DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[PaulL]

"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.

I don't want to see the 5 seg boosters carry over to "Not-Drect". I think they open up a whole new can of worms for development and should be avoided. 

The only thing I think should be carried over is the development done on the J-2X.

I disagree.  Most of the development work for a side mounted 5 segment SRB is done at this point.  Much of the design work took place prior to the Columbia accident, and 5 segment motors are already being assembled.  It's inline TO for an Ares I first stage that is causing the difficulty.

J-2X on the other hand, is barely out of CDR, and won't even have the turbopumps on the test stand for another year and a half or so.

Still, I would like it if both are kept for a Not-DIRECT vehicle.  I think it would be nice to get some use out of that new test stand that they are building at SSC, and a sea level version of the J-2X (without the extension) could be useful for large RLVs at some point.  But I don't see what the J-2X does for DIRECT that a cluster of RL-10s can't do, while I do see a multi-ton payload advantage to using 5 segment SRBs.

It would be politically advantageous to use both the 5 segments SRB and the J-2X engine currently under development in the final Jupiter rocket architecture. I am wondering, however,  if a significant ammount of development/testing money could be saved by not man-rating these two systems. This could lead to the design of a J-241H EDS rocket (big enough to do both TLI and LOI burns) to be used with a man-rated J-130 CLV+LSAM rocket. 

PaulL

[Lab Lemming]

You'd be better off with a J246H (or J244H if the RL60 ever happens).  The high thrust J2X is better for ascent, but worse for orbital maneuvering, due to the high thrust and (relatively) low efficiency.

It would be politically advantageous to use both the 5 segments SRB and the J-2X engine currently under development in the final Jupiter rocket architecture. I am wondering, however,  if a significant ammount of development/testing money could be saved by not man-rating these two systems. This could lead to the design of a J-241H EDS rocket (big enough to do both TLI and LOI burns) to be used with a man-rated J-130 CLV+LSAM rocket. 

PaulL

[Lobo]

Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system that parks at the ISS, but needs refueling before it's journey? 

The ISS is in the wrong orbit.  You can't go to the Moon from there.

Not exactly, though I see your point. You can still go to the moon from the ISS, but the geometry is more complicated, giving you less launch opportunities. Same thing goes for the return.

...with a LTV and reusable lander, now you are looking at a true single launch Lunar Mission architecture. 

It seems that once you have an established route, a small reusable lander would come in handy for crewed missions.
For the return leg, though, I would much rather have a spacecraft capable of a direct entry if needed, than a (less robust) transfer vehicle...

True enough.
I won’t go too in to this as there is already a reusable lander topic.
But yea, having direct reentry capability might trump any advantages of having a reusable LTV.

Myself, what I’d like to see is this (summarized)

1)   NASA picks a location on the moon that looks like they’d want to spend a few missions exploring (for science, mining, geology, or whatever). 
2)   NASA sends up a cargo lander to that location, that can land remotely obviously.  The lander would have the rover, an inflatable habitat and airlock, and supplies of consumables and provisions, along with any other equipment need for 2-3 missions to that site.  The lander can be sent in a slow TLI to optimize the amount of mass I can land, as there is no crew waiting, it can take it’s time.
3)   A reusable lander is placed into a parking orbit, or L1 or L2 (wherever is deemed optimum for reuse).  The lander has minimum habitation.  Basically is just enough room for 4 astronauts to land and ascent standing up like the original LEM.  The Lander is really designed to be robust, reusable, refuelable, and capable of extended periods of time parked in orbit (probably have retractable solar arrays and such).   It would have two engines side-by-side, with only one required for ascent and descent, so you can have engine-out capability without LOC or LOM.  The lander would have internal cargo lockers for bringing back lunar samples, and taking any specific smaller tools and equipment that didn’t get on the cargo lander.  These would be transferred manually when docked with Orion like Apollo.
4)   Orion is launched on a J-246 with an EDS and enough propellents and consumables to refuel the Reusable lander.  (As I don’t know, I am completely assuming a J-246 can launch Orion, an EDS, and enough fuel for the LSAM)  Orion is designed to be able to transfer those propellents via the hard dock with the LSAM.  (Less desirable but still workable would be manual fuel lines taken through the docking ring into the LSAM and hooked to fueling ports.  I’d rather there be some type of external automatic process once docked to keep those propellents out of the inside in case of any leaks…especially of some type of hypergols are used). 
5)   The LSAM lands by the cargo lander, and an extended mission is performed (assume 2 weeks, a full lunar day for starters).  The Cargo lander has enough consumables and provisions in case of some emergency.  LSAM failing, tipping over, struck by a meteor, or some other malfunction, etc.  Back at KSC, standard procedure is to have a new reusable LSAM on standby ready, and a Jupiter core ready to go in the VAB.  If the crew is stranded on the surface, the backup LSAM is put on the core and rushed to launch.  It would be designed to be remotely piloted (which you could do since it would be reused and not just thrown away every mission).  It would then land at the site, and evacuate the astronauts to their Orion.  Then the new LSAM is left in it’s parking orbit/L point, and the crew goes home.  That LSAM is then used and another backup LSAM is readied at KSC.

