DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[Mark S]

Well, FUD goes this is probably the easiest to deflect... If NASA is now objecting to the idea of a backwards docking for the Altair but suggesting that a propellant transfer from one upperstage to the other serving EDS duty is a better option (for their proposal) then the same mission achitecture can still work perfectly fine-- One J-246 launches with the LSAM/CEV (or perhaps just the LSAM and the CEV rides up on the other rocket's upperstage, the one donating it's propellant to the EDS/LSAM stack waiting on orbit.  The two rendezvous and dock (berth?) and transfer the props, undock, manuever away from each other, the Orion discards the now empty stage, rendezvous and docks to the LSAM, and the stack is ready to proceed with TLI... 

Later!  OL JR

Even better, as was pointed out to me, would be to launch the J-246+CEV+LSAM fully fueled (instead of 56% offload).  Then launch the second J-246 with NO payload fully fueled (the EDS config).  However instead of being the EDS, the second JUS is just a tanker, and transfers all of its remaining fuel to top off the CEV+LSAM+EDS.  Thus, the LSAM never has to perform any docking in LEO, it remains attached to its launch EDS.  Only the CEV detaches and then docks with the LSAM.  This would give even better performance than the current DIRECT baseline.

Mark S.

[Star-Drive]

In any case, Dr. Ride informed us that the Aerospace results for an SDLV for schedule (and therefore cost) are nowhere near those of the DIRECT team. 

I can't think of a single time that Aerospace's results for schedule or cost have been too conservative (including for EELV).  Can anyone else?

She did *not* specify DIRECT. They didn't like *anybody's* schedule. And it has less to do with the various launch options, including but not limited to DIRECT, than it has to do with the schedule for Orion. In all cases Orion is the long pole and they don't believe L/M's IOC schedule for her. That pushed everyone's schedule to the right in the study. (the line-thru is mine)

If L-M can't make the IOC date for the ISS version of the Orion, which seem very likley at this point, there is always the SpaceX Dragon.   Re last Friday's JSC Bolden Quote: "And the children shall lead us"...

http://www.spacex.com/DragonLab_DataSheet.pdf

 

[kraisee]

And it has less to do with the various launch options, including but not limited to DIRECT, than it has to do with the schedule for Orion. In all cases Orion is the long pole and they don't believe L/M's IOC schedule for her. That pushed everyone's schedule to the right in the study. (the line-thru is mine)

My sources say that it applies to LVs as well as Orion.  I should have shut up and let the analysis report speak for itself in about 6-8 weeks. 

I've had a dreadful day trying to get onto NSF without luck.   Seems my local ISP's DNS is all shot to hell and back

I finally managed to get on this evening though and, boy, it has been busy around here, hasn't it?

I'm not sure what I'm allowed/should say regarding some of the things, but I'm going to speak out on this topic just to prevent any misconceptions happening in a vacuum of data.

The dates which we submitted to Aerospace Corporation were:

Jupiter-130 IOC -- March 2014
Jupiter-241 IOC -- 2018

We've seen some of the results already and without providing specific details, BOTH of those dates have been improved upon to the tune of at least 1 whole year and 2 years respectively -- which we aren't surprised about given that we packed all our schedules with plenty of surplus margins.

Given the analysis date of 2013, and lets assume it was "late" 2013, it would indeed be roughly 1.5 years ahead of Ares-I's "official" deployment date of March 2015.   So that does seem to fit all of the comments made earlier today, no?

My question is this:   If it were to be combined with a moderate 2 year "stretch" (as opposed to an extension) to Shuttle's current 7-flight manifest, would that not see at least one of the three planned Jupiter test flights off the ground before the last Shuttle flew?

Gap?   What Gap!

Ross.

[Michael Bloxham]

I found I couldn't access these forums during the whole hearing either. Perhaps it was a bit overloaded or something?

Ross, what can you tell us about NSC vs DIRECT in the minds of the committee? Do you have any observations to share?

[cixelsyD]

Whuh? What date did you send to Aerospace for J-246? Was it earlier, I thought J 246 was the baseline for Direct.

[luke strawwalker]

If they are going to dock in LEO they might as well make it a proper EOR-LOR mission (and dock the CEV and LSAM) but with propellant transfer which obviously has suddenly now matured as a technology fit for NASA exploration use . What they are proposing is really a EOR-LOR-LOR mission which is unnecessarily complex and more risky.

