DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 2

[clongton]

<snip>Also, if Jupiter's costs are that much cheaper and its schedule that much quicker than all of the other options discussed Aug 12, it could threaten support for an accelerated push for Commercial space launches.

That speaks volumes.

[adamsmith]

I just read a column in the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125089632848150593.html

And it indicates that the Augustine commission will push for Commercial support both manned and cargo of ISS through 2020 and propellant depots.  Ares I is dead, Orion is dead and any heavy lift is in danger.  No Lunar Landings till after 2025.

Lack of $$$ is the central issue

Stanley

[Ben the Space Brit]

Lack of $$$ is the central issue

Fortunately, that is a fairly simple problem to remedy (in the political mind).  The real issue will be whether this current Congress regards NASA as still being a national prestige project that needs to be supported or even 'saved'.  Expect the Gentlemen for Alabama and Florida to offer lots of rhetoric along that theme.  If Congress agrees this is a noble recipient for the taxpayer's dollar, a small boost may be found to speed the shuttle replacement crew launcher (if only to avoid the humiliation of going cap-in-hand to the Russians of all people).  If not, NASA will just have to make do with what it's got.

Either way, in practice, I'd say that the next US crew launcher will either be a Orion-Lite/Atlas-V-402 or a Dragon/Falcon-9 (possibly a direct choice between both depending on whose turn to launch it is on the rotation).  However, I'm also pretty sure that this will be consistantly described as a 'stop-gap' or 'interim' solution with plenty of pretty PowerPoint promising a nebulous HLLV in the near future.

IMHO, I suspect that the HLLV will be Atlas-V Phase 2 (which maxes out at 90-100t payload to LEO).  I can't see anything else being a serious contender at this time.  I agree with Chuck that DIRECT only continues to make sense if shuttle-derived remains a political objective.  If Congress is willing to sacrifice the shuttle workforce, then money would be better spent on a powerful large hydrocarbon LV that side-steps all the known safety issues of the shuttle stack (especially SRB aborts).

[jordanch68]

What is the possibility that Direct 3.0 could be developed as a commercial alternative outside of NASA?

[adamsmith]

money would be better spent on a powerful large hydrocarbon LV that side-steps all the known safety issues of the shuttle stack (especially SRB aborts).

Didn't we used to have one of those: Saturn.

Stanley

[Ben the Space Brit]

money would be better spent on a powerful large hydrocarbon LV that side-steps all the known safety issues of the shuttle stack (especially SRB aborts).

Didn't we used to have one of those: Saturn.

Stanley

Yeah, we did.  Unfortunately, the tank insulation is toxic by today's standards and its price tag was a bit too high, even for the 1960s.  The issue of whether the shuttle was better value for money than Saturn-V should be debated elsewehere.  The only relevant issue is that it was meant to be cheaper.  Similarly, CxP was meant to be better value for money than the shuttle.  Now, commercial launch is meant to be better value for money than CxP.

If you'll excuse my cynicism I have to say that past history does not auger well for that dream to become reality.  I suppose that is the reason why I liked an SDLV solution, despite the fact that other options probably had better performance.  The transition would have cost less and there are fewer developmental grey areas into which billions of dollars could fall.

[adamsmith]

money would be better spent on a powerful large hydrocarbon LV that side-steps all the known safety issues of the shuttle stack (especially SRB aborts).

Didn't we used to have one of those: Saturn.

Stanley

Yeah, we did.  Unfortunately, the tank insulation is toxic by today's standards and its price tag was a bit too high, even for the 1960s.  The issue of whether the shuttle was better value for money than Saturn-V should be debated elsewehere.  The only relevant issue is that it was meant to be cheaper.  Similarly, CxP was meant to be better value for money than the shuttle.  Now, commercial launch is meant to be better value for money than CxP.

If you'll excuse my cynicism I have to say that past history does not auger well for that dream to become reality.  I suppose that is the reason why I liked an SDLV solution, despite the fact that other options probably had better performance.  The transition would have cost less and there are fewer developmental grey areas into which billions of dollars could fall.

Agreed on all points

Stanley

[John Duncan]

It is difficult to imagine commercial transport for crews being viable.  I'd think that it would be a requirement sometime in the future but unless it's profitable it won't last.  Can you see NASA putting their eggs in the commercial taxi basket and in five years having the companies decide it's not worth the investment?

