DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 5 - Transition from STS to the new Space Launch System

[orbitjunkie]

I am hearing that MSFC may place the entire LV may actually be placed in the hands of the contractors for DDT&E with only oversight and program management being retained by the agency.

Woah, that's pretty cool if it's true. Has that ever been done by NASA for anything of this scale, or related to HSF (not counting COTS)?
I wonder what the motivation would be for such a move?
 - All the work that would typically be needed is already done (i.e. 20 years of studies on a orbiter-less HLV, including DIRECT). This would include the fact that the hardware is already human rated and has 30 years of flight heritage.
 - There have been some serious attitude changes and it is seen as a pragmatic move necessary to meet the cost/schedule constraints they're being given
 - This is seen as an opportunity to "try out" some aspects of the more hands-off approach that will be needed for Commercial Crew
 - Someone up the chain is pushing for this, for their own agenda
 - It's the first step of a long, slow march toward a commercial Jupiter

OK, the last one may be wishful thinking, but I'm not sure I ever heard definitively what the obstacles were to a commercial Jupiter. Political/organizational? Legal (IP, gov't owned property)?

Back to this rumor, if MSFC civil servant rocket engineers won't be "designing the rocket", then what WILL they be doing?

[kraisee]

IMHO, it is the speed and cost which would be the motivation.

Also lets not forget that this option would undoubtedly be much more acceptable for the pro-commercial-space Administration and NASA leadership too.

Ross.

[robertross]

IMHO, it is the speed and cost which would be the motivation.

Also lets not forget that this option would undoubtedly be much more acceptable for the pro-commercial-space Administration and NASA leadership too.

Ross.

Yeah...and considering Garver is now on board, something I first found utterly surprising, now makes me think that this is the logical outcome.

[kraisee]

Yes, I was amazed to see that too.   I don't yet know what's going on to have made that happen, but I am convinced that this is a very big step in the right direction.

From where I sit the only remaining hurdle now, is whether the House will join the Senate and White House in mid-September.

A long time ago, when few people believed in us and the Administrator was aligned directly against us, we described a 'win' for DIRECT as needing about 4 hail mary passes!   I can't help think about how much the team has achieved since then!

Ross.

[Proponent]

And ISS has expressed specific interest in using the secondary payload performance available on a Jupiter-130 configuration to bolster their current shortfall in logistics throughout the latter half of the 2010's.

Would you have a reference for this?  What is the nature of the shortfall?  Wouldn't commercial providers be entitled to have first swing at addressing any shortfall if it exists?

[kraisee]

Not sure about a reference but our understanding directly out of ISS Program officials is that they really want about 100-140 metric tons of delivered materials every year in order to get full scientific utilization out of the station and its crew.

Commercial will get to lift a lot of that, but not until COTS is well and truly proven -- and COTS simply can't guarantee that level of demand yet.

Like it or not, the truth remains that Space-X is probably only one or two spectacular failures away from business meltdown.   They are being given the money and the chance to demonstrate their reliability in an early demonstration program.   And with a touch of luck, they will be able to do that.

But the agency would be extremely foolish to assume they can take that to the bank before Space-X has actually demonstrated a fair number of safe flights.   Space-X now has that chance to prove themselves, but they have a way to go before the agency should include them in the critical path to the >$100 billion ISS Program success over the next decade.

OSC are in a slightly better position, given that they already have an established alternative income stream and also an established flight record, but its not beyond imagination that Taurus-II could have just as many early teething problems as Pegasus did and that would probably shut their program down too.   So again, OSC are not a "sure thing" for the agency to be able to rely upon at this early stage.

The COTS Program is really designed as a seed-money investment phase to help spark the new industry.   Only if/when that is proven, will it be followed up with more extensive usage (which I'll call COTS+, just for a temporary name) down the road after they have been given the chance to prove their capabilities.

We are currently entering the "wait and see" period of COTS.


In the meantime, Jupiter-130/Orion will easily be able to supplement whatever COTS & COTS+ can provide.   Jupiter-130/Orion will also provide a full backup capability, to ensure the agency can plan on full utilization irrelevant of whether the new commercial operators get fully established or not.

Ross.

[Proponent]

What are your credentials, and on what information do you base this opinion?

What reason can you offer for having confidence in cost figures provided by DIRECT?

You mean aside from being independently verified by other organizations in the aerospace community, not connected with either NASA or DIRECT?

I have heard about these independent analyses and have searched for the unsuccessfully.  Could you please provide a copy or a link to one of these studies?

[kraisee]

No.

