DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[mike robel]

LOL, I think it is a rule of thumb that all aerospace projects go over time by 1/3 and cost at least 1/3 more than anticipated.  Everything takes longer to do and costs more than  you think it will.

[TrueBlueWitt]

"...The main power would come from several RS-68 liquid-fuel engines, like the ones now used on the commercial Delta IV rocket."

Sorry to join this late but no one has asked about the above quote? Especially in relation to this:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/12/ssme-ares-v-undergoes-evaluation-potential-switch/

"Another major factor that the study is likely to consider is that the SSME may be better suited to mitigating the plume impingement and base heating issues on Ares V, which is currently a major issue that is being worked on Ares V."

To Quote myself from my original post of the story..

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?

No one bit on the question..  Like you.. I thought it was quite important.

[dougkeenan]

LOL, I think it is a rule of thumb that all aerospace projects go over time by 1/3 and cost at least 1/3 more than anticipated.  Everything takes longer to do and costs more than  you think it will.

Even when you account for it - Hofstadter's Law

[TrueBlueWitt]

Does anyone know what Wayne's new job at NASA is? Sounds like he's locked away in a dungeon.

http://twitter.com/waynehale

My new office has no windows. Very depressing. But it makes me concentrate on work more. Must think deep thoughts about NASA's future.

[nooneofconsequence]

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?

No one bit on the question..  Like you.. I thought it was quite important.

If you want a frugal, fast, efficient program, you want a RS68 ablative if you can accept the base heating of 2-3 engines.

[Pheogh]

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?

No one bit on the question..  Like you.. I thought it was quite important.

If you want a frugal, fast, efficient program, you want a RS68 ablative if you can accept the base heating of 2-3 engines.

"accept"? Its not as if I can choose whether or not I want to "accept" the first law of Thermal Dynamics? I don't understand what you mean by this?

further, I believe there are those (far more knowledgeable than I) that might take issue with your connection of "frugal, fast, efficient program" in connection with "RS68 ablative"

confused

[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?

No one bit on the question..  Like you.. I thought it was quite important.

If you want a frugal, fast, efficient program, you want a RS68 ablative if you can accept the base heating of 2-3 engines.

That's a big IF.. and "fast" is relative as you still need to go through all the work to "man rate" it.. correct?

Although you could do unmanned X/Y type flights with the the engine as is if it's not "rated" in time..

[nooneofconsequence]

"accept"? Its not as if I can choose whether or not I want to "accept" the first law of Thermal Dynamics? I don't understand what you mean by this?

This is why no one is talking. One needs to run very detailed sims. Takes time and many competing issues that you know.

But I believe 2x RS68 ablative works.

And yes TrueBlue, the idea would be speed. Plus your fallback option to DIV.

[TrueBlueWitt]

"accept"? Its not as if I can choose whether or not I want to "accept" the first law of Thermal Dynamics? I don't understand what you mean by this?

This is why no one is talking. One needs to run very detailed sims. Takes time and many competing issues that you know.

But I believe 2x RS68 ablative works.

And yes TrueBlue, the idea would be speed. Plus your fallback option to DIV.

You're assuming an 8.4m core using current tanking as a basis without stretch?

Anything larger probably won't fly with only 2x RS68..  Even then I think J-120(Direct 2.0) was only 50mT to LEO or so.. plenty for ISS but more difficult to build a Lunar architecture.. at least w/o depots.

Or are you supposing a  "Heavy" variant with 5-segs?

Edit: should've previewed this before posting

[Jim]

NASA: $3.3 billion * 5 = $16.5 billion
RSA: 0.30 * $20.0 billion = $6.0 billion
ESA: 0.70 (?) * $20.0 billion = $14.0 billion

Total: $16.5 billion + $6.0 billion + $14.0 billion = $36.5 billion > $20.0 billion. Should be enough for a manned mission to Mars.

What do you think?

Not doable.  Russia doesn't have the money.  Neither does ESA.  36 billion is not enough to go to Mars.

[nooneofconsequence]

You're assuming an 8.4m core using current tanking as a basis without stretch?

Anything larger probably won't fly with only 2x RS68..  Even then I think J-120(Direct 2.0) was only 50mT to LEO or so.. plenty for ISS but more difficult to build a Lunar architecture.. at least w/o depots.

