Author Topic: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1  (Read 1228181 times)

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #280 on: 06/04/2009 04:55 pm »

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.


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.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #281 on: 06/04/2009 04:57 pm »

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.


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.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 05:10 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #282 on: 06/04/2009 05:16 pm »
Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

That raises a very interesting point...

Should we 'pack' our dates and make them a "no brainer"?

I'm concerned with the possibility of some factions pushing the "their schedule is unreasonable" card, even though *we* are totally confident.   Problem is that mud always tends to stick...   ...So perhaps we should get even more conservative specifically for this presentation -- just to head that accusation off at the gate?

It would certainly be better to say "5 years" and then have Hawes come back with "yeah its doable in 4 actually" instead of saying "3 years" and Hawes coming back and saying "nope, your too optimistic, its going to take longer, more like 4".

Same result from Hawes could produce two completely different reactions, all because of our claims going in...

Thoughts?

Ross.

« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 05:19 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Crispy

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1025
  • London
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #283 on: 06/04/2009 05:19 pm »
Definitely pack your schedule. If you previously had schedule margin, and it's now been eaten up, you should add it back in. You'll still be in better shape than constellation, right?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #284 on: 06/04/2009 05:21 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 05:23 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #285 on: 06/04/2009 05:22 pm »
I propose a new PPT slide that compares the schedule "long poles" to better illustrate Gap mitigation issues:

Perhaps list months and years along the y axis (maybe use quarters as the units such as 2Q11, 3Q11, 4Q11, 1Q12 and so forth) and display the critical components along the x axis

Orion (when available)

Ares 1 subsystems
     - 5 segment RSRM (when available)
     - J2X (when available)

DIVH EELV
     - RS-68 human rating

J-130
     - SSME
     - 4 segment RSRM
     - modified ET core

Such a chart should easily convey the idea that even if the J-130 schedule is "optimistic" it will still be ready before Orion and it therefore isn't the "long pole" for schedule purposes.

Ares 1 is the "long pole" for Gap closure purposes.

AND

You can also display two or three Orion development poles - a DIVH pole, a J130 pole and an Ares 1 pole.


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.


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.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 05:32 pm by Bill White »
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #286 on: 06/04/2009 05:28 pm »
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.

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 Shuttle rocket repackage in effect with existing components, shouldn't take NASA more than 4 years to implement.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 05:34 pm by marsavian »

Offline MP99

Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #287 on: 06/04/2009 05:29 pm »
Well, 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.

That's to implement a core stretch? Or Upper Tank?


Quote
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.

J-140UT was intended to be a relatively simple way to bypass the expense of a core stretch.

Take the existing tanks (at the time of Lunar Missions) and re-plumb them in different ways to allow J-140 to perform crew lift instead of J-246. Did I mention "no complicated plumbing involved?" (Grin - sorry!)

I didn't think it would be a trivial exercise, but taking a dedicated feed from a separate tank, and running 1x SSME from it in isolation to existing systems didn't feel to me like it should be a five year job. (If that's what you meant above).


Quote
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.

I'd assumed J-140UT would have better LOM figures than J-246, and would be cheaper, too.


Out of interest, would you expect this to perform better than J-130:-

4x SSME instead of 3x
170mT+ additional usable H2/O2
16mT higher dry mass (+ another set of residuals)
71mT higher GLOW than J-246 (+ any payload increase)

Not a detailed figure, but "worse", or 1mT or 10mT? Just a guess off the top of your head.

cheers, Martin

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #288 on: 06/04/2009 05:30 pm »
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.

If you display the various program schedules in a graphical manner, (time on y axis and the various architectures set side by side on the x axis) you can add contingencies to each program to be certain not to end up with a comparison of Jupiter (worst case) and Ares 1 (best case)

Create a range of expected operational target dates for J130, Ares 1 & DIVH and we can simultaneously compare the program using different but consistent confidence levels for each.

i.e. . . .

When would Ares 1 come on-line with a 50% confidence level? J130? DIVH? 

What about a 70% confidence level?

Absolute "best case" and (almost) absolute "worst case" ??
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #289 on: 06/04/2009 05:35 pm »
Good ideas guys, thanks.   I'll see what I can come up with graphics-wise.

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

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #290 on: 06/04/2009 05:36 pm »
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?

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.

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.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #291 on: 06/04/2009 05:48 pm »
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?

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.

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.

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #292 on: 06/04/2009 05:49 pm »
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?
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #293 on: 06/04/2009 05:59 pm »
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.

Constellation advocates also need to understand that if they win this thing by entering an orange versus an apple they (and the US space program) will end up far worse off down the road when expectations aren't met in reality. 

Just as the volume of a US bottle versus a UK bottle cannot be compared unless we convert both the UK imperial gallons and the US liquid gallon to a common standard such a liters, we cannot compare launch systems without first converting everything to a common scale.

= = =

A proposed motto for the Augustine Commission:

Quote
"For a successful technology," Richard Feynman concluded, "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 06:05 pm by Bill White »
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #294 on: 06/04/2009 06:04 pm »
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?

According to the Aerospace Corp report, as reported on this site -- none.  Delta can lift the current Orion.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #295 on: 06/04/2009 06:11 pm »
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?

According to the Aerospace Corp report, as reported on this site -- none.  Delta can lift the current Orion.

Danny Deger

So "current version" is with all the features Ares has requested be removed? Does that include Land landing capability? Trying to gets some understanding of what state Orion is in as opposed to the original design and furthermore where Lockheed would like it to be, and furthermore what the astronauts would like to see?


Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #296 on: 06/04/2009 06:11 pm »
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?

According to the Aerospace Corp report, as reported on this site -- none.  Delta can lift the current Orion.

Danny Deger

Current 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?
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #297 on: 06/04/2009 06:15 pm »
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?

According to the Aerospace Corp report, as reported on this site -- none.  Delta can lift the current Orion.

Danny Deger

Current 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?

L/M is working to 606 and for this Block-I we would not improve it.
We would recommend a Block-II go back to the parking lot and reintigrate from there.
That's the fastest way to get her in the air.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline zapkitty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #298 on: 06/04/2009 06:22 pm »
Quote from: Bill White
Of 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

Ahh... the reek of imperial imperiousness!

Conflate much?

Quote
at least for the duration of the Commission.

"Don't speak the truth about Ares... it wouldn't be polite!"

Quote
Let Ares speak for itself or not,

Ares lies. A lot. Ares lies a lot about Direct. This cannot be ignored. It must be addressed in some manner, however... indirect :)... that manner might be.

Quote
Even 5 years still beats Ares I so it really doesn't matter the degree, it will close the gap earlier.

Dead wrong. The Ares proponents, which essentially are NASA administration, will attempt to fling so much BS in the air that an unneeded delay will actually seem advisable to the commission rather than trying to buck the system by changing course...

edit: I had added an assertion that NASA would continue past bad behavior in the face of the commission and Ross objected to the assertion.

Call  it a prediction instead. One I'd bet money on.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 07:03 pm by zapkitty »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #299 on: 06/04/2009 06:29 pm »
My understanding of the conclusions which were in the Aerospace report (and note that I have not seen the actual document, merely spoken to people who have) is that they determined that the current RS-68 powered Delta-IV Heavy could lift the current Orion with nice comfortable margins and flying a blackzone-safe trajectory.   However it would apparently take the RS-68A engines, due in 2012, to be able to lift a heavier Orion including such things as the ~1400lb of Land Landing hardware.

I don't have the precise payload performance figures to hand, but I'm pretty sure that the Commission members will have access to this document.

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

Tags:
 

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