not a question (or even be able to achieve orbit for that matter) I'm qualified to answer though.  

Also loses one of the main benefits of the DIRECT model (IMO)... Starting all your to-orbit engines while on the ground.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/31/2007 06:57 pm
I have another interesting configuration which I've been investigating recently.

As anyone who has tried knows, shifting the various elements around to find a suitable configuration to fit on any two fairly specific launch vehicles can be quite, ahem, 'entertaining'.

One EOR option I have been looking at recently is to launch everything you need - except TLI propellant - on one single launch, the CEV, the LSAM and the EDS, along with other necessary hardware (such as the ASE Cradle the LSAM sits on).

Then you rendezvous with a re-fueling "Depot" (a single EDS stage launched <15 days earlier works very well), transfer about 75mT of propellant to the Mission EDS from the "Depot" and off you go.

Well, I just tried a configuration with a pair of the Jupiter-232's doing this profile and limiting the propellant transfer to solely LOX (no LH2 transfer at all).   I was quite surprised with the results and wanted to share a little with those of you following the discussions

Be aware that this is very mush a "Work In Progress" and isn't close to approaching a solid architecture yet, but just like the J-221 configuration was above expectation, so too is this 2-launch J-232 "alternative" EOR combination.

The combination appears to be capable of reliably sending about 76mT of "useful payload" (NET CEV and NET LSAM)  to TLI, with all ESAS GR&A margins applied.   The result of this is a 27mT lander able to arrive anywhere on the Lunar surface, along with 20mT of CEV sitting in LLO for the trip home.

While this is still *very* preliminary in the analysis phase, if this turns out to be confirmed, this combo would be about 30-35% more Lunar Payload Mass than the Ares-I/V combo is capable of sending on their baseline manned missions.   And that's *only* assuming they can find some miracle to solve their  13mT (10%) "shortfall" issues.

And using the L2 Rendezvous option promises even higher performance still, which is always great to have in the bag.

I just thought I'd give you guys a little teaser of this interesting 'find' :)

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/31/2007 08:31 pm
Quote
kraisee - 31/7/2007  1:57 PM

snip

While this is still *very* preliminary in the analysis phase, if this turns out to be confirmed, this combo would be about 30-35% more Lunar Payload Mass than the Ares-I/V combo is capable of sending on their baseline manned missions.   And that's *only* assuming they can find some miracle to solve their  13mT (10%) "shortfall" issues.

snip

Ross.

Can any NASA insider confirm this 13 mT shortfall for Ares V?  I keep expecting something to give at NASA any day now on the Ares 1 and Ares V shortfalls.  If I understand the situation correctly, both programs are having program threatening performance shortfalls and nobody at NASA is addressing them in the fashion needed to fix them.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 07/31/2007 09:32 pm
Danny, while its off-topic for this thread the current performance issues are being dealt with and changes are afoot behind closed doors.   Don't expect to see much of the new "shape" until September/October when the various studies going on right now are due back.

There are certainly voices in the wind, but don't expect to understand what they are saying for a few more months.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/31/2007 10:21 pm
Quote
kraisee - 31/7/2007  4:32 PM

Danny, while its off-topic for this thread the current performance issues are being dealt with and changes are afoot behind closed doors.   Don't expect to see much of the new "shape" until September/October when the various studies going on right now are due back.

There are certainly voices in the wind, but don't expect to understand what they are saying for a few more months.

Ross.

Thanks for the heads up.  If they are selecting Jupiter, this is not an off topic discussion :)

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 07/31/2007 11:41 pm
Nope, it will be a bigger Ares V with 2*J2s in all liklihood. Selecting Jupiter means killing Ares I first.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 08/01/2007 01:14 am
Quote
marsavian - 31/7/2007  6:41 PM

Nope, it will be a bigger Ares V with 2*J2s in all liklihood. Selecting Jupiter means killing Ares I first.

If I understand correctly Ares 1 has major performance problems.  My inside source tells me NASA may be willing to build an ISS only Ares 1/Orion and let future people worry about the moon.  Time will tell.  It is certainly interesting to watch.  

Danny Deger
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/01/2007 01:28 am
Quote
Danny Dot - 31/7/2007  9:31 PM
Can any NASA insider confirm this 13 mT shortfall for Ares V?  I keep expecting something to give at NASA any day now on the Ares 1 and Ares V shortfalls.  If I understand the situation correctly, both programs are having program threatening performance shortfalls and nobody at NASA is addressing them in the fashion needed to fix them.

Any face saving excuse for binning the Ares I?  For example new safety rules requiring the Orion to weight an extra couple of tons.  Extra radiation shielding or an air lock would do nicely.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 08/01/2007 01:40 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 31/7/2007  8:28 PM

Quote
Danny Dot - 31/7/2007  9:31 PM
Can any NASA insider confirm this 13 mT shortfall for Ares V?  I keep expecting something to give at NASA any day now on the Ares 1 and Ares V shortfalls.  If I understand the situation correctly, both programs are having program threatening performance shortfalls and nobody at NASA is addressing them in the fashion needed to fix them.

Any face saving excuse for binning the Ares I?  For example new safety rules requiring the Orion to weight an extra couple of tons.  Extra radiation shielding or an air lock would do nicely.

How about, "We are so bad at conceptual design it has taken us this long to realize the designed rocket can't get the designed spacecraft into its designed orbit."  This is the only reason I can think of.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 08/01/2007 01:46 am
Quote
Danny Dot - 31/7/2007  9:14 PM

Quote
marsavian - 31/7/2007  6:41 PM

Nope, it will be a bigger Ares V with 2*J2s in all liklihood. Selecting Jupiter means killing Ares I first.

If I understand correctly Ares 1 has major performance problems.  My inside source tells me NASA may be willing to build an ISS only Ares 1/Orion and let future people worry about the moon.  Time will tell.  It is certainly interesting to watch.  

Danny Deger

I wonder how they will rationalize a launch vehicle/spacecraft that will be operational in 2013/2014 to service an ISS that will only be operational until 2016?  By my calculation that is 6-8 manned missions @ 2 per year.  A lot of money to spend for a very limited capability on a short term mission.  Unless, or course, the ISS gets a reprieve.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/01/2007 01:54 am
Quote
Danny Dot - 1/8/2007  2:40 AM
How about, "We are so bad at conceptual design it has taken us this long to realize the designed rocket can't get the designed spacecraft into its designed orbit."  This is the only reason I can think of.

Honest but does not save face.  Blame has to be moved to a third party.  Preferably one that can say "The decision was tough but fair.  The unpopularity is part of the job."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/01/2007 01:55 am
Quote
brihath - 1/8/2007  2:46 AM
I wonder how they will rationalize a launch vehicle/spacecraft that will be operational in 2013/2014 to service an ISS that will only be operational until 2016?  By my calculation that is 6-8 manned missions @ 2 per year.  A lot of money to spend for a very limited capability on a short term mission.  Unless, or course, the ISS gets a reprieve.

Or a replacement.

Space stations as a stepping stone to Mars for instance.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: cpcjr on 08/01/2007 02:54 am
Quote
Danny Dot - 31/7/2007  9:14 PM
If I understand correctly Ares 1 has major performance problems.  My inside source tells me NASA may be willing to build an ISS only Ares 1/Orion
Sounds familiar, back in the 60's Russia was developing a moon ship. When that was canceled they revamped it for use in LEO resulting in the Soyuz we know today.

If this is what happens then Orion won't be Apollo on steroids, but Soyuz on steroids.

Also this lends support to the "We never went to Moon" crowd, since this is just what one would expect if they were right. I don't think they are, but that bunch would eat this up.


Quote
and let future people worry about the moon.  

That’s what NASA's been doing for the last 30+ years.  How pathetic.

If the Ares I can't orbit an lunar capable Orion then scrap it for a booster that can, rather than giving up the Moon. What is so important about the stick that NASA would be willing to sacrifice the Moon on its altar?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 08/01/2007 03:03 am
Quote
cpcjr - 31/7/2007  9:54 PM

snip

If the Ares I can't orbit an lunar capable Orion then scrap it for a booster that can, rather than giving up the Moon. What is so important about the stick that NASA would be willing to sacrifice the Moon on its altar?

It is my personal experience it is impossible for NASA management to admit to a mistake.  Read the view graph section of my book that you can get for free at my website.

Danny Deger
http://www.dannydeger.net
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 08/01/2007 03:49 am
Quote
brihath - 31/7/2007  7:46 PM

I wonder how they will rationalize a launch vehicle/spacecraft that will be operational in 2013/2014 to service an ISS that will only be operational until 2016?  By my calculation that is 6-8 manned missions @ 2 per year.  A lot of money to spend for a very limited capability on a short term mission.  Unless, or course, the ISS gets a reprieve.

IIRC, NASA has already changed its long term plans to reflect ISS operating with Orion support until 2022.  Still begs the question of what happens after that.  Will the politically-unthinkable option of laying off everybody who works Shuttle (later Orion-Ares) be exercised?

NASA needs the moon, and if it can't get there, it should get out of the manned spaceflight business.  I think von Braun and Faget are rolling in their graves right now.  We skipped over the mission mode debate, we can't design an earth-to-orbit launcher that meets requirements, and we can't design a spacecraft using off-the-shelf technologies that meets weight requirements.  And here we have a team of "renegades," not unlike John Houbolt, who have an elegant solution to NASA's technical and fiscal problems.  We also have the EELV contractor offering up inventive and realistic solutions to NASA's problems.  Unfortunately, we have leadership at NASA who is too stubborn to swallow their pride and accept their salvation if it's not invented here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 08/01/2007 04:25 am
Quote
cpcjr - 31/7/2007  10:54 PM

Quote
Danny Dot - 31/7/2007  9:14 PM
If I understand correctly Ares 1 has major performance problems.  My inside source tells me NASA may be willing to build an ISS only Ares 1/Orion
Sounds familiar, back in the 60's Russia was developing a moon ship. When that was canceled they revamped it for use in LEO resulting in the Soyuz we know today.

If this is what happens then Orion won't be Apollo on steroids, but Soyuz on steroids.

Also this lends support to the "We never went to Moon" crowd, since this is just what one would expect if they were right. I don't think they are, but that bunch would eat this up.


Quote
and let future people worry about the moon.  

That’s what NASA's been doing for the last 30+ years.  How pathetic.

If the Ares I can't orbit an lunar capable Orion then scrap it for a booster that can, rather than giving up the Moon. What is so important about the stick that NASA would be willing to sacrifice the Moon on its altar?


Payback!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/01/2007 12:00 pm
Quote
Avron - 1/8/2007  12:25 AM

Quote
cpcjr - 31/7/2007  10:54 PM

Quote
Danny Dot - 31/7/2007  9:14 PM
If I understand correctly Ares 1 has major performance problems.  My inside source tells me NASA may be willing to build an ISS only Ares 1/Orion
Sounds familiar, back in the 60's Russia was developing a moon ship. When that was canceled they revamped it for use in LEO resulting in the Soyuz we know today.

If this is what happens then Orion won't be Apollo on steroids, but Soyuz on steroids.

Also this lends support to the "We never went to Moon" crowd, since this is just what one would expect if they were right. I don't think they are, but that bunch would eat this up.


Quote
and let future people worry about the moon.  

That’s what NASA's been doing for the last 30+ years.  How pathetic.

If the Ares I can't orbit an lunar capable Orion then scrap it for a booster that can, rather than giving up the Moon. What is so important about the stick that NASA would be willing to sacrifice the Moon on its altar?

Payback!
NASA most definitely has its difficulties, not the least of which is the current architecture to implement a return to the Moon, among several others. But let’s not forget that it is our space agency, the only one we have, and short of scrapping it and starting all over again with a completely different organization, that it is “our” agency. If we offer “bashing”, it should be accompanied with constructive suggestions to improve the condition. Bashing for the sake of bashing is not dignified and is beneath the standards of this forum.

The same goes for criticisms of the Ares launch vehicles. Its fine to discuss any known or presumed performance shortfalls, even expected, but let’s not forget that those launch vehicles represent the “blood, sweat and tears” of countless good people who are doing their level best to make them work. Whether they will succeed or not is yet to be seen, but let’s respect their hard work and the investment of themselves that they are pouring into the effort. Don’t forget that they are people just like you and me and are dedicated to the space program every bit as much as you and I are. NASA HQ has told them what vehicles to design and build, and they are doing their damnest to make it happen. The least that they have a right to expect from us is to acknowledge that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/01/2007 12:01 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 31/7/2007  9:55 PM

Quote
brihath - 1/8/2007  2:46 AM
I wonder how they will rationalize a launch vehicle/spacecraft that will be operational in 2013/2014 to service an ISS that will only be operational until 2016?  By my calculation that is 6-8 manned missions @ 2 per year.  A lot of money to spend for a very limited capability on a short term mission.  Unless, or course, the ISS gets a reprieve.

Or a replacement.

Space stations as a stepping stone to Mars for instance.

There isn't going to be a 'new" US station for some decades
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 08/01/2007 12:16 pm
About the extra payload capacity of DIRECT and exploration beyond the moon, what kind of crew numbers are envisaged for a 2year+ Mars mission ?  and would a 40ton capsule with an 8m base be feasible ? ( even though a 12+ CLV  would be totally unnecessary any time soon).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 08/01/2007 04:38 pm
Quote
brihath - 31/7/2007  9:46 PM
I wonder how they will rationalize a launch vehicle/spacecraft that will be operational in 2013/2014 to service an ISS that will only be operational until 2016?  By my calculation that is 6-8 manned missions @ 2 per year.  A lot of money to spend for a very limited capability on a short term mission.  Unless, or course, the ISS gets a reprieve.

The Administrator's report to Congress has the ISS date as Q2 2005.  Even without delays, it will be more of a demonstration of ISS requirements than of an operational capability, if 2016 holds.  If it doesn't, the Moon starts to get smaller on the horizon...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 08/01/2007 04:39 pm
Quote
clongton - 1/8/2007  8:00 AM

NASA most definitely has its difficulties, not the least of which is the current architecture to implement a return to the Moon, among several others. But let’s not forget that it is our space agency, the only one we have, and short of scrapping it and starting all over again with a completely different organization, that it is “our” agency. If we offer “bashing”, it should be accompanied with constructive suggestions to improve the condition. Bashing for the sake of bashing is not dignified and is beneath the standards of this forum.

The same goes for criticisms of the Ares launch vehicles. Its fine to discuss any known or presumed performance shortfalls, even expected, but let’s not forget that those launch vehicles represent the “blood, sweat and tears” of countless good people who are doing their level best to make them work. Whether they will succeed or not is yet to be seen, but let’s respect their hard work and the investment of themselves that they are pouring into the effort. Don’t forget that they are people just like you and me and are dedicated to the space program every bit as much as you and I are. NASA HQ has told them what vehicles to design and build, and they are doing their damnest to make it happen. The least that they have a right to expect from us is to acknowledge that.

Well said!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 08/01/2007 07:26 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 1/8/2007  12:39 PM

Quote
clongton - 1/8/2007  8:00 AM

NASA most definitely has its difficulties, not the least of which is the current architecture to implement a return to the Moon, among several others. But let’s not forget that it is our space agency, the only one we have, and short of scrapping it and starting all over again with a completely different organization, that it is “our” agency. If we offer “bashing”, it should be accompanied with constructive suggestions to improve the condition. Bashing for the sake of bashing is not dignified and is beneath the standards of this forum.

The same goes for criticisms of the Ares launch vehicles. Its fine to discuss any known or presumed performance shortfalls, even expected, but let’s not forget that those launch vehicles represent the “blood, sweat and tears” of countless good people who are doing their level best to make them work. Whether they will succeed or not is yet to be seen, but let’s respect their hard work and the investment of themselves that they are pouring into the effort. Don’t forget that they are people just like you and me and are dedicated to the space program every bit as much as you and I are. NASA HQ has told them what vehicles to design and build, and they are doing their damnest to make it happen. The least that they have a right to expect from us is to acknowledge that.

Well said!

Amen-

If I could take a moment to speak as a "newbie" to this forum, I am fascinated by the amount of information being presented and discussed here.  Sure, I see an occasional cheap shot taken, and some humor too, but this forum's strong suit is a vibrant interchange of ideas by people who are passionate and knowledgable, a strength that far outweighs the occasional shortcomings.

Because I don't work in the space industry, this forum allows me and others the opportunity to see how people who are most closely connected to it think and act, and there is a lot to be proud of.  Our space agency and its contractor base is definitely a national asset made up of people who have invested their lives and professional careers in its existence and accomplishments.

The very fact that there are strong opinions is a good thing, because it means people care and want to improve our chances of developing and sustaining the human race's voyage to the stars.  As long as that general direction is maintained, I am happy to be a part of this group of believers.

OK- I'm back off the soap box.  Thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/02/2007 03:14 am
Quote
cpcjr - 31/7/2007  10:54 PM

If the Ares I can't orbit an lunar capable Orion then scrap it for a booster that can, rather than giving up the Moon. What is so important about the stick that NASA would be willing to sacrifice the Moon on its altar?

That is the saving grace for NASA regarding dropping Ares-I.

Most of the general press would quite happily swallow the fact that NASA wants a bigger rocket to be able to do more.

The far more discerning "informed press" dealing specifically with those of us who are deeply interested can handle stories about Ares-I not performing as well as hoped and NASA making the smart move to upgrade to a bigger vehicle, again capable of more.

If there is the slightest concern about handling this, then I would strongly recommend management bypass the usual Public Affairs Office and bring in the real professionals - hire an advertising agency to do the "selling" of the new concept properly.   Professional sales has sure worked for Army recruitment and I see no reason it can't work for NASA too.

But the key "audience" is really Congress.   Show them how you can save $20bn and use that to reach the goals they have given NASA much faster while still keeping them happy regarding workforce issues and they'll quickly get behind the changes too.

This "sell" isn't difficult.   It's the "making the choice" to change which appears to be.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 08/02/2007 03:31 am
Quote
clongton - 1/8/2007  8:00 AM


NASA most definitely has its difficulties, not the least of which is the current architecture to implement a return to the Moon, among several others. But let’s not forget that it is our space agency, the only one we have, and short of scrapping it and starting all over again with a completely different organization, that it is “our” agency. If we offer “bashing”, it should be accompanied with constructive suggestions to improve the condition. Bashing for the sake of bashing is not dignified and is beneath the standards of this forum.

The same goes for criticisms of the Ares launch vehicles. Its fine to discuss any known or presumed performance shortfalls, even expected, but let’s not forget that those launch vehicles represent the “blood, sweat and tears” of countless good people who are doing their level best to make them work. Whether they will succeed or not is yet to be seen, but let’s respect their hard work and the investment of themselves that they are pouring into the effort. Don’t forget that they are people just like you and me and are dedicated to the space program every bit as much as you and I are. NASA HQ has told them what vehicles to design and build, and they are doing their damnest to make it happen. The least that they have a right to expect from us is to acknowledge that.

While I agree with most of what you state..
"bashing" is anything that does not fit one view or another.. and that I don't agree with.. (its a cop out).  

its the high level that directs/controls etc and its at that level that change of this nature can be made.  Yes, there are millions of good people .. but that has nothing to do with the question.

In a nutshell, unless the reason for the question  "What is so important about the stick that NASA would be willing to sacrifice the Moon on its altar?" is covered.. forget about Direct anything or LEO/ISS/Moon, Mars etc...

Its politics at that level.. and one an only one thing speaks at that level.. and its money.. follow the money.. who knows who etc... who was placed where.. its business.. and you know its perfectly normal in our world today.. hell I witness it first hand every day..  

We can turn a blind eye to this and ignore it .. but what will our children's children say of this generation, but thats a different topic

If we want Direct or a change we need to cover off the angles, and this one is not that easy to cover..
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/02/2007 03:54 am
Quote
brihath - 31/7/2007  9:46 PM

Quote
Danny Dot - 31/7/2007  9:14 PM

Quote
marsavian - 31/7/2007  6:41 PM

Nope, it will be a bigger Ares V with 2*J2s in all liklihood. Selecting Jupiter means killing Ares I first.

If I understand correctly Ares 1 has major performance problems.  My inside source tells me NASA may be willing to build an ISS only Ares 1/Orion and let future people worry about the moon.  Time will tell.  It is certainly interesting to watch.  

Danny Deger

I wonder how they will rationalize a launch vehicle/spacecraft that will be operational in 2013/2014 to service an ISS that will only be operational until 2016?  By my calculation that is 6-8 manned missions @ 2 per year.  A lot of money to spend for a very limited capability on a short term mission.  Unless, or course, the ISS gets a reprieve.

Then again they are funding a "test flight" that doesn't actually test any flight hardware
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/02/2007 04:20 am
Quote
Avron - 1/8/2007  11:31 PM
...

Its politics at that level.. and one an only one thing speaks at that level.. and its money.. follow the money.. who knows who etc... who was placed where.. its business.. and you know its perfectly normal in our world today.. hell I witness it first hand every day..  

We can turn a blind eye to this and ignore it .. but what will our children's children say of this generation, but thats a different topic

If we want Direct or a change we need to cover off the angles, and this one is not that easy to cover..

Avron,
I think you raise an excellent point about the money being a critical driver.

But sacrificing Lunar capabilities for "The Stick" will ultimately harm far more industrial partners than changing to A.N.Other SDLV concept at this early stage. Boeing, USA, Lockheed, Northrop, ATK, PWR and hundreds of other companies all depend on NASA developing a robust exploration program which is as economically as large as STS/ISS has been.

But the Stick alone can never do that.


I would be amazed if those companies (and their political sugar daddies) aren't highly concerned about Ares-V ever being canceled.   If that happened, all those companies are going to get HURT VERY BADLY.   If all we have left over is the Stick doing laps of Earth, those companies can't hope to make the money out of NASA which they do today.

This *should* be a driving issue for all those companies (and political representatives) to push NASA to question its rationale regarding Ares-I.   But so far every time NASA has been questioned, all it has done is threaten those companies who are competing for contracts.   Note the Atlas-V vs. Stick arguments that went "suddenly silent" as soon as the lucrative CEV contract came up.   It's no coincidence that Lockheed won that IMHO, and especially ironic that they are now having to seek assistance from Boeing on the CEV.

One thing which I would be scared sh*tless of if I were a VP at any of the contractors is the realization that if Ares-V is ever cancelled, the Stick alone has no chance of retaining the profitability margin for *any* of these companies in this market.   They would all be seriously screwed in that eventuality.

Yet other solutions, far more sensible ones like DIRECT, can actually guarantee these markets are unaffected - because the first vehicle *can* do it all.   Even if no second vehicle is built, we are still going back to the moon, and so we are still going to need lucrative contracts for new Lunar Landers, rovers, habitats & laboratories etc.

None of this happens if "Stick" is all we get.


So the choice NASA is making does not actually appear to be politically/economically driven.   Those forces would actually seem to drive away from selection of the Stick IMHO.



I therefore believe that it is pure "ego" which is the real driving force behind "no other choice but Stick".   I believe that the principle "egotist" involved is already leaving (Horowitz) and I do not believe it is any coincidence that his announcement to leave comes just as the entire program starts running around like a headless chicken because Ares-I/V Lunar architecture can't seem to get close to closing its performance targets.   There are no coincidences.

The only corporate player I can find pushing for the Stick is ATK though.   So if this situation is ultimately all because ATK "must have profits from development contracts" for the 5-seg SRB's as some people seem to believe, I think it would actually be cheaper to just write them a $1bn check to just deposit in the bank and then make the switch to DIRECT.   Even with DIRECT, ATK is going to sell a *lot* more refurbished segments with than with Ares.   We need 8 per LEO flight and 16 per Lunar mission, compared to 5 and 15 for Ares.   And we're going to be able to start flying operationally three years ahead of Ares-I.   That's going to be very good for their accounts department.

*All* the companies are safe-guarded with DIRECT:

* Lockheed still get to make all the ET-derived Core Stages.
* Northrop Grumman gets the Lunar Lander contracts.
* Boeing get the EDS contract and/or the even more lucrative Lunar Hab & Mining Systems contracts (Lunar Hab would be ideal because it is ultimately quite similar to their current ISS contracts).
* Pratt & Whitney/Rocketdyne still get to build all the liquid engines.
* USA will get a lot of work for a robust Lunar program compared to potentially only having "Stick to ISS" missions and nothing more.

Additionally, new contractors are needed for a robust Lunar Program to build:-

* Lunar Rovers.
* Lunar Habitats.
* Lunar power-generation systems.
* Lunar telescopes.
* Lunar mining equipment.
* Mars stuff.


There is more than sufficient work to go around with a robust Lunar Program, but if we lose the moon because of Stick, none of that can happen.   Conversely, DIRECT protects all of this and actually also provides help for NASA to actually pay for it all too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 08/02/2007 05:23 am
Notice how the three major Constellation contractors have teamed up in a bid to win the Ares I upper stage contract.  LockMart (Orion,) ATK (5-seg SRB,) and PWR (J-2X) are all teaming up against Boeing.  While experience would probably favor the LockMart-ATK-PWR team, I suspect that Boeing will get the contract just because NASA wants to preserve the industrial base.

With DIRECT, there's always the question of who will build the upper stage.  While I'd think that LockMart would have the upper hand, the same logic I applied to the Ares I upper stage still applies.  For that matter, can ULA bid on Ares & DIRECT contracts, or will LockMart & Boeing have to submit separate bids?  I mean, the ULA plant in Decatur could be very useful in fabricating elements of the future NASA launchers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/02/2007 05:43 am
CFE,
I have my own opinions on the subject of the industrial base regarding DIRECT.   They may or may not be popular.

Lockheed Martin do, initially, appear to be very well placed to develop the Upper Stage for DIRECT and are my personal preference.   But there again the Northrop Grumman/Boeing team seemed best placed to take the CEV contract too, and we know that didn't happen.

I do feel that if LM got the DIRECT Upper Stage contract instead of Boeing, something else must be then given to Boeing to keep them involved (read: keeping their political masters on-side).

Boeing could perhaps offer a good price for turning the ET into a Core Stage.   They certainly have lots of experience designing and developing the RS-68 powered Delta-IV already.   So perhaps that contract could be theirs.

Also, we should not forget that the contractor who develops any specific piece of equipment is NOT guaranteed to be the same one who ultimately builds it for operational use.   Those contracts are not decided until much later and things have been known to swap at that time.

Another option; perhaps LV & Spacecraft Assembly, Checkout and Integration could be assigned exclusively to Boeing instead of USA.   If that happened they would obviously have to pick up all the USA staff as part of the deal of course, but that's not a big issue.   Boeing could do that easily enough.

The Jupiter-120 LEO missions will also have the ability to launch a variety of Mission Modules for a variety of uses (Hubble Servicing, new ISS deliveries etc), and someone is going to get the contracts for those.


The key thing to remember is that there are *lots* of lucrative contracts and sub-contracts which can be moved around, swapped or created anew to help balance out the work between the various members of the industrial base.   One way or another, make no mistake that there is going to be far more work keeping a Lunar Program going than there ever was building ISS and flying Shuttle.   It's just that the work is going to be distributed differently.

I don't personally know how the work *should* best be split up, but above are a few suggestions for the specific hypothetical case of how Boeing might be given equivalent contracts if the EDS contract were to go to LM.

Myself I'm all for valid "competition" deciding everything.   But that requires a level playing field and when politics, economics and real-world experience are applied, the playing field is never level for anything in this business.

Ultimately it all depends on the technical & economic realities of the program, combined with political maneuvering behind the scenes.   These decisions finally rest with the NASA Administrator of the time.   The bottom line is that anything is possible, and we should be careful not to make any assumptions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/02/2007 06:05 am
Quote
kraisee - 2/8/2007  1:43 AM

Another option; perhaps LV & Spacecraft Assembly, Checkout and Integration could be assigned exclusively to Boeing instead of USA.   If that happened they would obviously have to pick up all the USA staff as part of the deal of course, but that's not a big issue.   Boeing could do that easily enough.

.

USA is keeping the LV assembly.  

The spacecraft contractors will process their own hardware (it is in the CEV contract).

No room for Boeing there

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 08/02/2007 06:41 am
Changing gears for a moment...

Please forgive me if it's been addressed before, but I noticed that performance of the Jupiter-232 has improved markedly over the CaLV described in the DIRECT 1.1.1 report.  The performance increases from 98 mT to 108 mT.  Some of this gain is deceptive because the reference orbit has changed from 60x160 to 30x120 nm.  Still, this is quite remarkable when examining how the specific impulse for the first stage has dropped.

I'm trying to determine what level of contribution is made by certain changes made from DIRECT CaLV to Jupiter 232.  I'm certain that the new, improved EDS (almost twice the propellant mass, twice the thrust, and improved propellant mass fraction) plays a big role in the performance boost.  Did adding the third engine on the first stage help in terms of reducing the various velocity losses encountered during ascent?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/02/2007 04:08 pm
I was reading through the DIRECT Proposal again and saw some of the images in there...I was wondering if any of these were available in hi-res?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 08/03/2007 04:20 am
Quote
Jim - 2/8/2007  2:05 AM

Quote
kraisee - 2/8/2007  1:43 AM

Another option; perhaps LV & Spacecraft Assembly, Checkout and Integration could be assigned exclusively to Boeing instead of USA.   If that happened they would obviously have to pick up all the USA staff as part of the deal of course, but that's not a big issue.   Boeing could do that easily enough.

.

USA is keeping the LV assembly.  

The spacecraft contractors will process their own hardware (it is in the CEV contract).

No room for Boeing there



Why no Boeing?  If so, why no noise from Boeing?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 08/03/2007 05:02 am
Quote
CFE - 31/7/2007  10:49 PM

Quote
brihath - 31/7/2007  7:46 PM

I wonder how they will rationalize a launch vehicle/spacecraft that will be operational in 2013/2014 to service an ISS that will only be operational until 2016?  By my calculation that is 6-8 manned missions @ 2 per year.  A lot of money to spend for a very limited capability on a short term mission.  Unless, or course, the ISS gets a reprieve.

IIRC, NASA has already changed its long term plans to reflect ISS operating with Orion support until 2022.  Still begs the question of what happens after that.  Will the politically-unthinkable option of laying off everybody who works Shuttle (later Orion-Ares) be exercised?

NASA needs the moon, and if it can't get there, it should get out of the manned spaceflight business.  I think von Braun and Faget are rolling in their graves right now.  We skipped over the mission mode debate, we can't design an earth-to-orbit launcher that meets requirements, and we can't design a spacecraft using off-the-shelf technologies that meets weight requirements.  And here we have a team of "renegades," not unlike John Houbolt, who have an elegant solution to NASA's technical and fiscal problems.  We also have the EELV contractor offering up inventive and realistic solutions to NASA's problems.  Unfortunately, we have leadership at NASA who is too stubborn to swallow their pride and accept their salvation if it's not invented here.

I TOTALLY agree!  If NASA isn't going to aim any higher than laps in LEO to ISS or whatever tin can they decide to replace it with when it starts breaking down like MIR did there the last few years, then they need to get out of the manned spaceflight business altogether.  Leave it to the Russians, Chinese, and whatever commercial interests ever actually end up going there.  

I can't believe how badly NASA leadership is dropping the ball nowdays.   The Vision of returning to the moon and beyond has generated more interest and frankly more SUPPORT for NASA among the gereral public that has ANY interest in space whatsoever than they have had in at least the last 26 years and maybe in the last 38.   Yet instead of doing everything they can to 'run with the ball' and build support and interest by proudly 'aiming high' what do we get?  We get a fusillade of cuts and downsizes in mass (and by obvious extension capabilities) to the CEV so that it won't have the capability to do the job it was promised, and interminable delays that, having had this many this early in the program and anticipating how likely it is more delays will appear as we go along, probably won't deliver an operational CEV and booster until late in the next decade, if shuttle delays were any indication.  

I love spaceflight.  I watch NASA TV more than any other channel.  I read everything space related I can get my hands on.  But when ISS stuff comes on, my eyes glaze over and I either nod off or switch the channel.  IT IS BORING!   Let's face it, the Russians have been flying stations since the early 70's.    Skylab was interesting because of the valiant efforts to save it after the launch damage to it, and the groundbreaking solar science that was done on it.   Where's the interesting stuff on ISS??  It's just the same smiling guys floating around in a can that we've seen on tv for 30 odd years.  These are my observations as an interested observer on the outside as John Q. Citizen and taxpayer.   This isn't a slam on those working their hearts out on the programs; and ESPECIALLY not on those who are working on it and desperately want it to succeed and do even more, but whose hands are tied from above.   I want it to succeed wildly too!  I want to be PROUD of our accomplishments and abilities and not have to rue the fact that the most interesting times in manned exploration occurred 2 years before I was born!   We're better than that.  NASA is better than that!  

NASA's number one problem as I see it is this:  It's leadership has become a bloated, inefficient, out of touch, self serving beaureaucracy that has made its decisions before the alternatives are even explored based on political expediencies rather than reality,  justifies its conclusions by slanting the studies to support its chosen path and stacking the deck against anything that challenges those assumptions, and then browbeats, threatens, or buries anything else that defies the edicts from on high.   I see it in my profession everyday (dealing with another department of the government).   That has, unfortunately, become the hallmark of our time and is what historians in the future will probably most note about our time.   This kind of 'institutionalized groupthink'  is what has really stagnated space exploration for the last 35 years and caused the loss of 2 shuttles, 14 astronauts,  and 20 years of space station designs and redesigns and re-redesigns and delays.   This type of institutionalization doesn't get you to the moon or Mars; it gets you Inquisitors and Bishops requiring Galileos to recant what they see through the looking glass because it endangers their 'more enlightened' worldview.   It does incalculable harm.  

The Shuttle is passe.  ISS is just 'there'.  The National Aerospace Plane didn't ignite much enthusiasm, nor did the Space Exploration Initiative.   X-33 and OSP got cancelled before anybody outside the security gates knew what they were.   The Vision for Space Exploration actually got more people thinking about space and interested (if only during the soundbites) than anything NASA's had in a long time.  If VSE is just going to morph into the Plan About Returning To Spacestation, just be the PARTS we've been doing for the last 35 years and nothing more,  then I personally would rather see it cancelled too and that money diverted into something we're really good at and that has actually produced good results-- robotic exploration.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/03/2007 03:27 pm
Just threw some images together using the DIRECT Orbiter Add On.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/03/2007 03:35 pm
And links to a hi-res of the one above and a second image I put together:

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1215072/e63.jpg
http://onfinite.com/libraries/1215071/e63.jpg
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: simcosmos on 08/03/2007 04:50 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 3/8/2007  4:27 PM

Just threw some images together using the DIRECT Orbiter Add On.

Nice pictures gladiator ;)

As a side note, those 3D models / performance (and some used in a more recent proposal version) are a bit outdated: Franz Berner (aka francisdrake) has a 'new' CEV (the first Direct addon used his ESAS based CEV, I made one custom CEV at least for the recent images) and, about the launcher stuff and related items, I have been also doing a 'few' updates. And yes, at least will implement a few Jupiter variants in Orbiter simulator but (before someone asks) not the main priority yet: the 3D models are being made with the AIAA paper (+ site, etc) in mind first.

Work in progress,
António
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/04/2007 07:04 am
Quote
Jim - 2/8/2007  2:05 AM

USA is keeping the LV assembly.  

The spacecraft contractors will process their own hardware (it is in the CEV contract).

No room for Boeing there


USA is *currently* _planned_ to keep the LV assembly contract, yes.

But if politics dictates some maneuvering *has* to be done, well, contracts go to new companies all the time.   There are no guarantees, anywhere.

Boeing could still be allocated the work if politics dictates.   At which point the ultimate result would simply be that everyone who currently works for USA would just get their paychecks from Boeing instead.   LM would accept the change because part of the deal is that they get a very lucrative contract building hardware, so they would be quite happy in such a scenario.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/04/2007 07:05 am
Quote
gladiator1332 - 2/8/2007  12:08 PM

I was reading through the DIRECT Proposal again and saw some of the images in there...I was wondering if any of these were available in hi-res?

Take a look at the images section of the main www.directlauncher.com website.

Additionally, we are preparing a new set of images for some of the specification sheets soon.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/04/2007 07:35 am
Quote
CFE - 2/8/2007  2:41 AM

Changing gears for a moment...

Please forgive me if it's been addressed before, but I noticed that performance of the Jupiter-232 has improved markedly over the CaLV described in the DIRECT 1.1.1 report.  The performance increases from 98 mT to 108 mT.  Some of this gain is deceptive because the reference orbit has changed from 60x160 to 30x120 nm.  Still, this is quite remarkable when examining how the specific impulse for the first stage has dropped.

A lot of things changed between v1.0 and v2.0.   The Core Stage structure was in the process of being re-analyzed (and the EDS is always being optimized to suit), with a far more detailed assessment of the mass allocations when we released the v2.0.x documents.

We had a very specific opportunity to get our document to a particular contact in a rather short timeframe, so even though the results of the analysis weren't 100% completed yet, we went with what we had at that particular moment when we released V2.0.

Since then, the numbers have continued to evolve.   The analysis we were "waiting on" was ultimately completed, and has since been re-validated and forms the backbone of our current assessments.

But I fully expect the mass allocations of both the Core and the EDS will continue to evolve as analysis continues.   Just like NASA's Ares work, the Jupiter's are most certainly a "Work In Progress".

We have some new numbers coming soon to show on here, and they will demonstrate how things have changed, yet again.


Quote
I'm trying to determine what level of contribution is made by certain changes made from DIRECT CaLV to Jupiter 232.  I'm certain that the new, improved EDS (almost twice the propellant mass, twice the thrust, and improved propellant mass fraction) plays a big role in the performance boost.  Did adding the third engine on the first stage help in terms of reducing the various velocity losses encountered during ascent?

The third engine was required to lift the extra mass of all that extra propellant required to power two J-2XD's.   Compared to that mass, the stage mass itself is almost a "side effect".   In the event, we actually have J-221 and J-231 variants which have decently high performance too, but with considerably smaller EDS capacity optimized for a single J-2XD.

Since the 2.0.x was released we have addressed the potential for FUD by assessing a lower EDS pmf - specifically the same structure pmf (minus engines) as the current Centaur.   This has resulted in stage masses varying from about 15mT for a stage optimized for the smallest J-221 LOR configuration, through to about 30mT for the largest J-232 EOR configuration.

We have industry contacts who have officially confirmed that these mass allocations are unnecessarily high (about 80% too high in fact), but after Dr. Stanley's FUD we now have the extra requirement to defeat FUD with our proposal - not just achieve performance targets.

Ultimately, if we propose a FUD-free 30mT stage, and can still close an architecture with it, but then in the real world it can be built massing only 20mT, that just gives us another 10mT of real payload to play with - and that's never a bad thing.   We are baselining the heavier structures until the vehicle is selected, and can then provide the means to increase the performance.

But we have to get past the FUD first, before we can hope to "upgrade" to the real performance.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JonSBerndt on 08/04/2007 01:36 pm
Coming on Monday ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/04/2007 10:02 pm
Awesome Jon.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JonSBerndt on 08/05/2007 01:06 am
"The cover artwork is awesome." (Nice work, Phillip!)
"Chuck's article is very readable, compelling, and informative."
"Fascinating article about DIRECT."

Those are the kinds of comments I've seen so far from the locals who have reviewed the entire issue for me prior to its publication.

Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/05/2007 01:16 am
I'm a little confused about something in the proposal.  If the J-120 carries cargo, as is an option in the proposal, how does it get to, well, anywhere?  Does it have its own RCS or service module or something?  Does Orion turn around and capture it Apollo style?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/05/2007 02:31 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 4/8/2007  9:16 PM

I'm a little confused about something in the proposal.  If the J-120 carries cargo, as is an option in the proposal, how does it get to, well, anywhere?  Does it have its own RCS or service module or something?  Does Orion turn around and capture it Apollo style?

That depends on the Cargo.

If it is a Cargo which goes with a Crew, then The J-120 would likely insert everything straight into circular orbit, the CEV would indeed turn around and capture & extract it (just like Apollo).

In this scenario the Core Stage would later (once the payload is far enough away) be de-orbited actively, to burn up in a pre-arranged location, using either cluster of SRB separation motors, or an RCS system "borrowed" from the EDS developments.   Generally speaking, this method allows for approximately 19mT of useful payload to fly to ISS-compatible orbits with a 6-person CEV - which is about 3mT more payload capacity than Shuttle can do at present.

If it is purely a cargo flight, with no CEV, then the cargo itself would be expected to either be inserted directly into its final orbit by the Jupiter Core Stage, or a "tug" stage of some description would need to be included as part of the payload.

Assuming you don't need something particularly specific, there are a number of "off the shelf" stages available which could be integrated depending on mission, and the selection of which to use would mostly come down to the total mass of the payload and the target orbit.   Anything from a small pusher stage like the PAM-D used on some Delta-II flights, to a full Centaur stage can theoretically be used.   For payloads requiring something larger than a Centaur, you would probably require the full Jupiter EDS as the Upper Stage, and that configuration automatically becomes the Jupiter-2xx series.   Jupiter-232 for example, can deliver over 100mT per flight to ISS-compatible orbits.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/05/2007 02:54 am
Quote
kraisee - 4/8/2007  8:31 PM
If it is a Cargo which goes with a Crew, then The J-120 would likely insert everything straight into circular orbit, the CEV would indeed turn around and capture & extract it (just like Apollo).

In this scenario the Core Stage would later (once the payload is far enough away) be de-orbited actively, to burn up in a pre-arranged location, using either cluster of SRB separation motors, or an RCS system "borrowed" from the EDS developments.   Generally speaking, this method allows for approximately 19mT of useful payload to fly to ISS-compatible orbits with a 6-person CEV - which is about 3mT more payload capacity than Shuttle can do at present.

Okay, got it, thanks.

Mixing threads for a moment, if the Orion SM is actually capable of 705m/s+ delta-V, couldn't you just turn Orion around, grab the cargo, deorbit the whole bunch at apogee, remove the cargo and then put Orion into the desired orbit while the tank decends?  I realize how this sounds, but I'm imagining the difference in mass between Orion propellant (only - motors and controls are already there) and the necessary small solids like BSMs to do the same job, including controls and attitude control etc.

Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/05/2007 03:15 am
Lee Jay, that *can* be done, but is a lot more risky because you have very little "spare time" in an insertion orbit to handle any unexpected problems.   Unless you make the circularization burn at roughly apogee (no more than 45 minutes away from insertion, possibly less) you are going to re-enter the atmosphere.

While you could probably separate and extract a module in about 15-20 minutes, that doesn't leave much margin when your insertion orbit is bringing you back through the atmosphere in less than 90 minutes time.

There could be a problem with the docking requiring a number of attempts (Apollo 14 IIRC had to perform 6 docking attempts).   Or perhaps an EVA might be required to clear some piece of debris to make a good connection between the CEV and the payload.   Neither of these are possible in an insertion orbit (pre circularization).   Insertion orbits are fundamentally just a ballistic trajectory.   So ensuring the payload (and CEV) get placed into a safe circular orbit completely remove these risks which would result in a Loss Of Mission.   You could afford to waste a few hours fixing a problem and then still proceed on with a successful mission while never risking the crew.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/05/2007 03:43 am
No, that's not what I meant (I think that approach is too risky as well).  The core should go into a circular orbit to give you time to handle problems, get Orion out, grab the cargo, get oriented and checked out.  Only then do you use the SM to change the circular orbit to an entry orbit, blow the pyros on the cargo attachments to the core and remove it, then turn around and get yourself and the cargo into the ISS transfer oribit.  This way, you already know the SM is up and operational before you risk changing your orbit to an orbit that will enter the atmosphere, plus you're already docked with the cargo.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/05/2007 04:46 am
Yes, that would be a good method.   The CEV will have sufficient propellant to do quite a lot of work anyway.   It is, after all, still being designed to perform at least the ~900m/s TEI Burn to return itself from the Moon.   This should offer quite a bit of capability for maneuvering both itself and a matched cargo within LEO for any ISS missions.

Placing the Core Stage on a delivery orbit which is not precisely on the same course as ISS is very wise.   As long as it is high enough to be safe, the payload (CEV & Cargo) can manage the rest.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 08/05/2007 02:00 pm
Hi, this is my first post on any forum!

Would it be possible to replace the RS-68s with SSMEs in a reusable engine pod? The pod would have its own TPS, etc. for reentry.
Also, would it be feasible to add an altitude compensating nozzle to the core engines? This applies to both the SSME and RS-68 types.
The payload of a Jupiter 130 with SSMEs instead of RS-68s would be around 110-115 metric tons to LEO.
Also, what is the actual thrust of the plug-nozzle SSME? On astronautix it says that the thrust is 800,000 lbf, with a Isp of 485 seconds vacuum and 412 seconds sea level.
What would be the Isp of the P/N RS-68?
And finally, what would it cost to make a staged combustion engine with the complexity of a RS-68?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 08/05/2007 02:12 pm
Boeing's EELV proposal had a reusable engine pod back in the day. That's one reason why they were not selected to continue in the race. (They then subsequently bought Douglas who made Delta IV though.)

I think NASA is trying to avoid anything so advanced now as it'd take long and be expensive. Not that it perhaps wouldn't make sense in some longer run, IMHO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 08/05/2007 03:03 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 5/8/2007  9:00 AM

Hi, this is my first post on any forum!

Would it be possible to replace the RS-68s with SSMEs in a reusable engine pod? The pod would have its own TPS, etc. for reentry.
Also, would it be feasible to add an altitude compensating nozzle to the core engines? This applies to both the SSME and RS-68 types.
The payload of a Jupiter 130 with SSMEs instead of RS-68s would be around 110-115 metric tons to LEO.
Also, what is the actual thrust of the plug-nozzle SSME? On astronautix it says that the thrust is 800,000 lbf, with a Isp of 485 seconds vacuum and 412 seconds sea level.
What would be the Isp of the P/N RS-68?
And finally, what would it cost to make a staged combustion engine with the complexity of a RS-68?


This is an interesting idea.  I heard a rumor more than once the Saturn V main engines were, a couple of times, salvaged from the ocean floor and at least parts reused.

As a professional engineer, it would be possible -- barely.  However, the mass of all the "stuff" needed for recovery might weigh more than the mass gained by the higher ISP and thrust.  The SSMEs would enter at Mach 25.  This would need a full blown heat shield -- not just TPS layers to the SSME.  One of the reasons TPS layers to the SSME would not work is a first order effect in entry heating is the radius of curvature of the entry "capsule".  90 degree corners, or anything not curved to a high radius gets really, really hot.  Right off the top of my head I don't see where the heat shield would be during ascent then be deployed for entry.  Some type of very complex shield deploy mechanism might be needed.  Inflatable TPS might be an option.

Then you need parachutes to slow down for landing.  Probably a water landing, so referb after a salt water bath might be an issue.  The landing foot print would be big, so massive search and rescue forces might be needed.

But that high ISP is worth its weight in gold (literally) for ascent.  They are amazing engines.  It might just be worth all the effort to get them back home for resuse.  I believe Ares 1 and Ares V probably failed the day NASA realized that can't use the SSME, and I believe in the not to distant future NASA will admit that and come forward with a different approach to get to the moon.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 08/05/2007 06:41 pm
I'm disappointed that RD-0120 was never considered as a replacement for the "expendable SSME's" from the ESAS report.  It offered similar performance to the SSME in an expendable package.  Of course, the details on whether the Russians can still produce these engines is very sketchy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: WFS on 08/05/2007 06:49 pm
Quote
kraisee - 17/7/2007  11:18 AM

To flesh this out a little, our new J-221 concept EDS masses 17.8mT with a single J-2XD and contains 134mT of propellant.   This is the version matching the current Centaur pmf.   If we use the higher WBC+margin figures, this mass drops to 15.1mT.   And if we use Lockheed's pure WBC figures, this mass could drop as low as 11.5mT.

In this example, we are currently baselining the higher 17.8mT figure, but recommending we spend the extra cash to build the 15.1mT version.

What sort of performance would you get if you created a Jupiter-221 using an existing upper stage such as the Centaur? (I suppose it would be a Jupiter-222 if you  used the dual-engine Centaur stage.)

I suspect the Centaur would not be the best possible upper stage (not the optimum delta-V split between the first and second stages) but I imagine it would still give you a vehicle able to launch bigger planetary probes than any of the existing ELVs, even the Atlas V or Delta-IV Heavy.

I think mentioning the possibility of such a design would be useful as a way to win support for Jupiter from the Planetary Science community.  Such a design should be available sooner than one using a variant of the EDS, and the only added cost (once the Jupiter-120 is developed) would be the cost of integrating the upper stage.

- Bill Seney
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/06/2007 12:01 am

Quote
tnphysics - 5/8/2007  9:00 AM

Hi, this is my first post on any forum!

Would it be possible to replace the RS-68s with SSMEs in a reusable engine pod? The pod would have its own TPS, etc. for reentry.
Also, would it be feasible to add an altitude compensating nozzle to the core engines? This applies to both the SSME and RS-68 types.
The payload of a Jupiter 130 with SSMEs instead of RS-68s would be around 110-115 metric tons to LEO.
Also, what is the actual thrust of the plug-nozzle SSME? On astronautix it says that the thrust is 800,000 lbf, with a Isp of 485 seconds vacuum and 412 seconds sea level.
What would be the Isp of the P/N RS-68?
And finally, what would it cost to make a staged combustion engine with the complexity of a RS-68?


RS-68 was designed for cost which means less parts and less complexity.
You are asking questions than the designer of the engines would only know..  Don't even know if a plug nozzle for the Rs-68 has been looked at

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 08/06/2007 02:52 am
The heat shield would not need to be deployed. It would be between the engines and the tank and would separate from the tank with explosive bolts.
A helicopter could grab the parachutes in midair.
Finally, has any thought been given into making the EDS into a reusable space tug? It would use multi-pass, low-heat aerobraking on the return and would not need a heat shield.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/06/2007 03:21 am
Quote
tnphysics - 5/8/2007  8:52 PM
The heat shield would not need to be deployed. It would be between the engines and the tank and would separate from the tank with explosive bolts.
A helicopter could grab the parachutes in midair.

Better stop right there and consider the size of these engines, and the cargo carrying capacity of helicopters.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Stephan on 08/06/2007 09:52 am
Quote
JonSBerndt - 4/8/2007  3:36 PM

Coming on Monday ...
Available on your site, very long article about Direct, I'll take a look as soon as possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/06/2007 10:04 am
Quote
JonSBerndt - 4/8/2007  2:36 PM

Coming on Monday ...

It's on (going to read it when I get a moment, but...)

http://www.aiaa-houston.org/

http://www.aiaa-houston.org/newsletter/aug07/aug07.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 08/06/2007 11:41 am
At first glance, I like the constructive approach in the newsletter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/06/2007 12:11 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 5/8/2007  10:52 PM

The heat shield would not need to be deployed. It would be between the engines and the tank and would separate from the tank with explosive bolts.
A helicopter could grab the parachutes in midair.
Finally, has any thought been given into making the EDS into a reusable space tug? It would use multi-pass, low-heat aerobraking on the return and would not need a heat shield.

both ideas just add complexity and weight and require more propellant.  There aren't enough flights to justify reuse.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/06/2007 12:15 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 6/8/2007  11:04 AM

Quote
JonSBerndt - 4/8/2007  2:36 PM

Coming on Monday ...

It's on (going to read it when I get a moment, but...)

http://www.aiaa-houston.org/

http://www.aiaa-houston.org/newsletter/aug07/aug07.pdf

Read it now. Really good feature. Love the presentation of it too, and a nice picture of Chuck! (Always good to put a face to a name).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MrTim on 08/06/2007 12:34 pm
That's an excellent article that makes a good, clear presentation of the Direct 2.0 idea.

I would like to have seen the article include a discussion (or improved discussion) of the following three issues though:
1. For minimal missions of sending a crew to ISS, the Aries I (which I dislike) is a much simpler architecture which appears to have a lower operating cost (though it IS having an unacceptable up-front cost in time and dollars) and this is always going to be an argument for the stick if it is not addressed with a good analysis. BTW: I like the argument that a simple 1 engine per stage like the stick means LOM for any engine failure (it's one of the things I hate about Aries I). Going to fewer engines for boasts of increased safety is getting rather fashionable in both air and space these days but the issue of what happens when that one super-duper-never-gonna-fail engine fails is generally lacking.
2. Not much discussion to assure the casual reader that an essentially STS ET can handle having upper stages added to it or a payload placed atop it. ( I am NOT saying it cannot, just that the reader of the article would be left with a much more confident idea that this would really work if the matter was fleshed-out with a little analysis) Remember that the current tank is very highly optimized right now to the point of using lithium in the structure, and those optimizations are with assumed side loads (and the reader likely knows this).
3. While the 2 Jupiter launch solution for a lunar mission would presumably give more mass than an Aries I & V pair, that mass would be in two smaller dissimilar chunks that would have to be glued together on-orbit. The Aries V (assuming it does not turn-out to be vapor ware) would provide a single heavier & physically larger payload on orbit.

The Direct guys might well have addressed these issues somewhere, but I think it would be good for them to add them to presentations like this one; it would make for an even more persuasive presentation (remember that not everyone, particularly political animals are likely to read all posts in multiple threads of a website, but articles like this one ARE a good, tight, readable argument that MIGHT actually get read). In the above 3 points I am NOT attacking the Direct nor the article... I am making the friendly suggestion of a way to improve the presentation to be more persuasive ( a little bondo to fill-in some shallow dents ). Even if Aries has the edge in one or more of these three, by addressing them you still persuade the reader that you are being serious and honest with them. Very well done, and recommended reading.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 08/06/2007 01:07 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 5/8/2007  10:00 AM
Would it be possible to replace the RS-68s with SSMEs in a reusable engine pod? The pod would have its own TPS, etc. for reentry.

Not that it is a definitive no, but this was tried for the EELV with a much more expensive engine (SSME) and a much higher projected flight rate and found to be a non-starter.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1996/news.release.960719a.html

This should remind us all how heady the the preliminary design phase can be ... I offer the following quote from the article.

"When you think of all the payloads that the Air Force must launch over the next 20 or so years -- and then realize that we're on to a new way of doing business that could cut those costs in half -- it's very exciting," White says.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Martin FL on 08/06/2007 01:11 pm
Quote
MrTim - 6/8/2007  7:34 AM

Snip


Just a pet hate, but there's no such thing as Aries.

Great feature by AIAA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MrTim on 08/06/2007 01:46 pm
Quote
Martin FL - 6/8/2007  6:11 AM

Quote
MrTim - 6/8/2007  7:34 AM

Snip


Just a pet hate, but there's no such thing as Aries.

Great feature by AIAA.

Post deleted - James Lowe.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 08/06/2007 01:53 pm
I think you miss his point, it's Ares the God of War not Aries the Astrological Ram  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MrTim on 08/06/2007 02:51 pm
Quote
marsavian - 6/8/2007  6:53 AM

I think you miss his point, it's Ares the God of War not Aries the Astrological Ram  ;)

Oh, GADS!, now we're back to hating a program because of typos. I wondered what the complaint was and was too tired to notice my typo... Thanks for the post, you cleared that one up for me
 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 08/06/2007 06:40 pm
WFS,
Quote
What sort of performance would you get if you created a Jupiter-221 using an existing upper stage such as the Centaur? (I suppose it would be a Jupiter-222 if you  used the dual-engine Centaur stage.)

I suspect the Centaur would not be the best possible upper stage (not the optimum delta-V split between the first and second stages) but I imagine it would still give you a vehicle able to launch bigger planetary probes than any of the existing ELVs, even the Atlas V or Delta-IV Heavy.

I was going to run some numbers on a similar idea, but have been a little too busy at work lately.  But some BOTE calculations I did seem to imply you could probably do a spartan 2-man architecture using a Juper-120 with a Centaur or Delta-IVH upper stage on top.  

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Firestarter on 08/06/2007 09:52 pm
Good effort with the AIAA Horizons feature.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Martin FL on 08/06/2007 10:29 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 6/8/2007  5:04 AM

Quote
JonSBerndt - 4/8/2007  2:36 PM

Coming on Monday ...

It's on (going to read it when I get a moment, but...)

http://www.aiaa-houston.org/

http://www.aiaa-houston.org/newsletter/aug07/aug07.pdf

Really impressive work there!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 08/07/2007 01:36 am
I am not certain about the mass penalties of using reusable SSMEs, because 3 SSMEs are lighter than 2 RS-68s. Any mass penalty, however, would be outweighed by the 65mt increase in injected mass (including stage mass) due to the SSME's higher Isp. The benefit would be even larger if plug-nozzle SSMEs were used.
This would require optimizing the core for the configuration with no upper stage, and, if the decision is made to add an upper stage later on, the core would need to be reoptimized for that configuration. (Otherwise, the core would be too heavy on the version without an upper stage to obtain the full payload benefit.) However, the differences (things like tank skin thicknesses) would be small enough that both types of cores could be manufactured concurrently at MAF using mostly identical tooling.
The SSME version could be called the Jupiter 130"S", S sanding for SSME.
However, adding an upper stage might not be necessary, owing to the large (110mt) payload capability of the J-130S, equal to that of the J-232. A small (60mt) upper stage would be used anyway (for EOI and TLI), but this would be part of the payload, not the LV. Two launches would be used per mission. A LOR-LOR profile could be used (as in the proposal), as could an architecture in which one launch carries the 25mt CEV and 85mt LSAM,the other an 110mt EDS.
Alternatively, a large (S-IVB sized) upper stage would create a Saturn V/Ares V class heavy lift launch vehicle (when above a core stage with 3 SSMEs and with 2 4 segment SRBs)
A custom helicopter could be built to grab the engine pod's parachutes in mid-air. Even if the SSMEs had to be pulled out of the water, reusing them would still be cheaper than building new ones.
To the DIRECT team: By my calculations, about 78mt of propellant would be needed for TLI without using extra CLV payload, and about 87mt if extra CLV payload was used. An IMLEO of 180mt could be achieved if the EDS was not offloaded and extra CLV capacity was used.
LSAM masses, assuming no EDS offload, are 42mt using extra CLV payload capacity, or 34.5mt if extra CLV payload is not used.
It does not appear to me that there would be any mass penalty in reusing the EDS, if it merely aerobrakes to LEO instead of to the surface, and does so in multiple passes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2007 01:51 am
Quote
tnphysics - 6/8/2007  9:36 PM

1.  The benefit would be even larger if plug-nozzle SSMEs were used.
2.  A custom helicopter could be built.

3. Even if the SSMEs had to be pulled out of the water, reusing them would still be cheaper than building new ones.

4.  It does not appear to me that there would be any mass penalty in reusing the EDS, if it merely aerobrakes to LEO instead of to the surface, and does so in multiple passes.

1.  plug-nozzle SSMEs do not exist.  

2.  custom helicopter?  Why not thunderbird 4 since we are talking fantasies

3.  Water recovery does not mean reusable

The whole point of Direct is to use existing systems and processes

4.  There is a huge mass penalty in reusing the EDS.  It goes into solar orbit after TLI.  Also reusing means materials that have to last into months in space, new power systems, new guidance systems, etc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 08/07/2007 02:00 am
Excellent article gentlemen.

Insofar as this orbital tug business goes, I must be a little slow so someone needs to explain this to me.  Again.  Yes Jim, I have asked this before.  And forgive me Ross, you and I have gone around this a little off line, but no one has yet explained this to me in a way that appears to make sense to me.

Let us say that the EDS needs its "surplus" propellent capacity from page 11 of the article to cycle a payload between the Earth and the moon and return to LEO using aero braking in conjunctin with some minimum burn and it is now in LEO basically empty.  That's 210,552 pounds of fuel.


The Jupiter 120 does not have sufficient mass to orbit the payload by itself having a max payload of 102,812 pounds, so you definantly need two Jupiter 120 launches or you need to use a 232 to orbit the fuel with its payload capacity of 233, 913 (plus its fuel surplus).   If that is the case, you could possibly have 444465 pounds of fuel.  Enough for two missions in orbit.

However, if you did that, you could have the EDS with its payload positioned to ferry whatever payload you need to the moon.  

Isn't it therefore simpler and more cost effective to just throw the "old" EDS away and orbit the "new" one with its payload and fuel reserve to inject its payload to the moon rather than trying to establish this fuel depot?  And would you not need a seperate launch for the CEV and its crew (assuming a manned mission.)  Where is the economy?

Also, no one has transferred this amount or cryogenic fuel in orbit, and you would need to cool the tanker and provide transfer pumps and connections.  While we have been refueling aircraft for a long time, I suspect the problem is not quite the same.

Is my logic and (elementry) math correct?  What am I missing?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Alpha Control on 08/07/2007 02:04 am
2.  "Calling International Rescue.  Mr. Tracy, we have another SSME recovery job!"   :laugh:

and to keep this on topic, the AIAA article was excellent.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 08/07/2007 05:34 am
Excellent article..does anyone believe that Griffen has not or will not read this article especailly after what AWT said about Ares?

QUESTIONS:

1.  Have you planned the next after the presentation and likly NASA reaction?
2.  Will you update the video such as to include a moon landing--eg using 2 232's linking up, TLI, etc?  Going to ISS is good for the present video--(People and congress can relate), but remember we are looking towards 2016+.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2007 06:26 am
Quote
tnphysics - 5/8/2007  10:00 AM

Hi, this is my first post on any forum!

Would it be possible to replace the RS-68s with SSMEs in a reusable engine pod? The pod would have its own TPS, etc. for reentry.
Also, would it be feasible to add an altitude compensating nozzle to the core engines? This applies to both the SSME and RS-68 types.
The payload of a Jupiter 130 with SSMEs instead of RS-68s would be around 110-115 metric tons to LEO.
Also, what is the actual thrust of the plug-nozzle SSME? On astronautix it says that the thrust is 800,000 lbf, with a Isp of 485 seconds vacuum and 412 seconds sea level.
What would be the Isp of the P/N RS-68?
And finally, what would it cost to make a staged combustion engine with the complexity of a RS-68?


First, welcome to the forum!   Glad you took the opportunity to "get stuck in".   You'll find a lot of very knowledgeable people here who can expand anyones knowledge of this business enormously.

The idea was considered by the Mars Direct team (no relation to this team).   As others have pointed out the weight impact for a reusable pod, and the technical requirements to allow it to come off, be controlled trough re-entry and to make a reasonably soft landing on land where (salt water is seriously not good for SSME's) makes the idea difficult at best.

When looking at STS derivatives I was originally interested in a permanent pod structure on the side of the Core, but I learned that a truly in-line configuration can offer about 5% additional performance per launch, and the cost to modify the infrastructure elements (mostly the MLP's) was equivalent to about half of one single Shuttle launch, I was convinced that the change to an in-line configuration was very worthwhile the investment.

Also there are critical problems with SSME manufacture.   Firstly there is no production line available actually making SSME's today, so one would have to be built, and the cost for that is pretty high.   Second, the SSME's are incredibly expensive - in the order of more than three times the cost of the RS-68's.   A cheaper disposable version is possible, but would require an extensive development program which would take a lot of cash and time.   Even then, a disposable SSME would still cost about 1.5 times as much as a single RS-68.   Third, you only really require two RS-68's to get similar performance to every three SSME's.   And finally, RS-68 has 80% fewer parts than SSME and operates at considerably lower pressure levels - which means that RS-68 is expected to be a whole lot more reliable than even SSME's already excellent record - perhaps as good as achieving half the failure rate.

All of this stacks pretty heavily against using SSME and towards RS-68 - unless your performance requirements simply can not be met by RS-68.

Jupiter can achieve 35% more performance to the moon for 2-launches compared to Ares-I/V, so RS-68 is quite suitable.

As for plug nozzle designs, I am a big fan of those, but I just can't see sufficient development money ever being available to make a reasonably big engine with that technology any time in the next 10 years.   I am absolutely certain it couldn't be fielded in the timeframe necessary to close the "gap" after Shuttle small enough to be acceptable, so it can't be done right now.

But I am personally very interested in "future" upgrade proposals using such concepts.   I think there is a large amount of potential at some point down the line - just not right now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2007 06:36 am
Quote
CFE - 5/8/2007  2:41 PM

I'm disappointed that RD-0120 was never considered as a replacement for the "expendable SSME's" from the ESAS report.  It offered similar performance to the SSME in an expendable package.  Of course, the details on whether the Russians can still produce these engines is very sketchy.

There are huge hurdles regarding buying anything from Russia.   Technical & political.   And NASA has stated categorically that it wants all engines to be developed in the US so that the investment returns go back into the US economy - not that of any foreign country.

At the present moment there is no means to secure an "RD-180"-like deal due to current trade restrictions which were enacted after that LM/Ergomash deal took place.   There would have to be significant changes to US law to re-open such possibilities, and we don't have time on the schedule for that if we wish to close the gap after Shuttle.

RD-0120 isn't bad, it's just politically impossible right now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2007 07:35 am
Quote
MrTim - 6/8/2007  8:34 AM

That's an excellent article that makes a good, clear presentation of the Direct 2.0 idea.

Yes, serious thanks go to Chuck for taking the time to write that up for us.   It looks wonderful in there!


Quote
I would like to have seen the article include a discussion (or improved discussion) of the following three issues though:
1. For minimal missions of sending a crew to ISS, the Aries I (which I dislike) is a much simpler architecture which appears to have a lower operating cost (though it IS having an unacceptable up-front cost in time and dollars) and this is always going to be an argument for the stick if it is not addressed with a good analysis. BTW: I like the argument that a simple 1 engine per stage like the stick means LOM for any engine failure (it's one of the things I hate about Aries I). Going to fewer engines for boasts of increased safety is getting rather fashionable in both air and space these days but the issue of what happens when that one super-duper-never-gonna-fail engine fails is generally lacking.

Others may have already answered, but here is my 'take'...

The annual operating costs of any given LV pale in comparison to development costs.   Ares-I and Jupiter-120 both cost somewhere in the ballpark of $16bn to develop.   The annual fixed costs are almost identical, and the LV flight costs for Jupiter-120 are within about $30m per flight  of Ares-I.

But Ares-I also requires Ares-V if we are ever going anywhere beyond ISS.   And that costs at least another $16bn to develop (excluding the cost of the EDS, which Jupiter also develops anyway) and more than doubles the yearly fixed operating costs.

Jupiter deletes both of these costs completely by only requiring the first vehicle.   Saving $16bn in development costs and roughly $1bn every year in fixed operations costs after that makes a $30m difference in individual flight cost completely irrelevant.

To put it into real-terms perspective, the $16bn Ares-V development cost alone could pay for about 100 additional Jupiter-232 launches.   And the $1bn saved every year in purely fixed ops costs for Ares-V would pay for 4 additional Jupiter-232 flights every year.

Bottom line: For the same total cash investment, this equates to a potential 11,000 metric tons of payload already in space for the cost of developing and launching just the *very first* Ares-V.

In reality, the money would actually be re-distributed to a number of different programs.   A small amount would be used to put back the science directorate's budget, but most of it would be used to speed up development of the LSAM and other Lunar hardware to allow the Lunar missions to proceed sooner.   This cash could be used, within the projected Ares budget, to accelerate the entire Lunar program by approximately 2 to 3 years, bringing the next return flight to the moon to circa 2016-2017.   The total annual cost difference with DIRECT tops more than $3bn every year of the Lunar phase, which will pay for a considerably faster exploration program than currently planned, with at least one to two extra Lunar missions every year compared to Ares.


Quote
2. Not much discussion to assure the casual reader that an essentially STS ET can handle having upper stages added to it or a payload placed atop it. ( I am NOT saying it cannot, just that the reader of the article would be left with a much more confident idea that this would really work if the matter was fleshed-out with a little analysis) Remember that the current tank is very highly optimized right now to the point of using lithium in the structure, and those optimizations are with assumed side loads (and the reader likely knows this).

I was sent an e-mail by someone today (probably having seen the Horizon article) with similar concerns.   Let me copy & paste my reply (LONG)...

The specific example here, of "milling material thicker", is specific to certain elements only and was used purely as an example of how _some_ of the current ET machining can be immediately applied to building Jupiter Cores.   It wasn't supposed to indicate that the changes we need are limited purely to that.   We are fully aware of the full range of changes required, and one of our team working at MSFC completed an initial structural analysis in a back-to-back environment with STS' ET to set some hard parameters.
 
   The specific example of "milling material thicker" is primarily related just to the isogrid milled tank walls of the LH2 tank.   To take the extra loadings, the tank walls can be milled thicker to achieve most of the strengthening requirements.   Other changes are necessary, and we have fully accounted for mass impact to the stage.   There are obviously many other changes too, far beyond this one example, but that example isn't a bad one to get the idea across that the current manufacturing infrastructure current making ET's can be re-used to make Jupiter Cores.
 
   While the list of changes necessary to get Jupiter Cores are far too extensive to put into any single e-mail, let me just focus on a few other 'general' areas to expand on this approach a little bit more.   Because the g-loads and propellant capacities don't change much (actually the stresses are slightly lower than STS), some items such as the Tank Domes, can largely remain as they are today.   Changes are certainly to be expected around the joint between the tank domes and the tank wall structures (the 'Y' ring location), which we fully expect will need to be redesigned to suit thicker materials in the walls, but this isn't a major headache once the design is settled.   Obviously the aft LH2 tank dome propellant feedline arrangement needs to be completely re-worked to drain downwards inside the new aft skirt instead of upwards to the ET Orbiter mounts, but in the grand scheme of things, again, these sorts of change are not very major - certainly within the current capabilities of MAF.   Similarly the Intertank structure needs strengthening - primarily through a combination of increasing the thickness of the walls and adding additional internal bracing.   The LOX tank is a lot trickier than the LH2 tank, because the shape and the loads are quite different to ET.   But still, a lot of the current machining at MAF used currently for the relatively small cylindrical section of the ET LOX tank can handle the changes necessary to create stronger sections.   At this time we have not yet performed any analysis regarding the change in the design of slosh baffles in the LOX tank, but we would expect such an analysis to be done by NASA/Lockheed anyway if the proposal were selected, so we aren't too concerned about it.   We have simply allocated a 200% mass margin for additional "LOX baffle mass changes", which we feel is safely on the generous side.
 
   On the subject of margins, this is actually also a fair indication of our general policy regarding all of our new elements.   Unlike ESAS, who allocated a mere 15-20% 'growth margin' for new structure mass allocations, we have been using far more generous margins at every stage of Jupiter development to give us plenty of additional comfort.   Our typical margins are more like 40-50%, depending on a number of criteria, with some margins climbing to 300% for certain items which have very limited historical reference data available.   While our current Jupiter Core Stage dry mass (minus engines) is roughly twice the mass of the current SLWT ET's 26.5mT, it should be noted that if we had been using only ESAS margins, we would have ended up with a structure mass about 5-7mT lower than we have at present.   We always wanted this additional 'comfort' factor, and simply consider these additional margins as "future growth potential", allowing NASA to consider the equivalent of the ET's "Light Weight Tank" Development Program to be performed at some point in the future after the 'standard' Jupiter Cores have been flying for some time.   It is an optional means to improve performance further in the future.
 
   Believe me, that we are under absolutely no illusion of what is actually necessary to turn a Shuttle ET into a Jupiter Core, and I really wasn't attempting to allude to changes being "simple".   We know the changes are significant, but we also know that the changes can be accomplished by re-using about 80% of current ET manufacturing techniques if deliberately designed to.   We are simply taking a different philosophical approach to that which inspired Ares:   Instead of just assuming replacing everything we have today and starting afresh (as Ares-I 5.5m dia. U/S, Ares-V 10.0m dia. Core and Ares-V 8.4m dia EDS are all currently requiring), we are explicitly asking the question: "What have we got right now with ET, that can be modified to suit, instead of having to be replaced?"   When looked at from this alternative perspective, and when planning to retain the same basic 8.4m diameter and same capacity tanking, it turns out that a great deal of current manufacturing systems can be re-used to create the modified structures without the need for extensive modifications or replacement.   And some changes, like milling the LH2 tank wall structures, can be achieved with little more effort than altering the current milling machinery data files.


Quote
3. While the 2 Jupiter launch solution for a lunar mission would presumably give more mass than an Aries I & V pair, that mass would be in two smaller dissimilar chunks that would have to be glued together on-orbit. The Aries V (assuming it does not turn-out to be vapor ware) would provide a single heavier & physically larger payload on orbit.

We are in favour of three different principle methods - all of which have different pros and cons and which would ultimately be up to NASA to choose.

1) "LOR-LOR".   This method sends about 30mT of payload to Lunar orbit per flight, with 2 flights each going separately with its own dedicated EDS.   An LSAM massing 30mT would go on flight 1, and would not be 100% complete.   Flight two would bring the Orion CEV and about 10 tons of additional payload to be transferred to the LSAM.   This could either be propellant or cargo, but would require transfer from one module to the other after docking and before descent.   Given that the baseline assumes a three day loiter in 100km LLO to provide global access to the Lunar surface, this allows more than sufficient time for such transfer to occur.   The decision of whether this transfer is propellant (probably LOX for the Descent Stage), or a "cargo pallet" which would be attached to the LSAM DS next to the Ascent Module, would depend on NASA's specific requirements.   But ultimately it results in an LSAM starting Descent to the surface massing approximately 40mT - about 15% more LSAM mass in LLO than Ares-I/V can do.

This architecture is especially suited to "future" profiles where a reusable LSAM is utilized, because the CEV alone can be sent on a single Jupiter-2xx series LV.


2) "EOR-LOR_EDS_Separate".   This configuration assumes one flight of a maximum sized EDS filled with propellant is launched on its own.   A second LV then launches with the CEV and fully fuelled LSAM on board.   The CEV extracts the LSAM and then docks the LSAM to the waiting EDS.   The mission proceeds to the moon as normal, and the result is again, approximately 40mT of LSAM inserted into 100km LLO.   This method requires an additional docking for the LSAM to the EDS, but ESAS clearly indicates that this maneuver is actually a fairly low risk item which was actually part of the original EISA baseline they used.


3) "EOR-LOR_EDS_Depot".   A maximum sized EDS is launched on a Jupiter-232 like above, filled to the brim with extra LOX.   But this time it acts as a "fuel depot".   The second launch, of a Jupiter-231 brings the CEV, LSAM and a much smaller (lighter) EDS which currently only has only sufficient LH2 onboard to make the TLI.   The second flight rendezvous with the "Depot" and the LOX is transferred over.   While LOX transfer is a technological requirement which will have to be developed still, this method results in a *seriously* large 51mT LSAM in Lunar Orbit - about 35% bigger than Ares can do.


As I say, there are pros and cons with each alternative, but at least there is a choice.

And unlike Ares-V, all of the Jupiter's achieve NASA's minimum 1:1000 LOC requirements, so enable 1-launch manned missions to the Moon in the future when we inevitably start deploying reusable LSAM's.   And this is a big advantage - especially if we also eventually begin using Lunar ISRU-derived propellant sources - and those ISRU resources can be extremely beneficial for expansion towards Mars missions.


Quote
The Direct guys might well have addressed these issues somewhere, but I think it would be good for them to add them to presentations like this one; it would make for an even more persuasive presentation (remember that not everyone, particularly political animals are likely to read all posts in multiple threads of a website, but articles like this one ARE a good, tight, readable argument that MIGHT actually get read). In the above 3 points I am NOT attacking the Direct nor the article... I am making the friendly suggestion of a way to improve the presentation to be more persuasive ( a little bondo to fill-in some shallow dents ). Even if Aries has the edge in one or more of these three, by addressing them you still persuade the reader that you are being serious and honest with them. Very well done, and recommended reading.

We are trying to get a lot of this into the AIAA paper.

Hope this long post helps!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2007 07:40 am
Quote
jongoff - 6/8/2007  2:40 PM

WFS,
Quote
What sort of performance would you get if you created a Jupiter-221 using an existing upper stage such as the Centaur? (I suppose it would be a Jupiter-222 if you  used the dual-engine Centaur stage.)

I suspect the Centaur would not be the best possible upper stage (not the optimum delta-V split between the first and second stages) but I imagine it would still give you a vehicle able to launch bigger planetary probes than any of the existing ELVs, even the Atlas V or Delta-IV Heavy.

I was going to run some numbers on a similar idea, but have been a little too busy at work lately.  But some BOTE calculations I did seem to imply you could probably do a spartan 2-man architecture using a Juper-120 with a Centaur or Delta-IVH upper stage on top.  

~Jon

Jon,
Just for S&G's I ran some preliminaries through my software.   We could replicate Apollo fairly easily using just two Jupiter-120 flights and two existing Centaur stages.

It's certainly not fancy, but if NASA's budget were ever seriously gutted for some political reason or other, we could still perform a rudimentary Lunar program once we got the Jupiter-120.

Not a chance of doing a 2-launch architecture with the Ares-I though.   You'd need about four Ares-I/EELV Heavy launches just to replicate Apollo.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2007 08:04 am
Quote
tnphysics - 6/8/2007  9:36 PM

I am not certain about the mass penalties of using reusable SSMEs, because 3 SSMEs are lighter than 2 RS-68s. Any mass penalty, however, would be outweighed by the 65mt increase in injected mass (including stage mass) due to the SSME's higher Isp. The benefit would be even larger if plug-nozzle SSMEs were used.
This would require optimizing the core for the configuration with no upper stage, and, if the decision is made to add an upper stage later on, the core would need to be reoptimized for that configuration. (Otherwise, the core would be too heavy on the version without an upper stage to obtain the full payload benefit.) However, the differences (things like tank skin thicknesses) would be small enough that both types of cores could be manufactured concurrently at MAF using mostly identical tooling.
The SSME version could be called the Jupiter 130"S", S sanding for SSME.
However, adding an upper stage might not be necessary, owing to the large (110mt) payload capability of the J-130S, equal to that of the J-232. A small (60mt) upper stage would be used anyway (for EOI and TLI), but this would be part of the payload, not the LV. Two launches would be used per mission. A LOR-LOR profile could be used (as in the proposal), as could an architecture in which one launch carries the 25mt CEV and 85mt LSAM,the other an 110mt EDS.
Alternatively, a large (S-IVB sized) upper stage would create a Saturn V/Ares V class heavy lift launch vehicle (when above a core stage with 3 SSMEs and with 2 4 segment SRBs)
A custom helicopter could be built to grab the engine pod's parachutes in mid-air. Even if the SSMEs had to be pulled out of the water, reusing them would still be cheaper than building new ones.
To the DIRECT team: By my calculations, about 78mt of propellant would be needed for TLI without using extra CLV payload, and about 87mt if extra CLV payload was used. An IMLEO of 180mt could be achieved if the EDS was not offloaded and extra CLV capacity was used.
LSAM masses, assuming no EDS offload, are 42mt using extra CLV payload capacity, or 34.5mt if extra CLV payload is not used.
It does not appear to me that there would be any mass penalty in reusing the EDS, if it merely aerobrakes to LEO instead of to the surface, and does so in multiple passes.

For lunar architectures there is no choice but to have an Upper/Earth Departure Stage of some sorts.   And if your primary goal is to go to the moon (and LEO is just a useful additional capability, as VSE dictates), you really ought to just develop the LV ready for an Upper Stage right from the start - otherwise you end up duplicating your development programs and just end up doubling the costs & time ultimately developing two different LV's.

A pod structure containing three SSME's suitable to mount to a somewhat standard ET would mass approximately 25mT if disposable.   Adding parachutes, heat-shield and an RCS system to control it's reentry accurately, you're talking about 35-40mT.   That's above the limit of any helicopter on Earth - including the Russian Mil-26 "Halo" (32mT), CH-53E "Super Stallion" (15mT), CH-47 "Chinook" (12mT) or S-64 "Skycrane" (10mT).   And these are the maximum rated masses, which are significantly higher than any capacity to "grab" in mid-air.

There is a cost and a performance advantage to going with a purely in-line design.   The extra flight performance actually pays off all of the additional costs for the changes in about three flights.

And using disposable engines makes a big difference to annual budgets when you start popping a handful of these off per year.   The difference per launch is about $95m in RS-68's favour, and that's nearly half the cost of paying for an extra flight.

It is a good idea, but the total cost for using even the cheaper "disposable" SSME (assuming someone paid for it to be developed) is going to be a *lot* higher than using RS-68.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 08/07/2007 08:13 am
Once again, it makes me wish more than ever the RS-84 program was never cancelled: if it weren't, we wouldn't be having all this discussion, it'd be all academic. I'd bet real money the CLV would be a vehicle similar to the Atlas V Phase 2 -- first stage 2x RS-84, second stage 1x J-2X or 4x RL-10B2... :(
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2007 08:23 am
Quote
mike robel - 6/8/2007  10:00 PM

Excellent article gentlemen.

Insofar as this orbital tug business goes, I must be a little slow so someone needs to explain this to me.  Again.  Yes Jim, I have asked this before.  And forgive me Ross, you and I have gone around this a little off line, but no one has yet explained this to me in a way that appears to make sense to me.

Let us say that the EDS needs its "surplus" propellent capacity from page 11 of the article to cycle a payload between the Earth and the moon and return to LEO using aero braking in conjunctin with some minimum burn and it is now in LEO basically empty.  That's 210,552 pounds of fuel.


The Jupiter 120 does not have sufficient mass to orbit the payload by itself having a max payload of 102,812 pounds, so you definantly need two Jupiter 120 launches or you need to use a 232 to orbit the fuel with its payload capacity of 233, 913 (plus its fuel surplus).   If that is the case, you could possibly have 444465 pounds of fuel.  Enough for two missions in orbit.

However, if you did that, you could have the EDS with its payload positioned to ferry whatever payload you need to the moon.  

Isn't it therefore simpler and more cost effective to just throw the "old" EDS away and orbit the "new" one with its payload and fuel reserve to inject its payload to the moon rather than trying to establish this fuel depot?  And would you not need a seperate launch for the CEV and its crew (assuming a manned mission.)  Where is the economy?

Also, no one has transferred this amount or cryogenic fuel in orbit, and you would need to cool the tanker and provide transfer pumps and connections.  While we have been refueling aircraft for a long time, I suspect the problem is not quite the same.

Is my logic and (elementry) math correct?  What am I missing?


Mike, you are absolutely correct and you aren't missing anything at all.

As long as you are lifting propellant from Earth, there is absolutely no point in reusing an EDS at all.   You just end up lifting another EDS anyway to lift sufficient payload, or you have to launch a whole fleet of EELV class vehicles at enormous cost.   It makes far more sense to just use a new EDS each time and forget about the "used" ones.


The *only* place where an EDS could possibly find a re-use would be after a fully established Lunar base exists and is producing seriously plentiful quantities of high-grade LOX (and probably also LH2 too) from ISRU supplies.

Lifting that from the Lunar gravity well can offer serious performance benefits compared to lifting it from Earth.   1/6th gravity and no atmosphere mean you can lift an awful lot more mass on any given rocket than you can from Earth using the same hardware.

A model does exist where the moon can become your resupply station in the future.   But it will not be possible until we have a *seriously* large infrastructure already assembled on the moon capable of mining literally millions of tons of regolith every year, and processing all that material into highly refined chemical mixtures, along with also requiring a large manned base providing an extensive maintenance facility for preparing and processing reuable cargo launch vehicles going to and from the Lunar surface to Low Lunar Orbit (or better still Lagrange-2 to maximize expansion opportunities to the rest of the solar system).   Only once you have those sorts of facilities on the moon can you actually have the ability to lift 100 tons or more of LOX/LH2 from the Lunar surface to power any serious "Earth-Moon" taxi service.

Its technically possible, but it's going to take a very, very long time to develop all the things we need to create the capability.   I personally can't imagine such an extensive infrastructure existing on the moon much before 2050 at the *absolute* earliest.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2007 08:29 am
Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 7/8/2007  1:34 AM

Excellent article..does anyone believe that Griffen has not or will not read this article especailly after what AWT said about Ares?

QUESTIONS:

1.  Have you planned the next after the presentation and likly NASA reaction?

Given that the Ares-I/V architecture is short 13mT of closing to its performance targets currently, I think Griffin and Co would be "throwing stones in glass houses" if they try the same sort of anti-DIRECT campaign they tried after DIRECT v1 was released.

DIRECT has plenty of margin to spare and easily closes to the performance targets which Ares is currently more than 10% below.


Quote
2.  Will you update the video such as to include a moon landing--eg using 2 232's linking up, TLI, etc?  Going to ISS is good for the present video--(People and congress can relate), but remember we are looking towards 2016+.

Antonio ("simcosmos" on here) has been hard at work preparing the 3D artwork for the AIAA paper which will be submitted later this week.   When he is done with that I expect him to needa bit of a vacation (!), and then hopefully he will have a go at updating the Orbiter DIRECT simulations to reflect the new configurations.   At that point anyone with a PC will be able to download their own DIRECT simulations and play with them.

I would hope we could get quite a few videos at that point!   ISS Crew Rotation, ISS "new" hardware assembly (Russian Power platform anyone?), LEO Hubble Servicing Missions, Lunar missions, with Orbiter plugins you can name your own flavour of mission! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2007 08:36 am
Quote
MATTBLAK - 7/8/2007  4:13 AM

Once again, it makes me wish more than ever the RS-84 program was never cancelled: if it weren't, we wouldn't be having all this discussion, it'd be all academic. I'd bet real money the CLV would be a vehicle similar to the Atlas V Phase 2 -- first stage 2x RS-84, second stage 1x J-2X or 4x RL-10B2... :(

Matt,
I think the RS-84 would have certainly opened up many more opportunities for the VSE, but I'm not sure Atlas Phase 2 would have featured in them.   RS-84 would be much better suited to Phase 3B.   I bet that if the Shuttle SRB's had been used on that it would have ticked all of the political boxes, and would offer significantly higher performance than Ares will, and because it would have been a totally US engine there would be no issues there and would also have scored higher for safety too.

But that never was and never will be, because we simply don't have RS-84 and probably never will.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 08/07/2007 08:47 am
Yeah, I know. But still... :(
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 08/07/2007 12:32 pm
Quote
Jim - 6/8/2007  9:51 PM

Quote
tnphysics - 6/8/2007  9:36 PM

1.  The benefit would be even larger if plug-nozzle SSMEs were used.
2.  A custom helicopter could be built.

3. Even if the SSMEs had to be pulled out of the water, reusing them would still be cheaper than building new ones.

4.  It does not appear to me that there would be any mass penalty in reusing the EDS, if it merely aerobrakes to LEO instead of to the surface, and does so in multiple passes.

1.  plug-nozzle SSMEs do not exist.  

2.  custom helicopter?  Why not thunderbird 4 since we are talking fantasies

3.  Water recovery does not mean reusable

The whole point of Direct is to use existing systems and processes

4.  There is a huge mass penalty in reusing the EDS.  It goes into solar orbit after TLI.  Also reusing means materials that have to last into months in space, new power systems, new guidance systems, etc

Why couldn't the engine pod perform a land landing?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 08/07/2007 01:02 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 7/8/2007  1:32 PM

Why couldn't the engine pod perform a land landing?

Because it would require a seperate landing system, complete with airbags, parachutes, maybe even small engines, adding weight, complexity and cost. Most importantly, there's only so much space under the fuel tank.

Re-useablility does not equal lower cost. If it costs less to mass-produce a part than it does to recondition and repair a part, then that's the route you take.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2007 01:22 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 7/8/2007  8:32 AM


Why couldn't the engine pod perform a land landing?

Now you want to keep it in orbit and add more electrical power, another guidance system (the main one is in the upperstage), deorbit system, etc.   It is not worth the complexity
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 08/07/2007 01:38 pm
Agreed. Stick with RS-68s unless you need the SSME's performance, which you don't.
Actually, the RD-0120 would be the best option if it where politically feasible, which it isn't.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CEV Now on 08/07/2007 02:12 pm
When is the AIAA paper coming out?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 08/07/2007 05:01 pm
Just a dumb, ignorant observation: It seems to me that the U.S. of A. must have a significant number of rocket engine design engineers on somebody's payroll somewhere, sitting around doing nothing, and getting paid for it.  It seems like we could have these same folks, with the same pay, sitting around designing RS-84's, plug-nozzle SSME's, etc., etc., etc.

But I guess that's not how the "system" works.  :(

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2007 05:03 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 7/8/2007  1:01 PM

Just a dumb, ignorant observation: It seems to me that the U.S. of A. must have a significant number of rocket engine design engineers on somebody's payroll somewhere, sitting around doing nothing, and getting paid for it.  It seems like we could have these same folks, with the same pay, sitting around designing RS-84's, plug-nozzle SSME's, etc., etc., etc.

But I guess that's not how the "system" works.  :(


They aren't sitting around, they have jobs doing other necessary things
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2007 09:13 pm
Quote
CEV Now - 7/8/2007  10:12 AM

When is the AIAA paper coming out?

We are preparing a first draft to submit to AIAA by Friday of this week.

At that point we will likely release it to a limited group of people for peer review & critique.   Not yet sure exactly how we will do that, but at some point we will place it on the L2 section here to get feedback from a wider audience.

That will result in a list of changes, and when those are done we will submit it to AIAA as complete.   At that point we will probably put the final cut on L2, until AIAA officially publishes it and at that point we will move it to this part of the forum for all to see.

Something like that anyway...

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 08/08/2007 01:54 am
It was an excellent article but I have to say that it was unfortunate that the article chose to spend a great deal of time disparaging the Ares program. Since the Ares I is still in design the discussion of it’s possible shortfalls are meaningless, counter productive, and reduce the validity of the presentation. It is even more meaningless to discuss possible shortfalls of the Ares V since it hasn’t even reached the design phase.

It was unfortunate that these errors made in the DIRECT I proposal found their way into this article and I hope that they are avoided in the AIAA paper. They are unprofessional and leave the proposal vulnerable to off topic criticism.

Where the proposal can make comparisons that do not depend on rumor, gossip, and unpublished data it should, otherwise it is better to let the Direct proposal stand on it’s own. Where ever possible comparisons should be made between Direct 2 and ESAS specifications or between Direct 2 and Constellation programs, never between specific launch vehicles.

 The single most important advantage of the Direct program versus the Constellation program is the overall program cost, yet this was under emphasized in the Direct 2 proposal and in this article. The overall cost is far more important than how soon it may be ready compared to Constellation. For more important than the possibility Direct may be safer than Constellation. Far more important than the lifting advantages Direct may have over Constellation. It is even far more important than the likelihood that more people would retain their positions with Direct versus Constellation. Cost is Direct’s trump card, people have argued for hundreds of pages about every aspect of Direct except the cost, a few quibbles about a billion here or there but they really can’t disagree that Direct is likely to cost substantially less than Constellation.

Cost is something everyone can understand, it is self evident that it is more costly to develop two different launch vehicles, it is self evident that something that is based more closely on existing equipment is less costly than something that requires retooling, it is self evident that using existing facilities and handling equipment is cheaper than converting two separate facilities and acquiring separate handling equipment. Playing the cost trump card can lead Direct, NASA, and the nation to a sustainable space exploration program and it is self evident Constellation cannot.

It does not matter how good your information about the Ares vehicles is. It does not matter how bad Ares I-X, Ares I, Ares V may be. What matters is that Direct is that good. Leave the Ares bashing to the web sites, it looks unprofessional in a serious proposal and leaves the proposal vulnerable if even one of the things you say about Ares is wrong.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JonSBerndt on 08/08/2007 02:34 am
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 7/8/2007  8:54 PM
It was an excellent article but I have to say that it was unfortunate that the article chose to spend a great deal of time disparaging the Ares program. Since the Ares I is still in design the discussion of it’s possible shortfalls are meaningless, counter productive, and reduce the validity of the presentation. It is even more meaningless to discuss possible shortfalls of the Ares V since it hasn’t even reached the design phase.

I am quite surprised by your "creative interpretation" of the article.  I spent quite a bit of time reviewing the drafts, as did the authors. The drafts were reviewed by a whole slew of people from various backgrounds - all very professional. The article intentionally focuses on facts and is delivered in as dispassionate a manner as possible. If you have found specific instances of "gossip" or "rumor", I'm sure the authors would be more than willing to answer those. If you care to discuss specific instances of "Ares-bashing", I'm sure that could be addressed, too. Throwing stones such as you are doing, however, without any specificity, appears as hurt feelings or sour grapes - which is probably not how you meant to come across.

It is important to have a frank discussion based on facts and not try to sugar coat things. Comparisons between proposed vehicles are most definitely part of the process, as they were in the evaluations performed during the ESAS, itself. You seem to have missed some of the more important points in the article.

JB

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 08/08/2007 02:39 am
Quote
kraisee - 7/8/2007  2:40 AM

Quote
jongoff - 6/8/2007  2:40 PM

WFS,
Quote
What sort of performance would you get if you created a Jupiter-221 using an existing upper stage such as the Centaur? (I suppose it would be a Jupiter-222 if you  used the dual-engine Centaur stage.)

I suspect the Centaur would not be the best possible upper stage (not the optimum delta-V split between the first and second stages) but I imagine it would still give you a vehicle able to launch bigger planetary probes than any of the existing ELVs, even the Atlas V or Delta-IV Heavy.

I was going to run some numbers on a similar idea, but have been a little too busy at work lately.  But some BOTE calculations I did seem to imply you could probably do a spartan 2-man architecture using a Juper-120 with a Centaur or Delta-IVH upper stage on top.  

~Jon

Jon,
Just for S&G's I ran some preliminaries through my software.   We could replicate Apollo fairly easily using just two Jupiter-120 flights and two existing Centaur stages.

It's certainly not fancy, but if NASA's budget were ever seriously gutted for some political reason or other, we could still perform a rudimentary Lunar program once we got the Jupiter-120.

Not a chance of doing a 2-launch architecture with the Ares-I though.   You'd need about four Ares-I/EELV Heavy launches just to replicate Apollo.

Ross.

Ross, are these simplified moon missions (2 x J-120+Centaur) possible using the Orion capsule or do you have to use a smaller capsule? What would also be the mass of the "simplified" LSAM?

PaulL
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/08/2007 03:19 am
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 7/8/2007  9:54 PM

It was an excellent article but I have to say that it was unfortunate that the article chose to spend a great deal of time disparaging the Ares program ... Leave the Ares bashing to the web sites
It was not my intent to disparage the Ares program at all, in any way. Any such perception does not reflect my motives or intent. What I did try to do was to help the reader understand the mindset of the team members, not to "document" any shortcomings of the program. Part of the focus requested was to explain to the readership why we felt the way we did and why we did the things that we did. When the reasoning departed from the documented into the speculative, I specifically said so, so as to not mislead anyone. I tried very hard to be completely fair and evenhanded in the attempt to explain what the Jupiter program is, why it was created, and why we believed it served the VSE better than Ares, all without introducing any kind of disparaging comments or bashing what-so-ever. I am personally opposed, very very much, to any bashing of any kind. It is undignified and totally counterproductive, and the men and women who are actually working on the Ares program have a right to expect better treatment than that. I thought I had done a reasonably decent job in that respect. To the extent that I failed you, I apologize.

As to your excellent observations regarding the financial advantages of Jupiter over Ares, we couldn't agree more. However please bare in mind that this was to be a magazine article rather than an actual proposal, which would properly contain such information. The breadth and depth of this data however was simply too large to include in what was already a very large article. Not including it was a decision I did not make lightly, but it was simply too much data for the article. It had to be, after all, very "readable". But that data will be found, and quite extensively, in the AIAA paper. Thank you for your observations in that regard.

For the record:
We do *not* believe that the Ares is a bad rocket. It is our opinion however, for several reasons, some of which are presented in the article, that in its current configuration it is not well suited to the task assigned to it, both technically and financially.
We *do* believe that we have presented a better way to ensure the survival of the VSE than what the Ares program offers. Please do not take that to mean that we do not believe the Ares program will work. To the contrary, we think it certainly can work. We simply believe that the Jupiter program would be a much better fit for the VSE; politically, technically, operationally and financially.

Using the Jupiter launch vehicle family, we believe we can have a return to flight by 2012, enable manned lunar missions by 2017 and *possibly* be able to take advantage of the window in 2030/2037 to mount a manned Mars mission. We believe we can provide this for less cost than the Ares program while leveraging the existing infrastructure rather than replacing it. Using the Jupiter, we believe we can once again offer the solar and planetary science teams the ability to launch Saturn-V class probes, satellites, telescopes, landers and sample return missions.

I attempted to convey what we perceived as advantages of the Jupiter family while remaining respectful of the Ares and the fine men and women working on it.
Best regards,
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/08/2007 03:31 am
Quote
clongton - 7/8/2007  9:19 PM
Using the Jupiter launch vehicle family, we believe we can have a return to flight by 2012,...

At least to me, this is the most important point.  Is it possible that Administrator Griffin is either unaware of this claim, or thinks it's just wrong for some reason?

I see no reason at all to claim that developing two new engines (5-seg SRB, J2 varient) could possibly be faster than man-rating an existing engine, and that developing a new upper stage could possibly be faster than modifying an existing stage.  How could anyone come to the conclusion that the current path is the most expedient path to placing Orion on a trajectory to ISS, and placing the program on the path to go beyond LEO?

This just makes no sense!!!
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula on 08/08/2007 04:05 am
I thought the article was very good too, and notable for the lack of 'Ares bashing'. However it would be extremely difficult to present a better system without making the other look bad by comparison. If I had a vested interest in ESAS, I would feel rather uncomfortable reading it.

For an technical audience the article speaks for itself, as does the proposal. My only criticisms are:

1) The lack of emphasis on cost.

2) The over emphasis on Ares V may never happen, so we better do this now. Sounds a little like a conpiracy theory.

3) The lack of an 'executive summary', at least in point form, that a technical reader can take to a manager or political master, or even reporter, and say, "Here's a great idea". e.g.

  30% less life cycle cost
  50% less development cost
  15% safer
  90% more payload to LEO - eliminates Orion weight issues
  10% more payload to the moon
  LEO gap reduced from 5 years to 2
  Moon return 2 years earlier
  Best preservation of Shuttle infrastructure and skilled workforce
  Makes Hubble service 5 possible.
  Wide range of future upgrade options
 
(I haven't worked out the actual figures)

Hit'em with that first and last. Use the rest to justify your position.
You've got to make it so obviously better that every one is asking, "Why the heck isn't NASA doing this?".

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/08/2007 04:12 am
Quote
kkattula - 7/8/2007  12:05 AM

I thought the article was very good too, and notable for the lack of 'Ares bashing'. However it would be extremely difficult to present a better system without making the other look bad by comparison. If I had a vested interest in ESAS, I would feel rather uncomfortable reading it.

For an technical audience the article speaks for itself, as does the proposal. My only criticisms are:

1) The lack of emphasis on cost.

2) The over emphasis on Ares V may never happen, so we better do this now. Sounds a little like a conspiracy theory.

3) The lack of an 'executive summary', at least in point form, that a technical reader can take to a manager or political master, or even reporter, and say, "Here's a great idea". e.g.

  30% less life cycle cost
  50% less development cost
  15% safer
  90% more payload to LEO - eliminates Orion weight issues
  10% more payload to the moon
  LEO gap reduced from 5 years to 2
  Moon return 2 years earlier
  Best preservation of Shuttle infrastructure and skilled workforce
  Makes Hubble service 5 possible.
  Wide range of future upgrade options
 
(I haven't worked out the actual figures)

Hit'em with that first and last. Use the rest to justify your position.
You've got to make it so obviously better that every one is asking, "Why the heck isn't NASA doing this?".

All excellent points Krishna. However, as I indicated in my reply to Norm above, this was not a proposal, but a magazine article, and as such, the need was more for readability. For the additional data you are speaking of, we refer the reader to the website, where the type of information you speak of is available. In this way, we cover all the bases. Those that just want to read about it and then go back to work are free to do so without being bogged down with a lot of technical data. For those who actually want the technical data, we make it available on the website in the actual proposal.

As for the references to the belief that the Ares-V will never be built, that is the main pusher behind the DIRECT proposal. It is not a conspiracy, simply our belief, for which I presented the foundation. If the Ares-V doesn't happen, then the Ares-I will have been wasted, and we will have to wait for our children or grandchildren to go back to the Moon. It's not that we think the Ares-I is a bad rocket - it isn’t. It's that the Ares-I is one side of a 2-sided coin and the Ares-I NEEDS the Ares-V. Because we believe that the political and financial climate is going to prevent the Ares-V from being built, we searched for another way to ensure the survival of the VSE. The Jupiter family was the result.

Thank you for your observations
Regards
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 08/08/2007 04:22 am
Jon,

Page 5 The entire “Background” section from the fourth paragraph thru the second paragraph on Page 7 can be construed to be a disparagement of NASA’s current plans.

Page 8 Jupiter Launch Vehicle section ISS, LEO, and Cargo-only Mission subsection.
Paragraph 1 first sentence “The Ares-I lift capacity of approximately 22mT to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) unnecessarily duplicates the performance of the Delta-IV Heavy and the Atlas-V uncrewed launchers.” Is unnecessary and adversarial and the remaining paragraphs in this subsection seem to focus more on the Ares than on Direct.

Page 9 Jupiter Launch Vehicle section Schedule subsection
First Paragraph second sentence “The current budget constraints interacting with new technologies combined with lower than expected performance margins on the Ares-I will likely continue to push out the first crewed Ares-I/Orion flight.”

Third Paragraph second sentence “Due in part to the evertightening performance specifications of the Ares-I, combined with heavier than anticipated spacecraft elements, Orion is under increasingly stringent mass guidelines."
 
In the final section, Conclusions, Ares is mentioned twenty times, Direct once, and Jupiter three times. Where would you say the emphasis is?

For an article about Direct it talks a lot about Ares.

Please understand me, I am a strong supporter of Direct and have been for a long time. It is clearly the most politically viable option that can provide sustainable exploration. It should be possible to present the Direct Program without the need to mention Ares at all.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula on 08/08/2007 05:02 am
Thanks Chuck,

I reallize just getting the article and the cover of the magazine is a big step and may generate a lot of interest. Well done.

I've gone over the proposal and website again, and I still think it lacks that 'executive summary'. Sadly, in this age of sound bites and slogans, a lot of influential people are too busy to read even a 10 page proposal unless you grab their attention.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 08/08/2007 05:19 am
Chuck,

I said that it was an excellent article and I did mean that. It is well written and there are no points that you made that I disagreed with. I am sure that you believe, as I do, that all of the things you said about Ares are true.

My comments were aimed more towards the upcoming AIAA presentation.

I have said since the beginning that Direct needs to focus on Direct not on Ares. The Direct Program has sufficient positive points that there is no reason to mention Ares I or Ares V. If fact Direct looks its best when compared to Constellation, Program to Program.

As I was with the initial Direct Proposal, I am concerned that the Direct team puts their best foot forward and presents the proposal in the most professional manner possible. It is my belief that denigrating Ares is counter productive and that Direct has sufficient merits to stand by itself without comparison of LV to LV.

Accentuate the Positive, Eliminate the Negative and knock ‘em dead.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JonSBerndt on 08/08/2007 10:55 am
Quote
kkattula - 7/8/2007  11:05 PM

I thought the article was very good too, and notable for the lack of 'Ares bashing'. However it would be extremely difficult to present a better system without making the other look bad by comparison. If I had a vested interest in ESAS, I would feel rather uncomfortable reading it.

For an technical audience the article speaks for itself, as does the proposal. My only criticisms are:

1) The lack of emphasis on cost.

2) The over emphasis on Ares V may never happen, so we better do this now. Sounds a little like a conpiracy theory.

3) The lack of an 'executive summary', at least in point form, that a technical reader can take to a manager or political master, or even reporter, and say, "Here's a great idea". e.g.

  30% less life cycle cost
  50% less development cost
  15% safer
  90% more payload to LEO - eliminates Orion weight issues
  10% more payload to the moon
  LEO gap reduced from 5 years to 2
  Moon return 2 years earlier
  Best preservation of Shuttle infrastructure and skilled workforce
  Makes Hubble service 5 possible.
  Wide range of future upgrade options
 
(I haven't worked out the actual figures)

Hit'em with that first and last. Use the rest to justify your position.
You've got to make it so obviously better that every one is asking, "Why the heck isn't NASA doing this?".


You've got to consider the audience in crafting the article. For an AIAA conference article, the above items you mention might be appropriate, as they would be for a formal proposal. For Horizons, our audience is very wide, and Chuck's article was very well crafted for that audience. The style for Horizons does not call for an executive summary. Take a look at Aerospace America, AvWeek, or Air & Space for comparison.

Jon
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JonSBerndt on 08/08/2007 11:39 am
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 7/8/2007  11:22 PM

Jon,

Page 5 The entire “Background” section from the fourth paragraph thru the second paragraph on Page 7 can be construed to be a disparagement of NASA’s current plans.

Page 8 Jupiter Launch Vehicle section ISS, LEO, and Cargo-only Mission subsection.
Paragraph 1 first sentence “The Ares-I lift capacity of approximately 22mT to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) unnecessarily duplicates the performance of the Delta-IV Heavy and the Atlas-V uncrewed launchers.” Is unnecessary and adversarial and the remaining paragraphs in this subsection seem to focus more on the Ares than on Direct.

Page 9 Jupiter Launch Vehicle section Schedule subsection
First Paragraph second sentence “The current budget constraints interacting with new technologies combined with lower than expected performance margins on the Ares-I will likely continue to push out the first crewed Ares-I/Orion flight.”

Third Paragraph second sentence “Due in part to the evertightening performance specifications of the Ares-I, combined with heavier than anticipated spacecraft elements, Orion is under increasingly stringent mass guidelines."
 
In the final section, Conclusions, Ares is mentioned twenty times, Direct once, and Jupiter three times. Where would you say the emphasis is?

For an article about Direct it talks a lot about Ares.

Please understand me, I am a strong supporter of Direct and have been for a long time. It is clearly the most politically viable option that can provide sustainable exploration. It should be possible to present the Direct Program without the need to mention Ares at all.

Your use of the word "disparagement" is inappropriate. The Background section you mention dispassionately lays out the changes that Ares has gone through (as NASA has developed it), properly crediting both Administrator Griffin and the original ESAS team as having crafted a good plan. As often naturally happens in the development process, a design can morph for a number of reasons. The facts were plainly laid out. I absolutely would not have let through an article that I felt was disparaging to those who have worked hard trying to implement the task they have been given - and neither would the local people I had review the article (which included some NASA people). Also, the Ares discussion needed to be included to give a point of reference for those who are not so familiar with the program. Ares could not be kept out of the discussion because it's not enough to simply convey one more way to implement the VSE. The changes that happened to Ares after the ESAS were part of what motivated the DIRECT team. I'd be tempted to write, "If you can't stand the heat ...", but there really isn't any "heat" in the article. :) Ares 1 was not "denigrated" in the least. Additionally, the article included statements like:

"While the Ares-I/V concept may have been a good idea when first presented, many things have conspired together to cause reasonable people to question its continued viability. There is no question that if anyone is capable of bringing the Ares-I online, it will be the team of design engineers employed by or for NASA and its Field Centers."

The topic was handled sensitively, but without sugar-coating the position of the DIRECT team. It was discussed factually. The facts speak for themselves.

I also simply don't agree with your other criticisms. For the type of publication Horizons is, and for the wide audience that reads it, Chuck's article covered the most important items that needed to be addressed. The article is twice as long as the limit I normally place on articles, but after reading it I felt that the entire article needed to be kept intact.

Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula on 08/08/2007 01:06 pm
Jon,

It was definitely an article I enjoyed reading, and seems appropriate for the audience you describe. My comments are more relevant to future presentations. I guess it depends on the DIRECT team strategy.  Thank you for publishing the article.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2007 07:44 pm
I appreciate the feedback and suggestions from everyone here so far regarding the article.   I actually think the article did exactly what we wanted.   It presented DIRECT in the context of replacing Ares, and showed why it would be a good idea.   That did call for some comment regarding Ares and some of its problems, in the context of how DIRECT can solve them.   And that's exactly what I think Chuck achieved.

Regarding the AIAA paper, I do agree that the proposal should mostly stand on its own.   But even there it will still be necessary to place DIRECT in context as a replacement to Ares, and one of the critical issues is to provide justification for any change at all.   While the problems that plague Ares are well known to some, NASA have done an excellent job of keeping them under wraps from all but the most dedicated of observers (many of whom are on NSF here).   This means that we are proposing something to an audience who are somewhat unaware that any change needs to be considered.   While advantages are obvious, we have found a HUGE part of the workforce who have deeply ingrained psyche of: "we've been doing this for two years now, why change, even if it is better?".   In this context, the truth about such things like Ares-I/V being completely unable to close Lunar performance targets is a major factor.   Because at that point the question reverses itself to become: "if what we've been doing for the last two years isn't actually going to work, why don't we change now instead of putting off the inevitable any longer?".

It is a very delicate job for the AIAA presentation, and must be handled very carefully and respectfully in such a forum.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 08/08/2007 08:27 pm
Quote
kraisee - 8/8/2007  2:44 PM
snip
Because at that point the question reverses itself to become: "if what we've been doing for the last two years isn't actually going to work, why don't we change now instead of putting off the inevitable any longer?".

It is a very delicate job for the AIAA presentation, and must be handled very carefully and respectfully in such a forum.

Ross.

So you are not going to open with the line, "How can y'all at NASA be so stupid?" :)

Danny Deger

P.S.  I think the paper was good.  Good luck in the future.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2007 08:53 pm
Quote
Danny Dot - 8/8/2007  4:27 PM

So you are not going to open with the line, "How can y'all at NASA be so stupid?" :)

Ahhh, no.

I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for the vast majority of people working very hard to make Ares work.   My problems rest with upper management who refuse to consider alternatives and appear to be focussed on sacrificing anything & everything just to get Ares-I.

The guys actually doing the work on Ares-I though, managing the development teams, performing analysis after analysis, studying materials and design techniques, creating new approaches and suqeezing every last drop of performance from the system they have been given to work on have *all* performed minor miracles to get as much out of the system as they have.   They have found numerous ways to reduce weight, increase performance and lower costs to try to make this work.   But the truth is that the fundamental concept itself has serious flaws which you just can't always work around, and that just isn't something they have any control over.

I would love to see the vast amounts of energy, skill, dedication, resources and effort currently being focussed upon Ares-I, turned to something which works much better as an initial concept.   The results would likely be quite spectacular.

With all of the margins and reserves we have included on Jupiter's design, I can only dream what these guys could do with this instead.   It wouldn't surprise me one bit if their knowledge of how to reduce weight and squeeze maximum performance from Stick weren't to translate into 5 or 10 extra tons of lift performance, probably more, every flight if all of those same techniques were applied to Jupiter.

While I'm not going to bank on it, I'm going to keep the super-conservative reserves for all of our proposals, I can only imagine what we could do with a NET 58mT Jupiter-120 capacity, or a Jupiter-232 offering a NET capacity over 110mT.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MrTim on 08/08/2007 09:18 pm
Quote
kraisee - 7/8/2007  12:35 AM
We are trying to get a lot of this into the AIAA paper.
Hope this long post helps!
Ross.

Ross,
Thanks for your very good and long answers to the 3 comments I made about the article. I enjoyed the detail in your thoughtful reply, but I was really trying to indicate to you that these were issues I felt readers of the report would feel were overlooked or not addressed. It has been my experience that when people provide alternative plans to some engineering task with information missing it either means they have not fully thought things through, or they DID think things through, found something they could not address, and therefore left it out in the hopes it would not be noticed. I AM NOT SAYING YOU GUYS DID ANY OF THAT, just that the reader might suspect it because the issues are not addressed, so I was encouraging you to address them. No need to take any of your time to answer the questions for ME unless you want to, but consider that you might want to answer them in future versions of the report. Please understand that I am NOT trying to shoot any holes in your stuff... I am offering constructive criticism which I hope may help you guys improve your presentation ( as always, your mileage may vary, and feel free to completely disregard )
 :)
Now, with that in mind, I have just a pair of further comments to squeeze-in.

1. (would have been #4 in my original comments, but I forgot to type it at the time) One of the arguments you are making is that you are re-using more STS hardware than Ares will, but by shifting payload to the top of the ET, unloading the stresses from the orbiter attach points, re-plumbing the LOX & LH2 to the bottom and adding a bottom engine assembly, you really are building a new 1st stage that will require testing. Might be good to acknowledge this even in a single sentence along the lines of (BUT obviously NOT this wording) "... although as a new stage it will require testing similar to any new Ares 1st stage, it will re-use the mfg capability & tooling of ..." this would let the reader know that you accept and acknowledge it and are not papering it over.

2. My third point from the previous comments was in many ways answered by your response, but PART of what I was getting at was that you do not address well the concept that you will not be able to lift something physically as large or as massive as Ares V would...which would mean that certain things like a big lander or big telescope would be a bit size-constrained relative to Ares V. i.e. it is NOT that Jupiter cannot get the same mass to orbit (or the moon) in 2 launches as Ares plans to in 2 launches,  but that a lander of the same basic size and mass might have to go in two parts. In the long-run this COULD be a good thing (Lander upperstage might ride with Orion and BIG lander lower stage ride in 2nd Jupiter) but the point is that the reader of the article will not need much more time than I did to think of it and then he will be thinking: "Looks good, but Mike Griffin's lunar lander will never fit on that thing! ... circular file!"

Like I said before, the article is already excellent and persuasive, I'd just like to see you make it better. I may not yet be onboard with Direct, BUT even if we all end-up with Ares, it will be a better Ares if it had to compete with an excellent Jupiter. Keep-up the good work.
 :)
Oh, and sorry if I missed it, but is there something special about the end of the week that has you guys scrambling about on this report?


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 08/08/2007 09:22 pm
I agree totally with Ross.  For a differant audiance you would style the paper differantly.  

A couple of points---

1.  You might want to presnt the paper to marketing/speaker gura and see how they would articulate the great points of Direct and tell them about your audiance for the AIAA paper and for politicans.

2.  A lot of people have worked on large projects.  When you are working on project and you can see delays, deliverables changing, it is time to re-evaluate the whole project and the outcomes that you want to achieve.  If you want to continue down the same path, then years later and billions later you might relize the mistake that you made early on.  People may have been working on Ares of two years, but it usually saves time and money if you look at you mistakes and correct them rather letting more time go by.  There are lots of failed projects in the public and private sector that cost millions because people were not willing to admit they made a mistake and look at alternatives.  I would rather have a little pain now, or pain for the next 20 years waiting for the next US space vicheal.  Most people agree that the shuttle made to many compromise to fly.  We have been stuck with the shuttle for the last 20+ years.  Do you want to be stuck with Ares I for the next 20 years?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 08/08/2007 09:41 pm
I read the article and thought it was a well laid out overview of the Direct proposal.  Nice job to Chuck and the Direct Team.  I also suspect that your paper at the AIAA Conference will provide a more in depth discussion that would be on a par with other technical presentations at the conference.  I think you have a very strong suit in in laying out the cost advantages of using much of the current STS processing infrastructure, especially given a lower flight rate than STS, since the fixed costs will be spread out over a smaller number of flights for several years.  I hope that, after it is presented, the AIAA paper will be available for us to read at NSF.

BTW- I was wondering if there has been feedback from professional associates regarding the Origins article, such as water cooler or hallway talk, either positive or negative, and whether this thread is a good venue, or should another be started?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2007 11:35 pm
Quote
MrTim - 8/8/2007  5:18 PM

1. (would have been #4 in my original comments, but I forgot to type it at the time) One of the arguments you are making is that you are re-using more STS hardware than Ares will, but by shifting payload to the top of the ET, unloading the stresses from the orbiter attach points, re-plumbing the LOX & LH2 to the bottom and adding a bottom engine assembly, you really are building a new 1st stage that will require testing. Might be good to acknowledge this even in a single sentence along the lines of (BUT obviously NOT this wording) "... although as a new stage it will require testing similar to any new Ares 1st stage, it will re-use the mfg capability & tooling of ..." this would let the reader know that you accept and acknowledge it and are not papering it over.

MrTim,
   Thanks for your comments, and rest assured that this bit - writing here in a discussion forum - is fun for me!   I use this to get a wider range of opinions, knowledge and experience on the subject, to learn about new things, and to answer questions from people who are curious.   That's fun to me.

Regarding adding that sort of acknowledgment in the Horizons article, it was probably my bad.   I made an assumption (yes, definitely my bad) that a full and rigorous testing and certification process was just to be expected - "business as usual".   I hadn't actually considered that some in the audience might not take it for granted - and I probably should have thought of that.   Such an addition in the article might well have been beneficial for many in the audience which I had not considered before.   Thanks for the suggestion, I will try to keep that aspect in mind in the future.

It is sometimes hard to get your head out of the number-crunching, technical research and proposal write-ups and take that sort of step back to see things like this.   Another pair of eyes on it, identifying this sort of thing, is going to probably result in some improvements to areas of our proposal including some even well beyond this isolated case.


Quote
2. My third point from the previous comments was in many ways answered by your response, but PART of what I was getting at was that you do not address well the concept that you will not be able to lift something physically as large or as massive as Ares V would...which would mean that certain things like a big lander or big telescope would be a bit size-constrained relative to Ares V. i.e. it is NOT that Jupiter cannot get the same mass to orbit (or the moon) in 2 launches as Ares plans to in 2 launches,  but that a lander of the same basic size and mass might have to go in two parts. In the long-run this COULD be a good thing (Lander upperstage might ride with Orion and BIG lander lower stage ride in 2nd Jupiter) but the point is that the reader of the article will not need much more time than I did to think of it and then he will be thinking: "Looks good, but Mike Griffin's lunar lander will never fit on that thing! ... circular file!"

Yes, that is a perception that has appeared on the discussion before and is a difficult one to handle.   There are ways and means to get around that and to actually increase capacity a lot higher than Ares still using just two launches - but it's quite a technical description which wasn't quite appropriate to that "introduction" article.

While the Jupiter's don't quite have the raw single-launch capacity of Ares-V, there are a lot of other factors which make them better.   First is the cost.   By deleting about $16 billion worth of Ares-V development costs from the manifest, this offers a lot of spare cash, which would easily pay for many more flights of Jupiter and ultimately equates to an awful lot more payload per $.   Secondly, while Ares-V can lift more its use for 1-launch Cargo flights is not a primary requirement.   Far ahead of that requirement is the combined payload capability of Ares-I and Ares-V together for manned missions.   So while Jupiter-232 can't send quite such a large cargo lander, two Jupiter-232's can send an awful lot more manned mission payload to the moon (35% more landed mass on the moon) than Ares.

The problem is that many of these things are harder to grok that the simple "but its not as big" initial view.   We are attempting to address them as best we can.


Quote
Like I said before, the article is already excellent and persuasive, I'd just like to see you make it better. I may not yet be onboard with Direct, BUT even if we all end-up with Ares, it will be a better Ares if it had to compete with an excellent Jupiter. Keep-up the good work.
 :) ]/QUOTE]

I greatly appreciate you taking the time to share your perception of the concept.   This sort of feedback can *only* helps us to 'center' the key arguments in our proposal and to ensure that we address issues before they become issues.


Quote
Oh, and sorry if I missed it, but is there something special about the end of the week that has you guys scrambling about on this report?

Just the AIAA schedule requires us to get the initial draft in to them on Friday.

We have more time to polish it off, but Friday is a crunch for us.


Thanks again for the constructive feedback.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2007 11:49 pm
Quote
brihath - 8/8/2007  5:41 PM

I read the article and thought it was a well laid out overview of the Direct proposal.  Nice job to Chuck and the Direct Team.  I also suspect that your paper at the AIAA Conference will provide a more in depth discussion that would be on a par with other technical presentations at the conference.  I think you have a very strong suit in in laying out the cost advantages of using much of the current STS processing infrastructure, especially given a lower flight rate than STS, since the fixed costs will be spread out over a smaller number of flights for several years.  I hope that, after it is presented, the AIAA paper will be available for us to read at NSF.

I've only got a little time to answer this so forgive my brevity.

The AIAA paper will have a lot more details.

We are actually expecting a slightly higher flight rate than STS.   If we have two 1-launch crew rotations to ISS, two full 2-launch Lunar missions and two 1-flight Lunar cargo missions we are actually expecting a slightly higher flight rate than Shuttle to be quite achievable before the end of 2020.

Certainly we save a lot of money compared to Shuttle doing that though.


Quote
BTW- I was wondering if there has been feedback from professional associates regarding the Origins article, such as water cooler or hallway talk, either positive or negative, and whether this thread is a good venue, or should another be started?

I'd suggest taking that to its own thread.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 08/11/2007 12:56 am
The artwork (brilliant, by the way!) of the J120 on the MLP (cover page of http://www.directlauncher.com) brought up a few questions for me.
1) why is there a visible center RS-68 engine bell (visible in red)?  The Jupiter 120 doesn't have a center engine.  If it's meant to be the far engine bell, I think it wouldn't be visible from that angle.  (very, very, picky comment...)
2) this is subject of the rest of my post:

Jupiter has many potential growth options, one of which is a 4- or 5-engine (rs-68) core.  The examples Ross gave are the Jupiter 24x and 25x.  Here are Ross's illustrations:



Is there room in the MLP to fit the 4- and 5-engine variants, or will some other modifications be required?

In the illustration, it looks like there is no room, but I also realize this is a photoshop job done for effect.  In reality, would this fit in a J120-modified STS MLP?

And yes, I realize that 4- and 5- engine variants of the Jupiter core aren't part of the current plans to try to address VSE.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/11/2007 01:08 am
Quote
rumble - 10/8/2007  6:56 PM

The artwork (brilliant, by the way!) of the J120 on the MLP (cover page of http://www.directlauncher.com) brought up a few questions for me.
1) why is there a visible center RS-68 engine bell (visible in red)?  The Jupiter 120 doesn't have a center engine.  If it's meant to be the far engine bell, I think it wouldn't be visible from that angle.  (very, very, picky comment...)

The RS-68's are both in the center from that angle.  Their orientation is 90° from the SRBs (foreground, background, both center from the angle of that image).

I don't know the answer to the rest.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 08/11/2007 02:36 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 10/8/2007  8:08 PM

Quote
rumble - 10/8/2007  6:56 PM

The artwork (brilliant, by the way!) of the J120 on the MLP (cover page of http://www.directlauncher.com) brought up a few questions for me.
1) why is there a visible center RS-68 engine bell (visible in red)?  The Jupiter 120 doesn't have a center engine.  If it's meant to be the far engine bell, I think it wouldn't be visible from that angle.  (very, very, picky comment...)

The RS-68's are both in the center from that angle.  Their orientation is 90° from the SRBs (foreground, background, both center from the angle of that image).

I don't know the answer to the rest.
Right...  but it looks as if it's drawn for the 3-engine variant.  Jupiter 230, if you will.  I'm really almost sorry I pointed that out.  It's really not material to any serious discussion.  Just something I noticed.

My #2 is the real question I wanted to ask.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 08/11/2007 03:15 am
BTW, the conceptual artwork by Phillip Metschan is extremely evocative to politicians to understanding the immediacy of DIRECT by placing Jupiter into each of their constituencies - makes them taste it !
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/11/2007 03:23 am
I see what you're saying now.  On the full-size image there are a few pixels of red that make it look as though the center engine is installed - a J-130.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 08/11/2007 03:44 am
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 10/8/2007  10:15 PM

BTW, the conceptual artwork by Phillip Metschan is extremely evocative to politicians to understanding the immediacy of DIRECT by placing Jupiter into each of their constituencies - makes them taste it !

 :laugh:   I'm know I'm drooling...

AND...  with more artwork on the way, I expect the perception of DIRECT to only get better.  Vivid images like this certainly has a Pavlovian effect on many of us rocket junkies, and even for non-junkies, it becomes more "real."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JonSBerndt on 08/11/2007 03:57 am
Quote
rumble - 10/8/2007  10:44 PM

Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 10/8/2007  10:15 PM

BTW, the conceptual artwork by Phillip Metschan is extremely evocative to politicians to understanding the immediacy of DIRECT by placing Jupiter into each of their constituencies - makes them taste it !

 :laugh:   I'm know I'm drooling...

AND...  with more artwork on the way, I expect the perception of DIRECT to only get better.  Vivid images like this certainly has a Pavlovian effect on many of us rocket junkies, and even for non-junkies, it becomes more "real."

Speaking of artwork, with all that extra capacity, NASA could also afford to give Jupiter a real paint job ... put a Thunderbird on it, or something. ;)

[Example: http://www.americaslibrary.gov/assets/es/ar/es_ar_airshow_1_e.jpg]

JB
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 08/11/2007 04:45 am
As an aside, I really don't understand why NASA would paint a piece of flight hardware that's just going to be discarded anyway.  This was the lesson learned after STS-2 flew with the last painted ET.

The Ares I concept art shows "UNITED STATES" painted on the SRB, even though the current SRB has no such stenciling.  Is there anything in any of the UN space-related treaties that forces NASA to put markings of national origin on its launchers and spacecraft?  

There were obvious benefits to painting American flags and USA's on launchers and spacecraft during the Cold War.  In the modern era, is it still worth the cost and effort to paint national insignias on our space vehicles?  For NASA, doing so is probably an acknowledgment of the efforts of an entire nation in getting that spacecraft off the pad and into orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/11/2007 05:07 am
UN doesn't require anything.  Painting doesn't take much
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 08/11/2007 10:06 am
One NEW technical evolution in the Direct proposal I found in the article in Horizons :

>>The [EDS] engines can be gimbaled to drive the thrust vector thru the point where the docking adapter between the CEV and the LSAM is located, intersecting on the centerline of the stack, in the same way that Shuttle’s SSME’s are vectored for similar reasons.

This considerably reduces the possibility of any engine imbalance overstressing the docking port.<<

So - I guess - this is the solution to the problem that forum member Mars-Is-Wet signaled.

1/ Of course the intersection point of the centerline with the docking ring plane is not the same thing with the center of mass (EDS+LSAM+CEV). Any imbalance in the thrust of the two J-2 engines would result in the loss of static equilibrium of the stack - it would rotate unless the RCS fires to correct the issue, or the engines gimbal to the same effect. Would the latter contradict the rationale for the incidental vectoring ? Is the former (propellant consumption) sustainable ?

2/ If this thrust vector arrangement is the rule and not the exception, does it makes sense to mount the two engines canted ? so that the null vectoring position is through that target in the docking ring plane ?

3/ There is a penalty in the performance of the EDS. Maybe not much, not enough to mention. A small part of thrust is lost.

4/ Why is the Shuttle offered as an example here ? What "similar reasons" ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/11/2007 01:15 pm
renclod,
A lot more engineering needs to be done into the thrust vectoring issue than we have been able to bring to bear so far.   We believe this technique offers a very reasonable method to overcome the concerns, but it isn't close to being mature enough to provide any hard data on yet.   Our small group of engineers can't take the idea much beyond the conceptual stage at this point, so the deep analysis on this will just have to wait until after DIRECT is selected.

The reference to the Shuttle is that throughout STS flights the three SSME's are each independently and constantly vectored towards an ever-changing CofG point throughout the ascent.   Yet they are also the principle means of steering the system and can impart some pretty serious forces at different phases of STS' flight profile too - not *just* in the CofG vector line.

This simply means that the basic technique we are recommending for the 2-engine EDS is already within the realm of "familiar" for NASA.   Implementation for Jupiter should thus be considerably easier than if it were a whole new skill we were requiring with no previous heritage - that would have been a much tougher requirement.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/11/2007 01:34 pm
Quote
CFE - 11/8/2007  12:45 AM

The Ares I concept art shows "UNITED STATES" painted on the SRB, even though the current SRB has no such stenciling.

I think ATK was just trying to strike a chord with the public and trying to generate a little bit of extra "national pride" to help swing the selection of their concept.   It sure didn't seem to do them any harm.

While painting a disposable object the size of the External Tank is obviously wasteful, a few stenciled letters on a stage is nothing to worry about.

I actually think its good for a national psyche to fly its colors on all the vehicles in its manned space program, and wear those colors with pride.   More than 45 years after the first man went into space there are still so very few nations with their own manned space program that it should be a source of pride.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 08/11/2007 02:52 pm
I think there is a treaty that mandates that flying vehicles be marked as to their owning nations, perhaps stemming from the Geneva Convention.

Plus it makes people feel good.  It is hardly needed to identify a single spacecraft in orbit though.  For example, the names of the orbiters were moved off of the payload bay doors and nearer the windows so they would be visible to the camera when in orbit.  Mission Control certianly does not need them stenciled on - I mean, who can get confused about which orbiter is up.

Markings are of course part of the appeal of the Saturn IB, in addition to the paint scheme
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/11/2007 09:21 pm
Quote
rumble - 10/8/2007  8:56 PM

2) this is subject of the rest of my post:

Jupiter has many potential growth options, one of which is a 4- or 5-engine (rs-68) core.  The examples Ross gave are the Jupiter 24x and 25x.  Here are Ross's illustrations:



Is there room in the MLP to fit the 4- and 5-engine variants, or will some other modifications be required?

Not as it exists currently.   For very reasonable money the 2 and three engine variants of Jupiter can be fielded by opening up the space between the existing SRB exhaust chambers.   The primary structural element do not require heavy modification to support this.

The 4 and 5 engine Jupiter variants would require more extensive alterations - more akin to the changes Ares-V requires.   But the 4 and 5 engine Jupiter variants aren't actually required for *ANY* current plans, they aren't required for ISS support, Lunar missions nor even for supporting Mars missions either.   The Jupiter-232 is sufficiently capable of handling all those requirements, and has plenty of room for upgrades before any J-24x or J-25x variant might be required.   In short, while these configurations are possible, we see no point in the greater expense of developing them now.


Hope that helps clarify the situation.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/11/2007 10:34 pm
Ross,

I've been thinking about the KSC infrastructure plans of the Constellation program, specifically, the MLPs and the Crawlers.  I'm wondering if management isn't using the Shuttle EOL as an excuse to replace aging and near-EOL hardware that they otherwise can't get the funding to replace.  Are the MLPs and crawlers in such q condition that what I just said is possible, and even a good idea?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/11/2007 10:45 pm
*Everything* just had hugely expensive and rigorous overhauls during the post STS-107 downtime.   It's all currently in better condition than it's been in since the start of the Shuttle program.

The only thing which *might* be a driving factor in this regard is that the companies producing unique parts for the Crawlers are mostly out of business, so NASA has to get some parts custom-manufactured these days (remember the JEL packs?).   While expensive, compared to the total cost of replacing the Crawlers, this is still *much* smaller total cost, both short and long-term.

The bottom line is that the majority of existing facilities are good to go and don't need replacement.   But MSFC thinks they know best and just aren't listening to KSC's recommendations.   Ultimately MSFC makes all the final decisions for some bizarre reason.

Oh, and VAB Hurricane repairs continue - but thats just what you have to deal with in Florida from time to time, be it with Apollo, STS, Ares or Jupiter.   EELV's have also had problems with Hurricanes too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/11/2007 10:55 pm
Thanks for the info, Ross.  I didn't know about the overhauls.

It's tough to figure out why they are going down this path, even when attempting to look from their point of view.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/12/2007 12:33 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 11/8/2007  5:34 PM

Ross,

I've been thinking about the KSC infrastructure plans of the Constellation program, specifically, the MLPs and the Crawlers.  I'm wondering if management isn't using the Shuttle EOL as an excuse to replace aging and near-EOL hardware that they otherwise can't get the funding to replace.  Are the MLPs and crawlers in such q condition that what I just said is possible, and even a good idea?

Their replacement is required because the Ares launch vehicles will be too heavy for both them *and* a big umbilical tower.   (The Saturn launch vehicles were much lighter than Ares in transit, due to the solid propellant SRBs.)  Ares I can use the existing crawlers beneath a new, lighter MLP (if I remember correctly), but Ares V will need new crawlers and MLPs.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: KSC Sage on 08/12/2007 01:08 am
That is correct, the Ares I ML should be able to use the current Crawlers if they can keep the total weight below 13 million pounds.  I think they're shooting for 12.6 million pounds.  There are some program issues developing that may cause the ML to be heavier and that may cause the Crawlers to have to upgrade their JEL system.  The Crawlers did just get new shoes a few years ago and it is planned to replace the bearings after Shuttle retires.  No one knows what the Ares V ML looks like yet, but it will require a major upgrade to the Crawlers or a totally new transporter.  The Crawler Way may also have to be enhanced.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steve G on 08/12/2007 01:16 am
Getting back to the magazine article.  Next target should be the cover of Time or Newsweek or the NY Times.  That's where you push the cost, time line, gap, overhead, right to the average American reader.  You're on the right track getting publicity, but every day the infrastructure tightens irreversibly around Ares 1, and time is getting tight.  You have an awesome product, but the people it matters most to have no idea it's out there.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/12/2007 03:08 am
Quote
Steve G - 11/8/2007  9:16 PM

Getting back to the magazine article.  Next target should be the cover of Time or Newsweek or the NY Times.  That's where you push the cost, time line, gap, overhead, right to the average American reader.  You're on the right track getting publicity, but every day the infrastructure tightens irreversibly around Ares 1, and time is getting tight.  You have an awesome product, but the people it matters most to have no idea it's out there.

I have to agree, but this is one of things you have to take lightly. It really seems like the DIRECT guys have to act like hostage negotiators with all of this. They can't insult NASA, as that gets you nowhere. They can't insult the people working on Ares, as they are just doing their job and if DIRECT were implemented they would be the ones building it. And you have to watch what you say about Upper Management, as they are the ones who are going to sign off on DIRECT.

Then again, taking the safe road doesn't always get you what you want. (Some irony there, as Ares I is seen as the "safe road) Some risk is necessary...so maybe things are getting to that magic crunch time when you need to get this thing some more publicity.

I have faith in the DIRECT crew, they are smart and know what they are doing. They could have thrown in the towel when DIRECT V1.0 was busted, but they came back even stronger with 2.0. They know the numbers, they have a plan, and they so far seem to know how to play the political game.

It is just too bad the space program isn't a minor campaign issue. Imagine the spotlight that would put DIRECT in if we could get one of the candidates to endorse DIRECT in one of the debates. (And this may be worth a shot...send the '08 Candidates the proposal and the magazine article)
Maybe get DIRECT to more of the science and tech blogs...blogs can really make a point these days.

Ross said their is good news coming soon, I sure hope so, because we sure need some. To the DIRECT Crew I want to say...Good luck, we're all counting on you!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 08/12/2007 03:34 am
Quote
kraisee - 11/8/2007  4:21 PM

Not as it exists currently.   For very reasonable money the 2 and three engine variants of Jupiter can be fielded by opening up the space between the existing SRB exhaust chambers.   The primary structural element do not require heavy modification to support this.

The 4 and 5 engine Jupiter variants would require more extensive alterations - more akin to the changes Ares-V requires.   But the 4 and 5 engine Jupiter variants aren't actually required for *ANY* current plans, they aren't required for ISS support, Lunar missions nor even for supporting Mars missions either.   The Jupiter-232 is sufficiently capable of handling all those requirements, and has plenty of room for upgrades before any J-24x or J-25x variant might be required.   In short, while these configurations are possible, we see no point in the greater expense of developing them now.


Hope that helps clarify the situation.

Ross.

I realize there are no plans to field the 4- and 5-engine variants for any of the near-term goals...you've made those points before, and I agree with them.  I was just thinking farther into the future.  One of the things I like so much about DIRECT/Jupiter is its ability to grow and develop as needs dictate.  That's been one of my least favorite points about Ares...they are maxed-out, day one.

However, should future needs cause the 4- or 5- engine Jupiter cores be needed, is it fair to say they would require (at worst) a new MLP with cut-outs to accommodate it?

Once again, just looking far down the road.  Thanks for the answer.

M@
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/12/2007 11:22 am
Quote
rumble - 11/8/2007  11:34 PM

Quote
kraisee - 11/8/2007  4:21 PM

Not as it exists currently.   For very reasonable money the 2 and three engine variants of Jupiter can be fielded by opening up the space between the existing SRB exhaust chambers.   The primary structural element do not require heavy modification to support this.

The 4 and 5 engine Jupiter variants would require more extensive alterations - more akin to the changes Ares-V requires.   But the 4 and 5 engine Jupiter variants aren't actually required for *ANY* current plans, they aren't required for ISS support, Lunar missions nor even for supporting Mars missions either.   The Jupiter-232 is sufficiently capable of handling all those requirements, and has plenty of room for upgrades before any J-24x or J-25x variant might be required.   In short, while these configurations are possible, we see no point in the greater expense of developing them now.


Hope that helps clarify the situation.

Ross.

I realize there are no plans to field the 4- and 5-engine variants for any of the near-term goals...you've made those points before, and I agree with them.  I was just thinking farther into the future.  One of the things I like so much about DIRECT/Jupiter is its ability to grow and develop as needs dictate.  That's been one of my least favorite points about Ares...they are maxed-out, day one.

However, should future needs cause the 4- or 5- engine Jupiter cores be needed, is it fair to say they would require (at worst) a new MLP with cut-outs to accommodate it?

Once again, just looking far down the road.  Thanks for the answer.
M@
Matt;
Should there ever be the need for a Jupiter-24X, 34X or 35X, then a new conversion to the MLP would be needed. Such a new piece of infrastructure would be very expensive, and in the spirit of DIRECT, we would recommend that a "dedicated" 4/5 enging MLP not be built, but rather one that could accomodate ANY Jupiter, so that all variants could launch from it. If we needed to spend that kind of money, we would want to make it as universally adaptable as possible.
Best regards,
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/12/2007 10:44 pm
Let me just quickly say:   *NOT A NEW MLP*.

The existing MLP's supporting J-120/J-232 could be *converted* to J-24x/J-25x spec at some point in the future - if required.

Unlike Ares-V, all Jupiter variants still retain the 8.4m diameter tank STS footprint, so the SRB chambers do not need relocation.   Ares-V's SRB's are 6ft wider apart than at present on Shuttle, so *everything* must be re-built to support the new 10m diameter tank footprint.

For this specific upgrade, three walls of the existing SRB chambers would not require modification.   Only the space between the SRB exhaust chambers and the Core would have to be re-worked to enable J-24x and J-25x upgrades in the future.

While this is a more expensive proposition than the initial Jupiter MLP requirements, this still results in considerably fewer extensive changes than NASA is currently planning for the Ares-V.

We have chosen to do the "cheaper" modifications (the difference is ~$500-1000 million) simply because we don't believe these larger variants of Jupiter will ever be required in the future.   If a specific reason to have them does persent itself, we would change this recommendation to support these more extensive MLP alterations be included right from the inception of the Jupiter program.   But until then, we just don't see a reason to spend the extra half a billion bucks.

And as Chuck says, this different configuration would be designed to support all variants, whether they utilize 2, 3, 4 or 5-engines, although J-24x/25x would require their own production lines (expensive), so I'm unsure whether J-120/232 would continue production or not.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/12/2007 11:01 pm
Quote
KSC Sage - 11/8/2007  9:08 PM

That is correct, the Ares I ML should be able to use the current Crawlers if they can keep the total weight below 13 million pounds.  I think they're shooting for 12.6 million pounds.  There are some program issues developing that may cause the ML to be heavier and that may cause the Crawlers to have to upgrade their JEL system.  The Crawlers did just get new shoes a few years ago and it is planned to replace the bearings after Shuttle retires.  No one knows what the Ares V ML looks like yet, but it will require a major upgrade to the Crawlers or a totally new transporter.  The Crawler Way may also have to be enhanced.

And I've heard concerns regarding the floor of the VAB and fairly solid information that the Pad catacombs will already require filling with concrete to support the Ares-V.   Though this directly conflicts with the rumor that "side" exits for the flame trench may be opened through some of the catacombs too.   This concerns me because half of the Crawler & Stack would have to roll across some sort of "bridge" if these side exits are created - and that will have to get some *serious* reinforcement.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 08/13/2007 12:50 pm
Quote
kraisee - 12/8/2007  5:44 PM

Let me just quickly say:   *NOT A NEW MLP*.

The existing MLP's supporting J-120/J-232 could be *converted* to J-24x/J-25x spec at some point in the future - if required.

Unlike Ares-V, all Jupiter variants still retain the 8.4m diameter tank STS footprint, so the SRB chambers do not need relocation.   Ares-V's SRB's are 6ft wider apart than at present on Shuttle, so *everything* must be re-built to support the new 10m diameter tank footprint.

For this specific upgrade, three walls of the existing SRB chambers would not require modification.   Only the space between the SRB exhaust chambers and the Core would have to be re-worked to enable J-24x and J-25x upgrades in the future.

While this is a more expensive proposition than the initial Jupiter MLP requirements, this still results in considerably fewer extensive changes than NASA is currently planning for the Ares-V.

We have chosen to do the "cheaper" modifications (the difference is ~$500-1000 million) simply because we don't believe these larger variants of Jupiter will ever be required in the future.   If a specific reason to have them does persent itself, we would change this recommendation to support these more extensive MLP alterations be included right from the inception of the Jupiter program.   But until then, we just don't see a reason to spend the extra half a billion bucks.

And as Chuck says, this different configuration would be designed to support all variants, whether they utilize 2, 3, 4 or 5-engines, although J-24x/25x would require their own production lines (expensive), so I'm unsure whether J-120/232 would continue production or not.

Ross.

But even with this, if requirements are ever such that the J-24x/J-25x (or J-34x/J-35x) need to brought on line, it STILL sounds to me that DIRECT is a better price performer than Ares I/V.  While these variants aren't required to accomplish the VSE, they speak to the power and flexibility of the DIRECT architecture.

And regarding the separate production lines...is this just for the new 4- and 5- engine thrust structure, or would it produce a different version of the core?

Thanks for the answers, and sorry for the distraction.

Matt
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: KSC Sage on 08/13/2007 01:08 pm
Ross,

There are no plans to open side exits for flame deflection.  The current flame trench was designed for the Nova vehicle and can handle the Ares V.  However, with the bigger diameter core of 10m they will need side flame deflectors for the SRBs much like what the Shuttle uses today.
The catacombs at Pad-39 would only need to be filled if the Ares V requires a new FSS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/13/2007 01:15 pm
Quote
kraisee - 12/8/2007  4:44 PM
We have chosen to do the "cheaper" modifications (the difference is ~$500-1000 million) simply because we don't believe these larger variants of Jupiter will ever be required in the future.   If a specific reason to have them does persent itself, we would change this recommendation to support these more extensive MLP alterations be included right from the inception of the Jupiter program.   But until then, we just don't see a reason to spend the extra half a billion bucks.

And as Chuck says, this different configuration would be designed to support all variants, whether they utilize 2, 3, 4 or 5-engines, although J-24x/25x would require their own production lines (expensive), so I'm unsure whether J-120/232 would continue production or not.

Ross.

Besides, it still seems like upgrading the J-232's lift capacity would go something like this:

- Optimized upper stage
- Optimized core tank
- Vac-optimized ablative RS-68s
- Vac-optimized regen RS-68s
- Improved J2 (from DIRECT baseline)
- 5-seg SRBs on current core
- Liquid boosters
- If you still need more, then do the bigger infrastructure mods

All those pre-big-stuff mods seem like they'd add a ton (or rather, quite a few tons) of lift capacity if it were needed for some reason.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/13/2007 06:29 pm
I did not have time yet to read all 1500 messages in this thread but ...

THE IDEA LOOKS AMAZING, GENIUS!!! GREAT WORK GUYS!!!

Even without going much into details it is seen that:
1. It is less expensive to support one DIRECT launcher than Ares I and Ares V.
2. The DIRECT launcher will give access to space sooner than Ares.

Guys where can I quickly find info what NASA management thinks about DIRECT 2.0?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/13/2007 08:17 pm
Quote
rumble - 13/8/2007  8:50 AM

But even with this, if requirements are ever such that the J-24x/J-25x (or J-34x/J-35x) need to brought on line, it STILL sounds to me that DIRECT is a better price performer than Ares I/V.  While these variants aren't required to accomplish the VSE, they speak to the power and flexibility of the DIRECT architecture.

And regarding the separate production lines...is this just for the new 4- and 5- engine thrust structure, or would it produce a different version of the core?

Thanks for the answers, and sorry for the distraction.

Matt

Not a distraction at all my friend - I'm *more* than happy to discuss these issues with people who are interested, especially so for people such as yourself who have helped contribute to the work directly (pun somewhat intended!).

The J-24x/25x would need a redevelopment of the whole Core structure, which would need strengthening to handle up to 67% more MPS thrust and heavier payloads on top.   While certainly not a trivial upgrade program, the upgrade of an existing flight certified structure is a *lot* easier than building something completely new.   Such an upgrade program would be more akin to the Light Weight Tank and Super Light Weight Tank development programs done already for Shuttle - taking something already working and modifying to to suit new requirements.

BTW, I'll answer an obvious question here before it is asked:-

Q: Why not just build the Cores to J-24x/J-25x spec now and fly them without all of the engines?

A: There is a noticable weight penalty (~5-10mT) for the stronger structures, which if we did it at the inception of the program, would detract from the J-120 and J-232's performance.   Because these are the Jupiter vehicles which achieve the manned safety requirements (> 1 : 1000 LOC) for NASA's new program, these *must* take priority in the short term, leaving the lower LOC vehicles as purely Cargo lift upgrades later.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 08/13/2007 10:57 pm
Quote
kraisee - 7/8/2007  2:26 AM

Quote
tnphysics - 5/8/2007  10:00 AM

Hi, this is my first post on any forum!

Would it be possible to replace the RS-68s with SSMEs in a reusable engine pod? The pod would have its own TPS, etc. for reentry.
Also, would it be feasible to add an altitude compensating nozzle to the core engines? This applies to both the SSME and RS-68 types.
The payload of a Jupiter 130 with SSMEs instead of RS-68s would be around 110-115 metric tons to LEO.
Also, what is the actual thrust of the plug-nozzle SSME? On astronautix it says that the thrust is 800,000 lbf, with a Isp of 485 seconds vacuum and 412 seconds sea level.
What would be the Isp of the P/N RS-68?
And finally, what would it cost to make a staged combustion engine with the complexity of a RS-68?


First, welcome to the forum!   Glad you took the opportunity to "get stuck in".   You'll find a lot of very knowledgeable people here who can expand anyones knowledge of this business enormously.

The idea was considered by the Mars Direct team (no relation to this team).   As others have pointed out the weight impact for a reusable pod, and the technical requirements to allow it to come off, be controlled trough re-entry and to make a reasonably soft landing on land where (salt water is seriously not good for SSME's) makes the idea difficult at best.

When looking at STS derivatives I was originally interested in a permanent pod structure on the side of the Core, but I learned that a truly in-line configuration can offer about 5% additional performance per launch, and the cost to modify the infrastructure elements (mostly the MLP's) was equivalent to about half of one single Shuttle launch, I was convinced that the change to an in-line configuration was very worthwhile the investment.

Also there are critical problems with SSME manufacture.   Firstly there is no production line available actually making SSME's today, so one would have to be built, and the cost for that is pretty high.   Second, the SSME's are incredibly expensive - in the order of more than three times the cost of the RS-68's.   A cheaper disposable version is possible, but would require an extensive development program which would take a lot of cash and time.   Even then, a disposable SSME would still cost about 1.5 times as much as a single RS-68.   Third, you only really require two RS-68's to get similar performance to every three SSME's.   And finally, RS-68 has 80% fewer parts than SSME and operates at considerably lower pressure levels - which means that RS-68 is expected to be a whole lot more reliable than even SSME's already excellent record - perhaps as good as achieving half the failure rate.

All of this stacks pretty heavily against using SSME and towards RS-68 - unless your performance requirements simply can not be met by RS-68.

Jupiter can achieve 35% more performance to the moon for 2-launches compared to Ares-I/V, so RS-68 is quite suitable.

As for plug nozzle designs, I am a big fan of those, but I just can't see sufficient development money ever being available to make a reasonably big engine with that technology any time in the next 10 years.   I am absolutely certain it couldn't be fielded in the timeframe necessary to close the "gap" after Shuttle small enough to be acceptable, so it can't be done right now.

But I am personally very interested in "future" upgrade proposals using such concepts.   I think there is a large amount of potential at some point down the line - just not right now.

Ross.
It is quite simple to create a reusable engine pod. Have a sliding, heat-resistant cover that slides over the engens for reentry and splashdown, and is retracted for ascent. Like the sliding doors on some cars.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/13/2007 11:57 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 13/8/2007  6:57 PM

[It is quite simple to create a reusable engine pod. Have a sliding, heat-resistant cover that slides over the engens for reentry and splashdown, and is retracted for ascent. Like the sliding doors on some cars.

It is only that simple from an armchair.  The covers have to survive ascent loads and heating in the retracted position.  They also have to take splash down loads.  On the second thought, yes it is easy, but it would be too heavy and not flyable

Also the cost of the development  and refurb of the pod would offset any savings.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 08/14/2007 01:37 am
Could you not hook up a Rogallo Wing/Paraglider as the recovery device and have it glide back to a landing site not in the water?  The army has GPS guided versions of these things nearly fielded that have astounding accuracy for resuplly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 08/14/2007 02:25 am
If the goal is to keep costs down, for the launch rates we're talking about, reusability doesn't seem worth it in the LV.  

Assuming you find an effective way to re-enter and recover the engine pod, you end up tearing it apart and rebuilding it after every launch, just like the tail end of a Shuttle.  Huge expense.  Seems less expensive to build new RS-68s for each launch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 08/14/2007 02:42 am
One more question for the DIRECT team.

Much earlier in this thread, several people asked about a Jupiter-110 configuration (one RS-68), which could also be fielded (in theory) on the same core stage being built.

You were intentionally leaving it out of the proposal, as it was felt that it unnecessarily duplicated ELV performance capabilities, and as such, never had LOC numbers run against it (guess was only slightly better than J-120 due to lack of engine-out).

Playing a little devil's advocate... The counter to that argument is that while it might duplicate ELV performance, so does Ares I at this point.  The J-110 seems closer to the payload requirement for ISS missions than the J-120 does.

I'll be the first to suggest that there are millions of things to do with that extra payload capacity, but the "no crew with cargo" edict remains.

Do you have any mention of J-110 in your "growth" (ha!) options for the vehicle family?  Seems like it might be worth the mention, just to show how scalable the DIRECT architecture is.

Can't wait to see the AIAA paper!  As always, excellent, thought-provoking work!

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/14/2007 08:03 am
The J-110 is still not in our proposals for those reasons, but there is another one too...

Each variant you fly must be re-tested and re-certified, and it isn't a trivial nor in-expensive process if it is being considered for manned flight.   You're looking at probably $500-1000 million bucks right there - even knowing ahead of time that all the individual elements are certified to fly in a different configuration.

The actual difference in flight cost though, would be only $25m, because all you delete it the cost of a single RS-68.   So you're going to have to fly a LOT of J-110's to recoup the extra development costs involved.   For a zero performance advantage, and perhaps 5-10% better LOC numbers I'm not sure its worthwhile.

And Jupiter-120's extra performance could be used to increase safety for CEV-only flights.   We have mentioned the idea of flying twenty tonne ballistic shields and water tanks inside the payload fairing to offer additional protection to crews when no other payload is required, and these measures would provide considerably higher safety margins during contingencies compared to the J-110.


Of course, if NASA had lots of spare cash it might be a different story, but I don't think there's anyone here who is still under the illusion that NASA's budget is robust enough to be throwing six and seven digit sums of money around.

That sort of money would pay-off up to five J-120 flights to ISS for example, or pay for three more "Deep Impact" missions, or two more Mars Exploration Rovers, or another "New Horizons" mission, or Hubble Servicing Mission #5 using the CEV (which would need to fly on J-120 BTW).

It's certainly a fairly subjective decision, but I just don't see the advantage myself.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 08/14/2007 11:22 am
The SSMEs' high Isp saves you an Advanced Upper Stage and eliminates that expense. Only a (much less expensive) Wide Body Centaur is required. NASA does not need to pay for the entire WBC development cost.
Also, the SSME version of the Jupiter compares to the J-232, not the J-120, in payload to LEO.
I got the idea of a sliding cover from the Shuttle LRB program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/14/2007 12:02 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 14/8/2007  7:22 AM

The SSMEs' high Isp saves you an Advanced Upper Stage and eliminates that expense.
.

The SSME expense is more than the Advanced Upper Stage
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 08/14/2007 02:08 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 14/8/2007  7:22 AM
The SSMEs' high Isp saves you an Advanced Upper Stage and eliminates that expense.

Quote
Jim - 14/8/2007  7:02 AM
The SSME expense is more than the Advanced Upper Stage

Ditto.

Going purely by the numbers mentioned earlier in this thread:

SSME = $50mil
RS-68 = $14mil

Assuming you're throwing away $50 million dollar reusable SSMEs, the difference in cost over just a few J-120, J-232, or even Ares V launches is dramatic.

Assuming you design, test, man-rate, and start mass-producing an RS-25 (non-reusable SSME), you *might* get that per-unit cost down in to the $20mil range, but you might not get the same performance, either.

Why spend all that $ on basically a new engine program, when you can make comparatively minor modifications to an existing, currently-produced engine to man-rate it?  I'd rather spend that money on a new upperstage (or modifying an existing one).

If you really want to spend $ on an engine program, dig the RS-84 back out of the file cabinet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/14/2007 02:31 pm
Regarding the discussion in the Ares I powerful enough thread, the main reasons I like the DIRECT approach over the current approach are:

- Fast (reduce the human space flight gap)
- Cheap (the ~$20B saved would be better spent on missions and science)
- Powerful (2xJ-232 > Ares I + Ares V)
- Upgradeable (can get even more powerful, relatively easily)
- Heavy-lift sooner, rather than later (even the J-120 is pretty darned heavy lift compared to Ares-I/EELVs)
- If cancellation happens, you're stuck with a 50T launcher rather than a 25T launcher
- It's probably easier to get funding from Congress for a J-232 upper stage than it is for the entire Ares-V development (harder to cancel)

In other words, whether Ares-I works or not isn't as important as the fact that DIRECT appears to offer advantages that the current Constellation program can't provide even if the performance and execution are flawless.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 08/14/2007 06:54 pm
I have a question for the DIRECT team.

I am in no way an industry insider -- unlike so many others on this awesome site -- and I am curious how likely it is that NASA will even consider an alternative to the Ares I + V program? Your proposal appears solid, thought out, and looks better for NASA's future moon/mars plans than the Ares program, but I still wonder if it is likely that NASA will adopt this design after committing themselves to Ares...

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/14/2007 08:16 pm
G-pit,
Feel free to ask anything you like.   That's what we're here for!

The current administration is fixed on what they are doing right now with Ares, and they have their hands full trying to get Ares-I to actually do what it needs to while finishing off the ISS.

But the current administration only has, at most, 18 more months before it is replaced.

With fresh faces at the helm of NASA, anything is possible.


Talking of "fresh faces" did anyone else think Griffin wasn't looking so good in the press conference following the STS-118 launch?   He looked very "weathered" to me.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/14/2007 08:20 pm
Quote
kraisee - 14/8/2007  4:16 PM

Talking of "fresh faces" did anyone else think Griffin wasn't looking so good in the press conference following the STS-118 launch?   He looked very "weathered" to me. -Ross.
Dealing every day with a “no win” situation does that to you.
Just take a look at GWB. :frown:
Six years ago his hair was black and his countenance was bright.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/14/2007 08:24 pm
GWB and the word "bright" in the same post.   That's not likely to draw any comment, oh no.

Ross (actually a moderate conservative himself, albeit a British one)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/14/2007 08:32 pm
Quote
kraisee - 14/8/2007  4:24 PM

GWB and the word "bright" in the same post.   That's not likely to draw any comment, oh no.

Ross (actually a moderate conservative himself, albeit a British one)
Just observing what that kind of pressure can do to you.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/14/2007 09:06 pm
Quote
kraisee - 14/8/2007  3:16 PM

The current administration is fixed on what they are doing right now with Ares, and they have their hands full trying to get Ares-I to actually do what it needs to while finishing off the ISS.
So no feedback from NASA administration on DIRECT 2.0?

Does it take too much NASA money to make a study/comment on DIRECT 2.0?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 08/14/2007 09:12 pm
Quote
kraisee - 14/8/2007  4:16 PM
The current administration is fixed on what they are doing right now with Ares, and they have their hands full trying to get Ares-I to actually do what it needs to while finishing off the ISS.

But the current administration only has, at most, 18 more months before it is replaced.

With fresh faces at the helm of NASA, anything is possible.

So you don't expect a change in course in at least the next 18 months? There is also no guarantee that the next administration will be friendly to this idea, or will be willing to turn their backs on 18 months of financial investment and man hours spent on Ares development. Every month that NASA spends working on Ares, they are more 'stuck' with it. Now I don't want to sound discouraged, but what is your plan -- apart from "anything is possible" -- to get this proposal to replace Ares?

Thanks!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Alpha Control on 08/14/2007 09:41 pm
Me personally, I'd rather Ross and company keep their cards close to their vests and not share any specific strategy they have in a public forum. You never know who's listening that might try to neutralize a particular plan.

"So they plan to meet with Sen. X and Rep. Y.  Okay, we'll have our people talk to the Sen. & Rep. first, and try to discredit the Direct folks before they walk in the door".   (This IS Washington, after all).

The big event coming up is the AIAA conference, and that will be an excellent opportunity to broaden the exposure of Direct 2.0.

"Slow and steady wins the race..."

Best of luck at the conference, gentlemen!

David
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/14/2007 09:52 pm
Quote
Yegor - 14/8/2007  5:06 PM

Does it take too much NASA money to make a study/comment on DIRECT 2.0?

I think the current NASA Administration feels it responded sufficiently to all-things DIRECT when Jeff Hanley's memo was "leaked" (yeah, that was accidental, uh huh), and when Doug Stanley did his attack-dog routine, both around the start of the year and in response to v1 of the proposal.

I simply don't think they are interested in responding to v2.0 at all now.   While I'm sure they feel they have already "won" their victory (although it's not about winning) I also don't believe they will avoid DIRECT v2 now because they know we have addressed the few actual criticisms they had with v1 architecture (RS-68 435s Isp performance in particular) and there's simply not a lot of ammunition available against DIRECT any more.

Additionally it appears to me that they are explicitly uninterested in any other options to Ares-I.   This seems to be irrelevant of whether they may or may not offer solutions for their troubles.   Ares-I is what they want, come hell, high water - or even a lower performance Lunar Program than was envisioned originally.

I'm convinced that the current NASA Administration is 100% fixed on Ares-I and has specifically dug its heels in, against all other solutions - including DIRECT.   I believe they somehow now perceive all these other solutions as some form of "threat".

This is a fundamentally mistaken perception:   We are no threat at all, we are just a group of concerned individuals who are trying to offer a potential *benefit* to a program that is clearly having difficulties.   I wish we could resolve this somehow, but NASA's reactions to us in the past seem to indicate that they are unlikely to be interested in change.

But change is just another part of life. And change can come at a quicker pace than people may think.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 08/14/2007 10:15 pm
Thanks Ross, Great answer!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/15/2007 12:32 am
Thank you very much for a quick answer Ross!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 08/15/2007 01:19 am
I just want to encourage the DIRECT Team to stay positive and keep at it.  Nothing is cast in stone, especially when you talk dollars and cents savings to the taxpayer.

Changes in leadership can have a huge impact.  Remember when New Horizons and the HST Servicing Mission were both dead?

Keep the faith!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 08/15/2007 02:26 am
Quote
brihath - 14/8/2007  8:19 PM

snip

Keep the faith!
And the passion!  It speaks volumes!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/15/2007 02:28 am
Quote
kraisee - 14/8/2007  4:52 PM

Quote
Yegor - 14/8/2007  5:06 PM

Does it take too much NASA money to make a study/comment on DIRECT 2.0?

I think the current NASA Administration feels it responded sufficiently to all-things DIRECT when Jeff Hanley's memo was "leaked" (yeah, that was accidental, uh huh), and when Doug Stanley did his attack-dog routine, both around the start of the year and in response to v1 of the proposal.

I simply don't think they are interested in responding to v2.0 at all now.   While I'm sure they feel they have already "won" their victory (although it's not about winning) I also don't believe they will avoid DIRECT v2 now because they know we have addressed the few actual criticisms they had with v1 architecture (RS-68 435s Isp performance in particular) and there's simply not a lot of ammunition available against DIRECT any more.

Additionally it appears to me that they are explicitly uninterested in any other options to Ares-I.   This seems to be irrelevant of whether they may or may not offer solutions for their troubles.   Ares-I is what they want, come hell, high water - or even a lower performance Lunar Program than was envisioned originally.

I'm convinced that the current NASA Administration is 100% fixed on Ares-I and has specifically dug its heels in, against all other solutions - including DIRECT.   I believe they somehow now perceive all these other solutions as some form of "threat".

This is a fundamentally mistaken perception:   We are no threat at all, we are just a group of concerned individuals who are trying to offer a potential *benefit* to a program that is clearly having difficulties.   I wish we could resolve this somehow, but NASA's reactions to us in the past seem to indicate that they are unlikely to be interested in change.

But change is just another part of life. And change can come at a quicker pace than people may think.

Ross.
Well, IMHO the situation does look strange.

I understand that NASA administration will loose “some” face if it accepts DIRECT proposal – Of course, how they did not see it before. This means that there is somebody better than them.  But…

Correct me if I am wrong.
It is a golden opportunity here for Griffin!!!
It takes a big man to admit his mistake. Especially when in this case it is not Griffin’s mistake but analytics team’s.
This is the essence of the job for a person in the authority – to correct when something is wrong.
If he corrects this he will make a good name for himself.

And now the fortune throws help at him. Ares I is not sufficient to carry moon version of Orion. They can use it as an excuse for turning to DIRECT. No one is at fault then.

Lastly, the financial prognosis for the next 20 years is not favorable:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/16208460-49fe-11dc-9ffe-0000779fd2ac.html
Budget cuts are on the way. They will look at NASA too you know.
Ares V funding looks very improbable in this situation.  
The more NASA can cut in spending the better.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: ratman on 08/15/2007 03:29 am
Quote
Yegor - 14/8/2007  10:28 PM
Well, IMHO the situation does look strange.
Not necessarily. They probably see Jupiter-120 as overkill for CLV. I would ;)

True, it's easier to kill Ares V then Jupiter-232. But if it will come to that - there will be no Moon anyway: LSAM and Base are not cheap either. The fact is - Ares or Jupiter - there MUST be a steady support and financing. No bucks - no Buck Rogers :)

This said - I would like to see Jupiter flying - maybe for the same reason that makes NASA reject it :) I would hope that 20t spare payload capacity might stimulate variety of missions and hardware.

P.S.
Quote
Lastly, the financial prognosis for the next 20 years is not favorable:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/16208460-49fe-11dc-9ffe-0000779fd2ac.html
Don't read FT too much :)
Besides, anyone who claims to predict financial situation 20 years ahead is either stupid or lying. What would you predict in 1987 about today ? ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 08/15/2007 11:16 am
Quote
Yegor - 15/8/2007  3:28 AM

Correct me if I am wrong.
It is a golden opportunity here for Griffin!!!
It takes a big man to admit his mistake. Especially when in this case it is not Griffin’s mistake but analytics team’s.
As I am sure people are aware, I don't think this has much to do with Griffin or NASA at all. I think the decision to pursue the Ares I is a response to pressure from Congress and/or the Administration (not neccesarily the politicos, maybe the permanent 'government').

Now I may very well be wrong about this. But the current plans by the DIRECT team to promote their idea assume that Griffin and other top NASA management is the roadblock. But what if I'm right? The current plan would be misdirected and mistargeted. The team should consider what to do assuming I'm right, and try and carry that out simultaneously with their current plans.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 08/15/2007 12:45 pm
Quote
kraisee - 14/8/2007  10:52 PM

Quote
Yegor - 14/8/2007  5:06 PM

Does it take too much NASA money to make a study/comment on DIRECT 2.0?

I think the current NASA Administration feels it responded sufficiently to all-things DIRECT when Jeff Hanley's memo was "leaked" (yeah, that was accidental, uh huh), and when Doug Stanley did his attack-dog routine, both around the start of the year and in response to v1 of the proposal.

I simply don't think they are interested in responding to v2.0 at all now.   While I'm sure they feel they have already "won" their victory (although it's not about winning) I also don't believe they will avoid DIRECT v2 now because they know we have addressed the few actual criticisms they had with v1 architecture (RS-68 435s Isp performance in particular) and there's simply not a lot of ammunition available against DIRECT any more.

Do you believe this?
RS-68 435s ISP was an easy target from the beginning and it was enough for Stanley to disqualify DIRECT. Also the Ares 1 false criticism didn't help as it looked as the Direct team is a bunch of amateurs.
This was very clear a year ago. You managed to remove that "magic" RS-68 and refrain (in some extent) from Ares 1 attacks but it is still not enough to push Direct through.
I think that there is still a lot of ammunition left aspecially in the structural weight, cost & timeline (too optimistic) and LOC&LOM estimations (which goes in favour of Ares).

Quote
Additionally it appears to me that they are explicitly uninterested in any other options to Ares-I.   This seems to be irrelevant of whether they may or may not offer solutions for their troubles.   Ares-I is what they want, come hell, high water - or even a lower performance Lunar Program than was envisioned originally.

This is very true from ESAS time. The decision has been made two years ago.

Quote
I'm convinced that the current NASA Administration is 100% fixed on Ares-I and has specifically dug its heels in, against all other solutions - including DIRECT.   I believe they somehow now perceive all these other solutions as some form of "threat".

This is a fundamentally mistaken perception:   We are no threat at all, we are just a group of concerned individuals who are trying to offer a potential *benefit* to a program that is clearly having difficulties.   I wish we could resolve this somehow, but NASA's reactions to us in the past seem to indicate that they are unlikely to be interested in change.

This could be partly because of the recent fenomenon: "I know it better than anybody else" and "government agencies are corupt and uncapable".
Well, it's quite possible that those statements are true but you can't expect they help you to proof them.  

Quote
But change is just another part of life. And change can come at a quicker pace than people may think.

Yeah, a man not aways gets what he wants.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 08/15/2007 12:52 pm
I understand there's a certain "can of worms" aspect to this also.  ESAS was used to justify Ares I/V.  If a variant of a competing LV combo (LV24/25) can be shown to beat the Ares I/V, the natural question is, "How much of the rest of the field of vehicles in ESAS could be made substantially more viable by a minor tweak?"  Would NASA admitting they had under-configured two of their ESAS vehicles be opening a can of worms WRT having to answer what the other vehicles would do if "properly" configured?

I personally think the question is silly.  DIRECT was arrived at differently.  The CONCEPT was seen in ESAS (and before even), but the vehicle was partially fleshed-out, and then the statement was made, "Golly, this looks like LV24/25!"  Not the other way around.

But does anyone think that NASA switching to one of the ESAS runners-up (so to speak) would call all of their analysis into question?  Would they find themselves having to answer a substantially larger question than simply why they wanted to change launchers?

Is it worth the DIRECT team addressing this *somewhere* in their documentation?

Thought along the lines of "how do I play a political angle" isn't natural for me, but after reading some of these recent posts, this question re: ESAS occurred to me...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/15/2007 01:14 pm
Quote
JIS - 15/8/2007  8:45 AM

Do you believe this?
RS-68 435s ISP was an easy target from the beginning and it was enough for Stanley to disqualify DIRECT. You managed to remove that "magic" RS-68.
That “magic” engine turned out to be real after all. Dr Stanley quoted the performance numbers of an RS-68 that had the regen nozzle on it, like we had used, at 419 seconds. However, that engine was stock from the Delta-IV, which is optimized for operation at sea level. It was an official PWR Regen-only upgrade. The engine the DIRECT team was using had both the regen nozzle *and* was optimization for vacuum. Stanley’s engine did not have the optimization for vacuum. The regen nozzle alone was not sufficient and we knew that, but the nozzle plus the optimization brought the isp to above 430 seconds. Stanley shot down an engine that the DIRECT team was *NOT* using. Any clown could have done that. There was nothing magic about it.

Quote
I think that there is still a lot of ammunition left especially in the structural weight, cost & timeline (too optimistic) and LOC & LOM estimations (which goes in favor of Ares).
What in the world qualifies you to make such a statement? You have already told me, personally, that you do *not* have access to the tools that we use for engineering analysis, so I would really like to know how you arrive at such a conclusion. Your comments do not appear to be careful adjudication of analysis results. They “appear” to be nothing more than unfounded personal bias. I would hope that I am not correct in that assessment.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 08/15/2007 01:50 pm
Quote
clongton - 15/8/2007  2:14 PM

Quote
JIS - 15/8/2007  8:45 AM
I think that there is still a lot of ammunition left especially in the structural weight, cost & timeline (too optimistic) and LOC & LOM estimations (which goes in favor of Ares).
What in the world qualifies you to make such a statement? You have already told me, personally, that you do *not* have access to the tools that we use for engineering analysis, so I would really like to know how you arrive at such a conclusion. Your comments do not appear to be careful adjudication of analysis results. They “appear” to be nothing more than unfounded personal bias. I would hope that I am not correct in that assessment.


Hold on. I'm not qualified to judge Direct. What I said is my personal observation which is completely insignificant to any NASA decision.
I'm following Direct like launcher for several years and did some armchair analysis. Up to now it looked true so I encouraged myself to post it here.
Of course, I might be wrong. I think that most Direct critiques simply ignore this thread but I do not. The reason is: I was "Direct like" proponent once (several years ago).  

By the way, you said you (direct supporters) were using POST for Direct trajectory. I've never heard you did any structural analysis.

I was always trying to point out some Direct weak points to give you more chance to stand against true opponents. Good luck.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/15/2007 05:00 pm
Where can I find cost estimates for development  and operation of DIRECT 2.0, Ares I and Ares V?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: imcub on 08/15/2007 05:58 pm
Quote
ratman - 14/8/2007  8:29 PM

Quote
Yegor - 14/8/2007  10:28 PM
... Lastly, the financial prognosis for the next 20 years is not favorable:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/16208460-49fe-11dc-9ffe-0000779fd2ac.html
Don't read FT too much :)
Besides, anyone who claims to predict financial situation 20 years ahead is either stupid or lying. What would you predict in 1987 about today ? ;)

I don't think that looking 10-15 years into the future and predicting hard economic times is either stupid or lying.  

Start with the $100 Billion a year war, military equipment that is being prematurely worn out, growing number of disabled veterans, 12 million invaders from Mexico, aging and retiring baby boomers with their ever skyrocketing medical expenses, growing international debt, increasing number natural disasters like Katrina due to global warming, rising energy costs ... a long stretch of bad economic times might not come to pass ... but it is a reasonable prediction.

With all that hanging over our heads, will the American people be willing to put up the cost of fixing Ares I and then funding Ares V over the next 10 years?  I don't know.  With the latest issue of Time, there are over 4 million people that are going to be a little more anti-NASA because we are spending $100 billion a year on the space station.  

Personally, I believe that economics - more than any technical issues - are what may keep us from going back to the moon or heading to Mars.  If the costs estimates for Ares I/V were near or the same as Direct ... I'd say fine ... build any rocket you want.  But if Direct really is $10-20 billion cheaper in overall systems costs, providing the same or greater performance, with acceptable LOM/LOC numbers ... then you really do have to look at what the economic future might be and give Direct a shot.  

(And yes I know, NASA is spending $2-5 billion each year on the ISS - depending on how you want to add things up, not $100 billion as reported by Time ... and every member on this site knows that ... but not every reader of Time is a member here ...)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steve G on 08/15/2007 06:03 pm
I'm not a rocket scientist so here comes a question not coming from one.  Rather than eventually pursuing an Ares V, why not take the Jupiter derivative and throw on a third or even a forth SRB and have a dedicated second stage with existing or already proposed power plants?  Okay, you'd need new work on the existing ET and new launch facilities, but you'd have that with the Ares V in any case.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/15/2007 06:43 pm
Quote
Yegor - 15/8/2007  1:00 PM

Where can I find cost estimates for development  and operation of DIRECT 2.0, Ares I and Ares V?
Estimates & schedules for DIRECT will be in the AIAA paper.
Figures for Ares will need to come from NASA
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/15/2007 06:54 pm
Quote
clongton - 15/8/2007  1:43 PM

Quote
Yegor - 15/8/2007  1:00 PM

Where can I find cost estimates for development  and operation of DIRECT 2.0, Ares I and Ares V?
Estimates & schedules for DIRECT will be in the AIAA paper.
Figures for Ares will need to come from NASA
Thank you very much for a quick reply!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/15/2007 07:04 pm
Quote
imcub - 15/8/2007  12:58 PM

Quote
ratman - 14/8/2007  8:29 PM

Quote
Yegor - 14/8/2007  10:28 PM
... Lastly, the financial prognosis for the next 20 years is not favorable:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/16208460-49fe-11dc-9ffe-0000779fd2ac.html
Don't read FT too much :)
Besides, anyone who claims to predict financial situation 20 years ahead is either stupid or lying. What would you predict in 1987 about today ? ;)

I don't think that looking 10-15 years into the future and predicting hard economic times is either stupid or lying.  

Start with the $100 Billion a year war, military equipment that is being prematurely worn out, growing number of disabled veterans, 12 million invaders from Mexico, aging and retiring baby boomers with their ever skyrocketing medical expenses, growing international debt, increasing number natural disasters like Katrina due to global warming, rising energy costs ... a long stretch of bad economic times might not come to pass ... but it is a reasonable prediction.

With all that hanging over our heads, will the American people be willing to put up the cost of fixing Ares I and then funding Ares V over the next 10 years?  I don't know.  With the latest issue of Time, there are over 4 million people that are going to be a little more anti-NASA because we are spending $100 billion a year on the space station.  

Personally, I believe that economics - more than any technical issues - are what may keep us from going back to the moon or heading to Mars.  If the costs estimates for Ares I/V were near or the same as Direct ... I'd say fine ... build any rocket you want.  But if Direct really is $10-20 billion cheaper in overall systems costs, providing the same or greater performance, with acceptable LOM/LOC numbers ... then you really do have to look at what the economic future might be and give Direct a shot.  

(And yes I know, NASA is spending $2-5 billion each year on the ISS - depending on how you want to add things up, not $100 billion as reported by Time ... and every member on this site knows that ... but not every reader of Time is a member here ...)
I agree that we do not know the future but all budget programs are based on estimates. We just cannot function otherwise. Aging population means less tax money comes to the budget and therefore less budget spendings. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/15/2007 07:13 pm
Quote
Steve G - 15/8/2007  2:03 PM

I'm not a rocket scientist so here comes a question not coming from one.  Rather than eventually pursuing an Ares V, why not take the Jupiter derivative and throw on a third or even a forth SRB and have a dedicated second stage with existing or already proposed power plants?  Okay, you'd need new work on the existing ET and new launch facilities, but you'd have that with the Ares V in any case.

The tri and quad SRB options have major problems from the perspective of infrastructure.   Each SRB weighs something like 700mT when stacked, and the Crawlers, Crawlerway and Pads just can't cope with much more than STS already has.   Ares-V is already pushing the outer limits of what they think the structures can handle without a serious (and costly) re-build.

There are better ways to use that sort of money to improve performance.   Lighter Upper Stage is the best, followed by either upgrades to engines (RS-68 and J-2XD) or upgrade to 5-segment SRB's.   A lighter weight Core tank would also be pretty good too.   That gets you into the Ares-V performance ballpark.

And if you still don't have enough performance then, you can consider a liquid booster arrangement too.   There's about 10-20% extra performance available from that, although abandoning SRB's gets politically "tricky" to say the least.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/15/2007 07:16 pm
Quote
Yegor - 15/8/2007  1:00 PM

Where can I find cost estimates for development  and operation of DIRECT 2.0, Ares I and Ares V?

There is a detailed breakdown of the costs in the ESAS Report.   While it's not as up-to-date as NASA is working with today, it's still not far off.

The biggest changes are:-

1) Some technology developments (5-seg SRB and J-2X U/S engine) coming forward in schedule because of the requirements to develop it for Ares-I instead of Ares-V.

2) Change from SSME's to J-2X for Ares-I, and to upgraded RS-68 for Ares-V.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/15/2007 07:21 pm
Quote
JIS - 15/8/2007  9:50 AM

By the way, you said you (direct supporters) were using POST for Direct trajectory. I've never heard you did any structural analysis.

It was done for DIRECT v1 by a chap at MSFC who approached us last year.   He had been a proponent of the in-line STS configuration back in 1991 for the NLS effort and had all of the documentation from then, as well as all of the data sets utilized by ESAS for LV-24/25.   He used all of these sources to derive a structure suitable for DIRECT v1.

The design has since been updated to reflect the newer configurations.

Ross.

PS - JIS, I've always valued your comments.   While they have often appeared to be "hard line anti DIRECT" in nature, I always figured they represented arguments from the opposite bench which we would have to field some day anyhow.   So facing them here, now, simply allowed us to firm up our own arguments and helped us identify, and fix, potential flaws before having to do so in a far more harsh environment later.   And that's an advantage for us.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/15/2007 07:24 pm
Quote
kraisee - 15/8/2007  3:13 PM

Quote
Steve G - 15/8/2007  2:03 PM

I'm not a rocket scientist so here comes a question not coming from one.  Rather than eventually pursuing an Ares V, why not take the Jupiter derivative and throw on a third or even a forth SRB and have a dedicated second stage with existing or already proposed power plants?  Okay, you'd need new work on the existing ET and new launch facilities, but you'd have that with the Ares V in any case.

The tri and quad SRB options have major problems from the perspective of infrastructure.   Each SRB weighs something like 700mT
{snip}

And if you still don't have enough performance then, you can consider a liquid booster arrangement too.   There's about 10-20% extra performance available from that, although abandoning SRB's gets politically "tricky" to say the least.

Ross.
Of course, it the liquid boosters became a reality, the weight goes way down, and could possibly enable a FUTURE upgrade similar to the Energia Vulkan family that was designed to mix and match #'s of boosters and upper stage designs.
 
http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/Hercules/vulkan.html

And no, that's not in our current plan.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/15/2007 07:30 pm
Yes, given a redesign of the VAB work platforms, MLP and the flame deflection systems at the Pad, there is no weight concern during rollout or stacking for theoretically moving 4, or even 8, empty LRB's.

But no, there are no actual plans within DIRECT to do so.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/15/2007 09:21 pm
Quote
kraisee - 15/8/2007  2:16 PM

Quote
Yegor - 15/8/2007  1:00 PM

Where can I find cost estimates for development  and operation of DIRECT 2.0, Ares I and Ares V?

There is a detailed breakdown of the costs in the ESAS Report.   While it's not as up-to-date as NASA is working with today, it's still not far off.

The biggest changes are:-

1) Some technology developments (5-seg SRB and J-2X U/S engine) coming forward in schedule because of the requirements to develop it for Ares-I instead of Ares-V.

2) Change from SSME's to J-2X for Ares-I, and to upgraded RS-68 for Ares-V.

Ross.
Thank you very much!

Is this the one?
"Part 12: Cost (3.6 Mb PDF)"
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/140643main_ESAS_12.pdf

It is located on this page:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/news/ESAS_report.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/16/2007 03:33 am
Yes that is the ESAS Report.

Of interest, there is actually *another* version of the document also "out there".   The "Pre-decisional Draft ACI" copy of the same report which was accidentally given to NASAWatch for about 24 hours before it was replaced with the official public version.   That version actually has all of the $ values included and a number of other tables and charts which are even more informative than the publicly released version ever was.

It is very interesting to observe how management changed the document before it was released, and see which parts were removed, such as these tables I have attached below.

Of particular interest, have a look at the "1.5 Solution Costs" to get the yearly running costs for Ares-I and Ares-V, and just think what occurs to NASA's budget if you can delete one or the other.

And the ESAS Budget Recommendations neatly shows how much the different elements (CEV, CLV, CaLV, EDS, LSAM etc) each will cost over the years.

The images had to be temporarily removed by NSF Staff because they were causing html interference on the web page.   I have now made the images small enough to be simply uploaded to NSF in the usual manner.


You ought to be able to find a copy of the ACI version "out there" if you hunt for it on Google.   If you can't find it PM me.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 08/16/2007 10:11 am
Quote
BogoMIPS - 14/8/2007  10:08 AM

Quote
tnphysics - 14/8/2007  7:22 AM
The SSMEs' high Isp saves you an Advanced Upper Stage and eliminates that expense.

Quote
Jim - 14/8/2007  7:02 AM
The SSME expense is more than the Advanced Upper Stage

Ditto.

Going purely by the numbers mentioned earlier in this thread:

SSME = $50mil
RS-68 = $14mil

Assuming you're throwing away $50 million dollar reusable SSMEs, the difference in cost over just a few J-120, J-232, or even Ares V launches is dramatic.

Assuming you design, test, man-rate, and start mass-producing an RS-25 (non-reusable SSME), you *might* get that per-unit cost down in to the $20mil range, but you might not get the same performance, either.

Why spend all that $ on basically a new engine program, when you can make comparatively minor modifications to an existing, currently-produced engine to man-rate it?  I'd rather spend that money on a new upperstage (or modifying an existing one).

If you really want to spend $ on an engine program, dig the RS-84 back out of the file cabinet.
I was going to reuse the SSMEs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 08/16/2007 12:35 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 16/8/2007  6:11 AM

I was going to reuse the SSMEs.

Interesting, because several contractors in several studies have determined that this approach was not cost effective and that the risk to the engines was too great.  Most recently Boeing on EELV:

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1996/news.release.960719a.html

But NLS, ALS, and Spacelifter all had recoverable engines at some point.

At low flight rates, it generally doesn't pan out.  Even at high flight rates (recall EELV was going to do 20+ flights per year) ... it is not cost-effective for the contractors or the government to invest in.

What are you going to do differently?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 08/16/2007 01:10 pm
This is off-topic, but until some way can be found to wholesale reuse [intentionally over-designed] booster stages, I don't think it's going to be practical to re-use space launch components.

Since tolerances are so tight, trying to squeeze as much performance as possible out of the components, the refurb process necessarily must be extremely careful.  Look at the time and expense to turn around an orbiter and its SSME's...  How much money is involved?  Compare the refurb cost of an SSME to the purchase cost of an RS-68.

If a booster could be designed that either a) doesn't experience such a high stress level, or b) is built substantial enough to easily withstand stresses of launch, re-entry, and recovery -- without requiring a massive inspection & refurb, costs will remain high.  Enter the big, dumb flyback booster.

It seems wasteful, but when you look at the numbers, it's actually more cost-effective.  

Computers have a similar problem.  Let's say a single capacitor or IC on a home computer motherboard goes bad.  It's FAR more cost effective to replace the motherboard with a new one than it is to replace the $0.05 part.  The remainder of the prohibitive cost is in the labor required to replace the part and re-qualify the repaired motherboard.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/16/2007 02:14 pm
Quote
kraisee - 15/8/2007  10:33 PM

Yes that is the ESAS Report.

Of interest, there is actually *another* version of the document also "out there".   The "Pre-decisional Draft ACI" copy of the same report which was accidentally given to NASAWatch for about 24 hours before it was replaced with the official public version.   That version actually has all of the $ values included and a number of other tables and charts which are even more informative than the publicly released version ever was.

It is very interesting to observe how management changed the document before it was released, and see which parts were removed, such as these tables I have attached below.

Of particular interest, have a look at the "1.5 Solution Costs" to get the yearly running costs for Ares-I and Ares-V, and just think what occurs to NASA's budget if you can delete one or the other.

And the ESAS Budget Recommendations neatly shows how much the different elements (CEV, CLV, CaLV, EDS, LSAM etc) each will cost over the years.


You ought to be able to find a copy of the ACI version "out there" if you hunt for it on Google.   If you can't find it PM me.

Ross.
Thank you very much!  :)
This info is very helpful!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 08/16/2007 03:58 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 16/8/2007  6:11 AM

Quote
BogoMIPS - 14/8/2007  10:08 AM

Quote
tnphysics - 14/8/2007  7:22 AM
The SSMEs' high Isp saves you an Advanced Upper Stage and eliminates that expense.

Quote
Jim - 14/8/2007  7:02 AM
The SSME expense is more than the Advanced Upper Stage

Ditto.

Going purely by the numbers mentioned earlier in this thread:

SSME = $50mil
RS-68 = $14mil

Assuming you're throwing away $50 million dollar reusable SSMEs, the difference in cost over just a few J-120, J-232, or even Ares V launches is dramatic.

Assuming you design, test, man-rate, and start mass-producing an RS-25 (non-reusable SSME), you *might* get that per-unit cost down in to the $20mil range, but you might not get the same performance, either.

Why spend all that $ on basically a new engine program, when you can make comparatively minor modifications to an existing, currently-produced engine to man-rate it?  I'd rather spend that money on a new upperstage (or modifying an existing one).

If you really want to spend $ on an engine program, dig the RS-84 back out of the file cabinet.
I was going to reuse the SSMEs.

If the SSMEs (or any other engine) are on the 1st stage, won't they burn up upon re-entry after stage seperation? I was under the impression that the large yellow tank would be discarded like in the shuttle program. This would make it *hard* to reuse the engine, would it not?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/16/2007 04:13 pm
I know this has been discussed somewhat in one of the DIRECT threads, but I was thinking if NASA were to go with DIRECT, it opens up the possibility of something similar to the Spacehab CEV concept:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cevcehab.htm

The mission module could be used for experiments in LEO and to carry cargo.

In another thread, I transformed the Spacehab Orbital Module into a "multi-purpose-module" (MPM) that could serve as a refueling tug, an EDS, and as the SM for Orion. This would possibly allow a multi-launch profile using only Ares I.
But if NASA were to switch to DIRECT, an MPM could serve has a Hab module during Mars missions, be used as a refueling tug, could deliver cargo to the ISS, and could be used to build a Moon base.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pierre on 08/16/2007 09:10 pm
Quote
G-pit - 16/8/2007  5:58 PM

If the SSMEs (or any other engine) are on the 1st stage, won't they burn up upon re-entry after stage seperation? I was under the impression that the large yellow tank would be discarded like in the shuttle program. This would make it *hard* to reuse the engine, would it not?

You're right. Indeed, the current proposal of the DIRECT team is to simply buy a new pair of (relatively) cheap RS-68 engines for every Jupiter 120 flight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/16/2007 09:52 pm
Based on the $975 million contract announced for SSME refurbishment for the remaining Shuttle program activities, it appears that refurbishing an SSME costs $20-25 million.  That's more than the cost of a new RS-68, if the numbers in this thread are to be believed.  Now, the SSME is a superior engine as far as mass to orbit goes, but you'd need three of them to do the job of two (cheaper) RS-68s, and you'd need an elaborate recovery system for them.  Now, the major cost of launch isn't the cost of the engines themselves, but rather the cost of the labor needed to support the program as a whole.  Nevertheless, it doesn't sound at first glance like a worthwhile trade off to me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: NotGncDude on 08/17/2007 12:15 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 16/8/2007  5:52 PM

more than the cost of a new RS-68, if the numbers in this thread are to be believed.  Now, the SSME is a superior engine as far as mass to orbit goes, but you'd need three of them to do the job of two (cheaper) RS-68s, and you'd need an elaborate recovery system for them.  Now,

Excuse my ignorance, by how can two RS-68 do the job of 3 SSME's ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Danny Dot on 08/17/2007 12:45 am
Quote
GncDude - 16/8/2007  7:15 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 16/8/2007  5:52 PM

more than the cost of a new RS-68, if the numbers in this thread are to be believed.  Now, the SSME is a superior engine as far as mass to orbit goes, but you'd need three of them to do the job of two (cheaper) RS-68s, and you'd need an elaborate recovery system for them.  Now,

Excuse my ignorance, by how can two RS-68 do the job of 3 SSME's ?

They produce more thrust.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 08/17/2007 02:12 am
Quote
pierre - 16/8/2007  5:10 PM

Quote
G-pit - 16/8/2007  5:58 PM

If the SSMEs (or any other engine) are on the 1st stage, won't they burn up upon re-entry after stage seperation? I was under the impression that the large yellow tank would be discarded like in the shuttle program. This would make it *hard* to reuse the engine, would it not?

You're right. Indeed, the current proposal of the DIRECT team is to simply buy a new pair of (relatively) cheap RS-68 engines for every Jupiter 120 flight.

Yes, I understand that the current proposal for DIRECT calls for a new engine for every flight, but I am asking if the engines burn in the atmosphere up on re-entry.

Everyone has been talking about the $$ it takes to buy or refurbish an engine, but if the answer to my Q is yes, then it doesn't matter what the cost is -- theres nothing left to refurbish.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/17/2007 02:23 am
In order to reuse main engines, they'd have to be protected from the heat of reentry.  If they aren't they will largely burn up.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/17/2007 02:24 am
they burn, they have water impact damage and salt water damage
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 08/17/2007 01:19 pm
So even without concidering the economics of it, it would be impossible to reuse an engine. (SSME or RS-68)

EDIT: Not impossible. I should never say impossible, but unreasonably difficult.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/17/2007 01:34 pm
Quote
G-pit - 17/8/2007  7:19 AM

So even without concidering the economics of it, it would be impossible to reuse an engine. (SSME or RS-68)

EDIT: Not impossible. I should never say impossible, but unreasonably difficult.

It's neither impossible nor unreasonably difficult.  We do it with the Shuttle right now.  It just doesn't seem to be economically justifiable on a per-kg of mass to LEO basis.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/17/2007 05:38 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 16/8/2007  10:23 PM

In order to reuse main engines, they'd have to be protected from the heat of reentry.  If they aren't they will largely burn up.

That's absolutely correct.   STS-107 demonstrated very clearly what happens to engines during re-entry when they aren't protected correctly.   Only a small fraction of the engine bells were ever recovered, and the main turbo pump housings were the only parts which came back even close to recognizable - and they were found hundreds of miles away having impacted the ground at about Mach 2 - which didn't do them any good at all.

To recover engines from space you need to provide quite a lot of additional equipment.   First you have to add hardware to allow you to separate the engines from the launcher.   This means brackets, separation systems, big valves on all the propellant lines and a variety of other connections which must be designed to be separated instead of welded together during manufacture.    To ensure they are protected during re-entry you need an effective TPS system.    More equipment is needed to ensure they re-enter facing the correct way, which means an RCS system and control surfaces.   And finally you need recovery equipment like parachutes, landing airbags, whatever.

All of this weighs a LOT (probably a number of tons per engine) and every pound you use here is a pound less which you can bring to orbit every flight.

The additional complexity for all of this means the costs go through the roof for both development and also for regular operating.   The separation systems cost a lot to develop because they are so complex to get right.   And the costs for maintenance, repairs and overhaul work are exorbitant, just the the Shuttle Orbiter is today.

The basic concept has been studied and re-studied for more than 30 years now.   It was even built for the Shuttle - and that has proven to be a long way from ideal.   But nobody has yet been able to come up with a robust enough cost structure that is going to be lower than just using disposable systems.   NASA knows that so they are designing largely disposable rockets this time.   And the EELV guys are the same, they are disposing of their systems too.

DIRECT has explicitly stayed away from this concept because of its significantly higher development costs - and that goes in opposition to everything we have been trying to do.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/18/2007 12:06 am
OK. According to ESAS report we have:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/get-attachment-big.asp?action=view&attachmentid=28505

At 6 flights per year:
Ares I fixed cost $855.21 millions.
Ares I variable cost $112.69 millions.
Ares V fixed cost $1,272.32 millions.
Ares V variable cost $179.44 millions.

Total per 6 flights: $3,880,300 millions.
It is launch vehicles plus launches only if I am not missing anything.

The current Shuttle program cost per year is about $5 billons and it is for everything.
Do you believe that NASA will get more than $5 billons funding per year for human spaceflight?
I believe it will remain at the same level at best and may be will go down.
What will be the cost of 6 CEVs plus 6 Lunar Lenders plus all necessary missions support per year?
I do not know the number but I think that it is much more than remaining $1.12 billons.
IMHO the more realistic number is about 2 missions per year, 3 at best.

What will be Ares I and Ares V cost at 3 missions per year?
I think that it will be very close to $ 3,003.92 millions
855.21 + 112.69 * 3 + 1,272.32  + 179.44 * 3 = $ 3,003.92

What will be the cost of 6 Jupiter-232?
I think that it will be very close to $ 2,348.96 millions
1,272.32  + 179.44 * 6 = $ 2,348.96

Plus you get 216 tons at LEO instead of 160 tons.
Plus you save billons on development costs.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 08/18/2007 01:41 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 17/8/2007  9:34 AM

Quote
G-pit - 17/8/2007  7:19 AM

So even without concidering the economics of it, it would be impossible to reuse an engine. (SSME or RS-68)

EDIT: Not impossible. I should never say impossible, but unreasonably difficult.

It's neither impossible nor unreasonably difficult.  We do it with the Shuttle right now.  It just doesn't seem to be economically justifiable on a per-kg of mass to LEO basis.

You misunderstand me. With the shuttle, the SSME's travel with the shuttle the entire time and are protected by the shuttle during re-entry into the atmosphere. With direct, any engine would be dropped at stage seperation along with the large orange tank -- Jim said a few posts ago that they would largely burn up when re-entering the atmosphere. I say it is nearly impossible to reuse the engine because there is very little left of it :-P. Forget the economics for a minute and consider this.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/18/2007 03:09 am
Quote
Yegor - 17/8/2007  8:06 PM

Please correct me if I am wrong.

You are fundamentally dead on the money Yegor.   And that isn't even taking into account the billions you save by developing just one shiny new launch vehicle system instead of two.

One minor addition though - the EDS costs are not included.   EDS' are extra.

I posted the ESAS Costs for the EDS on the previous page.   $1,353m development.   $152m fixed.   $56m variable per flight.


I believe that NASA decided to replicate the overall costs for Ares based on current Shuttle numbers.   But I think they simply forgot that things like the LSAM are going to cost an awful lot more on top of the LV's.   NASA's own numbers clearly show that the LSAM will cost about as much as the CEV and both CLV and CaLV put together.

They should have worked out the full costs of the program, and tried to keep that under the current STS/ISS budget levels.   All they had to do was spread the work out differently.   There's certainly more than enough work to go around for a robust lunar program without it all being focussed on the LV's alone as it is currently with the Shuttle.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/18/2007 03:20 am
Quote
G-pit - 17/8/2007  7:41 PM
You misunderstand me. With the shuttle, the SSME's travel with the shuttle the entire time and are protected by the shuttle during re-entry into the atmosphere. With direct, any engine would be dropped at stage seperation along with the large orange tank -- Jim said a few posts ago that they would largely burn up when re-entering the atmosphere. I say it is nearly impossible to reuse the engine because there is very little left of it :-P. Forget the economics for a minute and consider this.

What I'm saying is that it would be possible to engineer and deploy such a system (engines on tank) such that the engines would be reusable.  They'd have to be jettisoned from the tank, and protected from reentry heating in some way, they'd have to be decelerated and protected from the ocean, and they'd have to be recovered and refurbished.  This could be done.  What I'm saying is that it can't be done *economically*.  In other words, the challenge isn't so much technical as much as it doesn't make economic sense even to try to solve the technical challenge.  Therefore, the engines will go down with the tank, unprotected, and end up burned up and in pieces at the bottom of the ocean.  And the next tank will have new engines.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/18/2007 04:05 am
Lee Jay,
That's exactly the reason.   Trade studies have shown that there is a serious economic benefit to just disposing of a cheap engine instead of attempting to recover an expensive one for re-use.

In this case we're talking about saving literally *billions* in extra near-term development costs in return for saving perhaps $20m *maximum* per flight.

It isn't worthwhile.   For that sort of money you would be far better off launching a bunch of the cheaper variants and actually get a lot more payload in space for your investment.

Not exactly sure where the break-even point is on Jupiter, but I'm betting its somewhere the far side of 100+ launches, and that's at least 20 years away.

More importantly though, if money is an issue in the short-term - as NASA's current situation seems to dictate - it seems to be a moot point anyway.   There isn't going to be any money for fancy developments like this unless there is just no other choice.   And RS-68 actually offers a very reasonable alternative to SSME.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/18/2007 04:14 am
NASA called the current moon mission scheme - “1.5-Launch Solution”.

It is here in ESAS document "Part 12: Cost (3.6 Mb PDF)" page 33:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/140643main_ESAS_12.pdf

Other moon mission schemes were “2-Launch Solutions” or “3+ Launch Solutions”.

But if you think about it - “1.5-Launch Solution” still requires 2 launches.

I did not know back then much about launch vehicles economics so I did buy NASA solution because of “1.5-Launch Solution” phrase. I am not a professional and it did look appealing for me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/18/2007 04:42 am
Yeah, I had noticed that too Yegor.

Actually the ESAS solution should really be described as a "2-launch vehicle, 2-launch" solution where DIRECT proposes a "1-launch vehicle, 2-launch" solution.   "2x2 launch" and "1x2 launch" for short.

But "1.5 launch" has a ring about it.   It fits with the modern internet generation (I'm actually amazed they didn't stick the letter "X" or "i" in there somewhere too to make it really net-trendy) who undoubtedly see it as lower because they won't bother to ever count the number of actual launches.

Sales guy's would call it "creative advertising".   I call it "deliberate misrepresentation".   YMMV.   Glad you've noticed it without prompting - you're well ahead of the curve.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 08/18/2007 08:36 am
Quote
kraisee - 17/8/2007  10:42 PM

But "1.5 launch" has a ring about it.   It fits with the modern internet generation (I'm actually amazed they didn't stick the letter "X" or "i" in there somewhere too to make it really net-trendy) who undoubtedly see it as lower because they won't bother to ever count the number of actual launches.

I suppose that a half-launch would be an orbital launcher that fails to achieve orbit.  Doing half of the job is just as good as not doing the job at all.

As a wise professor of mine once observed, "You can't be half-pregnant."  He said it in reference to situations where the answer to a question was clear-cut, but it definitely came into my mind the first time I saw the "1.5 launch" cliche.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 08/18/2007 10:44 am
Quote
kraisee - 18/8/2007  4:09 AM

I believe that NASA decided to replicate the overall costs for Ares based on current Shuttle numbers.   But I think they simply forgot that things like the LSAM are going to cost an awful lot more on top of the LV's.   NASA's own numbers clearly show that the LSAM will cost about as much as the CEV and both CLV and CaLV put together.

They should have worked out the full costs of the program, and tried to keep that under the current STS/ISS budget levels.   All they had to do was spread the work out differently.   There's certainly more than enough work to go around for a robust lunar program without it all being focussed on the LV's alone as it is currently with the Shuttle.

It is strange that they've chosen and are sticking with a plan which the GAO report said involves multi-billion dollar annual shortfalls. Mike Griffin isn't stupid. He must know that there isn't the money to do what he's promised.

Therefore, it can't be a serious plan. There can't be any real expectation that it will be carried out because it would require a multi-billion dollar increase in NASA funding, which isn't going to happen. Direct is cheaper, but it's not that much cheaper in total, because the really high-cost item is the LSAM. Sending people to the moon is expensive.

The real part of the plan is presumably to develop Ares I to replace the shuttle in LEO, while saving as many NASA jobs as possible. The rest of the plan is just window dressing.

I doubt that the next administration would switch to Direct precisely because it commits them to developing a lunar launcher, or at least its first stage. It's a waste to do that rather than Ares I if you're not going to the moon. It increases pressure on you to have to start spending money on an LSAM near the end of your second term. The biggest problem with any moon plan is finding the tens of billions to develop the LSAM and the billions a year it would cost to supply them for lunar missions. It's only politically conceivable if the total development and running costs of the entire system can be kept within the $5 billion a year they have at present. Given that NASA's estimates of what things will cost are always low-balled, we have to expect anything to cost a lot more than the ESAS report says anyway. I doubt you could develop and run a moon program for $5 billion a year.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 08/18/2007 10:58 am
Quote
kraisee - 18/8/2007  5:42 AM

Yeah, I had noticed that too Yegor.

Actually the ESAS solution should really be described as a "2-launch vehicle, 2-launch" solution where DIRECT proposes a "1-launch vehicle, 2-launch" solution.   "2x2 launch" and "1x2 launch" for short.

But "1.5 launch" has a ring about it.   It fits with the modern internet generation (I'm actually amazed they didn't stick the letter "X" or "i" in there somewhere too to make it really net-trendy) who undoubtedly see it as lower because they won't bother to ever count the number of actual launches.

Sales guy's would call it "creative advertising".   I call it "deliberate misrepresentation".   YMMV.   Glad you've noticed it without prompting - you're well ahead of the curve.

Ross.

Actually, it's much more complicated than that.
In fact there are following components for NASA architecture:
5seg SRB
J-2X
Ares1 US
EDS
Ares V core with RS-68
Orion
descend LSAM
ascend LSAM


I'm not sure about Direct architecture (it's somewhat fluid and definitelly less elegant than 1 or 1.5 launch strategy) but it seems that there are:
4seg SRB
J-2X
EDS
Jupiter core with RS-68
Orion
descend LSAM
ascend LSAM

It's quite similar except for Ares 1 US.
In adition NASA architecture is developing 5seg SRB.
In exchange it offers bigger cargo delivered to moon in one shot, more safety and simpler missions.
If the Direct path was adopted from the beginning the ISS capability could have been online sooner (because J-2X would not be required for ISS and RS-68 human rating could be easier to develop than J-2X).

The mission architecture favours using 1.5 launch strategy (One CLV + one CaLV).
Of course NASA architecture allows for using also 2 launch strategy (two CaLV with crew going up with one cargo launch) but it's less efficient, less safe and more complicated.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 08/18/2007 12:47 pm
Here is how I would reuse the SSMEs:

1. Put a spherical, concave downward RCC heat shield between the engines and the tank. The heat shield is attached to the engines by the thrust structure and to the tank by explosive bolts.
 
2. At MECO, the engines, as well as the tank, separate from each other and from the payload or upper stage.
 
3. The engines reenter in a stable, heat shield-first attitude.
 
4. A parachute deploys after the reentry heating.
 
5.(Optional) A retro-rocket ensures a gentle landing.  
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Giovanni DS on 08/18/2007 12:52 pm
Direct 2 still looks much better because it is much more flexible, not JUST because it is a cheaper option IMO.

Ares I is only useful to launch the Orion in a suborbital trajectory. Why build a launcher that can do just one thing (barely) ? huge waste of money.
Ares V probably is too big for everything except for lunar missions, assuming it will be ever built.

J-120 and J-232 are cheaper, really reuse STS hardware and have a growth path.

Interesting thread anyway
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/18/2007 12:58 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 18/8/2007  8:47 AM

Here is how I would reuse the SSMEs:

1. Put a spherical, concave downward RCC heat shield between the engines and the tank. The heat shield is attached to the engines by the thrust structure and to the tank by explosive bolts.
2. At MECO, the engines, as well as the tank, separate from each other and from the payload or upper stage.
3. The engines reenter in a stable, heat shield-first attitude.
4. A parachute deploys after the reentry heating.
5.(Optional) A retro-rocket ensures a gentle landing.  

Extra weight, extra complexity, extra manpower, the  recovery force, salt water emmersion, the low flight rates make it more expensive than desposable RS-68's that have lower ISP.

It is not worth the effort
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 08/18/2007 01:41 pm
Quote
kraisee - 18/8/2007 5:42 AM Yeah, I had noticed that too Yegor. Actually the ESAS solution should really be described as a "2-launch vehicle, 2-launch" solution where DIRECT proposes a "1-launch vehicle, 2-launch" solution. "2x2 launch" and "1x2 launch" for short. But "1.5 launch" has a ring about it. It fits with the modern internet generation (I'm actually amazed they didn't stick the letter "X" or "i" in there somewhere too to make it really net-trendy) who undoubtedly see it as lower because they won't bother to ever count the number of actual launches. Sales guy's would call it "creative advertising". I call it "deliberate misrepresentation". YMMV. Glad you've noticed it without prompting - you're well ahead of the curve. Ross.Actually, it's much more complicated than that. In fact there are following components for NASA architecture: 5seg SRB J-2X Ares1 US EDS Ares V core with RS-68 Orion descend LSAM ascend LSAM I'm not sure about Direct architecture (it's somewhat fluid and definitelly less elegant than 1 or 1.5 launch strategy) but it seems that there are: 4seg SRB J-2X EDS Jupiter core with RS-68 Orion descend LSAM ascend LSAM It's quite similar except for Ares 1 US. In adition NASA architecture is developing 5seg SRB. In exchange it offers bigger cargo delivered to moon in one shot, more safety and simpler missions. If the Direct path was adopted from the beginning the ISS capability could have been online sooner (because J-2X would not be required for ISS and RS-68 human rating could be easier to develop than J-2X). The mission architecture favours using 1.5 launch strategy (One CLV + one CaLV). Of course NASA architecture allows for using also 2 launch strategy (two CaLV with crew going up with one cargo launch) but it's less efficient, less safe and more complicated.
It makes more sense if you compare new development items needed for Ares and Direct. It then looks something like this:5 seg boosterAres I upper stageJ2-XDAres V CoreUpgraded RS-68EDSJ2-Xvs.Jupiter CoreEDSJ2-XAlso, isn't Direct the real 1.5 launch solution? You launch "half" of the rocket, the J-120, and then the full rocket, the J-232? ;)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 08/18/2007 01:47 pm
If NASA explained 1.5 launch as Ares 1 and Ares 5, that might qualify as clever advertising. But it wasn't sold that way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 08/18/2007 02:17 pm
Quote
Jim - 18/8/2007  8:58 AM

Quote
tnphysics - 18/8/2007  8:47 AM

Here is how I would reuse the SSMEs:

1. Put a spherical, concave downward RCC heat shield between the engines and the tank. The heat shield is attached to the engines by the thrust structure and to the tank by explosive bolts.
2. At MECO, the engines, as well as the tank, separate from each other and from the payload or upper stage.
3. The engines reenter in a stable, heat shield-first attitude.
4. A parachute deploys after the reentry heating.
5.(Optional) A retro-rocket ensures a gentle landing.  


Extra weight, extra complexity, extra manpower, the  recovery force, salt water emmersion, the low flight rates make it more expensive than desposable RS-68's that have lower ISP.

It is not worth the effort
The SSME's high Isp saves you an Advanced Upper Stage and eliminates that expense. Reusable (but not expendable) SSME's have lower costs than the Advanced Upper Stage. Each SSME does the same work as an RS-68, because the SSME's higher Isp allows the version with 3 SSMEs to have a similar payload to the version with 3 RS-68s and an Upper Stage. It is worth the effort, in my opinion.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: bobthemonkey on 08/18/2007 02:20 pm
I'm sorry if I've asked this before, but what mass would Direct 2 be able to put in a 407kmx407km orbit.

If the figure is less than 90mt, what upgrades would be needed to Direct to meet this target.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/18/2007 03:34 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 18/8/2007  10:17 AM
]The SSME's high Isp saves you an Advanced Upper Stage and eliminates that expense. Reusable (but not expendable) SSME's have lower costs than the Advanced Upper Stage. Each SSME does the same work as an RS-68, because the SSME's higher Isp allows the version with 3 SSMEs to have a similar payload to the version with 3 RS-68s and an Upper Stage. It is worth the effort, in my opinion.



Wrong comparsion.  The 3 SSME payload can't do anything without an upperstage.  But actually the cost of resusing the SSME would be more than the cost of the upperstage.  Resusability is a waste for low  flight rates, and can't offset the difference in ISP
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 08/18/2007 06:10 pm
Quote
kraisee - 17/8/2007  11:42 PM

Yeah, I had noticed that too Yegor.

Actually the ESAS solution should really be described as a "2-launch vehicle, 2-launch" solution where DIRECT proposes a "1-launch vehicle, 2-launch" solution.   "2x2 launch" and "1x2 launch" for short.

But "1.5 launch" has a ring about it.   It fits with the modern internet generation (I'm actually amazed they didn't stick the letter "X" or "i" in there somewhere too to make it really net-trendy) who undoubtedly see it as lower because they won't bother to ever count the number of actual launches.

Sales guy's would call it "creative advertising".   I call it "deliberate misrepresentation".   YMMV.   Glad you've noticed it without prompting - you're well ahead of the curve.

Ross.

eew... but if it works...    How about the "Jupiter be120" and "Jupiter se232" and "Jupiter xe232" (for the possible stretched core, 5-seg edition.)  b=basic, s=standard, x=extended

and if you can fit "mp3" in there, it sells even better for the under-25 crowd.   :laugh:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/18/2007 07:47 pm
Let's say NASA is determined not to deviate too far from the current path, with contracts awarded, terminations fees, face saving, etc.  How about a compromise?

Let them keep working on the J2-derivative, the regenerative vac-optimized RS-68 (has that contract been awarded yet?), and the 5 seg SRB.  Re-direct the Ares-I upper stage work to the J-232 upper stage/EDS (similar - same engine, cryo, common bulkhead, etc.).  Start working on a modified STS tank for the J-120 and J-232.

When you're done, you have a 4 or 5 segment option for each vehicle, and better lower and upper stage engines than currently planned under DIRECT 2.0.  You still save the Ares I infrastructure development (MLPs, service structure, VAB, etc.), the Ares V 10m tank development, the Ares V EDS (already done from the redirected Ares I upper stage work), and all the Ares V related infrastructure development.  Keep Orion going but relax some of the mass constraints.

As a stop-gap, you man-rate the RS-68 and build the J-120 as currently planned and call all the flights to ISS "test flights" until the new engines are ready to be operational.

This keeps more of the inertia going in the direction it's already going, and produces more capable vehicles when done, for sure at a higher cost than DIRECT 2, but a lower cost than Constellation as currently planned.

Does this make any sense?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/18/2007 08:18 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 18/8/2007  3:47 PM
, the regenerative vac-optimized RS-68 (has that contract been awarded yet?),

There is no plan for this by anyone
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/18/2007 08:34 pm
Quote
Jim - 18/8/2007  2:18 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 18/8/2007  3:47 PM
, the regenerative vac-optimized RS-68 (has that contract been awarded yet?),

There is no plan for this by anyone

Oh...I thought constellation was going to use RS-68s with Regen and 106% thrust.  Not true?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/18/2007 09:01 pm
NASA are going to use a variant of RS-68 with 106%, but it will be with an ablative nozzle, not Regen.

Basically USAF is developing a more powerful version of the '68 for the Delta-IV Heavy to be able to launch some heavy DoD payloads.   NASA currently intends to use this higher stressed engine as a base for man-rating for use on Ares-V.

PWR has started work on re-qualifying the '68 at this 106% higher performance level already.

NASA has stopped all of its development work due to funding issues and is putting off that work until the 2012 timeframe.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/18/2007 09:09 pm
Ah...okay then delete that portion from what I said.  Still, the idea is the same with that portion removed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/18/2007 09:48 pm
Quote
bobthemonkey - 18/8/2007  10:20 AM

I'm sorry if I've asked this before, but what mass would Direct 2 be able to put in a 407kmx407km orbit.

If the figure is less than 90mt, what upgrades would be needed to Direct to meet this target.

BobTheMonkey,
A Jupiter-232 CaLV can place over 93.1mT of useful payload to ISS-compatible orbits.   No upgrades are required for the Jupiter "as presented".

Having said that, please also be aware that the margins we have throughout the system are significantly higher than ESAS'.   Our mass allocations are higher, our payload numbers lower.   Overall we are a lot more conservative on our numbers than an "apples to apples" comparison would actually show.

I personally have no doubts that the published numbers for Jupiter-232 can be beaten by about 10mT when turned out in real metal.

But we are being deliberately "safe".   Previous DIRECT work has resulted in skepticism from some quarters.   The cry of "you can't do that" isn't good for our proposal, so we are deliberately publishing numbers which have higher margins than we believe are necessary - to avoid any such shouting from drowning out our key message.

The numbers we have here (Horizons article for example) should be free from those cries.   But we do have industry analysis in hand already demonstrating that we should actually be able to seriously beat these numbers.   We have one industry team who have indicated that our EDS, for example, actually masses about 40% too much.   But if we use their numbers, people will cry foul regarding propellant mass fractions.   So we aren't using the "best" numbers.   We're using "acceptable" numbers to prove the concept works, and then when built, the real mass fractions can actually be used to improve performance significantly.

J-232 is actually a 100+mT to LEO booster.   We just can't say that too loudly at this point in time.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/19/2007 05:50 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 18/8/2007  3:47 PM

Let's say NASA is determined not to deviate too far from the current path, with contracts awarded, terminations fees, face saving, etc.  How about a compromise?

Let them keep working on the J2-derivative, the regenerative vac-optimized RS-68 (has that contract been awarded yet?), and the 5 seg SRB.  Re-direct the Ares-I upper stage work to the J-232 upper stage/EDS (similar - same engine, cryo, common bulkhead, etc.).  Start working on a modified STS tank for the J-120 and J-232.

When you're done, you have a 4 or 5 segment option for each vehicle, and better lower and upper stage engines than currently planned under DIRECT 2.0.  You still save the Ares I infrastructure development (MLPs, service structure, VAB, etc.), the Ares V 10m tank development, the Ares V EDS (already done from the redirected Ares I upper stage work), and all the Ares V related infrastructure development.  Keep Orion going but relax some of the mass constraints.

As a stop-gap, you man-rate the RS-68 and build the J-120 as currently planned and call all the flights to ISS "test flights" until the new engines are ready to be operational.

This keeps more of the inertia going in the direction it's already going, and produces more capable vehicles when done, for sure at a higher cost than DIRECT 2, but a lower cost than Constellation as currently planned.

Does this make any sense?

That's not far from what we would suggest.   These specific decisions would obviously be up to NASA Administration, not us, but reusing existing contracts and just altering their requirements is always going to be the recommended way to go - and is something NASA and the various contractors are eminently used to doing already.

The Ares-I Upper Stage contract can very logically morph into the Jupiter Upper Stage contract.   That's really a given IMHO.   While Jupiter delete's Ares-V's Core Stage and Upper Stage production line at Michoud, the considerably higher flight rate of Jupiter Core's and Upper Stages easily makes up the numbers.   Whoever is building those stages will just be making different hardware so those contractors would be very well compensated.

The recent $1.8 billion Ares-I SRB development contract can be modified into a re-qualification contract for the existing 4-segment SRB's, and can perhaps include a smaller development program to update the 30 year old avionics.   But the balance of the $1.8 billion recently announced should be redirected to pay for flight sets of 4-segment SRB's for actual missions.   Due to the faster development schedule, Jupiter would actually fly 12 missions (24 4-segment SRB's in total) in the same timeframe as getting Ares-I's first flight - by 2015.   Although there is considerably less development work, 12 flight sets still have to be paid for and I'm betting that $1.8bn isn't actually quite enough to cover this cost.   I'm far from convinced that ATK wouldn't actually profit *more* and *sooner* with Jupiter than with Ares.   The numbers I've seen indicate about half to one billion extra in ATK's pocket by 2018 with Jupiter compared to Ares.   If that isn't sufficient to catch their intense interest I'd be quite surprised.

CEV & LAS contracts don't need much modification, other than the deletion of requirement for some lift-off propellant because Jupiter actually places the CEV straight into orbit.   Some other changes would be possible, but they are relatively minimal.   One is that the LAS could be lighter because the Jupiter abort conditions are considerably less stressful than Ares-I's.

We still need the J-2X contract for our Upper Stage - although Pratt & Whitney/Rocketdyne (PWR) can take two extra years to deliver the engine, so they wouldn't be quite so "under the gun" as with Ares-I.   This ought to allow for better testing of this crucial engine.

The Ares-V's RS-68 development contract (not issued so far) would be smaller because we just don't need to operate the engines at the higher stress levels of 106%.   The standard 100% is more than sufficient for all ISS and Lunar missions we are planning.   But just as with the SRB's, we would actually need 58 flight engines for actual missions before the end of 2018 - the year of Ares-V's first test flight.   At $40m each for the man-rated versions of the RS-68 - the Jupiter route is worth about $2.3 billion thru 2018 to PWR and about half a billion every year after that - easily the match of Ares-V's "value" to that contractor (this in addition to J-2XD supplies).

All of these companies would earn at least the same amount of money (and profit), just NASA would get different things in return.   More Production Units mostly, instead of just development work.   And with production units, NASA gets more *return* for these significant investments.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: bobthemonkey on 08/19/2007 07:42 pm
Thanks, I was trying to see how Direct would fit with some of the current assumptions for a prospective manned mission to mars.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/19/2007 09:48 pm
Jupiter-232 can support either NASA's DRM 3.0 or Zubrin's Mars Direct (pure coincidence that we have a similar name).

My preferred approach (personal opinion only, mind you), is to implement a "taxi" vehicle between Earth and Mars Orbit, with a Propellant Depot at the Earth end filled by the cheapest possible method we can use (Jupiter's, EELV's, alt-space or Lunar ISRU - I don't care).   There seem to be pro's and con's for where to implement the Depot Station though.   LEO, EML1 and EML2 are all in the running.

This sort of bsic approach could be enabled as a four or five launch solution, with half the flights being propellant only - which is an awful lot cheaper than flights launching spacecraft.

And the basic solution could be "beta tested" using a Lunar mission analogue too - allowing real experience to be built with most infrastructure elements before extending to full Mars-duration missions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: bobthemonkey on 08/19/2007 09:53 pm
I was basing my figures on DRM3 +margin.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/19/2007 10:01 pm
I guessed that might be the reason :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 08/19/2007 10:29 pm
Quote
kraisee - 18/8/2007  3:01 PM

NASA are going to use a variant of RS-68 with 106%, but it will be with an ablative nozzle, not Regen.

Basically USAF is developing a more powerful version of the '68 for the Delta-IV Heavy to be able to launch some heavy DoD payloads.   NASA currently intends to use this higher stressed engine as a base for man-rating for use on Ares-V.

PWR has started work on re-qualifying the '68 at this 106% higher performance level already.

NASA has stopped all of its development work due to funding issues and is putting off that work until the 2012 timeframe.

Ross.

AFAIK, the Ares V baseline design still uses the 106% thrust, ablative-nozzle RS-68.  Has this changed in the last few months?

As far as the RS-68 Regen goes (same expansion ratio, 418 sec vac Isp,) is this still an active PWR project?  Do they foresee a NASA or DoD customer for this engine?

Quote
kraisee - 19/8/2007  3:48 PM

Jupiter-232 can support either NASA's DRM 3.0 or Zubrin's Mars Direct (pure coincidence that we have a similar name).

It's important to remember that DRM 3.0 only imagines 80 mT payloads being placed in LEO.  The "Magnum" booster wasn't too different from the Jupiter configurations: two standard SRB's, two or three RS-68's on the core, and a small "kickstage" on top.  The biggest difference was that Magnum used an all-new core design instead of an ET-heritage core.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/19/2007 10:39 pm
CFE,
The RS-68 106% Ablative version is being developed for Delta-IV and is being paid for by the DoD.   There are apparently a few military payloads which can't fly on the current Delta-IV Heavy without this increase.   I believe this development work is going on right now at PWR because there is an existing launch requirement for NRO for a Delta-IV Heavy with this extra performance within the next year or two.

The RS-68 106% Ablative RS-68 performance numbers have not yet been released publicly, but it is unlikely to have quite the same performance as the RS-68 106% Regen (418s Isp) which we have seen before.

Given that the last Ares-V chart from CxP (April 2007) showed 414.2s/784,000lbf for the RS-68, I believe this chart is probably showing the RS-68 106% Ablative version of the RS-68.

NASA's connection will be that some time after 2012, they take this RS-68 106% Ablative engine and "man rate" it for Ares-V.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/19/2007 11:35 pm
How much development work would be involved in creating a vac-optimized ablative nozzle for the standard RS-68?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 08/20/2007 12:24 am
Ross and team.. you folks may have see this already.. but just look at the number of views to this thread... if that does not say something, without fanfare, I don't know what does..  congrats
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/20/2007 07:31 am
Quote
Avron - 19/8/2007  8:24 PM

Ross and team.. you folks may have see this already.. but just look at the number of views to this thread... if that does not say something, without fanfare, I don't know what does..  congrats

Oh, absolutely Avron!

134,889 views for this thread (as I type this), plus another 161,733 for the original DIRECT Goes Live Thread are quite exceptional numbers.

I believe that the two 100+page threads have caused Chris a few technical headaches being as long as they are on this forum, but I'm very glad Chris and his team have managed to keep things running so smoothly for us all.

Both threads certainly rank as some of the most prolific on the entire site.   Without doubt, the interest in this concept has been, and continues to be, most extraordinary.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/20/2007 07:44 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 19/8/2007  7:35 PM

How much development work would be involved in creating a vac-optimized ablative nozzle for the standard RS-68?

A fair bit actually.   While I'm personally unsure precisely what hardware changes might be incurred, with no doubts at all a full re-qualification program would be required.

But the performance advantages are noticeable.   Efficiency (Isp) would go up for the portion of the flight after the SRB's have been discarded - and that makes a big difference in performance for this system to LEO.

But the most interesting thing I would like to see changed is the LH2 temperature as it enters the combustion chamber.   Apparently a design flaw means that LH2 is entering the injectors about 20 degrees below optimum - which reduces combustion efficiency (negatively effecting the "C sub star" part of the equation for all those techies out there who are interested).   While the engine works fairly well still, it has room for improvement because of this.  There are two likely solutions to improve this:-

1) Increase the length of the combustion chamber (expensive and technically a "big" job) to a size where the lower temp LH2 has more chance to expand and combust more efficiently.   or

2) Use a Regen nozzle to cycle the LH2 around the engine bell allowing some LH2 to raise its temperature.   When this higher temp LH2 is re-injected back into the combustion chamber it would be much more suited for the current combustion chamber.

Of course, doing both, and optimizing the nozzle for the altitude you need it would be the best of all worlds - but that sort of things gets pretty expensive.

For now though, DIRECT's Jupiter launchers are okay to just use the stock Delta-IV engine "as is".   We're getting more than sufficient performance to accomplish all of the VSE's goals without having to spend any extra funds at all - so why bother?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/20/2007 01:39 pm
Suggestion

May be it is economically more efficient to drop J-2X engine altogether and use just one modified RS-68 on the earth departure stage?
Then vacuum version of RS-68 would need multi-start capability and may be some other changes depending on economical efficiency: may be just longer nozzle or may be Regen nozzle.
In that case we save on J-2X fixed cost. Basically the same idea as with launch vehicles instead of two we have just one.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/20/2007 01:46 pm
Quote
Yegor - 20/8/2007  9:39 AM

Suggestion

May be it is economically more efficient to drop J-2X engine altogether and use just one modified RS-68 on the earth departure stage?
Then vacuum version of RS-68 would need multi-start capability and may be some other changes depending on economical efficiency: may be just longer nozzle or may be Regen nozzle.
In that case we save on J-2X fixed cost. Basically the same idea as with launch vehicles instead of two we have just one.

RS-68 is only ground start and not restartable.  There is no vacuum version.  It would be not economically  to mod it.  Also too high of thrust and too low ISP
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/20/2007 04:57 pm
Jim is dead on.   The RS-68 needs tons and tons of ground support equipment to get it started.   You don't want to be carrying all that stuff on board your spacecraft.

Expanding on Jim's comment a bit more, the J-2XD is much more efficient than RS-68.   It has a vacuum Isp of 448s - about 30-34 higher than RS-68.   Once you are outside the atmosphere and away from most of the gravity losses, thrust actually becomes almost irrelevant - *efficiency is everything* at that point so maximizing your Isp is critical for things like the Trans-Lunar Injection Burn on Lunar missions.   J-2XD kicks RS-68 into touch in this respect.   Thrust is really only important during the ascent phase while still climbing out of the atmosphere.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 08/20/2007 05:44 pm
They can use lessons learned and even some parts from the recent RS-68 program when making J-2XD and J-2X.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/20/2007 06:14 pm
A little late for this question, but it just occurred to me.  Why does the J-232 need two J2s in the upper stage/EDS, while Ares-V only needs one?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/20/2007 07:12 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 20/8/2007  2:14 PM

A little late for this question, but it just occurred to me.  Why does the J-232 need two J2s in the upper stage/EDS, while Ares-V only needs one?

Higher performance.

There is a single engine variant (the Jupiter-231) which we have investigated, but it isn't ideally suited to this configuration.   J-231 Performance is about 10mT below the J-232 configuration.

The size of the Jupiter Core, more precisely the point in the flight where its tanks run dry, determines how much power you need on your Upper Stage.   For Jupiter, a 2-engine Upper Stage hits a real sweet spot.

Ares-V's gargantuan Core does more work during the ascent, so the Upper doesn't have to.   A second engine on the Ares-V U/S doesn't actually make much difference.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/20/2007 07:36 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/8/2007  11:57 AM

Jim is dead on.   The RS-68 needs tons and tons of ground support equipment to get it started.   You don't want to be carrying all that stuff on board your spacecraft.

Expanding on Jim's comment a bit more, the J-2XD is much more efficient than RS-68.   It has a vacuum Isp of 448s - about 30-34 higher than RS-68.   Once you are outside the atmosphere and away from most of the gravity losses, thrust actually becomes almost irrelevant - *efficiency is everything* at that point so maximizing your Isp is critical for things like the Trans-Lunar Injection Burn on Lunar missions.   J-2XD kicks RS-68 into touch in this respect.   Thrust is really only important during the ascent phase while still climbing out of the atmosphere.

Ross.
Jim and Ross, Thank you for a quick reply!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/20/2007 07:41 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/8/2007  2:12 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 20/8/2007  2:14 PM

A little late for this question, but it just occurred to me.  Why does the J-232 need two J2s in the upper stage/EDS, while Ares-V only needs one?

Higher performance.

There is a single engine variant (the Jupiter-231) which we have investigated, but it isn't ideally suited to this configuration.   J-231 Performance is about 10mT below the J-232 configuration.

The size of the Jupiter Core, more precisely the point in the flight where its tanks run dry, determines how much power you need on your Upper Stage.   For Jupiter, a 2-engine Upper Stage hits a real sweet spot.

Ares-V's gargantuan Core does more work during the ascent, so the Upper doesn't have to.   A second engine on the Ares-V U/S doesn't actually make much difference.

Ross.
IMHO two J-2 engines on EDS increase reliability of EDS comparing to one engine.
There were J-2 failures during Apollo program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 08/20/2007 08:41 pm
Quote
Yegor - 20/8/2007  3:41 PM

Quote
kraisee - 20/8/2007  2:12 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 20/8/2007  2:14 PM

A little late for this question, but it just occurred to me.  Why does the J-232 need two J2s in the upper stage/EDS, while Ares-V only needs one?

Higher performance.

There is a single engine variant (the Jupiter-231) which we have investigated, but it isn't ideally suited to this configuration.   J-231 Performance is about 10mT below the J-232 configuration.

The size of the Jupiter Core, more precisely the point in the flight where its tanks run dry, determines how much power you need on your Upper Stage.   For Jupiter, a 2-engine Upper Stage hits a real sweet spot.

Ares-V's gargantuan Core does more work during the ascent, so the Upper doesn't have to.   A second engine on the Ares-V U/S doesn't actually make much difference.

Ross.
IMHO two J-2 engines on EDS increase reliability of EDS comparing to one engine.
There were J-2 failures during Apollo program.

I think those issues on Saturn V were identified early on in the program, however.  They were related to pogo and a wiring issue.  Those issues were on the S-II stage.  I don't recall any issues with the single J-2 powered S-IVB, either on the Saturn IB or the Saturn V.  

Single RL-10's fly quire regularly on the EELV's with the added complexity of an extendable nozzle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/20/2007 09:00 pm
I think the J-2 derivatives should be pretty reliable, but I also expect teething problems for at least the first fifty flights of any new launch system.   While two causes for Apollo J-2 engine failures have been found, I'm betting there are plenty more which were just never encountered yet.   Look at the SSME - generally considered to be one of the most reliable LOX/LH2 engines of all time - there have been at least half a dozen launch attempts scrubbed because one or more SSME's failed to power up correctly in the last 6 seconds before committing to the launch.   That's a "failure to start" rate approaching 2% over 350+ ignitions for a highly reliable *ground started* engine.   Air-start is far more complex.   I just don't believe they can hope to make J-2X *that* much better than SSME has been.

Teething problems are just a fact of life in these complex systems.   Heck, Shuttle was totally successful right up until its 25th flight.   Atlas-V, Delta-IV and Falcon-1 have all had early "issues", so I'm not expecting *anything* different simply because its NASA building this new LV.   If anything, I'd actually say NASA has *less* experience building new LV's than either Lockheed or Boeing did.

What I am not convinced by though, is ATK/ESAS's argument that a single air-start engine on the Ares-I U/S is the best (safest) approach for manned flights.   I just do not buy that.

I'm with Yegor on this one and prefer the backup engine.   Even if one J-2X doesn't start on J-232, as long as you dump excess propellant, you're still going to make a rudimentary orbit of something like 80nm - and the CEV certainly has sufficient excess capability to get the crew (if not the rest of the payload) safely up higher than that in such Abort To Orbit (ATO) situations.

It may not be sufficient to save the "mission", but for a late abort scenario I would far prefer to get the crew "up" for a while and have the choice to bring them back in a controlled manner exactly where and when you want - rather than being forced down any particular emergency route and having no alternative but to put the crew through a ride on the LAS - which is the *only* option if the Ares-I J-2X ever fails to start.

I realize this sort of thing can be very subjective though, and YMMV of course, but I *really* like having the engine-out capabilities of Jupiter.

You guys can't tell I'm a fan of this, can ya? :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: EirikV on 08/20/2007 09:20 pm
Quote
brihath - 20/8/2007  3:41 PM

I don't recall any issues with the single J-2 powered S-IVB, either on the Saturn IB or the Saturn V.  

Single RL-10's fly quire regularly on the EELV's with the added complexity of an extendable nozzle.

The Apollo 10 crew suffered some high freq vibrations during their TLI using the S-IVB/J2, although the crew were ready to abort the burn, reports later stated that these vibrations were well within the limitations of the spacecraft. And in the early days, I believe it was on Apollo 6, the S-IVB refused to reignite in orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/20/2007 09:36 pm
Yes, and Apollo 13's center S-II engine shut down prematurely.

The good thing though, is that the J-2 has continued to be actively used for testing purposes throughout the last 30 years.   The most recent use of the basic J-2 hardware was in the Linear Aerospike test engine for the X-33.   The Core of the XRS-2200 engine used the turbo-pumps off the old Apollo J-2S test engines.

So the knowledge-base is pretty good and is still largely "current".   This is an advantage PWR will have under them while developing the new units.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 08/20/2007 10:58 pm
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/21/2007 04:37 am
I am a bit confused about Jupiter 232 performance.

AIAA "Horizons" Newsletter article says:

LEO DELIVERY ORBIT 30x120nm(55.6x222.2km) @ 28.5 deg
Maximum Payload (Gross) 106,101 kg
Maximum Payload (NET) 95,491 kg

http://www.aiaa-houston.org/newsletter/aug07/aug07.pdf

What do “NET” and “Gross” payload mean?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/21/2007 05:06 am
Purely for our documentation, the Gross payload is the maximum payload the vehicle should be able to lift with no artificial "margins" applied to the payload numbers.   NET assumes a standard 10% margin is applied.

Both numbers still *include* all mass allocation margins as part of the vehicle design - and we have been more generous with these than ESAS were with their vehicles.   Our mass numbers for all "new" hardware (both with and without heritage) are somewhere around 5-7% higher than ESAS equivalents so are not actually directly comparable.


BTW, before anyone asks, unlike ESAS, we are not accounting for an "extra 5% for ASE" because we are accounting for a very specific 3,900kg mass allocation for ASE on Cargo Flights instead.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/21/2007 05:43 am
Just a note, ASE only applies to the shuttle.  Payload adapter or payload support structure is the appropriate ELV term
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/21/2007 08:37 am
Agreed Jim - but in this respect we're using the same term ESAS chose to use.

For those unfamiliar with the term, ASE = Airborne Support Equipment.   Things such as the supporting "cradle" which the LSAM sits on above the EDS.   It will also include such things as electrical connections and propellant feedline hardware connecting the LSAM to the umbilical connections on the side of the launch vehicle.

As Jim points out the term has previously been "NASA Shuttle specific" with all other systems using different terms.   I suspect that NASA will continue to use the term "ASE" for all of its "home grown" vehicles regardless of any other conventions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 08/21/2007 10:22 am
Quote
kraisee - 20/8/2007  10:00 PM

I think the J-2 derivatives should be pretty reliable, but I also expect teething problems for at least the first fifty flights of any new launch system.   While two causes for Apollo J-2 engine failures have been found, I'm betting there are plenty more which were just never encountered yet.   Look at the SSME - generally considered to be one of the most reliable LOX/LH2 engines of all time - there have been at least half a dozen launch attempts scrubbed because one or more SSME's failed to power up correctly in the last 6 seconds before committing to the launch.   That's a "failure to start" rate approaching 2% over 350+ ignitions for a highly reliable *ground started* engine.   Air-start is far more complex.   I just don't believe they can hope to make J-2X *that* much better than SSME has been.


J-2X has solid state gas generator for start-up and is much simplier than SSME. J-2X has potential to be *significantly* safer than SSME. J-2X on EDS has two genereators for two start-ups. First J-2X burn places EDS+LSAM directly to the orbit the second one is TLI. The entire lunar mission requires a third J-2X start-up on Ares1 US.

The failure to start-up single engine placed in the vehicle axis certainly means abort of the mission but should be very benign and shoudn't pose any significant risk to the crew. It's something different than LAS escape from the exploding rocket under uncontrolled full thrust.  

Because the Direct is placing EDS into suborbital it needs to start-up each J-2X engine up to three times. If the 1.5 launch approach would be used (1 CaLV+ 1 CLV) it means 6 J-2X start-ups. The alternative would be to use much bigger EDS RCS for orbit insertion or J-2X iddle mode which has much lower ISP. This would decrease mission J-2X start-ups to four.

There is also increased risk due to assymetric thrust when one of the J-2X engine start-up properly while the other don't (or fail).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/21/2007 11:33 am
Quote
JIS - 21/8/2007  6:22 AM

There is also increased risk due to asymmetric thrust when one of the J-2X engine start-up properly while the other don't (or fail).
The risk is mitigated by engine geometry arrangement. The engines do not need to point straight forward, rather they can be dynamically gimbaled so their thrust vectors intersect on the vehicle centerline. This diminishes the effect of engine imbalance. SSME thrust vectors on Shuttle are also dynamically gimbaled to intersect on the stack CG for comparable reasons. This is fairly standard on multi-engine designs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/21/2007 11:37 am
Quote
clongton - 21/8/2007  7:33 AM

Quote
JIS - 21/8/2007  6:22 AM

There is also increased risk due to asymmetric thrust when one of the J-2X engine start-up properly while the other don't (or fail).
The risk is mitigated by engine geometry arrangement. The engines do not need to point straight forward, rather they can be dynamically gimbaled so their thrust vectors intersect on the vehicle centerline. This diminishes the effect of engine imbalance. SSME thrust vectors on Shuttle are also dynamically gimbaled to intersect on the stack CG for comparable reasons. This is fairly standard on multi-engine designs.

Correct,asymmetric thrust only matters in the atmosphere where there are losses.  There are none in space with gimbaling.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 08/21/2007 11:45 am
Quote
clongton - 21/8/2007  12:33 PM

Quote
JIS - 21/8/2007  6:22 AM

There is also increased risk due to asymmetric thrust when one of the J-2X engine start-up properly while the other don't (or fail).
The risk is mitigated by engine geometry arrangement. The engines do not need to point straight forward, rather they can be dynamically gimbaled so their thrust vectors intersect on the vehicle centerline. This diminishes the effect of engine imbalance. SSME thrust vectors on Shuttle are also dynamically gimbaled to intersect on the stack CG for comparable reasons. This is fairly standard on multi-engine designs.

Of course. That is why I did speak about 'increased risk' only. Although, thrust vectors of STS engines don't always go exactly through CG to decrease thrust losses of such arrangement.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 08/21/2007 05:00 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/8/2007  11:39 PM

CFE,
The RS-68 106% Ablative version is being developed for Delta-IV and is being paid for by the DoD.   There are apparently a few military payloads which can't fly on the current Delta-IV Heavy without this increase.   I believe this development work is going on right now at PWR because there is an existing launch requirement for NRO for a Delta-IV Heavy with this extra performance within the next year or two.

The RS-68 106% Ablative RS-68 performance numbers have not yet been released publicly, but it is unlikely to have quite the same performance as the RS-68 106% Regen (418s Isp) which we have seen before.

Given that the last Ares-V chart from CxP (April 2007) showed 414.2s/784,000lbf for the RS-68, I believe this chart is probably showing the RS-68 106% Ablative version of the RS-68.

NASA's connection will be that some time after 2012, they take this RS-68 106% Ablative engine and "man rate" it for Ares-V.

Ross.

During a struggle when reading that aaia Direct article:
http://www.aiaa-houston.org/newsletter/aug07/aug07.pdf
I found this paragraph stating:

*****
Unlike the Ares program, DIRECT
has retained the performance
of the existing engines rather
than upgrading them in any way.
This removes the significant de-
(Continued from page 9) velopment costs incurred in requalifying
the RS-68 to run continually
at the 106% maximum
power level needed for Ares-V,
erasing all schedule impacts from
the development path. Only the
process of man rating, such as
adding health monitoring systems
and backup actuators is required –
a task NASA is already considering.
*******

It might suggest that Jupiter doesn't need 106% upgrade of RS-68.
Is that article assuming that there will be two different versions of RS-68?
One human rated for NASA and another with increased thrust (and other upgrades) for DoD?

There are more hair rising sections in that article but this one just deals with RS-68 thema mentioned here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/21/2007 05:27 pm
Quote
JIS - 21/8/2007  1:00 PM

During a struggle when reading that aaia Direct article:
http://www.aiaa-houston.org/newsletter/aug07/aug07.pdf
I found this paragraph stating:

*****
Unlike the Ares program, DIRECT
has retained the performance
of the existing engines rather
than upgrading them in any way.
This removes the significant de-
(Continued from page 9) velopment costs incurred in requalifying
the RS-68 to run continually
at the 106% maximum
power level needed for Ares-V,
erasing all schedule impacts from
the development path. Only the
process of man rating, such as
adding health monitoring systems
and backup actuators is required –
a task NASA is already considering.
*******

It might suggest that Jupiter doesn't need 106% upgrade of RS-68.
Is that article assuming that there will be two different versions of RS-68?
One human rated for NASA and another with increased thrust (and other upgrades) for DoD?

There are more hair rising sections in that article but this one just deals with RS-68 thema mentioned here.

I'm sorry you found it a struggle to read the article.

You are correct that we do NOT require the 106% version of RS-68 for Jupiter.

My understanding is that there will be two RS-68 variants regardless of what NASA does.  Delta-IV will have a "Standard" RS-68 engine operated at 100% Mission Power Levels, and an "Uprated" one operated at 106% Mission Power Levels and used only for very specific missions requiring the additional performance.

What the specific hardware changes are between these units I don't personally know, but it will clearly be considerably more than just "software" changes.   What I do know is that both of these engines will be using Ablative nozzles and that the 106% "uprated" version will no longer be using a Regeneratively cooled nozzle (as was originally planned by PWR for upgrading Delta-IV).   I suspect this choice is mostly due to cost.   Failure rates and costs are likely to be a bit higher with the higher stressed engine, but will be acceptable for the DoD uses it is required for.


NASA can independently choose to perform its "man-rating" upon either of these units, or even to pay to develop the engine even further with such things as Regen or uprated combustion chambers if required.   But that decision can wait until around 2012 for the Ares-V schedule.   As it stands right now, NASA seems to be planning to use a man-rated version of the uprated 106% Delta-IV engine for Ares-V, but, as we all know, plans change any time so this is "fluid".

Man-rating an engine for NASA will actually be making a third variant of RS-68.


Ever since announcing DIRECT v2.0, we have been trying to make it plainly clear that we are planning a man-rated version of the "standard" 100% Mission Power Level engine only.

We simply do not require any extra performance because we have more than enough performance already without "upgrades".

And we would definitely prefer to avoid any potential safety margin concerns regarding surrounding a "higher stress" engine if at all possible and also avoiding extra costs involved with all of the 106% engines is also a "good" thing for us too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/21/2007 05:33 pm
Quote
JIS - 21/8/2007  6:22 AM

Because the Direct is placing EDS into suborbital...

This is not the only option, so please don't make assumptions regarding this.

The Trades are still to be done whether sub-orbital or circular injection works best for Jupiter Lunar missions.   If Ares-V Trades (which are always going to be different) are an indication, changing the initial targets to use direct orbital injection instead may prove to be better.

While the final analysis simply has not been done yet, no conclusions can yet be drawn one way or the other.   What I can say is that we lose only about 600kg of NET payload performance going straight to circular orbit, so it looks good that "straight to circular" will trade well against our current baseline.

One recent change is that we have decided to baseline all ISS-bound flights into initial orbits of 100x220nm.   This maximizes performance while still guaranteeing a stable orbit for all missions - allowing a relatively leisurely CEV transition to pick up any cargo also going to station.   The stages must be actively de-orbited using this technique, but that is a minor requirement given the inherently safer nature of this approach.

So please don't assume that our published figures and recommendations are the *only* options - they are NOT.   Jupiter systems are *FAR* more flexible than that.   And particularly in comparison to Ares-I, Jupiter systems are far more flexible than CxP's current plans are.   It would be a critical mistake to assume there is "only one way" any of these things can be done.

You're a smart guy JIS, so just think about it for a second and it ought to be plainly *obvious* to someone as familiar with this business as yourself that a booster with the ability to place 90+mT into a 30x120nm orbit can also place most of that same payload into direct circular 120nm.   It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work that out and assuming otherwise is just not helping.

The ways and means are many and varied and the Jupiter system is proving to be *exceptionally* flexible.   You could think of Jupiter as just a really big EELV!

Most of our published figures are based on performance to targets defined in other NASA published documentation for Constellation.   All we are doing is demonstrating Jupiter's performance to NASA's own targets.

But Jupiter is more than flexible enough to change to suit whatever NASA decides to do.   One set of performance numbers is *nowhere near* the full envelope of what Jupiter can do.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 08/22/2007 08:03 am
Quote
kraisee - 21/8/2007  6:33 PM

 booster with the ability to place 90+mT into a 30x120nm orbit can also place most of that same payload into direct circular 120nm.   It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work that out and assuming otherwise is just not helping.


What ESAS sold was architecture. What Direct sells is a launch vehicle. I found quite important to have a plan which works. What I'm looking for in your study is a workable plan. Many can see it but I can't. Hopefully there will be some critical review of you study. I do not thing that Direct can replace NASA architecture but it would be nice to see an opinion of those in charge.
I'm wandering what you did to Dr Stanley. Maybe he took some comments as an personal attack.


 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 08/22/2007 08:16 am
Quote
kraisee - 21/8/2007  6:27 PM

NASA can independently choose to perform its "man-rating" upon either of these units, or even to pay to develop the engine even further with such things as Regen or uprated combustion chambers if required.   But that decision can wait until around 2012 for the Ares-V schedule.   As it stands right now, NASA seems to be planning to use a man-rated version of the uprated 106% Delta-IV engine for Ares-V, but, as we all know, plans change any time so this is "fluid".

Man-rating an engine for NASA will actually be making a third variant of RS-68.


I supposed that the reason why NASA is coordinating RS-68 effort with DoD is to have one manrated RS-68 engine with some features removed for Delta IV launches.
I think that there will be quite significant changes to RS-68 and producing the old and new variant at once would hardly be efficient. But, as you said the upgraded RS-68 final design could be quite fluid at the moment.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/22/2007 08:44 am
Quote
JIS - 22/8/2007  4:03 AM

Quote
kraisee - 21/8/2007  6:33 PM

 booster with the ability to place 90+mT into a 30x120nm orbit can also place most of that same payload into direct circular 120nm.   It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work that out and assuming otherwise is just not helping.

What ESAS sold was architecture. What Direct sells is a launch vehicle. I found quite important to have a plan which works. What I'm looking for in your study is a workable plan. Many can see it but I can't.

I will try to help, but please try to come half way.   Setting your opinion against it will draw you down certain paths created by your negative view of the concept.   Come half way and keep an open approach and I'm 100% certain we will convince you in the end.


Quote
Hopefully there will be some critical review of you study.

A truly independent study is what we're after.   The best possible solution for us would be two:   One from CBO primarily focusing on budget and another from perhaps RAND focussed more on the engineering.

The AIAA Paper is partially attempting to create the necessary momentum to get those reviews.


Quote
I do not thing that Direct can replace NASA architecture but it would be nice to see an opinion of those in charge.

As long as that opinion isn't artificially swayed for some other reason I would agree.   However all indications are that personal ego is in the game related to Ares-I, and that makes all reviews from the current NASA Administration a biased one already set against DIRECT irrelevant of any advantages.   That sort of review wouldn't be helpful to anyone.


Quote
I'm wandering what you did to Dr Stanley. Maybe he took some comments as an personal attack.

Strange.   That's how we took many of his comments on DIRECT.   I personally was unable to get involved at the start of the year so was unable to get into any of the discussions, nor fend off any of the innacurate FUD attacks Dr. Stanley espoused at the time.   When I had a look after the dust was already mostly settled, I didn't see much in the way of anything attacking him, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

If I were to criticize Dr. Stanley personally I no longer believe he is as "independent" as he claims to be.   He worked closely with Griffin when they both worked at Orbital Sciences and is on record with fellow employees at Orbital as being a strong proponent of the basic "little & large" SDLV concept before he was put in charge of ESAS.   That sounds suspiciously to me like he entered the study with a personal bias which amazingly enough matched the final results.   On its own it isn't much in the way of evidence, but given that many others claim this was also the case for Horowitz and Griffin too it ought to be examined more carefully.   Given the controversy already uncovered regarding Horowitz/Ivins/ATK and the claims in ESAS artificially degrading both EELV systems at virtually every opportunity,  I'm of the personal opinion that the deck was stacked in specific favour of the "1.5 solution" long before the ESAS document ever started being written.   I have not, until you asked, put that in writing before, so I certainly haven't "attacked" Dr. Stanley before now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/22/2007 08:49 am
Quote
JIS - 22/8/2007  4:16 AM
I supposed that the reason why NASA is coordinating RS-68 effort with DoD is to have one manrated RS-68 engine with some features removed for Delta IV launches.
I think that there will be quite significant changes to RS-68 and producing the old and new variant at once would hardly be efficient. But, as you said the upgraded RS-68 final design could be quite fluid at the moment.

The last I heard was that NASA had actually pulled all of its RS-68 funding in order to pay for Ares-I and Orion, and that they were going to revisit it again in 2012 when they have Shuttle money available.

My current understanding of the situation is that the 106% upgrade to RS-68 is currently being done purely for DoD with little or no NASA input at this time.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 08/22/2007 09:23 am
Quote
kraisee - 22/8/2007  9:44 AM

Quote
JIS - 22/8/2007  4:03 AM

Quote
kraisee - 21/8/2007  6:33 PM

 booster with the ability to place 90+mT into a 30x120nm orbit can also place most of that same payload into direct circular 120nm.   It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work that out and assuming otherwise is just not helping.

What ESAS sold was architecture. What Direct sells is a launch vehicle. I found quite important to have a plan which works. What I'm looking for in your study is a workable plan. Many can see it but I can't.

I will try to help, but please try to come half way.   Setting your opinion against it will draw you down certain paths created by your negative view of the concept.   Come half way and keep an open approach and I'm 100% certain we will convince you in the end.

You don't understand. I'm trying really hard. That's why I'm reading this thread.
I'm sorry to read about your opinion on Dr Stanley. I'm afraid he will ignore you next time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/22/2007 10:44 am
Quote
JIS - 22/8/2007  5:23 AM

You don't understand. I'm trying really hard. That's why I'm reading this thread.
I'm sorry to read about your opinion on Dr Stanley. I'm afraid he will ignore you next time.

Oh, don't get me wrong - his complaints regarding DIRECT v1.0 were the primary reason why we re-configured the system and ended up with the *better* v2.0 configuration we have now.   He actually helped us and I thank him for that.

I just would have preferred a more constructive approach on his part.

Dr. Stanley's comments around New Year regarding DIRECT were all complaints.   The comments contained absolutely no constructive elements at all.   Further, the vast bulk of his complaints were focussed on bemoaning our public criticism of the Ares-I.   Given what I said earlier, I'm not surprised at the position he took in this regard.

The few complaints he made against the old v1.0 DIRECT launcher proposal itself were almost entirely focussed upon the use of the upgraded RS-68 "Regen" with 435s vac. Isp.   For the record it turns out this performance *was* pretty-much achievable after all - which actually invalidates this train of criticism entirely.   But that is irrelevant now because we are using only standard RS-68's performance now and that is still proving to be more than sufficient for our needs.


While it is NOT the official position of the DIRECT team, it is my *personal* opinion that Dr. Stanley is strongly biased towards Ares-I/V.   Given that, it my personal opinion that it would be impossible to get a truly unbiased assessment of DIRECT from him.

I would much rather see independent assessments by CBO and RAND - organizations which should have absolutely no "Ares" bias what-so-ever.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 08/22/2007 11:45 am
Quote
kraisee - 22/8/2007  11:44 AM

I would much rather see independent assessments by CBO and RAND - organizations which should have absolutely no "Ares" bias what-so-ever.


What is the chance that CBO or RAND would do such study? How long would it take?
In case of very positive feedback the NASA internal reevaluation would have to be ordered by Congress or administrator. How long could it take? What is the likelyhood of such scenario?
We know that the current NASA management is "biased" in favour of Ares not listening to "a good advice from outside" why they can't just present updated ESAS numbers?
NASA "disent" and contrators are "afraid" to speak - will it ever change?
I think you must be haunted by those questions. Do you have any answers or you don't want to disclose your strategy to the "enemies"?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/22/2007 12:02 pm
There are a number of opportunities which we are pursuing currently.   The AIAA Paper is largely targeted towards getting the CBO and RAND assessments.   Its audience is going to be a mixture of space engineers and political movers.   It is going to be sent specifically to a few key groups and individuals elsewhere who have influence in a number of different ways, mostly political.

For the most part we are trying to be as open as possible and are encouraging peer-review at all levels but yes, I am somewhat reluctant to talk about some of the specific strategies.   We're trying to take advantage of every possible method in achieving success.   We have had lots of advice regarding how to chase this down.


At present though, something we have recently got might be changing everything.   One particular nugget of news in-hand, the nature of which I can not, and will not, discuss in a public forum, is opening up a *very* unexpected opprtunity for us.   I have made a personal promise to a friend not to disclose this "nugget" yet, so please forgive me if I am forced to be "vague".   If this news proves to be accurate (and I am hearing confirming noises from multiple sources already) then we might seriously open doors for the DIRECT proposal within NASA itself.   If NASA would adopt DIRECT for itself, internally, rather than it being foisted upon the agency by external forces, then that is the very best solution of all from where I sit.

This "nugget" appears to be inter-related to the yet-to-be-published bottom-line results of the recent stand down, and also Doc Horowitz' "retirement".   While we are working "behind the scenes" preparing for the outcome of this "nugget" - we are awaiting public announcements before doing anything specifically based on this in any public setting.

Confusing?   Sorry.   I hate this cloak & dagger stuff myself, but its just necessary sometimes.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 08/22/2007 12:29 pm
Quote
kraisee - 22/8/2007  1:02 PM

If this news proves to be accurate (and I am hearing confirming noises from multiple sources already) then we might seriously open doors for the DIRECT proposal within NASA itself.   If NASA would adopt DIRECT for itself, internally, rather than it being foisted upon the agency by external forces, then that is the very best solution of all from where I sit.

This "nugget" appears to be inter-related to the yet-to-be-published bottom-line results of the recent stand down, and also Doc Horowitz' "retirement".

That's good news. Maybe you get another chance and NASA will do DIRECT v2 assesment after all. I'm really looking forward to it.
On the other side the outcome could be the same as with the first version.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/22/2007 12:36 pm
A fair assessment which is truly unbiased, and which examines what the basic "concept" is capable of really doing is what we are driving for.

We've taken the idea about as far as our team can, and now it really needs specific trades to be done to really pin down the massive variety of best options and alternatives available in this "1-launch vehicle, 2-launch" solution.   We have identified the best combination of hardware choices which we think will work - but the concept has many more potential configurations and there are quite likely to be even better configurations of Jupiter possible with additional investigation work.

I'm personally convinced that this concept offers considerably more than the "2-launch vehicle, 2-launch" solution proposed in ESAS.   We've been able to prove that at least 20-40% more performance and billions of dollars worth of savings can be achieved, but *exactly* how much more capable it is and *exactly* how much development money can be redirected from LV's to other elements of the program still needs more fine-tuning than we can do though.

My actual "ideal" preference would be to bypass the CBO and RAND and have NASA's vast resources take on the job and develop the answers we need a lot sooner.   That would result in the vehicles a lot sooner too, and that actively closes the "gap".

Getting NASA Administration to do that is the trick.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 08/22/2007 01:38 pm
Quote
kraisee - 22/8/2007  7:02 AM

There are a number of opportunities which we are pursuing currently.   The AIAA Paper is largely targeted towards getting the CBO and RAND assessments.   Its audience is going to be a mixture of space engineers and political movers.   It is going to be sent specifically to a few key groups and individuals elsewhere who have influence in a number of different ways, mostly political.

For the most part we are trying to be as open as possible and are encouraging peer-review at all levels but yes, I am somewhat reluctant to talk about some of the specific strategies.   We're trying to take advantage of every possible method in achieving success.   We have had lots of advice regarding how to chase this down.


At present though, something we have recently got might be changing everything.   One particular nugget of news in-hand, the nature of which I can not, and will not, discuss in a public forum, is opening up a *very* unexpected opprtunity for us.   I have made a personal promise to a friend not to disclose this "nugget" yet, so please forgive me if I am forced to be "vague".   If this news proves to be accurate (and I am hearing confirming noises from multiple sources already) then we might seriously open doors for the DIRECT proposal within NASA itself.   If NASA would adopt DIRECT for itself, internally, rather than it being foisted upon the agency by external forces, then that is the very best solution of all from where I sit.

This "nugget" appears to be inter-related to the yet-to-be-published bottom-line results of the recent stand down, and also Doc Horowitz' "retirement".   While we are working "behind the scenes" preparing for the outcome of this "nugget" - we are awaiting public announcements before doing anything specifically based on this in any public setting.

Confusing?   Sorry.   I hate this cloak & dagger stuff myself, but its just necessary sometimes.

Ross.

That would be good news indeed yet the Ares I contracts keep coming which kind of implies, if you are correct, different factions at work here. I suppose DIRECT could use the 5-seg RSRB and the J2-X engine but the Ares I upperstage ? Seems like that will be wasted money if they award the contract and change their mind later.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/22/2007 01:47 pm
Quote
marsavian - 22/8/2007  9:38 AM

That would be good news indeed yet the Ares I contracts keep coming which kind of implies, if you are correct, different factions at work here. I suppose DIRECT could use the 5-seg RSRB and the J2-X engine but the Ares I upperstage ? Seems like that will be wasted money if they award the contract and change their mind later.

they can be changed or cancelled.  No big deal
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 08/22/2007 02:17 pm
Quote
marsavian - 22/8/2007  9:38 AM
That would be good news indeed yet the Ares I contracts keep coming which kind of implies, if you are correct, different factions at work here. I suppose DIRECT could use the 5-seg RSRB and the J2-X engine but the Ares I upperstage ? Seems like that will be wasted money if they award the contract and change their mind later.

Quote
Jim - 22/8/2007  8:47 AM
they can be changed or cancelled.  No big deal

We will also want an upperstage/EDS at some point for DIRECTv2 as well using the same engine(s) as the Ares-I upperstage, so even if they do start work on this and then backed away from Ares I, it wouldn't be all for naught.

Actually, I wonder how well the as-currently-defined Ares I upperstage would perform as the upperstage on a Jupiter core.  Probably not the ideal upperstage, would want that second engine for starters (though who knows, that could still show up on Ares I, too).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 08/22/2007 02:40 pm
Quote
marsavian - 22/8/2007  2:38 PM
That would be good news indeed yet the Ares I contracts keep coming which kind of implies, if you are correct, different factions at work here. I suppose DIRECT could use the 5-seg RSRB and the J2-X engine but the Ares I upperstage ? Seems like that will be wasted money if they award the contract and change their mind later.
Direct can't use 5seg SRB. It would become Ares. For the same reason it can't use the clean pad.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 08/22/2007 02:45 pm
Err no, it can if they already existed at the time and Ross has stated so on numerous occasions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/22/2007 03:58 pm
Quote
marsavian - 22/8/2007  9:38 AM
I suppose DIRECT could use the 5-seg RSRB and the J2-X engine but the Ares I upperstage ? Seems like that will be wasted money if they award the contract and change their mind later.

That contract could be modified into the Upper Stage contract for Jupiter's.   They have quite a few similarities already so it wouldn't be very difficult.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/22/2007 04:08 pm
Quote
JIS - 22/8/2007  10:40 AM

Direct can't use 5seg SRB. It would become Ares. For the same reason it can't use the clean pad.

DIRECT's Jupiter LV's can use 5-segment boosters in precisely the same fashion as they were intended to be used by STS - with no stretched tanking at all and precisely the same current Fwd and Aft connection points.

Even though a contract is now in place with ATK for development of the 5-segment SRB's, that contract can still be modified to provide other products instead - such as a dozen or more "regular" 4-segment booster refurbishments for actual flight use.   As long as ATK still get their profits they won't care what they are asked to produce for the money.   And don't forget that any "point of no return" for stopping 5-segment SRB development is probably still at least 2-years away - for at least that period of time the majority of ATK's efforts will simply be computer modeling work, not "bending metal" - and computer models are not difficult to discard.

Even if 5-segment SRB's are dictated to NASA by external politics, Jupiter still works.

And actually there is still the case for extending the Core Tank length (& capacity) with a barrel stretch to match the 5-segment SRB's that way instead - but that would likely cost more, so is not our baseline configuration.   The result though, would be a lot closer to the original ESAS CaLV and the Jupiter-120 would likely be forced to become the "Jupiter-130 Heavy" in this case to get optimal performance.


Here is a Link to an ATK document describing how 5-segment boosters could be used with the standard STS ET.   DIRECT would use this exact same approach if 5-segment boosters were no longer an option to be deleted.

Ross.

PS - JIS - this is exactly what I was talking about before.   "Glass half full"-style categorical statements that Jupiter "can't do something" need to be carefully checked first, and thought through more thoroughly.   Usually things like this actually *can* be done with Jupiter.   It is remarkable just how flexible the Jupiter concept really is.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 08/22/2007 04:16 pm
That's interesting. So a 5-seg stretched Jupiter 130 would lift about 70 mT ? One of those could do the CEV and LSAM ;). What would be the ideal upper stage/EDS in that stretched 5-seg case, one or two J2s ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/22/2007 04:19 pm
A single engined EDS offers the best overall Lunar performance for a 5-segment+stretched Core configuration Jupiter.   Performance is around 105-110mT to LEO although our numbers for such a "Jupiter-231 Heavy" are not yet as "high fidelity" as those for the regular Jupiter's.

We won't be changing our baseline to 5-segs until we have no other choice.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 08/23/2007 08:58 am
Quote
kraisee - 22/8/2007  5:08 PM

PS - JIS - this is exactly what I was talking about before.   "Glass half full"-style categorical statements that Jupiter "can't do something" need to be carefully checked first, and thought through more thoroughly.   Usually things like this actually *can* be done with Jupiter.   It is remarkable just how flexible the Jupiter concept really is.

Ross.

Read my previous post again.
With 5seg SRB the DIRECT would be more and more closer to AresV.
The Direct benefit was to fly as soon as possible with minimal design costs.
Ares1/AresV beats Direct on overall performance, safety and lunar architecture.
Any additional features of Direct just makes it to go closer to AresV whith loosing the benefit of timeline (which starts to be doubtfull) and design costs (not talking about overall architecture cost here).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 08/23/2007 10:14 am
Aren't the 5-seg SRBs under consideration the same as were considered for the shuttle - eg. keep the attachment points the same and add an extra segment on top? That's not like Ares V. And the ET remains the same diameter. That's not like Ares V.

And the 5-seg is a completely optional future upgrade so it's not realy a design weakness at all.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 08/23/2007 11:44 am
Quote
Crispy - 23/8/2007  11:14 AM

Aren't the 5-seg SRBs under consideration the same as were considered for the shuttle - eg. keep the attachment points the same and add an extra segment on top? That's not like Ares V. And the ET remains the same diameter. That's not like Ares V.

And the 5-seg is a completely optional future upgrade so it's not realy a design weakness at all.

I'm not talking about design weakness. I'm talking about additional development costs. Direct developing 5-seg SRB and one normal length core and one stretched core costs $$$.
Add clean pad philosophy and you and up with development costs very similar to Ares1/Ares5 and no advantage.
Direct can compete only by minimised changes in the launcher and infrastructure. That is no suprise, ESAS said that two years ago.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/23/2007 02:13 pm
It looks like you are going to end up with 4 rockets.

J-120 takes manned Orion to ISS or 40mT to LEO.  A short development time is of the essence.

J-130H daughter of J-120.  Can take 70mT to LEO or both manned Orion and Lunar Lander to Earth orbit.

J-232 sister of J-120, flying van that takes 105-110 mT to LEO.  This may include fuel, LEO to Moon rockets and buildings for the Moon Base.

J-abcH daughter of J-232.  The most powerful rocket NASA has, stronger even than the legendary Saturn 5.  A single machine able to lift entire space stations or Mars ships.  Exact specifications to be negotiated with Congress.  Rumours say that they think the J-999H with a 99 year development schedule for $999 Billion is too expensive.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 08/23/2007 04:51 pm
Quote
JIS - 23/8/2007  6:44 AM
Add clean pad philosophy and you and up with development costs very similar to Ares1/Ares5 and no advantage.

