Your video says "LOX tank extension". This implies a bigger mod than you might be doing. Are you just changing the shape of the end of the tank?
You might make a note of this for your next release.
I would also be interested in the total weight on the pad of Shuttle and Jupiter 130. Given they have the same engines and prop, the gross weight on the pad is probably the same. This might be an easy way to show the performance of Jupiter 130 does NOT defy the laws of physics.
Is there a summary of updates somewhere from 2.0 to 3.0?
snip
They're similar, but Jupiter is actually slightly lower. We've done that because we are including extra margins. While Shuttle is a mature system, Jupiter will be a new one and we would rather have greater margin, at least until Jupiter also matures.
Ross.
You do need more margin because of the significant changes to structure and new structures to be developed. I would add 20% margin to all new structure. This would not include the whole ET, just the part of the ET that was new. Maybe a direct comparison of Shuttle and Jupiter gross weights on the pad would be useful. This is rocket science even a congressman/senator can understand.
Do you plan to use the RL-10B-2 with noozles already extended ? The skirt seems long enough to allow that.
The Fwd Skirt actually comes in along with the 'foam' which covers the rest of the LOX tank. Its just a visual thing. They could be separated, but we wanted to keep the video short.
Ross.
snip
FYI: A standard Jupiter-130 CLV heading for ISS has a GLOW of 2,057,232kg. It lifts 66,980kg of useful payload to 100x100nmi, 51.6deg. Assuming a 20,185kg Orion, that leaves 46,795kg for additional cargo -- roughly equivalent to 3 ISS-bound Shuttle payloads worth.
Ross.
snip
FYI: A standard Jupiter-130 CLV heading for ISS has a GLOW of 2,057,232kg. It lifts 66,980kg of useful payload to 100x100nmi, 51.6deg. Assuming a 20,185kg Orion, that leaves 46,795kg for additional cargo -- roughly equivalent to 3 ISS-bound Shuttle payloads worth.
Ross.
This is a good selling point for Jupiter. ISS upmass problems are solved with Jupiter. It think upmass will turn out to be a huge problem in the post shuttle ISS ops.
Do you have a plan on what container for use for pressurized cargo and a ops concept for docking the container and Orion? I am thinking Orion takes the container for a grapple, then it docks itself.
Danny Deger
Although long term, a seperate Pressure Shell for cargo would seem to be a better solution.
The Fwd Skirt actually comes in along with the 'foam' which covers the rest of the LOX tank. Its just a visual thing. They could be separated, but we wanted to keep the video short.
Ross.
Although long term, a seperate Pressure Shell for cargo would seem to be a better solution.
FWIW, my favoured solution has always been an MPLM replacment with a modified hull so that it has a Soyuz RV-like shape. Add a short-life RCS and a de-orbit retro pack and, voila! You have the Autonomous Return Station Logistics Module (ARSLM). Carried into orbit on an Orion/SSPDM and returning autominously to splash down in the Gulf of Mexico after it has completed its mission.
Do you still need the foam now that the orbiter is gone? How much does the foam weigh?
1. I would think the SRBs can take the impact of shedding ice.
2. How about the Delta IV Heavy? Does it shed a bunch of ice on itself on ascent? I have seen some video of Saturn V launches and huge chucks of ice are coming off.
Danny Deger
And no, the LOX tank is sized to precisely the same capacity as the current ET's Ogive tank.
We do still have an option to increase the capacity of both the LOX and LH2 tanks by ~7-9% (in the same way as NLS was going to), but right now, mostly for simplicity sake, we have simply chosen not to mess around with altering the capacities. We can close all performance requirements comfortably without it.
Do you still need the foam now that the orbiter is gone? How much does the foam weigh?
1. I would think the SRBs can take the impact of shedding ice.
2. How about the Delta IV Heavy? Does it shed a bunch of ice on itself on ascent? I have seen some video of Saturn V launches and huge chucks of ice are coming off.
Danny Deger
1. No, the IEA's are vulnerable
2. D-IV has foam on all tanks
Thanks for the info, but what are the IEA's.SRB integrated electronics assembly on the ET attach ring. One of them nearly took a hit from the ET bipod foam that came off on STS-112. (Edit: the foam hit the left ET attach ring near the IEA.)
I noticed that the Jupiter-130 will have two engines closer to the front of the vehicle, and one closer to the back. Will this create an offset thrust situation or an offset weight situation? And if so how will this be counteracted?
Forgive me if this is a non-issue, as I am not too good with the rocket science side of these things.
I noticed that the Jupiter-130 will have two engines closer to the front of the vehicle, and one closer to the back. Will this create an offset thrust situation or an offset weight situation? And if so how will this be counteracted?
Non-Issue.. Far less offset than current shuttle stack.. Plenty of gimbal range for SSME's to keep Jupiter tracking as required. Small payload penalty for offest thrust.
I hope that the new pdf will have some good, large dimensioned drawings of each version of 3.0 for us modelmakers. I have watched the after skirt/thrust structure of the core change quite a bit over the span of time.
The Fwd Skirt actually comes in along with the 'foam' which covers the rest of the LOX tank. Its just a visual thing. They could be separated, but we wanted to keep the video short.
Ross.
Do you still need the foam now that the orbiter is gone? How much does the foam weigh? I would think the SRBs can take the impact of shedding ice. How about the Delta IV Heavy? Does it shed a bunch of ice on itself on ascent? I have seen some video of Saturn V launches and huge chucks of ice are coming off.
Danny Deger
The Fwd Skirt actually comes in along with the 'foam' which covers the rest of the LOX tank. Its just a visual thing. They could be separated, but we wanted to keep the video short.
Ross.
Thanks, I knew I'd catch your attention !
But this is confusing... "comes in along with the 'foam' " ? What exactly comes in along ?
Jupiter's forward skirt is build of what ?
TIA again, (hope I'm not abusing your patience).
Do you still need the foam now that the orbiter is gone?
How much does the foam weigh?
I would think the SRBs can take the impact of shedding ice.
How about the Delta IV Heavy? Does it shed a bunch of ice on itself on ascent? I have seen some video of Saturn V launches and huge chucks of ice are coming off.
Copied from V2.0 thread, since it appears to be just as relevant to DIRECT 3.0...And no, the LOX tank is sized to precisely the same capacity as the current ET's Ogive tank.
We do still have an option to increase the capacity of both the LOX and LH2 tanks by ~7-9% (in the same way as NLS was going to), but right now, mostly for simplicity sake, we have simply chosen not to mess around with altering the capacities. We can close all performance requirements comfortably without it.
Not heard of that 7-9% stretch option before.
I'd suspect this is because the relationship of SRB-to-ET-to-Shuttle results in more space under the ET for engines than DIRECT actually needs?
Shrink the engine space and extend the H2 tank downwards?
It recently occured to me to wonder how there is space under the "ET" to fit a bunch of engines at all. Shuttle's ET is sized to fit between the SRB's (and presumably not to extend too far down into the base heating zone). Nothing about the shuttle "demands" that this should leave enough space under the ET for a set of engines.
That also raised another question. DIRECT's H2 tank height (bottom of barrel section to thrust beam) is defined by the distance between the lower & upper SRB attach points.
Adding another segment to the SRB also requires the same H2 barrel stretch. I'd always assumed this was a 25% increase in core fuel, but now that doesn't seem right.
How much does the core fuel load increase for the heavy config?
I noticed that the Jupiter-130 will have two engines closer to the front of the vehicle, and one closer to the back. Will this create an offset thrust situation or an offset weight situation? And if so how will this be counteracted?
Forgive me if this is a non-issue, as I am not too good with the rocket science side of these things.
I noticed that the Jupiter-130 will have two engines closer to the front of the vehicle, and one closer to the back. Will this create an offset thrust situation or an offset weight situation? And if so how will this be counteracted?
Non-Issue.. Far less offset than current shuttle stack.. Plenty of gimbal range for SSME's to keep Jupiter tracking as required. Small payload penalty for offest thrust.
Sure, but does it affect failure modes? I can imagine that a loss of one of the two paired engines would still allow a controllable stack for AOA or ATO (depending on timing), but if you lose that single engine, with all thrust now off-axis, do you have to shut everything down and fire the CES?
(ps - very nice graphics!)
Ross... any further word on dropping vectoring control on SRB nozzles?
And what is it going to carry other than garbage? If it can't come down like the shuttle, then it is useless for science or return hardware. Access and loads are bad.
Ross... any further word on dropping vectoring control on SRB nozzles?
It seems to be a viable option which would reduce the per-flight costs by a reasonable amount and which would also improve both LOM and LOC too.
Its an option which really needs further detailed trade study after the Jupiter's have been selected though. We aren't going to pursue it at this time, mostly because we don't have sufficient resources to do it comprehensively and because we have other priorities with the Augustine commission just around the corner.
Ross.
...
Speaking of which..
Ross... any further word on dropping vectoring control on SRB nozzles?
...
Speaking of which..
Ross... any further word on dropping vectoring control on SRB nozzles?
Hey ! Fixed nozzle SRBs were considered by MSFC as of last year (to my knowledge) in the context of Ares V. Now, compare the [roll] control authority of 6 RS-68 @ 10m v. 3 SSME @ 8.4m (roughly; and even with the 4seg to 5 or 5.5 seg difference). Eh ? Let's give Caesar what is Caesar's.
Ross,
Looking at the detailed pictures of D3, it looks like you (team) are dropping the current ESM panel attachment method for LSC or frangible joints up at the Orion/SM. If you change the panel attachment method (6 connections, 2 per panel), that will change the load path into the Orion drastically. And not having anything under the SM puts the SM in tension instead of compression like it is in Ares I. Changing the load path into the Orion/SM carries a time & money penalty for redesigning them. Is this something you have considered either via schedule & cost or via panel/faring redesign? I thought I remember it being stated that the most recent Orion version would be "held" and adapted to Direct.
...
Speaking of which..
Ross... any further word on dropping vectoring control on SRB nozzles?
Hey ! Fixed nozzle SRBs were considered by MSFC as of last year (to my knowledge) in the context of Ares V. Now, compare the [roll] control authority of 6 RS-68 @ 10m v. 3 SSME @ 8.4m (roughly; and even with the 4seg to 5 or 5.5 seg difference). Eh ? Let's give Caesar what is Caesar's.
Would an ATV fit inside the Shroud? Could lift one basically "for free" if the case. let it do it's own docking.
...
One other option which was suggested to us by someone at MSFC has also led us to looking at methods to possibly try to remove the CM from the load path of the LAS too. Right now the ~7mT of LAS presses down on the CM structure during flight. ...
For now, our priority is to create a situation where the Orion project can stop worrying about weight limitations,
...
One other option which was suggested to us by someone at MSFC has also led us to looking at methods to possibly try to remove the CM from the load path of the LAS too. Right now the ~7mT of LAS presses down on the CM structure during flight. ...
Only 2/3 of LAS induced ascent loads are reacted on Orion's forward attachment, as is; 1/3 loads goes to the SM, through ALAS-11 structure.
Correct ?Quote
For now, our priority is to create a situation where the Orion project can stop worrying about weight limitations,
This is an old quip I've had with Direct. IMO weight limitations in the *capsule* (CM) go beyond Ares I's real or perceived limitations. And, your (Direct) most spectacular weight growth tolerance towards Orion targets the CM. You attract more fans with "let's put some extra poly-layers of MMOD and radiation protection on Orion" compared to, say, let's give Orion a few extra 100's m/s delta-V.
Somehow I don't think it is fair. If the CM/capsule is subject to objective, booster-neutral or architecture-neutral limitations, let's say it out loud.
...
One other option which was suggested to us by someone at MSFC has also led us to looking at methods to possibly try to remove the CM from the load path of the LAS too. Right now the ~7mT of LAS presses down on the CM structure during flight. ...
Only 2/3 of LAS induced ascent loads are reacted on Orion's forward attachment, as is; 1/3 loads goes to the SM, through ALAS-11 structure.
Correct ?Quote
For now, our priority is to create a situation where the Orion project can stop worrying about weight limitations,
This is an old quip I've had with Direct. IMO weight limitations in the *capsule* (CM) go beyond Ares I's real or perceived limitations. And, your (Direct) most spectacular weight growth tolerance towards Orion targets the CM. You attract more fans with "let's put some extra poly-layers of MMOD and radiation protection on Orion" compared to, say, let's give Orion a few extra 100's m/s delta-V.
Somehow I don't think it is fair. If the CM/capsule is subject to objective, booster-neutral or architecture-neutral limitations, let's say it out loud.
Somehow I don't think it is fair. If the CM/capsule is subject to objective, booster-neutral or architecture-neutral limitations, let's say it out loud.
There are some that will say the RL-10's are not human rate-able without significant effort. A number of internal and external studies have shown that. Some of those studies come from the contractors.
Not saying who is right, but a simple assertion that it will work "off the shelf" will not stand up against the body of evidence I have seen, and weakens the credibility of the proposal.
Hi Ross,
Is this an issue? Or are there enough funds and time scheduled in to account for crew rating the upper stage engines already?
That was lame :)
This question is answered on the first page of this thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17295.msg414447#msg414447
The mass allowed to a 5m dia CM on entry from lunar missions is objectively limited.
The mass allowed to a 5m dia CM, under the parachutes it was able to carry out to the moon and back, in the limited space of it's forward bay, is objectively limited.
The mass allowed to a production line Orion, hitchhiking with a 1.5 architecture - "with kits" - production line Altair, is limited.
The more heavy Orion, the more "kits" are needed for Altair, and the more split is the production line.
The minimal Orion would go without any "Altair kit", ok ?
There's no need to mention "shame". Nor "embarassment".
Just to confirm, our studies show that the roll control of two SSME's would be more than sufficient to the task of providing complete roll, pitch and yaw control authority to the Jupiter-sized stack with fixed SRB nozzles. Three SSME's provides even greater authority and 4, greater again.By the way what would be the lifting capacity with just two SSME's?
Ross.
Is there a summary of updates somewhere from 2.0 to 3.0?
It's pretty simple really:
RS-68 main engines swapped for SSME's.
The higher efficiency of the SSME's on the Core allow for the Upper Stage to be made quite a bit smaller.
A smaller Upper Stage means that other engine choices can also be considered, like RL-10 and RL-60, not just J-2X.
While we aren't specifying any "final decision" on the Upper Stage engine selection yet, we are strongly recommending an RL-10B-2 solution be considered because that would mean that all the engines (4-seg SRB's, SSME's and RL-10B-2's) are all essentially "off the shelf".
That results in removing all of the highly expensive engine development programs which are usually the determining factor in the development schedule too.
In a nutshell, DIRECT v3.0 offers a solution needing no engine developments at all for supporting all of the ISS and Lunar objectives.
From there, the architecture is designed to fit that capability while providing nice healthy margins in all areas; performance, budget and schedule.
Ross.
The mass allowed to a 5m dia CM on entry from lunar missions is objectively limited.
The mass allowed to a 5m dia CM, under the parachutes it was able to carry out to the moon and back, in the limited space of it's forward bay, is objectively limited.
The mass allowed to a production line Orion, hitchhiking with a 1.5 architecture - "with kits" - production line Altair, is limited.
The more heavy Orion, the more "kits" are needed for Altair, and the more split is the production line.
The minimal Orion would go without any "Altair kit", ok ?
There's no need to mention "shame". Nor "embarassment".
Ah.
So the Orion design team obviously did not understand these "objective limitations" and designed a craft that exceeded them. Thank Bast's furry ears that the Aries-1 design team was able to rescue them from the shameful embarassment of their ignorance! ;)
I admit it was lame of me not to see this dazzlingly brilliant logic before...
My real question is the cost impact of substituting the SSME for the RS-68. I understand that the RS-68 has a problem with the thermal environment close to the SRB, but I understand that the SSME costs $60 million a piece vs the RS-68 at $20 million a piece. Not good from a budget standpoint.
There are some that will say the RL-10's are not human rate-able without significant effort. A number of internal and external studies have shown that. Some of those studies come from the contractors.
Not saying who is right, but a simple assertion that it will work "off the shelf" will not stand up against the body of evidence I have seen, and weakens the credibility of the proposal.
There are some that will say the RL-10's are not human rate-able without significant effort. A number of internal and external studies have shown that. Some of those studies come from the contractors.
Not saying who is right, but a simple assertion that it will work "off the shelf" will not stand up against the body of evidence I have seen, and weakens the credibility of the proposal.
I thought NASA were looking at an RL-10 derived engine for the Altair lander?
cheers, Martin
My real question is the cost impact of substituting the SSME for the RS-68. I understand that the RS-68 has a problem with the thermal environment close to the SRB, but I understand that the SSME costs $60 million a piece vs the RS-68 at $20 million a piece. Not good from a budget standpoint.
Could you please address this issue.
Stan
Just to confirm, our studies show that the roll control of two SSME's would be more than sufficient to the task of providing complete roll, pitch and yaw control authority to the Jupiter-sized stack with fixed SRB nozzles. Three SSME's provides even greater authority and 4, greater again.By the way what would be the lifting capacity with just two SSME's?
Ross.
I hope that the new pdf will have some good, large dimensioned drawings of each version of 3.0 for us modelmakers. I have watched the after skirt/thrust structure of the core change quite a bit over the span of time.
Direct Team,
I like the concepts. Elegent is the right word. Straight forward, removes many unknowns and uses the existing wealth of data from STS equipment.
I really like leveraging the nearly 40 years of SSME heritage and very extensive flight data. It only makes sense. Same with the SRBs, but solids are harder to like then liquid engines. Both have evolved and advanced. Why go change horses now?
I'm not sure that NASA will buy into the 6 RL-10's though. It's not man rated currently and 6 engines is alot of equipment. But it does exist and maybe the per unit costs would drop like a stone. A few Direct flights a year would double their production.
In all, great work and I hope the Augustine commission gives it a fair hearing.
FYI: A standard Jupiter-130 CLV heading for ISS has a GLOW of 2,057,232kg. It lifts 66,980kg of useful payload to 100x100nmi, 51.6deg. Assuming a 20,185kg Orion, that leaves 46,795kg for additional cargo -- roughly equivalent to 3 ISS-bound Shuttle payloads worth.
FYI: A standard Jupiter-130 CLV heading for ISS has a GLOW of 2,057,232kg. It lifts 66,980kg of useful payload to 100x100nmi, 51.6deg. Assuming a 20,185kg Orion, that leaves 46,795kg for additional cargo -- roughly equivalent to 3 ISS-bound Shuttle payloads worth.
That's a lot of payload! From later in this thread, I followed the link to the Jupiter-120 CLV to ISS which has a payload of 39,339kg to ISS (that's with the extra 10% reserve). That's still a huge amount of payload even taking Orion into account.
clongton, good pionts but the NASA of the 60's was willing to do things that today's NASA wouldn't touch with a barge pole. I'd love to see NASA be willing to take the risk and do it again.
clongton, good pionts but the NASA of the 60's was willing to do things that today's NASA wouldn't touch with a barge pole. I'd love to see NASA be willing to take the risk and do it again.
Best Luck I do wish you success.
I'm not sure that NASA will buy into the 6 RL-10's though. It's not man rated currently and 6 engines is alot of equipment. But it does exist and maybe the per unit costs would drop like a stone. A few Direct flights a year would double their production.
clongton, good pionts but the NASA of the 60's was willing to do things that today's NASA wouldn't touch with a barge pole. I'd love to see NASA be willing to take the risk and do it again.
Will never happen. You can only beat up an organization so many times before they decide that job one is to do anything, whatever it takes, to make the beating stop. That attitude is so thoroughly ingrained at NASA it cannot be extracted.
I still like the J-130 + J23x-Heavy. One less engine on the core means lower weight and lower loads, no differences between the cores means less development and more efficiency, and I think the 5-seg will go forward either way and the Shuttle-version with the same attach points, fuel, etc. is far closer to being ready. I'm also still unconvinced that the J24x has more performance than the J23x-Heavy.
I still like the J-130 + J23x-Heavy. One less engine on the core means lower weight and lower loads, no differences between the cores means less development and more efficiency, and I think the 5-seg will go forward either way and the Shuttle-version with the same attach points, fuel, etc. is far closer to being ready. I'm also still unconvinced that the J24x has more performance than the J23x-Heavy.
The v2.0 J-23x is no longer an option. Because of base heating, the ablative RS-68 does not survive long enough to get the second stage off. If the SRB's must be used, the MPP must have regen engines. That leaves either the *existing* SSME or a future *RS-68R*.
Somebody wise said something about a bird in the hand ...
I still like the J-130 + J23x-Heavy. One less engine on the core means lower weight and lower loads, no differences between the cores means less development and more efficiency, and I think the 5-seg will go forward either way and the Shuttle-version with the same attach points, fuel, etc. is far closer to being ready. I'm also still unconvinced that the J24x has more performance than the J23x-Heavy.
I still like the J-130 + J23x-Heavy. One less engine on the core means lower weight and lower loads, no differences between the cores means less development and more efficiency, and I think the 5-seg will go forward either way and the Shuttle-version with the same attach points, fuel, etc. is far closer to being ready. I'm also still unconvinced that the J24x has more performance than the J23x-Heavy.
I don't think so. Years amd Billions can be saved by shelving the 5-seg.
Edit: Too many ripple effects (costs) on other components too.
Personally, I feel that keeping the J2-X development would buy much more political clout than the time/money saved with RL-10. Losing two rocket development programs (to be replaced by one) and main engine development are huge hits, the J2-X could be the bone that would keep Marshall chewing rather than a loose hungry dog.
QuoteI would think the SRBs can take the impact of shedding ice.
The flight immediately before STS-107 had a chunk of foam hit an SRB Aft Skirt. It left a visually noticeable dent in the thick steel structure.
Which makes it all the more incredulous to me that prior to Columbia and even during the early part of the investigation, nearly everyone swore up and down that foam COULD NOT have caused sufficient damage to the shuttle TPS to have caused the tragedy. The evidence couldn't have been clearer, but it took shooting a block of foam out of an air cannon into a RCC wing leading edge panel and blowing a foot-wide hole in it to put two and two together...
Seems like SOMEBODY would've said after the flight where the foam dented the SRB skirt, "whoa, look what that foam did to a streamlined steel skirt on what would have to be a glancing blow; can you IMAGINE what would happen if it hit a wing leading edge made of glorified fiberglass composite or glass foam belly tiles??"
Later! OL JR :)
PS. GREAT looking stuff for the Version 3... and I'll second the request for dimensioned drawings for model builders! :)
I'm not sure that NASA will buy into the 6 RL-10's though. It's not man rated currently and 6 engines is alot of equipment. But it does exist and maybe the per unit costs would drop like a stone. A few Direct flights a year would double their production.
NASA has already "bought into" the 6 RL-10.
(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/6-RL10-Saturn-I.jpg)
They flew successfully in the S-I upper stage of the Saturn I rocket, back in the 1960s. If NASA tries to say "Oh, that won't work, it's too complex" all someone needs to do is to tell them to go ask their own History Office about it. It's already been done, safely, successfully, and is just one more bit of evidence that we can get on back to the Moon without any new engine development programs. Can't beat that.
I see Chuck beat me to it...
clongton, good pionts but the NASA of the 60's was willing to do things that today's NASA wouldn't touch with a barge pole. I'd love to see NASA be willing to take the risk and do it again.
Will never happen. You can only beat up an organization so many times before they decide that job one is to do anything, whatever it takes, to make the beating stop. That attitude is so thoroughly ingrained at NASA it cannot be extracted.
Then they would have to admit that the astronauts of the 60's were made of the "Right Stuff" and the astronauts of today are not. I don't think they would be willing to admit to that. Either they are willing to take the risks associated with a dangerous business or they are not.
FYI: A standard Jupiter-130 CLV heading for ISS has a GLOW of 2,057,232kg. It lifts 66,980kg of useful payload to 100x100nmi, 51.6deg. Assuming a 20,185kg Orion, that leaves 46,795kg for additional cargo -- roughly equivalent to 3 ISS-bound Shuttle payloads worth.
That's a lot of payload! From later in this thread, I followed the link to the Jupiter-120 CLV to ISS which has a payload of 39,339kg to ISS (that's with the extra 10% reserve). That's still a huge amount of payload even taking Orion into account.
I am only *one* member of the team, but personally I really like the J-120. It's only drawback is that it doesn't have very good engine-out capability; something that I argued *for* when we introduced v2.0. I wanted very much to display that safety capability and it would be missing on a v3.0 J-120.
There are some that will say the RL-10's are not human rate-able without significant effort. A number of internal and external studies have shown that. Some of those studies come from the contractors.
Not saying who is right, but a simple assertion that it will work "off the shelf" will not stand up against the body of evidence I have seen, and weakens the credibility of the proposal.
Hi Ross,
Is this an issue? Or are there enough funds and time scheduled in to account for crew rating the upper stage engines already?
I'm not sure that NASA will buy into the 6 RL-10's though. It's not man rated currently and 6 engines is alot of equipment. But it does exist and maybe the per unit costs would drop like a stone. A few Direct flights a year would double their production.
NASA has already "bought into" the 6 RL-10.
(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/6-RL10-Saturn-I.jpg)
They flew successfully in the S-I upper stage of the Saturn I rocket, back in the 1960s. If NASA tries to say "Oh, that won't work, it's too complex" all someone needs to do is to tell them to go ask their own History Office about it. It's already been done, safely, successfully, and is just one more bit of evidence that we can get on back to the Moon without any new engine development programs. Can't beat that.
I see Chuck beat me to it...
...
One other option which was suggested to us by someone at MSFC has also led us to looking at methods to possibly try to remove the CM from the load path of the LAS too. Right now the ~7mT of LAS presses down on the CM structure during flight. ...
Only 2/3 of LAS induced ascent loads are reacted on Orion's forward attachment, as is; 1/3 loads goes to the SM, through ALAS-11 structure.
Correct ?
Quote
For now, our priority is to create a situation where the Orion project can stop worrying about weight limitations,
This is an old quip I've had with Direct. IMO weight limitations in the *capsule* (CM) go beyond Ares I's real or perceived limitations. And, your (Direct) most spectacular weight growth tolerance towards Orion targets the CM. You attract more fans with "let's put some extra poly-layers of MMOD and radiation protection on Orion" compared to, say, let's give Orion a few extra 100's m/s delta-V.
Somehow I don't think it is fair. If the CM/capsule is subject to objective, booster-neutral or architecture-neutral limitations, let's say it out loud.
Hi, I am new to this forum, so please forgive any inadvertent mistakes.
First, the upper stage reminds me of a souped up S-IV. I like engine clusters they have very good tolerance of single engine failures.
My real question is the cost impact of substituting the SSME for the RS-68. I understand that the RS-68 has a problem with the thermal environment close to the SRB, but I understand that the SSME costs $60 million a piece vs the RS-68 at $20 million a piece. Not good from a budget standpoint.
That sure is an impressive stage. Looks like something out of Hollywood.
The problem is how to stop NASA from getting cold feet and throwing in a J-2X, stretching out the development time yet again. Their priorities have been schedule, but still they seem to be falling short of that.
DIRECT v3 offers (4) JUS engine combinations and leaves the choice to NASA:
1. 6xRL-10B-2
2. 7xRL-10A-4
3. 4xRL-60
4. 1xJ-2X
We are recommending using what we have right now because it works and there is no valid reason not to go now rather than later. NASA can replace the RL-10s with the J-2X when it's ready, if they want to. There just isn't any good reason to wait around for it.
All 4 engines will do a full ESAS lunar spec mission, with the RL-60 actually being the most robust. It's NASA's choice.
Although RL-10B is almost certainly the easiest way to proceed, I believe that RL-60 is ultimately the best cryogenic engine that NASA could field as its de facto standard for upper stages going forward.
Maybe this is a lazy question, but what kind of clearance do you have between RL-10B's after the nozzles have been extended? My estimate is that the RL-10B cluster would be at least 7 meters across, and likely more than that due to the space needed between engines to avoid overheating and plume effects.
It really stands out as an efficient ISS vehicle. Just two SSME's and a core tank.
I guess with ~20mT of margin (ie just Orion) that would maximise the engine-out. When does engine-out become available with this vehicle?
We're not recommending canceling the J-2X. We are recommending not waiting for it. If we field the RL-10B-2 for the JUS we can be on the lunar surface by the time the J-2X is ready to field.
DIRECT v3 offers (4) JUS engine combinations and leaves the choice to NASA:
1. 6xRL-10B-2
2. 7xRL-10A-4
3. 4xRL-60
4. 1xJ-2X
He sounds open minded and it would probably be worthwhile to show him just how much support Direct 3.0 has.
Dear Professor Chiao,
Congratulations on your appointment to the HSF Review Commission. Although I am not an American citizen, I consider myself a supporter of manned spaceflight and am a great supporter of efforts to increase the human presence in space.
I strongly recommend a close examination of the DIRECT 3.0 proposals, recently unveiled at the ISDC 2009 conference.
The basic concept, turning Shuttle heritage technology into an 'in-line' launch vehicle, is intuitatively sound on technical, schedule and budgetary grounds. The DIRECT 3.0 proposals essentially involve turning the existing space shuttle ET, SSME and RSRMs into two in-line NLS-style launchers, known as the Jupiter-130 and the Jupiter-246. As well as saving the enormous amount of money being required to develop what are essentially two all-new LVs (the Ares-I and Ares-V), it also, by retaining the current 8.4m-diameter tank used by the the shuttle, reduces the amount of infrastructure changes at KSC and MAF required to construct, operate and support the system.
As well as massively shortening the timeline for Orion IOC and FOC, the DIRECT proposals also allow for the most optimistic date for return-to-the-Moon to be pulled back to 2017.
Amongst the other advantages of the DIRECT 3.0 system are that it allows for heavy maintenance and logistical support for the ISS even after shuttle retirement. This capability makes an extension of ISS utilisation to 2020 a practical proposition.
As well as being fully lunar outpost-ready, the DIRECT 3.0 proposals are also easily adaptable for future NEO encounter and other beyond-Earth/Moon missions.
You can get a lot more information about these designs at the DIRECT team's website http://www.directlauncher.com. You can also interact directly with some of the team and participate in discussions on the proposals at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17295.0
I do not suggest that the DIRECT proposals are in any way a panacea. However, it is my humble opinion (one of an enthusiastic amateur rather than a professional), that they are most worthy of consideration and will meet the many challenges, scientific, technical and even political, that currently face human space flight.
It is my sincere hope that you and your colleagues in the review commission will be able to find a way to save NASA's human spaceflight program from the current morass of schedule slips and budget overruns that are slowly crippling the Ares development programs.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Russell-Gough
NASA has already "bought into" the 6 RL-10.
(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/6-RL10-Saturn-I.jpg)
They flew successfully in the S-I upper stage of the Saturn I rocket, back in the 1960s. If NASA tries to say "Oh, that won't work, it's too complex" all someone needs to do is to tell them to go ask their own History Office about it. It's already been done, safely, successfully, and is just one more bit of evidence that we can get on back to the Moon without any new engine development programs. Can't beat that.
I see Chuck beat me to it...
John:
I designed and built a set of these that were used back in January for the Transition Team meeting. You can find plans here:
Scroll about 1/3 down the page:
http://jleslie48.com/gallery_models_real.html
At the bottom, in "Special Models":
http://www.nielspapermodels.com/models.htm
They're the same plans at either place.
As far as I can tell, the only real differences between the 120 and 130 are that the engine skirt system has to be widened out and four mounting rings for the engine bells have to be mounted on the bottom of the structure. To convert to a 246, you have to add an interstage, and build the upper stage with the 10m fairing.
HTH
Hi I'm new to this forum too.
I read earlier that you believe that the SSME under much larger production would cost approximately 50% of what it does now. That seems like a pretty big if, since the SSME is more complex than the RS 68. How would having the SSMEs cost say $50m impact your forecasts.
Also couldn't 5 segment SRBs be continued to be researched, though at a much slower pace with fewer resources. It seems we could use them in much later missions such as Mars. It would be a shame to throw away all the research and testing that was done already and not use it.
Right now, we are waiting for an official invite to present to them.
Ross.
The biggest selling point of the Jupiter 246 is, it's a modest and logical evolution of our *currently flying HLLV*, and though it may not be the launch vehicle of our wildest dreams, it is adequate for any mission the USA can reasonably anticipate flying any time in the next 40 years.
Right now, we are waiting for an official invite to present to them.
Ross.
And if it doesn't come?
And no, the LOX tank is sized to precisely the same capacity as the current ET's Ogive tank.
We do still have an option to increase the capacity of both the LOX and LH2 tanks by ~7-9% (in the same way as NLS was going to), but right now, mostly for simplicity sake, we have simply chosen not to mess around with altering the capacities. We can close all performance requirements comfortably without it.
I find it sad if the easy tankage structure changes that give lots of performace per kg of structure are not done when the hard ones are done. Why design a long engine thrust structure when you can elongate the LH2 tank and design a smaller thrust structure? What is the additional design work with making the LOX barrel section a little longer when you anyway redesign the tank for inline launch?
What is "SSME Bk-IIA" and "SSME Bk-III"?
what % thrust are SSMEs being run at?
given no re-use could they be pushed higher?
The biggest selling point of the Jupiter 246 is, it's a modest and logical evolution of our *currently flying HLLV*, and though it may not be the launch vehicle of our wildest dreams, it is adequate for any mission the USA can reasonably anticipate flying any time in the next 40 years.
Sadly, your 40 years maybe correct.
What I like about the Direct vehicles is that they provide a growth path as well. If Direct vehicles fly for 30 or 40 years the last ones won't be the same as the first ones.
SSME BK-IIA = Space Shuttle Main Engine Block IIA (current model)Not exactly; the current engines are Block II. Block IIA engines would be with the earlier generation HPFTP, versus the ones that are flying today.
It'll be 30 years in April 2011, not 40.
SSME BK-IIA = Space Shuttle Main Engine Block IIA (current model)Not exactly; the current engines are Block II. Block IIA engines would be with the earlier generation HPFTP, versus the ones that are flying today.
And no, the LOX tank is sized to precisely the same capacity as the current ET's Ogive tank.
We do still have an option to increase the capacity of both the LOX and LH2 tanks by ~7-9% (in the same way as NLS was going to), but right now, mostly for simplicity sake, we have simply chosen not to mess around with altering the capacities. We can close all performance requirements comfortably without it.
I find it sad if the easy tankage structure changes that give lots of performace per kg of structure are not done when the hard ones are done. Why design a long engine thrust structure when you can elongate the LH2 tank and design a smaller thrust structure? What is the additional design work with making the LOX barrel section a little longer when you anyway redesign the tank for inline launch?
The only engineering reason for not doing this that I can think of is if you add to much tankage mass and no longer hit the sweet spot for the 3 SSME verison.
I find the political reason weak, who cares if the fuel load is aprox 8% larger when it looks the same on the pretty pictures? If you are that sensitive about looks you ought to have made the thrust structure design more expensive buy having two versions to center the mid engine. That would of course be a bad redesign from a system cost perspective.
Starting out in the "high end" of the tankage volume and mass sweet spot ought to be beneficial for future engine upgrades of the SSME:s or SRB:s.
It'll be 30 years in April 2011, not 40.
I knew I should've taken off my shoes before attempting that calculation...
what % thrust are SSMEs being run at?
given no re-use could they be pushed higher?
What is the maximum power level the SSMEs could be run at,considering that they will not be reused?
Unfortunately, the report also states that the failure rates when running at 109% thrust are significantly worse, with a critical engine failure (not a safe shutdown)rate of 1 in every 20 flights.Well, if that report was published in '93, then it probably didn't take into account a lot of the upgrades (such as to the high-pressure turbo pumps and main combustion chamber) that have gone into the engines since then.
Unfortunately, the report also states that the failure rates when running at 109% thrust are significantly worse, with a critical engine failure (not a safe shutdown)rate of 1 in every 20 flights.Well, if that report was published in '93, then it probably didn't take into account a lot of the upgrades (such as to the high-pressure turbo pumps and main combustion chamber) that have gone into the engines since then.
One of the best 'alternative' mission profiles which we have been able to confirm so far is that of using the EDS to perform the LOI as well as the TLI.
Because the lander doesn't have to perform the LOI, it results in a lander which is considerably smaller and lighter than the current CxP design. This solves almost all of the Altair's height/stability issues and might even allow the thing to fit inside an 8.4m PLF again too. At this size and mass the LSAM & CEV will *easily* fit on a J-130, thus improving both costs and safety for each mission. Also by having multiple engines on an RL-10-powered EDS you get high Isp and a great deal of engine-out capability for the LOI as well, which is nice.
With this profile we're seeing about 10% extra payload mass to the Lunar surface as well -- and that's the real point.
Ross.
Also, perhaps the easiest way to use the excess CLV capacity is to launch the EDS to an elliptical orbit and use the excess CLV performance to launch the LSAM and CEV to the same elliptical orbit. Less prop is available for TLI but this is more than compensated by the lower dV required.
I may be wrong, but I think that circular orbits have the nice property that you can do the second launch every time the orbit is over your head, while elliptical orbits offer much less launch opportunities.
Any word when we will get to see the full ISDC presentation? Or better yet, the new Direct 3.0 "proposal" with new costs and schedules?
That's a 'difficult' proposition, to say the least, but is not completely unprecedented. Here is an image showing Gemini 12 lifting off from LC-19 at the same time as an Atlas Agena lifts off from LC-14 a few miles away. This was done specifically to enable a docking between the two spacecraft in LEO.That's probably a composite. The Gemini was launched more or less on the Agena's first pass over the launch site.
My biggest worry is that the review panel does not go right to the source for information with regards to Direct. If they rely on numbers and data put out by NASA, then I fear it will not be a true Direct review.
Already their are rumors that Hawes has already tried to block any non-Contractors from providing official testimony information to the panel. From what I have read on here, Hawes will also provide data and analysis for the panel. I don't see him painting a pretty picture for Direct.
Either we cross our fingers and hope the panel sees through the bull, or hopefully the Team gets their shot to present to the panel so they can hear it straight.
That's a 'difficult' proposition, to say the least, but is not completely unprecedented. Here is an image showing Gemini 12 lifting off from LC-19 at the same time as an Atlas Agena lifts off from LC-14 a few miles away. This was done specifically to enable a docking between the two spacecraft in LEO.That's probably a composite. The Gemini was launched more or less on the Agena's first pass over the launch site.
(http://www.apollomissionphotos.com/104ksc66pc340.jpg)
This sort of thing *has* been done before.
Ross.
My biggest worry is that the review panel does not go right to the source for information with regards to Direct. If they rely on numbers and data put out by NASA, then I fear it will not be a true Direct review.
Already their are rumors that Hawes has already tried to block any non-Contractors from providing official testimony information to the panel. From what I have read on here, Hawes will also provide data and analysis for the panel. I don't see him painting a pretty picture for Direct.
Either we cross our fingers and hope the panel sees through the bull, or hopefully the Team gets their shot to present to the panel so they can hear it straight.
If they were looking for data RIGHT NOW (for example) where would (they) look?
I know the DIRECT team works incredibly hard, but for whatever reason they seem cursed to release the next great version(or data) a week or two behind when it was really needed.
Wasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight? Or do I have the wrong day?
Anyone rember which show? Any comments from someone that watched it?
Thank you Ross for your very thorough response. Is there an equivilant forum someplace for the Ares program I wonder?
Wasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight? Or do I have the wrong day?
Anyone rember which show? Any comments from someone that watched it?
Ross should be on right now. Started at 10:00 pm Eastern
A good story, told well, will ALWAYS sell, always.
Wasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight? Or do I have the wrong day?
Anyone rember which show? Any comments from someone that watched it?
Ross should be on right now. Started at 10:00 pm Eastern
May I ask here what the stance of the Direct team is on the (potential) use of EELVs (D4 and A5) in NASA's human space exploration efforts? In a short paragraph.
Thank you.
One of the best 'alternative' mission profiles which we have been able to confirm so far is that of using the EDS to perform the LOI as well as the TLI.
Because the lander doesn't have to perform the LOI, it results in a lander which is considerably smaller and lighter than the current CxP design. This solves almost all of the Altair's height/stability issues and might even allow the thing to fit inside an 8.4m PLF again too. At this size and mass the LSAM & CEV will *easily* fit on a J-130, thus improving both costs and safety for each mission. Also by having multiple engines on an RL-10-powered EDS you get high Isp and a great deal of engine-out capability for the LOI as well, which is nice.
With this profile we're seeing about 10% extra payload mass to the Lunar surface as well -- and that's the real point.
Heh. So my old joke about how "real lunar transfer vehicles deliver their payload all the way to lunar orbit, not just pansying out at TLI" actually bears up to physical reality?
~Jon
As a side note (and I am going to shut up past this), please tone down on the 'Ares&NASA' You want to win hearts and minds who have invested and are indeed investing *their hearts and minds*, and folks who *will have to implement yours* if they are asked to. And some posts here have spoken to this effect. Ares goes on because folks carry on -- it is not helpful to tell them "RESET what you are doing and do a different thing, ' cause it's better".
And it isn't quite so straight-forward either. The SRB Aft supports would then be located on the LH2 tank wall, no longer where the lower ring-frame is situated. To implement the stretch you either have to relocate the SRB attachments lower on the SRB's (requiring re-qual) of you would have to strengthen that region of the tank with an extra ringframe inside the LH2 tank.
http://www.directlaumcher.com/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-246.wmv
As a side note (and I am going to shut up past this), please tone down on the 'Ares&NASA' You want to win hearts and minds who have invested and are indeed investing *their hearts and minds*, and folks who *will have to implement yours* if they are asked to. And some posts here have spoken to this effect. Ares goes on because folks carry on -- it is not helpful to tell them "RESET what you are doing and do a different thing, ' cause it's better".
But that isn't what stops me sleeping. For over two years now, we keep having discussions about "how to let NASA take ownership" and how to "save face" for the agency. I believe that the time is almost upon us for that to happen.
I think those two, more political, issues have actually grown to be even bigger sticking points than any of the technical issues. But we have some surprisingly simple solutions which we can put-forward to resolve all those issues.
For a start, it sure helps that NASA already did NLS. That proves that this approach was born -- 100% -- within NASA. NASA already invented this. We just dusted it off, tweaked it a little and gave it a new face.
For seconds, its not NASA's fault that the economy has gone to pot and that discretionary funding is being reduced all-across Federal government. The agency was promised a certain amount of additional money four years ago and now they aren't getting any of it, in fact their budget is about to be reduced for the third time since then. That seems like a damn good argument to use to explain why they need to start considering an architecture change now, wouldn't you agree?
Ross.
If you add segements to the SRBs or stretch the core/ET tank, is it absolutely necessary to move the core/SRB attach points on either the tank or the SRBs?
Wasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight? Or do I have the wrong day?
Anyone rember which show? Any comments from someone that watched it?
Ross should be on right now. Started at 10:00 pm Eastern
Ahhh, two hours of non-stop talking on The Space Show (http://www.thespaceshow.com/)!
Given that I'm normally quite terrified at the prospect of all such public 'appearances', I think that went pretty well and my "stage terror" didn't really come out, whew! :)
I'll be around to answer questions for a while still.
Ross.
PRESENTATION TIME!
Okay, ahead of placing this up on the website (hopefully Wednesday!) I wanted to deliver a "Preview" copy of the ISDC Presentation here first.
Be aware that this copy HAS NOT GOT A FINISHED APPENDIX YET!!! That's still "in work" right now. We also plan to add a series of "comments" throughout the presentation to make up for the fact that we don't have someone actually talking you through the various slides -- as the Presentation is really designed to be presented.
So here is a "not-quite-finished writing the Appendix" version of the Presentation specifically for NSF readers to enjoy:-
http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/DIRECT_ISDC_2009_NSF_Preview.pps
To make the animation sequence work you will need the .wmv video and will need to place it in the same folder as the .pps file. You can get the .wmv version here:-
http://www.directlauncher.com/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-246.wmv
Enjoy! And feedback is welcome.
Ross.
[EDIT: If you have problems accessing those, try replacing 'directlauncher.com' with 'launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct']
Very impressed with the presentation. GREAT JOB!
BTW: Appendix Slide 77 still references J-120 and J-232..
I saw a J-120 using 2 SSMEs with an LEO capability of 39mT +10% fuel reserve.
Would this be more economical at servicing crew and supplies than the J-130 until advancedEELVs and COTS-D?
If you add segements to the SRBs or stretch the core/ET tank, is it absolutely necessary to move the core/SRB attach points on either the tank or the SRBs?
The point to remember is that the main (upper) attach points are attached to a spar that runs through the LH2/LOX intertank on the ET. Changing the size of the tanks logically changes the location of the intertank. Either you move the attachment point or you redesign it (a ring rather than a spar, for example).
A 4-seg design could be upgraded with 5-segs as a future upgrade, but none of the 5-seg optimized configurations could be used with 4-segs unless they included a 'spacer' to artificially lengthen them.
Quote from: kraisee on 09-03-2009, 11:28:41 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15541.msg372468#msg372468)
Now, if we were to propose a Stretched Core to work optimally with a set of 5-segs, then the 5-engine arrangement would be better suited than the 4-engine. But that would add significant additional development costs and stretch out the schedule for IOC of the initial J-130's too -- so we don't really like that option.
Ross.
Of course, if the 5-segment SRB actually becomes a reality, that stretched, 5-engine configuration might make sense. But that's for FUTURE planners
And it isn't quite so straight-forward either. The SRB Aft supports would then be located on the LH2 tank wall, no longer where the lower ring-frame is situated. To implement the stretch you either have to relocate the SRB attachments lower on the SRB's (requiring re-qual) of you would have to strengthen that region of the tank with an extra ringframe inside the LH2 tank. While both are possible, neither is a trivial change and both add $$$ and time to the development -- and delays = job losses.
Given that we already comfortably exceed all of the performance requirements, we don't see this as a worthy trade in Phase 1 of our proposal.
Ross.
As a side note (and I am going to shut up past this), please tone down on the 'Ares&NASA' You want to win hearts and minds who have invested and are indeed investing *their hearts and minds*, and folks who *will have to implement yours* if they are asked to. And some posts here have spoken to this effect. Ares goes on because folks carry on -- it is not helpful to tell them "RESET what you are doing and do a different thing, ' cause it's better".
But that isn't what stops me sleeping. For over two years now, we keep having discussions about "how to let NASA take ownership" and how to "save face" for the agency. I believe that the time is almost upon us for that to happen.
I think those two, more political, issues have actually grown to be even bigger sticking points than any of the technical issues. But we have some surprisingly simple solutions which we can put-forward to resolve all those issues.
For a start, it sure helps that NASA already did NLS. That proves that this approach was born -- 100% -- within NASA. NASA already invented this. We just dusted it off, tweaked it a little and gave it a new face.
For seconds, its not NASA's fault that the economy has gone to pot and that discretionary funding is being reduced all-across Federal government. The agency was promised a certain amount of additional money four years ago and now they aren't getting any of it, in fact their budget is about to be reduced for the third time since then. That seems like a damn good argument to use to explain why they need to start considering an architecture change now, wouldn't you agree?
Ross.
and thirdly the architecture you have specifically chosen (SSME J-246) allows NASA to do a variant of it and still claim it is an Ares variant by starting with the 8.4m SSME Ares V classic as the CaLV end point and just making an Ares III CLV(+) out of it with 3 SSMEs. The CLV would obviously have to lift the LSAM as well as Orion. They still get an Ares V, 5-segs and the J-2X but the CLV is basically the same launcher without 2 SSMEs and an upper stage and is truly safe, simple, soon ;). Many ways to skin this cat if there is the will ;).
What would we call an Ares III CLV + Ares IV CaLV archticture? 1.75 launch?
http://www.directlaumcher.com/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-246.wmv
Ross - that URL has an 'm' where there should be an 'n' in "launcher"
Hi Team,
Know you're busy, but is it possible to make images of some of the pps slides from your ISDC presentation? Specifically the "Jupiter is the historic NASA STS derived approach", "Direct builds upon existing STS hardware", "Directs proven heritage improves safety", and "Direct eliminates the workforce & flight "gap" at KSC".
If I may also make a suggestion? Play up the Apollo 8 mission by 2014 against Ares IOC date. Some will say it's a BS mission, but it's a dramatic way to say "We can do this 3 years before Ares is even flying". Especially with the Chinese talking about doing it very soon.
Thank you for your time.
Steve Kessinger
"America is too great for small dreams" -President Reagan
"All right. Let's get on with it." — T. Keith Glennan, first NASA administrator, regarding the space program, 7 October 1958.
What would we call an Ares III CLV + Ares IV CaLV archticture? 1.75 launch?
If I may also make a suggestion? Play up the Apollo 8 mission by 2014 against Ares IOC date. Some will say it's a BS mission, but it's a dramatic way to say "We can do this 3 years before Ares is even flying". Especially with the Chinese talking about doing it very soon.
"America is too great for small dreams" -President Reagan
"All right. Let's get on with it." — T. Keith Glennan, first NASA administrator, regarding the space program, 7 October 1958.
Actually, you spotted a grievous typo in there -- that 2014 date is the one we were using for the RS-68-based Jupiter-120, if you remove all engine re-qualification work the schedule is then dictated by Orion and the avionics now.
*That* means that the schedule can come forward by roughly a year, so that slide is supposed to say 2013.
*THANK-YOU* for mentioning that.
Ross.
Wasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight? Or do I have the wrong day?
Anyone rember which show? Any comments from someone that watched it?
Ross should be on right now. Started at 10:00 pm Eastern
Just now, I heard a terrific point from Ross that he should amplify and increase focus on. NASA needs a good story to tell, a narrative context for the space program.
Robert McKee, a respected teacher of screenwriting has said/written thatQuoteA good story, told well, will ALWAYS sell, always.
Perhaps what NASA needs are a few good narrative engineers.
Anyway, what is the NASA narrative all about?
The beginning of an end of an era.
Of course, Jupiter doesn't need the Beanie Cap, so that change doesn't affect us (does affect Shuttle-C though).
I expect to see the White Room come off that tower soon. I surely hope that someone is already planning to preserve that piece of history somewhere.
It's the *other* changes at KSC (VAB HB3 for example) -- and especially MAF (Dome welding tooling is already being stripped) -- which concern me the most though...
Ross.
Is the space the welding tool takes up needed so bad they can't just let it sit there for a while?
Staged TLI is a fairly new option. It would use both Upper Stages from both Jupiter-246's to perform the TLI. The first one performs about 85% of the TLI and is then jettisoned.
The second completes the TLI and then also performs the LOI later too.
The basic arrangement also seems to work pretty well with a "Crasher Stage" lander approach as well, allowing for a particularly small Lander to be designed.
The purpose of this approach is to allow the full LEO performance of the second Jupiter-246 to be utilized to increase TLI performance of the whole system. Right now, the second Jupiter-246 lifts the Orion and Altair, and then has about 15mT of 'spare' performance which we aren't utilizing in our more traditional EOR-LOR approach.
There are a few obvious downsides to this approach (extra dockings, jettisons and engine-starts). But one of our team has put this forward as another of the many options which should be considered fully.
There will be a Mission Profile chart in the final version of the Presentation which should help to explain this option more fully -- that's one of the sections needing work still.
Ross.
Actually, you spotted a grievous typo in there -- that 2014 date is the one we were using for the RS-68-based Jupiter-120, if you remove all engine re-qualification work the schedule is then dictated by Orion and the avionics now.
*That* means that the schedule can come forward by roughly a year, so that slide is supposed to say 2013.
*THANK-YOU* for mentioning that.
Ross.
snip
It's too dang bad you can't get a flight crewmember to come out in favor of Direct. Anyone got John Young's phone number??
snip
It's too dang bad you can't get a flight crewmember to come out in favor of Direct. Anyone got John Young's phone number??
I turned Charlie Bolden around on Entry Guidance several years ago -- and I did it in one hour. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't see the benefit of Direct. It might take me more than an hour on this one though ;)
Danny Deger
Staged TLI is a fairly new option. It would use both Upper Stages from both Jupiter-246's to perform the TLI. The first one performs about 85% of the TLI and is then jettisoned.
snip
Do you think he'd take a meeting?
cheers, Martin
In 'reel' life the one time two-rocket launches have been done was in the movie Armageddon with a space shuttle look-alike, but someone said it would be impossible since the vibrations of one rocket would damage/destroy the other.I may be wrong, but I think that circular orbits have the nice property that you can do the second launch every time the orbit is over your head, while elliptical orbits offer much less launch opportunities.
You are exactly correct.
The only 'likely' use of such a profile would be in the unlikely, but not impossible, scenario of a dual launch occurring at the same time from both pads.
That's a 'difficult' proposition, to say the least, but is not completely unprecedented. Here is an image showing Gemini 12 lifting off from LC-19 at the same time as an Atlas Agena lifts off from LC-14 a few miles away. This was done specifically to enable a docking between the two spacecraft in LEO.
(http://www.apollomissionphotos.com/104ksc66pc340.jpg)
This sort of thing *has* been done before.
Ross.
Aw sucks, sir. Glad to help... ;D
Here is an image showing Gemini 12 lifting off from LC-19 at the same time as an Atlas Agena lifts off from LC-14 a few miles away. This was done specifically to enable a docking between the two spacecraft in LEO.
(http://www.apollomissionphotos.com/104ksc66pc340.jpg)
This sort of thing *has* been done before.
Ross.
Aw sucks, sir. Glad to help... ;D
You seem like a nice fellow. I'm sure that's a typo and you really meant "shucks". :)
Aw sucks, sir. Glad to help... ;D
You seem like a nice fellow. I'm sure that's a typo and you really meant "shucks". :)
I guess that more or less answers one of my questions.Here is an image showing Gemini 12 lifting off from LC-19 at the same time as an Atlas Agena lifts off from LC-14 a few miles away. This was done specifically to enable a docking between the two spacecraft in LEO.
(http://www.apollomissionphotos.com/104ksc66pc340.jpg)
This sort of thing *has* been done before.
Ross.
In fairness, that photo was a double exposure. From the caption: "98 minutes after the Atlas Agena was launched from Complex 14 the Gemini Titan - 12 followed from Complex 19 with Lovell and Aldrin on board."
Staged TLI is a fairly new option. It would use both Upper Stages from both Jupiter-246's to perform the TLI. The first one performs about 85% of the TLI and is then jettisoned.
The second completes the TLI and then also performs the LOI later too.
The basic arrangement also seems to work pretty well with a "Crasher Stage" lander approach as well, allowing for a particularly small Lander to be designed.