This is why we have had the government do all that since they aren't worried about a profit.  It may not be the best but it has been working.

Now we've got a bunch of commercial fans doing this analysis and they are pitching for NASA getting out of the launch business.

It's scary.

[kttopdad]

Why does everyone consider it a bad thing that the Option in which the Jupiter plays a starring role is the only option that carries the baggage of Shuttle and ISS extensions?  Yes, that inflates the "cost" of that Option, but I offer the following points for your consideration:

1)  The general consensus on this forum seems to be that there is a strong political wind blowing towards ISS extension to 2020, and probably STS schedule stretching to ~2015.  The SDHLV-centric Option is the only one that covers that base, and does so with the same ballpark cost profile as all of the other options.  If the decision-makers want a non-SDHLV option and also extend the ISS to 2020, it's obvious that they'll have to pony up a lot more cash than is baselined by the Augustine Commission Options.  That the one Option that can both extend the ISS and stay within a *reasonable*  budget is the Option that includes a SDHLV is a good thing in my book.

2)  It's been said many times that every time in-line vs. side-mount SDHLV has been looked at, the development costs are ~similar but the operation costs are significantly different, and the growth options are significantly in favor of an in-line solution.  That bodes well for the ultimate selection of an in-line configuration, e.g. the Jupiter family.

3)  Lumping the Jupiter family together with NSC validates the Jupiter configuration as being the equal of the "official" NASA-created NSC.  Yes, the Jupiter is just a modern version of an old NASA-created in-line configuration of the STS stack.  We all know that.  However, the pro-Ares upper-tier NASA executive management has been painting the Jupiter configurations as abominations that will never fly.  The Augustine Commission has done away with that nonsense forever by explicitly stating that the in-line and side-mount configurations are both viable options, to be considered as peers in this study.  That's a good thing for the Jupiter.

Given that ISS extension looks likely; that there is only one Option put forth by the Augustine Commission that includes ISS extension; that the aforementioned Option hinges on SDHLV; that an in-line configuration has always come out on top in every side-by-side comparison with side-mount, I believe things are looking good for the Jupiter family.  The details may vary, such as no J-130, etc., but in general it looks good for the adoption of the Jupiter LV configuration.

The same may not be said for the DIRECT architecture as a whole, but Chuck has already addressed that issue.  DIRECT is an answer to a specific set of HSF requirements that were laid out years ago by a previous Administration.  If the current Administration chooses to change things, then DIRECT may not survive as-is.  However, key elements of DIRECT are likely to remain in the picture, thanks to the hard work of the DIRECT team.  The Jupiter configuration looks good and fuel depots are on the table for the first time in the post-ISS, beyond LEO discussion.  These are arguably the core of the DIRECT architecture, and they're looking awfully likely at this point.

I think things are looking pretty good for Jupiter and for the heart of the DIRECT architecture.

Exciting times, these!

[Heinrich]

What is the possibility that Direct 3.0 could be developed as a commercial alternative outside of NASA?

Assuming that NASA owns the STS design I don't think it will be commercially attractive... If however, STS is 'public knowledge' (i.e. if e.g. ATK is free to sell you a shuttle booster) then it might be viable. Although I can't imagine there are enough clients to make it a viable business case.

[RocketEconomist327]

What is the possibility that Direct 3.0 could be developed as a commercial alternative outside of NASA?

Assuming that NASA owns the STS design I don't think it will be commercially attractive... If however, STS is 'public knowledge' (i.e. if e.g. ATK is free to sell you a shuttle booster) then it might be viable. Although I can't imagine there are enough clients to make it a viable business case.

Sadly, there is no way that the current DIRECT proposal could be a private venture unless someone was building it "just because".  By this I mean that they do not care that they will never turn a profit.  They build it because they care about humanity and the space program.

SpaceX has a similar goal, but they are in the biz to make money... and I feel they will.

This is not to say someone like Bill Gates with 50 billion laying around just decides, "you know what,  I want to build a Jupiter 24x!"

Even if that were to happen with the development and the cost of a test article at about 8 billion dollars (DIRECT’s number), will "The NASA" allow Bill to use their infrastructure to build, stack, and launch said vehicle?

