DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[clongton]

What would we call an Ares III CLV + Ares IV CaLV archticture? 1.75 launch?

NASA can call it anything they like

[kraisee]

http://www.directlaumcher.com/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-246.wmv

Ross - that URL has an 'm' where there should be an 'n' in "launcher"

Yeah, I err, ummm, meant to do that! Honest guvna' 

Seriously, thanks for the correction Jon, I've fixed the original post now.

Ross.

[JAFO]

Hi Team,

Know you're busy, but is it possible to make images of some of the pps slides from your ISDC presentation? Specifically the "Jupiter is the historic NASA STS derived approach", "Direct builds upon existing STS hardware", "Directs proven heritage improves safety", and "Direct eliminates the workforce & flight "gap" at KSC".


If I may also make a suggestion? Play up the Apollo 8 mission by 2014 against Ares IOC date. Some will say it's a BS mission, but it's a dramatic way to say "We can do this 3 years before Ares is even flying". Especially with the Chinese talking about doing it very soon.



Thank you for your time.


Steve
"All right. Let's get on with it." — T. Keith Glennan, first NASA administrator, regarding the space program, 7 October 1958.

[kraisee]

Hi Team,

Know you're busy, but is it possible to make images of some of the pps slides from your ISDC presentation? Specifically the "Jupiter is the historic NASA STS derived approach", "Direct builds upon existing STS hardware", "Directs proven heritage improves safety", and "Direct eliminates the workforce & flight "gap" at KSC".


If I may also make a suggestion? Play up the Apollo 8 mission by 2014 against Ares IOC date. Some will say it's a BS mission, but it's a dramatic way to say "We can do this 3 years before Ares is even flying". Especially with the Chinese talking about doing it very soon.



Thank you for your time.


Steve Kessinger

"America is too great for small dreams" -President Reagan
"All right. Let's get on with it." — T. Keith Glennan, first NASA administrator, regarding the space program, 7 October 1958.

Actually, you spotted a grievous typo in there -- that 2014 date is the one we were using for the RS-68-based Jupiter-120, if you remove all engine re-qualification work the schedule is then dictated by Orion and the avionics now.

*That* means that the schedule can come forward by roughly a year, so that slide is supposed to say 2013.

*THANK-YOU* for mentioning that.

Ross.

[kraisee]

What would we call an Ares III CLV + Ares IV CaLV archticture? 1.75 launch?

My shortlist of suggestions:-

Affordable.
Viable.
Reasonable.
Sensible.
Workable.
Doable.

Take your pick!   I'm sure there are other names too


Ohhh, you meant *that* sort of name...   

Ross.

[adamsmith]

If I may also make a suggestion? Play up the Apollo 8 mission by 2014 against Ares IOC date. Some will say it's a BS mission, but it's a dramatic way to say "We can do this 3 years before Ares is even flying". Especially with the Chinese talking about doing it very soon.


"America is too great for small dreams" -President Reagan
"All right. Let's get on with it." — T. Keith Glennan, first NASA administrator, regarding the space program, 7 October 1958.

Actually, you spotted a grievous typo in there -- that 2014 date is the one we were using for the RS-68-based Jupiter-120, if you remove all engine re-qualification work the schedule is then dictated by Orion and the avionics now.

*That* means that the schedule can come forward by roughly a year, so that slide is supposed to say 2013.

*THANK-YOU* for mentioning that.

Ross.

Maybe it will take another Sputnik to get us back on track. I remember it well... God, what a waste Not to do Direct!

Stan

[tnphysics]

Another elliptical orbit approach:

CLV US/LSAM/CEV and EDS rendezvous (but do not dock), light engines, and do 1st part of TLI in formation with each other. When CLV US runs out of prop docking and the rest of TLI follow.

[cixelsyD]

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?

Ross should be on right now. Started at 10:00 pm Eastern

Just now, I heard a terrific point from Ross that he should amplify and increase focus on. NASA needs a good story to tell, a narrative context for the space program.

Robert McKee, a respected teacher of screenwriting has said/written that

A good story, told well, will ALWAYS sell, always.

Perhaps what NASA needs are a few good narrative engineers.

Anyway, what is the NASA narrative all about?

Yeah I think NASA does a terrible job of selling themselves. NASA TV is pretty hit and miss. They don't narrate a lot of stuff, and they could sound a little more excited about their work. Even if they have to bring less on a shuttle trip, I'd love to see some stuff in HD. HD on the moon, HD videos from Mars. Perhaps we'll know less in the short run than if we brought another instrument along, but it will encourage more funding for more trips in the future.

On the other hand the last video of the launch from the point of view of the SRBs was amazing! Looked unreal. They need more of THAT.

[tnphysics]

What is staged-TLI? Sorry, probably buried in one of the 2.0 threads, but probably impossible to find.

[kraisee]

Staged TLI is a fairly new option.    It would use both Upper Stages from both Jupiter-246's to perform the TLI.   The first one performs about 85% of the TLI and is then jettisoned.

The second completes the TLI and then also performs the LOI later too.

