yinzer - 30/8/2006 7:23 PMSome areas to address, in no particular order. Is this the same launch vehicle as LV 24/25 in the ESAS report (page 420)? Is it going to need a support tower to withstand wind loads during rollout? (the Cd for a cylinder is 0.6, the Cd for a flat plate is ~1, pitch seems to be the relevant axis, and it looks like Direct will have more bending loads at it's base than STS).
Can you sketch a rough budget sand-chart and manifest through first lunar flight? It feels like this requires spending a lot of money up front for launch vehicle development and then carrying the subsequent large-ish operating costs during the EDS and LSAM development and shakeout periods when there will be comparatively low flight rates.
kraisee - 1/9/2006 1:24 AMYes, I don't believe "perfection" is achievable in the modern climate of economics and politics.But I think "effective" is possible, and I consider Ares-I and V to be "effective" in their roles."Direct" is a better solution still, and continues to fulfill all of the political objectives too IMNSHO. Ross.
simcosmos - 1/9/2006 11:45 AMQuotekraisee - 1/9/2006 1:24 AMYes, I don't believe "perfection" is achievable in the modern climate of economics and politics.But I think "effective" is possible, and I consider Ares-I and V to be "effective" in their roles."Direct" is a better solution still, and continues to fulfill all of the political objectives too IMNSHO. Ross.At very least, *Direct* should provide a funny Orbiter addon to play with António
braddock - 1/9/2006 5:58 PMShesh, you've already modeled it?
AndyMc - 1/9/2006 8:45 PMGreat stuff António. If only the real ones came as fast! How long until you release some of these 'toys'
AndyMc - 1/9/2006 8:45 PMI've been a bit busy with a few of my own, based on NASA's DRM - http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2002/TM-1998-208834-REV1.pdfSome more details of the add-on: http://www.aovi93.dsl.pipex.com/my_orbiter_addons.htmAnyone working on the Ares V to launch it?
Zachstar - 2/9/2006 3:58 AMWoah SimC that is one beautiful rocket!!I hope you are backing up these like what 20 different models now? Sounds like ALIENS is on the backburner again eh? Keep up the good work!
simcosmos - 4/9/2006 1:49 PMTo end this already loooong post: thanks to Ross for the interesting emails about Direct!
mike robel - 6/9/2006 4:41 AMRoss,I guess I forgot: 3 or 4 SSMEs in the core stage?
mike robel - 6/9/2006 4:41 AMWhy an ATV in your CEV/ATV launch diagram? Why not just a cargo module that the CEV would deliver (or other self-contained space station module)?
kraisee - 5/9/2006 2:16 AMAlso posting this here.
mike robel - 5/9/2006 11:41 PMRoss,I guess I forgot: 3 or 4 SSMEs in the core stage?
Why an ATV in your CEV/ATV launch diagram? Why not just a cargo module that the CEV would deliver (or other self-contained space station module)?
I like the idea, it seems to have minimum change. Agree with Jim that its a little overkill in terms of capacity for the CEV only, but we could orbit some whomping big cargo modules in additon to crew rotations, as well as have high capacity boosters for future projects.
Norm Hartnett - 6/9/2006 1:57 PMQuotekraisee - 5/9/2006 2:16 AMAlso posting this here.Gads, that sure is a good looking vehicle. To bad NASA isn't going to develop it.
I don't think I ever saw a full costing on this. Are you doing one or did I miss it?
Norm Hartnett - 7/9/2006 12:20 PMIf the CEV initial orbit criteria are as they are now you would have a very limited amount of time to get mated and have the SM (presumably much bigger) get your short stack into a safe orbit
Norm Hartnett - 7/9/2006 9:50 AMAnother thing that just popped into my mind. The Apollo capsule docking to the LEM/TLI stack (or the CEV docking to the LSAM/EDS) was a small mass bumping into a big mass. With Direct you have two dockings. A small mass bumping into a slightly bigger mass and then two more almost equal masses bumping into each other. Elastic collisions with near equal masses do not lend themselves to hard docks.
yinzer - 7/9/2006 12:59 PMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 7/9/2006 9:50 AMAnother thing that just popped into my mind. The Apollo capsule docking to the LEM/TLI stack (or the CEV docking to the LSAM/EDS) was a small mass bumping into a big mass. With Direct you have two dockings. A small mass bumping into a slightly bigger mass and then two more almost equal masses bumping into each other. Elastic collisions with near equal masses do not lend themselves to hard docks.Sure they do. The ISS is rapidly approaching the weight of the Shuttle Orbiter, and they dock just fine.
