NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV/SLS) => Topic started by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 03:45 PM

Title: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 03:45 PM
Now that DIRECT v3.0 has been shown at ISDC, it is time to open a specific thread for appropriate discussions here.

Over the course of today I will try to upload a variety of material to kick this thread off properly.

I will leave the v2.0 thread open for any continued discussion about the older variant of DIRECT, but this should now become the new primary discussion thread.


I will start this thread by uploading the latest animation sequences.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/01/2009 03:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diD20nLA8YM
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Alpha Control on 06/01/2009 03:48 PM
Great to be here, and congratulations on the new animation. Can't wait to get home and see it.  Chuck, I beat you to the thread! :)

Edit: so much for being first!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 03:49 PM
MPEG 4 version.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/01/2009 03:51 PM
Your video says "LOX tank extension".  This implies a bigger mod than you might be doing.  Are you just changing the shape of the end of the tank?

You might make a note of this for your next release.

I would also be interested in the total weight on the pad of Shuttle and Jupiter 130.  Given they have the same engines and prop, the gross weight on the pad is probably the same.  This might be an easy way to show the performance of Jupiter 130 does NOT defy the laws of physics.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 03:52 PM
WMV version.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Alpha Control on 06/01/2009 03:52 PM
Ross, thanks for the link to the "The Space Show". Looking forward to tuning in tomorrow night.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 03:57 PM
Your video says "LOX tank extension".  This implies a bigger mod than you might be doing.  Are you just changing the shape of the end of the tank?

You might make a note of this for your next release.

It refers to the fact that the "barrel" section of the LOX tank is "extended" instead of using the Ogive section.


Quote
I would also be interested in the total weight on the pad of Shuttle and Jupiter 130.  Given they have the same engines and prop, the gross weight on the pad is probably the same.  This might be an easy way to show the performance of Jupiter 130 does NOT defy the laws of physics.

They're similar, but Jupiter is actually slightly lower.   We've done that because we are including extra margins.   While Shuttle is a mature system, Jupiter will be a new one and we would rather have greater margin, at least until Jupiter also matures.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 06/01/2009 03:59 PM
Is there a summary of updates somewhere from 2.0 to 3.0?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 03:59 PM
Here are some more "treats" from Philip...

Enjoy,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/01/2009 04:04 PM
Love the detail in those renders. Very nice :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/01/2009 04:07 PM
I never tire of watching that video
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 06/01/2009 04:07 PM
Wallpaper, yum!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 04:09 PM
Is there a summary of updates somewhere from 2.0 to 3.0?

It's pretty simple really:

RS-68 main engines swapped for SSME's.

The higher efficiency of the SSME's on the Core allow for the Upper Stage to be made quite a bit smaller.

A smaller Upper Stage means that other engine choices can also be considered, like RL-10 and RL-60, not just J-2X.

While we aren't specifying any "final decision" on the Upper Stage engine selection yet, we are strongly recommending an RL-10B-2 solution be considered because that would mean that all the engines (4-seg SRB's, SSME's and RL-10B-2's) are all essentially "off the shelf".

That results in removing all of the highly expensive engine development programs which are usually the determining factor in the development schedule too.


In a nutshell, DIRECT v3.0 offers a solution needing no engine developments at all for supporting all of the ISS and Lunar objectives.


From there, the architecture is designed to fit that capability while providing nice healthy margins in all areas; performance, budget and schedule.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 06/01/2009 04:11 PM
Fantastic, Ross. Thank you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/01/2009 04:11 PM
Ross, very nice presentation.

Why is the "ET 8.4m Forward Skirt" there ? Is it a structural member to relieve the LOX tank from loads ? Why ? What are the implications ?
Is the LOX tank not a structural member ? (does not carry loads ?) Why ?

TIA.

 


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Alpha Control on 06/01/2009 04:12 PM
Beautiful images. The detailing is excellent, especially on the SSMEs and the EDS. They almost look like photos of an actual kit buildup.
Now where can I buy one? :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/01/2009 04:13 PM
snip

They're similar, but Jupiter is actually slightly lower.   We've done that because we are including extra margins.   While Shuttle is a mature system, Jupiter will be a new one and we would rather have greater margin, at least until Jupiter also matures.

Ross.

You do need more margin because of the significant changes to structure and new structures to be developed.  I would add 20% margin to all new structure.  This would not include the whole ET, just the part of the ET that was new.   Maybe a direct comparison of Shuttle and Jupiter gross weights on the pad would be useful.  This is rocket science even a congressman/senator can understand. 

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 04:13 PM
The Fwd Skirt actually comes in along with the 'foam' which covers the rest of the LOX tank.   Its just a visual thing.   They could be separated, but we wanted to keep the video short.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 04:25 PM
You do need more margin because of the significant changes to structure and new structures to be developed.  I would add 20% margin to all new structure.  This would not include the whole ET, just the part of the ET that was new.   Maybe a direct comparison of Shuttle and Jupiter gross weights on the pad would be useful.  This is rocket science even a congressman/senator can understand.

Depending on how much heritage each part has, we have between 10% and 20% structural margins for every sub-element of the Core Stage design.   The Thrust Structure and Fwd Skirts are all-new, so those elements have full 20% margins.   In comparison, the LH2 tank domes are *very* similar to Shuttle's, so we're only using 10% margins for those structures.

And that is all in addition to meeting the basic 1.4 FS requirement.

FYI:   A standard Jupiter-130 CLV heading for ISS has a GLOW of 2,057,232kg.   It lifts 66,980kg of useful payload to 100x100nmi, 51.6deg.   Assuming a 20,185kg Orion, that leaves 46,795kg for additional cargo -- roughly equivalent to 3 ISS-bound Shuttle payloads worth.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/01/2009 04:25 PM
great job on the illustrations and goodluck with the review pannel DIRECT.

also :: somebody should update http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT after all the details are up at the DIRECT site.


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Stephan on 06/01/2009 04:28 PM
Do you plan to use the RL-10B-2 with noozles already extended ? The skirt seems long enough to allow that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 04:33 PM
Do you plan to use the RL-10B-2 with noozles already extended ? The skirt seems long enough to allow that.

No.   The nozzle is not designed or qualified to fly in the extended position during first-stage flight.

You also want it retracted to provide maximum clearances when jettisoning the Core/Interstage.   Retracted, there is plenty of space around the engines, but extended the Interstage gets pretty close to the nozzles as it falls away.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/01/2009 04:40 PM
The Fwd Skirt actually comes in along with the 'foam' which covers the rest of the LOX tank.   Its just a visual thing.   They could be separated, but we wanted to keep the video short.

Ross.

Thanks, I knew I'd catch your attention !
But this is confusing... "comes in along with the 'foam' " ? What exactly comes in along ?
See, NASA Constellation's Ares I-X (yes, I know, anathema ! lol) has "a 14,000-pound forward skirt [] constructed entirely of the same kind of armored steel used on Abrams A-1 tanks and armored Humvees"

Jupiter's forward skirt is build of what ?

TIA again, (hope I'm not abusing your patience).

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/01/2009 04:43 PM
There are some that will say the RL-10's are not human rate-able without significant effort.  A number of internal and external studies have shown that.  Some of those studies come from the contractors.

Not saying who is right, but a simple assertion that it will work "off the shelf" will not stand up against the body of evidence I have seen, and weakens the credibility of the proposal. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/01/2009 04:45 PM
Also, what is a "Human Rated SSME" (meaning, is there a not-human-rated SSME) in the animation?  Made sense for RS-68, for SSME, not so much.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/01/2009 04:47 PM
snip
FYI:   A standard Jupiter-130 CLV heading for ISS has a GLOW of 2,057,232kg.   It lifts 66,980kg of useful payload to 100x100nmi, 51.6deg.   Assuming a 20,185kg Orion, that leaves 46,795kg for additional cargo -- roughly equivalent to 3 ISS-bound Shuttle payloads worth.

Ross.

This is a good selling point for Jupiter.  ISS upmass problems are solved with Jupiter.  It think upmass will turn out to be a huge problem in the post shuttle ISS ops.

Do you have a plan on what container to use for pressurized cargo and a ops concept for docking the container and Orion?  I am thinking Orion takes the container for a grapple, then it docks itself.

This may not work because it may not be possible to do Prox Ops with Orion with a big payload on its nose.  Having said this, the Russians may do something like this with their auto docking of the big modules.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/01/2009 04:52 PM
snip
FYI:   A standard Jupiter-130 CLV heading for ISS has a GLOW of 2,057,232kg.   It lifts 66,980kg of useful payload to 100x100nmi, 51.6deg.   Assuming a 20,185kg Orion, that leaves 46,795kg for additional cargo -- roughly equivalent to 3 ISS-bound Shuttle payloads worth.

Ross.

This is a good selling point for Jupiter.  ISS upmass problems are solved with Jupiter.  It think upmass will turn out to be a huge problem in the post shuttle ISS ops.

Do you have a plan on what container for use for pressurized cargo and a ops concept for docking the container and Orion?  I am thinking Orion takes the container for a grapple, then it docks itself.

Danny Deger

Would an ATV fit inside the Shroud? Could lift one basically "for free" if the case.  let it do it's own docking. 

Although long term, a seperate Pressure Shell for cargo would seem to be a better solution.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/01/2009 04:54 PM
Thanks for the updates Ross!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/01/2009 05:01 PM
Although long term, a seperate Pressure Shell for cargo would seem to be a better solution.

FWIW, my favoured solution has always been an MPLM replacment with a modified hull so that it has a Soyuz RV-like shape.  Add a short-life RCS and a de-orbit retro pack and, voila! You have the Autonomous Return Station Logistics Module (ARSLM).  Carried into orbit on an Orion/SSPDM and returning autominously to splash down in the Gulf of Mexico after it has completed its mission.

I thought about making ARSLM have an untended launch capability but that would mean a lot of extra avionics and more work on the software.  A dumb-dumb remote triggered auto-descent system is sufficient for an Orion-tended launch profile.

With reference to the two renders of 'exploded' Jupiter LVs, I have to say that the touch I like is the two little human figures in the bottom left corner.  It emphasises just how much bigger than the Apollo the Orion is.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/01/2009 05:04 PM
Updated the facebook group with some of the Direct 3.0 images and video:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=45545713366
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/01/2009 05:05 PM
The Fwd Skirt actually comes in along with the 'foam' which covers the rest of the LOX tank.   Its just a visual thing.   They could be separated, but we wanted to keep the video short.

Ross.


Do you still need the foam now that the orbiter is gone?  How much does the foam weigh?  I would think the SRBs can take the impact of shedding ice.  How about the Delta IV Heavy?  Does it shed a bunch of ice on itself on ascent?  I have seen some video of Saturn V launches and huge chucks of ice are coming off.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/01/2009 05:16 PM
Although long term, a seperate Pressure Shell for cargo would seem to be a better solution.

FWIW, my favoured solution has always been an MPLM replacment with a modified hull so that it has a Soyuz RV-like shape.  Add a short-life RCS and a de-orbit retro pack and, voila! You have the Autonomous Return Station Logistics Module (ARSLM).  Carried into orbit on an Orion/SSPDM and returning autominously to splash down in the Gulf of Mexico after it has completed its mission.



And what is it going to carry other than garbage?  If it can't come down like the shuttle, then it is useless for science or return hardware.  Access and loads are bad.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 06/01/2009 05:17 PM
Two quick notes all.

These animations are primarily intended for a less sophisticated audience as a teaching tool. The engineering accuracy (hope you are all sitting down) is not the most important element. The primary purpose is to show how the SDLV transformation occurs. So as it relates to the forward skirt the most important "transitional" component here is to illustrate that we modify the ogive "tank top" to a "regular" top. For all intensive purpose to the lay person these are internal structures to the foam (which is visually what they know best) so we needed to show it removed and then replaced.

This philosophy carries through to the SSME's as well. I think we can all agree that a significant and commonly trumpeted issue is "what" and "what is not" man rated. So the use of "human rated" in the titling is simply a way of highlighting that the engines have in fact passed this gate.

I know there will be some holes and inconsistency's but in general the animation is simply trying to communicate a whole lot in a small amount of time.

Philip

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/01/2009 05:18 PM

Do you still need the foam now that the orbiter is gone?  How much does the foam weigh? 

1.  I would think the SRBs can take the impact of shedding ice. 

2.  How about the Delta IV Heavy?  Does it shed a bunch of ice on itself on ascent?  I have seen some video of Saturn V launches and huge chucks of ice are coming off.

Danny Deger

1.  No, the IEA's are vulnerable
2.  D-IV has foam on all tanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/01/2009 05:19 PM
I also like the inclusion of the alternative Ares names for the Jupiter vehicles, Ares 3 and Ares 4. I think it really shows that Jupiter is willing to work with Ares and provide a smooth transition from Ares 1 / Ares 5 to Direct.

Whether it was intentionally done to allow NASA to save some face or not, they can certainly do so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/01/2009 05:20 PM
Copied from V2.0 thread, since it appears to be just as relevant to DIRECT 3.0...


And no, the LOX tank is sized to precisely the same capacity as the current ET's Ogive tank.

We do still have an option to increase the capacity of both the LOX and LH2 tanks by ~7-9% (in the same way as NLS was going to), but right now, mostly for simplicity sake, we have simply chosen not to mess around with altering the capacities.   We can close all performance requirements comfortably without it.


Not heard of that 7-9% stretch option before.

I'd suspect this is because the relationship of SRB-to-ET-to-Shuttle results in more space under the ET for engines than DIRECT actually needs?

Shrink the engine space and extend the H2 tank downwards?



It recently occured to me to wonder how there is space under the "ET" to fit a bunch of engines at all. Shuttle's ET is sized to fit between the SRB's (and presumably not to extend too far down into the base heating zone). Nothing about the shuttle "demands" that this should leave enough space under the ET for a set of engines.



That also raised another question. DIRECT's H2 tank height (bottom of barrel section to thrust beam) is defined by the distance between the lower & upper SRB attach points.

Adding another segment to the SRB also requires the same H2 barrel stretch. I'd always assumed this was a 25% increase in core fuel, but now that doesn't seem right.

How much does the core fuel load increase for the heavy config?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/01/2009 05:20 PM

Do you still need the foam now that the orbiter is gone?  How much does the foam weigh? 

1.  I would think the SRBs can take the impact of shedding ice. 

2.  How about the Delta IV Heavy?  Does it shed a bunch of ice on itself on ascent?  I have seen some video of Saturn V launches and huge chucks of ice are coming off.

Danny Deger

1.  No, the IEA's are vulnerable
2.  D-IV has foam on all tanks

Thanks for the info, but what are the IEA's.  If the Delta needs foam that is a sign Jupiter needs foam.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/01/2009 05:23 PM
I noticed that the Jupiter-130 will have two engines closer to the front of the vehicle, and one closer to the back. Will this create an offset thrust situation or an offset weight situation? And if so how will this be counteracted?

Forgive me if this is a non-issue, as I am not too good with the rocket science side of these things.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: psloss on 06/01/2009 05:23 PM
Thanks for the info, but what are the IEA's.
SRB integrated electronics assembly on the ET attach ring.  One of them nearly took a hit from the ET bipod foam that came off on STS-112.  (Edit: the foam hit the left ET attach ring near the IEA.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/01/2009 05:29 PM
I noticed that the Jupiter-130 will have two engines closer to the front of the vehicle, and one closer to the back. Will this create an offset thrust situation or an offset weight situation? And if so how will this be counteracted?

Forgive me if this is a non-issue, as I am not too good with the rocket science side of these things.

Non-Issue.. Far less offset than current shuttle stack..  Plenty of gimbal range for SSME's to keep Jupiter tracking as required. Small payload penalty for offest thrust.

Speaking of which.. 
Ross... any further word on dropping vectoring control on SRB nozzles?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: John Duncan on 06/01/2009 05:30 PM
I hope that the new pdf will have some good, large dimensioned drawings of each version of 3.0 for us modelmakers.  I have watched the after skirt/thrust structure of the core change quite a bit over the span of time.

Phenomenal job done by all!  It will be difficult to see the concept being ignored by the commision now, unless the fix is already in AGAIN.

Hopefully not.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Harlan on 06/01/2009 05:33 PM
I noticed that the Jupiter-130 will have two engines closer to the front of the vehicle, and one closer to the back. Will this create an offset thrust situation or an offset weight situation? And if so how will this be counteracted?

Non-Issue.. Far less offset than current shuttle stack..  Plenty of gimbal range for SSME's to keep Jupiter tracking as required. Small payload penalty for offest thrust.

Sure, but does it affect failure modes? I can imagine that a loss of one of the two paired engines would still allow a controllable stack for AOA or ATO (depending on timing), but if you lose that single engine, with all thrust now off-axis, do you have to shut everything down and fire the CES?

(ps - very nice graphics!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/01/2009 05:35 PM
I hope that the new pdf will have some good, large dimensioned drawings of each version of 3.0 for us modelmakers.  I have watched the after skirt/thrust structure of the core change quite a bit over the span of time.


It would be nice to some day have a "Direct Evolution" image, similar to the Stick Evolution on here. It would be interesting to see how the baseline vehicles have evolved over the span of all this. I'm sure with all of the baseball cards it would be quite easy.
But right now I'm sure the Direct Team has a lot more to worry about, let the history books be written after.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/01/2009 05:38 PM
The Fwd Skirt actually comes in along with the 'foam' which covers the rest of the LOX tank.   Its just a visual thing.   They could be separated, but we wanted to keep the video short.

Ross.


Do you still need the foam now that the orbiter is gone?  How much does the foam weigh?  I would think the SRBs can take the impact of shedding ice.  How about the Delta IV Heavy?  Does it shed a bunch of ice on itself on ascent?  I have seen some video of Saturn V launches and huge chucks of ice are coming off.

Danny Deger

The foam on the ET is the mehtod of insulating the tank from the ambient temperature.  Wtihout it the boil-off would be huge and given the tank is loaded about 12 hours prior to flight (could be less with a Jupiter-like vehicle but still significant time prior to T-0) you need some method of insulation. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 05:48 PM
The Fwd Skirt actually comes in along with the 'foam' which covers the rest of the LOX tank.   Its just a visual thing.   They could be separated, but we wanted to keep the video short.

Ross.

Thanks, I knew I'd catch your attention !
But this is confusing... "comes in along with the 'foam' " ? What exactly comes in along ?

Its done that way purely for the purposes of keeping the animation sequence 'simple' and 'short'.

Furgedaboudit :)

Seriously though, the animation shows the LOX tank as one part, and then just to save time, "everything else" (foam covering, Fwd Skirt, Payload Interface etc. all come into the picture at the same time.   Obviously that isn't how manufacturing actually takes place!   LOL


Quote
Jupiter's forward skirt is build of what ?

Primary structural material for the panels is Al 2219.   There are some parts made from Al-Li 2090 too.   Essentially it will be somewhat similar to the current Interstage.   The Fwd Skirt area would also integrate the fittings for the upper Core Stage umbilical connections as well as the GOX re-pressurization lines and electrical cable tray too.

There's a fair bit of 'stuff' going on up there :)


Quote
TIA again, (hope I'm not abusing your patience).

Not at all :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 06:00 PM

Do you still need the foam now that the orbiter is gone?

Oh yes.   Deffinately.   You don't want chunks of ice falling down onto anything below.   Think about an ice collision with one of the Aft SRB Booster Separation Motors, or perhaps a large chunk of ice hitting the Aft SRB mountings?   Anything like that would make for a pretty bad day.


Quote
How much does the foam weigh?

TPS & TCS together mass ~1,884kg.

An ice layer would mass an awful lot more than that and you would carry quite a lot of it all the way up to some pretty high altitudes, so your performance would hurt.


Quote
I would think the SRBs can take the impact of shedding ice.

The flight immediately before STS-107 had a chunk of foam hit an SRB Aft Skirt.   It left a visually noticeable dent in the thick steel structure.

Simple rule:   You don't want anything falling of and hitting anything else.


Quote
How about the Delta IV Heavy?  Does it shed a bunch of ice on itself on ascent?  I have seen some video of Saturn V launches and huge chucks of ice are coming off.

Don't think Delta does because it uses foam the same way as Shuttle.   But Atlas has a thin layer build up on its LOX tank (higher temp than LH2 tank).   Most of it is shed before Max-Q.   It is designed to handle it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 06:12 PM
Copied from V2.0 thread, since it appears to be just as relevant to DIRECT 3.0...


And no, the LOX tank is sized to precisely the same capacity as the current ET's Ogive tank.

We do still have an option to increase the capacity of both the LOX and LH2 tanks by ~7-9% (in the same way as NLS was going to), but right now, mostly for simplicity sake, we have simply chosen not to mess around with altering the capacities.   We can close all performance requirements comfortably without it.


Not heard of that 7-9% stretch option before.

I'd suspect this is because the relationship of SRB-to-ET-to-Shuttle results in more space under the ET for engines than DIRECT actually needs?

Shrink the engine space and extend the H2 tank downwards?

Correct.


Quote
It recently occured to me to wonder how there is space under the "ET" to fit a bunch of engines at all. Shuttle's ET is sized to fit between the SRB's (and presumably not to extend too far down into the base heating zone). Nothing about the shuttle "demands" that this should leave enough space under the ET for a set of engines.

There is also the issue of having to pump LH2 "upwards" into the Shuttle's belly.   The bottom of the LH2 tank can't be very far below that point or your flow would run into some fairly significant problems.


Quote
That also raised another question. DIRECT's H2 tank height (bottom of barrel section to thrust beam) is defined by the distance between the lower & upper SRB attach points.

Not always.   You can actually relocate the attach point from the Fwd Skirt area of the SRB to the bottom of the Upper SRB Segment.   That technique is how the Shuttle Program intended to upgrade to 5-seg SRB's without changing the size of the ET.   Precisely the same technique could be done for Jupiter too.


Quote
Adding another segment to the SRB also requires the same H2 barrel stretch. I'd always assumed this was a 25% increase in core fuel, but now that doesn't seem right.

How much does the core fuel load increase for the heavy config?

You are correct that 25% is not the right figure.   A full 'segment' is 320" long.   The LH2 barrel would have to stretch by that much.   The LOX tank would need a similar capacity increase too.   Together they would increase gross propellant capacity by about 278,826kg.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 06:21 PM
I noticed that the Jupiter-130 will have two engines closer to the front of the vehicle, and one closer to the back. Will this create an offset thrust situation or an offset weight situation? And if so how will this be counteracted?

Forgive me if this is a non-issue, as I am not too good with the rocket science side of these things.

Slight gimballing of one or more of the engines with provide the correction for the offset.

Its the exact same technique you'd have to use in the event of an engine-out situation.   So the capability would have to be developed into the avionics suite anyway -- as such, it's not an "additional" concern.

Our Marshall guys have already analyzed this in a fair bit of detail.   It turns out that if just one engine applies the counter-thrust, it would lose less than 1% of its performance, so the effect is essentially in the realm of 'noise'.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 06:26 PM
I noticed that the Jupiter-130 will have two engines closer to the front of the vehicle, and one closer to the back. Will this create an offset thrust situation or an offset weight situation? And if so how will this be counteracted?

Non-Issue.. Far less offset than current shuttle stack..  Plenty of gimbal range for SSME's to keep Jupiter tracking as required. Small payload penalty for offest thrust.

Sure, but does it affect failure modes? I can imagine that a loss of one of the two paired engines would still allow a controllable stack for AOA or ATO (depending on timing), but if you lose that single engine, with all thrust now off-axis, do you have to shut everything down and fire the CES?

(ps - very nice graphics!)

That all depends on the exact timing of the event.   If it happens early enough in the flight, while still in the thick atmosphere, then the need for a high Angle of Attack in the airflow would necessitate an abort, but that early in the flight, if you lose an engine the mission will be an LOM anyway.

Once out of the atmospheric effects, the Core and PLF structure is designed to handle a maximum AOA offset cause by such worst-case engine-out situations.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jarmumd on 06/01/2009 06:31 PM
Ross,
   Looking at the detailed pictures of D3, it looks like you (team) are dropping the current ESM panel attachment method for LSC or frangible joints up at the Orion/SM.  If you change the panel attachment method (6 connections, 2 per panel), that will change the load path into the Orion drastically.  And not having anything under the SM puts the SM in tension instead of compression like it is in Ares I.  Changing the load path into the Orion/SM carries a time & money penalty for redesigning them.  Is this something you have considered either via schedule & cost or via panel/faring redesign?  I thought I remember it being stated that the most recent Orion version would be "held" and adapted to Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 06:34 PM
Ross... any further word on dropping vectoring control on SRB nozzles?

It seems to be a viable option which would reduce the per-flight costs by a reasonable amount and which would also improve both LOM and LOC too.

Its an option which really needs further detailed trade study after the Jupiter's have been selected though.   We aren't going to pursue it at this time, mostly because we don't have sufficient resources to do it comprehensively and because we have other priorities with the Augustine commission just around the corner.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/01/2009 06:53 PM
And what is it going to carry other than garbage?  If it can't come down like the shuttle, then it is useless for science or return hardware.  Access and loads are bad.

To me, Jim, that is mainly an engineering issue.  Okay, a complex and likely very expensive engineering issue but just that nonetheless.  I'll let those who know more about shock absorbers and force mitigation to decide exactly how we are going to get old EXPRESS pallets, experimental results and the like down in one piece.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/01/2009 07:11 PM
Ross... any further word on dropping vectoring control on SRB nozzles?

It seems to be a viable option which would reduce the per-flight costs by a reasonable amount and which would also improve both LOM and LOC too.

Its an option which really needs further detailed trade study after the Jupiter's have been selected though.   We aren't going to pursue it at this time, mostly because we don't have sufficient resources to do it comprehensively and because we have other priorities with the Augustine commission just around the corner.

Ross.

Seems this would significantly simplify fight software control logic and also reduce some integration work.. and as you say, one less thing that could fail and cause an LOM or LOC.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/01/2009 07:25 PM
...
Speaking of which.. 
Ross... any further word on dropping vectoring control on SRB nozzles?

Hey ! Fixed nozzle SRBs were considered by MSFC as of last year (to my knowledge) in the context of Ares V. Now, compare the [roll] control authority of 6 RS-68 @ 10m v. 3 SSME @ 8.4m (roughly; and even with the 4seg to 5 or 5.5 seg difference). Eh ? Let's give Caesar what is Caesar's.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/01/2009 07:57 PM
...
Speaking of which.. 
Ross... any further word on dropping vectoring control on SRB nozzles?

Hey ! Fixed nozzle SRBs were considered by MSFC as of last year (to my knowledge) in the context of Ares V. Now, compare the [roll] control authority of 6 RS-68 @ 10m v. 3 SSME @ 8.4m (roughly; and even with the 4seg to 5 or 5.5 seg difference). Eh ? Let's give Caesar what is Caesar's.



I found reference that suggests SSMEs can gimbal plus or minus 10.5 degrees..

What are the max Gimbal angles for an RS-68?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 08:03 PM
Ross,
   Looking at the detailed pictures of D3, it looks like you (team) are dropping the current ESM panel attachment method for LSC or frangible joints up at the Orion/SM.  If you change the panel attachment method (6 connections, 2 per panel), that will change the load path into the Orion drastically.  And not having anything under the SM puts the SM in tension instead of compression like it is in Ares I.  Changing the load path into the Orion/SM carries a time & money penalty for redesigning them.  Is this something you have considered either via schedule & cost or via panel/faring redesign?  I thought I remember it being stated that the most recent Orion version would be "held" and adapted to Direct.

We have some Orion engineers who have spent quite a lot of time analyzing this precise issue.

The attachment points aren't that much of a concern, because a mounting ring would support the Orion using the same points as at present on the 'wide' part of the SM.   As you say, there might possibly be a need for some slight re-design of the SM, but the structure right now appears to meet all of the different expected loads of a J-130 and J-246 flight already, without breaking the 1.4 FS.

This is because the structure is actually pretty strong already.   It has been designed to cope with the >1000psf Max-Q, 4-g acceleration and TO effects created by the Ares-I.

On Jupiter-130, to start with we fly through a much more benign flight environment (~700psf, 3.0g acceleration, no TO) so that reduces the loads considerably right out of the gate.

In addition, the SM is effectively removed from the load path, so it only has to support its own mass in tension.   From what we can tell so far, the design "as is" is plenty strong enough to support those different loads without change.


One other option which was suggested to us by someone at MSFC has also led us to looking at methods to possibly try to remove the CM from the load path of the LAS too.   Right now the ~7mT of LAS presses down on the CM structure during flight.   If we could remove that load, future variants of the CM could be made a fair bit lighter.   So we are investigating ways of potentially taking the LAS mass loads through the BPC and straight into the PLF, bypass the CM structure altogether.   It's just a design exercise right now, but could offer some interesting advantages later.


For now, our priority is to create a situation where the Orion project can stop worrying about weight limitations, high Dynamic Load Environments and Thrust Oscillation-related issues entirely.   And coupled together with greater funding available sooner, they can hopefully press-on as swiftly as possible towards a much sooner IOC with no further delays.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 08:07 PM
...
Speaking of which.. 
Ross... any further word on dropping vectoring control on SRB nozzles?

Hey ! Fixed nozzle SRBs were considered by MSFC as of last year (to my knowledge) in the context of Ares V. Now, compare the [roll] control authority of 6 RS-68 @ 10m v. 3 SSME @ 8.4m (roughly; and even with the 4seg to 5 or 5.5 seg difference). Eh ? Let's give Caesar what is Caesar's.

Just to confirm, our studies show that the roll control of two SSME's would be more than sufficient to the task of providing complete roll, pitch and yaw control authority to the Jupiter-sized stack with fixed SRB nozzles.   Three SSME's provides even greater authority and 4, greater again.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: pierre on 06/01/2009 08:33 PM
Would an ATV fit inside the Shroud? Could lift one basically "for free" if the case.  let it do it's own docking.

Yes, if Jupiter can lift an Altair (which is frakking huge!) then pretty much anything else can fit inside it.

You can probably put on it two fully-loaded ATVs side-by-side and an Orion on top: Jupiter 130 should happily handle them volume- and mass-wise.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/01/2009 08:38 PM
Ross & team: you all did a stellar job with that video & images. Thank-you so very much for all the hard work you obviously put into it.

Since I took a more in-depth view of this proposal long ago, I knew THIS architecture was the way to go. Simple and elegant. Bravo!!

Fingers crossed for this fall & the panel's findings.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/01/2009 08:48 PM
...
One other option which was suggested to us by someone at MSFC has also led us to looking at methods to possibly try to remove the CM from the load path of the LAS too.   Right now the ~7mT of LAS presses down on the CM structure during flight.   ...

Only 2/3 of LAS induced ascent loads are reacted on Orion's forward attachment, as is; 1/3 loads goes to the SM, through ALAS-11 structure.
Correct ?

Quote

For now, our priority is to create a situation where the Orion project can stop worrying about weight limitations,

This is an old quip I've had with Direct. IMO weight limitations in the *capsule* (CM) go beyond Ares I's real or perceived limitations. And, your (Direct) most spectacular weight growth tolerance towards Orion targets the CM. You attract more fans with "let's put some extra poly-layers of MMOD and radiation protection on Orion" compared to, say, let's give Orion a few extra 100's m/s delta-V.

Somehow I don't think it is fair. If the CM/capsule is subject to objective, booster-neutral or architecture-neutral limitations, let's say it out loud.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/01/2009 09:03 PM
...
One other option which was suggested to us by someone at MSFC has also led us to looking at methods to possibly try to remove the CM from the load path of the LAS too.   Right now the ~7mT of LAS presses down on the CM structure during flight.   ...

Only 2/3 of LAS induced ascent loads are reacted on Orion's forward attachment, as is; 1/3 loads goes to the SM, through ALAS-11 structure.
Correct ?

Quote

For now, our priority is to create a situation where the Orion project can stop worrying about weight limitations,

This is an old quip I've had with Direct. IMO weight limitations in the *capsule* (CM) go beyond Ares I's real or perceived limitations. And, your (Direct) most spectacular weight growth tolerance towards Orion targets the CM. You attract more fans with "let's put some extra poly-layers of MMOD and radiation protection on Orion" compared to, say, let's give Orion a few extra 100's m/s delta-V.

Somehow I don't think it is fair. If the CM/capsule is subject to objective, booster-neutral or architecture-neutral limitations, let's say it out loud.



I'm not sure I fully grasp where you're going with that so please correct me if I’m misinterpreting, but we have many trades ongoing that target several elements of the stack, including but not limited to the CM. It is of interest however, that in spite of its "relative" light weight, the CM is the only part of the entire stack that has to be accounted for mass-wise right from T-0 on the ground to "chutes deployed" when back in the atmosphere. Ten kilos saved off the CM are dramatically more effective for delta-V conservation for the overall mission than 10 kilos saved off the core for example, because it needs to accounted for all the way out and back, even to the size of the parachutes.

The key in intelligent mass reduction is to do it because it make sense, not because the booster in anemic. We do want to make the CM as light as possible, but not at the expense of such things as MMOD for example. An Orion fleshed out for a Jupiter flight would restore most of those systems that Ares left in the parking lot.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/01/2009 09:05 PM
...
One other option which was suggested to us by someone at MSFC has also led us to looking at methods to possibly try to remove the CM from the load path of the LAS too.   Right now the ~7mT of LAS presses down on the CM structure during flight.   ...

Only 2/3 of LAS induced ascent loads are reacted on Orion's forward attachment, as is; 1/3 loads goes to the SM, through ALAS-11 structure.
Correct ?

Quote

For now, our priority is to create a situation where the Orion project can stop worrying about weight limitations,

This is an old quip I've had with Direct. IMO weight limitations in the *capsule* (CM) go beyond Ares I's real or perceived limitations. And, your (Direct) most spectacular weight growth tolerance towards Orion targets the CM. You attract more fans with "let's put some extra poly-layers of MMOD and radiation protection on Orion" compared to, say, let's give Orion a few extra 100's m/s delta-V.

Somehow I don't think it is fair. If the CM/capsule is subject to objective, booster-neutral or architecture-neutral limitations, let's say it out loud.




I think he's claiming that Direct is getting an "unfair" advantage as it can lift much more to orbit than necessary for any version of the CM.

Not seeing where the unfairness lies- if Direct has the lift capacity to push a "safer" Orion into orbit than the Aries I, why wouldn't one mention it, and consider that when choosing the launch vehicle?.

It's not as if the Direct folks were the ones deciding that such safety features, as originally designed, were unnecessary. In a rational world, the weight of the baseline Orion design, with all the bells and whistles included, would be the standard of measurement, and launch vehicles incapable of lifting it simply wouldn't be considered. Such as the Aries I, for instance. :)

Don't see this as a Direct issue at all. No siree.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/01/2009 09:10 PM
Somehow I don't think it is fair. If the CM/capsule is subject to objective, booster-neutral or architecture-neutral limitations, let's say it out loud.

That was lame :)

And when the CEV design crew sends written pleas to the LV design crew to please stop jacking them around by forcing round after round of CEV mass cuts to make up for the LV's ever-dwindling performance?

When safety systems that were judged needful for the full performance of the CEV are eliminated because the LV just can't hack the LV's specified performance?

(and as of the latest update. Ares-1 still can't do its job..)

The ability of Direct to restore the CEV to its designed functionality might embarrass the NASA admins... but it's certainly nothing for the Jupiter people at NASA to be ashamed of.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 06/01/2009 09:25 PM
There are some that will say the RL-10's are not human rate-able without significant effort.  A number of internal and external studies have shown that.  Some of those studies come from the contractors.

Not saying who is right, but a simple assertion that it will work "off the shelf" will not stand up against the body of evidence I have seen, and weakens the credibility of the proposal. 

Hi Ross,
Is this an issue? Or are there enough funds and time scheduled in to account for crew rating the upper stage engines already?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: pierre on 06/01/2009 09:36 PM
Hi Ross,
Is this an issue? Or are there enough funds and time scheduled in to account for crew rating the upper stage engines already?

Yes, Ross wrote in another thread that the DIRECT team proposes to fly a man-rated Delta IV Heavy around 2014; the DIVH upper stage uses an RL-10B-2, so the Jupiter 246 upper stage will have it off the shelf in 2017 for the (hopefully) first flight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: duane on 06/01/2009 09:39 PM
Got a question about the aft thrust structure. You have 4 mount points for engines, and with a 3 engine setup the middle engine is not mounted in the center. I assume this is just to reduce costs etc

But, I was wondering if this 3 engine setup  induces  a imbalance in the thrust, and the engine opposite from the two paired together has to do any special gimbaling during ascent to compensate, or is this not a issue at all.

Just curious because it looked a bit odd, and was the first thing that caught my eye.

Thanks a bunch!
Duane
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/01/2009 09:40 PM
This question is answered on the first page of this thread

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17295.msg414447#msg414447
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/01/2009 09:40 PM
That was lame :)

The mass allowed to a 5m dia CM on entry from lunar missions is objectively limited.
The mass allowed to a 5m dia CM, under the parachutes it was able to carry out to the moon and back, in the limited space of it's forward bay, is objectively limited.
The mass allowed to a production line Orion, hitchhiking with a 1.5 architecture - "with kits" - production line Altair, is limited.
The more heavy Orion, the more "kits" are needed for Altair, and the more split is the production line.
The minimal Orion would go without any "Altair kit", ok ?
There's no need to mention "shame". Nor "embarassment".

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: duane on 06/01/2009 09:53 PM
This question is answered on the first page of this thread

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17295.msg414447#msg414447

Whoops sorry about that, I guess I did not skim the thread very well.
Thanks

Duane
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rv_rocket on 06/01/2009 10:15 PM
The new Direct 3.0 material looks totally awesome! Thanks Ross and team! The graphics and video look incredible!
Best of luck with the commission too!

Go Direct Go!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/01/2009 10:25 PM

The mass allowed to a 5m dia CM on entry from lunar missions is objectively limited.
The mass allowed to a 5m dia CM, under the parachutes it was able to carry out to the moon and back, in the limited space of it's forward bay, is objectively limited.
The mass allowed to a production line Orion, hitchhiking with a 1.5 architecture - "with kits" - production line Altair, is limited.
The more heavy Orion, the more "kits" are needed for Altair, and the more split is the production line.
The minimal Orion would go without any "Altair kit", ok ?
There's no need to mention "shame". Nor "embarassment".

Ah.

So the Orion design team obviously did not understand these "objective limitations" and designed a craft that exceeded them. Thank Bast's furry ears that the Aries-1 design team was able to rescue them from the shameful embarassment of their ignorance! ;)

I admit it was lame of me not to see this dazzlingly brilliant logic before...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/01/2009 10:36 PM
Just to confirm, our studies show that the roll control of two SSME's would be more than sufficient to the task of providing complete roll, pitch and yaw control authority to the Jupiter-sized stack with fixed SRB nozzles.   Three SSME's provides even greater authority and 4, greater again.

Ross.
By the way what would be the lifting capacity with just two SSME's?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/01/2009 10:53 PM
Is there a summary of updates somewhere from 2.0 to 3.0?

It's pretty simple really:

RS-68 main engines swapped for SSME's.

The higher efficiency of the SSME's on the Core allow for the Upper Stage to be made quite a bit smaller.

A smaller Upper Stage means that other engine choices can also be considered, like RL-10 and RL-60, not just J-2X.

While we aren't specifying any "final decision" on the Upper Stage engine selection yet, we are strongly recommending an RL-10B-2 solution be considered because that would mean that all the engines (4-seg SRB's, SSME's and RL-10B-2's) are all essentially "off the shelf".

That results in removing all of the highly expensive engine development programs which are usually the determining factor in the development schedule too.


In a nutshell, DIRECT v3.0 offers a solution needing no engine developments at all for supporting all of the ISS and Lunar objectives.


From there, the architecture is designed to fit that capability while providing nice healthy margins in all areas; performance, budget and schedule.

Ross.

Hi, I am new to this forum, so please forgive any inadvertent mistakes.

First,  the upper stage reminds me of a souped up S-IV.  I like engine clusters they have very good tolerance of single engine failures.

My real question is the cost impact of substituting the SSME for the RS-68.  I understand that the RS-68 has a problem with the thermal environment close to the SRB, but I understand that the SSME costs $60 million a piece vs the RS-68 at $20 million a piece.  Not good from a budget standpoint.

Could you please address this issue.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/01/2009 11:07 PM

The mass allowed to a 5m dia CM on entry from lunar missions is objectively limited.
The mass allowed to a 5m dia CM, under the parachutes it was able to carry out to the moon and back, in the limited space of it's forward bay, is objectively limited.
The mass allowed to a production line Orion, hitchhiking with a 1.5 architecture - "with kits" - production line Altair, is limited.
The more heavy Orion, the more "kits" are needed for Altair, and the more split is the production line.
The minimal Orion would go without any "Altair kit", ok ?
There's no need to mention "shame". Nor "embarassment".

Ah.

So the Orion design team obviously did not understand these "objective limitations" and designed a craft that exceeded them. Thank Bast's furry ears that the Aries-1 design team was able to rescue them from the shameful embarassment of their ignorance! ;)

I admit it was lame of me not to see this dazzlingly brilliant logic before...


Bad kitty. No catnip for you tonight  :(
He has a legitimate position to take and is explaining it. Allow him to express his point of view and then we can all discuss it. After all, everyone ultimately wants the same thing - for NASA to be successful.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: pierre on 06/01/2009 11:34 PM
My real question is the cost impact of substituting the SSME for the RS-68.  I understand that the RS-68 has a problem with the thermal environment close to the SRB, but I understand that the SSME costs $60 million a piece vs the RS-68 at $20 million a piece.  Not good from a budget standpoint.

I'm not part of the DIRECT team, but keep in mind that a regen and human-rated RS-68 costs more that the current garden-variety one and a disposable SSME can be gradually made cheaper than the current reusable ones. Near the end of "DIRECT v2.0 thread 3" (IIRC) Ross mentioned that the difference in cost is $5-10 million.

Moreover using SSMEs you also save the huge development costs for both the regen RS-68 and the J-2X.

Not to mention it's too late to use a human-rated regen RS-68 if we want to close the "gap".
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/01/2009 11:53 PM
There are some that will say the RL-10's are not human rate-able without significant effort.  A number of internal and external studies have shown that.  Some of those studies come from the contractors.

Not saying who is right, but a simple assertion that it will work "off the shelf" will not stand up against the body of evidence I have seen, and weakens the credibility of the proposal. 


I thought NASA were looking at an RL-10 derived engine for the Altair lander?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/01/2009 11:55 PM
There are some that will say the RL-10's are not human rate-able without significant effort.  A number of internal and external studies have shown that.  Some of those studies come from the contractors.

Not saying who is right, but a simple assertion that it will work "off the shelf" will not stand up against the body of evidence I have seen, and weakens the credibility of the proposal. 


I thought NASA were looking at an RL-10 derived engine for the Altair lander?

cheers, Martin

Common Extensible Cryogenic Engine (CECE), yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL-10#Common_Extensible_Cryogenic_Engine
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/01/2009 11:56 PM

My real question is the cost impact of substituting the SSME for the RS-68.  I understand that the RS-68 has a problem with the thermal environment close to the SRB, but I understand that the SSME costs $60 million a piece vs the RS-68 at $20 million a piece.  Not good from a budget standpoint.

Could you please address this issue.

Stan

Welcome to the forum Adam.

Ross has addressed this before, but I can fill in some details.

Aside from what was already posted, it also comes down to economies of scale: the more you make, the cheaper they are. So if you take an engine that's already man-rated, and tell them to double or triple production, the costs come down for each engine.

The current RS-68 cannot work as intended for Direct (or Ares V) due to base heating, so they needed a substitute that would work in a pinch: space shuttle SSME. Over time, they could try and reduce costs somewhat since they will be disposable, or bump up the performance above 104.5% to get a little extra kick. The beauty too with that (of the engine doesn't cato) is you have other engines you can use.

Also: $40M difference each is NOT going to break the bank in the short term compared to Ares-I or Ares V, let's be honest with ourselves.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/02/2009 12:12 AM
Just to confirm, our studies show that the roll control of two SSME's would be more than sufficient to the task of providing complete roll, pitch and yaw control authority to the Jupiter-sized stack with fixed SRB nozzles.   Three SSME's provides even greater authority and 4, greater again.

Ross.
By the way what would be the lifting capacity with just two SSME's?


This is the baseball card for J-120, to an ISS-aligned orbit:-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/BaseballCards/J120-41.4000.08100_CLV_30x100nmi_51.6deg_090521.pdf (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/BaseballCards/J120-41.4000.08100_CLV_30x100nmi_51.6deg_090521.pdf)

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/02/2009 12:16 AM
Direct Team,

I like the concepts.  Elegent is the right word.  Straight forward, removes many unknowns and uses the existing wealth of data from STS equipment.

I really like leveraging the nearly 40 years of SSME heritage and very extensive flight data.  It only makes sense.  Same with the SRBs, but solids are harder to like then liquid engines.  Both have evolved and advanced.  Why go change horses now?

I'm not sure that NASA will buy into the 6 RL-10's though.  It's not man rated currently and 6 engines is alot of equipment.  But it does exist and maybe the per unit costs would drop like a stone.  A few Direct flights a year would double their production.

In all, great work and I hope the Augustine commission gives it a fair hearing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/02/2009 12:48 AM
I hope that the new pdf will have some good, large dimensioned drawings of each version of 3.0 for us modelmakers.  I have watched the after skirt/thrust structure of the core change quite a bit over the span of time.

John:

I designed and built a set of these that were used back in January for the Transition Team meeting. You can find plans here:

Scroll about 1/3 down the page:
http://jleslie48.com/gallery_models_real.html

At the bottom, in "Special Models":
http://www.nielspapermodels.com/models.htm

They're the same plans at either place.

As far as I can tell, the only real differences between the 120 and 130 are that the engine skirt system has to be widened out and four mounting rings for the engine bells have to be mounted on the bottom of the structure. To convert to a 246, you have to add an interstage, and build the upper stage with the 10m fairing.

HTH


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/02/2009 12:50 AM
Direct Team,

I like the concepts.  Elegent is the right word.  Straight forward, removes many unknowns and uses the existing wealth of data from STS equipment.

I really like leveraging the nearly 40 years of SSME heritage and very extensive flight data.  It only makes sense.  Same with the SRBs, but solids are harder to like then liquid engines.  Both have evolved and advanced.  Why go change horses now?

I'm not sure that NASA will buy into the 6 RL-10's though.  It's not man rated currently and 6 engines is alot of equipment.  But it does exist and maybe the per unit costs would drop like a stone.  A few Direct flights a year would double their production.

In all, great work and I hope the Augustine commission gives it a fair hearing.

wannamoonbase
There were 10 Saturn-I flights before the J-2 came online.
The last 6 all had an upper stage that was powered by a cluster of 6 RL-10 engines.
All six stages functioned properly and placed the payload into the intended orbit.
NASA was *extremely* pleased with the performance of this stage *and* the RL-10 cluster.
In addition, they are already planning to use the RL-10 to power the Altair descent stage (see above).
They would be very hard pressed to explain why they liked it then but not anymore, especially when it will take a FULL lunar spec Orion and Altair to the moon and back, with margin. What's not to love?
Cheers
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jeff.findley on 06/02/2009 12:55 AM
FYI:   A standard Jupiter-130 CLV heading for ISS has a GLOW of 2,057,232kg.   It lifts 66,980kg of useful payload to 100x100nmi, 51.6deg.   Assuming a 20,185kg Orion, that leaves 46,795kg for additional cargo -- roughly equivalent to 3 ISS-bound Shuttle payloads worth.

That's a lot of payload!  From later in this thread, I followed the link to the Jupiter-120 CLV to ISS which has a payload of 39,339kg to ISS (that's with the extra 10% reserve).  That's still a huge amount of payload even taking Orion into account.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/02/2009 12:57 AM
clongton, good pionts but the NASA of the 60's was willing to do things that today's NASA wouldn't touch with a barge pole.  I'd love to see NASA be willing to take the risk and do it again.

Best Luck I do wish you success.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/02/2009 12:59 AM
FYI:   A standard Jupiter-130 CLV heading for ISS has a GLOW of 2,057,232kg.   It lifts 66,980kg of useful payload to 100x100nmi, 51.6deg.   Assuming a 20,185kg Orion, that leaves 46,795kg for additional cargo -- roughly equivalent to 3 ISS-bound Shuttle payloads worth.

That's a lot of payload!  From later in this thread, I followed the link to the Jupiter-120 CLV to ISS which has a payload of 39,339kg to ISS (that's with the extra 10% reserve).  That's still a huge amount of payload even taking Orion into account.
 

I am only *one* member of the team, but personally I really like the J-120. It's only drawback is that it doesn't have very good engine-out capability; something that I argued *for* when we introduced v2.0. I wanted very much to display that safety capability and it would be missing on a v3.0 J-120.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 06/02/2009 01:00 AM
clongton, good pionts but the NASA of the 60's was willing to do things that today's NASA wouldn't touch with a barge pole.  I'd love to see NASA be willing to take the risk and do it again.

Will never happen. You can only beat up an organization so many times before they decide that job one is to do anything, whatever it takes, to make the beating stop. That attitude is so thoroughly ingrained at NASA it cannot be extracted.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/02/2009 01:01 AM
clongton, good pionts but the NASA of the 60's was willing to do things that today's NASA wouldn't touch with a barge pole.  I'd love to see NASA be willing to take the risk and do it again.

Best Luck I do wish you success.

Thanks
I think it would be a little hypocritical of NASA to bemoan a cluster of 6 RL-10s when every time they rode Soyuz with the Russians they went up on a cluster of *20* engines on the 1st stage!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/02/2009 01:02 AM

I'm not sure that NASA will buy into the 6 RL-10's though.  It's not man rated currently and 6 engines is alot of equipment.  But it does exist and maybe the per unit costs would drop like a stone.  A few Direct flights a year would double their production.


NASA has already "bought into" the 6 RL-10.

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/6-RL10-Saturn-I.jpg)

They flew successfully in the S-I upper stage of the Saturn I rocket, back in the 1960s. If NASA tries to say "Oh, that won't work, it's too complex" all someone needs to do is to tell them to go ask their own History Office about it. It's already been done, safely, successfully, and is just one more bit of evidence that we can get on back to the Moon without any new engine development programs. Can't beat that.

I see Chuck beat me to it...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/02/2009 01:06 AM
clongton, good pionts but the NASA of the 60's was willing to do things that today's NASA wouldn't touch with a barge pole.  I'd love to see NASA be willing to take the risk and do it again.

Will never happen. You can only beat up an organization so many times before they decide that job one is to do anything, whatever it takes, to make the beating stop. That attitude is so thoroughly ingrained at NASA it cannot be extracted.

Then they would have to admit that the astronauts of the 60's were made of the "Right Stuff" and the astronauts of today are not. I don't think they would be willing to admit to that. Either they are willing to take the risks associated with a dangerous business or they are not. There is no middle ground. It's not like a 6 engine cluster of proven RL-10s is something novel and untried. They've already flown it - 6 times with a 100% success rate!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/02/2009 01:07 AM
That sure is an impressive stage. Looks like something out of Hollywood.

The problem is how to stop NASA from getting cold feet and throwing in a J-2X, stretching out the development time yet again. Their priorities have been schedule, but still they seem to be falling short of that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/02/2009 01:08 AM
I still like the J-130 + J23x-Heavy.  One less engine on the core means lower weight and lower loads, no differences between the cores means less development and more efficiency, and I think the 5-seg will go forward either way and the Shuttle-version with the same attach points, fuel, etc. is far closer to being ready.  I'm also still unconvinced that the J24x has more performance than the J23x-Heavy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/02/2009 01:13 AM
I still like the J-130 + J23x-Heavy.  One less engine on the core means lower weight and lower loads, no differences between the cores means less development and more efficiency, and I think the 5-seg will go forward either way and the Shuttle-version with the same attach points, fuel, etc. is far closer to being ready.  I'm also still unconvinced that the J24x has more performance than the J23x-Heavy.

The v2.0 J-23x is no longer an option. Because of base heating, the ablative RS-68 does not survive long enough to get the second stage off. If the SRB's must be used, the MPP must have regen engines. That leaves either the *existing* SSME or a future *RS-68R*.

Somebody wise said something about a bird in the hand ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/02/2009 01:16 AM
I still like the J-130 + J23x-Heavy.  One less engine on the core means lower weight and lower loads, no differences between the cores means less development and more efficiency, and I think the 5-seg will go forward either way and the Shuttle-version with the same attach points, fuel, etc. is far closer to being ready.  I'm also still unconvinced that the J24x has more performance than the J23x-Heavy.

The v2.0 J-23x is no longer an option. Because of base heating, the ablative RS-68 does not survive long enough to get the second stage off. If the SRB's must be used, the MPP must have regen engines. That leaves either the *existing* SSME or a future *RS-68R*.

Somebody wise said something about a bird in the hand ...

I was talking about with SSMEs, as is in-context for this thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kcrick on 06/02/2009 01:19 AM

Just got finished watching the video. Fantastic!!

Love the artwork too!  More Direct wallpaper!

Good luck with the Augustine commission!

Kevin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/02/2009 01:34 AM
I still like the J-130 + J23x-Heavy.  One less engine on the core means lower weight and lower loads, no differences between the cores means less development and more efficiency, and I think the 5-seg will go forward either way and the Shuttle-version with the same attach points, fuel, etc. is far closer to being ready.  I'm also still unconvinced that the J24x has more performance than the J23x-Heavy.

I don't think so.  Years amd Billions can be saved by shelving the 5-seg.  Redirect the corporate welfare to ATK from development to production.  They will certainly still get their money.

Edit: Too many ripple effects (costs) on other components too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/02/2009 01:39 AM
Personally, I feel that keeping the J2-X development would buy much more political clout than the time/money saved with RL-10.  Losing two rocket development programs (to be replaced by one) and main engine development are huge hits, the J2-X could be the bone that would keep Marshall chewing rather than a loose hungry dog.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/02/2009 01:43 AM
I still like the J-130 + J23x-Heavy.  One less engine on the core means lower weight and lower loads, no differences between the cores means less development and more efficiency, and I think the 5-seg will go forward either way and the Shuttle-version with the same attach points, fuel, etc. is far closer to being ready.  I'm also still unconvinced that the J24x has more performance than the J23x-Heavy.

I don't think so.  Years amd Billions can be saved by shelving the 5-seg.

I don't know - it was already at least partially developed and tested for STS years ago.

Quote
Edit: Too many ripple effects (costs) on other components too.

Name some, because I don't see them.

EDIT:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster#Five-segment_booster
They were going to add it right to the existing Shuttle stack, so impacts on other components must be pretty minimal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/02/2009 02:10 AM
Personally, I feel that keeping the J2-X development would buy much more political clout than the time/money saved with RL-10.  Losing two rocket development programs (to be replaced by one) and main engine development are huge hits, the J2-X could be the bone that would keep Marshall chewing rather than a loose hungry dog.

We're not recommending canceling the J-2X. We are recommending not waiting for it. If we field the RL-10B-2 for the JUS we can be on the lunar surface by the time the J-2X is ready to field.

DIRECT v3 offers (4) JUS engine combinations and leaves the choice to NASA:
1. 6xRL-10B-2
2. 7xRL-10A-4
3. 4xRL-60
4. 1xJ-2X

We are recommending using what we have right now because it works and there is no valid reason not to go now rather than later. NASA can replace the RL-10s with the J-2X when it's ready, if they want to. There just isn't any good reason to wait around for it.

All 4 engines will do a full ESAS lunar spec mission, with the RL-60 actually being the most robust. It's NASA's choice.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: luke strawwalker on 06/02/2009 02:49 AM




Quote
I would think the SRBs can take the impact of shedding ice.

The flight immediately before STS-107 had a chunk of foam hit an SRB Aft Skirt.   It left a visually noticeable dent in the thick steel structure.

Which makes it all the more incredulous to me that prior to Columbia and even during the early part of the investigation, nearly everyone swore up and down that foam COULD NOT have caused sufficient damage to the shuttle TPS to have caused the tragedy.  The evidence couldn't have been clearer, but it took shooting a block of foam out of an air cannon into a RCC wing leading edge panel and blowing a foot-wide hole in it to put two and two together... 

Seems like SOMEBODY would've said after the flight where the foam dented the SRB skirt, "whoa, look what that foam did to a streamlined steel skirt on what would have to be a glancing blow; can you IMAGINE what would happen if it hit a wing leading edge made of glorified fiberglass composite or glass foam belly tiles??"   

Later!  OL JR :)

PS.  GREAT looking stuff for the Version 3...  and I'll second the request for dimensioned drawings for model builders!  :) 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: luke strawwalker on 06/02/2009 03:20 AM

I'm not sure that NASA will buy into the 6 RL-10's though.  It's not man rated currently and 6 engines is alot of equipment.  But it does exist and maybe the per unit costs would drop like a stone.  A few Direct flights a year would double their production.


NASA has already "bought into" the 6 RL-10.

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/6-RL10-Saturn-I.jpg)

They flew successfully in the S-I upper stage of the Saturn I rocket, back in the 1960s. If NASA tries to say "Oh, that won't work, it's too complex" all someone needs to do is to tell them to go ask their own History Office about it. It's already been done, safely, successfully, and is just one more bit of evidence that we can get on back to the Moon without any new engine development programs. Can't beat that.

I see Chuck beat me to it...

Man that's an awesome looking piece of machinery...  gorgeous!  So the JUS would be about 6 feet more in diameter, and a bit longer I take it, and use the same (6) RL-10 cluster only with the newer extendable nozzles?? 

Awhile back somebody posted a link to the specs and history of the S-IV stage, maybe from astronautix or something??  Can someone repost that link??  TIA!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 06/02/2009 03:42 AM
clongton, good pionts but the NASA of the 60's was willing to do things that today's NASA wouldn't touch with a barge pole.  I'd love to see NASA be willing to take the risk and do it again.

Will never happen. You can only beat up an organization so many times before they decide that job one is to do anything, whatever it takes, to make the beating stop. That attitude is so thoroughly ingrained at NASA it cannot be extracted.

Then they would have to admit that the astronauts of the 60's were made of the "Right Stuff" and the astronauts of today are not. I don't think they would be willing to admit to that. Either they are willing to take the risks associated with a dangerous business or they are not.

No, they would have to admit nothing of the sort. It matters not one bit what risks the astronauts themselves are willing to sign up to, if the surrounding society has become risk-averse. Like I said, you do what you have to do to make the beating stop. This is a bigger issue than the RL-10.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: CFE on 06/02/2009 03:58 AM
Maybe this is a lazy question, but what kind of clearance do you have between RL-10B's after the nozzles have been extended?  My estimate is that the RL-10B cluster would be at least 7 meters across, and likely more than that due to the space needed between engines to avoid overheating and plume effects.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/02/2009 08:53 AM
FYI:   A standard Jupiter-130 CLV heading for ISS has a GLOW of 2,057,232kg.   It lifts 66,980kg of useful payload to 100x100nmi, 51.6deg.   Assuming a 20,185kg Orion, that leaves 46,795kg for additional cargo -- roughly equivalent to 3 ISS-bound Shuttle payloads worth.

That's a lot of payload!  From later in this thread, I followed the link to the Jupiter-120 CLV to ISS which has a payload of 39,339kg to ISS (that's with the extra 10% reserve).  That's still a huge amount of payload even taking Orion into account.
 

I am only *one* member of the team, but personally I really like the J-120. It's only drawback is that it doesn't have very good engine-out capability; something that I argued *for* when we introduced v2.0. I wanted very much to display that safety capability and it would be missing on a v3.0 J-120.


It really stands out as an efficient ISS vehicle. Just two SSME's and a core tank.

I guess with ~20mT of margin (ie just Orion) that would maximise the engine-out. When does engine-out become available with this vehicle?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 09:04 AM
There are some that will say the RL-10's are not human rate-able without significant effort.  A number of internal and external studies have shown that.  Some of those studies come from the contractors.

Not saying who is right, but a simple assertion that it will work "off the shelf" will not stand up against the body of evidence I have seen, and weakens the credibility of the proposal. 

Hi Ross,
Is this an issue? Or are there enough funds and time scheduled in to account for crew rating the upper stage engines already?


There are two factors to consider:

1) ULA believe that the Delta-IV Heavy can be human-rated (including both RS-68 and RL-10B-2 human-rating) for somewhere about $500m in less than 4 years.   DIRECT is allocating a 100% margin to that cost figure and is setting aside $1 billion to complete that effort -- and we don't really need the engine until 2016/17, so we have plenty of additional time too.   We don't think that's a very demanding schedule.

2) There are explicit clauses in NASA's documentation which allow for systems with proven flight experience to be "qualified" as human-rated simply because of their previously demonstrated reliability.   In particular, the clause regarding 1.4 Factor of Safety is one clearly mentioned which can be waived if the hardware in question has a sufficiently well-proven history under its belt already.   My question is this:    If RL-10 doesn't fit this clause, what would?   I can't think of many pieces of hardware which have a longer record of success compared to RL-10.   Many more of them have flown than even the venerable SSME's or SRB's.


Now, I don't mena in any way to diminish the fact that all hardware which isn't currently human-rated, but which is intended for human use, is going to have to have to face the rigors of a full re-qualification effort anyway.

That process is a multi-year effort and isn't a cheap, nor is it an easy one.   But RL-10 has already proven how reliable it is over a 40-year long period flying on all sorts of vehicles from Atlas to Delta, to Titan and even Saturn and Shuttle.   Given that excellent history, I for one don't believe RL-10 will have too many problems vaulting this hurdle.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 06/02/2009 09:15 AM

I'm not sure that NASA will buy into the 6 RL-10's though.  It's not man rated currently and 6 engines is alot of equipment.  But it does exist and maybe the per unit costs would drop like a stone.  A few Direct flights a year would double their production.


NASA has already "bought into" the 6 RL-10.

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/6-RL10-Saturn-I.jpg)

They flew successfully in the S-I upper stage of the Saturn I rocket, back in the 1960s. If NASA tries to say "Oh, that won't work, it's too complex" all someone needs to do is to tell them to go ask their own History Office about it. It's already been done, safely, successfully, and is just one more bit of evidence that we can get on back to the Moon without any new engine development programs. Can't beat that.