The purpose of this approach is to allow the full LEO performance of the second Jupiter-246 to be utilized to increase TLI performance of the whole system. Right now, the second Jupiter-246 lifts the Orion and Altair, and then has about 15mT of 'spare' performance which we aren't utilizing in our more traditional EOR-LOR approach.
There are a few obvious downsides to this approach (extra dockings, jettisons and engine-starts). But one of our team has put this forward as another of the many options which should be considered fully.
There will be a Mission Profile chart in the final version of the Presentation which should help to explain this option more fully -- that's one of the sections needing work still.
Ross.
I noticed in the v2.0 you used 2x J2X engines for the upper stage and in v3, those have been changed to 6 RL-10. Why did you make this change? Is it to have an option so you can have the 246 ready even if the J2x isn't?
I also don't quite understand why you have 3 engines in the 130 and 4 in the 246. The 3rd is in case of engine failure correct? How do the two sets differ? I don't know much about rockets so I gotta learn stuff from somewhere.
Yeah, I was also thinking about a two-stage TLI/LOI/crasher architecture, except mine is a bit simpler:
Launch Altair on J-24x then Orion on J-24x. Retain both upper stages to EOR. Dock eyes in nozzles out. Start TLI with Orion JUS (~70mT remaining propellant) and jettison on burnout. Reverse attitude and finish TLI with Altair JUS (~45mT remaining propellant). Reverse attitude and fire Altair JUS again for LOI and, after separating from Orion, a final burn for deorbit. Jettison on burnout and crash it into the moon.
Besides the increased lunar payload, the lander center of gravity is substantially lower, the PLFs are less complicated/empty, and the EOR is simplified to a single docking maneuver much like Constellation. Seems like a winner to me, as long as the brief coast between TLI burns for separation and reorientation isn't a big problem.
Thanks for posting the ISDC presentation Ross. The Apollo 8 diagram showed a profile that only does a Lunar flyby of the Moon. I thought that Orion could carry enough propellant to orbit the Moon. Could you confirm which is correct; Lunar flyby or Lunar orbit? Thanks.
Yeah, I was also thinking about a two-stage TLI/LOI/crasher architecture, except mine is a bit simpler:
Launch Altair on J-24x then Orion on J-24x. Retain both upper stages to EOR. Dock eyes in nozzles out. Start TLI with Orion JUS (~70mT remaining propellant) and jettison on burnout. Reverse attitude and finish TLI with Altair JUS (~45mT remaining propellant). Reverse attitude and fire Altair JUS again for LOI and, after separating from Orion, a final burn for deorbit. Jettison on burnout and crash it into the moon.
Besides the increased lunar payload, the lander center of gravity is substantially lower, the PLFs are less complicated/empty, and the EOR is simplified to a single docking maneuver much like Constellation. Seems like a winner to me, as long as the brief coast between TLI burns for separation and reorientation isn't a big problem.
Two problems with that:-
1) During first EDS burn, you're putting huge stresses on the Orion / Altair connection. At best, you'd have to really beef up both vehicles and the docking mechanism. Probably lose all your mass savings.
2) The first EDS burn pushes Altair & EDS #2 "upside down", which I don't believe is a load path currently accomodated. (To be fair, I think Orion may gently accelerate Altair "upside down" during rendezvous manoeuvres).
cheers, Martin
Yeah, I was also thinking about a two-stage TLI/LOI/crasher architecture, except mine is a bit simpler:
Launch Altair on J-24x then Orion on J-24x. Retain both upper stages to EOR. Dock eyes in nozzles out. Start TLI with Orion JUS (~70mT remaining propellant) and jettison on burnout. Reverse attitude and finish TLI with Altair JUS (~45mT remaining propellant). Reverse attitude and fire Altair JUS again for LOI and, after separating from Orion, a final burn for deorbit. Jettison on burnout and crash it into the moon.
Besides the increased lunar payload, the lander center of gravity is substantially lower, the PLFs are less complicated/empty, and the EOR is simplified to a single docking maneuver much like Constellation. Seems like a winner to me, as long as the brief coast between TLI burns for separation and reorientation isn't a big problem.
Two problems with that:-
1) During first EDS burn, you're putting huge stresses on the Orion / Altair connection. At best, you'd have to really beef up both vehicles and the docking mechanism. Probably lose all your mass savings.
2) The first EDS burn pushes Altair & EDS #2 "upside down", which I don't believe is a load path currently accomodated. (To be fair, I think Orion may gently accelerate Altair "upside down" during rendezvous manoeuvres).
cheers, Martin
Saturn-1 officially began its development in August 1958.
The third launch took place in November 1962, roughly 4 years later.
Remember too, that this produced a vehicle roughly 6 times the size of its preceding Juno-II and Redstone heritage vehicles, and included integration (if not large parts of their development as well) of two completely new engines; RL-10 and H-1.
Ross.
Sorry to bother but does anyone have the link to the Jupiter CaLV (any) with the big PLF?
Sorry to bother but does anyone have the link to the Jupiter CaLV (any) with the big PLF?
Do you mean these ones with the 12m diameter PLF's?
From left to right, those are 10m, 20m and 30m barrel sections on the PLF.
And yes, these PLF's could also fly on top of the J-24x vehicles as well -- all three configurations comfortably fit inside the VAB High Bay Doors.
Ross.
Those are the ones, thanks!
May I ask, do you have the images with these on the J-24x vehicles as well?
Those are the ones, thanks!
May I ask, do you have the images with these on the J-24x vehicles as well?
Sorry Mike, I don't have those currently rendered at this time.
Ross.
MP99 and others,
The Staged TLI option is pretty interesting. We are still building confidence in it at this time, but our preliminary data indicates that yes, it can increase payload to the surface quite substantially if the program is willing to accept the accompanying safety penalties.
Mind you, the Depot architecture offers to double even this amount of performance -- and also introduces both commercial operators into the VSE work and also international partner contributions too, so that seems to be an even better alternative. The Flexibility of this system is quite staggering.
I'm getting the feeling that everyone feels quite confident about the Jupiter development schedule numbers.
Let's be pessimistic and say that the JS-130 isn't fully ready to go until mid-2013 because of schedule slips, 'business as usual' at the various Centers and other miscellaneous problems. Orion remains the long pole in all this. How confident are you that Orion can be ready in time to meet these schedules, expecially as you are dumping the extant Ares-I-ready 'Orion Lite' in favoure of the heavyweight six-seat land-recovery version?
BTW, Ross, do you have any use for a slightly-better-performing J-130?
How much extra performance do you need to be able to comfortably use it for the crewed role?
This doesn't seem correct to me. In microgravity, it shouldn't matter whether the thrust is coming from the Altair end or the Orion end of the vehicle. As long as the rotational moments are negligible, the axial loading on the stack is the same, right?
For Lunar, the mission profile which would use the Jupiter-130 as a Crew lifter is fairly 'tight', performance-wise. Extra performance could be useful there, so I'm curious what you're thinking of. Mind you, that profile would still be fairly short-lived, because once we get the Depot operational around 2020, we aim to switch to a 1-launch J-24x architecture for Lunar missions anyway.
Ross.
Just to sound a cautionary note here, there comes a point where it doesn’t matter how much money you throw at a project; it will not accelerate it any further. Some things just take *time*, not money, things like software for example. All the money in the world won’t make it go any faster. You might as well spend it on more comfortable chairs, or paid lunches for the programmers. But the time it takes to actually do the project, and to test the project, find the breaking points and fix them, then test and test and test again until it’s right simply cannot be accelerated beyond a certain point.
So Ross is absolutely correct. With all the funding we are able to free up to redirect towards Orion, some of it will definitely accelerate things, but some things will just take time. We can help that somewhat by staff increases, but even that becomes inefficient after a while. We need to keep that reality in mind. Money isn’t the only answer.
I deal with this all the time in my day-job. The customer wants his product yesterday and wants to stuff my pockets with cash to make it happen, but it just doesn't work like that. Cash helps - a LOT. But some things just take time and cannot be accelerated regardless of available cashflow.
snip
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.
Great news that more detailed cost and schedule data will be presented to the commission. Are you going to propose a gap closure schedule to man rate the Delta first?
Danny Deger
I just listened to the space show, it was great, though it focused a lot more on jobs and cost than architecture.
I think the hardest thing to convey to the Augustine Commission that the presentation and numbers you provide are fesible and legitimate. The government has been wrong before with Constellation, which has had massive setbacks.
Saying we can have a lunar fly by in 2013 which is underbudget is nice, and probably possible, but convincing people that Direct won't follow the trend in NASA projects with delays and ballooning costs is the real challenge. They will remember that a few years ago, they were promised an architecture with a timeline that has not been upheld. How will Direct prove that it will be upheld?
How will Direct prove that it will be upheld?
snip
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.
I agree. The Direct team could beef up the cost and schedule story a bit. Having said this I have no doubt Direct can beat the pants off of Ares I/V to go to the moon on both cost and schedule. Beating Ares I to ISS is a harder sell to me.
Danny Deger
Do you mean these ones with the 12m diameter PLF's?
From left to right, those are 10m, 20m and 30m barrel sections on the PLF.
And yes, these PLF's could also fly on top of the J-24x vehicles as well -- all three configurations comfortably fit inside the VAB High Bay Doors.
Ross.
snip
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.
I agree. The Direct team could beef up the cost and schedule story a bit. Having said this I have no doubt Direct can beat the pants off of Ares I/V to go to the moon on both cost and schedule. Beating Ares I to ISS is a harder sell to me.
Danny Deger
What if NASA funds - in parallel - a human rated DIVH effort and Jupiter 130 development?
How would you assess the prospects for either one or the other (DIVH or J130) providing ISS access before Ares 1?
MP99,
Interesting notion, but there are some pretty serious issues. The one which stands out to me is how do you pressurize those dual-tank structures in a stable way? Especially all the way through flight as they both drain, but one is continually topped-off. I see that as being rather "tricky", to say the least.
If you want to increase capacity by ~25%, wouldn't it be easier to just stretch the Core and insert a 'spacer' at the top of the SRB?
What if NASA funds - in parallel - a human rated DIVH effort and Jupiter 130 development?
How would you assess the prospects for either one or the other (DIVH or J130) providing ISS access before Ares 1?
Well, how easy is that? You'd need to qualify a new core.
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.
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.
Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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
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
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?
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
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.
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.
zap, please edit your post or I will ask the moderators to remove it.
We want to take the high ground here and I'm asking all our supporters to come with us on that high road and keep all of their comments civil, please.
Ross.
Serious question: what part(s) of the post?
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again. No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:
http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again. No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:
http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/
I never knew anything about it until two minutes ago. I'm listening to it right now for the first time. Doesn't seem so bad. Wish they had contacted me for an interview as I could have provided more comprehensive answers.
Who is "Jeph"?
Ross.
Politically this should be an easy sell since it’s a win-win for Obama.
1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.
2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.
3. It gives him a chance to outstage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle. This point alone should convince Obama.
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again. No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:
http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/
I never knew anything about it until two minutes ago. I'm listening to it right now for the first time. Doesn't seem so bad. Wish they had contacted me for an interview as I could have provided more comprehensive answers.
Who is "Jeph"?
Ross.
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again. No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:
http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/
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.
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 agree. I think, however, that DIRECT, while outside/underground is also parallel to the Ares programmes. So, if Ares said they can prepare the J-2X or RS-68 in nn months for nn dollars, then DIRECT has incorporated those assumptions into its plans. Similarly when NASA has upgraded a facility. DIRECT 3.0 is now a lot different than Ares, but it did not get like that in an isolated way.2019?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.heads.implement.
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.
You also have other contenders out there. If you pad the schedule too much, it could do the reverse and give the upper hand to your opponent (not likely, based on ALL that Direct has going for it). There is always a balancing act, and I think it's balanced very well. Maybe adding 2-3 months, but nothing more than that (imo).
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.
You also have other contenders out there. If you pad the schedule too much, it could do the reverse and give the upper hand to your opponent (not likely, based on ALL that Direct has going for it). There is always a balancing act, and I think it's balanced very well. Maybe adding 2-3 months, but nothing more than that (imo).
We have seen with Ares I which was supposed to be a simple and soon concept how quickly delays can mount up to unforeseen problems. They should take the Von Braun approach and seriously err on the side of margin caution. 3 years to me for a new rocket, even with existing reconfigured parts, sounds like a wind in your sails job, it could be done but everything would have to go more or less to plan. Just say it took 5 for some reason, on a 3 year schedule that's a 66% overrun, on a 4 year schedule that's a 25% overrun. Which would lead to less recriminations ?
Politically this should be an easy sell since it’s a win-win for Obama.
1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.
2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.
3. It gives him a chance to out stage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle. This point alone should convince Obama.
Politically this should be an easy sell since it’s a win-win for Obama.
1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.
2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.
3. It gives him a chance to out stage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle. This point alone should convince Obama.
It should, but it's hard to say if it will.
1) Obama hasn't shown that he really cares much about the space program, and in fact, candidate Obama said a few discouraging things.
With any luck, this changes and he does the right things, but it's hard to be overly optimistic.
2) Like Zap said, his left-wing liberal base aren't exactly the people who are invested and big supporters of the space program. He can earn a lot for grace with them by putting as much money as possibly into social engineering, "green" programs, education, unions, etc. The Democrat bread and butter areas.
3) While Obama seems to take an unprecidented stance at trying to berate his predecessor, likely to divert attention away from his own controversial spending and social engineering policies, he doesn't need NASA to do that. The media pretty much let him do it ad nausium without an ounce of scruteny.
Although Zap seems to wonder off into a rant about Bush, despite his failure to follow up on the VSE, the VSE itself only exists because of Bush, and in fairness, Bush took the most interest in the Space program since probably LBJ. He didn't follow up on it and let it head a wrong direction with Ares (and a pox on him for that), but at least he did try to get something new going after the Columbia accident. Obama or Clinton would have probably moved to let manned space exploration wither on the vine and die as it's in danger of now.
And for the record, Obama was in the Senate for 4 years, two of those with a large Democrat majority in Congress, so he and his party had as much a hand in many of the "messes" we have now as the Bush Administration does.
He was "handed" very little he and the democrats didn't already have their fingers in prior to January 20th.
Both sides have screwed the pootch on a lot of things, but lets be fair about it.
Yeah, I was also thinking about a two-stage TLI/LOI/crasher architecture, except mine is a bit simpler:
Launch Altair on J-24x then Orion on J-24x. Retain both upper stages to EOR. Dock eyes in nozzles out. Start TLI with Orion JUS (~70mT remaining propellant) and jettison on burnout. Reverse attitude and finish TLI with Altair JUS (~45mT remaining propellant). Reverse attitude and fire Altair JUS again for LOI and, after separating from Orion, a final burn for deorbit. Jettison on burnout and crash it into the moon.
Besides the increased lunar payload, the lander center of gravity is substantially lower, the PLFs are less complicated/empty, and the EOR is simplified to a single docking maneuver much like Constellation. Seems like a winner to me, as long as the brief coast between TLI burns for separation and reorientation isn't a big problem.
Two problems with that:-
1) During first EDS burn, you're putting huge stresses on the Orion / Altair connection. At best, you'd have to really beef up both vehicles and the docking mechanism. Probably lose all your mass savings.
2) The first EDS burn pushes Altair & EDS #2 "upside down", which I don't believe is a load path currently accomodated. (To be fair, I think Orion may gently accelerate Altair "upside down" during rendezvous manoeuvres).
cheers, Martin
Another concern with that approach is that the crew on the Orion has absolutely no possible way to escape from between those giant EDS' in the case of anything going wrong during the TLI.
Even on the 'regular' approach, facing the LSAM, the Orion has a chance to use the LSAM's Ascent Module to try to get them away from problems. Its better than nothing.
Ross.
ment to try and clear things up, and included a link to directlauncher.com. Sorry if I messed anything up, but I just wanted to leave a short summary for casual readers and a link for the more curious.
They have a Thursday night show (tonight) if you want to call in and give them any clarifications.
While its not strictly Direct 3 territory, I have been very interested on the recent discussions here about EDS configuration for TLI and LOI with altair/orion. The result is I am confused by some of the contributors comments which I find conflicting. Hence are there any pictures that outline the various options being discussed?
That's what we did at ISDC (and other places too). Essentially we use the video to explain the basic arrangement of the Jupiter launcher and how it relates to Shuttle's existing systems.
As such, it is *really* powerful when used as a "moving PowerPoint slide".
Ross.
That's what we did at ISDC (and other places too). Essentially we use the video to explain the basic arrangement of the Jupiter launcher and how it relates to Shuttle's existing systems.
As such, it is *really* powerful when used as a "moving PowerPoint slide".
Ross.
So my humble suggestion is to just drop the suffix in online fora and in your marketing material. It shouldn't be the "Jupiter-130" and "Jupiter-246", or even J-130 and J-246, but just Jupiter. Maybe you could add Phase-I and Phase-II, but even that is not needed in normal conversation.
So my humble suggestion is to just drop the suffix in online fora and in your marketing material. It shouldn't be the "Jupiter-130" and "Jupiter-246", or even J-130 and J-246, but just Jupiter. Maybe you could add Phase-I and Phase-II, but even that is not needed in normal conversation.
When there's a need to distinguish between the two variants how about "Jupiter with core only" for J-130 and "Jupiter core plus upper stage" for J-246? The former has an obvious and descriptive short form: "Jupiter core". The latter is harder to shorten; possibilities include "Jupiter plus" and "full Jupiter".
So my humble suggestion is to just drop the suffix in online fora and in your marketing material. It shouldn't be the "Jupiter-130" and "Jupiter-246", or even J-130 and J-246, but just Jupiter. Maybe you could add Phase-I and Phase-II, but even that is not needed in normal conversation.
When there's a need to distinguish between the two variants how about "Jupiter with core only" for J-130 and "Jupiter core plus upper stage" for J-246? The former has an obvious and descriptive short form: "Jupiter core". The latter is harder to shorten; possibilities include "Jupiter plus" and "full Jupiter".
So my humble suggestion is to just drop the suffix in online fora and in your marketing material. It shouldn't be the "Jupiter-130" and "Jupiter-246", or even J-130 and J-246, but just Jupiter. Maybe you could add Phase-I and Phase-II, but even that is not needed in normal conversation.
When there's a need to distinguish between the two variants how about "Jupiter with core only" for J-130 and "Jupiter core plus upper stage" for J-246? The former has an obvious and descriptive short form: "Jupiter core". The latter is harder to shorten; possibilities include "Jupiter plus" and "full Jupiter".
I think the naming concept is pretty easy to understand, doesn't even need explanation anyway. The people on the commission will be used to nomenclature and long strings of numbers. One of the members actually already knows what DIRECT is and is a supporter. If they have questions they can ask them or leaf through the hard copies.
How about Jupiter and Jupiter++. :-)
I don't think we're going to mess with the naming convention this late in the game.
Those who know already, will "get it", we will just make sure its clear to everyone in the presentation at the time.
Ross.
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
Ahh... the reek of imperial imperiousness!
Conflate much?Quoteat least for the duration of the Commission.
"Don't speak the truth about Ares... it wouldn't be polite!"QuoteLet 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.QuoteEven 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.
If I were going to recommend a name convention change, which I'm not really inclined to, I would probably suggest using the simplest descriptions of just the "Jupiter" vehicle and the "Jupiter with Upper Stage".
I don't think it gets much simpler than that, and the names help make it really obvious that they are the same vehicle, just one has an additional stage on top.
If I were going to recommend a name convention change, which I'm not really inclined to, I would probably suggest using the simplest descriptions of just the "Jupiter" vehicle and the "Jupiter with Upper Stage".
If I were going to recommend a name convention change, which I'm not really inclined to, I would probably suggest using the simplest descriptions of just the "Jupiter" vehicle and the "Jupiter with Upper Stage".
I don't think it gets much simpler than that, and the names help make it really obvious that they are the same vehicle, just one has an additional stage on top.
Although I *like* Stephen's "++" suggestion -- its very "21st century net-savvy uber-geek speak" and that appeals to my own inner-geek ;)
Ross.
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again. No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:
http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/
I never knew anything about it until two minutes ago. I'm listening to it right now for the first time. Doesn't seem so bad. Wish they had contacted me for an interview as I could have provided more comprehensive answers.
Who is "Jeph"?
Ross.
he is claiming first manned jupiter flight would be 2016.....(Jeph)
I'm going to make a specific appeal to all of our supporters:
Please try to refrain from the "confrontation" aspects of this from here onwards.
.....
Ross Tierney
Founder, The DIRECT Team
www.directlauncher.com
I am Jeph.
Ross, PLEASE feel free to contact the hosts of the site and set the record straight for yourself, as many of us would absolutely love to hear from you. There are a couple of skeptics that come in who think NASA upper management (and Ares) is smarter than the engineers when it comes to "rocket science" as it were.
I'm going to make a specific appeal to all of our supporters:
Can we all please try to refrain from any "confrontation" with CxP from here onwards. It isn't helping things.
If NASA is ever going to be able to adopt a plan similar to DIRECT for itself, we need to start working NOW to develop a greater spirit of cooperation between the agency and us. We can't do that if we keep the conflict going any longer.
We have no choice but to set aside our old differences and complaints. Believe me, I know that's going to be hard to do given some of the bad blood which has flowed so freely between DIRECT and CxP over the last few years. But we MUST try to resolve our differences sooner or later. It would be advantageous for all if we can do so sooner.
Someone has to start the process of healing the rift and I think it should be us -- and I think it should be NOW.
So this is a call to everyone throughout our support base:
Spend your time promoting the positives of DIRECT loudly, vibrantly, for all to hear. But lets all leave all of the negative diatribe in the car -- it is only going to get in the way from here onwards.
Thank-you for your continued support.
Ross Tierney
Founder, The DIRECT Team
www.directlauncher.com
Tutus Simplex Ocius Ut Astrum
We can't always go around saying "But but Ares....". DIRECT stands on its own.
I'm going to make a specific appeal to all of our supporters:
Can we all please try to refrain from any "confrontation" with CxP from here onwards. It isn't helping things.
If NASA is ever going to be able to adopt a plan similar to DIRECT for itself, we need to start working NOW to develop a greater spirit of cooperation between the agency and us. We can't do that if we keep the conflict going any longer.
We have no choice but to set aside our old differences and complaints. Believe me, I know that's going to be hard to do given some of the bad blood which has flowed so freely between DIRECT and CxP over the last few years. But we MUST try to resolve our differences sooner or later. It would be advantageous for all if we can do so sooner.
Someone has to start the process of healing the rift and I think it should be us -- and I think it should be NOW.
So this is a call to everyone throughout our support base:
Spend your time promoting the positives of DIRECT loudly, vibrantly, for all to hear. But lets all leave all of the negative diatribe in the car -- it is only going to get in the way from here onwards.
Thank-you for your continued support.
Ross Tierney
Founder, The DIRECT Team
www.directlauncher.com
Tutus Simplex Ocius Ut Astrum
One thing that has come to my mind of late: The thirty-minute time frame suggests that you are being 'indulged'. They're expecting a semi-well-informed amateur with a big Internet following who will just try to impress them with his Lego rocket. Make sure that you emphasise that there is real engineering here. You might want to have in-depth backup material for their technical advisers to pour over.
Secondly, to operate a mission in the class of the ones NASA intends requires you to loft about 200 metric tons of hardware to LEO at the start of each mission. With 20mT-class lift vehicles or 25mT-class launch vehicles you are talking about a fleet of launchers and a fairly substantial orbital assembly task being required for every single mission -- and I would suggest that ISS is a good example of an orbital integration effort. We're talking about integrating three modules the size and complexity of any of the ISS modules, together with five more launches providing Propellant (and we have no backup if we find that Orbital Propellant Delivery capabilities are more difficult than expected, this arrangement has PD technologies on the critical path to BEGIN the Lunar exploration phase) and then Orion comes in just to add a little extra spice. All those assembly tasks must be performed by automated systems, or we also have to launch assembly crews as well, and all those additional docking joints and connections all add extra complexity which has to work perfectly every time or the crew on that mission may well die. And lets not even start talking about the 40+ launches required to support each Mars mission -- its *insane* to propose building a new "ISS"-sized structure in LEO whenever we wish to go to Mars. Never gonna happen.
Then, in the longer term we are also attempting to create large and healthy new market for commercial delivery systems to LEO with estimated requirements around 400-600mT per year. That should prove to be a sufficiently large slice of the pie to keep EELV & COTS suppliers happy, no?
Yes, EELV doesn't get the entire pie with DIRECT. But they sure get a nice slice of it AND we get to protect the Shuttle workforce and make a Heavy Lift system for the future. Isn't that what's called a "Win Win"?
Ross.
Concepts are judged by their weakest link.
Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.
Concepts are judged by their weakest link.
Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.
Concepts are judged by their weakest link.
Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.
I agree with this. Don't even mention depots as having anything to do with Direct at this time. Direct 3.0 gets us to the moon without them. Depots are very high risk and need lots of development at this time. I think the idea should be brought forward to the Commission, but not tied to Direct.
Danny Deger
Concepts are judged by their weakest link.
Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.
I agree with this. Don't even mention depots as having anything to do with Direct at this time. Direct 3.0 gets us to the moon without them. Depots are very high risk and need lots of development at this time. I think the idea should be brought forward to the Commission, but not tied to Direct.
Danny Deger
With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.
Danny & mars,
While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think you realize just how big an impact that idea has *already* had with the political movers and shakers we've spoken with.
The "Phase 3" plan solves a lot of different issues. It brings together SDLV, EELV and COTS all into one unified plan where everyone benefits.
And it increases performance by a very large amount, which benefits both Lunar architectures, but is also very forward-looking when considering other destinations too.
But, yes, we will probably focus most of our 30 minute presentation on the near- and medium-term benefits of the DIRECT architecture, and leave this for a short slot, along with a more comprehensive set of documentation to accompany it.
Ross.
Multiple Presentations?
Yikes -- the coordination is tough enough just doing this one...
Ross.
With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.
Not being antagonistic, but much like I have asked the DIRECT guys, prove this statement. It depends on flight rates and non-recurring costs for propellant depots.
Look at a simple, off the shelf upgrade to our DoD communications systems, TSAT. TSAT went from an $8B, to a $15B, to $20B, to a $26B development for 5 satellites. 5 satellites!
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16559.0
These people are not stupid. This is not government waste and abuse. Space is hard. Space is expensive. The reliability and life we have come to expect in our satellites and launch vehicles comes at a huge development and procurement cost ... and that cost does not go down by wishing it away or by "similarity" to prior systems.
We are in a different cost environment than Apollo or SSP ... or even NLS. Things cost WAY more today (MIL-STDS, tighter requirements, DoD directives, FAR) ... How people can claim that things like DIRECT and propellant depots are "low risk" and "are lower cost" without showing their work and still maintain credibility with the people on this board continues to amaze me.
Now, what about my point concerning no Mars without PD.
I'm going to make a specific appeal to all of our supporters:
Can we all please try to refrain from any "confrontation" with CxP from here onwards. It isn't helping things.
With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.
Not being antagonistic, but much like I have asked the DIRECT guys, prove this statement.
Keys to any organization are a clear vision, effective direction and delegation.
With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.
Not being antagonistic, but much like I have asked the DIRECT guys, prove this statement.
Its not. Well, not exactly...
What the Depot allows you to do is increase the number of missions each year. By amortizing costs over a larger number of elements each year that helps reduce the cost *OF EACH MISSION*.
A secondary effect is that the cost of all the systems reduces, so other uses for them become more affordable. For example, if a dozen Atlas-V's were added to the annual launch manifest, the cost to DoD, NOAA, NASA and commercial customers would drop -- which would likely increase business a bit in all those different areas. So the cost savings would ultimately also feed back into places like SMD and that would help to perpetuate more science missions as one of the side-effects.
Ultimately, you will still spend the same amount of total money.
But *overall* you will get greater returns for it -- and not just in NASA's back yard, but also across many areas of the whole industry.
Ross.
Now, what about my point concerning no Mars without PD.
NASA HSF budget would need to increase 4-5x to enable Mars mission (NR is $100-$400B, RE is at least $7B) so the point is effectively moot.
NASA HSF budget would need to increase 4-5x to enable Mars mission (NR is $100-$400B, RE is at least $7B) so the point is effectively moot.
If I were going to recommend a name convention change, which I'm not really inclined to, I would probably suggest using the simplest descriptions of just the "Jupiter" vehicle and the "Jupiter with Upper Stage".
Concepts are judged by their weakest link.
Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.
I agree with this. Don't even mention depots as having anything to do with Direct at this time. Direct 3.0 gets us to the moon without them. Depots are very high risk and need lots of development at this time. I think the idea should be brought forward to the Commission, but not tied to Direct.
Danny Deger
snip
Maybe this would make a good subject for a separate presentation, depots & the whole of DIRECT phase 2. Gives you another bite at the cherry.
snip
cheers, Martin
3) Without Propellant depots, it is impossible to go to mars.
Except it isn't as obvious an upgrade path for Ares, because you'd have to upgrade Altair to get much extra performance out of a depot with a one-launch Ares V mission - Ares V already lofts 90% of the payload, and they don't seem to want to launch crew on the thing anyway.
With Jupiter, a PD turns two J-246 launches into one. All the pieces are there on the crew launch; all you have to do is refill the upper stage, and presto - instant EDS...
If you do want to upgrade Altair later, then the difference between the two launch architectures WRT PD blurs a bit...
Except it isn't as obvious an upgrade path for Ares, because you'd have to upgrade Altair to get much extra performance out of a depot with a one-launch Ares V mission - Ares V already lofts 90% of the payload, and they don't seem to want to launch crew on the thing anyway.
With Jupiter, a PD turns two J-246 launches into one. All the pieces are there on the crew launch; all you have to do is refill the upper stage, and presto - instant EDS...
If you do want to upgrade Altair later, then the difference between the two launch architectures WRT PD blurs a bit...
Interesting point I hadn't thought much about on PD's.
How do PD's really help Ares? The idea of Ares is to have a small, man-rated launcher for just the crew, and then a large, non-man rated stack for everything else. Ares 1 can only carry the crew, and Ares V wouldn't be able to launch the crew unless they later decided to man-rate it, and basically make a Saturn VI out of it. But the vast majority of an Ares Moonshot is the Ares V iteself, and you are still launching it, so yea, I don't think a PD helps the Ares architecture much at all. You are still expending 80% of your launch hardware.
With Direct you're cutting your launch hardware down by half. So it becomes a very appearling upgrade path for Direct, but not much of a benefit for Ares.
Hmmm.... interesting.
I agree with this. Don't even mention depots as having anything to do with Direct at this time. Direct 3.0 gets us to the moon without them. Depots are very high risk and need lots of development at this time. I think the idea should be brought forward to the Commission, but not tied to Direct.
I am torn on this one - it's a great technology, and I can see in 20 years time that people could be shaking their heads and wondering however we managed without them.
As I understand it, the commission is there to set direction, not just "should we keep Ares or choose a different path, or abandon the whole exploration plan".
Maybe this would make a good subject for a separate presentation, depots & the whole of DIRECT phase 2. Gives you another bite at the cherry.
Is Jongoff planning to present?
I agree with this. Don't even mention depots as having anything to do with Direct at this time. Direct 3.0 gets us to the moon without them. Depots are very high risk and need lots of development at this time. I think the idea should be brought forward to the Commission, but not tied to Direct.
I actually disagree with the technological maturity level of depots. That said, I don't really care whether or not DIRECT pitches depots as part of their presentation to the committee. I'm pretty sure ULA and Boeing will be pitching them, and I'm probably also going to do a simple presentation if given the chance. It won't be as polished or authoritative as anything Ross and co. could put together, and definitely won't have detailed budgets written to NASA specifications, but I think it might be worth at least going into some details about the near-term potential of propellant depot technology. But that can be separate presentations by other groups not necessarily affiliated with DIRECT.
~Jon
Politically this should be an easy sell since it’s a win-win for Obama.
1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.
Obama didn't want us to go to the moon.
Obama originally wanted to divert the money to education for 5 years... i.e. until he would have been safe from repercussions.
Quote2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.NASA and contractors aren't exactly a Democratic-leaning hotbed of leftist socialism... /snark
Quote3. It gives him a chance to outstage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle. This point alone should convince Obama.
Obama outstages Bush by breathing. That's not a concern of his. And he's still got a full platter of godawful messes left by Bush he that has to somehow clean up without actually having Bush tried and convicted.
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?Both the Delta IV heavy and Falcon 9 heavy use 3 cores and lift around 20 tons. Jupiter 2xx uses 1 core and lifts around 100 tons. These differences may mislead people so I don't like the "heavy" idea.
Politically this should be an easy sell since it’s a win-win for Obama.
1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.
2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.
3. It gives him a chance to out stage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle. This point alone should convince Obama.
It should, but it's hard to say if it will.
1) Obama hasn't shown that he really cares much about the space program, and in fact, candidate Obama said a few discouraging things.
With any luck, this changes and he does the right things, but it's hard to be overly optimistic.
2) Like Zap said, his left-wing liberal base aren't exactly the people who are invested and big supporters of the space program. He can earn a lot for grace with them by putting as much money as possibly into social engineering, "green" programs, education, unions, etc. The Democrat bread and butter areas.
3) While Obama seems to take an unprecidented stance at trying to berate his predecessor, likely to divert attention away from his own controversial spending and social engineering policies, he doesn't need NASA to do that. The media pretty much let him do it ad nausium without an ounce of scruteny.
Although Zap seems to wonder off into a rant about Bush, despite his failure to follow up on the VSE, the VSE itself only exists because of Bush, and in fairness, Bush took the most interest in the Space program since probably LBJ. He didn't follow up on it and let it head a wrong direction with Ares (and a pox on him for that), but at least he did try to get something new going after the Columbia accident. Obama or Clinton would have probably moved to let manned space exploration wither on the vine and die as it's in danger of now.
And for the record, Obama was in the Senate for 4 years, two of those with a large Democrat majority in Congress, so he and his party had as much a hand in many of the "messes" we have now as the Bush Administration does.
He was "handed" very little he and the democrats didn't already have their fingers in prior to January 20th.
Both sides have screwed the pootch on a lot of things, but lets be fair about it.
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?
NASA News Bulletin clip
...I failed to consider one important aspect about Obama’s pattern as president so far. This is that when it comes to the economic matters, his actions have consistently been the opposite of what is really needed.
Thanks!
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?
I think that works quite well, and if you have to have a mid-range Jupiter, it would be Jupiter-lite added in.
I was toying with the ISDC presentation 'Ares 3 & 4' designations, and well we all know that is just WRONG (or at least I hope we do).
NASA News Bulletin clip
Nice! I'm amazed to see it in an internal NASA newsletter at all. I would have guessed that any mention of DIRECT would have been embargoed.
It would be nice to think that perhaps this is a sign of improved relations.
Ross.
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?
I think that works quite well, and if you have to have a mid-range Jupiter, it would be Jupiter-lite added in.
I was toying with the ISDC presentation 'Ares 3 & 4' designations, and well we all know that is just WRONG (or at least I hope we do).
Yeah, that raises my hackles too. I know Ross and team are trying to be diplomatic and all, but the thought any Ares moniker being slapped on a Jupiter makes my skin crawl. (No suffix, see? It's not so hard.)
The way I see it, NASA had their chance at renaming Jupiter three years ago when it was first presented. We all know what has taken place instead, and I think that behavior disqualifies them from choosing a new name and taking credit for the whole idea.
If there's any justice in the world, the Augustine commission will choose DIRECT and strongly recommend that the Jupiter name be retained. Just to make a clean break, to let everyone know what a monumental change in direction has taken place, and to give credit where credit is due.
Mark S.
Thank you for the sentement but we would really rather just fade into the mist...
I think Ares III and Ares IV are great names for the vehicles. To the public, the transition from Ares to Jupiter would seem much smoother. If Direct is adopted, I think it would seem like the HSF program just got a nudge in a new direction rather than completely changing courses.
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?
I think Ares III and Ares IV are great names for the vehicles.
I was thinking mainly of aspects of Direct that would be good selling points to Obama, but I failed to consider one important aspect about Obama’s pattern as president so far. This is that when it comes to the economic matters, his actions have consistently been the opposite of what is really needed. So in this case since Direct makes good economic sense we should expect Obama to decide against it. Come think of it Ares I/V is more consistent with Obama.
Thanks!
I think Ares III and Ares IV are great names for the vehicles. To the public, the transition from Ares to Jupiter would seem much smoother. If Direct is adopted, I think it would seem like the HSF program just got a nudge in a new direction rather than completely changing courses.
First thing, one should be careful here. AGAIN - we only have ONE vehicle here, NOT TWO. And by using two Ares designations one runs the risk of the - they're proposing two vehilces too!!!! This is not the case and that has been repeated many times! Jupiter is only ONE vehicle!
Ares intent was to produce vehicles of STS heritage - Jupiter fits that bill, perhaps more so now then Ares I & V. However, I think it is up to the DIRECT team and NASA to determine a naming convention, if and even more so, WHEN that comes to pass...
Respectfully
Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages. The core stage is "Jupiter" which remains essentially the same. The upper stage is what the Jupiter rocket delivers to orbit. It sounds fine saying "Liftoff of the Jupiter Rocket carrying the *model name* upper stage to orbit."
Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages.
Jupiter it was born, Jupiter it should stay. And leave the techie detail suffixes to the engineers.
Mark S.
The J-130 uses J-24X components. It is a J-24X without 1 SSME or an upper stage. So it seems to me the J-24X is the Jupiter and J-130 is the Jupiter lite. Jupiter lite also makes it sound 'quick and easy'."Lite" also fits nicely with the plan to phase J-130 out after EELV takes over. However I don't think it's a good idea to call either vehicle just "Jupiter" since it would be too hard to tell if someone was talking about both vehicles generically or the particular vehicle called "Jupiter".
Heavy also seems to already be used conventionally for 3 parallel staged cores.
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.
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?Calling it Centaur would rub salt into the wound by reminding NASA that the upper stage is based on externally developed technology. Politically that sounds like a bad idea. I suggest avoiding all languages except English, Greek and Latin for political (xenophobic) reasons. Other ancient languages are probably ok, but I would avoid modern languages such as French, German and Japanese.
Or you could name it after another creature from mythology. Instead of Centaur you could have, (just a few from a list)
Chimera
Griffin (previous administrator anyone?)
Hydra
Pegasus (taken I think)
Phoenix (taken by rover I think)
Eclair
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?Calling it Centaur would rub salt into the wound by reminding NASA that the upper stage is based on externally developed technology. Politically that sounds like a bad idea. I suggest avoiding all languages except English, Greek and Latin for political (xenophobic) reasons. Other ancient languages are probably ok, but I would avoid modern languages such as French, German and Japanese.
Zeus sounds like a good name for the second stage.
Or you could name it after another creature from mythology. Instead of Centaur you could have, (just a few from a list)
Chimera
Griffin (previous administrator anyone?)
Hydra
Pegasus (taken I think)
Phoenix (taken by rover I think)
Nah. We must NOT get fancy here. This is not mythology, it is a cryogenic upper stage on a rocket. The name of the stage should reflect that. This is, after all, rocket science. :)
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?Calling it Centaur would rub salt into the wound by reminding NASA that the upper stage is based on externally developed technology. Politically that sounds like a bad idea. I suggest avoiding all languages except English, Greek and Latin for political (xenophobic) reasons. Other ancient languages are probably ok, but I would avoid modern languages such as French, German and Japanese.
Zeus sounds like a good name for the second stage.
NASA News Bulletin clip
Nice! I'm amazed to see it in an internal NASA newsletter at all. I would have guessed that any mention of DIRECT would have been embargoed.
It would be nice to think that perhaps this is a sign of improved relations.
I think Ares III and Ares IV are great names for the vehicles.
We had a bit of a discussion this morning about the naming convention for DIRECT. My suggestion is to drop the numeric suffixes in normal conversation, in presentations, and in advocacy materials. This should be done in order to make clear that there is only one Jupiter vehicle, flown either with or without an upper stage.
There is not just a great amount of commonality between the single-stage Jupiter and the Jupiter with its Upper Stage. They are identical in every way that counts, except for the presence of the fourth SSME and the JUS. Presenting and discussing them as if they were two different vehicles minimizes one of the strongest selling points that DIRECT has.
Renaming them to "Ares-III" and "Ares-IV" introduces even more confusion than the suffixes "-130" and "-246" already have. Jupiter is unique, it is not Ares by any stretch of the imagination, and people would think that "-III" and "-IV" have just as little in common as "-I" and "-V", i.e. nothing of practical value besides the J2X.
Jupiter it was born, Jupiter it should stay. And leave the techie detail suffixes to the engineers.
Mark S.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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... ;)
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" ;)
so you get JUPITER with JUS (pronounced "JUICE")
JUPITER with JUS :)
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.
... J246 would be Jupiter Plus ( upperstage and 4th engine added)
:):):)
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?
Here's my two cents to the Committee:I think in that one paragraph you encompassed everything while keeping it short and to the point.
"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! :)
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).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.
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.
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.
Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages. The core stage is "Jupiter" which remains essentially the same. The upper stage is what the Jupiter rocket delivers to orbit. It sounds fine saying "Liftoff of the Jupiter Rocket carrying the *model name* upper stage to orbit."
I kind of like "zeus" as the name for Jupiter's Upper Stage. If you see what I mean.... :)
Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages. The core stage is "Jupiter" which remains essentially the same. The upper stage is what the Jupiter rocket delivers to orbit. It sounds fine saying "Liftoff of the Jupiter Rocket carrying the *model name* upper stage to orbit."
I kind of like "zeus" as the name for Jupiter's Upper Stage. If you see what I mean.... :)
Oh, please don't go there!
NASA have AIUS & AVUS, which is perfectly fine. DIRECT have JUS (and J-nnn, etc, etc).
I find it really annoying when something already has a perfectly acceptable name (LSAM), then also has to be given a catchy name (Altair).
It's OK for geeky guys who are prepared to learn a list of synonyms and translate as they listen / read, but for the public it just creates a sense of confusion and even exclusion. Ironic for something that I assume is supposed to make it easier to sell the programme to the public.
cheers, Martin
Ross,
Listening to the Space Show interview, it was pretty good, except I think you need to practice your answer to that first question -- What is DIRECT? -- a couple dozen more times and get it down to an exact science.
Try answering it DIRECTly. Here's my swing:
"""
DIRECT is a space exploration architecture based on an inline launch vehicle -- Jupiter -- derived DIRECTly from the Space Shuttle system. Instead of mounting an orbiter on the side of the external tank, DIRECT mounts the Space Shuttle Main Engines on the bottom of the tank and places the payload on the top of the vehicle. Jupiter will lift a crew of six to the ISS along with nearly double the payload mass and diameter of the Space Shuttle. Two Jupiter vehicles with Centaur-derived upper stages will lift (insert correct identification of NASA/VSE/ESAS lunar mission requirements here).
DIRECT is the simpler, safer, sooner approach to NASA's Vision for Space Exploration for three reasons: First, Jupiter is derived DIRECTly from the Shuttle system. The Space Shuttle Main Engines, 4-segment Solid Rocket Boosters, and 8.4m diameter External Tank are retained along with the facilities and workforce that produce them. Second, DIRECT goes to the moon with two Jupiter launch vehicles derived DIRECTly from the Shuttle system instead of two completely different launch vehicles, one huge and one modest, neither of which is closely related to the Shuttle. Finally, DIRECT requires no new engine development and leverages the rich flight heritage of both Shuttle and EELV.
DIRECT can support the ISS sooner and launch more baseline lunar missions than other options with the same budget. But DIRECT is much more flexible than that, offering unprecedented performance for assembling heavy, voluminous infrastructure in low earth orbit and unique affinity for next-generation exploration modes based on propellant depots. DIRECT doesn't just offer a way to repeat Apollo, it offers a way to ultimately transcend Apollo, which we believe is the true spirit of NASA's Vision for Space Exploration.
"""
Thoughts?
Ross,
Listening to the Space Show interview, it was pretty good, except I think you need to practice your answer to that first question -- What is DIRECT? -- a couple dozen more times and get it down to an exact science.
Try answering it DIRECTly. Here's my swing:
"""
DIRECT is a space exploration architecture based on an inline launch vehicle -- Jupiter -- derived DIRECTly from the Space Shuttle system. Instead of mounting an orbiter on the side of the external tank, DIRECT mounts the Space Shuttle Main Engines on the bottom of the tank and places the payload on the top of the vehicle. Jupiter will lift a crew of six to the ISS along with nearly double the payload mass and diameter of the Space Shuttle. Two Jupiter vehicles with Centaur-derived upper stages will lift (insert correct identification of NASA/VSE/ESAS lunar mission requirements here).
DIRECT is the simpler, safer, sooner approach to NASA's Vision for Space Exploration for three reasons: First, Jupiter is derived DIRECTly from the Shuttle system. The Space Shuttle Main Engines, 4-segment Solid Rocket Boosters, and 8.4m diameter External Tank are retained along with the facilities and workforce that produce them. Second, DIRECT goes to the moon with two Jupiter launch vehicles derived DIRECTly from the Shuttle system instead of two completely different launch vehicles, one huge and one modest, neither of which is closely related to the Shuttle. Finally, DIRECT requires no new engine development and leverages the rich flight heritage of both Shuttle and EELV.
DIRECT can support the ISS sooner and launch more baseline lunar missions than other options with the same budget. But DIRECT is much more flexible than that, offering unprecedented performance for assembling heavy, voluminous infrastructure in low earth orbit and unique affinity for next-generation exploration modes based on propellant depots. DIRECT doesn't just offer a way to repeat Apollo, it offers a way to ultimately transcend Apollo, which we believe is the true spirit of NASA's Vision for Space Exploration.
"""
Thoughts?
Very good butters. I like this.
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)
"...instead of two completely different launch vehicles, one huge and one modest, neither of which is closely related to the Shuttle."
Is there a set date when the directlauncher.com website will be upgraded to Direct 3.0?
That's very good, although I would leave this out & re-word the sentence:Quote"...instead of two completely different launch vehicles, one huge and one modest, neither of which is closely related to the Shuttle."
I think it is a very concise summary, but I suggest taking out the phrase "safer, simpler, and sooner". For some, that may be interpreted as a swipe at ATK and by inference, Constellation. I think the same message can be concisely stated without that phrase. Also, a little more direct statement relative to cost would be helpful. Budgets are a major issue now, and that advantage should be emphasized.
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)I have to agree with duane on this...there is a lot of dynamic information being presented in the video, and I had to watch it several times to absorb it all. You will not get a chance to show it several times, so I would simplify it a bit. The morphing is amazing to watch and speaks volumes in itself! I love the vid, but for your limited time slot, you want maximum "bang for the buck".
Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages. The core stage is "Jupiter" which remains essentially the same. The upper stage is what the Jupiter rocket delivers to orbit. It sounds fine saying "Liftoff of the Jupiter Rocket carrying the *model name* upper stage to orbit."
I kind of like "zeus" as the name for Jupiter's Upper Stage. If you see what I mean.... :)
Oh, please don't go there!
NASA have AIUS & AVUS, which is perfectly fine. DIRECT have JUS (and J-nnn, etc, etc).
I find it really annoying when something already has a perfectly acceptable name (LSAM), then also has to be given a catchy name (Altair).
It's OK for geeky guys who are prepared to learn a list of synonyms and translate as they listen / read, but for the public it just creates a sense of confusion and even exclusion. Ironic for something that I assume is supposed to make it easier to sell the programme to the public.
cheers, Martin
Edit: and then I read Chuck's Jupiter/Centaur post. Hmmmm...
I think it is a very concise summary, but I suggest taking out the phrase "safer, simpler, and sooner". For some, that may be interpreted as a swipe at ATK and by inference, Constellation. I think the same message can be concisely stated without that phrase. Also, a little more direct statement relative to cost would be helpful. Budgets are a major issue now, and that advantage should be emphasized.
Agree on the first part. I wasn't aware that this phrase was relevant to other players. It's prominently displayed on the soon-to-be-updated DIRECT website.
Everybody wants to ask about cost and schedule. I figured that the "what is DIRECT" question is an opportunity to introduce the audience to the launch vehicle and the merits of its design. Cost and schedule will be the next questions, guaranteed. You don't want to say "DIRECT is a program that will cost this many billions of dollars and take this long before it flies". You want to tell people what's for sale before you tell them how much and how long.
In general I like the idea of referring to Jupiter in generic terms when speaking conversationally. It does serve the purpose well of making the point we are speaking of *ONE* vehicle, not two. And that is a critical message to get across. While I think we will continue to use the terms we have been, "130 and 246", when speaking specifics, I generally agree that we should begin to use the generic "Jupiter".
<snip>
I like where this conversation is going but we are too close to the Commission meeting to entertain changing anything now. Perhaps we might entertain the generic "Jupiter" in the Commission presentation, but that is just speculation. We are working on that presentation now.
With probably only 6-8 more days to the actual submission of the Presentation left, we aren't going to be engaging in any new "re-branding" efforts at this stage of the proceedings.
But after this Presentation, I was toying with something along the lines of "Affordable, Sustainable, Flexible" or perhaps "Affordable, Flexible, High Performance". There are a lot of different options to play with.
I think that should be enough to get you guys all in your starting boxes! "And they're off..." ;)
Ross.
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.
With probably only 6-8 more days to the actual submission of the Presentation left, we aren't going to be engaging in any new "re-branding" efforts at this stage of the proceedings.
But after this Presentation, I was toying with something along the lines of "Affordable, Sustainable, Flexible" or perhaps "Affordable, Flexible, High Performance". There are a lot of different options to play with.
I think that should be enough to get you guys all in your starting boxes! "And they're off..." ;)
Ross.
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.
A plethora of conferences?
Do you know what a plethora is?
I would not like to think that a person would tell someone that he has a plethora, and find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora.
;D
With probably only 6-8 more days to the actual submission of the Presentation left, we aren't going to be engaging in any new "re-branding" efforts at this stage of the proceedings.
But after this Presentation, I was toying with something along the lines of "Affordable, Sustainable, Flexible" or perhaps "Affordable, Flexible, High Performance". There are a lot of different options to play with.
I think that should be enough to get you guys all in your starting boxes! "And they're off..." ;)
Ross.
My vote is is the first one. Affordable, Sustainable, Flexible. I think High Performance will make it a competition of pure size vs. Ares V.
IMHO
Stan
Hip,
That was true to a point. But we are now past that point.
The simple fact is that NASA can not take on the proposal from a group perceived as the 'enemy'.
It is up to us to show that we are not an enemy, that we are actually really all part of the same family and that blood is thicker than water. We need to set aside our differences because in the end, we all have the same objective -- to make the US Space Program the very best it possibly can be.
We can still disagree with CxP's management -- and we do -- but we don't have to turn it into a war of attrition. There are more professional, less destructive, ways to do this. As part of a greater family, we're adjusting our position to one of more "tough love" than of "outright hostility".
Ross.
Thank you for the sentement but we would really rather just fade into the mist and let NASA get on with astounding the world.
Could we have a separate naming thread? (or not at all)
Hip,
That was true to a point. But we are now past that point.
The simple fact is that NASA can not take on the proposal from a group perceived as the 'enemy'.
It is up to us to show that we are not an enemy, that we are actually really all part of the same family and that blood is thicker than water. We need to set aside our differences because in the end, we all have the same objective -- to make the US Space Program the very best it possibly can be.
We can still disagree with CxP's management -- and we do -- but we don't have to turn it into a war of attrition. There are more professional, less destructive, ways to do this. As part of a greater family, we're adjusting our position to one of more "tough love" than of "outright hostility".
Ross.
Sometimes though with 'tough love", you have to be willing to do certain things---that is what "Tough Love" is all about. :-(
Being precieved as the enemy---maybe not, but you are not living in Kanas, this is the hood! NASA does not think as Direct/EELV's as best of friends. Did not NASA say and in your own presentation last week "it defies the laws of physics..."
Direct team has to take a more 'friendly' approach, does not mean some other people have to take this approach. Remember in marketing--it is all about preseption not neccessary about reality. Sometimes though, you have show, expose and explot the weakness in the other guy.
If Direct wants to play with the Big Boys, then sometimes Direct needs to act like a big boy. NASA, ATK and the EELV crowd protect thier own interests and the chips fall, where they fall. If the chips hurt Constellation and help Direct, so sad! ;-(
A few pages back someone here (I forget who, sorry) mentioned the differences between the SSME Block-IIA vs. Block-II and said they were surprised we were using the older IIA. I have to raise my hands, that is my fault entirely.
When we switched over to SSME's, our guys at MSFC simply told me we would be using the current generation of SSME, they didn't specify the specific nomenclature for which version that was. When I checked my own files I saw there were a number of different variants including Block-II and Block-IIA and I was the one who simply assumed that the 'A' was the newer of the two -- as a computer guy, that's just how I would do it! :)
I have double-checked with our development guys and they confirm that the Block-IIA was essentially an interim variant on the way towards the full Block-II.
I have also double-checked, and the performance calculations as displayed in the Baseball Cards actually show the current Block-II and that it is merely the attribution which is wrong.
I am therefore going to amend all of the Baseball Cards now.
Sorry for any confusion and I thank whoever it was for pointing out the issue and bringing my attention to it.
Ross.
Second, DIRECT goes to the moon with two Jupiter launch vehicles derived DIRECTly from the Shuttle system instead of two completely different launch vehicles, one huge and one modest, neither of which is closely related to the Shuttle.
Hip,
That was true to a point. But we are now past that point.
The simple fact is that NASA can not take on the proposal from a group perceived as the 'enemy'.
It is up to us to show that we are not an enemy, that we are actually really all part of the same family and that blood is thicker than water. We need to set aside our differences because in the end, we all have the same objective -- to make the US Space Program the very best it possibly can be.
We can still disagree with CxP's management -- and we do -- but we don't have to turn it into a war of attrition. There are more professional, less destructive, ways to do this. As part of a greater family, we're adjusting our position to one of more "tough love" than of "outright hostility".
Ross.
Sometimes though with 'tough love", you have to be willing to do certain things---that is what "Tough Love" is all about. :-(
Being precieved as the enemy---maybe not, but you are not living in Kanas, this is the hood! NASA does not think as Direct/EELV's as best of friends. Did not NASA say and in your own presentation last week "it defies the laws of physics..."
Direct team has to take a more 'friendly' approach, does not mean some other people have to take this approach. Remember in marketing--it is all about preseption not neccessary about reality. Sometimes though, you have show, expose and explot the weakness in the other guy.