HailColumbia - 7/9/2006 1:23 PMWhat about using the LSAM to perform the burn to a safe orbit while still in the adapter? You would have to redesign the adapter probably, but, as its an imaginary adapter anyway, thats not a big deal. (and of course you would lose precious decent propellent)
rsp1202 - 6/9/2006 8:21 PMI agree; the crew launcher (Ares 1B?) has changed from a sow's ear into a silk purse. (Though I don't know why LM added the little button nose to the LES/boost protective cover.) Now, suggest a clever way of docking the CEV/LSAM to the EDS on the cargo hauler (Ares 1C?), and I'm sold. I also must have missed something: you're saving the Ares V for Mars?
zinfab - 7/9/2006 8:43 PMWould LockMart lunar lander (SUV version 1) would fit in this approach? I really want that lander and this launch vehicle.
rsp1202 - 7/9/2006 6:42 PMRe: Phase 2. It's also risky to trust future viability of offshore supply lines. Producing RD-180's here in the States should be emphasized, unless RS-84 development is pushed.And Ross, I agree the CEV should control docking; using IFR and auto systems is mandatory, especially if the LSAM turns out to be one of the horizontal-design concepts rather than vertical as envisioned in ESAS.
rsp1202 - 8/9/2006 2:29 PMExcellent graphics increase the demand for more. How about putting the Lockheed lunar lander under the shroud.Poor Antonio, working under sweatshop conditions.
mong' - 9/9/2006 5:49 AMpractical, reduced complexity, heavy lifting, direct application for mars missions, a sound approach that would deserve to succeed
lmike - 9/9/2006 8:04 AMQuotemong' - 9/9/2006 5:49 AMpractical, reduced complexity, heavy lifting, direct application for mars missions, a sound approach that would deserve to succeedReduced complexity? No. You have to design the whole Mars bound spacecraft to fit into a launch. Heavy lifting? Nope. 500mt to LEO in one go would be heavy lift. This is not going to work for Mars. Therefore, it's not practical. (edit: better to admit the failure and re-calibrate the architecture)
lmike - 9/9/2006 8:43 AMLow granularity. Too few launches. Brittle (one launch fails the fleet is grounded forever) approach.
lmike - 9/9/2006 9:04 AMQuotemong' - 9/9/2006 5:49 AMpractical, reduced complexity, heavy lifting, direct application for mars missions, a sound approach that would deserve to succeedReduced complexity? No. You have to design the whole Mars bound spacecraft to fit into a launch. Heavy lifting? Nope. 500mt to LEO in one go would be heavy lift. This is not going to work for Mars. Therefore, it's not practical. (edit: better to admit the failure and re-calibrate the architecture)
HailColumbia - 10/9/2006 10:57 PMcould you build a 49T EDS with enough power to do a TLI with just the CEV? (no LSAM)If you can, you could do missions to near earth objects, that you wouldent nessessarily need an LSAM to land on. I am thinking some rudimentary legs with pitons attached to the CEV itself. This is sort of a hillbilly way of doing things, but seems like it would be doable and cheap.
JIS - 11/9/2006 11:32 AMTo understand me correctly before ESAS my favourite SDV was inline configuration with 2xRS-68 under ET and 2x4seg SRBs. But after considering ESAS approach I've changed my mind. Current architecture is better from long term point of view.
Why? What specific things made you change your mind?R.
mike robel - 11/9/2006 8:00 PMRoss, do you percieve changing the ET from a side mount to an inline mount as easy? It requires different structural requirements as well as the development of new plumbing. Or Have I missed this as well in your on line posts?
kraisee - 11/9/2006 10:12 AMJIS, I don't expect them to change at this stage - I do think they are well into the process, and that they have sufficient confidence that their current solution will work, so they have no reason to change.
