Author Topic: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1  (Read 1228103 times)

Offline gin455res

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
  • bristol, uk
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #420 on: 06/05/2009 09:50 pm »
The J-130 uses J-24X components. It is a J-24X without 1 SSME or an  upper stage. So it seems to me the J-24X is the Jupiter and J-130 is the Jupiter lite. Jupiter lite also makes it sound 'quick and easy'.

Heavy also seems to already be used conventionally for 3 parallel staged cores.

Offline dnavas

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • San Jose
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 1312
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #421 on: 06/05/2009 10:01 pm »
Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages. The core stage is "Jupiter" which remains essentially the same.  The upper stage is what the Jupiter rocket delivers to orbit. It sounds fine saying "Liftoff of the Jupiter Rocket carrying the *model name* upper stage to orbit."

I kind of like "zeus" as the name for Jupiter's Upper Stage.  If you see what I mean....  :)

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #422 on: 06/05/2009 10:07 pm »
Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages.

I like this idea.  What we need is a catchy and appropriate name for the Jupiter Upper Stage.  Then we can call the two configurations Jupiter and Jupiter/"Insert catchy name here".

It should be something from Roman mythology, or something related to the planet.  Maybe after one of Jupiter's moons (Io, Ganymede, Callisto), or one of Jupiter's children (Minerva (goddess of wisdom!)).

Mark S.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 10:09 pm by Mark S »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #423 on: 06/05/2009 10:10 pm »

Jupiter it was born, Jupiter it should stay.  And leave the techie detail suffixes to the engineers.

Mark S.

I think most here probably don't really care what NASA calls it, as long as they switch to and build it!

They can call it the "Exploder-1" and "Exploder-2"  if they want, as long as they build it.
;)
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 10:18 pm by Lobo »

Offline cixelsyD

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • San Diego, CA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #424 on: 06/05/2009 10:14 pm »
Well ,there are many different sizes of upper stages. Different engine configuations as far as I can tell, since Jupiter is so versitile. Naming them after Jupter's Moons sounds good, as long as you have fewer than 8 different types of upper stages. Naming the stages separately emphasizes (for me anyway) that the Shuttle stack can lift more than Shuttles, which seems to be hard for some people to wrap their minds around.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 619
  • Likes Given: 2127
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #425 on: 06/05/2009 10:22 pm »
The J-130 uses J-24X components. It is a J-24X without 1 SSME or an  upper stage. So it seems to me the J-24X is the Jupiter and J-130 is the Jupiter lite. Jupiter lite also makes it sound 'quick and easy'.

Heavy also seems to already be used conventionally for 3 parallel staged cores.
"Lite" also fits nicely with the plan to phase J-130 out after EELV takes over. However I don't think it's a good idea to call either vehicle just "Jupiter" since it would be too hard to tell if someone was talking about both vehicles generically or the particular vehicle called "Jupiter".

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #426 on: 06/05/2009 10:27 pm »
Forgive me if this was already posted, but the panel now has a site where the public can ask questions and provide comments:

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html

But as Ross already warned before, play nice.

You can also email them documents directly.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 10:28 pm by gladiator1332 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #427 on: 06/05/2009 10:29 pm »
Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages.

I like this idea.  What we need is a catchy and appropriate name for the Jupiter Upper Stage.  Then we can call the two configurations Jupiter and Jupiter/"Insert catchy name here".

It should be something from Roman mythology, or something related to the planet.  Maybe after one of Jupiter's moons (Io, Ganymede, Callisto), or one of Jupiter's children (Minerva (goddess of wisdom!)).

Mark S.


That's actually not a bad idea. Check this out:

The Jupiter Upper Stage, which doesn't have a name, is really a big Centaur. The name "Centaur" is already well known as an "Upper Stage", not a rocket, so we could have "Jupiter" and "Jupiter/Centaur". ULA already uses "Atlas" and "Atlas/Centaur" and everybody understands the difference without referring, in everyday talk, to Atlas-441, 552, etc. What do you think?

Just musing a little here.

Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS?

In either case, there's no doubt that you are talking about a single rocket, with or without an upper stage. The specific designations could be reserved for the technical discussions.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 10:37 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline cixelsyD

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • San Diego, CA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #428 on: 06/05/2009 10:45 pm »
I'm just guessing here, but the biggest point of emphasizing a single rocket would be the idea of mass production (so to speak).

