Author Topic: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3  (Read 1123313 times)

Offline kenny008

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Knoxville, TN
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 2079
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #220 on: 01/17/2009 04:43 am »
What are 1.5 launches?  Ares I = 1 launch, and Ares V = 1 launch.
1+1 = 2 launches.  I've got a bridge to sell anyone who buys that "1.5 launch" red herring.
F=ma


As I understand it, you seem to be bringing together three entirely separable questions:

1) Is two launches better than 1.5?


I can understand your frustration, but do you have a more concise way to distinguish between:

1) two launches on the same size launcher

and

2) two launches, with one on a much larger launcher and one on a much smaller launcher?

Because the costs, LOC and LOM numbers can be very different.

Yes, they both launch twice. But what is the most convenient way to distinguish the two options?



As I understand it, some of the differences are:

1.5 Launch Architecture:
     - 2 completely separate launchers
     - 1 with a 5 segment SRB, the other with a 5.5 segment SRB
     - Each requiring new SRB development and certification
     - 1 possibly requiring completely new SRB's (composite cases, etc)
     - 1 possibly abandoning SRB recovery (and therefore failure analysis) due to current performance shortfalls
     - Each requiring separate and exclusive MLP's
     - 1 requiring completely new MLP's
     - 1 requiring new crawler
     - 1 requiring upgraded crawlerways
     - Each requiring separate and exclusive VAB bays
     - Each requiring separate manufacturing facilities (for US and core stage)
     - Each requiring separate and exclusive flight software
     - Each requiring separate and exclusive development efforts
     - 1 requiring a new US development
     - Both sharing a common J-2X Engine development
     - J-2X required prior to 1st flight
     - Human rating of RS-68 prior to first flight
     - Neither using much of the current SSP hardware or launch infrastructure


2-Launch Architecture:

     - Nearly identical core stage development
     - Nearly identical core stage manufacturing (in parallel with whatever SSP manufacturing is required)
     - Shared, non-modified, flight-proven SRB's
     - Shared, current (somewhat modified) MLP's
     - Shared, slightly modified VAB bays
     - No change to crawlerways
     - No change to crawler
     - Shared (maybe modified) flight software
     - 1 shared vehicle development
     - 1 US development
     - J-2x required for lunar mission only
     - Human rating RS-68 prior to 1st flight
     - Also a 2-Launch architecture for lunar mission (although closer to an actual "1.5" due to commonality of hardware)

Just my non-engineering observations.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #221 on: 01/17/2009 04:50 am »
What size and type of unmanned missions would be possible to Mars or to the outer solar system using a Jupiter 120 or 130 along with an existing US as a launch vehicle that would not be possible using the launch vehicles currently available. I'm thinking that some of the later unmanned test flights could be used to send missions to deep space.


For starters, a REAL Mars Sample Return.

We could bring JIMO back from the dead as well. Jupiter is the perfect size for larger unmanned missions. I don't see any unmanned program having the necessary budget to get an Ares V launch.

Offline Lab Lemming

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #222 on: 01/17/2009 07:12 am »
Just out of curiosity, was the PM article the January 15 surprise, or was there something else that we missed?

Also, a few more misc questions:

The J232 is rated to carry 100 tonnes to LEO, but all of its proposed missions are for smaller payloads farther out (Moon, Mars, NEAR, etc).   Can the stack actually support 110 tonnes through max acc. or is that a purely theoretical maximum for LEO?

Will the J120 and J232 need crew access facilities that are different to both each other and the shuttle?

Is there any plan for a cryogenic orbital transfer stage that can hold propellant for years instead of weeks, for use in large planetary missions?

Does the fuel-for-seats plan for the orbital fuel depot risk turning NASA into a space tourism company?  For example, if a very wealthy person bought enough commercial tanker rockets to put the requisite tonnage of fuel up, would that buy him a ticket to the moon?

How would losing another shuttle effect DIRECT's chances vs the alternatives?