Norm Hartnett - 11/9/2006 9:00 PMHi Ross,More questions You are suggesting using the RS-68 Regen? I've searched the web and I do not see any indication that this engine has been tested (or built for that matter). I realize that is true for the "disposable" SSME but one of the pluses of Direct is using existing engines initially while the disposable is developed. By switching to the RS-68R don't you lose this advantage? Presumably there is going to be a need to "manrate" the RS-68R further delaying initial ops.
yinzer - 12/9/2006 3:28 PMYup. But there were computer models of the cheaper SSME, you know. I also think that you've hugely underestimated the payload hit; dropping from the 452 seconds specific impulse of the SSME to the 420 seconds of the RS-68 on a stage that has to perform as large of a delta-V as the Direct core stage looks like it should have a payload hit of more like 20 tons rather than 7. The Ares V had to increase tankage volume by 40% to accomodate the change, and the presence of the EDS as a second stage means that the core stage has to do much less work.And if you have to shut down the SSME program in addition to the OPF, and whatever conceptual design tools you are using have grossly underestimated the costs and difficulty of modifications to existing Shuttle hardware, maybe it's a good idea to go back and look at other (EELV) alternatives.
meiza - 12/9/2006 8:57 AMThis is what many people were trying to tell you, that RS-68R was still going to be soo much cheaper than a cheapified SSME.
rumble - 12/9/2006 7:17 PMIf the Ares-V switches to the RS-68 Regen at some point, where would that leave things (re: "optimal configuration" and payload to orbit)?What defines "optimal configuration" as you're describing it?
kraisee - 13/9/2006 12:08 AMIf the VAB is not the limiting factor, and the Core stage could actually be lengthened, the 'sweet spot' actually comes with an even larger Core stage.
kraisee - 12/9/2006 1:58 AMNorm, I originally thought the SSME would be the choice for exactly that reason, but I now understand differently. The same reason why Ares-V went from SSME to RS-68 is what is driving this change: The fact that production is overly complicated, VERY slow output, and highly costly on a per-unit basis. I no longer believe that even the disposable SSME could be manufactured in the quantities necessary to support 6 Direct flights per year (18 units/yr), for a reasonable sum of money.
Jim - 13/9/2006 9:27 AMQuotekraisee - 12/9/2006 1:58 AMNorm, I originally thought the SSME would be the choice for exactly that reason, but I now understand differently. The same reason why Ares-V went from SSME to RS-68 is what is driving this change: The fact that production is overly complicated, VERY slow output, and highly costly on a per-unit basis. I no longer believe that even the disposable SSME could be manufactured in the quantities necessary to support 6 Direct flights per year (18 units/yr), for a reasonable sum of money.When did you have a change of heart on this?
kraisee - 13/9/2006 12:56 PMI'm not planning for DoD to share any of the costs for this though. This is because I see even higher performance than I've assumed here being possible if the nozzle is designed specifically for higher altitude operation, instead of the high SL performance of the current RS-68 nozzle. That sort of change would not offer any benefits to the Delta-IV at all, so I'm making a basic assumption that the Regen is exclusively for Direct, and that Direct picks up all the costs involved in its development.
josh_simonson - 16/9/2006 12:32 AMIf simcosmos uses a standardized template for his Orbiter sims, you'll be able to plug and chug any numbers you want for thrust, isp and fuel capacity to simulate various direct LVs(…)Getting pretty pictures is alot more work than getting performance info out of orbiter.
josh_simonson - 16/9/2006 12:32 AMIn fact any standard 2 stage rocket model can be used for this sim with decent accuracy.
mike robel - 16/9/2006 6:13 PMRoss,Now that you have gone to RS-68s, I don't see much difference between this and Ares V, except that, if I understand things correctly, you are only going to use 2 RS-68s vice 5. In fact, it looks like this alternative (as well as your original concept) was previously evaluated in the ESAS or Atlas Studies. If you don't mind, as I seem to learning impaired following all this, please summarize the differences between Ares V, your original concept, and the Direct/RS-68 Concept.Mike
MKremer - 17/9/2006 10:03 PMThe -68R is almost complete combustion. correct? That would mean shorter visual wavelengths for the exhaust, thus more blue (more like the shuttle SSMEs).
rumble - 17/9/2006 10:42 PMI had always assumed the stock RS-68's flame had that reddish tint (instead of clear w/the blue shock wave thingy like the SSME or J-2) because of the ablative nozzle, but that's only a guess on my part.
Zachstar - 20/9/2006 9:19 PMI hope I diddn't stall the topic.
Zachstar - 20/9/2006 9:19 PM Any ideas about the flame look?
simcosmos - 22/9/2006 6:44 AMFrom this side of the Net I only make Direct updates on Fridays and/or weekend: almost impossible to make Direct related stuff during the regular week now.