It seems to me that NASA upper management keeps floating "Plan B" balloons that are actually designed to make the current CxP plan look good.  "What, you don't like Ares-I? Well, then if you don't want that, here is what you will get instead. Ares-I doesn't look so bad, now, does it? Now be a good little boy and run along. Grown-ups are talking..."

So far we have Stumpy, Ares-IV/V, NSC, and now dual mini-Ares-V with fuel transfer. Did I miss any? I've never seen anyone fight the obvious and inevitable so vehemently. Fight to the bitter end, then down with the ship. And for what purpose? What do they hope to accomplish, at this point in time?

Mark S.

I'm currently reading "The Case for Mars" by Bob Zubrin... it's an interesting read.  What I find most interesting and most disturbing is that the entrenched "our way or no way" mentality that led to the death of SEI has not changed one iota in the intervening 20 years!  There's the PLAN, the Gospel according to NASA, which requires Daddy handing over the keys to the new Corvette, the credit card, a handful of signed blank checks, the keys to the candy store, and a box of rubbers and patting them on the head and saying "go have fun".... NOT gonna happen in this universe...

Then everybody seems shocked and amazed when the thing finally gets shot down in flames and cancelled altogether... like that was NEVER a possibility whatsoever. 

Stupid thing is, this has been going on AT LEAST since Challenger, and that's been nearly 25 years ago... seems like SOMETHING would finally give and they'd realize "we gotta work with what we got, REALISTICALLY, not what we'd like to have if we won the lottery"...  That's what we all individually have to do in life...  but then again, they are a gov't agency, so expecting anything but institutional blindness, self serving interests ruling the day, and political bed-hopping just seems to be the only REAL purpose NASA has. 

The more I read about the history of all this, and the more I see of it every day, the more I think NASA needs to be broken up into a group of independent agencies that have to work together by committee instead of being ruled by the 'cults of personalities'...  Obviously the way it's set up and run NOW isn't working, so the alternative couldn't be much worse.  JMHO!  OL JR

[kraisee]

Ross, what can you tell us about NSC vs DIRECT in the minds of the committee? Do you have any observations to share?

We don't have that sort of communication going with the committee, nor did we have with Aerospace Corp.   We provide information to them, they ask us questions, we provide more information to answer those.

But we aren't privy to any of their thoughts.   They keep those to themselves -- rightly so.

Believe me, we are just as interested in reading their report as you are!

Ross.

[kraisee]

Whuh? What date did you send to Aerospace for J-246? Was it earlier, I thought J 246 was the baseline for Direct.

We don't have a single vehicle option.   Yes, we think that J-246 is the best all-round package, but there are a number of other variants (J-241, J-244 and J-247) all of which would work extremely well.

For this Aerospace Corporation review we were only allowed to submit one single option though, so we had to pick which we thought would score the best given their measuring system.   For a handful of specific reasons, we decided to submit a slightly modified version of our J-241 configuration.

The variant which we submitted was an optimized version of J-241, but using an Upper Stage which had an additional 2,500kg of "Managers Margin" included in its mass breakout in order to head-off the potential issues surrounding the pmf debate.   This essentially brought the stage pmf broadly into line with the existing Centaur on Atlas-V, which has a proven and established flight record.


This configuration (we call it the "Jupiter-241 Aero") is not our official baseline.   But it is what we believe will do best in this particular review.

Ross.

[fotoguzzi]

If Shuttle were extended and the SSMEs got used up, could the first batch of new SSMEs manufactured be somewhat more inexpensive/simple?

In other words, are there blueprints for something more STME-like or would a simplified engine have to be designed?

[luke strawwalker]

Lancer525:

Touche'.  My point exactly.

DIRECT got what they wanted, an independent review of their idea and data.

So, where does that leave us? Correct me if I am wrong but has not the biggest point of contention with DIRECT and its members been credibility (of the data)? Now *if* it were true that this has been put to rest, again where does that leave us?

It leaves us on a level playing field with all the other players, whose "real" data are being examined, along with ours, by a technically competent agency with no dog in the hunt; exactly where we wanted to be.

Remember the overriding importance here... it's not so much how the numbers were derived, IE it makes sense that Direct used the Ares approach to calculating costs... that way it's an apples to apples comparison...   The argument that "well, Cx's costs were wildly optimistic and have proved wrong, so that bodes ill for Direct too" is facetious when Direct's projected costs are already nearly an order of magnitude less than Ares costs, either projected or actual, have proven to be. 