To quote Mack Brown, "let me answer this one for Chris..."

NO WAY.

At least not with the group that resides on the 9th floor right now; that is until the paradigm shifts.

Finally, who has ~$300 million to launch a vehicle into space?  Who develops the satellites to do this?  Governments, specifically the United States.  We need Jupiters to launch massive projects into space.  We currently cannot build a BFT (big “frigging” telescope) because we do not have a vehicle to lift it.  How cool would it be to have a telescope with something ridiculous like a 15 meter mirror... hello?  We could do that with Jupiter.  I won’t even begin to dabble in what the NSA and other intel agencies “could” do with such a capability.

VR
RS327

[Heinrich]

Sadly, there is no way that the current DIRECT proposal could be a private venture unless someone was building it "just because".  By this I mean that they do not care that they will never turn a profit.  They build it because they care about humanity and the space program.

This is not to say someone like Bill Gates with 50 billion laying around just decides, "you know what,  I want to build a Jupiter 24x!"

Even if that were to happen with the development and the cost of a test article at about 8 billion dollars (DIRECT’s number), will "The NASA" allow Bill to use their infrastructure to build, stack, and launch said vehicle?

To quote Mack Brown, "let me answer this one for Chris..."

NO WAY.

At least not with the group that resides on the 9th floor right now; that is until the paradigm shifts.

Finally, who has ~$300 million to launch a vehicle into space?  Who develops the satellites to do this?  Governments, specifically the United States.  We need Jupiters to launch massive projects into space.  We currently cannot build a BFT (big “frigging” telescope) because we do not have a vehicle to lift it.  How cool would it be to have a telescope with something ridiculous like a 15 meter mirror... hello?  We could do that with Jupiter.  I won’t even begin to dabble in what the NSA and other intel agencies “could” do with such a capability.

VR
RS327

Slightly O/T:
It's not likely that it will be commercially attractive, but...

What if e.g. Bill gates, or maybe more realistic Mr. Virgin want to jumpstart his space program. NASA sells a license to use the intellectual property rights of STS, striking up a sum of money for the first X Jupiter launches, earning money for it's own HSF program. Money for Virgin can be made by A: selling seats to space tourists, B: signing up for commercial crew rotations/taxi flights, C: lifting accidental oversized/overweight loads not possible by other launchers.
If you can develop a "Bus" sized crew module (7, 10, maybe even 20 people) you can spread out launch costs over more passengers.

-Is LC-39 owned by NASA or USAF?

Anyway, too much sci-fi I guess... :-)

[Lobo]

The reason for this is that the committee wants to promote commercial to LEO not that SDHV cannot be man-rated.

So why does Ares V Lite (doing what is essentially the Direct Phase 2 moon mission) get man-rated?  What's so special about Ares?  Is it just that it's too expensive to afford COTS-D at the same time?

I am aware of the committee's apparent desire to promote commercial space, but hobbling the lunar architecture with an extra half launch strikes me as a strange way to go about it, particularly since that's what got us into this mess in the first place...

What is this half launch business?

Either you launch (1)

Or you don't launch (0)

Launch is a binary situation.  Then you need to calculate the trades and costs.  If you launch Jupiter 24x with Orion and Altair and 24x with EDS (or later do it with 24x and PD), does man-rating 24x and two launches cost more than three launches with COTS? Or does PD and a single 24x cost more than two launches with COTS?

Indeed.
I suppose they mean relatively.  1.5 would be a heavy and a medium launch.  But it is still two launches.

In the same vein, this is something I think a little misleading when talking about depots.  Although a single J-246 can do a lunar mission with a depot, the propellant doesn’t magically appear there.  It requires several launches to get it up there if it’s going on EELV class vehicles.  Probably 5-7 launches depending on the vehicle.  So J-246 + depot isn’t a single launch architecture, it’s more of a 7-8 launch architecture, rather than the 2-launch baseline architecture.

I’m well aware of the arguments for the depots, but a launch is a launch.  And you are technically trading that 2nd Jupiter launch for several EELV launches.  The mission is dependant on 3-4 times as many launches.

I think this is sort of intentionally or unintentionally left out of depot discussions  to make it sound like you are reducing the number of launches rather than increasing them.
They’d just be done by other parties rather than NASA, which may or may not introduce additional headaches.