The basic arrangement also seems to work pretty well with a "Crasher Stage" lander approach as well, allowing for a particularly small Lander to be designed.


The purpose of this approach is to allow the full LEO performance of the second Jupiter-246 to be utilized to increase TLI performance of the whole system.   Right now, the second Jupiter-246 lifts the Orion and Altair, and then has about 15mT of 'spare' performance which we aren't utilizing in our more traditional EOR-LOR approach.

There are a few obvious downsides to this approach (extra dockings, jettisons and engine-starts).   But one of our team has put this forward as another of the many options which should be considered fully.

There will be a Mission Profile chart in the final version of the Presentation which should help to explain this option more fully -- that's one of the sections needing work still.

Ross.

[Fequalsma]

Ross -

The presentation looks great!  Well done!

Can you post a .pps that doesn't have the line-by-line
transitions on the slides?  Or a .pdf of the presentation?

Thanks!
F=ma

[kraisee]

We will do that with the final version.   This is just a Preview.

Ross.

[Pheogh]

We need to include this in the next presentation Ross, my heart almost stopped.

[kraisee]

The beginning of an end of an era.

Of course, Jupiter doesn't need the Beanie Cap, so that change doesn't affect us (does affect Shuttle-C though).

I expect to see the White Room come off that tower soon.   I surely hope that someone is already planning to preserve that piece of history somewhere.

It's the *other* changes at KSC (VAB HB3 for example) -- and especially MAF (Dome welding tooling is already being stripped) -- which concern me the most though...

Ross.

[Danny Dot]

The beginning of an end of an era.

Of course, Jupiter doesn't need the Beanie Cap, so that change doesn't affect us (does affect Shuttle-C though).

I expect to see the White Room come off that tower soon.   I surely hope that someone is already planning to preserve that piece of history somewhere.

It's the *other* changes at KSC (VAB HB3 for example) -- and especially MAF (Dome welding tooling is already being stripped) -- which concern me the most though...

Ross.

Is the space the welding tool takes up needed so bad they can't just let it sit there for a while?

Danny Deger

[kraisee]

Is the space the welding tool takes up needed so bad they can't just let it sit there for a while?

Good points -- and ones we have been wondering about ourselves.   There are a number of salient points to consider...

MSFC has been working with a set of the new Ares-I welding tools in Huntsville already, doing prototyping work.   Those tools could certainly be utilized to make a limited run of test stages.

The first flight-stage (Ares-I-Y) isn't going to be needed for another 4-6 years (depending on whether you listen to the "public" schedule or the "internal" one, respectively), one does have to wonder "why the rush?".

I personally believe its a Scorched Earth policy.

Ross.

[William Barton]

Staged TLI is a fairly new option.    It would use both Upper Stages from both Jupiter-246's to perform the TLI.   The first one performs about 85% of the TLI and is then jettisoned.

The second completes the TLI and then also performs the LOI later too.

The basic arrangement also seems to work pretty well with a "Crasher Stage" lander approach as well, allowing for a particularly small Lander to be designed.


The purpose of this approach is to allow the full LEO performance of the second Jupiter-246 to be utilized to increase TLI performance of the whole system.   Right now, the second Jupiter-246 lifts the Orion and Altair, and then has about 15mT of 'spare' performance which we aren't utilizing in our more traditional EOR-LOR approach.

There are a few obvious downsides to this approach (extra dockings, jettisons and engine-starts).   But one of our team has put this forward as another of the many options which should be considered fully.

There will be a Mission Profile chart in the final version of the Presentation which should help to explain this option more fully -- that's one of the sections needing work still.

Ross.

Staged TLI is a good idea. Good practice for Mars mission assembly. Also useful if you want to do a NEO mission. Leave off the Altair, and you've got a lot more fuel to burn in the second EDS.

[JAFO]

Actually, you spotted a grievous typo in there -- that 2014 date is the one we were using for the RS-68-based Jupiter-120, if you remove all engine re-qualification work the schedule is then dictated by Orion and the avionics now.

*That* means that the schedule can come forward by roughly a year, so that slide is supposed to say 2013.

*THANK-YOU* for mentioning that.

Ross.

Aw shucks, sir. Glad to help...   


Shoot.... hard to believe we could be back doing moon flybys in 4 years with no interruption in our MSF program.


It's too dang bad you can't get a flight crewmember to come out in favor of Direct. Anyone got John Young's phone number??

[Danny Dot]

snip

It's too dang bad you can't get a flight crewmember to come out in favor of Direct. Anyone got John Young's phone number??

I turned Charlie Bolden around on Entry Guidance several years ago -- and I did it in one hour.  I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't see the benefit of Direct.  It might take me more than an hour on this one though

Danny Deger

[MP99]

snip

It's too dang bad you can't get a flight crewmember to come out in favor of Direct. Anyone got John Young's phone number??

I turned Charlie Bolden around on Entry Guidance several years ago -- and I did it in one hour.  I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't see the benefit of Direct.  It might take me more than an hour on this one though

Danny Deger

Do you think he'd take a meeting?

cheers, Martin