DIRECT v2.0

[kraisee]

Michael Bloxham - 18/3/2008  2:59 AM

It might be wise to take note of Bill White's suggestions. IMHO, the DIRECT effort would benefit from a little smarter (& sneakier?) marketing.

Yes, Bill's comments are being looked at closely.   There is a lot of value there.

That's what I love about this forum - people from all sorts of disciplines can offer assistance and aren't just ignored.

Ross.

[tedcraft]

Ross,

This new version of Direct appears to assume a different lunar mission scenario than the one presently shown on the Direct website.

The lunar lander and CEV are now launched on one Jupiter 232 and an EDS stage on another.  Does this eliminate the need for on-orbit propellant transfer as with the previous Direct version?

Also, does the wide-body Centaur-based EDS use pressure-stabilized tanks?  If so, does this have any impact on the overall system safety relative to the previous version of Direct?

[mike robel]

Ross,

May I suggest now that Direct sort of has its own section, you place the baseball cards,mission diagram, other pertinant data like mission flow, and a short explanation in a seperate thread so people can get to the basic stuff quickly without have to search the entire Direct thread?

[clongton]

mike robel - 18/3/2008  9:56 PM

Ross,

May I suggest now that Direct sort of has its own section, you place the baseball cards,mission diagram, other pertinent data like mission flow, and a short explanation in a separate thread so people can get to the basic stuff quickly without have to search the entire Direct thread?

Mike;
All that stuff is placed on the website (www.directlauncher.com). There's no need for a "thread" for that data. It's all in one place on the website. We post it here as well, for general information. But the website gathers it all together in one place.

[Wolverine]

clongton - 18/3/2008  10:27 PM

mike robel - 18/3/2008  9:56 PM

Ross,

May I suggest now that Direct sort of has its own section, you place the baseball cards,mission diagram, other pertinent data like mission flow, and a short explanation in a separate thread so people can get to the basic stuff quickly without have to search the entire Direct thread?

Mike;
All that stuff is placed on the website (www.directlauncher.com). There's no need for a "thread" for that data. It's all in one place on the website. We post it here as well, for general information. But the website gathers it all together in one place.

Besides the pdf proposal there are screenshots from Orbiter, but not much else unless I'm not looking in the right area....

[kraisee]

tedcraft - 18/3/2008  7:38 PM

Ross,

This new version of Direct appears to assume a different lunar mission scenario than the one presently shown on the Direct website.

The lunar lander and CEV are now launched on one Jupiter 232 and an EDS stage on another.  Does this eliminate the need for on-orbit propellant transfer as with the previous Direct version?

Yes, that is precisely what we have achieved.

It became clear last November that NASA would only consider the option if we found a way to do it without the need for Propellant Transfers.

While we still believe P/T is the best way to go eventually, we have worked out a means to close all of the performance targets without it.

Also, does the wide-body Centaur-based EDS use pressure-stabilized tanks?  If so, does this have any impact on the overall system safety relative to the previous version of Direct?

We are currently base-lining the design on the ICES variant of the Wide Body Centaur (although other stage options are possible from other manufacturers too).   ICES is designed to be a structurally sound design without the need for pressure stabilization.   This stage has both comfortable margins and conforms to NASA's 1.4 safety factors, so will be suitable for human use.   Using this stage, our safety numbers do achieve NASA's minimum requirement in ESAS of better than 1 in 1000 LOC - a five-times improvement over the 'fixed' Shuttle since Columbia.   Jupiter-232 achieves 1 in 1162 LOC.

Ross.

[kraisee]

mike robel - 18/3/2008  9:56 PM

Ross,

May I suggest now that Direct sort of has its own section, you place the baseball cards,mission diagram, other pertinant data like mission flow, and a short explanation in a seperate thread so people can get to the basic stuff quickly without have to search the entire Direct thread?

We do post updated stuff here on NSF fairly often - sometimes without posting it to the main site (a task which usually requires our webmasters to re-design something!).   The site is therefore often a little behind the latest info we reference here.

It may well be useful to post the latest info here - perhaps in a dedicated "reference" thread.

Ross.

[TrueGrit]

In general the Delta IV pneumatic needs are very similar to the Shuttle.  Biggest challenge will to locate the spin start system, as it needs to replicate the test stand and Delta IV as close as possible, but that is a relatively small effort.  In all the pneumatic system needs and can be easily left to the detailed design cycles.