I see Chuck beat me to it...

Ha! That's fantastic!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 09:38 AM
...
One other option which was suggested to us by someone at MSFC has also led us to looking at methods to possibly try to remove the CM from the load path of the LAS too.   Right now the ~7mT of LAS presses down on the CM structure during flight.   ...

Only 2/3 of LAS induced ascent loads are reacted on Orion's forward attachment, as is; 1/3 loads goes to the SM, through ALAS-11 structure.
Correct ?

I'm out of my depth with that question.   It *sounds* about right from what I've heard previously, but I'm working on old conversations from over a year ago.   I'll have to check with the guys actually working that side of things to see what the current state of play is.


Quote
Quote

For now, our priority is to create a situation where the Orion project can stop worrying about weight limitations,

This is an old quip I've had with Direct. IMO weight limitations in the *capsule* (CM) go beyond Ares I's real or perceived limitations. And, your (Direct) most spectacular weight growth tolerance towards Orion targets the CM. You attract more fans with "let's put some extra poly-layers of MMOD and radiation protection on Orion" compared to, say, let's give Orion a few extra 100's m/s delta-V.

Somehow I don't think it is fair. If the CM/capsule is subject to objective, booster-neutral or architecture-neutral limitations, let's say it out loud.

The J-130 certainly has sufficient performance to allow Orion to grow quite a lot (+50mT anyone?) and still successfully perform ISS missions.   Similarly, the 2-launch J-246 Lunar Architecture has sufficient reserves to allow for a fair bit of growth there too -- although not quite as much (+4mT or so).

There are a whole list of items which have been "left in the parking lot" of the Orion's design at present.   There is sufficient performance to add a number of those items back into the design, either immediately, or as part of a Block upgrade some time after IOC/FOC.

Now, whether you could add those same items and still have a spacecraft able to be launched by anything else, well that depends upon the specific launcher's performance envelope.

By all accounts the performance margins on Ares-I would not allow for any of the heavier items (land landing airbags for instance) to be re-integrated into Orion's design.

Could Delta-IV Heavy or Atlas-V?   Our information (confirmed by Aerospace Corps review) actually says the current Delta-IV Heavy could lift the current Orion but would probably need its RS-68A upgraded main engines (due FY2012) before it will be able to lift a heavier, upgraded Orion.   Similarly, Atlas-V Heavy could certainly lift an upgraded Orion too.

At this point I have no clue whether Falcon-9 Heavy would ever be able to loft Orion.   It's simply too soon to tell with any degree of confidence, but if the vehicle attains the planned performance, and especially if Space-X does develop their LH2/LOX Upper Stage, I would think it probably would have sufficient performance to loft a heavier Orion.


I don't really see why it is a question of being 'fair' to point out that Ares-I won't be able to lift an upgraded Orion when all the other systems seem able to.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 10:00 AM
Hi, I am new to this forum, so please forgive any inadvertent mistakes.

Stan,
Welcome to the forum, you'll find it is a great resource for *everything* space-related, not just DIRECT stuff.   Enjoy it!


Quote
First,  the upper stage reminds me of a souped up S-IV.  I like engine clusters they have very good tolerance of single engine failures.

Agreed.


Quote
My real question is the cost impact of substituting the SSME for the RS-68.  I understand that the RS-68 has a problem with the thermal environment close to the SRB, but I understand that the SSME costs $60 million a piece vs the RS-68 at $20 million a piece.  Not good from a budget standpoint.

What people don't realise is that the $60m figure which so often gets thrown around for the SSME is actually based upon a very limited production run of just three units in one contract.

Just building three units of anything is a very inefficient way to pay for them because it doesn't allow the producer to spread-out the set-up or production costs much.   You really want a production line to make a lot more units if you can, but in the case of the Space Shuttle Program this high cost was acceptable because the program only needed 3 units due to the fact that each engine was going to get re-used so many times.

If you decided to put the SSME into "mass production", say at least 12 per year, you can get that per-unit price down a *LOT*.   The cost for totally standard SSME Block-IIA units, as flown on Shuttle, could drop to more like $40m per unit in the production numbers we need for the early Jupiter program (averaging 16/yr thru ~2017).

By the time we really start to ramp-up the Jupiter Program though (we're aiming to fly twelve Jupiter 24x's per year = 48 SSME's per year), around 2020, we would like to get a cheaper, expendable variant developed to drop that cost to more like $30m per unit.


Now, the current RS-68 (non-Human-Rated , 102% Thrust, Ablative Nozzle) costs around $15m each for Delta-IV.

The RS-68B variant which NASA wanted to use for Ares-V (Human Rated, 108% Thrust, Ablative Nozzle) was to cost a little over $20m per unit.   But the Base Heating effect means that engine is unworkable for that vehicle.

Ares-V now has to use a Regeneratively Cooled Nozzle to survive the Base Heating Environment.   That limits the choices to either go to SSME like we have, or to choose to re-develop the RS-68 into a Regen system.   The version they would need would be the RS-68 Regen (Human Rated, 108% Thrust, Regen Nozzle) and it is expected to cost around $25m each.


So the final difference in cost between the two "target" engines is actually pretty small.

The biggest difference is that we have one extra main engine (+$35m) on each Jupiter Core Stage than we were planning when we were using RS-68's.   That is a cost penalty, but we are offsetting some of that difference by removing the higher-cost J-2X from the Upper Stage and replacing it with a cluster of much smaller and lower-cost RL-10's instead.   Overall, the increase per flight is now pretty minimal, but more importantly -- acceptable.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 10:23 AM
That sure is an impressive stage. Looks like something out of Hollywood.

The problem is how to stop NASA from getting cold feet and throwing in a J-2X, stretching out the development time yet again. Their priorities have been schedule, but still they seem to be falling short of that.

That limitation is more to do with PWR than with NASA IMHO (crikey, these acronyms are getting silly...)

Let me show you how this actually needs to be handled -- from the 40,000ft level at least, noting that the devil is always in the details.   To put it in the most basic terms possible, but each contractor will fight very very hard, bringing all their Senators, House members and lobbyists to bear in order to ensure that they receive what they consider to be a "fair share" of the program.

In this case, PWR will be "denied" the J-2X development money and the RS-68B development money, so they will want something in return or you can bet your bottom dollar they will fight tooth-and-nail against any such plan.

I therefore present you with the following to make up the difference:

1) A human-rating program for Delta-IV's engines (RS-68A and RL-10B-2)
2) A nice lucrative contract to re-develop the SSME over the next decade into a disposable unit
3) An architecture aiming to ultimately need 48 SSME's each year plus 72 RL-10's each year.

Result:   PWR makes just as much money from this plan, perhaps even slightly more.   Thus PWR are willing to sign-on and all their Senators, House representatives and Lobbyists then start to fight *for* the change.


No, this is not Utopian.   Nobody ever said dealing with large corporations and central government programs had anything to do with Utopia.   We don't live in Utopia -- we're going to need a really robust space program to be able to go find that world... :)

Like it or not, this is just the slightest bit of insight into how you actually need to plan things out if you ever want to really get things done instead of simply dreaming about them -- and I really am only just barely skimming the surface here.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/02/2009 10:27 AM
DIRECT v3 offers (4) JUS engine combinations and leaves the choice to NASA:
1. 6xRL-10B-2
2. 7xRL-10A-4
3. 4xRL-60
4. 1xJ-2X

We are recommending using what we have right now because it works and there is no valid reason not to go now rather than later. NASA can replace the RL-10s with the J-2X when it's ready, if they want to. There just isn't any good reason to wait around for it.

All 4 engines will do a full ESAS lunar spec mission, with the RL-60 actually being the most robust. It's NASA's choice.

IMHO, J-2X has too much thrust for a lunar-class upper stage.  It performs more like a first stage engine for a smaller LV -- Ariane 5 Vulcain, for example.

Is a single-engine upper stage really a good idea?  I would think that, in an ideal world, designers would want 3-5 engines on the upper stage to balance engine-out capability with mass/cost.

Although RL-10B is almost certainly the easiest way to proceed, I believe that RL-60 is ultimately the best cryogenic engine that NASA could field as its de facto standard for upper stages going forward.

RL-60 fully exploits the per-nozzle thrust potential of the efficient and simple expander cycle.  It's the most powerful cryogenic engine that doesn't need a separate combustion chamber for propellant delivery.

With RL-60, the upper stage has four engines, which in my view is preferable to either one engine or six engines.  The descent stage can use one RL-60, preferably with upper stage LOI.

As for the ascent stage, that has always seemed to me like a job for pressure-fed hypergolics, perhaps an AJ-10, just like the Orion SM, and for much the same reasons.

The RL-10 is a fine upper stage engine, but because it produces less than half the potential thrust of the expander cycle, its thrust to mass ratio suffers.

One doesn't need a spreadsheet to figure out that, of the available options, RL-60 has both the highest specific impulse and the highest thrust to mass ratio, and therefore will give the best performance.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 10:33 AM

Although RL-10B is almost certainly the easiest way to proceed, I believe that RL-60 is ultimately the best cryogenic engine that NASA could field as its de facto standard for upper stages going forward.

I agree with you.   RL-60 also has a lot of application beyond NASA too.   Both EELV's could use it, the Japanese wanted it for their H-II as well, and it would probably make for a really good unit to power a cryo US for Falcon 9 Heavy too.   If Jupiter and all those were to use it, the production costs would get real interesting :)

The only problem is if the budget really is going to be as tight as it is shaping up to be, "use what you've got now" is going to become an ever-more important refrain for us all to have in the back of our minds.

IMHO, the lowest "programmatic" risk approach is to implement an RL-10 solution first, and then *IF* you have sufficient budget down the road a bit, you can still implement an "upgrade" later.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 10:45 AM
Maybe this is a lazy question, but what kind of clearance do you have between RL-10B's after the nozzles have been extended?  My estimate is that the RL-10B cluster would be at least 7 meters across, and likely more than that due to the space needed between engines to avoid overheating and plume effects.

I think I saw a figure around 7.2m a while back.   I'll have to go find it again.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 10:48 AM
It really stands out as an efficient ISS vehicle. Just two SSME's and a core tank.

Don't forget the SRB's! :)


Quote
I guess with ~20mT of margin (ie just Orion) that would maximise the engine-out. When does engine-out become available with this vehicle?

Without additional payload?   No idea, I haven't seen those analysis yet.

With ~20mT of additional payload, the SSME/J-120 doesn't have much engine-out capability at all, only really in the last 60 seconds of the ascent.

That's one of the many reasons why we lean more favourably towards the J-130 configuration -- the extra engine not only gives you significantly greater performance, it also give you a lot more abort capability too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/02/2009 11:16 AM
We're not recommending canceling the J-2X. We are recommending not waiting for it. If we field the RL-10B-2 for the JUS we can be on the lunar surface by the time the J-2X is ready to field.

DIRECT v3 offers (4) JUS engine combinations and leaves the choice to NASA:
1. 6xRL-10B-2
2. 7xRL-10A-4
3. 4xRL-60
4. 1xJ-2X

IMHO, the best way to play this is to push the RL-10 as an initial 'interim' solution as part of the "simple, safer, sooner" paradigm.  You have S-IV heritage on your side.  This arragement is largely a known quantity and a flown configuration (although the numbers will need to be 'tweaked' a little for the A- and B-families).  You get your 100t payload HLLV quickly.

However, you also continue J-2X and 5-seg RSRM as upgrade paths for the J-2xx.  Not only does that keep Marshall, MSFC and ATK happy but could ultimately lead to further cost reductions and performance improvements.  Even if neither are ultimately adopted (a decision at least five years away at Orion IOC), you at least keep the jobs for now, something that will please Messrs Nelson, Shelby, et al.

IMHO, RL-60 should be focussed primarily as an EELV upgrade, with the ultimate goal of a 'Centaur-II' family of common upper stages based on it.  An RL-60-based EDS could also easily be used in concert with JS-130 and Orion to service an EML-1 transit station without needing an Altair for LOI, should that ever become a part of NASA's plans.  Ultimately, unless I've misread ULA's materials, there should be a Delta-IVH-Max configuration, with RS-68A, SRBs and RL-60 that should have close to the same performance to ISS as JS-130, which should give even greater launcher redundancy for manned LEO options.

On the subject of J-2X, I undersand that the estimated performance figures have taken a hit recently, causing the Ares-V team more headaches.  To what point would J-2X's performance have to decay where you would need to consider a 2 x J-2X upper stage powerplant again?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Hermit on 06/02/2009 11:23 AM
Hi,
Leroy Chiao, one of the members of the Augustine Panel has invited the public to post suggestions regarding the future of HSF on his blog at: http://leroychiao.blogspot.com/

He sounds open minded and it would probably be worthwhile to show him just how much support Direct 3.0 has.

See his post from Monday June 1st.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/02/2009 11:32 AM
He sounds open minded and it would probably be worthwhile to show him just how much support Direct 3.0 has.

Not automatically a bad idea, but let's try avoid SPAMming the poor guy, okay? ;)

[EDIT:]

FWIW, here is the text of the comment that I left.  I tried to be as professional and as complete as possible:

Quote
Dear Professor Chiao,

Congratulations on your appointment to the HSF Review Commission.  Although I am not an American citizen, I consider myself a supporter of manned spaceflight and am a great supporter of efforts to increase the human presence in space.

I strongly recommend a close examination of the DIRECT 3.0 proposals, recently unveiled at the ISDC 2009 conference. 

The basic concept, turning Shuttle heritage technology into an 'in-line' launch vehicle, is intuitatively sound on technical, schedule and budgetary grounds.  The DIRECT 3.0 proposals essentially involve turning the existing space shuttle ET, SSME and RSRMs into two in-line NLS-style launchers, known as the Jupiter-130 and the Jupiter-246.  As well as saving the enormous amount of money being required to develop what are essentially two all-new LVs (the Ares-I and Ares-V), it also, by retaining the current 8.4m-diameter tank used by the the shuttle, reduces the amount of infrastructure changes at KSC and MAF required to construct, operate and support the system.
 
As well as massively shortening the timeline for Orion IOC and FOC, the DIRECT proposals also allow for the most optimistic date for return-to-the-Moon to be pulled back to 2017.

Amongst the other advantages of the DIRECT 3.0 system are that it allows for heavy maintenance and logistical support for the ISS even after shuttle retirement.  This capability makes an extension of ISS utilisation to 2020 a practical proposition.

As well as being fully lunar outpost-ready, the DIRECT 3.0 proposals are also easily adaptable for future NEO encounter and other beyond-Earth/Moon missions. 

You can get a lot more information about these designs at the DIRECT team's website http://www.directlauncher.com.  You can also interact directly with some of the team and participate in discussions on the proposals at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17295.0

I do not suggest that the DIRECT proposals are in any way a panacea.  However, it is my humble opinion (one of an enthusiastic amateur rather than a professional), that they are most worthy of consideration and will meet the many challenges, scientific, technical and even political, that currently face human space flight.

It is my sincere hope that you and your colleagues in the review commission will be able to find a way to save NASA's human spaceflight program from the current morass of schedule slips and budget overruns that are slowly crippling the Ares development programs.

Yours sincerely,




Ben Russell-Gough

Yes, I did say: "interact directly with some of the team".  Ross, Chuck and Philip don't have problems answering questions from Mr. Augustine and his colleagues do they? ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/02/2009 12:24 PM


NASA has already "bought into" the 6 RL-10.

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/6-RL10-Saturn-I.jpg)

They flew successfully in the S-I upper stage of the Saturn I rocket, back in the 1960s. If NASA tries to say "Oh, that won't work, it's too complex" all someone needs to do is to tell them to go ask their own History Office about it. It's already been done, safely, successfully, and is just one more bit of evidence that we can get on back to the Moon without any new engine development programs. Can't beat that.

I see Chuck beat me to it...

True, but if my memory hasn't completely shorted out, no MANNED Saturn flew in that configuration. As soon as they had the J-2, they switched to it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/02/2009 12:24 PM
Hi I'm new to this forum too. I won't pretend, I don't know all that much about rocketry, I'm just an undergrad physics and economics major. Direct seems like really good, well thought out stuff, that must be important if so many people would devote so much time with little to no funding to a project.

I read earlier that you believe that the SSME under much larger production would cost approximately 50% of what it does now. That seems like a pretty big if, since the SSME is more complex than the RS 68. How would having the SSMEs cost say $50m impact your forecasts.

Also couldn't 5 segment SRBs be continued to be researched, though at a much slower pace with fewer resources. It seems we could use them in much later missions such as Mars. It would be a shame to throw away all the research and testing that was done already and not use it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/02/2009 01:07 PM
If avionics is one of the long poles for the (unmanned) J-130, why not leverage existing hardware (http://www.lolife.com/2008/11/prelude-iphone-rocket/).

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: John Duncan on 06/02/2009 01:24 PM


John:

I designed and built a set of these that were used back in January for the Transition Team meeting. You can find plans here:

Scroll about 1/3 down the page:
http://jleslie48.com/gallery_models_real.html

At the bottom, in "Special Models":
http://www.nielspapermodels.com/models.htm

They're the same plans at either place.

As far as I can tell, the only real differences between the 120 and 130 are that the engine skirt system has to be widened out and four mounting rings for the engine bells have to be mounted on the bottom of the structure. To convert to a 246, you have to add an interstage, and build the upper stage with the 10m fairing.

HTH





Hey, those are nice!  I'll have to print that out and look it over.

Thanks!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 01:26 PM
Hi I'm new to this forum too.

Welcome to the site cixelsyD, (Nice name BTW!)


Quote
I read earlier that you believe that the SSME under much larger production would cost approximately 50% of what it does now. That seems like a pretty big if, since the SSME is more complex than the RS 68. How would having the SSMEs cost say $50m impact your forecasts.

The cost profiles for all the engines follow a traditional "Learning Curve", where there is a large "fixed" cost for setting up the production line and paying all the salaries, and then there is a smaller per-unit "variable" cost.   I've attached a chart which roughly details the current costs for all three engines we're talking about here, just for reference.

As you can see, if the fixed costs can only be amortized across a very small number of production units per year, the individual product costs are pretty steep -- for all of the solutions.   They all start to level-off around a dozen units per year and only gradually drop from there onward.

Not since the start of the Shuttle program have SSME's been produced in the 'flat' part of this curve.   But there's no reason why they can't be.

The published RS-68's costs ($15m each) are all based on an assumption of 6x Delta-IV's and 4x 5-engine Ares-V's per year = 26 units per year.   Add the extra costs for a human-rated Regen variant and this is where you end up.

This is why it is SO important to always question what the yardstick is.   Because if you don't know that, you will always be comparing Apples and Oranges -- in this case most people accidentally end up comparing the cost of SSME's at 3 per year vs. the cost of RS-68's at 26 per year.


Quote
Also couldn't 5 segment SRBs be continued to be researched, though at a much slower pace with fewer resources. It seems we could use them in much later missions such as Mars. It would be a shame to throw away all the research and testing that was done already and not use it.

That will all depend upon the available budget down the road.

Though personally, I want to see us fund more missions which can produce real *results* instead of simply funding development work just for the sakes of "make work".

As for Mars -- A Jupiter-246 can lift 100 tons of *dry* spacecraft to LEO at the start of a mission.   With a Depot architecture, that 100 ton spacecraft could then be topped-off with 500 tons of propellant (for both TMI and MOI) and you never need to develop any new launch vehicle hardware at all.

Its not the launch vehicle which really improves your capabilities, its the introduction of the Depot architectures which really open-up virtually unlimited capability for missions to NEO's, Mars, Jovian or Saturn destinations.

The one exception to that, IMHO, is some form of in-space nuclear propulsion system.   That is a development path which would offer a potentially enormous step-up in capability.   If we're going to improve the vehicles 10, 20 or 30 years down the road, that's the way to really go -- if the budget allows.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/02/2009 02:07 PM
So what is the plan, if any, for the Augustine Commission?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/02/2009 02:22 PM
The biggest selling point of the Jupiter 246 is, it's a modest and logical evolution of our *currently flying HLLV*, and though it may not be the launch vehicle of our wildest dreams, it is adequate for any mission the USA can reasonably anticipate flying any time in the next 40 years.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 02:25 PM
Right now, we are waiting for an official invite to present to them.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/02/2009 02:42 PM
Right now, we are waiting for an official invite to present to them.

Ross.

And if it doesn't come?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/02/2009 03:10 PM
The biggest selling point of the Jupiter 246 is, it's a modest and logical evolution of our *currently flying HLLV*, and though it may not be the launch vehicle of our wildest dreams, it is adequate for any mission the USA can reasonably anticipate flying any time in the next 40 years.

Sadly, your 40 years maybe correct.

What I like about the Direct vehicles is that they provide a growth path as well.  If Direct vehicles fly for 30 or 40 years the last ones won't be the same as the first ones.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/02/2009 03:24 PM
Right now, we are waiting for an official invite to present to them.

Ross.

And if it doesn't come?

If the Augustine Commission fails to incorporate a substantive evaluation of the Direct 3.0 architecture into its deliberations - in a transparent fashion - its final report shall deserve (and will receive IMHO) far less credibility and political support than it would otherwise receive and going forward thereafter, NASA shall have a more difficult time rallying public support.

A candid, transparent honest evaluation is all that I am referring to (or seek) combined with a vigorous rejection of arguments premised on fait accompli.
 
This observation is also true for every other significant architecture option out there, including the leverage capabilities found in ISRU and propellant depots, and the need to integrate commercial opportunities and non-US participants into the VSE. 

To do otherwise shall undermine the political viability of the VSE and shall damage NASA as an agency.

To avoid these bad consequences, we should all endeavor to spread the idea that closed minds will not build the  political consensus needed to sustain NASA in the years and decades to come while doing this as politely and professionally as possible. 

= = =

As for Team Direct (of which I am merely a fan-boy) if it becomes apparent that they shall be frozen out of the process, the insiders should deliberate amongst themselves in strict confidence concerning how to best handle that situation and then act at a time and place and in a manner of their own choosing -- without telling us first (as much as I would love to eavesdrop on those conversations).

Hopefully, it won't come to that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/02/2009 03:27 PM
Thank you Ross for your very thorough response. Is there an equivilant forum someplace for the Ares program I wonder?

How does Direct 3 change your plans for test flights? As Constellation progresses and nears closer to when it first services the ISS, that makes switching to direct less viable, would you happen to know an approximation for when it would be too late to switch? In your Direct 2.0 timeline you already have a test article delivered to KSC in May 2009, now an impossiblity since no decision to switch to Direct has been made.

The Augustine commission delivers in late August I believe? Does that give you plenty of time to develop and test?

Edit: Also, when will the direct site be updated with Direct 3? I'd love to read through the presentation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 06/02/2009 03:38 PM
And no, the LOX tank is sized to precisely the same capacity as the current ET's Ogive tank.

We do still have an option to increase the capacity of both the LOX and LH2 tanks by ~7-9% (in the same way as NLS was going to), but right now, mostly for simplicity sake, we have simply chosen not to mess around with altering the capacities.   We can close all performance requirements comfortably without it.

I find it sad if the easy tankage structure changes that give lots of performace per kg of structure are not done when the hard ones are done. Why design a long engine thrust structure when you can elongate the LH2 tank and design a smaller thrust structure? What is the additional design work with making the LOX barrel section a little longer when you anyway redesign the tank for inline launch?

The only engineering reason for not doing this that I can think of is if you add to much tankage mass and no longer hit the sweet spot for the 3 SSME verison.

I find the political reason weak, who cares if the fuel load is aprox 8% larger when it looks the same on the pretty pictures? If you are that sensitive about looks you ought to have made the thrust structure design more expensive buy having two versions to center the mid engine. That would of course be a bad redesign from a system cost perspective.

Starting out in the "high end" of the tankage volume and mass sweet spot ought to be beneficial for future engine upgrades of the SSME:s or SRB:s.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/02/2009 04:03 PM
I find it sad if the easy tankage structure changes that give lots of performace per kg of structure are not done when the hard ones are done. Why design a long engine thrust structure when you can elongate the LH2 tank and design a smaller thrust structure? What is the additional design work with making the LOX barrel section a little longer when you anyway redesign the tank for inline launch?

I get your point, but the entire DIRECT approach seems to be make as few changes to the existing STS stack as possible.

Maybe it is an easy (in the grand scheme of things) modification, but it isn't needed *right now* to close the targets.

Why complicate things more than you have to right now?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 04:21 PM
And it isn't quite so straight-forward either.   The SRB Aft supports would then be located on the LH2 tank wall, no longer where the lower ring-frame is situated.   To implement the stretch you either have to relocate the SRB attachments lower on the SRB's (requiring re-qual) of you would have to strengthen that region of the tank with an extra ringframe inside the LH2 tank.   While both are possible, neither is a trivial change and both add $$$ and time to the development -- and delays = job losses.

Given that we already comfortably exceed all of the performance requirements, we don't see this as a worthy trade in Phase 1 of our proposal.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Yegor on 06/02/2009 04:51 PM

What is "SSME Bk-IIA" and "SSME Bk-III"?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/02/2009 05:12 PM
what % thrust are SSMEs being run at?
given  no re-use could they be pushed higher?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/02/2009 05:42 PM

What is "SSME Bk-IIA" and "SSME Bk-III"?

Short answer:

SSME BK-IIA = Space Shuttle Main Engine Block IIA (current model)

The Block III is a proposed update to the current version- I don't remember offhand if the Block III is designed for lower costs or better performance.

Direct 3.0 only requires the current Block IIA version to get the job done.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/02/2009 06:01 PM
what % thrust are SSMEs being run at?
given  no re-use could they be pushed higher?

I believe that it's still 104%, same as current shuttle engine practice.

Good question, I have no idea. If only there were a rocket scientist nearby...  ;D

But, I think it's safe to say that Direct 3.0 has enough spare lift capacity for J-130 that the extra thrust isn't needed, or desired for safety reasons during the normal flight regimes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/02/2009 06:08 PM
The biggest selling point of the Jupiter 246 is, it's a modest and logical evolution of our *currently flying HLLV*, and though it may not be the launch vehicle of our wildest dreams, it is adequate for any mission the USA can reasonably anticipate flying any time in the next 40 years.

Sadly, your 40 years maybe correct.

What I like about the Direct vehicles is that they provide a growth path as well.  If Direct vehicles fly for 30 or 40 years the last ones won't be the same as the first ones.

If Jupiter 246 flies, I expect the Jupiter family to fly as long or longer than the Shuttle itself (40 years as of April 2011). I would expect to see things like simplifcation of SSME and development of a follow-on upper stage engine (RL-60 or J-2X, perhaps). But if it just flies, it will give us a lot of options. Affordable or not, 40 years of Saturn V would have meant a different space program across the board. I always like to imagine one of the proposals, an unmanned Mars lander probe the size of the LM, actually having happened in the 1970s.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/02/2009 06:13 PM
It'll be 30 years in April 2011, not 40.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: psloss on 06/02/2009 06:25 PM
SSME BK-IIA = Space Shuttle Main Engine Block IIA (current model)
Not exactly; the current engines are Block II.  Block IIA engines would be with the earlier generation HPFTP, versus the ones that are flying today.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/02/2009 06:28 PM
It'll be 30 years in April 2011, not 40.

I knew I should've taken off my shoes before attempting that calculation...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/02/2009 06:43 PM
SSME BK-IIA = Space Shuttle Main Engine Block IIA (current model)
Not exactly; the current engines are Block II.  Block IIA engines would be with the earlier generation HPFTP, versus the ones that are flying today.


Ah interesting- The current baseball cards show Block IIA for some reason.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/02/2009 07:06 PM
And no, the LOX tank is sized to precisely the same capacity as the current ET's Ogive tank.

We do still have an option to increase the capacity of both the LOX and LH2 tanks by ~7-9% (in the same way as NLS was going to), but right now, mostly for simplicity sake, we have simply chosen not to mess around with altering the capacities.   We can close all performance requirements comfortably without it.

I find it sad if the easy tankage structure changes that give lots of performace per kg of structure are not done when the hard ones are done. Why design a long engine thrust structure when you can elongate the LH2 tank and design a smaller thrust structure? What is the additional design work with making the LOX barrel section a little longer when you anyway redesign the tank for inline launch?

The only engineering reason for not doing this that I can think of is if you add to much tankage mass and no longer hit the sweet spot for the 3 SSME verison.

I find the political reason weak, who cares if the fuel load is aprox 8% larger when it looks the same on the pretty pictures? If you are that sensitive about looks you ought to have made the thrust structure design more expensive buy having two versions to center the mid engine. That would of course be a bad redesign from a system cost perspective.

Starting out in the "high end" of the tankage volume and mass sweet spot ought to be beneficial for future engine upgrades of the SSME:s or SRB:s.


Jupiter has multiple tweaks which could improve performance (5-seg SRB's & a core stretch give about 30% IIRC).

Apollo ended up needing a much larger vehicle than they'd expected. Since DIRECT is designed to close the mission without needing those tweaks, they make great growth options if it turns out extra performance is required. It's also quicker & cheaper to develop if you don't have to make unnecessary changes, and they can always be added in a block II or block III version.

DIRECT is littered with margins and growth options - one of it's strongest features.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/02/2009 08:10 PM
It'll be 30 years in April 2011, not 40.

I knew I should've taken off my shoes before attempting that calculation...

Depends if you count from the date of design or first flight.  I use to use first flight.  But the longer I'm an engineer the more I prefer design.  So I think your closer to 40 than 30. 

Some of the switches on the flight deck are probably closer to 50.

Can't not 100% right or wrong by going either way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/02/2009 08:37 PM
what % thrust are SSMEs being run at?
given  no re-use could they be pushed higher?

1) Currently the SSME runs at 104.5% thrust.

2) Somewhere back in the old Direct threads, Ross had indicated tests donw on the SSME which went up to at least 109% IIRC, and passed without issue. All that happens is you reduce life expectancy on certain components. Since they aren't destined to be reused anyway on Jupiter, they could easily attain that, probably more.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tnphysics on 06/02/2009 08:57 PM
What is the maximum power level the SSMEs could be run at,considering that they will not be reused?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: GraphGuy on 06/02/2009 09:00 PM
What is the maximum power level the SSMEs could be run at,considering that they will not be reused?

Probably the standard 109% max, otherwise you would need to requalify them, etc.  Not worth it and Jupiter doesn't need the extra thrust in the first place.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/02/2009 09:02 PM
The wikipedia article on the SSME has pretty good info on the throttle capabilities, as well as links to NASA's press kit. The press kit is pretty technical, and has detailed list of the upgrades to the SSME on page 4. The release is old enough that the Block II engines weren't in service at that time, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine

http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/scom/216.pdf

109% thrust is doable, and has been tested. In fact, the second reference document on the Wikipedia page is NASA's 1993 report of the SSME Assessment team, http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930012456_1993012456.pdf , and it states that 109% thrust is part of the design.

Unfortunately, the report also states that the failure rates when running at 109% thrust are significantly worse, with a critical engine failure (not a safe shutdown)rate  of 1 in every 20 flights.

So the maximum rate for the SSME's is not the same as the maximum safe rate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: psloss on 06/02/2009 09:08 PM
Unfortunately, the report also states that the failure rates when running at 109% thrust are significantly worse, with a critical engine failure (not a safe shutdown)rate  of 1 in every 20 flights.
Well, if that report was published in '93, then it probably didn't take into account a lot of the upgrades (such as to the high-pressure turbo pumps and main combustion chamber) that have gone into the engines since then.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 06/02/2009 09:57 PM
Unfortunately, the report also states that the failure rates when running at 109% thrust are significantly worse, with a critical engine failure (not a safe shutdown)rate  of 1 in every 20 flights.
Well, if that report was published in '93, then it probably didn't take into account a lot of the upgrades (such as to the high-pressure turbo pumps and main combustion chamber) that have gone into the engines since then.


Indeed, the report lists the Pratt & Whitney turbopumps as "proposed improvements" in the table of contents, so it seems pretty clear to me that this assessment of 109% throttle was performed assuming the old turbopumps.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tnphysics on 06/02/2009 10:04 PM
Okay, so what is the maximum safe power for the Jupiter?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tnphysics on 06/02/2009 10:18 PM
One of the best 'alternative' mission profiles which we have been able to confirm so far is that of using the EDS to perform the LOI as well as the TLI.

Because the lander doesn't have to perform the LOI, it results in a lander which is considerably smaller and lighter than the current CxP design.   This solves almost all of the Altair's height/stability issues and might even allow the thing to fit inside an 8.4m PLF again too.   At this size and mass the LSAM & CEV will *easily* fit on a J-130, thus improving both costs and safety for each mission.   Also by having multiple engines on an RL-10-powered EDS you get high Isp and a great deal of engine-out capability for the LOI as well, which is nice.

With this profile we're seeing about 10% extra payload mass to the Lunar surface as well -- and that's the real point.

Ross.



Interesting. I thought that the extra mass that had to be carried through LOI would kill the performance.

Also, perhaps the easiest way to use the excess CLV capacity is to launch the EDS to an elliptical orbit and use the excess CLV performance to launch the LSAM and CEV to the same elliptical orbit. Less prop is available for TLI but this is more than compensated by the lower dV required.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: pierre on 06/02/2009 11:13 PM
Also, perhaps the easiest way to use the excess CLV capacity is to launch the EDS to an elliptical orbit and use the excess CLV performance to launch the LSAM and CEV to the same elliptical orbit. Less prop is available for TLI but this is more than compensated by the lower dV required.

I may be wrong, but I think that circular orbits have the nice property that you can do the second launch every time the orbit is over your head, while elliptical orbits offer much less launch opportunities.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 11:22 PM
tnphysics,
We are assuming 104.5% is the maximum for all Jupiter's.   That allows for emergency use of the 109% setting if ever required due to an in-flight anomaly.

It is possible that at some point in the future, the 109% setting might be sufficiently qualified for regular use on cargo-only flights though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 11:42 PM
I may be wrong, but I think that circular orbits have the nice property that you can do the second launch every time the orbit is over your head, while elliptical orbits offer much less launch opportunities.

You are exactly correct.

The only 'likely' use of such a profile would be in the unlikely, but not impossible, scenario of a dual launch occurring at the same time from both pads.

That's a 'difficult' proposition, to say the least, but is not completely unprecedented.   Here is an image showing Gemini 12 lifting off from LC-19 at the same time as an Atlas Agena lifts off from LC-14 a few miles away.   This was done specifically to enable a docking between the two spacecraft in LEO.

(http://www.apollomissionphotos.com/104ksc66pc340.jpg)

This sort of thing *has* been done before.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/03/2009 12:08 AM
Any word when we will get to see the full ISDC presentation?  Or better yet, the new Direct 3.0 "proposal" with new costs and schedules?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/03/2009 12:40 AM
Any word when we will get to see the full ISDC presentation?  Or better yet, the new Direct 3.0 "proposal" with new costs and schedules?

Oooh - new thread partys over so soon? Back to buisness?  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: psloss on 06/03/2009 12:49 AM
That's a 'difficult' proposition, to say the least, but is not completely unprecedented.   Here is an image showing Gemini 12 lifting off from LC-19 at the same time as an Atlas Agena lifts off from LC-14 a few miles away.   This was done specifically to enable a docking between the two spacecraft in LEO.
That's probably a composite.  The Gemini was launched more or less on the Agena's first pass over the launch site.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/03/2009 12:56 AM
My biggest worry is that the review panel does not go right to the source for information with regards to Direct. If they rely on numbers and data put out by NASA, then I fear it will not be a true Direct review.

Already their are rumors that Hawes has already tried to block any non-Contractors from providing official testimony information to the panel. From what I have read on here, Hawes will also provide data and analysis for the panel. I don't see him painting a pretty picture for Direct.

Either we cross our fingers and hope the panel sees through the bull, or hopefully the Team gets their shot to present to the panel so they can hear it straight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/03/2009 12:57 AM
My biggest worry is that the review panel does not go right to the source for information with regards to Direct. If they rely on numbers and data put out by NASA, then I fear it will not be a true Direct review.

Already their are rumors that Hawes has already tried to block any non-Contractors from providing official testimony information to the panel. From what I have read on here, Hawes will also provide data and analysis for the panel. I don't see him painting a pretty picture for Direct.

Either we cross our fingers and hope the panel sees through the bull, or hopefully the Team gets their shot to present to the panel so they can hear it straight.

If they were looking for data RIGHT NOW (for example) where would (they) look?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/03/2009 01:00 AM
Well once Direct 3.0 is officially launched, it is as simple as visiting Directlauncher.com and downloading the presentation. However, the best way to get the data they need to go right to the source, ie meet with the Direct Team in person.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/03/2009 01:11 AM
I'm not too worried about that since one of the members has a blog and many people have posted links and support comments for Direct. I'm pretty sure the commission won't ignore Direct if they know about it. Direct is quite clearly at the forefront of alternatives to Ares I/V, and will IMHO be a main subject of the panel.

I think the main questions the commission will face are the viability of switching, whether Direct or Ares will truly meet stated requirements. Perhaps it will even try to hammer out a compromise between the two teams. I'm very optimisitic about the commission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rsp1202 on 06/03/2009 01:20 AM
That's a 'difficult' proposition, to say the least, but is not completely unprecedented.   Here is an image showing Gemini 12 lifting off from LC-19 at the same time as an Atlas Agena lifts off from LC-14 a few miles away.   This was done specifically to enable a docking between the two spacecraft in LEO.
That's probably a composite.  The Gemini was launched more or less on the Agena's first pass over the launch site.


That's correct. G12 was launched after Agena.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/03/2009 01:21 AM


(http://www.apollomissionphotos.com/104ksc66pc340.jpg)

This sort of thing *has* been done before.

Ross.

Nope, photoshop.  There haven't been simultaneous space launches
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/03/2009 01:50 AM
My biggest worry is that the review panel does not go right to the source for information with regards to Direct. If they rely on numbers and data put out by NASA, then I fear it will not be a true Direct review.

Already their are rumors that Hawes has already tried to block any non-Contractors from providing official testimony information to the panel. From what I have read on here, Hawes will also provide data and analysis for the panel. I don't see him painting a pretty picture for Direct.

Either we cross our fingers and hope the panel sees through the bull, or hopefully the Team gets their shot to present to the panel so they can hear it straight.

If they were looking for data RIGHT NOW (for example) where would (they) look?


I agree with you Gladiator and Mars.. right now is NOT the time to be a day late and dollar short!

I know the DIRECT team works incredibly hard, but for whatever reason they seem cursed to release the next great version(or data) a week or two behind when it was really needed. 

Someone out there a magician with web sites and getting data loaded? 
DIRECT team seems like they could really use some more help on the outside.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/03/2009 01:58 AM

I know the DIRECT team works incredibly hard, but for whatever reason they seem cursed to release the next great version(or data) a week or two behind when it was really needed. 


I'm sorry, but I don't know how you can say that.

Consider this: If they had released the rebuttal WAY back when Griffin left (to be assured it was met with favourable eyes), it would be buried in a pile.

The new administrator, the one who truly needs to see this at first glance, may not be confiremd for another month.

The same goes for the Augustine panel. I have no doubt Direct will have it's day in the limelight, and on that day it will be ready for the world to see. Just in the nick of time will do nicely.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tnphysics on 06/03/2009 02:15 AM
Is their a way to use the excess CLV lift capacity without propellant transfer, other than using elliptical orbits?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/03/2009 02:25 AM
Wasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight?  Or do I have the wrong day?

Anyone rember which show?  Any comments from someone that watched it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: DigitalMan on 06/03/2009 02:25 AM
Ross, I know you've done lots of graphs on cost comparisons, however, considering the questions about cost that come up regularly, is there a breakdown in the new presentation such as:

1) Components that will be used as is, no changes whatsoever

2) Components that have to be altered

3) New components

4) Requalification efforts

5) ?

There is also the changes to infrastructure to consider.  A simple, clear table with a side-by-side comparison of the vehicles (including Ares) showing where the components come from and where the $$$ and time are needed can eliminate a lot of potential doubts (or at least restrict them to components that aren't already flying and well proven).  Even if you plan to keep costs in a separate presentation an at-a-glance table could be easier to grasp even though these concepts are discussed throughout the 2.0 presentation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/03/2009 02:35 AM
Wasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight?  Or do I have the wrong day?

Anyone rember which show?  Any comments from someone that watched it?

Ross should be on right now. Started at 10:00 pm Eastern
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Andy USA on 06/03/2009 03:13 AM
Thank you Ross for your very thorough response. Is there an equivilant forum someplace for the Ares program I wonder?


Yes here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=collapse;c=3;sa=collapse;#3 Top section is Ares, second section is Orion, third section is Ares V and Lunar. Your currently in the four section, which is for alternatives.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/03/2009 03:35 AM
Wasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight?  Or do I have the wrong day?

Anyone rember which show?  Any comments from someone that watched it?

Ross should be on right now. Started at 10:00 pm Eastern

Just now, I heard a terrific point from Ross that he should amplify and increase focus on. NASA needs a good story to tell, a narrative context for the space program.

Robert McKee, a respected teacher of screenwriting has said/written that

Quote
A good story, told well, will ALWAYS sell, always.

Perhaps what NASA needs are a few good narrative engineers.

Anyway, what is the NASA narrative all about?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 04:14 AM
Wasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight?  Or do I have the wrong day?

Anyone rember which show?  Any comments from someone that watched it?

Ross should be on right now. Started at 10:00 pm Eastern

Ahhh, two hours of non-stop talking on The Space Show (http://www.thespaceshow.com/)!

Given that I'm normally quite terrified at the prospect of all such public 'appearances', I think that went pretty well and my "stage terror" didn't really come out, whew! :)

I'll be around to answer questions for a while still.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Gregori on 06/03/2009 04:44 AM
I have a stupid question about the upper stage.....

Are the RL-10 engines restartable in space like the J2X?

Do they need to be restartable?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 04:48 AM
There are no stupid questions! :)

Yes, RL-10's are already designed to be re-startable.

And yes, they will need to be.   A typical Lunar EDS missions would need them to burn once to complete the launch, injecting the Upper Stage/Payload into circular Low Earth Orbit.   Then they will loiter there for some time (up to 5 days in some situations), and they will then need to then perform the TLI Burn as well.

One of our alternative architecture options also uses them to "brake" into Lunar Orbit as well, so in that particular scenario they would actually see them being used three times.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 04:53 AM
PRESENTATION TIME!

Okay, ahead of placing this up on the website (hopefully Wednesday!) I wanted to deliver a "Preview" copy of the ISDC Presentation here first.

Be aware that this copy HAS NOT GOT A FINISHED APPENDIX YET!!!   That's still "in work" right now.   We also plan to add a series of "comments" throughout the presentation to make up for the fact that we don't have someone actually talking you through the various slides -- as the Presentation is really designed to be presented.

So here is a "not-quite-finished writing the Appendix" version of the Presentation specifically for NSF readers to enjoy:-

http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/DIRECT_ISDC_2009_NSF_Preview.pps


To make the animation sequence work you will need the .wmv video and will need to place it in the same folder as the .pps file.   You can get the .wmv version here:-

http://www.directlauncher.com/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-246.wmv

Enjoy!   And feedback is welcome.

Ross.

[EDIT:   If you have problems accessing those, try replacing 'directlauncher.com' with 'launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct']
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/03/2009 04:54 AM
May I ask here what the stance of the Direct team is on the (potential) use of EELVs (D4 and A5)  in NASA's human space exploration efforts?  In a short paragraph.

Thank you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 05:09 AM
May I ask here what the stance of the Direct team is on the (potential) use of EELVs (D4 and A5)  in NASA's human space exploration efforts?  In a short paragraph.

Thank you.

DIRECT intends to use Delta-IV Heavy starting in 2014/15 for lifting routine crew rotation missions to ISS.   (Note: We chose DIVH for a number of reasons, but one of which is because its upper stage is larger than the current Centaur and thus has a greater potential "throw" capability -- and we want to use that on top of Jupiter-130 for some very specific missions).

We are designing the Jupiter-130 to be able to do crew+cargo missions to ISS, but we expect to really only need those for a handful of missions around 2012-2015.   The key intention of using these early flights is as a "stepping stone" to enable us to transition the Shuttle workforce smoothly across the "gap" and into the Exploration Program more effectively.

Because the human-rated EELV schedule doesn't affect many jobs, the priority for us is to expedite the SDLV system as much as possible.


We ultimately intend that the primary focus of the Jupiter systems will move to 'beyond LEO' missions after 2015/16 though, although the capabilities in LEO will still prove useful from time to time (Hubble Servicing Mission #6, anyone?).

We wish to phase most ISS duties over to EELV/COTS systems around 2015 or so, with only the odd Jupiter delivering any required "big stuff" to ISS only once every few years after that.


In addition to ISS duties, we intend to provide a lot of work to the EELV-class systems around 2018/19/20 to begin delivering some pretty serious quantities of propellant to an orbiting Depot in LEO, in support of 'advanced' HSF Exploration missions.

I'm talking about somewhere around 400-600 metric tons of LH2/LOX being delivered to LEO every year, so that would require a *lot* of EELV-class flights.   There's a great opportunity there to get all the commercial operators to really compete for those contracts -- and that sort of competition is good for everyone.

The same Depot arrangement opens the door for foreign partners to also 'buy' seats and payload mass on missions heading to the Moon, Mars or Beyond too.   And all nations who don't have their own space programs would need to contract for Propellant Deliveries on the world launch services market -- and US companies can compete for that business as well!

We believe this is a pretty good model which combines all the strengths of SDLV, EELV and COTS systems into one unified program and "spreads the wealth" quite fairly to everyone.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/03/2009 05:19 AM
Understood.  Thanks for the response, Ross.  I think the 'synergy' of various factors/currently operational capabilities may well come into play as NASA 'gets managed past the ESAS'
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TranquillityBase on 06/03/2009 06:00 AM
Just finished reading ithe ISDC Direct presentation.

Well done Ross, Chuck and Co. 

I liked the structure and the way you tackled the NIH syndrome head on.  Anyone not familiar with what Direct offers, must, after reading this, question the folly of Ares!

Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 06:10 AM
Over on the DIRECT v2.0 thread, I just noticed Jon posted the below comment.

If there is anything else there which I've missed, please re-ask it here.

One of the best 'alternative' mission profiles which we have been able to confirm so far is that of using the EDS to perform the LOI as well as the TLI.

Because the lander doesn't have to perform the LOI, it results in a lander which is considerably smaller and lighter than the current CxP design.   This solves almost all of the Altair's height/stability issues and might even allow the thing to fit inside an 8.4m PLF again too.   At this size and mass the LSAM & CEV will *easily* fit on a J-130, thus improving both costs and safety for each mission.   Also by having multiple engines on an RL-10-powered EDS you get high Isp and a great deal of engine-out capability for the LOI as well, which is nice.

With this profile we're seeing about 10% extra payload mass to the Lunar surface as well -- and that's the real point.

Heh.  So my old joke about how "real lunar transfer vehicles deliver their payload all the way to lunar orbit, not just pansying out at TLI" actually bears up to physical reality?

~Jon

In this precise architecture, yes, it seems to.

We're getting 17,084kg landed payload to the Lunar surface using the 'regular' EOR-LOR LSAM-does-LOI approach and we're getting 19,147kg using the alternative EOR-LOR EDS-does-LOI approach.

Even more interestingly, the Descent Module is roughly half the size too -- and that solves an awful lot of Landing Stability and Cargo-Unloading problems as well.

We are still "growing" our confidence levels with this approach, but it seems pretty solid.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/03/2009 06:11 AM
As a side note (and I am going to shut up past this), please tone down on the 'Ares&NASA'   You want to win hearts and minds who have invested and are indeed investing *their hearts and minds*, and folks who *will have to implement yours* if they are asked to.  And some posts here have spoken to this effect.  Ares goes on because folks carry on -- it is not helpful to tell them "RESET what you are doing and do a different thing, ' cause it's better".
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 06:29 AM
As a side note (and I am going to shut up past this), please tone down on the 'Ares&NASA'   You want to win hearts and minds who have invested and are indeed investing *their hearts and minds*, and folks who *will have to implement yours* if they are asked to.  And some posts here have spoken to this effect.  Ares goes on because folks carry on -- it is not helpful to tell them "RESET what you are doing and do a different thing, ' cause it's better".

That's an incredibly fine line to tread.   And yes, I know we've stepped over it a few more times than we would have liked.   But I would venture to say that it has been much harder to avoid offending *anyone* than it is to design the darn rocket! :)

Seriously though, you're right to point that out.

We do try to minimize it as much as possible, but sometimes there is no real alternative to get the message clearly across except to draw comparisons and point out certain flaws -- and that's a process which will *always* make some folk very uncomfortable.   Its unavoidable in the situation we're in.


But that isn't what stops me sleeping.   For over two years now, we keep having discussions about "how to let NASA take ownership" and how to "save face" for the agency.   I believe that the time is almost upon us for that to happen.

I think those two, more political, issues have actually grown to be even bigger sticking points than any of the technical issues.   But we have some surprisingly simple solutions which we can put-forward to resolve all those issues.

For a start, it sure helps that NASA already did NLS.   That proves that this approach was born -- 100% -- within NASA.   NASA already invented this.   We just dusted it off, tweaked it a little and gave it a new face.

For seconds, its not NASA's fault that the economy has gone to pot and that discretionary funding is being reduced all-across Federal government.   The agency was promised a certain amount of additional money four years ago and now they aren't getting any of it, in fact their budget is about to be reduced for the third time since then.   That seems like a damn good argument to use to explain why they need to start considering an architecture change now, wouldn't you agree?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: DustinD on 06/03/2009 07:26 AM
Thank you for the preview kraisee.

Edit - I found the answer to my question.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 06/03/2009 08:45 AM
And it isn't quite so straight-forward either.   The SRB Aft supports would then be located on the LH2 tank wall, no longer where the lower ring-frame is situated.   To implement the stretch you either have to relocate the SRB attachments lower on the SRB's (requiring re-qual) of you would have to strengthen that region of the tank with an extra ringframe inside the LH2 tank.   

Ok!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: joncz on 06/03/2009 10:14 AM

http://www.directlaumcher.com/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-246.wmv

Ross - that URL has an 'm' where there should be an 'n' in "launcher"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/03/2009 10:30 AM
Here's a probably dumb question that pertains equally to Shuttle and all SDVs:

If you add segements to the SRBs or stretch the core/ET tank, is it absolutely necessary to move the core/SRB attach points on either the tank or the SRBs? Particularly for the SRBs, are the attach points located where they are relative to overall SRB length, or could you add segments above the existing attach points?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/03/2009 10:33 AM
As a side note (and I am going to shut up past this), please tone down on the 'Ares&NASA'   You want to win hearts and minds who have invested and are indeed investing *their hearts and minds*, and folks who *will have to implement yours* if they are asked to.  And some posts here have spoken to this effect.  Ares goes on because folks carry on -- it is not helpful to tell them "RESET what you are doing and do a different thing, ' cause it's better".

But that isn't what stops me sleeping.   For over two years now, we keep having discussions about "how to let NASA take ownership" and how to "save face" for the agency.   I believe that the time is almost upon us for that to happen.

I think those two, more political, issues have actually grown to be even bigger sticking points than any of the technical issues.   But we have some surprisingly simple solutions which we can put-forward to resolve all those issues.

For a start, it sure helps that NASA already did NLS.   That proves that this approach was born -- 100% -- within NASA.   NASA already invented this.   We just dusted it off, tweaked it a little and gave it a new face.

For seconds, its not NASA's fault that the economy has gone to pot and that discretionary funding is being reduced all-across Federal government.   The agency was promised a certain amount of additional money four years ago and now they aren't getting any of it, in fact their budget is about to be reduced for the third time since then.   That seems like a damn good argument to use to explain why they need to start considering an architecture change now, wouldn't you agree?

Ross.

and thirdly the architecture you have specifically chosen (SSME J-246) allows NASA to do a variant of it and still claim it is an Ares variant by starting with the 8.4m SSME Ares V classic as the CaLV end point and just making an Ares III CLV(+) out of it with 3 SSMEs. The CLV would obviously have to lift the LSAM as well as Orion. They still get an Ares V, 5-segs and the J-2X but the CLV is basically the same launcher without 2 SSMEs and an upper stage and is truly safe, simple, soon ;). Many ways to skin this cat if there is the will ;).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/03/2009 10:34 AM
If you add segements to the SRBs or stretch the core/ET tank, is it absolutely necessary to move the core/SRB attach points on either the tank or the SRBs?

The point to remember is that the main (upper) attach points are attached to a spar that runs through the LH2/LOX intertank on the ET.  Changing the size of the tanks logically changes the location of the intertank.  Either you move the attachment point or you redesign it (a ring rather than a spar, for example).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/03/2009 11:05 AM
Wasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight?  Or do I have the wrong day?

Anyone rember which show?  Any comments from someone that watched it?

Ross should be on right now. Started at 10:00 pm Eastern

Ahhh, two hours of non-stop talking on The Space Show (http://www.thespaceshow.com/)!

Given that I'm normally quite terrified at the prospect of all such public 'appearances', I think that went pretty well and my "stage terror" didn't really come out, whew! :)

I'll be around to answer questions for a while still.

Ross.

Ross,

Luckily I knew the venue was "The Space Show" and was able to Google for it.

I caught the last half of the show, and you were very eloquent and handled skeptical questioners with aplomb.  Practice makes perfect!

Since I missed the first half of the show, I don't know if you covered the following point.  Many of the callers were challenging you about how DIRECT could possibly be so much more affordable and capable than ARES.  I didn't hear you put forward my favorite aspect of DIRECT: that you are replacing two separate, duplicative, and entirely new development efforts (Ares-I and Ares-V) with the evolution of an existing launcher (Shuttle) into a new inline configuration (Jupiter-130).

I think DIRECT would be entirely justified in calling Jupiter an evolution or adaptation of existing Shuttle technology, rather than a new development effort, much more so than Ares can claim.  Ares is designed to look like it is Shuttle derived, but there really is very very little carried over.  On the other hand, DIRECT uses the same boosters, the same main engines, as much of the same ET as possible, and almost all of the existing tooling and infrastructure.  Ares can't claim any of those commonalities, and they're doing it twice!

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/03/2009 12:19 PM
PRESENTATION TIME!

Okay, ahead of placing this up on the website (hopefully Wednesday!) I wanted to deliver a "Preview" copy of the ISDC Presentation here first.

Be aware that this copy HAS NOT GOT A FINISHED APPENDIX YET!!!   That's still "in work" right now.   We also plan to add a series of "comments" throughout the presentation to make up for the fact that we don't have someone actually talking you through the various slides -- as the Presentation is really designed to be presented.

So here is a "not-quite-finished writing the Appendix" version of the Presentation specifically for NSF readers to enjoy:-

http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/DIRECT_ISDC_2009_NSF_Preview.pps


To make the animation sequence work you will need the .wmv video and will need to place it in the same folder as the .pps file.   You can get the .wmv version here:-

http://www.directlauncher.com/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-246.wmv

Enjoy!   And feedback is welcome.

Ross.

[EDIT:   If you have problems accessing those, try replacing 'directlauncher.com' with 'launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct']

NICE
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/03/2009 12:36 PM
Very impressed with the presentation. GREAT JOB!


BTW: Appendix Slide 77 still references J-120 and J-232..
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/03/2009 01:00 PM
Very impressed with the presentation. GREAT JOB!


BTW: Appendix Slide 77 still references J-120 and J-232..

I saw a J-120 using 2 SSMEs with an LEO capability of 39mT +10% fuel reserve.
Would this be more economical at servicing crew and supplies than the J-130 until advancedEELVs and COTS-D?


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mnewcomb on 06/03/2009 02:13 PM
Guys, this is just an incredible piece of work. The presentation is put together extremely well and is very clear with regard to what can be achieved.

I especially love how the SSMEs pop right out of the shuttle and get placed on the bottom the external tank.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/03/2009 02:14 PM
I saw a J-120 using 2 SSMEs with an LEO capability of 39mT +10% fuel reserve.
Would this be more economical at servicing crew and supplies than the J-130 until advancedEELVs and COTS-D?

Two reasons;

1. Avoid competing directly with the same lift-class as the EELVs.  Jupiter doesn't want to be the full-time LEO ferry rocket for ISS missions.  It wants to "aim higher".

2. 2-engine SSME variant does not have very robust engine-out capabilities.  That extra engine gets you more contingency options and safety.

Edit: Typo.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: usn_skwerl on 06/03/2009 02:25 PM
Excellent presentation, guys! That really does put things into perspective. Save me a seat on Orion would ya? I don't want to fly on Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/03/2009 02:31 PM
Awesome presentation! That timeline gives me goosebumps. The idea of getting a replacement for the shuttle on the pad by 2012 is exciting. I hope the Augustine Commission and you guys can make it a reality! I can't see how you wouldn't support direct if you showed them the timeline (not to mention the costs).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ehb on 06/03/2009 05:58 PM
The MP3 of Ross Tierney's Space Show presentation is now available at http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1167 (http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1167)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/03/2009 08:19 PM
If you add segements to the SRBs or stretch the core/ET tank, is it absolutely necessary to move the core/SRB attach points on either the tank or the SRBs?

The point to remember is that the main (upper) attach points are attached to a spar that runs through the LH2/LOX intertank on the ET.  Changing the size of the tanks logically changes the location of the intertank.  Either you move the attachment point or you redesign it (a ring rather than a spar, for example).

If the SRB is stretched (eg 4-seg to 5-seg) without core stretch, the casing has the strength to easily re-locate the attach point so that it still goes to the thrust beam. 5-seg will be re-qualified anyway, so this isn't a huge issue. I believe this is the scheme that was intended if the Shuttle was to be upgraded to 5-segs. (Simplifying, just add another segment above the existing attach point).

The thrust beam is very important for ameliorating Thrust Oscillation (ref Ares I issues).

If the core is stretched without an SRB stretch, it's hard to see how the SRB could attach to a new, higher thrust beam point.

A 4-seg design could be upgraded with 5-segs as a future upgrade, but none of the 5-seg optimized configurations could be used with 4-segs unless they included a 'spacer' to artificially lengthen them.

5-seg SRB's don't add a huge amount of payload (~7mT, I think [that may be for RS-68 vehicle]), but they then enable a core stretch, which adds ~25mT (again, IIRC, and that may be for RS-68 vehicle). Also found this:-

Quote

Quote from: kraisee on 09-03-2009, 11:28:41 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15541.msg372468#msg372468)

    Now, if we were to propose a Stretched Core to work optimally with a set of 5-segs, then the 5-engine arrangement would be better suited than the 4-engine.   But that would add significant additional development costs and stretch out the schedule for IOC of the initial J-130's too -- so we don't really like that option.

    Ross.


Of course, if the 5-segment SRB actually becomes a reality, that stretched, 5-engine configuration might make sense. But that's for FUTURE planners


I must admit, I'm fascinated whether a core stretch with 4-seg SRB's would even lift off the ground / perform as well as a non-stretched vehicle. It seems as if the larger fuel load should override the hit during the SRB phase (more mass, no / little extra thrust), but...

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/03/2009 08:22 PM
Ross also recently posted about moving the lower attach point (in the event of a 7-9% downwards stretch of the core):-

And it isn't quite so straight-forward either.   The SRB Aft supports would then be located on the LH2 tank wall, no longer where the lower ring-frame is situated.   To implement the stretch you either have to relocate the SRB attachments lower on the SRB's (requiring re-qual) of you would have to strengthen that region of the tank with an extra ringframe inside the LH2 tank.   While both are possible, neither is a trivial change and both add $$$ and time to the development -- and delays = job losses.

Given that we already comfortably exceed all of the performance requirements, we don't see this as a worthy trade in Phase 1 of our proposal.

Ross.

Basically, the current lower SRB attach point is a strong point on the tank - where the barrel section joins to the dome.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Cale on 06/03/2009 08:41 PM
Just looked at the PowerPoint presentation, Ross.

Outstanding job as always :)

Best,

Cale
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/03/2009 09:08 PM
As a side note (and I am going to shut up past this), please tone down on the 'Ares&NASA'   You want to win hearts and minds who have invested and are indeed investing *their hearts and minds*, and folks who *will have to implement yours* if they are asked to.  And some posts here have spoken to this effect.  Ares goes on because folks carry on -- it is not helpful to tell them "RESET what you are doing and do a different thing, ' cause it's better".

But that isn't what stops me sleeping.   For over two years now, we keep having discussions about "how to let NASA take ownership" and how to "save face" for the agency.   I believe that the time is almost upon us for that to happen.

I think those two, more political, issues have actually grown to be even bigger sticking points than any of the technical issues.   But we have some surprisingly simple solutions which we can put-forward to resolve all those issues.

For a start, it sure helps that NASA already did NLS.   That proves that this approach was born -- 100% -- within NASA.   NASA already invented this.   We just dusted it off, tweaked it a little and gave it a new face.

For seconds, its not NASA's fault that the economy has gone to pot and that discretionary funding is being reduced all-across Federal government.   The agency was promised a certain amount of additional money four years ago and now they aren't getting any of it, in fact their budget is about to be reduced for the third time since then.   That seems like a damn good argument to use to explain why they need to start considering an architecture change now, wouldn't you agree?

Ross.

and thirdly the architecture you have specifically chosen (SSME J-246) allows NASA to do a variant of it and still claim it is an Ares variant by starting with the 8.4m SSME Ares V classic as the CaLV end point and just making an Ares III CLV(+) out of it with 3 SSMEs. The CLV would obviously have to lift the LSAM as well as Orion. They still get an Ares V, 5-segs and the J-2X but the CLV is basically the same launcher without 2 SSMEs and an upper stage and is truly safe, simple, soon ;). Many ways to skin this cat if there is the will ;).

What would we call an Ares III CLV + Ares IV CaLV archticture? 1.75 launch?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/03/2009 09:13 PM

What would we call an Ares III CLV + Ares IV CaLV archticture? 1.75 launch?

NASA can call it anything they like :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 09:18 PM

http://www.directlaumcher.com/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-246.wmv

Ross - that URL has an 'm' where there should be an 'n' in "launcher"


Yeah, I err, ummm, meant to do that! Honest guvna'  ::)

Seriously, thanks for the correction Jon, I've fixed the original post now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/03/2009 09:21 PM
Hi Team,

Know you're busy, but is it possible to make images of some of the pps slides from your ISDC presentation? Specifically the "Jupiter is the historic NASA STS derived approach", "Direct builds upon existing STS hardware", "Directs proven heritage improves safety", and "Direct eliminates the workforce & flight "gap" at KSC".


