DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[William Barton]

Once Mr. Shannon realizes that Direct 3 is only slightly more expensive(Ross says about 5%) or slightly less expensive(Ross says about 5%) than the SDHLV(NSC),he may decide to make a public statement supporting the Direct Launcher to the Augustine Committee.

Interesting way to test the "Blood in the water" claim.........

If Ares is so far down the tubes that either SDHLV or Jupiter have a real chance of being selected, the blood in the water may not be his.

[Downix]

...
  Team Direct can look at this as well.  Maybe a software emulator of the GPCs running in a modern computer.  I think the Orion computers and/or the computers designed for Shuttle Cockpit Avionics Upgrade can run an emulator to run GPC software. 

Danny Deger

all very cool. I asked this question once before, but never saw a reply. would still appreciate being 'educated'. How practical is it to get software help from outside? I'm sure we have some talented SW designers around, some maybe even out of a job, that would be willing to donate some off-time. I dont have any illusions about writing the final product, but I'm sure there are tons of tools, simulators, prototypes, and support software that might fall under the realm of possibilities. or is this completely and obviously out of the question?

As a  member of the Flight Software team for the ISS, I'm of the opinion that the right people can get the job done but market incentives are directly opposed to letting that team do it.  The contracts to build Ares/Direct/Whatever are cost-plus, so the motivation of the contractors is to put as many engineers as they can on the project.  We could have built the software for the ISS with half of the engineers we had, if they were the right half, and it would have been simpler and faster.  However, we were saddled with a lot of barnacles who contributed very little and were hindered by a management focus on billable hours vs. efficient operations.  I work with some of the most amazing engineers I've ever had the pleasure to work with, and most of them are bored to tears, unable to operate at their full potential.  We end up losing so many of the young, hot software engineers to Amazon and tech start-ups because they're not allowed to work at their potential in our team.  If these people were allowed to run full-speed, even with the process burdens of a CMMI Level-5 software organization, I have confidence they could get the job done in the time required.  But maybe I'm biased...  They're my friends. 

I know what you mean about billable hours vs efficient operations.  I've worked contract jobs before, and they were singularly the most boring ones I've ever had.  I spent too much time in hurry up and wait.  Altho on my last one I did get time to watch the 3rd season of Star Blazers while I waited...

[Michael Bloxham]

Question: How viable is the 4-seg Ares I light that I have heard about? Would a down-sized Orion still be useful for lunar missions? If so, perhaps a 2.5 launch achitecture could be made to work (1 Jupiter 130 w/ LSAM, 1 Jupiter 236 EDS, 1 Ares I light w/ Orion)?

I would think that if Ares I Lite was built the decision NOT to build Jupiter would also have been made. The development cost for the Lite would preclude spending money on anything else in this current budget environment.
And if you have J-130 you don't need any flavour of Ares......

All IMHO 

Right. But the Ares I lite, from one perspective is an opportunity for NASA to save face, or perhaps 'the stick' really is a great deal safer than launching the crew with cargo (not my own opinion but that of many at NASA). So there is plenty of incentive for NASA to continue with Ares I if the money is available. But if there is not enough cash for the massive Ares V in its current form then perhaps they can look at dropping development of the 5-seg and thereby reducing development costs for both vehicles (where Ares V also shrinks into something like the Jupiter). But Ares I is reduced to a less capable 4-seg. So the question is can a 4-seg Ares I still lift the Orion that you need for lunar missions?


Also a note to the web technician people: This text editor thingy is driving me insane! It keeps jumping up and down when I write stuff (and I can't see what I'm writing without scrolling down each time). Also, none of the buttons (italics, emoticons, etc.) have every worked for as long as I've been here at this site. Is this fixable on my side?

[SimonFD]

So the question is can a 4-seg Ares I still lift the Orion that you need for lunar missions?