If Direct wants to play with the Big Boys, then sometimes Direct needs to act like a big boy. NASA, ATK and the EELV crowd protect thier own interests and the chips fall, where they fall. If the chips hurt Constellation and help Direct, so sad! ;-(
Ross's concern is understandable. The bottom line is that if everything goes well for Direct, it will have to be assimilated and worked by the very same people who've just recently been working on Constellation with their 'hearts and minds' invested in that. You can change their mind, but it's certainly not just by dumping on NASA and Constellation indiscriminatly.
Finding a common ground (and it seem there is a lot of common ground betwee Direct and Cx! to begin with) first and then trying to work your line of thinking in is much more productive in these situations. Just like the way it is... I'm and engineer by trade but a political 'nose' is often what I lack and envy having.
That elusive art of the achievable...
Excessive (disagreements/concerns are fine) antagonizm against the very folks you want on your side is ... short term and long term (you know they'd have to work the nuts@bolts) how shall I put it.... not smart.
p.s. personal qualification, I'm not in either the Direct or Ares 'camp'
That would be user psloss. I'd noted that the Block-IIa engines were specified (using the baseball card data) for Jupiter, and he made maintain of the discrepancy.
Thanks for updating the cards. It's good to have accurate information out there.
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"
???
Ross (heading out for a few hours -- 'tis the weekend after all!)
I am therefore going to amend all of the Baseball Cards now.
Ross's concern is understandable. The bottom line is that if everything goes well for Direct, it will have to be assimilated and worked by the very same people who've just recently been working on Constellation with their 'hearts and minds' invested in that. You can change their mind, but it's certainly not just by dumping on NASA and Constellation indiscriminatly.
Martin,
You've got it all correct.
FYI, explicitly, "DIRECT" now refers to the overall architecture governing all of the different launch vehicles (Jupiter), spacecraft (Orion, Altair, SSPDM etc.), mission plans, options, alternatives and within the proposal -- so suggesting its has a similar scope to CxP is quite reasonable, IMHO.
It will be a challenge to convince NASA that DIRECT's intention is to save their goal of going to the moon and Mars.
What programme can safely complete foreseeable missions using existing personnel and infrastructure in a reasonable amount of time and in a development order that helps to reduce the gap?indiscriminatly.By comparison would Jupiter be the result if the same team were asked "what's the cheapest that we can lift each kilogram with Shuttle-type hardware"?
I was thinking mainly of aspects of Direct that would be good selling points to Obama, but I failed to consider one important aspect about Obama’s pattern as president so far. This is that when it comes to the economic matters, his actions have consistently been the opposite of what is really needed. So in this case since Direct makes good economic sense we should expect Obama to decide against it. Come think of it Ares I/V is more consistent with Obama.
Thanks!
And you just never know. The fact he put together the Augustine commission gives me cautious optimism. Looks like they have real world people on it, and not just politicos. As long as Direct gets a chance to make their case, if they do, the panel gives them a fair shake, and if their recommendation is to go to Direct, I think that could be sticky for Obama to go against. Going against his own commission's recommendations? Hard to explain that.
There's a few "ifs" there, but like I said, there's some cautious optimism to be had there. And the Direct team from what I've been reading look to have some optimism in the panel too, which is a good sign. :)
All my fingers and toes are crossed!
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"No no no...but close. It is wanton of something more at the end.
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.
In other circumstances, maybe, but not with Ares-I and Ares-V cluttering the landscape.
Ares-III and Ares-IV sounds like 2 different rockets, like Ares-I and Ares-V.
Sorry
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.
In other circumstances, maybe, but not with Ares-I and Ares-V cluttering the landscape.
Ares-III and Ares-IV sounds like 2 different rockets, like Ares-I and Ares-V.
Sorry
When you think about it, as far as the final name is concerned the only thing that maters is what NASA wants to call it if they build it. For all I care they can call the boosters Larry, Moe and the upper stage Curly just as long as the build and fly it.
To address the specific point, I don't need PD if I do nuclear, but yes, most of what is launched is propellant. If you want to call that depots, go ahead, but it could also simply be in-space assembly.
...
PS -- Here is a quick teaser for the new cards (same data as the last set, but slightly updated logo's and the "heavy" variants are coming too).
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"No no no...but close. It is wanton of something more at the end.
(not to go back to the name debate, but heck, you 'invited it') ;)
How about:
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to a Flexible and Sustainable Architecture"
EDIT: or better yet:
"Direct -- One Rocket, One Vision"
...
PS -- Here is a quick teaser for the new cards (same data as the last set, but slightly updated logo's and the "heavy" variants are coming too).
Ross, I am looking at this card (J246-41.4004.10050_CLV_090606.jpg) and this u/s propellant off-load by 57% makes me wonder, gee ... are you sure ?
For a lunar outpost campaign, every second Jupiter will launch with the upper stage more than half empty ?
8x SSMEs, 4x SRBs, 2x 8.4m-cores, 2x WBC/ACES-technology-scaled upper stages (one less than half filled with propellants), 12x RL-10 engines, 2x avionics, LEO docking ... for one (1) cargo load to the moon ? Do you guys call that sustainable ?
...
Don't forget that we are also sizing things to take advantage of a propellant depot later on. We don't want to create a new upper stage then. The tankage part of the JUS does not mass all that much so economically, because we have the mass margin to handle it, we're better off making one stage size and under utilizing it for a while than creating and qualifying different size stages. Remember, that was one of the things that the so-called analysis accused us of doing - multiple stage sizes.
...
Don't forget that we are also sizing things to take advantage of a propellant depot later on. We don't want to create a new upper stage then. The tankage part of the JUS does not mass all that much so economically, because we have the mass margin to handle it, we're better off making one stage size and under utilizing it for a while than creating and qualifying different size stages. Remember, that was one of the things that the so-called analysis accused us of doing - multiple stage sizes.
Are you going to "gird your loins" and tell the Augustine Commission that in all earnest you would not recommend going forward with a lunar outpost - unless propellant depots are established first ?
...
Don't forget that we are also sizing things to take advantage of a propellant depot later on. We don't want to create a new upper stage then. The tankage part of the JUS does not mass all that much so economically, because we have the mass margin to handle it, we're better off making one stage size and under utilizing it for a while than creating and qualifying different size stages. Remember, that was one of the things that the so-called analysis accused us of doing - multiple stage sizes.
Are you going to "gird your loins" and tell the Augustine Commission that in all earnest you would not recommend going forward with a lunar outpost - unless propellant depots are established first ?
No.
...
PS -- Here is a quick teaser for the new cards (same data as the last set, but slightly updated logo's and the "heavy" variants are coming too).
Ross, I am looking at this card (J246-41.4004.10050_CLV_090606.jpg) and this u/s propellant off-load by 57% makes me wonder, gee ... are you sure ?
For a lunar outpost campaign, every second Jupiter will launch with the upper stage more than half empty ?
8x SSMEs, 4x SRBs, 2x 8.4m-cores, 2x WBC/ACES-technology-scaled upper stages (one less than half filled with propellants), 12x RL-10 engines, 2x avionics, LEO docking ... for one (1) cargo load to the moon ? Do you guys call that sustainable ?
...
Don't forget that we are also sizing things to take advantage of a propellant depot later on. We don't want to create a new upper stage then. The tankage part of the JUS does not mass all that much so economically, because we have the mass margin to handle it, we're better off making one stage size and under utilizing it for a while than creating and qualifying different size stages. Remember, that was one of the things that the so-called analysis accused us of doing - multiple stage sizes.
Are you going to "gird your loins" and tell the Augustine Commission that in all earnest you would not recommend going forward with a lunar outpost - unless propellant depots are established first ?
No.
I got it, no is no. You are not going to propose going straight to propellant depots - before starting exploration in full - even if your collective hearth is with the p.d.
......
Do you guys call that sustainable ?
Yes, we do call it sustainable. Costs aren't calculated based upon the number of engines or components in an architecture, it is the integration of those components that is where the real impact of the costs lie.
Obama wants to keep NASA's budget flat at best, and info on L2 suggests that NASA is in for a serious budget deficit after 2010.If this lunar "adventure" of ESAS and Griffin and VSE is already dead, what makes you believe "Direct" makes any sense at all ? I don't trust the numbers floated here for how much is "Direct" going to cost, those are just projections. Plus or minus 1 or 2 billions is not going to make or break a lunar outpost.
......
Do you guys call that sustainable ?
Yes, we do call it sustainable. Costs aren't calculated based upon the number of engines or components in an architecture, it is the integration of those components that is where the real impact of the costs lie.
Exactly. For a lunar cargo mission you have to integrate two (2) super-heavy launch stacks from all the components. You have to perform a low energy earth orbit rendezvous and docking (more like berthing IMO but that's beside the point).
For a lunar cargo mission you have double avionics and more than double flight software, and no crew to assist in LEO. Compared to a single Ares V cargo flight - that's not sustainable, in my humble opinion. I have beaten this dead horse to shreds for more than a year now. The dead horse is composed of the following components : NASA should focus on building that lunar outpost, pronto, and then go to significant lunar ISRU under the supervision of resident crews. That's an exploration worth of extra budgets. And that, sir, requires frequent cargo flights to the moon. Which in turn requires as a minimum the Ares V. Propellant depots are great except you have to build them before you do the outpost, and you have to design the whole hoopla around them.QuoteObama wants to keep NASA's budget flat at best, and info on L2 suggests that NASA is in for a serious budget deficit after 2010.If this lunar "adventure" of ESAS and Griffin and VSE is already dead, what makes you believe "Direct" makes any sense at all ? I don't trust the numbers floated here for how much is "Direct" going to cost, those are just projections. Plus or minus 1 or 2 billions is not going to make or break a lunar outpost.
For a lunar cargo mission you have double avionics and more than double flight software, and no crew to assist in LEO. Compared to a single Ares V cargo flight - that's not sustainable, in my humble opinion. I have beaten this dead horse to shreds for more than a year now. The dead horse is composed of the following components : NASA should focus on building that lunar outpost, pronto, and then go to significant lunar ISRU under the supervision of resident crews. That's an exploration worth of extra budgets. And that, sir, requires frequent cargo flights to the moon. Which in turn requires as a minimum the Ares V. Propellant depots are great except you have to build them before you do the outpost, and you have to design the whole hoopla around them.
If this lunar "adventure" of ESAS and Griffin and VSE is already dead, what makes you believe "Direct" makes any sense at all ? I don't trust the numbers floated here for how much is "Direct" going to cost, those are just projections. Plus or minus 1 or 2 billions is not going to make or break a lunar outpost.
1) Huh? Isn't the point of ISRU to reduce the amount of cargo flights...?
1) Huh? Isn't the point of ISRU to reduce the amount of cargo flights...?
There's no significant lunar ISRU possible before a large number of cargo [and crewed] flights.
A quick question:
Roughly how many EELV's flights would be required to top up the Depot with enough propellant for a solo J246 Lunar Mission?
(lets say our EELV is a Delta IV Heavy)
Here's my two cents to the Committee:I think in that one paragraph you encompassed everything while keeping it short and to the point.
"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! :)
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.
......
Do you guys call that sustainable ?
Yes, we do call it sustainable. Costs aren't calculated based upon the number of engines or components in an architecture, it is the integration of those components that is where the real impact of the costs lie.
Exactly. For a lunar cargo mission you have to integrate two (2) super-heavy launch stacks from all the components. You have to perform a low energy earth orbit rendezvous and docking (more like berthing IMO but that's beside the point).
For a lunar cargo mission you have double avionics and more than double flight software, and no crew to assist in LEO. Compared to a single Ares V cargo flight - that's not sustainable, in my humble opinion. I have beaten this dead horse to shreds for more than a year now. The dead horse is composed of the following components : NASA should focus on building that lunar outpost, pronto, and then go to significant lunar ISRU under the supervision of resident crews. That's an exploration worth of extra budgets. And that, sir, requires frequent cargo flights to the moon. Which in turn requires as a minimum the Ares V. Propellant depots are great except you have to build them before you do the outpost, and you have to design the whole hoopla around them.
NASA should focus on building that lunar outpost, pronto, and then go to significant lunar ISRU under the supervision of resident crews. That's an exploration worth of extra budgets. And that, sir, requires frequent cargo flights to the moon. Which in turn requires as a minimum the Ares V.
...
Don't forget that we are also sizing things to take advantage of a propellant depot later on. We don't want to create a new upper stage then. The tankage part of the JUS does not mass all that much so economically, because we have the mass margin to handle it, we're better off making one stage size and under utilizing it for a while than creating and qualifying different size stages. Remember, that was one of the things that the so-called analysis accused us of doing - multiple stage sizes.
Are you going to "gird your loins" and tell the Augustine Commission that in all earnest you would not recommend going forward with a lunar outpost - unless propellant depots are established first ?
No.
I got it, no is no. You are not going to propose going straight to propellant depots - before starting exploration in full - even if your collective heart is with the p.d.
By comparison would Jupiter be the result if the same team were asked "what's the cheapest that we can lift each kilogram with Shuttle-type hardware"?To me, the affordable part follows because you are maximizing the payload for the powerplant. It just seems like it would be a cheaper way to go and I believe the DIRECTheads have made a good case with real numbers.
To the heart of the matter (and why I registered to say anything at all).... As a regular non-college grad, voter, taxpayer, Ares/DIRECT both felt to me as a step backwards. By getting that greater weight to orbit capability, we are sacrificing the whole return from orbit capability. I understand lifting weight into orbit efficiently is the key to expanding our efforts of human exploration of the solar system. However the ability to return some of that weight to the ground--which may not have been intended to reenter the atmosphere--will play a key role in future accident investigations. The way Ares 1/5 stands, it will be a scorched earth policy against launching the shuttle ever again. Building LC-39C, maintaining say LC-39A to only handle block 10 Jupiters, could allow for 39A to continue to allow a shuttle piggyback on a cargo flight.
The thought I had, save Endeavor (perhaps Atlantis as fallback?). Strip the SSME's and related hardware out of it. Basically turn it into the American "Buran." Considering the current DIRECT 3.0 J-130 is pretty much identical to what is the current shuttle launch config, launch the shuttle empty. If crew is required, put them up top in the Orion. Control it from there. Seems to me that you could always launch it strapped to a cargo config. According to Wiki, there is already RCO-IFM capabilities in place. Depending on how long the blackout period is where radio comms are gone, perhaps one pilot might be requried. Really, the shuttle should remain available for that return from orbit capability.
But looking at the current "baseball cards" for the J130 to the ISS orbit (and yes I know that isn't the most current), it is only capable of bringing 66.98kg / 60.82kg (/w 10% margin) to that orbit. For the shuttle, according to Wiki: "Empty weight: 172,000 lb (78,000 kg)."
That tells me that for some reason either you guys are totally lowballing the numbers, or a basic J130 can't take up an empty shuttle to the ISS. Its likely the former since the shuttle has been doing exactly that, plus bringing up modules (and supplied to support a crew of 7).
...
PS -- Here is a quick teaser for the new cards (same data as the last set, but slightly updated logo's and the "heavy" variants are coming too).
Ross, I am looking at this card (J246-41.4004.10050_CLV_090606.jpg) and this u/s propellant off-load by 57% makes me wonder, gee ... are you sure ?
For a lunar outpost campaign, every second Jupiter will launch with the upper stage more than half empty ?
8x SSMEs, 4x SRBs, 2x 8.4m-cores, 2x WBC/ACES-technology-scaled upper stages (one less than half filled with propellants), 12x RL-10 engines, 2x avionics, LEO docking ... for one (1) cargo load to the moon ? Do you guys call that sustainable ?
Edit: I also wanted to ask you this, why did you omitted the lunar cargo mission description from the ISDC'09 presentation ?
That tells me that for some reason either you guys are totally lowballing the numbers, or a basic J130 can't take up an empty shuttle to the ISS. Its likely the former since the shuttle has been doing exactly that, plus bringing up modules (and supplied to support a crew of 7).
..........There are a few different things going on. Let me try to walk you through all of the key thinking which led to this recommendation.
Edit: I also wanted to ask you this, why did you omitted the lunar cargo mission description from the ISDC'09 presentation ?
..........
Ross.
So what is the proposed configuration for cargo-only lunar missions? Could a single Jupiter by itself lift an Altair and enough fuel for TLI, assuming the Altair performs the LOI burn?
Dual launch might seem wasteful for cargo-only missions. If dual launch is required, would it be a Jupiter-1xx and a J-2xx, or would to J-2xx be required? Two J-2xx would definitely leave DIRECT in line for criticisms of operational cost and higher LOM, even if the savings in development $$ greatly outweighs ops $$.
So what is the proposed configuration for cargo-only lunar missions? Could a single Jupiter by itself lift an Altair and enough fuel for TLI, assuming the Altair performs the LOI burn?
Dual launch might seem wasteful for cargo-only missions. If dual launch is required, would it be a Jupiter-1xx and a J-2xx, or would to J-2xx be required? Two J-2xx would definitely leave DIRECT in line for criticisms of operational cost and higher LOM, even if the savings in development $$ greatly outweighs ops $$.
We are recommending Dual-Launch for all Phase 2 missions, although we only require a Jupiter-130 to loft the cargo-only LSAM to 130x130nmi, not the full Jupiter-246.
Then, as soon as practicable, we intend to 'upgrade' to 1-Launch as soon as the Phase 3 Depot can be implemented.
The Dual-launch Lunar architectures are intended to be used only for a while -- Phase 2 is not the "ultimate goal" for DIRECT.
Ross.
Damn good question Mark!
The Jupiter-130 has sufficient performance to launch that, yes, but not quite enough to launch that *and* then carry the hardware and fuel necessary to also de-orbit the core from circular orbit afterward? You're talking about 2-3mT of additional mass, and that pushes us over the performance limits of the current Jupiter-130.
So the question then becomes, are you willing to make the LSAM perform a circularization burn on its own and thus allow the Jupiter to inject into a sub-orbital orbit like 30x130nmi?
I personally think the answer should be 'yes'. Others might disagree.
Ross.
"American Buran" implies flying it on top of the launch vehicle. The wings put massive extra sideways stresses on the whole launch vehicle core, and the core loses the ability to cope with those as part of the transition to become the core.
But if Jupiter could launch a "Buran" Shuttle, so could Ares V.
I don't see any problems at all with the LSAM doing its own circ burn.
Danny Deger
And what's with Hanley's "Accidents will almost never happen with Ares so it's all good!" routine...?
Best part is, depending on what I had heard back on launching an empty shuttle, I was tempted by your idea by using an upper stage fuel tank to help boost the main stage. (To put the shuttle into orbit in the first place...) My initial looking around at stats seemed to shoot my idea down, throwing yours in helped keep it alive. I was even prepared to quote you on it (page 18 of this thread).
Edit: Throw on top of that, previous comments regarding using 3/4 SSME's with them not being centered. If without extra help those can overcome the off-center thrust, then throw in the SRB's ability to do thrust vectoring. I'm sure between all those vectoring motors, they could launch with a Shuttle strapped to the side.
And what's with Hanley's "Accidents will almost never happen with Ares so it's all good!" routine...?
Well, optimism isn't illegal, I suppose. :(
The big selling point of Ares-I has always supposed to be that it is so simple, it is near foolproof. Of course the whole flight dynamics (TO) issue has changed that viewpoint somewhat, at least from the point of view of the actual teams in the trenches. However, it seems that Mr. Hanley's position is still that the basic Ares-I design is so reliable that there is no significant likelihood of a LOV in any real life scenario. That is a dangerous delusion. Crews get killed that way.
I am beginning to see the Challenger being torn apart by that ET explosion again. Then I see the remains of the Columbia burning up in the middle atmosphere... All the time, there are siren voices shouting: "Nothing can go wrong with the shuttle! Nothing can go wrong with the shuttle!"
Sometimes, I am afraid that NASA senior management has learnt nothing and, in its collective arrogance, still remains contemptuously dismissive of safety issues.
......
Do you guys call that sustainable ?
Yes, we do call it sustainable. Costs aren't calculated based upon the number of engines or components in an architecture, it is the integration of those components that is where the real impact of the costs lie.
Exactly. For a lunar cargo mission you have to integrate two (2) super-heavy launch stacks from all the components. You have to perform a low energy earth orbit rendezvous and docking (more like berthing IMO but that's beside the point).
For a lunar cargo mission you have double avionics and more than double flight software, and no crew to assist in LEO. Compared to a single Ares V cargo flight - that's not sustainable, in my humble opinion. I have beaten this dead horse to shreds for more than a year now. The dead horse is composed of the following components : NASA should focus on building that lunar outpost, pronto, and then go to significant lunar ISRU under the supervision of resident crews. That's an exploration worth of extra budgets. And that, sir, requires frequent cargo flights to the moon. Which in turn requires as a minimum the Ares V. Propellant depots are great except you have to build them before you do the outpost, and you have to design the whole hoopla around them.QuoteObama wants to keep NASA's budget flat at best, and info on L2 suggests that NASA is in for a serious budget deficit after 2010.If this lunar "adventure" of ESAS and Griffin and VSE is already dead, what makes you believe "Direct" makes any sense at all ? I don't trust the numbers floated here for how much is "Direct" going to cost, those are just projections. Plus or minus 1 or 2 billions is not going to make or break a lunar outpost.
It would be only one launcher, a SSME Ares V with upperstage and an Ares V with only 3 engines and no upperstage. Granted it would cost more to develop than Direct 3.0 having 5-seg SRB, five engines and a stretched core, but you get a HLV that could deliver more meaningful cargo payloads with just one launch. You also get a CLV that could do the job of lifting the CEV/LSAM with margin and without a LOM increasing upperstage. It's a better long-term fit for both human/cargo missions IMO.
I don't know much about fuel depots, but couldn't you attach it to the ISS and use it as a manned gas station in space; or are there size constraints? Is the ISS in a good orbit for a depot? I'm sure the large solar arrays would help some way in holding on to propellant.There's a whole thread to this topic.
M99, Yeah, I stepped over your message. Thank you.I think you turned my question about the Ares V programme vs Jupiter into a response about Jupiter.By comparison would Jupiter be the result if the same team were asked "what's the cheapest that we can lift each kilogram with Shuttle-type hardware"?numbers.
The fundamental difference between Ares V & Jupiter is the payload-to-LEO requirement.
The Jupiter core stage, like the shuttle external tank it is derived from, is covered with insulating foam.
The foam is required by the liquid hydrogen fuel.
The foam will "popcorn" with extended exposure to vacuum, and thus will form an expanding debris cloud that will kill the next spacecraft that runs into any part of it.
So far no suggested method of foam control has even approximated the cost of just sending up a custom built version of whatever you wanted to make out of the ET/core in the first place.
Because that would be a pretty sizable "depot" right there.
There was a hypothetical modified Jupiter with the Upper Stage consisting of additional fuel piped down across the Core to a fourth SSME that's not connected to the Core's tanks at all mentioned a couple pages back.
If the upper & main tanks were instead cross-plumbed, would that have the potential of getting the entire main tank (& upper tank) to a stable orbit?
"American Buran" implies flying it on top of the launch vehicle. The wings put massive extra sideways stresses on the whole launch vehicle core, and the core loses the ability to cope with those as part of the transition to become the core.
But if Jupiter could launch a "Buran" Shuttle, so could Ares V.
Umm... Funny thing is, I'm the common non-educated guy here. The Russians didn't launch the Buran at the top of a rocket stack, they launched it on the side just like we have launched our shuttle.
Best part is, depending on what I had heard back on launching an empty shuttle, I was tempted by your idea by using an upper stage fuel tank to help boost the main stage. (To put the shuttle into orbit in the first place...) My initial looking around at stats seemed to shoot my idea down, throwing yours in helped keep it alive. I was even prepared to quote you on it (page 18 of this thread).
A Jupiter core stage masses about 65 tons empty and can hold 700+ tons of propellant. Coincidentally a J-130 can lift 70 tons to orbit, so a J-130 could lift a propellant depot the same size as a core stage. A capacity of 700 tons is enough for a handful of lunar missions and is probably sufficient. So if my calculations are correct launching a propellant depot would be cheap, just one J-130 needed. There's very little to gain from reusing a core stage as a propellant depot and a lot to lose in terms of making development harder and more expensive.
That said, here's a crazy idea: how about removing the insulating foam from the core stage at liftoff? Would enough ice build up in the 2 minutes Jupiter spends in the atmosphere be a problem? The lack of insulation would speed up boiling, but during ascent you want boiling to keep the tank pressurized so that wouldn't be a problem, right?
Insulation removed at launch would not only allow the core stage to be usable in orbit but would also save mass in all missions (replace foam mass with payload mass).
While it might be possible to launch an empty, modified ET as a payload (sans engines and unnecessary plumbing and modified with the addition of solar panels or whatever) to use as prop. dep. simply removing the insulation from an ET thats used for launch would be unwise. The ET used at launch is usually prefilled with the LOX and LH2 quite a while before launch and that would cause substantial ice buildup and temp/pressure variations inside. LH2 has a rather large coefficient of thermal expansion = not much fun ;)
Your right- in the 2mins of launch it might not be too much of a problem, but remember that there is a great deal of pre-launch processing that takes place before T=0. Even then, during launch the ET tends to get 'cooked' during ascent due to friction witht he air.
Why would the ET being cooked during launch be a problem?
Why would the ET being cooked during launch be a problem?
Because it might melt. It is just aluminum.
Danny Deger
Why would the ET being cooked during launch be a problem?
snip...
13) Utilize NASA as the vehicle which blazes the new trails in space and which creates a new infrastructure beyond Earth. That infrastructure should consist of stations, bases, depots and resources -- all of which can then become destinations, foundations and highways for commercial operators to exploit in NASA's wake -- And once each step is achieved, NASA should move on to the next most logical one and leave commercial operations to utilize the systems, capabilities and destinations which NASA sets up. IMHO, that is how to go about creating a much, much larger space industry -- and a much larger space industry would be an extremely good thing for our economic future.
Just my thoughts for why we should be doing all of this.
Ross.
Damn good question Mark!
The Jupiter-130 has sufficient performance to launch that, yes, but not quite enough to launch that *and* then carry the hardware and fuel necessary to also de-orbit the core from circular orbit afterward? You're talking about 2-3mT of additional mass, and that pushes us over the performance limits of the current Jupiter-130.
So the question then becomes, are you willing to make the LSAM perform a circularization burn on its own and thus allow the Jupiter to inject into a sub-orbital orbit like 30x130nmi?
I personally think the answer should be 'yes'. Others might disagree.
Ross.
Does Pushing SSMEs up from 104.5% to 109% buy you enough to get there?
For purposes of getting out of LEO, it would be better to have the depots at lower orbit inclinations than the ISS -- not to mention avoiding any rendezvous mishaps with the station.
Depots can have their own solar arrays to power active cooling equipment to minimize boil off.
I don't know much about fuel depots, but couldn't you attach it to the ISS and use it as a manned gas station in space; or are there size constraints? Is the ISS in a good orbit for a depot?
There's an awful lot of danger to ISS crew if you want to park an 800 ton fuel tank on the side, not to mention added danger if you have a high rate of deliveries attempting to dock every few days to keep it filled for a very robust exploration program.
(snip)
I don't know much about fuel depots, but couldn't you attach it to the ISS and use it as a manned gas station in space; or are there size constraints? Is the ISS in a good orbit for a depot?
There's an awful lot of danger to ISS crew if you want to park an 800 ton fuel tank on the side, not to mention added danger if you have a high rate of deliveries attempting to dock every few days to keep it filled for a very robust exploration program.
You would be far safer to locate the Depot away from the ISS. You can still place it into the same orbit as ISS, but just situate it at least 100 miles up- or down-range. That way, ISS crews could still take a "day trip" out to the Depot if/when it ever needed servicing, but the station itself would never be exposed to any additional dangers.
Also there are issues with some of the more delicate science experiments on the station not being compatible with a station coupled to tanks filled with hundreds of tons of sloshing propellant and continually being knocked about by regular dockings. Some experiments need the delicate micro-gravity environment not to be disturbed much. If you integrated the Depot, those experiments essentially become impossible ever afterward.
Ross.
More naming stuff, I'm afraid.
Ares III / Ares IV is confusing (seems to imply two different vehicles).
However, how about introducing the J-2xx concept as "Ares IV", and J-1xx as "Ares IV lite".
After that, revert back to standard Jupiter naming for the rest of the presentation.
cheers, Martin
It would be only one launcher, a SSME Ares V with upperstage and an Ares V with only 3 engines and no upperstage. Granted it would cost more to develop than Direct 3.0 having 5-seg SRB, five engines and a stretched core, but you get a HLV that could deliver more meaningful cargo payloads with just one launch. You also get a CLV that could do the job of lifting the CEV/LSAM with margin and without a LOM increasing upperstage. It's a better long-term fit for both human/cargo missions IMO.
A rose by any other name is still a rose ;)
It all depends on whether you want to include International Partnerships lifting the propellant. If you do, then you do need to locate the Depot at a higher inclination than 29deg. 51.6deg would allow Russia get involved and the performance penalty for doing so is only around 6-7% out of KSC.
Ross.
I'm trying very hard to avoid being antagonistic with this posting, but the name Ares has been earning itself a reputation for delays, technical problems and cost overruns with both the public and also people in the corridors of power in D.C.
I'm not convinced that a close association to that name is desirable.
Ross.
It all depends on whether you want to include International Partnerships lifting the propellant. If you do, then you do need to locate the Depot at a higher inclination than 29deg. 51.6deg would allow Russia get involved and the performance penalty for doing so is only around 6-7% out of KSC.
Ross.
Not necessarily. Russia is getting ready to start launching Soyuz launch vehicles out of Guiana Space Centre, less than 10 miles up the road from the Ariane 5 launch facility. Russia and the EU are just about the only space-faring nations without suitable low-inclination launch sites on their homelands. If they can launch from Guiana, then everybody has a reasonable launch site from which to reach a low-inclination propellant depot or perhaps even a near-equatorial depot.
Russia wants to reduce its dependency on Baikonur Cosmodrome because Kazakhstan is trying to squeeze them for rent and generally making them nervous about security. A market for supplying a low-inclination propellant depot would help Russia with the funding and rationale for building up their launch site at Guiana.
Besides, it would be nice to launch more stuff from Guiana or Alcantara and develop one of them into a major international space center, because any space enthusiast who's looked at a map knows that this stretch of South America's Eastern seaboard is a very special location for space launches.
My own suggestion is close to Gregori's (and I thank him for the inspiration):
J-130 becomes just the "Jupiter Launch Vehicle"
J-130H (with 5-seg RSRM) becomes the "Super Jupiter Launch Vehicle"
J-246 becomes the "Jupiter-Plus Launch Vehicle"
J-246H becomes the "Super Jupiter-Plus Launch Vehicle"
snip...
13) Utilize NASA as the vehicle which blazes the new trails in space and which creates a new infrastructure beyond Earth. That infrastructure should consist of stations, bases, depots and resources -- all of which can then become destinations, foundations and highways for commercial operators to exploit in NASA's wake -- And once each step is achieved, NASA should move on to the next most logical one and leave commercial operations to utilize the systems, capabilities and destinations which NASA sets up. IMHO, that is how to go about creating a much, much larger space industry -- and a much larger space industry would be an extremely good thing for our economic future.
Just my thoughts for why we should be doing all of this.
Ross.
This last bit sounds right to me, it describes how NASA has the oppurtunity to trail blaze and inspire while at the same time being the catalyst for newSpace exploration and developement, which imho isn't ready and/or is not politically acceptable to the people signing the checks and calling the shots. Direct is New Spaces best chance.
Now if NASA takes up DIRECT, but doesnt pursue phase 3. We can all have something to complain about together. But it should become, as already stated, obvious for its potential cost savings all of the added capability that comes from the investment of laying down PDs and other infrastructure once lunar missions are underway. The case for phase 3 should be fairly easy to lay down to anybody in the beltway at that point. Especially if the billions saved by switching to DIRECT in the first place was appealing to them.
Wow this is going to be an interesting year for space. SpaceX launching thier first F9, STS retirement around the corner(hopefully extended ;D) and the Augustine Review. I hope we can look back and call it a good year.
I got a little more info on this. The concern is primarily based around the potential of a large SRB exploding. It's a small risk, but still exists.
I understand that one of the more likely failure modes in this class of "exploding SRB's" would be if a fairly large chunk of propellant ever came away inside the booster during flight and blocked the nozzle exit -- the resulting overpressure inside the booster would make for a very spectacular explosion with lots of heavy steel case fragments flying in every direction -- potentially some towards the Orion.
There are a variety of other failure modes which would cause similar results too, some of which have been seen in other situations such as Titan 34D-9 in 1986, Titan-IVB 403A-K11 in 1993 and the Delta-II D241 in 1997 -- all of which were pretty spectacular failures due to the SRB.
In the case of an exploding SRB, the resulting shrapnel would be high mass and high velocity -- which is a potentially very bad situation for any spacecraft/crew still in the near proximity.
Worse than that though, is the fact that with a solid there is essentially no reliable way to detect these problems and activate the escape system before the booster explodes. Thus in some of those scenario's, the LAS would only be activated only after the explosion has already occurred.
When liquid engines 'let go', they almost always tends to do so in a much more progressive manner -- with vibrations and over-pressurization detectable throughout the structure ahead of the 'big show'. Those early signs of problems allow for activation of the escape system precious tenths of seconds, or even whole seconds early -- which means the crew are already moving rapidly away from the vehicle before it explodes.
USAF are expressing valid concerns, but there isn't much anyone can do about it without placing a physical protective barrier between the launcher and the crew spacecraft. Ares-I has not got any spare performance to allow such equipment to be carried though.
What's the inclination from Japan's launch site.. If you want to keep them in the Depot game?
While I agree both with Ross's original posting and this one, I get this uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach that Werner Von Braun was thinking the same thought when he endorsed LOR instead of EOR/Tankage.
Ross,
From the MLAS Thread about the problems with the current Ares I LAS:QuoteI got a little more info on this. The concern is primarily based around the potential of a large SRB exploding. It's a small risk, but still exists.
I understand that one of the more likely failure modes in this class of "exploding SRB's" would be if a fairly large chunk of propellant ever came away inside the booster during flight and blocked the nozzle exit -- the resulting overpressure inside the booster would make for a very spectacular explosion with lots of heavy steel case fragments flying in every direction -- potentially some towards the Orion.
There are a variety of other failure modes which would cause similar results too, some of which have been seen in other situations such as Titan 34D-9 in 1986, Titan-IVB 403A-K11 in 1993 and the Delta-II D241 in 1997 -- all of which were pretty spectacular failures due to the SRB.
In the case of an exploding SRB, the resulting shrapnel would be high mass and high velocity -- which is a potentially very bad situation for any spacecraft/crew still in the near proximity.
Worse than that though, is the fact that with a solid there is essentially no reliable way to detect these problems and activate the escape system before the booster explodes. Thus in some of those scenario's, the LAS would only be activated only after the explosion has already occurred.
When liquid engines 'let go', they almost always tends to do so in a much more progressive manner -- with vibrations and over-pressurization detectable throughout the structure ahead of the 'big show'. Those early signs of problems allow for activation of the escape system precious tenths of seconds, or even whole seconds early -- which means the crew are already moving rapidly away from the vehicle before it explodes.
USAF are expressing valid concerns, but there isn't much anyone can do about it without placing a physical protective barrier between the launcher and the crew spacecraft. Ares-I has not got any spare performance to allow such equipment to be carried though.
It sounds like this is an issue inherent to all vehicles using SRBs, not just Ares I. Does Jupiter protect against these failure modes? As was hinted at the end, with the extra performance Jupiter allows, I assume it would be possible to beef-up the boost protection cover that protects the vehicle during launch.
It all depends on whether you want to include International Partnerships lifting the propellant. If you do, then you do need to locate the Depot at a higher inclination than 29deg. 51.6deg would allow Russia get involved and the performance penalty for doing so is only around 6-7% out of KSC. It can be completely compensated for, by simply lofting 6-7% more propellant through the partnerships -- and that's a workable arrangement.
Correct. In fact some of the best designs for Depots have a large sunshield deployed all around them thus:
Such a sunshield could be made from material covered in solar arrays, thus it would have dual-functionality. Of course, reflectivity is the key for the shield, so maybe not :)
While I agree both with Ross's original posting and this one, I get this uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach that Werner Von Braun was thinking the same thought when he endorsed LOR instead of EOR/Tankage.
I'm sure that was the case.
Depot technology simply couldn't be deployed by the end of the decade in order to meet President Kennedy's vision, so he had no choice but to take a short cut.
I have seen documentation which indicates that Apollo 26 was provisionally being planned as the first 2-launch architecture utilizing a Depot and deploying a much larger Lunar Lander.
Von Braun knew Depot technology was the way to open up exploration of the whole solar system. He just never got the opportunity to implement it.
Ross.
I'm trying very hard to avoid being antagonistic with this posting, but the name Ares has been earning itself a reputation for delays, technical problems and cost overruns with both the public and also people in the corridors of power in D.C.
I'm not convinced that a close association to that name is desirable.
Ross.
You may be right. The idea of naming it Ares is to avoid conflict with Ares supporters who might perceive themselves as "losers." I honestly don't think the "public" has noticed or cares at this point, one way or another. Most public reaction is after the fact, in any case. As for the "halls of power," I just don't know. From the outside looking in, most (or at least, the ones who count, such as Nelson, etc.) seem to be Ares supporters.
Ross,
From the MLAS Thread about the problems with the current Ares I LAS:
[SNIP]
It sounds like this is an issue inherent to all vehicles using SRBs, not just Ares I. Does Jupiter protect against these failure modes? As was hinted at the end, with the extra performance Jupiter allows, I assume it would be possible to beef-up the boost protection cover that protects the vehicle during launch.
I'd like to see something more about Apollo 26. Googling "Apollo 26" gets you luggage, mountain bikes, and a male escort in Kansas City! Adding "spacecraft" gets you the history of Goldstone...
Ross,
From the MLAS Thread about the problems with the current Ares I LAS:
[SNIP]
It sounds like this is an issue inherent to all vehicles using SRBs, not just Ares I. Does Jupiter protect against these failure modes? As was hinted at the end, with the extra performance Jupiter allows, I assume it would be possible to beef-up the boost protection cover that protects the vehicle during launch.
Yes, it is a concern. Any time you have the possibility of your vehicle blowing up under you, you really want to implement safety systems to protect you from a 'bad day'.
A long while back on these threads we talked about the possibility of integrating some ballistic shields into the vehicle's design. I'm still of the opinion that there are two which could make a significant difference for these systems...
Firstly, an 8.4m or 10m diameter ballistic shield integrated into the PLF below the Orion would help to greatly protect the entire crew vehicle in such cases.
Secondly, a smaller 5.0m diameter shield should be integrated immediately between the CM's heatshield and the top of the SM, to help protect the heatshield from anything which might damage it, such as micro-meteoroids coming through the SM or even from damage caused by the SM itself (Apollo 13 explosion).
Specific materials are still open to debate for such a shield, but a composite of Kevlar and Boron Carbide seems fairly light-weight and tough enough for the job. We could certainly still perform the baseline mission if the weight for both shields were integrated.
We still need an analysis for how effective the shield actually is though... Which is a pretty important factor! :)
Ross.
Hip,
That was true to a point. But we are now past that point.
The simple fact is that NASA can not take on the proposal from a group perceived as the 'enemy'.
It is up to us to show that we are not an enemy, that we are actually really all part of the same family and that blood is thicker than water. We need to set aside our differences because in the end, we all have the same objective -- to make the US Space Program the very best it possibly can be.
We can still disagree with CxP's management -- and we do -- but we don't have to turn it into a war of attrition. There are more professional, less destructive, ways to do this. As part of a greater family, we're adjusting our position to one of more "tough love" than of "outright hostility".
Ross.
Given the small risk( how small?), is the increase in safety really worth the increase in weight?
Given the small risk( how small?), is the increase in safety really worth the increase in weight?
Exactly -- How small is the risk?
We haven't had an SRB explode on Shuttle in 250 uses. But who's to say that the first incident of it won't be on the 251st use, or the 301st use ?
Whichever crew is flying on that SRB is going to wish they had a ballistic shield.
Ross.
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"No no no...but close. It is wanton of something more at the end.
(not to go back to the name debate, but heck, you 'invited it') ;)
How about:
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to a Flexible and Sustainable Architecture"
EDIT: or better yet:
"Direct -- One Rocket, One Vision"
Given the small risk( how small?), is the increase in safety really worth the increase in weight?
Stan
Not necessarily. Russia is getting ready to start launching Soyuz launch vehicles out of Guiana Space Centre, less than 10 miles up the road from the Ariane 5 launch facility.
Given the small risk( how small?), is the increase in safety really worth the increase in weight?
Exactly -- How small is the risk?
We haven't had an SRB explode on Shuttle in 250 uses. But who's to say that the first incident of it won't be on the 251st use, or the 301st use ?
Whichever crew is flying on that SRB is going to wish they had a ballistic shield.
Jupiter has sufficient performance to implement a protective shield. A Boron-Carbide/Kevlar sandwich panel isn't all that difficult or costly to manufacture.
It would seem to me to be a real shame to lose a crew when you had the option to include a low-cost protection measure and just chose not to implement it.
Ross.
The best naming convention I have seen so far is Jupiter and Jupiter/Ganymede (for the Upper Stage).
"Then there was Ganymede, the handsome son of King Tros, whom Jupiter, having taken the form of an eagle, transported to heaven on his back, as poets fabulously tell"
-- Simon Marius, 1614
Seems fairly appropriate to me.
Ross.
The best naming convention I have seen so far is Jupiter and Jupiter/Ganymede (for the Upper Stage).
"Then there was Ganymede, the handsome son of King Tros, whom Jupiter, having taken the form of an eagle, transported to heaven on his back, as poets fabulously tell"
-- Simon Marius, 1614
Seems fairly appropriate to me.
Ross.
Somebody educated in the classics, I am truly impressed! I vote for the name.
Stan
So when is 3.0 going to the website? With the panel hearing not far away, it would be great to have a reference out there.
I think changing the naming convention now would not be a good idea. While the Jupiter/Ganymede idea is cool, it is not the time to start changing things.
After you sit down and read what each number stands for in the Jupiter naming convention, it all makes sense. Just like Atlas V....at first I had no idea what the numbers meant. But once I "RTFM" I understood perfectly.
However, it would be cool to call the upperstage a Ganymede upperstage. I mean, it does need a name. "Jupiter-Upper Stage" doesn't sound too cool.
I think the number of engines on the upperstage could correspond to the name...If you have 6 engines, it is a Ganymede 6 upperstage. If you have 2 engines it is a Ganymede 2 upperstage.
So my vote goes to, stick with the current naming system, but call the upperstage a Ganymede upperstage.
"Then there was Ganymede, the handsome son of King Tros, whom Jupiter, having taken the form of an eagle, transported to heaven on his back, as poets fabulously tell"
-- Simon Marius, 1614
Quote"Then there was Ganymede, the handsome son of King Tros, whom Jupiter, having taken the form of an eagle, transported to heaven on his back, as poets fabulously tell"
-- Simon Marius, 1614
...you guys remember what he wanted him for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catamite), right?
Just sayin'...
The best naming convention I have seen so far is Jupiter and Jupiter/Ganymede (for the Upper Stage).
"Then there was Ganymede, the handsome son of King Tros, whom Jupiter, having taken the form of an eagle, transported to heaven on his back, as poets fabulously tell"
-- Simon Marius, 1614
Seems fairly appropriate to me.
Ross.
Somebody educated in the classics, I am truly impressed! I vote for the name.
Stan
Too many sylables.
Total of 5 max; 3 for the core and 2 for the US.
That will flow off the tongue like gilted honey. It needs to be easy to say, it needs to "flow".
Even though I know we cant use it, the name "Jupiter/Centaur" fits that requirement.
Quote"Then there was Ganymede, the handsome son of King Tros, whom Jupiter, having taken the form of an eagle, transported to heaven on his back, as poets fabulously tell"
-- Simon Marius, 1614
...you guys remember what he wanted him for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catamite), right?
Just sayin'...
Jupiter wanted everyone, male or female. So lets just move on.
Stan
So when is 3.0 going to the website? With the panel hearing not far away, it would be great to have a reference out there.
I'm with OV-106.. This needed to happen LAST week!
While we love having Chuck and Ross on the board.. I'd be happy to have them dissapear if it would speed up website update!
One potential criticism of the emergency blast shield concept is that a bunch of things still have to go correctly after the blast in order to recover the crew. A blast big enough to require such a shield may pose other problems for the abort system, increasing the probability that the crew survives the blast but dies on impact with the ocean (like Challenger).
For example, can the abort system succeed if a blast knocks the vehicle off its nominal attitude either before the abort motors fire or shortly thereafter? If the service module is badly damaged in the explosion, will it still be able to separate from the command module before chutes open?
I'm skeptical that launch abort system can work after liftoff, particularly when solid rocket boosters are involved. I can see it working for a pad abort, and if it's there at liftoff, then it's probably safest not to jettison until outside the atmosphere. So I'm fine with the idea of a launch abort system that's designed for a transonic engine-out or similarly benign ascent failure. But it doesn't make sense to design for a more spectacular failure, because chances are, it's not going to be enough if/when that day comes.
I know that the 4-segment SRBs have a remarkable success rate (some might say ominously so) since Challenger. But I don't think there's a practical abort system that has an excellent chance of saving a crew from an SRB failure (of which Challenger's might be considered relatively mild). For my money, I'd rather invest in kerolox boosters.
Ford never used Edsel or Pinto model names strictly because of negative associations with the names.
May I suggest the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage.
IMHO
Stan
Jupiter LEO
Jupiter Lunar
Jupiter Mars
Jupiter <insert NEO name here>
etc etc
A quick question:
Roughly how many EELV's flights would be required to top up the Depot with enough propellant for a solo J246 Lunar Mission?
(lets say our EELV is a Delta IV Heavy)
Useable Post-Ascent propellant for J-246 is 99,896 kg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/BaseballCards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090521.pdf). LEO Payload for D-IVH is 22,560 kg (http://ulalaunch.com/docs/product_sheet/DeltaIVProductCardFinal.pdf). I'd say about 4 or 5. Numbers listed are for 130nmi, 29 deg and 220nmi, 28.7 deg circular orbits for the Jupiter and Delta respectively, so take that into account.
May I suggest the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage.
IMHO
Stan
Not enough thrust (assuming two boosters). Each SRB has about three times the thrust of a Falcon 9 first stage (or an Atlas V first stage). The closest fit would be the Zenit first stage (RD-171), but that's still significantly short on thrust, and then there's that "commie engine" issue that never fails to make me proud to be an American...
A quick question:
Roughly how many EELV's flights would be required to top up the Depot with enough propellant for a solo J246 Lunar Mission?
(lets say our EELV is a Delta IV Heavy)
Useable Post-Ascent propellant for J-246 is 99,896 kg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/BaseballCards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090521.pdf). LEO Payload for D-IVH is 22,560 kg (http://ulalaunch.com/docs/product_sheet/DeltaIVProductCardFinal.pdf). I'd say about 4 or 5. Numbers listed are for 130nmi, 29 deg and 220nmi, 28.7 deg circular orbits for the Jupiter and Delta respectively, so take that into account.
Wow, that many?
How do 4-5 D4H flights stack up against a single J130 (assuming a J130 could get into a circularized LEo orbit for dockign with teh depot) cost wise?
Seems like it still might be cheaper To just use a 2nd Jupiter.
Wow, that many?
How do 4-5 D4H flights stack up against a single J130 (assuming a J130 could get into a circularized LEo orbit for dockign with teh depot) cost wise?
Seems like it still might be cheaper To just use a 2nd Jupiter.
A quick question:
Roughly how many EELV's flights would be required to top up the Depot with enough propellant for a solo J246 Lunar Mission?
(lets say our EELV is a Delta IV Heavy)
Useable Post-Ascent propellant for J-246 is 99,896 kg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/BaseballCards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090521.pdf). LEO Payload for D-IVH is 22,560 kg (http://ulalaunch.com/docs/product_sheet/DeltaIVProductCardFinal.pdf). I'd say about 4 or 5. Numbers listed are for 130nmi, 29 deg and 220nmi, 28.7 deg circular orbits for the Jupiter and Delta respectively, so take that into account.
Let’s say that it costs NASA $3 billion dollars to build and launch an empty Jupiter.
Jupiter #1 launches with a $3 billion dollar spacecraft and Jupiter #2 launches with an EDS carrying Propellant valued at $3 million dollars.
Total cost for the 2-launch mission: $9.3 billion dollars.
May I suggest the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage.
IMHO
Stan
Not enough thrust (assuming two boosters). Each SRB has about three times the thrust of a Falcon 9 first stage (or an Atlas V first stage). The closest fit would be the Zenit first stage (RD-171), but that's still significantly short on thrust, and then there's that "commie engine" issue that never fails to make me proud to be an American...
Let’s say that it costs NASA $3 billion dollars to build and launch an empty Jupiter.
Jupiter #1 launches with a $3 billion dollar spacecraft and Jupiter #2 launches with an EDS carrying Propellant valued at $3 million dollars.
Total cost for the 2-launch mission: $9.3 billion dollars.
Just to jump in here... I understand the comparison you are trying for..but for the life of me I don't understand your math in this opening paragraph??
3 billion plus 3 million = 9.3 Billion ???
May I suggest the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage.
IMHO
Stan
Not enough thrust (assuming two boosters). Each SRB has about three times the thrust of a Falcon 9 first stage (or an Atlas V first stage). The closest fit would be the Zenit first stage (RD-171), but that's still significantly short on thrust, and then there's that "commie engine" issue that never fails to make me proud to be an American...
Just to keep things straight there's more to it than thrust. The SRB produces 3,100,000 lbs of thrust but it weighs 1,300,000 lbs. That's a T/W ratio of 2.38. The F9 1st stage produces 918,000 lbs of thrust and weighs 716,000 lbs. That's a T/W ratio of 1.28.
So it's correct that it's not enough enough, but there's more to it than simple thrust.
1. As you said assuming two, you could easily fit 6 around the core stage. allowing a 4 booster and a 6 booster depending on payload desired.
2. And remember Falcon 9 is designed to be fully reusable and is CHEAP.
Let’s say that it costs NASA $3 billion dollars to build and launch an empty Jupiter.
Jupiter #1 launches with a $3 billion dollar spacecraft and Jupiter #2 launches with an EDS carrying Propellant valued at $3 million dollars.
Total cost for the 2-launch mission: $9.3 billion dollars.
Just to jump in here... I understand the comparison you are trying for..but for the life of me I don't understand your math in this opening paragraph??
3 billion plus 3 million = 9.3 Billion ???
3 billion + 3 billion + 3 billion + 3 million = 9.3 billion
3 billion + 3 billion + 3 billion + 3 million = 9.3 billion
9.003 billion, Chuck.
Let’s say that it costs NASA $3 billion dollars to build and launch an empty Jupiter.
Jupiter #1 launches with a $3 billion dollar spacecraft and Jupiter #2 launches with an EDS carrying Propellant valued at $3 million dollars.
Total cost for the 2-launch mission: $9.3 billion dollars.
Just to jump in here... I understand the comparison you are trying for..but for the life of me I don't understand your math in this opening paragraph??
3 billion plus 3 million = 9.3 Billion ???
It should actually be $9.003 billion, as follows:
$3 billion for Jupiter #1
$3 billion for its payload
$3 billion for Jupiter #2
$3 million (i.e., $0.003 billion) for its payload
(decimal points are pesky little things, aren't they? ;) )
no no no! jupiter and jupiter light. the 130 is the special case.
but I think ross is right. for this panel, technical naming convention is not a problem
1. As you said assuming two, you could easily fit 6 around the core stage. allowing a 4 booster and a 6 booster depending on payload desired.
2. And remember Falcon 9 is designed to be fully reusable and is CHEAP.
1. Too many mods required to existing hardware and facilities
2. Neither are proven.
Why not Atlas V or Delta IV? Why Falcon 9?
3 billion + 3 billion + 3 billion + 3 million = 9.3 billion
9.003 billion, Chuck.
Told you it was "notational" (grin)
But you get the point.
no no no! jupiter and jupiter light. the 130 is the special case.
but I think ross is right. for this panel, technical naming convention is not a problem
I stand corrected. makes perfect sense in a foward looking architecture, theJL is doneJupiter is flown without its upper stage to provide a bridge until COTSD and manrated EELVs can service most LEO demands.JproperJupiter is to facilitate the lunar component of the VSE.
And later maybe a Jupiter Heavy can be whipped up from the ideas that went into Ares V, VII or X or whatever its upto now (:
3 billion + 3 billion + 3 billion + 3 million = 9.3 billion
9.003 billion, Chuck.
Told you it was "notational" (grin)
But you get the point.
Actually, I don't. Are you actually claiming an empty Jupiter costs $3B to fabricate? Isn't that about 10 times what you've been claiming all along?
May I suggest the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage.
IMHO
Stan
Not enough thrust (assuming two boosters). Each SRB has about three times the thrust of a Falcon 9 first stage (or an Atlas V first stage). The closest fit would be the Zenit first stage (RD-171), but that's still significantly short on thrust, and then there's that "commie engine" issue that never fails to make me proud to be an American...
Just to keep things straight there's more to it than thrust. The SRB produces 3,100,000 lbs of thrust but it weighs 1,300,000 lbs. That's a T/W ratio of 2.38. The F9 1st stage produces 918,000 lbs of thrust and weighs 716,000 lbs. That's a T/W ratio of 1.28.
So it's correct that it's not enough enough, but there's more to it than simple thrust.
3 billion + 3 billion + 3 billion + 3 million = 9.3 billion
9.003 billion, Chuck.
Told you it was "notational" (grin)
But you get the point.
Actually, I don't. Are you actually claiming an empty Jupiter costs $3B to fabricate? Isn't that about 10 times what you've been claiming all along?
I clearly said the numbers were notational - fictional - to make a point.
So when is 3.0 going to the website? With the panel hearing not far away, it would be great to have a reference out there.
Ford never used Edsel or Pinto model names strictly because of negative associations with the names.
Ford also expected that the Edsel and the Pinto were going to be the best thing on wheels since the invention of the wheel. And they weren't right either.
I'm thinking about this great quote:
"Why is there not more thinking in the direction of developing the simplest scheme possible?" -- John C. Houbolt, 1961
1. reply to 1: Maybe
2. reply to 2: Correct that is why this is a phase 4 item that NASA does not have to pay for until proven by events.
3. Why Falcon 9 first stage? It is already planned to be a booster to Falcon 9 heavy in an arrangement similar to the Jupiter Core.