I mean if someone compared Ares V and Jupiter 246 side by side, you would see it as a down grade unless you realized you could launch many more 130s and 246s than Ares I and Vs. I know Ross showed me a chart of engine costs as a function of production. Since you're making 4-6 (hopefully) jupiter rockets a year you applied that cost analysis to ALL rocket parts, not just engines correct?

Surely the cost/ upper stage decreases by a lot of you launch 2-4 a year instead of 0-1. To me thats one of the biggest attractions of Direct, the mass production of a set of space launch vehicles.

Edit: I dunno about calling it Centaur, isn't that name copyrighted or something? If you can get it, it's intuitive and a great name; it probably would make the ULA guys happy to be given tip of the hat when the upper stage lifts off. First hearing it, Centaur makes me think of "work horse". Probably not a bad image.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 11:03 pm by cixelsyD »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #429 on: 06/05/2009 11:22 pm »


That's actually not a bad idea. Check this out:

The Jupiter Upper Stage, which doesn't have a name, is really a big Centaur. The name "Centaur" is already well known as an "Upper Stage", not a rocket, so we could have "Jupiter" and "Jupiter/Centaur". ULA already uses "Atlas" and "Atlas/Centaur" and everybody understands the difference without referring, in everyday talk, to Atlas-441, 552, etc. What do you think?

Just musing a little here.

Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS?

In either case, there's no doubt that you are talking about a single rocket, with or without an upper stage. The specific designations could be reserved for the technical discussions.

Interesting, although I still like "Jupiter-I" and "Jupiter-II"  ;)

Jupiter/ACUS is a little cumbersom, the mythology upper stage is kind of a cool idea.
As for Jupiter's kids, "Io" wouldn't be bad, but "Callisto, Ganamyde, and Europa" are a little cumbersome.

Going with "Zeus" might work.  Zeus is Jupiter's counterpart in Greek Mythology, so the two go together anyway.  Even when googling one or the other, they are used synonimously.

Jupiter, and Jupiter/Zeus.

in that same vein, "Thor" might worlk, Norse god of Thunder.
"Jupiter/Thor".  one syllable, nice and easy off the tounge.

another idea is perhaps a clever alternative name for Thunder or Lightning, as Zeus/Jupiter is the God of Thunder and hurls lightning bolts, so you could consider Jupiter hurling the JUS skyward as the god might hurl a lighting bolt.
Possibilities for Lighting:  Lightning (English), Fulgur (Latin), Blitzen (or perhaps "Blitz", German), Eclair (French), Rayo (Spanish), Fulmine or Lampo (Italian), Lyn (Norwegean), Hiraganan (Japanese), Keravnos (Greek).
 
Possibilities for Thunder: Thunder (obviously), Rai (Japanese), Raijin (Japanese God of Thunder),  Tonitrus (Latin), Tuono (Italian), Bronto (Greek).


Offline cixelsyD

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • San Diego, CA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #430 on: 06/05/2009 11:30 pm »
Or you could name it after another creature from mythology. Instead of Centaur you could have, (just a few from a list)

Chimera
Griffin (previous administrator anyone?)
Hydra
Pegasus (taken I think)
Phoenix (taken by rover I think)

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 619
  • Likes Given: 2127
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #431 on: 06/05/2009 11:32 pm »
Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS?
Calling it Centaur would rub salt into the wound by reminding NASA that the upper stage is based on externally developed technology. Politically that sounds like a bad idea. I suggest avoiding all languages except English, Greek and Latin for political (xenophobic) reasons. Other ancient languages are probably ok, but I would avoid modern languages such as French, German and Japanese.

Zeus sounds like a good name for the second stage.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #432 on: 06/05/2009 11:33 pm »
Or you could name it after another creature from mythology. Instead of Centaur you could have, (just a few from a list)

Chimera
Griffin (previous administrator anyone?)
Hydra
Pegasus (taken I think)
Phoenix (taken by rover I think)

Nah. We must NOT get fancy here. This is not mythology, it is a cryogenic upper stage on a rocket. The name of the stage should reflect that. This is, after all, rocket science.  :)
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #433 on: 06/05/2009 11:33 pm »
Quote
Eclair

uh...

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #434 on: 06/05/2009 11:34 pm »
Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS?
Calling it Centaur would rub salt into the wound by reminding NASA that the upper stage is based on externally developed technology. Politically that sounds like a bad idea. I suggest avoiding all languages except English, Greek and Latin for political (xenophobic) reasons. Other ancient languages are probably ok, but I would avoid modern languages such as French, German and Japanese.