The original Ares 1 used 4seg booster with SSME powered US which, on paper, would have been able to lift the lunar Orion.
It turned out, however, that air-startable (and re-startable) SSME was too expensive/complex to produce. So instead they decided to go with a new engine (J2x) to power the upperstage which, unfortunately, was less capable than the SSME. This resulted in the decision to develop the 5-seg SRB which should have allowed the lunar Orion to reach its orbit targets.
The point is that if you go back to 4-seg, what do you use to power your upperstage? As there isn't anything off the shelf (if there were surely it would have been used by now) you'd have to embark on a new engine development plan (ie more cash....and lots of it). Remember that current Ares 1 targets are (according to some) not being met without weight savings on the Orion spacecraft.
A lunar capable (ie heavier) Orion would seem to need more performance, not less, from its launcher.
Again IMHO and IIRC!!!

[Lab Lemming]

Would Jupiter and NSC both be subject to the extensive launch delays which plague many shuttle missions?

[TrueBlueWitt]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa-ares-moon-mission-changes-071409,0,2316961.story

Any thoughts on this?  Direct 2.0 Heavy?  Ares V Light?  How will this work with RS-68 if Base heating really is as big of an issue as they're saying?

[Ben the Space Brit]

The point is that if you go back to 4-seg, what do you use to power your upperstage?

I think that AIUS engine choices are slightly constrained by NASA's insistance on one engine only on a US.  If someone ignored that rule, how many RL-10s (of whatever variant) could you fit on the existing AIUS and, more importantly, could that engine do the job?

Of course, the whole need for a high-power upper stage engine is only necessary because of the short burn time of the SRM.  A Jupiter-130 could be described as a '1.5-stage to orbit' design.  Although there is still a staging event, I would wager that the lateral jettison of the RSRMs (successfully carried out, what, 125 times?) is a lot easier to arrange than an axial jettison.  SSME is proven for the total run from pad to LEO, so DIRECT 3.0 neatly side-steps a lot of the ELV questions for Orion launches to orbit.

@ Lab Lemming

Launches from KSC would be subject to the Florida weather, yes.  There is no getting around that; it is an immutable limitation of the launch site.

FWIW, one hopes that 30 years of experience with the shuttle would decrease some pad delays for J-130 or NSC as most of the hardware issues will have been addressed during STS.  However, as problems with the gasseous hydrogen vents have proven, that nice Captain Murphy always finds something new.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Any thoughts on this?  Direct 2.0 Heavy?  Ares V Light?  How will this work with RS-68 if Base heating really is as big of an issue as they're saying?

Hmmm... This could be referring to the 'SDLV-Inline' project team that Danny Dot told us MSFC had hurriedly scrambled last week.  Two-launch seems to be firmly back on the table as the lunar baseline.

I can't see RS-68 being retained unless some 'magic bullet' way of mitigating base heating has been unexpectedly found.  RS-68 (regen) is too much a long pole and NASA is feeling schedule pressure.  SSME is much more likely and easier to field now as opposed to rightward of 2015.

I'd expect to see 'Not-Jupiter-130' make an appearance, a ET-derived core with three SSME (with RS-25e going on the 'to develop' list for the medium-term) with four-seg RSRMs just for convenience and getting the thing done now rather than later.  This will be a direct shuttle replacement intended for ISS & observatory-class mission support.

Five-seg RSRM and J-2X will stay in development at a low pace in the unlikely event that beyond-LEO is given the green light within the next Presidential cycle.  As with the J-130/J-246, the beyond-LEO version will have an upper stage (J-2X for political reasons), extra core engines (five?) and five-seg RSRMs to boost performance.  With this in mind, we can expect an 'upgrade ready' thrust skirt with multiple engine position options.

I think that the distinctive feature of this from Ares-V Classic will be that they will no longer be talking about an axial stretch of the ET tanks.  "More SD Less Development" will be the watchword. 