The exhaust texture in the LivePics screenie above is just one of Orbiter's default .dds. Unless someone working in the field gives more precise input about how the RS-68R flames could look like the objective here is to go with something *blueish* and semi-transparent (as also mentioned in previous posts).
I might also try to add some semi-transparent particle settings just to serve as a representation for the part of the flight in the lower atmosphere but it seems that, for some reason, I'm not being able to load all the textures I wish to create that effect with multistage2.dll.
So, for now, I just recompressed one of those nice textures made by mcwgogs...http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=1494... still must contact mcwgogs or perhaps even make my own custom texture (need to change a few texture visuals).
Meanwhile, fixed a few little things (such as payload fairing separation dynamics) but more tweaks and test flights are needed for the rest. This weekend will also try to convert a first alpha version of Direct's pad and perhaps also to implement one EDS.
Also updating the sounds: using the latest STS launch as inspiration for the final countdown (-20s) and new SRB sound wave. These will become my new default sounds for NASA VSE SC v2.X too (much better results than NASA VSE SC v1.0). Will probably also use other videos to extract sounds for extra key events such as SRB, LES / PLF and spacecraft/payload separation.
Another thing that must start doing is to clean the files and directory structure plus update documentation to keep track of all files.
I might produce a low quality demo video to show some of these features and temporarily upload it in my webspace (not sure).
Work in progress,António
Thanks SimC for the updates!---Good News for TeamTalk Users!---The Orbiter TeamTalk Server is now online! This means now that you can connect and talk to SimC (Or anyone else) while he is showing of his awesome Direct Addon.
So get TeamTalk http://www.bearware.dk/ and be ready! I hope to see some of yall Orbiter (And SimC) Fans connecting!---Connect Details---
Browser Direct connect link: tt://bigdas.no-ip.org (Note: Must have TeamTalk http://www.bearware.dk/ for this link to work. Just Click and it will open TeamTalk to connect to the server.)
Address: bigdas.no-ip.orgPorts: Use the default TeamTalk portsNo Password-------------
Ok SimC you are all set for Voice comms! so I shall be looking forward to when you shall do a live demo!
Thanks Alot SimC!
Zachstar - 23/9/2006 11:53 PM---Where are you kraisee?---I have not seen you post in this topic in a dogs age! Any updates of your developments of this great idea?Also: Will we see you during the live demo of the add-on?
Zachstar - 1/10/2006 8:07 AMJusted checked the Flickr page! It's a Mars-OZ party!! Nice work!!
Zachstar - 1/10/2006 8:07 AMOn a side note I noticed you are working on the ESAS VSE style Cargo Launcher Ares V. I am curious if you might allow Francisdrake to use it in order to improve his CEV addon? I surely hope so.He had indicated to me in an email last july that he may return to addon dev in the fall. This will be supremely aided if you may be willing to provide mesh sources for the Ares V. Matter of fact it will make things tons easier by just open sourcing your meshes under the Artistic License. I have uploaded a TXT version of it for easy inclusion in any zip on my webspace. http://test.virtualunitedairlines.net/Ref/OSIArtisticLicense.txtI understand that you will likely also want to make a version in multistage. A version in Multistage will be fine until Franz returns. However frankly a DLL can normally outperform a Multistage version. Will hope you will consider the open source path.
Zachstar - 1/10/2006 8:07 AMNow back to direct. Will be maybe be able to see a livepic of the smaller EDS today? Or will that kind of stuff have to wait till next weekend? I guess it matters little when im drooling over all this Mars OZ stuff.
rumble - 9/10/2006 8:50 AMWhat do max g-forces grow to without EDS?Designs will need to be careful to avoid/minimize pogo in that center RS-68. Ares V will have the same issue to engineer around.
JIS - 11/9/2006 7:45 PMI think there is no point for NASA to develop manned vehicle for LEO. Maybe even more important is to have capability to deliver some significant cargo to the Moon, libration points, close asteroids or Mars in one shoot. And its Ares V.
kraisee - 23/10/2006 2:04 AMI would suggest integrating them into an 'aft skirt' area. There will have to be one anyway for the lower umbilical connections to be attached to. I would use the basic design from the Ares-V myself.
kraisee - 23/10/2006 2:04 AMCan you calculate the real-world volumes of the individual tanks?