Offline Lab Lemming

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #223 on: 01/17/2009 07:20 am »
And one last question that I previously forgot:
The DIRECT lunar launch schedule is pretty ambitious.  Is there enough funding available to build meaningful payloads for all of those launches?  If not, you'll lose some of your economy of scale.

Just out of curiosity, was the PM article the January 15 surprise, or was there something else that we missed?

Also, a few more misc questions:

The J232 is rated to carry 100 tonnes to LEO, but all of its proposed missions are for smaller payloads farther out (Moon, Mars, NEAR, etc).   Can the stack actually support 110 tonnes through max acc. or is that a purely theoretical maximum for LEO?

Will the J120 and J232 need crew access facilities that are different to both each other and the shuttle?

Is there any plan for a cryogenic orbital transfer stage that can hold propellant for years instead of weeks, for use in large planetary missions?

Does the fuel-for-seats plan for the orbital fuel depot risk turning NASA into a space tourism company?  For example, if a very wealthy person bought enough commercial tanker rockets to put the requisite tonnage of fuel up, would that buy him a ticket to the moon?

How would losing another shuttle effect DIRECT's chances vs the alternatives?

Offline Stephan

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Paris
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #224 on: 01/17/2009 07:59 am »
For starters, a REAL Mars Sample Return.
How much could a Jupiter 232 send on a trajectory to Mars ?
(that's why I asked payload Vs C3 above ;) )
Best regards, Stephan

Offline zapkitty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #225 on: 01/17/2009 08:21 am »

I can understand your frustration, but do you have a more concise way to distinguish between:

1) two launches...

and

2) two launches...

You call them what you just called them.

Two launches.

You don't attempt to reinforce a failed NASA PR ploy, which is all that the "1.5 launches" wordplay is.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #226 on: 01/17/2009 08:38 am »
What are 1.5 launches?  Ares I = 1 launch, and Ares V = 1 launch.
1+1 = 2 launches.  I've got a bridge to sell anyone who buys that "1.5 launch" red herring.
F=ma


As I understand it, you seem to be bringing together three entirely separable questions:

1) Is two launches better than 1.5?


I can understand your frustration, but do you have a more concise way to distinguish between:

1) two launches on the same size launcher

and

2) two launches, with one on a much larger launcher and one on a much smaller launcher?

Because the costs, LOC and LOM numbers can be very different.

Yes, they both launch twice. But what is the most convenient way to distinguish the two options?


Twin Launch vs Two Launch?

Dual Symmetrical Launch vs Dual Asymmetrical Launch?

Sounds Reasonable vs You Gotta Be Kidding?*


*Actually that last bit isn't quite true.  I have no problem with launching the crew on a smaller dedicated vehicle, PROVIDED you already have such a vehicle. Developing a new one specifically for the task, then having to supersize your other new vehicle to carry the rest of the payload, is just silly.

Instead of developing both a new medium LV and a new super heavy LV, design one new heavy, that can scale back to a medium-heavy when required. Saving on both development, production and support costs. No brainer really.  That's Direct in a nutshell.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #227 on: 01/17/2009 08:59 am »
For starters, a REAL Mars Sample Return.
How much could a Jupiter 232 send on a trajectory to Mars ?
(that's why I asked payload Vs C3 above ;) )

Assuming 3.8 km/s dv from LEO, about 35 mt. Not including the JUS itself.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #228 on: 01/17/2009 09:53 am »
Just out of curiosity, was the PM article the January 15 surprise, or was there something else that we missed?

That was it.


Quote
Also, a few more misc questions:

The J232 is rated to carry 100 tonnes to LEO, but all of its proposed missions are for smaller payloads farther out (Moon, Mars, NEAR, etc).   Can the stack actually support 110 tonnes through max acc. or is that a purely theoretical maximum for LEO?

It is rated for ascent plus burn-to-empty performance in space during burns like TLI, all with a full 110mT payload mass on top (with full 1.4FS too).   This has been done to give the system the maximum possible flexibility.


Quote
Will the J120 and J232 need crew access facilities that are different to both each other and the shuttle?