So... Ares-III (Not Jupiter-130) for ISS and Ares-V (non-stretched core w. 5 x SSME, 5-seg RSRM and 2 x J-2X upper stage - say ~115t to LEO/50t through TOI) for beyond-LEO.

[EDIT - Sorry for the double post.  I didn't see TrueBlueWitt's post until after I had put up my previous reply)

[Jim]

Would Jupiter and NSC both be subject to the extensive launch delays which plague many shuttle missions?

No, they don't have to worry about weather at RTLS, AOA and TAL sites.

[William Barton]

Would Jupiter and NSC both be subject to the extensive launch delays which plague many shuttle missions?

No, they don't have to worry about weather at RTLS, AOA and TAL sites.

Weather in the North Atlantic abort recovery zone for manned flights, though.

[Michael Bloxham]

Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin recently wrote Augustine, the review panel's chairman, saying that the idea was feasible but that he did not support it.

"The dual-Ares 5 launch does offer considerably more capability to the Moon than the baseline Ares 1/Ares 5 scheme," he wrote to Augustine in an e-mail last week that was copied to the Orlando Sentinel. "However, it also comes at much greater marginal cost, and therefore I do not, and we at NASA in general did not, recommend it for the baseline approach."
 

Okay. It seems marginal costs are perhaps the last remaining issue. But if the 2-launch is more capable than the original 1.5 launch, then isn't increased marginal cost a moot point? I mean, sure it costs more bucks, but you get more bang, right?

[TrueBlueWitt]

Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin recently wrote Augustine, the review panel's chairman, saying that the idea was feasible but that he did not support it.

"The dual-Ares 5 launch does offer considerably more capability to the Moon than the baseline Ares 1/Ares 5 scheme," he wrote to Augustine in an e-mail last week that was copied to the Orlando Sentinel. "However, it also comes at much greater marginal cost, and therefore I do not, and we at NASA in general did not, recommend it for the baseline approach."
 

"We at NASA"?  Who's the "we"?
Last time I checked..  Mr. Griffin.. you do NOT work for, or speak for, NASA . or did I miss something?

[Hermit]

"...therefore I do not, and we at NASA in general did not, recommend it for the baseline approach."
 

"We at NASA"?  Who's the "we"?
Last time I checked..  Mr. Griffin.. you do NOT work for, or speak for, NASA . or did I miss something?

He used past-tense (did) when refering to NASA, present-tense (do) for himself.

[Nathan]

So the question is can a 4-seg Ares I still lift the Orion that you need for lunar missions?

The original Ares 1 used 4seg booster with SSME powered US which, on paper, would have been able to lift the lunar Orion.
It turned out, however, that air-startable (and re-startable) SSME was too expensive/complex to produce. So instead they decided to go with a new engine (J2x) to power the upperstage which, unfortunately, was less capable than the SSME. This resulted in the decision to develop the 5-seg SRB which should have allowed the lunar Orion to reach its orbit targets.
The point is that if you go back to 4-seg, what do you use to power your upperstage? As there isn't anything off the shelf (if there were surely it would have been used by now) you'd have to embark on a new engine development plan (ie more cash....and lots of it). Remember that current Ares 1 targets are (according to some) not being met without weight savings on the Orion spacecraft.
A lunar capable (ie heavier) Orion would seem to need more performance, not less, from its launcher.
Again IMHO and IIRC!!!

4 segment could use a multiple RL10 upper stage?

[JMSC]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa-ares-moon-mission-changes-071409,0,2316961.story

Any thoughts on this?  Direct 2.0 Heavy?  Ares V Light?  How will this work with RS-68 if Base heating really is as big of an issue as they're saying?

I think the most interesting quote was from end of the article quoting Griffin's letter to the Augustine commission, "The dual-Ares 5 launch does offer considerably more capability to the Moon than the baseline Ares 1/Ares 5 scheme," he wrote to Augustine in an e-mail last week that was copied to the Orlando Sentinel. "However, it also comes at much greater marginal cost, and therefore I do not, and we at NASA in general did not, recommend it for the baseline approach."