Why is clean pad needed for 5-seg SRBs on an 8.4m ET, stretched or not?  Am I missing something???  Would STS have needed a clean-pad if it had adopted 5-seg SRBs???

Ross is right, you don't need the 5-seg SRB for Jupiter and, in fact, shouldn't spend the $ on it until a need were to arise for it.

But, if NASA decides to build it anyway, it could adapt to use it, just like STS could.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/23/2007 08:54 pm
DIRECT doesn't propose to use the 5-segs.   It *could*, but we simply do not need them.   Just like we do not need the "upgraded" RS-68 (we use the standard version) or the full-spec J-2X (we use the lower spec J-2XD).

These are all potential upgrade options for the future, but our analysis indicates that for the ISS, Lunar and Mars missions we just do not need more performance than we are currently proposing.


*IF* DIRECT were not to be chosen for another two (or probably more) years, then the 5-segement development may be so far along that changing the contract with ATK might be pointless.   In that *specific* situation there isn't a bad argument to be made to use the new boosters to get some extra performance seeing as they are already paid for and if that were to happen, then the question of whether to stretch the core tank or not comes into play too.

But I predict that if DIRECT were not to be chosen within that same two year timeframe, it probably won't be anyway, so this whole issue is actually a fairly moot point.


And Crispy - To answer your question above:   The 5-segs for Ares-I and Ares-V are somewhat different to those planned for STS.   There are obviously no Fwd or Aft attachment points for Ares-I, and for Ares-V the attachment points are all at different heights to those used on STS.   The attachment points will be re-located to the optimal positions for Ares-V's Core.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/23/2007 09:14 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 23/8/2007  12:51 PM

Why is clean pad needed for 5-seg SRBs on an 8.4m ET, stretched or not?  Am I missing something???  Would STS have needed a clean-pad if it had adopted 5-seg SRBs???

No.   STS needs the Fixed & Rotating Service Structure at the launch pads to put its payloads into the Payload Bay, so STS will always use the existing arrangement irrelevant of 5-segment upgrades or any other changes (at least short of relocating the entire orbiter to another location on the stack).

NASA chose a Clean Pad concept because someone said it would be more efficient.   I personally think it was a pure Dilbert moment where someone made the call without looking at any serious options.   What they didn't take into account were the actual requirements.   For launchers as tall as Ares-I and Ares-V, placing a huge 40ft wide LUT next to the booster as it is trying to clear the Pad is a mistake IMHO.   Being as tall and unstable as Ares-I is, the TVC system will have to work incredibly well every time to avoid the system becoming unstable during liftoff.   If it doesn't manage this correctly every flight the booster could clip the tower and that will result in major problems.   Worse still is Ares-V.   Just like Saturn-V, if one of the Core engines near the tower has a problem and were shut down prematurely immediately after launch commit, the rocket will move sideways towards the tower and again clip it.   The likely result of such an event with a launcher as big as Ares-V would be to lose the rocket *and* the Pad.   Witness the destruction of the Russian N-1 Pad to see the results of a rocket this size going "bang" at the Pad.

What should have been considered is how to alter the existing structures to suit, and how to minimize the changes to the existing MLP's.

DIRECT actually did conduct a study into this and did find that the development costs and maintenance costs could be significantly reduced by taking a different approach to the "managers flavour of the month" Clean Pad approach.

Not to mention that Jupiter deleted a lot of costs by only using one LV design instead of two.


Quote
Ross is right, you don't need the 5-seg SRB for Jupiter and, in fact, shouldn't spend the $ on it until a need were to arise for it.

But, if NASA decides to build it anyway, it could adapt to use it, just like STS could.


Bingo.   That's the right answer.   Spend the money on flights instead of new hardware and actually get something back for the investment.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/23/2007 09:41 pm
Quote
kraisee - 21/8/2007  1:06 AM

Purely for our documentation, the Gross payload is the maximum payload the vehicle should be able to lift with no artificial "margins" applied to the payload numbers.   NET assumes a standard 10% margin is applied.

Both numbers still *include* all mass allocation margins as part of the vehicle design - and we have been more generous with these than ESAS were with their vehicles.   Our mass numbers for all "new" hardware (both with and without heritage) are somewhere around 5-7% higher than ESAS equivalents so are not actually directly comparable.


BTW, before anyone asks, unlike ESAS, we are not accounting for an "extra 5% for ASE" because we are accounting for a very specific 3,900kg mass allocation for ASE on Cargo Flights instead.
Ok. Thank you! I understand now.
IMHO I understand when NASA applies a 10% margin to Ares I/ Ares V. These vehicles require modifications to all engines.
On the contrary DIRECT is using existing engines. That is why you do not need to use 10% margin.
Please do not use "Gross" and "NET" it is confusing.
It is better to say something like this:
Maximum Payload 106,101* kg
* we do not apply 10% weight margin here since DIRECT concept is using existing engines.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/23/2007 09:47 pm
NASA is no longer including any margins for the Ares-I or Ares-V, but we are still sticking with the original ESAS requirement of including the 10% payload margins.

In short: To compare with Ares, use our "Gross" figures.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/23/2007 09:48 pm
Ross and team,
I want to say thank you!
You are doing a great job patiently answering all questions in this thread!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/23/2007 09:51 pm
Our pleasure.   We are trying to be as open as we can be, and this forum has proven to be a useful place to get lots of eyes on our proposal to help us work out potential flaws.   With everyone's help here we have gone a long way towards confirming (or modifying) our theories.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/23/2007 10:11 pm
Ross,

Does an all-cargo version of the J-120 make sense as a test for the vehicle on early flights?  The ISS is going to be pretty short of logistics after Shuttle and I'm thinking that 40 tons of water, T-shirts, and other low-value stuff would be a big help in 2011-2012, but not much of a financial loss if the test flight doesn't go so well.  Obviously a cargo carrier would have to be developed but I'm thinking of making it dumb and having the ISS crew do a manual dock.

Does this make any sense at all?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/23/2007 10:17 pm
About 5 segments SRB and about canceling existing contract penalties.

It is matter of mathematics only.

For example: You want to develop some rocket part. The cost of development will be 1 billion dollars. Latter on you figured out that you could achieve you goals without that part. The cost to cancel contract is 100 million dollars. It economical profitable to cancel that contract and save yourself 900 million dollars than to lose the whole 1 billion. It is math.

It all boils down to simple math.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/23/2007 10:26 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 23/8/2007  6:11 PM

Ross,

Does an all-cargo version of the J-120 make sense as a test for the vehicle on early flights?  The ISS is going to be pretty short of logistics after Shuttle and I'm thinking that 40 tons of water, T-shirts, and other low-value stuff would be a big help in 2011-2012, but not much of a financial loss if the test flight doesn't go so well.  Obviously a cargo carrier would have to be developed but I'm thinking of making it dumb and having the ISS crew do a manual dock.

Does this make any sense at all?

It still needs a CEV (spacecraft) to hold the cargo and to get it to the station.  Manual docking doesn't save much, just a docking adapter and a little more margin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/23/2007 10:31 pm
Quote
Jim - 23/8/2007  4:26 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 23/8/2007  6:11 PM

Ross,

Does an all-cargo version of the J-120 make sense as a test for the vehicle on early flights?  The ISS is going to be pretty short of logistics after Shuttle and I'm thinking that 40 tons of water, T-shirts, and other low-value stuff would be a big help in 2011-2012, but not much of a financial loss if the test flight doesn't go so well.  Obviously a cargo carrier would have to be developed but I'm thinking of making it dumb and having the ISS crew do a manual dock.

Does this make any sense at all?

It still needs a CEV (spacecraft) to hold the cargo and to get it to the station.  Manual docking doesn't save much, just a docking adapter and a little more margin

I was thinking along the lines of saving development time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/23/2007 10:32 pm
Quote
Jim - 23/8/2007  6:26 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 23/8/2007  6:11 PM

Ross,

Does an all-cargo version of the J-120 make sense as a test for the vehicle on early flights?  The ISS is going to be pretty short of logistics after Shuttle and I'm thinking that 40 tons of water, T-shirts, and other low-value stuff would be a big help in 2011-2012, but not much of a financial loss if the test flight doesn't go so well.  Obviously a cargo carrier would have to be developed but I'm thinking of making it dumb and having the ISS crew do a manual dock.

Does this make any sense at all?

It still needs a CEV (spacecraft) to hold the cargo and to get it to the station.  Manual docking doesn't save much, just a docking adapter and a little more margin
If the Jupiter is selected as the VSE launcher, Orion would probably be ready to fly in this timeframe. I believe the spacecraft has automated docking, so flying a non-crewed cargo flight shouldn't be difficult. If I'm wrong on that, someone please correct me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/23/2007 10:34 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 23/8/2007  6:11 PM

Ross,

Does an all-cargo version of the J-120 make sense as a test for the vehicle on early flights?  The ISS is going to be pretty short of logistics after Shuttle and I'm thinking that 40 tons of water, T-shirts, and other low-value stuff would be a big help in 2011-2012, but not much of a financial loss if the test flight doesn't go so well.  Obviously a cargo carrier would have to be developed but I'm thinking of making it dumb and having the ISS crew do a manual dock.

Does this make any sense at all?

It is an interesting question and one which only has notional answers at this stage.

There is a critical speed component to fielding the CEV as early as possible though, so my opinion is that this would have to be the primary driving factor at work.

There is no reason, however, why one a CLV test flight couldn't also attempt to carry up some useful payload to ISS though.   With no actual crew on board there is no danger at all to fly something like an ATV as a secondary payload inside the PLF.

As long as the test flight accomplishes all of its primary goals, the secondary ATV payload could be separated and flown independently.

Of course, ATV and HTV should already be operational by then on other LV's so this may offer no advantages other than greater lift capability.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/23/2007 10:37 pm
Quote
clongton - 23/8/2007  4:32 PM
If the Jupiter is selected as the VSE launcher, Orion would probably be ready to fly in this timeframe. I believe the spacecraft has automated docking, so flying a non-crewed cargo flight shouldn't be difficult. If I'm wrong on that, someone please correct me.

Oh, well heck if this could also be an Orion test, and and auto-docking test, then that's even better!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/23/2007 10:42 pm
Quote
Yegor - 23/8/2007  6:17 PM

About 5 segments SRB and about canceling existing contract penalties.

(SNIP)

Renegotiating the existing contract is a better method.   Jupiter still needs to pay for a re-qualification program for the 4-segment boosters to be used on Jupiter, and the higher flight rate we are planning would swiftly account for more total "value" than the existing Ares-I development contract.

If ATK stands to earn more money this way, I'm pretty sure they would be open to discussing how to alter the existing contract.   It's a win-win for everyone.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/23/2007 10:46 pm
Constellation's current plan is to conduct the following flights:-

1) Unmanned Test - Orion re-entry from LEO.
2) Unmanned Test - Perform automated rendezvous with ISS, but not dock, then re-enter.
3) First Manned launch performing manual docking.
4) Automated ISS docking test delivering some non-essential cargo.

Note that the automated docking attempt occurs only after the first manual attempt has succeeded and that data already exists.

I think Jupiter would have to assume the same basic progression.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/24/2007 01:12 pm
Quote
kraisee - 23/8/2007  6:42 PM

Quote
Yegor - 23/8/2007  6:17 PM

About 5 segments SRB and about canceling existing contract penalties.

(SNIP)

Renegotiating the existing contract is a better method.   Jupiter still needs to pay for a re-qualification program for the 4-segment boosters to be used on Jupiter, and the higher flight rate we are planning would swiftly account for more total "value" than the existing Ares-I development contract.

If ATK stands to earn more money this way, I'm pretty sure they would be open to discussing how to alter the existing contract.   It's a win-win for everyone.

Ross.
Well, renegotiating would be even better.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/24/2007 06:36 pm
Quote
kraisee - 17/8/2007  11:09 PM

Quote
Yegor - 17/8/2007  8:06 PM

Please correct me if I am wrong.

You are fundamentally dead on the money Yegor.   And that isn't even taking into account the billions you save by developing just one shiny new launch vehicle system instead of two.

One minor addition though - the EDS costs are not included.   EDS' are extra.

I posted the ESAS Costs for the EDS on the previous page.   $1,353m development.   $152m fixed.   $56m variable per flight.


I believe that NASA decided to replicate the overall costs for Ares based on current Shuttle numbers.   But I think they simply forgot that things like the LSAM are going to cost an awful lot more on top of the LV's.   NASA's own numbers clearly show that the LSAM will cost about as much as the CEV and both CLV and CaLV put together.

They should have worked out the full costs of the program, and tried to keep that under the current STS/ISS budget levels.   All they had to do was spread the work out differently.   There's certainly more than enough work to go around for a robust lunar program without it all being focussed on the LV's alone as it is currently with the Shuttle.

Ross.
I sensed the DIRECT concept was sound even before I saw the numbers - one LV instead of two. With numbers ... well numbers speak for themselves.
Once again I want to say to DIRECT team - Great job!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jason Davies on 08/27/2007 02:38 am
Not sure if I should copy this across to here, but on L2, the NASA guys who went to the Constellation All Hands meeting last seem to be passing on that it was concluded that DIRECT will never, ever, be considered, in strong words. It'll be Ares I or nothing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/27/2007 02:43 am
As I've learned more about it, and read about the schedules and costs, I've come closer to the conclusion that Ares-I and nothing are very close to the same thing, except that Ares-I is more expensive.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 08/27/2007 02:44 am
Quote
Jason Davies - 26/8/2007  9:38 PM

Not sure if I should copy this across to here, but on L2, the NASA guys who went to the Constellation All Hands meeting last seem to be passing on that it was concluded that DIRECT will never, ever, be considered, in strong words. It'll be Ares I or nothing.
Generally, no.  If the only source for something is L2, it should stay there.

However, this is a predictable answer.  Regardless the final outcome, for NASA upper management to say anything different would reveal that all is not well.

If everything is fine, that's what they'll say; if everything's not fine, that's STILL what they'll say.  I know nothing either way, so all I can say is that I would expect that answer at this point in time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 08/27/2007 02:46 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 26/8/2007  9:43 PM

As I've learned more about it, and read about the schedules and costs, I've come closer to the conclusion that Ares-I and nothing are very close to the same thing, except that Ares-I is more expensive.
D'oh! (LOL)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula2 on 08/27/2007 07:34 am
I suspect NASA are way more scared of having two SRB's next to an ET than they will ever admit until STS is retired, if at all.
There's no other good reason not to go with Direct. It's cheaper, faster, more capacity, less development risk. Are they against it  because:

A) The real risk of an SRB problem is higher than the official STS figure.

B) SRB segments are degrading faster than expected and won't meet the expected number of life cycles.

C) Any post shuttle SRB / ET accident would be impossible to defend to the general public.

D) Not invented here. (although apparently it was)

E) All of the above

F) Something else?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/27/2007 11:09 am
Quote
kkattula2 - 27/8/2007  3:34 AM

I suspect NASA are way more scared of having two SRB's next to an ET than they will ever admit until STS is retired, if at all.
There's no other good reason not to go with Direct. It's cheaper, faster, more capacity, less development risk. Are they against it  because:

A) The real risk of an SRB problem is higher than the official STS figure.

B) SRB segments are degrading faster than expected and won't meet the expected number of life cycles.

C) Any post shuttle SRB / ET accident would be impossible to defend to the general public.

D) Not invented here. (although apparently it was)

E) All of the above

F) Something else?

G) None of the above, especially A & B .  C doesn't enter the picture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/27/2007 01:10 pm
Quote
Jason Davies - 27/8/2007  3:38 AM

Not sure if I should copy this across to here, but on L2, the NASA guys who went to the Constellation All Hands meeting last seem to be passing on that it was concluded that DIRECT will never, ever, be considered, in strong words. It'll be Ares I or nothing.

Strong words = they are thinking about it.

Do not give up hope.

Whisper your advice softly and wait to be called.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/27/2007 09:19 pm
I'm certain that is the position of the current management.   But as we have seen, the key proponent of the whole concept, Scott "Doc" Howoritz, is already leaving the agency in a month or so.   By all accounts his leaving is directly attributable to issues with Ares-I.   From everything I've heard I'm personally convinced he is the proverbial rat jumping the equally proverbial ship.   I do not think Horowitz is likely to be the last name leaving NASA.   If NASA management changes it invites new thinking.

I believe DIRECT is not being considered by Griffin because his heart is set on Ares-I.   But I also don't believe Griffin will be there much longer.   A fresh hand at the reins probably won't have the same personal ego investment in Ares-I as Griffin appears to.

And for myself, I believe Ares-I actually creates severe risk for Ares-V - and if we lose Heavy Lift I believe that would result in "nothing" regarding the new moon program and reduce overall US capability to nothing higher than EELV-class only.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 08/27/2007 09:20 pm
is that you're 'nugget' or whatever you called it? that Griffin is leaving?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/27/2007 09:24 pm
Quote
kkattula2 - 27/8/2007  3:34 AM

I suspect NASA are way more scared of having two SRB's next to an ET than they will ever admit until STS is retired, if at all.

I don't think so.   If true I don't think Ares-V would ever have been proposed.


Quote
There's no other good reason not to go with Direct. It's cheaper, faster, more capacity, less development risk. Are they against it  because:

A) The real risk of an SRB problem is higher than the official STS figure.

B) SRB segments are degrading faster than expected and won't meet the expected number of life cycles.

C) Any post shuttle SRB / ET accident would be impossible to defend to the general public.

D) Not invented here. (although apparently it was)

E) All of the above

F) Something else?

IMHO "D" and "F" - F being personal preference and genuine belief that Ares-I could perform the way the want for the money they want - while still achieving the safety they hoped.   I think it's coming in a lot more expensive because it isn't performing as well as hoped.   And this process will ultimately impact safety negatively too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/27/2007 09:27 pm
Quote
G-pit - 27/8/2007  5:20 PM

is that you're 'nugget' or whatever you called it? that Griffin is leaving?

Right or wrong, I just won't comment on the "nugget".   Sorry.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/27/2007 09:38 pm
And just a quick request:

Can we please keep L2 information on L2.   People pay for the privilege of accessing that stuff so its not fair to them to just post it elsewhere on the site.

Of course, if you are the source, or you have the source's permission, then you can put your information anywhere you like.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 08/27/2007 09:59 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/8/2007  5:27 PM

Quote
G-pit - 27/8/2007  5:20 PM

is that you're 'nugget' or whatever you called it? that Griffin is leaving?

Right or wrong, I just won't comment on the "nugget".   Sorry.

Ross.

Thats fine, but the mystery is intriguing, I must admit. Whatever it is, I hope it helps you achieve your goals!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/27/2007 10:03 pm
You and me both.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/27/2007 10:58 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/8/2007  3:19 PM
I believe DIRECT is not being considered by Griffin because his heart is set on Ares-I.

That's not a reason anyone as smart as he is should use.  He's there to analyze the facts and make the best decisions given the circumstances.  Why would an emotional attachment to Ares-I be the reason he wants to keep it?  Why would he even have an emotional attachment to any study result?  It's not as if we're talking about one of the orbiters that we've watched for decades here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: dbhyslop on 08/27/2007 11:46 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/8/2007  5:24 PM



IMHO "D" and "F" - F being personal preference and genuine belief that Ares-I could perform the way the want for the money they want - while still achieving the safety they hoped.   I think it's coming in a lot more expensive because it isn't performing as well as hoped.   And this process will ultimately impact safety negatively too.

From my armchair view it seems like Dr. Griffin was supposed to be the ringer.  We were on a tedious and elaborate plan of development "spirals" that would have taken years and cost untold billions as NASA paid contractors to build and "fly-off" their prototypes.  It was tacit that Griffin already had a plan and was there to cut through the bureaucracy and actually make the VSE happen.  The problem seems to be that now the rockets are off the cocktail napkin they're not what they were hoped to be and there's both professional and ego pressures to get the job done regardless of what the alternatives may be.  Hypothetically, even if Griffin or someone else thought Direct might be a better rocket, it is very easy to rationalize staying the course by not wanting to step backwards in development.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 08/27/2007 11:46 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/8/2007  6:58 PM

Quote
kraisee - 27/8/2007  3:19 PM
I believe DIRECT is not being considered by Griffin because his heart is set on Ares-I.

That's not a reason anyone as smart as he is should use.  He's there to analyze the facts and make the best decisions given the circumstances.  Why would an emotional attachment to Ares-I be the reason he wants to keep it?  Why would he even have an emotional attachment to any study result?  It's not as if we're talking about one of the orbiters that we've watched for decades here.

I believe the phrase "his heart is set" doesn't really communicate what it is supposed to. Its not implying an emotional attachment. My interpertation of that quote is that, like you said, he analyzed the facts and made a decision -- now he's going to stick with the decision come hell or high water.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/27/2007 11:49 pm
Because its what he believes in, and he seems to be ignoring the data which is indicating it isn't as good as it was hoped to be.

His personal investment in it now though is forcing him to reject any other reasonable alternatives simply because Ares-I is what is being done right now and changing momentum is perceived to be "damaging" in some way.

But that logic doesn't hold water.   I counter that Houbolt's very controversial push for Lunar Orbit Rendezvous didn't damage NASA nor the Apollo program at all - I contend that it actually enhanced the program and made serious positive steps to help achieve the actual goals - even though von Braun himself was initially strongly against the idea.

But von Braun was open to the possibility that it could be a benefit if it could be demonstrated.   This is where Griffin and von Braun's attitudes part company.

The problem today is that some senior managers within NASA believe that they just can't possibly be wrong, and more improtantly must not be perceived to be wrong.

If they are noticed to be think that revelation will personally hurt them.   So they just flatly ignore everyone else's opinion and cling to their initial view come hell or high water - it's the "Not Invented Here" (NIH) scenario at its most basic level.   And I think Griffin was convinced to pursue the Stick & Stack approach by Horowitz three years ago and has fixed all of ideas on that outcome.   I am also disappointed that he is unwilling to allow any alternatives to be considered even though they seem to offer really obvious advantages.

Risking embarrassment can be one of the most driving factors in individuals decision making psyche's.   Allowing it to get involved in a multi-billion dollar tax=payer funded program though should be avoided if at all possible.

All IMHO of course.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 08/27/2007 11:55 pm
Agreed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/28/2007 12:08 am
Wall Street tends to be kind of dense, but they do reward and admire strong leaders that make big decisions to change course.  This behavior is *expected* of top management - it's their job to determine when and where to make course corrections, big or small.  I just don't see one reason why any rational person would look at a change-of-course decision made with good data and rationale by Griffin and the rest of NASA upper management as anything but good management.  "We thought we were going to do this, but when we got into it the data told us to do that, and that's what we're going to do."  What's embarrassing about that?

Boeing was going to build the Sonic Cruiser.  Sounded like a good idea - long flights made a bit shorter.  When they got into it, they found the market wanted the 787 - long flights made a bit cheaper.  So they built the 787.  Were any careers ruined by that decision to change course?  Seems to me like they've done okay (understatement) with that decision.

Does Griffin want to be remembered as the guy who built the Sonic Cruiser or the 787?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/28/2007 12:28 am
If SpaceX gets the Dragon capsule to the ISS 2 years before Ares-I flies how effective would Direct be at getting Dragon to the Moon and back?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/28/2007 01:47 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/8/2007  8:08 PM

Wall Street tends to be kind of dense, but they do reward and admire strong leaders that make big decisions to change course.  This behavior is *expected* of top management - it's their job to determine when and where to make course corrections, big or small.  I just don't see one reason why any rational person would look at a change-of-course decision made with good data and rationale by Griffin and the rest of NASA upper management as anything but good management.  "We thought we were going to do this, but when we got into it the data told us to do that, and that's what we're going to do."  What's embarrassing about that?

Boeing was going to build the Sonic Cruiser.  Sounded like a good idea - long flights made a bit shorter.  When they got into it, they found the market wanted the 787 - long flights made a bit cheaper.  So they built the 787.  Were any careers ruined by that decision to change course?  Seems to me like they've done okay (understatement) with that decision.

Does Griffin want to be remembered as the guy who built the Sonic Cruiser or the 787?
There is a humungous difference between a "for profit" organization where top executives get rewarded for increasing the bottom line with big decision changes, and a government agency that that has no incentive to provide a return on investment in good old dollars. NASA doesn't have to make a profit, and is even set up to completely ignore that kind of thinking. Pure research, which is one of NASA's charters, is NEVER profitable. It is done for the sake of the research. If NASA had to turn a profit, we wouldn't be any further along than SpaceX. NASA is designed to provide a service, without regard to cost. Wall street is designed to provide a profit, without regard to service, unless it adversely affects the profit margin. Huge difference. We simply cannot compare Griffin's decisions to those of for-profit executives. They live in totally different worlds.

Griffin made a decision to build Scott's design and has no incentive to change that. He doesn't have to show a profit or provide a return on investment. He staked his professional reputation on this design when he agreed to build Scott's rocket. To a person in his position, that reputation is more valuable than any bonus, perk or position. It's what makes his world go around. So yes, I'd say he is emotionally involved in it. His reputation is his career, and his career is his reputation. It is EVERYTHING to him and he tied both to the Ares-I and will not abandon it because then he throws his reputation and career away with it.

Is he being reasonable? It depends on which side of the career field you ask the question from. Which is more important to him? Profit motive or career and reputation? From which side do you think he is coming? That's the rationale for his decision and his attitude.

You and I may disagree with his decision, for reasons that we consider to be valid. But he believes his decision is the correct one, for reasons that *he* considers valid. Whenever any of us voice our disagreement with another person's position or decision, that is something that we all should bear in mind.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 08/28/2007 02:57 am
And now for something completely different...

Please forgive me if this question has been asked before, but what happened to the ET's pressurization lines on the Jupiter core?  Are they simply being omitted from the drawings, or is there a change in the Jupiter architecture which allows them to be deleted?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/28/2007 03:13 am
The artwork is primarily coming from three different sources; Philip, Antonio and myself.  We are each working with separate heritage data files for our artwork and some of this heritage is missing certain small details like the pressure lines (yes I know they are vital, but they are "minor" details from a purely "artwork" perspective).

You will probably spot them in some artwork and not others, but it is not deliberately missing. Both LOX and LH2 tanks still need pressurization and so the lines are likely to be there in the end - although the specific arrangement is subject to change as development proceeds.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/28/2007 03:16 am
Chuck,
I think that's the clearest explanation of the situation yet - thank-you for being so eloquent.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/28/2007 03:21 am
Quote
clongton - 27/8/2007  7:47 PM
You and I may disagree with his decision, for reasons that we consider to be valid. But he believes his decision is the correct one, for reasons that *he* considers valid.

If his decision is the way it is because he thinks it's the right decision for the country, then fine.  If it's just because he has his heart set on it (emotional reason) then I have a problem with that.  I have my heart set on a nice Enterprise 1701D.  However, the data is telling me I should look elsewhere for a practical near-term launch vehicle.

If he knows he's not doing the right thing but he's sticking by his guns for career or personal reasons, that's even worse.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 08/28/2007 04:14 am
In a world as thoroughly soaked in politics as I'm sure upper levels of NASA is, I can imagine that "right thinking" often has to give way to other considerations.

But still...from my perspective, the "right thing" seems to be to give the country the best launch architecture and vehicle platform to satisfy--as easily as possible--whatever lift requirements we might have for the foreseeable future.  Ares-I might have been part of that architecture, but if it started becoming apparent it's only going to get the job done if we scale back the primary reason for its existence (CEV), then not so much.

If [long term] reputation is what he's going for, history usually eventually ends up showing reality.  If, under Griffin's watch, the best decision was made to push the country as far as possible in the current environment, that's ideal.  If it becomes obvious that he ignored a far better solution to the problem that follows a path of even less resistance, then his legacy won't be a strong one.

If it's short-term political expediency that's motivating this, I just can't relate.  To me, the RIGHT thing to do is the RIGHT thing, regardless whether the organization is motivated by profit or "cover thy arse."


When I first saw the plans for the Ares I & V (before they were named that), I thought it was damn clever...but they way things have unfolded over the past couple of years, I no longer have that opinion.  Things have changed, and it just simply isn't working out.  

I really hope that in NASA there is still a chance for the best idea to win.  From everything I've been able to gather, there is no solution that better satisfies our needs--while staying within our current constraints (money, time, politics, job retention)--than DIRECT/Jupiter.  There are SEXIER solutions, but they don't fit the problem as well as DIRECT.  Jupiter can be had now, it can meet all our near-term goals, and it can grow to satisfy anything we can envision down the road.  Win/Win?  Yes indeedy!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/28/2007 04:26 am
The ironic thing is that "sticking to your guns" does not usually look good from the perspective of historical legacy and almost never manages to "cover thy arse" ultimately if you're not on truly solid ground.

In terms of NASA Administrator, Dan Goldin is an excellent  case in point.   He stuck to his guns and thoroughly ignored constructive criticism when it was presented from within and without his organization.   He just knew best and everyone else had to be wrong.   His reputation is astonishingly poor these days.

James Webb however, kept the agency and his decision making process fluid enough to allow his administration to always target the best possible solutions.   He is considered by many to be one of NASA's best Administrators.

If Griffin knows his choice isn't quite ideal, and is just fighting everything else because he didn't propose it, that will be borne out in the history books in the end and his tenure will be considered "dark days" by future generations looking back with 20:20 perspective.   For his own sake, his reasoning needs to be better than that.

I guarantee that there will be a book, sooner or later, called "The Constellation Decision".   I just wonder what it will contain.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 08/28/2007 05:04 am
Quote
kraisee - 28/8/2007  12:26 AM

If Griffin knows his choice isn't quite ideal, and is just fighting everything else because he didn't propose it, that will be borne out in the history books in the end and his tenure will be considered "dark days" by future generations looking back with 20:20 perspective.   For his own sake, his reasoning needs to be better than that.


For the good DR, choice is ideal.. he is not a stupid man, far from it.. so he must have looked around and read a few of the history books.. no I don't think the Dr cares about history.. and based on the current slippage, its not got anything to do with time.. there is a need that the Dr is filling and its that need that Direct must target...  

all in all, the reasoning for his sake must have been done, the man is a trained problem solver, he has looked at the angles, and continues on one and only one path.. stand in his shoes just for a few mins, and look at the problems..

 so why do we see  direction based a perceived lack of a problem???  It is that what we cannot see that is winning in the world of reasoning  for the Good Dr..
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/28/2007 05:21 am
The only place where DIRECT doesn't win hands down is in the pure Loss of Crew (LOC) numbers comparison.

While we still exceed the ESAS' "acceptable" requirements of better than 1:1000 LOC by a comfortable 25%, we aren't claiming quite as high a figure as Ares-I is claimed to be.


Assuming the NASA baseline expectation of launching 4 crewed flights per year (2 Lunar, 2 ISS), the current "apples to apples" LOC numbers indicate Ares-I will probably kill only one crew every 350 years, whereas Jupiter would likely kill only one crew every 250 years.

I just can't believe that is sufficient reason to "stick the course".

Not to mention that with Jupiter's extra performance envelope we would have the ability to close this "safety gap" even further by flying "active" safety systems aboard many flights which Ares-I will never be able to do - "active" safety systems such as radiation shielded CEV's and LSAM's.   Also the option to fly a heavy (up to 20mT) "Kevlar"-style blast-shield fitted immediately below the CEV on all flights with no other cargo - designed to specifically protect the CEV from blast damage and shrapnel in the event of any serious contingency event during launch.

With these sorts of systems factored in (and we have unfortunately been unable to calculate these differences because ESAS' mthodology isn't flexible enough) I am convinced that both ISS and Lunar full-mission LOC numbers would be a *lot* closer than they are currently.

Yet as I say, Jupiter achieves an LOC of 1:1275 in J-232 configuration and 1:1460 in J-120 configuration already - so is well above the "acceptable" levels before ever applying any of the optional extra safety systems.   Either better than 1:1000 LOC is acceptable or it isn't.   Has NASA changed its criteria?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 08/28/2007 07:32 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 28/8/2007  1:28 AM

If SpaceX gets the Dragon capsule to the ISS 2 years before Ares-I flies how effective would Direct be at getting Dragon to the Moon and back?

Dragon is not designed for long duration flights, nor re-entry at that speed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 08/28/2007 12:00 pm
Quote
Avron - 28/8/2007  6:04 AM

It is that what we cannot see that is winning in the world of reasoning  for the Good Dr..
External pressure would seem the most likely. If so, the problem is that the reasons for this are unstated, so it is difficult to attempt to meet them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 08/28/2007 02:36 pm
The political connection between NASA Management and ATK seems to be the big question mark.   While Horowitz is in charge of Constellation the connection is obvious.   Once he goes however, it becomes more ambiguous from our external viewpoint.   How the politics works behind the proverbial closed doors is always going to be a question until we can get into the head of the NASA Administrator.

I've examined the implications for DIRECT upon all of the major contractors and I can only see it as being a benefit, so I see no reason for those firms not to consider it.   Simply by having earlier operational missions, and lots more of them, DIRECT is realistically going to be *more* profitable for all the big players in this market:

ATK will have to refurbish many more SRB segments between now and 2020 - at *minimum* triple the number planned for Ares-I and Ares-V.

Lockheed Martin will be building and replacing more CEV's with operational flights to ISS starting as early as 2012 and Lunar missions starting around 2016.

Boeing and Lockheed will each get parts of the Stage development and manufacturing contracts.   There are fundamentally two stages, the Core and the Upper - one development program should go to each company and one manufacturing contract should go to each as well.

Pratt & Whitney/Rocketdyne gets to build lots of J-2XD's and RS-68's for Jupiter launchers, as well as fielding man-rated RL-10's for the LSAM to become operational as early as 2016.

United Space Alliance gets to start servicing CEV's and preparing their respective crewmembers two years sooner.   New ISS maintenance flights, cargo deliver systems and Lunar Precursor missions are possible (and affordable) from 2012 onwards when the J-120 becomes fully operational - along with a *realistic* opportunity to service Hubble again with Orion+Misison Module around 2013 - so there will be a distinctly steeper ramp-up in work requirements under DIRECT starting just *two year* after STS is retired, compared to a five year "gap" to the first operational Ares-I/Orion flight (2015) and then only two of those per year for the next four years (to 2019) until the Ares-V finally gives NASA operational greater-than-EELV capability at last.

This does not even mention that Jupiter-232 becomes operational three years sooner than Ares-V and Jupiter Lunar missions are thus possible 3 years sooner also.

Other players can also benefit.

Companies such as Orbital Sciences, Honeywell, Hamilton Sunstrand, Jacobs, Raytheon and many others around the US are all sub-contracting for work and they too all benefit from a "faster-to-mission" timeframe and higher flight rate (which is importantly *affordable*) under the DIRECT/Jupiter plans.

And the one major company I haven't yet mentioned so far: Northrop Grumman, is well positioned to bid for the LSAM contract as much as two years ahead of the Ares plans.

All these companies still make their shareholders and directors very happy with comfy profits and fat yearly bonuses, but NASA gets more actual return for the same cash investment.   In real-terms the products all those companies provide are more "operational" in nature rather than "development" for each $ NASA spends.

Of course, convincing politicians of this may prove to be the tricky thing.

But right now the truth of the matter is that every one of these companies and political representatives are all hinging their hopes on the plan that Ares-I works well enough and is operational in a reasonable timeframe and is sufficiently on-budget to allow NASA to later order Ares-V afterward.

If that hope should stumble at any point in the next 12 years, and Ares-V were to be canceled by any one of the next three Presidents sitting in the Oval Office, or by any of the next six Congressionally elected bodies, then *everyone* loses this gamble.   If Ares-V goes, the VSE goes with it and all the lovely potential profits for all these companies and regions also goes out with the bathwater.

Ares only chance to work is if we can guarantee getting Ares-V *as well*.   If we don't we lose everything.

THAT is the risk I would like every Manager and every Director at every NASA contractor and every regional political representative involved to consider very carefully for a few quiet minutes.   I would like each and every one to ask themselves "is that risk is worthwhile and what are the possible alternatives?.   Until they ask that, they can not possibly be sure Ares is right or wrong - and that makes the Ares gamble dubious right from the start.

I don't believe Ares-V's potential cancellation a risk worth taking.

This is especially so in the light when all the same profits (and possibly more) and all the workforce retention issues surrounding Ares-V's "potential completion or cancellation" can be COMPLETELY removed from the equation by switching to a different plan where the very FIRST launcher NASA develops is all we really need to get you back to the moon (and go to Mars) and simply does not require any second launcher system at all.

One new launcher is doable, especially so if it is capable of servicing ISS *and* going to the moon (and Mars).   If it is also based very closely on existing STS & EELV flight hardware and requires very little new technology it would clearly take a much shorter period of time to field thereby retaining all the existing workforce and thereby also making all the hoped-for profits for the commercial sector and its patrons.   It's a "two-for" any way you care to throw the dice.

I invite any Directors/Political figures reading this now to not take my word for it - but to go work it out for yourselves - and see what options add up and what option do not.   I am confident everyone results will swing the same way mine have if you work it out and don't fall for the hyperbole.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 08/28/2007 03:00 pm
About the LOC numbers-

You can turn the "Aes I may beat us in LOC numbers" into "Ares I has a slight edge for the launch phase of the flight. But that is a small part of the entire mission. Jupiter, with its extra margins, allows more saftey systems, more redundancy, and less exotic poorly understood materials during the rest of the mission."

What is important is the overall LOC numbers for the entire mission. Jupiter allows more margin for error during the rest of the mission than Ares. For example, Orion can grow heavier to include radiation shielding for the crew, and the LSAM can carry more supplies in the event that the crew is stranded on the moon without a working ascent stage. Ok, maybe not the best examples, but you get the point.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/28/2007 03:43 pm
Quote
kraisee - 28/8/2007  10:36 AM

United Space Alliance gets to start servicing CEV's
.

That is LM's job
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 08/29/2007 12:40 am
I agree with all that has been said---I once supported Ares I and Ares V, but I am now a Direct Support.  It is just a better product.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 08/29/2007 01:03 am
Quote
Marsman - 28/8/2007  9:00 AM

About the LOC numbers-

You can turn the "Ares I may beat us in LOC numbers" into "Ares I has a slight edge for the launch phase of the flight. But that is a small part of the entire mission. Jupiter, with its extra margins, allows more saftey systems, more redundancy, and less exotic poorly understood materials during the rest of the mission."

I agree 110% with that sentiment.  If the reports are true about deleting the airbags in order to make the Ares I + Orion combo work properly, it illustrates the point perfectly.  I would rather add mass to the capsule in the name of safety than constrain the capsule's mass and take away safety margins in the process.  If we have the ~45 mT capability of Jupiter 120 for a crew launch vehicle, I'd like to stretch Orion's prop tanks and give the LOI burn to Orion instead of LSAM.  Using a simple engine with storable propellants for the LOI burn is probably safer than relying on a more complex, cryogenic engine for the same burn.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 08/29/2007 03:59 am
Quote
kraisee - 28/8/2007  10:36 AM

I invite any Directors/Political figures reading this now to not take my word for it - but to go work it out for yourselves - and see what options add up and what option do not.   I am confident everyone results will swing the same way mine have if you work it out and don't fall for the hyperbole.

Ross.


Very logical .. now look at the illogical ..

something a stupid as say:.. spending billions to make something that you know will not work.. then asking for more money to make the same thing again, when it does not, but this time for more.. unstated .. simple .. but at the end of the day, lets review the balance sheets.. who wins??

now if you can do the same thing again, but this time there is real pressure to deliver.. for even more money in a shorter period.. a magic genie.. out pops Direct.. and its off to the races..

You know, its, all just rocket science.. :>


In the world of illogical .. just look north of the border, where a disclosed $80M is spend at least (commission of inquiry), reviewing a little bit of advertising that did not happen with $100M of public money (money just went away, but with a little trace, invoices and payments).. (this game is still on.. so if someone said it was $120M spend on the inquiry and follow-up I would not be phased)  so the public has spent $180M at least chasing down $100M and getting Zero in return..

It cannot be happening now could it? but the price tag here is for 10's if not 100's of Billions, is that number not speaking?

It could all be a lot more simple ... I just don't see it.. but from a logical view it does not add up..
but the view you have presented does i.r.t. of simple,safe and sooner, while covering all the bases...

what can I say "Supertramp"???





Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 08/29/2007 11:09 am
Quote
clongton - 27/8/2007  9:47 PM

We simply cannot compare Griffin's decisions to those of for-profit executives. They live in totally different worlds.

But Griffin has lived in "that" world, including in the world of venture capital.  However, the government sector does have different constraints. And they are not personal constraints.  They are constraints that are non-technical, but are as immutable as the laws of physics under which DIRECT may be superior.  Despite what engineers might like to believe, most decisions in the world are not technical decisions, and it has taken me a long time to learn this, nor should they be.

Quote
Griffin made a decision to build Scott's design and has no incentive to change that. He doesn't have to show a profit or provide a return on investment. He staked his professional reputation on this design when he agreed to build Scott's rocket. To a person in his position, that reputation is more valuable than any bonus, perk or position. It's what makes his world go around. So yes, I'd say he is emotionally involved in it. His reputation is his career, and his career is his reputation. It is EVERYTHING to him and he tied both to the Ares-I and will not abandon it because then he throws his reputation and career away with it.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  If he saw a clearly better decision (technical, cost, schedule, risk, safety, for the national good etc) presented logically and at equal levels of fidelity, he would decide in a logical manner.  He has done so several times that I am personally aware of in his tenure so far.  Every decision to launch the shuttle with the myriad of issues surrounding it is an exercise in personal courage and determination that risks his "reputation".  And there are Constellation examples as well.

In this post you are creating a mythology to support a shared delusion.  Repeating it multiple times and applying "conventional wisdom" does not make it so.

Quote
Is he being reasonable? It depends on which side of the career field you ask the question from. Which is more important to him? Profit motive or career and reputation? From which side do you think he is coming? That's the rationale for his decision and his attitude.
At least two other possibilities:

1.  He has not seen DIRECT, or has not seen enough to be convinced, or it is too immature
2.  DIRECT is not superior, and you just don't know why

The statements here regarding motives and such are the height of hubris and are not helpful to a person clearly committed to both saving the Agency and trying to put the U.S. on a path will get the U.S. back to the Moon.  His reputation (if it is a factor at all, which, knowing him, it is probably not) will be built on that
Quote

You and I may disagree with his decision, for reasons that we consider to be valid. But he believes his decision is the correct one, for reasons that *he* considers valid. Whenever any of us voice our disagreement with another person's position or decision, that is something that we all should bear in mind.

I question his decision, but do not call his personal vanity or ethics into question as the reason for making a different decision.  You sound like you are defending his decision, but by calling into question motives that you have, you are absolutely doing him harm.  

For someone as accomplished as he, that has given as much to his country as he, and someone that is a clearly superior technical mind and patriot, in my mind it is inappropriate to do so.  This is known as the politics of personal destruction.  

Sometimes, when people don't get what we want, rather than simply continuing to make the case with dignity and respect (or simply supporting the second best idea in the hopes that we can make it better and help it survive) we often question the other sides motives as a weapon of last resort.  

Here is the test to see who is more "invested" in their concept.  If a year from now, Ares I and Orion are on a better path, will you still be pushing a change with such tactics?  What about two years from now?  Three?  What is your criteria for deciding that the current path may be acceptable, and that even if DIRECT is superior to Ares, Ares may be a feasible path?  Or is it your quest for national credibility and respect (something he has oodles of, and has earned by repeatedly making tough, correct decisions in situations more critical than this one) that drives YOUR behavior rather than his?  (this is a hypothetical.  I am NOT questioning your motives for questioning his ;-) )

Again, I am convinced from personal observation that if given a better choice (with his own ranking of safety, performance, maturity, budget, workforce, etc.), he would take it without a second thought.  That is his "reputation".  That is the man I have seen him to be.

In closing, all I can say is ... "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." --Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/29/2007 02:41 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 29/8/2007  7:09 AM
Quote
clongton - 27/8/2007  9:47 PM
You and I may disagree with his decision, for reasons that we consider to be valid. But he believes his decision is the correct one, for reasons that *he* considers valid. Whenever any of us voice our disagreement with another person's position or decision, that is something that we all should bear in mind.

I question his decision, but I do not call his personal vanity or ethics into question as the reason for making a different decision.  You sound like you are defending his decision, but by calling into question motives that you have, you are absolutely doing him harm.

Yes, even as a co-author of DIRECT, I am defending his decision. But you are misunderstanding me. I am not calling his motives, personal vanity or ethics into question as if he were being selfishly personal. What I was attempting to do was show that we cannot judge his decisions based on the things other posters were saying wrt Wall Street or the corporate executive decision making processes.

As an administrator of a government agency, he *now* lives in a completely different world. It doesn’t matter that he is a good engineer (which he is) because his priorities are different now. While he will never loose that engineering mindset, his decisions now are more politically and administratively based than engineering-based. WRT my statements about his reputation, he has made the decision to build the Ares, not because of good engineering data that he personally created or (maybe) reviewed, but because the staff he created under him has advised him that that is the right thing to do. He created that staff and has placed his trust in them. All he has left of his “personal” engineering world, *while in this position*, is his reputation. His engineering activities and recommendations are delegated to his staff.

As NASA Administrator, he absolutely does not have the time to do the work himself, nor to review all the data himself. There simply is not enough time in the day for him to do that. His day begins HOURS before he arrives at work, and doesn’t end until his brain *finally* relaxes, probably hours after he drops off to sleep – if at all. And that day is not occupied with engineering data, like it used to be. It’s filled with stuff about personnel, budgets, scheduling, meetings, conferences, paperwork, paperwork, paperwork, and paperwork. Oh, btw, did I mention paperwork? Add to that he must now be politically savvy and available to the Congress on a regular basis to report, explain and ask for funding, and provide them with news, some welcome and some unwelcome. Now he is also forced to be a traveling dignitary and attend places where he must be the keynote. That means he is traveling a lot now, much more than he would like. Who’s minding the store while he’s off doing all this stuff? The point is that real engineering work is something he simply does not have the time to engage in anymore, so he delegates all that to his staff, which have staffs of their own, down to several layers of management and sub management. Where, in all that labyrinth of organization is the end of administration, and where do the real engineering decisions get made? Certainly Dr Griffin is no longer involved in them and has become totally dependant on the staff for advice. Most folks also seem to forget that NASA is about a lot more than just spaceflight and he now is immersed in everything else NASA does as well. The agency is HUGE, and he simply cannot waste time wading thru the weeds of the details, which I promise you he would LOVE to do, because that’s where engineers feel most at home, buried in data.

When he took this job, he basically put his engineering life on hold and delegated all that to his staff and became a politician and an executive. And I promise you that he is looking forward to the day when he can immerse himself once again in the details of actual engineering, because that is his love. In the mean time, all he has left of his personal engineering world is his reputation. And, like I said, he has tied that to the Ares, not because he personally thinks it’s the best thing to do, but because his staff assures him that it is. And lacking evidence that his staff has bungled anything, he has no incentive to change course. Like I said, he doesn’t need to make a profit nor provide a roi. As Administrator, he doesn’t live in that world, and people who want to question his decisions are forgetting that. While I disagree with his decision, I do not disagree with his motives for making them. He created a staff to advise him, he trusts that staff and he is sticking by that staff’s recommendation. Until they give him different advice, he will not change his decision. I’m in that same position, but on a MUCH smaller scale. I’m a structural designer, but now I run the department. As much as I would love to, I simply can’t take the time to get into the weeds. I have a staff that I trust that advises me, and I take it from there. For Dr Griffin, it is basically no different, just bigger.

Quote
..snip.. Sometimes, when people don't get what we want, rather than simply continuing to make the case with dignity and respect (or simply supporting the second best idea in the hopes that we can make it better and help it survive) we often question the other side’s motives as a weapon of last resort.
Like I said above, I am NOT questioning his motives and would not engage in that type of behavior against someone as accomplished as he is. I disagree with his decision, but I do not disrespect him. In fact, his tenacious loyalty to his personal staff’s recommendations is an admirable thing, and, unfortunately for us, is the prime impediment to being able to present the DIRECT proposal to him on a level playing ground.

Quote
Here is the test to see who is more "invested" in their concept.  If a year from now, Ares I and Orion are on a better path, will you still be pushing a change with such tactics?  What about two years from now?  Three?  What is your criteria for deciding that the current path may be acceptable, and that even if DIRECT is superior to Ares, Ares may be a feasible path?  Or is it your quest for national credibility and respect (something he has oodles of, and has earned by repeatedly making tough, correct decisions in situations more critical than this one) that drives YOUR behavior rather than his?  (this is a hypothetical.  I am NOT questioning your motives for questioning his ;-) )
My problem with the ESAS architecture is less with the Ares-I than it is with the belief that I, and many others hold, that the Ares-V will never be built. The Ares-I is only one side of a 2-sided coin. Without the other side, the single side is worthless. The mission REQUIRES both vehicles. I personally believe that they can ultimately succeed in getting Ares-I flying, with Orion onboard. When it first came out, as originally defined in the ESAS, it was truly a SDLV. I was 110% behind that. I loved the Ares-V, absolutely loved it! But once things began to unravel, and everything got pushed in the schedule so far to the right and now all new technology for the Ares-V is required to be on the critical path for the Ares-I to even be able to rotate crews to the ISS, I began to get nervous. That’s because I am intimately familiar with how the Congress works, which is not a pretty thing, and if you read the article about DIRECT in the latest issue of Horizons, you will see why my confidence in the ESAS architecture began to erode.

To answer your question “as phrased”, I would say no - that's not enough, I would continue to push for a change in architecture. But let me rephrase your question so that I can actually answer it. If you were to ask me “If a year from now, Ares-V is on a better path, and showing reasonable assurance that it will actually be built, will you still be pushing a change  …  What are your criteria for deciding that the current path may be acceptable, and that even if DIRECT is superior to Ares, Ares may be a feasible path?”  If you were to put it that way, you are directly addressing my concern. Ares-I can ultimately fly. But if that’s all we get, and we don’t get the Ares-V, then we are all ROYALLY screwed. But if the situation changes and the Ares-V is on a “realistic” track and it is “reasonably” certain that it actually will be built, then the answer is that I would support the Ares-I/V effort, in spite of my belief that the DIRECT architecture is better. Let me tell you why.

For almost every situation, there are multiple solutions, and some will always be better than others. When it is crunch time, and an executive must make a decision as to which path to follow, he or she puts almost total trust in their hand-picked staff and goes with their recommendation. At that point, all other possible solutions “must” be off the table, otherwise nothing will ever get accomplished. An organization cannot function, and a project cannot come to fruition, if after the dye is cast, the administrator continues to entertain alternate possibilities. The decision is made, the resources are budgeted, and the gates are opened. It’s full steam ahead with a one-track mind. That’s how you get things done. There is no other way. This applies even if in the build-out process you come up with a better idea. You can’t even incorporate better ideas without stopping everything and restarting so as to change/include it. It hurts the schedule too much. Once the decision is made, you have to just go for it. You have to. So if there were to be a reasonable assurance that the Ares-V would actually be built, I would stop trying to get NASA to change its mind, even though I believed that DIRECT offered a better solution. Ares-I/V is a workable architecture. Very expensive, very inefficient, and imho not in the best interests of this nation and its space program, but it can work. If NASA stays with the choice that it wants to go that route, *and the Ares-V will actually get built*, then it should be supported. Otherwise we all risk paralysis and the nation and its space program will suffer irreparable harm.

Quote
Again, I am convinced from personal observation that if given a better choice (with his own ranking of safety, performance, maturity, budget, workforce, etc.), he would take it without a second thought.  That is his "reputation".  That is the man I have seen him to be.

You and I agree on that. The key in your statement is “given a better choice”. As far as I am able to determine, he has not been given that choice. He was handed a guidance document, the ESAS (that has subsequently been shown to be flawed) and was provided a recommendation from his staff based on that document. He went with his staff’s recommendation, because he trusts them, and the ESAS was then assigned to the archives. He doesn’t go back to check it now and again to see how he is measuring up to it, so its flaws are no longer part of the thinking. They are history and no longer relevant to today’s decision making process. Everything has now moved beyond it.

I do not believe that he personally has been able to take the time to actually review the DIRECT proposal. If he has seen it at all, although I assume he has at least “heard” about it, he delegated the review to someone on his staff. He personally does not have the time to do that himself. And that was only a 20+ page high level proposal. Wait until the 125 page AIAA paper becomes available. Perhaps that will have enough irrefutable data in it that his staff will have to bring it to his attention. One can only hope.

Until then, he is plowing on with what he personally believes is the only real game in town. Shuttle is being retired - that was mandated by the politics of it all. He has got to replace it, and as far as he is aware, Ares is that "only" game. The nation needs a replacement, and he intends to provide it.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 08/29/2007 03:06 pm
Quote
clongton - 29/8/2007  10:41 AM

[snip]


Agreed.  Well put and clarified.

Because of government pressure and the structure of the budget and workforce, it is harder for a government official to look out more than a year.  Has nothing to do with available technical choices, and has everything to do with the constraints you are handed after you are given an opportunity.

I was reacting to these quotes from your original posts, which do call into question the rigor and objectivity of his decision making process, and the importance of "reputation" in the process.  

1.  "Griffin made a decision to build Scott's design and has no incentive to change that."

2.  "To a person in his position, that reputation is more valuable than any bonus, perk or position. It's what makes his world go around."

3.  "So yes, I'd say he is emotionally involved in it."

4.  "It is EVERYTHING to him and he tied both to the Ares-I and will not abandon it because then he throws his reputation and career away with it."

Again, in my view and despite your allowances to the contrary, this is an indirect assault on his character and vanity.  His character is, in fact, the exact opposite in that he revels in the days he is proven wrong.  Growth and learning (as evidenced by his numerous degrees in wide areas of study) are paramount.  Accomplishment is paramout.  I have not seen personal pride enter into the decision making process except to make sure decisions are made with the best data available AT THE TIME THEY ARE MADE.  

As I have said before, it is easy to second guess and "replan" based on current information.  Everybody wants a do-over, and sometimes it is warranted.  I too hope he has correct and full data in front of him.  If military strategy were changed based on the outcome of the first few battles (and then again, and again, and again ... remember, this isn't the first transportation architecture or the first time NASA has tried this road).  Changes such as suggested by DIRECT are not simply semantic or can be hidden under the cover of a name change to Ares V.   If Ares I were changed to another SDLV that is _not_ direct but still called "Ares", people on this board would be the first to claim NASA was pulling a fast one.  

I would put him among the few people I would trust to decide if such a do-over is necessary.

All evidence and personal observation inicate that his "incentives" are that he wants to keep NASA whole and give NASA the chance to put the U.S. on a path back to the Moon before his time done.  Period.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/29/2007 03:30 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 29/8/2007  11:06 AM

Agreed.  Well put and clarified.

Because of government pressure and the structure of the budget and workforce, it is harder for a government official to look out more than a year.  Has nothing to do with available technical choices, and has everything to do with the constraints you are handed after you are given an opportunity.
[snip]
Again, in my view and despite your allowances to the contrary, this is an indirect assault on his character and vanity.  His character is, in fact, the exact opposite in that he revels in the days he is proven wrong.  Growth and learning (as evidenced by his numerous degrees in wide areas of study) are paramount.  Accomplishment is paramount.  I have not seen personal pride enter into the decision making process except to make sure decisions are made with the best data available AT THE TIME THEY ARE MADE.
My intent was not to create an assault on Dr Griffin, directly or otherwise. As I have indicated to others before, while I disagree with his decision in this instance, I admire him for his accomplishments and dedication.  I am disturbed that you took it that way because that is the opposite of the intention. Those who were trying to judge his decisions based on Wall Street and Corporate thinking were just way off base, and I was attempting to address that. To the extent that you read more into what I stated than what I intended to convey, I apologize.

Quote
Changes such as suggested by DIRECT are not simply semantic or can be hidden under the cover of a name change to Ares V.   If Ares I were changed to another SDLV that is _not_ direct but still called "Ares", people on this board would be the first to claim NASA was pulling a fast one.
My concern is not what they call the rocket – I could care less. I just want to see NASA succeed. It is my space agency. Its future is my future, its accomplishments are my source of pride, and its difficulties are my burden to share and my responsibility to share in possible solutions. DIRECT is the expression of that attempt to share in that responsibility.  

Quote
I would put him among the few people I would trust to decide if such a do-over is necessary.

I would love to be assured that he was actually given an unbiased evaluation of the implications of the DIRECT architecture.  I personally would be accepting of his decision after such an investigation. But as far as I know, that has not happened. Any impressions of DIRECT that he has been given, were designed to defend the Ares, not evaluate DIRECT. Doug Stanley’s “evaluation” of version 1 is a case in point. Nine out of ten of his remarks were in defense of the Ares, not a critique of DIRECT. The ONLY thing he had to say against the original proposal subsequently was shown to be invalid, leaving the DIRECT proposal a totally valid proposal. But, in spite of his promise to the contrary, he did not come back to the thread and say so. The result is that a perfectly good proposal was left torpedoed. It does not speak well of how the staff executes Dr Griffin’s open-door policy.

Quote
All evidence and personal observation indicate that his "incentives" are that he wants to keep NASA whole and give NASA the chance to put the U.S. on a path back to the Moon before his time done.  Period.
Agreed

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 08/29/2007 04:35 pm
Quote
clongton - 29/8/2007  11:30 AM
snip

sounds good.  thanks for the clarification.  

it sounds like we are very much on the same page then.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 08/29/2007 05:42 pm
You can start an avalanche with one word... but heaven help anyone who tries to stop it afterward!  :)  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 08/29/2007 08:05 pm
Quote
clongton - 29/8/2007  10:41 AM

 Wait until the 125 page AIAA paper becomes available.

I can't wait. When does that happen, and will a copy be on the DIRECT website?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/29/2007 08:12 pm
Quote
G-pit - 29/8/2007  4:05 PM

Quote
clongton - 29/8/2007  10:41 AM

 Wait until the 125 page AIAA paper becomes available.

I can't wait. When does that happen, and will a copy be on the DIRECT website?
Next month
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/30/2007 04:10 am
Quote
kraisee - 28/8/2007  1:21 AM

The only place where DIRECT doesn't win hands down is in the pure Loss of Crew (LOC) numbers comparison.

While we still exceed the ESAS' "acceptable" requirements of better than 1:1000 LOC by a comfortable 25%, we aren't claiming quite as high a figure as Ares-I is claimed to be.


Assuming the NASA baseline expectation of launching 4 crewed flights per year (2 Lunar, 2 ISS), the current "apples to apples" LOC numbers indicate Ares-I will probably kill only one crew every 350 years, whereas Jupiter would likely kill only one crew every 250 years.

I just can't believe that is sufficient reason to "stick the course".

Not to mention that with Jupiter's extra performance envelope we would have the ability to close this "safety gap" even further by flying "active" safety systems aboard many flights which Ares-I will never be able to do - "active" safety systems such as radiation shielded CEV's and LSAM's.   Also the option to fly a heavy (up to 20mT) "Kevlar"-style blast-shield fitted immediately below the CEV on all flights with no other cargo - designed to specifically protect the CEV from blast damage and shrapnel in the event of any serious contingency event during launch.

With these sorts of systems factored in (and we have unfortunately been unable to calculate these differences because ESAS' mthodology isn't flexible enough) I am convinced that both ISS and Lunar full-mission LOC numbers would be a *lot* closer than they are currently.

Yet as I say, Jupiter achieves an LOC of 1:1275 in J-232 configuration and 1:1460 in J-120 configuration already - so is well above the "acceptable" levels before ever applying any of the optional extra safety systems.   Either better than 1:1000 LOC is acceptable or it isn't.   Has NASA changed its criteria?

Ross.
If it were required from aviation to have such high safety numbers from the beginning we would probably not have aviation even today. And Christopher Columbus would never be allowed to cross Atlantic Ocean and so forth.
If you are developing something new you have to accept the risk associated with it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 08/30/2007 04:26 am
All this controversy would not exist if NASA gave a proper response to DERECT proposal.
NASA silence creates this controversy and destroys NASA reputation.
Why NASA does not respond to DIRECT in the open?
Does NASA have something to hide?

“For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” (Bible)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 08/30/2007 04:41 am
Quote
clongton - 29/8/2007  11:30 AM Doug Stanley’s “evaluation” of version 1 is a case in point. Nine out of ten of his remarks were in defense of the Ares, not a critique of DIRECT. The ONLY thing he had to say against the original proposal subsequently was shown to be invalid, leaving the DIRECT proposal a totally valid proposal. But, in spite of his promise to the contrary, he did not come back to the thread and say so. The result is that a perfectly good proposal was left torpedoed.


And that was one torpedo.. next one will be in bound for Direct II.. I will put money on it.. again the man did his job.. "Direct" is not giving the directions..
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: stargazer777 on 08/30/2007 04:47 am

My compliments gentlemen (Clongton & Mars.is.Wet) on the best discussion I have read on this thread.  

"By George I think [they've] got it...."  My Fair Lady -- 1964

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 08/30/2007 04:58 am
There's been some discussion of Michael Griffin's attitude towards DIRECT.  It should be pointed out that Griffin is no fool, and he really wants to get to the moon.  Logically, that should mean that he will make the best choice for a lunar launch architecture.

Reality is not so simple.  The logic behind our choices depends on the criteria we use to make decisions.  In Griffin's case, his overriding concern appears to be the fielding of the safest manned launcher ever designed (costs be damned.)  It then follows that we will need the massive Ares V to meet the remainder of the up-mass requirements (dictated by the 4-crew, 14-day lunar mission which was arbitrarily chosen as the baseline.)

On the other hand, DIRECT's criteria is to be as cheap and fast as possible to develop, while still meeting acceptable safety standards.  The proponents of DIRECT are well-aware of the political and budgetary situation.  They've crafted a plan that meets Congressional requirements (shuttle workforce retention) while staying under the funding restrictions that already exist and will probably only get worse with time.

I think that the launch safety focus of the ESAS architecture reflects an agency that fails to see the forest for the trees.  It can be argued that the limited performance of Ares I cuts into the safety margins for the mission as a whole.  It requires a lot of performance from the Orion service engine just to make it to orbit and rendezvous, and precludes the airbags which would allow Orion to touch down on land.  There's also the possibility of staging problems with Ares I, a failure mode which does not exist with the DIRECT crew launcher.  There is some virtue in igniting all of your engines on the ground prior to liftoff.

Recent history shows that even the smartest of people are not immune to naivete.  I fear the same is true for Michael Griffin as well.  He's a brilliant engineer but I sense that he lacks the political acumen to pull his mission off.  His architecture may be wonderful from a crew safety perspective (at least during the launch phase,) but it's unaffordable in the current political climate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 08/30/2007 05:14 am
Quote
CFE - 30/8/2007  12:58 AM
 The logic behind our choices depends on the criteria we use to make decisions.
.....
 He's a brilliant engineer but I sense that he lacks the political acumen to pull his mission off.

I disagree, I think he will pull his mission off, based on his criteria.. remember its political  and he ain't going to tell us "the criteria"


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: bad_astra on 08/30/2007 07:39 am
Quote
Yegor - 29/8/2007  11:10 PM


If you are developing something new you have to accept the risk associated with it.

The American public will not accept high profile risk, very well. They are more likely to accept nameless death reports from Iraq every day for years on end, than one mangled corpse in Somalia.

NASA can't afford to loose one flight crew with Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 08/30/2007 09:40 am
Quote
Yegor - 30/8/2007  5:26 AM

All this controversy would not exist if NASA gave a proper response to DERECT proposal.
NASA silence creates this controversy and destroys NASA reputation.
Why NASA does not respond to DIRECT in the open?
Does NASA have something to hide?


NASA did respond to Direct v1. Sometimes NASA reacts to proposals made form outside (e.g. Russian offer of Energia rocket) but in this case I'm not optimistic. Some DIRECT claims are quite offensive and reminds me popular NASA hoax theories.
On the other side NASA reaction could be quite enlightening.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 08/30/2007 10:55 am
Quote
JIS - 30/8/2007  5:40 AM

Some DIRECT claims are quite offensive and reminds me popular NASA hoax theories.
That one is so far off base that the umpire didn't even see it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 08/30/2007 11:37 am
Quote
Yegor - 30/8/2007  12:26 AM

All this controversy would not exist if NASA gave a proper response to DERECT proposal.
NASA silence creates this controversy and destroys NASA reputation.
Why NASA does not respond to DIRECT in the open?
Does NASA have something to hide?


NASA doesn't have to acknowledge Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 08/30/2007 01:28 pm
Quote
Yegor - 30/8/2007  12:26 AM

All this controversy would not exist if NASA gave a proper response to DERECT proposal.
NASA silence creates this controversy and destroys NASA reputation.
Why NASA does not respond to DIRECT in the open?
Does NASA have something to hide?

While I understand your frustration, I think this is a bit "over the top". There really isn't a "controversy". Outside a relatively small group of enthusiasts/ industry insiders DIRECT has NO public face at all. NASA is working in an open manner to build what they said they would build. Very open. There have been many proponents of alternate ways of performing the VSE and NASA chose one. Once that's been done, they no longer have to justify themselves to anyone (except Congress as they ask for budget allocations). In the focussed world of egineering project management (which I am in) once you choose a path it is frequently suicide for the guys in the trenches to continually question their approach. You learn as an engineer that there are _always_ better ways of doing anything. However, if you want to get anything done, you have to stick a stake in the ground and move forward from there, even if it's not the "best" solution. On those grounds, I have no problem with NASA, as an organisation, not "responding" to DIRECT.

That doesn't mean I don't think DIRECT is a better solution, I do.

My hope for DIRECT is that a combination of questions from congress critters gets the administrators senior technical team thinking either that a) DIRECT may have more political support than the current design or b) ARES V is in a LOT of trouble, funding-wise, and probably won't get built. Either message from congress can change the criteria that the administrator, either the current one or his successor, are using to support ARES. If DIRECT can garner more support in Congress (for it's greater retention of workforce and smaller post-shuttle flight gap) or if budget issues seem to really threaten NASA's funding for Ares V to the point where it looks likely that it won't exist at all, then, and only then, do I see NASA switching horses. As has been sated a couple times over the last few days, the administration of NASA has a plan and apparently both the support of Congress for its broad strokes and its funding requirements. Should either of those two pillars of support waver seriously, then other alternatives come back on the table.

The NASA administration's take on Copngressional support is that they are absolutely risk intolerant as far as losing crews. Absolutely risk intolerant. After that, program job retention is next important and then program cost. That's important. It gives the NASA technical team the fundamental cornerstones that they _have_ to fit their designs into. Given that reading of Congressional priorities, if NASA were to choose DIRECT, you can bet your butt that Congress would be in there asking why NASA chose a more risky design. To my mind this can be traced back to 25+ years of NASA trying to downplay the risks of shuttle operations such that when peoople eventually did die, it was seen as a fundamental flaw in the system. There are flaws in the shuttle, of course, but one of the worst was not keeping the American public aware that each flight held significant risk. Once that risk materialised everyone was super shocked and the reactions and backlash have affected everything NASA has planned for the future. Now, if the American public can be excited by the possibilities of exploration enough to accept some risk to the astronauts, then Congress will reflect that and the focus will switch to the Gap and to program costs, where DIRECT wins hands-down. Until that can be accomplished, I don't think that NASA is going to move off ARES one inch. I also don't see anyone getting the American public very excited abuot the whole Lunar thing at all, but that's another issue...

Hell, a new administration could say "Why are we developing new boosters? We have EELVs that we paid for. Let's ramp up the flight rate, use private industry to support the Station and do the entire lunar arcitecture off EELV launches."  There are several well thought-out plans for just that and at that point everything for ARES I & V could go the way of the Dodo along with DIRECT. Stranger things have happened.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 08/30/2007 02:21 pm
Quote
Yegor - 29/8/2007  12:10 AM
If it were required from aviation to have such high safety numbers from the beginning we would probably not have aviation even today. And Christopher Columbus would never be allowed to cross Atlantic Ocean and so forth.
If you are developing something new you have to accept the risk associated with it.

A 3-10 fold increase over the state of the art (Shuttle) and 2-3 fold improvement over the worst-case Soyuz numbers does not seem to be too much to ask.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 08/30/2007 02:42 pm
Quote
Yegor - 30/8/2007  12:26 AM

All this controversy would not exist if NASA gave a proper response to DERECT proposal.
NASA silence creates this controversy and destroys NASA reputation.
Why NASA does not respond to DIRECT in the open?
Does NASA have something to hide?

The start of a consipracy theory?  From my vantage point, this has simply not risen to a level that anyone who is in a position to change course would notice.  Not a matter of whether it does or not, but a matter of fact.

And while great work and progress has been done, a Horizon's article, AIAA paper, and a message board do not equate to controversy.  Again, not taking anything away from this site (which is the best there is), but look at these statistics.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/924/1

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 08/31/2007 12:52 am
Quote
mars.is.wet - 30/8/2007  10:21 AM

Quote
Yegor - 29/8/2007  12:10 AM
If it were required from aviation to have such high safety numbers from the beginning we would probably not have aviation even today. And Christopher Columbus would never be allowed to cross Atlantic Ocean and so forth.
If you are developing something new you have to accept the risk associated with it.

A 3-10 fold increase over the state of the art (Shuttle) and 2-3 fold improvement over the worst-case Soyuz numbers does not seem to be too much to ask.

Agreed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/01/2007 05:53 pm
I believe that the Ares-I will be cancelled but I strongly suspect that the J-120 will survive.

The reasons:
1. Shorter development time so it may be finished before the post Falcon 9 cancellations start.
2. At 45mT the J-120 can lift significantly heavier masses to LEO than Falcon 9 (28mT), Atlas V (20mT) or Delta IV Heavy (23mT).  This can justify the extra cost.
3. As well as lifting the Orion the J-23x forms part of the J-232 Moon cargo rocket.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 09/01/2007 06:17 pm
You are quoting the figure for the *proposed* Falcon 9 Heavy not the standard Falcon 9 which lifts about 10mT. The Falcon 9 is too small to lift the CEV which is why NASA have never seen it as a competitor to Ares I unlike the EELVs. Ares I will be here before Falcon 9 Heavy. DIRECT's crunch time will be 2008 when the new administrator is appointed. If it doesn't replace Ares I then it never will.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/01/2007 07:08 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 1/9/2007  1:53 PM
:
1. Shorter development time so it may be finished before the post Falcon 9 cancellations start.

Falcon and Ares 1 are not interdependent.  Ares 1 (or a CLV) will not be cancelled.  The Orion needs a launch vehicle.  Ares V is not viable for all Orion missions

Also, Falcon 9 is not a proven vehicle.  It is not a given.  

There is more risk of falcon/dragon not working vs the earth orbital launch vehicle of Orion being cancelled
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/01/2007 08:41 pm
If Ares I is cancelled because of the Falcon 9 Heavy it will be because it is not needed. It will not cost us the moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/01/2007 08:51 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 1/9/2007  4:41 PM

If Ares I is cancelled because of the Falcon 9 Heavy it will be because it is not needed. .


No.  Read my words carefully.

1.  Falcon 9 Heavy is not proven
2.  Ares I exists now with Delta IV  and Atlas V.  They can do the job too.  Just as NASA chose not to use them, NASA can ignore Falcon 9
3.  Delta IV  and Atlas V can do the job better than Falcon 9 heavy.  There is nothing special about it.  Don't say cost.  It hasn't even flown

SO THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN ARES I AND FALCON 9 HEAVY

Provide some reasoning to your posts.  

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/02/2007 01:44 am
Quote
Jim - 1/9/2007  9:51 PM

SO THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN ARES I AND FALCON 9 HEAVY

Provide some reasoning to your posts.  


There is a very simple relationship between the two.  Ares-I and Falcon 9 Heavy are rival products.  They are both methods of getting to the ISS.

NASA HQ is not the buyer, Congress is.  Although NASA may be a middleman for Congress.

I have provided the reasoning, you just do not like the reasoning.  Given a choice people normally buy the quickest and cheapest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procurement

The estimated Area-I costs are a lot more than the quoted price for Falcon 9 rockets and is not due to available until several years later.  So the Ares-I is definitely an outsider.  Both machines are new untested designs.

The Alpha V and Delta IV Heavy are also rivals to the Ares-I but most Congressmen probably do not realise this - yet.  The proposed Ares-V and J-232 can also lift the Orion.

Now it is your tern to provide some reasoning.
Why do the normal rules of life and laws on procurement not apply?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/02/2007 01:56 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 1/9/2007  7:44 PM
Why do the normal rules of life and laws on procurement not apply?

Because NASA's approach in selecting ARES-I was to maximize the LOC number (minimize the likelihood of loss of crew) with greater than 1000 required, the more the better, not to minimize the cost.  Do you suppose the 27 liquid engines on the Falcon 9 heavy's first stage will have the same LOC number as the single solid rocket booster of ARES-I?

Procurement is not always about lowest cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/02/2007 02:12 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 1/9/2007  9:44 PM

1.  There is a very simple relationship between the two.  Ares-I and Falcon 9 Heavy are rival products.  They are both methods of getting to the ISS.

2.  NASA HQ is not the buyer, Congress is.  Although NASA may be a middleman for Congress.

3.  I have provided the reasoning, you just do not like the reasoning. Given a choice people normally buy the quickest and cheapest.

4.  The Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy are also rivals to the Ares-I but most Congressmen probably do not realise this - yet.

5.  Why do the normal rules of life and laws on procurement not apply?

1.  wrong.  Ares I is to put Orion into orbit so it can do its mission.  One of Orion's missions is to go to the ISS, but its primary mission is to go to the moon

2.  Wrong again.  Congress can't tell NASA which vehicle to procure. (something about the rules of procurement)

3.  Your reason is invalid.  quicker and cheapest are not applicable.  Jobs in  congressional districts matter

4.  Congress knows about them and don't care because......jobs in  congressional districts matter

5.  They don't apply because there was no competition for procurement.  NASA design its own and decided go with it .  Why, because Ares I and Orion provide for 10 healthy centers which means...............jobs in  congressional districts
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 09/02/2007 02:18 am
The Falcon 9 first stage has 9 engines, thus the Falcon 9 name.
Falcon 9's second stage has one engine.
Still that is a lot of engines clustered on the first stage.
But it is only one more than the Saturn I had, and the Saturn I was very reliable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/02/2007 02:27 am
Quote
marsavian - 1/9/2007  7:17 PM

You are quoting the figure for the *proposed* Falcon 9 Heavy not the standard Falcon 9 which lifts about 10mT. The Falcon 9 is too small to lift the CEV which is why NASA have never seen it as a competitor to Ares I unlike the EELVs. Ares I will be here before Falcon 9 Heavy. DIRECT's crunch time will be 2008 when the new administrator is appointed. If it doesn't replace Ares I then it never will.

The Falcon 9 is due to take a cargo only Dragon capsule to the ISS in Q3 2009.  I just have a feeling that weight problems will force SpaceX to send the manned Dragons up using the Falcon 9 Heavy.  2010/11 are the estimated date for the heavy which may be able to lift an Orion.
http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php

According to Wikipedia the Ares-I maiden flight is due in 2009.  The ETA for the Orion at the ISS is 2014, five years after the Dragon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/02/2007 03:15 am


I have provided the reasoning, you just do not like the reasoning.  Given a choice people normally buy the quickest and cheapest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procurement

The estimated Area-I costs are a lot more than the quoted price for Falcon 9 rockets and is not due to available until several years later.  So the Ares-I is definitely an outsider.  Both machines are new untested designs.

The Alpha V and Delta IV Heavy are also rivals to the Ares-I but most Congressmen probably do not realise this - yet.  The proposed Ares-V and J-232 can also lift the Orion.

Now it is your tern to provide some reasoning.
Why do the normal rules of life and laws on procurement not apply?
[/QUOTE]

If they were serious about cheapest/quickest Orion would be riding on a Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V Heavy and Ares I would have been a non-starter, especially when the 5 seg SRB and J2-X became the baseline instead of the 4 seg/SSME.  Even if you believe ESAS in that new upper stages would be required, tell me again how developing TWO new (virtually clean sheet) stages (for Ares I) is easier/cheaper than developing ONE (for an EELV)??

A beaureaucracy is just like inside a black hole... the normal rules that order the rest of the universe just don't apply...  

Personally I'd love to see Ares I dropped, Orion on an EELV and the SDV developed strictly for heavy lift, either as the Ares V or Jupiter in whatever flavor... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/02/2007 03:24 am
Quote
Scotty - 1/9/2007  8:18 PM
The Falcon 9 first stage has 9 engines, thus the Falcon 9 name.

I admit I don't know much about it, but since the Falcon 9 has 9 engines and the Falcon 9 Heavy uses 3 Falcon 9 first stages, I figured there would be 27 engines on it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/02/2007 03:27 am
Quote
luke strawwalker - 1/9/2007  9:15 PM
I have provided the reasoning, you just do not like the reasoning.  Given a choice people normally buy the quickest and cheapest.

Why would you think that would be true in this case?  There are TONS of reasons to purchase longer-lead-time and more expensive over fastest and cheapest.  Most people's purchasing decisions for items more complex than a stick of gum usually include more than two criteria.  I spent 14 years shopping for a subwoofer that ended up costing 20 times more than "the quickest and cheapest" because I wanted something better.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 09/02/2007 04:07 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 1/9/2007  9:44 PM

I have provided the reasoning, you just do not like the reasoning.  Given a choice people normally buy the quickest and cheapest.


People have alread said why this is completely wrong in the context of NASA decisions, but what your saying *would* make some sense if we were talking about a for-profit (or small budgeted) company/program. Givin a choice between two rockets that meet the launch needs, (Weight to orbit, timeline, etc..) An aggressive company seeking profits or on a limited budget will take into account price if one launch solution costs a lot less than the other -- as long as their launch requirments are met.

But, this does not apply well to NASA, gov't, or anyone who is launching a billion dollar payload and will pay the extra 50 million for the launch system with a proven record and higher reliability.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 09/02/2007 04:12 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 1/9/2007  11:24 PM

Quote
Scotty - 1/9/2007  8:18 PM
The Falcon 9 first stage has 9 engines, thus the Falcon 9 name.

I admit I don't know much about it, but since the Falcon 9 has 9 engines and the Falcon 9 Heavy uses 3 Falcon 9 first stages, I figured there would be 27 engines on it.

Your right Lee. Scotty is confusing the Falcon 9 with the Falcon 9 heavy.

I'd like to hear some more about direct... I think we've gotten a little sidetracked. Any developments or news?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/02/2007 04:14 am
Falcon 9 will be more reliable, not less. It is, after all, man-rated.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/02/2007 04:16 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 1/9/2007  10:27 PM

Quote
luke strawwalker - 1/9/2007  9:15 PM
I have provided the reasoning, you just do not like the reasoning.  Given a choice people normally buy the quickest and cheapest.

Why would you think that would be true in this case?  There are TONS of reasons to purchase longer-lead-time and more expensive over fastest and cheapest.  Most people's purchasing decisions for items more complex than a stick of gum usually include more than two criteria.  I spent 14 years shopping for a subwoofer that ended up costing 20 times more than "the quickest and cheapest" because I wanted something better.

Don't know why that didn't quote right... I did snip the first part off of the reply to shorten the thread...

I'm with yall on this... if they wanted the cheapest/quickest then EELV was the way to go, IMHO.  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/02/2007 04:19 am
Quote
tnphysics - 1/9/2007  11:14 PM

Falcon 9 will be more reliable, not less. It is, after all, man-rated.

Eh... don't know if I'd take that to the bank... Ever hear of the N-1?  

Very rarely do more parts=greater reliability, man-rated or not.  One could look at Shuttle too for that matter.... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 09/02/2007 06:05 am
Quote
tnphysics - 1/9/2007  11:14 PM

Falcon 9 will be more reliable, not less. It is, after all, man-rated.

The F-9 is a nice design, and may even work well, but until it successfully accomplishes at least its first 2 or 3 missions, all the enthusiastic "Falcon-9 Rules!" cheerleading is nothing more than amazing people/PR spin, and means nothing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/02/2007 08:10 am
Quote
G-pit - 2/9/2007  5:07 AM

But, this does not apply well to NASA, gov't, or anyone who is launching a billion dollar payload and will pay the extra 50 million for the launch system with a proven record and higher reliability.

I can follow that argument but the hole in it is the Ares-I and its upper stage engine have not been built yet.  So it does not have a proven record and its reliability is only estimated.  In about 2 years time the Falcon 9 will have a track record.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 09/02/2007 11:56 am
There is a Falcon 9 development thread where you can chat about this rather than here as you have taken this thread off-topic. Having said that it's the Falcon 9 Heavy's track record that counts not the Falcon 9 and SpaceX have been late on all their development forecasts so far so you are not comparing apples to apples and believing optimistic forecasts. Falcon 9 Heavy may not even be developed, like Falcon 5, if there is no real market and how many Delta IV Heavies have flown for profit in the same payload category ? It's just a potential growth option with no contracts and should be seen as that as opposed to Ares I which now has firm development contracts and guaranteed payloads. Also Falcon 9 Heavy doesn't get you any nearer to Ares V which Ares I does.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula on 09/02/2007 01:05 pm
Although Elon's also mentioned a BFR (Big F -- king Rocket) project beyond Falcon 9. 100 tons to LEO.  Ares V competittion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/02/2007 01:07 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 2/9/2007  4:10 AM

I can follow that argument but the hole in it is the Ares-I and its upper stage engine have not been built yet.

1.  So it does not have a proven record and its reliability is only estimated.  

2. In about 2 years time the Falcon 9 will have a track record.

Your argument has more holes

1.  Ares I is using some proven components and proven contractors

2.  F9 track record more than likely would be the same as Falcon 1's (0 of 2)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/02/2007 02:33 pm
Ross,

What about adding a ballistic shield to your next proposal?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/02/2007 07:35 pm
All this is very interesting but I would like to pose one serious question:

Tell me again.
This all relates to DIRECT version 2 how?
Please take Falcon 9 discussions to the SpaceX thread where it belongs.
Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 09/03/2007 08:12 pm
Hoping to get the thread back on track...

Will the AIAA Space 2007 paper retain the J-2XD performance figures, or will it take advantage of the rumors that NASA & PWR are jumping ahead to the full 294K J-2X?  While you've shown DIRECT to be completely feasible with the more conservative engine choice, you can possibly squeeze some more performance out with the full J-2X due to lower drag & gravity losses during the stage 2 burn.

Perhaps NASA will adopt two J-2X's for the Ares V EDS.  At that point it can be claimed that DIRECT has had some influence on NASA (even if it's not to the degree we wanted.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/04/2007 01:15 am
Quote
CFE - 3/9/2007  4:12 PM

Hoping to get the thread back on track...

Will the AIAA Space 2007 paper retain the J-2XD performance figures, or will it take advantage of the rumors that NASA & PWR are jumping ahead to the full 294K J-2X?  While you've shown DIRECT to be completely feasible with the more conservative engine choice, you can possibly squeeze some more performance out with the full J-2X due to lower drag & gravity losses during the stage 2 burn.

Perhaps NASA will adopt two J-2X's for the Ares V EDS.  At that point it can be claimed that DIRECT has had some influence on NASA (even if it's not to the degree we wanted.)
The DIRECT proposal is staying with the J-2XD.
We know that is achievable relatively easily, but the J-2X may or may not ever exist.
If it ever does become reality, the Jupiter could easily use it and gain a considerable performance boost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/04/2007 01:50 am
It seems as though a rational comparison to add might be Jupiter/DIRECT with the three main Constellation-initiated upgrades - the J2X, the uprated RS68, and the 5-segment SRB.  You've compared DIRECT without those to Ares with those on both a cost and performance basis, what about with those upgrades?  My initial thought for the 5-seg would be the version without the stretched tank like was envisioned for STS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 09/04/2007 04:56 am
In terms of using 5-seg SRB's, it creates two options: using the standard length tank and moving the SRB attach points aft on the SRB case, or stretching the tank and keeping the SRB attach points in the same locations on the SRB case.

There's a plethora of RS-68 upgrades to be considered.  The current RS-68 upgrade, funded by DoD, has improved turbopumps and higher element density for the injectors.  This should increase thrust (by ~6%) and Isp (to 414s in vac) according to the literature I've read.  The upgrade also needs to re-route the exhaust from the gas generator, as the current RS-68's geometry precludes the tight 5-engine cluster required for Ares V.  DIRECT may run into a similar problem without rerouting the gas generator exhaust.

A more challenging upgrade is the baseline regen nozzle.  The expansion ratio will stay the same as with the current RS-68, and Isp increases to 419s.  It seems like this probably won't be funded, as it's more technically challenging than the current upgrade without offering too much more in the way of performance.

The most drastic upgrade to the RS-68 is a regen nozzle of higher expansion ratio.  Thrust decreases but Isp increases.  How much can we expect Isp to improve, and what will the expansion ratio change to?  That's for PWR to determine, based on factors like the thrust chamber design.  Using Space Transportation Main Engine (STME) as a guide, I think we can set 430s and 45:1 as upper bounds.  While the stillborn STME is similar in being a LH2, gas-generator engine with similar thrust levels to RS-68, it should also be remembered that STME had a higher chamber pressure than RS-68--allowing higher expansion ratio nozzles to be used than on an upgraded RS-68.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/04/2007 12:27 pm
Quote
CFE - 4/9/2007  12:56 AM

In terms of using 5-seg SRB's, it creates two options: using the standard length tank and moving the SRB attach points aft on the SRB case, or stretching the tank and keeping the SRB attach points in the same locations on the SRB case.

There's a plethora of RS-68 upgrades to be considered.  The current RS-68 upgrade, funded by DoD, has improved turbopumps and higher element density for the injectors.  This should increase thrust (by ~6%) and Isp (to 414s in vac) according to the literature I've read.  The upgrade also needs to re-route the exhaust from the gas generator, as the current RS-68's geometry precludes the tight 5-engine cluster required for Ares V.  DIRECT may run into a similar problem without rerouting the gas generator exhaust.

A more challenging upgrade is the baseline regen nozzle.  The expansion ratio will stay the same as with the current RS-68, and Isp increases to 419s.  It seems like this probably won't be funded, as it's more technically challenging than the current upgrade without offering too much more in the way of performance.

The most drastic upgrade to the RS-68 is a regen nozzle of higher expansion ratio.  Thrust decreases but Isp increases.  How much can we expect Isp to improve, and what will the expansion ratio change to?  That's for PWR to determine, based on factors like the thrust chamber design.  Using Space Transportation Main Engine (STME) as a guide, I think we can set 430s and 45:1 as upper bounds.  While the stillborn STME is similar in being a LH2, gas-generator engine with similar thrust levels to RS-68, it should also be remembered that STME had a higher chamber pressure than RS-68--allowing higher expansion ratio nozzles to be used than on an upgraded RS-68.
The engine we used on DIRECT v1 was an RS-68 with an exhaust nozzle that was regenerativly cooled and vacuum optimized, and the PWR design engineers that did the analysis put the performance of that engine at 435 seconds. Doug Stanley then proceeded to smile broadly as he FUD’d the proposal in an extremely sneaky, effective and totally unprincipled way. He produced an official chart from PWR that showed that the regen nozzle version of the engine would not achieve 435 seconds, but only 419 seconds, and then proceeded to sing the praises of the Ares-I and talk about his family. Very smooth.

Everyone considered his credentials and did not consider carefully what he was saying and instantly all their bubbles popped and we were abandoned like last week’s Sunday newspaper. There were posts on the NSF thread which actually said “Doug Stanley said it so it must be true”. It was an ugly thing to be on the receiving end of because FYI, what Stanley did not bother to point out was that the PWR chart he produced showed the performance of only the regen nozzle but that vacuum optimization was not included in the ISP figure. The DIRECT proposal had included the vacuum optimization in the engine design. What that does is increase the ISP of the regen nozzle from the 419 seconds into the 430 second range, and the PWR engineers we worked with had set that performance at 435 seconds. Stanley had attacked an engine that we were not using and everyone simply assumed that it was the DIRECT engine because of who said it, exactly as expected.

Stanley had promised us all he would keep his “critique” thread open long enough to answer everyone’s concerns, and I was personally preparing a detailed response when after only a few days he informed Chris that he would take no further questions and instructed him to freeze the thread, and because he was the originator of the thread, Chris was obligated to comply. Multiple attempts to reach him fell on deaf ears and blind eyes, in spite of his promise to be available by email to anyone wishing to contact him. It soon became clear that he had no intention of addressing the issue any further. It is our “opinion”, given the circumstances, the deliberate withholding of information and the subtle misleading of the readership of this forum accomplished by that withholding, together with his subsequent refusal to even respond privately, let alone return and respond further in the forum, that he had been given a task to torpedo the DIRECT proposal. He accomplished that by misleading the thread members on the performance potential of the engine. We believe that he wouldn’t have done that on his own so *if* our opinion is true, the request to do so had to have come from at least the top of the Constellation program office, the Administrators office or possibly from the top management of a certain solid motor manufacturer. Interestingly enough, the engine we proposed could be developed and fielded much faster and for far less money than the development time and cost of the 5-segment SRB and ATK subsequently uploaded their own skewed and misleading take on DIRECT on their corporate website. You can draw your own conclusions about that.

We have voiced this opinion of ours often, openly and publicly and have made sure that Stanley is acutely aware that we are saying this, all in an attempt to get him to respond, but to date, he refuses to do so. To us, his continuing silence speaks volumes.

To the initial point, an RS-68 engine with a nozzle which is BOTH regenerativly cooled and vacuum-optimized, produces an engine, according to PWR design engineering analysis, with an estimated ISP of 435 seconds; and that engine could be developed and brought online for less than the development cost of the 5-segment SRB. But our painful experience with the very smooth FUD attack we experienced the first time around has taught us many things, one of which is to be conservative in the official proposal and depend only on existing flight articles, which produces the Jupiter-120. Therefore DIRECT version 2 does not and will not use this powerful and efficient engine in the official proposal, in spite of the fact that doing so would produce an extremely beneficial boost in launch vehicle performance. (Those of you with the ability to do so can easily calculate what the delta would be.) However, if the United States is fortunate enough to ultimately obtain new leadership that is more concerned with getting it right for the next 40 years than they are with “staying the course” ( I loathe that expression), then DIRECT, or something like it, will become the nations’ workhorse VSE launch vehicle family. If we can get passed that difficult hurdle, then, and only then, can we talk about all kinds of “improvements” that would be extremely beneficial to the VSE. But to put those improvements into the proposal would only invite another FUD event and detract from the proposal itself. Therefore we are using the RS-68 existing performance numbers. We’ve been burned once, and will not allow this watershed proposal to be placed in that position again. The potential implications of this proposal are too important to the future of manned spaceflight in general and the VSE in particular.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 09/04/2007 01:42 pm
The vacuum optimization of the nozzle was a thing I had been asking about for a loooooong time. You can check the old direct threads. The fact that the Ariane V does it with Vulcain 2 (a gas generator hydrogen engine!) should be a clear sign!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 09/04/2007 02:06 pm
Quote
luke strawwalker - 2/9/2007  12:19 AM

Quote
tnphysics - 1/9/2007  11:14 PM

Falcon 9 will be more reliable, not less. It is, after all, man-rated.

Eh... don't know if I'd take that to the bank... Ever hear of the N-1?  

Very rarely do more parts=greater reliability, man-rated or not.  One could look at Shuttle too for that matter.... OL JR :)

As far as I can recall, the N-1 was not supposed to be man-rated. It was supposed to launch the EDS and lunar lander, after which the crew would come up in a Soyuz launched by the usual R-7 derived launcher. And as far as I can see, the Ares 1/Orion + Ares V/LSAM plan is pretty much the same as the (failed) Soyuz/LOK + N-1/LK plan.

I think the arguments here that Falcon 9 Heavy  is a "paper rocket" whereas the Ares I consists of "proven, tested components" are specious. Fact is, neither the Merlin 1C nor the 5-seg solid rocket "motor" nor the J-2 derived upper stage engine have ever flown. When the next Falcon 1 lifts off, it will be the first flight of the Merlin 1C (the previous two launches used the Merlin 1A engine). We'll see.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 09/04/2007 02:11 pm
Is there any conceivable market for DIRECT/Jupiter other than as a replacement for Ares I/V/STS?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/04/2007 02:12 pm
Quote
William Barton - 4/9/2007  10:06 AM

Quote
luke strawwalker - 2/9/2007  12:19 AM

Quote
tnphysics - 1/9/2007  11:14 PM

Falcon 9 will be more reliable, not less. It is, after all, man-rated.

Eh... don't know if I'd take that to the bank... Ever hear of the N-1?  

Very rarely do more parts=greater reliability, man-rated or not.  One could look at Shuttle too for that matter.... OL JR :)

As far as I can recall, the N-1 was not supposed to be man-rated. It was supposed to launch the EDS and lunar lander, after which the crew would come up in a Soyuz launched by the usual R-7 derived launcher. And as far as I can see, the Ares 1/Orion + Ares V/LSAM plan is pretty much the same as the (failed) Soyuz/LOK + N-1/LK plan.

I think the arguments here that Falcon 9 Heavy  is a "paper rocket" whereas the Ares I consists of "proven, tested components" are specious. Fact is, neither the Merlin 1C nor the 5-seg solid rocket "motor" nor the J-2 derived upper stage engine have ever flown. When the next Falcon 1 lifts off, it will be the first flight of the Merlin 1C (the previous two launches used the Merlin 1A engine). We'll see.
Please send comments regarding SpaceX launch vehicles to the SpaceX thread. This thread is about DIRECT, not Falcon.
Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/04/2007 02:17 pm
Quote
William Barton - 4/9/2007  10:11 AM

Is there any conceivable market for DIRECT/Jupiter other than as a replacement for Ares I/V/STS?
It can become the premiere and workhorse launch vehicle for the entire VSE. As such it will support any launch requirement that exceeds the capacity of the EELV fleet. It will open the entire solar system in a way that no other existing or planned launch vehicle can.
I don’t know what else to say. Can you be more specific?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/04/2007 02:46 pm
I'm trying to work out the burnout G-load for the J-120 and I can't get it to be under 3 Gs.  What am I missing here?

Burnout mass - 150,029 pounds
Cargo - 90,477 pounds
Thrust at 100% - 751,000 pounds * 2

That's 6.3 Gs at 100%.  I don't know how much the RS-68s can be throttled but I was guessing in the 60% range.  Can the RS-68s be throttled down more than I thought or something?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/04/2007 02:48 pm
Quote
William Barton - 4/9/2007  10:06 AM

I think the arguments here that Falcon 9 Heavy  is a "paper rocket" whereas the Ares I consists of "proven, tested components" are specious.

not so.  One is by org with proven track records with hardware that has flight heritage.  The other: none, none, and none
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/04/2007 02:53 pm
Quote
William Barton - 4/9/2007  10:11 AM

Is there any conceivable market for DIRECT/Jupiter other than as a replacement for Ares I/V/STS?

Not commercial.  Too big
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/04/2007 03:05 pm
Quote
Jim - 4/9/2007  8:53 AM

Quote
William Barton - 4/9/2007  10:11 AM

Is there any conceivable market for DIRECT/Jupiter other than as a replacement for Ares I/V/STS?

Not commercial.  Too big

I was wondering about this.  What about the constellations like Iridium?  Would launch of lots of small sats like these be economical on a large launch vehicle?  Or, are there enough different orbits that you'd need several launches anyway?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/04/2007 03:12 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 4/9/2007  10:46 AM

I'm trying to work out the burnout G-load for the J-120 and I can't get it to be under 3 Gs.  What am I missing here?

Burnout mass - 150,029 pounds
Cargo - 90,477 pounds
Thrust at 100% - 751,000 pounds * 2

That's 6.3 Gs at 100%.  I don't know how much the RS-68s can be throttled but I was guessing in the 60% range.  Can the RS-68s be throttled down more than I thought or something?

The RS-68 is certified to be throttled down to 58% "nominally".   It can actually throttle down to about 51%, but that's outside of the "recommended" use envelope.

On an ISS-bound Jupiter-120 CLV flight, we begin throttling around T+398.0s to keep the crew below 4g.   From there all the way to MECO at T+445.5s we are steadily throttling both main engines, eventually getting down to 65%.

Jupiter's maximum G load for Crew will be 4.0 G.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/04/2007 03:19 pm
Quote
William Barton - 4/9/2007  3:11 PM

Is there any conceivable market for DIRECT/Jupiter other than as a replacement for Ares I/V/STS?

An example of what the Jupiter-120 can do that its rivals cannot may be useful.
A Jupiter-120 can launch a manned Dragon capsule, 30 metric tons of cargo and an arm.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/04/2007 03:19 pm
Quote
kraisee - 4/9/2007  9:12 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 4/9/2007  10:46 AM

I'm trying to work out the burnout G-load for the J-120 and I can't get it to be under 3 Gs.  What am I missing here?

Burnout mass - 150,029 pounds
Cargo - 90,477 pounds
Thrust at 100% - 751,000 pounds * 2

That's 6.3 Gs at 100%.  I don't know how much the RS-68s can be throttled but I was guessing in the 60% range.  Can the RS-68s be throttled down more than I thought or something?

The RS-68 is certified to be throttled down to 58% "nominally".   It can actually throttle down to about 51%, but that's outside of the "recommended" use envelope.

On an ISS-bound Jupiter-120 CLV flight, we begin throttling around T+398.0s to keep the crew below 4g.   From there all the way to MECO at T+445.5s we are steadily throttling both main engines, eventually getting down to 65%.

Jupiter's maximum G load for Crew will be 4.0 G.

Ross.

Ah...thanks Ross.  I think Shuttle is 3Gs (perhaps I'm wrong there too) so I was assuming Orion would be the same.

Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/04/2007 03:21 pm
I don't agree with Jim that there are no commercial opportunities for Jupiter.   I totally agree that right here and now in 2007 there are none.   But I disagree that there won't ever be any such opportunities.

I could well imagine someone like Bigelow considering launching his entire 6-module space station on a single J-120 instead of half a dozen Proton's.   There's certainly a cost advantage there which could be leveraged, not to mention considerably fewer logistics hurdles for launching everything on one booster instead of many.


Lee Jay also points out, rightly, that some satellite manufacturers wish to deploy more than one satellite at a time and Jupiter has a lot of payload capacity available to allow complete constellations of satellites to be launched all at the same time - if required.


I see markets for satellite manufacturers who wish to make "cheap" satellites by making them of less exotic and heavier materials than at present.   Perhaps a satellite massing 20mT today could be built for half the cost if it's limitations allowed it to mass up to 40mT using far cruder (read cheaper and heavier) materials.

The fact is that today we just don't have the *option* to launch anything massing >30mT anywhere in the world.   So builders of payloads have no choice but to build their hardware below this maximum (usually a lot lighter because costs get high pretty fast in this business).   Jupiter-120 offers a relatively affordable platform which opens new doors and we just can not predict what that will allow commercial customers to think of.



Things like this simply aren't possible today so historic "convention" tends to limit people's thinking.   I'm saying there are new "out of the box" alternatives which could be considered if we had a relatively inexpensive LV in the 40mT class.

I know I can think of lots of *potential* uses in the commercial sector, but they only become reasonable once you already HAVE a Heavy Lift launcher available - Until then there is very little point in even considering the ideas.

Ross.

PS - And yes, I am assuming that NASA and DoD do come to some arrangement allowing NASA to offer commercial services in the "greater payload capacity" market separate from EELV.   I can see it working well for both organizations because DoD also gets access to a >40mT lift system.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/04/2007 03:31 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 4/9/2007  11:05 AM

Quote
Jim - 4/9/2007  8:53 AM

Quote
William Barton - 4/9/2007  10:11 AM

Is there any conceivable market for DIRECT/Jupiter other than as a replacement for Ares I/V/STS?

Not commercial.  Too big

I was wondering about this.  What about the constellations like Iridium?  Would launch of lots of small sats like these be economical on a large launch vehicle?  Or, are there enough different orbits that you'd need several launches anyway?

Too many eggs in one basket.  Globalstar lost 1/4 of their constellation in one launch
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/04/2007 03:32 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 4/9/2007  11:19 AM

Ah...thanks Ross.  I think Shuttle is 3Gs (perhaps I'm wrong there too) so I was assuming Orion would be the same.

Lee Jay

My pleasure.

Shuttle is indeed 3g.

But Constellation has dictated that 4g is acceptable and that is what they are planning for Ares-I/Orion - since ESAS in fact.   In this, we are just sticking to the same recommendations.

BTW Here is the acceleration chart for J-120 going to ISS:



Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 09/04/2007 03:33 pm
Quote
Jim - 4/9/2007  4:31 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 4/9/2007  11:05 AM

I was wondering about this.  What about the constellations like Iridium?  Would launch of lots of small sats like these be economical on a large launch vehicle?  Or, are there enough different orbits that you'd need several launches anyway?

Too many eggs in one basket.  Globalstar lost 1/4 of their constellation in one launch

You know the "a single heavy launch is the safest and most optimal" crowd will have a fit with that, Jim. ;) How could some organization think and actually act otherwise?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/04/2007 03:44 pm
I was just using history as an example.

Samething applied for MER, MSL and MTO
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/04/2007 04:08 pm
Quote
kraisee - 4/9/2007  9:32 AM
BTW Here is the acceleration chart for J-120 going to ISS:

Thanks again, Ross.

Why does the acceleration drop nearly to zero during SRB sep?  Are the SRBs carried up a ways on the thrust of the core after they lack the thrust to support even their own weight?  If so, why not dump them a bit earlier?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/04/2007 05:14 pm
The thrust curve for the SRB's falls to virtually zero towards the end of their flight.   They are retained as long as they are producing positive force, and a little longer (just to be safe).   When pressure in the nozzle drops to a certain point (no longer producing sufficient thrust to compensate for the weight of the SRB's), the SRB's are jettisoned.

Just prior to that point the SRB's are basically big heavy steel cases producing very little thrust and hanging on the side of the ET with only the 3 SSME's producing useful forward momentum.   This results in a very low Thrust:Weight ratio and that is what you see in the graph.

It is almost *exactly* the same as Shuttle.   Here is a reference profile for the current STS System going to ISS:



Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pippin on 09/04/2007 05:37 pm
Especially with 3 SSMEs ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 09/06/2007 12:49 am
When is the Direct paper being presented/discussed at the AIAA conferance?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/06/2007 01:42 am
Quote
kraisee - 4/9/2007  1:14 PM

The thrust curve for the SRB's falls to virtually zero towards the end of their flight.   They are retained as long as they are producing positive force, and a little longer (just to be safe).   When pressure in the nozzle drops to a certain point (no longer producing sufficient thrust to compensate for the weight of the SRB's), the SRB's are jettisoned.

Just prior to that point the SRB's are basically big heavy steel cases producing very little thrust and hanging on the side of the ET with only the 3 SSME's producing useful forward momentum.   This results in a very low Thrust:Weight ratio and that is what you see in the graph.

It is almost *exactly* the same as Shuttle.   Here is a reference profile for the current STS System going to ISS:



Ross.

Why is it 1/2 G at liftoff?

It must be at least one, if I understand the profile correctly, namely as the T/W versus time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/06/2007 02:03 am
Quote
tnphysics - 5/9/2007  7:42 PM
Why is it 1/2 G at liftoff?

It must be at least one, if I understand the profile correctly, namely as the T/W versus time.

I noticed that, and I was assuming it was actual dV/dT, not T/W.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/06/2007 02:05 am
That's inconsistent with the 3g maximum acceleration.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/06/2007 02:12 am
I'm truly not sure.   The "internal math" behind the tool which created this is still quite a ways beyond me.   I will attempt to contact the authors and find out what they say.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/06/2007 02:17 am
Quote
tnphysics - 5/9/2007  8:05 PM

That's inconsistent with the 3g maximum acceleration.

Why?  No gravity losses at that point.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 09/06/2007 02:18 am
tnphysics, not necessarily, earth's gravity has less effect when you go fast horizontally... (to paraphrase, but you get the idea.)
Of course, in this analysis the gees felt should be the most important metric and thus it should start out at 1.5. But by the time you're going 5 km/s, gravity doesn't matter that much and is perpendicular too to the direction of flight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 09/07/2007 05:58 am
Tnphysics,
Quote
Why is it 1/2 G at liftoff? It must be at least one, if I understand the profile correctly, namely as the T/W versus time.

A vehicle with a T/W ratio of 1.5 firing straight up would produce 0.5g of acceleration if you think about it.  And 1.5 T/W ratio on liftoff is actually pretty reasonable.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 09/07/2007 07:25 am
Quote
jongoff - 6/9/2007  11:58 PM

And 1.5 T/W ratio on liftoff is actually pretty reasonable.

~Jon

I was also thinking of how low we can allow the T/W to drop for the Jupiter vehicles.  Keep in mind that if RS-68 ever gets a higher expansion-ratio nozzle, thrust is going to drop while Isp increases.  I assume we wouldn't want T/W to drop below 1.2 or thereabouts.

Also keep in mind that Jupiter's acceleration curve is probably more benign than the one for Ares I.  NASA wanted a T/W of approx. 1.7 for Ares I in order to fly the depressed trajectory.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/07/2007 07:49 am
T:W of 1.2 would be pretty low.   1.3 would be better, but 1.5 is certainly nice to have - especially so as there is considerably lower cost and shorter development required by only requiring man-rating of the RS-68 as it is, not some 'uprated' version.

Of course if DoD development takes the RS-68 to 106%, and the 'standard' version were to be phased out, then baselining on that new higher-spec engine would carry a strong economical justification.

But the beauty is that Jupiter doesn't *have* to have it.   It isn't essential to the success of the system.   If we don't get it, we still get better performance than Ares.   If we do ultimately use upgraded elements, they simply serve to enhance DIRECT's performance envelope.

If we change to use the 106% RS-68's we increase performance for each J-232 by about 5mT to LEO.

If we change to use the higher spec J-2X (294Klbf) instead of the J-2XD (274Klbf) we get about 7mT additional payload to LEO.

If we upgrade to 5-segment SRB's at some point we can get about 5-10mT of additional payload to LEO.

If we combine 5-segs and a Core Tank stretch we would see about 10-15mT of additional payload.

If we reduce the mass of the U/S to the level we are hearing from industry we can get more than 12mT improvement over our baseline.

If we changed to some flavor of RP-1/LOX boosters we could release another 10mT of performance from the system, and even be able to support quad-booster arrangements which would increase payload by about 15mT more.

But to beat the performance of the Ares-I and Ares-V we don't have to pay for ANY of that.   We can stick with the off-the-shelf 4-segment SRB's, the off-the-shelf RS-68 performance and we only need the less-costly and lower stressed "basic" 'D' variant of the J-2X.   All these other expensive development options can be ignored until some time in the future, and even then only *if* we find a specific reason to need more performance.   The "savings" are re-invested back into the same contractor network though, but we actually get flights, missions and valuable *RETURNS* for those tax-payer $$$ - not just R&D for the sakes of R&D.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 09/07/2007 10:44 am
The Shuttle today gets off the MLP at about 1.6 g's.
As Ares I is configured today (and this could change at any time), the Ares I will get off the ML at 1.74 g's, and will clear the Tower on the ML in about 5.75 seconds.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/09/2007 06:27 am
We are about to go live with our new-look website.

To give everyone here a speak-peek, check it out here:

http://www.directlauncher.com/Test_Site/

I would appreciate feedback.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: stargazer777 on 09/09/2007 07:02 am

Ross:  Glad you asked for input on your new site.  I have done a few web sites in the past so my suggestions are more in the form of what has worked best in the past and what people seemed to like best -- not right or wrong.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Giovanni DS on 09/09/2007 07:08 am
Excellent artwork, I agree with the suggestion to move the tool bar to the left side.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Stephan on 09/09/2007 08:23 am
I love the "safer, simpler, sooner" ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 09/09/2007 08:59 am

Yeah! I didn't half laugh when I saw that. Cheeky, yes, but more accurate than a certain company's logo: I hope they spit their coffee when they see it!!: ;)

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kenny008 on 09/09/2007 09:25 am
Great look!  I have a couple of comments:

1.  I am in no way, shape, or form a legal expert, but I know companies have gotten into trouble in the past by too closely referencing or using another company's logo.  I love "Safer, Simpler, Sooner," but I wouldn't want you to get into trouble with it.

2.  On the main page, the paragraph is awfully small.  I wouldn't want to take away from the fabulous artwork, but the description doesn't have any real "punch."  I'm talking formatting only; the wording is fine.

3.  On this page (http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Test_Site/what_is_direct.htm), the last paragraph has an extra parenthesis.

4.  Agree with all of stargazer's comments.

Good Luck!!


Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Stephan on 09/09/2007 09:57 am
Quote
kenny008 - 9/9/2007  11:25 AM
1.  I am in no way, shape, or form a legal expert, but I know companies have gotten into trouble in the past by too closely referencing or using another company's logo.  I love "Safer, Simpler, Sooner," but I wouldn't want you to get into trouble with it.
No problem for DIRECT I think.
ATK site has kept Dr Stanley post about Direct V1.0 on their website : http://www.safesimplesoon.com/mythbusters2.htm
I don't know if they have asked Ross permission to do that, and it seems that they stay locked on V1.0 proposal ...
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 09/09/2007 10:31 am
And they will for the forseeable future, because it suits their agenda of mild misinformation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sticksux on 09/09/2007 12:05 pm
I spotted some typos: "catestrophic" and "thru" (instead of "through")
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/09/2007 02:16 pm
Quote
kraisee - 9/9/2007  7:27 AM

I would appreciate feedback.

Ross.

Make the Manifest diagram easier to read.  Stop the Direct diagram after the second lunar landing and fill with white space.  This shows that Direct gets to the Moon sooner.  Add a third diagram "Direct Additional Launches and  Exploration".   By bring down all the extra launches DALE shows the benefit to NASA employees and Congress of going Direct.

The above is the difference between a marketing picture and a planning diagram.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/09/2007 02:22 pm
Quote
Stephan - 9/9/2007  10:57 AM
No problem for DIRECT I think.
ATK site has kept Dr Stanley post about Direct V1.0 on their website : http://www.safesimplesoon.com/mythbusters2.htm
I don't know if they have asked Ross permission to do that, and it seems that they stay locked on V1.0 proposal ...

If the website contains factual inaccuracies check to see if it is breaking the liable and advertising laws.  A Cease and Desist letter from a lawyer can work wonders.  ATK has an obvious financial benefit in lying.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Thorny on 09/09/2007 03:28 pm
Quote
kraisee - 9/9/2007  1:27 AM

http://www.directlauncher.com/Test_Site/

I would appreciate feedback.

Ross.

Nice artwork, but why is the moon rising (or setting) in the north?   :laugh:

Seriously, the site looks great.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: stargazer777 on 09/09/2007 03:50 pm
If the website contains factual inaccuracies check to see if it is breaking the liable and advertising laws. A Cease and Desist letter from a lawyer can work wonders. ATK has an obvious financial benefit in lying.

Nothing I saw on the Myth Busters site rises to that level.  Remember this is a public controversy that companies are permitted to engage in and under which comments are given a fairly wide range of error in liable and slander actions.  Also, their responses mainly quote others -- so the burden of accuracy is shifted to those parties.  They don't need Ross's permission unless they are quoting him -- they aren't -- and Stanley's comments were entered on a public forum.  Anyone could use those quotes.  The only party who could object is Doug Stanley and I doubt he will object to the use of his comments on the Direct proposal.  

Finally, what person or entity do you think is being liabled?  I doubt Direct is incorporated nor does it appear to be owned by a commercial or private entity, nor is it a commercial proposal -- you are not attempting to sell it.  Thus, there is no person or entity that would have "standing" to sue and no basis to even begin to assess or allege damages.  

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/09/2007 04:23 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 9/9/2007  3:22 PM

Quote
Stephan - 9/9/2007  10:57 AM
No problem for DIRECT I think.
ATK site has kept Dr Stanley post about Direct V1.0 on their website : http://www.safesimplesoon.com/mythbusters2.htm
I don't know if they have asked Ross permission to do that, and it seems that they stay locked on V1.0 proposal ...

If the website contains factual inaccuracies check to see if it is breaking the liable and advertising laws.  A Cease and Desist letter from a lawyer can work wonders.  ATK has an obvious financial benefit in lying.

Steady on. I don't want to encourage these sorts of accusations of 'lying' - I know this is only a forum thread and you're all pretty much free to post what you want, but we have to moderate it to a point, and that comment was pushing it.

I don't know what the deal is with that SSS site (it's not ATK per say) and it's not ATK PAO (which is headed by a VERY good guy). They didn't ask us about reproducing the content of Dr Stanley, but it's for him to say if he gave persmission (which would be fine if so).

Loving the appearance of the new Direct site, by the way. I'm no expert on if the caption is a problem.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 09/09/2007 04:32 pm
Direct V1 had a number of mistakes (that really should not have been there, ie Ares I stability and performance) that safesimplesoon.com keeps there... So I'd say it's close to a fair game.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: david-moon on 09/09/2007 05:25 pm
Quote
kraisee - 9/9/2007  2:27 AM

We are about to go live with our new-look website.

To give everyone here a speak-peek, check it out here:

http://www.directlauncher.com/Test_Site/

I would appreciate feedback.

Ross.

Here's a line from the FAQ:

81,507lb (41,079kg) to 100x220nm @ 51.6deg for ISS missions.

DO NOT GO LIVE WITH SIMPLE MATH ERRORS IN THE SITE'S CONTENTS!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 09/09/2007 05:45 pm
My comments on the test website:

1st off, nice work!

I love the feel to the site, and contrary to a comment above, the orange is perfect contrast with the blue, and therefore sets off the important stuff very nicely.

Now the suggestion:  With the navigation bar being at the bottom of the front page, on a 1024x768 screen, in Firefox, you have to scroll to see that stuff on the front page, which almost feels like the page wasn't well thought out, or was developed for 1600x1200 or something.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 09/09/2007 05:51 pm
Quote
meiza - 9/9/2007  11:32 AM

Direct V1 had a number of mistakes (that really should not have been there, ie Ares I stability and performance) that safesimplesoon.com keeps there... So I'd say it's close to a fair game.
It would also be fair game for the DirectLauncher website to have a mythbuster-buster section.  ...if for no other reason than to say "SafeSimpleSoon" is trying to debunk the previous incarnation of DIRECT, and their comments say nothing to the current version.  DIRECTv2.0 addresses all the points mentioned in their "mythbusters."
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 09/09/2007 06:31 pm
Quote
kraisee - 9/9/2007  1:27 AM

We are about to go live with our new-look website.

To give everyone here a speak-peek, check it out here:

http://www.directlauncher.com/Test_Site/

I would appreciate feedback.

Ross.

Looks nicer. The safersimplersooner is catchy but how can you justify the safer with higher LOC figures ? You may have to be able to actually quantify that when asked and not in generalities about
engine-outs and ballistic shields. Real duplicable numbers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/09/2007 06:55 pm
Marsavian,
Depends on how you determine safety.

Safety from a crew perspective needs calculations which aren't really possible without inviting FUD from Doug.   For launching crews, Jupiter-120 is just about as safe as Ares-I when you factor in all of the extra widgets you can fly using the extra payload capacity and when you are using the already proven flight hardware and not relying upon newly developed ones.   Jupiter-120 is not exactly "better" in this respect, but is a good match.   However having greater performance for the CLV allows the Orion to get extra protection beyond just the launch - such as radiation shielding, significant micro-meteroid protection and more redundant/backup systems.   These improvements make a *MASSIVE* difference in terms of the "risk" after ascent - which are actually a larger portion of the overall "risk" assessment.   Here Jupiter just kills Ares-I stone cold dead.

Having said that, "safety" also applies to program risk reduction too.   Being a single LV, Jupiter is a whole lot "safer" in economic terms and in cancellation terms than Ares-I & Ares-V together.   By requiring only the J-2XD to be developed "new" and only two new liquid stages (instead of three new engines and four new stages), the "safety" benefits to the schedule is also significant.

And "safety" can also be applied to workforce retention and politically sensitive spending around the nation.   Because of it's much closer relationship to the existing STS systems, and because the "gap" is reduced by two years, Jupiter helps to guarantee to preserve the STS workforce far more effectively than Ares-I will, given that Ares-V will not follow for almost 10 years after STS is retired.

Overall I think we can match Ares-I's crew safety, and significantly improve on every single aspect of the programmatic safety too.   This, to me, justifies the use of the word "safer".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/09/2007 07:02 pm
A ballistic shield would have little to no development costs and make Jupiter safer than Ares-I even during launch.This applies to both J-120 and J-232.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/09/2007 07:06 pm
Quote
Stephan - 9/9/2007  5:57 AM

I don't know if they have asked Ross permission to do that, and it seems that they stay locked on V1.0 proposal ...

I don't really care about the wording.   I don't think people are "buying" those arguments.

I have contacted the site operators though, about using modified versions of my imagery from v1.   They were using them in one of their "reports" (which actually seemed to be justifying the DIRECT concept) on the site until I told them they hadn't sought out permission.

They stopped.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/09/2007 07:14 pm
Quote
david-moon - 9/9/2007  1:25 PM

Here's a line from the FAQ:

81,507lb (41,079kg) to 100x220nm @ 51.6deg for ISS missions.

DO NOT GO LIVE WITH SIMPLE MATH ERRORS IN THE SITE'S CONTENTS!

Thanks for spotting that - my bad.   I was copying & pasting numbers and seem to have copied the wrong one!

Will fix that shortly.

EDIT: Fixed.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tedcraft on 09/09/2007 07:42 pm
Quote
Stephan - 9/9/2007  4:57 AM

Quote
kenny008 - 9/9/2007  11:25 AM
1.  I am in no way, shape, or form a legal expert, but I know companies have gotten into trouble in the past by too closely referencing or using another company's logo.  I love "Safer, Simpler, Sooner," but I wouldn't want you to get into trouble with it.
No problem for DIRECT I think.
ATK site has kept Dr Stanley post about Direct V1.0 on their website : http://www.safesimplesoon.com/mythbusters2.htm
I don't know if they have asked Ross permission to do that, and it seems that they stay locked on V1.0 proposal ...


ATK's use of the Forum's Stanley responses to Direct 1.0 and even the use of "Mythbusters" is real "bush league" in my view.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/09/2007 07:57 pm
Manifest:

"The difference is not hard to spot."

The difference *is* hard to spot.  The detailed manifests are too small to be read on the site without expanding to full size, and the full-size ones don't even fit on my 1920x1200 monitors.

I suggest two changes.  The small version that acts as a link to the big version should be a simplified version that can be read and understood without expanding them.  Perhaps it could be a horizontal bar chart or milestone plot only, for example.  The larger, detailed version should be scaled to 1600 pixels wide.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/09/2007 08:31 pm
Quote
tedcraft - 9/9/2007  3:42 PM

ATK's use of the Forum's Stanley responses to Direct 1.0 and even the use of "Mythbusters" is real "bush league" in my view.

Definitely "low rent".   But that choice is up to them.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/09/2007 08:37 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 9/9/2007  3:57 PM

Manifest:

"The difference is not hard to spot."

The difference *is* hard to spot.  The detailed manifests are too small to be read on the site without expanding to full size, and the full-size ones don't even fit on my 1920x1200 monitors.

I suggest two changes.  The small version that acts as a link to the big version should be a simplified version that can be read and understood without expanding them.  Perhaps it could be a horizontal bar chart or milestone plot only, for example.  The larger, detailed version should be scaled to 1600 pixels wide.

Hmmm.   I don't think having a thumbnail which is different to the full image is the way to go, but perhaps something could be changed.

I'm thinking that the current thumbnail is fine, but prehaps there need to be two different versions linked - a 'normal-res' size (~1280 horizontal) via the thumbnail, and a 'hi-res' with the full version lined via a small text link under the image.

Additionally, to clarify the "difference", perhaps a simple one-liner like "The difference is not hard to spot - DIRECT closes the "gap" by more than two years and offers 9 additional lunar missions before 2020".

I will see what Philip can whip up in this regard.

EDIT: I've "whipped up" a quick example on the Test Site.   See if that's better?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 09/09/2007 08:58 pm
Quote
kraisee - 9/9/2007  1:55 PM

Marsavian,
Depends on how you determine safety.

snip

Overall I think we can match Ares-I's crew safety, and significantly improve on every single aspect of the programmatic safety too.   This, to me, justifies the use of the word "safer".

Ross.
I think putting this explanation in a more prominent spot would be good.  Have it be a FAQ item, with a direct link from the quote on the main page?

It's a good answer, but when it relates to the motto of the concept and the site, leaving the question open for people to search for and [hopefully] find the answer is sub-optimal.  ;)  IMHO, of course.


re: my comments on the placement of the menu bar on the front page...  Is there any way to put it in "unused" real estate on the graphic?  Maybe in the top-left of the page?  I understand that's not a trivial change...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/09/2007 09:01 pm
Quote
rumble - 9/9/2007  4:58 PM

Quote
kraisee - 9/9/2007  1:55 PM

Marsavian,
Depends on how you determine safety.

snip

Overall I think we can match Ares-I's crew safety, and significantly improve on every single aspect of the programmatic safety too.   This, to me, justifies the use of the word "safer".

Ross.
I think putting this explanation in a more prominent spot would be good.  Have it be a FAQ item, with a direct link from the quote on the main page?

It's a good answer, but when it relates to the motto of the concept and the site, leaving the question open for people to search for and [hopefully] find the answer is sub-optimal.  ;)  IMHO, of course.

Good idea.   I will try to integrate this (or something similar) on the FAQ page.


Quote
re: my comments on the placement of the menu bar on the front page...  Is there any way to put it in "unused" real estate on the graphic?  Maybe in the top-left of the page?  I understand that's not a trivial change...

Philip is on the case already.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/09/2007 09:43 pm
Quote
kraisee - 9/9/2007  2:37 PM
EDIT: I've "whipped up" a quick example on the Test Site.   See if that's better?

I think my approach would be a single, very simple graphic that shows the first test flight (icon), the first manned flight (icon), a span of years and the number of ISS flights in those years (horizontal bar), and another span of years with a number of lunar flights in those years (horizontal bar), and nothing more.  Simple and easy to understand.  Think if you don't see it in 5 seconds, it's too complex, and both Constellation and DIRECT should be on the same chart.  It should be crystal clear at the thumbnail level, and there shouldn't be a level below that of that particular graphic.  There should be links below the graphic to the detailed manifests.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 09/10/2007 12:42 am
Ross and DIRECT team,
The new site looks good.  Best of luck to you all!
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/10/2007 12:54 am
Quote
Chris Bergin - 9/9/2007  5:23 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 9/9/2007  3:22 PM

If the website contains factual inaccuracies check to see if it is breaking the liable and advertising laws.  A Cease and Desist letter from a lawyer can work wonders.  ATK has an obvious financial benefit in lying.

Steady on. I don't want to encourage these sorts of accusations of 'lying' - I know this is only a forum thread and you're all pretty much free to post what you want, but we have to moderate it to a point, and that comment was pushing it.

Direct does not have to be incorporated The website named a real person by name "by Ross Tierney" several times.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: stargazer777 on 09/10/2007 01:07 am
Direct does not have to be incorporated The website named a real person by name "by Ross Tierney" several times.
The references to Ross are incidental and, again, do not constitute a cause of action under US law.  "Steady on" there boy. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/10/2007 02:27 am
DIRECT has zero antipathy against ATK, even though their "safe simple soon" website is rather unpleasant towards us.   We are actually trying to work with them, not against them.

DIRECT is a win-win for both because it would actually quadruple ATK's SRB business!!!

Our manifest includes 52 launches between now and 2020, compared to just 21 under the Ares manifest.

That equates to 416 individual SRB segments which must be prepared for flight under DIRECT's manifest.   Ares-I & Ares-V together will only require 119 SRB segments in the same timeframe (plus ground test articles for both).

And that sort of additional business would utterly dwarf the $1.8bn they just got contracted for developing the 5-segs.   The far greater through-put of segments immediately equates to much bigger profits for ATK *and* many more science-generating missions.   That would seem to work better for everyone.

It sure would be nice, IMHO, if ATK could find a way to refrain from attempting to bite the hand that is trying to feed them billions in extra business.   While their website is clearly in poor taste, it is ultimately up to them and judging by reaction here on NSF from all of the informed people here, I think it has actually back-fired on them.   I would re-think the whole thing if I were them.   But their mileage may vary...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 09/10/2007 04:24 am
But ATK is also concerned with the development $$$ that will come their way for the 5-segment SRB.  This is money they'll be missing out on by using the standard SRB's.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 09/10/2007 04:45 am
In the FAQ section:

227,829lb (103,342kg) to 119x120nm @ 28.5deg for Lunar missions plus 31,669g of EDS burnout mass.

I believe that should be kg?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 09/10/2007 08:26 am
TYPOS:

Is is simpler to require new versions of the RS-68 which must be improved to have 6% more performance and internal stress or to just use the already-flying versions?

Is is simpler to require an all-new SRB-based First Stage and a cryogenic-based Upper Stage for Ares-I or just a single cryogenic stage for Jupiter-120?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: ByStander on 09/10/2007 02:10 pm
Respectfully suggest that the fourth paragraph on the page that 'read more' takes you to should be changed to:

This approach introduces many advantages over the current Ares Launch Vehicles, such as optimum use of the existing NASA and contractor experience base, lower development costs, multiple upgrade paths, a shorter "gap" after the Shuttle retires, and an earlier return to the Moon.

Otherwise I like the site and support your efforts!
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 09/10/2007 02:54 pm
Ross & Chuck

The one thing I think neither the site nor the Proposal V2.02 discuss directly enough are the real underlying reasons for DIRECT. First, you (and I, for that matter) don't believe that there will be sufficient funding allocated over three congresses to pay for a second launch vehicle. DIRECT does the job with one basic vehicle. Second, you (and I for that matter) don't believe that a 5 year wait for crewed launches after 2010 is acceptabe. DIRECT can do get us flying crews again in under 3 years.

Those are the two cornerstone "attention-getters".

The rest (safer, better, cheaper, etc.) are pure bonuses. DIRECT really doesn't care what Ares I's performance is, DIRECT gets us there sooner, that's the key. Direct doesn't really care what the Ares v's performance is, Direct gets the same or more mass to orbit for a lunar launch without using a brand new vehicle, that's the other key. DIRECT will give us the moon using fundimentally one booster design. The current NASA plan will not and the DIRECT team believes that money will not be forthcoming in the future, stranding us in LEO without Ares V.

Hey, it's just my opinion, but I really think you need to pump those two aspects more than you are at the moment.

Of course, this leads to discussions of cost, which are also unrepresented in the proposal in my opinion. Congress-Critters have to see how they can be heros in all of this and getting NASA back in orbit sooner and for a bag-load less money while keeping the current team almost fully employed have got to be big reasons to gather their support for DIRECT versus Ares. With Direct, NASA isn't going to be coming back to the table for another 20+ billion in 5 years. Just $3-5 billion for the EDS should do things nicely, thanks. I don't believe that comes through strongly enough in the proposal or the site. The site, especially, is where the rather formal language of a proposal can be enhanced and discussed with more passion. That's the place to grab those from Congress by the lapels and say, "Hey, look at this! Do want a real win-win-win proposition? Look at what DIRECT can do for your constituents and, of course, for you."

As for the look & feel of the site, I like it. The graphics are stunning. I agree with putting the nav bar to the side, but also do like the orange on the blue. I think the FAQ page would be a great place to "discuss" things like the real benefits of DIRECT and things like employment retention, cost, and the reasons why you think a single booster solution is more appropriate at the moment. Note that I didn't say "better", just now. DIRECT may or may not be "better" but I think it is more appropriate for the reasons of Congressional funding continuity that have been discussed before and I think this is a really good place to put forward this arguement even if you feel the Proposal is not.

Good job guys and I'm really looking forward to seeing the full AIAA report. Pity I won't be able to go to the conferance.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/10/2007 04:49 pm
Quote
CFE - 10/9/2007  12:24 AM

But ATK is also concerned with the development $$$ that will come their way for the 5-segment SRB.  This is money they'll be missing out on by using the standard SRB's.

Well, my "back of the envelope" calculations seem to indicate that ATK will currently get $1.8bn for developing the SRB's for Ares-I.   Then they will then get about $1bn more for delivery of all the SRB's needed through 2020 to support all the Ares flights.


DIRECT would delete the first number, but quadruple the second.   Doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out which is the larger $$$ value overall.   The difference amounts to about $1.2bn extra in ATK's back-pocket.   That's 43% *growth* of their business compared to Ares.   I think that's certainly worth them taking another look at, don't you?


And DIRECT doesn't completely exclude the possibility of developing the 5-segs at some point in the future *as well*.   Which is more profitable for ATK?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/10/2007 04:55 pm
Norm & Hip - Thanks for the keen eyes.   Am fixing typo's now.   Should update these "workings" to the site within about an hour.   Philip is still working the graphics.

He is also working on graphics for the posters at the AIAA talk too, so the test site may take a while to get that update.   Rest assured, it is "in work".

Ross.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/10/2007 06:16 pm
Tank,
Your comment has a lot of merit.   I don't think we have focussed as heavily as we could have on those two points, but I think the AIAA paper and presentation don't do a bad job at all.

The site should probably make a bigger deal of these items.   I will see what we can do.

Ross.

P.S. Everyone should really consider the v2.02 Proposal on the website there as "old".   It is about to be replaced completely in about 1 weeks time.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/10/2007 06:27 pm
Over the last 18 months or so the DIRECT proposal has had so much help and assistance from people of all walks of life, from NASA engineers to students and retirees, all offering something to help improve the proposal in some way.

The combined efforts of hundreds of people have, together, all helped craft a unique and powerful message and I want to just take this brief opportunity to thank everyone involved for their contributions.   I am truly humbled to be involved in something so powerful, which has brought together so much talent.

I don't often get a chance to say thank-you to everyone, but it is well deserved.

So THANK-YOU one and all.   I look forward to the coming weeks, months and years of this effort and your continued support.

Ross B Tierney.
On behalf of everyone involved in DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: bobthemonkey on 09/10/2007 06:44 pm
Heres to you getting that tour of KSC ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 09/10/2007 07:28 pm
Display models of your launchers would be an effective selling tool that would work hand-in-hand with the proposal. They're sexy beasts; show them off.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 09/10/2007 08:19 pm
Robert C. Seamans, Jr.
PROJECT APOLLO
The Tough Decisions
Monographs in Aerospace History No. 37 • SP-2005-4537

>>When conducting advanced technical efforts, it’s imperative to maintain in-house technical skills of a high order. But high-grade technical personnel cannot be stockpiled. They must be given real rabbits to chase or they will lose their cutting edge and eventually seek other employment.<<
IMHO...
The 435 vac Isp RS-68 regen/optimized ... was a real rabbit to chase.
The Jupiters are not.
Ares-I is one.
Ares-V also.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/10/2007 08:30 pm
Quote
renclod - 10/9/2007  4:19 PM

IMHO...
The 435 vac Isp RS-68 regen/optimized ... was a real rabbit to chase.
The Jupiters are not.
Ares-I is one.
Ares-V also.

There is no difference between Jupiters and Ares wrt  "rabbits to chase"

Also the 435 vac Isp RS-68 regen/optimized is hardly one rabbit
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 09/10/2007 08:43 pm
Quote
renclod - 10/9/2007  4:19 PM
IMHO...
The 435 vac Isp RS-68 regen/optimized ... was a real rabbit to chase.
The Jupiters are not.
Ares-I is one.
Ares-V also.
Whether the launch vehilces are "real rabbits" or not, building the Orion CSM and the LSAM will be enough rabbit hunting for anyone and that's why they are so expensive. If we can reduce the risk in one area of the program (and save a pile of money in the process) that's a good thing.

I'd bet that the Apollo team would have really liked it if some part of that program could have been resurrected from another program, if only to give them a bit of a bnreak in the risk department.

As an engineer, I can say that doing the same-old, same-old day in and out or even doing nothing but paper studies can make you look for greener pastures, but in a tight and risky program, having any firm base to stand on while you do the really risky/challenging work is a godsend. If the program manager can plan with the thought "At least the booster is on firm ground" in the back of his head, life becomes a lot easier and overall program risk reduces significantly.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 09/10/2007 08:51 pm
Quote
kraisee - 10/9/2007  2:16 PM
The site should probably make a bigger deal of these items.   I will see what we can do.
As you see best, of course. I just think that if only having to design one new core booster is the real basis for the presentation, that should probably be highlighted on the site. It's great that it's more prominent in the paper and the conference presentation. One benefit of [posting that logic more prominently is that it also tends to cut the feet out of anyone who thinks DIRECT is an anti-NASA or anti-Ares or even an anti-ATK proposal.

Regarding the V2.02 proposal, I suspect that you'll also be putting together a similar sort of executive summary to match the AIAA paper contents in the near future. Once all the pieces match and are up on the site, it will be a truly coherant public statement with enough detail for those that need it and enough flash & media for those that want the "reader's digest" version.

Again, keep up the good work and if I can help in any way, don't hesitate to ask.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 09/10/2007 10:54 pm
Quote
Jim - 10/9/2007  11:30 PM
Quote
renclod - 10/9/2007  4:19 PM
IMHO...
The 435 vac Isp RS-68 regen/optimized ... was a real rabbit to chase.
The Jupiters are not.
Ares-I is one.
Ares-V also.
There is no difference between Jupiters and Ares wrt  "rabbits to chase"
Also the 435 vac Isp RS-68 regen/optimized is hardly one rabbit
= = =
Quote
In June 1962, NASA announced that the Advanced Saturn had shown considerable growth.
The three-stage Saturn booster was originally contracted as the C-2 configuration of Saturn, with Boeing developing the first stage with two F-2 engines, North American the second stage with two J-2 engines, and Douglas the third stage with six RL-10 engines. In the final version, the number of first- and second-stage engines had grown from two to five and the third stage had given up the six RL-10 engines that produced 90,000 pounds of thrust for one 200,000-pound-thrust J-2 engine. When lifting off the pad, the five F-1 kerosene-oxygen engines provided 7.5 million pounds of thrust, and the second-stage burn with hydrogen-oxygen
J-2 engines drove Saturn toward orbit with a 1- million-pound thrust.24 When I was reviewing this transformation with Abe Hyatt, Director of Plans and Evaluation, he asked me whether we should rebid the three contracts because such major changes had been made in the specifications.


My answer was, “Not on your life.”

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/11/2007 03:40 am
While the 435s vac Isp Regen is certainly a rabbit you could be proud of catching, it *was* catchable.   With an optimized Regen nozzle, and a fixed injector/combustion chamber I have seen documentation from PWR which confirms that 428s vac Isp was totally possible without the need to go to staged combustion.

But I feel a *lot* happier with our choice to stick with the existing "as flown" performance of the bog-standard RS-68 for this second generation of DIRECT.   It is a far cheaper, and is *assured* to work without depending on any serious/costly new development work.

It is exactly the same reasoning we used by retaining the standard 4-segment SRB's, and that was simple good logic.

We are having to use the 274Klbf J-2XD, but even though that requires a lot of costly development, I am still very happy that we are not baselining to the higher stressed 294Klbf J-2X.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Martin FL on 09/11/2007 01:10 pm
I'll reply here seen as the L2 area for this is for space industry comments only, but fantastic work with with AIAA presentation. Really looks like ESAS, but with more meat.

Will read it through tonight, but great work on the skip through, especially on the graphics and the presentation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/11/2007 03:34 pm
Just finished flipping through the AIAA presentation. And all I can say is WOW!. The Visuals were amazing, Antonio did a great job with those models, and it really is amazing to see how they have progressed since the beginning of DIRECT.
You guys really have put together a solid presentation. If this doesn't stir up the fire at NASA, then I don't think anything will. They cannot ignore this.

I am undecided in the whole Ares I vs Something Else debate, but that paper alone makes it clear that DIRECT is the simplest approach. You guys have a clear, RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW! approach to all of this. In the current plan, Mars is a big question mark...Ares I can't do it, and we are not even sure we can get the ISS or the Moon right now. You should how we can do much more than that for less.

I don't want to get all excited, saying, that this is what will change NASA Management's mind, as, the past has shown that they will not budge on the Ares I issue. However, this paper could change things in Congress. I think important congressmen need to see it after the presentation. This could change minds and change how everything turns out. I just don't think NASA management is going to budge on this one, unless they are forced to.

Regardless of the outcome, congratulations to the DIRECT team for working this far, you guys could have thrown in the towel long ago. And also, thank you for caring enough to put this amount of time into something like this.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/11/2007 03:43 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 11/9/2007  11:34 AM

Just finished flipping through the AIAA presentation. And all I can say is WOW!. The Visuals were amazing, Antonio did a great job with those models, and it really is amazing to see how they have progressed since the beginning of DIRECT.
You guys really have put together a solid presentation. If this doesn't stir up the fire at NASA, then I don't think anything will. They cannot ignore this.

I am undecided in the whole Ares I vs Something Else debate, but that paper alone makes it clear that DIRECT is the simplest approach. You guys have a clear, RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW! approach to all of this. In the current plan, Mars is a big question mark...Ares I can't do it, and we are not even sure we can get the ISS or the Moon right now. You should how we can do much more than that for less.

I don't want to get all excited, saying, that this is what will change NASA Management's mind, as, the past has shown that they will not budge on the Ares I issue. However, this paper could change things in Congress. I think important congressmen need to see it after the presentation. This could change minds and change how everything turns out. I just don't think NASA management is going to budge on this one, unless they are forced to.

Regardless of the outcome, congratulations to the DIRECT team for working this far, you guys could have thrown in the towel long ago. And also, thank you for caring enough to put this amount of time into something like this.
One of our main goals has always been to not only do the ISS and the moon sooner, better and for less cost, but to also make sure we provided an architecture that will give us Mars as well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/11/2007 07:16 pm
I don't want to comment in the L2 thread where the Direct team is looking purely for techincal comments and improvements.  

But I want say to the Direct guys that the level of effort and knowledge brought to the paper and their work is considerable and impressive.

Lots of great ideas and architecture flexibility.  I wish you all the very best of luck.

One way or another we need to get out of LEO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/11/2007 09:31 pm
Quote
kraisee - 7/9/2007  3:49 AMT:W of 1.2 would be pretty low.   1.3 would be better, but 1.5 is certainly nice to have - especially so as there is considerably lower cost and shorter development required by only requiring man-rating of the RS-68 as it is, not some 'uprated' version.Of course if DoD development takes the RS-68 to 106%, and the 'standard' version were to be phased out, then baselining on that new higher-spec engine would carry a strong economical justification.But the beauty is that Jupiter doesn't *have* to have it.   It isn't essential to the success of the system.   If we don't get it, we still get better performance than Ares.   If we do ultimately use upgraded elements, they simply serve to enhance DIRECT's performance envelope.If we change to use the 106% RS-68's we increase performance for each J-232 by about 5mT to LEO.If we change to use the higher spec J-2X (294Klbf) instead of the J-2XD (274Klbf) we get about 7mT additional payload to LEO.If we upgrade to 5-segment SRB's at some point we can get about 5-10mT of additional payload to LEO.If we combine 5-segs and a Core Tank stretch we would see about 10-15mT of additional payload.If we reduce the mass of the U/S to the level we are hearing from industry we can get more than 12mT improvement over our baseline.If we changed to some flavor of RP-1/LOX boosters we could release another 10mT of performance from the system, and even be able to support quad-booster arrangements which would increase payload by about 15mT more.But to beat the performance of the Ares-I and Ares-V we don't have to pay for ANY of that.   We can stick with the off-the-shelf 4-segment SRB's, the off-the-shelf RS-68 performance and we only need the less-costly and lower stressed "basic" 'D' variant of the J-2X.   All these other expensive development options can be ignored until some time in the future, and even then only *if* we find a specific reason to need more performance.   The "savings" are re-invested back into the same contractor network though, but we actually get flights, missions and valuable *RETURNS* for those tax-payer $$$ - not just R&D for the sakes of R&D.Ross.
All of those upgrades put together (except for LRBs) make an upgraded Jupiter 232 more powerful than Ares V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/11/2007 10:09 pm
Initial performance numbers for a "full up" Jupiter-232 Heavy with all options (no LRB's) would place it in the mid-130's (NET) in terms of useful payload to orbit, so it would at least match Ares-V - including in terms of high cost.

While the analysis is not as hi-fidelity for this upgraded variant as for the proposed J-232 configuration, I am *personally* (read: not necessarily a shared opinion with the rest of the DIRECT team) confident that we could break the 140mT barrier.   LRB's would put us well over 150mT, although LRB's are probably a political dead-end.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jackson on 09/11/2007 10:30 pm
Quote
wannamoonbase - 11/9/2007  2:16 PM

I don't want to comment in the L2 thread where the Direct team is looking purely for techincal comments and improvements.  

But I want say to the Direct guys that the level of effort and knowledge brought to the paper and their work is considerable and impressive.

Lots of great ideas and architecture flexibility.  I wish you all the very best of luck.

One way or another we need to get out of LEO.

Same here. It's a big read, but it's encouraging to see LaRC and MSFC guys saying they are going to study it and get back on what they think. Fascinating for sure. The technical drawings are better than the ESAS report.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/11/2007 10:31 pm
Quote
kraisee - 11/9/2007  4:09 PM
Initial performance numbers for a "full up" Jupiter-232 Heavy with all options (no LRB's) would place it in the mid-130's (NET) in terms of useful payload to orbit, so it would at least match Ares-V - including in terms of high cost.

It's hard for me to understand this.

A J-232 with longer tank and the RS-68s from Ares-V, the J2X from Ares-V and the 5-segment boosters from Ares-V, is basically the same vehicle as Ares-V, except it has 60% as much thrust from the liquids, and something around 60% as much propellant, but one extra upper stage engine.  If this is as good as Ares-V, then Ares-V must be horribly sub-optimal in some way.  Why make it 10m and give it 5 engines when 8.4m and 3 engines does the same thing, when you add a second upper stage engine?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/11/2007 10:41 pm
Quote
kraisee - 11/9/2007  4:09 PM
LRB's would put us well over 150mT, although LRB's are probably a political dead-end.

I think liquid boosters are quite likely in the medium term (10-20 years), for environmental reasons.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/11/2007 11:45 pm
Why would a "full-up" Jupiter 232 with all options (except stap-on upgrades) be as expensive as Ares V? RS-68 upgrades are being paid for by the DoD. A J-2X costs no more than a J-2XD (or does it?). An lighter upper stage is likely to happen anyway and the major infrastucture modifications are still not required. Nor should the 435 sec vacuum opimized regen RS-68 be expensive and an expendable SSME should cost about $470 million to develope, based on RS-68 developement cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 09/12/2007 03:27 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 11/9/2007  5:31 PM

Quote
kraisee - 11/9/2007  4:09 PM
Initial performance numbers for a "full up" Jupiter-232 Heavy with all options (no LRB's) would place it in the mid-130's (NET) in terms of useful payload to orbit, so it would at least match Ares-V - including in terms of high cost.

It's hard for me to understand this.

A J-232 with longer tank and the RS-68s from Ares-V, the J2X from Ares-V and the 5-segment boosters from Ares-V, is basically the same vehicle as Ares-V, except it has 60% as much thrust from the liquids, and something around 60% as much propellant, but one extra upper stage engine.  If this is as good as Ares-V, then Ares-V must be horribly sub-optimal in some way.  Why make it 10m and give it 5 engines when 8.4m and 3 engines does the same thing, when you add a second upper stage engine?

I suspect that it's not the Direct payload data which are too high but the Ares V data which are too low.  Using my own payload estimation spreadsheet I came up with a LEO payload of 147.8 mT for Ares V with an EDS propellant offload of 41.9% or 164.8 mT with a full EDS.

Is it possible that with Ares V NASA is discretely trying to get an heavy launcher with much more than 130 mT LEO payload without advertizing it for fear of being "stopped" by Congress for going too large?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 09/12/2007 03:43 am
Quote
PaulL - 11/9/2007  11:27 PM

Is it possible that with Ares V NASA is discretely trying to get an heavy launcher with much more than 130 mT LEO payload without advertizing it for fear of being "stopped" by Congress for going too large?

PaulL

If that is the case, then I will take my hat off to them... whomever the "them is"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/12/2007 04:00 am

Quote
PaulL - 11/9/2007  11:27 PM  
Quote
Lee Jay - 11/9/2007  5:31 PM  
Quote
kraisee - 11/9/2007  4:09 PM Initial performance numbers for a "full up" Jupiter-232 Heavy with all options (no LRB's) would place it in the mid-130's (NET) in terms of useful payload to orbit, so it would at least match Ares-V - including in terms of high cost.
 It's hard for me to understand this.  A J-232 with longer tank and the RS-68s from Ares-V, the J2X from Ares-V and the 5-segment boosters from Ares-V, is basically the same vehicle as Ares-V, except it has 60% as much thrust from the liquids, and something around 60% as much propellant, but one extra upper stage engine.  If this is as good as Ares-V, then Ares-V must be horribly sub-optimal in some way.  Why make it 10m and give it 5 engines when 8.4m and 3 engines does the same thing, when you add a second upper stage engine?
 I suspect that it's not the Direct payload data which are too high but the Ares V data which are too low.  Using my own payload estimation spreadsheet I came up with a LEO payload of 147.8 mT for Ares V with an EDS propellant offload of 41.9% or 164.8 mT with a full EDS.  Is it possible that with Ares V NASA is discretely trying to get an heavy launcher with much more than 130 mT LEO payload without advertizing it for fear of being "stopped" by Congress for going too large?  PaulL

 

Don't you lose a part of your payload to gravity losses with a 1-engine EDS?
  

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 09/12/2007 05:46 am
Quote
PaulL - 11/9/2007  9:27 PM

Is it possible that with Ares V NASA is discretely trying to get an heavy launcher with much more than 130 mT LEO payload without advertizing it for fear of being "stopped" by Congress for going too large?

It's well-known that Mike Griffin and Scotty Horowitz were both inspired by Bob Zubrin and Mars Direct.  Ares V is properly viewed as a Mars rocket that was shoehorned into a lunar architecture, rather than a lunar rocket adaptable to a Mars architecture.  Doug Stanley said so himself in the DIRECT-debunking thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/12/2007 06:34 am
Its late so forgive my brevity.

Lee Jay: You have to remember that at liftoff Ares-V masses over 7,350,000lb.   Jupiter-232 masses a sniff under 5,000,000lb at liftoff.   That's an awful lot more mass (47%) which Ares-V is carrying all the way through booster stage and Core Stage.   While Ares-V sure has more power, the overall T:W through the full ascent just isn't as good as J-232.

tnphysics: Yes, there are significant gravity losses on the current Ares-V flight profile designed to go to an Ares-I/Orion compatible orbit.   Ares-V's performance can actually be increased by going higher, but Ares-I/Orion just can't do that for the Lunar flights.   Your numbers look high to me.   Our analysis places Ares-V in the mid 130's NET payload.   Your figures aren't including the burnout mass of the EDS are they?   Mine are not including that.

PaulL: Ares-V's performance works reasonably well in the trade against EDS "deadweight" for the TLI burn.   Jupiter's optimum is on the other side of the dividing line though.


And as a final note, Ares-V can't really go any more powerful.   It is already pretty-much at the maximum size it can get.   The concrete hardstand at the Pads isn't actually capable of any more power than Ares-V has (I've heard some say is already doubtful Ares-V won't require heavy mods already).   But the acoustics are the real killer.   If it got any more powerful, the VAB and Launch Control Center would have to be cleared of personnel because of OSHA requirements regarding dangerous noise levels at work.   They just won't choose to make any rocket which breaks that limit IMHO because building a new VAB and LCC are out of the question (budget).

CFE: The old Mars Society architecture (Mars Direct) did require a ~130mT launcher.   However both Mars Society's newer analysis (Mars Society Mission, MSM) and NASA's latest Design Reference Mission (DRM) efforts currently only require 80-90mT lift capability.

If Griffin & co. did push Ares-V through for that reason then I hate to say it, but they are seriously out of date in their thinking.   My personal opinion is that Horowitz just wanted his "baby", the Stick, and Griffin wanted the biggest baddest rocket he could possibly build from the STS starting point in a bid to try to beat the "power" and "performance" numbers of the historic Saturn-V.   Nobody seems to have bothered to consider actual real-world requirements.   That job appears to have been foisted over on to Doug "ESAS" Stanley's shoulders  to come up with a convincing "argument" to simply try to justify their preconceived concepts to their political masters.

I've never actually been against the idea of a "biggest baddest booster", but I don't want NASA to go broke because of it (mainly because they have to spend $16bn on Ares-I before ever starting on the true Heavy Lift capability).   I fear the cost strucrture they are creating now will result in a best-case scenario of never being able to fly Ares-V often enough to make it worthwhile, and the cancellation of Ares-V before it ever flies as the worst-case.   I would far rather see something still "pretty darn big" but a lot more cost effective flying a dozen times a year.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/12/2007 10:27 am

The most powerful rocket you could get using STS infrastructure would have 9 RD-0120 core engines (=expendable SSME, albeit Russian), 4 LRB's with 2 RD-171 each (or 8 Zenit boosters), and an appropriately sized RD-0120 powered upper stage. The strap-ons would be recovered at sea and the other stages expended. Payload would be around 235 metric tons to LEO. An upgrade would be flyback versions of all stages.

Now that's starting to sound like Energia... 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/12/2007 12:52 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 12/9/2007  6:27 AM

The most powerful rocket you could get using STS infrastructure would have 9 RD-0120 core engines (=expendable SSME, albeit Russian), 4 LRB's with 2 RD-171 each (or 8 Zenit boosters), and an appropriately sized RD-0120 powered upper stage.  


SRB's are needed to "use" STS infrastructure
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/12/2007 01:23 pm
Quote
kraisee - 12/9/2007  12:34 AM
Lee Jay: You have to remember that at liftoff Ares-V masses over 7,350,000lb.   Jupiter-232 masses a sniff under 5,000,000lb at liftoff.   That's an awful lot more mass (47%) which Ares-V is carrying all the way through booster stage and Core Stage.   While Ares-V sure has more power, the overall T:W through the full ascent just isn't as good as J-232.

Okay, so take the current Ares-V design, delete 2 RS-68s, reduce the core diameter to 8.4m, and add a J2X to the upper stage and you still have an Ares-V with the same performance.  If that's true, why in the world are they making the Ares-V so big (with all the infrastructure changes that go with that), when it doesn't need to be so big to perform the very same lift?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/12/2007 02:39 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 12/9/2007  9:23 AM

Quote
kraisee - 12/9/2007  12:34 AM
Lee Jay: You have to remember that at liftoff Ares-V masses over 7,350,000lb.   Jupiter-232 masses a sniff under 5,000,000lb at liftoff.   That's an awful lot more mass (47%) which Ares-V is carrying all the way through booster stage and Core Stage.   While Ares-V sure has more power, the overall T:W through the full ascent just isn't as good as J-232.

Okay, so take the current Ares-V design, delete 2 RS-68s, reduce the core diameter to 8.4m, and add a J2X to the upper stage and you still have an Ares-V with the same performance.  If that's true, why in the world are they making the Ares-V so big (with all the infrastructure changes that go with that), when it doesn't need to be so big to perform the very same lift?
By George - I think he's got it!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Stephan on 09/12/2007 06:19 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 12/9/2007  12:27 PM

The most powerful rocket you could get using STS infrastructure would have 9 RD-0120 core engines (=expendable SSME, albeit Russian), 4 LRB's with 2 RD-171 each (or 8 Zenit boosters), and an appropriately sized RD-0120 powered upper stage. The strap-ons would be recovered at sea and the other stages expended. Payload would be around 235 metric tons to LEO. An upgrade would be flyback versions of all stages.

Now that's starting to sound like Energia...

Well in fact it reminds me more the Vulkan : http://www.buran-energia.com/energia/vulcain-vulkan-desc.php
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/12/2007 06:28 pm
Yes, the Russians could make a booster in the same class if they had the funding, but there is no way in hell that the US Congress would pay for such a booster.

There are sufficient political concerns surrounding the RD-180 over on Atlas and that's nowhere near as big a program as this will be.   At most, the entire Atlas-V program burns about $1.5bn per year.   NASA's budget is ten times that and is a far more visible program on the international stage too.

I'm sorry, but there is no way "those in power" would vote for a Russian-engine'd rocket as the centerpiece for the VSE.   Never going to happen.

Now, if we had a modern F-1 available that would have opened more doors, but we don't and we haven't got the money anyway.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/12/2007 08:38 pm
Then use RS-84 for the boosters and COBRA engines on the core stage. Reuse everything.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/12/2007 09:01 pm
Sure, if you can find me the $$$ to develop both of those engines and to re-develop the Jupiter (somehow) into a reusable system.

I don't think it's possible myself on the budget we have, but I would be open to the option if it can somehow be afforded.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Seer on 09/12/2007 09:26 pm
Just read the new Direct proposal. Man, was that one mammoth effort! And that was just reading it :-). I can only imagine what is was like to write it.
One oddity I noticed was in the Mars section where it talks of using lox/lh2 for the Mars Ascent vehicle. Most studies generally consider methane. It also talks of mining the regolith for oxygen, or directly extracting it from the atmosphere. Is this the result of Donald Rapps input?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/12/2007 10:19 pm
Just finished it myself, cover to cover. Not an engineer, but it's hugely impressive.

Deserves a lot of praise.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Carl G on 09/12/2007 11:49 pm
Quote
Martin FL - 11/9/2007  8:10 AM

I'll reply here seen as the L2 area for this is for space industry comments only, but fantastic work with with AIAA presentation. Really looks like ESAS, but with more meat.

Will read it through tonight, but great work on the skip through, especially on the graphics and the presentation.

Me too and have read a good part of it (the Mars missions). That was severly lacking in the ESAS report. Really impressive.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/13/2007 12:44 am
I want to read it, but I'm not an L2 subscriber.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 09/13/2007 01:21 am
Quote
tnphysics - 12/9/2007  7:44 PM

I want to read it, but I'm not an L2 subscriber.
There's an easy (and fast) way to remedy that!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: reubenb on 09/13/2007 01:48 am
Skimming through your guy's report now. Very interesting, even for a computer engineer who had some *cough* issues with his physics requirement. I'm wondering what the odds are that this gets a serious review by people in the NASA leadership. It seems to me like they are too far down the current path in terms of contracts being signed and plans already drawn up to switch to something so different.

Edit: I guess what I'm wondering is if all of this work is just for a pipe dream or if there is a realistic chance of this flying. I think this looks a lot more impressive than the Ares I and I'd like to see it fly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/13/2007 08:32 am
Quote
tnphysics - 12/9/2007  8:44 PM

I want to read it, but I'm not an L2 subscriber.

We will be placing the final version on our website on or about the 18th.

If you can't wait, it is exclusively available on L2 until then.   I can certainly recommend L2 because there is a lot of other valuable information there in addition to this paper.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/15/2007 06:33 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 9/9/2007  1:57 PM

Manifest:

"The difference is not hard to spot."

The difference *is* hard to spot.  The detailed manifests are too small to be read on the site without expanding to full size, and the full-size ones don't even fit on my 1920x1200 monitors.

I suggest two changes.  The small version that acts as a link to the big version should be a simplified version that can be read and understood without expanding them.  Perhaps it could be a horizontal bar chart or milestone plot only, for example.  The larger, detailed version should be scaled to 1600 pixels wide.

Just attaching a sketch of what I was referring to.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/15/2007 06:33 pm
FYI: There will be a 1/72 scale model of the Jupiter at the AIAA conference next week. True to Jupiter form, it is not 2 models. It’s the Jupiter-120 with the Orion spacecraft mounted. To turn that same model into a Jupiter-232, just insert the upper stage – just like the real thing. Ross has been knee deep in glue, etched parts and tubes for days now.
Photos will be uploaded when it is completed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/15/2007 07:29 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 15/9/2007  7:33 PM


Manifest:

"The difference is not hard to spot."

{snip}

Just attaching a sketch of what I was referring to.

The diagrams are not readable at a glance, they are just blobs until blown up.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/15/2007 07:56 pm
In response to a comment on the AIAA Paper Industry Feedback thread on L2, here are eight diagrams showing how all of the Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232 Umbilical connections and Service Arms would work using just five Service Arms.

This arrangement keeps the Fixed Service Structure configuration relatively simple, also allows all of the Umbilical connections to be made and checked out in the VAB before the vehicle ever rolls to the Pad.

Enjoy,

Ross.


(Click on the image for a high resolution version)


(Click on the image for a high resolution version)


(Click on the image for a high resolution version)


(Click on the image for a high resolution version)


(Click on the image for a high resolution version)


(Click on the image for a high resolution version)


(Click on the image for a high resolution version)


(Click on the image for a high resolution version)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/15/2007 07:59 pm
Quote
clongton - 15/9/2007  2:33 PM

FYI: There will be a 1/72 scale model of the Jupiter at the AIAA conference next week. True to Jupiter form, it is not 2 models. It’s the Jupiter-120 with the Orion spacecraft mounted. To turn that same model into a Jupiter-232, just insert the upper stage – just like the real thing. Ross has been knee deep in glue, etched parts and tubes for days now.
Photos will be uploaded when it is completed.

Yes, it is BIG - standing about 4ft tall in J-232 configuration.

Time constraints are preventing me from detailing the internal parts, so the EDS won't actually have engines on it, and the Core stage won't have a tank dome visible from the top, but externally it will be a good replica.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/15/2007 08:00 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 15/9/2007  1:29 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 15/9/2007  7:33 PM


Manifest:

"The difference is not hard to spot."

{snip}

Just attaching a sketch of what I was referring to.

The diagrams are not readable at a glance, they are just blobs until blown up.

The blow-up is at original size, the size shown in the forum is how this site shows them.  Look at the original which is the size of the images at the DIRECT site.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/15/2007 08:10 pm
Why does only one of the MLPs require the minimal umbilical tower, instead of all three?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/15/2007 08:13 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 15/9/2007  9:00 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 15/9/2007  1:29 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 15/9/2007  7:33 PM


Manifest:

"The difference is not hard to spot."

{snip}

Just attaching a sketch of what I was referring to.

The diagrams are not readable at a glance, they are just blobs until blown up.

The blow-up is at original size, the size shown in the forum is how this site shows them.  Look at the original which is the size of the images at the DIRECT site.

I like the pictures of the rockets.

Even blown up the Manifests are still blobs.  "Is high density good or bad?" is not obvious.  No key saying what the missions along the top mean.

The new manifest diagram is nice but I had to think to work out what "Cx" meant.
The third diagram
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/15/2007 08:17 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 15/9/2007  2:13 PM
The new manifest diagram is nice but I had to think to work out what "Cx" meant.
The third diagram

Yeah...it was just a sketch to get across the idea that the manifests are not readable at the small size and so the difference is not obvious.  I still think the linked versions (the large ones) are appropriate but I'd do a simplified one something like my sketch to make the point obvious at the small size.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/15/2007 08:20 pm
Maybe I was unclear, but the stuff in my diagram from "the difference is not hard to spot" and up is from the DIRECT test site.  That which is below is a sketch of what I'd like to see replace that.  The "high resolution" links should remain as a detailed explanation of the simplified chart.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/15/2007 09:57 pm
Lee Jay,
I think this is what you're after.   I will try to get it integrated onto the website over the next few days.

Ross.


(Click on the image for a high resolution version)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/15/2007 10:11 pm
Quote
kraisee - 15/9/2007  3:57 PM
Lee Jay,
I think this is what you're after.   I will try to get it integrated onto the website over the next few days.

Excellent!  Try to make it clearly readable at the size posted, and leave the links to the detailed manifests, as they are interesting too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/15/2007 10:29 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 15/9/2007  6:11 PM

Quote
kraisee - 15/9/2007  3:57 PM
Lee Jay,
I think this is what you're after.   I will try to get it integrated onto the website over the next few days.

Excellent!  Try to make it clearly readable at the size posted, and leave the links to the detailed manifests, as they are interesting too.
Ross, make sure you clearly state that the high resolution link leads to a MUCH more detailed chart, not just a bigger image of the current lo-res chart.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/15/2007 10:55 pm
Quote
clongton - 15/9/2007  4:29 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 15/9/2007  6:11 PM

Quote
kraisee - 15/9/2007  3:57 PM
Lee Jay,
I think this is what you're after.   I will try to get it integrated onto the website over the next few days.

Excellent!  Try to make it clearly readable at the size posted, and leave the links to the detailed manifests, as they are interesting too.
Ross, make sure you clearly state that the high resolution link leads to a MUCH more detailed chart, not just a bigger image of the current lo-res chart.

Yes...or make the links thumbs of the big chart kind of like they are now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Alpha Control on 09/15/2007 11:55 pm
Very nice chart.  Gives a good visual to the reduced gap period with Direct.

As a suggestion, what do you think about perhaps moving the test flight bars to another chart or other location? I 'm thinking of the policy makers in this town, and I think the key fact in the chart that they need to take away is the reduced gap between space shuttle and Orion that you get with Direct.  Or if not, perhaps make them a lighter color. Something so that in two seconds you grasp the differences between the end of STS and the start of Orion, and aren't possibly distracted by looking at the test flight period.

Lastly, I think space shuttle should have a bar instead of the red line. Makes the gap leap out more I think. Just my thoughts.

thanks,
David
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 09/16/2007 02:41 am
Lee Jay - 9/9/2007 1:57 PM

Manifest:

"The difference is not hard to spot."

The difference *is* hard to spot. The detailed manifests are too small to be read on the site without expanding to full size, and the full-size ones don't even fit on my 1920x1200 monitors.

I suggest two changes. The small version that acts as a link to the big version should be a simplified version that can be read and understood without expanding them. Perhaps it could be a horizontal bar chart or milestone plot only, for example. The larger, detailed version should be scaled to 1600 pixels wide.


Just attaching a sketch of what I was referring to.




(DIRECT manifest comparison.jpg - Click for larger image)


I like it..but I would have put Direct on top and Ares on the Bottom.  It reall does show...pretty easly direct..more flights and sooner!

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/16/2007 05:27 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 15/9/2007  6:11 PM

Quote
kraisee - 15/9/2007  3:57 PM
Lee Jay,
I think this is what you're after.   I will try to get it integrated onto the website over the next few days.

Excellent!  Try to make it clearly readable at the size posted, and leave the links to the detailed manifests, as they are interesting too.

I would prefer to just put all three images together on the one page, with separate links to each.

Making that image the first in the series may be best (and I agree about making it easy to read as a "thumbnail" on the webpage).

I will have another go at this next week.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 09/17/2007 06:15 pm
Well, tomorrow (the 18th) is the big day for the AIAA paper. Good luck, keep your head down and watch for the jabs. Don't let them sucker-punch you.

I'm looking forward to seeing the report when posted tomorrow.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Far Reach on 09/17/2007 06:42 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 17/9/2007  1:15 PM

Well, tomorrow (the 18th) is the big day for the AIAA paper. Good luck, keep your head down and watch for the jabs. Don't let them sucker-punch you.

I'm looking forward to seeing the report when posted tomorrow.

Paul

You'll enjoy it. Downloaded it on L2 and it's a big read, so book some time off :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/18/2007 01:03 am
Quote
tankmodeler - 17/9/2007  2:15 PM

Well, tomorrow (the 18th) is the big day for the AIAA paper. Good luck, keep your head down and watch for the jabs. Don't let them sucker-punch you.

I'm looking forward to seeing the report when posted tomorrow.

Paul

Me too.

How much would LOX/RP-1 booster development cost?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Website Updated and AIAA Paper Released
Post by: kraisee on 09/18/2007 04:05 am
The new directlauncher.com website is now LIVE, and includes the FINAL copy of our paper being released at the AIAA "SPACE 2007" Conference in Long Beach, CA today.

A massive thank-you goes out to everyone involved so far for all the hard work, expertise and commitment.   A special word to Stephen for his appearance at the conference: "Break a Leg"! :)

Enjoy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Website Updated and AIAA Paper Released
Post by: renclod on 09/18/2007 08:55 am
page 48, 49 figures 54, 55, 56, 57
J-120 CLV with u/s 2 x J-2XD ? in each Spec. text box
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 09/18/2007 09:41 am
Page 16 - Caption : Figure 8: Used SRB *Begin* Towed
Back to KSC
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 09/18/2007 11:23 am
Incredible depth in this report guys - congratulations! Fingers crossed it'll have some impact. Let us know how the presentation goes/went (time zones do my head in)

I would seriously reccomend additional proof-reading passes though - there are numerous spelling and grammar errors.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 09/18/2007 12:27 pm
To the Direct Team- Good luck on your presentation today.  Hopefully, you will have open minds as well as open ears in the audience.  Look forward to hearing the results of it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BarryKirk on 09/18/2007 02:34 pm
[/QUOTE]

Me too.

How much would LOX/RP-1 booster development cost?[/QUOTE]

Sadly, it would probably cost congressional support.  While LOX/RP-1 is probably technically superior for a booster engine and cheaper.

It can't be proposed because NASA needs the congressional support that comes with the SRB.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: ryan mccabe on 09/18/2007 03:10 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 17/9/2007  8:03 PM

How much would LOX/RP-1 booster development cost?

A lot, especially if you want a reusable booster. And considering the SRB casings have hundreds of flights remaining and there are viable options to improve payload without a LOX/hydrocarbon booster, what's the real value?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 09/18/2007 03:54 pm
Can you list where some the mistakes are and the corrections?  This will help with fixing the corrections.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Website Updated and AIAA Paper Released
Post by: spacediver on 09/18/2007 03:58 pm
To all the Direct team members:

You have done a great job!
It's amazing to read this proposal and to recognize the tremendous load of work behind it!

If Direct should never lead to real flight hardware, this proposal should at least be stored in the US national archives to show further generations what could have saved the American manned space program... :)

Spacediver
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 09/18/2007 03:58 pm
I like the new link to write your representative on the Direct Website....Do you want the members to write or will you provide a form letter that we can copy and paste?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 09/18/2007 04:04 pm
Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 18/9/2007  11:58 AM

I like the new link to write your representative on the Direct Website....Do you want the members to write or will you provide a form letter that we can copy and paste?

I recommend against form letters.  Staffers pick up on them quickly and tend to treat them less seriously than individually composed opinions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: imfan on 09/18/2007 04:37 pm
I have just gave it a quick look and I have to say it is a great job. I feel I will go to bad very late tonight. Where can I get the picture from page 125 in hi-res to use it as desktop background?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 09/18/2007 05:41 pm
Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 18/9/2007  4:54 PM

Can you list where some the mistakes are and the corrections?  This will help with fixing the corrections.

I will markup the PDF tonight or tomorrow.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Website Updated and AIAA Paper Released
Post by: spacediver on 09/18/2007 06:05 pm
Ross,

On page 32 of the AIAA presentation you mention the possible air transport of the Jupiter upper stage with the existing Super Guppy.

I doubt that the Guppy can handle a stage of 8,4 m diameter.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK not even the Airbus Beluga or the new 747 Dreamlifter can handle this diameter.

Spacediver
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Joffan on 09/18/2007 06:18 pm
Quote
brihath - 18/9/2007  10:04 AM

Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 18/9/2007  11:58 AM

I like the new link to write your representative on the Direct Website....Do you want the members to write or will you provide a form letter that we can copy and paste?

I recommend against form letters.  Staffers pick up on them quickly and tend to treat them less seriously than individually composed opinions.

Agreed, but even so there is a useful suggestion here; that some guidance on the main points to stress, and perhaps some points to avoid, would be useful.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 09/18/2007 06:55 pm
Quote
Joffan - 18/9/2007  2:18 PM

Quote
brihath - 18/9/2007  10:04 AM

Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 18/9/2007  11:58 AM

I like the new link to write your representative on the Direct Website....Do you want the members to write or will you provide a form letter that we can copy and paste?

I recommend against form letters.  Staffers pick up on them quickly and tend to treat them less seriously than individually composed opinions.

Agreed, but even so there is a useful suggestion here; that some guidance on the main points to stress, and perhaps some points to avoid, would be useful.

Absolutely....some bullet points that allow the writer to quickly summarize salient points would be great.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Namechange User on 09/18/2007 06:56 pm
I would also recommend sending a copy of this pitch to every member of Congress, at least those on the House and Senate commitees that oversee NASA.  As well as electronic copies......
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: stargazer777 on 09/18/2007 07:58 pm
I would also recommend sending a copy of this pitch to every member of Congress, at least those on the House and Senate commitees that oversee NASA. As well as electronic copies....

You certainly should send copies of the final presentation to the Chairs of the relevant Committees and Subcommittees, and their Republican counterparts, on both the US House and US Senate side and their lead staff members.  Unless I miss my guess, however, they already have the drafts. Unfortunately, the main document is far too long and far too technical to send to individual Members of Congress (even members of the relevant Committees and Subcommittees) and their personal staff.  Remember that Members of Congress and virtually all of their staff are generalists -- and extremely busy generalists at that.  If you want this to be read and understood and acted upon you need to be able to distill this down to no more than two page cover letter to each member and maybe a ten page attachment -- at most.  Otherwise your hard work will end up being a door stop, a paper weight, or simply deleted.  

You will need to rigorously and fanatically scrub out technical references and diagrams that will mean nothing to the lay reader and might cause them to just toss it aside.  That is what I would recommend you send to the Members of Congress --- and the media.  The technical presentation can always be there on the web site as a backup.
 

That letter should also serve as the form that advocates for Direct would use to communicate with the Congress and other interested parties.  Letters from individuals should be personalized but they should also contain the central elements of the cover letter.  Again, they should strenuously avoid using technical terms and acronyms that will, at best, mean nothing to the lay reader and at worst may confuse them and your message.  I wouldn't recommend that the individual letters be accompanied by an attachment -- too long to read then -- but if they are they should also use the simplified attachment I discussed above rather than the AIAA presentation.  Remember, your objective should be to communicate and persuade -- not talk down to -- your reader.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Website Updated and AIAA Paper Released
Post by: imfan on 09/18/2007 08:07 pm

Quote
spacediver - 18/9/2007  8:05 PM

Ross,

On page 32 of the AIAA presentation you mention the possible air transport of the Jupiter upper stage with the existing Super Guppy.

I doubt that the Guppy can handle a stage of 8,4 m diameter.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK not even the Airbus Beluga or the new 747 Dreamlifter can handle this diameter.

Spacediver

maybe it could be carried by eg. SCA(They will have no use after 2010 anyway). Russians did it with parts for energia.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Website Updated and AIAA Paper Released
Post by: spacediver on 09/18/2007 09:35 pm
Good idea!

But this will probably be far more expensive than shipping by barge.

The Ariane 5 ESC-A upper stage could be shipped to Kourou with the Beluga transporter. This kind of transport was done once with the dynamic test stage from Bremen to Munich, but it would be too expensive for flight stages.

Spacediver
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/18/2007 11:05 pm
Quote
ryan mccabe - 18/9/2007  11:10 AM

Quote
tnphysics - 17/9/2007  8:03 PM

How much would LOX/RP-1 booster development cost?

A lot, especially if you want a reusable booster. And considering the SRB casings have hundreds of flights remaining and there are viable options to improve payload without a LOX/hydrocarbon booster, what's the real value?

Cheaper to operate than solids. Fueling is cheaper than refurbashing SRB's.

What about a few Atlas CCBs? (Either standard or phase II, or maybe phase II with 3 RD-180s, or standard with 2 RD-180s,  in all cases made to be recovered with parachutes)

Or maybe a mixture of boosters with different numbers of engines. Jetteson each booster when it runs out of propellant.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: ryan mccabe on 09/18/2007 11:35 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 18/9/2007  6:05 PM

Cheaper to operate than solids. Fueling is cheaper than refurbashing SRB's.

And refurbishing is cheaper than research and development. Besides, liquid boosters would likely require refurbishment too. It's not that expensive (in the bigger picture) to refurbish the SRB. The bulk of Shuttle costs are associated with refurbishing and preparing the Orbiter for flight. Neither DIRECT nor Ares need to worry about that.

Quote
tnphysics - 18/9/2007  6:05 PM

What about a slew of Atlas CCBs? (Either standard or phase II, or maybe phase II with 3 RD-180s, or standard with 2 RD-180s, in all cases made to be recovered with parachutes)

DIRECT (and Ares V would assume) only have the structure to support one pair of boosters. The Atlas wouldn't be suitable. A Zenit, maybe.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/18/2007 11:47 pm
Atlas Phase II would be, especially if it had 3 RD-180, making it as powerful as the current SRB.

It is as powerful (with 2 RD-180) or more powerful (with 3) then Zenit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/19/2007 01:46 am
The politics will simply never allow such a thing to happen though.

The last time someobody tried to replace the Shuttle hardware with all-EELV based hardware (Sean O'Keefe), he lasted about one year before the political masters levered him out and put someone else in who would protect the jobs in their back yards.

While liquid boosters are an interesting idea, they are not likely to gain any support or real traction in either Congress, WH or NASA Administration - unless of course they are the direct cause of some future accident - if that happened all bets would be off, but until then SRB's are the *only* alternative which NASA will be allowed to consider.


And for the record, recovering & refurbishing the current SRB's would actually be a very similar cost to refurbishing any reusable LRB.   Today it is actually also a similar cost to just disposing of LRB's at the <12 flights per year flightrate we are expecting for the next 20 years.

If we had 20 or 25 flights per year, refurbishing something would definitely be better than disposing of hardware every flight.   But there is still no significant difference between using SRB or LRB - it is still pretty similar in total recurring costs.


Additionally, it should be noted that the 4-segment SRB's (not the 5-segment) have one critical advantage over all the other options:   They are fully developed and man-rated already - so virtually no money or time has to be spent on them to get them operational.   At this time, only the DIRECT-style architecture retains these proven boosters without extensive and costly change though.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 09/19/2007 02:35 am
So, after an entire afternoon of reading this AIAA proposal and the better part of a bottle of good Napa Valley wine I wax lyrical (and hopefully lucid).

Is this to be considered a final appeal to NASA management to open their eyes and reevaluate the ESAS or is it to be considered a call to arms, a throwing down of the gauntlet of political pressure?

We have not seen to date any indication that NASA upper management is willing to even consider any alternative to their “stay the course” Constellation program. But it is our space program and if they are not willing to reconsider their costly and ultimately dead ended implementation of the VSE do we not have a right and a responsibility to challenge them both in the public domain and in the halls of Congress? They have surely heard our worries and seen the alternatives proposed here and yet … and yet… not a word. Stay the course, believe that we are doing the right thing, WE ARE NASA.

I find it so hard to disagree with Dr. Griffin, he is the epitome of the hard-boiled engineer, the kind of guy that I grew up admiring in a hundred sci-fi books, and yet… and yet… not a word. No sign that he has heard this, no sign that he is even following his own precepts of follow the numbers follow the data. It is difficult to believe he is yet another Bush appointee, soon to abandon ship as so many have, in shame and dishonor. He could have been so much more, he could a’ been a contender.

Yes. Yes, I am afraid it has come to this. This is a call to arms! A time for those who believe (I believe!) that America and mankind have manifest destiny in the exploration and settling of outer space and that the NASA bureaucracy is due and past due for a purge. (Decimation is too good for them)

So what do we do? I have written my Congress critters with no meaningful response. He did tell me what good work he was doing about salmon farms and she asked me about Iraq.

Hello, is anyone out there, can anyone hear?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 09/19/2007 02:57 am
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 18/9/2007  10:35 PM

Yes. Yes, I am afraid it has come to this. This is a call to arms! A time for those who believe (I believe!) that America and mankind have manifest destiny in the exploration and settling of outer space and that the NASA bureaucracy is due and past due for a purge. (Decimation is too good for them)

So what do we do? I have written my Congress critters with no meaningful response. He did tell me what good work he was doing about salmon farms and she asked me about Iraq.

Hello, is anyone out there, can anyone hear?


I hear ya... what can I say.. do you have 17 Billion to play with..  you will need to outplay this team..
Alas, I am north of your boarder.. or I would also make a noise..  I done see a reason to complain here as our team have got our nation on everything including ESA stuff, for little n the way of funding.

One other option.. look for and prove that the law is been broken.. then lay charges.. or better still -- Class action lawsuit.. at least you may get some of that tax money back..

but be aware.. that with the moneys we are talking of here its a no brainer to cover the bases, and make sure the hearts and minds of those in the know can be convinced  to tow the line...

First place I would cover would be this here forum...   any takers?

However, in time we will see Direct come in.. I am have high hopes that the people will take back  government..

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/19/2007 03:02 am
Norm.   Rest assured, the ones who really do matter in this situation are watching these postings, even if they never actually comment.

After today's comments from Mike Griffin about him expecting China to reach the moon before the US, I think it will catch people's attention and make them seriously question whether NASA's current plan is working or not.   And DIRECT is waiting in the wings with a realistic solution.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 09/19/2007 04:11 am
As I'm sure you're aware, in "Waiting for Godot," Godot never showed. Supposedly, Beckett wrote the play after being inspired by the painting (either) "Man and Woman Contemplating the Moon" or "Two Men Contemplating the Moon."

Point being, if the Watchers are really out there, they might want to expedite their intervention. Congress is going to be booked on other matters for the next few years.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/19/2007 04:25 am
Things are already happening in the corridors of power.   This AIAA presentation just happens to be timed to get our information "out there" to a variety of people at just about the ideal time in the process IMHO.   It will take time, and a lot needs to happen over the next 6-12 months, but I think we're going to get this.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/19/2007 07:14 am
Quote
kraisee - 19/9/2007  4:02 AM

After today's comments from Mike Griffin about him expecting China to reach the moon before the US, I think it will catch people's attention and make them seriously question whether NASA's current plan is working or not.   And DIRECT is waiting in the wings with a realistic solution.

If NASA is going to play the Space Race game it will have to produce evidence.  Since NASA has an obvious financial motive for getting more money one or more independent sources will be needed.  After not finding any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq journalists and representatives will be skeptical and double check.  They will find the evidence faster if you tell them where to look and what to look for.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 09/19/2007 09:42 am
Quote
I think we're going to get this.
How much of that guess is informed, and how much is hoped? It's good to hear you say it, but I don't want to get my hopes up unneccesarily...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sticksux on 09/19/2007 10:37 am
Quote
kraisee - 19/9/2007  4:02 AM
Norm.   Rest assured, the ones who really do matter in this situation are watching these postings, even if they never actually comment.

Don't get too complacent too early.

Quote
After today's comments from Mike Griffin about him expecting China to reach the moon before the US

This was interesting statement indeed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 09/19/2007 11:18 am
Quote
kraisee - 18/9/2007  11:25 PM

Things are already happening in the corridors of power.   This AIAA presentation just happens to be timed to get our information "out there" to a variety of people at just about the ideal time in the process IMHO.   It will take time, and a lot needs to happen over the next 6-12 months, but I think we're going to get this.

Ross.

That would be just awesome and then I might just see the first Mars landing in my lifetime.  :cool:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Namechange User on 09/19/2007 02:07 pm
Quote
stargazer777 - 18/9/2007  2:58 PM

I would also recommend sending a copy of this pitch to every member of Congress, at least those on the House and Senate commitees that oversee NASA. As well as electronic copies....

You certainly should send copies of the final presentation to the Chairs of the relevant Committees and Subcommittees, and their Republican counterparts, on both the US House and US Senate side and their lead staff members.  Unless I miss my guess, however, they already have the drafts. Unfortunately, the main document is far too long and far too technical to send to individual Members of Congress (even members of the relevant Committees and Subcommittees) and their personal staff.  Remember that Members of Congress and virtually all of their staff are generalists -- and extremely busy generalists at that.  If you want this to be read and understood and acted upon you need to be able to distill this down to no more than two page cover letter to each member and maybe a ten page attachment -- at most.  Otherwise your hard work will end up being a door stop, a paper weight, or simply deleted.  

You will need to rigorously and fanatically scrub out technical references and diagrams that will mean nothing to the lay reader and might cause them to just toss it aside.  That is what I would recommend you send to the Members of Congress --- and the media.  The technical presentation can always be there on the web site as a backup.
 

That letter should also serve as the form that advocates for Direct would use to communicate with the Congress and other interested parties.  Letters from individuals should be personalized but they should also contain the central elements of the cover letter.  Again, they should strenuously avoid using technical terms and acronyms that will, at best, mean nothing to the lay reader and at worst may confuse them and your message.  I wouldn't recommend that the individual letters be accompanied by an attachment -- too long to read then -- but if they are they should also use the simplified attachment I discussed above rather than the AIAA presentation.  Remember, your objective should be to communicate and persuade -- not talk down to -- your reader.


I disagree.  An executive summary, "top-level" through down is required to sum it all up and give the bottom line but the AIAA paper and the work the DIRECT team has accomplished needs to be included so that Congress/staff members can see that this is not just some half-baked idea.  There is actual data and real work to back it up and that is what makes this case.

I do believe there is some refining to be done, and if this path is ultimately adopted, it will be close to this but not an exact copy of this proposal.  Congress however can use this report as a jump off point to ask some very hard questions of the NASA administration.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 09/19/2007 04:04 pm
Re: Griffin's comments about China.

He's playing at clever politician. The premise is that under current conditions, it's already a done deal: we're losing the moon. What's inferred is the question, what are you guys going to do about it? He could have just as easily added, "If you want us [NASA] to stand down, tell us."

Being administrator is a lousy, tough job, sometimes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/19/2007 07:01 pm
Quote
Crispy - 19/9/2007  5:42 AM

Quote
I think we're going to get this.
How much of that guess is informed, and how much is hoped? It's good to hear you say it, but I don't want to get my hopes up unneccesarily...

In culinary terms, the ingredients are all in the pot already, the heat has been applied for a while and the pot is currently simmering nicely.   It still needs a touch of hope to really bring out the flavour though.

Seriously, from three completely independent sources, I am hearing that change is coming by the end of the year and one of those sources (very reliable and senior NASA official who's name you would all recognize immediately) has identified precisely what is expected in the form of this change.   Assuming they are right, Ares-I will be gone by Spring '08 and an alternative will already have been chosen.   And they are (quote) "interested to see what DIRECT has to say with the AIAA paper".

That's all I can say at this time.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/19/2007 07:11 pm
Well, that's encouraging.  Let's hope they are more open than they appear.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/19/2007 07:25 pm
Lee Jay, What I am referring to is happening outside of the 8th floor at NASA HQ.   I doubt "they" are willing to change anything.   But "they" aren't the ones holding all the strings.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/19/2007 07:31 pm
They aren't?  Aside from Congress, I thought they were.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 09/19/2007 07:59 pm
Ah, the old end-around. So much for being . . . direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 09/19/2007 08:13 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 19/9/2007  3:31 PM

They aren't?  Aside from Congress, I thought they were.
Well, like any large engineering organisation, the top execs can do an awful lot to force a particular course of action, but if the actual physics of an attempted thing just don't work, there comes a point when the senior program management stand up to the boss and say "Er, Boss, look, there's just no way to put the 10 pounds of fecal matter into the 5 pound containment device you chose. I've gotten in 8.567 pounds, I just can't get 10 pounds in there. I do have another containment device that will do the job, it's just not the one you chose. The new one might even hold 11 pounds and cost less. Do you want to stand up to the Board (Congress) and tell them that we're going with 8.567 pounds or do you want to change the container? Your call."

One of the nice things about engineering is that ocassionally (yes, very rarely) the physics actually wins out over money or politics. Usually when there's no other choice, but occasionally it does.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 09/19/2007 08:14 pm
you gotta keep your cards close to your chest in a game like this :)

that's encouraging news, Ross. Fingers crossed for you guys! (and the whole manned space program)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/19/2007 08:31 pm
For anyone who didn't get a chance to go to AIAA yesterday, here are a few images of the 1:72 scale model of the Jupiter launch vehicle which I sent to Stephen in Long Beach.

It was the product of only 5 days work, using only materials I had laying about, so it isn't quite right.   There are plenty of what I consider "faults" being a perfectionist, but it was all I could manage given the serious time constraints.   I think it certainly looks "good enough" for such a fast production.

At some point in the near future I intend to do a much higher fidelity version which will correct the faults and also include such things as the internal visible structures of the EDS and the various tank domes.

Ross.

Jupiter-120 Configuration:-


Click the image for the high-resolution version

Jupiter-232 Configuration:-


Click the image for the high-resolution version
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 09/19/2007 08:35 pm
And this is going to be in the catalog when?  :-)

It rocks, by the way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/19/2007 08:39 pm
I wasn't particularly planning to produce these 1:72 scale versions as kits, but if there is demand...   I am looking at doing 1:144 scale versions for sure though.

And Sirius Rocketry contacted me recently to ask about possibly producing a flying DIRECT launcher model too, so perhaps there will be a variety of models available soon.

Ross.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 09/19/2007 08:45 pm
Speaking of the AIAA yesterday, how did it go? I haven't been to that conference before, but if there was a Q&A period, did anything interesting get asked? Anyone noteworthy in the audience? What was the "feel of the house"? Preaching to the choir or in front of a lot of doubting Thomas's?

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/19/2007 08:55 pm
We are all still awaiting a detailed review back from Stephen when he gets home.   Expect something on here soon as we can get it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 09/19/2007 09:03 pm
Quote
marsavian - 19/9/2007  7:18 AM

Quote
kraisee - 18/9/2007  11:25 PM

Things are already happening in the corridors of power.   This AIAA presentation just happens to be timed to get our information "out there" to a variety of people at just about the ideal time in the process IMHO.   It will take time, and a lot needs to happen over the next 6-12 months, but I think we're going to get this.

Ross.

That would be just awesome and then I might just see the first Mars landing in my lifetime.  :cool:

I'd be happy to see the seventh Moon landing in my lifetime. I'll be 70 in 2020.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/19/2007 09:11 pm
I'd be happy to see my first moon landing before I die.   I'm 33 years of age in just two days time.   I wasn't born until after Apollo 17, so to me, Apollo has only ever been "historic film footage".

I'm approaching middle-age and no human being has walked upon the surface of any other planetary body in this solar system since I was born.   What a pathetic state of affairs that is, eh?

I think NASA's current plan is doomed to failure because the costs of implementing both Ares-I and Ares-V together are extortionate and *something* will break before it is accomplished.   IMHO, I think it will be Ares-V which will be canceled by any one of the 6 different sitting Congresses or any one of the 3 sitting Presidents who will be overseeing NASA's current schedule aiming for 2019 - simply because NASA will be seen as wasting money at a time when the federal budget is getting squeezed tighter and tighter.

The fact that Ares-V is a far better booster than Ares-I is going to, sadly, be totally irrelevant to the political minds making the decision.

That is why I believe that NASA very first shiny new launcher *M*U*S*T* be capable of getting us to the moon without waiting for a whole second LV to be developed later.

If this effort fails, I would agree with Griffin's recent comments that America will be beaten to the moon by the Chinese.   And probably also the Europeans, Japanese and Indians too - because I can't see the American psyche returning to this issue for another 20-30 years if Constellation falls apart - and that would simply open the door for everyone else to just stroll along with no real pressure.

All IMHO of course.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 09/19/2007 09:26 pm
Looking at the ESAS cost plans for Constellation is sobering stuff as they intend to spend on it the whole current NASA budget in a few years time, even taking inflation into account it isn't going to leave much for other things. Seems a hit and hope menu rather than something that's got a realistic chance of being passed in the future. Anything that helps to bring the cost down, even if it's just a couple billion each year like DIRECT has got to help Constellation being seriously funded each year.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/19/2007 09:33 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 19/9/2007  2:13 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 19/9/2007  3:31 PM

They aren't?  Aside from Congress, I thought they were.
Well, like any large engineering organisation, the top execs can do an awful lot to force a particular course of action, but if the actual physics of an attempted thing just don't work, there comes a point when the senior program management stand up to the boss and say "Er, Boss, look, there's just no way to put the 10 pounds of fecal matter into the 5 pound containment device you chose. I've gotten in 8.567 pounds, I just can't get 10 pounds in there. I do have another containment device that will do the job, it's just not the one you chose. The new one might even hold 11 pounds and cost less. Do you want to stand up to the Board (Congress) and tell them that we're going with 8.567 pounds or do you want to change the container? Your call."

One of the nice things about engineering is that ocassionally (yes, very rarely) the physics actually wins out over money or politics. Usually when there's no other choice, but occasionally it does.

Now, where I have I heard this story before?  Oh yes...

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."  -- R. P. Feynman - Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 09/19/2007 09:54 pm
I read the AIAA paper and I was struck by just how expensive sending humans back to the Moon would be. The Ares plan costs around $12-14 billion a year in the 2020s. Direct is cheaper, but it's still $10-11 billion a year in the early 2020s. Compare that with $6 billion a year on the shuttle. Either NASA's budget would have to be increased substantially or NASA's science and aeronautics research would have to be largely eliminated. Direct closes some of the huge funding gap the GAO identified, but only about a third of it.

It makes a lot of sense for Mike Griffin to play up the alleged race with China. It's the one thing that might persuade politicians to give NASA a lot of extra money, because it puts national prestige on the line. I notice that he was saying they could send people to the Moon without developing a big booster, which of course would be impossible to hide in the era of Google Earth. He's raising the spectre of China pulling off a sort of Sputnik redux with a dash to the Moon. But if you're in an undeclared Moon race with China, you would really want to do it the quickest way you can. Direct would seem a good option, although a three-launch solution with some kind of Shuttle-C derivative would probably be even quicker.

If you want to see a Mars landing, you have to hope China beats the US back to the Moon, though.     :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CEV Now on 09/19/2007 10:30 pm
Will there be a video of the AIAA speech on this?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: bad_astra on 09/19/2007 11:08 pm
Quote
anonymous - 19/9/2007  4:54 PM

I read the AIAA paper and I was struck by just how expensive sending humans back to the Moon would be. The Ares plan costs around $12-14 billion a year in the 2020s. Direct is cheaper, but it's still $10-11 billion a year in the early 2020s. Compare that with $6 billion a year on the shuttle. Either NASA's budget would have to be increased substantially or NASA's science and aeronautics research would have to be largely eliminated. Direct closes some of the huge funding gap the GAO identified, but only about a third of it.



It's hard. OTOH, the Viking Landers cost the equivalent of 3 billion in todays money. For a multiple of four by that, I think it's worth being able to keep a human presence on the moon and start working on how to get to Mars and the NEOs

China won't beat anyone to the moon. We already got there. A long time ago.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/20/2007 02:55 am
Quote
CEV Now - 19/9/2007  6:30 PM

Will there be a video of the AIAA speech on this?

I don't think so.   I asked Stephen to try to bring one, but I don't believe he was able to.

Unless someone else video'd the presentation I think that's it.   Although I will be chasing for all the posters and documentation which he used at the conference to be placed in a pdf / ppt document for everyone to get.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 09/20/2007 03:14 am
Quote
kraisee - 19/9/2007  3:25 PM

Lee Jay, What I am referring to is happening outside of the 8th floor at NASA HQ.   I doubt "they" are willing to change anything.   But "they" aren't the ones holding all the strings.

Ross.

What is happening elsewhere that isn't happening in the General Counsel's office?  And what do they have to do with the launch architecture?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 09/20/2007 04:41 am
Quote
mars.is.wet - 19/9/2007  10:14 PM

Quote
kraisee - 19/9/2007  3:25 PM

Lee Jay, What I am referring to is happening outside of the 8th floor at NASA HQ.   I doubt "they" are willing to change anything.   But "they" aren't the ones holding all the strings.

Ross.

What is happening elsewhere that isn't happening in the General Counsel's office?  And what do they have to do with the launch architecture?

"8th floor" is shorthand for top NASA HQ management. Not sure what you mean about the General Councel office.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 09/20/2007 01:10 pm
Quote
MKremer - 20/9/2007  12:41 AM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 19/9/2007  10:14 PM

Quote
kraisee - 19/9/2007  3:25 PM

Lee Jay, What I am referring to is happening outside of the 8th floor at NASA HQ.   I doubt "they" are willing to change anything.   But "they" aren't the ones holding all the strings.

Ross.

What is happening elsewhere that isn't happening in the General Counsel's office?  And what do they have to do with the launch architecture?

"8th floor" is shorthand for top NASA HQ management. Not sure what you mean about the General Councel office.

The HQ building has 9 floors.  :-)  

The Administrator's office is on the 9th floor, you press "9" on the elevator to get there.  I'm not sure what happens on the 8th floor that might relate to DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 09/20/2007 01:17 pm
Including ground? Because some call them Ground, 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc, and some start at 1st, 2nd, 3rd 4th etc. How confusing. Although putting the date as mmddyyyy is just bonkers :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/20/2007 01:31 pm
Quote
Crispy - 20/9/2007  9:17 AM

Including ground? Because some call them Ground, 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc, and some start at 1st, 2nd, 3rd 4th etc. How confusing. Although putting the date as mmddyyyy is just bonkers :)
No it's not.
When I say a date in conversation, I say "April 13, 2007", so when I write it, I use the same format mm/dd/yyyy. It's same/same. What's wrong with that? :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 09/20/2007 01:34 pm
You don't say first of may?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 09/20/2007 01:39 pm
That's what I say. Anyway, the really sensible way would be yyyymmdd, so that computers sort them properly. But we digress. Rocksts, NASA, DIRECT, where were we?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 09/20/2007 01:50 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/9/2007  5:11 PM

I'd be happy to see my first moon landing before I die.   I'm 33 years of age in just two days time.   I wasn't born until after Apollo 17, so to me, Apollo has only ever been "historic film footage".

I'm approaching middle-age and no human being has walked upon the surface of any other planetary body in this solar system since I was born.   What a pathetic state of affairs that is, eh?

I think NASA's current plan is doomed to failure because the costs of implementing both Ares-I and Ares-V together are extortionate and *something* will break before it is accomplished.   IMHO, I think it will be Ares-V which will be canceled by any one of the 6 different sitting Congresses or any one of the 3 sitting Presidents who will be overseeing NASA's current schedule aiming for 2019 - simply because NASA will be seen as wasting money at a time when the federal budget is getting squeezed tighter and tighter.

The fact that Ares-V is a far better booster than Ares-I is going to, sadly, be totally irrelevant to the political minds making the decision.

That is why I believe that NASA very first shiny new launcher *M*U*S*T* be capable of getting us to the moon without waiting for a whole second LV to be developed later.

If this effort fails, I would agree with Griffin's recent comments that America will be beaten to the moon by the Chinese.   And probably also the Europeans, Japanese and Indians too - because I can't see the American psyche returning to this issue for another 20-30 years if Constellation falls apart - and that would simply open the door for everyone else to just stroll along with no real pressure.

All IMHO of course.

Ross.

It seems likely no program can survive which exceeds the duration of one two-term presidency. Without the Apollo 1 problem (and its underlying causes), it's probably we'd've seen a lunar landing in 1968, and I doubt JFK was planning to be assassinated, so he probably expected to be at Cape Canaveral for the big event. There was enough time between 2003 and the end of next year to get something like Orion flying, even with the development of a new launch vehicle to go with it. A separate $4bln/yr budget certainly would've covered it, and that's not much money in the context of the feds. It sometimes feels to me as though America is caught in some kind of loop where we keep making the same mistakes over and over, without even the innovation left to make brand new mistakes we never made before. And I've met young people who don't even know Apollo ever happened.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/20/2007 01:59 pm
Quote
meiza – 20/9/2007 9:34 AM

You don't say first of may?

Quote
Crispy - 20/9/2007  9:39 AM

That's what I say. Anyway, the really sensible way would be yyyymmdd, so that computers sort them properly. But we digress. Rockets, NASA, DIRECT, where were we?
No, I say May 1st.
I’m not a computer so I don’t have to sort dates. They just need to make sense in conversation where the current month is usually more important than the current year.

That’s ok Crispy. I’m married to an English girl (41 years) and she says everything backwards as well.  :) She does make a great cup of tea though!

Ok, back to DIRECT. We’re still waiting to hear from Steve on the presentation. He shot us a quick line last night, but was between meetings and was really just checking in. He was pleased with how it went. Beyond that we don’t have anything else yet.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/20/2007 02:20 pm
Quote
William Barton - 20/9/2007  9:50 AM

{snip} It sometimes feels to me as though America is caught in some kind of loop where we keep making the same mistakes over and over, without even the innovation left to make brand new mistakes we never made before. And I've met young people who don't even know Apollo ever happened.
I know what you mean. It's almost as if we lost an entire generation of people.
I've been looking at the curricula for some grade, middle and high schools, and it seems as if the stuff we took for granted in the 7th-10th grade doesn't get taught anymore at all. I couldn’t find a Civics class at all, and History is a joke. You have to go to college before you can even get an honest to goodness Geography class. The schools have substituted stuff like Social Studies in place of Geography. I've talked to kids in high school who have no idea where the country of Japan is, or what is the capital city of Brazil, or even provide the names of the 7 continents. I asked one junior in high school where South Carolina was and her response was “why it’s in South America, of course”. I've talked to seniors in high school who don't have a clue what Pythagoras’s theorem is, or even that there is such a mathematics subfield as Spherical Calculus. Hell, when I went to high school, everyone wanted to get to the 11th and 12th grades because we all knew that's where the really good stuff was taught. Now-a-days, kids don't care. They just want to graduate (maybe) and score a great job at McDonalds. It’s no wonder we keep repeating the mistakes of the past. To the current generation coming up thru school, there is no past. I sincerely hope that my unscientific sampling is not indicative of the generation as a whole. But it sure was depressing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2007 02:25 pm
Quote
clongton - 20/9/2007  10:20 AM
 Now-a-days, kids don't care. They just want to graduate (maybe) and score a great job at McDonalds.

They don't want to work at minimum wage jobs, they want to score it big like an athlete or on American Idol.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/20/2007 02:51 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/9/2007  3:01 PM

Quote
Crispy - 19/9/2007  5:42 AM

Quote
I think we're going to get this.
How much of that guess is informed, and how much is hoped? It's good to hear you say it, but I don't want to get my hopes up unneccesarily...

In culinary terms, the ingredients are all in the pot already, the heat has been applied for a while and the pot is currently simmering nicely.   It still needs a touch of hope to really bring out the flavour though.

Seriously, from three completely independent sources, I am hearing that change is coming by the end of the year and one of those sources (very reliable and senior NASA official who's name you would all recognize immediately) has identified precisely what is expected in the form of this change.   Assuming they are right, Ares-I will be gone by Spring '08 and an alternative will already have been chosen.   And they are (quote) "interested to see what DIRECT has to say with the AIAA paper".

That's all I can say at this time.

Ross.

Well this is certainly good news. Ares I has proven to be a difficult dragon to slay, but it looks like all of your hard work may finally pay off.
Not to speculate too much on this, but  I wonder if this is coming from the fact that Horowitz is leaving...Ares I is down its main supporter, so now the underlings feel they can finally put there 2 cents in.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/20/2007 02:58 pm
Quote
Jim - 20/9/2007  10:25 AM

Quote
clongton - 20/9/2007  10:20 AM
 Now-a-days, kids don't care. They just want to graduate (maybe) and score a great job at McDonalds.

They don't want to work at minimum wage jobs, they want to score it big like an athlete or on American Idol.

I was ready to scream the other day in my Human Communications class. We were deciding which day we should present a speech. As a tie breaker for a group of kids who wanted the same time slot, the professor started asking trivia questions.

Question 1, "During World War II, who succeeded FDR after his death?"

I'm sitting there thinking, wow, what a cream puff question that is. I then look in horror as all 5 kids scratch their heads, and shrug their shoulders, "I dunno????". One kid gave it his best shot and answered "Eisenhower?" Pretty tough to succeed the president when you're a general still fighting the war.
Sometimes I think college students need to turnoff the XBox 360 and the Girls Gone Wild, put down the can of Bud Light and actually pick up a book. It's embarrassing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: ryan mccabe on 09/20/2007 03:53 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 20/9/2007  9:51 AM
Not to speculate too much on this, but  I wonder if this is coming from the fact that Horowitz is leaving...Ares I is down its main supporter, so now the underlings feel they can finally put there 2 cents in.

It's been said that Horowitz was able to sell Ares I to the astronaut corps due to the safety and simplicity of the "simple" design. And yet I wonder what the position of the astronaut corps would be if given the choice between the Ares and DIRECT flight manifest.

No Horowitz + more chances to fly = diminished internal support?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: AntiKev on 09/20/2007 04:36 pm
Quote
clongton - 20/9/2007  10:20 AM
It’s no wonder we keep repeating the mistakes of the past. To the current generation coming up thru school, there is no past. I sincerely hope that my unscientific sampling is not indicative of the generation as a whole. But it sure was depressing.

And people wonder why I'm scared for my generation.  I can't get fellow classmates studying engineering to think beyond 4 wheels and an IC engine, let alone chemistry (uhm...metallurgy?, combustion? noone seems to realize the interconnections) or biology (form follows function) or history.  And now you want high school students to learn about spherical calculus?  GFL...

Sorry, I don't hold out much hope for my generation.  And I'm sure many people here are familiar with the quotes and studies about a civilization having both the technology to destroy itself and expand at the same time, and only one is an option.  Well...we're there folks.  This is it.

Edited just to add a question to keep this from straying too far off topic.

Ross, or Jim or whoever else.  What are the implications to the contracts already signed with contractors like ATK and Boeing.  Specifically those two contracts.  I realize that ATK will still have a role if DIRECT is chosen as the way forward, can we hypothesize about if the 5-segment SRBs would continue to be developed?  What about Boeing?  Would their contract be modified to production of the "first" stage (considering SRBs as the "zeroth")?  Is it too early to think about this?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: ryan mccabe on 09/20/2007 04:49 pm
Quote
AntiKev - 20/9/2007  11:36 AM

Sorry, I don't hold out much hope for my generation.

The story of every generation that came before you  :bleh:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2007 04:56 pm
Quote
AntiKev - 20/9/2007  12:36 PM


Ross, or Jim or whoever else.  What are the implications to the contracts already signed with contractors like ATK and Boeing.  Specifically those two contracts.  I realize that ATK will still have a role if DIRECT is chosen as the way forward, can we hypothesize about if the 5-segment SRBs would continue to be developed?  What about Boeing?  Would their contract be modified to production of the "first" stage (considering SRBs as the "zeroth")?  Is it too early to think about this?

Contracts are cancelled all the time.  No big deal.  JIMO, X-33,
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/20/2007 05:32 pm
Quote
Jim - 20/9/2007  10:56 AM

Quote
AntiKev - 20/9/2007  12:36 PM


Ross, or Jim or whoever else.  What are the implications to the contracts already signed with contractors like ATK and Boeing.  Specifically those two contracts.  I realize that ATK will still have a role if DIRECT is chosen as the way forward, can we hypothesize about if the 5-segment SRBs would continue to be developed?  What about Boeing?  Would their contract be modified to production of the "first" stage (considering SRBs as the "zeroth")?  Is it too early to think about this?

Contracts are cancelled all the time.  No big deal.  JIMO, X-33,

Modified and redirected too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sandrot on 09/20/2007 05:38 pm
Canceled contracts are great when there are penalties involved. I remember the money my company made when a contract was canceled after a simultaneous engineering phase...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: AntiKev on 09/20/2007 05:54 pm
Quote
JonSBerndt - 20/9/2007  1:22 PM
FWIW (and I know this is off-topic), I've seen some really motivated, hard-working, and sharp students as co-ops in the Clear Lake (Johnson Space Center) area. Don't give up! :)

Jon

Staying off topic...you're right Jon, there are many motivated people in my generation.  The problem is there aren't enough motivated for the right reasons.  Now that's all subjective I realize.  I won't go any further for fear of Chris' wrath.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/20/2007 05:58 pm
I don't think it will be too big of a deal to cancel the contracts. Obviously the Boeing one would be canceled, and maybe they will be promised a later upperstage contract if Ares II were to grow. ATKs won't change much, they just need to keep doing what they are doing with the Shuttle SRBs.
I would like to see some development a research going into the 5 seg SRBs. It would be nice to have this capability if it is needed for a future heavy lifter. So instead of putting a ton of funding into the 5 seg, how about a little over a long period for ATK to develop it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/20/2007 07:08 pm
Quote
clongton - 20/9/2007  9:20 AM

Quote
William Barton - 20/9/2007  9:50 AM

{snip} It sometimes feels to me as though America is caught in some kind of loop where we keep making the same mistakes over and over, without even the innovation left to make brand new mistakes we never made before. And I've met young people who don't even know Apollo ever happened.
I know what you mean. It's almost as if we lost an entire generation of people.
I've been looking at the curricula for some grade, middle and high schools, and it seems as if the stuff we took for granted in the 7th-10th grade doesn't get taught anymore at all. I couldn’t find a Civics class at all, and History is a joke. You have to go to college before you can even get an honest to goodness Geography class. The schools have substituted stuff like Social Studies in place of Geography. I've talked to kids in high school who have no idea where the country of Japan is, or what is the capital city of Brazil, or even provide the names of the 7 continents. I asked one junior in high school where South Carolina was and her response was “why it’s in South America, of course”. I've talked to seniors in high school who don't have a clue what Pythagoras’s theorem is, or even that there is such a mathematics subfield as Spherical Calculus. Hell, when I went to high school, everyone wanted to get to the 11th and 12th grades because we all knew that's where the really good stuff was taught. Now-a-days, kids don't care. They just want to graduate (maybe) and score a great job at McDonalds. It’s no wonder we keep repeating the mistakes of the past. To the current generation coming up thru school, there is no past. I sincerely hope that my unscientific sampling is not indicative of the generation as a whole. But it sure was depressing.

Yeah, I drive a schoolbus and I WEEP for the future!  I never cared much for the structured boring learning environment in school and was too independent for my own good, but I DID study and learn things on my own, which was the best way for me to learn.  But honest to goodness nowdays it is just REDICULOUS how 'dumbed down' the schools are...  They don't teach the basics and the important things like how to read, write, and think; it's more important that kids are taught WHAT to think and how to be 'socially well adjusted' and have the proper 'worldview' and be Politically Correct, to be good 'global citizens'.    Math, Science, History, what's that??   They dumb things down SO much trying to get the kids to do the work, and the kids are like, "hey, that's great, we don't do it and they make it easier, let's not do this either and they'll make it easier still" and that's exactly what happens.  Course then nobody in the state Education Agency or the Administration building, or the principal's office for that matter can figure out what happened and why it's that way.  It's the teacher's fault, they just don't know how to 'teach to TODAY'S kids'.  BS!  2+2 STILL =4 but if you sit in college long enough and get your head so full of empty headed ideas about PC and BS and feelgood crap that you lose sight of that.  My wife, sister, and brother in law are teachers and the BS they put up with just sickens me.  I thought about teaching myself but I realized I would be utterly miserable because I'd want to teach kids HOW to think, not WHAT to think, but that's just plain DANGEROUS and doesn't fit with the current worldview... Oh well... I'm content where I'm at..

Now back on topic, soapbox off...   OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/20/2007 07:09 pm
Quote
Jim - 20/9/2007  9:25 AM

Quote
clongton - 20/9/2007  10:20 AM
 Now-a-days, kids don't care. They just want to graduate (maybe) and score a great job at McDonalds.

They don't want to work at minimum wage jobs, they want to score it big like an athlete or on American Idol.

Most $$$ for least effort possible... Just like lightning... path of least resistance!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/20/2007 07:11 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 20/9/2007  9:58 AM

Quote
Jim - 20/9/2007  10:25 AM

Quote
clongton - 20/9/2007  10:20 AM
 Now-a-days, kids don't care. They just want to graduate (maybe) and score a great job at McDonalds.

They don't want to work at minimum wage jobs, they want to score it big like an athlete or on American Idol.

I was ready to scream the other day in my Human Communications class. We were deciding which day we should present a speech. As a tie breaker for a group of kids who wanted the same time slot, the professor started asking trivia questions.

Question 1, "During World War II, who succeeded FDR after his death?"

I'm sitting there thinking, wow, what a cream puff question that is. I then look in horror as all 5 kids scratch their heads, and shrug their shoulders, "I dunno????". One kid gave it his best shot and answered "Eisenhower?" Pretty tough to succeed the president when you're a general still fighting the war.
Sometimes I think college students need to turnoff the XBox 360 and the Girls Gone Wild, put down the can of Bud Light and actually pick up a book. It's embarrassing.

EXACTLY!!!  And we wonder why the Japanese, Chinese, and India are handing us our @ss for a hat!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 09/20/2007 07:42 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 20/9/2007  10:58 AM

-snip-ATKs won't change much, they just need to keep doing what they are doing with the Shuttle SRBs.
I would like to see some development a research going into the 5 seg SRBs. It would be nice to have this capability if it is needed for a future heavy lifter. So instead of putting a ton of funding into the 5 seg, how about a little over a long period for ATK to develop it.

If the contract with ATK is renegociated I'd like to see some money devoted to reducing turn around costs. You have to think that there are some areas in that process that could be made more cost effective and streamlined. Some continuing research and development on both the 4 and 5 seg SRBs would be good too, I suspect that there are some areas of the 4 segment design that could be improved.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/20/2007 08:26 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 20/9/2007  1:58 PM

I don't think it will be too big of a deal to cancel the contracts. Obviously the Boeing one would be canceled, and maybe they will be promised a later upperstage contract if Ares II were to grow. ATKs won't change much, they just need to keep doing what they are doing with the Shuttle SRBs.
I would like to see some development a research going into the 5 seg SRBs. It would be nice to have this capability if it is needed for a future heavy lifter. So instead of putting a ton of funding into the 5 seg, how about a little over a long period for ATK to develop it.

IMHO, Boeing would have been a much better company for making the spacecraft and Lockheed are much better at making stages.   I personally consider the reversal of this simply as a clear sign of the poor decision making skills at the higher levels of NASA right now.   I would have tried to keep the best people working within their most experienced base.   But c'est la vie - it really doesn't matter a lot.

Having said that, our current Upper Stage design is very conservative in terms of pmf (0.935 w/out MPS).   While we do hope to improve performance further in the future, I have no doubts what-so-ever that this pmf is well within Boeing's existing capabilities. While I would like to see Lockheed's expertise brought to ear on the US to improve performance AT A LATER DATE in the program, there is no reason why that wouldn't be a separate contract anyhow. I would also be very comfortable giving Boeing the I/U and probably the Payload Shroud contracts too.

Boeing are the most logical contractor for the extremely valuable Lunar Base hardware prime constructor having had so much experience with ISS.

Lockheed would be able to keep their current ET contract workforce, simply getting switched to the Core Stage, which needs development, qualification, testing and production.   And Lockheed also keeps the very lucrative Orion spacecraft contract which it has already won.

ATK's contract for developing the 5-segment boosters and the first flight set ($1.8bn) is turned into a long-term contract for re-qualifying and refurbishing the existing 4-segment boosters for use on the Jupiters.   I figure the re-qualification would probably cost about $200-500m, and the balance would pay for a couple of dozen flight sets to be used on actual missions.

Pratt & Whitney/Rocketdyne get all the liquid engine development and production contracts, producing 6 RS-68's and 4 J-2XD's for each Lunar mission, or two RS-68's for each ISS mission.

That leaves a good fight available for whoever wants the LSAM contract.   Northrop Grumman is a logical competitor, but I think Lockheed and Boeing could both put up strong fights.   I would let the best competitor win.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/20/2007 08:26 pm
Guys,
Can we please stop the discussion regarding the poor state of our educational system here.   While it is important, it really does not belong in this thread.

Thank-you.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/20/2007 08:35 pm
Quote
ryan mccabe - 20/9/2007  11:53 AM

Quote
gladiator1332 - 20/9/2007  9:51 AM
Not to speculate too much on this, but  I wonder if this is coming from the fact that Horowitz is leaving...Ares I is down its main supporter, so now the underlings feel they can finally put there 2 cents in.

It's been said that Horowitz was able to sell Ares I to the astronaut corps due to the safety and simplicity of the "simple" design. And yet I wonder what the position of the astronaut corps would be if given the choice between the Ares and DIRECT flight manifest.

No Horowitz + more chances to fly = diminished internal support?

I think this is a very important point and one I want to push within the astronaut corps.   But I am still trying to make good contacts within the corps.

At this time I simply don't have any idea whether anyone there even knows about DIRECT, let alone has had a any chance to consider it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2007 08:57 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/9/2007  4:26 PM
IMHO, Boeing would have been a much better company for making the spacecraft and Lockheed are much better at making stages.  

Actually, LM builds more and more diverse spacecraft than Boeing.  The group in LM that got the CEV was based mostly from the Denver Martin spacecraft people vs the Titan or Atlas groups

Nobody has designed a manned spacecraft in 25 years and it showed in OSP.  ISS modules were built by Boeing proper not MCD or RI.    Legacy Boeing built the S-IC, S-IV, S-II and S-IVB.  
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/20/2007 09:02 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/9/2007  4:35 PM

Quote
ryan mccabe - 20/9/2007  11:53 AM

Quote
gladiator1332 - 20/9/2007  9:51 AM
Not to speculate too much on this, but  I wonder if this is coming from the fact that Horowitz is leaving...Ares I is down its main supporter, so now the underlings feel they can finally put there 2 cents in.

It's been said that Horowitz was able to sell Ares I to the astronaut corps due to the safety and simplicity of the "simple" design. And yet I wonder what the position of the astronaut corps would be if given the choice between the Ares and DIRECT flight manifest.

No Horowitz + more chances to fly = diminished internal support?

I think this is a very important point and one I want to push within the astronaut corps.   But I am still trying to make good contacts within the corps.

At this time I simply don't have any idea whether anyone there even knows about DIRECT, let alone has had a any chance to consider it.

Ross.

Good luck with that, and I hope you are successful, as everyone listens to an astronaut. I have the feeling that you can preach all you want, get every engineer to support it, but if you get an astronaut's support it will be like God himself endorsing your idea.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/20/2007 09:29 pm
I should also add that the DIRECT V2.0 thread recently surpassed the original thread in number of posts. This one is at 1971, the old thread was closed at 1957
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/20/2007 10:32 pm
The amazing thing about this is that this second thread has taken something about 1/4 the time to get to this level too - which speaks volumes of the interest level.

Ross.

PS - Like your new logo Gladiator :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kfsorensen on 09/20/2007 10:37 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/9/2007  5:32 PM

The amazing thing about this is that this second thread has taken something about 1/4 the time to get to this level too - which speaks volumes of the interest level.
So DIRECT v3 will do it even faster?!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Mark Max Q on 09/20/2007 10:39 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/9/2007  5:32 PM

The amazing thing about this is that this second thread has taken something about 1/4 the time to get to this level too - which speaks volumes of the interest level.

Ross.

PS - Like your new logo Gladiator :)

How much is Chris spending for that advertising of the site on the upper stage! ;)

The read count is more interesting that the post numbers. I know this is the biggest space flight site around, but for one subject area....

Direct V1: 167,737
Direct V2: 171,889 (in half the time)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/20/2007 10:43 pm
I wonder what sort of stats Chris has for individual threads.   It would be fascinating to see how many unique IP's have read the two threads.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HarryM on 09/21/2007 02:18 am
Quote
Jim - 20/9/2007  1:57 PM

Quote
kraisee - 20/9/2007  4:26 PM
IMHO, Boeing would have been a much better company for making the spacecraft and Lockheed are much better at making stages.  

Actually, LM builds more and more diverse spacecraft than Boeing.  The group in LM that got the CEV was based mostly from the Denver Martin spacecraft people vs the Titan or Atlas groups

Nobody has designed a manned spacecraft in 25 years and it showed in OSP.  ISS modules were built by Boeing proper not MCD or RI.    Legacy Boeing built the S-IC, S-IV, S-II and S-IVB.  

That's interesting and a little appropriate as it was supposedly Martin Marietta's Apollo CSM proposal which was technically superior, as opposed to North American who got the contract (and is now part of Boeing).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/21/2007 03:27 am
Quote
Drapper23 - 20/9/2007  8:49 PM
In explaining the latest slip, Scott Horowitz, associate administrator for NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, said the development of the Constellation Program, including the Orion module for carrying crew and the Ares rockets that will lift crew and cargo into space, is a "huge, technical system-engineering problem."
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/09/space_gap

Uh huh. Really. Amazing. What *wondeful* insight from "Doc" there.

Shame that he's only been told that by experienced aerospace engineers for a straight two years now.

I'm amazed that it might actually have penetrated his skull already.

Of course its just BRILLIANT TIMING on his part to recognize this fact just a few days before he leaves the agency.

Big Thanks to him for leaving us to deal with his lemon.

(Sarcasm Mode to off)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/21/2007 03:30 am
Quote
vanilla - 20/9/2007  6:37 PM

Quote
kraisee - 20/9/2007  5:32 PM

The amazing thing about this is that this second thread has taken something about 1/4 the time to get to this level too - which speaks volumes of the interest level.
So DIRECT v3 will do it even faster?!

I'm wondering if Chris (or his web management guys) is/are getting concerned about the length of this thread already.   If so, this AIAA presentation might not be a bad place to switch to a third thread...

Perhaps transfer everything since 11th September to give the new thread a solid start?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/21/2007 03:41 am
Quote
Drapper23 - 20/9/2007  8:49 PM

In an article on the Wired.Com website entitled, "Rocket Gap Could Keep US Earthbound", Scott Horowitz just made an incredible comment. The article states, "The Ares rocket is the launch component of the Constellation Program, the Apollo-like system that NASA has picked to take the United States back to the moon and possibly beyond. While plans originally called for the rocket to be ready in time to pick up missions after the shuttle retired, the date has slipped several times, most recently from 2014 to 2015.

In explaining the latest slip, Scott Horowitz, associate administrator for NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, said the development of the Constellation Program, including the Orion module for carrying crew and the Ares rockets that will lift crew and cargo into space, is a "huge, technical system-engineering problem."     http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/09/space_gap



This really is getting out of hand. I'm not an "Anti-Ares" person, but it's comments like that that really scare me. He makes it sound like the problems with Ares comes with any program. The reason why it is a "huge, technical system-engineering problem" is because that Ares I is inherently a huge, technical system-engineering problem.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: savuporo on 09/21/2007 10:42 am
Has any NASA official commented on the DirectV2 yet ? Has anyone asked them a direct question yet ?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 09/21/2007 11:06 am
Quote
savuporo - 21/9/2007  11:42 AM

Has any NASA official commented on the DirectV2 yet ? Has anyone asked them a direct question yet ?

What would they comment? There has to be critical review first. Otherwise, there is nothing to comment. The right question would be: Is NASA willing to perform a critical review of this popular article?
NASA already did it with first version only to face an angry reaction. There would have to be a really good reason to do that again. Also Direct is just trying to sell a launch vehicle without serious architecture consideration.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/21/2007 11:17 am
Quote
JIS - 21/9/2007  7:06 AM

Quote
savuporo - 21/9/2007  11:42 AM

Has any NASA official commented on the DirectV2 yet ? Has anyone asked them a direct question yet ?

What would they comment? There has to be critical review first. Otherwise, there is nothing to comment. The right question would be: Is NASA willing to perform a critical review of this popular article?
NASA already did it with first version only to face an angry reaction. There would have to be a really good reason to do that again. Also Direct is just trying to sell a launch vehicle without serious architecture consideration.

"NASA" did not do anything.  It was just one private individual who has some NASA ties.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Analyst on 09/21/2007 12:08 pm
Quote
JIS - 21/9/2007  1:06 PM

Also Direct is just trying to sell a launch vehicle without serious architecture consideration.

Huh... Have you read it?

Analyst
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 09/21/2007 12:20 pm
Quote
Jim - 21/9/2007  12:17 PM

Quote
JIS - 21/9/2007  7:06 AM

Quote
savuporo - 21/9/2007  11:42 AM

Has any NASA official commented on the DirectV2 yet ? Has anyone asked them a direct question yet ?

What would they comment? There has to be critical review first. Otherwise, there is nothing to comment. The right question would be: Is NASA willing to perform a critical review of this popular article?
NASA already did it with first version only to face an angry reaction. There would have to be a really good reason to do that again. Also Direct is just trying to sell a launch vehicle without serious architecture consideration.

"NASA" did not do anything.  It was just one private individual who has some NASA ties.

So it shouldn't be difficult to find another private individual with similar influence.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 09/21/2007 12:27 pm
Quote
Analyst - 21/9/2007  1:08 PM

Quote
JIS - 21/9/2007  1:06 PM

Also Direct is just trying to sell a launch vehicle without serious architecture consideration.

Huh... Have you read it?

Analyst

Just scanned, haven't seen anything serious about architecture. Just general talks similar to pre-ESAS. I'll read properly when time allows or when any interesting comment pops up.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/21/2007 01:02 pm
Quote
JIS - 21/9/2007  6:27 AM

Quote
Analyst - 21/9/2007  1:08 PM

Quote
JIS - 21/9/2007  1:06 PM

Also Direct is just trying to sell a launch vehicle without serious architecture consideration.

Huh... Have you read it?

Analyst

Just scanned, haven't seen anything serious about architecture. Just general talks similar to pre-ESAS. I'll read properly when time allows or when any interesting comment pops up.

Read pages 67 through 109.  It's nearly half the report.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 09/21/2007 01:31 pm
I appreciate the article, but is it too much to ask Wired to strive for technical accuracy? "The first exploded soon after takeoff, and the second reached orbit but failed soon after." Neither "fact" in that sentence is true. It's bad enough when it's in a local newspaper, but Wired is supposed to be technologically "savvy."
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Analyst on 09/21/2007 01:40 pm
Sorry, but what are you talking about?

Analyst
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/21/2007 01:41 pm
Quote
JIS - 21/9/2007  8:20 AM


So it shouldn't be difficult to find another private individual with similar influence.

He had no "influence"
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 09/21/2007 01:47 pm
Quote
Analyst - 21/9/2007  9:40 AM

Sorry, but what are you talking about?

Analyst

Oops. I failed to click the quote button. Sorry. It's this:

 http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/09/space_gap
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Analyst on 09/21/2007 02:17 pm
Quote
William Barton - 21/9/2007  3:31 PM

I appreciate the article, but is it too much to ask Wired to strive for technical accuracy? "The first exploded soon after takeoff, and the second reached orbit but failed soon after." Neither "fact" in that sentence is true. It's bad enough when it's in a local newspaper, but Wired is supposed to be technologically "savvy."

Technically you are correct, but don't be this rigorous.

The first Falcon 1 failed soon after liftoff, actually it started to fail before liftoff. It probably exploded when it hit the water, it would be destroyed in midair (as in exploded) if it had a decent range safety system. I never saw any pictures of this.

The second Falcon 1 reached orbital altitude, at least barely. It wasn't even close to orbital velocity. I blame this second error to Musk's spinning of the second flight as a success. It started to fail during staging, well before orbital altitude or velocity.

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: david-moon on 09/21/2007 03:01 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/9/2007  11:27 PM

Quote
Drapper23 - 20/9/2007  8:49 PM
In explaining the latest slip, Scott Horowitz, associate administrator for NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, said the development of the Constellation Program, including the Orion module for carrying crew and the Ares rockets that will lift crew and cargo into space, is a "huge, technical system-engineering problem."
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/09/space_gap

Uh huh. Really. Amazing. What *wondeful* insight from "Doc" there.

Shame that he's only been told that by experienced aerospace engineers for a straight two years now.

[etc.]


Ross, I was suprised to see this from you.  This kind of public remark does not enhance your credibility and is not at all characteristic of you.

Constellation would still be a "huge, technical system-engineering problem" no matter what launcher it uses.

I would guess that Horowitz went on to provide more details, which you or I might or might not agree with, but the Wired reporter left the details out of the article.  Note that the content of the article implies that the reporter does not understand the difference between manned and unmanned spaceflight.  There is no reason to accept this article as a complete or accurate statement of the views of any of the persons quoted.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/21/2007 03:05 pm
Quote
JIS - 21/9/2007  7:06 AM

Quote
savuporo - 21/9/2007  11:42 AM

Has any NASA official commented on the DirectV2 yet? Has anyone asked them a direct question yet?
{snip}
Also Direct is just trying to sell a launch vehicle without serious architecture consideration.
I really can’t believe you said that.
That's a really wacky, totally off-the-wall comment.
It is blatantly obvious that you haven’t read it thru or you wouldn’t have said that.
You really should read what you want to comment on before you post your comment.
Not doing so makes your post appear quite silly and doesn’t do much for your credibility.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/21/2007 03:06 pm
Let's get this back on to Direct, but I want to - once again - address this common misconception.

Quote
Analyst - 21/9/2007  3:17 PM
I blame this second error to Musk's spinning of the second flight as a success.

There was no spinning by Elon.

It was made clear what the parameters for success would be BEFORE the launch, those goals were reached, thus the flight was a success based on what was required.

Some media - who clearly didn't cover the launch properly and thus did not understand the success parameters - have tarnished some people's veiwpoints, added to some snipping by competitor companies.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5052
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5056

Now, let's try and keep this on Direct, and not get too distracted by that Wired site.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/21/2007 03:26 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/9/2007  11:43 PM

I wonder what sort of stats Chris has for individual threads.   It would be fascinating to see how many unique IP's have read the two threads.

Ross.

Our forum software doesn't have those stats....and actually doesn't count every view (so it'll be larger than quoted).

As far as a new thread, up to you. The problem with really long threads is they can become convoluted by the very nature of the conversations going on here...and hard to read through.

If you want a new Direct thread, by all means set it up! But I'm cool with it either ways :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/21/2007 05:00 pm
We should at least let this one get to 2000 posts, since that has to be some sort of record on here, and it is a nice even number.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Alpha Control on 09/21/2007 05:08 pm
and poster #2000 gets Ross's model of the Jupiter-120 as a prize!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/21/2007 05:09 pm
Okay, well I have a question.

Can the Jupiters get by without TVCs on the SRBs?  The engines seem to be much more widely spaced than the SSMEs on the Shuttle, and they have more thrust as well so I was wondering if they had the roll authority to sufficiently toss around those big SRBs.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: savuporo on 09/21/2007 05:15 pm
Quote
JIS - 21/9/2007  2:06 AM

Quote
savuporo - 21/9/2007  11:42 AM

Has any NASA official commented on the DirectV2 yet ? Has anyone asked them a direct question yet ?

What would they comment? There has to be critical review first. Otherwise, there is nothing to comment. The right question would be: Is NASA willing to perform a critical review of this popular article?

A simple "no" would suffice.

Anyway, is anyone going to ask anyone relevant any time soon in a public forum ? There's this "Ask the administrator" corner and places like these.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sandrot on 09/21/2007 05:18 pm
Bump! I just wanted to be #2000 and get the model.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/21/2007 08:19 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 21/9/2007  11:26 AM

Quote
kraisee - 20/9/2007  11:43 PM

I wonder what sort of stats Chris has for individual threads.   It would be fascinating to see how many unique IP's have read the two threads.

Ross.

Our forum software doesn't have those stats....and actually doesn't count ever view (so it'll be larger than quoted).

As far as a new thread, up to you. The problem with really long threads is they can become convoluted by the very nature of the conversations going on here...and hard to read through.

If you want a new Direct thread, by all means set it up! But I'm cool with it either ways :)

This thread is just about long enough now that you can no longer read it through in one sitting. Then again, even if another thread is, you still need to read through DIRECT 1.0 and DIRECT 2.0 to know the whole story.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 09/21/2007 09:54 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/9/2007  11:55 PM
We are all still awaiting a detailed review back from Stephen when he gets home.   Expect something on here soon as we can get it.
Ross.
Stephen took the fight over at
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/09/17/griffin-china-will-beat-us-to-the-moon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 09/21/2007 10:00 pm
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=4560
http://curmudgeons.blogspot.com/ 4:48 PM by Mark
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 09/21/2007 10:11 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 21/9/2007  12:09 PM

Okay, well I have a question.

Can the Jupiters get by without TVCs on the SRBs?  The engines seem to be much more widely spaced than the SSMEs on the Shuttle, and they have more thrust as well so I was wondering if they had the roll authority to sufficiently toss around those big SRBs.

No. As with the Shuttle stack the SRB TVC's are absolutely required. In fact, because they're more widely spaced they have even more roll (and overall directional control) authority.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/21/2007 10:24 pm
Quote
MKremer - 21/9/2007  4:11 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 21/9/2007  12:09 PM

Okay, well I have a question.

Can the Jupiters get by without TVCs on the SRBs?  The engines seem to be much more widely spaced than the SSMEs on the Shuttle, and they have more thrust as well so I was wondering if they had the roll authority to sufficiently toss around those big SRBs.

No. As with the Shuttle stack the SRB TVC's are absolutely required. In fact, because they're more widely spaced they have even more roll (and overall directional control) authority.

I meant because the main engines are more widely spaced (the RS-68s).  The SRBs are in the same places.  I'm guessing the Jupiter vehicles have less roll inertia than the STS stack and that the main engines have more roll control authority than the SSMEs on the Shuttle.  Whether that's "enough" is hard for me to say.  I'm always impressed with how fast and precisely the Shuttle rolls heads up.  Yes, that's with the SRBs gone and the tank partially empty, but the tank+orbiter still appears to have substantial roll inertia, and yet the closely-spaced SSMEs handle it amazingly well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/21/2007 10:25 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 21/9/2007  4:19 PM

Quote
Chris Bergin - 21/9/2007  11:26 AM

Quote
kraisee - 20/9/2007  11:43 PM

I wonder what sort of stats Chris has for individual threads.   It would be fascinating to see how many unique IP's have read the two threads.

Ross.

Our forum software doesn't have those stats....and actually doesn't count ever view (so it'll be larger than quoted).

As far as a new thread, up to you. The problem with really long threads is they can become convoluted by the very nature of the conversations going on here...and hard to read through.

If you want a new Direct thread, by all means set it up! But I'm cool with it either ways :)

This thread is just about long enough now that you can no longer read it through in one sitting. Then again, even if another thread is, you still need to read through DIRECT 1.0 and DIRECT 2.0 to know the whole story.
Mike-
I really like your new signature.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/21/2007 11:58 pm
I like it too. It seems so logical, if only replacing Ares I were as easy as replacing my signature.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 09/22/2007 03:57 pm
Quote
renclod - 21/9/2007  2:54 PM

Quote
kraisee - 19/9/2007  11:55 PM
We are all still awaiting a detailed review back from Stephen when he gets home.   Expect something on here soon as we can get it.
Ross.
Stephen took the fight over at
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/09/17/griffin-china-will-beat-us-to-the-moon

Just waiting for JIS to reengage, he has alot of reading in front of him. :)

I also write up a ‘trip report’ when I get a chance this weekend.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Tim S on 09/22/2007 04:57 pm
Smetch, I see your http://www.teamvisioninc.com/services-consulting-space-exploration-optimization.htm does not link to this site's forum about Direct. I find that another sign of selective disclousure via a PR excerise that avoids the valid questions raised by some members of this site's forum which are not towing the party line on Direct.

Also, there appears to be nothing reported on AIAA conference reaction to Direct...maybe because they don't entertain armchair engineering as something viable? You did present it, right?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/22/2007 05:11 pm
Quote
Tim S - 22/9/2007  12:57 PM

Smetch, I see your http://www.teamvisioninc.com/services-consulting-space-exploration-optimization.htm does not link to this site's forum about Direct. I find that another sign of selective disclousure via a PR excerise that avoids the valid questions raised by some members of this site's forum which are not towing the party line on Direct.

Also, there appears to be nothing reported on AIAA conference reaction to Direct...maybe because they don't entertain armchair engineering as something viable? You did present it, right?
The site is new, still incomplete and Steve is just returning from the conference.
There is no selective disclosure going on here.
We do not avoid anyone's questions and comments.
Nobody has to "tow the party line".
...(This is not the WH, nor does Karl Rove work here.)
We don't operate like that. Steve stood in front of senior NASA engineers and management and presented. He then took questions for better than an hour or more; up close and personal.
Included among those who were there was CxP.
He ran out of what was a very large stack of printed data sheets.

I see from the number of posts that you havn't been around very long. There's nothing wrong with that, we all started in the same place. But the discussions and questions and critiques have been going on for over a year now. I wouldn't call that "selective disclosure".
The entire set of data has gone outside the NSF forum and into the halls of all the field centers and to HQ 9th floor, and into some of the offices of the Congress and WH.

We're not hiding anything. We don't have to. Everything is out there. If you have a question, just ask it, instead of accusing us of "selective disclosure".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Tim S on 09/22/2007 05:19 pm
Quote
clongton - 22/9/2007  12:11 PM

Steve stood in front of senior NASA engineers and management and presented. He then took questions for better than an hour or more; up close and personal.
Included among those who were there was CxP.
He ran out of what was a very large stack of printed data sheets.


How long I've been a member of this site is not the question. I, like most, have been reading the news articles for over a year or so, and have been lurking on here for a while before signing up, so as to get on to L2, which is unquestionably an excellent resource.

What is the question is the build up to this AIAA presentation, which seems to have dissolved into nothing after the event. I'm not sure how to read into the result being "running out with a large stack of printed data sheets"?

Who did he meet with. What exactly does "running out with a large sheet of printed data sheets" mean?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/22/2007 05:21 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 21/9/2007  1:09 PM

Okay, well I have a question.

Can the Jupiters get by without TVCs on the SRBs?  The engines seem to be much more widely spaced than the SSMEs on the Shuttle, and they have more thrust as well so I was wondering if they had the roll authority to sufficiently toss around those big SRBs.

Lee Jay,
I think what you are really asking is whether the Jupiter needs *new* TVC or not.

As I'm sure you already know, the current Shuttle SRB's each have a TVC system which is designed to control the current 4-segment SRB exhaust nozzles in the motor through the first 2 minutes of flight.   Ares requires this entire system to be completey redesigned ad replaced for the more powerful 5-segment SRB designs.

Jupiter does not require any changes to this hardware at all.   It is totaly man-rated and has a proven excellent safety record over the last 21 years/94 missions (188 individual SRB's) since they were re-designed following the Challenger accident.

Jupiter would use the same TVC system as Shuttle.   While it may be possible to make the RS-68's perform the same task, that has never been tested and has no proven heritage at all.

The TVC systems for the SRB's are already well proven and more importantly are already existing - that means they don't require any new development expense.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/22/2007 05:24 pm
Quote
Tim S - 22/9/2007  1:19 PM
What is the question is the build up to this AIAA presentation, which seems to have dissolved into nothing after the event. I'm not sure how to read into the result being "running out with a large stack of printed data sheets"?

Who did he meet with. What exactly does "running out with a large sheet of printed data sheets" mean?

Tim,
Stephen is still at the conference in Long Beach and is returning home this weekend.   Communication with him while he has been away has been light, but that's understandable.

I have been expecting a full write up from Stephen when he gets back, and don't expect much until then.   As soon as we know, you will.   Please give him a chance to get home, take his shoes off and write up a comprehensive write-up for us all to enjoy.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/22/2007 05:45 pm
Quote
Tim S - 22/9/2007  12:57 PM

 I find that another sign of selective disclousure via a PR excerise that avoids the valid questions raised by some members of this site's forum which are not towing the party line on Direct.
 

Not speaking for Chris, but this site's forum has no "partyline" wrt Direct.   And speaking for the Direct core members, there hasn't any avoidance of questions.  They have fielded all the questions posted on the threads
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/22/2007 05:49 pm
Tim S - 22/9/2007 1:19 PM

{snip} The question is the build up to this AIAA presentation, which seems to have dissolved into nothing after the event.

Geeezzzz. He's not even back from the conference yet! Give the man a break!
Him along with a few hundred other participants. They are probably still on their airplanes or still in TA security lines. The conference itself was a year in the making and the paper he presented spanned over two years in its various forms to get to what was delivered.

You are apparently looking for "instant gratification", and that's not going to happen. You are just going to have to wait, along with everyone else.

There will be a report posted here AFTER Steve gets back and has a chance to say hello to his wife and kids, and catch up on all the family stuff. Then I imagine he is going to need some down time, just to help him remember his own name after all the effort over the last 2 years, which has been intense.

As for reaction from NASA, that's anybody's guess. It could be weeks. It could be months. Who knows? One thing is for sure though, the NASA upper management won't like it because it beats their horse into the ground.

Go get yourself a cup of (instant) coffee and stay tuned.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/22/2007 05:55 pm
Quote
david-moon - 21/9/2007  11:01 AM
Ross, I was suprised to see this from you.  This kind of public remark does not enhance your credibility and is not at all characteristic of you.

I'm sorry my tone upset you David. I'm simply sick to the back teeth of the BS which has surrounded Ares-I since the start and Horowitz's comments - which were actually referring to the Ares LV's, not the whole Constellation program - was too much for me to stomach without comment.

I'm sorry for upsetting you, but I am not sorry for pointing out Horowitz' hypocracy.   I think it's long past due for Horowitz, and probably also Griffin, to be called out and held responsible for the corner they have backed the agency into.

My only reservation to this is that a congressional investigation into their actons would probably destroy the greater VSE and I don't want that at all.   But to continue to follow the path Horowitz/Griffin have dictated seems destined to failure too - so I'm not sure there's anything to lose.

Ross.

PS - Just for clarity, these are my personal views and do not necessarily represent anyone else involved in DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/22/2007 06:15 pm
Quote
kraisee - 22/9/2007  11:21 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 21/9/2007  1:09 PM

Okay, well I have a question.

Can the Jupiters get by without TVCs on the SRBs?  The engines seem to be much more widely spaced than the SSMEs on the Shuttle, and they have more thrust as well so I was wondering if they had the roll authority to sufficiently toss around those big SRBs.

Lee Jay,
I think what you are really asking is whether the Jupiter needs *new* TVC or not.

No, I was asking if the Jupiters could go with a fixed nozzle on the SRBs - just like most other "strap ons".

Quote
Jupiter would use the same TVC system as Shuttle.   While it may be possible to make the RS-68's perform the same task, that has never been tested and has no proven heritage at all.

The TVC systems for the SRB's are already well proven and more importantly are already existing - that means they don't require any new development expense.

No new development (other than control laws) but they do require maintenance, refurbishment, flow operations, fueling, etc., and they do have non-zero mass and a non-zero chance at failure.  If the Jupiters could go without them, that would be an advantage because Ares-I cannot and Ares-V uses the same booster as Ares-I.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/22/2007 06:24 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 22/9/2007  2:15 PM

No, I was asking if the Jupiters could go with a fixed nozzle on the SRBs - just like most other "strap ons".


The Shuttle Direct's, Ares V's, Ariane V and Titan solid motors/boosters are not like really strapons, they are "stages" anl of them have TVC.

Delta II and Atlas II uses "strap ons" and they don't have TVC.  
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/22/2007 06:32 pm
Quote
Jim - 22/9/2007  12:24 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 22/9/2007  2:15 PM

No, I was asking if the Jupiters could go with a fixed nozzle on the SRBs - just like most other "strap ons".


The Shuttle Direct's, Ares V's, Ariane V and Titan solid motors/boosters are not like most other "strap ons" and aren't really strapons, they are "stages"  All of them have TVC.

Delta II uses "strap ons" and they don't have TVC.  

Yeah, I know they're way big compared to, say, the GEMs.

The Ariane 5 has a single engine on the core, thus no roll control.  The STS has a lot of roll inertia because of the side-mount of the orbiter and main engines, plus closely spaced main engines.  The Titan IV is similar to the J-120, but I'm not sure how widely spaced the core engines are in comparison to the roll inertia of the entire vehicle.  Certainly the core is much smaller in diameter (10ft versus 27.5ft).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/22/2007 06:50 pm
Quote
Yeah, I know they're way big compared to, say, the GEMs.

The Ariane 5 has a single engine on the core, thus no roll control.  The STS has a lot of roll inertia because of the side-mount of the orbiter and main engines, plus closely spaced main engines.  The Titan IV is similar to the J-120, but I'm not sure how widely spaced the core engines are in comparison to the roll inertia of the entire vehicle.  Certainly the core is much smaller in diameter (10ft versus 27.5ft).

I was wondering, what is the practicality of replacing the Ariane boosters with core stage boosters like the Delta IV heavy?  It would seem like a simple idea, but then again the supporting structure in the center core might have to be beefed up massively plus launch supporting infrastructure overhaul, is there anything else?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: ryan mccabe on 09/22/2007 07:33 pm
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 22/9/2007  1:50 PM

I was wondering, what is the practicality of replacing the Ariane boosters with core stage boosters like the Delta IV heavy?  It would seem like a simple idea, but then again the supporting structure in the center core might have to be beefed up massively plus launch supporting infrastructure overhaul, is there anything else?

Not practical at all, and it should be asked in another topic. You're basically talking about an all-new launch vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/22/2007 07:44 pm
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 22/9/2007  2:50 PM

Quote
Yeah, I know they're way big compared to, say, the GEMs.

The Ariane 5 has a single engine on the core, thus no roll control.  The STS has a lot of roll inertia because of the side-mount of the orbiter and main engines, plus closely spaced main engines.  The Titan IV is similar to the J-120, but I'm not sure how widely spaced the core engines are in comparison to the roll inertia of the entire vehicle.  Certainly the core is much smaller in diameter (10ft versus 27.5ft).

I was wondering, what is the practicality of replacing the Ariane boosters with core stage boosters like the Delta IV heavy?  It would seem like a simple idea, but then again the supporting structure in the center core might have to be beefed up massively plus launch supporting infrastructure overhaul, is there anything else?
Please take this to the ESA/Ariane thread. Thanks
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 09/22/2007 07:44 pm
Lee Jay, the problem with turning the SRBs into Big Dumb Strap-ons (BDS) is that it is taking the direct out of DIRECT so to speak.

They would need a development program and testing and man rating. They would delay deployment by years. They would, quite possibility, cost more to develop, test, and certify than it would be saved by removing the TVC.

There is no evidence to suggest they would be any safer until after all the expense of development had proven it.

Edit: What mass savings could result is not enough to justify delaying the program since the LVs have plenty of margin.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/22/2007 08:08 pm
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 22/9/2007  1:44 PM

Lee Jay, the problem with turning the SRBs into Big Dumb Strap-ons (BDS) is that it is taking the direct out of DIRECT so to speak.

They would need a development program and testing and man rating. They would delay deployment by years. They would, quite possibility, cost more to develop, test, and certify than it would be saved by removing the TVC.

There is no evidence to suggest they would be any safer until after all the expense of development had proven it.

Edit: What mass savings could result is not enough to justify delaying the program since the LVs have plenty of margin.

I didn't realize that a development program would be required.  I was thinking of removing the hydraulic hardware (fuel, turbine, pump, etc.) and replacing the actuators with fixed-length rods.  If there's a big development required to do that, then forget it.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 09/22/2007 08:40 pm
The SRB's roll control "authority" is much better than a core RS-68's. The SRB has better leverage and higher thrust.
A core taking over roll control, when there are two heavy side mounted SRBs, should require more stress on the connections between the three bodies.
And there is more than roll. There is also pitch and yaw.
imho
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/22/2007 08:50 pm
Quote
renclod - 22/9/2007  2:40 PM

The SRB's roll control "authority" is much better than a core RS-68's. The SRB has better leverage and higher thrust.
A core taking over roll control, when there are two heavy side mounted SRBs, should require more stress on the connections between the three bodies.
And there is more than roll. There is also pitch and yaw.
imho

I'm guessing that the stress between the SRBs and core is governed by something like wind load while it's parked on the pad, or thrust load at launch, not deflection of the main engines.

Certainly having the TVCs on the SRBs gives you more control authority in all directions, but don't forget the old engineering axiom - "good enough" is the best.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 09/22/2007 09:05 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 22/9/2007  11:50 PM
I'm guessing that the stress between the SRBs and core is governed by something like wind load while it's parked on the pad, or thrust load at launch, not deflection of the main engines.

Certainly having the TVCs on the SRBs gives you more control authority in all directions, but don't forget the old engineering axiom - "good enough" is the best.
Could never forget such axiom as I use it each and every day.
Aero loads are also to consider.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: bad_astra on 09/22/2007 09:06 pm
It's a very late time to ask this, but did the Direct team ever look at using SSME for the Direct? (Could use up remaining SSME's for test launches then switch to a disposable ssme later. )
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/22/2007 09:15 pm
Quote
renclod - 22/9/2007  3:05 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 22/9/2007  11:50 PM
I'm guessing that the stress between the SRBs and core is governed by something like wind load while it's parked on the pad, or thrust load at launch, not deflection of the main engines.

Certainly having the TVCs on the SRBs gives you more control authority in all directions, but don't forget the old engineering axiom - "good enough" is the best.
Could never forget such axiom as I use it each and every day.
Aero loads are also to consider.

Good for you!

Yes...I have a difficult time intuitively understanding the aero loads on these vehicles, especially in the roll direction and this was the root cause of my question - could the J-120/J-232 be flown successfully without TVCs in the SRBs.  I don't know the answer and so I asked.  I have only some observations that make it *seem* possible (lower roll inertia than STS, more roll control authority) but that doesn't make it possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/22/2007 09:17 pm
Quote
bad_astra - 22/9/2007  3:06 PM

It's a very late time to ask this, but did the Direct team ever look at using SSME for the Direct? (Could use up remaining SSME's for test launches then switch to a disposable ssme later. )

The problem is that a disposable SSME is a major development effort and it has more-or-less already been done - the RS-68 is the result.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pippin on 09/22/2007 09:28 pm
Lee Jay, I think your error is to assume that a SRB without TVC does just give straight thrust and has no influence on roll, pitch, yaw etc. In fact it imposes a lot of this and if you don't have TVC on the boosters, the core engines have to work against this. And then, as renclod pointed out, you impose quite some stress on the connections (more than the other way round since the leverage is longer).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/22/2007 09:31 pm
Quote
pippin - 22/9/2007  3:28 PM

Lee Jay, I think your error is to assume that a SRB without TVC does just give straight thrust and has no influence on roll, pitch, yaw etc. In fact it imposes a lot of this and if you don't have TVC on the boosters, the core engines have to work against this. And then, as renclod pointed out, you impose quite some stress on the connections (more than the other way round since the leverage is longer).

Ah...good point.  So do the standard SRB TVC controls actively balance the individual SRB nozzle angles so that those angles compensate for any off-axis thrust provided by the nozzle/engine/combustion itself, or does the whole vehicle command them as if zero is really zero?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pippin on 09/22/2007 09:36 pm
Quote
Tim S - 22/9/2007  7:19 PM

Who did he meet with. What exactly does "running out with a large sheet of printed data sheets" mean?

He didn't write "running out with" but "running out of", meaning there were none left because everybody wanted one, I suppose.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pippin on 09/22/2007 09:37 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 22/9/2007  11:31 PM

Quote
pippin - 22/9/2007  3:28 PM

Lee Jay, I think your error is to assume that a SRB without TVC does just give straight thrust and has no influence on roll, pitch, yaw etc. In fact it imposes a lot of this and if you don't have TVC on the boosters, the core engines have to work against this. And then, as renclod pointed out, you impose quite some stress on the connections (more than the other way round since the leverage is longer).

Ah...good point.  So do the standard SRB TVC controls actively balance the individual SRB nozzle angles so that those angles compensate for any off-axis thrust provided by the nozzle/engine/combustion itself, or does the whole vehicle command them as if zero is really zero?

Good question ;-) Especially: Will it be different between STS and Direct?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/22/2007 09:55 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 22/9/2007  5:31 PM

Quote
pippin - 22/9/2007  3:28 PM

Lee Jay, I think your error is to assume that a SRB without TVC does just give straight thrust and has no influence on roll, pitch, yaw etc. In fact it imposes a lot of this and if you don't have TVC on the boosters, the core engines have to work against this. And then, as renclod pointed out, you impose quite some stress on the connections (more than the other way round since the leverage is longer).

Ah...good point.  So do the standard SRB TVC controls actively balance the individual SRB nozzle angles so that those angles compensate for any off-axis thrust provided by the nozzle/engine/combustion itself, or does the whole vehicle command them as if zero is really zero?


Launch vehicles steer by looking for a response from steering inputs; the actual gimbal angles are not used in determining vehicle attitude


PS Don't forget the need to counter SRM thrust imbalance.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/22/2007 09:56 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 22/9/2007  2:32 PM

The Ariane 5 has a single engine on the core, thus no roll control.  The STS has a lot of roll inertia because of the side-mount of the orbiter and main engines, plus closely spaced main engines.  The Titan IV is similar to the J-120, but I'm not sure how widely spaced the core engines are in comparison to the roll inertia of the entire vehicle.  Certainly the core is much smaller in diameter (10ft versus 27.5ft).

Just another point,  the Titan IV core did not burn in parallel with the SRM's, except during staging.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/22/2007 10:06 pm
Quote
Jim - 22/9/2007  3:56 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 22/9/2007  2:32 PM

The Ariane 5 has a single engine on the core, thus no roll control.  The STS has a lot of roll inertia because of the side-mount of the orbiter and main engines, plus closely spaced main engines.  The Titan IV is similar to the J-120, but I'm not sure how widely spaced the core engines are in comparison to the roll inertia of the entire vehicle.  Certainly the core is much smaller in diameter (10ft versus 27.5ft).

Just another point,  the Titan IV core did not burn in parallel with the SRM's, except during staging.

I guess that would require TVCs on the side, wouldn't it!  ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/22/2007 10:11 pm
Quote
Jim - 22/9/2007  3:55 PM
Launch vehicles steer by looking for a response from steering inputs; the actual gimbal angles are not used in determining vehicle attitude

Yeah, I figured that, but is this done in a solid-body way (single IMU drives inputs to all TVCs) or are they individually controlled to proper thrust vectors by, I don't know, measuring hydraulic pressure in the TVCs to determine thrust vector?

Quote
PS Don't forget the need to counter SRM thrust imbalance.

I did remember that (but not off-axis thrust), and I'm impressed with how close these follow each other (51L report).  Like I said, I don't know if there's enough authority for roll control (I thought it was the driving factor) but perhaps SRB thrust imbalance and/or off-axis thrust are the real drivers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/22/2007 10:17 pm
Something just occurred to me.  Engine out capability.

If the J-120 were to lose either engine it would lose roll control unless the SRBs had it.  In fact, if it loses an engine after SRB sep, how will it maintain roll control?

With the J-232, losing a side engine would cut roll control authority in half assuming the center engine has TVC.  If it doesn't the same question as above applies.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 09/22/2007 10:30 pm
Quote
kraisee - 22/9/2007  7:21 PM

Jupiter would use the same TVC system as Shuttle.   While it may be possible to make the RS-68's perform the same task, that has never been tested and has no proven heritage at all.

The TVC systems for the SRB's are already well proven and more importantly are already existing - that means they don't require any new development expense.

Ross.

The idea would if implemented make Direct less direct and is only usefull as a possible future upgrade.

But if the RS-68 on their own could steer the Direct wehicle is a good basic engineering question. The answer is probably no but it is worth a calculation.

The limit when the boosters need their own TVC system and become a stage in impulse and complexity is intresting from a design point of view. If Direct were a blank slate design with solid boosters it would be a good maximum size limit for the boosters. Another nice student exersize would be to take an SRB, remove the TVC, simplifie the nozzle, change to a lighter composite casing, remove the recovery system and shrink the size and fuel load until you get the same performance as an SRB and see how much smaller it gets.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/22/2007 10:51 pm
Quote
Magnus_Redin - 22/9/2007  4:30 PM

Quote
kraisee - 22/9/2007  7:21 PM

Jupiter would use the same TVC system as Shuttle.   While it may be possible to make the RS-68's perform the same task, that has never been tested and has no proven heritage at all.

The TVC systems for the SRB's are already well proven and more importantly are already existing - that means they don't require any new development expense.

Ross.

The idea would if implemented make Direct less direct and is only usefull as a possible future upgrade.

But if the RS-68 on their own could steer the Direct wehicle is a good basic engineering question. The answer is probably no but it is worth a calculation.

The limit when the boosters need their own TVC system and become a stage in impulse and complexity is intresting from a design point of view. If Direct were a blank slate design with solid boosters it would be a good maximum size limit for the boosters. Another nice student exersize would be to take an SRB, remove the TVC, simplifie the nozzle, change to a lighter composite casing, remove the recovery system and shrink the size and fuel load until you get the same performance as an SRB and see how much smaller it gets.

You sound like you might know what the driving factor is likely to be - roll authority, off-axis thrust from the SRBs, SRB thrust imbalance, engine-out capability, or something else.  Care to share if you do?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 09/22/2007 11:00 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 23/9/2007  12:51 AM

You sound like you might know what the driving factor is likely to be - roll authority, off-axis thrust from the SRBs, SRB thrust imbalance, engine-out capability, or something else.  Care to share if you do?

Unfortunately I only guess based on the SRB:s larger thrust and longer moment arm.
A better guess would be to look at Shuttle data on TVC movements and the resulting moment and calculate if Direct RS-68:s could generate such moments. But that would not include margins for off spec SRB:s etc.
And then you need to do proper modelling.
Unfortunately I am only a wannabee engineer and not a real one although I fairly often figure out the right questions. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Flometrics on 09/23/2007 03:02 pm
I was just at the AIAA Space 2007 Conference in Long Beach, and everyone that I spoke to thought that the "stick" (Ares 1) would not work (Including the folks with Ares 1 models in their booth).  The presentation on Direct 2.0 was well attended and everyone there seemed to approve of the idea.

I think that the proponents of the Ares 1 are hoping that after dealing with the war and the economy, the next president will overlook the problems with it until it is too late to change. Then they will get more money to fix it.

Steve Harrington
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Martin FL on 09/23/2007 03:03 pm
Quote
Flometrics - 23/9/2007  10:02 AM

I was just at the AIAA Space 2007 Conference in Long Beach, and everyone that I spoke to thought that the "stick" (Ares 1) would not work (Including the folks with Ares 1 models in their booth).  The presentation on Direct 2.0 was well attended and everyone there seemed to approve of the idea.

I think that the proponents of the Ares 1 are hoping that after dealing with the war and the economy, the next president will overlook the problems with it until it is too late to change. Then they will get more money to fix it.

Steve Harrington

I hope someone recorded the presentation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 09/23/2007 04:10 pm
How can I view the full-legnth paper w/o getting L2 subscription?

Quote
Martin FL - 23/9/2007  11:03 AM

I hope someone recorded the presentation.

I hope so too. Ross, do you know if it was recorded?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 09/23/2007 04:28 pm
The full paper can be found here:
http://teamvisioninc.com/services-consulting-space-exploration-optimization.htm
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Stephan on 09/23/2007 05:52 pm
Quote
G-pit - 23/9/2007  6:10 PM
How can I view the full-legnth paper w/o getting L2 subscription?
On DIRECT website :

http://www.directlauncher.com/
(Low or His Res PDF )
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/23/2007 06:06 pm
Quote
G-pit - 23/9/2007  5:10 PM

How can I view the full-legnth paper w/o getting L2 subscription?


It was on L2 for a week before it was released for all the space industry we have there to add comments. It was then released as per links you see.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/23/2007 07:05 pm
Quote
G-pit - 23/9/2007  12:10 PM

I hope so too. Ross, do you know if it was recorded?

I haven't been home at all this weekend, so unless something is waiting in my "inbox" to the contrary, I don't believe the presentation was video'd.

Perhaps someone in the audience did record it themselves, in which case I'd love to get a hold of the recording, but otherwise I think the only people to see it will be those who were able to attend.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 09/23/2007 07:07 pm
So, Ross, when do you release a 1/144 scale version of Jupiter?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/23/2007 07:07 pm
Quote
Flometrics - 23/9/2007  11:02 AM

I was just at the AIAA Space 2007 Conference in Long Beach, and everyone that I spoke to thought that the "stick" (Ares 1) would not work (Including the folks with Ares 1 models in their booth).  The presentation on Direct 2.0 was well attended and everyone there seemed to approve of the idea.

I've heard similar reports from a few other attendees.   Thanks for providing your view here on the forum for everyone to read.


Quote
I think that the proponents of the Ares 1 are hoping that after dealing with the war and the economy, the next president will overlook the problems with it until it is too late to change. Then they will get more money to fix it.

Doesn't that sound just like a typical inefficient government program?   Oh, hang on...

;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/23/2007 07:08 pm
Quote
mike robel - 23/9/2007  3:07 PM

So, Ross, when do you release a 1/144 scale version of Jupiter?

Gimme a few months :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/23/2007 07:15 pm
Quote
kraisee - 23/9/2007  3:08 PM

Quote
mike robel - 23/9/2007  3:07 PM

So, Ross, when do you release a 1/144 scale version of Jupiter?

Gimme a few months :)

Ross.
Knowing Ross, expect quality with a capital "Q".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/23/2007 07:17 pm
Regarding SRB TVC systems, between the various comments here already are all the most important points.

Any changes to the existing SRB's requires re-qualification and that tends to be a very expensive and time-consuming process so we're going to try to avoid that wherever possible.

Also the engine-out situation is serious during the first ~90-100 seconds of flight when the SRB's are doing most of their work prior to burnout.   Losing an engine just off the pad is the worst-case scenario, and would guarantee an LOM situation - as it would for any vehicle including Ares-I and Ares-V.   As long as the engine shutdown isn't catastrophic though, it should not be particularly risky for a crew.   Abort would options would include either immediate into the Atlantic just off the KSC coast, or Trans-Atlantic to somewhere like Shannon, Ireland.   Losing an engine just off the Pad would not allow for Abort to Orbit.   That becomes an option only after about T+45 seconds - and even then only in some configurations (J-120 with no cargo payload except Orion spacecraft).

The MPS on the Core certainly has a lot less authority than the SRB's, but would still likely prove to be usable for pitch and roll.   Without computer modelling I predict it would work, but with a significantly slower reaction time.

From where I sit, the biggest driving factor is to shorten the "gap" after Shuttle retires.   That means keeping as much current hardware "as is" and reducing the requirements for new hardwae to the absolute minimum.   That means using the SRB's as they are today and using current STS-like flight procedures to control the vehicle.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Linden on 09/23/2007 08:24 pm
Quote
clongton - 23/9/2007  3:15 PM

Quote
kraisee - 23/9/2007  3:08 PM

Quote
mike robel - 23/9/2007  3:07 PM

So, Ross, when do you release a 1/144 scale version of Jupiter?

Gimme a few months :)

Ross.
Knowing Ross, expect quality with a capital "Q".

Agreed. Just don't hold your breath for the assembly instructions  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/23/2007 09:56 pm
I asked this question above, but it got  buried.

Why does only one of the MLPs require the minimal umbilical tower, instead of all three?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/23/2007 10:35 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 23/9/2007  5:56 PM

I asked this question above, but it got  buried.

Why does only one of the MLPs require the minimal umbilical tower, instead of all three?

Sorry, I never saw that Lee Jay.

All three existing Shuttle MLP's would need to be modified to be able to launch Jupiters.

All three would be modified in exactly the same way - to be able to launch any of the four possible Jupiter configurations - specifically combinations of J-120 or J-232 and CLV or CaLV.


The specific modifications would mostly be concentrated on opening up the exhaust chamber between the existing SRB chambers for the Core's engines, and adding an ~80m tall version of the current 70m tall "Atlas-V-style" Minimized Launcher Umbilical Tower (MLUT).   Other changes include re-routing fueling lines and water lines for noise suppression, but those precise details are out of our hands and would need to be handled by a company like Reynolds Smith & Hills (RS&H).

With just the two High Bays in the VAB used currently for Shuttle, this would give maximum flexibility and allow a reliable 12 Jupiter launches per year (1 every month).

A third VAB High Bay and extra MLP's could be commissioned if higher flight rates are ever needed in the future, but that is unlikely to be required until at least the Mars program (not before 2025-2030 time frame).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/23/2007 10:40 pm
Quote
kraisee - 23/9/2007  4:35 PM
Quote
Lee Jay - 23/9/2007  5:56 PM
Why does only one of the MLPs require the minimal umbilical tower, instead of all three?
All three existing MLP's would be modified in exactly the same way to be able to launch any of the four Jupiter configurations - specifically combinations of J-120 or J-232 and  CLV or CaLV.

Okay, then the note on this image is wrong:

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Public/DIRECT/DIRECT-II_J-120_Cargo_Umbilicals.jpg
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/23/2007 10:43 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 23/9/2007  6:40 PM

Okay, then the note on this image is wrong:

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Public/DIRECT/DIRECT-II_J-120_Cargo_Umbilicals.jpg

Well spotted.   That looks like a hang-over from v1.0 which hasn't been caught until now.   Thanks for spotting it - I will endeavour to fix that mistake ASAP.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/23/2007 10:45 pm
No wonder I couldn't figure it out!  ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/23/2007 10:55 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 23/9/2007  6:45 PM

No wonder I couldn't figure it out!  ;-)

Sorry about that.   We all missed that too.   Sharp eyes you've got there.

Anyway, fixed now.   You can new download the corrected versions:

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Public/DIRECT/DIRECT-II_J-120_Cargo_Umbilicals.jpg
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Public/DIRECT/DIRECT-II_J-120_Crew_Umbilicals.jpg
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Public/DIRECT/DIRECT-II_J-221_Cargo_Umbilicals.jpg
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Public/DIRECT/DIRECT-II_J-221_Crew_Umbilicals.jpg
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Public/DIRECT/DIRECT-II_J-232_Cargo_Umbilicals.jpg
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Public/DIRECT/DIRECT-II_J-232_Crew_Umbilicals.jpg

Ross.

PS - Hows that for a fast response, eh? :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/23/2007 10:57 pm
Quote
kraisee - 23/9/2007  4:55 PM
PS - Hows that for a fast response, eh? :)

You missed your calling.  You should answer the phones at cable TV services.

 :laugh:

Edit:  the first one still has the note.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/23/2007 11:06 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 23/9/2007  6:57 PM

Quote
kraisee - 23/9/2007  4:55 PM
PS - Hows that for a fast response, eh? :)

You missed your calling.  You should answer the phones at cable TV services.


Eik.   Wouldn't I then have to be Indian? ;)

(yes, I know that's totally un-PC, but that was too good a feeder line not to go for the joke!).