As I said earlier, the final results are in the public domain, but virtually all of the details are covered by IP protection of some flavour or another.

You have no choice but to go to the sources directly (NASA, Aerospace Corp, GAO, Boeing) and jump through their various IP protection loops in order to see the details.   The good news is that just about anyone can do it, if they are determined.

If you want some places to start:   GAO's people are good to work with.   Aerospace won't give you anything unless you have a contract.   Ditto for Boeing.   Try to get hold of ESAS Appendix 12 from NASA.   And get hold of the full version of Mack Henderson's HLV report, which includes many top line cost figures.

But you'll find exactly what we have:   In order to see those sources, we've had to sign NDA's.   That means we can't talk about their numbers in specifics, but we are still free to tell you our own analysis results -- and that's all we've ever released.

Ross.

[orbitjunkie]

IMHO, it is the speed and cost which would be the motivation.

Also lets not forget that this option would undoubtedly be much more acceptable for the pro-commercial-space Administration and NASA leadership too.

Ross.

Yeah...and considering Garver is now on board, something I first found utterly surprising, now makes me think that this is the logical outcome.

Ah yes, that definitely does tie things together a bit. Of course, if the WH is really on board with all this, they could have just said "get on board". That might still leave plenty of room for them to decide how they would get on board.

- It's the first step of a long, slow march toward a commercial Jupiter
OK, the last one may be wishful thinking, but I'm not sure I ever heard definitively what the obstacles were to a commercial Jupiter. Political/organizational? Legal (IP, gov't owned property)?

I am actually quite curious about the question above. If it's been answered or summarized before, I haven't seen it and would appreciate even a link.

This whole saga is still a ways from over, but it's sounding better and better every day! Regardless of the final outcome, the DIRECT team should be extremely proud of what's happening here.

[Proponent]

Not sure about a reference but our understanding directly out of ISS Program officials is that they really want about 100-140 metric tons of delivered materials every year in order to get full scientific utilization out of the station and its crew.

What they may want now and what will be afforded them could easily be two different things.

Commercial will get to lift a lot of that, but not until COTS is well and truly proven -- and COTS simply can't guarantee that level of demand yet.

If risk is the problem with COTS, then the obvious thing to do is use EELVs.  They're less risky than SDHLV, because they have been flying for years.  And by using them, NASA would be supporting commercial activity.

[Proponent]

As I said earlier, the final results are in the public domain, but none of the details.

Could you please identify precisely where the GAO made the statement you referred to here:

Don't forget that GAO also says the dev costs would be about $3bn lower than we do.

[kraisee]

If risk is the problem with COTS, then the obvious thing to do is use EELVs.  They're less risky than SDHLV, because they have been flying for years.  And by using them, NASA would be supporting commercial activity.

Because that solution has *always* been politically unacceptable.   That's the specific reason why the O'Keefe/Steidle plans were replaced by Griffin/Horowitz's plans in the first place.

Agree or disagree with the "rightness" of that decision, but the fact remains that the EELV options all died -- lock stock and barrel -- right there.

People can try to ignore the reality as much as you want, but if you fail check the politics box Congress will just do what it wants and will just sideline you.   Looking at what happened with FY2011 only confirms this once again -- even the President has been forced to work within Congress' remit.

Ross.

[Proponent]

Do you have references? Proponent has been asking repeatedly, politely, on multiple threads, with little success, for the corroborating financial details. The 1975 GAO study is not exactly confidence-inspiring as an extrapolation point. The 2006 GAO study does not speak about DIRECT. Can you point to the details of the development cost analysis, or of the "independent verification" thereof?

GAO released their report

To exactly which GAO report are you referring, please?

[MP99]

What would happen if they launch this J-130-look-alike without an upper stage?

The J-130 does not have an upper stage by definition. Therefore it would fly just like the J-130 is supposed to.

Can this thing reach escape velocity?

No. You would need the EDS for that.

SEP tugs can be used as reusable EDS for J-130s.  However the tugs large solar arrays have air resistance problems until they are above the Thermosphere, which ends at an altitude of 600 km.

There may be an interesting maximum final payload trade off between final altitude of the J-130, SEP propellant and flight time.

Reminder:- J-130 must stay within the zone where air resistance will pull popcorn out of orbit, so that's probably not feasible.

However, big Solar arrays aren't an issue for the ISS, so maybe target slightly below ISS's orbit?

cheers, Martin

[MP99]

Nasaengineer thinks the design may go over to contractors earlier for the HLV core maybe after PDR rather than CDR as was the case with AIUS.

http://nasaengineer.com/?p=1268

I would concur with that.

