Author Topic: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1  (Read 1228220 times)

Offline winkhomewinkhome

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Eugene OR
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 3023
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #440 on: 06/06/2009 01:01 am »
Regarding the naming convention, I would like to add the following suggestion -

We have the JUPITER core stage

add to it the Jupiter Upper Stage - JUS

so you get JUPITER with JUS (pronounced "JUICE")

JUPITER with JUS :)

and yes, we already had this, some times the obvious gets missed :)
Dale R. Winke

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #441 on: 06/06/2009 01:18 am »
Regarding the naming convention, I would like to add the following suggestion -

We have the JUPITER core stage

add to it the Jupiter Upper Stage - JUS

so you get JUPITER with JUS (pronounced "JUICE")

JUPITER with JUS :)

and yes, we already had this, some times the obvious gets missed :)


OMG! What's in your jus? Can I have some?  ;D
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #442 on: 06/06/2009 01:19 am »
There is a difference between what is used in presenting and selling it to NASA et al, and what will be best for official designations. The Ares-III and IV designations better from a public relations stand point, since sounds more like an upgrade than a big change.

There are two basic issues here:   1) Use a single name, without any numeric or alpha suffix, for both configurations, and 2)  Rename Jupiter to Ares.

I like (1), because it emphasizes one of the greatest strengths of DIRECT: a single vehicle launched in two configurations.  I think this is how it should be presented in all public and policy forums, short of a technical conference on implementation details.  In that type of situation, the engineers can just go to town with all their esoteric nomenclature details.

I am not in favor of (2) because I think the name "Jupiter" has earned its place in history, in the face of overwhelming odds.  Especially if the DIRECT approach is recommended by the Augustine HSF Review panel.  The "Ares" name is not worthy of Jupiter, and does not reflect its heritage.

By the way, did you know that Caesar Augustus built a temple dedicated to Jupiter, the Temple of Juppiter Tonans, because he was almost struck by lightning?  Tonans means "thundering" in Latin.  Augustus/Jupiter, Augustine/Jupiter, hmm.  Coincidence?  Maybe...  ;)

Mark S.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #443 on: 06/06/2009 01:30 am »
Not Thor - there's already been a rocket called that.

Oh wait...

Offline Gregori

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 195
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #444 on: 06/06/2009 01:36 am »
Perhaps you could call them:

Jupiter+ and Jupiter-   !!!

I don't know, just a suggestion!!

...J130 would be the Jupiter Minus (minus an upper stage and 4th engine)

and J246 would be Jupiter Plus ( upperstage and 4th engine added)

:):):)

Offline Lab Lemming

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #445 on: 06/06/2009 01:39 am »
Chiron was the Centaur-in-chief, And is represented in the sky by Sagittarius, so if you want to go for a slash name, Jupiter/Chiron or Jupiter/Sagittarius might work.

But if you really want to make up with NASA, then propose a naming contest for school kids and live with whatever comes from that.

Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages.

I like this idea.  What we need is a catchy and appropriate name for the Jupiter Upper Stage.  Then we can call the two configurations Jupiter and Jupiter/"Insert catchy name here".

It should be something from Roman mythology, or something related to the planet.  Maybe after one of Jupiter's moons (Io, Ganymede, Callisto), or one of Jupiter's children (Minerva (goddess of wisdom!)).

Mark S.


That's actually not a bad idea. Check this out:

The Jupiter Upper Stage, which doesn't have a name, is really a big Centaur. The name "Centaur" is already well known as an "Upper Stage", not a rocket, so we could have "Jupiter" and "Jupiter/Centaur". ULA already uses "Atlas" and "Atlas/Centaur" and everybody understands the difference without referring, in everyday talk, to Atlas-441, 552, etc. What do you think?

Just musing a little here.

Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS?

In either case, there's no doubt that you are talking about a single rocket, with or without an upper stage. The specific designations could be reserved for the technical discussions.

Offline DLK

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Monrovia, AL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 133
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #446 on: 06/06/2009 02:06 am »
By the way, did you know that Caesar Augustus built a temple dedicated to Jupiter, the Temple of Juppiter Tonans, because he was almost struck by lightning?  Tonans means "thundering" in Latin.  Augustus/Jupiter, Augustine/Jupiter, hmm.  Coincidence?  Maybe...  ;)

Since we're talking Roman gods, how about something a bit more unusual, like 'Bacchus' ? Should leave a good impression...

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #447 on: 06/06/2009 02:09 am »


That's actually not a bad idea. Check this out:

The Jupiter Upper Stage, which doesn't have a name, is really a big Centaur. The name "Centaur" is already well known as an "Upper Stage", not a rocket, so we could have "Jupiter" and "Jupiter/Centaur". ULA already uses "Atlas" and "Atlas/Centaur" and everybody understands the difference without referring, in everyday talk, to Atlas-441, 552, etc. What do you think?