Quote
Edit:  the first one still has the note.

I just checked and it is actually correct.   You probably need to clear your browser's cache and force it to grab the current version.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/23/2007 11:19 pm
Yep...just needed a refresh.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/23/2007 11:58 pm
Regarding the removal of SRB TVC systems, I was thinking about future Jupiter upgrades.  Now that that's out, I'm still left wondering about controlling the J-120 after SRB sep and in an engine-out condition.  Can the SM be used for this?  What were you planning?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/24/2007 03:47 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 23/9/2007  7:58 PM

Regarding the removal of SRB TVC systems, I was thinking about future Jupiter upgrades.  Now that that's out, I'm still left wondering about controlling the J-120 after SRB sep and in an engine-out condition.  Can the SM be used for this?  What were you planning?

Even with engine out conditions there are a variety of options.   While there is not so efficient authority as 'nominal' conditions, there is still quite a bit of pitch and yaw control available even with a single engine somewhat offset.   On the J-232 with just one outboard engine and the center engine still working, pitch/yaw control authority actually isn't that bad at all.   On J-232's the RCS system on the EDS is a logical backup roll control system after SRB separation, although *most* roll control work will already have been performed.

Roll control for a configuration with only a single working engine (J-120 with an engine out) is more difficult though.   While the offset engine location still allows a safe degree of pitch and yaw control, roll control is much trickier.   Limited roll control may be possible using the RS-68's standard bleed systems, and perhaps some of the spacecraft's RCS too - although it is asking a lot.   But given that no J-120 is ever going to the moon, and the CEV it thus would be carrying has far lower propellant requirements than a lunar-bound CEV, there may be a way to outfit it with quite a generous surplus of extra RCS propellant to cover exactly this sort of scenario.

The hard details of all of these though are beyond our small team to cover as fully as they need to be.   We really need an in-depth analysis to be done by NASA once they have chosen to go with this option.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/24/2007 05:16 am
I should note that I am working on an article that will detail the history of the DIRECT concept. Not sure what I am going to do with it right now, just want to get it done first.
Either way, I will share it with you all on here once it is done.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 09/24/2007 07:48 am
Then that is PR shame if the presentation was not recorded and a transcript is made available.  

There are a lot of Direct Supporters on these boards and a more than a few who live in the socal area...was anyone asked to record/video record it so a transcript could be made?  How much does it cost to video tape or record Direct's very public presentation to the world.

The Direct team could learn for themselves what various people felt about Direct, the questions asked, and how other people felt Direct could be improved.

Why do people have a transcript of presentations?..not only for the speech that people may make..but for the followup questions that get inside the speakers head and more fuller explore the persons/organization thinking.

For example...Have you ever gone to a space launch (eg Falcon I/shuttle) and not taken a camera with you? Pictures and video give another level to the experaince, hearing the sound, seeing it.    A transcript could also have helped with press releases about Direct and what people are saying about it....Marketing 101.  

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Launch Fan on 09/24/2007 02:20 pm
You've got to be kidding me? They didn't record this speech which they've been pushing on here for weeks?

No excuses for that!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 09/24/2007 02:50 pm
Quote
Launch Fan - 24/9/2007  10:20 AM

You've got to be kidding me? They didn't record this speech which they've been pushing on here for weeks?

No excuses for that!

IMO, while a video of the presentation would be nice to have, the meat of the presentation is the paper itself.

Questions asked by attendees may give some insight, but again, that is not as critical as the followup contacts that occur after the presentation.  Major decisions recommended in this or any other paper are not made hastily nor without due diligence.

I feel that if the proposal has merit, (and I personally believe it does) what is now important is what goes on behind the scenes, particularly requests for additional information or detail.

I would expect that, if there is interest, the most intriguing questions are those that center on design, capability and cost issues.  If these questions are asked by the right people, then I would start to get excited.

Although I have only scanned the presentation myself, it looks like considerable effort went into it and I wish the Direct Team all the best on it.  I intend to read the complete document as soon as I have the time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/24/2007 03:03 pm
Quote
Launch Fan - 24/9/2007  3:20 PM

You've got to be kidding me? They didn't record this speech which they've been pushing on here for weeks?

No excuses for that!

I think you'll find that AIAA might not be all that pleased about someone recording presentations at their events! I know that is a rule at a lot of industry conferences.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/24/2007 03:09 pm
There must have been a PowerPoint.  Can that be posted on the DIRECT site?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: bobthemonkey on 09/24/2007 04:05 pm
Just to confirm AIAA do not , as a rule, allow recording at conferences.
Title: AIAA Space 2007 Trip Report
Post by: Smatcha on 09/24/2007 04:31 pm
Quote
SMetch - 22/9/2007  8:57 AM

Quote
renclod - 21/9/2007  2:54 PM

Quote
kraisee - 19/9/2007  11:55 PM
We are all still awaiting a detailed review back from Stephen when he gets home.   Expect something on here soon as we can get it.
Ross.
Stephen took the fight over at
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/09/17/griffin-china-will-beat-us-to-the-moon

Just waiting for JIS to reengage, he has alot of reading in front of him. :)

I also write up a ‘trip report’ when I get a chance this weekend.

Okay, I final had a chance to decompression, re-introduce myself to wife/five young children and cut the grass like I have been promising my wife now for the better part of a month.

On to the AIAA Space 2007 conference.

Interestingly enough the story of the conference began Monday (day before the conference) when I was on the AIAA site searching for the specifics of our ‘poster session’ presentation time slot and location before going to the airport.  I couldn’t find it even when I searched for my last name.  Nothing.  NSF Kayla will attest to the fact that Mike and company forced organizations like Boeing, Lockheed/Martin and others to pull any papers from the AIAA Space 2005 conference that conflicted with the ‘requirement’ to use the Ares-I.  That is if they wanted any contracts, it was their choice.  Great way to start out the whole open communication environment they talk about but don’t do.  Frankly I’m surprise we got accepted in March 2007 given this background, the tone of our AIAA 2006 paper and the fact that we held back no punches in the Abstract for this year’s paper.  My first thought was that maybe somebody finally got to AIAA, especially since drafts of our paper were already open for download, to force a similar fate on our effort at the last minute.

Just to be thorough I selected the ‘All’ tab which consolidates everything in the conference across all days and did the search again.  To my relief we were still in the conference but had been ‘upgraded’ to full presentation session late in the first day of the conference.  Score.  I had remarked to a number of individuals high up in the NASA food chain (you’ll see their names in very prominent reports advising Congress and the President on NASA) that I thought it was ironic that the one paper that actually detailed “Space: The Next 50 Years” (tag line of the conference) was not even given a presentation slot.  When I talked to our session chair he said he was told to include us in his session by someone high up at AIAA.  Whoever helped this happen thanks allot.

Suddenly though I had a nice problem to have.  I just had posters and needed a presentation that would summarize 6 months worth of effort amongst 50 people resulting in our 131 page AIAA.  A new record for AIAA by the way thanks to everyone that helped.  Unfortunately due to the late switch our paper didn’t show up in the program proceedings but in an insert for the last minute corrections.  Ironically they were able to remove us from booklet concerning the poster session in time but not add us to the actual presentation session?  Maybe the only gave Mike and Company the booklet without the flyer.  How many people bother to look at the flyer to find us I do not know.

The first day of the conference (Tuesday 18th) was typical in that things really get rolling in terms of technical papers after lunch, which I had to miss in order to finish off the presentation.  The session our paper was in ran from 1600-1700 just opposite and straddled by the Ares-I/V love in 1400-1800.  So attendees could choose whether they wanted to see science or fiction.  A very balanced Space conference.  I was actually able to attend the first hour of the Ares-I/V presentation.  I kept wondering if they believe what they were saying or saying what they are told to believe.  When confronted with a Cognitive conflict people will say and do illogically things to lower the Dissonance level in their mind to acceptable levels.  Right now the primary argument against switching from the Ares-I to the Ares-II is that Congress will zero NASA’s budget.  That way all the really bad engineering these guys are being forced to accept is more tolerable because something is better than nothing right?  See how that rationalization helps them in reconciling the inherent dissonance in their minds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

It’s really sad, NASA is a very capable hardware development organization when lead properly as shown at JPL and GSC.  One day I would like to see a ‘management’ culture across all centers that fears real problems more than the messenger that delivers them.  Further a ‘management’ culture that promotes those who find workable solutions to tough problems rather than use the old it’s to late to stop the train on rails going over the cliff argument.  Fortunately the flame of rational behavior is still alive in pockets throughout the agency and at every center but it will take the right leadership environment to re-ignite the power an open organization brings to the table.  Apollo had this approach.

Before the paper presentation I needed to go get the 1/72 scale model of the Jupiter-1 (Ares-II) and Jupiter-2 (Ares-III) that Ross shipped to the hotel.  The model looked great.  I’m sure the makers to the 1/72 full shuttle stack kit would like DIRECT as well because they can keep a lot of their plastic molds.

There were three presentations before ours.  AIAA-2007-6288 by W. Chun, Lockheed/Martin was very telling in terms of the compromises now required by the recent Orion ‘weight scrub’ better described as a ‘hack job’.  His paper dealt with the software and systems development for Orion.  Upper NASA management has been forcing them towards little to no redundancy on key safety of flight components in order to save weight.  At some point the astronauts are going to weigh in on this.  Right now NASA can not meet both its mass margin and safety requirements simultaneously.  The third presentation by AIAA-2007-6289, C Ong, NASA-JPL concerned the Thermal Protection System (TPS).  What was most interesting is that NASA has no unmanned flight tests at the Lunar reentry levels for the segmented heat shield which their proposal would solve.

Last in line was our presentation.  Fortunately because we were the last spot, my only real limit was the happy hour reception at 1800 I had a good hour which we needed for doing any justice to a 131 page paper anyway.  I don’t know how I could have done it in the typical 15min with 5min Q/A.  We had about 40 people attending with about 10 more showing up for our time slot so 50 or so altogether.  I managed to finish in only 30 minutes hitting just the highlights of the paper and skipping altogether the cost analysis section of the paper.  The second to the last slide resulted in few laughs from the attendees.  It was a slide that showed how the current contractors could potential transfer to the Jupiter-120 (Ares-II) and Jupiter-232 (Ares-III).  The title was “DIRECT leaves no Contractor Behind + adds More Items for Bid Sooner”

A link to the paper is shown below

http://www.directlauncher.com/

The active Q/A period went on for another 15 minutes all good question and clarification of what was presented.  Then after that there was about 20 minutes of Q/A with about seven people.  I handed out all 10 copies of the paper (saving one for David Livingston of the Space Show) plus about 20 flyers.  I also put out the four posters I had made on the table plus Ross’s 1/72 modeled of the Jupiter-1/2 (Ares-II/III).  One of the most memorable comments was from a NASA manager from JSC who was impressed with amount of work and thoroughness of the proposal.  He said that publishing this paper was the step that many at NASA were waiting for.  His comment was that basically things were changing and maybe I (we) should take a trip to Hawaii for about a month and be pleasantly surprised when we get back.  I get the distinct impression from a number of other NASA people that approached me at the conference that Scott’s retirement from NASA is not random thing but related to the Ares-I.  In addition we should keep up the good work it is having a positive affect.  I also think more positive changes are in store.  I set up the 1/72 model, posters and remaining flyers on a table in the back of the room and left it there for the better part of the conference.  There were only five flyers left out of the 50 I brought.

The morning of Wednesday Sept 19th I attended the Plenary Session in which Dr Scott Horowitz, Todd A. May (NASA), Elon Musk (CEO/SpaceX) and Brewster Shaw (Boeing) were the key speakers.  It was during the Q/A session that Scott made his Space Exploration is tough comment heard round the world.

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/09/space_gap

I’m sure if you asked the Apollo program managers during the heat of it they would have said the same thing.  What was more interesting were the two things he did say that slipped by the reporter.

I don’t remember the specific question (cards are hand out to attendees to write questions providing privacy to help encourage tough questions) that kicked his answer off but basically Scott was asked if he was concerned about the problems that an unnamed blog had about the Ares-I.  His first answer was to first demise it altogether being from a blog after all.  While I share his a opinion of some blogs Chris runs a tight ship and the level of honesty in the NSF blog relating to tough issues confronting NASA and solutions to the same is of a much higher caliber than I have seen elsewhere.  In fact, I would suggest to Scott that NSF is a more honest appraisal of the problems confront his office than his insular management style is currently allowing him to receive out of fear in the ranks.  Hence the importance of an open organization.  The primary beneficiary of an Open Organization is the manager in charge by the way.  I don’t know why these guys don’t get this.  Again with a leadership that shoots the messenger, the outlet that NSF and our paper provided for the cognitive dissonance running rampant at NASA would not be happening.  The net result would be that everyone on the DIRECT team would have had a lot more free time because NASA would already be doing the right thing if given half a chance.  Having a lot of smart/experienced people counts for little if you force your people to go against their professional judgment.  That in a nut shell is why DIRECT was able to come up with a better plan, in less time, with fewer people and less experience collectively than ‘NASA’.  ‘NASA’ has not been given the chance to develop the solution.  The solution has been driven from on high.  Speaking of which.

The next statement by Scott was even more telling though in the context of Mike’s announcment, at Scott’s retirement from NASA, that the Ares-I will always be known as his baby.  Scott said at AIAA that only the Administrator gets to pick the Architecture his just executing what Mike wants taking a significantly more passive role in the creation of the Ares-I.  Given what I think is coming up both statements appear to pre-position because neither wants to be label the father of the approach that didn’t happen.  The truth is they are both responsible.  If they make the switch to DIRECT while in office history will treat them kinder than if the switch is made after they leave.  When I asked those close to Mike about the concern Mike should have about his legacy they said he has told them he doesn’t care.  Which is strange altogether.

At this point I had also hooked up with David Livingston for lunch.  The lunch key note speaker was Mike Griffin.  Mike Griffin, as always, is great speaker in terms of science, engineering, historical context and emotional content.  He is quoted so extensively in our paper because his statements are so logically and to the point.  David wanted me to get up and ask a question during the open Q/A session but I know how this goes.  First you have tone it down a bit given where you are and who you are talking to, second what Mike will come back with is the whole Space is Tough/Train on Tracks line of argument.  The only way to do this really is in private and with the help of people he has know/trusted personally since before I was watching Sesame Street.  Though I receive a little ‘chicken’ text from David for passing on a direct question despite his prodding.

Given what I have been told by insiders Mike is very stubborn when he thinks he is right.  They have already tried to turn him away from Ares-I with no success.  A toned down Q/A question at a luncheon isn’t going to cause Mike to suddenly re-evaluate everything he has stated in public and come to believe.  His speech also focused on his many impressive accomplishments throughout his career almost sounded like a send off speech frankly.  Unfortunately, most people are only perceived to be as good as there last success or mistake.  Like the kicker that either wins or losses the game based on +50 yard field goal attempt.  Everyone forgets about the interception in the first quarter that put the team down by seven points.  The focus is on the three point kick at the last minute.  As such Mike has a chance to really set his legacy up for a positive review if he switched from Ares-I to Ares-II.

After lunch I showed David our display and did the interview with him for the Space Show.

http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=794

The presentations that day were very interesting.  It was clear that NASA was trying to find uses for the Ares-V like large space telescopes.  Unfortunately the real attractiveness of the Ares-V is its volume (easily achievable using the Ares-II/III approach of DIRECT) not the lift capacity.  Hence why we focused on the new classes of unmanned mission possible with a switch from the Ares-I to the Ares-II in our paper.  It provides a stable base of capability useful for both the manned and unmanned missions.

In the late afternoon on Wed Sept 19th I listened to three different but interesting presentations.  AIAA-2007-6136 was a Mars architecture developed by SpaceWorks Engineering constrained to the current Ares-I/V launch systems.  Interestingly if constrained to a 2xAres-V + 1xAres-I launch a Mars mission can only be supported for a crew of three.  The masses placed on TMI also were at the jagged limits of feasibility.  The utility of propellant depots is clearly a necessary technology for Mars to accumulate the lift mass per year available out of largely fixed cost structure of KSC.  In the follow up after the presentation it was clear the presenter understood this but they didn’t want to get sideways with the current ESAS architecture.  It’s clear that all funding is currently based around submission to the current ESAS architecture. Row well and live.

The next presentation AIAA-2007-6137 was on various lander and lunar base configurations/assembly strategies.  Again in this presentation it was clear that to have more mass on TLI, like what DIRECT provides, would solve a number of problems.  The last presentation AIAA-2007-6138 described the formal process by which all the various elements in VSE intercommunicate their capabilities and requirements.  Though the process is naturally cumbersome the bigger problem is that an open communication environment is not in place.  As such everyone is design around requirements and capabilities that may or may not be true.  The most interesting topics occurred on the last slide.  First the concern on the mass implications associated with making the LSAM capable of taking the TLI inertial loads of the CEV is a serious problem.  Unlike DIRECT the current ESAS approach cannot really mitigate this configurationally but will need to add mass to the LSAM or create offset docking structure which will reduce the useful mass on a TLI trajectory.  As we have shown the current architecture is already at the margins for just the polar base.  Even more interesting though, tucked in the bottom right corner, not seeable by most in the room, was the indication that NASA is looking at ‘Dual’ launch architectures right now.  Given that by some twist of logic the current ESAS approach is a 1.5 architecture that leaves something just like DIRECT.  Given all that I heard I think NASA is getting ready to ditch the Ares-I and move towards the Ares-II/III 2xHLV approach we outlined in the paper.

The last session of the day from 1800-1930 was the William H. Pickering Lecture (Mr. JPL) presentation/award.  Dr. Pickering widow was there to present the award to the Project Manager and Project Scientist for their work on the Spitizer Space Telescope.  Very interesting presentations on the discoveries brought about by this amazing team.  Two take aways from this.  First the style of program management by David Gallagher was spot one in terms of what NASA needs to do for the VSE.  It’s a ray of sunshine to see that NASA still has the seeds within it to spring back to life if given half a chance by senior management.  Not surprisingly it involves a lot of open communication and courage to remove bad actors from the program when needed.  The second is how much more useful life the Ares-II could have given the Spitizer Space Telescope which is limited to only five years due to the on board cryogenic helium used to maintain the low temperatures needed of infra-red telescopes.

The last day of the conference Sept 20th was still going strong in terms of content.  The “Space Settlements and Architectures” session had a number of great presentations.  The most interesting thing in these presentations was the limitations imposed on the VSE if constrained to just Equatorial and Polar locations.  A move in the right direction was to show how putting down a number of smaller bases would produce more hours on the Moon quicker for a given amount of launches from Earth vs the building up a dedicated Polar base which will take a number of launches to fully implemented.  Once implemented though the Polar base eventual overcomes the smaller base strategy man hours on the lunar surface many years later.  It showed that the basing strategy/location was more important to the lunar science return than any of the trades associated with the base configuration.  Completely missing though was a lunar basing strategy similar to Mars which would significantly expand the amount of surface area covered.  Again if constrained to the Poles it’s going to be tough to explore a large area so the lunar surface astronauts will be primarily accumulating time in a similar way that the ISS does now.  I actually walked by Doug Stanley after the Q/A session and he didn’t look happy to see me.  Oh well.

The last session of the last day was run by none other than Dr Doug Stanley 1600-1800.  The first and second presentations of four were basically an overview of current ESAS based lunar architecture stuff.  The last two presentations though were very informative.  Laurie Leshkin (Director of Sciences and Exploration) was very informative in terms of the science they would like to do on the Moon.  It was clear the being constrained to crater rim was not the best way to do that.  Global Access will be important for Science and Anytime Return will be important for the safety of the crew.  As our paper showed ESAS cannot achieve this.  The next paper was also very interesting from two perspectives.  First it showed the importance of having people that have actual worked in harsh environments to help guide the designers of the equipment.  The pressurized rovers that Mike Grenhardt (NASA Astronaut and Extensive Deep Sea Diver) showed were brilliant in terms of maximizing what humans are good at.  Basically, due to the limitations of ESAS the concept is to use pressurized rovers, dispatched from the polar base, to get to the mid latitude sites.  An equatorial approach could also be presumable be pursued as well.  What was not obvious was if there is a safe path off of the crater rim.  We’ll probable need to wait for the Lunar Orbiter before have a high enough accuracy to make the determination.  It was wheels up out of Long Beach for me at 7:45pm so I wasn’t able to stick around for the Q/A.  I’m unsure if any tough questions were asked, vs the more typical softballs, the Space is Tough/Train on Tracks response would have been the answer.  I mean really, what would anyone expect?  “Yah you are right we are wrong.  How could we have been so silly.”

All together the conference was very interesting and kicked off a number of new ideas for next years AIAA Space 2008 conference paper.  One of the topics I would like to expand upon is the specific lunar exploration strategy (Science per dollar) and connection to Mars along with further development of how the programmatic elements evolve, fit together and work with in the budget.

Sorry this took so long but I didn’t want to post a “AIAA Space 2007 was great” response.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/24/2007 04:58 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 24/9/2007  11:03 AM

Quote
Launch Fan - 24/9/2007  3:20 PM

You've got to be kidding me? They didn't record this speech which they've been pushing on here for weeks?

No excuses for that!

I think you'll find that AIAA might not be all that pleased about someone recording presentations at their events! I know that is a rule at a lot of industry conferences.
Recording and/or videotaping of exhibits and presentations at all AIAA conferences and events is expressly prohibited. I telephoned the AIAA this morning to be sure and the policy was confirmed over the phone. That is AIAA official policy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/24/2007 05:21 pm
Thanks for that summary Stephen.   Good to have you back.

Ross.
Title: RE: AIAA Space 2007 Trip Report
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/24/2007 05:39 pm
Quote
SMetch - 24/9/2007  10:31 AM
One of the most memorable comments was from a NASA manager from JSC who was impressed with amount of work and thoroughness of the proposal.  He said that publishing this paper was the step that many at NASA were waiting for.  His comment was that basically things were changing and maybe I (we) should take a trip to Hawaii for about a month and be pleasantly surprised when we get back.

I expect that trip report will have pictures.   :laugh:

Well, I hope the optimism is justified, but I'll not get my hopes up until after I see Chris write an article or two about the change (or, perhaps if I see it on L2...).

Best of luck guys, and from a tax-payer in the US, thank you for the effort.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/24/2007 06:23 pm
Quote
bad_astra - 22/9/2007  5:06 PM

It's a very late time to ask this, but did the Direct team ever look at using SSME for the Direct? (Could use up remaining SSME's for test launches then switch to a disposable ssme later. )

Only just spotted this post a few pages back and thought I'd spend a moment on it.

Yes, the original idea was to use the SSME's.   But the cost proved prohibitive and the switch to RS-68 was made very early on - even before the first "DIRECT Goes Live" thread here on NSF and was inspired by NASA's switch to RS-68 for the CaLV (before it was named Ares-V).

I don't have the documents from a few years ago to hand as I write this so I'm trawling my memory for the exact numbers, so please take these as "ballparks" only.

Each reusable SSME costs about $60-90m (depending on production numbers) and you throw two or three of them away each flight in this configuration.   This high cost works on Shuttle because each engine could be used a few dozen times.   A disposable variant would cost about $1 billion to develop and qualify for use and would still cost $30-40m each.

Additionally Pratt & Whitney/Rocketdyne did an analysis to see how easy/difficult it would be to put the SSME back into production in the quantities required for the original ESAS CLV and CaLV (6 SSME's per Lunar mission).   They found that existing available facilities would not be enough so a new production line would have to be created in a brand-new location.   While I have not seen documentation, apparently, that option came back with a very high price tag attached so NASA searched around for other alternatives.


While slightly less efficient, two RS-68's can nearly replicate the performance of three SSME's - at least closely enough to be acceptable.   Yet the RS-68 is in production today as a disposable engine for the Delta-IV and cost about $12m each right now.   A man-rated version of the same performance engine would cost about $20m each - and this is the engine we have selected for all Jupiter vehicles.

This means that each J-120 launch uses $40m worth of main engines, compared to possibly as much as $270m if using three standard SSME's to get the same performance, or maybe $80m for the cheapest possible disposable versions (which have not yet been designed let alone tested or flown).


Now, USAF and NASA have chosen to squeeze more performance out the RS-68's, and believe they can get about another 6% by pushing the limits a bit closer to the edge of the hardware envelope. This requires a costly development program (currently being paid for by the USAF), but which will drive the final cost of RS-68's to around $20m for standard versions and about $25m for a NASA-spec man-rated version.   This is what NASA are currently proposing to use on Ares-V.   I think they have no choice if they want to make the Ares solution work, but I don't like stressing any engine more than I absolutely must.   I would far rather use the existing performance and have it absolutely bullet-proof.


As you can see, both the logistics efforts and the costs go in favour of RS-68 every time.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/24/2007 06:48 pm
Quote
kraisee - 24/9/2007  12:23 PM
This means that each J-120 launch uses $40m worth of main engines, compared to possibly as much as $270m if using three standard SSME's to get the same performance, or maybe $80m for the cheapest possible disposable versions (which have not yet been designed let alone tested or flown).

By "the same performance", I think you mean the same thrust.  The SSMEs have much higher ISP and so a J-120 equipped with 3 SSMEs would have much higher lift capability (performance) than the RS-68-equipped version.  Correct?

Of course, as you mentioned, that performance would come with a much higher price tag.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 09/24/2007 06:58 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 24/9/2007  2:48 PM

Quote
kraisee - 24/9/2007  12:23 PM
This means that each J-120 launch uses $40m worth of main engines, compared to possibly as much as $270m if using three standard SSME's to get the same performance, or maybe $80m for the cheapest possible disposable versions (which have not yet been designed let alone tested or flown).

By "the same performance", I think you mean the same thrust.  The SSMEs have much higher ISP and so a J-120 equipped with 3 SSMEs would have much higher lift capability (performance) than the RS-68-equipped version.  Correct?

Of course, as you mentioned, that performance would come with a much higher price tag.

Depending on the thrust level, the higher thrust of the RS-68 can be used to reduce drag losses.  The high cost of the SSME tends to make the first stage of many designs underpowered, the RS-68 versions tend to be more robust and therefore somewhat (up to 1000 fps!) more efficient.  

When designing a vehicle with cheap engines, one should always add and engine and see what the net effect is on both performance and reliability.  Sometimes the results will surprise (as it did NASA in the case of the RS-68).

The Isp is higher on SSME, but that is not always the whole story.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/24/2007 07:06 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 24/9/2007  12:58 PM
Quote
Lee Jay - 24/9/2007  2:48 PM
Quote
kraisee - 24/9/2007  12:23 PM
This means that each J-120 launch uses $40m worth of main engines, compared to possibly as much as $270m if using three standard SSME's to get the same performance, or maybe $80m for the cheapest possible disposable versions (which have not yet been designed let alone tested or flown).

By "the same performance", I think you mean the same thrust.  The SSMEs have much higher ISP and so a J-120 equipped with 3 SSMEs would have much higher lift capability (performance) than the RS-68-equipped version.  Correct?

Of course, as you mentioned, that performance would come with a much higher price tag.

Depending on the thrust level, the higher thrust of the RS-68 can be used to reduce drag losses.  The high cost of the SSME tends to make the first stage of many designs underpowered, the RS-68 versions tend to be more robust and therefore somewhat (up to 1000 fps!) more efficient.  

When designing a vehicle with cheap engines, one should always add and engine and see what the net effect is on both performance and reliability.  Sometimes the results will surprise (as it did NASA in the case of the RS-68).

The Isp is higher on SSME, but that is not always the whole story.

Right, but we were talking about 2 RS-68s versus 3 SSMEs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/24/2007 08:46 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 24/9/2007  2:48 PM

Quote
kraisee - 24/9/2007  12:23 PM
This means that each J-120 launch uses $40m worth of main engines, compared to possibly as much as $270m if using three standard SSME's to get the same performance, or maybe $80m for the cheapest possible disposable versions (which have not yet been designed let alone tested or flown).

By "the same performance", I think you mean the same thrust.  The SSMEs have much higher ISP and so a J-120 equipped with 3 SSMEs would have much higher lift capability (performance) than the RS-68-equipped version.  Correct?

Of course, as you mentioned, that performance would come with a much higher price tag.

Fundamentally a pair of RS-68's can do "a similar job" to three SSME's.   You are correct that the higher efficiency of the SSME would improve performance noticeably, but as you also confirm - at substantially higher cost.   We have erred on the side of minimal cost.

LV-24/25 in the ESAS report show a very close facsimile to "Jupiter-120" if it had SSME's (73.9mT to LEO).   Astonishingly, ESAS never published numbers for that configuration actually flying with an EDS though.   I can only guess why, and my guess isn't very complimentary.

For Core stage use on J-232, having greater thrust than efficiency is actually going to be more important, so 3 x RS-68's there does at least as well as 5 SSME's would.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/24/2007 09:45 pm
Have you given any thought to dual manifesting Orions? You can do that as long as one of them is not fully fueled.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/24/2007 10:22 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 24/9/2007  5:45 PM

Have you given any thought to dual manifesting Orions? You can do that as long as one of them is not fully fueled.

In what context do you mean "dual manifesting"?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/24/2007 10:27 pm
Launching 2 on a single Jupiter 120.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/24/2007 10:40 pm
If you are suggesting flying two Orions on the same vehicle, it could *theoretically* be done (though I'm not sure why you'd want to).   It is important to note that there are no abort options for the lower one flying inside the PLF though, so it would have to fly without people inside.

If the purpose is to provide additional workspace for a crew to do something like perform science experiments which can't be done at ISS, it would probably be better to bring up something like a modified MPLM (there are going to be three available which could be used one last time after 2010) or Shuttle SpaceHab filled with even more stuff.   Remember that any Shuttle payload can be brought up with our proposed Shuttle Payload Delivery Module seen around the start of this thread.

Actually, thinking about it, there is a potential purpose - perhaps a cargo-only CEV shell would be useful for returning some science equipment (racks and such) back to Earth from the ISS.   The manned CEV would fly completely normally, and the 'empty' CEV would allow the crew to remain isolated and safe from such requirements.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/24/2007 11:04 pm
Quote
kraisee - 24/9/2007  6:40 PM

Actually, thinking about it, there is a potential purpose - perhaps a cargo-only CEV shell would be useful for returning some science equipment (racks and such) back to Earth from the ISS.   The manned CEV would fly completely normally, and the 'empty' CEV would allow the crew to remain isolated and safe from such requirements.

Ross.

It would need a CBM and therefore the size of the opening would be different than a CEV capsule
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/25/2007 01:53 am
If a J-120 is launching people and cargo can a cargo module be inserted between the heat shield and the service module?

The cargo module would need to protect the heat shield, provide structural support and connect the capsule's fluids & electrics to the service module.  The cargo hold could have discardable side walls to act as a faring and possibly an arm.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 09/25/2007 02:25 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 24/9/2007  8:53 PM

If a J-120 is launching people and cargo can a cargo module be inserted between the heat shield and the service module?

Is it possible? Yes. Is it smart? I don't think so. For an ascent abort after LAS jettison, the CM/SM would separate from the launch vehicle and perform a burn to get away (and possibly abort to orbit, if the failure occurs late enough). Putting cargo between the CM and SM would increase the mass that would need to be accelerated away from the LV and would decrease the window when an abort-to-orbit would be possible. Better to put the cargo below the SM so it doesn't jeopardize safety during aborts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 09/25/2007 03:10 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 24/9/2007  8:53 PM

If a J-120 is launching people and cargo can a cargo module be inserted between the heat shield and the service module?

The cargo module would need to protect the heat shield, provide structural support and connect the capsule's fluids & electrics to the service module.  The cargo hold could have discardable side walls to act as a faring and possibly an arm.

It'd be cheaper to just design and build a larger, integrated cargo SM. Why possibly compromise the smaller SM with additional structure and connections/hardware to support an extra mass component that may only be attached 1/2 the time? (which will in addition add quite a bit of unneeded/unwanted mass to a crew-only SM)

If you want to go that direction just have 2 SMs - one for crew-only flights, and another for both pressurized cargo-only CM and unpressurized cargo. And yes, I know the cargo CM version is out, but that could change again at some point.

(Why both? Well, it's pretty logical that cost strategies would prefer complete cargo-only flights over combined. Plus, Jorge's reason makes a lot of sense - your abort-to-orbit, or just abort to reentry will have to be designed and fuelled separately for each mass difference... better to have a solid system for each version than have to compromise and make big additions/subtractions based on a single-type structure.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/25/2007 04:45 am
Manned launches are very expensive so joint launches will only be worth while if both are going to the same place.  If they are going to different destination then launch the cargo on a cheaper rocket like an EELV or cargo-COTS.  A J-120 can only lift more cargo than a Heavy EELV when there is no Command Module.

Where the cargo and the astronauts are going to the same destination then the people are going to do something to the cargo.  If the cargo is food probably eat it.  The main joint missions are likely to be construction/repair jobs where an astronaut is needed to fit the new parts.  The cargo could also be special equipment for the mission.

A three way rendezvous between exiting satellite, cargo rocket and manned rocket is very complicated.

If the cargo hold does not form part of the Service Module then the CM/SM assembly will have to turn round, dock with the cargo module, turn round again before performing the circularizing burn.  A lot to do in a very short amount of time.  Since the Service Module will be circularizing both it has to carry sufficient fuel for both.  It is much simpler and safer to integrate the 3 modules on the Earth.

In Alpha aborts the Service Module appears to be dumped so dumping both cargo and Service Module will be a logical follow on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_abort_modes
Note: Most of the Orion abort modes in the wikipedia article land at airports, a splash down only capsule needs new aborts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/25/2007 06:35 pm
There will be extraordinary pressure against integrating payload into the CM/SM spacecraft.   Both Challenger and Columbia investigations have made it clear that mixing the manned spacecraft with a cargo lift capability only compromises the safety of any given crew.   I just don't see either NASA managers nor the politicians above signing off on this idea.

Further the design work involved in building two different versions of the Orion would start driving costs up significantly.

The better approach is going to be to leave CEV alone as much as possible and build mission modules whenever appropriate.    The CEV simply translates around and extract the module from the payload fairing when reaching orbit, just like with the LSAM, and then the pair go off and perform their mission.   This leaves the CEV design completely alone (reducing costs & improving safety) while allowing maximum flexibility at the same time.

One obviously useful generic mission module might be a carrier for Shuttle-style payloads able to mount any such payload as it was originally designed to be mounted.   The DIRECT Team has already proposed one such rudimentary concept called the Shuttle Payload Delivery Module or SPDM.   In the diagram below (showing an old CEV design, I know!), an ISS "Destiny" laboratory sized payload is being lifted, along with an airlock module in the SPDM, along with a disposable CanadaArm (it could be left at the "destination" for potential future use though).   The CEV simply docks to the airlock, and pulls the entire module away from the launcher to perform it's mission.   This specific example would allow CEV astronauts to perform EVA's without decompressing the Crew Module and would allow Shuttle payloads to be processed in a similar "bay".   This design would be ideal for lifting any ISS modules which are currently going to be grounded after 2010, or performing Hubble Servicing Missions.   Using a J-232 as the launcher James Webb Space Telescope could theoretically also be serviced - although it should be noted that JWST is not actually being designed for servicing.

Ross.


Click the image above for a larger version
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sandrot on 09/25/2007 07:02 pm
Quote
kraisee - 25/9/2007  2:35 PM

[...]

One obviously useful generic mission module might be a carrier for Shuttle-style payloads able to mount any such payload as it was originally designed to be mounted.   The DIRECT Team has already proposed one such rudimentary concept called the Shuttle Payload Delivery Module or SPDM.   In the diagram below (showing an old CEV design, I know!), an ISS "Destiny" laboratory sized payload is being lifted, along with an airlock module in the SPDM, along with a disposable CanadaArm (it could be left at the "destination" for potential future use though).   [...]


IIRC one such SPDM has already been built for launching Shuttle cargoes by means of Titan 4's. It is sitting mothballed in some dark gloomy place...

About disposable Canadarm... can't Canadarm2 do the job?

It has already been discussed that LAS can separate humans and cargo during a launch gone bad. If the intent was to launch ISS related HW, such HW would be man rated already and could be allowed to fly along with humans.

There are rigid and flexible interpretations of "no cargo with humans". Which way does NASA want to go?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 09/25/2007 08:55 pm
I've always felt that the SPDM concept was a major value-add for DIRECT over Ares-I, assuming you have STS-designed payloads or missions that are deemed important post-2010.

The capability for a Jupiter/SPDM/Orion stack to conceivably perform any of the currently-manifested ISS or LEO missions that STS performs, except de-orbiting payload bay cargo of course.

It gives you the ability to orbit ready-to-fly payloads if STS retires before it gets a ride, and is probably the work platform for any Orion HST mission.

You could use an SPDM on Ares-V too, of course, but that's less likely to help with The Gap, assuming Ares-V ever happens.

Once STS payloads are gone, so is this module, but that's the whole point of a "mission module", isn't it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/25/2007 09:36 pm
BogoMIPS,
As you point out, there is little chance that the SPDM concept would be of any use for Ares-V.   There will be at least 8-9 years between the Shuttle Program being closed and the very first operational Ares-V flight (which will be concentrating on the Lunar ambitions anyway) and I just can't see anyone absorbing the costs for mothballing that hardware for that long - not in these days of ever-tightening financial demands on NASA.

But holding things like the MPLM's, the remaining SpaceHab modules and unflown ISS elements for about three years for the Jupiter 120 is far more realistic.   While there is no way to return any of these elements back to Earth, there are many different potential uses available.

Plus you can also design new non-STS compatible hardware explicitly for Jupiter-120's capabilities (and later specifically for J-232's too).   That gives you an awful lot of flexibility.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/25/2007 10:04 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 25/9/2007  4:55 PM

I've always felt that the SPDM concept was a major value-add for DIRECT over Ares-I, assuming you have STS-designed payloads or missions that are deemed important post-2010.

It gives you the ability to orbit ready-to-fly payloads if STS retires before it gets a ride, and is probably the work platform for any Orion HST mission.

You could use an SPDM on Ares-V too, of course, but that's less likely to help with The Gap, assuming Ares-V ever happens.

Once STS payloads are gone, so is this module, but that's the whole point of a "mission module", isn't it?

There are no STS payloads left except for AMS (CAM isn't built).  It is just better to mount payloads like standard ELV's than continue the trunnion mount.  Spacehab modules don't have a mating adapter and don't provide anything above a MPLM on Direct.   MPLM are the only ISS payloads left
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/25/2007 10:11 pm
Jim,
CAM (Centrifuge Accommodations Module) *should* be built and flown still.   It was one of the most promising bits of tech they ever had planned for ISS, yet Ares-I guarantees it will never happen.

Russian Science Power Platform is mostly built, but they won't fly it purely because of the truncated Shuttle Program.   Habitation Module is being worked around instead of done properly and ISS Propulsion Module is still a good idea although it is never (currently) going to get a chance to fly.

I am curious to know what other non-ISS payloads there are in storage today which would have been flown again on STS if Columbia had never happened.   I'd bet most of them are currently in storage somewhere and could still be flown again if there were only a suitable replacement launch vehicle.

I'd wager a beer that we can find at least one or two more.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/25/2007 10:14 pm
Quote
kraisee - 25/9/2007  4:11 PM
I am curious to know what other non-ISS payloads there are which could still be flown again but are currently not planned to ever fly again.   I'd bet a beer that we can find at least one or two more.

I'll give you an ISS one - CMGs.  The current workaround is to stock up and hope they last, and to try to develop some smaller ones that can be flown on the smaller vehicles in higher numbers if they don't.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/25/2007 10:16 pm
Quote
sandrot - 25/9/2007  3:02 PM

Quote
kraisee - 25/9/2007  2:35 PM

[...]

One obviously useful generic mission module might be a carrier for Shuttle-style payloads able to mount any such payload as it was originally designed to be mounted.   The DIRECT Team has already proposed one such rudimentary concept called the Shuttle Payload Delivery Module or SPDM.   In the diagram below (showing an old CEV design, I know!), an ISS "Destiny" laboratory sized payload is being lifted, along with an airlock module in the SPDM, along with a disposable CanadaArm (it could be left at the "destination" for potential future use though).   [...]


IIRC one such SPDM has already been built for launching Shuttle cargoes by means of Titan 4's. It is sitting mothballed in some dark gloomy place...

About disposable Canadarm... can't Canadarm2 do the job?

It has already been discussed that LAS can separate humans and cargo during a launch gone bad. If the intent was to launch ISS related HW, such HW would be man rated already and could be allowed to fly along with humans.

There are rigid and flexible interpretations of "no cargo with humans". Which way does NASA want to go?

You seem to forget the airlock, I am sure that they are not too cheap also.  Most likely any EVA in such a depiction would either be from the quest airlock or having to do an Apollo style depressurization (ala Apollo 15 and 17)


Edit:  Maybe an inflatable airlock like that from Voskhod 2 might be a suitable third option, however I am not sure of the clearances and any recent research into a modern design.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sandrot on 09/25/2007 10:27 pm
SPDM would only go to ISS. Dock, unload SPDM, undock, dispose of SPDM, redock.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: nacnud on 09/25/2007 10:43 pm
How about the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer as a SPDM payload.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sandrot on 09/25/2007 11:13 pm
The AMS flown to Mir with STS-91 in 1998 was a prototype. There was a project for providing ISS with a permanent AMS, but since it has not been built yet, if we want to build one brand new we will fly it by other means.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/25/2007 11:20 pm
Quote
kraisee - 25/9/2007  6:11 PM

Jim,
CAM (Centrifuge Accommodations Module) *should* be built and flown still.   It was one of the most promising bits of tech they ever had planned for ISS, yet Ares-I guarantees it will never happen.

Russian Science Power Platform is mostly built, but they won't fly it purely because of the truncated Shuttle Program.   Habitation Module is being worked around instead of done properly and ISS Propulsion Module is still a good idea although it is never (currently) going to get a chance to fly.

I am curious to know what other non-ISS payloads there are in storage today which would have been flown again on STS if Columbia had never happened.   I'd bet most of them are currently in storage somewhere and could still be flown again if there were only a suitable replacement launch vehicle.

I'd wager a beer that we can find at least one or two more.

Ross.

The SPP is unable to be flown since part of it is now the DCM Docking Cargo Module.

The Hab module shell has been downgraded to nonflight and is being used for ground tests.
Prop module never made it thru the design reviews

As for non ISS payloads, the Spacelab program was ended and the parts sent to museums.   Spacelabs missions were taken over by the ISS. The manifest before Columbia was already devoid of non ISS payloads, except SH and HST.  Shuttle was dedicated to ISS.  

Any others are on ELV's.  There are no others "waiting" around. #  It costs too much to maintain a team

#except Triana

Look at the last ten years before Columbia
I have removed MIR and ISS flights, Spacehab and Spacelab module missions

*53    13.01.93    CC LC-39B   STS-54               Endeavour F3 / TDRS 6 [IUS]
+54    08.04.93    CC LC-39B   STS-56 / SL-ATLAS-2  Discovery F16 / Spartan 201-F1
*57    12.09.93    CC LC-39B   STS-51               Discovery F17 / ACTS [TOS-21H] / ORFEUS-SPAS 01
61    04.03.94    CC LC-39B   STS-62 / USMP-2      Columbia F16
%62    09.04.94    CC LC-39A   STS-59 / SRL-1       Endeavour F6
%64    09.09.94    CC LC-39B   STS-64 / LITE        Discovery F19 / Spartan 201-F2
%65    30.09.94    CC LC-39A   STS-68 / SRL-2       Endeavour F7
+66    03.11.94    CC LC-39B   STS-66 / SL-ATLAS-3  Atlantis F13 / CRISTA-SPAS 01
%68    02.03.95    CC LC-39A   STS-67 / SL-ASTRO-2  Endeavour F8
*70    13.07.95    CC LC-39B   STS-70               Discovery F21 / TDRS 7 [IUS]
 71    07.09.95    CC LC-39A   STS-69               Endeavour F9 / WSF 2 / Spartan 201-F3
 74    13.01.96    CC LC-39B   STS-72               Endeavour F10 / Spartan 206 F1 (OAST-Flyer)
%75    22.02.96    CC LC-39B   STS-75 / USMP-3      Columbia F19 / TSS 1R
 80    19.11.96    CC LC-39B   STS-80               Columbia F21 / WSF 3 / ORFEUS-SPAS 02
&82    11.02.97    CC LC-39A   STS-82               Discovery F22
 86    07.08.97    CC LC-39A   STS-85 / TAS-1       Discovery F23 / CRISTA-SPAS 02
 88    18.11.97    CC LC-39B   STS-87 / USMP-4      Columbia F24 / Spartan 201-F4 / AERCam Sprint
*95    23.07.99    CC LC-39B   STS-93               Columbia F26 / AXAF-I (Chandra) [IUS]
&96    20.12.99    CC LC-39B   STS-103              Discovery F27
&97    11.02.00    CC LC-39A   STS-99 / SRL-3       Endeavour F14
&108    01.03.02    CC LC-39A   STS-109              Columbia F27

*  ELV payloads
+  ATLAS became EOS spacecraft on ELV's
%  Spacelab pallet missions -  pallets are gone except those needed for ISS and HST.  instruments would be better off on ELV spacecaft
& HST missions
the remaining spacecraft are either Spartan and free flyers, whose instruments  are better off on new spacecraft or Material science pallets which is the ISS mission

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/25/2007 11:21 pm
Quote
nacnud - 25/9/2007  6:43 PM

How about the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer as a SPDM payload.

Better off as a freeflyer on an ELV
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/25/2007 11:22 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 25/9/2007  6:14 PM

Quote
kraisee - 25/9/2007  4:11 PM
I am curious to know what other non-ISS payloads there are which could still be flown again but are currently not planned to ever fly again.   I'd bet a beer that we can find at least one or two more.

I'll give you an ISS one - CMGs.  The current workaround is to stock up and hope they last, and to try to develop some smaller ones that can be flown on the smaller vehicles in higher numbers if they don't.

That is a logistic item, not a shuttle "payload".  The payload would be the CMG carrier
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 09/26/2007 05:57 am
Can we stop calling this thing an SPDM? We (MDA) have already designed, made, tested & shipped to KSC the SPDM (Special Purpose Dextrous Manipulator).

We got the acronym first, go get your own acronym!  :-)

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 09/26/2007 07:08 am
kraisee
Quote
- 25/9/2007  9:35 PM
The CEV simply translates around and extract the module from the payload fairing when reaching orbit, just like with the LSAM, and then the pair go off and perform their mission.
The CEV with a module attached to it's "nose" may find impossible to use some of it's navigation sensors, like the centerline camera(s) , LIDAR and some of the star trackers.

IIRC most of the sensors are to be mounted on a rigid structure around the docking ring.

Now, how important are those nav sensors when approaching ISS ? And for station keeping ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/26/2007 08:14 am
Quote
renclod - 26/9/2007  3:08 AM
t

Now, how important are those nav sensors when approaching ISS ? And for station keeping ?


they have everything to do with getting to the ISS
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/26/2007 02:53 pm
Quote
Jim - 25/9/2007  5:22 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 25/9/2007  6:14 PM

Quote
kraisee - 25/9/2007  4:11 PM
I am curious to know what other non-ISS payloads there are which could still be flown again but are currently not planned to ever fly again.   I'd bet a beer that we can find at least one or two more.

I'll give you an ISS one - CMGs.  The current workaround is to stock up and hope they last, and to try to develop some smaller ones that can be flown on the smaller vehicles in higher numbers if they don't.

That is a logistic item, not a shuttle "payload".  The payload would be the CMG carrier

Okay, whatever.  My understanding is that the CMGs can't be launched on any of the vehicles presently being scheduled for flight to the ISS because they don't have unpressurized cargo areas, and the CMGs don't fit through the hatches.  Correct?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/26/2007 03:17 pm
They are being stored on the ISS  after being delivered on the last few shuttle flights
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Analyst on 09/26/2007 03:29 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 26/9/2007  4:53 PM

Okay, whatever.  My understanding is that the CMGs can't be launched on any of the vehicles presently being scheduled for flight to the ISS because they don't have unpressurized cargo areas, and the CMGs don't fit through the hatches.  Correct?

HTV has unpressurized cargo areas. I am not sure they are large enough to carry a CMG in its present form.

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/26/2007 05:44 pm
Back to Direct, I am thinking of an analogy to help me understand how close Ares is to Shuttle-derived versus Direct.  I would compare the Ares to the Super hornet program, on the outside it looks like a derivative but underneath it is almost a brand new craft, while DIrect is more like the step from the A/B model to the C/D, with new engines and controls but mostly the same frame.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/26/2007 06:31 pm
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 26/9/2007  1:44 PM

Back to Direct, I am thinking of an analogy to help me understand how close Ares is to Shuttle-derived versus Direct.  I would compare the Ares to the Super hornet program, on the outside it looks like a derivative but underneath it is almost a brand new craft, while DIrect is more like the step from the A/B model to the C/D, with new engines and controls but mostly the same frame.
There's no "almost" about it. Underneath, the Ares *IS* a brand new vehicle. It only "looks" like a SDLV, when in reality, it is nothing of the kind. In the real world, we call that a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's that deceprive!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/26/2007 06:58 pm
From what I understand, the Shuttle-Derived portions of the Ares-I and V are the SRB casings, the foam on the outside of the tank, and the material the tank is made from.  So, 1% Shuttle-Derived is probably generous.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: shostetler on 09/26/2007 09:11 pm
Quote
kraisee - 25/9/2007  1:35 PM


Click the image above for a larger version

May I ask? Why does there have to be such a large volume of space surrounding a module lifted into orbit? Why can't the outer shell of the craft be the outside of the module? Seems there could be a module built nearly twice the size and lifted into orbit of anything there is currently. Just my own question... guess I don't understand the concept of having to have everything up there sandwiched in a sardine can. Even if the mass couldn't be lifted, just open volume doesn't weigh anything.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 09/26/2007 09:55 pm
Quote
shostetler - 26/9/2007  10:11 PM
May I ask? Why does there have to be such a large volume of space surrounding a module lifted into orbit?
That diagram shows a module with the diameter of a shuttle payload. Any new cargo could be much larger.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: shostetler on 09/26/2007 10:11 pm
Well, exactly my point, entirely new modules could be designed that could take the ISS even further than it's "end" date. Not to mention the size of modules that could be taken to the moon prior to the CEV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/26/2007 10:24 pm
Shostetler,
You are absolutely correct, custom modules can be designed afresh specifically for the Jupiter LV's, using the full diameter of the payload fairing.

But the question is:   Is there any way to continue using any/all of the legacy hardware, worth millions of dollars, which has been developed over the last 25 years for Shuttle?

Certainly it is not possible with Ares-I because there is zero performance margin available.   And Ares-V won't be available for the better part of a decade after the last Shuttle flight so there's little chance of the STS payloads being retained that long.

But Jupiter-120 offers an opportunity.   That diagram demonstrates how NASA could continue using all the existing heritage Shuttle payload hardware reasonably easily.

Ross.

PS - Here is a slightly updated version showing the current CEV configuration:


Click the image above for a larger version
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: shostetler on 09/26/2007 11:54 pm
So, just how big of a module could be put up using Jupiter? How much of a diameter? How tall? According to the picture, the length is 10.8 meters, so it's possible to build a module that'd be nearly 33 ft long? That's bigger than anything that's ever been habitable in space! If it were inflatable, or collapsible until in orbit, it could easily be even bigger... So many possibilities, just hope Direct makes it.. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/27/2007 12:02 am
Quote
shostetler - 26/9/2007  7:54 PM

So, just how big of a module could be put up using Jupiter? How much of a diameter? How tall? According to the picture, the length is 10.8 meters, so it's possible to build a module that'd be nearly 33 ft long? That's bigger than anything that's ever been habitable in space! If it were inflatable, or collapsible until in orbit, it could easily be even bigger... So many possibilities, just hope Direct makes it.. :)
I know. The possibilities stagger the imagination. Every day I think of something new and I am amazed by it all over again. There is SO much that is opened up to us all when the architecture is DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/27/2007 01:53 am
That is the one main reason I have come around to DIRECT. I think NASA could get Ares I to work, but what do we get out of it? DIRECT offers so much more flexibility. The possibilities are endless once you adopt the Jupiter vehicles into your architecture.

One mission I would like to see is hundreds of small probes launched to Mars on DIRECT. I remember seeing an article in Popular Mechanics about these small probes, some would hop, others float in the air like seed pods from a tree. They are so small that hundreds could be sent to Mars to gather data at a time.

How many MER sized rovers can you launch to Mars using DIRECT? Look how much data 2 have given us.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 09/27/2007 02:00 am
Quote
clongton - 26/9/2007  8:02 PM

Quote
shostetler - 26/9/2007  7:54 PM

So, just how big of a module could be put up using Jupiter? How much of a diameter? How tall? According to the picture, the length is 10.8 meters, so it's possible to build a module that'd be nearly 33 ft long? That's bigger than anything that's ever been habitable in space! If it were inflatable, or collapsible until in orbit, it could easily be even bigger... So many possibilities, just hope Direct makes it.. :)
I know. The possibilities stagger the imagination. Every day I think of something new and I am amazed by it all over again. There is SO much that is opened up to us all when the architecture is DIRECT.

Great design.. I really hope that a switch is made soon...  if not then you may be able to look at something less restrictive.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/27/2007 02:15 am
If NASA does not switch to DIRECT, could a DIRECT like concept be made out of the Ariane V? They are almost there it seems. If NASA doesn't want DIRECT, maybe ESA could put it to some use someday.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Namechange User on 09/27/2007 02:55 am
Quote
kraisee - 26/9/2007  5:24 PM


But Jupiter-120 offers an opportunity.   That diagram demonstrates how NASA could continue using all the existing heritage Shuttle payload hardware reasonably easily.

Ross.

PS - Here is a slightly updated version showing the current CEV configuration:


Interesting concept you have in the diagram.  However, the acoustics are different even though the mounting hardware is the same.  Not saying it couldn't be done but there would have to be some work showing the vibe environment is equivalent or better.

Also once this was in orbit and Orion is docked to the payload carrier how does all of this rendeavous with the station?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 09/27/2007 03:02 am
There is an interesting article in USA today about the 50th annivery of sputnik and the questionable future of space exploration.  
It has quotes from Mike Griffin and Elon Musk.  A story about Direct would be a great follow on article.
The article is at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-09-25-sputnik-anniversary_N.htm?csp=34
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: imcub on 09/27/2007 03:20 am
Quote
veedriver22 - 26/9/2007  8:02 PM

There is an interesting article in USA today about the 50th annivery of sputnik and the questionable future of space exploration.  
It has quotes from Mike Griffin and Elon Musk.  A story about Direct would be a great follow on article.
The article is at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-09-25-sputnik-anniversary_N.htm?csp=34


And in that article ..."In the early '70s, we had a transportation system that was the nucleus of what we need to explore the inner solar system," NASA's Griffin says. "We threw all that away. … The more I know, the dumber that decision seems."  

... and yet here we are throwing away 1/2 of a man rated heavy lauch system ... how ironic ...

Those who don't learn from history ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/27/2007 03:23 am
Quote
imcub - 26/9/2007  11:20 PM

Quote
veedriver22 - 26/9/2007  8:02 PM

There is an interesting article in USA today about the 50th annivery of sputnik and the questionable future of space exploration.  
It has quotes from Mike Griffin and Elon Musk.  A story about Direct would be a great follow on article.
The article is at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-09-25-sputnik-anniversary_N.htm?csp=34


And in that article ..."In the early '70s, we had a transportation system that was the nucleus of what we need to explore the inner solar system," NASA's Griffin says. "We threw all that away. … The more I know, the dumber that decision seems."  

... and yet here we are throwing away 1/2 of a man rated heavy lauch system ... how ironic ...

Those who don't learn from history ...

It seems Griffin says the right things, and if you just read his words you would think he would be a fan of DIRECT. Ares I is the direct opposite of everything he says.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/27/2007 03:28 am
Quote
imcub - 26/9/2007  9:20 PM
Quote
veedriver22 - 26/9/2007  8:02 PM

There is an interesting article in USA today about the 50th annivery of sputnik and the questionable future of space exploration.  
It has quotes from Mike Griffin and Elon Musk.  A story about Direct would be a great follow on article.
The article is at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-09-25-sputnik-anniversary_N.htm?csp=34
And in that article ..."In the early '70s, we had a transportation system that was the nucleus of what we need to explore the inner solar system," NASA's Griffin says. "We threw all that away. … The more I know, the dumber that decision seems."  [/QUOTE]

Wait a sec...does he think Ares I + Ares V = Saturn 1B + Saturn V?  Is that what he's after?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/27/2007 03:57 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 26/9/2007  11:28 PM

Quote
imcub - 26/9/2007  9:20 PM
Quote
veedriver22 - 26/9/2007  8:02 PM

There is an interesting article in USA today about the 50th annivery of sputnik and the questionable future of space exploration.  
It has quotes from Mike Griffin and Elon Musk.  A story about Direct would be a great follow on article.
The article is at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-09-25-sputnik-anniversary_N.htm?csp=34
And in that article ..."In the early '70s, we had a transportation system that was the nucleus of what we need to explore the inner solar system," NASA's Griffin says. "We threw all that away. … The more I know, the dumber that decision seems."  

Wait a sec...does he think Ares I + Ares V = Saturn 1B + Saturn V?  Is that what he's after?[/QUOTE]
I really, truely believe that is what he is thinking. Sad, isnt it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 09/27/2007 04:02 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 26/9/2007  10:28 PM

Quote
imcub - 26/9/2007  9:20 PM
Quote
veedriver22 - 26/9/2007  8:02 PM

There is an interesting article in USA today about the 50th annivery of sputnik and the questionable future of space exploration.  
It has quotes from Mike Griffin and Elon Musk.  A story about Direct would be a great follow on article.
The article is at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-09-25-sputnik-anniversary_N.htm?csp=34
And in that article ..."In the early '70s, we had a transportation system that was the nucleus of what we need to explore the inner solar system," NASA's Griffin says. "We threw all that away. … The more I know, the dumber that decision seems."  

Wait a sec...does he think Ares I + Ares V = Saturn 1B + Saturn V?  Is that what he's after?[/QUOTE]

Only one problem with that scenario: NASA doesn't have Apollo-era budgets anymore.  Oops, we have a problem.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: shostetler on 09/27/2007 04:13 am
No, but they sure have a budget to do away with the shuttle and start from scratch practically. It's not about doing what's right such as direct. It's about spending money, and making the bureaucracy as bloated and fat as possible while delivering as little as possible. I sincerely believe we could never have gone to the moon if people in the 60's had ran NASA the way it's ran today. Kinda like Hoover Dam could never be built today either.

Considering everything though, a 33ft module... mercy... if you could have a collapsible interior that would fold in on itself, and be full of equipment, then once in orbit, it could slide/expand to open up, like a collapsible cup, to 66 or even nearly 100 ft in length, then allow the astronauts the space to assemble everything inside. Heck, with so much space, even a module could be made just to go from the ISS to Lunar orbit and return, just a ferry of sorts between the two without worrying about the constraints of space or time of getting from earth to the moon. A trip to mars would surely benefit from such a massive module. but.. alas.. thats probably not feasible either..
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2007 06:24 am
Quote
OV-106 - 26/9/2007  10:55 PM

Interesting concept you have in the diagram.  However, the acoustics are different even though the mounting hardware is the same.  Not saying it couldn't be done but there would have to be some work showing the vibe environment is equivalent or better.

Not any different than an ELV.  It would be better than the shuttle
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 09/27/2007 06:25 am
OV-106
Quote
- 27/9/2007  5:55 AM
Also once this was in orbit and Orion is docked to the payload carrier how does all of this rendeavous with the station?
I asked the same question :
renclod
Quote
- 26/9/2007  10:08 AM
The CEV with a module attached to it's "nose" may find impossible to use some of it's navigation sensors, like the centerline camera(s) , LIDAR and some of the star trackers.
IIRC most of the sensors are to be mounted on a rigid structure around the docking ring.
Now, how important are those nav sensors when approaching ISS ? And for station keeping ?
Got no reaction from Ross or Chuck, but Jim's reaction is clear :
Jim
Quote
- 26/9/2007  11:14 AM
Quote
renclod - 26/9/2007  3:08 AM
Now, how important are those nav sensors when approaching ISS ? And for station keeping ?
they have everything to do with getting to the ISS
In other words, IMHO Orion is not designed with the extra capability to function as an orbital tug.
Unless Orion could randezvous with ISS using only GPS and uploaded state vectors ... or somehow by remote control from the ISS.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: simcosmos on 09/27/2007 11:27 am
I might write nonsense but the way I see things (about CEV acting as a TUG for a Payload Carrier):

1. The payload carrier would perhaps need to have some kind of 'modular RCS pods' built-in in its 'chassis' and those pods would be strategically placed, depending of payload properties, (in order to better help the CEV with attitude / translation movements). What I will write next is *just my opinion* but something like such Payload Carrier could perhaps be a good thing also thinking in Lunar / Mars goals, more specifically, if thinking in horizontal lander designs...

2. The landers - more or less based on Lockheed Martin's concepts - could be made in a modular way, with a central chassis that would contain modular RCS pods, Hover Pods, a cryogenic Wide Body Centaur (which would act as main propulsion element), the payload, landing gears, solar panels, radiators, etc. The chassis would link all together. The length of the chassis, number and location of RCS and Hover Pods, length of the Wide Body Centaur, number of RL-10 derived engines, etc would depend of mission objectives, payload mass, mission profile. If looking only at the chassis and taking out the WBC, hover engines, etc we would have a payload carrier. But again, this is just a personal view!

3. Back to just the Payload Carrier, also related with mission procedures (more specifically attitude changes and translations) and in what concerns with navigation, the Payload Carrier would perhaps also need  to have some kind of duplication / link with CEV's NAV systems (the CEV would be more like the brain and main propulsion element of the CEV-Payload Carrier 'spacecraft' but the 'active eyes', while in joint mode, would be located in the Carrier).

As a side note, this is also something (Payload carrier) that I'm thinking to implement in a next version of the DIRECT SDLV addon for Orbiter simulator (might share a few conceptual preview pictures in a later occasion) ;)

Meanwhile, there are surely many ideas that can be brainstormed about several DIRECT related things - such as the Payload Carrier, in this current discussion - that can positively contribute to better tweak concepts (and their eventual future implementation in the simulator).

António
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 09/27/2007 01:46 pm
Quote
renclod - 27/9/2007  1:25 AM
In other words, IMHO Orion is not designed with the extra capability to function as an orbital tug.
Unless Orion could randezvous with ISS using only GPS and uploaded state vectors ... or somehow by remote control from the ISS.

There is a really good point made earlier in this thread.  How many existing STS payloads are there that are just waiting for an uphill ride, that won't make the shuttle manifest?  If it's only a couple, it is probably not worth building a payload adapter (that might need to including ISS nav/rendezvous equipment).

Presumbly, if Orion's requirements are changed to allow for this type of a mission, there might also be some changes to Orion itself to implement this... Either that, or the mission module might need to duplicate some of the capabilities it "blocks" from the Orion itself.

If you have a LV which allows you to carry up ISS payload with your CEV, you've also got the LV that might you allow you to consider adding this requirement to the CEV, instead of regularly shedding capabilities to reduce mass.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 09/27/2007 01:49 pm
Another thought...  Any thought to implementing your payload adapter aft of the Orion for the whole ride to the ISS?  

We're already talking about the potential need to supplement the payload adapter with RCS.  If you start looking at a J-221 for this mission instead of a J-120, you could use your upper stage as the "legs" to get the payload to ISS, circ burns, etc...  The use the Orion as the "head" for docking like you would normally do, and then extract the payload from the stack similar to STS now... Use the SSRMS to extract the payload through a "payload bay door" in between Orion and the upperstage.

Of course, now you need your upper stage for this, and have to perform a potentially tricky payload extraction.  Not sure it's a better idea or not, just throwing it out there...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/27/2007 02:04 pm
Quote
kraisee - 26/9/2007  11:24 PM
But Jupiter-120 offers an opportunity.   That diagram demonstrates how NASA could continue using all the existing heritage Shuttle payload hardware reasonably easily.

Ross.

PS - Here is a slightly updated version showing the current CEV configuration:


Does the cargo launch version of the J-120 really want a manned capsule in the top on more than half of its flights?

47 mT to LEO orbit.  Two cargo launches plus a manned launch = 47 + 47 + say 20 = 104 mT

A 104mT space station is a reasonable size if placed on the equator.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2007 02:30 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 27/9/2007  10:04 AM

Does the cargo launch version of the J-120 really want a manned capsule in the top on more than half of its flights?

47 mT to LEO orbit.  Two cargo launches plus a manned launch = 47 + 47 + say 20 = 104 mT

A 104mT space station is a reasonable size if placed on the equator.

No money for it
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/27/2007 03:03 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/9/2007  10:30 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 27/9/2007  10:04 AM

Does the cargo launch version of the J-120 really want a manned capsule in the top on more than half of its flights?

47 mT to LEO orbit.  Two cargo launches plus a manned launch = 47 + 47 + say 20 = 104 mT

A 104mT space station is a reasonable size if placed on the equator.

No money for it
Under ESAS - correct.
Under DIRECT, funding might be available if a need is demonstrated.
DIRECT enables a LOT of things that are not even conceivable under ESAS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Namechange User on 09/27/2007 07:39 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/9/2007  1:24 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 26/9/2007  10:55 PM

Interesting concept you have in the diagram.  However, the acoustics are different even though the mounting hardware is the same.  Not saying it couldn't be done but there would have to be some work showing the vibe environment is equivalent or better.

Not any different than an ELV.  It would be better than the shuttle

I have no idea what you are implying here.  What ELV?  The problem is getting Orion to ISS with a large payload hanging off the nose and then somehow docking to ISS.  The GNC system would have to take this "nose mass" into account and prox ops thruter burns would then change accordingly.  Not to mention how does the crew or ship know where it's going to dock to ISS?  Once docked what do you do with the payload carrier, etc?  I really don't believe you can station keep and formation fly and let the station arm grab the payload and then Orion/payload carrier go away and Orion then come back and dock without the carrier.  
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/27/2007 08:06 pm
Quote
OV-106 - 27/9/2007  8:39 PM

Quote
Jim - 27/9/2007  1:24 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 26/9/2007  10:55 PM

Interesting concept you have in the diagram.  However, the acoustics are different even though the mounting hardware is the same.  Not saying it couldn't be done but there would have to be some work showing the vibe environment is equivalent or better.

Not any different than an ELV.  It would be better than the shuttle

I have no idea what you are implying here.  What ELV?  The problem is getting Orion to ISS with a large payload hanging off the nose and then somehow docking to ISS.  The GNC system would have to take this "nose mass" into account and prox ops thruter burns would then change accordingly.  Not to mention how does the crew or ship know where it's going to dock to ISS?  Once docked what do you do with the payload carrier, etc?  I really don't believe you can station keep and formation fly and let the station arm grab the payload and then Orion/payload carrier go away and Orion then come back and dock without the carrier.  

JIM was replying to your first paragraph not your second.  The cargo would be in the J-120's faring.

Changing paragraphs.  There are some big problems navigating the Orion.  As well as cargo preventing the Orion seeing the ISS the Lunar Lander will prevent the Orion seeing the moon.

Cargo needs to be above the Service Module's nozzle but below the Command Module's sensor array.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 09/27/2007 08:07 pm
Why can't the station arm grapple the payload with Orion still docked, undock, and let the arm guide the module to its berth while Orion docks to the station?

If Orion is designed to navigate with a big honkin` LSAM docked to its nose, why can't the star trackers and other celestial nav devices work with something else in the nose?

In addition, if Orion is designed to have RCS control and course correction control with a big honkin` LSAM docked to its nose which will far outweigh any payload that it tugs around in LEO, then why can't it push a space station module?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2007 08:33 pm
Quote
OV-106 - 27/9/2007  3:39 PM

Quote
Jim - 27/9/2007  1:24 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 26/9/2007  10:55 PM

Interesting concept you have in the diagram.  However, the acoustics are different even though the mounting hardware is the same.  Not saying it couldn't be done but there would have to be some work showing the vibe environment is equivalent or better.

Not any different than an ELV.  It would be better than the shuttle

I have no idea what you are implying here.  What ELV?  ....

Your comment about acoustics
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2007 08:35 pm
Quote
Marsman - 27/9/2007  4:07 PM

If Orion is designed to navigate with a big honkin` LSAM docked to its nose, why can't the star trackers and other celestial nav devices work with something else in the nose?

In addition, if Orion is designed to have RCS control and course correction control with a big honkin` LSAM docked to its nose which will far outweigh any payload that it tugs around in LEO, then why can't it push a space station module?


The LSAM does the navigation, attitude control and propulsion when docked to the CEV.  Opposite of Apollo
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/27/2007 08:35 pm
Quote
Marsman - 27/9/2007  4:07 PM

Why can't the station arm grapple the payload with Orion still docked, undock, and let the arm guide the module to its berth while Orion docks to the station?

If Orion is designed to navigate with a big honkin` LSAM docked to its nose, why can't the star trackers and other celestial nav devices work with something else in the nose?

In addition, if Orion is designed to have RCS control and course correction control with a big honkin` LSAM docked to its nose which will far outweigh any payload that it tugs around in LEO, then why can't it push a space station module?
Orion's nav computers could share rcs thrusters with the LSAM when it is docked, effectively treating the stack as a single spacecraft. Currently the LSAM controls it, but this is primarily a software effort. Any cargo carriers would need "some" type of rcs available for the nav computers to command, to enable the Orion and the Cargo canister to similarly function in the same way. It's not really that difficult to do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/27/2007 08:38 pm
Quote
shostetler - 26/9/2007  7:54 PM

So, just how big of a module could be put up using Jupiter? How much of a diameter? How tall? According to the picture, the length is 10.8 meters, so it's possible to build a module that'd be nearly 33 ft long? That's bigger than anything that's ever been habitable in space! If it were inflatable, or collapsible until in orbit, it could easily be even bigger... So many possibilities, just hope Direct makes it.. :)

Manned, we are currently suggesting 8.7m (29ft) diameter and 11m (36ft) tall without interfering with the CEV's engine. Unmanned launches can use a PLF double that length - roughly 23m (75ft).


We can actually do 10m (33ft) and even 12m (40ft) diameter payload fairings, but the larger ones start to "look a little ugly".   While that is most certainly not a showstopper technically, we haven't been promoting it in any of our literature.


J-120 CLV cargo capacity is >20mT.   CaLV is >45mT.
J-232 CLV cargo capacity is >70mT.   CaLV is >95mT.


I can't help but wonder how large a Hab module Bigelow could make if starting with a 12x23m (40x75ft) sized initial module.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/27/2007 08:41 pm
Probably bigger than the ISS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/27/2007 08:44 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 26/9/2007  10:15 PM

If NASA does not switch to DIRECT, could a DIRECT like concept be made out of the Ariane V? They are almost there it seems. If NASA doesn't want DIRECT, maybe ESA could put it to some use someday.

You have to remember that while Ariane-V "looks" similar, it is actually much smaller - it is only (!) an EELV-class launcher with a total payload capacity no greater than a current Atlas-V.

To get DIRECT levels of performance, the ESA would have to seriously scale-up the design.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/27/2007 08:55 pm
Quote
OV-106 - 26/9/2007  10:55 PM

Interesting concept you have in the diagram.  However, the acoustics are different even though the mounting hardware is the same.  Not saying it couldn't be done but there would have to be some work showing the vibe environment is equivalent or better.

Also once this was in orbit and Orion is docked to the payload carrier how does all of this rendeavous with the station?

We had a detailed payload environment analysis performed by a chap at MSFC on the original DIRECT v1.0 Crew launcher design which included acoustics and vibration simulations.

The environment inside the PLF (with CEV above) was found to be less of a problem than the existing STS payload bay.   Apparently the in-line design meant that the large tanking immediately below the payloads absorbed most of the harmful effects.   Initial result indicated that from this respect anything qualified for STS *should* be okay to ride on J-120.

There are two significant shock moments on the J-232 during staging however.   While MECO and free-fall aren't a major concern, re-start and Core separation events are outside of the current envelope.   They would be an environment which STS payloads have never been exposed to before so might cause issues for some payloads.


The major issue though is the new 4g maximum limit, instead of STS' 3g max.   While J-232 never gets much above 2g, the J-120's nominal profile takes it to 4g.   That has much bigger impact than the acoustic environment does.   Jupiter-120 actually does have the ability to fly 3g profiles if it must, but payload numbers drop by about 7-10%, so for specific missions which must not exceed 3g, Jupiter is flexible enough to still be used albeit not at maximum performance.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/27/2007 08:58 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 26/9/2007  11:28 PM

Wait a sec...does he think Ares I + Ares V = Saturn 1B + Saturn V?  Is that what he's after?

I agree with Chuck.   That seems to be his goal.

But he seems to have forgotten that Saturn-1B was able to launch payloads along with the crew.

In this respect, a Jupiter-120 + Ares-V would be far more appropriate IMHO.

And that approach would still NOT cost any more than Ares-I + Ares-V, *and* it would protect NASA in case Ares-V were ever canceled due to politics.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gin455res on 09/27/2007 09:08 pm
This may sound naive but anyway:
How about having two small shuttle like craft (UAVs) on both sides of the ET. Each with a single SSME, together with a single RS-68 underneath the ET. The two baby-shuttles separate from the ET at some point before reaching orbit and leave the remaining engine to take the payload and ET on to orbit.

The baby-shuttles wouldn't need to be as ruggedly built as the original shuttle which was designed to carry 7 people and a large
amount of cargo back from orbit.

Politically this mean that all the SSME related jobs would remain. Though I wonder where the baby-shuttles would land?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2007 09:12 pm
Not enough thrust and too complex (which means costs more)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Namechange User on 09/27/2007 09:12 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/9/2007  3:33 PM

Quote
OV-106 - 27/9/2007  3:39 PM

Quote
Jim - 27/9/2007  1:24 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 26/9/2007  10:55 PM

Interesting concept you have in the diagram.  However, the acoustics are different even though the mounting hardware is the same.  Not saying it couldn't be done but there would have to be some work showing the vibe environment is equivalent or better.

Not any different than an ELV.  It would be better than the shuttle

I have no idea what you are implying here.  What ELV?  ....

Your comment about acoustics

Got it now.  I would tend to agree an inline mounted payload should have a better vibe than a side mounted vibe environment.  It would be more of an analysis job and paperwork.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gin455res on 09/27/2007 09:15 pm
Does the J-221 have a fully fuelled ET and if so is it possible to launch it partially fuelled (say 85%) so that a larger second stage with better ISP can provide a larger fraction of the dV to reach orbit?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Namechange User on 09/27/2007 09:24 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/9/2007  3:35 PM

Quote
Marsman - 27/9/2007  4:07 PM

If Orion is designed to navigate with a big honkin` LSAM docked to its nose, why can't the star trackers and other celestial nav devices work with something else in the nose?

In addition, if Orion is designed to have RCS control and course correction control with a big honkin` LSAM docked to its nose which will far outweigh any payload that it tugs around in LEO, then why can't it push a space station module?


The LSAM does the navigation, attitude control and propulsion when docked to the CEV.  Opposite of Apollo

To DIRECT folks,

See I honestly think that if something like this was to work, the payload carrier would need to be built so that the CM is attached to one end of it and the SM to the other.  You would have the same "orbiter-like" config.  The payload carrier would need to have a a "union"  of sorts to connect the electrical umbilical from the SM to the CM through the carrier.  

This would alow still the same abort procedures where the CM is carried away in the even of an emergency and would make for easier rendeavous and prox ops to the staion where the CM and SM thrusters could be used to orient and control the vehicle with thrusters on either side of the center of mass.  

Once at station the station arm could grapple the payload (if long enough to reach - which I'm not sure it is but this is an easier problem to solve).  Once docked any EVA would be done from ISS and then when leaving the station the SM deorbits the payload carrier with itself and the CM continues on its way.  

While there would be no down mass in this config it would make the Orion capable of hauling the mail up hill.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2007 09:27 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/9/2007  4:55 PM

Quote
OV-106 - 26/9/2007  10:55 PM

Interesting concept you have in the diagram.  However, the acoustics are different even though the mounting hardware is the same.  Not saying it couldn't be done but there would have to be some work showing the vibe environment is equivalent or better.

Also once this was in orbit and Orion is docked to the payload carrier how does all of this rendeavous with the station?

We had a detailed payload environment analysis performed by a chap at MSFC on the original DIRECT v1.0 Crew launcher design which included acoustics and vibration simulations.

The environment inside the PLF (with CEV above) was found to be less of a problem than the existing STS payload bay.   Apparently the in-line design meant that the large tanking immediately below the payloads absorbed most of the harmful effects.   Initial result indicated that from this respect anything qualified for STS *should* be okay to ride on J-120.

There are two significant shock moments on the J-232 during staging however.   While MECO and free-fall aren't a major concern, re-start and Core separation events are outside of the current envelope.   They would be an environment which STS payloads have never been exposed to before so might cause issues for some payloads.


The major issue though is the new 4g maximum limit, instead of STS' 3g max.   While J-232 never gets much above 2g, the J-120's nominal profile takes it to 4g.   That has much bigger impact than the acoustic environment does.   Jupiter-120 actually does have the ability to fly 3g profiles if it must, but payload numbers drop by about 7-10%, so for specific missions which must not exceed 3g, Jupiter is flexible enough to still be used albeit not at maximum performance.

Ross.

You don't have to keep the design within STS levels after there aren't any STS payloads left ;-)

3 g's isn't a requirement.  Ares V goes over 3 g's.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/27/2007 09:31 pm
As for navigating the Orion - guys, remember what CEV is primarily being designed to do - fly with an LSAM to the moon.   It will be *capable* of doing the control for that in cases where the LSAM suffers serious failures.   It MUST be capable of doing this as a backup otherwise we risk losing a crew.   For the same reason, CEV will also be able to perform remote docking in cases where the LSAM breaks too (and possibly also for cargo-only deliveries to ISS if that requirement isn't deleted).

What that boils down to is that CEV is being designed to be able to precisely control itself while connected to a 45mT potentially inert "lump" hanging off its LIDS. So virtually everything we need for stationkeeping at ISS is already being included in the CEV's basic requirements from the start.   Only software and procedures are really required - not new hardware.

My preference (having talked this over with quite a few people) for delivering modules to some location like ISS would be to approach the station with the payload still attached.   Have another docking adapter on the opposite end of the SPDM and dock that to the station.  Then detach the CEV from the SPDM and dock it separately at another docking hatch.   Use the station's arm to then remove items from the SPDM.   At the end of the mission reverse the process, and use CEV to insert the SPDM into a carefully selected decaying orbit for safe disposal.

For missions such as Hubble Servicing, the SPDM has its own arm.   You use the SPDM just as you would a regular Shuttle Cargo Bay, carefully approaching the satellite and docking with it vertically.   There is a lot of STS hardware in existence right now ideally suited and flight-proven for this already, so just re-use it.   With a separate airlock module in the SPDM, the CEV can remain permanently pressurized which is a really nice feature.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2007 09:36 pm
Quote
OV-106 - 27/9/2007  5:24 PM


To DIRECT folks,

See I honestly think that if something like this was to work, the payload carrier would need to be built so that the CM is attached to one end of it and the SM to the other.  You would have the same "orbiter-like" config.  The payload carrier would need to have a a "union"  of sorts to connect the electrical umbilical from the SM to the CM through the carrier.  


That is not a good idea. Leave the CEV as is, no need to muck it up with another configuration.  Just use the CEV as a tug and have it do the same thing as the docking module on ASTP.  Also there aren't any payloads to necessitate a shuttle payload bay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/27/2007 09:39 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/9/2007  5:36 PM

Quote
OV-106 - 27/9/2007  5:24 PM


To DIRECT folks,

See I honestly think that if something like this was to work, the payload carrier would need to be built so that the CM is attached to one end of it and the SM to the other.  You would have the same "orbiter-like" config.  The payload carrier would need to have a a "union"  of sorts to connect the electrical umbilical from the SM to the CM through the carrier.  


That is not a good idea. Leave the CEV as is, no need to muck it up with another configuration.  Just use the CEV as a tug and have it do the same thing as the docking module on ASTP.  Also there aren't any payloads to necessitate a shuttle payload bay


100% agree.   Integrating any payload module into the CEV (even sandwiched between the standard CM and standard SM) is going to be vetoed by everyone involved - from NASA management, Shuttle Program advisers, Congress, Senate, WH, OMB and perhaps most importantly - the media.

There is a reason why CAIB said mixing crew and cargo must not be done.   They mean that no cargo compromised must be included in the manned spacecraft.   It must be separate somehow, and I have to agree.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2007 09:41 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/9/2007  5:31 PM

As for navigating the Orion - guys, remember what CEV is primarily being designed to do - fly with an LSAM to the moon.   It will be *capable* of doing the control for that in cases where the LSAM suffers serious failures.   It MUST be capable of doing this as a backup otherwise we risk losing a crew.   For the same reason, CEV will also be able to perform remote docking in cases where the LSAM breaks too (and possibly also for cargo-only deliveries to ISS if that requirement isn't deleted).


Ross.

The CEV doesn't have the capability to control the stack with its thrusters.  They are only 25 lbs of thrust and are off axis.

If there were problems, the  LSAM would be cast off and the CEV would return on its own.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/27/2007 09:43 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/9/2007  5:27 PM

You don't have to keep the design within STS levels after there aren't any STS payloads left ;-)

3 g's isn't a requirement.  Ares V goes over 3 g's.

I know, but this discussion has *mostly* been about how to reuse existing STS payloads.   Ares-V will never be available soon enough to make it worthwhile considering retaining STS payloads, but Jupiter could be fielded much sooner and that opens the door to the possibility.

Certainly all new payloads should, and would, be custom-designed for Jupiter's standard flight conditions.   But legacy STS items will likely require more work somewhere - either procedures, custom flight profiles, new hardware or whatever.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2007 09:49 pm
I think  SPDM  would be better if it were like the HTV  or Apollo SM structure vs a shuttle bay.  It can have a LIDS on one end and a CBM on the other.  

got to stop thinking shuttle paradigm and think ELV, Apollo Applications and Russian.

HST servicing is not going to happen.  It will be deorbited by then
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/27/2007 09:49 pm
Quote
gin455res - 27/9/2007  5:15 PM

Does the J-221 have a fully fuelled ET and if so is it possible to launch it partially fuelled (say 85%) so that a larger second stage with better ISP can provide a larger fraction of the dV to reach orbit?

We optimized the J-221 design as much as we could and in the end our results showed that it was not going to be worthwhile.   Regarding short-fuelling the Core Stage, we found there just weren't any advantages to doing that, no matter the size or configuration of the U/S.   Our analysis showed it always worked most effectively with maximum propellant load.

Of course NASA has the ability to analyse this far more thoroughly than we have been able to, so I would recommend they look into this when DIRECT is ultimately chosen.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2007 09:51 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/9/2007  5:43 PM

Certainly all new payloads should, and would, be custom-designed for Jupiter's standard flight conditions.   But legacy STS items will likely require more work somewhere - either procedures, custom flight profiles, new hardware or whatever.

Ross.

There aren't any STS legacy beyond MPLM's.    Direct will/could have its own and doesn't need to look back at the shuttle
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/27/2007 09:54 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/9/2007  5:49 PM

HST servicing is not going to happen.  It will be deorbited by then


Jim, the fact is that there is plenty of life left in Hubble if only it could continue to be serviced.

But Ares-I/Orion can not service it effectively because Ares-I just can not bring up the necessary hardware along with the crew.   So, because they have no way to service it, they have been forced into the corner of having to de-orbit Hubble after this next STS servicing mission.

Ares-I kills Hubble.

Jupiter could save it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Namechange User on 09/27/2007 09:58 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/9/2007  4:39 PM

100% agree.   Integrating any payload module into the CEV (even sandwiched between the standard CM and standard SM) is going to be vetoed by everyone involved - from NASA management, Shuttle Program advisers, Congress, Senate, WH, OMB and perhaps most importantly - the media.

There is a reason why CAIB said mixing crew and cargo must not be done.   They mean that no cargo compromised must be included in the manned spacecraft.   It must be separate somehow, and I have to agree.

Ross.

Well Ross, I think you just argued against the very point you are trying to make with your team.  Realisitically, you will always have crew and cargo to some degree.  If you take it to the extreme you have Ares 1, where you carry Orion and whatever cargo you can fit inside along with the crew.  

What you are proposing with Direct is that you can carry cargo with crew because of the performance margin.  What I am suggesting is perhaps a better config for the Orion vehicle once in orbit.  It's still the same hardware: CM, SM and carrier, just arranged differently.  In the event of an emergency and CM jettison, that would happen exactly the same with your Direct proposal regardless if it was sep'ing from the SM or a cargo carrier.  

As for CAIB, these are recomendations with the overall approach ment to be crew escape capability.  While yes, there should not be any "shuttle" payloads left by the time Orion does fly if you want to take cargo you have to address this.  I never said the carrier needed to be the length of the orbiter payload bay.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/27/2007 10:06 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/9/2007  10:54 PM

Ares-I kills Hubble.

Jupiter could save it.

Ross.

Or lift Hubble 2.  Son of Hubble can have a bigger mirror.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2007 10:07 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/9/2007  5:54 PM

Quote
Jim - 27/9/2007  5:49 PM

HST servicing is not going to happen.  It will be deorbited by then


Jim, the fact is that there is plenty of life left in Hubble if only it could continue to be serviced.

But Ares-I/Orion can not service it effectively because Ares-I just can not bring up the necessary hardware along with the crew.   So, because they have no way to service it, they have been forced into the corner of having to de-orbit Hubble after this next STS servicing mission.

Ares-I kills Hubble.

Jupiter could save it.

Ross.

It is only being serviced by the shuttle one last time because the hardware is paid for.  New funding needs to go to a new spacecraft
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/27/2007 10:10 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/9/2007  10:43 PM
{snip}
Certainly all new payloads should, and would, be custom-designed for Jupiter's standard flight conditions.{snip}

Since the capsules appear to have the ability to receive sensor information from the Lunar Landers a similar sensor array can be devised that straps onto other cargoes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 09/27/2007 10:31 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 27/9/2007  5:06 PM

Quote
kraisee - 27/9/2007  10:54 PM

Ares-I kills Hubble.

Jupiter could save it.

Ross.

Or lift Hubble 2.  Son of Hubble can have a bigger mirror.

Hubble 2 is already being built (Webb Space Telescope).  The astronomy community (for the most part) isn't interested in doing visible astronomy.  Of course the public likes visible photos from Hubble...people generally don't ooh and ahh over non-visible spectrum photos.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/27/2007 11:20 pm
Adaptive optics obiviates the need for a visible space telescope. It allows for diffraction-limited resolution to be obtained, which is better for a ground-based telescope owing to its larger mirror.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: hyper_snyper on 09/27/2007 11:40 pm
Quote
texas_space - 27/9/2007  6:31 PM

...  The astronomy community (for the most part) isn't interested in doing visible astronomy.  ...

Just curious...why is that?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 09/28/2007 12:08 am
Quote
kraisee - 27/9/2007  2:49 PM

Quote
gin455res - 27/9/2007  5:15 PM

Does the J-221 have a fully fuelled ET and if so is it possible to launch it partially fuelled (say 85%) so that a larger second stage with better ISP can provide a larger fraction of the dV to reach orbit?

We optimized the J-221 design as much as we could and in the end our results showed that it was not going to be worthwhile.   Regarding short-fuelling the Core Stage, we found there just weren't any advantages to doing that, no matter the size or configuration of the U/S.   Our analysis showed it always worked most effectively with maximum propellant load.

Of course NASA has the ability to analyse this far more thoroughly than we have been able to, so I would recommend they look into this when DIRECT is ultimately chosen.

Ross.

Actually Ross, page 94, the EML1 Architecture could use a Jupiter-221 for crew rotation and periodic LSAM replacement with the Jupiter-232 primarily used for propellant only missions.  We could still stick with a Jupiter-232 if having a sub-variant of the Upper Stage (one engine + shorter length) wasn’t worth it as well and just use the extra capacity to deliever supplies.

It all depends on what the Lunar Architecture ends up being.  Right now I would be happy to just replace the Ares-I with the Jupiter-120 (Ares-II).  If we can at least achieve that point all options are open and more importantly incrementally fundedable.  We could even start out with one Architecture (EOR-LOR) and then move to another later (EML-EML).  That way we’re aren’t dependant on certain technologies but can still leverage them at some point in the future to lower operational cost.

Options really open up for the VSE when you have more mass in orbit and more money to work with on the ground.  Its amazing anyone can support ESAS with a straight face and/or clear conscience anymore.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/28/2007 01:35 am
Quote
OV-106 - 27/9/2007  3:58 PM

Quote
kraisee - 27/9/2007  4:39 PM

100% agree.   Integrating any payload module into the CEV (even sandwiched between the standard CM and standard SM) is going to be vetoed by everyone involved - from NASA management, Shuttle Program advisers, Congress, Senate, WH, OMB and perhaps most importantly - the media.

There is a reason why CAIB said mixing crew and cargo must not be done.   They mean that no cargo compromised must be included in the manned spacecraft.   It must be separate somehow, and I have to agree.

Ross.

Well Ross, I think you just argued against the very point you are trying to make with your team.  Realisitically, you will always have crew and cargo to some degree.  If you take it to the extreme you have Ares 1, where you carry Orion and whatever cargo you can fit inside along with the crew.  

What you are proposing with Direct is that you can carry cargo with crew because of the performance margin.  What I am suggesting is perhaps a better config for the Orion vehicle once in orbit.  It's still the same hardware: CM, SM and carrier, just arranged differently.  In the event of an emergency and CM jettison, that would happen exactly the same with your Direct proposal regardless if it was sep'ing from the SM or a cargo carrier.  

As for CAIB, these are recomendations with the overall approach ment to be crew escape capability.  While yes, there should not be any "shuttle" payloads left by the time Orion does fly if you want to take cargo you have to address this.  I never said the carrier needed to be the length of the orbiter payload bay.

My *impression* is that Ross is simply arguing that the crew system and the cargo must be separable in all cases.  An abort must be able to leave the cargo behind.  There's no way to separate the Shuttle crew cabin from the payload bay (safely) and Orion/DIRECT must not make that same mistake.  I don't think he's arguing that cargo can't go along on the same vehicle with the crewed vehicle, but Ross can correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 09/28/2007 10:48 am
kraisee
Quote
- 28/9/2007  12:31 AM
As for navigating the Orion - guys, remember what CEV is primarily being designed to do - fly with an LSAM to the moon.   It will be *capable* of doing the control for that in cases where the LSAM suffers serious failures.   It MUST be capable of doing this as a backup otherwise we risk losing a crew.  
CEV is not designed to fly the LSAM to the Moon.
The LSAM is designed to fly the CEV to the Moon.
The CEV is independently providing navigation data for the EDS/LSAM/CEV stack, and also for the LSAM/CEV stack, but that is not RPOD (rendezvous, proximity operations and docking).
Quote
For the same reason, CEV will also be able to perform remote docking in cases where the LSAM breaks too (and possibly also for cargo-only deliveries to ISS if that requirement isn't deleted).
Yes, and for such unmanned docking Orion will use it's relative navigation sensors (LIDAR and cameras), either automatic or by remote control.
Quote
What that boils down to is that CEV is being designed to be able to precisely control itself while connected to a 45mT potentially inert "lump" hanging off its LIDS.
Sorry, but this assertion has nothing to do with RPOD. And it may not be true by itself either, nothing I've read shows the CEV controlling a 22+45mT stack.
Quote
So virtually everything we need for stationkeeping at ISS [ with a large cargo attached to Orion's LIDS ] is already being included in the CEV's basic requirements from the start. Only software and procedures are really required - not new hardware.
I'd like to see this in a technical paper, at NTRS if possible.
Until then, these papers: 20070005131_2007004869.pdf and 20070026181_2007024696.pdf show the contrary.
Nowhere is Orion engagged in RPOD with "an inert lump hanging off it's LIDS".
The cargo-only CEV (now deleted) was cylindrical. Jules Verne ATV is cylindrical. ATV's RPOD navigation is optical.
Quote
...having talked this over with quite a few people...
GN&C guys confirm Orion as an orbital tug ?

[edit for typos]
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/28/2007 01:56 pm
Quote
texas_space - 27/9/2007  6:31 PM

Hubble 2 is already being built (Webb Space Telescope).  The astronomy community (for the most part) isn't interested in doing visible astronomy.  Of course the public likes visible photos from Hubble...people generally don't ooh and ahh over non-visible spectrum photos.

Repeat after me Hubble 2.0 != Webb.

Webb is a different type of scope (NIR / IR) that stands on its own merits.

Webb != Hubble 2.0
Webb != Hubble 2.0
Webb != Hubble 2.0

If Webb == Hubble then Chandra := Hubble;

Quote

Adaptive optics obiviates the need for a visible space telescope. It allows for diffraction-limited resolution to be obtained, which is better for a ground-based telescope owing to its larger mirror.

Adaptive optics may provide terrestrial diffraction limited work in the visible, but you still have atmospheric glow that puts an absolute lower limit on how faint you can see. In the proper orbit you can also stare at the same object for days, weeks, years... No one telescope does it all, part of the reason you have Webb, Hubble, Keck, Hale, ect.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/28/2007 02:26 pm
Quote
kevin-rf - 28/9/2007  9:56 AM

Quote
texas_space - 27/9/2007  6:31 PM

Hubble 2 is already being built (Webb Space Telescope).  The astronomy community (for the most part) isn't interested in doing visible astronomy.  Of course the public likes visible photos from Hubble...people generally don't ooh and ahh over non-visible spectrum photos.

Repeat after me Hubble 2.0 != Webb.

Webb is a different type of scope (NIR / IR) that stands on its own merits.

Webb != Hubble 2.0
Webb != Hubble 2.0
Webb != Hubble 2.0

If Webb == Hubble then Chandra := Hubble;

Quote

Adaptive optics obiviates the need for a visible space telescope. It allows for diffraction-limited resolution to be obtained, which is better for a ground-based telescope owing to its larger mirror.

Adaptive optics may provide terrestrial diffraction limited work in the visible, but you still have atmospheric glow that puts an absolute lower limit on how faint you can see. In the proper orbit you can also stare at the same object for days, weeks, years... No one telescope does it all, part of the reason you have Webb, Hubble, Keck, Hale, ect.
The lunar far side should support large observatories of this type. They do not need to be manned. They can be teleoperated robotically from a communications relay at EML2 in much the same way as Hubble is controlled. No atmospheric haze and no radio noise from earth.

While the ESAS architecture and Ares-V are technically capable of putting this in place, it won’t happen because it’s unaffordable. Switching architectures to DIRECT not only provides us with the capability to do this type of thing, it is also financially affordable.

This is only one example out of many of the kind of things that DIRECT makes available that the ESAS, by its very nature, removes from the realm of the possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/28/2007 03:09 pm
Unmanned science missions can be launched on ELV's, be it Atlas, Delta, Ariane, Peagsus. It is not justification for Direct. I think Direct needs to focus on what can be done in manned space. Unmanned should be left to ULA/ESA/Russia/India/Japan. As jim keeps harping, it would have been cheaper to launch multiple hubbles on ELV's (Like WEBB will) instead of all the servicing missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/28/2007 03:16 pm
DIRECT doesn't make sense for unmanned cargo flights unless the object being launched exceeds the mass and/or volume limitations of the available commercial launchers.  I think this portion of the argument for DIRECT implicitly assumes that is the case for certain desirable cargo, or it wouldn't even be being discussed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/28/2007 03:34 pm
Quote
kevin-rf - 28/9/2007  11:09 AM

Unmanned science missions can be launched on ELV's, be it Atlas, Delta, Ariane, Peagsus. It is not justification for Direct. I think Direct needs to focus on what can be done in manned space. Unmanned should be left to ULA/ESA/Russia/India/Japan. As jim keeps harping, it would have been cheaper to launch multiple hubbles on ELV's (Like WEBB will) instead of all the servicing missions.
Absolutely none of the launchers available from any of the above come close to the lift capacity offered by the Jupiter. If I were speaking of anything that an EELV or any of the others could lift, then I would be a strong advocate for their use vs. a Jupiter, but I’m not. I’m talking on-site construction.

I’m talking about an astronomical “base” if you will, where all kinds of instruments can be collocated and even networked to produce results far and away beyond anything that can be accomplished by a launch from ULA/ESA/Russia/India/Japan, or even several launches from them. Such a full functional facility would be a boon to the sciences beyond anything we have imagined as possible in our lifetimes. With such a facility, we would possibly be able to image small worlds the size of Mars which orbit other stars in enough detail to create reasonable surface maps, examine them in extreme detail with every wavelength of the spectrum, determine with reasonable certainty the content of the atmospheres and actually identify mineral deposits on their surfaces. We would be able to get as much information about them as we are able to learn about the planets in our own solar system. Nothing from ULA/ESA/Russia/India/Japan even comes close to that.

Is this far fetched? -Yes.
Is it unreasonable? -No
Can ULA/ESA/Russia/India/Japan do this for us? -No.
Can DIRECT do this for us? -Yes.

Having this kind of lift capacity in an architecture that also gives us Lunar Global Access with Anytime Return and financial flexability opens the door wide open to all kinds of “possibilities” that are NOT beyond the realm of the possible; all things that the ESAS architecture cannot financially support.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 09/28/2007 03:48 pm
Lovely ideas, but it's the $$$ that talks. Even the billions saved by choosing Direct wouldn't cover the costs for such an incredible telescope. Would they?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/28/2007 04:02 pm
Quote
Crispy - 28/9/2007  11:48 AM

Lovely ideas, but it's the $$$ that talks. Even the billions saved by choosing Direct wouldn't cover the costs for such an incredible telescope. Would they?
Being completely honest - I don't know.

What I do know is that the financial picture created by using DIRECT vs. ESAS brings some realism and stability to the whole financial picture. Creating such a facility would be extremely expensive, and would most likely have international participation. While I would expect the United States to cover a sizable percentage of it, the international community would have a huge stake in such a facility, beyond even what the ISS can offer. It would be expensive, but I believe that it could be done.

It would take manned missions to install and set the facility up and put it into operation, but after that it would rarely see a human crew. It would be operated thru the EML2 communications link, tele-robotically, from science stations located on the earth, probably located in each of the host nations working thru a central facility, most likely in the United States.

The main point is that by having the lift capacity at our disposal and a reasonable financial picture, many things, like this one example, “can” be done that are simply beyond the realm of the possible for ESAS, under any circumstances.

Using DIRECT, we have the ability to choose whether or not to do such a mission as this.

Using ESAS, the choice is not even on the table.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/28/2007 06:18 pm
Quote
OV-106 - 27/9/2007  5:58 PM

Well Ross, I think you just argued against the very point you are trying to make with your team.  Realisitically, you will always have crew and cargo to some degree.  If you take it to the extreme you have Ares 1, where you carry Orion and whatever cargo you can fit inside along with the crew.  

What you are proposing with Direct is that you can carry cargo with crew because of the performance margin.  What I am suggesting is perhaps a better config for the Orion vehicle once in orbit.  It's still the same hardware: CM, SM and carrier, just arranged differently.  In the event of an emergency and CM jettison, that would happen exactly the same with your Direct proposal regardless if it was sep'ing from the SM or a cargo carrier.  

As for CAIB, these are recomendations with the overall approach ment to be crew escape capability.  While yes, there should not be any "shuttle" payloads left by the time Orion does fly if you want to take cargo you have to address this.  I never said the carrier needed to be the length of the orbiter payload bay.

With respect, you miss the point of what I've been trying to say.

While CAIB's comments are clearly "written by committee" in pure beurocratese, the core of this recommendation is trying to make the point that Shuttle demonstrates a very clear weakness in crew safety.   The weakness is created by compromising the design of the manned spacecraft in order to include large payloads.   This is the critical change they wanted - to remove the major payload from the design of the manned spacecraft itself.   In short, you need to optimize the manned spacecraft purely for its job, then leave it alone.

In this case (Orion CEV) it needs optimizing for carrying humans to the moon and return them safely back to Earth (ISS is a fairly similar mission, just a shorter trip).   That's more than enough complexity in the design already.   We should avoid adding more complexity by integrating anything else in if at all possible.

As long as you leave that alone it makes zero difference whether you fly with a secondary payload in a separate module from your manned spacecraft or not.   That approach does not compromise crew safety at all - and that's the most important point.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/28/2007 06:55 pm
Quote
Crispy - 28/9/2007  11:48 AM

Lovely ideas, but it's the $$$ that talks. Even the billions saved by choosing Direct wouldn't cover the costs for such an incredible telescope. Would they?

There is a high cost involved in lifting hardware from Earth to the surface of the moon, but DIRECT saves NASA about $2bn per year, on average, compared to Ares-I plus Ares-V.   So the question becomes what can that money be used for once the LV's are operational?

Our latest cost evaluation indicates that the flight rate for Jupiter in the 2018-2020 era would be around 10-12 per year.   That flight rate means that each J-232 launch would drop *combined* fixed & variable launch costs (full wrap) per launch to around $380m each (Reference: Ares-V equivalent = $580m).   That's not bad for what is essentially a 100mT to LEO lift system.

You then need a descent module for an automated lander.   That's going to cost somewhere between $100-300m to produce and fly one extra LSAM-DS per year on top of the "regular" manifest.

Now for the payload itself.   NASA's current arrangements suggests that missions like DAWN/New Horizons must cost less than $300m including launch cost.   If each of the individual "modules" in such a wide-ranging "science facilitiy" on the moon could be kept in that sort of ball park ($300m each), that would allow each such mission to have a final all-in cost of about $1bn.   That's quite a chunk of money, but *not* impossible.

Just one of those per year would result in a massive science-generating facility on the lunar surface after just ten years.   Even half that flight rate would be impressive.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 09/28/2007 08:23 pm
What would be the performance gain of J-120 with RS-68As as in all liklihood that would be its ultimate engine with the shared USAF development path. Also J-232s while I'm asking.  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/28/2007 08:23 pm
Quote
kevin-rf - 28/9/2007  9:56 AM

Quote
texas_space - 27/9/2007  6:31 PM

Hubble 2 is already being built (Webb Space Telescope).  The astronomy community (for the most part) isn't interested in doing visible astronomy.  Of course the public likes visible photos from Hubble...people generally don't ooh and ahh over non-visible spectrum photos.

Repeat after me Hubble 2.0 != Webb.

Webb is a different type of scope (NIR / IR) that stands on its own merits.

Webb != Hubble 2.0
Webb != Hubble 2.0
Webb != Hubble 2.0

If Webb == Hubble then Chandra := Hubble;

Quote

Adaptive optics obiviates the need for a visible space telescope. It allows for diffraction-limited resolution to be obtained, which is better for a ground-based telescope owing to its larger mirror.

Adaptive optics may provide terrestrial diffraction limited work in the visible, but you still have atmospheric glow that puts an absolute lower limit on how faint you can see. In the proper orbit you can also stare at the same object for days, weeks, years... No one telescope does it all, part of the reason you have Webb, Hubble, Keck, Hale, ect.

Isn't this glow a constant, which can be subtracted away?

And couldn't it be eliminated by filtering? (It is narrowband AFAIK)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/28/2007 08:59 pm
Quote
marsavian - 28/9/2007  4:23 PM

What would be the performance gain of J-120 with RS-68As as in all liklihood that would be its ultimate engine with the shared USAF development path. Also J-232s while I'm asking.  ;)


J-120 you're looking at about 3mT of additional performance per flight with the change to the same 106% Mission Power Level RS-68 which NASA previously indicated for use on the Ares-V.

J-232 gets about 6mT extra per flight.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 09/28/2007 09:38 pm
Quote
kraisee - 28/9/2007  4:59 PM

Quote
marsavian - 28/9/2007  4:23 PM

What would be the performance gain of J-120 with RS-68As as in all liklihood that would be its ultimate engine with the shared USAF development path. Also J-232s while I'm asking.  ;)


J-120 you're looking at about 3mT of additional performance per flight with the change to the same 106% Mission Power Level RS-68 which NASA previously indicated for use on the Ares-V.

J-232 gets about 6mT extra per flight.

Ross.
Conservatively Speaking
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/28/2007 09:43 pm
Yes, very conservative.   I should also mention that both of those are to 220nm ISS-compatible orbits too.   You get slightly larger increases to 120nm for Lunar missions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/28/2007 10:07 pm
About a 4.5 mt larger LSAM if RS-68 engines are used.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 09/29/2007 01:19 am
Has anyone seeing the Boeing paper on inflight refueling from the conferance last week?  I would like to see how it might affect Direct.  I did find this paper on boeings website, but I am not certain if they updated it for the conferance.  Like Direct--If you read the slides, they look at trade-offs using 1-2 launch vicheal program to the moon, and how landed masses can go up a whole lot using inflight refueling.

 http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/constellation/references/presentations/Potential_Impact_of_LEO_Propellant_on_NASA_ESAS_Architecture.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/29/2007 03:18 am
We have already proposed a very similar approach.

Our differences are purely design elements though.   Where Boeing decided to make a propellant depot from multiple Delta-IV Upper Stage elements, we are proposing to use a single J-232 Upper Stage.   Either approach works.

One thing we have included which Boeing did not seem to was a solar shield for the Depot.   Because we only have a single module to shield, we are using a relatively simple large solar array similar to those on the CEV, just 12m in diameter.   By preventing the suns rays from ever reaching the tanking structure we are attempting to decreased boiloff to an absolute minimum.   Additionally, the same solar array can be used to generate lots of power for active cooling systems to further reduce boiloff concerns.


But there are many different designs possible, and I would guess that neither of these is yet ideal, and will see many more revisions before we can settle on a final design.   It is the principle, philosophy, and architecture which is important at this stage and from those three perspectives DIRECT and Boeing's presentation are on exactly the same wavelength.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/29/2007 03:34 am
Quote
tnphysics - 28/9/2007  6:07 PM

About a 4.5 mt larger LSAM if RS-68 engines are used.

Actually slightly more than that.   I'm getting numbers about 6-7mT larger for the LSAM by using the RS-68A.

But the 106% MPL RS-68A still assumes a ~24% increase in failure risk compared with the 100% MPL standard engine.   Given that the standard RS-68's expected reliability (currently 1 failure in 770 engines), adding 24% greater chance for failure is quite likely to be an acceptable risk level (1 in 620, vs. SSME at 588), but is something we ought not to just blindly forget about.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/29/2007 03:41 pm
I know using a Heavy Lifter like DIRECT is out for small MER like probes, but what about a larger Mars Sample Return mission?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/29/2007 06:48 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 29/9/2007  11:41 AM

I know using a Heavy Lifter like DIRECT is out for small MER like probes, but what about a larger Mars Sample Return mission?

Jupiter-120 is ideally suited to larger unmanned probe missions of that nature.

A fully fueled Centaur or Delta-IV upper stage could easily be retro-fitted to Jupiter and lifted to circular orbit without using any of the propellant on board.   Along with a truly substantial payload, and together totalling over 40mT, that is quite a package which can be lofted at the start of such a mission.

Firing from LEO, this combination can send a lot of mass towards the other planets in the solar system - more than double the payload of any other launcher in the world today.

That offers enormous versatility for any mission planners.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/29/2007 08:23 pm
Bolting two Centaurs together and to the payload while allowing them to burn some of their propellant would allow even heavier payloads.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/29/2007 10:27 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 29/9/2007  4:23 PM

Bolting two Centaurs together and to the payload while allowing them to burn some of their propellant would allow even heavier payloads.

Theoretically possible, but a Centaur V1 straight off the current Atlas-V masses a little over 22mT (GLOW).   On a Jupiter-120 there isn't really any surplus to lift a payload if you fly two of these.   So these sorts of multi-Centaur configuration would have to be exclusively be for the J-232.

A single Atlas-V Centaur-V1 stage isn't quite large enough to be "ideal".

But the existing stage could send between 8.1 to 11.6mT of actual payload thru Trans-Mars Injection (assuming worst-case 4,900m/s dV and better-case 4,080m/s scenarios from LEO)   Compare this to 2.3mT for the Mars Rover packages sent at the most ideal time with the lowest possible dV requirement.

Better performance can be had by stretching the tanking of the Centaur containing more LOX/LH2.   While this isn't trivial, it would be fairly cost effective.   Alternatively, if ULA ever commissions the Wide Body Centaur (WBC) for Atlas-V, that would work even better than the current model of Centaur V1.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/29/2007 11:00 pm
I was going to have the Centaur pair stage suborbitally (although probably at most 1 km/s from orbit) and use the RL-10s for EOI.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 09/30/2007 12:32 am
You could do that.   There are a wide variety of different approaches, including that, but the best would have to be determined by a more detailed analysis.

Of course, if you're after a large stage, waiting two years and just using the standard J-232 EDS might be your best option.   That would allow about 20mT of payload to be sent towards Mars per flight.

Using a standard J-232 EDS, and filling it full of propellant using a depot though, would allow up to 177mT of useful payload to be sent towards Mars on each mission.   *Now* you're talking 'Eavy Metal.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/30/2007 02:01 am
You would need multiple launches to put that in orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: bad_astra on 09/30/2007 04:29 am
fuel depots require multiple launches, yes, but they are not dependant on a specific launcher. It's a perfect job for a BDB with reliability sacrificed a bit  for lower average cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 09/30/2007 04:43 am
I meant the 177mt payload.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/01/2007 12:57 am
Yes, you'd need two launches to put that payload mass up.   But the critical thing to remember is that it becomes *possible*.

If we are going to get serious about mining on the moon, having this sort of ultimate capacity is going to be necessary for launching the heavy machinery towards the moon which will eventually be needed for that.

If you don't use Propellant Transfer Technology (PTT), you will ultimately be limited to payloads modules no larger than 45mT.   PTT roughly quadruples the upper limit of what's ultimately possible.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gin455res on 10/03/2007 09:43 pm
When the shuttle retires, would any of the SSMEs be available for use?

And would a J-130 with a central SSME make any sense?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jackson on 10/03/2007 10:01 pm
Quote
gin455res - 3/10/2007  4:43 PM

When the shuttle retires, would any of the SSMEs be available for use?

And would a J-130 with a central SSME make any sense?

They've already started the process of ending the SSMEs as per presentations on the transition plan on L2. There's a presentation on SSMEs which show they are trying to use them all up by the end of the shuttle program, leaving nothing over but for museams.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Joffan on 10/03/2007 10:06 pm
Quote
gin455res - 3/10/2007  3:43 PM

When the shuttle retires, would any of the SSMEs be available for use?

And would a J-130 with a central SSME make any sense?
I'd think it was not worth the engineering to use such a limited supply of engines, even if they'e free. Better to use a standard engine and look for the benefits of repeated use, including both economy and safety.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 10/03/2007 11:50 pm
Quote
Jackson - 3/10/2007  6:01 PM

Quote
gin455res - 3/10/2007  4:43 PM

When the shuttle retires, would any of the SSMEs be available for use?

And would a J-130 with a central SSME make any sense?

They've already started the process of ending the SSMEs as per presentations on the transition plan on L2. There's a presentation on SSMEs which show they are trying to use them all up by the end of the shuttle program, leaving nothing over but for museams.

Why are they discarding $50 million engines?

I can't imagine that they can't find some way to use them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 10/04/2007 12:11 am
Quote
tnphysics - 3/10/2007  7:50 PM

Quote
Jackson - 3/10/2007  6:01 PM
They've already started the process of ending the SSMEs as per presentations on the transition plan on L2. There's a presentation on SSMEs which show they are trying to use them all up by the end of the shuttle program, leaving nothing over but for museams.

Why are they discarding $50 million engines?

I can't imagine that they can't find some way to use them.
From Jackon's post, I don't interpret that they're throwing them away, but that they are using up their available life and then retiring them. Different thing entirely. If you had a use for them, you could refurb them yet again, but only up to a point. Everything has a defined life and if the engines are at the limit, it may not even be possible to refurb them again.

If that's the case the alternative would be to restart the line.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/04/2007 12:31 am
Quote
tankmodeler - 3/10/2007  8:11 PM

Quote
tnphysics - 3/10/2007  7:50 PM

Quote
Jackson - 3/10/2007  6:01 PM
They've already started the process of ending the SSMEs as per presentations on the transition plan on L2. There's a presentation on SSMEs which show they are trying to use them all up by the end of the shuttle program, leaving nothing over but for museams.

Why are they discarding $50 million engines?

I can't imagine that they can't find some way to use them.
From Jackon's post, I don't interpret that they're throwing them away, but that they are using up their available life and then retiring them. Different thing entirely. If you had a use for them, you could refurb them yet again, but only up to a point. Everything has a defined life and if the engines are at the limit, it may not even be possible to refurb them again.

If that's the case the alternative would be to restart the line.

Paul

The line stopped years ago.

There will be some life still in them.  

There is no way to use them.  What ever launch vehicle would use them would be a dead end program and too few of flights to recover the development costs and so not worth the effort

It would be more of a waste to use them
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 10/04/2007 12:43 am
If an RLV is ever developed, they may be used for that. Otherwise, they are of little help.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/04/2007 12:47 am
Quote
tnphysics - 3/10/2007  8:43 PM

If an RLV is ever developed, they may be used for that. Otherwise, they are of little help.

Then build something new.  SSME expertise won't be around
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 10/04/2007 05:08 pm
Quote
Jim - 3/10/2007  8:31 PM
The line stopped years ago.
Indeed. = $$$$$$$

Quote
There will be some life still in them.  
As little as possible, I imagine.

Quote
There is no way to use them.  What ever launch vehicle would use them would be a dead end program and too few of flights to recover the development costs and so not worth the effort

It would be more of a waste to use them
Agree absolutely.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/04/2007 09:08 pm
Here are the cost & time options for comparison:-

RS-25d (current SSME designed for reuse on Shuttle):
New Development: $0.
New Production: $500m for new facilities and re-start production.
Per Unit: $60m each (Ares-V would use $300m worth per flight)
Time to Availability: No Earlier Than 2010


RS-25e (disposable variant of current SSME, possibly with air-start capability):
New Development: $500m.
New Production: $500m for new facilities and re-start production.
Per Unit: $50m each (Ares-V would use $250m worth per flight)
Time to Availability: No Earlier Than 2014


RS-68 (current version used on Delta-IV today):
New Development: $0.
New Production: $0.
Per Unit: $17m each for man-rated versions  (Ares-V would use $85m worth per flight)
Time to Availability: Now


RS-68A (new version designed to be operated at 106%):
New Development: $500m.
New Production: $0 current facilities are ready to start building.
Per Unit: $20m each  (Ares-V would use $100m worth per flight)
Time to Availability: No Earlier Than 2012


In particular, pay attention to the cost for use on Ares-V per flight.   This is the recurring cost to NASA every time they go to the moon.   Saving $150-200m per mission is really significant, especially if you can keep development and production costs down too.

And any completely new engine in this class would cost at minimum $2-3bn to develop, would need all-new facilities to produce, and wouldn't cost as little as RS-68 does already.   This is why that was never an option.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 10/04/2007 09:14 pm
The  RS-68A is going to happen anyway because of a Delta IV Heavy requirement so it might as well become part of your baseline too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/04/2007 09:27 pm
RS-68A is higher stressed than RS-68.   Operating at 106% drops the reliability from 1 failure in 770 (.9987) to 1 in 380 (.9974).

Is this good for Crewed use?   I don't think so.


Ref: SSME is 1 in 588 (.9983).


RS-68A is likely to becomes the production line standard, so the hardware would ultimately be used on Jupiter.

However, it doesn't *have* to be used at 106% Power Level for crew use.   It can still be operated at 100% Power Level, and using it at that level guarantees the engine retains its full safety margins.

This is how we currently think RS-68A should fit in to our plans.   For cargo launches we could probably use the 106% Power Level, but we haven't taken the chance of "assuming" the extra performance for any of our architecture yet - not until the 106% is successfully developed and completes testing.

Ross.
Title: Dr Wernher Von Braun and DIRECT
Post by: Smatcha on 10/04/2007 10:12 pm
Source:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/monograph4/splash2.htm

CONCLUDING REMARKS BY DR. WERNHER VON BRAUN ABOUT MODE SELECTION FOR THE LUNAR LANDING PROGRAM GIVEN TO DR. JOSEPH F. SHEA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (SYSTEMS) OFFICE OF MANNED SPACE FLIGHT
JUNE 7, 1962


Begin Quote

Let me point out again that we at the Marshall Space Flight Center consider the Earth Orbit Rendezvous Mode entirely feasible.  Specifically, found the Tanking Mode substantially superior to the Connecting Mode.  Compared to the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous Mode, it even seems to offer a somewhat greater performance margin.  This is true even if only the nominal two C-5’s (tanker and manned lunar vehicle) are involved, but the performance margin could be further enlarge almost indefinitely by the use of additional tankers.

End Quote

Sounds just like the DIRECT architectural options and rational.  Also notice how “Connecting Mode”  ie ESAS is substantially worse than “Tanking Mode” DIRECT.  All according to none other than Dr Wernher Von Braun.

Let see should we follow Mike, Scott and ESAS-Doug recommendations or Dr Wernher Von Braun and the Laws of Physics?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/05/2007 12:46 am
What about the RS-68RV (regenerative, vacuum optimized - I made up the name)?  Do you have cost estimates for this option, Ross?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 10/05/2007 01:23 am
Quote
kraisee - 4/10/2007  5:27 PM

RS-68A is higher stressed than RS-68.   Operating at 106% drops the reliability from 1 failure in 770 (.9987) to 1 in 380 (.9974).

Is this good for Crewed use?   I don't think so.


Ref: SSME is 1 in 588 (.9983).


RS-68A is likely to becomes the production line standard, so the hardware would ultimately be used on Jupiter.

However, it doesn't *have* to be used at 106% Power Level for crew use.   It can still be operated at 100% Power Level, and using it at that level guarantees the engine retains its full safety margins.

This is how we currently think RS-68A should fit in to our plans.   For cargo launches we could probably use the 106% Power Level, but we haven't taken the chance of "assuming" the extra performance for any of our architecture yet - not until the 106% is successfully developed and completes testing.

Ross.

What are the catastrophic (non survivable) failure rates?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: imcub on 10/05/2007 01:55 am
Quote
tnphysics - 4/10/2007  6:23 PM

Quote
kraisee - 4/10/2007  5:27 PM

RS-68A is higher stressed than RS-68.   Operating at 106% drops the reliability from 1 failure in 770 (.9987) to 1 in 380 (.9974).

Is this good for Crewed use?   I don't think so.


Ref: SSME is 1 in 588 (.9983).


RS-68A is likely to becomes the production line standard, so the hardware would ultimately be used on Jupiter.

However, it doesn't *have* to be used at 106% Power Level for crew use.   It can still be operated at 100% Power Level, and using it at that level guarantees the engine retains its full safety margins.

This is how we currently think RS-68A should fit in to our plans.   For cargo launches we could probably use the 106% Power Level, but we haven't taken the chance of "assuming" the extra performance for any of our architecture yet - not until the 106% is successfully developed and completes testing.

Ross.

What are the catastrophic (non survivable) failure rates?

I'm not sure LOC vs. LOM is really an issue.  With a $2 billion space mission on the balance ... why decrease the LOM unless you really have to.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/05/2007 02:56 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 4/10/2007  8:46 PM

What about the RS-68RV (regenerative, vacuum optimized - I made up the name)?  Do you have cost estimates for this option, Ross?

I only have "ballpark" numbers for these.   Any new Regen Nozzle for RS-68 (Sea Level optimized or Vacuum) would add about $300-500m extra in development cost, same again in new production facilities required, and would increase engine cost by an extra $10m per unit.   But most importantly would take two more years to field due mostly to the extra testing required and the extra time each nozzle would need in production.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/05/2007 03:10 am
Quote
tnphysics - 4/10/2007  9:23 PM

What are the catastrophic (non survivable) failure rates?

Similarly comparative to SSME.   LOC numbers for the standard RS-68 is expected to be about 30% better than current SSME.   RS-68A will be about 35% below current SSME.

Now, because we haven't ever had a catastrophic failure of an SSME in flight (12 serious failures in early pre-qualification testing though), I would say both RS-68 variants should be relatively safe.

But which would *you* prefer to strap your own butt onto?   Me, I'll go for the safer variant if given a choice, Ta muchly.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: STS Tony on 10/05/2007 04:43 am
Would Direct keep the Rollercoaster Escape System in the pad design?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/05/2007 09:08 pm
Yes, we think the new Escape system is a great idea.

However we aren't using it quite the same way.   Ares launch towers are currently to be mounted on top of the Mobile Launcher Platforms which will be rolled to and from the Pads, and there will be no such structures located permanently at the Pads.

For Jupiter we instead propose to leave the two existing launch towers used by Shuttle at the pad today (called Fixed Service Structures), and keep them there permanently.   The escape system would be attached to those instead.


Jupiter would use a much simpler "Minimized Launcher Umbilical Tower" on its Mobile Launcher's, very similar in design to the Atlas-V's.

This means we still get all the benefits of service access at the Pads, and the benefits of making all the umbilical connections between the pad and vehicle in the VAB before rollout, yet we delete a lot of weight which the Crawlers have to carry, and we delete a lot of cost for developing all-new launch towers.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 10/06/2007 02:22 am
How are safety and reliability numbers derived?

And why are some failures non survivable and others survivable?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: hyper_snyper on 10/06/2007 03:41 am
This is more of a Orion question, but what the heck.  I was reading another thread about the LOC/LOM scenario of one SRB lighting on the pad and the other not.  Given that DIRECT uses the twin SRB approach from STS my question is this:  

Should the unthinkable happen to a Jupiter-120 where only one booster lights at T-0, can the LAS act quick enough to detect the anomaly and haul the CM out of there before the LV starts cartwheeling off to the ocean (or Range pushes the button)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/06/2007 03:52 am
Quote
hyper_snyper - 5/10/2007  9:41 PM
Should the unthinkable happen to a Jupiter-120 where only one booster lights at T-0, can the LAS act quick enough to detect the anomaly and haul the CM out of there before the LV starts cartwheeling off to the ocean (or Range pushes the button)?

I would think this would be one of, if not the easiest failures to quickly detect and respond to.  The LAS is quite fast.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 10/06/2007 04:01 am
Agreed. If anyone was in danger it would be ground personnel.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/06/2007 09:30 pm
The current estimate to develop the J-120 is 5 years.  Starting in 2014 will it still be a 5 year program?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/06/2007 10:57 pm
A lot can happen between now and then.  DIRECT is based upon current capabilities, facilities, tooling, and staffing.  If a lot of that changes, much of the footing for it being a sweet spot could have changed with it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/07/2007 12:47 am
I an not convinced that Ares-V will be built and suspect that a heavier lift than 20 mT will be needed for Moon and Mars missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 10/07/2007 01:05 pm
Not if Richard P. Speck is right.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/08/2007 07:06 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 7/10/2007  9:05 AM

Not if Richard P. Speck is right.

While I'm willing to be proven wrong, I doubt Speck has a water-tight case there.

The Apollo guys spent more than half a decade trying to get the weight for a manned lunar lander down as low as possible, with a virtually open cheque-book.   The weight of the Apollo LM determined the size and specification of the Apollo CSM, and together the two spacecraft determined the size and capacity of the S-IVB EDS.

What the Apollo guys ended up with was pretty darned close to an *absolute* minimum mass for all three elements needed to achieve the goal of landing two humans on the moon's surface.   While we could slightly improve the mass fractions today using more modern materials, it wouldn't be an improvement by an order of magnitude.

Speck has some great ideas, but if that's the goal, basic physics determines that we're looking at similar sized spacecraft and EDS to do it again now.   If we want to put four people on the surface, the size will be even larger, not smaller.

I think Speck still has a lot of people to convince, and until he can provide some data to back up his claims I will remain a natural born skeptic on this issue.

NOTE: Further discussion on Speck's work needs to be spun off into a separate thread please.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/08/2007 07:08 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 6/10/2007  8:47 PM

I an not convinced that Ares-V will be built and suspect that a heavier lift than 20 mT will be needed for Moon and Mars missions.

Agreed.   While I like the design, I think Ares-V hasn't got a prayer of actually being built - for purely political reasons which I think most readers are already well aware.

By focusing all of NASA's efforts on just Ares-I, NASA is slitting its own throat IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/08/2007 07:12 pm
Quote
rumble - 6/10/2007  6:57 PM

A lot can happen between now and then.  DIRECT is based upon current capabilities, facilities, tooling, and staffing.  If a lot of that changes, much of the footing for it being a sweet spot could have changed with it.

Agreed.

For DIRECT/Jupiter to get provide the maximum benefits it needs tobe selected within roughly the next 18 months.   The sooner the better though.

After that timeframe the advantages begin to diminish as existing STS-related systems are disposed of.   It can still at least match Ares-I cost/schedule through to early 2011, but if selected any later than that would push the "first flight" back too far and that's a no-no.

Ross.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/08/2007 07:16 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 5/10/2007  12:01 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 5/10/2007  11:52 PM

Quote
hyper_snyper - 5/10/2007  9:41 PM
Should the unthinkable happen to a Jupiter-120 where only one booster lights at T-0, can the LAS act quick enough to detect the anomaly and haul the CM out of there before the LV starts cartwheeling off to the ocean (or Range pushes the button)?

I would think this would be one of, if not the easiest failures to quickly detect and respond to.  The LAS is quite fast.

Agreed. If anyone was in danger it would be ground personnel.


The LAS would save the crew in such a situation, and the launcher itself would then go into the hands of Range Safety a few seconds after the crew are clear.   It would make a big mess, but ground personnel around the VAB/viewing sites shouldn't actually be in harms way - they'll blow it before it ever gets that far.

There are a handful of people in the rescue APC's who are much closer to the Pad at the time of launch though - they would need to have the vehicle all closed-up to be safe, but they should be fine.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/08/2007 07:26 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 5/10/2007  10:22 PM

How are safety and reliability numbers derived?

And why are some failures non survivable and others survivable?

We have used the same process as ESAS did to derive our numbers.   Actually our numbers are derived by two of the guys who worked on the ESAS Report itself determining all of the LOC/LOM numbers for all the other vehicles.

I'm personally not very familiar with the details of the process.   There is a "broad strokes" description in Section 6 of the ESAS Report as it applies to a specific vehicle (the original "Stick" CLV 13.1).   And there is a more detailed (though not very specific) outline of the overall process in Section 8.   There are more details in the "ACI-Draft" version of the ESAS Report than in the regular "public" version BTW, so try to dig that up if you can.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 10/09/2007 07:27 am
Quote
kraisee - 8/10/2007  10:08 PM
Agreed.   While I like the design, I think Ares-V hasn't got a prayer of actually being built - for purely political reasons which I think most readers are already well aware.

By focusing all of NASA's efforts on just Ares-I, NASA is slitting its own throat IMHO.

Ross.

Let's see where we stand.

Hypothetical: a Candidate who is anti return-to-the-moon and pro earth-sciences-from-LEO gets elected.

Case 1. NASA is working Ares-I. It's a sleek launcher, minimalist design for manned-to-LEO, and a lot of work has allready been done on two essential elements for lunar missions: the J-2 and the large cryo upper stage. Also there is the development on the new 5-seg SRB which is an upgraded capability no matter what the critics say. Ares-I is keeping the rocket scientists busy with some real rabbits to chase, and it's payload cannot go to the Moon by itself. The new Administration can let Ares-I live because it's not a menace to the new stay-in-LEO-tend-the-Earth politics. It could be accelerated to end-of-2013-IOC given adequate funding. And to delete Ares-I would equate to cancel good efforts that already went into new, superb hardware.

Case 2. NASA has recently switched to J-120. Whatever work was done on J-2, large cryo u/s and 5-seg SRB was halted and mothballed. The new Administration takes a long, chilling look at J-120. Given adequate funding, it could be accelerated to maybe 2012-IOC but Orion may not. J-120 is too big for manned-to-LEO, twice as large and twice the recurring cost. J-120 is a permanent acusation of an unfinished job, always waiting for that upper stage to make it whole, to look natural. In fact, waiting for that Earth-Departure-Stage. Earth departure ?! No way ! Earth departure is only for robotic probes, please, you can have as many as you like, but the humans stay home. Now, J-120's big brother J-232 is a real rabbit to chase, it's a beautiful launcher, looking really better than the bloated Ares-V, better proportions, them SRB's don't look so good on the sides of a 10m dia core but they do look good with the vintage 8.4m dia core. So what ? The J-232 is nothing for LEO, it has Lunar written allover it. And the J-120 is really too big for Orion-to-LEO and was speciffically designed to not require any new development. No new hydrolox restartable engine, no new, large cryo upper stage, no extra segment on SRB's. That was the plan, to wisely deffer any new hardware for later. Now later has come and chasing real rabbits is not required, more, is programatically forbidden. Flying J-120 to LEO for years and years would look really nonsensical.

renclod
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/09/2007 06:53 pm
Couple of points.

First, remember that Jupiter-232 still needs J-2X.   So J-2X development work would actually continue unabated with no cancellation, no delays and no interruptions.   Scheduled delivery would still be 2015 (maybe 2017, which just gives PWR two extra years to work out any kinks), but that J-2X would go straight to use for Lunar missions.   It isn't required just for ISS crew rotation flights.   Even in a politically hostile environment, the contract for J-2X has already been issued to PWR and would be relatively easy to keep funded by justifying it as part of NASA's engineering requirements for any number of reasons.


Also, the assumption that changing from Ares-I to Jupiter-120 would cancel the large cryo US development work is also incorrect.   Everything which has been learned for Ares-I Upper Stage, and the entire team working that stage today, are the ideally placed team to switch to working on either the conversion of the External Tank into the Core Stage or the EDS.   While the final product certainly has different dimensions, they are all still fundamentally "large cryo stages" and thus have a huge overlaps.   The engineering knowledge in place today for Ares-I U/S is perfectly suited to Jupiter.


And I have already explained how ATK benefits from the switch from Ares to Jupiter too.   Sure they don't get as much development money for the new 5-segment boosters, but they get to re-qualify the 4-segment boosters again and also get to quadruple the quantity of SRB segments needed for flight as they will under Ares.   Roughly 150 extra segments are needed by Jupiters through 2020 than Ares needs.   That would be worth more than a billion dollars more to ATK than the current Ares work.   That sort of money gets you considerable political support.


Regarding the political climate, if a strongly anti-manned-exploration candidate wins the 2008 election and has a suitable Congress - we will lose the chance at the moon one way or the other.

We would still get *one* new launcher system though because there's just too much political support to disband the entire STS workforce.


So the choice becomes which one do you want with you when you enter the hole?


With Ares-I we are limited to LEO for the duration with no alternatives open to us.   If Ares-V is consigned to the trash, more than half of the STS workforce would be RIF'd over night and would thus be unavailable to NASA at any time in the future.   That would be an exact repeat of what happened after Apollo, and NASA still has scars from that.   Worse; the US would have *nothing* available at all which can lift more than 25mT to LEO.   Worse still, after the usual two terms in office, a new pro-President comes into power, NASA then still has to wait more than 8 years to re-build its workforce and then develop the new Ares-V from a standing start.   That would mean Ares-V flies for the first time no earlier than 2024, probably a lot later than that.


But if NASA has already switched to Jupiter-120, then NASA has a lunar-capable launcher waiting and ready to go into action the day a pro-NASA President is sitting back in the Oval Office.   NASA has 45-50mT to LEO capability from 2012 through the entire "bad" President's terms, and with the use of just a standard Centaur-like stage on top to get 70-80mT to LEO performance.

With 70mT lift capability NASA could begin a "science-based" lunar program by using large unmanned landers which "just so happen" to later be "upgraded" to include people.

Sure as heck can't imagine doing that with Ares-I.   Can you?

And if you want public support from an anti-NASA President, send a big sample return mission to "gather science" from Apollo 11's landing site using a J-120/Centaur.   Put the images on TV of the lander, the flag and the plaque.   See what the public says the following day and just watch that anti-NASA President re-evaluate the overwhelming public support which would rise for NASA.   Any savvy President will flip their opinions to a pro-NASA position over night to ride that wave of support.   And Ares-I couldn't help you do that.


If NASA can keep J-2 development going in the background (can't see any reason why they couldn't), then as soon as the "bad" President goes away, they should be ready to immediately add an Upper Stage to the J-120, turning it into a J-232, open up full Lunar access that way.   We certainly wouldn't be waiting two more full Presidential terms to develop the whole Ares-V.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/09/2007 08:17 pm
Can anyone think of any "earth-sciences-from-LEO" that require a 30+ mT satellite?
Answers in the General Discussion forum please.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2007 08:35 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 9/10/2007  4:17 PM

Can anyone think of any "earth-sciences-from-LEO" that require a 30+ mT satellite?
Answers in the General Discussion forum please.

no, anything required would be much smaller.  Also the EELV's would handle it.

Additionally, there is no west coast launch site (which is required for earth missions) for shuttle derived vehicles
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/09/2007 09:02 pm
Quote
Jim - 9/10/2007  4:35 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 9/10/2007  4:17 PM

Can anyone think of any "earth-sciences-from-LEO" that require a 30+ mT satellite?
Answers in the General Discussion forum please.

no, anything required would be much smaller.  Also the EELV's would handle it.

Additionally, there is no west coast launch site (which is required for earth missions) for shuttle derived vehicles

Well, there is SLC-6, however it is used for Delta IV launches now and never flew the shuttle because of major design issues, and the AF dropping out of the shuttle program.  However there really isn't any point in a polar Direct/Ares program.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/ShuttleSLC6.jpg
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2007 09:14 pm
SLC-6 or any other "shuttle" facilities no longer are capable of handling shuttle components, just as the LC-39 can't handle Saturn V's any more
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 10/09/2007 10:32 pm
Quote
kraisee - 9/10/2007  9:53 PM
First, remember that Jupiter-232 still needs J-2X.
How could anyone forget, J-232 needs 2X  J-2X !
Quote
So J-2X development work would actually continue unabated with no cancellation, no delays and no interruptions.
Not in the "Direct" architecture. "Direct" removes the J-2X from the critical path, IIRC. So let's stick to the ground rules and assumptions - your gr&a.
Quote
Even in a politically hostile environment, the contract for J-2X has already been issued to PWR and would be relatively easy to keep funded by justifying it as part of NASA's engineering requirements for any number of reasons.
What you guys keep typing for about a year now is that it is relatively easy to cancel a program, that it happens all the time with NASA programs. Well, it's time to live up to your own sermon.  With J-120 baselined, J-2X is programatically a no-no. The only reason for the J-2X is the EDS, and do I need to repeat the gr&a of our dispute ? no earth departure for humans, please ...
Quote
Regarding the political climate, if a strongly anti-manned-exploration candidate wins the 2008 election and has a suitable Congress - we will lose the chance at the moon one way or the other.
Agreed, but what I take issues with is
Quote
By focusing all of NASA's efforts on just Ares-I, NASA is slitting its own throat IMHO. Ross
Next one:
Quote
So the choice becomes which one do you want with you when you enter the hole?
Yes. I would want the one with the best chance to get the real rabbits, and with the best chance to be tolerated by a very different space program.
Quote

With Ares-I we are limited to LEO for the duration with no alternatives open to us.
And with Jupiter-120 we are limited to the same LEO for the same duration with the same zero alternatives open.
Quote
If Ares-V is consigned to the trash,
then Jupiter-232 is in the same trashcan.
Quote

the US would have *nothing* available at all which can lift more than 25mT to LEO.
Your 25mT to LEO is good enough for the new "vision". In order to study the global warming ad nauseam, it's much better to have 40 x 2mT satellites than 2 x 40mT satellites, wouldn't you agree ?
Quote
an anti-NASA President,
In my humble oppinion, Ross, there is no such thing as "an anti-NASA President" and no such thing as an anti-President or "cheating" NASA. There could be an anti-manned-exploration President, but the President is allways pro-NASA and in turn NASA is at best manned-exploration-neutral. As Dr.Griffin explained so clear, the NASA Administrator has a small voice in the cabinet; and, we all know, a very sensitive ear.
Quote
If NASA can keep J-2 development going in the background (can't see any reason why they couldn't)
I can see a few reasons why they could not.
First, it would be plain insubordination if they would do it outside the program. If the program is Ares-I, by definition the J-2 is inside the program. If the program is Jupiter-120, by definition the J-2 is for an Earth-Departure-is-for-robotic-probes-only-Stage, and it's forbidden.
Second, it requires lots of funds.
Third, the test stands are pretty big from what I see in the pictures, and are built above the ground level.
And fourth, the occasional explosions are loud  :laugh:

renclod

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 10/10/2007 12:47 am
An 80mt launcher (possible without J-2X developement per kraisee) would allow a 2 launch luner architecture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/10/2007 04:16 am
Yes, a Centaur Upper Stage on top of the Jupiter-120 would allow a limited Lunar mission to still go ahead - and could probably be started under the cover of being a "large unmanned" science program in a hostile political climate.  A 2-launch solution like this would offer performance only about the same as the previous Apollo missions though, likely only capable of placing two people on the lunar surface at a time.

To get the ESAS-like four-person crew there using Jupiter-120/Centaur, you would probably need to go to a 3-launch solution.

A proper EDS is still the best way to go, but not the only way.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/10/2007 04:29 am
Renclod,
It boils down to workforce.

If Ares-V were canned for any reason, Ares-I is too small a system to be able to support the salaries of all the STS workforce.   There wouldn't be a chance in hell for any of them.   Ares-V's cancellation would spell nothing short of severe job losses throughout the entire NASA family.

History shows us that when such experienced workers are let go, they *never* come back in 4, 8 or 12 years when NASA eventually gets some favorable political winds again.   1972 through 1975 taught us precisely that lesson when staff were let go after Apollo, and then NASA tried to re-hire them all again around 1980 for Shuttle.   The bad taste that a pink slip leaves in the mouth means that these intelligent people simply never want to work for NASA again and risk the same treatment in the future.   NASA's own records show they only managed to get back less than 3% of the people they tried to get back.   Everyone else had already found a job somewhere else instead, with far less risk of redundancy, and were quite happy not to risk working for NASA again.

The problem is that Ares-I is a one-trick pony.   It lifts crew and does nothing else.   If you want to do anything else, you need a second launcher of some sorts, EELV for small cargo and Ares-V for large.   Without Ares-V, Ares-I is seriously hog-tied.


The difference is that Jupiter-120 *is* a large enough to retain the workforce.   Because of its extra performance it has a far wider range of potential uses.  It isn't limited to just ISS crew rotations without a "big brother" launcher.   J-120 can potentially do an awful lot of other things and it is that which can protect the STS workforce.   With Jupiter-120 the STS workforce can be retained even if we don't retain the chance to go back to the moon.   That means the critical staff which we *need* for the lunar program will still be in the program when we eventually do get another chance as the wheel turns.

As an aside, politically speaking, the potential of sacking lots of NASA workers is hugely unpopular along the corridors of power in D.C., and Jupiter's greater guarantees of staff retention has already been acknowledged by senior political figures as being far more robust for NASA's future than Ares.   That isn't my conclusion BTW - that was told to me by someone inside the beltway who confirmed that this was being checked into before the DIRECT team ever thought of it.

Whether Griffin acknowledges it is another matter entirely of course, but he won't be there 18 months from now so the strength of his voice is already diminishing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula2 on 10/10/2007 04:47 am
Even without a centaur based upper stage, J-120 can put 40 to 50 mt in LEO. That's enough to build an infrastructure (in-space fuel depots) based moon/mars program. Not to mention enabling large unmanned sample return missions to the inner solar system and vehicles to orbit objects in the outer. Think Cassini with an extra 20 mt stage. 'Direct' (pun-intended) injection to outer system transfer orbits. Or large NEP vehicles.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/10/2007 05:13 am
Can anyone remind me again, exactly how much of that we could still contemplate if we get stuck with just Ares-I?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula2 on 10/10/2007 05:27 am
zip
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 10/10/2007 11:27 am
Quote
kraisee - 9/10/2007  7:53 PM

And if you want public support from an anti-NASA President, send a big sample return mission to "gather science" from Apollo 11's landing site using a J-120/Centaur.   Put the images on TV of the lander, the flag and the plaque.   See what the public says the following day and just watch that anti-NASA President re-evaluate the overwhelming public support which would rise for NASA.   Any savvy President will flip their opinions to a pro-NASA position over night to ride that wave of support.   And Ares-I couldn't help you do that.

A candidate who wants to restore funding cut from NASA planetary science and aeronautics research rather than redirect it to Apollo+50 is not "anti-NASA". She just thinks science is more important than you do and that nostalgically recreating Apollo is less important.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: shostetler on 10/10/2007 12:23 pm
Ya know Ron Paul would support Direct as frugal as he is. Direct would have a far better shot under his administration than under anybody else's.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/10/2007 01:57 pm
Ross,

Perhaps as time goes on, an alteration to the DIRECT plan could be considered:

- Keep J2x development going
- Move the Ares-I US group to the J-232 US
- Get LM to work on the tank mods
- Get ATK to apply lessons learned from modding the booster for Ares-I to a 4-seg for the Jupiters

This way you end up with the J-232 sooner, and more capability in each, albeit for more cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/10/2007 05:35 pm
Lee Jay,
Yes, all of those are good options and would form the basis of my own plan to accomplish this.   Of course, cash and schedule will be the real deciding factors.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SirThoreth on 10/10/2007 11:45 pm
Quote
shostetler - 10/10/2007  5:23 AM

Ya know Ron Paul would support Direct as frugal as he is. Direct would have a far better shot under his administration than under anybody else's.

Would that be before or after he pushed to eliminate NASA, and sell its assets to private industry?

As he himself wrote:

"We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators."

Source: http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: vt_hokie on 10/11/2007 04:07 am
Quote
SirThoreth - 10/10/2007  7:45 PM

Would that be before or after he pushed to eliminate NASA, and sell its assets to private industry?

As he himself wrote:

"We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators."

Source: http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html

These libertarian ideologues on the right in this country are more of a threat to NASA than any Democrat, imo.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SirThoreth on 10/11/2007 05:52 am
Quote
vt_hokie - 10/10/2007  9:07 PM

These libertarian ideologues on the right in this country are more of a threat to NASA than any Democrat, imo.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you.  The thing that concerns me about completely privatizing human spaceflight, especially those who argue in favor of private flights to the Moon and Mars, is that I'm still not clear on where the financial incentives to do so are.  Private industry spends money on where there's a market they can sell in and make a profit.  Where are there sufficient markets for that?

(We now return you to your regularly-scheduled DIRECT thread).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sticksux on 10/11/2007 11:31 am
Quote
SirThoreth - 11/10/2007  12:45 AM
Quote
shostetler - 10/10/2007  5:23 AM
Ya know Ron Paul would support Direct as frugal as he is. Direct would have a far better shot under his administration than under anybody else's.

Would that be before or after he pushed to eliminate NASA, and sell its assets to private industry?

As he himself wrote:

"We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators."

Source: http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html

I read it. Wow! Now this sounds like a plan.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/11/2007 01:07 pm
Quote
SirThoreth - 11/10/2007  12:52 AM

Not necessarily disagreeing with you.  The thing that concerns me about completely privatizing human spaceflight, especially those who argue in favor of private flights to the Moon and Mars, is that I'm still not clear on where the financial incentives to do so are.  Private industry spends money on where there's a market they can sell in and make a profit.  Where are there sufficient markets for that?

(We now return you to your regularly-scheduled DIRECT thread).
Wait!  Belay that return!

IF  (big, big "if")  manned spaceflight were left to private industry to develop/maintain, it would still have to be government-FUNDED because there simply isn't a business model that would support a company trying to accomplish a VSE-sized goal.  As much as I believe government is a poor answer for most things, I have to admit that some projects are too big (and not profitable, dollar-wise) to be able to be done by private profit-based companies.

On the other side of that, smaller in-space goals are starting to get to the point where they CAN be accomplished by private entities (SpaceX, Virgin Galactic/Scaled Composites, etc), and I expect to see good things in this space.

But a lunar base or a martian base is something that would take decades to begin to turn a profit.  The up-front investment is staggering.  

So I think for now, manned exploration will be government-funded, and will probably remain government run.  ...but I don't think it'll stay that way forever.

ok.  I just wanted to wedge that in there.  NOW, back to our regularly scheduled DIRECT v2.0 thread! ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SirThoreth on 10/11/2007 02:51 pm
Quote
sticksux - 11/10/2007  4:31 AM

I read it. Wow! Now this sounds like a plan.

It's a wondeful plan...if you want to end space exploration in the United States.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/11/2007 03:04 pm
Quote
SirThoreth - 11/10/2007  10:51 AM

Quote
sticksux - 11/10/2007  4:31 AM

I read it. Wow! Now this sounds like a plan.

It's a wondeful plan...if you want to end space exploration in the United States.
Good morning folks;

Despite several requests, we are getting further and further off topic. This thread is not about any of the stuff recently discussed. Please refrain from continuing these discussions on this thread. Start a new one, please.

In the spirit of returning The DIRECT v2 thread to DIRECT v2, I would be extremely interested in knowing what kinds of science and/or exploration missions YOU think might be enabled by an operational Jupiter-120, which can place 45mT into LEO at 28.5º.

The Jupiter launch vehicle family, specifically the J-1 and J-2 series, can enable an enormous range of new possibilities. Please come back and tell us what missions you would propose for the J-120 if you were in Program Office.

Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula on 10/11/2007 04:41 pm
NEO asteroid, and Phobos / Demos sampling missions. These are the closest objects to LEO in terms of delta-v. Closer than the surface of the moon. If they have any useful and recoverable resources, especially water, that would be of immense benfit to future exploration.

I think you might even manage manned missions, using a small shelter/return capsule and inflateable habitat.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 10/11/2007 05:26 pm
You could also use the DIRECT mass lifting capability for development and demonstration flight of an NTR upper stage.  This was in the NERVA Program years ago, but abandoned.  Using updated materials technology, an NTR would be highly useful for missions to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/11/2007 05:30 pm
I would like to turn the discussion here towards a very important aspect which we haven't really spent much time on, but which is critically important:

If/when NASA did/does decide to make the switch, HOW can they do so without losing face?

I would like comments and suggestions on how such a massive transition could be presented as a really good thing for everyone concerned.

The DIRECT Team has *NOT* been doing this to try to harm NASA in any way, we've actually been doing everything we can to make things better for NASA.

So what do people here think would be some of the best options for making such a switch work smoothly and with the minimum of fuss in all four of the following areas:-

 1) Media reaction
 2) Public opinion
 3) Workforce confidence
 4) Political support

Your feedback on this particular subject would be greatly appreciated by us all.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/11/2007 05:50 pm
Quote
kraisee - 11/10/2007  11:30 AM

I would like to turn the discussion here towards a very important aspect which we haven't really spent much time on, but which is critically important:

If/when NASA did/does decide to make the switch, HOW can they do so without losing face?

I don't see why they would.  Did realizing the planned air-start and expendable SSME didn't work, and the resulting switch to the J2 cause them to lose face?  Did switching to the 5-segment SRB cause them to lose face?  Changing the roller coaster from one design to another, clean-pad versus not, etc....lots of changes have been made, and can still be made.  Make the changes as just another in the long series of changes and it won't be seen as a massive switch by anyone that isn't following it as closely as we are.

Constellation - rocket to lift new capsule, big rocket to lift big stuff.  This is what is known by the people that *do* follow this stuff (outside industry and enthusiasts).  Most people are unaware of the Shuttle's decommissioning, and even the name of the new program, much less the name of the spacecraft, and least of all the configuration.  It's just not visible to the public.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/11/2007 06:05 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 11/10/2007  1:50 PM

Quote
kraisee - 11/10/2007  11:30 AM

I would like to turn the discussion here towards a very important aspect which we haven't really spent much time on, but which is critically important:

If/when NASA did/does decide to make the switch, HOW can they do so without losing face?

I don't see why they would.  Did realizing the planned air-start and expendable SSME didn't work, and the resulting switch to the J2 cause them to lose face?  Did switching to the 5-segment SRB cause them to lose face?  Changing the roller coaster from one design to another, clean-pad versus not, etc....lots of changes have been made, and can still be made.  Make the changes as just another in the long series of changes and it won't be seen as a massive switch by anyone that isn't following it as closely as we are.

Constellation - rocket to lift new capsule, big rocket to lift big stuff.  This is what is known by the people that *do* follow this stuff (outside industry and enthusiasts).  Most people are unaware of the Shuttle's decommissioning, and even the name of the new program, much less the name of the spacecraft, and least of all the configuration.  It's just not visible to the public.
Lee Jay
What you say is true, but the NASA leadership will likely be very sensitive to what the “insiders” have to say, especially anyone in positions of influence in Congress. They are going to need to present the case for the change-over in such a way that it can reasonably be viewed as NASA making a prudent move, financially as well as technically. They will need to be able to look like responsible stewards of the public trust. They will be more than willing to say “the Ares that we started with did not live up to our original expectations” so long as they can ALSO say “in the process of attempting to develop the Ares, we were able to identify a more responsible path forward, one which is not only a superior approach, but also a better stewardship of the people’s money which we have been entrusted with”. Something like that. They will also need to be able to say that the funding expended thus far is not wasted because the vast majority of it is directly applicable to the new direction. They will need to say that they made this decision before the point in time when that would no longer be true. That will make them look good to the holders of the purse strings, which is important, because above all else, NASA will need to maintain their trust. They will need to display themselves as being thoughtful, responsible, and responsive to engineering facts as they become clear during the design process. They will need to make sure that the switch does not give the Congress pause in its opinion of the agency to be able to responsibly use the funding it is provided with.

As regards your specific examples, they were all changes within the Ares program, and as such could be viewed as normal engineering decisions. This is a complete change of program, and that is a totally different animal.

They will need to develop this announcement to be as complete a statement of fact as they can "as they see it"!!, take and answer a few questions from a friendly newscorp, and then deliberately put the issue behind them and get on with the business of returning Americans to space, without looking back. They must not look back! They MUST present the appearance that they are completely confident, in complete control of the facts, are on schedule, and are still the "can-do" group that Congress thinks they are. They must NOT be made to eat crow, under ANY circumstances! At that point it will be up to us all to provide NASA with as much physical and/or moral support as we possibly can. We simply must be their cheerleaders, something I will gladly do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/11/2007 06:13 pm
Well, you just answered Ross' question!

In any case, when the term "losing face" was used, I thought it was meant to be in relation to the public, which I feel is a non-issue.  If it's in relation to Congress and industry, that's a whole other story, and I think simply telling the truth (like you did) is the way to go.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Linden on 10/11/2007 06:19 pm

Here’s one possible approach:


NASA FINDS A BETTER WAY
After several years of preliminary development, NASA has found a better way to achieve the Vision for Space Exploration.
The new approach would mean skipping the Ares I launch vehicle and moving immediately to its successor the Ares II.
[Spokesman] said: “We have always planned on evolved versions of the Ares vehicles. Fortunately, our research has shown us that an early move to the Ares II system will actually save time, money and increase safety.”
When asked is this represented a failure of their initial approach [Spokesman] replied: “Certainly not. Engineering is a series of continuous improvements. Like science, good engineering requires that you be able to build on what has proven successful in the past making incremental changes and when necessary, rejecting ideas that no longer work.” Ares I was a good idea. It could have worked but what our thorough analysis showed was that in order for it to work we would have to make compromises in some safety systems of the Orion spacecraft. Moving right to the Ares II allows us to build a safer, more robust Orion that is not only ready for ISS service but is also ready for its ultimate mission of exploring other worlds.” “Add to that the reduced cost and the ability to move up the schedule and the choice became obvious.” “Ares I was not a bad idea. Ares II is just a better one.”
Concerning the percieved rift between science and exploration [Spokesman] said: “That’s another advantage to Ares II. It’s a much better transition from the Space Shuttle payload capability. The Ares II booster will be able to launch all types of science payloads both to Earth orbit and to other worlds. It also adds the capability to resupply the ISS indefinitely. With Ares II you get science, exploration, lower budget and better schedule. It’s win, win, win, win.”
In reply to questions about how much the schedule could be moved up he said: “When the Chinese come to the moon we believe we ought to be there to welcome them”.

Linden

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 10/11/2007 06:31 pm
Quote
Linden - 11/10/2007  1:19 PM

Here’s one possible approach:


NASA FINDS A BETTER WAY
After several years of preliminary development, NASA has found a better way to achieve the Vision for Space Exploration.
The new approach would mean skipping the Ares I launch vehicle and moving immediately to its successor the Ares II.
[Spokesman] said: “We have always planned on evolved versions of the Ares vehicles. Fortunately, our research has shown us that an early move to the Ares II system will actually save time, money and increase safety.”
When asked is this represented a failure of their initial approach [Spokesman] replied: “Certainly not. Engineering is a series of continuous improvements. Like science, good engineering requires that you be able to build on what has proven successful in the past making incremental changes and when necessary, rejecting ideas that no longer work.” Ares I was a good idea. It could have worked but what our thorough analysis showed was that in order for it to work we would have to make compromises in some safety systems of the Orion spacecraft. Moving right to the Ares II allows us to build a safer, more robust Orion that is not only ready for ISS service but is also ready for its ultimate mission of exploring other worlds.” “Add to that the reduced cost and the ability to move up the schedule and the choice became obvious.” “Ares I was not a bad idea. Ares II is just a better one.”
Concerning the percieved rift between science and exploration [Spokesman] said: “That’s another advantage to Ares II. It’s a much better transition from the Space Shuttle payload capability. The Ares II booster will be able to launch all types of science payloads both to Earth orbit and to other worlds. It also adds the capability to resupply the ISS indefinitely. With Ares II you get science, exploration, lower budget and better schedule. It’s win, win, win, win.”
In reply to questions about how much the schedule could be moved up he said: “When the Chinese come to the moon we believe we ought to be there to welcome them”.

Linden


Son, they need you over at NASA PAO real quick!  Brilliant!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/11/2007 06:42 pm
To my previous post, I would also add that if anyone is contemplating trying to barrage the press with stories of how NASA has "failed again", that would be a singularly bad idea.

We have essentially done all that we can and it is now up to the "good people in our space agency" to do whatever they believe to be best for "our space program" (specific words deliberately chosen). They have the facts in hand, be assured, and any attempt to force their hand thru pressure thru the press would likely have negative consequences for NASA itself. As much as we would all like to see private space be able to do these things, the simple fact is that for the foreseeable future, and likely well past our lifetimes, this massive endeavour can only be funded by a government agency. The money it takes to do this is beyond the scope of even the wealthiest of corporations. Only NASA is able to do this, and we must not damage their ability to prevail. Leave the “story-mad” press out of the equation. NASA is “our” space agency. Protect it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 10/11/2007 07:27 pm
Quote
kraisee - 11/10/2007  12:30 PM

I would like to turn the discussion here towards a very important aspect which we haven't really spent much time on, but which is critically important:

If/when NASA did/does decide to make the switch, HOW can they do so without losing face?

I would like comments and suggestions on how such a massive transition could be presented as a really good thing for everyone concerned.

The DIRECT Team has *NOT* been doing this to try to harm NASA in any way, we've actually been doing everything we can to make things better for NASA.

So what do people here think would be some of the best options for making such a switch work smoothly and with the minimum of fuss in all four of the following areas:-

 1) Media reaction
 2) Public opinion
 3) Workforce confidence
 4) Political support

Your feedback on this particular subject would be greatly appreciated by us all.

Ross.

Firstly the death of Ares I must be announced and it must be done in a respectful way that the idea deserves because it is a noble concept and idea to search for the safest crew launcher but unfortunately the two available stages were just not powerful enough to do the job. It can be stated that although the Ares I could conceivably launch a lunar CEV, such a CEV would be so compromised in its fault tolerance and shielding capability to make overall safety worse even though the ascent launch was still the safest. As such the idea can be retired until the technology is one day available to carry it out safely and efficiently. Having then lost the 0.5 in the 1.5 launch system, a 2 launch system is therefore required and the most effective, quickest and cheapest one available is one directly evolved from current Shuttle architecture. As this will naturally have enough lift capability to do a lunar mission with the same vehicle, Ares V can also be then retired until an Ares I is available. These new vehicles will be therefore known as Ares II or Ares III for the 3-core upper stage version.

That's basically it, concentrate on the truthful fact that NASA tried its best to get the most safest system but it ultimately proved not so once further development and investigation dug out the real numbers. All the advantages of DIRECT can then be trotted out as a byproduct of this change forced by the development process.  I think it's quite easy to forgive NASA for going for the best safest option even if Physics made them fall short eventually. As long as there is honesty in what was the main reason for Ares I originally and honest explanations for its eventual demise I don't see a problem in selling this change to anyone. It can then be seen in the same light as the Houboult LOR change, something else also forced by the development process.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/11/2007 07:43 pm
I'd never say anything like NASA tried to get the safest system possible but it isn't powerful enough to work (implying the next system is less safe).  Instead I'd point out that the next system is even safer for the overall mission, and more capable at the same time, this being uncovered during the hard work done to optimize the Ares-I design.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nathan on 10/11/2007 09:21 pm
Quote
luke strawwalker - 12/10/2007  4:31 AM

Quote
Linden - 11/10/2007  1:19 PM

Here’s one possible approach:


NASA FINDS A BETTER WAY
After several years of preliminary development, NASA has found a better way to achieve the Vision for Space Exploration.
The new approach would mean skipping the Ares I launch vehicle and moving immediately to its successor the Ares II.
[Spokesman] said: “We have always planned on evolved versions of the Ares vehicles. Fortunately, our research has shown us that an early move to the Ares II system will actually save time, money and increase safety.”
When asked is this represented a failure of their initial approach [Spokesman] replied: “Certainly not. Engineering is a series of continuous improvements. Like science, good engineering requires that you be able to build on what has proven successful in the past making incremental changes and when necessary, rejecting ideas that no longer work.” Ares I was a good idea. It could have worked but what our thorough analysis showed was that in order for it to work we would have to make compromises in some safety systems of the Orion spacecraft. Moving right to the Ares II allows us to build a safer, more robust Orion that is not only ready for ISS service but is also ready for its ultimate mission of exploring other worlds.” “Add to that the reduced cost and the ability to move up the schedule and the choice became obvious.” “Ares I was not a bad idea. Ares II is just a better one.”
Concerning the percieved rift between science and exploration [Spokesman] said: “That’s another advantage to Ares II. It’s a much better transition from the Space Shuttle payload capability. The Ares II booster will be able to launch all types of science payloads both to Earth orbit and to other worlds. It also adds the capability to resupply the ISS indefinitely. With Ares II you get science, exploration, lower budget and better schedule. It’s win, win, win, win.”
In reply to questions about how much the schedule could be moved up he said: “When the Chinese come to the moon we believe we ought to be there to welcome them”.

Linden


Only problem with this one approach is that it does not recognise the independent conceptual development of Direct. It would be worth recognising the NASA employees, and others, who used their own initiative and time to develop the concepts behind the new approach.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/11/2007 10:35 pm
Quote
Nathan - 11/10/2007  5:21 PM

Only problem with this one approach is that it does not recognise the independent conceptual development of Direct. It would be worth recognising the NASA employees, and others, who used their own initiative and time to develop the concepts behind the new approach.
No recognition of the DIRECT team is required. Speaking for myself and, I believe, every other member of the team, I would just be pleased every time I watched a Jupiter take to the skies. Of course, it would be nice to watch it from the VIP viewing area at KSC, but that's just a perk, and an unnecessary one at that.

As for the other people who contributed, they have already expressed their desire to remain anonomous.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 10/12/2007 01:05 am
Wow! That is possibly the slickest and most all-inclusive way I've ever seen to make such a major change. I think it hits the high spots and makes the points needed to make this a seamless change for NASA.

The only possible improvements I could imagine would be to emphasise a little more how much less expensive the Ares II & III systems would be and how much more steady would be the work that it entails for the major contractors.

The NASA PAO definitely needs you, buddy!  :-)

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 10/12/2007 01:54 am
If NASA was to adopt the "Direct" rocket plan, does that means that they would have to adopt up front the fuel depot idea too?  The cost of developping such technology could be a big issue the US Congress.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/12/2007 02:23 am
Quote
PaulL - 12/10/2007  2:54 AM

If NASA was to adopt the "Direct" rocket plan, does that means that they would have to adopt up front the fuel depot idea too?  The cost of developping such technology could be a big issue the US Congress.

PaulL

By building Direct's J-232 NASA can go to the Moon without building a fuel depot.

A financial study may be needed to compare the costs of:

a. J-120 and J-232 to build 'N' buildings on the Moon.
b. J-120 and fuel depot to build 'N' buildings on the Moon.
c. J-120, J-232 and fuel depot to build 'N' buildings on the Moon.

The cost of sending manned and unmanned spacecraft to Mars and beyond may also be change by having a fuel depot.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 10/12/2007 02:47 am
Quote
clongton - 11/10/2007  6:35 PM
 Of course, it would be nice to watch it from the VIP viewing area at KSC, but that's just a perk, and an unnecessary one at that.

As for the other people who contributed, they have already expressed their desire to remain anonomous.

Watch how quickly they change their desire to remain anonomous when they dish out VIP tickets at KSC.

 :bleh:  :bleh:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/12/2007 03:12 am
Quote
PaulL - 11/10/2007  9:54 PM

If NASA was to adopt the "Direct" rocket plan, does that means that they would have to adopt up front the fuel depot idea too?  The cost of developping such technology could be a big issue the US Congress.

PaulL
No.

An on-orbit fuel depot enables a lot of things, but they are not an absolute requirement to enable a successful lunar mission.

Direct is perfectly capble of the standard EOR-LOR architecture as originally defined in the ESAS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula2 on 10/12/2007 05:00 am
I'd stress that: "Moving ahead to the Ares II, increases overall mission safety & performance. By focussing efforts on one launch vehicle instead of 2, we reduce cost, devlopment time and the post-shuttle gap. But we haven't closed the door on heavy lift. Ares II has a simple, low-cost, upgrade path to its big brother, the Ares II Heavy. For "Return to the Moon" two Ares II launches will offer greater combined  lift capacity than the Ares I and Ares V."

Later on, quietly rename Ares II Heavy to Ares III if desired.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/12/2007 05:38 am
Linden - As always, you have very precisely captured the essence of exactly what we need.   You have a real talent for writing - as well as flying! :)

Ross.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/12/2007 05:45 am
Quote
clongton - 11/10/2007  11:12 PM

Quote
PaulL - 11/10/2007  9:54 PM

If NASA was to adopt the "Direct" rocket plan, does that means that they would have to adopt up front the fuel depot idea too?  The cost of developping such technology could be a big issue the US Congress.

PaulL
No.

An on-orbit fuel depot enables a lot of things, but they are not an absolute requirement to enable a successful lunar mission.

Direct is perfectly capble of the standard EOR-LOR architecture as originally defined in the ESAS.

Just to be absolutely clear on this, Jupiter can actually perform higher performance missions than ESAS specified - easily placing a 54mT LSAM plus the standard CEV through TLI, even without the Propellant Depot architectures.

Doing this however does use the ESAS "standard flight profile" assumed for all 2-launch solutions - which involves a rear-docking of the LSAM to the EDS.   This approach was actually initially baselined by ESAS as part of the EIRA and was always considered a perfectly acceptable procedure.   I want to make sure everyone understands that this is not considered any sort of 'problem'.


The Propellant Depot architectures however, provide two key advantages:-

1) The architecture can begin to send payloads larger than the "standard" LSAM to the moon.   The upper limits are in excess of 300mT per mission.

2) International partnerships can actively provide costly lifting services to the benefit of the missions without NASA having to relinquish control of the critical hardware.   NASA's cost to lift propellant is no better than $9,000 per kg using EELV's, or $3,777 per kg using Jupiter.   Considering 100mT of propellant must be lifted per Lunar mission, there is a lot of value to deferring this cost to International partners in return for seats on the LSAM.   That works to everyone's benefit and allows a real sense of "inclusion" to any and all potential international partners.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/12/2007 12:55 pm
Quote
kraisee - 12/10/2007  12:38 AM

Linden - As always, you have very precisely captured the essence of exactly what we need.   You have a real talent for writing - as well as flying! :)

Ross.

I'll second that!  I think that's the exact spirit of the message that should come out.  Anything that should be added (if anything) needs to be able to fit comfortably with that message.  However, for a press-release-style message, I'm not sure it needs more than that.

I know for myself, I tend to get too stuck in details when writing.  Your statement was informative and clear without getting mired in details.  It communicates the spirit of the details.  (the actual details will obviously be available elsewhere).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Linden on 10/12/2007 02:22 pm
Quote
kraisee - 12/10/2007  1:38 AM

Linden - As always, you have very precisely captured the essence of exactly what we need.   You have a real talent for writing - as well as flying! :)

Ross.


Thanks Ross. You guys are too kind. I was just trying to answer your question wearing my Aeronautical/Astronautical Engineer and amateur space historian hats. I assumed that the reader already knew the specifics of DIRECT vs Ares I. Your AIAA report really makes the case. I just tried to put a smiley face on it. I personally see this as a less dramatic program change than was the Apollo switch to LOR.

Linden
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kfsorensen on 10/12/2007 02:26 pm
Quote
Linden - 12/10/2007  9:22 AM

I personally see this as a less dramatic program change than was the Apollo switch to LOR.

First of all, excellent writing Linden!

Second, adopting DIRECT would allow us to go to a two-launch scenario where we bypass Earth-orbit rendezvous (and all its phasing problems) altogether and have a first rendezvous at L2.  This would remove numerous launch and timing constraints from the system, as well as allow early expansion to a fuel depot and reusable LSAM at L2.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/12/2007 02:32 pm
When will we hear anything from NASA about the V2.0?  Has it been submitted or will it be?  I honestly hope that the switch is made, I don't want to go through a massive down period in manned exploration.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Linden on 10/12/2007 02:40 pm
Quote
vanilla - 12/10/2007  10:26 AM

Quote
Linden - 12/10/2007  9:22 AM

I personally see this as a less dramatic program change than was the Apollo switch to LOR.

First of all, excellent writing Linden!

Second, adopting DIRECT would allow us to go to a two-launch scenario where we bypass Earth-orbit rendezvous (and all its phasing problems) altogether and have a first rendezvous at L2.  This would remove numerous launch and timing constraints from the system, as well as allow early expansion to a fuel depot and reusable LSAM at L2.

Thanks again for your kind words. I hope you didn't misunderstand me. I didn't mean to imply that the additional capability DIRECT offers was on par with Apollo LOR vs EOR. The flexibility DIRECT allows is extraordinary. I think it's the most important difference between DIRECT and the current plan in the long run.
The original question was how can NASA make this change without losing face. That's where I see it comparable to the LOR switch. I don't think NASA lost any face in the early 60's when they made the switch. They found a better, faster, less expensive way to do the job and made the change. If there are good data to back it up I think people (and hence congress) support management flexibility.

Linden
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 10/12/2007 02:48 pm
Quote
kraisee - 12/10/2007  12:45 AM
Just to be absolutely clear on this, Jupiter can actually perform higher performance missions than ESAS specified - easily placing a 54mT LSAM plus the standard CEV through TLI, even without the Propellant Depot architectures.

I think it's important to keep stressing that.  To the layman, all of the time spent focusing on propellant depot concepts in the AIAA paper make the whole DIRECT architecture sound more complicated than ESAS.

I realize that this is not the case.  I also realize that the "layman" is not really the target audience of an AIAA paper.

But the propellant depot concept does detract from the "simpler" part of "safer, simpler, sooner", if you don't read closely enough to know that it is a growth option.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/12/2007 03:25 pm
Quote
Linden - 12/10/2007  10:40 AM

The original question was how can NASA make this change without losing face. That's where I see it comparable to the LOR switch. I don't think NASA lost any face in the early 60's when they made the switch. They found a better, faster, less expensive way to do the job and made the change. If there are good data to back it up I think people (and hence congress) support management flexibility.

Linden
Perhaps the switch to LOR back in the 60's could be incorporated into the announcement, by way of background, showing how NASA made a major change, deep in the program, and how it benefitted the lunar program. Then they could say: "History now repeats itself. After extensive design and development work, we have once again come to a point where the fruits of our labors have identified a change in program that will have equally beneficial consequences for the lunar program. Introducing the Jupiter Launch Vehicle Family". (as Mike Griffin removes a cloth shroud from a 1/72 scale Jupiter-121 & Jupiter-232).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 10/12/2007 04:11 pm
Quote
clongton - 12/10/2007  8:25 AM
...as Mike Griffin removes a cloth shroud from a 1/72 scale Jupiter-121 & Jupiter-232).

Why wait? Have them available ASAP. They'll help sell your proposal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/12/2007 05:38 pm
Actually we are proposing that NASA does look closely at the Propellant Depot architecture in the first generation because we found SO MANY advantages it just isn't funny.

While Jupiter doesn't *require* PD to match ESAS requirement, and can do without in the initial phases, deciding to use a PD architecture later-on incurs an extra, fairly high cost - and reducing development cost has always been a critical driver of the DIRECT work - we want that money to pay for extra real missions & flights instead.

If NASA is expecting to do PD anyway (which it is expecting to do with Ares-V to boost performance), we are simply trying to nudge the decision up the schedule, to the initial phase, not some later one.   Doing so would allow NASA to make use of the extra capability which PD offers right from day 1, and bring in commercial and international assistance from the second manned flight onwards.   And it can be done at virtually no extra cost *if* it is included early enough in the initial development cycle.

We make no bones about PD being a "hard sell", most especially to all those who aren't willing to look outside of the ESAS box. But we're simply trying to demonstrate that there are better alternatives if the team is willing to seriously consider them.

Our DIRECT Architecture baseline includes PD.   'Standard' EOR docking architectures are actually our 'alternative'.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/12/2007 05:51 pm
Quote
vanilla - 12/10/2007  10:26 AM

Quote
Linden - 12/10/2007  9:22 AM

I personally see this as a less dramatic program change than was the Apollo switch to LOR.

First of all, excellent writing Linden!

Second, adopting DIRECT would allow us to go to a two-launch scenario where we bypass Earth-orbit rendezvous (and all its phasing problems) altogether and have a first rendezvous at L2.  This would remove numerous launch and timing constraints from the system, as well as allow early expansion to a fuel depot and reusable LSAM at L2.

Yes, this is another strength of having an all- Heavy-Lift 2-launch solution.   Ares-I simply couldn't dream of sending the CEV to either EML Rendezvous point, so that architecture just can't take advantage of the enormous delta-V budget reductions offered by the EML-R path.

I have recently been talking with some interesting people about the various DIRECT options and there is an incredibly strong knee-jerk tendency to pull away from both Propellant Depot architectures and non-EOR-LOR architectures.   With no exceptions at all, the engineers I have spoken with all understand and support the benefits of both, and want them both.   But management is very reluctant to consider any technique that wasn't already proven during the Apollo program, and that reluctance is well known at the engineering level and so even the engineers who want the better systems know that they must initially fight for something management *can* accept.   Further changes can then be levered later on.

It is my firm belief that DIRECT/Jupiter would initially be selected by NASA under the assumption that we would perform "as near to standard" EOR-LOR flights, but that the trade studies which would swiftly follow that decision would show big enough advantages that AFTER the decision is made, that will be when there will be "wiggle room" to change to PD and EML-R.

I believe our AIAA Paper's greatest strength is that it "puts the ideas in the minds of those considering DIRECT".   And while the decision makers will require an ESAS-style flight profile initially, the engineers will be in a strong position to push for the even better solutions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/12/2007 05:56 pm
Quote
rsp1202 - 12/10/2007  12:11 PM

Quote
clongton - 12/10/2007  8:25 AM
...as Mike Griffin removes a cloth shroud from a 1/72 scale Jupiter-121 & Jupiter-232).

Why wait? Have them available ASAP. They'll help sell your proposal.

I am already preparing some better models than I had for AIAA :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 10/12/2007 06:29 pm
It’s important to read the AIAA paper with the mindset of an ever evolving set of capabilities and technologies that builds on the prior cycle foundation.  Getting out of the ‘final’ architecture mindset is an important component of the plan.

For example all we need to sell to congress and NASA at this point is that the Jupiter-120 (Ares-II) represents a better replacement for the STS than Ares-I or EELV because it is a true direct derivative of the STS system and is more capable than EELV’s.

That’s it.  For this congressional and presidential cycle.  Any discussion about propellant depots, lunar bases, Mars etc and they will not really care that much.  The election and budget cycles are just to short for this to really play into what will motivate action.  The primary audience for a longer term more cohesive plan is much younger and will be inspired to become apart of this.

From Jupiter-120 capability we need to sell the upper stage and lunar equipment for both Polar and Equatorial lunar missions.

Again that’s it.  For next presidential cycle.

Next we need to sell the propellant depot opening up Mid-Latitude, LSAM Recycling at EML1, and Mars precursor missions etc.

Again that’s it. And so on and so on.

Over a fifty year period this approach could gradually build to a permanent presence on Mars because each step would be a natural extension of the last.

Mike Griffin recently made a great comparison of what we are trying to do by comparing it to building some of the great Cathedrals in Europe where the generation that laid the foundation never saw it finished and those that finished it never saw the foundation laid.

The key thing is that generationally great things were done while still fitting within the budget of what a largely impoverished population, by our standards, could afford.  And for the similar collective sense of self-actualization that occasionally we can get it together and do great things.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Linden on 10/12/2007 08:59 pm
Quote
clongton - 12/10/2007  11:25 AM
Perhaps the switch to LOR back in the 60's could be incorporated into the announcement, by way of background, showing how NASA made a major change, deep in the program, and how it benefitted the lunar program. Then they could say: "History now repeats itself. After extensive design and development work, we have once again come to a point where the fruits of our labors have identified a change in program that will have equally beneficial consequences for the lunar program. Introducing the Jupiter Launch Vehicle Family". (as Mike Griffin removes a cloth shroud from a 1/72 scale Jupiter-121 & Jupiter-232).

That's a great idea. Well said. If they want this to be as much like Apollo as possible they might as well throw in the major architecture change as well for good luck.  ;)

Linden
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nathan on 10/13/2007 12:41 am
Quote
clongton - 12/10/2007  8:35 AM

Quote
Nathan - 11/10/2007  5:21 PM

Only problem with this one approach is that it does not recognise the independent conceptual development of Direct. It would be worth recognising the NASA employees, and others, who used their own initiative and time to develop the concepts behind the new approach.
No recognition of the DIRECT team is required. Speaking for myself and, I believe, every other member of the team, I would just be pleased every time I watched a Jupiter take to the skies. Of course, it would be nice to watch it from the VIP viewing area at KSC, but that's just a perk, and an unnecessary one at that.

As for the other people who contributed, they have already expressed their desire to remain anonomous.

I guess I object to "NASA has found a way" - I think more truthfully it should say "NASA has adopted a way" or something along those lines. Anyone who looks into the project will know that it stems from the Direct project and to state anything different is just untruthful. I like the rest of the statement though as it captures the essence of what needs to be said.

Of course it won't be used now as the press will have a field day showing how NASA has cut and paste their press releases from internet chat sites!

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/13/2007 12:59 am
Quote
Nathan - 12/10/2007  8:41 PM

Quote
clongton - 12/10/2007  8:35 AM

Quote
Nathan - 11/10/2007  5:21 PM

Only problem with this one approach is that it does not recognise the independent conceptual development of Direct. It would be worth recognising the NASA employees, and others, who used their own initiative and time to develop the concepts behind the new approach.
No recognition of the DIRECT team is required. Speaking for myself and, I believe, every other member of the team, I would just be pleased every time I watched a Jupiter take to the skies. Of course, it would be nice to watch it from the VIP viewing area at KSC, but that's just a perk, and an unnecessary one at that.

As for the other people who contributed, they have already expressed their desire to remain anonomous.

I guess I object to "NASA has found a way" - I think more truthfully it should say "NASA has adopted a way" or something along those lines. Anyone who looks into the project will know that it stems from the Direct project and to state anything different is just untruthful. I like the rest of the statement though as it captures the essence of what needs to be said.

Of course it won't be used now as the press will have a field day showing how NASA has cut and paste their press releases from internet chat sites!

NASA PAO will draft their own statement, and there is no way it can avoid using wording that at least resembles what has been said so far here, because it is a reflection of reality.

Having said that, personally I don't care how they word it, so long as it makes them look good. NASA is our space agency, the only one we have. I would not support any attempt to recognize anyone on the DIRECT team at the expense of the NASA image. I want our space agency to shine and to be admired for the work that it does. All agencies, without exception, experience bumps in the road, but if the agency is important, you cut it some slack and offer whatever assistance you are able to, just to help it get back to the status it enjoyed before. None of us rejoice in any negative publicity heaped on our space agency. All of us however, feel great pride when our space agency accomplishes something great. Just to know, even if only privately, that I was privileged to have been a part of something that contributed to our space agency's well being would be sufficient for me. All my life I have loved NASA, still do, and always will.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Linden on 10/13/2007 01:36 am
I guess I object to "NASA has found a way" Anyone who looks into the project will know that it stems from the Direct project and to state anything different is just untruthful.
Of course it won't be used now as the press will have a field day showing how NASA has cut and paste their press releases from internet chat sites!
[/QUOTE]

It is my understanding that the extended DIRECT team includes many anonymous NASA people. I don't think it's entirely untrue to say that it is not a NASA plan. It's just currently being promoted by people outside of NASA. I don't see credit as an issue here. Of course I haven't put in any of the time or effort of the DIRECT team but I think we're all on the same team. We all want the same thing in the long run.

Linden
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 10/13/2007 01:50 am
Quote
Linden - 12/10/2007  9:36 PM
 I don't see credit as an issue here. Of course I haven't put in any of the time or effort of the DIRECT team but I think we're all on the same team. We all want the same thing in the long run.

Linden

 How long..one lifetime or two?

Me I stand by the folks that have a solution.. less talk..   its not only about spaceflight

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/13/2007 03:44 am
Quote
Nathan - 12/10/2007  7:41 PM

Of course it won't be used now as the press will have a field day showing how NASA has cut and paste their press releases from internet chat sites!

I'm sorry...  Is Linden not in NASA's PAO??   ;)   Plausible deniability.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/13/2007 03:51 am
The is one other possible official reason for going from Ares-I & Ares-V to Direct - the financial crisis caused Congress cut the budget.  So NASA could only afford to develop one new rocket.
Little Ares-I was good for people but too small to lift heavy objects like buildings.
Big Ares-V was good at lifting heavy cargoes, including buildings, but not safe for people.

NASA had to compromise so picked a medium sized rocket able to lift both people and cargoes weighing up to 45mT.

Heavier cargoes will have to be split and sent up on two rockets.  At least until the United States can afford to produce a bigger rocket.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 10/13/2007 03:51 am
I agree who needs credit?...ALL of us on this board want the best for "OUR" space agency.  If NASA needs the credit...they can have it!  Remember this idea has been around for awhile...the Direct team and tons of people on this board has helped refine and make it better.  Everyone has helped find the strengths and weakness of Direct 1.0 and found ways to make Direct 2.0.  Do we think Direct 2.0  is the best...no.  There might be a Direct 3.X but as long as it gets built who cares who gets credit!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/13/2007 04:16 am
Quote
Linden - 12/10/2007  9:36 PM

Quote
Nathan - 12/10/2007  8:41 PM

I guess I object to "NASA has found a way" - I think more truthfully it should say "NASA has adopted a way" or something along those lines. Anyone who looks into the project will know that it stems from the Direct project and to state anything different is just untruthful. I like the rest of the statement though as it captures the essence of what needs to be said.

It is my understanding that the extended DIRECT team includes many anonymous NASA people. I don't think it's entirely untrue to say that it is not a NASA plan. It's just currently being promoted by people outside of NASA. I don't see credit as an issue here. Of course I haven't put in any of the time or effort of the DIRECT team but I think we're all on the same team. We all want the same thing in the long run.

Exactly correct Linden.   It is a NASA plan through-and-through.   NASA first proposed this exact idea 20 years ago, in 1986 following the tragic loss of Challenger.   It has been proposed half a dozen times since then, but there has never been any money to do it before now.

The only real change to previous proposals which the DIRECT Team did was really just to swap the SSME's for RS-68's and add an Earth Departure Stage on top, but both of those ideas we really got from NASA too.

The NASA engineers involved in this team effort are the one who put flesh on the bones and really gave us something that worked well.

The role Chuck, Antonio, Stephen, Philip and myself have played has really been that of messengers and advertisers.

We have sure worked our butts off to promote the idea, and not one of us has made a single dime from the effort in the process, but we did it because we simply believe it is in the best interests of the space program.

The DIRECT idea really is NASA's already.   And NASA is my space agency, just as it belongs to all the other US tax payers.   All NASA need do now, is take the damn ball and run with it - and run hard.   At the end of the day, we are all trying to get the ball across the same goal line.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 10/13/2007 10:59 am
Agreed.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/13/2007 12:19 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 12/10/2007  11:51 PM

Big Ares-V was good at lifting heavy cargoes, including buildings, but not safe for people.


Not a plausible reason, Ares V is to be manrated

Also Ares V is not for "buildings"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/13/2007 05:18 pm
Quote
Jim - 13/10/2007  1:19 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 12/10/2007  11:51 PM

Big Ares-V was good at lifting heavy cargoes, including buildings, but not safe for people.


Not a plausible reason, Ares V is to be manrated

Also Ares V is not for "buildings"

The moment the Ares-V is man rated the Ares-I becomes redundant, the ISS will have gone.

Getting the Lunar Ascend Stage to the Moon is only one of the tasks of the Ares-V.

Unless there is a big change in the architecture none of the EELV, COTS or Ares-I launch vehicles will be lifting the Lunar Base buildings.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/13/2007 05:35 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/10/2007  1:18 PM

1.  The moment the Ares-V is man rated the Ares-I becomes redundant, the ISS will have gone.

2.  Getting the Lunar Ascend Stage to the Moon is only one of the tasks of the Ares-V.

3.  Unless there is a big change in the architecture none of the EELV, COTS or Ares-I launch vehicles will be lifting the Lunar Base buildings.

1.  Totally wrong.  Ares I is not for ISS, it is for the lunar mission.  Ares V can't launch the CEV and LSAM.  Ares I will fly more times for lunar missions than ISS mission.  There is no manned lunar missions without Ares I

2.  The LSAM is the only payload of the Ares V now

3.  Wrong.  The current architecture  doesn't have "buildings", only modules on LSAM's.  The current architecture is much like the ISS.  Completed modules launched to the destination and just connected to others.  EELV are part of the lunar base architecture (see the ESAS).  

COTS is a term only for space station logistics and includes spacecraft.  It is NOT a generic term for private launch vehicles
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/13/2007 06:51 pm
Jim is correct.   Ares-V is not powerful enough to launch the CEV, LSAM and EDS on its own.   If you wanted it to do that, you would have to make the LSAM considerably smaller than at present - and that would result in smaller crews.

Apart from anything else, Ares-V doesn't achieve NASA's requirement of better than 1:1000 Loss of Crew risk.   While it may be designed to be man-rated, NASA can't actually launch crews on it.   The EDS element will be used with Crew though - hence the man-rating.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/13/2007 07:39 pm
Quote
kraisee - 13/10/2007  7:51 PM

Jim is correct.   Ares-V is not powerful enough to launch the CEV, LSAM and EDS on its own.   If you wanted it to do that, you would have to make the LSAM considerably smaller than at present - and that would result in smaller crews.
{snip}

Two Ares-V would be used, particularly if there are any problems with payload weight.

As for a "man rated" vehicle that is not allowed to carry people - with the legal problems that could cause just be glad that NASA is not a commercial organization.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/13/2007 07:49 pm
So you favour ignoring the new safety standards.   Okay...

And ignoring your shiny new $16bn Ares-I at the same time.   Nice sound economic policy there.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/13/2007 09:58 pm
If Ares-I plus Ares-V cannot do the job another path will be taken.  Organizations have a long history of forgetting inconvenient safety standards.  The obvious solution to a double weight problem is to split the payloads over two Ares-V.

I am in favour of doing right in the first place, so such messes are prevented.  Build rockets that are both safe and can do the job.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nathan on 10/13/2007 11:01 pm
So what can be done now to ensure NASA picks up Direct?
Is it just a wait and see proposition?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 10/13/2007 11:12 pm
In the Direct V1 Q&A Dr. Doug Stanley stated that a dual launch architecture is still on the table. And, if Ares-I would be developed, flown, and latter abandoned in favour of a 2-launch Ares-V (whatever Ares-V would look like at that point, for all I care it could look like a J-232 with 5-segs) the wasted cost would be $4bln. And, "wasted", I would say, must be taken only as funds that could have been devoted early to the Lunar missions - in a 2005/2006 political environment more inclined to give the nod. As a matter of fact, money injected in fielding and flying an Ares-I that latter (post-ISS) is abandoned are money injected into the aerospace industry and all connected industry, academia and so forth.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 10/14/2007 12:00 am
Quote
renclod - 13/10/2007  7:12 PM

In the Direct V1 Q&A Dr. Doug Stanley stated that a dual launch architecture is still on the table. And, if Ares-I would be developed, flown, and latter abandoned in favour of a 2-launch Ares-V (whatever Ares-V would look like at that point, for all I care it could look like a J-232 with 5-segs) the wasted cost would be $4bln. And, "wasted", I would say, must be taken only as funds that could have been devoted early to the Lunar missions - in a 2005/2006 political environment more inclined to give the nod. As a matter of fact, money injected in fielding and flying an Ares-I that latter (post-ISS) is abandoned are money injected into the aerospace industry and all connected industry, academia and so forth.



Cornel

I think you are correct its all part of the same plan, but money injected into the "aerospace industry ", could better be used to get on with the "safer/simpler and sooner" concepts as presented to the tax payers..

"aerospace industry "  would and would not be better served.. one in the short term and one in the long term..   but its short terms these days...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/14/2007 04:51 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/10/2007  3:39 PM

As for a "man rated" vehicle that is not allowed to carry people - with the legal problems that could cause just be glad that NASA is not a commercial organization.

What legal problems?  This is nonsense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 10/14/2007 05:12 am
Quote
Nathan - 13/10/2007  5:01 PM

So what can be done now to ensure NASA picks up Direct?
Is it just a wait and see proposition?

I think that to call this "an uphill battle" would be generous.  I just don't see a NASA that's entrenched in the ESAS architecture suddenly changing gears.

In the O.J. Simpson trial, it was said that "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."  The prosecution overplayed its hand by making O.J. try on the bloody glove.  In this sense, the Ares I-X test flight could be NASA's "bloody glove" moment.  Some have argued that Ares I-X is essential for NASA garnering support for its plans.  I don't agree at all.  If Ares I-X succeeds, I think that NASA will get a giant "meh" out of the public and Congress.  But if Ares I-X ends in an embarrassing failure, I think that NASA will have no choice but to backpedal from Ares I & V.

Even if an Ares I-X failure forces NASA to abandon Ares, I still don't see much hope for DIRECT.  I think NASA will adopt the cheapest solution for launching manned ISS missions: Orion launched on EELV's.  Jupiter-232 might be considered for a future moon mission, but it's unlikely that Congress would be willing to fund such an effort if Ares I-X fails.

I hate to be such a pessimist.  I like DIRECT based on its technical and political merits.  But I just don't see any signs that NASA is willing to admit the technical and economic weaknesses of the Ares I + V launch strategy.  As long as such narrow-minded thinking dominates, we will not see a change.  I think that the agency can overcome this intellectual rigidness, but I doubt that the change will occur during the window of opportunity in which we can fund DIRECT and get back to the moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/14/2007 05:44 am
Quote
Nathan - 13/10/2007  7:01 PM

So what can be done now to ensure NASA picks up Direct?
Is it just a wait and see proposition?

Nathan,
At the present moment NASA is more concerned that Ares-I & Ares-V simply can't get close to the latest performance requirements for the intended Lunar missions, and they are looking like also seriously exceeding the cost box targets too.   Because of this, NASA is looking around for solutions already and other concepts are being considered - for real.

Jupiter can certainly work within both constraints and we are working feverishly behind the scenes to make sure the correct people within NASA know that DIRECT can.   I am hopeful of good results, but we must be patient.


While I think we are doing all we can to persuade NASA itself, we do not yet have the political world covered properly.

We still need lots of help contacting the political leadership at a level above NASA.   We would desperately like every Senator and every Congressman to learn of DIRECT. But we have only managed to get copies to a some of the better known 'space' figures in the political world so far.   We have not yet managed to get a copy into the hands of everyone in the corridors of power.

So I humbly urge every single person reading this message, and that means *YOU GUYS & GALS*, to help us get the word out to everyone.

I bet each of you could print a single copy of our AIAA paper and put it in the post to one of your local representatives? No?

Everyone reading this could go print one single color copy of both the 130 page AIAA Presentation, and the AIAA Horizons article (links to both are on our website) and post them both to just a single one of your own local House, Senate or Governor representatives with a cover note simply saying that you, as a voter in their district, support the switch to DIRECT and urge them to support it too.

NSF has a readership numbering in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands.   This thread alone probably has at least one reader from every single voting district throughout the country.   What would happen if every representative received a pile of copies of the DIRECT proposal all at the same time, endorsed by all those voters from all of their districts?

If we all worked together, we could literally get dozens of copies arriving on each representatives desk throughout the US political system.   I think *that* would get the idea very seriously noticed at a level far above NASA.

The cost to each person here would be very small - the cost of about 150 sheets of paper, some printer ink and a large envelope - but the effect of thousands of us all doing such a thing together, could be simply staggering.

You can DIRECTly (pun totally intended) help get the word to just one of your own locally elected representatives.   Just *believe* and go warm up your own printer *right now*.

Thank-you in advance, to all of you who choose to make your own voice heard.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steve G on 10/14/2007 05:59 am
Have you tried contacting the Planetary Society, and if so, what has their response been?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/14/2007 06:04 am
Quote
Jim - 14/10/2007  12:51 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/10/2007  3:39 PM

As for a "man rated" vehicle that is not allowed to carry people - with the legal problems that could cause just be glad that NASA is not a commercial organization.

What legal problems?  This is nonsense.

Actually there is a concern there.   If NASA has publicly stated their minimum safety requirement is "X", and then flies a crew on a vehicle known to be below that "X" figure (like Ares-V not achieving NASA's published 1:1000 LOC requirements), an accident could easily result in class action lawsuits from all the bereaved families.   Fighter pilot families have won such cases against DoD before, so a similar precedent exists already.

The US is getting more and more litigious these days and this sort of thing will inevitably happen one day in such an inherently dangerous business as this which routinely involves strapping someone's butt to a barely controlled explosion, riding that into an environment which will kill you almost instantly if you are ever exposed, and then bringing those souls back through a fiery plasma as hot as the surface of the sun in order to hopefully land them back on terra-firma again.

Sure, nobody said this business was going to be totally safe, but nobody said your family couldn't sue in the event of an accident either.

The generous payments each of the Columbia families got prevented a court case last time, but settling privately sets absolutely no legal precedent for next time.

The same is also true for the new alt-space tourism efforts.   What happens if one of them accidentally kills a half dozen billionaire passengers?   I can only imagine the lawsuits which would follow that, and I doubt any "waiver" would be worth the paper its written on when a troupe of billionaire's family lawyers get involved.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/14/2007 06:17 am
Quote
Steve G - 14/10/2007  1:59 AM

Have you tried contacting the Planetary Society, and if so, what has their response been?


We have not approached any advocacy groups because we don't want to put them in a difficult position.   They rely heavily upon NASA's good will.

We have individual members, including senior members, of the Planetary Society, the National Space Society and the Mars Society who have demonstrated their support already, but as individuals, not representatives of their organizations.

All the space groups are most welcome to show official support, or just simple interest (like AIAA Houston did recently) for DIRECT if they choose to, but it should be a completely independent choice they should make on their own, without us lobbying them.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 10/14/2007 01:03 pm
Ross,

Have you considered a straight 1.5 Jupiter-120/232 CLV/CaLV launch that mirrors the current system (CEV + LSAM/EDS) but with a 45mT CEV doing the LOI rather than the LSAM ? It would keep the one dock profile as is with no fuel transfer required and also only the safest groundlit-only J-120 used for transporting the crew. I don't remember this configuration being discussed but I could be wrong. It would also be most easily swallowed by NASA as it is a straight evolution of their 1.5 CLV/CaLV architecture just with different launchers based on the same shell. Would also be the cheapest option as you wouldn't use 2 J-232s for each manned lunar mission. Seems odd to me that the LSAM is doing the LOI and no doubt forced by the use of Ares I but certainly Apollo didn't do anything like that and must be less efficient.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 10/14/2007 02:40 pm
Quote
marsavian - 14/10/2007  8:03 AM

Ross,

Have you considered a straight 1.5 Jupiter-120/232 CLV/CaLV launch that mirrors the current system (CEV + LSAM/EDS) but with a 45mT CEV doing the LOI rather than the LSAM ? It would keep the one dock profile as is with no fuel transfer required and also only the safest groundlit-only J-120 used for transporting the crew. I don't remember this configuration being discussed but I could be wrong. It would also be most easily swallowed by NASA as it is a straight evolution of their 1.5 CLV/CaLV architecture just with different launchers based on the same shell. Would also be the cheapest option as you wouldn't use 2 J-232s for each manned lunar mission. Seems odd to me that the LSAM is doing the LOI and no doubt forced by the use of Ares I but certainly Apollo didn't do anything like that and must be less efficient.

This configuration "as is" would have less payload capability than the ARES I/V version.  However, by adopting the NASA engines (upgraded RS-68 and J-2X) and using a bigger SM (CEV total mass up to the 45 mT capacity of the J-120) allowing to do an initial SM burn in LEO to reduce the delta-V requirement on the EDS, I believe that it should be possible match the ARES I/V payload numbers.

PaulL
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 10/14/2007 02:58 pm
Ok, that's what I thought. Perhaps this configuration should then become the default DIRECT one presented as NASA seem so hung up on 1.5 EOR-LOR and separate CLVs and CaLVs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula on 10/14/2007 03:58 pm
1.5 launch is just PR BS. It's 2 launch with 2 different types of vehicle. Direct allows 2 launch with the same (or versions of the same) vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kfsorensen on 10/14/2007 04:17 pm
Quote
kkattula - 14/10/2007  10:58 AM

1.5 launch is just PR BS. It's 2 launch with 2 different types of vehicle. Direct allows 2 launch with the same (or versions of the same) vehicle.

Very good point...I don't know why people let them get away with this kind of erroneous description.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 10/14/2007 04:54 pm
Quote
kkattula - 14/10/2007  10:58 AM

1.5 launch is just PR BS. It's 2 launch with 2 different types of vehicle. Direct allows 2 launch with the same (or versions of the same) vehicle.

Maybe but it does convey the image of a smaller CLV allied to a larger CaLV pretty well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/14/2007 05:48 pm
Marsavian,
Simple question:   What *use* is that image?

As long as you can check all of the safety, performance, cost, schedule and workforce boxes, is there really any advantage in having two disparately sized launchers, or is it merely a 'perception' created by ESAS which we are still trying to fit into without actual reason?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/14/2007 06:38 pm
Quote
kraisee - 14/10/2007  7:04 AM

Quote
Jim - 14/10/2007  12:51 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/10/2007  3:39 PM

As for a "man rated" vehicle that is not allowed to carry people - with the legal problems that could cause just be glad that NASA is not a commercial organization.

What legal problems?  This is nonsense.

Actually there is a concern there.   If NASA has publicly stated their minimum safety requirement is "X", and then flies a crew on a vehicle known to be below that "X" figure (like Ares-V not achieving NASA's published 1:1000 LOC requirements), an accident could easily result in class action lawsuits from all the bereaved families.   Fighter pilot families have won such cases against DoD before, so a similar precedent exists already.
{snip}

Thank you.  I was also worried about advertising and consumer protection laws.

The Ares-V can probably be described as consisting of man rated parts.  This simple strategy reduces the number of rockets that fail.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 10/14/2007 06:59 pm
Quote
kraisee - 14/10/2007  12:48 PM

Marsavian,
Simple question:   What *use* is that image?

As long as you can check all of the safety, performance, cost, schedule and workforce boxes, is there really any advantage in having two disparately sized launchers, or is it merely a 'perception' created by ESAS which we are still trying to fit into without actual reason?

Ross.

It's the image of following in the spirit of CAIB and ESAS and picking the most safest CLV you can build which isn't the J-232 by any stretch but it could quite easily be the J-120 if Ares I is unworkable due to performance, vibrational, structural or aerodynamic reasons which are all big question marks over it now. A J-120/J-232 with CEV LOI is the next best thing for LOM and LOC if the Ares I/V combination is unworkable. If you want certain people, i.e. Nasa management, to accept your proposal then you should provide a combination that addresses their priorities rather than just point and say your priorities suck and we know better.  That will just get peoples backs up and defensive to the point of stubborn recalcitrance which is the kind of response you have been getting so far.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/14/2007 06:59 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 14/10/2007  2:38 PM

Quote
kraisee - 14/10/2007  7:04 AM

Quote
Jim - 14/10/2007  12:51 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/10/2007  3:39 PM

As for a "man rated" vehicle that is not allowed to carry people - with the legal problems that could cause just be glad that NASA is not a commercial organization.

What legal problems?  This is nonsense.

Actually there is a concern there.   If NASA has publicly stated their minimum safety requirement is "X", and then flies a crew on a vehicle known to be below that "X" figure (like Ares-V not achieving NASA's published 1:1000 LOC requirements), an accident could easily result in class action lawsuits from all the bereaved families.   Fighter pilot families have won such cases against DoD before, so a similar precedent exists already.
{snip}

Thank you.  I was also worried about advertising and consumer protection laws.

The Ares-V can probably be described as consisting of man rated parts.  This simple strategy reduces the number of rockets that fail.

Ross is wrong.  It doesn't matter what the actual LOC numbers are.  If NASA does what it can do (which it hadn't for Challenger and Columbia, or if the DOD did) within reason, it won't be liable.

And you continue to post more nonsense.   Those are not applicable. there is no consumer.  NASA is building Ares V for its own use.   What  advertising?  advertising and consumer protection laws are not applicable to NASA

And wrong, Ares V is to be manrated.  Manrating is not done at the piecepart level, it is a system level analysis.

What are your background or qualifications?  You keep making outrageous comments and nonsensical statements that have no basis.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/14/2007 07:17 pm
Quote
marsavian - 14/10/2007  2:59 PM

Quote
kraisee - 14/10/2007  12:48 PM

Marsavian,
Simple question:   What *use* is that image?

As long as you can check all of the safety, performance, cost, schedule and workforce boxes, is there really any advantage in having two disparately sized launchers, or is it merely a 'perception' created by ESAS which we are still trying to fit into without actual reason?

Ross.

It's the image of following in the spirit of CAIB and ESAS and picking the most safest CLV you can build which isn't the J-232 by any stretch but it could quite easily be the J-120 if Ares I is unworkable due to performance, vibrational, structural or aerodynamic reasons which are all big question marks over it now. A J-120/J-232 with CEV LOI is the next best thing for LOM and LOC if the Ares I/V combination is unworkable. If you want certain people, i.e. Nasa management, to accept your proposal then you should provide a combination that addresses their priorities rather than just point and say your priorities suck and we know better.  That will just get peoples backs up and defensive to the point of stubborn recalcitrance which is the kind of response you have been getting so far.

I see what you mean Marsavian.   With the ability to launch Orion vehicles with anti-radiation shielding and with a ballistic protective shield through launch, there is a strong argument that J-120 can indeed directly compete for safety with Ares-I, just on its own terms.

The J-232 however still achieves the minimum safety requirements and can also launch rad-shielded Orions with ballistic protective shields so, while it may not be 1:2000 LOC, it is still more than acceptable for manned use - and is an order of magnitude safer than STS, mostly thanks to the inclusion of the LAS.   This is in comparison to Ares-V however, which does not achieve NASA's minimum requirements for safe manned use.


I think the question should possibly be rephrased into two separate queries:-

1) Is Jupiter-120 or Ares-I the best overall vehicle for LEO manned access?
2) Is Jupiter-232 or Ares-I+Ares-V the best overall solution for Lunar Missions?

Safety plays a big part in those questions of course, but is still only one element of a much greater equation.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 10/14/2007 07:42 pm
It's obvious that getting the best LOC/LOM figures possible, after satisfying 4-man 7 day lunar missions, was ESAS's priority. All I'm saying is that you should add the combination I suggest and do the safety/performance numbers on it and add it to your portfolio of possible configurations as the most safest, albeit less performant, DIRECT combination possible. Your target to beat is the overall mission 1.5 LOC/LOM (~2%/6%) numbers shown in ESAS, if you did that without adding any fudge factors for ballistic shields if you can't calculate that accurately now, I believe NASA would really listen to your proposal. I have always thought you have not paid enough attention to this side.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/14/2007 07:55 pm
I personally have some serious suspicion regarding the LOM's "Booster Crew" (dark purple) being displayed as four times safer with the LV-13.1 Stick than with LV-24/25 - the vehicle assumed in the "EOR-LOR 2-launch Hydrogen Descent" option - which is the closest to Jupiter.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that when the same report says elsewhere that the LV-24/25 has a LOC of 1170:1 (which Jupiter improves upon by using RS-68 BTW), which is not 25%, but actually 58% of the 2021:1 figure claimed for the Stick.   *Something* just doesn't add-up correctly.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 10/14/2007 08:27 pm
Yes seems odd. What's sobering about these figures even taking the supposedly safest 1.5 configuration is chosen is that 1/66 LOC figure.  :(
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/14/2007 08:35 pm
Yep.   These graphs do a pretty good job of demonstrating that launch and re-entry only account for a relatively small part of the overall risks involved in a Lunar mission.   Launch and re-entry are just the most "visible" parts to us on the ground, so they "appear" to be a more significant percentage than they actually are.

Ross
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/14/2007 09:14 pm
Quote
Jim - 14/10/2007  7:59 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 14/10/2007  2:38 PM

Quote
kraisee - 14/10/2007  7:04 AM

Quote
Jim - 14/10/2007  12:51 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/10/2007  3:39 PM

As for a "man rated" vehicle that is not allowed to carry people - with the legal problems that could cause just be glad that NASA is not a commercial organization.

What legal problems?  This is nonsense.

Actually there is a concern there.   If NASA has publicly stated their minimum safety requirement is "X", and then flies a crew on a vehicle known to be below that "X" figure (like Ares-V not achieving NASA's published 1:1000 LOC requirements), an accident could easily result in class action lawsuits from all the bereaved families.   Fighter pilot families have won such cases against DoD before, so a similar precedent exists already.
{snip}

Thank you.  I was also worried about advertising and consumer protection laws.

The Ares-V can probably be described as consisting of man rated parts.  This simple strategy reduces the number of rockets that fail.

Ross is wrong.  It doesn't matter what the actual LOC numbers are.  If NASA does what it can do (which it hadn't for Challenger and Columbia, or if the DOD did) within reason, it won't be liable.

And you continue to post more nonsense.   Those are not applicable. there is no consumer.  NASA is building Ares V for its own use.   What  advertising?  advertising and consumer protection laws are not applicable to NASA

As I implied NASA is exempt as a government agency.  However Boeing and Alliant Techsystems are commercial firms and not exempt from these laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_law

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/14/2007 09:31 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 14/10/2007  5:14 PM

As I implied NASA is exempt as a government agency.  However Boeing and Alliant Techsystems are commercial firms and not exempt from these laws.


Again, more nonsense.  They are exempt as NASA contractors since there are no consumers or advertising
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: khallow on 10/14/2007 09:33 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 14/10/2007  2:14 PM

As I implied NASA is exempt as a government agency.  However Boeing and Alliant Techsystems are commercial firms and not exempt from these laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_law

A standard has to be in place before someone can be accused of not meeting that standard. A loss of crew doesn't mean that the business failed to meet the standard. And finally, there just isn't that much put in danger. Third party risk is very low (relative to the cost of the launch) and there'd only be a few crew members in danger. If the company weren't grossly negligent or caused too much damage (eg, a fueled launch vehicle crashes into a city), then the costs should be on the order of $5-10 million per person, maybe less.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 10/14/2007 10:13 pm
Quote
kraisee - 14/10/2007  2:55 PM

I personally have some serious suspicion regarding the LOM's "Booster Crew" (dark purple) being displayed as four times safer with the LV-13.1 Stick than with LV-24/25 - the vehicle assumed in the "EOR-LOR 2-launch Hydrogen Descent" option - which is the closest to Jupiter.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that when the same report says elsewhere that the LV-24/25 has a LOC of 1170:1 (which Jupiter improves upon by using RS-68 BTW), which is not 25%, but actually 58% of the 2021:1 figure claimed for the Stick.   *Something* just doesn't add-up correctly.

Ross.

May be the Booster Crew number is high because it includes 2 components: the risk that the rocket malfunction in flight and the risk that a the crew rocket be delayed on the ground longer than the waiting life of the cargo module already in orbit.  This second component favors having the second flight as simple/small as possible to reduce the chances of having pre-launch technical issues.  This is particularly important if this second flight is manned as it prevents you to take a chance of launching a not totally "perfect" rocket anyway in order to save your first launch cargo already in orbit.

PaulL

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 10/15/2007 03:29 am
Quote
kraisee - 14/10/2007  2:17 PM

Quote
marsavian - 14/10/2007  2:59 PM

Quote
kraisee - 14/10/2007  12:48 PM

Marsavian,
Simple question:   What *use* is that image?

As long as you can check all of the safety, performance, cost, schedule and workforce boxes, is there really any advantage in having two disparately sized launchers, or is it merely a 'perception' created by ESAS which we are still trying to fit into without actual reason?

Ross.

It's the image of following in the spirit of CAIB and ESAS and picking the most safest CLV you can build which isn't the J-232 by any stretch but it could quite easily be the J-120 if Ares I is unworkable due to performance, vibrational, structural or aerodynamic reasons which are all big question marks over it now. A J-120/J-232 with CEV LOI is the next best thing for LOM and LOC if the Ares I/V combination is unworkable. If you want certain people, i.e. Nasa management, to accept your proposal then you should provide a combination that addresses their priorities rather than just point and say your priorities suck and we know better.  That will just get peoples backs up and defensive to the point of stubborn recalcitrance which is the kind of response you have been getting so far.

I see what you mean Marsavian.   With the ability to launch Orion vehicles with anti-radiation shielding and with a ballistic protective shield through launch, there is a strong argument that J-120 can indeed directly compete for safety with Ares-I, just on its own terms.

The J-232 however still achieves the minimum safety requirements and can also launch rad-shielded Orions with ballistic protective shields so, while it may not be 1:2000 LOC, it is still more than acceptable for manned use - and is an order of magnitude safer than STS, mostly thanks to the inclusion of the LAS.   This is in comparison to Ares-V however, which does not achieve NASA's minimum requirements for safe manned use.


I think the question should possibly be rephrased into two separate queries:-

1) Is Jupiter-120 or Ares-I the best overall vehicle for LEO manned access?
2) Is Jupiter-232 or Ares-I+Ares-V the best overall solution for Lunar Missions?

Safety plays a big part in those questions of course, but is still only one element of a much greater equation.

Ross.

I still don't think you are getting the idea. Maybe it is only one element of a much greater equation but not to the narrow thought process that produced an ESAS based entirely round an Ares I. I think having a CEV that is heavier, more solid and more fault tolerant and has more usable propellant gives you more safety margin along the way and back again then an emasculated Ares I CEV, enough to make up the launcher difference. I would have thought that  heavy-duty MMOD protection would help substantially in getting the CEV transit safety numbers down which matter more than the launch ascent number. Your NASA guys should try and quantify this over time and pad out your proposal appropriately as I think it's lacking in this respect.  Do you want to be right in your eyes or do you want to get closer quicker to being successful ? Play the ESAS game and beat Ares I/V at it. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 10/15/2007 01:14 pm
Quote
kraisee - 14/10/2007  2:04 AM

The same is also true for the new alt-space tourism efforts.   What happens if one of them accidentally kills a half dozen billionaire passengers?   I can only imagine the lawsuits which would follow that, and I doubt any "waiver" would be worth the paper its written on when a troupe of billionaire's family lawyers get involved.

Ross.

Nobody can waive third-party (meaning, not the person themselves nor their insurance company) liability.  Therefore, 3rd parties (children, spouses, etc.) can always sue.  It will take a legislative exception to provide liability protection ... and there are few legislators who would be willing to pay attention to such an idea, much less pass it.

The good news for the government is nobody (including 3rd parties) can sue the government without their consent.  Otherwise the government would get sued a whole lot more ... which would not be good for anyone since the government does not respond to financial stimuli and you can't put an Agency in jail.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/15/2007 06:09 pm
Quote
PaulL - 14/10/2007  6:13 PM

May be the Booster Crew number is high because it includes 2 components: the risk that the rocket malfunction in flight and the risk that a the crew rocket be delayed on the ground longer than the waiting life of the cargo module already in orbit.  This second component favors having the second flight as simple/small as possible to reduce the chances of having pre-launch technical issues.  This is particularly important if this second flight is manned as it prevents you to take a chance of launching a not totally "perfect" rocket anyway in order to save your first launch cargo already in orbit.

A factor, possibly.   But I don't subscribe to anything like that accounting for the ~400% difference shown.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 10/15/2007 06:10 pm
Quote
marsavian - 14/10/2007  1:27 PM

Yes seems odd. What's sobering about these figures even taking the supposedly safest 1.5 configuration is chosen is that 1/66 LOC figure.  :(

Put another way, if you were doing 2 lunar missions per year, that gives you ~26% chance of a fatal crew accident within the first decade of operations, and ~71% chance of losing a multi-billion dollar mission within that timeframe.

Sobering indeed.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 10/15/2007 06:48 pm
I think for 20 missions and 1.5 baseline it's 32% LOC and 118% (?) LOM, we will lose a mission and we had an example of that with our previous 1 launch system, i.e. Apollo 13. Very brave people astronauts are to play those odds and we all should not cease in thinking of ways to make it safer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/15/2007 06:58 pm
Quote
marsavian - 15/10/2007  2:48 PM

I think for 20 missions and 1.5 baseline it's 32% LOC and 118% (?) LOM, we will lose a mission and we had an example of that with our previous 1 launch system, i.e. Apollo 13. Very brave people astronauts are to play those odds and we all should not cease in thinking of ways to make it safer.
That's why single fault tolerance makes me shudder.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gin455res on 10/15/2007 07:05 pm
Quote
kraisee - 11/10/2007  12:30 PM

I would like to turn the discussion here towards a very important aspect which we haven't really spent much time on, but which is critically important:

If/when NASA did/does decide to make the switch, HOW can they do so without losing face?

I would like comments and suggestions on how such a massive transition could be presented as a really good thing for everyone concerned.

I don't suppose there are any parallels with the change in the 90-day mars plan to the Mars Direct inspired Semi-Direct plan? Perhaps not really, as the semi-direct plan has never been funded.

Anyway, NASA have chosen to go with mars semi-direct because they believe it is better than the original  plan. Would it be helpful if they could be given an alternative to ARES I and V that was 'better' than DIRECT, say FAIRLY-DIRECT, SEMI-DIRECT or something else.

As they were originally happy to go with new SRBs, ETs, pads, etc..., maybe by providing an alternative direct-like plan that is allowed to be a little more daring than DIRECT, it would be more acceptable because it is 'better' than direct.

Ross and Steve,
if you had the luxury of being NASA (having instant credibility) and didn't have to 'play' extremely defensively by sticking with the least ambitious system design in order to earn credibility, what would be the one ambitious system 'luxury' that you originally rejected from your initial designs that you would most like NASA to re-examine in a hypothetical 'SEMI-DIRECT' plan?

A slightly narrower ET, extra solid-strap ons, less ET insulation, upgraded 4 segment boosters......?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/15/2007 07:18 pm
I can't speak for Steve, but actually what we've got right now looks pretty close to ideal to me.

Jupiter-120 is, to me, just unbeatable as a "gap filler" following Shuttle.

And adding an Upper Stage is such a relatively tiny step to get to the Jupiter-232 to get true 100mT lift capability, and you just don't really need anything more than that.

Of the ideas which were discarded, I think perhaps the Jupiter-110 might have more mileage than we originally gave it credit.   It's basically an immediate replacement for Ares-I with only a little extra performance.   It's cryo stage engine is far less stressed than J-2X and it is ground lit before committing to launch, so even though there is an extra SRB, it ought to be even safer than Ares-I.

And there is a Jupiter-244 Heavy configuration which offers considerably more performance than Ares-V which I know Stephen really likes.   It's one heckuva booster, but would require a re-worked Core and more extensive Pad modifications which just weren't needed with J-120/232.

I'm happy to stick with J-120/232 mostly because it would allow NASA to use the cash we save to pay for more actual mission hardware, larger lunar bases and even more advanced developments, like perhaps a nuclear propulsion system.   That would be the sort of direction I want to see NASA heading in, and DIRECT would allow it all to be realistically funded.   I don't need a mega-sized launcher if we can have that lot instead.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/15/2007 07:25 pm
Quote
kraisee - 15/10/2007  3:18 PM

Of the ideas which were discarded, I think perhaps the J-110 might have more mileage than we gave it credit.   It's basically an immediate replacement for Ares-I with only a little extra performance. - Ross.
Enough additional performance to bring Orion's weight problems under control. But it is essentially an EELV-Heavy class launcher, and the team wanted to complement the EELV fleet, not compete with it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 10/15/2007 07:29 pm
Quote
clongton - 15/10/2007  1:58 PM

Quote
marsavian - 15/10/2007  2:48 PM

I think for 20 missions and 1.5 baseline it's 32% LOC and 118% (?) LOM, we will lose a mission and we had an example of that with our previous 1 launch system, i.e. Apollo 13. Very brave people astronauts are to play those odds and we all should not cease in thinking of ways to make it safer.
That's why single fault tolerance makes me shudder.

NASA are just not being true to the spirit of ESAS to try and minimise overall danger if that's what they will cook up for the lunar CEV. Is ESAS, the concept, an attempt to find the most productive and safest architecture or is it just an eternal cover story used to justify Scotty's design in light of all the evidence it's coming up short for the job ? If we eventually lose Astronauts due to a defeatured CEV it will be directly Scott's and Mike's decisions that led to it, not something I would want on my conscience.  :frown:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/15/2007 08:06 pm
Quote
marsavian - 15/10/2007  3:29 PM

Quote
clongton - 15/10/2007  1:58 PM

Quote
marsavian - 15/10/2007  2:48 PM

I think for 20 missions and 1.5 baseline it's 32% LOC and 118% (?) LOM, we will lose a mission and we had an example of that with our previous 1 launch system, i.e. Apollo 13. Very brave people astronauts are to play those odds and we all should not cease in thinking of ways to make it safer.
That's why single fault tolerance makes me shudder.

NASA are just not being true to the spirit of ESAS to try and minimise overall danger if that's what they will cook up for the lunar CEV. Is ESAS, the concept, an attempt to find the most productive and safest architecture or is it just an eternal cover story used to justify Scotty's design in light of all the evidence it's coming up short for the job ? If we eventually lose Astronauts due to a defeatured CEV it will be directly Scott's and Mike's decisions that led to it, not something I would want on my conscience.  :frown:
There are those who would take a sinister view of the actual purpose of the ESAS recommendation and how it was arrived at. But none of that can be backed up with documentation that is releasable for publication. While it may be fine to hold suspicions, it is counter productive to pursue them because, in the end, it won’t matter. Physics being what it is will ultimately prevail. Ares-I will, or will not fly, based on physics, not ESAS.

The DIRECT architecture, with the Jupiter Launch Vehicle Family, clearly stands head and shoulders above the recommendation of the ESAS, in terms of performance, schedule, overall safety, responsible use of federal funding and workforce retention. It is quite simply a better product for the money, better for the future of the VSE and better for the hundreds of thousands of space industry personnel around the nation and the companies that employ them.

We are proud of our product, extremely proud. We are even extremely proud of the men and women working the Ares design. What they have been able to accomplish, so far, against all reasonable odds, is a testament to their intelligence, knowledge, skill, perseverance and loyalty to the nation’s space program. We feel however, that we do not need to compare Direct to the Ares, except as a point of reference, and especially to the ESAS which, at this point in time, is now really nothing but an historical document which takes a snapshot in time of a point in time now long gone.

DIRECT, quite proudly, stands completely on its own.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 10/15/2007 08:19 pm
Quote
jongoff - 15/10/2007  2:10 PM

Quote
marsavian - 14/10/2007  1:27 PM

Yes seems odd. What's sobering about these figures even taking the supposedly safest 1.5 configuration is chosen is that 1/66 LOC figure.  :(

Put another way, if you were doing 2 lunar missions per year, that gives you ~26% chance of a fatal crew accident within the first decade of operations, and ~71% chance of losing a multi-billion dollar mission within that timeframe.

Sobering indeed.

~Jon

Yup. Doesn't matter which of the basic lunar architectures you pick, these numbers make the Shuttle look downright cheap and safe.  I think the "best guess" cost per lunar mission is about $3B.  Compare $3B and 1/66 to ~$600M (at 5 flights per year) and 1/~100 for the Shuttle ...

Assuming 14 days on the surface that's $50M per astronaut per day on the lunar surface compared with $15B per LEO day for Shuttle astronauts and $2-5M a LEO day for crews on ISS.  

Not to mention the amortized development costs ... Assuming a 20-year payback period and $100B development cost, that almost doubles the cost per lunar surface day to almost $100M for the first 20 years.

*ouch*
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/15/2007 08:24 pm
Mars,
The cost for the missions is a fairly normal cost curve actually.   Just like Shuttle, it is the fixed costs which are the real big budget item for the new program, not the variable cost per flight.

Irrelevant of how many missions you fly the fixed costs to operate all the facilities, to pay all the staff salaries around the nation, to keep the electricity flowing and the experts on the job don't change depending on flight rate.   Whether you fly no missions or five missions, that cost remains "fixed".

The fixed costs are going to be somewhere in the ball-park of $5-7bn every year for Constellation.   That pays for the staff and for all of the facilities around the country supporting launch vehciles, spacecraft, mission control, launch ops, manufacturing, crew support etc - basically everything needed.   The cost to actually fly each mission on top of that though, is actually fairly minor.   Probably a lot less than $1bn.   I'm hearing numbers even below $500m with some architectures.

At this point though, people start playing games with statistics to determine how much each mission costs when you spread the costs across the number of missions per year, but that isn't how it *actually* works.   Be careful not to be distracted by that sort of re-calculation.

And to make things even more complicated, you often have to pay for things years in advance of them being used.   For example, NASA buys an ET roughly two years before it will be flown, so the external tank which will fly next month on STS-120 was possibly paid for from the 2005 NASA budget.   This sort of thing makes it real complicated to work out your actual budget "today" :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 10/15/2007 08:40 pm
Quote
kraisee - 15/10/2007  12:18 PM

I think perhaps the Jupiter-110 might have more mileage than we originally gave it credit . . . It's cryo stage engine is far less stressed than J-2X . . . there is an extra SRB . . .

And there is a Jupiter-244 Heavy configuration which offers considerably more performance than Ares-V . . .

I guess I missed downloading graphics and specs on these two birds; can you republish? What cryo engine are you referring to and what extra SRB? Thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/15/2007 09:08 pm
rsp1202,
Think of Jupiter-110 as a Jupiter-120 with just a single ground-lit RS-68, and flown with a standard Jupiter Common Core Stage only half-filled with propellant. Jupiter-110 can lift a CEV quite comfortably, but would be incapable of bringing any extra cargo with it like J-120 can.

By "extra SRB", I'm comparing our pair to Ares-I's single.

The reasoning for J-110 not being included was multi-pointed, in that it would require one extra flight certification program which is costly in the $200-500m bracket, it has no engine-out capability, achieved quite a high max-Q (still lower than Ares-I though) and the extra $20m per RS-68 for J-120 is a drop in the ocean for all that extra capability.   J-120 can ultimately do everything J-110 can and more so there just wasn't much point.   In hindsight, given Ares-I also has no engine out capability, it might not be so unreasonable as straight replacement for no other purpose than pure CLV duties.


Jupiter-244 is a bigger version of the 232.   It has a fourth RS-68 main engine on the Core which makes it incompatible with the J-120 and J-232 because that requires a new Thrust Structure and more extensive MLP modifications to support it.   J-244 also has four J-2X's on an even bigger Upper Stage.   You can see the stage on p45 of our AIAA paper - far right hand side.   We had a full J-244 included in the "family" image on page 100, but we removed it in order not to muddy the main message of the paper, which was to get J-120 for ISS and then J-232 for Lunar use.   Anything else is really just a distraction at this stage.

J-244 performance is higher than Ares-V, with about 150mT of payload capacity to LEO.   The "Heavy" designation indicates use of 5-segment SRB's, which boost performance by another 5-10mT or so.   It works best with yet another stage on top acting purely as an EDS (probably with a cluster of RL-10's identical to those ultimately selected for LSAM).   This combination is quite formidable, but does require an extra layer of costly development costs on top of J-120/232.   It was dismissed purely because J-232 had enough performance to accomplish all the Lunar mission requirements *without* having to pay that extra cost.   Also J-244 does not achieve the 1:1000 LOC requirement for manned use so would be limited to Cargo use only.

J-244 remains as a growth option if we ever find that 100mT performance just isn't actually enough at some point in the future.   While there aren't any requirements at this time for such performance, it might become necessary for some purpose we can't yet foresee.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/15/2007 09:23 pm
Quote
rsp1202 - 15/10/2007  4:40 PM

Quote
kraisee - 15/10/2007  12:18 PM

I think perhaps the Jupiter-110 might have more mileage than we originally gave it credit . . . It's cryo stage engine is far less stressed than J-2X . . . there is an extra SRB . . .

And there is a Jupiter-244 Heavy configuration which offers considerably more performance than Ares-V . . .

I guess I missed downloading graphics and specs on these two birds; can you republish? What cryo engine are you referring to and what extra SRB? Thanks.
rsp1202:

I don't know that we ever actually published a graphic specifically of the J-110. But it looks exactly like the J-120, but having only a single RS-68. The reference to the "extra SRB" refers to the comparison between The Jupiter (2xSRB) and the Ares (1xSRB). The ET would carry only a partial propellant load. The single RS-68 would power the launch vehicle, running at between 70%-80% of its max power setting, making for a much gentler ride that what the Ares would provide.

The Jupiter-244 does have a graphic and you can find it in the AIAA paper. But we did not present it in the proposal or the AIAA paper as a baseline launch vehicle because, unlike the J-110, J-120 & J-232, this bird would require a different thrust structure. The 1st three can use a common thrust structure beneath the ET, and either use, or not, 1, 2 or 3 engines, all in-line. The Jupiter-244 however requires a different arrangement, hence a different thrust structure. The goal was to keep everything common, as much as possible, to reduce cost and development time. The Jupiter-244 could push nearly 150mT to160mT into LEO, depending on how it is configured, but that kind of lift capacity is quite simply not required by the VSE, if indeed it ever will be. It is simply more cost effective to use 2xJ-232 to lift the occasional payload that weighs that much, than to go thru the effort to develop and qualify the J-244 or J-254. It is comforting to know however, that should there ever be an actual need for a monster like that, or a Jupiter-254 or Jupiter-3542, that such monsters can be created as extensions of the existing Jupiter launch vehicle family. They would be very expensive, but not nearly as much as the cost of developing a completely new vehicle would be. The launch vehicle foundation laid by the Jupiter launch vehicle family can serve all the reasonable needs of the VSE and the American space program for the foreseeable future, perhaps as much as 50 years into the future, without major modification.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 10/15/2007 10:38 pm
Gotcha. Thanks Ross and Chuck.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SirThoreth on 10/16/2007 01:09 am
Quote
clongton - 15/10/2007  2:23 PM
I don't know that we ever actually published a graphic specifically of the J-110. But it looks exactly like the J-120, but having only a single RS-68. The reference to the "extra SRB" refers to the comparison between The Jupiter (2xSRB) and the Ares (1xSRB). The ET would carry only a partial propellant load. The single RS-68 would power the launch vehicle, running at between 70%-80% of its max power setting, making for a much gentler ride that what the Ares would provide.

That actually sounds pretty promising.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of propellant load would a J-110 carry, and would you still be able to lift off with a full propellant load?  The limits of my mathematical ability to calculate rocket performance is the following equations:  

delta-v = Isp * 9.8 m/s^2 * ln (initial mass / final mass)
delta-x = v0 * t + 0.5 * a * t^2
v^2 - v0^2 = 2 a * delta-x

In other words, there's a wee bit I'm missing in terms of knowledge to run the numbers for myself.

What would be the performance effects (and payload) in those circumstance?  The more I'm reading about the J-110, the more I'm thinking it's probably the most viable STS-derived alternative to the Ares I that fits with the current stated requirements and mission architecture.

Another thing I might've missed in the 155+ pages of this thread: would J-120 and other Direct derivatives be able to handle the 5-segment SRBs?  IIRC, the design we're looking at now was originally proposed for STS, and cancelled around the time of Columbia's loss.

(grumble grumble, and subscript/superscript code doesn't work on these forums)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/16/2007 01:22 am
Partial propellant loading is hard to accomplish.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/16/2007 01:47 am
Quote
SirThoreth - 15/10/2007  7:09 PM
The more I'm reading about the J-110, the more I'm thinking it's probably the most viable STS-derived alternative to the Ares I that fits with the current stated requirements and mission architecture.

Of course, it has no engine-out capability.

Quote
Another thing I might've missed in the 155+ pages of this thread: would J-120 and other Direct derivatives be able to handle the 5-segment SRBs?

Yes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SirThoreth on 10/16/2007 01:48 am
Quote
Jim - 15/10/2007  6:22 PM

Partial propellant loading is hard to accomplish.

More or less difficult than engineering a smaller single-RS-68 stage that can handle two current 4-segment SRBs?

(Not being facetious, honestly don't know how hard partial propellant loading is, and if the long-term difficulties with that would make the short-term redesign difficulties more attractive).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 10/16/2007 03:21 am
Quote
kraisee - 15/10/2007  4:24 PM

Mars,
The cost for the missions is a fairly normal cost curve actually.   Just like Shuttle, it is the fixed costs which are the real big budget item for the new program, not the variable cost per flight.

Irrelevant of how many missions you fly the fixed costs to operate all the facilities, to pay all the staff salaries around the nation, to keep the electricity flowing and the experts on the job don't change depending on flight rate.   Whether you fly no missions or five missions, that cost remains "fixed".

The fixed costs are going to be somewhere in the ball-park of $5-7bn every year for Constellation.   That pays for the staff and for all of the facilities around the country supporting launch vehciles, spacecraft, mission control, launch ops, manufacturing, crew support etc - basically everything needed.   The cost to actually fly each mission on top of that though, is actually fairly minor.   Probably a lot less than $1bn.   I'm hearing numbers even below $500m with some architectures.

At this point though, people start playing games with statistics to determine how much each mission costs when you spread the costs across the number of missions per year, but that isn't how it *actually* works.   Be careful not to be distracted by that sort of re-calculation.

And to make things even more complicated, you often have to pay for things years in advance of them being used.   For example, NASA buys an ET roughly two years before it will be flown, so the external tank which will fly next month on STS-120 was possibly paid for from the 2005 NASA budget.   This sort of thing makes it real complicated to work out your actual budget "today" :)

Ross.

I agree with the fixed vs. variable but lander cost alone could be over $1B. I haven't seen a 4 crew lunar architecture that meets current requirements and comes in at under $1B.

Analysis holds at $6B per year total cost ($3B per flight). You still get $100M per astronaut lunar day ... and very little opportunity to reduce that cost. Probably should start a thread just to consider that number ...

Variable costs for lander + Ares V + Ares I will cost at least $1B, but probably less than $2B. With a flight rate of 2 per year the "buy ahead" gets a bit easier. Initial lunar hardware is currently in the 'budget' for 2017.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/16/2007 05:16 am
Mars,
ESAS were predicting a cost over $15bn per year for everything.   Using 2020 as a peak date, that includes (approximately):-

$1.0bn for CLV
$3.5bn for CaLV
$1.2bn for EDS
$1.8bn for CEV
$4.3bn for LSAM

That totals $11.8bn for Constellation per year, yet doesn't even include any of the Lunar Outpost costs - which are another $4.5bn for 2020.   Compare that total to the current Shuttle and ISS budgets at $5bn and $2bn respectively, and suddenly the $9.3bn difference begins to explain why so many people are highly dubious that NASA is going to have funding for everything they want.

The cost structure has actually not changed all that much since ESAS.   The bottom line totals are still expected to be within +/-$1bn of this.

From Section 12 "Costs" of the should-not-have-been-released ACI Draft version of the ESAS Report:-


Click the image above for a higher resolution version

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/16/2007 05:40 am
Quote
Jim - 15/10/2007  9:22 PM

Partial propellant loading is hard to accomplish.

That was another of our considerations which removed J-110 from our plans.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/16/2007 05:57 am
Quote
SirThoreth - 15/10/2007  9:09 PM

Out of curiosity, what percentage of propellant load would a J-110 carry, and would you still be able to lift off with a full propellant load?  The limits of my mathematical ability to calculate rocket performance is the following equations:  

delta-v = Isp * 9.8 m/s^2 * ln (initial mass / final mass)
delta-x = v0 * t + 0.5 * a * t^2
v^2 - v0^2 = 2 a * delta-x

In other words, there's a wee bit I'm missing in terms of knowledge to run the numbers for myself.

Its actually even more difficult than that.   The varying thrust curve of the SRB has a major effect on total performance and usually defeats most "back of the envelope" predictions when they produce such a vast proportion of thrust on these STS-derived vehicles.

But the J-110 had approximately 500mT of propellant onboard at liftoff.   There was also a lot of deep throttling on the RS-68 to reduce max-Q pressures and to prevent the relatively light-weight system exceeding 4g towards the end of the flight too.


Quote
What would be the performance effects (and payload) in those circumstance?  The more I'm reading about the J-110, the more I'm thinking it's probably the most viable STS-derived alternative to the Ares I that fits with the current stated requirements and mission architecture.

We ultimately decided that even if you were only after ~25mT of lift performance, the J-120 would actually still be your better bet.   You could still part fuel the Core, and throttle the pair of RS-68's down to minimum performance just after clearing the tower and through to the end of the flight.   The thing we really liked was that an engine-out is easily compensated for by simply throttling the remaining engine back up to compensate.   But more than anything else, only one flight certification program would be required - and that deletes a major cost item from the development budget and from the schedule.   J-120 can do everything J-110 can.   J-110 can't do visa versa.   If you wish to reduce your costs and only pay for one, I know which I choose.


Quote
Another thing I might've missed in the 155+ pages of this thread: would J-120 and other Direct derivatives be able to handle the 5-segment SRBs?  IIRC, the design we're looking at now was originally proposed for STS, and cancelled around the time of Columbia's loss.

Yes.   We use the term "Heavy" to indicate a version which uses the 5-segment SRB's, and yes we would use them in precisely the same way as planned on STS with the top-most segment doing the mounting to the tank instead of the Fwd Skirt.   All of Jupiter's boosters get roughly 5-10mT additional performance if flown with 5-segment boosters.

The thing is that we just don't have *any* performance requirement which needs the larger boosters.  We're primarily trying to save as much development money as possible to pay for mission hardware.   Development money doesn't pay for any results.   Politics is the only thing which may dictate that we must have them.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/16/2007 06:12 am
Quote
SirThoreth - 15/10/2007  9:48 PM

Quote
Jim - 15/10/2007  6:22 PM

Partial propellant loading is hard to accomplish.

More or less difficult than engineering a smaller single-RS-68 stage that can handle two current 4-segment SRBs?

Developing another stage is seriously costly in terms of both budget and schedule.   It really is one of those ares, like new engines, where less is definitely more.   The fewer new stages you can have the better.

Ares, for example, requires all-new SRB's, one all-new Core and two all-new Upper Stages. That's quite a count, with 4 new stages all to be developed to accomplish the Lunar missions successfully.

Jupiter retains the existing SRB's unchanged, and modifies one existing tank structure into a new Core, and then only develops one single Upper Stage.   That's half the number of new stages which are required, which means half the cost and half the schedule too.


The fewer new engines you need, the better also.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SirThoreth on 10/16/2007 07:54 am
Quote
kraisee - 15/10/2007  11:12 PM

Quote
SirThoreth - 15/10/2007  9:48 PM

Quote
Jim - 15/10/2007  6:22 PM

Partial propellant loading is hard to accomplish.

More or less difficult than engineering a smaller single-RS-68 stage that can handle two current 4-segment SRBs?

Developing another stage is seriously costly in terms of both budget and schedule.   It really is one of those ares, like new engines, where less is definitely more.   The fewer new stages you can have the better.

Ares, for example, requires all-new SRB's, one all-new Core and two all-new Upper Stages. That's quite a count, with 4 new stages all to be developed to accomplish the Lunar missions successfully.

Jupiter retains the existing SRB's unchanged, and modifies one existing tank structure into a new Core, and then only develops one single Upper Stage.   That's half the number of new stages which are required, which means half the cost and half the schedule too.


The fewer new engines you need, the better also.

Ross.

OK, that brings me to my next question/crazy idea:

Per astronautix.com, the RS-68 weighs 14,543 lbs and has 744,567 lbs of thrust, with an Isp of 420 seconds.  They list the EFT at 1,655,616 lbs, with an empty mass of 65,980 lbs (meaning it's got 1,589,636 lbs of propellant), meaning, if you're omitting the SRBs, you need three RS-68s to get it off the ground.

My PDAs are being stubborn about downloading the Direct proposal, or searching the forums, but I seem to recall there being a config with three RS-68s.  Would it be possible to fly it without the SRBs, and what kind of useful payload would you get if you could?  Or would three RS-68s  drain the tank too quickly to be useful?

(*puts on asbestos suit*)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/16/2007 08:29 am
Astronautix appears to be a little off with the figures this time.

RS-68 is these days usually operated at a nominal 102% Mission Power Level on Delta-IV.   At this setting I understand it produces:-

SL: 663,000lb Thrust, 357s Isp
Vac: 758,500lb Thrust, 409s Isp


Assuming the Pad were redesigned to support a three-engine Core Stage alone, it could be made to fly without SRB's (the SRB's are currently the part that holds the entire vehicle in place).   But without the large boosters, it would require an upper stage because the Core would burn-out long before reaching orbital velocity.

Ultimately it would be a Delta-IV Heavy, just with one wide tank not three narrow ones.   I would certainly look straight at DIVH to get ballpark performance figures for such a configuration.

My immediate concern though, would be the idea of swapping the two (simple) SRB's for two (complex) cryo engines with an (even more complicated) upper stage.   I think that combination would end up being a less safe than either J-110 or J-120 for simple crew launch ops.   A pure estimate, but I think you would lose something like 300-500 points from your LOC numbers.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula2 on 10/16/2007 09:05 am
My calculations show it being just about Single Stage to Orbit, without an upper stage, and with Orion on top. Inserted mass about 165,000 lbs.

Lift off acceleration is only 1.13 g though, so you might need to run at 106% for the first minute (1.2 g). And you would have to shut down 2 engines and throttle the other back a bit to keep g's at insertion under 4.

New Jupiter (J-130 light?)  One 3-engined core, no SRB's, no US.   ATK aren't going to like this one.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SirThoreth on 10/16/2007 09:24 am
Quote
kkattula2 - 16/10/2007  2:05 AM

My calculations show it being just about Single Stage to Orbit, without an upper stage, and with Orion on top. Inserted mass about 165,000 lbs.

Lift off acceleration is only 1.13 g though, so you might need to run at 106% for the first minute (1.2 g). And you would have to shut down 2 engines and throttle the other back a bit to keep g's at insertion under 4.

New Jupiter (J-130 light?)  One 3-engined core, no SRB's, no US.  

Which is what I was hoping to achieve: commonality with another Direct 2.0 rocket, while keeping the payload low enough to cover NASA's planned mission profile for Ares I/Orion.

OTOH, with the margins on this somewhere between razor slim (your numbers) to negative (kraisee's), along with the complications in needing to modify the pad, and the potential issues with keeping G loads low as that tank empties out, which impacts the LOC numbers.

Quote
ATK aren't going to like this one.  :)

Well, that's what J-120/J-130 standard and heavy would be for (along with lifting more) right? ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SirThoreth on 10/16/2007 09:27 am
Quote
kraisee - 16/10/2007  1:29 AM
Assuming the Pad were redesigned to support a three-engine Core Stage alone, it could be made to fly without SRB's (the SRB's are currently the part that holds the entire vehicle in place).   But without the large boosters, it would require an upper stage because the Core would burn-out long before reaching orbital velocity.

How short of orbital velocity would we be, and would there be any better Jupiter "light" we could fly that would more or less match the required Ares I performance without using the SRBs?

Quote
Ultimately it would be a Delta-IV Heavy, just with one wide tank not three narrow ones.   I would certainly look straight at DIVH to get ballpark performance figures for such a configuration.

My immediate concern though, would be the idea of swapping the two (simple) SRB's for two (complex) cryo engines with an (even more complicated) upper stage.   I think that combination would end up being a less safe than either J-110 or J-120 for simple crew launch ops.   A pure estimate, but I think you would lose something like 300-500 points from your LOC numbers.

Ross.

Which means that, in the event NASA still ends up passing on DIRECT, and the Ares I ends up unworkable, we might as well go with the Delta IV Heavy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/16/2007 10:56 am
Quote
kkattula2 - 16/10/2007  5:05 AM

My calculations show it being just about Single Stage to Orbit, without an upper stage, and with Orion on top. Inserted mass about 165,000 lbs.

Lift off acceleration is only 1.13 g though, so you might need to run at 106% for the first minute (1.2 g). And you would have to shut down 2 engines and throttle the other back a bit to keep g's at insertion under 4.

New Jupiter (J-130 light?)  One 3-engined core, no SRB's, no US.   ATK aren't going to like this one.  :)
If you're going to shut down 2 engines, you're better off to jetison them as well, just like the Atlas that put the Mercury spacecraft into orbit, and proceed to orbit on a single engine. That's 29,086 lbs (2x14,543) that you don't have to drag all the way up to orbit.

But like Ross said, this configuration would require extensive pad modifications because it is the SRB's that actually hold the launch vehicle upright, both Jupiter and Shuttle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 10/16/2007 12:16 pm
This discussion reminds me of various Ares IV discussions I've read. Ares IV w/o SRBs replaces Ares I with a heavier LEO capability. Two Ares IV with SRBs can send Orion and LSAM separately, supporting a LOR/LOR architecture. Jupiter seems to my ignorant eyes like a better/cheaper/faster concept than Ares I/V, but if the incoming administration doesn't switch to it, we'll soon be past the point where doing so will close the gap, and then to a time when a rollback to a different architecture will be more expensive than proceeding. I have long wonder (and published a story in Asimov's earlier this year with elements of this) if it doesn't make sense to look at the Ares V core vehicle as a second generation EELV (which I called Delta V in the story). Other than the massive budget necessary (i.e., politics), it seems like you could replace the core + SRBs Ares V with a 3-core "Delta V Heavy" if, for example, the industrial capacity to build SRBs were lost to economic and political foolishness. My math and "rocket science" are primitive at this point (I'm working out of a 1956 edition of Ramsay's Dynamics and my old 1960s-era physics text), but it does seem like that would even give you a slightly higher payload. It's a sci-fi fantasy what-if, of course, but that's what I do for a part of my living.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Giovanni DS on 10/16/2007 12:20 pm
For a J-130-light the central engine could be optimized for vacuum operation too. It is a very interesting concept, a SSTO built using existing hardware. The Orion could complete the launch just like it is supposed to do on Ares-I.

A question, would an extra RS-68 cost more than a refurbished SRB ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 10/16/2007 02:25 pm
Quote
kraisee - 16/10/2007  1:16 AM

Mars,
ESAS were predicting a cost over $15bn per year for everything.   Using 2020 as a peak date, that includes (approximately):-

$1.0bn for CLV
$3.5bn for CaLV
$1.2bn for EDS
$1.8bn for CEV
$4.3bn for LSAM

That totals $11.8bn for Constellation per year, yet doesn't even include any of the Lunar Outpost costs - which are another $4.5bn for 2020.   Compare that total to the current Shuttle and ISS budgets at $5bn and $2bn respectively, and suddenly the $9.3bn difference begins to explain why so many people are highly dubious that NASA is going to have funding for everything they want.

The cost structure has actually not changed all that much since ESAS.   The bottom line totals are still expected to be within +/-$1bn of this.

From Section 12 "Costs" of the should-not-have-been-released ACI Draft version of the ESAS Report:-

[snip]
Ross.

I think we are agreeing?  I was simply pointing out the high cost per astronaut day ... no matter what the launch system.

Don't forget inflation.  2-3% matters 10-15 years out when comparing costs and budgets.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 10/16/2007 02:52 pm
Quote
kraisee - 14/10/2007  1:04 AM



The same is also true for the new alt-space tourism efforts.   What happens if one of them accidentally kills a half dozen billionaire passengers?   I can only imagine the lawsuits which would follow that, and I doubt any "waiver" would be worth the paper its written on when a troupe of billionaire's family lawyers get involved.

Ross.

That's why I don't see the space tourism going very far.  WHEN (not if, but when) an SS2 or whatever breaks up and kills everyone there is going to be a legal bonanza that makes the OJ trial look like a church picnic.  Remember that a private craft has JUST achieved suborbital flight, and barely at that.  It would be about like the Wright Brothers starting their own airline in 1904; the capability has just barely been demonstrated-- it's a LONG way from a Wright Flyer to a Ford Tri-Motor!  

And when the first alt-space ship full of billionaires goes in the drink, that'll be the end of that fad-- better to go drink martinis in the Riviera or Monaco on a luxury yacht than end up as fish food.  That's what the billionaires will be thinking afterward.  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 10/16/2007 03:34 pm
Quote
kkattula2 - 16/10/2007  4:05 AM

My calculations show it being just about Single Stage to Orbit, without an upper stage, and with Orion on top. Inserted mass about 165,000 lbs.

Lift off acceleration is only 1.13 g though, so you might need to run at 106% for the first minute (1.2 g). And you would have to shut down 2 engines and throttle the other back a bit to keep g's at insertion under 4.

New Jupiter (J-130 light?)  One 3-engined core, no SRB's, no US.   ATK aren't going to like this one.  :)

How about dropping the two outboards after you burn off some fuel and get enough velocity that one RS-68 can do the job, ala Atlas I (Mercury Atlas)?  Or, if you need the weight of the RS-68's to keep the acceleration under 4 gees near burnout just shut the outboards down and leave them attached??  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 10/16/2007 03:55 pm
Quote
SirThoreth - 16/10/2007  5:27 AM
Which means that, in the event NASA still ends up passing on DIRECT, and the Ares I ends up unworkable, we might as well go with the Delta IV Heavy.
My worry is from the other end. Ares _will_ "work, i.e. it will launch and carry a capsule to orbit. My worry is that because the booster is mandated, the capsule will be emasculated w.r.t. its lunar mission and there the money and mission will stop. At the ISS. In LEO. For 30+ years agian.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/16/2007 04:09 pm
Quote
Giovanni DS - 16/10/2007  8:20 AM

A question, would an extra RS-68 cost more than a refurbished SRB ?

No.   The SRB's cost considerably more than an extra RS-68.

SRB yearly fixed costs are around $475m each year, irrelevant of whether you fly or not.   Add between $3 to 5m to refurbish and prepare each segment for flight or testing on top of that.

EELV currently pays all the fixed costs for PWR's RS-68 production, so effectively NASA would just be purchasing individual units (although a portion of NASA's price is used to pay the fixed), and that cost is around $20m per engine.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/16/2007 04:18 pm
Regarding the idea of creating a Jupiter-130 with an Atlas-D-style disposable outer engine arrangement, while technically feasible, the cost and impacts to the schedule would be quite serious.

Jupiter's are much larger vehicles than the old Atlas, and the costs for such a development would scale up really quickly at this scale.   Having jettisonable engines would be a very complicated and technically challenging design to get right at this scale, and would likely take much longer than we want and cost a lot more than it is really worth.

I'm not saying it would be impossible, but I am saying that it goes in the opposite direction from one of the cornerstones DIRECT has always aimed for:

K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid).


Adding this layer of complexity for a crew launch vehicle is also going to do really nasty things to your LOC/LOM numbers too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 10/16/2007 05:00 pm
If you want a three-engine RS-68-powered launch vehicle without SRBs, I think we've already got one...  :)

It'd probably be more effective to modify that vehicle than to man-rate/upgrade Delta IV Heavy than modify the existing STS infrastructure to the point that you could launch without SRBs, which are what the vehicle "stands on" at the pad.

DIRECT only makes sense when you re-use, as-is, as much of the existing hardware/configuration/infrastructure as possible/reasonable/sensible.  If you ditch the SRBs, you've really ditched the whole concept IMO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SirThoreth on 10/16/2007 10:24 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 16/10/2007  10:00 AM

If you want a three-engine RS-68-powered launch vehicle without SRBs, I think we've already got one...  :)

It'd probably be more effective to modify that vehicle than to man-rate/upgrade Delta IV Heavy than modify the existing STS infrastructure to the point that you could launch without SRBs, which are what the vehicle "stands on" at the pad.

DIRECT only makes sense when you re-use, as-is, as much of the existing hardware/configuration/infrastructure as possible/reasonable/sensible.  If you ditch the SRBs, you've really ditched the whole concept IMO.

True, but I was also thinking in terms of maintaining the STS workforce, as well as showing another option for the Jupiter CCB, especially given an evidently strong reluctance by the decision-makers to use a Delta IV Heavy for Orion missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 10/16/2007 11:59 pm
What about 3 RS-68s, two of which are jettesoned after a certain point in the flight, and the third of which is vacuum optimised?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 10/17/2007 04:05 am
Quote
tnphysics - 16/10/2007  5:59 PM

What about 3 RS-68s, two of which are jettesoned after a certain point in the flight, and the third of which is vacuum optimised?

This would add a lot of complexity and violate the DIRECT principle of using what's available.  You'd need to add the quick disconnects, pyros, and all other hardware needed for dropping two of the engines.  You'd also need to redevelop the nozzle for the RS-68 sustainer if you want to vacuum-optimize it.

The only RS-68 upgrade we're likely to see is the RS-68A, which improves thrust and increases Isp to 414s (by upgrading the turbopumps and adding more injectors.)  It's got Air Force money behind it, and NASA has baselined it for Ares V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula2 on 10/17/2007 08:23 am
Quote
SirThoreth - 16/10/2007  9:27 PM

Quote
kraisee - 16/10/2007  1:29 AM
Assuming the Pad were redesigned to support a three-engine Core Stage alone, it could be made to fly without SRB's (the SRB's are currently the part that holds the entire vehicle in place).   But without the large boosters, it would require an upper stage because the Core would burn-out long before reaching orbital velocity.

How short of orbital velocity would we be, and would there be any better Jupiter "light" we could fly that would more or less match the required Ares I performance without using the SRBs?

Can't be precise without a detailed analysis, but my BOTE says within 200 m/s of orbital velocity and possibly a lot better, depending on how soon you drop the LAS. IIRC this is already better than Ares I, with the full lunar mass Orion.

Removing the intertank beam, (not needed without SRB's and it's actually heavier than the empty O2 tank), would close the case.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula2 on 10/17/2007 08:35 am
Interesting how SSTO ELV speculation always seems to end up with a configuration similar to Atlas D. Those guys knew what they were doing back then.

As for supporting a Core on the pad with no SRB's, it couldn't be that difficult. That hardware doesn't have to be flight weight. Just solid engineering. You've already got the SRB mount points on the tank to attach to. Immobile, skeletal SRB's? Using the standard SRB supports?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Giovanni DS on 10/17/2007 09:35 am
Quote
kraisee - 16/10/2007  6:18 PM
K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid).


Adding this layer of complexity for a crew launch vehicle is also going to do really nasty things to your LOC/LOM numbers too.

It is hard to imagine something simpler than a SSTO, all the engines are ground started and no solids . It would be a Direct core without the SRBs so the LOC/LOM numbers should be better than a J-120.

Assuming such a thing can really lift an Orion to orbit, of course.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 10/17/2007 11:33 am
Wasn't there a plan put forward in the 1970s to develop the S-IC into an almost-SSTO largely expendable launcher, where the four outboard F1 engines were dropped after 2min and recovered by parachute, the center F1 engine and tankage proceeding to orbit and being expended? My recollection was, the payload was supposed to be around 25mT and the per launch cost similar to what was anticipated for the shuttle, at comparable flight rates.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/17/2007 02:11 pm
FYI:
I just ran some preliminary tests on a no-SRB configuration.   It absolutely needs an Upper Stage whether you discard the outboard engines or not.   Even discarding the engines at the most optimal point I couldn't get within 800m/s of orbital velocity while attempting to lift a CEV on its own.

With an Upper Stage, performance was rather similar to Delta-IV Heavy - no real surprise there.

With a pair of SRB's you get double that performance envelope and all the engines are ground-lit.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/17/2007 04:50 pm
Quote
kkattula2 - 17/10/2007  4:35 AM

Interesting how SSTO ELV speculation always seems to end up with a configuration similar to Atlas D. Those guys knew what they were doing back then.

As for supporting a Core on the pad with no SRB's, it couldn't be that difficult. That hardware doesn't have to be flight weight. Just solid engineering. You've already got the SRB mount points on the tank to attach to. Immobile, skeletal SRB's? Using the standard SRB supports?

It would be very difficult.  The axial load bearing points on the ET are the forward SRB attach points.  The aft SRB attach points are for side loads.  It would require a complete redesign.  

"immobile, skeletal SRB's?"   that is a laugh.  It would a Rube Goldberg system with no clearance for the fly out
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 10/17/2007 04:53 pm
Quote
Jim - 17/10/2007  11:50 AM

Quote
kkattula2 - 17/10/2007  4:35 AM

Interesting how SSTO ELV speculation always seems to end up with a configuration similar to Atlas D. Those guys knew what they were doing back then.

As for supporting a Core on the pad with no SRB's, it couldn't be that difficult. That hardware doesn't have to be flight weight. Just solid engineering. You've already got the SRB mount points on the tank to attach to. Immobile, skeletal SRB's? Using the standard SRB supports?

It would be very difficult.  The axial load bearing points on the ET are the forward SRB attach points.  The aft SRB attach points are for side loads.  It would require a complete redesign.  

"immobile, skeletal SRB's?"   that is a laugh.  It would a Rube Goldberg system with no clearance for the fly out

Fall away petal supports like Soyuz uses... to the upper SRB attach points and clamp supports to the lower SRB attach points kinda like Atlas D used.... difficult but NOT impossible... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/17/2007 05:36 pm
Given that the non-SRB solution isn't really a flier anyway (just use Delta-IV Heavy), such a hypothetical stage could be supported at the bottom with no trouble.

It would, after all, be designed to fly with three 650,000lb thrust engines pushing from the aft and producing something like 3g of force during the flight - all of which is passed through the Thrust Structure and up into the strengthened LH2 tank walls.   Those forces are much higher than just sitting on the Pad, so all you have to do is support the Thrust Structure and you'd be fine.

Jupiter's standard tanks have already been re-designed to handle such forces through the Thrust Structure and all the tank walls so this isn't actually an issue.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 10/18/2007 06:55 am
Got to remember the Atlas 1.5 arrangement had nothing to do with best engineering practice, but lack of confidence in igniting an engine at altitude.  I'd say in the last 50 yrs we've perfected that little problem.  I can't remember the last time an RL-10 or J-2 failed to ignite...  Anyone care to help me there?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 10/18/2007 10:35 am
Quote
kraisee - 16/10/2007  11:18 AM

Regarding the idea of creating a Jupiter-130 with an Atlas-D-style disposable outer engine arrangement, while technically feasible, the cost and impacts to the schedule would be quite serious.

Jupiter's are much larger vehicles than the old Atlas, and the costs for such a development would scale up really quickly at this scale.   Having jettisonable engines would be a very complicated and technically challenging design to get right at this scale, and would likely take much longer than we want and cost a lot more than it is really worth.

I'm not saying it would be impossible, but I am saying that it goes in the opposite direction from one of the cornerstones DIRECT has always aimed for:

K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid).


Adding this layer of complexity for a crew launch vehicle is also going to do really nasty things to your LOC/LOM numbers too.

Ross.

Food for thought: What if the two jettisonable engines were to be put on a side pod instead of under the core tank.  The pod could be connected to the core tank with the existing space shuttle connecting points/fueling pipies which are already designed for separation. The core tank would have only one engine which could be flown as a J-110 without the pod.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/18/2007 11:39 am
Quote
PaulL - 18/10/2007  6:35 AM

Quote
kraisee - 16/10/2007  11:18 AM

Regarding the idea of creating a Jupiter-130 with an Atlas-D-style disposable outer engine arrangement, while technically feasible, the cost and impacts to the schedule would be quite serious.

Jupiter's are much larger vehicles than the old Atlas, and the costs for such a development would scale up really quickly at this scale.   Having jettisonable engines would be a very complicated and technically challenging design to get right at this scale, and would likely take much longer than we want and cost a lot more than it is really worth.

I'm not saying it would be impossible, but I am saying that it goes in the opposite direction from one of the cornerstones DIRECT has always aimed for:

K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid).


Adding this layer of complexity for a crew launch vehicle is also going to do really nasty things to your LOC/LOM numbers too.

Ross.

Food for thought: What if the two jettisonable engines were to be put on a side pod instead of under the core tank.  The pod could be connected to the core tank with the existing space shuttle connecting points/fueling pipies which are already designed for separation. The core tank would have only one engine which could be flown as a J-110 without the pod.

PaulL

It wouldn't help.  Still too many changes and would be more complex.  
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/18/2007 11:53 am
Quote
TrueGrit - 18/10/2007  2:55 AM

Got to remember the Atlas 1.5 arrangement had nothing to do with best engineering practice, but lack of confidence in igniting an engine at altitude.  I'd say in the last 50 yrs we've perfected that little problem.  I can't remember the last time an RL-10 or J-2 failed to ignite...  Anyone care to help me there?

RL-10 failed to ignite on AC-70, AC-71 and the second Delta III
J-2 failed to ignite on Apollo 6
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/18/2007 12:45 pm
Quote
Jim - 18/10/2007  7:53 AM

Quote
TrueGrit - 18/10/2007  2:55 AM

Got to remember the Atlas 1.5 arrangement had nothing to do with best engineering practice, but lack of confidence in igniting an engine at altitude.  I'd say in the last 50 yrs we've perfected that little problem.  I can't remember the last time an RL-10 or J-2 failed to ignite...  Anyone care to help me there?

RL-10 failed to ignite on AC-70, AC-71 and the second Delta III
J-2 failed to ignite on Apollo 6
Failed to ignite is a problem. That’s one of the things I like about nuclear, no ignition required. Although I’ll be the first to admit this is a view from 10k feet, you just let the core get hot, open the valve to the gas bag, and WHOOSH! You’ve got thrust. No ignition required.

Like I said, I know that’s an oversimplification, but it’s a fundamental feature of the nuclear engine. It can use ANYTHING as the reactant mass, although hydrogen is best. Just get it really hot (which is essentially all that combustion does) and vent it thru a nozzle. Simple.

Ok, back to ground level. Sorry for the diversion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 10/18/2007 01:41 pm
Quote
kraisee - 16/10/2007  11:18 AM
Regarding the idea of creating a Jupiter-130 with an Atlas-D-style disposable outer engine arrangement, while technically feasible, the cost and impacts to the schedule would be quite serious.

...

I'm not saying it would be impossible, but I am saying that it goes in the opposite direction from one of the cornerstones DIRECT has always aimed for:

K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

Quote
PaulL - 18/10/2007  5:35 AM
Food for thought: What if the two jettisonable engines were to be put on a side pod instead of under the core tank.  The pod could be connected to the core tank with the existing space shuttle connecting points/fueling pipies which are already designed for separation. The core tank would have only one engine which could be flown as a J-110 without the pod.

NLS visited the jettisonable engine concept for a HLV too...



http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nlshlv.htm

While Astronautix doesn't give complete engine details matching the image, it appears to be four SSME-derived engines in a outer jettisonable ring, surrounding two J-2-derived engines.  The outer engine ring appears to be disposed of much like a staging event.

Where are the pros and cons here, though?  The biggest pro I can see is that you're lighting all your candles on the ground.  To biggest con I can see it that you would be carrying all of your tankage mass uphill, minus your engines.

So you end up with one set of bigger tanks, but the same amount of "plumbing", since you have the same number of engines.  Additionally, you probably have more complex (i.e. heavier) plumbing for your jettisonable engines, because you need to shut down fuel flow to them without impacting the remaining engines.

To be worth considering, it needs to win at least one of these arguments against an equivalent,  "regular", staged design:

1. Weighs less
2. Lifts more
3. Is safer

You might make an argument for #3 with the "light 'em all on the ground" argument, but you aren't really eliminating a "staging" event, as you still need to drop engines.

I have serious doubts that you can win #2 with the extra tank mass you carry to orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/18/2007 02:29 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 18/10/2007  9:41 AM

NLS visited the jettisonable engine concept for a HLV too...

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nlshlv.htm

While Astronautix doesn't give complete engine details matching the image, it appears to be four SSME-derived engines in a outer jettisonable ring, surrounding two J-2-derived engines.  The outer engine ring appears to be disposed of much like a staging event.

Where are the pros and cons here, though?  The biggest pro I can see is that you're lighting all your candles on the ground.  To biggest con I can see it that you would be carrying all of your tankage mass uphill, minus your engines.

So you end up with one set of bigger tanks, but the same amount of "plumbing", since you have the same number of engines.  Additionally, you probably have more complex (i.e. heavier) plumbing for your jettisonable engines, because you need to shut down fuel flow to them without impacting the remaining engines.

To be worth considering, it needs to win at least one of these arguments against an equivalent,  "regular", staged design:

1. Weighs less
2. Lifts more
3. Is safer

You might make an argument for #3 with the "light 'em all on the ground" argument, but you aren't really eliminating a "staging" event, as you still need to drop engines.

I have serious doubts that you can win #2 with the extra tank mass you carry to orbit.
There are a couple of things in play here when considering the powered lift portion of the ascent profile.

First, it takes more energy to get a huge mass moving than to keep the same mass moving once motion is started. Basically you’re overcoming zero inertia. So you need more engines running on the ground to get the whole vehicle moving upward. It simply weighs too much.

Second, as you climb, the propellant is being expended at a rapid rate and every multi-engine LV reaches a point where increasing acceleration is possible with fewer engines because the remaining mass of the stage has dropped below what a single remaining engine can handle. A "sweet spot" if you will. At that point there “should” be a staging event of some kind to give you the best performance. It can either be the dropping of the entire stage with all its engines followed by the ignition of an upper stage that is optimized for the remaining mass, or it can be the dropping of the outside engines on the current stage leaving an already running engine that was previously optimized for the ascent profile from this point forward.

Either way, as long as the staging event doesn’t occur until after this point in the ascent, the vehicle should not experience any gravity losses and should continue to accelerate in proportion to the continuing consumption of propellant. But wait too long past this point, and the LV looses all the advantages that were available to it had the event occurred at that sweet spot, and no amount of power from those remaining engines will make up for that lost advantage.

This is where the Ares-V goes wrong. IIRC, the SRB’s don’t catch this sweet spot - at all, and it doesn’t stage until long after the point in the remaining ascent profile where it could make a real difference. That costs it dearly in terms of what it can do for IMLEO. It is also where DIRECT shines, because the SRB’s are dropped at just the right point, and, in terms of the J-232, the upper stage event also occurs at just the right point. Both staging events happen pretty close to their respective “sweet spots”, capturing all the advantages offered by it, and the difference is a vastly superior performance margin for the Jupiter over the Ares. The STS designers really nailed this cleanly, and DIRECT is able to take advantage of that to produce a launch vehicle that is right on top of its game.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gin455res on 10/18/2007 03:24 pm
Quote
Jim - 18/10/2007  6:39 AM

Quote
PaulL - 18/10/2007  6:35 AM

Quote
kraisee - 16/10/2007  11:18 AM

Regarding the idea of creating a Jupiter-130 with an Atlas-D-style disposable outer engine arrangement, while technically feasible, the cost and impacts to the schedule would be quite serious.

Jupiter's are much larger vehicles than the old Atlas, and the costs for such a development would scale up really quickly at this scale.   Having jettisonable engines would be a very complicated and technically challenging design to get right at this scale, and would likely take much longer than we want and cost a lot more than it is really worth.

I'm not saying it would be impossible, but I am saying that it goes in the opposite direction from one of the cornerstones DIRECT has always aimed for:

K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid).


Adding this layer of complexity for a crew launch vehicle is also going to do really nasty things to your LOC/LOM numbers too.

Ross.

Food for thought: What if the two jettisonable engines were to be put on a side pod instead of under the core tank.  The pod could be connected to the core tank with the existing space shuttle connecting points/fueling pipies which are already designed for separation. The core tank would have only one engine which could be flown as a J-110 without the pod.

PaulL

It wouldn't help.  Still too many changes and would be more complex.  

Any idea how much more complex this would be, for example compared to Ares 1?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BarryKirk on 10/18/2007 04:26 pm
Thanks Clongton.  That is a really good explanation of what is going on.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 10/18/2007 04:48 pm
Quote
gin455res - 18/10/2007  11:24 AM

Quote
Jim - 18/10/2007  6:39 AM
It wouldn't help.  Still too many changes and would be more complex.  