It's like when I was house-shopping, and the first thing they'd do is run a credit check on my wife and I, and then only show us houses that stretched the limit on what they could possibly get us a loan for... when we asked to see houses that were significantly cheaper so we could afford to save, live more financially conservative, etc. they looked at us like we were crazy and didn't want to mess with us, so we went somewhere else that would do things OUR WAY.

Ares started out as 'more than they (Congress) wanted to pay' and has only gotten worse as time has passed.  Jupiter is starting off WAY down into the 'affordable' range, and when unforeseen costs crop up, as they SURELY will (as with anything) there will be a lot more 'cushion' to handle things before they get out of hand financially speaking. 

THAT is the important difference here nobody's mentioning... OL JR

[kraisee]

If Shuttle were extended and the SSMEs got used up, could the first batch of new SSMEs manufactured be somewhat more inexpensive/simple?

In other words, are there blueprints for something more STME-like or would a simplified engine have to be designed?

It would take less than 2 years to put the current Block-II SSME's back into full production.

By some accounts, SSP has already issued the order to PWR because they wanted to ensure the long lead time items were ready in time in case of an extension.   So it could very well be less time than that.

You build those until the 'expendable' versions are ready and qualified,  and then you phase those in.


You do NOT want to be developing any new engines straight out of the gate -- New engine development work takes longer than any other aspect of rocket development -- avionics/software inclusive.   Delete it, defer it, reduce it wherever possible or it will dictate all of your schedules.

Ross.

[MP99]

The BB cards have it as J-130+DIVHUS.

    Where may I find these?

http://www.directlauncher.com/
Click "Technical Performance Summaries"
For the Root Directory:
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/
(note the zip file of all of the cards)

 Yes, those are the regular J-120[H], J-130[H], J-24[1,4,6,6,7][H] cards.

But I don't see the card for J-130+DIVHUS, that MP99 was referring to?

Thanks,
-Alex

Alex,

sorry for delay, took me a while to find the link.

PRELIMINARY_090305_J130_40.4000.08100_CLV+DIVHUS__LUNAR_FLYBY__.pdf
PRELIMINARY_090305_J130_40.4000.12301_CaLV+DIVHUS.pdf

Reminder: these are for the "LV-40" version of DIRECT's design. (The underlying LV-41 J-130 has higher payload, and multiple other differences in the figures and vehicle / mission design). Also, these aren't even "final" versions of the cards for the LV-40 vehicle, but I think they might be the latest published versions with DIVHUS.

cheers, Martin

[Malderi]

This configuration (we call it the "Jupiter-241 Aero") is not our official baseline.   But it is what we believe will do best in this particular review.

For curiosity's sake, could you share some of the reasoning for this? What particular criteria of the review made the 241 better than the 246? I was under the impression that the great engine-out capability of the 246 gave it bet LOC/V numbers than the others, but I admit, I haven't seen the detailed specs.

Additionally, will the review take into account Jupiter's "flexibility" in this regard? I.e., we can build the J-130 now, but is it considered a plus that we don't have to decide on the J-24x second stage until the requirements (and Orion) are better defined?

[simon-th]

Adding the "DIRECT - advanced" figures... J-246 Heavy & J-241 Heavy, ie std J-24x with 5-seg SRB's, but no other enhancements:-

EDS    J-246H - 117mT net    J-241H - 120mT net.

Crewed    J-246H - 109mT net / 98mT with 10% addn'l margins    J-241H - 112mT net / 101mT with margins.

Cargo    J-246H - 115mT net / 104mT with 10% addn'l margins    J-241H - 119mT net / 107mT with margins.

I get thru TLI  figures of 46-48mT net crewed & 49-50mT net cargo. Note, those are my figures, but based on the gravity losses of a 200mT IMLEO two-launch mission, so should be conservative. (Reminder, these are for "Heavy").

I think we should compare "apples to apples" (at least "apples to apples" as far as "official" numbers are concerned), that is if we say "net" we should mean the net-number with the standard 10% margin on top of any regular NASA GR&As.