The facilities will be different to Shuttle and will be different from each other because of the differing heights to the capsule.   I have attached an *OLD* image of the modified Shuttle Fixed Service Structure approach which we are baselining.

However, be aware that this approach is under review because of the ongoing analysis of the Pad structure initiated following the loss of bricks in the flame-trench during STS-124's launch.

While that is fundamentally still our baseline recommendation, we do have a number of other alternative approaches in the pot as well -- but I haven't got any prepared imagery to show those off, sorry.


Quote
Is there any plan for a cryogenic orbital transfer stage that can hold propellant for years instead of weeks, for use in large planetary missions?

The NASA/KSC ACES contract which both Boeing and Lockheed produced designs for specified long-term storage of both LH2 and LOX propellants in orbit with less than 1% boil-off over a period of 1 year.   This study produced designs which should be acceptable for a stage with a mission duration of 5-years -- which is our target.


Quote
Does the fuel-for-seats plan for the orbital fuel depot risk turning NASA into a space tourism company?  For example, if a very wealthy person bought enough commercial tanker rockets to put the requisite tonnage of fuel up, would that buy him a ticket to the moon?

That decision needs to be made by NASA.   IMHO, anyone who can pay for 60 tons of propellant to be launched should get to decide who sits in the seat.   Anyone who's got that sort of money burning a hole in their pocket is pretty serious about their interest and should be welcomed.   Apart from anything else it helps pay for the other three astronauts to go -- and that's justification all on its own.


Quote
How would losing another shuttle effect DIRECT's chances vs the alternatives?

In my opinion it would totally de-rail the entire Vision for Space Exploration.   Moon, Mars and Beyond would be shut down as a waste of life.   And about 15 years from now we will all watch a Chinese moon landing on Super-Hi-Def TV in full 38.1 surround sound.

If we lose another orbiter and crew, Shuttle would be canceled instantly -- no more chances.   ISS would probably be messed-up too.   But the entire Shuttle workforce would probably get their redundancy notices within a few months.   And all future SDLV options would be taken off the table completely.

If the manned spaceflight program survived *at all*, it would most likely shift to an extremely limited program; probably no more than 2 launches to ISS per year, using a cut-down Orion on an EELV.

But that's the chance we have taken every time we launch -- ever since STS-114 RTF.   We are putting everything on the line every time we fly.

Wayne Hale wrote a wonderful e-mail about this very thing back in January 2004.   He recently posted a copy on his blog -- I strongly suggest everyone check it out.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2009 09:58 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #229 on: 01/17/2009 10:04 am »
And one last question that I previously forgot:
The DIRECT lunar launch schedule is pretty ambitious.  Is there enough funding available to build meaningful payloads for all of those launches?  If not, you'll lose some of your economy of scale.

Our budget profile assumes the Science Mission Directorate is funded to double it current FY2008 level.

Lunar experiments would be the purview of the SMD.   The choice of how to use its resources it up to them not us, but I think it would be safe to assume they will want to produce quite a lot of Lunar experiments.   In addition, partner nations are being approached currently to produc lots of equipment for the program too.   I don't think there will be any shortage of Lunar experiments for quite a while.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #230 on: 01/17/2009 10:39 am »
For starters, a REAL Mars Sample Return.
How much could a Jupiter 232 send on a trajectory to Mars ?
(that's why I asked payload Vs C3 above ;) )

Stephan,
I haven't got a C3 chart for you currently, but depending on the dV required for the TMI the range is roughly;

TMI 3,800m/s : 35.7mT
TMI 4,100m/s : 31.9mT


With the a top-off at an orbital Depot the size of a single J-232 Upper Stage though, the limit for TMI is above 200mT -- and the vehicle can't lift that much on a single launch.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2009 10:42 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #231 on: 01/17/2009 10:45 am »
Yes, they both launch twice. But what is the most convenient way to distinguish the two options?