If I may also make a suggestion? Play up the Apollo 8 mission by 2014 against Ares IOC date. Some will say it's a BS mission, but it's a dramatic way to say "We can do this 3 years before Ares is even flying". Especially with the Chinese talking about doing it very soon.



Thank you for your time.


Steve
"All right. Let's get on with it." ó T. Keith Glennan, first NASA administrator, regarding the space program, 7 October 1958.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 09:35 PM
Hi Team,

Know you're busy, but is it possible to make images of some of the pps slides from your ISDC presentation? Specifically the "Jupiter is the historic NASA STS derived approach", "Direct builds upon existing STS hardware", "Directs proven heritage improves safety", and "Direct eliminates the workforce & flight "gap" at KSC".


If I may also make a suggestion? Play up the Apollo 8 mission by 2014 against Ares IOC date. Some will say it's a BS mission, but it's a dramatic way to say "We can do this 3 years before Ares is even flying". Especially with the Chinese talking about doing it very soon.



Thank you for your time.


Steve Kessinger

"America is too great for small dreams" -President Reagan
"All right. Let's get on with it." ó T. Keith Glennan, first NASA administrator, regarding the space program, 7 October 1958.

Actually, you spotted a grievous typo in there -- that 2014 date is the one we were using for the RS-68-based Jupiter-120, if you remove all engine re-qualification work the schedule is then dictated by Orion and the avionics now.

*That* means that the schedule can come forward by roughly a year, so that slide is supposed to say 2013.

*THANK-YOU* for mentioning that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 09:37 PM
What would we call an Ares III CLV + Ares IV CaLV archticture? 1.75 launch?

My shortlist of suggestions:-

Affordable.
Viable.
Reasonable.
Sensible.
Workable.
Doable.

Take your pick!   I'm sure there are other names too :)


Ohhh, you meant *that* sort of name...    ;D

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/03/2009 09:43 PM


If I may also make a suggestion? Play up the Apollo 8 mission by 2014 against Ares IOC date. Some will say it's a BS mission, but it's a dramatic way to say "We can do this 3 years before Ares is even flying". Especially with the Chinese talking about doing it very soon.


"America is too great for small dreams" -President Reagan
"All right. Let's get on with it." ó T. Keith Glennan, first NASA administrator, regarding the space program, 7 October 1958.

Actually, you spotted a grievous typo in there -- that 2014 date is the one we were using for the RS-68-based Jupiter-120, if you remove all engine re-qualification work the schedule is then dictated by Orion and the avionics now.

*That* means that the schedule can come forward by roughly a year, so that slide is supposed to say 2013.

*THANK-YOU* for mentioning that.

Ross.

Maybe it will take another Sputnik to get us back on track. I remember it well... God, what a waste Not to do Direct!

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tnphysics on 06/03/2009 09:52 PM
Another elliptical orbit approach:

CLV US/LSAM/CEV and EDS rendezvous (but do not dock), light engines, and do 1st part of TLI in formation with each other. When CLV US runs out of prop docking and the rest of TLI follow.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/03/2009 09:53 PM
Wasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight?  Or do I have the wrong day?

Anyone rember which show?  Any comments from someone that watched it?

Ross should be on right now. Started at 10:00 pm Eastern

Just now, I heard a terrific point from Ross that he should amplify and increase focus on. NASA needs a good story to tell, a narrative context for the space program.

Robert McKee, a respected teacher of screenwriting has said/written that

Quote
A good story, told well, will ALWAYS sell, always.

Perhaps what NASA needs are a few good narrative engineers.

Anyway, what is the NASA narrative all about?

Yeah I think NASA does a terrible job of selling themselves. NASA TV is pretty hit and miss. They don't narrate a lot of stuff, and they could sound a little more excited about their work. Even if they have to bring less on a shuttle trip, I'd love to see some stuff in HD. HD on the moon, HD videos from Mars. Perhaps we'll know less in the short run than if we brought another instrument along, but it will encourage more funding for more trips in the future.

On the other hand the last video of the launch from the point of view of the SRBs was amazing! Looked unreal. They need more of THAT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tnphysics on 06/03/2009 09:54 PM
What is staged-TLI? Sorry, probably buried in one of the 2.0 threads, but probably impossible to find.


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 10:17 PM
Staged TLI is a fairly new option.    It would use both Upper Stages from both Jupiter-246's to perform the TLI.   The first one performs about 85% of the TLI and is then jettisoned.

The second completes the TLI and then also performs the LOI later too.

The basic arrangement also seems to work pretty well with a "Crasher Stage" lander approach as well, allowing for a particularly small Lander to be designed.


The purpose of this approach is to allow the full LEO performance of the second Jupiter-246 to be utilized to increase TLI performance of the whole system.   Right now, the second Jupiter-246 lifts the Orion and Altair, and then has about 15mT of 'spare' performance which we aren't utilizing in our more traditional EOR-LOR approach.

There are a few obvious downsides to this approach (extra dockings, jettisons and engine-starts).   But one of our team has put this forward as another of the many options which should be considered fully.

There will be a Mission Profile chart in the final version of the Presentation which should help to explain this option more fully -- that's one of the sections needing work still.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Fequalsma on 06/03/2009 10:33 PM
Ross -

The presentation looks great!  Well done!

Can you post a .pps that doesn't have the line-by-line
transitions on the slides?  Or a .pdf of the presentation?

Thanks!
F=ma

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 10:41 PM
We will do that with the final version.   This is just a Preview.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 06/03/2009 11:14 PM
We need to include this in the next presentation Ross, my heart almost stopped.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 11:26 PM
The beginning of an end of an era.

Of course, Jupiter doesn't need the Beanie Cap, so that change doesn't affect us (does affect Shuttle-C though).

I expect to see the White Room come off that tower soon.   I surely hope that someone is already planning to preserve that piece of history somewhere.

It's the *other* changes at KSC (VAB HB3 for example) -- and especially MAF (Dome welding tooling is already being stripped) -- which concern me the most though...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/03/2009 11:33 PM
The beginning of an end of an era.

Of course, Jupiter doesn't need the Beanie Cap, so that change doesn't affect us (does affect Shuttle-C though).

I expect to see the White Room come off that tower soon.   I surely hope that someone is already planning to preserve that piece of history somewhere.

It's the *other* changes at KSC (VAB HB3 for example) -- and especially MAF (Dome welding tooling is already being stripped) -- which concern me the most though...

Ross.

Is the space the welding tool takes up needed so bad they can't just let it sit there for a while?

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 11:44 PM
Is the space the welding tool takes up needed so bad they can't just let it sit there for a while?

Good points -- and ones we have been wondering about ourselves.   There are a number of salient points to consider...

MSFC has been working with a set of the new Ares-I welding tools in Huntsville already, doing prototyping work.   Those tools could certainly be utilized to make a limited run of test stages.

The first flight-stage (Ares-I-Y) isn't going to be needed for another 4-6 years (depending on whether you listen to the "public" schedule or the "internal" one, respectively), one does have to wonder "why the rush?".

I personally believe its a Scorched Earth policy.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/03/2009 11:46 PM
Staged TLI is a fairly new option.    It would use both Upper Stages from both Jupiter-246's to perform the TLI.   The first one performs about 85% of the TLI and is then jettisoned.

The second completes the TLI and then also performs the LOI later too.

The basic arrangement also seems to work pretty well with a "Crasher Stage" lander approach as well, allowing for a particularly small Lander to be designed.


The purpose of this approach is to allow the full LEO performance of the second Jupiter-246 to be utilized to increase TLI performance of the whole system.   Right now, the second Jupiter-246 lifts the Orion and Altair, and then has about 15mT of 'spare' performance which we aren't utilizing in our more traditional EOR-LOR approach.

There are a few obvious downsides to this approach (extra dockings, jettisons and engine-starts).   But one of our team has put this forward as another of the many options which should be considered fully.

There will be a Mission Profile chart in the final version of the Presentation which should help to explain this option more fully -- that's one of the sections needing work still.

Ross.

Staged TLI is a good idea. Good practice for Mars mission assembly. Also useful if you want to do a NEO mission. Leave off the Altair, and you've got a lot more fuel to burn in the second EDS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/04/2009 12:27 AM

Actually, you spotted a grievous typo in there -- that 2014 date is the one we were using for the RS-68-based Jupiter-120, if you remove all engine re-qualification work the schedule is then dictated by Orion and the avionics now.

*That* means that the schedule can come forward by roughly a year, so that slide is supposed to say 2013.

*THANK-YOU* for mentioning that.

Ross.


Aw shucks, sir. Glad to help...   ;D


Shoot.... hard to believe we could be back doing moon flybys in 4 years with no interruption in our MSF program.


It's too dang bad you can't get a flight crewmember to come out in favor of Direct. Anyone got John Young's phone number??
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 12:32 AM

snip

It's too dang bad you can't get a flight crewmember to come out in favor of Direct. Anyone got John Young's phone number??

I turned Charlie Bolden around on Entry Guidance several years ago -- and I did it in one hour.  I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't see the benefit of Direct.  It might take me more than an hour on this one though ;)

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 12:34 AM

snip

It's too dang bad you can't get a flight crewmember to come out in favor of Direct. Anyone got John Young's phone number??

I turned Charlie Bolden around on Entry Guidance several years ago -- and I did it in one hour.  I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't see the benefit of Direct.  It might take me more than an hour on this one though ;)

Danny Deger


Do you think he'd take a meeting?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 06/04/2009 12:36 AM
Staged TLI is a fairly new option.    It would use both Upper Stages from both Jupiter-246's to perform the TLI.   The first one performs about 85% of the TLI and is then jettisoned.

Does that mean the nearly-full EDS fires first?  Wouldn't it be better to do it the other way around, in order to be able to dump the dry mass of one EDS as fast as possible?

EDIT:  Never mind; that would add an absolute minimum of one undocking and one docking, assuming both stages are pointed in the same direction...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 12:40 AM

snip

Do you think he'd take a meeting?

cheers, Martin

Not being tongue a cheek one bit, the answer is yes.  I am sure he would go to a Direct meeting if he was invited.  He is more than willing to listin to people -- even if they aren't saying what he wants to hear.  I found this to be a very rare trait at NASA.

When I first turned Entry Guidance upside down in his office that day, I could tell part of him wanted to throw the idiot out of his office (the idiot in this case was me.)  But he listened carefully and by the end of the hour he was my first convert to the new way to think of Entry Guidance.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/04/2009 12:49 AM
How about an image with the Orion coming around into an Earthrise with "Direct: 2013 Yes We Can!" on the bottom.

I know the "Yes we can" is a cliche already, but we gotta fire up the imagination of the non-space geeks. And with the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 rapidly approaching I think it's a perfect time.



I don't think you'd need stickers on the bottom of that poster.
http://rocketsandsuch.blogspot.com/2009/05/ares-idol-or-idle.html (http://rocketsandsuch.blogspot.com/2009/05/ares-idol-or-idle.html)


Thank you for your time,

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 06/04/2009 02:02 AM
Direct Team,

Just read the ISDC 09 Presentation and like the other commenters on the site I just want to say it looks fantastic!  I have followed the progress of Direct for a while and one of the most interesting things seems to be that everytime you crunch the numbers starting with the 2007 presentation for 2.0 then 2008 presentation and so on Direct seems to look better and better when compared to Ares.

The delta in development costs seems to increase more and more in Directs favor, the return to manned flight looks better and better in Directs favor, along with mission safety and other critical parameters.  And you haven't even bothered yet to factor in the additional Ares I delay costs, 11m core, RS-68 regen and all of the other changes in the Ares baseline costs. 

It would be interesting to know if anyone with a good knowledge of the Ares program has developed a rough cost overun projection for Ares current $34 Billion development estimate.  I don't think it will be a trivial amount.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/04/2009 02:05 AM
I noticed in the v2.0 you used 2x J2X engines for the upper stage and in v3, those have been changed to 6 RL-10. Why did you make this change? Is it to have an option so you can have the 246 ready even if the J2x isn't?

I also don't quite understand why you have 3 engines in the 130 and 4 in the 246. The 3rd is in case of engine failure correct? How do the two sets differ? I don't know much about rockets so I gotta learn stuff from somewhere.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 06/04/2009 02:11 AM
I may be wrong, but I think that circular orbits have the nice property that you can do the second launch every time the orbit is over your head, while elliptical orbits offer much less launch opportunities.

You are exactly correct.

The only 'likely' use of such a profile would be in the unlikely, but not impossible, scenario of a dual launch occurring at the same time from both pads.

That's a 'difficult' proposition, to say the least, but is not completely unprecedented.   Here is an image showing Gemini 12 lifting off from LC-19 at the same time as an Atlas Agena lifts off from LC-14 a few miles away.   This was done specifically to enable a docking between the two spacecraft in LEO.

(http://www.apollomissionphotos.com/104ksc66pc340.jpg)

This sort of thing *has* been done before.

Ross.
In 'reel' life the one time two-rocket launches have been done was in the movie Armageddon with a space shuttle look-alike, but someone said it would be impossible since the vibrations of one rocket would damage/destroy the other.

Given the distance between Launch Pad 39A and 39B, would this be a possibility if they tried launching two Jupiter rockets at the same time?

EDIT: In addition the main directlauncher website could use a major update. Also the new Direct 3.0 video presentation didn't show clearly the configuration of the 3 and 4 SSME engines at the base of the fuel tank.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/04/2009 02:26 AM
Aw sucks, sir. Glad to help...   ;D

You seem like a nice fellow.  I'm sure that's a typo and you really meant "shucks".  :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: sdsds on 06/04/2009 03:40 AM
Here is an image showing Gemini 12 lifting off from LC-19 at the same time as an Atlas Agena lifts off from LC-14 a few miles away.   This was done specifically to enable a docking between the two spacecraft in LEO.

(http://www.apollomissionphotos.com/104ksc66pc340.jpg)

This sort of thing *has* been done before.

Ross.

In fairness, that photo was a double exposure. From the caption: "98 minutes after the Atlas Agena was launched from Complex 14 the Gemini Titan - 12 followed from Complex 19 with Lovell and Aldrin on board."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 03:41 AM
Aw sucks, sir. Glad to help...   ;D

You seem like a nice fellow.  I'm sure that's a typo and you really meant "shucks".  :)

Hahahaha!   For some bizarre reason, that made me laugh heartily.   Ta!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/04/2009 03:55 AM
Aw sucks, sir. Glad to help...   ;D

You seem like a nice fellow.  I'm sure that's a typo and you really meant "shucks".  :)



Note to self: make appointment to have glasses checked.

:cheers: !!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/04/2009 04:05 AM
Hey Ross, as long as you're up...

Great job on the presentation slides for ISDC09!  I finally got a chance to review the whole thing this evening.  I think you and the rest of the DIRECT team hit that one out of the ballpark.

Do I recall correctly that you had recorded the actual presentation on video?  I would love to see that, and I'm sure many others here would too.

Regarding the HSF Review, do you think statements against DIRECT like "violates the laws of physics" will be taken at face value by the panel?  I really doubt it myself, but the way things have been going since 2005, you never really know.

If I was on the panel, I would not allow testimony from anyone with a proposal against anyone else's, only testimony for their own proposal.  Then the panel can weigh the pros and cons of each and come to their own conclusions.

Thanks,
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 06/04/2009 05:56 AM
Here is an image showing Gemini 12 lifting off from LC-19 at the same time as an Atlas Agena lifts off from LC-14 a few miles away.   This was done specifically to enable a docking between the two spacecraft in LEO.

(http://www.apollomissionphotos.com/104ksc66pc340.jpg)

This sort of thing *has* been done before.

Ross.

In fairness, that photo was a double exposure. From the caption: "98 minutes after the Atlas Agena was launched from Complex 14 the Gemini Titan - 12 followed from Complex 19 with Lovell and Aldrin on board."
I guess that more or less answers one of my questions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 07:48 AM
Staged TLI is a fairly new option.    It would use both Upper Stages from both Jupiter-246's to perform the TLI.   The first one performs about 85% of the TLI and is then jettisoned.

The second completes the TLI and then also performs the LOI later too.

The basic arrangement also seems to work pretty well with a "Crasher Stage" lander approach as well, allowing for a particularly small Lander to be designed.


The purpose of this approach is to allow the full LEO performance of the second Jupiter-246 to be utilized to increase TLI performance of the whole system.   Right now, the second Jupiter-246 lifts the Orion and Altair, and then has about 15mT of 'spare' performance which we aren't utilizing in our more traditional EOR-LOR approach.

There are a few obvious downsides to this approach (extra dockings, jettisons and engine-starts).   But one of our team has put this forward as another of the many options which should be considered fully.

There will be a Mission Profile chart in the final version of the Presentation which should help to explain this option more fully -- that's one of the sections needing work still.

Ross.


For anyone interested, I posted some speculations on a staged-TLI + 2nd-EDS-for-LOI + 2nd-EDS-used-again-for-crasher + lighter Altair a couple of months ago. See Scheme:- Separate launches with crasher EDS (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16163.msg389002#msg389002), and an earlier post here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15541.msg372226#msg372226) (btw both sets of figures are massively over-estimated). I had to read it three times before I believed that "staged TLI" was listed in the ISDC presentation (I'm not claiming anything, just chuffed that I'd spotted it).

NB DIRECT have occasionally used the term "Mission Manoeuvring Stage" for a post-TLI stage, such as the 2nd EDS.



My meanderings on the subject included multiple errors (wrong launch capacities, margins, etc, etc, etc), and the very early pre-release version of Ross's spreadsheet that I mangled up has moved on massively in the intervening couple of months.

But I could land 40% more cargo mass than the standard architecture.



One major thing that I did find necessary for any staged-TLI architecture, was to lift Altair & Orion on separate flights - something that NASA seemed to consider absolutely mandatory for a while, although that's gone quiet recently. See crewed J-246 launch with crasher (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pcph2gasB0biI5O95AWvscA&gid=4), for instance. I think this is a major plus point of the staged-TLI, staged-descent approach.

Basically, by biasing the fuel onto the MMS instead of EDS, the mass of both EDS & EDS/MMS interstage is geared away substantially. Of course, this also maximises burn time after the EDS has been dropped away.

This may also allow both Altair & Orion to fly under custom, light PLF's which drop during flight (per Ares I & Ares V).



Although I struggled to match the cargo of standard DIRECT on crewed flights, I now realise I'd made two errors:-

1) by always staging Altair 75% into the descent, Altair was only part fueled for crewed missions. By always loading 6mT of fuel in the Descent Stage I found performance improved across the board. I suspect staging higher in the descent would improve performance still further (with a cryogenic stage), but I was trying to stick to the GR&A's (which, BTW, seem to be biased towards a hypergolic lander with a crasher architecture).

2) for a crewed launch, MMS+Altair launches first. I was applying 10% margins to this flight - copied from the standard DIRECT twin-launch cargo mission. I now don't see any point in this - if there's a performance shortfall on the Altair flight, the crew will sit on the ground and watch in frustration as the Altair crashes back to Earth unused. (Or maybe Altair could perform an impromptu cargo-only mission, and the next crewed launch tries to set down next to it). Using 100% of the Altair flight capacity lands 1mT more mass than DIRECT, rather than 2mT less as suggested in my previous post.

See http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rd1Fu8PVP1kg3a4rEHa-ioA&output=html (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rd1Fu8PVP1kg3a4rEHa-ioA&output=html) for a hacked-together example of this (again, ignore the figures, other than as comparison against the other spreadsheets linked from my previous post).

cheers, Martin

PS Ross - my simulations seemed to show that if you put Orion & Altair on separate flights, the MMS has a larger fuel load, which gives you a higher gearing on both the EDS & EDS/MMS interstage. It also lets you lighten the Altair PLF, and use an Ares-I-style "early discarded" Orion PLF.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 07:53 AM
One other major thing.

Once you have the staged-TLI thing up-and-running and mature, it's possible to perform a twin cargo launch, then launch Orion on an EELV.

This 2.5 architecture can simultaneously land both crew and massive cargo in a single mission, certainly more cargo than CxP's cargo-only flight (14.7mT).

2x J-246 + 1x EELV lands crew & more cargo than 2x Ares V + 1x Ares-I.

Of course, there are many reasons not to do this, but it's an option for much later in the schedule.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/04/2009 08:51 AM
Thanks for posting the ISDC presentation Ross. The Apollo 8 diagram showed a profile that only does a Lunar flyby of the Moon. I thought that Orion could carry enough propellant to orbit the Moon. Could you confirm which is correct; Lunar flyby or Lunar orbit? Thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/04/2009 09:28 AM
I noticed in the v2.0 you used 2x J2X engines for the upper stage and in v3, those have been changed to 6 RL-10. Why did you make this change? Is it to have an option so you can have the 246 ready even if the J2x isn't?

The performance of 6 x RL-10B-2 through TLI is better than the J-2X.  The team still have a 1 x J-2X upper stage proposal, just in case the program is retained for political reasons (not loosing thousands of jobs at PWR when they cancel the program).

Quote
I also don't quite understand why you have 3 engines in the 130 and 4 in the 246. The 3rd is in case of engine failure correct? How do the two sets differ? I don't know much about rockets so I gotta learn stuff from somewhere.

It is a matter of power.  Four SSMEs will lift more weight than three.  The fourth SSME in the JS-246 is to lift the additional dead weight of the JUS/EDS upper stage. 

On the JS-130, IIRC, the third engine is solely to give the launcher the extra power it needs to carry cargo as well as the Orion all the way to orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/04/2009 09:34 AM
Yeah, I was also thinking about a two-stage TLI/LOI/crasher architecture, except mine is a bit simpler:

Launch Altair on J-24x then Orion on J-24x.  Retain both upper stages to EOR.  Dock eyes in nozzles out.  Start TLI with Orion JUS (~70mT remaining propellant) and jettison on burnout.  Reverse attitude and finish TLI with Altair JUS (~45mT remaining propellant).  Reverse attitude and fire Altair JUS again for LOI and, after separating from Orion, a final burn for deorbit.  Jettison on burnout and crash it into the moon.

Besides the increased lunar payload, the lander center of gravity is substantially lower, the PLFs are less complicated/empty, and the EOR is simplified to a single docking maneuver much like Constellation.  Seems like a winner to me, as long as the brief coast between TLI burns for separation and reorientation isn't a big problem.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 10:24 AM
Yeah, I was also thinking about a two-stage TLI/LOI/crasher architecture, except mine is a bit simpler:

Launch Altair on J-24x then Orion on J-24x.  Retain both upper stages to EOR.  Dock eyes in nozzles out.  Start TLI with Orion JUS (~70mT remaining propellant) and jettison on burnout.  Reverse attitude and finish TLI with Altair JUS (~45mT remaining propellant).  Reverse attitude and fire Altair JUS again for LOI and, after separating from Orion, a final burn for deorbit.  Jettison on burnout and crash it into the moon.

Besides the increased lunar payload, the lander center of gravity is substantially lower, the PLFs are less complicated/empty, and the EOR is simplified to a single docking maneuver much like Constellation.  Seems like a winner to me, as long as the brief coast between TLI burns for separation and reorientation isn't a big problem.


Two problems with that:-

1) During first EDS burn, you're putting huge stresses on the Orion / Altair connection. At best, you'd have to really beef up both vehicles and the docking mechanism. Probably lose all your mass savings.

2) The first EDS burn pushes Altair & EDS #2 "upside down", which I don't believe is a load path currently accomodated. (To be fair, I think Orion may gently accelerate Altair "upside down" during rendezvous manoeuvres).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 10:27 AM
Thanks for posting the ISDC presentation Ross. The Apollo 8 diagram showed a profile that only does a Lunar flyby of the Moon. I thought that Orion could carry enough propellant to orbit the Moon. Could you confirm which is correct; Lunar flyby or Lunar orbit? Thanks.

Its Artistic License :)

The Orion has sufficient propellant to insert into an elliptical orbit around the moon.   How low the Apolune will be is still a matter for debate, but we believe it would be quite reasonable -- the Orbit will certainly be enough to get a duplicate of the famous Apollo-8 'Earth Rise" picture again.

Potentially, with a high enough Apolune though, the potential exists to consider a new 'spectacular image' which has not been attempted before in high-quality -- that of the moon situated in front of the Earth -- both in the same shot.   We have not yet even attempted to work out the precise details for achieving such a shot, but the idea is rather appealing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 10:30 AM
One of the biggest obstacles to a staged-TLI, staged-descent architecture is that you'd prefer not to do it for the early missions!

Unfortunately, you have to build a lighter Altair to make this work, so you are stuck with staged descent & EDS-for-LOI. Lighter/shorter Altair has many reasons to justify it's existence, so this shouldn't be so much of a problem.


But can you start with a standard DIRECT launch (combined Orion & Altair CLV + separate EDS, single-phase TLI), then move to separate launches & staged TLI later???


To join the EDS & MMS you need a fairly heavy structure, and this naturally flies on top of the EDS. That's not a problem for staged-TLI (see below), but it really screws up a standard DIRECT-style launch & TLI. Basically, the 4mT+ interstage reduces EDS fuel by the same amount. End of (using LV-40 figures, and an out-of-date spreadsheet).

The only way I was able to get this to close was to have the interstage lift on the CLV flight instead of the EDS flight, and quite frankly I have trouble seeing how to make that work.

The closest I could come was to leave the core-to-MMS interstage in place during ascent, then re-use this as the EDS-to-MMS interstage during TLI.

I have no idea whether it is possible to leave the interstage in place during ascent, but suspect not since RL-10 is radiatively cooled.

One option I did come up with was to break the interstage into two or more segments, then hinge them away from the engines during ascent. Post-ascent, the interstage would hinge back into place to dock with the EDS (then be dropped post-TLI).

Problem - I presume this would interfere with the RCS.

It might also be possible to implement an RL-10-extending-nozzle type scheme in reverse (lift the interstage segments up the EDS body during 2nd stage of ascent, then back down to dock with EDS).


Word of warning - I don't know how these numbers would stack up using LV-41 launch vehicles and a more up-to-date (ie realistic!) spreadsheet.

cheers, Martin


(**) In a separate-launch, staged-TLI architecture, you want to maximise the mass of the MMS launch. This naturally allows the interstage to be lifted between EDS & PLF on the EDS launch.

For a crewed launch, the body of the interstage also naturally encompasses the body of the SM, reducing the CLV PLF to a simple EDS-style one + LAS.



For a standard-DIRECT-launch (Orion + Altair on CLV, EDS flies separately), the extra mass just stopped my spreadsheet from closing.

Don't know whether LV-41 would suffer the same problem?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 10:30 AM
MP99 and others,
The Staged TLI option is pretty interesting.   We are still building confidence in it at this time, but our preliminary data indicates that yes, it can increase payload to the surface quite substantially if the program is willing to accept the accompanying safety penalties.

Mind you, the Depot architecture offers to double even this amount of performance -- and also introduces both commercial operators into the VSE work and also international partner contributions too, so that seems to be an even better alternative.   The Flexibility of this system is quite staggering.


I tell you, it sure is nice to be able to debate amongst "which of the many options we can use", rather than being locked-in to any single option.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 10:38 AM
Yeah, I was also thinking about a two-stage TLI/LOI/crasher architecture, except mine is a bit simpler:

Launch Altair on J-24x then Orion on J-24x.  Retain both upper stages to EOR.  Dock eyes in nozzles out.  Start TLI with Orion JUS (~70mT remaining propellant) and jettison on burnout.  Reverse attitude and finish TLI with Altair JUS (~45mT remaining propellant).  Reverse attitude and fire Altair JUS again for LOI and, after separating from Orion, a final burn for deorbit.  Jettison on burnout and crash it into the moon.

Besides the increased lunar payload, the lander center of gravity is substantially lower, the PLFs are less complicated/empty, and the EOR is simplified to a single docking maneuver much like Constellation.  Seems like a winner to me, as long as the brief coast between TLI burns for separation and reorientation isn't a big problem.


Two problems with that:-

1) During first EDS burn, you're putting huge stresses on the Orion / Altair connection. At best, you'd have to really beef up both vehicles and the docking mechanism. Probably lose all your mass savings.

2) The first EDS burn pushes Altair & EDS #2 "upside down", which I don't believe is a load path currently accomodated. (To be fair, I think Orion may gently accelerate Altair "upside down" during rendezvous manoeuvres).

cheers, Martin

Another concern with that approach is that the crew on the Orion has absolutely no possible way to escape from between those giant EDS' in the case of anything going wrong during the TLI.

Even on the 'regular' approach, facing the LSAM, the Orion has a chance to use the LSAM's Ascent Module to try to get them away from problems.   Its better than nothing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/04/2009 10:58 AM
Yeah, I was also thinking about a two-stage TLI/LOI/crasher architecture, except mine is a bit simpler:

Launch Altair on J-24x then Orion on J-24x.  Retain both upper stages to EOR.  Dock eyes in nozzles out.  Start TLI with Orion JUS (~70mT remaining propellant) and jettison on burnout.  Reverse attitude and finish TLI with Altair JUS (~45mT remaining propellant).  Reverse attitude and fire Altair JUS again for LOI and, after separating from Orion, a final burn for deorbit.  Jettison on burnout and crash it into the moon.

Besides the increased lunar payload, the lander center of gravity is substantially lower, the PLFs are less complicated/empty, and the EOR is simplified to a single docking maneuver much like Constellation.  Seems like a winner to me, as long as the brief coast between TLI burns for separation and reorientation isn't a big problem.


Two problems with that:-

1) During first EDS burn, you're putting huge stresses on the Orion / Altair connection. At best, you'd have to really beef up both vehicles and the docking mechanism. Probably lose all your mass savings.

2) The first EDS burn pushes Altair & EDS #2 "upside down", which I don't believe is a load path currently accomodated. (To be fair, I think Orion may gently accelerate Altair "upside down" during rendezvous manoeuvres).

cheers, Martin

This doesn't seem correct to me.  In microgravity, it shouldn't matter whether the thrust is coming from the Altair end or the Orion end of the vehicle.  As long as the rotational moments are negligible, the axial loading on the stack is the same, right?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/04/2009 10:59 AM
How does the DIRECT schedule compare with that of the Saturn 1, which as far as I can tell is the last NASA rocket that was built from pre-existing components?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 11:27 AM
Saturn-1 officially began its development in August 1958.

The third launch took place in November 1962, roughly 4 years later.


Remember too, that this produced a vehicle roughly 6 times the size of its preceding Juno-II and Redstone heritage vehicles, and included integration (if not large parts of their development as well) of two completely new engines; RL-10 and H-1.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/04/2009 11:38 AM
Sorry to bother but does anyone have the link to the Jupiter CaLV (any) with the big PLF?

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 11:41 AM
Saturn-1 officially began its development in August 1958.

The third launch took place in November 1962, roughly 4 years later.


Remember too, that this produced a vehicle roughly 6 times the size of its preceding Juno-II and Redstone heritage vehicles, and included integration (if not large parts of their development as well) of two completely new engines; RL-10 and H-1.

Ross.

Saturn-I also had to create and install all new launch infrastructure. In the case of DIRECT the infrastructure is already in place and requires modification, not replacement. That removes a lot of effort from the schedule.

In addition, Saturn-I, while created from a lot of pre-existing flight hardware, was still a totally new configuration. Granted, Jupiter is not Shuttle, but the degree of commonality between the Shuttle "stack" and what the Jupiter will be has led the folks that do our scheduling to believe we can fly in the fall of 2012 if we get the word in the fall of 2009 to proceed. That would be a 3-year program.

That speed is practically unheard of and even we were skeptical, but the guys that do this for a living insist that it is very feasable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 12:00 PM
Sorry to bother but does anyone have the link to the Jupiter CaLV (any) with the big PLF?

Do you mean these ones with the 12m diameter PLF's?

From left to right, those are 10m, 20m and 30m barrel sections on the PLF.

And yes, these PLF's could also fly on top of the J-24x vehicles as well -- all three configurations comfortably fit inside the VAB High Bay Doors.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/04/2009 12:02 PM
I've always wondered, if Jupiter IRBM had been the basis of Delta instead of Thor IRBM (which I guess means there would have been an extended Juno II evolution), would that have helped defray the costs of ongoing Saturn I and then IB production.

Even of Jupiter 130 can't be ready by 2012, Jupiter 246 is certainly doable by 2016 at the latest, which would put Contellation at least 4 years ahead of where it is now (and get us to the Moon possibly as much as 7 years sooner--I don't believe even 2020 is possible anymore; I think 2023 is probable).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 12:06 PM
William, even if we don't get a "GO!" signal until the start of the new Financial Year (October 1) we believe we could still manage a 2012 IOC date while retaining decent schedule/cost margins.

That date is actually going to be dictated by how much Orion can be accelerated using monies which were going to go to things like 5-seg SRB, J-2X and Ares-V.

No, the Jupiter isn't "simple" to develop, but the longest-pole in the schedule for the Jupiter (Avionics) is still not going to be as long as for Orion.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/04/2009 12:14 PM
Sorry to bother but does anyone have the link to the Jupiter CaLV (any) with the big PLF?

Do you mean these ones with the 12m diameter PLF's?

From left to right, those are 10m, 20m and 30m barrel sections on the PLF.

And yes, these PLF's could also fly on top of the J-24x vehicles as well -- all three configurations comfortably fit inside the VAB High Bay Doors.

Ross.

Those are the ones, thanks!

May I ask, do you have the images with these on the J-24x vehicles as well?

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/04/2009 12:15 PM
I'm getting the feeling that everyone feels quite confident about the Jupiter development schedule numbers. 

Let's be pessimistic and say that the JS-130 isn't fully ready to go until mid-2013 because of schedule slips, 'business as usual' at the various Centers and other miscellaneous problems.  Orion remains the long pole in all this.  How confident are you that Orion can be ready in time to meet these schedules, expecially as you are dumping the extant Ares-I-ready 'Orion Lite' in favoure of the heavyweight six-seat land-recovery version?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 12:16 PM
Those are the ones, thanks!

May I ask, do you have the images with these on the J-24x vehicles as well?

Sorry Mike, I don't have those currently rendered at this time.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/04/2009 12:19 PM
Those are the ones, thanks!

May I ask, do you have the images with these on the J-24x vehicles as well?

Sorry Mike, I don't have those currently rendered at this time.

Ross.

Do you have the exact same view(scale) of any J-24x with standard fairing?
It would be an easy "photoshop" job for Mike if you do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/04/2009 12:21 PM
I was thinking that too ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 12:26 PM
MP99 and others,
The Staged TLI option is pretty interesting.   We are still building confidence in it at this time, but our preliminary data indicates that yes, it can increase payload to the surface quite substantially if the program is willing to accept the accompanying safety penalties.

Mind you, the Depot architecture offers to double even this amount of performance -- and also introduces both commercial operators into the VSE work and also international partner contributions too, so that seems to be an even better alternative.   The Flexibility of this system is quite staggering.


Presumably once you have a two-EDS in-space config, you could lift a "J-2466", ie two EDS's, with the top one empty to be filled from the depot.

Effectively, a 350mT fuel capacity in a 30mt compound EDS, launched on a single flight.

Even launch them part-fuelled on a J-120 (sub-orbitally?).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 12:27 PM
I'm getting the feeling that everyone feels quite confident about the Jupiter development schedule numbers. 

Let's be pessimistic and say that the JS-130 isn't fully ready to go until mid-2013 because of schedule slips, 'business as usual' at the various Centers and other miscellaneous problems.  Orion remains the long pole in all this.  How confident are you that Orion can be ready in time to meet these schedules, expecially as you are dumping the extant Ares-I-ready 'Orion Lite' in favoure of the heavyweight six-seat land-recovery version?

We have pretty high confidence with that.   We understand that Orion could already be sped-up to early 2014 even without any significant budget increases (the IOC schedule is currently dictated by J-2X for Ares-I).   That assumes it still has to deal with things like Ares-I's nasty flight dynamic environment, TO issues and continuing weight-scrubs.

If we can remove a lot of those difficulties by providing a much more powerful launcher which doesn't fly through such a rough environment, that would make the Orion Project's job a lot easier than it currently is.   We have extremely high confidence that doing this would allow the schedule to move to the left.

Further, with additional budget, it can be pushed to the left even more.   That all depends upon how much money we have available though.

Right now our current cost projections would allow for almost $1 billion extra to be spent in FY10, another $1 billion extra to be spent in FY11 and about $800 million to be spent in FY12 to speed things up.   That's an extremely *serious* amount of money.

Together this would make a very positive difference to the Orion's schedule and we believe it is sufficient to shift the IOC schedule approx 18 months to the left, to Sept 2012.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 12:28 PM
BTW, Ross, do you have any use for a slightly-better-performing J-130?

How much extra performance do you need to be able to comfortably use it for the crewed role?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 12:34 PM
BTW, Ross, do you have any use for a slightly-better-performing J-130?

Extra performance is always good.   What, precisely, did you have in mind?


Quote
How much extra performance do you need to be able to comfortably use it for the crewed role?


For large unmanned cargo's extra performance is often useful, but Jupiter-130 will already be in a completely new class of performance, so 'extra' will be a pretty 'relative' term ;)

For ISS missions Jupiter-130 already has *lots* of spare performance, so we  don't need extra there.

For Lunar, the mission profile which would use the Jupiter-130 as a Crew lifter is fairly 'tight', performance-wise.   Extra performance could be useful there, so I'm curious what you're thinking of.   Mind you, that profile would still be fairly short-lived, because once we get the Depot operational around 2020, we aim to switch to a 1-launch J-24x architecture for Lunar missions anyway.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 12:41 PM
Just to sound a cautionary note here, there comes a point where it doesn’t matter how much money you throw at a project; it will not accelerate it any further. Some things just take *time*, not money, things like software for example. All the money in the world won’t make it go any faster. You might as well spend it on more comfortable chairs, or paid lunches for the programmers. But the time it takes to actually do the project, and to test the project, find the breaking points and fix them, then test and test and test again until it’s right simply cannot be accelerated beyond a certain point.

So Ross is absolutely correct. With all the funding we are able to free up to redirect towards Orion, some of it will definitely accelerate things, but some things will just take time. We can help that somewhat by staff increases, but even that becomes inefficient after a while. We need to keep that reality in mind. Money isn’t the only answer.

I deal with this all the time in my day-job. The customer wants his product yesterday and wants to stuff my pockets with cash to make it happen, but it just doesn't work like that. Cash helps - a LOT. But some things just take time and cannot be accelerated regardless of available cashflow.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Eerie on 06/04/2009 12:43 PM
This doesn't seem correct to me.  In microgravity, it shouldn't matter whether the thrust is coming from the Altair end or the Orion end of the vehicle.  As long as the rotational moments are negligible, the axial loading on the stack is the same, right?

You forget that you placed Altair and Orion between two heavy objects.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 01:53 PM
For Lunar, the mission profile which would use the Jupiter-130 as a Crew lifter is fairly 'tight', performance-wise.   Extra performance could be useful there, so I'm curious what you're thinking of.   Mind you, that profile would still be fairly short-lived, because once we get the Depot operational around 2020, we aim to switch to a 1-launch J-24x architecture for Lunar missions anyway.

Ross.


Ross,

Concept: "Jupiter one-and-a-quarter", or "23% core stretch, no new hardware".


Start with J-246.

Remove the engines, thrust structure, RCS & avionics from the Upper Stage. Call it an "Upper Tank" instead of "Upper Stage".

Shrink the interstage (doesn't need to accommodate engines), remove ullage motors & separation hardware. Make it into a second intertank.

Run H2 & O2 feed lines down the side of the core, feeding one of the SSME's.

Et voila! A 23.5% "core stretch" (735mT + 175mT) without messing up the existing core, or building anything new. It's propellant cross-feed, but no separation events, so that doesn't sound too difficult or dangerous to me.

Call it J-140UT. Should have burnout mass about 16mT higher than J-130. I'm presuming the UT would be a bolt-on to the core, so not disrupt build of non-UT vehicles.




Obviously, the existing three engines on J-130 each consume 33% of the core fuel.

With 23.5% additional fuel in the Upper Tank, the fourth SSME will burn out early (when the core still contains a 30% fuel load).

Magically (would you believe it), the burnout happens at exactly the right moment to stop the vehicle from exceeding 3g. Honest, I didn't do that on purpose, it just happened.



Can J-140UT at least match J-130 to 130x130, 29 deg?

Compare J-246 with 93.6mT payload vs J-140UT with 71.4mT payload. Offload propellant from the core to match GLOW's. We're going to treat J-140's burn after consuming a full core of fuel (728mT) as "2nd stage". (I know J-130 & J-246 trajectories are pretty different, but the comparison is fascinating).

Initial flight is identical to J-246 (other than earlier LAS discard), right up to the point where the 4th SSME burns out 94% into the "1st stage" burn.

J-246 continues to burnout with all four engines (remaining 6% of burn).

J-140UT burns the same amount of fuel, but with three engines, so "1st stage" burn is 102% duration. Slightly higher gravity losses, compensated by earlier LAS discard. Dead heat so far?

J-246 now stages.

The fascinating thing? Even with core + intertank + Upper Tank (helped by a lighter payload) the Propellant Fraction of J-140UT is 96.5% of the J-246's U/S + payload !!!

Bear in mind that the Upper Stage wastes some fuel starting it's engines, and has only 1/6th the T/W, so will have higher gravity losses.

I reckon it should be a flat bust between the two vehicles, even bearing in mind lower SSME Isp.

This only "proves" that a J-140UT with propellant offload can match a standard J-130 (trajectory differences excepted).



The interesting question is whether brimming the tanks actually allows the vehicle to lift more payload, or would just make it bog down. 3xSSME's instead of 6xRL-10's should overcome any gravity losses during the "2nd stage" of ascent.

In fact, we're only talking about another 70-80mT of fuel, another 8.5%-10%. I guess that would be a pretty small additional payload, but maybe enough to enable the crew launch role?

This vehicle retains much of the simplicity of J-130, but if the "4th SSME" fails, you're carrying a huge mass of fuel that you can't access. Instant LOM.

Other than that (!), this vehicle should retain most of the LOM / LOC benefits of J-130, and the Upper Tank only requires the cheapest elements of the upper stage.



I'd guess that J-256UT may also be possible, ie both Upper Tank & Upper Stage. 23.5% would burn out the fifth engine just a few seconds early, and 16mT burnout geared 3:1 is a pretty neat trade for another 175mT of core fuel and an additional engine.



You could also achieve the same thing by stretching the core O2 tank (common to all vehicles), and add an H2-only tank above that. Link the two H2 tanks together, and you can achieve any stretch you like, to feed any number of engines for any duration you choose, and no worries about one engine failing and leaving a lot of fuel inaccesible.

J-130 performance would be affected, but you don't really care about that.

A 33% O2 core stretch would impact J-246 payload by less than 1mT, but also makes J-256 possible.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 01:54 PM
One more...


Concept, "J-141UT" or "J-140UT with JCS (Jupiter Circularisation Stage)".


Start with J-140UT.

Keep the Upper Stage functional, but fit only a single RL-10 (maybe an "a" rather than a "b-2"). This does mean the fuel system must be able to perform both cross-feed to the core and feed to it's own RL-10.

Fly to a 30 x 100 delivery orbit, but burnout the 4th SSME early, to leave a little fuel in the tank.

After sub-orbital insertion, discard the core. Although there is cross-feed between JCS & core, you've got half an hour to perform the separation.

Use the remaining fuel to circularise. Since this is only a 55m/s burn (?), the burnout mass of the JCS is pretty much irrelevant.

Now you've got Altair, Orion & PLF in a circular orbit without having to worry about them each performing their own burns to circularise. If JCS separation fails, you've still got the option for Orion and Altair to perform their own circ burns as a fallback.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/04/2009 02:28 PM
Just to sound a cautionary note here, there comes a point where it doesnít matter how much money you throw at a project; it will not accelerate it any further. Some things just take *time*, not money, things like software for example. All the money in the world wonít make it go any faster. You might as well spend it on more comfortable chairs, or paid lunches for the programmers. But the time it takes to actually do the project, and to test the project, find the breaking points and fix them, then test and test and test again until itís right simply cannot be accelerated beyond a certain point.

So Ross is absolutely correct. With all the funding we are able to free up to redirect towards Orion, some of it will definitely accelerate things, but some things will just take time. We can help that somewhat by staff increases, but even that becomes inefficient after a while. We need to keep that reality in mind. Money isnít the only answer.

I deal with this all the time in my day-job. The customer wants his product yesterday and wants to stuff my pockets with cash to make it happen, but it just doesn't work like that. Cash helps - a LOT. But some things just take time and cannot be accelerated regardless of available cashflow.


Great point Chuck.  That is why I find the 2012/2013 dates that don't change as the calendar moves and SSP assets are removed so insulting ... and a great disservice to the credibility of DIRECT.  It works contrary to the way any project I've programmed and makes me wonder what else is wrong under the hood.

Without saying more, that is also how the analysis teams for the panel will see DIRECT if the schedule and costs are not presented more credibly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/04/2009 02:34 PM
Constellation Program Faces Furthur Delays  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-nasa-rocket-troubles-060409,0,2918308.story
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 02:40 PM
snip

Without saying more, that is also how the analysis teams for the panel will see DIRECT if the schedule and costs are not presented more credibly.


I agree.  The Direct team could beef up the cost and schedule story a bit.  Having said this I have no doubt Direct can beat the pants off of Ares I/V to go to the moon on both cost and schedule.  Beating Ares I to ISS is a harder sell to me.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 02:45 PM
Mars and Danny;
In the same way we have maintained performance and mass margins throughout the design process to be used as needed, we have also maintained cost and schedule margins as well. That is the principle reason that you have not seen the dates move in sync with everything else; we use the margins to try to maintain schedule as much as we reasonably can. We have been concerned with trying to keep to schedules that will preserve the workforce in an as-intact condition as possible. But you are correct. We have just about used up what time margins there are and unless decisions are made soon which get this underway, you will see schedule dates change as well. So far we haven’t had to do that but it’s getting very close to the time when we will need to.

You are also correct in that the subgroups the panel creates to vet the proposals will expect to see cost and schedule data in much greater detail than what we have been able to publically post here. Significant portions of it are based on contractor proprietary data and that’s why it hasn’t been detailed here. But the Commission has a vehicle for that which will allow us to expand on what we present in more detail and still protect that data under the Sunshine Law provisions of the Commission. They will receive the necessary data under those provisions in more detail than what we can do here on the forum or on the website.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 02:47 PM
Great news that more detailed cost and schedule data will be presented to the commission.  Are you going to propose a gap closure schedule to man rate the Delta first?

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 03:02 PM
Great news that more detailed cost and schedule data will be presented to the commission.  Are you going to propose a gap closure schedule to man rate the Delta first?

Danny Deger

Man rating the Delta involves *primarily* human rating the RS-68. DIRECT wants this to happen as rapidly as possible because it is not our desire to be the LEO crew transfer launcher. That’s a job for EELV-class launchers.

Nothing is going to happen before this fall until after the Commission completes its work. Assuming that NASA were directed to move in the direction of deploying DIRECT, or something very much like it, we would sincerely hope that the Commission would also recommend authorizing the RS-68 HR program for crew LEO access. We have taken the position for over 16 months now that whichever vehicle is ready to provide crew access to LEO first gets to fly first. Jupiter is prepared to provide LEO access until the Delta can assume that role if it doesn’t actually go first. But once that capability is operational, then we will be focusing on the extra-LEO goals of the VSE along with any payloads that are beyond the EELV capacity or that actually require that a crew accompany the payload.

DIRECT is not designed for LEO operations, but will care for them *until* the LEO transportation system of EELV-class vehicles is online. LEO belongs to an EELV class launcher, not the Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/04/2009 03:07 PM
I just listened to the space show, it was great, though it focused a lot more on jobs and cost than architecture.

I think the hardest thing to convey to the Augustine Commission that the presentation and numbers you provide are fesible and legitimate. The government has been wrong before with Constellation, which has had massive setbacks.

Saying we can have a lunar fly by in 2013 which is underbudget is nice, and probably possible, but convincing people that Direct won't follow the trend in NASA projects with delays and ballooning costs is the real challenge. They will remember that a few years ago, they were promised an architecture with a timeline that has not been upheld. How will Direct prove that it will be upheld?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 03:14 PM
I just listened to the space show, it was great, though it focused a lot more on jobs and cost than architecture.

I think the hardest thing to convey to the Augustine Commission that the presentation and numbers you provide are fesible and legitimate. The government has been wrong before with Constellation, which has had massive setbacks.

Saying we can have a lunar fly by in 2013 which is underbudget is nice, and probably possible, but convincing people that Direct won't follow the trend in NASA projects with delays and ballooning costs is the real challenge. They will remember that a few years ago, they were promised an architecture with a timeline that has not been upheld. How will Direct prove that it will be upheld?

Quite honestly we can’t.
We are the men and women in the trenches that do the work, but we are not the ones that actually run the agency.
Once NASA takes over and takes control of this effort, it will be completely out of our hands and in theirs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 03:15 PM
MP99,
Interesting notion, but there are some pretty serious issues.   The one which stands out to me is how do you pressurize those dual-tank structures in a stable way?   Especially all the way through flight as they both drain, but one is continually topped-off.   I see that as being rather "tricky", to say the least.

If you want to increase capacity by ~25%, wouldn't it be easier to just stretch the Core and insert a 'spacer' at the top of the SRB?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 03:32 PM
How will Direct prove that it will be upheld?

As Chuck say, its virtually impossible to 'prove' any such thing.

One advantage which we do have though, is that a large portion of our cost profile simply isn't guess-work -- its based on actual flight systems which are in use right now.   The 4-segment SRB's are a completely "known" quantity in terms of costs.   The SSME's are a "known" factor too, although they haven't bee built in a few years, we do know precisely what is involved with doing so.   The External Tank shares roughly 70% of the planned Jupiter Core Stage work, so a significant part of its production is not based on estimates and projections, but on real cost profiles.

Without doubt, that doesn't cover *all* of the landscape, but it does cover a pretty sizable portion.   That reduces the range where the 'guesswork' *can* apply.


But even then things can happen which aren't expected.  So, on top of all those figures, you always want to have a nice healthy "comfort zone" of cost margin in your back pocket, which will essentially be used when your estimates are wrong! :)

For DIRECT, we apply our cost margins on an element-by-element basis.   Low risk items, such as elements which are, or have been, already in production, like 4-seg SRB, SSME, parts of ET/Core etc., typically still have a healthy margin applied -- in this case we have a blanket of 25% *minimum* cost margin on all elements.

Elements which have some partial previous heritage have a higher margin applied, ranging from 30% thru to 45%, these include things like the Payload Fairings and the LOX tank for the Core Stage.

For brand-new elements, like the Thrust Structure and the Upper Stage, we are applying a maximum of 50% margin over the projected costs, which is pretty generous.

When you average it all out, we're getting about 38% total cost margin over the entire "full wrap" Jupiter development effort.   We think that's a fair approach.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/04/2009 03:52 PM
snip

Without saying more, that is also how the analysis teams for the panel will see DIRECT if the schedule and costs are not presented more credibly.


I agree.  The Direct team could beef up the cost and schedule story a bit.  Having said this I have no doubt Direct can beat the pants off of Ares I/V to go to the moon on both cost and schedule.  Beating Ares I to ISS is a harder sell to me.

Danny Deger

What if NASA funds - in parallel - a human rated DIVH effort and Jupiter 130 development?

How would you assess the prospects for either one or the other (DIVH or J130) providing ISS access before Ares 1?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/04/2009 03:57 PM
Do you mean these ones with the 12m diameter PLF's?

From left to right, those are 10m, 20m and 30m barrel sections on the PLF.

And yes, these PLF's could also fly on top of the J-24x vehicles as well -- all three configurations comfortably fit inside the VAB High Bay Doors.

Ross.

Ah yes... respectively, these are for the crew or "office" module, the depot module and last but certainly not least the hangar module of Spacedock 1...

Just so ya know :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 04:06 PM
snip

Without saying more, that is also how the analysis teams for the panel will see DIRECT if the schedule and costs are not presented more credibly.


I agree.  The Direct team could beef up the cost and schedule story a bit.  Having said this I have no doubt Direct can beat the pants off of Ares I/V to go to the moon on both cost and schedule.  Beating Ares I to ISS is a harder sell to me.

Danny Deger

What if NASA funds - in parallel - a human rated DIVH effort and Jupiter 130 development?

How would you assess the prospects for either one or the other (DIVH or J130) providing ISS access before Ares 1?

Both will be flying long before the Ares-I. How far the Delta will be upgraded beyond the initial crew access capability by the time Ares-I flies I don't know, but the Jupiter could already be turning her sights on the moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 04:11 PM
MP99,
Interesting notion, but there are some pretty serious issues.   The one which stands out to me is how do you pressurize those dual-tank structures in a stable way?   Especially all the way through flight as they both drain, but one is continually topped-off.   I see that as being rather "tricky", to say the least.

That would apply to my comment that "you could also achieve the same thing by stretching the core O2 tank ... add an H2-only tank above that. Link the two H2 tanks together" ...but not to the rest of the post.



The bulk of my post was for J-130 core to feed 3x SSME's as normal. The 4th SSME and Upper Tank form a completely independent system - but under the control of the main vehicle's avionics. No dual-tank, shared pressurisation, between-tank transfers, etc, etc.

If you like, think of it as a 1x SSME Upper Stage with a long feedline that happens to burn in parallel with J-130 instead of after.


Quote
If you want to increase capacity by ~25%, wouldn't it be easier to just stretch the Core and insert a 'spacer' at the top of the SRB?

Well, how easy is that? You'd need to qualify a new core.

You've already qualified the existing vehicle with this configuration of core & upper stage/upper tank, adding the 4th SSME & associated piping should be a much smaller job, shouldn't it?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 04:19 PM
What if NASA funds - in parallel - a human rated DIVH effort and Jupiter 130 development?

How would you assess the prospects for either one or the other (DIVH or J130) providing ISS access before Ares 1?

From our studies, both EELV and Jupiter-130's IOC and FOC schedule will be dictated by Orion, not the launchers.   Essentially they will both be able to do the missions on the same date.


As for which of those two launchers is quicker?   That's an interesting debate.

RS-68's current design does not comply with the 1.4 Factor of Safety so there is a big question whether it can fly on a waiver or if it must be re-designed.   And neither engine is so-far qualified for human operations.   Nor either of the stages.   Those will take time to qualify.   But a qualified Avionics suite for human use is probably the long-pole in the entire development path for a Delta-IV Heavy CLV.

SSME is fully human-rated already, so too are the 4-seg SRB's.   But the Core Stage is a pretty big development/qualification task -- although the manufacturing is ready to take that task on almost immediately.   However, yet again, qualifying the Avionics is still going to be the long-pole of the whole effort.


There really isn't a lot between them, unless the RS-68 needs a significant re-design, in which case that will take longer, but I don't expect so.

If the budget allows, we could very well end up with both IOC vehicles on the Pad at the same time.   If the budget gets very tight, I would expect one to be prioritized.   The decision will actually come down to money.

In that situation, the Delta doesn't help save any jobs.   But getting Jupiter operational as fast as possible does -- so I would expect that effort to be the one which is prioritized.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 04:36 PM
Well, how easy is that? You'd need to qualify a new core.

It's not trivial, but it is viable as long as you have a somewhat healthy budget.

I'd hazard a guess and say if you chose to ground 1/4 of your flights across a five year period, that should go a long way towards paying for such an evolutionary bit of development work.

But if you plan to do it at all, you would be better-off doing it straight out of the box and developing the vehicle first time around with that included.

The questions I want to know though, are:

1) What reason justifies the added expense?
2) What capability would it provide that can't be obtained another, cheaper, way?

If the answers to both of those are persuasive, then its worthwhile considering.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 04:53 PM
Depending on the amount of mods required, I think the schedule risk to man rating a Delta is the lowest.  Direct still needs a lot of work which adds risk to the schedule.  'This may be an issue you need to address.

I also think ULA is in better shape to do the work on time than NASA is.  A big part of the schedule risk is in the organization that is going to do the work.  ULA has a better track record than NASA at this point.  I know a very big part of DOD picking a contractor is an assessment of the ability of the contractor to do the work.  But, it will be difficult for NASA to admit ULA is better at designing launchers than they are.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/04/2009 04:55 PM

Great point Chuck.  That is why I find the 2012/2013 dates that don't change as the calendar moves and SSP assets are removed so insulting ... and a great disservice to the credibility of DIRECT.  It works contrary to the way any project I've programmed and makes me wonder what else is wrong under the hood.

Without saying more, that is also how the analysis teams for the panel will see DIRECT if the schedule and costs are not presented more credibly.


The answer is in the switch of engines from the to be man-rated in the future RS-68B to already man-rated SSME, it has made Orion the critical path again. DIRECT has bought back 1-2 years of schedule that was lost since v1.0 by being even more Direct ;). Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 04:57 PM

Great point Chuck.  That is why I find the 2012/2013 dates that don't change as the calendar moves and SSP assets are removed so insulting ... and a great disservice to the credibility of DIRECT.  It works contrary to the way any project I've programmed and makes me wonder what else is wrong under the hood.

Without saying more, that is also how the analysis teams for the panel will see DIRECT if the schedule and costs are not presented more credibly.


The answer is in the switch of engines from the to be man-rated in the future RS-68B to already man-rated SSME, it has made Orion the critical path again. DIRECT has bought back 1-2 years of schedule that was lost since v1.0 by being even more Direct ;). Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

Basically we have until the end of this fiscal year, more or less, where our current schedules are good. After that we may need to adjust. We'll see.

Orion has always been the pacing item. In v2.0 Jupiter and Orion were much closer than they are now, with Orion still becoming operational after the Jupiter. In v3.0 there is a lot of new, additional schedule time between Jupiter being ready to fly and Orion being ready to fly because the Jupiter schedule has moved to the left. By making the switch in engines we have shaved considerable time off the schedule. We learned at ISDC that Orion could be brought in to early 2014 just by freezing the specs where they are so they can actually go build it. Late 2012 is just not that big a leap from there (~18 months) if we can also send proper funding their way, say an additional $1 billion a year diverted from Ares-I starting from fy 2010.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 05:16 PM
Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

That raises a very interesting point...

Should we 'pack' our dates and make them a "no brainer"?

I'm concerned with the possibility of some factions pushing the "their schedule is unreasonable" card, even though *we* are totally confident.   Problem is that mud always tends to stick...   ...So perhaps we should get even more conservative specifically for this presentation -- just to head that accusation off at the gate?

It would certainly be better to say "5 years" and then have Hawes come back with "yeah its doable in 4 actually" instead of saying "3 years" and Hawes coming back and saying "nope, your too optimistic, its going to take longer, more like 4".

Same result from Hawes could produce two completely different reactions, all because of our claims going in...

Thoughts?

Ross.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/04/2009 05:19 PM
Definitely pack your schedule. If you previously had schedule margin, and it's now been eaten up, you should add it back in. You'll still be in better shape than constellation, right?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 05:21 PM
We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.

What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to simply kill-off any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/04/2009 05:22 PM
I propose a new PPT slide that compares the schedule "long poles" to better illustrate Gap mitigation issues:

Perhaps list months and years along the y axis (maybe use quarters as the units such as 2Q11, 3Q11, 4Q11, 1Q12 and so forth) and display the critical components along the x axis

Orion (when available)

Ares 1 subsystems
     - 5 segment RSRM (when available)
     - J2X (when available)

DIVH EELV
     - RS-68 human rating

J-130
     - SSME
     - 4 segment RSRM
     - modified ET core

Such a chart should easily convey the idea that even if the J-130 schedule is "optimistic" it will still be ready before Orion and it therefore isn't the "long pole" for schedule purposes.

Ares 1 is the "long pole" for Gap closure purposes.

AND

You can also display two or three Orion development poles - a DIVH pole, a J130 pole and an Ares 1 pole.


Great point Chuck.  That is why I find the 2012/2013 dates that don't change as the calendar moves and SSP assets are removed so insulting ... and a great disservice to the credibility of DIRECT.  It works contrary to the way any project I've programmed and makes me wonder what else is wrong under the hood.

Without saying more, that is also how the analysis teams for the panel will see DIRECT if the schedule and costs are not presented more credibly.


The answer is in the switch of engines from the to be man-rated in the future RS-68B to already man-rated SSME, it has made Orion the critical path again. DIRECT has bought back 1-2 years of schedule that was lost since v1.0 by being even more Direct ;). Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

Basically we have until the end of this fiscal year, more or less, where our current schedules are good. After that we may need to adjust. We'll see.

Orion has always been the pacing item. In v2.0 Jupiter and Orion were much closer than they are now, with Orion still becoming operational after the Jupiter. In v3.0 there is a lot of new, additional schedule time between Jupiter being ready to fly and Orion being ready to fly because the Jupiter schedule has moved to the left. By making the switch in engines we have shaved considerable time off the schedule. We learned at ISDC that Orion could be brought in to early 2014 just by freezing the specs where they are so they can actually go build it. Late 2012 is just not that big a leap from there (~18 months) if we can also send proper funding their way, say an additional $1 billion a year diverted from Ares-I starting from fy 2010.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/04/2009 05:28 PM
We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.

What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to simply kill-off any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.

Ross.

I think 48 months sounds about right to cater for unknown unknowns ;). Still show it as excess margin though to illustrate your best case scenario of sub 3 years. Get your guys to apply percentage confidence factors to the lower and upper bounds just like Ares I. What you are proposing, a Shuttle rocket repackage in effect with existing components, shouldn't take NASA more than 4 years to implement.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 05:29 PM
Well, how easy is that? You'd need to qualify a new core.

It's not trivial, but it is viable as long as you have a somewhat healthy budget.

I'd hazard a guess and say if you chose to ground 1/4 of your flights across a five year period, that should go a long way towards paying for such an evolutionary bit of development work.

That's to implement a core stretch? Or Upper Tank?


Quote
But if you plan to do it at all, you would be better-off doing it straight out of the box and developing the vehicle first time around with that included.