4 or 5 assumes 100% of the EELV's payload would be usable prop delivered to the depot. This is, of course, not even close to the case. You still need a spacecraft, it needs its own propellant and you still need the tank and the means of transfer. I think you'd be lucky if 2/3 of the LEO payload ended up being prop transferred to the depot. So count more like 6 or 8. I can't see how in the world that could be cheaper than one Jupiter.
This is why the depot-filled-by-smaller-vehicles thing still doesn't make any sense to me.
Given the small risk( how small?), is the increase in safety really worth the increase in weight?
Exactly -- How small is the risk?
We haven't had an SRB explode on Shuttle in 250 uses. But who's to say that the first incident of it won't be on the 251st use, or the 301st use ?
Whichever crew is flying on that SRB is going to wish they had a ballistic shield.
Jupiter has sufficient performance to implement a protective shield. A Boron-Carbide/Kevlar sandwich panel isn't all that difficult or costly to manufacture.
It would seem to me to be a real shame to lose a crew when you had the option to include a low-cost protection measure and just chose not to implement it.
Ross.
I agree. What if there is a "bug" within the SRB that just hasn't shown itself yet. A couple years ago, falling foam wasn't regarded as a big deal.
I think if you have the opportunity to increase safety, then you take it. It is the old boy scout saying of "Be Prepared!".
With the 4 seg SRB, while highly highly recommended, I would say protection is not a 100% must.
But I don't think we risk putting a crew on a new 5 seg booster without some form of protection between them and an exploding SRB.
So when is 3.0 going to the website? With the panel hearing not far away, it would be great to have a reference out there.
This probably got lost in the thread so I'll ask it again......
I will be very specific.
With the schedule they are holding to, the analysts are working well ahead of the public presentations. Any data which could materially affect the outcome should be made public immediately.
With the schedule they are holding to, the analysts are working well ahead of the public presentations. Any data which could materially affect the outcome should be made public immediately.
4 or 5 assumes 100% of the EELV's payload would be usable prop delivered to the depot. This is, of course, not even close to the case. You still need a spacecraft, it needs its own propellant and you still need the tank and the means of transfer. I think you'd be lucky if 2/3 of the LEO payload ended up being prop transferred to the depot. So count more like 6 or 8. I can't see how in the world that could be cheaper than one Jupiter.
This is why the depot-filled-by-smaller-vehicles thing still doesn't make any sense to me.
Let me take a stab at this. The "right" way to do depots from what I've seen is to combine them with a small prox-ops tug. You unload almost all of the complex and expensive bits to the tug itself, and the tankers end up being mostly a dumb tank, and a little bit of mostly passive plumbing (plus maybe a few pressure tanks to pressurize the tank so you can do a blow-down transfer). The tug itself would be refuelable. You launch the tanker tank into an orbit just outside the stay-away zone for the depot, and have the tug do all the last-mile stuff (and hooking up propellant transfer lines etc).
Done this way, the tug can stay on orbit and be reused dozens or hundreds of times, instead of launching a custom spacecraft each and every time. Since the tug is only moving the tanker from just outside the bounding box to the depot, and then back into a decaying orbit (and since the tanker weighs very little empty compared to full), you're talking about needing only a few percent of the propellant mass to cover the tanker's propellant needs, the tank, and any other support hardware.
If you do it as a big Soyuz or ATV on the other hand, you'll be lucky to get 2/3 of your launched mass as transferable propellant.
~Jon
Useable Post-Ascent propellant for J-246 is 99,896 kg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/BaseballCards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090521.pdf). LEO Payload for D-IVH is 22,560 kg (http://ulalaunch.com/docs/product_sheet/DeltaIVProductCardFinal.pdf). I'd say about 4 or 5. Numbers listed are for 130nmi, 29 deg and 220nmi, 28.7 deg circular orbits for the Jupiter and Delta respectively, so take that into account.
On this same vein...
I'm sure this has already been explored by the direct team, but I am curious.
Currently, the base line for a moon shot is 2 J-246's. They are working on launching the CSM and LSAM on a J-130, so they only need one JUS for the mission. Makes sense. Then, with a propellent depot, Direct can launch the whole CSM/LSAM/JUS (unfueled) stack on a single J-246, for rendezvous with the depot, fueling up, and going to the moon.
But, before there is a dept, could you launch the depot-dependent stack, and have it rendezvous with a fuel tank launched on a J-130 with an OMS sytem. This way, your docking is a little simpler, as the stack stays in tack, and you are just doing a fueling docking. Then ullage motors de-orbit the tank and the stack heads off to TLI.
<snipped>
In effect, the J-130 would launch a sinlge use "propellent depot", which would basically be a JUS with an OMS, rear docking ring, ullage motor, and less engines.
1. reply to 1: Maybe
2. reply to 2: Correct that is why this is a phase 4 item that NASA does not have to pay for until proven by events.
3. Why Falcon 9 first stage? It is already planned to be a booster to Falcon 9 heavy in an arrangement similar to the Jupiter Core.
1. Not maybe, it is too many
2. NASA would still have to pay for the mods to the F9 which would be like a new vehicle. It isn't plug and play.
3. No they are not in a similar arrangment. The SRB's lift from the top and liquid boosters lift from the bottom. But also, Atlas V or Delta IV cores can be used as boosters. Delta IV has demonstrated it.
So again, why F9? Atlas V or Delta IV cores exist and are operating.
FWIW,
I am impressed by the ability to Direct 3.0 to function well with or without propellant depots, which is a vital characteristic (IMHO) as we do not know how long it shall take to deploy propellant depots.
As soon as depots come on-line, Direct 3.0 transitions and begins to realize substantial leverage and yet in the meantime NASA can still perform interesting and useful missions beyond LEO as we await depot development and deployment.
And of course, the Direct 3.0 budget charts leave money for depot work, something ESAS does not.
In contrast, an all EELV/COTS approach leaves us trapped in LEO until depots come on-line.
I am impressed by the ability to Direct 3.0 to function well with or without propellant depots, which is a vital characteristic (IMHO) as we do not know how long it shall take to deploy propellant depots.
reply to 1: I agree to disagree.
Ross,
From the MLAS Thread about the problems with the current Ares I LAS:QuoteI got a little more info on this. The concern is primarily based around the potential of a large SRB exploding. It's a small risk, but still exists.
I understand that one of the more likely failure modes in this class of "exploding SRB's" would be if a fairly large chunk of propellant ever came away inside the booster during flight and blocked the nozzle exit -- the resulting overpressure inside the booster would make for a very spectacular explosion with lots of heavy steel case fragments flying in every direction -- potentially some towards the Orion.
<snipped>
It sounds like this is an issue inherent to all vehicles using SRBs, not just Ares I. Does Jupiter protect against these failure modes? As was hinted at the end, with the extra performance Jupiter allows, I assume it would be possible to beef-up the boost protection cover that protects the vehicle during launch.
reply to 1: I agree to disagree.
I know it is too many, it is not an opinion
Ross,
From the MLAS Thread about the problems with the current Ares I LAS:QuoteI got a little more info on this. The concern is primarily based around the potential of a large SRB exploding. It's a small risk, but still exists.
I understand that one of the more likely failure modes in this class of "exploding SRB's" would be if a fairly large chunk of propellant ever came away inside the booster during flight and blocked the nozzle exit -- the resulting overpressure inside the booster would make for a very spectacular explosion with lots of heavy steel case fragments flying in every direction -- potentially some towards the Orion.
<snipped>
It sounds like this is an issue inherent to all vehicles using SRBs, not just Ares I. Does Jupiter protect against these failure modes? As was hinted at the end, with the extra performance Jupiter allows, I assume it would be possible to beef-up the boost protection cover that protects the vehicle during launch.
I hesitate to mention this (just way too obvious). A pressure relief valve isn't possible?
Is it just that it would be a big development programme?
cheers, Martin
A quick question:
Roughly how many EELV's flights would be required to top up the Depot with enough propellant for a solo J246 Lunar Mission?
(lets say our EELV is a Delta IV Heavy)
Useable Post-Ascent propellant for J-246 is 99,896 kg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/BaseballCards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090521.pdf). LEO Payload for D-IVH is 22,560 kg (http://ulalaunch.com/docs/product_sheet/DeltaIVProductCardFinal.pdf). I'd say about 4 or 5. Numbers listed are for 130nmi, 29 deg and 220nmi, 28.7 deg circular orbits for the Jupiter and Delta respectively, so take that into account.
Wow, that many?
How do 4-5 D4H flights stack up against a single J130 (assuming a J130 could get into a circularized LEo orbit for dockign with teh depot) cost wise?
Seems like it still might be cheaper To just use a 2nd Jupiter.
4 or 5 assumes 100% of the EELV's payload would be usable prop delivered to the depot. This is, of course, not even close to the case. You still need a spacecraft, it needs its own propellant and you still need the tank and the means of transfer. I think you'd be lucky if 2/3 of the LEO payload ended up being prop transferred to the depot. So count more like 6 or 8. I can't see how in the world that could be cheaper than one Jupiter.
This is why the depot-filled-by-smaller-vehicles thing still doesn't make any sense to me.
Look, back in the 60's they were evaluating Saturn I configurations with 4 UA 1207 solid rocket boosters each one of which is loosely comparable to a Falcon 9 first stage by thrust and size. So I think I'll stand by my earlier statement and let the passage of time decide the issue.
Look, back in the 60's they were evaluating Saturn I configurations with 4 UA 1207 solid rocket boosters each one of which is loosely comparable to a Falcon 9 first stage by thrust and size. So I think I'll stand by my earlier statement and let the passage of time decide the issue.
Do you work in the business? You don't need to cite history. I didn't say it couldn't be done. I said it would cost too much to be worth it because the changes to the vehicle and infrastructure are massive.
Those Saturn I vehicle configurations were not chosen because of the same thing. But back then, there were deeper pockets and sky was the limit.
Rockets are not Legos. Falcon 9 as a Direct strap on is a non starter.
a. SRB's are a must. Direct is a SDLV and therefore requires solids
B. The F9 can not connect to a shuttle ET.
C. Spacex is not a sub contractor to others. They do not provide hardware to others contractors.
Of course, with that and unlike them, you'll have to "show your work". That is one of the down sides of coming from outside of the establishment.
Of course, with that and unlike them, you'll have to "show your work". That is one of the down sides of coming from outside of the establishment.
I'm confused. Does the Ares camp in NASA not have to "show their work"? Are they free to make any claims they want about performance, cost and schedule without the basis of the claims not being open for scrutiny?
no no no! jupiter and jupiter light. the 130 is the special case.
but I think ross is right. for this panel, technical naming convention is not a problem
I stand corrected. makes perfect sense in a foward looking architecture, the JL is done to provide a bridge until COTSD and manratedEELVs can service most LEO demands. Jproper is to facilitate the lunar component of the VSE.
And later maybe a Jupiter Heavy can be whipped up from the ideas that went into Ares V, VII or X or whatever its upto now (:
So
Jupiter130 = Jupiter Light
Jupiter2XX = Jupiter
The real utility of the propellant depot is in allowing higher flight rates and greater numbers of annual missions than the initial two-launch mission profile, given NASA's exploration budget and existing KSC launch facilities and MSFC, ATK, and P&W manufacturing facilities.
Try these "notational" numbers:
Jupiter #1 = $300 million
Spacecraft on Jupiter #1 = $300 million
Jupiter #2 = $300 million
Propellant delivered to KSC: $3 million
Total Cost: $903 million, all paid by NASA.
Limited to perhaps 6 missions per year (12 J-232 launches)
vs.
Jupiter #1 = $300 million
Spacecraft on Jupiter #1 = $300 million
Propellant delivered to Kazakhstan or French Guiana: $3 million
Soyuz for propellant delivery = $75 million * 5 = $375 million
Total Cost: $978 million (pretty much a wash).
But $378 million paid by international partners in exchange for a seat on the mission, leaving $600 million to be paid by NASA.
Enables perhaps 9-12 missions per year.
Soyuz for propellant delivery = $75 million * 5 = $375 million
Hmm, try it the other way around.
Start with the existing 2x J-246 architecture. The downside of this (the attraction of using J-130 CLV) is that ~15mT of CLV launch capacity remains unused because of limited fuel in the EDS. This is fantastic margin for the early flights.
However, once the standard 2-launch is mature, ~15mT of extra EDS fuel would be able to fully optimise this architecture:-
1) Launch J-246 EDS. (Current plan).
2) Launch a single EELV fuel tanker with maybe 20mT of fuel, rendezvous immediately, and top up the EDS. Thru-TLI mass is now approaching 100mT.
3) Once the EDS is safely re-fuelled, launch a fully-loaded J-246, which can now be pushed through TLI with loads of margin to spare.
3a) This can also be used to augment a single-Jupiter cargo mission. A 20mT fuel boost would give a substantial increase in single-Jupiter thru-TLI mass. (Not the full ~10mT, due to the mass of PT hardware, and not being able to fly a direct-injection profile).
<snipped>
PS -- Here is a quick teaser for the new cards (same data as the last set, but slightly updated logo's and the "heavy" variants are coming too).
One comment about the "baseball cards": the graphs for ascent dynamics look clearly to have been made in Excel, and could be improved considerably in readability. Microsoft's charting style is a dead giveaway of amateurism, and is regard very poorly in scientific work (e.g., see the writings of Edward Tufte, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, or Envisioning Information). I urge you to use a real scientific plotting program that produces proper publication-quality output (e.g., Origin, Matlab, or various free software packages).
If you don't have access to real plotting software (which seems unimaginable given all the engineering expertise in the background), it is possible to improve on Excel's default output:
Augustine Committee Website Question About Direct 3 http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php You have to click the arrow at bottom of page to get to the Direct 3 question.
I'm just saying, if you could get a J-130 to launch a disposable tank into LEO ... and then rendevous your J-246 stack ... as a whole unit with that tank and transfer fuel. ... I supposed it'd be a poor-man's depot, but could launch on a single J-130 rather than need a bunch of EELV's to fill up. ... Seems like one orbital tank, with a docking rink and whatever is needed to transfer propellants would just be a lot simplier than doing it many times over for the EELV's.
So, Pro's:
1 fuel launch vs. several EELV launches
I know I hear the phrasing of a single launch architecture with a propellent depot, but that's not really accurate, as it requires multiple successful launches and dockings to fill the depot.
If one of those EELV's malfunctions, then the mission's on hold until a replacement gets there, so it's mission critical that multiple EELV launches are successful.
Augustine Committee Website Question About Direct 3 http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php (http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php) You have to click the arrow at bottom of page to get to the Direct 3 question.
NEW TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES (A.K.A. "Baseball Cards")
RELEASE CANDIDATES
44 cards in total, jpg format, in a zip archive.
These include a combination of: J-120, J-130, J-241, J-244, J-246 (both RL-10 versions) and J-247, along with 8.4m & 10m PLF's and also Regular & Heavy variants, with many shown to a variety of different orbits.
These will be going up on the website officially in the next 24 hours in both jpg and also pdf formats. As often happens, NSF readers get a preview first!
Still to come are the J-130+DHCUS configurations and the really large 12m dia. PLF variants.
Enjoy,
Ross (calling it a night early to get his beauty sleep [and he needs it!] because he's going back on TV again in the morning!)
NEW TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES (A.K.A. "Baseball Cards")
RELEASE CANDIDATES
44 cards in total, jpg format, in a zip archive.
These include a combination of: J-120, J-130, J-241, J-244, J-246 (both RL-10 versions) and J-247, along with 8.4m & 10m PLF's and also Regular & Heavy variants, with many shown to a variety of different orbits.
These will be going up on the website officially in the next 24 hours in both jpg and also pdf formats. As often happens, NSF readers get a preview first!
Still to come are the J-130+DHCUS configurations and the really large 12m dia. PLF variants.
Enjoy,
Ross (calling it a night early to get his beauty sleep [and he needs it!] because he's going back on TV again in the morning!)
NEW TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES (A.K.A. "Baseball Cards")
RELEASE CANDIDATES
44 cards in total, jpg format, in a zip archive.
These include a combination of: J-120, J-130, J-241, J-244, J-246 (both RL-10 versions) and J-247, along with 8.4m & 10m PLF's and also Regular & Heavy variants, with many shown to a variety of different orbits.
These will be going up on the website officially in the next 24 hours in both jpg and also pdf formats. As often happens, NSF readers get a preview first!
Still to come are the J-130+DHCUS configurations and the really large 12m dia. PLF variants.
Enjoy,
Ross (calling it a night early to get his beauty sleep [and he needs it!] because he's going back on TV again in the morning!)
Augustine Committee Website Question About Direct 3 http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php (http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php) You have to click the arrow at bottom of page to get to the Direct 3 question.
Everyone needs to go and read these questions, vote on them, and then read the "answered questions"
There is some interesting stuff there.
Great link!
Ross (calling it a night early to get his beauty sleep [and he needs it!] because he's going back on TV again in the morning!)
Congrats on landing PBS, good luck!
Soyuz for propellant delivery = $75 million * 5 = $375 million
5 Soyuz could actually place 100T of propellant in a depot? I think not. And why do the spacecraft carrying that propellant all cost zero dollars?
How much does 40 Progress missions cost?
NEW TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES (A.K.A. "Baseball Cards")What’s amazing is that even in J-120 configuration Direct 3.0 produces an LV that can beat the shuttle’s cargo capacity. Further more the J-130 could almost lift the dry mass of a shuttle orbiter, if that includes the SSME’s then it could orbit a dry shuttle orbiter striped of its SSME’s. This puts some perspective on these vehicles.
RELEASE CANDIDATES
44 cards in total, jpg format, in a zip archive.
These include a combination of: J-120, J-130, J-241, J-244, J-246 (both RL-10 versions) and J-247, along with 8.4m & 10m PLF's and also Regular & Heavy variants, with many shown to a variety of different orbits.
These will be going up on the website officially in the next 24 hours in both jpg and also pdf formats. As often happens, NSF readers get a preview first!
Still to come are the J-130+DHCUS configurations and the really large 12m dia. PLF variants.
Enjoy,
Ross (calling it a night early to get his beauty sleep [and he needs it!] because he's going back on TV again in the morning!)
I am confused.. there appear to be 2 different J-246 heavy Lunar EDS LVC cards.. with different performance.. and neither matches the J-246 standard either.
Is the naming correct for slide J246H.5003.08001_EDS_090608.jpg?
Under boosters it shows: Shuttle RSRM -Flown Unchanged. Although the graphic is 5-seg
There is another J246 Heavy EDS card later named: J246H-41.5004.08001_EDS_090608.jpg That card shows Shuttle derived 5-segment Under Boosters
It also makes sense if we get to the point where we're using the Jupiter manufacturing and launch infrastructure to its limits. Far cheaper to launch the propellant on another vehicle than to build LC-39C.
It will provide options for ensuring that the nation’s human space flight program will be safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable in the years following Space Shuttle retirement.
Augustine Committee Website Question About Direct 3 http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php You have to click the arrow at bottom of page to get to the Direct 3 question.
+1 ;D
Augustine Committee Website Question About Direct 3 http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php You have to click the arrow at bottom of page to get to the Direct 3 question.
+1 ;D
+1 from me too
What's with the "Black-Zone Safe" logo on the CLV cards? Is that like the UL seal of approval? I don't remember seeing that before!
If it's a joke (or a shot at NASA) I would say to take it off. If it's real, who issues it?
Even if it is legit, I didn't think black-zones were ever a criticism leveled at Jupiter, just at EELV's.
Mark S.
Regarding propellant depots etc:
How much would vehicle costs be driven down by the massive production increase required of EELVs to top-up the PD?
Surely this will factor in to reducing ongoing costs for a true LEO economy.
EDIT: Thanks for answering this already Ross. (Note to self: must use refresh button before posting.)
PS -- Here is a quick teaser for the new cards (same data as the last set, but slightly updated logo's and the "heavy" variants are coming too).
If you don't have access to real plotting software (which seems unimaginable given all the engineering expertise in the background), it is possible to improve on Excel's default output:
Omit "chartjunk", that is, ink that is getting in the way of the data:
1. Turn off the grey background color (which does nothing useful)
2. Turn off the horizontal-gridlines entirely, or make them less distracting:
If you think you really need a grid (to pick numerical points from the graph), then use both horizontal and vertical rules, and make them *faint*. Consider how a piece of common graph paper looks from the back side: gridlines visible enough to guide the eye when needed, but do not compete with the actual plotted curve (that is, the *data*, the whole point of the graph).
I'm sure that you folks can fix this up in a manner that works well with your workflow for constructing the presentation, but I also realize that it's easy to snipe from the sidelines. If you're really pressed manpower and time is short, I suppose that I could fix up the plots if you'd be willing to send the data.
In any case, good luck with the presentation!
-Alex
I think the Blackzone Safe logo looks good.
......
Ross.
I think the Blackzone Safe logo looks good.
I asked Philip to design the logo because I wanted something to really "stand-out" to ensure there is no question of whether these vehicles are safe for crew or not. This explicitly and clearly addresses some people's questions which have been expressed to me off of this board.
If there is a lot of opinion against it, I can remove it, but so far I think only Mark is against it. I welcome further feedback.
If DIRECT is adopted by NASA, I expect more parties, many of them commercial, to become interested in Jupiter for heavy lifting to LEO.
I think the Blackzone Safe logo looks good.
I asked Philip to design the logo because I wanted something to really "stand-out" to ensure there is no question of whether these vehicles are safe for crew or not. This explicitly and clearly addresses some people's questions which have been expressed to me off of this board.
If there is a lot of opinion against it, I can remove it, but so far I think only Mark is against it. I welcome further feedback.
I pretty much agree with Mark on this. I'm not sure what the BZS graphic is supposed to represent -- it looks somewhat like a smiley face with shaggy hair. Style-wise, it definitely stands out on the page. As in, there's nothing else on the page that looks like it.
Are some Jupiter configurations BZS and some not? If that's the case, then the logo makes more sense to me. But I thought *all* Jupiters are BZS. So I'm a little confused. (What else is new?)
Steve
Read this in the Q & A on the Augustine website. It is in a response to a question about the purpose of the panel and when it will report.QuoteIt will provide options for ensuring that the nation’s human space flight program will be safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable in the years following Space Shuttle retirement.
I think those words are perfect candidates to replace Safer, Simpler, Sooner
If DIRECT is adopted by NASA, I expect more parties, many of them commercial, to become interested in Jupiter for heavy lifting to LEO.
That is a joke. There is no money for large payloads, in NASA, DOD, or commercial. Somebody asking questions about a capability doesn't mean there is business to be found.
There are no commerical apps for a large LEO payload. Bigelow can get his stations on orbit with EELV class boosters. Same goes for GSO payloads.
How many Delta IV heavies are on the manifest? The DOD is flying less heavy payloads now then in the 90's.
NASA has no money for large payloads
If the production and launch infrastructure simply can't support the flight rates required for using Jupiter as a propellant launch vehicle, then fine. But if this could be accommodated, increasing Jupiter's flight rates would lower its unit costs just as it would for EELV.
If DIRECT is adopted by NASA, I expect more parties, many of them commercial, to become interested in Jupiter for heavy lifting to LEO.
That is a joke. There is no money for large payloads, in NASA, DOD, or commercial. Somebody asking questions about a capability doesn't mean there is business to be found.
BZS logo I believe only shows up on the CLV variants.. it's irrelavant for cargo and EDS launches.
I think it's good to have something showing that the profiles are certified BZS.. Claims perpetuated about Black Zones are what NASA used to Kill EELV's the first go 'round.
1. Maybe there's no money because the capability isn't there. The last time we had anything like Jupiter's capability to LEO was Skylab on a two-stage Saturn V.
2. Whoever orbits the first space hotel could make an unreasonably large fortune. Is that potential not worth the investment?
3. Maybe you don't understand how money works. Money is created when somebody takes out a loan. All that needs to happen for there to be money for large payloads is for somebody to take out a loan. If Jupiter's capability makes entrepreneurs believe that they can get rich in low earth orbit, then the money will materialize.
There is no money to be made with a Direct class payload. Name one other than hotel.
Ross, One Jupiter launch per week looks like a real deal. I would consider 52 launches per year a reasonable program.
Ross, One Jupiter launch per week looks like a real deal. I would consider 52 launches per year a reasonable program.
Ross (BTW, they are filming this over my shoulder as I type this -- getting some background shots!)
Ross, One Jupiter launch per week looks like a real deal. I would consider 52 launches per year a reasonable program.
One launch every week is little too demanding for existing systems! I'm not even sure that the Eastern Test Range is setup to handle a flight rate quite that high. For Jupiter, we're aiming for a launch rate around 1 every month, which would be double the flight rate of the average Space Shuttle year.
If a Jupiter rocket (J130, J246) was launched from an equatorial launch site like Korou, French Guiana, how much would this increase it's payload???
One comment about the "baseball cards": the graphs for ascent dynamics look clearly to have been made in Excel, and could be improved considerably in readability. Microsoft's charting style is a dead giveaway of amateurism, and is regard very poorly in scientific work (e.g., see the writings of Edward Tufte, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, or Envisioning Information). I urge you to use a real scientific plotting program that produces proper publication-quality output (e.g., Origin, Matlab, or various free software packages).
If you don't have access to real plotting software (which seems unimaginable given all the engineering expertise in the background), it is possible to improve on Excel's default output:
So everyone else is okay with this? I know it's Ross's call, but it just does not strike the right "professional" tone with me. It seems "cutesy", if that's even a word. Might as well put a smiley next to it labeled "YA RLY".
Since the start of DIRECT, you have been striving to be taken seriously. Now, just one week from the start of the longed-for independent review, this pops up on materials that you are going to be presenting to a blue-ribbon panel of experts who will be making recommendations that could affect the entire future of NASA space flight? I don't get it.
If there is a lot of opinion against it, I can remove it,I haven't seen it yet (bandwidth limitations). From the sound of it, an asterisk in the legend (or colour-coded asterisks) might be more appropriate.
Ross (BTW, they are filming this over my shoulder as I type this -- getting some background shots!)
Cool! When will the PBS piece air?
Right now, they think it will air on or around June 18th. They want to get our Presentation to the Augustine Commission too.
If DIRECT is adopted by NASA, I expect more parties, many of them commercial, to become interested in Jupiter for heavy lifting to LEO.
That is a joke. There is no money for large payloads, in NASA, DOD, or commercial. Somebody asking questions about a capability doesn't mean there is business to be found.
If DIRECT is adopted by NASA, I expect more parties, many of them commercial, to become interested in Jupiter for heavy lifting to LEO.
That is a joke. There is no money for large payloads, in NASA, DOD, or commercial. Somebody asking questions about a capability doesn't mean there is business to be found.
Jim,
I totally agree that there are no commercial uses, and even very few non-HSF NASA uses for such capabilities, we have been approached by DoD in a serious way. I don't know the details, but they seem to have something very specific in mind already and apparently it already has funding -- from what I could tell, they were simply looking for a launcher big enough (both volume and mass-wise) to do the job. Last I heard, Jupiter-130 with its 12m diameter PLF's seems to fit their requirements nicely.
Ross.
Any chance DoD would be willing to step forward on this?
For a two launch lunar mission, would that time be shortened on occasion to achieve once per month, on average?
What is the "official" baseline for an ESAS lunar mission as in how long is the Ares 5 lofted payload "officially" predicted to loiter on orbit awaiting the Ares 1 crew launch?
Is that information that the commision will have.. or should be presented for consideration?
Any chance DoD would be willing to step forward on this?
Augustine Committee Website Question About Direct 3 http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php You have to click the arrow at bottom of page to get to the Direct 3 question.
Augustine Committee Website Question About Direct 3 http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php You have to click the arrow at bottom of page to get to the Direct 3 question.
I looked but didn't see any question about Direct 3.0.
Augustine Committee Website Question About Direct 3 http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php You have to click the arrow at bottom of page to get to the Direct 3 question.
I looked but didn't see any question about Direct 3.0.
If DIRECT is adopted by NASA, I expect more parties, many of them commercial, to become interested in Jupiter for heavy lifting to LEO.
That is a joke. There is no money for large payloads, in NASA, DOD, or commercial. Somebody asking questions about a capability doesn't mean there is business to be found.
Jim,
I totally agree that there are no commercial uses, and even very few non-HSF NASA uses for such capabilities, we have been approached by DoD in a serious way. I don't know the details, but they seem to have something very specific in mind already and apparently it already has funding -- from what I could tell, they were simply looking for a launcher big enough (both volume and mass-wise) to do the job. Last I heard, Jupiter-130 with its 12m diameter PLF's seems to fit their requirements nicely.
Ross.
Is that information that the commision will have.. or should be presented for consideration?
Any chance DoD would be willing to step forward on this?
Who chose the top two questions?Stephen Colbert.
Who chose the top two questions?
If a Jupiter rocket (J130, J246) was launched from an equatorial launch site like Korou, French Guiana, how much would this increase it's payload???
Something like 2T.
DOD spent a fortune on Shuttle Facilities at Vandenberg which they mothballed. Would DOD be able to leverage them?
Therefore, while I emphatically support the development of propellant depots, I don't see the reason to use 20 mT launchers for propellant supply when we'd have already developed the 100 mT Jupiter, which would lift the propellant for less money.
A few pages back, Chuck implied that NASA might pay partners a 5x premium on the surface cost of propellant, which might be $3 million per mission. But there is no "killer profit" if the cost to the partner for launching the propellant is on the order of $50 million. The only way the partner makes a profit is if NASA pays them more than it would cost either party to launch the propellant.
No, the reason why partners might participate is not to make a profit, but to buy access to the mission. And then it doesn't matter who is providing the propellant launches, only who is paying for them. Why should five partners launch five different vehicles when they could save money by splitting the cost of one Jupiter launch?
Once we have Jupiter, that's going to be the most cost-effective way to launch any payload beyond 30 mT, even for divisible payloads like propellant. We could pay more to launch it on EELVs and help those providers grow, but we'd have to eat this extra cost for many years while they develop 50-100 mT EELVs that compete favorably with Jupiter lifting 100+ mT of propellant to LEO.
I must confess - I entered the DIRECT questioned at the HSF site over the weekend from work. Couldve been phrased a little better maybe, but damn, I feel special. ;D
Thanks for bumping it to the top of the pile people. Glad I could do something to help ;D
Augustine Committee Website Question About Direct 3 http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php You have to click the arrow at bottom of page to get to the Direct 3 question.
I looked but didn't see any question about Direct 3.0.
It's the second line under the big white box where you type your own question in...
Crikey. I didn't realize there was this much interest... :o
Ross.
Have your FULL say. Be heard. Be DIRECT!
Go vote now:-
http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php
Ross.
DOD spent a fortune on Shuttle Facilities at Vandenberg which they mothballed. Would DOD be able to leverage them?
I just entered a new question asking whether the committee or administration could do something to temporarily halt the dismantling of the shuttle infrastructure, in the event that they recommend an alternative shuttle-based solution (e.g. Direct)
We'll see if it ever gets past the moderator. its not up there yet.
Dan
DOD spent a fortune on Shuttle Facilities at Vandenberg which they mothballed. Would DOD be able to leverage them?
The way it was phrased to me was astonishingly dismissive of the concern. It essentially boiled-down to "just as long as we can get this payload flying by 2014 we'll just build Delta a brand new Pad".
My jaw hit the floor when I heard that.
From that and a few other things which were mentioned, whatever it is that they want to launch, money certainly seemed to be pretty low on their list of concerns. Schedule seemed to be their #1 aim with everything else being secondary to that -- and they wanted this soon.
Ross.
I just entered a new question asking whether the committee or administration could do something to temporarily halt the dismantling of the shuttle infrastructure, in the event that they recommend an alternative shuttle-based solution (e.g. Direct)
We'll see if it ever gets past the moderator. its not up there yet.
Dan
I'm just saying, if you could get a J-130 to launch a disposable tank into LEO ... and then rendevous your J-246 stack ... as a whole unit with that tank and transfer fuel. ... I supposed it'd be a poor-man's depot, but could launch on a single J-130 rather than need a bunch of EELV's to fill up. ... Seems like one orbital tank, with a docking rink and whatever is needed to transfer propellants would just be a lot simplier than doing it many times over for the EELV's.
So, Pro's:
1 fuel launch vs. several EELV launches
I believe the point of this approach is to reduce the cost *to NASA* for making that fuel available for Lunar (etc.) missions. A market-based approach to keeping that fuel tank full is likely to be less expensive than if NASA were to do everything itself. Plus, this approach provides a realistic target for the commercial market to hit - still in LEO but helping with greater missions than they could otherwise participate in. Building the commercial space infrastructure is a worthwhile goal for NASA.QuoteI know I hear the phrasing of a single launch architecture with a propellent depot, but that's not really accurate, as it requires multiple successful launches and dockings to fill the depot.
If one of those EELV's malfunctions, then the mission's on hold until a replacement gets there, so it's mission critical that multiple EELV launches are successful.
Not quite true. If the depot only held one mission's worth of fuel, then the scenario you outline would be a problem. However, if the depot holds *at least* one EELV's worth of fuel more than would be needed for a NASA mission, then there's no problem.
I just entered a new question asking whether the committee or administration could do something to temporarily halt the dismantling of the shuttle infrastructure, in the event that they recommend an alternative shuttle-based solution (e.g. Direct)
We'll see if it ever gets past the moderator. its not up there yet.
Dan
I posed the same question early this morning and it hasn't shown up yet either.
Have your FULL say. Be heard. Be DIRECT!
Go vote now:-
http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php
Ross.
I just entered a new question asking whether the committee or administration could do something to temporarily halt the dismantling of the shuttle infrastructure, in the event that they recommend an alternative shuttle-based solution (e.g. Direct)
We'll see if it ever gets past the moderator. its not up there yet.
Dan
......
I’ve thought about how to pitch that Jupiter is one rocket that is scalable, not 2 separate development efforts. To illustrate my thoughts I put together the attached slide. Ross may have already thought of this, but if not I hope it gives you a way to think about it.
Best Regards,
Steve
I borrowed the graphics from Direct v2.0 website, I'm not a graphic artist I don't even have access to photo shop. so they are not the best.
And I still come back to the fact that EACH of these EELV flights will have to have some type of tanker vehical on it, that will have to autonomously match the depot's orbit, rendevous, dock, transfer propellents, and deorbit. That vehical will require a lot of spendy RCS, OMS, automation, and avionics, all which drive up the cost per flight, and reduce the amount of room for the propellent. Then you have to throw it away and build a new one. 5 or more times per lunar mission.
And I still come back to the fact that EACH of these EELV flights will have to have some type of tanker vehical on it, that will have to autonomously match the depot's orbit, rendevous, dock, transfer propellents, and deorbit. That vehical will require a lot of spendy RCS, OMS, automation, and avionics, all which drive up the cost per flight, and reduce the amount of room for the propellent. Then you have to throw it away and build a new one. 5 or more times per lunar mission.
Yes, you could do it that way. Or you could use a tug and offload most of that complexity, so the tanker can be nice and simple. But we can't do that, that'd make sense.
~Jon
And I still come back to the fact that EACH of these EELV flights will have to have some type of tanker vehical on it, that will have to autonomously match the depot's orbit, rendevous, dock, transfer propellents, and deorbit. That vehical will require a lot of spendy RCS, OMS, automation, and avionics, all which drive up the cost per flight, and reduce the amount of room for the propellent. Then you have to throw it away and build a new one. 5 or more times per lunar mission.
Yes, you could do it that way. Or you could use a tug and offload most of that complexity, so the tanker can be nice and simple. But we can't do that, that'd make sense.
~Jon
All the smarts need to be on the tug and at the depot.
The “tank” delivered into orbit needs to be, well, just a tank.
I think the Blackzone Safe logo looks good.
Here are two reasons why propellant depots makes sense.
[1] The cost of Jupiter fueling a lunar mission by itself is somewhat uncertain; model it as rolling a 6-sided die and multiplying the result (1-6) by $100 million. The cost of propellant depot fueling the same mission is like rolling ten 10-sided dice (one per company) and picking the lowest. Each individual option may seem worse than Jupiter today, but one of them will probably end up being cheaper tomorrow once developed.
[2] Americans aren't the only ones who hate the idea of buying access to space from other nations. Our partners would probably rather pay a lot to launch fuel on their own rockets than a little to launch the fuel on ours.
I’ve thought about how to pitch that Jupiter is one rocket that is scalable, not 2 separate development efforts. To illustrate my thoughts I put together the attached slide. Ross may have already thought of this, but if not I hope it gives you a way to think about it.
Agreed, that is an excellent suggestion Sotar, thank-you. Now to figure out how to fit it into an already-amazingly-tight 30 minute Presentation!
All the smarts need to be on the tug and at the depot.
The "tank" delivered into orbit needs to be, well, just a tank.
The logical growth options for DIRECT are based on the following two relationships (numbers may be somewhat inaccurate):
1) Jupiter lifts 100 mT to LEO; 100 mT of payload through TLI requires about 145 mT of TLI propellant.
2) JUS holds 175 mT of propellant; 175 mT of propellant pushes about 120 mT of payload through TLI.
DOD spent a fortune on Shuttle Facilities at Vandenberg which they mothballed. Would DOD be able to leverage them?
All the smarts need to be on the tug and at the depot.
The "tank" delivered into orbit needs to be, well, just a tank.
... with a 120mm cannon and Chobham armor.
Depot Wars II: The Fregat Strikes Back :)
I understand the theory behind EELV's, just not sure if I'm seeing the logic.
In theory, our international partners who want to hitch a ride to the moon either send up some of their own EELV's, or buy one of our commerical ones. NASA doesn't foot the bill for that propellant or launches, and all is well.
However, the part that I'm having a hard time with is the costs of those launches. Each EELV will need an vehical on top that will be autonomous, have OMS and RCS systems, auto/remote docking ability, adn then deorbit itself and be disposed of. The ATV that the ESA send up to the ISS was in essence that...and it was pretty darn expensive as I recall. Now do 5 of those or so between lunar missions? Seems by the time you launch that vehical with all the controls and thrusters, you don't have all that much room left for propellent, and then it's an expensive vehical to just burn up. Obviously the ESA isn't pumping out their ATV's in this manner due to costs.
[2] Americans aren't the only ones who hate the idea of buying access to space from other nations. Our partners would probably rather pay a lot to launch fuel on their own rockets than a little to launch the fuel on ours.
EELV is a term that only applies to two ELV's, Delta IV and Atlas V
And I still come back to the fact that EACH of these EELV flights will have to have some type of tanker vehical on it, that will have to autonomously match the depot's orbit, rendevous, dock, transfer propellents, and deorbit. That vehical will require a lot of spendy RCS, OMS, automation, and avionics, all which drive up the cost per flight, and reduce the amount of room for the propellent. Then you have to throw it away and build a new one. 5 or more times per lunar mission.
Yes, you could do it that way. Or you could use a tug and offload most of that complexity, so the tanker can be nice and simple. But we can't do that, that'd make sense.
~Jon
[2] Americans aren't the only ones who hate the idea of buying access to space from other nations. Our partners would probably rather pay a lot to launch fuel on their own rockets than a little to launch the fuel on ours.
If there's a tug to marshal the fuel to the depot, the tankers don't require much sophistication.
This might be a very attractive mission for companies / countries looking to mature their launch vehicles without the concern of losing an expensive payload in case of failure.
Suggestion: a commodity "tanker" payload vehicle, perhaps produced by ESA to avoid ITAR concerns. Perhaps just has minimum function to be captured by a tug. Perhaps also operates as it's own upper stage. Would have to be targeted at a common launch vehicle payload mass.
Make it cheap as possible, commensurate with the value of the payload and reliance on a tug.
Might make countries / entities more likely to participate, and also protects the depot from a rogue tanker vehicle.
It doesn't seem like it would take an enormous amount of work to convert ATV into a tug.
I hadn't heard mention of a tug being part of Direct's plan for a future depot growth architecture. Maybe I missed it?
I think it's something that could be very helpful in the long term, but is it part of the first phase of a depot?
If it is, I haven't heard about it.
Maybe Direct could tank up as I described with a "disposable depot" on the Jupiter until a reliable space tub is develped and tested. Then it along with a permanent depot could be implimented.
Although, once again, a Jupiter flying a dumb tank to LEO (no avionics or RCS), a tug towing it to the depot, and fill it from just that once launch seems more efficient. The tug would likely have a much longer service life if it only had to ferry 1 propellent tank per lunar mission rather than 5+.
The tug probably would only need to be marginally larger for the Jupiter tank rather than the EELV class tank, if any larger at all.
Here are two reasons why propellant depots makes sense.
[1] The cost of Jupiter fueling a lunar mission by itself is somewhat uncertain; model it as rolling a 6-sided die and multiplying the result (1-6) by $100 million. The cost of propellant depot fueling the same mission is like rolling ten 10-sided dice (one per company) and picking the lowest. Each individual option may seem worse than Jupiter today, but one of them will probably end up being cheaper tomorrow once developed.
[2] Americans aren't the only ones who hate the idea of buying access to space from other nations. Our partners would probably rather pay a lot to launch fuel on their own rockets than a little to launch the fuel on ours.
It doesn't seem like it would take an enormous amount of work to convert ATV into a tug.
Of course, ATV might be overkill depending on what size of propellant deliveries you're talking about. Something on the Orbital Express (or slightly bigger) scale might be better. There are tons of vehicles that could provide the basis for a tug. The main reason why there aren't tugs right now, is just the chicken-and-egg challenge of finding some market big enough to raise the money. Similar situation with depots.
~Jon
Here are two reasons why propellant depots makes sense.
[1] The cost of Jupiter fueling a lunar mission by itself is somewhat uncertain; model it as rolling a 6-sided die and multiplying the result (1-6) by $100 million. The cost of propellant depot fueling the same mission is like rolling ten 10-sided dice (one per company) and picking the lowest. Each individual option may seem worse than Jupiter today, but one of them will probably end up being cheaper tomorrow once developed.
[2] Americans aren't the only ones who hate the idea of buying access to space from other nations. Our partners would probably rather pay a lot to launch fuel on their own rockets than a little to launch the fuel on ours.
There are also a few more:
[3] You can do missions that would be impossible without depots--much larger landed mass for instance.
[4] Depots enable reuse of in-space assets. Without a way to fill up the tanks you'll always be building a new lander and a new transfer stage and a new capsule for every single mission.
[5] Depots greatly enhance ISRU.
[6] Depots provide the kind of demand that could enable commercially developed RLVs. RLVs are the only way we're going to see space activity amount to more than a dozen or two people offplanet at any time.
~Jon
I'm just bringing up the question of how you refill them.
Additionally, the current contenders are all basically 3-4g to prevent crushing people or satellites. There isn't much fragile in a purpose built flying tank.
Here are two reasons why propellant depots makes sense.
-- snip --
There are also a few more:
-- snip --
~Jon
Yea, I know. :)
I'm not arguing against depots. I know all those advantages. I'm just bringing up the question of how you refill them.
And also noting an alternative concept that would be gone to until a permantent depot and tug are designed, built and proven.
And that's to stick with a two launch architecture, but the first launch is a quasi-dummy "tank", and the second is the CSM/LSAM/empty EDS stack all mated. The stack meets the tank in LEO, fills up, and the tank is deorbited. much less intricate docking maneuvers for the components
But like I said, maybe there's something very flawed with that idea. I keep challenging people to let me know why it wouldn't work, just really haven't heard anything yet. (What I keep hearing is the multiple EELV class launches would drive up that industry, and so it's worth the seemingly extra overall cost and inefficiency vs. a single HLV launch to boost the EELV market)
Perhaps the tank could have one or two engines instead of 6 like the full JUS (I'll assume you don't need as much thrust to just circularize an orbit as you do to push mass through TLI). Just enough so that it can get itself into a stable orbit if the J-130 can't get it there itself. Then it flips engines first, with a docking ring now facing to the rear. the CSM/LSAM/empty EDS stack eases up behind it, docks, fills, and continues on to TLI. Enough propellents are left in the tank for a quick burn of it's forward facing engines to deorbit it. (used like ulage motors)
Or if a J-130 can get the tank into a stable LEO, it only needs minimum avionics to use an RCS to make sure it's stable, and ulage motors to deorbit it.
I'm no expert obviously, but that seems -seems- a whole lot cheaper/simplier than the type of system the EELV ATV's will need to dock with a permanent depot. They will need additionally an OMS to get into circular orbit, docking radars and cameras. Computers to monitor all of that other stuff, etc.
If a J-130 can't be made to get it into circular orbit, then it would need additionally something to boost it there. Theoretically that "something" would be cheaper than the full set of engines on a JUS. Otherwise, you're not saving much other than some intricate docking sequences vs. the current DIRECT baseline.
Then, down the road, once you get the permanent depot and tug up there and operating, we address if it wouldn't just be cheaper to refill it with a single Jupiter flight rather than multiple EELV class flights.
Has it been mentioned that www.directlauncher.com has been updated to version 3.0 yet? I didn't see it. I like the new website.
For Lunar missions, I think a J-246/J-130 launch profile is going to be as cheap as its going to get. Adding a depot would only make a flight more expensive, since you have the overhead of developing and launching a depot. For Mars missions, a depot might make more sense, but only if its filled by J-246.
How high could we go in g-forces for a dumb-tank? The only crucial piece being the off-course-abortexplosivesmechanism.
No, NASA was doing JIMO, which was huge. NASA has yet to use a Delta IV Heavy.And they canned it.
No one's ever built a vehicle explicitly for getting low-value, high-ruggedness stuff to orbit. Specifically because there's no depot to store anything at. (Nor anyone to sell it to, etc.)
Jupiter, Ares, all of them are aiming to have an extremely low rate of LOM - like 1-in-1000 or better. Because people are irreplaceable. And satellites or vehicles are ridiculously expensive themselves.
Hey are any of you guys having trouble with the new directlauncher.com website? When I first type in the address and hit return it says 'page not found', but when I hit the return key a second time it pops up.
By George, I think he's got it!
As I understand it, the DIRECT architecture has one heavy lift launch vehicle designed for "beyond LEO" human spaceflight (the Jupiter J-246 -- you'll see why I chose that configuration in a moment) that can also be configured for different specialized missions by selectively removing components not required for those missions. The Jupiter launch vehicle can also be fitted with a variety of payloads as the mission dictates.
[SNIP]
Looking at the Baseball Cards at DirectLauncher.com (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media.htm#technical-performance-summaries) the J-130 can put 77.8 t into LEO, while the J-246 can put 79.1 through TLI. It seems if you can launch Altair and Orion on a J-130 that would make Direct that much more attractive, as this avoids a whole stage entirely (making the launch even safer for the crew). I think making Altair very slightly larger so that it can perform orbit insertion of the Altair/Orion stack into LEO is a very good tradeoff (one big stage with a long burn of six engines versus a very short burn with one engine). The core would not need to be deorbited as it would perform a re-entry directly into the atmosphere. I think the panels around Orion would need to ejected (like that in Ares-I) to provide roll control from Orion's service module during orbit insertion.
As for propellant depot's, Direct's own argument against EELV's indicates that this does not make sense economics wise if EELV class vehicles are used. Attached is a graph from Direct giving $ per kg against number of launches. If we have say 13 EELV launches a year (assuming 5 are used to launch 100 t of propellant) the propellant costs are $9000/kg. For nine J-232 launches a year, costs are $3000/kg. So for 100 t of propellant, it costs at least $900M using EELV's or $300M using J-232. Any international partner will work this out and would be foolish to pay three times what NASA would pay.
For Lunar missions, I think a J-246/J-130 launch profile is going to be as cheap as its going to get. Adding a depot would only make a flight more expensive, since you have the overhead of developing and launching a depot. For Mars missions, a depot might make more sense, but only if its filled by J-246.
Hey are any of you guys having trouble with the new directlauncher.com website? When I first type in the address and hit return it says 'page not found', but when I hit the return key a second time it pops up.
Yeah, I had that, too.
BTW, the "without upper stage" option seems to be listed as "45mT" payload.
cheers, Martin
OK, back to basics question. On the list of baseball cards I see two which caused me scratch my head a bit:
* Jupiter-130 Crew + Cargo LV w/ 8.4m dia x 10.0m long fairing, to 30x100nmi, 51.6°
* Jupiter-130 Crew + Cargo LV w/ 8.4m dia x 10.0m long fairing, to 100x100nmi, 51.6°
The first line seems to indicate that it would be up to the payload to perform a circularization burn while the second line seems to indicate that the core Jupiter itself is able to cirularize the orbit before deploying its payload. For this second scenario, wouldn't that mean that at least one engine on the core stage (an SSME) would have to restart?
Also, the PDF link for "Jupiter-130 Cargo LV w/ 10.0m dia x 10.0m long fairing, to 30x130nmi, 29.0°" is actually bringing up a CLV chart.
Hey are any of you guys having trouble with the new directlauncher.com website? When I first type in the address and hit return it says 'page not found', but when I hit the return key a second time it pops up.
Yeah, I had that, too.
Are you guys still having those issues, or are they resolved now?
Second, in the case of the Core going all the way to circular, yes it will need to be de-orbited even though 130nmi is not a long-term stable orbit and will naturally decay in a matter of a few weeks -- but you do *NOT* want bits of fiery Core Stage and SSME raining down on the world because of an uncontrolled re-entry.
So there are two possible ways to perform a de-orbit of the Core in such situations: 1) You can utilize one or more solid motors to apply about 50m/s of delta-V to bring the Core Stage down immediately after payload deployment, or 2) if the Core must stay up for a slightly longer period of time for any reason (talking hours, not days), you can also use an RCS system to also provide attitude control as well. We are currently designing the Core Stage to be able to integrate the exact same RCS systems from the Jupiter Upper Stage in such scenario's.
snip
First, you are correct that the cargo module would need to perform its own circularization if injecting to sub-orbital 30x100nmi. That's a fairly routine thing to ask of a payload though, so isn't a concern -- although it would make crew flights a little more demanding in the immediate post-MECO time-frame. The baseball cards for both options are provided here mostly just to demonstrate that these options are all available on Jupiter.
snip
Hey are any of you guys having trouble with the new directlauncher.com website? When I first type in the address and hit return it says 'page not found', but when I hit the return key a second time it pops up.
Yeah, I had that, too.
Are you guys still having those issues, or are they resolved now?
I was still getting that, as of a minute ago. Now I'm not.
Steve
1) The heavy baseball cards on directlauncher.com, for example http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J241H-41.5002.08001_EDS_090608.pdf , say the number/type of boosters is "2 / 4-segment Shuttle RSRM". Presumably that "4" should be a "5".
2) Is there a technical overview document for DIRECT 3.0 similar to the AIAA 2007 paper for 2.0?
3) At least one of the baseball cards still has a blackzone safe logo: http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246-41.4004.10051_CaLV_090606.pdf .
I just tried again and it still did it initially but I can't seem to reproduce the effect. Perhaps it is something to do with the cookies? Perhaps I had an old cookie that blocked it or something but now I have the new cookie so it doesn't do it anymore? Mmm, cookies...
But propellant is practically a rounding error on the costs. If the only thing you're lifting is consumables, losing an individual flight isn't nearly as traumatic. You could afford to back off on white-glove labor and analyzing everything with fleets of electron microscopes.
Additionally, the current contenders are all basically 3-4g to prevent crushing people or satellites. There isn't much fragile in a purpose built flying tank.
If you're willing to accept that you will have higher losses - completely unacceptable losses from a manned standpoint - you can reduce launch costs dramatically. And still have a decent chance of getting propellant to orbit.
As for propellant depot's, Direct's own argument against EELV's indicates that this does not make sense economics wise if EELV class vehicles are used. Attached is a graph from Direct giving $ per kg against number of launches. If we have say 13 EELV launches a year (assuming 5 are used to launch 100 t of propellant) the propellant costs are $9000/kg. For nine J-232 launches a year, costs are $3000/kg. So for 100 t of propellant, it costs at least $900M using EELV's or $300M using J-232. Any international partner will work this out and would be foolish to pay three times what NASA would pay.
A propellant delivery module needs some basic equipment.
It requires a simple RCS system, probably using ~12-16 small thrusters, propellant tanks and a guidance/navigation unit. It will also require ground/space communications for controlling them and obviously you needs some way to power the systems as well.
It doesn't necessarily require a docking hatch because the Depot could be designed to grapple the module using an RMS. Nor does the module necessarily need any equipment on-board for actually transferring the propellant as there are ways to design the depot to do all of that work too.
The propellant feedline connections which were used on the ground to fill the tanks would seem the most logical means to gain access to the propellant in space too -- but the design would have to be a uniform one for all delivery modules supplying any given Depot.
So the delivery modules aren't trivial. But they aren't extraordinarily complex either. These sorts of systems have been in use for 50 years already and there are many proven off-the-shelf components which would be perfectly suitable to the task too. Built in reasonable quantities, I have no doubt that it would not be hard to make such modules quite economically.
Ross.
Yes, that is an important point.
It is at least theoretically possible to make a business case around a very low-cost Propellant Delivery Service where you probably *could* accept 1 Loss of Mission every 50 flights. Clearly, that wouldn't work for human use, but for this particular business model, it might.
And I'm betting you can make a 1/50 reliable vehicle for less than a 1/200 vehicle or a 1/500 vehicle.
The only real hurdle I see, is getting RSO at your specific launch site to agree that it's acceptable.
Ross.
To those gurus in the know. :)
I've mentioned the "disposable depot" concept a couple of times, but not really got a response to it either way.
So if I may, let me back up and ask this question:
In the Jupiter-depot architecture, Direct is saying that they can perform the whole lunar mission with one launch (although you really need about 5 or more EELV flights inbetween to fill the depot).
That a J-246 will launch the CSM, the LSAM, and a minimally fueled EDS to the depot, it will refill, and then go off to the Moon.
My question is exactly how will the stack refuel?
How will it dock with the depot? Does the stack stay in it's launch config with all the interstages intact? Does the docking ring on the nose of the stack on Orion perform the docking, and can refuel through Orion? Does the stack come abreast of the depot and refil side-to-side? Has Orion already inverted and docked with the LSAM prior to refueling? (in wich case Orion's ring would already be in use)
How exactly will this docking and refueling take place?
Guys, you're forgetting that there will be a maximum realistic number of launches you can perform with the Jupiter's each year. If half of those launches are used for fuel, you just halved the total number of missions you can perform each year.
The optimum solution it that you *want* someone else to lift the propellant in order to free-up the Jupiter launches so that they can concentrate on launching more spacecraft -- that's how to enable more missions every year.