I often use the following descriptions to distinguish unambiguously between the Ares and Jupiter Lunar launch solutions:-

2-vehicle/2-launch

1-vehicle/2-launch


It may not be quite so jingoistic as the ESAS phrasing, but it is unquestionably more accurate.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2009 10:49 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Stephan

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Paris
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #232 on: 01/17/2009 12:17 pm »
TMI 3,800m/s : 35.7mT
TMI 4,100m/s : 31.9mT

With the a top-off at an orbital Depot the size of a single J-232 Upper Stage though, the limit for TMI is above 200mT -- and the vehicle can't lift that much on a single launch.
Thanks !
Best regards, Stephan

Offline Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #233 on: 01/17/2009 01:14 pm »
With the a top-off at an orbital Depot the size of a single J-232 Upper Stage though, the limit for TMI is above 200mT -- and the vehicle can't lift that much on a single launch.

Of course, to fill the depot you`d have to launch J-232 several more times...

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #234 on: 01/17/2009 02:12 pm »
Hey,
Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.
It can boost about 45ton into LEO right?  Roughly twice the weight of Orion?
Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?

AFAIK, Direct have proposed a number of uses for that extra weight (whixch could be as great as the shuttle's maximum cargo payload).  These include:

* ISS resupply using an autominous re-entry version of the MPLM
* ISS or satellite maintenance using an autominous re-entry mission module based on the shuttle's Payload Suppot Frame (SSPSF), which would also be equipped with a small remote manipulator system arm, based on a squinting close consideration Phillip's illustrations of an Orion/SSPSF delivering the Advanced Microwave Spectrograph to the ISS.
* Trans-Lunar fly-around, with the Orion sitting on top of a Centaur upper stage, which would act as an EDS.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #235 on: 01/17/2009 02:22 pm »
Of course, to fill the depot you`d have to launch J-232 several more times...

DIRECT's proposal, if I recall correctly, is that you would require other launches from Atlas, Delta, Soyuz, Ariane, Falcon, etc., etc. to fill your depot.

You probably need another Jupiter launch to get your depot up there to start with (though who says you couldn't launch an empty depot on a smaller launcher, too), but the point isn't to refill the depot with Jupiter launches.

---

I'm personally not sold on the depot concept yet.  I understand the reasoning, but I'm having trouble believing that having X launches to refuel a depot ends up costing less than just launching the fuel as part of the mission, especially if those fuel launches are getting spread out among a number of vendors.

i.e. Would one J-23x and ten (pick your favorite LV) fuel launches actually end up costing less that 2-J232 launches, one with all the fuel you need?

---

I'm also not sold on the "fuel for seats" concept.  If NASA says "you can have a seat to Mars if you orbit $20 worth of fuel", my response might be "can I just give you the $20?"

Now if you have a competitive contract for a company to provide depot-refueling services, I could see that resulting in lower cost.  Maybe similar to the COTS model, except they're carrying up fuel to depots rather than cargo to ISS. 

If you need 100mT of fuel for your upcoming mission, them compete out a contract to supply that fuel at your depot.  If the contract winner's proposal is for 5mT, 10mT, or 25mT fuel launches depending on the vehicle they use?  If the single contractor knows they will get X dollars for Y launches, they can build a solid business plan around that, and you might begin to see some economies in scale using smaller launchers.

- Mike

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #236 on: 01/17/2009 02:32 pm »
Hey,
Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.
It can boost about 45ton into LEO right?  Roughly twice the weight of Orion?
Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?

AFAIK, Direct have proposed a number of uses for that extra weight (whixch could be as great as the shuttle's maximum cargo payload).  These include:

* ISS resupply using an autominous re-entry version of the MPLM
* ISS or satellite maintenance using an autominous re-entry mission module based on the shuttle's Payload Suppot Frame (SSPSF), which would also be equipped with a small remote manipulator system arm, based on a squinting close consideration Phillip's illustrations of an Orion/SSPSF delivering the Advanced Microwave Spectrograph to the ISS.
* Trans-Lunar fly-around, with the Orion sitting on top of a Centaur upper stage, which would act as an EDS.

Ben, I need to correct a few bits there.