Any idea how much more complex this would be, for example compared to Ares 1?
On a full staging event, yuo blow the bolts connecting the two stages, a few cables part and voila, you are now two different vehicles. On a semi-staging event, you have to maintain the bulk of the main vehicle, yet part from it a LOT of serious subsystems. Imagine the valves that have to close and seal to permit the engines to drop away. There are control & hydraulic lines to part and seal. There is the actual engine sub-stage to separate and then to part from the rest of the accelerating vehicle without causing harm during the event.

MUCH more complex.

To prove the Atlas system, they ran 7-8 missles with no centre engine to see if the basic booster was OK, then they ran 15-20 more launches to verify that the staging event (plus all the other systems) performed correctly. And that was for an unmanned launcher that was treated, in safety terms, like a round of ammunition. I.e if it didn't work, well it was expensive, but, feh, so what. For a manned system how much verification do you thingk that would take? Years!

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SirThoreth on 10/18/2007 04:56 pm
Quote
gin455res - 18/10/2007  8:24 AM

Any idea how much more complex this would be, for example compared to Ares 1?

That's kind of what worries me, too.  I mean, yes, Direct 2.0 is a good concept, but NASA seems pretty hell-bent on a rocket that's both STS-derived and in the same performance ballpark as Delta IV Heavy, while Jupiter-120, the lightest config the Direct team's pushing, is still "more" rocket than NASA's looking for in that role.  If the CLV concept, with an STS-derived vehicle looking to put Orion, and only Orion, into orbit as safely as possible, and Direct doesn't have an answer for that (other than adding 20 tons of "dead" weight as a blast shield), then, currently, Direct is going to be one hell of a hard sell to NASA, and it would take something significant to change that.

Meanwhile, has anyone checked out the configuration and performance similarities between the Jupiter-120 and the NLS-1 (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nls.htm).  NLS-1 used the same modified EFT, kept the two 4-segment SRBs, was to use four STME engines instead of two RS-68s...and also delivered around 45 metric tons to LEO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 10/18/2007 05:15 pm
The actual .lifting capacity of the rocket shouldn't be the driving cost though. Overall program cost and safety should be.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/18/2007 05:40 pm
Quote
SirThoreth - 18/10/2007  12:56 PM

Quote
gin455res - 18/10/2007  8:24 AM

Any idea how much more complex this would be, for example compared to Ares 1?

That's kind of what worries me, too.  I mean, yes, Direct 2.0 is a good concept, but NASA seems pretty hell-bent on a rocket that's both STS-derived and in the same performance ballpark as Delta IV Heavy, while Jupiter-120, the lightest config the Direct team's pushing, is still "more" rocket than NASA's looking for in that role.  If the CLV concept, with an STS-derived vehicle looking to put Orion, and only Orion, into orbit as safely as possible, and Direct doesn't have an answer for that (other than adding 20 tons of "dead" weight as a blast shield), then, currently, Direct is going to be one hell of a hard sell to NASA, and it would take something significant to change that.

Meanwhile, has anyone checked out the configuration and performance similarities between the Jupiter-120 and the NLS-1 (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nls.htm).  NLS-1 used the same modified EFT, kept the two 4-segment SRBs, was to use four STME engines instead of two RS-68s...and also delivered around 45 metric tons to LEO.
As stated several times in this forum, in the DIRECT v1.0 proposal, in the DIRECT v2.0 proposal, in the Horizon Summer 2007 article, and again in the AIAA 2007 paper, NLS is part of the heritage of the DIRECT concept. DIRECT grew from it. It was initially conceived in the minds of NASA design engineers and actually fostered and proposed to Congress by NASA itself. That there are extreme similarities to the Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232 is to be expected. People who actually design rockets for a living have been pushing this concept since the loss of the Challenger, when it was first proposed. It is logical, cost responsible, sustainable, performance conceived, forward looking and schedule conscience. It quite simply is the best bang for the buck that NASA can possible get right now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/18/2007 06:26 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 18/10/2007  9:41 AM

To be worth considering, it needs to win at least one of these arguments against an equivalent,  "regular", staged design:

1. Weighs less
2. Lifts more
3. Is safer

You might make an argument for #3 with the "light 'em all on the ground" argument, but you aren't really eliminating a "staging" event, as you still need to drop engines.

I have serious doubts that you can win #2 with the extra tank mass you carry to orbit.

Bogo,
Actually the extra tank mass isn't *that* big of a deal.   The ultimate difference in mass is probably in the region of 20mT from using a completely separate Upper Stage - but with the stage-and-a-half design you can still go ahead and add that upper stage at some point in the future.   The performance benefit would likely be quite a bit more than that.   Maybe in the order of 30 to 40mT per flight (no, I haven't run these numbers, just an educated guess on my part).

As a rival to the J-120, it would offer more performance.   As a rival to J-232, there simply isn't as much propellant available, so performance will never get to the ~100mT level.   It would likely get a check in the box for #2 as a competitor to J-120, and can still have an extra stage added later to increase performance even further.

#3 is the issue though.   The jettison of the engines is, as you say. a staging event which J-120 doesn't have.   Its a complicated procedure involving high flow propellant lines which have to be shut down and closed off safely while in-flight.   There is an awful lot to potentially go wrong and so the LOC/LOM numbers would be lower than J-120.   They *might* be slightly better than J-232, but not if you add the extra stage anyway to get you above 100mT capability.


The way I would look at it is to just use a 'routine' approach initially to benefit your early costs projections and more importantly, your schedule.   Then, once you have something relatively simple like J-120 and J-232 operational, you can always consider upgrades like this to increase the then-existing performance.   Upgrades like this, which require new technologies to be developed in the initial development cycle are a recipe for out-of-control budget and schedule.   We only need to watch what is happening with Ares-I to see that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/18/2007 06:54 pm
Quote
SirThoreth - 18/10/2007  12:56 PM

Quote
gin455res - 18/10/2007  8:24 AM

Any idea how much more complex this would be, for example compared to Ares 1?

That's kind of what worries me, too.  I mean, yes, Direct 2.0 is a good concept, but NASA seems pretty hell-bent on a rocket that's both STS-derived and in the same performance ballpark as Delta IV Heavy, while Jupiter-120, the lightest config the Direct team's pushing, is still "more" rocket than NASA's looking for in that role.  If the CLV concept, with an STS-derived vehicle looking to put Orion, and only Orion, into orbit as safely as possible, and Direct doesn't have an answer for that (other than adding 20 tons of "dead" weight as a blast shield), then, currently, Direct is going to be one hell of a hard sell to NASA, and it would take something significant to change that.

I can see your point, but I am still stunned that anyone would ever consider extra performance as a bad thing given a level playing field.

I know I would rather fly my own butt on a vehicle with tons of extra capability rather than one just squeaking in the door by the skin of its teeth, like Ares-I is attempting to do.   If they just wish to fly an Orion, we can do that by throttling a J-120's main engines back far sooner or by using a Jupiter-110, both of which get your LOC numbers even closer to Ares-I.

I would still prefer the J-120 option with a ballistic shield under me, but you make a good argument that NASA may not make that choice.

It doesn't however mean Jupiter-120 *can't* do pure ~25mT CLV-only lifting duties - it can - very easily and with LOTS of additional margin.


Quote
Meanwhile, has anyone checked out the configuration and performance similarities between the Jupiter-120 and the NLS-1 (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nls.htm).  NLS-1 used the same modified EFT, kept the two 4-segment SRBs, was to use four STME engines instead of two RS-68s...and also delivered around 45 metric tons to LEO.

Yes, DIRECT is very closely related to NLS.

Interestingly, the STME engine was actually the forerunner of what ultimately evolved into the RS-68, so DIRECT's heritage stems from NLS.

The same basic configuration was proposed at the same time as Shuttle-C in the aftermath of Challenger, and then again as LV-24/25 during the ESAS review.   It is fundamentally a very mature design with a 20 year long heritage already.

While we came to the design without prior knowledge of any of these vehicles (except LV-24/25 from ESAS) we are really only dusting off NASA's own concepts and fleshing them out with details of how to accomplish the Lunar missions which have recently specified.   We have "re-tuned" the concept to hit the sweetest possible spot in the current performance/cost/schedule matrix to match Constellation's needs.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/18/2007 07:01 pm
Quote
Crispy - 18/10/2007  1:15 PM

The actual .lifting capacity of the rocket shouldn't be the driving cost though. Overall program cost and safety should be.

BINGO.   We have a winner!

That is the real driving force behind DIRECT, coupled with the realization of how wasteful Ares is budget-wise, and how safety requirements are being left out in order to meet targets that have nothing to do with safety or cost (radiation shield for CEV anyone?).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 10/18/2007 08:56 pm
Delta III failure your talking about (Delta 269 - Orion 3) was not an ignition, but a structural failure of the main chamber.  If you remember this shutdown Atlas aswell as it was traced to a manufacturing flaw at Pratt.  Can't blame the ingnition system for the structural failure.

Apollo 6 has a series of J-2 issues...  Three shutdowns on the S-II along with the S-IV failed to ignite problem.  Quick information check says these were all releated to igniter supply line ruptures.  I think this the failure captured in "The Space Race" where it was due to lack of damping due to lack of ice/frost in space vs. ground test.  This type of fundamental design failure would be fleshed out on demo flights, just like it was done on Saturn

Not all that familar with AC-70/71, but what I can quickly find seems to indicate it was a cryo pumping issue, where moist air was allowed to enter the engine on the ground.  Looks like it was a design failure that was once again quickly discovered and mitigated against.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 10/19/2007 02:58 am
Quote
clongton - 18/10/2007  10:29 AM

Quote
BogoMIPS - 18/10/2007  9:41 AM

NLS visited the jettisonable engine concept for a HLV too...

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nlshlv.htm

While Astronautix doesn't give complete engine details matching the image, it appears to be four SSME-derived engines in a outer jettisonable ring, surrounding two J-2-derived engines.  The outer engine ring appears to be disposed of much like a staging event.

Where are the pros and cons here, though?  The biggest pro I can see is that you're lighting all your candles on the ground.  To biggest con I can see it that you would be carrying all of your tankage mass uphill, minus your engines.

So you end up with one set of bigger tanks, but the same amount of "plumbing", since you have the same number of engines.  Additionally, you probably have more complex (i.e. heavier) plumbing for your jettisonable engines, because you need to shut down fuel flow to them without impacting the remaining engines.

To be worth considering, it needs to win at least one of these arguments against an equivalent,  "regular", staged design:

1. Weighs less
2. Lifts more
3. Is safer

You might make an argument for #3 with the "light 'em all on the ground" argument, but you aren't really eliminating a "staging" event, as you still need to drop engines.

I have serious doubts that you can win #2 with the extra tank mass you carry to orbit.
There are a couple of things in play here when considering the powered lift portion of the ascent profile.

First, it takes more energy to get a huge mass moving than to keep the same mass moving once motion is started. Basically you’re overcoming zero inertia. So you need more engines running on the ground to get the whole vehicle moving upward. It simply weighs too much.

Second, as you climb, the propellant is being expended at a rapid rate and every multi-engine LV reaches a point where increasing acceleration is possible with fewer engines because the remaining mass of the stage has dropped below what a single remaining engine can handle. A "sweet spot" if you will. At that point there “should” be a staging event of some kind to give you the best performance. It can either be the dropping of the entire stage with all its engines followed by the ignition of an upper stage that is optimized for the remaining mass, or it can be the dropping of the outside engines on the current stage leaving an already running engine that was previously optimized for the ascent profile from this point forward.

Either way, as long as the staging event doesn’t occur until after this point in the ascent, the vehicle should not experience any gravity losses and should continue to accelerate in proportion to the continuing consumption of propellant. But wait too long past this point, and the LV looses all the advantages that were available to it had the event occurred at that sweet spot, and no amount of power from those remaining engines will make up for that lost advantage.

This is where the Ares-V goes wrong. IIRC, the SRB’s don’t catch this sweet spot - at all, and it doesn’t stage until long after the point in the remaining ascent profile where it could make a real difference. That costs it dearly in terms of what it can do for IMLEO. It is also where DIRECT shines, because the SRB’s are dropped at just the right point, and, in terms of the J-232, the upper stage event also occurs at just the right point. Both staging events happen pretty close to their respective “sweet spots”, capturing all the advantages offered by it, and the difference is a vastly superior performance margin for the Jupiter over the Ares. The STS designers really nailed this cleanly, and DIRECT is able to take advantage of that to produce a launch vehicle that is right on top of its game.

Let me ensure that I understand you right. Are you saying that both of Ares V's staging events are too late in the flight?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 10/19/2007 11:50 am
Quote
Crispy - 18/10/2007  6:15 PM

The actual .lifting capacity of the rocket shouldn't be the driving cost though. Overall program cost and safety should be.
If considered purely in engineering terms, then that's no doubt correct. But the position changes somewhat if you take the politics into account. After all, there have been lots of wonderful proposals that never got built. Politics is the most important criterion.

Direct is more cost-effective etc only if NASA goes to the Moon. If not, it will be more expensive than Ares I.

Ares I/V owes a lot of its political acceptability to the fact that the program can - if Congress so chooses - stop at Ares I. Retention of this option is of considerable importance to Congress, because it means they don't have to make a decision on lunar missions at this time. Direct presupposes the second step, and Congress doesn't like that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/19/2007 12:18 pm
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 19/10/2007  7:50 AM
Direct is more cost-effective etc only if NASA goes to the Moon. If not, it will be more expensive than Ares I.

not true.   Direct can do more things.  Ares I can only do ISS
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/19/2007 12:40 pm
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 19/10/2007  7:50 AM

Quote
Crispy - 18/10/2007  6:15 PM

The actual .lifting capacity of the rocket shouldn't be the driving cost though. Overall program cost and safety should be.
If considered purely in engineering terms, then that's no doubt correct. But the position changes somewhat if you take the politics into account. After all, there have been lots of wonderful proposals that never got built. Politics is the most important criterion.

Direct is more cost-effective etc only if NASA goes to the Moon. If not, it will be more expensive than Ares I.

Ares I/V owes a lot of its political acceptability to the fact that the program can - if Congress so chooses - stop at Ares I. Retention of this option is of considerable importance to Congress, because it means they don't have to make a decision on lunar missions at this time. Direct presupposes the second step, and Congress doesn't like that.
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 19/10/2007  7:50 AM

Direct is more cost-effective etc only if NASA goes to the Moon. If not, it will be more expensive than Ares I.

Ares I/V owes a lot of its political acceptability to the fact that the program can - if Congress so chooses - stop at Ares I. Retention of this option is of considerable importance to Congress, because it means they don't have to make a decision on lunar missions at this time. Direct presupposes the second step, and Congress doesn't like that.
Cuddly, Congress did not and does not “want” the option to stop at Ares-I and to not go to the moon.  If they did, they never would have approved Griffin’s plan to build the lunar capability. Remember, the Ares-I was NOT designed to send Orion to the ISS. It was designed to send Orion to rendezvous with the LSAM, launched by the Ares-V, to go to the moon. That is what it is intended for – exclusively. From the very beginning this has been a LUNAR program, not ISS. Griffin testified to Congress that the Ares-I COULD send Orion to the ISS if commercial space, thru COTS, was not able to support that, but the ISS mission is an add-on to the lunar program, not the prime objective. Dr. Griffin would just as soon bypass the ISS completely and abandon it. He has always believed it was a mistake to do and only offers support now because of the international partner agreements that are in place. Given his personal preferences, he would forget about the ISS, shut down Shuttle right away and push forward with the lunar program.

Using Ares-I/Orion for ISS support is a distraction to the intended mission that Congress authorized. Congress fully intended to go to the moon, with the additional capability to support ISS, but only if necessary.

In your example, if we built and stopped with only the Ares-I, then that eliminates entirely, for the foreseeable future, any possibility of returning to the moon. Period. So what happens when in ~2025, for example, if China lands a crew on the moon and now suddenly Americans want to know why the Chinese can do something that we cannot? We’re stuck, plain and simple. Ares-I can’t get us there. Time to learn Chinese.

If the VSE launch vehicle is the Jupiter however, it’s not a problem at all.

With DIRECT, you actually CAN stop at ISS support without sacrificing a thing, because the Jupiter can go to the moon, whenever the Congress is ready, by just adding the upper stage. All options are preserved. All funding scenarios are left on the table of possibilities. Nothing is eliminated form what we remain capable of. Should there arise the need, for example, to divert huge amounts of federal funding to be spent on assisting recovery from a natural disaster that would of necessity reduce the funding to NASA, and delay, possibly for years, a lunar return. If the VSE launch vehicle is the Jupiter that would simply slip the time table until funding can be restored. If the launch vehicle is the Ares-I, we are dead in the water – period.

The Ares architecture is expensive, short sighted, inflexible, and wasteful.
The DIRECT architecture is less expensive, far sighted, extremely flexible and prudent.

And if we did stop at ISS with the Jupiter, that capability is not wasted because the science community would have at its disposal a launch vehicle that has capabilities not seen sense Saturn was retired. Robotic exploration of the solar system would experience a golden age undreamed of. But if the VSE launch vehicle is the Ares and we stop at the ISS, then the American space program will be entering its own version of the dark ages for a very long time to come.

Ares-I absolutely makes no sense what-so-ever without the Ares-V. It is not conceived as an ISS support launch vehicle. It very existence is at its core as a lunar crew launcher.

NASA does not want to use the Ares-I as an ISS support launcher.
CONGRESS does not want to use the Ares-I as an ISS support launcher.
It makes no sense and nobody wants that to be “the” mission for Ares-I.

But between now and the planned shutdown of STS there is another, almost incalculable benefit to DIRECT over Ares. If for any reason the STS program were to be grounded or terminated, Jupiter could actually step in and finish the ISS in Shuttle's place. That is something that Ares could never do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/19/2007 05:42 pm
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 19/10/2007  7:50 AM

Direct is more cost-effective etc only if NASA goes to the Moon. If not, it will be more expensive than Ares I.

Actually not the case.

DIRECT requires only one new cryo stage to be built to do everything, and more, that is required of Ares-I.   Even that new stage is based largely on existing in-production hardware with a long flight history.   Everything else it uses is fundamentally "as used today": SRB's, RS-68's, Pad, VAB, manufacturing etc.

In comparison, Ares-I also requires a new cryo stage, but it must be brannew with no previous heritage at all.   Ares-I further requires an all-new solid stage too, an all-new upper stage engine and also an all-new first stage motor.   Ares-I additionally requires one, if not two brand-new Mobile Launchers too and total & complete changes at every point of manufacturing and processing along the way too.

DIRECT deletes almost all of those costs from the equation simply by using the maximum of what already exists.


There is no way Jupiter-120 would cost as much as Ares-I and our cost analysis has always been packed with 50% cost growth over and above ESAS' margins.   Only with that do we get anywhere near Ares-I's actual costs.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 10/19/2007 06:11 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/10/2007  12:42 PM

Quote
CuddlyRocket - 19/10/2007  7:50 AM

Direct is more cost-effective etc only if NASA goes to the Moon. If not, it will be more expensive than Ares I.

Actually not the case.

DIRECT requires only one new cryo stage to be built, and even that is based largely on existing in-production hardware.   Everything else it uses is fundamentally "as used today": SRB's, RS-68's, Pad, VAB, manufacturing etc.

In comparison, Ares-I also requires a new cryo stage, but it must be brannew with no previous heritage at all.   Ares-I further requires an all-new solid stage too, an all-new upper stage engine and also an all-new first stage motor.   Ares-I additionally requires one, if not two brand-new Mobile Launchers too and total & complete changes at every point of manufacturing and processing along the way too.

DIRECT deletes almost all of those costs from the equation simply by using the maximum of what already exists.


There is no way Jupiter-120 would cost as much as Ares-I and our cost analysis has always been packed with 50% cost growth over and above ESAS' margins.   Only with that do we get anywhere near Ares-I's actual costs.

Ross.

I suspect you are writing about development costs and that CuddlyRocket is referring to operational costs, in which case you are both probably correct.

If used for LEO only, DIRECT will undoubtedly have higher operational costs than Ares I, because it requires 8 SRB segments vs 5, and the ET-derived core stage vs an Ares I upper stage.

Which one has the lower total cost of ownership depends on number of flights. Ares I has higher development costs and so will require more flights than DIRECT to amortize that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/19/2007 06:30 pm
Jorge,
The trades show that the cost of both cryo stages is amazingly similar.   Irrelevant of size, you need basically everything for one as you do for the other.   The only difference size makes is the cost of the actual metal you're bending and that really is tiny in comparison to the overall costs.

Ditto with the SRB's.   It is mostly a factor of the lion's share of the costs being completely fixed in nature, not variable.   For example, the total cost of say four CLV flights, with Ares-I would require 20 SRB segments, and the total cost to NASA would be approximately $556.0m for that year (actually $27.8m per segment at that production rate).   The total cost for the 32 SRB segments needed by four J-120's would be only $569.6m ($17.8m per segment at the higher production rate).   That is a difference of only $3.4m per flight between Ares-I and Jupiter-120 assuming an identical flight rate.

Given that we are isolating this comparison solely to the Ares-I and leaving the Ares-V out of the equation, it should also be noted that Jupiter-120 does not need the ~$500m fixed costs for manufacturing and operating the J-2X.

It should further be noted that RS-68's fixed costs are already being picked up by the USAF and NASA will simply be purchasing additional units from PWR, and will not directly be covering the fixed infrastructure costs.   A portion of the unit cost to NASA will go back to help USAF pay those costs, but the primary overhead is not a cost NASA must stomach itself.

When all is said and done, when you factor in all the individual costs, it ends up being that Ares-I will cost about $130m in variable costs per flight, and Jupiter-120 will cost $140m at the same flight rate.   Both systems will have a fixed program overhead of approximately $900m per year.

While I might be accused of being biased, I don't personally think the difference in operations cost between the two system is significant.


I think there is a far bigger argument to be had in favour of flying the first manned Jupiter-120/Orion two years ahead of Ares-I.


The big saving with DIRECT come when you no longer have to build the Ares-V in addition to your CLV.   You save $16,000m right there, and save yourself more than $1,000m every year in fixed operational costs after that (some years work out at $3,500m savings).   DIRECT suggests using that money to pay for a *LOT* more flight hardware and missions instead of burning it on development work, and as we all know, higher flight rate is the key to justifying all high fixed cost programs.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/19/2007 06:37 pm
Quote
Jorge - 19/10/2007  2:11 PM

I suspect you are writing about development costs and that CuddlyRocket is referring to operational costs, in which case you are both probably correct.

If used for LEO only, DIRECT will undoubtedly have higher operational costs than Ares I, because it requires 8 SRB segments vs 5, and the ET-derived core stage vs an Ares I upper stage.

Which one has the lower total cost of ownership depends on number of flights. Ares I has higher development costs and so will require more flights than DIRECT to amortize that.
The flight rate is key here because at the same flight rate, the two vehicles would be more or less equal cost per flight. However …

According to NASA’s own schedule, Ares-I flights will be few and far between. It will have an extremely low flight rate. The Jupiter, on the other hand, for the same fixed cost, could have dozens of flights. Add to that the cost per vehicle which absolutely has to include the development cost for the vehicle plus the cost of any infrastructure changes to support that vehicle, amortized over the flight rate. When you look at it that way, DIRECT is the clear winner on the financial front. Every Ares-I flight would be burdened with all the new development costs and infrastructure changes, amortized over a very low flight rate, that DIRECT didn’t have to make.

And let’s not even begin to talk about not having to spend $billions to develop the Ares-V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/20/2007 06:15 am
A question for you all.

Setting aside the technical merits of such a flight for a moment, the Ares-I-X flight is going to be a flight which clearly demonstrates some visible progress by NASA, just in time for the incoming political leaders who will enter the corridors of power a few months later.

One of its primary purposes has always been to demonstrate progress so that political support for the new program does not evaporate after the change in leadership.   A visual demonstration of a new rocket launching is an obvious achievement, and such things tend to make it a lot harder, politically speaking, to cancel than one unable to demonstrate a clear level of achievement.

So, what do people here think are the options for managing to get a Jupiter-120 "demonstrator" assembled together in a similar timeframe?   I suspect the window of opportunity lasts as long as it takes the new government to turn its attention towards NASA, which many suspect won't be before mid-2009.   So assuming March 2009 as a safe target date, what do you think are the primary stumbling blocks to getting such a demonstrator off the ground?


We have the advantage that the engines are all fully qualified, SRB and RS-68 alike - at least for an unmanned test anyway.

We have the advantage that much of the tanking on the Core could be manufactured at MAF (always assuming sufficient money were made available to expedite such a thing without disruption to ongoing STS operations).

We have the advantage that even if such a stage were a swiftly-cobbled-together "battleship" stage massing far more than a regular flight variant, it would still be good, simply because all that extra mass would help demonstrate the additional payload carrying capabilities of the system.

One obvious con is that no MLP will be available to "cut holes in" until after the Hubble flight - currently scheduled for August 2008.   Even if one were handed completely over to Jupiter the same day the Hubble flight returned home, I'm not totally confident suitable modifications could be completed in just 5-6 months (only chance is if the designs were totally finished and the work crews were standing right there, waiting for it).

I figure only simple, cheap solutions are all we can really guarantee if we wished to even attempt such a thing.   But I also feel that the political "acceptance" which would be purchased by such an effort is likely to be very significant indeed - and likely worthy of the effort if it is possible at all.

I would welcome any 'out of the box' ideas, thoughts, shortcuts, workarounds regarding how we might get around the large number of hurdles to make such a thing happen in time.   And can I please ask everyone to leave the defacto "can't be done" comments out for the time being guys - this is purely a mental exercise right now - a litmus test if you will.

I suspect the idea is probably not possible, but I'd like to hear opinions on the matter and ideas of how it might actually be made possible.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 10/20/2007 06:57 am
Fly a dummy core. Other options are not realistic.
 Edit
Let's see, maybe just half dummy. You could declare the new O2 tank as the main test article.
Powered core doesn't make sense to 2008/2009.
Maybe, just maybe, you could fabricate the new O2 tank in time and procure an intertank. H2 tank could be boilerplate, no need to mess the first test flight with hydrogen.
Fly the O2 tank cryo. Dump lox non-propulsive, rate per expected nominal J-120. Dump all lox post staging, detach "H2 tank", interstage and boilerplate CEV while going balistic, recover O2 tank (and intertank) with chutes for "inspection".
 ;)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: NovaStar83 on 10/20/2007 07:14 am
What is the status of the DIRECT v2.0 proposal? Has Administrator Griffen made any comments about it? What is the likly date that NASA will be to deep into the Ares program to consider DIRECT?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/20/2007 08:26 am
Quote
kraisee - 20/10/2007  7:15 AM
{snip}
I suspect the idea is probably not possible, but I'd like to hear opinions on the matter and ideas of how it might actually be made possible.

Ross.

Read
"The Mythical Man Month" by Frederick P. Brooks
"Up the Organisation" by Robert Townsend

Put a man in charge who has done something similar before.
Get top management buy in.
Keep the full time team small.
Place the team in a separate location so the bureaucracy finds it difficult to get at them.
Arrange an appropriate budget.
Make it clear to everybody that the essence of this project is a short development time.
Plan everything throughly.
Keep approvals withing the team.

Make the requirements simple and clear e.g.
1. To design and build a rocket able to deliver 35 mT of cargo to LEO in a year.
2. The aim of the launch is to demonstrate that a rocket like the J-120 is possible.
3. The final J-120 will permit NASA to lift heavier cargoes and people to LEO, including parts of the lunar mission, whilst keeping its workforce.


Notes.

35 mT is a down rating from 45 mT - the cost of the speed.
The full development can do the man rating and increase the lift to 45 mT.
35 metric tons is sufficient to make this one of NASA's biggest rockets - an adequate reason to do the project by itself.
The completion date may be one and a half years away but getting approval and the inevitable problems with eat up the 6 months.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 10/20/2007 09:07 am
Quote
Jim - 19/10/2007  1:18 PM

not true.   Direct can do more things.  Ares I can only do ISS
Yes, but if that's all you're planning on doing, it will suffice.

Quote
clongton - 19/10/2007  1:40 PM

Cuddly, Congress did not and does not “want” the option to stop at Ares-I and to not go to the moon.
I disagree there.

Quote
If they did, they never would have approved Griffin’s plan to build the lunar capability.
Plan, schman! :)

Until they actually start developing the lunar-only part of Ares I/V, it can be cancelled at any time leaving you with a LEO-only system.

Quote
Remember, the Ares-I was NOT designed to send Orion to the ISS. It was designed to send Orion to rendezvous with the LSAM, launched by the Ares-V, to go to the moon. That is what it is intended for – exclusively. From the very beginning this has been a LUNAR program, not ISS. Griffin testified to Congress that the Ares-I COULD send Orion to the ISS if commercial space, thru COTS, was not able to support that, but the ISS mission is an add-on to the lunar program, not the prime objective. Dr. Griffin would just as soon bypass the ISS completely and abandon it. He has always believed it was a mistake to do and only offers support now because of the international partner agreements that are in place. Given his personal preferences, he would forget about the ISS, shut down Shuttle right away and push forward with the lunar program.
Any why hasn't he? Because Congress (and the Administration, reacting to Congress) said different.

Whatever NASA's motivations may be, the fact is that the current plan produces a LEO-only system first. Congress can stop at that point, if it wants to. To be honest, I don't think Congress wants to make a decision on whether to go to the Moon or not. They'd rather put it off.

Quote
Using Ares-I/Orion for ISS support is a distraction to the intended mission that Congress authorized.
There's far too much support - expressed very strongly by various committee members - for research, medical or otherwise, on ISS for that to be the case. The plan is a compromise between various interests in Congress.

Quote
Congress fully intended to go to the moon, with the additional capability to support ISS, but only if necessary.
Congress doesn't fully intend to do anything. It's not a homogenous group of people. There is opposition to going to the Moon, but they didn't make much fuss because the mooted plan can be stopped after Ares I. When the bills for the budget to build the Ares V come into Congress, that's when the active opposition will start.

Quote
In your example, if we built and stopped with only the Ares-I, then that eliminates entirely, for the foreseeable future, any possibility of returning to the moon. Period. So what happens when in ~2025, for example, if China lands a crew on the moon and now suddenly Americans want to know why the Chinese can do something that we cannot? We’re stuck, plain and simple. Ares-I can’t get us there. Time to learn Chinese.
I agree with you. Quite a lot of people do not.

Quote
With DIRECT, you actually CAN stop at ISS support without sacrificing a thing, because the Jupiter can go to the moon, whenever the Congress is ready, by just adding the upper stage.
Indeed, so if you're a Congressman who opposes going to the Moon, which plan would you prefer at this stage? The one that enables you to do so whenever you're ready, or the one that requires a whole new vehicle to be built, which will take a number of years and therefore give more chances to cancel it!

Politicians like preserving their own freedom of action, not that of people who may do something they don't want to see in the first place.

Quote
If the launch vehicle is the Ares-I, we are dead in the water – period.
Ideal if you're a Congressman who opposes going to the Moon.

Quote
And if we did stop at ISS with the Jupiter, that capability is not wasted because the science community would have at its disposal a launch vehicle that has capabilities not seen sense Saturn was retired. Robotic exploration of the solar system would experience a golden age undreamed of. But if the VSE launch vehicle is the Ares and we stop at the ISS, then the American space program will be entering its own version of the dark ages for a very long time to come.
Everyone on this board would be enthusiastic reading such a scenario. Lots of people would have the opposite reaction. Some of them are in Congress.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Analyst on 10/20/2007 10:59 am
Quote
TrueGrit - 18/10/2007  10:56 PM

Apollo 6 has a series of J-2 issues...  Three shutdowns on the S-II along with the S-IV failed to ignite problem.  Quick information check says these were all releated to igniter supply line ruptures.

There were two shutdown on the S-II, not three. The wiring was wrong, and the shutdown signal went to two engines instead of one.

Quote
clongton - 19/10/2007  2:40 PM

Using Ares-I/Orion for ISS support is a distraction to the intended mission that Congress authorized. Congress fully intended to go to the moon, with the additional capability to support ISS, but only if necessary.

A lunar capable Orion could easily go to ISS: It has the propellant, the docking mechanism and the navigation capabilities. I don't see ISS as a distraction.

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/20/2007 11:42 am
Quote
Analyst - 20/10/2007  6:59 AM

Quote
clongton - 19/10/2007  2:40 PM

Using Ares-I/Orion for ISS support is a distraction to the intended mission that Congress authorized. Congress fully intended to go to the moon, with the additional capability to support ISS, but only if necessary.

A lunar capable Orion could easily go to ISS: It has the propellant, the docking mechanism and the navigation capabilities. I don't see ISS as a distraction.

Analyst
Analyst, Cuddly

First - Good morning  ;)
It's Saturday, and it's a beautiful day.

Ok. Griffin himself stressed that Orion is a LUNAR spacecraft, not intended for LEO/ISS operations, although it *can* support such operations if required in the absence of COTS inability to support. It's in one of his testimonies to Congress which you can easily get online. He specifically stated that the Ares/Orion could “step into the gap” to provide ISS support if commercial space was not able to step up to the plate. Take a look at the original flight manifests. There were only a couple of visits to ISS, and only at the beginning of the program. They were not resupply flights, they were Orion shakeout flights. There were no other flights to ISS. All the rest were to the moon.

And think about this. We have all seen the cut-aways of and sections thru Orion’s interior. Sure, the arrangements are still fluid, but the point is that they all show a manned vehicle, with space optimized for crew. There is NO SPACE set aside and arranged for cargo delivery to ISS. ORION is not designed for ISS support. All it can do in that arena is crew rotation. When’s the last time, other than RTF, that Shuttle went to ISS with no cargo? If Orion is going to become involved in ISS resupply, they will have to redesign it to carry payload for delivery, and once again we would be mixing crew and cargo; a huge no-no. There is no cargo-only version of Orion. Griffin cancelled it long ago because he believed commercial space would fill that role. So I state again, that using Orion for ISS support is a distraction to the REAL purpose of this lunar-capable spacecraft.

When President Bush announced the VSE, he said he had instructed NASA to develop the launch vehicles and spacecraft to go to the “Moon, Mars and Beyond”. I don’t recall him including the ISS in that mandate.

Griffin’s most recent references to temporarily limiting current operations to ISS were because of the performance difficulties the design teams are experiencing with the Ares launch vehicle vs. the minimum mass of a Lunar-Orion. In spite of the program’s purpose, The Ares-I does not appear to be capable of orbiting a fully lunar capable Orion at this time. So they will fly to ISS in the mean time while they continue to address the problem. All it will do there are crew rotations. But the Russians can do that much cheaper, because Ares/Orion is not designed for it. So why fly Orion to do that? Just to fly Orion, that’s why. There literally is no other reason. But if they get those issues worked out, it'll be bye-bye ISS and back to Plan ‘A’ again. “Houston: Tranquility Base here. Orion has landed.”

Make no mistake: This entire effort was and is conceived as a LUNAR PROGRAM, *not* LEO/ISS support! And it is that program that the Congress authorized. Any other less ambitious use is a distraction to the original intent of the program.

Now, can we please get back to DIRECT? This line of conversation is a distraction to this thread.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pierre on 10/20/2007 12:36 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/10/2007  8:15 AM

So, what do people here think are the options for managing to get a Jupiter-120 "demonstrator" assembled together in a similar timeframe?

A very small suggestion: if NASA manages to put together such a mission so fast, they may want to evaluate the possibility of putting a LAS (real or fake) on top of it.

IMHO most people will not notice at all the dummy Orion capsule, but they will see the "funny stick on top of a rocket" and will remember Apollo and the Moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 10/20/2007 01:33 pm
Quote
One obvious con is that no MLP will be available to "cut holes in" until after the Hubble flight - currently scheduled for August 2008.   Even if one were handed completely over to Jupiter the same day the Hubble flight returned home, I'm not totally confident suitable modifications could be completed in just 5-6 months (only chance is if the designs were totally finished and the work crews were standing right there, waiting for it).

So you'd need a fast construction of a J-120 Thrust Structure, Interstage/IU, "battleship" Core stage, and any pad Mods necessary to support this configuration.  Ideally, you would also have a boilerplate mass-equivalent CEV and a LAS, so you could test an abort.

The MLP hurdle is obvious due to hardware contention.  The rest of the problems seem solvable, given sufficient hours and dollars.

Ways around the MLP:
 - Build another one (waste of $, not feasible in time)
 - Reduce HST LON support to single-pad (possible impact to safety, but under consideration... see L2)
 - Launch without major pad mods

Can pad mods be made to support the Jupiter-120 thrust structure and continue to support STS?

If not, the only way you're going to get there in time is to remove any major pad mods from the workflow, I think.  That means one of the following:

1. Dummy core (Jupiter-100).
2. Side-mount thrust structure using existing STS footprint, ala Zubrin-Ares.
3. Air start core stage

RS-68 makes #3 a no-go.

#1 at least "looks" like the final product, but probably won't fly like it.  For all the questions about the technical value of Ares I-X, I would guess people would have the same questions about a Jupiter-100. :)

I don't know if testing #2 teaches you anything about the vehicle you would intend to fly, as it's not aero-similar to your final vehicle. It does allow you to fly off the existing pads though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/20/2007 01:41 pm
When is the Ares-IX flight scheduled?
When does the MLP for the Ares-IX go offline to be available to mods to support that test?

A lot of people seem to think the Ares-IX flight is a waste, so if it were cancelled, could we use the MLP that was slated for it? Timing is the question. When would that be available? We could do the mods to it for the J-120 vs. the Ares-IX.

The MLP seems to be the long pole.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 10/20/2007 03:10 pm
There are three MLP's and only two are really required for the remaining Shuttle flights.
Yes it would be a squeeze on the Shuttle flight schedule to operate for the next three years on only two MLP's, but it could be done.
So the third MLP could be made available to Direct soon.

As to a quick Direct test flight; that could be flown off a modified MLP using a un-modified launch pad and the VAB as it is for shuttle.
Remember everything above the core stage oxygen tank would be dummy equipment.
So there would be no need for access once the dummy equipment was stacked in the VAB, exactly as they are doing for Ares I-X.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/20/2007 03:30 pm
Quote
Scotty - 20/10/2007  11:10 AM

There are three MLP's and only two are really required for the remaining Shuttle flights.
Yes it would be a squeeze on the Shuttle flight schedule to operate for the next three years on only two MLP's, but it could be done.
So the third MLP could be made available to Direct soon.

As to a quick Direct test flight; that could be flown off a modified MLP using a un-modified launch pad and the VAB as it is for shuttle.
Remember everything above the core stage oxygen tank would be dummy equipment.
So there would be no need for access once the dummy equipment was stacked in the VAB, exactly as they are doing for Ares I-X.
That sounds like a plan. When could that MLP be made available?
But we would also need to have specific reasons for the flight, beyond just PR.

There are things about the vehicle we could test.
There are things about the processing we could test.
There are things about the procedures we could test.
There are things about the infrastructure we could test.

If everything above the LOX tank is boilerplate, that would make everything less complex and we could really focus on getting solid engineering results from this.

Let’s begin to list some of them, specifically.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/20/2007 04:14 pm
Quote
clongton - 20/10/2007  4:30 PM
{snip}
If everything above the LOX tank is boilerplate, that would make everything less complex and we could really focus on getting solid engineering results from this.

Let’s begin to list some of them, specifically.

With only 1 year available for the design of a new rocket any tests would be very basic.

Does the fuel go from the tanks to the motors?
Does the machine liftoff or explode?
Does the rocket go straight up or is the guidance computer drunk?
Have we got a complete set of parts?
Do the SRBs and core separate?
How high does it fly?
What is the payload?
What got left out of the pad assembly instructions?

Can the rocket be transfered from the assembly buildings to the launch pad?
Does the rocket fit the tower?
Are the pad and rocket electrics compatible?
Do the pads fuel pipes fit and fill the rocket's tanks?
Does the avionics work?
Does the software know there is no drop tank?
What is missing from the launch sequences?
Any nasty vibrations?

Plus lots more questions of that sort.

Edited to remove Stage 2.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/20/2007 04:20 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 20/10/2007  12:14 PM

Quote
clongton - 20/10/2007  4:30 PM
{snip}
If everything above the LOX tank is boilerplate, that would make everything less complex and we could really focus on getting solid engineering results from this.

Let’s begin to list some of them, specifically.

With only 1 year available for the design of a new rocket any tests would be very basic.

Does the fuel go from the tanks to the motors?
Does the machine liftoff or explode?
Does the rocket go straight up or is the guidance computer drunk?
Have we got a complete set of parts?
Do Stage 1 and Stage 2 separate?
Do the SRBs and core separate?
How high does it fly?
What is the payload?
Does the Stage 2 motor start?
What got left out of the pad assembly instructions?

Can the rocket be transfered from the assembly buildings to the launch pad?
Does the rocket fit the tower?
Are the pad and rocket electrics compatible?
Do the pads fuel pipes fit and fill the rocket's tanks?
Do the Stage 1 and Stage 2 avionics work?  Together?
Does the software know there is no drop tank?
What is missing from the launch sequences?
Any nasty vibrations?

Plus lots more questions of that sort.
Delete everything that has to do with a 2nd stage. This would be the J-120; no upper stage. No payload. Everything above the LOX tank is a look-alike, mass equivilant boilerplate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/20/2007 04:31 pm
I would delete everything on the list.  This is not a "new" rocket.   Everything on the list has been previous validated by using shuttle hardware.   The purpose is not to validate easy basic tests but items unique to Direct
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 10/20/2007 04:42 pm
The new RS-68 thrust structure on the ET?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/20/2007 04:42 pm
Quote
clongton - 20/10/2007  5:20 PM

{snip}
Delete everything that has to do with a 2nd stage. This would be the J-120; no upper stage. No payload. Everything above the LOX tank is a look-alike, mass equivilant boilerplate.

I had forgotten that the J-120 was a Single Stage To Orbit rocket.  The separation being with the capsule's Service Module.

Reusing most of the parts permits building the machine in a year, it does not guarantee that they have been properly fitted together.  That has to be tested.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/20/2007 04:49 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 20/10/2007  12:42

I had forgotten that the J-120 was a Single Stage To Orbit rocket.  The separation being with the capsule's Service Module.

Reusing most of the parts permits building the machine in a year, it does not guarantee that they have been properly fitted together.  That has to be tested.

The test is a flight test.  "Proper assembly" need not be tested.  It is part of the normal process.  Fitchecks are not needed for the major hard pieces.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 10/20/2007 05:11 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/10/2007  1:15 AM

So, what do people here think are the options for managing to get a Jupiter-120 "demonstrator" assembled together in a similar timeframe?   I suspect the window of opportunity lasts as long as it takes the new government to turn its attention towards NASA, which many suspect won't be before mid-2009.   So assuming March 2009 as a safe target date, what do you think are the primary stumbling blocks to getting such a demonstrator off the ground?

I would welcome any 'out of the box' ideas, thoughts, shortcuts, workarounds regarding how we might get around the large number of hurdles to make such a thing happen in time.   And can I please ask everyone to leave the defacto "can't be done" comments out for the time being guys - this is purely a mental exercise right now - a litmus test if you will.
Ross.

One 'out of the box" option is to modify the JLS to have their RS-68 engines in a side pod and keep the bottom of the ET as is.  The pod which would be built to connect to the existing space shuttle connector points/propellant pipes on the ET could have its engines use the existing SSME hole in the MLP for their exhaust.  The resulting rocket would not be as "pretty" as the current JLS but it would be even more STS compatible than the current version as I assume that the existing VAB equipment for handling the space shuttle could easily manipulate the pod and mate it to the ET.

As for the J-120 demonstrator, you would only need to develop/build the first two engines pod and launch it with an existing ET (so no payload but no problem loading LOX from the top with current STS equipment) and SRBs.

However, there are two questions here which need to be answered:
Would an engines side pod be more difficult/expensive to develop than adding the engines directly under the core tank like a conventional rocket?
Would there be a lost of payload capability for the modified J-120 and J-232 (with a three engines pod)? (due to increased drag and possibly higher mass)

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 10/20/2007 05:25 pm
Wouldn't that be too much like this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/images/sts-b-pic1.gif
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 10/20/2007 05:42 pm
The only valid test items would be the modifications to the ET that turns it into a core stage.
That alone would be more than enough to justify a early test flight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/20/2007 05:59 pm
Quote
PaulL - 20/10/2007  12:11 PM

One 'out of the box" option is to modify the JLS to have their RS-68 engines in a side pod and keep the bottom of the ET as is.  The pod which would be built to connect to the existing space shuttle connector points/propellant pipes on the ET could have its engines use the existing SSME hole in the MLP for their exhaust.  The resulting rocket would not be as "pretty" as the current JLS but it would be even more STS compatible than the current version as I assume that the existing VAB equipment for handling the space shuttle could easily manipulate the pod and mate it to the ET.

As for the J-120 demonstrator, you would only need to develop/build the first two engines pod and launch it with an existing ET (so no payload but no problem loading LOX from the top with current STS equipment) and SRBs.

However, there are two questions here which need to be answered:
Would an engines side pod be more difficult/expensive to develop than adding the engines directly under the core tank like a conventional rocket?
Would there be a lost of payload capability for the modified J-120 and J-232 (with a three engines pod)? (due to increased drag and possibly higher mass)

PaulL
Several problems there:  
* The existing shuttle ET's aren't strengthened to carry a payload on top
* ET (forward LOX dome) isn't the proper shape for a spacecraft adapter
* This would be testing something completely different from the J-120.

My ideas:

1. For roll-out and test operations, couldn't a normal shuttle MLP be used?  The J-120 used for these tests would have to be without RS-68 engines.  The engines couldn't be added until after the MLP mods were done.  However, there are certain tests that could be performed like this, AND showing pad ops testing & "rehearsal" could buy a little time post-March 2009, right?  Great photo-ops also.

What are minimum mods required to the FSS to support a J-120?  What things above the intertank would have to change for a J-120 w/dummy payload?  What about the GOX vent arm?  Is there any way it can be altered so it could service the J-120 test?

Questions:

2. Would it be possible for a pad modified for J-120 to still be capable of launching a shuttle (leave J-120's AND the orbiter's main engine flame holes open).  
2a. What about the tail service masts?  could they remain (unused) for the J-120 test flight?
3. How would the J-120 core stage be filled with propellant?  Could adapters be added to the tail service masts to allow them to service the J-120?
4. What GSE needs to be on-hand to support flying RS-68 engines from pads 39A/B?  Could it co-exist equipment at the pads still able to support the shuttle?
5. What personnel changes/training is needed to support J-120 while we're still staffed and trained to support shuttle?

Most of this assumes the J-120 test won't have the "minimal LUT" on the MLP, which will be added for subsequent flights.  Although, if J-120 can have one of the Shuttle's MLPs, it could be more completely converted for JLS operations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/20/2007 06:14 pm
Quote
rumble - 20/10/2007  1:59 PM

1. For roll-out and test operations, couldn't a normal shuttle MLP be used?  The J-120 used for these tests would have to be without RS-68 engines.  The engines couldn't be added until after the MLP mods were done.  However, there are certain tests that could be performed like this, AND showing pad ops testing & "rehearsal" could buy a little time post-March 2009, right?  Great photo-ops also.

A.  What are minimum mods required to the FSS to support a J-120?  What things above the intertank would have to change for a J-120 w/dummy payload?  What about the GOX vent arm?  Is there any way it can be altered so it could service the J-120 test?

Questions:

2. Would it be possible for a pad modified for J-120 to still be capable of launching a shuttle (leave J-120's AND the orbiter's main engine flame holes open).  
2a. What about the tail service masts?  could they remain (unused) for the J-120 test flight?
3. How would the J-120 core stage be filled with propellant?  Could adapters be added to the tail service masts to allow them to service the J-120?
4. What GSE needs to be on-hand to support flying RS-68 engines from pads 39A/B?  Could it co-exist equipment at the pads still able to support the shuttle?
5. What personnel changes/training is needed to support J-120 while we're still staffed and trained to support shuttle?

Most of this assumes the J-120 test won't have the "minimal LUT" on the MLP, which will be added for subsequent flights.  Although, if J-120 can have one of the Shuttle's MLPs, it could be more completely converted for JLS operations.

1.Nothing could be gained by just a rollout test.  Neither is a rehearsal needed.  Not until real Direct systems are used.  The shuttle is still flying and that is maintaining the launch team skills

A. GOX vent arm is not need for non orbiter vehicle.  Let the ice form. Direct is like ELV's   Additionally, the Direct LOX tank doesn't need foam

2 &3 highly doubtful that a dual use MLP could be developed

4.  Large amounts of high pressure He are required

5.  Just some RS-68 and new avionic training needed.


OOPS!

What avionics are needed for Direct?  Is Direct planning to use the Ares avionics?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/20/2007 06:25 pm
Quote
Jim - 20/10/2007  1:14 PM

5.  Just some RS-68 and new avionic training needed.

OOPS!

What avionics are needed for Direct?  Is Direct planning to use the Ares avionics?

Did you mean Atlas avionics?  (I think I heard that's what Ares-1X was going to use)

Also, (revealing yet more ignorance) what all is included in the generic term "avionics?"  I naturally assume computers (hardware + software) & electronics + instruments for detecting vehicle attitude changes & accelerations.

This is another interesting question re: the Jupiter versions...  Where does the avionics equipment reside?  If it's in the core stage, it will be jettisoned before the J-232 completes its flight.  If it's in the 2nd stage, then the J-120 won't have any.  Will they need slightly different avionics packages for each version of the vehicle?

Quote
Jim - 20/10/2007  1:14 PM

A. GOX vent arm is not need for non orbiter vehicle. Let the ice form. Direct is like ELV's Additionally, the Direct LOX tank doesn't need foam

This would make for a different look for the Jupiter core stage than we've been used to.  It would only be brown around the LH2 tank, meaning that from the intertank up, it would be (white?)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/20/2007 06:46 pm
Quote
rumble - 20/10/2007  2:25 PM

Did you mean Atlas avionics?  (I think I heard that's what Ares-1X was going to use)

Also, (revealing yet more ignorance) what all is included in the generic term "avionics?"  I naturally assume computers (hardware + software) & electronics + instruments for detecting vehicle attitude changes & accelerations.

This is another interesting question re: the Jupiter versions...  Where does the avionics equipment reside?  If it's in the core stage, it will be jettisoned before the J-232 completes its flight.  If it's in the 2nd stage, then the J-120 won't have any.  Will they need slightly different avionics packages for each version of the vehicle?

I mean what is going to be used?

Avionics are all the systems needed to flight the vehicle: guidance, controllers, pryo firing, telemetry, etc

I guess the guidance system is going to have to be able to move from the core to the upperstage depending on the configuration.  No sense in two systems like Titan IV -Centaur
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 10/20/2007 06:50 pm
Nope, more like this.


http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/areirect.htm


Quote
rsp1202 - 20/10/2007  1:25 PM

Wouldn't that be too much like this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/images/sts-b-pic1.gif
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/20/2007 07:04 pm
Some great feedback so far, thanks guys.

Looks like there are two primary options:

1) Jupiter-100-Test - A dummy central core and payload (with or without working LAS) with no RS-68's and no cryogenic propellant required.   This could likely use an unmodified Shuttle-specification MLP quite easily.   The Pad facilities are more than sufficiently capable of processing this 'simplified' arrangement using the existing FSS & RSS to provide needed access.   Flight dynamics would not be accurate, but it would still make for an impressive display.

2a) Jupiter-120-Test - Would build a flight-ready Core Stage, albeit a "battleship" variant with more than necessary extra strengthening throughout the structure.   The MLP would have to be modified in time though, including a new exhaust hole cut through the decking, and new  and propellant feed/drain systems for the new Core.   Some additional modifications would also be needed at LC-39B in order to manage the GOX venting.

2b) As above but with the Shuttle-B/Mars Society Ares "Engine Nacelle" instead of an active thrust structure.   Reduces MLP mods, but doesn't match the final aero mouldline, so flight data would be quite different, as would appearance.


I suspect option #1 is more than achievable in the time frame we have.   Option #2 is far tougher, but would provide a truly useful flight test so may be worth the additional effort.   The question probably boils down to "do we have the time and money to do the more advanced test flight?".   If the answer is yes, we should try.   If no, then the basic J-100-Test would be the better way to go.


Avionics in either case are a major issue though.   Not sure yet what would be the best solution.   Some work has already been done for Ares and it might be applicable here.   If not, there are already STS systems which control the major pieces of the test hardware (the SRB's for example) and which can control liftoff, roll, pitch and the ascent.   New avionics work will be needed in either case though due to the obvious differences in configurations.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 10/20/2007 07:09 pm
Quote
Jim - 20/10/2007  12:14 PM

A. GOX vent arm is not need for non orbiter vehicle.  Let the ice form. Direct is like ELV's   Additionally, the Direct LOX tank doesn't need foam

Ares V shouldn't need foam on the LOX tank, either.  But Delta IV has it, and I'm not really sure why (aside from the Heavy launch fireball, and the risk of ice hitting an engine.)

Quote
Jim - 20/10/2007  12:14 PM
OOPS!

What avionics are needed for Direct?  Is Direct planning to use the Ares avionics?

Quote
rumble - 20/10/2007  12:25 PM

Did you mean Atlas avionics?  (I think I heard that's what Ares-1X was going to use)

The Atlas avionics for Ares I-X will not carry over to the final Ares I.  NASA has it down-selected to two avionics bidders, with Boeing being one choice.  I don't know if the Ares I avionics will be applicable to Ares V.

As far as DIRECT goes, it might be possible to adopt the shuttle's ascent avionics.  It could also be a situation where the vendors have gone out of business or discontinued the necessary parts for building more hardware.  It might be possible to adapt EELV avionics for the task, too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 10/20/2007 07:16 pm
Quote
mike robel - 20/10/2007  1:50 PM

Nope, more like this.


http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/areirect.htm


Quote
rsp1202 - 20/10/2007  1:25 PM

Wouldn't that be too much like this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/images/sts-b-pic1.gif

Yes except that the top part of the pod triangle shape would be longer to reach the ET forward attachment point for the space shuttle.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/20/2007 07:20 pm
Quote
CFE - 20/10/2007  3:09 PM

1.    I don't know if the Ares I avionics will be applicable to Ares V.

2.  As far as DIRECT goes, it might be possible to adopt the shuttle's ascent avionics.  It could also be a situation where the vendors have gone out of business or discontinued the necessary parts for building more hardware.  

3. It might be possible to adapt EELV avionics for the task, too.

1.  it is

2.  There is only one set of shuttle avionics and it runs for all mission phases.  It is hopelessly outdated and not viable for Direct

3.  EELV or Ares are options
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/20/2007 07:32 pm
Quote
Jim - 20/10/2007  12:14 PM
OOPS!

What avionics are needed for Direct?  Is Direct planning to use the Ares avionics?

Quote
rumble - 20/10/2007  12:25 PM

As far as DIRECT goes, it might be possible to adopt the shuttle's ascent avionics.  It could also be a situation where the vendors have gone out of business or discontinued the necessary parts for building more hardware.  It might be possible to adapt EELV avionics for the task, too.

I think it is long past time to replace the Shuttle's avionics.   They are fairly old by modern standards and parts are hard (and expensive) to come by.

A new LV offers a perfect opportunity to replace them with something newer, and I think that's the ultimate direction we should follow for the Jupiter LV's.

But the March 2009 test vehicle is a different animal.   "Whatever can be made to work in time" is largely going to be the order of the day on that demonstrator.   It may be that some STS hardware could be dedicated to the job.   It may be that the Ares-I-X avionics pack is able to do the job and is advanced enough in production terms to be a better choice - I just don't know.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 10/20/2007 07:38 pm
Quote
kraisee - 14/10/2007  12:44 AM

Quote
Nathan - 13/10/2007  7:01 PM

So what can be done now to ensure NASA picks up Direct?
Is it just a wait and see proposition?

Nathan,
At the present moment NASA is more concerned that Ares-I & Ares-V simply can't get close to the latest performance requirements for the intended Lunar missions, and they are looking like also seriously exceeding the cost box targets too.   Because of this, NASA is looking around for solutions already and other concepts are being considered - for real.

Jupiter can certainly work within both constraints and we are working feverishly behind the scenes to make sure the correct people within NASA know that DIRECT can.   I am hopeful of good results, but we must be patient.


While I think we are doing all we can to persuade NASA itself, we do not yet have the political world covered properly.

We still need lots of help contacting the political leadership at a level above NASA.   We would desperately like every Senator and every Congressman to learn of DIRECT. But we have only managed to get copies to a some of the better known 'space' figures in the political world so far.   We have not yet managed to get a copy into the hands of everyone in the corridors of power.

So I humbly urge every single person reading this message, and that means *YOU GUYS & GALS*, to help us get the word out to everyone.

I bet each of you could print a single copy of our AIAA paper and put it in the post to one of your local representatives? No?

Everyone reading this could go print one single color copy of both the 130 page AIAA Presentation, and the AIAA Horizons article (links to both are on our website) and post them both to just a single one of your own local House, Senate or Governor representatives with a cover note simply saying that you, as a voter in their district, support the switch to DIRECT and urge them to support it too.

NSF has a readership numbering in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands.   This thread alone probably has at least one reader from every single voting district throughout the country.   What would happen if every representative received a pile of copies of the DIRECT proposal all at the same time, endorsed by all those voters from all of their districts?

If we all worked together, we could literally get dozens of copies arriving on each representatives desk throughout the US political system.   I think *that* would get the idea very seriously noticed at a level far above NASA.

The cost to each person here would be very small - the cost of about 150 sheets of paper, some printer ink and a large envelope - but the effect of thousands of us all doing such a thing together, could be simply staggering.

You can DIRECTly (pun totally intended) help get the word to just one of your own locally elected representatives.   Just *believe* and go warm up your own printer *right now*.

Thank-you in advance, to all of you who choose to make your own voice heard.

Ross.

This looks like a change in philosiphy. Previously the approach was the AIAA presentation and then let the NASA insiders try to change from within. If you want to get the Direct plan to a larger audience there are some public figures that could help get the word out. A couple that come to mind are Tom Hanks and Sean Hannity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/20/2007 07:39 pm
veedriver22,
Actually, we still hope to do precisely that - hand it over to NASA and let them run with the ball.   It hasn't happened yet though so we're going to continue refining the concept as much as possible.

From where we sit right now, we can spot a number of hurdles still presenting themselves.

I figure some of them are well worth putting up here for discussion to see what this great group of people can come up with.   The ideas are usually of an excellent quality and come from a far wider range of sources than normally get involved in such decisions.

It's mostly for mental exercise purposes, to find potential solutions to problems which arise, but you just never know who is watching and taking an interest - and there are some rather "interesting" lurkers here.

Anyway, NSF is a truly wonderful clearing-house for such multi-disciplinary blue-sky thinking!



And publicity isn't really what we've been striving for.   What we have been doing is working.   We are being noticed and interest is being taken at the correct levels.   If we got too much attention it could cause NASA more problems than it solves - and that would be bad for us all.   Working to get the idea to the space engineering community and the political world is far safer for the *program* than trying to get general publicity.   But man, I've tried to contact John Young numerous times - he would be perfect - but he's virtually impossible to reach!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: ryan mccabe on 10/20/2007 07:40 pm
Why would Sean Hannity want anything to do with the Direct effort? His audience wouldn't care.

Same with Tom Hanks. He isn't about to start a political crusade for the space program.

If there are key individuals you want to win, it's people like John Young, Buzz Aldrin, etc.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 10/20/2007 07:43 pm
Quote
ryan mccabe - 20/10/2007  2:40 PM

Why would Sean Hannity want anything to do with the Direct effort? His audience wouldn't care.

Same with Tom Hanks. He isn't about to start a political crusade for the space program.

If there are key individuals you want to win, it's people like John Young, Buzz Aldrin, etc.

He is a space advocate.  He has hosted a couple of televised launches in fact.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 10/20/2007 07:59 pm
Quote
mike robel - 20/10/2007  11:50 AM
Nope, more like this.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/areirect.htm

Thought Zubrin's version used SSME's instead of RS-68's.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/20/2007 08:38 pm
Quote
rsp1202 - 20/10/2007  3:59 PM

Quote
mike robel - 20/10/2007  11:50 AM
Nope, more like this.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/areirect.htm

Thought Zubrin's version used SSME's instead of RS-68's.

Yes, it did.   Most everyone assumed SSME's were the way to go until CxP started working out the costs following the ESAS recommendations.   SSME's were found to be extremely expensive to use as a disposable engine, so the RS-68 came into clearer focus for most options.

Zubrin's design still needs the higher Isp of the SSME (and a very optimistic upper stage configuration too), so has to simply suck-up the costs.   But some other variants can suffice with the much cheaper RS-68 configurations - like DIRECT.

Of course, extra Isp is never a bad thing and DIRECT would be even better if Isp gains could be found at some point in the future.   But such improvements are not assumed.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: NovaStar83 on 10/20/2007 11:35 pm
I do not work in the areospace industy so im not on top of where DIRECT v2.0 stands right now and do not have the time to swift thru the nearly 200 pages for this topic. I would like some one to brifely answer my 3 questions,They are the following-

1-Where does the Direct v2.0 proposal stand today?

2-Has Administrator Griffen made any comments about v2.0?

3-What is the likely date/timeframe that NASA will be to deep into the Ares program to consider the DIRECT v2.0 proposal?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/21/2007 01:09 am
Nova,
There's a lot I can't really talk about on a public board, but at this point we are getting a lot of attention from many folk at all different levels within NASA and the contractor network.   We can't predict precisely what this interest will bring, but we are obviously hopeful.   The AIAA paper opened a lot of new doors for us and we have been following up a lot of them.

Administrator Griffin has made no mention at all of DIRECT v2.0 - although we would not expect any comment until such time as DIRECT actually.

The only official NASA comments referring to DIRECT was CxP had concerns that our first version last year.   Their concerns focussed upon an engine development which was too difficult.   Following the revisions inspired by their review last year, we abandoned all of those expensive engine developments and, now, the current version is being looked at with a great deal more interest.

The Ares solutions have been having difficulties closing their cost, performance and schedule check-boxes.   DIRECT has garnered attention because it appears to be able to close all three, along with the workforce box too - which is the box which has held up all of the EELV solutions.

The window of opportunity is fairly short for a change from Ares to anything else.   I would say that if the change isn't established before the '08 election, it will probably never be possible - at least not a change which would still include the Lunar program aspects.

So, we believe we have a very good chance to convincing NASA to take a serious look at DIRECT and give it a real chance to demonstrate how the concepts shines - and that has been our goal, all along.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Integrator on 10/21/2007 01:34 am
The image in your proposal Figure 47, pg 41 is the most likely configuration I think, since NASA is committed to an upper stage with J2X.  We will have to create a new element office: First Stage Core stage. Can the ET bridge design/RSRM attach points be augmented to a beefier 6 point structure, that would allow, 2, 3 or 4 RSRMVs?   You may even want 6 to ship water to Mars! Why is no one discussing more than 2 RSRMVs? Worried about loads?  LOL!  (I was inspired by Delta 2's modular mission design.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/21/2007 01:40 am
Quote
clongton - 20/10/2007  5:20 PM
{snip} This would be the J-120; no upper stage. No payload. Everything above the LOX tank is a look-alike, mass equivilant boilerplate.

A dummy payload weighting 30 mT to 45 mT will need a controlled deorbit to prevent it crashing into the land.  So a small thruster and avionics will be needed to aim the boilerplate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/21/2007 01:42 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 20/10/2007  7:40 PM

Quote
clongton - 20/10/2007  5:20 PM
{snip} This would be the J-120; no upper stage. No payload. Everything above the LOX tank is a look-alike, mass equivilant boilerplate.

A dummy payload weighting 30 mT to 45 mT will need a controlled deorbit to prevent it crashing into the land.  So a small thruster and avionics will be needed to aim the boilerplate.

I was under the impression that the dummy payload wouldn't make the circularization burn, and so would go down roughly with the tank.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/21/2007 01:44 am
Quote
Integrator - 20/10/2007  7:34 PM
Why is no one discussing more than 2 RSRMVs?

Because of the changes required to the MLPs, the crawlers and the pad.  Remember how huge, heavy and high-thrust those things are.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/21/2007 02:29 am
Quote
Integrator - 20/10/2007  9:34 PM

Why is no one discussing more than 2 RSRMVs? Worried about loads?  LOL!  (I was inspired by Delta 2's modular mission design.)
Because DIRECT's design is specifically 2 RSRM's.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/21/2007 02:48 am
Quote
Integrator - 20/10/2007  9:34 PM
Why is no one discussing more than 2 RSRMVs? Worried about loads?

The LC-39 Concrete Hardstand just couldn't handle another pair of SRB's.   The power of four SRB's would require that the entire flame trench be totally re-built - a very costly proposition.

There are multiple other problems with the concept too, from the Crawlers needing to be even bigger than for Ares-V (each 4-segment SRB masses an extra 600mT), LOC/LOM numbers dropping due to extra engines & staging events, to the VAB, MLP and Pad structures all having to be rebuilt to handle the new configuration.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/21/2007 03:02 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 20/10/2007  9:42 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 20/10/2007  7:40 PM

A dummy payload weighting 30 mT to 45 mT will need a controlled deorbit to prevent it crashing into the land.  So a small thruster and avionics will be needed to aim the boilerplate.

I was under the impression that the dummy payload wouldn't make the circularization burn, and so would go down roughly with the tank.

Lee Jay,
I would also agree that the first demonstration vehicle would not need to perform any circularization at all.   It wouldn't be deploying any spacecraft.

If the test vehicle has no Core engines, and relies entirely upon the SRB's for flight, I would expect it only to fly a few hundred miles downrange.   If we could pull-off a test flight with active Core engines, then I would expect to get it to an ascent target, but it would need to be sub-orbital in order to ensure we don't leave large bits of orbital debris up there.   Something like 30x100nm would be sufficient to prove the flight completely, but would bring the Core Tank back to the atmosphere.

As A_M_Swallow says, the ascent target orbit should be designed to bring the whole vehicle down in a safe location, and should also be designed that in the event of an engine shutdown, should drop the vehicle safely in the drink too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 10/21/2007 03:04 am
Quote
Integrator - 20/10/2007  8:34 PM
Why is no one discussing more than 2 RSRMVs?

It's been discussed multiple times on here in the past, mostly in the older CaLV threads...

First off, you'll *never* get a human on it.  LOC/LOM numbers will be too impacted by the number of boosters.  But let's just assume it's a cargo launcher.

Remember that the SRB is "fueled" before it gets to the pad.  It's the heaviest single component to move.  Let's look at the STS masses.

Each 4-segment SRB weighs in at ~590mT.
ET weighs less than 30mT (unfueled).
Orbiter weighs less than 100mT.

So you've got 1080mT of SRB, and 130mT of "Other" for the MLP, crawlers, and crawlerway to deal with, which we know if can handle.

Let's assume that a J-232 Core/EDS/Payload mass = ET/Orbiter mass, for simplicity's sake.

Now, let's talk about adding 2 more SRBs.  You're almost doubling the mass you have to crawl to the pad... 2360mT in SRBs alone.

Infrastructure adjustments:
 - Change pad to accommodate more flame deflection / water suppression
 - Change MLP to support new configuration, additional mass.
 - Upgrade/Replace crawler to handle additional mass.
 - Upgrade/Replace crawlerway to handle additional mass.

EDIT : Or replace all of the above with a new pad at 39C, which would be the same level of effort.

Now, you also need to:
 - Redesign your core stage to add SRB attach points for more boosters.  STS attach point probably can't scale directly to a non-linear booster config.
 - Determine a new flight profile, make sure the g-loads / max-q are still appropriate for cargo flights
 - Fight off an environmental lobby concerned about increased atmospheric pollution from PBAN fuels.

I'm not sure how much all of that will cost, or how long it will take, other than "a lot of $, and a lot of time".  You're essentially replacing the majority of the existing infrastructure.

Now, the next question is how much more performance would you get?  From the discussions about a Jupiter-core only flight, we discussed that each SRB gets you 5-10 mT of performance.  So adding 4 more might get you another 40 mT to LEO.

Would you get more performance from a third stage?  I'm not sure (again, I'm not in the industry), but I'd bet you can get similar or better performance from an optimized three-stage Jupiter with 2 SRBs, that will require far less of the hurdles required for more SRBs.

It's an interesting idea, but unfortunately not one that pans out in the end.  If you want to think this far out-of-the-box (which isn't a bad thing, I'm rarely in the box, myself), we should focus this level of effort to a nuclear upperstage, which could show some major performance benefits for a Mars trip down the road.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: NovaStar83 on 10/21/2007 03:07 am
Thank you kraisee for the brief to the point answers, I had asked the same questions the day before but was apperantly ignored... again thanks for the answers and i hope DIRECT v2.0 becomes a reality- Im tried of the human race being stuck in LEO, Lets get out there and make space a part of our normal lives. Its not going to happen in my life time but id life to see the seeds sown for future genrations to make that happen.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/21/2007 03:12 am
Sorry for not replying before Nova, I didn't actually spot your previous post.   It happens from time to time, but I usually try my best to answer any questions on here.

Feel free to ask more, but you ought to take a look over the previous pages (sorry, there's a lot of them!) because many subjects have already been covered here before - its grown to be quite an extensive library.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/21/2007 04:43 am
Quote
kraisee - 21/10/2007  4:02 AM
If the test vehicle has no Core engines, and relies entirely upon the SRB's for flight, I would expect it only to fly a few hundred miles downrange.   If we could pull-off a test flight with active Core engines, then I would expect to get it to an ascent target, but it would need to be sub-orbital in order to ensure we don't leave large bits of orbital debris up there.   Something like 30x100nm would be sufficient to prove the flight completely, but would bring the Core Tank back to the atmosphere.

Thank you for replying.

The J-100 (no core) would be a sounding rocket.  Unless it has an enormous lift I suspect that the J-100 has got too much competition to make any money.

If a J-100 was launched as an in-line SRB and avionics test bed I suspect that the DIRECT Project Office would be under pressure to follow this with a dummy payload J-120 launch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/21/2007 05:08 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 21/10/2007  12:43 AM

Thank you for replying.

The J-100 (no core) would be a sounding rocket.  Unless it has an enormous lift I suspect that the J-100 has got too much competition to make any money.

If a J-100 was launched as an in-line SRB and avionics test bed I suspect that the DIRECT Project Office would be under pressure to follow this with a dummy payload J-120 launch.


Ah, I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding here.

Someone here (BogoMIPS I think) coined the name "J-100" configuration to represent a Jupiter vehicle consisting of a pair of 4-segment SRB's flying alongside an 8.4m diameter Core Stage - only minus its RS-68 engines.   It would visibly look very much like a standard J-120, but the Core would only be an unpowered dummy stage filled with suitable pressurized contents of some sorts - either LOX/LH2 or water - to be determined later.

It would basically be a relatively normal External Tank, built with dummy payload fairing and spacecraft on top.   It was not suggested as an operational vehicle at all.   Its sole purpose is as an early "demonstrator" launcher (as opposed to a real "test flight" who's primary purpose is gathering flight data) and only serves a purpose if we find that we just don't have all the time or money to be able to fly a proper "demonstrator" Core stage with active engines (which would be the full J-120 config) before March 2009 in this mental exercise I suggested in my original premise a few pages back.

J-100 would fly one time only, and would never see the light of day again after that.   It would never become an operational configuration.

The purpose of the single flight would mostly be political, although some limited useful flight data could likely be obtained from it.   It would be the equivalent of Ares-I-X flight - a showcase "milestone" flight with little technical merit, designed primarily to visually demonstrate NASA's progress towards its goals to the new President and new Congress coming in in 2009.

The second test flight would be the real test and would be scheduled as soon as it can be successfully pulled together.   It would go straight to a fully active J-120 configuration - albeit using a "Battleship" Core Stage heavier than final flight variants will be.   While it's mass would be very similar to final flight variants, this second test would also be sub-orbital, although gathering real flight data is the key purpose this time.

By the fourth test flight we would be flying the full final flight spec, just unmanned that time.   The fifth flight should be the first manned one.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/21/2007 07:21 am
Quote
CFE - 20/10/2007  3:09 PM

Ares V shouldn't need foam on the LOX tank, either.  But Delta IV has it, and I'm not really sure why (aside from the Heavy launch fireball, and the risk of ice hitting an engine.)

Combing back through some lost comments, I wanted to just mention that foam is still needed on Ares-V (and DIRECT) to prevent any ice buildup at all.

Remember that the SRB booster separation motors are relatively exposed on the aft skirt of the SRB's.   I don't think it's a wise idea to have any potential for heavy chunks of ice to fall back on them during ascent.   If they fired by accident, or if they were damaged and didn't fire correctly, it could possibly cause an LOM.   Better to just keep a layer of foam - although a thinner layer and less regulated application process might be acceptable still.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 10/21/2007 07:29 am
Quote
clongton - 20/10/2007  12:42 PM

First - Good morning  ;)
It's Saturday, and it's a beautiful day.
Good morning to you too.
It's now Sunday - also a beautiful day. :)

Quote
Now, can we please get back to DIRECT? This line of conversation is a distraction to this thread.  :)
OK, I've said my piece. People can either agree with me or not. :)

However, if you, and those who agree with you, are right, then the current efforts to promote DIRECT seem well-targeted. But if I'm right, then they are not well-targeted.

It's not enough to always act on the basis that one is correct. One must also consider what to do if one is not correct. Sometimes the actions you would take are incompatible, but this is not the case here. A slight modification and extension of the current promotional efforts would encompass both situations. It would be a pity if DIRECT failed because of poor targeting when a little extra effort would encompass both our views of the situation!
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/21/2007 07:52 am
Just toying with some ideas I've been sent by a few people, I thought I should draw up a few example configurations to show how possible test flight vehicles might be put together.

The ideas here aren't mine, I'm just drawing them up as visual aides for comment.

I kinda like the idea of flying a "Hybrid" variant for the first test - using a virtually standard LOX tank, just with a complete shroud mounted all around it to create the correct aero-mouldline.   It might reduce the work necessary in creating the forward tanking structures for this flight, although integrating such a shroud into the existing design is likely to prove quite tricky.

And this very clearly displays the difference between the J-100 (dummy core engines only) configuration and the possible J-120 test configurations.

I would guess that the simplest of these variants to create would be #3, and the most complex is #2.   Ultimately though, we are aiming to build something more like number 2 in the end though.



Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/21/2007 08:23 am
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 21/10/2007  3:29 AM

Quote
clongton - 20/10/2007  12:42 PM

First - Good morning  ;)
It's Saturday, and it's a beautiful day.
Good morning to you too.
It's now Sunday - also a beautiful day. :)

Quote
Now, can we please get back to DIRECT? This line of conversation is a distraction to this thread.  :)
OK, I've said my piece. People can either agree with me or not. :)

However, if you, and those who agree with you, are right, then the current efforts to promote DIRECT seem well-targeted. But if I'm right, then they are not well-targeted.

It's not enough to always act on the basis that one is correct. One must also consider what to do if one is not correct. Sometimes the actions you would take are incompatible, but this is not the case here. A slight modification and extension of the current promotional efforts would encompass both situations. It would be a pity if DIRECT failed because of poor targeting when a little extra effort would encompass both our views of the situation!

Mornin' :)

If Chuck doesn't mind, I'll take this one.   Let me take a second to "play-up" some of the unique safety features Jupiter-120 can offer NASA if it were to be used solely as a direct alternative to just the Ares-I alone.   Let me know if this "works for you" or not :)


The Jupiter-120 would actually be a *perfect* ~25mT Crew Launch Vehicle for the new program.

Firstly, its enhanced performance above Ares-I would allow the Orion CEV to mass a little more than at present.   With just 1-2mT of additional mass, the Orion could thus be designed to include both additional micro-meteoroid protection and radiation protection systems - which are currently both absent from the existing design.   These two new features would serve to greatly increase crew safety during the time a crew stays in orbit for all forms of mission over the coming decades, be they missions in Low Earth Orbit or missions to distant worlds.

Additionally, the J-120 is capable of being fitted with a 2-ton Boron Carbide/Kevlar composite ballistic shield which can be integrated between the launch vehicle and the Orion CEV to greatly increase protection for the crew in case of any serious launch accidents.   While we hope never to suffer any such accident, planning for one is always necessary if we wish to try to protect our crews.   This tough "bullet-proof vest" would serve to deflect any damaging projectiles or heat behind the spacecraft in the first few seconds of any accident while the crew is still performing an abort procedure.   A strong shield behind the spacecraft would offer the crew precious extra protection during those critical seconds while they attempt to get to safety.

Another safety feature of Jupiter-120 is that when flying a ~25mT payload (like the Orion spacecraft), the engines can both be throttled down to approximately 80% mission power level rating just after liftoff, through the duration of the rest of the flight.   This means that the engines are then operating with an additional 20% of performance margin.   This means all of the components in the engine are operating significantly below their normal pressure and stress limits which they are actually rated for.   Operating an engine in this fashion reduces the wear and tear on components significantly, and should greatly increase their reliability by a considerable factor, thereby also helping to reduce risks to the crew.

And finally, this configuration also has an astonishing degree of tolerance for engine-out conditions should one of the main engines suffer a fault during the flight.   The remaining engine can be throttled up to its more typical higher performance levels (100% mission power level) without ever compromising safety.   This is an important safety feature for any crew flight if it can be provided - and Jupiter-120 is, today, unique in being capable of offering this.

These features, together, would increase the overall mission safety levels for all crews by an enormous degree when compared to any other launch system in the 25mT lift class, worldwide.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/21/2007 01:32 pm
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 21/10/2007  3:29 AM

Quote
clongton - 20/10/2007  12:42 PM

First - Good morning  ;)
It's Saturday, and it's a beautiful day.
Good morning to you too.
It's now Sunday - also a beautiful day. :)

Quote
Now, can we please get back to DIRECT? This line of conversation is a distraction to this thread.  :)
OK, I've said my piece. People can either agree with me or not. :)

However, if you, and those who agree with you, are right, then the current efforts to promote DIRECT seem well-targeted. But if I'm right, then they are not well-targeted.

It's not enough to always act on the basis that one is correct. One must also consider what to do if one is not correct. Sometimes the actions you would take are incompatible, but this is not the case here. A slight modification and extension of the current promotional efforts would encompass both situations. It would be a pity if DIRECT failed because of poor targeting when a little extra effort would encompass both our views of the situation!
Good morning Cuddly

I appreciate your sentiments and thank you for them. Before I comment further, please tell us what additional steps you would take, and I thank you in advance for them.

I would offer this observation. Those in the Congress who are actually opposed to a manned return to the moon are first, few in number and second, are opposed on philosophical grounds. Those persons are unlikely to be persuaded by ANY argument. We feel that it is best to spend our efforts on those senators and representatives who are not opposed, while respecting the views of the minority who are. While most congressmen and women are not opposed, they still need to be convinced to back the program overall, and the reality of that is that there exists an attitude there of "what's in it for my state or district"? That is a legitimate concern on their part because after all, they were elected specifically to represent the interests and concerns of their states and districts, not to fund manned lunar programs. The DIRECT team has endeavored to show how by retaining the STS as the basis for the VSE launch vehicle, the vast network of individual companies, large and small, that are scattered all across the country, are kept employed and in business in a similar manner as they are currently for Shuttle. This is good for the economy in the states and districts of those representatives. We have tried to ensure that those representatives with businesses in their districts and states are aware of the benefits of retaining that infrastructure. As for those who have no such incentive, all we can really do is to be respectful of their needs and whenever we can, remind them that because the STS industrial infrastructure network is so widespread all across the nation, that even if it doesn't affect their districts directly, it lifts the economy as a whole, which IS good for their districts and states. And again, as for those who actually are opposed, there is little we can do to dissuade them, because they were always opposed to manned spaceflight anyway. All we can really do about them is to respect their viewpoints and to be mindful of their own quite legitimate concerns.

We have learned that if one tries to be all things to all people, that one ends up not doing anything very well. It is wiser to assess the landscape and play the best hand one has. We believe we have done that, but of course, life is always a roll of the dice. There is no predicting the final outcome, nor can all the bases be covered. In the end, all you can do is all you can do, as a famous insurance salesman once said.

The entire VSE program is rapidly approaching a point where whatever launch vehicle becomes the backbone of the effort will be cast in stone, for better or for worse. The DIRECT team is fully prepared, after having done all that we can, to enter into the VSE, just like in a good marriage, with no parachute or way out in our hip pocket. We will fully commit to the VSE in whatever form it ultimately takes. We certainly hope that it will be DIRECT because we believe with all out hearts and sliderules (grin) that we have the superior launch vehicle architecture. But in the end it will be what it will be. We will get behind the ultimate decision 110% and work for the VSE in whatever form it ultimately takes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 10/21/2007 02:18 pm
Ross, from the diagrams it looks like the Direct LOX tank is bigger than the STS/-100 ovoid LOX tank, is the mixture ratio of the RS-68 much LOX-richer for more thrust and less ISP or what is the reason, or am I just seeing things?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/21/2007 02:36 pm
Quote
kraisee - 21/10/2007  6:08 AM

J-100 would fly one time only, and would never see the light of day again after that.   It would never become an operational configuration.


I am fully aware that the probability of a second J-100 flying is less than 1%.

However since the J-100 can support payloads about 10 times bigger than its rival sounding rockets someone may wish to buy one.  Once one has been built just archiving the paperwork and leaving a half page entry in DIRECT's catalog with a warning that full certification is needed is not difficult.  This would be the opposite of a powerpoint rocket.  The rocket was built without the powerpoint.

Any public demonstration at the start of a project has to be a "test" even if its real purpose is public relations.  As to what is being tested just list what is being changed.

Applying that to the J-100 launch and the main test turns out to be, "Can the existing launch pads be modified to fit a rocket that is a very different in shape to the Shuttle?  The very high cost alternative being to build new launch pads."  An accountant will have to send a report to Congress saying the quarter modified rocket flew from the quarter modified launch pad; and the modification estimates are less than the original launch pad construction costs plus inflation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/21/2007 02:43 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 21/10/2007  10:36 AM

Quote
kraisee - 21/10/2007  6:08 AM

J-100 would fly one time only, and would never see the light of day again after that.   It would never become an operational configuration.


I am fully aware that the probability of a second J-100 flying is less than 1%.

However since the J-100 can support payloads about 10 times bigger than its rival sounding rockets someone may wish to buy one.
You are correct to classify the J-100 as a Sounding Rocket because without functioning RS-68 engines it would not be able to achieve orbit. While it may indeed lift more than the nearest sounding rocket, it would cost an order of magnatude more, because the J-100 would essentially be a one-of-a-kind and could not take advantage of the drop in price brought about by high flight rates. In the end, I don't believe the cost to lift a suborbital payload like that could be justified. Nice idea though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/21/2007 03:00 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 21/10/2007  10:36 AM

1.  However since the J-100 can support payloads about 10 times bigger than its rival sounding rockets someone may wish to buy one.

2.  An accountant will have to send a report to Congress saying the quarter modified rocket flew from the quarter modified launch pad; and the modification estimates are less than the original launch pad construction costs plus inflation.

1.  There is no "buying one". None of NASA's vehicles are for sale.  

2.  Nonsense.  no accountants send reports to congress.  That is not how it works.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/21/2007 04:26 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 20/10/2007  10:04 PM

Quote
Integrator - 20/10/2007  8:34 PM
Why is no one discussing more than 2 RSRMVs?
It's been discussed multiple times on here in the past, mostly in the older CaLV threads...
It has also been mentioned that for more performance, replacing the SRBs with liquid boosters (RS-84-based) is a more likely option.  It has the advantage of being significantly lighter during its ride on the crawlers, as well as having better ISP and better total impulse.

But that's a LONG way down the road for Jupiter, if ever.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/21/2007 04:40 pm
Quote
rumble - 21/10/2007  12:26 PM

Quote
BogoMIPS - 20/10/2007  10:04 PM

Quote
Integrator - 20/10/2007  8:34 PM
Why is no one discussing more than 2 RSRMVs?
It's been discussed multiple times on here in the past, mostly in the older CaLV threads...
It has also been mentioned that for more performance, replacing the SRBs with liquid boosters (RS-84-based) is a more likely option.  It has the advantage of being significantly lighter during its ride on the crawlers, as well as having better ISP and better total impulse.

But that's a LONG way down the road for Jupiter, if ever.
It’s important to bear in mind that while “down the road” anything is possible, DIRECT only makes sense at this point by retaining, as much as possible, the current STS infrastructure and actual flight articles. Any deviation away from that and DIRECT looses its advantages over other options. So at this time no options are even being entertained.

Switching to an RS-84 based liquid strap on would involve funding an engine and new booster development program, and adapting an Atlas core as a replacement strap on would involve using Russian engines (RD-180) on an American manned launch vehicle. That would be extremely unpopular in Washington. Both options would add time and additional costs and therefore cannot be considered. “The Goal” is to get Orion into space as an operational spacecraft within one to two years max of Shuttles retirement. Nothing that would even hint at delaying that will be considered.

DIRECT must remain as a strengthened STS ET core, with 2xRS-68 standard Delta-IV engines and 2xSRB 4-segment solids. No deviation from that can even be considered.

The Jupiter-120, described above, is a direct replacement for the Ares-I, with the additional safety advantages that all flight engines are ground lit and the vehicle is capable of an abort to orbit with an engine-out condition after ~45 seconds of flight. It also totally eliminates the mass difficulties that Orion is experiencing and will allow returning dual-fault tolerance to the Jupiter/Orion system and MMP for Orion. These are all advantages, among many others, that the Ares-I simply cannot provide. And they all come with the standard design. A wise man once said: “if it ain’t broke – don’t fix it”.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/21/2007 06:52 pm
Quote
meiza - 21/10/2007  10:18 AM

Ross, from the diagrams it looks like the Direct LOX tank is bigger than the STS/-100 ovoid LOX tank, is the mixture ratio of the RS-68 much LOX-richer for more thrust and less ISP or what is the reason, or am I just seeing things?

My drawings should not be taken as blueprints, they are simply artist's impressions.

We have finite calculations of volume for both tanks, and we have matched their capacities as closely as we can.   All I have done is then draw a diagram which shows the closest approximation I can get CorelDRAW to do.   My drawings are only accurate to within about 10cm or 3", and only serve as a broad guide.   Antonio's 3D images (from the AIAA paper) however, are far higher fidelity than mine.

I think those images are correct, but if there is any difference, it is entirely the fault of my limited artistic ability, not the calculations.   The calculations say we have precisely the same capacity - to the cubic inch.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/21/2007 07:03 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 21/10/2007  10:36 AM

I am fully aware that the probability of a second J-100 flying is less than 1%.

However since the J-100 can support payloads about 10 times bigger than its rival sounding rockets someone may wish to buy one.  Once one has been built just archiving the paperwork and leaving a half page entry in DIRECT's catalog with a warning that full certification is needed is not difficult.  This would be the opposite of a powerpoint rocket.  The rocket was built without the powerpoint.

I see what you're saying.   Having flown once, if some requirement ever turned up in the future , it probably wouldn't be all that difficult to brush-off and fly again.   While I can't come up with any reason to need such a large and expensive sounding rocket myself, that clearly doesn't mean a reason may not be needed by some "mad scientist" at some point over the next 20-40 years of operational life for the Jupiter concept.   Having the ability in our back-pocket isn't a bad thing at all.   Limiting our options to solely what we need right now is, to me, far too short-sighted for any multi-decadal program.   And I have always liked the huge range of mission flexibility which the Jupiter's basic design has offered from the start.


Quote
Any public demonstration at the start of a project has to be a "test" even if its real purpose is public relations.  As to what is being tested just list what is being changed.

Applying that to the J-100 launch and the main test turns out to be, "Can the existing launch pads be modified to fit a rocket that is a very different in shape to the Shuttle?  The very high cost alternative being to build new launch pads."  An accountant will have to send a report to Congress saying the quarter modified rocket flew from the quarter modified launch pad; and the modification estimates are less than the original launch pad construction costs plus inflation.

I'm not sure I totally grok the second paragraph there.   I think you're saying that a NASA budget office accountant will prefer the J-100 option for this test because it requires virtually no changes to the existing Shuttle infrastructure.   The MLP doesn't require the new exhaust chamber to be cut in the decking, the FSS and RSS can process the vehicle largely as it is, and even the VAB should have little trouble stacking the elements together for this first "demonstrator" test flight.   If so, I have to agree; the un-powered Core options are clearly our "safer option".

But it will still be interesting to see the trade studies on whether the "full bird" J-120 could actually be done in time for such a test - if it can, it would be a far better test from an engineering standpoint.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 10/21/2007 07:27 pm
The core stage with the new thrust structure along with two or three RS-68's would be test fired at Stennis.

If NASA really wanted a demo flight of Jupiter quickly, they could fly what is now being called Jupiter-100 off an existing MLP, using the existing FSS/RSS and VAB.
The only real tasks would be to modify a ET (they could use any Shuttle un-flight worthy tank) and build a dummy payload.

But other than than it being another a big model rocket launch, I do not see what would be gained by doing so, other than to spend money.
I would rather wait another year, and fly the real thing (a full up Jupiter-120).
Personally, I would be for skipping any thought of J-100 and go right to the J-120.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/21/2007 07:35 pm
Quote
clongton - 21/10/2007  11:40 AM

Quote
rumble - 21/10/2007  12:26 PM

But that's a LONG way down the road for Jupiter, if ever.
It’s important to bear in mind that while “down the road” anything is possible, DIRECT only makes sense at this point by retaining, as much as possible, the current STS infrastructure and actual flight articles. Any deviation away from that and DIRECT looses its advantages over other options. So at this time no options are even being entertained.

Absolutely.  Well said.  And sorry if my short answer lead to the need to explain this further.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/21/2007 08:00 pm
Quote
rumble - 21/10/2007  3:35 PM

Quote
clongton - 21/10/2007  11:40 AM

Quote
rumble - 21/10/2007  12:26 PM

But that's a LONG way down the road for Jupiter, if ever.
It’s important to bear in mind that while “down the road” anything is possible, DIRECT only makes sense at this point by retaining, as much as possible, the current STS infrastructure and actual flight articles. Any deviation away from that and DIRECT looses its advantages over other options. So at this time no options are even being entertained.

Absolutely.  Well said.  And sorry if my short answer lead to the need to explain this further.
No problem Matt. There are a lot of new members to the thread that may not be aware of all that we have been thru for the last one and a half years as we developed this architecture, and all that we learned as we went painstakingly, one by one, thru all the individual tradeoffs and studies. I posted that mostly for the benefit of the new thread members. Wow; a year and a half already since we saw the ESAS LV-24/25 combination for what it really could be - DIRECT.
Cheers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/21/2007 08:05 pm
Scotty, I agree with you, from a technical merits perspective there isn't much point in flying an unpowered Core Stage.

But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that isn't the real purpose of the Ares-I-X test flight.   I personally believe that Ares-I-X test is mostly being put together in order to demonstrate a "working version" to the new President and new Congressional members in 2009 - clearly showing a working launcher which is still in development, and thereby justifying the program's continuance at the political level.   Without such a demonstration, the political leadership may find it a lot easier to ask "why are we letting NASA spend so much money on something they still have nothing to actually show for after three whole years of work?"

In *that* context - a political need to show off new hardware - the high price tag and the lack of real flight hardware, such as the use of an unpowered Upper Stage and a 4-segment SRB instead of a 5-segment - the Ares-I-X flight is far more understandable.

*If* that is the case (and I know I'm making a relatively big assumption there), I'm just trying to get some blue-sky thinking done to work out what NASA might be able to "demonstrate" in the same timeframe, if they were using Jupiter, not Ares.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/21/2007 08:06 pm
Quote
Scotty - 21/10/2007  2:27 PM

The core stage with the new thrust structure along with two or three RS-68's would be test fired at Stennis.

If NASA really wanted a demo flight of Jupiter quickly, they could fly what is now being called Jupiter-100 off an existing MLP, using the existing FSS/RSS and VAB.
The only real tasks would be to modify a ET (they could use any Shuttle un-flight worthy tank) and build a dummy payload.

But other than than it being another a big model rocket launch, I do not see what would be gained by doing so, other than to spend money.
I would rather wait another year, and fly the real thing (a full up Jupiter-120).
Personally, I would be for skipping any thought of J-100 and go right to the J-120.
questions with that:
Is a modified, un-flight worthy ET strong enough to carry a CEV look-alike on top?  And what makes it un-flight worthy?  And how many of these do we have lying around?

An unmanned J-120 feels better to me, too.  It would feel more like a completed prototype.  Fly it with existing (non-man rated) RS-68's if need be.  The only bad PR from that could be the RS-68 fireball and blackened core stage at launch.  Maybe that can be pre-explained to the press?

For the Mar 2009 test to be a J-120, the most time sensitive project would still MLP mods, right?  Is there any estimate on the lead time to perform modifications for a most-basic J-120 flight?  If the DIRECT build-up could get one of the STS's 3 MLP's, is 6 months enough?  9 months?  If using one of the STS mobile launchers isn't possible, then J-120 may simply be off the table.

Based on what Jim said, I don't think we need to worry about GOX venting, as long as it can be vented 90-degrees from either SRB so that any external ice it generates is as far from the aft skirts as possible.  (would any other FSS mods be needed?)

(late edit:  trying to make this read better!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A8-3 on 10/21/2007 10:02 pm
Hi, I've been reading the Direct V2.0 thread for months now, and I am hoping that NASA sees the need to adopt something close to Direct ASAP. I have loved NASA and the space program for as long as I can remember and that's quite a while now. In fact one of my earliest memories is watching a Mercury Redstone flight on TV. I barely understood what I was watching, but I was hooked.

This is my first post since I don't have much rocketry experience beyond Estes, and didn't think I had anything to contribute before. But this recent talk of mounting a quick Demo flight of a Jupiter 100 is making me uneasy. The positive results seem trivial compared to the negative consequences of failure due to rushing to do something before you are really ready. I don't think it's worth it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 10/21/2007 11:04 pm
The mods need to a MLP to fly Direct would more or less require the complete gutting, rebuilding and re-equipping the MLP.
The biggest things are:
1) making the exhaust hole for the RS-68's, and relocating the equipment that now occupies that space with in the MLP.
2) designing and building the two new tail service masts for the new core stage.
3) rearanging the LOX and LH2 systems on the MLP.
4) installing all the helium spin start equipment needed for RS-68 start up. That takes up lot of space, and there is not a lot of un-used space with in the MLP's as they are today.
5) modernizing the electrical systems with in the MLP and on the launch pad.

The FSS and RSS would require a lot of removing unneeded equipment, and relocating needed equipment.

The bottom line is: it would not be a quick and cheap slam dunk; but it would be faster and cheaper than building all new stuff, as they now are doing for Orion-Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/21/2007 11:41 pm
The RS-68support hardware  doesn't have to be in the MLP.  Just piping
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/22/2007 12:38 am
Quote
A8-3 - 21/10/2007  6:02 PM

This is my first post since I don't have much rocketry experience beyond Estes, and didn't think I had anything to contribute before. But this recent talk of mounting a quick Demo flight of a Jupiter 100 is making me uneasy. The positive results seem trivial compared to the negative consequences of failure due to rushing to do something before you are really ready. I don't think it's worth it.

A very valid point indeed and one I am keeping in mind.   At this stage there is no actual plan to do a test flight of a Jupiter LV by March 2009.   NASA has yet to even select a change from Ares to DIRECT.

But I don't believe that a demonstration flight to show Congress and the new President that NASA is clearly making progress on the VSE isn't a trivial issue.   It may actually be a cornerstone for ensuring the VSE remains funded at all.   Without sufficient funding, everything else becomes rather inconsequential.

A rush job is never wise.   But here we are just attempting to theorize about what would be required - and such investigation is well worth it.

From what we have been able to discuss here so far, I'm getting the feeling that the J-100 would be relatively straight-forward to put together for a test flight by March 2009.   It could probably be done without being a rush job at all.   Detailed trades are still needed of course, but the general consensus seems to be that a J-100 with entirely dummy Core stage should be flyable.

I think it is becoming clear though, that to get a powered Core test flight (J-120) by then is going to be asking an awful lot - quite possibly too much.

Hopefully our discussions can continue and we can find theoretical solutions to some of the more obvious hurdles we've identified with the J-120 option already though.   If we can find plausible options, they ought to be pursued because it is a better test.

If the cryo stage with engines and MLP aren't plausible for this test, then I think the J-100 is quite straight-forward as a simpler and cheaper fall-back configuration.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/22/2007 01:19 am
Quote
Scotty - 21/10/2007  6:04 PM

The FSS and RSS would require a lot of removing unneeded equipment, and relocating needed equipment.

The bottom line is: it would not be a quick and cheap slam dunk; but it would be faster and cheaper than building all new stuff, as they now are doing for Orion-Ares.
But if we're trying not to disrupt Shuttle operations on 39A and B, I'm trying to avoid dismantling anything at the pads.  CAN Jupiter do a J-120 test flight from an unmodified shuttle FSS, and with minimal changes at the pad itself?  The GSE for the RS-68...can it co-exist with shuttle equipment?

Thanks for the reply...I appreciate your insight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 10/22/2007 02:15 am
Until LC 39B is turned over to Constellation next Fall, and a MLP is transfered to Constellation, not much could be done for any type of a Direct test flight.
They are now using only LC 39A for Shuttle missions,
LC 39B is being retained only for the Hubble flight LON rescue option.

True, a Jupiter-100 could be flown off an existing MLP more or less as is; and LC 39B could be used more or less as is.
I have already stated my opinion concerning a Jupiter-100 demo flight.
I would rather fly a real Jupiter-120 off correctly converted facilities a year or a year and a half later.
There is no reason the prototype Jupiter-120 could not be flown by the end of FY2010.
The first manned Jupiter-120 flight could be flown by the end of FY2011 (that is IF the Orion is ready by then!).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/22/2007 02:39 am
Quote
Scotty - 21/10/2007  10:15 PM

Until LC 39B is turned over to Constellation next Fall, and a MLP is transfered to Constellation, not much could be done for any type of a Direct test flight.
They are now using only LC 39A for Shuttle missions,
LC 39B is being retained only for the Hubble flight LON rescue option.

True, a Jupiter-100 could be flown off an existing MLP more or less as is; and LC 39B could be used more or less as is.
I have already stated my opinion concerning a Jupiter-100 demo flight.
I would rather fly a real Jupiter-120 off correctly converted facilities a year or a year and a half later.
There is no reason the prototype Jupiter-120 could not be flown by the end of FY2010.
The first manned Jupiter-120 flight could be flown by the end of FY2011 (that is IF the Orion is ready by then!).
I tend to think that whether or not to pursue a J-100 flight would be a strictly political decision, based on the climate and attitude of the incoming administration. If that is what it would take to convince a new administration to proceed with the VSE, then that is the justification for it. But unless a J-100 flight is really needed strictly for the PR (that’s all it would be), then I would rather concentrate on prepping for the J-120 in 2010. It’s pretty obvious that we can do a J-100, but it is equally obvious, at least to me, that unless it’s necessary to maintain political support, that it is a waste of time and resource. I would prefer to not fly it, unless the PR really is needed that badly. Let's get the J-120 into the sky and bring Orion operationally online not later than 2011. That's the goal. Orion by 2011.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/22/2007 03:48 am
Quote
clongton - 22/10/2007  3:39 AM
I tend to think that whether or not to pursue a J-100 flight would be a strictly political decision, based on the climate and attitude of the incoming administration. If that is what it would take to convince a new administration to proceed with the VSE, then that is the justification for it. But unless a J-100 flight is really needed strictly for the PR (that’s all it would be), then I would rather concentrate on prepping for the J-120 in 2010. It’s pretty obvious that we can do a J-100, but it is equally obvious, at least to me, that unless it’s necessary to maintain political support, that it is a waste of time and resource. I would prefer to not fly it, unless the PR really is needed that badly. Let's get the J-120 into the sky and bring Orion operationally online not later than 2011. That's the goal. Orion by 2011.

Can the J-100 be used to flight test any parts of the Orion or J-120 before they are inserted into the real machine?
The avionic sensors?
Separation of the LAS?
The parachute actually opens when dropped from a very high height?
Telemetry?
The flight recorder does survive things going wrong?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jml on 10/22/2007 05:39 am
After months of lurking and reading the Direct threads here, I've finally registered on this site so I can say something about Direct.  Choosing Direct V2.0 over Ares I and V just seems so blindingly obvious as the right choice that it is hard to fathom why NASA hasn't moved to this architecture yet. It is also blindingly obvious that Direct is really NASA's only chance to go beyond LEO in the next 25 years. Ares V is going to be lost to the cost overruns and delays of Ares I and other competing budget pressures at NASA. The go-as-you-pay strategy for Ares I and V will mean that NASA will be able to afford to start building that first Ares V decades after LC-39 and the VAB become the largest museum pieces on the east coast.

I've gotta say that the J-100 actually seems like an excellent response to the Ares I-X - in that it simply shows the decision makers at NASA and in Congress that Direct can provide the same type of near-term demonstration flight / photo op too, if they want it. Even if Direct ends up skipping a 2009 J-100 launch and going right to a 2010 or 2011 J-120 unmanned test flight, having the option available in Jupiter's set of capabilities provides yet another reason to the decision makers to go with Direct.

Early J-100 or J-120 test flights might also help to remove the need for the Delta IV/Orion test flights that are currently listed as part of the Jupiter flight manifest. This might be very politically desirable. Having early Orion test flights launched on a Delta IV as part of the official Direct plan raises the question "why do we need to develop the J-120 when we already have a launcher that can lift our new spacecraft?".  That may be a question that NASA would want to avoid.

If NASA, does decide to go with a J-100, then what about that ET core? Ross's diagram of a J-100 based on an unmodified ET looks interesting. I recall reading on another thread that ET-94 is the last non-SLWT ET in inventory, and was used at Michoud to test foam application techniques after Columbia. I also recall reading in the same thread that ET-122 was damaged by hurricane Katrina, and might be suitable for use as either a fitment test article, or for refurbishing into an unmanned J-100 core. Alternatively, if NASA builds a LON stack as backup for the last shuttle launch in 2010, perhaps that stack could serve as the J-100 test.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8830&mid=181613

I'm also wondering if someone can enlighten me on why the shuttle program would need 3 MLP's to carry out the remaining launches. Wouldn't 2 be enough, even for the Hubble servicing mission and its LON backup? If so, it seems that the MLP mods aren't the long pole in a J-120 test flight - the RS-68 thrust structure and ET mods become the items that determine when a J-120 can be tested.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/22/2007 06:41 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 21/10/2007  11:48 PM

Can the J-100 be used to flight test any parts of the Orion or J-120 before they are inserted into the real machine?
The avionic sensors?
Separation of the LAS?
The parachute actually opens when dropped from a very high height?
Telemetry?
The flight recorder does survive things going wrong?

A J-100 "demonstrator" would be mostly just a political photo-op, much the same as Ares-I-X.

A J-120 "demonstrator", if it were possible, would offer the only opportunity to get much in the way of truly valid data - much like Ares-I-Y which is currently planned for 2012.

Only the J-120 test leaves the Pad at a close-to realistic thrust:weight, only this variant would be able to stage the SRB's properly while the Core remains under positive thrust, only this would experience the real-world flight conditions of dynamic pressure and acceleration well past SRB separation and on towards a somewhat realistic ascent target.   Such a test flight, whether it first happens in 2009, 2010 or 2011, would offer invaluable real-world data to the engineers and would be worthy of a full array of telemetry systems.   In addition to telemetry data transmitted throughout the flight, I would expect a small capsule could be recovered with a "black box" inside after the flight somehow.

The J-100 test, by comparison, would be weighted using some form of ballast (probably water) to be similar visual performance off the Pad as a final version. But the dynamics are entirely different after that.   It would be entirely powered by just the two SRB's - nothing else.   After launch, there would be little way to reduce Core tank "propellant" weight, so coupled to no additional thrust provided by any main engines, SRB staging would probably end up being at much lower altitude and lower velocity than "nominal".   At that point everything simply falls back to Earth, SRB's and Core alike, likely somewhere around 70-80 miles down-range compared to the more normal 110 miles where the SRB's are usually recovered.   There *shouldn't* be any complications in recovering the SRB's after such a protracted flight, but they won't be flying a normal trajectory and there *might* prove to be some so-far unforeseen issues with that idea still - that's really a question for ATK to work out.   I doubt there would be much reason to bother recovering the dummy stage parts though.   And being that the flight would be so completely unlike a real flight trajectory, there wouldn't be much useful telemetry data to be had of such a short mission.   In addition to telemetry data, full flight data could be recovered by mounting aboard one of the SRB's.

If a LAS system is available in time though, it could likely be tested with somewhat useful results to be had, on either test vehicle flight - albeit J-120 would offer a far closer-to-real-flight-conditions test than the J-100 would.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/22/2007 07:11 am
Quote
jml - 22/10/2007  1:39 AM

After months of lurking and reading the Direct threads here, I've finally registered on this site so I can say something about Direct.

Welcome jml.   I'm glad you've decided to de-lurk and get your feet wet here on NSF.   Make yourself at home!


Quote
Choosing Direct V2.0 over Ares I and V just seems so blindingly obvious as the right choice that it is hard to fathom why NASA hasn't moved to this architecture yet. It is also blindingly obvious that Direct is really NASA's only chance to go beyond LEO in the next 25 years. Ares V is going to be lost to the cost overruns and delays of Ares I and other competing budget pressures at NASA. The go-as-you-pay strategy for Ares I and V will mean that NASA will be able to afford to start building that first Ares V decades after LC-39 and the VAB become the largest museum pieces on the east coast.

Agreed.   The Ares cost box is still a long way from closing properly.


Quote
I've gotta say that the J-100 actually seems like an excellent response to the Ares I-X - in that it simply shows the decision makers at NASA and in Congress that Direct can provide the same type of near-term demonstration flight / photo op too, if they want it. Even if Direct ends up skipping a 2009 J-100 launch and going right to a 2010 or 2011 J-120 unmanned test flight, having the option available in Jupiter's set of capabilities provides yet another reason to the decision makers to go with Direct.

Very well put.


Quote
Early J-100 or J-120 test flights might also help to remove the need for the Delta IV/Orion test flights that are currently listed as part of the Jupiter flight manifest. This might be very politically desirable. Having early Orion test flights launched on a Delta IV as part of the official Direct plan raises the question "why do we need to develop the J-120 when we already have a launcher that can lift our new spacecraft?".  That may be a question that NASA would want to avoid.

I figure there have always been logical reasons to use Delta-IV as an engineering test-bed for man-rating the engines anyway.  And not just the RS-68 either, because it looks like some variant of RL-10B-2 is planned for the LSAM, and that's what D-IV uses for it's upper stages...

Our only though was if we chose to pay for such test flights anyway, what other uses can we get out of them?   A logical use would seem to be to test the LAS too.

We would be using the Delta-IV Medium vehicles though - so would be totally incapable of being used to actually launch a full flight-rated CEV.   Although I've never actually been against the idea of *also* having an EELV CEV launcher as a backup, or for the USAF to make use of.   As you say though, it might be too politically "sensitive" and we can delete such tests if they prove to be a problem.


Quote
If NASA, does decide to go with a J-100, then what about that ET core? Ross's diagram of a J-100 based on an unmodified ET looks interesting. I recall reading on another thread that ET-94 is the last non-SLWT ET in inventory, and was used at Michoud to test foam application techniques after Columbia. I also recall reading in the same thread that ET-122 was damaged by hurricane Katrina, and might be suitable for use as either a fitment test article, or for refurbishing into an unmanned J-100 core. Alternatively, if NASA builds a LON stack as backup for the last shuttle launch in 2010, perhaps that stack could serve as the J-100 test.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8830&mid=181613

All good potential options, thanks for doing some checking into the available tanks on this.   I wasn't sure where to start!   All of these could likely be worked without interference to the Shuttle Program's ET requirements - which are already fairly demanding on the MAF staff.


Quote
I'm also wondering if someone can enlighten me on why the shuttle program would need 3 MLP's to carry out the remaining launches. Wouldn't 2 be enough, even for the Hubble servicing mission and its LON backup? If so, it seems that the MLP mods aren't the long pole in a J-120 test flight - the RS-68 thrust structure and ET mods become the items that determine when a J-120 can be tested.

It's mostly about the requirement for "backups".   Stacking operations for Shuttle normally take months in the VAB, and we have a very demanding flight schedule coming up - especially when we consider the extra LON requirement for the Hubble mission in August next year.

NASA want to have the ability to have a vehicle at the Pad on one MLP, while one other is being stacked in p[reparation for it's next mission.   And in case a major fault is discovered with the hardware on one MLP, they want one backup to be available - hence the need for 3.

Now, this is especially the case for the Hubble mission due to the very tight scheduling requirements of needing a rescue flight waiting in the wings.   After that flight, Shuttle Program have said they are willing to relinquish their backup MLP and give it to Constellation (CxP).   They have, I understand, still requested that CxP put off any alterations which would prevent Shuttle use for as long as possible "just in case".   The decision resides with CxP from that point onward though, regarding when they can begin "cutting metal" for their purposes and Shuttle Program will simply live with their schedule.

So realistically, the first Shuttle MLP will be available to Jupiter No Earlier Than (NET) August 2008.   The second and third MLP's will likely be in use right up to September 2010.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: spacediver on 10/22/2007 10:25 am
Hi Ross

As we all know, this kind of PR-stunts are sometimes necessary to show the politicians that the money they give is resulting in real progress.
Wernher v. Braun has learned playing this PR instruments like no other!

No matter if it was in Peenemuende in the 40’s or in Huntsville 20 years later, there was always some impressive hot firing test on a test bench when the current political leader of the country visited the place.

But I doubt that the results of a J-100 flight test with a dummy core (or something similar) is worth the expenditure. This test flight is not necessary for the development of the launcher but costs both, manpower and money,  that should be invested in tests that are really necessary.

I’d suggest a full duration hot firing test of a Jupiter battleship core stage with 2 or 3 RS-68’s on one of Stennis’ test stands. This tests are necessary anyway and not less impressive (from a PR point of view) than launching some kind of “cardboard” dummy launcher.

Such a battleship core stage can be build within very short time after the last Shuttle ET is produced. No launch pad modifications are necessary and no flight avionics are required. The modification of one of the  former saturn test stand at Stennis should not be too much a problem.

Spacediver
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 10/22/2007 12:29 pm
It might be buildable while the last Shuttle ETs are being produced. Almost all of the components are from the shuttle.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 10/22/2007 12:35 pm
Quote
kraisee - 21/10/2007  9:23 AM

[Let me take a second to "play-up" some of the unique safety features Jupiter-120 can offer NASA if it were to be used solely as a direct alternative to just the Ares-I alone.   Let me know if this "works for you" or not :)
I can't see anyone it wouldn't work for! :)

What you need to do is play up the fact that DIRECT is safer than Ares regardless of whether or not the US finally decides to go to the Moon - that it is a much better LEO-only system.

Quote
clongton - 21/10/2007  2:32 PM

Before I comment further, please tell us what additional steps you would take, and I thank you in advance for them.
The biggest thing you need to get across is that choosing DIRECT does not involve a decision at this time as to whether or not the US is going to the Moon.  From what I know of DIRECT it appears to be that you can build an LEO-missions launcher first and a lunar-missions launcher later if desired. Say that, even if 'your nation's leaders' ultimately decide sometime in the future not to go to the Moon at that time, DIRECT will still produce a safer, cheaper, more capable launcher for LEO missions now.

Also stress the job retention/STS commonality arguments. (I would add that DIRECT also requires significant solid-propellant production, and therefore retains this potential national strategic asset!)

Quote
Those in the Congress who are actually opposed to a manned return to the moon are first, few in number and second, are opposed on philosophical grounds. Those persons are unlikely to be persuaded by ANY argument.
Not necessarily so.

They may be opposed, but how strongly are they opposed? For instance Senator Groundling may not want to go to the Moon, but he's not that bothered by it. But he really, really wants to get Worthy Social Policy enacted. Meantime Senator Selene really, really wants to go the Moon, and although opposed to Worthy Social Policy, he's not that bothered by it. Now might Senator Selene suggest to Senator Groundling that if they support each other's favourite policy they each get something they really want, at the price of that which 'all other things being equal' they'd reject, but can easily live with?

This is easier if the cost of going to the Moon is reduced as much as possible. But also if Senator Groundling, who perhaps expects to retire in a couple of years, just has to vote now for something that might, but doesn't have to, happen in the future - though he gets his WSP before he goes.

The exact details may well be different! The point is that there are a number of constituencies here, and you will need to build a coalition. And you need to keep the show on the road. Don't make people choose before they need to.

Good luck! :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 10/22/2007 12:44 pm
Yup. Get Congress to force NASA to choose the option that is better, faster, cheaper - DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/22/2007 01:02 pm
Quote
spacediver - 22/10/2007  5:25 AM

Hi Ross

No matter if it was in Peenemuende in the 40’s or in Huntsville 20 years later, there was always some impressive hot firing test on a test bench when the current political leader of the country visited the place.

{snip}

I’d suggest a full duration hot firing test of a Jupiter battleship core stage with 2 or 3 RS-68’s on one of Stennis’ test stands. This tests are necessary anyway and not less impressive (from a PR point of view) than launching some kind of “cardboard” dummy launcher.

{snip}
I could certainly get behind this also.  Actually a test of both models (2- and 3-engine core) would be a fantastic display.  If this is done in lieu of the J-100 test, then it has the additional benefit of not distracting the program from its job of producing a safe and capable launcher in the best timeframe.  A stennis test seems to be more in-line with getting the ultimate job done while giving a great photo-op.

Then if they want to see fitment-looking testing, stand up a J-100 look-alike on an MLP and drive it around a bit.  It could even be with empty SRB segments.  More photo-op.  This would certainly be easier/cheaper than lighting one off.  

But ultimately, this has to produce the desired "political delta-v," so whatever best does that at the proper time is what we should shoot for.  (80/20 rule is in effect)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/22/2007 01:08 pm
Quote
rumble - 22/10/2007  9:02 AM

Quote
spacediver - 22/10/2007  5:25 AM

Hi Ross

No matter if it was in Peenemuende in the 40’s or in Huntsville 20 years later, there was always some impressive hot firing test on a test bench when the current political leader of the country visited the place.

{snip}

I’d suggest a full duration hot firing test of a Jupiter battleship core stage with 2 or 3 RS-68’s on one of Stennis’ test stands. This tests are necessary anyway and not less impressive (from a PR point of view) than launching some kind of “cardboard” dummy launcher.

{snip}
I could certainly get behind this also.  Actually a test of both models (2- and 3-engine core) would be a fantastic display.  If this is done in lieu of the J-100 test, then it has the additional benefit of not distracting the program from its job of producing a safe and capable launcher in the best timeframe.  A stennis test seems to be more in-line with getting the ultimate job done while giving a great photo-op.

Then if they want to see fitment-looking testing, stand up a J-100 look-alike on an MLP and drive it around a bit.  It could even be with empty SRB segments.  More photo-op.  This would certainly be easier/cheaper than lighting one off.  

But ultimately, this has to produce the desired "political delta-v," so whatever best does that at the proper time is what we should shoot for.  (80/20 rule is in effect)
I actually think this is a damn good idea! Better by far than a J-100. It fits well with what has to be done in any case to bring the J-120 online, and an empty J-120 on display would be perfect. This would provide the required "political dV" (I like that term) and at the same time provide useful information on the path to becoming operational. It doesn't waste time and (much) funding). Plus it keeps the Michaud and Stennis people busy during the transition. Good for workforce retention. And it doesn't waste a pair of SRB's.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/22/2007 05:47 pm
I like this idea of showing off the test firing at Stennis and the test-fit article at KSC rather than the dummy rocket launch at KSC only.

I see potential for the press making too big a deal of the launcher being a "dummy" and have been concerned about the possible baggage that might bring with it (and this concern applied equally to Ares-I-X too IMHO).

Such a major test at Stennis could also be used to demonstrate how such a Federal plan is helping to inject much needed funding back into that hurricane ravaged areas of the Gulf Coast.   That would likely be a two-for in the political world and in regard to positive press reporting.

Great idea spacediver!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/22/2007 06:32 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 22/10/2007  8:29 AM

It might be buildable while the last Shuttle ETs are being produced. Almost all of the components are from the shuttle.

We have contacts at MAF who say that should be quite possible.   There is little reason why components suitable for use on Jupiter can not be fabricated amongst regular STS parts process line.

The only difficult requirement appears to be to ensure that nothing delays Shuttle ET processing.   That processing must continue on-schedule and un-impinged by any work on Jupiter.   And MAF are already somewhat 'under the gun' regarding processing ET's for Shuttle.   The money for the Ares-I Upper Stage would fix that, by allowing MAF to get some extra staff.

I see no real reason why we couldn't modify the existing Boeing contract for Ares-I Upper Stages into a new contract to modify existing ET's into Jupiter Cores.   LM and Boeing, while clearly rivals, are professional enough to be able to work around that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 10/22/2007 07:52 pm
I agree that a static fire / fitment test makes more sense than a J-100 show.  But why isn't Ares I-X doing the same thing then?  There must be actual flight data they hope to get (chug/buzz), or they feel that "jumping off the pad" has more political value than a static fire.

By the way, if it was found that a J-120 "battleship" could be produced in the time allotted from an existing ET, would a LWT like ET-94 be "thick" enough, or would you want to go all the way back to SWT milling widths to start?  

If ET-94 weren't an option, and you had to build a new tank, you might as well go all-the-way and get the final LOX tank geometry.

Although... In theory, there is one SWT still around, the MPTA-ET in the Pathfinder stack in Alabama.  It's been out in the weather for a while though... :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/22/2007 07:57 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 22/10/2007  3:52 PM

I agree that a static fire / fitment test makes more sense than a J-100 show.  But why isn't Ares I-X doing the same thing then?  There must be actual flight data they hope to get (chug/buzz), or they feel that "jumping off the pad" has more political value than a static fire.

By the way, if it was found that a J-120 "battleship" could be produced in the time allotted from an existing ET, would a LWT like ET-94 be "thick" enough, or would you want to go all the way back to SWT milling widths to start?  

If ET-94 weren't an option, and you had to build a new tank, you might as well go all-the-way and get the final LOX tank geometry.

Although... In theory, there is one SWT still around, the MPTA-ET in the Pathfinder stack in Alabama.  It's been out in the weather for a while though... :)
I think it is an excellant candidate for a static display of the J-120
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 10/22/2007 09:43 pm
I like this idea.  It is analogous to the SA-500F test that was run before Apollo 4.

Of course, if  you build the battleship state correctly, it could test fire all your versions, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 RS-68s!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: spacediver on 10/22/2007 10:06 pm
Quote
mike robel - 22/10/2007  11:43 PM
Of course, if  you build the battleship state correctly, it could test fire all your versions, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 RS-68s!

Mike

The Direct proposal calls only for a core with either 2 or 3 RS-68's. The 4 and 5 engine cores are only mentioned as future growth options.

I don't think, from an engineering point of view, that it makes sense to construct a thrust frame for the Jupiter launchers that can carry all of this engine configurations from the very beginning.

The first battleship stage should therefore only represent the 2 and 3 engine core versions.

If ever one of the other configurations (4 or 5 engines) should be developed, it should be possible to take the battleship static test stage out of storage (or the museum...), modify it with the new thrust frame, mount 4 or 5 engines to it and perform the qualification hot firings at Stennis.

Spacediver
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/22/2007 11:12 pm
It's fun to think of a "battleship" version of this launch vehicle being able to overachieve its first objective.  :)  

Yes...this is part of a flexible launcher architecture, but having an overbuilt vehicle still plenty able to fulfill its requirements...and MANY improvements to be had in future developments...  it's really a comfortable position to be in!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 10/22/2007 11:14 pm
I know the immediate plans are only for 2 or 3 engine versions.  But, I don't think the stand would have any trouble holding a 5 engine direct core.  After all, if I am not mistaken, it held an S1C that was somewhat more powerful.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: spacediver on 10/22/2007 11:41 pm
Yes, that's true, it's not a problem with the test stand. Maybe this was a misunderstanding.

I meant the thrust structure of the core stage itself. If it’s designed to hold up to 5 engines from the beginning, then it will be overdimensioned (hope this is the right English word...) for it’s use as core for the J-120 and J-232. Not to mention the space needed inside the thrust structure for the all the plumbing for up to 5 engines.

I think that the core stage and it’s thrust structure should be designed for J-120 and J-232 flight loads and requirements only!

Additional strengthening of the fuel tanks and thrust structure for the 4 and 5 engine versions should be done in a redesign of the stage if this Jupiter versions should ever be developed sometime in the future.

Spacediver
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/23/2007 07:47 pm
A 5-engine variant of Jupiter would be a different product from the 3-engine variant we have been proposing.   The Thrust Structure would need to be much stronger, the plumbing would be far more complex, the tank walls would need further strengthening to handle the additional thrust and that all adds significant additional weight to the Core Stage.

In short, if you were to build a 5-engine variant and fly it in J-120 or J-232 configuration you'd lose about 10mT of performance - which decreases your Lunar spacecraft payload opportunities by 20mT!   All while increasing your development costs significantly and extending your schedule.   The additional complexity also has the unfortunate side-effect of detracting from safety, which isn't a good plan.

The key question though is "DO WE NEED IT?"

The 3-engine variant can already accomplish all of the Lunar and Mars missions we are planning.   While we could probably build bigger vehicles, we just have no requirement for them.   Why not save lots of development $$$ and use those funds to pay for additional missions instead?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/23/2007 08:05 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 22/10/2007  3:52 PM

By the way, if it was found that a J-120 "battleship" could be produced in the time allotted from an existing ET, would a LWT like ET-94 be "thick" enough, or would you want to go all the way back to SWT milling widths to start?

I am personally dubious that the LH2 tank of any existing tank, SWT, LWT or SLWT, would be structurally capable of being modified to actually fly on a powered J-120 test flight.   I don't think the walls "as is" would be strong enough using any of the existing tanks.   I believe all of the major elements would need to be custom-manufactured for any powered Jupiter flight, no matter what we did.   Many parts could be manufactured in precisely the same fashion though - just with suitably modified CAD/CAM fabrication (such as milling).

I have all-along been assuming original STS-1 ET mass allocations for the tanking should be sufficient - but with modern SLWT construction experience applied - to produce the stronger tank structure in the Jupiter Core Stages.   It would thus be more closely related to the SLWT, but would mass about as much as the original SWT did.

An existing 'spare' tank could probably be used as the basis for a J-100 test configuration with no ill effects, because it would not be powered and so would never suffer higher dynamic loads than it would in normal STS flight.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jml on 10/23/2007 09:12 pm
An existing spare tank would also likely be fine for use as a static fitment test article (read:photo op) at KSC with some serious but mostly cosmetic mods.

However could an existing spare tank be modified with an RS-68 thrust structure and test fired on the stand at Stennis? The look of the tank wouldn't be an issue - the forward end wouldn't need modification, and the insulation wouldn't need to be as flight-ready as for a real launch, but the aft end would need some serious mods for the pluming and thrust structure. Would it be worth it, or would it be easier to build one from scratch? And could an LWT or SLWT tank withstand the forces it would be subjected to on the test stand?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/23/2007 09:50 pm
To do this Stennis test-firing at all, I think we should always be planning to build a new battleship stage rather than trying to convert any existing spare ET's.

I don't see that modifying an existing module as being any less complicated or any less costly than building some new big and bad tanks designed specifically for these tests, and we are going to need a new battleship stage anyway because a testing program will expect to cycle the thing far more times than any normal stage is ever going to be qualified for.

Testing is going to involve probably hundreds of cryo-cylces, dozens of engine starts, restarts, simulated emergency shutdowns, all with a variety of single, dual and triple engine tests in order to test all the forces involved in all the different engine-out situations which are possible.   And a host of other things which would likely break a flight tank fairly quickly.

Ultimately I just don't see a converted ET being able to hold-up for very long against this barrage of harsh tests and I would fully expect that we would still need to build the battleship stage pretty soon after re-building such a modified ET.   And that would just be duplicating work & cost for no tangible gain.

It seems to me, to make more sense to just save money and time by simply going straight with the battleship from the get-go for all testing at Stennis because a single battleship unit is supposed to last sufficently well enough for all such tests.   So use that for all the testing right from the start, until we have actually gained sufficient raw data to confidently build some real test-flight versions which can begin to come down the production line as the last ET's are being completed for STS.

I bet MAF could whip-up a suitably robust battleship stage in 6-9 months from when a contract were issued.   If NASA changed to DIRECT before the end of this year, I believe that easily puts such a beast in the test stand for first firing in the correct time frame to be "politically expedient" for NASA.


An existing ET would probably only be truly useful as the basis for a test-fit article at KSC for both totally legitimate test-fit use, and also for PR purposes as well.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 10/24/2007 12:05 am
The whole idea of a J-100 a sounding rocket has no tangible engineering benefits, and would increase costs and delay first flight of the real launch vehicle.  Instead of working on the real flight vehicle would need to spend money and time preparing a one time political stunts.  It would also add a tremendous amount of risk...  It would accelerate the avionics development, put pressure on the team to design around two separate and distinct configurations, and put the whole program at risk of cancellation on the shoulders of a kludge.  Sacrificing engineering judgment in the name of political sideshows was one of the fundamental management failures from Challenger.

A main propulsion test article (MPTA) is not only a better investment of resources, but a requirement plan and simple.  While engines are tested multiple times on the test stand, this is the only time the stage as a whole would be tested.  Utilizing existing components reduce the risk, but launch vehicles aren’t a collection of parts kludged together.  It’s not a flying test stand as some of my engine colleges like to think of it as.  DIRECT will have components from Shuttle, Delta, and Atlas combined with bespoke items all in a new system.  One example is how the avionics system, likely all new, will control the tank pressurization system or engine thrust control actuators.  These closed-loop control systems are always better understood after real data.  A static fire test, like Delta III in Plum Brook or Delta IV in Stennis, are important tests in that you get characterize how all the propulsion/mechanical “hardware” interacts with the avionics.  The test article can have “battleship” structure, but must be a very good approximation for the flight article as all system has to operate like they would in flight.  And one of the big data points to be gathered is environmental data on mechanical vibration and near field acoustics and thermal.  To not run the test would make the first launch an extremely risky venture.  Afterward it makes sense to utilize the test article as a pathfinder/fit-check unit to work out handling procedures, just like the CBC Static Fire did for the Delta IV program.

As for “hundreds of cryo cycles”…  You’d be surprised how little you need to do.  Four tanking tests at the most, followed by a dozen or so engine firings.  The idea isn’t the test until things break…  Delta IV plan was a tanking test, a start test, a LH2 depletion test, and finally a LOx depletion test.  All the time only accumulating the equivalent of  only 1x flight duration on the vehicle.  EELV wasn’t NASA spaceflight so I wouldn’t expect the same, but at the same time the MPTA testing is for verification only… I’d say a couple start tests, followed by a couple flight simulations for each the 2 and 3 engine version boosters would be sufficient for firing time certification.  The thing that I think is going to add tests is going to be the engine health logic and one/two engine out engine out demonstration.  This can require multiple tests in orer to demonstrate all possible logic paths.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/24/2007 12:11 am
Quote
kraisee - 23/10/2007  5:50 PM

I bet MAF could whip-up a suitably robust battleship stage in 6-9 months from when a contract were issued.   If NASA changed to DIRECT before the end of this year, I believe that easily puts such a beast in the test stand for first firing in the correct time frame to be "politically expedient" for NASA.

Ross.

MAF didn't design the ET and actually they don't build it.  It was designed by Martin, Denver.  It is now built LM Space system company, Michoud operations.  "Design center" responsibility has been transferred to them but I doubt they have the end to end capability for a new design
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/24/2007 01:48 am
Jim,
Sorry for the ambiguity - by "MAF", I was simply trying to imply "the team currently processing the ET's", which as you correctly point out, should probably referred to at Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Michoud Operations (LMSSMO).   I must agree that the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) is really the name of the location where the work occurs, and doesn't specifically refer to the team(s) doing it.

Anyhoo, we have been in contact with those folk, and from our understanding the team who developed the Super Light Weight Tank is still mostly intact within that organisation.   By all accounts, they are largely the same team who have been working the post-Columbia tank issues very hard over the last 6 years.   The LM folk at MAF believe they are well-placed to proceed with any new ET-based development program with NASA, should it be dictated.

Of course, there is the political component here too - "Spreading the Wealth" is just as important now as it was back in the 60's and 70's.   And as it stands right now, LM are building the new Orion spacecraft and Boeing have been given the contract for the new cryo-stage for Ares-I.   It may actually be a good idea to simply (!) modify Boeing's existing contract into one where they turn the existing ET into a new Core Stage.

Ultimately, as long as all of the work is scheduled and budgeted correctly, the various staff working at MAF will find themselves at least as busy as they are today with Shuttle.   And there a strong likelihood that both of the "big contractors" will have significant operations ongoing at MAF in the end, given that we have another cryo-stage following the Core in a few more years time.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 10/24/2007 02:29 am
Quote
Jim - 23/10/2007  8:11 PM

Quote
kraisee - 23/10/2007  5:50 PM

I bet MAF could whip-up a suitably robust battleship stage in 6-9 months from when a contract were issued.   If NASA changed to DIRECT before the end of this year, I believe that easily puts such a beast in the test stand for first firing in the correct time frame to be "politically expedient" for NASA.

Ross.

MAF didn't design the ET and actually they don't build it.  It was designed by Martin, Denver.  It is now built LM Space system company, Michoud operations.  "Design center" responsibility has been transferred to them but I doubt they have the end to end capability for a new design


Any idea, what capability there is (MAF/MSFC)??? or do you really have to look at contractors for all the answers?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/24/2007 02:43 am
MAF has only NASA facility managers.  There isn't any NASA engineering there.  As for MSFC, LM is paid to do all the engineering on the ET and not NASA
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 10/24/2007 02:50 am
Quote
Jim - 23/10/2007  10:43 PM

MAF has only NASA facility managers.  There isn't any NASA engineering there.  As for MSFC, LM is paid to do all the engineering on the ET and not NASA


So in a nutshell - zero in engineering,

just some " facility management"..

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 10/24/2007 05:32 am
The decision to foam or not to foam on the LOx tank is a system design choice...

It is absultely correct that an uninsulated LOx tank will not form ice.  This is far different than the LH2 tank, which will form ice and even rain liquid air.  Look at Atlas V and Delta II, which neither insulate the LOx tank.  What forms is a thick layer of frost over the tank, and what doesn't evaporate in-flight falls away like snow.  That's as long as it doesn't rain...  In rain an unisulated tank will form a very thick layer of ice (tousands of pounds worth).

Now the choice of insulating the LOx tank is one based on performance.  With an insulated tank you get better, colder and denser, propellant on both the ground and in-flight.  This means you can run with much lower tank ullage pressures, which mean lower residual propellant weights.  That is because higher propellant temps result in lower engine NPSP and margin to cavitation that must be compensated by higher presssure.  It also means you can reduce your tank skin thickness, due to the insulating effect from aerodynamic heating.  This insulation lowers the tank wall temperature, which in turn results in improved material properties and less material for the same strength.  The problem with insulation is that the application process requires a big investment in tooling and it degrades over multiple cryo exposures.  In fact cracked insulation can form ice, through cryo pumping, where the uninsulated tank didn't.

The choice of RS-68 might lead the DIRECT team to choose the insulation in order to maintain the same run box as the Delta IV CBC.  An unisulated tank would likely have trouble staying within the temperature that the RS-68 is certified to run within.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula2 on 10/24/2007 06:41 am
There are new options for insulation that may be cheaper and easier.  Armadillo Aerospace glue Aspen Aerogel sheets on their LOX tanks.  During the recent sad demise of Texel, their nearly full, pressurised LOX tanks stayed cold and intact in the middle of an impressive fireball. Apparently they are fairly water resistant too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/24/2007 10:53 am
Quote
Avron - 23/10/2007  10:50 PM

Quote
Jim - 23/10/2007  10:43 PM

MAF has only NASA facility managers.  There isn't any NASA engineering there.  As for MSFC, LM is paid to do all the engineering on the ET and not NASA


So in a nutshell - zero in engineering,

just some " facility management"..


All NASA ET engineering is at MSFC
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: DLK on 10/24/2007 12:21 pm
I don't recall if the Saturn SII stage had problems with shedding insulation. What type of insulation was used in that application? Is there a big cost delta when compared to the current ET insulation system?

-Dan
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula on 10/24/2007 01:45 pm
Early Saturn S II had: "A honeycomb core purged insulation was on earlier models of the S-II. The insulation was made from a vented, heat-resistant fibreglass honeycomb core filled with an open-cell polyurethane and sealed with an outer coating of nylon and tedlar."

From Apollo 13 on: "a new closed-cell polyurethane spray-on foam insulation...About 4500 square feet, or a tenth of an acre, of the new spray foam is used on the S-II. It is sprayed-on and then machined to the desired thickness. "

Saturn S IV had internal insulation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/24/2007 05:19 pm
Quote
kkattula2 - 24/10/2007  2:41 AM

There are new options for insulation that may be cheaper and easier.  Armadillo Aerospace glue Aspen Aerogel sheets on their LOX tanks.  During the recent sad demise of Texel, their nearly full, pressurised LOX tanks stayed cold and intact in the middle of an impressive fireball. Apparently they are fairly water resistant too.

An interesting idea.   Has anyone ever tried aerogel for an orbital rocket insulation?

While Armadillo's work indicates there are possibilities, it is still a long way from the high dynamic pressure and fast-moving airflow conditions of a launch to orbit.   Is there any indication of how well aerogel might stand up to that environment?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/24/2007 08:23 pm
To summarize the "demonstrator" topic here, I think we have a workable outline:-


1) A Battleship Test Stage should be built as swiftly as possible, intended for delivery to Stennis somewhere around the end of 2008, to begin testing of the new stage.

2) A set of regular Shuttle SRB's (un-fuelled, but perhaps containing some form of mass simulator material) can be stacked on a standard Shuttle MLP at Kennedy along with a test-fit Core Stage article (either new or modified 'spare' ET), again around the end of 2008/start 2009 to aid in the work necessary to convert LC-39 facilities for use with Jupiter.

3) Facilities at KSC should be made ready to receive a flight-test stack targeted to launch no later than the end of 2010 - probably after the last STS mission so it will never affect SSP's schedules.


All of these moves would provide the program with valuable data at each step, yet also fulfill the role of being significant visual milestones to the public and NASA's political masters.


I would like to hear feedback.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 10/24/2007 10:15 pm
I seem to remember personally helping firing a Delta IV CBC on B-2 in mid 2000 to mid 2001 timeframe...  not thirty years.  But testing a stage within a year is very optimistic.  Delta, PWR, and NASA removed the test equipment after the CBC test, and in particular the control system was moved to LC-37.  Delta spent 3 yrs working with NASA preparing the stand.  Alot of work has already started on Ares upperstage MPTA, so there's some head start, but thats far different than Jupiter.  I'd say mid 2009 to mid 2010 would be a more workable date.  That woudl then result in a late 2010 pathfinder, followed by launch pad activation and first launch by mid 2011.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/25/2007 01:12 am
Quote
TrueGrit - 24/10/2007  6:15 PM

I seem to remember personally helping firing a Delta IV CBC on B-2 in mid 2000 to mid 2001 timeframe...  not thirty years.  But testing a stage within a year is very optimistic.  Delta, PWR, and NASA removed the test equipment after the CBC test, and in particular the control system was moved to LC-37.  Delta spent 3 yrs working with NASA preparing the stand.  Alot of work has already started on Ares upper stage MPTA, so there's some head start, but that’s far different than Jupiter.  I'd say mid 2009 to mid 2010 would be a more workable date.  That would then result in a late 2010 pathfinder, followed by launch pad activation and first launch by mid 2011.
That's still good timing, as everything would be accomplished within the 1st term of the incoming administration.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/25/2007 02:51 am
Yes, that's still a good timeframe.   Our manifest was drawn up in the middle of this year, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if the passing time has pushed the final manifest back by roughly the same amount.

Further delays in switching to DIRECT will likely continue to push this out.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: John Duncan on 10/25/2007 12:53 pm
Is there any light at the end of the tunnel as far as NASA adopting Direct?  Or are we waiting for the admin changes (or assumed changes) after 08?

It's frustrating to see such an obvious solution go by the wayside while Heads@NASA cruise merrily along into the fog.

I'm hoping that someone behindthescenes@NASA is watching....

John
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/25/2007 01:43 pm
Quote
John Duncan - 25/10/2007  8:53 AM

Is there any light at the end of the tunnel as far as NASA adopting Direct?  Or are we waiting for the admin changes (or assumed changes) after 08?

It's frustrating to see such an obvious solution go by the wayside while Heads@NASA cruise merrily along into the fog.

I'm hoping that someone behindthescenes@NASA is watching....

John
Multiple reviews are ongoing. Be patient.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/26/2007 03:18 pm
Quote
John Duncan - 25/10/2007  1:53 PM

Is there any light at the end of the tunnel as far as NASA adopting Direct?  Or are we waiting for the admin changes (or assumed changes) after 08?

Has anyone discovered any missions that require a cargo and people to assemble/run it?  These would provide the excuse to switch to DIRECT without losing the administrators losing face.
The Ares-I can only lift Orion.  J-120 can lift Orion plus 10 mT to 20 mT or 45 mT cargoes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/26/2007 03:37 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 26/10/2007  11:18 AM

Quote
John Duncan - 25/10/2007  1:53 PM

Is there any light at the end of the tunnel as far as NASA adopting Direct?  Or are we waiting for the admin changes (or assumed changes) after 08?

Has anyone discovered any missions that require a cargo and people to assemble/run it?  These would provide the excuse to switch to DIRECT without losing the administrators losing face.
The Ares-I can only lift Orion.  J-120 can lift Orion plus 10 mT to 20 mT or 45 mT cargoes.
There are many possibilities - however, based only on "current" missions:
1. Hubble servicing
2. Station complete - the real one, not "core" complete

Should there be a Shuttle stand-down for *any* reason at all before core complete, the J-120 could finish the station
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/26/2007 07:08 pm
Quote
John Duncan - 25/10/2007  8:53 AM

Is there any light at the end of the tunnel as far as NASA adopting Direct?  Or are we waiting for the admin changes (or assumed changes) after 08?

It's frustrating to see such an obvious solution go by the wayside while Heads@NASA cruise merrily along into the fog.

I'm hoping that someone behindthescenes@NASA is watching....

Hi John, good to see you here on this site!

We have been making sterling progress on both the political and NASA engineering fronts this year.   As you say, the idea is such an "obvious solution" that it can't really be ignored.

Since the Ares development teams found as-yet-unpublished problems with Ares earlier this year, we getting a *lot* more interest right now.   Our website is getting lots of interesting hits, especially from NASA HQ, KSC, MSFC and a variety Louisiana sites too, MAF-related and local Government so it appears.

I can not talk about some of the latest developments yet, but right now I think we have a very good chance of getting DIRECT adopted.   There are never any guarantees, but we have as good a chance as we're ever likely to get.

Our primary target has always been to get NASA to do a fair and unbiased study of DIRECT because we believe the potential of the concept outshines all of the other options.   Getting NASA to adopt it for themselves has always been the best-case scenario for us.

Things are happening.   For now, be patient.   Time will tell and I will talk about more of this here on the group just as soon as I am allowed.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/26/2007 11:19 pm
Quote
- 26/10/2007  5:31 PM

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/10/todays_ask_the_16.html#more

Interesting...

However, (for whoever asked the question) I think it's not helping things to keep demanding NASA to make public statements about DIRECT.  If a change is to be made, having them repeatedly on the record denying it only makes it harder for NASA to make a convincing pitch that this was part of plans they have been looking at for years.

If a change is made in a Jupiter-ly direction, we won't be laughing that NASA caved under the pressure; we'll be cheering because we believe they made a wise decision that will ultimately make for a [better] implemented VSE.  Personally, I'd be happiest if NASA could make the change and have it look smooth, PR-wise.

IMHO, of course...
Title: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: wingod on 10/27/2007 01:11 am
From NASAWatch.

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/10/todays_ask_the_16.html#more

The answer is no, no, and no.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/27/2007 01:13 am
Quote
rumble - 26/10/2007  7:19 PM

Quote
- 26/10/2007  5:31 PM

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/10/todays_ask_the_16.html#more
Interesting...

However, (for whoever asked the question) I think it's not helping things to keep demanding NASA to make public statements about DIRECT.  If a change is to be made, having them repeatedly on the record denying it only makes it harder for NASA to make a convincing pitch that this was part of plans they have been looking at for years.

If a change is made in a Jupiter-ly direction, we won't be laughing that NASA caved under the pressure; we'll be cheering because we believe they made a wise decision that will ultimately make for a [better] implemented VSE.  Personally, I'd be happiest if NASA could make the change and have it look smooth, PR-wise.

IMHO, of course...
Agreed.
There comes a time once you have made your pitch that the best thing to do is to just lean back and be quiet. Let the idea sink in and gel. NASA has the paper.
We are now "leaning back and being quiet".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: John Duncan on 10/27/2007 01:23 am
Thanks Ross!  I've been lurking on and off for some time and just felt compelled to make a comment.

I had gathered from the various posts that *something* was going on behind the scenes.  It's encouraging to see some of the "not invented here" wall starting to crumble at NASA.  

I agree with the others; this isn't a "told you so" sort of a thing but a "let's get it done the right way" effort by many.

It's not necessary to reinvent the wheel to get into space reliably.

Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: EE Scott on 10/27/2007 01:26 am
Griffin acts like there's nothing that's going to stop them now... no matter how crappy the Ares I/V architecture they chose turns out to be.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: EE Scott on 10/27/2007 01:31 am
It's funny how Griffin can cite ESAS as their defining study, yet since its publication, NASA has already rejected major portions of its conclusion (four seg RSRB, air-start SSME, etc.)  Someone should tell Griffin to stop talking about the ESAS study as the defining study, since NASA itself has conveniently put aside portions of the documents when it suited them.
Title: RE: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: simonbp on 10/27/2007 01:32 am
Quote
wingod - 26/10/2007  6:11 PM

The answer is no, no, and no.

Well, Duh.

But honestly, from Griffin's perspective, he's not going to divert scare money to study something like Direct unless the Ares management becomes doubtful that Ares will work, which doesn't seem likely after two years without any really bad surprises. I know the Apollo Direct/LOR example is sometimes cited, but it was only accepted when it became clear that it was almost impossible to do a Direct lunar landing with a Saturn V. Direct/Jupiter would need some similar major setback before it would ever get funding...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: EE Scott on 10/27/2007 01:43 am
Yes, it does seem like Griffin's taking NASA on an Ares I/V forced march.

While this architecture has not hit any huge setbacks, it does feel like a possible death by a thousand cuts could await it in the future, at which time changing course will be quite messy.  We'll see how many mass buybacks Orion can afford before it hits its ceiling.  If there's a large enough number of systems without appropriate fault tolerance, there could be a mutiny against the Ares I, which is forcing such restrictions.  But it is still too early to tell if the current architecture will implode.  It will be interesting, with plenty of suprises to go around. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/27/2007 02:33 am
Quote
John Duncan - 26/10/2007  8:23 PM

It's encouraging to see some of the "not invented here" wall starting to crumble at NASA.  

I'll paraphrase the DIRECT team by saying that much of DIRECT actually WAS invented there (NASA).  The DIRECT team has been focusing on highlighting changes that makes it clearly a launcher to be reckoned with, especially when viewed from a holistic perspective.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2007 02:39 am
The DIRECT team will comment on Dr. Griffin's reply by Monday.

At present, we are discussing our response and what we can, or rather should, say at this point.

Ross.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: anonymous1138 on 10/27/2007 02:44 am

Quote
EE Scott - 26/10/2007 8:43 PM
Yes, it does seem like Griffin's taking NASA on an Ares I/V forced march.

While this architecture has not hit any huge setbacks, it does feel like a possible death by a thousand cuts could await it in the future, at which time changing course will be quite messy. We'll see how many mass buybacks Orion can afford before it hits its ceiling. If there's a large enough number of systems without appropriate fault tolerance, there could be a mutiny against the Ares I, which is forcing such restrictions. But it is still too early to tell if the current architecture will implode. It will be interesting, with plenty of suprises to go around. :)

It's a very difficult situation to watch. On one hand, Griffin is absolutely correct that at some point you have to start cutting metal. Yet, it also seems like the eventual outcome of the 60 day study was pre-determined. We are almost certainly past the time where we can avoid Ares-1 and replace it with something like DIRECT or EELVs. There is no graceful way for NASA management to change course. Hence, they won't - rightly or wrongly. The current path is the result of mistakes that were made in the 60 day study, and for re-evaluations that were not performed when initial assumptions were found to be flawed. And so now we are asked to get behind another X-33, X-34, X-38 project that could have been so much more.

It is a fact that the people doing the lower level work within NASA are top quality. It's just a shame that the higher powers that command them are not more open-minded and creative; they are very much in-the-box thinkers.

I wonder, though, if when the time comes to build Ares-V, if DIRECT might be a potential alternative at that point?

The suggestion that DIRECT has problems compared to the current NASA approach is interesting. Someone should call them on that.

Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2007 03:21 am
Quote
anonymous1138 - 26/10/2007  10:44 PM
I wonder, though, if when the time comes to build Ares-V, if DIRECT might be a potential alternative at that point?

No. Once you have spent all the money developing Ares-I, your only realistic alternative is to build a really large booster to go with it.   DIRECT works because the first vehicle you build is large enough to fundamentally do everything right from the start and doesn't require you to spend all that development money a second time.

"Little and Large" together place 175mT up into space - the minimum for the new lunar missions.

"Medium and Medium" places 200mT into space.

"Little and Medium" only place 125mT into space.


Further discussion not related to Griffin's comments needs to really go over to the main DIRECT thread please.   This thread needs to be kept clear.

Ross.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: wingod on 10/27/2007 03:23 am
Quote
kraisee - 26/10/2007  9:39 PM

The DIRECT team will comment on Dr. Griffin's reply by Monday.

At present, we are discussing our response and what we can, or rather should, say at this point.

Ross.

Does the word futile gesture mean anything?  Mike made up his mind a long time ago and there is absolutely nothing that is going to change that.  Nothing, nada, zip.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: wingod on 10/27/2007 03:29 am
Quote
rumble - 26/10/2007  9:33 PM

Quote
John Duncan - 26/10/2007  8:23 PM

It's encouraging to see some of the "not invented here" wall starting to crumble at NASA.  

I'll paraphrase the DIRECT team by saying that much of DIRECT actually WAS invented there (NASA).  The DIRECT team has been focusing on highlighting changes that makes it clearly a launcher to be reckoned with, especially when viewed from a holistic perspective.

As long as Mike Griffin is NASA administrator it is all a bug fart in the wind.  I hate to be crude and direct but everything that I hear from a lot of people around him is that he has made up his mind and Ares is what he is going to do.  Anyone who thinks differently simply does not understand the administrator's position.  It does not matter what the engineers come back and say about any problems with the A-1.  It does not matter how much money they have to spend, this is the direction that they are going.  End of story.




Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: texas_space on 10/27/2007 03:29 am
Quote
wingod - 26/10/2007  10:23 PM

Quote
kraisee - 26/10/2007  9:39 PM

The DIRECT team will comment on Dr. Griffin's reply by Monday.

At present, we are discussing our response and what we can, or rather should, say at this point.

Ross.

Does the word futile gesture mean anything?  Mike made up his mind a long time ago and there is absolutely nothing that is going to change that.  Nothing, nada, zip.



It is important to be realistic about Griffin's statement.  However, it doesn't take into account that Mike Griffin won't likely be working at NASA past Jan 2009 due to the normal political turnover.*  So the future of the Ares-I/V architecture is unknown.  It should continue to proceed for now, however, until a potential replacement comes along (if it does).  We will have to wait and see what happens.

Also as Jim has pointed out before, no program is cancel proof even after the program is ready to fly.  Ares-I isn't even close to that point yet.

*Note: I am assuming a Democratic president is inaugurated.  May not happen, but this is an assumption.  Even if a Republican is elected, they may not keep Bush appointees.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: wingod on 10/27/2007 03:32 am
Quote
texas_space - 26/10/2007  10:29 PM

Quote
wingod - 26/10/2007  10:23 PM

Quote
kraisee - 26/10/2007  9:39 PM

The DIRECT team will comment on Dr. Griffin's reply by Monday.

At present, we are discussing our response and what we can, or rather should, say at this point.

Ross.

Does the word futile gesture mean anything?  Mike made up his mind a long time ago and there is absolutely nothing that is going to change that.  Nothing, nada, zip.



It is important to be realistic about Griffin's statement.  However, it doesn't take into account that Mike Griffin won't likely be working at NASA past Jan 2009 due to the normal political turnover.*  So the future of the Ares-I/V architecture is unknown.  It should continue to proceed for now, however, until a potential replacement comes along (if it does).  We will have to wait and see what happens.

Also as Jim has pointed out before, no program is cancel proof even after the program is ready to fly.  Ares-I isn't even close to that point yet.

*Note: I am assuming a Democratic president is inaugurated.  May not happen, but this is an assumption.  Even if a Republican is elected, they may not keep Bush appointees.

As long as Mike Griffin is NASA administrator Ares is the way that things will go.  All bets are off afterward but Mike is doing his darndest to lock things into place to make it extremely hard to shift gears.  


Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: Firehawk153 on 10/27/2007 03:49 am
From the article....

Quote
The suggested approach has numerous shortcomings with regard to meeting our architectural requirements.

I don't suppose these shortcomings are spelled out anywhere?  I'd be curious to see what they were.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: texas_space on 10/27/2007 03:50 am
Until it is truly the point of no return, other options should be discussed and promoted (and no, not just DIRECT).  Once the true point of no return has passed, then the efforts should cease.

As Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) said, never stop fighting until the fighting is done.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: mborgia on 10/27/2007 04:10 am
The position of NASA Administrator has usually been non-political in nature.  James Webb, Tom Paine, Richard Truly and Dan Goldin all served more than one president.  Goldin in fact served three.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: RedSky on 10/27/2007 04:14 am

"... End of Story"

Well, that's pretty sad.  Those questions are submitted, and I'm sure that there were many other topics in the queue he could have selected from.  The fact that he DID chose to answer THAT question only shows that he must really, really, mean it, and was making a point of it by selecting it.  Too bad.  Dispite the hopeful hints that come up about possibly ditching the Stick... it seems like that will only be possible when Griffin is gone or Ares I-X fails.... whichever comes first.  The more he digs in with statements like this, the more difficult he will find it to justify any change... even if he has to.  Like so many in this administration... he'll just leave the mess to his successor.

It has been a year since a lot of the weight and performance issues with Ares I came into the bright light of numerous articles and blogs.  Look at all we've accomplished in that time.  Have things really progressed forward?  A shrinking Orion... pulling back on some safety margins, trying to fix a broken idea.  Griffin said they made their decision with the ESAS study.  Yes, a 4 seg w/ SSME US.  Once that didn't fly (pun)... THAT's when he should have been smart enough to look for something completely different... and not just a poor performance other stick.  He's gotta know the whole 1.5 plan is now flawed.  Pushing for the new stick was to insure the 5-seg RSRB.  With the new administration (Rep or Dem) he's gotta know Ares V will not get built anytime soon. And that means LEO only.  So his legacy of stubborness will be that we are stuck with an expensive stick and ISS until 2020+.  No moon.  His fault.  He Fails.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 10/27/2007 04:44 am
I don't anyone really believes that Ares V will ever get built anytime soon.  By 2018/2020 things might have changed so much it will be a white elephant.  People looking back though, we remember what we could have had and what we brought! It will be like the shuttle, knowing what we could have got,  and ccmpromises the shuttle turned out to be.  Fine piece of equipment if you want to go to LEO for 20 years...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Ankle-bone12 on 10/27/2007 05:13 am
How long are Administrator's terms? Not to familiar with how it works. Also, how is an administrator chosen?
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: CFE on 10/27/2007 05:18 am
Quote
mborgia - 26/10/2007  10:10 PM

The position of NASA Administrator has usually been non-political in nature.  James Webb, Tom Paine, Richard Truly and Dan Goldin all served more than one president.  Goldin in fact served three.

On the contrary, many NASA Admins have been appointed as a reward for their loyalty to their party.  Jim Webb and Sean O'Keefe come to mind.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 10/27/2007 05:20 am
Quote
Ankle-bone12 - 26/10/2007  12:13 AM

How long are Administrator's terms? Not to familiar with how it works. Also, how is an administrator chosen?

Administrators are chosen by the president and approved by the Senate.  They serve at the pleasure of the sitting president.  Usually their "term" will end at the end of the presidential term according to practice/custom since the new prez will likely appoint their own person.  Better to leave than be "asked to resign"....

I believe Daniel Goldin was an exception to the rule.  He made a case to stay to Clinton and he did.  Usually it doesn't work that way though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2007 05:25 am
Quote
Ankle-bone12 - 27/10/2007  1:13 AM

How long are Administrator's terms? Not to familiar with how it works. Also, how is an administrator chosen?

Appointment of a new guy is a political decision, although NASA Administrators have been known to stay on even through Presidential/Congressional Administration changes if they are doing a good job.

Some are levered out and replaced if they are promoting politically unacceptable programs, and some retire too - both of which create the need for a replacement.

There have been rumours for about 6 months that Griffin is leaving at the end of this year, but he will likely be replaced by the new President in 2009 anyway given how divisive the political system is right now in the US.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2007 05:29 am
Quote
wingod - 26/10/2007  11:29 PM

As long as Mike Griffin is NASA administrator it is all a bug fart in the wind.  I hate to be crude and direct but everything that I hear from a lot of people around him is that he has made up his mind and Ares is what he is going to do.  Anyone who thinks differently simply does not understand the administrator's position.  It does not matter what the engineers come back and say about any problems with the A-1.  It does not matter how much money they have to spend, this is the direction that they are going.  End of story.

Can we please keep replies to this particular topic over on the other thread please.

I don't want the two threads to become just a complete mess of both technical and political commentary.   This thread is for the technical subjects.   The other thread is related to Griffin's comments today.   Lets try to keep it that way please.

And you need to await our reply to Griffin's comments before writing us off.   This isn't over by a long way.

Ross.
Title: RE: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: vt_hokie on 10/27/2007 05:32 am
This kind of reminds me of the insistence on sticking with the original composite tanks on X-33!
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2007 05:50 am
Quote
CFE - 27/10/2007  1:18 AM

On the contrary, many NASA Admins have been appointed as a reward for their loyalty to their party.  Jim Webb and Sean O'Keefe come to mind.

Oh I dunno about O'Keefe.   There was a desperate need to get someone in there who could sort out the astonishing budgetary mess which plagued NASA at the time.   While there may have been some political interest involved, they still selected a man right for doing that job.

And I challenge anyone to say James Webb was a bad choice either.

Even if they were political friends with a party, I think they both did truly great jobs as NASA Admin's.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/27/2007 06:00 am
So an unofficial go a head for DIRECT could come through in February 2008.

Can a demonstration, for the press, of something new be arranged every year until the manned Orion flies?
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: MKremer on 10/27/2007 06:07 am
Quote
kraisee - 27/10/2007  12:50 AM

Quote
CFE - 27/10/2007  1:18 AM

On the contrary, many NASA Admins have been appointed as a reward for their loyalty to their party.  Jim Webb and Sean O'Keefe come to mind.

Oh I dunno about O'Keefe.   There was a desperate need to get someone in there who could sort out the astonishing budgetary mess which plagued NASA at the time.   While there may have been some political interest involved, they still selected a man right for doing that job.

And I challenge anyone to say James Webb was a bad choice either.

Even if they were political friends with a party, I think they both did truly great jobs as NASA Admin's.

Ross.

I also think O'Keefe was the right guy for NASA at the time, and did a decent job.

That said, I was greatly disappointed in the way he took part in both campaigning and fundraising events for Republican candidates during elections, and some of the expensive extra executive 'perks' he was happy to take advantage of even while trying to sort out NASA's budget and bureaucratic messes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2007 06:11 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 27/10/2007  2:00 AM

So an unofficial go a head for DIRECT could come through in February 2008.

Assuming the Administrator is replaced, it would depend on who became the new Administrator and what they were tasked to do by their political sponsors in Congress/Oval Office.

If they are told to make Ares work, that's what they'll try to do.   If they are told to cancel the VSE and switch to an EELV solution servicing LEO only that's what they will do.

DIRECT is the best option if they are tasked to get us back to the moon before the Chinese in the best possible way, in the fastest possible schedule, all while retaining the workforce at all the centers.   In that role, DIRECT kicks all its opponents into touch.

In that situation I estimate the chances are about:-

5% Ares-I only to LEO.
5% Ares-I and Ares-V for LEO and Lunar.
30% EELV only to LEO.
60% DIRECT for LEO and Lunar.


Quote
Can a demonstration, for the press, of something new be arranged every year until the manned Orion flies?

Yes, most assuredly.

DIRECT could easily provide a major PR demonstration every year - even the intervening years between Orion/ISS and the first Lunar missions.

For example, the year before the first manned Orion flies, we could deliver 40mT of useful materials to the ISS on a Cargo flight.   Once humans are flying we can easily continue to do Hubble missions and additional ISS construction missions too - neither of which Ares-I has the slightest hope in hell of ever supporting - and both of which would also clearly require all of the STS payload processing staff to be retained after STS has been retired I might also point out.   Currently, with Ares-I over 80% of them are to be RIF'd.

Ross.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2007 06:25 am
Quote
MKremer - 27/10/2007  2:07 AM

That said, I was greatly disappointed in the way he took part in both campaigning and fundraising events for Republican candidates during elections, and some of the expensive extra executive 'perks' he was happy to take advantage of even while trying to sort out NASA's budget and bureaucratic messes.

True, but in this single case I'll forgive him those because he had a real "counter-balance" to those perks - Columbia happened on his watch.

I can find it in my heart to forgive an awful lot of things for anyone able to cope with that and go on to be the driving force which put the agency back on its feet again.

Ross.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2007 06:40 am
The DIRECT team is having a meeting tomorrow (Saturday) at 12:00 noon to discuss our response.

While I won't comment on Griffin's words until that meeting is over, I am very curious who, and HOW MANY people are willing to take Mike Griffin up on his suggestion that the discussion regarding the pros and cons of DIRECT should be taken up with Steve Cook directly.

Obviously he meant NASA workers (although I'm tempted to try myself), but there appear to be quite a few thousand NASA workers who seem interested in DIRECT if our last few weeks of web stats are any indication.

I wonder if any of the NASA guys reading this thread are willing to follow-up and get some response from Cook - with data to back it up - oh, and CC the question to Hanley and Gilbrech too, just as Griffin suggested.

More than anything, I'm fascinated to know if anyone is really willing to really justify the Ares position or if they can only provide the usual pandering and "fluff".   I'd bet the answers would all relate to ESAS and the rather thin-of-facts study done on DIRECT v1.0 which only really criticized the 435s Isp RS-68 engine we chose - something we deleted entirely with v2.0.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Stephan on 10/27/2007 09:26 am
Quote
- 26/10/2007  5:31 PM
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/10/todays_ask_the_16.html#more

I don't understand why Keith keep calling direct "Powerpoint concepts", you may like Direct or not, but the technical and engineering side is clearly there. I like Direct because it's not yet another powerpoint concept ...
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: monkeyb on 10/27/2007 10:11 am
I’m curious about some of the costs associated with the DIRECT v2 proposal. It is often said that the STS program is amazingly expensive, for some obvious reasons. With DIRECT being a derivative of the STS program will it not bring with it some of the financial baggage of the STS program??

It seems DIRECT has advantages over STS, it is without an orbiter (dead mass to orbit, and complicated infrastructure), the cargo is on top of the LV reducing drag (getting more useful mass to orbit and thus lowering $ per kg)

However, much of the high cost associated with the STS is fixed costs whether it flies or it doesn’t. It clearly states in the AIAA 2007 report that the DIRECT approach aims to retain ‘the majority of the existing STS manufacturing, launch, and work force infrastructure’.    

The DIRECT approach retains jobs and experience required for taking a new LV to and beyond LEO. Furthermore, in comparison to the little and large AresI/V architecture it seems like a very sound approach, but there in lies part of the problem, DIRECT is being compared to an approach littered with problems which can make another approach seems much better when in truth it may also be very expensive and ineffective. I’m not saying that this is the case with DIRECT, just raising a point.

I just can’t help but think that this is still going to be very expensive, now I’d love to see us getting out of LEO and beginning some serious exploration both manned and unmanned. With such high costs already tied to the DIRECT proposal from STS for what seem more political reasons than exploratory reasons I can help but wonder if the US can do this alone, even with DIRECT unless more funding is made available. But I feel that’s getting off topic.  

I’m not an engineer nor am I involved in space architecture in away, I am layman. It is the average joe like me who pay the taxes and might well ask why we want to go to the moon, why we want to spend so much money on a LV when it could be spent on R&D at NASA etc etc blah blah. Personally I hope DIRECT is chosen, at least the J120 which will allow the US to get some interesting cargo into LEO and beyond.  


Will
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/27/2007 12:51 pm
Exactly!! For such an intelligent man, he seems so curiously against Direct's common-sense approach. Unless he's not telling us something, his opposition seems to be one akin to someone who hasn't even read the proposal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/27/2007 12:57 pm
Quote
MATTBLAK - 27/10/2007  8:51 AM

Exactly!! For such an intelligent man, he seems so curiously against Direct's common-sense approach. Unless he's not telling us something, his opposition seems to be one akin to someone who hasn't even read the proposal.
Or isn't prepared to talk about it - yet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: John Duncan on 10/27/2007 02:07 pm
I'm reading the newest proposal now and I noticed what looks like a change in the core for Jupiter.  In earlier version, the ET/core had a tapered "boat-tail" where the RD-68 engines are mounted.  It now appears that the core maintains a constant diameter nearly to the aft bulkhead, and the engines are placed further from the centerline.

Is this correct or is it the illustration that is confusing me?
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: Jim on 10/27/2007 02:36 pm
Here are some words from one of Mikey's lackeys, you can use against them:
"ESAS was a study conducted in 60 days, representing a summary of years of exploration architectural studies. Since that study was concluded, over two years ago, the Constellation Program has evolved the architecture."

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: dbhyslop on 10/27/2007 02:37 pm
Quote
clongton - 27/10/2007  8:57 AM

Or isn't prepared to talk about it - yet.

This is an important point: As administrator, every word he uses has to be very calculated.  Even if--hypothetically--he had warmed up to the direct idea or had people seriously looking at it, I'm sure his response to that 'ask the administrator' question would be exactly the same.  Until a decision is actually made he's got to toe a certain line.  Even if he DID roll out a new Ares configuration (IE, Direct) re-optimized after the design compromises they've had with the Ares I, that would look better to the people he has to deal with in Washington (and his own upper management) than if he was publicly flip-flopping over it for months.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/27/2007 02:44 pm
Quote
John Duncan - 27/10/2007  10:07 AM

I'm reading the newest proposal now and I noticed what looks like a change in the core for Jupiter.  In earlier version, the ET/core had a tapered "boat-tail" where the RD-68 engines are mounted.  It now appears that the core maintains a constant diameter nearly to the aft bulkhead, and the engines are placed further from the centerline.

Is this correct or is it the illustration that is confusing me?
That is correct. We spent a great deal of time on the aft end of the vehicle as we worked on version 2. The engine positions have been optimized for the exhaust plumes of the RS-68, and to make sure that the 2 outer engines don't choke off the effectiveness of the center engine on the J-232 during the ascent. The identical thrust structure is used on the J-120, unchanged, to avoid the complexity of separate thrust structures.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rocketguy101 on 10/27/2007 03:02 pm

Thank you John for asking that question!!  I have been lurking here and was wondering the same thing...in fact I was trying to search through this thread to see if it had been addressed already before I asked, and Ford Mustang had been encouraging me to go ahead and ask.

My other question, is there a set of dimensional drawings for the latest version?  I would love to build a model of these babies, but the aft portion does appear different -- a long straight taper, then a "mini" taper, now I see some views that look like a cylinder that has straight tapers to clear the SRBs.  I know this is a fluid thing, being a proposal--but it is a great looking machine, and I want to fly one! :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: John Duncan on 10/27/2007 03:54 pm
The illustrations in the proposal show both versions of the aft compartment, so I just had to ask.  I already turned a tapered section for addition to a ET, now I've got to start over.  :)

But that's ok. :)

I've been extrapolating dimensions by comparing the illustrations of the Jupiter launchers with a dimensioned drawing of the STS.  Not perfect but close enough.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/27/2007 03:56 pm
Quote
rocketguy101 - 27/10/2007  11:02 AM

Thank you John for asking that question!!  I have been lurking here and was wondering the same thing...in fact I was trying to search through this thread to see if it had been addressed already before I asked, and Ford Mustang had been encouraging me to go ahead and ask.

My other question, is there a set of dimensional drawings for the latest version?  I would love to build a model of these babies, but the aft portion does appear different -- a long straight taper, then a "mini" taper, now I see some views that look like a cylinder that has straight tapers to clear the SRBs.  I know this is a fluid thing, being a proposal--but it is a great looking machine, and I want to fly one! :)

rocketguy,
You share my own passion. I am an avid scale hobbyist and have scale models of many launch vehicles, and some of them are outfitted to fly. I spend many happy hours with my grandkids, especially the older ones, as we build the models, together, and then go fly them.

At this time there are no dimensional drawings of the Jupiter launch Vehicle family, although Ross did build a 1/72 scale model for Steve to display at the recent AIAA 2007 conference. In the mean time, the baseball cards should provide you enough information to take a start, especially if you have access to a CAD program where you can import the graphic, scale the entire graphic to one of the known domensions, and work the rest from there. Good hunting! Let me know how you make out.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 10/27/2007 03:56 pm
There's a lot of discussion on the belief that if NASA changed direction the perfered direction would be EELV.  So I'm taking a quick look at the EELV backup option...  Particularly the maximum the upgraded DeltaIV Heavy CBCs described in the RIF responce can lift and what size upperstage that results in.  A change to a more capable but lower thrust booster means the upperstage needs to shink.  What weight should I assume for Orion?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/27/2007 03:59 pm
Quote
TrueGrit - 27/10/2007  11:56 AM

There's a lot of discussion on the belief that if NASA changed direction the perfered direction would be EELV.  So I'm taking a quick look at the EELV backup option...  Particularly the maximum the upgraded DeltaIV Heavy CBCs described in the RIF responce can lift and what size upperstage that results in.  A change to a more capable but lower thrust booster means the upperstage needs to shink.  What weight should I assume for Orion?
TrueGrit;
That is an interesting topic, and one I would be interested in following. But I would ask you respectfully to take that to another thread, rather than here. This thread is specifically about DIRECT and the Jupiter Launch vehicle family. There are several threads available, or a new one can easily be started. Let me know where you take the question, and I'll go over and participate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rocketguy101 on 10/27/2007 04:12 pm

Quote
clongton - 27/10/2007 10:56 AM rocketguy, You share my own passion. I am an avid scale hobbyist and have scale models of many launch vehicles, and some of them are outfitted to fly. I spend many happy hours with my grandkids, especially the older ones, as we build the models, together, and then go fly them. At this time there are no dimensional drawings of the Jupiter launch Vehicle family, although Ross did build a 1/72 scale model for Steve to display at the recent AIAA 2007 conference. In the mean time, the baseball cards should provide you enough information to take a start, especially if you have access to a CAD program where you can import the graphic, scale the entire graphic to one of the known domensions, and work the rest from there. Good hunting! Let me know how you make out. :)

Thanks Chuck

I am not clear what "baseball cards" you refer to.  I have SolidWorks and have scaled alot of the vehicle from Pete Alway's "Rockets of the World" drawings of the Shuttle, and counting pixels on some images posted here.  When I went to the pdf on the DIRECT site, I noticed different versions of the aft portion of the booster.  I was just wondering what is the latest version of the aft skirt?

ps:  did you guys ever post pics of the 1/72 model?  I started searching for it, but there are so many pages here ;^)

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Cost of Shuttle launches
Post by: dbooker on 10/27/2007 04:19 pm
I believe the main cost is the maintenance and re-outfitting of the orbiters after each flight.  I think that NASA and its contractors have gotten very good at this but there still is a large cost to this.  

I do have a comment on this though. Everyone talks about how prohibitive the cost is to launch a shuttle compared to a Soyuz but no one points out that it would take 3 Soyuz launches to launch the same number of astronauts (although with the Soyuz you would get 2 more) and that it would take several Progress and/or ATV/HTV flights to bring up the same amount of supplies.  If the shuttle launches cost 500 million, when you add up all of the equivalent launches (80 million for soyuz but now they are charging 30million per seat so probably higher. And the ATV/HTV are going to cost much more) you come out to a cost that IS in the ballbark of this.  AND you get the ability to return cargo and components to earth.

It just seems that NO ONE wants to pay the US for this capability.  Its all politics.  

I'm not saying that the shuttle is as safe what Ares is promised to be but now that Nasa is paying attention to this, things have gotten better.  

And remember that all of the shuttles were built with technology from the 70s. Even Endeavour was built mainly from previously fabricated spare parts.  What if Nasa had continually updated this and we were now waiting for the latest shuttle to roll off the assembly line made of carbon fibre technology and computers the size of a Palm pilot insteat of a suitcase, TPS based on what was being developed for the VentureStar, etc.  What if they made the entire crew cabin a crew escape module ala the FB111 (remember, even some of the Challenger crew was alive after breakup).    

But instead we are left with using 37 year old technology and reimplementing 50 year old technology as a future.  

As a space buff who grew up in the 1960's I'm almost ready to say lets just get rid of Nasa.  It isn't only their fault as much of the blame goes to the politicians.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: wingod on 10/27/2007 04:27 pm
Quote
texas_space - 26/10/2007  10:50 PM

Until it is truly the point of no return, other options should be discussed and promoted (and no, not just DIRECT).  Once the true point of no return has passed, then the efforts should cease.

As Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) said, never stop fighting until the fighting is done.

Even General Robert E. Lee knew when the fighting was done.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/27/2007 04:29 pm
Quote
rocketguy101 - 27/10/2007  10:12 AM
did you guys ever post pics of the 1/72 model?  I started searching for it, but there are so many pages here ;^)


Page 129.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: wingod on 10/27/2007 04:30 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/10/2007  12:50 AM

Quote
CFE - 27/10/2007  1:18 AM

On the contrary, many NASA Admins have been appointed as a reward for their loyalty to their party.  Jim Webb and Sean O'Keefe come to mind.

Oh I dunno about O'Keefe.   There was a desperate need to get someone in there who could sort out the astonishing budgetary mess which plagued NASA at the time.   While there may have been some political interest involved, they still selected a man right for doing that job.

And I challenge anyone to say James Webb was a bad choice either.

Even if they were political friends with a party, I think they both did truly great jobs as NASA Admin's.

Ross.

Both of those guys who were political did a good job because of their political connections.  Webb had Von Braun and Gilruth to rely on to get the technical job done. NASA is a delicate balance between the political and the technical.  Without a deft political hand, NASA's technical job simply does not get done.  This is what happened to SEI and this is what is happening now.


Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: wingod on 10/27/2007 04:39 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/10/2007  1:40 AM

The DIRECT team is having a meeting tomorrow (Saturday) at 12:00 noon to discuss our response.

While I won't comment on Griffin's words until that meeting is over, I am very curious who, and HOW MANY people are willing to take Mike Griffin up on his suggestion that the discussion regarding the pros and cons of DIRECT should be taken up with Steve Cook directly.

Obviously he meant NASA workers (although I'm tempted to try myself), but there appear to be quite a few thousand NASA workers who seem interested in DIRECT if our last few weeks of web stats are any indication.

I wonder if any of the NASA guys reading this thread are willing to follow-up and get some response from Cook - with data to back it up - oh, and CC the question to Hanley and Gilbrech too, just as Griffin suggested.

More than anything, I'm fascinated to know if anyone is really willing to really justify the Ares position or if they can only provide the usual pandering and "fluff".   I'd bet the answers would all relate to ESAS and the rather thin-of-facts study done on DIRECT v1.0 which only really criticized the 435s Isp RS-68 engine we chose - something we deleted entirely with v2.0.

Ross.

Here is the justification.

1. The boss is always right.
2. When the boss is wrong, refer to rule number 1.

I can't tell you who, but people in far more responsible and respected positions than you guys have been in his office to try and change his mind to no avail.  He is going to do what he is going to do, and all you will do, by trying to do what you want to do, is to do a disservice to yourselves and whatever merit your ideas have.

Frankly the DIRECT idea is neither the only nor the best idea for the post ESAS and post Mike Griffin architecture out there.  Success in the political arena in a NASA related project is a compromise between competing technical and political forces.  You have no political power at all and if the design space was opened up DIRECT would neither be the lowest cost, or the most politically palatable redesign for the ESAS system.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rocketguy101 on 10/27/2007 04:44 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/10/2007 11:29 AM
Quote
rocketguy101 - 27/10/2007 10:12 AM did you guys ever post pics of the 1/72 model? I started searching for it, but there are so many pages here ;^)

 

Page 129.

FANTASTIC!  Thanks Lee Jay!  Nice model Ross.

I am a mechanical engineer, and work in the oil patch so I am not qualified to speak on space vehicles, but studying the proposal, and reading the posts in this thread, this system just makes so much sense it is hard to see how NASA can ignore it.  I know management has to step very carefully and choose their words especially when addressing their superiors so as not to present an appearance of weakness--I have seen this first hand with a recent episode at my place of employment.  We were advocating a change based on technical merits that would make the managers have to admit to upper mgmt and BOD that they had made a mistake.  It was gut wrenching, and took some time to carefully craft the statement that the mgrs would make, but we finally got through it, and (so far) no heads have rolled.  I hope this is the case w/ NASA mgmt, and not just a case of stubbordness.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: wingod on 10/27/2007 04:51 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/10/2007  12:29 AM

Quote
wingod - 26/10/2007  11:29 PM

As long as Mike Griffin is NASA administrator it is all a bug fart in the wind.  I hate to be crude and direct but everything that I hear from a lot of people around him is that he has made up his mind and Ares is what he is going to do.  Anyone who thinks differently simply does not understand the administrator's position.  It does not matter what the engineers come back and say about any problems with the A-1.  It does not matter how much money they have to spend, this is the direction that they are going.  End of story.

Can we please keep replies to this particular topic over on the other thread please.

I don't want the two threads to become just a complete mess of both technical and political commentary.   This thread is for the technical subjects.   The other thread is related to Griffin's comments today.   Lets try to keep it that way please.

And you need to await our reply to Griffin's comments before writing us off.   This isn't over by a long way.

Ross.

Ross

This goes to the core of what you guys don't understand.  NASA is a POLITICAL agency and there are NO high level technical decisions that are not influenced by politics.  This will be the last thing that I say on this subject because you guys simply don't get that you have no political power at all and your technical solution is not even the optimum one.  The "other" architectures that are out there are quietly evolving and will become known when the POLITICAL timing is right.

Go and have a good weekend, get out in the fresh air and enjoy yourselves because you are not going to make any headway with what you are doing now.  

This may tick you off now but in two years you will understand.  I will refer you back to this post at that time.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 10/27/2007 05:08 pm
I noticed that the J-352, which will probably have a 5-engine stage 2, has second and third stages that are have different diameters than, but are otherwise similar to, the S-II and S-IVB from Apollo. Would Apollo experiance be applicable?

Also, reusing the core would probably be rather easy for a flyback stage, owing to low staging velocity, in the 3-stage configuration.

Would aerospike nozzle/expansion-deflection nozzle RS-68s be a possible upgrade, assuming that they are worthwhile?

And what is the performance to LEO of these upgraded versions?

They probably cost too much tho.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 10/27/2007 05:16 pm
Quote
Stephan - 27/10/2007  5:26 AM

Quote
- 26/10/2007  5:31 PM
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/10/todays_ask_the_16.html#more

I don't understand why Keith keep calling direct "Powerpoint concepts", you may like Direct or not, but the technical and engineering side is clearly there. I like Direct because it's not yet another powerpoint concept ...

Especially since Ares I is nothing but a powerpoint concept right now as well!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 10/27/2007 05:23 pm
On another "hypothetical" note (does the DIRECT team address hypothetical questions?)
If Congress were to demand a switch to an EELV solution, could DIRECT evolve into a more EELV derived vehicle? Most likely a D4H or A5H will lift Orion, but for cargo, a DIRECT core with A5 5.4 meter boosters could do the job.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2007 05:50 pm
Quote
monkeyb - 27/10/2007  6:11 AM

I’m curious about some of the costs associated with the DIRECT v2 proposal. It is often said that the STS program is amazingly expensive, for some obvious reasons. With DIRECT being a derivative of the STS program will it not bring with it some of the financial baggage of the STS program??

Yes - and no.

To retain the workforce you fundamentally need to spend roughly the same amount of money as STS in order to keep that cash flowing to all those paychecks.

Now, as a side-note I better mention before I explain the situation more fully, that NASA confirmed a few years ago that about a quarter of its existing workforce are ready for retirement now, so a degree of natural attrition is expected anyway, and the staffing levels will actually be reduced by this process without the need to RIF anyone.

Ares attempts to keep the workforce by making the new launch vehicle program just as large and costly as the outgoing system.   With simpler launchers the only way to do that is to have more than one system - hence the Ares-I with its bigger brother Ares-V.

DIRECT knows that the launcher will cost considerably less than STS - it is after all, fundamentally STS without the costs of the Orbiter element.   But the launcher which is created is sufficiently large and capable that it can be used in far more ways than Ares-I can, and thus can be used to promote uses which can level the balance of staff into new positions.

One example:   Ares-I can not continue any construction of ISS, nor can if perform Hubble Servicing Missions.   There will be zero requirement for any payload processing personnel currently supporting the Shuttle Program.   DIRECT's Jupiter-120 can easily do both missions, and much more besides.   By *requiring* that capability, we instantly retain all of the payload processing and mission planning staff at JSC, MSFC and KSC, plus all the supporting staff at the other centers too.

These payload guys are also the experienced personnel we want later in the program when the LSAM and Lunar Base elements begin to flow through the program.   One of DIRECT's primary goals has also been to expedite the development schedule by two years.   By bringing the development of the EDS, LSAM and Lunar Base elements forward by two years, and retaining the staff through that period, NASA would be ready far earlier, and with a lot more on-site experience under everyone's belt, to dive straight into the Lunar side of the program.


Quote
It seems DIRECT has advantages over STS, it is without an orbiter (dead mass to orbit, and complicated infrastructure), the cargo is on top of the LV reducing drag (getting more useful mass to orbit and thus lowering $ per kg)

Yes.   Assuming a flight rate similar to STS (4 per year), we drop the cost per kg to roughly half the current cost of the EELV fleet - about $5,000 per kg.

With our planned 8-12 missions per year we drop the costs to about 1/3rd - $3,700 per kg.   That is below Falcon 9 and Russian Soyuz territory in terms of cost.


But the biggest factor is that we simply delete the $16bn cost for developing a second launcher and we delete about $1bn per year of operational costs by operating a single vehicle instead of two.   The details are the key, obviously, but that is the bottom line.


Quote
However, much of the high cost associated with the STS is fixed costs whether it flies or it doesn’t. It clearly states in the AIAA 2007 report that the DIRECT approach aims to retain ‘the majority of the existing STS manufacturing, launch, and work force infrastructure’.

Yes.   I would certainly prefer to reduce the fixed costs somehow, and that natural attrition I mentioned earlier allows that to drop by a considerable margin.   But reducing the costs by a significant factor just isn't possible as long as you wish to tick the "workforce retention" box.   And if you don't tick that box, you are talking thousands and thousands of redundancies across the country in every NASA center at a time when the economic situation of the nation is already trawling the seabed.   The implications of that are far beyond NASA's walls and we have a historical record from 1972 and 1975 to demonstrate just how critical such a mistake really would be.

At the end of the day, DIRECT fits in the box which Congress and NASA have created for itself - with one of the walls being workforce retention.

However, DIRECT intends to use these costs more effectively than previous programs.   By using the same basic vehicle every time and by flying it more often, you spread the fixed costs over a wider number of missions.   That approach has *always* been the best way to deal with fixed costs - get the best out of them.   And that is precisely what NASA is not going to be able to afford to do with Ares - they intend to fly Ares-I four times a year and then use a completely different fixed costs pot to pay for, at most, 3-4 Ares-V's per year.   Thats a flight rate of only 4 to spread out each programs fixed costs across - and that is going to make things hugely expensive overall.

Here are some very approximate numbers:

STS:
Fixed: $3,500m per year
Variable: $250m per flight
Total for 4 missions per year: $4,500m
Mean Cost per mission: $1,125m each

Ares-I:
Fixed: $800m per year
Variable: $130m per flight

Ares-V (inc EDS):
Fixed: $2200m per year
Variable: $280m per flight

Total Ares costs for 2 ISS, 2 manned Lunar, 2 cargo Lunar flights per year: $4,640m
Mean cost per mission: $773m


DIRECT (inc EDS):
Fixed: $1,900m per year
Variable (J-120): $140m per flight
Variable (J-232): $220m per flight

Total DIRECT costs for 2 ISS, 2 manned Lunar, 2 cargo Lunar flights per year: $3,500m
Mean cost per mission: $583m

But that 1.1bn saving right there can be used to buy two extra missions per year, so for the same cost you get:

Total DIRECT costs for 2 ISS, ***4*** manned Lunar, 2 cargo Lunar flights per year: $3,940m ($700m to pay for 2 extra LSAM's before hitting Ares yearly costs)
Mean cost per mission now: $493m - nearly $300m lower than Ares per mission.


Quote
The DIRECT approach retains jobs and experience required for taking a new LV to and beyond LEO. Furthermore, in comparison to the little and large AresI/V architecture it seems like a very sound approach, but there in lies part of the problem, DIRECT is being compared to an approach littered with problems which can make another approach seems much better when in truth it may also be very expensive and ineffective. I’m not saying that this is the case with DIRECT, just raising a point.

The fundamentals still work - they are based on Apollo after all.   The only debate here is limited to the launch vehicles chosen to do the work.   The rest is pretty solid as concept and as historical precedent too.

If anything, being the most direct evolution of the existing Shuttle Stack (minus orbiter of course), DIRECT has a lot more heritage and experience to draw upon to formulate good approaches and avoid bad ones.   I would suggest that both Ares vehicles are heading into largely uncharted waters - and that is where the problems more usually arise.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 10/27/2007 06:18 pm
Quote
kraisee - 26/10/2007  2:08 PM

Quote
John Duncan - 25/10/2007  8:53 AM

Is there any light at the end of the tunnel as far as NASA adopting Direct?  Or are we waiting for the admin changes (or assumed changes) after 08?

It's frustrating to see such an obvious solution go by the wayside while Heads@NASA cruise merrily along into the fog.

I'm hoping that someone behindthescenes@NASA is watching....

Hi John, good to see you here on this site!

We have been making sterling progress on both the political and NASA engineering fronts this year.   As you say, the idea is such an "obvious solution" that it can't really be ignored.

Since the Ares development teams found as-yet-unpublished problems with Ares earlier this year, we getting a *lot* more interest right now.   Our website is getting lots of interesting hits, especially from NASA HQ, KSC, MSFC and a variety Louisiana sites too, MAF-related and local Government so it appears.

I can not talk about some of the latest developments yet, but right now I think we have a very good chance of getting DIRECT adopted.   There are never any guarantees, but we have as good a chance as we're ever likely to get.

Our primary target has always been to get NASA to do a fair and unbiased study of DIRECT because we believe the potential of the concept outshines all of the other options.   Getting NASA to adopt it for themselves has always been the best-case scenario for us.

Things are happening.   For now, be patient.   Time will tell and I will talk about more of this here on the group just as soon as I am allowed.

Ross.

Have you considered the notion that NASA maybe just keeping you sweet in private just to dampen the anti-Ares noise you are making ? Don't build up your hopes too high because you maybe disappointed. Only physics will stop Ares I/V during Mike's reign I think.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: hektor on 10/27/2007 06:34 pm
If Ares I is replaced by EELV, as suggested by Keith Cowing, how much is "The Gap" extended ? assuming that the decision is taken at the end of 2009 when the new Administrator has replaced Griffin, following the election
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/27/2007 07:22 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 27/10/2007  6:16 PM

Quote
Stephan - 27/10/2007  5:26 AM

Quote
- 26/10/2007  5:31 PM
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/10/todays_ask_the_16.html#more

I don't understand why Keith keep calling direct "Powerpoint concepts", you may like Direct or not, but the technical and engineering side is clearly there. I like Direct because it's not yet another powerpoint concept ...

Especially since Ares I is nothing but a powerpoint concept right now as well!

Actually, I'm going to step in as it's getting borderline daft on here now.

Ares I is not a powerpoint concept. At the very least, forgetting all the computational work that's gone into it, involving pre-fabrication, which has been going on for a while. MSFC have one of the biggest friction welding machines now installed and throwing out sheet metal templates. Something like 900 people (at the last count, not sure what is exactly) are working on the vehicle.

Direct, is an AIAA pdf. There's nothing derogatory about saying that, because I don't think Ross has things like this going on in his garage ;)

(From L2 video:)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 10/27/2007 07:36 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/10/2007  2:11 AM

If they are told to make Ares work, that's what they'll try to do.   If they are told to cancel the VSE and switch to an EELV solution servicing LEO only that's what they will do.

DIRECT is the best option if they are tasked to get us back to the moon before the Chinese in the best possible way, in the fastest possible schedule, all while retaining the workforce at all the centers.   In that role, DIRECT kicks all its opponents into touch.

Ross.

Fair enough.  Let's assume that Ares/Orion can successfully (if suboptimally) fly by 2015.  At what point would it be better (from a schedule standpoint alone) to go with Ares/Orion than DIRECT to minimize the human spaceflight gap?  And why? (meaning, I hope you have done a schedule analysis with a critical path for your program)

Quote
Stephan - 27/10/2007  5:26 AM

Quote
- 26/10/2007  5:31 PM
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/10/todays_ask_the_16.html#more

I don't understand why Keith keep calling direct "Powerpoint concepts", you may like Direct or not, but the technical and engineering side is clearly there. I like Direct because it's not yet another powerpoint concept ...

For all of those people that don't understand the difference between a "Powerpoint concept" (or AIAA paper, no matter how good) and a real design ... I would suggest that you have not executed (or been within 10 miles of) a single real space program in the modern era.  

These days, when you build a multi-billion dollar space system there are a significant (let's say currently more than 100,000 distinct items, conservatively) dimensioned drawings, parts lists, specific vendor agreements, interface control documents, requirements traces (from Lv 0 to Lv 4-5), specifications, points of contact, schedules, budgets, staffing plans, meeting schedules, etc. done by this time in a young program.  There are at least 10 meta-databases that contain and version control these items.  They exist in different versions at NASA centers, contractors, and subs.

It doesn't matter how similar DIRECT is technically to the current designs, that list represents time that MUST be spent for modern systems engineering.  That is the difference between a program at or near "Phase B" of development, and a Powerpoint presentation that is pre-pre-Phase A (no matter how technically brilliant).

The general lack of understanding that NASA and its contractors have been doing something over the past 2 years for the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent is ... unbelievable.  That work can only be made up with more time, not just with money.  And a lot of people will just quit rather than start over (call it 10-15%).  That is also a cost of swtiching horses in midstream, no matter how lame your horse might appear from a distance.

The Adminstrator made a clear statement that at some point one MUST make a decision and proceed down a design path.  That decision has already been modified not once (pre-ESAS) but twice (Ares I mod).  Suggesting that another major design change will come unless the current design is proven technicially infeasible (which, despite the shared delusion of some, it is not) within the next 18-24 months (that is how long it would take for the new President to pay attention to NASA, submit a new Administrator, get an idea of what is going on, do a pro-forma design study, and move on) is outright fantasy.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2007 07:52 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 27/10/2007  1:23 PM

On another "hypothetical" note (does the DIRECT team address hypothetical questions?)

Haha.   We aren't afraid of tackling those :)


Quote
If Congress were to demand a switch to an EELV solution, could DIRECT evolve into a more EELV derived vehicle? Most likely a D4H or A5H will lift Orion, but for cargo, a DIRECT core with A5 5.4 meter boosters could do the job.

There's not a lot of point.   You either save the workforce by keeping the SDLV, or you've got very little alternative which actually works.   The two systems just aren't designed to work with each other very well.

Perhaps an Atlas-V Phase 3B could be designed to use the SRB's.   But that beast is about as far away as Ares-V, so can't save any workforce in the short term (8 years after STS).


If you're switching to EELV, there really is no advantage to keeping the SDLV systems around - any such "combo" would just ruin schedules, increase costs and doesn't even help performance.   If you wish to retain the STS workforce, you need to stick to SDLV alone and just cherry-pick other hardware.   If you don't care about the workforce, you can save money with the EELV's although your lunar missions get a lot more complex.

It depends on what the priorities of Congress are: Workforce Retention ...or... Cost?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2007 08:02 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 27/10/2007  3:36 PM

Fair enough.  Let's assume that Ares/Orion can successfully (if suboptimally) fly by 2015.  At what point would it be better (from a schedule standpoint alone) to go with Ares/Orion than DIRECT to minimize the human spaceflight gap?  And why? (meaning, I hope you have done a schedule analysis with a critical path for your program)

Yes, we have.   Right now, we have a 24 month lead on fielding Ares-I with a manned Orion.

So that means that if the switch is made at any time in the next two years, you still get an advantage.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mars.is.wet on 10/27/2007 08:17 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/10/2007  4:02 PM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 27/10/2007  3:36 PM

Fair enough.  Let's assume that Ares/Orion can successfully (if suboptimally) fly by 2015.  At what point would it be better (from a schedule standpoint alone) to go with Ares/Orion than DIRECT to minimize the human spaceflight gap?  And why? (meaning, I hope you have done a schedule analysis with a critical path for your program)

Yes, we have.   Right now, we have a 24 month lead on fielding Ares-I with a manned Orion.

So that means that if the switch is made at any time in the next two years, you still get an advantage.

Ross.

Is Ares or Orion the schedule driver for the current plan?  By how much?
 
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Cost of Shuttle launches
Post by: Jim on 10/27/2007 08:50 pm
Quote
dbooker - 27/10/2007  12:19 PM

1. Everyone talks about how prohibitive the cost is to launch a shuttle compared to a Soyuz but no one points out that it would take 3 Soyuz launches to launch the same number of astronauts (although with the Soyuz you would get 2 more)

2.  and that it would take several Progress and/or ATV/HTV flights to bring up the same amount of supplies.  If the shuttle launches cost 500 million, when you add up all of the equivalent launches (80 million for soyuz but now they are charging 30million per seat so probably higher. And the ATV/HTV are going to cost much more) you come out to a cost that IS in the ballbark of this.  AND you get the ability to return cargo and components to earth.

3.  And remember that all of the shuttles were built with technology from the 70s. Even Endeavour was built mainly from previously fabricated spare parts.  What if Nasa had continually updated this and we were now waiting for the latest shuttle to roll off the assembly line made of carbon fibre technology and computers the size of a Palm pilot insteat of a suitcase, TPS based on what was being developed for the VentureStar, etc.

4.   What if they made the entire crew cabin a crew escape module ala the FB111 (remember, even some of the Challenger crew was alive after breakup).    

5. But instead we are left with using 37 year old technology and reimplementing 50 year old technology as a future.  


1.  Not true, most of the shuttle crew (4-5) is overhead for just for operating the shuttle.  They can't transfer to the ISS.  one Soyuz can launch 3 ISS crew vs 2 for the shuttle

2.  Station cargo in the MPLM is not that much more when compared to a Progress or HTV.  Also the shuttle can't bring up propellant

3.  The orbiters have been continuously upgraded.  They are reusable so they is no need for a production line.  Also the shuttle mission is not really needed.  Most non ISS missions do not need man in the loop

4.  There wouldn't be an performance left for payloads

5.  wrong.  It is not 50 year old technology.  Just the shape of the Orion.  Everything will be modern
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2007 09:21 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 27/10/2007  1:08 PM

I noticed that the J-352, which will probably have a 5-engine stage 2, has second and third stages that are have different diameters than, but are otherwise similar to, the S-II and S-IVB from Apollo. Would Apollo experiance be applicable?

Also, reusing the core would probably be rather easy for a flyback stage, owing to low staging velocity, in the 3-stage configuration.

Would aerospike nozzle/expansion-deflection nozzle RS-68s be a possible upgrade, assuming that they are worthwhile?

And what is the performance to LEO of these upgraded versions?

They probably cost too much tho.

Correct, you are looking at a nearly-full extra development program again, so they aren't very cost effective.   Also with so many engines involved, their safety plummets below the floor set by NASA's statistical methodology for calculating such things.

But a J-352 (actually the 5 engines would be on the Core, with 2 on the U/S and then a customized EDS on top, probably with two RL-10's of some flavor) is capable of slightly more performance to LEO than Ares-V.

We never finished a finite analysis on these large variants, but 135-140mT is the ballpark range for this beast.


Flyback stages are unlikely to be cost effective.   I would like to see some studies done to try to prove me wrong though :)


As for Toroidal (as opposed to Linear) Aerospike upgrades for RS-68, I've liked the idea for a long time now, but there is virtually zero development work done on them to date, so the cost to implement such a thing would very very high in terms of both cost and time required.   I think its something NASA should be studying, but I realize it's a total impossibility with the budget we have today and the requirements NASA is facing for the next 20 years if we continue to follow the Ares path.   There would be more cash available every year with DIRECT, which makes such research far more likely IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2007 09:27 pm
Quote
mars.is.wet - 27/10/2007  4:17 PM

Is Ares or Orion the schedule driver for the current plan?  By how much?

Ares without a doubt.

In particular the J-2X is the #1 critical long-pole item.   The 5-segment SRB development programs isn't far behind that.

Orion's schedule depends mostly on cash availability.   While it is a completely new spacecraft, the technology to build it is not "unfamiliar" already.   It's mostly a matter of choosing the best components, finalizing the design and then issuing manufacturing contracts for all the parts - Orion requires very little in the realm of developing new technology, thus doesn't introduce any major long-pole items.

I've heard that Orion could be ready to fly manned as early as 2011.

The first test-flight J-2X won't be ready until 2014 and the first 5-seg SRB won't be ready to test fly (Ares-I-Y) until 2013.

That is the reason why DIRECT has deleted all such engine development from the critical path to getting the first Orion's off the ground.   Under DIRECT, it is the Orion which then becomes the long-pole item because the Core Stage development and KSC modifications both have considerably shorter lead times than many of the Orion systems.   Even man-rating of the RS-68 doesn't hold a pole ('scuse the pun) to Orion's schedule.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Carl G on 10/27/2007 11:55 pm
The guy that blogs on nasawatch has called the Direct team a "energetic little group of Internet denizens who love to wave their arms around" :o It's his top "story"  :o
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/28/2007 12:00 am

Quote
clongton - 28/10/2007 12:57 AM
Quote
MATTBLAK - 27/10/2007 8:51 AM Exactly!! For such an intelligent man, he seems so curiously against Direct's common-sense approach. Unless he's not telling us something, his opposition seems to be one akin to someone who hasn't even read the proposal.
Or isn't prepared to talk about it - yet.

 I meant Keith Cowing.

 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kevwalsh on 10/28/2007 01:04 am
Well that's all very well but a substantial spaceflight concept has been produced and if there were massive gotchas in it you would have certain knowledgable folk jumping all over it in this forum and others, so a little group of internet denizens who love to wave their arms haven't done too badly so far.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MrTim on 10/28/2007 01:52 am
Quote
mars.is.wet - 27/10/2007  12:36 PM
These days, when you build a multi-billion dollar space system there are a significant (let's say currently more than 100,000 distinct items, conservatively) dimensioned drawings, parts lists, specific vendor agreements, interface control documents, requirements traces (from Lv 0 to Lv 4-5), specifications, points of contact, schedules, budgets, staffing plans, meeting schedules, etc. done by this time in a young program.  There are at least 10 meta-databases that contain and version control these items.  They exist in different versions at NASA centers, contractors, and subs.
This is one of the things missing from all the claims that Direct would close the gap; There are already many man years of paperwork alone, (not even going into all the wind tunnel and CFD work) being churned-out on Ares I both at NASA and at the various contractors and sub-contractors. With each and every business day that passes, somebody somewhere is specifying a screw, a washer, a coax cable, a pressure transducer, etc. and getting it into a database with reams of documentation and so-on. Each day that this happens is a day that any other solution falls a day further behind Ares. Any shift to Direct would need to replicate all of that work, starting on the day of the shift, so the gap closure would not be as-claimed. Furthermore, ANY changes to any "shuttle-derived" systems/structures may mean that you can keep some tooling, BUT it does not mean you do not need to spend all the time on new documentation and engineering. Indeed, even a "minor" change to an item can force changes to tooling and/or the proceedures for using that tooling to make the almost-identical item. It's one thing to "design" an alternative (as-in: do a bunch of math to show something is workable), and another thing entirely to DESIGN a system that will actually be built, tested, and flown. The fact that even a single piece of boilerplate metal is being cut is a sign of just how far behind any alternative is at this point.

ANY change in structure makes something a NEW thing with no history or paperwork.

ANY change in usage means new engineering work and LOTS of paperwork to certify the alternate useage.

IMHO "closing the gap" is not a good argument for Direct.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: MrTim on 10/28/2007 02:29 am
Quote
hektor - 27/10/2007  11:34 AM
If Ares I is replaced by EELV, as suggested by Keith Cowing, how much is "The Gap" extended ? assuming that the decision is taken at the end of 2009 when the new Administrator has replaced Griffin, following the election
Nobody knows when the next administrator will take his place. The new president will certainly appoint other people first, and after he/she appoints a new person that person will still need to get congressional approval. Dan Goldin was not replaced by Bush until mid-November, but he could just have easily have been kept at his post even longer either to allow Bush longer to find a person or by delays in hearings on Capitol Hill (or by congress not approving the replacement).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2007 03:20 am
MrTim,
MSFC has all of the aerodynamics and engineering study work done for NLS back in the 90's.   It's all still totally valid hard data into a virtually identical concept - and there is a LOT of it already completed.   There are existing studies delving deeply into the tank structure design, the thrust structure arrangements, payload interfaces etc etc.   I understand NLS got through it's PDR before its funding fan out.   NLS actually got a lot further along than Ares-I is so far today.   All that engineering data is in MSFC's archives and Ares folk have been looking over it recently because there are Ares-related nuggets in there too.   If you think previous data is irrelevant, think again.

NASA has already done a large chunk of the work already into this concept and it wouldn't take much to dust off that data again now - specifically to establish an initial baseline as fast as possible.

Every estimate I've heard so far from Ares-I folk interested in changing to DIRECT and doing this sort of work currently places the changeover in the ballpark of 3 to 6 months as all they need to completely redirect the entire agency if they choose to.   One chap I received a message from earlier today believes full DAC-1 could be in January having done all the preliminaries by then.   That's faster than even I thought :)

Ares-I managers are working out schedules all the time right now, so the right people are in the right place today to manage such a change with a high degree of skill.   All the right people are today totally familiar with the intricacies involved in developing schedules for new launchers, and in point of fact, creating a new schedule for a different launcher would not induce too many headaches at all.

NASA knows precisely what all the impacts of such a change would be and trust me, if they choose to, it is a *long* way from impossible.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2007 03:42 am
Quote
Carl G - 27/10/2007  7:55 PM

The guy that blogs on nasawatch has called the Direct team a "energetic little group of Internet denizens who love to wave their arms around" :o It's his top "story"  :o

LOL.   Classic.

Ross.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2007 03:49 am
I don't personally think there's any need to replace Griffin.

Ares is doing more than enough to shoot itself in the foot if the latest rumours this week are true.   I don't think it's long before Griffin will be forced to look elsewhere - irrelevant of his wishes or preference for Ares-I/V.

Frankly, I would actually like to see his engineering skills remain in the agency.   My issues have never been with the rest of the VSE - only the launchers.

But I guess that politics being the cut-throat business it is, if does Ares fail, he will be chewed up and spat out anyway.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 10/28/2007 04:05 am
Hah, I didn't know you waved your arms around. :)
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2007 04:07 am
Quote
hektor - 27/10/2007  2:34 PM

If Ares I is replaced by EELV, as suggested by Keith Cowing, how much is "The Gap" extended ? assuming that the decision is taken at the end of 2009 when the new Administrator has replaced Griffin, following the election

The post-Shuttle "Gap" you mean?

Depending on the launcher chosen the Gap would actually close up by a year or two.   With no new engines to develop a Delta-IV Heavy could loft a full Orion with only a man-rating program.   2012 would be my bet.

An Atlas-V Heavy or Phase 2 could also do the job, but would require some extra development time.   Still likely to be possible around 2012 as well.

But you've sacrificed the entire STS workforce this way and you have no Heavy Lifter to pair the CLV with.   Those two issues are going to haunt you for quite a while when you've been forced to RIF everyone who works at LC-39 because your EELV CLV is no longer flying from there and can't cover the workforce for the 8 years it takes to build that Heavy Lifter.

Ares-I acts as the workforce "bridge" to Ares-V.

DIRECT deletes the need for any bridge at all by making the first launcher the only one you ever need, while employing all the STS staff too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2007 04:17 am
Quote
G-pit - 28/10/2007  1:05 AM

Hah, I didn't know you waved your arms around. :)

Last time I waved my arms around I think I was trying to get a bloke in in the back of one of the Blackhawk security helicopters around the Cape to wave back at my GF and me! :)

That was a Delta-II launch day viewed from the beach at the end of my street some time last year. It was quite good fun actually, and he did wave back briefly too!   That made her day!

Ross.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: George CA on 10/28/2007 04:25 am
I thought the Editors note was out of line. Very insulting of the Direct team.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: James Lowe1 on 10/28/2007 04:44 am
No need for two threads both running with the same thing. Merged.

Might be time for a third new thread soon?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 10/28/2007 05:03 am
Quote
kraisee - 28/10/2007  12:17 AM

Quote
G-pit - 28/10/2007  1:05 AM

Hah, I didn't know you waved your arms around. :)

Last time I waved my arms around I think I was trying to get a bloke in in the back of one of the Blackhawk security helicopters around the Cape to wave back at my GF and me! :)

That was a Delta-II launch day viewed from the beach at the end of my street some time last year. It was quite good fun actually, and he did wave back briefly too!   That made her day!

Ross.

Heh  :laugh:
I'd be impressed by that.
(Plus, it also means the security person was paying attention. Quite important.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/28/2007 05:12 am
Quote
MrTim - 27/10/2007  8:52 PM

This is one of the things missing from all the claims that Direct would close the gap; There are already many man years of paperwork alone, (not even going into all the wind tunnel and CFD work) being churned-out on Ares I both at NASA and at the various contractors and sub-contractors.
This isn't your point, but it made me think of this question:

Is there any new DIRECT artwork that sports the new Orion 607 kaiser-helmet?  Additionally, could the Jupiter-120's SLA be made even more aerodynamic if its mold line was altered to take maximum advantage of a such a bullet-shaped boost protective cover?

Would the resulting vehicle start to look shape-wise more like an ET with its ovoid nose on top of Jupiter's core's LOX tank?  (except the ovoid nose would be white, and would be sporting a LAS tower).  With most of the service module inside the SLA, I think it would be entirely possible!  It's pretty close already...
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: Ankle-bone12 on 10/28/2007 05:15 am
Quote
kraisee - 27/10/2007  11:49 PM


Ares is doing more than enough to shoot itself in the foot if the latest rumours this week are true.   I don't think it's long before Griffin will be forced to look elsewhere -
Ross.

Ross, You torture me with comments like these (no hostillity intnded  :bleh: ). How long do you think it will be until management caves? A year? a month? a week? It's so anticipating, being an aerospace major a college freshman right now. This stuff has me up at night. This is my favorite thread on the site (including L2).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 10/28/2007 05:50 am
Quote
wingod - 27/10/2007  5:51 PM

[This goes to the core of what you guys don't understand.  NASA is a POLITICAL agency and there are NO high level technical decisions that are not influenced by politics.
I have to agree with this. For DIRECT to succeed, there should be at least as much about the politics as the engineering on this thread.  And they should not be seen as two separate strands splittable into two threads - one should drive the other.
Title: Re: Griffin Speaks Definitively on Direct concept
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2007 06:28 am
Quote
Ankle-bone12 - 28/10/2007  2:15 AM

Quote
kraisee - 27/10/2007  11:49 PM

Ares is doing more than enough to shoot itself in the foot if the latest rumours this week are true.   I don't think it's long before Griffin will be forced to look elsewhere -
Ross.

Ross, You torture me with comments like these (no hostillity intnded  :bleh: ). How long do you think it will be until management caves? A year? a month? a week? It's so anticipating, being an aerospace major a college freshman right now. This stuff has me up at night. This is my favorite thread on the site (including L2).

I am truly sorry.   Torture was never my intention.

It isn't about "caving".   Its all about analysis.   When the analysis shows "X" no longer works the way you originally wanted it to, you start looking at "Y" instead.

I give it no longer than the end of this year before we see change though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2007 06:31 am
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 28/10/2007  2:50 AM

Quote
wingod - 27/10/2007  5:51 PM

[This goes to the core of what you guys don't understand.  NASA is a POLITICAL agency and there are NO high level technical decisions that are not influenced by politics.
I have to agree with this. For DIRECT to succeed, there should be at least as much about the politics as the engineering on this thread.  And they should not be seen as two separate strands splittable into two threads - one should drive the other.

We never really talk about the politics in-depth here on NSF because this site has always been more about the technical aspects and we don't want to bore the regular viewers here.

But please believe me when I say we are working both angles even if we only really talk about one aspect here.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2007 06:49 am
Quote
rumble - 28/10/2007  2:12 AM

Is there any new DIRECT artwork that sports the new Orion 607 kaiser-helmet?  Additionally, could the Jupiter-120's SLA be made even more aerodynamic if its mold line was altered to take maximum advantage of a such a bullet-shaped boost protective cover?

Would the resulting vehicle start to look shape-wise more like an ET with its ovoid nose on top of Jupiter's core's LOX tank?  (except the ovoid nose would be white, and would be sporting a LAS tower).  With most of the service module inside the SLA, I think it would be entirely possible!  It's pretty close already...

We have been looking at that exact idea.   But we aren't ready to do anything with CFD's yet.

In such a concept, the entire SM would be enclosed within a curve-tapered ovoid structure, with the CM's BPC providing the final 5m diameter taper section and molding into the LAS in a similar fashion as on Ares-I.

It results in a really large ~8.4m diameter "Kaiser Helmet" shape, though there are technical issues regarding supporting the SM correctly from the "side" instead of from "below".

At this point though, we have no numbers to indicate any improvement in performance.   CFD or wind tunnel testing could quickly establish any advantages though.

The more complex shape also needs to be traded against the simpler, thus potentially cheaper, current cylinder & cone design.

I wouldn't expect a firm choice to become apparent until NASA performs its own trade on such an idea though - they are the only ones who can do the aero testing which will be a big factor in determining any potential performance benefit or not.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2007 06:51 am
Quote
James Lowe1 - 28/10/2007  1:44 AM

No need for two threads both running with the same thing. Merged.

Might be time for a third new thread soon?

James I asked for the two threads to remain separate please.

I don't want the Griffin comments mixed in with the technical discussions please - it totally ruins the flow of a very successful 170 pages of discussion.

Although moving the Griffin thread from the Ares-V section to this section is a good idea.

Thanks,

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 10/28/2007 11:06 am
We've heard so many rumours about how Ares I was about to be abandoned that I've stopped putting any store by them. I expect Mike Griffin will stay until 2009 and stick with Ares I. It now seems that Hillary Clinton's plan is to stick with Ares I development, but abandon the VSE. She's got the Democratic nomination locked up. I don't know who will win the Republican nomination or what a Republican president would do. Maybe he would be interested in Delta IV for the ISS and Direct for the moon, but more likely he wouldn't want to switch horses halfway when Ares I has already been in development for four years. Choosing Direct would mean he was committing himself to an expensive moon plan. The political beauty of the Ares plan is that it splits the LEO launcher and the moon launcher, putting off the real decision about what to do.

I think it all depends on China. If after the Olympics China switches its budget for prestige projects and ramps up its space activities then the US will have to take them seriously. If that happens there will be a lot of political pressure even on Hillary Clinton to stick with the moon plan for reasons of national prestige, even though it will be so expensive. If it doesn't happen, then budgetary pressures will very likely mean that Ares V isn't developed. It's only if by 2009 the US political establishment already is concerned about the possibility of China getting to the moon before them that there might be a change of plan to something like Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/28/2007 12:02 pm
Quote
MATTBLAK - 27/10/2007  8:00 PM

Quote
clongton - 28/10/2007 12:57 AM
Quote
MATTBLAK - 27/10/2007 8:51 AM Exactly!! For such an intelligent man, he seems so curiously against Direct's common-sense approach. Unless he's not telling us something, his opposition seems to be one akin to someone who hasn't even read the proposal.
Or isn't prepared to talk about it - yet.

 I meant Keith Cowing.

 

Fair enough. In that case, I would agree that his comments seem to indicate that he has, at best, only "skimmed" it, and has not actually read it. It is not wise to make technical comments on a proposal one has not actually read, which "appears" to be the case here. That's  IMHO of course.

But let's not waste good thread ink talking about someone that is unrelated to DIRECT. The world is full of people who speak without knowledge. The beauty of NSF is that we find very few of them here, and when they do show themselves here, they quickly become sidelined.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/28/2007 12:11 pm
Quote
MrTim - 27/10/2007  9:52 PM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 27/10/2007  12:36 PM
These days, when you build a multi-billion dollar space system there are a significant (let's say currently more than 100,000 distinct items, conservatively) dimensioned drawings, parts lists, specific vendor agreements, interface control documents, requirements traces (from Lv 0 to Lv 4-5), specifications, points of contact, schedules, budgets, staffing plans, meeting schedules, etc. done by this time in a young program.  There are at least 10 meta-databases that contain and version control these items.  They exist in different versions at NASA centers, contractors, and subs.
This is one of the things missing from all the claims that Direct would close the gap; There are already many man years of paperwork alone, (not even going into all the wind tunnel and CFD work) being churned-out on Ares I both at NASA and at the various contractors and sub-contractors. With each and every business day that passes, somebody somewhere is specifying a screw, a washer, a coax cable, a pressure transducer, etc. and getting it into a database with reams of documentation and so-on. Each day that this happens is a day that any other solution falls a day further behind Ares. Any shift to Direct would need to replicate all of that work, starting on the day of the shift, so the gap closure would not be as-claimed. Furthermore, ANY changes to any "shuttle-derived" systems/structures may mean that you can keep some tooling, BUT it does not mean you do not need to spend all the time on new documentation and engineering. Indeed, even a "minor" change to an item can force changes to tooling and/or the proceedures for using that tooling to make the almost-identical item. It's one thing to "design" an alternative (as-in: do a bunch of math to show something is workable), and another thing entirely to DESIGN a system that will actually be built, tested, and flown. The fact that even a single piece of boilerplate metal is being cut is a sign of just how far behind any alternative is at this point.

ANY change in structure makes something a NEW thing with no history or paperwork.

ANY change in usage means new engineering work and LOTS of paperwork to certify the alternate useage.

IMHO "closing the gap" is not a good argument for Direct.
Mr Tim, I would be among the first to validate the essense of what you say, and I will not dispute the detail you provide. But it is equally obvious to me that, while the things you say are correct, you simply are unaware of the amount of detailed study and specifications that have already gone into this concept. We did not arrive at where we are with just a few pretty pictures and some calcs to see what those pictures could do. A lot of the detail you speak of has already been done. There is much more to do of course, but the basics are covered already.

Closing the "gap" is a very good arguement for DIRECT because we absolutely "can" do that, and with the time margins that we specified.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 10/28/2007 04:28 pm
Quote
anonymous - 28/10/2007  5:06 AM

Choosing Direct would mean he was committing himself to an expensive moon plan. The political beauty of the Ares plan is that it splits the LEO launcher and the moon launcher, putting off the real decision about what to do.


Actually the Jupiter-120 (Ares-II) is the first launch system of the DIRECT plan.  First DIRECT provides the margin need to field a safe lunar capable Orion, a necessary step for everything else.  Second we can actually finish the ISS, imagine that.  After 20 years and billions of dollars we actually finished what the taxpayers have already paid for instead of keeping it in a warehouse.  Third by adding an upper stage and LSAM we enable a 2xHLV Lunar Mission with more margin/performance than the Ares-I/V plan at a lower operational cost.  This decision point for the ISS to Lunar VSE shift is two presidential cycles away from now and much less expensive than an Ares-V + LSAM.

Add to this that the Ares-I is square in the crosshairs of the more capable and lower cost EELV’s.  The Jupiter-120 is 2x the best EELV in lift capacity and 8x in volume enabling new missions not possible today for the unmanned charter of NASA as well.  The super space telescopes don’t utilize the lift capacity of the Ares-V but its volume which the Jupiter-120 has as well and much sooner.  Mars sample return also is back in play because the EELV’s just can’t do it.

Add to this the preservation of the NASA centers + the possibility of producing a true National launch system composed of Lockheed/Martin, Boeing, ATK, P&W, etc (with an intelligent contractor breakout of the Jupiter’s components) and we have wins for everyone.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 10/28/2007 05:27 pm
Stephen, I was referring to the idea (which Ross has advocated) of choosing an EELV in 2009 to close the gap and Direct to go to the moon. The problem with choosing Jupiter-120 in 2009 for the ISS is that it's likely to lengthen the gap compared to sticking with Ares I at that point. I agree that Jupiter-120 is more capable than Ares I and that Direct seems a better architecture than Ares for the moon, but it's more expensive and (in 2009) probably slower than Ares I for the ISS. Direct's advantages are really if you want to go to the moon.

I notice that none of the Republicans have said anything about space policy or criticised Hillary Clinton's proposal to switch NASA from the VSE back to science. Everyone knows that there's a huge fiscal hole caused by Bush's big-government conservatism (cut taxes and increase spending at the same time). NASA will either have to devote most of its budget to the VSE and sacrifice most of its other activity (and the jobs associated with them), or get a big budget increase while other programmes get cut. Direct saves $1-2 billion a year compared to Ares, but according to your own figures it still means increasing spending to nearly twice what's been spent annually on the Shuttle and ISS. It's less unaffordable than Ares, but not that much less.

The only thing that I can see making Congress and future administrations want to spend that sort of money rather than stop at Ares I is the prospect of China sending people to the moon, while the US remains in LEO. And if the game becomes about beating China then Direct makes sense as quicker as well as cheaper than Ares - although there may be other architectures that are even quicker. The difficulty you have is that people don't take the prospect of China going to the moon by 2020 very seriously because their current space programme seems, as Jeffrey Bell put it, "at about 1/8 the pace managed by the USSR". I think they are serious because they would hate to lose face now they've virtually declared a moon race by making such definite statements about their goal, but I'm not sure they would stick with it if the US abandoned its moon plans.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jml on 10/28/2007 06:13 pm
IMHO, a switch to DIRECT even well after the next 24 months still has significant advantages not related to the "gap". Sure, the sooner NASA switches to DIRECT, the less time, money, and effort is wasted on getting us stuck in LEO with Ares I for the next 20 years or so.
 
But, even if the 5-segment booster design is complete, and the J-2X is ready to fly, and even if the Ares I is already launching crew to the ISS, using those new components on a J-120/J-232H 2-launch architecture still makes more financial sense than Ares I and V.

At any time before contractors start modifying facilities and bending metal for the first Ares V, it makes sense for NASA to switch their CaLV architecture from the currently envisioned 5 RS-68/10m core/1 J-2X EDS to an "Ares 3" or "J-232H" (3 RS-68/8.4m core/2 J-2X EDS). The billions saved from not needing to build new crawlers, VAB platforms, MLP towers, and ET/core manufacturing tooling would go a long way for paying for the LSAM and EDS, or continued ISS missions, or other programs. And the 5-seg boosters do a little bit to help the performance of the J-232H ("Heavy"), with or without a core tank stretch.

Of course at that point, even if the Ares I is already flying, moving the crewed Orion ISS missions from Ares I to a J-120 would free up a huge chunk of annual fixed costs, which would mean that NASA would be able to afford a lot more than just launching one lunar mission and two ISS rotations per year.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2007 07:34 pm
I have said and will continue to say that an EELV CLV works extremely well along side the Jupiter launchers.   And together - like most partnerships - they are even stronger than apart.

But I am very concerned regarding the concerted effort to simply build an EELV CLV alone - an approach apparently being supported by Hilary Clinton and many of the other Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle which will ultimately strand us for 20 years in Low Earth Orbit just at the time when China, India, Japan and Europe are all making concerted efforts and strides towards real space exploration.

An EELV-only solution is just as bad as Ares-I/V.   It is a path which leads straight to never leaving LEO again because all the Lunar missions are relegated to mere "plans" to build a second launcher or "plans" to use the 25mT lift capabilities to do the missions in a lego-brick approach - and mere "plans" are notoriously changed and cancelled.

Some Political factions are just dying to find a reason to kill the VSE - for a variety of reasons -and the EELV-only approach puts the whole Lunar and Mars plans smack bang in the middle of their favourite target range - just like Ares-V is currently.


IMHO, the *ONLY* hope for NASA reaching the moon again within the next two decades is to be building a lunar-capable launcher right now.   ISS servicing, while important, is actually secondary to that, and any vehicle capable of going to the moon is most certainly capable of also doing everything we could possibly want at ISS too.

So, to me, the best possible path for us would be for NASA to *quietly* get together with USAF and jointly fund a man-rating of one or other EELV (or both).   NASA's contribution probably wouldn't need to be much more than $300m for each of three, maybe four, years.

$300m is equaivalent to the cost of each Mars Exploration Rover, or a single Delta-IV-Heavy launch, so it *should* be quite affordable. That program should be promoted as a primarily USAF project, just with NASA support.   The goal would be to lift fairly standard Crewed Orion's to LEO for all sorts of missions near Earth.   It can be used for ISS Crew Rotation quite easily and other EELV solutions can be utilised for ISS cargo supply also.

But NASA's main publicity machine should then be focussed entirely on the new Lunar Program and closing the workforce ap after STS.   To do that they should retain an SDLV solution.   Obviously, we all know my preference in that selection process is, but the plan there should be to field the first of the new generation of Lunar-capable launchers around 2012 and the fully-capable version two years after that.

Further I still strongly advocate the Propellant Depot Architecture specifically because it doesn't just benefit NASA - the propellant delivery services are ripe for EELV participation and four, eight or a dozen extra EELV flights every year would have a *very* positive impact on all EELV operations, allowing DoD to reduce its costs by sharing them with partners - as EELV was always supposed to do.

This joint approach offers improved business to the EELV program, it offers DoD a manned spaceflight capability all its own, it checks all the workforce retention boxes, reduces NASA's development and fixed costs massively and puts NASA firmly on a path going straight at the moon which would be a heckuva lot more difficult to de-rail than the Ares-I/V is or either EELV solution would be.

Wouldn't such a cooperative approach seem to be the best for ALL parties interested?

I ask, what is the benefit to ANYONE to start a turf war over Ares' ashes?

Or is a turf war all anyone really cares about these days and bog to the mission?

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 10/28/2007 08:04 pm
Quote
anonymous - 28/10/2007  11:27 AM

Stephen, I was referring to the idea (which Ross has advocated) of choosing an EELV in 2009 to close the gap and Direct to go to the moon. The problem with choosing Jupiter-120 in 2009 for the ISS is that it's likely to lengthen the gap compared to sticking with Ares I at that point. I agree that Jupiter-120 is more capable than Ares I and that Direct seems a better architecture than Ares for the moon, but it's more expensive and (in 2009) probably slower than Ares I for the ISS. Direct's advantages are really if you want to go to the moon.

I notice that none of the Republicans have said anything about space policy or criticised Hillary Clinton's proposal to switch NASA from the VSE back to science. Everyone knows that there's a huge fiscal hole caused by Bush's big-government conservatism (cut taxes and increase spending at the same time). NASA will either have to devote most of its budget to the VSE and sacrifice most of its other activity (and the jobs associated with them), or get a big budget increase while other programmes get cut. Direct saves $1-2 billion a year compared to Ares, but according to your own figures it still means increasing spending to nearly twice what's been spent annually on the Shuttle and ISS. It's less unaffordable than Ares, but not that much less.

The only thing that I can see making Congress and future administrations want to spend that sort of money rather than stop at Ares I is the prospect of China sending people to the moon, while the US remains in LEO. And if the game becomes about beating China then Direct makes sense as quicker as well as cheaper than Ares - although there may be other architectures that are even quicker. The difficulty you have is that people don't take the prospect of China going to the moon by 2020 very seriously because their current space programme seems, as Jeffrey Bell put it, "at about 1/8 the pace managed by the USSR". I think they are serious because they would hate to lose face now they've virtually declared a moon race by making such definite statements about their goal, but I'm not sure they would stick with it if the US abandoned its moon plans.

Let’s look at how much tooling and equipment is already in place for the Jupiter-120 (Ares-II)

Launch infrastructure is already in place.
Transportation infrastructure is already in place
Integration infrastructure is already in place.
The 4-Segment SRB production infrastructure is already in place
The External Tank production infrastructure is already in place.
No new engines are needed.  The current 2xRS-68 will work just fine.
We can stop wasting time and money need to put Orion out in the parking lot so it can fit on the Ares-I or fit within the safe abort lift capacity of an EELV which is not much better BTW.

The configuration is solid and has margin for ISS and 2xHLV for Lunar.

All we need is an Aft Thrust Structure and a PLF.

I would suggest that even at this point Ares-II is ahead of Ares-I in terms of real hardware and will be for the next two years or so.  The only system ahead of this would be EELV’s but then the pacing item would shift to Orion and EELV’s would still leave key lunar components of Orion in the parking lot just like Ares-I.  While even a wagon wheel could be turned into a SaturnV, if you removed the wagon wheel and then added the SaturnV, any EELV that even comes close to just our entry level Jupiter-120 is a new rocket.  The Jupiter-232 is completely beyond anything an EELV could do.  Russian engines are a non-starter, new engines take a lot of time and money, and LOX/LH2 is the wrong fuel for the booster of a high capacity all liquid rocket.

Concerning the gap the Space Shuttle is running behind.  I think the criteria for retirement should be when we finish what we committed to deliver to the ISS and leave the rest to the Jupiter-120 (Ares-II).  That would put us in the 2011-2012 time frame (no more launches than planned at the start) for the retirement of the Space Shuttle which is plenty of time to get the Jupiter-120 up and running lifting a Lunar Class Orion to the ISS with U.S. elements for the ISS.  No gap the Jupiter-120 (Ares-II) just takes over finishing the ISS and getting some launches under our belt before we add a second stage and refine the booster design from the quick but safe design we did to get up and running on the Jupiter-120 (Ares-II).

Add an upper stage and we have Apollo-8. (2014)

Add an LSAM and we have Apollo-9 (2015)

2xHLV EOR/LOR the above and we have Lunar Global Access and Anytime return. (2017)

The EELV’s can’t even come close to DIRECT’s capability, time frame, or budget.  More importantly if the key objective behind the VSE was to stop burning money and risking astronauts’ lives to just go in circles around the Earth we have them beat there as well.

Now.......
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 10/28/2007 10:04 pm
Quote
kraisee - 28/10/2007  3:34 PM

{snip}
But I am very concerned regarding the concerted effort to simply build an EELV CLV alone - an approach apparently being supported by Hilary Clinton and many of the other Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle which will ultimately strand us for 20 years in Low Earth Orbit just at the time when China, India, Japan and Europe are all making concerted efforts and strides towards real space exploration.

{snip}
One interesting thing about the Jupiter architecture that Saturn didn't even have...  There was no mid-capacity launcher.  When the powers that be decided to cut the lunar program, the Saturn V wasn't meant to be cut back, so it was altogether cancelled.  If after the lunar program has been going for some time, if enough momentum builds to cancel the lunar program, NASA could just fall back to the J-120.  There is no need to mothball the entire architecture; just stop producing the EDS.

Don't get me wrong--I DO NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN...  but should it happen, the interesting side effect there is that we can scale back without scrapping an in-production HLV.  Ramping back up only means starting up the U/S production again.

M@
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 10/28/2007 10:32 pm
We've been told that developing Jupiter-120 would take about five years from when it starts. I was basing my comments on that. What could be quicker than Direct for going to the moon is Shuttle-B because it would require less development, although it's not elegant. I've never thought that doing lunar missions in several launches with EELVs was operationally practical.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 10/28/2007 10:49 pm
Quote
kraisee - 28/10/2007  9:34 PM

I have said and will continue to say that an EELV CLV works extremely well along side the Jupiter launchers.   And together - like most partnerships - they are even stronger than apart.

But I am very concerned regarding the concerted effort to simply build an EELV CLV alone - an approach apparently being supported by Hilary Clinton and many of the other Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle which will ultimately strand us for 20 years in Low Earth Orbit just at the time when China, India, Japan and Europe are all making concerted efforts and strides towards real space exploration.

I don't think that Hillary Clinton supports an EELV CLV. It sounds like she wants to speed development of Ares I. Her science policy press release stated:

Hillary is committed to a space exploration program that involves robust human spaceflight to complete the Space Station and later human missions, expanded robotic spaceflight probes of our solar system leading to future human exploration, and enhanced space science activities. She will speed development, testing, and deployment of next-generation launch and crew exploration vehicles to replace the aging Space Shuttle. And in pursuing next-generation programs, Hillary will capitalize on the expertise of the current Shuttle program workforce and will not allow a repeat of the “brain drain” that occurred between the Apollo and shuttle missions.

Do you know something else?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/28/2007 11:00 pm
Quote
anonymous - 28/10/2007  7:49 PM

I don't think that Hillary Clinton supports an EELV CLV. It sounds like she wants to speed development of Ares I. Her science policy press release stated:

Hillary is committed to a space exploration program that involves robust human spaceflight to complete the Space Station and later human missions, expanded robotic spaceflight probes of our solar system leading to future human exploration, and enhanced space science activities. She will speed development, testing, and deployment of next-generation launch and crew exploration vehicles to replace the aging Space Shuttle. And in pursuing next-generation programs, Hillary will capitalize on the expertise of the current Shuttle program workforce and will not allow a repeat of the “brain drain” that occurred between the Apollo and shuttle missions.

Do you know something else?

Nowhere in there is specific support for Ares I.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 10/28/2007 11:24 pm
Quote
Jim - 28/10/2007  5:00 PM

Quote
anonymous - 28/10/2007  7:49 PM

I don't think that Hillary Clinton supports an EELV CLV. It sounds like she wants to speed development of Ares I. Her science policy press release stated:

Hillary is committed to a space exploration program that involves robust human spaceflight to complete the Space Station and later human missions, expanded robotic spaceflight probes of our solar system leading to future human exploration, and enhanced space science activities. She will speed development, testing, and deployment of next-generation launch and crew exploration vehicles to replace the aging Space Shuttle. And in pursuing next-generation programs, Hillary will capitalize on the expertise of the current Shuttle program workforce and will not allow a repeat of the “brain drain” that occurred between the Apollo and shuttle missions.

Do you know something else?

Nowhere in there is specific support for Ares I.

No President will likely support shutting down manned space exploration.  Therefore NASA first launch system after the Space Shuttle should be the most capable it can field.  Then wait if necessary for the right environment to add a second stage and LSAM.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 10/28/2007 11:47 pm
Quote
Jim - 29/10/2007  1:00 AM

Quote
anonymous - 28/10/2007  7:49 PM

I don't think that Hillary Clinton supports an EELV CLV. It sounds like she wants to speed development of Ares I. Her science policy press release stated:

Hillary is committed to a space exploration program that involves robust human spaceflight to complete the Space Station and later human missions, expanded robotic spaceflight probes of our solar system leading to future human exploration, and enhanced space science activities. She will speed development, testing, and deployment of next-generation launch and crew exploration vehicles to replace the aging Space Shuttle. And in pursuing next-generation programs, Hillary will capitalize on the expertise of the current Shuttle program workforce and will not allow a repeat of the “brain drain” that occurred between the Apollo and shuttle missions.

Do you know something else?

Nowhere in there is specific support for Ares I.

But is that statement about the current Shuttle workforce compatible with a decision to scrap Ares I and go with an EELV instead?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/28/2007 11:58 pm
Quote
anonymous - 28/10/2007  6:47 PM

Quote
Jim - 29/10/2007  1:00 AM

Quote
anonymous - 28/10/2007  7:49 PM

I don't think that Hillary Clinton supports an EELV CLV. It sounds like she wants to speed development of Ares I. Her science policy press release stated:

Hillary is committed to a space exploration program that involves robust human spaceflight to complete the Space Station and later human missions, expanded robotic spaceflight probes of our solar system leading to future human exploration, and enhanced space science activities. She will speed development, testing, and deployment of next-generation launch and crew exploration vehicles to replace the aging Space Shuttle. And in pursuing next-generation programs, Hillary will capitalize on the expertise of the current Shuttle program workforce and will not allow a repeat of the “brain drain” that occurred between the Apollo and shuttle missions.

Do you know something else?

Nowhere in there is specific support for Ares I.

But is that statement about the current Shuttle workforce compatible with a decision to scrap Ares I and go with an EELV instead?

Could be.  A possible approach to the current issues could be to put Orion on the EELV(s) and use the Ares-I money to develop an STS-derived heavy-lifter like the J-232.  The Ares-I US contract could be re-directed to develop the J-232 US, and the 5-seg contract could be canceled in favor of developing the new tank/thrust structure, all while continuing RS-68 and J2X development.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 10/29/2007 12:26 am
Quote
anonymous - 28/10/2007  7:49 PM

I don't think that Hillary Clinton supports an EELV CLV. It sounds like she wants to speed development of Ares I. Her science policy press release stated:

{snip} And in pursuing next-generation programs, Hillary will capitalize on the expertise of the current Shuttle program workforce and will not allow a repeat of the “brain drain” that occurred between the Apollo and shuttle missions.
That last part about capitalizing on STS expertise and preventing the brain drain doesn't leave any room for an all-EELV solution. The only way to do what she says is shuttle derived. There is no other way to keep those words because EELV CANNOT prevent that manpower massacre; in fact it will directly cause it. Any all-EELV solution will send thousands and thousands of space industry workers to the unemployment lines, to be quickly followed by the Congressmen and Senators who allowed it.

Any of you good folks out there who depend on space industry for your jobs better make sure you know how to contact your Representatives and Senators if EELV comes snooping around trying to take the whole ball game, because if they succeed, you can kiss your jobs, your mortgages, the kids college funds and your financial futures goodbye, because they will be gone. Get used to $200 a week and food stamps.

And anybody who tells you different isn’t telling you the truth.
This is not a pretty fact, but it IS a fact.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MrTim on 10/29/2007 01:01 am
Quote
clongton - 28/10/2007  6:11 AM
Quote
MrTim - 27/10/2007  9:52 PM
Quote
mars.is.wet - 27/10/2007  12:36 PM
These days, when you build a multi-billion dollar space system there are a significant (let's say currently more than 100,000 distinct items, conservatively) dimensioned drawings, parts lists, specific vendor agreements, interface control documents, requirements traces... {snip}
This is one of the things missing from all the claims that Direct would close the gap; There are already many man years of paperwork alone, (not even going into all the wind tunnel and CFD work) being churned-out on Ares I both at NASA and at the various contractors and sub-contractors. With each and every business day that passes, somebody somewhere is specifying a screw, a washer, a coax cable, a pressure transducer, etc. and getting it into a database with reams of documentation and so-on. {snip}
IMHO "closing the gap" is not a good argument for Direct.
Mr Tim, I would be among the first to validate the essense of what you say, and I will not dispute the detail you provide. But it is equally obvious to me that, while the things you say are correct, you simply are unaware of the amount of detailed study and specifications that have already gone into this concept. We did not arrive at where we are with just a few pretty pictures and some calcs to see what those pictures could do. A lot of the detail you speak of has already been done. There is much more to do of course, but the basics are covered already.

Closing the "gap" is a very good arguement for DIRECT because we absolutely "can" do that, and with the time margins that we specified.
Chuck,
While I know that you and others who support Direct (and plenty of the engineers who log onto this site) know this stuff, there are doubtless many here who have never done any engineering work on large and/or safety related systems and I was cautioning that there is a LOT of that weird goo we call "stuff" that must happen behind the scenes which most people are never aware of.  :o

Depending upon vendor, requirements, people and personalities involved, etc. simply changing-out something "dumb" like a nut or washer can take some organizations a long time (even if it is not a critical item). I was not insulting the Direct team; it's just that the Ares team is doing a lot of this actual work as we type. No matter how much effort you guys put into Direct (and with no implication about the validity of that work (not the focus of this post)) the simple point is that actual paperwork, documents, engineering work etc is happening which will actually be used to build and certify flying hardware (assuming Ares is capable of flying (not the focus of this post)). The only way Direct could be keeping-up is by putting contracts out there so subcontractors started their efforts, doing actual engineering drawings in the same CAD software NASA and the vendors are using, getting NASA people to do the CFD and wind tunnel time on Direct designs, etc. There may-well be subcontractors out there who spent a pile of time this past month cutting metal on some initial test parts, working on tooling, analyzing results and writing proceedures that only they are aware of. There is simply a massive load of "stuff" that goes on that even upper-level managers do not see but which might be invalidated and need to be re-done in a switch to Direct. No matter how much genuine effort the Direct team employs and no matter how valid and reliable the data generated is, there would be people in the bureaucracies of govt and suppliers that would refuse to accept that input as-is ( wrong formats, wrong forms, wrong systems, wrong certifications, not properly approved, not supervised by the right engineers, etc. etc. etc. ) Even if the paper-pushers flexed their requirements enough to allow the work product of the Direct team to be imported, umm directly, even the act of importing data and propagating it through to all the suppliers would take time.

I leave it to anybody who has extremely intimate familiarity with both efforts to know exactly what the required effort and time to switch would be, I was simply pointing out that this would not happen in an instant ( I have seen posts by people cheering for Direct that imply they think

I think the Direct team have some very good arguments, but I just think the gap argument is one that starts-out favoring Direct, but shrinks-away with each passing day. By the time the next administrator is on-board, the gap argument will be dead (or may even have flipped-over to become a negative), while other arguments for Direct will still be exactly as valid as they were when 1st made.

Incidentally, I still think the other weak argument Direct must cope with is the per-launch cost of sending 6 people to ISS. Assuming Ares I works, it's one SRB (with one recovery) and a one-engine upper stage putting Orion into orbit versus Direct. I continue to believe that this is one reason Griffin is pushing Ares I to work; he knows the politics and knows that even if it costs more to develop, 10 years from now the politicians who fund NASA each year will only care about the launch costs (THOSE politicians will only care about THOSE budgets) ... it goes to the sustainability of manned spaceflight.

I'm not attacking Direct; I simply think you guys not only need to advance your best arguments, but you also need to have answers for your weak points and beware of any argument like the gap. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/29/2007 01:14 am
Quote
MrTim - 28/10/2007  8:01 PM
Incidentally, I still think the other weak argument Direct must cope with is the per-launch cost of sending 6 people to ISS. Assuming Ares I works, it's one SRB (with one recovery) and a one-engine upper stage putting Orion into orbit versus Direct. I continue to believe that this is one reason Griffin is pushing Ares I to work; he knows the politics and knows that even if it costs more to develop, 10 years from now the politicians who fund NASA each year will only care about the launch costs (THOSE politicians will only care about THOSE budgets) ... it goes to the sustainability of manned spaceflight.

I think this argument is only valid if taken in isolation - Ares-I versus J-120.  But that is not the case.  The real argument is Ares-I + Ares-V versus J-120+J-232 or 2xJ-232, as far as operational costs go.  Since the largest cost is labor, it makes sense to me that the Jupiter option will be the cheapest, since it is effectively only one system to support, rather than two.

Ares-I + Ares-V has 2 upper stages, a full set of SRBs, and one very large core to support, all with 5 MLPs and towers, and 2 sets of crawlers.

DIRECT has 1 upper stage, a full set of smaller SRBs, and one much smaller core to support, all with 3 MLPs, minimal LUTs, and 1 set of crawlers.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MrTim on 10/29/2007 03:05 am
Quote
anonymous - 28/10/2007  11:27 AM
I notice that none of the Republicans have said anything about space policy or criticised Hillary Clinton's proposal to switch NASA from the VSE back to science. Everyone knows that there's a huge fiscal hole caused by Bush's big-government conservatism (cut taxes and increase spending at the same time). {snip}
1. Look at records, not quotes. We are into an election cycle and words should be viewed as probable pandering. What Hillary has actually said thus far is worrying to me for how negative it was during pandering season, but frankly none of the candidates has a real big pro-spaceflight position AFAIK. Another good reason for Griffin's setup of a moon program tied to budgets rather than schedules; even if you hate his rockets, we should all be glad he has re-shaped some thinking at NASA about how to plan a program. (I think we'll get there as long as NASA paces the program to fit the budgets and does not raise its budgetary visibility by showing-up on The Hill asking for new money during next few years)

2. Federal revenues are actually way up... it's the spending that's off scale high, and plenty of people in Bush's own party have been very angry about that for a long time but have been tolerating it because they support him on other issues (like the war, the courts, etc.).
Quote
anonymous - 28/10/2007  11:27 AM
The only thing that I can see making Congress and future administrations want to spend that sort of money rather than stop at Ares I is the prospect of China sending people to the moon, while the US remains in LEO. {snip}
Spaceflight supporters should not count on China spooking the American voters and politicians. Most Americans do not see China as a threat and there are plenty of people both in industries and in congress who are so convinced China is a good place to make things ( and will be a great market for things REAL soon... ) that they have earned the negative label "Panda hugger" in some circles ( I am not using the term myself, just explaining moods and attitudes... ). If you think positive Chinese actions will shock people, look at the weak response when China rolled tanks on it's own people (a negative Chinese action). There were a few harsh words, a few temporary minor economic actions, then business as usual...some US tech firms even help the Chinese keep their people from reading about it on the web. The US has even greater ties to China now than it did back then. I recently had a "discussion" with a vendor who insisted China is now a democracy and no longer communist. The people will not be afraid of the country that sells toys to their children. Anybody who voices concern about a Chinese moon landing would likely be denounced as a racist. Gosh, I wonder how many contractors/sub-contractors/sub-sub-contractors are getting tools and/or parts for Ares/Orion from China...  ;)

No, we are going to have to go back to the moon for our own reasons, and unfortunately, at our own no-worries pace... ah well, it's probably healthier that way since we have already seen that a sprint to "beat somebody there" would then be abandoned after the "race".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MrTim on 10/29/2007 03:21 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 28/10/2007  7:14 PM
Quote
MrTim - 28/10/2007  8:01 PM
Incidentally, I still think the other weak argument Direct must cope with is the per-launch cost of sending 6 people to ISS. Assuming Ares I works, it's one SRB (with one recovery) and a one-engine upper stage putting Orion into orbit versus Direct. I continue to believe that this is one reason Griffin is pushing Ares I to work; he knows the politics and knows that even if it costs more to develop, 10 years from now the politicians who fund NASA each year will only care about the launch costs (THOSE politicians will only care about THOSE budgets) ... it goes to the sustainability of manned spaceflight.
I think this argument is only valid if taken in isolation - Ares-I versus J-120.  But that is not the case.  The real argument is Ares-I + Ares-V versus J-120+J-232 or 2xJ-232, as far as operational costs go.  Since the largest cost is labor, it makes sense to me that the Jupiter option will be the cheapest, since it is effectively only one system to support, rather than two..
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you as far as overall program cost, or moonshot cost, etc. I am only trying to caution about the pea-sized-brain politician mindset. The members of congress 10, 12, 14 (and so-on) years from now will not be asked to vote on the development costs of the program, construction of crawlers, etc. They will face the budgets that pay for the rockets being flown THEN. And the argument goes even more to Ares I (again, assuming it flies for this post, but not arguing that it will) if NASA gets its wings clipped and ends-up just going to and from ISS. If NASA is told to abandon the moon and focus on the Earth's climate and such Orion on Ares I or Orion on EELV probably beat Direct in the mini-me brains on The Hill. :(

Sorry, but astronauts on rockets are fueled by tax dollars, and political realities are a consideration. As I have said before, I suspect (but cannot prove) that Griffin is considering this and trying to protect manned access to space in those future years with a rocket that will be cheap to fly THEN while making the current generation of mental midgets happy by being "shuttle derived" NOW and also getting the expensive R&D for a heavy lifter (5-seg SRB, J-2X) in NOW so it is easy to build and fly Ares V in the future even if there are some lean years in the middle. It's more than a pure engineering exercise. The Direct plan should offer an equivalent cheap ride for Orion; I seem to recall that it does, but it should be at-the-ready (with cost comparisons) to answer the arguments.  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/29/2007 04:07 am
It doesn't appear that anyone else on here has ever seen the cost numbers for the Shuttle program, let alone Constellation.   It seems very few people ever do and there's just a lot of deep, dark mystery surrounding this "witchcraft"-like subject.   I suppose I've been very lucky because I have seen the real numbers - for both programs.

I'm going to lay this cost thing down once and for all.   If you want to learn about how NASA's costs *really* work, here, for your reading pleasure, is NASA Manufacturing Costs 101...


The actual "per flight" costs are quite minimal.   The driving cost for all these systems (EELV and SDLV alike) are the *FIXED* costs which you must pay regardless of whether you fly 1 mission, 5 missions, 20 missions or none at all.   Compared to the fixed costs, the variable ones are truly a drop in the ocean.

For example, the cost for 4 Shuttle SRB's per year (2 flights worth, 16 segments in total) totals $525m per year.   The cost for double that number - 8 Shuttle SRB's per year would only be a total cost of $570m - a difference of only $45m buys you 2 additional flight sets.

Zero flights in a year still incurs a fixed cost of approximately $475m, so you're talking the difference between a no-fly year and the busiest year ever seen by the Shuttle Program (8 flights in 1992) is less than $100m difference.


For a simple comparison, lets examine SRB costs in the Ares-I vs. Jupiter-120 ISS Crew Rotation roles for just a moment.   2 x Ares-I flights to ISS would expend a total of $551m on 10 SRB segments per year.   Jupiter's requirement for 32 segments would actually lower costs to $525m because the production line becomes considerably more efficient once you get up around 30 SRB segments per year mark - which allows a much steadier flow through the facilities and doesn't have to stop & re-start production all the time.

2 x 2-launch Crew Lunar missions and 2 x 1-launch cargo-only Lunar missions per year would total $620m for the 40 segments used by Ares-I and Ares-V together.   The same missions performed by Jupiter would require 48 SRB segments for a total cost of $677m - a quite reasonable $57m increase per year in exchange for deleting the $1.8bn worth of 5-segment SRB development work necessary to get Ares-I into the air at all.


A very similar situation exists with the costs for each stage too.   While radically different in dimensions, the External Tank-derived Core Stage on Jupiter and the Upper Stage of Ares-I are almost identical in cost from a manufacturing perspective.   They will be built in precisely the same factory, with the same number of staff, using the same number of robotic welding systems, to the same standards, from the same materials, with the same number of tanks, the same number of thrust structures all with the same inspections, oversight, management and eventually also transportation costs - these are the fixed costs and they just don't change much whether you build a small stage or a big one.   The only significant difference is really just the cost of Al-Li material used, and that is less than $2m difference per unit.

Again, just like with the SRB's it is really the FIXED costs which are the key driving force.   Both stages fixed costs are roughly $500m per year irrelevant of the flight rate.   Unit costs start out around $50m each and both drop to around $40m each in quantities of 4 per year, which will be the likely maximum for Ares-I, but Jupiter's Core will be used more often so unit cost drops to around $30m in quantities of 8 per year.   Although it should also be noted that development cost for the ET-derived unit is roughly $1,000-2000m lower than the US for Ares because so much commonality in manufacturing already exists with ET.


It is an interesting fact that the giant S-IC First Stage for Saturn-V cost almost exactly the same to manufacture as the much smaller S-IVB Third Stage - the only real difference was the cost of the five F-1 engines compared to the single J-2.

Oh, and as an aside on that particular topic, the man-rated RS-68A with an ablative nozzle will cost somewhere around $18m each, and the more complex air-startable and re-startable J-2X will apparently cost somewhere around $25m each.


But where DIRECT really strikes Ares down is where it requires fewer stages overall - thus fewer production lines, thus fewer FIXED cost overheads.   Ares-I and V require three (probably now even four) all-new cryo stages to be developed plus a new solid stage to be developed also.   Momentarily setting aside the high development costs for all that (see later for dev cost breakdowns), to operate each of those lines the fixed costs are all roughly in the ballpark of $500m of fixed costs per stage's production line.   So for four stages we are instantly talking a figure roughly around $2,000m ($2,500m if Ares-V gets its third cryo stage) in fixed costs every year simply to *prepare* to manufacture all of the Ares stages needed for the new program - without actually paying for any units yet.

Compare that to DIRECT which doesn't need to develop any new SRB's at all ($1,800m saving there instantly), and only needs three $500m production lines for all its stages.   That's a $500m saving every year compared to Ares just in manufacturing fixed costs alone.


Infrastructure changes are also total a significant amount of cash too.   Between MSFC, Michoud, Stennis and KSC the two vehicles and five (or six) different stages are going to need almost $4,000m worth of alterations, replacements, new equipment, new support systems in total.   Being able to re-use most of the existing STS hardware, Jupiter will halve that and cut the time needed to get it all ready to use in half as well.


And finally, Jupiter-120 plus the EDS to make the vehicle a J-232 cost the same as developing just the Ares-I and the EDS without developing the rest of Ares-V.   Given that each LV here costs about $16bn in full-wrap total costs from concept right through to the first operational flight, and that the EDS costs another $6bn on top, that means Ares-I costs $16bn, Ares-V costs another $16bn and the EDS costs another $6bn to develop for a total cost around $38bn by the time we're ready to launch lunar missions.   Jupiter however only needs one Core vehicle at $16bn and then just the EDS at $6bn, for a total cost of $22bn to get even bigger lunar missions going.

That $16,000m difference between Ares and Jupiter development costs could be used to pay for an awful lot of additional lunar missions and robotic science missions instead of yet more launcher development work.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/29/2007 04:10 am
Quote
MrTim - 29/10/2007  5:21 AM
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you as far as overall program cost, or moonshot cost, etc. I am only trying to caution about the pea-sized-brain politician mindset. The members of congress 10, 12, 14 (and so-on) years from now will not be asked to vote on the development costs of the program, construction of crawlers, etc. They will face the budgets that pay for the rockets being flown THEN. And the argument goes even more to Ares I (again, assuming it flies for this post, but not arguing that it will) if NASA gets its wings clipped and ends-up just going to and from ISS. If NASA is told to abandon the moon and focus on the Earth's climate and such Orion on Ares I or Orion on EELV probably beat Direct in the mini-me brains on The Hill. :(

Ares-I only lifts Orion to LEO.  Other than the ISS there is little in LEO that needs people.  The ISS has only a few more years left.  Without the Moon cost wise it becomes Orion v Dragon.  So is the operating cost of Ares-I less than the cost of Falcon 9?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/29/2007 05:45 am
Quote
anonymous - 28/10/2007  7:32 PM

We've been told that developing Jupiter-120 would take about five years from when it starts. I was basing my comments on that. What could be quicker than Direct for going to the moon is Shuttle-B because it would require less development, although it's not elegant. I've never thought that doing lunar missions in several launches with EELVs was operationally practical.

Like all of our figures, "5 years" is actually a very conservative estimate.

I had a NASA engineer contact me a few weeks ago who was doing his own analysis on DIRECT.   He was using the LV-24/25 data sets from ESAS as a starting point and was getting some confusing results, so he contacted me.

He wanted to know why his results showed about 12% better performance than ours did.   So I told him that's probably because we added an extra 10% margin to all of our performance numbers - above and beyond the normal GR&A margins - specifically to avoid any anti-DIRECT claims of "impossible performance" like we had following release of our V1.0 proposal.

I was actually quite happy to know that his numbers were still another 2% higher than ours.   It's good to have extra margins :)


From where I sit, the performance numbers in our AIAA paper are better than 99.9% confidence level.   Without the "super-safe" additional 10% margins, I'd say around 90% confidence.


"Five years" is actually another number packed with plenty of additional margin around the 99.9% confidence level.   I'd be be comfortable saying 90% confident at "Four years".   But at that point it might actually prove to be Orion which sets the schedule, not the launcher.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JonSBerndt on 10/29/2007 10:21 am
Quote
anonymous - 28/10/2007  7:47 PM

Quote
Jim - 29/10/2007  1:00 AM

Quote
anonymous - 28/10/2007  7:49 PM

I don't think that Hillary Clinton supports an EELV CLV. It sounds like she wants to speed development of Ares I. Her science policy press release stated:

Hillary is committed to a space exploration program that involves robust human spaceflight to complete the Space Station and later human missions, expanded robotic spaceflight probes of our solar system leading to future human exploration, and enhanced space science activities. She will speed development, testing, and deployment of next-generation launch and crew exploration vehicles to replace the aging Space Shuttle. And in pursuing next-generation programs, Hillary will capitalize on the expertise of the current Shuttle program workforce and will not allow a repeat of the “brain drain” that occurred between the Apollo and shuttle missions.

Do you know something else?

Nowhere in there is specific support for Ares I.

But is that statement about the current Shuttle workforce compatible with a decision to scrap Ares I and go with an EELV instead?

I was looking at AvWeek online this morning and my impression after reading their interpretation of her [Hillary's] position was that we would get only one new launch vehicle (at most) from her - and probably not even that. I'm not encouraged. I suspect that one of the arguments for DIRECT - the prescient suggestion that we're going to get only one new launch vehicle - is becoming more real with each passing day.

Jon
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 10/29/2007 10:26 am
Quote
MrTim - 29/10/2007  5:05 AM

Quote
anonymous - 28/10/2007  11:27 AM
The only thing that I can see making Congress and future administrations want to spend that sort of money rather than stop at Ares I is the prospect of China sending people to the moon, while the US remains in LEO. {snip}
Spaceflight supporters should not count on China spooking the American voters and politicians. Most Americans do not see China as a threat and there are plenty of people both in industries and in congress who are so convinced China is a good place to make things ( and will be a great market for things REAL soon... ) that they have earned the negative label "Panda hugger" in some circles ( I am not using the term myself, just explaining moods and attitudes... ). If you think positive Chinese actions will shock people, look at the weak response when China rolled tanks on it's own people (a negative Chinese action). There were a few harsh words, a few temporary minor economic actions, then business as usual...some US tech firms even help the Chinese keep their people from reading about it on the web. The US has even greater ties to China now than it did back then. I recently had a "discussion" with a vendor who insisted China is now a democracy and no longer communist. The people will not be afraid of the country that sells toys to their children. Anybody who voices concern about a Chinese moon landing would likely be denounced as a racist. Gosh, I wonder how many contractors/sub-contractors/sub-sub-contractors are getting tools and/or parts for Ares/Orion from China...  ;)

No, we are going to have to go back to the moon for our own reasons, and unfortunately, at our own no-worries pace... ah well, it's probably healthier that way since we have already seen that a sprint to "beat somebody there" would then be abandoned after the "race".

When Mike Griffin went to give evidence to Congress some time back, a number of the politicians mentioned the China issue. There is a business pro-China lobby that's very powerful, but I'm not talking about a Cold War like there was with the USSR. I'm talking about international rivalry. China is set to have a bigger economy than the US by the 2020s and establish itself as the predominant power in the world. The symbolism of China's moon goal is obvious. They know the greatest demonstration to the world of American capability remains landing people on the moon, something the USSR couldn't do. If China gets to the moon while the US remains in LEO it symbolises the idea that the US's glory days are past and the future belongs to China. Human spaceflight has always been about symbolism and national prestige. Judging by the corny demonstrations of patriotism that Americans go in for, I don't think the US has yet become a post-nationalist country that won't be disturbed about being No. 2 in the world. It's just that people see China as a country where toys are made, not one that is going to become more powerful than the US.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 10/29/2007 10:29 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 29/10/2007  1:10 AM

Ares-I only lifts Orion to LEO.  Other than the ISS there is little in LEO that needs people.  The ISS has only a few more years left.  Without the Moon cost wise it becomes Orion v Dragon.  So is the operating cost of Ares-I less than the cost of Falcon 9?

Dragon is not an option
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 10/29/2007 04:29 pm

Quote
JonSBerndt - 29/10/2007  6:21 AM   I was looking at AvWeek online this morning and my impression after reading their interpretation of her [Hillary's] position was that we would get only one new launch vehicle (at most) from her - and probably not even that. I'm not encouraged. I suspect that one of the arguments for DIRECT - the prescient suggestion that we're going to get only one new launch vehicle - is becoming more real with each passing day.  Jon

It's always been the fact that we were only going to get one LV. IMHO, Ares V has*always* been a fan dance - one and one half launches was a way of getting half a space program (like the second ship in Hitchhiker's Guide - don't build others). Historically, we've only had one manned space vehicle long term - so why should this be any different?

Griffin *knows* this - duh! The Scotty rocket does what his masters want him to do, and he's keeping to it no matter how bad it gets. He's trying to take away the need for various parts of the workforce not needed for anything but Ares I - that is the goal.

DIRECT is a plan B that lives or dies by the frustration of Griffin to pull off this enormous RIF. It goes away as an option when Ares I gets less expensive to pull off than DIRECT. As long as the Shuttle is around, DIRECT is *still* very cheap, and will stay so until Ares I components move out of the testing stage (don't look at sunk cost - it's deceptive and unreal politically - look to proven capabilities and active workforce).

EELV is a "retribution" option, once support has been critically undercut for the workforce. If you think any career politico's care one whit for the workforce when they've cut a deal both sides selling them down the river, forget it! They'll endure the wrath, and cut another deal in the background.

DIRECT still has powerful advantages over EELV politically as a way to retain the core of US manned space capability and quicky/cost effectively/safely move the ball of manned space accomplishments down the field, against other potential countries leadership alone. EELV can do this but takes longer.

Ares is an *ideological choice*, a two-bit "cheapo shuttle replacement", brought to you by the same smirking arrogant morons who talked themselves into a "cheap war". We're paying for sneaky unreality, not for performance, vision, or  capability, all embodied in the Saturn program. We've been working ourselves backwards since making it to the moon.

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/29/2007 06:09 pm
Quote
anonymous - 29/10/2007  7:26 AM

When Mike Griffin went to give evidence to Congress some time back, a number of the politicians mentioned the China issue. There is a business pro-China lobby that's very powerful, but I'm not talking about a Cold War like there was with the USSR. I'm talking about international rivalry. China is set to have a bigger economy than the US by the 2020s and establish itself as the predominant power in the world. The symbolism of China's moon goal is obvious. They know the greatest demonstration to the world of American capability remains landing people on the moon, something the USSR couldn't do. If China gets to the moon while the US remains in LEO it symbolises the idea that the US's glory days are past and the future belongs to China. Human spaceflight has always been about symbolism and national prestige. Judging by the corny demonstrations of patriotism that Americans go in for, I don't think the US has yet become a post-nationalist country that won't be disturbed about being No. 2 in the world. It's just that people see China as a country where toys are made, not one that is going to become more powerful than the US.


Wholeheartedly Agree.  There is a real-world dynamic at work too though.   The "perception" of which country has the technological high-ground drives a lot of international trade.

China's current trade with the world is mostly focussed upon being able to beat almost any other nation's cost to build any given product.   That won't always be the case though and China knows that to be the biggest trader in the world also means you must be recognized to be superior in terms of the technology capabilities too.

We have all heard the comments that China graduated more engineers alone last year than the US graduated students in all subjects.   While the details are being argued by some, there is no doubt that China is investing heavily in its future workforce and is making real progress in closing the technology gap between them and the US.   A highly educated new generation of Chinese will drive their whole economy for the next half century and in the numbers their population has, that's a real force for anyone to reckon with.

But, as "anonymous" says, they need a very clear symbol to advertise to the world just how good their technology is getting, purely to attract even more high-tech business to their shores.   The Apollo moon landings placed the USA in the position of being at the forefront of technological hardware anywhere in the world.   Yet today the US can't even repeat that feat - and the whole world knows it.

China simply believes they can earn a lot of international business if they can demonstrate technology capability as good, if not better, than the US.   Right now they are making more progress than we Westerners feel comfortable crediting them with.   But that's possibly the mistake of over-confidence on our part, and over-confidence is usually one of the greatest weaknesses a competitor can exploit.

China isn't in a fast race with us.   That isn't their style.   They'll just make steady, continual progress.   Classic Tortoise and Hare situation.   We're the Hare and we're still taking a mid-afternoon nap right now.

As far as the VSE is concerned, China is a fairly non-issue though, because they aren't pressuring us for time.   Just as long as we aren't stupid enough to just give up, we have this one in the bag already - Apollo 11 scored the winning goal already, we're just adding extra points now.   We need to be concentrating on making the VSE robust, workable, affordable and then just go get on with it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 10/29/2007 08:02 pm
No. China exists for China alone. China goes to the moon because the Chinese want to be seen as the leaders of the world, and in going to the moon it is something that leaders do. It's not the Soviet/ Kruschev "we will bury you", its "we will meet your challenge and steadily exceed you".

Want to deal with China? Always move the bar slightly further ahead, pushing it further out of reach. So its in a manned mission doing, lets say, a flyby of Mars. Then, they restructure to add that in, since to be a leader they have to land on the moon and flyby Mars. So then you flyby Venus ... Eventually, they partner if you dependably achieve, because they desire the participation in the achievement, so long as it isn't at secondary status, like often US space insists upon.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/29/2007 08:54 pm
I promised an official response from the DIRECT Team regarding Administrator Griffin's comments on Friday.

The weekend prevented us from contacting many of our team members before now, so we have not yet got a clear picture of events behind the scenes.   But, while we work those contacts, at this stage the entire team are all perfectly accepting of Dr. Griffin's polite response to the "Ask the Administrator" question.

We understand that NASA's Administrator could never say otherwise, whether things were happening behind closed doors or not.   To say otherwise would only server to detract in the level of confidence held in NASA and that isn't in anyone's best interest.

For now, we continue our efforts in a "business as usual" manner until we hear otherwise via established channels.   We believe we are continuing to make exceptionally good progress.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: imcub on 10/29/2007 09:52 pm
OK, I seem to be out of the loop ... and I'm member at L2 so I shouldn't be ... so if you don't mind ... who asked Mike Griffin what in regards to Direct?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2007 10:29 pm
Quote
imcub - 29/10/2007  11:52 PM

OK, I seem to be out of the loop ... and I'm member at L2 so I shouldn't be ... so if you don't mind ... who asked Mike Griffin what in regards to Direct?



We cover NASA and space industry on L2, such as Ares, Shuttle, etc. There is no "NASA loop" on Direct at NASA. Go back about five pages for the link that was posted again (thus duplicate) with Griffin's response to a question asked by someone (no one will know who) in Ask the Administrator...but be assured there's no documented notes on Direct at NASA, thus nothing to do with L2. It's all noted here. The one time it was on L2 was the AIAA presentation for space industry first look.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 10/30/2007 04:37 am
Quote
imcub - 29/10/2007  6:52 PM

OK, I seem to be out of the loop ... and I'm member at L2 so I shouldn't be ... so if you don't mind ... who asked Mike Griffin what in regards to Direct?

Sorry, it did have its own separate thread, but James merged it all into this one even though I asked him not to.

The posting started by wingod is on page 170 of this thread now - a handful of posts down.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: imcub on 10/30/2007 06:51 am
Quote
Chris Bergin - 29/10/2007  4:29 PM

Quote
imcub - 29/10/2007  11:52 PM

OK, I seem to be out of the loop ... and I'm member at L2 so I shouldn't be ... so if you don't mind ... who asked Mike Griffin what in regards to Direct?



We cover NASA and space industry on L2, such as Ares, Shuttle, etc. There is no "NASA loop" on Direct at NASA. Go back about five pages for the link that was posted again (thus duplicate) with Griffin's response to a question asked by someone (no one will know who) in Ask the Administrator...but be assured there's no documented notes on Direct at NASA, thus nothing to do with L2. It's all noted here. The one time it was on L2 was the AIAA presentation for space industry first look.

Sorry Chris ... the loop thing was a joke.  You know ... "In the loop, out of the loop, and doesn't know there is a loop".  Being a member on L2, I know I have ALL the spaceflight information at my fingertips ... if I can find it.  I went back several pages but nothing registered with my aging eyes.   Thanks for pointing me in the right direction ... i.e. further back.

Dave

PS Thank you too Ross.  
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/30/2007 09:41 am
Copy that Dave!

Ross, I'll contact you and work on a thread seperation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: infocat13 on 11/01/2007 07:41 pm
I wonder what an EELV lower stage with the Ares 1 upper stage would look like and could the two be or made to be compatable?
or ares 1 upper stage as a moduler launcher both upper and lower stage much like the delta and atlas heavy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 11/01/2007 09:54 pm
The J-2X would need to be modified to allow for sea level operation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 11/01/2007 10:38 pm
EELV:s can't lift something that is that heavy. A smaller upper stage is better for EELV:s (they give more delta vee in the first stage than Ares I since they have higher ISP and higher mass ratio first stages). Don't know where the optimal point would be.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: infocat13 on 11/02/2007 12:29 am
ummmmm ok thanks for the viewpoints ! I have seen concepts for future super heavy EELV that seem to use a large upper stage...........................perhaps an Ares 1 upper stage with a shorter tank  and a existing EELV heavy lower stages?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/02/2007 04:35 am
These "evolved" EELV discussions need to be taken to a separate thread please.