Sure, we could probably make-do with 4 or 6 Lunar-class missions a year. That's "okay". But it is possible to enable a really impressive 8 or 12 such missions every year by bringing in International Partners who pay to lift all of the fuel by some *other* means -- and those other means can be tailored to be extremely beneficial to the entire industry.
Ross.
Guys, you're forgetting that there will be a maximum realistic number of launches you can perform with the Jupiter's each year. If half of those launches are used for fuel, you just halved the total number of missions you can perform each year.
The optimum solution it that you *want* someone else to lift the propellant in order to free-up the Jupiter launches so that they can concentrate on launching more spacecraft -- that's how to enable more missions every year.
Sure, we could probably make-do with 4 or 6 Lunar-class missions a year. That's "okay". But it is possible to enable a really impressive 8 or 12 such missions every year by bringing in International Partners who pay to lift all of the fuel by some *other* means -- and those other means can be tailored to be extremely beneficial to the entire industry.
Ross.
>snip<
There are lots of different competing ideas for addressing each and every one of those questions -- and a lot more besides.
The only thing I can say with absolute certainty is that it is still *FAR* too early to be nailing down any of these details without serious industry input first -- and that will include International discussions with ESA, JAXA, RKA and many others too.
Ross.
I must get around to automating that identification... Remind me, to who do I have to apply in order to get the 24 hour day extended to a 32 hour day?
Ross.
>snip<
But the important thing is that that robust Jupiter flight rate costs about as much as Shuttle does, yet look at how much more we are achieving for the investment!
That's my dictionary description of "sustainable" and "affordable".
Ross.
I find myself wondering which infrastrcuture components would have to be added to enable a higher launch rate for Jupiter. Years ago, I read that the absolute limit to the number of Shuttle launches per year was no more than 17, no matter how many Orbiters you had on hand, and that the limit was determined by the number of pads and the capacity of the VAB. But I never knew if it was one or the other. Since we've seen Shuttle launches coming less than a month apart, that's my only clue. What would you need to build to get a higher flight rate. Just more pads and crawlers/MLPs (assuming assembled Jupiters could sit on their pads for a fair amount of time), or would you really need a second VAB?
.......It'd be nice to see that as a surge capacity. Probably not something you could do several years in a row. But imagine how busy the SRBs and MAF would be cranking out those components.
I don't think we would ever go beyond there in practice, although with all 4 VAB High Bays, 4 MPL's and 2 Pads it is theoretically possible to get to the maximum of 24 per year.
Ross.
I guess I was just initially wondering if, as opposed to your current baseline architecture, if it would be easier/cheaper to launch a tank first, preferrably on a J-130 if the J-130 could be made to get it into a stable LEO, then launch your depot config J-246 (CSM/LSAM/Empty EDS), dock the stack in LEO, transfer propellents, then go to the moon. Sort of a disposable depot that would then deorbit and be disposed of.
Then having payloads for 24 flights would be something else.
Second, in the case of the Core going all the way to circular, yes it will need to be de-orbited even though 130nmi is not a long-term stable orbit and will naturally decay in a matter of a few weeks -- but you do *NOT* want bits of fiery Core Stage and SSME raining down on the world because of an uncontrolled re-entry.
So there are two possible ways to perform a de-orbit of the Core in such situations: 1) You can utilize one or more solid motors to apply about 50m/s of delta-V to bring the Core Stage down immediately after payload deployment, or 2) if the Core must stay up for a slightly longer period of time for any reason (talking hours, not days), you can also use an RCS system to also provide attitude control as well. We are currently designing the Core Stage to be able to integrate the exact same RCS systems from the Jupiter Upper Stage in such scenario's.
Ross, this is where I'm still a bit confused. From what little I understand of orbital mechanics, after the initial launch burn you would typically shut down the engines and coast to the high point of the orbit. At perigee you refire the engines to raise the apogee up to the level you want.
From what I recall, the SSME is only designed for ground start and early in the Ares program there was talk of developing an air startable SSME, which was later abandoned. If the SSME can not be restarted in orbit, what engine will provide the cirularization burn if the Jupiter is taking the payload all the way to a 100x100 orbit?
In your explanation above, the use of a solid rocket motor or RCS system to deoribit the core inidcates that you don't plan to restart the SSME, so I'm still a bit confused on how you will get to that cirular orbit without an upper stage.
I guess I was just initially wondering if, as opposed to your current baseline architecture, if it would be easier/cheaper to launch a tank first, preferrably on a J-130 if the J-130 could be made to get it into a stable LEO, then launch your depot config J-246 (CSM/LSAM/Empty EDS), dock the stack in LEO, transfer propellents, then go to the moon. Sort of a disposable depot that would then deorbit and be disposed of.
That arrangement isn't powerful enough to do the job as planned. The J-130 could probably loft only about 60mT of usable propellant inside a suitable tanking structure. But you really need more like 100mT of propellant to complete the TLI effectively.
And once you've built a suitable long-duration-stay tank, with the capability to transfer propellant outwards, it wouldn't take very much to add the functionality to accept fuel inwards too -- so why not just reuse it? You will have essentially built about 95% of what you ultimately need for a permanent depot anyway, so it would seem a shame not to just design it to do the whole thing from the get-go.
And an aside, surely if you really want the J-130/246 combo, it would also seem a little better to situate the crew on the smaller of the two vehicles, no? :)
Ross.
J-24x is too much for CEV+LSAM.
J-130 is not quite enough for CEV+LSAM.
EELV is perfect for CEV.
J-130 is too much for baseline LSAM, but nothing less will do, and there's room for growth.
In Phase 2, J-24x is the only way to lift enough TLI propellant, but not enough for a larger LSAM that would exploit the performance of J-24x or J-130 (without CEV).
In Phase 3, J-24x is not to be used to lift TLI propellant, even though it would be more cost-effective than EELV.
The only reason to use EELV rather than J-24x to lift propellant is to increase EELV flight rates.
If the goal is to increase EELV flight rates, then it would be absurd not to launch CEV on EELV.
So...
Maybe J-130 isn't the interim vehicle to tide us over until JUS is ready for J-24x, the "real" Jupiter.
Maybe J-24x is the interim vehicle to tide us over until EELV is ready to lift CEV and support a depot architecture.
J-130 can lift baseline and future LSAMs. It can dry-launch propellant depots many times the size of the EDS. It can lift space station modules and habitats of all kinds.
The only thing J-130 can't lift is enough TLI propellant in a single launch. That's the only reason we absolutely need J-24x in Phase 2, and we don't want to use J-24x for that reason in Phase 3.
In Phase 3, the EDS can be launched dry on EELV, which we'll want to do because the goal is to increase EELV flight rates, and J-24x is obsolete.
By the time we need to launch spacecraft bigger than J-130 can lift, even if launched dry and filled at the depot, EELV can parlay its increased flight rates into the development of a 100+ mT launcher, and NASA can exit the market. Phase 4?
If there is 400-600mT of regular demand every year, commercial operators will get the opportunity to build their own heavy launchers in order to get their prices down.
The key thing to remember, is that by expanding the commercial sector now, it will result in a more competitive market and that will drive prices lower down the road.
That's a great point. I hadn't thought of it like that.
But I'll add that -unless- you have a functioning and reliable tug, then your tanker needs to have full ATV systems, controls, thrusters, and avionics to dock with the depot. That would drive up the costs substantially, and also the dependability of the LV because although the propellent is cheap, all of that hardware would not be so you don't want to risk loosing one.
It doesn't have to be available commerically. NASA can just plan on sending their own fuel up on their own launcher, and if any of our partners want to go on a mission, then must help with the cost of the mission in the form of a monitary contribution, or some other method (maybe they'll build a new module for the ISS, or a new joint venture telescope or something).
At least initially, that seems far less expensive and more efficient. Down the road, if someone wants to build and launch a permenent depot and fill it up for a price that's cheaper to NASA than sending up a Jupiter tanker, then NASA simply switches to it at that time.
But it just seems that permanent depot filled with cheap EELV flights is a long way down the road in being economical and viable vs. NASA sending up their own tanks visa vi a "disposable depot" or the current baseline two launch architecture.
....but that kind of sentiment would likely get me burned at the stake in this crowd.
~Jon
To those gurus in the know. :)
I've mentioned the "disposable depot" concept a couple of times, but not really got a response to it either way.
.......It'd be nice to see that as a surge capacity. Probably not something you could do several years in a row. But imagine how busy the SRBs and MAF would be cranking out those components.
I don't think we would ever go beyond there in practice, although with all 4 VAB High Bays, 4 MPL's and 2 Pads it is theoretically possible to get to the maximum of 24 per year.
Ross.
Then having payloads for 24 flights would be something else.
Interesting idea though.
12 seems to be a reasonable maximum.
Yes Jon, I forgot to mention Tugs in my list earlier, but they are a very obvious way to work things.
With a couple of Tugs (fueled from the Depot) the delivery modules don't have to have *any* RCS/power/communications/guidance/navigation systems at all -- just the tanking and the insulation. That would make them really low cost.
8 launches would only be 4 lunar missions
Jupiters as a fuel tanker? Eh, they are too valuable for that mission.
William,
You just made me smile!Quote8 launches would only be 4 lunar missions
(my emphasis)
Yes, Yes, YES!!!
This is *precisely* the mental attitude I want everyone to get.
We have spent more than a quarter of a century in a mindset that space must be all about a small handful of missions every year.
We *must* break this mold before we get locked-in to it for the next quarter century. It doesn't have to be so if we choose wisely now.
That comment clearly demonstrated that what we are aiming for is being heard and is being understood.
Thank-you Sir!
Ross.
Yeah, you're right, I'm going to have to limit my time on here for the next week or so.
Ross.
I’ve thought about how to pitch that Jupiter is one rocket that is scalable, not 2 separate development efforts. To illustrate my thoughts I put together the attached slide. Ross may have already thought of this, but if not I hope it gives you a way to think about it.Agreed, that is an excellent suggestion Sotar, thank-you. Now to figure out how to fit it into an already-amazingly-tight 30 minute Presentation!
Such a graphic might be a good summary of Jupiter to leave up after the presentation to the commission while they ask questions.
Yeah, you're right, I'm going to have to limit my time on here for the next week or so.
Ross.
LOL....Have Chris BAN you :)
William,
You just made me smile!Quote8 launches would only be 4 lunar missions
(my emphasis)
Yes, Yes, YES!!!
This is *precisely* the mental attitude I want everyone to get.
We have spent more than a quarter of a century in a mindset that space must be all about a small handful of missions every year.
We *must* break this mold before we get locked-in to it for the next quarter century. It doesn't have to be so if we choose wisely now.
That comment clearly demonstrated that what we are aiming for is being heard and is being understood.
Thank-you Sir!
Ross.
No country in their right mind is going to fork out the $300-500M per seat that NASA would need to charge. Especially if they can just do some launches of their own vehicles instead. Protons, Zenits and Long Marches are a lot cheaper than EELVs. Especially if the foreign government is buying them in bulk. Four a depot based mission, I think people were saying you would need 100mT of propellant, or about 25mT per person. That's one or two proton or Zenit launches max, which is far cheaper than buying the ticket.
To those gurus in the know. :)
I've mentioned the "disposable depot" concept a couple of times, but not really got a response to it either way.
Sorry, I've been very busy the past two weeks trying to get three separate tank projects (two of them custom designs) out the door, so I haven't had a lot of mental bandwidth. Once things calm down a bit, I may try taking a stab at giving you a better answer.
~Jon
So the question is, who in their right mind would spend upwards of a 1/2 Billion dollars when they get get a seat from NASA for $100 million??
J-24x is too much for CEV+LSAM.
J-130 is not quite enough for CEV+LSAM.
Actually, it really is just about perfect.
Problem is that we can't baseline it because the "dual-circularization" event would only become something for our detractors to hang their hats on.
The key is to get some legislation passed that requires NASA to use the services of a commercial propellant depot for exploration missions if they are available in sufficient quantity at the time needed.
Jupiter, being a NASA vehicle, would not be allowed to compete against a commercial enterprise that was offering a service that NASA needs.
Why should there be a law requiring NASA to purchase propellant launches from commercial providers if Jupiter would be cheaper?
That's a great point. I hadn't thought of it like that.
But I'll add that -unless- you have a functioning and reliable tug, then your tanker needs to have full ATV systems, controls, thrusters, and avionics to dock with the depot. That would drive up the costs substantially, and also the dependability of the LV because although the propellent is cheap, all of that hardware would not be so you don't want to risk loosing one.
Yeah, for multi-launch depot systems (ie reusable depots), tugs are really the right way to go.
~Jon
So the question is, who in their right mind would spend upwards of a 1/2 Billion dollars when they get get a seat from NASA for $100 million??
I think the part you're leaving out (if I understand the way things work) is that Jupiters will never be for sale. NASA cannot sell seats on a Jupiter. Unless laws are changed (which seems unlikely).
I think you have it backwards. Per the numbers I've seen the Direct guys throw around, they are saying Jupiters can be lofted at around $200-250 million per shot once the volume gets up.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the current cost of the D4H is on excess of $200 million. (I have no idea about Protons, Araine, etc).
It seems a little excessive to prohibit NASA from competing at all.
Why should there be a law requiring NASA to purchase propellant launches from commercial providers if Jupiter would be cheaper?
Just how good are ULA's lobbyists?
If NASA has to use "commercial" providers whenever possible, then Ares I is illegal and Jupiter can't launch Orion.NASA believes that among others, Atlas and Delta don't meet requirements to launch Orion.
I haven't heard recent numbers, but last I heard, Protons and Zenits run in the $60-70M range (and that's a large part of why they had to pull DIV off of the commercial market--the foreign stuff is a ton cheaper). And I've heard bulk-buy prices even lower than that. In quantities of 4 or 5, you're probably cost competitive with Jupiter. And definitely cost competitive with Jupiter when you factor in the other costs (above and beyond the second launch).
I think you have it backwards. Per the numbers I've seen the Direct guys throw around, they are saying Jupiters can be lofted at around $200-250 million per shot once the volume gets up.
Sure. However, for a foreign customer, even if they could sell seats (remember, we're buying Soyuz seats from a Russian company, not the Russian government), they're going to have to cover their share of the lunar lander, the orion capsule, the EDS, and the yearly operating costs for the program. This isn't just the marginal hardware cost. I don't think taxpayers would go for selling a seat at below its cost to a foreign government.QuoteSomeone correct me if I am wrong, but the current cost of the D4H is on excess of $200 million. (I have no idea about Protons, Araine, etc).
I haven't heard recent numbers, but last I heard, Protons and Zenits run in the $60-70M range (and that's a large part of why they had to pull DIV off of the commercial market--the foreign stuff is a ton cheaper). And I've heard bulk-buy prices even lower than that. In quantities of 4 or 5, you're probably cost competitive with Jupiter. And definitely cost competitive with Jupiter when you factor in the other costs (above and beyond the second launch).
~Jon
J-24x is too much for CEV+LSAM.
J-130 is too much for baseline LSAM, but nothing less will do, and there's room for growth.
Maybe J-130 isn't the interim vehicle to tide us over until JUS is ready for J-24x, the "real" Jupiter.
Maybe J-24x is the interim vehicle to tide us over until EELV is ready to lift CEV and support a depot architecture.
Here are suggestions on the cost/kg chart http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/charts/LV_Cost_per_kg_to_LEO.gif
Can we put things like Aquarius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarius_Launch_Vehicle) on there?If doubt anyone takes Aquarius seriously. Regardless of whether or not that is deserved, there's no reason to let that rub off on DIRECT by including them.
Because if you're serious about launching fuel and a dumb tank, you aren't going to use at least half the things on that chart beyond one-off missions.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are complaining that Jupiter is too much? I take it you don't want any margins at all, right?
EELV is not the answer. It saves NONE of the workforce or major infrastructure. Politically impossible, IMO. It also does not follow the mandate of the 2005 NAA.
EELVs are really only good for one thing: Doing all the little stuff while Jupiter takes us to the Moon, to Mars, and beyond.
J-130 may be able to lift CEV+LSAM with either dual circularization or separable IU/OMS/RCS stage, but there's zero room for growth when the depot architecture comes online.
Phase 2 (initial Lunar) uses two launch - one for EDS and one for crew / CLV. J-130 may be able to make this more efficient, but only by reducing margins on the crewed flight to nearly zero. :(
Phase 3 (depots) will always launch crew / CLV on a J-24x because it needs the Upper Stage as the EDS. (**)
(**) caveat - one depot scheme has the EDS itself as the depot. Launch EDS, which loiters whilst tankers fuel it. Once EDS is fuelled, launch CLV, dock and go. Crew could then still launch on J-130, but depot is then massively under-used, since it could easily push a J-24x Heavy payload (or more) through TLI.
There is a lot of discussion about increasing launch capacity and depots and maximum launch rates here. But I was wondering:
What is the minimum amount of trans-LEO activity below which DIRECT is overkill?
I just can't see congress funding 12 lunar missions per year worth of landers, activities, science, construction, etc...
There is a lot of discussion about increasing launch capacity and depots and maximum launch rates here. But I was wondering:
What is the minimum amount of trans-LEO activity below which DIRECT is overkill?
I just can't see congress funding 12 lunar missions per year worth of landers, activities, science, construction, etc...
I have started the three-ification of the wikipedia.org DIRECT article. It's not Shake-speare (more Shake-Stick). I hope someone good with numbers can do the chart. It is not inconceivable that a Committee member or two would visit the site.
If someone can write, the page needs to be about half as long!
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the current cost of the D4H is on excess of $200 million. (I have no idea about Protons, Araine, etc).
D4H costs about twice that - ~$400 million. Atlas V 551 and 552 are about $200 million.
D4H costs about twice that - ~$400 million. Atlas V 551 and 552 are about $200 million.
Yup. Delta IVH is closer to $500 million. I strongly doubt any manned system, be it Ares or Jupiter or whatever will get below this number, not with a realistic flight rate of 4 to 6 each year. So you end up with $3 billion plus, for less capapbility then STS. Additional flights (you need payloads = cash) bring the average numbers down a little, but you need more cash (total) too.
Analyst
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the current cost of the D4H is on excess of $200 million. (I have no idea about Protons, Araine, etc).
D4H costs about twice that - ~$400 million. Atlas V 551 and 552 are about $200 million.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the current cost of the D4H is on excess of $200 million. (I have no idea about Protons, Araine, etc).
D4H costs about twice that - ~$400 million. Atlas V 551 and 552 are about $200 million.
Yup, at the current mediocre flight rates, their prices have crept up quite a bit. Imagine how many unique parts they have on those vehicles (including stuff like seals and fasteners) that they're only ordering like 3-4 of per year (but have to meet the most stringent of aerospace specs)...they get a lot better once the flight rate gets up to something reasonable.
~Jon
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the current cost of the D4H is on excess of $200 million. (I have no idea about Protons, Araine, etc).
D4H costs about twice that - ~$400 million. Atlas V 551 and 552 are about $200 million.
Yup, at the current mediocre flight rates, their prices have crept up quite a bit. Imagine how many unique parts they have on those vehicles (including stuff like seals and fasteners) that they're only ordering like 3-4 of per year (but have to meet the most stringent of aerospace specs)...they get a lot better once the flight rate gets up to something reasonable.
~Jon
"once" or "if"? Do you know something we don't? :)
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the current cost of the D4H is on excess of $200 million. (I have no idea about Protons, Araine, etc).
D4H costs about twice that - ~$400 million. Atlas V 551 and 552 are about $200 million.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the current cost of the D4H is on excess of $200 million. (I have no idea about Protons, Araine, etc).
D4H costs about twice that - ~$400 million. Atlas V 551 and 552 are about $200 million.
wow, may it was that a regular D4 is around $200 million.
If that's the case, then after development costs, a Jupiter will be on cost parady with D4H right out of the gate! Both will decrease with increased flight rates...but what are the chances then of a D4H getting to cost significantly enough less than a Jupiter [taking into account increased flight rates and production of both]? And D4H has about 1/4 the capacity of a Jupiter?
This is still where I scratch my wooden engineer's head and have a hard time seeing the rush to buying these EELV's for refueling a depot over giving "financial support" for a Jupiter refueling flight or some other financial help for a place on a lunar mission.
As always I could [and probably am] wrong. ;)
Doesn't this seem strange to ANYONE but me? A launch vehicle (DIRECT) using a technology and manufacturing base older than EELV, coming from a system with a higher base cost (Shuttle) and with more stringent requirements (human rating) costing the SAME (or less) as EELVs that are subsidized by the Air Force and that providing much less performance?
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the current cost of the D4H is on excess of $200 million. (I have no idea about Protons, Araine, etc).
D4H costs about twice that - ~$400 million. Atlas V 551 and 552 are about $200 million.
wow, may it was that a regular D4 is around $200 million.
If that's the case, then after development costs, a Jupiter will be on cost parady with D4H right out of the gate! Both will decrease with increased flight rates...but what are the chances then of a D4H getting to cost significantly enough less than a Jupiter [taking into account increased flight rates and production of both]? And D4H has about 1/4 the capacity of a Jupiter?
This is still where I scratch my wooden engineer's head and have a hard time seeing the rush to buying these EELV's for refueling a depot over giving "financial support" for a Jupiter refueling flight or some other financial help for a place on a lunar mission.
As always I could [and probably am] wrong. ;)
Doesn't this seem strange to ANYONE but me? A launch vehicle (DIRECT) using a technology and manufacturing base older than EELV, coming from a system with a higher base cost (Shuttle) and with more stringent requirements (human rating) costing the SAME (or less) as EELVs that are subsidized by the Air Force and that providing much less performance?
The difference is that you can buy an EELV today. The Jupiter costs (and this is not a slam, but it is a simple fact) are on in an Excel spreadsheet somewhere. And yet so many people compare the two as if they were two loaves of bread at the grocery store. You might as well compare the Direct costs to those of Kistler, Kelly, or VentureStar. (note: not comparing the technical feasibility, just the cost projections)
Doesn't this seem strange to ANYONE but me? A launch vehicle (DIRECT) using a technology and manufacturing base older than EELV, coming from a system with a higher base cost (Shuttle) and with more stringent requirements (human rating) costing the SAME (or less) as EELVs that are subsidized by the Air Force and that providing much less performance?
The difference is that you can buy an EELV today. The Jupiter costs (and this is not a slam, but it is a simple fact) are on in an Excel spreadsheet somewhere. And yet so many people compare the two as if they were two loaves of bread at the grocery store. You might as well compare the Direct costs to those of Kistler, Kelly, or VentureStar. (note: not comparing the technical feasibility, just the cost projections)
Doesn't this seem strange to ANYONE but me? A launch vehicle (DIRECT) using a technology and manufacturing base older than EELV, coming from a system with a higher base cost (Shuttle) and with more stringent requirements (human rating) costing the SAME (or less) as EELVs that are subsidized by the Air Force and that providing much less performance?
The difference is that you can buy an EELV today. The Jupiter costs (and this is not a slam, but it is a simple fact) are on in an Excel spreadsheet somewhere. And yet so many people compare the two as if they were two loaves of bread at the grocery store. You might as well compare the Direct costs to those of Kistler, Kelly, or VentureStar. (note: not comparing the technical feasibility, just the cost projections)
So one must -assume- Jupiter exists to even talk about a depot.
Doesn't this seem strange to ANYONE but me? A launch vehicle (DIRECT) using a technology and manufacturing base older than EELV coming from a system with a higher base cost (Shuttle)
and with more stringent requirements (human rating)
costing the SAME (or less) as EELVs
that are subsidized by the Air Force and that providing much less performance?
The difference is that you can buy an EELV today.
The Jupiter costs (and this is not a slam, but it is a simple fact) are on in an Excel spreadsheet somewhere.
And yet so many people compare the two as if they were two loaves of bread at the grocery store.
You might as well compare the Direct costs to those of Kistler, Kelly, or VentureStar. (note: not comparing the technical feasibility, just the cost projections)
Doesn't this seem strange to ANYONE but me? A launch vehicle (DIRECT) using a technology and manufacturing base older than EELV, coming from a system with a higher base cost (Shuttle) and with more stringent requirements (human rating) costing the SAME (or less) as EELVs that are subsidized by the Air Force and that providing much less performance?
The bigger costs are the workforce and the man-rating requirements, which already exist for Jupiter, but still get factored in.
The bigger costs are the workforce and the man-rating requirements, which already exist for Jupiter, but still get factored in.
So why doesn't it cost more?
Doesn't this seem strange to ANYONE but me? A launch vehicle (DIRECT) using a technology and manufacturing base older than EELV, coming from a system with a higher base cost (Shuttle) and with more stringent requirements (human rating) costing the SAME (or less) as EELVs that are subsidized by the Air Force and that providing much less performance?
Not just you. I'll admit that I'm willing to buy many of the qualitative arguments for DIRECT--that developing one vehicle instead of two, and one that minimizes changes to the STS infrastructure, should cost a lot less than doing two vehicles. And having to maintain one vehicle line instead of two completely different ones should be cheaper as well....but I've never really believed Ross's numbers on DIRECT's costs vs. EELVs. Not that I think he's lying, just that I have no insight into his methodology, and it seems really counterintuitive that DIRECT would be even remotely close to as cheap as a much smaller, EELV.
So, my question remains...
What payloads are you going to fly on Jupiter in the 2016 timeframe that will allow a flight rate of 12 / year that you can afford? ISS at $2B/yr, 4 flights of Jupiter + ISS logistics = $2B/yr, lunar development (EDS/lander) of $2-3B per year and you are already over the $6B per year the Obama budget allows. Who pays for the other 8 flights? ($2B + mission costs). What about EELV costs?
It isn't like they haven't shown everyone their work...
Robert, while your qualitative argument is powerful and most of your points salient, the costs do matter.
At $6B per year, there is no exploration program beyond flags and footprints (even with the low DIRECT costs). Add in higher DIRECT costs, and you get even less.
As much as I appreciate your sentiment (and I didn't take offense), I want someone to show me why the numbers are wrong ... If my numbers aren't wrong and the budget is about right (give or take an adjustment) ... there is nobody to "buy" the other 8 Jupiter flights, and the NASA flights MUST cost more.
Actually, while they don't provide detailed BoE in the Direct 2.0 AIAA paper (2007), they do list the cost per flight at $400M each at 8/year. They provide dollars, but not how they arrived at them. Again, when the panels analysts do the numbers, they will be far less optimistic.
Look at this figure from the Direct proposal. It says that VSE will take $10B a year WITH DIRECT. We only have $6B per year.
The point is that VSE was doable at $10B per year (ESAS), a stretch at $8B per year (2007), and impossibly depressing at $6B per year. The launch vehicle saves you next to nothing in operations costs (unless you get someone else to pay for launches to amortize the infrastructure costs).
It doesn't matter if you do DIRECT or EELV or Ares, VSE is dead at $6B per year (the DIRECT graph shows it).
Okay, my turn! :)
What do we get with EELV??
1. Center Fuel Tank
2. Boosters (SRB or LOX/H2)
3. Engines
4. Avionics
What do we get with Jupiter?
Exactly the same, but man-rated, PLUS:
5. Recovery system
6. Abort system
All of which are required for EELVs to take the place of a Jupiter, but you still don't get the performance.
With my slow computer/connection, I can't find the detailed costing Ross had up from way back, so I'll have to check tomorrow at work, but so far:
Atlas: $200M @ ?12/year
D4H: $500M @ ?4/year
Jupiter: $200-250M @ 12/year
Doesn't this seem strange to ANYONE but me? A launch vehicle (DIRECT) using a technology and manufacturing base older than EELV, coming from a system with a higher base cost (Shuttle) and with more stringent requirements (human rating) costing the SAME (or less) as EELVs that are subsidized by the Air Force and that providing much less performance?
The difference is that you can buy an EELV today. The Jupiter costs (and this is not a slam, but it is a simple fact) are on in an Excel spreadsheet somewhere. And yet so many people compare the two as if they were two loaves of bread at the grocery store. You might as well compare the Direct costs to those of Kistler, Kelly, or VentureStar. (note: not comparing the technical feasibility, just the cost projections)
Also guessing the Direct 2.0 numbers included substantial costs for J-2X
The only realistic alternative is, after MECO, the Orion must separate and back-away from the rest of the vehicle to a safe distance (300-500m should be sufficient). Then the Altair has to extract itself under automation. Once both spacecraft are clear of the launcher, they then have to perform two separate circularization burns. We suggest that the Altair go first by a few seconds, so that the Orion crew can watch it through the windows in case of problems. After both vehicles reach their final 130x130nmi stable orbit, that is when they rendezvous and dock to one another.
The Jupiter's will never be available commercially. Period. They will never be allowed to "compete" with the commercial operators.
If there is 400-600mT of regular demand every year, commercial operators will get the opportunity to build their own heavy launchers in order to get their prices down.
Is the baseline to have the LSAM perform the LOI burn like Apollo?
I'd like to turn the question around the other way: Why are EELVs so expensive? Ariane V is more or less a mini-Jupiter (Or STS-minus-Orbiter), and it isn't comparably expensive. Why should a kerlox rocket with Russian-manufactured engines be so expensive? Why should a hydrolox rocket with abalative engines be so expensive? What we Usonanons doing wrong? (That's actualy part of the point of Falcon 9 development, though as Jim likes to say, it's not a given).
And one other question: I am under the impression that Orbiter maintenances, most especially including SSME refurbishment, is a very large slice of the STS cost pie, because it is the underlying cause of the so-called "standing army" and the $3bln/yr base cost of having STS at zero-flight-rate. Is that false? Can somebody point me to some figures? My recollection is, part of the way the STS workforce will be retained is by using them for Jupiter development near term, and lunar development/ops long term. Aren't the costs cited for EELVs and Jupiters exclusive of payload costs? You're not getting Jupiter 130 + Altair + Orion on the pad for $200mln, you're getting Jupiter 130 with an empty fairing on the pad.
There is a state subsidy issue to consider with Ariane, is there not?
PS At least if there are cost overruns on Jupiter, you're starting from a lower base point.
I'm with m.i.w and Analyst on this one. Suspiciously optimistic costs, schedules, and performance will hurt the credibility of the whole proposal.
Just how detailed does it need to be, though? Is it enough to say to the commission something like: "The 1.5 launch system is encountering major scheudle and cost overruns. We propose that a single vehicle of medium size be developed instead to perform the role, and would be cheaper. Fortunately this medium vehicle could share many similarities with the current STS stack and thus save even more development costs and possibly schedule too. Preivous studies like NLS show that the basic concept is quite feasible."
Okay, my turn! :)
What do we get with EELV??
1. Center Fuel Tank
2. Boosters (SRB or LOX/H2)
3. Engines
4. Avionics
What do we get with Jupiter?
Exactly the same, but man-rated, PLUS:
5. Recovery system
6. Abort system
All of which are required for EELVs to take the place of a Jupiter, but you still don't get the performance.
But Jupiter may suffer serious cost creep from the fact that it is to be run by the government. This is almost always less efficient. It may end up losing cost advantage over EELVs purely because of this.
With my slow computer/connection, I can't find the detailed costing Ross had up from way back, so I'll have to check tomorrow at work, but so far:
Atlas: $200M @ ?12/year
D4H: $500M @ ?4/year
Jupiter: $200-250M @ 12/year
Atlas doesn't fly 12 times a year now, all configs combined, much less Atlas 55x config (the one which costs $200M, others are cheaper). IIRC it flew just once at all.
Now Ross has said in the past that all the detailed costing is hidden even to him and other members of the team, and this could be made avaiable to the panel if requested.
This is exactly the point: The smell test. For Direct with respect to cost (and EDS performance (structure) ) , for SpaceX with respect to schedule, cost and performance. This has nothing to do with the concept or company being bad per se. Just with overpromising and being unrealistic (same is true for CxP).
Shuttle refurbishing cost may be "high", but are they "high" when compared with building a new spaceship every 3 months? And new engines? And not having the capability to inspect used components? And not having the capabilities? I don't think so.
Take a 4 metric ton GEO comsat from the assembly line, "commercial", unmanned, nothing special: $200 million. Launch $100 million plus. Now we are talking HSF, 25 metric tons to LEO. Much more mass, much more "safety", much more complexity. Think about it.
Analyst
Now Ross has said in the past that all the detailed costing is hidden even to him and other members of the team, and this could be made available to the panel if requested.
And this doesn't bother most people?
So it is not simply a "in Ross we trust", it's a "we trust in the unnamed guy that Ross trusts".
<snip>
*actually trying to help*
What would you have us do mars?
We could always say that our figures are sourced by John Q. Citizen and Sally M. Person in Finance in Bldg 123, 3rd floor at MSFC, Huntsville. We could do that. The only trouble is that not one of us would ever get the chance to query them for corroboration, because they would be summarily fired in less than 10 minutes of us providing that information. (fake names btw)
mars, I understand your position, and I really do appriciate what you're saying.
But the bottom line is that information will never be provide on this public forum.
The Augustine Commission on the other hand is different.
They will have what they need from us.
This is exactly the point: The smell test. For Direct with respect to cost (and EDS performance (structure) ) , for SpaceX with respect to schedule, cost and performance. This has nothing to do with the concept or company being bad per se. Just with overpromising and being unrealistic (same is true for CxP).
Shuttle refurbishing cost may be "high", but are they "high" when compared with building a new spaceship every 3 months? And new engines? And not having the capability to inspect used components? And not having the capabilities? I don't think so.
Take a 4 metric ton GEO comsat from the assembly line, "commercial", unmanned, nothing special: $200 million. Launch $100 million plus. Now we are talking HSF, 25 metric tons to LEO. Much more mass, much more "safety", much more complexity. Think about it.
Analyst
I'd like to make one more point about rocket comparisons here. So long as the LAS works reliably, LOC and LOM are effectively decoupled, which, for STS, they are not. LOM becomes solely about $$$, whereas LOC continues to be about lives. That does make a difference.
We give you numbers and you attack the use of the term "smell test" and pick at the qualitative elements.
Any chance you might take at refuting the actual numbers (like cost of EELV vs. DIRECT given the additional requirements, older tech base, and such for DIRECT)?
Fact is that either DIRECT/Orion or Ares/Orion will cost "order of" $3B per year for the low flight rates we can afford. And that is half of our HSF budget. And it is basically what the Shuttle costs today.
The remaining cost points we are making are there so that when the panel comes up with higher costs, people aren't surprised. Given the big picture, the cost of any of these launch systems comes out in the wash.
In fact, DIRECT's lunar architecture won't work without the higher flight rate (which must be approximately 2x STS flight rate, or not less than 8 launches a year, compared, cost-wise, to 4 STS launches). I find that much more interesting than some highly questionable smell test.
I'd like to make one more point about rocket comparisons here. So long as the LAS works reliably, LOC and LOM are effectively decoupled, which, for STS, they are not. LOM becomes solely about $$$, whereas LOC continues to be about lives. That does make a difference.
Oversimplification of the political and stand-down costs associated with a high energy LOM event. In a fear-based decision process, even non-lethal risks become prohibitively expensive.
But the basic point is true if LAS works and the public opinion (see also "political grand standing") elements can be managed (which today they can't).
In fact, DIRECT's lunar architecture won't work without the higher flight rate (which must be approximately 2x STS flight rate, or not less than 8 launches a year, compared, cost-wise, to 4 STS launches). I find that much more interesting than some highly questionable smell test.
Why won't it "work" without the higher flight rate? The total costs of Jupiter are higher the more you launch. A 4-flight architecture is cheaper than an 8-flight, although you do less. And yes, there is nobody to pay for the other 8 flights to get to 12 ... nobody to pay for payloads, and nobody to pay for launches (no matter how cheap).
And "smell test" is not meant to be qualitative, but a rollup of the top level cost numbers compared to values we know. Sort of like someone tell you they will sell you a Jag for $10,000 doesn't pass the "smell test". But enough on that, I think we reached detente.
1) What you appear to be saying is Shuttle as-is ought to be cheaper and safer than any conceivable manned expendable rocket (e.g., a manned EELV).
2) I think most of the EELV supporters here would burst into flames if you suggested that.
3) In fact, you're not "building a new spaceship" every few months, you're doing exactly what STS does, minus all the refurb associated with the Orbiter.
4) Your logic suggests that because this Saturday's STS flight has one brand new engine, it must therefore be less safe than the previous mission. Is that true? Are the LOC/LOM numbers higher for this mission *solely* because it has one never flown SSME? I don't think so.
5) In terms of reusability, an excepting the Orbiter, Jupiter 130 differs from STS only in that it will have brand new SSMEs on every flight (once the existing supply runs out).
6) The SRBs will be handled (and reused) in exactly the same way, the core tankange will be handled (and not reused) in the same way as the ET.
7) That leaves the rest of your questions point to a safety/cost comparison between Orbiter and Orion. All of that is why I think the "smell test" under discussion is rather dubious. I don't doubt there are questions to be asked, and even agree the "smell test" question is really between DIRECT and CxP.
8 ) But bringing in SpaceX (or any other unrelated program) is political posturing.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
If you can't view the video and conclude that most of Jupiter's costs are in fact known Shuttle costs (SRB, ET, SSME), then you just need to agree to disagree and move on.
Orion costs are going to apply to whatever vehicle you put it on, I don't get your point.Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
If you can't view the video and conclude that most of Jupiter's costs are in fact known Shuttle costs (SRB, ET, SSME), then you just need to agree to disagree and move on.
You politely forget the payload on top of Jupiter. I don't question Jupiter itself being a bit cheaper than the Shuttle system. But it is also doing a lot less. It is just a launch vehicle. To do useful things you need a payload. Enter Orion and its costs. Enter mission modules.
Even then it is doubtful this Jupiter launch vehicle alone will be cheaper than currently exisiting, smaller launch vehicles which need less infrastructure. And all of their costs are known, today.
Analyst
You politely forget the payload on top of Jupiter. I don't question Jupiter itself being a bit cheaper than the Shuttle system. But it is also doing a lot less. It is just a launch vehicle. To do useful things you need a payload. Enter Orion and its costs. Enter mission modules.
Even then it is doubtful this Jupiter launch vehicle alone will be cheaper than currently exisiting, smaller launch vehicles which need less infrastructure. And all of their costs are known, today.
Analyst
1) What you appear to be saying is Shuttle as-is ought to be cheaper and safer than any conceivable manned expendable rocket (e.g., a manned EELV).
2) I think most of the EELV supporters here would burst into flames if you suggested that.
3) In fact, you're not "building a new spaceship" every few months, you're doing exactly what STS does, minus all the refurb associated with the Orbiter.
4) Your logic suggests that because this Saturday's STS flight has one brand new engine, it must therefore be less safe than the previous mission. Is that true? Are the LOC/LOM numbers higher for this mission *solely* because it has one never flown SSME? I don't think so.
5) In terms of reusability, an excepting the Orbiter, Jupiter 130 differs from STS only in that it will have brand new SSMEs on every flight (once the existing supply runs out).
6) The SRBs will be handled (and reused) in exactly the same way, the core tankange will be handled (and not reused) in the same way as the ET.
7) That leaves the rest of your questions point to a safety/cost comparison between Orbiter and Orion. All of that is why I think the "smell test" under discussion is rather dubious. I don't doubt there are questions to be asked, and even agree the "smell test" question is really between DIRECT and CxP.
8 ) But bringing in SpaceX (or any other unrelated program) is political posturing.
You misunderstood quite a few things.
1) Not cheaper and safer than any manned expendable rocket plus spacecraft. But probably as cheap (or expensive) and safe as any realistic alternative, yes. When you add Shuttle unique capabilities in your equation, it is likely cheaper than any combination of realistic vehicles.
And a combination is needed, because no single vehicle (e.g. Orion alone) mimics Shuttle capabilities even barely. The only thing Orion has (and Shuttle has not) is its higher delta v capability. Orion has no airlock, no RMS, no useful up and downmass, ... And no, Orion can not leave LEO on its own.
2) I don't care what one or another (support, amazing people) group thinks. :)
3) Plus: Building and integrating a new spacecraft every time you fly. Or do you put the crew directly on top of the launch vehicle, without a spacecraft (Orion)? Would be a hell of a ride. You replace refurbishing costs with manufactoring costs.
4) Your logic is false and it is not what I am saying. You learn from inspecting components, you learn from wear. It does not matter if you are building a new one using this knowledge, improve the existing one or change your procedures. You see many weak points on used hardware only if you have the hardware at hand.
5) This is not correct, and you know it. The tank alone differs because of different loadpaths. Not only are the engine new, you have to gimbal these (today done by APU power), you need power (today fuel cells). A lot of the Shuttle aft compartment functions have to be replaced.
6) Correct, only is the core tankage more than the tankage. It is the whole modified tank plus many Shuttle aft compartment functions.
7) Bingo. Refurbishing vs. rebuilding and testing in mini series. Why is this dubious? This is all what it is about. Whoever claims to be cheaper (and safer) than Shuttle has to answer this question. Whoever claims to be cheaper (and safer) than CxP has to answer the same question. And cost does not stand alone. You have to factor in capabilities (see 1) ).
8..) Why are people reacting this way whenever one brings up SpaceX? They are a good example. I wanted to illustrate they too overpromised on differend areas. Not to their good.
Analyst
You politely forget the payload on top of Jupiter. I don't question Jupiter itself being a bit cheaper than the Shuttle system. But it is also doing a lot less. It is just a launch vehicle. To do useful things you need a payload. Enter Orion and its costs. Enter mission modules.
Even then it is doubtful this Jupiter launch vehicle alone will be cheaper than currently exisiting, smaller launch vehicles which need less infrastructure. And all of their costs are known, today.
Analyst
Orion would be shared by the EELVs and Ares. So, it does indeed come down to the launch vehicle.
NASA says a Shuttle mission costs (on average) $450 million. It seems reasonable to me that you could build and launch a J-130 for around that.
Is the baseline to have the LSAM perform the LOI burn like Apollo?
In Apollo the Command Service Module (CSM) performed LOI. In Constellation and Direct the LSAM performs the LOI.
1) What you appear to be saying is Shuttle as-is ought to be cheaper and safer than any conceivable manned expendable rocket (e.g., a manned EELV).
2) I think most of the EELV supporters here would burst into flames if you suggested that.
3) In fact, you're not "building a new spaceship" every few months, you're doing exactly what STS does, minus all the refurb associated with the Orbiter.
4) Your logic suggests that because this Saturday's STS flight has one brand new engine, it must therefore be less safe than the previous mission. Is that true? Are the LOC/LOM numbers higher for this mission *solely* because it has one never flown SSME? I don't think so.
5) In terms of reusability, an excepting the Orbiter, Jupiter 130 differs from STS only in that it will have brand new SSMEs on every flight (once the existing supply runs out).
6) The SRBs will be handled (and reused) in exactly the same way, the core tankange will be handled (and not reused) in the same way as the ET.
7) That leaves the rest of your questions point to a safety/cost comparison between Orbiter and Orion. All of that is why I think the "smell test" under discussion is rather dubious. I don't doubt there are questions to be asked, and even agree the "smell test" question is really between DIRECT and CxP.
8 ) But bringing in SpaceX (or any other unrelated program) is political posturing.
You misunderstood quite a few things.
1) Not cheaper and safer than any manned expendable rocket plus spacecraft. But probably as cheap (or expensive) and safe as any realistic alternative, yes. When you add Shuttle unique capabilities in your equation, it is likely cheaper than any combination of realistic vehicles.
And a combination is needed, because no single vehicle (e.g. Orion alone) mimics Shuttle capabilities even barely. The only thing Orion has (and Shuttle has not) is its higher delta v capability. Orion has no airlock, no RMS, no useful up and downmass, ... And no, Orion can not leave LEO on its own.
2) I don't care what one or another (support, amazing people) group thinks. :)
3) Plus: Building and integrating a new spacecraft every time you fly. Or do you put the crew directly on top of the launch vehicle, without a spacecraft (Orion)? Would be a hell of a ride. You replace refurbishing costs with manufactoring costs.
4) Your logic is false and it is not what I am saying. You learn from inspecting components, you learn from wear. It does not matter if you are building a new one using this knowledge, improve the existing one or change your procedures. You see many weak points on used hardware only if you have the hardware at hand.
5) This is not correct, and you know it. The tank alone differs because of different loadpaths. Not only are the engine new, you have to gimbal these (today done by APU power), you need power (today fuel cells). A lot of the Shuttle aft compartment functions have to be replaced.
6) Correct, only is the core tankage more than the tankage. It is the whole modified tank plus many Shuttle aft compartment functions.
7) Bingo. Refurbishing vs. rebuilding and testing in mini series. Why is this dubious? This is all what it is about. Whoever claims to be cheaper (and safer) than Shuttle has to answer this question. Whoever claims to be cheaper (and safer) than CxP has to answer the same question. And cost does not stand alone. You have to factor in capabilities (see 1) ).
8..) Why are people reacting this way whenever one brings up SpaceX? They are a good example. I wanted to illustrate they too overpromised on differend areas. Not to their good.
Analyst
1) What you appear to be saying is Shuttle as-is ought to be cheaper and safer than any conceivable manned expendable rocket (e.g., a manned EELV).
2) I think most of the EELV supporters here would burst into flames if you suggested that.
3) In fact, you're not "building a new spaceship" every few months, you're doing exactly what STS does, minus all the refurb associated with the Orbiter.
4) Your logic suggests that because this Saturday's STS flight has one brand new engine, it must therefore be less safe than the previous mission. Is that true? Are the LOC/LOM numbers higher for this mission *solely* because it has one never flown SSME? I don't think so.
5) In terms of reusability, an excepting the Orbiter, Jupiter 130 differs from STS only in that it will have brand new SSMEs on every flight (once the existing supply runs out).
6) The SRBs will be handled (and reused) in exactly the same way, the core tankange will be handled (and not reused) in the same way as the ET.
7) That leaves the rest of your questions point to a safety/cost comparison between Orbiter and Orion. All of that is why I think the "smell test" under discussion is rather dubious. I don't doubt there are questions to be asked, and even agree the "smell test" question is really between DIRECT and CxP.
8 ) But bringing in SpaceX (or any other unrelated program) is political posturing.
You misunderstood quite a few things.
1) Not cheaper and safer than any manned expendable rocket plus spacecraft. But probably as cheap (or expensive) and safe as any realistic alternative, yes. When you add Shuttle unique capabilities in your equation, it is likely cheaper than any combination of realistic vehicles.
And a combination is needed, because no single vehicle (e.g. Orion alone) mimics Shuttle capabilities even barely. The only thing Orion has (and Shuttle has not) is its higher delta v capability. Orion has no airlock, no RMS, no useful up and downmass, ... And no, Orion can not leave LEO on its own.
2) I don't care what one or another (support, amazing people) group thinks. :)
3) Plus: Building and integrating a new spacecraft every time you fly. Or do you put the crew directly on top of the launch vehicle, without a spacecraft (Orion)? Would be a hell of a ride. You replace refurbishing costs with manufactoring costs.
4) Your logic is false and it is not what I am saying. You learn from inspecting components, you learn from wear. It does not matter if you are building a new one using this knowledge, improve the existing one or change your procedures. You see many weak points on used hardware only if you have the hardware at hand.
5) This is not correct, and you know it. The tank alone differs because of different loadpaths. Not only are the engine new, you have to gimbal these (today done by APU power), you need power (today fuel cells). A lot of the Shuttle aft compartment functions have to be replaced.
6) Correct, only is the core tankage more than the tankage. It is the whole modified tank plus many Shuttle aft compartment functions.
7) Bingo. Refurbishing vs. rebuilding and testing in mini series. Why is this dubious? This is all what it is about. Whoever claims to be cheaper (and safer) than Shuttle has to answer this question. Whoever claims to be cheaper (and safer) than CxP has to answer the same question. And cost does not stand alone. You have to factor in capabilities (see 1) ).
8..) Why are people reacting this way whenever one brings up SpaceX? They are a good example. I wanted to illustrate they too overpromised on differend areas. Not to their good.
Analyst
I'm not real sure what you two are disagreeing on. If Jupiter comes out of the review favorably, there is still an extreme amount of engineering to complete. No doubt there and that should not be a point of contention at this point. However, in principle the concept is valid and logical.
1. Does it make sense to have 1 "medium" launch vehicle instead of two completely different? Yes.
2. Does it make sense to have capability and performance in the launch vehicle? Yes
3. Does it make sense to be able to have that extra capability and performance in the event mission scenerios are required that are not currently the baseline? Yes.
4. In today's economic climate does it make sense to use as much existing hardware as possible to minimize development costs? Yes.
5. In today's ecomnomic climate does is it necessary to be able to forecast accurately operations costs? Yes.
6. By using proven elements of the shuttle stack, is forecasting accurate operations costs possible? Yes.
7. In the event of a shuttle extension, would development of a follow-on launcher be able to capitalize on on using much of the existing shuttle stack and infrastructure? Yes.
8. In the event of a shuttle extension, would the shuttle program be able to become more efficient and able to capitalize on a development program using many of its elements? Yes.
As for the current orbiter aft compartment, in it's basic form it is the SSME, MPS feedlines, APU's, hydraulic system and avionics bays. So lets take it one step at a time.
1. SSME - No need to even discuss, because obviously some engine is needed.
2. MPS feedlines. LH2 on LO2 engine feeds, as well as fill and drain, recirc, bleed lines, manifold lines to the ET disconnects, large pneumatic valves and small pneumatic valves, large COPV's for the helium to cycle the valves and purge and inert the lines after ET sep. If the core stage was made to be more "dumb" much of this could be minimized and some would not be required.
3. APU's and hydrazine tanks. Something needs to gimbal the engines but it may not need to be hydrazine based. SRB is considering a blowdown system (granted two minutes versus 8-9).
4. Hydraulics. Can be resized for just engine gimbal. All the other hydraulic functions of the orbiter are obviously unnecessary.
5. Av bays. Mute point because this will be in the instrumentation ring already known to have to exist. As for power, the fuel cells are in the midbody and whatever launch vehicle flies will need to address this, and most likely with batteries.
Orion costs are going to apply to whatever vehicle you put it on.Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
If you can't view the video and conclude that most of Jupiter's costs are in fact known Shuttle costs (SRB, ET, SSME), then you just need to agree to disagree and move on.
You politely forget the payload on top of Jupiter. I don't question Jupiter itself being a bit cheaper than the Shuttle system. But it is also doing a lot less. It is just a launch vehicle. To do useful things you need a payload. Enter Orion and its costs. Enter mission modules.
Even then it is doubtful this Jupiter launch vehicle alone will be cheaper than currently exisiting, smaller launch vehicles which need less infrastructure. And all of their costs are known, today.
Analyst
Mark S, I don't like your kind of questioning. This is not a court hearing and you are not the judge nor the jury.
1) Jupiter development cheaper than Ares: Yes.
2) Jupiter operation cheaper than Ares: Yes.
Both don't matter because:
3) Jupiter and Orion payload cheaper than Shuttle: Doubtful, probably no.
4) Jupiter and Orion payload and useful mission module cheaper than Shuttle: Definitely no.
and:
5) Projected HSF funding level not higher than today and past funding level, probably less.
4) and 5) together give you a system less capable than today's for at least the same budget.
EELVs do matter, because they may be cheaper (and are flying). Doing the same than Direct, putting mass into LEO. And LEO is the only thing possible with the current and projected budget.
"Orion costs are going to apply to whatever vehicle you put it on."
Yes, but not if you compare with the Shuttle system. If your launcher of choice plus Orion on top does cost the same or more than Shuttle, with much less capabilities, what is the point of the new system? Safety (on paper)? And no, Orion alone can't leave LEO.
Analyst
Certain?
Yes, but not if you compare with the Shuttle system. If your launcher of choice plus Orion on top does cost the same or more than Shuttle, with much less capabilities, what is the point of the new system? Safety (on paper)? And no, Orion alone can't leave LEO.
..you have to gimbal these (today done by APU power), you need power (today fuel cells). A lot of the Shuttle aft compartment functions have to be replaced.
Given your categorical statements above, I expect you must have this information readily available. I do hope you will share it with the rest of us?
Just calculate how much bigger a fuel tank the Orion's Service Module needs to fly the Orion from a propellant depot at LEO to a second depot at:
a. EML1 (delta-v 3.77 km/s)
b. Low Lunar Orbit (delta-v 4.04 km/s)
Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget)
The Orion could be launched nearly dry and pick up the return propellant at the second depot.
Once on-orbit, I prefer photovoltaics over fuel cells any day.
Just calculate how much bigger a fuel tank the Orion's Service Module needs to fly the Orion from a propellant depot at LEO to a second depot at:
a. EML1 (delta-v 3.77 km/s)
b. Low Lunar Orbit (delta-v 4.04 km/s)
Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget)
The Orion could be launched nearly dry and pick up the return propellant at the second depot.
And the fuel depots come from where exactly?
Analyst
Given your categorical statements above, I expect you must have this information readily available. I do hope you will share it with the rest of us?
It is called experience plus common sense. Nothing you can share easily. Only learn yourself.
Analyst
People are getting confused because this has turned into a debate over whether Orion, regardless of its launch vehicle, is more cost effective than Shuttle.
The allegation has been made that the budget will not take us beyond LEO with any architecture, the implication being that Shuttle extension is the best option if we're stuck in LEO.
Just a friendly update for those of you who were expecting to tune in to your regularly-scheduled conversation about Jupiter, Ares, and EELV in the context of an exploration architecture based on Orion.
Just calculate how much bigger a fuel tank the Orion's Service Module needs to fly the Orion from a propellant depot at LEO to a second depot at:
a. EML1 (delta-v 3.77 km/s)
b. Low Lunar Orbit (delta-v 4.04 km/s)
Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget)
The Orion could be launched nearly dry and pick up the return propellant at the second depot.
And the fuel depots come from where exactly?
Analyst
We can launch the depots and fuel using J-130 or EELV. The second depot can have propellant taken to it from LEO using a solar electric space tug Isp 3000 to 6000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster)
Take these as unsourced data. We all want to keep our jobs.
Round numbers:
Orbiter = $1B
SSME = $300M
ET = $300M
SRB = $500M
Ops + PM = $800M
Marginal costs of additional flights are fairly low.
Orion is about $300M per unit at 2/yr
So take out Orbiter, add a bit for expendable SSME, add a $600M for Orion, add a bit for updated requirements (modern reliability, safety, environmental processes) and the fixed costs (2 flights per year minimum) for DIRECT/Orion are about what they are for SSP, right around $3B per year.
That is fully half of the available HSF budget going forward.
I keep trying to make sure I mention Jupiter 130 and Jupiter 246, and the debate really should be about Jupiter vs. Ares, so I don't know how Shuttle has crept in, especially since it's Shuttle/Orbiter, not even Shuttle-C. I keep hoping the Moon will continue to enter into it...