Just musing a little here.

Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS?

In either case, there's no doubt that you are talking about a single rocket, with or without an upper stage. The specific designations could be reserved for the technical discussions.

Interesting, although I still like "Jupiter-I" and "Jupiter-II"  ;)


I would steer completely clear of the I/II/II...designations. Why? It all too easily resembles Ares, which we all know IS NOT the same launcher.

The upper stage designation seems fine, I have no problem with it (not that my vote counts for a hill of beans, but anyway).

Yes, mythical Gods and so on, to follow along the Ares theme seems nice, but so does little dipper and big dipper if we venture in to star formations (for Constellation). Neither of those uses the same stars, they just look similar. Also, depending on the education level of some (probably not a problem for the panel) but everyday people would say: what mythical God?

The common theme throughout needs to be: common core, same engines, same infrastructure, same workforce, same everything (more or less) = safer, simpler, sooner (and less costly).

Shuttle without the shuttle (in essence).

Offline mrbliss

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Grand Rapids, MI
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #448 on: 06/06/2009 02:10 am »
so you get JUPITER with JUS (pronounced "JUICE")

JUPITER with JUS :)

I am *so* glad you posted that before I did.  ;)

Seriously:  emphasizing a single name makes a lot of sense -- it sends the right message, that this is a single rocket.

Just call it JUPITER.  If JUPITER is the commonly used term, there shouldn't be any problem with JUPITER-130 and JUPITER-246 being used in situations where specificity is needed.

Then again, JUPITER and JUPITER/US seem pretty clear, too.

Steve

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #449 on: 06/06/2009 02:25 am »
Perhaps the names should reflect the fact that J-130 can only be used as an earth orbit launch vehicle while J-24x supports beyond earth orbit missions.

Maybe Jupiter LEO and (just plain) Jupiter?

This positions J-24x as the "real" Jupiter and J-130 as a less capable derivative, but it's more descriptive and less belittling than Jupiter Lite.

Jupiter Shuttle may or may not be a compelling name for J-130.

Offline Captain Kirk

  • Ad Astra
  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Harrisburg, PA
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #450 on: 06/06/2009 03:40 am »
Forgive me if this was already posted, but the panel now has a site where the public can ask questions and provide comments:

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html

But as Ross already warned before, play nice.

You can also email them documents directly.

Here's my two cents to the Committee:

"I ask the Committee to fairly hear the many ideas and alternatives to the current Ares I/V vehicles currently being pursued by NASA.  One of the most viable alternatives is called Direct 3.0.  The individuals working on this launch vehicle system are comprised of many technical and engineering people, some of whom are inside NASA and other aerospace firms.  I believe your study of alternatives will be lacking without seeking a presentation from the people behind Direct 3.0. Thank you."

I hope it helps!  :)
"Well, as you can see, we have another problem."
 - James T. Kirk, Captain, USS Enterprise

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #451 on: 06/06/2009 03:51 am »
... J246 would be Jupiter Plus ( upperstage and 4th engine added)

:):):)

... add the 5-seg SRBs, and you have Jupiter Plus Plus (though I'm sure someone would "object" to that) ... ;)

Offline JAFO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
    • My hobby
  • Liked: 875
  • Likes Given: 967
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #452 on: 06/06/2009 05:17 am »
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?

In the past there was Gemini-Titan, Atlas-Agena, and others. They were simple, and told you immediately what they were doing. Using that basis you could have Jupiter-Orion, Jupiter-Altair, (Jupiter-Colbert??) Jupiter being the core stage, and the latter being whatever it's boosting.


I also think it's good to stay with Jupiter as the base vehicle name, it separates Jupiter from the Ares class vehicles and you don't need or want to confuse the two programs. Congress and the President's advisers are your ultimate targets to get the go-ahead, and they aren't rocket engineers.

I can see them talking about it now: I thought Ares 2 was the old one? No Ares V is the old one, Ares 3 is the new one. Then what's Ares 1? Ares 1 was part of Ares 5. And Ares 5 is the new one? No, Ares 5 was part of Ares 1, we canceled Ares 5. So we canceled the new one and are launching the old one? No, Ares 2 and 3 are the new ones, which are not part of Ares 1 and 5, which are the old ones. Ah, to hell with it, cancel the whole thing!


Remember KISS: Keep it Simple, Studs.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2009 05:57 am by Envious »
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.
— Ernest K. Gann

Offline SoFDMC

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #453 on: 06/06/2009 05:17 am »
Here's my two cents to the Committee:

"I ask the Committee to fairly hear the many ideas and alternatives to the current Ares I/V vehicles currently being pursued by NASA.  One of the most viable alternatives is called Direct 3.0.  The individuals working on this launch vehicle system are comprised of many technical and engineering people, some of whom are inside NASA and other aerospace firms.  I believe your study of alternatives will be lacking without seeking a presentation from the people behind Direct 3.0. Thank you."