J-140UT was intended to be a relatively simple way to bypass the expense of a core stretch.

Take the existing tanks (at the time of Lunar Missions) and re-plumb them in different ways to allow J-140 to perform crew lift instead of J-246. Did I mention "no complicated plumbing involved?" (Grin - sorry!)

I didn't think it would be a trivial exercise, but taking a dedicated feed from a separate tank, and running 1x SSME from it in isolation to existing systems didn't feel to me like it should be a five year job. (If that's what you meant above).


Quote
The questions I want to know though, are:

1) What reason justifies the added expense?
2) What capability would it provide that can't be obtained another, cheaper, way?

If the answers to both of those are persuasive, then its worthwhile considering.

I'd assumed J-140UT would have better LOM figures than J-246, and would be cheaper, too.


Out of interest, would you expect this to perform better than J-130:-

4x SSME instead of 3x
170mT+ additional usable H2/O2
16mT higher dry mass (+ another set of residuals)
71mT higher GLOW than J-246 (+ any payload increase)

Not a detailed figure, but "worse", or 1mT or 10mT? Just a guess off the top of your head.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/04/2009 05:30 PM
We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.

What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to kill any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.

Ross.

If you display the various program schedules in a graphical manner, (time on y axis and the various architectures set side by side on the x axis) you can add contingencies to each program to be certain not to end up with a comparison of Jupiter (worst case) and Ares 1 (best case)

Create a range of expected operational target dates for J130, Ares 1 & DIVH and we can simultaneously compare the program using different but consistent confidence levels for each.

i.e. . . .

When would Ares 1 come on-line with a 50% confidence level? J130? DIVH? 

What about a 70% confidence level?

Absolute "best case" and (almost) absolute "worst case" ??
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 05:35 PM
Good ideas guys, thanks.   I'll see what I can come up with graphics-wise.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/04/2009 05:36 PM
Of course, we also need to add this same 48 month contingency to Ares 1, if we are to compare apples and apples.

Right?

And what would that give us for Ares 1? 2018? 2019?

We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.

What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to simply kill-off any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.

Ross.

I think 48 months sounds about right to cater for unknown unknowns ;). Still show it as excess margin though to illustrate your best case scenario of sub 3 years. Get your guys to apply percentage confidence factors to the lower and upper bounds just like Ares I. What you are proposing, a rocket repackage in effect, shouldn't take NASA more than 4 years to implement.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/04/2009 05:48 PM
Of course, we also need to add this same 48 month contingency to Ares 1, if we are to compare apples and apples.

Right?

And what would that give us for Ares 1? 2018? 2019?

We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.

What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to simply kill-off any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.

Ross.

I think 48 months sounds about right to cater for unknown unknowns ;). Still show it as excess margin though to illustrate your best case scenario of sub 3 years. Get your guys to apply percentage confidence factors to the lower and upper bounds just like Ares I. What you are proposing, a rocket repackage in effect, shouldn't take NASA more than 4 years to implement.

DIRECT fans have to start losing the attitude just about now at least for the duration of the Commission. Let Ares speak for itself or not, as an outside/underground concept DIRECT has to be ultra-credible and professional in its own right regardless of what EELV/Ares do or not do. Even 5 years still beats Ares I so it really doesn't matter the degree, it will close the gap earlier.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/04/2009 05:49 PM
What are the most recent "kg to LEO" figures if we were to compare Ares 1 and DIVH?

How many of Orion's potential features need to be left in the parking lot using DIVH?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/04/2009 05:59 PM
DIRECT fans have to start losing the attitude just about now at least for the duration of the Commission. Let Ares speak for itself or not, as an outside/underground concept DIRECT has to be ultra-credible and professional in its own right regardless of what EELV/Ares do or not do. Even 5 years still beats Ares I so it really doesn't matter the degree, it will close the gap earlier.

Constellation advocates also need to understand that if they win this thing by entering an orange versus an apple they (and the US space program) will end up far worse off down the road when expectations aren't met in reality. 

Just as the volume of a US bottle versus a UK bottle cannot be compared unless we convert both the UK imperial gallons and the US liquid gallon to a common standard such a liters, we cannot compare launch systems without first converting everything to a common scale.

= = =

A proposed motto for the Augustine Commission:

Quote
"For a successful technology," Richard Feynman concluded, "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 06:04 PM
What are the most recent "kg to LEO" figures if we were to compare Ares 1 and DIVH?

How many of Orion's potential features need to be left in the parking lot using DIVH?

According to the Aerospace Corp report, as reported on this site -- none.  Delta can lift the current Orion.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 06/04/2009 06:11 PM
What are the most recent "kg to LEO" figures if we were to compare Ares 1 and DIVH?

How many of Orion's potential features need to be left in the parking lot using DIVH?

According to the Aerospace Corp report, as reported on this site -- none.  Delta can lift the current Orion.

Danny Deger

So "current version" is with all the features Ares has requested be removed? Does that include Land landing capability? Trying to gets some understanding of what state Orion is in as opposed to the original design and furthermore where Lockheed would like it to be, and furthermore what the astronauts would like to see?

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/04/2009 06:11 PM
What are the most recent "kg to LEO" figures if we were to compare Ares 1 and DIVH?

How many of Orion's potential features need to be left in the parking lot using DIVH?

According to the Aerospace Corp report, as reported on this site -- none.  Delta can lift the current Orion.

Danny Deger

Current Orion? As in the current post-diet Orion or the pre-diet Orion?

If we are talking about shortening development schedules, isn't it rather vital to give the Orion Team a guaranteed minimum figure for launch vehicle capability?

Until they know a minimum guaranteed mass to LEO figure how can they possibly design a space vehicle?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 06:15 PM
What are the most recent "kg to LEO" figures if we were to compare Ares 1 and DIVH?

How many of Orion's potential features need to be left in the parking lot using DIVH?

According to the Aerospace Corp report, as reported on this site -- none.  Delta can lift the current Orion.

Danny Deger

Current Orion? As in the current post-diet Orion or the pre-diet Orion?

If we are talking about shortening development schedules, isn't it rather vital to give the Orion Team a guaranteed minimum figure for launch vehicle capability?

Until they know a minimum guaranteed mass to LEO figure how can they possibly design a space vehicle?

L/M is working to 606 and for this Block-I we would not improve it.
We would recommend a Block-II go back to the parking lot and reintigrate from there.
That's the fastest way to get her in the air.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/04/2009 06:22 PM
Quote from: Bill White
Of course, we also need to add this same 48 month contingency to Ares 1, if we are to compare apples and apples.

Right?

DIRECT fans have to start losing the attitude just about now

Ahh... the reek of imperial imperiousness!

Conflate much?

Quote
at least for the duration of the Commission.

"Don't speak the truth about Ares... it wouldn't be polite!"

Quote
Let Ares speak for itself or not,

Ares lies. A lot. Ares lies a lot about Direct. This cannot be ignored. It must be addressed in some manner, however... indirect :)... that manner might be.

Quote
Even 5 years still beats Ares I so it really doesn't matter the degree, it will close the gap earlier.

Dead wrong. The Ares proponents, which essentially are NASA administration, will attempt to fling so much BS in the air that an unneeded delay will actually seem advisable to the commission rather than trying to buck the system by changing course...

edit: I had added an assertion that NASA would continue past bad behavior in the face of the commission and Ross objected to the assertion.

Call  it a prediction instead. One I'd bet money on.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 06:29 PM
My understanding of the conclusions which were in the Aerospace report (and note that I have not seen the actual document, merely spoken to people who have) is that they determined that the current RS-68 powered Delta-IV Heavy could lift the current Orion with nice comfortable margins and flying a blackzone-safe trajectory.   However it would apparently take the RS-68A engines, due in 2012, to be able to lift a heavier Orion including such things as the ~1400lb of Land Landing hardware.

I don't have the precise payload performance figures to hand, but I'm pretty sure that the Commission members will have access to this document.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 06:31 PM
zap, please edit your post or I will ask the moderators to remove it.

We want to take the high ground here and I'm asking all our supporters to come with us on that high road and keep all of their comments civil, please.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/04/2009 06:38 PM
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again.  No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:

http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 06:38 PM
My understanding of the conclusions which were in the Aerospace report (and note that I have not seen the actual document, merely spoken to people who have) is that they determined that the current RS-68 powered Delta-IV Heavy could lift the current Orion with nice comfortable margins and flying a blackzone-safe trajectory.   However it would apparently take the RS-68A engines, due in 2012, to be able to lift a heavier Orion including such things as the ~1400lb of Land Landing hardware.

I don't have the precise payload performance figures to hand, but I'm pretty sure that the Commission members will have access to this document.

Ross.

Here is a quote from an article from this site:

"The results for both the Delta IV-H and Atlas V-H are encouraging, and point towards large margins on both the ISS and Lunar Orion vehicle. However, that is only part of the story.

ISS (requirement of 19.2 t). Delta IV-Heavy = 24.2 t. Atlas V Heavy = 25.4 t. Lunar (requirement of 21.8 t). Delta IV-H = 26.3 t. Atlas V-H = 27.3 t,Ē noted information acquired by L2.

The Delta IV-H numbers include use of the RS-68A, which is an upgraded version of the current RS-68 - currently undergoing testing and due to come into service in a few years time."

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/04/study-eelv-capable-orion-role-griffin-claims-alternatives-fiction/

On talking about Ares in front of the Commission, I don't think Direct should say a word, except maybe to compare your cost and schedule to theirs.  I think its warts are very visible to all.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/04/2009 06:39 PM
This approach how will LEO docking with EDS be done? Using Orionís docking port or one under the Lunar landar.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/04/2009 06:42 PM
zap, please edit your post or I will ask the moderators to remove it.

We want to take the high ground here and I'm asking all our supporters to come with us on that high road and keep all of their comments civil, please.

Ross.

Serious question: what part(s) of the post?
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 06:49 PM
Serious question: what part(s) of the post?

The last paragraph is out of order.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 06:51 PM
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again.  No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:

http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/

I never knew anything about it until two minutes ago.   I'm listening to it right now for the first time.   Doesn't seem so bad.   Wish they had contacted me for an interview as I could have provided more comprehensive answers.

Who is "Jeph"?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/04/2009 06:52 PM
Politically this should be an easy sell since itís a win-win for Obama.

1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.
2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.
3. It gives him a chance to out stage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle.  This point alone should convince Obama.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/04/2009 07:04 PM
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again.  No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:

http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/

I never knew anything about it until two minutes ago.   I'm listening to it right now for the first time.   Doesn't seem so bad.   Wish they had contacted me for an interview as I could have provided more comprehensive answers.

Who is "Jeph"?

Ross.

he is claiming first manned jupiter flight would be 2016.....(Jeph)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/04/2009 07:32 PM
Politically this should be an easy sell since itís a win-win for Obama.

1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.

Obama didn't want us to go to the moon.

Obama originally wanted to divert the money to education for 5 years... i.e. until he would have been safe from repercussions.

Quote
2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.

NASA and contractors aren't exactly a Democratic-leaning hotbed of leftist socialism... /snark

Quote
3. It gives him a chance to outstage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle.  This point alone should convince Obama.

Obama outstages Bush by breathing. That's not a concern of his. And he's still got a full platter of godawful messes left by Bush he that has to somehow clean up without actually having Bush tried and convicted.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/04/2009 07:49 PM
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again.  No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:

http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/

I never knew anything about it until two minutes ago.   I'm listening to it right now for the first time.   Doesn't seem so bad.   Wish they had contacted me for an interview as I could have provided more comprehensive answers.

Who is "Jeph"?

Ross.

I listened to this a few days ago when searching for ISDC coverage online.  I didn't find what I wanted, but I did find this.

It was not really bad, and Jeph was trying to be informative, but it could have gone better.

I left a long comment to try and clear things up, and included a link to directlauncher.com.   Sorry if I messed anything up, but I just wanted to leave a short summary for casual readers and a link for the more curious.

They have a Thursday night show (tonight) if you want to call in and give them any clarifications.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 07:59 PM
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again.  No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:

http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/

I agree.  It is one thing for me as an outsider to say NASA picked Griffin's pet rocket, but Direct needs to stay above this.

Maybe you can say NASA might have over reacted to safety in picking Ares I, but that was before trust oscillation and control problems were known and Direct mitigates these problems very well.   This is the truth.  I have first hand knowledge Scott Horowitz loved his stick 100% for crew safety.  And I can tell you at the time, we didn't have a clue about TO or the control problems.  You might also mention Ares I was picked based on a 4 segment SRB and an airstart SSME.
Summary response, "NASA probably made a good decision based on what they knew at the time, but things have changed and Ares I is not as good as it once was."

On safety, it is simple to point out having an abort system and putting the capsule on the top is a big improvement to shuttle.  On the Challenger comments, Direct can survive a joint leak.  I would recommend adding an off the shelf IR or UV sensor to look up the side of the SRBs and look for a leak.  This is very common technology for aircraft to look for incoming missiles.  I don't like the implication in the podcast that joint leaks are rare and therefore "OK".  Detect the leak and abort off of it.

On Jupiter being "smaller" than Ares V, the response was not good.  Simply say Ares V also requires a launch of Ares I for the crew and Direct is going to use 2 Jupiters that combined carry more than an Ares I and V and combined cost a lot less.  Use the size of Ares V against it because it requires new SRBs and a new upperstage engine.  Trying to say a single Jupiter can lift more than a single Ares V is not a good idea.  If you do have an advanced growth idea that can carry more, state it as that.   Stick with the baseline to get us to ISS and the moon.

As a person that used to sell technical systems, I recommend having a response to "What is the down side of your design?"  Everyone you brief may ask this.  Maybe that Ares V can send a cargo mission to the moon with a single launch, and the fact that Ares I uses a single SRB while you use 2.  How about the extra LEO docking required.  BTW single launch for cargo to go to the moon is not as important now that outposts are off the table.

I hope this helps y'all polish your brief. 

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/04/2009 08:17 PM
I believe Ross might have said earlier that the Ares V internally now has grown in size due to inefficiencies in the RS68, not to mention it needs 7 engines instead of 5. I think the biggest problem with Ares right now is that it just gets bigger, more expensive and delayed by YEARS. If you point out that Ares isn't over it's delays I think it would be hard not to choose an alternative. It's highly suggestable that with Ares we won't reach the moon by 2020 no matter what is done. Getting there by 2020 I think was the main critera that Obama wants.

I mean Ares V can't get any bigger now according to Ross's interview, or else the VAB won't be big enough. That means any more problems, and payload sizes will have to decrease.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/04/2009 08:32 PM
Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

That raises a very interesting point...

Should we 'pack' our dates and make them a "no brainer"?

I'm concerned with the possibility of some factions pushing the "their schedule is unreasonable" card, even though *we* are totally confident.   Problem is that mud always tends to stick...   ...So perhaps we should get even more conservative specifically for this presentation -- just to head that accusation off at the gate?

It would certainly be better to say "5 years" and then have Hawes come back with "yeah its doable in 4 actually" instead of saying "3 years" and Hawes coming back and saying "nope, your too optimistic, its going to take longer, more like 4".

Same result from Hawes could produce two completely different reactions, all because of our claims going in...

Thoughts?

Ross.



You also have other contenders out there. If you pad the schedule too much, it could do the reverse and give the upper hand to your opponent (not likely, based on ALL that Direct has going for it). There is always a balancing act, and I think it's balanced very well. Maybe adding 2-3 months, but nothing more than that (imo).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 06/04/2009 08:32 PM
We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.

What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to simply kill-off any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.

Ross.

No if you are confident of the schedule then say so. Schedule is one of the reasons we support direct and one of the drivers for adopting direct.

I'd suggest including conditions in the schedule however, such as "funding for this must start then", " Dependant on this" etc. Then there is complete openness on the possible reasons for delays.

Considering this can lead to the development of a real wort case scenario schedule that assume nothing goes as planned.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/04/2009 09:00 PM
2019?
heads.
implement.
Let Ares speak for itself or not, as an outside/underground concept DIRECT has to be ultra-credible and professional in its own right regardless of what EELV/Ares do or not do.
I agree.  I think, however, that DIRECT, while outside/underground is also parallel to the Ares programmes.  So, if Ares said they can prepare the J-2X or RS-68 in nn months for nn dollars, then DIRECT has incorporated those assumptions into its plans.  Similarly when NASA has upgraded a facility. DIRECT 3.0 is now a lot different than Ares, but it did not get like that in an isolated way.

I wonder if it is fair to compare budget, schedule, and infrastructure advantages.  In other words, if DIRECT shows it's advantages with an apple-to-apple comparison, is that unprofessional?  It is possible that the other systems might present their information in a way that is hard to compare, and one of DIRECT's selling points is not detected?

I will leave the touchy subject of performance comparisons to others.

Modify: typo


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/04/2009 09:08 PM
Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

That raises a very interesting point...

Should we 'pack' our dates and make them a "no brainer"?

I'm concerned with the possibility of some factions pushing the "their schedule is unreasonable" card, even though *we* are totally confident.   Problem is that mud always tends to stick...   ...So perhaps we should get even more conservative specifically for this presentation -- just to head that accusation off at the gate?

It would certainly be better to say "5 years" and then have Hawes come back with "yeah its doable in 4 actually" instead of saying "3 years" and Hawes coming back and saying "nope, your too optimistic, its going to take longer, more like 4".

Same result from Hawes could produce two completely different reactions, all because of our claims going in...

Thoughts?

Ross.



You also have other contenders out there. If you pad the schedule too much, it could do the reverse and give the upper hand to your opponent (not likely, based on ALL that Direct has going for it). There is always a balancing act, and I think it's balanced very well. Maybe adding 2-3 months, but nothing more than that (imo).

We have seen with Ares I which was supposed to be a simple and soon concept how quickly delays can mount up to unforeseen problems. They should take the Von Braun approach and seriously err on the side of margin caution. 3 years to me for a new rocket, even with existing reconfigured parts, sounds like a wind in your sails job, it could be done but everything would have to go more or less to plan.  Just say it took 5 for some reason, on a 3 year schedule that's a 66% overrun, on a 4 year schedule that's a 25% overrun. Which would lead to less recriminations ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/04/2009 10:33 PM
Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

That raises a very interesting point...

Should we 'pack' our dates and make them a "no brainer"?

I'm concerned with the possibility of some factions pushing the "their schedule is unreasonable" card, even though *we* are totally confident.   Problem is that mud always tends to stick...   ...So perhaps we should get even more conservative specifically for this presentation -- just to head that accusation off at the gate?

It would certainly be better to say "5 years" and then have Hawes come back with "yeah its doable in 4 actually" instead of saying "3 years" and Hawes coming back and saying "nope, your too optimistic, its going to take longer, more like 4".

Same result from Hawes could produce two completely different reactions, all because of our claims going in...

Thoughts?

Ross.



You also have other contenders out there. If you pad the schedule too much, it could do the reverse and give the upper hand to your opponent (not likely, based on ALL that Direct has going for it). There is always a balancing act, and I think it's balanced very well. Maybe adding 2-3 months, but nothing more than that (imo).

We have seen with Ares I which was supposed to be a simple and soon concept how quickly delays can mount up to unforeseen problems. They should take the Von Braun approach and seriously err on the side of margin caution. 3 years to me for a new rocket, even with existing reconfigured parts, sounds like a wind in your sails job, it could be done but everything would have to go more or less to plan.  Just say it took 5 for some reason, on a 3 year schedule that's a 66% overrun, on a 4 year schedule that's a 25% overrun. Which would lead to less recriminations ?

IMHO, Don't disappoint the customer... Much.  While the 3 year schedule has built-in the knowable unknowns, in project management, it is legitimate to schedule an arbitrary period of unknowable unknowns. So I would create a 4 year schedule which is what the Orion team really needs and use the additional available funds to start development of the Really big payoff item which is the Fuel Depots.

I am enamored with the EML Architecture as expounded in Direct V2.0.  Using fuel depots, it is "easy" to create an efficient transportation network throughout cislunar space and onto mars.  The smaller delta-v's from one depot to the other allow very good mass ratios allowing conservative designs.  I believe in KISS.

Stan 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/04/2009 11:17 PM
Politically this should be an easy sell since itís a win-win for Obama.

1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.
2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.
3. It gives him a chance to out stage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle.  This point alone should convince Obama.


It should, but it's hard to say if it will.

1) Obama hasn't shown that he really cares much about the space program, and in fact, candidate Obama said a few discouraging things.
With any luck, this changes and he does the right things, but it's hard to be overly optimistic.

2) Like Zap said, his left-wing liberal base aren't exactly the people who are invested and big supporters of the space program.  He can earn a lot for grace with them by putting as much money as possibly into social engineering, "green" programs, education, unions, etc.  The Democrat bread and butter areas.

3)  While Obama seems to take an unprecidented stance at trying to berate his predecessor, likely to divert attention away from his own controversial spending and social engineering policies, he doesn't need NASA to do that.  The media pretty much let him do it ad nausium without an ounce of scruteny.
Although Zap seems to wonder off into a rant about Bush, despite his failure to follow up on the VSE, the VSE itself only exists because of Bush, and in fairness, Bush took the most interest in the Space program since probably LBJ.  He didn't follow up on it and let it head a wrong direction with Ares (and a pox on him for that), but at least he did try to get something new going after the Columbia accident.  Obama or Clinton would have probably moved to let manned space exploration wither on the vine and die as it's in danger of now.

And for the record, Obama was in the Senate for 4 years, two of those with a large Democrat majority in Congress, so he and his party had as much a hand in many of the "messes" we have now as the Bush Administration does.
He was "handed" very little he and the democrats didn't already have their fingers in prior to January 20th.
Both sides have screwed the pootch on a lot of things, but lets be fair about it.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 11:50 PM
Politically this should be an easy sell since itís a win-win for Obama.

1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.
2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.
3. It gives him a chance to out stage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle.  This point alone should convince Obama.


It should, but it's hard to say if it will.

1) Obama hasn't shown that he really cares much about the space program, and in fact, candidate Obama said a few discouraging things.
With any luck, this changes and he does the right things, but it's hard to be overly optimistic.

2) Like Zap said, his left-wing liberal base aren't exactly the people who are invested and big supporters of the space program.  He can earn a lot for grace with them by putting as much money as possibly into social engineering, "green" programs, education, unions, etc.  The Democrat bread and butter areas.

3)  While Obama seems to take an unprecidented stance at trying to berate his predecessor, likely to divert attention away from his own controversial spending and social engineering policies, he doesn't need NASA to do that.  The media pretty much let him do it ad nausium without an ounce of scruteny.
Although Zap seems to wonder off into a rant about Bush, despite his failure to follow up on the VSE, the VSE itself only exists because of Bush, and in fairness, Bush took the most interest in the Space program since probably LBJ.  He didn't follow up on it and let it head a wrong direction with Ares (and a pox on him for that), but at least he did try to get something new going after the Columbia accident.  Obama or Clinton would have probably moved to let manned space exploration wither on the vine and die as it's in danger of now.

And for the record, Obama was in the Senate for 4 years, two of those with a large Democrat majority in Congress, so he and his party had as much a hand in many of the "messes" we have now as the Bush Administration does.
He was "handed" very little he and the democrats didn't already have their fingers in prior to January 20th.
Both sides have screwed the pootch on a lot of things, but lets be fair about it.



Gawd! You know - the election is OVER - EIGHT months ago - so can we please get past this stuff? Let it go already. This thread is NOT about Obama vs. Bush and it is NOT about Left vs. Right or about Democrat vs. Republican so *get back on topic* - please.

(Slowly pulling my finger away from the alert button - one time only)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: WellingtonEast on 06/05/2009 12:53 AM
Yeah, I was also thinking about a two-stage TLI/LOI/crasher architecture, except mine is a bit simpler:

Launch Altair on J-24x then Orion on J-24x.  Retain both upper stages to EOR.  Dock eyes in nozzles out.  Start TLI with Orion JUS (~70mT remaining propellant) and jettison on burnout.  Reverse attitude and finish TLI with Altair JUS (~45mT remaining propellant).  Reverse attitude and fire Altair JUS again for LOI and, after separating from Orion, a final burn for deorbit.  Jettison on burnout and crash it into the moon.

Besides the increased lunar payload, the lander center of gravity is substantially lower, the PLFs are less complicated/empty, and the EOR is simplified to a single docking maneuver much like Constellation.  Seems like a winner to me, as long as the brief coast between TLI burns for separation and reorientation isn't a big problem.


Two problems with that:-

1) During first EDS burn, you're putting huge stresses on the Orion / Altair connection. At best, you'd have to really beef up both vehicles and the docking mechanism. Probably lose all your mass savings.

2) The first EDS burn pushes Altair & EDS #2 "upside down", which I don't believe is a load path currently accomodated. (To be fair, I think Orion may gently accelerate Altair "upside down" during rendezvous manoeuvres).

cheers, Martin

Another concern with that approach is that the crew on the Orion has absolutely no possible way to escape from between those giant EDS' in the case of anything going wrong during the TLI.

Even on the 'regular' approach, facing the LSAM, the Orion has a chance to use the LSAM's Ascent Module to try to get them away from problems.   Its better than nothing.

Ross.


Hi,

As a long time lurker, great job the Direct guys and good luck. 

It might sound negative, but I keep seeing parallels between NASA and ancient Rome.  Rome ruled the world with leading technology and clear direction but then lost its way as it turned inward and rested on past glories.

While its not strictly Direct 3 territory, I have been very interested on the recent discussions here about EDS configuration for TLI and LOI with altair/orion.  The result is I am confused by some of the contributors comments which I find conflicting. Hence are there any pictures that outline the various options being discussed??

Cheers   



Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 02:07 AM
ment to try and clear things up, and included a link to directlauncher.com.   Sorry if I messed anything up, but I just wanted to leave a short summary for casual readers and a link for the more curious.

They have a Thursday night show (tonight) if you want to call in and give them any clarifications.

I have both posted a comment there and also directly e-mailed the hosts of the show to see about options for providing corrections.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 02:22 AM
While its not strictly Direct 3 territory, I have been very interested on the recent discussions here about EDS configuration for TLI and LOI with altair/orion.  The result is I am confused by some of the contributors comments which I find conflicting. Hence are there any pictures that outline the various options being discussed?

I am attempting to produce some Mission Profile diagrams to demonstrate the different potential options, but with everything else that has been going on yesterday and today, it is taking me a lot more time than I had hoped.   Please be patient -- they are in the pipeline.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/05/2009 02:24 AM
On the Direct 3.0 video to the Augustine Commission, I agree with mars.is.wet in general that videos in such a forum are not good.  But your video has no audio and really is more of a moving PowerPoint presentation you can talk to while it plays in the background.  If you treat it like this, I think it would work.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 02:28 AM
That's what we did at ISDC (and other places too).   Essentially we use the video to explain the basic arrangement of the Jupiter launcher and how it relates to Shuttle's existing systems.

As such, it is *really* powerful when used as a "moving PowerPoint slide".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 02:34 AM
That's what we did at ISDC (and other places too).   Essentially we use the video to explain the basic arrangement of the Jupiter launcher and how it relates to Shuttle's existing systems.

As such, it is *really* powerful when used as a "moving PowerPoint slide".

Ross.

But realize that they will likely control the machine ... and if they ask questions, your timing will get off.  Like the supreme court, its actually not much about the presentation and more about the questions.  If you are lucky they will read your material ahead of time.  Usually the charts are due 3-5 days before.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 03:09 AM
Ross, I had a long involved post typed up, but it got lost because my session timed out before I submitted it.  Arggh.

But what I wanted to suggest is that you simplify your materials by omitting the numeric suffixes.  When you refer to the Jupiter-130 and the Jupiter-246, people naturally assume you are referring to two separate vehicles.   I have lost count of the number of times that you or Chuck has pointed out that the Jupiter has a common core, and that the J-130 core is identical to the J-246 core.  The numeric suffix is a spiffy and concise way of distinguishing between the LEO and the Lunar versions, or better yet the single-stage and the two-stage versions, but it is confusing to newcomers and lay people.

The concept seems obvious once you "get" it, but people just do not intuitively grasp it.  Or they use the opportunity to sow a little confusion by treating them as two separate vehicles even when they know darn well that they are not.  (NASA Analysis, anyone?)  To most lay people, two separate names imply two separate vehicles.  Even people who are obviously industry insiders repeatedly get this issue confused.

So my humble suggestion is to just drop the suffix in online fora and in your marketing material.  It shouldn't be the "Jupiter-130" and "Jupiter-246", or even J-130 and J-246, but just Jupiter.  Maybe you could add Phase-I and Phase-II, but even that is not needed in normal conversation.

Only when the industry insiders need more detailed info, that is when you can whip out the baseball cards and spreadsheets, and all of the possible variants.  Otherwise, make the effort to just refer to it as "Jupiter".  I think that will help clear up some of the confusion, and make for a clearer message.

Just an idea!

Mark S.


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Cale on 06/05/2009 03:26 AM
That's what we did at ISDC (and other places too).   Essentially we use the video to explain the basic arrangement of the Jupiter launcher and how it relates to Shuttle's existing systems.

As such, it is *really* powerful when used as a "moving PowerPoint slide".

Ross.

Hopefully, if we get the Orbiter version fully up-and-running, that could serve as a further visual aid.

Best,

Cale
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/05/2009 03:43 AM
So my humble suggestion is to just drop the suffix in online fora and in your marketing material.  It shouldn't be the "Jupiter-130" and "Jupiter-246", or even J-130 and J-246, but just Jupiter.  Maybe you could add Phase-I and Phase-II, but even that is not needed in normal conversation.

When there's a need to distinguish between the two variants how about "Jupiter with core only" for J-130 and "Jupiter core plus upper stage" for J-246? The former has an obvious and descriptive short form: "Jupiter core". The latter is harder to shorten; possibilities include "Jupiter plus" and "full Jupiter".
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/05/2009 03:52 AM
So my humble suggestion is to just drop the suffix in online fora and in your marketing material.  It shouldn't be the "Jupiter-130" and "Jupiter-246", or even J-130 and J-246, but just Jupiter.  Maybe you could add Phase-I and Phase-II, but even that is not needed in normal conversation.

When there's a need to distinguish between the two variants how about "Jupiter with core only" for J-130 and "Jupiter core plus upper stage" for J-246? The former has an obvious and descriptive short form: "Jupiter core". The latter is harder to shorten; possibilities include "Jupiter plus" and "full Jupiter".


I think the naming concept is pretty easy to understand, doesn't even need explanation anyway. The people on the commission will be used to nomenclature and long strings of numbers. One of the members actually already knows what DIRECT is and is a supporter. If they have questions they can ask them or leaf through the hard copies.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 03:58 AM
So my humble suggestion is to just drop the suffix in online fora and in your marketing material.  It shouldn't be the "Jupiter-130" and "Jupiter-246", or even J-130 and J-246, but just Jupiter.  Maybe you could add Phase-I and Phase-II, but even that is not needed in normal conversation.

When there's a need to distinguish between the two variants how about "Jupiter with core only" for J-130 and "Jupiter core plus upper stage" for J-246? The former has an obvious and descriptive short form: "Jupiter core". The latter is harder to shorten; possibilities include "Jupiter plus" and "full Jupiter".


Yeah, it's hard to come with a good way of distinguishing them without creating the impression of multiple vehicles.  You and I know what "J-130" and "J-246" mean, it is good shorthand and clear to those who are in the know.

Even the professionally written article in Popular Mechanics failed to make this issue easily understandable, and that was with the full cooperation of the DIRECT team.

So I think the best thing to do is not create the confusion in the first place.  Always refer to the vehicle as just "Jupiter".  For instance, instead of saying "The Jupiter-246 is capable of launching over 100 metric tonnes to low Earth orbit", one could say "The Jupiter launcher, with its powerful upper stage added, can launch over 100 tonnes to LEO".  Sure, it is a little longer to write, but it makes clear that it is still the same vehicle that is used for LEO operations.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 04:12 AM
So my humble suggestion is to just drop the suffix in online fora and in your marketing material.  It shouldn't be the "Jupiter-130" and "Jupiter-246", or even J-130 and J-246, but just Jupiter.  Maybe you could add Phase-I and Phase-II, but even that is not needed in normal conversation.

When there's a need to distinguish between the two variants how about "Jupiter with core only" for J-130 and "Jupiter core plus upper stage" for J-246? The former has an obvious and descriptive short form: "Jupiter core". The latter is harder to shorten; possibilities include "Jupiter plus" and "full Jupiter".


I think the naming concept is pretty easy to understand, doesn't even need explanation anyway. The people on the commission will be used to nomenclature and long strings of numbers. One of the members actually already knows what DIRECT is and is a supporter. If they have questions they can ask them or leaf through the hard copies.

I agree that it is easy once you "get it".  But if it was that obvious and easily understandable, it wouldn't constantly be brought up so often in these very threads.  Or in other online forums and blogs, or even official NASA documents.  This confusion has already been used by DIRECT detractors to muddy the waters, as seen in the NASA Analysis document.  Two names = two vehicles.

After all, was creating Delta-IV as simple as adding an upper stage to Delta-III?  Was going to Atlas-III as simple as adding an upper stage to Atlas-II?  Or even Atlas-III to Atlas-V?   Just because a launcher has the same first name with some kind of difference in suffixes, does not imply that the vehicles are identical at all.  If fact, I would say the opposite, that any difference in rocket names, even just a suffix, normally means a major difference between the two vehicles.

Anyway, the point is probably moot this late in the game.  Just thought I'd throw it out there...

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 08:15 AM
I don't think we're going to mess with the naming convention this late in the game.

Those who know already, will "get it", we will just make sure its clear to everyone in the presentation at the time.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/05/2009 08:56 AM
Jupiter phase 1 & Jupiter phase 2

Jupiter basic & Jupiter enhanced

Jupiter single & Jupiter staged

Jupiter basic & Jupiter EDS

cherrs, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/05/2009 09:04 AM
Jupiter & Jupiter Plus sounds good to me. Or maybe even Jupiter Medium & Jupiter Heavy?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/05/2009 09:08 AM
How about Jupiter and Jupiter++. :-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SimonFD on 06/05/2009 09:12 AM
How about Jupiter and Jupiter++. :-)

Aha! A programmer!  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/05/2009 09:23 AM
I don't think we're going to mess with the naming convention this late in the game.

Those who know already, will "get it", we will just make sure its clear to everyone in the presentation at the time.

Ross.

There's no need to scrap the number designations, just refer to them using more common terms when talking to the media.

Just refer to the J-130 as simply the 'Jupiter' and the J-246 as the 'Jupiter Plus'. Simple.

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/05/2009 09:30 AM
You could even apply the new terms retrospectively; i.e. you could henceforth refer to ALL your J-130's, J-120's etc. as 'Jupiters' and all your J-232's, J-246's, etc. as 'Jupiter Pluses'. That seems like the most intuitive solution to me.

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 09:46 AM
If I were going to recommend a name convention change, which I'm not really inclined to, I would probably suggest using the simplest descriptions of just the "Jupiter" vehicle and the "Jupiter with Upper Stage".

I don't think it gets much simpler than that, and the names help make it really obvious that they are the same vehicle, just one has an additional stage on top.

Although I *like* Stephen's "++" suggestion -- its very "21st century net-savvy uber-geek speak" and that appeals to my own inner-geek ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/05/2009 09:48 AM
Quote from: Bill White
Of course, we also need to add this same 48 month contingency to Ares 1, if we are to compare apples and apples.

Right?

DIRECT fans have to start losing the attitude just about now

Ahh... the reek of imperial imperiousness!

Conflate much?

Quote
at least for the duration of the Commission.

"Don't speak the truth about Ares... it wouldn't be polite!"

Quote
Let Ares speak for itself or not,

Ares lies. A lot. Ares lies a lot about Direct. This cannot be ignored. It must be addressed in some manner, however... indirect :)... that manner might be.

Quote
Even 5 years still beats Ares I so it really doesn't matter the degree, it will close the gap earlier.

Dead wrong. The Ares proponents, which essentially are NASA administration, will attempt to fling so much BS in the air that an unneeded delay will actually seem advisable to the commission rather than trying to buck the system by changing course...

edit: I had added an assertion that NASA would continue past bad behavior in the face of the commission and Ross objected to the assertion.

Call  it a prediction instead. One I'd bet money on.


See, the above is an example of a 'bad attitude', going into a commission 'where you want to be liked and persuasive'.  NASA may ignore and consign to 'them quaint Direct rockets and internet posters'  Surely, you want to be above this.

You are not 'taking NASA on' (in fact Direct depends on NASA's *infrastructure and manpower*, otherwise what use is it?  No, you are attempting to convince NASA (and the NASA individuals ) to implement its goal differently.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/05/2009 09:54 AM
If I were going to recommend a name convention change, which I'm not really inclined to, I would probably suggest using the simplest descriptions of just the "Jupiter" vehicle and the "Jupiter with Upper Stage".

I don't think it gets much simpler than that, and the names help make it really obvious that they are the same vehicle, just one has an additional stage on top.

Yeah thats good, but when used in conversation I can imagine "Jupiter with Upper Stage" evolving into either "Jupiter Plus" or "Jupiter Heavy" real quick. Might as well capitilize on it now ;-)

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/05/2009 10:04 AM
If I were going to recommend a name convention change, which I'm not really inclined to, I would probably suggest using the simplest descriptions of just the "Jupiter" vehicle and the "Jupiter with Upper Stage".

Like Mike, I like this.  You can keep the model numbers on the actual documentation (if they ask, let them know what the model numbers mean - lots of the commission members have aerospace/scientific backgrounds so they would 'get' the concept) but, in the presentation, use the 'Jupiter' and 'Jupiter with Upper Stage'.  It is quick and emphasises the proposal's big major upside in manufacturing and infrastructure terms: the common core for both models.  You can be sure it would impress the industry pros on the commission.

One thing that has come to my mind of late: The thirty-minute time frame suggests that you are being 'indulged'.  They're expecting a semi-well-informed amateur with a big Internet following who will just try to impress them with his Lego rocket.  Make sure that you emphasise that there is real engineering here.  You might want to have in-depth backup material for their technical advisers to pour over.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 10:05 AM
I'm going to make a specific appeal to all of our supporters:

Can we all please try to refrain from any "confrontation" with CxP from here onwards.   It isn't helping things.

If NASA is ever going to be able to adopt a plan similar to DIRECT for itself, we need to start working NOW to develop a greater spirit of cooperation between the agency and us.   We can't do that if we keep the conflict going any longer.

We have no choice but to set aside our old differences and complaints.   Believe me, I know that's going to be hard to do given some of the bad blood which has flowed so freely between DIRECT and CxP over the last few years.   But we MUST try to resolve our differences sooner or later.   It would be advantageous for all if we can do so sooner.

Someone has to start the process of healing the rift and I think it should be us -- and I think it should be NOW.


So this is a call to everyone throughout our support base:

Spend your time promoting the positives of DIRECT loudly, vibrantly, for all to hear.   But lets all leave all of the negative diatribe in the car -- it is only going to get in the way from here onwards.

Thank-you for your continued support.   

Ross Tierney
Founder, The DIRECT Team
www.directlauncher.com
Tutus Simplex Ocius Ut Astrum
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 10:07 AM
If I were going to recommend a name convention change, which I'm not really inclined to, I would probably suggest using the simplest descriptions of just the "Jupiter" vehicle and the "Jupiter with Upper Stage".

I don't think it gets much simpler than that, and the names help make it really obvious that they are the same vehicle, just one has an additional stage on top.

Although I *like* Stephen's "++" suggestion -- its very "21st century net-savvy uber-geek speak" and that appeals to my own inner-geek ;)

Ross.

I wouldn't think of it as a name change.  More of a clarification and simplification of your message.

Can anyone name a rocket with suffixes as different as -130 and -246 that had identical common cores?  I know that DIRECT is trying to be clear, and the suffix is easy to understand once you know the code.  But it is also easy misuse, and easy to use to spread false impressions.

From what I can see, a common first name simply implies membership in a development series, or the property of a single manufacturer.  DIRECT's usage is innovative and concise, but it goes against common industry practice.  Which means you are having to work harder than you need to, to get your message across.

I think Jupiter++ is catchy, but it is once again appealing to those who already know what it means.  Most people would just think it was a typo.  I like "Jupiter" and "Jupiter with Upper Stage" as the default usage.

Thanks for all of the thoughtful replies!

Go DIRECT!
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: usn_skwerl on 06/05/2009 10:17 AM
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again.  No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:

http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/

I never knew anything about it until two minutes ago.   I'm listening to it right now for the first time.   Doesn't seem so bad.   Wish they had contacted me for an interview as I could have provided more comprehensive answers.

Who is "Jeph"?

Ross.

he is claiming first manned jupiter flight would be 2016.....(Jeph)

I am Jeph.


Um, excuse me Ron, but I did in fact mention that I was not 100% positive of my numbers, and I didn't claim to be an expert on DIRECT. But I did say a couple of times; "if I remember correctly" and I provided my opinions. I'm not trying to put egg on anyone's face, and I would appreciate if you didn't try to throw me under the bus. I have nothing but respect and good intentions for the effort of the Direct team. I misquoted by saying 2016, erring on the side of caution, which still puts direct ahead of Ares.

Ross, PLEASE feel free to contact the hosts of the site and set the record straight for yourself, as many of us would absolutely love to hear from you. There are a couple of skeptics that come in who think NASA upper management (and Ares) is smarter than the engineers when it comes to "rocket science" as it were.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 10:21 AM
I'm going to make a specific appeal to all of our supporters:

Please try to refrain from the "confrontation" aspects of this from here onwards.
.....
Ross Tierney
Founder, The DIRECT Team
www.directlauncher.com

Seconded! 

It goes against the nature of the anonymous Internet, but we all need to exercise more restraint.  The easiest way to do this is not even mention your detractors or their program(s).  When someone takes potshots, by all means jump in and defend DIRECT.  But be polite and always include a link to directlauncher.com, so other readers can always find the full scoop for themselves.

We can't always go around saying "But but Ares....".  DIRECT stands on its own.

Mark S.

P.S.  "Founder", niiiice.  It has a certain cachet, doesn't it?  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 10:28 AM
I am Jeph.

Ah ha!   You're Jeph! :)

Yeah, there's a few bits which I would like to amend in that piece.   Not your fault, and as you say you did qualify your statements, but the wrong info is still "out there", so it still needs fixing.

I've been in contact with Ben (the host of that show) already.   We're talking about a possible appearance.

Having said that, I am actually a touch concerned with Ben's "forget about anything but Ares" attitude from last night's podcast though.   In my experience, when people have already made up their mind like that, its usually a complete waste of my time trying to persuade them otherwise.

You've obviously spent a lot more time chatting with Ben, so I would appreciate your 'take' on his attitude.   Is he an immovable object, or is he open to reasoned arguments?

I just don't want to end up wasting my time.   I just have so many other important tasks to get done right now, so I want to highly prioritize my efforts over the next two weeks and get the best possible value out of my time.   I'm concerned that Ben might end -up being be a "forlorn hope", in which case I would be better-off focusing on something more beneficial.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 10:30 AM
Ross, PLEASE feel free to contact the hosts of the site and set the record straight for yourself, as many of us would absolutely love to hear from you. There are a couple of skeptics that come in who think NASA upper management (and Ares) is smarter than the engineers when it comes to "rocket science" as it were.

Hi Jeph!  Ross said earlier that he has in fact emailed the hosts, and also left a comment.  I know he's going to be very busy for the forseeable future, but maybe he can take a few minutes for an online interview.

Don't take Ron's comments personally, you were getting the message out to a wider audience, which is what counts.

Mark S.

Edit: Ross beat me to it!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/05/2009 10:39 AM
I'm going to make a specific appeal to all of our supporters:

Can we all please try to refrain from any "confrontation" with CxP from here onwards.   It isn't helping things.

If NASA is ever going to be able to adopt a plan similar to DIRECT for itself, we need to start working NOW to develop a greater spirit of cooperation between the agency and us.   We can't do that if we keep the conflict going any longer.

We have no choice but to set aside our old differences and complaints.   Believe me, I know that's going to be hard to do given some of the bad blood which has flowed so freely between DIRECT and CxP over the last few years.   But we MUST try to resolve our differences sooner or later.   It would be advantageous for all if we can do so sooner.

Someone has to start the process of healing the rift and I think it should be us -- and I think it should be NOW.


So this is a call to everyone throughout our support base:

Spend your time promoting the positives of DIRECT loudly, vibrantly, for all to hear.   But lets all leave all of the negative diatribe in the car -- it is only going to get in the way from here onwards.

Thank-you for your continued support.   

Ross Tierney
Founder, The DIRECT Team
www.directlauncher.com
Tutus Simplex Ocius Ut Astrum

Ross, well spoken.  As for me (non direct, non ares, pro eeeee...veeeee ya know what I'm talking about) it's just added a bit of more respect and attention to pay to you folks.

(with professional respects, seriously kudos for this architecure even if I disagree with it long term)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 10:39 AM
We can't always go around saying "But but Ares....".  DIRECT stands on its own.

Agreed, for a while now (the Rebuttal being an exception) we have actually tried to tone down all our vitriol.

Now we want to explicitly try to dial it down completely -- to zero.


BTW, its still okay to use Ares as a reference point for technical comparison purposes -- as long as the tone remains neutral.

Ares is well recognized, so being able to draw technical comparisons to it is not a problem.   People can continue to say things like "Ares-I can lift xxx while Jupiter-130 can lift yyy to LEO".   Comparing the two in that sort of situation is perfectly acceptable still -- as long as the tone remains neutral.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/05/2009 10:43 AM
But if I may state so, we need more folks like Ross, Chuck, etc...   their designs may not materialize with NASA, but the energy and the intellectual design capacity will resonate with the private enterprizes, and design.

Even if I disagree mostly often, thank you Direct team for the persistance and the effort at 'poking NASA'
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: usn_skwerl on 06/05/2009 10:44 AM
I don't get "star struck" often. but it truly is a treat to be able to meet the head brains (or any not-so-head brains) behind Direct. Should we ever meet, odds are good that I'd have tons of questions, and maybe some hair-brained ideas for the project. But I digress...

With the Direct face to face "tale of the tape" comparison to Ares, Ben's opinions can be swayed, as he has a tendency to focus on facts placed before him and ask for more information. If you can spare ~30 minutes (perhaps more?) for a pile of "spicy" questions from the chatters, I feel even the skeptics aside from our beloved Ben would have their opinions swayed by you within minutes. Direct really does stand alone!

I do apologize if I caused any turmoil, but it was for a good cause and I'd rather not intentionally toss FOD into the chamber. I'm just passionate about manned spaceflight and the right way to approach it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 10:51 AM
Jeph,
If its not a lost cause, I'd be willing to do a whole series of shows and *really* get into the nitty-gritty as much as the listeners can take! :)

Tuesday I did a 2-hour radio show with David Livingston over on The Space Show (http://thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1167) and frankly, I think we really only scratched the surface.   I think we would probably need 3 or 4 more shows if we wanted to fully cover all the relevant ground in reasonable detail -- including answering all the listener's questions.

I don't know if Ben is interested in such a thing, but I could try one show there, and if there's demand, I could do a whole series of follow-ups -- until there's no further demand! ::) LOL

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: usn_skwerl on 06/05/2009 11:03 AM
I listened to that show, and commend you for it. Thanks so much for the interview! That was the first time I had listened to the space show, and found it so interesting that I was reluctant to pause it at times to listen to the wife :D

If he's open for it, I'm certain that a few of the skeptics would listen to the interview, and want more info. I believe Ben may have a gues on next week, but if you guys can work something out, I strongly feel many of us would appreciate the solid facts verbalized and condensed in the interviews, versus the hundreds of pages located here. I'm not trying to sound critical or lazy, but hearing the leaders/experts talk about it has a tendency to make the logic become cohesive and stick inside the squishy grey spine warmer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/05/2009 11:11 AM
Is the space shuttle launch video used in your direct presentation one of missions on which a panel member flew?  If so, that might seem kinda awkward.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 11:20 AM
No, its not.   We're safe from that perspective.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 06/05/2009 11:24 AM
I listened to Space Show, and the part where Ross answers the "why DIRECT is better than EELVs?" question still sounds suboptimal.

Ross, in answering that question, you sounded somewhat dismissive of EELVs. IIRC it sounded roughly as: "... If we'd decide to stay in LEO, then EELVs are acceptable". This would ruffle some feathers for EELV huggers.

I suggest to be more friendly towards EELVs. Basically, phrase your response like "If we'd decide to stay in LEO, then EELVs probably are the best rockets to support that. If we'd decide to go to the Moon, it can also be done with EELVs, but it will cost more. For Moon program, a LV with at least 50+ tons to LEO is able to be significantly cheaper. ..."

You do not say "ELLVs suck, DIRECT rocks". You say "EELVs are fine rockets, but for Moon program, DIRECT (also a fine rocket) is cheaper"

There is nothing to lose for you by doing this, because if we do end up limited to LEO, neither DIRECT nor Ares would happen anyway.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/05/2009 11:31 AM
I aggree with the previous post by gospacex, currently flying D4s and A5s will only help (not to mention it'd help NASA, Joe the taxpayer and etc....)  Why piss against the wind?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 11:58 AM
The EELV's are extremely worthwhile systems.   But they are simply not optimal for human missions to the Moon or Mars.   Sorry to be so blunt, but that's the uncomfortable truth of the matter.

There are three primary reasons why the EELV's aren't gaining much ground in the Exploration office at NASA, nor within Congress:-

Firstly, the EELV-class vehicles do not have a sufficiently large payload volume, which is important on Lunar missions because you want the widest possible landing footprint for your spacecraft in order to ensure stability and reduce the chance of accidentally tipping the spacecraft over in any rough landing situations.   Then, for human Mars missions later, we are going to need a really large heatshield because the atmosphere in Mars is so thin.   There ain't no way to lift a 10m, 12m or 15m diameter single-piece heat-shield on an EELV.


Secondly, to operate a mission in the class of the ones NASA intends requires you to loft about 200 metric tons of hardware to LEO at the start of each mission.   With 20mT-class lift vehicles or 25mT-class launch vehicles you are talking about a fleet of launchers and a fairly substantial orbital assembly task being required for every single mission -- and I would suggest that ISS is a good example of an orbital integration effort.   We're talking about integrating three modules the size and complexity of any of the ISS modules, together with five more launches providing Propellant (and we have no backup if we find that Orbital Propellant Delivery capabilities are more difficult than expected, this arrangement has PD technologies on the critical path to BEGIN the Lunar exploration phase) and then Orion comes in just to add a little extra spice.   All those assembly tasks must be performed by automated systems, or we also have to launch assembly crews as well, and all those additional docking joints and connections all add extra complexity which has to work perfectly every time or the crew on that mission may well die.   And lets not even start talking about the 40+ launches required to support each Mars mission -- its *insane* to propose building a new "ISS"-sized structure in LEO whenever we wish to go to Mars.   Never gonna happen.


Then there is the problem is the total life-cycle cost.   Yes a *single* EELV probably costs less than a *single* Jupiter.   But when you require between 8 or 10 EELV's to launch every mission, the total mission will cost is a LOT more than just 2 Jupiter's.


But more than any of those issues, there is one factor which dominates the argument -- and its one which is inescapable:   Politics.   You won't get *ANY* support for EELV's from *ANY* of the space Senators or House members because they offer no means to retain the Shuttle workforce -- and the political figures are working damned hard to retain that income for their states.   Threaten to take that away and they will de-authorize your program -- Congress already did precisely that -- to O'Keefe/Steidle.   They replaced that plan with a plan from a guy who promised to retain the Shuttle workforce (the fact that his plan is still going to devastate the workforce is a separate discussion).   Unless the EELV camp can clearly define *PRECISELY* how they intend to retain the workforce, they are not going to find *ANY* political support in Congress -- and it is Congress who choose how much money actually gets provided, not the President -- this time around either.


Having said all that, there is still a place for EELV's within the program, though.   But it needs to be carefully tailored to their specific capabilities and within an acceptable political and budgetary framework.

In DIRECT we have explicitly set aside TWO place settings at the table for EELV/COTS systems.   Firstly, we intend that they take over most of the routine crew rotation missions and logistics cargo supplies to ISS.   Their capabilities and costs are ideally suited to these roles.

Then, in the longer term we are also attempting to create large and healthy new market for commercial delivery systems to LEO with estimated requirements around 400-600mT per year.   That should prove to be a sufficiently large slice of the pie to keep EELV & COTS suppliers happy, no?

That plan is also intended to bring EELV's costs down to the point where they are finally going to be competitive with other systems in the global satellite market today too -- and we hope they will be able to bring new international contracts to these shores because of that.

Yes, EELV doesn't get the entire pie with DIRECT.   But they sure get a nice slice of it AND we get to protect the Shuttle workforce and make a Heavy Lift system for the future.   Isn't that what's called a "Win Win"?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 06/05/2009 12:04 PM
Ross, I agree with all these points. I knew this all from your previous posts already. I am suggesting different wording in your presentation, I am not saying you are factually wrong.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 12:09 PM
Okay, sorry, I misunderstood your intent.   I'll take a look and see what wording might be more suitable.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/05/2009 12:13 PM
I'm going to make a specific appeal to all of our supporters:

Can we all please try to refrain from any "confrontation" with CxP from here onwards.   It isn't helping things.

If NASA is ever going to be able to adopt a plan similar to DIRECT for itself, we need to start working NOW to develop a greater spirit of cooperation between the agency and us.   We can't do that if we keep the conflict going any longer.

We have no choice but to set aside our old differences and complaints.   Believe me, I know that's going to be hard to do given some of the bad blood which has flowed so freely between DIRECT and CxP over the last few years.   But we MUST try to resolve our differences sooner or later.   It would be advantageous for all if we can do so sooner.

Someone has to start the process of healing the rift and I think it should be us -- and I think it should be NOW.


So this is a call to everyone throughout our support base:

Spend your time promoting the positives of DIRECT loudly, vibrantly, for all to hear.   But lets all leave all of the negative diatribe in the car -- it is only going to get in the way from here onwards.

Thank-you for your continued support.   

Ross Tierney
Founder, The DIRECT Team
www.directlauncher.com
Tutus Simplex Ocius Ut Astrum

Hooray.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 01:16 PM

One thing that has come to my mind of late: The thirty-minute time frame suggests that you are being 'indulged'.  They're expecting a semi-well-informed amateur with a big Internet following who will just try to impress them with his Lego rocket.  Make sure that you emphasise that there is real engineering here.  You might want to have in-depth backup material for their technical advisers to pour over.

As I have said for weeks, short time periods are normal for panels like this.  This is not a slam, it is pro forma.

*might* is not the operative word.  without detailed technical backups including cost and schedule methodologies approved by these guys

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/pae/organization/cost_analysis_division.html

Your proposal won't make it into the analysis phase, and your costs and schedules will be disregarded outright.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gin455res on 06/05/2009 01:17 PM
Ross,
Are you in the states, as without wanting to sound like your mum, I've noticed you posting at times that look to me like you never sleep (possibly a bit of parental exaggeration)? However, it may be because i'm in the UK and all the times are a bit confused.  I hope you are not burning yourself out.

As a layman, I think the effort you are making, is very important and commendable. Given the political constraints I've heard you outline on the space show, plus the clear benefits of not having to develop much new hardware, I find the direct scheme very persuasive - a  virtual 'no brainer'.

Do you have any representatives in the team, or even independent outsiders who are well acquainted with direct,  that you could suggest answer questions like those that would be asked by people like ben. Not only would this give you more time to work on other priorities, it would also give more of an appearance of a team effort.

You are always clear that you represent a fairly substantial team of experts, that's not at issue and you come across well, but more faces/voices might  (or might not!  - it's just a thought) reflect the size of the team better, in a psychological/marketing sense. 

Or is it a deliberate team strategy to have you as the main spokesperson?



 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/05/2009 01:58 PM

Secondly, to operate a mission in the class of the ones NASA intends requires you to loft about 200 metric tons of hardware to LEO at the start of each mission.   With 20mT-class lift vehicles or 25mT-class launch vehicles you are talking about a fleet of launchers and a fairly substantial orbital assembly task being required for every single mission -- and I would suggest that ISS is a good example of an orbital integration effort.   We're talking about integrating three modules the size and complexity of any of the ISS modules, together with five more launches providing Propellant (and we have no backup if we find that Orbital Propellant Delivery capabilities are more difficult than expected, this arrangement has PD technologies on the critical path to BEGIN the Lunar exploration phase) and then Orion comes in just to add a little extra spice.   All those assembly tasks must be performed by automated systems, or we also have to launch assembly crews as well, and all those additional docking joints and connections all add extra complexity which has to work perfectly every time or the crew on that mission may well die.   And lets not even start talking about the 40+ launches required to support each Mars mission -- its *insane* to propose building a new "ISS"-sized structure in LEO whenever we wish to go to Mars.   Never gonna happen.


Then, in the longer term we are also attempting to create large and healthy new market for commercial delivery systems to LEO with estimated requirements around 400-600mT per year.   That should prove to be a sufficiently large slice of the pie to keep EELV & COTS suppliers happy, no?

Yes, EELV doesn't get the entire pie with DIRECT.   But they sure get a nice slice of it AND we get to protect the Shuttle workforce and make a Heavy Lift system for the future.   Isn't that what's called a "Win Win"?

Ross.

I wanted to focus on two items which I think are related: PD and the politics of EELV.

I understand that the PD is a technology risk, but in the Direct V3.0 presentation slides 37 and 38, it is praised as a high value technology.  I think that this is an issue that Von Braun wanted solved 40+ years ago, and if we had solved it, this thread would not be discussing lunar or even Mars exploration but Jupiter and Saturn.  The PD represents a political opportunity by spreading the wealth.  Lets take the risk, lets just start early. After all,  you can test the system using Jupiter-130.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 02:14 PM
Concepts are judged by their weakest link. 

Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/05/2009 02:27 PM
I agree that we should adopt a totally non-antagonistic attitude towards NASA at this time. Let's forget the conflicts of the past & just present the Direct 3 program to them & the Augustine Committee!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/05/2009 02:31 PM
Concepts are judged by their weakest link. 

Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.

In 1972 humans left the moon and have not returned since because we did not have a sustainable technology within the cost constraints available.  Propellant Depots  can change that. Ares1/AresV vs. Direct is more than just specific launchers, its about space architecture.  If we don't change the paradigm, we simply won't get to the moon let alone mars.  After all, the taxpayer thinks we've already done it, why do it again?

IMHO

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/05/2009 02:31 PM
Concepts are judged by their weakest link. 

Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.

I agree with this.  Don't even mention depots as having anything to do with Direct at this time.  Direct 3.0 gets us to the moon without them.  Depots are very high risk and need lots of development at this time.  I think the idea should be brought forward to the Commission, but not tied to Direct.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 02:32 PM
Ares FY10 Budget Slashed by $360m

http://www.al.com/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/business/124419337485270.xml&coll=1


For three years we have been predicting that this would happen to any proposal trying to build TWO different launch vehicles.

NASA is going to need to change its plans -- soon -- or the VSE will not survive this.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 02:52 PM
Danny & mars,
While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think you realize just how big an impact that idea has *already* had with the political movers and shakers we've spoken with.

When we explain the idea to them, and explain the benefits, their eyes have, quite literally, grown very *wide* with realization.   I actually think it may have made at least as big of an 'impression' than the entire rest of the proposal.

Now, this particular panel isn't made up career-politico's per se, but I would suggest that many of the panel are at least well versed and are politically savvy.

The "Phase 3" plan solves a lot of different issues.   It brings together SDLV, EELV and COTS all into one unified plan where everyone benefits.   It reduces the cost of the EELV/COTS satellite launchers which should finally make the US competitive on the international launch market again.   At opens the door to major practical involvement by international partners -- without ever handing any partner the keys to the car, which prevents any partner from ever disabling the whole architecture if political winds ever turned very sour down the road.   And it increases performance by a very large amount, which benefits both Lunar architectures, but is also very forward-looking when considering other destinations too.

Each of those is a significant benefits worthy of presenting on their own.   Together they make quite a formidable argument.

But, yes, we will probably focus most of our 30 minute presentation on the near- and medium-term benefits of the DIRECT architecture, and leave this for a short slot, along with a more comprehensive set of documentation to accompany it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/05/2009 02:53 PM
Concepts are judged by their weakest link. 

Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.

I agree with this.  Don't even mention depots as having anything to do with Direct at this time.  Direct 3.0 gets us to the moon without them.  Depots are very high risk and need lots of development at this time.  I think the idea should be brought forward to the Commission, but not tied to Direct.

Danny Deger

Now PD becomes "very high risk".

Let me see if I can make a couple of statements that we can all agree upon.

1)  Direct v3.0 is the best way to create a heavy lift capacity the case for which Ross has done such a great job of presenting.
2)  While a two launch system promises to get us back to the moon, it while still not be "cheap'
3)  Without Propellant depots, it is impossible to go to mars.

Now here is the point that I would like to make:

  With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.

With that I will shut up and thank everyone for their patience.

Stan

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 02:53 PM
Concepts are judged by their weakest link. 

Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.

I agree with this.  Don't even mention depots as having anything to do with Direct at this time.  Direct 3.0 gets us to the moon without them.  Depots are very high risk and need lots of development at this time.  I think the idea should be brought forward to the Commission, but not tied to Direct.

Danny Deger

That's the key. 

MULTIPLE Presentations  Anyone with a credible idea has to be allowed to speak.  That means that multiple DIRECT folks (or DIRECT supporters) can present multiple connected or disconnected parts of an architecture if they are structured right.  Don't need to acknowledge the connection between them, but they can reference each other.

Also gives a sense of the larger, diverse DIRECT team ... and that others have leveraged the DIRECT info (even if it is the same team and not technically correct).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 02:57 PM
Multiple Presentations?

Yikes -- the coordination is tough enough just doing this one...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 02:59 PM

  With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.


Not being antagonistic, but much like I have asked the DIRECT guys, prove this statement.  It depends on flight rates and non-recurring costs for propellant depots.

Look at a simple, off the shelf upgrade to our DoD communications systems, TSAT.  TSAT went from an $8B, to a $15B, to $20B, to a $26B development for 5 satellites. 5 satellites!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16559.0

These people are not stupid.  This is not government waste and abuse.  Space is hard.  Space is expensive.  The reliability and life we have come to expect in our satellites and launch vehicles comes at a huge development and procurement cost ... and that cost does not go down by wishing it away or by "similarity" to prior systems. 