Feel free to talk about ideas for different Upper Stage configurations and such as long as they pertain to DIRECT though.

But variants of the EELV's are already represented by a variety of other threads.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sticksux on 11/02/2007 01:21 pm
Quote
clongton - 29/10/2007  2:26 AM
EELV CANNOT prevent that manpower massacre; in fact it will directly cause it. Any all-EELV solution will send thousands and thousands of space industry workers to the unemployment lines, to be quickly followed by the Congressmen and Senators who allowed it.

Any of you good folks out there who depend on space industry for your jobs better make sure you know how to contact your Representatives and Senators if EELV comes snooping around trying to take the whole ball game, because if they succeed, you can kiss your jobs, your mortgages, the kids college funds and your financial futures goodbye, because they will be gone. Get used to $200 a week and food stamps.

Or maybe try to finally build rockets which do not cost $500 million a pop for 25 ton payload?

I thought the whole purpose of this space exploration thingy was to, eh, explore space. Now I see - it is a program to keep losers well fed/paid (by non-losers' taxes).

Sorry guys, it doesn't work that way. If you cannot build stuff which competes, you should leave it to those who can.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: publiusr on 11/02/2007 04:21 pm
Quote
Stephan - 27/10/2007  4:26 AM

Quote
- 26/10/2007  5:31 PM
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/10/todays_ask_the_16.html#more

I don't understand why Keith keep calling direct "Powerpoint concepts", you may like Direct or not, but the technical and engineering side is clearly there. I like Direct because it's not yet another powerpoint concept ...

I agree. The term "powerpoint/viewgraph engineering" I reserve for X-33/VentureStar type concepts--not big rockets that are simple by comparison.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: guru on 11/02/2007 04:36 pm
Referring to skilled technicians, trained scientists, and experienced engineers as losers is frankly demeaning and juvenile.

If the space shuttle was a commercial cargo launcher it would be out of business overnight.  Thus, it's purpose is not to launch commercial cargo (inspite of pre-Challenger rhetoric), but multi-billion dollar space station components which require human presence for assembly.  Within this definition, the shuttle is part of the payload, so the cost is $2,500 per pound, or less than half of the rate at which SpaceX is selling the Falcon 1 launch vehicle.  It is only 50% more per pound than what they will charge for Falcon 9.

The beauty of DIRECT is that it allows you to count the shuttle portion as part of the payload without having to drag the shuttle up there along with the rest of the rocket.  Increased flight rates made possible by not having to pull test shuttle tiles or worry as much about human safety on every single flight will also reduce the cost/pound rates further such that it could be competitive with (though not cheaper than) the commercial options soon to be available.

Another goal of DIRECT is to maintain the heavy lift launch capabilities that the US has abandoned once, and the Russians have abandoned twice.  There are obviously cheaper ways to do space travel than how NASA is currently doing it.  But, no one else out there is trying to build an HLLV without government guarantees of a buy because the commercial market does not need such a large booster.  Please note, I am completely in favor of commercial space.  NASA "needs to get out of LEO" to quote a lot of alt.spacers, and work on doing real space exploration.   DIRECT is a means of allowing this to happen while only having to develop one rocket over the course of four years, instead of two over the course of ten.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: publiusr on 11/02/2007 04:38 pm
Quote
kraisee - 29/10/2007  1:45 AM


Like all of our figures, "5 years" is actually a very conservative estimate.

I had a NASA engineer contact me a few weeks ago who was doing his own analysis on DIRECT.   He was using the LV-24/25 data sets from ESAS as a starting point and was getting some confusing results, so he contacted me.

He wanted to know why his results showed about 12% better performance than ours did.   So I told him that's probably because we added an extra 10% margin to all of our performance numbers - above and beyond the normal GR&A margins - specifically to avoid any anti-DIRECT claims of "impossible performance" like we had following release of our V1.0 proposal.

I was actually quite happy to know that his numbers were still another 2% higher than ours.   It's good to have extra margins :)


Ross.


Great news!


Have you tried to contact Hillary Clinton's Campaign?  There are three events of recent date that might be used to your advantage. Recently Griffin got in trouble with the Air Safety study (like its NASA's job to do NTSB's work). Hillary waffled on the driver's license deal, and we have seen the Space Solar Power stories coming from a rare few in the Air Force.

Hillary could thus be seen with some military men, DIRECT saves shuttle jobs like Ares does, and promises clean energy--if a Direct SPS arguement can be made for her.

I'm afraid the anti-LV folks like Cowing's camp will try whatever political connections he may have to push the stupid EELV only option, that would result in loss of jobs, and defeat for congressmen.

But the Congressmen are often too stupid to understand such ramifications, and a cancellation of VSE will seem at first the cheapest option for them.

The only thing for it is to shout the Cowings down and to out-manipulate the anti-VSE camp.

So I would suggest a simple letter to Hillary's office, a link to Direct and how it would keep jobs and help with the launch of SPS demonstratiors.

Suggest Pete Worden to lead the Air Force as I have suggested, and John Connoly for NASA Chief. His dad was in the motorcade with JFK, so there may be something in name recognition she might latch onto.

This might all come down to name-dropping.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/02/2007 07:21 pm
Quote
publiusr - 2/11/2007  1:38 PM

Have you tried to contact Hillary Clinton's Campaign?...

We have been in contact with a lot of political figures already, on all sides of the political spectrum.   We have started with figures who are likely to have the most immediate effect on NASA's fate, but ultimately we will approach every member of Congress before the holidays.

What there is of the EELV faction hasn't yet presented any solutions for *how* they're actually going to do anything similar to the 4-person/7-day missions NASA wants.   Have you heard anything about how they intend to launch the thing in half a dozen flights and dock everything together yet?   I know I haven't yet heard any more than just guesses, and even those sound pretty far-fetched to me - and I'm a fairly well connected guy these days.   I would have expected to hear a lot more by now if it were significant.

They still have yet to justify their costs forecasts, also their schedules, their technology drivers, their safety.   While they probably can pull something together in all those areas with sufficient effort, most of all, they are going to have a nightmare time trying to justify thousands of job losses all around the country to the political leadership of the country.   I don't think there's any chance of that succeeding myself if any other alternative exists which can protect those jobs - and DIRECT shows one alternative which *CAN* save all those jobs.

Further, what little exists right now of the EELV arguments are actually quite difficult to get across compared to "just do this to protect jobs" - that sort of thing tends to be far more in the line of work for most politicians rather than rocket science, so I think we have a major advantage in the halls of power.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/02/2007 07:58 pm
Quote
sticksux - 2/11/2007  10:21 AM

Or maybe try to finally build rockets which do not cost $500 million a pop for 25 ton payload?

I thought the whole purpose of this space exploration thingy was to, eh, explore space. Now I see - it is a program to keep losers well fed/paid (by non-losers' taxes).

Sorry guys, it doesn't work that way. If you cannot build stuff which competes, you should leave it to those who can.

I have to agree with "guru" that terming experienced aerospace employees that way just isn't appropriate.   There are hundreds of the affected people reading this forum every day and I think you might owe them an apology.

Having said that, I understand your sentiment.

NASA seems dead-set right now on making a $16bn boondoggle with Ares-I, just so it can do it again with Ares-V.   It's unrealistic to say the least and they're finally figuring that out now.

The issue of the workforce is far more dynamic than most people realize.   There are two primary elements jostling for importance:

1) Political support comes from the voters.   Like most government programs, NASA's budget tends to be determined by officials who represent the states and districts where the space program ultimately spend its money.   They have an obvious vested interest.   But they have no job at all if their electorate boots them out of office for screwing them - like happens when they decide to pick an alternative leading to job losses when other alternatives do not.

2) NASA needs to retain its highly experienced staff.   They know the business, they know what to look out for, they know what works and what doesn't.   And we need the experienced staff at every level in just a few short years if we're ever going back to the moon successfully again.   So, is it wise to boot them all out the door now and ask them to come back again in four years?   Or do you expect such an employee to just fly you the bird in response?


The new Constellation Program, when it finally gets fully operational is going to dwarf the STS/ISS programs.   It is going to be doing so much more that that is the only logical outcome.

In the end, the *ONLY* important question is do we choose to screw all the current loyal staff now, or is there another way allowing us to keep them through the transition period?

The way to do that is to absorb everyone into the first systems.   Ares-I isn't large enough to absorb the entire STS workforce and neither is either EELV option.   They just can't protect the brain drain from occurring.

But DIRECT *can* do that because Jupiter-120/Orion is a large enough and capable enough system to be *more* than just a mere Crew Launch Vehicle.   There are more real tasks which can be performed with it - such as continuing ISS assembly and performing major repairs even after STS has retired and fixing Hubble.

It is that sort of *capability* which allows ALL of the staff to be kept busy for the two extra years you need to get the program all the way to the Lunar phase.   And you aren't wasting any skills - you're still using all your staff to NASA's greater benefit.

And the staff are still with you when you *really* need them as the Lunar program comes online.

When the time comes, the staff numbers which you need for the Lunar effort are then pulled out of the J-120/Orion program and dedicated to the new efforts, including EDS, LSAM and Lunar Base construction.



DIRECT offers a "bridge" to protect the workforce at all NASA's Centers and Contractors currently working STS.   A bridge which even Ares-I can't offer.   It shortens the "gap" - thereby shortening this "bridge" span too, which only makes it even more plausible.   AND it costs no more than Ares-I to do.

The transition period is cut, the brain drain is prevented, the politicians keep their jobs and NASA gets a robust space program which ultimately costs a lot less than the outgoing system.

Everybody wins.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/02/2007 08:45 pm
Quote
publiusr - 2/11/2007  1:38 PM

1.  Hillary could thus be seen with some military men, DIRECT saves shuttle jobs like Ares does, and promises clean energy--if a Direct SPS arguement can be made for her.


2. Suggest Pete Worden to lead the Air Force as I have suggested, and John Connoly for NASA Chief. His dad was in the motorcade with JFK, so there may be something in name recognition she might latch onto.

1.  Wrong, SPS may work for the military but not for commercial use.  It is a pipe dream

2.  Pete is not right for the job.  He has little experience in the real USAF.  No need for pie in the sky ideas
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/02/2007 08:46 pm
Quote
publiusr - 2/11/2007  1:21 PM

I agree. The term "powerpoint/viewgraph engineering" I reserve for X-33/VentureStar type concepts--not big rockets that are simple by comparison.

X-33 was not a powerpoint/viewgraph engineering".  It was more real and had hardware.  Ares V is powerpoint/viewgraph engineering"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: publiusr on 11/02/2007 08:56 pm
And doesn't have multi-lobed composite tank. It's more of a real vehicle on papaer than that shell of an X-33.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Launch Fan on 11/02/2007 09:01 pm
Quote
Jim - 2/11/2007  4:46 PM

Quote
publiusr - 2/11/2007  1:21 PM

I agree. The term "powerpoint/viewgraph engineering" I reserve for X-33/VentureStar type concepts--not big rockets that are simple by comparison.

X-33 was not a powerpoint/viewgraph engineering".  It was more real and had hardware.

Sure did!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/03/2007 02:06 am
Last I heard was that X-33 was real close to completion with the ali tanks when the program was terminated.   I heard some of the staff even did extra work on their own time after that too and the vehicle could almost have flown before the test vehicle was ultimately dismantled and the separate parts returned to the different suppliers.

I know the program was a real mess for a variety of reasons, but I would have liked to at least have seen the test vehicle fly once.   Shame.

But that program was never going to be economical.   The full Venture Star should have been lower cost than STS, but it would still never have been close to achieving the cost of either the existing or the variety of more likely disposable rocket systems.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/03/2007 02:22 am
Please forgive me, but I felt the need to write my 3,000th posting here in the DIRECT thread.

Sad, I know.   But cool to me :)

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: G-pit on 11/04/2007 01:20 am
Quote
kraisee - 2/11/2007  4:21 PM

We have been in contact with a lot of political figures already, on all sides of the political spectrum.   We have started with figures who are likely to have the most immediate effect on NASA's fate, but ultimately we will approach every member of Congress before the holidays.

Ross.

What are some reactions you have gotten from members of congress? Could you give us something specific? (Names would be nice, but if you can't tell us those, thats alright  ;) )
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/04/2007 02:12 am
G-pit,
I really wouldn't feel at all comfortable with names at this stage, and I'm not even comfortable providing specific reactions either.   Specific political reaction, by its very nature, are privately expressed to us and should thus remain behind closed doors unless the representative goes on the record via their own press channels.

What I do feel comfortable saying is that we are getting a high degree of interest from a lot of the political representatives of all the obvious space districts and also from the somewhat less obvious ones who support the more obvious sites.   They have just as much to potentially lose if the STS infrastructure were to be completely dismantled, even if the public isn't aware of it.

Of particular note, feedback has been VERY positive from the areas surrounding the Michoud Assembly Facility, Stennis and Kennedy - the three sites most affected in this situation.   Being the two largest NASA centers, political interests supporting Marshall and Johnson are also keenly interested in making sure their districts don't suffer from this transition too.

Stephen is preparing to visit DC shortly to get in-person reaction with as many of the key figures as possible.   Not sure if we will be able to put the reactions in a public forum, but we will try to give you guys at least a summary when he comes back.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/04/2007 08:17 am
Brilliant!! All the best with that.:)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/04/2007 05:12 pm
Thanks.   It's a very big job, but I think we have what they actually want.

As Mike Griffin himself said a while back "Good ideas, in the long run, sell themselves".   I think that could be applied to DIRECT more than any other launcher solution being considered.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: imcub on 11/05/2007 08:50 pm
Quote
kraisee - 4/11/2007  10:12 AM

Thanks.   It's a very big job, but I think we have what they actually want.

As Mike Griffin himself said a while back "Good ideas, in the long run, sell themselves".   I think that could be applied to DIRECT more than any other launcher solution being considered.

Ross.

It seems to me that if Mr. Griffin paid attention to all the smart stuff he's said over the past few years, NASA would be building Direct ...


And thanks for keeping the Mr. G. quotes coming Ross,  I find them very entertaining.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: wingod on 11/05/2007 10:46 pm
Quote
Jim - 2/11/2007  4:45 PM

Quote
publiusr - 2/11/2007  1:38 PM

1.  Hillary could thus be seen with some military men, DIRECT saves shuttle jobs like Ares does, and promises clean energy--if a Direct SPS arguement can be made for her.


2. Suggest Pete Worden to lead the Air Force as I have suggested, and John Connoly for NASA Chief. His dad was in the motorcade with JFK, so there may be something in name recognition she might latch onto.

1.  Wrong, SPS may work for the military but not for commercial use.  It is a pipe dream

2.  Pete is not right for the job.  He has little experience in the real USAF.  No need for pie in the sky ideas

I guess being a commander of a fighter wing at Peterson AFB is not the real USAF.  Pete, being a scientist at heart though would be more useful in another job.




Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/05/2007 11:30 pm
Quote
wingod - 5/11/2007  6:46 PM
I guess being a commander of a fighter wing at Peterson AFB is not the real USAF.


There are no fighter wings at Peterson.  He was commander of the 50th Space Wing, which controls DOD spacecraft.  Which, again, is not the "real" USAF
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 11/06/2007 12:04 am
Could the 3 stage Jupiter variants achieve a 1-launch lunar architecture, if they could be made safe enough?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/06/2007 02:29 am
Quote
tnphysics - 5/11/2007  8:04 PM

Could the 3 stage Jupiter variants achieve a 1-launch lunar architecture, if they could be made safe enough?
Depends on the size of the lunar mission.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 11/06/2007 01:10 pm
Quote
Jim - 5/11/2007  7:30 PM

Quote
wingod - 5/11/2007  6:46 PM
I guess being a commander of a fighter wing at Peterson AFB is not the real USAF.


There are no fighter wings at Peterson.  He was commander of the 50th Space Wing, which controls DOD spacecraft.  Which, again, is not the "real" USAF

The Chief of Staff USAF position has historically gone to fighter jocks, as they have the most insight into application of combat forces.  I am sure Pete Worden has a lot to offer, but he doesn't have that skill set.  I think there might have been some bomber types in the past- i.e. Curtis Lemay during the Kennedy administration, but it almost always goes to the fighter types, and always to a rated officer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/06/2007 04:57 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 5/11/2007  8:04 PM

Could the 3 stage Jupiter variants achieve a 1-launch lunar architecture, if they could be made safe enough?

The only way to do a 1-launch solution in the performance range we want would be to make a 180mT to LEO per flight booster.   To put that into perspective, Ares-V is "only" about 130mT to LEO.   You would need to get about 40% extra payload performance to make it viable.

Assuming it could be made safely enough, there is a three-stage Jupiter "evolution" which has that sort of performance.   The Jupiter-254 Heavy.   2x 5-seg boosters, 5x RS-68's on a stretched Core, and a big U/S with 4x J-2X's on it.   This would lift a dedicated EDS and spacecraft package all the way to circular LEO.

But this ignores the fact that it uses 11 engines in total so NASA's LOC numbers aren't above 1:1000 minimums.


The real killer though is the extra cost for building that second vehicle.   You're talking about another $10bn total development on top of the cost for J-120+J-232.

For that sort of money you could actually launch 45 extra J-232's instead.   That's over 4,700mT of payload lifted for that same money.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/06/2007 06:30 pm
Ross,
I know DIRECTs main purpose is to provide a means to get back to the Moon and on to Mars in an affordable manner, however, what doors does it open up on the unmanned side of things?
Remember JIMO...they canceled, however, the big issue was that it was going to be so big that multiple D4H flights were going to be needed to launch it. I'm assuming that DIRECT would be able to launch these types of larger probes in one shot.

With the Dems leaning more towards Earth Science and unmanned exploration of the deep solar system, it may be a good idea to include some of the advantages DIRECT has over the smaller EELVs, and examine the types of missions it will allow. For instance, Mars sample return, larger MER rovers, JIMO, and some experiments in alternative means of propulsion.

Ares I gets us back to the Moon and on to Mars, but I feel DIRECT has a little more margin to allow us to do all of the exploration we want, as well as get some research done as well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/06/2007 07:02 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 6/11/2007  2:30 PM
 
1. however, what doors does it open up on the unmanned side of things?

2.  With the Dems leaning more towards Earth Science and
3. unmanned exploration of the deep solar system, it may be a good idea to include some of the advantages DIRECT has over the smaller EELVs, and examine the types of missions it will allow.

1.  there is a thread on this

2.  Direct won't help with Earth Science
a.  Earth Science needs polar launches
b.  Battlestar Galactica platforms risk too much money.  More smaller platforms are better

3.  Same goes for deep solar system.  There has yet to be a EELV heavy planetary mission
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: wingod on 11/06/2007 07:04 pm
Quote
Jim - 5/11/2007  6:30 PM

Quote
wingod - 5/11/2007  6:46 PM
I guess being a commander of a fighter wing at Peterson AFB is not the real USAF.


There are no fighter wings at Peterson.  He was commander of the 50th Space Wing, which controls DOD spacecraft.  Which, again, is not the "real" USAF

It is my understanding that when he was exiled in 1993, his initial billet was a fighter wing.  I may be wrong though on this.

By the way, it is the "real" Air force that is causing most of the problems with the space part of that organization.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/06/2007 07:12 pm
The heaviest estimate I saw for JIMO was in the 35mT bracket.   Jupiter-120 could easily handle that with about 5-10mT of performance margin to spare.

There are very few limitations beyond what the engineers can conceive of.   Telescopes, Martian sample return missions, a Mars Rover ten times the size of what's there right now (imagine how many scientific instruments that could carry!).   All become possible when you remove the upper limits on performance and drop the $ per kg to below $4,000per kg from Shuttle's $45,000 and EELV's $13,000kg levels.


But that sort of performance allows engineers to open their range of possibilities.   For more than 25 years no scientific engineer has even been able to dream of a payload heavier than 25mT.   In one stroke we can double that limit, and then shortly after that, quadruple it.   *THAT* opens lots of doors which are currently closed, locked and dead-bolted in the worldwide space industry.


One of the best ideas I've heard is that with 45-105mT of lift performance available, designers can finally get away from always having to use the most exotic and most costly materials for building every satellite and probe.

They can, instead, just use cheap "normal" materials which simply weigh a bit more - and that would allow each of those programs to have more units for the same total $ value - and its the number of launched units which determines the final "value" returned.   I can see *that* benefiting every possible market place in the space launch world.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/06/2007 07:15 pm
Quote
wingod - 6/11/2007  3:04 PM

By the way, it is the "real" Air force that is causing most of the problems with the space part of that organization.

Left the USAF because of that.  Experienced the problem personally
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/06/2007 07:17 pm
While very interesting, the USAF discussion is really getting quite off-topic here.   Can we please move it to a separate thread.

Thanks,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 11/06/2007 08:48 pm
I somewhat doubt about the heavy scientific missions. Usually the money is best spent on instruments etc, it doesn't pay off to go to bigger launchers unless you had truly huge mountains of cash. Remember how Spirit and Oppy got launched by Delta II rockets? MRO was on an Atlas V 401. Just one mission, one of NASA's biggest ever science missions, JWST, is going to use the Ariane V. And Delta IV heavy is not procured for any science missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/06/2007 09:13 pm
Quote
kraisee - 6/11/2007  3:12 PM
  For more than 25 years no scientific engineer has even been able to dream of a payload heavier than 25mT.  


There is a flaw in your reasoning.  Name a 25 mt payload* or even a 20mt payload.  They don't exist.  The existing capabilities are even fully utilized



* excluding upperstages
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/06/2007 09:15 pm
Quote
kraisee - 6/11/2007  3:12 PM

One of the best ideas I've heard is that with 45-105mT of lift performance available, designers can finally get away from always having to use the most exotic and most costly materials for building every satellite and probe.

They can, instead, just use cheap "normal" materials which simply weigh a bit more - and that would allow each of those programs to have more units for the same total $ value - and its the number of launched units which determines the final "value" returned.   I can see *that* benefiting every possible market place in the space launch world.

Ross.

Another fallacy.   Since cost of launch is still so high, payloads still be maximized for the flight opportunity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/06/2007 09:47 pm
Sorry Jim, but there are two factors going on which people just don't recognize.

The cost of a satellite is mostly brought about due to the fact that everything must be made as small and lightweight as possible in order to be launched on very expensive launch vehicles.

But the truth is that the cost of a satellite could be reduced by a whole factor if only there were much greater weight limitations.

Speaking with a lot of sat designers they say that they wouldn't care about a launcher costing twice as much (say $200 increasing to $400m) if they can cut the cost of their $2bn satellite in half.   The overall savings are in the order of 40% per mission - and that is nothing to be sniffed at.

Launches are cheap compared to the cost of the spacecraft.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/06/2007 11:55 pm
"Launches are cheap compared to the cost of the spacecraft. "
Not going to get into here, but that is not true.  

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 11/07/2007 12:16 am
If launches were cheaper, then satellites would be cheaper. But Direct will cost more per launch than EELV:s, it's only bigger (although cost per kg is estimated to be low by the proponents, which is a common occurrence with paper rockets). Also, if you just make a spacecraft bigger, you have to make the propulsion system bigger, the thermal system bigger, the attitude control bigger, it adds up, for some spacecraft more than for others, and it's possible it's not cheaper anymore even if you saved some miniaturization costs on some parts.

There's some idea in putting some upper stages on a Direct/Ares V. You don't have to spend so much time doing gravity assists. Galileo needed 9 km/s from LEO to Jupiter, 4 km/s was provided by IUS and rest by planetary gravity assists. A Delta 4 upper stage can accelerate a 5 ton (a big jupiter probe with Jovian orbit insertion propellant) payload 6+ km/s and the whole stack weighs 35 tons. So you have to give the 3 km/s TLI push with a Direct first to that.

Of course, one can ask, is it better that way, why not just go through the gravity assists? It can be said though that some cost and effort is indeed saved and scientific progress is hastened if the mission cruises for a shorter time, but I doubt about the size of those sums.

(Can someone link to the Direct science missions thread?)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 11/07/2007 12:18 am
New Horizons was initially going to be launched on a Delta IV Heavy, but schedule demands and as importantly fallout from the Lockheed document scandle killed that.  They went with an Atlas V 551, but remember that required a one time mod of incorporating a Delta II 3rd stage.  The real push for a larger and more powerful booster wasn't mass, but velocity.  If I remember correctly the decision to go with the Atlas option cost the program multiple years of transit time.  Not that a Delta IV Heavy was ready in time, but it will be ready for the next mission to the outer planets.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/07/2007 12:54 am
A Jupiter-120 launching either a fully-fueled Atlas-V U/S or a Delta-IV U/S on top.   That would be capable of sending a 12mT payload to Jupiter in the above 4,000m/s scenario.

And Jim, DSP-23 going up on a D-IV Heavy in less than a week costs nearly twice as much as the launcher it's riding on.

The NOAA DMSP riding on a Delta-IV Medium last year cost twice as much as its launcher.

GOES-N cost $340m, but was launched on a $140m Delta-IV.

New Horizon's $450m cost launched on an Atlas-V 551 costing half that much.

And the NRO "top secret" stuff is in a whole other cost bracket entirely.   The recent NRO-L-33R is a fair example of one of their "cheaper" projects, riding on a 'small' Atlas-V 401 costing $140m or so, the balance for the payload was $500-700m depending on who's numbers you read.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/07/2007 01:13 am
Quote
TrueGrit - 6/11/2007  8:18 PM

New Horizons was initially going to be launched on a Delta IV Heavy, but schedule demands and as importantly fallout from the Lockheed document scandle killed that.  They went with an Atlas V 551, but remember that required a one time mod of incorporating a Delta II 3rd stage.  The real push for a larger and more powerful booster wasn't mass, but velocity.  If I remember correctly the decision to go with the Atlas option cost the program multiple years of transit time.  Not that a Delta IV Heavy was ready in time, but it will be ready for the next mission to the outer planets.

None of that is true.  

The "3rd" stage was part of the spacecraft and not the launch vehicle

Atlas and Delta went head to head in a competed procurement.  Document Scandal had nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 11/07/2007 03:56 pm
Quote
kraisee - 6/11/2007  5:47 PM

Sorry Jim, but there are two factors going on which people just don't recognize.

The cost of a satellite is mostly brought about due to the fact that everything must be made as small and lightweight as possible in order to be launched on very expensive launch vehicles.

But the truth is that the cost of a satellite could be reduced by a whole factor if only there were much greater weight limitations.

Speaking with a lot of sat designers they say that they wouldn't care about a launcher costing twice as much (say $200 increasing to $400m) if they can cut the cost of their $2bn satellite in half.   The overall savings are in the order of 40% per mission - and that is nothing to be sniffed at.

Launches are cheap compared to the cost of the spacecraft.

Ross.

I would venture that the advantages of greater lift capability beyond what is currently available via EELV's may not have been fully explored because the capability doesn't currently exist.  If the capability were there, such as through DIRECT, there are several cost reduction opportunities that could be examined to take advantage of greater lift capability.  A couple of quick examples:

Interplanetary probes- Greater lift capability could allow for higher escape velocities to Jupiter and beyond.  This would reduce mission transit time and reduce overall project cost with mission control ops and sustaining engineering.  Also, shorter mission transit time have the additional value of quicker scientific returns that would drive subsequent missions to design experiment packages that focus more tightly on exploration goals, leveraging the scientific returns of the previous mission.

Commercial Satellites- There is also the option of lofting more than one satellite per mission a la Ariane V.  They have been fairly successful with their dual launch system.

Finally, being able to design and build larger satellites would allow them to carry more fuel, which would translate into longer mission lifetimes, eliminating or reducing the cost of replacement satellites.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/07/2007 05:40 pm
The public is beginning to take notice of the issues with Ares I (there is an article on Flight Global, suggest you check it out)

While NASA Watch, NASA Spaceflight, etc, are mainly read by space enthusiasts and those in the space industry, Flight Global is read by the entire aviation industry. Questions are being asked, and people are beginning to notice that there are significant issues with the way things are going right now.

Now maybe there can be some more engineering miracles like the Kaiser BPC to get some performance back on Ares I. However, as this article suggests, the schedule is already being butchered to make Ares I work. What I got out of this article is that something different is needed. I wonder if Flight Global knows about DIRECT?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 11/07/2007 05:54 pm
I was watching part 2 of "Mars Rising" on Discover Science Channel last night. Director James Cameron apparently does some consulting work for NASA in regards to future Mars vehicle planning. Before anyone laughs that off, and even assuming the agency is only paying lip service to his ideas, maybe he's someone Direct should be sending their paper to, if they haven't already.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 11/07/2007 07:12 pm
Quote
Jim - 6/11/2007  4:55 PM

"Launches are cheap compared to the cost of the spacecraft. "
Not going to get into here, but that is not true.  


Jim, where do you want to get into it?  This is an important subject and one that is central to the whole 5xEELV is better than 1xJupiter-2 (Ares-III) debate.

In fact the mission cost (mission + spacecraft) even further dwarfs the launch cost.  If the launch system limitations impacts the mission cost by as little 20% even zero launch cost wouldn’t pencil out.  In addition, any requirement for astronauts to assembly the mission spacecraft in orbit or more automated tinker toy assembly designs will increases both the cost and mass that must be placed on a Earth departure.

Imagine the savings JWST could have enjoyed if not constrained to fitting inside a 5m diameter vs. the 8-10m fairing the Jupiter-120 (Ares-II) could have.  This additional volume might have paid for the fully burdened (Fixed + Variable) launch cost Jupiter-120 (Ares-II) and shaved many years off of the JSWT development with more science capability (more IR cryogens which limited Spitzer) to boot.

Have you had time to review the cost section of the AIAA 2007 paper?  Propellant is cheap and Spacecraft/Mission is expensive.  Anytime you can add propellant to reduce the overall mission cost you should do it.  Especially within the context of a propellant depot in space and nearly unlimited up mass associated with any STS based launch system.  The cost to launch one Jupiter out of KSC per year is very close to cost of launch one Jupiter per month because of the high fixed costs, politics and workforce/skill retention issues.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/08/2007 07:02 pm
Quote
SMetch - 7/11/2007  3:12 PM
more IR cryogens which limited Spitzer to boot.



Still not fully immersing in this subjects yet but you are using my example.  LV did not limit the cryogens on Spitzer.  Size wasn't an issue.  It was to fly on a T-IV originally.  It could have flown on an Atlas and been bigger with more cryos but chose to fly on a Delta II.  It was cheaper to make the spacecraft smaller vs using a larger launch vehicle.

Spacecraft will always squeeze the most out of lift capability of an LV. There won't be

Weight and cost are proportional.   Spacecraft do everything possible to avoid going into the next launch vehicle class.  

JWST would not fly on Direct if it were available today.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 11/08/2007 07:09 pm
Hello to all!

Ross,
What are the news in the last two months?
Any comments from NASA officials about DIRECT?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/08/2007 07:16 pm
Nothing I can talk about.   We're waiting to hear more details about some information which we have received over the last month.   It all depends on whether that information ends up being valid or not.   I don't, and you shouldn't, expect confirmation very fast though.   I might expect an answer one way or the other around December/January.   We are mostly crossing our fingers and continuing to work the political aspects for now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Joffan on 11/08/2007 07:56 pm
"some information which we have received over the last month" ....

If you can answer....
technical or political information? If confirmed - good or bad for the Jupiter LV? or the Ares I/V?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 11/08/2007 08:11 pm
Quote
Joffan - 8/11/2007  2:56 PM

"some information which we have received over the last month" ....

If you can answer....
technical or political information? If confirmed - good or bad for the Jupiter LV? or the Ares I/V?

I sort of think Ross would have included that additional info if he were able to.
(ie- "I can neither confirm or deny your question, and can't provide any more details than what I've already said.")
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/08/2007 08:15 pm
Earlier, someone asked about what we could do with Jupiter that would take advantage of its heavy lift capacity, beyond just sending humans to the moon or Mars. My suggestion is one that I have mentioned before and that I still maintain is an extremely worthwhile thing to do is to build a science station on the far side of the moon. Yes Jim, I know, we do not have money for this now, but things can change. This is “future-think”

Such a science station should be designed to operate in a combination of autonomous or with occasional manned intervention, but would mostly be autonomous, transmitting its continual findings via a communications link at EML2. Most of the time, the human intervention would be via the same communications link from scientists located right here on the Earth, with only the occasional, rare manned visit. While I’m sure there are lots of things that could be done there, the thing which comes to mind most often is astronomy.

Recently, we learned of finding a 5th planet –this one inside the habitable zone – around the star 55 Cancri. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071106-five-planets.html

Now this planet, 41 light-years away, is 45 times the mass of Earth, so it’s doubtful we’ll be able to do anything there, but there are two (2) other possibilities:

1. This Saturn-size planet could have its own system of moons, which can include Earth-size moons. Any of those could be habitable.

2. This planet is on the inner side of the habitable zone, which extends for another 700 million miles. It’s entirely possible that there is at least one (1) Earth-size planet located there. Any such planet is most likely a rocky world, like Earth, and may be habitable.

In both cases, there is, of course, no guarantee at all for the presence of a breathable atmosphere, but the intriguing thing is that liquid water can exist on their surfaces, and in a temperature range that is comfortable to humans.

What’s all this got to do with DIRECT? If we built an astronomical science station on the far side of the moon, the telescope there would not need to be just one single telescope. It can be an array of telescopes, all different kinds, that would cover the entire spectrum; visible light, x-ray, ultraviolet, etc. With a LARGE ARRAY of telescopes all linked together, and completely free of all noise and background interference, we could actually image Earth-size, and possibly even Mars-size planets in other solar systems. The resolution would be sufficient to actually do spectral analysis in enough detail to identify the elements in the atmosphere and know if it was breathable or not, and map the mineral locations on the surface. We would be able to see if there were the equivalents of oceans there or not. And now we have a real target; 55-Cancri-4. It’s in the zone, and “may” have a moon system like Saturn’s. We know that planet is there, we know where to point the telescopes to see it (if we had the array), and our own solar system tells us that giants, like this, can be accompanied by moons the size of Earth and Mars.

A launch vehicle with the capacity of DIRECT can make such a station possible.
FWIW. Comments?


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/08/2007 08:16 pm
Quote
MKremer - 8/11/2007  4:11 PM

Quote
Joffan - 8/11/2007  2:56 PM

"some information which we have received over the last month" ....

If you can answer....
technical or political information? If confirmed - good or bad for the Jupiter LV? or the Ares I/V?

I sort of think Ross would have included that additional info if he were able to.
(ie- "I can neither confirm or deny your question, and can't provide any more details than what I've already said.")
Thank you Mike. That is precisely correct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/08/2007 08:45 pm
Reading Chuck's comments, I would ask readers to recall that DIRECT frees up quite a bit of cash for contemplating such things with.   Only building one LV instead of two free's up about $16bn in development cash and free's up about $1bn worth of fixed operations costs every year the program operates too.

While such far-reaching programs as Chuck describes are going to be difficult, if not down-right impossible, to fund while we pay the running costs of both Ares LV's, the savings an option like DIRECT offers are eminently usable for all sorts of other purposes - such as this Lunar VLA telescope idea.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/08/2007 10:05 pm
Quote
kraisee - 8/11/2007  4:45 PM

Reading Chuck's comments, I would ask readers to recall that DIRECT frees up quite a bit of cash for contemplating such things with.   Only building one LV instead of two free's up about $16bn in development cash and free's up about $1bn worth of fixed operations costs every year the program operates too.

While such far-reaching programs as Chuck describes are going to be difficult, if not down-right impossible, to fund while we pay the running costs of both Ares LV's, the savings an option like DIRECT offers are eminently usable for all sorts of other purposes - such as this Lunar VLA telescope idea.

Ross.

I get the feeling that Ares I kills some of these important science missions outright. That was one of the complaints that surrounded the announcement of the VSE. Earth, Space, and aeronautic science was going to lose a good portion of its funding in order to make way for manned exploration. While the manned portion of NASA is very important, I still would like to see projects like what Chuck described above. We cannot hope to travel to these distant worlds in our lifetimes, but atleast we can study them in greater detail from the Moon. DIRECT will allow funds to be freed up down the road, and hopefully NASA can start doing some really impressive unmanned stuff as well.
Think about it...what was the most impressive mission in this first decade of the 2000s? I still remember the night that the first MER touched down on Mars, and then the second one followed in a few weeks. It was the most amazing thing I have seen our space agency do. The first return trip to the Moon is going to be remarkable, but that does not mean smaller, unmanned missions cannot catch the interest of the public.
As was stated earlier, DIRECT can launcher larger MERs, or several smaller ones. Think of all the missions that could be possible because of the Jupiter launch vehicles. The Shuttle has its limits, as well as Ares I. I do not see NASA launching and MER sized rover on an Ares V, it's just too damn big and too damn expensive.
I think the Democrats are going to really like the DIRECT option, as it allows them to keep the goal of returning to the Moon, as well as, keep the science at NASA. And in today's political forum, they are going to want to claim that they helped put the VSE on the right track, so a change to DIRECT could allow them to make claim to the VSE, instead of Bush.
Overall, this is an exciting concept that allows a lot more to get done. I like the Ares I, and if it does launch it will be a great vehicle, however, it will never be capable of conducting the mission that the Jupiter launchers are capable of.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 11/08/2007 11:05 pm
Quote
Jim - 8/11/2007  12:02 PM

Quote
SMetch - 7/11/2007  3:12 PM
more IR cryogens which limited Spitzer to boot.



JWST would not fly on Direct if it were available today.

Why not?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/09/2007 12:40 am
Quote
SMetch - 8/11/2007  7:05 PM

Quote
Jim - 8/11/2007  12:02 PM

Quote
SMetch - 7/11/2007  3:12 PM
more IR cryogens which limited Spitzer to boot.



JWST would not fly on Direct if it were available today.

Why not?

It would cost more for the reasons I explained
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 11/09/2007 03:10 am
Quote
kraisee - 8/11/2007  3:16 PM

Nothing I can talk about.   We're waiting to hear more details about some information which we have received over the last month.   It all depends on whether that information ends up being valid or not.   I don't, and you shouldn't, expect confirmation very fast though.   I might expect an answer one way or the other around December/January.   We are mostly crossing our fingers and continuing to work the political aspects for now.

Ross.
Thank you very much for a quick response!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/09/2007 05:02 pm
Jim,
Am I correct in saying that your argument against JIMO flying on a Jupiter-120 is primarily because it has already been designed to fly on a different vehicle (Delta-IV Heavy)?

The project was canceled in '05 even before it ever got to PDR.   I believe it had completed its SDR though, so what does "exist" still would firstly have to be completely re-started afresh and secondly is still firmly in the early design stages where changes are still readily available.

Changing launch vehicle options for a currently canceled project, which has to still be re-started is not a very difficult proposition at all.

In fact JIMO flying on DIVH was having to be scaled down significantly.   With a 45mT launch vehicle the work to "castrate" JIMO could actually be set aside again, and that might actually benefit the cost analysis.

Mind you JIMO was always entirely dependent on results from Project Prometheus - and that's a DOA program right now too, so the whole issue is fairly irrelevant for the foreseeable future.

But with a J-120 available 5 years from now, JIMO could be re-started and could be quite a public interest project to demonstrate the flexibility and new capabilities for Constellation program in addition to the Lunar Program.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 11/09/2007 06:38 pm
I think it he meant that it would not be cheaper if it was heavier - to the contrary, it would be more expensive.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 11/09/2007 07:14 pm
Quote
I think it he meant that it would not be cheaper if it was heavier - to the contrary, it would be more expensive.

Designing things for spacecraft, I can tell you that heavier can be made to be cheaper. An awful lot of money goes into the analysis and testing to show that minimal weight items have the required life/performance. That doesn't even count the additional machining necessary to get the part weights down in the first place.

Heavier means lower structural efficiencies, larger safety factors, greater manufacturing tolerances and much lower testing, analysis, manufacturing and program management costs. BUT you have to structure your entire program around that from the beginning. If you start out looking to meet a X lb weight bogey and find yourself heavy and having to reduce weight, then you are immediately in a world of monetary hurt try to do the "10 lbs of fecal matter in the 5 lb container" thing. If you carry the same safety/QA overhead for the lower weight components as you do for the optimised designs, then you eliminate the opportunities for saving money. It has to be an overall programmatic plan to do things that way. You can't change horses in mid stream.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/09/2007 08:24 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 9/11/2007  8:14 PM


Heavier means lower structural efficiencies, larger safety factors, greater manufacturing tolerances and much lower testing, analysis, manufacturing and program management costs. BUT you have to structure your entire program around that from the beginning. If you start out looking to meet a X lb weight bogey and find yourself heavy and having to reduce weight, then you are immediately in a world of monetary hurt try to do the "10 lbs of fecal matter in the 5 lb container" thing.

So speck the J-120's payload as 35 to 40 mT?
That way if the payload is too heavy the rocket engineers simply remove some ballast.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/09/2007 08:44 pm
That would be logical way to do it IMHO.

40mT of lift availability would allow current 25mT satellites to experience weight growth of 60% for the same capability, using lower cost materials, and would still be ~12% below the performance envelope of the launcher - which creates a significantly wide engine-out margin window.

And at ~$140m per flight, the Jupiter-120 is also good value, broadly in-line with a Heavy EELV assuming a relatively low flight rate of just 6 Jupiter's per year.   If NASA ups the flight rate to just 8 per year (2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew, 2 Lunar Cargo), the full-wrap launch service cost for a J-120 drops to the level of an Intermediate EELV - something akin to the Atlas-V 541.

But Jupiter-120 is not designed for GEO payloads.   You still need an U/S for that - although a standard Centaur or Delta-IV U/S offers the ability to place about 18-20mT into Geo.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/09/2007 08:46 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 9/11/2007  4:24 PM

Quote
tankmodeler - 9/11/2007  8:14 PM


Heavier means lower structural efficiencies, larger safety factors, greater manufacturing tolerances and much lower testing, analysis, manufacturing and program management costs. BUT you have to structure your entire program around that from the beginning. If you start out looking to meet a X lb weight bogey and find yourself heavy and having to reduce weight, then you are immediately in a world of monetary hurt try to do the "10 lbs of fecal matter in the 5 lb container" thing.

So speck the J-120's payload as 35 to 40 mT?
That way if the payload is too heavy the rocket engineers simply remove some ballast.
I remember the days when "margin" used to be the holy grail of rocket design. Engineers would kill to be able to lift one more pound to LEO, just one. Now we have a launch vehicle, the Jupiter, that carries "ballast" that can simply be removed to accomodate a little heavier payload, while at the same time, NASA is engaged in designing a rocket that has, shall we say "difficulties" obtaining enough performance to do even a minimal mission to LEO. -Sigh :o
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/09/2007 08:58 pm
Yes Chuck,
I don't think anyone in the world has ever had 'spare' performance before.   But there again nobody has had a real Heavy Lifter payload capability available for the last 32 years - excepting the second flight of the Russian Energiya system (carrying Polyus, not Buran) of course.

I feel dirty using a phrase Dilbert's Pointy Haired Boss would use, but real Heavy Lift would create a "paradigm shift" in the whole industry.   Its such a big shift in approach that I simply don't think most people can even picture it, let alone appreciate it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 11/10/2007 12:57 am
Quote
clongton - 8/11/2007  4:15 PM

Earlier, someone asked about what we could do with Jupiter that would take advantage of its heavy lift capacity, beyond just sending humans to the moon or Mars. My suggestion is one that I have mentioned before and that I still maintain is an extremely worthwhile thing to do is to build a science station on the far side of the moon. Yes Jim, I know, we do not have money for this now, but things can change. This is “future-think”

Such a science station should be designed to operate in a combination of autonomous or with occasional manned intervention, but would mostly be autonomous, transmitting its continual findings via a communications link at EML2. Most of the time, the human intervention would be via the same communications link from scientists located right here on the Earth, with only the occasional, rare manned visit. While I’m sure there are lots of things that could be done there, the thing which comes to mind most often is astronomy.

Recently, we learned of finding a 5th planet –this one inside the habitable zone – around the star 55 Cancri. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071106-five-planets.html

Now this planet, 41 light-years away, is 45 times the mass of Earth, so it’s doubtful we’ll be able to do anything there, but there are two (2) other possibilities:

1. This Saturn-size planet could have its own system of moons, which can include Earth-size moons. Any of those could be habitable.

2. This planet is on the inner side of the habitable zone, which extends for another 700 million miles. It’s entirely possible that there is at least one (1) Earth-size planet located there. Any such planet is most likely a rocky world, like Earth, and may be habitable.

In both cases, there is, of course, no guarantee at all for the presence of a breathable atmosphere, but the intriguing thing is that liquid water can exist on their surfaces, and in a temperature range that is comfortable to humans.

What’s all this got to do with DIRECT? If we built an astronomical science station on the far side of the moon, the telescope there would not need to be just one single telescope. It can be an array of telescopes, all different kinds, that would cover the entire spectrum; visible light, x-ray, ultraviolet, etc. With a LARGE ARRAY of telescopes all linked together, and completely free of all noise and background interference, we could actually image Earth-size, and possibly even Mars-size planets in other solar systems. The resolution would be sufficient to actually do spectral analysis in enough detail to identify the elements in the atmosphere and know if it was breathable or not, and map the mineral locations on the surface. We would be able to see if there were the equivalents of oceans there or not. And now we have a real target; 55-Cancri-4. It’s in the zone, and “may” have a moon system like Saturn’s. We know that planet is there, we know where to point the telescopes to see it (if we had the array), and our own solar system tells us that giants, like this, can be accompanied by moons the size of Earth and Mars.

A launch vehicle with the capacity of DIRECT can make such a station possible.
FWIW. Comments?



I agree entirely. Be sure to use ISRU glass.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 11/10/2007 01:01 am
Quote
kraisee - 9/11/2007  4:44 PM

That would be logical way to do it IMHO.

40mT of lift availability would allow current 25mT satellites to experience weight growth of 60% for the same capability, using lower cost materials, and would still be ~12% below the performance envelope of the launcher - which creates a significantly wide engine-out margin window.

And at ~$140m per flight, the Jupiter-120 is also good value, broadly in-line with a Heavy EELV assuming a relatively low flight rate of just 6 Jupiter's per year.   If NASA ups the flight rate to just 8 per year (2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew, 2 Lunar Cargo), the full-wrap launch service cost for a J-120 drops to the level of an Intermediate EELV - something akin to the Atlas-V 541.

But Jupiter-120 is not designed for GEO payloads.   You still need an U/S for that - although a standard Centaur or Delta-IV U/S offers the ability to place about 18-20mT into Geo.

Ross.

NASA should sell Jupiter operations to USA. USA could make a profit as a commercial operator.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/10/2007 01:17 am
Quote
kraisee - 9/11/2007  2:58 PM

Yes Chuck,
I don't think anyone in the world has ever had 'spare' performance before.   But there again nobody has had a real Heavy Lifter payload capability available for the last 32 years - excepting the second flight of the Russian Energiya system (carrying Polyus, not Buran) of course.

I feel dirty using a phrase Dilbert's Pointy Haired Boss would use, but real Heavy Lift would create a "paradigm shift" in the whole industry.   Its such a big shift in approach that I simply don't think most people can even picture it, let alone appreciate it.

Ross.

I don't really agree.  If the science community had these vehicles available, and funding, there would be no spare performance.

It's like moving from a dorm room to an apartment - "wow, look at all this space!!!"  Then you fill it up.  Then moving from the apartment to a starter house, and filling that up.  Then moving to a bigger house...

Stuff grows to fill the available space.  It's a fundamental law of physics.   :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/10/2007 04:33 pm
Just a quick render I came up with to show how the Jupiter 120 compares in size with STS, Energia Buran, and Ariane V:

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/10/2007 05:09 pm
Lee Jay,
I think there will probably be two different approaches possible:

1) Smaller satellites allowed to grow using cheaper heavier materials, and
2) New larger satellites utilizing the full performance capabilities.

I could certainly imagine a new generation of spy satellite making use of the 8.4m or 10m diameter payload fairings with a 15m payload length to increase the focal length of the optics.   Massing 45mT (J-120) or 100mT (J-232), that package would offer interesting opportunities to the intelligence community.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/10/2007 06:35 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 10/11/2007  2:17 AM

{snip}
I don't really agree.  If the science community had these vehicles available, and funding, there would be no spare performance.

It's like moving from a dorm room to an apartment - "wow, look at all this space!!!"  Then you fill it up.  Then moving from the apartment to a starter house, and filling that up.  Then moving to a bigger house...

Stuff grows to fill the available space.  It's a fundamental law of physics.   :)

That is why the J-120 would be specified as being able to lift 40 mT.  If the initial payload design review comes to more than 40 mT NASA tells the scientists to redesign their instruments.  The last 5 tonnes is being reserved for implementation problems rather than high level design.  If the payload has to be greater than 40 mT use two launches or a J-232.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/10/2007 06:58 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 10/11/2007  2:35 PM

1.  That is why the J-120 would be specified as being able to lift 40 mT.
2.   If the initial payload design review comes to more than 40 mT NASA tells the scientists to redesign their instruments.  
3, The last 5 tonnes is being reserved for implementation problems rather than high level design.  
4.  If the payload has to be greater than 40 mT use two launches or a J-232.

Wrong, doesn't work that way.  

1.  5mT of unused performance is a waste.  
2.  And make the spacecraft more expensive?  Wrong again
3.  The performance margin is allready kept but is not that much.  It is already in the 45mt
4.  What?!!! and double the launch costs!!!

Clueless
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/10/2007 07:12 pm
Quote
kraisee - 10/11/2007  1:09 PM

I could certainly imagine a new generation of spy satellite making use of the 8.4m or 10m diameter payload fairings with a 15m payload length to increase the focal length of the optics.   Massing 45mT (J-120) or 100mT (J-232), that package would offer interesting opportunities to the intelligence community.

Ross.

Launched from where?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/10/2007 07:15 pm
Quote
kraisee - 10/11/2007  1:09 PM

Lee Jay,
I think there will probably be two different approaches possible:

1) Smaller satellites allowed to grow using cheaper heavier materials, and
2) New larger satellites utilizing the full performance capabilities.

I could certainly imagine a new generation of spy satellite making use of the 8.4m or 10m diameter payload fairings with a 15m payload length to increase the focal length of the optics.   Massing 45mT (J-120) or 100mT (J-232), that package would offer interesting opportunities to the intelligence community.

Ross.

Like I said before, this could be a crucial selling point if the Dems win the '08 election. DIRECT can launch larger, more complex, Earth science missions.
Sure other launch vehicles can do this, but one thing is for certain...Ares I cannot. Maybe NASA will never utilize Jupiter to launch satellites, but in the end, all that is important is that it CAN.

Something goes wrong with one of the ISS modules and a new one is needed. With Ares I you are SOL. A new module can be launched on Jupiter. I do not see congress scrapping ISS, and eventually some of the early modules are going to be needed to be replaced. Jupiter gives NASA the opportunity to stay in the ISS game. Say what you want about it, but the ISS is an important Earth Science satellite. If ways can be found for Jupiter-120 to extend its lifetime and usefulness, I think some of your Dem candidates will become DIRECT fans in no time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/10/2007 07:16 pm
Quote
Jim - 10/11/2007  3:12 PM

Quote
kraisee - 10/11/2007  1:09 PM

I could certainly imagine a new generation of spy satellite making use of the 8.4m or 10m diameter payload fairings with a 15m payload length to increase the focal length of the optics.   Massing 45mT (J-120) or 100mT (J-232), that package would offer interesting opportunities to the intelligence community.

Ross.

Launched from where?

This is the US military we are talking about. I am sure if they REALLY need Jupiter-120 they can find the couple million to build a launch site for it.
This is all hypothetical of course...but if the military became interested in using Jupiter, they could do it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 11/10/2007 07:26 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 10/11/2007  2:16 PM

Quote
Jim - 10/11/2007  3:12 PM

Quote
kraisee - 10/11/2007  1:09 PM

I could certainly imagine a new generation of spy satellite making use of the 8.4m or 10m diameter payload fairings with a 15m payload length to increase the focal length of the optics.   Massing 45mT (J-120) or 100mT (J-232), that package would offer interesting opportunities to the intelligence community.

Ross.

Launched from where?

This is the US military we are talking about. I am sure if they REALLY need Jupiter-120 they can find the couple million to build a launch site for it.

You misspelled "billion".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/10/2007 07:30 pm
KSC could handle up to 20 Jupiter launches per year with no significant problems.   It is likely never to need to launch more than 12 per year for Constellation though.    That leaves 'headroom' of up to 8 launches per year for 'other' purposes.

If the USAF wants to fly a Jupiter, I don't see any real difficulties with arranging a flight thru NASA to use their existing facilities.   USAF have used STS many times and a working relationship already exists between the two agencies.

Polar launches would require a new launch site at Vandenberg though - but that's the same case for any new 40mT+ launcher if they want that capability.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/10/2007 07:30 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 10/11/2007  3:16 PM

This is the US military we are talking about..

And they will do everything to avoid working with NASA
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/10/2007 11:41 pm
Quote
Jim - 10/11/2007  7:58 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 10/11/2007  2:35 PM

1.  That is why the J-120 would be specified as being able to lift 40 mT.

Wrong, doesn't work that way.  

1.  5mT of unused performance is a waste.  

The ballast does not have to be lead weights.  Small satellites and liquid consumables will do nicely.

Quote
2.  And make the spacecraft more expensive?  Wrong again
3.  The performance margin is allready kept but is not that much.  It is already in the 45mt
4.  What?!!! and double the launch costs!!!
Clueless

When the launch costs are less then 10% of the payload cost doubling them are the cheap way of running the mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/10/2007 11:54 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 10/11/2007  7:41 PM


The ballast does not have to be lead weights.  Small satellites and liquid consumables will do nicely.

When the launch costs are less then 10% of the payload cost doubling them are the cheap way of running the mission.


Huh??

1.  There is no need for ballast.  the launch vehicle can compensate by burning shorter

2.  Adding other payloads is just the same as putting the weight in the primary payload.

3.   Payloads can't just be added or subtracted from a mission without affecting the primary mission.

4.  "When the launch costs are less then 10% of the payload "  Again, we aren't talking about fantasy.  We are talking about Direct.  That isn't going to happen.  Also it is not going to happen for decades.  

  These are intelligent and real debates, quit using scifi examples.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 11/10/2007 11:59 pm
Quote
kraisee - 10/11/2007  10:09 AM
I could certainly imagine a new generation of spy satellite making use of the 8.4m or 10m diameter payload fairings with a 15m payload length to increase the focal length of the optics.   Massing 45mT (J-120) or 100mT (J-232), that package would offer interesting opportunities to the intelligence community.

The concept of the new architecture was to go smaller over more platforms, moving away from the battlestar designs. I think that makes more sense. The original SDI guys would have probably liked a big stick, however.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/11/2007 12:00 am
Quote
kraisee - 10/11/2007  3:30 PM

If the USAF wants to fly a Jupiter, I don't see any real difficulties with arranging a flight thru NASA to use their existing facilities.   USAF have used STS many times and a working relationship already exists between the two agencies.
.

There are real difficulties.   It is not just the facilities, NASA would have to provide all the integration service.  NASA sold its soul to get the DOD onboard.  Classified ops are not NASA's forte.  Also, The DOD couldn't get off the shuttle quick enough.  

I an experiencing these difficulties as we speak, the DOD bought 2 Delta II's from NASA for two STSS flights.  It is a pain working them
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/11/2007 12:13 am
Quote
rsp1202 - 10/11/2007  7:59 PM

Quote
kraisee - 10/11/2007  10:09 AM
I could certainly imagine a new generation of spy satellite making use of the 8.4m or 10m diameter payload fairings with a 15m payload length to increase the focal length of the optics.   Massing 45mT (J-120) or 100mT (J-232), that package would offer interesting opportunities to the intelligence community.

The concept of the new architecture was to go smaller over more platforms, moving away from the battlestar designs. I think that makes more sense. The original SDI guys would have probably liked a big stick, however.
Some things, like focal length for example, just don't shrink well without sacrificing quality. It's not always a matter of mass; sometimes it's just volume or shear size that's needed. It's very payload specific.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 11/11/2007 01:41 am
I don't have specific info on what constitutes this next generation of spysats, but spreading out the tasks over various dedicated orbiting platforms is what struck me most because losing one from failure or attack wouldn't necessarily compromise the mission. Pretty good pictures can be had from current-sized Keyholes; I don't know that bigger would produce appreciably better, but that's supposition on my part. Maybe they're thinking of folding optics to keep the size down as well as advanced CCD's; beats me. Direct's larger payload shrouds could conceivably allow several sats to be launched at once, but you know as well as I that these sats are so expensive, and even though the Pentagon/CIA have never been known to scrimp on intel matters, they might be hard-pressed to fill the shrouds with dollar bills.

Still, I can't argue with the idea that Direct's capabilities are something we should have on hand, rather than wishing for.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: madscientist197 on 11/11/2007 05:00 am
There's only so much resolving power that is useful for a spy satellite, I wouldn't be surprised if most spy satellites are more limited by atmospheric distortions than anything else. And even though there are restoration algorithms, trying to characterise the spatially/time variant point spread function is still a major problem. It's really a more sensible use of funds to invest in people on the ground (informers etc.) - even if you could read a newspaper from space, how likely is it that you can find the right one in the first place?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 11/11/2007 11:54 pm
All this talk of other payloads makes me wonder = and forgive me if it is onlline somewhere or I overlooked it in the Direct papers = but, what is the Jupiter and/or Ares V  capability to throw a payload direct

1.  To the Lunar surface?
2.  To the Martian surface

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/12/2007 03:24 am
Mike,
I'll have to get back to you with the 1-launch Mars numbers, but 1-launch Lunar numbers are roughly:

49mT Jupiter-232
54mT Ares-V.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/12/2007 03:34 am
Quote
kraisee - 11/11/2007  11:24 PM

Mike,
I'll have to get back to you with the 1-launch Mars numbers, but 1-launch Lunar numbers are roughly:

49mT Jupiter-232
54mT Ares-V.

Ross.
Getting to the Ares-V after paying for the Ares-I is expensive.
What is the cost delta between the Jupiter J-232 (49 mT) and the Ares-V (54mT)
How much does that extra 5mT actually cost?
What could we do with that additional cost to get that 5mT from the Ares if we used Jupiters instead?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/12/2007 03:40 am
"Ares-I plus Ares-V" costs about $16bn more than "Jupiter-120 plus Jupiter-232" in development money alone.   $18-$20bn all-in if you include all the "full wrap" costs such as the different infrastructure changes too.

And schedule would also be two to three years faster with Jupiter too - for both closing the "gap" after Shuttle and also to the first crewed landing on the moon.   Not sure if that's technically a "cost delta" though, but it is a major difference in DIRECT's favour.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/12/2007 03:55 am
Mike,
To follow-up, *very* early and rough initial calculations suggest the following 1-launch Mars numbers based on a 'generic' TMI of 4,000m/s dV:

29.6mT Jupiter-232
32.2mT Ares-V

It should be noted that delta-V varies a lot depending upon the relative positions of the Earth and Mars in their different orbits.   It can drop as low as 3,725m/s or be up in the 6,000m/s range - but 4,000m/s is a good number to use if you assume flights are timed to coincide with the fairly regular convergence periods where Earth and Mars orbits get relatively close together - normally occurring every few years.

These are my own numbers.   I am currently unaware of any NASA documentation with 1-launch to Mars payload numbers, so I can't verify them at all.   But these calculations are fairly straight-forward and rely on fairly basic physics.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 11/12/2007 11:21 am
Thanks for the information Ross.  I appreciate it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/12/2007 03:49 pm
Quote
kraisee - 12/11/2007  4:55 AM

Mike,
To follow-up, *very* early and rough initial calculations suggest the following 1-launch Mars numbers based on a 'generic' TMI of 4,000m/s dV:

29.6mT Jupiter-232
32.2mT Ares-V

If you want a 1.5 Mars launch the following SEP may be of interest.  The people joining the Solar Electric Propulsion spacecraft in high orbit.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT1999/6000/6920kerslake3.html

There are other ion thrusters and newer solar panels.
"This SEP stage has a dry mass of 35 metric tons (MT), 40 MT of xenon propellant, and a photovoltaic array that spans 110 m, providing power to a cluster of eight 100-kW Hall thrusters. The stage can transfer an 80-MT payload and upper stage to the desired HEEPO."

LEO mass is 35mT + 40mT + 80mT = 155mT

J-120 + J232 = 46.6mT + 103.3mT = 149.9
(Reducing the net payload to 74mT would fit.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/12/2007 04:04 pm
Quote
kraisee - 11/11/2007  9:40 PM
"Ares-I plus Ares-V" costs about $16bn more than "Jupiter-120 plus Jupiter-232" in development money alone.   $18-$20bn all-in if you include all the "full wrap" costs such as the different infrastructure changes too.

I think it's interesting that some of the Constellation folks keep directly contradicting this claim, claiming instead that Ares-I + Ares-V is lower overall life-cycle cost.  Having these development costs plus the need to maintain two systems, I don't see how they can justify this repeated claim.  Do you have any insight on the thinking behind this claim?  Could they be correct for some multi-billion dollar reason I can't imagine?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/12/2007 04:04 pm
A_M_Swallow, there probably isn't actually a need to reduce the payload.

All of our numbers are packed with very large margins.   If we actually use the same margins as NASA did for the ESAS Report, or the same margins as Ares-I is using today, we can actually get quite a lot more payload up on each flight than we claim in the AIAA paper.

I think these margins would actually enable the full 80mT payload to be flown in that scenario.

FYI: While we officially published Jupiter-232 as having a maximum Payload Capacity of 105,895kg to 30x120nm, 28.5deg, the NASA-matching payload capacity for Jupiter-232 is actually 121,462kg to that same orbit.   But we aren't going to baseline that number because we don't want any accusations that we are "being hopeful" with our official numbers.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/12/2007 04:12 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 12/11/2007  12:04 PM

Quote
kraisee - 11/11/2007  9:40 PM
"Ares-I plus Ares-V" costs about $16bn more than "Jupiter-120 plus Jupiter-232" in development money alone.   $18-$20bn all-in if you include all the "full wrap" costs such as the different infrastructure changes too.

I think it's interesting that some of the Constellation folks keep directly contradicting this claim, claiming instead that Ares-I + Ares-V is lower overall life-cycle cost.  Having these development costs plus the need to maintain two systems, I don't see how they can justify this repeated claim.  Do you have any insight on the thinking behind this claim?  Could they be correct for some multi-billion dollar reason I can't imagine?

I have discussed this entire issue in-detail with NASA folk who do the costings for the Ares Program now.   They have the real numbers in front of them and they have each, independently, confirmed our findings 100%.   They actually suggested areas where Jupiter-120 would actually cost less than Ares-I, but we aren't making a big deal of that because the difference is marginal.   And if that wasn't enough, CBO also found the same basic data to be true when they did their report.

There is simply no true denying - if you can get access to the $$$ figures - that Jupiter-120/232 costs roughly half the price to develop as Ares-I/V do ($22bn vs. $38bn).

Operationally, the ISS missions cost only about $10m more than Ares-I do ($140m vs $130m per flight). The 2-launch Lunar missions cost slightly more also ($440m vs $410m per flight).   But the yearly fixed costs are about two-thirds with Jupiter ($1,900m per year vs. $2,900m per year).


So anyone claiming otherwise either has never seen the costings and is blindly regurgitating what they've heard some manager feed them, or they are deliberately not acknowledging the truth.   I suspect it is almost always the first case - towing the company line because they know no different.   It is in their interests to keep saying that in order to justify Ares even if it isn't true - "Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth".

Ross.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/12/2007 04:17 pm
It is good to hear there is a safety margin.  Also since there are several makes of ion thrusters with different ISPs there is a nice trade study for some one to compare the various single and dual launch options.  The solar panel mass is year dependent.  The Orion's Service Module will need to carry extra fuel to get to high Earth orbit.

Andrew Swallow
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/12/2007 04:19 pm
Better to optimize Orion for its job alone and use an Upper Stage (J-232 is ideally suited and has more than sufficient performance) to get the spacecraft to HEO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 11/12/2007 04:36 pm
Again, this has probably been stated before somewhere, but with these numbers, a 2 launch lunar system, Jupiter 232 s capable of the following:

Launch 1:  a 49 ton lunar habitation module, suitable for long term use, given that a cracking station of sorts is included that can crack oxygen out of the lunar rocks.
Launch 2:  Orion plus a smaller lunar lander carrying some supplies - extra water, scientific gear, and so forth.

While this would mean developing two lunar landers, it would seem to me to be   more cost effective than 2 boosters, one of which is only marginially capable anyway, while at the same time delivering large habitats that could eventually be linked to form the base camp.  Given the size of the habitat module, there would be little commonality between it and the crewed module, but at the same time, no need to develop that huge LSAM that has better capabability than the old LM, but less than the habitat module.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/12/2007 04:57 pm
Ares-V is developing two landers anyway.   One for 'normal' Crewed missions and a different one for 1-launch Cargo missions.   Jupiter would assume the same.

NASA have found that a common lander optimized for the more important Crew missions, just doesn't work correctly when used in 1-launch Cargo configuration.   So the Cargo lander will be its own design - although I fully expect the same engines and many sub-systems will remain common.

The cargo lander will be an optimized design suitable for landing large cargo modules of any sort on the lunar surface - hab modules, supplies, power generators etc.   All would be designed to fly on the same basic lander chassis.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/12/2007 05:04 pm
Quote
kraisee - 12/11/2007  5:04 PM

{snip}
 the NASA-matching payload capacity for Jupiter-232 is actually 121,462kg to that same orbit.

Estimated single launch to Mars, cargo only.

Taking the J-232 as 120 mT to LEO and using fewer Hall Thrusters

(120 mT/155 mT) * 80 mT = 62 mT payload


Using a J-120 to lift 45 mT to LEO and a different SEP

(45 mT/155 mT) * 80 mT = 23 mT Mars payload

The scaling may not be fully linear but it gives a first approximation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/12/2007 05:25 pm
I'm not very familiar with that particular approach for a Mars mission, but your first-order estimate doesn't look bad at all.

I can't help but wonder how large a mission would be possible with a three-launch or even four-launch approach.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/12/2007 06:25 pm
Fortunately SEPs and NEPs naturally divide up into 4 parts

1.  Thrusters and avionics
2.  Solar arrays or nuclear power plant
3.  Fuel tank(s) and propellant
4.  Net payload

However I am not certain that we know how to automate the assembly of a spacecraft this big yet.  Each part would weigh the same as a ISS module (or twice or five times as heavy).

Getting say 64 off 1-metre wide ion thrusters into a fairing is not too hard but getting them to open out flat, without damaging their fuel pipes, will be an interesting mechanical engineering task.
PV arrays in the form of blankets are currently under development.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: quark on 11/13/2007 04:42 am
Quote
kraisee - 11/11/2007  9:40 PM

"Ares-I plus Ares-V" costs about $16bn more than "Jupiter-120 plus Jupiter-232" in development money alone.   $18-$20bn all-in if you include all the "full wrap" costs such as the different infrastructure changes too.

And schedule would also be two to three years faster with Jupiter too - for both closing the "gap" after Shuttle and also to the first crewed landing on the moon.   Not sure if that's technically a "cost delta" though, but it is a major difference in DIRECT's favour.

Ross.

I've avoided commenting on direct for a long time.  You know the adage:  the enemy of my enemy...  

But direct is a slightly less agregious foray into the same territory now occupied by Ares: another shuttle derived point design.  Even Ross' numbers show that almost any EELV derived solution is superior even if you ignore the non-recurring.  But the numbers above are just mind blowing.  $18b???  and that's the cheap SDV solution.  The NRE for an EELV solution ranges from $1B for existing to $4-5B for a more optimum solution like the Atlas phase 2.  And the EELV numbers are based on real development experience versus direct fantasy numbers.  (Sorry but who of the direct team has ever developed an actual rocket?)

So knowing the weakness of their technical and programmatic solution, the direct team resorts to "other" justifications.  All myths and rationalizations when real reasons fail.

Myth 1.  EELV will cost thousands of shuttle jobs.  Oh the children!!   Not true.  Using EELV will cost launch jobs which is exactly what we need to have an exploration program.  Aerospace labor is a fungible resource.  NASA's budget remains constant and jobs lost on launch are saved on other exploration related tasks.

Myth 2.  This one is rich.  It is actually illegal to use EELV since congress "mandated" SDLV.  Not true.   Congress will authorize whichever program NASA endorses and makes sense.

Myth 3.  You can't human rate EELV.  It's laws of physics.  Not true and quite absurd.  It's been shown over and over how eelv's can meet human rating requirements with little effort. And now it's NASA's inability to meet its own requirements with Ares/Orion that has resulted in a substantial lowering of the bar.  How ironic.

But I would be the last to recommend picking EELV as a new point solution.  NASA should COMPETE launch.  Is the direct team ready for a competition?  Who can commit to the resources and costs?  Is there a corporate sponser?  I don't think so.  Direct can only succeed in a government dominated, non-competitive world.  Pathetic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 11/13/2007 05:34 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 12/11/2007  1:25 PM

Fortunately SEPs and NEPs naturally divide up into 4 parts

1.  Thrusters and avionics
2.  Solar arrays or nuclear power plant
3.  Fuel tank(s) and propellant
4.  Net payload

However I am not certain that we know how to automate the assembly of a spacecraft this big yet.  Each part would weigh the same as a ISS module (or twice or five times as heavy).

Getting say 64 off 1-metre wide ion thrusters into a fairing is not too hard but getting them to open out flat, without damaging their fuel pipes, will be an interesting mechanical engineering task.
PV arrays in the form of blankets are currently under development.

Don't the Russians do this with their ISS modules and the Mir ones before that?  Surely we could do  something similar.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/13/2007 01:04 pm
Quote
quark - 13/11/2007  12:42 AM
Direct can only succeed in a government dominated, non-competitive world.  Pathetic.
DIRECT was designed specifically to do that because unfortunately, that *IS* the world we must play in. It makes no difference what-so-ever that there may be different solutions available in other worlds than the one we live in.

The fact of the matter is that the American manned spaceflight program *IS* a government dominated, non-competitive world. Cry foul all you want. Until the rules that we *must* play by are changed, you won't get a better solution than DIRECT.

DIRECT was designed to work in the real world of existing politics and Washington-dominated realities. As long as we HAVE to play in THAT world, it just doesn't get any better than DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: AntiKev on 11/13/2007 01:12 pm
Quote
quark - 13/11/2007  12:42 AM
But I would be the last to recommend picking EELV as a new point solution.  NASA should COMPETE launch.  Is the direct team ready for a competition?  Who can commit to the resources and costs?  Is there a corporate sponser?  I don't think so.  Direct can only succeed in a government dominated, non-competitive world.  Pathetic.

Its only pathetic if you look at it from a purely fiscal conservative point of view such as yours.  Your government would have us spend NO money on research whatsoever.  I.e. canning NASA.

DIRECT (or rather the Jupiter launch vehicles) is a solution to the problem posed within the constraints of those that posed the question.  From my point of view, Ares I is the redundant launch vehicle.  If they want to have something to service the ISS, then an EELV-based solution is the best.  And in reality, the best engineering solution would probably be able to fly on Delta, Atlas, Jupiter, Falcon, or even Soyuz or Arianne.  I.e. platform independent.  I still say that in order to explore in the current economic climate, we will need NASA to perform the heavy lifting (pun intended).

This isn't like in the days of Columbus where shipyards are constructing ships all the time, where you can just go commission a ship and let the shipyard take one of their existing designs and make minor tweaks to suit your needs.  We not only have to design and build the ship, but the tugboats and the supporting equipment as well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 11/13/2007 02:20 pm
Quote
AntiKev - 13/11/2007  9:12 AM

Quote
quark - 13/11/2007  12:42 AM
But I would be the last to recommend picking EELV as a new point solution.  NASA should COMPETE launch.  Is the direct team ready for a competition?  Who can commit to the resources and costs?  Is there a corporate sponser?  I don't think so.  Direct can only succeed in a government dominated, non-competitive world.  Pathetic.

Its only pathetic if you look at it from a purely fiscal conservative point of view such as yours.  Your government would have us spend NO money on research whatsoever.  I.e. canning NASA.

DIRECT (or rather the Jupiter launch vehicles) is a solution to the problem posed within the constraints of those that posed the question.  From my point of view, Ares I is the redundant launch vehicle.  If they want to have something to service the ISS, then an EELV-based solution is the best.  And in reality, the best engineering solution would probably be able to fly on Delta, Atlas, Jupiter, Falcon, or even Soyuz or Arianne.  I.e. platform independent.  I still say that in order to explore in the current economic climate, we will need NASA to perform the heavy lifting (pun intended).

This isn't like in the days of Columbus where shipyards are constructing ships all the time, where you can just go commission a ship and let the shipyard take one of their existing designs and make minor tweaks to suit your needs.  We not only have to design and build the ship, but the tugboats and the supporting equipment as well.

The shipyard analogy is not a good one:

-Not enough cargo demand to support a varied market.
-Not that many "shipyards"- maybe five, but definitely less than ten.
-Exploration back then was supported by government (Queen Isabella) and quasi-governmental exploration settlement companies (Dutch West Indies Company).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Joffan on 11/13/2007 02:48 pm
Quote
brihath - 13/11/2007  8:20 AM

Quote
AntiKev - 13/11/2007  9:12 AM
This isn't like in the days of Columbus where shipyards are constructing ships all the time, where you can just go commission a ship and let the shipyard take one of their existing designs and make minor tweaks to suit your needs.  We not only have to design and build the ship, but the tugboats and the supporting equipment as well.

The shipyard analogy is not a good one:

-Not enough cargo demand to support a varied market.
-Not that many "shipyards"- maybe five, but definitely less than ten.
-Exploration back then was supported by government (Queen Isabella) and quasi-governmental exploration settlement companies (Dutch West Indies Company).

I felt AntiKev's shipyard analogy was very apt, for more-or-less the same reasons as brihath dismisses it. Sponsorship is not the same as taking on the whole of the design and production cycle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Peter NASA on 11/13/2007 03:56 pm
Quote
quark - 12/11/2007  11:42 PM


Myth 3.  You can't human rate EELV.  It's laws of physics.  Not true and quite absurd.  It's been shown over and over how eelv's can meet human rating requirements with little effort. And now it's NASA's inability to meet its own requirements with Ares/Orion that has resulted in a substantial lowering of the bar.  How ironic.


This is a Direct thread, so I'll just make a passing comment. If you want to take it further, I'm sure you can start a new thread.

I'm sure you could manrate EELV, eventually, and maybe for space tourism, but ESAS's data found that as of this time, you can't, *within safety number requirements*.

Now if this was a miscalculation by ESAS, a claim that would be hugely insulting to some of the brightest people who were involved, you'd expect a protest. Even though that wasn't forthcoming, further inquires were made by Griffin's office to ULA and ULA management failed to counter. I even know Mike Griffin personally checked into it, as did Scott Horowitz, even though they did not have to, by asking ULA management for their full opinion. ULA failed to say anything different to what was shown in ESAS.

I believe that speaks volumes for the honest and open standpoint Mike Griffin has on this issue of the best scenario to proceed with, when he was willing to speak to ULA and reconfirm status.

I also disagree, in the strongest terms, about workforce impact by taking an EELV approach.

Myth 2 is correct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/13/2007 03:58 pm
Quote
texas_space - 13/11/2007  6:34 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 12/11/2007  1:25 PM
{snip}
However I am not certain that we know how to automate the assembly of a spacecraft this big yet.  Each part would weigh the same as a ISS module (or twice or five times as heavy).

Getting say 64 off 1-metre wide ion thrusters into a fairing is not too hard but getting them to open out flat, without damaging their fuel pipes, will be an interesting mechanical engineering task.
PV arrays in the form of blankets are currently under development.

Don't the Russians do this with their ISS modules and the Mir ones before that?  Surely we could do  something similar.

I am not certain which paragraph you are commenting on but methods of constructing a 400 metric ton Solar Electric Propulsion tug is space sounds like an interesting topic.  Possibly in the Advanced Concepts section.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/13/2007 04:25 pm
Quote
Peter NASA - 13/11/2007  11:56 AM

I'm sure you could manrate EELV, eventually, and maybe for space tourism, but ESAS's data found that as of this time, you can't, *within safety number requirements*.

Now if this was a miscalculation by ESAS, a claim that would be hugely insulting to some of the brightest people who were involved, you'd expect a protest. Even though that wasn't forthcoming, further inquires were made by Griffin's office to ULA and ULA management failed to counter. I even know Mike Griffin personally checked into it, as did Scott Horowitz, even though they did not have to, by asking ULA management

QUOTE]

Guess what?   Ares I going to be no better than an EELV.  

As for the other comment.  ULA was told to hush up and Mike continued to spout the BS about "black zones"

Mike himself said that if an ELV is good for a high dollar NASA or DOD payload, it is good enough for crew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: yinzer on 11/13/2007 09:14 pm
Quote
Peter NASA - 13/11/2007  8:56 AM

'm sure you could manrate EELV, eventually, and maybe for space tourism, but ESAS's data found that as of this time, you can't, *within safety number requirements*.

Now if this was a miscalculation by ESAS, a claim that would be hugely insulting to some of the brightest people who were involved, you'd expect a protest. Even though that wasn't forthcoming, further inquires were made by Griffin's office to ULA and ULA management failed to counter. I even know Mike Griffin personally checked into it, as did Scott Horowitz, even though they did not have to, by asking ULA management for their full opinion. ULA failed to say anything different to what was shown in ESAS.

One: There have been several people who said that NASA told Boeing and Lockheed to shut up about selling EELVs if they wanted a chance to win the Orion contract.

Two: The safety section of the ESAS report is pathetic for a wide variety of reasons.  They can take this as hugely insulting or not, but it's a pretty safe statement.  To name a few: Probabilistic risk assessments don't model human process failures, which are hugely influenced by the flight rate and also bear most of the responsibility for the 14 Shuttle fatalities.  SSME reliability numbers are used as a starting point, and then rather than being reduced for a different application and the inability to do post-flight inspections, were arbitrarily inflated.  "Apollo Heritage" numbers were used for the J-2X while the RL-10 was judged to need extensive test programs to human-rate, despite the RL-10 being the most reliable LOX/LH2 engine in existence and the J-2X ending up as a completely new engine.  And finally, the total contribution of the launch process to the Lunar mission LOC is about 3%.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jml on 11/14/2007 10:37 pm
Hmmm......

Ross says this:
Quote
kraisee - 3/11/2007  11:12 PM
Stephen is preparing to visit DC shortly to get in-person reaction with as many of the key figures as possible.   Not sure if we will be able to put the reactions in a public forum, but we will try to give you guys at least a summary when he comes back.

And Space Politics says this:
The space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee will be holding a hearing this Thursday morning (10 am, SR-253) on “Issues Facing the U.S. Space Program after Retirement of the Space Shuttle”.  ... Administrator Mike Griffin is scheduled to testify, along with associate administrators Bill Gerstenmaier and Richard Gilbrech.


Now this is nothing more than wishful thinking and I'm sure it isn't the proper way to do things, but I sure wish someone had a big armful of DIRECT 2.0 AIAA 2007 papers to hand out to some folks in Hearing Room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Bldg.

 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/15/2007 01:10 am
Quote
kraisee - 12/11/2007  6:25 PM

I'm not very familiar with that particular approach for a Mars mission, but your first-order estimate doesn't look bad at all.

I can't help but wonder how large a mission would be possible with a three-launch or even four-launch approach.

Ross.

Two launchs to send 120 mT from LEO to Mars

ISP of HiPEP = 8270 sec
Approx delta-v to Mars = 4000 m/s
Mass of spacecraft including solar arrays, structure and big arrays of thrusters = 25 mT
Dry mass = 120 + 25 = 145 mT

m1 = 145 * exp( 4000 / (8270 * 9.81) ) = 152.4 mT
Fuel = 152.4 - 145 = 7.4 round up to 8 mT

So a J-120 or Delta IV to lift the SEP and a J-232 to lift payload.


For a 4 launch mission using J-232s
4 * 100 = 400 mT

m0 = 400 exp( -4000 / (8270*9.81) ) = 380.8
Fuel = 400 - 280.8 = 19.2 mT increase to 22 mT

Payload = 400 - (25 + 22) = 353 mT
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/15/2007 02:36 am
353mT eh?   That sounds like a fairly impressive payload for a Mars mission to me :)

We can but dream, I suppose.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula2 on 11/15/2007 04:03 am
Unfortunately, your SEP would take months to achieve that 4000 m/s. Around a year for 400 mt.  A lot of it in the Van Allen belts. So you would have to radiation harden it substantially, and launch the crew to HEO to meet it. And subtract the fuel for the return from the payload. Extra months escaping from Mars are probably a bad idea too.

Much better to use your SEP to move unmanned cargo to Mars orbit, and to preposition propellant depots in L1 and Mars Orbit (plus another in LEO). Then a manned chemical rocket, with around 4000 m/s delta-v, can just go from one depot to the next.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/15/2007 05:26 pm
The easiest way of radiation hardening electronics is to power it down.  If there is no one on-board the ship, for example, the air conditioning and controller can be switched off.

People return form Mars, cargo like habitation modules stays there.  Since the solar arrays will be warn out by the time the SEP returns it is probably easier to leave cargo only SEPs at Mars.  Voyages to the moon are quicker so lunar SEPs are worth reusing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/15/2007 07:23 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 15/11/2007  1:26 PM

The easiest way of radiation hardening electronics is to power it down.  If there is no one on-board the ship, for example, the air conditioning and controller can be switched off.

Quote

It still can be damaged in the off state.  Can't turn off the guidance, etc.  So bad idea
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 11/15/2007 07:32 pm

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 15/11/2007  12:26 PM  The easiest way of radiation hardening electronics is to power it down.  If there is no one on-board the ship, for example, the air conditioning and controller can be switched off.

Radiation damage disrupts the structure of *any* materials, no matter the state. You can't avoid it. Even weakens structures due to embrittlement.

One way you radiation harden semiconductors is to make them larger, so more damage can be tolerated - but you can only take this so far. With biological systems, experiments have focussed on the ability for some kinds of molecules to rebound from GEV strikes.

We are in our infancy in dealing with serious radiation. Right now, hundreds of meters of carbonaceous rock are what I'd want around me between Earth and Mars.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/15/2007 07:33 pm
Quote
Jim - 15/11/2007  3:23 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 15/11/2007  1:26 PM

The easiest way of radiation hardening electronics is to power it down.  If there is no one on-board the ship, for example, the air conditioning and controller can be switched off.

It still can be damaged in the off state.  Can't turn off the guidance, etc.  So bad idea
Worse case scenario: the crew should have a procedure already certified to allow total shutdown and subsequent restart in the event of a massive storm. This may not eliminate the danger, but it should lessen it. When I say shutdown, I mean everything except maybe some lights, including guidance. Wear long johns. Once the storm passes, execute the restart procedure and see what was harmed. But if everything is shut down, there is that much less likely damage. But Jim is right; even in shutdown; a direct strike of a high energy particle can still cause damage.

Let’s not have a repeat of Apollo 13, where the procedure needed to be created mid-crisis.

I don't want to take this off topic, but there are studies looking at an electronic "shield" around the spacecraft to do for the spacecraft what the earth's magnetic field does for the earth in terms of radiation protection.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 11/16/2007 04:02 am
Quote
clongton - 15/11/2007  2:33 PM

Quote
Jim - 15/11/2007  3:23 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 15/11/2007  1:26 PM

The easiest way of radiation hardening electronics is to power it down.  If there is no one on-board the ship, for example, the air conditioning and controller can be switched off.

It still can be damaged in the off state.  Can't turn off the guidance, etc.  So bad idea
Worse case scenario: the crew should have a procedure already certified to allow total shutdown and subsequent restart in the event of a massive storm. This may not eliminate the danger, but it should lessen it. When I say shutdown, I mean everything except maybe some lights, including guidance. Wear long johns. Once the storm passes, execute the restart procedure and see what was harmed. But if everything is shut down, there is that much less likely damage. But Jim is right; even in shutdown; a direct strike of a high energy particle can still cause damage.

Let’s not have a repeat of Apollo 13, where the procedure needed to be created mid-crisis.

I don't want to take this off topic, but there are studies looking at an electronic "shield" around the spacecraft to do for the spacecraft what the earth's magnetic field does for the earth in terms of radiation protection.

And just how much power will such a 'shield' take??  Seems like a reactor to produce the necessary power for a magnetic shield would be better used for high speed propulsion, to shorten the trip and reduce not only radiation hazards over time but also to reduce the zero-gee transit time to minimize health effects of microgravity....  Besides, how far out is the technology to actually produce a viable, operable, and DEPENDABLE magnetic shield around a crew transit module??  

What are the health effects of living inside an intense magnetic field for months or years??  There are bound to be some pretty serious health effects.  From what I've read of somewhat controversial statistics from folks living very close to high-tension power lines who are immersed in an intense magnetic field for long periods, the cancer risk may be just as great from the magnetic shield as from high energy particles and cosmic rays.  I know I wouldn't want to sit inside a tokamak coil for a year and a half....

Plus, electronics tend to be pretty sensitive to magnetic fields, as I recall.... seems like putting the worlds most sophisticated computers and related electronic hardware upon which the crew's lives will totally depend inside essentially a tokamak coil for the trip out and back would just be asking for trouble... what happens when 'the breaker trips' and the magnetic field collapses and induces high voltage through all the electrical circuits in the ship??? World's largest automotive spark coil....

Sounds good on Star Trek but I don't think this is any more feasible for use at our present level of technology and understanding and engineering than the warp drive... JMHO!  OL JR :)

If ah push 'er any 'arder Captain, the whole thing'll BLEW!!!  (Montgomery Scott, Chief of Engineering, USS ENTERPRISE) :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 11/16/2007 04:10 am
A shield was actually discussed in episode 3 of Mars Rising.  Power consumption would be huge, though, I agree.

However, relatively low power EM shields are in use in the army to provide protections to troops from air bursting artillery.  It projects a "shield" that causes the fuzes to fire prematury, causing the shells to detonate well before they are in the intended target area.  doesn't help the other people under the detonation location much, I think.  I would not be surprised if there are not variants that protect tanks from ATGM missiles and other shaped charge warheads by causing them to detonate outside their lethal radius.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/16/2007 04:35 am
While I think the option is worthwhile considering I'm not sure this particular thread is quite appropriate.

I would like to continue discussing the alternatives of powering such a thing, and whether there are dual-use nuclear propulsion & power systems which would be able to provide the right combination for missions to Mars, but lets take this topic to a different thread - probably over in the Advanced Concepts section.

Right now in this thread I'd rather start discussing the complicated political and program aspects of  how NASA could smoothly transition from the Ares-I development program into a Jupiter-120 development program.   I think the change is coming, but I'd like to help as much as possible.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 11/16/2007 11:46 am
Is there a high-level programme schedule (GANT chart ?) showing the DIRECT development "sown" into ESAS plans ? highlighting dependences like point at which ET fabrication switches to the larger diameter etc ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/16/2007 11:50 am
Quote
Achilles - 16/11/2007  7:46 AM

Is there a high-level programme schedule (GANT chart ?) showing the DIRECT development "sown" into ESAS plans ? highlighting dependences like point at which ET fabrication switches to the larger diameter etc ?
In the DIRECT architecture as presented, the ET never switches to a larger size; it remains the standard 8.4m diameter as currently used by STS.

There is no need to make the change. Staying with the 8.4m diameter, DIRECT can do everything the Ares 10m can do, and it do it faster and for less cost. It makes no sence to change.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 11/16/2007 12:24 pm
Ross requested a discussion of the smooth transition to DIRECT in his last post.  NASA DOES plan to switch at some point/milestone to making 10m tanks,  the cost of switching back to an ET size tank then becomes a negative .   The clearing of the PADs, the cutting of MPLs etc.

If people could see the highlevel timeline and dependencies, decision points it would help in the discussion you guys have requested.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/16/2007 12:39 pm
Quote
Achilles - 16/11/2007  8:24 AM

Ross requested a discussion of the smooth transition to DIRECT in his last post.  NASA DOES plan to switch at some point/milestone to making 10m tanks,  the cost of switching back to an ET size tank then becomes a negative .   The clearing of the PADs, the cutting of MPLs etc.

If people could see the highlevel timeline and dependencies, decision points it would help in the discussion you guys have requested.
Ross said: "Right now in this thread I'd rather start discussing the complicated political and program aspects of how NASA could smoothly transition from the Ares-I development program into a Jupiter-120 development program."

The transition he was talking about was from the Ares-1 (a SRB-based launcher) to the Jupiter-120, the liquid core launcher. At no point does that involve changing the ET size. It's a question of transitioning the planning from a Solid Fuel rocket to a Liquid Fuel rocket. The liquid fuel rocket will use the standard 8.4m STS ET. The DIRECT architecture, once established, does not change ET diameter.

While preserving the STS infrastructure by default preserves the future option of building the 10m Ares-V, the DIRECT architecture does not have any specific plans in place for that transition. It remains an option for future consideration, should NASA desire to exersize the option.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 11/16/2007 12:42 pm
Quote
clongton - 16/11/2007  1:39 AM

Quote
Achilles - 16/11/2007  8:24 AM

Ross requested a discussion of the smooth transition to DIRECT in his last post.  NASA DOES plan to switch at some point/milestone to making 10m tanks,  the cost of switching back to an ET size tank then becomes a negative .   The clearing of the PADs, the cutting of MPLs etc.

If people could see the highlevel timeline and dependencies, decision points it would help in the discussion you guys have requested.
Ross said: "Right now in this thread I'd rather start discussing the complicated political and program aspects of how NASA could smoothly transition from the Ares-I development program into a Jupiter-120 development program."

The transition he was talking about was from the Ares-1 (a SRB-based launcher) to the Jupiter-120, the liquid core launcher. At no point does that involve changing the ET size. It's a question of transitioning the planning from a Solid Fuel rocket to a Liquid Fuel rocket. The liquid fuel rocket will use the standard 8.4m STS ET. The DIRECT architecture, once established, does not change ET diameter.

While preserving the STS infrastructure by default preserves the future option of building the 10m Ares-V, the DIRECT architecture does not have any specific plans in place for that transition. It remains an option for future consideration, should NASA desire to exersize the option.

Oh sorry, My fault. I thought you were transitioning from ESAS to DIRECT, I'll butt out.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/16/2007 12:46 pm
Quote
Achilles - 16/11/2007  8:42 AM

Quote
clongton - 16/11/2007  1:39 AM

Quote
Achilles - 16/11/2007  8:24 AM

Ross requested a discussion of the smooth transition to DIRECT in his last post.  NASA DOES plan to switch at some point/milestone to making 10m tanks,  the cost of switching back to an ET size tank then becomes a negative .   The clearing of the PADs, the cutting of MPLs etc.

If people could see the highlevel timeline and dependencies, decision points it would help in the discussion you guys have requested.
Ross said: "Right now in this thread I'd rather start discussing the complicated political and program aspects of how NASA could smoothly transition from the Ares-I development program into a Jupiter-120 development program."

The transition he was talking about was from the Ares-1 (a SRB-based launcher) to the Jupiter-120, the liquid core launcher. At no point does that involve changing the ET size. It's a question of transitioning the planning from a Solid Fuel rocket to a Liquid Fuel rocket. The liquid fuel rocket will use the standard 8.4m STS ET. The DIRECT architecture, once established, does not change ET diameter.

While preserving the STS infrastructure by default preserves the future option of building the 10m Ares-V, the DIRECT architecture does not have any specific plans in place for that transition. It remains an option for future consideration, should NASA desire to exersize the option.

Oh sorry, My fault. I thought you were transitioning from ESAS to DIRECT, I'll butt out.
No, no, no. Don't butt out. That was not a scolding, just a correction. We WANT you to engage. Nobody, ESPECIALLY me, is above misreading someone's statement. Please do engage in the conversation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 11/16/2007 02:30 pm
Quote
kraisee - 15/11/2007  11:35 PM

[...]

Right now in this thread I'd rather start discussing the complicated political and program aspects of  how NASA could smoothly transition from the Ares-I development program into a Jupiter-120 development program.   I think the change is coming, but I'd like to help as much as possible.

Ross.

I think with what has been recently revealed on L2 it's getting simpler ....

'More detailed development has shown the Ares I/V does not deliver what was originally envisaged in terms of safety and performance and previously cast aside alternatives like the LV24/5 2-launch approach will now be used as it provides the margin to assure success unlike 1.5 launch. Let me introduce the new launch vehicles Ares II and Ares III which also give the following benefits over Ares I/V ....cost/time/jobs etc'

Engineering wise it's not a difficult decision to make, if Griffin is really emotionless as he claims it should not be a difficult decision for him to personally make as an involved human individual and the sooner the better. Griffin now has all the data he needs to cancel Ares I without any loss of face.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/16/2007 02:58 pm
Quote
marsavian - 16/11/2007  10:30 AM

Quote
kraisee - 15/11/2007  11:35 PM

[...]

Right now in this thread I'd rather start discussing the complicated political and program aspects of  how NASA could smoothly transition from the Ares-I development program into a Jupiter-120 development program.   I think the change is coming, but I'd like to help as much as possible.

Ross.

I think with what has been recently revealed on L2 it's getting simpler ....

'More detailed development has shown the Ares I/V does not deliver what was originally envisaged in terms of safety and performance and previously cast aside alternatives like the LV24/5 2-launch approach will now be used as it provides the margin to assure success unlike 1.5 launch. Let me introduce the new launch vehicles Ares II and Ares III which also give the following benefits over Ares I/V ....cost/time/jobs etc'

Engineering wise it's not a difficult decision to make, if Griffin is really emotionless as he claims it should not be a difficult decision for him to personally make as an involved human individual and the sooner the better. Griffin now has all the data he needs to cancel Ares I without any loss of face.
mars - you really had me there for a minute, especially with the LV14-5 reference. I thought you were quoting from somewhere on L2 and I was pulling my hair out trying to find the quote, and I had my copy of the ESAS open trying to find LV14-5. The lightbulb went on when you provided your edit. You almost gave me a heart attack! :)

Thanks. Good possible announcement.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 11/16/2007 03:06 pm
Sorry about that, was working from memory but thought I'd best check ;-). It's crunch time for Griffin to show what he's really made of and how history will remember him. My advice to him is to take the Houbolt step and assure he will be fondly remembered and not for the potential breakup of NASA as Jim contends because that's not a unrealistic conclusion if he keeps butting all his engineers heads on this Ares I dead end for years to come. He can still get his Ares V eventually even with DIRECT if the public are enamoured with Exploration and put more money in for Mars.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: quark on 11/16/2007 03:44 pm
Quote
Peter NASA - 13/11/2007  9:56 AM

Quote
quark - 12/11/2007  11:42 PM


Myth 3.  You can't human rate EELV.  It's laws of physics.  Not true and quite absurd.  It's been shown over and over how eelv's can meet human rating requirements with little effort. And now it's NASA's inability to meet its own requirements with Ares/Orion that has resulted in a substantial lowering of the bar.  How ironic.


Now if this was a miscalculation by ESAS, a claim that would be hugely insulting to some of the brightest people who were involved, you'd expect a protest. Even though that wasn't forthcoming, further inquires were made by Griffin's office to ULA and ULA management failed to counter. I even know Mike Griffin personally checked into it, as did Scott Horowitz, even though they did not have to, by asking ULA management for their full opinion. ULA failed to say anything different to what was shown in ESAS.

I believe that speaks volumes for the honest and open standpoint Mike Griffin has on this issue of the best scenario to proceed with, when he was willing to speak to ULA and reconfirm status.


This is completely false.  ULA didn't exist at the time of ESAS and Griffin told LM and Boeing management to cease talking about EELV before the ESAS results were released.  And after the results were released, both companies were told to stay silent.

Further, Griffin has actively tried to suppress even commercial human rating work on EELV.

At no time did Griffin or Horowitz ever attempt to contact ULA management asking for data on human rating.

Back on the topic of this thread, Griffin showed no sign of waivering from the baseline Ares plan during his senate hearing yesterday.  Not even a mention of alternatives or back up plans.  I find it hard to believe that NASA will change until they reach the absolute end of the road on Ares I, i.e., it's shown to be technically non-viable.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: publiusr on 11/16/2007 04:45 pm
Quote
Jim - 6/11/2007  2:15 PM

Quote
wingod - 6/11/2007  3:04 PM

By the way, it is the "real" Air force that is causing most of the problems with the space part of that organization.

Left the USAF because of that.  Experienced the problem personally



That actually speaks to my point in having Hillary put Pete Worden the head of the Air Force. Something to really scare the fighter jocks. Hillary is probably not the biggest fan of the military--which the SPS people (realistic or not) can use to their advantage.

Jim, it would help your friends in the space industry to have a President who would be hostile to the status quo.

Get some of your old enemies to be Hillary's enemies--that's the name of the game. She does look to be the next President.


_____________________________________________________

But to get away from politics--have you thought about other payloads for Direct? I would think a future OSP would be a better fit on Direct than on Delta IV, though Jim may be reluctant to admit that. I never liked OSP atop an EELV because it would be such a close thing. But weight creep on OSP would be far less a threat on Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 11/16/2007 04:59 pm
Ross,

Seeing as how Senator Nelson and others are openly not very happy about just relying on COTS to deliver ISS resupply can you work out an alternative roadmap that would involve keeping the Shuttle going until J-120 is ready to take over smoothly ? How much delay to J-120 would this involve, 2014-5 ? Obviously this is a plan only the Democrats would be interested in as it keeps ISS cargo and crew resupply guaranteed at the expense of Exploration but I still think you could probably match Ares I introduction time ;) . Might be worth working the numbers and have it ready if Hilary gets in as I think it would be a very good ISS/Exploration compromise that would appeal to her.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/16/2007 05:02 pm
Quote
Achilles - 16/11/2007  7:46 AM

Is there a high-level programme schedule (GANT chart ?) showing the DIRECT development "sown" into ESAS plans ? highlighting dependences like point at which ET fabrication switches to the larger diameter etc ?

Achilles,
The finite detail points you are after have not yet been pinned-down - there are just too many details and variable for our small team to work thoroughly with a high enough degree of confidence to "publish".   We have accomplished much, but that's just a small step beyond what we've been able to do so far.

The broader strokes are reasonably clear though.   For the transition, they are (I have been told), something along these lines:

Strawman Pre-DAC:
Initialize the process using aero-data from NLS as an initial starting point while new aero-data is compiled
Trajectory analysis
Thermal analysis
GN&C analysis
Loads analysis
Refine Models for Integration
Pre-DAC Review

Then:
New offices: Core Stage and Core Stage Propulsion
Draft Schedule leading to DAC-1 Integrated Master Schedule
Write new IVDDD
DAC Plan

This could take us to DAC-1 around February if the go-light were lit today.

At that point there are just too many variables involved to predict exactly how things go on from there, but we have the following basic outline schedule:

SRR - Q3 2008
PDR - Q3 2009
CDR - Q3 2010
DCR - Q1 2012
First Crewed Flight: End Q3 2012


One of the most critical aspects will be facility availability at MAF while ET's continue to flow.    The ET development guys at MSFC should be set about the task of identifying a precise schedule for when each section of the manufacturing plant could be turned over to Jupiter.   Final production would only happen once they have completed all the manifested ET parts, but we could really use a hi-fidelity report of the impacts to the facility if some early elements for Jupiter test stages were to run down the existing production lines while STS parts continue production.

While we (DIRECT Team) have been assured there would be no major problems, until we know precisely what MAF can and can't do for Jupiter without having to disrupt Shuttle ET flow it will be tricky scheduling any work there - so having a detailed report on this is going to be critical.

The results of all that should put us in a reasonably good position to begin developing testing hardware as the Shuttle ET is redesigned into the Core Stage for Jupiter.

The longest lead-time items are no longer engines (Ares-I), they are now the Thrust Structure and the Avionics and first crew flight date is now dictated by whenever Orion will be ready, not the LV.

Does that help to kick-start the discussion you were interested in?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/16/2007 05:23 pm
Quote
marsavian - 16/11/2007  12:59 PM

Ross,

Seeing as how Senator Nelson and others are openly not very happy about just relying on COTS to deliver ISS resupply can you work out an alternative roadmap that would involve keeping the Shuttle going until J-120 is ready to take over smoothly ? How much delay to J-120 would this involve, 2014-5 ? Obviously this is a plan only the Democrats would be interested in as it keeps ISS cargo and crew resupply guaranteed at the expense of Exploration but I still think you could probably match Ares I introduction time ;) . Might be worth working the numbers and have it ready if Hilary gets in as I think it would be a very good ISS/Exploration compromise that would appeal to her.

The bottom line is that Jupiter, if given the green-light tomorrow, would be ready to fly crew and cargo to ISS about 2 to 2-1/2 years after the Shuttle retires.   September 2012 is our current target date for a Crewed Orion Spacecraft to visit the ISS.


The concern with extending the Shuttle program, is all you actually do is put off the new program by the same amount.   12 months of Shuttle program deprives the new program of the much-needed money it desperately needs and thus delays its progress by about 10 months - in this Jupiter/Orion case, an extra year of Shuttle would simply push the first Jupiter-120/Orion launch back to around July 2013, so there is no real advantage.

We have Russian flights through 2012, so lets just knuckle-down and use those, but be damned sure to have something ready to fly before those go away.


There are two critical differences between Jupiter-120 and Ares-I which make this possible,   Simply put, Jupiter-120 re-uses most of Shuttle's existing hardware with the most minimal of changes - "use what you've got" has been a driving principle in the development.   But most importantly, Jupiter-120 is NOT reliant upon any new engines.   It uses existing engine exclusively, where Ares-I is dependent on both the new 5-segment SRB and the new J-2X programs coming in on-time and on-budget.   It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that removing 2 engine development programs from the critical path to success obviously reduces both cost and schedule massively.   These two factors means that even starting two years after Ares-I development started, we can still field the system 3 years ahead of Ares-I.


I would therefore strongly recommend to the good Senator and his colleagues, that Shuttle should still be retired by September of 2010.   But that with Jupiter-120, he should be able to realistically expect the $1,500m Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) and virtually *ALL* of the other expensive and otherwise grounded payloads could then fly - effectively for free - along with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th crew flights of the new program in late 2012 or early 2013.

And further, I would also point out that retaining Shuttle's basic ability to lift 16+ tons of cargo to the ISS with every crew flight, that the ability to extend ISS' life beyond 2016 becomes a realistic and affordable possibility - unlike the case if NASA continues to develop Ares-I followed by the equally-expensive Ares-V.   There is simply no need to pay that development cost twice while still ticking all four boxes; cost, performance, schedule and workforce.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: [email protected] on 11/16/2007 06:32 pm
Can someone tell me if Direct 2.0 has every been presented to Congress as an alternative to AresI/V?  From what I have read, NASA has only presented its view of the world - without giving the people responsible for approving the budget an opportunity to discuss Direct 2.0.  I for one feel that NASA will never come around to a design as clean and capable as Direct.  So, what are the opportunities for private funding - leasing facilities from NASA - and selling services - COTS - back to NASA.  Anyone with deep pockets willing to pony up to a blockbuster startup with a captive clientiele?  J-120 flying years before Ares I as a private venture will surely shut that development down.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/16/2007 07:53 pm
The DIRECT team has sent copies of the proposal on multiple occasions, to many members of Congress - certainly all those with an active stake in the future of the space program.   We are making additional contacts at the present time.

There are no possibilities for any 40+mT launch systems in the private sector in the foreseeable future.   The best hope we probably have is that Elon Musk and Richard Branson can fund private space ventures, but both are still in the early development stages so I wouldn't expect to see any moon rockets for at least another decade.

And nobody seems to be in a financially hefty position to buy any NASA hardware in the private sector at all.

Call me pessimistic if you wish, but given NASA's reticence to fix the obvious boondoggle of Ares-I in a timely fashion itself, I believe the VSE's two remaining chances are:-

a) Convincing NASA to change direction themselves before a Congressional Investigation is started into the bungled Ares-I concept.

b) After such an investigation has rightly laid the blame at Griffin and Horowitz's feet, and assuming there is still a NASA and a VSE at all, Congress may appoint a replacement Administrator who will seriously try to turn Shuttle into an effective new launcher without it costing the Earth.

All other options I can see lead to the unpleasant reality of an LEO-only operation at best, or at worst the complete disbanding of NASA as a federal agency.


I predict such an investigation will happen in 2009 if NASA continues to steer its current course.   It is not too late to change, but the window of opportunity is swiftly receding.

All IMHO, of course.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: [email protected] on 11/16/2007 08:12 pm
Ross,

OK.  I'm convinced.  Jupiter's only hope for a move from concept to hardware is NASA.  Thanks for letting me know the team has sent copies of the proposal to members of Congress.  However, it may be time to push for hearings - first into what Direct offers over Ares and second why NASA has ignored, for the most part, this option.  Congress does not respond well to reading alot of paper - OK, reading ANY paper.  It is just sent off to a staffer to read and report back on - if it is given any interest at all.  The Direct team needs to get a House or Senate committee or subcommittee to give you an hour hearing.  If you can't convince them in that length of time that Direct needs NASA's full attention and support, the investigation you see coming in 2009 will be too late and too distruptive to give the US a viable manned launch capability after STS retirement.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/16/2007 08:39 pm
We have been deliberately trying not to go that route because a change from within NASA is going to be far better for all.

We have no wish to put NASA through that sort of process because it is damaging for the agency.   We are all very much still supporters of NASA as a whole - our point of contention is purely this single issue of the new launch vehicles, in particular Ares-I.


With the latest info about Ares-I beginning to percolate down from the IS-TIM (see L2), we are convinced that Ares-I has had its chance, and now we hope, yet again, that NASA will finally change of its own volition.

I can't say much, but what is mostly staying our hand right now is that some studies have been done over the last two months, and continue to be done, into a Jupiter-120 style vehicle.   I shouldn't really say more at this stage because I don't know what it all *means* yet - if anything.

Time, as always, will tell.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 11/16/2007 08:56 pm
Ross,  a small point, the President appoints officials such as NASA Adminstrators and the Senate Confirms them (or not).  The congress is not empowered to appoint anything.

I hope you have powerful friends, and success.  THe country needs DIRECT?Jupiter if we are to move beyond Earth orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/16/2007 09:01 pm
Quote
mike robel - 16/11/2007  4:56 PM

Ross,  a small point, the President appoints officials such as NASA Adminstrators and the Senate Confirms them (or not).  The congress is not empowered to appoint anything.

True, but if it ever degenerated into a scandal of this sort, Congress would force the old guy out and that inevitably leads to a new guy.   While I agree that they don't actually propose the names, they'll let the WH know who's likely to be acceptable and who's not ahead of the name being publicized.   The end result is the same.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/16/2007 09:11 pm
Quote
kraisee - 16/11/2007  5:01 PM

Quote
mike robel - 16/11/2007  4:56 PM

Ross,  a small point, the President appoints officials such as NASA Adminstrators and the Senate Confirms them (or not).  The congress is not empowered to appoint anything.

True, but if it ever degenerated into a scandal of this sort, Congress would force the old guy out and that inevitably leads to a new guy.   While I agree that they don't actually propose the names, they'll let the WH know who's likely to be acceptable and who's not ahead of the name being publicized.   The end result is the same.

Ross.
A 'similar' chain of events/ meetings / congress to/from WH led to the current Administrator.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 11/16/2007 10:36 pm
Given the recent comments by the Senators on the CJS committee and 51D Mascot’s comments in this thread. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=10831&posts=63&start=1 it strikes me as rather timely to begin a concerted effort to remind Congress of the DIRECT alternative. If 51D Mascot is correct in asserting that the NASA Reauthorization due in mid 2008 could contain language specifically forbidding NASA from disabling Shuttle capability before ISS completion then DIRECT has stronger foothold since it uses those same capabilities. (MAF Tank construction etc).
I would strongly suggest that rather than saying that the extension of Shuttle operations will automatically result in the extension of the gap to DIRECT you reevaluate the possibilities. If Dr. Griffin is saying that it will take an additional $2 billion to move Constellation two years to the left it might be wise to consider what would be possible for DIRECT assuming a delayed Shuttle retirement and some more money. Ideally, assuming one or two Shuttle flights per year in 2011 and 2012 for basic re-supply, how much money would be required to get a first Jupiter 120 to the ISS in 2013? Something along this line could be a deal maker for DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/16/2007 11:17 pm
Quote
kraisee - 16/11/2007  6:02 PM
{snip}

The longest lead-time items are no longer engines (Ares-I), they are now the Thrust Structure and the Avionics and first crew flight date is now dictated by whenever Orion will be ready, not the LV.

When could J-120 get a cargo capsule, other than the Orion, to the ISS?

Everybody.  Which capsules would be suitable?  Existing and new.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Joffan on 11/17/2007 12:17 am
J-120 should be able to loft an ATV into the right orbit for rendezvous with the ISS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 11/17/2007 01:54 am
Quote
Joffan - 16/11/2007  7:17 PM

J-120 should be able to loft an ATV into the right orbit for rendezvous with the ISS.
Absolutely!  Even with one SRB tied behind its back!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 11/17/2007 03:25 am
I assume that you mean an empty one.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula on 11/17/2007 03:30 am
I think the question is WHEN not IF J-120 could be ready to lauch an ATV to ISS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/17/2007 03:36 am
Looks to me like a J-120 could launch an Orion + ATV, or 2 ATVs if they could somehow all be loaded onto the launcher.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 11/17/2007 03:37 am
Or Orion + 1 or 2 ISS modules.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/17/2007 04:15 am
Quote
kkattula - 17/11/2007  4:30 AM

I think the question is WHEN not IF J-120 could be ready to lauch an ATV to ISS.

The feeling I am picking up is the mission would be about pride.  They want (1) an American rocket to lift (2) an American capsule containing (3) American astronauts to the ISS.

The Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) is European so it only counts as 1 out of 3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle

Cargo Orion on J-120 would be 2 out of 3.  So would a rival American made cargo capsule.

Manned Orion on J-120 would be 3 out of 3.

Since this is about filling the disgrace of the gap WHEN is important.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Giovanni DS on 11/17/2007 08:33 am
The J-120 is the best part of DIRECT IMO. It would be perfect for ISS or for launching mini stations or modules.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/17/2007 12:24 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 16/11/2007  12:15 AM

Quote
kkattula - 17/11/2007  4:30 AM

I think the question is WHEN not IF J-120 could be ready to lauch an ATV to ISS.

The feeling I am picking up is the mission would be about pride.  They want (1) an American rocket to lift (2) an American capsule containing (3) American astronauts to the ISS.

The Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) is European so it only counts as 1 out of 3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle


Since this is about filling the disgrace of the gap WHEN is important.

This has already been worked, it is called COTS
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/17/2007 12:39 pm
Quote
Jim - 17/11/2007  8:24 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 16/11/2007  12:15 AM

Quote
kkattula - 17/11/2007  4:30 AM

I think the question is WHEN not IF J-120 could be ready to lauch an ATV to ISS.

The feeling I am picking up is the mission would be about pride.  They want (1) an American rocket to lift (2) an American capsule containing (3) American astronauts to the ISS.

The Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) is European so it only counts as 1 out of 3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle


Since this is about filling the disgrace of the gap WHEN is important.

This has already been worked, it is called COTS
For better or worse, COTS has become a launch vehicle contest. It needs to be refocused to encourage things like ATV, which can be flown on existing or other planned launch vehicles, like the EELV fleet, the Jipiter J-120, Falcon, etc. I would like to see it weigh in at no more than 20mT fully loaded, so that a variety of launch vehicles are available for use.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/17/2007 04:16 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 16/11/2007  7:17 PM

Quote
kraisee - 16/11/2007  6:02 PM
{snip}

The longest lead-time items are no longer engines (Ares-I), they are now the Thrust Structure and the Avionics and first crew flight date is now dictated by whenever Orion will be ready, not the LV.

When could J-120 get a cargo capsule, other than the Orion, to the ISS?

Everybody.  Which capsules would be suitable?  Existing and new.

Our third test flight - "Orion 3" - could theoretically deliver something "automated" about 9 months ahead of our first manned flight.   Maybe an ATV filled with not-so-essential equipment could be configured to fly inside the PLF.   But it would technically be a "test flight" and would be subject to the regular risks of that.

While the two earlier test flights (Orion 1 and Orion 2) would both also likely reach orbit successfully, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable recommending they fly with a seriously valuable payload aboard.   NASA could choose differently though because the most critical parts (SRB's and RS-68 engines) are already flight proven after all.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/17/2007 04:22 pm
Quote
kkattula - 16/11/2007  11:30 PM

I think the question is WHEN not IF J-120 could be ready to launch an ATV to ISS.

That would entirely depend upon what would be required to allow ATV to fly on a launcher also carrying a crew.   Right now ATV is designed to fly on a completely unmanned system.   Changes *would* be necessary such as fail-safe related software and hardware changes to prevent the payload ever exposing the crew spacecraft to additional risk - though I have no specific information about the nature of such changes.

My key concern is that ATV contains propellant, which by its nature is dangerous material.   It's no worse than LSAM, but the standards for flying with a crew are higher than on an unmanned launcher.

Assuming the ATV were ready in time *and* that it were to fully meet all of NASA's safety requirements, it could probably fly with any crew going to ISS - though perhaps we should assume the very first crew mission should be "simplified" by just keeping that to the Orion spacecraft alone.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/17/2007 04:59 pm
Quote
kraisee - 17/11/2007  5:16 PM

Our third test flight - "Orion 3" - could theoretically deliver something "automated" about 9 months ahead of our first manned flight.   Maybe an ATV filled with not-so-essential equipment could be configured to fly inside the PLF.   But it would technically be a "test flight" and would be subject to the regular risks of that.

While the two earlier test flights (Orion 1 and Orion 2) would both also likely reach orbit successfully, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable recommending they fly with a seriously valuable payload aboard.   NASA could choose differently though because the most critical parts (SRB's and RS-68 engines) are already flight proven after all.

Ross.

The more new things the more there is to go wrong.  Since they interact the complexity growth is not linear but 2**n
The press will give any politician present at the launch the blame.

So it is:

1. Return to big rockets (design and launch pad)
2. Return to orbit (with test satellite)
3. Return to ISS (cargo)
4. Return to manned flight (Orion test flight)
5. Return to ISS (manned)

After that NASA can operate in LEO and continue preparing to return to the Moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/17/2007 05:02 pm
I would also like to see one last flight for each of the Italian-built MPLM's on Jupiter-120.

They can't be returned safely to Earth again, but perhaps they could each fly one last time.   Otherwise they are simply going to sit forever on the ground slowly corroding away with Ares-I, yet with J-120 they could have one last blaze of glory, also generating good PR for both NASA and ESA.

With Jupiter-120, one should probably be refitted as an extra module designed to extend ISS's life beyond 2016.   The other two could each be flown one last time to deliver a lot of the much-needed heavy science equipment currently grounded.

At the end of the missions, an Orion could take them away to a safe disposal orbit where their trajectory will decay a few days later, targeted so that the remains will fall into a safe location in the ocean.   The Orion would obviously safely de-orbit itself after leaving the MPLM.

By providing useful resources one last time and going out in such a wonderful blaze of glory like that, I feel, is more appropriate for the MPLM's than simply wasting away here on the ground and never flying again.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/17/2007 05:13 pm
Quote
kraisee - 17/11/2007  6:02 PM

I would also like to see one last flight for each of the Italian-built MPLM's on Jupiter-120.

They can't be returned safely to Earth again, but perhaps they could each fly one last time.   Otherwise they are simply going to sit forever on the ground slowly corroding away with Ares-I, yet with J-120 they could have one last blaze of glory, also generating good PR for both NASA and ESA.

With Jupiter-120, one should probably be refitted as an extra module designed to extend ISS's life beyond 2016.   The other two could each be flown one last time to deliver a lot of the much-needed heavy science equipment currently grounded.

Alternatively they can form the heart of ISS2.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/17/2007 05:17 pm
They're a bit too small for that.   It would probably be better to design a new station using the 8.4m or 10m fairing limitations instead of 4m dia. modules originally designed to fit in Shuttle's payload bay.

Using a "Skylab"-like approach, you could launch something the size of the whole "yet to be completed" ISS in just four modules with four flights of a 100mT lifter.

The MPLM's could be useful for transporting extra suplies to those of course, if it were ever done.

But I prefer the idea of getting our money's worth out of the existing $60bn ISS if we can.   It wouldn't cost all that much to extend ISS's life beyond 2025.   One or two extra flights, one or two new modules.   Look how long they were able to extend MIR's life...   *And* Shuttle...

EDIT: Just a thought, but China has made noises about getting involved in ISS too.   Perhaps they could develop a lot of the "life extension hardware" to take ISS through 2025 as their contribution...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/17/2007 06:44 pm
Quote
kraisee - 17/11/2007  1:17 PM

They're a bit too small for that.   It would probably be better to design a new station using the 8.4m or 10m fairing limitations instead of 4m dia. modules originally designed to fit in Shuttle's payload bay.

Using a "Skylab"-like approach, you could launch something the size of the whole "yet to be completed" ISS in just four modules with four flights of a 100mT lifter.

The MPLM's could be useful for transporting extra suplies to those of course, if it were ever done.

But I prefer the idea of getting our money's worth out of the existing $60bn ISS if we can.   It wouldn't cost all that much to extend ISS's life beyond 2025.   One or two extra flights, one or two new modules.   Look how long they were able to extend MIR's life...   *And* Shuttle...

EDIT: Just a thought, but China has made noises about getting involved in ISS too.   Perhaps they could develop a lot of the "life extension hardware" to take ISS through 2025 as their contribution...

Ross.

Yeah, I don't see the ISS going away for a long time. Look how long the Shuttle has been extended. And if you use the USAF as a lesson, we still hav ethe B-52, A-10, and several other aircraft who's lifetime was supposed to end a long while back.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 11/17/2007 08:08 pm
These MPLMs would be good for two things, delivery of cargo, then as trash space.    But you are right, there would have to be a way to deorbit them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 11/18/2007 04:10 am
My question is, what are the big breakthroughs that Direct needs in order to be able to fight on bar with the current Ares vehicles?  I dont mean this technically, I mean politically and practically.  Will any kind of media coverage help or hinder such efforts.  What can we do to persuade NASA further with out causing too much, or any damage?

NASA we love you, but this path you are taking is wrong.  It is ok to ask for DIRECTions if you are lost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2007 06:25 am
Ron,
Nothing changes until either Griffin can be persuaded or, if he refuses to change, until he is replaced.

I would vastly prefer the former situation because I believe any delaying now only serves to put the entire VSE at even more serious risk than it is already getting itself into with Congress.   All you had to do was watch Hutchison and Nelson (both NASA appropriations committee) to see the VSE's situation right now.

VSE hasn't got another year to run unless NASA swiftly changes something and removes most of the 5-year gap.

If they still intend to protect the workforce then a different SDLV is needed and one which can be deployed really fast - and that means Jupiter is a long way ahead simply because it re-uses so much existing STS infrastructure and needs no new engines.

The only other option available once Ares-I is dead, will be EELV's - but that results in about half of NASA's current staff around the US being drop-kicked in 2010.   MSFC, JSC and KSC will all be virtually gutted.

I wish I could find something to show otherwise, but so-far I can find no serious way that an EELV solution can possibly offer a robust and affordable architecture which will ever get us back to the moon again.    I just can't find any proof at all, no documentation, no proposals, no analysis, no hard numbers (even ones I've tried to work out myself) which show any serious way EELV's can do it.   At this point I am 99.999% convinced that the EELV path is just a one-way trip to ten more years of doing laps in LEO.     I'd love to be proven wrong.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2007 06:32 am
Quote
mike robel - 17/11/2007  4:08 PM

These MPLMs would be good for two things, delivery of cargo, then as trash space.    But you are right, there would have to be a way to deorbit them.

We suggest mounting a LIDS adapter onto the *rear* bulkhead of the MPLM (some strengthening bracing may be required too) and Orion could then manoeuver an MPLM around to get it to the station, and then to a safe "disposal" orbit before the Orion undocks and takes a completely different trajectory home.


MPLM docking at the station could either be performed via Orion directly docking/undocking the module, or via Orion station-keeping and then using the SSRMS.   Trade studies are needed to determine the best option.


Either way, Jupiter-120 can *easily* lift a totally maxed-out MPLM along with a full CEV.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 11/18/2007 12:18 pm
SSRMS is the only option because the Common Berthing Mechanism on the MPLM requires it.  You would have to station keep with Orion/MPLM and then berth the MPLM using the SSRMS.  Orion could then undock from MPLM and dock to the ISS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/18/2007 02:24 pm
One of the subjects often raised in this thread is the issue of workforce retention, because DIRECT does a really good job on that score. But a lot of people have the misconception that "workforce preservation" is just a pork issue and that the intent is to keep as many people as possible on the payroll for as long as possible. They think of it as a “jobs program”. That is simply not the case.

We REALLY need to put the workforce issue into perspective.

If all we were going to do is to replace the LEO mission of Shuttle, then switch the whole thing to an EELV and be done with it. Ares-I isn’t needed for that because its reason for existence is the Ares-V Mars rocket. Jupiter isn’t needed for that because it’s designed for the lunar and Mars programs. In that case workforce preservation would be unjustified and the workforce should be RIF’d as rapidly as can be reasonably accomplished with as little pain as could be tolerated because a LEO-only workforce should be much smaller than is currently used for STS, it really should.

But if we are going to go beyond LEO (remember the VSE?) then that is going to eventually require a larger workforce than STS, not smaller.

Preservation of the workforce is NOT for the sake of the transition period between Shuttle and Orion; it’s primarily for the operational period as the lunar program gets underway. Workforce preservation is about maintaining a certain level of skilled staffing during the dry period until the larger workforce is needed for the lunar program.

Corporations all over the world do exactly this same thing every day. Once a week at my job I sit in staffing meetings, every Thursday morning, where we discuss EXACTLY this issue in terms of our own business model. Workforce level and experienced skillset retention is an on-going topic for every corporation in existence. When business slows down, they balance their skilled and experienced staffing and the anticipated slow period against the anticipated skilled and experienced staffing that will be required for when business picks up again. An awful lot of us, right here on NSF, have experienced that in our own lives; some of us actually being among those that companies “held on to” until business picked up again. It’s exactly the same here with STS/Orion/Lunar program. Most of the kinds of skillsets that NASA and its contractors will need for the lunar program are already in-house at NASA and its contractors, right now. NASA needs to balance retention of that skillset against how long they anticipate the length of the dry period to be. That’s critical to the success of the lunar program because skilled workers, with experience, while always available from the job market to some degree, are just NOT available in large numbers in short periods of time. It took NASA over 20 years to rebuild its workforce after Saturn was shut down, and there are STILL gaps in capability that NASA has not been able to replace. If the VSE is going to go forward successfully in a reasonable period of time, we do not have the luxury of going thru that process again. So the issue becomes one of identifying and keeping a certain level of experienced and skilled workers during the transition when there may not actually be a lot for them to do. It is cheaper and more efficient to keep them on the payroll and ramp up their activity as the lunar program gets underway, than it is to let them go and then try to rehire them 5-10 years later (most won’t come back) or to hire new, inexperienced help later. It all comes down to a business decision. How long will the dry period last? What will it cost us to maintain the skillset during that interim? If we let them go now, how long, once we need them again, will it take us to rebuild that workforce to the minimum levels needed? The experience with Apollo taught us that the rebuilding process is extremely time consuming and that has a detrimental affect on any scheduling for the new program.

That’s the workforce issue. It is NOT pork. It is a business decision and a balancing act to ensure that NASA can actually do the lunar program at all. It takes more than just rockets. It takes people, a LOT of people, who already know what they are doing. We will need a large, skilled and experienced workforce to make a success of it. Think Apollo. That was a very large workforce indeed; and that was for just a few sortie missions. The VSE version will be much, much bigger, with permanent bases on the lunar surface. That effort will require an overall workforce much larger than Apollo and much larger than the current STS workforce. How much of the current workforce needed for the lunar program can we afford to loose? How long will it take to replace them? How much will it cost to keep them instead, and how long can we afford to keep them? It’s just not as simple as a lot of people seem to think it is.

Do we want to just stay in LEO? Then dismantle the workforce and switch to Atlas or Delta. Forget about Ares or Jupiter because we wouldn’t need either of them or their workforce. Do we want to be on the moon by 2020? Then we need to keep as much of the current STS workforce intact as is reasonable; otherwise we will be spending a lot of years trying to rebuild that workforce FIRST before we can even attempt it. That’s the issue.

The Ares architecture has a huge built in gap that is much too long to support any reasonable workforce retention that will be needed to get the lunar program underway. NASA and its contractors will have no choice but to RIF thousands and thousands of workers that will be needed for the lunar program. It will simply be unjustifiable, cost wise, to keep them on the payroll, And once those people are gone, in order to get the lunar program underway they will need to be replaced, which will take a much longer time period than the VSE anticipated (2020 assumed workforce retention), with new people, mostly skilled but mostly inexperienced, and that will push the lunar program schedule far to the right. DIRECT on the other hand, reduces the gap to acceptable levels so that a reasonable percentage of the workforce needed to begin the lunar program can be retained and be available for that program. That's what DIRECT does with the workforce issue. It keeps enough of the people needed to start the lunar program on site at a reasonably justifiable cost from a business perspective. It is not pork and it is not a jobs program.

That's the business perspective to demonstrate why it is not pork or a jobs program.
The political perspective is different, and I think I have previously covered that pretty well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/18/2007 02:38 pm
Could an MPLM be practically modified into an ATV?  Aren't the ATVs at least somewhat based on the MPLMs?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 11/18/2007 02:46 pm
Spacex says that you can bring in the people and make it happen.. just need the direction and passion..
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/18/2007 03:37 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 18/11/2007  10:38 AM

Could an MPLM be practically modified into an ATV?  Aren't the ATVs at least somewhat based on the MPLMs?

just the easier pressurized part.   Not the 'spacecraft" part
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Giovanni DS on 11/18/2007 04:52 pm
Could the "spacecraft" part be derived by a Orion SM ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/18/2007 05:00 pm
Quote
Giovanni DS - 18/11/2007  12:52 PM

Could the "spacecraft" part be derived by a Orion SM ?

All the avionics are in the CM
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2007 05:47 pm
Quote
Avron - 18/11/2007  10:46 AM

Spacex says that you can bring in the people and make it happen.. just need the direction and passion..

Avron,
Remember that Space-X has a total staff of less than 500 and has yet to fly a successful operational mission.   Their requirements just aren't close to being the same.

In that position Space-X can afford to cherry-pick individual staff.   But they aren't attempting a full-up Lunar program in the vein of Apollo, to be followed by a second-round push towards Mars.   For something reaching that far, you're going to need a much wider skill and experience base, a hugely wider range of technical and engineering capability and a huge support structure of management, administrators, accounts, logistics etc to allow it all to work together relatively smoothly.   And thats ignoring the political aspects which you have to contend with too.

I would bet a pint that if the VSE continues, by the first crew landing around 2020, NASA (I generally always include the contractors in that term too BTW) will employ at least 25% more people for Constellation than they do today for STS & ISS combined.   And more still will be needed if/when we eventually push towards Mars around 2030.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/18/2007 05:59 pm
Quote
Jim - 18/11/2007  9:37 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 18/11/2007  10:38 AM

Could an MPLM be practically modified into an ATV?  Aren't the ATVs at least somewhat based on the MPLMs?

just the easier pressurized part.   Not the 'spacecraft" part

I think you mean not the propulsion, controls, and avionics part.  If so, obviously that would be so (the MPLMs have a more expensive version - the Shuttle - and so lack their own).  Still, that modification would make some use of them beyond sitting on the ground after STS EOL.  I guess my question is would the mods be more cost effective than producing new ATVs from scratch, which they are planning to do anyway in significant numbers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 11/18/2007 07:06 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 18/11/2007  12:59 PM

Quote
Jim - 18/11/2007  9:37 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 18/11/2007  10:38 AM

Could an MPLM be practically modified into an ATV?  Aren't the ATVs at least somewhat based on the MPLMs?

just the easier pressurized part.   Not the 'spacecraft" part

I think you mean not the propulsion, controls, and avionics part.  If so, obviously that would be so (the MPLMs have a more expensive version - the Shuttle - and so lack their own).  Still, that modification would make some use of them beyond sitting on the ground after STS EOL.

I hope the use of the term "modification" was meant to be ironic. The rest of the spacecraft is 90% of it. It is like starting with a set of bare automobile body panels and "modifying" it into a whole car.

Quote
 I guess my question is would the mods be more cost effective than producing new ATVs from scratch, which they are planning to do anyway in significant numbers.

It will be no cheaper than simply giving or selling the MPLM shells to ESA and letting them build ATVs from them. The ATV pressurized shell is MPLM-derived. Of course, you lose the CBM interface and the ability to transfer whole racks with them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/18/2007 07:10 pm
Quote
Jorge - 18/11/2007  1:06 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 18/11/2007  12:59 PM

I guess my question is would the mods be more cost effective than producing new ATVs from scratch, which they are planning to do anyway in significant numbers.

It will be no cheaper than simply giving or selling the MPLM shells to ESA and letting them build ATVs from them.

That's exactly what I'm asking - is doing that cheaper than making new ATVs from scratch?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2007 07:26 pm
There don't appear to be any plans to, but worse, there just doesn't appear to be any *money* to modify the ATV's or add flight hardware to the existing MPLM's.

The three MPLM's will just sit in storage unless we get something with equivalent ability of Jupiter-120 to launch them on.   Even then, they will really need an Orion to get them close to station without spending huge amounts of additional development work ($$$ and time) on them making suitable automated systems - which just isn't worthwhile for three flights.

A CLV with 45mT lift capability simply offers a near-zero cost opportunity of a final flight for them, so they can each provide one last glorious delivery trip to ISS before they are disposed of - one way or the other.   Without that capability, I don't think they will ever leave the ground again after 2010.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/18/2007 07:43 pm
Quote
kraisee - 18/11/2007  3:26 PM

A CLV with 45mT lift capability simply offers a near-zero cost opportunity of a final flight for them, so they can each provide one last glorious delivery trip to ISS before they are disposed of - one way or the other.  


Adapter development are part of launch costs and so not zero cost
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2007 07:55 pm
Didn't actually say "zero" - said "near-zero".

Compared to the cost of launching it on an extra EELV or something (*if* that's even possible), Jupiter will have a standard design of adapter anyway, so modifying it to mount an MPLM and fitting the MPLM with a LIDS is going to be a comparatively tiny cost - relatively speaking of course :)

I can't think of anything in this business which is free, but this is a really dirt-cheap way of delivering such a payload to ISS if only your launcher has the surplus lift capacity available.

Who knows, ESA might even be persuaded to make even more disposable MPLM's in the future if these three fly one last time.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/18/2007 08:31 pm
I wonder if ESA could build an 8 meter 50 ton ATV, with all the same avionics and propulsion as a regular ATV, for launch on a cargo-only J-120.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2007 09:35 pm
I'm sure they could.   But I'm also just as sure they won't, until we have a launcher for it first.

And Ares-V will not come online until two years after ISS will already have been closed & probably de-orbited if the current program plans continue unchanged.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 11/18/2007 10:17 pm
Quote
kraisee - 18/11/2007  3:55 PM

Didn't actually say "zero" - said "near-zero".

Compared to the cost of launching it on an extra EELV or something (*if* that's even possible), Jupiter will have a standard design of adapter anyway, so modifying it to mount an MPLM and fitting the MPLM with a LIDS is going to be a comparatively tiny cost - relatively speaking of course :)

I can't think of anything in this business which is free, but this is a really dirt-cheap way of delivering such a payload to ISS if only your launcher has the surplus lift capacity available.

Who knows, ESA might even be persuaded to make even more disposable MPLM's in the future if these three fly one last time.

Ross.

Cost of said "near-zero" interface/adapter??? WAG..
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 11/18/2007 10:38 pm
Quote
kraisee - 18/11/2007  1:47 PM

Quote
Avron - 18/11/2007  10:46 AM

Spacex says that you can bring in the people and make it happen.. just need the direction and passion..

Avron,
Remember that Space-X has a total staff of less than 500 and has yet to fly a successful operational mission.   Their requirements just aren't close to being the same.

True.. 500 people to LEO.. next year orbital ( then some words will need to be eaten on this forum and other forums-- generic target.) .. then COTS..  step at a time.. who knows, maybe Space-x picks up on Direct going forward .. but in terms of politics.. we really need to look at a global view rather that a domestic view ..  world's a bigger place now than in the days of Apollo..




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gospacex on 11/19/2007 01:15 am
Quote
kraisee - 18/11/2007  1:25 AM
I wish I could find something to show otherwise, but so-far I can find no serious way that an EELV solution can possibly offer a robust and affordable architecture which will ever get us back to the moon again.    I just can't find any proof at all, no documentation, no proposals, no analysis, no hard numbers (even ones I've tried to work out myself) which show any serious way EELV's can do it.   At this point I am 99.999% convinced that the EELV path is just a one-way trip to ten more years of doing laps in LEO.     I'd love to be proven wrong.
Ross.
Ross, if NASA will go down EELV road, it will be the first time in history when US manned spaceflight is using commercial LVs and thus is supporting commercial LV businesses. Also it will be much cheaper. It will be sustainable. It may start a shift away from grandiose "flag and footprints" one-shot programs.
As a result, EELV costs may go down, and there will be chances of having continuous R&D program aimed at improving them (compare this with billions of R&D poured into foam problem - wasted!).

However, don't think it's likely to happen. NASA as it stands now is a jobs program. So DIRECT is our best bet in these realities.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula2 on 11/19/2007 02:21 am
Job retention at NASA is only pork if it duplicates a capability they could buy commercially for a lot less money. e.g.  LEO access.

Moon and Mars exploration is going to cost a lot of money. The relevant question is "How much bang you get for your buck?":

Shuttle  -  LEO only, Hubble servicing & cargo return the only extra benefit  -  95% pork
Ares I   -  LEO only, duplicates EELV capacity, slight safety edge maybe  -  98% pork
Ares V  -  Heavy launcher with TLI & TMI injection, but requires big changes  -  50% pork
J-120    -  LEO crew & cargo, 40+ mt cargo only, beyond LEO options, ideally should have liquid boosters  -  10% pork
J-232    -  Heavy launcher with TLI & TMI injection, leverages J-120  -  0% pork
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/19/2007 02:27 am
Could DIRECT help the cost of LVs to go down as well? It will be using the same RS-68 engine as the Delta IV. If the number of D4 launches picks up, as well as Jupiter launches, you could see a decrease in the cost of that engine.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/19/2007 02:57 am
Quote
gospacex - 18/11/2007  9:15 PM

Ross, if NASA will go down EELV road, it will be the first time in history when US manned spaceflight is using commercial LVs and thus is supporting commercial LV businesses. Also it will be much cheaper.

Okay, that's where I have a major problem.

Forgive me, I don't mean to come down on you like a ton of bricks, but that argument has been repeated a lot recently, yet nobody claiming it seems to have ever seen the real numbers.

That's because the real numbers tell a different story entirely.   The argument just falls apart under the scrutiny of the real facts.

There's lots of "talk" that EELV's might be cheaper, but nobody, not NASA, not Boeing, not Lockheed, not ULA has *ever* been able to show a dollar improvement for missions using EELV's vs. Heavy Lift SDLV's in the 175-200mT per Lunar mission range.   Nobody.   Ever.

Why is that?   The fact is:   There just isn't any.

I have ULA's cost profiles for Delta-II, Delta-IV and Atlas-V.   While they are documents I wouldn't dare distribute, what I will say is that the costs are a LOT higher than people here seem to think.

I've attempted on numerous occasions previously to demonstrate the ballpark of the real numbers here before. Yet people keep on repeating this claim even though it is plainly incorrect.   If you didn't see them previously, you'll need to go back through this long thread to find the exact arguments though - there's just too many for me to find quickly :)

I'm sorry you were the one to be on the receiving end of this particular reply and I do apologize if I'm being at all harsh, but the *numbers* don't lie.

The truth is that the $$$ value is *always* lower with the Heavy Lifters even though they usually have a much larger proportion of fixed costs.   It is actually their lower flight rate which then works in their favour.   Because of the high proportion of fixed costs, it means the second, third and all subsequent missions become significantly cheaper than the first


I will, however, completely concede that any plan including Ares-I screws the entire cost profile up completely - which is just another of the many reasons why I'm so strongly against that particular LV.


Quote
It will be sustainable. It may start a shift away from grandiose "flag and footprints" one-shot programs.
As a result, EELV costs may go down, and there will be chances of having continuous R&D program aimed at improving them (compare this with billions of R&D poured into foam problem - wasted!).

Firstly, the factual data indicates that yes a moderate discount is possible with the EELV's - but most folk seem to believe a miraculous cutting of costs is possible when it just isn't.

I'm betting you're thinking EELV costs could be slashed in half, yes?   No.   You probably haven't ever had it spelled out before, but I'll try to do so in the simplest possible terms just to try to make people give up this fiction:

Even if we were to raise the flight rate of Atlas-V to 32 launches every year from the current level of 4 - that drastic increase in flight rate would only drop the current costs of each launch by one quarter.

Most people don't have a clue as to the real costs of these birds - but that sort of improvement is all you *can* get from these systems even if you virtually max-out current production and launch facilities and ignore the logistical problems of doing so.


As to the point that you must launch more to gain reliability - well Delta is now in its 4th iteration, and so is Atlas - fifth if you include lessons learned from Titan too.   Both designs have been continually refined and re-created afresh to remove flaws for over forty years already, so don't you think both of these systems should already be as close to "as good as they're ever going to get"?

Or have these contractors just been pulling the wool over people's eyes?   I contend that if the EELV's still need so much additional R&D that we must fly them ten times as often, then we probably aren't getting our money's worth and flying such a potentially flawed system may not be wise anyway.

I have no problem throwing extra business the EELV's way, and DIRECT explicitly suggests avenues which might require 8 to 16 more EELV-class flights to support NASA's goals.   But we do not support any options which delete the current US Heavy Lift capability (STS) - because they are all unjustifiable in terms of both program logistics and costs.


And finally, the foam issue - that was a similar design screw up at the concept level as we are suffering with today with Ares-I.   In hindsight it was plainly stupid to design a crew spacecraft with a delicate TPS flying in a debris field created by its own launch system.   Pure insanity in the 20:20 vision we now have after the loss of Columbia.   But I don't see any currently proposed solutions promoting a system where the crew don't have an escape option now, so that issue has been largely addressed.   And if you have re-designed all the systems to avoid placing the crew vehicle out of the debris field ever again, is there any further cause for concern from future foam strikes?   No.   But we are continuing to fly Shuttle another 10-13 times - and we still need to make sure none of those flights go badly, so fixing the foam was a very worthwhile exercise in this particular case.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/19/2007 03:14 am
Quote
kraisee - 18/11/2007  8:57 PM
The truth is that the $$$ value is *always* lower with the Heavy Lifters even though they usually have a much larger proportion of fixed costs.

This is very commonly true, in many industries.

This is why long-haul trucks are the size they are - they're the biggest they're allowed to be.  It's why "Panamax" cargo vessels exist - the largest that can fit through the canal.  It's also why there are far larger container vessels than Panamax - it's just cheaper to operate large vessels *per unit of cargo moved*.  I work in wind energy.  Wind turbines are currently bumping up against our ability to ship them over the road.  Where the road doesn't matter (off-shore) they are larger, and larger yet are proposed.

If you want 500 tons in LEO, you're almost always going to be better off lofting that in as few flights as possible, rather than pecking away at it like the Shuttle has the ISS, or EELVs would a Mars vehicle of that size.

Even if the Government runs the program, 4 J-232 launches is likely to be much less expensive than 20 EELV launches, especially if you include the costs of constructing and assembling something out of 20 parts instead of 4.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/19/2007 03:18 am
If it weren't for the extraordinarily high cost of maintaining the Orbiter, the Space Shuttle Stack is actually surprisingly good value for money and is has been leaned down a lot over the years already.

If you can just delete that single element, you save more than half the entire budget of the program.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/19/2007 03:36 am
Quote
gladiator1332 - 18/11/2007  10:27 PM

Could DIRECT help the cost of LVs to go down as well? It will be using the same RS-68 engine as the Delta IV. If the number of D4 launches picks up, as well as Jupiter launches, you could see a decrease in the cost of that engine.

Yes.   Assuming a regular 4 Delta-IV's per year, Jupiter would increase demand of the RS-68 to 26 per year - a 7 times increase.   Economies of scale would lower unit cost by around 25%, which would be great for Delta-IV.

And the Propellant Depot architecture is likely to result in extra EELV flights every year too.   8 extra flights per year (delivering between 100 to 200mT of propellant) would have an easily detectable benefit across the EELV program, in the order of about 10-15% lower flight costs (variable) per unit.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 11/19/2007 05:35 pm
The problems are limited market and expendability.

Ships are dominated by operating costs, if it costs more to operate 2 ships than one double the size, it makes sense to build the bigger ship, even if it costs more, because it will be used for decades and the cheaper operating costs like proportion of crew salaries helps you in the long run. And even after that, the original owner can still sell it off for some money.
Also, the seas have lots of ships sailing around. The ports are used by other ships when your ship is elsewhere. You don't change the market significantly by introducing one big ship. It depends on many infrastructure questions, what the costs of big ships are: if you only build one big ship, it doesn't make sense to widen the Panama canal for that. Building deeper routes and bigger piers is debatable. But if there are many such big ships, then it starts to make sense as the big infrastructure is going to be used and will pay back the construction and maintenance costs quicker.

On the other hand, launch vehicles are expendable. That's why the building and integration cost of launch vehicles is more important than for ships. The savings method is different, it could be that mass production and automated and automated streamlined mass launch infrastructure is the key method to savings.

Also, the space launch market is much smaller.
If you build a big government launcher, that means that 1) it will not be launched often, meaning the infrastructure and people sit idle most of the time and 2) the smaller (government) launchers will also launch less often.

It's not any rule of nature that bigger is always better. Why aren't we building 10 km long tankers then? 50 km? There clearly are limits to that what size is efficient.

For example, if a tanker was so big that there would only be enough oil for it to transport to make one trip per year (say, the yearly oil transport from Saudi Arabia to Japan) and just sit the rest of the year, it would probably be much more efficient to make one or a few smaller tankers that run continuously and do 10 trips per year each. They could be used for other destinations too, as one trip wouldn't cost so much.

Of course, you can make the super tanker look good by projecting absolutely huge oil production and consumption and saying it will do ten trips per year.

It's also weird that you don't propose building a new engine for mass production, if bigger is always better. The F-1 was only double of the RS-68 thrust... You could have a triple RS-68 thrust engine for a big launcher that would surely save a lot of money because bigger is always better, just look at tankers, they are as big as they can be!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/19/2007 05:45 pm
Bigger isn't always better, bigger is better if you have a big cargo to move, like the 500 ton example.  *If* the goal is to build some 500 ton items in space, getting them there on 10 ton or 25 ton launchers isn't going to be the best way.  If, on the other hand, the goal is to get 5 ton objects into space, then the current commercial fleet is probably pretty decent.

The presupposition here is that the government is going to build things like the ISS, Moon, Mars and NEO missions, and so should have a launcher that suits that purpose.  It makes little sense to launch a 5 ton weather satellite on a 100 ton launcher, but it makes just as little sense to launch a 500 ton satellite on a 25 ton launcher.  That's the point I was trying to make.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/19/2007 06:20 pm
I brought this up in the Inline-Evo thread, and thought I would mention here since it pertains to DIRECT. In the Evo thread, Jim showed a concept called ULV, it was an SDLV that used standard SRBs and a single SSME.
I came up with a similar concept derived from Jupiter, it uses a 4 seg booster and a single RS-68 core. And if needed, a smaller upperstage could be used. A "Baby-Jupiter"...it would be too small to launch the CEV, but it could take over some of the roles that were once filled by the Delta II. I know NASA has been using EELVs for most of its unmanned exploration, but as far as I know, nothing prevents them from launching these probes on their own launch vehicles.

With the inclusion of a smaller launch vehicle, DIRECT will have every class of launcher covered, from light to heavy launchers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 11/19/2007 06:28 pm
Well, the goal with a moon expedition is to get multiple 20-30 ton objects (LSAM,CEV,EDS), 90-100 tons of liquid oxygen and 15 tons of hydrogen to LEO. Not some mythical monolithic 500 ton satellite. But that's getting besides the point and off topic, I just wanted to blast the common myth of heavy lift and the oil tanker analogy that is always brought up, as it's used completely irresponsibly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/19/2007 06:46 pm
Regarding the "bigger is better" discussion, I agree with the general comments made so far.   Typically for transporting things (even spacecraft heading for the moon) bigger tends to be a good thing economically speaking - up to a point of course.

Starting with a completely clean slate, and developing vehicles specifically for a purpose, there appears to be a "sweet spot" with launch vehciles stretching between 15mT to 100mT to LEO capability - depending largely on the technology used.   Go much bigger than that and the development costs start to get pretty steep.   A little below that and the cost isn't much less to develop than a bigger vehicle so you probably should have just gone the extra mile anyway.

In this business there are also many other significant factors to consider.   When your vehicles cost you 8 years of your budget to develop, then reducing that number is also a very good thing which competes head-to-head with the 'bigger is better' mantra.   It depends on where you draw the line between what is efficient and what isn't.

I don't believe Ares-I followed by Ares-V is very efficient in terms of development - I frankly think it's a desperately awful waste of taxpayers money because they're trying to justify three new cryo stages, two new liquid engines, one and a half new solid stages (RMRBV will need ahcnges again to fly on Ares-V), two all-new manufacturing & launch processing lines operating in parallel and yet they aren't making efficient use of the vehicles by never having sufficient cash left to ever fly them often enough to make use of the low variable cost element of the budget.   This means they are costly to develop and still won't be used enough to make them cost effective.   Having an inefficient system is one of the key criticizms of Shuttle - so why isn't anyone learning the obvious lessons?

While Jupiter is based on the same technology, it plans a completely different cost profile.   Not all Heavy Lifters or Shuttle-Derived solutions are equal.

By always planning to fly one vehicle twice as often as a pair of vehicles, the cost per flight are cut right down.   You have roughly half the fixed costs to start with, and you're spreading them across double the number of units too.   That's an unarguably good combination.   Also development costs are seriously reduced by reusing the existing SRB's unchanged and re-using the RS-68 without needing the upgrades.

That leaves new development work limited to re-designing the current External Tank.   It can continue to use the existing manufacturing and launch processing infrastructure though, which reduces costs further.   So then all that is totally new is one single new stage with engine, neither of which is actually required until later when we plan to get the Lunar program operational.

Thats considerably less work and change, and both schedule and cost profiles reflect that.

And by using the same basic vehicle for both CLV and CaLV duties, you double the flight rate and can actually afford to make use of the very cost-effective low recurring costs.

Jupiter's fixed costs are about double that of a crewed EELV ($1,900m vs $1,000m).   That's quite a difference for sure, but look how quickly the variable costs impact things.   Here are the variable (per flight) costs which are in addition to the fixed:

The 12mT Atlas-V 401 costs $105m per flight.
The 20mT Atlas-V 551 costs $130m per flight.
The 25mT Delta-IV Heavy costs $190 per flight.

The 45mT Jupiter-120 costs $140m per flight.
The 105mT Jupiter-232 costs $220m per flight.

As you can quickly see, the J-120 costs about the same as the middle-range EELV - yet lofts double the payload.

The J-232 costs slightly more than the Heavy EELV, but can lift more than four times the payload.


So the BIG question becomes this:   Exactly how often do you need to fly before the $900 difference in fixed costs in EELV's favour is overtaken by the lower per-flight cost of the Jupiter?

The answer ultimately boils down to less that one single 200mT Lunar mission.   Here are the LV costs:

For a single Lunar mission this size, Jupiter would cost about $2,340m (1900+220+220).

For the same Lunar mission with the largest EELV (Delta-IV Heavy) the same size mission would need up to 8 flights totalling $2,520 (1000+(190x8)).


I don't think the idea of flying one time per year or one time ever 18 months has *any* other supporters here.   Perhaps I'm wrong and they'll chip in to say so, but that just isn't economically viable because the other hardware (in particular the LSAM) has such high fixed costs that you need to fly it often in order to make it worthwhile - I'll exlain in a second).   If that is all the US is willing to consider, then the EELV's *are* worth considering, but personally at that flight rate *I* wouldn't bother at all.   If we really want the best value for money we need to be thinking about using the infrastructure to enable three, four or five missions to the Lunar surface every year not one.

The LSAM alone is going to have fixed costs per year in the region of $2.5bn per year and variable costs per flight around $500m.   If we fly it just once per year, that means each one will cost about $3bn!   But if we fly it four times ever year, the cost per flight drops to around $1.1bn.   That's a lot more science you'll get back for the money you're investing and far more worthwhile IMHO.

Anyhow, I want to see a robust architecture going to the moon quite regularly.   Apollo's target of four missions per year is what I want to see, but I don't see it as affordable with either Ares or EELV.   Here:

4 x 200mt missions per year LV costs:

Ares-I + Ares-V: $4,540m (2900 fixed + (4x (130+280)))
EELV: $7,080 (1000 fixed + (4x (8x190)))
Jupiter: $3,660 (1900 fixed + (8x220))

At $1bn cheaper than Ares and $3bn cheaper than EELV, I vote that it is well-worth spending the development money to build Jupiter if we're ever planning to fly a truly robust Lunar Program for more than four years - and the VSE does plan to.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gin455res on 11/19/2007 09:54 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 19/11/2007  1:20 PM

I brought this up in the Inline-Evo thread, and thought I would mention here since it pertains to DIRECT. In the Evo thread, Jim showed a concept called ULV, it was an SDLV that used standard SRBs and a single SSME.
I came up with a similar concept derived from Jupiter, it uses a 4 seg booster and a single RS-68 core. And if needed, a smaller upperstage could be used. A "Baby-Jupiter"...it would be too small to launch the CEV, but it could take over some of the roles that were once filled by the Delta II. I know NASA has been using EELVs for most of its unmanned exploration, but as far as I know, nothing prevents them from launching these probes on their own launch vehicles.

With the inclusion of a smaller launch vehicle, DIRECT will have every class of launcher covered, from light to heavy launchers.

Is this just different in the number of engines, or are there any other modifications like tank-size, or something else?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/19/2007 10:18 pm
gin45res,
There are two approaches.

One flies the standard Core, but with only the central engine fitted of the three.   The Core would have to be short-fueled too - which is tricky.   Performance is in the Heavy EELV class - around (EDIT) 21.1mT to LEO.   We have previously termed this configuration the Jupiter-110.

The other involves a costly development program to shorten the stage.   It makes for a lighter stage custom-designed for this purpose, which is more efficient (maybe 5-10mT better to LEO), but carries significant extra development cost with it.   We haven't got a specific name for this yet.   Probably wouldn't actually be a Jupiter though - maybe a Neptune or something :)

Neither launcher is seriously being looked at though.   There is no point in duplicating existing EELV capability.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/19/2007 10:42 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 19/11/2007  2:20 PM

but it could take over some of the roles that were once filled by the Delta II. I know NASA has been using EELVs for most of its unmanned exploration, but as far as I know, nothing prevents them from launching these probes on their own launch vehicles.
.

I don't understand this.  Since EELV's are overkill for Delta-II missions and any Direct derivative is going to be an overkill for EELV missions (even D-IV heavies), what is the point of this.   Delta II wasn't a NASA vehicle.   There is a requirement for NASA to use commercial vehicles for unmanned missions
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/20/2007 12:22 am
Jim, i wasn't aware that this vehicle's performance would be along the lines of an EELV. I thought it would put a lot less into LEO, but that is why I just make renders, I am in no way a rocket scientist.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/20/2007 04:46 am
In case there is any confusion, "Gladiator1332", AKA "Mike" is not a member of the DIRECT Team.

But he has done some really excellent imagery here on NSF using and modifying some of our artwork which I'd like to compliment him on!   Cool stuff!

:)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gospacex on 11/20/2007 04:49 am
kraisee - 18/11/2007  9:57 PM
Quote
gospacex - 18/11/2007  9:15 PM
Quote
It will be sustainable. It may start a shift away from grandiose "flag and footprints" one-shot programs.
As a result, EELV costs may go down, and there will be chances of having continuous R&D program aimed at improving them (compare this with billions of R&D poured into foam problem - wasted!).

Firstly, the factual data indicates that yes a moderate discount is possible with the EELV's - but most folk seem to believe a miraculous cutting of costs is possible when it just isn't.

I'm betting you're thinking EELV costs could be slashed in half, yes? No. You probably haven't ever had it spelled out before, but I'll try to do so in the simplest possible terms just to try to make people give up this fiction:

Even if we were to raise the flight rate of Atlas-V to 32 launches every year from the current level of 4 - that drastic increase in flight rate would only drop the current costs of each launch by one quarter.

Good enough for me, for starters.

Quote
As to the point that you must launch more to gain reliability - well Delta is now in its 4th iteration, and so is Atlas - fifth if you include lessons learned from Titan too.   Both designs have been continually refined and re-created afresh to remove flaws for over forty years already, so don't you think both of these systems should already be as close to "as good as they're ever going to get"?

Strange, planes fly for what? a hundred years already, yet 787 is said to be 30% more fuel efficient than previous generation. Progress still happens. What makes you think that if government will start buying LV services from commercial providers, they will froze in time and never, ever, ever improve their processes?

You also need to explain existence of Soyuz which costs $10 million per launch (LV only). Okay, cheap labor, old rocket, etc etc etc, but we can account for that. It is also so cheap because it is flying often. If even communists (which are horrible at making things work efficiently) did it, why can't we do "American Soyuz" for $35 million per flight?

Quote
I have no problem throwing extra business the EELV's way, and DIRECT explicitly suggests avenues which might require 8 to 16 more EELV-class flights to support NASA's goals.   But we do not support any options which delete the current US Heavy Lift capability (STS) - because they are all unjustifiable in terms of both program logistics and costs.

As I said, I fully support Direct because I don't believe NASA will go EELV/commercial road for bureaucratic survival reasons.

However, I do think that in the long run, spaceflight technologies can only be efficiently improved by commercial entities, not government.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/20/2007 05:30 am
Quote
gospacex - 20/11/2007  12:49 AM

Quote
kraisee - 18/11/2007  9:57 PM

Quote
gospacex - 18/11/2007 9:15 PM
As a result, EELV costs may go down, and there will be chances of having continuous R&D program aimed at improving them

As to the point that you must launch more to gain reliability - well Delta is now in its 4th iteration, and so is Atlas - fifth if you include lessons learned from Titan too.   Both designs have been continually refined and re-created afresh to remove flaws for over forty years already, so don't you think both of these systems should already be as close to "as good as they're ever going to get"?

Strange, planes fly for what? a hundred years already, yet 787 is said to be 30% more fuel efficient than previous generation. Progress still happens. What makes you think that if government will start buying LV services from commercial providers, they will froze in time and never, ever, ever improve their processes?

But to extend that analogy though, you would require the immediate retirement of all 747's and the new A380 and switch all their flights over to the 787 to increase its flight rate because its "costs may go down, and there will be chances of having continuous R&D program aimed at improving them" as you put it.

The argument doesn't seem to work here though.   So why does it apply only for the EELV vs. SDHLLV debate?


Quote
You also need to explain existence of Soyuz which costs $10 million per launch (LV only). Okay, cheap labor, old rocket, etc etc etc, but we can account for that. It is also so cheap because it is flying often. If even communists (which are horrible at making things work efficiently) did it, why can't we do "American Soyuz" for $35 million per flight?

$10m?   You think?   Sorry, but no way.   The unmanned version is currently up in the ballpark of $80m for the LV right now.   Why do you think Bigelow had to bail from using Russian launchers recently?   Their costs have dramatically increased in the last few years, and anyway, unmanned Soyuz launchers used to cost ~$50m ten years ago.

As for an "American Soyuz" in the $35m price bracket, I can only hope that Space-X will be able to drive reasonable prices back into this market.

I hope companies like Space-X encourage a whole new breed of new and efficient launch providers who will come in with really efficient operations and force the cost of *all* systems (including EELV and Shuttle-Derived) down simply by out-competing the big boys at their own game.

As long as Elon Musk doesn't just sell the whole outfit to the highest bidder at the most opportune time - which I suspect he's actually been planning to do from the start - I think they are going to start affecting some real changes throughout the industry in a few years time.


Quote
Quote
I have no problem throwing extra business the EELV's way, and DIRECT explicitly suggests avenues which might require 8 to 16 more EELV-class flights to support NASA's goals.   But we do not support any options which delete the current US Heavy Lift capability (STS) - because they are all unjustifiable in terms of both program logistics and costs.

As I said, I fully support Direct because I don't believe NASA will go EELV/commercial road for bureaucratic survival reasons.

However, I do think that in the long run, spaceflight technologies can only be efficiently improved by commercial entities, not government.

I would add an extra clause to that statement before I can agree: "spaceflight technologies can only be efficiently improved by competing commercial entities, not government".

Right now Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and ATK pretty-much have the bulk of this market sewn up in the US.

B&LM seem happy enough to co-exist and share the bulk of the market via entities like USA and ULA, and neither seems particularly much of a challenge to ATK.   Yet these are supposed to be commercial entities competing strongly.   But their style of competition seems to carry a lot of baggage with it and doesn't appear to be very efficient in any particular field.

If it were in the UK I'd say it would be a case for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to investigate, but here in the US I don't see much interest from the public or the political world to investigate why US launch costs are so uncompetitive with the rest of the world.   We are going to have to rely on the new blood and highly competitive pricing from Space-X and its ilk to keep the big guys honest.   I hope it works too because Jupiter costs could come down too.

Heck, jeez half a dozen years from now Space-X might even be in a position to try its hand at competing for the NASA production contracts! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/20/2007 02:14 pm
Just a question out of curiosity for Ross.  If the core of the J-120 had 3 J2X's instead of 2 RS-68s, what would happen to lift capability?  I can understand a reduction due to dramatically reduced thrust, but also an increase due to dramatically increased average ISP, including the reduced need to throttle, and lower mass.  Sooooo...I'm just asking for curiosity sake!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 11/20/2007 06:36 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/11/2007  1:30 AM
As for an "American Soyuz" in the $35m price bracket, I can only hope that Space-X will be able to drive reasonable prices back into this market.

I'm rather worried that Falcon has_not_ gone for a true DFMC design. Why isn't this a very simple pressure fed design? It would have been cehaper to build, cheaper to check-out and cheaper to lanch.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gospacex on 11/20/2007 07:09 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/11/2007  12:30 AM
Quote
gospacex - 20/11/2007  12:49 AM
You also need to explain existence of Soyuz which costs $10 million per launch (LV only). Okay, cheap labor, old rocket, etc etc etc, but we can account for that. It is also so cheap because it is flying often. If even communists (which are horrible at making things work efficiently) did it, why can't we do "American Soyuz" for $35 million per flight?

$10m?   You think?   Sorry, but no way.   The unmanned version is currently up in the ballpark of $80m for the LV right now.

People who actually work on Soyuz say otherwise. The cost of manufacture and launch is less than $10 per LV. It costs $80 for customers because customers can't find anything comparably cheap anyway, so why kill yourself and provide one for say $20 million when you can ask for $80 and they will still pay?

Quote
Why do you think Bigelow had to bail from using Russian launchers recently?

Wrong. Bigelow wasn't launching on Soyuz. It was Dnepr. Dnerp is operated by Kosmotras, which doesn't even provide Soyuz LV. Different situation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 11/20/2007 09:46 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 20/11/2007  7:36 PM

Quote
kraisee - 20/11/2007  1:30 AM
As for an "American Soyuz" in the $35m price bracket, I can only hope that Space-X will be able to drive reasonable prices back into this market.

I'm rather worried that Falcon has_not_ gone for a true DFMC design. Why isn't this a very simple pressure fed design? It would have been cehaper to build, cheaper to check-out and cheaper to lanch.

Paul

Pressure fed designs suck at sea level. The ISP is small. The nozzle has to be small to prevent flow separation, and thus your ISP even at altitude sucks. Sea Dragon advertises 290/200 s vacuum/sea level. 2/3 + 1/3 average is thus 260 s. Merlin has probably 304/255 s giving 290 s.

This means that for the first stage flight that gives 3 km/s delta vee the mass ratio of Sea Dragon must be 3.24 and Falcon 2.87.
But a pressure fed design will also have a much worse mass fraction because the whole tank must support the 20 bar pressure in the Sea Dragon. Truax's design gives 11 600 t total mass vs 1300 t dry mass for the first stage. Second stage mass is y:
So 11600/(y+1300) = 3.24 and
11600/3.24 - 1300 = y
leaving 2300 t for the second stage to achieve the mass ratio. If we shrink these numbers to one 300th we get 39 t of total mass, 4.3 t of dry mass and 7.7 t of second stage. Tankage ratio was 9.1.
With Merlin, we get a tankage ratio of perhaps 20. If second stage mass is 7.7 t, then, when x is empty mass:
(7.7+x+20x)/(7.7 + x) = 2.87
which yields
7.7+21x = 7.7*2.87+2.87x
(21-2.87)x=7.7*(2.87-1)
x=0.8

Which means that the Sea Dragon technology stage is 5 times as massive empty as the Falcon technology stage.
And full mass of the first stage is 43 t vs 17 t, that's a factor of 2.5.

(I hope I calculated mostly right.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/21/2007 02:50 am
Quote
meiza - 21/11/2007  7:46 AM

Quote
tankmodeler - 20/11/2007  7:36 PM

Quote
kraisee - 20/11/2007  1:30 AM
As for an "American Soyuz" in the $35m price bracket, I can only hope that Space-X will be able to drive reasonable prices back into this market.

I'm rather worried that Falcon has_not_ gone for a true DFMC design. Why isn't this a very simple pressure fed design? It would have been cehaper to build, cheaper to check-out and cheaper to lanch.

Paul

Pressure fed designs suck at sea level. The ISP is small. The nozzle has to be small to prevent flow separation, and thus your ISP even at altitude sucks. Sea Dragon advertises 290/200 s vacuum/sea level. 2/3 + 1/3 average is thus 260 s. Merlin has probably 304/255 s giving 290 s.

This means that for the first stage flight that gives 3 km/s delta vee the mass ratio of Sea Dragon must be 3.24 and Falcon 2.87.
But a pressure fed design will also have a much worse mass fraction because the whole tank must support the 20 bar pressure in the Sea Dragon. Truax's design gives 11 600 t total mass vs 1300 t dry mass for the first stage. Second stage mass is y:
So 11600/(y+1300) = 3.24 and
11600/3.24 - 1300 = y
leaving 2300 t for the second stage to achieve the mass ratio. If we shrink these numbers to one 300th we get 39 t of total mass, 4.3 t of dry mass and 7.7 t of second stage. Tankage ratio was 9.1.
With Merlin, we get a tankage ratio of perhaps 20. If second stage mass is 7.7 t, then, when x is empty mass:
(7.7+x+20x)/(7.7 + x) = 2.87
which yields
7.7+21x = 7.7*2.87+2.87x
(21-2.87)x=7.7*(2.87-1)
x=0.8

Which means that the Sea Dragon technology stage is 5 times as massive empty as the Falcon technology stage.
And full mass of the first stage is 43 t vs 17 t, that's a factor of 2.5.

(I hope I calculated mostly right.)

Makes sense just to have turbopumps but build a reusable first stage. More engineering, but less materials and infrastructure. It makes more sense to build a pressure-fed upper stage if cost is your driver, because then you can afford to throw it away. Or use turbopump engines that are at their scheduled end of life, if they can be swapped around.

Of course, you also get hybrid engines like SpaceDev builds. As dumb as you can possibly get, with comparable Isp to pressure-fed but a smaller booster. I think there's a grand total of two valves in the whole engine.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/21/2007 05:02 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 20/11/2007  10:14 AM

Just a question out of curiosity for Ross.  If the core of the J-120 had 3 J2X's instead of 2 RS-68s, what would happen to lift capability?  I can understand a reduction due to dramatically reduced thrust, but also an increase due to dramatically increased average ISP, including the reduced need to throttle, and lower mass.  Sooooo...I'm just asking for curiosity sake!

Lee Jay,
J-2X has less than half the thrust of RS-68, so performance would drop.

Assuming there were some 'magic' way to allow either engine to be mounted in such a way that didn't require an expensive additional re-design of the mountings (which I just don't imagine is actually possible), a 3x J-2X powered Jupiter might make for an interesting alternative "pure-CLV" design.

I have not run an analysis, but my gut feeling suggests it could possibly put about 25-30mT into LEO.   However, with three more expensive engines it wouldn't be as cost effective or have as low LOC/LOM numbers than J-120.

There might be some specific purpose for such a launcher considering it has higher Isp towards the latter stages of flight which may offer a different ascent profile.    I can't think of a purpose yet, but that doesn't mean there will never be one.   It's an idea worth keeping on the shelf - just in case.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 11/21/2007 03:36 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/11/2007  12:02 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 20/11/2007  10:14 AM

Just a question out of curiosity for Ross.  If the core of the J-120 had 3 J2X's instead of 2 RS-68s, what would happen to lift capability?  I can understand a reduction due to dramatically reduced thrust, but also an increase due to dramatically increased average ISP, including the reduced need to throttle, and lower mass.  Sooooo...I'm just asking for curiosity sake!

Lee Jay,
J-2X has less than half the thrust of RS-68, so performance would drop.

Assuming there were some 'magic' way to allow either engine to be mounted in such a way that didn't require an expensive additional re-design of the mountings (which I just don't imagine is actually possible), a 3x J-2X powered Jupiter might make for an interesting alternative "pure-CLV" design.

I have not run an analysis, but my gut feeling suggests it could possibly put about 25-30mT into LEO.   However, with three more expensive engines it wouldn't be as cost effective or have as low LOC/LOM numbers than J-120.

There might be some specific purpose for such a launcher considering it has higher Isp towards the latter stages of flight which may offer a different ascent profile.    I can't think of a purpose yet, but that doesn't mean there will never be one.   It's an idea worth keeping on the shelf - just in case.

Ross.
((I know I certainly don't know all there is to know about this, but this makes me think of an earlier discussion re: nozzle design & efficiency in vacuum vs. sea-level.))

Wouldn't you also have to deal with the issue of trying to get a J-2X to burn with any degree of stability at sea level?  Part of what gives the J-2X its higher ISP is that its nozzle is optimized for operation in a vacuum.

If the nozzle were changed such that it could operate at sea level, but still be optimized to FAVOR a vacuum, that's probably an option, but I suspect you'd sacrifice some of its top-end ISP to achieve that.

We've had similar discussions regarding an RS-68 variant that was "tuned" to operate its best in a vacuum, instead of being tuned for good sea-level thrust.  I believe such an engine would have a dramatic effect on the performance of the Jupiter vehicles.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 11/21/2007 04:23 pm
Quote
meiza - 20/11/2007  5:46 PM
Pressure fed designs suck at sea level. The ISP is small. The nozzle has to be small to prevent flow separation, and thus your ISP even at altitude sucks. Sea Dragon advertises 290/200 s vacuum/sea level. 2/3 + 1/3 average is thus 260 s. Merlin has probably 304/255 s giving 290 s.

This means that for the first stage flight that gives 3 km/s delta vee the mass ratio of Sea Dragon must be 3.24 and Falcon 2.87.
But a pressure fed design will also have a much worse mass fraction because the whole tank must support the 20 bar pressure in the Sea Dragon. Truax's design gives 11 600 t total mass vs 1300 t dry mass for the first stage. Second stage mass is y:
So 11600/(y+1300) = 3.24 and
11600/3.24 - 1300 = y
leaving 2300 t for the second stage to achieve the mass ratio. If we shrink these numbers to one 300th we get 39 t of total mass, 4.3 t of dry mass and 7.7 t of second stage. Tankage ratio was 9.1.
With Merlin, we get a tankage ratio of perhaps 20. If second stage mass is 7.7 t, then, when x is empty mass:
(7.7+x+20x)/(7.7 + x) = 2.87
which yields
7.7+21x = 7.7*2.87+2.87x
(21-2.87)x=7.7*(2.87-1)
x=0.8

Which means that the Sea Dragon technology stage is 5 times as massive empty as the Falcon technology stage.
And full mass of the first stage is 43 t vs 17 t, that's a factor of 2.5.

(I hope I calculated mostly right.)

Granting all of this, my reply is "So what?"  :-)

The booster gets freakishly big. The fuel load gets freakishly big, too.

So? Fuel is cheap and if you've done your design right, manufacturing even a very large booster without a lot of the weight reduction techniques normally used can cost less than making a nice neat little jewel of a booster. In fact, you could probably step away from some of the onerous space manufacturing processes purely because you've made things simpler. Design, testing and analysis will be simpler and cheaper. The rocket will become more reliable with fewer systems & perts to go wrong. Remember, all that counts is cost, so who cares how large it is as long as it gets the required mass to orbit for the dollars promised.

Anyway, this isn't a cheap booster thread, it's a Direct thread so I'll return us to our regularly scheduled topic...

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/21/2007 05:16 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 21/11/2007  12:23 PM

Anyway, this isn't a cheap booster thread, it's a Direct thread so I'll return us to our regularly scheduled topic...Paul
Paul, as we return to the regularly scheduled program, I would just offer this one antecedent; my uncle flew the F-86 in Korea and used to tell me that they were jealous of the MIG because the MIG pilot could set his plane down on anything that didn’t have trees in the way, fix what was broken, climb in and take off again, even if the field was covered in mud. The Russians designed the fighter to be simple, rugged, and able to be fixed in the field by anyone who could hold a pipe wrench. The F-86, a great plane in the air, needed a concrete runway and trained mechanics.

Just a quick side note to your observations.
Back to DIRECT. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Pheogh on 11/21/2007 05:17 pm
Sorry for the random question, but it is related to DIRECT. Would there be any advantage of launching J-120 232 out of Vandenberg. I'm a little fuzzy on why the shuttle was never launched from there. I was just wondering if the Shuttle-less configuration of DIRECT afforded any new useful mission profiles out of Vandenberg?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/21/2007 05:22 pm
Quote
Pheogh - 21/11/2007  1:17 PM

Sorry for the random question, but it is related to DIRECT. Would there be any advantage of launching J-120 232 out of Vandenberg. I'm a little fuzzy on why the shuttle was never launched from there. I was just wondering if the Shuttle-less configuration of DIRECT afforded any new useful mission profiles out of Vandenberg?

No NASA or DOD need for missions of that size from VAFB.     Shuttle was too expensive and didn't have the performance to lift the required spacecraft from VAFB.   ELV's are bigger for satellite delivery.  DOD and most NASA spacecraft got off the shuttle for this reason.

No pad exists for Direct at VAFB, now that D-IV has SLC-6
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/21/2007 05:23 pm
Pheogh,
Vandenberg launches are all due south into a polar orbit.   They don't use the rotation of the Earth to boost the speed (like Easterly launches do) so polar is always lower performance.   This means that given no other specific requirements, an Easterly launch is always preferred.

The military like polar launches though because if gives communication and spy birds in polar LEO an excellent flight profile covering the entire surface of the Earth over a given period of time as the Earth rotates under them.

Vandy couldn't be used for ISS, Hubble or Lunar missions though, because the orbital plane is all wrong for each of those.

But there always going to be potential uses for flights out of there for any 50-100mT launcher like DIRECT's Jupiter's.   Once the capability were offered at KSC, its quite possible someone might come up with an interesting use out of Vandy and commission a new/converted Pad.   It would have to be worthwhile though to cover the costs.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jml on 11/21/2007 07:08 pm
So, what if Griffin's real objection to Direct is that it doesn't require any of the engine development programs for his uber-heavy CaLV Mars launcher, and that it leaves both the J-2X and 5-Seg SRB development programs subject to the whims of future administrations.

If so, there's two methods for Direct to add an engine program to the CLV development schedule. One is to build the CLV as suggested by Lee Jay with standard 4-seg SRBs, a standard length Core/ET, and with the core's thrust structure designed for 3 J-2X engines (and design the thrust structure for future adaptability to the RS-68 needed by the J-232). Keep everything else as in the J-120 proposal, adjusting only fuel load and/or ballast.

The other is to build the initial CLV with the 5-segment SRBs boosters, a standard length Core/ET, and either 1 or 2 RS-68 engines on the standard Jupiter J-120 3-hole thrust structure. Keep everything else as in the J-120 proposal, adjusting only fuel load and/or ballast.

Either of these options tacks on a couple billion engine development dollars to the CLV program, and would delay the schedule somewhat from Direct's first operational launch in 2012.  They both add complexity and risk to Direct - just the antithesis of what Direct is all about. But either of these might also shorten the "gap" from Ares I's 2015, and might get more support from Griffin and/or from the interest groups involved in these engine development programs.

Quote
kraisee - 21/11/2007  1:02 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 20/11/2007  10:14 AM

Just a question out of curiosity for Ross.  If the core of the J-120 had 3 J2X's instead of 2 RS-68s, what would happen to lift capability?  I can understand a reduction due to dramatically reduced thrust, but also an increase due to dramatically increased average ISP, including the reduced need to throttle, and lower mass.  Sooooo...I'm just asking for curiosity sake!

Lee Jay,
J-2X has less than half the thrust of RS-68, so performance would drop.

Assuming there were some 'magic' way to allow either engine to be mounted in such a way that didn't require an expensive additional re-design of the mountings (which I just don't imagine is actually possible), a 3x J-2X powered Jupiter might make for an interesting alternative "pure-CLV" design.

I have not run an analysis, but my gut feeling suggests it could possibly put about 25-30mT into LEO.   However, with three more expensive engines it wouldn't be as cost effective or have as low LOC/LOM numbers than J-120.

There might be some specific purpose for such a launcher considering it has higher Isp towards the latter stages of flight which may offer a different ascent profile.    I can't think of a purpose yet, but that doesn't mean there will never be one.   It's an idea worth keeping on the shelf - just in case.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/21/2007 07:38 pm
I don't think J-2X is going to be subject to much in the way of closure.   It's a good R&D and development program even if plans to actually deploy it operationally were to be delayed (like in the case of Obama).   Stopping development now only to pick it up again would cost a lot more overall, so I think it's fairly safe, even from cutbacks - unless they are *very* severe cutbacks.

5-Seg Booster is clearly less "secure" with Jupiter because the system simply doesn't need the extra performance it offers - it has more than enough already.

I think FSB it will ultimately all depend on the money available to the program over the coming years.   I don't believe NASA will actually get the increases it hopes for by the new Administration after 2009, so I think FSB faces a high chance of needing to be cut.

NASA may get $1bn before then through Congress initiatives, but Gads knows when that might ever happen - and it will be a one-time payment only, so isn't massively significant as far as the whole program goes.


If I were in Griffin's shoes right now, I'd have a nice quiet chat over a game of golf with the CEO of ATK about what "other" work they'd be willing to consider if the 5-seg SRB contract were to go away.   But, I'd make it clear that simply canceling the contract in place right now *is* a serious option because it reduces NASA's costs and the performance is no longer a keystone element of NASA's plans.

The result of that discussion should determine whether the 5-segs go ahead, or they are canceled.   In the latter case, an alternative contract for something else may follow shortly - or not.

At that point you still need the EDS and LSAM - which is a *massive* contract.   Whether that gets funded or not depends 100% on the political winds over the next 10 years and that is totally out of NASA's control.   Worst case scenario is that those winds end up not being favorable for NASA, they will still have the key launch infrastructure elements ready for the architecture in position and fully operational for when the winds do eventually come back to them.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/21/2007 08:11 pm
Quote
jml - 21/11/2007  1:08 PM
If so, there's two methods for Direct to add an engine program to the CLV development schedule. One is to build the CLV as suggested by Lee Jay with standard 4-seg SRBs, a standard length Core/ET, and with the core's thrust structure designed for 3 J-2X engines (and design the thrust structure for future adaptability to the RS-68 needed by the J-232). Keep everything else as in the J-120 proposal, adjusting only fuel load and/or ballast.

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that.  I'm not part of the industry and I don't have performance analysis software, nor the experience to use it if I did.  I was just using this example in an attempt to educate my instincts about the difference between thrust needed to overcome gravity losses early in the flight, and ISP later in the flight, when most of the gravity losses are accounted for early by the massive thrust of the SRBs.  I'm not suggesting the 3xJ2X idea as a replacement for the J-120, just asking a question out of curiosity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 11/22/2007 03:59 am
Quote
kraisee - 19/11/2007  2:46 PM

This means they are costly to develop and still won't be used enough to make them cost effective.   Having an inefficient system is one of the key criticizms of Shuttle - so why isn't anyone learning the obvious lessons?


Yes.Yes.. YES    . what has been learned?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/22/2007 07:40 am
Quote
Avron - 21/11/2007  11:59 PM

Quote
kraisee - 19/11/2007  2:46 PM

This means they are costly to develop and still won't be used enough to make them cost effective.   Having an inefficient system is one of the key criticizms of Shuttle - so why isn't anyone learning the obvious lessons?


Yes.Yes.. YES    . what has been learned?

That you must know your mission requirements well enough that you can ensure your initial *concept* is efficient right from the start of a new program.

You and I are on exactly the same page regarding Ares on this issue.

But I gather we may have a difference of opinon regarding Jupiter, no?

I have attempted to identify a LOT of key differences between Ares and Jupiter (development cost, flight rate etc), and then also backed-up those differences with solid cost analysis based on internal numbers, but even after that, there still seem to be a few folk unwilling to believe there are significant differences between Ares and Jupiter in cost terms.   I'm not sure there's anything more I can do about that at this stage.   I've got a set of graphs I'm working on which will hopefully visually show the full range of numbers for all of the vehicle options.   I hope it will help.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/22/2007 08:17 am
And here are those graphs.

Note that all the scales are the same for all vehicles.

All charts assume regular economies of scale for all variable costs, and amortized fixed costs across the indicated flight rate that year.

180mT or 210mT LEO payload mass for Lunar mission is indicated by a cyan mark on each graph except Ares.

Only the first 16 flights of each given launch vehicle is shown.   48-flight versions of the EELV charts are available, but I have not put them up yet because I want to establish an initial apples-to-apples "per-flight" comparison first before I change the scale of just one set of charts.

Ross.


Ares Costs:






EELV Heavy Costs:




EELV Intermediate Costs:




DIRECT Jupiter Costs:





Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 11/22/2007 04:58 pm
Quote
meiza - 19/11/2007  12:35 PM

The problems are limited market and expendability.

Ships are dominated by operating costs, if it costs more to operate 2 ships than one double the size, it makes sense to build the bigger ship, even if it costs more, because it will be used for decades and the cheaper operating costs like proportion of crew salaries helps you in the long run. And even after that, the original owner can still sell it off for some money.
Also, the seas have lots of ships sailing around. The ports are used by other ships when your ship is elsewhere. You don't change the market significantly by introducing one big ship. It depends on many infrastructure questions, what the costs of big ships are: if you only build one big ship, it doesn't make sense to widen the Panama canal for that. Building deeper routes and bigger piers is debatable. But if there are many such big ships, then it starts to make sense as the big infrastructure is going to be used and will pay back the construction and maintenance costs quicker.

On the other hand, launch vehicles are expendable. That's why the building and integration cost of launch vehicles is more important than for ships. The savings method is different, it could be that mass production and automated and automated streamlined mass launch infrastructure is the key method to savings.

Also, the space launch market is much smaller.
If you build a big government launcher, that means that 1) it will not be launched often, meaning the infrastructure and people sit idle most of the time and 2) the smaller (government) launchers will also launch less often.

It's not any rule of nature that bigger is always better. Why aren't we building 10 km long tankers then? 50 km? There clearly are limits to that what size is efficient.

For example, if a tanker was so big that there would only be enough oil for it to transport to make one trip per year (say, the yearly oil transport from Saudi Arabia to Japan) and just sit the rest of the year, it would probably be much more efficient to make one or a few smaller tankers that run continuously and do 10 trips per year each. They could be used for other destinations too, as one trip wouldn't cost so much.

Of course, you can make the super tanker look good by projecting absolutely huge oil production and consumption and saying it will do ten trips per year.

It's also weird that you don't propose building a new engine for mass production, if bigger is always better. The F-1 was only double of the RS-68 thrust... You could have a triple RS-68 thrust engine for a big launcher that would surely save a lot of money because bigger is always better, just look at tankers, they are as big as they can be!

A thought occurred to me in reading this posting... Look at the design of ships that were designed for 'expendability'.  Well, the Liberty Ships weren't specifically designed for a single trip but they WERE designed to be built more quickly than they could be sunk, and if a large number of them WERE sunk before delivering their cargoes it wouldn't be a crippling blow.  Now how does that premise differ from the paradigm used in building ships today (military and commercial)??  Obviously that idea of 'expendability' plays a HUGE role in the 'architecture' you choose to use and the subsequent design you come up with to meet the requirements.  Kinda like the light escort carriers designed in WWII compared with the huge nuclear supercarriers of today, surrounded by several interlocking rings of defenses compared to the simple antiaircraft guns and escort destroyers of the escort carriers; you can afford a lighter/simpler defense because losing an escort carrier, while setting you back, wouldn't be as catastrophic to the force as losing a modern supercarrier.  
 
Another thought, what would we design a modern pickup or car or SUV if it were designed to be 'expendable', say drive it 50,000 miles and junk it, instead of making repairs.  A lot of the 'bells and whistles' would disappear, because it would not be cost effective to include them on a vehicle that would be junked out fairly quickly.  Also, low cost and ease of building them would be paramount, and the design would reflect that.  Some repairs would be almost impossible to make because it's designed to be junked out fairly soon anyway.  If it quit before it's official 'design life' had been reached oh well... (As a mechanic I can testify to the fact that a LOT of modern design is driven by just this paradigm, in that ease of assembly and cost savings in building the vehicle drive the design, at the cost of ease of repair.  Look at all the 'snap connectors' used on modern vehicles on fuel and refrigerant lines, spring loaded hose clamps on the coolant hoses, etc.  They save a lot of time in assembly because the worker only has to push the hoses together til they 'click' and go on to the next thing.  But repairs are a nightmare (have you ever tried to change a snap together fuel filter connector that has gotten mud or sand in it??)  That's optimizing the design for the greatest return to the manufacturer, but it certainly complicates things for the mechanic making the repairs and the owner paying the bills!  

These considerations sure would make some interesting changes in launch vehicle design, that's for sure!!  JMHO!  OL JR :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 11/22/2007 05:02 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 19/11/2007  1:20 PM

I brought this up in the Inline-Evo thread, and thought I would mention here since it pertains to DIRECT. In the Evo thread, Jim showed a concept called ULV, it was an SDLV that used standard SRBs and a single SSME.
I came up with a similar concept derived from Jupiter, it uses a 4 seg booster and a single RS-68 core. And if needed, a smaller upperstage could be used. A "Baby-Jupiter"...it would be too small to launch the CEV, but it could take over some of the roles that were once filled by the Delta II. I know NASA has been using EELVs for most of its unmanned exploration, but as far as I know, nothing prevents them from launching these probes on their own launch vehicles.

With the inclusion of a smaller launch vehicle, DIRECT will have every class of launcher covered, from light to heavy launchers.

Possible but practical??? Wouldn't that break the rule that if NASA can get services from a commercial supplier they have to, and not duplicate that service themselves (yes I know they're already doing that with ARES I).  I thought that was part of the law as it changed after Challenger when NASA was forbidden from providing 'commercial' launch services...  I guess there is a lot of 'gray' area though in some of these things... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/22/2007 05:15 pm
From where I sit - I *want* to use the EELV's for all the 10 to 26mT payloads, and to also open up that market for orbital propellant delivery systems too.

I just can't see much purpose or *value* in making a Jupiter system duplicate that existing capability.

Jupiter should aim to cover ground nobody else covers - and the 40 to 105mt lift capability range is certainly one we have no other assets in today.   Shuttle is clearly an existing Heavy Lift asset in this range already, but the problem with Shuttle is that "payload carrier" element takes up too large a portion of the total mass to orbit (99mT Orbiter accounts for 99mT of the total 115mT capability, leaving only 16mT for actual payload).   A relatively straight-forward evolutionary reconfiguration of the existing system can swap the proportions around and improve the payload mass fraction massively.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 11/22/2007 05:39 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/11/2007  12:30 AM

Quote
gospacex - 20/11/2007  12:49 AM

Quote
kraisee - 18/11/2007  9:57 PM

Quote
gospacex - 18/11/2007 9:15 PM
As a result, EELV costs may go down, and there will be chances of having continuous R&D program aimed at improving them

As to the point that you must launch more to gain reliability - well Delta is now in its 4th iteration, and so is Atlas - fifth if you include lessons learned from Titan too.   Both designs have been continually refined and re-created afresh to remove flaws for over forty years already, so don't you think both of these systems should already be as close to "as good as they're ever going to get"?

Strange, planes fly for what? a hundred years already, yet 787 is said to be 30% more fuel efficient than previous generation. Progress still happens. What makes you think that if government will start buying LV services from commercial providers, they will froze in time and never, ever, ever improve their processes?

But to extend that analogy though, you would require the immediate retirement of all 747's and the new A380 and switch all their flights over to the 787 to increase its flight rate because its "costs may go down, and there will be chances of having continuous R&D program aimed at improving them" as you put it.

The argument doesn't seem to work here though.   So why does it apply only for the EELV vs. SDHLLV debate?


Quote
You also need to explain existence of Soyuz which costs $10 million per launch (LV only). Okay, cheap labor, old rocket, etc etc etc, but we can account for that. It is also so cheap because it is flying often. If even communists (which are horrible at making things work efficiently) did it, why can't we do "American Soyuz" for $35 million per flight?

$10m?   You think?   Sorry, but no way.   The unmanned version is currently up in the ballpark of $80m for the LV right now.   Why do you think Bigelow had to bail from using Russian launchers recently?   Their costs have dramatically increased in the last few years, and anyway, unmanned Soyuz launchers used to cost ~$50m ten years ago.

As for an "American Soyuz" in the $35m price bracket, I can only hope that Space-X will be able to drive reasonable prices back into this market.

I hope companies like Space-X encourage a whole new breed of new and efficient launch providers who will come in with really efficient operations and force the cost of *all* systems (including EELV and Shuttle-Derived) down simply by out-competing the big boys at their own game.

As long as Elon Musk doesn't just sell the whole outfit to the highest bidder at the most opportune time - which I suspect he's actually been planning to do from the start - I think they are going to start affecting some real changes throughout the industry in a few years time.


Quote
Quote
I have no problem throwing extra business the EELV's way, and DIRECT explicitly suggests avenues which might require 8 to 16 more EELV-class flights to support NASA's goals.   But we do not support any options which delete the current US Heavy Lift capability (STS) - because they are all unjustifiable in terms of both program logistics and costs.

As I said, I fully support Direct because I don't believe NASA will go EELV/commercial road for bureaucratic survival reasons.

However, I do think that in the long run, spaceflight technologies can only be efficiently improved by commercial entities, not government.

I would add an extra clause to that statement before I can agree: "spaceflight technologies can only be efficiently improved by competing commercial entities, not government".

Right now Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and ATK pretty-much have the bulk of this market sewn up in the US.

B&LM seem happy enough to co-exist and share the bulk of the market via entities like USA and ULA, and neither seems particularly much of a challenge to ATK.   Yet these are supposed to be commercial entities competing strongly.   But their style of competition seems to carry a lot of baggage with it and doesn't appear to be very efficient in any particular field.

If it were in the UK I'd say it would be a case for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to investigate, but here in the US I don't see much interest from the public or the political world to investigate why US launch costs are so uncompetitive with the rest of the world.   We are going to have to rely on the new blood and highly competitive pricing from Space-X and its ilk to keep the big guys honest.   I hope it works too because Jupiter costs could come down too.

Heck, jeez half a dozen years from now Space-X might even be in a position to try its hand at competing for the NASA production contracts! :)

Ross.

At the risk of going OT a second, that form of 'competition' is the new standard of American business.  "Competition" is a dirty word in this new world order; it is a needless waste of time creating a needless duplication of efforts providing a needless duplication of products/services.  "Cooperation" is the NEW mantra of business.  Just look at the merger fever that has been the hallmark of US business for the last 10-15 years....  Nevermind that true competition is a strong driver of innovation.  By being able to provide a superior service or product than is currently available, or being able to provide current products or services considerably cheaper, or a combination of the two, a business increases their market share and thus profits.  BUT there is plenty of money to be made with the status quo, especially with fewer and fewer players on the field to divide the pie between, so why bother??  And if any true 'competition' arises, well, that's what mergers or buyouts are for... (or regulating them out of business using friendly elected officials whose campaigns they've supported, but that's a whole other story...)  I've seen this first hand in the agricultural sector, in which I'm personally involved... it's a model for most of the rest of the US business sector...  We ALL work for Monsanto now, one way or another...   OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 11/23/2007 04:22 am
Quote
kraisee - 22/11/2007  3:40 AM

Quote
Avron - 21/11/2007  11:59 PM

Yes.Yes.. YES    . what has been learned?

That you must know your mission requirements well enough that you can ensure your initial *concept* is efficient right from the start of a new program.

You and I are on exactly the same page regarding Ares on this issue.

But I gather we may have a difference of opinion regarding Jupiter, no?

I have some.. but know that I am in 100% support for what you folks have done and continue to do.. all the angles at a conceptual level have been covered.. no question, and some detail work as well..

but I ask you to again look at the requirements (and not all are written) at a program level..
What is the number one push behind Ares and higher level architectures etc ...

1) technical or 2)political

May I suggest that its political.. so what is the most "efficient" means of  ensuring that "mission"'s requirements  are met... we have talked labor etc.. ok so we have ranked key conceptual items up and now we need to look at what can go.. or be minimized based on our requirements.
What aspects are then not a primary need based on the political agenda? and I think you would agree its political.. so what can go..?



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/23/2007 09:29 pm
Avron,
Agreed, without doubt the agency's drive is largely political in nature - not exclusively so, but predominantly.

On the technical forefront is the realization that Columbia brought home to roost - that this business is very dangerous and that the Shuttle is not as safe a launch vehicle as we should be using.    This is driving a new 'requirement' towards a new vehicle which does include Launch Abort options.   The same core reason also made the agency re-think its purpose WRT human space flight.

The loss of two Shuttle crews now, has brought into question the whole 'value' from simply "doing laps" in LEO.   It no longer appears justifiable to risk 7 of America's "best and brightest" Astronauts on a complex vehicle offering no better survival odds than 1 in 100.   Shuttle is a "gamble" which doesn't appear to offer as good odds as we would like.   And worse still, it doesn't appear to offer sufficiently high enough "return" to make it totally worthwhile either.

Exploration of new worlds, however, does seem to be a more worthy achievement.   Historically many people *have* been willing to risk their lives for such goals.   All other factors being equal, I'm sure there isn't an astronaut in the world who would rather go to ISS rather than Mare Tranquillitatis on the moon, or better still, Syria Planum on Mars.

But the simple fact is that the technology the US created to do that was all thrown away 30+ years ago.   If we are changing the mission, a new infrastructure must now be re-created.

Even the technical reasons have a political element too - the US is fast losing ground to competing countries in the technical fields which it has for forty years held the leading position.   A gradual slow down in investment (both private and federal) in education and engineering disciplines has meant that the US is in a position where an increase in technical investment is needed now if the US wishes to retain it's technological prowess over the next few decades too.   It is a matter of historical record that the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo Programs attracted more students from around the country to the all-important engineering, science and math disciplines than anything else in US history.   The dream to explore the moon, and go on from there, inspired a whole generation to learn about new technology.   This generation later went on to invent whole new industries.   In the end, NASA's programs of the 1960's is one of the keystone reasons for the technology boom we have experienced in the following 40 years.   It is doubtful that without Apollo's requirement for smaller computers if we would ever have had a Personal Computer revolution at all.   Hand-held communication devices also.   Imagine where we might be if the Apollo Program had never happened and the sparks of those two industries had simply never been lit.   I doubt I would today be writing this reply on a laptop computer, I doubt there would be any internet with a discussion forum, and I doubt I would have my cell phone sitting next to me either.   I consider Apollo as being one of the key factors directly responsible for all three technologies.

There are today a wide range of both political and technical "requirements" which must all be addressed if we are to succeed in this new goal of exploration.

Sadly though, this new plan does not carry sufficient public & political support to make the vast and wide-raging program we saw four decades ago.   The reality is that money is tight and schedule is also tight because the Shuttle isn't all that safe and we need to try our best to retire it before it's fundamental complexity kills another crew.   We do however have political 'requirements' dictated to NASA thanks to long-standing international agreements regarding finishing the ISS first though.   We need new spacecraft which must achieve x, y and z requirements by such-and-such a date with no extra funding, and we then have domestic political concerns ranging from how many workers will get the boot to in-fighting to ensure a given Senator or Representative's district earns the money from producing a "difrange-fraswobulator Mk II" device for the new systems.   Oh, and lets not forget that there are opposition forces just looking for an excuses to shut the whole thing down too.

This is an *incredibly* difficult and complex range of factors to try to manage, with solutions all costing billions of dollars every year.   The task is just as delicate to 'balance' as spinning a collection of 12-piece dish services on sticks.   There are thousands of different potential approaches, many of which might work, but probably a lot more which won't.   Just like with the spinning plates though, getting it wrong only serves to make one heckuva mess :)

From where I sit I would rank the four key issues this way:

Technical perspective:

1) Performance
2) Cost
3) Schedule
4) Workforce


Political perspective:

1) Workforce
2) Schedule
3) Cost
4) Performance


I don't think we can get any more diametrically opposite, but NASA has the unenviable task of having to strike a workable balance on all these factors to have any chance at success.

Because I believe the politics to be the more powerful force in the drive behind NASA than engineering, I believe the political requirements will take a more senior position in the 'competition' though.

The question we're trying to work out is what is the best solution.   DIRECT has attempted to strike a balance which is close to ESAS/Ares, but we have attempted to cut out a lot of what we perceived as 'fat' and make it a much leaner program so it can be more efficient overall.   We figure the ESAS/Ares choice was largely driven by at least as much political force as by engineering.   DIRECT therefore tries to fit a different, hopefully more efficient, 'peg' in the 'hole' which has already been well defined.   We don't think the hole is a mistake though - just that there's a more efficient way to make the perfect 'peg' to fill it.

The EELV approach though, is attempting to redefine the existing 'hole' to fit 'pegs' which already exist.   It's not a bad approach, but risks being thrown out if those political figures primarily, but also NASA management, who define the 'hole' just don't see a way to still get what they wanted when they defined the original 'hole'.   This is where I feel the EELV's made their biggest mistake back in 2004/5 with ESAS.   I never saw any attempt to work with Congress' political concerns.   All the effort was put into the engineering and the rest seemed to be ignored as 'irrelevant'.   If they could actually demonstrate precisely how EELV's *can* achieve the political requirements (workforce in particular), they could run away with the whole match.   But they truly ignore the politics of this at their peril.

Given prior experience with government programs, I believe the choice will always follow the "path of least resistance" - and right now, I feel that means the 'peg' will be the thing that is tweaked, not the 'hole'.

From everything I hear from the initial studies which have been carried out already, the EELV solutions get a green mark in all the other boxes - just like DIRECT does - but DIRECT has a green mark in the 'workforce retention' box where EELV currently has a red one.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Avron on 11/24/2007 12:01 am
Great coverage Ross..  


--I believe the political requirements will take a more senior position in the 'competition' though. ---


Ok.. so we agree we just don't have the cash to do the job properly ... is a no win.. really if you look at some of the key items.  so agreed we need to cover the political, now we need to exclude what STS must do.. it has its political world to cover and a lot of that is international..

what VSE must cover is the key needs as defined  by the forces that be...  in the political mission, that mean unfortunately that there is close to zero chance of the technical been realized.. and we see that, we see bad numbers in the world of performance, but we see the handing out of contacts - retention of labour..

Direct is great, EELV is good, but Direct is better if you look at the long term  (education for one).. but for that you need a technical direction,, and you don't have that.. follow the money.. if in doubt..

With the current political push from the people it is nice to go to the moon again and yes Mars would be fantastic but its really a zero priority,.. and will be until the money and direction are given...   not like what was given in the VSE...  its really half hearted...

So its not easy for the forces, they need to cover the political first, then eek out what is left to set some direction.. and I think we are seeing that education is taking that ..

Direct will come in its time.  but first there must be education and the other political items that need immediate coverage for the mission to be a success (its need), that means that he political key items are covered and that does not need th the technical items to be addressed to still win.

VSe could end up as a stepping stone, to a workforce that is educated (30 year without creating  a manned vehicle needs some education injection), but with ZERO hardware built. a few fits and starts.. but I don't think based on what I see that VSe will get anything launched...  funny enough it will still have achieved its primary requirements


Now when the program is "reset" then we will see Direct, when there is the political direction.. land a person on the moon by X or Mars by Y, with all the support that is need to get to these goals..
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/24/2007 01:03 am
That order has already been issued.   The VSE is the result, and *is* happening now.

STS retired by 2010 and its replacement to fly by 2014, with a Lunar landing by 2020.   Those are NASA's standing target 'hole' from the government now.

Assuming the Ares is struggling and it is decided that an alternative is needed, there is a highly critical time element because we are a few years in already.

NASA can't assume this 'hole' is going to change, so it needs to continue assuming that it must deliver a suitable 'peg' to fill these requirements - until told otherwise.

While political change is a fact of life, I haven't yet seen *anything* to convince me that the political masters are going to order any significant changes - unless NASA can't meet the schedule at all.   That means the 'hole' will remain as it is - and that means the 'peg' which is chosen will still have to fill it.

The 'hole' isn't seriously likely to change before ~2010.   That's a year after the new political masters begin to get their feet under them, and they'll need time to 'analise' their options.

As long as NASA has orders in-hand, they must proceed.   Griffin has always been trying to have the new program on-track before that time-frame comes about - building sufficient momentum so that the whole *program* can't be de-railed then - which is a very *REAL* risk if the program isn't far enough along by then.

Any 'reset' will probably begin by abandoning the moon.   Get rid of that and you save a whole pile of money.   Obama's plan would amount to this, and I don't hear much support for the VSE from *any* of the Presidential candidates on either side.

Any change to the VSE's plans are unlikely to be something which is actually going to 'help'.   I'm actually terrified that NASA may not be far enough along by that point and we will get stcuk back in LEO for decades again.

NASA has to make the current plan work.   At that point, with the political requirements defined clearly, it boils down to which of the engineering options fulfill all those requirements and offer the best technical performance as well.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 11/24/2007 01:47 am
Quote
kraisee - 22/11/2007  3:17 AM

And here are those graphs.

Note that all the scales are the same for all vehicles.

All charts assume regular economies of scale for all variable costs, and amortized fixed costs across the indicated flight rate that year.

180mT or 210mT LEO payload mass for Lunar mission is indicated by a cyan mark on each graph except Ares.

Only the first 16 flights of each given launch vehicle is shown.   48-flight versions of the EELV charts are available, but I have not put them up yet because I want to establish an initial apples-to-apples "per-flight" comparison first before I change the scale of just one set of charts.

Ross.


Ares Costs:






EELV Heavy Costs:




EELV Intermediate Costs:




DIRECT Jupiter Costs:





Ross.

These graphs would drive home the point better if you put each line item on seperate graphs with all the vehicles on each.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/24/2007 03:30 am
I can do that.   Here:





Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MrTim on 11/24/2007 10:28 am
Ross, you are doing a very fine and lucid presentation, but I have a small question for you:

In your "Total Yearly Program Payload Comparison" chart, you show STS under-performing Ares I on Kg to LEO. How are you figuring that a small Orion capsule with 6 astronauts riding an Ares that can barely lift it beats an orbiter with 7 crew and a massive payload bay filled with tons of supplies for ISS? Given that it's Kilograms to LEO versus flights-per-year, the data points for these two should line-up and I don't see how Ares wins without regard to flight rate. In other words, for a given number of flights per year, the STS should always orbit more mass.

Guess I must be too tired and must be mis-interpreting...  :o
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 11/24/2007 04:26 pm
So operating cost of ARES I is slightly lower than Direct?  If so I was not expecting that. So the big advantage then is in lower development cost/time as opposed to operating costs?  
 Would Jupiter numbers look better on(vs ARES I) on an unmanned supply mission to the ISS?  
I am guessing that Jupiter would be able to carry consideraby more payload.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jml on 11/24/2007 05:14 pm
The big operating cost advantage for Direct shows up when you compare total J-232 and J-120 costs to total Ares I and V costs for any combination of projected flight rate for the crew launcher and the cargo launcher. That's where you can see that Direct really wins out over Ares on operating costs.

If all NASA ever wants to do is build Ares I to launch crew and supplies to the ISS, and never venture beyond LEO, then Ares I wins on an operating cost basis (but not on development cost and time, or cost/kg). The only cheaper (although riskier) solution might be to get NASA out of the launch business and contract out our ISS missions to Soyuz or Space-X.

If NASA actually wants to build and operate a heavy lifter as well as a crew launch vehicle, then nothing beats Direct for operational costs. That means that with Direct, NASA has far more funds available to do things like launch more missions, or use for science programs, or accelerate the schedule for missions to the Moon or Mars, or to withstand budgetary pressures. The Direct launch manifest shows the difference in terms of how many launches before 2020 that NASA can afford with Direct vs how many it can afford with Ares I and V using the same budget projections.  The difference here is stunning - 52 launches for Direct (including 11 lunar missions) vs 20 launches total for Ares I and V (including only 2 lunar missions). If NASA wants to spend the next couple of decades largely in LEO or on the ground, then Ares I and V is the way to go. If, on the other hand, we actually want real manned space exploration, nothing else will accomplish more than Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sdsds on 11/24/2007 08:27 pm
Quote
jml - 24/11/2007  10:14 AM
The big operating cost advantage for Direct shows up when you compare total J-232 and J-120 costs to total Ares I and V costs for any combination of projected flight rate for the crew launcher and the cargo launcher. That's where you can see that Direct really wins out over Ares on operating costs.
This type of total cost analysis is great! But in funding isn't looking at total costs rather like looking at static loads on a launch vehicle? Don't we also have to consider the dynamics, which in the funding domain corresponds to year-by-year budget allocations? Dr. Griffin routinely seems to imply that this is where Ares wins. Isn't that his true meaning when he describes it as a plan where we can, "Go as we can afford to pay?"

Extending this analogy between aeronautics and funding, for any given project there might be the budgetary equivalent of MaxQ: the moment during launch where the combination of speed and air pressure create the greatest aerodynamic stresses. In the budgetary domain, Griffinites may be predicting MaxQ to occur after a CLV is regularly taking astronauts to LEO, but before a CaLV is even flight-qualified. How can they prevent budget stresses at that point from shaking the whole plan apart (i.e. CaLV cancellation)? Their apparent answer with Ares is to *front-load* all the major development risk costs onto the CLV, so they can "coast" through MaxQ before powering up again once crewed lunar missions renew funding enthusiasm.

How does the DIRECT v2.0 proposal address the "budgetary MaxQ" issue?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/24/2007 09:39 pm
Quote
sdsds - 24/11/2007  4:27 PM

How does the DIRECT v2.0 proposal address the "budgetary MaxQ" issue?
That is the point of the greatest financial stress for the Ares-I/V launch vehicle architecture, because to take that next step, Congress has to debate and approve the schedule and funding of the development of a new launch vehicle, the Ares-V, capable of lifting the lunar mission hardware, after having already endured a protracted and difficult development period for the Ares-I CLV that probably came in over-budget and late.

DIRECT avoids this condition entirely by placing a lunar-capable launch vehicle on the launch pad in the first place, the Jupiter-120. We can fly it for as long as necessary to ISS and other LEO missions until NASA and Congress agree on the timetable and funding for the lunar mission. Then, when the Ares program would need to begin to develop a 'new' lunar-capable launch vehicle (Ares-V), the Jupiter-120 just plugs in the 3rd center engine and adds the upper stage. That Jupiter configuration is just the Jupiter-120 with more capability added, known as the Jupiter-232. Then we depart for the moon.

The key is for the first launch vehicle that is fielded after Shuttle is retired to be a lunar capable launch vehicle. The Jupiter-120 is that launch vehicle. This means we don't have to go thru that period of 'Max-Q' you speak of. We go around it entirely.

It's important to note here however, that nothing in the DIRECT plan prevents NASA from developing and fielding the Ares-V once the Jupiter-120 is flying. Unlike any possible EELV solution, DIRECT preserves the option to build the Ares-V; even better than the Ares-I could have.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/24/2007 09:55 pm
Quote
clongton - 24/11/2007  3:39 PM
It's important to note here however, that nothing in the DIRECT plan prevents NASA from developing and fielding the Ares-V once the Jupiter-120 is flying. Unlike any possible EELV solution, DIRECT preserves the option to build the Ares-V; even better than the Ares-I could have.

If the other posts from you and Ross on this thread are correct, the J-232 is not very short of the Ares-V in lift capability, all things being the same (orbit and margin).  If this is so, why go to the trouble of building the Ares-V at all?  If the extra lift capability is truly needed for a mission, what upgrades to the J-232 would get to parity with the Ares-V?  SLWT?  RS-68 at 106%?  J2x?  5-seg?  Other stuff?  It seems like all this could get you past the Ares-V and so selecting just what is required would be far cheaper than developing the Ares-V since it requires all of that, plus a new core and infrastructure.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/24/2007 10:43 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 24/11/2007  5:55 PM

Quote
clongton - 24/11/2007  3:39 PM
It's important to note here however, that nothing in the DIRECT plan prevents NASA from developing and fielding the Ares-V once the Jupiter-120 is flying. Unlike any possible EELV solution, DIRECT preserves the option to build the Ares-V; even better than the Ares-I could have.

If the other posts from you and Ross on this thread are correct, the J-232 is not very short of the Ares-V in lift capability, all things being the same (orbit and margin).  If this is so, why go to the trouble of building the Ares-V at all?  If the extra lift capability is truly needed for a mission, what upgrades to the J-232 would get to parity with the Ares-V?  SLWT?  RS-68 at 106%?  J2x?  5-seg?  Other stuff?  It seems like all this could get you past the Ares-V and so selecting just what is required would be far cheaper than developing the Ares-V since it requires all of that, plus a new core and infrastructure.
All that is very true. The basic configuration of the Jupiter-232 is very nearly the equal of the advertised performance of the Ares-V; all that without touching the additional 10% margin that is built in to the Jupiter launch vehicle specifications. By incorporating the upgrades you speak of, the Jupiter-232 will easily exceed the advertised performance of the Ares-V and, unlike the Ares-V, still have room to expand its capabilities even further.

But that is not the point. There are those who would be distressed if the potential to field the Ares-V were to be taken off the table and that statement was made specifically to make sure they know that the Jupiter launch vehicle family does not prevent the Ares-V. When we developed the Jupiter launch vehicle, we were careful to maintain a path to the Ares-V in the event that NASA continues to want to build it. We have never had a problem with that launch vehicle, providing the funding picture in the out years can justify it. But we created the Jupiter launch vehicle family in such a way that NASA would still be able to go to the moon and on to Mars should funding for the Ares-V not be forthcoming.

We do not specifically plan for the construction of the Ares-V, but neither do we specifically oppose it. We have provided NASA with the option to take either path, as they deem best. Our opinion is that the Ares-V isn’t needed, but that would not be our call. While we believe that the Jupiter-232, with or without upgrades, will serve the VSE equally as well as the Ares-V, if not better, we have specifically left that option to NASA to determine for themselves. The main thing to remember is that by fielding a lunar-capable core (Jupiter-120) as the first launch vehicle after Shuttle, all options are preserved for the future, without exception, at NASA’s discretion. The DIRECT architecture provides NASA with a series of exceptional tools and capabilities. It is up to NASA how they choose to employ them.

It is also important to remember that while we may have brought all this together into the form of a viable launch vehicle proposal, that what we are proposing is nothing new to NASA. DIRECT is really nothing more than NASA's own proposals in an updated form, the latest being the ESAS LV-24/25 launch solution. This architecture has always been NASA's architecture, and this design has always been NASA's design. Therefore it remains NASA's choice how best to employ it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 11/24/2007 10:50 pm
Quote
jml - 24/11/2007  12:14 PM

The big operating cost advantage for Direct shows up when you compare total J-232 and J-120 costs to total Ares I and V costs for any combination of projected flight rate for the crew launcher and the cargo launcher. That's where you can see that Direct really wins out over Ares on operating costs.

If all NASA ever wants to do is build Ares I to launch crew and supplies to the ISS, and never venture beyond LEO, then Ares I wins on an operating cost basis (but not on development cost and time, or cost/kg). The only cheaper (although riskier) solution might be to get NASA out of the launch business and contract out our ISS missions to Soyuz or Space-X.

If NASA actually wants to build and operate a heavy lifter as well as a crew launch vehicle, then nothing beats Direct for operational costs. That means that with Direct, NASA has far more funds available to do things like launch more missions, or use for science programs, or accelerate the schedule for missions to the Moon or Mars, or to withstand budgetary pressures. The Direct launch manifest shows the difference in terms of how many launches before 2020 that NASA can afford with Direct vs how many it can afford with Ares I and V using the same budget projections.  The difference here is stunning - 52 launches for Direct (including 11 lunar missions) vs 20 launches total for Ares I and V (including only 2 lunar missions). If NASA wants to spend the next couple of decades largely in LEO or on the ground, then Ares I and V is the way to go. If, on the other hand, we actually want real manned space exploration, nothing else will accomplish more than Direct.

 Then that is the best example to graph.   Graphs do a great job of putting numbers into a picture.   You can show pages of numbers and specifications and it is hard to see the big picture from all the details.   The graphs that I think would be impressive are as follows:
1.  ARES I/V moon mission cost vs DIRECT Moon mission cost.
2.  ARES I ISS resupply mission cost vs DIRECT ISS resupply mission cost.
3.  ARES I ISS Crew exchange mission vs DIRECT ISS Crew exchange mssion cost.   ARES is slightly better on this one but I think needs to be included to show that the complete picture is being provided.
4.  ARES I & ARES V development costs vs DIRECT development cost over time.   Putting the ARES costs together I imagine would be tough & would likely have some of the pieces missing.  But even with some of the info on the ARES side missing I am guessing it would put Direct in a very good light.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 11/25/2007 01:25 am
Quote
sdsds - 24/11/2007  1:27 PM

This type of total cost analysis is great! But in funding isn't looking at total costs rather like looking at static loads on a launch vehicle? Don't we also have to consider the dynamics, which in the funding domain corresponds to year-by-year budget allocations? Dr. Griffin routinely seems to imply that this is where Ares wins. Isn't that his true meaning when he describes it as a plan where we can, "Go as we can afford to pay?"

Extending this analogy between aeronautics and funding, for any given project there might be the budgetary equivalent of MaxQ: the moment during launch where the combination of speed and air pressure create the greatest aerodynamic stresses. In the budgetary domain, Griffinites may be predicting MaxQ to occur after a CLV is regularly taking astronauts to LEO, but before a CaLV is even flight-qualified. How can they prevent budget stresses at that point from shaking the whole plan apart (i.e. CaLV cancellation)? Their apparent answer with Ares is to *front-load* all the major development risk costs onto the CLV, so they can "coast" through MaxQ before powering up again once crewed lunar missions renew funding enthusiasm.

How does the DIRECT v2.0 proposal address the "budgetary MaxQ" issue?

Another thing to consider while evaluating that “budgetary MaxQ” is the amount of infrastructure cost that is being *front-loaded* on both the Ares I *and* on Ares V. Both LVs are going to require separate and major infrastructure builds and there will be little or nothing shared between the program halves. MLPs, Crawlers, Pads, and etc will have to be built or rebuilt for each half of the program whereas the DIRECT program reuses the STS equipment with little or no modification. Both DIRECT LVs can use all MLPs, and everything else giving both cost savings and versatility that Constellation will be missing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/25/2007 03:22 am
Quote
MrTim - 24/11/2007  6:28 AM

Ross, you are doing a very fine and lucid presentation, but I have a small question for you:

In your "Total Yearly Program Payload Comparison" chart, you show STS under-performing Ares I on Kg to LEO. How are you figuring that a small Orion capsule with 6 astronauts riding an Ares that can barely lift it beats an orbiter with 7 crew and a massive payload bay filled with tons of supplies for ISS? Given that it's Kilograms to LEO versus flights-per-year, the data points for these two should line-up and I don't see how Ares wins without regard to flight rate. In other words, for a given number of flights per year, the STS should always orbit more mass.

Guess I must be too tired and must be mis-interpreting...  :o

I'm defining the Shuttle Orbiter as a non-optional carrier for the actual payload, not part of the payload.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 11/25/2007 04:05 am
Quote
MrTim - 24/11/2007  5:28 AM

Ross, you are doing a very fine and lucid presentation, but I have a small question for you:

In your "Total Yearly Program Payload Comparison" chart, you show STS under-performing Ares I on Kg to LEO. How are you figuring that a small Orion capsule with 6 astronauts riding an Ares that can barely lift it beats an orbiter with 7 crew and a massive payload bay filled with tons of supplies for ISS? Given that it's Kilograms to LEO versus flights-per-year, the data points for these two should line-up and I don't see how Ares wins without regard to flight rate. In other words, for a given number of flights per year, the STS should always orbit more mass.

Guess I must be too tired and must be mis-interpreting...  :o

It is a fair point. Ares I would require two flights for the crew and the cargo of one shuttle flight, so the cost comparison should be between two Ares I flights (one Ares/Orion and one Ares/cargo) and one shuttle flight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jml on 11/26/2007 08:09 pm

Quote
veedriver22 - 24/11/2007  6:50 PM

 Then that is the best example to graph.   Graphs do a great job of putting numbers into a picture.   You can show pages of numbers and specifications and it is hard to see the big picture from all the details.   The graphs that I think would be impressive are as follows:
1.  ARES I/V moon mission cost vs DIRECT Moon mission cost.
2.  ARES I ISS resupply mission cost vs DIRECT ISS resupply mission cost.
3.  ARES I ISS Crew exchange mission vs DIRECT ISS Crew exchange mssion cost.   ARES is slightly better on this one but I think needs to be included to show that the complete picture is being provided.
4.  ARES I & ARES V development costs vs DIRECT development cost over time.   Putting the ARES costs together I imagine would be tough & would likely have some of the pieces missing.  But even with some of the info on the ARES side missing I am guessing it would put Direct in a very good light.


OK - how's this



"Lunar
Here's an attached .gif of request #1 (My first attempt at posting an Excel chart as a gif.)
This is based on costs of:
Ares: $2,900m fixed + 1 * $130m Ares I and 1* $280m Ares V per mission
Juipter: $1,900m fixed + 2 * $220m J-232 per mission
EELV Intermediate: $1,000m fixed + 9 * $130m Atlas 5 551 per mission
EELV Heavy: $1,000m fixed + 7 * $190m D-IV Heavy per mission

This really shows that Jupiter by far provides the most bang for the buck for any launch rates that would fit into NASA's current budget. At the same $3.6 billion price point of the 2 annual lunar missions that NASA is planning, Direct can provide 4 annual lunar missions with 40mT more of lift capacity on each mission.

For rates of more than 36 manned lunar missions per year, Ares I and V have a cost advantage. But you'd have to have a very warped view of reality to think that 36 missions (72 launches) per year from LC-39 would be operationally and financially possible for NASA.

The launcher costs for request #2 and #3 are identical, and are really covered in the first chart entitled "Total Yearly Program Cost Comparison" in post 216482 on page 193 of this thread. Verdict: Ares I wins on operation costs for ISS-only missions if nothing else is considered (like R & D costs and lunar mission costs).

#4 can be seen in the stacked line graph that has been presented many times in the Direct threads and proposal documents. See page 118 of the 2007 AIAA Direct presentation, for example. This also really contrasts the "budgetary MaxQ" of Ares I & V against Direct.

 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 11/26/2007 08:34 pm
I have a hunch you can't upkeep the shuttle heritage (sans orbiter) infrastructure with just $900m extra per year compared to, say, an extra EELV pad or two.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 11/26/2007 09:41 pm
2x J-232>1xAres I+1xAres V in terms of payload.

So even for 50 missions/year, Jupiter is a better value.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jml on 11/27/2007 03:39 am
Quote
meiza - 26/11/2007  4:34 PM

I have a hunch you can't upkeep the shuttle heritage (sans orbiter) infrastructure with just $900m extra per year compared to, say, an extra EELV pad or two.

If anything, I'd say the EELV costs are underestimated. Here's the reasoning.

STS including orbiter has a fixed cost of $2.9 billion per year. According to Figure 130 on page 113 of the Direct AIAA 2007 paper, that figure breaks down as follows:
Launch Vehicle fixed costs (ET, SRM/SRB, SSME, OMS): $1.183 billion, including $314 million in orbiter engines.
KSC Operations fixed costs: $691 million
JSC Mission Operations: $843 million
Shuttle Specific (orbiter) Costs: $208 million
 
From what I can gather from page 115 of the Direct AIAA 2007 paper, the Direct fixed cost of $1.9 billion per year must include much of the same KSC Operations and JSC Mission Operations fixed costs (call that ~$1.3 billion), plus $643 million for launch vehicle fixed costs. (including Core Stage, EDS, SRM/SRB, RS-68, J-2X). Remember the EDS and Core share much of the same fixed costs for the same 8.4m tooling and production line, and the RS-68's fixed costs are alreay covered by Delta IV.

If we're going to use manned EELV launchers, we'll still have to pay the same ~$850 million JSC Missions Operations fixed cost. There will also be some amount of additional fixed costs for launch vehicle and KSC Operations for manned EELVs over and above the current fixed costs for unmanned EELVs.  I'd guess that $150 million may well underestimate these costs.

Or have I missed something?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/27/2007 11:42 am
The JSC costs are for ORION.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MrTim on 11/27/2007 05:25 pm
Quote
clongton - 24/11/2007  2:39 PM
Quote
sdsds - 24/11/2007  4:27 PM
How does the DIRECT v2.0 proposal address the "budgetary MaxQ" issue?
That is the point of the greatest financial stress for the Ares-I/V launch vehicle architecture, because to take that next step, Congress has to debate and approve the schedule and funding of the development of a new launch vehicle, the Ares-V, capable of lifting the lunar mission hardware, after having already endured a protracted and difficult development period for the Ares-I CLV that probably came in over-budget and late.
That's not the plan. The plan was to have the administration propose and congress approve a plan and then implement that plan over time within whatever budgets NASA gets. That proposal was made and congress approved it. As long as nothing changes, there will be no congressional debate over new funds for the development of Ares V... the funds will come from NASA's annual budgets. Griffin is gambling that all the expensive engine development will happen before the Federal budgets face the bubble of baby boomer retirements and the Ares V will never be debated (it is already approved for development as things stand now). If the new engine development were delayed because they were not needed by the crew launcher, then that development would happen later when budgets are tighter and there would be a bigger chance the Ares V would be debated as a budget cutting measure (not as a new additional budget item) by a generation of senators and members of congress who had nothing to do with approving the plan and who would be looting NASA's budget to fund other priorities.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jml on 11/27/2007 05:26 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/11/2007  7:42 AM

The JSC costs are for ORION.

More specifically, on Page 113 of the Direct 2007 AIAA paper, those $843 million in JSC fixed costs from STS are broken down as:
Program Office : $93 million
Network (NACC/PSCN/ODIN) $ 30 million
Orbiter/JSC Sustaining & Logistics $325 million
Mission Operations: $252 million
Crew Operations: $66 million
Crew Training: $8 million
PMS: $69 million

Now I haven't the faintest idea what some of the acronyms mean (even after looking through the Acronym page on this site), but I'd guess that all of these fixed costs except the $325 million for the Orbiter/JSC Sustaining & Logistics will be needed regardless of the launcher that Orion flies on, and, yes, even some of that $325 million will be needed by JSC to cover whatever part they will play in overseeing Orion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 11/27/2007 05:30 pm
Even those fixed cost are not applicable if Direct were to fly a non manned mission.  for instance, a telescope
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/27/2007 07:07 pm
Quote
MrTim - 27/11/2007  1:25 PM

Quote
clongton - 24/11/2007  2:39 PM
Quote
sdsds - 24/11/2007  4:27 PM
How does the DIRECT v2.0 proposal address the "budgetary MaxQ" issue?
That is the point of the greatest financial stress for the Ares-I/V launch vehicle architecture, because to take that next step, Congress has to debate and approve the schedule and funding of the development of a new launch vehicle, the Ares-V, capable of lifting the lunar mission hardware, after having already endured a protracted and difficult development period for the Ares-I CLV that probably came in over-budget and late.
That's not the plan. The plan was to have the administration propose and congress approve a plan and then implement that plan over time within whatever budgets NASA gets. That proposal was made and congress approved it. As long as nothing changes, there will be no congressional debate over new funds for the development of Ares V... the funds will come from NASA's annual budgets. Griffin is gambling that all the expensive engine development will happen before the Federal budgets face the bubble of baby boomer retirements and the Ares V will never be debated (it is already approved for development as things stand now). If the new engine development were delayed because they were not needed by the crew launcher, then that development would happen later when budgets are tighter and there would be a bigger chance the Ares V would be debated as a budget cutting measure (not as a new additional budget item) by a generation of senators and members of congress who had nothing to do with approving the plan and who would be looting NASA's budget to fund other priorities.
Tim;
I know that the Ares-V is already in the plan. My comment refers to the financial wrangling that will go into the funding appropriations. Even though the basic plan already approves the "concept" of 2 different launchers, that doesn't mean Congress will pick up that option, just because it can. That will be a very dangerous time for the Ares-V that the Jupiter launch vehicle family completely avoids by placing such a capable launch vehicle on the launch pad in the first place. The Jupiter only needs development of an upper stage to enable the lunar missions, and even those could be adapted from existing EELV flight hardware, like the Delta-IV upper stage, for example, or an ICES WBC from the Atlas Advanced Systems Group. Developing and fielding the upper stage would be an order of magnitude less expensive than what it will cost to develop and field the Ares-V, even if the 5-segment SRB and J-2 engines are already paid for. Releasing funding for the Ares-V would also mean releasing funding to dispose of the STS manufacturing and launch infrastructure and build all new; again something which the Jupiter completely avoids. This stuff is going to be exceedingly expensive, sticker shock expensive, and Congress may well balk at it. Remember, when this funding debate begins, there will likely be no one left in Congress who voted for this, and the sitting Congress will have no allegiance to it what so ever. What they will see is that Americans are launching into space on their own rocket already, so they could very well reason that the so-called VSE was Bush2’s plan, not theirs. And who knows what the economic condition of the nation will be by that time? Congress may very well be in no mood for paying for another new rocket so we can go walk on the moon again. All that is what I am referring to as the Ares-V financial Max-Q, a very dangerous time for that launch vehicle that Jupiter completely and utterly avoids. Once the Jupiter launch vehicle is actually on the launch pad, the lunar mission is saved, because Jupiter can, if necessary, wait, knowing that all options are now safe.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: parham55 on 11/27/2007 09:21 pm
Quote
ACEMANN - 27/11/2007  4:02 PM

For the record, I wrote my state Representative and very carefully laid out my concerns and introduced Direct as a viable option to support the VSE with less risk. I consider myself a good writer and spent quite some time writing the letter, keeping it (no pun) direct and brief. I have yet to receive, at the very least, an automated email over two months later. I live in TN.

I now believe:

1) No politician REALLY cares about space anymore (at least not enough)

2) The general public won't care about the moon until they hear Chinglish being broadcast from it: "Hel-row frwom ta muun"

and

3) I am living in the mid 1970's

 :bleh:

Would you mind sharing the letter with us?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/27/2007 09:59 pm
jml,
Accounting for economies of scale and all the latest numbers I have here, these are the "per lunar mission" comparisons you may be after.

Note that I have capped the yearly program costs for each option below a $7bn "limit" for all options.   The actual limit is more likely to be around $5-6bn.






Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 11/27/2007 10:15 pm
Quote
ACEMANN - 27/11/2007  5:02 PM

For the record, I wrote my state Representative and very carefully laid out my concerns and introduced Direct as a viable option to support the VSE with less risk. I consider myself a good writer and spent quite some time writing the letter, keeping it (no pun) direct and brief. I have yet to receive, at the very least, an automated email over two months later. I live in TN.

Firstly, thank-you very much for being dedicated enough to take the time and write a real letter on our behalf.

Second, don't give up.   Believe me when I say that we *are* being recognized by the political realm.   It has been slow for the last year, but we are noticing a real spike happening over the last few months.

You could perhaps contact your state Representative again to confirm the letter was received.   Any decent representative will make a point to send out a form letter acknowledging the concerns if nothing else, so if you haven't heard anything back it might be a technical hitch rather than deliberately ignoring you.

I think NASA is going to change.   I don't honestly think there's much in the way of a choice.   My biggest concern right now is trying to work out how they want us to 'go away' when they do so - they need to be able to save face without us being a thorn in their side.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: marsavian on 11/27/2007 10:47 pm
Rather than making you go away they should use you guys as design/concept consultants, you have earned it  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 11/27/2007 11:25 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/11/2007  10:30 AM

Even those fixed cost are not applicable if Direct were to fly a non manned mission.  for instance, a telescope

Jim, are you saying that JPL or GSC would only be charged for the incremental cost (i.e. variable cost) of the launch?  That the manned side of NASA is budgeted/assigned 100% of the fixed cost?  If so the Jupiter would be the best game in town for $/kg to LEO for unmanned missions.  It may even be able to beat the actual out of pocket launch cost of the EELV while still having 2x the lift capacity and 8x the volume.  The question would then become could JPL or GSC afford the spacecraft cost that the Jupiter-120 could now lift at a significant discount over the market rate.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 11/27/2007 11:29 pm
Quote
marsavian - 27/11/2007  3:47 PM

Rather than making you go away they should use you guys as design/concept consultants, you have earned it  ;)

I was until I didn’t go along with the current plan.  If you can’t join them……
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/27/2007 11:46 pm
Quote
marsavian - 27/11/2007  6:47 PM

Rather than making you go away they should use you guys as design/concept consultants, you have earned it  ;)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but in reality all we did was update NASA’s own design to NASA’s own current standards and keep it in front of them. This has always been NASA’s design, beginning after the loss of Challenger. Like Ross said, right now our biggest challenge is figuring out how the Administrator would prefer that we behave.

Based on the assumption that a change is made in the direction of the DIRECT architecture, we are perfectly willing to bow out and allow NASA to proceed with this as its own design on their terms with our blessings. It would be nice however if we could get some direction from them in this regard.

I suppose that there will always be a few that will remember who we were, but after time has passed we will be, at most, perhaps a footnote in some obscure volume somewhere, if we are even remembered at all, and we are fine with that. None of us really have any desire for any kind of notoriety about this. It will simply be a matter of personal pride to see it fly. That would be nice.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jml on 11/27/2007 11:47 pm
Ross, that last chart really gets to the point for me.

For $4 billion a year, we get 2 EELV moon missions, 3 Ares I & V moon missions, or 7 J-232 moon missions. If NASA's budget has to continue funding post-2016 ISS operations, or a significant amount of NASA's budget is cut because of other spending priorities of the congress and administration at that time, only one of these architectures will allow NASA to still afford to do manned lunar exploration. Can we all guess which architecture that is?

Now I'm thinking about some really rough numbers for Mars. Given a similar budget of up to $7 billion for launch vehicle operations, and given that a DRM-style 500mT Mars mission needs 5 J-232 or 4 Ares V and 1 Ares I (or 25 Intermediate EELV or 20 Heavy EELV) to launch the needed payload, then how many Mars missions per year fit in the graph? The variable cost here appears to be $1.1 billion/mission for J-232, $1.25 billion/mission for Ares I & V, $3.25 billion/mission for EELV Intermediate, and $3.8 billion/mission for EELV Heavy, without factoring in economies of scale for the EELV's.

I'm guessing that NASA's choice of Ares V may not be the optimum launcher for this mission either.  It looks to me like the answer to the question "what will $7 billion/yr for Mars launches buy?" is one EELV mission, 3 Ares I & V missions, or 4 J-232 missions (assuming we use our entire fictional $7-billion/yr NASA launch budget for nothing other than the fixed and variable costs of Mars mission launches).  Somehow that J-232 has lower costs again for this mission too! Gee, I'm beginning to think that not having to pay for the fixed costs of two launch vehicle programs provides some sort of advantage.

What this really tells me is that the J-232 doesn't have quite as stunning an advantage over Ares V as a Mars mission heavy lifter, but it still does have a cost advantage. With either of these architectures, NASA should be able to afford to launch a full 500 mT Mars mission, plus a significant quantity of backup hardware, plus some Lunar and ISS missions without breaking the bank.  (Assuming that some fairy godmother or 20 years of "go-as-you-pay" has paid for the R & D costs for everything included in that 500 mT of payload).

The cost per kg sure adds up quick for Mars, and shows that we really aren't going to be able to do very many 500mT Mars missions using current EELVs or other lifters with similar payloads.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jml on 11/28/2007 12:07 am
Ross, Chuck, Stephen, Antonio, Philip, and your unnamed collaborators:

What you've done here is clearly the most substantial and influential look at where NASA should be going of this decade. Yes, VSE set out the Moon, Mars, and beyond as the next destinations, but it didn't do much for the how-to. Direct far outweighs ESAS and Constellation in every aspect of the thoroughness of the proposal. It really shows that a little 60-day agency study simply can't be used as the final basis for hundreds of billions of dollars of spending over a generation.

I applaud you for keeping the asking price (VIP launch tickets) for your work modest. I think NASA owes you much more. I can understand that NASA needs to somehow now make Direct into their own plan to save face. But I sure hope that if NASA adopts Direct under whatever name, at least one Senator or two will decide that it would be a good idea to have someone from your team keeping NASA on track.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/28/2007 02:11 pm
Quote
guru - 28/11/2007  10:06 AM

Of course there is more than one variable.   It's a rocket -  and a new low cost one at that.  Even the Delta IV heavy, which cost fifteen times as much as the Falcon I to develop, had a problem on it's first flight and wound up in a lower than planned orbit.  The one variable (granted its more of a missing groups of components) I spoke of is the lack of slosh baffles on the Falcon I second stage.  With those, it would have at least been possible to accomplish a successful orbital insertion on its second flight.  There are bound to be other problems, I'm sure.  But given its small funding, I think SpaceX is doing pretty well.
Please move any further discussion of SpaceX and the Falcon rockets over to the thread that was specifically established for that purpose: Elon Musk Q&A - Updates SpaceX status on Falcon and Dragon.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=9958

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: ACEMANN on 11/28/2007 05:11 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/11/2007  5:15 PM

Quote
ACEMANN - 27/11/2007  5:02 PM

For the record, I wrote my state Representative and very carefully laid out my concerns and introduced Direct as a viable option to support the VSE with less risk. I consider myself a good writer and spent quite some time writing the letter, keeping it (no pun) direct and brief. I have yet to receive, at the very least, an automated email over two months later. I live in TN.

Firstly, thank-you very much for being dedicated enough to take the time and write a real letter on our behalf.

Second, don't give up.   Believe me when I say that we *are* being recognized by the political realm.   It has been slow for the last year, but we are noticing a real spike happening over the last few months.

You could perhaps contact your state Representative again to confirm the letter was received.   Any decent representative will make a point to send out a form letter acknowledging the concerns if nothing else, so if you haven't heard anything back it might be a technical hitch rather than deliberately ignoring you.

I think NASA is going to change.   I don't honestly think there's much in the way of a choice.   My biggest concern right now is trying to work out how they want us to 'go away' when they do so - they need to be able to save face without us being a thorn in their side.

Ross.

I sent the letter via the web link posted on the Direct homepage - since it was more or less an "internal" email it should have made it ok. I didn't save a copy of what I wrote unfortunately, I wish I had now that someone mentioned it. Might have been a good template for those with writer's block  ;)

As an aside I don't know where my post went - weird.

I'll try again when I have time. For the guy that got the letter and phone calls from ATK - WOW! Wish that happened to me.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: James Lowe1 on 11/28/2007 06:02 pm
Thread deleted back to be on topic (not SpaceX etc.)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 11/28/2007 07:34 pm

Looking at the last graph posted I thought that the graph didn't really do a good job of showing the dramatic difference between ARES and DIRECT. I put some rough numbers into a spreadsheet & tried a number things. I have a bar chart that really shows the BIG difference between them.  It shows the number of lunar missions based on number of billions spent (1b, 2b, etc) on launcher costs.

 

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: guru on 11/28/2007 07:37 pm
I'm okay that you deleted the stuff relating to SpaceX (thrilled in fact). but you also deleted one of my posts that dealt with actively writing congress to support the DIRECT concept.  Just be more careful in the future.  That's all I ask.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/28/2007 07:45 pm
Quote
guru - 28/11/2007  3:37 PM

I'm okay that you deleted the stuff relating to SpaceX (thrilled in fact). but you also deleted one of my posts that dealt with actively writing congress to support the DIRECT concept.  Just be more careful in the future.  That's all I ask.
guru;
That's why it’s really incumbent on each of us to be really conscious of staying more or less on topic because the moderators will do exactly what James did; it's their job. I also learned the hard way. Actually, I'm glad that they are so diligent in this because otherwise every thread would quickly become a free-for-all and then NSF would be just another run-of-the-mill blog. But because of what James and the other moderators do, this site is the number one site on the web for discussing things in depth, for which I am thankful.

BTW, I also appreciated what you said about writing to Congress. Thank you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/29/2007 08:00 am
Copied from page 2 of "Ares I and Orion Technical Interchange Meetings complete"
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=10934&start=16&posts=29

Quote
kraisee
   
Posted 28/11/2007 6:59 PM (#217707 - in reply to #216062)

I know this thread is getting seriously off-topic, but there is one scenario where the launcher doesn't have to be *the* largest. A moderately large vehicle will do if you baseline a Propellant Depot architecture.

At that point all you need to lift for any mission is the dry mass and any storeable propellant.

Regular propellant deliveries become a routine and offer business to all commercial players in a pure competitive environment - whoever can get the best $$$ per kg to LEO would get a lot of business.

If your "limit" were 100mT lift, but you could get your propellant topped off in orbit, your vehicles can potentially be gargantuan. Assuming you had sufficient propellant deliveries, a 300mT LSAM is still below the limits of this approach.

It requires only a slightly different view of the situation and the requirements.

Ross.
-----


meiza
   
Posted 28/11/2007 8:22 PM (#217735 - in reply to #217707)


kraisee - 28/11/2007 6:59 PM

| If your "limit" were 100mT lift, {snip}

What is your personal opinion of minimum single block needed? Why 100 t?
    
____________________

kkattula2
   
Posted 29/11/2007 3:26 AM (#217816 - in reply to #217707)

| I agree! Even 40 to 50 mt could be enough.

kkattula2
   
Posted 29/11/2007 3:36 AM (#217821 - in reply to #217676)

bhankiii - 29/11/2007 3:59 AM

kkattula2 - 27/11/2007 9:52 PM

"system wide mitigation strategy" = more mass

i.e YOU NEED A BIGGER ROCKET!

How obvious does it have to get? Bigger rocket = larger mass budget = more margin = simpler, faster and cheaper.

Which one is easier?

Design me a 25mt CSM with accomodation for 6 people, 1.8 km/s dV, and ground landing.
or
Design me a 30mt CSM with accomodation for 6 people, 1.8 km/s dV and ground landing.


That's quite a leap of logic.

Or, we could just verify that our design is sufficient for the projected loads, based on mature load numbers.


If you can do that, without losing functionality, great.

But if you deliver an LEO only Orion/Ares I, you will have failed completely. No buts.
    
______________
A_M_Swallow
   
Posted 29/11/2007 6:56 AM (#217848 - in reply to #217735)

meiza - 28/11/2007 8:22 PM

| What is your personal opinion of minimum single block needed? Why 100 t?


The J-232 can lift 105 mT to LEO in a single launch. This would make 100 mT the standard size for large payloads.
    
_________________

kraisee
   
Posted 29/11/2007 8:03 AM (#217850 - in reply to #217816)


kkattula2 - 28/11/2007 10:26 PM

|| I agree! Even 40 to 50 mt could be enough. ;)


Correct.

A Jupiter-120 could easily launch a 30mT LSAM with only storable propellants (for the RCS and Ascent Stage) and an enlarged 'dry' Centaur Upper Stage to use as an EDS on a single flight.

The Descent Stage would need about 54.3mT of LOX/LH2 and the Centaur would need to be filled with 102.9mT at an orbiting Depot in LEO. This would send an LSAM massing 84.3mT (NET) towards the moon - roughly twice the size of the current LSAM.


But a custom-designed EDS would still provide a much wider range of flexibility.

Ross.

PS - Can we please take further DIRECT-related discussion over to the DIRECT Thread.

Edited by kraisee 29/11/2007 8:27 AM
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula on 11/30/2007 01:18 pm
Odd how any discussion of Ares problems seems to lead back to Direct, isn't it? :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 11/30/2007 01:54 pm
Quote
kkattula - 30/11/2007  9:18 AM

Odd how any discussion of Ares problems seems to lead back to Direct, isn't it? :)
Well, DIRECT was fundamentally designed around addressing the problems that the Ares was experiencing. But it’s worth noting that the Ares design problems were and are a moving target. As some would come up, they are addressed and mitigated, and in the process others would come up to replace them, and the cycle repeats. Ares is still experiencing this to this day. This is a normal condition in designing a new launch vehicle. But when we began, we felt that the magnitude of the problems warranted creating a ‘Plan-B’ for NASA to use, should that prove necessary or even just desirable, and that remains where we are today.

The Jupiter Launch Vehicle Family addresses ALL the concerns that have been encountered as the Ares design process moved forward, and completely mitigated them. In the process we have created an architecture that secures both the near and long term goals of the VSE, places a launch vehicle on the pad by late 2011 that literally doubles the lift capacity of Shuttle, brings the Orion spacecraft online by the fall of 2012, retains the stability and skill level in the STS workforce which is scattered across the nation, can place American astronauts on the lunar surface by 2017/2018, and restores the heavy lift capacity we lost when Saturn was retired. It does all this in such a way that all options are preserved, within reason, without regard to the economic climate of the nation. DIRECT is able to take us to the Moon, Mars and beyond on whatever timetable the Congress authorizes.

The DIRECT architecture stands ready for NASA to adopt, in whatever form it sees fit, should they make the decision to do that. It is a good plan, with a launch vehicle family that will be the envy of every nation on earth for decades to come. We believe that it is quite simply the best possible way forward to support the near and long term goals of the VSE.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: ACEMANN on 11/30/2007 05:55 pm
Quote
James Lowe1 - 28/11/2007  1:02 PM

Thread deleted back to be on topic (not SpaceX etc.)

I do not understand - my post about sending a message to my state Rep in support of Direct was off-topic? No harm really since Kraisee replied in time, but I need clarification.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/01/2007 03:00 am
Quote
kkattula - 30/11/2007  9:18 AM

Odd how any discussion of Ares problems seems to lead back to Direct, isn't it? :)

Yes, it is quite amazing.

I believe it is because what we term as the "Jupiter-120" is just the simplest and most "Direct" evolution of the existing Shuttle hardware into a new launcher which fulfills all the performance, safety, cost, schedule and political requirements for ISS, Lunar and Mars needs.

While it clearly does take a rocket scientist to come up with, it actually doesn't require a brain surgeon to conceive of :)   The core 'concept' is really quite simple when you get down to it.

I am quite unsurprised that this design (call it Jupiter, NLS, LV-24/25 or whatever) is the "normal" design where people end up whenever the question of "what do we do if Ares-I doesn't work" comes up - it is just the most logical result of following the path of turning Shuttle into a more cost effective vehicle.

I just hope that Griffin's comment at the Heinlein Centenial this July 16th that "Good ideas, in the long run, sell themselves" remains accurate.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 12/03/2007 04:17 pm
Quote
kraisee - 30/11/2007  10:00 PM

Quote
kkattula - 30/11/2007  9:18 AM

Odd how any discussion of Ares problems seems to lead back to Direct, isn't it? :)

Yes, it is quite amazing.

I believe it is because what we term as the "Jupiter-120" is just the simplest and most "Direct" evolution of the existing Shuttle hardware into a new launcher which fulfills all the performance, safety, cost, schedule and political requirements for ISS, Lunar and Mars needs.

While it clearly does take a rocket scientist to come up with, it actually doesn't require a brain surgeon to conceive of :)   The core 'concept' is really quite simple when you get down to it.

I am quite unsurprised that this design (call it Jupiter, NLS, LV-24/25 or whatever) is the "normal" design where people end up whenever the question of "what do we do if Ares-I doesn't work" comes up - it is just the most logical result of following the path of turning Shuttle into a more cost effective vehicle.

I just hope that Griffin's comment at the Heinlein Centenial this July 16th that "Good ideas, in the long run, sell themselves" remains accurate.

Ross.

Read the thread about the GAO report on here a couple days ago, but heard a stink about it on the radio this morning here in Houston....  Ya know this kinda sounds like it could be the beginning of 'softening up' kinda finger pointing type noise they could use as a reason to switch to something else....  Maybe nothing, maybe a longshot, but then again....  this is exactly what I'd expect to precede any changes, if any were ever made....  Convient 'studies' get released showing problems that the politicians don't want to spend money on, 'forcing' a change of some sort, so switching to something else can be justified... Possible if not probable I guess... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 12/04/2007 05:14 am
Quote
luke strawwalker - 3/12/2007  12:17 PM

Quote
kraisee - 30/11/2007  10:00 PM

Quote
kkattula - 30/11/2007  9:18 AM

Odd how any discussion of Ares problems seems to lead back to Direct, isn't it? :)

Yes, it is quite amazing.

I believe it is because what we term as the "Jupiter-120" is just the simplest and most "Direct" evolution of the existing Shuttle hardware into a new launcher which fulfills all the performance, safety, cost, schedule and political requirements for ISS, Lunar and Mars needs.

While it clearly does take a rocket scientist to come up with, it actually doesn't require a brain surgeon to conceive of :)   The core 'concept' is really quite simple when you get down to it.

I am quite unsurprised that this design (call it Jupiter, NLS, LV-24/25 or whatever) is the "normal" design where people end up whenever the question of "what do we do if Ares-I doesn't work" comes up - it is just the most logical result of following the path of turning Shuttle into a more cost effective vehicle.

I just hope that Griffin's comment at the Heinlein Centenial this July 16th that "Good ideas, in the long run, sell themselves" remains accurate.

Ross.

Read the thread about the GAO report on here a couple days ago, but heard a stink about it on the radio this morning here in Houston....  Ya know this kinda sounds like it could be the beginning of 'softening up' kinda finger pointing type noise they could use as a reason to switch to something else....  Maybe nothing, maybe a longshot, but then again....  this is exactly what I'd expect to precede any changes, if any were ever made....  Convient 'studies' get released showing problems that the politicians don't want to spend money on, 'forcing' a change of some sort, so switching to something else can be justified... Possible if not probable I guess... OL JR :)

I sure hope so. But what is alarming right now is that the blame for the VSE's problems right now is being placed on Orion. This is just completely nuts, as the redesigns of Orion are directly related to Ares I's issues. Had DIRECT been in place there would have been no need to start shedding weight.

I'm hoping that this turns out to not be NASA's official stance on the issue, as if they do place the blame on Orion, we are in very serious trouble.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 12/04/2007 07:40 am
Okay, with the Ares I problems becoming more concrete, how likely is it that NASA will scrap Ares I and adopt the Jupiter 120 or some derivative? How deep have they dug?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: John Duncan on 12/04/2007 11:27 am
It would seem on the outside that they are so determined not to change from Ares I that they would compromise the Orion's capabilities regardless of the consequences.  Let's hope they go for "Ares II" and it's the Direct proposal.

I just hope that the "Not Invented Here" bugaboo doesn't keep that from happening.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JonSBerndt on 12/04/2007 12:22 pm
Quote
John Duncan - 4/12/2007  6:27 AM

It would seem on the outside that they are so determined not to change from Ares I that they would compromise the Orion's capabilities regardless of the consequences.  Let's hope they go for "Ares II" and it's the Direct proposal.

I just hope that the "Not Invented Here" bugaboo doesn't keep that from happening.

But it ("Direct", LV24/25, etc.) largely was "invented there".

Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 12/04/2007 02:15 pm
Quote
Michael Bloxham - 4/12/2007  12:40 AM

Okay, with the Ares I problems becoming more concrete, how likely is it that NASA will scrap Ares I and adopt the Jupiter 120 or some derivative? How deep have they dug?

The first rule of holes……If you are in one, stop digging.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 12/04/2007 02:21 pm
Quote
JonSBerndt - 4/12/2007  5:22 AM

Quote
John Duncan - 4/12/2007  6:27 AM

It would seem on the outside that they are so determined not to change from Ares I that they would compromise the Orion's capabilities regardless of the consequences.  Let's hope they go for "Ares II" and it's the Direct proposal.

I just hope that the "Not Invented Here" bugaboo doesn't keep that from happening.

But it ("Direct", LV24/25, etc.) largely was "invented there".

Jon

It was ultimately a bias towards the Ares-I that prevent NASA following the path that DIRECT detailed (i.e. LV-24/25 or Jupiter-120/232).  In addition, all the work that has gone into DIRECT would have not been possible without a lot of help/advice of NASA experts and contractors.  With that in mind the DIRECT team’s efforts at detailing the NASA ESAS LV-24/25 concept is more of a non-paid unofficial NASA study.

Further, Jupiter will only fly one day due to the collective efforts of thousands over many years at NASA and its contractors so it will be a NASA concept from start to finish.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 12/04/2007 02:43 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 3/12/2007  12:14 AM


I sure hope so. But what is alarming right now is that the blame for the VSE's problems right now is being placed on Orion. This is just completely nuts, as the redesigns of Orion are directly related to Ares I's issues. Had DIRECT been in place there would have been no need to start shedding weight.

I'm hoping that this turns out to not be NASA's official stance on the issue, as if they do place the blame on Orion, we are in very serious trouble.

Yep I noticed that too... and really it IS nuts... Cutting the capabilities of the spacecraft because the launcher isn't cutting it is basically cutting off your nose to spite your face.  After all, the spacecraft being able to have the capabilities and flexibility to perform it's mission is the whole point.  If not for the spacecraft, there would be NO purpose for the booster whatsoever.  There is no 'cargo' Ares I anymore (that proposal lasted about what, ten minutes?)  and wouldn't make much sense anyway since we already have that capability in other boosters.  

It'd be like the military buying the fastest and longest range bomber ever invented, but there's one small problem... It can't carry any bombs....  But it's GOING to be the bomber for the new millenium, not a reconnaissance plane, not a fighter, not a tanker, a BOMBER.... if the darn bombs weren't so heavy the bomber could carry them....  See what insane thinking this is??  Hitler did the same thing, insisting the Me-262 be a bomber instead of a fighter that nobody else on this earth could match... and diverting the resources of the German aircraft industry to bombers when they didn't even have control of their own skies, from which any such bombers that HAD been developed would have been shot down by Allied fighters... nuts....

It's like blaming your RV for being too big because you bought a Chevy S-10 pickup and it can't pull it, instead of buying a Chevy 2500 three quarter ton pickup that could do the job... just plain nuts...

BTW I think NASA is more than willing to keep chopping capabilities off Orion until it's a bean can that can barely stagger into LEO on a wimpy Ares I that can barely stumble high enough or fast enough to drop it off with any chance of making orbit, and it will be SO stripped down it can't do anything when it gets there, let alone anywhere else.... just a cynic I guess but that's what my gut tells me.... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 12/04/2007 03:01 pm
Am I correct in assuming the only reason Orion has to be as big as it is is so it can get back from Lunar orbit by itself? And that if the LEO crew ferry function was separated from the TEI propulsion function, a 10mT CSM would be fine?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 12/04/2007 04:32 pm
I think John Young and Co said implied they wouldn't mind if it were smaller than 5 m for four persons, but I'm not sure about this. Anyway what he (and I think others) did say was that Apollo CM spaciousness was just fine. The diameter was 3.9 m, for three persons.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HarryM on 12/04/2007 04:58 pm
I think the main thing with diameter was ability to carry 6 (ISS/Mars) w/o "stacking" the crew, which is not desirable in a hard-landing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Gunther on 12/05/2007 11:37 pm
I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find it, but what are you all assuming the non recurring for Direct is vs. the combination of Ares I and Ares V?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MrTim on 12/06/2007 09:31 am
Quote
meiza - 4/12/2007  9:32 AM
I think John Young and Co said implied they wouldn't mind if it were smaller than 5 m for four persons, but I'm not sure about this. Anyway what he (and I think others) did say was that Apollo CM spaciousness was just fine. The diameter was 3.9 m, for three persons.
And it was fine for three similar American male pilots going on a flag-planting and photo-op trip... but Orion is going to be hauling 4-member mixed-gender crews with mixed backgrounds, nationalities, and sensibilities for the purpose of establishing and then manning a moon base. It's a different thing doing a different job.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 12/06/2007 01:49 pm
I think Mr Tim is delicately alluding to the lack of toilet facilities in Apollo. I agree that an on-board toilet is a must-have.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/06/2007 10:06 pm
Quote
Gunther - 5/12/2007  7:37 PM

I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find it, but what are you all assuming the non recurring for Direct is vs. the combination of Ares I and Ares V?

I'm away from my files right now, but the big numbers are in the order of:

Ares-I: $800m
Ares-V: $1,200m (a third stge would increase this)
EDS: $900m


Jupiter:$1,000m
EDS: $900m


Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Gunther on 12/06/2007 11:22 pm
Ross, thank you for the reply.  Are your above numbers intended as non recurring or recurring?  I read recently that NASA is pegging Ares I development at about $14B.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/06/2007 11:34 pm
Quote
Gunther - 6/12/2007  7:22 PM

Ross, thank you for the reply.  Are your above numbers intended as non recurring or recurring?  I read recently that NASA is pegging Ares I development at about $14B.

As requested, those were the non-recurring costs only.

CBO said $14.5bn for full-wrap development of Ares-I.   Ares-V is expected to be another $12bn, plus the cost of the EDS.

Jupiter-120 would be under $10bn - largely because of the closer re-use of STS infrastructure and the deletion of two new engine develpment projects.   EDS would be another $6-7bn extra including J-2X development.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Namechange User on 12/07/2007 12:14 am
Quote
MrTim - 6/12/2007  4:31 AM

And it was fine for three similar American male pilots going on a flag-planting and photo-op trip... but Orion is going to be hauling 4-member mixed-gender crews with mixed backgrounds, nationalities, and sensibilities for the purpose of establishing and then manning a moon base. It's a different thing doing a different job.


My goodness.  Did the ACLU write that post for you?  I know in these overly PC times it is a bad thing to be male and American and really bad to be both, but it is possible that Orion will carry an all-male, American, crew too.  It's not like like the engines won't ignite if the PC mixture ratio of gender and ethnicity is not correct.....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 12/07/2007 02:37 am
Quote
William Barton - 4/12/2007  10:01 AM

Am I correct in assuming the only reason Orion has to be as big as it is is so it can get back from Lunar orbit by itself? And that if the LEO crew ferry function was separated from the TEI propulsion function, a 10mT CSM would be fine?

Well, there was a line of thinking in posts from about a year or so ago that said that the main reason Orion is the size it was originally baselined at was so that it was just too big and heavy to launch on EELV's.  Remember Orion started out at 5.5 meters, not the 5.0 meters it is now.  ESAS IIRC came up with the 'magic' number that it had to be 5.5 meters and it had to be able to carry 6 crew to ISS and 4 crew lunar, and be capable of 6 from Mars, and that it just HAD to be 5.5 meters to be capable of doing that.  As the design progressed on both Ares I and Orion, suddenly it was decided that 5.0 meter Orion COULD do the job (because of Ares I didn't have a snowball's chance of lifting a 5.5 meter capsule??).  It's been all downhill since.  Some have argued that even 5.0 meters could be downsized again to 4.5 meters; it would save weight and cut into the cabin space, but it's possible (so they say) and we're not talking about a princess cruise here, nor orbiting earth for a couple weeks in the thing....  

BUT, if Orion shrunk that much and saved that much weight then the legitimate argument is, "well, this thing is WELL within the capabilities of EELV's, so why are we spending untold billions developing the stick??"  And rightfully so, I might add.  For whatever reason (another interesting line of debate hashed out over the course of a LOT of posts) is that the choice of Ares I is a foregone conclusion preselected from the get-go and everything else (ESAS) was window dressing to justify that decision, and from the history of the design choices made so far there isn't much capability they AREN'T willing to strip out of Orion to make it light enough for Ares I to lift it.  The decision making in this regard HAS been nuts, because if the Orion is too stripped to perform it's mission (remember it's SUPPOSED to be a Moon-Mars ship that just incidentally is used for ISS as well, NOT the other way around) then what's the purpose??  If there is no Orion then what purpose does Ares I serve??  As I said the 'cargo' version of Ares I I to ISS was scrapped before it got beyond the powerpoint stage.  If Ares I cannot lift a safe lunar capable Orion then ARES I SHOULD BE SCRAPPED.  Just that simple.  The booster exists to lift the spacecraft... the spacecraft DOES NOT exist to give the booster something to do.  This kind of bass-ackward thinking is what got us the multi billion dollar boondoggle ISS to 'give the shuttle a reason to exist and something to do' and ended up turning into the mess we have now; shuttle having proved it's aging and vulnerability and need to be phased out, and yet we HAVE to keep it going for awhile to finish the boondoggle we created to keep it alive even though we'd rather not, because there's no way to finish the thing without it...

What a tangled web we weave...  And from the decisions I've seen so far, nothing in that mindset has changed....  Same flawed priorities leading to the same flawed designs and when it's all said and done, in 20 years everybody will be standing around scratching thier heads wondering,"how the h3ll did this happen??"  JMHO!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lampyridae on 12/07/2007 04:20 am
As far as I can gather, the 5.5m baseline was so that astronauts could stand up in a CEV *on the lunar surface* to suit up. A bigger Orion also means peak heat loads on the order of 1000W/cm2, as opposed to 300W/cm2 for Apollo. plus worse G-forces. Shrinking it is a good idea for lunar return.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MrTim on 12/07/2007 04:32 am
Quote
anonymous - 6/12/2007  6:49 AM
I think Mr Tim is delicately alluding to the lack of toilet facilities in Apollo. I agree that an on-board toilet is a must-have.
That was only one of many issues I was alluding to. With different mixes of gender and culture, people are likely to need a little more "personal space". For example, if you have a western woman and a Muslim man together on a mission, there may be a need to provide a plausible sense of privacy for political reasons involving populations back on Earth (not that the Muslim astronaut might demand it, but that it might be necessary to avoid PR problems). Also, once we have a moon base up-and-running, it may become appropriate to take people like geologists there who would certainly be trained as astronauts, but would possibly be a little less hardcore than the men who rode Apollo. I think if you contemplate the next two or three decades of manned spaceflight and the people and missions Orion might see, you can probably come up with more reasons why an Apollo-size capsule would be inadequate. The obvious thing is to carry more supplies and bulkier equipment etc., but this forum tends to dwell on hardware, so I mentioned the human-related issues to draw a little attention to them. Personally, I think Orion started-out too small as a platform for the next 30 years... the only thing that made it reasonable is that it is planned to team with a big LSAM launched on a bigger rocket for non-ISS flights (and that has long been something I have seen as a weak-point in the Direct architecture...not to start a fight; I have mentioned this before to either Ross or Chuck and somewhere on this site they have replied).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MrTim on 12/07/2007 04:50 am
Quote
OV-106 - 6/12/2007  5:14 PM
Quote
MrTim - 6/12/2007  4:31 AM
And it was fine for three similar American male pilots going on a flag-planting and photo-op trip... but Orion is going to be hauling 4-member mixed-gender crews with mixed backgrounds, nationalities, and sensibilities for the purpose of establishing and then manning a moon base. It's a different thing doing a different job.
My goodness.  Did the ACLU write that post for you?  I know in these overly PC times it is a bad thing to be male and American and really bad to be both, but it is possible that Orion will carry an all-male, American, crew too.  It's not like like the engines won't ignite if the PC mixture ratio of gender and ethnicity is not correct.....
No, I think you misunderstood. In the Apollo era, we were in a race to plant a flag and all else was secondary. The people  chosen to be trained to fly on Apollo could be chosen to fit the rocket; male test pilots of certain heights and weights who could stand sharing a phone booth for a few days, etc. Orion needs to be more-suited to a slightly more random portion of the human race, like the orbiters are. Men and women will fly on it in mixed crews. People of varying backgrounds and nationalities are likely to fly on it (particularly to ISS, but it is almost certain to haul some non-US astronauts to the moon on some flights). This means that Orion actually has some tougher design requirements than Apollo (extra complications which might not occur to somebody focused too-tightly on hardware systems). Having said all of that, you touched upon something we all know to be true: Even if there were some constraint that could be more-easily overcome by (for example) going back to all-male all-test-pilot crews, this would not be done. NASA needs all the political and popular support it can get and it benefits from having crews that visually "represent" all sorts of constituencies. This has little to do with the ACLU or being PC... it has to do with basic politics of an agency that needs the support of all American taxpayers/voters.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2007 10:45 am
Quote
Lampyridae - 7/12/2007  12:20 AM

As far as I can gather, the 5.5m baseline was so that astronauts could stand up in a CEV *on the lunar surface* to suit up. A bigger Orion also means peak heat loads on the order of 1000W/cm2, as opposed to 300W/cm2 for Apollo. plus worse G-forces. Shrinking it is a good idea for lunar return.


Huh?

CEV is not going to the lunar surface
How are the heat loads higher?  They are the same.  So are G loads
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/07/2007 11:19 am
Quote
MrTim - 7/12/2007  12:32 AM

Personally, I think Orion started-out too small as a platform for the next 30 years... the only thing that made it reasonable is that it is planned to team with a big LSAM launched on a bigger rocket for non-ISS flights (and that has long been something I have seen as a weak-point in the Direct architecture...not to start a fight; I have mentioned this before to either Ross or Chuck and somewhere on this site they have replied).
While you will never get NASA to actually use these words, the truth of the matter is that Orion is designed to fly with what amounts to a “Mission Module” that would contain all the necessary living space and amenities for a mixed gender international crew. The LSAM is essentially such a Mission Module. Orion never flies by itself except to a LEO destination, such as the ISS, where all those conditions exist. One needs to remember that Orion is essentially just a “taxi”, designed to ferry its crew from the ground to the destination and back, whether it’s the ISS or a waiting LSAM or any other module that it will attach to. It carries a crew of 6 so it needs to be reasonably comfortable, but it is still just a big taxi. Living space and amenities are always provided in the destination, not in the taxi. Orion always flies "to" somewhere, and will never go into space for a solo mission, except for the initial shakedown missions, without something to dock to. It is just a big expensive taxi cab.

As far as the DIRECT architecture goes, it was never our intention to engage in a design effort for Orion, but rather to provide a launching capability for whatever design NASA settled on for the spacecraft. If we had wanted to also do a spacecraft design, it would have been very different from the current NASA design, but that was not and is not our goal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2007 11:43 am
Quote
clongton - 7/12/2007  7:19 AM


While you will never get NASA to actually use these words, the truth of the matter is that Orion is designed to fly with what amounts to a “Mission Module” that would contain all the necessary living space and amenities for a mixed gender international crew. The LSAM is essentially such a Mission Module. Orion never flies by itself except to a LEO destination, such as the ISS, where all those conditions exist. One needs to remember that Orion is essentially just a “taxi”, designed to ferry its crew from the ground to the destination and back, whether it’s the ISS or a waiting LSAM or any other module that it will attach to. Ioal.

I would call the ISS a mission module
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/07/2007 12:27 pm
Quote
Jim - 7/12/2007  7:43 AM

Quote
clongton - 7/12/2007  7:19 AM


While you will never get NASA to actually use these words, the truth of the matter is that Orion is designed to fly with what amounts to a “Mission Module” that would contain all the necessary living space and amenities for a mixed gender international crew. The LSAM is essentially such a Mission Module. Orion never flies by itself except to a LEO destination, such as the ISS, where all those conditions exist. One needs to remember that Orion is essentially just a “taxi”, designed to ferry its crew from the ground to the destination and back, whether it’s the ISS or a waiting LSAM or any other module that it will attach to.

I would call the ISS a mission module
I would also consider the ISS a mission module. And there will eventually be others that replace it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 12/07/2007 02:41 pm
Quote
Jim - 7/12/2007  5:45 AM

Quote
Lampyridae - 7/12/2007  12:20 AM

As far as I can gather, the 5.5m baseline was so that astronauts could stand up in a CEV *on the lunar surface* to suit up. A bigger Orion also means peak heat loads on the order of 1000W/cm2, as opposed to 300W/cm2 for Apollo. plus worse G-forces. Shrinking it is a good idea for lunar return.


Huh?

CEV is not going to the lunar surface
How are the heat loads higher?  They are the same.  So are G loads

Once upon a time it was... but that lasted about ten minutes, for the same reason the direct lunar landing in your earth return capsule was abandoned in the early days of Apollo--- simply too much weight to drag all the way from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the moon and back again...  Makes everything hopelessly too big.  I read about the early proposals for Orion landing on the moon.  Didn't anybody learn ANY lessons from Apollo??  (shrugs)  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2007 02:49 pm
Quote
luke strawwalker - 7/12/2007  10:41 AM

Quote
Jim - 7/12/2007  5:45 AM

Quote
Lampyridae - 7/12/2007  12:20 AM

As far as I can gather, the 5.5m baseline was so that astronauts could stand up in a CEV *on the lunar surface* to suit up. A bigger Orion also means peak heat loads on the order of 1000W/cm2, as opposed to 300W/cm2 for Apollo. plus worse G-forces. Shrinking it is a good idea for lunar return.