I hope it helps!  :)
I think in that one paragraph you encompassed everything while keeping it short and to the point.

Let's hope they do listen. By now budget cuts will have gone to the point NASA will have to acknowledge the current program isn't going to last beyond Ares 1, and therefore any hope for a moon landing before the other nations.

Having read through the past five pages I think using 'Jupiter' and 'Jupiter Heavy' like those used for the Delta and Atlas series would be better in that it sticks with the industry's nomenclature. Besides, given the long term goals that DIRECT is set, it is likely private enterprise will be building some of these rockets in the future.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #454 on: 06/06/2009 06:01 am »
The current Jupiter naming convention is more akin to the Atlas-V numbering designations such as 401, 421 or 552.   It represents a single vehicle (Atlas-V / Jupiter) which is flown in different configurations (552 / 246).

So the precedence exists in the industry for what we are already doing.

The question, is whether the panel members are likely to be confused by such things.    I personally think they're all going to be pretty familiar with the whole world of configurations, acronyms and other such naming conventions used throughout this business.   I don't think any of them are likely to be confused by things like this.

I don't see a real reason to change anything at this late stage.   Although, referring to the vehicles as "Jupiter" and "Jupiter with an Upper Stage" speaks of common sense to me.

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

Offline SoFDMC

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #455 on: 06/06/2009 06:19 am »
The current Jupiter naming convention is more akin to the Atlas-V numbering designations such as 401, 421 or 552.   It represents a single vehicle (Atlas-V / Jupiter) which is flown in different configurations (552 / 246).

So the precedence exists in the industry for what we are already doing.

The question, is whether the panel members are likely to be confused by such things.    I personally think they're all going to be pretty familiar with the whole world of configurations, acronyms and other such naming conventions used throughout this business.   I don't think any of them are likely to be confused by things like this.

I don't see a real reason to change anything at this late stage.   Although, referring to the vehicles as "Jupiter" and "Jupiter with an Upper Stage" speaks of common sense to me.

Ross.
What really makes me anxious of the outcome at the Augustine Commission is how the DIRECT team can present it without giving the commission the impression of self-interest or hidden agendas.

Given the passion that most people would have in this proposal, I fear slip-ups due to runaway emotions or negative reactions from perceived lack of interest by the panel.

The people directly involved in presenting the proposal really have to keep their cool. I wish them all the best of luck.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2009 06:20 am by SoFDMC »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #456 on: 06/06/2009 06:51 am »
We've given this same basic (continually evolving) presentation a number of times now, to political figures, the TT, a variety of industry groups, more than a couple of advocacy groups and a plethora of conferences over the last three years.

The only real difference this time, is we only have 30 minutes to make our initial case, including a Q&A session.   That's going to be *really* tight.   All our previous presentations have been at least an hour.

This will have to be simple and straight-forward facts and details -- end of story.   The difficult bit is selecting the most salient details and trimming the rest to fit in such tight timing confines.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2009 06:51 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #457 on: 06/06/2009 07:17 am »
Upperstages only get names when they are independent projects from the booster (Agena, Able, Centaur, etc).  The Saturn upperstages weren't named, they just had numerical designations.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2009 07:18 am by Jim »

Offline duane

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #458 on: 06/06/2009 07:31 am »
We've given this same basic (continually evolving) presentation a number of times now, to political figures, the TT, a variety of industry groups, more than a couple of advocacy groups and a plethora of conferences over the last three years.

The only real difference this time, is we only have 30 minutes to make our initial case, including a Q&A session.   That's going to be *really* tight.   All our previous presentations have been at least an hour.

This will have to be simple and straight-forward facts and details -- end of story.   The difficult bit is selecting the most salient details and trimming the rest to fit in such tight timing confines.

Ross.

Just a few cents on that Ross. The Video showing the shuttle being transformed to a Jupiter is a pretty to the point presentation in itself.

One thing about that video thought, is all the weight numbers going up and down. Seems like distracting noise. Maybe just display the numbers after the animation/morph  is done to new configuration (LEO, TLI etc)

Either way, I would suggest putting screen grabs of that powerpoint in your presentation. Of course I assume that is already in there.

Keep it simple, and professional and leave out the previous baggage with NASA fiddling your numbers/configurations  ....

Good luck!

Duane

Offline duane

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #459 on: 06/06/2009 07:32 am »
Is there a set date when the directlauncher.com website will be upgraded to Direct 3.0?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1