We are in a different cost environment than Apollo or SSP ... or even NLS.  Things cost WAY more today (MIL-STDS, tighter requirements, DoD directives, FAR) ... How people can claim that things like DIRECT and propellant depots are "low risk" and "are lower cost" without showing their work and still maintain credibility with the people on this board continues to amaze me.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/05/2009 03:08 PM
Danny & mars,
While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think you realize just how big an impact that idea has *already* had with the political movers and shakers we've spoken with.


The "Phase 3" plan solves a lot of different issues.   It brings together SDLV, EELV and COTS all into one unified plan where everyone benefits.   

And it increases performance by a very large amount, which benefits both Lunar architectures, but is also very forward-looking when considering other destinations too.

But, yes, we will probably focus most of our 30 minute presentation on the near- and medium-term benefits of the DIRECT architecture, and leave this for a short slot, along with a more comprehensive set of documentation to accompany it.

Ross.

Gee Ross,  thanks for saying it so well

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 03:11 PM
Multiple Presentations?

Yikes -- the coordination is tough enough just doing this one...

Ross.

Keys to any organization are a clear vision, effective direction and delegation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/05/2009 03:16 PM

  With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.


Not being antagonistic, but much like I have asked the DIRECT guys, prove this statement.  It depends on flight rates and non-recurring costs for propellant depots.

Look at a simple, off the shelf upgrade to our DoD communications systems, TSAT.  TSAT went from an $8B, to a $15B, to $20B, to a $26B development for 5 satellites. 5 satellites!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16559.0

These people are not stupid.  This is not government waste and abuse.  Space is hard.  Space is expensive.  The reliability and life we have come to expect in our satellites and launch vehicles comes at a huge development and procurement cost ... and that cost does not go down by wishing it away or by "similarity" to prior systems. 

We are in a different cost environment than Apollo or SSP ... or even NLS.  Things cost WAY more today (MIL-STDS, tighter requirements, DoD directives, FAR) ... How people can claim that things like DIRECT and propellant depots are "low risk" and "are lower cost" without showing their work and still maintain credibility with the people on this board continues to amaze me.



PD is not "low risk", and the most important factor in risk reduction is Time.  Start early. Your point about flight rate, is correct and the lower the incremental costs, the more likely to have high flight rates.

Now, what about my point concerning no Mars without PD.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 03:23 PM
Now, what about my point concerning no Mars without PD.

NASA HSF budget would need to increase 4-5x to enable Mars mission (NR is $100-$400B, RE is at least $7B) so the point is effectively moot.

To address the specific point, I don't need PD if I do nuclear, but yes, most of what is launched is propellant.  If you want to call that depots, go ahead, but it could also simply be in-space assembly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/05/2009 03:24 PM
I'm going to make a specific appeal to all of our supporters:

Can we all please try to refrain from any "confrontation" with CxP from here onwards.   It isn't helping things.


Okey dokey!!!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 03:28 PM

  With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.


Not being antagonistic, but much like I have asked the DIRECT guys, prove this statement.

Its not.   Well, not exactly...

What the Depot allows you to do is increase the number of missions each year.   By amortizing costs over a larger number of elements each year that helps reduce the cost *OF EACH MISSION*.

A secondary effect is that the cost of all the systems reduces, so other uses for them become more affordable.   For example, if a dozen Atlas-V's were added to the annual launch manifest, the cost to DoD, NOAA, NASA and commercial customers would drop -- which would likely increase business a bit in all those different areas.   So the cost savings would ultimately also feed back into places like SMD and that would help to perpetuate more science missions as one of the side-effects.


Ultimately, you will still spend the same amount of total money.

But *overall* you will get greater returns for it -- and not just in NASA's back yard, but also across many areas of the whole industry.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 03:32 PM
Keys to any organization are a clear vision, effective direction and delegation.

Agreed.   But it gets a lot trickier if your resources are very finite :) LOL

Ours are. :(

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/05/2009 03:33 PM

  With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.


Not being antagonistic, but much like I have asked the DIRECT guys, prove this statement.

Its not.   Well, not exactly...

What the Depot allows you to do is increase the number of missions each year.   By amortizing costs over a larger number of elements each year that helps reduce the cost *OF EACH MISSION*.

A secondary effect is that the cost of all the systems reduces, so other uses for them become more affordable.   For example, if a dozen Atlas-V's were added to the annual launch manifest, the cost to DoD, NOAA, NASA and commercial customers would drop -- which would likely increase business a bit in all those different areas.   So the cost savings would ultimately also feed back into places like SMD and that would help to perpetuate more science missions as one of the side-effects.


Ultimately, you will still spend the same amount of total money.

But *overall* you will get greater returns for it -- and not just in NASA's back yard, but also across many areas of the whole industry.

Ross.

Again you hit the nail on the head.  I did mispeak, you got it right.  More missions per $, not fewer total $.

Thanks

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 03:38 PM
Now, what about my point concerning no Mars without PD.

NASA HSF budget would need to increase 4-5x to enable Mars mission (NR is $100-$400B, RE is at least $7B) so the point is effectively moot.

mars,
Where are you getting those cost estimates from?   They're a lot higher than what I've been seeing.   I've been seeing figures around $25bn spread over 12 years, which is roughly $2bn per year -- or what we're currently spending on ISS.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 03:39 PM
Okay, I'm gonna bugger-off for a while.   I need to go get some real work done :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/05/2009 03:41 PM
Ross and Team,

Quick question.
I know you've been looking for ways to make the J-130 work to put the CSM and LSAM into orger to dock with the EDS launched on a J-246.

Just out of curiosity, what more do you need performance wise from the J-130 to accomplish that (without each having to do it's own circulization burn)?

I think it's a great idea if you can make it happen, saves a 2nd EDS.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 04:02 PM
NASA News Bulletin clip

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 04:13 PM

NASA HSF budget would need to increase 4-5x to enable Mars mission (NR is $100-$400B, RE is at least $7B) so the point is effectively moot.

I could quote the dissection of SEI (not the full architecture) I did letter and verse, or any number of other Mars costs studies I have seen, but rather than that, I'll do it by complexity and similarity.

(all inflated to today's dollars, tomorrow's dollars will cost more ;-)

Apollo - $175B
Skylab - $13B
Shuttle - $35B
Hubble - $6B (original estimate of a "copy" was $1BFY08)
Station - $35-$100B (depending on book keeping)
TSAT (without launch, est at cancellation) - $26B

A Mars mission is more complex than any of these ... and costs increase logarithically with complexity.  See attached graphic from this ... and see what happens when you underfund or have too ambitious a schedule (epic fail!):

http://ses.gsfc.nasa.gov/ses_data_2008/080603_Bearden.ppt

Finally, remember that today's space industry cost much, much more than the industry of the 1970's and 1980's to pay for an order of magnitude improvement in reliability and mission assurance.  The TSAT costs are your best guide, a Shuttle in today's world would cost at least $50B.

I would bet my house there is no way to do it for $2B a year.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/05/2009 04:14 PM
If I were going to recommend a name convention change, which I'm not really inclined to, I would probably suggest using the simplest descriptions of just the "Jupiter" vehicle and the "Jupiter with Upper Stage".

This works very well, but pedantically "Jupiter" is the generic name of the vehicle.

If you want to be specific, perhaps "Jupiter with Upper Stage" and "Jupiter without Upper Stage", which makes the point very well, but is rather cumbersome. After the first couple of mentions in any conversation you'd probably start using "Jupiter with" and "Jupiter without". Acceptable in a conversation or a forum, but not appropriate for the commission, for instance.

For the commission, I presume "one core, two vehicles" is a point you'd press firmly at the start of the presentation, and that should do the trick. They presumably know one end of a rocket from the other.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/05/2009 04:36 PM
Concepts are judged by their weakest link. 

Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.

I agree with this.  Don't even mention depots as having anything to do with Direct at this time.  Direct 3.0 gets us to the moon without them.  Depots are very high risk and need lots of development at this time.  I think the idea should be brought forward to the Commission, but not tied to Direct.

Danny Deger


I am torn on this one - it's a great technology, and I can see in 20 years time that people could be shaking their heads and wondering however we managed without them.

As I understand it, the commission is there to set direction, not just "should we keep Ares or choose a different path, or abandon the whole exploration plan".

Maybe this would make a good subject for a separate presentation, depots & the whole of DIRECT phase 2. Gives you another bite at the cherry.

Is Jongoff planning to present?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/05/2009 04:45 PM

snip

Maybe this would make a good subject for a separate presentation, depots & the whole of DIRECT phase 2. Gives you another bite at the cherry.

snip

cheers, Martin

I think this is the perfect way to do it.  Maybe show a single Jupiter in the future can do a lunar cargo mission if a depot is in place.  Single launch lunar cargo is one of the strengths of Ares V over Jupiter.

Just make sure depots and Direct 3.0 are not tied at the hip and someone on the Commission says, "I don't think we are ready for depots, we better not use Direct 3.0."

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/05/2009 05:06 PM
As I understand things, Direct 3.0 is very well positioned to take advantage of the leverage offered by propellant depots however Direct 3.0 is not dependent upon the deployment of depots to fulfill VSE objectives.

Is this an accurate summary?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/05/2009 05:24 PM
Any launch vehicle is in position to take advantage of a prop depot as long as the payload it is carrying is capable of topping off the tanks. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 06/05/2009 05:48 PM
Except it isn't as obvious an upgrade path for Ares, because you'd have to upgrade Altair to get much extra performance out of a depot with a one-launch Ares V mission - Ares V already lofts 90% of the payload, and they don't seem to want to launch crew on the thing anyway.

With Jupiter, a PD turns two J-246 launches into one.  All the pieces are there on the crew launch; all you have to do is refill the upper stage, and presto - instant EDS...

If you do want to upgrade Altair later, then the difference between the two launch architectures WRT PD blurs a bit...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: loomy on 06/05/2009 06:01 PM
3)  Without Propellant depots, it is impossible to go to mars.

As as been said, that isn't worth mentioning to Augustine in the DIRECT presentation, because it could hurt the DIRECT presentation by confusing it.  They are separate enough topics that it should be in a vision for space presentation only.  "Vision for space by DIRECT".

Also just because the PD thing is so up for debate. (I think the moon resource mission should happen before an earth PD and therefore before a stroll on mars.  And by the time that happens we might have new earth launch vehicles that don't need the old earth PD.  Or maybe an earth PD could be built and sent to the moon.  In any case it is all up for debate, and that debate is different than today's launcher debate)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/05/2009 06:21 PM
Except it isn't as obvious an upgrade path for Ares, because you'd have to upgrade Altair to get much extra performance out of a depot with a one-launch Ares V mission - Ares V already lofts 90% of the payload, and they don't seem to want to launch crew on the thing anyway.

With Jupiter, a PD turns two J-246 launches into one.  All the pieces are there on the crew launch; all you have to do is refill the upper stage, and presto - instant EDS...

If you do want to upgrade Altair later, then the difference between the two launch architectures WRT PD blurs a bit...

Interesting point I hadn't thought much about on PD's.
How do PD's really help Ares? The idea of Ares is to have a small, man-rated launcher for just the crew, and then a large, non-man rated stack for everything else.  Ares 1 can only carry the crew, and Ares V wouldn't be able to launch the crew unless they later decided to man-rate it, and basically make a Saturn VI out of it by putting the CSM on top.  But the vast majority of an Ares Moonshot is the Ares V iteself, and you are still launching it, so yea, I don't think a PD helps the Ares architecture much at all.  You are still expending 80% of your launch hardware.

With Direct you're cutting your launch hardware down by half.  So it becomes a very appearling upgrade path for Direct, but not much of a benefit for Ares.

Hmmm....  interesting.

Although, I suppose the Devil's advocate postion of that would be is a PD would mean NASA could scrap Ares 1 entirely and only need Ares V.
Put the CSM on top like Saturn, with a partially fueled EDS.  top off the tanks from the PD and off you go.  And save a bunch of money and headaches by not developing Ares 1.

Of Course...so could Direct...with a launcher 2/3 the size of Ares V...in 4-5 years less time...for a fraction of the development costs....

Hmmm....
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/05/2009 06:32 PM
Except it isn't as obvious an upgrade path for Ares, because you'd have to upgrade Altair to get much extra performance out of a depot with a one-launch Ares V mission - Ares V already lofts 90% of the payload, and they don't seem to want to launch crew on the thing anyway.

With Jupiter, a PD turns two J-246 launches into one.  All the pieces are there on the crew launch; all you have to do is refill the upper stage, and presto - instant EDS...

If you do want to upgrade Altair later, then the difference between the two launch architectures WRT PD blurs a bit...

Interesting point I hadn't thought much about on PD's.
How do PD's really help Ares? The idea of Ares is to have a small, man-rated launcher for just the crew, and then a large, non-man rated stack for everything else.  Ares 1 can only carry the crew, and Ares V wouldn't be able to launch the crew unless they later decided to man-rate it, and basically make a Saturn VI out of it.  But the vast majority of an Ares Moonshot is the Ares V iteself, and you are still launching it, so yea, I don't think a PD helps the Ares architecture much at all.  You are still expending 80% of your launch hardware.

With Direct you're cutting your launch hardware down by half.  So it becomes a very appearling upgrade path for Direct, but not much of a benefit for Ares.

Hmmm....  interesting.



Thats the point I was trying to make.  AresI/AresV is a repeat of the Saturn V strategy with a complicating twist: Two launches.  Thats like if  back in 1969 they had required a Saturn IB launch with each Saturn V launch.  The architecture is a dead end.  With Direct, a PD is much better leveraged because the Jupiter platform covers a sweet spot in the payloads needed for both the launch of the orion/altair as well as the EDS and the Depot allowing a single launch of the Jupiter to cover the mission requirements, and we all know that Jupiter is CHEAPER.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/05/2009 06:33 PM
Ross,

I'm currently listening to the Space Show.

One thing that I think should have been strongly pushed - that Jupiter is just a shuttle-sized version of Ares V.

In trying to persuade your audience regarding a vehicle they know little about, that's a persuasive argument - NASA chose this basic route, just a different size.

It also pushes the line that work on Ares V should be pretty applicable to Jupiter.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2009 07:48 PM
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/05/2009 08:08 PM
I agree with this.  Don't even mention depots as having anything to do with Direct at this time.  Direct 3.0 gets us to the moon without them.  Depots are very high risk and need lots of development at this time.  I think the idea should be brought forward to the Commission, but not tied to Direct.

I actually disagree with the technological maturity level of depots.  That said, I don't really care whether or not DIRECT pitches depots as part of their presentation to the committee.  I'm pretty sure ULA and Boeing will be pitching them, and I'm probably also going to do a simple presentation if given the chance.  It won't be as polished or authoritative as anything Ross and co. could put together, and definitely won't have detailed budgets written to NASA specifications, but I think it might be worth at least going into some details about the near-term potential of propellant depot technology.  But that can be separate presentations by other groups not necessarily affiliated with DIRECT.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/05/2009 08:14 PM
I am torn on this one - it's a great technology, and I can see in 20 years time that people could be shaking their heads and wondering however we managed without them.

As I understand it, the commission is there to set direction, not just "should we keep Ares or choose a different path, or abandon the whole exploration plan".

Maybe this would make a good subject for a separate presentation, depots & the whole of DIRECT phase 2. Gives you another bite at the cherry.

Is Jongoff planning to present?

I'll try to, if they schedule an event for somewhere in California.  I know some of the other groups I'm working with will probably be presenting as well, but they'll also be pitching their own approaches with depots on the side, so maybe a presentation just about depots would make sense.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2009 08:16 PM
I agree with this.  Don't even mention depots as having anything to do with Direct at this time.  Direct 3.0 gets us to the moon without them.  Depots are very high risk and need lots of development at this time.  I think the idea should be brought forward to the Commission, but not tied to Direct.

I actually disagree with the technological maturity level of depots.  That said, I don't really care whether or not DIRECT pitches depots as part of their presentation to the committee.  I'm pretty sure ULA and Boeing will be pitching them, and I'm probably also going to do a simple presentation if given the chance.  It won't be as polished or authoritative as anything Ross and co. could put together, and definitely won't have detailed budgets written to NASA specifications, but I think it might be worth at least going into some details about the near-term potential of propellant depot technology.  But that can be separate presentations by other groups not necessarily affiliated with DIRECT.

~Jon

Go for it Jon.
The more voices we have pitching depots as central to future HSF, the better off we all will be.

It will be a long time (unfortunately) before hsf beyond LEO goes nuclear. In that case, only the persence or lack of of full scale depots will make the difference between "missions" (boots and flags) and a true expanding human presence in the solar system.

Depots are key - they are central. It can be frustrating trying to help people understand that sometimes. You and I may differ on some things and on how we view it being implimented, but we live in the middle of the same page on that core belief.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/05/2009 08:24 PM
Politically this should be an easy sell since itís a win-win for Obama.

1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.

Obama didn't want us to go to the moon.

Obama originally wanted to divert the money to education for 5 years... i.e. until he would have been safe from repercussions.

True but it shows the savings of Direct 3.0 may be attractive to Obama since he can have his cuts, while actually accelerating the program instead of delaying it. This would make it an easier sell.

Quote
Quote
2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.
NASA and contractors aren't exactly a Democratic-leaning hotbed of leftist socialism... /snark

True, but saving those jobs would make the unemployment figures look better. So unless Obamaís real plan is to totally destroy the U.S. economy in hopes of becoming a dictator he would want to save those jobs. Besides thatís quite a few votes that would be more likely to go his way in 2012, than if he lets those people loose there job.

Quote
Quote
3. It gives him a chance to outstage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle.  This point alone should convince Obama.

Obama outstages Bush by breathing. That's not a concern of his. And he's still got a full platter of godawful messes left by Bush he that has to somehow clean up without actually having Bush tried and convicted.

But Bush is Obamaís shape goat. Any thing that goes wrong he, blames on Bush. Iíve already seen it. This would give Obama a clearly visible chance to undo a perceived Bush mistake that would have cost jobs. Ether way he looks good.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/05/2009 08:26 PM
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?
Both the Delta IV heavy and Falcon 9 heavy use 3 cores and lift around 20 tons. Jupiter 2xx uses 1 core and lifts around 100 tons. These differences may mislead people so I don't like the "heavy" idea.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/05/2009 08:41 PM
Politically this should be an easy sell since itís a win-win for Obama.

1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.
2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.
3. It gives him a chance to out stage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle.  This point alone should convince Obama.


It should, but it's hard to say if it will.

1) Obama hasn't shown that he really cares much about the space program, and in fact, candidate Obama said a few discouraging things.
With any luck, this changes and he does the right things, but it's hard to be overly optimistic.


2) Like Zap said, his left-wing liberal base aren't exactly the people who are invested and big supporters of the space program.  He can earn a lot for grace with them by putting as much money as possibly into social engineering, "green" programs, education, unions, etc.  The Democrat bread and butter areas.

3)  While Obama seems to take an unprecidented stance at trying to berate his predecessor, likely to divert attention away from his own controversial spending and social engineering policies, he doesn't need NASA to do that.  The media pretty much let him do it ad nausium without an ounce of scruteny.
Although Zap seems to wonder off into a rant about Bush, despite his failure to follow up on the VSE, the VSE itself only exists because of Bush, and in fairness, Bush took the most interest in the Space program since probably LBJ.  He didn't follow up on it and let it head a wrong direction with Ares (and a pox on him for that), but at least he did try to get something new going after the Columbia accident.  Obama or Clinton would have probably moved to let manned space exploration wither on the vine and die as it's in danger of now.

And for the record, Obama was in the Senate for 4 years, two of those with a large Democrat majority in Congress, so he and his party had as much a hand in many of the "messes" we have now as the Bush Administration does.
He was "handed" very little he and the democrats didn't already have their fingers in prior to January 20th.
Both sides have screwed the pootch on a lot of things, but lets be fair about it.

I was thinking mainly of aspects of Direct that would be good selling points to Obama, but I failed to consider one important aspect about Obamaís pattern as president so far. This is that when it comes to the economic matters, his actions have consistently been the opposite of what is really needed. So in this case since Direct makes good economic sense we should expect Obama to decide against it. Come think of it Ares I/V is more consistent with Obama.

Thanks!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/05/2009 08:54 PM
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?

I think that works quite well, and if you have to have a mid-range Jupiter, it would be Jupiter-lite added in.

I was toying with the ISDC presentation 'Ares 3 & 4' designations, and well we all know that is just WRONG (or at least I hope we do).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 09:01 PM
NASA News Bulletin clip

Nice!   I'm amazed to see it in an internal NASA newsletter at all.   I would have guessed that any mention of DIRECT would have been embargoed.

It would be nice to think that perhaps this is a sign of improved relations.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2009 09:03 PM

...I failed to consider one important aspect about Obamaís pattern as president so far. This is that when it comes to the economic matters, his actions have consistently been the opposite of what is really needed.
Thanks!

That's an opinion not shared by lots of folks. In any case, it's ok to speak politically about DIRECT but editorializing Obama's motives on "other" matters trends very closely to taking this off topic. Trust me - that's hard to rein in once it gets started. Please don't go there. Thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Fequalsma on 06/05/2009 09:06 PM
Chuck -

I rather like it!  Simple and DIRECT!

F=ma

How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 09:07 PM
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?

I think that works quite well, and if you have to have a mid-range Jupiter, it would be Jupiter-lite added in.

I was toying with the ISDC presentation 'Ares 3 & 4' designations, and well we all know that is just WRONG (or at least I hope we do).

Yeah, that raises my hackles too.  I know Ross and team are trying to be diplomatic and all, but the thought any Ares moniker being slapped on a Jupiter makes my skin crawl. (No suffix, see? It's not so hard.)

The way I see it, NASA had their chance at renaming Jupiter three years ago when it was first presented.  We all know what has taken place instead, and I think that behavior disqualifies them from choosing a new name and taking credit for the whole idea.

If there's any justice in the world, the Augustine commission will choose DIRECT and strongly recommend that the Jupiter name be retained.  Just to make a clean break, to let everyone know what a monumental change in direction has taken place, and to give credit where credit is due.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Fequalsma on 06/05/2009 09:11 PM
Ross -

Sorry, but I wouldn't get too excited about this.  It's from a
news clipping service called bulletinnews.com that NASA gets
access to.  They provide summaries and links to aerospace
industry, national and international news stories each weekday.

F=ma

NASA News Bulletin clip

Nice!   I'm amazed to see it in an internal NASA newsletter at all.   I would have guessed that any mention of DIRECT would have been embargoed.

It would be nice to think that perhaps this is a sign of improved relations.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2009 09:12 PM
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?

I think that works quite well, and if you have to have a mid-range Jupiter, it would be Jupiter-lite added in.

I was toying with the ISDC presentation 'Ares 3 & 4' designations, and well we all know that is just WRONG (or at least I hope we do).

Yeah, that raises my hackles too.  I know Ross and team are trying to be diplomatic and all, but the thought any Ares moniker being slapped on a Jupiter makes my skin crawl. (No suffix, see? It's not so hard.)

The way I see it, NASA had their chance at renaming Jupiter three years ago when it was first presented.  We all know what has taken place instead, and I think that behavior disqualifies them from choosing a new name and taking credit for the whole idea.

If there's any justice in the world, the Augustine commission will choose DIRECT and strongly recommend that the Jupiter name be retained.  Just to make a clean break, to let everyone know what a monumental change in direction has taken place, and to give credit where credit is due.

Mark S.

Thank you for the sentement but we would really rather just fade into the mist and let NASA get on with astounding the world.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/05/2009 09:20 PM
Where did you find the NASA bulletin. I looked on their news page and couldn't find that.

I think Ares III and Ares IV are great names for the vehicles. To the public, the transition from Ares to Jupiter would seem much smoother. If Direct is adopted, I think it would seem like the HSF program just got a nudge in a new direction rather than completely changing courses.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 09:22 PM
Thank you for the sentement but we would really rather just fade into the mist...

The mark of the truly heroic: humbleness.  Unfortunately for you, I don't think your loyal (rabid?) fan base will let that happen.  :)

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/05/2009 09:28 PM
I think Ares III and Ares IV are great names for the vehicles. To the public, the transition from Ares to Jupiter would seem much smoother. If Direct is adopted, I think it would seem like the HSF program just got a nudge in a new direction rather than completely changing courses.

First thing, one should be careful here.  AGAIN - we only have ONE vehicle here, NOT TWO.  And by using two Ares designations one runs the risk of the - they're proposing two vehilces too!!!!  This is not the case and that has been repeated many times!  Jupiter is only ONE vehicle!

Ares intent was to produce vehicles of STS heritage - Jupiter fits that bill, perhaps more so now then Ares I & V.  However, I think it is up to the DIRECT team and NASA to determine a naming convention, if and even more so, WHEN that comes to pass...

Respectfully
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/05/2009 09:30 PM
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?

Jupiter-III and Jupiter-IV  ??

Then you have room for a future upgrade of something like a stretched core, 5-seg booster as a Jupiter-V?

Or perhaps rewide a bit.  The Saturn 1B was designed to get into LEO.
As the J-130 is has the same goal, maybe go with "Jupiter -1" for that.
Save "Jupiter-2" for a future stretch core, 5-seg booster possible upgrade"
The J-246 would be a "Jupiter-III".  With "Jupiter-IV and Jupiter-V" available for potential future upgrades in those.

Or perhaps even more Basic:
J-130 as baseline in Direct 3.0 becomes "Jupiter 1"
J-24x as baseline in Direct 3.0 becomes "Jupiter 2"
Jupiter 1 for a "single stage" LV
Jupiter 2 for a "two stage" LV

Future upgrades to Jupiter 1 or 2 would then become a "Jupiter 1B", "1C" , "1D" etc and Jupiter 2B, 2C, 2D, etc.

Each letter denotes a specific configuration.
for example.  "Jupiter 1" is standard baseline.  1B has block-III disposable SSME's, 1C has those engines plus 5-seg SRB's.  1D has all of that and a core stretch.  etc.  or whatever the upgrade path went to first.

Then, like the old Saturns, the abbreviations become "JIB, JIIC, etc"



Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 09:37 PM
I think Ares III and Ares IV are great names for the vehicles.

We had a bit of a discussion this morning about the naming convention for DIRECT.  My suggestion is to drop the numeric suffixes in normal conversation, in presentations, and in advocacy materials.  This should be done in order to make clear that there is only one Jupiter vehicle, flown either with or without an upper stage.

There is not just a great amount of commonality between the single-stage Jupiter and the Jupiter with its Upper Stage.  They are identical in every way that counts, except for the presence of the fourth SSME and the JUS.  Presenting and discussing them as if they were two different vehicles minimizes one of the strongest selling points that DIRECT has.

Renaming them to "Ares-III" and "Ares-IV" introduces even more confusion than the suffixes "-130" and "-246" already have.  Jupiter is unique, it is not Ares by any stretch of the imagination, and people would think that "-III" and "-IV" have just as little in common as "-I" and "-V", i.e. nothing of practical value besides the J2X.

Jupiter it was born, Jupiter it should stay.  And leave the techie detail suffixes to the engineers.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/05/2009 09:42 PM

I was thinking mainly of aspects of Direct that would be good selling points to Obama, but I failed to consider one important aspect about Obamaís pattern as president so far. This is that when it comes to the economic matters, his actions have consistently been the opposite of what is really needed. So in this case since Direct makes good economic sense we should expect Obama to decide against it. Come think of it Ares I/V is more consistent with Obama.

Thanks!

And you just never know.  The fact he put together the Augustine commission gives me cautious optimism.  Looks like they have real world people on it, and not just politicos.  As long as Direct gets a chance to make their case, if they do, the panel gives them a fair shake, and if their recommendation is to go to Direct, I think that could be sticky for Obama to go against.  Going against his own commission's recommendations?  Hard to explain that.

There's a few "ifs" there, but like I said, there's some cautious optimism to be had there.  And the Direct team from what I've been reading look to have some optimism in the panel too, which is a good sign.  :)

All my fingers and toes are crossed!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/05/2009 09:46 PM
I think Ares III and Ares IV are great names for the vehicles. To the public, the transition from Ares to Jupiter would seem much smoother. If Direct is adopted, I think it would seem like the HSF program just got a nudge in a new direction rather than completely changing courses.

First thing, one should be careful here.  AGAIN - we only have ONE vehicle here, NOT TWO.  And by using two Ares designations one runs the risk of the - they're proposing two vehilces too!!!!  This is not the case and that has been repeated many times!  Jupiter is only ONE vehicle!

Ares intent was to produce vehicles of STS heritage - Jupiter fits that bill, perhaps more so now then Ares I & V.  However, I think it is up to the DIRECT team and NASA to determine a naming convention, if and even more so, WHEN that comes to pass...

Respectfully

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages. The core stage is "Jupiter" which remains essentially the same.  The upper stage is what the Jupiter rocket delivers to orbit. It sounds fine saying "Liftoff of the Jupiter Rocket carrying the *model name* upper stage to orbit." When you have no upper stage it's just the Jupiter rocket carrying Orion. Perhaps its a little difficult because the Jupiter Core stage does in fact change with an upper stage with the extra SSME, though naming wise you could just ignore it in public relations.

I think the Direct team can emphasize that the Ares I/V rockets need a lot of development work, that isn't a necessity to land on the moon, leading to taxpayers dollars being spent where they didn't need to be. Wasn't one of this administration's mottos, "eliminating unnecessary government spending"?

Edit: Mark wrote a much more succinct version of what I tried to say as I was writing my post.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gin455res on 06/05/2009 09:50 PM
The J-130 uses J-24X components. It is a J-24X without 1 SSME or an  upper stage. So it seems to me the J-24X is the Jupiter and J-130 is the Jupiter lite. Jupiter lite also makes it sound 'quick and easy'.

Heavy also seems to already be used conventionally for 3 parallel staged cores.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dnavas on 06/05/2009 10:01 PM
Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages. The core stage is "Jupiter" which remains essentially the same.  The upper stage is what the Jupiter rocket delivers to orbit. It sounds fine saying "Liftoff of the Jupiter Rocket carrying the *model name* upper stage to orbit."

I kind of like "zeus" as the name for Jupiter's Upper Stage.  If you see what I mean....  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 10:07 PM
Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages.

I like this idea.  What we need is a catchy and appropriate name for the Jupiter Upper Stage.  Then we can call the two configurations Jupiter and Jupiter/"Insert catchy name here".

It should be something from Roman mythology, or something related to the planet.  Maybe after one of Jupiter's moons (Io, Ganymede, Callisto), or one of Jupiter's children (Minerva (goddess of wisdom!)).

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/05/2009 10:10 PM

Jupiter it was born, Jupiter it should stay.  And leave the techie detail suffixes to the engineers.

Mark S.

I think most here probably don't really care what NASA calls it, as long as they switch to and build it!

They can call it the "Exploder-1" and "Exploder-2"  if they want, as long as they build it.
;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/05/2009 10:14 PM
Well ,there are many different sizes of upper stages. Different engine configuations as far as I can tell, since Jupiter is so versitile. Naming them after Jupter's Moons sounds good, as long as you have fewer than 8 different types of upper stages. Naming the stages separately emphasizes (for me anyway) that the Shuttle stack can lift more than Shuttles, which seems to be hard for some people to wrap their minds around.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/05/2009 10:22 PM
The J-130 uses J-24X components. It is a J-24X without 1 SSME or an  upper stage. So it seems to me the J-24X is the Jupiter and J-130 is the Jupiter lite. Jupiter lite also makes it sound 'quick and easy'.

Heavy also seems to already be used conventionally for 3 parallel staged cores.
"Lite" also fits nicely with the plan to phase J-130 out after EELV takes over. However I don't think it's a good idea to call either vehicle just "Jupiter" since it would be too hard to tell if someone was talking about both vehicles generically or the particular vehicle called "Jupiter".
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/05/2009 10:27 PM
Forgive me if this was already posted, but the panel now has a site where the public can ask questions and provide comments:

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html

But as Ross already warned before, play nice.

You can also email them documents directly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2009 10:29 PM
Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages.

I like this idea.  What we need is a catchy and appropriate name for the Jupiter Upper Stage.  Then we can call the two configurations Jupiter and Jupiter/"Insert catchy name here".

It should be something from Roman mythology, or something related to the planet.  Maybe after one of Jupiter's moons (Io, Ganymede, Callisto), or one of Jupiter's children (Minerva (goddess of wisdom!)).

Mark S.


That's actually not a bad idea. Check this out:

The Jupiter Upper Stage, which doesn't have a name, is really a big Centaur. The name "Centaur" is already well known as an "Upper Stage", not a rocket, so we could have "Jupiter" and "Jupiter/Centaur". ULA already uses "Atlas" and "Atlas/Centaur" and everybody understands the difference without referring, in everyday talk, to Atlas-441, 552, etc. What do you think?

Just musing a little here.

Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS?

In either case, there's no doubt that you are talking about a single rocket, with or without an upper stage. The specific designations could be reserved for the technical discussions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/05/2009 10:45 PM
I'm just guessing here, but the biggest point of emphasizing a single rocket would be the idea of mass production (so to speak).

I mean if someone compared Ares V and Jupiter 246 side by side, you would see it as a down grade unless you realized you could launch many more 130s and 246s than Ares I and Vs. I know Ross showed me a chart of engine costs as a function of production. Since you're making 4-6 (hopefully) jupiter rockets a year you applied that cost analysis to ALL rocket parts, not just engines correct?

Surely the cost/ upper stage decreases by a lot of you launch 2-4 a year instead of 0-1. To me thats one of the biggest attractions of Direct, the mass production of a set of space launch vehicles.

Edit: I dunno about calling it Centaur, isn't that name copyrighted or something? If you can get it, it's intuitive and a great name; it probably would make the ULA guys happy to be given tip of the hat when the upper stage lifts off. First hearing it, Centaur makes me think of "work horse". Probably not a bad image.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/05/2009 11:22 PM


That's actually not a bad idea. Check this out:

The Jupiter Upper Stage, which doesn't have a name, is really a big Centaur. The name "Centaur" is already well known as an "Upper Stage", not a rocket, so we could have "Jupiter" and "Jupiter/Centaur". ULA already uses "Atlas" and "Atlas/Centaur" and everybody understands the difference without referring, in everyday talk, to Atlas-441, 552, etc. What do you think?

Just musing a little here.

Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS?

In either case, there's no doubt that you are talking about a single rocket, with or without an upper stage. The specific designations could be reserved for the technical discussions.

Interesting, although I still like "Jupiter-I" and "Jupiter-II"  ;)

Jupiter/ACUS is a little cumbersom, the mythology upper stage is kind of a cool idea.
As for Jupiter's kids, "Io" wouldn't be bad, but "Callisto, Ganamyde, and Europa" are a little cumbersome.

Going with "Zeus" might work.  Zeus is Jupiter's counterpart in Greek Mythology, so the two go together anyway.  Even when googling one or the other, they are used synonimously.

Jupiter, and Jupiter/Zeus.

in that same vein, "Thor" might worlk, Norse god of Thunder.
"Jupiter/Thor".  one syllable, nice and easy off the tounge.

another idea is perhaps a clever alternative name for Thunder or Lightning, as Zeus/Jupiter is the God of Thunder and hurls lightning bolts, so you could consider Jupiter hurling the JUS skyward as the god might hurl a lighting bolt.
Possibilities for Lighting:  Lightning (English), Fulgur (Latin), Blitzen (or perhaps "Blitz", German), Eclair (French), Rayo (Spanish), Fulmine or Lampo (Italian), Lyn (Norwegean), Hiraganan (Japanese), Keravnos (Greek).
 
Possibilities for Thunder: Thunder (obviously), Rai (Japanese), Raijin (Japanese God of Thunder),  Tonitrus (Latin), Tuono (Italian), Bronto (Greek).

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/05/2009 11:30 PM
Or you could name it after another creature from mythology. Instead of Centaur you could have, (just a few from a list)

Chimera
Griffin (previous administrator anyone?)
Hydra
Pegasus (taken I think)
Phoenix (taken by rover I think)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/05/2009 11:32 PM
Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS?
Calling it Centaur would rub salt into the wound by reminding NASA that the upper stage is based on externally developed technology. Politically that sounds like a bad idea. I suggest avoiding all languages except English, Greek and Latin for political (xenophobic) reasons. Other ancient languages are probably ok, but I would avoid modern languages such as French, German and Japanese.

Zeus sounds like a good name for the second stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2009 11:33 PM
Or you could name it after another creature from mythology. Instead of Centaur you could have, (just a few from a list)

Chimera
Griffin (previous administrator anyone?)
Hydra
Pegasus (taken I think)
Phoenix (taken by rover I think)

Nah. We must NOT get fancy here. This is not mythology, it is a cryogenic upper stage on a rocket. The name of the stage should reflect that. This is, after all, rocket science.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 06/05/2009 11:33 PM
Quote
Eclair

uh...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2009 11:34 PM
Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS?
Calling it Centaur would rub salt into the wound by reminding NASA that the upper stage is based on externally developed technology. Politically that sounds like a bad idea. I suggest avoiding all languages except English, Greek and Latin for political (xenophobic) reasons. Other ancient languages are probably ok, but I would avoid modern languages such as French, German and Japanese.

Zeus sounds like a good name for the second stage.

Some of NASA's finest hours began their journeys on a Centaur.
NASA has been using the Centaur, proudly, for 40 plus years.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/05/2009 11:38 PM
Or you could name it after another creature from mythology. Instead of Centaur you could have, (just a few from a list)

Chimera
Griffin (previous administrator anyone?)
Hydra
Pegasus (taken I think)
Phoenix (taken by rover I think)

Nah. We must NOT get fancy here. This is not mythology, it is a cryogenic upper stage on a rocket. The name of the stage should reflect that. This is, after all, rocket science.  :)

I LOL'd. Just brainstorming. Probably to reduce confusion you should use a name that's already in use as upper stage (like centaur as you said), just because having another new name in there might bring us back to the confusion of having 2 separate rockets. The emphasis should be on the Jupiter Core, especially early in the program. You can probably just name the upper stage later so you have Jupiter rocket lifting Orion and Jupiter rocket lifting upper stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/05/2009 11:49 PM
Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS?
Calling it Centaur would rub salt into the wound by reminding NASA that the upper stage is based on externally developed technology. Politically that sounds like a bad idea. I suggest avoiding all languages except English, Greek and Latin for political (xenophobic) reasons. Other ancient languages are probably ok, but I would avoid modern languages such as French, German and Japanese.

Zeus sounds like a good name for the second stage.

Another possibility is "Valkyrie".  It's not too odd like "chimera", and it's common enough in English that it's not too associated with a foreign culture (although It's obviously Norse in Origin) as deltaV mentioned.
Valkyries are usually portrayed as women warriors either with wings themselves, or riding horses with wings.  Either way, flight capable to the heavens, so it actually fits pretty good with an EDS.  Probably would make for a pretty good eye-catching logo too.

Zeus, Thor, or Valkyrie.

All good possibities I think.

Or just call it "Bolt" as in "lighting bolt" or "thunder bolt" as in what Jupiter/Zeus hurls about.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/05/2009 11:56 PM
NASA News Bulletin clip

Nice!   I'm amazed to see it in an internal NASA newsletter at all.   I would have guessed that any mention of DIRECT would have been embargoed.

It would be nice to think that perhaps this is a sign of improved relations.

I noticed that my blog (Selenian Boondocks) was also getting a lot of hits from a NASA News Bulletin site a while ago.  Unfortunately it wasn't a public site, so I couldn't see what they were saying about me.  :-)

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/06/2009 12:55 AM
I think Ares III and Ares IV are great names for the vehicles.

We had a bit of a discussion this morning about the naming convention for DIRECT.  My suggestion is to drop the numeric suffixes in normal conversation, in presentations, and in advocacy materials.  This should be done in order to make clear that there is only one Jupiter vehicle, flown either with or without an upper stage.

There is not just a great amount of commonality between the single-stage Jupiter and the Jupiter with its Upper Stage.  They are identical in every way that counts, except for the presence of the fourth SSME and the JUS.  Presenting and discussing them as if they were two different vehicles minimizes one of the strongest selling points that DIRECT has.

Renaming them to "Ares-III" and "Ares-IV" introduces even more confusion than the suffixes "-130" and "-246" already have.  Jupiter is unique, it is not Ares by any stretch of the imagination, and people would think that "-III" and "-IV" have just as little in common as "-I" and "-V", i.e. nothing of practical value besides the J2X.

Jupiter it was born, Jupiter it should stay.  And leave the techie detail suffixes to the engineers.

Mark S.

There is a difference between what is used in presenting and selling it to NASA et al, and what will be best for official designations. The Ares-III and IV designations better from a public relations stand point, since sounds more like an upgrade than a big change.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2009 12:58 AM

There is a difference between what is used in presenting and selling it to NASA et al, and what will be best for official designations. The Ares-III and IV designations better from a public relations stand point, since sounds more like an upgrade than a big change.

In other circumstances, maybe, but not with Ares-I and Ares-V cluttering the landscape.
Ares-III and Ares-IV sounds like 2 different rockets, like Ares-I and Ares-V.

Sorry
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/06/2009 01:01 AM
Regarding the naming convention, I would like to add the following suggestion -

We have the JUPITER core stage

add to it the Jupiter Upper Stage - JUS

so you get JUPITER with JUS (pronounced "JUICE")

JUPITER with JUS :)

and yes, we already had this, some times the obvious gets missed :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2009 01:18 AM
Regarding the naming convention, I would like to add the following suggestion -

We have the JUPITER core stage

add to it the Jupiter Upper Stage - JUS

so you get JUPITER with JUS (pronounced "JUICE")

JUPITER with JUS :)

and yes, we already had this, some times the obvious gets missed :)


OMG! What's in your jus? Can I have some?  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/06/2009 01:19 AM
There is a difference between what is used in presenting and selling it to NASA et al, and what will be best for official designations. The Ares-III and IV designations better from a public relations stand point, since sounds more like an upgrade than a big change.

There are two basic issues here:   1) Use a single name, without any numeric or alpha suffix, for both configurations, and 2)  Rename Jupiter to Ares.

I like (1), because it emphasizes one of the greatest strengths of DIRECT: a single vehicle launched in two configurations.  I think this is how it should be presented in all public and policy forums, short of a technical conference on implementation details.  In that type of situation, the engineers can just go to town with all their esoteric nomenclature details.

I am not in favor of (2) because I think the name "Jupiter" has earned its place in history, in the face of overwhelming odds.  Especially if the DIRECT approach is recommended by the Augustine HSF Review panel.  The "Ares" name is not worthy of Jupiter, and does not reflect its heritage.

By the way, did you know that Caesar Augustus built a temple dedicated to Jupiter, the Temple of Juppiter Tonans, because he was almost struck by lightning?  Tonans means "thundering" in Latin.  Augustus/Jupiter, Augustine/Jupiter, hmm.  Coincidence?  Maybe...  ;)

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 06/06/2009 01:30 AM
Not Thor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_(rocket)) - there's already been a rocket called that.

Oh wait...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Gregori on 06/06/2009 01:36 AM
Perhaps you could call them:

Jupiter+ and Jupiter-   !!!

I don't know, just a suggestion!!

...J130 would be the Jupiter Minus (minus an upper stage and 4th engine)

and J246 would be Jupiter Plus ( upperstage and 4th engine added)

:):):)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/06/2009 01:39 AM
Chiron was the Centaur-in-chief, And is represented in the sky by Sagittarius, so if you want to go for a slash name, Jupiter/Chiron or Jupiter/Sagittarius might work.

But if you really want to make up with NASA, then propose a naming contest for school kids and live with whatever comes from that.

Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages.

I like this idea.  What we need is a catchy and appropriate name for the Jupiter Upper Stage.  Then we can call the two configurations Jupiter and Jupiter/"Insert catchy name here".

It should be something from Roman mythology, or something related to the planet.  Maybe after one of Jupiter's moons (Io, Ganymede, Callisto), or one of Jupiter's children (Minerva (goddess of wisdom!)).

Mark S.


That's actually not a bad idea. Check this out:

The Jupiter Upper Stage, which doesn't have a name, is really a big Centaur. The name "Centaur" is already well known as an "Upper Stage", not a rocket, so we could have "Jupiter" and "Jupiter/Centaur". ULA already uses "Atlas" and "Atlas/Centaur" and everybody understands the difference without referring, in everyday talk, to Atlas-441, 552, etc. What do you think?

Just musing a little here.

Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS?

In either case, there's no doubt that you are talking about a single rocket, with or without an upper stage. The specific designations could be reserved for the technical discussions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: DLK on 06/06/2009 02:06 AM
By the way, did you know that Caesar Augustus built a temple dedicated to Jupiter, the Temple of Juppiter Tonans, because he was almost struck by lightning?  Tonans means "thundering" in Latin.  Augustus/Jupiter, Augustine/Jupiter, hmm.  Coincidence?  Maybe...  ;)

Since we're talking Roman gods, how about something a bit more unusual, like 'Bacchus' ? Should leave a good impression...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/06/2009 02:09 AM


That's actually not a bad idea. Check this out:

The Jupiter Upper Stage, which doesn't have a name, is really a big Centaur. The name "Centaur" is already well known as an "Upper Stage", not a rocket, so we could have "Jupiter" and "Jupiter/Centaur". ULA already uses "Atlas" and "Atlas/Centaur" and everybody understands the difference without referring, in everyday talk, to Atlas-441, 552, etc. What do you think?

Just musing a little here.

Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS?

In either case, there's no doubt that you are talking about a single rocket, with or without an upper stage. The specific designations could be reserved for the technical discussions.

Interesting, although I still like "Jupiter-I" and "Jupiter-II"  ;)


I would steer completely clear of the I/II/II...designations. Why? It all too easily resembles Ares, which we all know IS NOT the same launcher.

The upper stage designation seems fine, I have no problem with it (not that my vote counts for a hill of beans, but anyway).

Yes, mythical Gods and so on, to follow along the Ares theme seems nice, but so does little dipper and big dipper if we venture in to star formations (for Constellation). Neither of those uses the same stars, they just look similar. Also, depending on the education level of some (probably not a problem for the panel) but everyday people would say: what mythical God?

The common theme throughout needs to be: common core, same engines, same infrastructure, same workforce, same everything (more or less) = safer, simpler, sooner (and less costly).

Shuttle without the shuttle (in essence).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mrbliss on 06/06/2009 02:10 AM
so you get JUPITER with JUS (pronounced "JUICE")

JUPITER with JUS :)

I am *so* glad you posted that before I did.  ;)

Seriously:  emphasizing a single name makes a lot of sense -- it sends the right message, that this is a single rocket.

Just call it JUPITER.  If JUPITER is the commonly used term, there shouldn't be any problem with JUPITER-130 and JUPITER-246 being used in situations where specificity is needed.

Then again, JUPITER and JUPITER/US seem pretty clear, too.

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/06/2009 02:25 AM
Perhaps the names should reflect the fact that J-130 can only be used as an earth orbit launch vehicle while J-24x supports beyond earth orbit missions.

Maybe Jupiter LEO and (just plain) Jupiter?

This positions J-24x as the "real" Jupiter and J-130 as a less capable derivative, but it's more descriptive and less belittling than Jupiter Lite.

Jupiter Shuttle may or may not be a compelling name for J-130.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Captain Kirk on 06/06/2009 03:40 AM
Forgive me if this was already posted, but the panel now has a site where the public can ask questions and provide comments:

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html

But as Ross already warned before, play nice.

You can also email them documents directly.

Here's my two cents to the Committee:

"I ask the Committee to fairly hear the many ideas and alternatives to the current Ares I/V vehicles currently being pursued by NASA.  One of the most viable alternatives is called Direct 3.0.  The individuals working on this launch vehicle system are comprised of many technical and engineering people, some of whom are inside NASA and other aerospace firms.  I believe your study of alternatives will be lacking without seeking a presentation from the people behind Direct 3.0. Thank you."

I hope it helps!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kch on 06/06/2009 03:51 AM
... J246 would be Jupiter Plus ( upperstage and 4th engine added)

:):):)

... add the 5-seg SRBs, and you have Jupiter Plus Plus (though I'm sure someone would "object" to that) ... ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/06/2009 05:17 AM
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?

In the past there was Gemini-Titan, Atlas-Agena, and others. They were simple, and told you immediately what they were doing. Using that basis you could have Jupiter-Orion, Jupiter-Altair, (Jupiter-Colbert??) Jupiter being the core stage, and the latter being whatever it's boosting.


I also think it's good to stay with Jupiter as the base vehicle name, it separates Jupiter from the Ares class vehicles and you don't need or want to confuse the two programs. Congress and the President's advisers are your ultimate targets to get the go-ahead, and they aren't rocket engineers.

I can see them talking about it now: I thought Ares 2 was the old one? No Ares V is the old one, Ares 3 is the new one. Then what's Ares 1? Ares 1 was part of Ares 5. And Ares 5 is the new one? No, Ares 5 was part of Ares 1, we canceled Ares 5. So we canceled the new one and are launching the old one? No, Ares 2 and 3 are the new ones, which are not part of Ares 1 and 5, which are the old ones. Ah, to hell with it, cancel the whole thing!


Remember KISS: Keep it Simple, Studs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 06/06/2009 05:17 AM
Here's my two cents to the Committee:

"I ask the Committee to fairly hear the many ideas and alternatives to the current Ares I/V vehicles currently being pursued by NASA.  One of the most viable alternatives is called Direct 3.0.  The individuals working on this launch vehicle system are comprised of many technical and engineering people, some of whom are inside NASA and other aerospace firms.  I believe your study of alternatives will be lacking without seeking a presentation from the people behind Direct 3.0. Thank you."

I hope it helps!  :)
I think in that one paragraph you encompassed everything while keeping it short and to the point.

Let's hope they do listen. By now budget cuts will have gone to the point NASA will have to acknowledge the current program isn't going to last beyond Ares 1, and therefore any hope for a moon landing before the other nations.

Having read through the past five pages I think using 'Jupiter' and 'Jupiter Heavy' like those used for the Delta and Atlas series would be better in that it sticks with the industry's nomenclature. Besides, given the long term goals that DIRECT is set, it is likely private enterprise will be building some of these rockets in the future.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 06:01 AM
The current Jupiter naming convention is more akin to the Atlas-V numbering designations such as 401, 421 or 552.   It represents a single vehicle (Atlas-V / Jupiter) which is flown in different configurations (552 / 246).

So the precedence exists in the industry for what we are already doing.

The question, is whether the panel members are likely to be confused by such things.    I personally think they're all going to be pretty familiar with the whole world of configurations, acronyms and other such naming conventions used throughout this business.   I don't think any of them are likely to be confused by things like this.

I don't see a real reason to change anything at this late stage.   Although, referring to the vehicles as "Jupiter" and "Jupiter with an Upper Stage" speaks of common sense to me.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 06/06/2009 06:19 AM
The current Jupiter naming convention is more akin to the Atlas-V numbering designations such as 401, 421 or 552.   It represents a single vehicle (Atlas-V / Jupiter) which is flown in different configurations (552 / 246).

So the precedence exists in the industry for what we are already doing.

The question, is whether the panel members are likely to be confused by such things.    I personally think they're all going to be pretty familiar with the whole world of configurations, acronyms and other such naming conventions used throughout this business.   I don't think any of them are likely to be confused by things like this.

I don't see a real reason to change anything at this late stage.   Although, referring to the vehicles as "Jupiter" and "Jupiter with an Upper Stage" speaks of common sense to me.

Ross.
What really makes me anxious of the outcome at the Augustine Commission is how the DIRECT team can present it without giving the commission the impression of self-interest or hidden agendas.

Given the passion that most people would have in this proposal, I fear slip-ups due to runaway emotions or negative reactions from perceived lack of interest by the panel.

The people directly involved in presenting the proposal really have to keep their cool. I wish them all the best of luck.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 06:51 AM
We've given this same basic (continually evolving) presentation a number of times now, to political figures, the TT, a variety of industry groups, more than a couple of advocacy groups and a plethora of conferences over the last three years.

The only real difference this time, is we only have 30 minutes to make our initial case, including a Q&A session.   That's going to be *really* tight.   All our previous presentations have been at least an hour.

This will have to be simple and straight-forward facts and details -- end of story.   The difficult bit is selecting the most salient details and trimming the rest to fit in such tight timing confines.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/06/2009 07:17 AM
Upperstages only get names when they are independent projects from the booster (Agena, Able, Centaur, etc).  The Saturn upperstages weren't named, they just had numerical designations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: duane on 06/06/2009 07:31 AM
We've given this same basic (continually evolving) presentation a number of times now, to political figures, the TT, a variety of industry groups, more than a couple of advocacy groups and a plethora of conferences over the last three years.

The only real difference this time, is we only have 30 minutes to make our initial case, including a Q&A session.   That's going to be *really* tight.   All our previous presentations have been at least an hour.

This will have to be simple and straight-forward facts and details -- end of story.   The difficult bit is selecting the most salient details and trimming the rest to fit in such tight timing confines.

Ross.

Just a few cents on that Ross. The Video showing the shuttle being transformed to a Jupiter is a pretty to the point presentation in itself.

One thing about that video thought, is all the weight numbers going up and down. Seems like distracting noise. Maybe just display the numbers after the animation/morph  is done to new configuration (LEO, TLI etc)

Either way, I would suggest putting screen grabs of that powerpoint in your presentation. Of course I assume that is already in there.

Keep it simple, and professional and leave out the previous baggage with NASA fiddling your numbers/configurations  ....

Good luck!

Duane
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: duane on 06/06/2009 07:32 AM
Is there a set date when the directlauncher.com website will be upgraded to Direct 3.0?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/06/2009 08:31 AM
Ross,

Listening to the Space Show interview, it was pretty good, except I think you need to practice your answer to that first question -- What is DIRECT? -- a couple dozen more times and get it down to an exact science.

Try answering it DIRECTly.  Here's my swing:

"""
DIRECT is a space exploration architecture based on an inline launch vehicle -- Jupiter -- derived DIRECTly from the Space Shuttle system.  Instead of mounting an orbiter on the side of the external tank, DIRECT mounts the Space Shuttle Main Engines on the bottom of the tank and places the payload on the top of the vehicle.  Jupiter will lift a crew of six to the ISS along with nearly double the payload mass and diameter of the Space Shuttle.  Two Jupiter vehicles with Centaur-derived upper stages will lift (insert correct identification of NASA/VSE/ESAS lunar mission requirements here).

DIRECT is the simpler, safer, sooner approach to NASA's Vision for Space Exploration for three reasons: First, Jupiter is derived DIRECTly from the Shuttle system.  The Space Shuttle Main Engines, 4-segment Solid Rocket Boosters, and 8.4m diameter External Tank are retained along with the facilities and workforce that produce them.  Second, DIRECT goes to the moon with two Jupiter launch vehicles derived DIRECTly from the Shuttle system instead of two completely different launch vehicles, one huge and one modest, neither of which is closely related to the Shuttle.  Finally, DIRECT requires no new engine development and leverages the rich flight heritage of both Shuttle and EELV.

DIRECT can support the ISS sooner and launch more baseline lunar missions than other options with the same budget.  But DIRECT is much more flexible than that, offering unprecedented performance for assembling heavy, voluminous infrastructure in low earth orbit and unique affinity for next-generation exploration modes based on propellant depots.  DIRECT doesn't just offer a way to repeat Apollo, it offers a way to ultimately transcend Apollo, which we believe is the true spirit of NASA's Vision for Space Exploration.
"""

Thoughts?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/06/2009 11:08 AM
Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages. The core stage is "Jupiter" which remains essentially the same.  The upper stage is what the Jupiter rocket delivers to orbit. It sounds fine saying "Liftoff of the Jupiter Rocket carrying the *model name* upper stage to orbit."

I kind of like "zeus" as the name for Jupiter's Upper Stage.  If you see what I mean....  :)


Oh, please don't go there!

NASA have AIUS & AVUS, which is perfectly fine. DIRECT have JUS (and J-nnn, etc, etc).

I find it really annoying when something already has a perfectly acceptable name (LSAM), then also has to be given a catchy name (Altair).

It's OK for geeky guys who are prepared to learn a list of synonyms and translate as they listen / read, but for the public it just creates a sense of confusion and even exclusion. Ironic for something that I assume is supposed to make it easier to sell the programme to the public.

cheers, Martin

Edit: and then I read Chuck's Jupiter/Centaur post. Hmmmm...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/06/2009 11:21 AM
It's easy.  Just remember that Altair is hundreds of light years away from Orion, and in the opposite direction.

Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages. The core stage is "Jupiter" which remains essentially the same.  The upper stage is what the Jupiter rocket delivers to orbit. It sounds fine saying "Liftoff of the Jupiter Rocket carrying the *model name* upper stage to orbit."

I kind of like "zeus" as the name for Jupiter's Upper Stage.  If you see what I mean....  :)


Oh, please don't go there!

NASA have AIUS & AVUS, which is perfectly fine. DIRECT have JUS (and J-nnn, etc, etc).

I find it really annoying when something already has a perfectly acceptable name (LSAM), then also has to be given a catchy name (Altair).

It's OK for geeky guys who are prepared to learn a list of synonyms and translate as they listen / read, but for the public it just creates a sense of confusion and even exclusion. Ironic for something that I assume is supposed to make it easier to sell the programme to the public.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2009 11:29 AM
Ross,

Listening to the Space Show interview, it was pretty good, except I think you need to practice your answer to that first question -- What is DIRECT? -- a couple dozen more times and get it down to an exact science.

Try answering it DIRECTly.  Here's my swing:

"""
DIRECT is a space exploration architecture based on an inline launch vehicle -- Jupiter -- derived DIRECTly from the Space Shuttle system.  Instead of mounting an orbiter on the side of the external tank, DIRECT mounts the Space Shuttle Main Engines on the bottom of the tank and places the payload on the top of the vehicle.  Jupiter will lift a crew of six to the ISS along with nearly double the payload mass and diameter of the Space Shuttle.  Two Jupiter vehicles with Centaur-derived upper stages will lift (insert correct identification of NASA/VSE/ESAS lunar mission requirements here).

DIRECT is the simpler, safer, sooner approach to NASA's Vision for Space Exploration for three reasons: First, Jupiter is derived DIRECTly from the Shuttle system.  The Space Shuttle Main Engines, 4-segment Solid Rocket Boosters, and 8.4m diameter External Tank are retained along with the facilities and workforce that produce them.  Second, DIRECT goes to the moon with two Jupiter launch vehicles derived DIRECTly from the Shuttle system instead of two completely different launch vehicles, one huge and one modest, neither of which is closely related to the Shuttle.  Finally, DIRECT requires no new engine development and leverages the rich flight heritage of both Shuttle and EELV.

DIRECT can support the ISS sooner and launch more baseline lunar missions than other options with the same budget.  But DIRECT is much more flexible than that, offering unprecedented performance for assembling heavy, voluminous infrastructure in low earth orbit and unique affinity for next-generation exploration modes based on propellant depots.  DIRECT doesn't just offer a way to repeat Apollo, it offers a way to ultimately transcend Apollo, which we believe is the true spirit of NASA's Vision for Space Exploration.
"""

Thoughts?

Very good butters. I like this.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 06/06/2009 12:07 PM
Ross,

Listening to the Space Show interview, it was pretty good, except I think you need to practice your answer to that first question -- What is DIRECT? -- a couple dozen more times and get it down to an exact science.

Try answering it DIRECTly.  Here's my swing:

"""
DIRECT is a space exploration architecture based on an inline launch vehicle -- Jupiter -- derived DIRECTly from the Space Shuttle system.  Instead of mounting an orbiter on the side of the external tank, DIRECT mounts the Space Shuttle Main Engines on the bottom of the tank and places the payload on the top of the vehicle.  Jupiter will lift a crew of six to the ISS along with nearly double the payload mass and diameter of the Space Shuttle.  Two Jupiter vehicles with Centaur-derived upper stages will lift (insert correct identification of NASA/VSE/ESAS lunar mission requirements here).

DIRECT is the simpler, safer, sooner approach to NASA's Vision for Space Exploration for three reasons: First, Jupiter is derived DIRECTly from the Shuttle system.  The Space Shuttle Main Engines, 4-segment Solid Rocket Boosters, and 8.4m diameter External Tank are retained along with the facilities and workforce that produce them.  Second, DIRECT goes to the moon with two Jupiter launch vehicles derived DIRECTly from the Shuttle system instead of two completely different launch vehicles, one huge and one modest, neither of which is closely related to the Shuttle.  Finally, DIRECT requires no new engine development and leverages the rich flight heritage of both Shuttle and EELV.

DIRECT can support the ISS sooner and launch more baseline lunar missions than other options with the same budget.  But DIRECT is much more flexible than that, offering unprecedented performance for assembling heavy, voluminous infrastructure in low earth orbit and unique affinity for next-generation exploration modes based on propellant depots.  DIRECT doesn't just offer a way to repeat Apollo, it offers a way to ultimately transcend Apollo, which we believe is the true spirit of NASA's Vision for Space Exploration.
"""

Thoughts?

Very good butters. I like this.

I think it is a very concise summary, but I suggest taking out the phrase "safer, simpler, and sooner".  For some, that may be interpreted as a swipe at ATK and by inference, Constellation.  I think the same message can be concisely stated without that phrase.  Also, a little more direct statement relative to cost would be helpful.  Budgets are a major issue now, and that advantage should be emphasized.   
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/06/2009 12:37 PM
Perhaps you could call them:

Jupiter+ and Jupiter-   !!!

I don't know, just a suggestion!!

...J130 would be the Jupiter Minus (minus an upper stage and 4th engine)

and J246 would be Jupiter Plus ( upperstage and 4th engine added)

Don't do the 'minus' thing as that has negative connotations. 