Take these as unsourced data. We all want to keep our jobs.
Round numbers:
Orbiter = $1B
SSME = $300M
ET = $300M
SRB = $500M
Ops + PM = $800M
Marginal costs of additional flights are fairly low.
Orion is about $300M per unit at 2/yr
So take out Orbiter, add a bit for expendable SSME, add a $600M for Orion, add a bit for updated requirements (modern reliability, safety, environmental processes) and the fixed costs (2 flights per year minimum) for DIRECT/Orion are about what they are for SSP, right around $3B per year. Marginal costs at higher flight rates are left as an exercise to the reader.
That is fully half of the available HSF budget going forward.
People do have data to go with their experience. That's two things you gain with time in the business.
Weren't you the person who said he wouldn't accept unsourced data a few posts back? Let me get this straight: are you asserting that each Jupiter 246 will cost $1.2bln for first-stage engines alone? And, of course, at the production rate that accounts for that figure, there will be one lunar mission per four years...?
These round numbers are base upon how many flights per year?
Actually, while they don't provide detailed BoE in the Direct 2.0 AIAA paper (2007), they do list the cost per flight at $400M each at 8/year. They provide dollars, but not how they arrived at them. Again, when the panels analysts do the numbers, they will be far less optimistic.
Look at this figure from the Direct proposal. It says that VSE will take $10B a year WITH DIRECT. That's at 2 lunar missions per year and NOTHING else flying on a Jupiter. Those options cost extra.
We only have $6B per year, an ever increasing budget deficit, and healthcare on the horizon.
Fitting any of these into $6 billion per year while continuing ISS operations is going to be challenging, to say the least. Reusable Altair, or offloading some costs to international partners (propellant depot) might help a fair bit.
(Still, this pretty much tells me all I need to know about which architecture might have the chance to get us out of LEO in the next decade or so.)
Fitting any of these into $6 billion per year while continuing ISS operations is going to be challenging, to say the least. Reusable Altair, or offloading some costs to international partners (propellant depot) might help a fair bit.
(Still, this pretty much tells me all I need to know about which architecture might have the chance to get us out of LEO in the next decade or so.)
Except for the reusable Altair or depot construct (flight rate isn't high enough) ... give the man a cigar.
Fitting any of these into $6 billion per year while continuing ISS operations is going to be challenging, to say the least. Reusable Altair, or offloading some costs to international partners (propellant depot) might help a fair bit.
(Still, this pretty much tells me all I need to know about which architecture might have the chance to get us out of LEO in the next decade or so.)
Except for the reusable Altair or depot construct (flight rate isn't high enough) ... give the man a cigar.
If these estimates are reasonable guestimates of all three programs, I don't see any of these options being successful in a $ 6B/yr budget. They will all lead to another failed NASA program.
Given your categorical statements above, I expect you must have this information readily available. I do hope you will share it with the rest of us?
It is called experience plus common sense. Nothing you can share easily. Only learn yourself.
Analyst
Right... So you have no actual data? You haven't run the numbers? But Direct doesn't pass the "smell test"?
Thank you for the clarification.
These sand charts from the directlauncher site paint an interesting cost picture. Top line annual cost to operate lunar missions is about:
EELV - $10 billion per year
Ares - $10 billion per year
Direct - $7.5 billion per year
Given your categorical statements above, I expect you must have this information readily available. I do hope you will share it with the rest of us?
It is called experience plus common sense. Nothing you can share easily. Only learn yourself.
Analyst
Right... So you have no actual data? You haven't run the numbers? But Direct doesn't pass the "smell test"?
Thank you for the clarification.
Direct is overselling. Like Griffin did with CxP, like EELV companies did with thier vehicles in the late 1990ies, like SpaceX did and still does ... There will be problems cropping up along the way, costing money. There is no budget for going lunar. It was and still is a LEO budget, short and useless stunts may be possible.
Funny people keep asking for numbers, data, facts as they call it, when simple common sense and the look into history, into countless past programs, manned and unmanned, tells the whole story. You have just to be willing to read it.
The following may sound harsh - and it is not directed at you personally: I am very sure history will prove me right. We can continue this conversation 5 or 10 years from now. I really hope you are right, but I don't believe you will.
Analyst
And the tug comes from where exactly?
Sorry to chime in here but could someone please tell me how EELV can accomplish any of the three critical words here? Moon, Mars, Beyond. Don't get me wrong I am all for EELV but please I am serious here were comparing Apples and Oranges when it comes to capabilities so how much sense does it make to compare cost in the same sentence. Its like comparing a SmartCar and Suburban but instead you're simply saying Car1 and Car2. There capabilities cannot be disconnected from there cost.
These sand charts from the directlauncher site paint an interesting cost picture. Top line annual cost to operate lunar missions is about:
EELV - $10 billion per year
Ares - $10 billion per year
Direct - $7.5 billion per year
Yeah, but as I see it, for an EELV option most of that is in the variable costs, not the fixed costs. Which means you can dial that $10B a year back a bit and still be able to do some missions. DIRECT and Ares costs are mostly dominated by fixed costs. Which means that if you have to throttle back due to hitting tough economic times, you can't throttle back very far before you can't afford *any* missions.
~Jon
Sorry to chime in here but could someone please tell me how EELV can accomplish any of the three critical words here? Moon, Mars, Beyond. Don't get me wrong I am all for EELV but please I am serious here were comparing Apples and Oranges when it comes to capabilities so how much sense does it make to compare cost in the same sentence. Its like comparing a SmartCar and Suburban but instead you're simply saying Car1 and Car2. There capabilities cannot be disconnected from there cost.
Were you paying attention during the CE&R studies? I think that just claiming "EELVs can't do it" without showing your work isn't going to help sell DIRECT.
~Jon
If the J-130 was used by other parts of NASA and the DoD that would help as effectively HSF could cross charge for the launcher. Direct is
"Jupiter is better than Ares" is a false path. At $6B a year both are irrelevant to human exploration.
So EELV to the ISS for the next 15 years is our only choice, and we shouldn't even bother with the only potential LV NASA can use to go beyond LEO that comes close to fitting in the cost box?
Nope, sorry, I'm not buying that conclusion.
The weak link in the cost profile here isn't Direct. Wanna go beyond LEO? Then Direct will enable that with the least cost out of any potential launchers - Ares, EELV, STS, Shuttle-C, or anything else likely to be available. Full stop.
Yes, regardless of which launcher you choose, the issue is trying to run Orion + Altair + ISS + the LV within what can be reasonably expected for NASA's budget.
Either we figure out how to do Altair for less than $4 billion per year, or we get some of the lunar mission costs picked up by Roskosmos, ESA, JAXA, CSA, and other partners, or we dunk the ISS in the ocean after 2020 to free up the money for serious lunar missions beyond boots and flags stunts.
But if we pick just EELV and demolish our heavy-lift infrastructure, NASA can say goodbye to anything beyond LEO for the next few decades.
"Jupiter is better than Ares" is a false path. At $6B a year both are irrelevant to human exploration.
But if we pick just EELV and demolish our heavy-lift infrastructure, NASA can say goodbye to anything beyond LEO for the next few decades.
"Jupiter is better than Ares" is a false path. At $6B a year both are irrelevant to human exploration.
NASA budget request
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/345225main_FY_2010_UPDATED_final_5-11-09_with_cover.pdf
The $6B is in FY2010 dollars projected forward to 2025.
The NASA budget is $8B for Exploration, Shuttle, and ISS, but the rate of growth is basically 0 through 2014, and the budget assumption for NASA is much the same. A part of that is Advanced Capabilities and the HSF communications network (for which you can't buy content). You lose money due to inflationary growth that NASA isn't going to get anymore (ESAS had 3%+ for inflation as an assumption).
Even if you estimate $8B a year when ISS is added back in it doesn't get any better. Using DIRECT's own $7.5B estimate doesn't leave you room for anything but transportation. You are left in the same boat as ISS, except it is higher risk and you are shuttling back and forth to the moon instead of ISS. It is only at the ESAS $10B level for HSF where lunar exploration and outposts make sense, and even then, Mars is a pipe dream.
Apollo on steriods indeed!
Those graphs are all based on the ESAS assumption of 2 missions per year. Pretty tough to dial the cost back with EELV to fit under $6 billion per year when that's going to mean a number less than 1.0 lunar missions per year to fit in the cost box.
If the J-130 was used by other parts of NASA and the DoD that would help as effectively HSF could cross charge for the launcher. Direct is
DoD already has too many rocket types and mother AF is subsidizing the infrastructure for those launches. Why would they fly on a third? And if they did, at what flight rate ... 1 or 2 a year.
"Jupiter is better than Ares" is a false path. At $6B a year both are irrelevant to human exploration.
I'm sorry so you're saying these numbers (below) are based on that study, perhaps I should go back and read it, my apologies
EELV - $10 billion per year
Ares - $10 billion per year
Direct - $7.5 billion per year
The weak link in the cost profile here isn't Direct. Wanna go beyond LEO? Then Direct will enable that with the least cost out of any potential launchers - Ares, EELV, STS, Shuttle-C, or anything else likely to be available. Full stop.
70-80mT of the J-130 will triple any EELV capability for not much more unit cost.
Could open up whole new planetary mission possibilities especially on the NASA Science side. The large lift capability of Shuttle is wasted on anything but an Orbiter at the moment, could be so different going forward.
Averaging the FY '13 and FY '14 budgets on that page, which are after shuttle retirement and hence likely representative of the long term level, there is about $5.5 billion for Constellation and $2.5 billion for ISS, for a total of $8.0 billion per year. After adjusting for inflation that's something like $7.0 billion in today's dollars. Looking at the DIRECT budget http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/charts/Program_Cost_DIRECT.gif DIRECT is planning on a roughly $7.8 billion / year budget (including the lunar lander Altair), and would likely fit under $7 billion if DIRECT's ambitious flight rate were cut by half or so. So if everything goes according to plan (unlikely) DIRECT seems just barely feasible with the current budget.
Is there an updated version of that cost spreadsheet somewhere?
If the J-130 was used by other parts of NASA and the DoD that would help as effectively HSF could cross charge for the launcher. Direct is
DoD already has too many rocket types and mother AF is subsidizing the infrastructure for those launches. Why would they fly on a third? And if they did, at what flight rate ... 1 or 2 a year.
"Jupiter is better than Ares" is a false path. At $6B a year both are irrelevant to human exploration.
70-80mT of the J-130 will triple any EELV capability for not much more unit cost. Could open up whole new planetary mission possibilities especially on the NASA Science side. The large lift capability of Shuttle is wasted on anything but an Orbiter at the moment, could be so different going forward.
Fair enough. If building the transportation capability and flying it to LEO until a future Congress pays for something else is acceptable to you and your realize it is the most likely outcome until they do, I think we are on the same page.
I'm just not any more interested in seeing Jupiters fly to ISS than I am EELVs or Ares I's ... and at that point you have enough to fly to ISS ($3B/yr), enough to start lunar development ($3B/yr), but nothing left for operating more than 2 lunar flights per year after ISS shuts down or developing any forward capability.
Without additional funding, even if the DIRECT numbers are right, in 2025 we end up with a transportation capability to the Moon but nothing to do once we get there and no money to develop other destinations.
The EELVs can support lunar missions. The EELVs can support NEO missions.
The EELVs can support lunar missions. The EELVs can support NEO missions.
With what? 10+ launches over a course of a year?
Does anyone know if Ross & Co are actually meeting with the Augustine Panel or are they having a hard time getting an appointment?
The EELVs can support lunar missions. The EELVs can support NEO missions.
With what? 10+ launches over a course of a year?
Yea, that's the point. Increasing the flight rate. ULA has the facilities to produce that amount of launch vehicles, and they have the launch operations that can be capable of launching that amount of launchers. If the end result is the same, 300mt in orbit, who cares if it was put there in ten launches or 4. The capability to put the amount of mass necessary for a lunar mission into orbit exists. It exists irregardless of NASA mustering up the resources to create and maintain its own separate way of doing that.
High flight rate isn't something to be despised, it is something to aim for. The correlation with launch vehicles is high flight rate = lower cost and low flight rate = higher cost. Building a large launcher just to keep flight rate low is pathetic; my how moderately ambitious aims have been beaten out of the space community by the state of NASA affairs. Ten launches a year is a large increase from the state of the domestic launch market today, and will lower the per flight cost of the launches themselves as the infrastructure costs are distributed over more vehicles. That large increase compared with the state of things today will attract competitors seeking to service that market, and that larger market/more competition dynamic will improve the state of space access over time, improve what NASA is capable of doing with the resources it is allocated over time.
If these estimates are reasonable guestimates of all three programs, I don't see any of these options being successful in a $ 6B/yr budget. They will all lead to another failed NASA program.
The EELVs can support lunar missions. The EELVs can support NEO missions.
With what? 10+ launches over a course of a year?
Yea, that's the point. Increasing the flight rate. ULA has the facilities to produce that amount of launch vehicles, and they have the launch operations that can be capable of launching that amount of launchers. If the end result is the same, 300mt in orbit, who cares if it was put there in ten launches or 4. The capability to put the amount of mass necessary for a lunar mission into orbit exists. It exists irregardless of NASA mustering up the resources to create and maintain its own separate way of doing that.
High flight rate isn't something to be despised, it is something to aim for. The correlation with launch vehicles is high flight rate = lower cost and low flight rate = higher cost. Building a large launcher just to keep flight rate low is pathetic; my how moderately ambitious aims have been beaten out of the space community by the state of NASA affairs. Ten launches a year is a large increase from the state of the domestic launch market today, and will lower the per flight cost of the launches themselves as the infrastructure costs are distributed over more vehicles. That large increase compared with the state of things today will attract competitors seeking to service that market, and that larger market/more competition dynamic will improve the state of space access over time, improve what NASA is capable of doing with the resources it is allocated over time.
Is it easier to plow a field with 1,000 chickens or 2 oxen?
The time and date are Wednesday June 17th, 3:30 pm for 30 minutes.
Steve, Ross and Chuck will be attending with Steve making the presentation.
All we hope for is a fair, impartial study conducted on a level playing field.
If we get the above, Direct has a excellant chance of being on top when the dust settles.
We will know the answer in about 2 1/2 months.
Does anyone know if Ross & Co are actually meeting with the Augustine Panel or are they having a hard time getting an appointment?
Actually, the thread is on topic (DIRECT is an architecture which includes programmatics, funding, goals, etc.), but to answer your question ...
Last we heard they have 30 minutes on the 17th ...
Mark S, I don't like your kind of questioning. This is not a court hearing and you are not the judge nor the jury.
1) Jupiter development cheaper than Ares: Yes.
2) Jupiter operation cheaper than Ares: Yes.
Both don't matter because:
3) Jupiter and Orion payload cheaper than Shuttle: Doubtful, probably no.
4) Jupiter and Orion payload and useful mission module cheaper than Shuttle: Definitely no.
and:
5) Projected HSF funding level not higher than today and past funding level, probably less.
4) and 5) together give you a system less capable than today's for at least the same budget.
EELVs do matter, because they may be cheaper (and are flying). Doing the same than Direct, putting mass into LEO. And LEO is the only thing possible with the current and projected budget.
"Orion costs are going to apply to whatever vehicle you put it on."
Yes, but not if you compare with the Shuttle system. If your launcher of choice plus Orion on top does cost the same or more than Shuttle, with much less capabilities, what is the point of the new system? Safety (on paper)? And no, Orion alone can't leave LEO.
Analyst
Take these as unsourced data. We all want to keep our jobs. ;)
Round numbers at 2 flights per year.
Orbiter = $1B
SSME = $300M
ET = $300M
SRB = $500M
Ops + PM = $800M
Marginal costs of additional flights are fairly low.
Orion is about $300M per unit at 2/yr
So take out Orbiter, add a bit for expendable SSME, add a $600M for Orion, add a bit for updated requirements (modern reliability, safety, environmental processes) and the fixed costs (2 flights per year minimum) for DIRECT/Orion are about what they are for SSP, right around $3B per year. Marginal costs at higher flight rates are left as an exercise to the reader.
That is fully half of the available HSF budget going forward.
People do have data to go with their experience. That's two things you gain with time in the business.
If these estimates are reasonable guestimates of all three programs, I don't see any of these options being successful in a $ 6B/yr budget. They will all lead to another failed NASA program.
Well Iwas going to read through all the latest posts and go back, but I just had to respond to this one.
Failed NASA program??
No, not if they chose Direct (before or now).
It would be a failure of Congress or this adminstration to provide the funds PROMISED to support this VSE.
If they truly want the Moon, or Mars, then show me the money. Jupiter just does it best for all the right reasons already pointed out.
1) Jupiter development cheaper than Ares: Yes.
2) Jupiter operation cheaper than Ares: Yes.
3) Jupiter and Orion payload cheaper than Shuttle: Doubtful, probably no.
4) Jupiter and Orion payload and useful mission module cheaper than Shuttle: Definitely no.
5) Projected HSF funding level not higher than today and past funding level, probably less.
4) and 5) together give you a system less capable than today's for at least the same budget.
Fortunately, once you have a man rated launcher with a high capacity, there is nothing to stop you from coming up with new uses for it.
"The STS system is like a large [bus sized] RV, and Orion+ EELV is like a pickup truck. Orion + Jupiter is like a Semi-truck."
Well, my pickup truck carries crew + cargo (so I guess it doesn't earn the CAIB-Safe decal...). Ares I/Orion and EELV/Orion are more like a Toyota Echo. And if capacity gets any smaller, Orion will be more like a SmartCar...
Thank you. Thats the sort of data I was hoping for. Now for a simplified analysis, or 'enhanced smell test'.
Leaving out Orion & SSME refurbish, it looks like about $2B per year for base Jupiter Core capabilities. Assigning a marginal unit cost of $200M, at 10 launches per year that's $400M each. For a grand total of $4B.
Further I will estimate the other costs as follows. Are they very unreasonable?
Orion $400M fixed and $100M marginal
Altair $800M fixed and $200M marginal
JUS $400M fixed and $100M marginal
Unless I've made a huge mistake, or one or more of my estimates is way off, I think Direct passes the smell test.
The original point was to hammer home as "fact" the feelings of some posters that the Direct cost numbers could not possibly be anywhere near correct.
And this jockeying fromconcern trollswell-meaning skeptics to make sure that Direct is in "politically correct" shape for the review... "politically correct" from a NASA point of view, that is... will reach even sillier heights before it's all through.
Now, return to the pointless meandering :)
1) 4 & 5 together conclusion: TOTALLY disagree! How can you POSSIBLY say that a ~100mT imleo launcher is less capable than Shuttle, which is limited to the neighborhood of ~25mT imleo? That just doesn't make sense.
2) In addition to that, the only capability Shuttle has that Orion gives up is the ability to return large payloads from LEO to the ground, a capability that we have seen is not really needed.
3) Even if the budget did eventually exceed Shuttle's, you get what you pay for. Jupiter/Orion can go to the moon, NEO's and Mars. Shuttle cannot - for ANY price.
4) Leaving LEO behind IS going to cost more than hiding out in LEO. So what?
Nobody gets to ride for free, and everybody pays the price based on the destination, even the guy in the back seat of a cab. The further you go the more it's gonna cost. Don't want to pay the fare? Let them stay home.
5) Me, I'm going to the moon and I'm willing to pay for it.
6) Jupiter/Orion less capable than the present system? .... I think not.
Skylab: 1 launch, 77mt, 283m3
ISS: 25+? launches, 300mt, 358m3
Would 4 Saturn V launches have been lest costly than all the ISS assembly flights? That's a real question... I'm assuming it would, but I don't know.
I'm pretty sure that assembling 4 big modules would likely be less time consuming.
Weren't you the person who said he wouldn't accept unsourced data a few posts back? Let me get this straight: are you asserting that each Jupiter 246 will cost $1.2bln for first-stage engines alone? And, of course, at the production rate that accounts for that figure, there will be one lunar mission per four years...?
Fair enough, but my data is actuals not projections. I am not posting estimates except as derived exactly as I laid out. Let me know if you want a spreadsheet.
My post lost the fact that all numbers were at 2/yr (which is how I have them).
Thank you. Thats the sort of data I was hoping for. Now for a simplified analysis, or 'enhanced smell test'.
Leaving out Orion & SSME refurbish, it looks like about $2B per year for base Jupiter Core capabilities. Assigning a marginal unit cost of $200M, at 10 launches per year that's $400M each. For a grand total of $4B.
Doesn't make sense. SSME costs about the same (actually more) without refurbishment. You can't take it "out". It is $300M for 6 engines (or more).
The rest of your numbers are low ... but even if they aren't, what you get is "flags and footprints' since you can't pay for anything else that is useful. Out and backs to the Moon is not VSE.
And just because zap called me a troll *laugh*, I'll get off the cost discussion now. I was on it to HELP Jupiter be more credible with the panel. If you think it will be credible to them, I'm happy to watch the outcome. It's your party. The cost of Jupiter is almost irrelevant to the VSE at current budget levels.
Q: What will the impact of the review mean to the Exploration budget as reflected in the President's budget request?
A: Following the human spaceflight review, the Administration will provide an updated request for Exploration activities reflecting the review's results. FY 2010 and current outyear funding levels for Exploration activities represent the budget request if there were no changes to ongoing activities.
2) In addition to that, the only capability Shuttle has that Orion gives up is the ability to return large payloads from LEO to the ground, a capability that we have seen is not really needed.
2) This is not correct and you know it.
a) Downmass is needed and used, ask the ISS program. Ask them about their big downmass issue after Columbia. Ask them about utilizing ISS without bringing things down.
b) There are many more capabilities Orion is lacking. Just to name a few: Airlock, RMS, upmass, 7 seats, landing at a given place.
Analyst: Orion doesn't NEED any of those things. Yes, it might be nice to have more upmass, but the others really aren't necessary overall. A 6-person capability, well we've already gone through that, and I still think losing the original 6-person capability is a sin, not much we can do about that with Ares-I.
Thanks for the update, that does make more sense. And one more clarification: when you say "2 flights per year," is that two lunar missions (i.e., 4x Jupiters) or two LVs per year (i.e., 1 lunar mission, or two flights to ISS)?
I do agree with your other post where you say no more money = no moon. I've said that all along, including in my published commentary from five years ago. My support for Direct, such as it is, is derived from my perception that it will be "SDV or nothing" because no further development of new launch vehicles is going to be able to drum up political support. It sounds all very well to the technically minded to suggest we can get to the Moon by hauling up 25mT chunks with ISS (or even STS), building depots, etc. But all the philosophical descendants of William Proxmire (e.g. Barney Frank) will have to do is point to ISS and say, "Swell. How'd that work out last time?"
It's only $300M for 6 engines if you buy them one and one and one and one and one and one.
Apparently, someone either overlooked or is ignoring all the posts on the 2.0 thread that explain why it is so expensive to think of SSME in terms of buying only three, as opposed to a production run that significantly lowers their costs per unit.
And what's wrong with the 20 or so of them that we already have? They're paid for, except for a little refurbishing that nobody would try to claim is as expensive as buying new ones. Even with only 18, that's still six flights without any engine manufacturing costs... Hmmm...
BTW, from http://hsf.nasa.gov/allAnswers.php (http://hsf.nasa.gov/allAnswers.php):-QuoteQ: What will the impact of the review mean to the Exploration budget as reflected in the President's budget request?
A: Following the human spaceflight review, the Administration will provide an updated request for Exploration activities reflecting the review's results. FY 2010 and current outyear funding levels for Exploration activities represent the budget request if there were no changes to ongoing activities.
A question...
Assume the commission suggests NASA's near-term budget is set to enable Jupiter/Orion/Altair to be developed in a sensible timeframe (could be DIRECT's plan, maybe you have a different view, whatever - trying to be non-contentious here). It gets a commitment that if it can deliver the components required for exploration it gets the funding upgrade to utilise them.
Is that a realistic possibility?
cheers, Martin
Well, we don't NEED HSF at all. ;) Downmass would be nice. Landing on land too. Airlock. Well, Soyuz has one.
If all there is is Orion in LEO (and ISS), which is a likely szenario, we end up with less (than Shuttle) for the same price.
Analyst
Analyst: Orion doesn't NEED any of those things. Yes, it might be nice to have more upmass, but the others really aren't necessary overall. A 6-person capability, well we've already gone through that, and I still think losing the original 6-person capability is a sin, not much we can do about that with Ares-I.
Well, we don't NEED HSF at all. ;) Downmass would be nice. Landing on land too. Airlock. Well, Soyuz has one.
If all there is is Orion in LEO (and ISS), which is a likely szenario, we end up with less (than Shuttle) for the same price.
Analyst
Shuttle was not canned because of cost, nor was Orion chosen for its economy.
Sure, it would have been nice if CxP had a decent CLV that could have actually implemented the ESAS CEV design, with land landings etc. But it doesn't, and that's where the argument is. Not Shuttle vs Orion.
Shuttle was not canned because of cost, nor was Orion chosen for its economy.
Sure, it would have been nice if CxP had a decent CLV that could have actually implemented the ESAS CEV design, with land landings etc. But it doesn't, and that's where the argument is. Not Shuttle vs Orion.
Good points.
But it has very little to do with CLV at this point.
But it should not be Shuttle vs. Orion ... but we will look favorably back on Shuttle at some point in the future. Even with the safety risk.
I agree 100% that we will rue the day that Shuttle returns from its last flight. It is truly unique, and will remain so for a very long time.
BTW, from http://hsf.nasa.gov/allAnswers.php (http://hsf.nasa.gov/allAnswers.php):-QuoteQ: What will the impact of the review mean to the Exploration budget as reflected in the President's budget request?
A: Following the human spaceflight review, the Administration will provide an updated request for Exploration activities reflecting the review's results. FY 2010 and current outyear funding levels for Exploration activities represent the budget request if there were no changes to ongoing activities.
A question...
Assume the commission suggests NASA's near-term budget is set to enable Jupiter/Orion/Altair to be developed in a sensible timeframe (could be DIRECT's plan, maybe you have a different view, whatever - trying to be non-contentious here). It gets a commitment that if it can deliver the components required for exploration it gets the funding upgrade to utilise them.
Is that a realistic possibility?
cheers, Martin
Yes. In many ways, that was EXACTLY Griffin's plan for outposts and going to Mars. You prove you can do something, and they give you money to do more.
<snipped>
But good suggestion. It is certainly a hope. But ...
The problem is, the lower the base you work from (the and the base is specifically eroding ... you quoted the hopeful "will add money if warranted" but didn't quote the part of the task that says "all options must stay within the 2010 budget request" ... they contradict each other) the harder it is to get the "plus up" to do more because everyone looks at the percentage increase in budget, not the absolute amount.
Gentlemen,
I would propose it is time to move on; the merry-go-round is getting a little tiresome.
We are all entitled to our opinions, be they based on technical knowledge or just a personal preference.
Dissention is a good thing up to a point, it keeps us focused and alert. However, after a while it serves little purpose unless new information is injected into the discussion, we seem to have passed that point.
If MIW or Analyst are plants, it will make absolutely no difference in the end. Direct will stand or fall on its merits.
Just my two cents worth, which is probably greatly overvalued!
Paul
Gentlemen,
I would propose it is time to move on; the merry-go-round is getting a little tiresome.
And just because zap called me a troll *laugh*, I'll get off the cost discussion now. I was on it to HELP Jupiter be more credible with the panel.
Gentlemen,
I would propose it is time to move on; the merry-go-round is getting a little tiresome.
We are all entitled to our opinions, be they based on technical knowledge or just a personal preference.
Dissention is a good thing up to a point, it keeps us focused and alert. However, after a while it serves little purpose unless new information is injected into the discussion, we seem to have passed that point.
If MIW or Analyst are plants, it will make absolutely no difference in the end. Direct will stand or fall on its merits.
Just my two cents worth, which is probably greatly overvalued!
Paul
No, you're right. Time to move on.
I was trying to find the posts Ross had put up long ago detailing many various costs for Direct/Ares/ect...but there are just too many posts in so many threads. It doesn't really matter, regardless. In the end, it still comes down to Congress being able/having the will to fund HSF, whatever shape it might take.
Making the best use from what we currently have, that's what Direct truly stands for (imo).
Am I the only one that sees similarities between the end of the shuttle and the end of SR-71?
If the cost of the launch stays the same and the payload goes up by a factor of 2-3x in mass (assuming a crude mass based cost model) ... cost of the mission will go up and bingo! mission rate will go down.
If the cost of the launch stays the same and the payload goes up by a factor of 2-3x in mass (assuming a crude mass based cost model) ... cost of the mission will go up and bingo! mission rate will go down.
Why cost of the mission will go up? If you have TONS (pun intended) of mass reserve, you can use some of it to avoid expensive "gold-plating" of everything. Do not spend millions on designing and testing ultra-light but strong structures, but design them with bigger margins instead, make them simpler and therefore cheaper.
If you're only flying to ISS.. go with J-120(1 less SSME).. and you could also do what you said.. but anything increasing Core mass also reduces performance in J-24x version where the extra performance(for missions beyond LEO) is more useful.
It's only $300M for 6 engines if you buy them one and one and one and one and one and one.
Apparently, someone either overlooked or is ignoring all the posts on the 2.0 thread that explain why it is so expensive to think of SSME in terms of buying only three, as opposed to a production run that significantly lowers their costs per unit.
And what's wrong with the 20 or so of them that we already have? They're paid for, except for a little refurbishing that nobody would try to claim is as expensive as buying new ones. Even with only 18, that's still six flights without any engine manufacturing costs... Hmmm...
Those are the numbers I have seen from the part of the Shuttle program that is interested in Shuttle-C. These are sustained costs, not early costs (which as you point out can be influenced by available stock). You are looking near-term, I'm looking steady state.
I have not seen any reasonable estimates at reasonable production rates that puts the cost of an expendable SSME much less than $40-$50M, and I have seen as high as $60M. They cost $80M now (or the last time we made them).
The other issue is using DIVH as a comparative benchmark. It shouldn't cost as much as it does.
If the cost of the launch stays the same and the payload goes up by a factor of 2-3x in mass (assuming a crude mass based cost model) ... cost of the mission will go up and bingo! mission rate will go down.
Why cost of the mission will go up? If you have TONS (pun intended) of mass reserve, you can use some of it to avoid expensive "gold-plating" of everything. Do not spend millions on designing and testing ultra-light but strong structures, but design them with bigger margins instead, make them simpler and therefore cheaper.
If you're only flying to ISS.. go with J-120(1 less SSME).. and you could also do what you said.. but anything increasing Core mass...
The other issue is using DIVH as a comparative benchmark. It shouldn't cost as much as it does.
Somehow I love this quote. Make it so!
The proposed budget is close to the minimum necessary to implement Direct 3.0. Whether it is over or under that minimum depends on who is posting.
If Direct is too expensive, then is the end of the line for the VAB, Michoud, crawlers, and the other legacy big rocket infrastructure, which make up the high fixed costs that make flying DIRECT for less than $6e9 tricky?
As for mars.is.wet's comment about foreign subsidy, your wrong. Ariane receives no subsidy, nor to my knowledge does Proton receive any.
There's an article by Edgar Zapata about EELV costs on the web if your interested.
Thank you. Thats the sort of data I was hoping for. Now for a simplified analysis, or 'enhanced smell test'.
Leaving out Orion & SSME refurbish, it looks like about $2B per year for base Jupiter Core capabilities. Assigning a marginal unit cost of $200M, at 10 launches per year that's $400M each. For a grand total of $4B.
Further I will estimate the other costs as follows. Are they very unreasonable?
Orion $400M fixed and $100M marginal
Altair $800M fixed and $200M marginal
JUS $400M fixed and $100M marginal
Assign those 10 launches as:
2 x ISS = 2 x J-130
2 x Lunar Crew = 4 x J-246
2 x Lunar Cargo = 4 x J246
At these flight rates:
10 x Jupiter Core = $4B
4 x Orion = $800M
4 x Altair = $1.6B
8 x JUS = $1.2B
These would give an annual cost of $7.6 Billion.
Halve the lunar excursion rate to 1 x Crew & 1 x Cargo:
6 x Jupiter Core = $3.2B
3 x Orion = $700M
2 x Altair = $1.2B
4 x JUS = $800M
These would give an annual cost of just under $5.9 Billion.
Unless I've made a huge mistake, or one or more of my estimates is way off, I think Direct passes the smell test.
Which, even if those numbers are right (see other posts above), means we can pay for "flags and footprints" (a transportation capability), and no more. If they are low (when do anyone's cost estimates come in on target at this point), then we can do less.
@ mars.is.wet
With regard to funding, we are having to look into someone else's (President Obama's) mind and guess what they will decide given certain information being presented to them. Who knows? The realistic prospect of a human circumlunar flight before 2016 (thus being remembered as the President who 'Regained the Moon') might attract him enough to add extra cash to HSF. We simply don't know.
Personally, I remain confident that, even without extra cash, Direct's basic capabilities will still enable a robust and useful HSF program rather than a reduction to nothing but crew rotation through the ISS.
The idea that the US Government couldn't provide NASA with more funding is ridiculous. President Obama & the Democrats are spending money like water. If the Democrats want the NASA budget to be increased, I assure you it will be increased!!!
Or maybe spaceflight/NASA isn't one of Obama's priorities. Other than the jobs aspects, I don't believe Obama cares one bit about space.
PaulL,
Which, even if those numbers are right (see other posts above), means we can pay for "flags and footprints" (a transportation capability), and no more. If they are low (when do anyone's cost estimates come in on target at this point), then we can do less.
We need more money. On the order of $2B a year. Or it won't really matter which you pick (understand the argument about the option of future extensibility when money is available, which is a good one).
...limiting the Jupiter core to 3 SSMEs. However, this would require to complete the development of the 5 segments SRB to compensate for the lost of forth SSME thrust. The Jupiter EDS flights would then be done with a J-23x Heavy instead of a J-24x.
PaulL
[Representative Alan B. Mollohan]"Given these fiscal realities, it is incumbent upon NASA to have far more reliable cost estimates at the time missions are proposed..."
PaulL,
Which, even if those numbers are right (see other posts above), means we can pay for "flags and footprints" (a transportation capability), and no more. If they are low (when do anyone's cost estimates come in on target at this point), then we can do less.
We need more money. On the order of $2B a year. Or it won't really matter which you pick (understand the argument about the option of future extensibility when money is available, which is a good one).
I have read the posts about the SSME cost and I realize that their high cost could impact negatively the Direct budget. If these engines end up costing $50M to $60M each as indicated in those posts, it should be seriously considered to do the ISS missions with a J-120 and limiting the Jupiter core to 3 SSMEs. However, this would require to complete the development of the 5 segments SRB to compensate for the lost of forth SSME thrust. The Jupiter EDS flights would then be done with a J-23x Heavy instead of a J-24x.
PaulL
It would also make sense to stretch the core to start with if you are going to use 5-segs to get that extra 20mT performance from doing so.
FWIW, I was trying to stimulate discussion along the lines of 'making do with what we get'.
Whilst the costs of J-130 + J-246 are realistically going to be lower than Ares-I + Ares-V (especially if MSFC continues to insist on its Ares-VII-SH monster), it is possible that even that may be out of the question to the politicians. Thus, I think that serious thought should be given to how to best push forward HSF using only D-IVH and/or A-VH as a crew-only light launcher and J-130 as CaLV/crewed HLLV (because 60t usable payload to orbit is still more than what EELV can achieve in one launch without the Phase-2/3 programs).
It would also make sense to stretch the core to start with if you are going to use 5-segs to get that extra 20mT performance from doing so.
Yeah. And why not make the core 10m diameter while you're at it, and use 5.5 seg SRBs, and use regen RS-68 , and ...
Once you start down the path of "easy" improvements, you lose all the benefits of component reuse. The whole point of DIRECT is to make the LV as close as possible to what we are already flying. The savings in decreased development costs will more than offset the supposedly higher operational costs when you look at the program as a whole.
Using 5-seg SRB's and a stretched core go against the spirit of DIRECT, even if they are included as possible upgrades at a later date.
Mark S.
Maybe the administration's posturing on HSF funding is a stick to get NASA to change course. There could be a carrot at the end if the powers that be like the outcome of the commission.
The idea that the US Government couldn't provide NASA with more funding is ridiculous. President Obama & the Democrats are spending money like water. If the Democrats want the NASA budget to be increased, I assure you it will be increased!!!
It would also make sense to stretch the core to start with if you are going to use 5-segs to get that extra 20mT performance from doing so.
Yeah. And why not make the core 10m diameter while you're at it, and use 5.5 seg SRBs, and use regen RS-68 , and ...
Once you start down the path of "easy" improvements, you lose all the benefits of component reuse. The whole point of DIRECT is to make the LV as close as possible to what we are already flying. The savings in decreased development costs will more than offset the supposedly higher operational costs when you look at the program as a whole.
Using 5-seg SRB's and a stretched core go against the spirit of DIRECT, even if they are included as possible upgrades at a later date.
Mark S.
If we go with something like DIRECT 3.0, what does that mean for Delta IV, probably the only vehicle that would ever use RS-68? DIRECT will drive down the cost of SSME, but not enough for Delta IV, which would need two per core.
PaulL,
Which, even if those numbers are right (see other posts above), means we can pay for "flags and footprints" (a transportation capability), and no more. If they are low (when do anyone's cost estimates come in on target at this point), then we can do less.
We need more money. On the order of $2B a year. Or it won't really matter which you pick (understand the argument about the option of future extensibility when money is available, which is a good one).
I have read the posts about the SSME cost and I realize that their high cost could impact negatively the Direct budget. If these engines end up costing $50M to $60M each as indicated in those posts, it should be seriously considered to do the ISS missions with a J-120 and limiting the Jupiter core to 3 SSMEs. However, this would require to complete the development of the 5 segments SRB to compensate for the lost of forth SSME thrust. The Jupiter EDS flights would then be done with a J-23x Heavy instead of a J-24x.
PaulL
We cannot be so narrow minded to think that J-130 = ISS access until COTS-D. That has yet to have contract award, or proven. Same goes with a launch or pad issue requiring another method to get crew to the moon. Those are only two issues. The more options you have, the best we can adapt to an ever-changing world.
it should be seriously considered to ... (limit) the Jupiter core to 3 SSMEs. However, this would require to complete the development of the 5 segments SRB to compensate for the lost of forth SSME thrust. The Jupiter EDS flights would then be done with a J-23x Heavy instead of a J-24x.
PaulL
<snip>
It would also make sense to stretch the core to start with if you are going to use 5-segs to get that extra 20mT performance from doing so.
Delta IV would need larger solid rocket boosters to exploit the performance of 2x SSME. The design grows toward Jupiter.
SSME isn't a good fit for a single-engine configuration because, as a staged combustion cycle engine, there's no turbine exhaust to gimbal for roll control, unlike gas generator cycle engines like RS-68, J-2X, or Vulcain.
In what way would increasing liftoff thrust (per DIV core) by 165,000 lbf and vacuum thrust by over 250,000 lbf (not to mention liftoff Isp by 7 sec and vacuum Isp by 43 sec) require *larger* solid boosters? (particularly given that 2 SSMEs weigh only 675 lb more than 1 RS-68)
I can see where SSME wouldn't work well for a single-engine configuration, but with *two* engines for a DIVM or *six* for a DIVH, you'd have roll control.
In what way would increasing liftoff thrust (per DIV core) by 165,000 lbf and vacuum thrust by over 250,000 lbf (not to mention liftoff Isp by 7 sec and vacuum Isp by 43 sec) require *larger* solid boosters? (particularly given that 2 SSMEs weigh only 675 lb more than 1 RS-68)
It doesn't *require* larger solid boosters, but larger boosters would substantially increase performance without substantially increasing cost. J-120 wrings a whole lot more performance out of two SSMEs than Delta IV could, and for not a whole lot more money. It would work without bigger boosters, but it wouldn't be cost-effective.QuoteI can see where SSME wouldn't work well for a single-engine configuration, but with *two* engines for a DIVM or *six* for a DIVH, you'd have roll control.
Just stop a think for a minute about a DIVH with six SSMEs, and you'll realize that it would be WAY too expensive for its performance class. We're talking costs like Ares V with performance like J-120.
We cannot be so narrow minded to think that J-130 = ISS access until COTS-D. That has yet to have contract award, or proven. Same goes with a launch or pad issue requiring another method to get crew to the moon. Those are only two issues. The more options you have, the best we can adapt to an ever-changing world.
More options = lower flight rates for every option = higher costs.
Two options will maximise flight rates whilst providing redundancy in the event of an issue.
cheers, Martin
It would work without bigger boosters, but it wouldn't be cost-effective.
Seems to me that for ANY LV - commonality and procurement rates rule the roost. If you're talking about an SDLV like DIRECT and are in need of additional performance beyond J-130 or J-246, is there a way to keep the core, but just ADD to it, like using three or four four-segment SRB's instead of two? You just INCREASED the rate at which some of the already man-rated hardware is procured, lowering their per-unit cost.
I'm not an engineer so I know I'm talking out my hat..just looking for another way to change things without going to new parts.
However, with Direct, there are many possible configurations, which is the whole point. Unfortunately four SRBs can't work due to the existing pad configuration (flame trenches).
Would the cost outlay be for a reconfiguration of the flame trenches to accommodate (a one-time expenditure) be a better or worse use of budget dollars based upon the resulting LV capabilities?
Sorry from straying from the main topic, I know that these vehicles are all very unique and even very minor changes may have dramatic consequences in terms of cost, ability, requirements for testing and retooling.
Would the cost outlay be for a reconfiguration of the flame trenches to accommodate (a one-time expenditure) be a better or worse use of budget dollars based upon the resulting LV capabilities?
Sorry from straying from the main topic, I know that these vehicles are all very unique and even very minor changes may have dramatic consequences in terms of cost, ability, requirements for testing and retooling.
4 SRB's are too heavy for the MLP, crawlers and crawler way.
Thank you. Thats the sort of data I was hoping for. Now for a simplified analysis, or 'enhanced smell test'.
Leaving out Orion & SSME refurbish, it looks like about $2B per year for base Jupiter Core capabilities. Assigning a marginal unit cost of $200M, at 10 launches per year that's $400M each. For a grand total of $4B.
Doesn't make sense. SSME costs about the same (actually more) without refurbishment. You can't take it "out". It is $300M for 6 engines (or more).QuoteFurther I will estimate the other costs as follows. Are they very unreasonable?
Orion $400M fixed and $100M marginal
Altair $800M fixed and $200M marginal
JUS $400M fixed and $100M marginal
Orions and Altairs cost way more than that. Regular (non-human rated) spacecraft cost at least $50k per kg. Assume $300M per Orion and $1B per Altair.
As for JUS, I don't have numbers for that, but the fixed cost will likely be higher as will the marginal. 15 years a go a non-human rated Centaur cost $60M.Quote
Unless I've made a huge mistake, or one or more of my estimates is way off, I think Direct passes the smell test.
I think you missed the point of the original cost discussion. Jupiter at $200M marginal did not pass that test because of comparisons with EELV. But it really doesn't matter.
The rest of your numbers are low ... but even if they aren't, what you get is "flags and footprints' since you can't pay for anything else that is useful. Out and backs to the Moon is not VSE.
And just because zap called me a troll *laugh*, I'll get off the cost discussion now. I was on it to HELP Jupiter be more credible with the panel. If you think it will be credible to them, I'm happy to watch the outcome. It's your party. The cost of Jupiter is almost irrelevant to the VSE at current budget levels.
p.s. I hope you are right
Personally I'd rather see a $10B p.a. HSF budget. But I'd rather see it spent on a Direct architecture, achieving more than the current projected fiasco.
If $6B or $7B is all that's available, for the time being, then get the core infrastructure in place. Fly a handful of shake-down missions, and be ready for the next president who wants to articulate a vision.
Imagine it's 2004 and an NLS 100+ ton launcher is in service. GW says lets go to the Moon, then Mars. Where would we be now?
Direct is not the best possible architecture. But it is affordable, practical and capable.
Note to DIRECT guys: You may want to check in with your guys at LM about the possibility of changing Jupiter's cryogenic seals from Teflon to Viton or similar fluoroelastomer.
Materials science has come a long way since the 50s. We have learned how to make materials that are compatible with cryogenic propellants and have substantial elasticity/resilience.
Although the overarching goal of DIRECT is to maintain commonality with Shuttle wherever practical, recent problems with Teflon seals on Shuttle may be present a compelling rationale to develop a more reliable solution for Jupiter.
Will a jupiter do a roll maneuver after clearing the tower? If so, why?
Thanks!!
Question (not trying to be rude, but sincere question) What would you consider to be a better architecture than Direct? All liquid engines, seems to be the only other configuration. I'd be very comfortable with that.
Will a jupiter do a roll maneuver after clearing the tower? If so, why?
Thanks!!
My understanding is that Jupiter will have the same launchpad orientation as Shuttle, and therefore will roll for any launch azimuth within range safety limits (I believe 72-108 degrees clockwise from north).
Even if the launchpad were reoriented to a particular launch azimuth, Jupiter will inject into orbits with various inclinations (e.g. 28.5 deg for lunar rendezvous or 51.6 deg for ISS), and launch azimuth is subject to the precise timing of liftoff within the launch window.
So there's no way to completely eliminate the roll maneuver in all circumstances.
The idea that the US Government couldn't provide NASA with more funding is ridiculous. President Obama & the Democrats are spending money like water. If the Democrats want the NASA budget to be increased, I assure you it will be increased!!!
*LOL* I can't argue with that self-affirming logic! Well done!
The idea that the US Government couldn't provide NASA with more funding is ridiculous. President Obama & the Democrats are spending money like water. If the Democrats want the NASA budget to be increased, I assure you it will be increased!!!
And prior to 2007* Bush & the Republicans were spending money like water on somewhat different priorities. But, as with the Democrats, none of those priorities included significantly more funding for NASA. If the Republicans had wanted the NASA budget to be increased, you could have assured us it would have been increased... but they didn't, and it wasn't.
* For the inattentive, I mean from the 2000 election to he 2006 election, when Republicans controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress.
All the above being said (and much of the last 12 pages were tedious bickering, the true goal of which got by me somehow), we can only hope that Obama will listen to the commision and then deliver the $$ needed to proceed on closing the gap and deploying the next generation launcher. I am still fearful that this commision is lip service to kill HSF as a waste of money that could be better spent on more lucrative political ends, or so they believe.
Maybe he will use the HSF program as a shining beacon of HOPE* for the world people who still think we are explorers.
Or the Chinese will start making things happen and our reaction to it will likely be knee-jerk at best.
I just hope all this hard work by the DIRECT team isn't for naught.
Go Direct!!
Well, the HSF question regarding DIRECT was answered.
http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php
Of course, the answer provided absolutely no new information.
Q: How much time will the commision be giving to alteranative SDLV architectures like DIRECT 3.0?
A: The Direct team is scheduled to give a 30-minute presentation to the panel during the June 17 public meeting. Any further analysis will be determined by the panel after that presentation.
That would be stupid since it is a ground interface. Also I answered that previously, and it can't be done on a small scale.
I assume that the new seals (and pipes) can be tested using a sounding rocket or a satellite weighing less than 400 kg?
Well, the HSF question regarding DIRECT was answered.
http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php
Of course, the answer provided absolutely no new information.
Q: How much time will the commision be giving to alteranative SDLV architectures like DIRECT 3.0?
A: The Direct team is scheduled to give a 30-minute presentation to the panel during the June 17 public meeting. Any further analysis will be determined by the panel after that presentation.
I'm assuming this is why we haven't seen Ross or Chuck around here lately? No wondering, that's Wednesday. Hopefully they've been pulling all-nighters to get their presentation together and hit a home run!
:)
I'm curious to get their take on it aftwards when they get a chance to get on here and fill us in.
Good luck guys!
Yes, we're not intentionally neglecting you ;)
Well, the HSF question regarding DIRECT was answered.
http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php
Of course, the answer provided absolutely no new information.
Q: How much time will the commision be giving to alteranative SDLV architectures like DIRECT 3.0?
A: The Direct team is scheduled to give a 30-minute presentation to the panel during the June 17 public meeting. Any further analysis will be determined by the panel after that presentation.
Well, the HSF question regarding DIRECT was answered.
http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php
Of course, the answer provided absolutely no new information.
Q: How much time will the commision be giving to alteranative SDLV architectures like DIRECT 3.0?
A: The Direct team is scheduled to give a 30-minute presentation to the panel during the June 17 public meeting. Any further analysis will be determined by the panel after that presentation.
I'm assuming this is why we haven't seen Ross or Chuck around here lately? No wondering, that's Wednesday. Hopefully they've been pulling all-nighters to get their presentation together and hit a home run!
:)
I'm curious to get their take on it aftwards when they get a chance to get on here and fill us in.
Good luck guys!
Well, the HSF question regarding DIRECT was answered.
http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php
Of course, the answer provided absolutely no new information.
Q: How much time will the commision be giving to alteranative SDLV architectures like DIRECT 3.0?
A: The Direct team is scheduled to give a 30-minute presentation to the panel during the June 17 public meeting. Any further analysis will be determined by the panel after that presentation.
While I am sure they will provide their take on things, we can also watch live on NASA TV and see how it goes. I wonder what time they are going to present.
That would be stupid since it is a ground interface. Also I answered that previously, and it can't be done on a small scale.
I assume that the new seals (and pipes) can be tested using a sounding rocket or a satellite weighing less than 400 kg?
...limiting the Jupiter core to 3 SSMEs. However, this would require to complete the development of the 5 segments SRB to compensate for the lost of forth SSME thrust. The Jupiter EDS flights would then be done with a J-23x Heavy instead of a J-24x.
PaulL
This is exactly what I've been proposing (J-130 + J-236 Heavy) based on your spreadsheet, and Ross has said that the J-236 Heavy has way too little performance compared to the J-246. Since I get virtually identical numbers from CEPE, I don't get this. I like this approach because I suspect ATK will continue getting funds for the 5-seg development anyway and this would mean both cores are identical and each as one less very expensive SSME.
While I am sure they will provide their take on things, we can also watch live on NASA TV and see how it goes. I wonder what time they are going to present.
How do you get NASA TV? Online? Satillite?
If nothing else, hopefully it'll be on Youtube or something and I can watch it later. Doubt I'd be able to catch it live anyway. Work is so inconvienient...
;)
Thanks Scotty. Great sig by the way.
It is hard to believe that adding an upper stage and reducing the mass of the core by 2.5 mT (no 4th engine piping and no increase in diameter for the LOX vertical pipe as required for the J-24x) would only result in a payload gain of 5 mT.
I expect NASA TV will actually be covering the LRO/LCROSS launch, which is happening at precisely the same time.
Ross.
Question (not trying to be rude, but sincere question) What would you consider to be a better architecture than Direct? All liquid engines, seems to be the only other configuration. I'd be very comfortable with that.
Mmm... Don't get me started as I could go on for ages and it would be massively off-topic.
In summary, I would be looking at a Ker/LOX core that could put the 'vanilla' basic spacecraft (a 6-seat Dyna-Soar-style space plane) into LEO (or at least a very high energy LEO insertion) for space station crew rotation. There were plans to do this with the S-IC Saturn-V first stage, so it should be possible. Beyond that, my ideal is a EELV-style 'Lego LV'. You add bits on to get the capabilities you need. A high-energy upper stage for EDS work (maybe in both conformal and 'hammerhead' configurations). RSRMs to add a little extra 'oomph' to the core if needed. Even the option of a tri-core 'Heavy' configuration.
Similarly, the CV would be a 'Lego' design where you add mission modules and/or an SM-like module to optimise it to different missions. The objective of the design is that the 'vanilla' basic model should weigh the same as the lunar-trimmed Apollo, ~30t, IIRC.
Of course, the problem with these dreams (and the reason why they, like ESAS, cost so much more than DIRECT) is that they would require enormous, costly and lengthy LV, spacecraft and engine development programs. If we still had five to ten years of Shuttle to go, they would be reasonable ideas. As matters stand, something like Direct, which can be up and running in 3-5 years, is a far better option on schedule and cost grounds.
There are other options that will be presented, some of them pretty damn good. We are not the only players in this game.
None other than John Shannon presenting Side Mounted Shuttle Derived Alternatives.
There are other options that will be presented, some of them pretty damn good. We are not the only players in this game.
Check this out!
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17466.msg421150;topicseen#new
None other than John Shannon presenting Side Mounted Shuttle Derived Alternatives.
I agree with Martin.
Tomorrow is an historic day regardless of outcome. DIRECT is inon the agenda with some pretty heavy weight company.
Congrats!
Should we start an "Augustine Commission - DIRECT presentation: Cheerleading thread" for tomorrow?
I agree with Martin.
Tomorrow is an historic day regardless of outcome. DIRECT is inon the agenda with some pretty heavy weight company.
Congrats!
Should we start an "Augustine Commission - DIRECT presentation: Cheerleading thread" for tomorrow?
The term I think you're looking for is "liveblog"... and that should also cover post-this-particular-meeting discussion...
We will give it our best shot and then go home.Nice post, Chuck. Good luck to all!
None other than John Shannon presenting Side Mounted Shuttle Derived Alternatives.
He could undercut Direct, not by showing that side mounted is better but that the infrastructure and logistics chains can't support a schedule better than Ares I
Hang in there, Ross! The best is yet to come!!!!
Orlando airport in the middle of a Summer evening thunderstorm! Luv it!
Thanks to everyone who has expressed their support for us over the last few years, and especially over the last few days!
This is the final crecendo. With just a touch of luck, the Rebel Alliance will be victorious!
Ross
House Appropriations Committee Supports Beyond LEO Manned Flight. ""The Committee(Alan B. Mollohan Committee) recognizes that the United States cannot maintain its world leadership in space exploration without a robust manned space program capable of carrying crews beyond low Earth orbit." http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=31534 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&item=&&sid=cp1112R81m&&refer=&&r_n=hr149.111&&dbname=cp111&&sid=cp1112R81m&&sel=TOC_298049
Orlando airport in the middle of a Summer evening thunderstorm! Luv it!
Thanks to everyone who has expressed their support for us over the last few years, and especially over the last few days!
This is the final crecendo. With just a touch of luck, the Rebel Alliance will be victorious!
Ross
I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.
:)
He went on to say that the DIRECT proposal "has been done largely external to the Agency," and "we'll all be hearing from the DIRECT team later this afternoon."
Anybody know where I can get a podcast or videocast of the review? I have to worktoday and can't get nasatv on my iPhone or the nerfed work computers.