Huh?

CEV is not going to the lunar surface
How are the heat loads higher?  They are the same.  So are G loads

Once upon a time it was... but that lasted about ten minutes, for the same reason the direct lunar landing in your earth return capsule was abandoned in the early days of Apollo--- simply too much weight to drag all the way from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the moon and back again...  Makes everything hopelessly too big.  I read about the early proposals for Orion landing on the moon.  Didn't anybody learn ANY lessons from Apollo??  (shrugs)  OL JR :)

Not the CEV as part of the VSE/ESAS
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 12/07/2007 03:10 pm
Quote
Jim - 7/12/2007  9:49 AM

Quote
luke strawwalker - 7/12/2007  10:41 AM

Quote
Jim - 7/12/2007  5:45 AM

Quote
Lampyridae - 7/12/2007  12:20 AM

As far as I can gather, the 5.5m baseline was so that astronauts could stand up in a CEV *on the lunar surface* to suit up. A bigger Orion also means peak heat loads on the order of 1000W/cm2, as opposed to 300W/cm2 for Apollo. plus worse G-forces. Shrinking it is a good idea for lunar return.


Huh?

CEV is not going to the lunar surface
How are the heat loads higher?  They are the same.  So are G loads

Once upon a time it was... but that lasted about ten minutes, for the same reason the direct lunar landing in your earth return capsule was abandoned in the early days of Apollo--- simply too much weight to drag all the way from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the moon and back again...  Makes everything hopelessly too big.  I read about the early proposals for Orion landing on the moon.  Didn't anybody learn ANY lessons from Apollo??  (shrugs)  OL JR :)

Not the CEV as part of the VSE/ESAS

Probably pre-ESAS but I distinctly remember reading it, and it was a driving requirement for the 5.5 meter capsule.  Lampy was right in his assertion that it was decided they needed the room to suit up on the moon.  I read so much I can't tell you exactly where but I do remember reading it... JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: madscientist197 on 12/08/2007 01:45 pm
I think I'm interrupting the discussion just a little bit, but I've just downloaded the Direct AIAA paper and I'd like to give a bit of (hopefully constructive feedback). I think I've seen some discussion on this elsewhere on this site, so I hope this isn't too belated. While I think that Direct is the best option at the moment, there are a number of issues with the paper (IMHO) that may have been to your detriment.

Fairly trivial (but have a very large impact in practice as far as impressions go):
* Spelling mistakes (e.g. 'being' turning into 'begin' on figure 8)
* Incorrect figure captions
* Excessive Capitalisation Of Initial Characters
* Excessive use of 'quotation marks'.
* Difficult to read graphs (e.g. some of the abort trajectory graphs are a bit hard to read, perhaps there could be more explanatory captions).
* Poor diagrams - e.g. figure 4 - does the propellant depot magically disappear and the propellant spontaneously appear in the EDS tanks? The diagram on it's own would be pretty hard for someone with little background to understand due to a missing step/phase.
* Some sections of the paper read very differently from others, it seems indicative that the sections were written by different people. While this is not that bad, it doesn't help.
* On the whole, your references do not fill me with confidence e.g. Wikipedia, Farquhar halo orbit article which is referenced as only being on the internet (wasn't it actually published somewhere?!). I would guess that this was probably symptomatic of lack of adequate preparation time, although some people might suspect that it was lack of credibility.

More important:
* Attempting to push too many ideas at once (e.g. Lagrange rendezvous etc.)
* Not identifying ideas as future possibilities of less importance and concentrating on more easily realisable (read as politically realisable) ideas (e.g. give more prominence to simple LOR architectures etc.). Propellant depots may be very important to the future of space flight, but putting them in the first Direct architecture you mention is a bad idea. Ideally you want to have the simplest possible architecture and develop from there, putting anything that hasn't been done before a little later in the sequence.
* Nice graphics without any follow-up. It's one thing to say there are all these possibilities for a Jupiter 2xx upper stage and show some graphics, but you really should not bother with fancy graphics without giving definite figures on the varying performances (or at least a bit more information, maybe a small graph or a payload to orbit or something). Otherwise it just seems like fluff.
* My instinct is to compare it with documents written by NASA and while I can understand that it is not necessarily written for exactly the same audience as ESAS (and nor do you have the same resources for either the production of the document or the underlying studies) it came off as far too conversational. Perhaps a little more restraint as far as use of shortened words such as "it's" and trying to make sentences a little more to the point (I'm inclined to say terse, but that might also suggest being excessively compact). I know that you need it to be easily readable, but the introductory sections in particular need some polishing to make them seem a bit more credible.
* While I totally agree with the observations you have made, I suspect the discussion of 'Saganite, von Braunian, or O’Neillian' approaches is more of a turn-off than anything. This could probably be easily rectified by lessening the importance of the various historical personalities, perhaps using them as examples of people with the particular viewpoint, but without naming the various archetypes after them.

I hope these comments are taken as an attempt to help improve the Direct proposal documentation, rather than as an attempt to be destructive. :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 12/08/2007 04:36 pm
Thank you madscientist197 you have pointed out many of the issues I had with the proposal. I was disappointed with the overall quality of the proposal. I was also very disappointed with it's lack of focus on DIRECT and the introduction of off topic things like alternate moon mission architectures and orbital refueling.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 12/08/2007 06:08 pm
The sheer size of the paper is overwhelming.  There is no way a congresman or staffer would read all this.  A much abbreviated version of the paper would be quite useful.  Something on the order of a half dozen pages, a dozen at the most, focusing on  Directs answer to existing ARES design & mission plans.    It wouldn't hurt to state some of the additional possibilites with direct but without the details.  

 This is a personal preference but I feel the line charts are a little fuzzy in showing differences and trends of the line items shown.   Bar charts allow you to focus in on specific points and quantitfy the differences.   Look at reviews of variaous computer components (such as video cards).  They nearly always use bar charts.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 12/08/2007 07:24 pm
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 8/12/2007  9:36 AM

Thank you madscientist197 you have pointed out many of the issues I had with the proposal. I was disappointed with the overall quality of the proposal. I was also very disappointed with it's lack of focus on DIRECT and the introduction of off topic things like alternate moon mission architectures and orbital refueling.

Norm and John, the title and the focus of the paper was submitted more as a counter point to ESAS which goes beyond the Ares-I/V vs. Jupiter-120/232 debate of DIRECT.  The AIAA Horizons article is more focused on that aspect.

We have received very positive comments because we went beyond DIRECT and into the objectives of the VSE which helps tie in the fact that 25mT per launch using EELV is not going to cut it.  Overall everyone gets too focused on the launch system and forgets that most of the cost is in spacecraft and operations.  The importance of the launch system is its ability to lower the development and operational cost associated with forcing 10kg of stuff in 5kg box.  While technology will play an important role in lowering the IMLEO we should be under no illusion that we won’t need some serious lift and volume capacity.  That is unless doing laps in LEO for the next forty years is our objective.

Our overall objective was to improve how the ISS, Lunar, and Mars efforts work together in a cohesive plan.  Even our current plan though is nowhere near where it needs to be to actually achieve the goals of the VSE.  Our 2007 paper was a big improvement though over 2006 because of the additional help and constructive criticism.  2008 will be even better for the same reason.

BTW, we are always looking for help in whatever capacity.  Our secret weapon is that we all think we can actually be wrong.  131 pages is a lot room for mistakes after all and we just didn’t have the time to do as much review as we would have liked.

I’d like to build in a lot more time for editing/review for the next cycle.  Basically we wrote the equivalent of 10 AIAA Space papers in only 3 months for the 2007 paper.

It’s important to remember that everyone has a different view on the relative importance of each section and topic we went into.

It’s also important to remember that NASA is out spending us by at least 10 million to 1.  Even with this resource advantage the DIRECT is about 2-3 years ahead of the current plan for the reasons identified in the GAO report.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: madscientist197 on 12/08/2007 11:59 pm
Quote
SMetch - 8/12/2007  9:24 AM
Basically we wrote the equivalent of 10 AIAA Space papers in only 3 months for the 2007 paper.

Wow! That's impressive.

I can see where you're coming from - all the information and ideas not in ESAS etc. helps to make it an interesting proposal. IMHO it's not about omitting any of that, but maybe organising the paper a bit better, having a proper executive summary of the whole document at the start (preferably something that could stand alone - perhaps this is a bit like what Jim (veedriver22) was saying).

Anyway, it's all very well for me to criticise this considering that I didn't do anything to contribute :o. So if you need someone to help proofread the next document (maybe offer yet another conflicting opinion about the importance of different sections ;) or something similar) I would certainly be interested.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: George CA on 12/09/2007 08:22 pm
Any ECO impacts with Direct?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 12/09/2007 08:46 pm
Quote
George CA - 9/12/2007  4:22 PM

Any ECO impacts with Direct?

They would have different redundancy requirements and also a different set since the bottom of the tank is redesigned
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Justin Space on 12/10/2007 07:55 am
Quote
Jim - 9/12/2007  3:46 PM

Quote
George CA - 9/12/2007  4:22 PM

Any ECO impacts with Direct?

They would have different redundancy requirements and also a different set since the bottom of the tank is redesigned

Good, we don't want ECO issues past Shuttle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/10/2007 08:09 pm
Several other threads keep broaching the subject of carrying “extra” propellant to LEO on an otherwise dedicated launch vehicle that could be “scavenged” by a “tug” of some sort and used to replenish an orbital propellant depot, rather than dedicating propellant flights for that purpose. That way you get a “free ride” for the propellant because the launcher is going up anyway. This assumes, of course, that the launch vehicle has the “excess capacity” (margin) to do this.

I recall that previously a lot of people were wondering what to do with the so-called excess capacity of the Jupiter-120 when it is “only” flying Orion to LEO. Let’s see; 47mT capacity minus 23mT spacecraft leaves 24mT of “excess capacity”. Why not use that “margin” to bring 20mT of propellant up along with Orion? The Jupiter would inject the spacecraft directly into a circular orbit, the spacecraft would separate from the Jupiter, and then the Jupiter just “waits” for the “tug” in orbit. The automated “tug” could rendezvous with the Jupiter, extract the propellant tanker, and ferry it to the depot. Then the Jupiter would de-orbit itself for atmospheric disposal. Clean and simple. Of course, this assumes a propellant depot and automated tug in LEO. But I feel confident those will both eventually become a reality. Two normal Jupiter/Orion flights to LEO offloads enough propellant to the depot this way to be the equivalent of a dedicated Jupiter propellant flight. Three missions for two launches, and 40mT of propellant is infused into the depot.

Just a thought, fwiw.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 12/10/2007 08:40 pm
I don't think that NASA is going to like the crew sitting on top of 20 mt of explosives. In theory it works, but I just don't think it it practical.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/10/2007 08:46 pm
Quote
Marsman - 10/12/2007  4:40 PM

I don't think that NASA is going to like the crew sitting on top of 20 mt of explosives. In theory it works, but I just don't think it it practical.
They're already sitting on top of a lot more than that. Besides, it could even be only LOX.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gospacex on 12/10/2007 09:06 pm
Quote
George CA - 9/12/2007  3:22 PM
Any ECO impacts with Direct?

1. Well, with tens of tons of margin on LEO-bound flight, [insert evil Shaft-mocking laugh here :) ], Jupiter may be loaded with tons of extra propellant and need no stinking ECO sensors.

2. Even worst case scenario - burn to depletion on an ELV first stage - is likely to end up with engine damage and even explosion, but unlike "beloved" Shuttle it is not a LOC event! Who cares what happens to the rear end of *expendable* stage if it cannot damage crew module?

3. After all, those damn sensors should be just fixed to work reliably. Why it's such a big problem?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 12/10/2007 09:24 pm

Quote
clongton - 10/12/2007 4:46 PM
Quote
Marsman - 10/12/2007 4:40 PM I don't think that NASA is going to like the crew sitting on top of 20 mt of explosives. In theory it works, but I just don't think it it practical.
They're already sitting on top of a lot more than that. Besides, it could even be only LOX.

 Well yeah, but at least there is the spacecraft adaptor between them (although it probably won't make a difference) :) . Would NASA fly comsats on a shuttle flight with extra room? 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: neviden on 12/10/2007 09:39 pm
Quote
clongton - 10/12/2007  10:09 PM
I recall that previously a lot of people were wondering what to do with the so-called excess capacity of the Jupiter-120 when it is “only” flying Orion to LEO. Let’s see; 47mT capacity minus 23mT spacecraft leaves 24mT of “excess capacity”. Why not use that “margin” to bring 20mT of propellant up along with Orion?
Why not skip Jupiter-120 and build only Jupiter-232. Use “excess capacity” for propellant flight. Maybe even add a big thick ballistic shield to the top of an upper stage to protect Orion from the shrapnel of exploding lower stages (if they would blow up). There would be more then enough capacity for it.

Dry lander in LEO could easily use lots and lots of this “excess propellant” to far exceed even the Ares V capacity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 12/10/2007 10:57 pm
Quote
neviden - 10/12/2007  5:39 PM

Quote
clongton - 10/12/2007  10:09 PM
I recall that previously a lot of people were wondering what to do with the so-called excess capacity of the Jupiter-120 when it is “only” flying Orion to LEO. Let’s see; 47mT capacity minus 23mT spacecraft leaves 24mT of “excess capacity”. Why not use that “margin” to bring 20mT of propellant up along with Orion?
Why not skip Jupiter-120 and build only Jupiter-232. Use “excess capacity” for propellant flight. Maybe even add a big thick ballistic shield to the top of an upper stage to protect Orion from the shrapnel of exploding lower stages (if they would blow up). There would be more then enough capacity for it.

Dry lander in LEO could easily use lots and lots of this “excess propellant” to far exceed even the Ares V capacity.

Well really long development time, up front costs.  Not to mention overkill when it comes to station access.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: neviden on 12/10/2007 11:47 pm
Well.. Once Jupiter-232 and propellant transfer would be developed and tested, it would be foolish to pass an opportunity to deliver all that extra propellant to LEO for a price of extra engine and an upper stage. It may seem like overkill, but all that performance would not be wasted only rationally used.

“Regular taxi flights to LEO” that would also bring hundreds of tons of propellant would suddenly make Orion flights far more useful and economical. Missions to Mars or Moon would only need to bring dry stages to LEO, where they would be able to get as much propellant as they would need.

And riding at the top of the Jupiter-232 to LEO wouldn’t have to be any more dangerous, since Orion could even separate first after first stage burnout, go to LEO on it’s own power (like it would on a Jupiter-120) and the EDS would start their engines only after Orion would get far away and on a different trajectory (to prevent any collision). Two ships in LEO for a price of one. Kind of like ATV could do on Jupiter-120 (except that this would happen far sooner in flight).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/11/2007 12:52 am
Quote
neviden - 10/12/2007  5:39 PM

Quote
clongton - 10/12/2007  10:09 PM
I recall that previously a lot of people were wondering what to do with the so-called excess capacity of the Jupiter-120 when it is “only” flying Orion to LEO. Let’s see; 47mT capacity minus 23mT spacecraft leaves 24mT of “excess capacity”. Why not use that “margin” to bring 20mT of propellant up along with Orion?
Why not skip Jupiter-120 and build only Jupiter-232. Use “excess capacity” for propellant flight. {snip}.
I mention the Jupiter-120 in lieu of the J-232 only because the J-2XD isn't built yet. There is no need to wait for it. A J-120 can put a depot in orbit and subsequent LEO flights with Orion can keep it full. Once the J-232 comes on-line, then it's bonus time.  :)

There is also a fair amount of talk on other threads about unflown ISS components. Granted there aren't many, but the Jupiter-120 can fly every single one of them and bring the station to REAL Station Complete with a "FULL" crew compliment. With the Jupiter, there is no need to choose between risky Shuttle flights and International agreements/Modules. The Jupiter can do it all. Heaven forbid, but another accident would permanently ground the Shuttle. If Jupiter were the chosen successor, station complete would only be delayed, not aborted.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 12/11/2007 02:06 pm
Quote
clongton - 10/12/2007  11:09 PM
That way you get a “free ride” for the propellant because the launcher is going up anyway.

I see, now you want a depot at 51,6 deg. Is that a good inclination ? Or the tug would do a plane change too ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/11/2007 02:51 pm
Quote
renclod - 11/12/2007  10:06 AM

Quote
clongton - 10/12/2007  11:09 PM
That way you get a “free ride” for the propellant because the launcher is going up anyway.

I see, now you want a depot at 51,6 deg. Is that a good inclination ? Or the tug would do a plane change too ?
I didn't mention any specific inclination, even though I did mention "ISS" by way of reference. My thought was that this arrangement could work for "any" orbital destination.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2007 10:20 pm
Been away for a few days, and time is short, so I'll try to hit a few of the subjects briefly.

Quote
renclod - 11/12/2007  10:06 AM

Quote
clongton - 10/12/2007  11:09 PM
That way you get a “free ride” for the propellant because the launcher is going up anyway.

I see, now you want a depot at 51,6 deg. Is that a good inclination ? Or the tug would do a plane change too ?

renclod,
There is currently no requirement for a depot at 51.6deg inclination.   J-120 can send 40mT to ISS without it, and J-232 can send 100mT.   I can't personally see any scenario where more lift performance than that would be required to an LEO destination in that orbit - higher lift capability is only really required for moon missions and targets further away.

However, as Chuck says, once the propellant depot architecture is developed it could be deployed for virtually any purpose - including any which we have no current requirements for today.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2007 10:27 pm
Quote
neviden - 10/12/2007  5:39 PM

Why not skip Jupiter-120 and build only Jupiter-232

Developing the J-2X for the Upper Stage is the critical delaying item.

To close the "gap" quicker, the Jupiter-232's Core stage is simply flown without the upper stage and with one less main engine.

The Jupiter vehicle is designed *from the start* to be used in the larger J-232 configuration.   It is simply flown without the planned upper stage while that element is still in development.

For the Core vehicle (2xSRB & Core with 3 engine mounts), development, qualification, manufacturing, testing, production, delivery checkout and launch processing are all essentially identical - although one extra flight dynamics development program is required to fly the same hardware in the smaller configuration with lower loads, but that is a relatively minor cost in the grand scheme of things.

Once you decide to build J-232, you really get J-120 almost as a "freebie".   The cost delta is tiny to 'delete' the J-120 from the equation, but the schedule then no longer beats Ares-I by two years because you are forced to wait for the J-2X again.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2007 11:14 pm
Quote
madscientist197 - 8/12/2007  9:45 AM

I think I'm interrupting the discussion just a little bit, but I've just downloaded the Direct AIAA paper and I'd like to give a bit of (hopefully constructive feedback).

(SNIP)

I hope these comments are taken as an attempt to help improve the Direct proposal documentation, rather than as an attempt to be destructive. :)

I have to agree with your comments, and appreciate the constructive commentary.   You identified a lot of the known issues which we were already aware of, but also a few others which we had not considered yet.   Thank-you.

As Stephen indicated the paper was a work which was seriously under the gun time-wise.   We had all the data, just had a very small team and very little time to pull it all together.   You should have seen us just 10 days before the deadline!   The paper was as good as we could get it given our severe limitations.

Regarding one of the follow-up comments to your posting - we are plannig an update of our v2.0 document for the new year, making a ~20 page document specifically focussed on the launch vehicles which may be something more suited to congressional staffers to review.

Stephen has indicated that a 2008 paper will improve on the concepts of the 2007 paper.   I'm just floating a quick idea - but do people here think it might be better if we split the document up into a few separate papers which all work together rather than putting it all in the one document?   Just a thought...

Ross.

PS - Day-um (corrected spelling, thx rumble!)...   This makes 200 pages in this thread now...   Wow!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lampyridae on 12/11/2007 11:30 pm
I like the idea of putting that doc into smaller ones. That way, you can get more technical on those subjects that you feel require it, instead of having a general "all-in." Of course, this means more duplication and more work but I think it's best. I think DIRECT 2.0 is a splendid proposal and I just wish I had a congressman or senator to pester with this.

I'm curious, have you approached any of the space-friendly congressmen with this proposal? Do you know if they know of it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: neviden on 12/12/2007 01:09 am
Quote
kraisee - 12/12/2007  12:27 AM
Once you decide to build J-232, you really get J-120 almost as a "freebie".   The cost delta is tiny to 'delete' the J-120 from the equation, but the schedule then no longer beats Ares-I by two years because you are forced to wait for the J-2X again.
I agree.

The thing I was referring to was a fact that once you have J-232 and a way to store and transfer that propellant, there is no reason to build J-120 any more. Orion on J-232 could go either directly to LLO (that in itself is very good) or if it went to LEO (taxi mission for crew) it would act as propellant delivery mission. I am sure that this propellant could come very handy and it would more then compensate for higher costs of J-232/Orion taxi LEO mission compared to J-120/Orion, Ares I/Orion or even Delta 4H/Orion.

It’s something that would make DIRECT more attractive.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/12/2007 03:38 am
Quote
neviden - 11/12/2007  9:09 PM

Quote
kraisee - 12/12/2007  12:27 AM
Once you decide to build J-232, you really get J-120 almost as a "freebie".   The cost delta is tiny to 'delete' the J-120 from the equation, but the schedule then no longer beats Ares-I by two years because you are forced to wait for the J-2X again.
I agree.

The thing I was referring to was a fact that once you have J-232 and a way to store and transfer that propellant, there is no reason to build J-120 any more. Orion on J-232 could go either directly to LLO (that in itself is very good) or if it went to LEO (taxi mission for crew) it would act as propellant delivery mission. I am sure that this propellant could come very handy and it would more then compensate for higher costs of J-232/Orion taxi LEO mission compared to J-120/Orion, Ares I/Orion or even Delta 4H/Orion.

It’s something that would make DIRECT more attractive.

J-232 is all we are planning to use for Lunar and Mars missions, so it doesn't make a big difference there.

J-120 is simply a cheaper means ($130m per flight vs. $220m) of servicing LEO targets such as ISS and maybe Hubble (Hubble v2.0 perhaps in the future).   The cost difference between being able to operate J-120 and J-232 together and just J-232 is less than $50m per year - that is less than the cost difference for a single flight, so is well worth keeping in the mix.    J-120 is also a little bit safer too because it has fewer engines (all ground lit) and no serial staging events/air-start engines to complicate things.

For ISS missions the problem is the inclination of 51.6deg is just in-compatible with the Lunar Propellant Depot which needs to be more equatorial - around 28.5deg using KSC as your launch site.   There would be no advantage to be had at all.   One Hubble serving mission every 7 years or so to 28.5deg would not seem to make much of a difference either.

If we had other LEO targets which required regular flights in the future (ISS v2.0 perhaps in the 2030 time-frame maybe), then that would present some good opportunities to refuel a "nearby" depot on a similar flight path, but right now the opportunities to do so are just so few and far between that it isn't really worthwhile.

For now, I think the higher safety and lower cost of the J-120 are better trades for the ISS missions - but these systems will be flying for at least 25 to 40 years and I won't dare to predict what we will be doing by then.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/12/2007 03:46 am
Quote
Lampyridae - 11/12/2007  7:30 PM

I like the idea of putting that doc into smaller ones. That way, you can get more technical on those subjects that you feel require it, instead of having a general "all-in." Of course, this means more duplication and more work but I think it's best. I think DIRECT 2.0 is a splendid proposal and I just wish I had a congressman or senator to pester with this.

I'm curious, have you approached any of the space-friendly congressmen with this proposal? Do you know if they know of it?

We have placed a hard-copy of the full proposal on the desk of every Senator and Representative with clear ties to the space program, and the desks of many others.   Stephen is currently working schedules to meet with a variety of political figures around the holidays too.

We have a handful of other contacts providing information to specific figures, and are also in contact with a few staffers in some offices who are keeping abreast of all our developments.   We even know of a handful of staffers who even make a point to check this thread quite regularly.

The message is certainly "out there" and is being listened to.   I believe we are very close to "critical mass" right now, at which point I think it will snowball of its own accord.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: neviden on 12/12/2007 09:31 am
Quote
kraisee - 12/12/2007  5:38 AM
J-120 is simply a cheaper means ($130m per flight vs. $220m) of servicing LEO targets
That in affect means that you have 60-80 mT of H2 and O2 delivered to orbit for a price of only $90 million with no extra flights needed. That seems like a good deal to me.

Quote
kraisee - 12/12/2007  5:38 AM
J-120 is also a little bit safer too because it has fewer engines (all ground lit) and no serial staging events/air-start engines to complicate things.
You must do serial staging event either way. You do it either by an Upper stage on J-232 or by Orion on J-120 to circulise the final orbit. You must also do further burns by Orion later to position you and allow you to dock to something.

And if extra upper stage burn (J-2X) on J-232 would be that problematic, you could always separate Orion first (exactly like you would have to do on J-120), use Orion’s propellant to reach orbit (It has at least 1400 m/s delta-v for Moon that you don’t need in LEO) and start J-2X only when Orion would get far away that J-2X failure (worst case=explosion) wouldn’t endanger anyone.

Quote
kraisee - 12/12/2007  5:38 AM
For ISS missions the problem is the inclination of 51.6deg is just in-compatible with the Lunar Propellant Depot which needs to be more equatorial - around 28.5deg using KSC as your launch site.   There would be no advantage to be had at all.   One Hubble serving mission every 7 years or so to 28.5deg would not seem to make much of a difference either.
You can get from 51.6deg to the Moon. Delta-v may get a little higher for "non-optimal" launch window, but it could be done. Russians can get to the Moon and yet they start from 51.6deg location.

It's of course better stop at 28.5deg, if you start from 28.5deg and plan on going to equatorial high orbit (Moon). But, if you already have means to deliver cheap propellant in either 51.6deg or 28.5deg (not related to moon flights), then that delta-v penalty becomes a non-issue (since you refill your empty tanks in LEO with as much propellant they could carry or need).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: monkeyb on 12/12/2007 06:53 pm

The A-Train is a big step forward in the Earth obs world of passive and active remote sensing from space, however, it is currently dogged by the gaps between launches which ultimately translates to the full 'train' (no pun intended) of satellites only working together for something like two years rather than 6+ years that each sat is designed for. shame.

Now, with the availability of a rocket such as the j120 (cargo), would NASA be capable of launching Earth obs missions such as the A-Train in one single launch?

sorry that it's off topic just curious. By the way I wish you guys the best of luck, I really hope that something like direct gets a chance to fly  :cool:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 12/12/2007 07:11 pm
Quote
monkeyb - 12/12/2007  2:53 PM


The A-Train is a big step forward in the Earth obs world of passive and active remote sensing from space, however, it is currently dogged by the gaps between launches which ultimately translates to the full 'train' (no pun intended) of satellites only working together for something like two years rather than 6+ years that each sat is designed for. shame.

Now, with the availability of a rocket such as the j120 (cargo), would NASA be capable of launching Earth obs missions such as the A-Train in one single launch?


It isn't a payload capability that caused this problem, but budget.   It was intentional to have the "A-train".  Originally, EOS platforms were huge and to be launched on Titan-IV's *.  That was found to be too expensive and too many eggs in one basket.  So multiple spacecraft were to be used.  As spacecraft and instruments died, they were to be replaced with upgraded versions. MTPE/EOS was suppose to be a long term program with spacecraft being replaced every 5 years or so.  Current, MTPE/EOS isn't funded for more spacecraft.  So basicall Direct is not a fix

*  EELV's have taken over the Titan-IV's role


No west coast launch pad currently available, since SLC-6 is now Delta-IV.

y
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: monkeyb on 12/12/2007 07:17 pm
cool, thanks for the speedy response Jim.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lampyridae on 12/12/2007 11:56 pm
Quote
kraisee - 12/12/2007  1:46 PM

[The message is certainly "out there" and is being listened to.   I believe we are very close to "critical mass" right now, at which point I think it will snowball of its own accord.

Ross.

Well, good on you all. I'd love to see the more public sites picking this story up, like space.com, so that it gets wider exposure. I suppose it will once it is accepted. The first I heard of Jupiter and DIRECT was actually while looking up info on launch vehicles - my first encounter with it was the AIAA pdf. (and that's how I found this site, hobnobbing with real rocket engineers - very educational)

What's the bet they'll call Jupiter 120 the "Ares 120" just to save face?  :laugh:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Integrator on 12/13/2007 12:51 am
Quote
kraisee - 11/12/2007  6:14 PM

Regarding one of the follow-up comments to your posting - we are plannig an update of our v2.0 document for the new year, making a ~20 page document specifically focussed on the launch vehicles which may be something more suited to congressional staffers to review.

Stephen has indicated that a 2008 paper will improve on the concepts of the 2007 paper.   I'm just floating a quick idea - but do people here think it might be better if we split the document up into a few separate papers which all work together rather than putting it all in the one document?   Just a thought...

Ross.

Did you submit abstracts to 2008 JPC @ Hartford? They closed that process Nov 17.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 12/13/2007 06:04 pm
Quote
kraisee - 11/12/2007  7:14 PM
I'm just floating a quick idea - but do people here think it might be better if we split the document up into a few separate papers which all work together rather than putting it all in the one document?
Well, if several papers would allow several presentations to spread the message over more than one hour in the conference, then that, alone, might justify splitting it up. If, with several papers, the committee would give you an entire track to discuss the various aspects of DIRECT over several hours and in more detail, that could be very beneficial to the entire process.

If the first paper and first presentation in that track was a global overview of the launcher thatn that would also serve as a good executive summary as well as the lead-in to the DIRECT track.

Colluding with the conference organisers to provide an entire track of DIRECT discussion would be a "good thing" as far as I can see.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/13/2007 10:06 pm
Quote
Lampyridae - 12/12/2007  7:56 PM

What's the bet they'll call Jupiter 120 the "Ares 120" just to save face?  :laugh:

We really don't care what they call it :)

An internal memo from within NASA (currently on L2 right now) did call it the "Jupiter-120" though.

I would be more than happy with Ares-120 or Ares-II.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 12/13/2007 11:04 pm
Quote
kraisee - 13/12/2007  6:06 PM

Quote
Lampyridae - 12/12/2007  7:56 PM

What's the bet they'll call Jupiter 120 the "Ares 120" just to save face?  :laugh:

We really don't care what they call it :)

An internal memo from within NASA (currently on L2 right now) did call it the "Jupiter-120" though.

I would be more than happy with Ares-120 or Ares-II.

Ross.

Yeah, what's in a name?  :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/14/2007 03:47 am
Quote
gladiator1332 - 13/12/2007  7:04 PM

Yeah, what's in a name?  :)

They can call it "Daffy Duck" for all I care - as long as we get a launcher suitable to do both Lunar and Mars missions without breaking the bank - and that's the thing I'm most worried about regarding the $30bn development expenditure and $3bn per year for both Ares-I and Ares-V.   I just don't see them as either politically nor economically viable.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/14/2007 08:05 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 13/12/2007  2:04 PM

Quote
kraisee - 11/12/2007  7:14 PM
I'm just floating a quick idea - but do people here think it might be better if we split the document up into a few separate papers which all work together rather than putting it all in the one document?
Well, if several papers would allow several presentations to spread the message over more than one hour in the conference, then that, alone, might justify splitting it up. If, with several papers, the committee would give you an entire track to discuss the various aspects of DIRECT over several hours and in more detail, that could be very beneficial to the entire process.

If the first paper and first presentation in that track was a global overview of the launcher thatn that would also serve as a good executive summary as well as the lead-in to the DIRECT track.

Colluding with the conference organisers to provide an entire track of DIRECT discussion would be a "good thing" as far as I can see.

Paul

Thanks Paul.   That's a great idea which I hadn't thought of.   We will have to see what can be arranged!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 12/14/2007 09:31 pm
Well, if Direct flies and if that flight can be traced back in any way to my suggestion of a multipresentation Direct Track at the conference, then you can name a wingnut in the self destruct mechanism after me...

:)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/15/2007 03:19 am
Finally got a chance tonight to extrapolate the latest set of workforce numbers from my CxP contacts into a nice set of charts for y'all.   With their help we have a very hi-fidelity

Below is the Ares vs. Jupiter comparison chart.

The big-number difference is in the order of 7,100 Civil-Servants and On-site contractors in 2013.   This graph does not show the significantly larger sub-contractor and supplier levels (NASA does not collect such data, amazingly enough), but both will likely follow a similar pattern.

The reason for the difference is primarily because the high development cost for the 5-seg SRB and the J-2X needed to get Ares-I operational by 2015 means cuts have to be made elsewhere in the workforce to afford them.

Coupled with the higher cost for developing four new stages and two complete infrastructure re-building programs and the Ares is considerably higher overall development than the 2 new stage Jupiter with minimal infrastructure changes, which also has a slower schedule required for J-2X (2017, not 2015)

The "Surplus Staff" could be let go, but I would hope that they would actually be retained and put to good use on the Jupiter and some of the payloads which Jupiter can loft - such as Hubble Servicing Missions, an ISS upgrade for the 2016 time-frame and a 45mT LEO-based replacement for Hubble.   I can not predict how their skills can possibly be put to use, but Jupiter has a lower development cost footprint and CAN thus afford to retain them across the full transition period.   This fact is likely to be of significant interest to many political figures at the moment.

It should be noted that this is based on the 65% confidence level of CxP expectations and is NOT representative of the worst case scenario discussed during the Griffin/Nelson Senate hearing a short while ago.

Anyway, I hope it helps shed some light on this very complex subject.



Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 12/15/2007 11:04 am
Good work, Ross. Seriously, what is NASA going to do with all the shuttle workers between STS retirement and Ares V? I hope the common-sense alternative wins out.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: madscientist197 on 12/15/2007 11:23 am
Well, if you intend to make a special 'Congressional Edition' of the Direct proposal this is the sort of stuff you need to put in it. Obviously not too blatently though  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 12/15/2007 04:01 pm
I agree.  Nice graphic Ross.

By showing graphically the comparative workforce distributions, you are offering something that can be quickly distilled, almost at a glance.  This would be beneficial for the decision makers higher up in the food chain.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/16/2007 06:52 pm
That's the plan.

With most relevant members of Congress staying in Washington currently and not yet returning to their districts, that has given me the time to get this together for Stephen to include in many of his various meetings.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula on 12/18/2007 10:19 am
Ross, you could also produce a graph just comparing Ares compulsory redundancies & Direct absorbed surplus staff, over time. That would make the difference obvious to anyone.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/19/2007 08:10 pm
You don't want DIRECT to sound too much lke a jobs program though. That will make people assume that it will inevitably be expensive.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/19/2007 08:49 pm
Kaputnik,
Agreed.   The last thing we need is a launch vehicle solution which costs as much as STS does!

The lunar program will create dozens of new elements - completely irrelevant of which launch vehicle architecture is used.   Whatever architecture we get in the end, there will ultimately be more jobs involved than the present STS/ISS programs employs.

At the base, DIRECT attempts to reduce the workforce requirement for launch vehicles by about half.   But it does so in a way that prevents the same "brain-drain" situation occurring as happened at after Apollo.   DIRECT creates a straight-forward and affordable "bridge" to keep the talent in the program during the difficult transition years.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/20/2007 12:22 am
Quote
kkattula - 18/12/2007  6:19 AM

Ross, you could also produce a graph just comparing Ares compulsory redundancies & Direct absorbed surplus staff, over time. That would make the difference obvious to anyone.

I will try to whip something very quickly up to see if it's useful information.   I'm not sure precisely how to make a comparison like that very clear though.   We'll see when it's in glorious colour :)

I will also be starting on an update for our v2.02 DIRECT launch vehicle document over the next few days too, so perhaps this information will end up in there.   My big question right now is whether to show the performance for our "10% below expectation" vehicles as we showed in the AIAA 2007 paper, or whether to actually publish the maximum performance versions including things like 106% RS-68A, 294klb thrust J-2X and Lockheed ICES Upper Stage upgrades - which would bring the figures (121mT J-232!) into line for apples-to-apples comparison with NASA's current numbers - but would reduce our overly-generous margins to the same (fairly low) level too.   I'm currently undecided on this issue because we really like having lots of spare margin in our pockets.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/20/2007 01:56 am
Publish using a safety margin that you are happy with.  Put the 121mT J-232 in a possible enhancement appendix along with some of the bigger rockets.  I suspect that the 106% RS-68A for example requires extra money.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/20/2007 03:28 am
Actually, from what we're hearing the 106% RS-68 is going to be the new baseline for Delta-IV anyway.   In that case, we have three options:

1) Force PWR to also build the current 100% units (currently operated at 102% actually) and increase the total cost of production by not sharing costs with Delta any longer.

2) Use the new engine, but operate it still at the 100% level - providing additional safety margin which should make it even more reliable than ever.

3) Operate the new engine at the designed 106% (once qualified to NASA's human space flight safety standards) and simply enjoy the additional performance.

It's a very interesting dilemma to be in :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 12/20/2007 02:23 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/12/2007  10:28 PM

Actually, from what we're hearing the 106% RS-68 is going to be the new baseline for Delta-IV anyway.   In that case, we have three options:

1) Force PWR to also build the current 100% units (currently operated at 102% actually) and increase the total cost of production by not sharing costs with Delta any longer.

2) Use the new engine, but operate it still at the 100% level - providing additional safety margin which should make it even more reliable than ever.

3) Operate the new engine at the designed 106% (once qualified to NASA's human space flight safety standards) and simply enjoy the additional performance.

It's a very interesting dilemma to be in :)

Ross.

Having a 121 mT J-232 and a >50mT J-120 (thanks to the extra performance of the 106% RS-68A) should allow to develop a J-120/J-232 moon mission at par with Ares I/Ares V with regard to total payload.  Although not as capable as a 2 x J-232s mission,  a J-120/J-232 mission would be cheaper (only one upper stage required), have better LOC/LOM numbers.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/20/2007 02:43 pm
Quote
PaulL - 20/12/2007  10:23 AM

Quote
kraisee - 19/12/2007  10:28 PM

Actually, from what we're hearing the 106% RS-68 is going to be the new baseline for Delta-IV anyway.   In that case, we have three options:

1) Force PWR to also build the current 100% units (currently operated at 102% actually) and increase the total cost of production by not sharing costs with Delta any longer.

2) Use the new engine, but operate it still at the 100% level - providing additional safety margin which should make it even more reliable than ever.

3) Operate the new engine at the designed 106% (once qualified to NASA's human space flight safety standards) and simply enjoy the additional performance.

It's a very interesting dilemma to be in :)

Ross.

Having a 121 mT J-232 and a >50mT J-120 (thanks to the extra performance of the 106% RS-68A) should allow to develop a J-120/J-232 moon mission at par with Ares I/Ares V with regard to total payload.  Although not as capable as a 2 x J-232s mission,  a J-120/J-232 mission would be cheaper (only one upper stage required), have better LOC/LOM numbers.

PaulL
Whether this combination itself will work as described is beside the point. The point is that having a launch architecture that CAN be extended and/or enhansed is hands-down better than the Ares architecture, which is still-born at max capacity, unable to go anywhere for the next 40 years.

Let us not forget that Ares is maxed out, just to get in the air, while Jupiter has SO much growth potential that it can be mind-boggling.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: yoda on 12/20/2007 02:47 pm
Quote
PaulL - 20/12/2007  9:23 AM

Quote
kraisee - 19/12/2007  10:28 PM

Actually, from what we're hearing the 106% RS-68 is going to be the new baseline for Delta-IV anyway.   In that case, we have three options:

1) Force PWR to also build the current 100% units (currently operated at 102% actually) and increase the total cost of production by not sharing costs with Delta any longer.

2) Use the new engine, but operate it still at the 100% level - providing additional safety margin which should make it even more reliable than ever.

3) Operate the new engine at the designed 106% (once qualified to NASA's human space flight safety standards) and simply enjoy the additional performance.

It's a very interesting dilemma to be in :)

Ross.

Having a 121 mT J-232 and a >50mT J-120 (thanks to the extra performance of the 106% RS-68A) should allow to develop a J-120/J-232 moon mission at par with Ares I/Ares V with regard to total payload.  Although not as capable as a 2 x J-232s mission,  a J-120/J-232 mission would be cheaper (only one upper stage required), have better LOC/LOM numbers.

PaulL

Having a flexible, viable way to increase reliability or MT to orbit in the future is indeed a great advantage.  

If the launch phase is only about 3% (?) of lunar LOC/LOM, then is there a significant gain from J-120/J-232 versus 2 x J-232?

If J-120 is compared to the current shuttle stack, how many items from the critical item list remain and how many are added?  J-120 versus Ares I?  Or is there a link to this information?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/20/2007 03:04 pm
Quote
yoda - 20/12/2007  10:47 AM

Quote
PaulL - 20/12/2007  9:23 AM

Quote
kraisee - 19/12/2007  10:28 PM

Actually, from what we're hearing the 106% RS-68 is going to be the new baseline for Delta-IV anyway.   In that case, we have three options:

1) Force PWR to also build the current 100% units (currently operated at 102% actually) and increase the total cost of production by not sharing costs with Delta any longer.

2) Use the new engine, but operate it still at the 100% level - providing additional safety margin which should make it even more reliable than ever.

3) Operate the new engine at the designed 106% (once qualified to NASA's human space flight safety standards) and simply enjoy the additional performance.

It's a very interesting dilemma to be in :)

Ross.

Having a 121 mT J-232 and a >50mT J-120 (thanks to the extra performance of the 106% RS-68A) should allow to develop a J-120/J-232 moon mission at par with Ares I/Ares V with regard to total payload.  Although not as capable as a 2 x J-232s mission,  a J-120/J-232 mission would be cheaper (only one upper stage required), have better LOC/LOM numbers.

PaulL

Having a flexible, viable way to increase reliability or MT to orbit in the future is indeed a great advantage.  

If the launch phase is only about 3% (?) of lunar LOC/LOM, then is there a significant gain from J-120/J-232 versus 2 x J-232?

If J-120 is compared to the current shuttle stack, how many items from the critical item list remain and how many are added?  J-120 versus Ares I?  Or is there a link to this information?
Go to www.directlauncher.com
Some of the information is being updated to show the results of the ongoing development process that showed this launch vehicle to be even more capable than initially discussed.

The comparisons you wanted:

Ares-1:
All New first stage SRB
All New second stage
All New engine
Everything is new – everything is on the critical path
Getting this underperforming bird in the air will take a LOT of time and development

Jupiter-120:
Existing ET
Existing SRB
Existing RS-68
New Thrust Structure
Everything already exists except the thrust structure
Getting this powerful and flexible bird in the air will take a lot less time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 12/20/2007 03:20 pm
The external tank is being modified, I am guessing that is what the thrust structure is.
What are the advantages of ARES I/V over direct?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 12/20/2007 03:38 pm
Quote
clongton - 20/12/2007  10:04 AM

Go to www.directlauncher.com
Some of the information is being updated to show the results of the ongoing development process that showed this launch vehicle to be even more capable than initially discussed.

Where specifically is the updated stuff?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/20/2007 03:38 pm
Quote
veedriver22 - 20/12/2007  11:20 AM

The external tank is being modified; I am guessing that is what the thrust structure is.
What are the advantages of ARES I/V over direct?
External Tank will be modified primarily by milling less material during manufacture to provide strengthened sidewalls for the thrust loading. Other modifications include things like transitioning its plumbing from a side-mounted Orbiter, to an In-line launcher and deleting the Orbiter Attachment ramps. These are not "small" things, but are miniscule when compared to creating an entirely new clean-sheet launcher.

Thrust structure is new, and would be assembled to the bottom of the ET. It is designed to accomodate three (3) RS-68 engines, but would be flown with either 2, for the Jupiter-120, or 3 for the Jupiter-232.

The Jupiter-232 is the base design. That's the version that must resist the most loading. It's easier to build that and then create a Jupiter-120 by deleating the 2nd stage and one main engine than going the other way. There is MORE than enough margin to offset the mass penalty of the heavier thrust structure, making this "family" a very efficient user of flight articles and infrastructure. One launch vehicle - 2 flight configurations.

Advantages of Ares-I/V over Jupiter? -None
Ares-V if it ever gets built would be a little more powerful than the vanilla, off-the-shelf Jupiter-232, but not by enough to make the enormous expense worth it. Besides, minor upgrades to the Jupiter-232 would make it more powerful than anything currently in the Ares-V design.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 12/20/2007 03:41 pm
Quote
yoda - 20/12/2007  9:47 AM

Quote
PaulL - 20/12/2007  9:23 AM

Quote
kraisee - 19/12/2007  10:28 PM

Actually, from what we're hearing the 106% RS-68 is going to be the new baseline for Delta-IV anyway.   In that case, we have three options:

1) Force PWR to also build the current 100% units (currently operated at 102% actually) and increase the total cost of production by not sharing costs with Delta any longer.

2) Use the new engine, but operate it still at the 100% level - providing additional safety margin which should make it even more reliable than ever.

3) Operate the new engine at the designed 106% (once qualified to NASA's human space flight safety standards) and simply enjoy the additional performance.

It's a very interesting dilemma to be in :)

Ross.

Having a 121 mT J-232 and a >50mT J-120 (thanks to the extra performance of the 106% RS-68A) should allow to develop a J-120/J-232 moon mission at par with Ares I/Ares V with regard to total payload.  Although not as capable as a 2 x J-232s mission,  a J-120/J-232 mission would be cheaper (only one upper stage required), have better LOC/LOM numbers.

PaulL

Having a flexible, viable way to increase reliability or MT to orbit in the future is indeed a great advantage.  

If the launch phase is only about 3% (?) of lunar LOC/LOM, then is there a significant gain from J-120/J-232 versus 2 x J-232?

If J-120 is compared to the current shuttle stack, how many items from the critical item list remain and how many are added?  J-120 versus Ares I?  Or is there a link to this information?

If I remember well, the LOC number for J-120 is betwen 1400 and 1500 compared to between 1000 to 1100 for the J-232.

With regard to the LOM issue, not all cases are equal. For example, Apollo 13 had even a positive impact on NASA's image. But one of the most detrimental/frustrating cases I can imagine would be loosing the first launch waiting in LEO (due to LH2 boil off) because of a technical issue on the ground with the second rocket.  Moon missions opponents would then have a perfect occasion to denonce ESAS expenditures and ask that the whole program be cancelled. That is why I believe that the second flight must to be as simple as possible because once you have launched your first flight you are under a restricted time window for your second launch.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/20/2007 04:00 pm
Quote
PaulL - 20/12/2007  11:41 AM
That is why I believe that the second flight must to be as simple as possible because once you have launched your first flight you are under a restricted time window for your second launch. PaulL
That’s one of the many really bad features of the Ares architecture. By launching the fully fueled LSAM and EDS on the first flight, then the entire mission becomes vulnerable to pressures on the second, manned Orion flight. Propellant boiloff becomes a major issue, creating extreme pressure on the manned launch to push the safety envelop to save the mission. Pressure to launch the mission is what directly lead to the loss of Challenger. NASA is setting itself up to possibly repeat this mistake again. They have designed an architecture that builds in this same “schedule-based, pressure-to-launch” condition.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/20/2007 04:00 pm
Quote
rumble - 20/12/2007  11:38 AM

Quote
clongton - 20/12/2007  10:04 AM

Go to www.directlauncher.com
Some of the information is being updated to show the results of the ongoing development process that showed this launch vehicle to be even more capable than initially discussed.

Where specifically is the updated stuff?
Ross is working it now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 12/21/2007 12:05 am
The current plan is to launch Ares V, then launch Orion-Ares 90 minutes later, the same day.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Oberon_Command on 12/21/2007 12:50 am
Quote
clongton - 20/12/2007  9:00 AM

Quote
PaulL - 20/12/2007  11:41 AM
That is why I believe that the second flight must to be as simple as possible because once you have launched your first flight you are under a restricted time window for your second launch. PaulL
That’s one of the many really bad features of the Ares architecture. By launching the fully fueled LSAM and EDS on the first flight, then the entire mission becomes vulnerable to pressures on the second, manned Orion flight. Propellant boiloff becomes a major issue, creating extreme pressure on the manned launch to push the safety envelop to save the mission. Pressure to launch the mission is what directly lead to the loss of Challenger. NASA is setting itself up to possibly repeat this mistake again. They have designed an architecture that builds in this same “schedule-based, pressure-to-launch” condition.

What about launching the crew first? That way if there's a manned scrub you don't have to worry about fuel boiloff.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 12/21/2007 01:03 am
Quote
Oberon_Command - 20/12/2007  7:50 PM

Quote
clongton - 20/12/2007  9:00 AM

Quote
PaulL - 20/12/2007  11:41 AM
That is why I believe that the second flight must to be as simple as possible because once you have launched your first flight you are under a restricted time window for your second launch. PaulL
That’s one of the many really bad features of the Ares architecture. By launching the fully fueled LSAM and EDS on the first flight, then the entire mission becomes vulnerable to pressures on the second, manned Orion flight. Propellant boiloff becomes a major issue, creating extreme pressure on the manned launch to push the safety envelop to save the mission. Pressure to launch the mission is what directly lead to the loss of Challenger. NASA is setting itself up to possibly repeat this mistake again. They have designed an architecture that builds in this same “schedule-based, pressure-to-launch” condition.

What about launching the crew first? That way if there's a manned scrub you don't have to worry about fuel boiloff.

You do have to worry about consumables.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/21/2007 01:59 am
Quote
PaulL - 20/12/2007  10:23 AM
Having a 121 mT J-232 and a >50mT J-120 (thanks to the extra performance of the 106% RS-68A) should allow to develop a J-120/J-232 moon mission at par with Ares I/Ares V with regard to total payload.  Although not as capable as a 2 x J-232s mission,  a J-120/J-232 mission would be cheaper (only one upper stage required), have better LOC/LOM numbers.

It's pretty difficult to "split" the LSAM across the two flights, given that the J-120 could only lift about ~25mT of LSAM (the other ~!25mT being the Orion and associated Spacecraft Adapter).   You end up being forced to go for Propellant Depot architectures or EDS>LSAM Descent Stage refuelling after docking, or Ascent Stage docking to Descent Stage in LEO...   None of which are as simple as an EOR-docking-and-go - which we are trying to do with the first iteration of the architecture to satisfy NASA's current requirements for that.

A future evolution of the architecture would work extremely well indeed with J-120/J-232 + Propellant Depot - but we have resigned ourselves to the fact that management is very unlikely to make this into the first-generation architecture.


BTW, Here are the current LOC/LOM numbers.   After Ares-I's numbers changed we checked again and our numbers were unaffected by the difficult launch environment issues Ares-I is experiencing.   Thus our numbers remain:-

Jupiter-120: 1:1413 LOC and 1:234 LOM.
Jupiter-232: 1:1162 LOC and 1:173 LOM.



Here are the current Ares LOC/LOM numbers as presented by MSFC to the rest of CxP on 8th November 2007 at the recent IS/TIM:-

Ares-I: 1:1256 LOC and 1:358 LOM.
Ares-V: 1:965 LOC and 1:148 LOM.
(NOTE: 3-stage Ares-V would be lower)


According to this, which is *NASA's own assessment technique*, Jupiter-120 is now calculated to be noticeably (12.5%) safer than Ares-I.

Jupiter-232 achieves within 7.5% the same LOC safety rating as Ares-I right now too.   Additionally, Jupiter-232 exceeds the "minimum safe target" set by ESAS of 1:1000 LOC, where Ares-V can not.   Jupiter-232 being 20.4% 'safer' than Ares-V.

I therefore think everything would be "good to go" with 2 x Jupiter-232 to make 240mT Lunar missions (compared 175mT for Ares-I/V) with either EOR-LOR or Propellant Depot Architectures.    The one can easily evolve into the other.   Especially as the development cost is ~$10-16bn lower too and the schedule can be brought forward by two years - but that's really just icing on the cake.

If NASA wants to find a way out of the Ares-I, they have every base covered now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/21/2007 07:29 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/12/2007  4:28 AM

Actually, from what we're hearing the 106% RS-68 is going to be the new baseline for Delta-IV anyway.   In that case, we have three options:
{snip}

Depending on time scales you can build the mark 1 J-120 using the current RS-68 and upgrade to the 106% RS-68 after the third or fourth launch.  This is not quite change one thing at a time but it is similar.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Analyst on 12/21/2007 07:59 pm
Am I the only one who doesn't give much for LOC and LOM numbers in the 1:200 to 1:1,500 range in a world there almost no launch vehicle achives better than 1:99, most are in the ~1:95 range?

Analyst
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/21/2007 08:17 pm
Quote
Analyst - 21/12/2007  3:59 PM

Am I the only one who doesn't give much for LOC and LOM numbers in the 1:200 to 1:1,500 range in a world there almost no launch vehicle achives better than 1:99, most are in the ~1:95 range?

Analyst
No, you're not the only one. At those levels it's nothing but a shell game, but when one person (Administrator) makes the rules, you have to go by those rules if you want to play. It's stupid and it stinks, but there you have it; reality.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: imcub on 12/21/2007 08:24 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/12/2007  6:59 PM


BTW, Here are the current LOC/LOM numbers.   After Ares-I's numbers changed we checked again and our numbers were unaffected by the difficult launch environment issues Ares-I is experiencing.   Thus our numbers remain:-

Jupiter-120: 1:1413 LOC and 1:234 LOM.
Jupiter-232: 1:1162 LOC and 1:173 LOM.



Here are the current Ares LOC/LOM numbers as presented by MSFC to the rest of CxP on 8th November 2007 at the recent IS/TIM:-

Ares-I: 1:1256 LOC and 1:358 LOM.
Ares-V: 1:965 LOC and 1:148 LOM.
(NOTE: 3-stage Ares-V would be lower)


According to this, which is *NASA's own assessment technique*, Jupiter-120 is now calculated to be noticeably (12.5%) safer than Ares-I.


Ross.

So Ross ... according to yours and NASA's number ... NASA is paying WAY MORE for Ares I/V than Jupiter, getting them delivered WAY LATER than Jupiter could be available, and theoretically is NOT as safe as Jupiter?

That just doesn't add up ... there must have been a mistake made somewhere ...

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/21/2007 08:50 pm
Quote
imcub - 21/12/2007  4:24 PM

Quote
kraisee - 20/12/2007  6:59 PM


BTW, Here are the current LOC/LOM numbers.   After Ares-I's numbers changed we checked again and our numbers were unaffected by the difficult launch environment issues Ares-I is experiencing.   Thus our numbers remain:-

Jupiter-120: 1:1413 LOC and 1:234 LOM.
Jupiter-232: 1:1162 LOC and 1:173 LOM.



Here are the current Ares LOC/LOM numbers as presented by MSFC to the rest of CxP on 8th November 2007 at the recent IS/TIM:-

Ares-I: 1:1256 LOC and 1:358 LOM.
Ares-V: 1:965 LOC and 1:148 LOM.
(NOTE: 3-stage Ares-V would be lower)


According to this, which is *NASA's own assessment technique*, Jupiter-120 is now calculated to be noticeably (12.5%) safer than Ares-I.


Ross.

So Ross ... according to yours and NASA's number ... NASA is paying WAY MORE for Ares I/V than Jupiter, getting them delivered WAY LATER than Jupiter could be available, and theoretically is NOT as safe as Jupiter?

That just doesn't add up ... there must have been a mistake made somewhere ...
No mistake. What you said is completely correct.
The Jupiter is Safer - Simpler - Sooner  :)
(and costs a lot less)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: csj on 12/22/2007 04:01 am
It took me at least two weeks to complete but starting at page 1, I read the entire DIRECT v2.0 forum.  However, I did skip over the OT and overly political messages.  Overall, I am impressed with all of the discussions.  I certainly have learned a lot.  Since Christmas is next week, this may be my first and last post for a week.  I do want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/22/2007 03:57 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 21/12/2007  3:29 PM

Quote
kraisee - 20/12/2007  4:28 AM

Actually, from what we're hearing the 106% RS-68 is going to be the new baseline for Delta-IV anyway.   In that case, we have three options:
{snip}

Depending on time scales you can build the mark 1 J-120 using the current RS-68 and upgrade to the 106% RS-68 after the third or fourth launch.  This is not quite change one thing at a time but it is similar.

Agreed.   I would suggest that some intital test flights can use the current engine, but by the time J-120 is ready to fly the 106% RS-68 will have already flown operationally a number of times on Delta-IV.

It is more cost effective to perform all the human-rating qualification work once and just qualify the engine you ultimately intend to use.   From what we hear out of PWR it should not be a problem to have the 106% RS-68 fully operational - including any human-rating changes - by 2011 for the final Jupiter-120 test flights.   The same unit will also have flown a number of times on operational Delta-IV's too so will have solid missions under its belt before humans ever climb aboard.

The decision still needs to be made as to which engine to rate for humans and what performance setting it should be used at.   I think that decision rests with NASA in the end though.   For now, we will continue to assume 'normal' (not 106%) performance to give us safety margin though.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/22/2007 04:05 pm
Quote
Analyst - 21/12/2007  3:59 PM

Am I the only one who doesn't give much for LOC and LOM numbers in the 1:200 to 1:1,500 range in a world there almost no launch vehicle achives better than 1:99, most are in the ~1:95 range?

Analyst

I agree, but this is how NASA measures it and I have yet to see a competitive methodology accepted by any other areas of the industry.   If there is a better methodology, which is respected by both NASA and the other US contractors, then I'd welcome it.

Until then, we're all stuck comparing 'apples to apples' using whatever is available.

I personally think all the LOC/LOM numbers can probably be cut into about one quarter and that would get you into a realistic ballpark for all the different systems.   But that assessment has no basic in risk analysis, so isn't very useful either.   So we're stuck using the existing LOC/LOM numbers...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/22/2007 04:16 pm
Quote
imcub - 21/12/2007  4:24 PM

Quote
kraisee - 20/12/2007  6:59 PM


BTW, Here are the current LOC/LOM numbers.   After Ares-I's numbers changed we checked again and our numbers were unaffected by the difficult launch environment issues Ares-I is experiencing.   Thus our numbers remain:-

Jupiter-120: 1:1413 LOC and 1:234 LOM.
Jupiter-232: 1:1162 LOC and 1:173 LOM.



Here are the current Ares LOC/LOM numbers as presented by MSFC to the rest of CxP on 8th November 2007 at the recent IS/TIM:-

Ares-I: 1:1256 LOC and 1:358 LOM.
Ares-V: 1:965 LOC and 1:148 LOM.
(NOTE: 3-stage Ares-V would be lower)


According to this, which is *NASA's own assessment technique*, Jupiter-120 is now calculated to be noticeably (12.5%) safer than Ares-I.


Ross.

So Ross ... according to yours and NASA's number ... NASA is paying WAY MORE for Ares I/V than Jupiter, getting them delivered WAY LATER than Jupiter could be available, and theoretically is NOT as safe as Jupiter?

That just doesn't add up ... there must have been a mistake made somewhere ...

Clearly.

While Ares-I was still about 1:2000 LOC, there was one last remaining legitimate justification for it from the "safe, simple, soon" original sales pitch.   The "simple" and "soon" aspects had already fallen by the wayside a while ago.   NASA's reasoning for sticking with the "stick" was centered upon the CAIB recommendation's insisting safety was the number one issue and safety must not be compromised in the design for the new vehicle - for any reason.   NASA pointed to this reasoning whenever they faced criticism of Ares-I previously.

Now that NASA has almost halved its safety rating because of the extensive list of continuing Ares-I 'problems' that justification for Ares-I no longer exists.   Ares-I no longer beats Jupiter-120 in ANY quantifiable measurement they have.   Right now Ares-I is nothing but a $14.5bn 1-year development which offers no advantages over existing EELV's.   I now hold NASA to its own standards and suggest they should abandon Ares-I for a solution which is safer by their own assessment methodology.

The only 'advantage' Ares-I still offers is it pays for the development of the 5-segment SRB's and J-2X which will be needed for the monster Ares-V later.   Is that really sufficient reason to offset the safety issues in the light of the CAIB Recommendations?   No way, José!

The 130mT Ares-V is NOT critical to "returning to the moon".

The 130mT Ares-V is NOT critical to going on to "Mars and Beyond" either.


There are options which remove the requirement for this level of performance and score higher on the cost, performance and safety scales now.   They require no more flights, half the number of development programs and still keep the critical elements of the existing infrastructure intact.

We have tried, with DIRECT, to demonstrate how a slightly smaller SDLV solution can do the job just as well - if not better.   As you say, we have a solution with greater safety, greater performance, considerably lower cost and significantly shorter schedule - all while still ticking ALL of the political and workforce retention issues at least as well as the plan in hand today.

In this light, developing Ares-I so as to create some of the technology needed for Ares-V later makes no sense at all.


Competent management would accept this situation and face reality.   The justification for the current path has been lost and economic and political reality in the US today means Ares-V is looking less and less likely every day.   Pursuit of the best approach available is better than flogging a horse which no longer offers any of the original benefits proposed and which is looking more and more dubious.

Do we have competent management though?

That is the critical question on the table right now.

Do we have a management flexible enough to do the "right thing" and make a change before the US is stuck on a bad path, or do we have a management who is so enamored with it's own personal preferences that it is going to instead just ignore the facts and continue to develop a financially unsustainable, below-par solution?

If we implement an unsustainable solution it guarantees that the US ultimately secedes its position as the world leader in this field of expertise.   Is that worth the unrealistic dream of getting Ares-V?

YMMV, but I think not.

The memo on L2 would seem to indicate that there is a chance of change though, that perhaps NASA is flexible enough to get out of the corner it has backed itself into.   Only time will tell whether this is the case or if that is merely another ruse to deflect further criticism.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/23/2007 04:10 am
As an aside, I just spent the last few hours combing NTRS.   There appears to be a bunch of new documents on there these days compared to the last time I looked.

I know nobody is at work currently, but does anyone know if these are appearing on NTRS because of the memo (sorry, but to see the memo you must be on L2)?

I know LaRC were digging up the old NLS aero data because of the interest in Jupiter-120.   I wonder if this is related?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: imcub on 12/23/2007 04:22 am
Quote
kraisee - 22/12/2007  9:16 AM

Quote
imcub - 21/12/2007  4:24 PM

Quote
kraisee - 20/12/2007  6:59 PM


BTW, Here are the current LOC/LOM numbers.   After Ares-I's numbers changed we checked again and our numbers were unaffected by the difficult launch environment issues Ares-I is experiencing.   Thus our numbers remain:-

Jupiter-120: 1:1413 LOC and 1:234 LOM.
Jupiter-232: 1:1162 LOC and 1:173 LOM.



Here are the current Ares LOC/LOM numbers as presented by MSFC to the rest of CxP on 8th November 2007 at the recent IS/TIM:-

Ares-I: 1:1256 LOC and 1:358 LOM.
Ares-V: 1:965 LOC and 1:148 LOM.
(NOTE: 3-stage Ares-V would be lower)


According to this, which is *NASA's own assessment technique*, Jupiter-120 is now calculated to be noticeably (12.5%) safer than Ares-I.


Ross.

So Ross ... according to yours and NASA's number ... NASA is paying WAY MORE for Ares I/V than Jupiter, getting them delivered WAY LATER than Jupiter could be available, and theoretically is NOT as safe as Jupiter?

That just doesn't add up ... there must have been a mistake made somewhere ...

Clearly.

While Ares-I was still about 1:2000 LOC, there was one last remaining legitimate justification for it from the "safe, simple, soon" original sales pitch ...

SNIP

...  The memo on L2 would seem to indicate that there is a chance of change though, that perhaps NASA is flexible enough to get out of the corner it has backed itself into.   Only time will tell whether this is the case or if that is merely another ruse to deflect further criticism.

Ross.

Yep ... the mistake I was referring too was Ares I in its current configuration ...

This was the first time I had seen updated LOC/LOM numbers that showed such a dramatic decrease in safety ... I keep expecting someone at NASA to say .... "whoa ... this is not turning out as planned ... let't take another look ..."

I guess time will tell.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/23/2007 05:33 am
Quote
imcub - 23/12/2007  12:22 AM

This was the first time I had seen updated LOC/LOM numbers that showed such a dramatic decrease in safety ... I keep expecting someone at NASA to say .... "whoa ... this is not turning out as planned ... let't take another look ..."

I guess time will tell.

Yes, time will indeed tell.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the "whoa" has actually already happened and that the memo on L2, combined with the recent studies which were done by NASA over the last few months, are just the very first signs of a coming change.   Change is clearly to the agency's, and the US' in general, advantage.

We shall see.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 12/23/2007 05:41 pm
I know this is off the wall, but I got to thinking in a "what  if" sense, about how impressed I would be with NASA had they gone the direct route.  If they had selected it originally & were down the road a ways with the development.  How impressed I would be that they were getting so much done on such a limited budget...............
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/23/2007 05:56 pm
Quote
veedriver22 - 23/12/2007  1:41 PM

I know this is off the wall, but I got to thinking in a "what  if" sense, about how impressed I would be with NASA had they gone the direct route.  If they had selected it originally & were down the road a ways with the development.  How impressed I would be that they were getting so much done on such a limited budget...............
They would be SOOO much further along than they are now. Orion would be a truly impressive spacecraft instead of being a shadow of its potential. The science community would be eagerly planning to take advantage of the Jupiter-120 50mT lift capacity to LEO and looking at high value planetary and sample return missions. The lunar planners would be designing probes and landers based on the science requirements instead of the limits of the LV. Mars planners would be looking at nuclear powered rovers that, working in concert with ultra-high resolution orbiters, could also fly to enable more ground to be surveyed and covered. The orbiters would identify areas of interest and downlink relative coordinates to the rover, which could then "fly" to the new location then revert to the slow rover exploration mode. All this because everybody wouldn't be wondering whether their launch vehicle was ever going to make it out of intensive care or not. Mass to orbit or to a lunar or interplanetary trajectory simply would not be the issue it is with the current fiasco.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/23/2007 06:04 pm
Considering that Mike Griffin considers himself to be the best *&%$#@& chief engineer in the universe, which is a close parapharse of his own words in a recent MSFC all-hands meeting, I don't think the Ares-1 "Shaft" program is going to die any time soon, unless the 5-segment 4+ gee SRB vibration problem tiger-team can't find a lightwieght soltuon to this show-stopper issue.  Since their inputs aren't due until next March, NASA under Griffin will charge ahead with the current Ares-1 program as if everthing is and will be just peachy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 12/23/2007 06:55 pm
The political mentality of the party formerly in charge of single party rule of the US is "stick with your decision" regardless - it is better to maintain the semblance of power regardless of results. That is the root issue behind the Stick.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: csj on 12/23/2007 07:28 pm
I did not think that I would post before New Years but I got a break.  I do not work on Ares but I am aware of the political difficulties.  I have talked to a couple of people, who I know well, over the past few days and who are currently working on the Ares I upperstage.  One of them, who I will call DH, had heard of Direct and the other had not.  

DH, who is passionate about space flight, seemed genuinely concerned about losing his job if he took a vocal stand on the subject and did not want to take a stand one way or another.  He did have some friends – he did not say who they were- that looked at the Direct proposal and they felt that it would not work.  The reasons he quoted did not seem to be valid as if they did not understand the proposal.  For instance, he said that Direct could not land anywhere and return anytime.  I knew that was not the case.  Since DH is a good friend and I did not want to irritate him, I let it ride.  After New Years, I do intend to ask to talk to his friends directly so that I could asked them in - a nice manner - what their assumptions were i.e. Which version of Direct, EOR/LOR, EOR/L1, masses etc….  

The other fellow seemed to think that politically, Direct was a no-go.  He did glance at the AIAA paper but clearly, he is not interested in anything but doing his job – which is admirable.  

My point about all of this is that I believe that:

1. There are misconceptions about Direct at NASA
2. There is a concern about making waves within NASA
3. If we switch from ARES I & V to “ARES 2 & 3” All of the interesting work will go away and every one will go to the seemingly uninteresting work of modifying the External Tank for Direct.

I am convinced that Direct is the way to go.  I am also a proponent, at least for now, of convincing NASA from the inside to change.  I do need some ideas on how to approach those who are working on ARES and convince them that Direct is a better way to go.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/23/2007 08:18 pm
Quote
csj - 23/12/2007  3:28 PM

I did not think that I would post before New Years but I got a break.  I do not work on Ares but I am aware of the political difficulties.  I have talked to a couple of people, who I know well, over the past few days and who are currently working on the Ares I upperstage.  One of them, who I will call DH, had heard of Direct and the other had not.  

DH, who is passionate about space flight, seemed genuinely concerned about losing his job if he took a vocal stand on the subject and did not want to take a stand one way or another.  He did have some friends – he did not say who they were- that looked at the Direct proposal and they felt that it would not work.  The reasons he quoted did not seem to be valid as if they did not understand the proposal.  For instance, he said that Direct could not land anywhere and return anytime.  I knew that was not the case.  Since DH is a good friend and I did not want to irritate him, I let it ride.  After New Years, I do intend to ask to talk to his friends directly so that I could asked them in - a nice manner - what their assumptions were i.e. Which version of Direct, EOR/LOR, EOR/L1, masses etc….  

The other fellow seemed to think that politically, Direct was a no-go.  He did glance at the AIAA paper but clearly, he is not interested in anything but doing his job – which is admirable.  

My point about all of this is that I believe that:

1. There are misconceptions about Direct at NASA
2. There is a concern about making waves within NASA
3. If we switch from ARES I & V to “ARES 2 & 3” All of the interesting work will go away and every one will go to the seemingly uninteresting work of modifying the External Tank for Direct.

I am convinced that Direct is the way to go.  I am also a proponent, at least for now, of convincing NASA from the inside to change.  I do need some ideas on how to approach those who are working on ARES and convince them that Direct is a better way to go.
Clay: Welcome to NSF and to this thread.

You said "For instance, he said that Direct could not land anywhere and return anytime."
Your friend was speaking of the ESAS requirement for Global Access - Anytime Return and has Ares and DIRECT confused. Ares cannot perform this because as currently configured it simply cannot carry sufficient propellant to make these maneuvers possible. Phasing and plane changes take a heavy toll on any spacecraft performing these maneuvers and Ares quite simply is not capable of it. NASA has already discovered that the Ares cannot do this, and is now learning just how deficient the architecture they have imposed really is. DIRECT on the other hand is not constrained by this, and therefore actually CAN provide Global Access - Anytime Return. DIRECT outshines the Ares architecture in every way. It is unfortunate however that NASA continues to follow a path that will doom the American manned space program to second class citizenship based on the leaderships personal preference in complete and utter disregard for real engineering analysis which is unfettered by the threat of loss of career if the desired results are not produced.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: csj on 12/23/2007 08:54 pm
Thanks Chuck.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/23/2007 10:49 pm
Quote
csj - 23/12/2007  3:28 PM

I did not think that I would post before New Years but I got a break.  I do not work on Ares but I am aware of the political difficulties.  I have talked to a couple of people, who I know well, over the past few days and who are currently working on the Ares I upperstage.  One of them, who I will call DH, had heard of Direct and the other had not.  

DH, who is passionate about space flight, seemed genuinely concerned about losing his job if he took a vocal stand on the subject and did not want to take a stand one way or another.  He did have some friends – he did not say who they were- that looked at the Direct proposal and they felt that it would not work.  The reasons he quoted did not seem to be valid as if they did not understand the proposal.  For instance, he said that Direct could not land anywhere and return anytime.  I knew that was not the case.  Since DH is a good friend and I did not want to irritate him, I let it ride.  After New Years, I do intend to ask to talk to his friends directly so that I could asked them in - a nice manner - what their assumptions were i.e. Which version of Direct, EOR/LOR, EOR/L1, masses etc….  

The other fellow seemed to think that politically, Direct was a no-go.  He did glance at the AIAA paper but clearly, he is not interested in anything but doing his job – which is admirable.  

My point about all of this is that I believe that:

1. There are misconceptions about Direct at NASA
2. There is a concern about making waves within NASA
3. If we switch from ARES I & V to “ARES 2 & 3” All of the interesting work will go away and every one will go to the seemingly uninteresting work of modifying the External Tank for Direct.

I am convinced that Direct is the way to go.  I am also a proponent, at least for now, of convincing NASA from the inside to change.  I do need some ideas on how to approach those who are working on ARES and convince them that Direct is a better way to go.

There *is* a large degree of confusion regarding DIRECT.   A lot of it stems from the FUD campaign surrounding our v1.0 proposal.   I've covered that ground many times before, but in short there are internal NASA documents 'demonstrating' how that old DIRECT proposal doesn't work.   While the premise of those arguments are actually wrong, and we have data now showing it actually would have worked, the documents are still 'out there' and are believed by folk who aren't informed of the changes.   We aren't using that v1.0 architecture anymore anyhow, so it's ultimately a moot point.

DIRECT v2.0 is a complete re-work of the concept specifically in answer to that criticism.

It has additional margins and doesn't require any new engine developments at all (the biggest issue in the previous FUD campaign) to start flying Orion, and for the Lunar program only requires the J-2X "D" variant - the lower-spec 274,000lb thrust version, not the 294,000lb thrust version required for Ares-I.

v2.0 also increases overall performance by an astonishing degree by using two of the larger Jupiter launchers to accomplish the missions instead of one small and one large.   This extra performance places us about 38% higher performance than Ares-I/V will be able to achieve.

As Chuck says, Ares is currently unable to close the performance requirements for Global Access and Anytime Return.   The current shortfall in performance for Ares-I/V is in the region of 26mT so isn't a small issue, and NASA is being forced to consider an expensive third stage for Ares-V to do so.   DIRECT's additional performance however, is sufficient to close both of these requirement fully.

You make a really excellent observation though - to understand how we can do this you need to have read the entire AIAA paper - All 130+ pages of it (or the last 200+ pages of this thread!).   That's asking quite a lot of folk - even those who are interested.   Getting the attention of uninterested folk is a completely lost cause with such a massive paper.   We clearly need to explain this much more simply - three or four pages - a 15 minute read, not a 2-day read.

This reinforces my opinion that we need to update our much more concise v2.02 documentation as soon as possible with the latest figures and architecture details.   The v2.02 docs are quite seriously out of date already, so need an update anyway.

Thank-you for bringing your comments and thoughts to this thread - you may not realize precisely how important they actually are to me - but they are very significant IMHO.

Perhaps a much shorter paper would be of use in convincing your Ares friends.   I'm endeavouring to do something towards this over the holiday period.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 12/26/2007 08:27 pm
Quote
csj - 21/12/2007  9:01 PM

It took me at least two weeks to complete but starting at page 1, I read the entire DIRECT v2.0 forum.  However, I did skip over the OT and overly political messages.  Overall, I am impressed with all of the discussions.  I certainly have learned a lot.  Since Christmas is next week, this may be my first and last post for a week.  I do want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas!

Csj, thanks for taking the time to read everything.  Your ideas on good next steps would be much appreciated.  I understand personally what your friend is talking about.  Mike has effectively created a bubble around himself as a result.

One Apollo manger told me that during Apollo one was fired for covering up the truth and promoted for finding solutions.  Given how late the political hour is I think we all need to focus on damage control at this point.  I still hold out hope that the current management will come to their senses.  I’ve been told by those that know Mike personally that this is false hope once he has made up his mind.

Mike is a smart guy.  I think it comes down to two different visions.  His is to use the Ares-I to effectively reset the NASA organization needed for the build up to the Ares-V and Mars.  Which is why the engineering failure of the Lunar archeicture is not an issue for him either.  I think the politicians are finally on to this STS derivative in sheep’s clothing.

DIRECT offers a smoother transition for the current NASA culture which is why Mike doesn’t like it.  I’ve been told in no uncertain terms that Mike loathes the STS and everything associated with it.  Occasionally you’ll see this slip out before PA can catch it when he comments on what NASA has done and is currently slated to do.  DIRECT sees the STS as an existing heavy lift infrastructure (people + hardware + systems) that can be transitioned to the objectives of the VSE.

The Jupiter-244 can put more mass into orbit than the Ares-V as well if the mass per launch ever became an issue.  Using propellant depots the Jupiter-232 will be able to put more useful spacecraft mass on a TLI and/or TMI than we could ever afford using just 5 launches per year, so even Mars first approach would work better with DIRECT.

Anyway thanks for taking the time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 12/27/2007 05:12 pm
A switch may be forced, if Ares I falls below 1:1000 LOC.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MKremer on 12/27/2007 05:20 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 27/12/2007  12:12 PM

A switch may be forced, if Ares I falls below 1:1000 LOC.

Forced by whom, and how?

Not that I'm totally doubting the premise, but that kind of blanket statement is useless without some kind of backing evidence and/or further explanations as to why.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/27/2007 08:38 pm
I get the distinct feeling that Griffin has tied his entire reputation to the coat-tails of Ares-I, simply because he sees it as the only path to get to his mighty Ares-V (he wants the legacy of being responsible for building the largest rocket ever).

I think he will force Congress to replace him before he will ever replace Ares-I.

Ares-I has already proven itself to be the worst choice in terms of cost, schedule and technical problems.   Losing its much vaunted "safety" benefit has clearly made no significant difference to the larger equation and Griffin remains totally hell-bent on taking the agency over the Ares cliff.

So the only question remaining is: When will Griffin be ousted?


I hate to say it (because I actually liked the guy), but for the sakes of the US Space Program, I'm convinced Ares-I has got to go one way or the other - and the sooner the better.   Every day it remains is  day longer before we get something really good working.   I was hoping to keep Griffin's technical abilities in the program, but if he is determined to make it a choice between Griffin or a better system than Ares-I for the next 40 years, then I choose the better system and will not shed a tear bidding farewell to Mike.

I would have preferred a Griffin + Better system option though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/28/2007 07:55 pm

Quote
kraisee - 28/12/2007 8:38 AM  I would have preferred a Griffin + Better system option though. Ross.

 Yes, definitely...  :(

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 12/30/2007 07:21 pm
How likely are LRBs to ultimately replace the SRBs?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/30/2007 08:08 pm
Very unlikely indeed.

There is a lot of political pressure from a number of different directions (DoD, Congress etc) above NASA to keep them in the mix.   I don't expect that to change any time soon.

Perhaps if the SRB's were to suffer another major failure or if the EPA were to get *really* serious about perchlorate pollution, then something might change, but I wouldn't hold your breath expecting any changes until then.

It should be remembered that another SRB failure seems quite unlikely.   The redesigned Shuttle RSRB's have proven a perfect flight record since they were altered in 1986.   The new RSRM's have a total of 190 human flights under their belts and zero failures (100% demonstrated reliability over two decades).   That record is not even matched by the extraordinarily reliable SSME because it has suffered two (non-catastrophic) failures over 357 human flights (99.44% demonstrated reliability over two and a half decades).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/30/2007 08:37 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 30/12/2007  3:21 PM

How likely are LRBs to ultimately replace the SRBs?
Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon. There are lots of reasons but the major one is political.

What you might see after a time is an effort to restart and field the RS-84 Kero-Lox engine and an effort to change the ET core from LOX-LH2 to LOX-Kero with RS-84. But even that would have trouble because of the link to the DoD use of the RS-68 on the EELV's.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 12/30/2007 10:28 pm
Has Lockheed done studies on switching to -84 or similar? For that matter, is there anything similar?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 12/30/2007 10:53 pm
RS-84 was originally targetted for the vehicle which ultimately became Atlas-V I believe.   RD-180 was cheaper and relations with Russia were much better at the time so the decision was made to use that instead.   RS-84 development closed down as a result.

PWR do believe it would be easier to re-start RS-84 development than to build its own variant of the RD-180's though.    And RS-84 would offer a slight (~5%) increase in performance to Atlas too.

The only other likely option for a 1m+ lb thrust Kero/LOX engine would be to re-start F-1 production somehow - but that's likely to be rather an expensive proposition.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sticksux on 12/30/2007 10:55 pm
Quote
kraisee - 30/12/2007  9:08 PM
It should be remembered that another SRB failure seems quite unlikely.   The redesigned Shuttle RSRB's have proven a perfect flight record since they were altered in 1986.   The new RSRM's have a total of 190 human flights under their belts and zero failures (100% demonstrated reliability over two decades).   That record is not even matched by the extraordinarily reliable SSME because it has suffered two (non-catastrophic) failures over 357 human flights (99.44% demonstrated reliability over two and a half decades).

What a piece of flawed logic. You deliberately took last 20 years for SRB, but last 25 years for SSME! Thus for SSMEs you count even benign sensor failure, but for SRB you conveniently miss "small detail" - Challenger accident.

You should not feel offended when NASA spreads FUD about Direct then.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 12/30/2007 11:37 pm
Quote
sticksux - 30/12/2007  6:55 PM

What a piece of flawed logic. You deliberately took last 20 years for SRB, but last 25 years for SSME! Thus for SSMEs you count even benign sensor failure, but for SRB you conveniently miss "small detail" - Challenger accident.


Not flawed.  The RSRM is not the same as the SRM, so pre Challenger is not part of the population for statistical purposes.

But likewise, the RSRM numbers are not applicable to the 5 segment SRM
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/31/2007 12:49 am
Exactly...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/31/2007 06:32 am
I just finished reading the AIAA 2007 paper. I havn't read the last 200 forum pages, so these comments may have been repeated previously. I hope you don't mind this view from down under.

p.38. Maybe I'm missing something here, but the drawings of the platforms show them being symmetrical about the ET for STS. From the photo of the STS stack, the platforms go around the ET on one side and around the orbiter on the other side. These orbiter specific platforms probably need to be removed and replaced with ET platforms. The drawings seem to indicate that no changes are required for the lower platforms, which I don't think is the case.

p.75 I found the changing colours confusing, especially when trajectories go close the Moon. I would have preferred a single colour for each trajectory so I can follow the orbital path for each trajectory.

p.77 For crewed transfer, I would prefer trajectory 4b over 4a as recommended by the text. There is a significant saving in delta-V, over 400 m/s, for an increase of mission time by one day.

p.94 For Propellant Delivery in Figure 110, there is assumed to be 221.7 t of propellant at the Earth Depot and 84.2 t initially in the Lunar Depot. Transferring the propellant from the Earth to the Lunar Depot, requires the Lunar depot to hold 305.9 t of propellant, although a standard tank size is 221.7 t! Obviously, this implies the Lunar Depot must be sized to contain 38% more propellant than standard. If that's the case, why not make the Earth Depot the same size? That way, it can store the propellant load from its initial launch (84.3 t) and two refuel flights of 94.3 t each (a total of 272.9 t). A 305.9 t tank can hold 3.24 refuel flights.

Figure 111. I figure a total of four Jupiter-232 (Earth Depot, two refuel and Lunar Depot) and five Jupiter-221 launches are initially required (LSAM and four CEV). Another two refuel flights (51.2 t left in depot + 2x94.3 t = 239.8 t), Lunar Depot and four CEV flights would use up the remaining four missions for the LSAM. That's a total of seven Jupiter-232 and nine Jupiter-221 missions, or 16 Jupiters for eight Lunar missions. The payloads are an Earth depot, two Lunar Depots, one LSAM and eight CEV's. How much saving in cost per mission would you expect compared to the standard 2xJupiter-232 mission? Would it be more cost effective to use Jupiter-232 for the CEV flights? Each of these would give a lot more propellant either at the Earth or Lunar depots, perhaps reducing the total number of Jupiter flights.

p.100 I believe you should also show the Mars Departure Stage.

p.105 I believe the cycle you have shown is flawed. In the Sabatier reactor CO2 + 4H2 -> CH4 + 2H20. In Electrolysis 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2. Returning the O2 back to burn with the CH4 just repeats the cycle, generating no O2 for fuel. The only option is to dump CH4, using 2H2 for every O2. This means you have to carry 5H2 to generate the required O2 (2H2 for extraction and 3H2 for fuel with a 5.3:1 mixture ratio, MR). An alternative is to electrolyse 2CO2 -> 2CO + O2. The CO (carbon monoxide) is dumped, requiring you to bring 3H2 for fuel. However, this is a very energy consumptious process requiring very high powers. It may be more effective to just bring the extra H2. In the Mars Direct process effectively, 2H2 + CO2 -> CH4 + O2. However we need an extra 0.8O2 to obtain CH4 + 1.8O2 -> CO2 + 1.6H2O + 0.4H2 in the engine (at 3.6 MR). The 0.8O2 is obtained either through energy intensive electrolysis of CO2 or with 1.6H2. The mass returns for the hydrogen brought to Mars are

H2/O2 CH4 dump (O2+3H2)/5H2 = 3.8
H2/O2 CO2 electro (O2+3H2)/3H2 = 6.3
CH4/O2 CH4 dump (CH4+1.8O2)/(2H2+1.6H2) = 10.2
CH4/O2 CO2 electro (CH4+1.8O2)/2H2 = 18.4

The last scheme is very attractive due to very large mass returns and smaller tank sizes required with CH4. For the same delta-V, H2/O2 tank volumes are approximately double that of CH4/O2. I agree with Zubrin that CH4/O2 is the propellant of choice on Mars.

p.107 The CEV is shown exposed during the trajectory to Mars. I believe it should be covered by the re-entry shroud, especially as it will face the highest temperatures during re-entry, like the nose of the Space Shuttle.

p.115 Why are EELV budget values given, but not that of Ares-I/V? Its already been decided that a shuttle derived system is to be used. The point of the paper is to show that Direct is a much better way than Ares-I/V.

p.122 I believe this schedule is for the old Direct 1.0. The Constellation flights show the LSAM and CEV being carried on separate Jupiter flights, instead of on one launch as in Direct 2.0. I believe the Ares-I/V flights have also been delayed.

Of course, if a Depot can be used to increase TLI mass for Direct, it can also be used for Ares-I/V. In fact, we may see Ares-V launching a full Saturn-V like stack of EDS/LSAM/CEV, refueling at a depot and then heading for the Moon. This should solve all of NASA's current problems with Ares-I/V.

Obviously, Direct is the fastest and cheapest way for NASA to reach the Moon. If the Democrats come into power, a new administrator will likely be appointed. If NASA is having even further troubles with Ares-I/V, the new administrator might make the sea change for Direct to happen. Otherwise, the ironic situation of the Chinese copying Direct and beating NASA in the second race to the Moon could be an outcome!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 12/31/2007 03:03 pm
Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 31/12/2007  2:32 AM
Otherwise, the ironic situation of the Chinese copying Direct and beating NASA in the second race to the Moon could be an outcome!
Not to argue the intent or capability of the Chinese (I can't speak to either), it would be exceptionally unlikely for anyone to arrive at Direct from a clean sheet of paper. Unless you already have the existing STS hardware and the existing LC39 type infrastructure and the in-place political fight for jobs in electoral districts, Direct makes no sense at all. Neither does Ares, of course.

At the very least a clean sheet design would go with liquid boosters and avoid the solids all together. Very likely make the liquid boosters multiples of a common core concept to get your manufacturing rates up and your development & testing costs down.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: J05H on 12/31/2007 03:18 pm
An alternative clean-sheet design would be a single-core 50-90t launcher. Fewer engines, completely inline staging for higher safety numbers. This is something Jim has talked about before.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 12/31/2007 03:24 pm
Quote
clongton - 30/12/2007  1:37 PM
Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon. There are lots of reasons but the major one is political.

What you might see after a time is an effort to restart and field the RS-84 Kero-Lox engine and an effort to change the ET core from LOX-LH2 to LOX-Kero with RS-84. But even that would have trouble because of the link to the DoD use of the RS-68 on the EELV's.

The "political" reasons for keeping the SRB are a lot more tenuous than some of the other Shuttle related political baggage.  Utah is the reddest of red states in a country that's starting to swing back towards the blue.  Unless the republicans manage to turn things around, I wouldn't place too much stock in the continued political clout of congresspeople from a small state that leans strongly towards the opposing party.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 12/31/2007 03:29 pm
Quote
jongoff - 31/12/2007  11:24 AM

Quote
clongton - 30/12/2007  1:37 PM
Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon. There are lots of reasons but the major one is political.

What you might see after a time is an effort to restart and field the RS-84 Kero-Lox engine and an effort to change the ET core from LOX-LH2 to LOX-Kero with RS-84. But even that would have trouble because of the link to the DoD use of the RS-68 on the EELV's.

The "political" reasons for keeping the SRB are a lot more tenuous than some of the other Shuttle related political baggage.  Utah is the reddest of red states in a country that's starting to swing back towards the blue.  Unless the republicans manage to turn things around, I wouldn't place too much stock in the continued political clout of congresspeople from a small state that leans strongly towards the opposing party.

~Jon
Jon,
The politics is more than just state-based; it's DoD. ATK provides a sizable percentage of the military missile and rocket weaponry, and the use of the RSRB's figures into the DoD's total equation. It gets very complicated to say the least, once the military element begins to be considered in the mix.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sticksux on 12/31/2007 05:34 pm
Quote
Jim - 31/12/2007  12:37 AM
Quote
sticksux - 30/12/2007  6:55 PM
What a piece of flawed logic. You deliberately took last 20 years for SRB, but last 25 years for SSME! Thus for SSMEs you count even benign sensor failure, but for SRB you conveniently miss "small detail" - Challenger accident.

Not flawed.  The RSRM is not the same as the SRM, so pre Challenger is not part of the population for statistical purposes.

But likewise, the RSRM numbers are not applicable to the 5 segment SRM

SSME also was modified over the years. You should start counting SSME failures from the introduction of Block IIA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 12/31/2007 06:26 pm
Quote
sticksux - 31/12/2007  1:34 PM

Quote
Jim - 31/12/2007  12:37 AM
Quote
sticksux - 30/12/2007  6:55 PM
What a piece of flawed logic. You deliberately took last 20 years for SRB, but last 25 years for SSME! Thus for SSMEs you count even benign sensor failure, but for SRB you conveniently miss "small detail" - Challenger accident.

Not flawed.  The RSRM is not the same as the SRM, so pre Challenger is not part of the population for statistical purposes.

But likewise, the RSRM numbers are not applicable to the 5 segment SRM

SSME also was modified over the years. You should start counting SSME failures from the introduction of Block IIA.

agree
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: simonbp on 12/31/2007 10:18 pm
Isn't a moot point? Both SSMEs (of any versions) and SRBs (of any versions) have failed once in flight, but SSME has better numbers because SSME inherently flies 50% more times than SRB. Either way, they are both ridiculously reliable for number of times they have flown...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 01/01/2008 06:38 pm
Quote
J05H - 31/12/2007  11:18 AM

An alternative clean-sheet design would be a single-core 50-90t launcher. Fewer engines, completely inline staging for higher safety numbers. This is something Jim has talked about before.
Yeah, perhaps. It might depend upon the combination of funding and program objectives as a multicore project may offer ways to get smaller vehicles at a reduced cost, like the Atlas & Delta families are doing now. It might be worth the trade of safety vs. time/money.

Either way it would be a liquid core and no sign of solids.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/02/2008 05:20 am
Quote
kraisee - 27/12/2007  9:38 PM

I get the distinct feeling that Griffin has tied his entire reputation to the coat-tails of Ares-I, simply because he sees it as the only path to get to his mighty Ares-V (he wants the legacy of being responsible for building the largest rocket ever).

I think he will force Congress to replace him before he will ever replace Ares-I.

Congress like the general public are not space geeks.  The Ares-I weight and vibration problems can be solved by building the J-120 and calling it the Ares-I.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/04/2008 08:59 am
Quote
sticksux - 31/12/2007  1:34 PM

SSME also was modified over the years. You should start counting SSME failures from the introduction of Block IIA.

Fair comment.   Here:-

SSME:
Baseline - First Manned Orbital Flight (FMOF) (STS-1 to STS-5): 15 flights
Full Power Level Phase I (STS-6 to STS-25): 60 flights, 2 Pad Aborts, 1 in-flight failure
Phase II (STS-26R to STS-93): 171 flights, 3 Pad Aborts
Block I (STS-70 to STS-88): 27 flights, 1 undetected Pad Abort condition missed
Subtotal for "Block I variants": 273 flights, 6 Pad Abort conditions, 1 in-flight failure (1 in 273 risk, 99.634% demonstrated reliability)

Block IIA (STS-89 to STS-109): 49 flights, 1 Pad Abort, 1 in-flight failure
Block II (STS-104 to present): 38 flights
Subtotal for "Block II variants": 87 flights, 1 Pad Abort, 1 in-flight failure (1 in 87 risk, 98.851% demonstrated reliability - w/ ongoing history)

Total: 360 flights, 7 Pad Aborts, 2 in-flight failures (1 in 180 risk, 99.444% demonstrated reliability - w/ ongoing history)


Engine Significant Launch Attempt (T-9 engine start sequence or later) Problem History:
STS-41D Discovery (Phase I), Pad Abort @ T-3s, SSME-3 SN-20?? (redundant control failure of main fuel valve)
STS-51F Challenger (Phase I), Pad Abort @ T-3s, SSME-2 SN-2020 (coolant valve malfunction)
STS-51F Challenger (Phase I), Premature Shutdown during ascent, SSME-1 SN-2023, @ T+645s, Abort to Orbit (sensor problem)
STS-55 Columbia (Phase II), Pad Abort @ T-3.3s, SSME-3 SN-2029 (oxidizer pre-burner augmented spark igniter check valve leak)
STS-51 Discovery (Phase II), Pad Abort @ T-3s, SSME-2 SN-2034 (failure 1 of 4 RSLS sensor)
STS-68 Endeavour (Phase II), Pad Abort @ T-1.9s, SSME-3 SN-2026 (red line temp in oxidizer turbo pump)
STS-78 Columbia (Block I), Engine anomaly during startup, SSME-3 SN-2036 (violated thrust buildup rate during start sequence LCC, was not noticed until after launch, should have been RSLS abort event, flight was nominal)
STS-93 Columbia (Block IIA), Pad Abort @ T-6s, Controllers Manually Aborted during engine pre-start sequence (false sensor reading showed spike in hydrogen pressure)
STS-93 Columbia (Block IIA), LH2 Fuel Leak Throughout Ascent @ T+5s, SSME-3 SN-2019 (combustion chamber repair pin came loose damaging regenerative nozzle)


SRB:
Original Solid Rocket Booster (SRB):
STS-2 O-ring erosion (0.053") detected on RH SRB primary
STS-6 O-rings showed signed of heating on both SRB's, but were not eroded
STS-41B (flight 10) O-ring erosion (0.040" and 0.039") detected on both SRB's
STS-41C (flight 11) O-ring erosion (0.034") detected on RH SRB.   LH SRB showed heat effects, but no erosion
STS-41D (flight 12) O-ring erosion (0.028" and 0.046") detected in both SRB's
STS-51C (flight 15) O-ring erosion detected in 2 locations on each SRB varying between 0.010" and 0.038" deep
STS-51D (flight 16) O-ring erosion (0.068" and 0.011") detected in both SRB's
STS-51B (flight 17) O-ring erosion (0.171" and 0.032") detected in both SRB's (worst event until 51L)
STS-51G (flight 18) O-ring erosion (0.009" and 0.013") detected in two locations on RH SRB
STS-51I (flight 20) O-ring erosion (0.064" and 0.030") detected in two locations on LH SRB
STS-61A (flight 22) O-ring erosion (0.075") detected on LH SRB
STS-61B (flight 23) O-ring erosion (0.039" and 0.017") detected in both SRB's
STS-61C (flight 24) O-ring erosion (0.011" and 0.004") detected in both SRB's
STS-51L (flight 25) Loss of Vehicle, Loss of Crew.   Caused by RH SRB O-ring severe failure releasing blow-by of hot gasses towards SRB aft support mounting, which failed @ ~T+73s.
Subtotal for Original SRB: 50 flights, 23 anomalies, 1 in-flight failure (1 in 50 risk, 98% demonstrated reliability)

Redesigned Solid Rocket Booster (RSRB):
STS-78 Columbia, Only occurrence of primary O-ring blow-by on the J-joint of redesigned SRB.   Did not pass secondary O-ring nor capture feature O-ring added during the redesign.   Fault was traced to use of "more environmentally friendly adhesive and cleaning fluid" which was never utilized again.   Nominal performance achieved during flight.   Review concluded Flight Safety was not compromised.
Subtotal for Redesigned SRB: 190 flights, 1 anomaly, 0 in-flight failure (0 in 190 risk, 100% demonstrated reliability - w/ ongoing history)

TOTAL: 240 flights, 24 anomalies, 1 in-flight failure (1 in 240 risk, 99.583% demonstrated reliability - w/ ongoing history)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sticksux on 01/04/2008 10:20 am
Thanks!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 01/04/2008 12:58 pm
I expressed my doubts about Direct at this thread some time ago and as nobody was able to clear these doubts I'm ignoring Direct from that time.
However, Ross mentioned NLS at different thread recently. Could you elaborate more about similarities with Direct core? I think that NLS core has dry weight 163 klbs compared to 153 klbs of Direct. The engines thrust should be about the same.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: csj on 01/04/2008 02:16 pm
Steven,

I made it through the forum a week or so ago and am currently working my way through the AIAA 2007 paper.  I am only midway through the lunar section.  Therefore, I have little response relative to your comments.  However, off the top of my head, you are most likely correct about the orbiter specific platforms in the VAB on p.38.  Also, your are correct about the Sabatier reactor p.105.  I do know that hydrogen needs to be taken to Mars unless water or a hydrocarbon is found on Mars to extract the hydrogen.  Something like that needs to be mentioned.  Outside of that, I do not have sufficient knowledge at this time.

I do have a couple of questions for the everyone else.

Page 83.  Figure 101
Should the LSAM (DS + Equipment) mass be the same for all three landings?  

Equatorial = 3,048 Kg
Polar = 4,386 Kg (1,338 Kg excess)
Global (60 Degrees) = 5,017 Kg (1,969 Kg excess)

Another thought that I would like for someone to comment on is that the Constellation SM seems to be, proportionally speaking, undersized and the LSAM DS is oversized.  I am assuming that this is because Ares I cannot launch a larger SM so the LSAM DS is forced to be the workhorse for LOI, arrival plane changes and orbit circularization While the SM performs only the departure de-circularization, plane changes and TEI.  

My question is this:  If the SM fails to perform the return plane change and TEI burn for whatever reason, will a rescue CEV alone be capable of returning the crew?  In other words, does the rescue CEV have sufficient delta V to do the LOI, all the plane changes, the orbit circularization and TEI?  Are an LSAM, an EDAS and Ares V also required for such a rescue in the current architecture?  Does Direct Launcher have a better rescue capability such as making the SM the workhorse and the LSAM DS a descent stage only?

 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/04/2008 02:48 pm
Quote
csj - 4/1/2008  10:16 AM

Another thought that I would like for someone to comment on is that the Constellation SM seems to be, proportionally speaking, undersized and the LSAM DS is oversized.  I am assuming that this is because Ares I cannot launch a larger SM so the LSAM DS is forced to be the workhorse for LOI, arrival plane changes and orbit circularization While the SM performs only the departure de-circularization, plane changes and TEI.  

My question is this:  If the SM fails to perform the return plane change and TEI burn for whatever reason, will a rescue CEV alone be capable of returning the crew?  In other words, does the rescue CEV have sufficient delta V to do the LOI, all the plane changes, the orbit circularization and TEI?  Are an LSAM, an EDAS and Ares V also required for such a rescue in the current architecture?  Does Direct Launcher have a better rescue capability such as making the SM the workhorse and the LSAM DS a descent stage only?


the LSAM DS and SM are properly sized.  It has nothing to do with Ares I.  It is the basic ESAS architecture.   The  LSAM DS needs to perform the LOI since it will have to on unmanned missions where there is no CEV SM.

There isn't a rescue CEV nor a requirement for one.  Apollo didn't have one.  There isn't time to mount a rescue mission.  The CEV has backup thrusters to perform the TEI.  That is the rescue mission

Also a rescue mission can't be done with a single Ares I launch.

Not speaking for Direct,  I believe they don't change the size of the Constellation spacecraft
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 01/04/2008 03:28 pm
Quote
Jim - 4/1/2008  7:48 AM

Quote
csj - 4/1/2008  10:16 AM

Another thought that I would like for someone to comment on is that the Constellation SM seems to be, proportionally speaking, undersized and the LSAM DS is oversized.  I am assuming that this is because Ares I cannot launch a larger SM so the LSAM DS is forced to be the workhorse for LOI, arrival plane changes and orbit circularization While the SM performs only the departure de-circularization, plane changes and TEI.  

My question is this:  If the SM fails to perform the return plane change and TEI burn for whatever reason, will a rescue CEV alone be capable of returning the crew?  In other words, does the rescue CEV have sufficient delta V to do the LOI, all the plane changes, the orbit circularization and TEI?  Are an LSAM, an EDAS and Ares V also required for such a rescue in the current architecture?  Does Direct Launcher have a better rescue capability such as making the SM the workhorse and the LSAM DS a descent stage only?


the LSAM DS and SM are properly sized.  It has nothing to do with Ares I.  It is the basic ESAS architecture.   The  LSAM DS needs to perform the LOI since it will have to on unmanned missions where there is no CEV SM.

There isn't a rescue CEV nor a requirement for one.  Apollo didn't have one.  There isn't time to mount a rescue mission.  The CEV has backup thrusters to perform the TEI.  That is the rescue mission

Also a rescue mission can't be done with a single Ares I launch.

Not speaking for Direct,  I believe they don't change the size of the Constellation spacecraft

DIRECT not only places more mass in orbit than ESAS but opens up the architectural options (i.e. spacecraft breakout + staging locations) over ESAS.  We showed just a subset of the options possible.

I really like the Mars forward lunar architecture.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: csj on 01/04/2008 03:48 pm
Quote
Jim - 4/1/2008  9:48 AM

the LSAM DS and SM are properly sized.  It has nothing to do with Ares I.  It is the basic ESAS architecture.   The  LSAM DS needs to perform the LOI since it will have to on unmanned missions where there is no CEV SM.

There isn't a rescue CEV nor a requirement for one.  Apollo didn't have one.  There isn't time to mount a rescue mission.  The CEV has backup thrusters to perform the TEI.  That is the rescue mission

Also a rescue mission can't be done with a single Ares I launch.

Not speaking for Direct,  I believe they don't change the size of the Constellation spacecraft

Thanks Jim.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/04/2008 08:34 pm
Quote
JIS - 4/1/2008  8:58 AM

Ross mentioned NLS at different thread recently. Could you elaborate more about similarities with Direct core? I think that NLS core has dry weight 163 klbs compared to 153 klbs of Direct. The engines thrust should be about the same.

Look up the terms "NLS" and "National Launch System" over on NTRS.

There are dozens of trade studies, analyses and other papers regarding what you're after.

Of possible interest are the Cycle 0 studies which come in three parts (Book 1 and Book 2, Parts 1 & 2).   The various mass breakouts are there along with many comparisons to ET and trades on exactly how existing ET manufacturing applies to such a new Core.

Also don't forget that NLS was supposed to have a slightly stretched tank, higher performance ASRB's, and higher efficiency Main engines too - all of which mean it was designed stronger than Jupiter actually needs.   And the 1.5 stage NLS had a detachable thrust structure for four of it's 6 engines.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/04/2008 09:04 pm
Quote
csj - 4/1/2008  10:16 AM

I do have a couple of questions for the everyone else.

Page 83.  Figure 101
Should the LSAM (DS + Equipment) mass be the same for all three landings?

Equatorial = 3,048 Kg
Polar = 4,386 Kg (1,338 Kg excess)
Global (60 Degrees) = 5,017 Kg (1,969 Kg excess)

Perhaps I can answer that.

A high-fidelity breakdown of the LSAM was not included in our assessments because the design remains very fluid and is still a long way from being solidified.   A high-level requirement baseline was used for simplicity and to provide simple comparison only.   For missions requiring lower dV (equatorial, then polar), we would expect there to be a higher payload:propellant fraction somewhat along the lines of what you mention above.   Consider that data as a comparative estimate based on known factors, but which are not yet completely settled.


Quote
Another thought that I would like for someone to comment on is that the Constellation SM seems to be, proportionally speaking, undersized and the LSAM DS is oversized.  I am assuming that this is because Ares I cannot launch a larger SM so the LSAM DS is forced to be the workhorse for LOI, arrival plane changes and orbit circularization While the SM performs only the departure de-circularization, plane changes and TEI.

All other things being equal, yes, the Orion SM should perform the LOI for both it and the LSAM - but the two engines aren't equal.   The Orion's engine is only around 320s vac. Isp.   LSAM's will be over 450s.   LSAM's engines will therefore be considerably more efficient for the LOI maneuver.   Using them increases overall performance to the lunar surface by more than the mass penalty for the extra tanking.  It is just the better of the two compromises.


Quote
My question is this:  If the SM fails to perform the return plane change and TEI burn for whatever reason, will a rescue CEV alone be capable of returning the crew?  In other words, does the rescue CEV have sufficient delta V to do the LOI, all the plane changes, the orbit circularization and TEI?  Are an LSAM, an EDAS and Ares V also required for such a rescue in the current architecture?  Does Direct Launcher have a better rescue capability such as making the SM the workhorse and the LSAM DS a descent stage only?

A single Jupiter-232 would certainly have sufficient performance to send an Orion spacecraft to rescue a stranded crew.   From a launch processing perspective, the commonality of hardware (Core & SRB's) for all Jupiter LV's works to our advantage.   It allows for reasonably fast changes to processing of the next flight.   A spare Interstage, EDS, PLF, SCA, Orion and LAS could always be kept on "standby" (somewhat akin to Shuttle LON or the Skylab rescue vehicle), along with a plan for expedited stacking and processing (the standby units would need to be mostly checked-out already).

Lunar mission requirements could then be set-up to have at least the SRB's and Core of the next vehicle pre-stacked in the VAB and ready as a launch commit criteria - I see this as a particularly good idea at least in the experimental days of the program while we're still proving all of the technology.   This would create much of the capability needed for an LON Lunar rescue mission if such an eventuality were ever needed.

But the Orion was originally proposed as being able to return itself from Lunar orbit with it's RCS alone.

It is not yet clear to me whether this original requirement has since been been sacrificed during the recent Zero Base Vehicle work though.   Nobody I have spoken to so far has been willing to confirm that this capability has not been stripped out.   Either way, that is a concern only for Ares-I.   DIRECT is still expecting an Orion spacecraft with this capability fully intact - and that should remain the primary backup option.


And Ares would require the launch of both an Ares-I and Ares-V currently to perform such a mission.   Also docking the Orion directly to the EDS is an unknown quantity at present.   If such a rescue mission were performed with the current plans it would probably require an LSAM too - one which would not then complete its originally assigned mission and would probably have to be landed un-crewed to await a future mission.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: csj on 01/04/2008 09:16 pm
Thanks Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 01/04/2008 10:24 pm
Quote
kraisee - 4/1/2008  9:34 PM

Quote
JIS - 4/1/2008  8:58 AM

Ross mentioned NLS at different thread recently. Could you elaborate more about similarities with Direct core? I think that NLS core has dry weight 163 klbs compared to 153 klbs of Direct. The engines thrust should be about the same.

Look up the terms "NLS" and "National Launch System" over on NTRS.

Ross.

The primary reason why I'm asking is not an interrest in the NLS. I'm more interrested in information where did you get Direct numbers. I doubt you actually did any stress analysis. You apparently took inspiration from a similar system and applied correction factor. As NLS core or some ESAS vehicles cores are more comparable systems than ET I suppose that Direct numbers are derrived from them.
There could also be some expert system used by NASA to get an estimated system weight and some insider privided this information to you. Still, it would be foolish not to compare your system weight with other similar vehicles which gone through more or less detailed stress analysis.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Launch Fan on 01/04/2008 10:48 pm
302,000 views and this isn't even the first Direct thread.  :o
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/04/2008 11:44 pm
Quote
JIS - 4/1/2008  6:24 PM

Quote
kraisee - 4/1/2008  9:34 PM

Quote
JIS - 4/1/2008  8:58 AM

Ross mentioned NLS at different thread recently. Could you elaborate more about similarities with Direct core? I think that NLS core has dry weight 163 klbs compared to 153 klbs of Direct. The engines thrust should be about the same.

Look up the terms "NLS" and "National Launch System" over on NTRS.

Ross.

The primary reason why I'm asking is not an interest in the NLS. I'm more interested in information where did you get Direct numbers. I doubt you actually did any stress analysis. You apparently took inspiration from a similar system and applied correction factor. As NLS core or some ESAS vehicles cores are more comparable systems than ET I suppose that Direct numbers are derived from them.
There could also be some expert system used by NASA to get an estimated system weight and some insider provided this information to you. Still, it would be foolish not to compare your system weight with other similar vehicles which gone through more or less detailed stress analysis.
All the analysis for the Jupiter Launch system was done by professionals who work for NASA or one of its Contractors. Pad rat questioned some of our numbers this morning and I responded this afternoon in that thread. My response is directly applicable to your question. Here is the link:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11313#M228512
While that post did not specifically address the stress analysis, that answer includes the analysis.  Everything critical was verified in a similar way. We did not compute the numbers ourselves and then present them without such professional verification.

I hope that helps.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kimmern123 on 01/05/2008 12:39 am
Has the DIRECT-team considered going to any of the presidential candidates (perhaps after the primaries) and propose DIRECT as an alternative to Ares? My understanding is that DIRECT wil shorten the gap and also be cheaper than the current launch vehicles? In the case like Barack Obama who has proposed delaying Constellation for five years to use some of the money for his educational programs you could propose DIRECT as an alternative that would free up the funds without delaying the program?

Many say mixing engineering and politics is a bad thing, but judging from Ares it looks like this is exactly what's going on. Perhaps this is what's needed to get DIRECT into reality.

Perhaps you have better and more realistic ideas and I don't pretend to be one with all the answers or anything.  You may also already have considered this.I just thought I should give my thoughts ;).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 01/05/2008 06:03 am
Quote
clongton - 5/1/2008  12:44 AM

Quote
JIS - 4/1/2008  6:24 PM

Quote
kraisee - 4/1/2008  9:34 PM

Quote
JIS - 4/1/2008  8:58 AM

Ross mentioned NLS at different thread recently. Could you elaborate more about similarities with Direct core? I think that NLS core has dry weight 163 klbs compared to 153 klbs of Direct. The engines thrust should be about the same.

Look up the terms "NLS" and "National Launch System" over on NTRS.
onder
Ross.

The primary reason why I'm asking is not an interest in the NLS. I'm more interested in information where did you get Direct numbers. I doubt you actually did any stress analysis. You apparently took inspiration from a similar system and applied correction factor. As NLS core or some ESAS vehicles cores are more comparable systems than ET I suppose that Direct numbers are derived from them.
There could also be some expert syestem used by NASA to get an estimated system weight and some insider provided this information to you. Still, it would be foolish not to compare your system weight with other similar vehicles which gone through more or less detaiwled stress analysis.
All the analysis for the Jupiter Launch system was done by professionals who work for NASA or one of its Contractors. Pad rat questioned some of our numbers this morning and I responded this afternoon in that thread. My response is directly applicable to your question. Here is the link:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11313#M228512
While that post did not specifically address the stress analysis, that answer includes the analysis.  Everything critical was verified in a similar way. We did not compute the numbers ourselves and then present them without such professional verification.

I hope that helps.

So some trustworthy guy did some estimation and you took his word as granted. Of course this guy wants to stay anonymous.
Sorry, but my question remains unanswered.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/05/2008 06:20 am
Not quite JIS.

Our cost guys (there are quite a few of them these days) are working in different areas of the industry.   Two worked on the ESAS Report (oh, the stories they've told me about that!) and now work inside CxP on the costings for the Ares, Orion and Altair costings for MSFC.   Two more NASA guys work at KSC, another at HQ.   Then we have two more in LM, one in Boeing and two in ULA.   We also have some interesting contacts these days within CBO too.

We rely upon each to provide data specific to their area of expertise, but in particular the HQ guy and the CxP guys have been extremely helpful in bringing all the data together.   They are the ones who have provided us with comparative workups and detailed breakdowns, most especially  for comparison with Ares.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: csj on 01/07/2008 12:42 am
I need a clarification of a payload mass to orbit discrepancy.  

The Direct numbers from the AIAA 2007 paper are:
The J120 max payload (NET) to LEO Delivery Orbit is 41,971 Kg (42.0 mT) (Page 47 Figure 52)
The J232 max payload (NET) to LEO Delivery Orbit is 95,305 Kg (95.3 mT) (Page 50 Figure 58)
Total Direct max payload (NET) to LEO Delivery Orbit is 137,276 Kg (137.3 mT)

The ARES numbers from Wikipedia are:
The Ares I payload to LEO: 25,000 Kg (25.0 mT)
The Ares V payload to LEO: 130,000 Kg (130.0 mT)
Total ARESI/V payload to LEO: 155,000 Kg (155.0 mT) which is greater than the Direct ‘s 137.3 mT.

The Wikipedia entry for the Ares V must be close to correct because from page 8 of the:
Ares V Overview ESMD Technology Exchange Conference November 2007 found at:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/203086main_AresV_ESMD%20TEC_Nov2007%20Rev%201.pdf
lists the Ares V LEO Payload @ 120 nmi 283,913 lbm 128.8 MT

Another inconsistency is found on the chart in the AIAA 2007 paper Page 43 Figure 49 where the Direct and Ares numbers are both well above the numbers from above.
Direct Total Max Payload to LEO: 220 mT
Ares I/V Total Max Payload to LEO: 180 mT

I am not sure if I am properly interpreting the various payloads but this all needs clarification.  I would like to see a simple, single text table that clearly lists the various vehicle payloads along with the total of each vehicle pair with all using the same reference orbit.  This would make everything succinctly clear.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/07/2008 02:29 am
I need a clarification of a payload mass to orbit discrepancy.

The Direct numbers from the AIAA 2007 paper are:
The J120 max payload (NET) to LEO Delivery Orbit is 41,971 Kg (42.0 mT) (Page 47 Figure 52)
The J232 max payload (NET) to LEO Delivery Orbit is 95,305 Kg (95.3 mT) (Page 50 Figure 58)
Total Direct max payload (NET) to LEO Delivery Orbit is 137,276 Kg (137.3 mT)

The ARES numbers from Wikipedia are:
The Ares I payload to LEO: 25,000 Kg (25.0 mT)
The Ares V payload to LEO: 130,000 Kg (130.0 mT)
Total ARESI/V payload to LEO: 155,000 Kg (155.0 mT) which is greater than the Direct ‘s 137.3 mT.
"
The Wikipedia entry for the Ares V must be close to correct because from page 8 of the:
Ares V Overview ESMD Technology Exchange Conference November 2007 found at:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/203086main_AresV_ESMD%20TEC_Nov2007%20Rev%2...
lists the Ares V LEO Payload @ 120 nmi 283,913 lbm 128.8 MT

Another inconsistency is found on the chart in the AIAA 2007 paper Page 43 Figure 49 where the Direct and Ares numbers are both well above the numbers from above.
Direct Total Max Payload to LEO: 220 mT
Ares I/V Total Max Payload to LEO: 180 mT

I am not sure if I am properly interpreting the various payloads but this all needs clarification. I would like to see a simple, single text table that clearly lists the various vehicle payloads along with the total of each vehicle pair with all using the same reference orbit. This would make everything succinctly clear. "

I just went back and looked at the numbers as well:

If you are looking at LEO:

Ares I:         Approx 25 mt
Direct 120    Approx  40 mt
Ares V:        Approx 120-130 mt
Direct 232    Approx 100-110 mt


To the Moon:

Ares I + Ares V:  Approx  160 - 180 mt
Direct 232 (2)  :  Approx: 200 -220 mt

They are assuming two launches of Direct 232 for moon shots, see page 43.

Looking at p. 50, they have numbers for the crew and cargo at 210 mt for a moon shot, well within my numbers.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2008 05:39 am
Quote
JIS - 4/1/2008  6:24 PM

The primary reason why I'm asking is not an interrest in the NLS. I'm more interrested in information where did you get Direct numbers. I doubt you actually did any stress analysis. You apparently took inspiration from a similar system and applied correction factor. As NLS core or some ESAS vehicles cores are more comparable systems than ET I suppose that Direct numbers are derrived from them.
There could also be some expert system used by NASA to get an estimated system weight and some insider privided this information to you. Still, it would be foolish not to compare your system weight with other similar vehicles which gone through more or less detailed stress analysis.

JIS,
I certainly don't have the tools to do that sort of analysis myself, and neither do Stephen, Chuck etc.   We're just the "frontmen" - as someone once termed us :)

But we have many contacts who put our concept through the wringer on our behalf.   There were a number of them, some in specialist fields, who cooperated to make sure everything was going to work together.   Most are currently working such analysis work for Ares-I and have access to all the appropriate equipment, some of the others were specialists and were from contractors rather than NASA.

On their spare time (I must point out that I have explicitly asked our contacts not to allow DIRECT work to conflict with their day jobs at all), they worked up their own reasonably accurate CAD designs from our mass breakdowns and rudimentary drawings, compared the structures with their databases to make sure we were "in the green" for our mass breakouts.

We went back and forth on a number of points to get a configuration which was acceptable and then we handed the whole thing to them.   Over the course of a number of months they did a series of analysis.

We started with 22 POST runs done to get a baseline for all the other work.   This also helped confirm that our own trajectory analysis tools were reasonably accurate (my own ESA-sourced tools come in ~2% below POST we found out - which was a nice extra margin to put in the bank).   We had some CFD aerodynamics tests, we had an integrated structural test series done.   We had an acoustic & environment series too, and a thermal analysis for both environmental and propulsion.   There were other tests as well, but those are the major ones.   Both J-120 and J-232 - as presented in the AIAA paper - were assessed BTW.

The overall result was that we have conditions on the vehicle which are not a world different from the existing Shuttle data - which isn't a massive surprise to anyone in hindsight.   Our environment is quite acceptable - noticeably more benign than Ares-I I will say - and the structure looks like it will easily achieve the 1.4 safety margins for all likely conditions.

We have not yet had a deep "DAC-1" style analysis done at an individual element basis, and we certainly don't have a finite design showing where every bolt and weld goes.   But we do have quite a lot of what could be called "Pre-DAC" or maybe even "DAC-0" in the bag already.   Certainly enough to call it a "proof of concept" - which is the term the NASA guys gave it.

Given that we're a disparate group of volunteers, I think we've done more than could be expected.   What we need next though, is NASA to get into it seriously for themselves.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2008 05:58 am
Quote
csj - 6/1/2008  8:42 PM

I need a clarification of a payload mass to orbit discrepancy.
(SNIP)

Firstly, we are not going to use the Jupiter-120 for Lunar missions.

The Jupiter-120 is designed to "close the gap" after Shuttle as quickly as possible by requiring the least amount of development work - in particular deleting all new engine development.   Once operational, with over 45mT lift capability, it will be more than powerful enough for any LEO missions currently being planned.   Unlike Ares-I, it also protects the existing flexibility and lift capabilities (16mT+ of payload with a crew) as we enjoy on Shuttle today which will otherwise be lost.   But specifically, if also addresses CAIB's safety concerns by including the Launch Abort System which will increase crew safety by a factor of 6 compared to Shuttle.   Recent information indicate we currently enjoy a GREATER safety margin than Ares-I too.


For Lunar missions we plan to use two Jupiter-232's.   They give us a total lift capacity of 190,610kg, yet are still safe for Crews to launch upon.

This figure represents our "published" performance and assumes 10% additional performance margins over and above NASA's GR&A's (See AIAA paper for description of those) which we have applied to head-off any possible dis-information claims that we might not be able to achieve our claimed performance.   We've had to face dis-information a few times, so we're extra cautious these days!


Secondly, the Ares performance figures are one of those situations where wikipedia is sadly out of date.   Actually, that reminds me that our own DIRECT wiki article is still using mostly v1.0 data!

Current CxP CARD requirements state the CEV will mass 20,030kg as it docks to the LSAM.
And the latest Ares-V performance numbers I've seen say 128,780kg for its payload performance to 120nm circular, 28.5deg orbit.


That puts DIRECT about 28.1% higher performance.


Our "internal" numbers (which are "apples-to-apples" comparative to NASA's) actually show Jupiter-232 CaLV as having 108,101kg useful payload lift performance to circular 120nm, 28.5deg orbit.   Two of those for lunar missions...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 01/07/2008 06:16 am
Quote
kraisee - 7/1/2008  6:39 AM

Quote
JIS - 4/1/2008  6:24 PM

The primary reason why I'm asking is not an interrest in the NLS. I'm more interrested in information where did you get Direct numbers. I doubt you actually did any stress analysis. You apparently took inspiration from a similar system and applied correction factor. As NLS core or some ESAS vehicles cores are more comparable systems than ET I suppose that Direct numbers are derrived from them.
There could also be some expert system used by NASA to get an estimated system weight and some insider privided this information to you. Still, it would be foolish not to compare your system weight with other similar vehicles which gone through more or less detailed stress analysis.

JIS,
I certainly don't have the tools to do that sort of analysis myself, and neither do Stephen, Chuck etc.

But we have many contacts who put our concept through the wringer on our behalf.   There were a number of them, some in specialist fields, who cooperated to make sure everything was going to work together.  

.....

Given that we're a disparate group of volunteers, I think we've done more than could be expected.   What we need next though, is NASA to get into it seriously for themselves.

Ross.

All I wanted to hear is how you get those numbers and if you compared them with other systems which actually went through detailed analysis. ESAS numbers were proved to be quite optimistic taking some estimated weight and applying just overall margin. Now, NASA have proper analysis on every element adding reserve on each one and then applying overall managerial and performance reserve.
Try to look at Jupiter elements weight like core, fairing and EDS and find whether they are comparable with elements from operational launchers or launchers which went at least through some basic NASA analysis. I tried that and wasn't convinced.
I'm citing what I was told by one Direct proponent: "You don't need to be genius to do that."
Until then I simply can't BELIEVE your numbers and have to leave this thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2008 07:29 am
Quote
JIS - 7/1/2008  2:16 AM

All I wanted to hear is how you get those numbers and if you compared them with other systems which actually went through detailed analysis. ESAS numbers were proved to be quite optimistic taking some estimated weight and applying just overall margin.

You won't hear any argument from me regarding "optimistic" ESAS numbers.   I've spoken with people who provided those numbers and some of the stories I've heard would make you laugh if they weren't so serious...   Bottom line is what we all believe anyhow; ESAS screwed anyone who didn't support Stick/Stack.


Quote
Now, NASA have proper analysis on every element adding reserve on each one and then applying overall managerial and performance reserve.

Which is a joke as well IMHO.

Ares-I's total Weight Growth and Managerial "reserves" are, together, now down to just 9.676% - and they haven't even started bending metal yet.   It's a complete joke and I think they'll be lucky to get close to their targets.   The Ares-I engineers I know all think so too, every one of them.


Quote
Try to look at Jupiter elements weight like core, fairing and EDS and find whether they are comparable with elements from operational launchers or launchers which went at least through some basic NASA analysis. I tried that and wasn't convinced.
I'm citing what I was told by one Direct proponent: "You don't need to be genius to do that."
Until then I simply can't BELIEVE your numbers and have to leave this thread.

Our Core is broken down into a number of elements.   You can see the breakdown on page 26 of the AIAA paper.   Firstly, the numbers on the left are based on an exhaustive process of determining structural requirements for the system, and applying the appropriate mass to each element - ENTIRELY based on existing hardware.

One example, Tanking:   We deliberately wanted additional margin in our mass breakout, so we didn't base our tanking on the newer, lighter, AL-Li 2195 used on SLWT for our mass breakouts.   Instead we assumed the mass properties of heavier Al-Li 2219 tanking from LWT and modified that to cope with the structural loads of Jupiter-232, and then applied the usual 1.4 factor of margin for minimum safety before going to loads analysis where it was confirmed to be suitable.

It should be noted that while we assumed the mass properties of LWT, for manufacturing we do still assume that our design will actually use the more modern Al-Li 2195 materials and processing techniques in use right now to make SWLT, not the older, heavier, Al-Li 2219 ones.   It would be stupid actually going back to old tech, and it would only increase costs and reduce potential performance.   Ultimately we have extra, unpublished, margins here because of this approach.

Once these mass allocations were carefully determined, we added an extra 10% to our numbers entirely ourselves - just before going to print - to specifically cover ourselves from the "disinformation crowd".   We figured adding 10% extra should be enough to put us in territory where nobody could complain about anything - looks like we were wrong on that score, eh? :(

Anyway, as the table shows, all of these various elements then had different additional margins applied to each as dictated by normal NASA Ground Rules & Assumption's (GR&A).   We used ESAS GR&A's as the basis for our assessments.   This ultimately means that some parts, such as "Separation Systems" have actually been calculated based on the structural requirements for Jupiter-232's harshest trajectory, have a safety margin of 1.4 built in, are then subject to our 10% arbitrary margins, and then also the 15% margins dictated by the GR&As.   Even elements which have had been dictated to have only 5% GR&A margins applied, such as "MPS Support Systems" have actually been assessed to 1.4 factors, then had our 10% margin added before the 5% GR&A was also added - that particular example actually equates to a total of 61.7% of margins which have been applied to that element through this process.   Does ANYONE here think that's not a fair and suitable approach?


Without our arbitrary 10% structures margin, but still including the full GR&A Weight Growth Allowance (WGA), our Core Stage would actually mass 64,412kg, not 69,369kg as presented in the AIAA paper.   That equates to a handy 5mT of additional performance for a J-120 and about 1.5mT of additional performance for J-232.   Those are simply unpublished additional margins we have generally kept to ourselves.

At this point, I would refer the gentle reader to the NLS-1 papers I mentioned previously.    Being a similar configuration, but powered by three SSME-class engines, and without a large Upper Stage, it's Core Stage would have massed 54,621kg (including 1.4 factor, very similar GR&A's and standard WGA) - some 15 tons lighter than Jupiter's Core, yet still based on LWT, not SLWT.   Bringing in much of SLWT mass savings to NLS to bring the two "as manufactured" systems into technological comparison, Jupiter's Core is specified to mass about 18mT more than the NLS Core would have.   Again, I would like to find ANYONE who doesn't think this is sufficient additional "bracing" (considering most of the strength is derived from the pressurization of the tanks, not the actual structure itself) to support the extra weight above?


Before mentioning the Upper Stage, I should mention that this isn't the extent of our arbitrary margins.   To make sure we're triply-safe, we have also only ever "published" 90% of our in-house payload to LEO performance numbers too.   The payload numbers you see in the AIAA paper are actually 10% further below our internal figures even once all standard ESAS GR&A's have been applied.   This yet another example of just how many precautions we have taken compared to ESAS or any other project of this ilk.   We LITTERALLY have extra margins upon margins, upon margins, with a side helping of margins just to be safe.   If NASA applied all these same margins to Ares-I it would "officially" be a 15 ton launch system.  


The Upper Stage you see in the AIAA paper has been assessed in exactly the same way.

However, the Upper Stage has an even more interesting story behind the scenes...   To validate our results (mostly because of people complaining about v1.0's pmf figures) we contacted Lockheed Martin's Centaur Development Team back in the Summer of '07 for an independent analysis.

We provided them with all the details they needed and they wrote back to us, in an official capacity, with a mass figure far below the one you see on page 32 of the AIAA paper.   They confirmed, that based on the exact same 8.4m Shuttle-compatible diameter, propellant capacity and engine choice, that a "Wide Body Centaur" derivative would, with what they termed as a "generous margin", have a Dry Mass after Growth only 58.35% of the "published" figure you have seen so far!

Now, that's *very* interesting to us, because it equates to a removal of approximately 12.5mT of structure mass!   We DID NOT INCLUDE THAT IN OUR AIAA PAPER simply because we had already heard a few naysayers here on NSF - you, JIS, being one of them - complain endlessly that our pmf's from earlier DIRECT specifications looked too optimistic.

With a pmf (minus engines) as high as .9644 (still not quite as good as Shuttle SLWT ET's 0.9648), we figured that even though this came straight from Lockheed in official capacity, that the Lockheed-sourced figure was going to cause "trouble" if/when we revealed it.

We tried very hard to avoid a lot of complaints, and simply put that in our pockets as a "good thing" to keep in reserve - but it was a wasted effort - the complaining continues anyway and I'm seriously way-past caring any more.

Seeing as even our "conservative" design dosn't seem enough to convince folk like yourself, I really don't see any point in keeping the good news to ourselves any longer.

I'm finally at the point that I don't think the few naysayers are ever going to be convinced by any reasoned argument at all - they're just against it because they're against it and that's all there is to it.


For anyone who *IS* interested, and will give DIRECT a fair hearing though, just think about a Jupiter-232 using that WBC stage with Lockheed's numbers:   We would get an additional 12.5mT of payload performance to LEO (108.1mT just becomes 121.5mT per launch, or 238mT IMLEO Lunar missions instead of Ares-I/V's totally lame 145mT IMLEO missions).   Additionally, we then also have 12.5mT less EDS hardware going through the TLI burn - which almost directly translates to 12.5mT additional mass going into the LSAM.   That's a vast improvement in terms of landed mass on the surface over the already impressive performance of DIRECT.


I'm ready to just ignore all the persistent naysayers and lay all of our cards down on the deck for the majority of people to see.   I think most people are far more open minded, and if we can't get the naysayers off our backs, then all the supporters deserve to see all the data!


I have 100% faith in our concept.    If JIS "can't BELIEVE" the numbers, well that's just tough luck old son.   I have both NASA and Contractor data to back-up the design and I have applied lots of additional, needless, margins to make sure we're totally in the clear with all our published materials.   If that isn't good enough, then I don't think anything ever will be.   Also, I'm just not worried about naysayers any more.   They really don't matter a jot against data IMHO, so these days I think I'm happy to let the cards fall where they will and the the majority speak.


Simply because I think it will make a much louder noise than any of the naysayers, here are The DIRECT Team's *REAL* internal performance numbers without any of our arbitrary margins, and including the full NASA-spec 106% RS-68 and 294klb thrust J-2X engines (not 5-seg SRB's tho), and using the official Lockheed Centaur-derived Upper Stage, and only using the same margins as ESAS used (still higher margins than NASA uses today for Ares):-


Jupiter-120 CaLV: 57,728kg to 30x120nm, 28.5deg
Jupiter-120 CLV: 49,122kg to 30x220nm, 51.6deg

Jupiter-232 CaLV: 121,542kg to circular 120x120nm, 28.5deg
Jupiter-232 CLV: 116,478kg to circular 120x120nm, 28.5deg


That should give everyone here something to think about :)

For our future published materials, we will probably continue to use our very conservative performance numbers, not our higher "real" numbers.

By sticking to conservative numbers we know at we are NEVER "reaching for the sky".   We have margins here, there and everywhere.   If something doesn't turn out quite right (a lesson Ares is learning currently), we have 10% extra margin here that Ares never had, and some more margin there too.   We've got similar LARGE margins in structure, margins in performance, margins in cost, margins in schedule.   We have margins coming out of our butts (quite uncomfortable really).   Why?   Because we feel a lot safer with them than without them.   Sure, we could feed you the same BS as Ares has fed everyone, but look at the flak they are taking during development because of it.   Do we want that?   Hell no...

We would much rather spend a few years getting the design right and be able to turn around and say, yes, it grew, but our margins covered it completely and we've actually got xxxx kg extra performance available than we thought at the start.

Please don't assume we are fools.   While some of us, like myself, are not professionals in this arena, we are relying upon experts and STILL not totally taking their word for it.   We're being VERY careful with all our claims and we are deliberately setting ourselves on an uneven playing field tilted towards our opposition - because we feel quite comfortable that can STILL beat them with that hand tied behind our back.


Frankly, I'm sick-to-the-back-teeth of people whining about things they "can't believe", people who seem to have very little grasp of the realities and who very often "conveniently" forget things which we've told them specifically about over and over again.   I've got industry-sourced data backing up my position.   I have applied extra margins, which a helluva lot more than anyone else seems willing to do.   And I've *NEVER* - including v1.0 - had any hard data which hasn't been confirmed.   If you've got better than that, bring it, otherwise I'm bored of the endless negativism from two or three specific individuals here - it doesn't contribute anything useful.

If you have serious technical concerns or questions, bring them, in fact we welcome them because we're always on the hunt for anything we might have missed.   But this *constant* negative "can't work" attitude is mind-numbingly tedious and excruciatingly annoying.   Please quit it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: JIS on 01/07/2008 09:25 am
Quote
kraisee - 7/1/2008  8:29 AM

Quote
Now, NASA have proper analysis on every element adding reserve on each one and then applying overall managerial and performance reserve.

Which is a joke as well IMHO.

Ares-I's total Weight Growth and Managerial "reserves" are, together, now down to just 9.676% - and they haven't even started bending metal yet.   It's a complete joke and I think they'll be lucky to get close to their targets.   The Ares-I engineers I know all think so too, every one of them.

Still, they are doing at least some analysis. Their numbers seem to be quite conservative compared to DIRECT numbers.

Quote
Quote
Try to look at Jupiter elements weight like core, fairing and EDS and find whether they are comparable with elements from operational launchers or launchers which went at least through some basic NASA analysis. I tried that and wasn't convinced.
I'm citing what I was told by one Direct proponent: "You don't need to be genius to do that."
Until then I simply can't BELIEVE your numbers and have to leave this thread.

Our Core is broken down into a number of elements.  

Why to use STS ET as template? LHX is modified, LOX new, new forward and aft segments, new thrust structure. Maybe intertank is quite similar.  
Wouldn't be better to use NSL work which has attachments for SRBs and aft thrust structure?


Quote
NLS-1 is a good comparison at this stage still, powered by three SSME-class engines, but without needing to support a large Upper Stage, it's Core Stage would have massed 54,621kg including WGA - some 10 tons lighter than Jupiter's Core, yet still based on LWT, not SLWT.

Wasn't there other NLS configurations with four SSME class? I think it weighted in range of 74mt. Significantly more than Direct core.

Quote
However, the Upper Stage has an even more interesting story behind the scenes...   To validate our results (mostly because of people complaining about v1.0's pmf figures) we contacted Lockheed Martin's Centaur Development Team back in the Summer of '07 for an independent analysis.

We provided them with all the details they needed and they wrote back to us, in an official capacity, with a mass figure far below the one you see on page 32 of the AIAA paper.   They confirmed, that based on the exact same 8.4m Shuttle-compatible diameter, propellant capacity and engine choice, that a "Wide Body Centaur" derivative would, with what they termed as a "generous margin", have a Dry Mass after Growth only 58.35% of the "published" figure you have seen so far!

Now, that's *very* interesting to us, because it equates to a removal of approximately 12.5mT of structure mass!   We DID NOT INCLUDE THAT IN OUR AIAA PAPER simply because we had already heard a few naysayers here on NSF - you, JIS, being one of them - complain endlessly that our pmf's from earlier DIRECT specifications looked too optimistic.

Complaining? I'm not the one who is complaining. I'm just saying that NASAs EDS weight is somewhere else. Of course, if LM experts take your data, look out of the window and give you a number it has to be taken seriously.

What does it mean?
1. MSFC calc are too conservative and they will screw up DIRECT (or LM WBC) numbers when they put their dirty hands on them
2. DIRECT numbers are just quick look out of the window without any in depth analysis.

In either way it doesn't look well for you.

Quote
With a pmf (minus engines) as high as .9644 (still not quite as good as Shuttle SLWT ET's 0.9648), we figured that even though this came straight from Lockheed in official capacity, that the Lockheed-sourced figure was going to cause "trouble" if/when we revealed it.

Comparing EDS with ET is BS. It's COMPLETELY different.

Quote
We tried very hard to avoid a lot of complaints, and simply put that in our pockets as a "good thing" to keep in reserve - but it was a wasted effort - the complaining continues anyway and I'm seriously way-past caring any more.

Seeing as even our "conservative" design dosn't seem enough to convince folk like yourself, I really don't see any point in keeping the good news to ourselves any longer.

I'm finally at the point that I don't think the few naysayers are ever going to be convinced by any reasoned argument at all - they're just against it because they're against it and that's all there is to it.

Is there any expert rocket scientist willing to support DIRECT and publicly put his reputation forward? Apparently no. Is the only reason possible oppression from NASA?
Note that I'm the only one still discussing here at the nest of DIRECT supporters. Where are the others? Am I the only naysayer or the others are ignoring you? Why they are ignoring you? Are they expressing their doubts somewhere else?
I can't believe that's just me - amateur armchair rocket enthusiast causing disruption to DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2008 10:15 am
Quote
JIS - 7/1/2008  5:25 AM

Still, they are doing at least some analysis. Their numbers seem to be quite conservative compared to DIRECT numbers.

Where?   Their Upper Stage isn't conservative for the conditions it has to fly through.   Ares-I is flying through some pretty nasty environments compared to Shuttle or DIRECT - thanks to that 5-seg SRB under it.   If we were flying through 816psf Max-Q and the harsh acoustic environment it is, we'd have to have a much heavier stage too!   Thank Gads we're not!   Also, current U/S mass figures don't yet seem to account for the new oscillation issues either, so I'd watch for them to climb further over the next few months.

Make no mistake, Ares-I's U/S has gone through the most severe diet I think anyone has ever seen in this business.   If the final spec actually meets the 1.4 factor, it will be at 1.4000000 dead, with not an ounce of extra mass anywhere.   It has been totally scrubbed clean in order to squeeze the most out of the systems performance envelope in a bid to get the Orion into the air properly.   However you cut it, they're pulling every stop out *trying* to get it to work.

I'm actually quite impressed at what they have managed to do so far and can only sit and wonder how good DIRECT's launch vehicles would be by now if they had had all the same attention...


Quote
Why to use STS ET as template? LHX is modified, LOX new, new forward and aft segments, new thrust structure. Maybe intertank is quite similar.  
Wouldn't be better to use NSL work which has attachments for SRBs and aft thrust structure?

We have done a similar approach to that which NLS did to arrive at their numbers.   Just we did it independently before we had access to NLS's numbers.   We also took into account the different manufacturing techniques used at MAF since the SLWT was created, although we were always using the heavier LWT mass allocations as a starting point.


Quote
Wasn't there other NLS configurations with four SSME class? I think it weighted in range of 74mt. Significantly more than Direct core.

There was "NLS-2".   It's Core Stage actually massed 70,291kg.

It was a stage-and-a-half design which did not use SRB's at all.   It had four STME engines (basically a disposable, cheaper, SSME which was never developed) on an outer ring which was jettisoned about half way through flight, leaving two more STME in a more inboard location.

The weight of the separation systems, the additional disconnect valves (similar to those big heavy units used on Shuttle Orbiter/ET separation interface), the two separate thrust structures and the extra engines etc. all had a negative impact on the Core's total mass.

The elements below the tanking were 30,648kg for NLS-1 and 43,536kg for NLS-2.   The full tanking structure (inc. Fwd Skirt, LOX Tank, InterTank, LH2 Tank and Aft Skirt and associated pipework) was different by only 1,197kg different between the two different designs - about 700kg of which is because the NLS-2 deleted the Fwd and Aft SRB mountings and also the "SRB thrust beam" inside the InterTank BTW.

Like I say, this is all available in the trade studies over on NTRS.


Quote
Complaining? I'm not the one who is complaining. I'm just saying that NASAs EDS weight is somewhere else. Of course, if LM experts take your data, look out of the window and give you a number it has to be taken seriously.

What does it mean?
1. MSFC calc are too conservative and they will screw up DIRECT (or LM WBC) numbers when they put their dirty hands on them
2. DIRECT numbers are just quick look out of the window without any in depth analysis.

In either way it doesn't look well for you.

I select Option 3:   The numbers are good, the margins are beyond what is normally expected, the data has been checked by at least two independent sources, but there's this guy on the internet looking for a reason to claim "failure" any way he can, for a reason we know not, yet.

His argument includes that "fact" that he doesn't trust Lockheed Martin because they only look out of the window and make numbers up, he doesn't trust anyone working for NASA because they're out to screw DIRECT, he certainly doesn't trust us (!), he doesn't seem to trust any independent reviews and  he doesn't seem to be willing to trust anything anyone else says either.   What should I say to someone like that?   I'll say "oh well" and move on to the next question.


We were actually supplied with a "calculator" spreadsheet by Lockheed so we can work out our own "conservative" masses for any WBC stages we consider in the future.   It's simple, but it fits everything they claim for flight-proven Centaur performance and for the WBC performance from every one of Lockheed's official AIAA papers on the subjects of evolved Atlas concepts.

I think you'll be in a party of one if you don't believe them.   I know others throughout the industry who have precisely the same calculator and they seem to trust it.   You're welcome to the position of dis-belief if that's the one you must choose for yourself.   Me, I'm not staying with ya, sorry.


Quote
Quote
With a pmf (minus engines) as high as .9644 (still not quite as good as Shuttle SLWT ET's 0.9648), we figured that even though this came straight from Lockheed in official capacity, that the Lockheed-sourced figure was going to cause "trouble" if/when we revealed it.

Comparing EDS with ET is BS. It's COMPLETELY different.

It's just an interesting fact that the Shuttle ET has the best pmf (minus engines) of any launch vehicle stage currently operating anywhere in the world.   It is in that spirit that I mentioned that fact - and that alone was the reason I mentioned it - that we're getting very close indeed to what is currently the industry "optimum" regarding in-use hardware.

Any other conclusion you got from that statement must be based on assumptions YOU made alone.

Actually, that's is a fairly simple example of what I am calling "negativism" with regard to ALL of your comments.

You need to stop reading our comments and automatically assuming "oh no, the world is collapsing".   You'll give yourself a heart-attack doing that.   Believe me, I know, and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.


Quote
Is there any expert rocket scientist willing to support DIRECT and publicly put his reputation forward? Apparently no. Is the only reason possible oppression from NASA?

We have been asked to keep identities anonymous.   Even then, providing assistance to us and other people has cost some people their careers already.   I know two in particular.   If they wish to speak out in public favour, they are welcome to do so, but *I* will not reveal anyone's identity.

There are people on this board who have fallen foul of the current administration for similar things, though nothing to do with DIRECT.   Long term members here will note a few outspoken individuals who have "disappeared" over the last few years.   Anyone wonder why?   I know - and the stories are pretty-much what you'd expect.

Given that climate, I know I wouldn't stand up in the face of Administration.   A certain Skip Hatfield knows what happens all too well when you do that.


Quote
Note that I'm the only one still discussing here at the nest of DIRECT supporters. Where are the others? Am I the only naysayer or the others are ignoring you? Why they are ignoring you? Are they expressing their doubts somewhere else?
I can't believe that's just me - amateur armchair rocket enthusiast causing disruption to DIRECT.

Amateur armchair rocket enthusiasts are very welcome.   But "enthusiast" does not describe any of your previous posts on this subject.   Most days I come here and only ever see posts from you which are disparaging, negative, and down-right antagonistic sometimes.   On more than one occasion you've deliberately taken something someone here has said and twisted it in order to make up yet another new reasons for "why its all going to fail".   That isn't being an "enthusiast" in my book.   It's coming across like that gloomy, depressed robot from Hitchhiker's Guide...

I can't work out why you're so against DIRECT.   Any normal skeptic would have noticed how many times we've been able to turn over your objections and show how it actually does work given the approach actually used rather than the one assumed.

I can only guess that, for some reason, it is just your goal in life to disparage the concept.

I can't imagine that you're a lackie for someone like Horowitz, deliberately set on a 'mission' to just sow seeds of discontent amongst the DIRECT camp.   While FUD hasn't been beneath them, I truly don't think NASA has money to burn to pay someone to stay up all night and do that! LOL :)   Nah, that's too "conspiracy theory" for me to believe!

Whatever your reason for being so strongly anti-DIRECT is, sorry, but your "negativism" doesn't appear to be catching.   300,000+ views to this thread alone shows we have an enormous amount of interest, and if my daily inbox is anything to go by it is overwhelmingly positive too.

We have folk, csj being a recent one, who have a healthy curiosity, a very healthy skepticism too, and are asking good questions - while you often bring up point which are worth covering (sometimes "again"), it the the *tone* of your comments which is quite different from those people.

They haven't set their minds firmly against DIRECT and aren't simply trying every possible route to pick away at it here, there and every other-where in what appears to be a desperate bid to disprove it.   They seem open to the idea, but want to get more information, or confirm information, before drawing any conclusions.

Don't get me wrong, having doubts is good.   Voicing them for healthy debate is good too.   But the way that is done is just as important.   You have often drawn conclusions, based only on half the facts, actually more often on mis-interpretations of comments here, and in virtually *every* single post you make some disparaging comment where you claim this or that "can't work", "won't work" or that you just "don't believe it" before ever giving anyone a chance to explain.

The *only* reason anyone would make such flat-out claims before engaging in a discussion is if they've already made up their mind and the actual points of an opposing view is already regarded as pointless and to be disregarded.   What is the point in that?

I do hope this is the only part of your life which you approach in this way, because mate, it just isn't healthy to be that negative! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/07/2008 12:56 pm
There are many reasons one may not accept a concept or proposal as presented, all of them valid except one;  "just because they can". Such a person is often referred to as a “naysayer”. But I guess that's fine so long as such an individual doesn't go out of their way to disrupt otherwise serious conversation about the concept or proposal.

One individual (not me or anyone else associated with DIRECT) has started a new thread and poll to find out how much support there actually is for the DIRECT concept, vs. how many people just don’t want it. It’s located here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11367#M229448
Please slide on over and cast a ballot. Either way is fine, with or without an accompanying post. But a post explaining in general terms at least, in detail if you wish, why you feel the way you do would be appreciated.

After we dispose of this superfluous exercise, we can get on with the business of serious discussion between and among those who are serious about doing whatever we can to ensure the survival of the VSE.

Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/08/2008 02:43 am
I do have a simple suggestion for the DIRECT team.  Can you make a separate paper detailing the design evolution of the concept, as well as describing how you came up with the design margins and general development process.  I know that it might have been covered in the huge document, however just breaking it up into a manageable size would be appreciated. An example of what i mean would be "Space Shuttle: The History of Developing the National Space Transportation System.

Also, not sure if this was asked but why is Direct inline rather than the outboard like Shuttle-C?  Sorry if it was asked before, but I couldn't find anything this late at night.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 01/08/2008 04:39 am
Quote
kraisee - 7/1/2008  2:29 AM

Simply because I think it will make a much louder noise than any of the naysayers, here are The DIRECT Team's *REAL* internal performance numbers without any of our arbitrary margins, and including the full NASA-spec 106% RS-68 and 294klb thrust J-2X engines (not 5-seg SRB's tho), and using the official Lockheed Centaur-derived Upper Stage, and only using the same margins as ESAS used (still higher margins than NASA uses today for Ares):-


Jupiter-120 CaLV: 57,728kg to 30x120nm, 28.5deg
Jupiter-120 CLV: 49,122kg to 30x220nm, 51.6deg

Jupiter-232 CaLV: 121,542kg to circular 120x120nm, 28.5deg
Jupiter-232 CLV: 116,478kg to circular 120x120nm, 28.5deg


That should give everyone here something to think about :)

Ross.

Ross, with numbers like that, the J-120 becomes really "overkill" for ISS missions and you should reconsider using a J-110 for those missions in order to save the cost of an engine and improve LOC numbers.  I know that you do not want to re-create a rocket with EELV payload capability (20-25mT), but with the NASA-spec 106% RS-68, I estimate that the J-110 rocket would have a LEO payload of around 33 mT with is about 10 mT above EELV level.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/08/2008 05:50 am
Steven wrote to me privately to ask if I had missed his post from new-years-eve.   I had seen it, but lost it before submitting a response.   I'm very glad he contacted me because it gives me a great opportunity to actually reply to some very interesting points!

Here it is...

Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 31/12/2007  2:32 AM

I just finished reading the AIAA 2007 paper. I havn't read the last 200 forum pages, so these comments may have been repeated previously. I hope you don't mind this view from down under.

Quality feedback is always welcome!


Quote
p.38. Maybe I'm missing something here, but the drawings of the platforms show them being symmetrical about the ET for STS. From the photo of the STS stack, the platforms go around the ET on one side and around the orbiter on the other side. These orbiter specific platforms probably need to be removed and replaced with ET platforms. The drawings seem to indicate that no changes are required for the lower platforms, which I don't think is the case.

Correct.   The work platforms in place right now go all around the SRB/ET stack, a full 360 degrees, but they also have 'cutouts' suitable for the orbiter too.   Well spotted that these were not accurately represented in the diagrams in the AIAA paper - that was done simply because of time constraints and the lack of full dimensions.   I have since compiled a fairly good library of dimensions for all the platforms and am still happy with our overall conclusions.

As I say, for Shuttle processing, the current platforms surround the ET 360 degrees.   Shuttle checkout and assembly processing is currently handled only in High Bay's 1 and 3 on the East side of the VAB.   High Bays 2 and 4 on the West have never been converted to process Shuttles yet.   In HB 1 & 3 most of the platforms around the stack have a wide area to the North and South sides (the SRB sides of the stack), and a fairly large work area to the East side (closest to the VAB door, and the opposite side from the Orbiter.

You point out that our diagrams do not accurately portray the platforms as they actually are on the West side Orbiter.   That is correct.   The platforms I show only demonstrate the areas of the platforms applicable to the ET/SRB and miss out the additional work areas which are exclusively Orbiter-related.   On the West side of most of these platforms surrounding the ET is a narrow walkway which still surrounds the tank and SRB's, but is not a particularly large space.   During stacking, these narrow walkways provide access to the tank, and also to the belly of the Orbiter.   All of the platforms have additional structures which surround the winged space plane when it is stacked too, and together all these platforms allow pretty-much 360 degree access to both the ET/SRB stack and also the Orbiter itself.

I deliberately did not portray the Orbiter-specific elements of these work platforms out of a desire to make it easier to explain how it all works - in terms related to Jupiter - to the casual observer.


Now, for Jupiter, the current form-factor for most of the platforms (except for platform C identified on page 38 of the AIAA paper which currently has a 'tiny' cutout only suitable for the nose of the current ET and must be modified to support 8.4m diameter upper portions of the new Jupiter configurations) still remain perfectly suitable for processing the new Jupiter Core Tank.   Yes, on the West side there is only a narrow walkway, but our reasoning is that this has so-far proven sufficient to process all STS stacks for 120 flights to date, so should continue to be sufficient for Jupiter as well.


There are ultimately four possible options available regarding the work platforms:-

 1) Retain them "as is" in all cases except where they must be modified (such as platform C).

 2) Modify the existing platforms to increase the width of the walkway around the West side of the Stack and thus provide a larger work area in the future, but leave the rest of the platforms unchanged.

 3) Remove the Orbiter-specific elements of the existing platforms and just leave the parts useful for processing the Stack.

 4) Remove the existing platforms all-together and replace them with all-new units.


Any of these are feasible, but the lowest cost and schedule impact options are clearly #1, followed by #2.   We have no indication from our contacts within KSC, that there is a requirement to change the platforms from their current configuration (excepting the obvious places) in order to support such similar hardware as Jupiter's Core instead of the Shuttle ET.   Therefore, our present recommendation is to leave the platforms unchanged, retaining the Orbiter support areas, even though those sections become largely redundant.


Quote
p.75 I found the changing colours confusing, especially when trajectories go close the Moon. I would have preferred a single colour for each trajectory so I can follow the orbital path for each trajectory.

Yesss...   I agree they are a touch confusing.   We produced a number of "composite" charts instead of producing separate ones for each option in a bid to prevent the already gargantuan 131 page paper getting any bigger!   You aren't the first person to comment that doing so has made the data that much more difficult to read.   My apologies to one and all for this, but we did what we thought was best at the time.   We won't make that mistake again in the future :)

Those drawings are actually composites originally sourced from here on NSF!   The originals were created by one of the contributors to this site, "vanilla" and were used with their very kind permission.   If you would like to see the original individual trajectory artwork, I believe they are still available somewhere in the first few pages of the original thread here:-

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1337&start=1

EDIT:   I will say that whole thread is a fascinating read for anyone who hasn't come across it yet!


Quote
p.77 For crewed transfer, I would prefer trajectory 4b over 4a as recommended by the text. There is a significant saving in delta-V, over 400 m/s, for an increase of mission time by one day.

I would tend to agree with you myself.   Although I do recognise that it's always going to be one of those fairly subjective things which many individuals will have many opinions over.   Myself, I would ideally like to see a detailed trade study of all these options with particular attention paid to safety, performance, cost and development schedule to confirm which has the best overall results.   In the absence of such a detailed analysis, 4b does look pretty good though.


Quote
p.94 For Propellant Delivery in Figure 110, there is assumed to be 221.7 t of propellant at the Earth Depot and 84.2 t initially in the Lunar Depot. Transferring the propellant from the Earth to the Lunar Depot, requires the Lunar depot to hold 305.9 t of propellant, although a standard tank size is 221.7 t! Obviously, this implies the Lunar Depot must be sized to contain 38% more propellant than standard. If that's the case, why not make the Earth Depot the same size? That way, it can store the propellant load from its initial launch (84.3 t) and two refuel flights of 94.3 t each (a total of 272.9 t). A 305.9 t tank can hold 3.24 refuel flights.

The Propellant Depot is actually based on the full capacity of a regular Jupiter-232's Upper Stage (with additional insulation and Depot-specific hardware added).   The full capacity of this stage is actually 314,931kg (plus 3,613kg of reserves, residuals and then 2% additional ullage space too).   The 221,654kg figure at the top of p.94 refers only to the propellant used during the ascent phase of the launch.   There is a further 93,277kg of usable propellant which, for non-Depot use, would normally power the TLI burn for a regular 2-launch Lunar mission.


Quote
Figure 111. I figure a total of four Jupiter-232 (Earth Depot, two refuel and Lunar Depot) and five Jupiter-221 launches are initially required (LSAM and four CEV). Another two refuel flights (51.2 t left in depot + 2x94.3 t = 239.8 t), Lunar Depot and four CEV flights would use up the remaining four missions for the LSAM. That's a total of seven Jupiter-232 and nine Jupiter-221 missions, or 16 Jupiters for eight Lunar missions. The payloads are an Earth depot, two Lunar Depots, one LSAM and eight CEV's. How much saving in cost per mission would you expect compared to the standard 2xJupiter-232 mission?

In the first year, no real saving is made.   But that first year sets up the infrastructure and you don't need to do that again for quite a few more years.   In the second year, you won't have to launch any of the Depot's, nor another reusable LSAM.   You use the same ones already available.   At that point each Lunar mission consists of a single Jupiter-221 with an Orion capsule containing a Crew and a pallet of experiments which need to be attached to the LSAM.   That's all.   At that point, NASA gets 8 Lunar missions for 8 launches, with the propellant going by the cheapest possible carrier and not *having* to use the always-more-expensive human rated launch systems.   Obvious candidates include unmanned Jupiter, unmanned EELV, any other commercial operation who can do it for the lowest possible cost.   But our opinion is that the best possible scenario is for NASA to enter into political agreements with one or more foreign partners who wish to share the total costs of the mission by picking up the entire bill for all propellant deliveries!   At that point, propellant deliveries effectively become *FREE* to the US, and foreign nations get to seriously participate in the program with a real and practical contribution to the benefit of all.   And the US always retains the ability to take over propellant delivery duties at any time if the politics ever go sour in the future.   That's potentially a win-win for everyone involved with no risk to NASA.

The Depot and LSAM need periodic maintenance or even replacement every few years, but that's not much of a headache considering the potential benefits of such a flexible architecture.


Quote
Would it be more cost effective to use Jupiter-232 for the CEV flights? Each of these would give a lot more propellant either at the Earth or Lunar depots, perhaps reducing the total number of Jupiter flights.

We believe that Jupiter-232 is all we really need.   But the paper has been designed to put "ideas" on the table and to air the vast range of options which are available, such as Jupiter-221 and even Jupiter-231.   Whether they are worthwhile developing is open to debate - we truly aren't ready to say yes or no on that subject yet.

But the paper is designed to suggest some of the many *possibilities* this architecture is capable of evolving into.

We present this largely as a stark reminder of the clear limitations of the Ares-I in particular, and the lack of growth options even available on Ares-V - a booster which I will say again does not achieve NASA's own targets of 1:1000 LOC safety so would contravene many of ESAS' primary dictates regarding crew safety if they were ever to deploy an Orion upon it.


Quote
p.100 I believe you should also show the Mars Departure Stage.

Actually that is unnecessary.

The standard Jupiter Upper Stage (with 314mT propellant capacity) can provide sufficient delta-V to achieve TMI with those payloads shown.   No additional Mars Departure Stage is necessary because the U/S *is* the MDS.


Quote
p.105 I believe the cycle you have shown is flawed. In the Sabatier reactor CO2 + 4H2 -> CH4 + 2H20. In Electrolysis 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2. Returning the O2 back to burn with the CH4 just repeats the cycle, generating no O2 for fuel. The only option is to dump CH4, using 2H2 for every O2. This means you have to carry 5H2 to generate the required O2 (2H2 for extraction and 3H2 for fuel with a 5.3:1 mixture ratio, MR). An alternative is to electrolyse 2CO2 -> 2CO + O2. The CO (carbon monoxide) is dumped, requiring you to bring 3H2 for fuel. However, this is a very energy consumptious process requiring very high powers. It may be more effective to just bring the extra H2. In the Mars Direct process effectively, 2H2 + CO2 -> CH4 + O2. However we need an extra 0.8O2 to obtain CH4 + 1.8O2 -> CO2 + 1.6H2O + 0.4H2 in the engine (at 3.6 MR). The 0.8O2 is obtained either through energy intensive electrolysis of CO2 or with 1.6H2. The mass returns for the hydrogen brought to Mars are

H2/O2 CH4 dump (O2+3H2)/5H2 = 3.8
H2/O2 CO2 electro (O2+3H2)/3H2 = 6.3
CH4/O2 CH4 dump (CH4+1.8O2)/(2H2+1.6H2) = 10.2
CH4/O2 CO2 electro (CH4+1.8O2)/2H2 = 18.4

The last scheme is very attractive due to very large mass returns and smaller tank sizes required with CH4. For the same delta-V, H2/O2 tank volumes are approximately double that of CH4/O2. I agree with Zubrin that CH4/O2 is the propellant of choice on Mars.

I *think* I saw someone else reply to that already, which is great because that aspect of the Mars missions is still quite beyond me :)   I will leave others to propose answers until such time as I have a much better understanding of the chemistry involved.


Quote
p.107 The CEV is shown exposed during the trajectory to Mars. I believe it should be covered by the re-entry shroud, especially as it will face the highest temperatures during re-entry, like the nose of the Space Shuttle.

The Mars Lander hardware "designs" shown there are purely notional - it is still far too early for us, or anyone else, to have specific designs which are fully evolved yet.   What is there is loosely based on work from other sources, but should not be taken as gospel.   For now, I would suggest that everyone take basic "concept" points only from them, but the specific technical designs should be taken with a healthy pinch of salt :)


Quote
p.115 Why are EELV budget values given, but not that of Ares-I/V? Its already been decided that a shuttle derived system is to be used. The point of the paper is to show that Direct is a much better way than Ares-I/V.

Because there are a lot of people who believe EELV's are still going to be cheaper.   We are presenting the wider ranging cost comparisons in order to try to dispel that notion.


Quote
p.122 I believe this schedule is for the old Direct 1.0. The Constellation flights show the LSAM and CEV being carried on separate Jupiter flights, instead of on one launch as in Direct 2.0. I believe the Ares-I/V flights have also been delayed.

Oops.   My bad.   I drew that diagram up using the old v1.0 artwork as a 'point of departure'.   I forgot to correct that detail in the final rush to get the paper submitted before the AIAA's deadline.   Damn, you've got a keen eye for these details - I *think* you may be the first person to spot that mistake!   Want to help us edit our future papers? :)

I will try to fix that image and post the corrected version up on directlauncher.com over the next few days (if I can get any time!!!).   Thanks for catching that.


Quote
Of course, if a Depot can be used to increase TLI mass for Direct, it can also be used for Ares-I/V. In fact, we may see Ares-V launching a full Saturn-V like stack of EDS/LSAM/CEV, refueling at a depot and then heading for the Moon. This should solve all of NASA's current problems with Ares-I/V.

Theoretically, yes - but I counter by asking "with what money?"

At a recurring cost more than $1bn higher each year, Constellation with Ares-I/V is going to be hard pressed doing two or three regular missions each year, let alone developing any additional hardware as well.   We're confident DIRECT can set up such an architecture without requesting budget increases.   The big question is "Can Ares?"


Quote
Obviously, Direct is the fastest and cheapest way for NASA to reach the Moon. If the Democrats come into power, a new administrator will likely be appointed. If NASA is having even further troubles with Ares-I/V, the new administrator might make the sea change for Direct to happen. Otherwise, the ironic situation of the Chinese copying Direct and beating NASA in the second race to the Moon could be an outcome!

If it weren't for the fact that we have Shuttle (and Delta-IV) operating right now with 80% of the hardware we need virtually ready-to-go, and a very strong political influence not to dismantle the workforce in-place right now, the Jupiter design would not be a good fit.

The Chinese have one critical advantage over the US - they have no pre-existing infrastructure to get in the way of a completely clean-sheet approach.   If I were them, I would use the new Long March 5 booster system as a test-bed for developing key new technologies.   They could really do with LH2/LOX high-efficiency engines in the general performance categories of RL-10 and J-2 purely for use outside of the atmosphere.   That route promises major leaps forward in performance.   They should spend time and effort developing their materials capabilities - such things as friction-stir welding of low-weight/high-strength Al-Li alloys - that would give them another big performance boost over their current systems too.   At that point all they really need are suitable engines and they could create something quite similar to Saturn-V, but probably with better performance.

They have had an RD-170 which they obtained a number of years ago, and have been studying and reverse engineering it for years now.   I would guess that they could probably start developing their own equivalent within the next five years.   Add to that something as good as, or better than, J-2 (RD-0120-based perhaps) and at that point they would have most of the same fundamental lift capability as the US had in 1969.   Once they hit that milestone, the solar system would be their oyster.   If you haven't already got solids, I would leave them out of the equation entirely and stick to Kero/LOX and LH2/LOX liquid power for now.   They really have no need for large (100mT) reusable space planes that cost the earth to maintain - the US has taught the world the folly of that approach.   Small crew modules are the way to go (capsules or lifting bodies), but with good crew abort options being paramount.   Once they reach that point, they will have a MAJOR advantage over most other nations in the space business:   Low labour rates.   That directly translates to low overall costs.   Once they obtain high performance systems, they're going to have a seriously formidable combination there to set them up for half a century of space exploration, by anyone's standards.



Serious thanks to Steven for persistence.   I *try* to reply to most questions (if Chuck, Steven, Antonio or others haven't already fielded them anyway), but some escape me.   This was one, but I'm really glad I got to mention/clarify some of the points above.

Regards,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/08/2008 06:39 am
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 7/1/2008  10:43 PM

I do have a simple suggestion for the DIRECT team.  Can you make a separate paper detailing the design evolution of the concept, as well as describing how you came up with the design margins and general development process.  I know that it might have been covered in the huge document, however just breaking it up into a manageable size would be appreciated. An example of what i mean would be "Space Shuttle: The History of Developing the National Space Transportation System.

Perhaps we will do something like that once this is all over and we have Jupiter firmly embedded in the Constellation mix.

Right now though, what I described above covers a great deal of the major bullet points in the process of determining the initial configuration and getting it through the early analysis phase.

I've made a point of stating that we have "more margins" than is typical of most proposals, and finally I've actually shown them (actually I missed a couple of others, but they are both small, so its not really worth messing with them).

What I would hope people take away from that description is just how anal we have been about protecting our butts in terms of all the aspects of determining the performance analysis.

Now I'd like everyone to mull the fact that we have time-and-again said we have also applied similar extra margins to both our COST and our SCHEDULE analyses too.   Yup, that's right - we have very similar *extra* margins in terms of both cost and schedule compared to what you see in the AIAA paper there.

Cutting straight to the chase, we have routinely claimed "Jupiter-120 would cost no more than Ares-I".   Our internal numbers here, based on the same NASA-sourced detailed workup of cost impacts throughout the program for Ares - actually indicate we are likely to trim over $6bn from the $14.5bn cost of Ares-I.   We believe our 'claim' therefore has a 71% margin - which feel very comfortable with.

Further we have claimed "September 2012 for our first operational crew flight of Orion" (5th actual Orion flight, 3rd Jupiter flight).   Uh uh.   Summer 2011 is our real number.   But we don't seriously think Orion could be ready by then... :)   Wouldn't it be sooo nice to have a launcher just ready and waiting for it?

What about "Jupiter-232's first crew flight in December 2015"?   Depends entirely on J-2X, but with just some of that $6bn additional cash available compared to Ares-I, we think it can be accelerated a whole year to December 2014 for the "Apollo 8" replica mission.


At that point, it is the LSAM which becomes the key driver for all further dates - and that is simply out of our hands.   If some of that $6bn were available to speed LSAM up too, Jupiter-232 would certainly be ready and waiting to perform Constellation 1 - First Human Return to the Lunar Surface by July 2016 - a full three and a half years ahead of current Ares plans.

But those are the "apples-to-apples" comparisons.   Having seen the BS surrounding Ares-I, we feel better keeping our much healthier margins right where they are!

:)


Quote
Also, not sure if this was asked but why is Direct inline rather than the outboard like Shuttle-C?  Sorry if it was asked before, but I couldn't find anything this late at night.

I think this has been asked a couple of times before, but it was quite a long while ago so isn't a bad thing to bring up again now :)

Crew Abort options are frankly cr@p with the Orion riding next to the ET again.   Fully half of your abort trajectories can be filled with potentially harmful exploding stage parts.   That cuts your crew safety by a huge amount.

Also the piggy-back arrangement has inherent performance problems.   You get about 5mT extra performance per flight by going to in-line.   That's the equivalent of about $40million worth of extra payload every flight.   If the cost difference is $500m to build the in-line, you start to make significant savings within 11-12 flights.

But the *real* killer for Shuttle-C is you have to build about 1/4 of a complete Shuttle Orbiter every time you fly, and then you have to throw it away each time!   Orbiter's cost about $2bn each.   It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where this is heading... Eh?

Even when you factor in economies of scale and seriously lower cost materials throughout a totally new design (high development cost right there too!), you still end up paying an extra $300m or so for each "Shuttle-C" cargo carrier, instead of using a $10m "regular" payload fairing.   At about $290m difference, you could launch a complete extra Jupiter-232 each time!

The Shuttle-C system ends up being about 20-25% more expensive to launch than STS is presently.   That just bankrupts itself and limits the program to no more than about 3-4 flights per year - for ever.   It's just not realistic.   That's why the project was scrapped in the first place.

Like Ares-I, its a concept which looks pretty good initially, but falls to bits under any significant scrutiny.   It is just too different from the proven and well-understood techniques of the rest of the industry - "a step too far".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/08/2008 07:06 am
Quote
PaulL - 8/1/2008  12:39 AM

Quote
kraisee - 7/1/2008  2:29 AM

Simply because I think it will make a much louder noise than any of the naysayers, here are The DIRECT Team's *REAL* internal performance numbers without any of our arbitrary margins, and including the full NASA-spec 106% RS-68 and 294klb thrust J-2X engines (not 5-seg SRB's tho), and using the official Lockheed Centaur-derived Upper Stage, and only using the same margins as ESAS used (still higher margins than NASA uses today for Ares):-


Jupiter-120 CaLV: 57,728kg to 30x120nm, 28.5deg
Jupiter-120 CLV: 49,122kg to 30x220nm, 51.6deg

Jupiter-232 CaLV: 121,542kg to circular 120x120nm, 28.5deg
Jupiter-232 CLV: 116,478kg to circular 120x120nm, 28.5deg


That should give everyone here something to think about :)

Ross.

Ross, with numbers like that, the J-120 becomes really "overkill" for ISS missions and you should reconsider using a J-110 for those missions in order to save the cost of an engine and improve LOC numbers.  I know that you do not want to re-create a rocket with EELV payload capability (20-25mT), but with the NASA-spec 106% RS-68, I estimate that the J-110 rocket would have a LEO payload of around 33 mT with is about 10 mT above EELV level.

PaulL

Paul, our detailed analysis eventually got around to including the Jupiter-110 configuration, and we found it actually has a number of "issues".   Firstly, it must launch with only half a tank of fuel.   This sort of thing gets really tricky because the tanking integrity is a byproduct of the pressure of both the liquid and gaseous materials inside.   With far less of the dense material (liquid) in the top half of each tank, the tank pressure is far harder to control through the really tough max-Q region of the flight - the tanks become more prone to collapsing.   Also, because the vehicle has about 300 tons less propellant at liftoff and through the early part of the flight it really shoots off the pad and screams up through the atmosphere far faster than the heavier Jupiter-120 does.   At that phase of the flight most of your power is being produced by the SRB's and having one less Core engine doesn't make much difference to your total power.   Jupiter-110 ends up punching through max-Q somewhere above 800psf - the same dynamic pressure region giving Ares-I Integration teams 'nightmares' at the moment.   The other Jupiter vehicles have not been designed for quite those harsh conditions, as none of them ever get much above 600psf.   We haven't actually worked it out in detail, but I'm really not convinced the current tanking structure is strong enough for that.   And lastly, there is no engine-out capability at all with Jupiter-110.   Just like Ares-I, if you lose your single main engine it will always become an abort situation.   And it costs about $500m more to qualify on top of Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232.

Given that Jupiter-120 rides all these issue better AND has surplus performance for if/when we need it for any reason in the future, I would still strongly recommend the current development path and just keep it to a single development path with no branches.

My personal opinion, not necessarily shared by anyone else in DIRECT, but if you want a smaller booster I would take that same $500m, get USAF to chip-in the same, and get ULA to human-rate one of their larger EELV's and just be done with it.   If USAF ever want to fly Orion's, that works to NASA's benefit because they will help share some of the infrastructure costs of that element every year.   USAF gets a total human launch system of its own and NASA reduces its costs - that seems to work to me.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/08/2008 11:29 am
Quote
kraisee - 8/1/2008  7:39 AM

Further we have claimed "September 2012 for our first operational crew flight of Orion" (5th actual Orion flight, 3rd Jupiter flight).   Uh uh.   Summer 2011 is our real number.   But we don't seriously think Orion could be ready by then... :)   Wouldn't it be sooo nice to have a launcher just ready and waiting for it?

If Orion is not ready in 2012 then a manned version of one of the COTS spacecraft may be.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/08/2008 11:39 am
I've never really considered it, but yeah, a COTS vehicle could probably fly on a Jupiter-120 - assuming there were some sort of serious requirement for it.

But so far, they are all being designed to fly on EELV-class vehicles, which may not share a similar flight environment to Jupiter.   Whether they would be compatible or not isn't something I can currently even guess at.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/08/2008 11:40 am
Quote
kraisee - 8/1/2008  3:06 AM

My personal opinion, not necessarily shared by anyone else in DIRECT, but if you want a smaller booster I would take that same $500m, get USAF to chip-in the same, and get ULA to human-rate one of their larger EELV's and just be done with it.   If USAF ever want to fly Orion's, that works to NASA's benefit because they will help share some of the infrastructure costs of that element every year.   USAF gets a total human launch system of its own and NASA reduces its costs - that seems to work to me.

Ross.
I completely concur with Ross on using an EELV for an alternate CLV. It's something I have advocated for a long time. IIRC, I was the one that really pushed, internally, to see if the J-110 was viable and, as Ross has said, it "probably" is not, for several reasons. In any case, the team's decision, even before the final numbers were in, was to deliberately "not" duplicate the EELV performance and to "not" compete with the EELV. It is our belief that the EELV has an extremely constructive role to play in the VSE and anything we would do that might swing those tasks to a J-110 instead, would actually be detrimental to the health of the VSE. We want to see the needs of the VSE properly served by the nations launch vehicles, and that has to include the EELV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nathan on 01/08/2008 12:11 pm
It occurred to me that even if NASA insisted on continuing with the Ares 1 there is still a benefit from using J232 instead of AresV in terms of the infrastructure changes required. Is it really such a big deal to fly both 4 & 5 segment versions of the Solid boosters? (4 on j232, 5 on ares 1).
Are there any numbers that show this would still lead to cost savings?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/08/2008 01:00 pm
Quote
kraisee - 8/1/2008  12:39 PM

I've never really considered it, but yeah, a COTS vehicle could probably fly on a Jupiter-120 - assuming there were some sort of serious requirement for it.

But so far, they are all being designed to fly on EELV-class vehicles, which may not share a similar flight environment to Jupiter.   Whether they would be compatible or not isn't something I can currently even guess at.

Ross.

For a reason how about in 2012 the only planned man-rated American made EELV class rockets are the Ares-I (already late), J-120 and Falcon 9 Heavy.  On past record SpaceX will find it difficult to have completed the Heavy version by then.

The launch services companies may not care about man-rating LV but if it permits then to fly on unmodified EELV NASA will have the public relations nightmare of explaining why its safety rules do not apply to its own astronauts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/08/2008 01:04 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 8/1/2008  9:00 AM

For a reason how about in 2012 the only planned man-rated American made EELV class rockets are the Ares-I (already late), J-120 and Falcon 9 Heavy.  On past record SpaceX will find it difficult to have completed the Heavy version by then.

The launch services companies may not care about man-rating LV but if it permits then to fly on unmodified EELV NASA will have the public relations nightmare of explaining why its safety rules do not apply to its own astronauts.

Falcon 9 Heavy is not manrated
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: sticksux on 01/08/2008 08:36 pm
Quote
Jim - 8/1/2008  2:04 PM
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 8/1/2008  9:00 AM
For a reason how about in 2012 the only planned man-rated American made EELV class rockets are the Ares-I (already late), J-120 and Falcon 9 Heavy.  On past record SpaceX will find it difficult to have completed the Heavy version by then.
The launch services companies may not care about man-rating LV but if it permits then to fly on unmodified EELV NASA will have the public relations nightmare of explaining why its safety rules do not apply to its own astronauts.
Falcon 9 Heavy is not manrated

I do hope, though, that US of A is still a free country and if I am willing to take a ride (and risk) on Falcon 9 no one can prohibit me to do it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 01/08/2008 09:17 pm
Quote
sticksux - 8/1/2008  4:36 PM

Quote
Jim - 8/1/2008  2:04 PM
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 8/1/2008  9:00 AM
For a reason how about in 2012 the only planned man-rated American made EELV class rockets are the Ares-I (already late), J-120 and Falcon 9 Heavy.  On past record SpaceX will find it difficult to have completed the Heavy version by then.
The launch services companies may not care about man-rating LV but if it permits then to fly on unmodified EELV NASA will have the public relations nightmare of explaining why its safety rules do not apply to its own astronauts.
Falcon 9 Heavy is not manrated

I do hope, though, that US of A is still a free country and if I am willing to take a ride (and risk) on Falcon 9 no one can prohibit me to do it.

I'm guessing he meant Dragon is riding on Falcon 9, as distinguished from Falcon 9 Heavy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/08/2008 09:28 pm
Quote
sticksux - 8/1/2008  4:36 PM

I do hope, though, that US of A is still a free country and if I am willing to take a ride (and risk) on Falcon 9 no one can prohibit me to do it.

1.  The FAA can, by not granting Spacex a license

2. The Heavy is not for the Dragon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/08/2008 09:55 pm
Ross, thankyou very much for your detailed reply.

>The full capacity of this stage is actually 314,931kg...

Ahhh, the hammer hits the nail on the head. I got confused by p.32 where the propellant mass is stated as 225 t. Perhaps you should also add a line in this table stating that the propellant capacity is 315 t and mention in the text that on a normal payload flight the stage flies with 71% propellant capacity. As you are already lengthening the EDS stage for the extra hydrogen, would it not make sense to shorten the upper stage for CEV/LSAM? This means the mass saved from the stage can be transferred to more LOX carried in the extra tank.

>The standard Jupiter Upper Stage (with 314mT propellant capacity) can
>provide sufficient delta-V to achieve TMI with those payloads shown.

OK. To make things clearer, for the Moon Mars transition perhaps you could show in the following order on p.100,

Moon-1
EDS (2nd EOI, TLI) on a Jupiter 232
CEV/LSAM (2nd EOI, LOX transfer to EDS)]

Depot
Propellant Depot Earth Orbit/EML (2nd EOI, propellant transfer, TLI for EML
  depot) on a Jupiter 232
Propellant Supply (2nd EOI, transfer to depot)

Moon-2
LSAM (2nd EOI, TLI) on a Jupiter 221
CEV  (2nd EOI, TLI)

Between Lunar/Mars Analog and Mars semi-direct you could insert a Propellant Depot to show that it is an important part of the architecture. In the STS transition you could show the EML2 Communications Satellite, etc without the launcher underneath to make room for the other payloads shown.

>Want to help us edit our future papers?

I'll be glad to review your future papers. I regularly review technical papers and PhD thesis in my field (digital communications) and have written two space related papers published by the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.

S. S. Pietrobon, "High density liquid rocket boosters for the Space Shuttle," J. of the British Interplanetary Society, vol. 52, pp. 163-168, May/June 1999.
http://sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf

S. S. Pietrobon, "A flexible reusable space transportation system," J. of the British Interplanetary Society, vol. 53, pp. 276-288, May/June 2000.
http://sworld.com.au/steven/pub/nsto.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 01/08/2008 11:13 pm
Quote
clongton - 8/1/2008  6:40 AM

Quote
kraisee - 8/1/2008  3:06 AM

My personal opinion, not necessarily shared by anyone else in DIRECT, but if you want a smaller booster I would take that same $500m, get USAF to chip-in the same, and get ULA to human-rate one of their larger EELV's and just be done with it.   If USAF ever want to fly Orion's, that works to NASA's benefit because they will help share some of the infrastructure costs of that element every year.   USAF gets a total human launch system of its own and NASA reduces its costs - that seems to work to me.

Ross.
I completely concur with Ross on using an EELV for an alternate CLV. It's something I have advocated for a long time. IIRC, I was the one that really pushed, internally, to see if the J-110 was viable and, as Ross has said, it "probably" is not, for several reasons. In any case, the team's decision, even before the final numbers were in, was to deliberately "not" duplicate the EELV performance and to "not" compete with the EELV. It is our belief that the EELV has an extremely constructive role to play in the VSE and anything we would do that might swing those tasks to a J-110 instead, would actually be detrimental to the health of the VSE. We want to see the needs of the VSE properly served by the nations launch vehicles, and that has to include the EELV.

Ross and Chuck, by reading your replies, I almost get the impression that you don't need J-120 rocket anymore: EELV can do the ISS missions and the moon missions only require the J-232 rocket.  Not man-rating the J-120 would also save $500 millions in development cost. What future do you envisage for the J-120 rocket?  

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/08/2008 11:59 pm
Quote
PaulL - 8/1/2008  12:13 AM

Ross and Chuck, by reading your replies, I almost get the impression that you don't need J-120 rocket anymore: EELV can do the ISS missions and the moon missions only require the J-232 rocket.  Not man-rating the J-120 would also save $500 millions in development cost. What future do you envisage for the J-120 rocket?  

The makers of the EELV are very reluctant to spend any of their money to man-rate the rockets.


edit - Correct the end of the quote
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2008 12:03 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 8/1/2008  7:59 PM


The makers of the EELV are very reluctant to spend any of their money to man-rate the rockets.

They have no requirements to do so or to work to
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: csj on 01/09/2008 12:17 am
Quote
kraisee - 8/1/2008  12:50 AM




Quote
p.38. Maybe I'm missing something here, but the drawings of the platforms show them being symmetrical about the ET for STS. From the photo of the STS stack, the platforms go around the ET on one side and around the orbiter on the other side. These orbiter specific platforms probably need to be removed and replaced with ET platforms. The drawings seem to indicate that no changes are required for the lower platforms, which I don't think is the case.

Correct.   The work platforms in place right now go all around the SRB/ET stack, a full 360 degrees, but they also have 'cutouts' suitable for the orbiter too.   Well spotted that these were not accurately represented in the diagrams in the AIAA paper - that was done simply because of time constraints and the lack of full dimensions.   I have since compiled a fairly good library of dimensions for all the platforms and am still happy with our overall conclusions.

As I say, for Shuttle processing, the current platforms surround the ET 360 degrees.   Shuttle checkout and assembly processing is currently handled only in High Bay's 1 and 3 on the East side of the VAB.   High Bays 2 and 4 on the West have never been converted to process Shuttles yet.   In HB 1 & 3 most of the platforms around the stack have a wide area to the North and South sides (the SRB sides of the stack), and a fairly large work area to the East side (closest to the VAB door, and the opposite side from the Orbiter.

You point out that our diagrams do not accurately portray the platforms as they actually are on the West side Orbiter.   That is correct.   The platforms I show only demonstrate the areas of the platforms applicable to the ET/SRB and miss out the additional work areas which are exclusively Orbiter-related.   On the West side of most of these platforms surrounding the ET is a narrow walkway which still surrounds the tank and SRB's, but is not a particularly large space.   During stacking, these narrow walkways provide access to the tank, and also to the belly of the Orbiter.   All of the platforms have additional structures which surround the winged space plane when it is stacked too, and together all these platforms allow pretty-much 360 degree access to both the ET/SRB stack and also the Orbiter itself.

I deliberately did not portray the Orbiter-specific elements of these work platforms out of a desire to make it easier to explain how it all works - in terms related to Jupiter - to the casual observer.


Now, for Jupiter, the current form-factor for most of the platforms (except for platform C identified on page 38 of the AIAA paper which currently has a 'tiny' cutout only suitable for the nose of the current ET and must be modified to support 8.4m diameter upper portions of the new Jupiter configurations) still remain perfectly suitable for processing the new Jupiter Core Tank.   Yes, on the West side there is only a narrow walkway, but our reasoning is that this has so-far proven sufficient to process all STS stacks for 120 flights to date, so should continue to be sufficient for Jupiter as well.


There are ultimately four possible options available regarding the work platforms:-

 1) Retain them "as is" in all cases except where they must be modified (such as platform C).

 2) Modify the existing platforms to increase the width of the walkway around the West side of the Stack and thus provide a larger work area in the future, but leave the rest of the platforms unchanged.

 3) Remove the Orbiter-specific elements of the existing platforms and just leave the parts useful for processing the Stack.

 4) Remove the existing platforms all-together and replace them with all-new units.


Any of these are feasible, but the lowest cost and schedule impact options are clearly #1, followed by #2.   We have no indication from our contacts within KSC, that there is a requirement to change the platforms from their current configuration (excepting the obvious places) in order to support such similar hardware as Jupiter's Core instead of the Shuttle ET.   Therefore, our present recommendation is to leave the platforms unchanged, retaining the Orbiter support areas, even though those sections become largely redundant.

I found this picture that might be useful to the explanation:
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/06pd2289.jpg
Also:
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/06pd2258.jpg
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 01/09/2008 03:35 am
Ross,

Couple quick questions here in regards to recent comments.  I think this has been covered before (I've read all of the v.1 thread and all of this one, and have been following it for over a year, GREAT JOB TO THE ENTIRE DIRECT TEAM BTW!!!) but I need my memory refreshed...

Jupiter 110 would have NO engine out capability, as you stated, but at what point in the flight would Jupiter 120 have engine out capability??  What would engine out change in the flight profile??  I'm not an expert in this by a LONGSHOT but I'm learning from everyone on this sight.  I remember that Apollo 13 had a center engine out on the S-II and simply burned the remaining four longer to consume the additional 20% of the propellant that should have been burned in the center engine.  I would presume that an engine out condition in a booster with 2 engines, would lead from anywhere from nearly 50% additional propellant for an early engine out, decreasing in percentage of total propellants as they are consumed in the flight as the flight progresses for late engine out scenarios (figuring it as 50% of whatever propellant is still onboard at the time of the engine out.  SO, at what point does the engine out window open where the thrust of the remaining RS-68 is sufficient to keep the rocket accelerating, and what does that do to your trajectory and burn time for the remaining engine, and how does it affect the orbital injection/core disposal/circularization manuevers??  Also, what changes to abort scenarios does this entail; are the abort conditions before engine out capability is achieved more or less severe, compared to the baselined conditions for Ares I and what do the different abort conditions do to the baselined designs, such as the LAS??  (Could the LAS be lighter for more benign abort conditions, or would have to be heavier for more severe abort conditions, and how do the conditions affect survivability of the abort compared to Ares I abort profiles?)

One other thing I need reminding of...  Ares V is baselined as a five RS-68 engined 33 foot core vehicle boosted by two five segment SRB's lifting a 33 foot upperstage propelled by a single(?) J-2(?) derived engine identical to the Ares I US engine.   Still there is already information that it is short on performance and there has been talk of adding a third stage to make up the difference.  How does a Jupiter 232 achieve similar performance to Ares V with three RS-68 engines on a 27.5 foot core boosted by two FOUR segment SRB's and lifting a 27.5 foot upper stage with TWO J-2(?) engines (need to read the AIAA paper, I downloaded it but haven't had time)??  It's like 2/3 the rocket is achieving 4/5 the performance (maybe better).  How does it do it??  

Thanks again and my hat's off to all of yall.... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 01/09/2008 03:36 am
Steven,
Quote
I'll be glad to review your future papers. I regularly review technical papers and PhD thesis in my field (digital communications) and have written two space related papers published by the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.

S. S. Pietrobon, "High density liquid rocket boosters for the Space Shuttle," J. of the British Interplanetary Society, vol. 52, pp. 163-168, May/June 1999.
http://sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf

Heh.  Small world.  I remember reading that one back in the day.  Good article.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/09/2008 07:55 am
Quote
PaulL - 8/1/2008  7:13 PM

Quote
clongton - 8/1/2008  6:40 AM

Quote
kraisee - 8/1/2008  3:06 AM

My personal opinion, not necessarily shared by anyone else in DIRECT, but if you want a smaller booster I would take that same $500m, get USAF to chip-in the same, and get ULA to human-rate one of their larger EELV's and just be done with it.   If USAF ever want to fly Orion's, that works to NASA's benefit because they will help share some of the infrastructure costs of that element every year.   USAF gets a total human launch system of its own and NASA reduces its costs - that seems to work to me.

Ross.
I completely concur with Ross on using an EELV for an alternate CLV. It's something I have advocated for a long time. IIRC, I was the one that really pushed, internally, to see if the J-110 was viable and, as Ross has said, it "probably" is not, for several reasons. In any case, the team's decision, even before the final numbers were in, was to deliberately "not" duplicate the EELV performance and to "not" compete with the EELV. It is our belief that the EELV has an extremely constructive role to play in the VSE and anything we would do that might swing those tasks to a J-110 instead, would actually be detrimental to the health of the VSE. We want to see the needs of the VSE properly served by the nations launch vehicles, and that has to include the EELV.

Ross and Chuck, by reading your replies, I almost get the impression that you don't need J-120 rocket anymore: EELV can do the ISS missions and the moon missions only require the J-232 rocket.  Not man-rating the J-120 would also save $500 millions in development cost. What future do you envisage for the J-120 rocket?  

PaulL

Paul,
The Jupiter-120 has to be built anyway - as a test platform for the EDS which follows a few years later (its schedule determined mostly by J-2X).

Once you've got it, it costs virtually nothing extra to keep it around and it offers a launcher with quite a bit of capability in its own right.   Being able to retain Shuttle's payload lift capacity with Orion is a particularly nice thing to have in your back pocket.   Being able to launch 50mT payloads without the extra costs of Jupiter-232 is also an interesting advantage.

I am also of the opinion that if NASA concentrates any of its energies on building any other booster than the Heavy Lift one it needs for Lunar work, such as an EELV CLV, there is a significantly higher risk of the whole VSE program being delayed or even canceled by the political world who may be quite satisfied with access to ISS and no further.

Prioritizing Jupiter-120 as the first new CLV protects the Lunar program, protects the workforce, and doesn't delay the schedule - all of which protect NASA's plans more effectively from political wind changing.

An EELV can follow quite quickly after Jupiter-120 and that builds two tiers of the 20, 50 and 100mT human lift capabilities we're trying to create.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/09/2008 08:30 am
Quote
luke strawwalker - 8/1/2008  11:35 PM

Ross,

Couple quick questions here in regards to recent comments.  I think this has been covered before (I've read all of the v.1 thread and all of this one, and have been following it for over a year, GREAT JOB TO THE ENTIRE DIRECT TEAM BTW!!!) but I need my memory refreshed...

Thanks Luke!


Quote
Jupiter 110 would have NO engine out capability, as you stated, but at what point in the flight would Jupiter 120 have engine out capability??  What would engine out change in the flight profile??

It all depends on how much payload you're carrying and what orbit you're attempting to reach.   Typically though, we are confident that Jupiter-120 has Core Stage engine-out capability from about T+120 seconds into the flight even with a maximum payload and going to a more difficult orbit.   With a lower mass payload, we can even get that down to about T+45 seconds.


Quote
I'm not an expert in this by a LONGSHOT but I'm learning from everyone on this sight.  I remember that Apollo 13 had a center engine out on the S-II and simply burned the remaining four longer to consume the additional 20% of the propellant that should have been burned in the center engine.  I would presume that an engine out condition in a booster with 2 engines, would lead from anywhere from nearly 50% additional propellant for an early engine out, decreasing in percentage of total propellants as they are consumed in the flight as the flight progresses for late engine out scenarios (figuring it as 50% of whatever propellant is still onboard at the time of the engine out.  SO, at what point does the engine out window open where the thrust of the remaining RS-68 is sufficient to keep the rocket accelerating, and what does that do to your trajectory and burn time for the remaining engine, and how does it affect the orbital injection/core disposal/circularization manuevers??

There are no hard and fast rules, but generally around where the engine-out window opens the thrust of the single remaining RS-68 is not sufficient to counter the full mass of the remaining propellant on-board, so we have to dump propellant if there is an early engine out to get our thrust:weight back up.   With less propellant, we would instantly target a lower orbit for injection.   The math is "interesting" to say the least, but we would probably have three or four possible abort-to-orbit paths for any given flight, but at a certain point (somewhere around T+4 minutes or so), you reach a point where you no longer need to dump propellant, and you aren't targeting a significantly lower orbit either.  

How this affects each mission is dependent on precisely what the mission is.   A simple CEV-only flight to ISS could quite likely be happy in an insertion orbit of as little as 80nm - it can boost itself the rest of the way using its own main engine.

A payload flying with the CEV, either to ISS or perhaps Hubble, would probably need to achieve a slightly better orbit to make the transition and extraction work correctly - at least 100nm would be nice.

A cargo-only flight with a pusher stage of some sort would have to have its options customized for those eventualities - if required at all.

There are too many factors at work to really give any precise answers for all occasions, so please just take those scenario's as mere "guidelines".


Oh, and J-232 has a variety of engine-out options too, starting from around T+100s, and even has Upper Stage engine single-engine-start and engine-out options too.


Quote
Also, what changes to abort scenarios does this entail; are the abort conditions before engine out capability is achieved more or less severe, compared to the baselined conditions for Ares I and what do the different abort conditions do to the baselined designs, such as the LAS??  (Could the LAS be lighter for more benign abort conditions, or would have to be heavier for more severe abort conditions, and how do the conditions affect survivability of the abort compared to Ares I abort profiles?)

This is an area which we have not yet fully explored.   Early tests show that we don't exceed the safety margins in the abort-to-orbit crew escape  scenarios we have run to date, but NASA needs to do an exhaustive study on this to work out precisely what can and can't be done.   At this point I will dare to say that I don't believe we would have serious problems with lower power stages and lower injection orbits.   But data is currently limited.


Quote
One other thing I need reminding of...  Ares V is baselined as a five RS-68 engined 33 foot core vehicle boosted by two five segment SRB's lifting a 33 foot upperstage propelled by a single(?) J-2(?) derived engine identical to the Ares I US engine.   Still there is already information that it is short on performance and there has been talk of adding a third stage to make up the difference.

As I understand it, Ares-V doesn't have engine out options until fairly late in its stage burns because it is riding closer to its performance limits than Jupiter is.   As you can see on previous pages, we are usually promoting a 95-108mT launch system, when in reality its a 121mT launch system.   That "conservativism" gives us similar margins for such conditions as Apollo had.   Ares-V runs its performance right to the wire.   The 129mT Ares-V is simply a 129mT launcher - if it loses engines during flight, it's performance must go down.


Quote
How does a Jupiter 232 achieve similar performance to Ares V with three RS-68 engines on a 27.5 foot core boosted by two FOUR segment SRB's and lifting a 27.5 foot upper stage with TWO J-2(?) engines (need to read the AIAA paper, I downloaded it but haven't had time)??  It's like 2/3 the rocket is achieving 4/5 the performance (maybe better).  How does it do it??

The 10m Core Stage holds more than 91% extra propellant than Jupiter at liftoff.   That's an awful lot of extra weight you have to carry through the early stages of the flight - yet you don't have 91% additional performance from your engines.   The 5-segs and just two extra RS-68's provide maybe 50% more performance.

Then, with 2 engines on the Upper Stage, our EDS doesn't suffer anywhere near so many gravity losses early in its burn as Ares-V's single-engined version.   That makes a noticeable difference too.

And finally, we found that the first stage vs. second stage "balance" is more optimum for Jupiter-232 than for Ares-V.   It wasn't something we consciously aimed to achieve, because our first stage performance is largely dictated by the existing capacity of Shuttle ET, but it is a very fortuitous finding.


It's important to realize that Shuttle was designed (once the configuration was decided upon at least)  the way it was because, for that configuration, it sits inside of the "sweet spot" for this sort of system.   Straying very far from that sweet spot doesn't net you much greater performance and Ares-V is actually quite a long way away from it.   Being outside of the sweet spot it is simply trying to "brute force" its way to higher performance - which is not ideal.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/09/2008 08:43 am
Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 8/1/2008  5:55 PM

Ross, thankyou very much for your detailed reply.

My pleasure!


Quote
The full capacity of this stage is actually 314,931kg...

Ahhh, the hammer hits the nail on the head. I got confused by p.32 where the propellant mass is stated as 225 t. Perhaps you should also add a line in this table stating that the propellant capacity is 315 t and mention in the text that on a normal payload flight the stage flies with 71% propellant capacity. As you are already lengthening the EDS stage for the extra hydrogen, would it not make sense to shorten the upper stage for CEV/LSAM? This means the mass saved from the stage can be transferred to more LOX carried in the extra tank.

What is already published is probably going to just stay the way it is, but our future papers will be updated to show that.

As for two different sized EDS', yes it is quite possible, but expensive.   In the short term we're trying to keep costs to a minimum.   We understand the cost delta is in the neighborhood of $500m for each different stage variant you wish to qualify for human-rated flight.   While there is a mass improvement by reducing the tanking capacity by ~30%, it's only in the order of 2-3 tons.   We decided that wasn't a great enough gain to justify the extra development cost.   NASA might very well choose differently.


Quote
Quote
The standard Jupiter Upper Stage (with 314mT propellant capacity) can
provide sufficient delta-V to achieve TMI with those payloads shown.

OK. To make things clearer, for the Moon Mars transition perhaps you could show in the following order on p.100,

Moon-1
EDS (2nd EOI, TLI) on a Jupiter 232
CEV/LSAM (2nd EOI, LOX transfer to EDS)]

Depot
Propellant Depot Earth Orbit/EML (2nd EOI, propellant transfer, TLI for EML
  depot) on a Jupiter 232
Propellant Supply (2nd EOI, transfer to depot)

Moon-2
LSAM (2nd EOI, TLI) on a Jupiter 221
CEV  (2nd EOI, TLI)

Between Lunar/Mars Analog and Mars semi-direct you could insert a Propellant Depot to show that it is an important part of the architecture. In the STS transition you could show the EML2 Communications Satellite, etc without the launcher underneath to make room for the other payloads shown.

Yes that would work.   Great suggestions.   Those will possibly make it into a future paper.   Thank-you.


Quote
Quote
Want to help us edit our future papers?

I'll be glad to review your future papers. I regularly review technical papers and PhD thesis in my field (digital communications) and have written two space related papers published by the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.

S. S. Pietrobon, "High density liquid rocket boosters for the Space Shuttle," J. of the British Interplanetary Society, vol. 52, pp. 163-168, May/June 1999.
http://sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf

S. S. Pietrobon, "A flexible reusable space transportation system," J. of the British Interplanetary Society, vol. 53, pp. 276-288, May/June 2000.
http://sworld.com.au/steven/pub/nsto.pdf

Very interesting.   I've read the first paper before, but not the second (not yet, anyway!)

We were seriously under the gun in 2007 to get the paper together and we simply didn't have the time to put the whole document through the same review process as, say, our DIRECT v2.02 paper.   It would be very nice to have someone specific who can spend a little time reviewing it properly and you've clearly got an eagle-eye for details, which would be perfect for us.

We will be in contact as and when we start putting together the 2008 AIAA paper.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/09/2008 08:55 am
Quote
Nathan - 8/1/2008  8:11 AM

It occurred to me that even if NASA insisted on continuing with the Ares 1 there is still a benefit from using J232 instead of AresV in terms of the infrastructure changes required. Is it really such a big deal to fly both 4 & 5 segment versions of the Solid boosters? (4 on j232, 5 on ares 1).
Are there any numbers that show this would still lead to cost savings?

Nathan,
The cost-delta to operate both 4 and 5 segment SRB's isn't *very* big - somewhere in the order of ~$100m per year, but once you've gone to all the trouble and expense of developing the 5-segs, you may as well use them on everything.   Jupiter-232 "Heavy"'s performance goes up by about 7mT - the "Heavy" indicating it uses the 5-segs and the per-launch cost increase is around $15m for the two extra segments.

Leaving development costs for any two separate new launch systems aside for now, the key issue is that the cost savings between Ares and Jupiter are limited purely to manufacturing and launch infrastructure changes - a few $bn at most - and Ares-I would still not share much of the same fixed costs as Jupiter.   The ~$30bn total Ares-I/Ares-V development budget would be reduced only to about $28bn for Ares-I/Jupiter-232 Heavy.

Over on the 100mt vs. 25mT thread I posted the attached graphs showing how fixed costs for each launch system are usually amortized across the number of flights.   This is the critical issue for why EELV's and Shuttle just aren't good value at the very low flight rates they have.   The fixed costs "load" each flight with a proportion of the yearly fixed costs - the more you fly each year, the wider you spread that and the lower the "hit" each launch has to cope with.

Bottom line: Almost any launch system gets reasonable value if it can only get to around 8 flights per year or more.

Jupiter assumes 8 flights of the one launcher each year.   8 flights is most of the way to the bottom of the steep cost curve.

Ares-I/Ares-V or Ares-I/Jupiter-232 "Heavy" would each be at only four flights per year for each vehicle - and that is a long way up the steep part of the curve - thus never going to be good value.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/09/2008 06:13 pm
Quote
Jim - 9/1/2008  1:03 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 8/1/2008  7:59 PM


The makers of the EELV are very reluctant to spend any of their money to man-rate the rockets.

They have no requirements to do so or to work to

With Ares-I or Jupiter-120, Falcon-9, Ariane and Proton competing for payloads they may get fewer launches than they hoping for.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2008 06:22 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 9/1/2008  2:13 PM

Quote
Jim - 9/1/2008  1:03 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 8/1/2008  7:59 PM


The makers of the EELV are very reluctant to spend any of their money to man-rate the rockets.

They have no requirements to do so or to work to

With Ares-I or Jupiter-120, Falcon-9, Ariane and Proton competing for payloads they may get fewer launches than they hoping for.

Ares I is not taking away payloads.   It is only for the CEV.  

Manrating is not going to get them payloads from Ariane and Proton.

Falcon 9 has a long way to go before it is a competitor to anyone.

So, basically
1.  The EELV's are not "losing" payloads to anyone.  They have a strong customer base.
2.  Manrating is not going to get them payloads from other competitors

So manrating without a requirement is a waste of money

And again,  whose and what manrating requirements?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/09/2008 10:07 pm
Jon, thankyou for the compliments about my paper. I learned a lot from writing those two papers. One of them is that the impulse density (ISP multiplied by propellant density) is the best  performance criteria for a first stage propellant. My first paper showed the H2O2/Kero in one of the best performing first stage propellants, better than either LOX/Kero or solids. Contrary to popular opinion, my second paper showed that LOX/LH2 is the worst propellant to choose for a single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicle (achieving negative payload mass). Almost any other propellant combination gives better performance. One of the best propellants is LOX/RP-X2. RP-X2 is also known as quadricyclene (C7H8) but is expensive to make. The second choice is LOX/Methylacetylene (C3H4), followed by LOX/RP-1.

Quote
kraisee - 9/1/2008  8:43 PM

As for two different sized EDS', yes it is quite possible, but expensive.   In the short term we're trying to keep costs to a minimum.   We understand the cost delta is in the neighborhood of $500m for each different stage variant you wish to qualify for human-rated flight.   While there is a mass improvement by reducing the tanking capacity by ~30%, it's only in the order of 2-3 tons.   We decided that wasn't a great enough gain to justify the extra development cost.   NASA might very well choose differently.

But don't you already have two different sized EDS stages? The standard 315 t capacity tank and the 0.87 m longer TLI tank. You could reduce the hydrogen tank length for standard payloads to only that required. The LOX tank length may also be similiarly shortened, but if that is too difficult, shortening the hydrogen tank should give most of the weight gain since it is much larger in size compared to the oxygen tank. The long tank can be used for propellant supply and other missions where more propellant is needed. If only one tank is to be developed, then the standard payload and TLI stage should both have the 0.87 m length added to them.

In the figures you show the crewed EELV fixed costs being greater than both Ares-I and Jupiter 120. This does not make sense to me as the changes required to get EELV crew-rated should be much less than for either Ares-I or Jupiter 120. Am I missing something here?

Looking at the costs, 4 Ares-I/V missions per year (eight launches total) have a fixed cost per mission of $700M or $2.8B per year. Eight Jupiter 232 flights have a fixed cost per flight of $180M or $1.44B per year, about half that of Ares-I/V. Of course, we also need to add the fixed and incremental hardware and operations costs to find the total real cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/10/2008 10:52 am
Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 9/1/2008  6:07 PM

Jon, thankyou for the compliments about my paper. I learned a lot from writing those two papers. One of them is that the impulse density (ISP multiplied by propellant density) is the best  performance criteria for a first stage propellant. My first paper showed the H2O2/Kero in one of the best performing first stage propellants, better than either LOX/Kero or solids. Contrary to popular opinion, my second paper showed that LOX/LH2 is the worst propellant to choose for a single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicle (achieving negative payload mass). Almost any other propellant combination gives better performance. One of the best propellants is LOX/RP-X2. RP-X2 is also known as quadricyclene (C7H8) but is expensive to make. The second choice is LOX/Methylacetylene (C3H4), followed by LOX/RP-1.

Hydrogen Peroxide/Kero has been interesting to me for a while as a propellant combo, but never formed part of DIRECT because there are no suitable engines available and the ET isn't designed to use it - and we're trying to stick as closely as possible to what we have at present to keep costs and schedules down.   I would be interested if there is further discussion about these options, but could I ask that we take any such follow-ups to a more appropriate separate thread - perhaps over in the advanced concepts section of the forum?   :)


Quote
Quote
kraisee - 9/1/2008  8:43 PM

As for two different sized EDS', yes it is quite possible, but expensive.   In the short term we're trying to keep costs to a minimum.   We understand the cost delta is in the neighborhood of $500m for each different stage variant you wish to qualify for human-rated flight.   While there is a mass improvement by reducing the tanking capacity by ~30%, it's only in the order of 2-3 tons.   We decided that wasn't a great enough gain to justify the extra development cost.   NASA might very well choose differently.

But don't you already have two different sized EDS stages? The standard 315 t capacity tank and the 0.87 m longer TLI tank. You could reduce the hydrogen tank length for standard payloads to only that required. The LOX tank length may also be similiarly shortened, but if that is too difficult, shortening the hydrogen tank should give most of the weight gain since it is much larger in size compared to the oxygen tank. The long tank can be used for propellant supply and other missions where more propellant is needed. If only one tank is to be developed, then the standard payload and TLI stage should both have the 0.87 m length added to them.

I need to put my hand up for confusion here.   I wasn't heavily involved in writing that section of the paper myself, so my understanding is a little on the thin side there and I think I misunderstood some of your issues because of that.

That particular section starting on page 93 describes just one of the many potential architectures which are possible with the basic Jupiter approach.

To completely clarify the situation, this particular architecture uses a Jupiter-232 to launch a propellant depot of 315mt total capacity (actually the largest size stage we are currently proposing in DIRECT) to EML-1.   Another Jupiter-232 would place a large, unfuelled reusable LSAM at EML-1 also.   After that, each mission could use a cheaper Jupiter-221 vehicle to launch the Orion CEV to rendezvous at EML-1, and the propellant depot would be filled by periodic Jupiter-232 missions or by other means (domestic commercial or foreign partnerships).

The Jupiter-221 used to launch the Orion here is the only vehicle to have a different size Upper Stage.   In this example, we are optimizing the U/S specifically for maximum payload performance thru TLI in single-launch use.   This particular variant of the Upper Stage has total capacity of 141,557kg (90,274kg used during ascent) and only has a single J-2X.

I'm sorry if I caused any confusion earlier and hope that helps clarify the situation a bit better.   Please let me know either way.


Quote
In the figures you show the crewed EELV fixed costs being greater than both Ares-I and Jupiter 120. This does not make sense to me as the changes required to get EELV crew-rated should be much less than for either Ares-I or Jupiter 120. Am I missing something here?

Looking at the costs, 4 Ares-I/V missions per year (eight launches total) have a fixed cost per mission of $700M or $2.8B per year. Eight Jupiter 232 flights have a fixed cost per flight of $180M or $1.44B per year, about half that of Ares-I/V. Of course, we also need to add the fixed and incremental hardware and operations costs to find the total real cost.

For either EELV, you're looking at ~$1.0bn in fixed costs per year for a human-rated program - and don't forget that NASA will have to operate its own dedicated pads because DoD refuse to assure NASA launch priority using their facilities - which is understandable, although inconvenient.

Ares-I's total fixed costs are currently ~$800m.
Ares-V's total fixed costs are currently ~$2,000m ($1,200m LV, $800m EDS)
Jupiter-120 total fixed costs are currently ~$900m.
Jupiter-232 total fixed costs are currently ~$800m

Note: Jupiter-120 has paid for everything else, and J-232 is basically just for the EDS


So, technically there are three different ways to say the costs could be split:-

a) Jupiter-120 pays for all the costs it requires ($900m) and Jupiter-232 only pays for its unique elements - the EDS ($800m).

b) Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232 share all the basic costs for all facilities, Core Stage and SRB's equally ($450m each), and Jupiter-232 also absorbs all the EDS costs ($1,250m).

c) Both systems just take a neat 50:50 split of total fixed costs - ($850m each).


Myself, I think option "b" offers the more realistic comparison, especially when comparing to Ares - although option "a" must apply in the ~2 years prior to the EDS becoming operational.



But the fixed costs are still only part of the picture.

Attached is the best apples-to-apples comparison anyone has put together so far.

I've spent a long time sourcing, and double-checking costs from sources within NASA, the individual contractor and the EELV organizations to get this comparison and then run it by the best people I can find who have done similar assessments previously for review.   While a few people still don't believe these numbers, nobody seems to have bothered to do a similar level of research so far, so nobody has any comparative data to either prove or disprove my numbers (I wish there was some peer review because I'm confident it would only validate my findings!).   In that spirit, these are the best full-cost (fixed plus variable) comparisons I have for all the different systems...

Note: Jupiter costs in the graphs below assume costing method "b" above - J-120 and J-232 both sharing all common fixed costs and J-232 covering all costs for the EDS.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 01/10/2008 12:12 pm
Would be interesting to have Saturn - V costs plotted on there(in todays dollars).  Many people on this forum seem enamored with Saturn V.. but just how cost effective  a system really was it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/10/2008 12:49 pm
That's a little more difficult :)

A few years back I did an *extremely* crude simple inflation adjustment to the cost of Apollo's flights and got a figure of over $8bn for each!

Now, manufacturing has come a long way since then, as have cost-efficiency measures and while Apollo's Saturn-V might be extraordinarily expensive by today's measures, the equivalent vehicle, built using modern practices, might very well cost less.   But I have no real idea how to work out the cost of such a 'modern' Saturn-V.

Undoubtedly, with 6 $12-15m LH2/LOX J-2 engines and 5 extremely large Kero/LOX F-1 engines (say $25m each, minimum) and with three large high-performance stages on each vehicle, the variable costs will clearly be rather high.   Even with 118mT lift performance it would still have to be part of a 2-launch architecture though, which raises the question of whether you would need a separate vehicle for CLV or just fly two of these?

With three large stage and two powerful engine production programs the fixed costs for a modern Saturn-V wouldn't be any lower than something like Jupiter-232 or maybe even Ares-V.

A separate, but interesting, question is precisely what LOC/LOM numbers an 11-engine vehicle like Saturn-V would achieve and would it still be suitable for crew missions any longer?

Overall, I think its fairly safe to assume it would probably be noticeably more expensive than either Ares or Jupiter, but would *still* offer much better $ per kg performance than Shuttle does today.

If I had to make an "educated guess" based on what I know of all the other vehicles costs, I would probably suggest $2.0 to $2.5bn fixed costs, ~$350-450m variable - ish.   That would place it a little more costly than Ares-V ("little" being measured in 100's of $m per year!!!).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 01/10/2008 01:11 pm
Quote
kraisee - 10/1/2008  5:52 AM

The Jupiter-221 used to launch the Orion here is the only vehicle to have a different size Upper Stage.   In this example, we are optimizing the U/S specifically for maximum payload performance thru TLI in single-launch use.   This particular variant of the Upper Stage has total capacity of 141,557kg (90,274kg used during ascent) and only has a single J-2X.

Ross.

Ross, it would be interesting if you could produce the full Specifications and Performance Data sheets for the J-221 (similar to AIAA 2007-6231 pages 50,51 and 52 for J-232).

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/10/2008 02:14 pm
Quote
PaulL - 10/1/2008  9:11 AM

Ross, it would be interesting if you could produce the full Specifications and Performance Data sheets for the J-221 (similar to AIAA 2007-6231 pages 50,51 and 52 for J-232).

PaulL

Funny you should ask that, because that's exactly what I've been working on recently - new summary "baseball cards" for DIRECT including our latest updates and even some of the 'only NASA margins' versions too.

It is taking a while though because I'm having to typeset each line separately to make them look good :)

Once we've had a chance to review them for errors, I expect we will probably release them here first.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/10/2008 06:49 pm
I have a suggestion – more advertising.
Find a former NASA rocket engineer or several of them and cost analysts and ask them to look at DIRECT proposal. The bigger the names of these engineers the better it is. Then make an interview. Ask question what they think about DIRECT. Publish this interview wherever possible: magazines, newspapers and Internet websites (including nasaspaceflight.com).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 01/10/2008 11:19 pm
You could perhaps go the other way Ross, and reduce current costs to the time of the Saturn V program.  :)
Quote
kraisee - 10/1/2008  8:49 AMThat's a little more difficult :)A few years back I did an *extremely* crude simple inflation adjustment to the cost of Apollo's flights and got a figure of over $8bn for each!Now, manufacturing has come a long way since then, as have cost-efficiency measures and while Apollo's Saturn-V might be extraordinarily expensive by today's measures, the equivalent vehicle, built using modern practices, might very well cost less.   But I have no real idea how to work out the cost of such a 'modern' Saturn-V.Undoubtedly, with 6 $12-15m LH2/LOX J-2 engines and 5 extremely large Kero/LOX F-1 engines (say $25m each, minimum) and with three large high-performance stages on each vehicle, the variable costs will clearly be rather high.   Even with 118mT lift performance it would still have to be part of a 2-launch architecture though, which raises the question of whether you would need a separate vehicle for CLV or just fly two of these?With three large stage and two powerful engine production programs the fixed costs for a modern Saturn-V wouldn't be any lower than something like Jupiter-232 or maybe even Ares-V.A separate, but interesting, question is precisely what LOC/LOM numbers an 11-engine vehicle like Saturn-V would achieve and would it still be suitable for crew missions any longer?Overall, I think its fairly safe to assume it would probably be noticeably more expensive than either Ares or Jupiter, but would *still* offer much better $ per kg performance than Shuttle does today.If I had to make an "educated guess" based on what I know of all the other vehicles costs, I would probably suggest $2.0 to $2.5bn fixed costs, ~$350-450m variable - ish.   That would place it a little more costly than Ares-V ("little" being measured in 100's of $m per year!!!).Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 01/10/2008 11:27 pm
If a former Apollo-era astronaut or flight director (somebody like Gene Kranz) came forward and supported DIRECT, it would give the proposal a lot of credibility with the public.  Change will not come from within NASA; it will come when the taxpaying public and Congress start to question the cost-effectiveness of NASA's plans, and threaten to cut off funding if they don't get better answers than what they're getting now.

I think it's all moot by now, though.  What chance does DIRECT have of shortening the all-important gap?  While DIRECT can play a major role in opening up the solar system, I think we're past the point where it can get Orion flying by 2012.  Delta IV Heavy is the only realistic option for shortening the gap right now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/11/2008 01:17 am
Quote
kraisee - 10/1/2008  10:52 PM

That particular section starting on page 93 describes just one of the many potential architectures which are possible with the basic Jupiter approach.

Thanks for your reply Ross, but I think there is still some confusion. I'm talking about the basic Lunar architecture, not the advanced one using a propellant depot at EML-1. This is Option 1 shown on page 85. In fact looking at the two Jupiter 232 vehicles shown on page 85, the EDS for the LSAM/CEV is shorter than 0.87 m. Thus, it appears my suggestion of shortening the EDS stage already appears to be implemented. This is reflected in Figure 103 where the EDS dry mass is 28.4 t, compared to 21.8 t for the Mission EDS. This is a 6.6 t difference.

There is a 94.6 t difference in propellent for the two stages. 3.4 t is for extra hydrogen taking 48 kL (0.0709 kg/L) and 91.2 t is O2/H2 taking 252 kL (0.3622 kg/L at 6:1 mixture ratio). The total extra volume is 300 kL. For an 8.4 m diameter tank, this results in a length difference of 5.4 m. However, measuring from the drawings on page 100, it appears the EDS is only about 2 m longer than the Mission EDS. Only 0.87 m of that is for the extra hydrogen.

Thanks very much for those cost figures. I assume the fixed costs you mention are the yearly operational fixed costs and the yearly costs in the figures include operational and hardware costs. Are the development costs also included in the figures? If so, over how many operational years do you spread out the development costs?

For two Lunar and four ISS missions per year (4 Jupiter 232 plus 4 Jupiter 120 or 6 Ares I + 2 Ares V) this gives yearly total costs of $3.0B for Direct ($0.9B for Jupiter 120 and $2.1B for Jupiter 232) or $4.0B for Ares-I/V ($1.4B for Ares-I and $2.6B for Ares-V). That is, Ares-I/V is $1.0B per year or 33% more expensive than Direct. I chose two Lunar and four ISS missions per year based on prior Apollo and Shuttle yearly rates. I assume you have also shared fixed costs between Ares-I and Ares-V for common hardware elements, in this case the SRBs and J-2X engines.

Perhaps a better way of plotting the cost curves is for perhaps example "mission"s. In this case a "mission" could be defined as one ISS and half a Lunar, one ISS and one Lunar, or one Lunar and half an ISS flight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: csj on 01/11/2008 01:43 pm
I estimated that the mass flow rate of three RS-68 engines is approximately 63% higher than three SSMEs at max thrust.  Will the Common Core Stage require a second set of LH2 & LO2 feedlines to reduce the risk of engine cavitation or is the current 17" diameter single set adequate for the job?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/11/2008 03:15 pm
Quote
CFE - 10/1/2008  7:27 PM

What chance does DIRECT have of shortening the all-important gap?  While DIRECT can play a major role in opening up the solar system, I think we're past the point where it can get Orion flying by 2012.  Delta IV Heavy is the only realistic option for shortening the gap right now.

Actually our reference 2012 schedule remains driven by the Orion schedule primarily.

Our programs longest lead time item is the qualification for the man-rated RS-68 - which is being done as part of the program for upgrading the engines to 106% - due to be fully-operational in mid-2012 for Delta-IV if NASA invests no extra monies at all.

Our KSC modifications would all be ready by End Of FY2011.   Production-spec ET/Core manufacturing changes would be completely in place by EO FY2009  - with 24 months production time for flight-ready hardware.

As I just said a few posts back, we actually still believe Jupiter-120's first operational CLV flight could occur as early as mid-2011 if the RS-68 and Orion schedules can be accelerated using any of the $6bn cost-savings between Ares-I and J-120.   The rest of the system will be quite ready to fly by then.

If the decision to change is not made until as late as December 2008, we could *still* make December 2012 for Orion 4's first operational crew flight.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/11/2008 03:55 pm
Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 10/1/2008  9:17 PM

Quote
kraisee - 10/1/2008  10:52 PM

That particular section starting on page 93 describes just one of the many potential architectures which are possible with the basic Jupiter approach.

Thanks for your reply Ross, but I think there is still some confusion. I'm talking about the basic Lunar architecture, not the advanced one using a propellant depot at EML-1. This is Option 1 shown on page 85. In fact looking at the two Jupiter 232 vehicles shown on page 85, the EDS for the LSAM/CEV is shorter than 0.87 m. Thus, it appears my suggestion of shortening the EDS stage already appears to be implemented. This is reflected in Figure 103 where the EDS dry mass is 28.4 t, compared to 21.8 t for the Mission EDS. This is a 6.6 t difference.

Okay, yes, that version does indeed have two different size stages on the Jupiter-232.   The larger is the 315mT 'standard' stage.   It burns about 220mT of its total propellant load during ascent.   Upon reaching orbit it still contains approximately 95mT of propellant where it awaits the spacecraft.

The 'smaller' J-232 Upper Stage is optimized purely for ascent.   It carries no additional propellant capacity for use in orbit or beyond.

The Orion spacecraft extracts the Altair and then reverse-docks it to the awaiting first EDS.

The second launch has sufficient capability to launch approximately 20mT of additional propellant with the spacecraft, so to increase performance we have suggested an additional LOX tank is brought along to increase total mission performance.   This is optional however.   Early missions could fly without it.



Quote
There is a 94.6 t difference in propellent for the two stages. 3.4 t is for extra hydrogen taking 48 kL (0.0709 kg/L) and 91.2 t is O2/H2 taking 252 kL (0.3622 kg/L at 6:1 mixture ratio). The total extra volume is 300 kL. For an 8.4 m diameter tank, this results in a length difference of 5.4 m. However, measuring from the drawings on page 100, it appears the EDS is only about 2 m longer than the Mission EDS. Only 0.87 m of that is for the extra hydrogen.

The stage optimization calculations and the 3D artwork were done by different people, so there is not necessarily a precise relationship between the two.   We were optimizing the data for these different architectures quite litterally until just hours before the final copy of the AIAA paper was issued, so I can't speak to exactly which 3D vehicle represents precisely which capacity.

I will try to spend a little bit of time over the weekend and try to look up the accurate measurements for the two vehicles described there on page 85.   Although I will say that what we're working on internally right now has continued to be refined since the AIAA paper so they are no longer going to be directly comparable.


Quote
Thanks very much for those cost figures. I assume the fixed costs you mention are the yearly operational fixed costs and the yearly costs in the figures include operational and hardware costs. Are the development costs also included in the figures? If so, over how many operational years do you spread out the development costs?

Correct.   As planned with Ares, the development costs are, for the most part, all paid up-front.   There is currently not planned to be any period where the development is still being paid off during the first 'x' years of operation.   Just like Ares, we need other hardware development work at that point (LSAM, Lunar Base etc) so we want the LV costs paid already by then.


Quote
For two Lunar and four ISS missions per year (4 Jupiter 232 plus 4 Jupiter 120 or 6 Ares I + 2 Ares V) this gives yearly total costs of $3.0B for Direct ($0.9B for Jupiter 120 and $2.1B for Jupiter 232) or $4.0B for Ares-I/V ($1.4B for Ares-I and $2.6B for Ares-V). That is, Ares-I/V is $1.0B per year or 33% more expensive than Direct. I chose two Lunar and four ISS missions per year based on prior Apollo and Shuttle yearly rates. I assume you have also shared fixed costs between Ares-I and Ares-V for common hardware elements, in this case the SRBs and J-2X engines.

Yes, that is correct.

Although the present Constellation plans are for only 2 crew rotation missions to ISS, 2 crewed lunar missions and 2 cargo-only lunar missions.   The hope is to be able to afford to fly one or two extra crew missions to the moon if/when extra budget is available, but Ares is currently looking to be $1.2bn over current annual budget projections.


Quote
Perhaps a better way of plotting the cost curves is for perhaps example "mission"s. In this case a "mission" could be defined as one ISS and half a Lunar, one ISS and one Lunar, or one Lunar and half an ISS flight.

It gets really complicated plotting separate ISS, Lunar Crew and Lunar Cargo missions with variable rates for each :)

For simplicity I generally just try to either show general flight rates, or the 'standard' flight arrangement as planned by Constellation already.   With those two reference points it isn't too difficult to work out any custom requirements, so that's enough I think.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/11/2008 04:04 pm
Quote
csj - 11/1/2008  9:43 AM

I estimated that the mass flow rate of three RS-68 engines is approximately 63% higher than three SSMEs at max thrust.  Will the Common Core Stage require a second set of LH2 & LO2 feedlines to reduce the risk of engine cavitation or is the current 17" diameter single set adequate for the job?

That is absolutely correct.

We have considered two LOX feedline designs - both single and dual feedlines.   The dual has issues and a negative mass penalty, so our current baseline has a single.    The diameter has been increased from 17" to 22" to handle the additional flow rate without increasing the speed of flow down the line, nor increasing the pressure.   While this is the best solution, this still required CFD modeling to ensure all cavitation issues are eradicated before flight - but we consider that a routine part of any such re-development of the ET.

The additional mass for the larger pipework, brackets and supporting structures has been calculated and integrated already.   The exit from the LOX tank aft dome has been modified to suit, and still clears the SRB thrust beam safely, and the Intertank has a slightly larger exit hole and aero ramp.

The LH2 feedline no longer exits the tanking through the side as for Shuttle, but three separate feedlines (one for each RS-68) will exit nearly 'straight down' through the lower tank dome in a more traditional fashion.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/11/2008 06:36 pm
Quote
CFE - 10/1/2008  7:27 PM

I think it's all moot by now, though.  What chance does DIRECT have of shortening the all-important gap?  While DIRECT can play a major role in opening up the solar system, I think we're past the point where it can get Orion flying by 2012.  Delta IV Heavy is the only realistic option for shortening the gap right now.
I would say that the two biggest reasons for DIRECT is to kill Ares I and to reduce rocket production cost. If they build Ares I it is quite possible that we will not see Ares V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/12/2008 05:00 am
About 10 meter Common Core Booster for DIRECT. IMHO switching to 10 meter diameter could be not so expensive. As far as I know Michoud Assembly Facility and its main welding tool can support manufacturing of 10 meter diameter stage. IMHO the adjustment of other tools should not be so expensive and should not take much time.
There are some advantages in 10 meter diameter core. One of them is a bigger reserve for payload grows. Then different moon mission scenarios could be considered.
It all boils down to cost comparison.
I would recommend putting a comment in the DIRECT proposal of not totally throwing away a possibility of 10 meter diameter Common Core Booster for DIRECT. You have to know the exact cost of these changes to nullify 10 meter diameter in DIRECT proposal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/12/2008 11:50 am
Quote
Yegor - 12/1/2008  1:00 AM

About 10 meter Common Core Booster for DIRECT. IMHO switching to 10 meter diameter could be not so expensive. As far as I know Michoud Assembly Facility and its main welding tool can support manufacturing of 10 meter diameter stage. IMHO the adjustment of other tools should not be so expensive and should not take much time.
There are some advantages in 10 meter diameter core. One of them is a bigger reserve for payload grows. Then different moon mission scenarios could be considered.
It all boils down to cost comparison.
I would recommend putting a comment in the DIRECT proposal of not totally throwing away a possibility of 10 meter diameter Common Core Booster for DIRECT. You have to know the exact cost of these changes to nullify 10 meter diameter in DIRECT proposal.
To the contrary, switching to a 10 meter core is extremely costly.

The changes at MAF would be very expensive but are dwarfed by the cost to completely replace the launch processing and vehicle launch infrastructure. NOTHING at KSC can handle the 10m core, including all the processing bays in the VAB and the launch infrastructure. Everything would need to be torn down, gutted and completely replaced with all new, including the ocean-going barges that move the cores from MAF to KSC. We are talking huge sums here, not just incremental increases. DIRECT avoids ALL that by staying with the 8.4m core which everything is designed for.

To your point about a comment in the paper, it needs to be remembered that the main point of DIRECT is to keep the costs down by reusing as much as possible, including the 8.4m ET. Going with DIRECT means staying with that ET size. Later on, NASA can still consider a 10m core as part of some other launch system if it wants to, because DIRECT does preserve that option for NASA. But that would not be a DIRECT launch vehicle. It would be something else.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 01/12/2008 01:42 pm
Once NASA "bait and switched" us the 10m core Ares V, the cost model for ESAS began to crumble.  New Super-Transporters, substantially-revised MLP's, the list of required changes is lengthy.

It seems to me that NASA was looking in the wrong places when they came up with the modifications to the Ares V.  They ended up stretching the SRB's and making a longer, wider core.  Seeing as how the SRB's have an extremely low Isp, and the RS-68's on the core have a lower vacuum Isp than the J-2X on the upper stage, this strikes me as the worst way to extend the performance of Ares V.  A better solution, in my view, would retain the existing SRB's and core diameter, while utilizing a bigger upper stage.  This is why I favor the Jupiter-244 configuration if true heavy-lift is needed.  I assume NASA opposes J-244 on the grounds that a 4-engine upper stage would be too unreliable, especially if the rocket had to be man-rated.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/12/2008 04:29 pm
Quote
CFE - 12/1/2008  9:42 AM

I assume NASA opposes J-244 on the grounds that a 4-engine upper stage would be too unreliable, especially if the rocket had to be man-rated.

Don't be so sure :)

Latest trade study version of Ares-V trying to close the 13mT shortfall I heard about had three J-2X's on a 10m Upper Stage, and then a dedicated EDS with a single J-2X on top of that - but it doesn't fit inside the VAB any more!

NASA has backed itself into a corner regarding vehicle safety too.   In ESAS they made such a big deal of the LOC/LOM numbers to justify crew safety for the CLV (later Ares-I) and to shut-out the EELV options that they had to explicitly remove all references to the poor LOC numbers for the CaLV (later Ares-V).

If they had not done this, the truth is that Ares-V, even with LOC numbers below 1:1000 - actually around 1:965 for the "current" two-stage version will *STILL* actually be about 5 times safer for a crew than Shuttle is!

But they can't say that, because it would mean that the EELV's and other non-Stick SDLV options would all be allowed back into the discussion.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/12/2008 04:37 pm
Yegor,
The problem of using a 10m Core in a Jupiter-style architecture arrangement is that the Core stage masses about 35 tons more than the 8.4m diameter version does.   For the smaller J-120 equivalents that's you're entire payload capacity gone out the window in one hit - and some!

We heard a while back that NASA was in-fact conducting a trade into at precisely that idea - a compromise between DIRECT and Ares-V - but it didn't take long for them (and us separately I might add) to work out the performance of all the different configurations and go "oh".   The results were very dissapointing.

Looks like a great compromise between the two architectures on paper, and seemed - on first appearance - to be a *great* way for NASA to grab the DIRECT concept and truly make it ther own!   But the reality was not so peachy.   You end up with a 10m Core, 2x4-seg SRB's with 3 RS-68's under it (we called it a K-130 to indicate the 10m Core) barely being sufficient to just lift the CEV on its own (28-29mT to LEO), yet costing considerably more to develop and fly each time even though it had lower performance.

Ultimately, without the extra (high) costs of using an Upper Stage, the 10m Cores alone aren't very flexible or cost effective at all.   We shelved that idea in the Autumn (Fall) and haven't heard anything more about it from our NASA contacts either since then.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 01/12/2008 05:09 pm
What is the lift capacity of the J-244, both with the "normal DIRECT" margins, and with the "apples-to-apples" margins?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/12/2008 05:27 pm
I'm using someone else's computer right now, so I can't get you precise numbers until I get home, but the "ballpark" numbers, for now, are 150mT/175mT for Jupiter-244, with $1-2bn additional development work on top of Jupiter-232 and a flight cost about $100m higher per launch.   Its LOC numbers would only be somewhere around 1:900, but it will happily fit inside the VAB with a very decent payload fairing 8.7, 10 or 12m diameter :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 01/12/2008 05:35 pm
Quote
kraisee - 12/1/2008  10:27 AM

I'm using someone else's computer right now, so I can't get you precise numbers until I get home, but the "ballpark" numbers, for now, are 150mT/175mT for Jupiter-244, with $1-2bn additional development work on top of Jupiter-232 and a flight cost about $100m higher per launch.   Its LOC numbers would be somewhere between 1:900-1000, but it will happily fit inside the VAB with a very decent payload :)

Ross.

Interesting.

I recall a discussion not long ago speculating that the dogged determination to stay with the Ares V is because Griffin wants to build the "biggest rocket ever."  It seems to me that the J-244 might be just the ticket to get him on board.  :)

Can you strip the 4-engine core to a 2-engine configuration, and use that for a J-120/J-244 combination, and skip the J-232?  Obviously, that J-120 wouldn't have the lift of the current one.  But, it might still be enough to do the job.  And it might be a combination that Griffin would embrace.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/12/2008 05:51 pm
The Jupiter-244 Core's engines are arranged in a cross pattern (though 70 degrees apart rather than 90 degrees) in order to provide maximum clearance around the SRB nozzles (to try to reduce sonic shock during SRB startup and operation).

This means that there would be an imbalance in thrust arrangement for a Jupiter-120 equivalent which becomes a very 'interesting' issue especially when you start looking at engine-out scenario's.

Also the J-244's Core stage weighs quite a lot more with an extra feedline on the other side of the tank, bigger thrust structure and extra tank strengthening for the much larger US and heavier payload.

IIRC, the Core weighs about 25 tons more - which would mean J-120's performance would drop by about that if based on this Core - but again, I'll have to check the figures when I get home.   It runs pure CLV duties very tight.   Especially if CEV ends up weighing more when they actually start bending metal.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 01/12/2008 06:21 pm
It sounds like a common 2/4-engine stage doesn't work out terribly well.  Which would drive us to a two distinct stages--a 4-engine stage, and either a 2- or 2/3-engine stage.  Which moves away from the economy of DIRECT that comes from using a common stage.  Still, if it happens to be something that appeals to Griffin, it might nonetheless be an improvement over the ARES concept.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/12/2008 06:56 pm
The J-120 and J-232 combination is pretty impressive, with each having its own purpose outside of the EELV class of launchers.  If you need more payload than the J-232 can provide, it seems to me that the logical path might be upgraded engines, rather than another new core.  J-232 as designed uses the 4-segment SRBs, the current RS-68s, and the J2XD.  If you replace one or more of those engines with the 5-segment SRB, the upgraded RS-68 and/or the J2x, payload will go up.  Do all three and payload might be quite a bit higher than either the J-232 or the Ares-V.  If you want to go even further, go for the regen development on the RS-68.  JMHO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/12/2008 07:01 pm
Solar, I would tend to agree.

Mind you, the NLS documentation shows what can be done with parallel programs.

NLS was designed to be operational while Shuttle continued to also fly - with both Shuttle ET's and NLS Core's being manufactured on *the same production lines* with a maximum theoretical production rate of 9 ET's and 13 NLS Core's per year.

It's quite an eye-opener seeing how they were planning to achieve that and there are some cool diagrams of the manufacturing facilities at MAF which would have been used.   They are fundamentally the same LWT tooling they used to use (this is all from before SWLT) which was modified slightly to handle both configurations.

As I've said before, the NLS documentation is all over on NTRS.   Enjoy :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/12/2008 07:12 pm
Lee Jay, we agree.

The ISS clearly doesn't need any more than Jupiter-120's ~50mT performance.

The Lunar program doesn't need any greater performance than J-232's published numbers to fully achieve NASA's performance targets in two launches - even without Propellant Depot technologies.

The Mars program has precisely the same number of flights as with Ares too, so the only key significant difference there becomes the Ares' higher up-front development costs.


There are no other requirements (telescope, NEO mission, L1 station launch, ISS upgrades etc) where the 121mT Jupiter-232 can't actually perform the same missions as the 129mT Ares-V - but one costs more than $15bn extra to develop.

Show me one payload in planning which a 129mT launcher is suitable, but a 121mT launcher is never going to be - and I'll eat my hat!

If there is any situation where we need that 8mT extra performance, I'd prefer to pay for a second $380m launch and place 240+mT in orbit rather than spend another $15bn and ten years on development work.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 01/12/2008 08:35 pm
NLS was a pretty impressive concept.  A pretty low-risk way of developing heavy-lift, it was never realized because the need for heavy lift couldn't be justified in the late 80's-early 90's.  The STME for NLS would have been an impressive piece of hardware that would have done wonders for Ares V performance (probably negating the need for the 10m core.)

The best spin-off of NLS thus far was the lessons learned from STME that went into RS-68.  Now we are trying to milk more performance out of RS-68 to bring it up to STME levels of performance.  Even with the regen nozzle, new injector plate, and higher expansion ratio upgrades that have been proposed for RS-68, it probably couldn't duplicate STME due to RS-68's lower chamber pressure.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 01/12/2008 08:50 pm
Quote
clongton - 12/1/2008  6:50 AM

Quote
Yegor - 12/1/2008  1:00 AM

About 10 meter Common Core Booster for DIRECT. IMHO switching to 10 meter diameter could be not so expensive. As far as I know Michoud Assembly Facility and its main welding tool can support manufacturing of 10 meter diameter stage. IMHO the adjustment of other tools should not be so expensive and should not take much time.
There are some advantages in 10 meter diameter core. One of them is a bigger reserve for payload grows. Then different moon mission scenarios could be considered.
It all boils down to cost comparison.
I would recommend putting a comment in the DIRECT proposal of not totally throwing away a possibility of 10 meter diameter Common Core Booster for DIRECT. You have to know the exact cost of these changes to nullify 10 meter diameter in DIRECT proposal.
To the contrary, switching to a 10 meter core is extremely costly.

The changes at MAF would be very expensive but are dwarfed by the cost to completely replace the launch processing and vehicle launch infrastructure. NOTHING at KSC can handle the 10m core, including all the processing bays in the VAB and the launch infrastructure. Everything would need to be torn down, gutted and completely replaced with all new, including the ocean-going barges that move the cores from MAF to KSC. We are talking huge sums here, not just incremental increases. DIRECT avoids ALL that by staying with the 8.4m core which everything is designed for.

To your point about a comment in the paper, it needs to be remembered that the main point of DIRECT is to keep the costs down by reusing as much as possible, including the 8.4m ET. Going with DIRECT means staying with that ET size. Later on, NASA can still consider a 10m core as part of some other launch system if it wants to, because DIRECT does preserve that option for NASA. But that would not be a DIRECT launch vehicle. It would be something else.

It is too bad that NASA did not take that into account in their design modification of their Ares V rocket. The development and infrastructure cost of the Ares V rocket would be siginficantly lower if it had remained with a 8.4 meters core.  When they switched from SSME to RS-68 engines, in order to keep the 130mT payload capability to LEO, it would have been better for them to increase the upper stage size (current Direct EDS size would have been OK) rather than increasing the diameter of the core stage to 10 meters.  Also, with the old core tank propellant capacity of 1,000,000 kg, 4 RS-68s would have been sufficient for the rocket.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/12/2008 09:16 pm
Cost doesn't look like it was ever an issue when ESAS was proposed.

Well, not any further than identifying that at $30bn the CaLV was going to be too expensive to do in one bite - hence the entire purpose for the "Stick" - to split the painful development cost in two and make it more palettable to Congress.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/12/2008 10:09 pm
Thanks for replies about 10m core.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/12/2008 11:43 pm
I'm glad to contribute Yegor.   Thank-you for the good questions!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/13/2008 05:16 am
I am just wondering what would the maximum payload numbers be for Jupiter-233/Jupiter-120 combination?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: csj on 01/13/2008 03:44 pm
On the current shuttle system, the SSME takes a small portion of the LH2 & LO2 and produces a warm GH2 & LH2.  These are pushed up their respective pressurization lines and into the tops of their respective tanks are used to pressurize them.  This stiffens the tanks and provides aftward pressure on the propellants.  The J2 and its derivatives do business a little differently.  Liquid Helium is stored in tanks inside the LH2 tanks in both the Saturn IVB stage & in the Ares I upper stage.  The J2 then produces warm gaseous Helium that is pushed up to both tanks for pressurization.  How does the RS68 handle this situation?  If it does like the SSMEs, then there is no impact to the ET to CCB conversion.  However, if it does like the J2 then there is a large impact.  Liquid Helium tanks, a fill & drain line and a tank to engine line must be installed resulting in cost and mass increase.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 01/13/2008 05:23 pm
It is gaseous Helium under high pressure (3000 psig) and low temperatures (minus 423 degrees F) that was used on the Saturn IVB stage, will be used on the Ares I upper stage and very likely will be used on the Ares V Earth Departure Stage.
Believe it or not, the density of the Helium gas under the above conditions is greater than the density of liquid Helium at normal atmosheric pressure (14.7 psig).
The use of Helium to pressurise the Oxygen tankage is strictly a weight savings issue.
The Delta IV operates much like the Shuttle, in that both use Oxygen and Hydrogen to pressurise their respective tankage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: C4NP on 01/14/2008 05:00 am
CSJ - The SIVB J2 actually heated gaseous helium stored in the LH2 tank, but the SII heated LO2.  This was for LOX tank pressure maintenance.  LH2 tank pressure (for both stages) was maintained by bleeding LH gas from the fuel injection manifold.  Ref.- J-2 Engine Manual R-3825-1, change 6, 18 June 1969.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: csj on 01/14/2008 04:39 pm
Quote
Scotty - 13/1/2008  12:23 PM
The Delta IV operates much like the Shuttle, in that both use Oxygen and Hydrogen to pressurise their respective tankage.

Thanks Scotty.  I tried to find that on the web but had no luck.  That is good because there is no change needed except for rerouting the presslines to the three RS-68 engine positions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/15/2008 12:17 am
Actually the J-2 did not heat the helium for the SIV-B...  It was heated with a seperate helium heater/burner.  As for the hydrogen tank mounted helium bottles... I know of a tank failure caused by a combination of the cold helium, a leaky regulator, and a frozen relief valve.  So while a performance benifit it makes operations less robust and the system more complicated.  For note Shuttle, Centuar, and Delta IV don't put their helium bottles in the tank, making the system more simple and robust.  Just a thought...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/15/2008 02:39 am
Quote
Yegor - 13/1/2008  1:16 AM

I am just wondering what would the maximum payload numbers be for Jupiter-233/Jupiter-120 combination?

If you mean Jupiter-120 launching the CEV & LSAM, then the limiting factor is entirely the mass of spacecraft which the Jupiter-120 can loft to LEO.   In this case our baseline says ~45mT to LEO, of which 20.0mT would be your CEV.   That would only leave 25mT for the LSAM - about 20mT below the current requirements.

If the Jupiter-232 lifted the LSAM, it would have a lot less TLI propellant on-board, and you would also take a severe weight penalty on the LSAM in the end.

The bottom-line is that we can not find an architecture using a Jupiter-232 CaLV, with a Jupiter-120 CLV pairing which successfully close NASA's current target performance requirements of 25,400kg minimum landed mass anywhere on the surface of the moon.

Mind you, right now Ares-I and Ares-V together can't close that performance target either.

We *can* close that target, with ample margins, using a pair of Jupiter-232's with no propellant transfer.


FYI, baseline assumptions include (but are not limited to) 0.35% daily boiloff for all LH2/LOX (EDS and LSAM) tanking, 3150m/s TLI, 30m/s MCC, 1101m/s Combined-LOI, 1911m/s Descent, 4-day TLI transit, 3-day Lunar Loiter, 14-day EDS Loiter, 700kg RCS rendezvous budget, 6,000kg ASE on flight supporting LSAM, plus all standard GR&A margins applied (as detailed in Section 3, ESAS Report).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 01/15/2008 03:40 am
Quote
kraisee - 14/1/2008  9:39 PM

Quote
Yegor - 13/1/2008  1:16 AM

I am just wondering what would the maximum payload numbers be for Jupiter-233/Jupiter-120 combination?

If you mean Jupiter-120 launching the CEV & LSAM, then the limiting factor is entirely the mass of spacecraft which the Jupiter-120 can loft to LEO.   In this case our baseline says ~45mT to LEO, of which 20.0mT would be your CEV.   That would only leave 25mT for the LSAM - about 20mT below the current requirements.

If the Jupiter-232 lifted the LSAM, it would have a lot less TLI propellant on-board, and you would also take a severe weight penalty on the LSAM in the end.

The bottom-line is that we can not find an architecture using a Jupiter-232 CaLV, with a Jupiter-120 CLV pairing which successfully close NASA's current target performance requirements of 25,400kg minimum landed mass anywhere on the surface of the moon.


Ross.

What if the 45 mT LSAM was launched by the J-120 and the 20 mT CEV+EDS by the J-232? Although it would not be ideal to launch the CEV on the lower LOC number rocket, its lighter mass than the LSAM would allow to orbit significantly more propellant in the EDS.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: C4NP on 01/15/2008 03:45 am
TrueGrit - to belabor a point - The separate helium/heater/burner was used to ensure pressurization for 2nd burn for TLI and actually provided some thrust to settle propellants (prior to this only the Auxiliary Propulsion ullage thrusters were used.  SIVB-Sat V APS modules had these additional thrusters not found on SIB APS modules).  If the tank failure you are referring to was the SIVB static test failure that was caused my incorrect welding rod used when fabricating the helium tanks.  During J2 engine operation the helium was heated by the J2 heat exchanger.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/15/2008 03:55 am
Quote
PaulL - 14/1/2008  11:40 PM

What if the 45 mT LSAM was launched by the J-120 and the 20 mT CEV+EDS by the J-232? Although it would not be ideal to launch the CEV on the lower LOC number rocket, its lighter mass than the LSAM would allow to orbit significantly more propellant in the EDS.

PaulL

Yes, that does improve things, but it still doesn't quite 'close' the performance targets.   You end up with a full-size CEV and LSAM - which is good - but not quite enough propellant (about 70mT) to make the TLI burn.

It does remove the need to transition the CEV around to mate with the LSAM though.   It would also mean that the torque forces for the stack would be going through the CEV's shell, not the LSAM's, which would also improve LSAM performance.   It does sandwich the CEV between the EDS and the LSAM though, which reduces abort options significantly.   There are clearly some 'interesting' trades here.

But overall it still doesn't quite achieve the full performance requirements which NASA is chasing, and that puts a serious kink into the option.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/15/2008 04:49 am
Quote
kraisee - 14/1/2008  10:39 PM

Quote
Yegor - 13/1/2008  1:16 AM

I am just wondering what would the maximum payload numbers be for Jupiter-233/Jupiter-120 combination?

If you mean Jupiter-120 launching the CEV & LSAM, then the limiting factor is entirely the mass of spacecraft which the Jupiter-120 can loft to LEO.   In this case our baseline says ~45mT to LEO, of which 20.0mT would be your CEV.   That would only leave 25mT for the LSAM - about 20mT below the current requirements.

If the Jupiter-232 lifted the LSAM, it would have a lot less TLI propellant on-board, and you would also take a severe weight penalty on the LSAM in the end.

The bottom-line is that we can not find an architecture using a Jupiter-232 CaLV, with a Jupiter-120 CLV pairing which successfully close NASA's current target performance requirements of 25,400kg minimum landed mass anywhere on the surface of the moon.

Mind you, right now Ares-I and Ares-V together can't close that performance target either.

We *can* close that target, with ample margins, using a pair of Jupiter-232's with no propellant transfer.


FYI, baseline assumptions include (but are not limited to) 0.35% daily boiloff for all LH2/LOX (EDS and LSAM) tanking, 3150m/s TLI, 30m/s MCC, 1101m/s Combined-LOI, 1911m/s Descent, 4-day TLI transit, 3-day Lunar Loiter, 14-day EDS Loiter, 700kg RCS rendezvous budget, 6,000kg ASE on flight supporting LSAM, plus all standard GR&A margins applied (as detailed in Section 3, ESAS Report).

Ross.
Thank you, Ross.
Sorry for being not so clear but what I wanted to know is that what would be the maximum payload for Jupiter-233? By Jupiter-233 I mean a launch vehicle similar to Jupiter-232 but with a bigger EDS stage: three J2s and 120 ton more of propellant. The common core stage will have to be stronger to support a bigger EDS therefore the maximum payload for Jupiter-120 will go down.
What would b the maximum payload for Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-233 in this case?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/15/2008 05:44 am
Yegor,
I don't think we did a finite study of that configuration because our early results showed the performance wasn't very much different.

I have an *old* summary here which indicates performance is less than 10mT higher than Jupiter-232.   But that extra performance comes with a cost hit and a safety hit which we didn't think were really worthwhile.

J-120/J-233 *appears* (on initial glance) to get closer again to closing the targets, but doesn't quite reach them.   Still about 1.5mT short.

Most importantly, we want to keep the crew safety as high as possible, while still closing all the performance targets.   Jupiter-232 gave us the best balance in this regard and appears to give Ares-I a run for its money these days.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/16/2008 04:20 am
Thanks, Ross.

I am looking at “AIAA 2007-6231” paper.
A couple of comments about “Budget and Schedule for the Vision for Space Exploration” section:
In my opinion this section is the most important section of the document. Most of the ordinary people would be too busy to read 131 pages document. In this case I think that it would be the best to ask them to read “Budget and Schedule for the Vision for Space Exploration” section only.
I loved comparing to Space Shuttle Flight Cost Structure. It is very useful.

What is missing:
1. I would like to see development cost comparison to Ares I/V. It is where DIRECT beats Ares. IMHO it is essential.
2. I would like to see operating cost comparison to Ares I/V. It would be very useful.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/16/2008 06:22 am
So were both right...  burner during coast and J-2 during mainstage.  We're not talking about the same tank failure...  The one I'm refering to was when they terminated ground helium flow and the leaky flight helium started flowing hydrogen temp gas over the tank relief valve.  It froze up and therefore the tank didn't have relief protection.  They weren't on the ball and let the tank go off-scale high.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/16/2008 08:22 pm
Yegor,
At the time we were putting the proposal together we didn't have all the financial data completely tied down, so we made a conscious choice not to include a hi-fidelity breakdown which might not be completely accurate.   What we have included so far is a higher-level assessment, which includes considerable extra margins on the development side for safety.

At this point we do have the relevant data and so will likely include such a breakdown in a future paper.


For non-recurring development costs, its further complicated by the fact that Ares' budget analysis looks too optimistic to us, and we prefer to include considerably larger margins in our predictions.   This means that we would then be breaking the apples-to-apples comparison - and that is going to need some serious explanation for most people to fully understand.   In the interim we simply made a point that Jupiter-120 would cost no more than Ares-I - although in that comparison we actually have 70% additional margin.

I think I've already bottom-lined the operational (fixed and variable) recurring cost comparisons here though a few times recently, but we will be putting those into future papers also.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/16/2008 09:44 pm
Ross,
By the way it is impossible to download the proposal located here:
http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf
from http://www.directlauncher.com/ website.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/16/2008 10:30 pm
Quote
Yegor - 16/1/2008  5:44 PM

Ross,
By the way it is impossible to download the proposal located here:
http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf
from http://www.directlauncher.com/ website.
I just tried it out and it downloaded just fine.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/16/2008 10:56 pm
Seems to have a slight problem, yes.

I am uploading a new version right now.   ETA: ~8 mins.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/17/2008 01:08 am
Quote
clongton - 16/1/2008  6:30 PM

Quote
Yegor - 16/1/2008  5:44 PM

Ross,
By the way it is impossible to download the proposal located here:
http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf
from http://www.directlauncher.com/ website.
I just tried it out and it downloaded just fine.
When I right click and choose "Save As..." it downloads the file but the size of the file is 587 bytes only so it is not good.
When I left click on the link to open it in Internet Explorer it opens fine so I can read it now.

Strange this is the first time I see this kind of problem - I always do "Save As..." for PDF files.
I tried it on a different computer the same problem.
A person can try to download and think that the file is corrupted. This is what I thought the first time.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gin455res on 01/17/2008 09:14 am
Is it possible to short-fuel or adjust the thrust profile of an SRB?
And how would this effect the Jupiter-110 performance?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 01/17/2008 01:06 pm
Quote
Yegor - 16/1/2008  8:08 PM

Quote
clongton - 16/1/2008  6:30 PM

Quote
Yegor - 16/1/2008  5:44 PM

Ross,
By the way it is impossible to download the proposal located here:
http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf
from http://www.directlauncher.com/ website.
I just tried it out and it downloaded just fine.
When I right click and choose "Save As..." it downloads the file but the size of the file is 587 bytes only so it is not good.
When I left click on the link to open it in Internet Explorer it opens fine so I can read it now.

Strange this is the first time I see this kind of problem - I always do "Save As..." for PDF files.
I tried it on a different computer the same problem.
A person can try to download and think that the file is corrupted. This is what I thought the first time.
It looks like the http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf link is actually html instead of a .pdf document.  So "right-click, save as" just gives you a copy of the HTML.  left-clicking the link redirects to the actual document.

Ross, it might be better to present http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf as an HTML link instead of a .pdf link, because the .pdf makes it appear you can save as instead of chasing the link.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/17/2008 08:04 pm
You can adjust the thrust profile of the SRB by changing the open pattern...  So called star pattern.  NASA is in fact doing just that for the 5-segment SRB.  But to do results in a significant cost in developing the new tools, pour process, and multiple test firings to verify the results.  In general there might be a performance benifit to tuning the SRB thrust profile, but in return you add significant costs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pierre on 01/17/2008 08:20 pm
Quote
rumble - 17/1/2008  3:06 PM

It looks like the http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf link is actually html instead of a .pdf document.  So "right-click, save as" just gives you a copy of the HTML.  left-clicking the link redirects to the actual document.

FYI the actual PDF file is: http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/18/2008 02:59 am
NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Responds to Ares 1 and Orion Questions

"NASA has given careful consideration to many different launch concepts (shuttle-derived, evolved expendable launch vehicle, etc.) over several years. This activity culminated with release of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study in 2005. Since then, the baseline architecture has been improved to decrease life cycle costs significantly.

NASA's analysis backs up the fact that the Ares family enables the safest, least expensive launch architecture to meet requirements for missions to the International Space Station, the moon and Mars. NASA is not contemplating alternatives to the current approach."

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1266
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/18/2008 03:06 am
Quote
Yegor - 17/1/2008  10:59 PM

NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Responds to Ares 1 and Orion Questions

"NASA has given careful consideration to many different launch concepts (shuttle-derived, evolved expendable launch vehicle, etc.) over several years. This activity culminated with release of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study in 2005. Since then, the baseline architecture has been improved to decrease life cycle costs significantly.

NASA's analysis backs up the fact that the Ares family enables the safest, least expensive launch architecture to meet requirements for missions to the International Space Station, the moon and Mars. NASA is not contemplating alternatives to the current approach."

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1266

Well, as I remember ESAS says that DIRECT (not Ares) is least expensive launch architecture to meet requirements for missions to the International Space Station, the moon and Mars.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/18/2008 03:48 am
I have now finally corrected the link problem with the site.   What appears to have been happening is "Save As" was downloading the redirection file (html) used by the server to point all directlauncher.com related webpages and documents to the Direct folder on my parent site - where it is all hosted.

Yegor, what you were actually receiving was just the small redirection file, not the document it points to.

I have altered the website so it no longer requests files using the full address including the 'directlauncher.com', but simply assumes it is already in that domain and just requests documents from the sub-folders.   I believe that has now resolved the conflict.

If you would be good enough to check one last time, I think it should work for you now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/18/2008 04:26 am
Quote
Yegor - 17/1/2008  11:06 PM

Well, as I remember ESAS says that DIRECT (not Ares) is least expensive launch architecture to meet requirements for missions to the International Space Station, the moon and Mars.

ESAS did not actually include the DIRECT approach in its analysis because ESAS made a simple assumption to always make the CLV a different design from the CaLV.

Even though LV-24 clearly achieves the required safety levels for Crew use (as demonstrated in figure 6-18, page 384, Section 6), ESAS made the mistake of assuming that a "Stick" solution (either LV-13.1 or LV-16 AKA "Ares-I") was always assumed for that role in addition.

With this mistaken assumption, ESAS thus concluded that the LV-13.1 & LV-25 "1.5" solution would not offer as much performance as required - so a second LV-25 would always be needed - thus making the solution a 3-launch solution in ESAS' eyes (you can see that ESAS considered this a 3-launch solution most clearly in figure 6-18 on page 384 where it also refers to the CLV being a "4 Seg RSRB w/1 SSME" - clearly LV-13.1).

You can see for yourself precisely how this assumption was made by reading the specific details for the 3-launch LV-13.1 / LV-25 solution as described specifically in section 6.6.4.6 on page 441 of Section 6.


It is interesting to note, that even as a 3-launch solution like this, it was *still* determined that LV-24/25 would be 73% the operational cost of the selected LV-27.3 solution - as can be seen in table 6-16 on page 436 of Section 6 (reproduced below).   Of possible additional interest, the LV-24/25 solution assumes 3 disposable SSME's for all launches, which would be about $25m each.   Jupiter-120 uses only 2 $20m engines - so would actually be cheaper still - and with fewer engines, is also slightly safer too.


Further, RS-68 was discounted from consideration due to its perceived long development time for human use - a decision made completely irrelevant by choosing J-2X for the CLV and extending this comparative schedule massively in the process.


The table of most interest is presented below - actually taken from figure 12-11 from the ACI Draft 'secret' version of the ESAS Report which we were never supposed to see.

The closest comparison here to DIRECT would be the "EOR-LOR 2-launch Hydrogen Descent" - although the cost for the CLV must be completely deleted because our CaLV *is* our CLV - and the EDS is considered a completely separate cost item here.

I have produced an edited version of this same table as a more "direct" comparison :)

FYI: The scale is FY2005 $ millions

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/18/2008 04:33 am
Quote
kraisee - 17/1/2008  11:48 PM

I have now finally corrected the link problem with the site.   What appears to have been happening is "Save As" was downloading the redirection file (html) used by the server to point all directlauncher.com related webpages and documents to the Direct folder on my parent site - where it is all hosted.

Yegor, what you were actually receiving was just the small redirection file, not the document it points to.

I have altered the website so it no longer requests files using the full address including the 'directlauncher.com', but simply assumes it is already in that domain and just requests documents from the sub-folders.   I believe that has now resolved the conflict.

If you would be good enough to check one last time, I think it should work for you now.

Ross.
I tried to "Save As..." "Low Res PDF" from "http://www.directlauncher.com/" home page.
It works fine!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/18/2008 04:43 am
Quote
Yegor - 18/1/2008  12:33 AM

I tried to "Save As..." "Low Res PDF" from "http://www.directlauncher.com/" home page.
It works fine!

Excellent news!   I am very sorry for this technical hitch - I am even happier to resolve it though! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/18/2008 04:50 am
Quote
kraisee - 18/1/2008  12:26 AM

Quote
Yegor - 17/1/2008  11:06 PM

Well, as I remember ESAS says that DIRECT (not Ares) is least expensive launch architecture to meet requirements for missions to the International Space Station, the moon and Mars.

ESAS did not include the DIRECT approach in its analysis because ESAS made a simple assumption to always make the CLV had to be a different design from the CaLV.
What about this quote from ESAS report, page 683 (12. Cost):
"One additional option was examined to try to reduce the total LLC of LVs. In this option, the CLV was eliminated and the HLLV was designed from the beginning for use as both a CLV and a CaLV. While this option has the best total LLC, it is very expensive in the near-term. Secondly, this option would represent excessive risk to meeting the desired 2011 launch date with many significant development activities needed. It also scores worse than the RSRB-derived CLV for reliability and safety. These results are presented in more detail in Section 6.11, Conclusions."

I do not know exactly what LLC means but judging by the other quote from ESAS report it is the total cost from development through operations:
"The cost estimates include all LLC elements from DDT&E through operations." (page 671)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/18/2008 04:52 am
Quote
kraisee - 18/1/2008  12:43 AM

Quote
Yegor - 18/1/2008  12:33 AM

I tried to "Save As..." "Low Res PDF" from "http://www.directlauncher.com/" home page.
It works fine!

Excellent news!   I am very sorry for this technical hitch - I am even happier to resolve it though! :)

Ross.
Congratulations! :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: yinzer on 01/18/2008 05:50 am
LLC is probably a typo for Life Cycle Cost (LCC).  At the time that the ESAS was performed, NASA was planning to have the Ares I use a 4-segment SRB and an SSME for the upper stage.  Going straight to the Ares V would take more time and cost more money before the first manned flight of Orion, but would be cheaper overall.

Since then, NASA decided to use the 5-segment SRB and J-2S for Ares I to eliminate the risk of air-starting the SSME and to reduce time and money to the first lunar flight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/18/2008 06:33 am
Quote
Yegor - 18/1/2008  12:50 AM

What about this quote from ESAS report, page 683 (12. Cost):
"One additional option was examined to try to reduce the total LLC of LVs. In this option, the CLV was eliminated and the HLLV was designed from the beginning for use as both a CLV and a CaLV. While this option has the best total LLC, it is very expensive in the near-term. Secondly, this option would represent excessive risk to meeting the desired 2011 launch date with many significant development activities needed. It also scores worse than the RSRB-derived CLV for reliability and safety. These results are presented in more detail in Section 6.11, Conclusions."

I would 100% agree with ESAS that the HLLV they chose - the LV-27.3 - would indeed be more costly to develop than the "Stick" options.

But no analysis is included in the report for a 'direct' evolution of the existing Shuttle into a new in-line launcher for CLV duties.   ESAS does not actually include a cost comparison between LV-13.1 and LV-24 for Crew Launch Vehicle duties.   And there is certainly no assessment in ESAS for LV-24 CLV followed by LV-25 CaLV, with or without EDS' on each.


Without 5-segment SRB's, without the need to develop new disposable SSME's, and without requiring a stretching to the existing tanking elements, Jupiter-120 would be an awful lot cheaper to develop than the LV-27.3 "HLLV" they are talking about there.   ESAS itself indicates the cost of developing the SSME-powered LV-24/25 would be 73% the cost of the LV-27.3 which was recommended.   Using already-existing RS-68's instead - this becomes even better still - which is the prime reason why they did so for Ares-V.


I would also agree that the chosen solution *appears* to have greater safety in the report.   It certainly does appear to offer nearly twice the safety with an LOC of 2021 for LV-16 (the closest LV in ESAS to Ares-I's current design).

But the reality of the situation is that the latest internal safety numbers (November 8th 2007) for Ares-I have slashed its safety almost in half!   Ares-I is now actually very much in the same ball-park as LV-24 with a current LOC analysis showing just 1 in 1256, not 2021.   LV-24 remains 1 in 1170 - a difference of less than 7% now.

LOC for Jupiter-120 is actually now 21% better than LV-24 - at 1 in 1413 - due largely to the use of only two RS-68's on the main Core instead of three SSME's on LV-24 and the fact that the RS-68 operates in much lower stressed conditions because it is a gas-generator system, as opposed to the far more complex and highly tuned staged-combustion system of SSME.   With 80% fewer parts, RS-68 is expected by many to set new standards in safety.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/18/2008 08:28 am
Just a very quick glimpse, but here are some images of DIRECT's Jupiter launchers using the MLAS escape system and a variety of different payload shrouds 8.7m, 10m and 12m with varying length barrel sections of both 10m and 20m design.

The vehicle configurations are standard Jupiter-120, Jupiter-221 (small US w/ 1 J-2X & two Core RS-68 engines) and standard Jupiter-232.

This is to demonstrate the underlying flexibility of this single development program - how the same vehicle can be utilized in any number of different ways to perform any number of different tasks - and all these configurations would achieve NASA's LOC targets for Crew use.



Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/18/2008 07:46 pm
Quote
kraisee - 18/1/2008  2:33 AM

Quote
Yegor - 18/1/2008  12:50 AM

What about this quote from ESAS report, page 683 (12. Cost):
"One additional option was examined to try to reduce the total LLC of LVs. In this option, the CLV was eliminated and the HLLV was designed from the beginning for use as both a CLV and a CaLV. While this option has the best total LLC, it is very expensive in the near-term. Secondly, this option would represent excessive risk to meeting the desired 2011 launch date with many significant development activities needed. It also scores worse than the RSRB-derived CLV for reliability and safety. These results are presented in more detail in Section 6.11, Conclusions."

I would 100% agree with ESAS that the HLLV they chose - the LV-27.3 - would indeed be more costly to develop than the "Stick" options.

But no analysis is included in the report for a 'direct' evolution of the existing Shuttle into a new in-line launcher for CLV duties.   ESAS does not actually include a cost comparison between LV-13.1 and LV-24 for Crew Launch Vehicle duties.   And there is certainly no assessment in ESAS for LV-24 CLV followed by LV-25 CaLV, with or without EDS' on each.


Without 5-segment SRB's, without the need to develop new disposable SSME's, and without requiring a stretching to the existing tanking elements, Jupiter-120 would be an awful lot cheaper to develop than the LV-27.3 "HLLV" they are talking about there.   ESAS itself indicates the cost of developing the SSME-powered LV-24/25 would be 73% the cost of the LV-27.3 which was recommended.   Using already-existing RS-68's instead - this becomes even better still - which is the prime reason why they did so for Ares-V.