Zeus sounds like a good name for the second stage.

Some of NASA's finest hours began their journeys on a Centaur.
NASA has been using the Centaur, proudly, for 40 plus years.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline cixelsyD

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • San Diego, CA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #435 on: 06/05/2009 11:38 pm »
Or you could name it after another creature from mythology. Instead of Centaur you could have, (just a few from a list)

Chimera
Griffin (previous administrator anyone?)
Hydra
Pegasus (taken I think)
Phoenix (taken by rover I think)

Nah. We must NOT get fancy here. This is not mythology, it is a cryogenic upper stage on a rocket. The name of the stage should reflect that. This is, after all, rocket science.  :)

I LOL'd. Just brainstorming. Probably to reduce confusion you should use a name that's already in use as upper stage (like centaur as you said), just because having another new name in there might bring us back to the confusion of having 2 separate rockets. The emphasis should be on the Jupiter Core, especially early in the program. You can probably just name the upper stage later so you have Jupiter rocket lifting Orion and Jupiter rocket lifting upper stage.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #436 on: 06/05/2009 11:49 pm »
Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS?
Calling it Centaur would rub salt into the wound by reminding NASA that the upper stage is based on externally developed technology. Politically that sounds like a bad idea. I suggest avoiding all languages except English, Greek and Latin for political (xenophobic) reasons. Other ancient languages are probably ok, but I would avoid modern languages such as French, German and Japanese.

Zeus sounds like a good name for the second stage.

Another possibility is "Valkyrie".  It's not too odd like "chimera", and it's common enough in English that it's not too associated with a foreign culture (although It's obviously Norse in Origin) as deltaV mentioned.
Valkyries are usually portrayed as women warriors either with wings themselves, or riding horses with wings.  Either way, flight capable to the heavens, so it actually fits pretty good with an EDS.  Probably would make for a pretty good eye-catching logo too.

Zeus, Thor, or Valkyrie.

All good possibities I think.

Or just call it "Bolt" as in "lighting bolt" or "thunder bolt" as in what Jupiter/Zeus hurls about.


Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #437 on: 06/05/2009 11:56 pm »
NASA News Bulletin clip

Nice!   I'm amazed to see it in an internal NASA newsletter at all.   I would have guessed that any mention of DIRECT would have been embargoed.

It would be nice to think that perhaps this is a sign of improved relations.

I noticed that my blog (Selenian Boondocks) was also getting a lot of hits from a NASA News Bulletin site a while ago.  Unfortunately it wasn't a public site, so I couldn't see what they were saying about me.  :-)

~Jon

Offline ChuckC

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #438 on: 06/06/2009 12:55 am »
I think Ares III and Ares IV are great names for the vehicles.

We had a bit of a discussion this morning about the naming convention for DIRECT.  My suggestion is to drop the numeric suffixes in normal conversation, in presentations, and in advocacy materials.  This should be done in order to make clear that there is only one Jupiter vehicle, flown either with or without an upper stage.

There is not just a great amount of commonality between the single-stage Jupiter and the Jupiter with its Upper Stage.  They are identical in every way that counts, except for the presence of the fourth SSME and the JUS.  Presenting and discussing them as if they were two different vehicles minimizes one of the strongest selling points that DIRECT has.

Renaming them to "Ares-III" and "Ares-IV" introduces even more confusion than the suffixes "-130" and "-246" already have.  Jupiter is unique, it is not Ares by any stretch of the imagination, and people would think that "-III" and "-IV" have just as little in common as "-I" and "-V", i.e. nothing of practical value besides the J2X.

Jupiter it was born, Jupiter it should stay.  And leave the techie detail suffixes to the engineers.

Mark S.

There is a difference between what is used in presenting and selling it to NASA et al, and what will be best for official designations. The Ares-III and IV designations better from a public relations stand point, since sounds more like an upgrade than a big change.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #439 on: 06/06/2009 12:58 am »

There is a difference between what is used in presenting and selling it to NASA et al, and what will be best for official designations. The Ares-III and IV designations better from a public relations stand point, since sounds more like an upgrade than a big change.

In other circumstances, maybe, but not with Ares-I and Ares-V cluttering the landscape.
Ares-III and Ares-IV sounds like 2 different rockets, like Ares-I and Ares-V.

Sorry
 
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0