For those who did see it: How did you rate Steve's performance? What was the reaction of the Commission? What were the major positives and negatives?He wasn't as polished as the other speakers. The presentation spent a lot of time on DIRECT missions.
For those who did see it: How did you rate Steve's performance? What was the reaction of the Commission? What were the major positives and negatives?He wasn't as polished as the other speakers. The presentation spent a lot of time on DIRECT missions.
Excellent bar graph showing Ares I and Ares V stacked against their budget bar and DIRECT next to its much shorter bar. It was great because the vehicles appeared to be in scale.
More when my heartrate decreases.
Seems like this presentation did what it was supposed to - get the attention of the panel and get them excited. The supplementary information - pages and pages of it - holds everything 'missing' from this presentation, and that is where the commission will draw their conclusions from.
Video of the Direct Presentation is available in the Video Section (317 MB) :
Click the download video (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17484.0)
Ross (still on a high -- and getting ready to head off to dinner with some *very* interesting people).
Thanks to everyone for tuning in!
Glad you all seemed to enjoy it.
Ross.
Thanks to everyone for tuning in!
Glad you all seemed to enjoy it.
Ross.
John Shannon said very clearly Shuttle C can not carry Altair. I think Direct needs to make sure the commission knows Direct can.Yeah, the ISS programme manager said that ISS needs 60 mT. I was thinking: If only there was a vehicle that could lift 60 mT . . .
Frak me! That was quick!!! Thanks!
Ross (still on a high -- and getting ready to head off to dinner with some *very* interesting people).
John Shannon said very clearly Shuttle C can not carry Altair. I think Direct needs to make sure the commission knows Direct can. This did not come out clearly in the presentation.
Danny Deger
Ross isn't going to be able to tell us who he had dinner with or what they wanted to talk, I have no doubt. :D Still, you have to admit that the Commission at least seem to have been somewhat impressed. I hope that this finally kills any impression on the part of some in the community that the DIRECT team are a bunch of hobbyists with an overabundance of PowerPoint skills.
Ross isn't going to be able to tell us who he had dinner with or what they wanted to talk, I have no doubt. :D Still, you have to admit that the Commission at least seem to have been somewhat impressed. I hope that this finally kills any impression on the part of some in the community that the DIRECT team are a bunch of hobbyists with an overabundance of PowerPoint skills.
That's funny, I see it almost the opposite way. Direct was asked why should they believe any of the numbers in their presentation, and there was no good answer to that. So do you think the Commission will believe the numbers? The question of who are you guys was asked, and there was no coherent answer - doesn't the Direct team include personnel from NASA and major Aerospace contractors, some working on Constellation right now? Does the Commission know this? No, however they do have several slides that show whiz-bang drawings of the great possibilities of *unmanned* missions using Jupiter. Isn't the Commission focusing on Human Spaceflight.... OK, I'll go drink a beer now and try to find something positive to think about. I am frustrated because I am a supporter of Direct.
A critique
The Q&A section also seemed to take Steve by surprise. The questions asked were certainly not unexpected. Should have had better canned responses, especially to the “who are you guys?” which lead to well I can’t say because people are afraid… Instead of a team of “60 some NASA employees who in their spare time work on the Cx program”
I really wish you’d kill the Ares3-4 naming convention!
The presentation content was good even if meandering at times but I thought Stephen was too confrontational and surprisingly not as technically literate as either Ross or Chuck when questioned.
John Shannon said very clearly Shuttle C can not carry Altair. I think Direct needs to make sure the commission knows Direct can. This did not come out clearly in the presentation.
Danny Deger
Well they will (hopefully) be looking at those details at a later date, so it's all in the presentation. The numbers show it can work, and the Shuttle-C proposal helped reinforce the benefits of the basic shuttle architecture we now have, and even the deficiencies of that shuttle-C architecture has but Direct excels at. Couldn't have asked for a better follow-up presentation/speaker.
Yes, I was literally on the edge of my seat!
Taking a step back and being objective, it wasn't as polished a presentation as some of the others. I think the long description of potential missions could have been dropped in favour of more information about the J246 and Lunar missions. I was also hoping for more talk of how the gap could be reduced, growth options, etc.
Through gritted teeth I have to say that I feel that this may be an opportunity that has been missed to some extent. On the positive side, the panel seemed interested enough to follow up with a number of questions.
Regardless, the team and Steve deserve praise for getting this far, and I'm sure that this isn't the end of the matter!For those who did see it: How did you rate Steve's performance? What was the reaction of the Commission? What were the major positives and negatives?He wasn't as polished as the other speakers. The presentation spent a lot of time on DIRECT missions.
Excellent bar graph showing Ares I and Ares V stacked against their budget bar and DIRECT next to its much shorter bar. It was great because the vehicles appeared to be in scale.
More when my heartrate decreases.
I haven't watched the recording yet of the presentation - but if the team decided to go over the science potential and benefits of excepted the alternative, I think this is a great strategy. You allow the commission to discover what most of us have on their own - that the fundamentals of the proposal of solid and sound. And that the Jupiter vehicles will work and are the best possible choice. Then once they've figured this out - they can think back immediately to what this enables NASA to do. This establishes a deeper reason to defend DIRECT in the end over the other proposals.
Ross (still on a high -- and getting ready to head off to dinner with some *very* interesting people).
Even in public committees, plenty goes on behind closed doors. Charm the pants off em, Ross :)
What would it gain Augustine to dissimulate about Direct? In public?
Attended the Review of US Human Space Flight Plans Commission meeting today in Washington DC, and took the opportunity to comment (PDF file with text of my remarks attached). I was very impressed with the Commission and I think that DIRECT will get a fair shake from them. Met Ross and was very impressed, and Steve did a solid job with the presentation (although you could tell that he was rushed for time). Cheers,
- Osa
Judging by body language, I perceived the panel to be, well, not hostile, but quite skeptical of Direct. I look forward to hearing about how Direct is winning them over with other information, meetings, etc.
The recommended J-246 has a 130 nmi orbit and the recommended J-130 has a 100 nmi orbit. I know the J-246 goes first and would need a stable orbit, but is it clear from the presentation at what the altitude the pieces would meet for assembly?
Orion on Atlas V in 2013.
....and EELV just doesn't have the mass or volume capacity to support anything but ISS.
Have to agree there. If you can force Orion and Altair to adapt to the strengths/weaknesses of their capacity like is happening now, you could do the same with the EELV fleet (current or upgraded).....and EELV just doesn't have the mass or volume capacity to support anything but ISS.Not so.
Not so.
EELV can lift that much volume?Where is Charlie ?
snip
Congrats to Steve for presenting and "not screwing the pooch" as some other aviation pioneer might put it. Maybe the presentation wasn't perfect, but there was little to complain about, and certainly nothing that would provide an excuse for the commission to simply ignore the data.
Thanks for updating the website with the Direct 3.0 info.
snip
Congrats to Steve for presenting and "not screwing the pooch" as some other aviation pioneer might put it. Maybe the presentation wasn't perfect, but there was little to complain about, and certainly nothing that would provide an excuse for the commission to simply ignore the data.
Thanks for updating the website with the Direct 3.0 info.
I think Steve was very, very good. Not the polished speaker Frank Culberton (Orbital) was, but few are. I think Steve came off as 100% honest and the committee believes the Direct team is working to put NASA on track because they know Ares I/V will bankrupt NASA.
I also think Leroy's question, "Who are you guys?" was a very high complement because he was impressed that a group of people could and would do what the Direct team has done.
I would recommend a stronger statement Jupiter "Block II" is 2 launches to the moon with the current Altair design and LOTS more margin than the Ares I/V launches. A few tons of radiation shielding may more than make up for the slightly worst launch LOC numbers -- and yes I do think Ares I wins the launch LOC battle -- but not by much.
Danny Deger
I also think Leroy's question, "Who are you guys?" was a very high complement because he was impressed that a group of people could and would do what the Direct team has done.
... yes I do think Ares I wins the launch LOC battle -- but not by much.
Danny Deger
Any further public briefings can be polished, but the Direct foot is now in the door. :)
... yes I do think Ares I wins the launch LOC battle -- but not by much.
Danny Deger
As Steve pointed out during the presentation, LOC numbers for the launch are an important but small part of the overall LOC numbers. The extra mass that the Jupiter can lift means that the payload vehicle(s) can add back in the safety features that were stripped out due to the underperforming Ares I. That increases the overall LOC for the mission considerably. Looking at the LOC numbers for Jupiter vs. Ares in the overall context of a mission shows that the Jupiter is a safer option, enables a safer mission than does the Ares I.
Good point Danny.
It's easy to add things back in if you don't have to redesign and consider cost or schedule.
The contiguous volume of Skylab was actually a drawback; much of it is wasted space and it makes maneuvering inside difficult. ISS modules have a specific arrangement that makes use of their volume for more capability. Inflatables, or different module arrangements also offer more contiguous volume if it is desired, but it ultimately wasn't.
The ISS is actually in orbit. Skylab isn't. The heavy lifter that put it up was not financially viable with the budget given. Assembling the ISS with a heavy lifter would have required the construction of an entirely new one, a development of considerable cost and time in itself. Cheaper than the Shuttle? Perhaps, but take that up with a NASA obsessed with the Space Shuttle. Cheaper than EELV or similar vehicles? I don't concur at all.
The global launch fleet made 68 flight attempts or so last year, and the year before, and the year before that. Enough frequency to launch an ISS or two, I imagine. That's capability today, not that anyone is actually building a second ISS anytime soon. The alternative is waiting for a heavy lifter, a 40 year long wait for you fanatics so far. In the meantime, non-heavy lifters will actually accomplish things, and can accomplish the same lunar missions mandated.
I also think Leroy's question, "Who are you guys?" was a very high complement because he was impressed that a group of people could and would do what the Direct team has done.
I agree. I thought, at the time, that his question was meant as a compliment. The obvious goodness of the DIRECT approach, with the engineering behind it, couldn't have been put together by the uneducated masses. The knowledge explicit in the proposal materials (both presented by Steve and delivered before-hand) shows a great deal of industry/esoteric knowledge, yet the group putting forth the effort doesn't represent *any* of the traditional players. The DIRECT team is a very competent group that doesn't fit into the standard molds. Therefore, "who are you guys?"
1. So, say in about 7 Jupiter flights, you could have a space station with the mass of the ISS, but it'd be simplier and more reliable as there would have far,
2. It would likely cost less in just harward because it's cheaper to do work on the ground rather than in orbit.
3. And it would hugely cheaper once you take into account about 7 HLV's vs. the 30+ STS flights, each of which is a HLV carrying a EELV size payload.
4. I honestly have no clue why people keep thinking that's an argument for those little <5 meter sardine cans vs. 8+ meter modules.
4. I don't know either. the 5 meters is big enough
"The obvious solution to me is that Altair and Orion stay joined together using the payload fairing (PLF). At MECO, the Altair/Orion/PLF stack separate from the Core. At apogee the Altair engine fires to perform circularisation. The panels around the Orion Service Module are separated during the Core burn (like they do in Ares-I). This frees up the Orion Service Module jets to provide attitude and roll control for the circularisation burn. After orbit insertion, the PLF separates so that Orion can perform the transposition and docking maneuver with Altair."
By using a J-130 instead of a J-246, this not only makes launching the crew safer (since all the events associated with the Jupiter upper stage (JUS) are avoided) but also decreases costs, since only one instead of two JUS is needed per Lunar mission (that for the Earth departure stage launched by J-246). Also, the crew access arm only needs to be on one level, that for J-130.
For a Lunar mission I think its possible that a J-130 can be used instead of J-246 to launch Altair and Orion into LEO. In order to use a J-130 Ross thought that both the Orion and Altair would need to seperate at main engine cut-off (MECO) perform their orbit insertion burn at apogee and then dock. I proposed another solution which avoids the need for separate burns. In case Ross missed it, here it is again.
"The obvious solution to me is that Altair and Orion stay joined together using the payload fairing (PLF). At MECO, the Altair/Orion/PLF stack separate from the Core. At apogee the Altair engine fires to perform circularisation. The panels around the Orion Service Module are separated during the Core burn (like they do in Ares-I). This frees up the Orion Service Module jets to provide attitude and roll control for the circularisation burn. After orbit insertion, the PLF separates so that Orion can perform the transposition and docking maneuver with Altair."
You would not need a fibre optic connection between Altair and Orion. Normal wires will do. These wires would be severed (along with all the other wires from Jupiter) after LEO insertion when the PLF separates. Orion would use these wires to control Altair's descent engine during the LEO insertion burn. This allows the more efficient Altair RL-10 engine to be used.
Rocketsandsuch (http://rocketsandsuch.blogspot.com/) has this to say about Direct's presentation to the Augustine Committee.
"And he spies the Direct folks, and only a couple of the Direct folks, just before they pull off a very professional presentation. The rest remain in hiding, fearful of retribution for trying to do the right thing."
"In September 2005, NASA authorized the Ares I project to proceed with the development of a new human-rated crew launch vehicle with a 24.5-metric ton lift capability and a total budget of $14.4 billion for design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E), and production." (GAO-08-51)
Ares Project manager Steve Cook "said that the cost estimate for developing the Ares I and seeing it through its first manned flight was $35 billion. Contrary to the claims of critics, he said, costs have not spiraled out of control." (NY Times 6/18/09)
--snip
"The obvious solution to me is that Altair and Orion stay joined together using the payload fairing (PLF). At MECO, the Altair/Orion/PLF stack separate from the Core. At apogee the Altair engine fires to perform circularisation. The panels around the Orion Service Module are separated during the Core burn (like they do in Ares-I). This frees up the Orion Service Module jets to provide attitude and roll control for the circularisation burn. After orbit insertion, the PLF separates so that Orion can perform the transposition and docking maneuver with Altair."
By using a J-130 instead of a J-246, this not only makes launching the crew safer (since all the events associated with the Jupiter upper stage (JUS) are avoided) but also decreases costs, since only one instead of two JUS is needed per Lunar mission (that for the Earth departure stage launched by J-246). Also, the crew access arm only needs to be on one level, that for J-130.
4. I don't know either. the 5 meters is big enough
Ah, 640k was enough too.
10m fairing has 4x volume of 5m fairing. At some point we will want more than 5m. Why not now?
And your good story to get money from the taxpayer is?
Analyst
And your good story to get money from the taxpayer is?
Analyst
And your good story to get money from the taxpayer is?
Analyst
Humans to Mars by 2020 ;-)
Money is a fraudulent construct that causes smart people like Jim to think that the possible is somehow impossible. We can't do X because it's too expensive. BS. The only reason we can't do anything we want is because we can't convince everybody else that it's a good idea. Nothing is too expensive if you have a good story to tell.
Workers start at minimum wage plus medicare. Except in certain extenuating circumstances, this would completely replace welfare and unemployment. If you can't find a job in the private sector, pick a project to work on for the government, and you earn a decent living doing something you've chosen to do to benefit society as a whole.
But this is getting OT...
Lab,
PWR don't recommend using 109% thrust, except as an emergency setting in a similar fashion as can be used on Shuttle. Expectation is that you lose something like 80% of the reliability of the engines -- and that simply isn't desirable, except in emergencies.
You would not need a fibre optic connection between Altair and Orion. Normal wires will do. These wires would be severed (along with all the other wires from Jupiter) after LEO insertion when the PLF separates. Orion would use these wires to control Altair's descent engine during the LEO insertion burn. This allows the more efficient Altair RL-10 engine to be used.
Rocketsandsuch (http://rocketsandsuch.blogspot.com/) has this to say about Direct's presentation to the Augustine Committee.
"And he spies the Direct folks, and only a couple of the Direct folks, just before they pull off a very professional presentation. The rest remain in hiding, fearful of retribution for trying to do the right thing."
That is a great blog.
Here is a great entry:
"We need to practice in front of a mock panel! We need to learn to defuse every issue they might raise! We need to be crisp with our answers! Assemble the list of questions they might ask! Get me a Sally Ride look-alike and have her ask questions that Sally would ask!"
And, no, long time readers, this time we are not writing allegorically.
Money is a fraudulent construct that causes smart people like Jim to think that the possible is somehow impossible. We can't do X because it's too expensive. BS. The only reason we can't do anything we want is because we can't convince everybody else that it's a good idea. Nothing is too expensive if you have a good story to tell.
I never said it was impossible. It is not BS. It is a sane and realistic view. Your view is absurd. NASA doesn't even use Delta IV heavies because the spacecraft would be too expensive. So with NASA current projected budgets, any spacecraft that would use a 10m fairing would be budget buster. Any other view would be delusional.
Jim, there's one detail here you are omitting.. D-IV Heavy is what.. at least twice as expensive as flying on Atlas-V? And how much incremental mass increase do you get?
too expensive to fly anything in a 10m fairing
I've heard this argument before but disagree wholeheartedly with it.
The open spaces in Skylab maybe have been a drawback due to poor space station design, not because it was "too big". But it was our first attempt at a space station, and NASA learned a bundle from it.
The ISS when finished will include about 30 Shuttle launches, plus a few Proton Luanches. It'll mass around 400mt if I remember correctly.
too expensive to fly anything in a 10m fairing
JWST is up to $4.5 billion estimated cost and a 2 year delay.
1. The culprit? A 6.5m mirror. Have you not seen the animations on what they had to do to get that thing to fold up so it can fit in a 5m fairing?
2. They are also dropping instruments left and right to keep it under 6.2mt. Isn't miniaturization very expensive?
3. I'm not saying J-130 for every satellite out there, just simply stating that having a big launcher can ease some of the burdens on big $$$ projects that get stuck with some of the restrictions of a small volume/mass launcher. JWST is a perfect example of such a project.
Part of the reason ISS needed so many shuttle launches was the switch to the higher inclination orbit necessitated by Russian cooperation. A more KSC friendly inclination would have resulted in fewer flights.
I've heard this argument before but disagree wholeheartedly with it.
The open spaces in Skylab maybe have been a drawback due to poor space station design, not because it was "too big". But it was our first attempt at a space station, and NASA learned a bundle from it.
The ISS when finished will include about 30 Shuttle launches, plus a few Proton Luanches. It'll mass around 400mt if I remember correctly.
Part of the reason ISS needed so many shuttle launches was the switch to the higher inclination orbit necessitated by Russian cooperation. A more KSC friendly inclination would have resulted in fewer flights.
I'm not saying J-130 for every satellite out there, just simply stating that having a big launcher can ease some of the burdens on big $$$ projects that get stuck with some of the restrictions of a small volume/mass launcher. JWST is a perfect example of such a project.
But you could avoid that with the accelerated assembly schedule of a HLV. Put it together in say a year,
Would save a bundle of money, expenese, time, and headaches that way vs. the way the ISS was build i think. :)
Ross,
during John Shannon's presentation he mentioned using SSME @ 109% to maximise cargo flights.
Obviously, the cheapest cargo that Jupiter can loft is fuel, ie in it's EDS-only role.
Given that the lift capacity of the EDS launch constrains the whole DIRECT 2-launch architecture, is it worth re-considering 109% as an option for EDS launch only? I'm aware that this increases the risk of vehicle failure - would this necessarily cause delays to subsequent launches if "109%" could be identified as the cause of the failure?
Has anyone read some of the three min. presentations threads about Direct? Some of them are very good. But where does good get you if you don't implement them? Has anyone thought about helping the Direct team, or going down to one of the places where the HSF conferances will be taking minutes and presenting some of the ideas? Does the Direct team need or want help?
Has the Direct team contacted the people who put those ideas up and asked can they use 1 of the ideas on their website and possibly send it to the news media with CD that gets more in depth about Direct and x page summary? Send it to the science people at the new stations where ever the commission is going to heading next...
I looked on the News Hour website but couldn't find anything on direct, only the LRO/LCROSS slide show. Does anyone have a link directly to the video?
But you could avoid that with the accelerated assembly schedule of a HLV. Put it together in say a year,
Would save a bundle of money, expenese, time, and headaches that way vs. the way the ISS was build i think. :)
Complete fallacy. There would be no savings in money since the HLV development would eat it up and the ground infrastructure to handle the large modules.
Also, the budget wouldn't support launching all the modules in one year. More like one a year. In the end, the construction would be the same as the current ISS due to peak funding.
I looked on the News Hour website but couldn't find anything on direct, only the LRO/LCROSS slide show. Does anyone have a link directly to the video?
It says on directlauncher that it was broadcast yesterday, and I searched and they have additional clips from yesterday, just nothing on direct. Is the date on the site wrong?
One thing Ross, I think that under costs presentation there should have been a third pie chart with a crew version.
Ahhh, the joys of having a working internet connection again! The Wi-Fi at the hall never got above one bar and kept dropping-out on me on my trusty Vaio. And my iTouch simply wouldn't connect at all :( Hence a lot of my silence today (not dat I wasn't busy or nuffink).
I've skimmed over the whole thread here and I will say that while I won't even attempt to answer each comment, I generally agree with almost all of the comments so far.
Got word that the NewsHour broadcast was just on, please tell me some on here was able to capture it for all us poor West Coast DIRECT folks, I don't think I can wait until Monday???
A real quick and easy question probably for the Direct people.
I was wondering how you know that the ET will be able to handle the stress of having 3-4 SSME's strapped to the bottom. With the shuttle I always thought that the stress lay in the orbiter and the joins connecting the shuttle to the ET. Now I assume the ET gets some vibration and forces from the bottom of the tank, can it handle it?
A real quick and easy question probably for the Direct people.
I was wondering how you know that the ET will be able to handle the stress of having 3-4 SSME's strapped to the bottom. With the shuttle I always thought that the stress lay in the orbiter and the joins connecting the shuttle to the ET. Now I assume the ET gets some vibration and forces from the bottom of the tank, can it handle it?
Is there are reason we know that thrust oscillation won't be a problem, beacuse even though Direct is very much like the shuttle, it is still different in many ways. I'm not sure how the oscillation begins in the first place, is it to do with the thrust beam, or is it just because sitting on an SRB is really bumpy?
I appreciate any answers, thanks!
I just watched the PBS Augustine Committee-Direct 3 program. It was a good program. One particular comment by Jeff Hanley(Constellation Program Manager) amazed me. Jeff had just discussed the Ares 5 rocket when he said, "This solution, the one that we are on,seemed at the time, based on all the engineering assessments that we did, to be the most effective path." That phrase "seemed at the time" suggests that he has doubts about the present USSEP architecture.
A real quick and easy question probably for the Direct people.
I was wondering how you know that the ET will be able to handle the stress of having 3-4 SSME's strapped to the bottom...
I just watched the PBS Augustine Committee-Direct 3 program. It was a good program. One particular comment by Jeff Hanley(Constellation Program Manager) amazed me. Jeff had just discussed the Ares 5 rocket when he said, "This solution, the one that we are on,seemed at the time, based on all the engineering assessments that we did, to be the most effective path." That phrase "seemed at the time" suggests that he has doubts about the present USSEP architecture.
Did anyone record it?
Ross.
I was told that the video version should go up on, or about, Monday, but I was trying to get a copy tonight for the website.
If the video version doesn't appear for any reason, and if nobody else has a copy, then I'd like to ask you to copy it to DVD and post that to me. But lets wait a few more days and see what alternatives there might be first :)
If you want to burn it to DVD, I know you can use a variety programs like Nero to then turn it to an avi file for computer use.
Ross.
JUNE 19, 2009
PBS NewsHours with Jim Lehrer
Moon and Beyond
Tom Bearden reports on the future of NASA's spaceflight program on the heels of the launch of two unmanned probes to the moon.
Here's an mp4 file - I'll attach an avi as well once I get the file size down. Enjoy!
One thing that I thought was interesting was that the piece focused on two primary points; 1) the current plan (Ares) is in trouble and 2) DIRECT. They didn't get into the EELV world at all (beyond mentioning that it existed). They didn't touch New Space at all.
Direct website is down.
Direct website is down.It's just you. (http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://www.directlauncher.com/) :)
I like the concept :)
If you guys are too busy to put a 3.0 FAQ together, I tossed the following together after hours at work this evening. MAKE SURE SOMEONE TECHNICAL checks it- I'm not a rocket scientist. But hopefully most of the ideas are close enough that it saves you guys some time and effort:
Q: Is Direct safe?
A: All spaceflight is dangerous. Enormous amounts of energy must be released in a fairly short period of time to put people into orbit. This is inherently risky.
That being said, Direct is less dangerous than many alternatives. The Jupiter rocket uses existing engines, which NASA as 30 years of operational experiences with and are known to be reliable. In some cases, Direct is able to reach a safe orbit even in the event of a liquid engine failure. Direct relies on relatively little new unproven technology, minimizing the risk of nasty surprises that have increased the cost and schedule of the Ares rocket.
Q: Is Direct safe?
A: All spaceflight is dangerous. Enormous amounts of energy must be released in a fairly short period of time to put people into orbit. This is inherently risky.
That being said, Direct is less dangerous than many alternatives. The Jupiter rocket uses existing engines, which are known to be reliable. In some cases, it is able to reach a safe orbit in the event of a liquid engine failure. It relies on relatively little new unproven technology, minimizing the risk of nasty surprises that have increased the cost and schedule of the Ares rocket.
Because the crew is mounted on the top of the launch vehicle, a Launch Abort System can eject the capsule from the rocket in the case of a catastrophic failure. The flight profile of the Direct is less aggressive (lower max. acceleration and dynamic pressure) than that of other launch systems, making it easier for the LAS to do its job.
There are more subtle benefits as well. The Direct program intends to merge space shuttle operations into Direct test flights and Direct operations continuously. And much of the Direct hardware is similar to that of the Shuttle. The contribution of human error to risk cannot be understated. By keeping the current operations team running, loss of institutional knowledge and the risk of learning new systems is minimized, and the ‘learning curve’ for the new rocket is flattened.
Q: Is Direct safe?
A: All spaceflight is dangerous. Enormous amounts of energy must be released in a fairly short period of time to put people into orbit. This is inherently risky.
That being said, Direct is less dangerous than many alternatives. The Jupiter rocket uses existing engines, which are known to be reliable. In some cases, it is able to reach a safe orbit in the event of a liquid engine failure. It relies on relatively little new unproven technology, minimizing the risk of nasty surprises that have increased the cost and schedule of the Ares rocket.
Because the crew is mounted on the top of the launch vehicle, a Launch Abort System can eject the capsule from the rocket in the case of a catastrophic failure. The flight profile of the Direct is less aggressive (lower max. acceleration and dynamic pressure) than that of other launch systems, making it easier for the LAS to do its job.
There are more subtle benefits as well. The Direct program intends to merge space shuttle operations into Direct test flights and Direct operations continuously. And much of the Direct hardware is similar to that of the Shuttle. The contribution of human error to risk cannot be understated. By keeping the current operations team running, loss of institutional knowledge and the risk of learning new systems is minimized, and the ‘learning curve’ for the new rocket is flattened.
Forgot to add:
The dual purpose nature of the Jupiter launch vehicle also improves safety. When a rocket is only used for launching crew, every failure will have a person in harm's way. If half the launches are cargo, then there is a 50% chance that nobody will be on board when something goes wrong. Also, unmanned mission can be used to test upgrades and improvements to the vehicle before implementing them on manned missions.
Finally, the heavy lift capacity of the Jupiter rockets allows additional safety features to be used. The standard J130 has enough excess capacity to loft a Soviet T-34 tank to the ISS along with the Orion spacecraft. Because the Direct program closes all CxP capacity margins with a few tonnes to spare, it can afford to incorporated features to improve safety on all portions of the mission, from launch to landing.
Thanks Martin,
if anyone else has useful comments I'll address them all tomorrow (It is very late here).
Someone should Photoshop together an image of an Orion docked to a T-34. ;D It would be fantastic to use as a silly/viral DIRECT promotion, perhaps on one of those "demotivator" type posters.
JUNE 19, 2009
PBS NewsHours with Jim Lehrer
Moon and Beyond
Tom Bearden reports on the future of NASA's spaceflight program on the heels of the launch of two unmanned probes to the moon.
Here's an mp4 file - I'll attach an avi as well once I get the file size down. Enjoy!
Someone should Photoshop together an image of an Orion docked to a T-34. ;D It would be fantastic to use as a silly/viral DIRECT promotion, perhaps on one of those "demotivator" type posters.
DIRECT - "Because we can"
Someone should Photoshop together an image of an Orion docked to a T-34. ;D It would be fantastic to use as a silly/viral DIRECT promotion, perhaps on one of those "demotivator" type posters.A J-130 can just barely lift an M1 Abrams tank (without a spacecraft). That's much more impressive than a T-34, and is much better politically for an American audience.
I know that's not how it works, I was just commenting on something the size of a tank being a very graphic example of lift capability. ( With a little levity (pun intended) thrown in. )
A J-130 can just barely lift an M1 Abrams tank (without a spacecraft). That's much more impressive than a T-34, and is much better politically for an American audience.Maybe so, but I think it would be a better idea to show the Orion with something -- the attitude being, "Not only can we do the job, we can do it while bringing a frickin' TANK along with us."
tank!
All right. It just so happens that I know a few 3d graphics artists. :) Two posters and the source render are attached.
I know that's not how it works, I was just commenting on something the size of a tank being a very graphic example of lift capability. ( With a little levity (pun intended) thrown in. )
I know that's not how it works, I was just commenting on something the size of a tank being a very graphic example of lift capability. ( With a little levity (pun intended) thrown in. )
Need to be careful with saying safety features can be added back to Orion. Its CM size is now limited by chute size. Even if NASA picked a bigger launcher, the chute size would need to be increased to put safety features back in.
Danny Deger
Did they really shrink the chutes when they shrunk the rest of the vehicle? How many kilograms of chute are required per mT of command module?
If J-130 has so much margin for safety features, then it also has margin to restore the original chutes or even bigger ones, limited only by the volumetric capacity of the forward bay.
Did they really shrink the chutes when they shrunk the rest of the vehicle? How many kilograms of chute are required per mT of command module?
If J-130 has so much margin for safety features, then it also has margin to restore the original chutes or even bigger ones, limited only by the volumetric capacity of the forward bay.
And the time and money it takes to redesign and test it. Are you scaling up the entire Orion, or shoving in more chute?
All right. It just so happens that I know a few 3d graphics artists. :) Two posters and the source render are attached.
Q: What is DIRECT?
A: DIRECT is an architecture of launch vehicles, spacecraft and mission plans which describes how missions to the Moon, Near Earth Objects, Mars and even beyond may be accomplished. It is broadly comparable to NASA's Constellation Programme (CxP).
Q: What is Jupiter?
A: Jupiter is a family of heavy lift launch vehicles used by DIRECT, and based around a single Core stage which maximises heritage from the Space Shuttle and it's infrastructure.
Although DIRECT assigns some medium-lift tasks to EELV's, Jupiter mostly fills the roles of Ares I & Ares V in CxP.
Q: What do all the letters and numbers mean (J-130, J-246, etc)?
A: J stands for Jupiter, the Direct heavy launch vehicle.
The firstnumberdigit is the number of stages on the rocket. The Jupiter can be flown as either a one stage or two stage launch vehicle.
The secondnumberdigit is the number of engines on the first stage. For Direct 3.0 these are allSSME enginesSSME's- the same engine that is on the Space Shuttle.
The thirdnumberdigit is the number of engines on the second stage. For single stage rockets, this is zero. For Direct 3.0, there are a number of different possible engines that could be used to power the second stage.Some, like the J2-X, and the RL-60 are in development, and some, like the RL-10 are currently flying on unmanned rockets.
All versions of Jupiter also have Solid Rocket Boosters, like the Shuttle.
Q: What are the various configurations of Jupiter?
DIRECT Phase 1 builds the J-130. It consists of a single stage, the Core, based closely on Shuttle's External Tank & 3 SSME's. With a pair of SRB's, it can fly 65-75mT of Orion (crew) and/or cargo to various Low Earth Orbits, including the Space Station. This is much more than any vehicle currently flying, including the Shuttle.
DIRECT Phase 2 then adds a fourth engine to that Core, and an Upper Stage. This can lift 100mT or more to orbit. Two such vehicles can fly NASA's planned Lunar missions, but with greater safety and with performance to spare.
Q: What are the options for the Upper Stage.
Jupiter's Upper Stage (JUS) is an enlarged version of an existing design. NASA could choose to power it with any of the following engines, based on their detailed requirements:-
Six RL-10b's, making J-246 - the recommended option. This engine has both a superb flight history and high performance. It only requires safety enhancements for crewed flights, which is likely to happen for the Lunar mission anyway.
Six or seven RL-10a's, making J-246 or J-247. Another variant of the ubiquitous RL-10, as above. Unfortunately, both these engine options have workable "J-246" variants.
A single J-2X, making J-241. This is NASA's engine choice for it's Ares I & Ares V Upper Stages, but much development work is still outstanding and exact performance is in doubt.
Four RL-60's, making J-244. More powerful version of the RL-10. Development currently on hold, and least ready of all the engine options, but has perhaps the most long-term potential.
Q: What is J-24x?
Most of the discussions about two-stage Jupiter are equally applicable whatever Upper Stage engine is used. The "x" denotes this, ie is shorthand for "J-241 or J-244 or J-246 or J-247".
Q: What is J-1x0?
As above, but encompasses both J-130 and it's two-engine sibling J-120.
J-120 can lift about twice the payload of an EELV to LEO, but doesn't have the safety margins for crewed flights. It's most likely to be used for deep-space probes and low mass, but bulky items.
Q: What about the H at the end?
A: The H at the end stands for heavy. The Ares rockets currently being designed by NASA require larger solid rocket boosters than what the space shuttle currently uses. Direct does not require these heavier 5 segment boosters, but data summary sheets have been prepared to show that it can utilize them. For most configurations, they improve the payload to low earth orbit by about 10-15 metric tonnes, and the payload through TLI by over 12 metric tonnes.
Q: Why are there so many different technical data summaries?
A: The Jupiter rocket is a versatile design, which is meant to be flown with one or two stages, with or without a crew.
In addition, it is still in the planning stage, so we have summarized the performance of a number of different possible configurations. The vast majority of these will never be flown, but the data for all of them is necessary to determine which is the best one to use.
If that isn’t confusing enough, all rockets have different performance based on what function they need to perform and what orbit they need to reach. Several rockets have multiple data summaries for different orbits, as the starting orbit used to leave fortothe moon is different to the International Space Station’s orbit.Q: Why are there duplicate J246 summaries?
A: There are two J246 second stage configurations. One uses the RL 10B-2 engine, which is currently used to power the upper stage of the Delta IV unmanned rocket. The other uses the RL 10A, which currently powers the upper stage of the unmanned Atlas V rocket.
Q: Which configurations are the preferred ones?
A: For the single stage rocket, the J130 configuration is preferred. For the two stage rocket, the J246 using the RL10-B-2 engines on the upper stage is preferred.
Q: What is the CLV?
A: Crew Launch Vehicle - any vehicle carrying Orion and crew. This may be J-130 or J-24x, and may be bound for LEO/ISS or the Moon/further afield.
Crew Launch Vehicle always flies with a Launch Abort System, which should carry Orion and the crew clear if the Jupiter explodes, as happened to Space Shuttle Challenger.
If bound for ISS, the CLV is likely to also carry cargo.
If bound for an exploration mission (Moon, etc), the CLV will also include the Altair Lunar Lander.
Q: What is the CaLV?
A: Cargo Launch Vehicle - any vehicle carrying cargo and not carrying crew. Again, this may be J-1x0 or J-24x, and may be bound for LEO/ISS or the Moon/further afield.
If bound for an exploration mission (Moon, etc), the CaLV's payload will be the Altair Lunar Lander, and possibly some EDS fuel.
Q: What is the EDS?
A: Earth Departure Stage. Sending spacecraft such as Orion & Altair from LEO towards the moon requires lots of fuel - more mass of fuel than the mass of the spacecraft, in fact.
J-24x is able to carry a payload into LEO which is purely fuel. It can do this because the Upper Stage tanks are 2-3x larger than required just for the vehicle to reach orbit. This is a very efficient way to lift the maximum possible fuel into orbit.
The Upper Stage then docks with Altair & Orion and burns that fuel payload to perform Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) - the escape from Earth's gravity and towards the Moon.
See the "TLI Payload Performance" figure on the EDS baseball cards for how much mass can be pushed towards the Moon, and that's almost all Orion & Altair. For comparison, NASA's current TLI requirement is 71.something mT.
Q: How does DIRECT's crewed Lunar mission work?
A: About five days before TLI, a J-24x EDS flight launches to a height of about 130 Nautical Miles (nmi). It then "loiters" in orbit.
Within the next four days, a second J-24x CLV (Altair + Orion + crew) launches to the same orbit and rendezvous's.
EDS docks underneath the Altair and Orion docks on top of the Altair (this may actually happen before the EDS docking).
The EDS / Altair / Orion stack then waits for the appropriate moment before EDS performs its TLI burn. Once the burn is complete, EDS detaches and is discarded.
Q: How does this compare to NASA's current plans for their crewed Lunar mission?
A: About five days before TLI, an Ares I launches Orion + crew to a height of about 130 Nautical Miles (nmi). It then "loiters" in orbit.
Within the next four days, Ares V launches both an Altair and EDS to the same orbit.
EDS is already docked underneath the Altair, so no docking is required for this.
From this point on, DIRECT's mission is identical to NASA's.
Orion docks on top of the Altair, EDS / Altair / Orion stack performs its TLI burn at the appropriate moment, and EDS is discarded after TLI.
Q: How does DIRECT's cargo Lunar mission work?
A: Very similar to the crewed mission.
J-24x EDS launch is identical.
Altair launch is similar to the crewed mission, except only requires a cheaper / simpler J-130 instead of J-24x.
As with crew, Altair docks on top of the EDS, the EDS / Altair stack performs its TLI burn at the appropriate moment, and EDS is discarded after TLI.
There is also an option to launch a single J-24x with a partial fuel load and a lightly-loaded Altair. Whilst this can land some payload on the moon, two-launch cargo lands much more, and only requires one very expensive Altair lander, so is cheaper per Kg.
Q: How does this compare to NASA's current plans for their cargo Lunar mission?
A: DIRECT's single-launch cargo mission is identical to NASA's cargo mission.
Because of the launch capacity of Ares V, it can land more payload than DIRECT's single-launch mission, but not as much (or as cheaply) as DIRECT's dual-launch.
Q: Is Direct safe?
A: All spaceflight is dangerous. Enormous amounts of energy must be released in a fairly short period of time to put people into orbit. Although this is inherently risky, the majority of the risk to the crew is actually after leaving Earth orbit, when abort back to Earth is much more difficult.
That being said, Direct is less dangerous than many alternatives. The Jupiter rocket uses existing engines, which are known to be reliable. In some cases, it is able to reach a safe orbit in the event of a liquid engine failure and complete TLI in the event of a second failure. It relies on relatively little new unproven technology, minimizing the risk of nasty surprises that have increased the cost and schedule of the Ares rocket.
Because the crew is mounted on the top of the launch vehicle, a Launch Abort System can eject the capsule from the rocket in the case of a catastrophic failure. The flight profile ofthe DirectJupiter is less aggressive (lower max. acceleration and dynamic pressure) than that of other launch systems, making it easier for the LAS to do its job.
There are more subtle benefits as well. The Direct program intends to merge space shuttle operations into Direct test flights and Direct operations continuously. And much of the Direct hardware is similar to that of the Shuttle. The contribution of human error to risk cannot be understated. By keeping the current operations team running, loss of institutional knowledge and the risk of learning new systems is minimized, and the ‘learning curve’ for the new rocket is flattened.
Crew risks are actually much higher after the crew have left Earth orbit, whilst abort back to Earth is much more difficult.
DIRECT has the performance to carry much heavier spacecraft, which should avoid the need for the designers to choose between weight savings and safety features.
Q: Is Direct affordable?
A: Direct minimizes expensive new development programmes by reusing existing engines and using variations of one rocket for all missions. In addition, it can be built in existing manufacturing facilities, assembled in the existing VAB, and transported using existing crawlers and barges. Because fixed costs and development costs are a large proportion of a total program budget, minimizing these is more effective than minimizing the actual manufacturing costs of each individual launch vehicle. Economies of scale are important, and Direct finds these by using one rocket for a variety of tasks.
Q: is Direct sustainable?
A: The versatility of Direct allows it to be used for a wide variety of tasks, from science to space stations, to lunar, asteroid, and even Mars destinations. As long as NASA and its international partners are embarking in missions more ambitious than the Gemini program of the 1960’s, Direct will be adaptable and appropriate to the task.
Q: You call your project Direct 3.0. Was there a Direct 1.0 and 2.0? What happened to them?
A: The progression from Direct 1.0 to Direct 2.0 took place in late 2006/early 2007 as a result of NASA being unhappy with some features. The details of this change are available in the Direct 2.0 FAQ.
In early 2009, it became evident that the "ablative" RS-68 engines designed to power the core stage of both Ares V and Direct 2.0 were not suitable. The RS-68 powers the unmanned Delta IV system. It is perfectly safe on that vehicle, but studies suggested that it would not be able to survive the thermal environment associated with the large solid rocket motors and it required a costly & lengthy development programme. To circumventthis problemthese problems, the design team chose to switch to the SSME whichpowerpowers the space shuttle. Note, PWR are currently building a new SSME for the Shuttle fleet.
Because the SSME is more efficient than the RS-68, the first stage has better performance, and a smaller upper stage is required. This has advantages for the payload which can be pushed through TLI, and allowed the use of smaller, existing upper stage engines like the RL-10. As a result, the development of the J2-X is no longer necessary to build the upper stage. That is Direct 3.0
OK, I've taken most suggestions on board, with a few exceptions:
I don't think it is responsible to compare the safety of Direct with that of driving a car. Driving to work in the morning does not involve a LOC chance of 1:1400.
I've not added the question, "Why hasn't NASA switched" trying to guess the motivations of NASA management is a side issue, and speculating about it isn't going to help anyone.
If this is helpful, I can go on to describing how a 2 launch architecture works, etc.
cheers,
Chuck
Direct 3.0 FAQ
1.
Q: What is Direct?
A: See link. (link to the “what is direct” page)
2.
Who are you people?
A:
See “people” page.
3.
Q: What do all the letters and numbers mean (J130, J246, etc)?
A: J stands for Jupiter, the Direct heavy launch vehicle.
The first number is the number of stages on the rocket. The Jupiter can be flown as either a one stage or two stage launch vehicle.
The second number is the number of engines on the first stage. For Direct 3.0 these are all SSME engines- the same engine that is on the Space Shuttle.
The third number is the number of engines on the second stage. For single stage rockets, this is zero. For Direct 3.0, there are a number of different possible engines that could be used to power the second stage. Some, like the J2-X, and the RL-60 are in development, and some, like the RL-10 are currently flying on unmanned rockets.
4.
Q: What about the H at the end?
A: The H at the end stands for heavy. The Ares rockets currently being designed by NASA require larger solid rocket boosters than what the space shuttle currently uses. Direct does not require these heavier 5 segment boosters, but data summary sheets have been prepared to show that it can utilize them. For most configurations, they improve the payload to low earth orbit by about 10-15 metric tonnes.
5.
Q: Why are there so many different technical data summaries?
A: The Jupiter rocket is a versatile design, which is meant to be flown with one or two stages, with or without a crew.
In addition, it is still in the planning stage, so we have summarized the performance of a number of different possible configurations. The vast majority of these will never be flown, but the data for all of them is necessary to determine which is the best one to use.
If that isn’t confusing enough, all rockets have different performance based on what orbit they need to reach. Several rockets have multiple data summaries for different orbits, as the starting orbit used to leave for to the moon is different to the International Space Station’s orbit.
6.
Q: Why are there duplicate J246 summaries?
A: There are two J246 second stage configurations. One uses the RL 10B-2 engine, which is currently used to power the upper stage of the Delta IV unmanned rocket. The other uses the RL 10A-4-2, which currently powers the upper stage of the unmanned Atlas V rocket. The RL 10B-2 is more efficient, while the RL10A-4-2 is less complex.
7.
Q: Which configurations are the preferred ones?
A: For the single stage rocket, the J130 configuration is preferred. For the two stage rocket, the J246 using the RL10-B-2 engines on the upper stage is preferred.
8.
Q: Is Direct safe?
A: All spaceflight is dangerous. Enormous amounts of energy must be released in a fairly short period of time to put people into orbit. This is inherently risky.
That being said, Direct is less dangerous than many alternatives. The Jupiter rocket uses existing engines, which are known to be reliable. In some cases, it is able to reach a safe orbit in the event of a liquid engine failure. It relies on relatively little new unproven technology, minimizing the risk of nasty surprises that have increased the cost and schedule of the Ares rocket.
Because the crew is mounted on the top of the launch vehicle, a Launch Abort System can eject the capsule from the rocket in the case of a catastrophic failure. The flight profile of the Direct is less aggressive (lower max. acceleration and dynamic pressure) than that of other launch systems, making it easier for the LAS to do its job.
The dual purpose nature of the Jupiter launch vehicle also improves safety. When a rocket is only used for launching crew, every failure will have a person in harm's way. If half the launches are cargo, then there is a 50% chance that nobody will be on board when something goes wrong. Also, unmanned missions can be used to test upgrades and improvements to the vehicle before implementing them on manned missions.
Finally, the heavy lift capacity of the Jupiter rockets allows additional safety features to be used, should future study deem them necessary. Because the Direct program closes all CxP capacity margins with a few tonnes to spare, it can afford to incorporate features to improve safety on all portions of the mission, from launch to landing.
There are more subtle benefits as well. The Direct program intends to merge space shuttle operations into Direct test flights and Direct operations continuously. And much of the Direct hardware is similar to that of the Shuttle. The contribution of human error to risk cannot be understated. By keeping the current operations team running, loss of institutional knowledge and the risk of learning new systems is minimized, and the ‘learning curve’ for the new rocket is flattened.
9.
Q: Is Direct affordable?
A: Direct minimizes expensive new development programmes by reusing existing engines and using variations of one rocket for all missions. In addition, it can be built in existing manufacturing facilities, assembled in the existing VAB, and transported using existing crawlers and barges. Because fixed costs and development costs are a large proportion of a total program budget, minimizing these is more effective than minimizing the actual manufacturing costs of each individual launch vehicle. Economies of scale are important, and Direct finds these by using one rocket for a variety of tasks.
10.
Q: is Direct sustainable?
A: The versatility of Direct allows it to be used for a wide variety of tasks, from science to space stations, to lunar, asteroid, and even Mars destinations. As long as NASA and its international partners are embarking in missions more ambitious than the Gemini program of the 1960’s, Direct will be adaptable to the task.
11.
Q: You call your project Direct 3.0. Was there a Direct 1 and 2? What happened to them?
A: The progression from Direct 1.0 to Direct 2.0 took place in late 2006/early 2007 as a result of a NASA study that pointed out several flaws in the original design. The details of this change are available in the Direct 2.0 FAQ.
In early 2009, it became evident that the RS-68 engines designed to power the core stage of Direct 2.0 were not suitable. The RS-68 powers the unmanned Delta IV system. It is perfectly safe on that vehicle, but studies suggested that it would not be able to survive the thermal environment associated with the large solid rocket motors. To circumvent this problem, the design team chose to switch to the SSME which power the space shuttle.
Because the SSME is more efficient than the RS-68, the first stage has better performance, and a smaller upper stage is required. This allowed the use of smaller, existing upper stage engines like the RL-10. As a result, the development of the J2-X is no longer necessary to build the upper stage. That is Direct 3.0.
12.
Q: Was Jupiter, or something similar, considered in the ESAS report?
A: The closest vehicle to Jupiter was a J130 configuration which was calculated to lift around 70t to LEO; two launches of this vehicle were short of the necessary performance. NASA did not study a version of this vehicle with an additional SSME and upper stage; these changes allow it to meet requirements.
edit: typos in 2nd intro paragraph
This question is also a good place to put a thumb nail description of the two LV.Quote
Q: What do all the letters and numbers mean (J-130, J-246, etc)?
A: J stands for Jupiter, the Direct heavy launch vehicle.
The firstnumberdigit is the number of stages on the rocket. The Jupiter can be flown as either a one stage or two stage launch vehicle.
The secondnumberdigit is the number of engines on the first stage. For Direct 3.0 these are allSSME enginesSSME's- the same engine that is on the Space Shuttle.
The thirdnumberdigit is the number of engines on the second stage. For single stage rockets, this is zero. For Direct 3.0, there are a number of different possible engines that could be used to power the second stage.Some, like the J2-X, and the RL-60 are in development, and some, like the RL-10 are currently flying on unmanned rockets.
All versions of Jupiter also have Solid Rocket Boosters, like the Shuttle.
This question is also a good place to put a thumb nail description of the two LV.Quote
Q: What do all the letters and numbers mean (J-130, J-246, etc)?
A: J stands for Jupiter, the Direct heavy launch vehicle.
The firstnumberdigit is the number of stages on the rocket. The Jupiter can be flown as either a one stage or two stage launch vehicle.
The secondnumberdigit is the number of engines on the first stage. For Direct 3.0 these are allSSME enginesSSME's- the same engine that is on the Space Shuttle.
The thirdnumberdigit is the number of engines on the second stage. For single stage rockets, this is zero. For Direct 3.0, there are a number of different possible engines that could be used to power the second stage.Some, like the J2-X, and the RL-60 are in development, and some, like the RL-10 are currently flying on unmanned rockets.
All versions of Jupiter also have Solid Rocket Boosters, like the Shuttle.
The J-130 is a medium-to-large sized rocket consisting of a single stage with 3 SSME engines and two solid rocket boosters. The launch vehicle can lift a payload of over 60 tonnes to a 100 nautical-miles (190 km), 29° circular Low Earth Orbit. (This is approximately twice the payload of the EELV rockets.)
The J-246 is a big rocket consisting of two stages. The first stage is a J-130 with an additional fourth SSME engine. The second stage contains 6 RL-10B-2 engines permitting the launch vehicle to lift over 90 tonne of cargo to a stable 130 nautical-miles (240 km) 29° inclined, circular orbit.
Q: What are the various configurations of Jupiter?
DIRECT Phase 1 builds the J-130. It consists of a single stage, the Core, based closely on Shuttle's External Tank & 3 SSME's. With a pair of SRB's, it can fly 65-75mT of Orion (crew) and/or cargo to various Low Earth Orbits, including the Space Station. This is much more than any vehicle currently flying, including the Shuttle.
DIRECT Phase 2 then adds a fourth engine to that Core, and an Upper Stage. This can lift 100mT or more to orbit. Two such vehicles can fly NASA's planned Lunar missions, but with greater safety and with performance to spare.
Martin,
You should probably add in the question, "What is the SSME?". You mention the acronym but don't define it from what I can see. Also, this is a good opportunity to explain why DIRECT is using the SSME vs. the RS-68 and how there will be cost reductions in SSME due to economy of scale increases in production rates.
Sorry I can't come up with some actual text but I don't have enough coffee in my system for a Sunday morning to write coherent sentences, as my writing above likely demonstrates. :)
Timeframe Ares Jupiter
Post ESAS SSME SSME
Direct 1.0 RS68 RS68r
Direct 2.0 RS68 RS68
Direct 3.0 RS68r SSME
This is what I see as to some of the work awaiting the Direct team.
People can use my wikipedia.org sandbox space to hash this out if they wish:. . . I don't have enough coffee in my system . . .From a schedule perspective, there has been no question for Direct 3.0 about using the SSME.
Martin,
You should probably add in the question, "What is the SSME?". You mention the acronym but don't define it from what I can see. Also, this is a good opportunity to explain why DIRECT is using the SSME vs. the RS-68 and how there will be cost reductions in SSME due to economy of scale increases in production rates.
Sorry I can't come up with some actual text but I don't have enough coffee in my system for a Sunday morning to write coherent sentences, as my writing above likely demonstrates. :)
Q: Why does DIRECT choose SSME & RL-10B-2 as it's recommended engines?
A: Because they're the safest and most efficient available.
Ares I & V require upgraded engines optimised for high power because of their mass. These development programmes will be expensive and lengthy, and we won't be sure of engine safety until there have been many flights without failures.
J-130 launches a payload broadly comparable to the mass of the Shuttle in a single, long burn - the exact job for which the Space Shuttle Main Engine was originally designed. It achieves this by being uniquely efficient, which maximises the payload that Jupiter can lift to orbit.
It also maximises the height where J-246 hands over to it's Upper Stage, so only another small push is required to reach orbit. A cluster of RL-10's has enough thrust for this, and is light and efficient which maximises the mass that can be pushed towards the Moon (see "EDS", below).
SSME has performed with huge reliability & safety in the Shuttle, is completely ready for Jupiter, and NASA engineers are intimately familiar with it.
Similarly, RL-10 has flown a huge number of cargo missions with tremendous reliability and safety, and can easily be upgraded for Human flights. It is also inexpensive. Jupiter's cluster of RL-10's can even complete the mission if one or two fail mid-mission.
Note that Shuttle engines are normally refurbished and re-used, but Jupiter will discard it's engines after each flight. Experience shows that refurbishment is actually very expensive, and a production line can build SSME's at reasonable cost. Later flights will use a simplified & modernised "expendable" version.
People can use my wikipedia.org sandbox space to hash this out if they wish:. . . I don't have enough coffee in my system . . .From a schedule perspective, there has been no question for Direct 3.0 about using the SSME.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fotoguzzi/DIRECT_faq
(It doesn't have to be my sandbox; the idea is what's important here.) No account needed to edit the page. wikipedia.org does version control in case the space elevator contingent comes by and defaces the page.
Just a thought.
People can use my wikipedia.org sandbox space to hash this out if they wish:. . . I don't have enough coffee in my system . . .From a schedule perspective, there has been no question for Direct 3.0 about using the SSME.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fotoguzzi/DIRECT_faq
(It doesn't have to be my sandbox; the idea is what's important here.) No account needed to edit the page. wikipedia.org does version control in case the space elevator contingent comes by and defaces the page.
Just a thought.
I have put Direct 3.0 FAQ questions out on the net. The Direct team can copy and paste as they wish.
I'd be wary of stating 'greater safety' quite so explicity. Safety issues are so nebulous that they need to be surrounded by caveats, or not mentioned at all- at least until the specific question further down the page.
Q: What are the options for the Upper Stage?
Jupiter's Upper Stage (JUS) is an enlarged version of an existing design. NASA could choose to power it with any of the following engines, based on their detailed requirements:-
Six RL-10b's, making J-246 - the recommended option. This engine has both a superb flight history and high performance. It only requires safety enhancements for crewed flights, which is likely to happen for the Lunar mission anyway.