Such a comparison does provide (all net payloads (without EDS masses) with NASA GR&As + 10% additional reserve):

NSC Block I (without upper stage - 7.5m dia - 35m long fairing): 71.9mt to 120nm x 120nm 29° orbit
J-130 (without upper stage - 8.4m dia - 10m long fairing): 64.3mt to 100nmx100nm 29° orbit

NSC Block II (7.5m dia - 22m long (net without upper stage length)  fairing) : 81.1mt (cargo) - 82.9mt (crew) to 120nm x 120nm 29° orbit
J-246 (10m dia - 5.6m long fairing): 84.3mt (crew and cargo) - 88.5mt (cargo only) to 130nm x 130nm 29° orbit

NSC Block II (7.5m dia - 11m long (net without EDS length) fairing): 35.1mt to TLI
J-246 (10m dia - 5.6m long fairing): no official data - estimate based on LEO cargo only numbers: 38mt

NSC Block II with 5-segment SRBs and SSMEs at 109% (7.5m dia - 11m long fairing - cargo only): 91mt to 120nm x 120nm 29° orbit - no official TLI number - estimate: 39mt
J-246H (10m dia - 5.6m long fairing RL 10B-2): 104.1mt to 130nm x 130nm 29° orbit - no official TLI number - estimate: 45mt

Caveat: Those are just numbers like they are presented up to now - we'll see a real apples-to-apples comparison once Aerospace publishes their analysis (if that is actually made available to the public...)

[Mark S]

The NSC numbers from Shannon's proposal seem optimistic to me.  They obviously intend to use the ET unmodified in order to keep their development numbers down and their capacity numbers up.

That only works as long as the mass and dynamic loads of the payload carrier are exactly the same as the existing orbiter.  That may be a valid assumption for the initial LEO cargo version, if they are careful.  But there is no way they can claim that kind of commonality for the full-up lunar model with the Orion and upper stage.

The NSC stack masses almost 4.85M lbs for the EDS version, 300,000 lbs more than the LEO version.  The Shuttle currently maxes out at around 250,000 lbs at launch.  NSC carrier+payload maxes out at 586,000 lbs in the EDS version, which is more than twice what the Shuttle weighs.  And even the lighter weight LEO cargo version weighs almost 285,000 lbs, which is 15% more than Shuttle.

Wouldn't those kinds of differences require a full-up redesign of the ET?  And wouldn't that kind of work cost just as much (or more) than the DIRECT Common Core?  These additional loads would require a stronger and heavier ET, which would affect both the development time and the weight.  And who on Earth thinks its a good idea to hang a 290 ton asymmetrical load off the side of an ET?  Just put it on top where God intended and be done with it!

Mark S.

[MP99]

Adding the "DIRECT - advanced" figures... J-246 Heavy & J-241 Heavy, ie std J-24x with 5-seg SRB's, but no other enhancements:-

EDS    J-246H - 117mT net    J-241H - 120mT net.

Crewed    J-246H - 109mT net / 98mT with 10% addn'l margins    J-241H - 112mT net / 101mT with margins.

Cargo    J-246H - 115mT net / 104mT with 10% addn'l margins    J-241H - 119mT net / 107mT with margins.

I get thru TLI  figures of 46-48mT net crewed & 49-50mT net cargo. Note, those are my figures, but based on the gravity losses of a 200mT IMLEO two-launch mission, so should be conservative. (Reminder, these are for "Heavy").

I think we should compare "apples to apples" (at least "apples to apples" as far as "official" numbers are concerned), that is if we say "net" we should mean the net-number with the standard 10% margin on top of any regular NASA GR&As.

Such a comparison does provide (all net payloads (without EDS masses) with NASA GR&As + 10% additional reserve):

Those figures are comparing DIRECT-LOR with NSC-LOR, but I think we should be comparing DIRECT-EOR-LOR vs NSC-LOR (unless DIRECT would have to change mission profile to be selected). The relevant DIRECT figures are therefore "EDS TLI performance / 2-launch EOR" from the EDS baseball cards, ie payload, net of EDS, that can be pushed through TLI:-

J-246:- 79,053kg
J-246H:- 92,426kg

The various CLV & CaLV payload to LEO figures simply boil down to the statement that for those TLI's "CLV and CaLV can be lifted to LEO with more than 10% margins". (CLV on J-246, CaLV on J-130).

NSC Block II (7.5m dia - 11m long (net without EDS length) fairing): 35.1mt to TLI

...

NSC Block II with 5-segment SRBs and SSMEs at 109% (7.5m dia - 11m long fairing - cargo only): 91mt to 120nm x 120nm 29° orbit - no official TLI number - estimate: 39mt

You're obviously not going to use 109% SSME's for a crew, but even if you did this would result in 78mT total through TLI (with 5-seg SRB's).