As for the RS-68 helium usage...  NASA’s problem was trying to fly 5 engines, now 6, engines.  By keeping the jupiter system engines to no more than 3, same as Delta IV, assures the usage is within the Cape complex capabilities.  At worst they might need to tie into the LC-41/40/37 storage bottles, and/or secure additional storage bottles at LC-39.   A future upgrade could be to implement some of the helium saving design changes to the pumps NASA has proposed for Ares V.  But they aren't needed, and thus not on critical path for Jupiter.

[kraisee]

True,
What chance is there of using a different inert gas for starting the RS-68's in the future?

Helium supplies are due to get more scarce and more expensive withing the next few decades.   It would be nice to have a backup.   Nitrogen perhaps?

Ross.

[TrueGrit]

Helium is required for liquid hydrogen applications...  I don't know of any other gas that doesn't freeze solid at liquid hydrogen temperatures.  Beyond the spin start RS-68 uses a large amount of helium due some seal design decisions that quite frankly were done for cost.  NASA and PWR have already looked at implementing SSME-derived seal designs that will cut the helium usage in half.  And there are some other more radical design approaches that could cut the helium usage to <10% of the current RS-68.  But need some level of technology development before they could be implemented.  In any case helium is still used, but less of it...

[Jim]

kraisee - 19/3/2008  3:58 PM

True,
What chance is there of using a different inert gas for starting the RS-68's in the future?

Helium supplies are due to get more scarce and more expensive withing the next few decades.   It would be nice to have a backup.   Nitrogen perhaps?

Ross.

The issue is that LH2 will freeze everything else. GHe is also the closest thing to GH2.  So spinning up the hydraulic pump and turbopump with a different gas might not be feasible

[Nathan]

QUOTE]

We are currently base-lining the design on the ICES variant of the Wide Body Centaur (although other stage options are possible from other manufacturers too).   ICES is designed to be a structurally sound design without the need for pressure stabilization.   This stage has both comfortable margins and conforms to NASA's 1.4 safety factors, so will be suitable for human use.   Using this stage, our safety numbers do achieve NASA's minimum requirement in ESAS of better than 1 in 1000 LOC - a five-times improvement over the 'fixed' Shuttle since Columbia.   Jupiter-232 achieves 1 in 1162 LOC.

Ross.[/QUOTE]

Ross - I wonder if this isn't a mistake. NASA isn't using the ICES stage on it's ARES vehicles. Should we not be looking at an upper stage as closely related to the one currently funded? Or at least develop both scenarios at the same time so NASA can make a choice.

Also - how much work is there to do between what you have now and what is needed for a PDR?

[kraisee]

Nathan - 19/3/2008  4:44 PM

Ross - I wonder if this isn't a mistake. NASA isn't using the ICES stage on it's ARES vehicles. Should we not be looking at an upper stage as closely related to the one currently funded? Or at least develop both scenarios at the same time so NASA can make a choice.

Nathan,
Ares-I's Upper Stage is a different beast entirely.   It isn't designed to loiter in space with propellant boiling off all the time.

The EDS (which has not been contracted for yet and is still >5 years away) is going to have to tackle that difficult issue head-on.   Boiloff is the #1 issue driving the continuing loss of loiter time for Lunar missions - originally aimed in ESAS at 60 days, then dropped to 14 days, and currently baselined to just 4 days.

Right now Lockheed have, by a long way, the most experience in reducing boiloff.   Why not utilize this proven expertise?

NASA doesn't re-invent the wheel building all its new rocket engines, it buys them from established manufacturers with successful heritage, like PWR, Aerojet etc.

NASA also doesn't reinvent the wheel with SRB's either, it buys them from an established manufacturer with successful heritage - ATK.

Because it is a critical and defining element of the vehicle, the EDS should simply be the same thing IMHO - buying the established expertise off the shelf.

Sure, NASA *could* spend twice as much time and twice as much money trying to learn for itself precisely how to do what LM can already do regarding boiloff, but I question whether that would be a good use of the Taxpayers hard earned contributions?   I don't think so.

Also - how much work is there to do between what you have now and what is needed for a PDR?

As for how much work needs to be done - a LOT.   But the schedule for doing this is shortened by quite a bit by having so much directly-applicable hardware already in production today and is really helped a lot by not requiring any new engines to get Jupiter-120 operational.   This allows the J-120 schedule to be significantly more compressed time-wise, compared to Ares-I.

Current Jupiter-120 Schedule:-
Go Order Q2 2008
SRR Q2 2009
PDR Q2 2010
CDR Q1 2011
DCR Q4 2011
IOC Q2 2012

This schedule already has about 12 months of slippage built in BTW.