I am hearing that MSFC may place the entire LV may actually be placed in the hands of the contractors for DDT&E with only oversight and program management being retained by the agency.

Its still to early to be sure, and everything is still TBD, but that does appear to be where the current discussions are pointing towards as of right now.

Well, the surprises just keep coming, but that does seem to make sense in light of an administration that wanted to go more commercial for FY11.

But ISTM the House is trying to retain much more of the status quo than the Senate, so maybe this would be a sticking-point for them?

cheers, Martin

[MP99]

Nasaengineer thinks the design may go over to contractors earlier for the HLV core maybe after PDR rather than CDR as was the case with AIUS.

http://nasaengineer.com/?p=1268

Interesting point there re Boeing. I'd assumed their AIUS contract would be novated towards an upper stage for SLS.

This article basically assumes Boeing will be contracted for the HLV core. ISTR these guys already work with & know the Shuttle systems - would that make them the natural choice to take on SLS core work? The article seems to just assume that.

I can see how the upper stage contract could be novated, but could a contract for the core be issued (or novated) without having to go out to tender?



That may also leave the question of an SLS upper stage outstanding. Might we dare to hope on this one, too?

cheers, Martin

[clongton]

What they [ISS] may want now and what will be afforded them could easily be two different things.

That is not acceptable. The ISS is designed to *require* a minimum amount of logistics support in order to function at the fully staffed levels for which it was designed, and to which the United States in committed by contract/treaty/International Partner/agreements. The logistical support of the Space Shuttle is absolutely *required* in order to meet those levels. The partner's logistical spacecraft (ATV/HTV) are designed to supplement Shuttle, not replace it. Sense Shuttle is going away, a launch system capable of completely replacing Shuttle's support capability is required. That is not ATV/HTV. The partners are incapable of providing that level of additional support for the foreseeable future and COTS will not be able to step into that gap in a truly meaningful way soon enough. Because ISS is being continued, that Shuttle-provided logistical support must be replaced by a launch system capable of handling it. The political realities have demonstrated over and over again that that support will *not* be provided by the EELVs, but that only a Shuttle-derived launch system will be allowed to do that. Whether individuals like that or not is irrelevant. That's just reality.

[JohnFornaro]

The ISS is designed to *require* a minimum amount of logistics support in order to function at the fully staffed levels for which it was designed...

I would not put it that way, unless I was being sarcastic, which in itself is not unusual for me.  I would say, rather:

The ISS requires a minimum amount of logistics in order to function at fully staffed levels. 

That's just the way it is.  I would say that adding five or six more shuttle flights would utilize the shuttle to the maximum extent possible, based on my current understanding.  There seems to be no question that the shuttle's functionality needs to be quickly replaced.  Therefore time and money should not be wasted on further sidemount considerations, I say.  Time is of the essence, because in my opinion, there should not be a gap in the shuttle's cargo lift capabilities.  The effort should be spent in getting the new launch vehicle operational quickly, without worrying too much about the theoretical maximums, which are far in the budgetary future.

Metaphorically, our nose and face are just fine, and will do for the foreseeable future.  The approach I favor will not cut off any future possiblities.  The obsession with size alone is the key problem for the present, temporarily overlooking the politics of pork.  It seems clear that the ISS needs to be continued and enlarged in size and capability.  It's the existing optimal solution.

[clongton]

The ISS is designed to *require* a minimum amount of logistics support in order to function at the fully staffed levels for which it was designed...

I would not put it that way, unless I was being sarcastic, which in itself is not unusual for me.

Just to be clear, I was not being sarcastic. I was just stating a too often conveniently overlooked fact and didn't bother trying to "nice it up". It is what it is and I simply stated it short and sweet.

I have this habit of stating what I know and not looking to see where the chips fall. Sometimes that gets me into trouble I guess, but more often than not it prevents unfruitful lines of thought from continuing.

[A_M_Swallow]

SEP tugs can be used as reusable EDS for J-130s.  However the tugs large solar arrays have air resistance problems until they are above the Thermosphere, which ends at an altitude of 600 km.

There may be an interesting maximum final payload trade off between final altitude of the J-130, SEP propellant and flight time.

Reminder:- J-130 must stay within the zone where air resistance will pull popcorn out of orbit, so that's probably not feasible.

However, big Solar arrays aren't an issue for the ISS, so maybe target slightly below ISS's orbit?

cheers, Martin

The solar arrays are a big problem for the ISS.  They produce a large air drag causing the ISS to lose altitude.  Consequently the ISS has to be frequently boosted back up to a higher orbit.
http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/6Page30.pdf