We propose building a 'cradle' which we refer to as an SSPDM (Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module) which would be designed to carry one of the standard Shuttle/ISS MPLM's to orbit one last time.   The SSPDM may or may not have an integral RCS system -- specifically depending on Orion's capabilities.   The SSPDM would be a disposable unit for carrying any remaining Shuttle Payloads one last time.   Once the payload (MPLM in this case) is finished with, it would be taken away by the accompanying Orion and placed into a safe orbit where it would burn up in the atmosphere.   The Orion would safely return home alone.

The SSPDM is also planned to be the basis for launching a future Orion-based Hubble Servicing Mission somewhere in the 2014 time-frame too.   After that mission the SSPDM would either be disposed of safely, or would be fitted with its own guidance and control systems and would be placed into an orbit compatible with Hubble, but a few hundred miles distant.   There it would remain, along with all the tools needed to perform any future servicing missions, ready for an Orion crew to dock with and bring back to the telescope once again.

We always liked the idea of the un-crewed Orion being an option for cargo-only deliveries and cargo down-mass capabilities.   Theoretically at least, a cargo-only variant of Orion could still be produced -- although neither CxP nor DIRECT have a budget allocation for it in the plans at this time.   It remains an option though.

And currently our suggestion is to utilize the slightly larger Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage for the Lunar Flyby mission in December 2013 (45th anniversary of Apollo 8).   The reason being that the DIVHUS has a greater propellant load than the Centaur-V1 and therefore a higher total impulse for that mission.   A side-effect of this choice to use the Delta hardware is that together with the human-rated RS-68's, the Jupiter would cover more than half the total costs of human-rating the Delta-IV Heavy for human use -- making it a very cost-effective option to consider.

Hope that helps clarify the situation a little.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #237 on: 01/17/2009 03:07 pm »
Of course, to fill the depot you`d have to launch J-232 several more times...

DIRECT's proposal, if I recall correctly, is that you would require other launches from Atlas, Delta, Soyuz, Ariane, Falcon, etc., etc. to fill your depot.

You probably need another Jupiter launch to get your depot up there to start with (though who says you couldn't launch an empty depot on a smaller launcher, too), but the point isn't to refill the depot with Jupiter launches.

Our current proposal would be to either:

1) Launch a partially-filled Jupiter-232 Upper Stage as the Depot, outfitted with the additional equipment necessary to use as a long-duration Depot.

2) Launch a completely 'dry' Depot on a Jupiter-120.   This would be based on just the tanking of the Jupiter Upper Stage (probably stretched), but would not have any engines attached (excepting RCS system of course) and would have all the anti-boil-off hardware and the transfer hardware integrated.

Personally I think Option 2 is the better way to go overall, but YMMV.


Quote
I'm personally not sold on the depot concept yet.  I understand the reasoning, but I'm having trouble believing that having X launches to refuel a depot ends up costing less than just launching the fuel as part of the mission, especially if those fuel launches are getting spread out among a number of vendors.

You are absolutely correct.   The smaller launchers aren't necessarily as cost-effective as the larger one.   But the key is that the architecture is designed so that ultimately it won't be US tax payers paying for the Propellant launches at all -- it will be non-space-faring foreign partners paying that share (we assume Russia, Europe, Japan, China and India will all opt to lift their own propellant).

In such a commercial situation, it is illegal for NASA to offer its assets in competition to the commercial sector -- so it doesn't matter what the cost the Jupiter's are, they simply will not be available to those partners to 'purchase'.   What will be on offer is the commercial rockets from ULA, Space-X, Orbital etc -- and they will compete for the global business.   The Jupiter's can't get involved.

As far as the US tax payer is concerned this means that Propellant lift services will be a "zero cost" no matter what system the partners purchase.   Yes, perhaps the Jupiter could do it for less, but as far as the US is concerned *in practice* $0.00 is still $0.00 any way you cut it.


The purpose for doing this is two-fold:

1) The commercial space sector gets to compete for billions of dollars of foreign investment each year -- strengthening that market and reducing regular commercial launch costs significantly as a result.