[simon-th]

What is the possibility that Direct 3.0 could be developed as a commercial alternative outside of NASA?

Assuming that NASA owns the STS design I don't think it will be commercially attractive... If however, STS is 'public knowledge' (i.e. if e.g. ATK is free to sell you a shuttle booster) then it might be viable. Although I can't imagine there are enough clients to make it a viable business case.

Actually, even if there were a viable 100mt to LEO commercial market, commercial companies would rather go for a clean-sheet design. Jupiter is a valid concept for reusing the current Shuttle infrastructure and hardware as well as workforce. It's basically a political and technical compromise. With a clean-sheet approach you end up designing a very different 21st century rocket which probably doesn't involve solid rocket boosters or SSMEs etc.

[TOG]

The reason for this is that the committee wants to promote commercial to LEO not that SDHV cannot be man-rated.

So why does Ares V Lite (doing what is essentially the Direct Phase 2 moon mission) get man-rated?  What's so special about Ares?  Is it just that it's too expensive to afford COTS-D at the same time?

I am aware of the committee's apparent desire to promote commercial space, but hobbling the lunar architecture with an extra half launch strikes me as a strange way to go about it, particularly since that's what got us into this mess in the first place...

What is this half launch business?

Either you launch (1)

Or you don't launch (0)

Launch is a binary situation.  Then you need to calculate the trades and costs.  If you launch Jupiter 24x with Orion and Altair and 24x with EDS (or later do it with 24x and PD), does man-rating 24x and two launches cost more than three launches with COTS? Or does PD and a single 24x cost more than two launches with COTS?

Indeed.
I suppose they mean relatively.  1.5 would be a heavy and a medium launch.  But it is still two launches.

In the same vein, this is something I think a little misleading when talking about depots.  Although a single J-246 can do a lunar mission with a depot, the propellant doesn’t magically appear there.  It requires several launches to get it up there if it’s going on EELV class vehicles.  Probably 5-7 launches depending on the vehicle.  So J-246 + depot isn’t a single launch architecture, it’s more of a 7-8 launch architecture, rather than the 2-launch baseline architecture.

I’m well aware of the arguments for the depots, but a launch is a launch.  And you are technically trading that 2nd Jupiter launch for several EELV launches.  The mission is dependant on 3-4 times as many launches.

I think this is sort of intentionally or unintentionally left out of depot discussions  to make it sound like you are reducing the number of launches rather than increasing them.
They’d just be done by other parties rather than NASA, which may or may not introduce additional headaches.

Lobo -

I think that the main difference is that there are only 2 Mission Critical launches - The J24x and the Crew Launch.  There may indeed be as many as 8 to 10 total launches, but if one or two Depot launches go awry, the mission is not at risk.  And with more and more launches (as mentioned many times before) the reliability of the launch system to the Depot increases and the cost per launch theoretically decreases.

TOG

[Downix]

The reason for this is that the committee wants to promote commercial to LEO not that SDHV cannot be man-rated.

So why does Ares V Lite (doing what is essentially the Direct Phase 2 moon mission) get man-rated?  What's so special about Ares?  Is it just that it's too expensive to afford COTS-D at the same time?

I am aware of the committee's apparent desire to promote commercial space, but hobbling the lunar architecture with an extra half launch strikes me as a strange way to go about it, particularly since that's what got us into this mess in the first place...

What is this half launch business?

Either you launch (1)

Or you don't launch (0)

Launch is a binary situation.  Then you need to calculate the trades and costs.  If you launch Jupiter 24x with Orion and Altair and 24x with EDS (or later do it with 24x and PD), does man-rating 24x and two launches cost more than three launches with COTS? Or does PD and a single 24x cost more than two launches with COTS?

Indeed.
I suppose they mean relatively.  1.5 would be a heavy and a medium launch.  But it is still two launches.

In the same vein, this is something I think a little misleading when talking about depots.  Although a single J-246 can do a lunar mission with a depot, the propellant doesn’t magically appear there.  It requires several launches to get it up there if it’s going on EELV class vehicles.  Probably 5-7 launches depending on the vehicle.  So J-246 + depot isn’t a single launch architecture, it’s more of a 7-8 launch architecture, rather than the 2-launch baseline architecture.

