Author Topic: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1  (Read 1228297 times)

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #80 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.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Lancer525

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #81 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


"For some inexplicable reason, everyone seems to want to avoid simple schemes."   -John Houbolt

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #82 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
« Last Edit: 06/02/2009 12:56 am by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline jeff.findley

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 286
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #83 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.
 

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #84 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.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #85 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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #86 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.
JRF

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #87 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!
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Lancer525

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #88 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.



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...
« Last Edit: 06/02/2009 01:08 am by Lancer525 »
"For some inexplicable reason, everyone seems to want to avoid simple schemes."   -John Houbolt

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #89 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!
« Last Edit: 06/02/2009 01:08 am by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #90 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.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #91 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.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #92 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 ...
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #93 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.

Offline kcrick

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 294
  • Connecticut
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 2630
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #94 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
Kevin

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #95 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.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2009 01:34 am by wannamoonbase »
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #96 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.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2009 01:41 am by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #97 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.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2009 01:51 am by Lee Jay »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #98 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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #99 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!  :) 
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1