I have no idea how many times you could make a lander be reusable.  I’d hope at least 10 times before maybe the reliability of the engines or something are in doubt.  But really any reuse is better than none at all.  The cargo landers would be designed to be as “cheap” and “expendable” as possible, to keep their costs down, and you’d only use one of those for every several missions.
If the site is interesting enough to warrant more missions than you have the supplies for, then you send another lander, with perhaps more specific equipment.  If you wanted it to be a “base”, then you send several cargo landers ahead of the mission.
By not really using the LSAM when on the surface, you can minimized the amount of regoloth contamination it gets, as you aren’t tromping in and out several times.  It could have possibly an airlock/mudroom on it so that the suits with regoloth all over them won’t go into the cockpit.  Perhaps the hab on the surface has a way to help clean the suits prior to ascent, to keep contamination to the inside of the LSAM to a minimum.  (to me, a bunch of lunar dust all over the inside of the LSAM cockpit seems like something that could be a source of malfunction, but maybe it wouldn’t be that big of a deal)

Anyway, that doesn’t seem too far fetched to me.  It would reuse a complex spacecraft, as well as reducing your launches and launch costs.  And it wouldn’t be depot dependent (although you could certainly add that in the future.  But if you can haul up enough propellent and consumable on Orion, then you don’t necessarily need a depot to refuel).
And you can entertain other recycling methods, like having a rover capable of remote driving from an old landing site to a new one, so the cargo lander that goes to that can have other supplies than another rover. 

Ok, back to topic before Chuck comes and swats us on the knuckles.

[Lab Lemming]

Question for the team:
How soon could a cargo-only J130 be flying?  Would it help gap closure if you could loft ISS extra segments (or hastily assembled science missions, or military mystery boxes) with that for a few years while finishing the Orion/ software/ human rating?

[PaulL]

You'd be better off with a J246H (or J244H if the RL60 ever happens).  The high thrust J2X is better for ascent, but worse for orbital maneuvering, due to the high thrust and (relatively) low efficiency.

I agree with you that there is no real overall payload advantage to go with a the J-2X engine instead of the RL-10B. The main reason to go with the J-2X would be for NASA to say that the money spent on that engine so far is not wasted. 

However, some J-2X development/testing money could possibly be saved by not man-rating this engine or, may be, reverting to the less powerfull J-2XD version.

PaulL

[Jorge]

Question for the team:
How soon could a cargo-only J130 be flying?  Would it help gap closure if you could loft ISS extra segments (or hastily assembled science missions, or military mystery boxes) with that for a few years while finishing the Orion/ software/ human rating?

There are no ISS extra segments to loft.

Diverting money to "hastily assembled science missions or military mystery boxes" might help KSC's gap but it will make JSC's worse, by diverting money that could have been used to finish Orion.

[Lobo]

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.

You can’t say anything, but I can guess and start rumors. 

My SWAG is the problems with a crew on NSC is thus:

1)   Can the LAS clear the shock barrier coming off the tank?
2)   Would a tank explosion like Challenger kill the crew regardless of the LAS because you are next to the tank rather than above it?  Not only are you closer to the source of the explosion, but the shockwave is coming at you from 90 degrees to your g-force orientation.  The astronauts are facing up in their couches to best protect them from the g-forces of launch.  If hit from a shock wave from behind inline to that orientation, that would give maximum chance to survive as they’d be accelerated in the direction they are already accelerating in.  With NSC, they’d be accelerated in a direction 90 degrees to that.  The couches aren’t orientated to that.  Sort of like how fighter pilots can handle around 9 g’s (I think) when pulling up because that’s what the seats and g-suits are designed for.  But if they took a sudden 9g push to the right or left, it might very well break their neck.

[Jorge]

2)   Would a tank explosion like Challenger kill the crew regardless of the LAS because you are next to the tank rather than above it?  Not only are you closer to the source of the explosion, but the shockwave is coming at you from 90 degrees to your g-force orientation.  The astronauts are facing up in their couches to best protect them from the g-forces of launch.  If hit from a shock wave from behind inline to that orientation, that would give maximum chance to survive as they’d be accelerated in the direction they are already accelerating in.  With NSC, they’d be accelerated in a direction 90 degrees to that.  The couches aren’t orientated to that.  Sort of like how fighter pilots can handle around 9 g’s (I think) when pulling up because that’s what the seats and g-suits are designed for.  But if they took a sudden 9g push to the right or left, it might very well break their neck.

The Kerwin report established that the initial acceleration was *not* enough to kill the Challenger crew. So the answer is, no.

[kraisee]

Ross, any chance the October 2007 report will see the light of day through a FOI request, or through the Augustine Commission’s work?  Also, what the heck is an EELV-Hybrid?  A combination of EELV and Shuttle parts, or something else?