One contact at MSFC recently told me that if they switched over to Jupiter-120, they have "cut their teeth" on the difficult Ares-I and are now ready to make real serious moves on this much simpler option very swiftly - if they could only get the green light.

Essentially all of the engineering assessments done for Ares-I are equally applicable to the Jupiter - in one way or another.   Perhaps the sole exception to this is the requirement for the 5-seg SRB's.   Even there, that contract could be re-negotiated into an SRB segment supply contract because we use about double the quantity of SRB segments than Ares ever will - so it's not at all bad for ATK business to consider this switch too.

Ross.

[clongton]

kraisee - 19/3/2008  4:59 PM

Sure, NASA *could* spend twice as much time and twice as much money trying to learn for itself precisely how to do what LM can already do regarding boiloff ...
Ross.

I would only add that LM has been doing this sort of thing for ~40 years.
NASA hasn't had to bother developing it, because they went from Saturn shutdown directly into Shuttle, which didn't need this capability. That's 30+ years of Shuttle, ~4 years +/- transition and before that was Saturn. So when NASA wanted to launch a probe or lander that did need it, they just mated it to the commercial launcher that already had the capability.

So NASA has been using it, but on existing commercial launchers.

[kraisee]

TrueGrit - 19/3/2008  4:18 PM

Helium is required for liquid hydrogen applications...  I don't know of any other gas that doesn't freeze solid at liquid hydrogen temperatures.

There's plenty of Helium in the Lunar regolith!

(yes, that's only a joke!) LOL

Ross.

[mojo]

Okay - I have a question.  

Let's say due to performance issues, cost, schedule, etc that NASA decides to replace the current architecture with the Direct plan (either under Congressional pressure or not).  

How does this work?  I'm assuming the Orion contract is unaffected, but you have the ARES first stage (ATK) and upper stage (Boeing) contracts underway.  Are we talking about a massive contract mod or a brand new procurement effort?  

I suspect the time it would take to sort out that mess would eat up any gains in the Shuttle replacement gap.  

Pretend I'm a congressman.  You sold me on the technical merits of Direct.  What kind of pain do I need to go through to implement this change in direction?

[kraisee]

mojo,
That's a subject we won't really get much say in, but I can offer some suggestions we have.

ATK is expecting to earn about $2bn worth of contracts from Ares-I, and probably another $1-2bn from the re-development work needed for Ares-V later too.   To appease them, we will first start by doubling their segment production line (to 32 in 2013 climbing to 88 per year by 2020) and thus double their turnover there.

ATK will also be providing more RS-68 nozzles too thanks to us (up to 52 units per year).   But that represents only some of the lucrative development monies they are profiting by currently.   They will probably need the deal sweetened further.

Now, ATK has good history building parts of the ISS truss and solar arrays.   Similar work will be needed for the Lunar Base.   Keep this in mind while also realizing that DIRECT also accelerates the Lunar program by two years initially.   DIRECT also intends to fly double the number of Lunar missions for the same budget as Ares too.   Therefore, DIRECT will essentially bring the Lunar base online many years sooner.   So why not issue the contracts for solar production facilities and similar hardware to ATK sooner in order to buy ourselves out of the current SRB development contract?   We are going to need them anyway.   ATK is experienced, so lets buy their support while using that money to pay for something they are well qualified to build which we actually *need* anyway?

Pratt & Whitney, Rocketdyne retain the existing J-2X contract, but the delivery date is pushed out two years to 2017.   The yearly cost is reduced to reflect this.   But PWR gets a new contract to man-rate the RS-68 for use by 2012.

Lockheed Martin would indeed continue to produce the Orion under the existing contract with the only changes being adding back all the lost functionality and safety equipment currently left out in the ZBV parking lot.

Lockheed would also likely continues to produce External Tanks in the form of Jupiter Core Stages - though a re-compete might be worthwhile if the "wealth" isn't being "spread" sufficiently.   Certainly it would make things simpler during the transition if LM stay where they are:   While the last handful of ET's is being produced between now and 2010 we begin production of the MPTA and Pad Test Fit Jupiter Cores on the same production lines (as NLS proved was possible).   Additionally we also need to start on at least the first test flight (Jupiter-120-X) unit before the last ET runs down the production line too (also start Jupiter-120-Y before the last ET leaves Michoud too).   Whoever gets this contract will find no workforce "gap" at all occurring at Michoud.


Boeing has a couple of choices.   Right now the Upper Stage contract is in place.   We don't specifically need that particular unit, but Boeing could easily build the Upper Stage for us instead of Lockheed.   We are only using LM in our examples because their team is the only one to have so-far indicated what they would be able to achieve for us.   Boeing simply have not responded to us yet, so we haven't been able to include their capabilities.   Without doubt, Boeing certainly has a similar level of engineering experience, and can probably closely duplicate Lockheed in this area.   At worst case, they could always license the ICES technology from LM and still build the hardware.