My own suggestion is close to Gregori's (and I thank him for the inspiration):

J-130 becomes just the "Jupiter Launch Vehicle"
J-130H (with 5-seg RSRM) becomes the "Super Jupiter Launch Vehicle"
J-246 becomes the "Jupiter-Plus Launch Vehicle"
J-246H becomes the "Super Jupiter-Plus Launch Vehicle"

Stretched-core versions can be the "Jupiter-Max" (with the permutations discussed above).  An RL-60 or J-2X JUS-equipped launcher gets the 'Plus-2' or 'Plus-3' suffix respectively.  Hell, if ULA can get away with talking about 'Phase 1' and 'Phase 2' replacements for Atlas-V, I think that you can do the same thing so long as you don't go crazy.  Emphasise such things are for the future, though, not something that will be absorbing R&D dollars from the outset.

Whatever you do, don't use the name Centaur for the JUS, as I'll bet that's a ULA trademark or something.  The last thing you need to do is get the CLV subcontractor angry at you for using their nomenclature for your product.  I like the suggestion of 'Saggitarius'.  As has been pointed out, it nicely references the Centaur technology legacy on the design but has its own meme of speed and accuracy (the arrow from a bow).

One thing to emphasise is that J-246 is the goal and the baseline product.  J-130 is a downgraded 'economy' version for LEO operations that, with some work, could be made to do some of the same things.

"We are proposing to develop and build the Plus core from the start, Mr. Chairman.  The regular Jupiter is a variant of that optimised for LEO missions."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/06/2009 12:49 PM
That's very good, although I would leave this out & re-word the sentence:

Quote
"...instead of two completely different launch vehicles, one huge and one modest, neither of which is closely related to the Shuttle." 

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 12:54 PM
Is there a set date when the directlauncher.com website will be upgraded to Direct 3.0?

We have been working feverishly on that for a while now.   I *think* everything is finally in place to do an update later today.   Keep your fingers crossed.

I haven't yet seen what the guys have come up with, so I'm not actually sure how extensive this update will be -- it will be a surprise to me just as much as for you! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: randomly on 06/06/2009 01:00 PM
The major selling point for Direct seems to be that

 it uses existing engines and SRBs and therefore avoids the huge development costs AND lengthy development times of solutions like Ares which require new engines (5 seg RSRM, J2-x, RS-68 regen).

I would put that concept in any answer to 'what is Direct?'

It also reduces developmental risk of delays and cost overruns by using legacy hardware and facilities.

All the solutions can get the job done, the difference is largely in the budget, timeline, and development risk.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/06/2009 01:11 PM
That's very good, although I would leave this out & re-word the sentence:

Quote
"...instead of two completely different launch vehicles, one huge and one modest, neither of which is closely related to the Shuttle." 


Yeah, I was worried about that sentence, too, but I wanted to illustrate that two "medium" launchers are better than one big and one small, especially because that's the size that derives directly from the Shuttle.  I consciously omitted direct references to Ares or Constellation, but it still has a somewhat confrontational edge to it that I don't really know how to soften.  In my view, however, some formulation of this argument has to be articulated, because after development costs and workforce transitions are behind us, this is why DIRECT will continue to have lower operational costs than Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/06/2009 01:20 PM
While I'm a fan of the old "Thor Able" style naming convention, I think you lose the "brand identity" you have now if you do something too crazy.

The hard part is that too many "J-xxx" variants are out there now to keep them straight... even in the appendices of your own ISDC presentation.  Throw in the engine change between V2 and V3, and you're even more confused.

While the "options" are extensive and one of DIRECT's best features, talking about or showing baseball cards, or even a list of their names just makes it too complicated.

If you want to show the diverse configuration options, make a new version of the old "silhouette lineup" graphic you had back in the DIRECT v1.0 days where you showed the footprint and side-view of each vehicle with a payload bar graphs behind them rather than show all of the different names... and make sure your "recommended" configurations stand out on such a graphic.

If you think you need to, name your "recommended" configurations ala the old "Thor Agena" convention, and stop there.

J-130 == Jupiter
J-246 == Jupiter ACUS
Apollo 8 Redux == Jupiter Delta (???)

...and retain the "Heavy" designator to refer to 5-segment SRBs (but again, other than an offhand appendix mention, silhouette lineup, or response to a committee question, don't go there right now).

P.S. while I like "Jupiter Centaur" more than "Jupiter ACUS", you're better off not using that name to tie you to an existing upperstage design (and vendor) right now, IMHO... even one as venerable as Centaur.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/06/2009 01:24 PM
I think it is a very concise summary, but I suggest taking out the phrase "safer, simpler, and sooner".  For some, that may be interpreted as a swipe at ATK and by inference, Constellation.  I think the same message can be concisely stated without that phrase.  Also, a little more direct statement relative to cost would be helpful.  Budgets are a major issue now, and that advantage should be emphasized.   

Agree on the first part.  I wasn't aware that this phrase was relevant to other players.  It's prominently displayed on the soon-to-be-updated DIRECT website.

Everybody wants to ask about cost and schedule.  I figured that the "what is DIRECT" question is an opportunity to introduce the audience to the launch vehicle and the merits of its design.  Cost and schedule will be the next questions, guaranteed.  You don't want to say "DIRECT is a program that will cost this many billions of dollars and take this long before it flies".  You want to tell people what's for sale before you tell them how much and how long.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2009 01:25 PM
In general I like the idea of referring to Jupiter in generic terms when speaking conversationally. It does serve the purpose well of making the point we are speaking of *ONE* vehicle, not two. And that is a critical message to get across. While I think we will continue to use the terms we have been, "130 and 246", when speaking specifics, I generally agree that we should begin to use the generic "Jupiter". And please note that while we frequently use the term "246", remember that that is a designation that describes only one of four possible Jupiter configurations. It could be a 241 (1xJ-2X), a 244 (4xRL-60), a 246 (6xRL-10B-2) or a 247 (7xRL-10A-4). So while we are promoting the 246 because of schedule and lack of engine development, it is not correct to say the 246 is the baseline. We are "suggesting" that NASA baseline the 246, but that will be their choice. For now, it's just the "Jupiter" and it is understood to be Core plus Upper Stage.

As most of you know, I go all the way back to Sputnik, so I guess that makes me an old fart. But seriously, I have always liked what we did back in the day when we combined different things to make a flight configuration. We ended up with things like Nike-Ajax, Atlas-Centaur, Atlas-Agena, Thor-Agena and Thor-Able for example and it was instantly understood that we had a Thor rocket with an Able upper stage. I guess that's why the thought occurred to me of Jupiter-Centaur, like Atlas-Centaur. *IF* the JUS ended up actually being a big Centaur, then that would be a proper designation, but as was pointed out above, it wouldn't be right to adopt that name now. But to me, the simplest way forward to having a very generic name for general conversation would be combining the names of the core and the upper stage. That assumes however that the JUS would actually have a name, which right now it does not and, as Jim pointed out, neither did Saturn. So I would suggest that going forward when speaking generically we simply say "Jupiter" and when speaking specifically, we continue to identify the 130 and 246 for now.

I like where this conversation is going but we are too close to the Commission meeting to entertain changing anything now. Perhaps we might entertain the generic "Jupiter" in the Commission presentation, but that is just speculation. We are working on that presentation now.

For the record, the naming convention we currently use is actually excellent because it very accurately describes the launch vehicle. Believe me, that was not an easy thing to accomplish. You would not believe the agony we went thru to arrive at what we have. Interestingly, once we had it and stood back and looked at it, it was obvious that it was a no-brainer. "Duh"  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rocketguy101 on 06/06/2009 01:38 PM
One thing about that video thought, is all the weight numbers going up and down. Seems like distracting noise. Maybe just display the numbers after the animation/morph  is done to new configuration (LEO, TLI etc)

I have to agree with duane on this...there is a lot of dynamic information being presented in the video, and I had to watch it several times to absorb it all.  You will not get a chance to show it several times, so I would simplify it a bit.  The morphing is amazing to watch and speaks volumes in itself!  I love the vid, but for your limited time slot, you want maximum "bang for the buck".

As far as the name--leave it alone.  It is simple and direct.  You are talking to pros.  If there is a news interview or non-industry magazine article, then use the Jupiter and Jupiter with an upper stage monikers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 01:40 PM
The video works best when you have a commentary running over the top -- which is how we typically utilize it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/06/2009 01:46 PM
Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages. The core stage is "Jupiter" which remains essentially the same.  The upper stage is what the Jupiter rocket delivers to orbit. It sounds fine saying "Liftoff of the Jupiter Rocket carrying the *model name* upper stage to orbit."

I kind of like "zeus" as the name for Jupiter's Upper Stage.  If you see what I mean....  :)


Oh, please don't go there!

NASA have AIUS & AVUS, which is perfectly fine. DIRECT have JUS (and J-nnn, etc, etc).

I find it really annoying when something already has a perfectly acceptable name (LSAM), then also has to be given a catchy name (Altair).

It's OK for geeky guys who are prepared to learn a list of synonyms and translate as they listen / read, but for the public it just creates a sense of confusion and even exclusion. Ironic for something that I assume is supposed to make it easier to sell the programme to the public.

cheers, Martin

Edit: and then I read Chuck's Jupiter/Centaur post. Hmmmm...

At this stage of the game I think Ross and the Team have it right - there are bigger issues and challenges to deal with, given the name and the convention with it are three years old and already in general industry configuration.

So, in the words of John Lennon - "Let it be, let it be..." :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/06/2009 02:34 PM
I think it is a very concise summary, but I suggest taking out the phrase "safer, simpler, and sooner".  For some, that may be interpreted as a swipe at ATK and by inference, Constellation.  I think the same message can be concisely stated without that phrase.  Also, a little more direct statement relative to cost would be helpful.  Budgets are a major issue now, and that advantage should be emphasized.   

Agree on the first part.  I wasn't aware that this phrase was relevant to other players.  It's prominently displayed on the soon-to-be-updated DIRECT website.

Everybody wants to ask about cost and schedule.  I figured that the "what is DIRECT" question is an opportunity to introduce the audience to the launch vehicle and the merits of its design.  Cost and schedule will be the next questions, guaranteed.  You don't want to say "DIRECT is a program that will cost this many billions of dollars and take this long before it flies".  You want to tell people what's for sale before you tell them how much and how long.

Your original post on the topic was excellent. I think the last sentence in this post is right on the mark. So how about changing the line slightly to "simpler, sooner and cheaper". In my book simpler is always safer, so you can imply it without attacking anyone.  Remember the KISS principle.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 02:44 PM
With probably only 6-8 more days to the actual submission of the Presentation left, we aren't going to be engaging in any new "re-branding" efforts at this stage of the proceedings.

But after this Presentation, I was toying with something along the lines of "Affordable, Sustainable, Flexible" or perhaps "Affordable, Flexible, High Performance".   There are a lot of different options to play with.

I think that should be enough to get you guys all in your starting boxes!   "And they're off..."   ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/06/2009 02:56 PM
In general I like the idea of referring to Jupiter in generic terms when speaking conversationally. It does serve the purpose well of making the point we are speaking of *ONE* vehicle, not two. And that is a critical message to get across. While I think we will continue to use the terms we have been, "130 and 246", when speaking specifics, I generally agree that we should begin to use the generic "Jupiter".

<snip>

I like where this conversation is going but we are too close to the Commission meeting to entertain changing anything now. Perhaps we might entertain the generic "Jupiter" in the Commission presentation, but that is just speculation. We are working on that presentation now.


Chuck,

sorry, I'm confused now!!

ISDC 2009 is written to this naming scheme, and I'm certain both yourself & Ross have been using it extensively, as far back as I can remember. I'm only confused if I understand correctly that this hasn't been correct / official usage up until now.

I know that I consciously copied that usage from your posts, and have been using it myself, I think since some of my earliest posts (D2.0T2 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.0), I think). Maybe I've caused more confusion than comprehension because of that?


As I understand it:-

Jupiter when talking about both variants, or non-specific elements of the vehicle.

Jupiter programme for the LV programme. (Comparable to Ares programme (ie I followed by V), I think?).

J-1x0 or J-1xx - when referring to core-only vehicles.

J-2xx - when referring to vehicles with upper stage.

J-24x specific core config with NASA-can-pick-one upper stage.

DIRECT for Jupiter launcher + in-space operations (comparable to CxP, I think).



I also notice that ISDC 2009 referred to DIRECT phase 1 & phase 2 for J-130 & J-24x respectively. Jupiter phase 1 & phase 2 seem to strongly convey phased development of a single vehicle, and map to J-1xx & J-2xx, so avoid any confusion nicely.

Of course, if you develop a block II core as part of phase 2, you'd then start using it with J-130 also, and then you're into "phase 1 J-130" and "phase 2 J-130".

Ignoring that issue, how about using this language in front of the commission - hammers home the "one vehicle, two versions" message every time you mention it. DIRECT phase 1 & 2 also map to Jupiter phase 1 & 2.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 03:03 PM
Martin,
You've got it all correct.

FYI, explicitly, "DIRECT" now refers to the overall architecture governing all of the different launch vehicles (Jupiter), spacecraft (Orion, Altair, SSPDM etc.), mission plans, options, alternatives and within the proposal -- so suggesting its has a similar scope to CxP is quite reasonable, IMHO.

Other than the numerical changes caused by the RS-68 > SSME switch, that naming convention has been consistent for quite a while.   It remains so.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/06/2009 03:24 PM
With probably only 6-8 more days to the actual submission of the Presentation left, we aren't going to be engaging in any new "re-branding" efforts at this stage of the proceedings.

But after this Presentation, I was toying with something along the lines of "Affordable, Sustainable, Flexible" or perhaps "Affordable, Flexible, High Performance".   There are a lot of different options to play with.

I think that should be enough to get you guys all in your starting boxes!   "And they're off..."   ;)

Ross.

My vote is is the first one. Affordable, Sustainable, Flexible.  I think High Performance will make it a competition of pure size vs. Ares V.

IMHO

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 03:29 PM
A few pages back someone here (I forget who, sorry) mentioned the differences between the SSME Block-IIA vs. Block-II and said they were surprised we were using the older IIA.   I have to raise my hands, that is my fault entirely.

When we switched over to SSME's, our guys at MSFC simply told me we would be using the current generation of SSME, they didn't specify the specific nomenclature for which version that was.   When I checked my own files I saw there were a number of different variants including Block-II and Block-IIA and I was the one who simply assumed that the 'A' was the newer of the two -- as a computer guy, that's just how I would do it! :)

I have double-checked with our development guys and they confirm that the Block-IIA was essentially an interim variant on the way towards the full Block-II.

I have also double-checked, and the performance calculations as displayed in the Baseball Cards actually show the current Block-II and that it is merely the attribution which is wrong.

I am therefore going to amend all of the Baseball Cards now.


Sorry for any confusion and I thank whoever it was for pointing out the issue and bringing my attention to it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/06/2009 03:54 PM
Just to be perhaps in tune with the current administration my suggestion is "Affordable, Flexible, Responsible"

I would emphasize not only that Jupiter has a much larger connection with the shuttle stack, but that Ares I and Ares V are much more related to each other (in an effort to control costs per launch). But since the shuttle stack has already been tested, ballooning costs are a low risk. With Ares I/V, ballooning costs and inefficiencies of one will directly impact the other. The original plan of cost savings could lead to cost increases for Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: DigitalMan on 06/06/2009 04:35 PM
Ross, since you're a brit, perhaps you might be drawn to the name:

Transformational Exploration Architecture

:-))
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/06/2009 04:36 PM
Could we have a separate naming thread? (or not at all)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/06/2009 04:44 PM
We've given this same basic (continually evolving) presentation a number of times now, to political figures, the TT, a variety of industry groups, more than a couple of advocacy groups and a plethora of conferences over the last three years.

A plethora of conferences?

Do you know what a plethora is?

I would not like to think that a person would tell someone that he has a plethora, and find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora.

 ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/06/2009 04:46 PM
With probably only 6-8 more days to the actual submission of the Presentation left, we aren't going to be engaging in any new "re-branding" efforts at this stage of the proceedings.

But after this Presentation, I was toying with something along the lines of "Affordable, Sustainable, Flexible" or perhaps "Affordable, Flexible, High Performance".   There are a lot of different options to play with.

I think that should be enough to get you guys all in your starting boxes!   "And they're off..."   ;)

Ross.

Why does it have to be stuck in the paradigm of threes? Why can't a fourth be added:

Affordable, Sustainable, Flexible, Fiscally Responsible.

That's a decent turn of phrasing, IMHO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 06/06/2009 04:56 PM
Aren't "Affordable" and "Fiscally Responsible" kinda similar?  Combined with "Sustainable", it starts sounding a little redundant...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 04:57 PM
We've given this same basic (continually evolving) presentation a number of times now, to political figures, the TT, a variety of industry groups, more than a couple of advocacy groups and a plethora of conferences over the last three years.

A plethora of conferences?

Do you know what a plethora is?

I would not like to think that a person would tell someone that he has a plethora, and find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora.

 ;D

Thankfully, there are *TWO* dictionary descriptions for this word.   I explicitly use it to mean:

"Excess, Superfluity, also : Profusion, Abundance"

...not the other one ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 06/06/2009 05:02 PM
"Feasible, Flexible, Performance"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/06/2009 05:03 PM
With probably only 6-8 more days to the actual submission of the Presentation left, we aren't going to be engaging in any new "re-branding" efforts at this stage of the proceedings.

But after this Presentation, I was toying with something along the lines of "Affordable, Sustainable, Flexible" or perhaps "Affordable, Flexible, High Performance".   There are a lot of different options to play with.

I think that should be enough to get you guys all in your starting boxes!   "And they're off..."   ;)

Ross.

My vote is is the first one. Affordable, Sustainable, Flexible.  I think High Performance will make it a competition of pure size vs. Ares V.

IMHO

Stan

To an extent I disagree...look at the MAC commericals that attack Microsoft....It depends on what your message is.  If you are the underdog, sometimes you have to attack the big guy. 

Remember the pepesi challenge....you know who they were attacking.....this is war and the future of the US human sapcefligjt for the next 20+ years.  You can be timid and go home...but sometimes you have to come out and deliver those body blows!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 05:20 PM
Hip,
That was true to a point.   But we are now past that point.

The simple fact is that NASA can not take on the proposal from a group perceived as the 'enemy'.

It is up to us to show that we are not an enemy, that we are actually really all part of the same family and that blood is thicker than water.   We need to set aside our differences because in the end, we all have the same objective -- to make the US Space Program the very best it possibly can be.

We can still disagree with CxP's management -- and we do -- but we don't have to turn it into a war of attrition.   There are more professional, less destructive, ways to do this.   As part of a greater family, we're adjusting our position to one of more "tough love" than of "outright hostility".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/06/2009 05:36 PM
Hip,
That was true to a point.   But we are now past that point.

The simple fact is that NASA can not take on the proposal from a group perceived as the 'enemy'.

It is up to us to show that we are not an enemy, that we are actually really all part of the same family and that blood is thicker than water.   We need to set aside our differences because in the end, we all have the same objective -- to make the US Space Program the very best it possibly can be.

We can still disagree with CxP's management -- and we do -- but we don't have to turn it into a war of attrition.   There are more professional, less destructive, ways to do this.   As part of a greater family, we're adjusting our position to one of more "tough love" than of "outright hostility".

Ross.

Sometimes though with 'tough love", you have to be willing to do certain things---that is what "Tough Love" is all about.  :-(

Being precieved as the enemy---maybe not, but you are not living in Kanas, this is the hood!  NASA does not think as Direct/EELV's as best of friends.  Did not NASA say and in your own presentation last week "it defies the laws of physics..."

Direct team has to take a more 'friendly' approach, does not mean some other people have to take this approach.  Remember in marketing--it is all about preseption not neccessary about reality.  Sometimes though, you have show, expose and explot the weakness in the other guy.

If Direct wants to play with the Big Boys, then sometimes Direct needs to act like a big boy.  NASA, ATK and the EELV crowd protect thier own interests and the chips fall, where they fall.  If the chips hurt Constellation and help Direct, so sad! ;-(
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: loomy on 06/06/2009 05:42 PM

Thank you for the sentement but we would really rather just fade into the mist and let NASA get on with astounding the world.

amen and thank you for THAT sentiment
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/06/2009 06:00 PM
Could we have a separate naming thread? (or not at all)

I say we just call it the GruntMaster 6000, and get on with it...  ;-)

Seriously though, as much fun as naming discussions are, I'm with m.i.w. on this one.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/06/2009 06:02 PM
Hip,
That was true to a point.   But we are now past that point.

The simple fact is that NASA can not take on the proposal from a group perceived as the 'enemy'.

It is up to us to show that we are not an enemy, that we are actually really all part of the same family and that blood is thicker than water.   We need to set aside our differences because in the end, we all have the same objective -- to make the US Space Program the very best it possibly can be.

We can still disagree with CxP's management -- and we do -- but we don't have to turn it into a war of attrition.   There are more professional, less destructive, ways to do this.   As part of a greater family, we're adjusting our position to one of more "tough love" than of "outright hostility".

Ross.

Sometimes though with 'tough love", you have to be willing to do certain things---that is what "Tough Love" is all about.  :-(

Being precieved as the enemy---maybe not, but you are not living in Kanas, this is the hood!  NASA does not think as Direct/EELV's as best of friends.  Did not NASA say and in your own presentation last week "it defies the laws of physics..."

Direct team has to take a more 'friendly' approach, does not mean some other people have to take this approach.  Remember in marketing--it is all about preseption not neccessary about reality.  Sometimes though, you have show, expose and explot the weakness in the other guy.

If Direct wants to play with the Big Boys, then sometimes Direct needs to act like a big boy.  NASA, ATK and the EELV crowd protect thier own interests and the chips fall, where they fall.  If the chips hurt Constellation and help Direct, so sad! ;-(


Ross's concern is understandable.  The bottom line is that if everything goes well for Direct, it will have to be assimilated and worked by the very same people who've just recently been working on Constellation with their 'hearts and minds' invested in that.  You can change their mind, but it's certainly not just by dumping on NASA and Constellation indiscriminatly. 

Finding a common ground (and it seem there is a lot of common ground betwee Direct and Cx! to begin with)  first and then trying to work your line of thinking in is much more productive in these situations.  Just like the way it is...  I'm and engineer by trade but a political 'nose' is often what I lack and envy having. 

That elusive art of the achievable...

Excessive (disagreements/concerns are fine) antagonizm against the very folks you want on your side is ... short term and long term (you know they'd have to work the [email protected]) how shall I put it.... not smart.

p.s. personal qualification, I'm not in either the Direct or Ares 'camp'
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/06/2009 06:11 PM
A few pages back someone here (I forget who, sorry) mentioned the differences between the SSME Block-IIA vs. Block-II and said they were surprised we were using the older IIA.   I have to raise my hands, that is my fault entirely.

When we switched over to SSME's, our guys at MSFC simply told me we would be using the current generation of SSME, they didn't specify the specific nomenclature for which version that was.   When I checked my own files I saw there were a number of different variants including Block-II and Block-IIA and I was the one who simply assumed that the 'A' was the newer of the two -- as a computer guy, that's just how I would do it! :)

I have double-checked with our development guys and they confirm that the Block-IIA was essentially an interim variant on the way towards the full Block-II.

I have also double-checked, and the performance calculations as displayed in the Baseball Cards actually show the current Block-II and that it is merely the attribution which is wrong.

I am therefore going to amend all of the Baseball Cards now.


Sorry for any confusion and I thank whoever it was for pointing out the issue and bringing my attention to it.

Ross.

That would be user psloss. I'd noted that the Block-IIa engines were specified (using the baseball card data) for Jupiter, and he made maintain of the discrepancy.

Thanks for updating the cards. It's good to have accurate information out there.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 06/06/2009 06:12 PM
A minor redraft here?

Second, DIRECT goes to the moon with two Jupiter launch vehicles derived DIRECTly from the Shuttle system instead of two completely different launch vehicles, one huge and one modest, neither of which is closely related to the Shuttle.

How about:

"Second, DIRECT goes to the moon with two launches of the Jupiter vehicle, derived DIRECTly from the Shuttle system, instead of two quite different launch vehicles, each of which is less closely related to the Shuttle."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/06/2009 06:30 PM
Hip,
That was true to a point.   But we are now past that point.

The simple fact is that NASA can not take on the proposal from a group perceived as the 'enemy'.

It is up to us to show that we are not an enemy, that we are actually really all part of the same family and that blood is thicker than water.   We need to set aside our differences because in the end, we all have the same objective -- to make the US Space Program the very best it possibly can be.

We can still disagree with CxP's management -- and we do -- but we don't have to turn it into a war of attrition.   There are more professional, less destructive, ways to do this.   As part of a greater family, we're adjusting our position to one of more "tough love" than of "outright hostility".

Ross.

Sometimes though with 'tough love", you have to be willing to do certain things---that is what "Tough Love" is all about.  :-(

Being precieved as the enemy---maybe not, but you are not living in Kanas, this is the hood!  NASA does not think as Direct/EELV's as best of friends.  Did not NASA say and in your own presentation last week "it defies the laws of physics..."

Direct team has to take a more 'friendly' approach, does not mean some other people have to take this approach.  Remember in marketing--it is all about preseption not neccessary about reality.  Sometimes though, you have show, expose and explot the weakness in the other guy.

If Direct wants to play with the Big Boys, then sometimes Direct needs to act like a big boy.  NASA, ATK and the EELV crowd protect thier own interests and the chips fall, where they fall.  If the chips hurt Constellation and help Direct, so sad! ;-(


Ross's concern is understandable.  The bottom line is that if everything goes well for Direct, it will have to be assimilated and worked by the very same people who've just recently been working on Constellation with their 'hearts and minds' invested in that.  You can change their mind, but it's certainly not just by dumping on NASA and Constellation indiscriminatly. 

Finding a common ground (and it seem there is a lot of common ground betwee Direct and Cx! to begin with)  first and then trying to work your line of thinking in is much more productive in these situations.  Just like the way it is...  I'm and engineer by trade but a political 'nose' is often what I lack and envy having. 

That elusive art of the achievable...

Excessive (disagreements/concerns are fine) antagonizm against the very folks you want on your side is ... short term and long term (you know they'd have to work the [email protected]) how shall I put it.... not smart.

p.s. personal qualification, I'm not in either the Direct or Ares 'camp'

Since It was my comment about performance that appears to have gotten Hip's Irish up, let me clarify.  Simply put Ares V is bigger that Jupiter with upper stage( what the marketing name?).  To call Jupiter High performance may muddy the waters.  On the other hand it is: Affordable, Sustainable and Flexible which Ares is not.

Adam
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 06:36 PM
That would be user psloss. I'd noted that the Block-IIa engines were specified (using the baseball card data) for Jupiter, and he made maintain of the discrepancy.

Thanks for updating the cards. It's good to have accurate information out there.

Ahh, my good and dear friend Philip!   How could I have forgotten it was him!   Bad Ross!!! ;)

Might have something to do with burning too many candles at both ends, sorry Philip for the flaws of the ol' grey matter!

Ross.

PS -- Here is a quick teaser for the new cards (same data as the last set, but slightly updated logo's and the "heavy" variants are coming too).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 06:38 PM
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"

???

I got my Verbosity right here...

Ross (heading out for a few hours -- 'tis the weekend after all!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/06/2009 06:39 PM
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"

???

Ross (heading out for a few hours -- 'tis the weekend after all!)

OK by me

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 06/06/2009 06:42 PM
It will be a challenge to convince NASA that DIRECT's intention is to save their goal of going to the moon and Mars.

Something along the lines of, 'We're not against NASA, we want NASA to succeed even in these lean times and this is why we are proposing this'.

For those who don't know, NASA's official website has updated its video gallery on its Constellation program, the timing suggests it has something to do with the upcoming Commission.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/index.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/06/2009 07:07 PM
I am therefore going to amend all of the Baseball Cards now.


Ross,

if you're going to re-issue, at least one of the 29 deg baseball cards is described as an ISS vehicle, which I think is incorrect.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/06/2009 07:17 PM
Ross's concern is understandable.  The bottom line is that if everything goes well for Direct, it will have to be assimilated and worked by the very same people who've just recently been working on Constellation with their 'hearts and minds' invested in that.  You can change their mind, but it's certainly not just by dumping on NASA and Constellation indiscriminatly.


OK, here's a question. It's not intended to be contentious, just looking for a little insight.

Would it be fair to say that Ares V is what you get from "what's the most we can lift per launch with Shuttle-type hardware"?

By comparison would Jupiter be the result if the same team were asked "what's the cheapest that we can lift each kilogram with Shuttle-type hardware"?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/06/2009 07:21 PM
Martin,
You've got it all correct.

FYI, explicitly, "DIRECT" now refers to the overall architecture governing all of the different launch vehicles (Jupiter), spacecraft (Orion, Altair, SSPDM etc.), mission plans, options, alternatives and within the proposal -- so suggesting its has a similar scope to CxP is quite reasonable, IMHO.


Ross,

again, I always thought that was the definition of DIRECT (possibly assumed from the AIAA-2007-6231 paper). Certainly using the phrase explicity in that way is completely consistent with the informal way that you both have been using it up until now (I'd be very sensitive to any other usage), which is good for anyone Googling and learning about DIRECT from a mixture of old & new statements.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/06/2009 07:24 PM
It will be a challenge to convince NASA that DIRECT's intention is to save their goal of going to the moon and Mars.

NASA already knows this, it just thinks its way will do the job better. The argument is technical, it should remain that way with any emotion left aside. DIRECT 3.0 is technically and fiscally ready, Ross/Chuck have the right attitude now to present it in the best light, calm and measured. I also suggest they present a copy of their rebuttal after their presentation talk as reading material to be left behind as no doubt Hawes will already have the original study in his mind when judging, minus all the controversial accusatory bits though ! The IDEA has to do the shouting now, not its fans or presenters. Less is more now so close to prime-time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/06/2009 07:27 PM
indiscriminatly.
By comparison would Jupiter be the result if the same team were asked "what's the cheapest that we can lift each kilogram with Shuttle-type hardware"?
What programme can safely complete foreseeable missions using existing personnel and infrastructure in a reasonable amount of time and in a development order that helps to reduce the gap?

Edit: insert: "and interoperate with existing Shuttle operations" somewhere.

To me, the affordable part follows because you are maximizing the payload for the powerplant.  It just seems like it would be a cheaper way to go and I believe the DIRECTheads have made a good case with real numbers.

Edit: comma removal; apostrophe removal
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/06/2009 07:39 PM
On the less confrontational tone:

If the Committee will review all material fairly, then there is no reason to elbow anyone in the ribs.  If the Committee is fixed, then it doesn't matter what is said. 

The fact that the Committee was called is a good omen that someone important would like to take a pause--and this is a good reason for a cessation of hostilities.

Modify: Now to find a nice way to say that it is not nice to destroy existing infrastructure if you haven't designed YOUR rocket yet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/06/2009 08:06 PM

I was thinking mainly of aspects of Direct that would be good selling points to Obama, but I failed to consider one important aspect about Obamaís pattern as president so far. This is that when it comes to the economic matters, his actions have consistently been the opposite of what is really needed. So in this case since Direct makes good economic sense we should expect Obama to decide against it. Come think of it Ares I/V is more consistent with Obama.

Thanks!

And you just never know.  The fact he put together the Augustine commission gives me cautious optimism.  Looks like they have real world people on it, and not just politicos.  As long as Direct gets a chance to make their case, if they do, the panel gives them a fair shake, and if their recommendation is to go to Direct, I think that could be sticky for Obama to go against.  Going against his own commission's recommendations?  Hard to explain that.

There's a few "ifs" there, but like I said, there's some cautious optimism to be had there.  And the Direct team from what I've been reading look to have some optimism in the panel too, which is a good sign.  :)

All my fingers and toes are crossed!

Agreed, cautious optimism is the best way look at it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/06/2009 08:14 PM
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"
No no no...but close. It is wanton of something more at the end.

(not to go back to the name debate, but heck, you 'invited it') ;)

How about:

"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to a Flexible and Sustainable Architecture"

EDIT: or better yet:

"Direct -- One Rocket, One Vision"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/06/2009 08:21 PM

There is a difference between what is used in presenting and selling it to NASA et al, and what will be best for official designations. The Ares-III and IV designations better from a public relations stand point, since sounds more like an upgrade than a big change.

In other circumstances, maybe, but not with Ares-I and Ares-V cluttering the landscape.
Ares-III and Ares-IV sounds like 2 different rockets, like Ares-I and Ares-V.

Sorry
 

When you think about it, as far as the final name is concerned the only thing that maters is what NASA wants to call it if they build it.  For all I care they can call the boosters Larry, Moe and the upper stage Curly just as long as the build and fly it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2009 08:25 PM

There is a difference between what is used in presenting and selling it to NASA et al, and what will be best for official designations. The Ares-III and IV designations better from a public relations stand point, since sounds more like an upgrade than a big change.

In other circumstances, maybe, but not with Ares-I and Ares-V cluttering the landscape.
Ares-III and Ares-IV sounds like 2 different rockets, like Ares-I and Ares-V.

Sorry
 

When you think about it, as far as the final name is concerned the only thing that maters is what NASA wants to call it if they build it.  For all I care they can call the boosters Larry, Moe and the upper stage Curly just as long as the build and fly it.

Now that I agree with. They can call it anything they want to so long as they fly it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jeff.findley on 06/06/2009 08:53 PM

To address the specific point, I don't need PD if I do nuclear, but yes, most of what is launched is propellant.  If you want to call that depots, go ahead, but it could also simply be in-space assembly.


And because a Mars mission, even nuclear, will need so much propellant, likely LH2, this will require multiple launches over some period of time, even with in-space assembly.  In order to enable this, storage of LH2 in LEO will need to be perfected.  Note that this is one of the main stumbling blocks for LEO fuel depots as well.

Also, note that in-space assembly would also require the ability to connect multiple LH2 tanks in LEO and feed that LH2 either to a LH2/LOX engine or a nuclear engine.  Note that this is another of the main stumbling blocks for LEO fuel depots.

What stumbling blocks are left for a LEO fuel depot that are not also shared by an in-space assembly architecture for a Mars mission?

Propellant depots would be a "game changing" technology for manned space exploration, specifically exploration of Mars.  One of the biggest pitfalls of NASA's current approach to implementing ESAS is that it contains nothing game changing.  Because of this, it appears to me to be as economically unsustainable as Apollo.  If politicians see it the same way, ESAS is doomed unless NASA changes direction, and soon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/06/2009 09:08 PM
...
PS -- Here is a quick teaser for the new cards (same data as the last set, but slightly updated logo's and the "heavy" variants are coming too).

Ross, I am looking at this card (J246-41.4004.10050_CLV_090606.jpg) and this u/s propellant off-load by 57% makes me wonder, gee ... are you sure ?

For a lunar outpost campaign, every second Jupiter will launch with the upper stage more than half empty ?

8x SSMEs, 4x SRBs, 2x 8.4m-cores, 2x WBC/ACES-technology-scaled upper stages (one less than half filled with propellants), 12x RL-10 engines, 2x avionics, LEO docking ... for one (1) cargo load to the moon ? Do you guys call that sustainable ?

Edit: I also wanted to ask you this, why did you omitted the lunar cargo mission description from the ISDC'09 presentation ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 06/06/2009 09:16 PM
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"
No no no...but close. It is wanton of something more at the end.

(not to go back to the name debate, but heck, you 'invited it') ;)

How about:

"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to a Flexible and Sustainable Architecture"

EDIT: or better yet:

"Direct -- One Rocket, One Vision"

robert-

Ooooohhh...I LIKE that last one!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2009 09:18 PM
...
PS -- Here is a quick teaser for the new cards (same data as the last set, but slightly updated logo's and the "heavy" variants are coming too).

Ross, I am looking at this card (J246-41.4004.10050_CLV_090606.jpg) and this u/s propellant off-load by 57% makes me wonder, gee ... are you sure ?

For a lunar outpost campaign, every second Jupiter will launch with the upper stage more than half empty ?

8x SSMEs, 4x SRBs, 2x 8.4m-cores, 2x WBC/ACES-technology-scaled upper stages (one less than half filled with propellants), 12x RL-10 engines, 2x avionics, LEO docking ... for one (1) cargo load to the moon ? Do you guys call that sustainable ?



Don't forget that we are also sizing things to take advantage of a propellant depot later on. We don't want to create a new upper stage then. The tankage part of the JUS does not mass all that much so economically, because we have the mass margin to handle it, we're better off making one stage size and under utilizing it for a while than creating and qualifying different size stages. Remember, that was one of the things that the so-called analysis accused us of doing - multiple stage sizes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/06/2009 09:21 PM
...
Don't forget that we are also sizing things to take advantage of a propellant depot later on. We don't want to create a new upper stage then. The tankage part of the JUS does not mass all that much so economically, because we have the mass margin to handle it, we're better off making one stage size and under utilizing it for a while than creating and qualifying different size stages. Remember, that was one of the things that the so-called analysis accused us of doing - multiple stage sizes.

Are you going to "gird your loins" and tell the Augustine Commission that in all earnest you would not recommend going forward with a lunar outpost - unless propellant depots are established first ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2009 09:24 PM
...
Don't forget that we are also sizing things to take advantage of a propellant depot later on. We don't want to create a new upper stage then. The tankage part of the JUS does not mass all that much so economically, because we have the mass margin to handle it, we're better off making one stage size and under utilizing it for a while than creating and qualifying different size stages. Remember, that was one of the things that the so-called analysis accused us of doing - multiple stage sizes.

Are you going to "gird your loins" and tell the Augustine Commission that in all earnest you would not recommend going forward with a lunar outpost - unless propellant depots are established first ?



No. Jupiter is sized to properly do the full-up lunar mission without a propellant depot at all. That would be a 2xJupiter launch. But once a depot comes online we could do a full-up mission with a single launch. That's the way we sized it, so that while we don't *need* a depot, unlike Ares-V we are not the enemy of a depot and are properly sized to take full advantage of it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/06/2009 09:36 PM
...
Don't forget that we are also sizing things to take advantage of a propellant depot later on. We don't want to create a new upper stage then. The tankage part of the JUS does not mass all that much so economically, because we have the mass margin to handle it, we're better off making one stage size and under utilizing it for a while than creating and qualifying different size stages. Remember, that was one of the things that the so-called analysis accused us of doing - multiple stage sizes.

Are you going to "gird your loins" and tell the Augustine Commission that in all earnest you would not recommend going forward with a lunar outpost - unless propellant depots are established first ?



No.

I got it, no is no. You are not going to propose going straight to propellant depots - before starting exploration in full - even if your collective heart is with the p.d.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 06/06/2009 09:43 PM
...
PS -- Here is a quick teaser for the new cards (same data as the last set, but slightly updated logo's and the "heavy" variants are coming too).

Ross, I am looking at this card (J246-41.4004.10050_CLV_090606.jpg) and this u/s propellant off-load by 57% makes me wonder, gee ... are you sure ?

For a lunar outpost campaign, every second Jupiter will launch with the upper stage more than half empty ?

8x SSMEs, 4x SRBs, 2x 8.4m-cores, 2x WBC/ACES-technology-scaled upper stages (one less than half filled with propellants), 12x RL-10 engines, 2x avionics, LEO docking ... for one (1) cargo load to the moon ? Do you guys call that sustainable ?



The Jupiter 246 that lifts the crew and Altair has 15+mT of spare margin that is not used because the EDS launched on the previous flight can't push it thru TLI. Thus, propellant is offloaded on the crew flight to improve the flight performance margin.

Yes, we do call it sustainable. Costs aren't calculated based upon the number of engines or components in an architecture, it is the integration of those components that is where the real impact of the costs lie. There are two reasons why Ares is not sustainable: development costs break the bank and yearly program costs are too high to allow a high flight rate.

The problem that Ares has is that it face development costs that in excess of $30-40 billion dollars that must be paid before the first lunar mission. NASA's budget simply can't support with without $2-3 billion per year more, and the gutting of most of NASA's other departments to fund Ares. Obama wants to keep NASA's budget flat at best, and info on L2 suggests that NASA is in for a serious budget deficit after 2010.

DIRECT spends less than $13 billion before it's first lunar mission, requires no budget increases, and can reinstate funding to other areas of NASA.

The second facet of costs are the yearly costs, which are broken down further still into two parts: recurring infrastructure costs (fixed costs) and the actually cost of each Jupiter rocket (variable costs). DIRECT saves roughly $1-2 billion per year for fixed costs vs. Ares, depending on a few factors.

In addition, 2 Jupiter 246's cost between $400-500 million (depending on flight rate) and 1 Ares I + 1 Ares V will cost in excess of $600 million.

Total lifecycle savings thru 2020 are in excess of $20 billion for DIRECT.

We need an architecture that can still achieve the moon even if NASA faces budget cuts. DIRECT can still support full ESAS lunar missions even if Obama reduces NASA's budget, just that we'd only fly 3-4 per year vs. 6-8 that we can do with the existing budget. If this isn't sustainable, I don't know what is.

According to NASA's own numbers, Ares needs that $2-3 billion budget increase just to achieve those 3-4 missions per year. This is not sustainable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/06/2009 10:07 PM
...
Don't forget that we are also sizing things to take advantage of a propellant depot later on. We don't want to create a new upper stage then. The tankage part of the JUS does not mass all that much so economically, because we have the mass margin to handle it, we're better off making one stage size and under utilizing it for a while than creating and qualifying different size stages. Remember, that was one of the things that the so-called analysis accused us of doing - multiple stage sizes.

Are you going to "gird your loins" and tell the Augustine Commission that in all earnest you would not recommend going forward with a lunar outpost - unless propellant depots are established first ?



No.

I got it, no is no. You are not going to propose going straight to propellant depots - before starting exploration in full - even if your collective hearth is with the p.d.

IMHO?

Small steps. Since Direct 3.0 is more than capable of fulfilling VSE requirements without depots why include depots on the initial critical path?

If Direct were adopted, the advantages of leveraging Jupiter 246 missions with depots will soon become blindingly obvious.

Unless some unknown unknowns arise in the development of depots.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/06/2009 10:43 PM
...
 Do you guys call that sustainable ?
...
Yes, we do call it sustainable. Costs aren't calculated based upon the number of engines or components in an architecture, it is the integration of those components that is where the real impact of the costs lie.

Exactly. For a lunar cargo mission you have to integrate two (2) super-heavy launch stacks from all the components. You have to perform a low energy earth orbit rendezvous and docking (more like berthing IMO but that's beside the point).

For a lunar cargo mission you have double avionics and more than double flight software, and no crew to assist in LEO. Compared to a single Ares V cargo flight - that's not sustainable, in my humble opinion. I have beaten this dead horse to shreds for more than a year now. The dead horse is composed of the following components : NASA should focus on building that lunar outpost, pronto, and then go to significant lunar ISRU under the supervision of resident crews. That's an exploration worth of extra budgets. And that, sir, requires frequent cargo flights to the moon. Which in turn requires as a minimum the Ares V. Propellant depots are great except you have to build them before you do the outpost, and you have to design the whole hoopla around them.
Quote
  Obama wants to keep NASA's budget flat at best, and info on L2 suggests that NASA is in for a serious budget deficit after 2010.
If this lunar "adventure" of ESAS and Griffin and VSE is already dead, what makes you believe "Direct" makes any sense at all ? I don't trust the numbers floated here for how much is "Direct" going to cost, those are just projections. Plus or minus 1 or 2 billions is not going to make or break a lunar outpost.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/06/2009 10:51 PM
Counting components can lead you in a humorous direction. For example, counting RSRM segments alone:

2x JS-246 = 16 segments (4x 4seg)

AI + AV = 16 segments (1x 5seg + 2x 5.5seg)

Then, of course, you have the problem of 14x RS-68regen vs. 8x SSME and 12x RL-10 vs. 2x J-2X...

It looks to me like 2x JS-246 and AI + AV are pretty much equivalent on the component count axis. So all that's left to compare is which one requires the most development $$$...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/06/2009 10:58 PM
...
 Do you guys call that sustainable ?
...
Yes, we do call it sustainable. Costs aren't calculated based upon the number of engines or components in an architecture, it is the integration of those components that is where the real impact of the costs lie.

Exactly. For a lunar cargo mission you have to integrate two (2) super-heavy launch stacks from all the components. You have to perform a low energy earth orbit rendezvous and docking (more like berthing IMO but that's beside the point).

For a lunar cargo mission you have double avionics and more than double flight software, and no crew to assist in LEO. Compared to a single Ares V cargo flight - that's not sustainable, in my humble opinion. I have beaten this dead horse to shreds for more than a year now. The dead horse is composed of the following components : NASA should focus on building that lunar outpost, pronto, and then go to significant lunar ISRU under the supervision of resident crews. That's an exploration worth of extra budgets. And that, sir, requires frequent cargo flights to the moon. Which in turn requires as a minimum the Ares V. Propellant depots are great except you have to build them before you do the outpost, and you have to design the whole hoopla around them.
Quote
  Obama wants to keep NASA's budget flat at best, and info on L2 suggests that NASA is in for a serious budget deficit after 2010.
If this lunar "adventure" of ESAS and Griffin and VSE is already dead, what makes you believe "Direct" makes any sense at all ? I don't trust the numbers floated here for how much is "Direct" going to cost, those are just projections. Plus or minus 1 or 2 billions is not going to make or break a lunar outpost.



How much cargo can a single-launch JS-246 deliver to the lunar surface? I think if Direct wins out, it will be due to reduced up front development costs/time, at which point someone will have to look at no longer trying to mimic the Constellation endpoint EOR-LOR payload architecture. That architecture is retained to make comparisons easier. I can think of several other architectures that would make sense, once you're looking a two same size rockets, rather than big/little. LOR-LOR was my favorite for a long time, but lately I've begun to wonder if LSR might not make more sense. That gives you a manned lander with anytime/anywhere landing and return capability (because no LOR). If you want rovers or to build a base, you just land the cargo first. It's pretty easy to imagine a base built up by dropping a dozen cargo landers first (say 10 base components and two utility rovers), followed by one or more crewed landers. Even if the crew somehow lands 50km from the cargo, the rover can come get them. But first, we have to have a an HLLV that can get aloft before being cancelled...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 06/06/2009 11:38 PM

For a lunar cargo mission you have double avionics and more than double flight software, and no crew to assist in LEO. Compared to a single Ares V cargo flight - that's not sustainable, in my humble opinion. I have beaten this dead horse to shreds for more than a year now. The dead horse is composed of the following components : NASA should focus on building that lunar outpost, pronto, and then go to significant lunar ISRU under the supervision of resident crews. That's an exploration worth of extra budgets. And that, sir, requires frequent cargo flights to the moon. Which in turn requires as a minimum the Ares V. Propellant depots are great except you have to build them before you do the outpost, and you have to design the whole hoopla around them.

1) Huh? Isn't the point of ISRU to reduce the amount of cargo flights...?

2) What does the Ares V do that 2x Jupiter 246's or 1x Jupiter 246 and a propellant depot can't do, for less money?

3) Sustainability is about having a system that fits the needs, budget, and schedule. There is no need for a 180mT launcher because there isn't any lunar or martian component that a 100mT launcher can't lift. What doesn't break down into 100mT pieces that does break down to 180mT pieces? Ares V won't be sustainable because it will be too expensive to fly more than 3-4 times per year. For less money, DIRECT could double that *mission* rate. (The flight rate would be doubled again, because 2x Jupiter 246's are used per lunar mission vs. 1x Ares V)

You aren't going to get Ares V anyway, because there won't be any funding for it. Ares I breaks the bank. Right now, DIRECT is the only way to get a HLLV that is politically feasible.

Quote
If this lunar "adventure" of ESAS and Griffin and VSE is already dead, what makes you believe "Direct" makes any sense at all ? I don't trust the numbers floated here for how much is "Direct" going to cost, those are just projections. Plus or minus 1 or 2 billions is not going to make or break a lunar outpost.

The 'numbers' for DIRECT are done by the same people who do the numbers for Ares, using the same methodologies. You either believe them both, or believe neither. In fact, DIRECT's numbers have more confidence in them because they are closely matched to currently flying systems.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/06/2009 11:54 PM

1) Huh? Isn't the point of ISRU to reduce the amount of cargo flights...?

There's no significant lunar ISRU possible before a large number of cargo [and crewed] flights.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/06/2009 11:55 PM

1) Huh? Isn't the point of ISRU to reduce the amount of cargo flights...?

There's no significant lunar ISRU possible before a large number of cargo [and crewed] flights.

That's why it's cheaper and faster to launch those resources from Earth.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Gregori on 06/07/2009 12:48 AM
A quick question:

Roughly how many EELV's flights would be required to top up the Depot with enough propellant for a solo J246 Lunar Mission?

(lets say our EELV is a Delta IV Heavy)






Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 06/07/2009 01:35 AM
A quick question:

Roughly how many EELV's flights would be required to top up the Depot with enough propellant for a solo J246 Lunar Mission?

(lets say our EELV is a Delta IV Heavy)








Useable Post-Ascent propellant for J-246 is 99,896 kg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/BaseballCards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090521.pdf). LEO Payload for D-IVH is 22,560 kg (http://ulalaunch.com/docs/product_sheet/DeltaIVProductCardFinal.pdf). I'd say about 4 or 5. Numbers listed are for 130nmi, 29 deg and 220nmi, 28.7 deg circular orbits for the Jupiter and Delta respectively, so take that into account.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Captain Kirk on 06/07/2009 03:13 AM
Here's my two cents to the Committee:

"I ask the Committee to fairly hear the many ideas and alternatives to the current Ares I/V vehicles currently being pursued by NASA.  One of the most viable alternatives is called Direct 3.0.  The individuals working on this launch vehicle system are comprised of many technical and engineering people, some of whom are inside NASA and other aerospace firms.  I believe your study of alternatives will be lacking without seeking a presentation from the people behind Direct 3.0. Thank you."

I hope it helps!  :)
I think in that one paragraph you encompassed everything while keeping it short and to the point.

Let's hope they do listen. By now budget cuts will have gone to the point NASA will have to acknowledge the current program isn't going to last beyond Ares 1, and therefore any hope for a moon landing before the other nations.

Thanks, SoFDMC.  I think you've hit the nail on the head with the idea that NASA knows its 'game over' for the lunar return, in this budgetary environment, with the Ares I/V plan.  With Direct 3.0, NASA gets three things while still cutting the budget:  a new versatile launcher, a new crew transport vehicle and a feasible, sustainable way to go back to the Moon.  Let's hope that this committee is not hell-bent on EELV's only.  That will completely cut out any possibility of a return to the Moon any time soon, because of no heavy lifter.  :(
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Varn on 06/07/2009 09:03 AM
First off, I guess since this is my first post I should provide a bit of background information.  One of my earliest memories growing up was watching the Challenger incident, live.  I have always held an interest in our space program, but I must admit, often over the years there usually ends up being maybe one shuttle flight a year that I pay attention to.

I remember being online chatting with a group of friends when word of Columbia broke.  My reaction was OMG, this is going to set the space program back 2 years minimum.  Everyone else was shocked that I could say such an insensitive thing... 7 people had died!  Well, they did sign up for it.  I don't feel that spaceflight needs to be 100% risk free.  It is a dangerous place.

I first learned of DIRECT a couple years back via a brief mention on CNN.  I was curious enough that I went online, checked it out for myself.  I've been periodically returning to check on updates, and since the website only tantalizingly refers to DIRECT 3.0 (and no details), I had to chase you guys here for more information.  At first I was totally stumped why you guys would abandon the J-2 in favor of the SSME, upon reading through this thread (and yes, I've read all of this 3.0 thread), it seems perfectly clear now.

It was mentioned earlier of professionals accusing DIRECT of being a LEGO rocket.  Actually, that's a perfect analogy.  That's what makes DIRECT so promising.  Start with what exists as DIRECT 3.0 now.  5 years down the line, J-2X looks man-rated and good to go?  Then start prep on a block 20 unit.  Take the extra time in the middle to do some upgrades to perhaps support the 10m ET that Aries V has planned.  Throw in the 5 segment SRBs.  Build LC-39C.  Outfit it for a taller then 100m rocket.  Build a 2nd VAB, one with only 2 bays, something that can handle, say 150m rockets.  Use one of the bays as the "new" hurricane refuge, use the other to finish the top 50m of anything else done in the current VAB.  Frees up the hurricane refuge slot from that building for another usable 100m buildup spot.  Unless Mars missions become commonplace, that should more then handle the Jupiter needs until 2030 at the earliest.  I would expect that even if there became the need for a 150m Jupiter model, it would still be the more rarely used configuration.  It would definitely be the exception to the rule.  (But 2040/2050 are coming, we might need those 150m bays more frequently!  I will likely live to see that.)

To the heart of the matter (and why I registered to say anything at all)....  As a regular non-college grad, voter, taxpayer, Ares/DIRECT both felt to me as a step backwards.  By getting that greater weight to orbit capability, we are sacrificing the whole return from orbit capability.  I understand lifting weight into orbit efficiently is the key to expanding our efforts of human exploration of the solar system.  However the ability to return some of that weight to the ground--which may not have been intended to reenter the atmosphere--will play a key role in future accident investigations.  The way Ares 1/5 stands, it will be a scorched earth policy against launching the shuttle ever again.  Building LC-39C, maintaining say LC-39A to only handle block 10 Jupiters, could allow for 39A to continue to allow a shuttle piggyback on a cargo flight.

The thought I had, save Endeavor (perhaps Atlantis as fallback?).  Strip the SSME's and related hardware out of it.  Basically turn it into the American "Buran."  Considering the current DIRECT 3.0 J-130 is pretty much identical to what is the current shuttle launch config, launch the shuttle empty.  If crew is required, put them up top in the Orion.  Control it from there.  Seems to me that you could always launch it strapped to a cargo config.  According to Wiki, there is already RCO-IFM capabilities in place.  Depending on how long the blackout period is where radio comms are gone, perhaps one pilot might be requried.  Really, the shuttle should remain available for that return from orbit capability.

By my estimate it might only be required once a decade to use this capability.  The ISS might need a bit more return to earth capability, so perhaps it might be as frequent as every few years until that is retired.  (As a taxpayer tho, we've paid so much over so long, we don't even have it finished yet and we're planning on retiring it?  Huh?  There has to be a way to keep the ISS relevant for at least another 10 years.  Perhaps Jupiter is a way to manage that.)

But looking at the current "baseball cards" for the J130 to the ISS orbit (and yes I know that isn't the most current), it is only capable of bringing 66.98kg / 60.82kg (/w 10% margin) to that orbit.  For the shuttle, according to Wiki: "Empty weight: 172,000 lb (78,000 kg)."

That tells me that for some reason either you guys are totally lowballing the numbers, or a basic J130 can't take up an empty shuttle to the ISS.  Its likely the former since the shuttle has been doing exactly that, plus bringing up modules (and supplied to support a crew of 7).

I had a few other things to say, but I guess I've fired off enough ammo for questions to leave it at that.

Varn
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/07/2009 10:09 AM
...
 Do you guys call that sustainable ?
...
Yes, we do call it sustainable. Costs aren't calculated based upon the number of engines or components in an architecture, it is the integration of those components that is where the real impact of the costs lie.

Exactly. For a lunar cargo mission you have to integrate two (2) super-heavy launch stacks from all the components. You have to perform a low energy earth orbit rendezvous and docking (more like berthing IMO but that's beside the point).

For a lunar cargo mission you have double avionics and more than double flight software, and no crew to assist in LEO. Compared to a single Ares V cargo flight - that's not sustainable, in my humble opinion. I have beaten this dead horse to shreds for more than a year now. The dead horse is composed of the following components : NASA should focus on building that lunar outpost, pronto, and then go to significant lunar ISRU under the supervision of resident crews. That's an exploration worth of extra budgets. And that, sir, requires frequent cargo flights to the moon. Which in turn requires as a minimum the Ares V. Propellant depots are great except you have to build them before you do the outpost, and you have to design the whole hoopla around them.


One of the architectures that DIRECT is currently considering is staged-TLI / staged-descent.

Such a cargo mission can land way more payload than a single Ares V launch, and only requires a single Altair, which is the most expensive element of the mission.

That's a worthy payback for the hassles of docking in LEO (which will be automated anyway), and should be a lot cheaper per Kg.

A single-launch Jupiter cargo mission can still land a substantial payload, and may be cheaper per Kg than Ares V cargo.



Quote
NASA should focus on building that lunar outpost, pronto, and then go to significant lunar ISRU under the supervision of resident crews. That's an exploration worth of extra budgets. And that, sir, requires frequent cargo flights to the moon. Which in turn requires as a minimum the Ares V.

Actually, it just requires a lot of mass on the Moon.

DIRECT is much cheaper at doing that, which gets your outpost up and running quicker.

It also offers the possibility to drop a much larger single item on the Moon (maybe 25mT??). There may be no need to do that for a hab module (just guessing).

Is ISRU machinery going to be heavy? Is it going to be less complex (and therefore cheaper) to build an ISRU unit in 25mT chunks than 15mT chunks?



In fact there is another option - 2.5 launch.

Add an EELV-launched Orion onto a two-launch Jupiter cargo stack, and you can land a crew and more-than-14.7mT-of-cargo in a single mission.

That's 2x J-24x + 1x EELV exceeding the capabilities of 2x Ares V + 1x Ares I, for a lot less money.

There are many ways this sort of mission could go wrong, so suspect the LOM figures would be pretty bad, but a scrubbed launch or failed rendezvous of Orion would still allow a "consolation" cargo-only flight.

This probably is one of those times when separating crew from cargo is just the safest way to go. Still, it's a possibility. Maybe makes most sense for a NEO mission - one shot, the cargo you carry with you is all you're ever going to have.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/07/2009 10:28 AM
...
Don't forget that we are also sizing things to take advantage of a propellant depot later on. We don't want to create a new upper stage then. The tankage part of the JUS does not mass all that much so economically, because we have the mass margin to handle it, we're better off making one stage size and under utilizing it for a while than creating and qualifying different size stages. Remember, that was one of the things that the so-called analysis accused us of doing - multiple stage sizes.

Are you going to "gird your loins" and tell the Augustine Commission that in all earnest you would not recommend going forward with a lunar outpost - unless propellant depots are established first ?

No.

I got it, no is no. You are not going to propose going straight to propellant depots - before starting exploration in full - even if your collective heart is with the p.d.


There is no inconsistency here.

DIRECT claims that Ares costs too much to ever get to the stage of flying a Lunar mission. If Jupiter can be delivered within foreseeable budgets / budgets that have historically been available, it can therefore save the Lunar mission from certain cancellation.

Propellant Depots offer the promise of cheaper and massier missions, but are not required to save the whole programme from cancellation.

It can't be denied that PD's require additional development (whether the amount is "Jon Goff" small, or "NASA" large), and they add some risk to the programme.

Getting Jupiter accepted is the important step to "save the Moon".

I suspect this would cause NASA to kick off a whole new study about the best architecture to utilise a 100mT launcher, and PD's may make a dramatic comeback at that point.

It's important to differentiate between DIRECT offering architectural choices - "Jupiter is feasible, see all the different ways that it can be made to work" - and DIRECT demanding unnecessary changes to CxP.

NASA will have done trade studies in far more depth than you or I can achieve. Modify the assumptions and lets see what comes out of a re-run of those studies.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/07/2009 10:44 AM
By comparison would Jupiter be the result if the same team were asked "what's the cheapest that we can lift each kilogram with Shuttle-type hardware"?
To me, the affordable part follows because you are maximizing the payload for the powerplant.  It just seems like it would be a cheaper way to go and I believe the DIRECTheads have made a good case with real numbers.

I think you turned my question about the Ares V programme vs Jupiter into a response about Jupiter.

The fundamental difference between Ares V & Jupiter is the payload-to-LEO requirement.

It would be a hugely persuasive argument in favour of Jupiter if one could claim that Jupiter is the vehicle that NASA themselves would have chosen / designed given "cheap mass to LEO" instead of "maximum single payload to LEO" as their requirement.

My question - is that something that could reasonably be claimed?

It seems to be implied by the "Ares III" / "Ares IV" language in the ISDC presentation, but I'm surprised that DIRECT aren't pushing it with all their might. "NASA chose this design of vehicle, we just shrunk it 50%".

cheers, Martin

PS yes, I'm aware of the LOC rationale for putting crew on a simpler vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/07/2009 11:07 AM
To the heart of the matter (and why I registered to say anything at all)....  As a regular non-college grad, voter, taxpayer, Ares/DIRECT both felt to me as a step backwards.  By getting that greater weight to orbit capability, we are sacrificing the whole return from orbit capability.  I understand lifting weight into orbit efficiently is the key to expanding our efforts of human exploration of the solar system.  However the ability to return some of that weight to the ground--which may not have been intended to reenter the atmosphere--will play a key role in future accident investigations.  The way Ares 1/5 stands, it will be a scorched earth policy against launching the shuttle ever again.  Building LC-39C, maintaining say LC-39A to only handle block 10 Jupiters, could allow for 39A to continue to allow a shuttle piggyback on a cargo flight.

I suspect it would require a massive re-development effort of the Shuttle to make that work.


Quote
The thought I had, save Endeavor (perhaps Atlantis as fallback?).  Strip the SSME's and related hardware out of it.  Basically turn it into the American "Buran."  Considering the current DIRECT 3.0 J-130 is pretty much identical to what is the current shuttle launch config, launch the shuttle empty.  If crew is required, put them up top in the Orion.  Control it from there.  Seems to me that you could always launch it strapped to a cargo config.  According to Wiki, there is already RCO-IFM capabilities in place.  Depending on how long the blackout period is where radio comms are gone, perhaps one pilot might be requried.  Really, the shuttle should remain available for that return from orbit capability.

The only way I can see that working is with a standard Shuttle stack, except the ET has a J-130-style O2 tank and Orion / LAS on top.

Unfortunately, Orion + LAS exceeds Shuttle's cargo capacity (assuming the payload bay is empty), and the shortfall would be even worse if the ET had to be retained through the OMS burn.

Worse still, the ET would shed huge amounts of popcorn (MMOD risk) and would have to be de-orbited, adding yet further mass.

I'd speculate it would be cheaper to create a dumb custom 8.4m "cargo reentry vehicle", and carry it under Orion as payload on a J-130.



"American Buran" implies flying it on top of the launch vehicle. The wings put massive extra sideways stresses on the whole launch vehicle core, and the core loses the ability to cope with those as part of the transition to become the core.

But if Jupiter could launch a "Buran" Shuttle, so could Ares V.