If he admits that well two Ares V rockets could do the mission but it would be just way too much horsepower, can't this be construed as Griffin admitting two downsized Ares V rockets would be just right.  Perhaps two Jupiter 246 rockets or a Jupiter 241 with a J-2X engine?  Retaining the J-2x engine could be enough to allow NASA to claim the Ares V downsized or Ares IV as they would call it with a J-2X could be construed as a not-Jupiter, Jupiter in-line SLDV.

Anyway, however NASA decides to cut the mustard it does sound like a consensus is starting to form that a 2-launch architecture using a single rocket beats a 1.5 launch architecture anyday of the week.  And what is needed is something smaller than the Ares V that retains a great more commonality with the existing shuttle hardware.  Sounds to me kind-of like a not Jupiter, Jupiter

John

[TrueBlueWitt]

"...therefore I do not, and we at NASA in general did not, recommend it for the baseline approach."
 

"We at NASA"?  Who's the "we"?
Last time I checked..  Mr. Griffin.. you do NOT work for, or speak for, NASA . or did I miss something?

He used past-tense (did) when refering to NASA, present-tense (do) for himself.

Thanks.. Must not have had enough coffee yet this morning. brain's a little foggy still.  Or just becoming dyslexic as I get older.

[Downix]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa-ares-moon-mission-changes-071409,0,2316961.story

Any thoughts on this?  Direct 2.0 Heavy?  Ares V Light?  How will this work with RS-68 if Base heating really is as big of an issue as they're saying?

I think the most interesting quote was from end of the article quoting Griffin's letter to the Augustine commission, "The dual-Ares 5 launch does offer considerably more capability to the Moon than the baseline Ares 1/Ares 5 scheme," he wrote to Augustine in an e-mail last week that was copied to the Orlando Sentinel. "However, it also comes at much greater marginal cost, and therefore I do not, and we at NASA in general did not, recommend it for the baseline approach."

If he admits that well two Ares V rockets could do the mission but it would be just way too much horsepower, can't this be construed as Griffin admitting two downsized Ares V rockets would be just right.  Perhaps two Jupiter 246 rockets or a Jupiter 241 with a J-2X engine?  Retaining the J-2x engine could be enough to allow NASA to claim the Ares V downsized or Ares IV as they would call it with a J-2X could be construed as a not-Jupiter, Jupiter in-line SLDV.

Anyway, however NASA decides to cut the mustard it does sound like a consensus is starting to form that a 2-launch architecture using a single rocket beats a 1.5 launch architecture anyday of the week.  And what is needed is something smaller than the Ares V that retains a great more commonality with the existing shuttle hardware.  Sounds to me kind-of like a not Jupiter, Jupiter

John

Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system that parks at the ISS, but needs refueling before it's journey?  Cuts the weight needs per-launch. You would just need to carry the crew capsule + fuel for the "moon-taxi".

[Ben the Space Brit]

Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system that parks at the ISS, but needs refueling before it's journey?  Cuts the weight needs per-launch. You would just need to carry the crew capsule + fuel for the "moon-taxi".

You need to develop:

1) The MTV itself;

2) The refuelling system;

3) The lander (will it be an integrated transfer vehicle/lander - that's possible but would need a lot of work);

4) Find funding for the resupply/reconditioning cycle;

5) Fund multiple launches per mission, maybe as many as three.

It is a workable idea but an expensive one in the short term.  For all its high repeated costs, the idea of disposable hardware has the attraction of fewer up-front commitments.

[ar-phanad]

Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system that parks at the ISS, but needs refueling before it's journey?  Cuts the weight needs per-launch. You would just need to carry the crew capsule + fuel for the "moon-taxi".

I love that idea.

Jesse

[fotoguzzi]

Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system . . .

I love that idea.

This might have been good to start working on a bit earlier than one year before shuttle retirement.  DIRECT is a gap-filler that happens to be not bad.