2) The Jupiter production/launch rate has a maximum limit of between 12-16 launches per year.   If half of those were propellant flights, the architecture has an upper limit of 5-7 Lunar missions per year (assuming two J-120 LEO missions too).   DIRECT would prefer to open the option of using every one of those Jupiter launches as a basis for an exploration mission.   Our target is to enable 8 Lunar missions every year (4 crews, 4 cargo) and we would like the architecture to have the potential of supporting as many as one every month if the necesary funding is ever available.   But if half the Jupiter's must launch the propellant, that is no longer an option.


Quote
i.e. Would one J-23x and ten (pick your favorite LV) fuel launches actually end up costing less that 2-J232 launches, one with all the fuel you need?

If the US tax-payer is not paying the bill, and the foreign partner gets a good deal on the open launch services market, who really cares?


Quote
I'm also not sold on the "fuel for seats" concept.  If NASA says "you can have a seat to Mars if you orbit $20 worth of fuel", my response might be "can I just give you the $20?"

That works just as well.   NASA takes the money, then just contracts for those launches to the domestic commercial market itself.   The only difference is that if NASA is doing the buying, that contract is guaranteed to be won by a US company.   That's possibly an even better option for the US.


Quote
Now if you have a competitive contract for a company to provide depot-refueling services, I could see that resulting in lower cost.  Maybe similar to the COTS model, except they're carrying up fuel to depots rather than cargo to ISS.

That is how we establish the Depot.   NASA is unlikely to fly any foreign partners on the first handful of missions.   So the US government utilizes some of those early missions to drive the launch costs of *ALL* the domestic systems down to a globally competitive level.   From that springboard ULA, Space-X, Orbital etc then phase across to a partner-funded system as we gradually increase the number of seats which are available.   It would be a gradual change-over, but the cost for lifting 60 tons of cargo to LEO is a very small price for any nation to join the exclusive club of moon-walkers -- its a very small price to pay for that prestige, so there is likely to be a nice long waiting list.


Quote
If you need 100mT of fuel for your upcoming mission, them compete out a contract to supply that fuel at your depot.  If the contract winner's proposal is for 5mT, 10mT, or 25mT fuel launches depending on the vehicle they use?  If the single contractor knows they will get X dollars for Y launches, they can build a solid business plan around that, and you might begin to see some economies in scale using smaller launchers.

Yes, I totally agree.   I foresee the architecture still retaining a 'backbone' of US funding for a number of years after the Depot is established -- paying for whatever US-only crews we might wish to deploy.   This cash flow from NASA to the Commercial operators will act almost like a 'subsidy' (while not being one) and will drive the market costs for Atlas/Delta/Falcon/Taurus/whatever down to the price-point where all the US systems are finally competitive with the Proton's and the Ariane's of this world.

Combined with the level of demand for such seats being relatively high (<$300m to join the 250,000 mile high club), NASA would be in a position to use its capital to pay for more mission hardware and launch more *spacecraft* than if it had to launch the fuel as well.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2009 03:14 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #238 on: 01/17/2009 03:45 pm »
Perhaps this qualifies as a "0.5 launch"?
F=ma


What are 1.5 launches?  Ares I = 1 launch, and Ares V = 1 launch.
1+1 = 2 launches.  I've got a bridge to sell anyone who buys that "1.5 launch" red herring.
F=ma


Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #239 on: 01/17/2009 03:52 pm »
For starters, a REAL Mars Sample Return.
How much could a Jupiter 232 send on a trajectory to Mars ?
(that's why I asked payload Vs C3 above ;) )

Assuming 3.8 km/s dv from LEO, about 35 mt. Not including the JUS itself.

Remember that throw weight is not the only limiting factor when sending a lander to mars. The size of the heat shield limits your down mass. Though Direct does have an 8 meter payload shroud which is bigger than the 5 meter shroud on EELV's. I remember seeing somewhere an early Viking plan that had both landers going on top of a single Saturn V launch.

If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Tags:
 

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