Quote
But looking at the current "baseball cards" for the J130 to the ISS orbit (and yes I know that isn't the most current), it is only capable of bringing 66.98kg / 60.82kg (/w 10% margin) to that orbit.  For the shuttle, according to Wiki: "Empty weight: 172,000 lb (78,000 kg)."

That tells me that for some reason either you guys are totally lowballing the numbers, or a basic J130 can't take up an empty shuttle to the ISS.  Its likely the former since the shuttle has been doing exactly that, plus bringing up modules (and supplied to support a crew of 7).

That's the wrong comparison.

You need to compare the mass of shuttle+ET+payload vs J-130+payload. Also don't forget, Shuttle drops the ET before it reaches orbit, which gives it an advantage.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2009 12:16 PM
...
PS -- Here is a quick teaser for the new cards (same data as the last set, but slightly updated logo's and the "heavy" variants are coming too).

Ross, I am looking at this card (J246-41.4004.10050_CLV_090606.jpg) and this u/s propellant off-load by 57% makes me wonder, gee ... are you sure ?

For a lunar outpost campaign, every second Jupiter will launch with the upper stage more than half empty ?

8x SSMEs, 4x SRBs, 2x 8.4m-cores, 2x WBC/ACES-technology-scaled upper stages (one less than half filled with propellants), 12x RL-10 engines, 2x avionics, LEO docking ... for one (1) cargo load to the moon ? Do you guys call that sustainable ?

Edit: I also wanted to ask you this, why did you omitted the lunar cargo mission description from the ISDC'09 presentation ?

There are a few different things going on.   Let me try to walk you through all of the key thinking which led to this recommendation.

First, our Lunar program begins in "Phase 2" -- Phase 1 being ISS/LEO support with Jupiter-130 and Delta-IV Heavy HR.

In Phase 2, a fairly 'regular' 2-launch architecture needs to essentially lift all the elements, dock them together and go.   One of the key drivers for such an architecture is just how much propellant you can loft inside the EDS, ready for the TLI.   In our 2-launch architecture we aim to maximize that as much as possible by using a dedicated flight just for the EDS, with all the other hardware flying on the other launch.   This means that the size of the EDS is defined by the total amount of propellant needed to complete ascent and also then perform the TLI after loitering for a few days in LEO first.

Now, in order to reduce manufacturing costs, you really don't want to have two different-sized EDS's in production.   You *could* do that, but it would be more expensive and this whole architecture is intended to cut hardware costs as much as possible so that more missions can be afforded instead, so it would be 'against the grain'.

So, the second flight doesn't need a full load of propellant in its Upper Stage because it won't be performing any TLI burns, only the ascent burn.   When calculated, it turns out that the stage only requires roughly half of its total propellant capacity to be filled (the exact percentage changes between J-241, 244, 246 and 247, but all are around half).

This is what you are seeing in the baseball cards.   The same design of Upper Stage is used for both tasks -- to keep costs down -- and the design is optimized to make the most of the more performance-sensitive of the two launches.


But this "baseline" 2-launch Mission Profile is actually intended to be fairly short-lived anyway.

It creates the initial Lunar capability, which is perfectly sufficient for everything we need to do, but which doesn't offer much in the way of potential for significant future improvement.

So the DIRECT architecture proposes that Propellant Depot technologies be developed as soon as can safely & affordably be done.   Once those can be deployed, the DIRECT architecture would then switch from the 2-launch Jupiter solution, and would instead begin to use a 1-launch Jupiter solution, along with an LEO Depot.

The Depot itself would be kept filled by a combination of International Partnership contributions provided in exchange for crew seats/payload mass to the Lunar surface, or by domestic propellant delivery contracts to the commercial operators.   We expect that the split would be roughly 50/50 between these two and are estimating that total demand would be in the 800-1200mT range per year.

In this architecture the EDS, LSAM and CEV would all be launched together on the one flight.   In LEO, the EDS would be re-filled at the Depot and the mission would proceed from there.

The underlying goal here is to reduce NASA's cost per mission, so that more missions can be funded.   Using International Partners to lift valuable resources to LEO is a major contribution, and utilizing commercial operators to continue lifting US propellant requirements is not only ensures the best value for those resources, but also creates a thriving domestic launch market as a very desirable side-effect.

This approach also potentially opens the door to the possibility that an even larger LSAM Descent Module could also be re-filled in at the same time too, thus increasing total Lunar performance for every mission.   With sufficient propellant, a cargo LSAM in the region of 150mT is possible via this "Phase 3" architecture, yet would still be launched (dry) as part of a 1-launch architecture.   No other architecture can get close to that level of performance -- and this is also very Mars-forward.


Also, the Lunar Cargo mission profile was omitted simply because of time constraints.   We still plan such missions, we simply didn't have the Mission Profile drawing ready in time to show!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2009 12:27 PM

That tells me that for some reason either you guys are totally lowballing the numbers, or a basic J130 can't take up an empty shuttle to the ISS.  Its likely the former since the shuttle has been doing exactly that, plus bringing up modules (and supplied to support a crew of 7).

Correct.   We have been low-balling the performance for all Jupiter's.   We want extra margin at every level of the design, development and implementation.   We have been adding additional margin to the hardware designs, the cost profiles and the schedules, all to ensure we don't produce an option which is too 'aggressive' or 'over enthusiastic' in any of those ares.

Over the years most of the members of our team have watched, or even participated in, so many programs which have reached too far, or which have painted a picture that's a little too rosy for reality.   None of us want that to happen this time, so we determined very early on, that our pictures would all need to include plenty of additional margins to protect from unexpected developments, schedule slips and performance shortfalls.

You have successfully identified the added performance margin in your comparison to Shuttle.   Yes, in reality we expect Jupiter's total injection mass to be right around Shuttle's (real expectation is around 83mTto 30x160, 28.5deg).   But right now, we are deliberately low-balling that figure in all of our documentation.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/07/2009 12:30 PM
..........
Edit: I also wanted to ask you this, why did you omitted the lunar cargo mission description from the ISDC'09 presentation ?
There are a few different things going on.   Let me try to walk you through all of the key thinking which led to this recommendation.
..........
Ross.

So what is the proposed configuration for cargo-only lunar missions?  Could a single Jupiter by itself lift an Altair and enough fuel for TLI, assuming the Altair performs the LOI burn?

Dual launch might seem wasteful for cargo-only missions.  If dual launch is required, would it be a Jupiter-1xx and a J-2xx, or would to J-2xx be required?  Two J-2xx would definitely leave DIRECT in line for criticisms of operational cost and higher LOM, even if the savings in development $$ greatly outweighs ops $$.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2009 12:35 PM
So what is the proposed configuration for cargo-only lunar missions?  Could a single Jupiter by itself lift an Altair and enough fuel for TLI, assuming the Altair performs the LOI burn?

Dual launch might seem wasteful for cargo-only missions.  If dual launch is required, would it be a Jupiter-1xx and a J-2xx, or would to J-2xx be required?  Two J-2xx would definitely leave DIRECT in line for criticisms of operational cost and higher LOM, even if the savings in development $$ greatly outweighs ops $$.

We are recommending Dual-Launch for all Phase 2 missions, cargo or crew.   Although it should be noted that we only require a Jupiter-130 to loft the cargo-only LSAM to 130x130nmi, not the full Jupiter-246.   And we are currently trying to find a reasonable way to use a Jupiter-130 for the Crew missions too -- but that is still "in work" at this time.


But as soon as practicable, we intend to 'upgrade' to 1-Launch as soon as the Phase 3 Depot can be implemented.

The Dual-launch Lunar architectures are intended to be used only for a while -- Phase 2 is not the "ultimate goal" for DIRECT.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/07/2009 12:45 PM
So what is the proposed configuration for cargo-only lunar missions?  Could a single Jupiter by itself lift an Altair and enough fuel for TLI, assuming the Altair performs the LOI burn?

Dual launch might seem wasteful for cargo-only missions.  If dual launch is required, would it be a Jupiter-1xx and a J-2xx, or would to J-2xx be required?  Two J-2xx would definitely leave DIRECT in line for criticisms of operational cost and higher LOM, even if the savings in development $$ greatly outweighs ops $$.

We are recommending Dual-Launch for all Phase 2 missions, although we only require a Jupiter-130 to loft the cargo-only LSAM to 130x130nmi, not the full Jupiter-246.

Then, as soon as practicable, we intend to 'upgrade' to 1-Launch as soon as the Phase 3 Depot can be implemented.

The Dual-launch Lunar architectures are intended to be used only for a while -- Phase 2 is not the "ultimate goal" for DIRECT.

Ross.

Thanks Ross.  After I posted that question, I went back and found the D3 lunar cargo mission profile image, "DIRECT_v3.0_Mission_Profile_-_Phase-1_Lunar_Cargo_EOR_090501.jpg".  It shows two J-2xx launches for the cargo flights, launching a 79.7 mT LSAM, with a 38.4 mT landed mass on the Moon.

Would a J-1xx be able to handle the Altair launch at that weight, or would the LSAM and landed mass have to be scaled down?

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2009 01:20 PM
Damn good question Mark!

The Jupiter-130 has sufficient performance to launch that, yes, but not quite enough to launch that *and* then carry the hardware and fuel necessary to also de-orbit the core from circular orbit afterward?   You're talking about 2-3mT of additional mass, and that pushes us over the performance limits of the current Jupiter-130.


So the question then becomes, are you willing to make the LSAM perform a circularization burn on its own and thus allow the Jupiter to inject into a sub-orbital orbit like 30x130nmi?

I personally think the answer should be 'yes'.   Others might disagree.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/07/2009 02:48 PM
Damn good question Mark!

The Jupiter-130 has sufficient performance to launch that, yes, but not quite enough to launch that *and* then carry the hardware and fuel necessary to also de-orbit the core from circular orbit afterward?   You're talking about 2-3mT of additional mass, and that pushes us over the performance limits of the current Jupiter-130.


So the question then becomes, are you willing to make the LSAM perform a circularization burn on its own and thus allow the Jupiter to inject into a sub-orbital orbit like 30x130nmi?

I personally think the answer should be 'yes'.   Others might disagree.

Ross.

Does Pushing SSMEs up from 104.5% to 109% buy you enough to get there?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/07/2009 02:54 PM
I don't see any problems at all with the LSAM doing its own circ burn.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/07/2009 03:34 PM
From the news section:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17353.0

Which links to this article:

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090607/NEWS02/906070319


When Ross last mentioned this the upshot was that even in the dire event of a Jupiter first stage explosion the Orion would stand a measurably better chance of getting away due to the far more benign launch regime of the Jupiter.

Does this latest news affect those assessments?

And what's with Hanley's "Accidents will almost never happen with Ares so it's all good!" routine...?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Varn on 06/07/2009 03:36 PM
"American Buran" implies flying it on top of the launch vehicle. The wings put massive extra sideways stresses on the whole launch vehicle core, and the core loses the ability to cope with those as part of the transition to become the core.

But if Jupiter could launch a "Buran" Shuttle, so could Ares V.

Umm...  Funny thing is, I'm the common non-educated guy here.  The Russians didn't launch the Buran at the top of a rocket stack, they launched it on the side just like we have launched our shuttle.  The main difference was that instead of an ET, they used a main rocket.  Also, instead of using solid rockets for "boosters" they used liquid fueled boosters because their technology in regards to solid rockets were lacking.

I know this kinda info has only just became public knowledge in the last half dozen years, but seriously....

Best part is, depending on what I had heard back on launching an empty shuttle, I was tempted by your idea by using an upper stage fuel tank to help boost the main stage.  (To put the shuttle into orbit in the first place...)  My initial looking around at stats seemed to shoot my idea down, throwing yours in helped keep it alive.  I was even prepared to quote you on it (page 18 of this thread).

Edit: Throw on top of that, previous comments regarding using 3/4 SSME's with them not being centered.  If without extra help those can overcome the off-center thrust, then throw in the SRB's ability to do thrust vectoring.  I'm sure between all those vectoring motors, they could launch with a Shuttle strapped to the side.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/07/2009 03:39 PM
I don't see any problems at all with the LSAM doing its own circ burn.

Danny Deger

If the Jupiter-130 is really that close to doing the job, then I don't have a problem with LSAM doing the circ burn either.  In fact, having Altair do its own circularization burn would seem to be the perfect "test case" for LSAM checkout in orbit.  You wouldn't want the cargo LSAM get all the way to the point of LOI before finding out the descent engine won't light!

That being the case, DIRECT can modify its lunar cargo profile to save the cost of a JUS + SSME.  Of course it's still two-launch and an in-orbit berthing, which will still leave the Ares-V proponents a little ammo for taking potshots.

Alternatively, if there is only a 2-3 mT discrepancy when using the J-130 to launch the cargo LSAM, couldn't you just trim that off of the target cargo mass?  The current DIRECT lunar cargo profile already lands more mass than Ares is planning to, from what I understand.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/07/2009 03:48 PM
Just a thought.  The discussion in this thread of alternative mission profiles using the Direct Architecture reinforces in my mind just how flexible it really is and how well it leverages legacy technologies.

Ross, as you noted earlier flexibility is important... I really believe it is the central point from a technology standpoint.

IMHO

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/07/2009 04:15 PM
And what's with Hanley's "Accidents will almost never happen with Ares so it's all good!" routine...?

Well, optimism isn't illegal, I suppose. :(

The big selling point of Ares-I has always supposed to be that it is so simple, it is near foolproof.  Of course the whole flight dynamics (TO) issue has changed that viewpoint somewhat, at least from the point of view of the actual teams in the trenches.  However, it seems that Mr. Hanley's position is still that the basic Ares-I design is so reliable that there is no significant likelihood of a LOV in any real life scenario.  That is a dangerous delusion.  Crews get killed that way. 

I am beginning to see the Challenger being torn apart by that ET explosion again.  Then I see the remains of the Columbia burning up in the middle atmosphere... All the time, there are siren voices shouting: "Nothing can go wrong with the shuttle! Nothing can go wrong with the shuttle!"

Sometimes, I am afraid that NASA senior management has learnt nothing and, in its collective arrogance, still remains contemptuously dismissive of safety issues.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 06/07/2009 04:49 PM

Best part is, depending on what I had heard back on launching an empty shuttle, I was tempted by your idea by using an upper stage fuel tank to help boost the main stage.  (To put the shuttle into orbit in the first place...)  My initial looking around at stats seemed to shoot my idea down, throwing yours in helped keep it alive.  I was even prepared to quote you on it (page 18 of this thread).

Incidentally, I don't think you removed the mass of the SSMEs when you were estimating. An SSME is about 3.5 mT. So that's 10,500 kg that you need to subtract. Which does bring the weight pretty close to the J-130 payload capability.

Quote
Edit: Throw on top of that, previous comments regarding using 3/4 SSME's with them not being centered.  If without extra help those can overcome the off-center thrust, then throw in the SRB's ability to do thrust vectoring.  I'm sure between all those vectoring motors, they could launch with a Shuttle strapped to the side.

I believe MP99's point was that the transmission of the load to the core(which for Jupiter would be modified to handle in-line loads), becomes as issue. Sure, the TVC can handle the effect on the vehicle as a whole (it does now, quite well), but that doesn't matter if the orbiter gets ripped off of the side. Which means you have to make sure the redesigned core can handle the load transmission from the orbiter, and the axial loads it would experience in a normal case. I'm not an ET guy, so I'm not sure what that would entail, other than maintaining the side mounts. However, you're still compromising the design for what is probably a marginal capability.

The point is, it's probably doable, but if all you're looking to do is preserve downmass, a purpose built module that launches on top of the stack is probably gonna be a much better option. My gut feeling (based off of my "extensive" 11 months of experience in the program) is that you could probably build said module for a heck of a lot less than it would cost to maintain all the necessary orbiter infrastructure.

EDIT: Fixed quotes, added a disclaimer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/07/2009 05:05 PM
And what's with Hanley's "Accidents will almost never happen with Ares so it's all good!" routine...?

Well, optimism isn't illegal, I suppose. :(

The big selling point of Ares-I has always supposed to be that it is so simple, it is near foolproof.  Of course the whole flight dynamics (TO) issue has changed that viewpoint somewhat, at least from the point of view of the actual teams in the trenches.  However, it seems that Mr. Hanley's position is still that the basic Ares-I design is so reliable that there is no significant likelihood of a LOV in any real life scenario.  That is a dangerous delusion.  Crews get killed that way. 

I am beginning to see the Challenger being torn apart by that ET explosion again.  Then I see the remains of the Columbia burning up in the middle atmosphere... All the time, there are siren voices shouting: "Nothing can go wrong with the shuttle! Nothing can go wrong with the shuttle!"

Sometimes, I am afraid that NASA senior management has learnt nothing and, in its collective arrogance, still remains contemptuously dismissive of safety issues.

I wish senior management would re-read their history books. It isn't just NASA that has tried the immortal vehicle argument...

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/187231765_530fd2b403.jpg?v=0)

Unsinkable anyone?




Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/07/2009 06:28 PM
...
 Do you guys call that sustainable ?
...
Yes, we do call it sustainable. Costs aren't calculated based upon the number of engines or components in an architecture, it is the integration of those components that is where the real impact of the costs lie.

Exactly. For a lunar cargo mission you have to integrate two (2) super-heavy launch stacks from all the components. You have to perform a low energy earth orbit rendezvous and docking (more like berthing IMO but that's beside the point).

For a lunar cargo mission you have double avionics and more than double flight software, and no crew to assist in LEO. Compared to a single Ares V cargo flight - that's not sustainable, in my humble opinion. I have beaten this dead horse to shreds for more than a year now. The dead horse is composed of the following components : NASA should focus on building that lunar outpost, pronto, and then go to significant lunar ISRU under the supervision of resident crews. That's an exploration worth of extra budgets. And that, sir, requires frequent cargo flights to the moon. Which in turn requires as a minimum the Ares V. Propellant depots are great except you have to build them before you do the outpost, and you have to design the whole hoopla around them.
Quote
  Obama wants to keep NASA's budget flat at best, and info on L2 suggests that NASA is in for a serious budget deficit after 2010.
If this lunar "adventure" of ESAS and Griffin and VSE is already dead, what makes you believe "Direct" makes any sense at all ? I don't trust the numbers floated here for how much is "Direct" going to cost, those are just projections. Plus or minus 1 or 2 billions is not going to make or break a lunar outpost.



I agree you need an Ares V for that one-shot cargo mission but an original stretched 8.4m SSME Ares V classic from which you can derive a 5-seg stretched 8.4m Ares III as a (CEV + mission module/LSAM) CLV. The current Ares V won't be built until way past 2020 if Ares I is built as well under the new leaner exploration budgets. Ares and Direct will have to meet half-way if all the original VSE goals are to be met (Moon/Lunar Outpost/Mars) within budget and schedule and without needing a propellant depot or excessive flights. Such an architecture could unite the currently competing sections of MSFC, they just have to be told first by the Commission they can't have the current unrealistically expensive Ares I/VII combination. It could be both Direct and an asymmetrical Ares 1.5 solution if compromise and imagination is shown by all the parties for the greater good.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2009 08:10 PM
I hate to say it marsavian, but that isn't an affordable option.

The budgets are going to get pretty tight starting in 2010 and by all accounts we need to start bracing ourselves for even further cuts in the 2015 time-frame too.

That limits our options severely.

The option to build two new launch vehicles -- of any combination -- essentially died when the money originally promised for the VSE failed to turn up.   All we are ever going to realistically get now is one -- and it needs to be as low cost as possible if we are to be able to afford to maximize its use.

I would far rather swap the cost of ten, or even twenty, extra launches for a second launcher.   The launches will always produce results, but the development is really just "make work".

The important key is defining what your requirements are and then building something which meets those aims -- and doesn't go beyond them just for the sakes of "wanting" to.

The current requirements, to me, seem to be (in no particular order):-

1) A significantly safer launch system than Shuttle.   ESAS defined Shuttle as having an LOC around 1:200, and set the bar for any new acceptable system to be at least 1:1000 -- making a 5-times improvement.   That seems reasonable to me.

2) Protect the skilled and experienced workforce from Shuttle.

3) Leverage existing systems in order to lower both the development cost, the operational cost and also the schedule for deployment.

4) Leverage the existing commercial capabilities in order to lower costs and also make them more competitive on the world market.

5) Assist and support the wave of New.Space commercial companies to mature so that they can offer their added capabilities and technologies to the mix.

6) Do not entertain any plans which require the US to abandon the ISS just a few short years after completing it.

7) Be able to provide crew rotation and logistic supplies to ISS as soon as possible after Shuttle has retired.

8 ) Be able to extend the life of the ISS beyond 2020 if the funding allows.

9) Return humans to the Moon by 2020.

10) Send humans to a Near Earth Object somewhere around 2020 -- as opportunities present themselves.

11) Aim to send humans to Mars by 2030.

12) Create a plan which can use serious contributions from International Partners.

13) Utilize NASA as the vehicle which blazes the new trails in space and which creates a new infrastructure beyond Earth.   That infrastructure should consist of stations, bases, depots and resources -- all of which can then become destinations, foundations and highways for commercial operators to exploit in NASA's wake -- And once each step is achieved, NASA should move on to the next most logical one and leave commercial operations to utilize the systems, capabilities and destinations which NASA sets up.   IMHO, that is how to go about creating a much, much larger space industry -- and a much larger space industry would be an extremely good thing for our economic future.

Just my thoughts for why we should be doing all of this.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/07/2009 08:24 PM
It would be only one launcher, a SSME Ares V with upperstage and an Ares V with only 3 engines and no upperstage. Granted it would cost more to develop than Direct 3.0 having 5-seg SRB, five engines and a stretched core, but you get a HLV that could deliver more meaningful cargo payloads with just one launch. You also get a CLV that could do the job of lifting the CEV/LSAM with margin and without a LOM increasing upperstage. It's a better long-term fit for both human/cargo missions IMO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/07/2009 08:36 PM
It would be only one launcher, a SSME Ares V with upperstage and an Ares V with only 3 engines and no upperstage. Granted it would cost more to develop than Direct 3.0 having 5-seg SRB, five engines and a stretched core, but you get a HLV that could deliver more meaningful cargo payloads with just one launch. You also get a CLV that could do the job of lifting the CEV/LSAM with margin and without a LOM increasing upperstage. It's a better long-term fit for both human/cargo missions IMO.

A rose by any other name is still a rose  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bluea on 06/07/2009 09:24 PM
There was a hypothetical modified Jupiter with the Upper Stage consisting of additional fuel piped down across the Core to a fourth SSME that's not connected to the Core's tanks at all mentioned a couple pages back.


If the upper & main tanks were instead cross-plumbed,  would that have the potential of getting the entire main tank (& upper tank) to a stable orbit?

Because that would be a pretty sizable "depot" right there.

IOW: How much additional fuel would a Jupiter Core (either three or four engines) need to lift the main tank, minimal new upper tank and nothing else to a "Stable enough" orbit? (Stable enough to rendezvous with and tug the rest of the way to LEO).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/07/2009 09:54 PM
I don't know much about fuel depots, but couldn't you attach it to the ISS and use it as a manned gas station in space; or are there size constraints? Is the ISS in a good orbit for a depot? I'm sure the large solar arrays would help some way in holding on to propellant.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/07/2009 10:19 PM
The Jupiter core stage, like the shuttle external tank it is derived from, is covered with insulating foam.

The foam is required by the liquid hydrogen fuel.

The foam will "popcorn" with extended exposure to vacuum, and thus will form an expanding debris cloud that will kill the next spacecraft that runs into any part of it.

So far no suggested method of foam control has even approximated the cost of just sending up a custom built version of whatever you wanted to make out of the ET/core in the first place.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/07/2009 10:20 PM
No need for manned operation, it's in an inconvenient orbit and it would be hazardous for the station.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zeke01 on 06/07/2009 10:21 PM
I don't know much about fuel depots, but couldn't you attach it to the ISS and use it as a manned gas station in space; or are there size constraints? Is the ISS in a good orbit for a depot? I'm sure the large solar arrays would help some way in holding on to propellant.
There's a whole thread to this topic.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12338.0

For purposes of getting out of LEO, it would be better to have the depots at lower orbit inclinations than the ISS -- not to mention avoiding any rendezvous mishaps with the station.

Depots can have their own solar arrays to power active cooling equipment to minimize boil off.

zeke
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/07/2009 10:23 PM
By comparison would Jupiter be the result if the same team were asked "what's the cheapest that we can lift each kilogram with Shuttle-type hardware"?
numbers.
I think you turned my question about the Ares V programme vs Jupiter into a response about Jupiter.

The fundamental difference between Ares V & Jupiter is the payload-to-LEO requirement.
M99, Yeah, I stepped over your message.  Thank you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/07/2009 10:51 PM
The Jupiter core stage, like the shuttle external tank it is derived from, is covered with insulating foam.

The foam is required by the liquid hydrogen fuel.

The foam will "popcorn" with extended exposure to vacuum, and thus will form an expanding debris cloud that will kill the next spacecraft that runs into any part of it.

So far no suggested method of foam control has even approximated the cost of just sending up a custom built version of whatever you wanted to make out of the ET/core in the first place.

A Jupiter core stage masses about 65 tons empty and can hold 700+ tons of propellant. Coincidentally a J-130 can lift 70 tons to orbit, so a J-130 could lift a propellant depot the same size as a core stage. A capacity of 700 tons is enough for a handful of lunar missions and is probably sufficient. So if my calculations are correct launching a propellant depot would be cheap, just one J-130 needed. There's very little to gain from reusing a core stage as a propellant depot and a lot to lose in terms of making development harder and more expensive.


That said, here's a crazy idea: how about removing the insulating foam from the core stage at liftoff? Would enough ice build up in the 2 minutes Jupiter spends in the atmosphere be a problem? The lack of insulation would speed up boiling, but during ascent you want boiling to keep the tank pressurized so that wouldn't be a problem, right?

Insulation removed at launch would not only allow the core stage to be usable in orbit but would also save mass in all missions (replace foam mass with payload mass).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/07/2009 11:00 PM
Quote
Because that would be a pretty sizable "depot" right there.

Refer ZapKitty's post re why this is not feasible. There are other difficulties, too.

An Upper Stage provides a much better basis for design of a depot.



There was a hypothetical modified Jupiter with the Upper Stage consisting of additional fuel piped down across the Core to a fourth SSME that's not connected to the Core's tanks at all mentioned a couple pages back.


If the upper & main tanks were instead cross-plumbed,  would that have the potential of getting the entire main tank (& upper tank) to a stable orbit?


Ross made it plain that cross-connecting an Upper Tank to the core would be a considerable development programme. The tanks require pressurisation to maintain strength during launch, one brief drop in pressure and disaster is inevitable. This is more complex than it seems, when the original rationale was something cheap & simple.



Anyway, J-130 already lifts itself & 71.4mT of payload to 100x100 @ 29 deg, and presumably somewhat less to a higher (more long-term stable) orbit. After this, the core has to be actively de-orbited.

Even J-120 looks like it should be able to lift itself plus some tens of mT of payload to a stable orbit. (NB this my presumption based on J-120 BB card).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/07/2009 11:04 PM
"American Buran" implies flying it on top of the launch vehicle. The wings put massive extra sideways stresses on the whole launch vehicle core, and the core loses the ability to cope with those as part of the transition to become the core.

But if Jupiter could launch a "Buran" Shuttle, so could Ares V.

Umm...  Funny thing is, I'm the common non-educated guy here.  The Russians didn't launch the Buran at the top of a rocket stack, they launched it on the side just like we have launched our shuttle.

Well, you definitely got me there!

I've only been here about a year, and I'm not an insider either, just a programmer with an interest. Dunno why I thought that was how Buran flew - I never really got very interested in the Russian programme. Should have checked before making such a comment, but posted in a hurry.


Quote
Best part is, depending on what I had heard back on launching an empty shuttle, I was tempted by your idea by using an upper stage fuel tank to help boost the main stage.  (To put the shuttle into orbit in the first place...)  My initial looking around at stats seemed to shoot my idea down, throwing yours in helped keep it alive.  I was even prepared to quote you on it (page 18 of this thread).

OK, Thanks.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/07/2009 11:15 PM
More naming stuff, I'm afraid.

Ares III / Ares IV is confusing (seems to imply two different vehicles).

However, how about introducing the J-2xx concept as "Ares IV", and J-1xx as "Ares IV lite".

After that, revert back to standard Jupiter naming for the rest of the presentation.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Hermit on 06/07/2009 11:17 PM
A Jupiter core stage masses about 65 tons empty and can hold 700+ tons of propellant. Coincidentally a J-130 can lift 70 tons to orbit, so a J-130 could lift a propellant depot the same size as a core stage. A capacity of 700 tons is enough for a handful of lunar missions and is probably sufficient. So if my calculations are correct launching a propellant depot would be cheap, just one J-130 needed. There's very little to gain from reusing a core stage as a propellant depot and a lot to lose in terms of making development harder and more expensive.


That said, here's a crazy idea: how about removing the insulating foam from the core stage at liftoff? Would enough ice build up in the 2 minutes Jupiter spends in the atmosphere be a problem? The lack of insulation would speed up boiling, but during ascent you want boiling to keep the tank pressurized so that wouldn't be a problem, right?

Insulation removed at launch would not only allow the core stage to be usable in orbit but would also save mass in all missions (replace foam mass with payload mass).


While it might be possible to launch an empty, modified ET as a payload (sans engines and unnecessary plumbing and modified with the addition of solar panels or whatever) to use as prop. dep. simply removing the insulation from an ET thats used for launch would be unwise. The ET used at launch is usually prefilled with the LOX and LH2 quite a while before launch and that would cause substantial ice buildup and temp/pressure variations inside. LH2 has a rather large coefficient of thermal expansion = not much fun  ;)

Your right- in the 2mins of launch it might not be too much of a problem, but remember that there is a great deal of pre-launch processing that takes place before T=0. Even then, during launch the ET tends to get 'cooked' during ascent due to friction witht he air.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/07/2009 11:50 PM
While it might be possible to launch an empty, modified ET as a payload (sans engines and unnecessary plumbing and modified with the addition of solar panels or whatever) to use as prop. dep. simply removing the insulation from an ET thats used for launch would be unwise. The ET used at launch is usually prefilled with the LOX and LH2 quite a while before launch and that would cause substantial ice buildup and temp/pressure variations inside. LH2 has a rather large coefficient of thermal expansion = not much fun  ;)

Your right- in the 2mins of launch it might not be too much of a problem, but remember that there is a great deal of pre-launch processing that takes place before T=0. Even then, during launch the ET tends to get 'cooked' during ascent due to friction witht he air.

To clarify, my crazy proposal is to have some sort of insulation on the tank while on the pad but remove the insulation sometime between say T-60 seconds and T+1 seconds.

Why would the ET being cooked during launch be a problem?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/07/2009 11:56 PM

Why would the ET being cooked during launch be a problem?

Because it might melt.  It is just aluminum.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Hermit on 06/08/2009 12:04 AM
Hmmm... [deep thought]...
Insulating the ET right up to launch might mitigate the problem, especially since there is no orbiter to endanger. Not sure if the falling ice might yet damage the boosters. It could be possible.

I was thinking that the 'cooking' might over-pressurise the H2 tank.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/08/2009 12:05 AM

Why would the ET being cooked during launch be a problem?

Because it might melt.  It is just aluminum.

Danny Deger

According to http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/114022main_TPS_FS.pdf

"Insulation in the areas of the tank subjected the highest heating is somewhat thickeróbetween 1.5 to 3 inches thick."

That quote confirms that heating during launch is a problem. I withdraw my pre-launch insulation removal proposal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/08/2009 12:12 AM

Why would the ET being cooked during launch be a problem?

Because then the tons of liquid hydrogen being pumped at insane rates into the inferno of the SSME's would start... bubbling.

Bubbling in the feed pipes to the turbopumps.

"Cavitation" would be a technical term for it.

"Impromptu Launch Abort System stress test due to unplanned launch vehicle disassembly." would also do... :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/08/2009 01:55 AM
How about throwing a modified and empty ET on top of a Jupiter130 stack - an ET without the foam insulation which would be a navigational hazard.  An empty uninsulated ET wouldnt have structural issues on ascent, would it?  Also how tall would it be?  Could it be stacked in the current VAB? 

I wonder if crosswinds on this kind of stack would be a problem while on the pad, it would look silly.  Silly ideas are supposed to look silly though  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/08/2009 02:37 AM

snip...

13) Utilize NASA as the vehicle which blazes the new trails in space and which creates a new infrastructure beyond Earth.   That infrastructure should consist of stations, bases, depots and resources -- all of which can then become destinations, foundations and highways for commercial operators to exploit in NASA's wake -- And once each step is achieved, NASA should move on to the next most logical one and leave commercial operations to utilize the systems, capabilities and destinations which NASA sets up.   IMHO, that is how to go about creating a much, much larger space industry -- and a much larger space industry would be an extremely good thing for our economic future.

Just my thoughts for why we should be doing all of this.

Ross.

This last bit sounds right to me, it describes how NASA has the oppurtunity to trail blaze and inspire while at the same time being the catalyst for newSpace exploration and developement, which imho isn't ready and/or is not politically acceptable to the people signing the checks and calling the shots.  Direct is New Spaces best chance.

Now if NASA takes up DIRECT, but doesnt pursue phase 3.  We can all have something to complain about together.  But it should become, as already stated, obvious for its potential cost savings all of the added capability that comes from the investment of laying down PDs and other infrastructure once lunar missions are underway.  The case for phase 3 should be fairly easy to lay down to anybody in the beltway at that point.  Especially if the billions saved by switching to DIRECT in the first place was appealing to them.

Wow this is going to be an interesting year for space.  SpaceX launching thier first F9, STS retirement around the corner(hopefully extended  ;D) and the Augustine Review.  I hope we can look back and call it a good year.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/08/2009 04:12 AM
It is the pivotal yeah indeed. The decisions made over the next 6 months may affect the next 20 or more years.

At least Direct keeps our options open. With it, the possibilities are endless. It can support a more Earth-based exploration in LEO, or it can support the whole Moon, Mars, Beyond deal.

I don't like systems that will set us down one track. I want something that keeps all of the options open.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/08/2009 04:14 AM
What if, in addition to the 109% thrust you fly a "black zone" trajectory and jettison the payload fairing earlier (which you can do if you leave the atmosphere sooner)?  After all, there is no abort re-entry that you have to worry about with just cargo.

Damn good question Mark!

The Jupiter-130 has sufficient performance to launch that, yes, but not quite enough to launch that *and* then carry the hardware and fuel necessary to also de-orbit the core from circular orbit afterward?   You're talking about 2-3mT of additional mass, and that pushes us over the performance limits of the current Jupiter-130.


So the question then becomes, are you willing to make the LSAM perform a circularization burn on its own and thus allow the Jupiter to inject into a sub-orbital orbit like 30x130nmi?

I personally think the answer should be 'yes'.   Others might disagree.

Ross.

Does Pushing SSMEs up from 104.5% to 109% buy you enough to get there?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 09:56 AM
Lab,
PWR don't recommend using 109% thrust, except as an emergency setting in a similar fashion as can be used on Shuttle.   Expectation is that you lose something like 80% of the reliability of the engines -- and that simply isn't desirable, except in emergencies.

Second, the Jupiter's optimum trajectories all appear to be Blackzone Safe by default (I'm sure there are some unusual configurations which might not be, but all the ones we are recommending are safe), so there are no performance advantages to be traded there.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 10:18 AM
For purposes of getting out of LEO, it would be better to have the depots at lower orbit inclinations than the ISS -- not to mention avoiding any rendezvous mishaps with the station.

It all depends on whether you want to include International Partnerships lifting the propellant.   If you do, then you do need to locate the Depot at a higher inclination than 29deg.   51.6deg would allow Russia get involved and the performance penalty for doing so is only around 6-7% out of KSC.   It can be completely compensated for, by simply lofting 6-7% more propellant through the partnerships -- and that's a workable arrangement.


Quote
Depots can have their own solar arrays to power active cooling equipment to minimize boil off.

Correct.   In fact some of the best designs for Depots have a large sunshield deployed all around them thus:

(http://www.thespacereview.com/archive/1127a.jpg)


Such a sunshield could be made from material covered in solar arrays, thus it would have dual-functionality.   Of course, reflectivity is the key for the shield, so maybe not :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 10:29 AM
I don't know much about fuel depots, but couldn't you attach it to the ISS and use it as a manned gas station in space; or are there size constraints? Is the ISS in a good orbit for a depot?

There's an awful lot of danger to ISS crew if you want to park an 800 ton fuel tank on the side, not to mention added danger if you have a high rate of deliveries attempting to dock every few days to keep it filled for a very robust exploration program.

You would be far safer to locate the Depot away from the ISS.   You can still place it into the same orbit as ISS, but just situate it at least 100 miles up- or down-range.   That way, ISS crews could still take a "day trip" out to the Depot if/when it ever needed servicing, but the station itself would never be exposed to any additional dangers.

Also there are issues with some of the more delicate science experiments on the station not being compatible with a station coupled to tanks filled with hundreds of tons of sloshing propellant and continually being knocked about by regular dockings.   Some experiments need the delicate micro-gravity environment not to be disturbed much.   If you integrated the Depot, those experiments essentially become impossible ever afterward.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/08/2009 10:49 AM
There's an awful lot of danger to ISS crew if you want to park an 800 ton fuel tank on the side, not to mention added danger if you have a high rate of deliveries attempting to dock every few days to keep it filled for a very robust exploration program.

(snip)


I think that this is a good argument against the 'LEO Hub' super-space station beloved of some posters.  The environments required for different applications, combined with safety issues, drives up costs and reduces usability.

IMHO, I would say that a minimum of three LEO stations would be needed as a starting point - A 'super-ISS' dedicated research platform, a multi-tank fuel depot (to encourage robust usage) and a LEO Transport hub for docking, maintaining and resupplying lunar surface delivery shuttles, robot tugs and the occasional beyond Earth/Moon MTVs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 11:13 AM
I don't know much about fuel depots, but couldn't you attach it to the ISS and use it as a manned gas station in space; or are there size constraints? Is the ISS in a good orbit for a depot?

There's an awful lot of danger to ISS crew if you want to park an 800 ton fuel tank on the side, not to mention added danger if you have a high rate of deliveries attempting to dock every few days to keep it filled for a very robust exploration program.

You would be far safer to locate the Depot away from the ISS.   You can still place it into the same orbit as ISS, but just situate it at least 100 miles up- or down-range.   That way, ISS crews could still take a "day trip" out to the Depot if/when it ever needed servicing, but the station itself would never be exposed to any additional dangers.

Also there are issues with some of the more delicate science experiments on the station not being compatible with a station coupled to tanks filled with hundreds of tons of sloshing propellant and continually being knocked about by regular dockings.   Some experiments need the delicate micro-gravity environment not to be disturbed much.   If you integrated the Depot, those experiments essentially become impossible ever afterward.

Ross.

I might want to put the depot in a coplanar higher or lower orbit than ISS, "just in case." I'm not sure what a major leak or rupture would do in terms of orbital debris risk. I think LOX and LH2 would disperse rapidly under their own vapor pressure, but I'm not sure about RP-1 and various hypergols. Kerosene in particular might coagulate into something like tarry lumps under vacuum conditions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 11:21 AM
More naming stuff, I'm afraid.

Ares III / Ares IV is confusing (seems to imply two different vehicles).

However, how about introducing the J-2xx concept as "Ares IV", and J-1xx as "Ares IV lite".

After that, revert back to standard Jupiter naming for the rest of the presentation.

cheers, Martin

You are right, and Jupiter 130/Jupiter 246 has the same problem. It's also worth remembering Ares I (zero engines) and Ares V (7 engines) don't mean anything, with regard to the LV configuration, they just commemorate Saturn I and Saturn V, where the roman numerals were a legacy from the Saturn C-1 and C-5 nomenclature, which originally stood for the number of F-1 engines involved. There's really no reason not to call the Jupiter xxx vehicles Ares V-A and Ares V-B. They're not that different from Ares V "Classic" (a.k.a. JS-252H) anyway.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 11:26 AM
It would be only one launcher, a SSME Ares V with upperstage and an Ares V with only 3 engines and no upperstage. Granted it would cost more to develop than Direct 3.0 having 5-seg SRB, five engines and a stretched core, but you get a HLV that could deliver more meaningful cargo payloads with just one launch. You also get a CLV that could do the job of lifting the CEV/LSAM with margin and without a LOM increasing upperstage. It's a better long-term fit for both human/cargo missions IMO.

A rose by any other name is still a rose  ;)

There was never really anything wrong with Ares V "Classic" as far as a going-to-the-moon machine goes. It would have been perfect for a direct-ascent version of Apollo, as a latter-day Saturn C-8. The problem was Ares I was based on some false assumption, including the notion that it could somehow "pay for" 50% of the Ares V development. Instead, it almost doubled it. Ares V "Classic" remains a growth option for Jupiter, if ever needed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 11:49 AM
I'm trying very hard to avoid being antagonistic with this posting, but the name Ares has been earning itself a reputation for delays, technical problems and cost overruns with both the public and also people in the corridors of power in D.C.

I'm not convinced that a close association to that name is desirable.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/08/2009 12:00 PM
Jupiter & Jupiter Heavy then

internally and technically you can deal with the standard naming convention of Jupiter-1XX and 2XX.  Im not sure this is even neccessary though, If I can get that the J-246 is just a J130 with an extra SSME(which the avionics and thrust structure are already designed for in the J-130) and an upper-stage most people can get it.  Even congress-critters.   ;D




Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/08/2009 12:34 PM
no no no! jupiter and jupiter light. the 130 is the special case.

but I think ross is right. for this panel, technical naming convention is not a problem
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/08/2009 12:45 PM
It all depends on whether you want to include International Partnerships lifting the propellant.   If you do, then you do need to locate the Depot at a higher inclination than 29deg.   51.6deg would allow Russia get involved and the performance penalty for doing so is only around 6-7% out of KSC.   

Ross.

Not necessarily.  Russia is getting ready to start launching Soyuz launch vehicles out of Guiana Space Centre, less than 10 miles up the road from the Ariane 5 launch facility.  Russia and the EU are just about the only space-faring nations without suitable low-inclination launch sites on their homelands.  If they can launch from Guiana, then everybody has a reasonable launch site from which to reach a low-inclination propellant depot or perhaps even a near-equatorial depot.

Russia wants to reduce its dependency on Baikonur Cosmodrome because Kazakhstan is trying to squeeze them for rent and generally making them nervous about security.  A market for supplying a low-inclination propellant depot would help Russia with the funding and rationale for building up their launch site at Guiana.

Besides, it would be nice to launch more stuff from Guiana or Alcantara and develop one of them into a major international space center, because any space enthusiast who's looked at a map knows that this stretch of South America's Eastern seaboard is a very special location for space launches.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 12:48 PM
I'm trying very hard to avoid being antagonistic with this posting, but the name Ares has been earning itself a reputation for delays, technical problems and cost overruns with both the public and also people in the corridors of power in D.C.

I'm not convinced that a close association to that name is desirable.

Ross.

You may be right. The idea of naming it Ares is to avoid conflict with Ares supporters who might perceive themselves as "losers." I honestly don't think the "public" has noticed or cares at this point, one way or another. Most public reaction is after the fact, in any case. As for the "halls of power," I just don't know. From the outside looking in, most (or at least, the ones who count, such as Nelson, etc.) seem to be Ares supporters. I don't honestly know if nomenclature counts for anything, although I do see a number of people here (who I'd expect to know better) perceiving "two names = two rockets." And there seems to be a conscious deception on the part of Boeing and LM also supported by people here, that Atlas and Delta are both "one rocket each," start to finish, despite the fact that, for example, Atlas V doesn't have much in common with Atlas SM-65. It's probably much too late now for any of that to matter, and we'll know what's going to happen in just a few months.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/08/2009 01:08 PM
My vote would be to distance yourself completely from the Ares name..

If NASA adopts Jupiter and chooses to name it Ares-? to save face.. that's fine.

Right now having only ONE Jupiter name with configuration variants(ala EELVs) makes a lot more sense to me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 01:08 PM
It all depends on whether you want to include International Partnerships lifting the propellant.   If you do, then you do need to locate the Depot at a higher inclination than 29deg.   51.6deg would allow Russia get involved and the performance penalty for doing so is only around 6-7% out of KSC.   

Ross.

Not necessarily.  Russia is getting ready to start launching Soyuz launch vehicles out of Guiana Space Centre, less than 10 miles up the road from the Ariane 5 launch facility.  Russia and the EU are just about the only space-faring nations without suitable low-inclination launch sites on their homelands.  If they can launch from Guiana, then everybody has a reasonable launch site from which to reach a low-inclination propellant depot or perhaps even a near-equatorial depot.

Russia wants to reduce its dependency on Baikonur Cosmodrome because Kazakhstan is trying to squeeze them for rent and generally making them nervous about security.  A market for supplying a low-inclination propellant depot would help Russia with the funding and rationale for building up their launch site at Guiana.

Besides, it would be nice to launch more stuff from Guiana or Alcantara and develop one of them into a major international space center, because any space enthusiast who's looked at a map knows that this stretch of South America's Eastern seaboard is a very special location for space launches.

Russia is building a new spaceport in its far east, just northwest of Japan:

"The Council said that the key program of Russia's space industry (at least as regards ground infrastructure) would be the construction of a space center in the Far East, which will provide Russia with an independent space window. The new space port, called Vostochny, will be built on the sight of a disused military space complex in the Amur region."

High inclination orbits will still be needed to accomodate this spaceport.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/08/2009 01:22 PM
What's the inclination from Japan's launch site.. If you want to keep them in the Depot game?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: John Duncan on 06/08/2009 01:41 PM
How about:

J-130 = Jupiter Launcher Vehicle
J-130H = Augmented Jupiter LV
J-246 = Jupiter Heavy
J-246H = Jupiter Heavy Augmented

Just throwing it out there....  :)







My own suggestion is close to Gregori's (and I thank him for the inspiration):

J-130 becomes just the "Jupiter Launch Vehicle"
J-130H (with 5-seg RSRM) becomes the "Super Jupiter Launch Vehicle"
J-246 becomes the "Jupiter-Plus Launch Vehicle"
J-246H becomes the "Super Jupiter-Plus Launch Vehicle"

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 01:45 PM

snip...

13) Utilize NASA as the vehicle which blazes the new trails in space and which creates a new infrastructure beyond Earth.   That infrastructure should consist of stations, bases, depots and resources -- all of which can then become destinations, foundations and highways for commercial operators to exploit in NASA's wake -- And once each step is achieved, NASA should move on to the next most logical one and leave commercial operations to utilize the systems, capabilities and destinations which NASA sets up.   IMHO, that is how to go about creating a much, much larger space industry -- and a much larger space industry would be an extremely good thing for our economic future.

Just my thoughts for why we should be doing all of this.

Ross.

This last bit sounds right to me, it describes how NASA has the oppurtunity to trail blaze and inspire while at the same time being the catalyst for newSpace exploration and developement, which imho isn't ready and/or is not politically acceptable to the people signing the checks and calling the shots.  Direct is New Spaces best chance.

Now if NASA takes up DIRECT, but doesnt pursue phase 3.  We can all have something to complain about together.  But it should become, as already stated, obvious for its potential cost savings all of the added capability that comes from the investment of laying down PDs and other infrastructure once lunar missions are underway.  The case for phase 3 should be fairly easy to lay down to anybody in the beltway at that point.  Especially if the billions saved by switching to DIRECT in the first place was appealing to them.

Wow this is going to be an interesting year for space.  SpaceX launching thier first F9, STS retirement around the corner(hopefully extended  ;D) and the Augustine Review.  I hope we can look back and call it a good year.




While I agree both with Ross's original posting and this one, I get this uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach that Werner Von Braun was thinking the same thought when he endorsed LOR instead of EOR/Tankage.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/08/2009 03:08 PM
Ross,

From the MLAS Thread about the problems with the current Ares I LAS:

Quote
I got a little more info on this.   The concern is primarily based around the potential of a large SRB exploding.   It's a small risk, but still exists.

I understand that one of the more likely failure modes in this class of "exploding SRB's" would be if a fairly large chunk of propellant ever came away inside the booster during flight and blocked the nozzle exit -- the resulting overpressure inside the booster would make for a very spectacular explosion with lots of heavy steel case fragments flying in every direction -- potentially some towards the Orion.

There are a variety of other failure modes which would cause similar results too, some of which have been seen in other situations such as Titan 34D-9 in 1986, Titan-IVB 403A-K11 in 1993 and the Delta-II D241 in 1997 -- all of which were pretty spectacular failures due to the SRB.

In the case of an exploding SRB, the resulting shrapnel would be high mass and high velocity -- which is a potentially very bad situation for any spacecraft/crew still in the near proximity.

Worse than that though, is the fact that with a solid there is essentially no reliable way to detect these problems and activate the escape system before the booster explodes.   Thus in some of those scenario's, the LAS would only be activated only after the explosion has already occurred.

When liquid engines 'let go', they almost always tends to do so in a much more progressive manner -- with vibrations and over-pressurization detectable throughout the structure ahead of the 'big show'.   Those early signs of problems allow for activation of the escape system precious tenths of seconds, or even whole seconds early -- which means the crew are already moving rapidly away from the vehicle before it explodes.

USAF are expressing valid concerns, but there isn't much anyone can do about it without placing a physical protective barrier between the launcher and the crew spacecraft.   Ares-I has not got any spare performance to allow such equipment to be carried though.

It sounds like this is an issue inherent to all vehicles using SRBs, not just Ares I. Does Jupiter protect against these failure modes? As was hinted at the end, with the extra performance Jupiter allows, I assume it would be possible to beef-up the boost protection cover that protects the vehicle during launch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 03:19 PM
What's the inclination from Japan's launch site.. If you want to keep them in the Depot game?

Japan's Tanegashima is around 30.4deg.
Europe's Kourou is around 5.2deg.
China's Jiuquan is around 41.1deg.
China's Xichang is around 28.0deg.
India's Sriharikota is around 13.7deg.

I believe that all are capable of launching to an ISS-compatible 51.6deg inclination.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 03:24 PM
While I agree both with Ross's original posting and this one, I get this uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach that Werner Von Braun was thinking the same thought when he endorsed LOR instead of EOR/Tankage.

I'm sure that was the case.

Depot technology simply couldn't be deployed by the end of the decade in order to meet President Kennedy's vision, so he had no choice but to take a short cut.

I have seen documentation which indicates that Apollo 26 was provisionally being planned as the first 2-launch architecture utilizing a Depot and deploying a much larger Lunar Lander.

Von Braun knew Depot technology was the way to open up exploration of the whole solar system.   He just never got the opportunity to implement it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 03:28 PM
Ross,

From the MLAS Thread about the problems with the current Ares I LAS:

Quote
I got a little more info on this.   The concern is primarily based around the potential of a large SRB exploding.   It's a small risk, but still exists.

I understand that one of the more likely failure modes in this class of "exploding SRB's" would be if a fairly large chunk of propellant ever came away inside the booster during flight and blocked the nozzle exit -- the resulting overpressure inside the booster would make for a very spectacular explosion with lots of heavy steel case fragments flying in every direction -- potentially some towards the Orion.

There are a variety of other failure modes which would cause similar results too, some of which have been seen in other situations such as Titan 34D-9 in 1986, Titan-IVB 403A-K11 in 1993 and the Delta-II D241 in 1997 -- all of which were pretty spectacular failures due to the SRB.

In the case of an exploding SRB, the resulting shrapnel would be high mass and high velocity -- which is a potentially very bad situation for any spacecraft/crew still in the near proximity.

Worse than that though, is the fact that with a solid there is essentially no reliable way to detect these problems and activate the escape system before the booster explodes.   Thus in some of those scenario's, the LAS would only be activated only after the explosion has already occurred.

When liquid engines 'let go', they almost always tends to do so in a much more progressive manner -- with vibrations and over-pressurization detectable throughout the structure ahead of the 'big show'.   Those early signs of problems allow for activation of the escape system precious tenths of seconds, or even whole seconds early -- which means the crew are already moving rapidly away from the vehicle before it explodes.

USAF are expressing valid concerns, but there isn't much anyone can do about it without placing a physical protective barrier between the launcher and the crew spacecraft.   Ares-I has not got any spare performance to allow such equipment to be carried though.

It sounds like this is an issue inherent to all vehicles using SRBs, not just Ares I. Does Jupiter protect against these failure modes? As was hinted at the end, with the extra performance Jupiter allows, I assume it would be possible to beef-up the boost protection cover that protects the vehicle during launch.


Ah Yes, a little bit of history.  Von Braun never trusted SRB's and that is the primary reason he insisted that the saturn V 1st stage be liquid despite a lot of pressure for a quick and dirty solution. But the past is past and we have 20 years worth of safety in the Shuttle SRB as long as manufacturing vigilance continues.

It amuses me that the USAF is concerned given that they wanted to use SRBs as part of their military Gemini program.

This is all the more reason to leave the SRB's at 4 segments for a long time until a 5 segment is thoroughly tested or used only for cargo.  Ah, who needs it with the current Jupiter performance.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/08/2009 03:30 PM
It all depends on whether you want to include International Partnerships lifting the propellant.   If you do, then you do need to locate the Depot at a higher inclination than 29deg.   51.6deg would allow Russia get involved and the performance penalty for doing so is only around 6-7% out of KSC.   It can be completely compensated for, by simply lofting 6-7% more propellant through the partnerships -- and that's a workable arrangement.

Yeah.  41ish degrees would give you everything except for launches from Baikonur.  51.6 would give you pretty much everyone.  I think I had a blog post about some of these issues a few years back.

Quote
Correct.   In fact some of the best designs for Depots have a large sunshield deployed all around them thus:

Such a sunshield could be made from material covered in solar arrays, thus it would have dual-functionality.   Of course, reflectivity is the key for the shield, so maybe not :)

Yeah, you actually don't want the solar arrays near the sunshield.  It doesn't work thermally.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 03:32 PM
While I agree both with Ross's original posting and this one, I get this uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach that Werner Von Braun was thinking the same thought when he endorsed LOR instead of EOR/Tankage.

I'm sure that was the case.

Depot technology simply couldn't be deployed by the end of the decade in order to meet President Kennedy's vision, so he had no choice but to take a short cut.

I have seen documentation which indicates that Apollo 26 was provisionally being planned as the first 2-launch architecture utilizing a Depot and deploying a much larger Lunar Lander.

Von Braun knew Depot technology was the way to open up exploration of the whole solar system.   He just never got the opportunity to implement it.

Ross.

I'd like to see something more about Apollo 26. Googling "Apollo 26" gets you luggage, mountain bikes, and a male escort in Kansas City! Adding "spacecraft" gets you the history of Goldstone...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ballew on 06/08/2009 03:33 PM
I'm trying very hard to avoid being antagonistic with this posting, but the name Ares has been earning itself a reputation for delays, technical problems and cost overruns with both the public and also people in the corridors of power in D.C.

I'm not convinced that a close association to that name is desirable.

Ross.

You may be right. The idea of naming it Ares is to avoid conflict with Ares supporters who might perceive themselves as "losers." I honestly don't think the "public" has noticed or cares at this point, one way or another. Most public reaction is after the fact, in any case. As for the "halls of power," I just don't know. From the outside looking in, most (or at least, the ones who count, such as Nelson, etc.) seem to be Ares supporters.

Ford never used Edsel or Pinto model names strictly because of negative associations with the names.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 03:43 PM
Ross,

From the MLAS Thread about the problems with the current Ares I LAS:

[SNIP]

It sounds like this is an issue inherent to all vehicles using SRBs, not just Ares I. Does Jupiter protect against these failure modes? As was hinted at the end, with the extra performance Jupiter allows, I assume it would be possible to beef-up the boost protection cover that protects the vehicle during launch.

Yes, it is a concern.   Any time you have the possibility of your vehicle blowing up under you, you really want to implement safety systems to protect you from a 'bad day'.

A long while back on these threads we talked about the possibility of integrating some ballistic shields into the vehicle's design.   I'm still of the opinion that there are two which could make a significant difference for these systems...

Firstly, an 8.4m or 10m diameter ballistic shield integrated into the PLF below the Orion would help to greatly protect the entire crew vehicle in such cases.

Secondly, a smaller 5.0m diameter shield should be integrated immediately between the CM's heatshield and the top of the SM, to help protect the heatshield from anything which might damage it, such as micro-meteoroids coming through the SM or even from damage caused by the SM itself (Apollo 13 explosion).

Specific materials are still open to debate for such a shield, but a composite of Kevlar and Boron Carbide seems fairly light-weight and tough enough for the job.   We could certainly still perform the baseline mission if the weight for both shields were integrated.

We still need a really detailed analysis for just how effective the shield actually is though...   Which is a pretty important factor! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 03:47 PM
I'd like to see something more about Apollo 26. Googling "Apollo 26" gets you luggage, mountain bikes, and a male escort in Kansas City! Adding "spacecraft" gets you the history of Goldstone...

I don't have a copy of the document, it was a hardcopy in a collector's library which I sat and read for an hour, making a few short notes.   I'll try to locate a copy and scan it in for you if I can.   It was fairly rudimentary though, clearly still in its early planning stages.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 03:47 PM
Ross,

From the MLAS Thread about the problems with the current Ares I LAS:

[SNIP]

It sounds like this is an issue inherent to all vehicles using SRBs, not just Ares I. Does Jupiter protect against these failure modes? As was hinted at the end, with the extra performance Jupiter allows, I assume it would be possible to beef-up the boost protection cover that protects the vehicle during launch.

Yes, it is a concern.   Any time you have the possibility of your vehicle blowing up under you, you really want to implement safety systems to protect you from a 'bad day'.

A long while back on these threads we talked about the possibility of integrating some ballistic shields into the vehicle's design.   I'm still of the opinion that there are two which could make a significant difference for these systems...

Firstly, an 8.4m or 10m diameter ballistic shield integrated into the PLF below the Orion would help to greatly protect the entire crew vehicle in such cases.

Secondly, a smaller 5.0m diameter shield should be integrated immediately between the CM's heatshield and the top of the SM, to help protect the heatshield from anything which might damage it, such as micro-meteoroids coming through the SM or even from damage caused by the SM itself (Apollo 13 explosion).

Specific materials are still open to debate for such a shield, but a composite of Kevlar and Boron Carbide seems fairly light-weight and tough enough for the job.   We could certainly still perform the baseline mission if the weight for both shields were integrated.

We still need an analysis for how effective the shield actually is though...   Which is a pretty important factor! :)

Ross.

Given the small risk( how small?), is the increase in safety really worth the increase in weight?

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/08/2009 03:54 PM
Hip,
That was true to a point.   But we are now past that point.

The simple fact is that NASA can not take on the proposal from a group perceived as the 'enemy'.

It is up to us to show that we are not an enemy, that we are actually really all part of the same family and that blood is thicker than water.   We need to set aside our differences because in the end, we all have the same objective -- to make the US Space Program the very best it possibly can be.

We can still disagree with CxP's management -- and we do -- but we don't have to turn it into a war of attrition.   There are more professional, less destructive, ways to do this.   As part of a greater family, we're adjusting our position to one of more "tough love" than of "outright hostility".

Ross.

Ross,
Good point reminding people of that.  and yea, you'll probably want to stay away from phrasing and terms that seem to be mocking or belittling NASA and Ares.

I'd recommend sticking with "Safe, Simple, Soon", but use it in this context.
Use it in conclusion, something like, "In Conclusion, we feel we have demonstrated that the Jupiter architecture can deliver a system a robust functional system within current budget constraints.  A system that will truely be, 'Safe, Simple, and Soon'. "

So, you don't seem to be mocking it, or spinning it.  More like, you are trying to deliver on the promise NASA made of "Safe, Simple, and Soon".

Almost as if it were 1966 and the current NASA plans had a high likelyhood of not reaching the Moon by the end of the decade, and you come in and say, "We feel THIS system will get us to the moon by the end of the decade within budget, and truely deliver on JFK's challege to us!"

Just a thought...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 03:54 PM
Given the small risk( how small?), is the increase in safety really worth the increase in weight?

Exactly -- How small is the risk?

We haven't had an SRB explode on Shuttle in 250 uses.   But who's to say that the first incident of it won't be on the 251st use, or the 301st use ?

Whichever crew is flying on that SRB is going to wish they had a ballistic shield.

Jupiter has sufficient performance to implement a protective shield.   A Boron-Carbide/Kevlar sandwich panel isn't all that difficult or costly to manufacture.

It would seem to me to be a real shame to lose a crew when you had the option to include a low-cost protection measure and just chose not to implement it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 03:57 PM
Given the small risk( how small?), is the increase in safety really worth the increase in weight?

Exactly -- How small is the risk?

We haven't had an SRB explode on Shuttle in 250 uses.   But who's to say that the first incident of it won't be on the 251st use, or the 301st use ?

Whichever crew is flying on that SRB is going to wish they had a ballistic shield.

Ross.

Amen!!!!

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/08/2009 04:01 PM
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"
No no no...but close. It is wanton of something more at the end.

(not to go back to the name debate, but heck, you 'invited it') ;)

How about:

"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to a Flexible and Sustainable Architecture"

EDIT: or better yet:

"Direct -- One Rocket, One Vision"

How about, "Ross Tierney...a boy and his rocket..."?

;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SimonFD on 06/08/2009 04:08 PM
Sorry for continuing the naming thread but this just occured to me.......
Why not hide all the individual config details behind a monicker based on destination.

eg

Jupiter LEO
Jupiter Lunar
Jupiter Mars
Jupiter <insert NEO name here>

etc etc
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/08/2009 04:12 PM
Given the small risk( how small?), is the increase in safety really worth the increase in weight?

Stan

Only if you have a launch vehicle that doesn't already have a negative mass margin.. ;) 

When you have lots of positive margin you can easily afford such saftey items.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/08/2009 04:12 PM

Not necessarily.  Russia is getting ready to start launching Soyuz launch vehicles out of Guiana Space Centre, less than 10 miles up the road from the Ariane 5 launch facility.

It isn't Russia, it is a Russian company.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/08/2009 04:14 PM
Given the small risk( how small?), is the increase in safety really worth the increase in weight?

Exactly -- How small is the risk?

