Quote from: kraisee on 06/06/2009 06:36 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 ?
...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).
Quote from: clongton on 06/06/2009 09:24 pmQuote from: renclod on 06/06/2009 09:21 pmQuote from: clongton on 06/06/2009 09:18 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.
Quote from: renclod on 06/06/2009 09:21 pmQuote from: clongton on 06/06/2009 09:18 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.
Quote from: clongton on 06/06/2009 09:18 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 ?
...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.
Quote from: renclod on 06/06/2009 09:08 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.
... Do you guys call that sustainable ?
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.
Quote from: Marsman on 06/06/2009 09:43 pmQuote from: renclod on 06/06/2009 09:08 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.
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.
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.
1) Huh? Isn't the point of ISRU to reduce the amount of cargo flights...?
Quote from: Marsman on 06/06/2009 11:38 pm1) 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.
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)
Quote from: Captain Kirk on 06/06/2009 03:40 amHere'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.
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!
Quote from: Marsman on 06/06/2009 09:43 pmQuote from: renclod on 06/06/2009 09:08 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.
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.
Quote from: clongton on 06/06/2009 09:24 pmQuote from: renclod on 06/06/2009 09:21 pmQuote from: clongton on 06/06/2009 09:18 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.
Quote from: MP99 on 06/06/2009 07:17 pmBy 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.
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 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.
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).
Quote from: kraisee on 06/06/2009 06:36 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 ?
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).
Quote from: renclod on 06/06/2009 09:08 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.
..........Edit: I also wanted to ask you this, why did you omitted the lunar cargo mission description from the ISDC'09 presentation ?
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 $$ greatly outweighs ops $$.