It shouldn't be a problem to max out the cargo TLI at 39mT, but you still need to max out the crewed TLI (35mT+) to maximise the total performance of the architecture. Once the lander TLI is maxed out, the only growth option seems to be to transfer cargo from Orion to Lander before descent?

cheers, Martin

[MP99]

NSC Block II (7.5m dia - 22m long (net without upper stage length)  fairing) :
81.1mt (cargo) -
82.9mt (crew)
to 120nm x 120nm 29° orbit

(Formatting modified).

Why is the crewed figure higher than the cargo figure?

cheers, Martin

[John Duncan]

If NSC is selected it's because this process was NASA's way of getting out from under Ares without looking stupid.  It would be an inside job, from my point of view.

I certainly hope this is not the case though.  If the White House wants to kill exploration, then they will choose NSC.

Ridiculous.  What do you base that on?  Or is it blind devotion to something else?  What is choosen will be choosen for a variety of reasons. 

No blind devotion.  Just a mistrust of the current upper NASA management and their influence on contractors and/or industry leaders.

I said I hoped it would not be the case.  But if something odd comes out of it, then NASA management got to the White House and put their thumb on the scale.

[raketen]

Adding the "DIRECT - advanced" figures... J-246 Heavy & J-241 Heavy, ie std J-24x with 5-seg SRB's, but no other enhancements:-

EDS    J-246H - 117mT net    J-241H - 120mT net.

Crewed    J-246H - 109mT net / 98mT with 10% addn'l margins    J-241H - 112mT net / 101mT with margins.

Cargo    J-246H - 115mT net / 104mT with 10% addn'l margins    J-241H - 119mT net / 107mT with margins.

I get thru TLI  figures of 46-48mT net crewed & 49-50mT net cargo. Note, those are my figures, but based on the gravity losses of a 200mT IMLEO two-launch mission, so should be conservative. (Reminder, these are for "Heavy").

I think we should compare "apples to apples" (at least "apples to apples" as far as "official" numbers are concerned), that is if we say "net" we should mean the net-number with the standard 10% margin on top of any regular NASA GR&As.

Such a comparison does provide (all net payloads (without EDS masses) with NASA GR&As + 10% additional reserve):

NSC Block I (without upper stage - 7.5m dia - 35m long fairing): 71.9mt to 120nm x 120nm 29° orbit
J-130 (without upper stage - 8.4m dia - 10m long fairing): 64.3mt to 100nmx100nm 29° orbit

NSC Block II (7.5m dia - 22m long (net without upper stage length)  fairing) : 81.1mt (cargo) - 82.9mt (crew) to 120nm x 120nm 29° orbit
J-246 (10m dia - 5.6m long fairing): 84.3mt (crew and cargo) - 88.5mt (cargo only) to 130nm x 130nm 29° orbit

NSC Block II (7.5m dia - 11m long (net without EDS length) fairing): 35.1mt to TLI
J-246 (10m dia - 5.6m long fairing): no official data - estimate based on LEO cargo only numbers: 38mt

NSC Block II with 5-segment SRBs and SSMEs at 109% (7.5m dia - 11m long fairing - cargo only): 91mt to 120nm x 120nm 29° orbit - no official TLI number - estimate: 39mt
J-246H (10m dia - 5.6m long fairing RL 10B-2): 104.1mt to 130nm x 130nm 29° orbit - no official TLI number - estimate: 45mt

Caveat: Those are just numbers like they are presented up to now - we'll see a real apples-to-apples comparison once Aerospace publishes their analysis (if that is actually made available to the public...)

Apples to apples means that one group does the analysis for the two systems and uses a common set of groundrules.

Also, consider the pmf of the upper stage.  What happens if NSC uses the pmf of the Direct's upper stage and vice versa?  That would be an interesting comparison

[fotoguzzi]

As others have asked before, how does DIRECT not lift a lot more than Not-Shuttle-C?  Does the pod weigh nothing?  Does inline thrust not help DIRECT at all?

It seems risible the fuss made over the DIRECT three-burner asymmetry when the new dark horse has an offset measured in car-lengths.

Other than the modified ET, what is DIRECT giving up that Not-Shuttle-C doesn't have to worry about?

Modify: clarify