I’m well aware of the arguments for the depots, but a launch is a launch.  And you are technically trading that 2nd Jupiter launch for several EELV launches.  The mission is dependant on 3-4 times as many launches.

I think this is sort of intentionally or unintentionally left out of depot discussions  to make it sound like you are reducing the number of launches rather than increasing them.
They’d just be done by other parties rather than NASA, which may or may not introduce additional headaches.

Lobo -

I think that the main difference is that there are only 2 Mission Critical launches - The J24x and the Crew Launch.  There may indeed be as many as 8 to 10 total launches, but if one or two Depot launches go awry, the mission is not at risk.  And with more and more launches (as mentioned many times before) the reliability of the launch system to the Depot increases and the cost per launch theoretically decreases.

TOG

You could do it w/o depot if you did a 246 + a 130 I believe, with the 246 carrying all but the crew module, the 130 a crew module + the fuel needed, based on my math. (which, I am no rocket scientist, so if I'm wrong let me know)

[Lobo]

Lobo -

I think that the main difference is that there are only 2 Mission Critical launches - The J24x and the Crew Launch.  There may indeed be as many as 8 to 10 total launches, but if one or two Depot launches go awry, the mission is not at risk.  And with more and more launches (as mentioned many times before) the reliability of the launch system to the Depot increases and the cost per launch theoretically decreases.

TOG

Yes, yes, I know all about that.  I was just expanding on the other post by saing a launch is a luanch.  You don't have a 1/2 launch, and you don't have prollant that magically appears in your depot.  They are all launches.  And even propellant launches are "mission critical" because if one is aborted, or delayed, you don't have enough prollant to get to the moon.  I'd call that "mission critical".  It's just that there's a certain amount of flexability in that you can send up a replacement launch to fill the manifest.  HOwever, on that same vein, you could send up a 2nd J-246 with EDS if something happened to the first, since that would be launched before the crew anyway. 

So the only true LOM failure is the J-246 carrying the crew and LSAM, and that wouldn’t change from baseline to depot.  A the EDS J-246 would cost more than a single failed EELV launch, granted.

But, without X successful propellant launches to a depot, there is no mission.  If there’s a problem with one, you either replace it or scrub the mission, so in that sense each –is- mission critical.  Plus you have to coordinate with other entities which as we found out with the ISS is not always as easy as it sounds. 
So, just pointing out that a lot of PD advocates tend to speak about it like you are reducing rather than increased the number of successful launches that the architecture depends on.  I understand that certain economic factors weight towards PD’s despite their increased launch dependency.  But it always bugs me a bit this misconception that with a depot, we have single launch lunar architecture instead of 7-8 launch lunar architecture.  And that architecture is only economically cheaper if you have others paying for most of those launches.

Just sayin’….
If you can get someone else to pick up the tab for all those propellant launches, then it’s a economically more viable despite being logistically more complex.

[TOG]

Just sayin’….
If you can get someone else to pick up the tab for all those propellant launches, then it’s a economically more viable despite being logistically more complex.

Excellent point.

[Lobo]

You could do it w/o depot if you did a 246 + a 130 I believe, with the 246 carrying all but the crew module, the 130 a crew module + the fuel needed, based on my math. (which, I am no rocket scientist, so if I'm wrong let me know)

That'd probably work, especially since according to Ross, Direct can do that anyway without a depot.  The J-130 lifting the CSM and LSAM, each doing their own LEO circularization burn, and the J246 launches the EDS, and the two vehicles rendezvous with it and go to TLI.
So they why would you need the Depot?

[Downix]

You could do it w/o depot if you did a 246 + a 130 I believe, with the 246 carrying all but the crew module, the 130 a crew module + the fuel needed, based on my math. (which, I am no rocket scientist, so if I'm wrong let me know)

That'd probably work, especially since according to Ross, Direct can do that anyway without a depot.  The J-130 lifting the CSM and LSAM, each doing their own LEO circularization burn, and the J246 launches the EDS, and the two vehicles rendezvous with it and go to TLI.
So they why would you need the Depot?

Would cost less than the Ares as well, due to economies of scale due to the 130 base being uniform between the two platforms.  Cheaper to launch, cheaper to maintain, cheaper to develop.  Full of Win!