No chance at all -- it was never completed, so doesn't actually "exist" as a finished document.

The group writing it submitted the preliminary results up to Griffin's office and two days later the whole team doing the study was disbanded and the members were scattered to the farthest corners of the agency.

Ross.

[TrueBlueWitt]

2)   Would a tank explosion like Challenger kill the crew regardless of the LAS because you are next to the tank rather than above it?  Not only are you closer to the source of the explosion, but the shockwave is coming at you from 90 degrees to your g-force orientation.  The astronauts are facing up in their couches to best protect them from the g-forces of launch.  If hit from a shock wave from behind inline to that orientation, that would give maximum chance to survive as they’d be accelerated in the direction they are already accelerating in.  With NSC, they’d be accelerated in a direction 90 degrees to that.  The couches aren’t orientated to that.  Sort of like how fighter pilots can handle around 9 g’s (I think) when pulling up because that’s what the seats and g-suits are designed for.  But if they took a sudden 9g push to the right or left, it might very well break their neck.

The Kerwin report established that the initial acceleration was *not* enough to kill the Challenger crew. So the answer is, no.

One potential problem I see is that the largest area for the blast pressure to act against is at the bottom of the capsule.. with the LAS making the Cg artificially high.. the blast pressure would try to force the nose of Orion+LAS stack back toward the tank..  MLAS would keep Cg lower and might be less likely to "tip" back toward the tank.  Although with MLAS and perhaps even LAS there's always the potential the abort motor exhaust possibly cutting through the upper tank and perhaps setting off a detonation when there was just an engine failure or something like that.

[DLK]

It would be politically advantageous to use both the 5 segments SRB and the J-2X engine currently under development in the final Jupiter rocket architecture. I am wondering, however,  if a significant ammount of development/testing money could be saved by not man-rating these two systems. This could lead to the design of a J-241H EDS rocket (big enough to do both TLI and LOI burns) to be used with a man-rated J-130 CLV+LSAM rocket. 

PaulL

As the J-246 hits such a sweet spot with the currently-available RL10 engines, I'd prefer to see the engine development bucks going to development of a better interplanetary engine, which is something I think would be desirable for a Mars mission. Also, continue development of the RS-84, for an eventual hydrocarbon-fueled SRB replacement booster. Neither of these development projects are in any current critical paths, methinks.

-Dan

[Drapper23]

Ross, Even though the Oct,2007 Report doesn't officially exist, does the Augustine Committee know about it?

[kraisee]

Yes.

Ross.

[Ronsmytheiii]

So Ross, will you ever offer Jupiter-130/246 models?  I might have to pick up one, although I can wait as you are understandably busy (I would love to see lego make a Jupiter model, dont ask why...)

[Mark S]

Ross, any chance the October 2007 report will see the light of day through a FOI request, or through the Augustine Commission’s work?  Also, what the heck is an EELV-Hybrid?  A combination of EELV and Shuttle parts, or something else?

No chance at all -- it was never completed, so doesn't actually "exist" as a finished document.

The group writing it submitted the preliminary results up to Griffin's office and two days later the whole team doing the study was disbanded and the members were scattered to the farthest corners of the agency.

Ross.

Wouldn't there be archived copies of the draft version, reference materials, study results, etc?  That kind of stuff never really disappears.

Wouldn't there be a list of the study contributors, researchers, and team members?  Couldn't such a list be correlated against current employment positions and responsibilities?

These kind of actions can't always be made right, but surely these people can be compensated in some small way.

Mark S.

[Downix]

So Ross, will you ever offer Jupiter-130/246 models?  I might have to pick up one, although I can wait as you are understandably busy (I would love to see lego make a Jupiter model, dont ask why...)

Make it a model rocket and I'll buy two.    Altho technically you might be able to kitbash one using a shuttle kit.

[kraisee]

Problem is that having been 'hurt' once they don't want to stick their heads up a second time.   There are still a lot of Griffin's cronies within the agency who could still make their lives hell.

Ross.

[kevin-rf]

The Kerwin report established that the initial acceleration was *not* enough to kill the Challenger crew. So the answer is, no.

Not to quible, but that was a rapid and complete structural failure of the ET due to the SRB pivoting and ripping it to shreds. Could a worse case lead to a real detonation and impart higher loads on the capsule?

Awaiting Ross's Shuttle C bread crumbs...

[fotoguzzi]

Or is mixing two launch vehicles to accomplish a lunar mission also DOA?

If NASA and members of Congress want to protect the Shuttle infrastructure & workforce, Shuttle-C is simply not the right path.

So, what do the next few weeks look like (that you can divulge)?  Is there anything the rabble can do to help?

[kraisee]

I'm putting out a request for Shuttle-C "VIPA VAC 3" and "VAC 5" reports from 2004 if anyone here has access to them.

Ross.