Boeing also have the Instrumentation Unit contract too.   This contract would need modification to suit the Jupiter vehicle, but would essentially stay in-place.   It would logically follow that the IU contract is simply extended for J-232 later - not competed separately as will be the case for Ares-V in ~5 years time.   This is good for Boeing.


The prime contract for operating the new systems is also up for grabs.   If Boeing relinquished the Ares Upper Stage because they couldn't achieve the performance requirements, I think they should defacto take this contract over instead - they have essentially been prime for this on ISS Program and very senior for Shuttle too, so they are well placed to do this anyway.


Essentially there is a lot of 'play' possible with the stage contracts.   Core stage and EDS can essentially be given to either Boeing or Lockheed-Martin - as technical ability, cost, schedule and politics dictates.   At this point there are few hard-and-fast rules, other than ensuring the wealth is fairly evenly spread to keep the political gears oiled.


But the most lucrative single element of the whole program is still awaiting us.   The LSAM.   Northrop Grumman is a logical contender, but there are more significant cost, schedule, design and technology factors to consider ahead of mere historical precedent.   If LM got the EDS and CEV, and the proposals for LSAM from NG, LM & Boeing were all similar enough, it might just be politically expedient to give the contract to a specific camp to "spread the wealth".   I don't know, and can't even guess, how this will actually play-out in the corridors of power.   It's gonna be a fun ride though, you can be sure.


There are additional factors to consider here too.   While all of that listed above is part of the human Exploration Program, the Jupiter-120's Heavy Lift performance creates a lot more opportunities than Ares-I could ever support.

We intend to utilize this extra capability to *explicitly* provide extra work to NASA staff during the difficult transition years.   We have lots of spare budget compared to Ares, and therefore we have the *ability* to do more missions.   Lets use it.

* We can fund an extra Hubble Servicing Mission in the 2013-15 time frame.   A contractor needs to be paid for that work.

* Jupiter-120/Delta-IV-US could easily lift the Mars Sample Return mission which JPL are trying to squeeze onto an EELV Heavy - so-far without success.

* Jupiter-120/Delta-IV-US can perform a crewed Lunar Flyby mission in 2013 - 2 years before Ares-I is even due to fly to ISS.

* Jupiter-120/Delta-IV-US could even service JWST out at EML-2 *if* there were any requirement (recalling Hubble's early problems).   Probably unlikely, but worth keeping in mind.

* Jupiter-120 can launch a 50mT 8-10m diameter single-mirror telescope (depending on 10m or 12m PLF) to LEO - a straight replacement to Hubble.   Not to mention also creating a similar capability for the DoD.

* Jupiter-120 can also launch every one of the currently never-will-be-flown modules to ISS, and at least three MPLM flights allowing all of the scientific instruments no longer planned to fly to be launched and the station can actually be utilized as fully planned - not partially.


All of these additional missions can be paid for with the ~$20-25bn worth savings Jupiter offers compared to Ares.   All of these additional missions need new contracts.   All need workforce from many different disciplines.

Together, this broad *additional* range of programs, on top of the manned Exploration Program, would enhance NASA's Science Mission Directorate capabilities by an order of magnitude compared to the lean years we have ahead.

We get the moon sooner *and* a very healthy Science program to boot.   And we now have the means to keep everyone employed *gainfully* - not as a mere jobs program.   New, currently *impossible* to afford contracts are needed to do this, and work would be plentiful throughout NASA to cover all of the staff across the 'gap' between Shuttle and the new Lunar Program.

There are a lot of other contracts involved, but that's the broad brush-strokes of our general viewpoint of what could be done if we were to switch to DIRECT.   But the final decision is just not in our hands.

Bottom Line:   No Contractor loses-out if they are willing to come to the negotiation table and help us implement this.   They work with us, we work with them.   Everyone wins.

Ross.

[HIP2BSQRE]

What does anyone think are the percentages of Direct replacing Ares?

[kraisee]

If Ares were on schedule and without the list of technical problems, I'd say no chance, even given the significantly better schedule and cost.

But given that Ares is having real problems and that Griffin must hand his resignation in at the end of the year when the President changes, I believe we're 40:40.

The missing 20 represents Obama closing the whole thing down and stripping the cash out for the Department of Education instead.

Ross.

[Michael Bloxham]

What an inforesight that would be (hehe, I created a new word).