As a side note (and I am going to shut up past this), please tone down on the 'Ares&NASA' You want to win hearts and minds who have invested and are indeed investing *their hearts and minds*, and folks who *will have to implement yours* if they are asked to. And some posts here have spoken to this effect. Ares goes on because folks carry on -- it is not helpful to tell them "RESET what you are doing and do a different thing, ' cause it's better".
And it isn't quite so straight-forward either. The SRB Aft supports would then be located on the LH2 tank wall, no longer where the lower ring-frame is situated. To implement the stretch you either have to relocate the SRB attachments lower on the SRB's (requiring re-qual) of you would have to strengthen that region of the tank with an extra ringframe inside the LH2 tank.
http://www.directlaumcher.com/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-246.wmv
Quote from: veryrelaxed on 06/03/2009 06:11 amAs a side note (and I am going to shut up past this), please tone down on the 'Ares&NASA' You want to win hearts and minds who have invested and are indeed investing *their hearts and minds*, and folks who *will have to implement yours* if they are asked to. And some posts here have spoken to this effect. Ares goes on because folks carry on -- it is not helpful to tell them "RESET what you are doing and do a different thing, ' cause it's better".But that isn't what stops me sleeping. For over two years now, we keep having discussions about "how to let NASA take ownership" and how to "save face" for the agency. I believe that the time is almost upon us for that to happen.I think those two, more political, issues have actually grown to be even bigger sticking points than any of the technical issues. But we have some surprisingly simple solutions which we can put-forward to resolve all those issues.For a start, it sure helps that NASA already did NLS. That proves that this approach was born -- 100% -- within NASA. NASA already invented this. We just dusted it off, tweaked it a little and gave it a new face.For seconds, its not NASA's fault that the economy has gone to pot and that discretionary funding is being reduced all-across Federal government. The agency was promised a certain amount of additional money four years ago and now they aren't getting any of it, in fact their budget is about to be reduced for the third time since then. That seems like a damn good argument to use to explain why they need to start considering an architecture change now, wouldn't you agree?Ross.
If you add segements to the SRBs or stretch the core/ET tank, is it absolutely necessary to move the core/SRB attach points on either the tank or the SRBs?
Quote from: clongton on 06/03/2009 02:35 amQuote from: TrueBlueWitt on 06/03/2009 02:25 amWasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight? Or do I have the wrong day?Anyone rember which show? Any comments from someone that watched it?Ross should be on right now. Started at 10:00 pm EasternAhhh, two hours of non-stop talking on The Space Show!Given that I'm normally quite terrified at the prospect of all such public 'appearances', I think that went pretty well and my "stage terror" didn't really come out, whew! I'll be around to answer questions for a while still.Ross.
Quote from: TrueBlueWitt on 06/03/2009 02:25 amWasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight? Or do I have the wrong day?Anyone rember which show? Any comments from someone that watched it?Ross should be on right now. Started at 10:00 pm Eastern
Wasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight? Or do I have the wrong day?Anyone rember which show? Any comments from someone that watched it?
PRESENTATION TIME!Okay, ahead of placing this up on the website (hopefully Wednesday!) I wanted to deliver a "Preview" copy of the ISDC Presentation here first.Be aware that this copy HAS NOT GOT A FINISHED APPENDIX YET!!! That's still "in work" right now. We also plan to add a series of "comments" throughout the presentation to make up for the fact that we don't have someone actually talking you through the various slides -- as the Presentation is really designed to be presented.So here is a "not-quite-finished writing the Appendix" version of the Presentation specifically for NSF readers to enjoy:-http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/DIRECT_ISDC_2009_NSF_Preview.ppsTo make the animation sequence work you will need the .wmv video and will need to place it in the same folder as the .pps file. You can get the .wmv version here:-http://www.directlauncher.com/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-246.wmvEnjoy! And feedback is welcome.Ross.[EDIT: If you have problems accessing those, try replacing 'directlauncher.com' with 'launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct']
Very impressed with the presentation. GREAT JOB!BTW: Appendix Slide 77 still references J-120 and J-232..
I saw a J-120 using 2 SSMEs with an LEO capability of 39mT +10% fuel reserve.Would this be more economical at servicing crew and supplies than the J-130 until advancedEELVs and COTS-D?
Quote from: William Barton on 06/03/2009 10:30 amIf you add segements to the SRBs or stretch the core/ET tank, is it absolutely necessary to move the core/SRB attach points on either the tank or the SRBs? The point to remember is that the main (upper) attach points are attached to a spar that runs through the LH2/LOX intertank on the ET. Changing the size of the tanks logically changes the location of the intertank. Either you move the attachment point or you redesign it (a ring rather than a spar, for example).
A 4-seg design could be upgraded with 5-segs as a future upgrade, but none of the 5-seg optimized configurations could be used with 4-segs unless they included a 'spacer' to artificially lengthen them.
Quote from: kraisee on 09-03-2009, 11:28:41 Now, if we were to propose a Stretched Core to work optimally with a set of 5-segs, then the 5-engine arrangement would be better suited than the 4-engine. But that would add significant additional development costs and stretch out the schedule for IOC of the initial J-130's too -- so we don't really like that option. Ross.Of course, if the 5-segment SRB actually becomes a reality, that stretched, 5-engine configuration might make sense. But that's for FUTURE planners
And it isn't quite so straight-forward either. The SRB Aft supports would then be located on the LH2 tank wall, no longer where the lower ring-frame is situated. To implement the stretch you either have to relocate the SRB attachments lower on the SRB's (requiring re-qual) of you would have to strengthen that region of the tank with an extra ringframe inside the LH2 tank. While both are possible, neither is a trivial change and both add $$$ and time to the development -- and delays = job losses.Given that we already comfortably exceed all of the performance requirements, we don't see this as a worthy trade in Phase 1 of our proposal.Ross.
Quote from: kraisee on 06/03/2009 06:29 amQuote from: veryrelaxed on 06/03/2009 06:11 amAs a side note (and I am going to shut up past this), please tone down on the 'Ares&NASA' You want to win hearts and minds who have invested and are indeed investing *their hearts and minds*, and folks who *will have to implement yours* if they are asked to. And some posts here have spoken to this effect. Ares goes on because folks carry on -- it is not helpful to tell them "RESET what you are doing and do a different thing, ' cause it's better".But that isn't what stops me sleeping. For over two years now, we keep having discussions about "how to let NASA take ownership" and how to "save face" for the agency. I believe that the time is almost upon us for that to happen.I think those two, more political, issues have actually grown to be even bigger sticking points than any of the technical issues. But we have some surprisingly simple solutions which we can put-forward to resolve all those issues.For a start, it sure helps that NASA already did NLS. That proves that this approach was born -- 100% -- within NASA. NASA already invented this. We just dusted it off, tweaked it a little and gave it a new face.For seconds, its not NASA's fault that the economy has gone to pot and that discretionary funding is being reduced all-across Federal government. The agency was promised a certain amount of additional money four years ago and now they aren't getting any of it, in fact their budget is about to be reduced for the third time since then. That seems like a damn good argument to use to explain why they need to start considering an architecture change now, wouldn't you agree?Ross.and thirdly the architecture you have specifically chosen (SSME J-246) allows NASA to do a variant of it and still claim it is an Ares variant by starting with the 8.4m SSME Ares V classic as the CaLV end point and just making an Ares III CLV(+) out of it with 3 SSMEs. The CLV would obviously have to lift the LSAM as well as Orion. They still get an Ares V, 5-segs and the J-2X but the CLV is basically the same launcher without 2 SSMEs and an upper stage and is truly safe, simple, soon . Many ways to skin this cat if there is the will .