We haven't had an SRB explode on Shuttle in 250 uses.   But who's to say that the first incident of it won't be on the 251st use, or the 301st use ?

Whichever crew is flying on that SRB is going to wish they had a ballistic shield.

Jupiter has sufficient performance to implement a protective shield.   A Boron-Carbide/Kevlar sandwich panel isn't all that difficult or costly to manufacture.

It would seem to me to be a real shame to lose a crew when you had the option to include a low-cost protection measure and just chose not to implement it.

Ross.

I agree. What if there is a "bug" within the SRB that just hasn't shown itself yet. A couple years ago, falling foam wasn't regarded as a big deal.

I think if you have the opportunity to increase safety, then you take it. It is the old boy scout saying of "Be Prepared!".

With the 4 seg SRB, while highly highly recommended, I would say protection is not a 100% must.
But I don't think we risk putting a crew on a new 5 seg booster without some form of protection between them and an exploding SRB.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 04:14 PM
The best naming convention I have seen so far is Jupiter and Jupiter/Ganymede (for the Upper Stage).

"Then there was Ganymede, the handsome son of King Tros, whom Jupiter, having taken the form of an eagle, transported to heaven on his back, as poets fabulously tell"
-- Simon Marius, 1614

Seems fairly appropriate to me.

But we aren't changing the naming at this stage.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 04:20 PM
The best naming convention I have seen so far is Jupiter and Jupiter/Ganymede (for the Upper Stage).

"Then there was Ganymede, the handsome son of King Tros, whom Jupiter, having taken the form of an eagle, transported to heaven on his back, as poets fabulously tell"
-- Simon Marius, 1614

Seems fairly appropriate to me.

Ross.

Somebody educated in the classics, I am truly impressed! I vote for the name.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/08/2009 04:21 PM
I think changing the naming convention now would not be a good idea. While the Jupiter/Ganymede idea is cool, it is not the time to start changing things.

After you sit down and read what each number stands for in the Jupiter naming convention, it all makes sense. Just like Atlas V....at first I had no idea what the numbers meant. But once I "RTFM" I understood perfectly.

However, it would be cool to call the upperstage a Ganymede upperstage. I mean, it does need a name. "Jupiter-Upper Stage" doesn't sound too cool.

I think the number of engines on the upperstage could correspond to the name...If you have 6 engines, it is a Ganymede 6 upperstage. If you have 2 engines it is a Ganymede 2 upperstage.

So my vote goes to, stick with the current naming system, but call the upperstage a Ganymede upperstage.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 04:24 PM
The best naming convention I have seen so far is Jupiter and Jupiter/Ganymede (for the Upper Stage).

"Then there was Ganymede, the handsome son of King Tros, whom Jupiter, having taken the form of an eagle, transported to heaven on his back, as poets fabulously tell"
-- Simon Marius, 1614

Seems fairly appropriate to me.

Ross.

Somebody educated in the classics, I am truly impressed! I vote for the name.

Stan

Too many sylables.
Total of 5 max; 3 for the core and 2 for the US.
That will flow off the tongue like gilted honey. It needs to be easy to say, it needs to "flow".

Even though I know we cant use it, the name "Jupiter/Centaur" fits that requirement.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/08/2009 04:34 PM
So when is 3.0 going to the website?  With the panel hearing not far away, it would be great to have a reference out there.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/08/2009 04:43 PM
So when is 3.0 going to the website?  With the panel hearing not far away, it would be great to have a reference out there.

I'm with OV-106.. This needed to happen LAST week! 

While we love having Chuck and Ross on the board.. I'd be happy to have them dissapear if it would speed up website update!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 04:47 PM
I think changing the naming convention now would not be a good idea. While the Jupiter/Ganymede idea is cool, it is not the time to start changing things.

After you sit down and read what each number stands for in the Jupiter naming convention, it all makes sense. Just like Atlas V....at first I had no idea what the numbers meant. But once I "RTFM" I understood perfectly.

However, it would be cool to call the upperstage a Ganymede upperstage. I mean, it does need a name. "Jupiter-Upper Stage" doesn't sound too cool.

I think the number of engines on the upperstage could correspond to the name...If you have 6 engines, it is a Ganymede 6 upperstage. If you have 2 engines it is a Ganymede 2 upperstage.

So my vote goes to, stick with the current naming system, but call the upperstage a Ganymede upperstage.
 

First, 6 syllables is very nice when it is properly balanced 3+3.

Second, Ganymede refers to a class, all Jupiter Upper stages regardless of technical composition.

Third, and most important, Jupiter and Ganymede are already astronomically linked which makes it a natural concept to communicate to the public.

I like Ross's idea.

IMHO

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 06/08/2009 04:55 PM
Quote
"Then there was Ganymede, the handsome son of King Tros, whom Jupiter, having taken the form of an eagle, transported to heaven on his back, as poets fabulously tell"
-- Simon Marius, 1614

...you guys remember what he wanted him for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catamite), right?

Just sayin'...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 05:02 PM
Quote
"Then there was Ganymede, the handsome son of King Tros, whom Jupiter, having taken the form of an eagle, transported to heaven on his back, as poets fabulously tell"
-- Simon Marius, 1614

...you guys remember what he wanted him for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catamite), right?

Just sayin'...

Jupiter wanted everyone, male or female.  So lets just move on.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 05:07 PM
The best naming convention I have seen so far is Jupiter and Jupiter/Ganymede (for the Upper Stage).

"Then there was Ganymede, the handsome son of King Tros, whom Jupiter, having taken the form of an eagle, transported to heaven on his back, as poets fabulously tell"
-- Simon Marius, 1614

Seems fairly appropriate to me.

Ross.

Somebody educated in the classics, I am truly impressed! I vote for the name.

Stan

Too many sylables.
Total of 5 max; 3 for the core and 2 for the US.
That will flow off the tongue like gilted honey. It needs to be easy to say, it needs to "flow".

Even though I know we cant use it, the name "Jupiter/Centaur" fits that requirement.

Given the history of the rocket name "Jupiter," you could call them Juno III and Juno IIIC... There's even a case for retroactive naming! I distinctly remember Explorer I being launched by Jupiter-C and only finding out about the Juno I name from history books. And, of course, Juno II is the LV derived from the original Jupiter... (And, as a kid, knowing about Jupiter and Saturn, I waited in vain for a rocket named Uranus.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 05:10 PM
Quote
"Then there was Ganymede, the handsome son of King Tros, whom Jupiter, having taken the form of an eagle, transported to heaven on his back, as poets fabulously tell"
-- Simon Marius, 1614

...you guys remember what he wanted him for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catamite), right?

Just sayin'...

Jupiter wanted everyone, male or female.  So lets just move on.

Stan

There's always Amalthea (Jupiter's nursemaid)...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/08/2009 05:13 PM
One potential criticism of the emergency blast shield concept is that a bunch of things still have to go correctly after the blast in order to recover the crew.  A blast big enough to require such a shield may pose other problems for the abort system, increasing the probability that the crew survives the blast but dies on impact with the ocean (like Challenger).

For example, can the abort system succeed if a blast knocks the vehicle off its nominal attitude either before the abort motors fire or shortly thereafter?  If the service module is badly damaged in the explosion, will it still be able to separate from the command module before chutes open?

I'm skeptical that launch abort system can work after liftoff, particularly when solid rocket boosters are involved.  I can see it working for a pad abort, and if it's there at liftoff, then it's probably safest not to jettison until outside the atmosphere.  So I'm fine with the idea of a launch abort system that's designed for a transonic engine-out or similarly benign ascent failure.  But it doesn't make sense to design for a more spectacular failure, because chances are, it's not going to be enough if/when that day comes.

I know that the 4-segment SRBs have a remarkable success rate (some might say ominously so) since Challenger.  But I don't think there's a practical abort system that has an excellent chance of saving a crew from an SRB failure (of which Challenger's might be considered relatively mild).  For my money, I'd rather invest in kerolox boosters.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/08/2009 05:17 PM
Are you going to provide any sort of side-by-side crew safety comparison using the methodology you've adopted from NASA?

I can see them accepting the most recent 1:2800 LOC calculation from Ares unless they have a reason to question it.

Of course, with that and unlike them, you'll have to "show your work".  That is one of the down sides of coming from outside of the establishment.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/08/2009 05:20 PM
So when is 3.0 going to the website?  With the panel hearing not far away, it would be great to have a reference out there.

I'm with OV-106.. This needed to happen LAST week! 

While we love having Chuck and Ross on the board.. I'd be happy to have them dissapear if it would speed up website update!

Yeah.  There are people looking for it.  There is a window that is open and is quickly closing, "public" meetings or not.  Given that there is an analysis team, the public meeting is not the most important part of this process.  They need as much detailed technical data as possible, with no expectation that you will get to 'splain it to them.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 05:26 PM
One potential criticism of the emergency blast shield concept is that a bunch of things still have to go correctly after the blast in order to recover the crew.  A blast big enough to require such a shield may pose other problems for the abort system, increasing the probability that the crew survives the blast but dies on impact with the ocean (like Challenger).

For example, can the abort system succeed if a blast knocks the vehicle off its nominal attitude either before the abort motors fire or shortly thereafter?  If the service module is badly damaged in the explosion, will it still be able to separate from the command module before chutes open?

I'm skeptical that launch abort system can work after liftoff, particularly when solid rocket boosters are involved.  I can see it working for a pad abort, and if it's there at liftoff, then it's probably safest not to jettison until outside the atmosphere.  So I'm fine with the idea of a launch abort system that's designed for a transonic engine-out or similarly benign ascent failure.  But it doesn't make sense to design for a more spectacular failure, because chances are, it's not going to be enough if/when that day comes.

I know that the 4-segment SRBs have a remarkable success rate (some might say ominously so) since Challenger.  But I don't think there's a practical abort system that has an excellent chance of saving a crew from an SRB failure (of which Challenger's might be considered relatively mild).  For my money, I'd rather invest in kerolox boosters.

May I suggest the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage.

Please consider this a phase 4 item, after PD we're going to do a lot of flying so I don't want any SRB fireballs.

IMHO

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 05:27 PM
One thing I wonder is, just how safe does a spacecraft have to be? There's nothing to stop you from putting aircraft ejection seats in a capsule (like Vostok and Gemini), alongside the LAS, giving you redundant escape systems.  Ejection seats would save you from recovery chute failure, for example. Add in redundant blast shields (one for each stage and a third for the heat shield) and you still won't have eaten much of Jupiter 130s performance margin. Of course, I imagine at some point the extra safety equipment would begin to pose its own risks to LOC/LOM numbers...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/08/2009 05:44 PM
Ford never used Edsel or Pinto model names strictly because of negative associations with the names.

Ford also expected that the Edsel and the Pinto were going to be the best thing on wheels since the invention of the wheel. And they weren't right either.

I'm thinking about  this great quote:

"Why is there not more thinking in the direction of developing the simplest scheme possible?" -- John C. Houbolt, 1961
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/08/2009 06:28 PM
May I suggest the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage.

IMHO

Stan

Not enough thrust (assuming two boosters).  Each SRB has about three times the thrust of a Falcon 9 first stage (or an Atlas V first stage).  The closest fit would be the Zenit first stage (RD-171), but that's still significantly short on thrust, and then there's that "commie engine" issue that never fails to make me proud to be an American...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: imjeffp on 06/08/2009 06:29 PM
Jupiter LEO
Jupiter Lunar
Jupiter Mars
Jupiter <insert NEO name here>

etc etc

Jupiter Jupiter?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/08/2009 06:36 PM
A quick question:

Roughly how many EELV's flights would be required to top up the Depot with enough propellant for a solo J246 Lunar Mission?

(lets say our EELV is a Delta IV Heavy)








Useable Post-Ascent propellant for J-246 is 99,896 kg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/BaseballCards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090521.pdf). LEO Payload for D-IVH is 22,560 kg (http://ulalaunch.com/docs/product_sheet/DeltaIVProductCardFinal.pdf). I'd say about 4 or 5. Numbers listed are for 130nmi, 29 deg and 220nmi, 28.7 deg circular orbits for the Jupiter and Delta respectively, so take that into account.

Wow, that many?
How do 4-5 D4H flights stack up against a single J130 (assuming a J130 could get into a circularized LEo orbit for dockign with teh depot) cost wise?
Seems like it still might be cheaper To just use a 2nd Jupiter.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 06:39 PM
May I suggest the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage.

IMHO

Stan

Not enough thrust (assuming two boosters).  Each SRB has about three times the thrust of a Falcon 9 first stage (or an Atlas V first stage).  The closest fit would be the Zenit first stage (RD-171), but that's still significantly short on thrust, and then there's that "commie engine" issue that never fails to make me proud to be an American...

Just to keep things straight there's more to it than thrust. The SRB produces 3,100,000 lbs of thrust but it weighs 1,300,000 lbs. That's a T/W ratio of 2.38. The F9 1st stage produces 918,000 lbs of thrust and weighs 716,000 lbs. That's a T/W ratio of 1.28.

So it's correct that it's not enough enough, but there's more to it than simple thrust.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/08/2009 06:55 PM
A quick question:

Roughly how many EELV's flights would be required to top up the Depot with enough propellant for a solo J246 Lunar Mission?

(lets say our EELV is a Delta IV Heavy)








Useable Post-Ascent propellant for J-246 is 99,896 kg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/BaseballCards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090521.pdf). LEO Payload for D-IVH is 22,560 kg (http://ulalaunch.com/docs/product_sheet/DeltaIVProductCardFinal.pdf). I'd say about 4 or 5. Numbers listed are for 130nmi, 29 deg and 220nmi, 28.7 deg circular orbits for the Jupiter and Delta respectively, so take that into account.

Wow, that many?
How do 4-5 D4H flights stack up against a single J130 (assuming a J130 could get into a circularized LEo orbit for dockign with teh depot) cost wise?
Seems like it still might be cheaper To just use a 2nd Jupiter.

4 or 5 assumes 100% of the EELV's payload would be usable prop delivered to the depot.  This is, of course, not even close to the case.  You still need a spacecraft, it needs its own propellant and you still need the tank and the means of transfer.  I think you'd be lucky if 2/3 of the LEO payload ended up being prop transferred to the depot.  So count more like 6 or 8.  I can't see how in the world that could be cheaper than one Jupiter.

This is why the depot-filled-by-smaller-vehicles thing still doesn't make any sense to me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 06:55 PM

Wow, that many?
How do 4-5 D4H flights stack up against a single J130 (assuming a J130 could get into a circularized LEo orbit for dockign with teh depot) cost wise?
Seems like it still might be cheaper To just use a 2nd Jupiter.
 

Thatís not correct. Let me use some ďnotationalĒ numbers, that are not real but make the point.

Letís say that it costs NASA $3 billion dollars to build and launch an empty Jupiter.
Jupiter #1 launches with a $3 billion dollar spacecraft and Jupiter #2 launches with an EDS carrying Propellant valued at $3 million dollars.
Total cost for the 2-launch mission: $9.3 billion dollars.

Now suppose Jupiter #1 launches with a $3 billion dollar spacecraft and meets up with a depot, where it pays 5 TIMES the previous rate for propellant. There is no Jupiter #2 launch.
Total cost for the depot-enabled mission: $7.5 billion dollars.
Total savings by using the depot? $1.8 billion dollars.

The company that filled the depot just walked away with a huge profit because they filled the depot with propellant, which is dirt cheap, using 5-6 dirt cheap rockets, and charged NASA 5x the going rate for ground delivered propellant.

NASA saved $1.8 billion dollars.
Somebody else charged NASA $1.5 billion dollars for propellant they paid $2.5 million for. Sure, they had to pay for their dirt cheap rockets, but itís still a huge bottom-line profit for them.

I donít care how much it cost the depot supplier to fill the depot.
I know, and like, two things:
* I save $1.8 billion dollars on my mission.
* The depot supplier made a killer profit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/08/2009 06:57 PM
A quick question:

Roughly how many EELV's flights would be required to top up the Depot with enough propellant for a solo J246 Lunar Mission?

(lets say our EELV is a Delta IV Heavy)








Useable Post-Ascent propellant for J-246 is 99,896 kg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/BaseballCards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090521.pdf). LEO Payload for D-IVH is 22,560 kg (http://ulalaunch.com/docs/product_sheet/DeltaIVProductCardFinal.pdf). I'd say about 4 or 5. Numbers listed are for 130nmi, 29 deg and 220nmi, 28.7 deg circular orbits for the Jupiter and Delta respectively, so take that into account.

On this same vein...
I'm sure this has already been explored by the direct team, but I am curious.
Currently, the base line for a moon shot is 2 J-246's.  They are working on launching the CSM and LSAM on a J-130, so they only need one JUS for the mission.  Makes sense.  Then, with a propellent depot, Direct can launch the whole CSM/LSAM/JUS (unfueled) stack on a single J-246, for rendezvous with the depot, fueling up, and going to the moon.

But, before there is a dept, could you launch the depot-dependent stack, and have it rendezvous with a fuel tank launched on a J-130 with an OMS sytem.  This way, your docking is a little simpler, as the stack stays in tack, and you are just doing a fueling docking.  Then ullage motors de-orbit the tank and the stack heads off to TLI.
I'm sure this method has been reviewed and rejected, just wondering why the current base-line is superior to it.
Especially if there was a way to fill the JUS by docking the stack (unchanged from launch config) Orion first into a port at the rear of the fuel tank in LEO.  Seems like about as simple of a docking maneuver as you can have then. Nothing flipping or rotating, or coming abreast.
(To tell truth, I've not heard any explain the anticipated method of docking the stack with the depot for single launch depot lunar missions.
Orion's docking ring or some other way?)
Just catching up nice and easy from behind.
You'd have to have the stack rigged with lines to run from Orion's docking ring to the tanks on the empty JUS.

In effect, the J-130 would launch a sinlge use "propellent depot", which would basically be a JUS with an OMS, rear docking ring, ullage motor, and less engines.
 
Doable?

I suppose if you can get the CSM/LSAM launched on a J-130 that would be better because you have the minimum amount of hardware (only 1 JUS and no disposable tank) .  But it -seems- like if you were going to launch two J246's for a non-depot lunar mission, this method would be cheaper (no engines expended on the disposable tank), and require more simple docking maneuvers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: stockman on 06/08/2009 06:58 PM

Letís say that it costs NASA $3 billion dollars to build and launch an empty Jupiter.
Jupiter #1 launches with a $3 billion dollar spacecraft and Jupiter #2 launches with an EDS carrying Propellant valued at $3 million dollars.
Total cost for the 2-launch mission: $9.3 billion dollars.


Just to jump in here... I understand the comparison you are trying for..but for the life of me I don't understand your math in this opening paragraph??

3 billion plus 3 million = 9.3 Billion ??? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 06:59 PM
May I suggest the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage.

IMHO

Stan

Not enough thrust (assuming two boosters).  Each SRB has about three times the thrust of a Falcon 9 first stage (or an Atlas V first stage).  The closest fit would be the Zenit first stage (RD-171), but that's still significantly short on thrust, and then there's that "commie engine" issue that never fails to make me proud to be an American...

As you said assuming two, you could easily fit 6 around the core stage. allowing a 4 booster and a 6 booster depending on payload desired.

And remember Falcon 9 is designed to be fully reusable and is CHEAP.

IMHO

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 07:02 PM

Letís say that it costs NASA $3 billion dollars to build and launch an empty Jupiter.
Jupiter #1 launches with a $3 billion dollar spacecraft and Jupiter #2 launches with an EDS carrying Propellant valued at $3 million dollars.
Total cost for the 2-launch mission: $9.3 billion dollars.


Just to jump in here... I understand the comparison you are trying for..but for the life of me I don't understand your math in this opening paragraph??

3 billion plus 3 million = 9.3 Billion ??? 

Jupiter#1 = $3 billion
Jupiter#2 = $3 billion
Spacecraft on Jupiter #1 = $3 billion
Propellant on Jupiter#2 = $3 million

3 billion + 3 billion + 3 billion + 3 million = 9.3 billion
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 07:03 PM
May I suggest the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage.

IMHO

Stan

Not enough thrust (assuming two boosters).  Each SRB has about three times the thrust of a Falcon 9 first stage (or an Atlas V first stage).  The closest fit would be the Zenit first stage (RD-171), but that's still significantly short on thrust, and then there's that "commie engine" issue that never fails to make me proud to be an American...

Just to keep things straight there's more to it than thrust. The SRB produces 3,100,000 lbs of thrust but it weighs 1,300,000 lbs. That's a T/W ratio of 2.38. The F9 1st stage produces 918,000 lbs of thrust and weighs 716,000 lbs. That's a T/W ratio of 1.28.

So it's correct that it's not enough enough, but there's more to it than simple thrust.

These are valid points and deserve a more detailed review than I can provide right now.  I however do believe that you are underestimating
the thrust and overestimating the weight of the first stage of the Falcon 9.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/08/2009 07:04 PM

1.  As you said assuming two, you could easily fit 6 around the core stage. allowing a 4 booster and a 6 booster depending on payload desired.

2.  And remember Falcon 9 is designed to be fully reusable and is CHEAP.


1.  Too many mods required to existing hardware and facilities

2.  Neither are proven.

Why not Atlas V or Delta IV?   Why Falcon 9?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/08/2009 07:04 PM
6 F9s around a J246 core and upper stage wouldn't even have a 1:1 T/W ratio at liftoff (or it would, but barely so - don't have the latest numbers handy).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kch on 06/08/2009 07:05 PM

Letís say that it costs NASA $3 billion dollars to build and launch an empty Jupiter.
Jupiter #1 launches with a $3 billion dollar spacecraft and Jupiter #2 launches with an EDS carrying Propellant valued at $3 million dollars.
Total cost for the 2-launch mission: $9.3 billion dollars.


Just to jump in here... I understand the comparison you are trying for..but for the life of me I don't understand your math in this opening paragraph??

3 billion plus 3 million = 9.3 Billion ??? 

It should actually be $9.003 billion, as follows:

$3 billion for Jupiter #1
$3 billion for its payload
$3 billion for Jupiter #2
$3 million (i.e., $0.003 billion) for its payload

(decimal points are pesky little things, aren't they?  ;)  )
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/08/2009 07:05 PM
3 billion + 3 billion + 3 billion + 3 million = 9.3 billion

9.003 billion, Chuck.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 07:08 PM
3 billion + 3 billion + 3 billion + 3 million = 9.3 billion

9.003 billion, Chuck.

Told you it was "notational" (grin)
But you get the point.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: stockman on 06/08/2009 07:09 PM

Letís say that it costs NASA $3 billion dollars to build and launch an empty Jupiter.
Jupiter #1 launches with a $3 billion dollar spacecraft and Jupiter #2 launches with an EDS carrying Propellant valued at $3 million dollars.
Total cost for the 2-launch mission: $9.3 billion dollars.


Just to jump in here... I understand the comparison you are trying for..but for the life of me I don't understand your math in this opening paragraph??

3 billion plus 3 million = 9.3 Billion ??? 

It should actually be $9.003 billion, as follows:

$3 billion for Jupiter #1
$3 billion for its payload
$3 billion for Jupiter #2
$3 million (i.e., $0.003 billion) for its payload

(decimal points are pesky little things, aren't they?  ;)  )


Thank you... that adds up in this example now for me... :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/08/2009 07:12 PM
no no no! jupiter and jupiter light. the 130 is the special case.

but I think ross is right. for this panel, technical naming convention is not a problem

I stand corrected.  makes perfect sense in a foward looking architecture, the JL is done to provide a bridge until COTSD and manratedEELVs can service most LEO demands.  Jproper is to facilitate the lunar component of the VSE. 

And later maybe a Jupiter Heavy can be whipped up from the ideas that went into Ares V, VII or X or whatever its upto now (:

So

Jupiter130  = Jupiter Light
Jupiter2XX = Jupiter


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 07:17 PM

1.  As you said assuming two, you could easily fit 6 around the core stage. allowing a 4 booster and a 6 booster depending on payload desired.

2.  And remember Falcon 9 is designed to be fully reusable and is CHEAP.


1.  Too many mods required to existing hardware and facilities

2.  Neither are proven.

Why not Atlas V or Delta IV?   Why Falcon 9?


reply to 1: Maybe

reply to 2: Correct that is why this is a phase 4 item that NASA does not have to pay for until proven by events.

Why Falcon 9 first stage?  It is already planned to be a booster to Falcon 9 heavy in an arrangement similar to the Jupiter Core.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/08/2009 07:22 PM
3 billion + 3 billion + 3 billion + 3 million = 9.3 billion

9.003 billion, Chuck.

Told you it was "notational" (grin)
But you get the point.

Actually, I don't.  Are you actually claiming an empty Jupiter costs $3B to fabricate?  Isn't that about 10 times what you've been claiming all along?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 07:23 PM
no no no! jupiter and jupiter light. the 130 is the special case.

but I think ross is right. for this panel, technical naming convention is not a problem

I stand corrected.  makes perfect sense in a foward looking architecture, the JL is done Jupiter is flown without its upper stage to provide a bridge until COTSD and manrated EELVs can service most LEO demands.  Jproper Jupiter is to facilitate the lunar component of the VSE. 

And later maybe a Jupiter Heavy can be whipped up from the ideas that went into Ares V, VII or X or whatever its upto now (:

In-line markup mine - to facilitate conversations about naming conventions.
Trying to make the Jupiter be understood as ONE rocket, not 2.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 07:24 PM
3 billion + 3 billion + 3 billion + 3 million = 9.3 billion

9.003 billion, Chuck.

Told you it was "notational" (grin)
But you get the point.

Actually, I don't.  Are you actually claiming an empty Jupiter costs $3B to fabricate?  Isn't that about 10 times what you've been claiming all along?

I clearly said the numbers were notational - fictional - to make a point.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 07:34 PM
May I suggest the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage.

IMHO

Stan

Not enough thrust (assuming two boosters).  Each SRB has about three times the thrust of a Falcon 9 first stage (or an Atlas V first stage).  The closest fit would be the Zenit first stage (RD-171), but that's still significantly short on thrust, and then there's that "commie engine" issue that never fails to make me proud to be an American...

Just to keep things straight there's more to it than thrust. The SRB produces 3,100,000 lbs of thrust but it weighs 1,300,000 lbs. That's a T/W ratio of 2.38. The F9 1st stage produces 918,000 lbs of thrust and weighs 716,000 lbs. That's a T/W ratio of 1.28.

So it's correct that it's not enough enough, but there's more to it than simple thrust.

quoting from Base Ball cards:

SRB 1,298,513lb Gross weight, 2,892,649lbf at sea level, vacuum ISP 269.1

From Space X site:
Falcon 9 1st stage, 625,000 lbs gross weight (est.), 1,100,000 lbf at sea level, vacuum ISP 304.

I don't have the code to do a full fledged calculation but I think a Jupiter Core will carry an Orion to orbit safely using it.

Please remember, for now we stick to SRB.  This was future after propellant depot speculation.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/08/2009 07:40 PM
3 billion + 3 billion + 3 billion + 3 million = 9.3 billion

9.003 billion, Chuck.

Told you it was "notational" (grin)
But you get the point.

Actually, I don't.  Are you actually claiming an empty Jupiter costs $3B to fabricate?  Isn't that about 10 times what you've been claiming all along?

I clearly said the numbers were notational - fictional - to make a point.

Okay, but the numbers matter.  If the Jupiters are $3B their cost to deliver payload to LEO is much higher than EELVs, if they are $0.3B, their cost is much lower than EELVs, and that matters as to which strategy is most cost-effective overall.

Notional numbers:

1) 1x Jupiter (gold plated) - 100T Prop - $3B
2) 6x DIV heavy - 100T Prop - $2B
3) 1x Jupiter - 100T Prop - $0.3B

#2 makes more sense than number 1, but not as much as #3.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/08/2009 07:40 PM
So when is 3.0 going to the website?  With the panel hearing not far away, it would be great to have a reference out there.

This probably got lost in the thread so I'll ask it again......
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mike robel on 06/08/2009 08:00 PM
Ford never used Edsel or Pinto model names strictly because of negative associations with the names.

Ford also expected that the Edsel and the Pinto were going to be the best thing on wheels since the invention of the wheel. And they weren't right either.

I'm thinking about  this great quote:

"Why is there not more thinking in the direction of developing the simplest scheme possible?" -- John C. Houbolt, 1961



I prefer Einstein's quote "Make everything as simple as possible, then simplify".  At least it is attributed to einstein.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/08/2009 08:03 PM

1.  reply to 1: Maybe

2.  reply to 2: Correct that is why this is a phase 4 item that NASA does not have to pay for until proven by events.

3.  Why Falcon 9 first stage?  It is already planned to be a booster to Falcon 9 heavy in an arrangement similar to the Jupiter Core.


1.  Not maybe, it is too many

2. NASA would still have to pay for the mods to the F9 which would be like a new vehicle.  It isn't plug and play. 

3.  No they are not in a similar arrangment.  The SRB's lift from the top and liquid boosters lift from the bottom.     But also,  Atlas V or Delta IV cores can be used as boosters. Delta IV has demonstrated it. 

So again, why F9?  Atlas V or Delta IV cores exist and are operating.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jml on 06/08/2009 08:09 PM
The real utility of the propellant depot is in allowing higher flight rates and greater numbers of annual missions than the initial two-launch mission profile, given NASA's exploration budget and existing KSC launch facilities and MSFC, ATK, and P&W manufacturing facilities.

Try these "notational" numbers:

Jupiter #1 = $300 million
Spacecraft on Jupiter #1 = $300 million
Jupiter #2 = $300 million
Propellant delivered to KSC: $3 million
Total Cost: $903 million, all paid by NASA.
Limited to perhaps 6 missions per year (12 J-232 launches)

vs.

Jupiter #1 = $300 million
Spacecraft on Jupiter #1 = $300 million
Propellant delivered to Kazakhstan or French Guiana: $3 million
Soyuz for propellant delivery = $75 million * 5 = $375 million
Total Cost: $978 million (pretty much a wash).
But $378 million paid by international partners in exchange for a seat on the mission, leaving $600 million to be paid by NASA.
Enables perhaps 9-12 missions per year.



Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/08/2009 08:31 PM
4 or 5 assumes 100% of the EELV's payload would be usable prop delivered to the depot.  This is, of course, not even close to the case.  You still need a spacecraft, it needs its own propellant and you still need the tank and the means of transfer.  I think you'd be lucky if 2/3 of the LEO payload ended up being prop transferred to the depot.  So count more like 6 or 8.  I can't see how in the world that could be cheaper than one Jupiter.

This is why the depot-filled-by-smaller-vehicles thing still doesn't make any sense to me.

Let me take a stab at this.  The "right" way to do depots from what I've seen is to combine them with a small prox-ops tug.  You unload almost all of the complex and expensive bits to the tug itself, and the tankers end up being mostly a dumb tank, and a little bit of mostly passive plumbing (plus maybe a few pressure tanks to pressurize the tank so you can do a blow-down transfer).  The tug itself would be refuelable.  You launch the tanker tank into an orbit just outside the stay-away zone for the depot, and have the tug do all the last-mile stuff (and hooking up propellant transfer lines etc).

Done this way, the tug can stay on orbit and be reused dozens or hundreds of times, instead of launching a custom spacecraft each and every time.  Since the tug is only moving the tanker from just outside the bounding box to the depot, and then back into a decaying orbit (and since the tanker weighs very little empty compared to full), you're talking about needing only a few percent of the propellant mass to cover the tanker's propellant needs, the tank, and any other support hardware.

If you do it as a big Soyuz or ATV on the other hand, you'll be lucky to get 2/3 of your launched mass as transferable propellant.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 06/08/2009 08:45 PM
Given the small risk( how small?), is the increase in safety really worth the increase in weight?

Exactly -- How small is the risk?

We haven't had an SRB explode on Shuttle in 250 uses.   But who's to say that the first incident of it won't be on the 251st use, or the 301st use ?

Whichever crew is flying on that SRB is going to wish they had a ballistic shield.

Jupiter has sufficient performance to implement a protective shield.   A Boron-Carbide/Kevlar sandwich panel isn't all that difficult or costly to manufacture.

It would seem to me to be a real shame to lose a crew when you had the option to include a low-cost protection measure and just chose not to implement it.

Ross.

I agree. What if there is a "bug" within the SRB that just hasn't shown itself yet. A couple years ago, falling foam wasn't regarded as a big deal.

I think if you have the opportunity to increase safety, then you take it. It is the old boy scout saying of "Be Prepared!".

With the 4 seg SRB, while highly highly recommended, I would say protection is not a 100% must.
But I don't think we risk putting a crew on a new 5 seg booster without some form of protection between them and an exploding SRB.



just jumping in, to say "we've lost a lot of good people over the past 50+ years because nobody thought it worth while implementing safety features, because the vehicle seemed safe. if Jupiter has the capacity then I say implement. if your not implementing, who wants to be the one delegated to contact the next of kin!"
  This isn't WW2, this is peacetime, and no one should have to fly a vehicle that isn't safe to 200%, when the technology and dollars are there...
   End of Rant....
now I need a sugar fix... off to the donut shop... ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/08/2009 08:52 PM
So when is 3.0 going to the website?  With the panel hearing not far away, it would be great to have a reference out there.

This probably got lost in the thread so I'll ask it again......

I will be very specific. 

With the schedule they are holding to, the analysts are working well ahead of the public presentations.  Any data which could materially affect the outcome should be made public immediately.


Not that this statement isn't reason enough, but having accurate and up to date information on the website would be helpful. You've already made a formal public presentation of Direct 3.0.

Are you folks holding back for some reason other than lack of time?
Is there some reason not to disseminate the Direct 3.0 proposal on the internet just yet?

Getting the updated info out there would seem to be a matter of priority.

If you're lacking for manpower, just ask. Some of us know computers and stuff.  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 08:55 PM
With the schedule they are holding to, the analysts are working well ahead of the public presentations.  Any data which could materially affect the outcome should be made public immediately.

They better wait a little longer because we have not yet even been given a "no later than" date to submit our data to the commission.

We are continuing to prepare our data for submission about 3-5 days prior to our presentation (i.e. around the 12th to 14th June).

I will state right here, right now:

Anything they are analysing right now IS NOT CURRENT DATA.

I really hope that we don't have to go through the wringer with this analysis being based on out-of-date data like happened last time.

If Mike Hawes' team would like to contact me, we can supply him with a "heads up" of the latest data before it is all 'beautified' for the presentation.   info at directlauncher dot com.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/08/2009 08:56 PM
4 or 5 assumes 100% of the EELV's payload would be usable prop delivered to the depot.  This is, of course, not even close to the case.  You still need a spacecraft, it needs its own propellant and you still need the tank and the means of transfer.  I think you'd be lucky if 2/3 of the LEO payload ended up being prop transferred to the depot.  So count more like 6 or 8.  I can't see how in the world that could be cheaper than one Jupiter.

This is why the depot-filled-by-smaller-vehicles thing still doesn't make any sense to me.

Let me take a stab at this.  The "right" way to do depots from what I've seen is to combine them with a small prox-ops tug.  You unload almost all of the complex and expensive bits to the tug itself, and the tankers end up being mostly a dumb tank, and a little bit of mostly passive plumbing (plus maybe a few pressure tanks to pressurize the tank so you can do a blow-down transfer).  The tug itself would be refuelable.  You launch the tanker tank into an orbit just outside the stay-away zone for the depot, and have the tug do all the last-mile stuff (and hooking up propellant transfer lines etc).

Done this way, the tug can stay on orbit and be reused dozens or hundreds of times, instead of launching a custom spacecraft each and every time.  Since the tug is only moving the tanker from just outside the bounding box to the depot, and then back into a decaying orbit (and since the tanker weighs very little empty compared to full), you're talking about needing only a few percent of the propellant mass to cover the tanker's propellant needs, the tank, and any other support hardware.

If you do it as a big Soyuz or ATV on the other hand, you'll be lucky to get 2/3 of your launched mass as transferable propellant.

~Jon

Jon, maybe the tug doesn't need to impart all of the de-orbit delta v.

Just push the empty tank outside of your depot bounding box and deploy a tether terminator device and let gravity take care of it for you. That saves the fuel needed for the tug to go low & slow enough to de-orbit the tank and then climb back to the depot.

As for inclination, I see good reasons for using the precise ISS orbit for the depot, just a few minutes ahead or behind which would allow a low delta v "day trip" from ISS while maintaining a decent distance between the facilities.

This would also avoid crossing orbits, thereby ruling out potential interference. Maneuver to match the precise ISS trajectory at all times -- just hit each point in space a specified number of minutes before or after ISS gets there.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/08/2009 09:02 PM
Useable Post-Ascent propellant for J-246 is 99,896 kg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/BaseballCards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090521.pdf). LEO Payload for D-IVH is 22,560 kg (http://ulalaunch.com/docs/product_sheet/DeltaIVProductCardFinal.pdf). I'd say about 4 or 5. Numbers listed are for 130nmi, 29 deg and 220nmi, 28.7 deg circular orbits for the Jupiter and Delta respectively, so take that into account.

On this same vein...
I'm sure this has already been explored by the direct team, but I am curious.
Currently, the base line for a moon shot is 2 J-246's.  They are working on launching the CSM and LSAM on a J-130, so they only need one JUS for the mission.  Makes sense.  Then, with a propellent depot, Direct can launch the whole CSM/LSAM/JUS (unfueled) stack on a single J-246, for rendezvous with the depot, fueling up, and going to the moon.

But, before there is a dept, could you launch the depot-dependent stack, and have it rendezvous with a fuel tank launched on a J-130 with an OMS sytem.  This way, your docking is a little simpler, as the stack stays in tack, and you are just doing a fueling docking.  Then ullage motors de-orbit the tank and the stack heads off to TLI.

<snipped>

In effect, the J-130 would launch a sinlge use "propellent depot", which would basically be a JUS with an OMS, rear docking ring, ullage motor, and less engines.


Hmm, try it the other way around.

Start with the existing 2x J-246 architecture. The downside of this (the attraction of using J-130 CLV) is that ~15mT of CLV launch capacity remains unused because of limited fuel in the EDS. This is fantastic margin for the early flights.

However, once the standard 2-launch is mature, ~15mT of extra EDS fuel would be able to fully optimise this architecture:-

1) Launch J-246 EDS. (Current plan).

2) Launch a single EELV fuel tanker with maybe 20mT of fuel, rendezvous immediately, and top up the EDS. Thru-TLI mass is now approaching 100mT.

3) Once the EDS is safely re-fuelled, launch a fully-loaded J-246, which can now be pushed through TLI with loads of margin to spare.



3a) This can also be used to augment a single-Jupiter cargo mission. A 20mT fuel boost would give a substantial increase in single-Jupiter thru-TLI mass. (Not the full ~10mT, due to the mass of PT hardware, and not being able to fly a direct-injection profile).



Think of it this way - the EELV lifts a "mini-PD" that has to "loiter" only long enough to rendezvous and transfer. There should be enough extra fuel left over to allow a long EDS loiter period. This would really relax the requirement to launch CLV shortly after CaLV, and allows a long window for the EELV flight.

Residual fuel in the mini-PD could be used for longer duration PD tests.

My thinking is this would make a superb milestone along the way to a full PD and phase 3.

Call it phase 2.5.

cheers, Martin


Edit: actually, presuming the mini-PD is predecessor to a fully-fledged PD, swap (1) & (2), and launch the mini-PD first. Don't launch EDS until the mini-PD checks out OK.

Much less risky than a full PD for early missions, and even if PT fails, crew & Orion / Altair / Lunar payload (most expensive elements of the mission) are still safely on the ground. You might even be able to save the EDS with a second mini-PD launch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 09:04 PM

1.  reply to 1: Maybe

2.  reply to 2: Correct that is why this is a phase 4 item that NASA does not have to pay for until proven by events.

3.  Why Falcon 9 first stage?  It is already planned to be a booster to Falcon 9 heavy in an arrangement similar to the Jupiter Core.


1.  Not maybe, it is too many

2. NASA would still have to pay for the mods to the F9 which would be like a new vehicle.  It isn't plug and play. 

3.  No they are not in a similar arrangment.  The SRB's lift from the top and liquid boosters lift from the bottom.     But also,  Atlas V or Delta IV cores can be used as boosters. Delta IV has demonstrated it. 

So again, why F9?  Atlas V or Delta IV cores exist and are operating.



Okay,  Let me remind you that I was speculating in good  faith and I am willing to wait for the passage of decades to find out the truth.  I remember exactly where I was on July 20, 1969 when Neil armstrong said: Houston, Tranquility Base here... the Eagle has landed.  I will wait another 40 years, if necessary.

reply to 1:  I agree to disagree.

reply to 2: You are correct.  but whatever liquid fueled booster to choose from, cheaper to use one that is proven.

Reply to 3 and new point:  Better a cluster of engines than a single one.  Safer liquid than solid.

IMHO

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/08/2009 09:15 PM
FWIW,

I am impressed by the ability to Direct 3.0 to function well with or without propellant depots, which is a vital characteristic (IMHO) as we do not know how long it shall take to deploy propellant depots.

As soon as depots come on-line, Direct 3.0 transitions and begins to realize substantial leverage and yet in the meantime NASA can still perform interesting and useful missions beyond LEO as we await depot development and deployment.

And of course, the Direct 3.0 budget charts leave money for depot work, something ESAS does not.

In contrast, an all EELV/COTS approach leaves us trapped in LEO until depots come on-line.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 09:39 PM
FWIW,

I am impressed by the ability to Direct 3.0 to function well with or without propellant depots, which is a vital characteristic (IMHO) as we do not know how long it shall take to deploy propellant depots.

As soon as depots come on-line, Direct 3.0 transitions and begins to realize substantial leverage and yet in the meantime NASA can still perform interesting and useful missions beyond LEO as we await depot development and deployment.

And of course, the Direct 3.0 budget charts leave money for depot work, something ESAS does not.

In contrast, an all EELV/COTS approach leaves us trapped in LEO until depots come on-line.

I think you've got it!

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 09:40 PM
I am impressed by the ability to Direct 3.0 to function well with or without propellant depots, which is a vital characteristic (IMHO) as we do not know how long it shall take to deploy propellant depots.

Exactly Bill, you've got it in one.

Cryogenic Propellant Depots are a technology which isn't mature yet and should not be included the critical path to success.

You must implement an architecture which can work without them and can still achieve all your goals.

But then, if/when you do finally get the technology operational, then you can begin using it to expand your horizons considerably.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/08/2009 10:19 PM

reply to 1:  I agree to disagree.


I know it is too many, it is not an opinion
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/08/2009 10:40 PM
Ross,

From the MLAS Thread about the problems with the current Ares I LAS:

Quote
I got a little more info on this.   The concern is primarily based around the potential of a large SRB exploding.   It's a small risk, but still exists.

I understand that one of the more likely failure modes in this class of "exploding SRB's" would be if a fairly large chunk of propellant ever came away inside the booster during flight and blocked the nozzle exit -- the resulting overpressure inside the booster would make for a very spectacular explosion with lots of heavy steel case fragments flying in every direction -- potentially some towards the Orion.
<snipped>


It sounds like this is an issue inherent to all vehicles using SRBs, not just Ares I. Does Jupiter protect against these failure modes? As was hinted at the end, with the extra performance Jupiter allows, I assume it would be possible to beef-up the boost protection cover that protects the vehicle during launch.


I hesitate to mention this (just way too obvious). A pressure relief valve isn't possible?

Is it just that it would be a big development programme?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 10:42 PM

reply to 1:  I agree to disagree.


I know it is too many, it is not an opinion

Look, back in the 60's they were evaluating Saturn I configurations with 4 UA 1207 solid rocket boosters each one of which is loosely comparable to a Falcon 9 first stage by thrust and size.  So I think I'll stand by my earlier statement and let the passage of time decide the issue.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 10:45 PM
Ross,

From the MLAS Thread about the problems with the current Ares I LAS:

Quote
I got a little more info on this.   The concern is primarily based around the potential of a large SRB exploding.   It's a small risk, but still exists.

I understand that one of the more likely failure modes in this class of "exploding SRB's" would be if a fairly large chunk of propellant ever came away inside the booster during flight and blocked the nozzle exit -- the resulting overpressure inside the booster would make for a very spectacular explosion with lots of heavy steel case fragments flying in every direction -- potentially some towards the Orion.
<snipped>


It sounds like this is an issue inherent to all vehicles using SRBs, not just Ares I. Does Jupiter protect against these failure modes? As was hinted at the end, with the extra performance Jupiter allows, I assume it would be possible to beef-up the boost protection cover that protects the vehicle during launch.


I hesitate to mention this (just way too obvious). A pressure relief valve isn't possible?

Is it just that it would be a big development programme?

cheers, Martin

I understand that back in the 60's the USAF man-rated the UA 1205 SRB by arranging to have the top blow in the event of failure.  Would this work now, given better sensors and realtime control systems?

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/08/2009 10:50 PM
A quick question:

Roughly how many EELV's flights would be required to top up the Depot with enough propellant for a solo J246 Lunar Mission?

(lets say our EELV is a Delta IV Heavy)

Useable Post-Ascent propellant for J-246 is 99,896 kg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/BaseballCards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090521.pdf). LEO Payload for D-IVH is 22,560 kg (http://ulalaunch.com/docs/product_sheet/DeltaIVProductCardFinal.pdf). I'd say about 4 or 5. Numbers listed are for 130nmi, 29 deg and 220nmi, 28.7 deg circular orbits for the Jupiter and Delta respectively, so take that into account.

Wow, that many?
How do 4-5 D4H flights stack up against a single J130 (assuming a J130 could get into a circularized LEo orbit for dockign with teh depot) cost wise?
Seems like it still might be cheaper To just use a 2nd Jupiter.

4 or 5 assumes 100% of the EELV's payload would be usable prop delivered to the depot.  This is, of course, not even close to the case.  You still need a spacecraft, it needs its own propellant and you still need the tank and the means of transfer.  I think you'd be lucky if 2/3 of the LEO payload ended up being prop transferred to the depot.  So count more like 6 or 8.  I can't see how in the world that could be cheaper than one Jupiter.

This is why the depot-filled-by-smaller-vehicles thing still doesn't make any sense to me.


One would presume that the "Jupiter EDS" method would be the most efficient way to deliver propellant, ie double the size of the US's tanks (and maybe use an RL-60 engine, if available).

This also gives the advantage that it may be possible to recover some of the residuals (if not required to de-orbit the stage).

Maybe with an ET-style ogive H2 tank on top, it could fly with a very minimal PLF, too (my speculation).

DIRECT have also suggested that fuel tankers may fly with lower margins than a mission carrying a valuable satellite.

There will still be a hit for the fuel transfer hardware, see Jongoff's post re this.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/08/2009 10:54 PM

Look, back in the 60's they were evaluating Saturn I configurations with 4 UA 1207 solid rocket boosters each one of which is loosely comparable to a Falcon 9 first stage by thrust and size.  So I think I'll stand by my earlier statement and let the passage of time decide the issue.


Do you work in the business?   You don't need to cite history.  I didn't say it couldn't be done.  I said it would cost too much to be worth it because the changes to the vehicle and infrastructure are massive. 

Those Saturn I vehicle configurations were not chosen because of the same thing. But back then, there were deeper pockets and sky was the limit.

Rockets are not Legos.  Falcon 9 as a Direct strap on is a non starter.

a.  SRB's are a must.  Direct is a SDLV and therefore requires solids
B.  The F9 can not connect to a shuttle ET. 
C.  Spacex is not a sub contractor to others.  They do not provide hardware to others contractors. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 10:58 PM

Look, back in the 60's they were evaluating Saturn I configurations with 4 UA 1207 solid rocket boosters each one of which is loosely comparable to a Falcon 9 first stage by thrust and size.  So I think I'll stand by my earlier statement and let the passage of time decide the issue.


Do you work in the business?   You don't need to cite history.  I didn't say it couldn't be done.  I said it would cost too much to be worth it because the changes to the vehicle and infrastructure are massive. 

Those Saturn I vehicle configurations were not chosen because of the same thing. But back then, there were deeper pockets and sky was the limit.

Rockets are not Legos.  Falcon 9 as a Direct strap on is a non starter.

a.  SRB's are a must.  Direct is a SDLV and therefore requires solids
B.  The F9 can not connect to a shuttle ET. 
C.  Spacex is not a sub contractor to others.  They do not provide hardware to others contractors. 

Thank you for your input.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 06/08/2009 11:42 PM
Of course, with that and unlike them, you'll have to "show your work".  That is one of the down sides of coming from outside of the establishment.


I'm confused.  Does the Ares camp in NASA not have to "show their work"?  Are they free to make any claims they want about performance, cost and schedule without the basis of the claims being open for scrutiny?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/08/2009 11:53 PM
Of course, with that and unlike them, you'll have to "show your work".  That is one of the down sides of coming from outside of the establishment.


I'm confused.  Does the Ares camp in NASA not have to "show their work"?  Are they free to make any claims they want about performance, cost and schedule without the basis of the claims not being open for scrutiny?


This about sums the situation up.  Things will hopefully change June 17th.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/09/2009 12:02 AM
no no no! jupiter and jupiter light. the 130 is the special case.

but I think ross is right. for this panel, technical naming convention is not a problem

I stand corrected.  makes perfect sense in a foward looking architecture, the JL is done to provide a bridge until COTSD and manratedEELVs can service most LEO demands.  Jproper is to facilitate the lunar component of the VSE. 

And later maybe a Jupiter Heavy can be whipped up from the ideas that went into Ares V, VII or X or whatever its upto now (:

So

Jupiter130  = Jupiter Light
Jupiter2XX = Jupiter


Well I hate to start this up again since it finally seems to have petered out.

But I would like to say that I am surprised and humbled that so many smart people would participate in a conversation about a little suggestion that I made two days ago.  It's been very interesting to see the different directions that people take when given a common starting point.

No more suggestions, I just want to say:  Thanks everyone!

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/09/2009 12:10 AM
The real utility of the propellant depot is in allowing higher flight rates and greater numbers of annual missions than the initial two-launch mission profile, given NASA's exploration budget and existing KSC launch facilities and MSFC, ATK, and P&W manufacturing facilities.

Try these "notational" numbers:

Jupiter #1 = $300 million
Spacecraft on Jupiter #1 = $300 million
Jupiter #2 = $300 million
Propellant delivered to KSC: $3 million
Total Cost: $903 million, all paid by NASA.
Limited to perhaps 6 missions per year (12 J-232 launches)

vs.

Jupiter #1 = $300 million
Spacecraft on Jupiter #1 = $300 million
Propellant delivered to Kazakhstan or French Guiana: $3 million
Soyuz for propellant delivery = $75 million * 5 = $375 million
Total Cost: $978 million (pretty much a wash).
But $378 million paid by international partners in exchange for a seat on the mission, leaving $600 million to be paid by NASA.
Enables perhaps 9-12 missions per year.





Why not launch it on the 1 Jupiter, and then offer seats on the mission for a minimum contribution of say $100 million or something to the propellant Jupiter?
I guess the goal is to try to get the commercial EELV's in on the action, and thus drive down there costs with a market to sell to.
I suppose if the cost is about a wash, then these is that advantage to the EELV's.  Just seems more efficient to be able to do it in one launch, rather than 6 or 8 or however many smaller ones.
*shrug*
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/09/2009 12:16 AM
Soyuz for propellant delivery = $75 million * 5 = $375 million

5 Soyuz could actually place 100T of propellant in a depot?  I think not.  And why do the spacecraft carrying that propellant all cost zero dollars?

How much does 40 Progress missions cost?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/09/2009 12:41 AM


Hmm, try it the other way around.

Start with the existing 2x J-246 architecture. The downside of this (the attraction of using J-130 CLV) is that ~15mT of CLV launch capacity remains unused because of limited fuel in the EDS. This is fantastic margin for the early flights.

However, once the standard 2-launch is mature, ~15mT of extra EDS fuel would be able to fully optimise this architecture:-

1) Launch J-246 EDS. (Current plan).

2) Launch a single EELV fuel tanker with maybe 20mT of fuel, rendezvous immediately, and top up the EDS. Thru-TLI mass is now approaching 100mT.

3) Once the EDS is safely re-fuelled, launch a fully-loaded J-246, which can now be pushed through TLI with loads of margin to spare.



3a) This can also be used to augment a single-Jupiter cargo mission. A 20mT fuel boost would give a substantial increase in single-Jupiter thru-TLI mass. (Not the full ~10mT, due to the mass of PT hardware, and not being able to fly a direct-injection profile).

<snipped>


Seems like you are now introducing more docking and complexity to the mission.

I'm just saying, if you could get a J-130 to launch a disposable tank into LEO (it would need an OMS I imagine to prevent it tumbling or something, and ullage motors to deorbit it) and then rendevous your J-246 stack (CSM/LSM/Empty EDS) as a whole unit with that tank and transfer fuel.
It would basicaly be an EDS without the engines.  I supposed it'd be a poor-man's depot, but could launch on a single J-130 rather than need a bunch of EELV's to fill up.  once the CSM/LSAM/EDS stack docks with it and transferrs the propellent, it deorbits and is disposed of.
Yea, you are kinda throwing the "depot" away every mission, but you are throwing away 5-6+ EELV tanks anyway to fill a depot between Lunar missions.  So would you be any money down?  I dunno, that's why I ask.  Seems like one orbital tank, with a docking rink and whatever is needed to transfer propellents would just be a lot simplier than doing it many times over for the EELV's.
Plus your docking maneuvers are almost no different than the planned Ares docking of the CSM to the rest of the stack.  (Not that Direct's docking plan is undoable or anything, but seems like it's be easier)

So, Pro's:
1 fuel launch vs. several EELV launches
 1 simple docking manuever (assuming the stack can simply rear-dock to the tank...I'm no expert, maybe I'm over simplifying this in my head).
Don't waste a 2nd set of JUS engines.

Con's:
requires a propellent transfer for the lunar mission (although this isn't a cont compared to the depot plan, but vs. the baseline architecture).

Requires that the J-130 can loft the tank into a circular LEO Orbit.  I think ROss said something to the effect that that could be done with 5-seg boosters?  But it's predicated on getting that to work.

I know I hear the phrasing of a single launch architecture with a propellent depot, but that's not really accurate, as it requires multiple successful launches and dockings to fill the depot.
If one of those EELV's malfunctions, then the mission's on hold until a replacement gets there, so it's mission critical that multiple EELV launches are successful.

This way gets it done with one Fuel launch.
Just curious.  There may be some glaring reason it won't/can't work.
But since no one has explained very well how they plant to dock the stack to the depot and fuel up for the later depot "single launch" missions, I don't know what those reasons might be.

:)

Does the stack come abreast of the depot and fuel up side by side?
Is Orion still pointing forward and docks with it's docking ring (the way I was assuming)?
How exactly will this happen?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: alexw on 06/09/2009 01:27 AM

PS -- Here is a quick teaser for the new cards (same data as the last set, but slightly updated logo's and the "heavy" variants are coming too).

Hi, folks,

Fascinating work; Direct 3.0 looks persuasive. Thank you all (especially the anonymous NASA engineers) for your dedication!

One comment about the "baseball cards": the graphs for ascent dynamics look clearly to have been made in Excel, and could be improved considerably in readability. Microsoft's charting style is a dead giveaway of amateurism, and is regard very poorly in scientific work (e.g., see the writings of Edward Tufte, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, or Envisioning Information). I urge you to use a real scientific plotting program that produces proper publication-quality output (e.g., Origin, Matlab, or various free software packages).

If you don't have access to real plotting software (which seems unimaginable given all the engineering expertise in the background), it is possible to improve on Excel's default output:

Omit "chartjunk", that is, ink that is getting in the way of the data:
1. Turn off the grey background color (which does nothing useful)
2. Turn off the horizontal-gridlines entirely, or make them less distracting:

If you think you really need a grid (to pick numerical points from the graph), then use both horizontal and vertical rules, and make them *faint*. Consider how a piece of common graph paper looks from the back side: gridlines visible enough to guide the eye when needed, but do not compete with the actual plotted curve (that is, the *data*, the whole point of the graph).

3. Title legibility: if you print out the "baseball card", you can scarcely read the titles. Try a (finer?) font which works better at small sizes, and increase the point size -- there's plenty of room to expand below the existing title but above the curve (and once you get rid of the grey background and horizontal rules, it won't seem to "overlap".)  Also, add more space between the title and the the units, so they don't run together into one block from a distance.

4. Both axes: completely unreadable except on high zoom. Again, font size needs to be bigger (though I realize you have little room).

5. Horizontal axis is probably time, in seconds, but has no label and no units.

6. The numbers are also written sideways, which is usually a bad idea because the reader has to turn their head. The precise times for each segment (e.g. max-q, or staging) probably aren't that important, so write the numbers horizontally, and reduce the number of labels if needed for room (ie, ticks every 100 seconds, instead of every 50).

7. The "Velocity" plot has two curves; what's the difference between the red and the blue? May need a chart legend  (*inside* the chart, not the way Excel defaults) or just label the curves. Also, when printed out on mono printer, the two colors are indistinguishable. Try using different patterns, e.g. a solid line and a dotted line.

After doing the easy stuff above:
7. Since each triple-stack of plots uses the same horizontal axis, and you are pressed for space, try stacking the plots so that they share the x-axis labels. The y-gridlines (if you add them above) or tickmarks (if not) will align the eye with the numbers. One clear set of labels can be much better than three sets of illegibles.

I'm sure that you folks can fix this up in a manner that works well with your workflow for constructing the presentation, but I also realize that it's easy to snipe from the sidelines.  If you're really pressed manpower and time is short, I suppose that I could fix up the plots if you'd be willing to send the data.

In any case, good luck with the presentation!

-Alex
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/09/2009 01:50 AM
Augustine Committee Website Question About Direct 3  http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php  You have to click the arrow at bottom of page to get to the Direct 3 question.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/09/2009 02:15 AM
One comment about the "baseball cards": the graphs for ascent dynamics look clearly to have been made in Excel, and could be improved considerably in readability. Microsoft's charting style is a dead giveaway of amateurism, and is regard very poorly in scientific work (e.g., see the writings of Edward Tufte, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, or Envisioning Information). I urge you to use a real scientific plotting program that produces proper publication-quality output (e.g., Origin, Matlab, or various free software packages).

If you don't have access to real plotting software (which seems unimaginable given all the engineering expertise in the background), it is possible to improve on Excel's default output:

Switching to a different plotting program may not be worth disrupting the work flow, but the other suggestions, especially choosing a better background color and introducing much more subtle horizontal and vertical grid lines, make sense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/09/2009 02:17 AM
Augustine Committee Website Question About Direct 3  http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php  You have to click the arrow at bottom of page to get to the Direct 3 question.

+1   ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 06/09/2009 02:20 AM

I'm just saying, if you could get a J-130 to launch a disposable tank into LEO ... and then rendevous your J-246 stack ... as a whole unit with that tank and transfer fuel. ...  I supposed it'd be a poor-man's depot, but could launch on a single J-130 rather than need a bunch of EELV's to fill up.  ...  Seems like one orbital tank, with a docking rink and whatever is needed to transfer propellants would just be a lot simplier than doing it many times over for the EELV's.

So, Pro's:
1 fuel launch vs. several EELV launches


I believe the point of this approach is to reduce the cost *to NASA* for making that fuel available for Lunar (etc.) missions.  A market-based approach to keeping that fuel tank full is likely to be less expensive than if NASA were to do everything itself.  Plus, this approach provides a realistic target for the commercial market to hit - still in LEO but helping with greater missions than they could otherwise participate in.  Building the commercial space infrastructure is a worthwhile goal for NASA. 

Quote
I know I hear the phrasing of a single launch architecture with a propellent depot, but that's not really accurate, as it requires multiple successful launches and dockings to fill the depot.
If one of those EELV's malfunctions, then the mission's on hold until a replacement gets there, so it's mission critical that multiple EELV launches are successful.

Not quite true.  If the depot only held one mission's worth of fuel, then the scenario you outline would be a problem.  However, if the depot holds *at least* one EELV's worth of fuel more than would be needed for a NASA mission, then there's no problem.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2009 02:35 AM
NEW TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES (A.K.A. "Baseball Cards")

RELEASE CANDIDATES

44 cards in total, jpg format, in a zip archive.

These include a combination of: J-120, J-130, J-241, J-244, J-246 (both RL-10 versions) and J-247, along with 8.4m & 10m PLF's and also Regular & Heavy variants, with many shown to a variety of different orbits.

These will be going up on the website officially in the next 24 hours in both jpg and also pdf formats.   As often happens, NSF readers get a preview first!

Still to come are the J-130+DHCUS configurations and the really large 12m dia. PLF variants.

Enjoy,

Ross (calling it a night early to get his beauty sleep [and he needs it!] because he's going back on TV again in the morning!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/09/2009 02:50 AM
Augustine Committee Website Question About Direct 3  http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php (http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php)  You have to click the arrow at bottom of page to get to the Direct 3 question.

Everyone needs to go and read these questions, vote on them, and then read the "answered questions"

There is some interesting stuff there.

Great link!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/09/2009 02:55 AM
NEW TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES (A.K.A. "Baseball Cards")

RELEASE CANDIDATES

44 cards in total, jpg format, in a zip archive.

These include a combination of: J-120, J-130, J-241, J-244, J-246 (both RL-10 versions) and J-247, along with 8.4m & 10m PLF's and also Regular & Heavy variants, with many shown to a variety of different orbits.

These will be going up on the website officially in the next 24 hours in both jpg and also pdf formats.   As often happens, NSF readers get a preview first!

Still to come are the J-130+DHCUS configurations and the really large 12m dia. PLF variants.

Enjoy,

Ross (calling it a night early to get his beauty sleep [and he needs it!] because he's going back on TV again in the morning!)

Congrats on landing PBS, good luck!

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 06/09/2009 03:04 AM
NEW TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES (A.K.A. "Baseball Cards")

RELEASE CANDIDATES

44 cards in total, jpg format, in a zip archive.

These include a combination of: J-120, J-130, J-241, J-244, J-246 (both RL-10 versions) and J-247, along with 8.4m & 10m PLF's and also Regular & Heavy variants, with many shown to a variety of different orbits.

These will be going up on the website officially in the next 24 hours in both jpg and also pdf formats.   As often happens, NSF readers get a preview fi