Author Topic: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1  (Read 1228233 times)

Offline Marsman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • U.S.
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #520 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.

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #521 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.

« Last Edit: 06/06/2009 10:07 pm by Bill White »
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #522 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.


Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #523 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 $$$...

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #524 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...

Offline Marsman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • U.S.
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #525 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.

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #526 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.


Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #527 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.

Offline Gregori

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 195
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #528 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)







Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #529 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. LEO Payload for D-IVH is 22,560 kg. 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.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2009 01:40 am by strangequark »

Offline Captain Kirk

  • Ad Astra
  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Harrisburg, PA
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #530 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.  :(
"Well, as you can see, we have another problem."
 - James T. Kirk, Captain, USS Enterprise

Offline Varn

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #531 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

Online MP99

Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #532 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

Online MP99

Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #533 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

Online MP99

Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #534 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.

Online MP99

Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #535 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
« Last Edit: 06/07/2009 11:08 am by MP99 »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #536 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.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2009 12:31 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #537 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.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2009 12:29 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #538 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.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #539 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.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2009 12:44 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Tags:
 

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