Or are you supposing a  "Heavy" variant with 5-segs?

Edit: should've previewed this before posting

Yes and yes.

[TrueBlueWitt]

You're assuming an 8.4m core using current tanking as a basis without stretch?

Anything larger probably won't fly with only 2x RS68..  Even then I think J-120(Direct 2.0) was only 50mT to LEO or so.. plenty for ISS but more difficult to build a Lunar architecture.. at least w/o depots.

Or are you supposing a  "Heavy" variant with 5-segs?

Edit: should've previewed this before posting

Yes and yes.

"Yes" to 8.4 core.. on that I'm clear..

Then  yes to "no stretch"? 5-segs? Depots?

Edit:  Nevermind.. I found your post in the "Augustine Commission" thread

[nooneofconsequence]

"Yes" to 8.4 core.. on that I'm clear..

Then  yes to "no stretch"? 5-segs? Depots?

Yes to 5 segs. Already (mostly) paid for.

[imjeffp]

If not for the lunar mission, what would be the point of an Ares-I class vehicle after the ISS is de-orbited in 2016*?

No ISS and no Orbiter with the ability to carry a SpaceLab-size module makes even LEO a pretty worthless place IMO. Jupiter still leaves the ability to fly a MOL-type mission doesn't it?


*Not that I believe ISS is gonna be deorbited anytime soon, isn't that still the official position?

[engstudent]

If not for the lunar mission, what would be the point of an Ares-I class vehicle after the ISS is de-orbited in 2016*?

No ISS and no Orbiter with the ability to carry a SpaceLab-size module makes even LEO a pretty worthless place IMO. Jupiter still leaves the ability to fly a MOL-type mission doesn't it?


*Not that I believe ISS is gonna be deorbited anytime soon, isn't that still the official position?

Seems like stupidity[is there a gentler word I can use here?] is always the official position.

[Jorge]

If not for the lunar mission, what would be the point of an Ares-I class vehicle after the ISS is de-orbited in 2016*?

No ISS and no Orbiter with the ability to carry a SpaceLab-size module makes even LEO a pretty worthless place IMO. Jupiter still leaves the ability to fly a MOL-type mission doesn't it?


*Not that I believe ISS is gonna be deorbited anytime soon, isn't that still the official position?

Seems like stupidity[is there a gentler word I can use here?] is always the official position.

The gentler word is "bureaucracy". NASA is *required* to have a plan to deorbit ISS when the US stops funding it. That is the *law of the land*, not a NASA policy. Until the US government *officially* authorizes funding for ISS operations after 2016, NASA must maintain this plan, even though "everybody knows" it will change.

[kraisee]

By the way, how much stuff is left at MAF?

Most everything.   The work order is in place from CxP to remove it, but the staff on the ground are 'delaying' the work by finding too many other things to be getting on with

They know that the wind is definitely changing.

Ross.

[kraisee]

2) Not-Shuttle-C could get the job done, however, crew launch is not as safe as it would be on Jupiter 130. Right now, NASA is unsure if it is even possible.

Apparently there is an extremely serious show-stopper to Shuttle-C flying with an Orion.

I'm trying to get more details and will release them as soon as I'm confident about them, but if what I'm hearing is correct, that option is DOA.

Ross.

[marsavian]

It's called a BFT . I think most of us saw it as purely a cargo carrier to be used with a EELV CLV and so it has proven.

[robertross]

IMHO, it is better phrased as follows:

I do not foresee Congress allowing the President to direct NASA to abandon the Shuttle workforce and infrastructure anytime soon

Yes, that would be the best way to phrase it. Thanks.

The problem with your revision, is Congress, by virtue of how much money it allocates to NASA, what restrictions it places on its use, and how long it takes them to do so, may well cause the loss of the work force in spite of any Presidential wishes to the contrary.  (And I am unconvinced that the President really has NASA in say, his top 10 list).  Since NASA is a (small) part of a larger appropriation bill, it is likely that he would not veto it, regardless of the budget decision.

Actually, thinking about this after I posted and went offline...

It is precisely Congress & the WH that put us here by allowing shuttle to be terminated (and not paying close enough attention to the nonsense behind the scenes). So in effect, the jobs were going one way or another.