Great point Chuck. That is why I find the 2012/2013 dates that don't change as the calendar moves and SSP assets are removed so insulting ... and a great disservice to the credibility of DIRECT. It works contrary to the way any project I've programmed and makes me wonder what else is wrong under the hood.Without saying more, that is also how the analysis teams for the panel will see DIRECT if the schedule and costs are not presented more credibly.
Quote from: mars.is.wet on 06/04/2009 02:28 pmGreat point Chuck. That is why I find the 2012/2013 dates that don't change as the calendar moves and SSP assets are removed so insulting ... and a great disservice to the credibility of DIRECT. It works contrary to the way any project I've programmed and makes me wonder what else is wrong under the hood.Without saying more, that is also how the analysis teams for the panel will see DIRECT if the schedule and costs are not presented more credibly.The answer is in the switch of engines from the to be man-rated in the future RS-68B to already man-rated SSME, it has made Orion the critical path again. DIRECT has bought back 1-2 years of schedule that was lost since v1.0 by being even more Direct . Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.
Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.
Quote from: marsavian on 06/04/2009 04:55 pmQuote from: mars.is.wet on 06/04/2009 02:28 pmGreat point Chuck. That is why I find the 2012/2013 dates that don't change as the calendar moves and SSP assets are removed so insulting ... and a great disservice to the credibility of DIRECT. It works contrary to the way any project I've programmed and makes me wonder what else is wrong under the hood.Without saying more, that is also how the analysis teams for the panel will see DIRECT if the schedule and costs are not presented more credibly.The answer is in the switch of engines from the to be man-rated in the future RS-68B to already man-rated SSME, it has made Orion the critical path again. DIRECT has bought back 1-2 years of schedule that was lost since v1.0 by being even more Direct . Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years. Basically we have until the end of this fiscal year, more or less, where our current schedules are good. After that we may need to adjust. We'll see.Orion has always been the pacing item. In v2.0 Jupiter and Orion were much closer than they are now, with Orion still becoming operational after the Jupiter. In v3.0 there is a lot of new, additional schedule time between Jupiter being ready to fly and Orion being ready to fly because the Jupiter schedule has moved to the left. By making the switch in engines we have shaved considerable time off the schedule. We learned at ISDC that Orion could be brought in to early 2014 just by freezing the specs where they are so they can actually go build it. Late 2012 is just not that big a leap from there (~18 months) if we can also send proper funding their way, say an additional $1 billion a year diverted from Ares-I starting from fy 2010.
We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to simply kill-off any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.Ross.
Quote from: MP99 on 06/04/2009 04:11 pmWell, how easy is that? You'd need to qualify a new core.It's not trivial, but it is viable as long as you have a somewhat healthy budget.I'd hazard a guess and say if you chose to ground 1/4 of your flights across a five year period, that should go a long way towards paying for such an evolutionary bit of development work.
Well, how easy is that? You'd need to qualify a new core.
But if you plan to do it at all, you would be better-off doing it straight out of the box and developing the vehicle first time around with that included.
The questions I want to know though, are:1) What reason justifies the added expense?2) What capability would it provide that can't be obtained another, cheaper, way?If the answers to both of those are persuasive, then its worthwhile considering.
We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to kill any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.Ross.
Quote from: kraisee on 06/04/2009 05:21 pmWe've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to simply kill-off any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.Ross.I think 48 months sounds about right to cater for unknown unknowns . Still show it as excess margin though to illustrate your best case scenario of sub 3 years. Get your guys to apply percentage confidence factors to the lower and upper bounds just like Ares I. What you are proposing, a rocket repackage in effect, shouldn't take NASA more than 4 years to implement.
Of course, we also need to add this same 48 month contingency to Ares 1, if we are to compare apples and apples.Right?And what would that give us for Ares 1? 2018? 2019? Quote from: marsavian on 06/04/2009 05:28 pmQuote from: kraisee on 06/04/2009 05:21 pmWe've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to simply kill-off any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.Ross.I think 48 months sounds about right to cater for unknown unknowns . Still show it as excess margin though to illustrate your best case scenario of sub 3 years. Get your guys to apply percentage confidence factors to the lower and upper bounds just like Ares I. What you are proposing, a rocket repackage in effect, shouldn't take NASA more than 4 years to implement.
DIRECT fans have to start losing the attitude just about now at least for the duration of the Commission. Let Ares speak for itself or not, as an outside/underground concept DIRECT has to be ultra-credible and professional in its own right regardless of what EELV/Ares do or not do. Even 5 years still beats Ares I so it really doesn't matter the degree, it will close the gap earlier.
"For a successful technology," Richard Feynman concluded, "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
What are the most recent "kg to LEO" figures if we were to compare Ares 1 and DIVH?How many of Orion's potential features need to be left in the parking lot using DIVH?
Quote from: Bill White on 06/04/2009 05:49 pmWhat are the most recent "kg to LEO" figures if we were to compare Ares 1 and DIVH?How many of Orion's potential features need to be left in the parking lot using DIVH?According to the Aerospace Corp report, as reported on this site -- none. Delta can lift the current Orion.Danny Deger
Quote from: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 06:04 pmQuote from: Bill White on 06/04/2009 05:49 pmWhat are the most recent "kg to LEO" figures if we were to compare Ares 1 and DIVH?How many of Orion's potential features need to be left in the parking lot using DIVH?According to the Aerospace Corp report, as reported on this site -- none. Delta can lift the current Orion.Danny DegerCurrent Orion? As in the current post-diet Orion or the pre-diet Orion?If we are talking about shortening development schedules, isn't it rather vital to give the Orion Team a guaranteed minimum figure for launch vehicle capability?Until they know a minimum guaranteed mass to LEO figure how can they possibly design a space vehicle?
Quote from: Bill WhiteOf course, we also need to add this same 48 month contingency to Ares 1, if we are to compare apples and apples.Right?DIRECT fans have to start losing the attitude just about now
Of course, we also need to add this same 48 month contingency to Ares 1, if we are to compare apples and apples.Right?
at least for the duration of the Commission.
Let Ares speak for itself or not,
Even 5 years still beats Ares I so it really doesn't matter the degree, it will close the gap earlier.