I would also agree that the chosen solution *appears* to have greater safety in the report.   It certainly does appear to offer nearly twice the safety with an LOC of 2021 for LV-16 (the closest LV in ESAS to Ares-I's current design).

But the reality of the situation is that the latest internal safety numbers (November 8th 2007) for Ares-I have slashed its safety almost in half!   Ares-I is now actually very much in the same ball-park as LV-24 with a current LOC analysis showing just 1 in 1256, not 2021.   LV-24 remains 1 in 1170 - a difference of less than 7% now.

LOC for Jupiter-120 is actually now 21% better than LV-24 - at 1 in 1413 - due largely to the use of only two RS-68's on the main Core instead of three SSME's on LV-24 and the fact that the RS-68 operates in much lower stressed conditions because it is a gas-generator system, as opposed to the far more complex and highly tuned staged-combustion system of SSME.   With 80% fewer parts, RS-68 is expected by many to set new standards in safety.

Ross.
It would be very helpful to put this info into DIRECT proposal paper. The sooner the better.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/18/2008 08:05 pm
How about stretching DIRECT common core a little bit?
Still 8.4m diameter but longer to match the length of 5 segment SRBs.
We will still use 4 segment SRBs but with an extension on top that passes the load into common core intertank section. It could look like cones on top of the side tanks of Proton LV.
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/u/ur500dh1.jpg
It should be easy to make. Then you could have a smaller EDS with just one J-2.
Payload should be close to Jupiter-232 but safety numbers should go up and the cost should go down for Jupiter-231.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 01/18/2008 08:49 pm
Quote
Yegor - 18/1/2008  3:05 PM

How about stretching DIRECT common core a little bit?
Still 8.4m diameter but longer to match the length of 5 segment SRBs.
We will still use 4 segment SRBs but with an extension on top that passes the load into common core intertank section. It could look like cones on top of the side tanks of Proton LV.
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/u/ur500dh1.jpg
It should be easy to make. Then you could have a smaller EDS with just one J-2.
Payload should be close to Jupiter-232 but safety numbers should go up and the cost should go down for Jupiter-231.

As I recall, the DIRECT proposal referred yo these as the "heavy" versions of the various Jupiter configurations, and were left out intentionally to show that the 5-seg SRB cost wasn't needed.

With the recent news on the Ares I budget and schedule, I wonder if it's time to start calling the J-232 "Ares V"... After all, three RS-68s + two SRBs = five, right? :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/18/2008 09:28 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 18/1/2008  4:49 PM

Quote
Yegor - 18/1/2008  3:05 PM

How about stretching DIRECT common core a little bit?
Still 8.4m diameter but longer to match the length of 5 segment SRBs.
We will still use 4 segment SRBs but with an extension on top that passes the load into common core intertank section. It could look like cones on top of the side tanks of Proton LV.
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/u/ur500dh1.jpg
It should be easy to make. Then you could have a smaller EDS with just one J-2.
Payload should be close to Jupiter-232 but safety numbers should go up and the cost should go down for Jupiter-231.

As I recall, the DIRECT proposal referred yo these as the "heavy" versions of the various Jupiter configurations, and were left out intentionally to show that the 5-seg SRB cost wasn't needed.

With the recent news on the Ares I budget and schedule, I wonder if it's time to start calling the J-232 "Ares V"... After all, three RS-68s + two SRBs = five, right? :)
I am still using 4 segment SRBs here but with a longer common core.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/18/2008 11:15 pm
There are a number of pro's and con's for re-designing the new tanking to be longer.   Yes, some extra propellant can increase the performance slightly - although the optimum is only about 7% increase.   Conversely the cost for changing the size is noticable, although still relatively small.   The schedule impact of the tooling changes at MAF to support a stretched tank though, do cause some very real concerns for us.

But the biggest single hitch is that there are some very serious technical hurdles at the Pad Fixed Service Structure total weight if you wish to support any taller configurations than our current Jupiter-232 CLV design.   The concrete hardstand has a maximum mass limit for the FSS, and while we are not yet exceeding the limits, we are fast approaching that maximum already with the four extra levels we are installing to support Jupiter-232 CLV.

While NASA could very well choose differently when it does its own trades into this, we chose to leave the tanking the same capacity as Shuttle ignore the 7% capacity increase, and assume we would use 5-seg SRB's using the standard attachements as was originally proposed for Shuttle.   A more detailed trade study by NASA may turn up a more favourable solution elsewhere.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 01/19/2008 02:20 am
The J-120 should be compatible with an RL-10 powered upper stage, for use prior to Advanced Upper Stage completion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steve G on 01/19/2008 02:35 am
"NASA's Next Rocket May Shake Too Much" has just made it to mainstream space websites. (space.com) This has been discussed in this forum for a while, but now AP and NASA Watch have broken the story wide open.  With the Ares 1 under greater attack in the public's eye, hopefully it is the beginning of the end of the single biggest threat to the entire VSE.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2008 02:37 am
Quote
tnphysics - 18/1/2008  10:20 PM

The J-120 should be compatible with an RL-10 powered upper stage, for use prior to Advanced Upper Stage completion.
We did a detailed study and it's a really sweet fit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2008 02:39 am
Quote
tnphysics - 18/1/2008  10:20 PM

The J-120 should be compatible with an RL-10 powered upper stage, for use prior to Advanced Upper Stage completion.

Most definately.   Either the existing Centaur stages as used by Atlas-V or the somewhat similar Delta-IV Upper Stage could be used on a Jupiter-120 to increase performance.   I will try to dig up the relevant performance summary for those alternatives and post them here.

They would need to be human-rated if they were ever to fly Orion though, although DIRECT hopes that an EELV Crew launcher would follow hot on the heels of the Jupiter-120 and the human-rating could very well become a shared cost with USAF in that scenario - openning up the opportunity for NASA or USAF to perform both 20mT and 50-70mT crewed missions with Orion spacecraft.   100mT missions become possible when the EDS is finally ready a few years later.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/19/2008 04:06 am
Quote
kraisee - 18/1/2008  7:15 PM

There are a number of pro's and con's for re-designing the new tanking to be longer.   Yes, some extra propellant can increase the performance slightly - although the optimum is only about 7% increase.   Conversely the cost for changing the size is noticable, although still relatively small.   The schedule impact of the tooling changes at MAF to support a stretched tank though, do cause some very real concerns for us.

But the biggest single hitch is that there are some very serious technical hurdles at the Pad Fixed Service Structure total weight if you wish to support any taller configurations than our current Jupiter-232 CLV design.   The concrete hardstand has a maximum mass limit for the FSS, and while we are not yet exceeding the limits, we are fast approaching that maximum already with the four extra levels we are installing to support Jupiter-232 CLV.

While NASA could very well choose differently when it does its own trades into this, we chose to leave the tanking the same capacity as Shuttle ignore the 7% capacity increase, and assume we would use 5-seg SRB's using the standard attachements as was originally proposed for Shuttle.   A more detailed trade study by NASA may turn up a more favourable solution elsewhere.

Ross.
Thank you, Ross!

The height of this LV could be the same as Jupiter-232.

A couple of possible Pros:
1. Possibility to use S-IVB stage as it is for EDS.
2. It should be a little bit less expensive in a long run since upper stage is smaller and has just one engine.
3. It should be more safe.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2008 04:40 am
The old S-IVB stage has been out of production for more than 30 years.   The tooling is all gone, the exact techniques are old-fashioned and most modern engineers probably wouldn't know how to build such 'arcane' things any more.   They'd be a lot better off starting with a fresh design using modern techniques and knowledge - and just look back at the S-IVB for any applicable 'lessons learned' which could benefit them today.

There is even some debate whether the Saturn-V stages would actually meet modern safety standards at all, so I would be careful about assuming S-IVB is at all 'better'.   It would be heavier, would not use the latest materials (Al-Li), techniques and would need all-new tooling and facilities.

And actually, S-IVB was about 6.6m diameter - assuming it were to contain the same propellant load to do the same job, it would actually end up being taller than an 8.4m diameter equivalent.

Fundamentally, the Jupiter EDS presented in our paper could easily still be considered to be a modern interpretation of the S-IVB - although the WBC version we want in-house would be from a different family tree - Centaur has over 40 years of consistent evolution, development and successful use so far.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 01/19/2008 04:40 am
S-IVB? That would cost as much as a Titan IV.

What about a "S-IVBS" (S for simplified).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2008 07:49 am
I'm home again and just looked up the performance of Jupiter-120 with a totally standard Centaur-V2 Upper Stage borrowed straight from Atlas-V 552 "as is".

Our typical "conservative" estimates place this at 66,932kg to 30x120nm, 28.5degree insertion orbit.

The potential "full" in-house performance of the system would be 79,369kg to 30x120nm, 28.5deg insertion orbit.


Alternatively it could place a 24,630kg of useful payload, plus a fully fueled stage into 120nm orbit.   That would allow for about 2,534m/s of dV from there.   Alternatively it can send about 17,817kg thru TLI stopping at 120nm initial orbit first.   11,457kg to TMI.   Even more is possible to TLI and TMI if we use a more optimized trajectory, but we haven't worked those out in detail for this configuration yet.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2008 11:59 am
Quote
kraisee - 19/1/2008  3:49 AM

I'm home again and just looked up the performance of Jupiter-120 with a totally standard Centaur-V2 Upper Stage borrowed straight from Atlas-V 552 "as is".

Our typical "conservative" estimates place this at 66,932kg to 30x120nm, 28.5degree insertion orbit.

The potential "full" in-house performance of the system would be 79,369kg to 30x120nm, 28.5deg insertion orbit.


Alternatively it could place a 24,630kg of useful payload, plus a fully fueled stage into 120nm orbit.   That would allow for about 2,534m/s of dV from there.   Alternatively it can send about 17,817kg thru TLI stopping at 120nm initial orbit first.   11,457kg to TMI.   Even more is possible to TLI and TMI if we use a more optimized trajectory, but we haven't worked those out in detail for this configuration yet.

Ross.
That sounds lunar.
A 2x launch of that configuration could actually do a lunar mission provided the spacecraft and crew size were a little smaller; say 3x crew and a system size about 75-80% of what’s currently envisioned. So if the Jupiter-120 is fielded and then funding for the J-2X dries up, Centaur-V2 steps in, we downsize the spacecraft a little and still get to the moon.

I guess you could call that Plan B.

It's amazing what the range of options are if only one would start with the right launch vehicle in the first place; a Jupiter-120.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2008 12:38 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 19/1/2008  12:40 AM

S-IVB? That would cost as much as a Titan IV.

What about a "S-IVBS" (S for simplified).

That doesn't exist.   Anyways Ross said a WBC version is better
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Trever on 01/19/2008 12:43 pm
Could Direct do a crewed lunar mission with a single launch if it could fill up with LO2 in LEO?  Mass wise LO2 is the majority of what is lifted, and thermally an LO2 propellant is easier than LH2.  I think that a single launch would be very attractive.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2008 01:02 pm
Quote
Trever - 19/1/2008  8:43 AM

Could Direct do a crewed lunar mission with a single launch if it could fill up with LO2 in LEO?  Mass wise LO2 is the majority of what is lifted, and thermally an LO2 propellant is easier than LH2.  I think that a single launch would be very attractive.
Trever;
Let's first make sure we're comparing apples to apples.
Please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. The launch vehicle is a Jupiter-232 as described in the AIAA paper.
2. The EDS carries a full LH2 load for the lunar mission but only enough LOX to achieve LEO - it will be refueled on-orbit.
3. Altair carries a full lunar load of LH2 with NO LOX, it will fill up on-orbit.
4. Orion SM carries a full LH2 load for the lunar mission but only enough LOX to achieve LEO - it will refuel on-orbit.

Essentially, the stack arrives in LEO with all the LH2 it needs for the lunar mission but none of the LOX. It proceeds to a LOX depot of some type, fills all the LOX tanks and departs for the moon.

Do I have it correct?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: simcosmos on 01/19/2008 01:22 pm
Hi all,

Related with some of the recent posts I would like to write a few *personal* comments and remember / share two 3D renderings from 'simcosmos archives'.


The first picture was already shared at AIAA-Houston's Horizons (Aug2007) and I have also uploaded it into my flickr space (please click link for larger resolution / description):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/2050152317/

"Jupiter

Represented there (as well on several images available on the AIAA-2007-6231 paper) are some representations of how Jupiter120 could look like with a mission stage developed using a RL-10-B2 DeltaIV Heavy US (or else a ~5.4m diameter WBC powered by a number of RL-10) as conceptual design 'starting point'. Depending of mission requirements and some integration aspects, etc, such stage could either be fully enclosed in a big 8.4m diameter fairing or else could have a 8.4m to 5m diameter adapter and use a standard PLF (similar to some used on  DeltaIV / AtlasV variants). Together with EELV, such J120 variant could allow very interesting exploration scenarios (both crewed and non-crewed). This was something I was trying to implement in Orbiter Simulator - for an addon updated to the old v0.1 - before having to face some computer problems (please see note below).


Focusing now on heavy lift: during the recent times I have been somehow limited in DIRECT SDLV participation (among other non-related issues, having computer technical problems that might unfortunately take a while to solve here). Anyway, managed to produce a new 3D rendering with the main intention of showing a custom interpretation of how a 'heavy' variant of a Jupiter232 could look like, assuming a phased upgrade path during the SDLV lifespan (please see attachment).

Represented are:

a) The RS-68 being upgraded to something like a RS-68B or a RS-68R* (as per official specs). This could probably be one of the first upgrades, sharing synergies with the ongoing DeltaIV work.


b) The 5 segment SRB (or other kind of 4 segment SRB upgrade / replacement) perhaps could also be implemented, later on and if needed. In this specific example, the 5 segment SRB could be properly optimised for the SDLV configuration, acting in their natural role as side boosters / thrust augmentation devices and while keeping the 4 seg. SRB attachment points (as per some of the related STS upgrade options).

Who knows? Under several extra assumptions, the 5 segment SRB upgrade could perhaps also coexist with the 4 seg. SRB, during a transition phase, with the 4 seg. SRB being primarily used on crewed SDLV launch duties while the 5 seg. SRB would build some flight history on cargo only flights (and would then finally 100% replace the 4 seg. SRB, also for the crewed configurations).


c) The J-2X(D) – assumed as default engine spec on the 2007 paper – could also be better tweaked to something like J-2X specs being currently baselined for AresI / AresV, etc


The default J120, eventual phased upgrade options (together with EELV synergies, mission modes and other assumptions) could fully maximize / optimise the proposed default J120 / J232 SDLV configurations and perhaps contribute for a stronger / sustainable VSE implementation (both in the near and long terms).

Just as ending comment would like to note that I finally have added a few extra details to Jupiter cores (as usual, based on some NLS work); some of those extra details are +/- visible, others not so much (or even not at all) on these renderings (because of being enclosed or due to perspective, resolution, etc). Have also updated the escape system to something similar to MLAS.

António
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Stephan on 01/19/2008 02:50 pm
A question I picked from "Space Leaders Work To Replace (...)" thread :
Quote
kraisee - 19/1/2008  8:31 AM
It would fly below the Orion spacecraft inside the standard Jupiter-120 payload fairing and would be extracted from the launcher in exactly the same way as the Apollo Lunar Module was extracted or the Apollo/Soyuz docking adapter was extracted.
Few question about that, I thought Jupiter 120 stage would be on a suborbital path to avoid random entry few days later, just like STS ET in fact, Orion doing a circularisation burn at apogee. Orion would have to extract SSPDM pretty quickly or is there a hint I missed ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pierre on 01/19/2008 02:56 pm
simcosmos, if NASA has the money for all those engine upgrades, maybe it would be better spent on rocket fuel and actual payloads? Jupiter 232 is, IMVHO, good enough in its vanilla version. If you need more than 120+ tonnes for a single mission you can simply launch two rockets.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2008 03:09 pm
Quote
Stephan - 19/1/2008  10:50 AM

A question I picked from "Space Leaders Work To Replace (...)" thread :
Quote
kraisee - 19/1/2008  8:31 AM
It would fly below the Orion spacecraft inside the standard Jupiter-120 payload fairing and would be extracted from the launcher in exactly the same way as the Apollo Lunar Module was extracted or the Apollo/Soyuz docking adapter was extracted.
Few question about that, I thought Jupiter 120 stage would be on a suborbital path to avoid random entry few days later, just like STS ET in fact, Orion doing a circularisation burn at apogee. Orion would have to extract SSPDM pretty quickly or is there a hint I missed ?
Jupiter-120 can do it either way;
1. Drop off Orion in a manner for atmospheric disposal of the ET and let Orion provide the final push to orbit -or-
2. Put itself, Orion and a cargo canister into a circular orbit to allow the extraction maneuver. The ET would then be deorbited with a ulage motor burn.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 01/19/2008 04:00 pm
Quote
pierre - 19/1/2008  7:56 AM

simcosmos, if NASA has the money for all those engine upgrades, maybe it would be better spent on rocket fuel and actual payloads? Jupiter 232 is, IMVHO, good enough in its vanilla version. If you need more than 120+ tonnes for a single mission you can simply launch two rockets.

You may be correct.  What this shows is that Jupiter rocket family has all the expansion capability we could ever afford in the next fifty years so all the up front disruption and expense for the Ares-I/V is not required.  Besides a Jupiter-244 beats the Ares-V in terms of its Payload/GLOW ratio and total Payload to orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: simcosmos on 01/19/2008 04:21 pm
Quote
pierre - 19/1/2008  3:56 PM

simcosmos, if NASA has the money for all those engine upgrades, maybe it would be better spent on rocket fuel and actual payloads? Jupiter 232 is, IMVHO, good enough in its vanilla version. If you need more than 120+ tonnes for a single mission you can simply launch two rockets.

Pierre, one of the intentions of my previous post was to illustrate that the 'basic' J120 / J232 have several near-term and *long-term* (~>30  to 50 years...) upgrade options which could be implemented in a *phased* way in order to optimise / enhance some eventual mission requirements (including but not necessarily just the amount and type of payload that is delivered) or eventual hardware implementation results, of course, this always depending of what exactly those mission / implementation requirements would be (example: lots to still do if seriously wanting to make sustainable crewed exploration beyond our natural satellite… like landing and returning from Mars) as well always depending of monetary, technical, political constraints, etc.

Please note that DIRECT SDLV Effort is, among many other things, about making the transition from STS / LEO to Moon, Mars and Beyond Exploration goals (crewed and robotic) having in mind all the above constraints. One of the priorities of DIRECT is to use / integrate what is available and build new / further optimise from there. Take a look at the RS-68: if (ever) the time comes for Jupiter120 / 232, and we have DeltaIV flying upgraded RS-68 then Jupiters would fly something like those engines.

Concerning eventual upgrades to the 4 segment SRB, they would be, in a certain way, more effective in a Jupiter vehicle than in an AresV configuration but please note that I have represented the 5 segment SRB as a matter of 'curiosity' (in lack of better English word) and following up several past comments - on this and other threads, some even recent - about the hypothetical possibility / feasibility of using such 5 seg. boosters on Jupiters (but keeping the 4 seg. SRB attach points, without requiring the core to be extended, in a similar way to some performance / enhancement proposals done for the current STS) and not (!) as a suggestion of an inevitable upgrade somewhere down the road… But again, as in any eventual change to Jupiter baseline configurations presented in the AIAA 2007 paper, payload delivery capability would *not* be the only parameter in analysis.

To conclude, my personal comments / rendering above were then aimed when thinking both in the near-term and very-long term VSE requirements and implementation strategies vs existing (or near-term / middle-term) capabilities and constraints: that is why mentioned EELV synergies and also made a brief reference to additional mission modes and to other unspecified - on purpose - assumptions (nobody knows the future), assumptions which would be related with the reality – and the impact of such reality – on Jupiter configuration parameters (+VSE mission modes + other related hardware and technologies), all that at least until and while something like a more Direct Shuttle Derivative Launch Vehicle might still be possible or make any sense.

Hope I was slightly clearer,
António
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2008 04:21 pm
Quote
SMetch - 19/1/2008  12:00 PM

Quote
pierre - 19/1/2008  7:56 AM

simcosmos, if NASA has the money for all those engine upgrades, maybe it would be better spent on rocket fuel and actual payloads? Jupiter 232 is, IMVHO, good enough in its vanilla version. If you need more than 120+ tonnes for a single mission you can simply launch two rockets.

You may be correct.  What this shows is that Jupiter rocket family has all the expansion capability we could ever afford in the next fifty years so all the up front disruption and expense for the Ares-I/V is not required.  Besides a Jupiter-244 beats the Ares-V in terms of its Payload/GLOW ratio and total Payload to orbit.
The great thing is that there’s not a whole lot of difference between the Jupiter-232 and the Jupiter-244; a different thrust structure for both the core and upper stage, and the number of engines on those stages. There are other differences as well, but they are mainly limited to adapting to those 2 main things; 4xRS-68 on the core and 4xJ-2XD on the upper stage.

The really amazing thing is that while the Ares-I/V launch scenario actually can’t do the lunar mission it was designed for in the ESAS, the 2xJupiter-232 architecture can. And if Griffin has been secretly shooting for a 2xAres-V architecture, the 2xJupiter-244 just so completely blows that away that it’s actually embarrassing to talk about it.

Any way you want to look at it, the guys at Marshall got it exactly right. The MSFC NLS adapted to today’s engines (DIRECT) is hands down better than the Ares architecture. Those guys at MSFC knew what they were doing. Too bad Griffin wasn't smart enough to listen to them instead of telling them what to think. If he were, we would be way farther down the VSE road than we are now instead of facing yet another huge delay in the IMS and a likely 6 year manned access gap.

Mike, you should have listened to your people at Marshall because they knew what they were doing, but you didn't. So I hope Congress eats your lunch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rumble on 01/19/2008 07:11 pm
Quote
SMetch - 19/1/2008  11:00 AM

Quote
pierre - 19/1/2008  7:56 AM

simcosmos, if NASA has the money for all those engine upgrades, maybe it would be better spent on rocket fuel and actual payloads? Jupiter 232 is, IMVHO, good enough in its vanilla version. If you need more than 120+ tonnes for a single mission you can simply launch two rockets.

You may be correct.  What this shows is that Jupiter rocket family has all the expansion capability we could ever afford in the next fifty years so all the up front disruption and expense for the Ares-I/V is not required.  Besides a Jupiter-244 beats the Ares-V in terms of its Payload/GLOW ratio and total Payload to orbit.
I think these ideas simcosmos is kicking around are quite useful...even if most of them are never actually realized.  They show the possibilities that exist via only incremental steps from Jupiter, from a launch vehicle footprint perspective and (to a large extent) from a facilities and infrastructure perspective.

Contrast with the Ares V, which would have problems making incremental upgrades due to its sheer size and due to the fact that it will be flying many of the updates simcosmos mentioned as part of its baseline config (up-rated RS-68's and 5-seg boosters)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Trever on 01/19/2008 10:02 pm
Quote
clongton - 19/1/2008  8:02 AM

Quote
Trever - 19/1/2008  8:43 AM

Could Direct do a crewed lunar mission with a single launch if it could fill up with LO2 in LEO?  Mass wise LO2 is the majority of what is lifted, and thermally an LO2 propellant is easier than LH2.  I think that a single launch would be very attractive.
Trever;
Let's first make sure we're comparing apples to apples.
Please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. The launch vehicle is a Jupiter-232 as described in the AIAA paper.
2. The EDS carries a full LH2 load for the lunar mission but only enough LOX to achieve LEO - it will be refueled on-orbit.
3. Altair carries a full lunar load of LH2 with NO LOX, it will fill up on-orbit.
4. Orion SM carries a full LH2 load for the lunar mission but only enough LOX to achieve LEO - it will refuel on-orbit.

Essentially, the stack arrives in LEO with all the LH2 it needs for the lunar mission but none of the LOX. It proceeds to a LOX depot of some type, fills all the LOX tanks and departs for the moon.

Do I have it correct?

You've got it right on the money.  Orion's SM currently is storable, so maybe start off assuming the depot doesn't help with that.  However, I agree with you that LH2/LO2 would be much better.

A single launch to the moon would avoid any of the issues associated with what if the 2nd launch is delayed.   You are boiling off propellant from the EDS launched on the first launch.  I'm convinced that it is relatively easy to store LH2 for months, but longer launch delays are quite common place.  Also, trying to quickly launch two large rockets requires extra infrastructure and staff, read added annual expense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2008 10:32 pm
Quote
Trever - 19/1/2008  8:43 AM

Could Direct do a crewed lunar mission with a single launch if it could fill up with LO2 in LEO?  Mass wise LO2 is the majority of what is lifted, and thermally an LO2 propellant is easier than LH2.  I think that a single launch would be very attractive.

Yes.   That was one of the many architectures which we considered during the preparations for the AIAA paper.

We found that as long as sufficient LOX is waiting in orbit the Jupiter-232 would be more than enough to launch the necessary Orion, LSAM, EDS, ASE and LH2 for a full mission closing the performance requirements of landing 25,400kg minimum anywhere on the lunar surface (NASA's current target).

We also found a scenario of this where a suitably large mission could actually be launched on the slightly smaller and Jupiter-221 to reduce costs and perhaps increase safety a touch too.


While this could be described as a "single launch solution" the reality is that the LOX still needs to be launched separately - and that would require at least one more Jupiter launch, or a series of EELV-class launches to a depot.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2008 10:48 pm
Quote
Stephan - 19/1/2008  10:50 AM

A question I picked from "Space Leaders Work To Replace (...)" thread :
Quote
kraisee - 19/1/2008  8:31 AM
It would fly below the Orion spacecraft inside the standard Jupiter-120 payload fairing and would be extracted from the launcher in exactly the same way as the Apollo Lunar Module was extracted or the Apollo/Soyuz docking adapter was extracted.
Few question about that, I thought Jupiter 120 stage would be on a suborbital path to avoid random entry few days later, just like STS ET in fact, Orion doing a circularisation burn at apogee. Orion would have to extract SSPDM pretty quickly or is there a hint I missed ?

Sorry, I didn't clarify that properly.   If you would turn to page 49 of our AIAA paper, you will see that for Jupiter-120 missions to ISS we are actually assuming insertion into a 'stable' initial orbit of 100x220nm, 51.6deg specifically to allow the Orion as much time as it needs to safely dock and extract any payload it may be bringing with it.   The Orion will then perform the circularization for both modules and all rendezvous & approach maneuvers.   In the mean-time the Core Stage will actively de-orbit itself - we have trades for three different systems to do this, but the one I like most is borrowing the same RCS hardware from the EDS and using it to perform the de-orbit burn.   It helps reduce costs.

For non-ISS missions, say Hubble servicing, the Core can insert straight into a circular orbit, such as 120x120nm, 28.5deg.   The performance loss is minimal with a carefully optimized trajectory, with only 1.1mT loss of performance occurring in this example.   Again, this would necessitate an active de-orbit system for the Core.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2008 10:52 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/1/2008  6:32 PM

Quote
Trever - 19/1/2008  8:43 AM

Could Direct do a crewed lunar mission with a single launch if it could fill up with LO2 in LEO?  Mass wise LO2 is the majority of what is lifted, and thermally an LO2 propellant is easier than LH2.  I think that a single launch would be very attractive.

Yes.   That was one of the many architectures which we considered during the preparations for the AIAA paper.

We found that as long as sufficient LOX is waiting in orbit the Jupiter-232 would be more than enough to launch the necessary Orion, LSAM, EDS, ASE and LH2 for a full mission closing the performance requirements of landing 25,400kg minimum anywhere on the lunar surface (NASA's current target).

We also found a scenario of this where a suitably large mission could actually be launched on the slightly smaller and Jupiter-221 to reduce costs and perhaps increase safety a touch too.


While this could be described as a "single launch solution" the reality is that the LOX still needs to be launched separately - and that would require at least one more Jupiter launch, or a series of EELV-class launches to a depot.

Ross.
What would the capacity of the LOX depot need to be for this 1-launch scenario?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2008 10:55 pm
Slightly off-topic, but its good to have you back António!

I hope you can get all your computer issues resolved soon.   I'm an IT guru by trade, so if you need any assistance just give me a shout.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2008 11:06 pm
Quote
Trever - 19/1/2008  6:02 PM
A single launch to the moon would avoid any of the issues associated with what if the 2nd launch is delayed.   You are boiling off propellant from the EDS launched on the first launch.  I'm convinced that it is relatively easy to store LH2 for months, but longer launch delays are quite common place.  Also, trying to quickly launch two large rockets requires extra infrastructure and staff, read added annual expense.

I wholeheartedly agree with you - this is clearly the best way to go.   But right now, we have been told point-blank that nobody inside Constellation is willing to baseline any Propellant Depot Technologies (PDT) architecture for the first generation of Lunar missions.   We understand this is one of those "no way, no how" situations because the technology has never even been tested on-orbit yet so they simply refuse to include it in the early mission planning yet.

I reluctantly see their point, including any new never-before-demonstrated technology in the critical path has been one of the no-no's for DIRECT too.

So we have spent a *lot* of time recently working out an architecture which doesn't require PDT.   We now have *both* architectures working.   One without PDT and a future system which does.   Our assessments for all the burns, with all the boiloff, shows both approaches can successfully place 25,400kg anywhere on the Lunar surface using just two Jupiter-232 flights.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2008 11:16 pm
Quote
rumble - 19/1/2008  3:11 PM

I think these ideas simcosmos is kicking around are quite useful...even if most of them are never actually realized.  They show the possibilities that exist via only incremental steps from Jupiter, from a launch vehicle footprint perspective and (to a large extent) from a facilities and infrastructure perspective.

Contrast with the Ares V, which would have problems making incremental upgrades due to its sheer size and due to the fact that it will be flying many of the updates simcosmos mentioned as part of its baseline config (up-rated RS-68's and 5-seg boosters)

I'm glad someone brought that up.   I've wanted to say something about that for a while.

Ares-I is operating at its maximum performance right now.   It has the highest specification SRB first stage and the highest performance version of the J-2X already.   It's performance will never grow in the future.

Ares-V, similarly is getting the highest possible spec SRB's and J-2X also.   It too is getting the highest spec RS-68's too.   It can't ever grow wider seeing as they are baselining to a 10m diameter throughout.   Again there is simply no room for any growth in the future.


Ares-I and Ares-V together will lock the US performance capability down for the next 30-50 years.   Once they are built there will be no significant changes - ever.   It will be locked down performance-wise, even tighter than Shuttle was because it already includes all of the "SLWT" developments and the upgraded engines.   What we see today will be little different from what we fly 40 years from now.


Jupiter *can* grow.   It doesn't need to because Jupiter-232 can do everything we have so-far conceived of being a requirement.   But we aren't locked-in.   If we need something bigger and better, we have lots of room to grow the system further.   All the upgrades and performance increases are still open to us.

And the growth options still *include* Ares-V if you really must.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2008 11:23 pm
Quote
clongton - 19/1/2008  6:52 PM

What would the capacity of the LOX depot need to be for this 1-launch scenario?

Eik.   *Now* your asking :)

I will have to go and find the specific run for that scenario.   For now, I can say that total propellant load (LH2 + LOX) was 110,895kg for the TLI Burn + reserves and residuals of 4,073kg after 60 days LEO loiter.

I archived a lot of that data to my file server a few months ago, so I'll have to go find the data on there and report back later.   But you can probably work out a close LH2:LOX breakdown for yourself.   It assumed a standard 6:1 mixture.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2008 11:32 pm
Quote
pierre - 19/1/2008  10:56 AM

simcosmos, if NASA has the money for all those engine upgrades, maybe it would be better spent on rocket fuel and actual payloads? Jupiter 232 is, IMVHO, good enough in its vanilla version. If you need more than 120+ tonnes for a single mission you can simply launch two rockets.

Pierre,
I think everyone within DIRECT actually agrees 100% with you on that.   While we have lots of performance options available, we've been trying to minimize the number of changes to STS to the bare minimum so we can get the swiftest possible change-over, with the least possible cost, and actually start getting down to doing the missions.   I've said it before, the rockets are unimportant compared to the missions.   DIRECT's actual name is "DIRECT Shuttle Derivative" - specifically referring to the most 'direct' evolutionary change of existing Shuttle hardware into a new and better system.

IMHO, the *only* reason to look larger than Jupiter-232 would be if you have a specific single piece of hardware which masses in excess of 120 tons.

If it can be broken-down into two lumps, each below that limit, then it will be always be cheaper to simply launch a second J-232 than to pay for a multi-billion-dollar development program for new engines, new stages and new infrastructure to support it.


The only reason DIRECT works at all is because it keeps most of the pre-existing Shuttle hardware with minimal changes and use main engines from an existing launcher - RS-68.

The further we stray from that critical underlying principle, the more costly it will be and the longer it will take - as Ares is proving every day.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2008 11:33 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/1/2008  7:23 PM

Quote
clongton - 19/1/2008  6:52 PM

What would the capacity of the LOX depot need to be for this 1-launch scenario?

Eik.   *Now* your asking :)

I will have to go and find the specific run for that scenario.   For now, I can say that total propellant load (LH2 + LOX) was 110,895kg for the TLI Burn + reserves and residuals of 4,073kg after 60 days LEO loiter.

I archived a lot of that data to my file server a few months ago, so I'll have to go find the data on there and report back later.   But you can probably work out a close LH2:LOX breakdown for yourself.   It assumed a standard 6:1 mixture.

Ross.
Thanks Ross. We'll look for the numbers when you get them out.

I remember when we were doing all these calcs as we were preparing for the AIAA paper last spring, but because Trever brought the subject up, I thought it would be appropriate to put some of the details out there for everyone. That's why I asked for the depot capacity that would be needed to support that architecture. The use of PDT is exciting and opens a whole new world of possibilities, if we can ever get past the entrenched roadblock at the top.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2008 11:38 pm
The "entrenched roadblock" is only there because it is currently unproven tech.

CxP *do* have plans for a propellant depot eventually.   It just isn't a priority yet, and they are in no hurry to test it and get it working.

Our argument is that with it, missions improve by an order of magnitude, so PDT needs to be looked at sooner.   And with the inherently lower cost of the one Jupiter vehicle compared to the two Ares vehicle, we could actually *afford* to do it sooner too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2008 11:45 pm
I think that's 95,053kg of LOX after 60 days loiter for the TLI in a customized Jupiter-232 EDS for Depot use.   15,842kg of LH2 launched on the 'mission' flight.   All + reserves & residuals.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 01/19/2008 11:50 pm
Ross,
Quote
I wholeheartedly agree with you - this is clearly the best way to go.   But right now, we have been told point-blank that nobody inside Constellation is willing to baseline any Propellant Depot Technologies (PDT) architecture for the first generation of Lunar missions.   We understand this is one of those "no way, no how" situations because the technology has never even been tested on-orbit yet so they simply refuse to include it in the early mission planning yet.

I reluctantly see their point, including any new never-before-demonstrated technology in the critical path has been one of the no-no's for DIRECT too.

It's really sad when you think what it says about how far NASA has sunk over the past 40 years.  When LOR was selected as the preferred lunar architecture, had anyone successfully completed an orbital rendezvous?  I can't remember for sure, but didn't all of those happen several years later?  LOR just made so much more sense than direct ascent that it was worth pursuing in spite of the risk.  There's nothing wrong with placing a "new" technology on the critical path when it's one that there's already had so much related work done for it.  We're a lot closer to having propellant depots figured out and ready to go than we were to having a lunar orbit rendezvous figured out when LOR was selected.  The Russians have been doing non cryogenic propellant transfer for how many decades now?  And how many of the technologies for propellant depots need to be developed *anyway* for the ESAS architecture?

The timidity of NASA is depressing.  How can people with so little intestinal fortitude expect to ever send a man back to the moon?

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/20/2008 12:08 am
Because I think Ares-I's days are now seriously numbered, and that Ares-V will now never be funded, I want to write an 'open letter' to NASA.

'DIRECT' is a concept with its roots firmly based within NASA's own NLS, and later LV-24/25 studies for ESAS - both products of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL.

What we have done with DIRECT, in the tradition of all good works, is simply stand on the shoulders of giants who preceded us.

Sure, we swapped the SSME for the RS-68 which hadn't been done before, but that's only because the RS-68 just wasn't around when NLS was originally proposed.   If it had been, I have no doubts at all that the '68 would have been baselined by MSFC at the time too.

We have spent a lot of time and effort to demonstrate how this approach can be made to work.   We have done a lot of research to show how an Upper Stage might work to enable the missions NASA has defined.   We have gathered together all sorts of different suggestions about docking approaches, payload options, propellant depots, lunar architecture approaches and a plethora of other works from around the entire industry.   We have then attempted to propose potentially workable solutions to achieving NASA's stated requirements using this wealth of research.

What we have put together are some alternatives.   Underlying all is a principle that we don't need two launchers, and that the existing Shuttle can be modified more simply to achieve all of the goals.

We haven't come up with the original work though.   Everything we have done has been based on NASA and Industry works which already existed.

These works already belong to NASA and its contractor base - all of them.   We have merely shone a new light upon them, and attempted to bring the different works together to form what we believe to be a fairly well reasoned alternative.


I want NASA to understand that our motives have not been to damage the VSE, nor the Administration.   Yes, we have *bitterly* criticized some things, but not from a motive to damage NASA or hurt any individuals.   Our underlying motive has been to highlight what we felt were very serious problems which had not yet been addressed and to show how those problems might be avoided entirely by looking in a different direction.

If you ask any member of the DIRECT Team, either the public frontmen with no ties to NASA, or the 56 engineers and managers from within the NASA family who assist us, why they have gotten involved, I think we would all say that we didn't believe Ares was the right choice and we wanted to propose something simpler, easier, cheaper so we could have a better chance at seeing another moon landing in our lifetimes - I for one am too young to have seen any of the first 6, so this is a big deal to me.


We do intend to continue our current activities and are beginning to prepare our next run of documentation and papers to support our efforts.

But we also recognize that NASA might be considering something recognizably similar to DIRECT for its future and that we would then be an obstacle.   NASA *needs* to claim complete ownership of such an idea, so would need us (DIRECT Team) to, well, just sod-off if they choose this path.

I don't know if this public statement makes any difference at all - although I know this thread is monitored - but I wish to make it clear we *are* willing to quietly "go away" just as soon as NASA gets serious about the *principle concept* which we have tried to identify with DIRECT.

The IMS which was ordered into Jupiter-120 was the first indication that things may be about to change.   We eased off for a month, but heard no further progress from that angle.   So we are back to 'business as usual' now.

If they do change, I want NASA to know that we are still willing to step aside.   That we acknowledge fully and completely that NASA was on this track with NLS a decade and a half before we ever appeared on the scene.   That we are newcomers, and although we have a good idea we have little real credibility.   And that we do not intend to stand in NASA's way if NASA wishes to take this concept as its own.   After all, this concept already *is* NASA's own - it always was.

I will hereby guarantee that any personal communication, e-mail, letter or phone conversation, on the subject of NASA stepping in and grabbing this particular ball and running with it would be kept entirely confidential by me.   If NASA wishes to open a confidential dialogue to this end, I am available and willing to do whatever is required.

I just want that clearly in the records.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/20/2008 01:09 am
Quote
jongoff - 19/1/2008  7:50 PM

Ross,
Quote
I wholeheartedly agree with you - this is clearly the best way to go.   But right now, we have been told point-blank that nobody inside Constellation is willing to baseline any Propellant Depot Technologies (PDT) architecture for the first generation of Lunar missions.   We understand this is one of those "no way, no how" situations because the technology has never even been tested on-orbit yet so they simply refuse to include it in the early mission planning yet.

I reluctantly see their point, including any new never-before-demonstrated technology in the critical path has been one of the no-no's for DIRECT too.

It's really sad when you think what it says about how far NASA has sunk over the past 40 years.  When LOR was selected as the preferred lunar architecture, had anyone successfully completed an orbital rendezvous?  I can't remember for sure, but didn't all of those happen several years later?  LOR just made so much more sense than direct ascent that it was worth pursuing in spite of the risk.  There's nothing wrong with placing a "new" technology on the critical path when it's one that there's already had so much related work done for it.  We're a lot closer to having propellant depots figured out and ready to go than we were to having a lunar orbit rendezvous figured out when LOR was selected.  The Russians have been doing non cryogenic propellant transfer for how many decades now?  And how many of the technologies for propellant depots need to be developed *anyway* for the ESAS architecture?

The timidity of NASA is depressing.  How can people with so little intestinal fortitude expect to ever send a man back to the moon?

~Jon
You know Jon, any functioning PDT in LEO that was actually capable of supporting a Jupiter-232 lunar mission would be VERY capable of supporting all kinds of additional things in between. I really hope we can actually open that door, because once we do there's no turning back. The solar system would belong to us.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/20/2008 01:14 am
Quote
Trever - 19/1/2008  6:02 PM

You've got it right on the money.  Orion's SM currently is storable, so maybe start off assuming the depot doesn't help with that.  However, I agree with you that LH2/LO2 would be much better.
Hypergols guarantee ignition and they're playing it safe. If they would go back to LOX/LH2, the RL-10 family of engines could certainly step up to the plate. After decades of development and successful flights, including multiple re-ignitions, there is no doubt in my mind about the safety of the crew as far as getting the SM to bring the crew home. Not to mention the big step up in performance.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: veedriver22 on 01/20/2008 01:58 am
Quote
jongoff - 19/1/2008  6:50 PM

Ross,
Quote
I wholeheartedly agree with you - this is clearly the best way to go.   But right now, we have been told point-blank that nobody inside Constellation is willing to baseline any Propellant Depot Technologies (PDT) architecture for the first generation of Lunar missions.   We understand this is one of those "no way, no how" situations because the technology has never even been tested on-orbit yet so they simply refuse to include it in the early mission planning yet.

I reluctantly see their point, including any new never-before-demonstrated technology in the critical path has been one of the no-no's for DIRECT too.

It's really sad when you think what it says about how far NASA has sunk over the past 40 years.  When LOR was selected as the preferred lunar architecture, had anyone successfully completed an orbital rendezvous?  I can't remember for sure, but didn't all of those happen several years later?  LOR just made so much more sense than direct ascent that it was worth pursuing in spite of the risk.  There's nothing wrong with placing a "new" technology on the critical path when it's one that there's already had so much related work done for it.  We're a lot closer to having propellant depots figured out and ready to go than we were to having a lunar orbit rendezvous figured out when LOR was selected.  The Russians have been doing non cryogenic propellant transfer for how many decades now?  And how many of the technologies for propellant depots need to be developed *anyway* for the ESAS architecture?

The timidity of NASA is depressing.  How can people with so little intestinal fortitude expect to ever send a man back to the moon?

~Jon
Doesn't it make you wonder why Nasa has not been working on this?   It is something that could be tested with an ISS module.  The platform needed to test it is already there.   This is a technology that could revolutionize space travel.    You would think there would be enough foresight to put some time & money into this over the many years that we have been going the LEO.    But hey, at least we have developed scramjet technology...............
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: yinzer on 01/20/2008 02:05 am
NLS was going to use the STME, which was a notional future lower-cost LH2 rocket engine.  That engine is what became the RS-68.  The NLS-3 vehicle became the Delta IV-M.  DIRECT/NLS still has the serious problems that it requires spending billions of dollars before it's going to be ready for flight, that it requires NASA to develop a large launch vehicle to flight status - something that it hasn't done in decades, and that it has a large enough fixed operational footprint to keep NASA stuck going in circles without large budget increases that no one has any reason to believe are forthcoming.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/20/2008 04:33 am
Yinzer,
There are two forces at work regarding the cost.

Firstly the political aspect of terminating Shuttle and switching to another system which has none of the heritage affects about 120,000 workers across the US, including NASA civil servants, on-site contractors, off-site contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers.   NASA has been instructed by Congress, behind closed doors, not to dismantle this standing army.   NASA would lose a lot of political support when it comes to budget appropriations time if they decide to ignore this.

The other issue is that Heavy Lift is more efficient to operate if you have any requirement for lots of up-mass, such as when you fly crewed Lunar, Mars or NEO missions.   Yes, there is a significant up-front development cost to get the Heavy Lift (about $8.5bn with Jupiter-120 than $14.5bn for Ares-I, and $6.1bn for Jupiter-232's EDS compared to $20.1bn for Ares-V and its EDS).

I have tried to previously explain the details (and can again if anyone asks), but the bottom-line is that at a mission rate of 2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew and 2 Lunar Cargo, Jupiter's development cost would be 'paid off' in less than 2 operational years.   At that point there is approximately a $2-3bn improvement every year over EELV, and about $1bn over Ares-V to accomplish this continued mission rate.   A similar situation exists for both Mars and NEO profiles too but I won't complicate the discussion with that yet.

In short, Jupiter's lower operational costs allow the system to 'breaks even' within two years of beginning routine operational missions.  The investment is therefore worthwhile for Jupiter IMHO.

Having investigated the forecast for Ares, I would agree that the investment is too high to make both Ares-I then Ares-V though.   The 'break even' point for covering their combined high development cost is significantly more than a decade away and their total development cost is considerably in excess of $30bn!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: yinzer on 01/20/2008 06:31 am
First of all, it's not clear that whatever NASA is doing now is getting them tons of political support.  They couldn't even get the couple of hundred million extra dollars they were counting on for early Ares I development.  Trying something new isn't a ridiculous idea.

Secondly and more importantly, you can't just consider what will happen in an environment with 2 ISS flights and 4 Lunar missions per year.  There is going to be a multi-year period after the Jupiter is developed when it's flying 2 ISS flights a year, regardless of what happens.  If the ISS doesn't get retired in 2016 as hoped, lunar hardware development will be delayed, leaving more slow ISS-only years. If NASA's budget stays constant rather than increasing, two lunar missions a year may be the most they can ever hope for.

Using overly optimistic traffic models and ending up with a huge infrastructure that sits idle most of the time eating up budgets happens ALL THE TIME in U.S. space launch vehicle development.  It'd be nice to learn from history at some point, rather than repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/20/2008 11:34 am
If we're going to be planning our infrastructure around *not* using it, it isn't ever going to get us very far at all.

We need to be planning all new infrastructure options around how best to utilize them, and which can return the most 'product' for the investment.

If we want an architecture to fly two Orion spacecraft to the ISS every year, then lets plan for that.   In this particular scenario I would suggest NASA just buys two Delta-IV Heavies from ULA/DoD and stick the Orion straight on the top.   Job Done.


But if we are seriously planning Lunar missions which are going to require 180mT of lift for each mission, or NEO missions which will require even more, to be followed by Mars missions requiring 500mT+ to be lifted for each, then we need to plan an infrastructure which will produce the best results for that.

I totally agree that we must not over-stretch ourselves either, and that's where I have real issues with Ares.   Without doubt, we can't afford to propose any program with a flight rate plan like EELV and Shuttle were originally proposed to have.   30 flights per year and 50 flights per year respectively was always going to be utterly absurd to be proposing any program around.   The cost for that many launches is totally prohibitive and impractical.

I would say the practical limit for *any* serious program can't be more than about 12 launches per year.   Any more than that simply gets too expensive to last and the logistics get real tough to keep on the rails for long.


NASA is going to have about $8bn per year for the Constellation program to operate with.   About $2bn of that is going to be the LSAM.   Another $2bn per year will be for individual crew and mission hardware costs themselves.   That is going to leave about $4bn for the launch system.   That will be about $1bn less per year than we spend currently for Shuttle.

Now, take that $4bn figure and work out what you can afford with that on graph below.

As you can see, that sort of cash would buy you two 8-launch Lunar missions with a Delta-IV Heavy or Atlas-V Heavy.   That same money will buy you three Ares-I/V 2-launch Lunar missions.   Or it will buy you 6 Jupiter 2-launch Lunar missions.

The fixed costs are higher, but the mission costs are lower.   The first flight per year, for all systems isn't a world different - $2.1bn (Jupiter), $2.4bn (EELV Heavy), $2.7bn (EELV Intermediate) and $3.2bn (Ares) - a spread of $1.1bn.    But each subsequent mission is ~$600m cheaper with either Ares or with Jupiter than with the EELV's.   That means that if you wish to fly two or more missions per year, the 2-launch architectures *are* going to be more cost effective, with Jupiter about $1bn lower cost than Ares because of its lower fixed costs for having only one vehicle, not two.


Instead of 6 flights per year, with Jupiter you could choose to just fly four Lunar missions per year (still more than the others) and save nearly a billion bucks for extra science missions and developing new things every year to go with your Lunar program - things such as NEO version of your lander, or better still, start building Mars hardware!

Wouldn't a more robust program of Lunar, NEO, Mars *and* science be better - given the same budget as we have today?


For Ares to 'save' a similar amount, they could only fly once per year.   For EELV, they too would limit exploration missions to just one per year.   Either that or NASA would be forced to shut down ISS and inject that $2bn per year into the Constellation budget - a solution I think the current Administration is assuming anyway in order to cover Ares' high operational costs.   (Just for the record, that $2bn from ISS would pay for about 6-8 more Jupiter missions every year!)


But is one exploration mission each year anywhere near ENOUGH to justify any investment at all?   I personally think that would be a totally pathetic use for 7 to 8 billion dollars every year.   I don't want each Lunar mission costing that, because a program that wasteful will be canceled even quicker than Apollo was.

I want at least 3 exploration missions every single year - and preferably more.   That way the high fixed costs of the infrastructure can be spread between all the different missions.   I want the total cost of each mission to come down below $2bn - LV, landers, science, crew, ops fixed and variable all together.   Sadly I don't think it will ever get much below that, no matter what systems we use.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/20/2008 12:17 pm
Further to my previous post showing variants of Jupiter, I've been ill recently, so I've had time on my hands to do some pretty pictures :)

I've been meaning to re-draw the Jupiter vehicles for a while, because the dimensions weren't based on the final dimension data we got together for AIAA.   There were actually quite a few errors when you compared the actual sizes.

I have completely re-drawn the images now.   While these aren't engineering drawings, they are now as accurate as I can make them in CorelDraw - certainly to within 1" tolerances at full-scale.

The dimensions of the Core LOX Tank and Upper Stage were particularly annoying to me on the previous versions, so I have now corrected those.

I have also extended the range to show all of the logical payload shroud options (CLV and CaLV) with 8.77m, 10m and 12m diameters, and with both mini-, 10m and 20m long shrouds too.

The 10m and 20m payload shrouds actually nicely demonstrate how the payloads shrouds could perhaps be made 'modular'.   One, two or even three 10m long sections could be used to allow for differing sized payloads - assuming they do not exceed the payload mass limits of course! :)

Anyway, enjoy.

Ross.








Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/20/2008 01:44 pm
Amazing artwork Ross.
1. Can you put a scale up one side?
2. Can you provide a link to download these in HiRes?
If you'll do that, I'll pull them into AutoCad for use by anyone who is interested.
That would be a great help to those who would like to build models of this family.
Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/20/2008 02:41 pm
I'm still interested in performance numbers, expressed in the same terms as Ares V (same orbit, etc.), for the various J-232 options:

Baseline
Baseline + 106% RS-68
Baseline + 106% RS-68 + J2X
Baseline + 106% RS-68 + 5 seg
Baseline + 106% RS-68 + J2X + 5 seg
Ares V with 106% RS-68 + J2X + 5 seg (baseline)

Are these available and I've missed them?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 01/20/2008 03:04 pm
I saw outline of VAB Doors in the 232 picture.  When I took my kids on the tour at the Cape over New Years I heard something interesting from the guide.   I didn't realize the VAB was designed(footings and structure) to be up to 750ft tall.  For 40 years it had a "temporary" roof that was supposed to be replaced with more structure when bigger rockets for Moon/Mars were developed and needed.

If a taller rocket or larger shroud is needed for Ares V or Jupiter 232 I wonder how much it would cost to add another 100+ or so feet to the VAB? What improvements(if any) could you make to Jupiter system if you had more height available?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: yoda on 01/20/2008 03:53 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/1/2008  6:34 AM

If we're going to be planning our infrastructure around *not* using it, it isn't ever going to get us very far at all.

But if we are seriously planning Lunar missions which are going to require 180mT of lift for each mission, or NEO missions which will require even more, to be followed by Mars missions requiring 500mT+ to be lifted for each, then we need to plan an infrastructure which will produce the best results for that.

NASA is going to have about $8bn per year for the Constellation program to operate with.   About $2bn of that is going to be the LSAM.   Another $2bn per year will be for individual crew and mission hardware costs themselves.   That is going to leave about $4bn for the launch system.   That will be about $1bn less per year than we spend currently for Shuttle.

I want at least 3 exploration missions every single year - and preferably more.   That way the high fixed costs of the infrastructure can be spread between all the different missions.   I want the total cost of each mission to come down below $2bn - LV, landers, science, crew, ops fixed and variable all together.   Sadly I don't think it will ever get much below that, no matter what systems we use.

Ross.

This post brings up a really interesting point made in the recent Av Week Article:

"It's becoming painfully obvious that the Moon is not a stepping-stone for manned Mars operations but is instead a stumbling block," says Robert Farquhar, a veteran of planning and operating planetary and deep-space missions.  "Inadequate NASA budgets are leading to collapse of the VSE Moon focus and to incredibly slow progress for the Moon," says Hinners.

It is a pleasant surprise when Direct or other solutions save up to $2B/yr in launch costs and the future growth flexibility when architectures/priorities evolve.

But look at NASA's budget, which was given yearly increases despite the current US economy.

Here is a rough outline of NASAs Budget to FY12
07-       08          09      10      11         12
5.5      5.5          5.5      5.6     5.6        5.8  Science          
4.2      4.0          4.3      4.8     8.7        9.1  Exploration      
0.5      0.5          0.5      0.5     0.5        0.5  Aero              
0.5      0.5          0.5      0.5     0.5        0.5  Cross Agency  
6.1      6.8          6.8      6.6     3.0        3.0  ISS/Shuttle    

The up to $2B is just a small step in reducing the $10 to $12B for the lunar missions, assuming ISS is retired.  FY12 Exploration is 9.1 and ISS/Shuttle is 3.0B for 12.1B.

So where do you find $$ to fund propellant depots, LOX/CH4, space tugs, nuclear power, nuclear propulsion, radiation protection, landing heavy objects on Mars, large science missions on J-132s, etc when $12B per year would be consumed with long duration crewed lunar bases?  These must be in the 100B plus range combined to be *proven* technologies.

The answers are tough:  you give up shuttle and ISS for lunar missions, lunar mission for Mars.

If the lunar missions were capped at the $8B as you suggest, NASA could start developing new long term Mars and deep space exploration and science technologies only if ISS is retired (yes, another issue entirely).  

So the question:  What type of crewed lunar program with Direct could be achieved for $8B?  It is likely to be only one mission per year of relatively short duration (days) with ISS retired, no?  Would not EELVs to LEO for crew rotations help too?

And if serious lunar planning is preferred, with multiple lunar missions per year and outposts ($10 to 12B), then Mars would seem to be always, 20, no 30 years away.





Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/20/2008 06:17 pm
Love the new artwork Ross!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Hotdog on 01/20/2008 09:12 pm
This was discussed briefly on another thread but I can't find where it is now.

What kind of lunar architecture could Direct provide taking all major LV development items out of the critical path i.e. using one of the EELV upper stages? How would this affect cost and schedule? This would seem to be the most 'direct' option for the US to take now.

If refuelling depot was developed, would the current lunar mission be possible?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/21/2008 12:43 am
Hotdog,
Theoretically, a Jupiter-120 - the most 'direct' evolution of the existing Shuttle - powered by standard RS-68's and standard 4-seg SRB's, would be able to fly with either the Centaur or Delta-IV Upper Stage to boost it's basic performance up to the 70mT range.

Such a launcher, assuming the more optimized EDS were canceled, could still form a basis for a new Lunar program.   A 2-launch solution using this booster would be able to replicate the Apollo landings (2 crew, 3-4 days, anytime return) and would even increase performance by a small amount, probably providing global access, not just polar and equatorial.

A 3-launch solution of this 70mT lift system would be able to achieve all of the ESAS objectives (4-crew, 7 days, global access, anytime return).

A fuel depot would probably be critically important to any such architecture, but there *are* ways to do this without - such as clustering stages together for the TLI.   It's clearly more risky, but potentially still do-able.

Either could be operational around 2017, even assuming limited funding - certainly possible without funding increases.   The vehicles themselves would be ready ~2014, but the LSAM is the long-pole item in the schedule.   It still is, even with the J-232's EDS.

If the EDS were canceled, it would be purely because of money, but would assume that the much more expensive LSAM can still be paid for.   In this precise scenario, I would then expect ISS to be closed ASAP (2016) and its fudning to be redirected to Constellation.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/21/2008 01:34 am
Quote
clongton - 20/1/2008  9:44 AM

Amazing artwork Ross.
1. Can you put a scale up one side?
2. Can you provide a link to download these in HiRes?
If you'll do that, I'll pull them into AutoCad for use by anyone who is interested.
That would be a great help to those who would like to build models of this family.
Thanks

Your wish is my command.

Here are the same images, with 1-meter scale chart included and at double the previous resolution!   Be warned though, they are each about 2.5Mb jpegs measuring 8185x3661 pixels!

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/Jupiter-120_External_Scaled.jpg
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/Jupiter-120_Internal_Scaled.jpg
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/Jupiter-232_External_Scaled.jpg
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/Jupiter-232_Internal_Scaled.jpg

Enjoy,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/21/2008 01:52 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 20/1/2008  10:41 AM

I'm still interested in performance numbers, expressed in the same terms as Ares V (same orbit, etc.), for the various J-232 options:

Baseline
Baseline + 106% RS-68
Baseline + 106% RS-68 + J2X
Baseline + 106% RS-68 + 5 seg
Baseline + 106% RS-68 + J2X + 5 seg
Ares V with 106% RS-68 + J2X + 5 seg (baseline)

Are these available and I've missed them?

Lee Jay,
I have put some of them up previously, but each breakdown takes quite a while to run (1-3 hours each) and the last time we did what I refer to as a 'full run' of these was with a slightly older design which is no longer current - back in the summer before the AIAA work was finished.

The easiest way to express these, for us, has usually been to just say things like '5-segs increase performance by about 7mT', and then leave the math to you guys :)

There are just too many variants to practically show every single one, flying to both 51.6deg and 28.5deg orbits in both CLV and CaLV configurations.   Then we need to also choose whether we are using our 'published' comparisons, or our 'internal' ones?   It makes a big difference because the trajectories all change if we start using things like the WBC-derived EDS.

Just the above set you ask for would require 24 separate runs.   I am truly sorry, but I don't have that sort of time available to get you the full range of performance figures with the current spec.

As a ball-park, over our baseline figures in the AIAA paper, the 106% RS-68 upgrades buy us about 7mT in J-120 configuration and 4mT in J-232.   5-segs buy about 7/5mT respectively.   The full 294Klb thrust version of the J-2X buys only 2mT.   Our internal "SLWT" Core gives us about 5/2mT.   And the WBC-derived EDS buys J-232 about 12.5mT.

Different combinations work slightly differently together, so please don't take those numbers as totally accurate.

I know that isn't what you were after, but I hope that helps enough for now.   If/when we complete another 'full run' at some point in the future, I will try to put the figures up here for everyone to see.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/21/2008 02:00 am
Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 20/1/2008  11:04 AM

I saw outline of VAB Doors in the 232 picture.  When I took my kids on the tour at the Cape over New Years I heard something interesting from the guide.   I didn't realize the VAB was designed(footings and structure) to be up to 750ft tall.  For 40 years it had a "temporary" roof that was supposed to be replaced with more structure when bigger rockets for Moon/Mars were developed and needed.

If a taller rocket or larger shroud is needed for Ares V or Jupiter 232 I wonder how much it would cost to add another 100+ or so feet to the VAB? What improvements(if any) could you make to Jupiter system if you had more height available?

I've never heard that before.   It might be true, but I have no information either way.

My understanding was that it was sufficiently large already to handle most upgrades which had been planned to Saturn-V, but the advanced Nova facilities which would have been slightly further North, were going to require all-new buildings.


From DIRECT's perspective, we don't believe the existing doors constitute any problems at all.   In my previous diagrams, you can se ethat even the largest Jupiter-232, with the largest 12x20m payload fairing clears the VAB doors by a good 8m or so.   We don't expect *anything* bigger to be realistically needed.

But if there were such a requirement in the future, note that the Upper Stage on J-232 is 8.4m diameter, same as the Core.   There is the option to reduce the height of this stage to make more room, but increasing the diameter of the Upper Stage to 10m, or even maybe 12m.

As the J-232 diagram shows, this clearly isn't necessary for any two-stage configurations with >100mT performance we are currently planning (and would actually remove the option of using the smaller 8.77m fairings entirely).   But it is one of the myriad or options which is available in the future to reduce the total height of the vehicle if we should ever need to consider something like a three-stage Jupiter vehicle.

My preference though, would always be to save money by splitting any excessively large payload into more manageable '100mT chunks' and just launch an extra vehicle.   We would have to be launching a lot of such large cargo's before that would be a more expensive than developing new stages.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/21/2008 02:10 am
The reason I was thinking this was important is the idea that the J-232 could be sold as an Ares-V *upgrade* that could be built incrementally, at lower cost and in a shorter time.  Even Administrator Griffin might be persuaded if the J-232 could out-lift the Ares-V.  It seems like he's mainly interested in the largest possible lift capacity.  If so, I was thinking of selling DIRECT in reverse - start with out-lifting Ares-V, and work backward to the baseline J-232, and down to the J-120 as a "test vehicle" for the J-232.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/21/2008 02:35 am
Quote
kraisee - 21/1/2008  1:43 AM

Hotdog,
Theoretically, a Jupiter-120 - the most 'direct' evolution of the existing Shuttle - powered by standard RS-68's and standard 4-seg SRB's, would be able to fly with either the Centaur or Delta-IV Upper Stage to boost it's basic performance up to the 70mT range.

Such a launcher, assuming the more optimized EDS were canceled, could still form a basis for a new Lunar program.   A 2-launch solution using this booster would be able to replicate the Apollo landings (2 crew, 3-4 days, anytime return) and would even increase performance by a small amount, probably providing global access, not just polar and equatorial.

{snip}
Either could be operational around 2017, even assuming limited funding - certainly possible without funding increases.   The vehicles themselves would be ready ~2014, but the LSAM is the long-pole item in the schedule.   It still is, even with the J-232's EDS.

I read this as saying the Jupiter-120 can get us to the ISS and to permit 2 people to visit the Moon.  A Moon base will need a J-232 and EDS to lift the habitats and mining equipment.

Mars will also probably need a J-232.

The J-244 may be even better for moving heavy cargoes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/21/2008 02:51 am
Quote
yoda - 20/1/2008  11:53 AM

Quote
kraisee - 20/1/2008  6:34 AM

If we're going to be planning our infrastructure around *not* using it, it isn't ever going to get us very far at all.

But if we are seriously planning Lunar missions which are going to require 180mT of lift for each mission, or NEO missions which will require even more, to be followed by Mars missions requiring 500mT+ to be lifted for each, then we need to plan an infrastructure which will produce the best results for that.

NASA is going to have about $8bn per year for the Constellation program to operate with.   About $2bn of that is going to be the LSAM.   Another $2bn per year will be for individual crew and mission hardware costs themselves.   That is going to leave about $4bn for the launch system.   That will be about $1bn less per year than we spend currently for Shuttle.

I want at least 3 exploration missions every single year - and preferably more.   That way the high fixed costs of the infrastructure can be spread between all the different missions.   I want the total cost of each mission to come down below $2bn - LV, landers, science, crew, ops fixed and variable all together.   Sadly I don't think it will ever get much below that, no matter what systems we use.

Ross.

This post brings up a really interesting point made in the recent Av Week Article:

"It's becoming painfully obvious that the Moon is not a stepping-stone for manned Mars operations but is instead a stumbling block," says Robert Farquhar, a veteran of planning and operating planetary and deep-space missions.  "Inadequate NASA budgets are leading to collapse of the VSE Moon focus and to incredibly slow progress for the Moon," says Hinners.

Yoda,
I totally agree with Farquhar - with the stipulation that we are talking about *Ares* costs for the launchers.   While PAO continue to foist the belief down everyone's throats that Ares is the least expensive option - IT IS NOT.

That isn't to say that EELV would be cheaper - IT IS NOT, EITHER.

I do not believe that with Ares, the Constellation Program will have sufficient cash to really make use of the new infrastructure - which is one of the key reasons why I've been working so hard on DIRECT for 18 months - to point out a considerably more affordable alternative.


Quote
It is a pleasant surprise when Direct or other solutions save up to $2B/yr in launch costs and the future growth flexibility when architectures/priorities evolve.

Truth be told, we were terrified that we were going to cost as much as Ares when we started out.   It would have sunk the idea completely.

But it very quickly became aparent that deleting one whole launch vehicle development program, removing most of the new engines and engine upgrades, and reducing the yearly operations requirements to a single vehicle all made a huge difference to both the non-recurring development outlay, and also the recurring operations costs too.

We are also lucky that almost all of our hardware is already flying - which pins the costs down a *lot* tighter than most concepts.   While we have high margins in all our published materials, we actually have very high (90%+) confidence in the actual numbers we're looking at, because they are mostly being paid right now for flight hardware.



Quote
But look at NASA's budget, which was given yearly increases despite the current US economy.

Here is a rough outline of NASAs Budget to FY12
07-       08          09      10      11         12
5.5      5.5          5.5      5.6     5.6        5.8  Science          
4.2      4.0          4.3      4.8     8.7        9.1  Exploration      
0.5      0.5          0.5      0.5     0.5        0.5  Aero              
0.5      0.5          0.5      0.5     0.5        0.5  Cross Agency  
6.1      6.8          6.8      6.6     3.0        3.0  ISS/Shuttle

The up to $2B is just a small step in reducing the $10 to $12B for the lunar missions, assuming ISS is retired.  FY12 Exploration is 9.1 and ISS/Shuttle is 3.0B for 12.1B.

FY-2012 is a particularly busy year.   That's the year of the biggest investment in J-2X, the Ares-I Upper Stage and the manufacturing equipment at MAF to support it.   It is essentially the first full year when the bulk of the Shuttle money becomes available.   FYI, 2011's $8.7bn is mostly going to be used to 'pay back' whatever PWR, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, ATK etc have already paid out of their own pockets on their various elements to that point.   NASA simply can't pay it any sooner.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that $9.1bn budget will be available routinely for Exploration after that, or that it will increase to $12bn - it won't, no way, no how.

That year is the critical year of expenditure to get the Ares (or whatever replaces it) fully-paid-up.   Until 2011/12, we are on a relatively 'shoe string' budget constrained by STS operations.   For a few years the Shuttle money will be available to get the new vehicle up and running.   After that, some of that money goes away again - to pay for all the science missions which have been curtailed for a start!

The actual expectation is that, when the systems are fully operational (launchers, landers, science payloads all together), that NASA's exploration budget will hover around $8bn per year - in FY-2007 dollars.


Quote
So where do you find $$ to fund propellant depots, LOX/CH4, space tugs, nuclear power, nuclear propulsion, radiation protection, landing heavy objects on Mars, large science missions on J-132s, etc when $12B per year would be consumed with long duration crewed lunar bases?  These must be in the 100B plus range combined to be *proven* technologies.

The budget for a Propellant Depot, if done right, can be less than $1bn all-in.   Based on a single, large stage already in production (today there are none, but with J-232 there would be a 315mT capacity stage in regular production which would be very suitable), and 'retro-fitted' with appropriate hardware, it can be done without breaking the bank.   Assume, say, four year's development work, that's an annual impact of $250m per year - about the cost of a single launch vehicle.


Quote
The answers are tough:  you give up shuttle and ISS for lunar missions, lunar mission for Mars.

With Ares I might agree.

Ares' total costs are going to be ~$4.0bn per year, and that is going to get us two Ares-I's to station, 2 more for Lunar crews, 2 Ares-V's for Lunar crew missions and 2 more for cargo.   That is the current CxP baseline.

To do the same with EELV would cost ~$5.4bn - about $1.4bn more.

To do the same with Jupiter would cost ~$3.1bn - about $900m less.



Quote
If the lunar missions were capped at the $8B as you suggest, NASA could start developing new long term Mars and deep space exploration and science technologies only if ISS is retired (yes, another issue entirely).

Without doubt, they could not afford to fund the planned Lunar missions *and* the Mars developments.   This is where I absolutely agree with Farquhar - Ares absolutely closes the door to ever doing *both*.   If we continue down the Ares path, ISS must be removed from the budget before we will ever go to Mars.   Mars development work won't start until the year after ISS is de-orbited - if Ares sucks up the budget it will.


But Jupiter saves $15-20bn of development money compared to Ares and saves almost $1bn every year it operates.

We're talking $25-30bn saved between now and 2020 compared to Ares.   Could we develop an NEO lander version of the LSAM with that?   What about the first generation of nuclear technology needed for Mars?   Could we build ISRU on the Lunar surface and have it ready to launch reaction mass for Mars trips by then?

I think there are a wealth of opportunities, but all remain close as long as we continue pursuing the thrice-damned Ares-I and Ares-V after it.


Quote
So the question:  What type of crewed lunar program with Direct could be achieved for $8B?  It is likely to be only one mission per year of relatively short duration (days) with ISS retired, no?  Would not EELVs to LEO for crew rotations help too?

You stipulate Lunar - so I won't include any ISS missions.   I believe that with an $8bn total annual budget for the whole of Constellation, we could have 6 full 4-person crew missions (2-launches each) to the Lunar surface every year using Jupiter launch vehicles instead of Ares, plus two additional cargo missions.

With the development of a Propellant Depot, and the involvement of international partners who get seats in return for supplying the Depot, I believe Constellation's $8bn could pay for 8 to 10 full crew missions per year, plus cargo support flights


I would however, recommend that some of those flights be curtailed.   More than 6 flights per year will get logistically challenging anyway, so I would propose that be the practical limit.   The balance of monies should then be spent on expanding the capabilities of the architecture to allow us to ALSO visit NEO's and eventually Mars while continuing with a robust Lunar program at the same time.

Where I part company with Farquhar, is the "either or" philosophy.   I believe that with Jupiter we can have all three:   Lunar, NEO *and* Mars missions.   Ares is the true "stumbling block", not the moon program.


Quote
And if serious lunar planning is preferred, with multiple lunar missions per year and outposts ($10 to 12B), then Mars would seem to be always, 20, no 30 years away.

IMHO, there is a choice to be made here.   With ISS' money $2bn (additional to the $8bn we were just talking about), this is a fairly limited budget for development work.

The choice here boils down to Congress' priorities.   That money could pay for a small Lunar Base and begin work *slowly* on a Mars architecture - 20 years - with no additional funding.   Or we could just have a larger (ISS sized) Lunar Base and wait for Congress to give us more money.   Or we could put everything into Mars and be ready in 10 years.   I do not know the will of the Congress on this matter, so can't really predict what is likely.

My personal preference would be to have a small Lunar Outpost ("SkyLab" on the surface, 4 people permanent habitation), and begin working on the Mars architecture while trying to fight for extra funding for that mission.   I believe this capitalizes on the positive press which would surround the new Lunar Landings, and would be a lever to get that additional money to bring Mars to "10-years away".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 01/21/2008 03:03 am
Quote
kraisee - 20/1/2008  9:00 PM

Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 20/1/2008  11:04 AM

I saw outline of VAB Doors in the 232 picture.  When I took my kids on the tour at the Cape over New Years I heard something interesting from the guide.   I didn't realize the VAB was designed(footings and structure) to be up to 750ft tall.  For 40 years it had a "temporary" roof that was supposed to be replaced with more structure when bigger rockets for Moon/Mars were developed and needed.

I've never heard that before.   It might be true, but I have no information either way.

I would take it with a huge, huge block of salt. I have heard many things from NASA tour guides - at KSC and elsewhere - that just aren't true. Even guides who were "technical" people for either NASA or a contractor gave suspect information when they were speaking outside their area of specialty.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/21/2008 04:02 am
Ross,

A while back, I wrote a paper on a Lunar architecture based on using the then popular Venturestar.

S. S. Pietrobon, "Lunar orbit propellant transfer," 8th Int. Aerospace Congress, Adelaide, Australia, Sep. 1999
http://sworld.com.au/steven/pub/IAC99pap.pdf

I also used a two launch architecture, with one launching a TLI stage and the other the Lunar spacecraft. Your solution to the problem was to transfer LOX to the TLI stage from a separate tank under the spacecraft. The solution I used was to increase the propellant mass in the spacecraft stage. Shortly after the TLI stage fires, it separates and the spacecraft fires its engines to complete the TLI burn. This means you only need to extend the length of the LSAM tanks. This may be a potentially attractive solution to avoid the "new technology" of LOX transfer in the current design. The TLI stage performs a small retro burn at apogee to burn up in the atmosphere.

The main point of my paper was in the impact of bringing up LOX from the Lunar surface for the lander. In my case I used Lunar orbit, but a Lagrange point like in your paper could equally be used. My results showed that total spacecraft mass to the Lunar surface and back to Earth could be increased by 71% using Lunar LOX for ascent only, and by 108% using Lunar orbit propellant transfer, at the expense of double the Lunar LOX production.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 01/21/2008 04:04 am
Quote
kraisee - 20/1/2008  8:52 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 20/1/2008  10:41 AM

I'm still interested in performance numbers, expressed in the same terms as Ares V (same orbit, etc.), for the various J-232 options:

Baseline
Baseline + 106% RS-68
Baseline + 106% RS-68 + J2X
Baseline + 106% RS-68 + 5 seg
Baseline + 106% RS-68 + J2X + 5 seg
Ares V with 106% RS-68 + J2X + 5 seg (baseline)

Are these available and I've missed them?

Lee Jay,
I have put some of them up previously, but each breakdown takes quite a while to run (1-3 hours each) and the last time we did what I refer to as a 'full run' of these was with a slightly older design which is no longer current - back in the summer before the AIAA work was finished.

The easiest way to express these, for us, has usually been to just say things like '5-segs increase performance by about 7mT', and then leave the math to you guys :)

There are just too many variants to practically show every single one, flying to both 51.6deg and 28.5deg orbits in both CLV and CaLV configurations.   Then we need to also choose whether we are using our 'published' comparisons, or our 'internal' ones?   It makes a big difference because the trajectories all change if we start using things like the WBC-derived EDS.

Just the above set you ask for would require 24 separate runs.   I am truly sorry, but I don't have that sort of time available to get you the full range of performance figures with the current spec.

As a ball-park, over our baseline figures in the AIAA paper, the 106% RS-68 upgrades buy us about 7mT in J-120 configuration and 4mT in J-232.   5-segs buy about 7/5mT respectively.   The full 294Klb thrust version of the J-2X buys only 2mT.   Our internal "SLWT" Core gives us about 5/2mT.   And the WBC-derived EDS buys J-232 about 12.5mT.

Different combinations work slightly differently together, so please don't take those numbers as totally accurate.

I know that isn't what you were after, but I hope that helps enough for now.   If/when we complete another 'full run' at some point in the future, I will try to put the figures up here for everyone to see.

Ross.

Lee Jay, I developed a spreadsheet tool called CEPE available at www.paul.enutrofal.com which produces rocket payload estimations for various conditions or options. It is not as accurate as full simulator programs but once you understand the spreadsheet, it takes less than a minute to derive the payload for each of the option you mentionned above.  So feel free to try my tool.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/21/2008 05:23 am
PaulL,
Not bad.   I threw a few configurations through it, and it seems to give reasonably good first-order estimations to within about +/-10%.   As a tool for getting a 'quick estimate', I think its pretty good.   Nice work.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/21/2008 05:29 am
Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 20/1/2008  12:02 AM

Ross,

A while back, I wrote a paper on a Lunar architecture based on using the then popular Venturestar.

S. S. Pietrobon, "Lunar orbit propellant transfer," 8th Int. Aerospace Congress, Adelaide, Australia, Sep. 1999
http://sworld.com.au/steven/pub/IAC99pap.pdf

I also used a two launch architecture, with one launching a TLI stage and the other the Lunar spacecraft. Your solution to the problem was to transfer LOX to the TLI stage from a separate tank under the spacecraft. The solution I used was to increase the propellant mass in the spacecraft stage. Shortly after the TLI stage fires, it separates and the spacecraft fires its engines to complete the TLI burn. This means you only need to extend the length of the LSAM tanks. This may be a potentially attractive solution to avoid the "new technology" of LOX transfer in the current design. The TLI stage performs a small retro burn at apogee to burn up in the atmosphere.

The main point of my paper was in the impact of bringing up LOX from the Lunar surface for the lander. In my case I used Lunar orbit, but a Lagrange point like in your paper could equally be used. My results showed that total spacecraft mass to the Lunar surface and back to Earth could be increased by 71% using Lunar LOX for ascent only, and by 108% using Lunar orbit propellant transfer, at the expense of double the Lunar LOX production.

Steven,
Yes, Chuck was a particularly strong proponent of precisely that approach too.

It does remove the necessity to do any propellant transfer at all, but the downside is that it increases the tank mass on the descent stage of the lander - extra mass which then has to go through LOI and Descent.   Because we were pushing the propellant depot technology anyway, we went with that instead.

And yes, I'm personally very hopeful that ISRU Lunar processes won't take decades to develop and will be able to provide LOX to orbit for use.   But I'm under no illusions that that is going to take a lot of development first, not to mention quite a lot of infrastructure placed on the surface first too.   I don't think we can plan any of the early architectures around industrial capacity Lunar ISRU.   It's going to be one of those "future improvements" we are going to have to wait for.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/21/2008 11:54 am
Quote
kraisee - 21/1/2008  1:29 AM

Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 20/1/2008  12:02 AM

Ross,

A while back, I wrote a paper on a Lunar architecture based on using the then popular Venturestar.

S. S. Pietrobon, "Lunar orbit propellant transfer," 8th Int. Aerospace Congress, Adelaide, Australia, Sep. 1999
http://sworld.com.au/steven/pub/IAC99pap.pdf

I also used a two launch architecture, with one launching a TLI stage and the other the Lunar spacecraft. Your solution to the problem was to transfer LOX to the TLI stage from a separate tank under the spacecraft. The solution I used was to increase the propellant mass in the spacecraft stage. Shortly after the TLI stage fires, it separates and the spacecraft fires its engines to complete the TLI burn. This means you only need to extend the length of the LSAM tanks. This may be a potentially attractive solution to avoid the "new technology" of LOX transfer in the current design. The TLI stage performs a small retro burn at apogee to burn up in the atmosphere.

The main point of my paper was in the impact of bringing up LOX from the Lunar surface for the lander. In my case I used Lunar orbit, but a Lagrange point like in your paper could equally be used. My results showed that total spacecraft mass to the Lunar surface and back to Earth could be increased by 71% using Lunar LOX for ascent only, and by 108% using Lunar orbit propellant transfer, at the expense of double the Lunar LOX production.

Steven,
Yes, Chuck was a particularly strong proponent of precisely that approach too.

It does remove the necessity to do any propellant transfer at all, but the downside is that it increases the tank mass on the descent stage of the lander - extra mass which then has to go through LOI and Descent.   Because we were pushing the propellant depot technology anyway, we went with that instead.

And yes, I'm personally very hopeful that ISRU Lunar processes won't take decades to develop and will be able to provide LOX to orbit for use.   But I'm under no illusions that that is going to take a lot of development first, not to mention quite a lot of infrastructure placed on the surface first too.   I don't think we can plan any of the early architectures around industrial capacity Lunar ISRU.   It's going to be one of those "future improvements" we are going to have to wait for.
Ross.
Steven;
Yes, I pushed really hard for that solution but in the end I couldn’t get past the additional, now useless mass of the spent tanks mass being brought all the way down to the lunar surface. That was just so much extra mass that the descent engines had to account for. However, I did come up with a solution to that as well; but we simply ran out of time as the deadline for the AIAA 2007 paper descended upon us. I proposed using a type of “drop tank(s)” to carry the additional propellant, and once it had been expended, to discard the tanks, thereby gaining the advantage of the additional deltaV provided by the longer propellant burn while not being penalized with the extra tank mass after the burn was completed. But like I said, we simply ran out of time. I still maintain that drop tanks are a reasonable way to address this condition. Perhaps we will be able to look at that again in the future.
Regards,
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/21/2008 01:36 pm
Paul, thanks for the spreadsheet.  I appreciate the work you did to put that together.

Ross, according to Paul's sheet, the baseline J-232 lifts 109,000kg, the upgraded one with 5-segs, upgraded RS-68s and J2Xs lifts 124,600kg, and the Ares-V lifts 164,700kg, with all upper stages running to burnout.  This seems in conflict with what was mentioned earlier that the J-232 with upgraded engines could likely out-lift the Ares-V.  Of course, the most likely explanation is that I've either messed up something in Paul's handy spreadsheet, or I don't understand something about what was said earlier by you and Chuck.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/21/2008 01:42 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 21/1/2008  9:36 AM

Paul, thanks for the spreadsheet.  I appreciate the work you did to put that together.

Ross, according to Paul's sheet, the baseline J-232 lifts 109,000kg, the upgraded one with 5-segs, upgraded RS-68s and J2Xs lifts 124,600kg, and the Ares-V lifts 164,700kg, with all upper stages running to burnout.  This seems in conflict with what was mentioned earlier that the J-232 with upgraded engines could likely out-lift the Ares-V.  Of course, the most likely explanation is that I've either messed up something in Paul's handy spreadsheet, or I don't understand something about what was said earlier by you and Chuck.
Lee Jay;
My earlier comment was in relation to a proposed Jupiter-244, not the Jupiter-232.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/21/2008 01:58 pm
Quote
clongton - 21/1/2008  7:42 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 21/1/2008  9:36 AM

Paul, thanks for the spreadsheet.  I appreciate the work you did to put that together.

Ross, according to Paul's sheet, the baseline J-232 lifts 109,000kg, the upgraded one with 5-segs, upgraded RS-68s and J2Xs lifts 124,600kg, and the Ares-V lifts 164,700kg, with all upper stages running to burnout.  This seems in conflict with what was mentioned earlier that the J-232 with upgraded engines could likely out-lift the Ares-V.  Of course, the most likely explanation is that I've either messed up something in Paul's handy spreadsheet, or I don't understand something about what was said earlier by you and Chuck.
Lee Jay;
My earlier comment was in relation to a proposed Jupiter-244, not the Jupiter-232.

This is the post to which I'm referring, back on page 194:

Quote
clongton - 24/11/2007  4:43 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 24/11/2007  5:55 PM

Quote
clongton - 24/11/2007  3:39 PM
It's important to note here however, that nothing in the DIRECT plan prevents NASA from developing and fielding the Ares-V once the Jupiter-120 is flying. Unlike any possible EELV solution, DIRECT preserves the option to build the Ares-V; even better than the Ares-I could have.

If the other posts from you and Ross on this thread are correct, the J-232 is not very short of the Ares-V in lift capability, all things being the same (orbit and margin).  If this is so, why go to the trouble of building the Ares-V at all?  If the extra lift capability is truly needed for a mission, what upgrades to the J-232 would get to parity with the Ares-V?  SLWT?  RS-68 at 106%?  J2x?  5-seg?  Other stuff?  It seems like all this could get you past the Ares-V and so selecting just what is required would be far cheaper than developing the Ares-V since it requires all of that, plus a new core and infrastructure.
All that is very true. The basic configuration of the Jupiter-232 is very nearly the equal of the advertised performance of the Ares-V; all that without touching the additional 10% margin that is built in to the Jupiter launch vehicle specifications. By incorporating the upgrades you speak of, the Jupiter-232 will easily exceed the advertised performance of the Ares-V and, unlike the Ares-V, still have room to expand its capabilities even further.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 01/21/2008 02:05 pm
Let’s say that Ares I is ditched and all efforts go towards developing Ares V in its current configuration for a 2-launch architecture. How do the costs of Ares V only (fixed and variable) compare to Jupiter 120 & 232?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/21/2008 02:09 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 21/1/2008  9:58 AM

Quote
clongton - 21/1/2008  7:42 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 21/1/2008  9:36 AM

Paul, thanks for the spreadsheet.  I appreciate the work you did to put that together.

Ross, according to Paul's sheet, the baseline J-232 lifts 109,000kg, the upgraded one with 5-segs, upgraded RS-68s and J2Xs lifts 124,600kg, and the Ares-V lifts 164,700kg, with all upper stages running to burnout.  This seems in conflict with what was mentioned earlier that the J-232 with upgraded engines could likely out-lift the Ares-V.  Of course, the most likely explanation is that I've either messed up something in Paul's handy spreadsheet, or I don't understand something about what was said earlier by you and Chuck.
Lee Jay;
My earlier comment was in relation to a proposed Jupiter-244, not the Jupiter-232.

This is the post to which I'm referring, back on page 194:

Quote
clongton - 24/11/2007  4:43 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 24/11/2007  5:55 PM

Quote
clongton - 24/11/2007  3:39 PM
It's important to note here however, that nothing in the DIRECT plan prevents NASA from developing and fielding the Ares-V once the Jupiter-120 is flying. Unlike any possible EELV solution, DIRECT preserves the option to build the Ares-V; even better than the Ares-I could have.

If the other posts from you and Ross on this thread are correct, the J-232 is not very short of the Ares-V in lift capability, all things being the same (orbit and margin).  If this is so, why go to the trouble of building the Ares-V at all?  If the extra lift capability is truly needed for a mission, what upgrades to the J-232 would get to parity with the Ares-V?  SLWT?  RS-68 at 106%?  J2x?  5-seg?  Other stuff?  It seems like all this could get you past the Ares-V and so selecting just what is required would be far cheaper than developing the Ares-V since it requires all of that, plus a new core and infrastructure.
All that is very true. The basic configuration of the Jupiter-232 is very nearly the equal of the advertised performance of the Ares-V; all that without touching the additional 10% margin that is built in to the Jupiter launch vehicle specifications. By incorporating the upgrades you speak of, the Jupiter-232 will easily exceed the advertised performance of the Ares-V and, unlike the Ares-V, still have room to expand its capabilities even further.
Ok, got it.

What I said in that earlier post is correct. When run with POST, a Jupiter-232 with ALL the upgrades mentioned does indeed exceed the current advertised performance of the Ares-V.

As to your observation about why build the Ares-V at all, I will refer you to my post this morning on another thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11313#M233446
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/21/2008 02:48 pm
Quote
clongton - 21/1/2008  8:09 AM
What I said in that earlier post is correct. When run with POST, a Jupiter-232 with ALL the upgrades mentioned does indeed exceed the current advertised performance of the Ares-V.

Okay, so I'm trying to understand the gap between the analysis I did with Paul's spreadsheet, and this statement.  I can see several areas:

- The spreadsheet is only accurate to +/- 10% on each run, POST is more accurate and gives J-232 more capacity and Ares-V less.
- The SLWT was not included in the spreadsheet analysis.
- The advertised lift of Ares-V is not the real lift of Ares-V.

Does Ares-V "advertised" lift include running the upper stage to burnout?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Fequalsma on 01/21/2008 02:56 pm
Ross -

These are excellent graphics - thanks!   I have two questions.  

First, what is the rationale behind keeping the core LH2 tank barrel/dome intersection at the existing aft SRB attach points?  Would it be reasonable to 1) add a short barrel section to increase the as-drawn LH2 tank volume and shorten the thrust structure (I know that this has been discussed here before - sorry for the repeat), and 2) move the SRB attach points further aft to keep the number of major ring frames in the LH2 tank the same?   Note that 1) could be done without 2).

Second, could the core LOX tank be made as an inverted, truncated cone, whose angle follows the SRB nose cone angle?   This would add more LOX volume to the core, and transition nicely to a larger-diameter upper stage and payload fairing.

Cheers,
F=ma
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/21/2008 03:06 pm
Quote
Fequalsma - 21/1/2008  10:56 AM

Ross -

These are excellent graphics - thanks!  I have two questions.  

First, what is the rationale behind keeping the core LH2 tank barrel/dome intersection at the existing aft SRB attach points?  Would it be reasonable to 1) add a short barrel section to increase the as-drawn LH2 tank and shorten the thrust structure (I know that this has been discussed here before - sorry for the repeat), and then 2) move the SRB attach points further aft to keep the number of major ring frames in the LH2 tank the same?

Second, could the core LOX tank be made as an inverted, truncated cone, whose angle follows the SRB nose cone angle?  This would add more LOX volume to the core, and transition nicely to a larger-diameter upper stage and payload fairing.

Cheers,
F=ma

Direct intends to use as much of a "stock" shuttle ET as possible.  That is one of the selling points.  If optimization were the point, then Direct doesn't really "exist"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/21/2008 03:11 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 21/1/2008  10:48 AM

Quote
clongton - 21/1/2008  8:09 AM
What I said in that earlier post is correct. When run with POST, a Jupiter-232 with ALL the upgrades mentioned does indeed exceed the current advertised performance of the Ares-V.

Okay, so I'm trying to understand the gap between the analysis I did with Paul's spreadsheet, and this statement.  I can see several areas:

1. The spreadsheet is only accurate to +/- 10% on each run, POST is more accurate and gives J-232 more capacity and Ares-V less.
2. The SLWT was not included in the spreadsheet analysis.
3. The advertised lift of Ares-V is not the real lift of Ares-V.
4. Does Ares-V "advertised" lift include running the upper stage to burnout?
1. Yes, and don’t forget the additional 10% margins that we are carrying internally.
2. Probably correct. You loaded the values in the spreadsheet.
3. The real overall performance is lower than the advertised, based upon NASA’s own calcs.
4. The decks we have show a small amount of residual left in the tanks. So there is a point of engine shutdown rather than burnout. But the residuals are very small.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Hotdog on 01/21/2008 11:24 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/1/2008  1:43 AM

Hotdog,
Theoretically, a Jupiter-120 - the most 'direct' evolution of the existing Shuttle - powered by standard RS-68's and standard 4-seg SRB's, would be able to fly with either the Centaur or Delta-IV Upper Stage to boost it's basic performance up to the 70mT range.

Such a launcher, assuming the more optimized EDS were canceled, could still form a basis for a new Lunar program.   A 2-launch solution using this booster would be able to replicate the Apollo landings (2 crew, 3-4 days, anytime return) and would even increase performance by a small amount, probably providing global access, not just polar and equatorial.

A 3-launch solution of this 70mT lift system would be able to achieve all of the ESAS objectives (4-crew, 7 days, global access, anytime return).

A fuel depot would probably be critically important to any such architecture, but there *are* ways to do this without - such as clustering stages together for the TLI.   It's clearly more risky, but potentially still do-able.

Either could be operational around 2017, even assuming limited funding - certainly possible without funding increases.   The vehicles themselves would be ready ~2014, but the LSAM is the long-pole item in the schedule.   It still is, even with the J-232's EDS.

If the EDS were canceled, it would be purely because of money, but would assume that the much more expensive LSAM can still be paid for.   In this precise scenario, I would then expect ISS to be closed ASAP (2016) and its fudning to be redirected to Constellation.

Ross.

Thanks for the info.

Chuck said in another thread that trade studies suggest that payloads in the range of 70-75mT mark the optimum point for economies of scale traded off against less complex on-orbit assemblies. The J-120 with the EELV upper stage seems to fit this range perfectly.

Would the third launch for every 3 launch lunar mission cost more than the development of the new upper stage? Where would the new upper stage development break even in this scenario? You would presumably get savings by sharing fixed costs of the upper stage with ULA.

I think that if the new US president is a Democrat, they are unlikely to support the current "Apollo on Steroids" approach. I think the basic premise of Direct is correct. Use as much as you can of what is currently developed and flying to replace the STS. Add the new upper stage as a growth option. Show to a new president (figuratively speaking ... although would be nice if it was directly :) ) a pretty damn impressive rocket with the minimum development cost possible and you could maybe even have the full 70mT rocket out the door in 2012. Talk about closing the gap.

It is not like the design would limit future plans in any way with all the growth options but the initial 70mT would enable some pretty exciting missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/21/2008 11:27 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 20/1/2008  2:17 PM

Love the new artwork Ross!

Pretty nice there yourself Mike - love the new .sig :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/21/2008 11:34 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 20/1/2008  2:17 PM

Love the new artwork Ross!
I LOVE that signature!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/21/2008 11:38 pm
Quote
Marsman - 21/1/2008  10:05 AM

Let’s say that Ares I is ditched and all efforts go towards developing Ares V in its current configuration for a 2-launch architecture. How do the costs of Ares V only (fixed and variable) compare to Jupiter 120 & 232?

Here is a comparison of each vehicle *alone* to demonstrate exactly what you're after.

In this example, Jupiter-120 pays the full costs for the Jupiter infrastructure, and so too does Jupiter-232.   In practice of course, the two vehicles would actually share everything except the EDS costs.

I have *not* broken out the shared costs of the Ares launchers though, because they share their resources in a far more complex way than Jupiter.   Therefore, both Ares launchers actually would be slightly more costly than presented here for true apples-to-apples comparison purposes.

For an apples-to-apples comparison between Ares-V and Jupiter-232 alone, this is pretty close to what you're after though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/21/2008 11:58 pm
Quote
Hotdog - 21/1/2008  7:24 PM

Chuck said in another thread that trade studies suggest that payloads in the range of 70-75mT mark the optimum point for economies of scale traded off against less complex on-orbit assemblies. The J-120 with the EELV upper stage seems to fit this range perfectly.

Chuck is correct.   But like all such things it must be taken on a case-by-case basis.

We believe there is a strong argument to be made to go a little bit further than 70mT in order to increase the bottom-line capabilities *of this particular launcher*.   100mT remains our entry-level target for this particular architecture.


Quote
Would the third launch for every 3 launch lunar mission cost more than the development of the new upper stage? Where would the new upper stage development break even in this scenario? You would presumably get savings by sharing fixed costs of the upper stage with ULA.

Our published numbers indicate that an EDS development program would cost approximately $6.1bn - including about $2bn for complete development of the J-2XD.

This includes considerable margin in our opinion.   We actually understand that the WBC stage development shouldn't cost much more than about $1bn - not $4bn and NASA actually contracted PWR for $1.2bn to develop the full-spec J-2X, so we are quite happy with our generous published margins.

When you get right down to it, there is not actually a very big cost difference between 3 x Jupiter-120+US vs. 2 x Jupiter-232.   But there is a greater risk factor having the third launch - 50% greater in fact - although this is mostly an LOM issue, not an LOC issue.


It ultimately becomes a fairly subjective choice which path to follow.

Spend the extra development money and reduce the risk, or don't.   We have chosen to spend the extra cash in order to get additional capabilities - with an eye to also reducing the flight numbers for Mars later from 7 flights down to 5.   Mars remains a critical driver for many of our choices because we believe Mars will be affordable with Jupiter.

*And* this does not exclude the option of also qualifying the vehicle with an EELV Upper Stage as well - effectively creating a family with 50, 70 and 100mT capabilities from the same core vehicle.



Quote
I think that if the new US president is a Democrat, they are unlikely to support the current "Apollo on Steroids" approach. I think the basic premise of Direct is correct. Use as much as you can of what is currently developed and flying to replace the STS. Add the new upper stage as a growth option. Show to a new president (figuratively speaking ... although would be nice if it was directly :) ) a pretty damn impressive rocket with the minimum development cost possible and you could maybe even have the full 70mT rocket out the door in 2012. Talk about closing the gap.

It is not like the design would limit future plans in any way with all the growth options but the initial 70mT would enable some pretty exciting missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/22/2008 12:26 am
Thanks for your replies Ross and Chuck.

I would have thought that the earlier staging in TLI and the better performance of the LSAM engines might make up for the difference in extra tank mass. There are probably some gravity losses during the LSAM burn in LEO as well. Do you have any numbers on this?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2008 12:29 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 21/1/2008  10:48 AM

Does Ares-V "advertised" lift include running the upper stage to burnout?

Ares-V currently has ~10% 'margin' - that is completely 'normal' for any rocket design and is necessary.   It should also *always* assume about 2% residual propellant in all tanking.   Jupiter-232, as published, actually has 10% + a further 10% we applied separately and slightly greater margins.

And while PaulL's spreadsheet isn't bad for estimates, it doesn't account for such things as throttling engines around max-Q, or the thrust curves of the SRB's, so is never going to be totally accurate.   As a general rule, I would probably strip 10% off of all performance figures because I think it tries to show 'optimal' performance rather than optimal-minus-safety-margin.

If you do that, Ares-V's performance gets a lot closer to published numbers, and so too do Jupiter's.

What Paul's Spreadsheet should be most useful for is seeing what difference small changes to the configuration are likely to offer - such as what difference is the if you swap J-2XD for J-2X propulsion on the EDS.   I suspect the spreadsheet will demonstrate such 'differences' quite well, although the final payload number might not be quite on the mark.   It will allow you to see for yourself the *approximate* difference 5-seg's make, or 106% RS-68's.

But final performance numbers *must* always come from software which can accurately model all the variables - like POST.   Only then will you get anything 'safe' to base further assumptions upon.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2008 12:41 am
Quote
Fequalsma - 21/1/2008  10:56 AM

Ross -

These are excellent graphics - thanks!   I have two questions.  

First, what is the rationale behind keeping the core LH2 tank barrel/dome intersection at the existing aft SRB attach points?  Would it be reasonable to 1) add a short barrel section to increase the as-drawn LH2 tank volume and shorten the thrust structure (I know that this has been discussed here before - sorry for the repeat), and 2) move the SRB attach points further aft to keep the number of major ring frames in the LH2 tank the same?   Note that 1) could be done without 2).

Second, could the core LOX tank be made as an inverted, truncated cone, whose angle follows the SRB nose cone angle?   This would add more LOX volume to the core, and transition nicely to a larger-diameter upper stage and payload fairing.

Cheers,
F=ma

We actually did this for DIRECT v1.0 - in a similar way to the stretch NLS assumed too.   But Dr. Doug Stanley bitterly criticized this change claiming that there was no room above the RS-68 to allow the tank to come down further.

While we disagree, we still had to address this open criticizm.   We decided that there was sanity in reducing costs and schedule impacts if we simply keep the exact LH2 tank dimensions as at present.   It is ever so slightly sub-optimal for the 106% RS-68 (about 5-7% growth would be nice), but it offers a lot of other advantages in the scheduling and cost departments, so we are quite happy with this arrangement.


The LOX tank is, again, designed to simply re-use as much current manufacturing as possible.   The lower tank dome is essentially just replicated (with different cutouts of course) and placed on top of an extended barrel section.   Both tank domes can thus be manufactured on the same manufacturing jigs, and the three separate barrel sections can be made on the same jigs used to make the single barrel section of the Shuttle tank now.

These are both simple cost/scheduling choices.   We figure an "SLWT" program can be instituted at some point in the future to optimze the performance further - if there is any actual requirement to do so.   We aren't baselining such optimizations in at the start though because they tend to need flight data, cost quite a bit and take a while to implement - none of which help 'close the gap'.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2008 12:50 am
Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 21/1/2008  8:26 PM

Thanks for your replies Ross and Chuck.

I would have thought that the earlier staging in TLI and the better performance of the LSAM engines might make up for the difference in extra tank mass. There are probably some gravity losses during the LSAM burn in LEO as well. Do you have any numbers on this?

No.   We never concluded that investigation in time for the AIAA paper.   The LSAM's specification and design remain just too fluid to make many decisions with at this stage.

It remains something we would really like NASA to investigate more fully if they take a serious look at the DIRECT approach - especially the idea of drop tanks for the LSAM.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 01/22/2008 02:09 am
Quote
kraisee - 21/1/2008  7:29 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 21/1/2008  10:48 AM

Does Ares-V "advertised" lift include running the upper stage to burnout?

Ares-V currently has ~10% 'margin' - that is completely 'normal' for any rocket design and is necessary.   It should also *always* assume about 2% residual propellant in all tanking.   Jupiter-232, as published, actually has 10% + a further 10% we applied separately and slightly greater margins.

And while PaulL's spreadsheet isn't bad for estimates, it doesn't account for such things as throttling engines around max-Q, or the thrust curves of the SRB's, so is never going to be totally accurate.   As a general rule, I would probably strip 10% off of all performance figures because I think it tries to show 'optimal' performance rather than optimal-minus-safety-margin.

If you do that, Ares-V's performance gets a lot closer to published numbers, and so too do Jupiter's.

What Paul's Spreadsheet should be most useful for is seeing what difference small changes to the configuration are likely to offer - such as what difference is the if you swap J-2XD for J-2X propulsion on the EDS.   I suspect the spreadsheet will demonstrate such 'differences' quite well, although the final payload number might not be quite on the mark.   It will allow you to see for yourself the *approximate* difference 5-seg's make, or 106% RS-68's.

But final performance numbers *must* always come from software which can accurately model all the variables - like POST.   Only then will you get anything 'safe' to base further assumptions upon.

Ross.

Indeed the CEPE spreadsheet estimates gross payloads (without the 10% payload reduction included in net payloads).  As for the Ares V published payloads, they normally include propellant offload on top of the 10 % margin for net payload. I assume that this is to take into account that part of the LEO payload must be the propellant for TLI and that the EDS must have extra room for it.  

For example, the my spreadsheet (CEPE) comes loaded with the data for the original Ares V (8.4 m core with 5 SSME engines) on its main sheet. CEPE estmates that this rocket has a LEO payload of 145.1 mT (published NASA gross payload is 148.3 mT (126 mT for the net payload)) with a propellant offload of 40%.  With a full EDS used to reach LEO, CEPE estimates that the gross payload of that rocket would increase to 157.2 mT.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2008 02:20 am
PaulL,
Could I request a few changes in any future version?

The names of a few of the boosters is a touch confusing to me.   The original Ares-I should possibly be renamed the ESAS CaLV or LV-27.3.   Similarly the original Ares-I should be the ESAS CLV or LV-13.1.

The different "phases" for DIRECT is also a little ambiguous.   Perhaps names such as "WBC EDS" or "Baseline EDS" could be used instead.

And the mass options for the various Interstage and Payload Fairings could be expanded and given clear names to indicate what fits what for what purpose.

And you could add a box allowing you to specify the 'safety margin' percentage and automatically calculate the NET payload.

I think this might help a few people and also hopefully improve the performance results a little too.



Also, 157mT is considerably higher than that launcher will ever actually achieve.   I think the difference is created because of the SRB thrust curves myself.   I wonder if there is any way you can 'compensate' for them somehow?
Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/22/2008 02:38 am
A full interface specification will need writing and respecting for the J-120 interstage to the Orion & SM, other cargo, J-232 upper-stage, EELV upper-stage and EDS.

Where only two things fit together an interface document is a luxury since the implementations, requirements and meeting minutes act as the real interface specification.  The problems can be fixed by adjusting either side.  Where two objects fit onto the same connector the cost of writing the interface specification can be saved on the reduced cost of developing the second object.  With more than 2 objects the savings of both time and money are bigger.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/22/2008 03:09 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 21/1/2008  10:38 PM

A full interface specification will need writing and respecting for the J-120 interstage to the Orion & SM, other cargo, J-232 upper-stage, EELV upper-stage and EDS.

Where only two things fit together an interface document is a luxury since the implementations, requirements and meeting minutes act as the real interface specification.  The problems can be fixed by adjusting either side.  Where two objects fit onto the same connector the cost of writing the interface specification can be saved on the reduced cost of developing the second object.  With more than 2 objects the savings of both time and money are bigger.

Huh?  What is the point?  ICD's are SOP, even for only 2 items.  ICD used when there are different organizations supplying hardware, it is not determined by number of articles
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 01/22/2008 03:51 am
Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 21/1/2008  7:26 PM

Thanks for your replies Ross and Chuck.

I would have thought that the earlier staging in TLI and the better performance of the LSAM engines might make up for the difference in extra tank mass. There are probably some gravity losses during the LSAM burn in LEO as well. Do you have any numbers on this?

If you design a LSAM with drop tanks you could also use part of the extra propellant (let say 20mT) as an upper stage on a J-120 rocket to reach LEO. This could allow to increase the LEO payload capacity of combined J-120+LSAM to about 70mT (45 mT LSAM + 5 mT drop tanks + 20 mT extra propellant for pre-TLI burn).  That with a J-232 launch containing the CEV and EDS would give you a good moon mission.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2008 03:58 am
I'm personally not a fan of the idea of an LSAM completing the ascent portion of the flight.   The idea leaves me cold for a reason I can't quite put my finger on yet.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/22/2008 04:05 am
May I suggest: the very long payload shroud for Jupiter-120 with the Orion on top.

Lets say Orion will be 20, 25 or 30 meters from the Jupiter-120 LOX tank.
This puts Orion far, far away from a very low probability explosion.

What would be the LOC numbers then?

Maybe in addition putting some sort of impact absorbent structure under the Orion. You know like they design cars in our days to absorb an impact of a collision.

What would be the LOC numbers then?

Probably the Orion will be close to indestructible during the launch.

And the extra performance of Jupiter-120 allows doing it.

The only selling point of Ares I was its small LOC number – 1 in 2000.
(Which is much smaller right now – 1 in 1200 and who knows what it will be in reality).

IMHO Jupiter-120 with such a protection should bit Ares I to the ground in LOC numbers.

And since DIRECT is less expensive than Ares I and Ares V what is the point to keep them?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2008 04:13 am
I totally agree Yegor.

The added performance of Jupiter-120 allows any, or even all of these additional safety measures to be considered and actually *implemented*.

When flying without a payload, Orion could have a Boron-Carbide & Kevlar reinforced ballistic shield *with* a full 8.4m-diameter 15-ton water tank under it to help prevent shrapnel ever reaching the spacecraft.   Without a doubt, the LOC numbers climb, but there is no way to actually calculate by how much.   I would suggest that such an option might buy a crew about 2x greater LOC numbers.

With the latest safety numbers for Ares-I from November 8th 2007 (1 in 1256 Loss of Crew) , Jupiter-120 has taken the lead from Ares-I now in *all* terms.   It is not only Safer, Simpler, Sooner - but also higher Performance, lower Program Risk and greater Workforce Retention.

Only a government operation could ignore such a thorough six-way slam-dunk!

Oh...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/22/2008 04:31 am
Quote
PaulL - 21/1/2008  11:51 PM


If you design a LSAM with drop tanks you could also use part of the extra propellant (let say 20mT) as an upper stage on a J-120 rocket to reach LEO.

Not a good idea, the LSAM would have to be up and running with different avionics from the LV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2008 05:09 am
Here are some of the enhanced safety options which Jupiter-120 can support for ISS Crew Rotation Flights and similar activities.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 01/22/2008 10:51 am
The graphic is missing the hard-landing airbags - surely they count as a JUITER safety option since they've been thrown overboard by a sinking ARES-1 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2008 12:28 pm
Funny :)

Though there is an interesting point to make there - while the airbags might offer some additional protection from debris strikes, they are still on completely the wrong side of the heatshield to be all that useful as protection :(

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2008 01:01 pm
The more I think of it, the more I like the Service Module shielding.  Yes, it is a 989kg mass penalty to the Orion for a 2cm (0.79") thick boron-carbide shield under the CM, which then has to go through the entire mission - but if it can offer crew protection to the heat shield during ascent, TLI and even in the event of an Apollo-13 style SM 'explosion' it might well be worthwhile.

I also wonder about MMOD protection for the rest of the Orion's shell too.   With the Zero Base Vehicle it looks like all shielding and protective materials were removed and very little put back at all.

And there doesn't appear to be much in the way of radiation shielding either.

I wonder how the astronaut corps feels about that?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/22/2008 04:53 pm
Quote
kraisee - 21/1/2008  12:13 AM

I totally agree Yegor.

The added performance of Jupiter-120 allows any, or even all of these additional safety measures to be considered and actually *implemented*.

When flying without a payload, Orion could have a Boron-Carbide & Kevlar reinforced ballistic shield *with* a full 8.4m-diameter 15-ton water tank under it to help prevent shrapnel ever reaching the spacecraft.   Without a doubt, the LOC numbers climb, but there is no way to actually calculate by how much.   I would suggest that such an option might buy a crew about 2x greater LOC numbers.

With the latest safety numbers for Ares-I from November 8th 2007 (1 in 1256 Loss of Crew) , Jupiter-120 has taken the lead from Ares-I now in *all* terms.   It is not only Safer, Simpler, Sooner - but also higher Performance, lower Program Risk and greater Workforce Retention.

Only a government operation could ignore such a thorough six-way slam-dunk!

Oh...

Ross.
I think it should be possible to calculate LOC numbers in these cases.

I am not a specialist in explosion impacts but judging by news reports and LV failure footage couple of conclusions is drawn:
1. The closer a person is to the explosion the smaller his chances of survival. If a person is next to the explosion his chances are close to zero. That is why the distance from the fuel tanks will automatically increase the chances of survival.
2. In LV explosion footages some rockets go in pieces and produce shrapnel but some are not they just flap. In Challenger disaster the crew compartment survived LV explosion. Again being next the explosion that does not produce shrapnel is still not good – it will make lots of damage to anything within several meters.

The specialists can calculate these numbers – and they should.

Ares I will not allow to have any distance between Orion and the fuel tanks.
Jupiter allows having this distance. Jupiter beats Ares I here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/22/2008 06:06 pm
I have a question on RS-68 throttle profiles...  Both Detla IV center CBC and Shuttle SSMEs are throttled down prior to max Q for load relief.  Delta IV uses this as a performance improvement by delaying throttle up until after Strapon CBC seperation.  I took note that Ares V does not apparently do any throttling...  Although I could be wrong.  What's the plan for DIRECT/Jupiter?  Have you looked into delaying throttle up?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/22/2008 06:09 pm
One thing to note is most rocket pressure vessels are rated to fail before burst...  That means they are desinged to not "explode" like a bomb, but rip open.  It's still a large kenetic energy event, but reduces shrapnel.  I believe this is a range safety requirement.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/22/2008 06:26 pm
Quote
TrueGrit - 22/1/2008  2:06 PM

I have a question on RS-68 throttle profiles...  Both Detla IV center CBC and Shuttle SSMEs are throttled down prior to max Q for load relief.  Delta IV uses this as a performance improvement by delaying throttle up until after Strapon CBC seperation.  I took note that Ares V does not apparently do any throttling...  Although I could be wrong.  What's the plan for DIRECT/Jupiter?  Have you looked into delaying throttle up?

The D-IV event is for performance and not load relief
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: simcosmos on 01/22/2008 06:45 pm
Note: Some of what I will write next are only personal observations and do not necessarily 100% reflect opinions of other DIRECT Team members. Also apologize for these side comments but was not able to write this sooner (when they would make more sense in this thread's flow).


About partial TLI procedures, CEV + LSAM designs, other components / mission modes

I have suggested the team (June / July 2007 emails, also have sent a 14 pages word document somewhere in July) about a few mission modes plus respective simulations or first order calculations and where, in some of those modes, the Jupiter's EDS would be kept in a highly elliptical Earth orbit with option for a small apogee burn (plus corrections) - after payload release - to either start a setup for a destructive Earth entry of such stage (for disposal) or, in a much, much later future, with the option to setup some kind of LEO recovery procedure (by aerobraking or making propulsive burn, depending of the main mission payload vs specific stage design and aiming for eventual later stage reuse).


The idea is that for some of those modes, the 'EDS' could make instead - again, depending of mission specificities and proper hardware implementation - a *partial TLI* procedure with, being very generic, the 'mission stage' (plus respective payload) being released from the 'EDS' after J-2X shutdown and, after some separation manoeuvres, fully committing for the TLI / Earth Departure then.

Such generic 'mission stage' could be the LSAM main stage itself, an upgraded CEV SM (example: for CEV only flights) or just an in-space stage, in any case making up for the remaining m/s needed to complete the Earth Departure.

Later on (not sure, would have to recheck), I think that also have sent an email with some sources where found that such idea was not something new and where it was also described. I'm not sure if pointed to Steven Pietrobon's paper and / or if it was a link for a Boeing paper available at NTRS (about ~100t heavy lifters being used for lunar mission modes, either small outposts either for extended base building) which have found in my archives and where such kind of partial TLI procedures are mentioned. (by the way Steven, many months ago have also played with your idea of H2O2/kero booster: maybe will send in your way how a Jupiter core would look like with those boosters, in a future occasion).


Wide Body Centaurs as an important development for more robust space exploration and commercial initiatives

If still remembering well (please someone of the team correct me if it is not the case), Chuck then suggested the study direction of using some kind of drop tanks for the LSAM (to avoid dragging extra dead mass all the way into lunar surface) while I was proposing (emails + word document + even some clumsy 3D renderings) a study / search for information / extra data where the 'Lunar and Beyond' CEV variants and the LSAM (+other VSE hardware) could perhaps share extra synergies with 5.4m diameter Wide Body Centaur stage development and where such WBC could be used / adapted as:

- Modular CEV service module implementations: upgrading that way a CEV 'block1' (which would be using a smaller hypergolic 'LEO SM' until then). This could become a kind of mix between some of the earlier Boeing and Lockheed Martin plans in what concerns upgrades of CEV 'block1' capabilities and Earth Departure stack building methods. A past Team Vision paper (and other sources) also considered such incremental approach to upgrade a first LEO only CEV version.

- LSAM descent stages (giving an example of an horizontal LSAM +/- similar to Lockheed Martin's concepts) and where some of the lander's payload carrier aspects could perhaps share development resources with a payload carrier made first for Jupiter120 (where such payload carrier would contain modular RCS pods and would be compatible with something like a CEV or a stage acting as 'brain' for the stack)

- WBC could also be used for many other in-space stages functional adaptations (tugs, depots, etc, again a kind of mix with some of the Lockheed Martin - and also Boeing – concepts available on some past papers and studies).


The key point would be to fund 5.4m WBC development, then use / adapt it not only for both EELV / Jupiter120 enhancements and also use such development effort to implement some 'early' and very interesting Exploration scenarios but also as the baseline for the main propulsion element of 'Lunar and Beyond' CEV variants, lander design, etc as well as a very first precursor of Jupiter's later and bigger ~8.4m diameter EDS (and EDS applications).

We then ended up by briefly mentioning LSAM iterations using toroidal tanks (which could also be used as drop tanks for WBC) and a mix of several concepts for landers modularity / mission modes / phased upgrade options (including, in those upgrades, in-situ resources production / utilisation, mission modes other than EOR-LOR, etc) but, as Chuck mentioned above and among other reasons, we started seriously lacking time to properly advance such studies, make the necessary requests for extra info / analysis, etc.


Of course that we are all aware that these kind of things would mean quite some extra degree of departure from and to current NASA's design considerations for the CEV (in particular its SM) + LSAM implementations and also in what regards several other VSE aspects, even if some parts of those discussions were kind of already noted here and there in the AIAA2007 paper.


Following all this and giving the recent focus (here and other forum threads) in ~50t, ~70t, ~100t heavy lift capabilities vs VSE near and long term requirements (and relations with Jupiter eventual configurations), also having in mind VSE implementation modes, Jupiter Vehicles and EELV synergies (RS-68 upgrades, using existing Delta IV Heavy and/or AtlasV stages on Jupiter120 in an early phase), Wide Body Centaurs as a good investment for both EELV and Jupiters (having in mind structural aspects and boiloff reduction properties, both types of RL-10 engines being +/- readily available, etc) hope you do not mind with me ending this already long side note by linking to a thread available at space.com uplink forums (extra musings regarding WBC and LM's landers, etc, discussion started from the nasaspaceflight.com article about LM's landers):

Lockheed Martin reveal their three Lunar Lander Concepts

In particular, I would call the reader's attention to the very interesting posts written by username impulse.


In my humble opinion, developing some kind of cargo container for Jupiter120 and then later upgrading and integrating it into a modular LSAM design where the main propulsion element would be a WBC which would be 'glued' (in lack of better term) to the cargo container by a common 'chassis' supporting extra modular components (radiators, RCS pods, landing kits, solar panels, etc) as well looking at such WBC as the main propulsion element for later (non-LEO) CEV variants (adding such cryogenic stage to the block1 non-cryogenic SM) as well looking at several other potentialities that the WBC development would bring to both EELV and Jupiter vehicles enhancements, to mission modes, etc would probably be one of the best collaborative (LM + Boeing + NASA) bets ever made if really aiming for a strong and sustainable VSE implementation (and also for EELV commercial uses) where capabilities would be built using a phased but perhaps more coherent and incremental approach in order to get what we need up there in ~30 to 50t, ~70t to 80t and even ~100t chunks.

António

PS: (older but still more or less related in some way flickr entry):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/1021055841/

Quote
clongton - 21/1/2008  12:54 PM

Quote
kraisee - 21/1/2008  1:29 AM

Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 20/1/2008  12:02 AM

Ross,

A while back, I wrote a paper on a Lunar architecture based on using the then popular Venturestar.

S. S. Pietrobon, "Lunar orbit propellant transfer," 8th Int. Aerospace Congress, Adelaide, Australia, Sep. 1999
http://sworld.com.au/steven/pub/IAC99pap.pdf

I also used a two launch architecture, with one launching a TLI stage and the other the Lunar spacecraft. Your solution to the problem was to transfer LOX to the TLI stage from a separate tank under the spacecraft. The solution I used was to increase the propellant mass in the spacecraft stage. Shortly after the TLI stage fires, it separates and the spacecraft fires its engines to complete the TLI burn. This means you only need to extend the length of the LSAM tanks. This may be a potentially attractive solution to avoid the "new technology" of LOX transfer in the current design. The TLI stage performs a small retro burn at apogee to burn up in the atmosphere.

The main point of my paper was in the impact of bringing up LOX from the Lunar surface for the lander. In my case I used Lunar orbit, but a Lagrange point like in your paper could equally be used. My results showed that total spacecraft mass to the Lunar surface and back to Earth could be increased by 71% using Lunar LOX for ascent only, and by 108% using Lunar orbit propellant transfer, at the expense of double the Lunar LOX production.

Steven,
Yes, Chuck was a particularly strong proponent of precisely that approach too.

It does remove the necessity to do any propellant transfer at all, but the downside is that it increases the tank mass on the descent stage of the lander - extra mass which then has to go through LOI and Descent.   Because we were pushing the propellant depot technology anyway, we went with that instead.

And yes, I'm personally very hopeful that ISRU Lunar processes won't take decades to develop and will be able to provide LOX to orbit for use.   But I'm under no illusions that that is going to take a lot of development first, not to mention quite a lot of infrastructure placed on the surface first too.   I don't think we can plan any of the early architectures around industrial capacity Lunar ISRU.   It's going to be one of those "future improvements" we are going to have to wait for.
Ross.
Steven;
Yes, I pushed really hard for that solution but in the end I couldn’t get past the additional, now useless mass of the spent tanks mass being brought all the way down to the lunar surface. That was just so much extra mass that the descent engines had to account for. However, I did come up with a solution to that as well; but we simply ran out of time as the deadline for the AIAA 2007 paper descended upon us. I proposed using a type of “drop tank(s)” to carry the additional propellant, and once it had been expended, to discard the tanks, thereby gaining the advantage of the additional deltaV provided by the longer propellant burn while not being penalized with the extra tank mass after the burn was completed. But like I said, we simply ran out of time. I still maintain that drop tanks are a reasonable way to address this condition. Perhaps we will be able to look at that again in the future.
Regards,
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/22/2008 08:22 pm
As I said holding the Delta IV center engine minimum power until the Strapons are separated, not throttling back up like Shuttle, is a performance benefit.  But the timing of the throttle down is to limit loads...  The more performance optimal point is not necessarily where the current throttle is, but holding full power any longer would result in increases in air loads.  Vehicle final design was done to those loads.  Therefore the throttle point has been used during multiple conceptional projects to manage loads if there is an increase in thrust or payload weight...  This goes beyond Heavy configurations and has come up in the concepts to add more SRMs to Mediums.

But I’m getting off topic...  Is there a performance benefit for throttling down the liquid engines of an NLS-type (AresV, DIRECT, etc) booster?  It came up because the RS-68B specs seemed to lack operation at minimum power level...  I found that interesting because the Shuttle operation includes some throttling (for load relief than g-maintenance).  I could of course have interpreted the RS-68B specs wrong.  But it would be interesting to see if a performance benefit to throttling like Delta IV was being left on the table.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2008 08:47 pm
Quote
TrueGrit - 22/1/2008  2:06 PM

I have a question on RS-68 throttle profiles...  Both Detla IV center CBC and Shuttle SSMEs are throttled down prior to max Q for load relief.  Delta IV uses this as a performance improvement by delaying throttle up until after Strapon CBC seperation.  I took note that Ares V does not apparently do any throttling...  Although I could be wrong.  What's the plan for DIRECT/Jupiter?  Have you looked into delaying throttle up?

We are getting maximum dynamic pressure (max-Q) numbers for Jupiter-120 below that of Shuttle (~720-725psf) - mostly because the two RS-68's are slightly less efficient than the three SSME's.   Jupiter-232 has a significantly lower max-Q because of all the extra weight it carries off the pad - EDS, propellant and 100mT payload.

Even though we are lower max-Q than Shuttle, we are currently assuming similar throttling to Shuttle for Jupiter-120 anyway - simply to reduce the stress on the entire stack through that nasty region of high pressure.   It may very well be possible to fly straight through without throttling at all though - which would marginally increase performance for this vehicle, but we aren't assuming so - just to be safe.

Either way, we still won't get close to the really nasty 816psf max-Q that Ares-I is going to experience and for which Orion is having to be designed to cope with, so we are well ahead of the game there.   Orion, designed to fly on Jupiter, could very well end up with a slightly lower total structure mass because of this.

The reason why Delta-IV's central Core is throttled down is because the two outboard Cores will be discarded early.   Throttling down preserves propellant in that central Core, and this is then used later on instead of needing another stage.   This approach only works because you dispose of the weight of the empty outboard Core's - this improves the T:W of the launcher considerably at that point which allows the single engine to have sufficient power to continue accelerating for a while longer.   Overall it produces quite an efficient profile.

Disposing of 2/3rds of the weight of the Core tank is clearly impossible for Jupiter to do though and for this configuration you really want as much power available, as early as possible because you're most difficult part of the flight is low down in the thick atmosphere climbing vertically out of this very steep gravity well.   While you need sufficient propellant to get you all the way to orbit, you also want to burn off all that propellant weight as fast as possible to improve the acceleration of your vehicle while you're still down in all that drag.   Full power as much as possible is the name of the game with this particular configuration.

The only other throttling done is to keep the system below 4g maximum acceleration in a short period prior to MECO - similar to Shuttle at 3g.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/22/2008 09:50 pm
Quote
TrueGrit - 22/1/2008  4:22 PM

As I said holding the Delta IV center engine minimum power until the Strapons are separated, not throttling back up like Shuttle, is a performance benefit.

It is not a "benefit".  It  throttles down to make the Heavy a viable vehicle.  Burning out the 3 CBC's at the same time does not provide any real advantage with a fixed sized upperstage.  If it were possible, it would be better to airstart the core, just a Titan III/IV's did, right before strapon burnout.  But 2 RS-68's aren't enough to lift the stack and the airstart issues

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/22/2008 10:36 pm
Ross,
I was guessing that the throttle wasn't needed was due to lower max q...  But as I'm sure you aware the much longer nose due to the payload fairing could still cause some load exceedances (as referenced to the Shuttle stack).  Since performance isn't a problem I would put in the "thrust bucket" for structural safety margin.  In particular I'd be worried about the larger versions (heavier and taller) causing problems with the LH2 tank and intertank areas which will increases the number of changes.

On the performance angle...  Your saying the stagging effect doesn't overcome the gravity/aero losses because the SRB seperation weight isn't as great of a percentage as the Delta IV strapon seperation weight?  Breakdown in strapon mass at liftoff seems to back this up with Jupiter-120 at ~58% and Delta IV at ~62%.  But with the breakdown in thrust (~80% for Jupiter-120 vs ~66% for Delta IV) seems to indicate that DIRECT can afford to loose the RS-68 thrust for 75 sec in exchange for more effecient use of that thrust after SRB seperation.  Either way it would be interesting to run a simulation to see if there is any performance being kept on the table.

As for the late throttling...  Are you assuming infinate power level selection (i.e. Shuttle and Atlas V)?  Or you assuming throttling all the way down to minimum power level.  Plots of acceleration in the AIAA paper seems to indicate infinate power selection.  RS-68 is only capable of two distinct power levels.  As standard process I would recommend including a throttle to minimum power just prior to MECO (high acceleration or not) based on Delta IV (and Atlas V) precident.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/22/2008 10:55 pm
Jim,
Are we talking past each-other?  I said the core MPL time is a performance benifit the first time...  What I clarified was that the timing of when you start MPL to begin with is due to load limitations.  As you said the optimal performance with a multi-body configuration might be to air light the core (ala Titan), if you get enough thrust from the Strapons alone to make it a true stage.  But Delta IV can't get off the ground, and once ignited the center engine thrust provides a benifit in getting past the gravity/aero losses.  There's an optimal point when overcomming losses is balanced by an improved staging effect.  That point is somewhere after when Delta IV clears the tower, or the core would be throttled down right after the pitch-over manuver is complete.  What I can say is that optimal performance point is not when current Delta IV throttles (50 sec)...  With the current throttle point set by a system trade which included load relief concerns.  Since aero losses increase dramatically as you approach max-q/mach-1 (not the same I know) keeping that thrust through this would seem benificial.  But the core is throttled long before then...  Why if performance was the only concern?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 01/22/2008 11:59 pm
Quote
kraisee - 21/1/2008  9:20 PM

PaulL,
Could I request a few changes in any future version?

The names of a few of the boosters is a touch confusing to me.   The original Ares-I should possibly be renamed the ESAS CaLV or LV-27.3.   Similarly the original Ares-I should be the ESAS CLV or LV-13.1.

The different "phases" for DIRECT is also a little ambiguous.   Perhaps names such as "WBC EDS" or "Baseline EDS" could be used instead.

And the mass options for the various Interstage and Payload Fairings could be expanded and given clear names to indicate what fits what for what purpose.

And you could add a box allowing you to specify the 'safety margin' percentage and automatically calculate the NET payload.

I think this might help a few people and also hopefully improve the performance results a little too.



Also, 157mT is considerably higher than that launcher will ever actually achieve.   I think the difference is created because of the SRB thrust curves myself.   I wonder if there is any way you can 'compensate' for them somehow?
Ross.

I have no problem changing the rockets' names to your suggestion and will implement that in the near future.

The Direct phases components are from your initial proposal with the RS-68 Regen. Those were usefull to test the CEPE accuracy during development as it allowed to test the same core tank with two different engines. But I am thinking to remove them now and only keep Direct 2.0 components.  In exchange, I would be interested to add the smaller EDS for the J-221 once your "baseball card" for that rocket is published.

With regard to interstage and fairing, I do not understand exactly your concern. For both the fairing and the interstage you have the option of entering your own selected mass or if you leave that value to zero CEPE will uses the calculated value derived from the element size (bottom and top/max) and the load above (estimated mass above time max g) for the interstage.

I like your idea of adding safety margin information and will implement that in my next update.

The 157 mT LEO payload capability of the ESAS LV-27.3 is only a theorical value as NASA has never published CaLV LEO payload numbers with full upper stages completely burnout to reach LEO. Although I have the "gut feeling" that this CaLV rocket has a large enough quantity of propellant and the required high perfomance engines to potentially reach such a high payload number, there might be other technical issues (such as core tank structural strength) which would invalidate such a configuration.

With regard to the SRB thrust curves, I am reluctant to change that as I want to keep the tool compatible with the EELV SRBs (CCB and GEM-60). I do not know if their thrust curves look similar to the Space Shuttle SRB curve. At this point, the only thing I have on the EELV SRBs is the limited information from astronautix.com.  So unless I can acquire more information I am not in a position to change CEPE's SRB formula.
 
PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/23/2008 12:29 am
Quote
PaulL - 22/1/2008  7:59 PM

With regard to the SRB thrust curves, I am reluctant to change that as I want to keep the tool compatible with the EELV SRBs (CCB and GEM-60). I do not know if their thrust curves look similar to the Space Shuttle SRB curve. At this point, the only thing I have on the EELV SRBs is the limited information from astronautix.com.  So unless I can acquire more information I am not in a position to change CEPE's SRB formula.
 
PaulL
Paul;
The thrust curve is significantly different.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/23/2008 01:19 am
Quote
Jim - 22/1/2008  4:09 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 21/1/2008  10:38 PM

A full interface specification will need writing and respecting for the J-120 interstage to the Orion & SM, other cargo, J-232 upper-stage, EELV upper-stage and EDS.

Where only two things fit together an interface document is a luxury since the implementations, requirements and meeting minutes act as the real interface specification.  The problems can be fixed by adjusting either side.  Where two objects fit onto the same connector the cost of writing the interface specification can be saved on the reduced cost of developing the second object.  With more than 2 objects the savings of both time and money are bigger.

Huh?  What is the point?  ICD's are SOP, even for only 2 items.  ICD used when there are different organizations supplying hardware, it is not determined by number of articles

The writing of ICDs being SOP - I refer you to some of your previous postings.  Something being officially required and actually getting written in advance are different things.  Two groups can communicate without the bureaucracy, 3+ need it and can actually use it to save time and money.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/23/2008 01:34 am
Quote
kraisee - 22/1/2008  1:09 AM

Here are some of the enhanced safety options which Jupiter-120 can support for ISS Crew Rotation Flights and similar activities.

Ross.
IMHO one more way to increase safety is to make top bulkhead of the top fuel tank a little bit stronger than the sides of the tank.
Then in a case of an explosion the energy of the explosion will find its way on the sides of the tank first throwing up the top bulkhead as a whole piece. This will reduce the amount or may be completely eliminate the amount shrapnel in the direction of the Crew Vehicle. Also the whole bulkhead will fly slower than the separate pieces reducing the damage to the spacecraft.
 
This kind of no cost design can be installed on any LV. But again Ares I does not have any additional performance to carry the extra weight.

Actually Ares I will probably have the stronger sides of the tanks to take care of the bending moments of the “Stick”. If so it will greatly reduce the chances of the crew in an explosion. I hope they will be wise not to save weight on the top bulkhead.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/23/2008 01:43 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 22/1/2008  9:19 PM

1.  actually getting written in advance are different things.

2.  3+ need it and can actually use it to save time and money.

1.  Not possible.   Need to be on contract.  Once on contract, requirements definition IRD/ICD development is first.

2.  Not really.  There are separate ICD's for each item
"J-120 interstage to the Orion & SM, other cargo, J-232 upper-stage, EELV upper-stage and EDS. "

that is at least 5 ICD's, additional ones for each "other cargo"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/23/2008 01:51 am
Is it possible to do what Keith Cowing did?
He got NASA to answer his questions.

“NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Responds to Ares 1 and Orion Questions”
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1266

Is it possible to get NASA to answer the question why Ares I with Ares V are better and less expensive than DIRECT?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/23/2008 01:58 am
Quote
Jim - 23/1/2008  2:43 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 22/1/2008  9:19 PM
{snip}
2.  3+ need it and can actually use it to save time and money.

2.  Not really.  There are separate ICD's for each item

Review the rules for writing ICDs.  A good interface standard works across several projects, certainly at the 90% level.

If interface standards did not work the same containers would not fit on trains, trucks, cranes and ships.  Cars would only be able to pull one design of caravan.  Different email programs would be unable to interwork and vending machines from different manufactures would not accept normal coins.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/23/2008 02:31 am
Quote
kraisee - 22/1/2008  11:01 PM

The more I think of it, the more I like the Service Module shielding.  Yes, it is a 989kg mass penalty to the Orion for a 2cm (0.79") thick boron-carbide shield under the CM, which then has to go through the entire mission - but if it can offer crew protection to the heat shield during ascent, TLI and even in the event of an Apollo-13 style SM 'explosion' it might well be worthwhile.

I also wonder about MMOD protection for the rest of the Orion's shell too.   With the Zero Base Vehicle it looks like all shielding and protective materials were removed and very little put back at all.

And there doesn't appear to be much in the way of radiation shielding either.

I wonder how the astronaut corps feels about that?

Ross.

I'm not an expert, but I've read up a bit on armour, so here's my $0.02

Of course, the entire stack may be supersonic when the explosion occurs, but I'm thinking of velocities and gases relative to the stack itself.

With the core tank exploding on a Jupiter-class, the debris is going to be Li/Al alloy. Sheet aluminium shreds like paper, so the debris is going to be slivers and crumpled sheets. Initial fireball velocity from a LH/LOX explosion could be around 4500 m/s, but I think it would be much lower. Anyway, I don't think the shrapnel would be very supersonic. Being light, large and tumbling, the tank bits would quite easily be deflected or absorbed. But other materials would go much faster and possibly penetrate fabric armour.

Bearing in mind that boron-carbide ceramic is designed to defeat pointed rifle bullets, it's probably best to have two plates with kevlar sandwiched in between. If anything penetrates the first plate, it will tumble and then be deflected by the second plate even if it passes through the kevlar. Otherwise just have spaced armour.

The other big problem is the overpressure wave (the effects of which I do not know much) but several bars of pressure that can crack the CM like an egg, so some extra structural beef-up may be required. However being designed to resist higher Max-Q would make that overpressure wave easier to survive.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Yegor on 01/23/2008 04:30 am
Ross,
You told that NASA was commanded from above to keep the Shuttle workforce.
Are they going to keep all the people who are manufacturing Shuttle LV (SRB, ET, SSME) between Shuttle retirement in 2010 to Ares I in 2015. What about those people who launch Shuttle what they will do from 2010 to 2015?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MB123 on 01/23/2008 07:59 am
How confident are the designers that the first stage will boost OK with solid and liquid fueled engines burning at the same time. I know it is done on the Shuttle but the structure and mass is different. Delta IV uses strap on solid boosters but they are relatively small. Energiya used an all liquid first stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/23/2008 11:37 am
Quote
TrueGrit - 22/1/2008  6:36 PM

Ross,
I was guessing that the throttle wasn't needed was due to lower max q...  But as I'm sure you aware the much longer nose due to the payload fairing could still cause some load exceedances (as referenced to the Shuttle stack).  Since performance isn't a problem I would put in the "thrust bucket" for structural safety margin.  In particular I'd be worried about the larger versions (heavier and taller) causing problems with the LH2 tank and intertank areas which will increases the number of changes.

There are a lot more factors than I personally know about.   What I can say is that our aero-dynamicist and our loads experts all told us we were in the clear for keeping full throttle through max-Q with this design.   But as a general rule, whenever we have a question like this, we tend to err on the side of caution - so we chose to do so in this case.   We throttle down the Jupiter-120 to 60% MPL, starting at T+30s, through T+60s, when we throttle back up to 102% normal MPL for the current RS-68.

Jupiter-232 experiences considerably lower dynamic pressure of 523psf (compared to 582psf for J-120 and 720psf for STS and 816psf for Ares-I).   This we did deem to be safe for full-throttle operation through max-Q, because dipping the throttles doesn't change it very much at all and we're trying to avoid throttling wherever possible due to potential resonance issues in all throttleable engines.


Quote
On the performance angle...  Your saying the stagging effect doesn't overcome the gravity/aero losses because the SRB seperation weight isn't as great of a percentage as the Delta IV strapon seperation weight?  Breakdown in strapon mass at liftoff seems to back this up with Jupiter-120 at ~58% and Delta IV at ~62%.  But with the breakdown in thrust (~80% for Jupiter-120 vs ~66% for Delta IV) seems to indicate that DIRECT can afford to loose the RS-68 thrust for 75 sec in exchange for more effecient use of that thrust after SRB seperation.  Either way it would be interesting to run a simulation to see if there is any performance being kept on the table.

Not quite what I was trying to say.

I wasn't actually including the SRB's in my previous comments - I assumed them to be a separate element outside of that particular discussion point.   I was comparing just the Core tank of Jupiter with the three separate Core's of Delta-IV Heavy.   It makes sense for DIVH to throttle the central Core down to preserve fuel and allow that RS-68 to burn longer after disposing of the weight of its two booster Cores.   But Jupiter-120 doesn't have the option to dispose of 2/3rds of it *Core* mass - it must obviously retain it all the way to orbit (unless you develop a 1.5 stage arrangement, but that would flush the development budget and schedule down the toilet).

For Jupiter-120, the best arrangement is to simply power through on full throttle as much as possible.   We did some simple preliminary tests to see if there was any 'mileage' to throttling down the Core while the SRB's did most of the work, but the results were negative.   The best performance for this configuration appears to be from just keepin' on truckin' and to provide the maximum power possible all the way through ascent, even down in the thick atmosphere.


Quote
As for the late throttling...  Are you assuming infinate power level selection (i.e. Shuttle and Atlas V)?  Or you assuming throttling all the way down to minimum power level.  Plots of acceleration in the AIAA paper seems to indicate infinate power selection.  RS-68 is only capable of two distinct power levels.  As standard process I would recommend including a throttle to minimum power just prior to MECO (high acceleration or not) based on Delta IV (and Atlas V) precident.

Yes, this is an issue we are aware of.   But we have assurances that this is something which can be taken care of during the human-rating process.   The mechanics of the engine are apparently quite capable of performing at different levels, but the exhaustive testing process has not yet operated the engines at all the different power settings to the required levels to validate them for this purpose.   A human-rating program over a period of ~4 years would, as one of its goals, re-validate the hardware for what you term infinite throttling.   We have budgeted a comfortable additional amount ($1bn) to allow for some hardware alterations should they be required to achieve this too.   At this time even PWR can't tell us for certain whether these would be necessary or not.   But Jupiter does assume RS-68 has been re-qualified to throttle precisely to requirement just as SSME does.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/23/2008 11:42 am
Quote
PaulL - 22/1/2008  7:59 PM

I have no problem changing the rockets' names to your suggestion and will implement that in the near future.

(SNIP)

Thanks PaulL.   I look forward to seeing the next revision whenever its ready.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/23/2008 11:48 am
Quote
Yegor - 22/1/2008  9:34 PM

Quote
kraisee - 22/1/2008  1:09 AM

Here are some of the enhanced safety options which Jupiter-120 can support for ISS Crew Rotation Flights and similar activities.

Ross.
IMHO one more way to increase safety is to make top bulkhead of the top fuel tank a little bit stronger than the sides of the tank.

(SNIP)

An interesting idea, so I went back to my information and it appears that the tank domes are already milled to thicker material than the tank walls.

This is interesting because I recall reading somewhere, that during the Challenger accident the LH2 tank ruptured and the lower tank dome apparently fell away fairly intact once structural integrity was lost and the propellant started surging out the bottom.   This would *seem* (I haven't seen any actual testing) to indicate that the tank walls are already the weaker location - perhaps even the joint between the walls and the domes - the Y-ring - may in fact be a naturally occurring location for any such devastating over-pressure to punch through already.

Its a good idea, but I will have to pass it on to one of the structures guys because I have no way to do any such calcs myself :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/23/2008 11:55 am
Quote
Yegor - 22/1/2008  9:51 PM

Is it possible to get NASA to answer the question why Ares I with Ares V are better and less expensive than DIRECT?

It is possible to get them to respond, yes.   But whether it would be a worthwhile response is another question.   The last time we got a response from NASA, we believe it didn't constitute a serious attempt to study the idea, but was merely an attack with no other purpose than to try to discredit the idea.

Which tack they would take if we demanded answers this time, is unpredictable IMHO.

Therefore we would rather NASA just quietly looks at the concept themselves (as they are doing) and sees for itself what the system can *really* do.   Then using that hard data, make the decision whether to go for it or not.

Of course, factors like Ares-I are potentially huge levers in this process and we just don't know what's going on there yet.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/23/2008 12:09 pm
Quote
Yegor - 23/1/2008  12:30 AM

Ross,
You told that NASA was commanded from above to keep the Shuttle workforce.
Are they going to keep all the people who are manufacturing Shuttle LV (SRB, ET, SSME) between Shuttle retirement in 2010 to Ares I in 2015. What about those people who launch Shuttle what they will do from 2010 to 2015?

This is the big issue.

The longer the gap lasts, the more difficult it will be to keep the staff productively occupied during the transition years.

A two year gap is easy to handle because there is lots of paperwork and new procedures to come up with - the staff can all be kept busy with useful productive work during that sort of time-frame.

A three or four year gap is doable - we saw that sort of 'gap' to regular flights after Columbia.   Many people will probably be twiddling their thumbs for a while, but its doable without major job redundancies.

Five or more years means you will have some thousands of highly paid engineers sitting around doing nothing for at least two years in both NASA and in the contractor workforce too.


The critical question becomes: At what point will the contractors decide to cut the staff numbers to save themselves money - thus increasing their profits - and just assume they can re-hire a new bunch in 'x' years time?

The answer isn't simple.   It will depend on each individual contractor and each individual project they are doing.   Policies on this will differ across the board.

But the simple fact is that the longer the 'gap' lasts, the more likely they will be to hand out pink slips.   4 years was the maximum gap proposed in the Presidential announcement, but Ares-I has forced a slip to 5 years already.

We are going to be entering a difficult patch for some IMHO.   Anyone working Shuttle structure, TPS or payloads, as well as a number of other systems when that program closes in 2010, if we have a 5-year gap looming, I would be prepared for 'that' letter come September 31st.   I expect ~5,000 prime-contract job losses at KSC alone.   A similar number at both JSC and MSFC too.   Other centers will lose staff too dependent on how much STS work they have.

My best guess right now is 20,000 job losses across the "NASA family" towards the end of 2010 if we stay on a 5-year gap plan.   If it grows to 6-years it will be slightly higher, if it is reduced to 4-years it will be slightly lower.

And FYI: NASA's civil servant workforce won't lose their jobs no matter how long this lasts, so this is primarily a contractor issue.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/23/2008 12:24 pm
Quote
MB123 - 23/1/2008  3:59 AM

How confident are the designers that the first stage will boost OK with solid and liquid fueled engines burning at the same time. I know it is done on the Shuttle but the structure and mass is different. Delta IV uses strap on solid boosters but they are relatively small. Energiya used an all liquid first stage.

Very.

The concept has been analysed a number of times before by NASA.   From early concepts dating back to 1979, to an in-line concept derived in the immediate wake of Challenger (alongside Shuttle-C) in 1986, to NLS in 1991, each of the NASA studies has reached various levels of depth (NLS probably being the best, getting as far as PDR), but none ever hit a show-stopper at any stage - except Congress not paying to implement them on top of Shuttle of course!

According to all existing analysis, this appears to be a solid and workable solution with a really great foundation in the existing Shuttle hardware.   The arrangement is not that dis-similar to previous arrangements seen on Titan vehicles and even Ariane-V.   Fundamentally the approach has been well researched previously and analysed in quite some detail.


Ares-V, while conceptually similar to Jupiter, has one unresolved issue which we don't though - At SRB ignition, the first sonic shockwaves will be in very close proximity to the RS-68 engines and we are awaiting results of studies of any potential impact there.

Jupiter has a lot more distance between the SRB nozzles and the RS-68 bells, and our SRB's are firing through separate chambers in the MLP from our RS-68's.   This different MLP arrangement very effectively isolate the RS-68's from those particularly nasty SRB effects on first ignition.

It is Ares-V's much wider MPS engine arrangement which means they will actually have to all be in the same exhaust hole as the SRB's - and the potential for damaging energy to resound in that shared exhaust chamber is thus going to be much higher.

We shall see what the analysis has to offer on that at some point in the future.   It may prove to not be a concern, but right now it is something we are curious to see whether we have a big advantage over Ares-V or not.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/23/2008 05:40 pm
Quote
Yes, this is an issue we are aware of.   But we have assurances that this is something which can be taken care of during the human-rating process.   The mechanics of the engine are apparently quite capable of performing at different levels, but the exhaustive testing process has not yet operated the engines at all the different power settings to the required levels to validate them for this purpose.   A human-rating program over a period of ~4 years would, as one of its goals, re-validate the hardware for what you term infinite throttling.   We have budgeted a comfortable additional amount ($1bn) to allow for some hardware alterations should they be required to achieve this too.   At this time even PWR can't tell us for certain whether these would be necessary or not.   But Jupiter does assume RS-68 has been re-qualified to throttle precisely to requirement just as SSME does.

That sounds reasonable...  Was just checking if you've accounted for the capability in the RS-68 human-rating program.  My understanding is that running the RS-68 between the two Delta IV power levels is limited by design choices to keep the system simple.  It's always been understood that human rating would involve at a minimum the additional of fault-detection abort capability.  A new engine controller could be designed combine both abort and multiple power levels if desired.  One thing that will have to be worked out is the power level limitations...  The power levels that can't be run at due to pump dynamics, etc.  As you have planned there would be a new certification process to demonstrate 2x time running continuously at these intermediate power levels.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/23/2008 05:47 pm
Quote
For Jupiter-120, the best arrangement is to simply power through on full throttle as much as possible.   We did some simple preliminary tests to see if there was any 'mileage' to throttling down the Core while the SRB's did most of the work, but the results were negative.   The best performance for this configuration appears to be from just keepin' on truckin' and to provide the maximum power possible all the way through ascent, even down in the thick atmosphere.

Sound like you've got it covered...  I've always wondered why some three-body configurations like Delta IV see the benifit, while others like DIRECT don't.  Something to work on the side.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/23/2008 06:01 pm
Quote
TrueGrit - 23/1/2008  1:47 PM

Sound like you've got it covered...  I've always wondered why some three-body configurations like Delta IV see the benifit, while others like DIRECT don't.  Something to work on the side.

The thrust differential is the reason and the portion of the overall thrust.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nathan on 01/23/2008 07:08 pm
ATK is talking about a new "2.5" segment SRB derivative for the planetspace COTS proposal. It would be interesting to see the performance of a Jupiter 120 using two of these instead of the full four segment boosters. I'm aware that a "stumpy" version has been studied by NASA previously. The idea being that The four segment version would be used for the lunar architecture whilst 2.5 would be used for low earth orbit ISS missions. Could there be any operational cost savings here? Obviously there is not as much solid rocket fuel needed so that would be a saving and there is less stacking required so some possible savings there.
Any thoughts?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/23/2008 07:25 pm
The whole basis of DIRECT is to build and support only one rocket, so the development costs and operations costs are contained.  The J-120 and J-232 are proposed as only one rocket - just with and without an upper stage.  Both use the same engines (SRBs and RS-68s) and the same core (STS-derived).  Supporting a different booster with a different attachment scheme, attached at different places with likely a different core (beam in the wrong place) will increase, not decrease operational and development costs.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/23/2008 07:34 pm
Quote
Nathan - 23/1/2008  3:08 PM

I'm aware that a "stumpy" version has been studied by NASA previously.?

It wasn't really studied by NASA, only some launch base guys came up with it
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nathan on 01/23/2008 08:56 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 24/1/2008  5:25 AM

The whole basis of DIRECT is to build and support only one rocket, so the development costs and operations costs are contained.  The J-120 and J-232 are proposed as only one rocket - just with and without an upper stage.  Both use the same engines (SRBs and RS-68s) and the same core (STS-derived).  Supporting a different booster with a different attachment scheme, attached at different places with likely a different core (beam in the wrong place) will increase, not decrease operational and development costs.

Development costs would be cheaper than 5 segment booster since it doesn't have to support the weight of an EDs above it. Also - IF picked for COTS the development cost can be shared. The attachment point issue can be easily soved with an appropriately placed ring brace. More importantly no new crawlers are needed.
Just a thought.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/24/2008 11:03 am
At a cost of $140m, a standard 50mT to LEO cargo Jupiter-120 looks pretty good value if any of the COTS teams can figure out a way to 'buy' launches.

It sure looks good value compared to the little information we have available (publicly) about competition:-

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/jul/HQ_C06042_LRO_contract.html



I can only imagine that they would have to sign an agreement to lease access to NASA's pads, and then 'buy' the launcher's parts directly from each of the major suppliers: PWR for RS-68's, LM for the Core, ATK for a pair of SRB's, [whoever gets the contract - Boeing or USA?] for launch processing, launch operations and payload services.

That's about the only way NASA isn't selling the flight.   As long as they cover their costs for access to the only suitable pad infrastructure, it should be 'workable' somehow.   And it really would still be mostly a "commercial" arrangement.

Agh, who knows :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/24/2008 11:24 am
It’s a little OT (there is no thread for this yet), but does anybody know if the LRO will carry DoD quality optics or what the resolution of the ground survey will be?

And yes Ross, there needs to be some mechanism for NASA to be allowed to cover launch services for the commercial market when requested once the Jupiter comes on line. In addition to the occasional commercial launch, other nations may wish to have heavy payloads lofted that they don’t have the capability to lift themselves.

Perhaps there should be a separate entity created to market Jupiter's capability and that entity would be under federal oversight and be responsible for bringing all the disparate pieces together. Then NASA would be dealing only with that one federal entity.

This could even potentially allow other nations to develop their own manned spacecraft designed to be launched on a Jupiter. There are many nations around the world that are capable of such a spacecraft, but that don’t have, and because of their geographical location, cannot ever launch them themselves. Hmm. A new potential market?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/24/2008 12:19 pm
Quote
kraisee - 24/1/2008  7:03 AM

At a cost of $140m, a standard 50mT to LEO cargo Jupiter-120 looks pretty good value if any of the COTS teams can figure out a way to 'buy' launches.

It sure looks good value compared to the little information we have available (publicly) about competition:-

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/jul/HQ_C06042_LRO_contract.html


That is by far the worse 401 mission to use as a comparison.   There are two spacecraft involved and major mission unique modifications and services.

This is 12 million less but still has additions

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/oct/HQ_C07050_LDCM_Launch_Services.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/24/2008 12:25 pm
Quote
kraisee - 24/1/2008  7:03 AM

At a cost of $140m, a standard 50mT to LEO cargo Jupiter-120 looks pretty good value if any of the COTS teams can figure out a way to 'buy' launches.

   As long as they cover their costs for access to the only suitable pad infrastructure, it should be 'workable' somehow.   And it really would still be mostly a "commercial" arrangement.


Ross, I like Direct.  But I don't believe your numbers.  The KSC LC-39 infrastructure, the MSFC propulsion and JSC flight design support are not accounted for.  

You should have seen the costs to launch an EELV off of LC-39.  Not the development costs but the O&M.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/24/2008 12:30 pm
Quote
clongton - 24/1/2008  7:24 AM

It’s a little OT (there is no thread for this yet), but does anybody know if the LRO will carry DoD quality optics or what the resolution of the ground survey will be?


It is similar to MRO
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 01/24/2008 03:24 pm
Jim,
Quote
Ross, I like Direct.  But I don't believe your numbers.

Yeah.  I've always been skeptical about his financial numbers.  But not just on the DIRECT side, on the EELV side too.  I do agree that DIRECT should be much cheaper than Ares, but his numbers still don't jibe with stuff I've heard from people directly involved with the Atlas V program (ironically some of the same people who got the DIRECT team the data they're using for their ICES upper stage).

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/24/2008 05:26 pm
If this was Britain I would be expecting Jupiter Launch Services Inc. to be privatised by selling it on the stock market.  NASA Operations, NASA Exploration and the Big Satellite Co could then purchase its services.

Article on the privatisation of electricity in Britain.
http://blogs.spokenword.ac.uk/ecoe404/files/2007/07/electricity.doc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/24/2008 05:41 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 24/1/2008  1:26 PM

If this was Britain I would be expecting Jupiter Launch Services Inc. to be privatised by selling it on the stock market.  NASA Operations, NASA Exploration and the Big Satellite Co could then purchase its services.


Can't.  It is too ingrained with NASA, too much GFE, too much common facilites.    Only thing that can be done is have a contractor operate it like USA does for the shuttle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/24/2008 05:47 pm
Quote
Jim - 24/1/2008  1:41 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 24/1/2008  1:26 PM

If this was Britain I would be expecting Jupiter Launch Services Inc. to be privatised by selling it on the stock market.  NASA Operations, NASA Exploration and the Big Satellite Co could then purchase its services.


Can't.  It is too ingrained with NASA, too much GFE, too much common facilites.    Only thing that can be done is have a contractor operate it like USA does for the shuttle.
I wonder if an act of Congress could change NASA from a federal "agency" into a federal "corporation", similar to the TVA. That would allow it to not only receive federal monies, but also to earn a profit from the outside world on the sale of its services.

Hmmmm. Might be a way to get the space program off the federal teet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 01/24/2008 05:50 pm
Quote
clongton - 24/1/2008  1:47 PM

Quote
Jim - 24/1/2008  1:41 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 24/1/2008  1:26 PM

If this was Britain I would be expecting Jupiter Launch Services Inc. to be privatised by selling it on the stock market.  NASA Operations, NASA Exploration and the Big Satellite Co could then purchase its services.


Can't.  It is too ingrained with NASA, too much GFE, too much common facilites.    Only thing that can be done is have a contractor operate it like USA does for the shuttle.
I wonder if an act of Congress could change NASA from a federal "agency" into a federal "corporation", similar to the TVA. That would allow it to not only receive federal monies, but also to earn a profit from the outside world on the sale of its services.

Hmmmm. Might be a way to get the space program off the federal teet.

How happy are you with the post office?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/24/2008 06:16 pm
Quote
William Barton - 24/1/2008  1:50 PM
Quote
clongton - 24/1/2008  1:47 PM
I wonder if an act of Congress could change NASA from a federal "agency" into a federal "corporation", similar to the TVA. That would allow it to not only receive federal monies, but also to earn a profit from the outside world on the sale of its services.

Hmmmm. Might be a way to get the space program off the federal teet.
How happy are you with the post office?
It’s got its problems, but:
(1) I always get my mail and
(2) it doesn’t depend upon the annual budget circus in Congress to keep operating, while at the same time it does have federal funding to fall back on.

At least it would be able to get away from being so dependant on a shortsighted Congress for long term programs. It could have a federally funded floor, which keeps it operating in the interests of the nation, but if there’s a program they want to go do, they would be free to go out and raise the funding from the public if the federal monies weren’t enough. It would be better than the strangled hold it has to live with now under congress-critters who don’t know a launch vehicle from a roller coaster and can’t see past the next 2-year election cycle.

If they had to convince the public that a program was worth doing in order to get it funded, PAO would be doing a lot better job, and things the nation didn't care about wouldn't suck away federal money while the things the nation did want would actually get funded.

Hmmm. Give the people what they want and don't make them pay for stuff they don't. What a novel idea. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/24/2008 10:02 pm
Quote
clongton - 24/1/2008  1:47 PM
I wonder if an act of Congress could change NASA from a federal "agency" into a federal "corporation", similar to the TVA. That would allow it to not only receive federal monies, but also to earn a profit from the outside world on the sale of its services.

Hmmmm. Might be a way to get the space program off the federal teet.

NASA job is not to make money.  Its science program could never make money.  Neither could the research on aero side.  NASA just needs to get out of the launcher business
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/24/2008 10:12 pm
Quote
Jim - 24/1/2008  6:02 PM

Quote
clongton - 24/1/2008  1:47 PM
I wonder if an act of Congress could change NASA from a federal "agency" into a federal "corporation", similar to the TVA. That would allow it to not only receive federal monies, but also to earn a profit from the outside world on the sale of its services.

Hmmmm. Might be a way to get the space program off the federal teet.

NASA job is not to make money.  Its science program could never make money.  Neither could the research on aero side.  NASA just needs to get out of the launcher business
Then perhaps peel off the launch business from NASA and make them purchase their launch services.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 01/24/2008 10:51 pm
Chuck,
Quote
Then perhaps peel off the launch business from NASA and make them purchase their launch services.

Make NASA buy it's own launch services?  Force SDLVs to compete in the marketplace (or go away if they can't compete)?  Sounds like a great idea to me.  
~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/24/2008 11:03 pm
Quote
clongton - 24/1/2008  6:12 PM

Quote
Jim - 24/1/2008  6:02 PM

Quote
clongton - 24/1/2008  1:47 PM
I wonder if an act of Congress could change NASA from a federal "agency" into a federal "corporation", similar to the TVA. That would allow it to not only receive federal monies, but also to earn a profit from the outside world on the sale of its services.

Hmmmm. Might be a way to get the space program off the federal teet.

NASA job is not to make money.  Its science program could never make money.  Neither could the research on aero side.  NASA just needs to get out of the launcher business
Then perhaps peel off the launch business from NASA and make them purchase their launch services.

They already do.  Just need to shutdown the shuttle and provide requirements for mass to orbit
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/25/2008 03:43 am
*I* have no problem with making the SDLV options compete in the marketplace, but I don't think the post-Columbia NASA mentality will actually allow them to "just" buy any commercial launches from someone else for their crews.   They got pasted by that last accident, it was a major national embarrassment on the international stage and as the government agency responsible they got severely reamed.

It doesn't actually surprise me that they now want full and total control of their destiny, come hell or high water.   *I* would probably do the same in their shoes - at least until rockets become as safe for crews as airliners anyway.

Whether you agree or not, it is actually also *LAW* in these United States, that NASA must re-use Shuttle as much as possible to implement any new architecture.   They couldn't just ignore Congress' orders without severe and lasting repercussions, even if they wanted to.

To do anything different is going to *first* require a new Act of Congress to change NASA's standing orders.   The government is currently disallowing NASA from pursuing anything which isn't an SDLV.


Totally apart from that they really do believe that they have a less expensive solution.   While their figures for Ares are not so 'optimistic' IMHO, they certainly believe it and without publishing all the proprietary figures publicly I don't believe there is any way to argue the point successfully.   As that's never going to happen through official channels, there can be little more than the usual speculation, claims and counter-claims which are a waste of everyone's time.


For DIRECT, we've gone to a lot of trouble to try to show the bottom-line comparisons.   We are never going to reveal any proprietary information, but we are going to show the real-world comparisons as much as we can.


There are clear fundamental differences between the 2-launch SDLV options and the 8-launch EELV options.

The fixed costs are higher for the larger boosters, but the launch cost are lower because there's fewer launches.

Using very rough numbers, Jupiter ultimately costs about $1bn more every year in fixed costs than human-rated EELV, and Ares about $1bn more again.   But every Lunar mission will cost about $600m more with EELV, simply because there are considerably more launch vehicles involved.


Where to draw the line ultimately boils down to how many missions you are planning to have each year and over what period the program is expected to operate - or at least when it is expected to pay back that investment.

NASA is planning a program duration of a number of decades - say 30 years or so just for a number.   And NASA is planning for at least 2 crew and 2 more Cargo missions every year.

In that context, the total outlay for Ares development 'breaks even' compared to EELV within about 10-12 years - one-third of the way through the program.   After that their system will result in lower costs until the end of that program - this is specifically where the CxP claim of "lower life-cycle costs" actually comes from.   According to this, across the entire life-cycle of the program, it will indeed be cheaper than EELV.   And No, for the record, I don't particularly consider it a very convincing argument either!   But *they* do.


DIRECT plans far less costly developments, and a cheaper operating environment for the single launcher every year than Ares.   Our projections show all of the developments costs pay for themselves and Jupiter 'breaks even' within 2 years compared to EELV.   I consider that to be a short enough period to make the early investment reasonable.   After that time, the program will cost NASA about $1-2bn less every year than either Ares or EELV options, and that seems worthwhile and desirable.


Of course, some just don't want, or refuse, to believe the numbers we have shown.   I really can't do much about that because we seem to be the first group to actually have completed such research and just have no peers to reference against.

All I can say is that the projections fit very closely the few publicly available data sources, such as the NASA press announcement regarding the cost for the Atlas-V 401 for MSL, and the limited breakdown costs for various Shuttle elements which have appeared over the years in a variety of NASA Budgets.   There aren't many other sources in the public domain, but these give us additional confidence that our sources have been of very high quality.

At that point I don't know what else can be said.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: david_zz_smith on 01/25/2008 11:56 am
Quote
Jim - 24/1/2008  6:03 PM

Quote
clongton - 24/1/2008  6:12 PM

Quote
Jim - 24/1/2008  6:02 PM

Quote
clongton - 24/1/2008  1:47 PM
I wonder if an act of Congress could change NASA from a federal "agency" into a federal "corporation", similar to the TVA. That would allow it to not only receive federal monies, but also to earn a profit from the outside world on the sale of its services.

Hmmmm. Might be a way to get the space program off the federal teet.

NASA job is not to make money.  Its science program could never make money.  Neither could the research on aero side.  NASA just needs to get out of the launcher business
Then perhaps peel off the launch business from NASA and make them purchase their launch services.

They already do.  Just need to shutdown the shuttle and provide requirements for mass to orbit

The USG is already required to competitively bid most services.  This would be consistent.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/25/2008 03:16 pm
Jut to give perspective..  USG and NASA treat the manned space program like the DoD treats a wing of the Air Force.  While they may bid out design, manufacturing, and mantainance the will never bid out the operational aspects.  Just like you'll never see the Air Force bid out dropping a bomb or performing a reconissance mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: imcub on 01/25/2008 04:31 pm
Quote
TrueGrit - 25/1/2008  8:16 AM

Jut to give perspective..  USG and NASA treat the manned space program like the DoD treats a wing of the Air Force.  While they may bid out design, manufacturing, and mantainance the will never bid out the operational aspects.  Just like you'll never see the Air Force bid out dropping a bomb or performing a reconissance mission.

Oh, I don't know ... doesn't the CIA use reconnaisance drones to fire hellfire missiles?  And the Army/marines are certainly outsourcing security in Iraq.  Not quite the same ... but its getting close.  I'm not sure I would use the word 'never' ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/25/2008 04:47 pm
Quote
imcub - 25/1/2008  12:31 PM

Quote
TrueGrit - 25/1/2008  8:16 AM

Jut to give perspective..  USG and NASA treat the manned space program like the DoD treats a wing of the Air Force.  While they may bid out design, manufacturing, and mantainance the will never bid out the operational aspects.  Just like you'll never see the Air Force bid out dropping a bomb or performing a reconissance mission.

Oh, I don't know ... And the Army/marines are certainly outsourcing security in Iraq.  Not quite the same ... but its getting close.  I'm not sure I would use the word 'never' ...
The mindset that is driving that type tacky outsourcing will hpoefully be properly disposed of in January '09.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 01/25/2008 08:39 pm
Quote
kraisee - 24/1/2008  8:43 PM

Whether you agree or not, it is actually also *LAW* in these United States, that NASA must re-use Shuttle as much as possible to implement any new architecture.   They couldn't just ignore Congress' orders without severe and lasting repercussions, even if they wanted to.

That's... interesting...

So, is simply reusing the SRB casings sufficient to meet that requirement?  It doesn't seem to me like it would.

It seems like somebody in Congress should call them on it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: yinzer on 01/25/2008 09:58 pm
All of this "but this is what the law says" stuff is a red herring.

The 2005 NASA authorization act says that NASA has to use Shuttle components and workers as much as possible consistent with a successful development program.  Of course, it also says that the policy of the United States is posses the capability for human access to space on a continual basis, which Griffin has made a mockery of.  It also says that NASA is to aggressively pursue automated rendezvous and docking capabilities, which NASA isn't doing.  There is clearly a lot of flexibility in the overall strategy that can be pursued.

One could easily argue that when you are looking for someone to design the new launch vehicle that is critical to maintaining future human space access, that choosing an organization with recent successful unmanned launch vehicle development experience is better than choosing an organization that had successful manned launch vehicle development thirty years ago but nothing since.  You could even argue that this might very well make the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful development program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/26/2008 07:00 am
yinzer,
I agree there is quite a bit of flexibility, but all of the major decisions will be overseen by Congress, and any major deviations are sure to be brought up at hearings - as has already happened a few times, and will probably continue to happen.

As long as Griffin never does something to p*ss off one of his Congressional questioners, he will likely get away with it.   But if he tweaks the wrong person the wrong way, he will get it in the neck.

While Ares doesn't use much of the existing Shuttle hardware, it does still preserve the majority of the workforce.   Congress-folk don't much care about whether NASA uses this chunk of metal or that one to get the job done anywhere near as much as they are concerned about losing jobs in their local districts.   As long as the changes don't lead down that path, their interest level will remain 'low'.

As long as Griffins changes are of no significant interest to the politicians overseeing the program they will let him steer his own course.   But if he were to impact the politicians in their personal "high threat" zones, he would make serious enemies with the people keeping him in his job and giving his agency their money.

He'd be certifiable if he chose to do that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 01/26/2008 01:39 pm
Quote
kraisee - 23/1/2008  6:42 AM

Quote
PaulL - 22/1/2008  7:59 PM

I have no problem changing the rockets' names to your suggestion and will implement that in the near future.

(SNIP)

Thanks PaulL.   I look forward to seeing the next revision whenever its ready.

Ross.

A new version of the CaLV/EELV Payload estimator (CEPE) spreadsheet is available at www.paul.enutrofal.com.  In addition to changing some rocket names, I added units (kg, m2, ...) to all value fields to improve user friendliness.  CEPE now displays net and gross payload values as well as some details on the orbital/inserted load.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/26/2008 09:41 pm
As far as CIA firing missiles from drones...  First off CIA officers are representatives of the USG who operate on the front-line side-by-side with Marines and soldiers.  They see more of the front-line than most pilots do...  And secondly, many of those drone operators are in fact DoD personal operating under CIA instructions.  Air America is dead and is not acceptable in today's political enviornment...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/27/2008 04:56 am
Guys, can we please take any further CIA drone chat and outsourcing topics to a different thread?

Ta, Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/27/2008 05:54 pm
There was some noise last month when there was mention of EELV and Jupiter 120 being evaluated by NASA versus Ares I.  Any news from the NASA or DIRECT side on the evaluation process?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 01/27/2008 06:18 pm
Griffin's office DID form a team late last year to look into other launch systems, that would work as far as placing Orion into orbit.
That is 100% fact, as members of this forum had direct and indirect contact with said team.
From what we were told, a EELV was the first choice and Direct was second.
Since an EELV would do nothing to retain the Shuttle work force, the EELV is not politically acceptable.
That leaves Direct as the front runner.
We were not told where Ares I placed in the study.
That is all that any of us know.
The members of the study team, may have been transfered to Alaska, for returning the "wrong" answer for all we know.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/27/2008 06:57 pm
Another RS-68 use question...  In your human-rating project is there a plan to update the ablative nozzle extension?  I'd be surprised if the current ablative nozzle is acceptable.  The current nozzle is certified for Delta IV flight durations which are less than either Jupiter.  And if so have you investigated if a different nozzle expansion area would be more optimal for the Jupiter flight profile?  It's unsure if the existing tooling could support the ablative material increase, and it might be a minimal cost to incorporate a different length nozzle if new tooling is required.  It would also be a minimal impact to Delta IV commonality because like most nozzle extensions it is installed post acceptance test.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/27/2008 11:00 pm
Quote
TrueGrit - 27/1/2008  2:57 PM

Another RS-68 use question...  In your human-rating project is there a plan to update the ablative nozzle extension?  I'd be surprised if the current ablative nozzle is acceptable.  The current nozzle is certified for Delta IV flight durations which are less than either Jupiter.  And if so have you investigated if a different nozzle expansion area would be more optimal for the Jupiter flight profile?  It's unsure if the existing tooling could support the ablative material increase, and it might be a minimal cost to incorporate a different length nozzle if new tooling is required.  It would also be a minimal impact to Delta IV commonality because like most nozzle extensions it is installed post acceptance test.
We are assuming no upgrades whatsoever to the RS-68 excepting the man-rating process. The performance of the existing RS-68 used with the Jupiter configuration is quite adequate for all the VSE tasks that are required, including the lunar, NEO and Martian missions.

Should the planned USAF upgrade to the engine to allow nominal operation at 106% actually be done, the Jupiter would use it of course. However, the Jupiter launch vehicle does NOT need this upgrade. But that is the only upgrade on the horizon.There are no current plans to upgrade the nozzle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 01/27/2008 11:48 pm
The RS-68 has been fired for about half an hour on the test stand (I believe; might be wrong).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/28/2008 12:22 am
Quote
tnphysics - 27/1/2008  7:48 PM

The RS-68 has been fired for about half an hour on the test stand (I believe; might be wrong).
That was one of the things we very specifically examined. It was fired for quite a bit longer than that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 01/28/2008 12:22 am
SSME, Yes (30 plus minutes at Stennis)
RS-68, I do not think so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/28/2008 12:31 am
Quote
Scotty - 27/1/2008  8:22 PM

SSME, Yes (30 plus minutes at Stennis)
RS-68, I do not think so.
Scotty. I'll have to look back at the records I have in my office. But I remember us carefully checking this specifically because the Jupiter would be running the engine longer than the Delta-IV. I specifically remember that it was certified for far longer than a Jupiter would be running it. I will check my paperwork at the office in the morning and get back to this thread with the exact number tomorrow.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Fequalsma on 01/28/2008 02:06 am
Quote
kraisee - 23/1/2008  6:48 AM

An interesting idea, so I went back to my information and it appears that the tank domes are already milled to thicker material than the tank walls.

This is interesting because I recall reading somewhere, that during the Challenger accident the LH2 tank ruptured and the lower tank dome apparently fell away fairly intact once structural integrity was lost and the propellant started surging out the bottom.   This would *seem* (I haven't seen any actual testing) to indicate that the tank walls are already the weaker location - perhaps even the joint between the walls and the domes - the Y-ring - may in fact be a naturally occurring location for any such devastating over-pressure to punch through already.

Ross -

Thanks for your reply to my earlier questions about developing the "stretched" ET for Direct.  My eyeball estimate of the increased LH2 volume available is about 10 percent, so this would get you pretty close to your additional 5-7 percent for the RS-68s.  BTW, how do you define this optimum point?

Regarding the discussion above about the ET dome thicknesses, the barrel should be thicker than the domes - based strictly on pressure sizing.  The wall thickness tb of a cylindrical barrel under internal pressure p is:  tb = (p x R x FS)/(s), where R is the cylinder radius, s is the material stress, and FS is a factor of safety on the stress or load.  The wall thickness td of an ellipsoidal dome varies from equator to apex.  However, at the equator, the dome thickness is:  td = (p x R x FS)/(2 x s), or half of the barrel thickness tb.  

So I found in my handy Shuttle ET System Definition Handbook (8/1987, volume 2, page III-15) a nice dimensioned drawing of the LH2 tank barrel and aft LH2 dome for the Lightweight Tank.  Unfortunately, I cannot find any similar dimensions for the forward LH2 dome or the aft LO2 dome in this document.

This drawing shows several circumferential stiffener bands aft of the tank equator on the 0.200 inch-thick dome to resist local buckling when the tank is partially full.  Aft of the stiffeners, the dome gores are all 0.200 inches thick around their edges (for weld lands), and this thickness is tapered (moving aft) down to 0.096 inches near the "shoulders" of the ellipsoidal profile.  Further aft of the shoulders, the center of each gore is chem-milled down to a minimum thickness of 0.081 inches.

The tank barrel near the barrel-aft dome intersection ring frame (39 inches deep!) at station 2058 is at least 0.380 inches thick.  Moving forward on the barrel, the skin thickness aft of the station 1871 ring frame is at least 0.320 inches.  For the barrel section just forward of station 1871, the minimum wall thickness is 0.250 inches.  I realize that these dimensions are different for the current Superlightweight Tank with orthogrid walls.  Does anyone have any dimensions for them?

I had also heard something similar about the aft LH2 dome separating on Challenger.  Although I think that saying it “fell away” may not quite be the case, as a quick calc shows that it was separated with a pretty substantial force.  Roughly, F = p x A = 35 psi x pi x (165 in.)^2 => ~3Mlb.  I agree that the failure most likely occurred at or near the station 2058 barrel-dome intersection as you suggested, since there is a very large stress discontinuity there already (see eq'ns above).

Cheers,
F=ma

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Fequalsma on 01/28/2008 02:17 am
Quote
PaulL - 26/1/2008  8:39 AM

A new version of the CaLV/EELV Payload estimator (CEPE) spreadsheet is available at www.paul.enutrofal.com.  In addition to changing some rocket names, I added units (kg, m2, ...) to all value fields to improve user friendliness.  CEPE now displays net and gross payload values as well as some details on the orbital/inserted load.

PaulL -

This is very nice work - thanks!  Have you modeled the Shuttle and Saturn V as well?  If you have, can you share your results?

Cheers,
F=ma

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/28/2008 06:08 am
Quote
There are no current plans to upgrade the nozzle.

It's certainly acceptable to plan on keeping the same expansion ratio...  That's in line with NASA’s plan for the Ares V.  Was just doing some brainstorming there...

But I don't believe your going find the current RS-68 ablative nozzle extension acceptable.  As I've said the ablative nozzle is sized for Delta IV operation, and the planned Jupiter burn time is much larger.  I don't know where you got your information, but the RS68 nozzle was never tested and sized beyond what was necessary for Delta IV.  NASA in fact specifically mentioned that the RS-68 nozzle wouldn't be acceptable for Ares V.  This wasn't due to the RS-68 engine upgrade, but because of a longer burn time...

Delta IV:     255 sec
Ares V:       300 sec
Jupiter 120: 446 sec
Jupiter 232: 292 sec

I'd say since NASA and PWR have already done studies on this the Ares V plan would work for Jupiter 232.  But I think your going to find a big problem with the Jupiter 120...  At over 1.7x the ablative material required I think your going to run into lots of problems.  From tooling to make the nozzle, to material structural strength with such a thick layer, to engine loads increasing beyond qualification due to the heavier nozzle.

As for the comments that the RS-68 has been tested anywhere near a half hour…  It never happened.  The longest continuous firing I’ve ever heard of is 425 sec during the final stages of engine development…  Jupiter 120 will need to a ~535 sec test firing to demonstrate margin to flight.

These problems pose very large risks to DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 01/28/2008 09:12 am
TrueGrit
Quote
- 28/1/2008  9:08 AM
I'm realy curious to see the answer.

I expressed my own doubts about using RS-68 basically as-is for Direct, especially for J-120:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7868&start=856
[edit : link]
That was back in June 26, 2007. Never got an answer.

And now I have one more question; I think the problem was raised before, but cannot remember where.
The question stems from the about 50 seconds of constant, limited 4g acceleration at the end of J-120 ascent. That implies continuous thrust variation for the 2 RS-68 .
But PWR declare - in such documents as "PropulsionForThe21stCentury-RS-68.doc" - only two power levels:
Quote
In-flight operation uses power settings of 101 or 58 percent in various standard mission profiles, with burn durations between 250 and 350 seconds. Two-power level operation simplifies control and component complexity, thereby contributing to reduced cost

Edit: I found who mentioned RS-68 continuous throttling as a problem...

TrueGrit
Quote
As for the late throttling... Are you assuming infinate power level selection (i.e. Shuttle and Atlas V)? Or you assuming throttling all the way down to minimum power level. Plots of acceleration in the AIAA paper seems to indicate infinate power selection. RS-68 is only capable of two distinct power levels. As standard process I would recommend including a throttle to minimum power just prior to MECO (high acceleration or not) based on Delta IV (and Atlas V) precident.
Ross:
Quote
Yes, this is an issue we are aware of. But we have assurances that this is something which can be taken care of during the human-rating process. The mechanics of the engine are apparently quite capable of performing at different levels, but the exhaustive testing process has not yet operated the engines at all the different power settings to the required levels to validate them for this purpose. A human-rating program over a period of ~4 years would, as one of its goals, re-validate the hardware for what you term infinite throttling. We have budgeted a comfortable additional amount ($1bn) to allow for some hardware alterations should they be required to achieve this too. At this time even PWR can't tell us for certain whether these would be necessary or not. But Jupiter does assume RS-68 has been re-qualified to throttle precisely to requirement just as SSME does.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/28/2008 11:18 am
Quote
renclod - 28/1/2008  5:12 AM

TrueGrit
Quote
- 28/1/2008  9:08 AM
I'm realy curious to see the answer.

I expressed my own doubts about using RS-68 basically as-is for Direct, especially for J-120:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7868&mid=156033#M156033
That was back in June 26, 2007. Never got an answer.

And now I have one more question; I think the problem was raised before, but cannot remember where.
The question stems from the about 50 seconds of constant, limited 4g acceleration at the end of J-120 ascent. That implies continuous thrust variation for the 2 RS-68 .
But PWR declare - in such documents as "PropulsionForThe21stCentury-RS-68.doc" - only two power levels:
Quote
In-flight operation uses power settings of 101 or 58 percent in various standard mission profiles, with burn durations between 250 and 350 seconds. Two-power level operation simplifies control and component complexity, thereby contributing to reduced cost
PWR documentation informs us that the engine is actually “capable” of several different power levels, but that was not a requirement for the Delta-IV program. Therefore it was only certified for the 2 power levels that the Delta program needed because of the cost of certifying for other, unrequired power levels. Notice that the documentation you cited only speaks of the power levels used for the Delta application (In-flight operation uses power settings of 101 or 58 percent). We have budgeted certification for the different power levels needed for the manned operations as part of the man rating process. PWR engineers have informed us that the power levels required for the manned operations on the Jupiter are well within the capabilities of the engine. Only certification is needed for them. I know NASA is planning the identical certification in addition to the 106% nominal operation level of the USAF upgrade because it will need the same capability with the man rated Ares-V.

I apologize if you didn’t get a satisfactory answer last summer. We were working very hard on the AIAA paper and unfortunately your question fell thru the cracks. I apologize for that. The next time anything like happens, please PM one of us. That will get our attention and will get you an answer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 01/28/2008 11:33 am
clongton
Quote
- 28/1/2008  2:18 PM
OK Chuck no big deal if I waste a post.

To the point - I still don't get it. Again:

PWR:
Quote
 Two-power level operation simplifies control and component complexity, thereby contributing to reduced cost
Direct team:  
Quote
Only certification is needed for them.
What's it gonna be ? More component and control complexity... or just more testing and certification ?

I am realy interested in this. Ares-V and J-232 use the RS-68 as first stage engines. Probably no continuous throttling required.
J-120 wants to use them as orbital insertion stage engines. Continuous throttling required [?].


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/28/2008 11:57 am
Quote
renclod - 28/1/2008  7:33 AM

clongton
Quote
- 28/1/2008  2:18 PM
OK Chuck no big deal if I waste a post.

To the point - I still don't get it. Again:

PWR:
Quote
 Two-power level operation simplifies control and component complexity, thereby contributing to reduced cost
Direct team:  
Quote
Only certification is needed for them.
What's it gonna be ? More component and control complexity... or just more testing and certification ?

I am realy interested in this. Ares-V and J-232 use the RS-68 as first stage engines. Probably no continuous throttling required.
J-120 wants to use them as orbital insertion stage engines. Continuous throttling required.


No problem.
Each requested power lever requires extensive testing and certification. The Delta needed only 2 so that is all the *certification* that was done, and paid for. Certification at any power level by definition involves testing and is expensive and required for each requested power setting. But PWR actually extensively tested this engine for a large variety of power settings as part of the engine development program. Some of those settings will be needed for manned operation, so part of the man rating process will be to retest and certify for those additional power levels. The PWR people we deal with have told us that the requirements needed for the manned operations are within the complete set that the engine was already tested for. There will be additional component and control complexity, but that is not as big a deal as that statement would seem to imply. It essentially means retooling the control mechanisms to accommodate the additional power settings. That is an involved process, but is not that difficult to do.

In the end, everything costs money, which is why the Delta program only paid for the 2 required power settings. The Jupiter will need the others as well and the man rating process will pay for them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 01/28/2008 11:58 am
We probably can't infer the cost to test and certify it for other throttle levels from marketing material where they act as if it was a bonus that it only has two levels. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/28/2008 12:55 pm
Quote
clongton - 27/1/2008  8:31 PM

Quote
Scotty - 27/1/2008  8:22 PM

SSME, Yes (30 plus minutes at Stennis)
RS-68, I do not think so.
Scotty. I'll have to look back at the records I have in my office. But I remember us carefully checking this specifically because the Jupiter would be running the engine longer than the Delta-IV. I specifically remember that it was certified for far longer than a Jupiter would be running it. I will check my paperwork at the office in the morning and get back to this thread with the exact number tomorrow.

RS-68 is certified currently for 8 starts and 1,200 seconds in nominal operation.

During testing there were three engines with over 4,000 seconds (67 minutes) of operation on them, although not continuous.   I have also heard the >30 minute single-test claim from a source at PWR.   While I have no reason not to believe them, I haven't personally seen any paperwork to confirm it.


BTW, the issue of throttling isn't that the engine can't handle it, it is that it has only been operated at specific settings in the test stand so far.   The only throttling situation it is so-far certified to (read: had enough testing to make sure there are no issues) is between 100>60% and 60%>100% with no stops in between.   There is some testing which was performed beyond that though, but not as extensively.

The testing which is required to re-certify the engine for infinite throttling needs to cover the ground of slow throttling, pauses at different settings, and needs to make sure that in these conditions there aren't such things as harmonic resonances at certain settings, or whenpassing through certain settings.

This can be done, and would be assumed to be a standard requirement for human-rating such an engine as this anyway.   But it is fairly detailed work, and may potentially turn up a few minor fixes which are needed, so needs a decent budget.

For DIRECT, we have allocated some fairly 'high ball' numbers.   $500m for human-rating the engine.   And another $500m to cover any re-development work which may come out of the re-cert program.   Given that the original engine cost $500m in total to develop in the first place, we are confident this $1bn allocation errs on the *extremely* generous side of estimates.   This places us in the >95% confidence bracket for operational duties by 2012.

Additionally, if there is sufficient budget, this could be combined with the 106% development work being conducted by USAF for Delta-IV without impact to the schedule.   But DIRECT is not *assuming* that additional performance will be available.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 01/28/2008 05:15 pm
I promised Scotty to come back today with the numbers we have for the length of time that the RS-68 engine has been tested to actually run. There are other documents available as well, but this one I know is in the public domain. Enjoy.

www.pwrengineering.com/dataresources/PropulsionForThe21stCentury-RS-68.doc

From the top of page 12, right hand column, it says: “Engine flight life was set at 8 starts and 1,200 seconds. Yet during the development and certification program (Figure 40), five engines exceeded twice the flight life requirement, including three that were tested to over three times the required flight life”

The next paragraph states that the certification program was done using twelve engines. So of the 12, 100% met or exceeded the duration level labeled on the chart in Figure 40 as “Maximum Flight” (1,200 seconds), 42% of them (5) at least doubling that time (over 2,400 seconds), and 25% of them (3) more than tripling that time (over 4,000 seconds).

Now there is a difference between “testing” and “certifying”, so while the engine does appear to be quite capable of running far longer than the Jupiter would need it to, that ability would still need to be rigorously verified in a certification program that would be included in the man rating process.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/28/2008 06:26 pm
You've been saying the RS-68 will be used unchanged, and I don't think that is right.  I'll accept that the $1-bil set aside for RS-68 man rating seems conservative...  But like Ares V did you need to start scoping out what you plan on changing.  At this point I see: engine controller, new ablative nozzle extension, and expanded operating power range.  Still haven't addressed hydraulic failsafe or engine start/ignition fireball, which NASA has also identified as needing to be addressed.  

The engine rating is the total life of the engine...  That means multiple tests.  And I fully appreciate that during engine development some of the fleet leader hardware was extensively tested.  Much longer than necessary to meet the total life rating.  But there is a difference between multiple tests and one continuous test...  What I'm saying is that the RS-68 has never had a single test out to the 446 sec needed for Jupiter-120.  And the longest test I’ve been able to reference was a Delta IV Heavy Core simulation, which means a lot of operation at MPL.  Jupiter-120 on the other hand plans to operate at full power for the entire 446 sec, which is far more stressing.  In fact I'd not be surprised if the Stennis facility can't support a run that long at FPL...  Stennis is limited by the barge transfer system which was sized for SSME (half the flowrates of RS-68).

Considering the long duration challenges for Jupiter-120 I'd reevaluate if Jupiter-130.  Yes recurring costs go up, but the engine operations would be in the experience database.  Going to 446 sec of full power operations is far beyond the RS-68 experience database, and therefore represents a significant risk item.  And one of the major selling points of DIRECT is the low risk level.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/28/2008 07:38 pm
TrueGrit,
We are saying 'unchanged' only in the larger respect.   We aren't demanding any more power, we aren't requiring different turbo-pumps, combustion chambers, main plumbing, nozzle or any major upgrades or any significant changes to the current design.

But we are expecting a full human rating development and testing program and we do expect it to turn up some things which will need work.

One of the obvious things which is already being done for RS-68 as part of the 106% upgrade work by the USAF is reducing the big flame-ball on ignition.   We would really like that particular development upgrade included on the human-rated vehicle for sure.


I would really like to see the 106% work go ahead along with the human-rating work - the two projects going hand-in-hand and NASA/USAF sharing the costs so both benefit in the end.   I would ultimately like there to be only one single production line too because then we can share the production line costs totally with USAF - and that benefits both agencies.

But I am not banking on the upgraded performance.

We could operate the eventual 106% hardware at a slightly lower setting and thereby probably increase reliability by a bit.   Or we could keep the 106% setting for Cargo-only flights.   Or we could use 106% on all flights if it is ultimately deemed safe enough for regular human use.

I'm open to any of those alternatives, and would welcome the extra performance.   But for DIRECT we want a system which will close the performance targets even if we don't get the extra performance.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 01/29/2008 01:46 am
Quote
Fequalsma - 27/1/2008  9:17 PM

Quote
PaulL - 26/1/2008  8:39 AM

A new version of the CaLV/EELV Payload estimator (CEPE) spreadsheet is available at www.paul.enutrofal.com.  In addition to changing some rocket names, I added units (kg, m2, ...) to all value fields to improve user friendliness.  CEPE now displays net and gross payload values as well as some details on the orbital/inserted load.

PaulL -

This is very nice work - thanks!  Have you modeled the Shuttle and Saturn V as well?  If you have, can you share your results?

Cheers,
F=ma


CEPE is limited to two stages rockets, so it cannot estimate the three stages Saturn V rocket payload. The space shuttle cannot be directly estimated by CEPE either. But with some data entry adjustments on the Rocket Components sheet, it is possible to use the ET as the core stage and the orbiter as the upper stage: the SSMEs must be artificially attached to the ET (but the engines mass stays with the orbiter) and the diameter of the orbiter must be artificially inflated to increase the rocket overall cross section and resulting air drag losses (orbiter is not above ET but alongside it).  

Using the astronautix.com space shuttle values and assuming that half the OMEs propellant (10,800 kg) is used to reach LEO, CEPE estimates that the space shuttle payload to a circular 204 km orbit (28.5 degrees) is 24,600 kg.  At a circular 407 km orbit (51.6 degrees), the CEPE estimated payload is 14,600 kg.  These values are obtained with an overall rocket cross section of 116.32 m2 (22.33 m2 for SRBs, 55.42 m2 for ET and 38.57 m2 for orbiter)

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Scotty on 01/29/2008 02:24 am
I'm a real ex-Stennis, ex-SSME test conductor.
I was present during one 30 minute plus SSME firing, and there were a couple more that I did not attend.
The limiting factor for length of run of a SSME at Stennis was not propellants, or propellant transfer rates, it was the cooling water supply for the test stand flame deflector.
The water is stored and pumped out of a large retaining pond at Stennis.
The pond can be seen very easy from satelite photos of SSC.
That said, I was retired from Stennis before any of the RS-68 work took place, so I have no first hand experience with the RS-68 or its testing at Stennis.
At first look I would tend to concure with TrueGrit about the barge to run tank propellant transfer rates, as I was a propellant transfer operator far longer than I was a test conductor.
Still 446 seconds (about 7 and a half minutes) is a shorter run than the 8 and a half minutes the SSME is normally run to simulate a normal Shuttle flight.
Also, once the engine reaches equilibrium after start up, the length of time (with in reason) really does not mean much to engine reliability.
It is the start up and reaching that equilibrium point that is most stressful on the SSME, and very likely the same is true of the RS-68.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/29/2008 03:18 am
Even in the worst-case scenario of a premature engine shut-down, and single engine full-power abort-to-orbit with Jupiter-120 the maximum burn duration - deliberately dipping into reserves to get maximum possible performance in such a scenario - would never get above 900 seconds burn time - the tanks would be drained dry before then.

And don't forget that this scenario would actually be considered emergency conditions, as far outside of nominal conditions as you will possibly get without a full abort LOM.

That is still 300 seconds inside the maximum recommended flight time.   Even in that worst-case scenario, we only go to 75% of the recommended maximum flight time.

And the certification is actually to a higher level that that.   Certification in that Rocketdyne paper (assuming it can be believed) actually appears to be 1,800 seconds, not 1,200s.   If that's true, Jupiter-120's worst-case situation only goes 50% through the certified burn duration.


And don't forget that during testing one quarter of all the test engines were operated to over 4,000 seconds successfully - without any critical failures anywhere in the program.

Further, I heard tonight by e-mail that the 4,000 seconds in the chart in that document represent the total time for individual runs - not combined runs.   Apparently they think they could have gone longer but 'the test stand couldn't run any longer' - which sounds very much like it could be because of the same limitations Scotty might be talking about above.

Anyway, here is the chart from the document - and I have added both Delta-IV and Jupiter-120 nominal burn times for reference.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/29/2008 03:41 am
Just as an aside and as interesting information for anyone who has been watching DIRECT closely, we got word from a new contact at MSFC recently who has been working up their own Jupiter-120 and 232 performance numbers - unofficially, I better add.

They came back and told us that actually we might have missed a performance improvement on the Jupiter-232.   He had found an even better sweet spot in the performance of the Upper Stage which he thought we should investigate.   In short, he suggested we try a configuration with about 100mT less propellant on-board.

I have been running some simulations over the last few days and it seems there is indeed a second sweet-spot in this range.   So far, using my own ESA-derived software I appear to be getting better performance than previously published.

It is still very early in the process, but I believe Jupiter-232 may actually end up being a 108mT launch system in full 'published' form, with all our extra DIRECT-specific margins (10% GR&A margin, plus further 10% arbitrary margin = 19% total performance margins for all DIRECT figures in published papers) included, not a 95mT launcher as shown in the AIAA paper.

While I don't normally like asking the guys to do such workups often, because it's a lot of work and I only use their skills sparingly, I have sent this information off to our guys at MSFC to work up a new set of analysis in POST to see if they can validate my ESA tool's results on this configuration.

I will let everyone here know the final results when we get them, but wanted to just let folk know of the most recent developments I'm working on right now.

Keep your fingers crossed for us over the next few weeks, because this development would allow us to easily close all the required performance without having to use that awkward LOX tank approach we used in the AIAA paper.   A quick analysis says that with a pair of J-232's with this sort of extra performance would easily close the current CxP performance targets (53,600kg LSAM Gross mass lifted and 25,300kg minimum landed mass anywhere on the Lunar surface) with a surplus of about 850kg on the LSAM - something Ares-I/V just can't do.

And we are still using the normal 102% RS-68, not the 106%.   Further still, we are also still using the 273,500lbf J-2X'D' spec not the full 294,000lbf J-2X.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 01/29/2008 06:49 am
kraisee
Quote
- 28/1/2008  10:38 PM

We are saying 'unchanged' only in the larger respect.   We aren't demanding any more power, we aren't requiring different turbo-pumps, combustion chambers, main plumbing, nozzle or any major upgrades or any significant changes to the current design.

But we are expecting a full human rating development and testing program and we do expect it to turn up some things which will need work.

Ross.

1/ RS-68 : human-rating and continuous throttling

Why is a human-rating process for RS-68 supposed to change from two-point, to continuous, power level control ? Can you provide a link ?

I'm asking because another hydrolox engine, to be human-rated, the J-2X, is designed for two-point control. Two fixed power levels (like RS-68 and not like SSME). My reference is 20070037456_2007036991.pdf @ NTRS.

2/ RS-68 : ablative nozzle and burn time

While the turbo machinery, chamber, etc can reach an equilibrium status, an ablative nozzle can not.

Just to go from Delta-IV's ~250 sec to Ares-V's ~300 sec, NASA contemplates a 500 lb increase in mass for the nozzle. My reference is 20070002794_2007001555.pdf @ NTRS.

How much extra mass for the ablative nozzle contemplates the Direct team when asking ~450 sec for J-120... or even up to 900 sec like stated on this forum page (engine-out) ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/29/2008 03:05 pm
renclod,
Our requirement for continuous throttling of RS-68 is based on discussions with engineers at PWR.   The engine has been throttled in this manner in the test stands already, so they don't believe there will be too many problems, but the testing has simply not been as thorough as needs to be because continuous throttling was not a requirement for Delta-IV and Boeing wanted to keep the price of the testing phase down for that usage.

We would require it, so we are providing what we believe is sufficient funding for PWR to complete the appropriate testing.   At this time I am unaware of any documentation on this subject regarding RS-68 in the public domain.   If I find any, I will make sure to post it here for you.


As for mass increases, as you say, a redesign for RS-68's nozzle is only being contemplated at this time.   It is a recommendation, but not yet a standing requirement.   However, we have already assumed a 540lb mass increase for the RS-68 anyway, and we have also applied a further 'blanket' additional margin for the entire Core of 10,988lb in addition to the regular GR&A margins.

This arbitrary additional margin of ours is essentially a 'fudge factor' we applied because we recognize our analysis has not been quite as thorough as NASA could bring to bear itself.   It is there precisely to cover most such early items as this which are likely to be found during the transition from concept to actual design - without having to dip into the regular GR&A margins.   We consider the  GR&A's to be there for protection during design>production work and we don't want them whittled away too early.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 01/30/2008 12:23 am
How much performance would be obtained with a more optimised (better mass fraction) US?

I am refering only to the achievable mass fraction indicated by people at the Atlas Advanced Systems group.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/30/2008 12:29 am
Quote
tnphysics - 29/1/2008  8:23 PM

How much performance would be obtained with a more optimised (better mass fraction) US?

I am refering only to the achievable mass fraction indicated by people at the Atlas Advanced Systems group.

That is what they are planning to
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/30/2008 03:17 am
tnphysics,
Our AIAA paper's mass breakouts did not use LM's mass figures.   While we have been planning to use a Centaur Wide Body derivative, our published mass breakouts use the less efficient MSFC design approach instead.   We thought this a 'safer' approach because it simply provided extra margin if we could get the WBC instead, but wouldn't cause any claims of "impossible performance" from any quarter.

The difference is nicely demonstrated on the new variant of Jupiter-232 we are investigating which I mentioned the other day.   Well, for that, we have one analysis where the U/S design is based on official Wide Body Centaur information.   Such a stage would have a stage pmf of around 0.933 (inc. engines) when combined with the reduction in capacity from 314mT down to about 210mT in this configuration (which improves the entire vehicle's performance because it carries 100mT less all the way from the ground to orbit), the EDS' mass will be virtually cut in half compared to what you see in our AIAA paper.

If the great performance results we have already seen in the ESA tool can be validated by the POST runs being conducted right now for us, that sort of decrease in dead-weight going through TLI would make a significant improvement to our Lunar performance.

I also completed an ESA tool run earlier tonight testing a J-232 configuration with upgraded 106% RS-68 and full J-2X engines and this new U/S arrangement and it produced a 114mT NET performance launch system.   Two of these were able to send a >60mT LSAM through TLI - essentially producing a Lunar architecture which not only closes NASA's LSAM targets, but exceeds them by about 8mT!   It would place an LSAM on the surface with a total landed mass of approximately 29mT when NASA's requirement is 25.3mT.


Ares-I/V are short of this goal by ~4mT currently.

The bottom line is that to close NASA's targets, you must launch at least 100mT of propellant to allow sufficient to remain after 14 days of boiloff to complete the TLI successfully.   Your gross LSAM mass must be at least 53.6mT in order to be able to complete the MCC, LOI and Descent burns and still land 25.6mT anywhere on the lunar surface and your docked CEV is an additional ~20.2mT.   You can quickly see where Ares misses the mark in this - 100mT of propellant plus 53.6mT of LSAM just doesn't fit on any 135mT launch system - and Ares-I certainly can't make up the difference.   The more I study the problem, the more I'm actually convinced the "13mT shortfall" represents the shortfall only for equatorial and polar missions - and they would actually require even more launched mass in order to close for Global Access.   I would venture that the Global Access shortfall is actually closer to 20mT currently, but that's my own estimate.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: daver on 01/30/2008 01:11 pm
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/How_Green_Is_My_Space_999.html

Direct gets a mention in this article.

   clip
"One alternative to the Ares V is something called the DIRECT launch vehicle.

It is similar to but smaller than Ares V. But its inventor forgets that the same people who would oppose Ares also opposed a similar vehicle called MAGNUM by the way.

MAGNUM, like DIRECT and ARES V, was a shuttle-derived vehicle which was to use only clean hydrogen and oxygen."

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/30/2008 01:41 pm
Direct doesn't need the publicity offered by the author of that article
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/30/2008 01:43 pm
Eeep.   A quick glance through there shows numerous errors and misinterpretations.

But he does (somehow) manage to raise an important issue which will grow even more important with time.   If/when "green" becomes that important (i.e. when EPA grow some teeth regarding the perchlorate issue), both Ares-V and DIRECT would replace the SRB's with a clean burning system - and the right one will also increase your performance as a nice side-effect too.   Both have plenty of room to 'grow' that way.

Certainly for DIRECT, the goal is not to build everything anew.   We're initially just trying to get a suitable system working with as little cost outlay as possible - leaving all the upgrades and changes for some point in the future when the politicians are willing to give NASA the extra money to make them happen.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 01/30/2008 02:26 pm
The author is the one and the same (I want nothing but big rockets) publiusr from this site.  That should be enough for most people to realize the slant of the article and what I said two posts earlier
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: John Duncan on 01/30/2008 03:48 pm
Is there any info available about liquid fueled replacements for the SRB's?  For those of us who like to build "what if" models?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/30/2008 04:07 pm
There is a vast array of potential trades possible.

While that article seems to suggest that Kero/LOX is still polluting, the highly refined RP-1 Kero used in rockets, and the burn process of most rocket engines (as opposed to even most Jets) is astonishingly clean burning these days.

RP-1/LOX offers the best density:performance ratio of the more "likely" candidates IMHO, but right now there are no large US domestic RP-1/LOX engines available and the political world seems strongly dis-inclined to allow the Russian RD-180 to be utilized given ever-worsening relations with Putin at the moment.

If the US could get either the RS-84 or a regenerated F-1A (F-1X perhaps?) up and running again this would likely be a wonderful combination and would also offer Atlas-V a real performance increase option too.

The other solution would be an RS-68 powered LH2/LOX booster.

Either way, you are aiming for ~3m+ pounds of thrust from each booster to replicate the liftoff performance of the current SRB's, but you ought to be able to sustain that thrust level more consistently through to burnout & separation - which should offer substantial performance gains.

Then the whole issue is made more complex by the trades of whether the boosters should be disposable or reusable.   Magnum used 6 SSME's in each of its LH2/LOX flyback boosters.   RS-84 was being designed to be reused also for RP-1/LOX configurations.


My personal preference would be to use an altered Atlas-V "Phase 2" concept.   Design it to fit either two or three RS-84's and make it disposable initially, but with an eye to making it parachute recoverable later.   Make it primarily for use as a booster, but also plan to use it as the first stage of a smaller Atlas vehicle in the ~30mT lift class.   It would probably end up fairly similar dimensions to what we have right now with the SRB's.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Smatcha on 01/30/2008 04:09 pm
Quote
Jim - 30/1/2008  7:26 AM

The author is the one and the same (I want nothing but big rockets) publiusr from this site.  That should be enough for most people to realize the slant of the article and what I said two posts earlier

What we really have is two debates going on here which gets all muddled up in the article with a dash of global warming logic just to make sure everyone is completely confused as to the whole point.

Global warming aside, the first debate; is the VSE a good national space policy as written?  In summary it’s a public policy directive that manned exploration is to now progress beyond Earth orbit starting at the Moon while maximize the use of the current STS infrastructure wherever possible.

By definition DIRECT accepts the VSE national space exploration policy as written.  This brings up the second debate; what is the most effective way of implementing the VSE policy directive?  This is where DIRECT differs from the current plan as outlined by ESAS.

So in summary I think the Stanford Group disagrees with VSE where as DIRECT disagrees with ESAS.  Other than that we are all just one big happy space community.

As tough as it for DIRECT to go toe to toe with ESAS I think going up against VSE is a fool’s errand because this new national space policy was crafted from the confluence of three powerful forces.

The first force is local NASA district politics that tends to keep everything moving in the same deep channels carved out over many decades (i.e. the requirement for STS derived, read STS workforce preservation).  The second force is going to be a strong reluctance at the national level to abandoned manned space exploration altogether especially as emerging nations achieve this capability.  The third force brought home by the Columbia disaster (and interacting with the second force) is to make sure our long term manned space exploration objectives are worth of the blood and treasure required to achieve them.

When you mix these three forces together you get the VSE policy as written.  So if want to rewrite VSE in any significant way you must counter one or all of these forces with something even stronger.

I think VSE policy is just fine it’s the implementation of the VSE policy that is exceedingly poor.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/30/2008 07:32 pm
Ross,
You’re misinterpreting the RS-68 life requirements.  The life requirement is total life of engine including both flight and ground test.  So you need to make an assessment of the maximum amount of engine test time you will eat prior to engine delivery.  It's not unreasonable to suggest you could need up to 3 engine test runs at ~250sec each.  That will eat 750 sec of your life, leaving only 450 sec of life left.  You also have to account for engine starts and aborts on the pad... which could eat another 15 sec.  So in the end with the 1200 sec you can only assure 435 sec will be leftover for flight.

The certification requirements are a direct result of the life requirement...  It is the 1.5x life demonstration needed for engine certification.  The 600 additional sec is not available for flight as you would then no longer have the required demonstrated margin.  Although I don’t expect a hardware problem it does appear that Jupiter-120 will drive a life requirement change.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 01/30/2008 07:38 pm
Scotty,
While I'd agree that the RS-68 hardware will be fine with these long burn times (with exception of the ablative nozzle) there still is the whole 1.5x certification requirements.  These are hard requirements for spacecraft launch, let alone human spaceflight and based on historical failure.  I just don't see that changing...  As it stands RS-68 has negative demonstrated margin for the Jupiter-120 application, and could need test stand modifications to reach the required margin.  As you would know modifing the test stand transfer capability is not a small task.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 01/30/2008 07:43 pm
Quote
I also completed an ESA tool run earlier tonight testing a J-232 configuration with upgraded 106% RS-68 and full J-2X engines and this new U/S arrangement and it produced a 114mT NET performance launch system. Two of these were able to send a >60mT LSAM through TLI - essentially producing a Lunar architecture which not only closes NASA's LSAM targets, but exceeds them by about 8mT! It would place an LSAM on the surface with a total landed mass of approximately 29mT when NASA's requirement is 25.3mT.


Ares-I/V are short of this goal by ~4mT currently.  

This part of your post raises a few questions. I thought that you were exceeding NASA's architecture by about 8mt anyway with the "old" J-232?

Second, you have claimed many times that Ares is 13 mt short on TLI, which you talk about later in your post. Now you are down to 4mt? Ordinarily you have reliable information, but this seems fuzzy. What are you basing this off of, and which number is accurate?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/30/2008 08:54 pm
Marsman,
This gets very complicated :)

Our "internal" numbers could close without problems, but our official "published" numbers had a slight shortfall - about 1mT compared to Ares 13mT.

To get over this in the AIAA paper we used a bit of a 'kludge' solution to close that gap.   We utilized some of the spare performance of the CLV flight to bring up extra LOX with the LSAM for the TLI.   We could bring up quite a bit of additional LOW this way, more than was needed just to close the 1mT shortfall - so that increased performance as well.   There is more than 20mT of spare lift performance unused by LSAM or CEV available on the CLV flight.

It was certainly not a 'pretty' thing to do, and we had quite a few 'warm' (not quite 'heated') discussions before we settled on that solution.   But we simply did not want to reveal out internal numbers at that time, so we had little choice.   We were perfectly confident that the internal solution would work, but we were also very conscious of possible repeat FUD attack too.


Now though, this recent development actually places our new "published" numbers at about the same place we had for our old "internal" numbers.   Our current internal numbers are another 10% higher again!

This means that if this new set of analysis works out the way we think it will (and early word is that it is looking very good) our "published" vehicle will close very nicely indeed.


I hope that explanation makes it a bit clearer :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/30/2008 09:04 pm
TrueGrit,
For the moment I'm going to let Scotty field that one, because I have no idea myself.   That is completely out of my personal experience base.

I will check with our PWR contacts to see what their approach would actually be and get back to you as soon as I know.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 01/30/2008 09:18 pm
Quote
kraisee - 30/1/2008  4:54 PM

Marsman,
This gets very complicated :)

Our "internal" numbers could close without problems, but our official "published" numbers had a slight shortfall - about 1mT compared to Ares 13mT.

To get over this in the AIAA paper we used a bit of a 'kludge' solution to close that gap.   We utilized some of the spare performance of the CLV flight to bring up extra LOX with the LSAM for the TLI.   We could bring up quite a bit of additional LOW this way, more than was needed just to close the 1mT shortfall - so that increased performance as well.   There is more than 20mT of spare lift performance unused by LSAM or CEV available on the CLV flight.

It was certainly not a 'pretty' thing to do, and we had quite a few 'warm' (not quite 'heated') discussions before we settled on that solution.   But we simply did not want to reveal out internal numbers at that time, so we had little choice.   We were perfectly confident that the internal solution would work, but we were also very conscious of possible repeat FUD attack too.


Now though, this recent development actually places our new "published" numbers at about the same place we had for our old "internal" numbers.   Our current internal numbers are another 10% higher again!

This means that if this new set of analysis works out the way we think it will (and early word is that it is looking very good) our "published" vehicle will close very nicely indeed.


I hope that explanation makes it a bit clearer :)

Ross.

Thanks Ross. However, what about the 4mt vs. 13 mt conflict?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 01/31/2008 03:20 am
Quote
kraisee - 29/1/2008  10:17 PM

tnphysics,
Our AIAA paper's mass breakouts did not use LM's mass figures.   While we have been planning to use a Centaur Wide Body derivative, our published mass breakouts use the less efficient MSFC design approach instead.   We thought this a 'safer' approach because it simply provided extra margin if we could get the WBC instead, but wouldn't cause any claims of "impossible performance" from any quarter.

The difference is nicely demonstrated on the new variant of Jupiter-232 we are investigating which I mentioned the other day.   Well, for that, we have one analysis where the U/S design is based on official Wide Body Centaur information.   Such a stage would have a stage pmf of around 0.933 (inc. engines) when combined with the reduction in capacity from 314mT down to about 210mT in this configuration (which improves the entire vehicle's performance because it carries 100mT less all the way from the ground to orbit), the EDS' mass will be virtually cut in half compared to what you see in our AIAA paper.

Ross.

Ross, with such a reduction in upper stage propellant and high pmf number, are you considering to use only one J-2X engine on the Jupiter EDS?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 01/31/2008 01:59 pm
Quote
Marsman - 30/1/2008  5:18 PM

Thanks Ross. However, what about the 4mt vs. 13 mt conflict?

13mT IMLEO shortfall results in about 4mT less on the Lunar surface.   Ish.   Very Ish.


It's all a process of back-tracking from the required landed mass.   Going backwards, you calculate the mass of propellant to descend ~1911m/s.   Now calculate Lunar orbit loiter time to perform any plane change you need and work out any LSAM boiloff for the maximum likely period, say 4 days or so.   Then you add the CEV's mass to work out the LOI burn requirements for both spacecraft ! 1,101m/s. Calculate LSAM boiloff for the latter half of the transit (~2 days).   Work out the Mid-Course Correction burn requirements (<30m/s).   More LSAM boiloff for the first half of the transit (~2 days).   Now you add the burnout mass of the EDS to the mass of the spacecraft and calculate how much propellant you need to get that mass to at least 3,150m/s to perform the TLI.   Don't forget to allocate a mass for rendezvous budgets of your spacecraft too.   And finally you must calculate how long that TLI and LSAM cryo propellant will have to boiloff while waiting in Earth Orbit before the TLI (90 days, 14 days or 4 days depending on latest plans) and add sufficient extra propellant to cover that too.

That then gives you the number for how much mass you have to lift to stable orbit at the start of the mission - the Initial Mass in Low Earth Orbit - IMLEO.

CxP's actual requirement is 25,300kg minimum landed anywhere on the surface to allow 4-person, 7-day missions with anytime return capability.   Any less than that and you will have to sacrifice capability somewhere.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: csj on 01/31/2008 05:01 pm
On the current shuttle ET, the SSMEs are not inline with the ET centerline.  Thus, the SSMEs are angled towards the shuttle vehicle’s center of mass in the LO2 tank and the resulting thrust angle at MECO causes the LO2 level to be offset from the centerline by ~40 inches towards the +Z (Orbiter) side.  Consequently, the LO2 17-inch suction fitting at the aft end of the LO2 tank is offset from the centerline of the ET by same amount and direction.  As has been discussed before on this thread, the ET derived Common Core Booster, must be designed to handle three RS-68 engines that have ~ 57% greater mass flowrate than the current three SSMEs.  As discussed, the two options are 1) have a single 22-inch feedline or 2) have dual 15-inch feedlines.  Since, during a nominal flight, the combined two or three RS-68 engine thrust vectors are through the centerline, the single feedline version would require the suction fitting to be moved to the centerline at the bottom of the LO2 tank.  However, there is only 2.5 inches of clearance between that point and the SRB beam.  Because of this, I suspect that the single 22-inch feedline option is not viable though a suitable work around may exist.  The second option would have two smaller suctions on each side (+Z & -Z) of the SRB beam with the manhole and possibly the access door moved.  At MECO, there would be some inaccessible residual though I do not know how much.  The two feedlines would then be cross-connected in some manner in the aft thrust structure to feed the three engines.  

In the event of an outboard engine out scenario, there would be a slight thrust offset from the centerline and the LO2 level should be offset towards the suction inlet that is on the same side of the thrusting outboard engine at MECO.  In the event of a J232 center engine out, there would be no thrust offset and the residual situation would be the same as a nominal flight.

Does anybody have alternate thoughts on this?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 01/31/2008 09:33 pm
A longer intertank section could provide the additional clearance to relocate the feed line to the center, I think.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: csj on 01/31/2008 10:51 pm
Quote
brihath - 31/1/2008  4:33 PM

A longer intertank section could provide the additional clearance to relocate the feed line to the center, I think.

That is an idea.  A slightly longer intertank and the 22 inch feedline may have more or it may have less mass than the dual 15 inch feedline solution.  The longer intertank should not affect any VAB platform that does not need to be modified including the one just above the LO2 tank/Intertank Flange.  The idea here is to have with several options available so that NASA could do a good trade study and see the best route to go.  





Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/31/2008 11:34 pm
A liquid booster design that I looked at for the Shuttle a while ago used 98% Hydrogen Peroxide and RP-1.

S. S. Pietrobon, "High density liquid rocket boosters for the Space Shuttle," J. of the British Interplanetary Society, vol. 52, pp. 163-168, May/June 1999.
http://sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf

The exhaust of 98%H2O2/RP-1 at a 7.3:1 mixture ratio contains 62% water, nearly 38% CO2 and 0.06% H2 by mass. This gives a very clear exhaust, very similar to that from LOX/LH2 engines. The propellant volume ratio is 4.08:1. The advantage of using 98%H2O2/RP-1 is its high density, 1.306 kg/L, compared to 1.025 kg/L for LOX/RP-1. So even though the ISP of 98%H2O2/RP-1 is less than LOX/RP-1 (3017 m/s verses 3305 m/s in vacuum) for the same propellant volume, you get better performance. I showed in my paper that for the same dimensions as the SRB, 98%H2O2/RP-1 increased payload mass from 24.95 t to 33.14 t for the Space Shuttle into a 203.7 km 28.45 degree orbit compared to using SRB's. LOX/RP-1 will need much larger boosters to achieve the same performance, as was shown in previous studies. Of course, NASA will need to develop a new engine in order to use 98%H2O2/RP-1.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/01/2008 12:41 am
Developing an RP-1/H2O2 can't be as hard as developing a LH/LOX motor. The Brits put a satellite into orbit using it with a shoestring budget and the program already cancelled.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Fequalsma on 02/01/2008 01:08 am
Quote
Fequalsma - 27/1/2008  9:06 PM

The tank barrel near the barrel-aft dome intersection ring frame (39 inches deep!) at station 2058 is at least 0.380 inches thick.  Moving forward on the barrel, the skin thickness aft of the station 1871 ring frame is at least 0.320 inches.  For the barrel section just forward of station 1871, the minimum wall thickness is 0.250 inches.  I realize that these dimensions are different for the current Superlightweight Tank with orthogrid walls.  Does anyone have any dimensions for them?


OK, so I can't read a blueprint...

The Lightweight ET wall thicknesses I reported above are actually
along the weld lands.  Another drawing in the ET Databook shows
that there are 0.126 inch-thick barrel skins between T-stiffeners.
Sorry for the confusion.

Cheers,
F=ma
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gospacex on 02/02/2008 01:17 pm
Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 31/1/2008  6:34 PM
The exhaust of 98%H2O2/RP-1 at a 7.3:1 mixture ratio contains 62% water, nearly 38% CO2 and 0.06% H2 by mass. This gives a very clear exhaust, very similar to that from LOX/LH2 engines. The propellant volume ratio is 4.08:1. The advantage of using 98%H2O2/RP-1 is its high density, 1.306 kg/L, compared to 1.025 kg/L for LOX/RP-1. So even though the ISP of 98%H2O2/RP-1 is less than LOX/RP-1 (3017 m/s verses 3305 m/s in vacuum) for the same propellant volume, you get better performance.

H2O2 is an explosion hazard. It looks like advantages over LOX/PR-1 are not big enough to justify this.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/02/2008 03:45 pm
The addition of a second LOX Feedline imposes a significant extra mass penalty to the stage.   Also - arranging it so that three engines can be fed from two feedlines introduces some 'interesting' analysis.   The potential for such things like cavitation or flow disturbance into the engines is greatly increased, so the only real way to do this is to have one narrow feedline feed a single engine, and on the other side have a larger diameter pipe feed the other two engines.

This is why we prefer the single feedline option.

For single feedlines, there are the two obvious options which NASA will need to trade.   Below are notional diagrams of the two options - you are looking at the Intertank area from the perspective of the Left Hand SRB.

In the first example, we continue to use a slightly offset arrangement, and just accept that there will be slightly greater residual LOX which we can't get at.   We are already assuming ~250% of current Shuttle residuals so this should provide us with sufficient margins to cover this option completely.

The second option increases the structural height of the Interstage by ~1m to allow the feedline to be 'centered' directly above the SRB Thrust Beam.

A third option exists where the baffles inside the LOX Tank are re-designed to actually re-direct all of the flow directly into the offset feedline.   We have not attempted to design such a part yet because we do not have an expert in cryo liquid flow handling in the DIRECT Team yet.   We are thus leaving this for NASA to look at when they select Jupiter.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/02/2008 03:53 pm
There may be enhancements possible from other propellant combinations such as RP-1/LOX or RP-1/H2O2, but the simple fact is *all* of them defeat the basic purpose of DIRECT - which is to reuse existing equipment as much as possible and reduce the requirement for new development to the minimum we possibly can to achieve the mission's goals.

The further away you get from current Shuttle hardware and existing engines the greater your costs will be, the longer your schedule will be and the more chance you introduce of coming across something 'unexpected' which stops the whole show.

As notional future upgrades, I have no problems with such discussions, because they won't affect the budget for getting Orion flying ASAP after Shuttle retires.   I would like to investigate all these to get the best options, but DIRECT is not about trying to implement any of them now.

We are using ET structures because MAF and KSC are virtually ready to use them immediately.   We are using the existing RS-68 because it is in production and has flown.   It does need human-rating, but that's an awful lot less demanding than any full-development program which also requires human-rating as well.   And we are using the 4-segment SRB's as they are used today - not because they are the best, but because they are proven and already fully-qualified for human flight use and we don't have to spend any money or time on them.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/02/2008 04:00 pm
Quote
Fequalsma - 31/1/2008  9:08 PM

The Lightweight ET wall thicknesses I reported above are actually
along the weld lands.  Another drawing in the ET Databook shows
that there are 0.126 inch-thick barrel skins between T-stiffeners.
Sorry for the confusion.

Not to worry.   We're basing the design off the SLWT anyway, so most of the specs of the LWT have changed anyway.

I'm currently trying to source a copy of the SLWT Handbook for Chris to put up on the site.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/04/2008 12:21 am
Ross, I fully agree with you that Direct should use the existing SRB's. I was only commenting of using H2O2/RP-1 as a possible propellant for a future liquid rocket booster, that would also be environmentally friendly.

As to H2O2 being an explosive hazard, it is true that in the presence of catalysts and certain metals, H2O2 will decompose energetically into H2O and O2. This is the reason why WWII German 80%H2O2 would "spontaneously decompose". The reason for this was the presence of minute contamination by impurities, in particular metallic ions. Modern H2O2 has much higher purity specifications with the result that it is a completely different fluid and will not spontaneously decompose, unless of course impurities are added later due to mishandling. In twenty five years of British experience, there was never a case of non-deliberate spontaneous decompostion or of even a tank becoming warm.

Also, LOX, LH2, RP-1 and solid propellants all have explosive hazards (the presence of O2 and H2 fumes and RP-1 leaks can lead to fires and explosions). As H2O2 is non-cryogenic this leads to increased reliability (ask any one who has dealt with the problems that cryogenic temperatures cause). The British successfully used 85%H2O2 in 22 Black Knight suborbital and 4 Black Arrow orbital flights (128 engines in total) where there were zero failures related to the engine or propulsion unit. The US Air Force successfully used 90%H2O2 in their NF-104D research aircraft. This is what someone who has experience in using 85%H2O2, called High Test Peroxide (HTP) by the British, has to say about handling the propellant.

"The greatest danger in the use of HTP is likely to arise from the fact that it appears so safe. Nine times out of ten, if something goes wrong, nothing much happens. Danger arises if one becomes blasé in consequence: every so often one is sharply reminded that HTP is a strong oxident which must be treated with respect. This means, however, that provided safe practise is followed at all times, HTP is very safe indeed."

D. Andrews, "Advantages of hydrogen peroxide as a rocket oxidant," J. of the British Interplanetary Society, vol. 43, pp. 319-328, July 1990.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tnphysics on 02/04/2008 12:47 am
But its detonation potential is a safety hazard for manned missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/04/2008 02:33 am
Quote
tnphysics - 4/2/2008  10:47 AM

But its detonation potential is a safety hazard for manned missions.

As with all liquid rocket fuels, also including gaseous NOX (which was marketed in hybrid motors as having zero explosion potential - look what happened).

Using H2O2/RP-1 means that the LRBs can remain a similar size to the SRBs, thus making handling issues easier. But first you have to get ATK to either manufacture them or find the influence to get someone else. This whole game is about shuttle hardware and workforces, and even if 10 years down the road you want reusable LRBs for Mars, you'll have to fight vested interests tooth and nail to get it done.

The current 4-seg SRBs now have loads of flight experience and safety measures now built in. Checking them in favour of LRBs is just as foolish (if not more so) than going with 5-seg. Or something like a small ET with 2 x 2.5 seg boosters for Ares 1. Wow, that would shoot off the pad like a bat out of hell...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/04/2008 02:52 am
Quote
Lampyridae - 3/2/2008  10:33 PM

Quote
tnphysics - 4/2/2008  10:47 AM

But its detonation potential is a safety hazard for manned missions.

As with all liquid rocket fuels, also including gaseous NOX (which was marketed in hybrid motors as having zero explosion potential - look what happened).

Using H2O2/RP-1 means that the LRBs can remain a similar size to the SRBs, thus making handling issues easier. But first you have to get ATK to either manufacture them or find the influence to get someone else. This whole game is about shuttle hardware and workforces, and even if 10 years down the road you want reusable LRBs for Mars, you'll have to fight vested interests tooth and nail to get it done.

The current 4-seg SRBs now have loads of flight experience and safety measures now built in. Checking them in favour of LRBs is just as foolish (if not more so) than going with 5-seg. Or something like a small ET with 2 x 2.5 seg boosters for Ares 1. Wow, that would shoot off the pad like a bat out of hell...
Shuttle derived can include a lot of things, even what you suggest. But the most practical thing to do is to just rearrange what we already have, with as little change as possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: ACEMANN on 02/04/2008 05:32 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 4/2/2008  10:47 AM
As with all liquid rocket fuels, also including gaseous NOX (which was marketed in hybrid motors as having zero explosion potential - look what happened).

It was my understanding hybrids have a TNT equivalent rating of zero. I would not be so quick to place hybrids in the same category as liquids and solids.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/04/2008 06:13 pm
Quote
ACEMANN - 4/2/2008  1:32 PM

Quote
tnphysics - 4/2/2008  10:47 AM
As with all liquid rocket fuels, also including gaseous NOX (which was marketed in hybrid motors as having zero explosion potential - look what happened).

It was my understanding hybrids have a TNT equivalent rating of zero. I would not be so quick to place hybrids in the same category as liquids and solids.
Guys, this seriously interesting discussion is getting seriously off topic.
DIRECT does not and will not use any kind of propellant such as you are discussing. Its very nature is to reuse all existing hardware, which defines the propellant. The RS-68 burns LH2 & LOX, nothing else. The formulation of the RSRB propellant is what it is.

There are other threads on this forum that really are a far better match, topic wise, than this one to the topic you are discussing. As interesting as your topic is (and it really is), please move this discussion to a more appropriate thread.
Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 02/16/2008 12:42 pm
Quote
PaulL - 30/1/2008  10:20 PM

Quote
kraisee - 29/1/2008  10:17 PM

tnphysics,
Our AIAA paper's mass breakouts did not use LM's mass figures.   While we have been planning to use a Centaur Wide Body derivative, our published mass breakouts use the less efficient MSFC design approach instead.   We thought this a 'safer' approach because it simply provided extra margin if we could get the WBC instead, but wouldn't cause any claims of "impossible performance" from any quarter.

The difference is nicely demonstrated on the new variant of Jupiter-232 we are investigating which I mentioned the other day.   Well, for that, we have one analysis where the U/S design is based on official Wide Body Centaur information.   Such a stage would have a stage pmf of around 0.933 (inc. engines) when combined with the reduction in capacity from 314mT down to about 210mT in this configuration (which improves the entire vehicle's performance because it carries 100mT less all the way from the ground to orbit), the EDS' mass will be virtually cut in half compared to what you see in our AIAA paper.

Ross.

Ross, with such a reduction in upper stage propellant and high pmf number, are you considering to use only one J-2X engine on the Jupiter EDS?

PaulL

Ross, you never answered my question above with regard to the number of J-2X engines on your new EDS. The way I see it, using two engines is better for "pure" LEO payload capability (to reduce gravity losses), but using one engine is better for TLI burns as it reduces the EDS dry mass.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/16/2008 06:57 pm
Quote
PaulL - 16/2/2008  8:42 AM

Ross, you never answered my question above with regard to the number of J-2X engines on your new EDS. The way I see it, using two engines is better for "pure" LEO payload capability (to reduce gravity losses), but using one engine is better for TLI burns as it reduces the EDS dry mass.

PaulL

Sorry for not replying PaulL, I missed your post in amongst the off-topic propellant discussion and been distracted by other things since.


You are absolutely correct, the two J-2X's offer greater lift performance than an optimized single launcher, but offer a slight weight penalty through the TLI (extra engine and larger associated tanking).

We did exhaustive studies of both configurations and decided to opt for the one which - in balance - offers the greatest performance thru TLI.   When the results were compiled the greatest total performance to LEO was more significant than the lower burnout mass of the EDS going through TLI.

We also figure the two-engine option offers much greater engine-out capabilities during ascent and also for TLI - which would otherwise doom a mission.

And there is one final concern - the single engine configuration seems to get a lot closer to the black zones.   While it doesn't actually trip them, we prefer not to have a 'concept' design go anywhere near those - we want large margins there (as always!) just in case of any 'unforeseen design issues'.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/16/2008 11:06 pm
Stephen, Chuck and myself will be appearing on "The Space Show" with Dr. David Livingston tomorrow (Sunday) afternoon at 12:00 noon Pacific - 3pm Eastern.

We are going to cover a slideshow presentation based on teh one Stephen gave at the AIAA Space 2007 conference last September which we have already placed on our directlauncher.com website and will hopefully have some time afterwards to do so Q & A's.

Please listen in, or you will be able to download the show soon afterward.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 02/17/2008 09:07 pm
Ross, Chuck and Steve-

Nice presentation on the Space Show.  Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/17/2008 09:37 pm
Thanks!   It was fun.   David is getting the recording ready to go up on his site.

Some great questions - I hope they bring more here.

That suggestion about a 'lay person' slide or two is a great idea.   I'm going to work on those when I have a chance.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: brihath on 02/18/2008 02:06 pm
Yeah, that's a good idea if you are out in the public forum.  It is amazing how ignorant most of the population is regarding the current state of affairs with the space program.

Hey, after all just listen to comments from the general public and media regarding the presidential campaign.  You'd think they never heard of the Constitution.

BTW-  I would also suggest at some point in time doing a media packet.  Media spokespersons are often clueless once you get away from science and space reporters.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nathan on 02/18/2008 06:58 pm
Ross - does the Mars forward approach use a completely new capsule for Earth entry? Or is it actually the Orion capsule? The mass breakdown on the slideshow implied it was very light but I don't know the split in mass between orion capsule and its service module so I can't say for sure.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/18/2008 09:51 pm
Quote
Nathan - 18/2/2008  2:58 PM

Ross - does the Mars forward approach use a completely new capsule for Earth entry? Or is it actually the Orion capsule? The mass breakdown on the slideshow implied it was very light but I don't know the split in mass between orion capsule and its service module so I can't say for sure.

It is a variant of Orion optimized for the specific purpose.   You could consider it a Block-II or even a Block-III.

The Mars forward approach to Lunar Landings is really just a suggestion from us to the designers of the Lunar architecture to explore the idea of creating a Lunar mission approach which has more commonality to the one we will need later for Mars.

Such an approach would then act as a test-bed which is truly applicable for the later Mars missions instead of a highly optimized Lunar-only approach.   We realize that such an approach is sub-optimal for Lunar missions, but it would seem to help us develop more of the hardware we will eventually need for the more difficult instead of just assuming we will have to start afresh.

Please consider it as just a suggestion which should be explored - not our baseline.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 02/19/2008 07:05 pm
About the different precursor missions to lunar landing, why have an Apollo-8 style mission?  Personally I would do the ISS missions, skip the Apollo 8 style mission and go to the CEV/LSAM/EDS checkout in earth orbit ala Apollo 9, then go to the Apollo 10 style rehearsal with an unmanned LSAM landing and liftoff, followed by the Apollo 11 style full up.  All Apollo 8 venue would do is to do lunar shakedown of the Orion, which could easily be done at the same time as the lunar shakedown for the LSAM.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/19/2008 07:49 pm
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 19/2/2008  3:05 PM

About the different precursor missions to lunar landing, why have an Apollo-8 style mission?  Personally I would do the ISS missions, skip the Apollo 8 style mission and go to the CEV/LSAM/EDS checkout in earth orbit ala Apollo 9, then go to the Apollo 10 style rehearsal with an unmanned LSAM landing and liftoff, followed by the Apollo 11 style full up.  All Apollo 8 venue would do is to do lunar shakedown of the Orion, which could easily be done at the same time as the lunar shakedown for the LSAM.
Ron, it’s about getting the people re-engaged again. On the original Apollo-8 mission, it was all anybody talked about, for weeks. Everything and I do mean everything else, faded into the newspaper interior pages. The majority of people alive today were born after Apollo 17, so have never experienced a moon landing and this would be just as big a deal today as it was then. I don’t know how old you are, but I remember the entire space program, from the very first attempt with the Vanguard rocket, and I have to tell you that except for Apollo-11, the flight of Apollo-8 captured my imagination more strongly than anything else before or sense.

A sustainable lunar program is only going to happen with the consent of the people. An Apollo-8 style mission would be the beginning of that. It would be – is – an investment in the program that cannot be measured in dollars but that will return itself in spades.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: DarthVader on 02/19/2008 08:34 pm
Good job on the Space Show guys, I just finished listening to it. The presentation slideshow is a great addition. However, its contents wasn't fully covered, I'm afraid another Space Show is needed! ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/19/2008 08:45 pm
Yes, during the break we had a quick chat amongst ourselves and decided to go a bit more 'free form' because it was getting a touch 'dry' in the first section.   I think the show picked up a lot more pace after we decided to do that.

There is *always* a lot more ground we could have covered, but I think we covered most of the bases.   I'm sure David would be most receptive to a third show at some point - but I think we're going to wait a little while - at least to see what the Ares-I Tiger Team results are in March before going back again.   We are also preparing a new version of our "v2.02" documentation - essentially a small ~10-15 page summary of the DIRECT approach, but showing the latest configurations and details which keep evolving even since the AIAA paper was presented in September.   The release of that may present a really good opportunity to do another show.

Off topic, but David has also asked me to appear on the show again just to discuss all of the Ares-I and Ares-V issues.   Apparently he can't get anyone from NASA to discuss the issues in detail because of PAO limitations.   I'm certainly willing, but there's an obvious conflict of interest which I would have to address very clearly if I do.   We will see.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: yinzer on 02/19/2008 09:01 pm
A lunar orbital mission is not going to have remotely the same effect the second time around.  Apollo 8 was the first time man had left earth orbit, and only something like the third time people had sent anything beyond earth orbit.  The Earthrise picture was spectacular because it was completely new and foreign to human experience.

Doing it again will be more of a matter of "oh, didn't we do that back in the sixties or something?"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: DarthVader on 02/19/2008 09:02 pm
Ross, some of the 3D graphics you guys have in the proposal and other documents, are really nice. I don't know if that will be helpful in getting the word more out (likely not), but do you have any version of them suitable for desktop background? It may not hurt to have some IMHO.

In any case, keep up the good work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/19/2008 09:30 pm
Darth,
All the thanks for the great graphics we use goes to António Maia (simcosmos here on NSF) and Philip Metschan doing the 3D computer models and the beautiful artwork respectively.

They have some real talent there and take the un-elegant details we have and turn them into such amazing images for us.

Great idea about wallpapers.   I will make sure to mention it and see what comes of it.   Will let you know.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/19/2008 09:36 pm
Quote
yinzer - 19/2/2008  5:01 PM

A lunar orbital mission is not going to have remotely the same effect the second time around.  Apollo 8 was the first time man had left earth orbit, and only something like the third time people had sent anything beyond earth orbit.  The Earthrise picture was spectacular because it was completely new and foreign to human experience.

Doing it again will be more of a matter of "oh, didn't we do that back in the sixties or something?"

Nobody under the age of 35 today was alive for the last moon landing.

By the time this becomes possible again (2013 using an Orion flying w/ Jupiter-120 + Delta-IV Upper Stage, 2019 with Ares) there will be nobody under the age of 40.   This group will represent almost 70% of the world's population - who have never seen a human being go more than 200-300 miles away from the Earth's surface.

I for one can't wait to see and experience what my parents got to experience and I don't believe that I'm alone.

The public is bored with the human space program today because we haven't done anything different in 25 years - we've been stuck with the same vehicle, only ever going a few hundred miles away.   It's time to change that - and keep on changing, evolving, expanding and reaching further and further to keep the public interested.

Staying stagnant is what kills public interest IMHO.   So lets get out there, lets go to the moon, lets go to NEO's and lets go to Mars.   Lets do it all.   If NASA can hit a new target every say, 5-6 years or so, it wouldn't be a stagnant program any more.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 02/19/2008 09:51 pm
Ross,
I'd second the interest in a DIRECT wallpaper.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 02/19/2008 10:37 pm
Ross, in the Space Show of last Sunday, you mentioned a plan to have a lunar flyby with a J-120 rocket with a Delta IV upper stage. That would work fine, but it may not be the cheapest way to do that. The J-120 rocket with its 50+ mT LEO payload capability could  have a much larger Service Module (SM) than the one to be flown on Ares I.  For example, a 50 mT CEV including 35 mT of propellant and an ISP of 320 (hydrazine engine) woud have a delta V capability of 3775 m/s. That's more than enough for a TLI burn.

Considering that the price of propellant is negligible compared to the cost of a spacecraft, I think that going with a larger SM could be a key and pratically free advantage for the Direct architecture compared to the Ares architecture.  It could make the J-120 more than a LEO only vehicle (specially if we were to go back to methane propulsion instead of hydrazine).  Even in LEO, a large SM would have great advantages. It would have a significantly higher ISS orbit boosting capability than the Ares I SM.  In fact, a 35 mT propellant SM would have the capability to change the ISS inclination by almost 2 degrees.  So, should there be a need in the future to change the ISS inclination to 28.5 degrees, this could be accomplished in 6 years at no extra cost than regular J-120 crew transfer flights (two flights per year).

On the safety side, a large SM would also allow the transfer of the CEV from a 28.5 degrees orbit to a 51.6 degrees orbit (ISS inclination) in case of technical issues (such as heat shield damage or parachute inoperability) preventing return to earth.  That is something that the Space Shuttle cannot do.  Even for moon missions the extra propellant in the SM could be used as a pre-TLI burn in order to reduce the delta V requirement of the EDS.  For NEO and Mars missions, having a SM with extra delta V could be very useful if not essential. The way I see it having extra delta V is never a bad thing when you have a rocket such as the J-120 capable to put the extra propellant mass in LEO anyway.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 02/19/2008 10:46 pm
Re: Direct wallpaper.
The J-120 on the crawler on the way to the pad is great. Yes, more.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: madscientist197 on 02/20/2008 02:34 am
Quote
PaulL - 19/2/2008  12:37 PM
a delta V capability of 3775 m/s. That's more than enough for a TLI burn.

Only if you're doing a figure 8 around the moon and back, it's not enough for LOI and TEI. I agree that a more capable Orion SM would be desirable though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 02/20/2008 03:54 am
Quote
PaulL - 19/2/2008  5:37 PM

On the safety side, a large SM would also allow the transfer of the CEV from a 28.5 degrees orbit to a 51.6 degrees orbit (ISS inclination) in case of technical issues (such as heat shield damage or parachute inoperability) preventing return to earth.

This is only true for the fairly narrow range of orbits where the RAANs are close enough to aligned so that the wedge angle between the planes is not much larger than the inclination difference. In the general case, the delta-V to transfer from 28.5 to 51.6 can range from 3.1 km/s (RAANs aligned) to over 10 km/s (RAANs 180 deg out). The only way to keep the delta-V requirements under the 3.7 km/s capability you propose is to limit the launch window.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 02/20/2008 10:36 am
Quote
Jorge - 19/2/2008  10:54 PM

Quote
PaulL - 19/2/2008  5:37 PM

On the safety side, a large SM would also allow the transfer of the CEV from a 28.5 degrees orbit to a 51.6 degrees orbit (ISS inclination) in case of technical issues (such as heat shield damage or parachute inoperability) preventing return to earth.

This is only true for the fairly narrow range of orbits where the RAANs are close enough to aligned so that the wedge angle between the planes is not much larger than the inclination difference. In the general case, the delta-V to transfer from 28.5 to 51.6 can range from 3.1 km/s (RAANs aligned) to over 10 km/s (RAANs 180 deg out). The only way to keep the delta-V requirements under the 3.7 km/s capability you propose is to limit the launch window.

Indeed, that is something that would have to be taken under consideration in advance in the selection of a launch window for a 28.5 degrees LEO mission such as an HST maintenance mission for example.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/20/2008 11:11 am
We are discussing wallpapers since the suggestion was made.   We are looking at a few different ones.   Watch this space :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/20/2008 11:21 am
Regarding where we are right now with the 'flyby' option, we can do the figure of 8 without too many problems.   But we are limited on propellant for the LOI.

But, courtesy of the poor performance of the Ares-I the Orion has been equipped with extra propellant on-board already to get it into orbit properly from -11x100nm up to 130x130nm to meet with the Ares-V EDS/LSAM.

This seems to be worth about 600-700m/s of dV, so it gets us quite a long way towards our the target.   However if we are boosting the Orion with this extra propellant, it is heavier and then the DIV-US isn't quite powerful enough to complete the full 3150m/s TLI we need so it looks like we need to burn some of that Orion propellant to complete TLI :(

We're trading a number of ideas and I would guess that we will be able to make at least a highly eliptical Lunar orbit, but how close we can get is still being worked out.

What we don't want to do though, is have to redesign and re-qualify the CEV in any way just for a single flight.   Once it is qualified in baseline form we would suggest leaving it fundamentally alone.   Increasing its capacity for just this one flight flies in the face of all DIRECT's attempts to lower costs :)

The only way we would go for a change to Orion's spec at this point is if we were to baseline something like an EML rendezvous and decided to use the DIV-US in all situations - but that seems highly unlikely.


BTW the Orion's engine has an Isp far lower than the RL-10B-2 on the DIV-US, so replacing the DIV-US with a super-SM would not improve performance to the moon for a mission like this on a Jupiter-120.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: DarthVader on 02/20/2008 05:55 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/2/2008  4:11 AM

We are discussing wallpapers since the suggestion was made.   We are looking at a few different ones.   Watch this space :)

Ross.

Great news Ross! Looking forward to it :-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 02/21/2008 12:04 am
Quote
PaulL - 20/2/2008  5:36 AM

Quote
Jorge - 19/2/2008  10:54 PM

Quote
PaulL - 19/2/2008  5:37 PM

On the safety side, a large SM would also allow the transfer of the CEV from a 28.5 degrees orbit to a 51.6 degrees orbit (ISS inclination) in case of technical issues (such as heat shield damage or parachute inoperability) preventing return to earth.

This is only true for the fairly narrow range of orbits where the RAANs are close enough to aligned so that the wedge angle between the planes is not much larger than the inclination difference. In the general case, the delta-V to transfer from 28.5 to 51.6 can range from 3.1 km/s (RAANs aligned) to over 10 km/s (RAANs 180 deg out). The only way to keep the delta-V requirements under the 3.7 km/s capability you propose is to limit the launch window.

Indeed, that is something that would have to be taken under consideration in advance in the selection of a launch window for a 28.5 degrees LEO mission such as an HST maintenance mission for example.

PaulL

And if the ISS windows don't line up with the HST windows...? You might get one opportunity per year if you constrain it like that!

And forget doing lunar missions with any kind of regularity if you constrain the lunar launch windows to line up with ISS.

Sorry, not going to happen. Orion missions to HST or the moon will not be constrained so as to make abort-to-ISS possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Patchouli on 02/21/2008 12:34 am
Quote
Jorge - 20/2/2008  7:04 PM

Quote
PaulL - 20/2/2008  5:36 AM

Quote
Jorge - 19/2/2008  10:54 PM

Quote
PaulL - 19/2/2008  5:37 PM

On the safety side, a large SM would also allow the transfer of the CEV from a 28.5 degrees orbit to a 51.6 degrees orbit (ISS inclination) in case of technical issues (such as heat shield damage or parachute inoperability) preventing return to earth.

This is only true for the fairly narrow range of orbits where the RAANs are close enough to aligned so that the wedge angle between the planes is not much larger than the inclination difference. In the general case, the delta-V to transfer from 28.5 to 51.6 can range from 3.1 km/s (RAANs aligned) to over 10 km/s (RAANs 180 deg out). The only way to keep the delta-V requirements under the 3.7 km/s capability you propose is to limit the launch window.

Indeed, that is something that would have to be taken under consideration in advance in the selection of a launch window for a 28.5 degrees LEO mission such as an HST maintenance mission for example.

PaulL

And if the ISS windows don't line up with the HST windows...? You might get one opportunity per year if you constrain it like that!

And forget doing lunar missions with any kind of regularity if you constrain the lunar launch windows to line up with ISS.

Sorry, not going to happen. Orion missions to HST or the moon will not be constrained so as to make abort-to-ISS possible.

A possible fix for massive safety issues with using Orion for HST and JWST servicing missions at least might be to go ahead an fund arctus as a component of the Constellation system and you kill two birds with one stone you get the airlock you need for doing any real work in space and you get a back up descent vehicle.

Also arctus might be usable as the pressurized hab section of the LSAM or it's inflatable heat shield be used on it as a last resort back up if something bad happens to the Orion SM which would most likely ruin the heat shield.

Another trick Direct can allow is a TKS like SM kinda like the old Gemini MOL concept where you have a hab section you can access through a hatch in the heat shield this would allow more options with ISS resupply and produce a vehicle one actually can use to visit NEOs vs having to wait for a special habitation section to be invented first.



Now for plan B the bigelow station which should be fully operational by then might be reachable by Orion from Hubble's orbit then a private craft can be sent up to fetch the crew and the damaged Orion made to reenter unmanned off the coast of California if it survives you still get it back but if it doesn't well it crashes into the ocean vs on land so no bad press about scattering toxic hydrazine all over the place.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/21/2008 01:07 am
Quote
Patchouli - 21/2/2008  10:34 AM
1. A possible fix for massive safety issues with using Orion for HST and JWST servicing missions at least might be to go ahead an fund arctus as a component of the Constellation system and you kill two birds with one stone you get the airlock you need for doing any real work in space and you get a back up descent vehicle.

2. Also arctus might be usable as the pressurized hab section of the LSAM or it's inflatable heat shield be used on it as a last resort back up if something bad happens to the Orion SM which would most likely ruin the heat shield.

3. Another trick Direct can allow is a TKS like SM kinda like the old Gemini MOL concept where you have a hab section you can access through a hatch in the heat shield this would allow more options with ISS resupply and produce a vehicle one actually can use to visit NEOs vs having to wait for a special habitation section to be invented first.

4. Now for plan B the bigelow station which should be fully operational by then might be reachable by Orion from Hubble's orbit then a private craft can be sent up to fetch the crew and the damaged Orion made to reenter unmanned off the coast of California if it survives you still get it back but if it doesn't well it crashes into the ocean vs on land so no bad press about scattering toxic hydrazine all over the place.

1. & 2. ARCTUS is nothing more than a tin can made of spare parts, beyond its manoeuvring  bus. Same goes for Cygnus. No life support, nothing. If you want a tin can to modify, use an MPLM.

3. A hole in the heatshield? NASA would not like that.

4. Bigelow station / private craft doesn't even exist yet but will probably be in 28.5 degree orbit if using Dreamchaser / Atlas. NTO / UMMH only an issue now because of that spysat. Tanks of the stuff have been re-entering since long before I was born.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 02/21/2008 01:12 am
Quote
Patchouli - 20/2/2008  8:34 PM

A possible fix for massive safety issues with using Orion for HST and JWST servicing missions at least might be to go ahead an fund arctus as a component of the Constellation system and you kill two birds with one stone you get the airlock you need for doing any real work in space and you get a back up descent vehicle.


Why does this keep coming up.

The shuttle paradigm is not applicable to the CEV.  Spacecraft servicing is not one of its roles/missions
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/21/2008 01:18 am
Quote
kraisee - 20/2/2008  9:21 PM
We're trading a number of ideas and I would guess that we will be able to make at least a highly eliptical Lunar orbit, but how close we can get is still being worked out.

Ross.

I'm only guessing here, but how about a figure-of-8 orbit round L1 and the moon? That would give the crew close passes to the far side, at least. Maybe a bit more time at lower altitude than a highly elliptical orbit because of the pinch in the middle of "8." Depends on where the pinch is, though... probably too high to make a difference.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 02/21/2008 02:17 am
Quote
Jorge - 20/2/2008  7:04 PM

Quote
PaulL - 20/2/2008  5:36 AM

Quote
Jorge - 19/2/2008  10:54 PM

Quote
PaulL - 19/2/2008  5:37 PM

On the safety side, a large SM would also allow the transfer of the CEV from a 28.5 degrees orbit to a 51.6 degrees orbit (ISS inclination) in case of technical issues (such as heat shield damage or parachute inoperability) preventing return to earth.

This is only true for the fairly narrow range of orbits where the RAANs are close enough to aligned so that the wedge angle between the planes is not much larger than the inclination difference. In the general case, the delta-V to transfer from 28.5 to 51.6 can range from 3.1 km/s (RAANs aligned) to over 10 km/s (RAANs 180 deg out). The only way to keep the delta-V requirements under the 3.7 km/s capability you propose is to limit the launch window.

Indeed, that is something that would have to be taken under consideration in advance in the selection of a launch window for a 28.5 degrees LEO mission such as an HST maintenance mission for example.

PaulL

And if the ISS windows don't line up with the HST windows...? You might get one opportunity per year if you constrain it like that!

And forget doing lunar missions with any kind of regularity if you constrain the lunar launch windows to line up with ISS.

Sorry, not going to happen. Orion missions to HST or the moon will not be constrained so as to make abort-to-ISS possible.

The HST orbit period is about 4 minutes longer than the ISS orbit period. So favorable windows should come much more frequently than inferred above.

With regard to moon missions, with a mostly filled EDS and full LSAM in addition to a SM,  your overall delta V available should make a ISS rendez-vous a "piece of cake".


PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula2 on 02/21/2008 02:52 am
Quote
PaulL - 21/2/2008  2:17 PM

The HST orbit period is about 4 minutes longer than the ISS orbit period. So favorable windows should come much more frequently than inferred above.

With regard to moon missions, with a mostly filled EDS and full LSAM in addition to a SM,  your overall delta V available should make a ISS rendez-vous a "piece of cake".

PaulL

For how long? You might rendezvous with HST on one such orbit, but several days or hours of servicing later...

And moon missions are already short of margin without adding ISS detours.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 02/21/2008 10:29 am
Quote
kkattula2 - 20/2/2008  9:52 PM

Quote
PaulL - 21/2/2008  2:17 PM

The HST orbit period is about 4 minutes longer than the ISS orbit period. So favorable windows should come much more frequently than inferred above.

With regard to moon missions, with a mostly filled EDS and full LSAM in addition to a SM,  your overall delta V available should make a ISS rendez-vous a "piece of cake".

PaulL

For how long? You might rendezvous with HST on one such orbit, but several days or hours of servicing later...

And moon missions are already short of margin without adding ISS detours.

I realize that your ability to transfer to ISS will will come and go with time in orbit.  What you want is to be in a "green" zone at the end of your mission.  So if a problem affecting landing occurs, you can wait to be in that zone.

The concept of going to the ISS is for emergency situations only. So for a moon mission, it is only to improve your LOC number, not your LOM number.  

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 02/21/2008 10:57 am
Quote
Jim - 20/2/2008  9:12 PM

Quote
Patchouli - 20/2/2008  8:34 PM

A possible fix for massive safety issues with using Orion for HST and JWST servicing missions at least might be to go ahead an fund arctus as a component of the Constellation system and you kill two birds with one stone you get the airlock you need for doing any real work in space and you get a back up descent vehicle.


Why does this keep coming up.

The shuttle paradigm is not applicable to the CEV.  Spacecraft servicing is not one of its roles/missions

I think the reason it keeps coming up is because there is a general feeling that the "Apollo on Steroids" paradigm for Orion is likely to fail, and all that will be left is the Orion spacecraft itself, with no real mission. People are casting about for ways Orion could do Shuttle-equivalent missions. If it winds up launching on an EELV, for example, then reaching for alternative missions is a way to have the space program go forward on alternate paths. Otherwise, "Apollo on FenFen" will be cancelled and that will be an end to it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/21/2008 11:35 am
Guys, please. Either make a connection to Direct v2.0 for the things you’re discussing, or take them to a different thread. Going OT is allowed only if you can actually connect it to the thread subject.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jkarpisc on 02/21/2008 01:16 pm
Direct is an interesting concept, however what will work will be the concept that is politically expediant (Constellation).  The only way that will change is if there is a new space race; somthing I find too difficult believe possible unless a more efficient form of propulsion is developed.

jk3
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 02/21/2008 01:26 pm
Quote
PaulL - 20/2/2008  9:17 PM

Quote
Jorge - 20/2/2008  7:04 PM

Quote
PaulL - 20/2/2008  5:36 AM

Quote
Jorge - 19/2/2008  10:54 PM

Quote
PaulL - 19/2/2008  5:37 PM

On the safety side, a large SM would also allow the transfer of the CEV from a 28.5 degrees orbit to a 51.6 degrees orbit (ISS inclination) in case of technical issues (such as heat shield damage or parachute inoperability) preventing return to earth.

This is only true for the fairly narrow range of orbits where the RAANs are close enough to aligned so that the wedge angle between the planes is not much larger than the inclination difference. In the general case, the delta-V to transfer from 28.5 to 51.6 can range from 3.1 km/s (RAANs aligned) to over 10 km/s (RAANs 180 deg out). The only way to keep the delta-V requirements under the 3.7 km/s capability you propose is to limit the launch window.

Indeed, that is something that would have to be taken under consideration in advance in the selection of a launch window for a 28.5 degrees LEO mission such as an HST maintenance mission for example.

PaulL

And if the ISS windows don't line up with the HST windows...? You might get one opportunity per year if you constrain it like that!

And forget doing lunar missions with any kind of regularity if you constrain the lunar launch windows to line up with ISS.

Sorry, not going to happen. Orion missions to HST or the moon will not be constrained so as to make abort-to-ISS possible.

The HST orbit period is about 4 minutes longer than the ISS orbit period. So favorable windows should come much more frequently than inferred above.

No, you do not understand. It is not the difference in orbital periods that determines when the nodes are aligned. It is the differential nodal regression period that determines this. Go study on this topic until you understand.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 02/21/2008 01:28 pm
Quote
Lampyridae - 20/2/2008  8:07 PM

Quote
Patchouli - 21/2/2008  10:34 AM

3. Another trick Direct can allow is a TKS like SM kinda like the old Gemini MOL concept where you have a hab section you can access through a hatch in the heat shield this would allow more options with ISS resupply and produce a vehicle one actually can use to visit NEOs vs having to wait for a special habitation section to be invented first.


3. A hole in the heatshield? NASA would not like that.

Not a hole, a hatch. Like the orbiter landing gear doors, the ET umbilical well doors, etc.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/21/2008 01:32 pm
Quote
jkarpisc - 21/2/2008  9:16 AM

Direct is an interesting concept, however what will work will be the concept that is politically expediant (Constellation).  The only way that will change is if there is a new space race; somthing I find too difficult believe possible unless a more efficient form of propulsion is developed.

jk3
THIS thread is about the DIRECT architecture and the Jupiter Launch Vehicles that support it - only! If you want to talk about something else, either take it to the existing thread for that topic or start a new thread about that topic. This thread is not the place to discuss any other "alternatives" unless you can directly relate your musings directly to THIS threads topic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jorge on 02/22/2008 12:47 am
Quote
jongoff - 21/2/2008  10:17 AM

Sorry to be annoying (and off-topic), but Jorge, my Private Mail isn't letting me send stuff.  Could you ping me at xxx?  I had a few questions for you.

Will do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/22/2008 03:22 am
Quote
Lampyridae - 20/2/2008  9:18 PM

Quote
kraisee - 20/2/2008  9:21 PM
We're trading a number of ideas and I would guess that we will be able to make at least a highly eliptical Lunar orbit, but how close we can get is still being worked out.

Ross.

I'm only guessing here, but how about a figure-of-8 orbit round L1 and the moon? That would give the crew close passes to the far side, at least. Maybe a bit more time at lower altitude than a highly elliptical orbit because of the pinch in the middle of "8." Depends on where the pinch is, though... probably too high to make a difference.

All of these are being considered.   It ultimately boils down to how much impulse we can get from each module and still safely get a crew home for sure.   Sir Isaac Newton is most certainly in the driver's seat for this.

At this point, let us work out the numbers and as soon as we are confident we know what the answers are, we will let everyone here know.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/22/2008 03:34 am
Quote
jkarpisc - 21/2/2008  9:16 AM

Direct is an interesting concept, however what will work will be the concept that is politically expediant (Constellation).  The only way that will change is if there is a new space race; somthing I find too difficult believe possible unless a more efficient form of propulsion is developed.

jk3

There are other factors at work already.

The job losses Ares is currently incurring.   The technical issues with Ares-I.   The constant going around in circles trying to squeeze a bit extra performance here and there between Ares-I and Orion programs just attempting to get a cut down Orion to fly on a vehicle not really powerful enough for it is causing near-endless delays and pushing out the schedule and increasing the development costs to a point the entire program is having real difficulties justifying now.   The fact that Ares-V and Ares-I together are still a long way from closing the performance requirement (the '13mT shortfall' issue) for the missions being planned.

All of these are bringing ever-increasing pressure to bear upon the Constellation program politically.   Griffin's honeymoon period was over when he 'mis spoke' about global warming a while back, and currently his Congressional approval rating is lower than any President in history, and even lower than former FEMA Director Mike Brown was after the debacle in New Orleans.

Managers are asking to be transferred from Ares-related programs and people are looking for new jobs.

This does not sound like a healthy program to me.   I expect changes - radical changes - when the new political Administration comes to power.

The only question I have is whether there will be *ANY* human exploration program at all when that happens though.   IMHO, that is a question still very firmly up in the air - but I am doing everything in my power to present a case for an alternative plan which I think can not only work - but resolve almost all of the current 'problems' CxP are facing at the moment.

We have no problems lifting the full Orion - not a cut down version.   We have a system which already flies a fully-proven solution to the SRB's oscillation environment.   We have no schedule problems because we can fly 2 years after Shuttle retires.   We cut development costs by more than half.   While each of these isn't enough of a reason to change, together they are quite damning when viewed against the new program.

I was recently asked - through a third party - "why are the DIRECT guys embarrassing Constellation?".   My reply paraphrased Dilbert: "maybe Constellation management should stop choosing such embarrassing solutions".

I feel sorry for the majority of the engineers and good folk trying to work around the crappy decisions made far above their pay grade.   It's not their fault, but they are the ones who are going to get the shaft in the end - as always.   Even if the program falls flat on its arse (hmmm, that word is an anagram of Ares...   Interesting) , you can be sure Griffin and his 'inner circle' will still get high-paid jobs in industry and golden parachutes to allow them to buy a new yacht.   How many of the thousands of unemployed workers at MSFC, JSC and KSC are going to see that?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/22/2008 05:19 am
Quote
Jorge - 21/2/2008  11:28 PM

Quote
Lampyridae - 20/2/2008  8:07 PM
3. A hole in the heatshield? NASA would not like that.

Not a hole, a hatch. Like the orbiter landing gear doors, the ET umbilical well doors, etc.

OT: Of course, but by hole I meant that as the thing that the hatch seals.

Quote
Managers are asking to be transferred from Ares-related programs and people are looking for new jobs.

This does not sound like a healthy program to me. I expect changes - radical changes - when the new political Administration comes to power.

If all this is true, looks like the writing's on the wall for team ESAS. I wonder if any of the (as yet unknown) future Administration have seen or know of DIRECT? I don't expect them to micromanage but if they know there's a REAL fasterbettercheaper alternative...

On that subject, do you believe any of Griffin's possible successors are going to push DIRECT? I don't really know who decides the big picture at NASA (although everybody says It's All Mike's Fault)...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/22/2008 05:43 am
I have just started a separate thread for continued discussion of the alternative Orion designs.

We also need another one for the orbital mechanics discussion please.

Both subjects are very interesting, but as Chuck says, "not here" :)   They deserve a wider audience than just those viewing the DIRECT thread anyway.

Thanks,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/22/2008 05:44 am
We are making sure that many important folk in the new Administration are getting to hear about this.   I won't be specific, but trust that we aren't resting on our laurels.

As for names of replacements - it is too early to tell.   I've heard a handful of different names.   The decision is still a long way off so there is just no telling.

The big question will be whether the new President in 2009 is willing to support human exploration or whether they will try to push/convince Congress (which may be the same or opposing party) into another decade of just more "Earth Science" missions.

Whether the mistakes of ESAS are enough to kill the whole VSE is the biggest danger in all this.   This mess could end up just handing over all the keys for human exploration to the Chinese.

And all while an SDLV alternative that has demonstrated that it can work is being deliberately ignored.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/22/2008 10:51 am
When Stephen, Chuck and myself were on The Space Show last Sunday (, a lady asked if we were going to do some slides showing the lay-person what the advantages of DIRECT are compared to the current architecture.

In amongst everything else we have been doing recently, I have been preparing just such a set of slides to show commonality, safety, performance, schedule and cost benefits.   Here is a preview for everyone here on NSF to enjoy:-

Commonality:




Safety:



Performance:



Schedule:



Cost:

This pdf shows the breakdown in quite a bit of detail.   It is quite difficult to make it much simpler than this and still keep it accurate instead of just "generalizing".


I would appreciate feedback from folk here please to see how these may need further refinement before they go up on the main directlauncher.com site.

Thanks,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 02/22/2008 11:22 am
Quote
clongton - 21/2/2008  7:35 AM

Guys, please. Either make a connection to Direct v2.0 for the things you’re discussing, or take them to a different thread. Going OT is allowed only if you can actually connect it to the thread subject.

The connection is, with Jupiter 120, use of Orion as an alternative to the STS paradigm becomes not only feasible, but obvious. I think you guys have an illustration somewhere that shows J120 with an Orion on top and an STS-substitute payload carrier in the "mission module" space. I don't know whether its actually worthwhile or not (not being an engineer or scientist), but I have to say those sorts of payload/mission operations must have seemed worthwhile to someone sometime, or STS would never have been developed. Part of "selling" DIRECT may very well come from thinking of alternate/extended uses of DIRECT. What's it good for besides as a "going to the Moon machine?" In addition to as an STS replacement, I'd bet if a reliable, more or less affordable 50mT LV existed, bigger, better comsats would pop out of the woodwork, for example. And with Jupiter 232, JIMO wouldn't be such a stretch. The more constituencies you can reach, the better.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 02/22/2008 12:14 pm
Ross, The Graphic for Payload is a bit confusing.. even though you say 2xJ232 or 6xJ232 it appears from the little figures of the rockets at the bottom that you are using a mix of J232's and J120's..  Also you only show 5 rocket figures under the Jupiter version of the Mars mission not the 6 you say you need.  I would think the graphic for a "crewed" J232 should somehow have a different look than the J-120 to avoid confusion.  Just my $0.02

edit: Looking closer I can make out the difference between the crewed J232 and the J-120s.. although it's not easy.

why are 3 "crewed" variant J232s icons shown under the Mars mission? the Ares Mars mission only has one "crewed" launch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: dnavas on 02/22/2008 02:19 pm
Ross,

I listened to the show and remember the request.  I think (though I may be projecting) that the desire is for something on the order of an "elevator" pitch.  Not much more, really, than better cheaper faster.  I think these slides are an important introduction, say, to sections that dive down into the details, but she's looking for the abstract at the top.

Compare the costs, compare the time until first launch, compare the missions covered.

I know you want to dive down into recurring vs. non-recurring costs.  Maybe a better way to do that comparison is to assume a fixed budget *first*, then describe a "representative" mix of missions.  "At present NASA budget levels, ARES I could support ... while Direct2 would support..."

I seem to remember a slight recurring-cost disadvantage to Direct2 to ISS.  iirc, ARES-1 takes more to build.  If you assume the mix of missions above, at what point does the tradeoff in ARES-1 make sense?  At what date is breakeven?

If you can reduce to one slide the cost ($ plus crew loss) vs. benefit (missions flown) over time, that would be your elevator pitch.  Don't leave the numbers out (the last slide in your pres had none, for example), but don't pile them on either.

Just my two cents.  Good luck!

:/delurk:

-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 02/22/2008 03:17 pm
Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 22/2/2008  8:14 AM

why are 3 "crewed" variant J232s icons shown under the Mars mission? the Ares Mars mission only has one "crewed" launch.

Actually there was talk of multiple crew launches.  the earlier crews help assemble and  prep the MTV
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/22/2008 03:49 pm
Thicken the red boxes around the Moon landings so the lines do nor disappear when shrunk.

Add a line saying since the Orion is above the fuel tank falling foam will not damage the hear shield.  People know this problem and will want to know it has been solved.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 02/22/2008 05:34 pm
Ross, in your Comparison_Performance_2.gif under Mars you have many icons for EELV but the description says 1-Vehicle 7-Launch. Should it be 1-Vehicle 20-Launch?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 02/22/2008 05:48 pm
This might seem redundant, but maybe the DIRECT team should revamp the wikipedia DIRECT topic.  For instance, the only graphic on the page is from the 1.0 architecture, not 2.0.  Also, this may seem shallow but a photoshopped rendition of Jupiter would be wise, because believe it or not many people like eye candy and it makes the page more attractive.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/22/2008 07:20 pm
Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 22/2/2008  8:14 AM

Ross, The Graphic for Payload is a bit confusing.. even though you say 2xJ232 or 6xJ232 it appears from the little figures of the rockets at the bottom that you are using a mix of J232's and J120's..  Also you only show 5 rocket figures under the Jupiter version of the Mars mission not the 6 you say you need.  I would think the graphic for a "crewed" J232 should somehow have a different look than the J-120 to avoid confusion.  Just my $0.02

edit: Looking closer I can make out the difference between the crewed J232 and the J-120s.. although it's not easy.

why are 3 "crewed" variant J232s icons shown under the Mars mission? the Ares Mars mission only has one "crewed" launch.

Ron, yes, the Jupiter's do all look fairly similar - one of the effects of using such a common 'base' for everything I suppose.

For Mars, we only require 5 launches.   The sub-line says "1 vehicle, 5 launches" meaning 1 vehicle type, used 5 times.   In that image what you actually see there are four uncrewed launchers - 3 propellant flights with minimized aero-shrouds, one cargo launcher to bring up hardware and then on the right is the CLV - which also brings up additional hardware as well as the crew.   Using the new MLAS abort system it is fairly difficult to tell whether there is an Orion or not at this scale.

I will work to improve the clarity of this.   Thanks for pointing it out.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/22/2008 07:21 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 22/2/2008  11:49 AM

Thicken the red boxes around the Moon landings so the lines do nor disappear when shrunk.

Add a line saying since the Orion is above the fuel tank falling foam will not damage the hear shield.  People know this problem and will want to know it has been solved.

Good idea.   Also, if I save the small image directly out from CorelDRAW it should help also.   The 400px wide versions above were re-sampled using Photoshop and they appear to be seriously lacking in details.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/22/2008 07:27 pm
Quote
Jim - 22/2/2008  11:17 AM

Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 22/2/2008  8:14 AM

why are 3 "crewed" variant J232s icons shown under the Mars mission? the Ares Mars mission only has one "crewed" launch.

Actually there was talk of multiple crew launches.  the earlier crews help assemble and  prep the MTV

That is still an option, but we're assuming five largely automated dockings with the crew joining at the end to perform a full checkout - and fix any problems before departure.

If that needs to change, a Jupiter-120 could be launched around the time of the second assembly flight, along with a hab module (maybe based on something like a modified LSAM Ascent Stage habitat) and supplies.   They could thus stay on-orbit for a month or more that way to oversee the entire assembly process if required and maybe they could stay to do an official 'hand over' to the final crew.

It's all just options at this stage - purely because CxP are planning fully automated, so are we.   But we have thought-out our backup strategy already.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/22/2008 07:29 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 22/2/2008  11:49 AM

Thicken the red boxes around the Moon landings so the lines do nor disappear when shrunk.

Add a line saying since the Orion is above the fuel tank falling foam will not damage the hear shield.  People know this problem and will want to know it has been solved.

Good point.   I'm going to try re-saving using CorelDRAW in different formats too to see what produces the best results here.   I'm guessing that maybe using jpg's might allow for more anti-aliasing by browsers - and that might 'protect' such lines from dissapearing entirely.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/22/2008 07:29 pm
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 22/2/2008  1:34 PM

Ross, in your Comparison_Performance_2.gif under Mars you have many icons for EELV but the description says 1-Vehicle 7-Launch. Should it be 1-Vehicle 20-Launch?

Well spotted!   Will fix.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/22/2008 07:30 pm
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 22/2/2008  1:48 PM

This might seem redundant, but maybe the DIRECT team should revamp the wikipedia DIRECT topic.  For instance, the only graphic on the page is from the 1.0 architecture, not 2.0.  Also, this may seem shallow but a photoshopped rendition of Jupiter would be wise, because believe it or not many people like eye candy and it makes the page more attractive.

Yes, it has been on my 'to do' list for a while now, but just hasn't been a high priority.

I think much of that information there still harks back to the old v1 material.

I will try :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/22/2008 08:04 pm
Quote
dnavas - 22/2/2008  10:19 AM

Ross,

I listened to the show and remember the request.  I think (though I may be projecting) that the desire is for something on the order of an "elevator" pitch.  Not much more, really, than better cheaper faster.  I think these slides are an important introduction, say, to sections that dive down into the details, but she's looking for the abstract at the top.

Compare the costs, compare the time until first launch, compare the missions covered.

I know you want to dive down into recurring vs. non-recurring costs.  Maybe a better way to do that comparison is to assume a fixed budget *first*, then describe a "representative" mix of missions.  "At present NASA budget levels, ARES I could support ... while Direct2 would support..."

I seem to remember a slight recurring-cost disadvantage to Direct2 to ISS.  iirc, ARES-1 takes more to build.  If you assume the mix of missions above, at what point does the tradeoff in ARES-1 make sense?  At what date is breakeven?

If you can reduce to one slide the cost ($ plus crew loss) vs. benefit (missions flown) over time, that would be your elevator pitch.  Don't leave the numbers out (the last slide in your pres had none, for example), but don't pile them on either.

Just my two cents.  Good luck!

:/delurk:

-Dave

*This* is the big one so far :)

"cost ($ plus crew loss) vs. benefit (missions flown) over time" Eh?  

Getting this right is going to take some pretty serious work.   Combining all that information on a single graph, without making it look overly complicated is clearly tricky.   I think it's going to have to be at least a few separate graphs.


You are correct - there was a very slight cost advantage initially to Ares-I.   With a fixed operational cost of $800m vs. $900m and a per-flight cost starting at $130m vs. $140m respectively, the two years of 'small launcher' operations would be a little more expensive than the Ares-I.

But the moment the 'second' vehicle comes online for the Lunar program that situation reverses itself in a very big way.   Ares-V adds about $1,200m additional fixed costs when it comes online (not including the EDS costs).   Comparatively, Jupiter-232 instead 'shares' half of the Core vehicle's costs - essentially cutting Jupiter-120's fixed costs down by $450m each year.

The first year of operation of the 'larger launcher' will completely wipe out any benefit Ares had over Jupiter.   In fact, the total deficit for Ares in that first year will be around $1bn!


And there is another issue - Not counting the fixed costs, and just considering the variable for a moment, Ares-I is not being planned to launch more than about 4 times per year, maximum.   Economies of scale mean that while a single Ares-I each year would have a variable cost of approximately $130m, producing 4 per year would drop that to around $105m each.

But unlike Ares, the Jupiter-120 is essentially the exact same Core vehicle as used for Jupiter-232 later.   While four Jupiter-120-only flights will follow a similar trend, going from $140m down to $113m each, when the Jupiter-232 is also flying it adds many more units to the production run.

A $4bn LV budget baselined by CxP currently would actually allow Jupiter to launch 2 ISS missions, 6 2-launch Lunar Crew missions and 2 Lunar Cargo missions - a total of 16 Jupiter vehicles.   At that flight rate, each Jupiter-120's costs drop to just $92m.


Anyway, I will have another look at reducing the number of slides down again :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/22/2008 09:08 pm
Okay, some updates...

I've added the fixes to the drawings you guys suggested, and did a few other minor tweaks too.

The Cost section will take longer, so isn't updated here.

Added Workforce to the list.


Comparison:




Safety:




Schedule:




Performance:




Workforce:




Please let me know if that helps - or if there are still bugs.   I will update the Costs ASAP - over the weekend with a bit of luck.

Thanks to all for the feedback so far!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: dnavas on 02/23/2008 12:20 am
Quote
kraisee - 22/2/2008  1:04 PM
"cost ($ plus crew loss) vs. benefit (missions flown) over time" Eh?  

Getting this right is going to take some pretty serious work.   Combining all that information on a single graph, without making it look overly complicated is clearly tricky.   I think it's going to have to be at least a few separate graphs.

Heh -- you're too close to all the data.  Let me see if I can help a bit.

I wasn't actually thinking of a graph -- I was thinking more along the lines of your last page in the presentation, but with "some" data.

Something like:
Two years earlier
10% safer
twice the number of lunar launches w/current NASA budgets
etc.

Like I said -- a lot closer to your last page, but with a little more color.  The last page currently says things like:
"Lower the risk"  "Reduce the Gap"
and I think the general audience is wondering "how much?" and "what gap?"  ;)

Quote
You are correct - there was a very slight cost advantage initially to Ares-I.   With a fixed operational cost of $800m vs. $900m and a per-flight cost starting at $130m vs. $140m respectively, the two years of 'small launcher' operations would be a little more expensive than the Ares-I.

Hmm, what I was trying to get at was recurring costs vs. development costs, rather than fixed vs. per-flight costs.  My recollection (and I have read your whole v2 pdf awhile ago, and have the thing printed out ... at home ... but forgive me my poor memory) is that ARES-I will cost more to develop, but less to run.  I understand that there's the whole ARES-IV thing, and J232 thing, but, I'm not operating under the delusion that A-IV will be funded, so, JUST comparing J120 and Ares-I, after how many launches does ARES-I make sense from a cost perspective?  Or was that development cost benefit only when you include Ares-IV?

If you can say something like "cheaper transportation to the ISS for ten years", then, that's a decent bullet point to add.  If not, well, nevermind :)

Another whack at the cost viewpoint is to take the ARES-I/IV timeline and launch "schedule", and cost it out.  Then cost out the exact same J-based launches and compare.

Even better, if the J-xxx launch equivalents for the ARES-based "schedule" can fit within current NASA budgets, and the ARES launches can't, you can say:

"goes to Mars within current NASA budgets"

Quote
But the moment the 'second' vehicle comes online for the Lunar program that situation reverses itself in a very big way.   Ares-V adds about $1,200m additional fixed costs when it comes online (not including the EDS costs).   Comparatively, Jupiter-232 instead 'shares' half of the Core vehicle's costs - essentially cutting Jupiter-120's fixed costs down by $450m each year.

The first year of operation of the 'larger launcher' will completely wipe out any benefit Ares had over Jupiter.   In fact, the total deficit for Ares in that first year will be around $1bn!

And there is another issue - Not counting the fixed costs, and just considering the variable for a moment, Ares-I is not being planned to launch more than about 4 times per year, maximum.   Economies of scale mean that while a single Ares-I each year would have a variable cost of approximately $130m, producing 4 per year would drop that to around $105m each.

But unlike Ares, the Jupiter-120 is essentially the exact same Core vehicle as used for Jupiter-232 later.   While four Jupiter-120-only flights will follow a similar trend, going from $140m down to $113m each, when the Jupiter-232 is also flying it adds many more units to the production run.

Understood, but, if you have to throw all that data around, you've lost the argument in the elevator :)

Quote
A $4bn LV budget baselined by CxP currently would actually allow Jupiter to launch 2 ISS missions, 6 2-launch Lunar Crew missions and 2 Lunar Cargo missions - a total of 16 Jupiter vehicles.   At that flight rate, each Jupiter-120's costs drop to just $92m.

That seems like a reasonable comparison point, but reduce to:
ARES:  2 ISS + 2 lunar   vs.  DIRECT: 2 ISS + 6 lunar
or , err, whatever CxP on ARES side is :)

Quote
Anyway, I will have another look at reducing the number of slides down again :)

The slides you have are good and should probably stay.  There's useful drilldown data there. I'm just thinking about the "hook" slide.  Imagine that this became a Presidential debate item (hah!  as if!) -- how would a candidate sell DIRECT?  Candidates fling around all manner of numbers regarding healthcare costs and benefits and cost-savings, and all kinds of other things, and I can't imagine that those are any less complex.  It's just been simplified down to five or fewer numbers.

-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 02/23/2008 12:27 am
On your schedule image, isn't the test program a little over the top? Is it really necessary to spend the first four EDS's on test flights? I could see one boiloff test and one TLI test, but doubling both seems a little extensive? Why not accelerate the lunar landing by two flights?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 02/23/2008 01:12 am
Ross--I really like the new slides..cannot wait to see the others...again...you want something that is very graphical and people can quickly see the differance.  A great picture is worth a million words!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 02/23/2008 02:19 am
Ross, your Safety and Performance charts are the best as they are easy to read and quick to understand. However, on the performance chart, you seem to have over-estimated the performance of the Ares V for the moon mission.  If you are including the EDS mass for that rocket, you should to do the same with the J-232. May be a solution is to add another color for the EDS mass in the column of the Ares V and J-232.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/23/2008 05:12 am
Quote
dnavas - 22/2/2008  8:20 PM

Heh -- you're too close to all the data.  Let me see if I can help a bit.

Waking up from a dream where the trajectory calculations spreadsheet is 'spreading' over you like that mirror did to Neo in 'The Matrix' is certainly not an experience I can recommend...

:)


Quote
I wasn't actually thinking of a graph -- I was thinking more along the lines of your last page in the presentation, but with "some" data.

Something like:
Two years earlier
10% safer
twice the number of lunar launches w/current NASA budgets
etc.

Like I said -- a lot closer to your last page, but with a little more color.  The last page currently says things like:
"Lower the risk"  "Reduce the Gap"
and I think the general audience is wondering "how much?" and "what gap?"  ;)

Okay, I think I get you.   I'm one of those folk who always likes 'giving a little bit more', so I'm picturing something like that page - rewritten - and followed by three or four graphs/charts to demonstrate the key points for those interested in seeing a bit more.

Think that would work?


Quote
Quote
You are correct - there was a very slight cost advantage initially to Ares-I.   With a fixed operational cost of $800m vs. $900m and a per-flight cost starting at $130m vs. $140m respectively, the two years of 'small launcher' operations would be a little more expensive than the Ares-I.

Hmm, what I was trying to get at was recurring costs vs. development costs, rather than fixed vs. per-flight costs.  My recollection (and I have read your whole v2 pdf awhile ago, and have the thing printed out ... at home ... but forgive me my poor memory) is that ARES-I will cost more to develop, but less to run.  I understand that there's the whole ARES-IV thing, and J232 thing, but, I'm not operating under the delusion that A-IV will be funded, so, JUST comparing J120 and Ares-I, after how many launches does ARES-I make sense from a cost perspective?  Or was that development cost benefit only when you include Ares-IV?

Ares-IV is a totally dead concept last I heard.

There is indeed a big difference in development costs between the various architectures.   Full wrap development costs are like this:-



This $20bn difference makes the tiny difference in Ares-I cost compared to Jupiter-120 into the proverbial 'drop in the ocean'.   If the 'large launchers' simply never turned up, it would take somewhere about 100 years for Ares-I to 'catch up'.

But the moment the 'large launchers' come in for the Lunar program, Jupiter takes an additional $1bn+ lead every year out of Ares.

Here's that chart:




Quote
If you can say something like "cheaper transportation to the ISS for ten years", then, that's a decent bullet point to add.  If not, well, nevermind :)

Certainly true given the disparity in dev. cost.


Quote
Another whack at the cost viewpoint is to take the ARES-I/IV timeline and launch "schedule", and cost it out.  Then cost out the exact same J-based launches and compare.

Even better, if the J-xxx launch equivalents for the ARES-based "schedule" can fit within current NASA budgets, and the ARES launches can't, you can say:

"goes to Mars within current NASA budgets"

That's also true.

The big question is how much NASA is budgeting for operating the LV program.   They are being very tight-lipped on that for obvious reasons.   So we are left to work out the number of flights they are baselining, and cross-reference that against their costings (which we have) to get a total of around $4bn for LV's per year.

FYI: It is this 'ambiguity' which is why in the charts I have often shown $3bn budget lines and $4bn budget lines to cross-reference against.


Quote
Quote
But the moment the 'second' vehicle comes online for the Lunar program that situation reverses itself in a very big way.   Ares-V adds about $1,200m additional fixed costs when it comes online (not including the EDS costs).   Comparatively, Jupiter-232 instead 'shares' half of the Core vehicle's costs - essentially cutting Jupiter-120's fixed costs down by $450m each year.

The first year of operation of the 'larger launcher' will completely wipe out any benefit Ares had over Jupiter.   In fact, the total deficit for Ares in that first year will be around $1bn!

And there is another issue - Not counting the fixed costs, and just considering the variable for a moment, Ares-I is not being planned to launch more than about 4 times per year, maximum.   Economies of scale mean that while a single Ares-I each year would have a variable cost of approximately $130m, producing 4 per year would drop that to around $105m each.

But unlike Ares, the Jupiter-120 is essentially the exact same Core vehicle as used for Jupiter-232 later.   While four Jupiter-120-only flights will follow a similar trend, going from $140m down to $113m each, when the Jupiter-232 is also flying it adds many more units to the production run.

Understood, but, if you have to throw all that data around, you've lost the argument in the elevator :)

Yeah.

Of course, you also need to *have* that information for those who demand it, otherwise they'll reject it also.   It's a bit of a catch-22.

I'm thinking of expanding the website to allow for three 'levels' of interest.   A "Simply DIRECT" section for those either not very familiar with the technicalities, or those with little time to go digging for high-level details - with a front page with the bullet-points you suggest, and perhaps links to 3 or 4 simple graphs to reinforce the points.

Then a slightly more in-depth section along the lines of our old v2.02 documentation - going into more detail, but not extensively and demonstrating in fairly simple terms how we can successfully do what is actually required.

And then the 131 page AIAA paper for those who want to really get stuck-in.

Quote
Quote
A $4bn LV budget baselined by CxP currently would actually allow Jupiter to launch 2 ISS missions, 6 2-launch Lunar Crew missions and 2 Lunar Cargo missions - a total of 16 Jupiter vehicles.   At that flight rate, each Jupiter-120's costs drop to just $92m.

That seems like a reasonable comparison point, but reduce to:
ARES:  2 ISS + 2 lunar   vs.  DIRECT: 2 ISS + 6 lunar
or , err, whatever CxP on ARES side is :)

I always feel that a picture speaks a thousand words.   Wouldn't a simple graphic get the message across even quicker for the 'elevator pitch'?


Quote
Quote
Anyway, I will have another look at reducing the number of slides down again :)

The slides you have are good and should probably stay.  There's useful drilldown data there. I'm just thinking about the "hook" slide.  Imagine that this became a Presidential debate item (hah!  as if!) -- how would a candidate sell DIRECT?  Candidates fling around all manner of numbers regarding healthcare costs and benefits and cost-savings, and all kinds of other things, and I can't imagine that those are any less complex.  It's just been simplified down to five or fewer numbers.

-Dave
[/QUOTE]

Excellent points.   Thank-you for taking the time to respond so fully.   This is *exactly* the sort of feedback I was after.   As you say I have been buried in the numbers for so long, its now actually a bit more difficult to extract myself and see the issue from the position of those unfamiliar with the details.

I really want to be able to show this to everyone and anyone, and this is helping sooooo much.   I *really* appreciate it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/23/2008 05:43 am
Quote
Marsman - 22/2/2008  8:27 PM

On your schedule image, isn't the test program a little over the top? Is it really necessary to spend the first four EDS's on test flights? I could see one boiloff test and one TLI test, but doubling both seems a little extensive? Why not accelerate the lunar landing by two flights?

We figured one initial test, with a follow-up to test including fixes for all major elements was a fairly good approach.   Also one is then pre-scheduled as a backup for the other.

The Lunar landing can't really be accelerated much more than shown (there is only about 12 months margin in there).   The early flights are most definitely prototype hardware - not final human-rated.   The final flight before operation is the only full-up flight-spec unit flown in the test phases.


Also remember that our real goal is also towards deploying a permanent Propellant Depot into LEO at the earliest realistic opportunity possible.   While we can close NASA's performance targets without it, having it opens up a new layer of performance for us (anyone fancy an 81mT LSAM?   A LOX-only Depot would allow that with a single Jupiter-232 launching the Orion, LSAM and LH2).   Given that target, we're trying to get as much test data as early as possible for use in developing the EDS - because it will ultimately also form the basis of the Depot too.

This is why we're flying two of the tank structures (without J-2X engines) essentially as soon as can be manufactured and flown on regular J-120's - partially fueled.

This places the first two tanks in orbit to get really detailed propellant boiloff analysis data back over the course of *years* in orbit - but also placing these up this early would allow us to potentially practice lots of automated docking with these EDS/Depot modules using EELV's and any other launch systems too - both foreign and domestic.


Ultimately, we are hoping that foreign partners will be able to launch the fuel (or pay someone else to do so if they haven't got suitable assets themselves) so the US doesn't have to pay that cost any more - we can then spend that money on *more* missions each year instead.

In return for lifting either 50% or 100% of the necessary propellant, foreign partners essentially 'buy' one or two seats on each Lunar mission.   All the while, NASA retains the full ability to go to the moon itself without ever relinquishing control of any key element.   It's a win-win approach.

It also creates a worldwide launch market for up to 1,200mT (equivalent of ~60 Atlas-V 552's) of automated propellant deliveries each year for the worldwide launch market to compete for.

Companies such as ULA, Space-X, Orbital etc. can all compete in this market, and so can Russia, China, Europe, India and anyone else who wishes to partner with NASA on a Propellant Refueling Program.   Just one quarter of that market-share would be worth 15 EELV launches to a company.   Think about that.

NASA launches the spacecraft and the partners launch all of the fuel.   We end up creating a potentially massive market and get a massive exploration program in return.   All without spending any more US $ to do so - I'm talking about 12 lunar missions every year with NASA paying the same baseline of $4bn for the launchers as NASA's Ares program currently plans for just 2 missions per year.

Oh, dang.   Never mind, this is supposed to be an in-efficient government operation...   Sorry, my mistake.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/23/2008 06:03 am
Quote
PaulL - 22/2/2008  10:19 PM

Ross, your Safety and Performance charts are the best as they are easy to read and quick to understand. However, on the performance chart, you seem to have over-estimated the performance of the Ares V for the moon mission.  If you are including the EDS mass for that rocket, you should to do the same with the J-232. May be a solution is to add another color for the EDS mass in the column of the Ares V and J-232.

PaulL

Good point!   Another person with eagle eyes! :)

Fixed in the above posting now by adding EDS burnout mass to all options (Mars inc.).   Another color would add a touch of confusion IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/23/2008 06:09 am
I can't thank-you guys enough for all this feedback.   Seriously, I owe you all a beer or something :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Stephan on 02/23/2008 09:04 am
Ross, you should put these graphs on your website too. It's always a pity that such informative stuffs get buried in hundreds of pages of discussion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: dnavas on 02/23/2008 05:36 pm
Quote
kraisee - 22/2/2008  10:12 PM
Waking up from a dream where the trajectory calculations spreadsheet is 'spreading' over you like that mirror did to Neo in 'The Matrix' is certainly not an experience I can recommend...

Been there.  The amount of work you can churn out is impressive.  I spent a week retooling our docs, and told my manager to send real engineering my way or I'm going on strike :)

Quote
Okay, I think I get you.   I'm one of those folk who always likes 'giving a little bit more', so I'm picturing something like that page - rewritten - and followed by three or four graphs/charts to demonstrate the key points for those interested in seeing a bit more.
Think that would work?

That's *exactly* what I had in mind.  A page to hook them, a number of charts to reel them in.

Quote
Ares-IV is a totally dead concept last I heard.

There is indeed a big difference in development costs between the various architectures.   Full wrap development costs are like this (ed. in-line pics from earlier posted pdf)

This $20bn difference makes the tiny difference in Ares-I cost compared to Jupiter-120 into the proverbial 'drop in the ocean'.   If the 'large launchers' simply never turned up, it would take somewhere about 100 years for Ares-I to 'catch up'.

The $20B is for dev costs for both vehicles, though, isn't it?  What's the ARES-I-only dev costs?

I think there's a very good bullet-point here.  Pair it up to safety for the ISS missions, and I think it becomes quite compelling.

Quote
Quote
Another whack at the cost viewpoint is to take the ARES-I/IV timeline and launch "schedule", and cost it out.  Then cost out the exact same J-based launches and compare.

Even better, if the J-xxx launch equivalents for the ARES-based "schedule" can fit within current NASA budgets, and the ARES launches can't, you can say:

"goes to Mars within current NASA budgets"

That's also true.

The big question is how much NASA is budgeting for operating the LV program.   They are being very tight-lipped on that for obvious reasons.   So we are left to work out the number of flights they are baselining, and cross-reference that against their costings (which we have) to get a total of around $4bn for LV's per year.

FYI: It is this 'ambiguity' which is why in the charts I have often shown $3bn budget lines and $4bn budget lines to cross-reference against.

Yeah.  I think out of that pdf you can pull a lot of interesting factoids.  I don't think you necessarily have to know what the launch vehicle program is budgeted at because, as you say, you have a flight-plan and their costing.  You could take a couple of tacks to coming up with an interesting bullet-point.

You could say "Three times the number of lunar flights per year with a cost savings of 10%, 2-1/2 years earlier" (assuming I'm reading your charts correctly)

That's a pretty powerful statement.  It says you are offering much greater utility at a reduced price, sooner.  If that doesn't grab people's attention, I don't know what will.  It also has the advantage of being simple :)

Quote
Quote
Understood, but, if you have to throw all that data around, you've lost the argument in the elevator :)

Yeah.

Of course, you also need to *have* that information for those who demand it, otherwise they'll reject it also.   It's a bit of a catch-22.

Absolutely you want to have all that information -- I think that's why you separate the hook from the later charts.

Quote
I'm thinking of expanding the website to allow for three 'levels' of interest.   A "Simply DIRECT" section
[...]
Then a slightly more in-depth section along the lines of our old v2.02 documentation
[...]
And then the 131 page AIAA paper for those who want to really get stuck-in.

I totally agree that this is a very sensible approach.

Quote
I always feel that a picture speaks a thousand words.   Wouldn't a simple graphic get the message across even quicker for the 'elevator pitch'?

I don't think so -- not the level of detail you're going to have on that first page.  I *might* be suffering from excessive consumption of powerpoint presos, of course, but, consider page, err, 7 of your cost.pdf.  In order to understand the graph, I have to read the key, the bottom, and the description at the top.  Each graph in isolation is actually pretty bulky.  However, when you look at all of those very similar cost bar-graphs, then I only need to read the top.  The graphs and charts are useful when the amount of information you want to present is larger than the overhead of the key, axes, and heading.  For the top/front/simplest page, I don't think that's the case, because I think you want to pick three-ish tag-lines.

Off the top of my head, and because I already have one from above, maybe you could create:

Cost of developing ARES + 2ISS missions per year vs. same for Jupiter.  Include safety in this number.  Something like "Space Station missions: 10% safer, 20% reduction in costs, 2 years earlier"

edit:  actually, I think what I meant to say is to cost out development costs plus 2 missions/yr over, say, a decade, or until ISS EoL.   :/edit

Then you run the Lunar line from above "Three times the number of lunar flights per year with a cost savings of 10%, 2-1/2 years earlier"

Then you add a similar line for Mars.

Wrap it up with the tag that DIRECT offers Mars missions within present NASA budgets, greater up-cargo capabilities for ISS, and future flexibility for incorporating non-NASA launch vehicles into lunar and Mars missions, and link off to all of the various charts or further descriptions.

BTW, some feedback on the charts:
   1) I originally thought I understood the safety chart, but now I wonder if I do.  You're using a stacked green on blue, but, should I read the LOM numbers individually?  What Mission is being "lost"?  Is this a dual launch, lunar mission, or a mars mission, or LOM on a per-launch basis, or???
   2) The upper two-thirds of the Manifest is unreadable.  It would probably work better in a pdf than a jpg, but even still, I think if you start with the bottom third, and use each of the top thirds as drilldowns, that might introduce the data better.  There's a LOT of small, unreadable text in those top two charts :)
   3) Performance chart is really good.  Variants of this chart with the left axis replaced with total cost might work pretty darn well as well.  You could separate the bars into sections for recurring vs. non-recurring costs as well....
   4) The Commonality chart is a bit odd.  I don't think the man on the street cares how much is being re-used on the vehicle.  I understand the mandate, the effect it has on safety and costing, but, I think it's more of a supporter of your other numbers than a point by itself.  It answers the question "why is it so much cheaper/safer" rather than asserting an inherent advantage.
   5) I like the workforce chart.  You can summarize this into something pretty simple, too:  "eliminates half of workforce idling during transitional period".
   6) Your most complex cost graphs are indispensable when you get to the "Individual Flight Costs (including fixed costs)" chart.  It very nicely displays where the relative costs are, the scaling, the cross-over points, etc.

Quote
Excellent points.   Thank-you for taking the time to respond so fully.   This is *exactly* the sort of feedback I was after.   As you say I have been buried in the numbers for so long, its now actually a bit more difficult to extract myself and see the issue from the position of those unfamiliar with the details.

I really want to be able to show this to everyone and anyone, and this is helping sooooo much.   I *really* appreciate it.

Ross.

I'm glad to be of some service.  I only hope the time investment ultimately proves useful.

-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/23/2008 09:05 pm
Quote
Stephan - 23/2/2008  5:04 AM

Ross, you should put these graphs on your website too. It's always a pity that such informative stuffs get buried in hundreds of pages of discussion.

That is indeed the plan.   But I'm showing them here first, partially as a thank-you to all the supporters here, but also to get just a little peer-review on them before they go 'live'.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/23/2008 09:47 pm
Quote
dnavas - 23/2/2008  1:36 PM

Quote
kraisee - 22/2/2008  10:12 PM
Okay, I think I get you.   I'm one of those folk who always likes 'giving a little bit more', so I'm picturing something like that page - rewritten - and followed by three or four graphs/charts to demonstrate the key points for those interested in seeing a bit more.
Think that would work?

That's *exactly* what I had in mind.  A page to hook them, a number of charts to reel them in.

Okay then!   I can get this together pretty easily then.   Watch this space.


Quote
Quote
Ares-IV is a totally dead concept last I heard.

There is indeed a big difference in development costs between the various architectures.   Full wrap development costs are like this (ed. in-line pics from earlier posted pdf)

This $20bn difference makes the tiny difference in Ares-I cost compared to Jupiter-120 into the proverbial 'drop in the ocean'.   If the 'large launchers' simply never turned up, it would take somewhere about 100 years for Ares-I to 'catch up'.

The $20B is for dev costs for both vehicles, though, isn't it?  What's the ARES-I-only dev costs?

$14.4bn according to November 30th GAO Report.

Jupiter-120 equivalent $8.6bn.


Quote
Yeah.  I think out of that pdf you can pull a lot of interesting factoids.  I don't think you necessarily have to know what the launch vehicle program is budgeted at because, as you say, you have a flight-plan and their costing.  You could take a couple of tacks to coming up with an interesting bullet-point.

You could say "Three times the number of lunar flights per year with a cost savings of 10%, 2-1/2 years earlier" (assuming I'm reading your charts correctly)

That's a pretty powerful statement.  It says you are offering much greater utility at a reduced price, sooner.  If that doesn't grab people's attention, I don't know what will.  It also has the advantage of being simple :)

Well put.   Although I'm the sort who would make that three separate bullet points :)

* Three times the number of Lunar missions each year.
* 10% lower annual cost.
* 2-1/2 years sooner.

etc.

Quote
Quote
I'm thinking of expanding the website to allow for three 'levels' of interest.   A "Simply DIRECT" section
[...]
Then a slightly more in-depth section along the lines of our old v2.02 documentation
[...]
And then the 131 page AIAA paper for those who want to really get stuck-in.

I totally agree that this is a very sensible approach.

Schweet.


Quote
Quote
I always feel that a picture speaks a thousand words.   Wouldn't a simple graphic get the message across even quicker for the 'elevator pitch'?

I don't think so -- not the level of detail you're going to have on that first page.  I *might* be suffering from excessive consumption of powerpoint presos, of course, but, consider page, err, 7 of your cost.pdf.  In order to understand the graph, I have to read the key, the bottom, and the description at the top.  Each graph in isolation is actually pretty bulky.  However, when you look at all of those very similar cost bar-graphs, then I only need to read the top.  The graphs and charts are useful when the amount of information you want to present is larger than the overhead of the key, axes, and heading.  For the top/front/simplest page, I don't think that's the case, because I think you want to pick three-ish tag-lines.

Off the top of my head, and because I already have one from above, maybe you could create:

Cost of developing ARES + 2ISS missions per year vs. same for Jupiter.  Include safety in this number.  Something like "Space Station missions: 10% safer, 20% reduction in costs, 2 years earlier"

edit:  actually, I think what I meant to say is to cost out development costs plus 2 missions/yr over, say, a decade, or until ISS EoL.   :/edit

Then you run the Lunar line from above "Three times the number of lunar flights per year with a cost savings of 10%, 2-1/2 years earlier"

Then you add a similar line for Mars.

Wrap it up with the tag that DIRECT offers Mars missions within present NASA budgets, greater up-cargo capabilities for ISS, and future flexibility for incorporating non-NASA launch vehicles into lunar and Mars missions, and link off to all of the various charts or further descriptions.

I get you.   A "what's the bottom line?" comparison of the three different missions we are planning to do.   I can do that.


Quote
BTW, some feedback on the charts:
   1) I originally thought I understood the safety chart, but now I wonder if I do.  You're using a stacked green on blue, but, should I read the LOM numbers individually?  What Mission is being "lost"?  Is this a dual launch, lunar mission, or a mars mission, or LOM on a per-launch basis, or???

Hmmm.   Excellent point.   I should probably slide the LOM 'stacks' over a bit to show that we are dealing with two separate measurements, not one combined with the other.

Like...




Quote
  2) The upper two-thirds of the Manifest is unreadable.  It would probably work better in a pdf than a jpg, but even still, I think if you start with the bottom third, and use each of the top thirds as drilldowns, that might introduce the data better.  There's a LOT of small, unreadable text in those top two charts :)

Hmmm.

Yes, they are a very complicated presentation.

Leave me with that for a bit to work out a way to 'boil it down' while still making it look impressive.


Quote
  3) Performance chart is really good.  Variants of this chart with the left axis replaced with total cost might work pretty darn well as well.  You could separate the bars into sections for recurring vs. non-recurring costs as well....

Good idea.   Again, let me work on that and I'll post the result here.


Quote
  4) The Commonality chart is a bit odd.  I don't think the man on the street cares how much is being re-used on the vehicle.  I understand the mandate, the effect it has on safety and costing, but, I think it's more of a supporter of your other numbers than a point by itself.  It answers the question "why is it so much cheaper/safer" rather than asserting an inherent advantage.

It's intended more as a visual 'primer' to show what it is that we're actually going to do differently from the current plan in order to get those advantages.

I want to include something like it, but I am not at all sure where it would best be located.   That will probably be a question we will answer while re-designing the website.


Quote
  5) I like the workforce chart.  You can summarize this into something pretty simple, too:  "eliminates half of workforce idling during transitional period".

"More efficiently utilizes the workforce for productive work during the transition period".

Then there is the political side: "Saves more than 5,000 experienced space workers jobs needed for the moon exploration program".


Quote
  6) Your most complex cost graphs are indispensable when you get to the "Individual Flight Costs (including fixed costs)" chart.  It very nicely displays where the relative costs are, the scaling, the cross-over points, etc.

Presenting them in the right context - one which won't bore too many people - is going to be important, but I agree.


Quote
I'm glad to be of some service.  I only hope the time investment ultimately proves useful.

-Dave

It will.   Most definitely.   All I can say is that there is method to our madness and we need this all put to bed by mid-March :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: dnavas on 02/23/2008 10:39 pm
Quote
kraisee - 23/2/2008  2:47 PM
Okay then!   I can get this together pretty easily then.   Watch this space.

I believe I've read this thread from the beginning, so I'll be watching, even if I no longer have the time to respond.


Quote
Quote
The $20B is for dev costs for both vehicles, though, isn't it?  What's the ARES-I-only dev costs?

$14.4bn according to November 30th GAO Report.

Jupiter-120 equivalent $8.6bn.

So, sounds like you could say:

* Space Station
. * two years sooner
. * 10% safer
. * saving $4.5 billion over life of the ISS with lower upfront costs

edit: err, I don't think I did those numbers correctly, as I forgot to factor in "savings" from ARES given that their fixed operational costs will start a couple of years later....  That might wipe out most of the cost benefit, actually.  I'll let you verify/fix my numbers :/edit

Quote
Quote
You could say "Three times the number of lunar flights per year with a cost savings of 10%, 2-1/2 years earlier" (assuming I'm reading your charts correctly)

Well put.   Although I'm the sort who would make that three separate bullet points :)

* Three times the number of Lunar missions each year.
* 10% lower annual cost.
* 2-1/2 years sooner.

Sure -- I adopted your format above :)

Quote
I get you.   A "what's the bottom line?" comparison of the three different missions we are planning to do.   I can do that.

Yeah -- I think that's an appropriate starting point for public consumption.  Other approaches would work better for different audiences.

Quote
Quote
  4) The Commonality chart is a bit odd.  I don't think the man on the street cares how much is being re-used on the vehicle. [...]
It's intended more as a visual 'primer' to show what it is that we're actually going to do differently from the current plan in order to get those advantages.

I want to include something like it, but I am not at all sure where it would best be located.   That will probably be a question we will answer while re-designing the website.

This might be a better slide to start with when talking to the folks building the hardware.  For the "guy on the street" doc, this might work after the section above, because if you start claiming "faster & cheaper & better" people are going to ask "but how?" and this visual answers the how, before drilling further into the data.

Quote
Quote
  5) I like the workforce chart.  You can summarize this into something pretty simple, too:  "eliminates half of workforce idling during transitional period".
"More efficiently utilizes the workforce for productive work during the transition period".

Meanwhile, this slide works as the first slide for people worried about protecting from job losses.  The reason I used slightly more stilted language than yours is that "eliminates half" is somewhat more specific than "more efficiently".

Quote
Then there is the political side: "Saves more than 5,000 experienced space workers jobs needed for the moon exploration program".

That works, though :)  Probably better for the audience it's really targeted at, too.

Quote
Hmmm.   Excellent point.   I should probably slide the LOM 'stacks' over a bit to show that we are dealing with two separate measurements, not one combined with the other.

Yeah -- I think that's clearer.

Quote
Leave me with that for a bit to work out a way to 'boil it down' while still making it look impressive.

My initial poor impression may come from only being able to see the thing either fully expanded, or compressed onto one screen.  It's unreadable on one screen, and it's plain too big to see anything fully expanded.  It might be okay if viewed with some better scaling.  But, if you're putting this on a webpage (as opposed to pdf), the image size is something to consider.

Quote
It will.   Most definitely.   All I can say is that there is method to our madness and we need this all put to bed by mid-March :)

Go!

-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 02/23/2008 11:25 pm
Ross..cannot wait to see the new changes..why does it to be done by mid-march?  Are you going to present again at the AIAA?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: nacnud on 02/24/2008 02:25 am
Are you sure the key for the LOM/LOC chart is correct?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2008 02:56 am
Unless I've drawn something incorrectly and can't see it, yes...

As at 8th November 2007 (IS-TIM):

Ares-I:
LOM: 1 in 358
LOC: 1 in 1256

Ares-V:
LOM: 1 in 103 (approx)
LOC: 1 in 890 (approx)


As at October 6th 2007:

Jupiter-120:
LOM: 1 in 234
LOC: 1 in 1413   (yes, better than Ares-I)
 
Jupiter-232:
LOM: 1 in 173
LOC: 1 in 1162


OTHER:
=====

STS:
LOM: 1 in 90
LOC: 1 in 90

ESAS "Ares-I predicted" LV-16 (1x5-seg SRB, 1xJ-2S+):
LOM: 1 in 433
LOC: 1 in 1918

ESAS LV-24/25 (2x4-seg SRB, 3xSSME):
LOM: 1 in 176
LOC: 1 in 1170

Delta-IV Heavy (ESAS variant with all-new U/S):
LOM: 1 in 172
LOC: 1 in 1100

Atlas-V Heavy (ESAS variant with all-new U/S):
LOM: 1 in 149
LOC: 1 in 957

Atlas Phase-2:
LOM: 1 in 134
LOC: 1 in 939

Atlas Phase-3B:
LOM: 1 in 79
LOC: 1 in 614

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/24/2008 03:08 am
Quote
kraisee - 24/2/2008  3:56 AM

Unless I've drawn something incorrectly and can't see it, yes...

As at 8th November 2007 (IS-TIM):

Ares-I:
LOM: 1 in 358
LOC: 1 in 1256
{snip}

As at October 6th 2007:

Jupiter-120:
LOM: 1 in 234
LOC: 1 in 1413   (yes, better than Ares-I)
 

The Jupiter-120 LOC is better than the Ares-I LOC.   Are the extra engines the reason the LOM is worse?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/24/2008 03:21 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 23/2/2008  11:08 PM

Quote
kraisee - 24/2/2008  3:56 AM

Unless I've drawn something incorrectly and can't see it, yes...

As at 8th November 2007 (IS-TIM):

Ares-I:
LOM: 1 in 358
LOC: 1 in 1256
{snip}

As at October 6th 2007:

Jupiter-120:
LOM: 1 in 234
LOC: 1 in 1413   (yes, better than Ares-I)
 

The Jupiter-120 LOC is better than the Ares-I LOC.   Are the extra engines the reason the LOM is worse?
That's the largest part of it; 4 engines vs. 2 for the Ares (2xRSRB + 2xRS-68 vs. 1xSRB + 1xJ-2X). But that also plays into the better safety margin as well because the 2xRS-68 provides an engine-out safety margin that the Ares-I does not have. At ~T+45 seconds, the Jupiter-120 can safely deliver the Orion to orbit on a single engine. In addition, all engines are ignited on the ground so no air start is needed to achieve orbit. That also works to favor the Jupiter-120 over the Ares-I in terms of a better LOC number.

All around, it is simply a better and safer ride to orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: gin455res on 02/24/2008 06:49 am
Could a jupiter-120  survive re-entry if all the spare mass (after orbiting the orion) was used to carry fuel for an extreme deorbit  firing?

A jupiter-130 using SSMEs might work better as it would have more spare mass for re-entry fuel due to higher isp, and more expensive engines to salvage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2008 07:11 am
Quote
gin455res - 24/2/2008  2:49 AM

Could a jupiter-120  survive re-entry if all the spare mass (after orbiting the orion) was used to carry fuel for an extreme deorbit  firing?

The additional TPS and recovery systems (parachutes etc) would mass an awful lot for a stage with ~70,000kg mass.   This would hurt performance, and even with ~215mT lift performance of 2xJ-232's for Lunar missions (which is ~45% higher performance than Ares BTW), we only just close the performance targets for the Lunar mission by one or two tons.   We really can't afford to lose much performance at all and still do what we plan to.

The Jupiter is primarily designed for Lunar missions - and is just used without the EDS to support LEO missions because the lesser configuration is plenty capable of supporting those missions.


Quote
A jupiter-130 using SSMEs might work better as it would have more spare mass for re-entry fuel due to higher isp, and more expensive engines to salvage.

The idea was considered, but there was no case which we could find where the additional cost actually 'broke even' with regard to performance, not for reusable SSME's or new disposable versions.   The RS-68 just seems to offer a very high cost:performance balance.

Also, in the equivalent of J-232 configuration we needed more engine units on the Core because the earlier phase of the flight really needs high levels of thrust - and three SSME's have roughly half the thrust of three RS-68's.   Therefore such a configuration, aimed for a similar level of performance, would need to have 5 or more SSME's even given the higher Isp of the SSME.   This would drive the costs up higher still.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2008 03:50 pm
I've been looking at my charts again.   I found a fairly significant error with that Costs pdf I posted earlier - I had only accounted for a single ISS, single Lunar and single Mars mission in all those charts - not multiple missions as I should have done.   Stupid mistake, real 'doh' moment, but at least I caught it before it got published on the website :)

Anyway, working to fix it actually gave me a chance to try some other presentation approaches too.

Please let me know if these three charts work well or not...







Enjoy,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 02/24/2008 04:39 pm
The ISS Only chart is a bit hard to read and compare the three different systems. Perhaps showing that one as a 2D chart?

I have noticed a degree of confusion is other places regarding DIRECT. People tend to think that a lunar mission consists of 1 J-120 and 1 J-232 instead of 2 J-232's. In order to dispel this, I would introduce the J-232 first in the short overview document and then say

"However, the J-2 and the EDS will stretch the schedule past 2013. To achive an IOC of 2012, the first few cores produced will have the center engine plugged and will fly without an upper stage. These J-120's can be used for LEO missions before the EDS is built..."

I would focus on the fact that the J-232 is the primary vehicle, and the J-120 is a spinoff, not the other way around.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: dnavas on 02/24/2008 05:44 pm
Quote
Please let me know if these three charts work well or not...

I can't see a difference between the first and second mission costs on the scale you're working with here, so I don't see much value in separating that out, and it complicates the color scheme.  I can see the difference between the lunar crew and lunar cargo, but only on ARES.  [I wonder why the cargo flight is cheaper on ARES???  Is that a single ARES-IV launch?]  You probably want to keep those separated.

If you want to eliminate the separate color for the second mission, but you want to keep two missions, you could have two bars for each profile, one for a single mission, and one for two missions.  Might actually work better as you'll be comparing total budget scaling by comparing bar heights next to each other, rather than individual items on top of each other.  Like I said, though, I can't see a difference right now, so, it probably doesn't help until you put in many more comparison points (1,2,5,10), and I don't think that will work with EELV scaling like it does.

One side-effect of showing the single launch prices is that it's immediately obvious how much the budget can be scaled back to, if it turns out that the budget comes under pressure....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/24/2008 07:36 pm
Quote
dnavas - 24/2/2008  1:44 PM

Quote
Please let me know if these three charts work well or not...
Is that a single ARES-IV launch?
Dave - just fyi. There is no Ares-IV, It's an Ares-V. There is a Delta-IV but no Ares-IV. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: dnavas on 02/25/2008 03:31 am
Quote
Dave - just fyi. There is no Ares-IV, It's an Ares-V

Whoops!   :)  You'd think the next forum name would have been enough subliminal reinforcement.  Feel free to break out the bat next time  :laugh:

-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/25/2008 04:06 am
Hi Ross,

Perhaps you could show the 3D charts in 2D instead... adding depth makes differences between different sub-values look less (e.g. a manned Mars mission). I also found the 3D comparisons harder to access... if you could add lines connecting the top/bottom values of each chunk that would help a lot. I would also be mindful of the pallette: try to use opposites on the colour wheel (e.g. blue and yellow) or complimentaries (e.g. blue, red and green). Finally, avoid black wherever possible (try make the fixed costs grey or white). Artistic and iffy but it's important. At the moment those graphs are looking like attendance data for a Rasta convention! :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: CFE on 02/25/2008 04:54 am
Quote
kraisee - 23/2/2008  8:56 PM

Unless I've drawn something incorrectly and can't see it, yes...

As at 8th November 2007 (IS-TIM):

Ares-I:
LOM: 1 in 358
LOC: 1 in 1256

Ares-V:
LOM: 1 in 103 (approx)
LOC: 1 in 890 (approx)


As at October 6th 2007:

Jupiter-120:
LOM: 1 in 234
LOC: 1 in 1413   (yes, better than Ares-I)

The implication here is that, while J-120 has a higher failure rate than Ares I, its failure modes are generally more survivable than those on Ares I.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, I think that J-120 probabilistic failure assessments are more reliable than those for Ares.  After all, J-120 relies on less untested hardware than Ares I.  And of the hardware shared between both vehicles, J-120's flight environment is closer to the one in which the existing hardware has already flown.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/25/2008 07:39 am
Two separate calls for 2D charts is enough to convince me.

Lampy,
The Rasta convention comment cracked me up :)   I'm trying some other colours below.   Let me know if they work or not.


Marsman,
I have been trying to find a good way to do that exact thing - and you may have hit on the right sort of phrasing.   Thank-you.   I will work it in.


dnavas,
Essentially the Ares cargo option deletes the Ares-I launch and saves that cash.   For DIRECT we are looking at the situation differently because we ultimately want the propellant depot architecture - and a two-launch solution even for cargo flights creates an easier path towards that later.   The propellant flight can be replaced later by the 'market' while still massively out-performing a single Ares-V Cargo flight (230mT IMLEO vs. 150mT).

You are correct that the EELV option doesn't scale well to many more flights.   Assuming Ares can be funded at all, it would appear that NASA will have a $4-4.5bn budget for the LV's maximum.   So it is all about getting the best performance for that sort of money.   The graphs below attempt to show there is room for at least two or three more Lunar flights (4 or 6 x J-232 launches) on top of the baseline before DIRECT costs as much as Ares.

Amongst many other solutions too, I do have another cost profile here - unreleased so far - showing exactly what DIRECT can do on Ares' Budget.

Here...







And Dave, you are under my protection right now for all your help - there'll be no bats! I owe you one! :)


CFE,
Exactly right.   I agree with your assessment fully and couldn't have put it better myself.   Thanks.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mandrewa on 02/25/2008 11:06 am
Ross,

On the "Cost Breakdown for Operating ISS Mission Launch Vehicles Each Year" chart,
I don't think the "Direct on Ares Budget" column adds anything and by itself,
anyway, may be a bit confusing.

For the other two charts, "Cost Breakdown for Operating ISS and Lunar Mission Launch
Vehicles Each Year" and "Cost Breakdown for Operating Lunar and Mars Mission Launch
Vehicles Each Year", the "Direct on Ares Budget" column does make sense and is
easy to interpret.  I wonder though if the meaning could be grasped more quickly
if instead of being sorted alphabetically the options were sorted from least cost
to high.

For ISS Mission Launches the graph would stay the same except for pulling out the
"Direct on Ares Budget" column.  For the other two, Direct would the first listed,
then Ares and "Direct on Ares Budget" right beside it, which would also help make
misunderstanding even less likely.

On your second chart, "Cost Breakdown for Operating ISS and Lunar Mission Launch
Vehicles Each Year", there's an error in the side bar where one of the boxes that
is supposed to be green is yellow.

On a completely different level I'm wondering if the cost estimates for EELV missions
are fair.  Although for the most part this thread is question of whether Direct is a better
option than Ares, these charts, if true, pretty throughly bury EELV.  The problem
is that not only has NASA told EELV proponents to shut up but I'm pretty sure their
management has also.

Looking at that context, it's the EELV columns that I have a funny feeling about.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/25/2008 12:43 pm
Quote
mandrewa - 25/2/2008  7:06 AM

On a completely different level I'm wondering if the cost estimates for EELV missions are fair.  Although for the most part this thread is question of whether Direct is a better option than Ares, these charts, if true, pretty thoroughly bury EELV.  The problem is that not only has NASA told EELV proponents to shut up but I'm pretty sure their management has also.

Looking at that context, it's the EELV columns that I have a funny feeling about.
To any of the EELV people who have been so instructed, perhaps a PM to Ross could prove to be an acceptable path to provide information? We have absolutely NO desire to deliberately misrepresent anyone.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mandrewa on 02/25/2008 01:31 pm
Chuck,

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I don't think that would work.  What
would Ross do anyway if he did get a private message asserting that the EELV
numbers should be lower?  It's easy to infer that there is a difference of
opinion about this but the only way to get a better handle on it is to openly
and frankly debate the details.  That means ULA or Boeing or Lockheed-Martin
have to at some level, even if indirectly, participate.  And they are not, for
various reasons, going to do that.

Direct versus Ares is really a debate within NASA.  I don't want to take away
credit from your and Ross's advocacy, which has been phenomenal, but Direct gets
much of its impetus from the details and support provided by people inside
NASA.  Because of the information wall around NASA it's almost impossible
for outsiders to constructively, or authortatively, criticize.

If someone wanted to mount an advocacy effort similar to your own for EELV,
they couldn't do it, because EELV, in part because of the jobs issue, has
little support within NASA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: dnavas on 02/25/2008 01:45 pm
Quote
Amongst many other solutions too, I do have another cost profile here - unreleased so far - showing exactly what DIRECT can do on Ares' Budget.

I think I agree with mandrewa, that the ISS ARES-budgeted column doesn't help much.  Probably what you want to expand upon for ISS is the larger delivery and possibilities for greater ISS support, and that doesn't really go well in this chart.  [And, probably NASA should be moving those manned-flights off to another, outside vendor at some point anyway.  But, that's outside of scope.]

For the lunar chart, you want to fix your key.  You need one fewer yellows, and one extra green :)

Quote
there'll be no bats

Heh.  Well, I appreciate the correction anyway.

-Dave
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/26/2008 03:13 am
Quote
mandrewa - 25/2/2008  7:06 AM

Ross,

On the "Cost Breakdown for Operating ISS Mission Launch Vehicles Each Year" chart,
I don't think the "Direct on Ares Budget" column adds anything and by itself,
anyway, may be a bit confusing.

The main purpose of the ISS chart is just to show the costs for all the various options still, but demonstrate how they are not actually very different from one another just to support missions going to the ISS.

It is on the same scale as the Lunar/Mars charts deliberately to emphasize that simply supporting ISS is only a very small part of the overall mission and is trying to demonstrate how the decision there can not be represented as a yardstick for all the other costs.


Quote
For the other two charts, "Cost Breakdown for Operating ISS and Lunar Mission Launch
Vehicles Each Year" and "Cost Breakdown for Operating Lunar and Mars Mission Launch
Vehicles Each Year", the "Direct on Ares Budget" column does make sense and is
easy to interpret.  I wonder though if the meaning could be grasped more quickly
if instead of being sorted alphabetically the options were sorted from least cost
to high.

I will check it and see if it works, but you will lose the consistency of the program option always being in the same location for each graph, which may be an undesirable side-effect.


Quote
On your second chart, "Cost Breakdown for Operating ISS and Lunar Mission Launch
Vehicles Each Year", there's an error in the side bar where one of the boxes that
is supposed to be green is yellow.

Another Eagle-eye'd viewer.   Thanks.   Fixed now on the previous links (near the bottom of page 233 on this thread).

The extra missions can be either Crew or Cargo flights - from the LV perspective they cost the same.   I've added the third and fourth Crew missions and the third Cargo mission simply to put more bodies on the surface while providing some additional supplies for them all.


Quote
On a completely different level I'm wondering if the cost estimates for EELV missions
are fair.  Although for the most part this thread is question of whether Direct is a better
option than Ares, these charts, if true, pretty throughly bury EELV.  The problem
is that not only has NASA told EELV proponents to shut up but I'm pretty sure their
management has also.

Looking at that context, it's the EELV columns that I have a funny feeling about.

The numbers for the EELV's were sourced from within ULA.   The data fits remarkably well against the published numbers we have seen for EELV's - such as the $136.2m for the Atlas-V 401 for LRO to fly in 2008, when the Atlas family is manifested to launch 6-7 launches.


Essentially, for EELV the fixed costs are right around $1,000m per year for manned EELV systems (about $500m more than unmanned because of various crew safety costs) and the unit price always varies dependent on flight rate.

For only two ISS missions per mission, the cost is $194m each - assuming a base average of 6 other DoD launches on the same EELV-type every year for regular satellites as well.

Adding the 14 Heavy flights necessary for two Lunar missions as well, and the per-unit cost drops to $141m per flight.   But you have to pay that 7 times for each Lunar mission = $987m.

Add a 500mT Mars mission as well (20 launches) {ignoring the problem of how to manufacture 36 3-Core launchers using current 40-Core per year production facilities!} and the cost per unit drops further to $124m each.   At that level, the 7-launch Lunar missions now cost $868m and the 20-launch Mars mission $2,480m.

That is what you are seeing there in those charts.

I've shown these before, but here are the comparisons...

Flight Costs Excluding Fixed Costs for Crewed Operations:


Flight Costs Including Fixed Costs for Crewed Operations:


Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 02/26/2008 06:35 am
Mandrewa,

I wanted to respond to Ross's comment below, because I felt it worth mentioning that there is at least some reason to still question Ross's numbers on this.

Quote
kraisee - 25/2/2008  8:13 PM

Quote
mandrewa - 25/2/2008  7:06 AM
On a completely different level I'm wondering if the cost estimates for EELV missions
are fair.  Although for the most part this thread is question of whether Direct is a better
option than Ares, these charts, if true, pretty throughly bury EELV.  The problem
is that not only has NASA told EELV proponents to shut up but I'm pretty sure their
management has also.

Looking at that context, it's the EELV columns that I have a funny feeling about.

The numbers for the EELV's were sourced from within ULA.   The data fits remarkably well against the published numbers we have seen for EELV's - such as the $136.2m for the Atlas-V 401 for LRO to fly in 2008, when the Atlas family is manifested to launch 6-7 launches.

I've discussed this with Ross, and we've more or less agreed to disagree, but I figured it was worth presenting contradictory data.  I have information direct from some of the people involved in the Atlas-V program that says they can hit a price point that Ross's model claims is impossible at that flight rate (without taking a huge loss on every flight).  The data point came from a discussion about human rated launches for Bigelow.  According to the person involved, they felt they could close their business case at a price of around $8-10M per passenger at the estimated 12 flights per year rate Bigelow was talking about.  That price BTW included Bigelow's cut and the cut of the capsule provider (though it assumed an 8-person capsule, and I'm sure they were hoping for the capsule provider to ask for a smaller cut than they'd like to, and they also I'm sure didn't complain too much when Bigelow then raised his base price into the $14-15M range).  That included amortizing the "human rating" modifications that would be needed for Atlas-V and its launch infrastructure.

Now, who knows.  The person in question may have been blowing smoke.  But he wasn't ignorant of what the real economics of the Atlas-V were.  The fact that at least at that time Bigelow was talking prices in that range, and that Bigelow is closing in on signing a deal with them both seem to corroborate those prices.  If prices were really as high as Ross is claiming, there's no way Bigelow could make money on his venture.  I would think that someone with a huge stake in making sure they had the straight dope from LM like Bigelow would know better than an uninvolved third party like Ross.

My best guess is that the information Ross is basing the EELV numbers off of may have been misinterpreted.  Especially since the LRO numbers line up with it so well.  AIUI, LRO had lots of mission specific engineering on it that should've driven the price up compared to the "bare-bones" price of an Atlas-V 401 flying a more typical mission.  When you're talking about repetitive missions that use the exact same hardware, without modifications, reusing the same trajectories, the same processing steps, on a very frequent interval, you get into a totally different regime from the typical one-off nature of NASA EELV flights.  

Now, I could be wrong, but I wanted you to know that the pricing data that Ross is presenting isn't undisputed fact.  We've both heard numbers from within ULA, and they disagree--which means that unless we're talking past each other one or the other of us has incorrect or incomplete information.  It's up to you to decide which.

If anyone else has more data they can provide, I'd be glad to here it.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/26/2008 11:15 am
As I've said to Jon privately, I'm always on the lookout for the best possible information, but as I also pointed out, I'm pretty confident that what I have is right because of the particular source.   I'm not going to say who this came from, but they handle these numbers every day - it's their specific job.   I will concede that this is still a single-point-source though and while I do have a specific reason to believe this particular source, it would always be nice to get a second validation source just to confirm it.   Further, it was clearly in their own interests to portray their program in the best possible light so I'm sure what I got represents 'as good as it gets'.


Let me detail the key problem I have with the Bigelow data Jon refers to and let you all decide for yourselves.

Firstly, a litmus test.   Atlas-V was originally proposed in 1988 as having the smallest variant - the 401 configuration - cost ~$77m each.   This was based on a healthy flight rate in the region of 25 per year - a flight rate reliant on the commercial satellite business taking about 2/3rd of the units - a business model which simply never came to pass and still won't even with the Bigelow flights.   Well, it has been two decades since that original estimate, and just accounting for inflation alone, that $77m figure would translate today into a figure of $157m.   Feel free to calculate it for yourself.   While inflation-adjustment is never a precise reflection, the aerospace industry has historically followed the whims of inflation very closely over the last 40 years and it would take a considerable cost-reduction exercise to make much of a difference.   Inflation adjustment isn't a bad litmus test to see if your first-order predictions are woefully innacurate or not.    I would be amazed if the vehicle is massively different cost from there today, and the fact is that the LRO launch was $136.2m in 2006 (FY2008 $142.6m) - only a 10% difference - which would seem to bear this first order estimate out fairly well.

Just to clarify, LRO is not actually requiring much, if any, custom work.   It is using a totally standard Upper Stage, firing only twice - once during ascent, and once more to achieve escape velocity - which is essentially exactly the same profile as any other satellite launch.   It is also using a totally standard Payload Interface and standard shroud too, so from the cost perspective of the LV, there are no significant differences between this NASA shot and any other typical Atlas payload.   The only slightly 'unusual' element is that this is not going to GEO.  Re-calculating this does not however represent a difference in cost - it is just another trajectory target as far as the Atlas is concerned and trajectories to other planetary bodies like this are common enough that they are considered fairly 'nominal' use.


Anyway, back to the Bigelow vehicle.

The spacecraft is supposed to seat 8, one of whom is crew.   That leaves 7 paying passengers at ~$8-9m each (Jon, you never mentioned the $14-15m in our e-mail discussions last week BTW) which is $54-63m to cover all the costs for the Atlas-V 401, the crew spacecraft and whatever Bigelow's station costs are.

Now, at a flight rate of 12 per year, that would increase Atlas' flight rate to around 18 per year.   The current $500m of fixed operations for the unmanned Atlas costs amortized across those 18 flights are going to be $28m per vehicle. That does not include the cost to manufacture the launch vehicle yet, and does not yet include any additional costs for manned operations.   For NASA manned operations, the Atlas program itself has said the fixed costs would double (in this case to $54m).   There may be cost-cutting corners they can cut for Bigelow though.   Bigelow's operation is unlikely to be as demanding as NASA is.


In quantities of 18 Atlas Core's per year, my source tells me that the vehicle-only cost is $61m, on top of the fixed costs.   If the fixed costs remain at the same level as for unmanned, that would place the vehicle cost at $88m each.   With only $63m from the passengers it couldn't be done.   As you suggest Jon, I think the guy might well be 'blowing smoke' at this price point.


Now, if Jon's newer figures of $14-15m for passengers is right, then that would allow for a lot more flexibility.   You would now have $105m to spend per flight.   After spending $88m on the LV that would leave some cash left over - $17m.   I'm still far from convinced that actually closes though because it doesn't leave much for the spacecraft or the station costs - but a really cost effective solution might get there.   I would say that at $18-20m per seat, Bigelow's business model should definitely work though.

Ross.
Title: DIRECT Wallpapers!
Post by: kraisee on 02/26/2008 01:38 pm
As requested, here are some DIRECT Wallpapers.

Three of Philip's artwork to start with - in a variety of different resolutions.

If you have a different resolution, let me know and I can make more :)

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/wallpapers/


(both versions - with and without the wording, although wording versions are widescreen only)







Enjoy!

These will go up on the website soon, but right now they are exclusive to NSF readers!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: luke strawwalker on 02/26/2008 01:48 pm
Quote
Lampyridae - 24/2/2008  11:06 PM

Hi Ross,

Perhaps you could show the 3D charts in 2D instead... adding depth makes differences between different sub-values look less (e.g. a manned Mars mission). I also found the 3D comparisons harder to access... if you could add lines connecting the top/bottom values of each chunk that would help a lot. I would also be mindful of the pallette: try to use opposites on the colour wheel (e.g. blue and yellow) or complimentaries (e.g. blue, red and green). Finally, avoid black wherever possible (try make the fixed costs grey or white). Artistic and iffy but it's important. At the moment those graphs are looking like attendance data for a Rasta convention! :)

I agree with Lampy that the 2D charts are MUCH easier to read!  My 2 cents:)  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: DarthVader on 02/26/2008 01:50 pm
Excellent! Thanks a lot kraisee and al.
Title: RE: DIRECT Wallpapers!
Post by: PeteJ on 02/26/2008 01:59 pm
Ross

Awesome wallpapers any chance of a 1280 X 1024, old screen

Many thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/26/2008 02:12 pm
PeteJ,
Your wish is my command!

Those resolutions are up now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 02/26/2008 03:05 pm
Awesome Ross! Thanks to the DIRECT crew for their work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: DarthVader on 02/26/2008 05:05 pm
Said, what sort of tools you guys are using to come-up with the numbers you have? Don't get me wrong, I'm not questionning their validity here, I'm just curious to what kind of methods/software are been used to design/validate the DIRECT concept, aside from common sense, experience and knowledge.

Since Steve Metschan is the founder of the company behind FrameworkCT, I'll assume that it is one of the tool you might be using. Are you also making use of "Orbiter" (as a virtual prototyping platform) since Antonio did an add-on for it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: ascendent on 02/26/2008 05:56 pm
OK, a non-engineer, non-posting member perspective:  Put this thing (Orion) on Atlas V and proceed with NEO and inner Solar System exploration options with both scientific and wanderlust value; do not limit us to short-lived lunar sorties, or to ISS taxi.

We must have the ability to go different places for different reasons.  We started this effort based on building a flexible architecture ...now we apear to be losing that.  Orion should pick up where Apollo left off...Apollo Applications ideas showed the robustness of the system and the creativity of its managers in applying proven technology to a wide array of missions.  A shame we didn't give them more free rein (and money) 30 years ago to keep pushing the exploration agenda forward.  

Amazing to me that we cannot seem to see our way clear just to get back to a Saturn 1-B type of system with assured and reliable access to orbit.

We cannot afford a downscaled Orion.  Direct is an attractive but unrealistic dream, Ares has too many liabilities to get it to work in the way we want on the time schedule we have,  and the infighting over launch vehicle will give its opponents enough ammo to scuttle the follow-on effort to replace shuttle in the near term and thus cripple manned spaceflight.  I was not an EELV fan, but it is the best option available in an imperfect situation, it seems, since NASA apparently no longer knows how to build new rockets and that can get  into orbit, or at least that is how it sounds from reading this forum...The public will not remain willing for long to withstand the debate on whether we can and should reinvigorate exploration beyond LEO, especially in the face of huge domestic challenges.  As the launch controllers used to say "the clock is running..."

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jongoff on 02/26/2008 06:17 pm
Ross,
Quote
As I've said to Jon privately, I'm always on the lookout for the best possible information, but as I also pointed out, I'm pretty confident that what I have is right because of the particular source.   I'm not going to say who this came from, but they handle these numbers every day - it's their specific job.   I will concede that this is still a single-point-source though and while I do have a specific reason to believe this particular source, it would always be nice to get a second validation source just to confirm it.   Further, it was clearly in their own interests to portray their program in the best possible light so I'm sure what I got represents 'as good as it gets'.

And the thing is that you can say the same thing about the source I had.  Which is why at this point I feel it is worth airing both sides of the story and letting people draw their own conclusions.

Quote
Let me detail the key problem I have with the Bigelow data Jon refers to and let you all decide for yourselves.

Firstly, a litmus test.   Atlas-V was originally proposed in 1988 as having the smallest variant - the 401 configuration - cost ~$77m each.   This was based on a healthy flight rate in the region of 25 per year - a flight rate reliant on the commercial satellite business taking about 2/3rd of the units - a business model which simply never came to pass and still won't even with the Bigelow flights.

I had always heard that $77M each number was based on a much lower flight rate (less than 10 per year total).  Do you have a source for that 25/year number?

Quote
Anyway, back to the Bigelow vehicle.

The spacecraft is supposed to seat 8, one of whom is crew.   That leaves 7 paying passengers at ~$8-9m each (Jon, you never mentioned the $14-15m in our e-mail discussions last week BTW) which is $54-63m to cover all the costs for the Atlas-V 401, the crew spacecraft and whatever Bigelow's station costs are.

Yeah, the $14-15M number was Bigelow's number for a one month stay, while the $8-10M number was the number they were talking about last year for like a one or two week stay (it was $8-10M btw).  My take was that Bigelow upped the numbers as he got a better feel for his cost structure.  I would think that if that major readjustment was entirely based on Atlas V being wrong on their initial prices, that he wouldn't be in such a hurry to sign an exclusive 50+ launcher contract with them.

Quote
Now, at a flight rate of 12 per year, that would increase Atlas' flight rate to around 18 per year.   The current $500m of fixed operations for the unmanned Atlas costs amortized across those 18 flights are going to be $28m per vehicle. That does not include the cost to manufacture the launch vehicle yet, and does not yet include any additional costs for manned operations.   For NASA manned operations, the Atlas program itself has said the fixed costs would double (in this case to $54m).   There may be cost-cutting corners they can cut for Bigelow though.   Bigelow's operation is unlikely to be as demanding as NASA is.

None of the sources I've spoken with who've actually been involved with Atlas V man-rating have ever said that the fixed costs per year would double.  In fact most of them have publicly or privately stated otherwise.  I've heard numbers in the $100-500M range for the *one-time* cost to upgrade their facilities to handle manned flights, but I've never heard $500M a year from anyone credible, and when you think about how many more people and facilities it would take to use up $500M a year, it makes me *very* skeptical of your source.  $500M a year (per you) already runs a sophisticated production line spread out across the whole country, runs a pad in Florida with all their facilities, and can handle the launches of several different sorts of craft.  I honestly doubt that the yearly fixed cost increase would be more than $100M to add capability to handle manned flights.  

Quote
In quantities of 18 Atlas Core's per year, my source tells me that the vehicle-only cost is $61m, on top of the fixed costs.   If the fixed costs remain at the same level as for unmanned, that would place the vehicle cost at $88m each.   With only $63m from the passengers it couldn't be done.   As you suggest Jon, I think the guy might well be 'blowing smoke' at this price point.

Or it could also be that you either misunderstood the information you got, or that it isn't as accurate as you suggest.  Quite frankly, I'd be rather surprised if after suing Boeing over their launch cost data, that they'd be ok with just leaking the specifics of that data in as much detail as you claim to a complete outsider.  In my case I was just given an overall full-wrap price, whereas you say they gave you detailed breakdowns on the fixed costs and marginal costs of their vehicle--information that was valuable enough a few years back that it cost Boeing billions of dollars of business when it was found out that they had illegally obtained it.

IOW, I'm still skeptical about your numbers.  

Quote
Now, if Jon's newer figures of $14-15m for passengers is right, then that would allow for a lot more flexibility.   You would now have $105m to spend per flight.   After spending $88m on the LV that would leave some cash left over - $17m.   I'm still far from convinced that actually closes though because it doesn't leave much for the spacecraft or the station costs - but a really cost effective solution might get there.   I would say that at $18-20m per seat, Bigelow's business model should definitely work though.

But that's not the price that Bigelow is offering.  And that's not what LM was claiming they could deliver on.  Once again, if your numbers were right, I was fed a point-blank line, and so has Bigelow.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 02/26/2008 06:35 pm
Quote
kraisee - 26/2/2008  10:12 AM

Those resolutions are up now.

Ross.
That "Pad Approach" image is just awsome. It really captures a level of majesty that's normally missing from the clear day photography of existing vehicles. Please pass on my sincere appreaciation to Peter for this image and all the others he's produced for Direct. As I've said to him, the numbers and graphs can back up the story, but to get you in the gut, to make you truly feel the possibilities, there's nothing like these sorts of images.

Paul
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 02/26/2008 07:04 pm
A couple of thoughts on the cost differential between what Ross is hearing and what Jon is hearing. Is it possible that Jon’s LM contact might be considering the possibility of increased business for the Atlas 401 due to the decreased cost from higher production? That is to say instead of 18 flights annually might they be considering that they could pickup 2 or more additional flights since the price point has dropped? Would that be enough to explain the difference?

Is it possible that there might be more economies of scale than Ross’ contact is assuming? After all each and every sub contractor is looking at a substantial increase in business and that could lead to a willingness to cut margins. Additionally operating the assembly line at this rate could well lead to substantial efficiencies with related cost savings.

Finally is it not possible that LM is looking well down the road? With a flight rate of 18 plus a year, some manned, LM and Atlas are going to have a very high visibility which is bound to increase business and furthermore they are looking at the possibility of substantial increases in business with BA alone should BA’s business plan work. It might be desirable for LM to be willing to cut profits to the bone to drum up that kind of long-term growth.

Hum, an additional thought, since Ross is talking to his LM contact from the viewpoint of a government run operation and Jon is talking to his LM contact from a commercial viewpoint is it not possible that the cost differential can be explained based on what LM is willing to accept from the government versus what they would accept commercially?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/26/2008 07:09 pm
Quote
DarthVader - 26/2/2008  1:05 PM

... what sort of tools are you guys using to come-up with the numbers you have? ...
The main tool is POST.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 02/26/2008 07:23 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 26/2/2008  9:35 PM

That "Pad Approach" image is just awsome. It really captures a level of majesty that's normally missing from the clear day photography of existing vehicles. Please pass on my sincere appreaciation to Peter for this image and all the others he's produced for Direct. Paul
Peter or Philip J.,... very Andrej Tarkovskij indeed...

[edit : that image reminds me of A.T.'s masterpiece movie "Stalker" [1979] and of course of A & B Strugatsky's novel "The Roadside Picnic"; shocking effect...]

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 02/26/2008 07:25 pm
Some questions regarding Atlas V cost scenarios. At a dramatically increased flight rate, won't the already purchased RD-180s run out much sooner? If P&W has to start making the engines, won't they be considerably more expensive than engines produced in Russia. And will LM be permitted to or prohibited from purchasing as many Russian-made RD-180s as they want, so long as its for commercial customers, rather than US Govt launches?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/26/2008 07:35 pm
Quote
William Barton - 26/2/2008  3:25 PM

Some questions regarding Atlas V cost scenarios. At a dramatically increased flight rate, won't the already purchased RD-180s run out much sooner? If P&W has to start making the engines, won't they be considerably more expensive than engines produced in Russia. And will LM be permitted to or prohibited from purchasing as many Russian-made RD-180s as they want, so long as its for commercial customers, rather than US Govt launches?
If memory serves me, there are ~40 engines in the stockpile here in the CONUS, and another ~50 in a warehouse in Russia, that the US owns. After that, they’re all gone and it’s buy more or build copies, neither of which is a real option. Buying more is an absolute political showstopper and while we have Russian permission to copy the engine if we can, PWR has already concluded that they could not reproduce the engine for anywhere near an economical number. The Russian build philosophy is sufficiently different that we couldn’t do it efficiently. It would, imho, be less expensive to restart and complete the RS-84.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 02/26/2008 07:44 pm
Quote
clongton - 26/2/2008  12:35 PM

Quote
William Barton - 26/2/2008  3:25 PM

Some questions regarding Atlas V cost scenarios. At a dramatically increased flight rate, won't the already purchased RD-180s run out much sooner? If P&W has to start making the engines, won't they be considerably more expensive than engines produced in Russia. And will LM be permitted to or prohibited from purchasing as many Russian-made RD-180s as they want, so long as its for commercial customers, rather than US Govt launches?
If memory serves me, there are ~40 engines in the stockpile here in the CONUS, and another ~50 in a warehouse in Russia, that the US owns. After that, they’re all gone and it’s buy more or build copies, neither of which is a real option. Buying more is an absolute political showstopper and while we have Russian permission to copy the engine if we can, PWR has already concluded that they could not reproduce the engine for anywhere near an economical number. The Russian build philosophy is sufficient different that we couldn’t do it efficiently. It would, imho, be less expensive to restart and complete the RS-84.

Buying more is an absolute political showstopper? Maybe for government contracts, doubtful for commercial.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 02/26/2008 07:57 pm
Quote
clongton - 26/2/2008  3:35 PM

Quote
William Barton - 26/2/2008  3:25 PM

Some questions regarding Atlas V cost scenarios. At a dramatically increased flight rate, won't the already purchased RD-180s run out much sooner? If P&W has to start making the engines, won't they be considerably more expensive than engines produced in Russia. And will LM be permitted to or prohibited from purchasing as many Russian-made RD-180s as they want, so long as its for commercial customers, rather than US Govt launches?
If memory serves me, there are ~40 engines in the stockpile here in the CONUS, and another ~50 in a warehouse in Russia, that the US owns. After that, they’re all gone and it’s buy more or build copies, neither of which is a real option. Buying more is an absolute political showstopper and while we have Russian permission to copy the engine if we can, PWR has already concluded that they could not reproduce the engine for anywhere near an economical number. The Russian build philosophy is sufficiently different that we couldn’t do it efficiently. It would, imho, be less expensive to restart and complete the RS-84.

Chuck, I think you are thinking of the other engine, the one Aerojet
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/26/2008 08:00 pm
Quote
Jim - 26/2/2008  3:57 PM

Chuck, I think you are thinking of the other engine, the one Aerojet
Hmm. could be. Been wrong before. Enlighten me please.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nathan on 02/26/2008 08:00 pm
Given all the progress made so far on Ares-1, with a preliminary flight test this year, and assuming the bright folks at NASA can install appropriate damping on the rocket, I'm wondering if it is not time to consider a modified version of direct that assumes Ares-1 is here to stay?
Assume we have Ares-1 for crew launch. Then assume that the cargo launch can take both 4 & 5 segment boosters (4 segment for inline rocket testing).
I think political reality means that at this point, any major change may kill the program or lead to extensive delays (I just don't see an inline booster available for testing next year - they have to design & test the engine section).

So Assuming Ares-1 is here to stay; what is the best configuration of Direct that can still save money, jobs and bring the moon landing forward?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/26/2008 08:08 pm
Quote
Nathan - 26/2/2008  4:00 PM

Given all the progress made so far on Ares-1, with a preliminary flight test this year,
Test flight (Ares-IX) isn’t scheduled until next year, April 15, 2009.

Quote
Then assume that the cargo launch can take both 4 & 5 segment boosters (4 segment for inline rocket testing).
Will be either the 4-segment –or- the 5 segment. ATK won’t do both. There’s not enough money in it.

Quote
what is the best configuration of Direct that can still save money, jobs and bring the moon landing forward?
Jupiter J-120, unmodified from the proposal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: DarthVader on 02/26/2008 08:30 pm
Quote
clongton - 26/2/2008  12:09 PM

Quote
DarthVader - 26/2/2008  1:05 PM

... what sort of tools are you guys using to come-up with the numbers you have? ...
The main tool is POST.

Pardon my ignorance .. but what is "POST" exactly? (not much on Google, maybe it's related to SimCAD?)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 02/26/2008 08:35 pm
Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 02/26/2008 08:40 pm
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3911&posts=467&mid=186270&highlight=aerojet&highlightmode=1&action=search#M186270
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=10279&posts=15&mid=197918&highlight=aerojet&highlightmode=1&action=search#M197918

NK-33/ AJ-26
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/26/2008 08:51 pm
Quote
Jim - 26/2/2008  4:40 PM

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3911&posts=467&mid=186270&highlight=aerojet&highlightmode=1&action=search#M186270
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=10279&posts=15&mid=197918&highlight=aerojet&highlightmode=1&action=search#M197918

NK-33/ AJ-26
Duh! I'm going to go away now and wipe the egg off.
I knew that. What was I thinking?
Not enough caffine!
Thanks Jim
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/26/2008 08:51 pm
Quote
DarthVader - 26/2/2008  1:05 PM

Said, what sort of tools you guys are using to come-up with the numbers you have? Don't get me wrong, I'm not questionning their validity here, I'm just curious to what kind of methods/software are been used to design/validate the DIRECT concept, aside from common sense, experience and knowledge.

Since Steve Metschan is the founder of the company behind FrameworkCT, I'll assume that it is one of the tool you might be using. Are you also making use of "Orbiter" (as a virtual prototyping platform) since Antonio did an add-on for it?

It's a multi-layer process.

We have a number of 'cheap and cheerful' tools for prototyping new ideas/changes to provide just a first order estimate.   I have a spreadsheet derived from ESA for doing first-order estimations.   It's pretty accurate and fairly simple to set up (I can optimize a design within a few hours) which typically estimates LV performance to +/- 2% (almost always 1-2% underestimate).   António often runs a simulation of a new configuration in Orbiter - he's our Orbiter guru.   It has accurate enough physics model to be another fairly good first-order estimate tool for prototyping work and António can get results from it in a fairly quick time too.   Stephen also has POST and can validate results.

We use any of these to test initial ideas and to begin the process of estimating new configurations.   Anyone involved in the Team can make a suggestion and we typically send a wave of e-mails out to relevant NASA folk for advice, and when we get the feedback we then implement a suitable early test.

Once we have performed as many optimization tests to get to a configuration which looks good enough, only then will we hand the work off to some other NASA guys at MSFC.   We feed them all of the data from our tools, and allow them to refine the hardware assumptions based on their own knowledge.   Using POST and having more detailed data decks (which we would sooo love to get hold of, but can't! :( ) they can refine the work to a very precise level.   We normally get the results of these runs a few days later.   BTW, just so there is no confusion; they run these analysis outside of work hours, and only use personal assets - not corporate or gov.

The same guys have also done two Monte Carlo analysis for us - one for v1.0, and one for v2.0 before the AIAA paper was done.   These are exhaustive multi-run tests to find the maximum and minimum limits for all the key data points (environment, performance, safety etc) for any given launcher design.   We don't like asking for those often though, because they take a very long time and we don't want to put too many demands on any of our already very generous volunteers.

In all cases, we will use whatever the lower performance figure we get for published numbers - either via the first order 2%-under tools, or the detailed POST figures.   We simply prefer to always err always on the side of caution, even though we have total faith in the POST runs.

And we have 10% additional performance margins over and above regular margins on all our numbers compared to CxP numbers - to cover our butts against any unforeseen oversights (after all, we are a volunteer outfit and have no budget!).   Having said that though, since the NLS data came into our hands, we have realized that our various estimates were already actually quite generous.   Certainly NLS would seem to indicate that we are in the 'safe zone', so we could probably delete that extra margin - although we still really like having spare margin!

Essentially, when you see us use "Gross" and "NET" performance on our baseball cards, our "Gross" number is actually the one which is apples-to-apples comparable to Ares' "NET" figure.


For Lunar mission estimates, we have created our own Spreadsheet to do all the math for us.   It can integrate directly into the ESA tool to automatically extract relevant data for the analysis.   António can also use Orbiter to test the figures we get out of this too - again, the physics model is accurate enough to give us at least a 'looks good' or 'no way José'.


That's a bit of insight into the typical processes we use.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/26/2008 09:05 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 26/2/2008  2:35 PM

Quote
kraisee - 26/2/2008  10:12 AM

Those resolutions are up now.

Ross.
That "Pad Approach" image is just awsome. It really captures a level of majesty that's normally missing from the clear day photography of existing vehicles. Please pass on my sincere appreaciation to Peter for this image and all the others he's produced for Direct. As I've said to him, the numbers and graphs can back up the story, but to get you in the gut, to make you truly feel the possibilities, there's nothing like these sorts of images.

Paul

Actually it's "Philip" (Metschan, Stephen's brother) who was responsible for all three of those drawings.   Same guy who also did that retouched image of a Jupiter-120 sitting at the Pad.

His amazing artistic skills gotten him invites to do artwork for CxP :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/26/2008 09:11 pm
Quote
Jim - 26/2/2008  3:57 PM

Quote
clongton - 26/2/2008  3:35 PM

Quote
William Barton - 26/2/2008  3:25 PM

Some questions regarding Atlas V cost scenarios. At a dramatically increased flight rate, won't the already purchased RD-180s run out much sooner? If P&W has to start making the engines, won't they be considerably more expensive than engines produced in Russia. And will LM be permitted to or prohibited from purchasing as many Russian-made RD-180s as they want, so long as its for commercial customers, rather than US Govt launches?
If memory serves me, there are ~40 engines in the stockpile here in the CONUS, and another ~50 in a warehouse in Russia, that the US owns. After that, they’re all gone and it’s buy more or build copies, neither of which is a real option. Buying more is an absolute political showstopper and while we have Russian permission to copy the engine if we can, PWR has already concluded that they could not reproduce the engine for anywhere near an economical number. The Russian build philosophy is sufficiently different that we couldn’t do it efficiently. It would, imho, be less expensive to restart and complete the RS-84.

Chuck, I think you are thinking of the other engine, the one Aerojet

Jim,
I think you may be referring to the TRW TR-107.

We have no idea whether it has been considered for Atlas, but we do know that there was at least some initial investigative work done regarding RS-84 powering Atlas-V if the RD-180 ever became a 'problem' for any reason.

There may well have been a similar investigation for TR-107, but we (Chuck, Stephen, myself) have not heard anything.

If this subject has legs can we please start a separate thread to discuss it - DIRECT thread isn't the right place.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/26/2008 09:18 pm
Quote
clongton - 26/2/2008  4:08 PM

Quote
Nathan - 26/2/2008  4:00 PM

Quote
what is the best configuration of Direct that can still save money, jobs and bring the moon landing forward?
Jupiter J-120, unmodified from the proposal.

Jupiter-120 protects the only current US Heavy Lift infrastructure we have, and the workforce (political and brain-drain issues).   Jupiter-232 follows J-120 whenever there is budget.   Current budget levels mean 2016/17 ready for Lunar missions two years early.

At this point it is all about ensuring that we don't kill Ares-I and dismantle the entire Shuttle infrastructure & workforce by switching to an EELV-only replacement servicing just the space station.

In the case, specifically, of Obama coming to power I am really frightened of this occurring.

If that happens, we will be unable to ever pursue the DIRECT course in the future and we guarantee that we have not other choice but to go onto the EELV cost track I demonstrated on the previous page.   It effectively locks us for the next 30 years in to that high-cost option - higher cost than even Ares in the end.

I'm sure the EELV guys would certainly welcome that.   But IMHO it would slam the door shut permanently to realistic affordable Exploration missions and would spell 100,000+ job losses around the nation.   And Mars becomes completely un-affordable too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: DarthVader on 02/26/2008 09:27 pm
Quote
kraisee - 26/2/2008  1:51 PM

...

That's a bit of insight into the typical processes we use.

Ross.

Thanks for the insight Ross, much appreciated :cool:
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 02/26/2008 09:48 pm
Quote
kraisee - 26/2/2008  4:18 PM

Quote
clongton - 26/2/2008  4:08 PM

Quote
Nathan - 26/2/2008  4:00 PM

Quote
what is the best configuration of Direct that can still save money, jobs and bring the moon landing forward?
Jupiter J-120, unmodified from the proposal.

Jupiter-120 protects the only current US Heavy Lift infrastructure we have, and the workforce (political and brain-drain issues).   Jupiter-232 follows J-120 whenever there is budget.   Current budget levels mean 2016/17 ready for Lunar missions two years early.

At this point it is all about ensuring that we don't kill Ares-I and dismantle the entire Shuttle infrastructure & workforce by switching to an EELV-only replacement servicing just the space station.

In the case, specifically, of Obama coming to power I am really frightened of this occurring.

If that happens, we will be unable to ever pursue the DIRECT course in the future and we guarantee that we have not other choice but to go onto the EELV cost track I demonstrated on the previous page.   It effectively locks us for the next 30 years in to that high-cost option - higher cost than even Ares in the end.

I'm sure the EELV guys would certainly welcome that.   But IMHO it would slam the door shut permanently to realistic affordable Exploration missions and would spell 100,000+ job losses around the nation.   And Mars becomes completely un-affordable too.

Ross.

Get thee to the Florida Congressional delegation, ASAP.

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: anonymous on 02/26/2008 10:01 pm
Quote
kraisee - 26/2/2008  10:18 PM

Jupiter-120 protects the only current US Heavy Lift infrastructure we have, and the workforce (political and brain-drain issues).   Jupiter-232 follows J-120 whenever there is budget.   Current budget levels mean 2016/17 ready for Lunar missions two years early.

At this point it is all about ensuring that we don't kill Ares-I and dismantle the entire Shuttle infrastructure & workforce by switching to an EELV-only replacement servicing just the space station.

In the case, specifically, of Obama coming to power I am really frightened of this occurring.

If that happens, we will be unable to ever pursue the DIRECT course in the future and we guarantee that we have not other choice but to go onto the EELV cost track I demonstrated on the previous page.   It effectively locks us for the next 30 years in to that high-cost option - higher cost than even Ares in the end.

I'm sure the EELV guys would certainly welcome that.   But IMHO it would slam the door shut permanently to realistic affordable Exploration missions and would spell 100,000+ job losses around the nation.   And Mars becomes completely un-affordable too.

Ross.

But if they abandoned the Shuttle infrastructure and switched to EELVs that NASA analysis you told us about a few weeks ago showed that the Enhanced EELV option could match Direct on every criterion except protecting Shuttle jobs. Enhanced EELV wasn't more expensive. It could be picked up again later.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 02/26/2008 10:36 pm
Quote
Nathan - 26/2/2008  3:00 PM

Given all the progress made so far on Ares-1, with a preliminary flight test this year, and assuming the bright folks at NASA can install appropriate damping on the rocket, I'm wondering if it is not time to consider a modified version of direct that assumes Ares-1 is here to stay?
Assume we have Ares-1 for crew launch. Then assume that the cargo launch can take both 4 & 5 segment boosters (4 segment for inline rocket testing).
I think political reality means that at this point, any major change may kill the program or lead to extensive delays (I just don't see an inline booster available for testing next year - they have to design & test the engine section).

So Assuming Ares-1 is here to stay; what is the best configuration of Direct that can still save money, jobs and bring the moon landing forward?

Ross et al,
This gives me a thought.  You may have already looked at it, but what if NASA used Ares-I as planned for the CLV and used a DIRECT derivative (J-232?) in lieu of the Ares-V (CLV).  How much development cash would that save, if any?

Probably not the most efficient thing to do, but could it reduce the time needed to get lunar missions operational sooner?  Plus it would use the employee base better than EELVs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/26/2008 10:46 pm
The other alternative is the Ares-I could be replaced by COTS rockets.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/26/2008 11:34 pm
Ross,

Just been following this discussion, and I believe that "Ares I on its own" dovetails with the Obama issue. Here are my thoughts on it.

I've also been worried about Obama taking office, and now everything hangs on McCain winning the election for NASA to get to the moon. Politically, how likely is it that he can kill VSE stone dead? Congress killed the Crew Return Vehicle (or was it the HL-20?) despite White House objections (I believe that was during Clinton's administration). People have been saying on this board that once the Ares architecture gains sufficient momentum then nobody can kill it - but Obama has said that he will delay the program by a decade.

Is there a way for DIRECT to survive if VSE gets killed by Obama? Jupiter-120 could be pitched as being a useful exploration tool at least - larger probes, Mars sample returns, etc., as well as the usual ISS construction carrots. Once Obama's out of office, it's possible that some "grandchild of VSE" be put back on track and use Jupiter-232 to get to the moon by 2025 or so.

I personally think that the jobs issue is what will keep Ares / Jupiter afloat, but in what form is debatable. Ares I on its own has little support within NASA once Ares V and Griffin are out of the picture and EELV doesn't address the jobs issue. Jupiter-120 for ISS is more expensive than Ares I, but if the design is optimised for ISS-only biannual flights, it might still be in the fight against the EELV option (which is great for ISS but as you've shown is terrible for anything beyond that).

Ares I flying means that although the elements are there for Ares V (J-2X, 5-seg SRB, RS-68), there's no infrastructure. Everything's demolished. Jupiter-120 offers a political safe haven and a head start. Perhaps DIRECT should be pitched at Obama's crowd with this in mind...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 02/26/2008 11:44 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 26/2/2008  6:46 PM

The other alternative is the Ares-I could be replaced by COTS rockets.

Not viable, too small
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/27/2008 12:02 am
Quote
Jim - 27/2/2008  12:44 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 26/2/2008  6:46 PM

The other alternative is the Ares-I could be replaced by COTS rockets.

Not viable, too small

Unless Orion Mark 3 is tiny.

The lunar transfer living quarters would have to go up in a mission module.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/27/2008 03:10 am
Quote
Nathan - 26/2/2008  4:00 PM
So Assuming Ares-1 is here to stay; what is the best configuration of Direct that can still save money, jobs and bring the moon landing forward?

If Ares-I remains in the mix we are in the exact same position as Ares-V - we can't start developing the bigger LV until Ares-I stops soaking up the development cash.

If you have already paid for the J-2X and the 5-segment SRB's for Ares-I, there is no advantage going to Jupiter instead of Ares-V - except in terms of crew safety on the larger vehicle.

The key cost and schedule difference comes from DIRECT by replacing Ares-I with the Core vehicle which will later also take you to the moon - the Jupiter-120.

Keep Ares-I and there is just no way to avoid the high costs and long schedules.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 02/27/2008 03:18 am
First off let me say that I think your making a mistake by including EELV in your comparisions...  It's nice to have the data available if needed.  But the focus should be on how Jupiter is better than Ares...  Else your diluting your primary message.

But staying on the EELV discussion for a moment...  I've got say that even though I disagree that LRO makes a good example of actual EELV launch costs the difference isn't worth debating.  When one considers that ~8 EELV Heavy's are required to match the 2 Jupiters per Moon mission it becomes apparent which system is more effective.  I'll be one of the first to say that I believe an advanced EELV Heavy system will best either STS system (Jupiter or Ares) to ISS...  But the goal is not ISS, but to move beyond earth orbit.  And when one considers the exponential risks, complications, and costs each additional launch adds I don't think an advanced EELV Heavy is acceptable.  As we've seen with the ISS trying to build a massive structure in space a little bit at a time is simply not effecient.  You need a Super Heavy ~100kg vehicle to effeciently acheive long-term beyond earth exploration...  And my estimation is that an STS-derived system is simply a quicker and cheeper way to achieve that capability.  

Great wallpaper BTW
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/27/2008 03:20 am
Quote
Lampyridae - 26/2/2008  7:34 PM

Is there a way for DIRECT to survive if VSE gets killed by Obama?

This is the central issue.   As long as you are building Jupiter-120 instead of Ares-I, you retain the *ability* to go to the moon irrelevant of politics.   While just doing a low-cost ISS program, NASA could still slowly continue development of the J-2X and the new Upper Stage under the 'cover' of needing them for other purposes - telescopes etc.   Having the Core Vehicle, they could probably build the Upper Stage at a slower, relaxed pace which doesn't attract much negative political notice all the way through the Obama administration.   And Jupiter-120 preserves the entire workforce/braindrain because it creates the ability to do a lot more than just flying Orion.   That satisfies both Congress and NASA Admin, and you would be in a strong position to be able to pick up the Lunar program immediately after the "Obama years" run their course.

Also, DIRECT *CAN* actually operate a small Lunar program even if $1.5bn were cut from NASA's budget.

Ares-I will not be able to support the workforce alone.   No way, no how.   And it doesn't do much for converting STS infrastructure into the Heavy Lift you need.   Essentially, a 4-8 year delay with Obama would put off the *start* of the Ares-V development (8-9 years) until Obama were replaced (and maybe not even then).   At that point they would have to largely re-build the entire infrastructure of STS afresh before beginning Ares-V's development again.   Say Obama got two terms, we would be looking at a return to the Lunar surface no sooner than 2029 or so.

The EELV option has no LV delays beyond qualifying them for ISS use (2012).   But by not selecting an SDLV, you guarantee the workforce/braindrain happens.   There would be no avoiding it - which is a significant political problem.   And all of the STS infrastructure is mothballed, retired and closed-down by doing so.    4 or 8 years without maintenance essentially spells doom for the STS infrastructure.   It will no longer be an option to go back to it later without rebuilding virtually everything.   This option locks you in to the 'high cost' path afterward which, Jon's opinion not withstanding, I think I have managed to demonstrate fairly well means we will never be able to afford many missions even after Obama.   And which will require the equivalent of an ISS-sized assembly project for each Mars mission.   An option I believe is totally un-sustainable for more than a few missions.   I can't see us seriously making progress with a human exploration program at 3 Lunar missions per year, or a single Mars mission instead - not in parallel.   EELV's work just great if all we want to do is remain in LEO.   They just aren't big enough to be economical beyond there.   And the workforce issue will strike really hard in the political arena so I don't see Congress taking this option seriously.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/27/2008 03:36 am
Quote
anonymous - 26/2/2008  6:01 PM

Quote
kraisee - 26/2/2008  10:18 PM

Jupiter-120 protects the only current US Heavy Lift infrastructure we have, and the workforce (political and brain-drain issues).   Jupiter-232 follows J-120 whenever there is budget.   Current budget levels mean 2016/17 ready for Lunar missions two years early.

At this point it is all about ensuring that we don't kill Ares-I and dismantle the entire Shuttle infrastructure & workforce by switching to an EELV-only replacement servicing just the space station.

In the case, specifically, of Obama coming to power I am really frightened of this occurring.

If that happens, we will be unable to ever pursue the DIRECT course in the future and we guarantee that we have not other choice but to go onto the EELV cost track I demonstrated on the previous page.   It effectively locks us for the next 30 years in to that high-cost option - higher cost than even Ares in the end.

I'm sure the EELV guys would certainly welcome that.   But IMHO it would slam the door shut permanently to realistic affordable Exploration missions and would spell 100,000+ job losses around the nation.   And Mars becomes completely un-affordable too.

Ross.

But if they abandoned the Shuttle infrastructure and switched to EELVs that NASA analysis you told us about a few weeks ago showed that the Enhanced EELV option could match Direct on every criterion except protecting Shuttle jobs. Enhanced EELV wasn't more expensive. It could be picked up again later.

Yes, it is an option, but it's not less costly than DIRECT - its about the same.

If Obama has an EELV for ISS though, it suffers the same fundamental issue as Ares-V - nothing will happen with this option until after Obama leaves office.   Only then can the necessary hardware for Lunar missions start being produced.   There is no 'cover' to do it before that.   This pushes out the Lunar landing by 4-8 years again.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 02/27/2008 03:46 am
Quote
Ares-I can't support the workforce alone, and doesn't do much for converting STS infrastructure into the Heavy Lift you need.

While I think Ares-I is redundant I tend to disagree with you that it doesn’t preserve STS-derived infrastructure.  Just some thoughts:

- SRB infrastructure will continue largely unaffected
- Michoud will continue to build cryo tanks and add stage assembly and checkout
- Stennis will move from testing and assembling SSMEs to J-2s
- An unmodified mobile platform and ET tooling can be put into mothballs
- Leaving only pad 39-A which wouldn’t fare well

Orbiter infrastructure was doomed for closure either way, and Orion will take it’s place at Kennedy.  Now I’d agree completely that the size of Ares-I will be tiny compared to STS.  But NASA would be retaining the fundementals and still be positioned to move forward if the program was frozen at Ares-I.  It’s wouldn’t be easy, but I don’t see what they would be missing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/27/2008 12:42 pm
If Barak Obama wins the election in November and delays the lunar mission for his 8-year time in office, he is likely to tell NASA that there will be no need for a lunar capable Orion. He will likely tell NASA to make it smaller, specifically for LEO missions. Given that possibility, he might not be willing to continue the $3+ billion effort for the 5-segment SRB. The LEO CLV could end up being a 4-segment RSRB sporting a J-2XD US engine. That would freeze the STS infrastructure in place and enable the restart of the Jupiter once he leaves office. Or, he could tell NASA to fly the smaller Orion on an Atlas or a Delta.

Of course, neither of these launch vehicle options stop the brain drain from NASA and its contractors, which is a huge issue. Even the Ares program will gut that workforce because of the ever lengthening and drawn-out schedule. The only system/proposal out there which adequately addresses that is DIRECT. So it seems to me that the best thing we can do to preserve the workforce and the lunar potential thru an Obama presidency is to get the Jupiter-120 fielded in lieu of the Ares-I. That decision needs to have life before he takes office.

We can fly the Jupiter-120 for as long as it takes until the lunar program once again becomes viable. But if we get stuck with either Ares-I or an EELV, the dream is gone, because I don’t believe the lunar ambitions would survive an Obama presidency with either option. Over those 8 years the skill mix embodied in the workforce will disappear (just like post Saturn), funding and support for NASA will diminish considerably and Ares-V will never see the light of day. It will find itself placed on the shelf with all the other PowerPoint projects which have been proposed over the years and never flew. DIRECT exists in the first place to protect the VSE from this specific and very real potential.

But if we can get the Jupiter-120 to replace the Ares-I, we will be safe. With the Jupiter flying, the dream will survive, the skill force will remain basically intact, and the path forward remains open anytime the Congress makes funding available again.

The key to lunar and Martian ambitions surviving an Obama presidency is to replace the Ares-I with the Jupiter-120.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/27/2008 12:54 pm
Quote
clongton - 27/2/2008  1:42 PM

The key to lunar and Martian ambitions surviving an Obama presidency is to replace the Ares-I with the Jupiter-120.

Barak Obama's people have announced that they will be producing proposals for space in a few weeks.  Some of those missions may fit the Jupiter-120 better than the Ares-I.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 02/27/2008 01:03 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 27/2/2008  8:54 AM

Quote
clongton - 27/2/2008  1:42 PM

The key to lunar and Martian ambitions surviving an Obama presidency is to replace the Ares-I with the Jupiter-120.

Barak Obama's people have announced that they will be producing proposals for space in a few weeks.  Some of those missions may fit the Jupiter-120 better than the Ares-I.

Huh?  He won't have anything that needs heavy lift.  He is the one that wants to delay Orion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/27/2008 01:13 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/2/2008  9:03 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 27/2/2008  8:54 AM

Quote
clongton - 27/2/2008  1:42 PM

The key to lunar and Martian ambitions surviving an Obama presidency is to replace the Ares-I with the Jupiter-120.

Barak Obama's people have announced that they will be producing proposals for space in a few weeks.  Some of those missions may fit the Jupiter-120 better than the Ares-I.

Huh?  He won't have anything that needs heavy lift.  He is the one that wants to delay Orion.
The Jupiter-120 isn't heavy lift (100mT); it's medium. It'll place 47mT into LEO.
Let's brainstorm a little. What kinds of missions is Obama's people likely to propose that could potentially be benefitted from a 47mT launcher?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 02/27/2008 01:20 pm
Quote
clongton - 27/2/2008  6:42 AM
But if we can get the Jupiter-120 to replace the Ares-I, we will be safe. With the Jupiter flying, the dream will survive, the skill force will remain basically intact, and the path forward remains open anytime the Congress makes funding available again.

The key to lunar and Martian ambitions surviving an Obama presidency is to replace the Ares-I with the Jupiter-120.

How are you going to do that with the current administrator still in office all that time?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 02/27/2008 01:26 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/2/2008  9:20 AM

Quote
clongton - 27/2/2008  6:42 AM
But if we can get the Jupiter-120 to replace the Ares-I, we will be safe. With the Jupiter flying, the dream will survive, the skill force will remain basically intact, and the path forward remains open anytime the Congress makes funding available again.

The key to lunar and Martian ambitions surviving an Obama presidency is to replace the Ares-I with the Jupiter-120.

How are you going to do that with the current administrator still in office all that time?
Have patience. We've been working on it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/27/2008 01:31 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/2/2008  9:20 AM

Quote
clongton - 27/2/2008  6:42 AM
But if we can get the Jupiter-120 to replace the Ares-I, we will be safe. With the Jupiter flying, the dream will survive, the skill force will remain basically intact, and the path forward remains open anytime the Congress makes funding available again.

The key to lunar and Martian ambitions surviving an Obama presidency is to replace the Ares-I with the Jupiter-120.

How are you going to do that with the current administrator still in office all that time?

Griffin is all about human exploration, and Obama seems strongly against it. Griffin won't ever be Obama's man.   If Obama wins the White House, Griffin won't be around for long.   Of course he may not even be there by then.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 02/27/2008 01:38 pm
Quote
clongton - 27/2/2008  8:13 AM

Quote
Jim - 27/2/2008  9:03 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 27/2/2008  8:54 AM

Quote
clongton - 27/2/2008  1:42 PM

The key to lunar and Martian ambitions surviving an Obama presidency is to replace the Ares-I with the Jupiter-120.

Barak Obama's people have announced that they will be producing proposals for space in a few weeks.  Some of those missions may fit the Jupiter-120 better than the Ares-I.

Huh?  He won't have anything that needs heavy lift.  He is the one that wants to delay Orion.
The Jupiter-120 isn't heavy lift (100mT); it's medium. It'll place 47mT into LEO.
Let's brainstorm a little. What kinds of missions is Obama's people likely to propose that could potentially be benefitted from a 47mT launcher?

What kinds of missions are Obama's people likely to propose that could potentially benefit from a 47mT launcher?

A mission to Florida and other key states. A mission to preserve the industrial base and NOT choosing a launcher than would render the existing Kennedy Space Center facilities largely obsolete.

The costs of shutting down the STS infrastructure and workforce would consume a very large percentage of the potential savings that would accrue from developing a light EELV crew capsule in lieu of ESAS or DIRECT. Gut NASA but net no real additional money for education perhaps until POTUS #45 takes office.

What Obama needs to understand is that we CANNOT defer lunar return to transfer money to education because extended delays merely increase the final overall cost. We need to explain to Obama (and his staffers) that "delay" is not an option.  

Either we go to the Moon or we do not go to the Moon and the political consequences of gutting NASA will be worse for President Obama than the political benefit he would gain by adding a few billion to the education budget several years down the road.

Obama would take the political hit for gutting NASA immediately but won't reap the political benefits of increasing education until after he leaves office. That is the message I believe we take to Obama (packaged together with all the "cool" reasons for going back to the Moon).

= = =

DIRECT would also allow Obama to embrace a robust space program all within current budget trend lines while rejecting the Bush legacy now tied into ESAS.

Sounds like a political WIN-WIN for Obama.

Edit to add: I do not see Obama as being either stupid or inflexible.

There are many very good political reasons for him to walk back from "give NASA's money to education" without any need to for him to drink an ounce of space cadet Kool-Aid.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 02/27/2008 01:48 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/2/2008  7:31 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 27/2/2008  9:20 AM

Quote
clongton - 27/2/2008  6:42 AM
But if we can get the Jupiter-120 to replace the Ares-I, we will be safe. With the Jupiter flying, the dream will survive, the skill force will remain basically intact, and the path forward remains open anytime the Congress makes funding available again.

The key to lunar and Martian ambitions surviving an Obama presidency is to replace the Ares-I with the Jupiter-120.

How are you going to do that with the current administrator still in office all that time?

Griffin is all about human exploration, and Obama seems strongly against it. Griffin won't ever be Obama's man.   If Obama wins the White House, Griffin won't be around for long.   Of course he may not even be there by then.

Ross.

And if he's replaced by Obama, wouldn't it likely be with someone that wouldn't mind killing all the human exploration programs?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: William Barton on 02/27/2008 02:10 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/2/2008  9:03 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 27/2/2008  8:54 AM

Quote
clongton - 27/2/2008  1:42 PM

The key to lunar and Martian ambitions surviving an Obama presidency is to replace the Ares-I with the Jupiter-120.

Barak Obama's people have announced that they will be producing proposals for space in a few weeks.  Some of those missions may fit the Jupiter-120 better than the Ares-I.

Huh?  He won't have anything that needs heavy lift.  He is the one that wants to delay Orion.

If Obama is elected, Ares I-X will fly a few weeks after he's sworn in. If it fails in any way, that will be an inducement to cancel ESAS outright. If anything survives of Constellation, it'll be Orion on an EELV, and then only if he decides to support continued US flights to ISS after 2010. I would imagine there will also be a lobby arguing for limited continuing use of STS instead of Orion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 02/27/2008 02:16 pm
Quote
William Barton - 27/2/2008  9:10 AM

Quote
Jim - 27/2/2008  9:03 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 27/2/2008  8:54 AM

Quote
clongton - 27/2/2008  1:42 PM

The key to lunar and Martian ambitions surviving an Obama presidency is to replace the Ares-I with the Jupiter-120.

Barak Obama's people have announced that they will be producing proposals for space in a few weeks.  Some of those missions may fit the Jupiter-120 better than the Ares-I.

Huh?  He won't have anything that needs heavy lift.  He is the one that wants to delay Orion.

If Obama is elected, Ares I-X will fly a few weeks after he's sworn in. If it fails in any way, that will be an inducement to cancel ESAS outright. If anything survives of Constellation, it'll be Orion on an EELV, and then only if he decides to support continued US flights to ISS after 2010. I would imagine there will also be a lobby arguing for limited continuing use of STS instead of Orion.

Exclude Ares 1 and limited continuing use of STS can only mean Jupiter 120, right? Or maybe extend orbiter retirement?

But an early 2009 test flight of Ares 1-X is a very interesting focal point. Looks like advocates and activists and lobbyists have about a year to prepare for what could be a very interesting few months.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 02/27/2008 02:22 pm
Quote
kraisee - 26/2/2008  5:05 PM
Actually it's "Philip" (Metschan, Stephen's brother) who was responsible for all three of those drawings.

Philip! Duh, I knew that! Sorry, Philip.

The art is stunning and I think adds a lot to any gut-feel selling job. Whether Direct's or CxP's.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 02/27/2008 07:13 pm
How much more cost effective does DIRECT look now given the major changes coming to underperforming Ares-V
(6-Main engines with extended 1st stage and/or wound SRM casings with new propellant).

If you're talkiing about switch to wound casings and HTPB(ATK not withstanding) why not just restart RS-84 program and use RP1/LOX fueled 1st stage and boosters?

Wait.. ATK doesn't want continuing 4-Seg sustained(DIRECT).. it doesn't make them enough money..  New Development is where the real pork is..
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/27/2008 08:37 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/2/2008  9:48 AM

And if he's replaced by Obama, wouldn't it likely be with someone that wouldn't mind killing all the human exploration programs?

The new President can nominate a candidate who agrees with the President's opinion - but Congress still have to vote before that person actually gets the job.   If Congress disagree's with the new President - say because of 100,000 job losses around the country, or because China looks like they will actually embarrass the US within a decade or so, then they won't vote for a nominee who is going to shut down the human space flight program regardless of Obama's wishes.

Congressional Democratic and Republican legislation is being prepared *now* ahead of the next term.   Congress will largely push NASA's direction and leave the new President only with a veto option.   I just don't see NASA funding as being anywhere near big enough a deal to warrant Obama using his first Presidential veto on.

IMHO, the worst that is actually likely to happen (assuming Congress does not also go against NASA) is that it will be largely 'business as usual' with no funding increases nor substantial cuts.

I can see both Hilary and Obama pushing hard in the corridors of power to swap human space flight funding for robotic though - which would damage the VSE or USSEP or whatever its now called...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/27/2008 08:49 pm
Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 27/2/2008  3:13 PM

How much more cost effective does DIRECT look now given the major changes coming to underperforming Ares-V
(6-Main engines with extended 1st stage and/or wound SRM casings with new propellant).

If you're talkiing about switch to wound casings and HTPB(ATK not withstanding) why not just restart RS-84 program and use RP1/LOX fueled 1st stage and boosters?

Wait.. ATK doesn't want continuing 4-Seg sustained(DIRECT).. it doesn't make them enough money..  New Development is where the real pork is..

Exactly.

It's about $3bn to develop the 5-seg SRB's.   If they change to HTPB in composite cases, you can bet that'll be worth at least another $1bn or so - not to mention the waste involved in throwing away the current systems which are still perfectly usable.   That's equivalent to about 8 years worth of STS cash for them so of course they are enthusiastic.


The cost profile for the bigger Ares-V able to actually close the performance targets puts DIRECT into an even better position.   We are still collecting data about how much these changes are actually worth and won't integrate those until we're confident we have the new numbers right.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/27/2008 08:53 pm
Quote
Bill White - 27/2/2008  10:16 AM

But an early 2009 test flight of Ares 1-X is a very interesting focal point. Looks like advocates and activists and lobbyists have about a year to prepare for what could be a very interesting few months.

Yes.   Outside of NASA MSFC and HQ most people we talk to believe Ares-I and V's heart has already stopped beating, but the body just hasn't noticed yet.

Many different vultures (us included I suppose) have been gathering to pick over the corpse for a quite a while now.   We're all just waiting for a few specific things to happen first.   Nobody will miss them when they happen.

I think we are the only group interested in not disposing of the STS, and instead taking the body to hospital and trying to resuscitate it - albeit we plan a Heart transplant to breath new life into STS in the form of a far more similar, but much more efficient system.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/27/2008 09:38 pm
Quote
Bill White - 27/2/2008  2:38 PM

There are many very good political reasons for him to walk back from "give NASA's money to education" without any need to for him to drink an ounce of space cadet Kool-Aid.

Make it easy for Obama to back out.  Time to make some science teaching films that fit within the schools curriculum.  Possibly issued on DVD.  A lot of those equations do not appear to have much use.  Also many machines, such as mass spectrometers, are too expensive for every school to buy but NASA has one in a laboratory somewhere.

Quote
What kinds of missions are Obama's people likely to propose that could potentially benefit from a 47mT launcher?

Global warning.  How much does a satellite based radar to accurately measure the depth of the polar ice weight?  Particularly one that takes a picture at the same time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 02/27/2008 09:54 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 27/2/2008  5:38 PM

Global warning.  How much does a satellite based radar to accurately measure the depth of the polar ice weight?  Particularly one that takes a picture at the same time.

There is a spacecraft already up there doing that, ICESAT.  And it was launched on a Delta II Lite.  Canadians will have 2 Radarsats and the first one was launched by a Delta II.  EELV class has plenty of capability for environmental spacecraft.  

Anyways Direct can't go polar.  It doesn't have a west coast launch site
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 02/27/2008 10:24 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 27/2/2008  4:38 PM

Quote
Bill White - 27/2/2008  2:38 PM

There are many very good political reasons for him to walk back from "give NASA's money to education" without any need to for him to drink an ounce of space cadet Kool-Aid.

Make it easy for Obama to back out.  Time to make some science teaching films that fit within the schools curriculum.  Possibly issued on DVD.  A lot of those equations do not appear to have much use.  Also many machines, such as mass spectrometers, are too expensive for every school to buy but NASA has one in a laboratory somewhere.

Quote
What kinds of missions are Obama's people likely to propose that could potentially benefit from a 47mT launcher?

Global warning.  How much does a satellite based radar to accurately measure the depth of the polar ice weight?  Particularly one that takes a picture at the same time.

Jobs related to the STS infrastructure are one key point of leverage IMHO.  Florida needs to organize NOW (especially in the context of the primary kerfluffle) and perhaps a united delegation of Democratic & Republican members of Congress can have some real influence.

But that needs to get rolling prior to November, IMHO. Get Obama on the record in Florida before the November election and an organized group of Democratic politicians (US Congress, state legislature, mayors etc . . .) could be very influential. STS = ESAS or DIRECT and budget considerations favor DIRECT, obviously.

Colorado's Rep Mark Udall is running for Senate and Obama sees Colorado as a swing state. Try and get Udall on board especially since he is Chair of the Space and Aeronautics sub-committee.

I also did the SEA lobbying thing a few weeks ago and met with a staffer from Udall's office as well as many others. Quite a few Democratic staffers are fully committed to a lunar return. But only IF it does not require that a blank check to be written.

That 2005 VSE Authorization Bill did not win the votes it did because of the personal charisma of President Bush.  

Spending a few billion per year on ISS and nothing but ISS is less popular with Democratic members of Congress than you might think.

= = =

I had 14 meetings with both Dem and GOP. No one said there was interest in cutting NASA's budget. Democrats wanted a little bit more while Republicans wanted to stand firm on the President's $~17.6 billion request.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/27/2008 10:29 pm
I've always liked the idea of replacing Hubble with not just JWST all the way out at EML2 halo, but also with a true Hubble-II located in LEO.

I know the military has expressed quite a bit of interest in the 8.4m diameter telescope option for Ares - and Jupiter-120 would able to lift a >47mT version any time after 2012.

Hubble appears to have been based on a KH-11 optical spy sat originally. Hubble-II could logically be based on a modern optical spy sat based around such an 8.4m diameter size format.

And there are at least four major ISS payloads which will never fly right now which Jupiter-120 could easily launch on regular crew rotation flights for essentially no additional cost.

There are lots of potential uses for 47mT lift capability.   The only reason we don't have anything planned to use that right now because it has been more than three decades since *any* designer has even had the option to build anything at all that size.

Most of the payloads which could fly on Jupiter-120 haven't even been thought of yet because *nobody* currently expects to have 47mT/8.4m dia. lift as an option.

* 50mT/8.4m diameter Hubble-II (and possibly also similar format military sats).
* All ISS modules permanently grounded now could still fly in 2012-14.
* "Apollo 8" Lunar flyby in 2013.
* 20mT+ Lunar precursor using an already-existing Upper Stage.
* 20mT+ Mars-probe in one flight.
* 15mT+ towards Jupiter.
* 25mT+ to GEO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 02/27/2008 11:15 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/2/2008  4:29 PM
I know the military has expressed quite a bit of interest in the 8.4m diameter telescope option for Ares - and Jupiter-120 would able to lift a >47mT version any time after 2012.

Hubble appears to have been based on a KH-11 optical spy sat originally. Hubble-II could logically be based on a modern optical spy sat based around such an 8.4m diameter size format.

I thought it was possible to have a larger-that-tank-diameter payload fairing, possibly as big as 12m in diameter.

JWST is bigger than Hubble by far, but it's multi-element.  Even the ground ones bigger than around 5m are multi-element.  So I'm not sure you need a large diameter launcher to lift a large diameter scope - JWST demonstrates that.  It would probably be easier if the mirror didn't have to unfurl, however.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/27/2008 11:16 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/2/2008  5:54 PM

Anyways Direct can't go polar.  It doesn't have a west coast launch site

Jim,
   We had a guy from Langley contact us a while back about a launch profile which takes a KSC/CCAFS flight out in a South-Easterly direction far enough from shore to be safe and then turns completely south for the majority of the climb up into a polar orbit.

There is obviously a payload hit, but he suggested that with Jupiter-120 we had more than sufficient performance to make it possible.   His estimate was that J-120 would lose about 7mT of performance flying such a trajectory.

We have never actually tried to run the numbers for such a flight ourselves, but it might actually be an option if a polar flight were ever required with an Orion.

Of course, the flight path goes straight over Cuba while still sub-orbital, which could open a political can of worms :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 02/27/2008 11:32 pm
Geeze...how close would the SRBs land to the East coast of Florida?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 02/27/2008 11:43 pm
Quote
kraisee - 27/2/2008  7:16 PM

Quote
Jim - 27/2/2008  5:54 PM

Anyways Direct can't go polar.  It doesn't have a west coast launch site

Jim,
   We had a guy from Langley contact us a while back about a launch profile which takes a KSC/CCAFS flight out in a South-Easterly direction far enough from shore to be safe and then turns completely south for the majority of the climb up into a polar orbit.

There is obviously a payload hit, but he suggested that with Jupiter-120 we had more than sufficient performance to make it possible.   His estimate was that J-120 would lose about 7mT of performance flying such a trajectory.

We have never actually tried to run the numbers for such a flight ourselves, but it might actually be an option if a polar flight were ever required with an Orion.

Of course, the flight path goes straight over Cuba while still sub-orbital, which could open a political can of worms :)

Ross.

The Cuba overflight is a no-no.  Range safety won't allow it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/27/2008 11:45 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/2/2008  7:15 PM

Quote
kraisee - 27/2/2008  4:29 PM
I know the military has expressed quite a bit of interest in the 8.4m diameter telescope option for Ares - and Jupiter-120 would able to lift a >47mT version any time after 2012.

Hubble appears to have been based on a KH-11 optical spy sat originally. Hubble-II could logically be based on a modern optical spy sat based around such an 8.4m diameter size format.

I thought it was possible to have a larger-that-tank-diameter payload fairing, possibly as big as 12m in diameter.

Yes, but we only heard of Pentagon interest while the payloads were still proposed to fit inside 8.4m shrouds.   It would be logical that wider would be of even greater interest, but we simply haven't heard anything at all since the 10m and 12m shrouds were announced.

Actually there are some very large single-mirror telescopes already out there.   The Large Binocular Telescope (LBT) uses, coincidentally, two 8.408m diameter primary mirrors working together.

Subaru uses a single 8.2m diameter primary mirror.

The four separate telescope units of the LVT Interferometer each have an 8.2m diameter mirror.

Both Gillett and Gemini utilize 8.1m diameter mirrors.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/27/2008 11:50 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/2/2008  7:32 PM

Geeze...how close would the SRBs land to the East coast of Florida?

Like I said, we never got serious details, but I know it was proposed that nothing would come down within 20 miles of the shore under either nominal or abort conditions.

The concern was where the Core stage would ultimately come down both for nominal flights but mostly under abort conditions.   I have no data at all about that yet.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: jimvela on 02/28/2008 12:04 am
Quote
Jim - 27/2/2008  3:54 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 27/2/2008  5:38 PM

Global warning.  How much does a satellite based radar to accurately measure the depth of the polar ice weight?  Particularly one that takes a picture at the same time.

There is a spacecraft already up there doing that, ICESAT.  And it was launched on a Delta II Lite.  Canadians will have 2 Radarsats and the first one was launched by a Delta II.  EELV class has plenty of capability for environmental spacecraft.  

Anyways Direct can't go polar.  It doesn't have a west coast launch site

Correct.  ICESat just took its billionth measurment.  Something as large as ARES V could put a small fleet of ICESat into orbit, (though not a polar orbit, as Jim correctly states.)

The lasers on ICESat will eventually give up, then we'll be in need of a replacement.

I'd personally love to see an order for a dozen or so ICESat rebuilds, but then I'm biased as it is one of the S/C that I did some work on.  Heck, I'd even love to see one of our ICESat go on a Taurus-II  :laugh: Can a T-II go polar?

No way we need something as big as an ARES V or D-IV heavy to send EO spacecraft to orbit.  For sending up a small fleet, I believe it would be more prudent to send several smaller (maybe dual-S/C) launches up rather than placing all of the science eggs in one basket.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2008 12:18 am
Quote
jimvela - 27/2/2008  8:04 PM

Correct.  ICESat just took its billionth measurment.  Something as large as ARES V could put a small fleet of ICESat into orbit, (though not a polar orbit, as Jim correctly states.)

The lasers on ICESat will eventually give up, then we'll be in need of a replacement.

I'd personally love to see an order for a dozen or so ICESat rebuilds, but then I'm biased as it is one of the S/C that I did some work on.  Heck, I'd even love to see one of our ICESat go on a Taurus-II  :laugh: Can a T-II go polar?

.

ICESAT was my first mission as an Integration engineer
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nathan on 02/28/2008 08:20 pm
I take back my previous statement about Ares-1 here to stay. NASA is just being totally rediculous. Rather than designing the Lunar lander to fit the Ares V they are now redisgning the Ares V to fit a lander that hasn't been designed yet! This is after they made a decision to go to 5 segment solids thus creating the thrust oscillation issue on Ares-1.
I'm appalled. NASA needs to switch to Direct immediately and stop all this drawing board nonsense that's costing billions.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2008 08:32 pm
Quote
Nathan - 28/2/2008  4:20 PM

 they are now redisgning the Ares V to fit a lander that hasn't been designed yet!

That is the proper way to do it.  The mission drives the launch vehicle
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 02/28/2008 08:47 pm
Quote
Jim - 28/2/2008  4:32 PM

Quote
Nathan - 28/2/2008  4:20 PM

 they are now redisgning the Ares V to fit a lander that hasn't been designed yet!

That is the proper way to do it.  The mission drives the launch vehicle

The part that's rediculous is that they are running out of headroom(literally!) to do this with their fundamentally flawed 1.5 launch architecture...
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 02/29/2008 03:52 am
Quote
Jim - 28/2/2008  4:32 PM

Quote
Nathan - 28/2/2008  4:20 PM

 they are now redisgning the Ares V to fit a lander that hasn't been designed yet!

That is the proper way to do it.  The mission drives the launch vehicle

Agreed Jim, but within some bounds.   Safety, cost and schedule should all be part of the calculation.   IMHO they aren't right now - and that's resulting in the development proceeding down a sub-optimal path.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nathan on 02/29/2008 10:24 pm
Quote
kraisee - 29/2/2008  1:52 PM

Quote
Jim - 28/2/2008  4:32 PM

Quote
Nathan - 28/2/2008  4:20 PM

 they are now redisgning the Ares V to fit a lander that hasn't been designed yet!

That is the proper way to do it.  The mission drives the launch vehicle

Agreed Jim, but within some bounds.   Safety, cost and schedule should all be part of the calculation.   IMHO they aren't right now - and that's resulting in the development proceeding down a sub-optimal path.

Ross.

Are there any cost comparison documents out there? For both the launcher and lander developments? I'd like to see where they have decided one option is the best with at least some consideration of price.
I'd like them to show that the Direct architecture is more expensive and would run to a slower schedule. If they can't show that - then they should switch.
I just don't see the momentum at NASA slowing now with Ares-1/Ares-V so I just don't know what it would take to get a switch other than a new administrator.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nathan on 02/29/2008 10:30 pm
On a different note: any idea how much the performance of the jupiter vehicles would be affected if there was a switch to a 10m fairing?
I'd say we'd lose 5-10% of our payload due to extra mass of fairing and increased drag.
The mission is still doable though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/01/2008 07:27 pm
Nathan,
Actually the difference isn't too bad.

Our two-launch profile flies the EDS on its own on the pure-CaLV flight, so it doesn't need anything more than the most minimal aerodynamic "cap" shroud whether you are using an 8.41m diameter architecture, a 10m one or a 12m.

The CLV flight launches both the Orion CEV and the Altair LSAM.   This flight requires the 10m payload so is the only one which changes.   Assuming the same barrel length of the PLF cylinder remains the same at 10.00m for both versions, this is what happens to the performance:-

The 8.41m diameter PLF variant Jupiter-232 CLV launches 104,967kg to 80x130nm, 29.0deg.
The 10.00m diameter PLF variant Jupiter-232 CLV launches 103,437kg to 80x130nm, 29.0deg.

That's only a difference of 1,530kg which is only ~1.48%.   And we have a 'spare' capacity on this flight of some ~20.4mT anyway which we aren't using in our baseline (we could use this to top-off the EDS with extra TLI propellant on Block-II missions) so the Lunar performance is actually completely unaffected.

12m fairing does a similar thing again.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/01/2008 07:32 pm
Quote
Nathan - 29/2/2008  6:24 PM

I'd like them to show that the Direct architecture is more expensive and would run to a slower schedule. If they can't show that - then they should switch.

This is precisely why they *haven't* showed such a comparison.   Their own data indicated Ares does not stack up well to a system like this.

Performance is insufficient.  Cost is much higher.   Schedule is longer.   Safety is not as high.   It's no longer Shuttle-derived at all.   And it doesn't protect the workforce any more.


They are *terrified* that someone who knows what they are doing will do an independent and very serious comparison of these issues and deliver it to Congress.   At that point Congress will ream their asses.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Star-Drive on 03/02/2008 05:28 am
"They are *terrified* that someone who knows what they are doing will do an independent and very serious comparison of these issues and deliver it to Congress. At that point Congress will ream their asses.

Ross."


Well Ross, what is your team waiting for?  Congress is waiting on your Direct report...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 03/02/2008 01:50 pm
Quote
Well Ross, what is your team waiting for? Congress is waiting on your Direct report...
That approach is an all-or-nothing wager.  If Congress doesn't bite for whatever reason (such as an election year, for example), you won't get a second chance, even if you are right.

I'll admit I let my L2 subscription expire, and hadn't quite grokked all of the current changes to the Ares V being proposed to meet the 75mT TLI target (i.e. 6 RS-68s, 5.5 seg SRBs) until I read the AviationWeek story on it this morning.

While I think I understand the reasons, it might be nice, from a non-technical, "congressional" point of view, to have a whitepaper or pamphlet-type publication to explain that while Ares V may need this growth to meet the requirement, the (comparatively) smaller J-232 does not, and doesn't require more launches than the Ares I + Ares V would.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/02/2008 07:23 pm
Quote
Star-Drive - 2/3/2008  1:28 AM

"They are *terrified* that someone who knows what they are doing will do an independent and very serious comparison of these issues and deliver it to Congress. At that point Congress will ream their asses.

Ross."


Well Ross, what is your team waiting for?  Congress is waiting on your Direct report...

It is in-hand.   That's all I will say at this time.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/02/2008 07:24 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 2/3/2008  9:50 AM

While I think I understand the reasons, it might be nice, from a non-technical, "congressional" point of view, to have a whitepaper or pamphlet-type publication to explain that while Ares V may need this growth to meet the requirement, the (comparatively) smaller J-232 does not, and doesn't require more launches than the Ares I + Ares V would.

Agreed.   We are already working on something that kind.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 03/02/2008 09:12 pm
Ross et al,
If a decision to switch to DIRECT was made in 2009, what sort of impacts would that have? It would seem that a change in administration (NASA's) is probably required for NASA to change course on launch architectures. I know that someone brought the issue of ET production effectively ending this summer on another thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/02/2008 11:35 pm
Texas,
If we get the "go" order by June 1st, then the manifest we shown elsewhere would apply.   It would allow a crewed launch to ISS by the end of September 2012.   That schedule has ~12 months of slippage built in.   The Jupiter-120-X flight would occur in December 2010 using standard RS-68's and a Core Stage which is built *at the same time* as the last handful of ET's.

Jupiter-120-Y would follow about one year later using early versions of the man-rated RS-68 - with or without the 106% performance upgrade - entirely dependent on USAF progress towards that for Delta-IV.   Jupiter doesn't *need* the higher performance, but it would always be useful.

If the "go" order doesn't happen for say 6 or 12 months beyond that, then the schedule slips by the same amount.

This is assuming no extra money of course.   Extra money can speed the schedule up, but I doubt any extra cash will be forthcoming from any future Congress.   I'm sure not going to bank on it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 03/03/2008 12:38 am
Go Direct...Go Direct
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/03/2008 09:36 am

Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 3/3/2008 12:38 PM Go Direct...Go Direct

Done to the tune of "Barbara Anne" by the Beach Boys... ;)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 03/03/2008 02:33 pm
Quote
kraisee - 2/3/2008  6:35 PM

Texas,
If we get the "go" order by June 1st, then the manifest we shown elsewhere would apply.   It would allow a crewed launch to ISS by the end of September 2012.   That schedule has ~12 months of slippage built in.   The Jupiter-120-X flight would occur in December 2010 using standard RS-68's and a Core Stage which is built *at the same time* as the last handful of ET's.

"Gap" ??  What gap?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 03/03/2008 03:00 pm
Quote
Bill White - 3/3/2008  10:33 AM

Quote
kraisee - 2/3/2008  6:35 PM

Texas,
If we get the "go" order by June 1st, then the manifest we shown elsewhere would apply.   It would allow a crewed launch to ISS by the end of September 2012.   That schedule has ~12 months of slippage built in.   The Jupiter-120-X flight would occur in December 2010 using standard RS-68's and a Core Stage which is built *at the same time* as the last handful of ET's.

"Gap" ??  What gap?
:)
After all the Shuttle program has been thru and the low flight rate “average” over the years, an approximate 2 year span of time between the last STS flight and the first crewed flight of Orion in 2012 could almost be considered “no gap”. It’s all in your perspective.

Of course, with a switch to the Jupiter, the long pole will no longer be the launch vehicle. Jupiter could be ready to fly before Orion is ready to ride it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tankmodeler on 03/03/2008 04:19 pm
Quote
clongton - 3/3/2008  11:00 AM
Of course, with a switch to the Jupiter, the long pole will no longer be the launch vehicle. Jupiter could be ready to fly before Orion is ready to ride it.
Which, if the apparent Direct saviings actualue Blonnet Drivey come to pass, might persuade some at NASA to redirect some money to accellerate Orion a tad.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 03/03/2008 04:42 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 3/3/2008  12:19 PM

Quote
clongton - 3/3/2008  11:00 AM
Of course, with a switch to the Jupiter, the long pole will no longer be the launch vehicle. Jupiter could be ready to fly before Orion is ready to ride it.
Which, if the apparent Direct savings actualue Blonnet Drivey come to pass, might persuade some at NASA to redirect some money to accelerate Orion a tad.

Paul
Perhaps just a tad, but not by a whole lot. I think we may have passed the point where just “more money” can speed up Orion very much. They are now into the hard work of systems design, development, engineering and testing. That stuff is just time consuming and more money won’t affect it much. The time to put a lot more money into it was a year ago, when it could have made a real difference in some of the choices that were made in how Orion would be designed and what its capabilities would be. Money a year ago could have been used smarter to develop capability, instead of finding ways to skin the ship to help with Ares’ shortfalls. Now Orion is what it is.

September 2012 is a reasonable date. It’s still THREE YEARS sooner than Ares-I would fly it, at a minimum. The Jupiter launch vehicle can be ready to fly Orion just as soon as Orion is ready. At least we could have that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Alpha Control on 03/03/2008 06:40 pm
Quote
clongton - 3/3/2008  12:42 PM

September 2012 is a reasonable date. It’s still THREE YEARS sooner than Ares-I would fly it, at a minimum.

That to me is a key "leg" of the Direct "strategic triad", if you will, that highlights its advantage over Aries1/V.

1.  Saves time - 3 years sooner.
2.  Saves jobs
3.  Saves money - $5B

Hope I got the money number right!   :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/03/2008 07:46 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 3/3/2008  12:19 PM

Quote
clongton - 3/3/2008  11:00 AM
Of course, with a switch to the Jupiter, the long pole will no longer be the launch vehicle. Jupiter could be ready to fly before Orion is ready to ride it.
Which, if the apparent Direct saviings actualue Blonnet Drivey come to pass, might persuade some at NASA to redirect some money to accellerate Orion a tad.

Paul

That is precisely the plan Paul.

We take the remainder of the $2-3bn for developing the 5-seg SRB's and redirect it.   We allow J-2X development to stretch out by two extra years, which also reduces yearly cost.   We take all of the money for completely rebuilding all of the VAB work platforms, the Pad alternations and brand-new ML/LUT's and redirect that too.

Orion can be sped up to FOC in late 2012 just as long as there is sufficient money.   The limitation on the Orion schedule is the J-2X engine for the Ares-I.   Remove that, and inject more cash, and Orion can be ready sooner.

At the same time, we keep the workforce busy by preparing for things like flying MPLM's, AMS, CAM, SPP and any other payloads currently grounded to ISS and we also prepare for another HSM too.   All of the "work" for that should be allocated to the centers where there will be major job losses otherwise.   We use all of that work to keep everyone gainfully employed until the newer systems (LSAM, EDS, Lunar Base, experiments etc) all come on-line within a year or two of Shuttle retiring.   Effectively creating a "bridge" of useful work to get everyone across to the new program - all paid for without exceeding current Ares cost plans simply by making a less expensive, yet significantly larger launch vehicle actually capable of launching all these extra payloads.

It can be done with the right leadership.   We can have a bigger and better system, for less cost, and also retain the entire Shuttle workforce.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/03/2008 07:53 pm
Quote
Alpha Control - 3/3/2008  2:40 PM

Quote
clongton - 3/3/2008  12:42 PM

September 2012 is a reasonable date. It’s still THREE YEARS sooner than Ares-I would fly it, at a minimum.

That to me is a key "leg" of the Direct "strategic triad", if you will, that highlights its advantage over Aries1/V.

1.  Saves time - 3 years sooner.
2.  Saves jobs
3.  Saves money - $5B

Hope I got the money number right!   :)


For the first launcher alone - Ares-I vs. Jupiter-120 - yes, you're in the right ballpark.




For the second launcher though - Ares-V vs. Jupiter-232 - there is an even bigger difference of about $14.5bn - Mostly because we aren't building any new Core vehicle at all, but also because we have no further MLP changes, very few VAB changes, no manufacturing changes etc etc.

And DIRECT costs $1bn less every year to operate because it uses only one vehicle, not two - assuming flying the same mission rate.

By 2020, the cost difference is well over $30bn in favour of DIRECT, or about $28bn in favour of DIRECT if we fly 11 Lunar missions instead of just the 3 currently planned.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/03/2008 09:04 pm
Just FYI,
Antonio has produced another example of the DIRECT Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module (SSPDM) flying with an Orion CEV to the ISS and carrying the $1.5bn Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) which Senator Nelson is very concerned about, and also bringing up other supplies (EPS) to the station.   This version is flying with an optional airlock for the CEV which could be left at the station.

Note the addition of the RCS packs on the aft of the SSPDM, and the storage trellace on the 'lip' of the payload bay area - both of which are newly added.

This mission could actually occur in 2013, launched on a Jupiter-120.

Ross.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 03/03/2008 10:25 pm
If DIRECT is chosen, there's no need for Orion's SM to stick to its diet, is there?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Marsman on 03/03/2008 11:34 pm
Every pound saved in Orion still has benefits for TLI and TEI, adding mass to the real spacecraft, the lander
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 03/04/2008 01:20 am
Understood, but I was thinking more along the lines of the SM carrying more fuel so the LSAM doesn't have to use its supply on LOI, etc.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/04/2008 01:38 am
Basically, yes.

While we aren't advocating that we add things that aren't necessary, we have sufficient capability in the system not to be forced to delete useful functionality as is happening with Orion on Ares-I currently.

Currently Orion is carrying approximately 4,000kg more propellant than really needed at launch - to get the spacecraft up to the correct orbit after Ares-I finishes its job.   Jupiter can delete this requirement and thus the tanks can be made smaller and lighter too.

In addition though, the biggest benefit with Jupiter is that with the extra performance, some or all of the Zero Base Vehicle requirements which were deleted and left in the "parking lot" could be put back into Orion again.   Orion could get back all of the two-fault tolerant systems which would make the spacecraft a lot safer *during* missions.

Overall it would still weigh about the same, but it would be a lot more functional and safe.


Orion SM could be used to perform the LOI burn, but its engine doesn't have anywhere near as efficient Isp, so extra mass would have to be lifted to LEO and boosted through TLI to do so.   We haven't found a profile where that approach produces NET benefits yet in terms of landed mass on the surface, so for now we still think LSAM/LOI is the way to go.

We do quite like the approach of a crasher stage though.   It would result in a much shorter LSAM Descent Stage, although the trade-off is that it does increase the risk to the crew.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 03/04/2008 03:21 am
I've already expressed my doubt that there will be a surge of 50mt science payloads if DIRECT is pursued.  But I wonder if a modified ATV (or Cygnus) service module would be capable of manuvering and docking a Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module (SSPDM) or any of a number of currently abandoned ISS modules.  This could help bridge the gap between Jupiter being ready for flight operations and Orion test flights.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/04/2008 03:32 am
A suitably modified ATV (or Cygnus) with the appropriate control software should be able to control such a thing.

But I would suggest not using an SSPDM unless needed specifically for a heritage Shuttle payload.

For something 'new' you would probably prefer to just design it to mount in a more traditional manner and not be limited to the ~4.4m diameter of the SSPDM, and instead make use of the ~8-10m diameter possible with the larger payload shrouds.

I also suspect that there will only be 1 payload making use of this new capability per year.   While that isn't a lot - and won't damage EELV flight rates any - it is 'just another benefit', one in a long and growing list, which become available by making the switch away from Ares-I.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 03/04/2008 07:07 pm
Quote
rsp1202 - 4/3/2008  1:25 AM

If DIRECT is chosen, there's no need for Orion's SM to stick to its diet, is there?

Although two post below you are "thinking more along the lines of the SM carrying more fuel" I think a clarification is needed here.

Given that Orion's capsule base dia is 5m, and considering all the hard requirements of:
- launch abort acceleration
- entry heating
- entry deceleration
- parachute limitations, land landing contingency for a water landing baselined capsule
and many others...

the claim that a more capable launcher would allow the capsule to gain back weight ...super tough debris shield... multiple redundant systems...etc... is unfounded.

In other words, the much acclaimed uber-capability of the "Direct" architecture, when it comes to capsule weight, would require going to a larger OML, that is larger diameter capsule.

IMHO .
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/04/2008 07:23 pm
renclod,
Taking Orion beyond its capable limits is not, and never was, the plan.

But Orion was designed originally to have a lot more functionality than it is actually getting - within the 5.0m diameter OML form factor.   Many systems originally planned have been deleted because Ares-I can not lift them.   The Zero Base Vehicle work left a lot of backup systems, functionality systems and safety systems in the 'parking lot' - items which should still be included, but which can't if the spacecraft is going to launch on Ares-I.

DIRECT allows some, most or all of those now-deleted systems to be added back in to the design.

The extra lift capability does also will allow for alternative SM designs in the future - dependent on mission spec.   Ares-I locks Orion pretty solidly into only one heavily-minimized design option, one architecture and no chance of alternatives in the future.

For example, one option which looks particularly good are the EML1 and EML2 rendezvous architectures.   Jupiter-120 with Delta-IV Upper Stage is sufficient to send a full-spec Orion to either EML point.   Jupiter-232 can send a comparatively rather large LSAM to the EML points on low-dV slow-approach trajectory and together these two can actually land a lot more mass on the moon.   Jupiter-232 can also send an Orion to LLO directly in one flight too, to rendezvous with any future reusable LSAM we might build.

But Ares-I will never ever send an Orion to anywhere other than LEO.   It couldn't send one to either EML point nor to Lunar orbit.

And most importantly, DIRECT can save sufficient cash in development and yearly operations costs to make these options realistically affordable in the future.

Having a versatile architecture is going to be important if we are seriously planning these systems to be the basis for the next 30 years of US human space flight capability because *nobody* can predict what we will need that far into the future - nobody can realistically predict what we will need 10-15 years from now IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/04/2008 07:27 pm
Quote
renclod - 4/3/2008  8:07 PM
the claim that a more capable launcher would allow the capsule to gain back weight ...super tough debris shield... multiple redundant systems...etc... is unfounded.

I believe the super tough debris shield is discarded in space so it will not affect the re-entry weight.

Whether the LAS lifts the debris shield or discards it when the shield is most needed will be an interesting trade off.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/04/2008 07:34 pm
And yes, the 'super tough debris shield' which could be integrated into the Orion would be attached to the 'top' of the Service Module.   We don't believe it would need to be pulled away with an abort system.   It would remain on the SM throughout the mission and protect the CM's heatshield in the event of even a spectactular SM failure like that of Apollo 13.

But the more likely 'super tough debris shield' is still the one which is mounted in the payload shroud below the entire CEV.   The 8m diameter one which is left behind when the spacecraft separates from the launch vehicle.

Either is a good option.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 03/04/2008 08:25 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 4/3/2008  10:27 PM

Quote
renclod - 4/3/2008  8:07 PM
the claim that a more capable launcher would allow the capsule to gain back weight ...super tough debris shield... multiple redundant systems...etc... is unfounded.

I believe the super tough debris shield is discarded in space so it will not affect the re-entry weight.

No. I'm talking speciffically about the super MMOD shield (not about the "anti u/s shrapnel" shield)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 03/04/2008 08:37 pm
Quote
kraisee - 4/3/2008  10:23 PM

renclod,
Taking Orion beyond its capable limits is not, and never was, the plan.

Ross,

Your plan is to engage as many space cadets you can hypnotize, with or without unsuported claims (unlimited capsule weight, current RS-68, etc).

Quote
But Orion was designed originally to have a lot more functionality than it is actually getting - within the 5.0m diameter OML form factor.   Many systems originally planned have been deleted because Ares-I can not lift them.

No. This is your assumption - that Ares-I cannot lift them. What transpires from NASA docs is that there is an intrinsic weight limit for the capsule and the Orion project formulation phase has trouble with the program level requirements.

 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 03/04/2008 08:46 pm
Quote
renclod - 4/3/2008  4:37 PM

Quote
kraisee - 4/3/2008  10:23 PM

renclod,
Taking Orion beyond its capable limits is not, and never was, the plan.

Ross,

Your plan is to engage as many space cadets you can hypnotize, with or without unsuported claims (unlimited capsule weight, current RS-68, etc).

Quote
But Orion was designed originally to have a lot more functionality than it is actually getting - within the 5.0m diameter OML form factor.   Many systems originally planned have been deleted because Ares-I can not lift them.

No. This is your assumption - that Ares-I cannot lift them. What transpires from NASA docs is that there is an intrinsic weight limit for the capsule and the Orion project formulation phase has trouble with the program level requirements.
Sorry renclod, but you simply do not have all the facts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/04/2008 08:57 pm
Quote
renclod - 4/3/2008  4:37 PM

Your plan is to engage as many space cadets you can hypnotize, with or without unsuported claims (unlimited capsule weight, current RS-68, etc).

You're welcome to your own opinion, but I think that's insulting to the 56 NASA/Contractor engineers involved with DIRECT.   Despite some people's efforts to denigrate our work, we are getting a lot of attention from a lot of significant people - people who's opinion is quite a bit more important to us that yours.

We have never claimed 'unlimited capsule weight'.   That is your interpretation - and it is incorrect.

We have specified that the original Orion 5.0m dia Crew Module mass - from before ZBV - is well within our architecture's capability envelope.  Nothing more.

Unlike Ares, we do also have spare performance available while closing all of NASA's Lunar performance targets.   We have suggested a few potential uses for that spare performance, such as protective ballistic shields to offer additional protection to the crew in the event of accidents.   These are not a bad idea.   Whether they are useful or not, they are worth investigating *if* you have sufficient performance.   They are simply not an option which can be considered with Ares-I though.


Quote
Quote
But Orion was designed originally to have a lot more functionality than it is actually getting - within the 5.0m diameter OML form factor.   Many systems originally planned have been deleted because Ares-I can not lift them.

No. This is your assumption - that Ares-I cannot lift them. What transpires from NASA docs is that there is an intrinsic weight limit for the capsule and the Orion project formulation phase has trouble with the program level requirements.

No. That is a misinterpretation.

The only intrinsic weight limit for the capsule is determined by two factors:-

1) The lift capability of the launch vehicle to place a spacecraft mass in orbit which is capable of sustaining the crew for the duration of the mission and perform all of the various necessary maneuvers to return that crew safety back to Earth at the end of the missions.   Combined with...

2) The total mass breakdown for the two-launch architecture you are using to send the mission through TLI - primarily determined by how much propellant you have available at the pre-determined time for TLI - itself determined by the CaLV performance and which vehicle (CLV or CaLV) launches the LSAM.


In both cases Jupiter has an advantage over Ares.

Ares-I *can not* launch a CEV massing more than about 20.2mT at the point where it docks to the LSAM/EDS - please note that I *AM NOT* referring to initial injected mass to -11x100nm - I am referring solely to the final mass at docking only - which is the only truly important mass.   The GLOW is much higher, and the injected mass is still high because the Orion has to burn a lot of propellant to complete it's flight to docking.   The actual mass placed to the docking event is limited - by Ares-I - to 20.2mT for Lunar missions.

Ares-I/Ares-V currently have a total combined IMLEO capability for the mission of about 176.2mT.   Jupiter has an apples-to-apples comparable IMLEO capability of about 230.6mT - 31% more.   31% more lift performance essentially translates into *allowing* the spacecraft to be about 31% heavier while still getting the same mission performance.

While it is always advantageous to apply any extra performance margin to the LSAM to improve Lunar surface landed mass performance, a small amount can also be directed towards adding safety and functionality which has been otherwise deleted, back into the Orion too.

Greater lift performance always translates directly into greater mission payload mass - and not all of that must be for the LSAM.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/04/2008 09:20 pm
Quote
renclod - 4/3/2008  4:25 PM

No. I'm talking speciffically about the super MMOD shield (not about the "anti u/s shrapnel" shield)

Okay, that is confusing me.

We haven't been pushing a super MMOD shield.   We have only really identified the 'shrapnel shield' as an obvious upgrade option for Orion at this stage.

We have mentioned 'in passing' that additional protection such as radiation shielding and extra MMOD shielding could also be lifted, but we have not been actively promoting such an upgrade to Orion yet - the system 'seems' fairly safe enough without - at least for sortie missions.

For the record, we think that Rad and MMOD shielding isn't likely to be necessary for missions where Orion will only go to the moon for a week or so.   For long-duration docking to ISS, or missions loitering in LLO for 6 months, such shielding *might* become more worthwhile because longer duration=greater risk.   But for now, it is nothing more than a 'suggestion' which NASA & LM could investigate/trade for a future (Block II?) variant of Orion if flying on something with more performance than Ares-I.

To try to be Crystal Clear o this:   DIRECT is not including anything in Orion which wasn't there before ZBV - with the sole exception of proposing that we investigate the addition of a 5m diameter ballistic shield integrated into the top of the SM to provide maximum protection for the CM heat-shield all the way from launch, through to the TEI return.

*BUT* DIRECT does have about 5mT of spare NET payload performance through TLI.   This *could* be used for a variety of things - not just increasing the mass of the LSAM.   MMOD and Rad shielding for Orion would seem to be fairly obvious useful upgrade options worth investigating for the future.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 03/04/2008 09:30 pm
Quote
kraisee - 4/3/2008  11:57 PM

Quote
renclod - 4/3/2008  4:37 PM

Ross,

Your plan is to engage as many space cadets you can hypnotize, with or without unsuported claims (unlimited capsule weight, current RS-68, etc).

You're welcome to your own opinion, but I think that's insulting to the 56 NASA/Contractor engineers involved with DIRECT.  

Hold your horses, Ross, I am not insulting anyone.

Quite the contrary, any given day I am reading insults addressed to NASA, and many of those are related to over-enthusiastic interpretation of "Direct".

If you need examples... I'm ready to quote.

edit - per your post below - when I say "space cadets" I obviously do not designate pro's
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/04/2008 09:32 pm
Just stating that your comment is not going to be popular with a lot of people involved in DIRECT who are clearly not 'hypnotized space cadets'.

If that isn't what you meant, you can always change your comment.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 03/04/2008 10:38 pm
Quote
kraisee - 4/3/2008  11:57 PM

Quote
renclod - 4/3/2008  4:37 PM

 there is an intrinsic weight limit for the capsule and the Orion project formulation phase has trouble with the program level requirements.

No. That is a misinterpretation.

The only intrinsic weight limit for the capsule is determined by two factors:-

1) The lift capability of the launch vehicle to place a spacecraft mass in orbit which is capable of sustaining the crew for the duration of the mission and perform all of the various necessary maneuvers to return that crew safety back to Earth at the end of the missions.   Combined with...

2) The total mass breakdown for the two-launch architecture you are using to send the mission through TLI - primarily determined by how much propellant you have available at the pre-determined time for TLI - itself determined by the CaLV performance and which vehicle (CLV or CaLV) launches the LSAM.

Ross.

Are you sure ?

Are you telling me that with a 5 m capsule you can land anything ... like 10 metric tons ? 15 mT ? 20 ?

Is there a limit, in your opinion ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/04/2008 10:56 pm
Quote
renclod - 4/3/2008  6:38 PM

Are you telling me that with a 5 m capsule you can land anything ... like 10 metric tons ? 15 mT ? 20 ?

Is there a limit, in your opinion ?

Where are you making up your numbers from?   They have no basis in reality.

The original pre-ZBV Orion (CM & SM together) massed around 22.0mT at docking - compared with 20.2mT now - including additional TEI propellant.

Ares-I can't lift this full-spec Orion though.   To make Orion fit on Ares-I, 1.8mT of originally planned hardware is having to be left-out in the "parking lot" following the ZBV work.

We have no problem at all lifting a Orion 1.8mT heavier than at present.   Plus we can also easily handle an additional 'ballistic shield' massing another ~200kg, making the Orion mass 22.4mT inc. maximum.   I believe that 2mT more mass is quite reasonable and is easily an achievable target with Jupiter.

Is there anything else we are considering launching as part of the Orion?   I'm unaware of any additional hardware anyone is considering for Orion.

We have 5mT 'spare' TLI payload performance available.   We can use 2mT of it to put back all of the functionality Orion was supposed to have and add the ballistic shield.   Therefore we have 3mT extra 'balance' available for increasing the baseline mass of the LSAM too.

And this still isn't dipping into the 19.9mT of additional lift performance of the CLV flight.   Use that to somehow 'top off' the EDS and it gets you about 10mT extra payload going through TLI, still on just two flights.   But that is currently a fairly easy-to-implement 'upgrade' option, not baseline as it was in the AIAA paper.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/05/2008 12:20 am
Quote
kraisee - 5/3/2008  7:20 AM

Quote
renclod - 4/3/2008  4:25 PM

No. I'm talking speciffically about the super MMOD shield (not about the "anti u/s shrapnel" shield)
For the record, we think that Rad and MMOD shielding isn't likely to be necessary for missions where Orion will only go to the moon for a week or so.   For long-duration docking to ISS, or missions loitering in LLO for 6 months, such shielding *might* become more worthwhile because longer duration=greater risk.   But for now, it is nothing more than a 'suggestion' which NASA & LM could investigate/trade for a future (Block II?) variant of Orion if flying on something with more performance than Ares-I.

Ross.

I don't see why MMOD or rad shields wouldn't be possible for an Orion capsule, even above its reentry mass limit. They can be carried externally and jetissoned like a boost protective cover. Although there are real limits and this "space cadet" understands that no 50t Orion is going to re-enter with a 5m heatshield, there is still space for all the stuff the ZBV left out. If anybody wants to mount extra goodies then that is what mission modules are for.

Anyway, DIRECT is one of a number of alternatives and not all the "space cadets" support it although I think it is the best alternative and has the most momentum. Most "space cadets" are full of wonderful ideas and no common sense or direction. ONE good concept has to gain momentum otherwise it'll fizzle out. We can't have a million and one directions otherwise we go nowhere. Even if DIRECT was not as good as the DIRECT crew are presenting, it would be worth supporting. Anything is better than a wildly unpopular and underperforming Ares I with its "shaken, not stirred" astronauts. To quote somebody's signature line "Moon or Mars, let's just go!'
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nathan on 03/05/2008 08:05 am
QUOTE]

Are you sure ?

Are you telling me that with a 5 m capsule you can land anything ... like 10 metric tons ? 15 mT ? 20 ?

Is there a limit, in your opinion ?

[/QUOTE]

Just jumping in on this -   one would assume that NASA was able to LAND the 22mt Orion that it had designed back on Earth with the Parachutes etc in that version.
What Direct is saying is that the equipment removed from that version resulting in the current version could easily be restored.
Why do you think that this is not the case?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/05/2008 09:48 am
Quote
renclod - 4/3/2008  10:30 PM

edit - per your post below - when I say "space cadets" I obviously do not designate pro's

That sort of attack is called divide and conquer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 03/05/2008 11:10 am
Quote
renclod - 4/3/2008  10:30 PM

edit - per your post below - when I say "space cadets" I obviously do not designate pro's
It's still a denigrating characterization, because now you have to define what you mean by a "pro". And what about those literally "thousands" of hard working dedicated space workers all over the country who don't make your personal cut in how you define that term? What about them? Does that leave them still designated as “space cadets”? And to make matters worse, just how do you define a "space cadet"? On second thought, don't answer that.

The best thing you can do is to retract that snide remark and apologize for posting it. It's just not the kind of term that should be bantered about on this forum.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 03/05/2008 12:20 pm
Quote
Nathan - 5/3/2008  11:05 AM
Just jumping in on this -   one would assume that NASA was able to LAND the 22mt Orion that it had designed back on Earth with the Parachutes etc in that version.
What Direct is saying is that the equipment removed from that version resulting in the current version could easily be restored.
Why do you think that this is not the case?

There is an operations limit wrt the 5 m capsule weight and that limit IMHO is independent of the launcher (Ares-I/V, J-xxx, etc.)

The pic is from 11-30-07.ISTIM.pdf

Quote
clongton - 5/3/2008  2:10 PM
 just how do you define a "space cadet"?

I define myself as a space cadet.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 03/05/2008 12:51 pm
Quote
renclod - 4/3/2008  6:38 PM

Are you sure ?

Are you telling me that with a 5 m capsule you can land anything ... like 10 metric tons ? 15 mT ? 20 ?

Is there a limit, in your opinion ?
Orion was originally spec’d out at ~25mT, with a 5m diameter capsule. The difference between that original mass and the current mass is all the systems and capabilities that have been removed in an effort to accommodate the less than expected lift capability of the Ares-I rocket.

All Ross is trying to tell you is that because the Jupiter can lift so much more than the Ares, that all those original systems and capabilities can be put back into Orion, resulting in a mass for the spacecraft more like the original ~25mT. It has nothing to do with the diameter of the spacecraft, which does not change.

He is not trying to say that the Jupiter launcher allows you to pack more into a 5m capsule; just that the original mass for the Orion spacecraft can now be restored, because of the Jupiter’s ability to lift it. It’s all about restoring the original systems to Orion, which already spec’d out at 5m diameter. It’s not about changing the capsule diameter -NOR- about trying to define what the optimal mass of a 5m capsule might be.

Notice please that I'm referring to Orion's mass, the whole spacecraft, not just the mass of the Command Module capsule. 25mT refers to the system as a whole, and that is the mass that the Jupiter allows to be restored. That is also Ross' point as well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: meiza on 03/05/2008 01:04 pm
I don't think the landing limits the mass in any way, well, not really if you don't go to ridiculous masses where it doesn't brake down fast enough. You can always just put bigger parachutes and airbags. (And bigger SM, RCS etc, many of the systems grow too if for example payload or structure mass grows.)
It's the launch vehicle and the LSAM and EDS that have to move the CM around that are the most limiting.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nathan on 03/05/2008 08:06 pm
Quote
renclod - 5/3/2008  10:20 PM

Quote
Nathan - 5/3/2008  11:05 AM
Just jumping in on this -   one would assume that NASA was able to LAND the 22mt Orion that it had designed back on Earth with the Parachutes etc in that version.
What Direct is saying is that the equipment removed from that version resulting in the current version could easily be restored.
Why do you think that this is not the case?

There is an operations limit wrt the 5 m capsule weight and that limit IMHO is independent of the launcher (Ares-I/V, J-xxx, etc.)

So the question Ross & Co is :- was the motivation behind the mass scrub of the Orion due to this operational limit or was it solely due to the launch vehicle performance?
Also - do we know what the Orion Capsule mass is with the systems restored and does it exceed this operational restriction?
There is obviously no issue with restoring systems to the service module.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 03/05/2008 08:36 pm
Quote
Nathan - 5/3/2008  4:06 PM

So the question Ross & Co is: - was the motivation behind the mass scrub of the Orion due to this operational limit or was it solely due to the launch vehicle performance?
Also - do we know what the Orion Capsule mass is with the systems restored and does it exceed this operational restriction?
There is obviously no issue with restoring systems to the service module.
The "operational limit" you refer to had absolutely nothing to do with the "mass scrub" as you call it. The correct term is the ZBV (Zero Base Vehicle).

Orion itself was a little over its original target mass, and the Ares launch vehicle was significantly under its minimum required performance. Combined, Ares-I could not put a lunar-capable Orion spacecraft into earth orbit. For the beginning of the program, this was not an unexpected condition. But things quickly began to unravel. The issues were ultimately addressed this way:

After doing everything they could think of to improve the Ares performance, it became obvious that there was very little more that the 2-stage Ares launch vehicle could do to improve, because of the way it is designed; it was already maxed out – performance wise. So the majority of the difference (Orion overweight plus Ares underperformance) had to be made up in the Orion spacecraft. Part of this was done by increasing the size of the Service Module to carry a lot more propellant so that it could actually function as a 3rd stage and complete the ascent to orbit on its own. This was necessary because the underperformance of the Ares was so severe that after separation, it left Orion still in the atmosphere with a significant amount of deltaV to be made up in order to achieve orbit. So with the Orion spacecraft installed, the Ares-I essentially becomes a 3-stage launch vehicle with the Service Module serving a dual purpose; launch vehicle 3rd stage and spacecraft propulsion. The extra weight incorporated into the Service Module with the needed ascent propellant was added to the overweight Orion and then that entire sum needed to be subtracted from the spacecraft. This is where the ZBV exercise came in. Orion was stripped down to the absolute minimum performance of a spacecraft, with everything not absolutely necessary for crew survival deleted from the base design and placed in what was known as the “Parking Lot”. That is essentially just a repository of systems and capabilities that had been deleted. Then the resulting ZBV was checked to see how much it weighed. The difference in the mass of the ZBV and what the Ares-I could put into orbit defined how much of the systems and capabilities in the parking lot could be added back into Orion. The goal was to arrive at a spacecraft weight that, with some margin, could be orbited by the 3-stage Ares-Orion system. Thus we have the Orion spacecraft today – a mere shell of what the ESAS once touted as the spacecraft that would see the United States into the future for generations.

Don't get me wrong - Orion is a marvelous spacecraft, and will serve us well into the future. But it will never be what was promised, because of the capability that was left out in the parking lot in order to allow an underperforming launch vehicle lift it.

The normal way to go about this design process is to come up with the spacecraft you want and then provide a launch vehicle that will fly it. In this case, the launch vehicle was decided first, and the spacecraft was whittled down by removing performance and features until the underperforming launch vehicle could lift it.

Pity. -sigh-
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Firehawk153 on 03/05/2008 09:14 pm
Space cadet here (actually, I'm probably more of a red-shirt for all you trekkies)

Is there any sort of metric that would measure LOC and LOM for the entire duration of the mission; not just launch?  Would this help to illustrate that "Direct + original concept for Orion" as opposed to "Ares + ZBV(and what they could add back on)" is a safer alternative for the total duration of the mission due to the added systems redundancy on the original concept for orion?

If this already exists, nevermind
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: texas_space on 03/05/2008 09:38 pm
Quote
Firehawk153 - 5/3/2008  4:14 PM

Space cadet here (actually, I'm probably more of a red-shirt for all you trekkies)

Is there any sort of metric that would measure LOC and LOM for the entire duration of the mission; not just launch?  Would this help to illustrate that "Direct + original concept for Orion" as opposed to "Ares + ZBV(and what they could add back on)" is a safer alternative for the total duration of the mission due to the added systems redundancy on the original concept for orion?

If this already exists, nevermind

I'd like to second that question.  If NASA builds a "safer" rocket, but deletes items like dual-fault tolerant systems to get Orion into space what are we really gaining?  If we leave LEO, we need a more reliable spacecraft.  You can't just deorbit to return home if you're in lunar orbit.  This could be an additional selling point for DIRECT.  NASA doesn't need another spacecraft disaster because of a bad decision made 10 years earlier.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/05/2008 11:38 pm
Quote
renclod - 5/3/2008  8:20 AM

There is an operations limit wrt the 5 m capsule weight and that limit IMHO is independent of the launcher (Ares-I/V, J-xxx, etc.)

That operational limit *in this case* is not determined by the maximum mass the CM could possibly mass and safely re-enter.

In this particular case it is determined by the complex calculation involving the minimum safe delta-V the SM can impart on the spacecraft for the essential TEI burn to get the crew home at the end of a Lunar missions - limited by what can be lifted from Earth on the Ares-I.

The weight of the spacecraft 'x' requires a certain amount of propellant 'y' to safely perform the mission.    In this case x+y fundamentally can not exceed Ares-I's lift performance.   This means that the upper limit for the mass of the hardware ('x') is fixed by Ares-I.   The CM+Dry SM can never exceed a certain mass and still be able to fly home safely.   But this is a value which could grow if the launch vehicle had extra performance.

Ares-I just can't lift sufficient payload to allow the full specification of the Orion to fly.   If it could, they would never have done the Zero Base Vehicle work in the first place.   And they would never have removed any of the critical systems originally designed into the spacecraft from before the ZBV work.   That's what they determined the Orion *NEEDED* to include, but now can't.   This situation is purely because of Ares-I's performance.


There is a realistic upper limit though, without doubt.   You really don't want to go silly adding useless mass to Orion.   Adding mass to Orion isn't without penalty.

The heavier the spacecraft, the more TEI propellant you need.   That means the SM gets heavier and needs heavier propellant tanks too.   That in turn means the more TLI propellant is needed in the EDS as well to get the mission going at the start.   *Very* roughly, the rule of thumb says every 1kg of extra Orion hardware mass, you will require about 1kg of extra TEI fuel to get the crew home.   And then you need 2kg more TLI fuel launched to send that all to the moon too.   So 1kg extra Orion mass actually turns into 4kg extra mass which must actually be launched!

So weight on the Orion is clearly a critical factor and you want to keep it down as much as possible.


But leaving out safety equipment because your launcher is wimpy is not a good answer.


Right now, there is about 500kg of originally planned safety equipment being 'left out' of the Orion's design, plus another 700kg of hardware if we wanted the land-landing capability back too.

Now to relate this to the DIRECT vs. Ares situation, Ares-I just won't ever launch any Orion spacecraft massing 1,200kg more than it does right now.   No way, no how.   That hardware is simply unacceptable.

For DIRECT though, the Jupiter-232 CLV flight would deliver Orion into its correct rendezvous orbit (130x130nm, 29deg circular), so we start-out by deleting the current requirement for ~4,000kg of Orion SM propellant and associated tanking needed currently just to complete its launch on Ares-I and get the spacecraft from separation up to rendezvous orbit.

Having deleted 4,000kg of launch mass, we have a nice little margin there to lift extra Orion hardware.

If we add back the 500kg or even 1,200kg of the "parking lot" hardware into the design again, we would need roughly 500/1,200kg of extra TEI propellant too.

So we delete 4,000kg of propellant from the Ares-I spec Orion, and put 1,000/2,400kg of additional safety hardware and associated TEI propellant back in.

The NET change would actually be a *reduction* in Orion liftoff mass of approximately 3,000/1,600kg - which means we can actually lift more mass at the start of the mission.

The mass at docking however is the more important place.   The full- non-ZBV specification Orion with all the missing safety equipment put back into the design again would be either 1,000kg (sea landing) or 2,400kg (land landing) more.

While Ares-I simply does not have the option to lift that, Jupiter does have sufficient spare margin to do so with all margins - in fact extra margins - completely intact.

It's a good trade any way you cut it.   Lower cost. Higher performance. Greater safety. Faster schedule.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 03/08/2008 01:58 am
I was looking at the expanded family of launchers beyond the inital Jupiter-120 and I wondered what is the reluctance of seperating the second stage and EDS.  It seems your taking a mission penalty by carring dead/empty mass.  If I'm reading your numbers correctly you utilize 2/3 of the propellant in assent, leaving only 1/3 for the TLI burn.  Perhaps I'm just reading things wrong...  Also in looking at the EDS images the engines seem fairly wide apart.  I wonder if you had an engine failure the stage wouldn't have enough control authority to counteract the large thrust misalignment (i.e. Centaur).  That would negate your engine-out argument.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/08/2008 02:21 am
Our combined EDS/Upper Stage only masses ~17mT.   It's pretty efficient as things go.   Yes, you could go to a three-stage arrangement and increase performance, but it would drive the LOM/LOC numbers down.   Extra engines, air-starting, extra separation events etc. all have their own toll on safety.   And a separate EDS would also add more development, infrastructure and operations costs too.

What we have with Jupiter-232 is a 'jack of all trades'.   It is the best compromise of all the relevant factors which we could find.   It's still plenty safe enough for Crew use, two of them can close the full Lunar performance NASA is actually after (Ares-I/V can't).   The development and operations costs are a lot lower than Ares etc.

You could do a number of things to improve performance further, but they usually affect other parts of the delicate balance in a negative way.

To increase performance further, my personal preference would be to go the Propellant Depot method instead of building even more launcher variants.   With PD, you could theoretically fill the entire EDS completely full - and that would *realistically* allow you to send more than 200mT through TLI!   Imagine a 180mT LSAM! :)

I can't imagine *any* launcher upgrade to Jupiter which could do that.

Bottom line: Yes, you could add more stages to improve performance - but is that actually the best answer?   DIRECT is useful because most of it exists already and is largely "off the shelf".   If we had to create it afresh (like Ares) it would be better to start with a clean-sheet approach IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 03/08/2008 01:21 pm
Quote
TrueGrit - 7/3/2008  9:58 PM

… Also in looking at the EDS images the engines seem fairly wide apart.  I wonder if you had an engine failure the stage wouldn't have enough control authority to counteract the large thrust misalignment (i.e. Centaur).  That would negate your engine-out argument.
No, it wouldn’t. The engines are not aligned parallel with the centerline of the stack, but angle towards a common point near the cg of the stack, with margin, very similar to how the Space Shuttle engines are also aligned toward a common point in the STS stack, for similar reasons. In the event of an engine-out, there would still be a slight thrust misalignment, but well within the control authority of the vehicle. As an additional factor, note that a thrust misalignment is not as severe in a vacuum as it would be in the atmosphere, where that misalignment would cause the spacecraft to actually develop “lift” on the negative side, like an aircraft wing. In a vacuum, this complication is completely negated.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 03/08/2008 05:02 pm
While we are on the topic of simple bar graphs to highlight major differences between Constellation and Direct I’d like to suggest that a graph that compares the infrastructure costs for each program. Two stacked columns, one column with the costs of Ares I and the costs of Ares V and one column with Jupiter 120 costs and Jupiter 232 costs if you can do that with reasonable accuracy. I don’t think it would be necessary to break out the costs of individual structures, facilities etc although that would make an interesting drill down. An alternative or sidebar graph might show existing versus modified versus new infrastructure as a 100% stacked column graph.

BTW a 100% stacked column graph showing the amount of existing versus modified versus new vehicle parts for the launch vehicles might be informative also.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/09/2008 11:03 pm
Norm,
We have been working hard on a presentation with lots of cool graphs (hence the reason we've been a little quiet).   Hopefully we will be able to show it to y'all later this coming week.

Big week for us.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: John Duncan on 03/10/2008 10:36 am
Oh my, Ross has been here long enough to start saying "Ya'll".   :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/10/2008 11:25 am
Brits, Aussies and Kiwis: we all end up doing it!! ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kkattula on 03/10/2008 12:22 pm
Best of luck with whatever's going on Direct Team!

You probably don't need any new advice, but: Start simply and finish simply.  For example:

It saves $16 billion, it's 3 to 4 years faster, it's safer and it offers more flexibility. It's also genuinely shuttle derived, like Congress ordered, unlike Ares I & V, so it saves jobs.

Flesh it out in the middle to prove your points.

Repeat the main points at the end.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 03/10/2008 12:25 pm
http://www.physorg.com/news124352664.html

If Griffin is really so worried about the "gap"..  and thinks this is a "terrible" place to put the country in.. Why is he not looking at options that are  simpler available sooner, cheaper and probably just as safe?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 03/10/2008 12:32 pm
Quote
kkattula - 10/3/2008  9:22 AM

Best of luck with whatever's going on Direct Team!
Thank you.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nullset on 03/10/2008 11:49 pm
Quote
renclod - 28/1/2008  5:12 AM

TrueGrit
Quote
- 28/1/2008  9:08 AM
I'm realy curious to see the answer.

I expressed my own doubts about using RS-68 basically as-is for Direct, especially for J-120:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7868&start=856
[edit : link]
That was back in June 26, 2007. Never got an answer.

And now I have one more question; I think the problem was raised before, but cannot remember where.
The question stems from the about 50 seconds of constant, limited 4g acceleration at the end of J-120 ascent. That implies continuous thrust variation for the 2 RS-68 .
But PWR declare - in such documents as "PropulsionForThe21stCentury-RS-68.doc" - only two power levels:
Quote
In-flight operation uses power settings of 101 or 58 percent in various standard mission profiles, with burn durations between 250 and 350 seconds. Two-power level operation simplifies control and component complexity, thereby contributing to reduced cost

Edit: I found who mentioned RS-68 continuous throttling as a problem...

TrueGrit
Quote
As for the late throttling... Are you assuming infinate power level selection (i.e. Shuttle and Atlas V)? Or you assuming throttling all the way down to minimum power level. Plots of acceleration in the AIAA paper seems to indicate infinate power selection. RS-68 is only capable of two distinct power levels. As standard process I would recommend including a throttle to minimum power just prior to MECO (high acceleration or not) based on Delta IV (and Atlas V) precident.
Ross:
Quote
Yes, this is an issue we are aware of. But we have assurances that this is something which can be taken care of during the human-rating process. The mechanics of the engine are apparently quite capable of performing at different levels, but the exhaustive testing process has not yet operated the engines at all the different power settings to the required levels to validate them for this purpose. A human-rating program over a period of ~4 years would, as one of its goals, re-validate the hardware for what you term infinite throttling. We have budgeted a comfortable additional amount ($1bn) to allow for some hardware alterations should they be required to achieve this too. At this time even PWR can't tell us for certain whether these would be necessary or not. But Jupiter does assume RS-68 has been re-qualified to throttle precisely to requirement just as SSME does.


Quote
TrueGrit - 30/1/2008  3:38 PM

Scotty,
While I'd agree that the RS-68 hardware will be fine with these long burn times (with exception of the ablative nozzle) there still is the whole 1.5x certification requirements.  These are hard requirements for spacecraft launch, let alone human spaceflight and based on historical failure.  I just don't see that changing...  As it stands RS-68 has negative demonstrated margin for the Jupiter-120 application, and could need test stand modifications to reach the required margin.  As you would know modifing the test stand transfer capability is not a small task.

Ross,
Given the earlier conversation, has the DIRECT group tried to find a flight profile for the Jupiter-120 that uses the RS-68 as it currently exists for Delta IV? The proposition that DIRECT allocates ~$1billion for the throttle and thermal updates to become certified for use sounds good, but may be harder to sell. Could _any_ useful flight be accomplished with truly "off the shelf" H2/Lox engines mated with the External Tank?

I ask because it seems there is another "opening" here that was used to counter DIRECT v1.0. An example where the only "new" hardware involved was the revised External Tank and the required avionics may be worth profiling, despite its obviously sub-optimal nature.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 03/11/2008 03:22 am
I propose solving the "off-the-shelf" questions by focusing on the following:

a) Fly at only two power levels...  When you hit 3 g's throttle to the existing minimum power level.  Yes there is a performance loss, but DIRECT has the performance margin.  In fact I would put constant throttling as potential future trade study, not in the baseline.  It's a lot of complication for not that much gain.

b) Fly the 3-engine powered core....  Jupiter-X3X.  The flight time of 292 sec of the Jupiter-X3X much closer to the existing Delta IV operation vs. the 446 sec of the Jupiter-X2X.  At least on the first and maybe second test flight as you develop the extended duration capability.  The early flights are not going to be manned (more Huntsville sand into space), and you could say you are flying the more challenging configuration during the test phase.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 03/11/2008 03:57 am
Quote
TrueGrit - 11/3/2008  12:22 AM

I propose solving the "off-the-shelf" questions by focusing on the following:

a) Fly at only two power levels...  When you hit 3 g's throttle to the existing minimum power level.  Yes there is a performance loss, but DIRECT has the performance margin.  In fact I would put constant throttling as potential future trade study, not in the baseline.  It's a lot of complication for not that much gain.
.

Why 3 g's?  there is no requirement to limit acceleration to that
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 03/11/2008 04:08 am
Your right...  Any maximum g limit could be utilized.  I only said 3 g's because that's what I believe the Shuttle is limited to.  I believe Atlas V limits to 5 g's and Delta IV 6 g's.  I'm certain there are NASA or Air Force medical studies on g limiting...  The limit should come from those.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 03/11/2008 10:19 am
Quote
TrueGrit - 11/3/2008  1:08 AM

Your right...  Any maximum g limit could be utilized.  I only said 3 g's because that's what I believe the Shuttle is limited to.  I believe Atlas V limits to 5 g's and Delta IV 6 g's.  I'm certain there are NASA or Air Force medical studies on g limiting...  The limit should come from those.
NASA limit for manned Constellation flights is 4g.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: John Duncan on 03/12/2008 02:58 pm
I was looking for a place to ask this, but does anyone remember the huge shuttle derived launchers, some having two ET/SRB sets with a central core?  I thought it was like Direct 1.0 or something...I was looking for those graphics.  There were some amazing photoshops of these done which I would like to find and save...as high a resolution as possible.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: BogoMIPS on 03/13/2008 01:08 am
No, Direct v1.0 was a less "restricted" attempt to build an NLS-derived system from current hardware.  It was more vulnerable to detractors because it was arguably a more risky design (risky meaning more likely to cost more / perform less than advertised).

There was a TeamVision proposal that used ETs with SRBs like strap-on boosters to a larger core.  To make life a little confusing, this proposal also used "Jupiter" for it's vehicle name.

Here's a link...

http://www.teamvisioninc.com/downloads/AIAA-2006-7517-146.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 03/13/2008 01:22 am
No confusion...  TeamVision and DIRECT joined forces and the resultant DIRECT 2.0 took on the Jupiter name.  That's because both started at the same point that has since been named Jupiter-120.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: John Duncan on 03/13/2008 01:20 pm
Thanks for the link.  That was what I remembered!  Perhaps impractical but cool nonetheless.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/14/2008 12:03 am
Quote
Nullset - 10/3/2008  8:49 PM

Ross,
Given the earlier conversation, has the DIRECT group tried to find a flight profile for the Jupiter-120 that uses the RS-68 as it currently exists for Delta IV? The proposition that DIRECT allocates ~$1billion for the throttle and thermal updates to become certified for use sounds good, but may be harder to sell. Could _any_ useful flight be accomplished with truly "off the shelf" H2/Lox engines mated with the External Tank?

I ask because it seems there is another "opening" here that was used to counter DIRECT v1.0. An example where the only "new" hardware involved was the revised External Tank and the required avionics may be worth profiling, despite its obviously sub-optimal nature.

Sorry I haven't answered before now - been busy :)

To answer your question, Yes we have done some analyses based on these issues.

First let me clarify that the Jupiter-232 does not throttle its RS-68 engines at all.   During the ~292sec burn duration the vehicle never exceeds ~2g, and never hits either the 3g limit of Shuttle, nor the 4g limits currently in place for Constellation systems.


For non-Infinite Throttling, with qualified settings only at full throttle (assuming 102% MPL for regular Delta-IV RS-68 operations and 106% for the 'new' engine USAF is developing for to be ready in the 2012 time frame) and the low throttle setting fixed at just 58% - essentially reducing throttle straight to the lower setting at the point where the flight hits 4g's and staying at the lower throttle to MECO on Jupiter-120.

The result of this two-phase throttling on our latest configuration is only a very marginally different performance for Jupiter-120 - in the order of just 14kg (yes, not a typo, just "fourteen" kilos!) - but that is so irrelevant that it doesn't really require mentioning - except where specifically requested; like here :)


Now, the longer burn duration vs. ablative nozzle issue requires a slightly different approach.   You essentially have two choices:-

1) Re-test the existing hardware and *prove* it can be re-qualified for the longer burn duration
2) Redesign the nozzle to accommodate the greater ablation


RS-68 is already being re-designed right now for the 106% variant of the engine (RS-68A).  It will have a "thicker" nozzle wall designed to suit the higher power output.   If the engine were still operated at 102% though, the additional ablative material would effectively allow a longer burn duration.   I don't know the precise numbers PWR have yet, but a figure somewhere around 1400s of qualified operation time at 102% throttle is apparently the expected ballpark.   This is already enough for Jupiter-232 use with 292s launch-use duration.

In a throttling environment, this extends out beyond 400s effective use-time - and Jupiter will be using the engine in some form of throttling mode for J-120.   For J-120, throttled, we need a little less than 450s launch-use duration, which is in the region of ~11% greater wall thickness to fully suit total performance envelope.

Therefore, we are suggesting an 11% improvement to the nozzle ablation is included into the design of the RS-68A during the USAF developments - any slight difference in cost being picked up by NASA of course.

This should then essentially allow the RS-68 to be re-qualified with somewhere around 1,600s life expectancy at 102% MPL - which should close this issue given a suitable qualification program.

There's obviously more to the issue, as you'd expect, but that's the outline of the nozzle issue anyway.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/14/2008 02:03 am
Quote
TrueGrit - 12/3/2008  10:22 PM

No confusion...  TeamVision and DIRECT joined forces and the resultant DIRECT 2.0 took on the Jupiter name.  That's because both started at the same point that has since been named Jupiter-120.

I would like a moment (you should realise by now that that translates to "prepare yourself for a Ross-special mega-post!") to clarify this.

I started the DIRECT work almost 2 years ago now.   It started with a very simple question here on NSF from another contributor here in early 2006 which resulted in me asking if what appeared to be a fairly obvious "doh" concept, might not work better than NASA's solution.   From that date it has just blossomed into something I never expected to be involved in, but which I am humbly following through to its conclusion on behalf of a large group of far more talented people than I, many of whom requested me to, or expressed gratitude that I'm doing what I'm doing from outside of the NASA family.

The DIRECT project actually started when I whipped up a quick'n'dirty concept idea - a real "back-of-the-napkin drawing" done purely to try to learn more about rocket designs - and posted it on this forum for a response from the amazing group of engineers here.   Besides the many responses on the forum, I was privately contacted by 6 NASA guys who told me, separately, that they thought this was what *they* really should be doing.

Some additionally offered, behind the scenes, to flesh out my idea a bit if I didn't mind.   Of course not - it was a privilege to be asked at all!    I did, however, ask a few others if they might help some of their colleagues too.   They did.   This was the start of an interesting little team, a few of whom you all know, most of whom you don't :)   Together they got some initial work done which seemed to show the idea did actually have some real legs.

We eventually got about 30-40 NASA engineers involved in various places and put together the v1.0 documentation and presented it to NASA and a variety of other important people in the industry.


Stephen Metchan and the Team Vision guys had been working separately on their somewhat similar work since 2001.   Stephen has an awesome set of tools from his company which are able to run super-computer analysis work across corporate LAN systems in order to analyse very complex problems - such as optimum designs for rockets.   Team Vision had been paid $5m by NASA for this analysis tool back somewhere around 2001 IIRC (Stephen will correct my date if its wrong) and had been producing good results for NASA for a number of years. Whenever NASA policy changed and/or new missions were being studied Stephen's tools would possibly be utilized to identify the best vehicle for the job.

Ultimately nothing in the Jupiter class was being considered for a real mission, only studies, until the Columbia accident happened.

NASA's mission changed at that point and a new approach was needed.   Team Vision set about the work, independently, before being told to, so they could get a head start for 'when' the order did come down.

But Sean O'Keefe was convinced by some, to look at the EELV's at the time and to close down the Shuttle.   So Team Vision's analysis results were simply never examined as an alternative under that NASA Administration.   When Mike Griffin was appointed it looked like an SDLV option was back on the cards due to the workforce issues the political world were pushing hard for, but again no analysis was ever required because, and I quote what Stephen was told by senior NASA managers even before the ESAS study was ever started: "Mike already has a solution".

When Stephen tried to push for a real analysis to be done, using his tools or not, he was effectively asked not to come back to Headquarters again and his contract was canceled.

Team Vision went off and completed their independent study anyway "on their own dime" as Steve puts it.

The results of that analysis essentially became the Jupiter-1 and Jupiter-2 shown in their 2006 AIAA paper.   With the results of the detailed analysis in hand, they presented their work to NASA internally and were again rejected.   This time justification they were told for dismissing their proposal was apparently that the Jupiter-2 (effectively a three stage version of something like Jupiter-232) just wasn't "large enough to launch a 500 ton Mars mission in a single launch" so their proposal was not effective.   Seems NASA must have had some other plan to do that mission!

Yeah, sounds bizarre to us too, but there it is.

Anyhow, it was that criticism which inspired Team Vision to perform another analysis to include such a capability.    The result of that was a number of seriously large variants, based on existing, or near-existing elements - which could lift 500mT in one shot.   That is where that spectacular behemoth, the Jupiter-3, came from.   It was proposed in order to demonstrate some options which might be able to address NASA's rather strange dismissal due to a requirement for a 500mT one-launch solution!   They did it not because it was their baseline plan, but because NASA essentially told them they had to in order to ever be considered!

You might think that's a ridiculous demand from NASA's upper management, but I couldn't possibly comment.


Anyway along with Chuck Longton, Antonio Maia and the wealth of un-named 'rocket scientists' who are the real technical base for the DIRECT effort, we released our v1 paper at around the same time as the Team Vision 2006 AIAA paper hit the press.

Lo-and-behold, our two unrelated papers ended up identifying a virtually identical In-Line configuration SDLV consisting of; Two 4-segment SRB's, 8.4m dia ET-derived Core with 2xRS-68 main engines, as a key to creating the new infrastructure because the simple expedient of adding another stage on the top would extend performance to the point its performance could close the Lunar architecture.


Our two teams had essentially approached the problem from two different angles and ended up with the same initial starting design - what would later become re-branded as the "Jupiter-120" launch vehicle under the new wider-remit of the "DIRECT Architecture" moniker.


In our 2006 papers, DIRECT and Team Vision had slightly different criteria for the actual Lunar missions, so our two Lunar configurations diverged from each other.   But both were based on that identical starting configuration so we had common ground.


Anyway, around this time Doug Stanley, leader of ESAS, effectively attacked us on this site with what I later realized was more a diatribe more focussed on disputing our attacks of Ares-I than actually denying the underlying potential of the concepts we had proposed.

In the comments he posted here I don't see any attempt to see if the concept ever had legs, no attempt to work around the specifically identified problems, only to dismiss everything down the flow based on that initial dismissal alone.   There was clearly no attempt made at all to ever see what might be achieved if NASA took the basic arrangement and applied some logical changes to find out its potential - nothing of the sort.

Stanley's comments contained only straight dismissal of the concept, and a much larger portion of the response was actually verbiage that Ares-I was actually "fine" and had no problems at all.

In hindsight we did take a couple of foolish steps - of particular note the requiring an upgraded RS-68 wasn't a good plan.   Even though the concept has since been validated by PWR anyway, it was simply "asking too much".   It would probably have been a more expensive development than J-2X is.

But that's all water under the bridge now.    It's all irrelevant, and we ended up turning what initially seemed like a bad thing into a very good thing.   We spent a lot of time addressing Dr. Stanley's criticisms and carefully removing all of the perceived problems from the proposal.

I suppose it is actually thanks to Dr. Stanley that we identified the valuable fact that upgrades and modifications which were "unconventional" or perhaps which were outside of the margin for "general public acceptance" could prove to be weak points, open for attack, in such proposals and needed to be avoided in the future.   This realization led us to remove all such things from the latest proposal works since v2.0 came out.


Anyhow, after what we internally refer to as the "Stanley FUD" (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) response from NASA, I took a sabbatical from the project for a few months.   I left Chuck Longton holding the reins.   He and Antonio Maia kept the project breathing and alone, began the very difficult work of picking up the shards we were left holding and re-assembling the concept into a more effective one which specifically addressed all of the criticisms Dr. Stanley had raised.

Stephen contacted Chuck while I was absent, and together they decided to merge both efforts.

With Stephen's 17 years of experience working with NASA, combined with Chuck's experience dating back to the Saturn F-1 and with the DIRECT Team comprising dozens of engineering volunteers working inside Constellation and other active programs all offering assistance from "inside" the NASA family, it made quite a powerful combination.


At first, I will admit that I wasn't sure if I would return to DIRECT at all, or if NASA's bullish attitude towards us was just a sign that I should just pursue other goals ebcause they were clearly uninterested in hearing any thoughts from anyone else.

But Chuck gradually persuaded me to get back involved again and have a go at firstly trying to persuade NASA Administration to change again, or, if that were to fail again, to simply circumvent them.

So Chuck managed to finally convince me to return behind the scenes.   I had somehow become the person in the DIRECT team who had the widest contact base and without all of the contacts, the others were a bit limited in what they could bring together.   I gradually returned to a more prominent position again over time, and also returned to the forum here too.

So, together the DIRECT Team and the Team Vision joint group found a number of competing ideas ahead of them.   We each came into the process with our own ideas and concepts, but nobody was wed to any of them.   We shared the opinion that without the Orbiter, the rest of the Shuttle stack, with only a few changes, would make a good launcher, but we had a lot of additional analysis to do to bring our divergent approaches together into a cohesive form and to expand the two initial analysis from mere engineering proposals, but also into the equally difficult areas of economics and politics too.

After exhaustive work on all fronts (and many steep learning curves for me, I stood on the shoulders of giants riding along with far more experienced and knowledgeable folk than I!) together we gradually peeled away all the options which were actually untenable, and revealed all the options which worked best.

I think everybody involved in the DIRECT work at some point each lost a good number of our individual 'pet' preferences during the process, but nobody was so wed to any of them that it every became a serious problem for us.   It was actually an incredibly good thing for us, because the multitude of different opinions and options we had between us (eventually over 60 people are now involved) was gradually honed into an ever-more solid approach which we could *all* get behind.

The discussions of the pro's and con's of each option sometimes took a while, but in the end each option was assessed, passed around the technical guys, and came back for another assessment.   Each time refining it, or pointing out problems.   Eventually many ideas were left in the bin because they had critical flaws, but some ideas stood head and shoulders above others and had actually convince every member of the combined team, even if those individuals had not agreed in the first place.   I remember that we all shifted positions a goodly number of times in the face of reasoned argument from other team members.

One particular thing I remember was Stephen had to spend a very long time convincing me of the benefits of Propellant Depot's.   I just didn't 'get it' at first.   But he was patient and explained it, and when I finally did 'grok' it, I was a convert over-night.   For me, it was one of those truly revelationary things.

Similar things happened at every level, between every member of the team, but it was *very* satisfying for everyone because we knew each time we resolved such a difference of opinion we were ultimately creating a better solution for the whole project.

There were a few places where multiple solutions all worked, but had different proponents within the group.   We had multiple workable solutions, so we simply decided that rather than limit ourselves to one, we should probably try to demonstrate them all.

A excellent example of this is the baseline Lunar mission architecture and the Mars Analogue Lunar mission architecture.   Essentially this architecture starts with a Mars mission design and works backwards to create an initial Lunar architecture which resembles the Mars one as closely as can possibly be achieved given the different requirements for the Moon.   The purpose is to create many of the developments ultimately needed for Mars, but actually get to test them and perfect many of the technologies and approaches at the Moon, far in advance of the first Mars mission.

Both approaches obviously have different merits.   Neither is invalid though.

For us, neither was discounted by anyone.   I think everyone involved could see the value in both, but there were still personal preferences.   But personal preferences are not an excuse to make anything invalid.


In the end, we used current plans as a guideline to indicate which should probably be the baseline.   We essentially decided that the closer we could make our baseline missions to NASA's currently plans, the more palletable it should be.    Therefore, the other approaches would be proposed as alternative plans which would come with the recommendation that they should be investigated carefully.

Checking with Stephen and Chuck just now (Antonio, Philip and the others are probably asleep), we don't believe there is a single thing in the 2007 AIAA paper which anyone in the team actually wanted removed.

Having said that though, there are things we have worked to change in the AIAA paper since it was published.

The most prominent one which we wanted to work on was the Lunar mission performance flying without the "LOX tank" transfer in the AIAA paper baseline.   Of course, it was clearly a "kludge", but it was due to having our extra 10% performance margins everywhere.   It helped that we knew from internal studies that with NASA's performance margins instead of our higher ones, we actually could close the performance targets without ever needing the LOX transfer "kludge".   So ultimately, because the extra margins were there to protect us from future FUD attacks, we weren't actually worried about publishing a slightly messy solution which we didn't *actually* think would be needed anyway. :)

We continue to update, improve and refine the designs, and nothing in the greater DIRECT work is so fixed that it is there permanently, come hell-or-high-water, if we at some point in the future can find a better way.   DIRECT remains ever-improving in our hands - at least until the day it becomes NASA's baby and they take care of it as their own :)


Anyhow, that's some background about where the two projects came from, how we reached an identical conclusion independently of each other, and how we got together.   I hope it helps.

I continue to learn more every day about this business.   A year ago I was at the stage that I finally understood how little I really understood.   That's a big step in less than a year for an amateur like me.

These days I feel confident in stating that I begin to understand a little more of what I didn't understand then.   Thankfully, I have very good teachers :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: RanulfC on 03/14/2008 04:52 pm
I have to ask, (you probably won't tell me and I can understand that, but I STILL have to ask :o) any idea yet when "D" day is going to be?

I suspect by going over some 'heads' you're planning on hitting up Congress directly? Or a media blitz I suppose.

But I wonder, given Congress' consistant lack of "will" to support an extensive space program and the seeming down-right hostility towards even the idea of going to Mars, let alone back to the Moon what do you think your chances really are?
DIRECT fits all the "needs" of Congress for shuttle-derived jobs/etc and gets everything flowing much sooner than either Aries vehicle would, (except for the Orbiter maintenance folks though there seems to be efforts to carry as many of them forward as possible with things like using the Shuttle Tiles on the Orion) but its very flexibility could be seen as 'dangerous' to Congress given how hard they have fought to deny NASA flexible launch options before.

Does any concept actually have a chance of passing Congress?

Randy
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 03/14/2008 11:49 pm
In both the Senate and House 2009 budget hearings Dr. Griffin was pressed hard on the “GAP”. Congress is deeply concerned about the gap and NASA’s proposed solution to the VSE. Individual congressmen have proposed extending the Shuttle lifetime and, during the 2008 budget congress specifically directed NASA to do nothing that would prohibit the continued use of the shuttle past 2010. NASA’s response has been to state that with an additional $2B they might be able to advance Ares I by two years to 2013 still leaving a three-year gap.

Direct offers the theoretical target date of 2012 without any additional funding and without disassembling the shuttle infrastructure. That target date is moving to the right every day and by the time the current administration is gone that date will also be 2013.

It is not clear to me whether congress can get the current administration of NASA to change course. NASA has ignored or worked around congressional direction in the past and certain elements within the current administration seem to be working very hard to insure that the only way remaining for NASA to move forward will be Constellation.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nullset on 03/16/2008 12:14 am
Quote
kraisee - 13/3/2008  9:03 PM
Sorry I haven't answered before now - been busy :)

To answer your question, Yes we have done some analyses based on these issues.

First let me clarify that the Jupiter-232 does not throttle its RS-68 engines at all.   During the ~292sec burn duration the vehicle never exceeds ~2g, and never hits either the 3g limit of Shuttle, nor the 4g limits currently in place for Constellation systems.


For non-Infinite Throttling, with qualified settings only at full throttle (assuming 102% MPL for regular Delta-IV RS-68 operations and 106% for the 'new' engine USAF is developing for to be ready in the 2012 time frame) and the low throttle setting fixed at just 58% - essentially reducing throttle straight to the lower setting at the point where the flight hits 4g's and staying at the lower throttle to MECO on Jupiter-120.

The result of this two-phase throttling on our latest configuration is only a very marginally different performance for Jupiter-120 - in the order of just 14kg (yes, not a typo, just "fourteen" kilos!) - but that is so irrelevant that it doesn't really require mentioning - except where specifically requested; like here :)


Now, the longer burn duration vs. ablative nozzle issue requires a slightly different approach.   You essentially have two choices:-

1) Re-test the existing hardware and *prove* it can be re-qualified for the longer burn duration
2) Redesign the nozzle to accommodate the greater ablation


RS-68 is already being re-designed right now for the 106% variant of the engine (RS-68A).  It will have a "thicker" nozzle wall designed to suit the higher power output.   If the engine were still operated at 102% though, the additional ablative material would effectively allow a longer burn duration.   I don't know the precise numbers PWR have yet, but a figure somewhere around 1400s of qualified operation time at 102% throttle is apparently the expected ballpark.   This is already enough for Jupiter-232 use with 292s launch-use duration.

In a throttling environment, this extends out beyond 400s effective use-time - and Jupiter will be using the engine in some form of throttling mode for J-120.   For J-120, throttled, we need a little less than 450s launch-use duration, which is in the region of ~11% greater wall thickness to fully suit total performance envelope.

Therefore, we are suggesting an 11% improvement to the nozzle ablation is included into the design of the RS-68A during the USAF developments - any slight difference in cost being picked up by NASA of course.

This should then essentially allow the RS-68 to be re-qualified with somewhere around 1,600s life expectancy at 102% MPL - which should close this issue given a suitable qualification program.

There's obviously more to the issue, as you'd expect, but that's the outline of the nozzle issue anyway.

Ross.

Thank you for the response. It was clear and concise.

I'm glad to hear that RS-68's current "set-point" throttling has been examined. If it works well enough, though, is there another reason why DIRECT was base-lining a more continuous throttle like the SSME?

As for the ablative nozzle improvement that would be required for Jupiter-120 vehicles, has such a revision to a functioning nozzle been successfully accomplished before? It's sounds like PWR thinks it's possible, but a proven part example would surely be helpful.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/16/2008 02:17 am
Quote
Nullset - 15/3/2008  9:14 PM

Thank you for the response. It was clear and concise.

My pleasure.   I try to answer most questions, but this week I just haven't been near the computer much, so thanks for being patient!


Quote
I'm glad to hear that RS-68's current "set-point" throttling has been examined. If it works well enough, though, is there another reason why DIRECT was base-lining a more continuous throttle like the SSME?

Infinite throttling allows you to optimize performance.   It can also offer some additional options in some abort-to-orbit scenario's too.

It is not totally essential, but would be desirable.


Quote
As for the ablative nozzle improvement that would be required for Jupiter-120 vehicles, has such a revision to a functioning nozzle been successfully accomplished before? It's sounds like PWR thinks it's possible, but a proven part example would surely be helpful.

It's fairly straight-forward engineering as things like this go.   Similar changes have been done on quite a lot of different engines in the past.   In this particular case it can, in all likelihood, be done on the existing manufacturing line with few, if any, modifications.

It is being done anyway for the RS-68A development program for Delta-IV.   We just piggy-back off of that development program.   NASA essentially only has to add the extra qualification work required to human-rate the engine, which can mostly be performed in parallel with the USAF re-qualification program.   This reduces cost and schedule impacts.   The new engine is expected to be ready in 2012.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/16/2008 02:39 am
Quote
RanulfC - 14/3/2008  1:52 PM

I have to ask, (you probably won't tell me and I can understand that, but I STILL have to ask :o) any idea yet when "D" day is going to be?

No idea! :)


Quote
I suspect by going over some 'heads' you're planning on hitting up Congress directly? Or a media blitz I suppose.

We've been sending members of Congress and many other important individuals copies of the AIAA paper since it came out.   We continue to do so.   We also got a great response from the Pentagon back during v1.0, and we got a lot of interest from a number of other sources too.

Our campaign isn't limited to Congress.


Quote
But I wonder, given Congress' consistant lack of "will" to support an extensive space program and the seeming down-right hostility towards even the idea of going to Mars, let alone back to the Moon what do you think your chances really are?

Congress has actually been very supportive of the Vision for Space Exploration (now re-named the US Space Exploration Policy or USSEP).   There has been strong support on both sides of the aisle and from both House and Senate to get NASA going in a new path since Columbia was lost and exploring beyond Low Earth Orbit.   There does not appear to be any change with this fundamental support for NASA.   While NASA isn't getting any increases in budget, NASA's budget wasn't actually reduced like almost every other Federal agency experienced this year.


Quote
DIRECT fits all the "needs" of Congress for shuttle-derived jobs/etc and gets everything flowing much sooner than either Aries vehicle would, (except for the Orbiter maintenance folks though there seems to be efforts to carry as many of them forward as possible with things like using the Shuttle Tiles on the Orion) but its very flexibility could be seen as 'dangerous' to Congress given how hard they have fought to deny NASA flexible launch options before.

Does any concept actually have a chance of passing Congress?

I don't think Congress actually cares whether the launch vehicle is Ares, DIRECT or a Banana Skin made to fly - just as long as it does all the things they want it to.

If one concept clearly "works", and another "doesn't", Congress does have the ability to force the issue.   But getting them to decide to exercise that power is the trick.   We still need to *prove* our concept *is* better.   We're a long way from there still, but time will tell.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/16/2008 02:44 am
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 14/3/2008  8:49 PM
NASA’s response has been to state that with an additional $2B they might be able to advance Ares I by two years to 2013 still leaving a three-year gap.

Direct offers the theoretical target date of 2012 without any additional funding and without disassembling the shuttle infrastructure. That target date is moving to the right every day and by the time the current administration is gone that date will also be 2013.

Give us that same $2bn extra cash (yeah, right, *that's* gonna happen in this economic climate) and we can also speed up our development schedule quite a bit too :)

The big difference is Griffin is banking on the increase to close the gap.   We aren't.

Actually, the bigger difference is that Griffin is also banking on Congress giving him a second *even larger* honey-pot in order to develop Ares-V as well.   We think that's even less realistic.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/16/2008 04:01 am
Our *very* talented Philip Metschan has produced an awesome 3D video simply demonstrating the Space Shuttle to Jupiter-120 modifications we need to make.

We wanted to share it with the group here because its so dang cool and thought you guys would appreciate it! :)

So Please Enjoy it as much as we do!

Thank-you Philip!!!

Ross.




.avi version (1.6Mb)
.mov version (45.0Mb)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/16/2008 07:55 am
And as if that wasn't enough, here are our latest Performance Baseball Cards too...





Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rocketguy101 on 03/16/2008 12:25 pm

Quote
kraisee - 15/3/2008 12:01 AM Our *very* talented Philip Metschan has produced an awesome 3D video simply demonstrating the Space Shuttle to Jupiter-120 modifications we need to make. We wanted to share it with the group here because its so dang cool and thought you guys would appreciate it! :) So Please Enjoy it as much as we do! Thank-you Philip!!! Ross.

Very nice!  Ross as a heads-up, I tried the avi w/ Windows Media Player, and it complained about needing a codec.  It plays w/ VLC fine.  If a picture is worth a 1000 words, what is a video worth?  Shows the concept very nicely.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pierre on 03/16/2008 01:10 pm
Quote
kraisee - 16/3/2008  9:55 AM
And as if that wasn't enough, here are our latest Performance Baseball Cards too...
I have no idea how big a "nm" is (I guess it's not 10-9 m), but I'm sure that at least two numbers from the J120 card are wrong:

Quote
ISS CREW DELIVERY ORBIT: 100 x 220.0 nm (185.20 x 222.24 km)
ISS CARGO DELIVERY ORBIT: 81 x 120.0 nm (150.78 x 222.24 km)
LEO CREW DELIVERY ORBIT:  42 x 220.0 nm (77.97 x 222.24 km)
LEO CARGO DELIVERY ORBIT: 44 x 120.0 nm (81.92 x 222.24 km)
Probably a copy&paste error.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/16/2008 01:29 pm
An "nm" is a Nautical Mile - 1 minute of Latitude, 1852m.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pippin on 03/16/2008 01:38 pm
Nautical Miles.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: PaulL on 03/16/2008 02:47 pm
Quote
pierre - 16/3/2008  9:10 AM

Quote
kraisee - 16/3/2008  9:55 AM
And as if that wasn't enough, here are our latest Performance Baseball Cards too...
I have no idea how big a "nm" is (I guess it's not 10-9 m), but I'm sure that at least two numbers from the J120 card are wrong:

Quote
ISS CREW DELIVERY ORBIT: 100 x 220.0 nm (185.20 x 222.24 km)
ISS CARGO DELIVERY ORBIT: 81 x 120.0 nm (150.78 x 222.24 km)
LEO CREW DELIVERY ORBIT:  42 x 220.0 nm (77.97 x 222.24 km)
LEO CARGO DELIVERY ORBIT: 44 x 120.0 nm (81.92 x 222.24 km)
Probably a copy&paste error.

Ross, it is interesting to see how the optimization of your EDS improve the performance of the J-232 rocket.  You are almost at a point were you could go back to a J-120+J-232 moon mission. You had mentioned before that you were also looking at doing the J-221 Baseball Card. Is that rocket still part of your plan?

I intend to update my CEPE spreadsheet with your new data once you have corrected the above nm to km conversion errors/typos. In addition, I see that you are now using the RS-68 at 102% level instead of the original 100%. However, the RS-68 vacuum thrust remains as before at 340,648 kgf in both Baseball Cards. Is that an error?

PaulL

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Sid454 on 03/16/2008 04:06 pm
Compared to Ares I the Jupiter 120 seems almost easy there's no J2X,no new upper stage ,no fifth srb segment, no roll control intersection and no D strut.

Th video really makes this very clear how easy the change over from the shuttle is with this vehicle.

The D strut solution band aid  on Ares 1 made me laugh and cry all at once.

 Why haven't they choose this yet it just makes perfect sense to me?
This also leaves them with an Orion that is not less flexible then your average private orbital vehicle.

The Ares 1 Orion is looking so bad as of late I'm starting to wonder if one of the private vehicles such as Dragon or DC could simply replace it and save billions.

If you can get congress to accept these new vehicles you just might save the entire constellation program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: pierre on 03/16/2008 06:00 pm
Quote
kraisee - 16/3/2008  9:55 AM
And as if that wasn't enough, here are our latest Performance Baseball Cards too...
While we are nitpicking, in both the J120 and the J232 cards the RSRB vacuum thrust seems a bit too low: 1,511.098 kgf.

The real value is probably 1000 times bigger. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/16/2008 07:11 pm
Sorry for the typo's - they're mine alone.   It was late, I was tired :)   Copy & Paste can be helpful, but also a PITA in those conditions :)

These baseball cards have to be put together by-hand in CorelDRAW - they don't grab their data automatically, so forgive me if I missed something.   I have now amended them.







Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: John Duncan on 03/17/2008 12:56 am
Great cards, but I can't get either version of the movie to play.

I've asked this before and maybe this is a fluid design but is the ET thrust structure tapered all around, not at all or just on the two sides facing the SRB's?  I can see all three versions depending on which diagram I look at.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/17/2008 01:20 am
John,
Grab a copy of VLC Media Player.   It can display most different formats and is free.   It should help.

The baseline design is actually a tapering arrangement, just like Ares-V.

From the Y-ring of the Aft LH2 Tank Dome, the Aft Skirt with the Stringers stretches approximately 3.0m downward.   From there, the tapering section is a truncated cone 8.4m maximum diameter, tapering down to 6.8m and with a length of 6.4m.

The final design is still subject to change of course, but that's the design baseline we're using at the moment.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/17/2008 01:37 am
Quote
PaulL - 16/3/2008  11:47 AM

Ross, it is interesting to see how the optimization of your EDS improve the performance of the J-232 rocket.  You are almost at a point were you could go back to a J-120+J-232 moon mission.

Paul,
We could get close to matching Ares performance with that combination, but remember that Ares is currently unable to close its performance requirements.

We have 222.3mT IMLEO for DIRECT's baseline architecture and truth be told that we still only *just* close the actual performance requirements (54,900kg Gross LSAM at TLI & 25,300kg landed on the surface).

Ares-I/V's combined IMLEO number is only around 175mT, and we just can't work out what they're going to do to make this work.

It is little wonder to me that they are being forced to look at options including composite EDS structures, 5.5- and 6-segment composite SRB's and even adding an extra pair of Delta-IV Cores as well as the SRB's in order to get Ares-V to make up the difference.

The real target for these missions is going to be somewhere in excess of 200mT if the target is to achieve missions of 4-people, supporting stays for 7 days, Global Access, Anytime Return.   Irrelevant of Ares-I's issues, I just don't know how they hope to get another 25+mT performance out of Ares-V to close this Lunar performance gap.

I really wish people understood this issue more explicitly.   I don't think NASA has ever shown the mass breakouts for Ares through to Landing compared to their mass targets.   We attempted to demonstrate the difference in our AIAA paper, but that data is already out of date.   You can go read it to get a feel for the subject if you wish.

Essentially though, when you do the math, it just doesn't add up if you aren't quite a bit above 200mT IMLEO.   One of these days I'm going to try to whip up a spreadsheet for folk to go play with for themselves - perhaps that'll help to de-mystify the issue.   Just don't expect anything in the short-term, I've got too many other things on my plate right now :)


Quote
You had mentioned before that you were also looking at doing the J-221 Baseball Card. Is that rocket still part of your plan?

That particular vehicle configuration is on the back burner at this time.   It is useful in a future architecture where all you want is an Orion to fly to rendezvous with a reusable LSAM - but that's a ways off into the future.   We have decided just to stick with J-120 and J-232 for the foreseeable future in order to minimize costs and schedules.   There's just no point in paying for three vehicle configurations when two does every job you want.   A J-221/J-232 can't close the *actual* performance requirements.


Quote
I intend to update my CEPE spreadsheet with your new data once you have corrected the above nm to km conversion errors/typos. In addition, I see that you are now using the RS-68 at 102% level instead of the original 100%. However, the RS-68 vacuum thrust remains as before at 340,648 kgf in both Baseball Cards. Is that an error?

PaulL


The original MPL reference was in error.   This one is corrected.   Delta-IV flew the first RS-68 at 101% thrust.   Since then every flight has been flown at 102% as the "standard" MPL.   The actual performance numbers shown in both the old and new DIRECT baseball cards has been correct all along - it is the performance Delta-IV has been using as nominal - 102%, just was marked incorrectly.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/17/2008 12:15 pm
Quote
kraisee - 17/3/2008  3:37 AM

Quote
PaulL - 16/3/2008  11:47 AM
You had mentioned before that you were also looking at doing the J-221 Baseball Card. Is that rocket still part of your plan?

That particular vehicle configuration is on the back burner at this time.   It is useful in a future architecture where all you want is an Orion to fly to rendezvous with a reusable LSAM - but that's a ways off into the future.   We have decided just to stick with J-120 and J-232 for the foreseeable future in order to minimize costs and schedules.   There's just no point in paying for three vehicle configurations when two does every job you want.   A J-221/J-232 can't close the *actual* performance requirements.


Hmmm.  How about something weird.  Use a SEP tug to get the LSAM and possibly the return fuel to the Moon.  Use a smaller EDS to send the Orion.  How close is the 1.5 launch performance now?

ISP of a 1.0 N Busek BHT-20k Hall Thruster is 2750 seconds.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: rsp1202 on 03/17/2008 12:28 pm
Quote
kraisee - 16/3/2008  7:37 PM

The real target for these missions is going to be somewhere in excess of 200mT if the target is to achieve missions of 4-people, supporting stays for 7 days, Global Access, Anytime Return.   Irrelevant of Ares-I's issues, I just don't know how they hope to get another 25+mT performance out of Ares-V to close this Lunar performance gap.

Move the goalposts.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 03/17/2008 01:16 pm
Quote
kraisee - 15/3/2008  12:01 AM

Our *very* talented Philip Metschan has produced an awesome 3D video simply demonstrating the Space Shuttle to Jupiter-120 modifications we need to make.

We wanted to share it with the group here because its so dang cool and thought you guys would appreciate it! :)

So Please Enjoy it as much as we do!

Thank-you Philip!!!

Ross.

Posting this at YouTube would aid distribution via bloggers and I would encourage the Direct Team to do that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Crispy on 03/17/2008 01:59 pm
I've put the video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuPtOKLCmzo

If the DIRECT guys want me to take it down, just say the word.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: DarthVader on 03/17/2008 02:35 pm
Excellent video Ross and al, and thanks Crispy for putting it on YouTube, that is an excellent initiative which will help spreading the "word" on how what Direct 2.0 means. I'm gonna blog it right away ;-)

EDIT: Done (http://djvader.blogspot.com/), however, since my audience is VERY limited (I think, I'm my only reader) that won't help much spreading the (good) word about DIRECT 2.0 :-\
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: hyper_snyper on 03/17/2008 02:58 pm
Quote
DarthVader - 17/3/2008  11:35 AM

Excellent video Ross and al, and thanks Crispy for putting it on YouTube, that is an excellent initiative which will help spreading the "word" on how what Direct 2.0 means. I'm gonna blog it right away ;-)

EDIT: Done (http://djvader.blogspot.com/), however, since my audience is VERY limited (I think, I'm my only reader) that won't help much spreading the (good) word about DIRECT 2.0 :-\

I read your blog.  You're on the Centauri Dreams blogroll and I read most of those.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 03/17/2008 03:06 pm
Concerning the video, I  suggest adding an Ares 1 segment to compare / contrast with Jupiter 120. Also include an animated presentation of the "baseball card" data for both Jupiter 120 and Ares 1:

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/Baseball%20Card%20-%20080316%20-%20120-27.0.x.jpg

Include anticipated delivery dates and estimated budget figures on that baseball card.
 
Repeat with Jupiter 232 and Ares V.

This will present the data in a manner easily grasped by a 22 year old Congressional staffer and doing THAT is how you persuade the Senator or Representative to take a closer look.  

Especially if these materials are going viral on the internet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Bill White on 03/17/2008 03:09 pm
Quote
DarthVader - 17/3/2008  10:35 AM

Excellent video Ross and al, and thanks Crispy for putting it on YouTube, that is an excellent initiative which will help spreading the "word" on how what Direct 2.0 means. I'm gonna blog it right away ;-)

EDIT: Done (http://djvader.blogspot.com/), however, since my audience is VERY limited (I think, I'm my only reader) that won't help much spreading the (good) word about DIRECT 2.0 :-\

You've just been added to my bookmarks . . .
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Pheogh on 03/17/2008 03:40 pm
In the works, thank you for the suggestion
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: RanulfC on 03/17/2008 05:03 pm
I wrote:
>>I have to ask, (you probably won't tell me and I can understand that,
>>but I STILL have to ask :o) any idea yet when "D" day is going to be?

kraisee wrote:
>No idea! :)

Which would probably STILL be the answer even if you did I'm guessing ;o)

>We've been sending members of Congress and many other important
>individuals copies of the AIAA paper since it came out. We continue to
>do so. We also got a great response from the Pentagon back during
>v1.0, and we got a lot of interest from a number of other sources too.
>Our campaign isn't limited to Congress.

That's what I was hoping to hear, but as you note later in the post Congress is the ones that are going to have to convinced to 'flex' their policy change muscles and the ones that are going to have to generate the change of direction.

>Congress has actually been very supportive of the Vision for Space
>Exploration (now re-named the US Space Exploration Policy or USSEP).
>There has been strong support on both sides of the aisle and from both
>House and Senate to get NASA going in a new path since Columbia was
>lost and exploring beyond Low Earth Orbit. There does not appear to be
>any change with this fundamental support for NASA.

You'll excuse me being skeptical here but Congress was 'supportive' of the SEI and about two dozen other programs while gleefully sounding-off on thier continued support of NASA while they killed program and projects left and right. Specifically forbiding NASA to develop technology that MIGHT be applicable to a manned Mars mission as a recent example, killing the TransHab program and requireing that NASA delete all records of the program as well as forbidding any researc along those lines again as an earlier example seems to me to regulate Congressional 'support' to its usual practice of telling people what they want to hear.

I will agree that I've seen nothing to indicate any 'change' in Congress' usual support of NASA, but given my outside observations that 'support' could easily turn out to be Congress writing-off the ET and related workforce in favor of just procurring the Aries-1 to keep solid propellant prices low and ensure NASA has no capability beyond Low Earth Orbit. This would be 'in-line' with Congressional 'support' given to NASA over the years.

>I don't think Congress actually cares whether the launch vehicle is Ares,
>DIRECT or a Banana Skin made to fly - just as long as it does all the
>things they want it to.

Congress' 'want' list as of last count required the retention and use of as much of the Shuttle hardware workforce and contracting services as possible, as far as I (and anyone else I've talked to) can tell this requirment hasn't changed. There has been little 'noise' from Congress over workforce losses which have been mounting since the Aries 1 flight delays and the impending shut down of the Shuttle which is worrysome in and of itself given their constant efforts for the last few years to try and keep the Shuttle flying despite lack of parts and supply difficulties.
As I noted of the 'alternatives' only DIRECT seem to offer all the portions required by Congress except for Orbiter workforce maintenance. Which is why I asked the first question as it seems to me, (IMPO) that a Direct blitz at the same time as the proposed "March-Storm" might be an excelent time to make a push.

>If one concept clearly "works", and another "doesn't", Congress does have
>the ability to force the issue. But getting them to decide to exercise that
>power is the trick. We still need to *prove* our concept *is* better. We're a
>long way from there still, but time will tell.

The general problem is not what "works" but what "works-for" Congress, you are of course correct about getting Congress to move on something and popularity or actual usefullness of a program has less often been a motivator than simple politics or other intrenal and interpersonel factors. Still I can see very well where DIRECT could and would be a great benifit to Congress' special and personal interests, I wish you all the luck in the world and am 100% behind you folks when you decide to make the push.

Take Care

Randy
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 03/17/2008 06:36 pm
Just a small nitpick...  But the RS-68 maximum power level is termed "Full Power Level" or "FPL".  "MPL" refers to throttle condition which is termed "Minimum Power Level".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/17/2008 07:29 pm
We're using MPL in the context of "Mission Power Level".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 03/18/2008 05:59 am
It might be wise to take note of Bill White's suggestions. IMHO, the DIRECT effort would benefit from a little smarter (& sneakier?) marketing.

Ross, I'm interested to know: Now that you have published Direct 2.0, what are your plans for the future?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: renclod on 03/18/2008 06:23 am
Quote
kraisee - 16/3/2008  8:01 AM

... 3D video simply demonstrating the Space Shuttle to Jupiter-120 modifications we need to make.

The LAS element looks like the ALAS but the text is "MLAS" (just nitpicking).

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Damon Hill on 03/18/2008 07:43 am
What sort of ground support/start equipment will the RS-68 require, and how does that compare to the SSME (or other engines, for that matter)?  I'm wondering to what extent this will require modifications to the MLS platform and pad facilities.  Seems like the Delta IV goes through a lot of helium, where as the ET/SSME uses very little, if any?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 03/18/2008 09:53 am
Quote
Damon Hill - 18/3/2008  4:43 AM

What sort of ground support/start equipment will the RS-68 require, and how does that compare to the SSME (or other engines, for that matter)?  I'm wondering to what extent this will require modifications to the MLS platform and pad facilities.  Seems like the Delta IV goes through a lot of helium, where as the ET/SSME uses very little, if any?

just He.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/18/2008 07:06 pm
Quote
Michael Bloxham - 18/3/2008  2:59 AM

Ross, I'm interested to know: Now that you have published Direct 2.0, what are your plans for the future?

We've got a number of irons in the fire at present.

v2.0 as shown in the AIAA paper is no longer *quite* the same approach we are using now ~6 months later.   We are working on a revision of the old v2.02 documentation to showcase the new baseline.

We're also working intensively on both Lunar and Mars applications for the systems.   We want to demonstrate *precisely* how we can close the performance targets.

Stephen is taking the lead on a new AIAA paper for this year, which takes the >100mT lift performance of the Jupiter-232 as a starting point and goes on from there to implement a variety of Lunar, NEO and Mars missions - amongst others.

And we keep plugging away at our regular work on this too.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/18/2008 07:08 pm
Quote
renclod - 18/3/2008  3:23 AM

Quote
kraisee - 16/3/2008  8:01 AM

... 3D video simply demonstrating the Space Shuttle to Jupiter-120 modifications we need to make.

The LAS element looks like the ALAS but the text is "MLAS" (just nitpicking).


Yeah, just a minor thing.   We have plans to update the video in the future - probably all the way to the Jupiter-232 - but its more than good enough to get the basic idea across.

Not sure if we will do a comparison between Ares and Jupiter or not.   It would be effective, but its an awful lot of work...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/18/2008 07:11 pm
Quote
Michael Bloxham - 18/3/2008  2:59 AM

It might be wise to take note of Bill White's suggestions. IMHO, the DIRECT effort would benefit from a little smarter (& sneakier?) marketing.

Yes, Bill's comments are being looked at closely.   There is a lot of value there.

That's what I love about this forum - people from all sorts of disciplines can offer assistance and aren't just ignored.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: tedcraft on 03/18/2008 10:38 pm
Ross,

This new version of Direct appears to assume a different lunar mission scenario than the one presently shown on the Direct website.

The lunar lander and CEV are now launched on one Jupiter 232 and an EDS stage on another.  Does this eliminate the need for on-orbit propellant transfer as with the previous Direct version?

Also, does the wide-body Centaur-based EDS use pressure-stabilized tanks?  If so, does this have any impact on the overall system safety relative to the previous version of Direct?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mike robel on 03/19/2008 12:56 am
Ross,

May I suggest now that Direct sort of has its own section, you place the baseball cards,mission diagram, other pertinant data like mission flow, and a short explanation in a seperate thread so people can get to the basic stuff quickly without have to search the entire Direct thread?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 03/19/2008 01:27 am
Quote
mike robel - 18/3/2008  9:56 PM

Ross,

May I suggest now that Direct sort of has its own section, you place the baseball cards,mission diagram, other pertinent data like mission flow, and a short explanation in a separate thread so people can get to the basic stuff quickly without have to search the entire Direct thread?
Mike;
All that stuff is placed on the website (www.directlauncher.com). There's no need for a "thread" for that data. It's all in one place on the website. We post it here as well, for general information. But the website gathers it all together in one place.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Wolverine on 03/19/2008 01:31 am
Quote
clongton - 18/3/2008  10:27 PM

Quote
mike robel - 18/3/2008  9:56 PM

Ross,

May I suggest now that Direct sort of has its own section, you place the baseball cards,mission diagram, other pertinent data like mission flow, and a short explanation in a separate thread so people can get to the basic stuff quickly without have to search the entire Direct thread?
Mike;
All that stuff is placed on the website (www.directlauncher.com). There's no need for a "thread" for that data. It's all in one place on the website. We post it here as well, for general information. But the website gathers it all together in one place.

Besides the pdf proposal there are screenshots from Orbiter, but not much else unless I'm not looking in the right area....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/19/2008 04:00 am
Quote
tedcraft - 18/3/2008  7:38 PM

Ross,

This new version of Direct appears to assume a different lunar mission scenario than the one presently shown on the Direct website.

The lunar lander and CEV are now launched on one Jupiter 232 and an EDS stage on another.  Does this eliminate the need for on-orbit propellant transfer as with the previous Direct version?

Yes, that is precisely what we have achieved.

It became clear last November that NASA would only consider the option if we found a way to do it without the need for Propellant Transfers.

While we still believe P/T is the best way to go eventually, we have worked out a means to close all of the performance targets without it.


Quote
Also, does the wide-body Centaur-based EDS use pressure-stabilized tanks?  If so, does this have any impact on the overall system safety relative to the previous version of Direct?

We are currently base-lining the design on the ICES variant of the Wide Body Centaur (although other stage options are possible from other manufacturers too).   ICES is designed to be a structurally sound design without the need for pressure stabilization.   This stage has both comfortable margins and conforms to NASA's 1.4 safety factors, so will be suitable for human use.   Using this stage, our safety numbers do achieve NASA's minimum requirement in ESAS of better than 1 in 1000 LOC - a five-times improvement over the 'fixed' Shuttle since Columbia.   Jupiter-232 achieves 1 in 1162 LOC.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/19/2008 04:05 am
Quote
mike robel - 18/3/2008  9:56 PM

Ross,

May I suggest now that Direct sort of has its own section, you place the baseball cards,mission diagram, other pertinant data like mission flow, and a short explanation in a seperate thread so people can get to the basic stuff quickly without have to search the entire Direct thread?

We do post updated stuff here on NSF fairly often - sometimes without posting it to the main site (a task which usually requires our webmasters to re-design something!).   The site is therefore often a little behind the latest info we reference here.

It may well be useful to post the latest info here - perhaps in a dedicated "reference" thread.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 03/19/2008 05:17 pm
In general the Delta IV pneumatic needs are very similar to the Shuttle.  Biggest challenge will to locate the spin start system, as it needs to replicate the test stand and Delta IV as close as possible, but that is a relatively small effort.  In all the pneumatic system needs and can be easily left to the detailed design cycles.

As for the RS-68 helium usage...  NASA’s problem was trying to fly 5 engines, now 6, engines.  By keeping the jupiter system engines to no more than 3, same as Delta IV, assures the usage is within the Cape complex capabilities.  At worst they might need to tie into the LC-41/40/37 storage bottles, and/or secure additional storage bottles at LC-39.   A future upgrade could be to implement some of the helium saving design changes to the pumps NASA has proposed for Ares V.  But they aren't needed, and thus not on critical path for Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/19/2008 06:58 pm
True,
What chance is there of using a different inert gas for starting the RS-68's in the future?

Helium supplies are due to get more scarce and more expensive withing the next few decades.   It would be nice to have a backup.   Nitrogen perhaps?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 03/19/2008 07:18 pm
Helium is required for liquid hydrogen applications...  I don't know of any other gas that doesn't freeze solid at liquid hydrogen temperatures.  Beyond the spin start RS-68 uses a large amount of helium due some seal design decisions that quite frankly were done for cost.  NASA and PWR have already looked at implementing SSME-derived seal designs that will cut the helium usage in half.  And there are some other more radical design approaches that could cut the helium usage to <10% of the current RS-68.  But need some level of technology development before they could be implemented.  In any case helium is still used, but less of it...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Jim on 03/19/2008 07:34 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/3/2008  3:58 PM

True,
What chance is there of using a different inert gas for starting the RS-68's in the future?

Helium supplies are due to get more scarce and more expensive withing the next few decades.   It would be nice to have a backup.   Nitrogen perhaps?

Ross.

The issue is that LH2 will freeze everything else. GHe is also the closest thing to GH2.  So spinning up the hydraulic pump and turbopump with a different gas might not be feasible
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Nathan on 03/19/2008 07:44 pm
QUOTE]

We are currently base-lining the design on the ICES variant of the Wide Body Centaur (although other stage options are possible from other manufacturers too).   ICES is designed to be a structurally sound design without the need for pressure stabilization.   This stage has both comfortable margins and conforms to NASA's 1.4 safety factors, so will be suitable for human use.   Using this stage, our safety numbers do achieve NASA's minimum requirement in ESAS of better than 1 in 1000 LOC - a five-times improvement over the 'fixed' Shuttle since Columbia.   Jupiter-232 achieves 1 in 1162 LOC.

Ross.[/QUOTE]

Ross - I wonder if this isn't a mistake. NASA isn't using the ICES stage on it's ARES vehicles. Should we not be looking at an upper stage as closely related to the one currently funded? Or at least develop both scenarios at the same time so NASA can make a choice.

Also - how much work is there to do between what you have now and what is needed for a PDR?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/19/2008 07:59 pm
Quote
Nathan - 19/3/2008  4:44 PM

Ross - I wonder if this isn't a mistake. NASA isn't using the ICES stage on it's ARES vehicles. Should we not be looking at an upper stage as closely related to the one currently funded? Or at least develop both scenarios at the same time so NASA can make a choice.

Nathan,
Ares-I's Upper Stage is a different beast entirely.   It isn't designed to loiter in space with propellant boiling off all the time.

The EDS (which has not been contracted for yet and is still >5 years away) is going to have to tackle that difficult issue head-on.   Boiloff is the #1 issue driving the continuing loss of loiter time for Lunar missions - originally aimed in ESAS at 60 days, then dropped to 14 days, and currently baselined to just 4 days.

Right now Lockheed have, by a long way, the most experience in reducing boiloff.   Why not utilize this proven expertise?

NASA doesn't re-invent the wheel building all its new rocket engines, it buys them from established manufacturers with successful heritage, like PWR, Aerojet etc.

NASA also doesn't reinvent the wheel with SRB's either, it buys them from an established manufacturer with successful heritage - ATK.

Because it is a critical and defining element of the vehicle, the EDS should simply be the same thing IMHO - buying the established expertise off the shelf.

Sure, NASA *could* spend twice as much time and twice as much money trying to learn for itself precisely how to do what LM can already do regarding boiloff, but I question whether that would be a good use of the Taxpayers hard earned contributions?   I don't think so.


Quote
Also - how much work is there to do between what you have now and what is needed for a PDR?

As for how much work needs to be done - a LOT.   But the schedule for doing this is shortened by quite a bit by having so much directly-applicable hardware already in production today and is really helped a lot by not requiring any new engines to get Jupiter-120 operational.   This allows the J-120 schedule to be significantly more compressed time-wise, compared to Ares-I.

Current Jupiter-120 Schedule:-
Go Order Q2 2008
SRR Q2 2009
PDR Q2 2010
CDR Q1 2011
DCR Q4 2011
IOC Q2 2012

This schedule already has about 12 months of slippage built in BTW.

One contact at MSFC recently told me that if they switched over to Jupiter-120, they have "cut their teeth" on the difficult Ares-I and are now ready to make real serious moves on this much simpler option very swiftly - if they could only get the green light.

Essentially all of the engineering assessments done for Ares-I are equally applicable to the Jupiter - in one way or another.   Perhaps the sole exception to this is the requirement for the 5-seg SRB's.   Even there, that contract could be re-negotiated into an SRB segment supply contract because we use about double the quantity of SRB segments than Ares ever will - so it's not at all bad for ATK business to consider this switch too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 03/19/2008 08:22 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/3/2008  4:59 PM

Sure, NASA *could* spend twice as much time and twice as much money trying to learn for itself precisely how to do what LM can already do regarding boiloff ...
Ross.
I would only add that LM has been doing this sort of thing for ~40 years.
NASA hasn't had to bother developing it, because they went from Saturn shutdown directly into Shuttle, which didn't need this capability. That's 30+ years of Shuttle, ~4 years +/- transition and before that was Saturn. So when NASA wanted to launch a probe or lander that did need it, they just mated it to the commercial launcher that already had the capability.

So NASA has been using it, but on existing commercial launchers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/19/2008 08:24 pm
Quote
TrueGrit - 19/3/2008  4:18 PM

Helium is required for liquid hydrogen applications...  I don't know of any other gas that doesn't freeze solid at liquid hydrogen temperatures.

There's plenty of Helium in the Lunar regolith!

(yes, that's only a joke!) LOL :)

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mojo on 03/19/2008 08:37 pm
Okay - I have a question.  

Let's say due to performance issues, cost, schedule, etc that NASA decides to replace the current architecture with the Direct plan (either under Congressional pressure or not).  

How does this work?  I'm assuming the Orion contract is unaffected, but you have the ARES first stage (ATK) and upper stage (Boeing) contracts underway.  Are we talking about a massive contract mod or a brand new procurement effort?  

I suspect the time it would take to sort out that mess would eat up any gains in the Shuttle replacement gap.  

Pretend I'm a congressman.  You sold me on the technical merits of Direct.  What kind of pain do I need to go through to implement this change in direction?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/20/2008 03:02 am
mojo,
That's a subject we won't really get much say in, but I can offer some suggestions we have.

ATK is expecting to earn about $2bn worth of contracts from Ares-I, and probably another $1-2bn from the re-development work needed for Ares-V later too.   To appease them, we will first start by doubling their segment production line (to 32 in 2013 climbing to 88 per year by 2020) and thus double their turnover there.

ATK will also be providing more RS-68 nozzles too thanks to us (up to 52 units per year).   But that represents only some of the lucrative development monies they are profiting by currently.   They will probably need the deal sweetened further.

Now, ATK has good history building parts of the ISS truss and solar arrays.   Similar work will be needed for the Lunar Base.   Keep this in mind while also realizing that DIRECT also accelerates the Lunar program by two years initially.   DIRECT also intends to fly double the number of Lunar missions for the same budget as Ares too.   Therefore, DIRECT will essentially bring the Lunar base online many years sooner.   So why not issue the contracts for solar production facilities and similar hardware to ATK sooner in order to buy ourselves out of the current SRB development contract?   We are going to need them anyway.   ATK is experienced, so lets buy their support while using that money to pay for something they are well qualified to build which we actually *need* anyway?

Pratt & Whitney, Rocketdyne retain the existing J-2X contract, but the delivery date is pushed out two years to 2017.   The yearly cost is reduced to reflect this.   But PWR gets a new contract to man-rate the RS-68 for use by 2012.

Lockheed Martin would indeed continue to produce the Orion under the existing contract with the only changes being adding back all the lost functionality and safety equipment currently left out in the ZBV parking lot.

Lockheed would also likely continues to produce External Tanks in the form of Jupiter Core Stages - though a re-compete might be worthwhile if the "wealth" isn't being "spread" sufficiently.   Certainly it would make things simpler during the transition if LM stay where they are:   While the last handful of ET's is being produced between now and 2010 we begin production of the MPTA and Pad Test Fit Jupiter Cores on the same production lines (as NLS proved was possible).   Additionally we also need to start on at least the first test flight (Jupiter-120-X) unit before the last ET runs down the production line too (also start Jupiter-120-Y before the last ET leaves Michoud too).   Whoever gets this contract will find no workforce "gap" at all occurring at Michoud.


Boeing has a couple of choices.   Right now the Upper Stage contract is in place.   We don't specifically need that particular unit, but Boeing could easily build the Upper Stage for us instead of Lockheed.   We are only using LM in our examples because their team is the only one to have so-far indicated what they would be able to achieve for us.   Boeing simply have not responded to us yet, so we haven't been able to include their capabilities.   Without doubt, Boeing certainly has a similar level of engineering experience, and can probably closely duplicate Lockheed in this area.   At worst case, they could always license the ICES technology from LM and still build the hardware.

Boeing also have the Instrumentation Unit contract too.   This contract would need modification to suit the Jupiter vehicle, but would essentially stay in-place.   It would logically follow that the IU contract is simply extended for J-232 later - not competed separately as will be the case for Ares-V in ~5 years time.   This is good for Boeing.


The prime contract for operating the new systems is also up for grabs.   If Boeing relinquished the Ares Upper Stage because they couldn't achieve the performance requirements, I think they should defacto take this contract over instead - they have essentially been prime for this on ISS Program and very senior for Shuttle too, so they are well placed to do this anyway.


Essentially there is a lot of 'play' possible with the stage contracts.   Core stage and EDS can essentially be given to either Boeing or Lockheed-Martin - as technical ability, cost, schedule and politics dictates.   At this point there are few hard-and-fast rules, other than ensuring the wealth is fairly evenly spread to keep the political gears oiled.


But the most lucrative single element of the whole program is still awaiting us.   The LSAM.   Northrop Grumman is a logical contender, but there are more significant cost, schedule, design and technology factors to consider ahead of mere historical precedent.   If LM got the EDS and CEV, and the proposals for LSAM from NG, LM & Boeing were all similar enough, it might just be politically expedient to give the contract to a specific camp to "spread the wealth".   I don't know, and can't even guess, how this will actually play-out in the corridors of power.   It's gonna be a fun ride though, you can be sure.


There are additional factors to consider here too.   While all of that listed above is part of the human Exploration Program, the Jupiter-120's Heavy Lift performance creates a lot more opportunities than Ares-I could ever support.

We intend to utilize this extra capability to *explicitly* provide extra work to NASA staff during the difficult transition years.   We have lots of spare budget compared to Ares, and therefore we have the *ability* to do more missions.   Lets use it.

* We can fund an extra Hubble Servicing Mission in the 2013-15 time frame.   A contractor needs to be paid for that work.

* Jupiter-120/Delta-IV-US could easily lift the Mars Sample Return mission which JPL are trying to squeeze onto an EELV Heavy - so-far without success.

* Jupiter-120/Delta-IV-US can perform a crewed Lunar Flyby mission in 2013 - 2 years before Ares-I is even due to fly to ISS.

* Jupiter-120/Delta-IV-US could even service JWST out at EML-2 *if* there were any requirement (recalling Hubble's early problems).   Probably unlikely, but worth keeping in mind.

* Jupiter-120 can launch a 50mT 8-10m diameter single-mirror telescope (depending on 10m or 12m PLF) to LEO - a straight replacement to Hubble.   Not to mention also creating a similar capability for the DoD.

* Jupiter-120 can also launch every one of the currently never-will-be-flown modules to ISS, and at least three MPLM flights allowing all of the scientific instruments no longer planned to fly to be launched and the station can actually be utilized as fully planned - not partially.


All of these additional missions can be paid for with the ~$20-25bn worth savings Jupiter offers compared to Ares.   All of these additional missions need new contracts.   All need workforce from many different disciplines.

Together, this broad *additional* range of programs, on top of the manned Exploration Program, would enhance NASA's Science Mission Directorate capabilities by an order of magnitude compared to the lean years we have ahead.

We get the moon sooner *and* a very healthy Science program to boot.   And we now have the means to keep everyone employed *gainfully* - not as a mere jobs program.   New, currently *impossible* to afford contracts are needed to do this, and work would be plentiful throughout NASA to cover all of the staff across the 'gap' between Shuttle and the new Lunar Program.

There are a lot of other contracts involved, but that's the broad brush-strokes of our general viewpoint of what could be done if we were to switch to DIRECT.   But the final decision is just not in our hands.

Bottom Line:   No Contractor loses-out if they are willing to come to the negotiation table and help us implement this.   They work with us, we work with them.   Everyone wins.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 03/20/2008 04:05 am
What does anyone think are the percentages of Direct replacing Ares?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/20/2008 04:11 am
If Ares were on schedule and without the list of technical problems, I'd say no chance, even given the significantly better schedule and cost.

But given that Ares is having real problems and that Griffin must hand his resignation in at the end of the year when the President changes, I believe we're 40:40.

The missing 20 represents Obama closing the whole thing down and stripping the cash out for the Department of Education instead.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 03/20/2008 05:34 am
What an inforesight that would be (hehe, I created a new word).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: animaux on 03/20/2008 06:23 am
Quote
Michael Bloxham - 20/3/2008  8:34 AM

What an inforesight that would be (hehe, I created a new word).

Sorry, but: http://inforesight.com/
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: on 03/20/2008 12:05 pm
Quote
kraisee - 10/3/2008  1:03 AM

Norm,
We have been working hard on a presentation with lots of cool graphs (hence the reason we've been a little quiet).   Hopefully we will be able to show it to y'all later this coming week.

Big week for us.

Ross.

So am I the only DIRECT v2.0 Thread lurker here who is still wondering what you guys were up to last week !?!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Rifleman on 03/20/2008 02:07 pm
Quote
Achilles - 20/3/2008  9:05 AM

So am I the only DIRECT v2.0 Thread lurker here who is still wondering what you guys were up to last week !?!

You are definitely not the only one, but I am sure we will all find out when the time is right.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: riney on 03/20/2008 03:35 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/3/2008  12:02 AM
(enormous list of additional missions snipped)

Ross -

The technical and organizational benefits of DIRECT are compelling enough, but this list of additional missions that could be accomplished on existing budget is staggering. I sure hope this information is being included in the marketing efforts you and the team are working, in a very straightforward "you can get this... *or* you can get all this" kind of way. And in gigantic bold letters.

This is the sort of thing that can get people interested in space again. Real capabilities, real steps forward, and in reasonable, non-nebulous timeframes.

--John Riney
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 03/20/2008 04:06 pm
I'm curious, if you have them, what the mass-to-LEO numbers are for a 3-stage, 5-engined DIRECT are?  (I think I saw it called the "J-541" somewhere?)  Both with DIRECT and NASA margins.

(And yes, I agree that one is almost certainly better off launching 2 J-232s than a J-541, given the dozens of J-232's you can fly for the cost of developing the J-541.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 03/20/2008 05:07 pm
Quote
SolarPowered - 20/3/2008  1:06 PM

I'm curious, if you have them, what the mass-to-LEO numbers are for a 3-stage, 5-engined DIRECT are?  (I think I saw it called the "J-541" somewhere?)  Both with DIRECT and NASA margins.

(And yes, I agree that one is almost certainly better off launching 2 J-232s than a J-541, given the dozens of J-232's you can fly for the cost of developing the J-541.)
3-stage, 5-engined would be a Jupiter-35x, (3) stages, (5) engines on the core stage and (x) engines on the upper stage(s).
We have those numbers somewhere but havn't looked at them for a very long time, once we realized that the possibility that NASA would ever need such a beast were remote at best. The dust on those numbers is thick.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 03/20/2008 05:38 pm
Quote
Achilles - 20/3/2008  6:05 AM

Quote
kraisee - 10/3/2008  1:03 AM

Norm,
We have been working hard on a presentation with lots of cool graphs (hence the reason we've been a little quiet).   Hopefully we will be able to show it to y'all later this coming week.

Big week for us.

Ross.

So am I the only DIRECT v2.0 Thread lurker here who is still wondering what you guys were up to last week !?!

Everything slides to the right. (That’s got to be a corollary of Murphy's law.)

:D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/20/2008 06:24 pm
Quote
Rifleman - 20/3/2008  11:07 AM

Quote
Achilles - 20/3/2008  9:05 AM

So am I the only DIRECT v2.0 Thread lurker here who is still wondering what you guys were up to last week !?!

You are definitely not the only one, but I am sure we will all find out when the time is right.

Dang.   There's me hoping nobody would notice :)

Please be patient.   Rifleman is right.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/20/2008 06:47 pm
Quote
riney - 20/3/2008  12:35 PM

Quote
kraisee - 19/3/2008  12:02 AM
(enormous list of additional missions snipped)

Ross -

The technical and organizational benefits of DIRECT are compelling enough, but this list of additional missions that could be accomplished on existing budget is staggering. I sure hope this information is being included in the marketing efforts you and the team are working, in a very straightforward "you can get this... *or* you can get all this" kind of way. And in gigantic bold letters.

This is the sort of thing that can get people interested in space again. Real capabilities, real steps forward, and in reasonable, non-nebulous timeframes.

--John Riney

I agree completely.

The way I see it is that NASA needs to get the public's attention and keep it.   The public has a very short attention span though - as Apollo demonstrated.   So NASA really needs new "showcase" missions repeatedly.   On the current plan there won't be budget to do much.   But with this plan I'm aiming for a showcase mission at *minimum* every 4-years - which nicely coincides with the political cycle too :)

New spacecraft to ISS.   Lunar Flyby.   Mars Sample Return.   James Webb ST.   More Hubble.   Hubble v2.0.   "Apollo 18".   All this within the next ~8 years would serve to get us a bit of positive attention.

From there we go to Lunar Base 1 construction and use.   First Crewed NEO mission.   Mars Test Flight (uncrewed).   Phobos Crewed Flight.   First Mars Crewed Flight.   Thats all within the following 12 years or so and without this ever descending into a Moon First vs. Mars First battle.

I want it all!  (insert maniacal laugh here).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/20/2008 06:49 pm
And more to the point - nobody can show me a way to pay for half of this on top of the Ares budget without asking Congress for more money - something very unlikely in the expected budgetary crunch which is coming.

DIRECT can do this all with no increased budget above the rate of inflation.   I think that's something we might actually *get* if we're actually producing this many high profile missions for the money.

If we can't show a significant return for this investment though, I suspect NASA funding won't stay as high as it currently is for much longer.

The public and political *perception* today is that nobody knows whether NASA is really 'worth it' or not.   Clearly, creating a 5 year gap in US human spaceflight capability, laying off American's while buying $2.7bn worth of Russian spacecraft and creating an expensive replacement fleet which we won't be able to afford to utilize is not going to do anything at all to help this perception.   If we lose support because of it, we will lose everything.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 03/20/2008 07:22 pm
All this without asking Congress for any “additional” money.

But even if Obama becomes President and follows thru on his statements about a delay (which is not cast in stone), if the Jupiter-120 replaces the Ares-I, it can wait out his presidency for 4 or 8 years. All that’s needed to kick it off again is authorization to build an upper stage because the Jupiter-120 is the foundation for “everything” going forward. If the Jupiter-120 gets the nod, the VSE is safe.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 03/20/2008 07:27 pm
It sounds like you’ve gotten a lot of Centaur information and nothing to the contrary…

It should be noted...  Lockheed is not the only one who has studied long duration, low boiloff upper stages to serve as an EDS.  The same NASA ACES effort that funded the Lockheed ICES study funded a companion study by Boeing.  If you do an AIAA search for ACES and you'll find the Boeing study.  Lockheed based its study Centaur, while Boeing studied the Delta Cryo Second Stage (DCSS) and they came up with similar results.  As such I wouldn’t claim “Lockheed have, by a long way, the most experience in reducing boiloff.”  To suggest otherwise discounts the fact that none of these studies progressed to actually building flying hardware.  Lockheed have a lot of Centaur experience, but Boeing developed and started flying a comparable cryo stage in the last decade.  In fact it is the Boeing developed DCSS that has better long coast performance.

As for the Ares-I upper stage being a “different beast” than what’s required for an EDS…  I would say that’s a mischaracterization of the Lockheed and Boeing studies.  They both determined that incremental add-on modifications are only what is required.  Additional insulation around the high heat input places (skirts for example), and a special cooling-vent system is all that’s required.  The Lockheed and Boeing studies indicated these changes could incorporated such that they could be made into special low boiloff kits that mod nearly unchanged Centaur or Delta upper stages.  In fact the only non-kittable type mod I could potentially see improving the Ares I upper stage thermal performance is an internal vacuum jacketed feedline.  This could easily be fitted to the existing Ares-I upper stage design, if the trade studies indicate it's worth while...

And just another note...  Lockheed owns the ICES design lock, stock and barrel.  To suggest that Boeing build it it like saying the government give Ford a contract to build Caddy's to GM specs for the president.  I think GM would object...   Don't you think?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/20/2008 07:29 pm
Getting off the subject, everything I've heard from Obama seems to indicate that he isn't explicitly against NASA, just that he doesn't see much value in what they've been doing.

I think a suitable proposal - showing real value for money - could win him around.

I don't think Ares is ever going to enable such a range of missions myself, so I think DIRECT has the only realistic chance of convincing Obama *if* we can get the switch over.

I just wish we could get his support first.   If only there were a way we could get this list of missions in front of his science guys - but that has proven to be virtually impossible given the current election cycle :(

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: spacediver on 03/20/2008 07:36 pm
Interesting finding!

Last week I was at a scale modelers convention in Sinsheim, Germany.
This is one of the largest conventions for scale models in Germany and spreads from RC-aircraft, railways, boats to space models and much more.

As I wandered through the halls I found that stand with really nice scale paper models of aircraft, rockets and spacecraft.
Between models of Buran, Atlas, Shuttle etc. I recognized the impressive silhouette of a Jupiter 232!!

Missing the SRB’s, but without any doubt, it was the core of a J-232!!
Scale 1:100 and completely made of paper!
Unfortunately I did not have a camera with me.

Direct grows popular!!
At least in Germany... :)

BTW if you ever come to Germany, do not miss the technical museum at Sinsheim.
The only museum in the world that shows the Concorde and the Tupolev 144 side by side!

Spacediver
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/20/2008 07:46 pm
TrueGrit,
Agreed.   I said as much a few posts back.   But Boeing have simply never replied to any of our enquiries.   LM did.

I am aware of the long duration work Boeing did, but have not seen the results so can't really comment.   Can you point me towards any public papers?

Centaur is (I understand) still the only cryo stage to have actually been *used* IRL (In Real Life) after a long period of 'loitering'.   To the best of my recall, two Titan Centaur/RL-10's were used in the 1960's to boost satellites (the Voyager probes?) after a particularly long period of coasting after ascent.   They are the only cryo stages to have actually done this previously, so LM does have the only non-theoretical experience and hard data in this field so far.   Everything else is study material and simulation work until it can actually be *proven*.   While I'm pretty sure Boeing can match LM pace-for-pace, they haven't yet taken that final step - yet.


The bottom line is that we simply have no information on the expected mass of a comparable Boeing stage.   First order estimates with generous margin are all we really need, but we don't even have that.   Believe me, we would *really* welcome it.

In the absence of a response from Boeing though, we can only use what has been provided to us.


BTW, regarding Boeing building ICES hardware, I actually said "At worst case, they could always license the ICES technology from LM and still build the hardware".   Given a license, it wouldn't be an issue.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/20/2008 07:51 pm
Models:

There are four people who have contacted us to build model kits of Jupiter's already.   One paper, one plastic and two flying.

I think there's a race developing between who will actually fly a Jupiter-120 first :)

When the kits are available we will make sure to place a link on the model building thread, and possibly also on our website too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 03/20/2008 08:25 pm
It's too bad Boeing is being closed-lipped...  As they might be the best source of knowledge for the current Ares I upper stage.  The Boeing ACES study was presented at the AIAA Space 2006 conference (see AIAA 2006-7454).

Nathan did have an interesting point that preserving the basics of the current Ares upper stage could be more palitable.  It would be telling if you can't close on the performance needs, but it would represent an easier transition.  The reliance upon the WBC pmf might be considered a liability in that your esentially sole-source selecting Lockheed.  They are the only ones building stages in such a way.  By using a "more common" stage pmf, SIVB or DCSS as examples, you can transfer the contract to Boeing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/20/2008 08:36 pm
We've got about 2.5mT of margin through TLI - not to mention our 10% arbitrary margin on launch too.

I think we could still quite happily close all the performance targets even if Boeing's EDS tanking massed 30% more than LM's - which won't ever be the case.   If the two stages were more than ~10% different given the engines, capacity and Al-Li material are all the same, I would be quite surprised.

It might be worth another attempt at contacting Boeing though.   We'll see.   You'd think they'd be interested in hedging to preserving their contract in case the change does happen.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: mojo on 03/20/2008 09:02 pm
When will you reach the "point of no return" as the shuttle derived manufacturing systems that Direct is relying on are being canned?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: TrueGrit on 03/20/2008 09:24 pm
Another thing before I forget...  The 5-segment booster need not be abandoned.  ATK and NASA were already studying a 5 segment booster for the Shuttle before the change in direction (see AIAA-2003-5127).  These studies involved making the change a drop-in without any ET tank attachment changes.  I see no reason the 5-segment booster couldn't have a low level activity preserved with the goal of on-ramping it later as a performacne enchancement.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/21/2008 12:29 am
Quote
clongton - 20/3/2008  9:22 PM

All this without asking Congress for any “additional” money.

But even if Obama becomes President and follows thru on his statements about a delay (which is not cast in stone), if the Jupiter-120 replaces the Ares-I, it can wait out his presidency for 4 or 8 years. All that’s needed to kick it off again is authorization to build an upper stage because the Jupiter-120 is the foundation for “everything” going forward. If the Jupiter-120 gets the nod, the VSE is safe.

If President Obama requires NASA has to play political games:
Delaying the Ares-I by 5 years will handle his money saving promise.
Fill the manned flight to the ISS gap with a new rocket based on shuttle parts called the Jupiter-120.  This is twice the size of the EELV and COTS rockets.
Work on the Moon rocket called the Jupiter-232 will not start until Obama's second term.
The Jupiter-120 has an upper stage allowing bigger loads which will appear a few years after the lower stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 03/21/2008 12:50 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008  9:29 PM

Quote
clongton - 20/3/2008  9:22 PM

All this without asking Congress for any “additional” money.

But even if Obama becomes President and follows thru on his statements about a delay (which is not cast in stone), if the Jupiter-120 replaces the Ares-I, it can wait out his presidency for 4 or 8 years. All that’s needed to kick it off again is authorization to build an upper stage because the Jupiter-120 is the foundation for “everything” going forward. If the Jupiter-120 gets the nod, the VSE is safe.

If President Obama requires NASA has to play political games:
Delaying the Ares-I by 5 years will handle his money saving promise.
Fill the manned flight to the ISS gap with a new rocket based on shuttle parts called the Jupiter-120.  This is twice the size of the EELV and COTS rockets.
Work on the Moon rocket called the Jupiter-232 will not start until Obama's second term.
The Jupiter-120 has an upper stage allowing bigger loads which will appear a few years after the lower stage.
Andrew;
As soon as you put an upper stage on the Jupiter-120, it becomes a Jupiter-2xx.

The naming sequence for the Jupiter Launch Vehicle Family describes the vehicle configuration, in much the same way as the Atlas vehicles are identified. The name consists of “Jupiter-“ followed by a 3-digit number.

Digit #1. represents the number of cryogenic stages it takes to reach orbital insertion.
Digit #2. represents how many engines are on the core stage.
Digit #3. represents how many engines are on the upper stage.

A pair of 4-segment RSRM is always assumed.

While always possible, there are no 3-stage versions of this launch vehicle being considered.

Thus the Jupiter-120 has one (1) cryogenic stage, there are two (2) RS-68 engines on it and there are no upper stage engines because there is no upper stage.

Thus the Jupiter-232 has two (2) cryogenic stages, there are three (3) RS-68 engines on it and there are two (2) upper stage engines on the upper stage.

It makes it really easy to know exactly which vehicle configuration is being discussed.
 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/21/2008 01:14 am
Quote
clongton - 21/3/2008  2:50 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008  9:29 PM


If President Obama requires NASA has to play political games:

{snip}
Andrew;
As soon as you put an upper stage on the Jupiter-120, it becomes a Jupiter-2xx.

I know.  You gave an engineering answer where as I was making political points.

Obama has stated that the Moon mission is being delayed for 5 years i.e. his second term.  So officially no work can take place on the J-232/Ares-V until 2013.  Upper stage J-120 keeps the rocket designers in work between the J-120 flying and the official start of the J-232.

A couple of things I left off the list.
The Ares-I does not get officially cancelled until the J-120 flies and for political reasons Congress is forcing NASA to report large cuts.  Killing a rocket programme should make some nice newspaper headlines.
NASA can save money by discovering that it can use the larger J-232 for the J-22x LEO missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: SolarPowered on 03/21/2008 03:01 am
And what are the forecasts for a President McCain?  (I'm hoping the U.S.A. doesn't actually hire a CEO with a blank resume.)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/21/2008 04:00 am
Quote
mojo - 20/3/2008  6:02 PM

When will you reach the "point of no return" as the shuttle derived manufacturing systems that Direct is relying on are being canned?

There isn't actually a point of no return anywhere really.   But as soon as the Shuttle infrastructure starts being torn out and staff are given their pink slips, the costs start increasing in order to put it back again.   It starts slowly later this year (Q4 calendar), but rapidly builds to significant sums by SSP retirement in 2010.

The only point of no return comes if A.N.Other system actually completes the first Lunar mission.   All the way to there it can still be replaced if it isn't working correctly.

But I do think this year is a crucial one, and from what I'm currently hearing I think this could very well be our year.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/21/2008 04:05 am
Quote
TrueGrit - 20/3/2008  6:24 PM

Another thing before I forget...  The 5-segment booster need not be abandoned.  ATK and NASA were already studying a 5 segment booster for the Shuttle before the change in direction (see AIAA-2003-5127).  These studies involved making the change a drop-in without any ET tank attachment changes.  I see no reason the 5-segment booster couldn't have a low level activity preserved with the goal of on-ramping it later as a performacne enchancement.

Very true.   We can certainly use the 5-seg SRB's if we do reach the point where *not* using it becomes a pointless exercise - a point I don't believe we have reached yet.   We want to retain the option to build 5-segs as an upgrade for the future if we should want additional performance.

But we are, across the board, hoping to reduce the development costs as much as possible to allow us to fund other things - particularly additional missions.

The least possible number of changes from Shuttle remains our target criteria.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/21/2008 04:20 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008  9:29 PM

If President Obama requires NASA has to play political games:
Delaying the Ares-I by 5 years will handle his money saving promise.
Fill the manned flight to the ISS gap with a new rocket based on shuttle parts called the Jupiter-120.  This is twice the size of the EELV and COTS rockets.
Work on the Moon rocket called the Jupiter-232 will not start until Obama's second term.
The Jupiter-120 has an upper stage allowing bigger loads which will appear a few years after the lower stage.

The key problem with shutting down the program for five years is that you essentially tell every experienced worker, both NASA Civil Servant and Contractor alike, to go get another career because this entire industry sector is completely unstable.   Not a master-stroke in times of economic difficulties like at present.

That's essentially what NASA did in the mid 70's - and when they tried to get them back again for Shuttle is it any surprise that less than 1 in 10 Apollo workers agreed to come back?

And that does not mention the host of supplier companies who went out of business because they relied upon Apollo work - they were never heard from again either with countless workers hitting the unemployment lines.   All that talent was lost forever to NASA.   When they started Shuttle they simply never got back anywhere near the depth of skill and experience they had had just a few years earlier - and is it little wonder that serious problems crept into the design of Shuttle thanks to that.

Both the Rodger's commission after Challenger and the CAIB after Columbia identified this "brain drain" as a critical reason why the Shuttle failed.   The lack of experience led directly to compromises in the basic design in both cases.

We *must* learn this lesson very well or we risk repeating it again.   Having lost 14 lives as a partial result of this mistake previously I just can't support any plan to replicate the same circumstances over again now.

And dare I bring up the idea of 130,000+ current Shuttle-related workers all around the nation looking for work at the same time?   In the current economic climate we really don't need that many people joining the unemployment lines.

If we canned the program for 5 years we may as well just resign the whole US program to flying Orion on Delta-IV Heavy to ISS and just forget about the Moon or anything beyond LEO.   To re-create the whole 130,000 strong infrastructure afresh after a 5 year sabatical is unlikely at best.   Certainly it will take a lot of additional time and money to get anything like the same capability back up and operational again.   A 5 year program delay would *actually* result in something like an 8 year schedule slip - putting the Lunar landing back to around 2027.   China will certainly be there long before then.   I suppose it will still be fascinating watching a Taikonaut explore the Apollo 11 landing site via the TV.   Wonder if we can convince them to broadcast it in HD...

I much prefer our plan.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/21/2008 04:30 am
Quote
SolarPowered - 20/3/2008  12:01 AM

And what are the forecasts for a President McCain?  (I'm hoping the U.S.A. doesn't actually hire a CEO with a blank resume.)

From what I can see he talks the talk of supporting the VSE, but doesn't seem especially interested.

My guess is that as long as NASA doesn't do something to embarrass his administration (late programs, massive cost overruns, accidents etc) and as long as the agency makes good progress on their plans, I don't think he'll try to cut their budget.   But he isn't likely to support any budget increases either.

I think he would support a more efficient use of the budget and a greater science return for the same monies.   I think that DIRECT might look good to his science/NASA advisers.

From what I can tell, I think he will pretty-much "leave well alone" and let NASA get on with whatever they're getting on with.   I don't think he particularly cares one way or the other.

Clinton IMHO will do something similar, although there could be a grievance with the VSE having been promoted by a Republican she clearly dislikes.   Not sure if that would affect policy, but I wouldn't like to bet a $100bn program on it either way.   A better solution than currently proposed "under a Republican" could probably win her over too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/21/2008 04:39 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008  10:14 PM

A couple of things I left off the list.
The Ares-I does not get officially cancelled until the J-120 flies

It will be one or the other.   We just don't have the money to develop both.


Quote
... and for political reasons Congress is forcing NASA to report large cuts.  Killing a rocket programme should make some nice newspaper headlines.
NASA can save money by discovering that it can use the larger J-232 for the J-22x LEO missions.

J-22x?   Not sure what you're referring to.   We had a Jupiter-221 configuration which was a ~90mT small version of the Jupiter-232.   But we found that developing the extra configuration was a lot less cost efficient than just using the Jupiter-232 as-is.   It's still an option (along with Jupiter-231, Jupiter-244 and others) but not one which we are actively pursuing any longer.

With 50mT of lift capacity, Jupiter-120 should be able to support almost any LEO mission I can think of.   You can pull out the Jupiter-232 "big gun" (oh, there's a cool name for it!) if you really need to launch something bigger than 50mT.   There isn't much actual need for a third configuration somewhere between those and the added development cost would be significant.

Did you mean something else?

NASA can certainly make big cost savings by making the switch - I've no doubts about that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: clongton on 03/21/2008 11:14 am
Quote
kraisee - 21/3/2008  1:30 AM

Quote
SolarPowered - 20/3/2008  12:01 AM

And what are the forecasts for a President McCain?  (I'm hoping the U.S.A. doesn't actually hire a CEO with a blank resume.)

From what I can see he talks the talk of supporting the VSE, but doesn't seem especially interested.

My guess is that as long as NASA doesn't do something to embarrass his administration (late programs, massive cost overruns, accidents etc) and as long as the agency makes good progress on their plans, I don't think he'll try to cut their budget.   But he isn't likely to support any budget increases either.

I think he would support a more efficient use of the budget and a greater science return for the same monies.   I think that DIRECT might look good to his science/NASA advisers.

From what I can tell, I think he will pretty-much "leave well alone" and let NASA get on with whatever they're getting on with.   I don't think he particularly cares one way or the other.

Clinton IMHO will do something similar, although there could be a grievance with the VSE having been promoted by a Republican she clearly dislikes.   Not sure if that would affect policy, but I wouldn't like to bet a $100bn program on it either way.   A better solution than currently proposed "under a Republican" could probably win her over too.

Ross.
I think McCain would be rather "Direct-Friendly" if he picked Charlie Crisp, Republican governor of Florida, for a running mate. That's not an endorsement, just taking note of an attractive combination. I agree that Clinton would likely be "similar", but I have no idea who the running mate would be. There's much more to picking a President than just NASA.

In any case, here is a very big caution: There was a thread for this kind of discussion but it got locked because people kept taking it off topic. So let's not take my "observation" as fodder for OT discussion. Keep it on the Direct Architecture and Jupiter Launch vehicle family. Besides there are (rocket) things stirring in the wind that will prove "interesting", if I may toss that out. Let's not get the thread locked, blocking our avenue to "share". Please, stay on topic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/21/2008 12:04 pm
Quote
kraisee - 21/3/2008  6:39 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008  10:14 PM

A couple of things I left off the list.
The Ares-I does not get officially cancelled until the J-120 flies

It will be one or the other.   We just don't have the money to develop both.


"A rose by another name would smell as sweet"
William Shakespeare

Politics not engineering.

Anything that has been indefinitely postponed has been cancelled.

Real rockets: J-120, J-232

Paper rockets: Ares-1, Ares-V, J-22x

Not what is seems: J-120 upper stage (actually J-232 upper stage)


One of the weird things about NASA (and DOD) is that cuts actually fire people.  In most government organisations 9% cuts simply means that the agency grows by 1% rather than the 10% in the budget request.

Once Direct start the postponed rocket projects never get any money or people but they do ask for it.  That way the politicians can claim to have saved money by postponing Ares for a year.

I did not invent this, it comes from the "Yes, Minister" tv program, which came from real life.

Edit: Delete after a day.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 03/21/2008 03:59 pm
Quote
clongton - 21/3/2008  9:36 AM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 21/3/2008  11:52 AM

I was deeply disappointed when the Direct team chose to go to the Jupiter nomenclature in Direct 2.0. I felt then that they were putting themselves on the outside looking in, rather than remaining part of the team. If they had continued to pitch Direct as Ares II (Jupiter 120) and Ares III (Jupiter 232) this would have greatly reduced the perception of changing horses in midstream.  

Norm;
What you need to bear in mind is what we were trying to accomplish by doing that. At that time we still believed there was the possibility that Griffin would adopt the Direct architecture, if there was some obvious way that they could take ownership of it and not appear to have been upstaged. The clearest path to that was the naming of the vehicle. Griffin would be able to field what we now called the Jupiter-120 and rename it as the Ares-II, and the Jupiter-232 as the Ares-III. In fact that very specific offer was communicated directly to him, along with the offer that if he did that we would very quietly just fade away, leaving the entire thing in NASA's hands. We were all prepared to completely disappear, never to be heard from again. That way they could take ownership, not only of the architecture, but also of the transition from Ares-I to Ares-II, claiming that their initial hopes for the Ares-I weren't panning out, so in order to keep the VSE on track, they were advancing their design to a more powerful launch vehicle. We offered him the launcher, the architecture and the face-saving, with no strings attached.

Unfortunately for everyone, it turned out he wasn't interested.
But this is OT for this thread. It really should go over to the Direct thread.

Moved from another thread. (BTW not really OT since the discussion on the other thread was whether NASA could change to another vehicle in light of the current information on Ares I. But given James' current mission, removed.)

IMO it was and is a great mistake, unfortuantely there is now so much bad blood between the Direct team and the current NASA administration that it is all water under the bridge.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: spacenut on 03/21/2008 04:33 pm
Maybe I missed it somewhere, but what is the lift capacity to LEO for the J-232?  And if you have it for the J-244?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Eerie on 03/21/2008 04:37 pm
Quote
spacenut - 21/3/2008  12:33 PM

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but what is the lift capacity to LEO for the J-232?  And if you have it for the J-244?

Could someone point me please to the image with all Jupiter configurations? I can`t find it...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/21/2008 04:49 pm
Try here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7868&start=3236
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/21/2008 04:50 pm
Quote
spacenut - 21/3/2008  11:33 AM

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but what is the lift capacity to LEO for the J-232?  And if you have it for the J-244?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7868&start=3662
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0
Post by: kraisee on 03/21/2008 06:39 pm
This thread is now 250 pages long and doesn't work with the Search engine any longer.

I have therefore created a new thread (the 3rd major DIRECT thread - now over 380 pages!) and ask everyone to please move all the discussions over.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=12379&posts=1&start=1

Thank-you,

Ross.