Six or seven RL-10a's, making J-246 or J-247. Another variant of the ubiquitous RL-10, as above. Unfortunately, both these engine options have workable "J-246" variants.
QuoteQ: What are the options for the Upper Stage?
Jupiter's Upper Stage (JUS) is an enlarged version of an existing design. NASA could choose to power it with any of the following engines, based on their detailed requirements:-
Six RL-10b's, making J-246 - the recommended option. This engine has both a superb flight history and high performance. It only requires safety enhancements for crewed flights, which is likely to happen for the Lunar mission anyway.
Six or seven RL-10a's, making J-246 or J-247. Another variant of the ubiquitous RL-10, as above. Unfortunately, both these engine options have workable "J-246" variants.
At first reading I wondered quite what was unfortunate about this. How about adding 'Unfortunately (from a nomenclature point of view) ...'
I'd be wary of stating 'greater safety' quite so explicity. Safety issues are so nebulous that they need to be surrounded by caveats, or not mentioned at all- at least until the specific question further down the page.
Two such vehicles can fly NASA's planned Lunar missions, but with greater safety margins & redundency and with performance to spare.
How about rewording it completely:
Confusingly, "J-246" could therefore refer to either 6xRL10a or 6xRL10b variants.
Jupiter's Upper Stage (JUS) is an enlarged version of an existing design. NASA could choose to power it with any of the following engines, based on their detailed requirements:-
* Six RL-10b's, making J-246 - the recommended option. This engine has both a superb flight history and high performance. It only requires safety enhancements for crewed flights, which is likely to happen for the Lunar mission anyway.
* Six or seven RL-10a's, making J-246 or J-247. Another variant of the ubiquitous RL-10, as above. Unfortunately, both these engine options have workable "J-246" variants.
* A single J-2X, making J-241. This is NASA's engine choice for its Ares I & Ares V Upper Stages, but much development work is still outstanding and exact performance is in doubt.
* Four RL-60's, makes J-244. More powerful version of the RL-10. Development currently on hold, and least ready of all the engine options, but has perhaps the most long-term potential.
J-24x is able to carry a payload into LEO which is purely fuel, when it is also known as EDS.
Q: How does this compare to NASA's current plans for their crewed lunar mission?
A: The schedule & orbit is similar, but Ares I launches just the Orion + crew first. Ares V launches later, carrying both Altair and EDS.
Since EDS is already docked underneath the Altair,sono Altair/EDS dockingis requiredfor this.
--snip
"The obvious solution to me is that Altair and Orion stay joined together using the payload fairing (PLF). At MECO, the Altair/Orion/PLF stack separate from the Core. At apogee the Altair engine fires to perform circularisation. The panels around the Orion Service Module are separated during the Core burn (like they do in Ares-I). This frees up the Orion Service Module jets to provide attitude and roll control for the circularisation burn. After orbit insertion, the PLF separates so that Orion can perform the transposition and docking maneuver with Altair."
By using a J-130 instead of a J-246, this not only makes launching the crew safer (since all the events associated with the Jupiter upper stage (JUS) are avoided) but also decreases costs, since only one instead of two JUS is needed per Lunar mission (that for the Earth departure stage launched by J-246). Also, the crew access arm only needs to be on one level, that for J-130.
As for my ideas, I couldn’t resist jumping in on Steven’s post. I agree that eliminating the JUS for lofting the Orion/Altair is a great idea. I remember a post a week or so ago from Ross that they’re running the performance numbers and the problem is circularizing to the EDS parking orbit. The PLF/Orion/Altair sep followed by near-parallel burns on the ascent orbit appears a bit risky to me, so Steven’s solution to separate the stack at the PLF/JUS interface appears to be a good one. An issue which occurs to me with using the Altair’s engine to circularize is that its nozzle will be somewhat deeply buried among the interface ring, so thermal problems might arise. Also, I haven’t heard of these PLF access panels that jettison around the Orion service module’s thrusters. Seeing as the SM is quite a bit smaller diameter than the CM, I don’t see how there would not be serious jet interaction with the PLF. Perhaps Orion could go back to an equal diameter SM that it started with before the Ares I throw-weight problems forced it to slim down.
My main modification to Steven’s idea is that rather than separate the PLF and dock the vehicles upon reaching circular LEO, the stack continues to fly that way and dock backwards to the waiting EDS. This has the main advantage that now the crew can once again have “eyeballs in” during TLI (and maybe LOI also, if advantageous) like the good ol’ Apollo days. I always thought it strange that the Constellation architecture had the crew riding backwards during the big burns. Admittedly, carrying the PLF at least out of LEO would be a penalty, but it should improve the abort options for the crew by flying at the tip once again. Also, people will criticize the backward LEO docking, but many posts ago the consensus appeared to be the Russians have perfected automated docking, so why can’t we use it?
How about rewording it completely:
Confusingly, "J-246" could therefore refer to either 6xRL10a or 6xRL10b variants.
How about rewording it completely:
Confusingly, "J-246" could therefore refer to either 6xRL10a or 6xRL10b variants.
Why does there have to be an adjective at all? Why even mention it when the naming convention only indicates the number of engines in the stage? I think this is overcomplication. Do the most simple thing first.
In the case of only 1 SRB igniting at T-0, can the LAS on any of the crewed Jupiter rockets get the crew out safely?
In the case of only 1 SRB igniting at T-0, can the LAS on any of the crewed Jupiter rockets get the crew out safely?
Well, the Jupiter rocket uses the same escape system as Ares I, plus the SSMEs would already be lit, so I'd guess that in that situation the escape rockets would immediately fire once it was detected that one SRB was lit and the other wasn't, while the SSMEs would be vectored to compensate until the SRB could be self-destructed. I'm about 100% sure you'd have very serious damage to the pad, but I unless the escape system failed, the crew would survive.
If the escape system fails, though, they're screwed, because even if they could disconnect the lit SRB and let it ascend, the rocket would fall on its side and the Orion would be subjected to the exhaust of the SRB, not to mention the SRB exhaust burning through the external tank-based core. So, generally, if the crew can't "punch out", they're screwed.
However, considering this situation has NEVER happened to the shuttle in hundreds of flights, and a LOC would require BOTH a single SRB failure AND the escape system failing, this scenario won't be keeping me up at night.
I agree that eliminating the JUS for lofting the Orion/Altair is a great idea. I remember a post a week or so ago from Ross that they’re running the performance numbers and the problem is circularizing to the EDS parking orbit.
Unfortunately, even though we decided to clean-up this conflict and extend an olive branch starting at ISDC, some comments in our Presentation (which should not have been there in the first place) have re-ignited the whole 'war' yet again. We aren't happy about that.
Ross.
If you can point me at the closest time machine ...
snip
Unfortunately, even though we decided to clean-up this conflict and extend an olive branch starting at ISDC, some comments in our Presentation (which should not have been there in the first place) have re-ignited the whole 'war' yet again. We aren't happy about that.
Ross.
Well you should have taken everybody's advice starting from the draft publication of the rebuttal. The presenter you chose is not known for his diplomatic skills and so the end result was always going to be unsure and unpredictable. The whole blood in the water controversy probably led to your demonstration not being shown this weekend on NASAtv so all this point scoring and score settling is totally self-defeating. Griffin is gone, he paid the price for his authoritarian style and actions, let it go, move on and build bridges before it is too late.
build bridges before it is too late.
Unfortunately, even though we decided to clean-up this conflict and extend an olive branch starting at ISDC, some comments in our Presentation (which should not have been there in the first place) have re-ignited the whole 'war' yet again. We aren't happy about that.
Ross.
Well you should have taken everybody's advice starting from the draft publication of the rebuttal.
I'm glad that the DIRECT team was able to restrain themselves (in the end). It's the questionable political instincts that worry me. That language would have gone over terribly. Bunch of insecure nerds still trying to get back at the schoolyard bully.
You guys have the right idea at the right time. The palace intrigue blame game is crap. This is internet flame war material, far beneath the team of experts that is poised to step in and rescue America's human space flight program.
At some point, you have to stop acting like the underdog, or that's all you'll ever be.
I was one of those who was disappointed that all of the more pointed comments and questions were cut from the final version. I'm sure Chuck would agree that I fought pretty hard, all the way, to retain at least one or two such comments in there! :)
build bridges before it is too late.
Great advice for NASA as well.
Would MSFC (for example) truly prefer "not shuttle C" to Jupiter as their second choice if they cannot have Ares 1 / Ares V?
BTW, Ross, your work on the PBS piece was EXCELLENT. Very well done!
So given the current situation is that antagonists are actively trying to find weaknesses in our plans to exploit them, we are simply not going to offer the J-130 CLV option right now. We believe that doing so would only spark a new round of "breaks the laws of physics" responses from some quarters.
Once DIRECT is already in the door, that will be the time to show this option off more fully.
So "perception" is the real concern here, not "technical issues".
Ross.
BTW, Ross, your work on the PBS piece was EXCELLENT. Very well done!
Is that PBS piece on line anywhere?
So you are officially standing behind EELV for CLV to ISS (or COTS)??
What was said at the podium was NOT in the script that we all worked so hard to produce. That stuff was specifically filtered out and the script was focused on DIRECT and DIRECT alone.
Unfortunately, even though we decided to clean-up this conflict and extend an olive branch starting at ISDC, some comments in our Presentation (which should not have been there in the first place) have re-ignited the whole 'war' yet again. We aren't happy about that.
Ross.
Well you should have taken everybody's advice starting from the draft publication of the rebuttal. The presenter you chose is not known for his diplomatic skills and so the end result was always going to be unsure and unpredictable. The whole blood in the water controversy probably led to your demonstration not being shown this weekend on NASAtv so all this point scoring and score settling is totally self-defeating. Griffin is gone, he paid the price for his authoritarian style and actions, let it go, move on and build bridges before it is too late.
What was said at the podium was NOT in the script that we all worked so hard to produce. That stuff was specifically filtered out and the script was focused on DIRECT and DIRECT alone. Unfortunately the script was not followed and we can't take it back. All we can do now is swallow hard and do what is possible to mitigate it and move forward.
If the internals could still handle the asymetric loads of the shuttle in the Jupiter core, then down the road, could a potential relatively easy growth option is a reusable kerlox booster added back where the Shuttle used to be. Something like a Zenit, or two Zenits together. Whatever would not exceed the loads introduced by the Shuttle's thrust which the ET was designed for.
It could even be a newly designed flyback booster, in which case it could perform as a test bed of sorts to a new rocket decades down the road that could be more realistically reusable.
I'm not reopening the debate. I just know that it is a binary "opinion" (or assumption if you will) whether the ULA upper stages are acceptable for humans. Neither answer is wrong, it is all up to your risk tolerance and engineering judgement. There is nothing magical about a factor of safety of 1.4, but these sorts of rules of thumb are either applied or they aren't.
Their models would be able to hindcast the ULA stages, in fact, they are incorporated. The difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch. They certainly apply to the Ares I upper stage as well.
Ah, I didn't realize that man-rating was a factor in the discrepancy. How much is DIRECT performance hurt if conservative man-rating standards are used? What if Ares I weakened man-rating standards are used?
Hmmm maybe we need a team in front of the front-of-house team...
[/only half joking]
I have a followup: Could Jupiter get off the pad with three Zenit first stages instead of the two 4-segment SRBs, or is this a bit short on thrust-to-weight ratio?
From the second Augustine live thread:I'm not reopening the debate. I just know that it is a binary "opinion" (or assumption if you will) whether the ULA upper stages are acceptable for humans. Neither answer is wrong, it is all up to your risk tolerance and engineering judgement. There is nothing magical about a factor of safety of 1.4, but these sorts of rules of thumb are either applied or they aren't.
Their models would be able to hindcast the ULA stages, in fact, they are incorporated. The difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch. They certainly apply to the Ares I upper stage as well.
Ah, I didn't realize that man-rating was a factor in the discrepancy. How much is DIRECT performance hurt if conservative man-rating standards are used? What if Ares I weakened man-rating standards are used?
If someone popped out a time machine, told me that the Augustine Commission had not chosen DIRECT, and asked me to guess why, my guess would be the upper stage mass issue. The commission could reasonably take the position that DIRECT and ULA upper stage masses are possible for unmanned vehicles but not man ratable without a substantial mass penalty. Would DIRECT have a good response to that?
Hmmm maybe we need a team in front of the front-of-house team...
[/only half joking]
Half being contemplated...
:)
But seriously, I haven't got any more time to deal with what might have been. I have to focus everything now on what is and what might still be. Forward and upward.
Ross.
Hmmm maybe we need a team in front of the front-of-house team...
[/only half joking]
Half being contemplated...
:)
But seriously, I haven't got any more time to deal with what might have been. I have to focus everything now on what is and what might still be. Forward and upward.
Ross.
Maybe you should send someone to toastmasters or Dale Carnegie.Hmmm maybe we need a team in front of the front-of-house team...
[/only half joking]
Half being contemplated...
:)
But seriously, I haven't got any more time to deal with what might have been. I have to focus everything now on what is and what might still be. Forward and upward.
Ross.
From the second Augustine live thread:I'm not reopening the debate. I just know that it is a binary "opinion" (or assumption if you will) whether the ULA upper stages are acceptable for humans. Neither answer is wrong, it is all up to your risk tolerance and engineering judgement. There is nothing magical about a factor of safety of 1.4, but these sorts of rules of thumb are either applied or they aren't.
Their models would be able to hindcast the ULA stages, in fact, they are incorporated. The difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch. They certainly apply to the Ares I upper stage as well.
Ah, I didn't realize that man-rating was a factor in the discrepancy. How much is DIRECT performance hurt if conservative man-rating standards are used? What if Ares I weakened man-rating standards are used?
If someone popped out a time machine, told me that the Augustine Commission had not chosen DIRECT, and asked me to guess why, my guess would be the upper stage mass issue. The commission could reasonably take the position that DIRECT and ULA upper stage masses are possible for unmanned vehicles but not man ratable without a substantial mass penalty. Would DIRECT have a good response to that?
Okay, what is everyone's fixation with the upper stage mass ratio? I'm not an engineer, but I know that the amount of mass in the structure of a container is proportional to the surface area, i.e. a square function. Whereas the amount of mass in the fuel is proportional to the volume, i.e. a cube function. So it makes perfect sense that as a stage gets larger, the mass fraction goes down. You have an (m^2 / m^3) situation, so for larger values of m, the fraction gets smaller and smaller.
Also, the closer the proportions of a stage are to a sphere, the close the stage is to the ideal volumetric container, with the minimum of surface area to volume. The JUS is pretty squat compared to other stages, so it will naturally have a better surface to volume ratio, which will also give you a better mass ratio.
So it doesn't make sense to just look at some arbitrary value for the mass fraction as an indicator of a stages viability. You have to look at the geometry as well as the absolute size in relation to other stages to get a good comparative analysis.
...
Okay, what is everyone's fixation with the upper stage mass ratio? I'm not an engineer, but I know that the amount of mass in the structure of a container is proportional to the surface area, i.e. a square function. Whereas the amount of mass in the fuel is proportional to the volume, i.e. a cube function. So it makes perfect sense that as a stage gets larger, the mass fraction goes down. You have an (m^2 / m^3) situation, so for larger values of m, the fraction gets smaller and smaller.
Also, the closer the proportions of a stage are to a sphere, the close the stage is to the ideal volumetric container, with the minimum of surface area to volume. The JUS is pretty squat compared to other stages, so it will naturally have a better surface to volume ratio, which will also give you a better mass ratio.
So it doesn't make sense to just look at some arbitrary value for the mass fraction as an indicator of a stages viability. You have to look at the geometry as well as the absolute size in relation to other stages to get a good comparative analysis.
Mark S.
You forget the other factor: Strength. The tank has to be strong enough to contain the propellant under pressure, not just big enough. Tank mass tends to be proportional to volume.
On the other hand, (excepting filament wound composites), yes spherical tanks are more mass efficient. It's worth noting, IIRC, the common bulkhead tank of a Centaur is only about 40% of the dry stage weight. Not all of the other components need to scale up with the tank.
Ross—I agree that eliminating the JUS for lofting the Orion/Altair is a great idea. I remember a post a week or so ago from Ross that they’re running the performance numbers and the problem is circularizing to the EDS parking orbit.
Actually that isn't the problem.
The only real problem is one of pure "perception".
Technically, we have no doubts at all that with the correct procedures to protect the crew, the process of using a J-130 as the Orion/Altair launcher is quite safe and workable.
The problem is that we have, sadly, divided the community and there are now active antagonists on both sides. In this environment we simply aren't going to make a switch to a different approach which has 'complexities' which anti-DIRECT antagonists will latch on to.
Unfortunately, even though we decided to clean-up this conflict and extend an olive branch starting at ISDC, some comments in our Presentation (which should not have been there in the first place) have re-ignited the whole 'war' yet again. We aren't happy about that.
So given the current situation is that antagonists are actively trying to find weaknesses in our plans to exploit them, we are simply not going to offer the J-130 CLV option right now. We believe that doing so would only spark a new round of "breaks the laws of physics" responses from some quarters.
Once DIRECT is already in the door, that will be the time to show this option off more fully.
So "perception" is the real concern here, not "technical issues".
Ross.
PS: I'd cut out the "we had a plan but it wasn't followed by our presenter" stuff. Save face, but don't throw your own team members under the bus. It looks weak, and it won't make any of the engineers more willing to speak up.
Now that DIRECT v3.0 has been shown at ISDC, it is time to open a specific thread for appropriate discussions here.
"Because DIRECT relies heavily on technology derived from the Space Shuttle, much of the planned missions in Project Constellation will move significantly earlier in schedule. The first crewed CEV will fly in December 2012. The first ISS rotation will take place in September 2013. The first crewed Lunar flyby will take place in December 2013. A possible fifth Hubble Space Telescope service mission can fly in December 2014. The first manned Lunar mission can take place on December 2017 and the first manned Mars mission can take place in 2031."
2031? Why does it take so long? Is it possible to go to Mars with DIRECT approach already in 2019? No, not 2029, but 2019.
I suspect that would require retiring ISS next week, rather than 2016 or 2020.
How about a joint ESA-NASA effort?
Why does it take so long? Is it possible to go to Mars with DIRECT approach already in 2019?
Okay, what is everyone's fixation with the upper stage mass ratio?
<snipped>
The Jupiter second stage (a.k.a. JUS or EDS) is somewhat lighter than usual for a stage its size. See http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15377.msg347878#msg347878 for a nice diagram of second stage masses vs. size.
Additional discussion of the JUS mass issue: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg347456#msg347456
Now that DIRECT v3.0 has been shown at ISDC, it is time to open a specific thread for appropriate discussions here.
"Because DIRECT relies heavily on technology derived from the Space Shuttle, much of the planned missions in Project Constellation will move significantly earlier in schedule. The first crewed CEV will fly in December 2012. The first ISS rotation will take place in September 2013. The first crewed Lunar flyby will take place in December 2013. A possible fifth Hubble Space Telescope service mission can fly in December 2014. The first manned Lunar mission can take place on December 2017 and the first manned Mars mission can take place in 2031."
2031? Why does it take so long? Is it possible to go to Mars with DIRECT approach already in 2019? No, not 2029, but 2019.
1) make "EDS" and "JUS" two different versions of the same design, the former very light, the latter Human Rated (and either heavier, or having smaller tanks, or even both). J-246 CLV has the margin to cope with a heavier US, so not the end of the world, but increases both development and run costs. This assumes the mass requirement comes from ascent and not TLI.
Why not to combine the forces and put Man on the Mars by the 2010s?
Let's put that another way - increasing the takeoff mass of the EDS from 175mT fuel + 13mT burnout to 171mT fuel + 17mT burnout and DIRECT goes away ... and that's why "everyone's fixation with the upper stage mass ratio".
cheers, Martin
PS this may be slightly simplified (re optimised fuel load for a heavier stage), but not much.
BTW, I assume the above also applies to the EELV upper stage, so this is EELV as well as DIRECT.
Really, we need to find out WHY NASA think these masses are too low when Boeing / LM are convinced they are OK or even conservative?
Does NASA not understand?
Does NASA have requirement(s) which Boeing / LM don't understand?
These stages are being normalised to match various assumptions, but is this being done correctly for Boeing / LM's design, and if not, why not?
Since it is Boeing / LM which are being questioned here, it must be possible (necessary from DIRECT's POV) for them to challenge NASA, so that the three can come to a common understanding, or at least understand where the differences lie.
cheers, Martin
You all are certainly welcome to reference Centaurs 0.905 mass fraction and the fact that mass fraction should increase as stages get larger.
You forget the other factor: Strength. The tank has to be strong enough to contain the propellant under pressure, not just big enough. Tank mass tends to be proportional to volume.
On the other hand, (excepting filament wound composites), yes spherical tanks are more mass efficient. It's worth noting, IIRC, the common bulkhead tank of a Centaur is only about 40% of the dry stage weight. Not all of the other components need to scale up with the tank.
But wouldn't the strength required be strictly dictated by the amount of pressurization, regardless of the size or shape? It should remain mostly constant for a given level of pressurization, although you might want a little more margin on larger structures.
Mark S.
I don't have the exact numbers but I think ESA's budget is about 1/10 of NASA.
According to Wikipedia:
ESA: €3,591 billion / $5,030 billion(2009)
NASA: US$17.6 billion (FY 2009)
1) make "EDS" and "JUS" two different versions of the same design, the former very light, the latter Human Rated (and either heavier, or having smaller tanks, or even both). J-246 CLV has the margin to cope with a heavier US, so not the end of the world, but increases both development and run costs. This assumes the mass requirement comes from ascent and not TLI.
The EDS sends a stack of vehicles that contain humans to the moon, right? Doesn't it therefore need to be human rated?
Is there a video of the Augustine Commission, even if in segments (i.e. the DIRECT talk)?
It's really quite simple. NASA design engineering has not designed an upper stage for more than 40 years and to the best of my knowledge, there are no design engineers at NASA with that experience at all. An upper stage is structurally a little different than a core stage and they haven't designed one of them in over 40 years either. In the mean time the contractors have not stood still. The contractors have been designing and building upper stages for far longer than ANY of NASA's current design engineering staff. The simple fact of the matter is that Boeing and LM know how to do it and NASA does not. It really is as simple as that. NASA simply does not know how to duplicate the mass fraction for their in-house design that the Centaur flies with.
If Aerospace is doing the analysis, its mass models won't validate the PMF of the Jupiter upper stage(s). Likewise, some of the other assumptions DIRECT has made won't be accepted / incorporated into the Aerospace analysis.
[1] Has ULA built and flown upper stages with PMF similar to DIRECT's numbers? If so DIRECT should probably urge the commission to test their models by hindcasting the PMF of ULA upper stages.
I'm not reopening the debate. I just know that it is a binary "opinion" (or assumption if you will) whether the ULA upper stages are acceptable for humans. Neither answer is wrong, it is all up to your risk tolerance and engineering judgement. There is nothing magical about a factor of safety of 1.4, but these sorts of rules of thumb are either applied or they aren't.
Their models would be able to hindcast the ULA stages, in fact, they are incorporated. The difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch. They certainly apply to the Ares I upper stage as well.
Their models would be able to hindcast the ULA stages, in fact, they are incorporated. The difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch. They certainly apply to the Ares I upper stage as well.
Quote from: mars.is.wet... The difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch. They certainly apply to the Ares I upper stage as well.Hmm, did you notice that?
Quote from: mars.is.wet... The difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch. They certainly apply to the Ares I upper stage as well.Hmm, did you notice that?
But... but... but... the Ares V is only a cargo vessel! ;)
I have a followup: Could Jupiter get off the pad with three Zenit first stages instead of the two 4-segment SRBs, or is this a bit short on thrust-to-weight ratio?
Sad fact is that Congress won't like what they consider to be the "Ruskie" engines (technical details aren't the issue -- National Prestige is) and the vehicle would need a fair bit of re-design for those, even more for three. Not necessarily impossible, but I have little doubt it would be many years and billions in the "doing".
Ross.
So you are officially standing behind EELV for CLV to ISS (or COTS)??
Sort of :)
Saving the jobs is the #1 priority, in order to secure the maximum possible political support at the Congressional level : "No Bucks, No Buck Rogers".
EELV just can't absorb the STS workforce, so that isn't the solution. Jupiter-130/Orion can take on most of them, and coupled with parallel development of an EELV CLV solution as well, virtually all the jobs can be saved.
Following Shuttle's retirement and a two-year gap, ISS is very likely to need a series of fairly substantial deliveries of logistics, spares and replacement equipment. So our priority is to get those sent up by Jupiter-130/Orion flights as soon as possible, with EELV coming online a short while later. Initially we will fly two J-130/Orion's and one EELV CLV per year.
That changes once ISS has had everything it needs delivered and as the program makes further progress towards both the Altair and the Jupiter Upper Stage. We would like to phase-in the EELV CLV as a replacement for the Jupiter-130 ISS missions and begin to re-focus the Jupiter systems in support of the exploration-class missions.
Sooner or later, the EELV's and COTS systems can take care of ISS for all but the largest repair missions or upgrades, but those would account for no more than one J-130/Orion flight to ISS every few years or so.
Its all about identifying the needs and fulfilling them most effectively. So we start by creating the bridge (Jupiter-130) to get the workforce across from Shuttle to Exploration -- and then we move the EELV solution in to replace that once we focus Jupiter on its real purpose: Moon, Mars and Beyond.
Ross.
And again, I think something like an inline (rather than side mount) Energia type system would be pretty interesting as Direct's replacement. Something more flexable and more "lego" than we have currently, and something more genuinely reusable. Flyback boosters could be reused with resonable refurbishment costs I think, as they wouldn't be dunked in the ocean and have to endure rentry.
Quote from: mars.is.wet... The difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch. They certainly apply to the Ares I upper stage as well.Hmm, did you notice that?
But... but... but... the Ares V is only a cargo vessel! ;)
Quote from: mars.is.wet... The difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch. They certainly apply to the Ares I upper stage as well.Hmm, did you notice that?
But... but... but... the Ares V is only a cargo vessel! ;)
Yup, Ares V is a cargo vessel, but the EDS is Human Rated for TLI. I bet it doesn't have a 1.4 FOS during launch?
That's exactly what I'm saying - NASA are going to apply a 1.4 FOS to DIRECT's EDS during launch, but NOT to Ares V's EDS.
cheers, Martin
Their models would be able to hindcast the ULA stages, in fact, they are incorporated. The difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch. They certainly apply to the Ares I upper stage as well.
Hmm, did you notice that?
Applies to the Ares I upper stage, but not the Ares V upper stage!
Applies to CLV, but not to CaLV.
cheers, Martin
Is there a video of the Augustine Commission, even if in segments (i.e. the DIRECT talk)?
The HSF review's Twitter account seems to indicate that they're still working on getting the video up. I don't know if it's avaiable anywhere else yet, but you might find this useful:
http://twitter.com/NASA_HSF (http://twitter.com/NASA_HSF)
Cheers,
Jesse
Yup, Ares V is a cargo vessel, but the EDS is Human Rated for TLI. I bet it doesn't have a 1.4 FOS during launch?
That's exactly what I'm saying - NASA are going to apply a 1.4 FOS to DIRECT's EDS during launch, but NOT to Ares V's EDS.
So you are officially standing behind EELV for CLV to ISS (or COTS)??
Sort of :)
...
Its all about identifying the needs and fulfilling them most effectively. So we start by creating the bridge (Jupiter-130) to get the workforce across from Shuttle to Exploration -- and then we move the EELV solution in to replace that once we focus Jupiter on its real purpose: Moon, Mars and Beyond.
Ross.
Their models would be able to hindcast the ULA stages, in fact, they are incorporated. The difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch. They certainly apply to the Ares I upper stage as well.
Hmm, did you notice that?
Applies to the Ares I upper stage, but not the Ares V upper stage!
Applies to CLV, but not to CaLV.
cheers, Martin
What? There was no mention of Ares V. It applies to Ares V as well. Ground rules for Ares V (last time I saw them) was that it must be "humanratable" without major modification.
There are few conspiracies that you can detect in life. If you are seeing a lot of them, then it is you and not the clockworkthat is biased. Most of the time a cigar is just a cigar
Their models would be able to hindcast the ULA stages, in fact, they are incorporated. The difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch. They certainly apply to the Ares I upper stage as well.
Hmm, did you notice that?
Applies to the Ares I upper stage, but not the Ares V upper stage!
Applies to CLV, but not to CaLV.
cheers, Martin
What? There was no mention of Ares V. It applies to Ares V as well. Ground rules for Ares V (last time I saw them) was that it must be "humanratable" without major modification.
There are few conspiracies that you can detect in life. If you are seeing a lot of them, then it is you and not the clockworkthat is biased. Most of the time a cigar is just a cigar
Urk, OK!
cheers, Martin
And again, I think something like an inline (rather than side mount) Energia type system would be pretty interesting as Direct's replacement. Something more flexable and more "lego" than we have currently, and something more genuinely reusable. Flyback boosters could be reused with resonable refurbishment costs I think, as they wouldn't be dunked in the ocean and have to endure rentry.
God, I hope I live long enough to see something like that (Energia/Vulkan, anyone?)
Jesse
If Aerospace is doing the analysis, its mass models won't validate the PMF of the Jupiter upper stage(s). Likewise, some of the other assumptions DIRECT has made won't be accepted / incorporated into the Aerospace analysis.
[1] Has ULA built and flown upper stages with PMF similar to DIRECT's numbers? If so DIRECT should probably urge the commission to test their models by hindcasting the PMF of ULA upper stages.
I'm not reopening the debate. I just know that it is a binary "opinion" (or assumption if you will) whether the ULA upper stages are acceptable for humans. Neither answer is wrong, it is all up to your risk tolerance and engineering judgement. There is nothing magical about a factor of safety of 1.4, but these sorts of rules of thumb are either applied or they aren't.
Their models would be able to hindcast the ULA stages, in fact, they are incorporated. The difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch. They certainly apply to the Ares I upper stage as well.
Somewhere many pages back Ross talked about all the margins. In that discussion he stated that the entire Jupiter vehicle, which includes the JUS, is designed with the 1.4 FoS plus margin. The JUS is already human rated.
The Centaur people don't seem to have any problem with a human rated Centaur. No mass increase required.
Really, we need to find out WHY NASA think these masses are too low when Boeing / LM are convinced they are OK or even conservative?
Does NASA not understand?
Does NASA have requirement(s) which Boeing / LM don't understand?
Yes, our Lancer did an awesome job on this model for ISDC. It got a lot of attention and I got a lot of requests for "will the model designs be released?" too.
Major Kudos and extremely big Thank-you's go to Lancer for helping us to show-off our "paper rocket" a second time! ;D
Ross.
If Aerospace is doing the analysis, its mass models won't validate the PMF of the Jupiter upper stage(s). Likewise, some of the other assumptions DIRECT has made won't be accepted / incorporated into the Aerospace analysis.
[1] Has ULA built and flown upper stages with PMF similar to DIRECT's numbers? If so DIRECT should probably urge the commission to test their models by hindcasting the PMF of ULA upper stages.
I'm not reopening the debate. I just know that it is a binary "opinion" (or assumption if you will) whether the ULA upper stages are acceptable for humans. Neither answer is wrong, it is all up to your risk tolerance and engineering judgement. There is nothing magical about a factor of safety of 1.4, but these sorts of rules of thumb are either applied or they aren't.
Their models would be able to hindcast the ULA stages, in fact, they are incorporated. The difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch. They certainly apply to the Ares I upper stage as well.Somewhere many pages back Ross talked about all the margins. In that discussion he stated that the entire Jupiter vehicle, which includes the JUS, is designed with the 1.4 FoS plus margin. The JUS is already human rated.The Centaur people don't seem to have any problem with a human rated Centaur. No mass increase required.
(This quote added in edit.)Really, we need to find out WHY NASA think these masses are too low when Boeing / LM are convinced they are OK or even conservative?
Does NASA not understand?
Does NASA have requirement(s) which Boeing / LM don't understand?
DIRECT and NASA clearly disagree about how much a JUS would weigh. There is no room for debate about how much an already flying centaur weighs. The JUS and centaur have two major differences: size and man-rating. Which of these differences accounts for the difference in opinion about JUS mass?
Two questions to shed light on the above question:
(i) Does everyone more or less agree on what a non-man-rated version of JUS would weigh?
(ii) Does everyone more or less agree on what a man-rated centaur and/or a man-rated new stage the size of centaur would weigh?
The comments by MIW and Clongton suggest to me that the answer to the second question is "no". Is that right?
Their models would be able to hindcast the ULA stages, in fact, they are incorporated. The difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch. They certainly apply to the Ares I upper stage as well.
Hmm, did you notice that?
Applies to the Ares I upper stage, but not the Ares V upper stage!
Applies to CLV, but not to CaLV.
cheers, Martin
What? There was no mention of Ares V. It applies to Ares V as well. Ground rules for Ares V (last time I saw them) was that it must be "humanratable" without major modification.
There are few conspiracies that you can detect in life. If you are seeing a lot of them, then it is you and not the clockworkthat is biased. Most of the time a cigar is just a cigar
Thanks, Mark. Thanks, Martin,An increase of 4mT in burnout mass (from 13mT to 17mT) would put J-246 on the edge of not being able to close CxP's reduced (no L3 margin) requirement of 71.1mT.Okay, what is everyone's fixation with the upper stage mass ratio?
Let's put that another way - increasing the takeoff mass of the EDS from 175mT fuel + 13mT burnout to 171mT fuel + 17mT burnout and DIRECT goes away ... and that's why "everyone's fixation with the upper stage mass ratio".
Martin,Is there any way Bernard Kutter could contribute to the current Committtee process.
. . . Lockheed Martin. . . .
It's theoretically possible. It's a 7.3mT PLF so that's a significant weight penalty which will increase the propellant needed to do the burn.
And I think the bottom of the PLF area would require some form of TPS/barrier to prevent any recirculation of hot exhaust gas back up inside the PLF too.
While both are issues, neither seems to be a showstopper, so it might be possible.
Ross.
I have the paper version of LRO on my desk. When can we get the J-246?
Nice work!!!!
Martin, the costs to qualify two separate Upper Stage designs is *extremely* high. Given that cost is the thing which is breaking the Ares approach completely down, adding extra costs just to make it 'appear' better isn't going to help.
This argument is really like taking the very best aircraft designer from 1964 out of retirement and pitting him up against the very best aircraft designer of 2009. They both have world-class credentials, but the fact remains that the guy who hasn't been in the game for 45 years simply isn't going to be in a position to utilize all of the new capabilities which have been developed since he retired.
Call me strange or peculiar (and some might), but even though I respect the old guy for his accomplishments before I was born, I'm still going to hire the guy who has successfully built the 757, 767, 777 and now the 787, not the guy who's last involvement in this business was on the 707.
As far as Jupiter-130 being involved in Lunar missions, firstly, it works great for the Cargo flights. No problems at all and we are happy to recommend it ahead of the Jupiter-246 CaLV for those missions.
*IF* it were used for the Crew flights as well, its performance means the only workable option is if the vehicle injects into a sub-orbital trajectory (30x130nmi) and the payload elements would then have to perform a Circularization Burn (OMS-2 equivalent) about 35-40 minutes later.
In that scenario, the Jupiter-130 carrying a 10m dia PLF can launch 77.2mT of payload, which appears to be enough to make that architecture "close" successfully. But there are a few 'tricky' issues regarding precisely how the Orion and Altair perform that circ. burn just a short while after MECO -- Even 40 minutes is still an uncomfortably short amount of time to even consider attempting to dock Orion to Altair and successfully extract the lander. So that's just not a realistic option here.
That leaves the only realistic option being that Orion and Altair would have to perform separate circ. burns and then dock afterward -- with one spacecraft on automatic, yet in relatively close proximity to the crew spacecraft the whole way -- which is a clear concern.
It looks "plausible", but clearly is complicated enough that it needs a *LOT* more investigation. We simply haven't had enough time recently to work on it and we are also concerned that the "perception" of how difficult that dual-circularization is, could be distorted to make it "appear" impossible, even if it does actually work.
Given all that, we aren't close to considering changing the current 2x Jupiter-246 baseline for Crew missions to this alternative approach. This will remain an "alternative" for the foreseeable.
Ross.
As far as Jupiter-130 being involved in Lunar missions, firstly, it works great for the Cargo flights. No problems at all and we are happy to recommend it ahead of the Jupiter-246 CaLV for those missions.
*IF* it were used for the Crew flights as well, its performance means the only workable option is if the vehicle injects into a sub-orbital trajectory (30x130nmi) and the payload elements would then have to perform a Circularization Burn (OMS-2 equivalent) about 35-40 minutes later.
In that scenario, the Jupiter-130 carrying a 10m dia PLF can launch 77.2mT of payload, which appears to be enough to make that architecture "close" successfully. But there are a few 'tricky' issues regarding precisely how the Orion and Altair perform that circ. burn just a short while after MECO -- Even 40 minutes is still an uncomfortably short amount of time to even consider attempting to dock Orion to Altair and successfully extract the lander. So that's just not a realistic option here.
That leaves the only realistic option being that Orion and Altair would have to perform separate circ. burns and then dock afterward -- with one spacecraft on automatic, yet in relatively close proximity to the crew spacecraft the whole way -- which is a clear concern.
It looks "plausible", but clearly is complicated enough that it needs a *LOT* more investigation. We simply haven't had enough time recently to work on it and we are also concerned that the "perception" of how difficult that dual-circularization is, could be distorted to make it "appear" impossible, even if it does actually work.
Given all that, we aren't close to considering changing the current 2x Jupiter-246 baseline for Crew missions to this alternative approach. This will remain an "alternative" for the foreseeable.
Ross.
Ross, would it help if the structure of the Jupiter rocket was lighter/optimized for the J-130 instead of the J-246? What I am thinking here is designing a lighter Jupiter core able to be fitted with 2 optional vertical support beams for the J-246 version. These support beams, which would be bolted on the core in the VAB, would be placed 90 degrees from the SRBs. The beams would be able to support the extra mass of the US on top of the LO2 tank and the extra compression on the LH2 tank caused by the 4th SSME.
PaulL
(i) Does everyone more or less agree on what a non-man-rated version of JUS would weigh?
(ii) Does everyone more or less agree on what a man-rated centaur and/or a man-rated new stage the size of centaur would weigh?
The key difference here is that NASA has a lot of talented people, but they simply haven't got *any* current experience building Upper Stages. The last Upper Stage which NASA designed and actually flew was for the Saturn-V.
I have a Windows Media version video of the Afternoon Session, start to finish, 4h22m, 291mb, but haven't the foggiest idea how to get it onto the board here... it is ok for the audio, but most of the slides that are shown, the print is abominable... it's 320x240 screen ratio...
I could attach here, but have a feeling Chris would not appreciate his board crashing... I read Dale Carnegie's book ;)
Dave
Ross, would it help if the structure of the Jupiter rocket was lighter/optimized for the J-130 instead of the J-246? What I am thinking here is designing a lighter Jupiter core able to be fitted with 2 optional vertical support beams for the J-246 version. These support beams, which would be bolted on the core in the VAB, would be placed 90 degrees from the SRBs. The beams would be able to support the extra mass of the US on top of the LO2 tank and the extra compression on the LH2 tank caused by the 4th SSME.
PaulL
Interesting, Buzz Aldrin just had an article on the future of manned space flight published online in Popular Mechanics where he advocates switching to Delta IV/Atlas V in the near term and developing either the Jupiter 232 (needs to be updated on the Direct 3.0 plan I guess) or the NASA not Shuttle C SDLV concept in the medium term. Has the DIRECT team much in the way of pre-Augustine Commision contact with Buzz that hasn't been discussed here? It looks like you certainly caught his attention.
Link is: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html?nav=RSS20&src=syn&dom=yah_buzz&mag=pop
PM Quote:
"My alternative plan is simple math: Ares 3+3 is better than Ares 1+5. In other words, two medium-size Ares 3s would be a more efficient way to launch crew and cargo than a small crew-only Ares I and a huge cargo-only Ares V. NASA would require just one much less expensive rocket program.
This Ares 3 would use shuttle components to minimize development time and costs. Two well-studied concepts could serve as a starting point: the Jupiter Direct 232 shuttle-stack configuration developed by a group of moonlighting NASA rebels, or the Shuttle-C side-mount cargo launcher that NASA studied two decades ago. Ideally, this Ares 3 would slowly and affordably evolve to be fully reusable."
Somehow it seems much simpler to propose using J-130H (5-seg SRBs, no tank stretch) for the Orion/Altair launch, rather than using two core designs or using the Orion or Altair as an Ares-I style third stage for the circ. burn. How far along is the 5-seg development by now?
Of course, then the next question is how close does a J-246H come to doing a one-launch cargo mission?
Interesting, Buzz Aldrin just had an article on the future of manned space flight published online in Popular Mechanics where he advocates switching to Delta IV/Atlas V in the near term and developing either the Jupiter 232 (needs to be updated on the Direct 3.0 plan I guess) or the NASA not Shuttle C SDLV concept in the medium term. Has the DIRECT team much in the way of pre-Augustine Commision contact with Buzz that hasn't been discussed here? It looks like you certainly caught his attention.
Link is: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html?nav=RSS20&src=syn&dom=yah_buzz&mag=pop
PM Quote:
"My alternative plan is simple math: Ares 3+3 is better than Ares 1+5. In other words, two medium-size Ares 3s would be a more efficient way to launch crew and cargo than a small crew-only Ares I and a huge cargo-only Ares V. NASA would require just one much less expensive rocket program.
This Ares 3 would use shuttle components to minimize development time and costs. Two well-studied concepts could serve as a starting point: the Jupiter Direct 232 shuttle-stack configuration developed by a group of moonlighting NASA rebels, or the Shuttle-C side-mount cargo launcher that NASA studied two decades ago. Ideally, this Ares 3 would slowly and affordably evolve to be fully reusable."
We talk with Buzz all the time.
We talk with Buzz all the time.
It's theoretically possible. It's a 7.3mT PLF so that's a significant weight penalty which will increase the propellant needed to do the burn.
And I think the bottom of the PLF area would require some form of TPS/barrier to prevent any recirculation of hot exhaust gas back up inside the PLF too.
While both are issues, neither seems to be a showstopper, so it might be possible.
Ross.
Martin, the costs to qualify two separate Upper Stage designs is *extremely* high. Given that cost is the thing which is breaking the Ares approach completely down, adding extra costs just to make it 'appear' better isn't going to help.
Got it. Sorry for being a little, erm, "persistent" re that idea.
Martin, the costs to qualify two separate Upper Stage designs is *extremely* high. Given that cost is the thing which is breaking the Ares approach completely down, adding extra costs just to make it 'appear' better isn't going to help.
Got it. Sorry for being a little, erm, "persistent" re that idea.
Sorry Martin, I didn't mean for that reply to sound like a slam or anything of the sort. I was just trying to help explain some of the wider aspects which always need to be part of the "balance" when contemplating such things.
Everything in this business always comes down, ultimately, to the age-old "Performance Triangle" which every competent manager must already be aware of:-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/Project_Triangle.svg/600px-Project_Triangle.svg.png)
Ross.
Martin, the costs to qualify two separate Upper Stage designs is *extremely* high. Given that cost is the thing which is breaking the Ares approach completely down, adding extra costs just to make it 'appear' better isn't going to help.
Got it. Sorry for being a little, erm, "persistent" re that idea.
Sorry Martin, I didn't mean for that reply to sound like a slam or anything of the sort. I was just trying to help explain some of the wider aspects which always need to be part of the "balance" when contemplating such things.
Everything in this business always comes down, ultimately, to the age-old "Performance Triangle" which every competent manager must already be aware of:-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/Project_Triangle.svg/600px-Project_Triangle.svg.png)
Ross.
so if you had to place some dots inside that triangle for the various options where would you put them Ross?
With the unique and demanding nature of the endeavor involved, wouldn't Safety qualify as a separate pole? To lump it in with 'Good' will always cause any plot to always skew in that direction.
Interesting, Buzz Aldrin just had an article on the future of manned space flight published online in Popular Mechanics where he advocates switching to Delta IV/Atlas V in the near term and developing either the Jupiter 232 (needs to be updated on the Direct 3.0 plan I guess) or the NASA not Shuttle C SDLV concept in the medium term. Has the DIRECT team much in the way of pre-Augustine Commision contact with Buzz that hasn't been discussed here? It looks like you certainly caught his attention.
Link is: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html?nav=RSS20&src=syn&dom=yah_buzz&mag=pop
PM Quote:
"My alternative plan is simple math: Ares 3+3 is better than Ares 1+5. In other words, two medium-size Ares 3s would be a more efficient way to launch crew and cargo than a small crew-only Ares I and a huge cargo-only Ares V. NASA would require just one much less expensive rocket program.
This Ares 3 would use shuttle components to minimize development time and costs. Two well-studied concepts could serve as a starting point: the Jupiter Direct 232 shuttle-stack configuration developed by a group of moonlighting NASA rebels, or the Shuttle-C side-mount cargo launcher that NASA studied two decades ago. Ideally, this Ares 3 would slowly and affordably evolve to be fully reusable."
We talk with Buzz all the time.
Interesting, Buzz Aldrin just had an article on the future of manned space flight published online in Popular Mechanics where he advocates switching to Delta IV/Atlas V in the near term and developing either the Jupiter 232 (needs to be updated on the Direct 3.0 plan I guess) or the NASA not Shuttle C SDLV concept in the medium term. Has the DIRECT team much in the way of pre-Augustine Commision contact with Buzz that hasn't been discussed here? It looks like you certainly caught his attention.
Link is: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html?nav=RSS20&src=syn&dom=yah_buzz&mag=pop
PM Quote:
"My alternative plan is simple math: Ares 3+3 is better than Ares 1+5. In other words, two medium-size Ares 3s would be a more efficient way to launch crew and cargo than a small crew-only Ares I and a huge cargo-only Ares V. NASA would require just one much less expensive rocket program.
This Ares 3 would use shuttle components to minimize development time and costs. Two well-studied concepts could serve as a starting point: the Jupiter Direct 232 shuttle-stack configuration developed by a group of moonlighting NASA rebels, or the Shuttle-C side-mount cargo launcher that NASA studied two decades ago. Ideally, this Ares 3 would slowly and affordably evolve to be fully reusable."
We talk with Buzz all the time.
Out of curiosity, what sort of dialogue do you have with him? You mean "we" being Direct's engineer contingent at NASA? Do you think he will be a deciding factor in favor of Direct?
Jesse
One thing Buzz did do, right at the start when we began discussing the idea with him, was use his company and its resources to make sure our concept wasn't fanciful. He wanted to know for himself whether we were realistic or just blowing smoke. So he had our proposal examined professionally -- independently.
He got his own facts and figures together and was able to confirm that this concept works. His was actually the first independent assessment to confirm what we've been saying, roughly two years ago. If he didn't already have that confidence behind him, he wouldn't even be mentioning us now.
Ross.
Since the Direct baseline architecture is 2 J-246's, with two JUS's, one fully fueled, one fueled just enough for LEO of CEV/LSAM.
Could both JUS's be partially fueled, and have a rendevous in LE1 or LLO? You have to expend two anyway, couldn't the docking procedures be simplified that way?
Also, in that vein, if a Centaur or D4US (are they the same? Don't know much about them, if they are two terms for the same upper stage or not) can take Orion around the moon for an Apollo 8 type flyby, could one be used to take the LSAM there too, again for a LE1 or LLO rendevous?
I know fueled LSAM is heavier than Orion, so I don't know.
But now I'm curious.
The Direct team mentioned that someone had verified Direct's claims to performance with 1%. Will they ever publish the review\study before the Commission is finished in Auguest?
Which reminds me -- I just heard that NASA has gone and produced a new "Analysis" into DIRECT 3.0 in which the same old BS is apparently doing the rounds -- yet again.
While I've only heard a few details, they're b*tching about the pmf being something which NASA is unable to build (yeah, we know that, which is precisely why we want Industry to handle that element because of their much greater experience instead, duh!).
And they're trying to depict the architecture as only being able to send a 29mT lander through TLI.
I find these claims to be quite remarkable when you consider that ESAS itself included a configuration rather similar to Jupiter-246 (LV-25 + EDS S1A = Jupiter-234, which uses just three SSME's on the Core (4 is much better) and four RL-60-class engines on the EDS). Yet, even with less performance than the DIRECT configurations this vehicle is sufficient, in 2-launch profile, to comfortably exceed CxP's current performance requirements of 71.1mT thru TLI. In fact, ESAS claims the lower-power configuration can actually send 74.3mT thru TLI. See attached.
I find it just "amazing" how, suddenly, this sort of vehicle magically "loses" about 15 tons of performance as soon as it threatens the Ares systems. Just amazing, that, eh?
Seems the BS continues to be shoveled to anyone willing to swallow it. Jeez.
Ross.
Seen this in Today's Florida Today -- Editorial Cartoons" section (http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/jparker/index.shtml)?
Its just *begging* to have a couple of photo re-touches... Adding names to the back of shirts etc...
Ross.
Ross, would it help if the structure of the Jupiter rocket was lighter/optimized for the J-130 instead of the J-246? What I am thinking here is designing a lighter Jupiter core able to be fitted with 2 optional vertical support beams for the J-246 version. These support beams, which would be bolted on the core in the VAB, would be placed 90 degrees from the SRBs. The beams would be able to support the extra mass of the US on top of the LO2 tank and the extra compression on the LH2 tank caused by the 4th SSME.
PaulL
As soon as you optimize for the J-130 you create a *new* launch vehicle and the cost savings for DIRECT go away. Even though the 2 LVs (J-130 and J-246) would look very similar, they would in fact be 2 different vehicles and we will have lost the foundational fundamental fo DIRECT: build ONE launch vehicle able to do both jobs.
That's actually one of our major fears; that after NASA adopts DIRECT, they will optimize the J-130, as you suggest. We do NOT advocate that. It's spending money (a lot of money) for nothing.
Okay, to lighten the mood... Who's seen this in Today's Florida Today -- Editorial Cartoons" section (http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/jparker/index.shtml)?
(http://cmsimg.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Avis=A9&Dato=20090624&Kategori=COLUMNISTS0204&Lopenr=90623036&Ref=AR&MaxW=500)
Its just *begging* to have a couple of photo re-touches... Adding names to the back of shirts etc...
Ross.
Call me strange or peculiar (and some might), but even though I respect the old guy for his accomplishments before I was born, I'm still going to hire the guy who has successfully built the 757, 767, 777 and now the 787, not the guy who's last involvement in this business was on the 707.
Ross.
I am not looking here at developing 2 Jupiter cores. What I am suggesting is to develop a lighther core which could be used with 3 SSME engines and an engine plug for the J-130. The same core could be used with 4 SSME engines, two vertical support beams and an upper stage to create a J-24x. The idea here is to permit the use of the J-130 for the lunar CEV+LSAM flight. The EDS flight on a J-24x is not the problem here as it has plenty of margin compared to the J-130 CLV flight.
Which reminds me -- I just heard that NASA has gone and produced a new "Analysis" into DIRECT 3.0 in which the same old BS is apparently doing the rounds -- yet again.
While I've only heard a few details, they're b*tching about the pmf being something which NASA is unable to build (yeah, we know that, which is precisely why we want Industry to handle that element because of their much greater experience instead, duh!).
And they're trying to depict the architecture as only being able to send a 29mT lander through TLI.
I find these claims to be quite remarkable when you consider that ESAS itself included a configuration rather similar to Jupiter-246 (LV-25 + EDS S1A = Jupiter-234, which uses just three SSME's on the Core (4 is much better) and four RL-60-class engines on the EDS). Yet, even with less performance than the DIRECT configurations this vehicle is sufficient, in 2-launch profile, to comfortably exceed CxP's current performance requirements of 71.1mT thru TLI. In fact, ESAS claims the lower-power configuration can actually send 74.3mT thru TLI. See attached.
I find it just "amazing" how, suddenly, this sort of vehicle magically "loses" about 15 tons of performance as soon as it threatens the Ares systems. Just amazing, that, eh?
Seems the BS continues to be shoveled to anyone willing to swallow it. Jeez.
Ross.
Seems the BS continues to be shoveled to anyone willing to swallow it. Jeez.
Ross.
Sad part is, they're NASA, they can get away with it. If you try to argue they "fudged" the numbers in Ares' favor, then you guys look like your trying to start conspiracy theories.
Let's just hope the panel can see through these types of things. But I have the pessimistic feeling they won't.
The funny part is, if Jupiter is chosen, we get to see NASA say, "WOW! We just found 15 extra tons of performance! Were did that come from?!?!?" ::)
I think it is clear that the presentation was a rushed 1/2 hour version of an hour presentation that was cut to 20 minutes right at the last second. A lot of good points were made, however, in that limited time.Jeez.too heavy on science, which begs the question if there was some purpose to that? (robertross said this (I missed with the scissors.))
I think it is clear that the presentation was a rushed 1/2 hour version of an hour presentation that was cut to 20 minutes right at the last second. A lot of good points were made, however, in that limited time.Jeez.too heavy on science, which begs the question if there was some purpose to that? (robertross said this (I missed with the scissors.))
None of the ESAS TLI claims have proved accurate including Ares V which has had to be enlarged considerably from the SSME Classic to what they have now and it still comes up short so you can't rely on ESAS.
Ares V classic wasn't dumped because of a performance deficit (it probably would have worked pretty well), it was dumped on a supposed cost of engine basis. So, NASA picked less efficient engines, and then wondered why making Ares V bigger and bigger wasn't having the desired effect... it didn't help any that upgrades to the RS-68 weren't hitting their performance targets (per Ross statements), or that the core stage was too heavy for the crawlerway.
Ares I on the other hand, was dumped because the upper stage engine supposedly couldn't be made to air start, so they picked a less efficient engine, made the first stage bigger, and wondered why making the thing bigger wasn't having the desired effect... it didn't help any that the J-2X design was having a hard time hitting its performance targets (again, per Ross' statements), or that the first stage was too long to avoid resonance with the upper stage.
I don't know for sure what the real (as opposed to supposed) motivation was for dumping Space Shuttle Main Engines, Space Shuttle External Tanks (or at least very close approximations), and Space Shuttle SRBs from vehicles that were supposed to be Space Shuttle derived, but replacing them with unbuilt (hence needed development), untested (hence unknown performance), and unproven (hence unknown reliability) hardware sure has made the whole process a lot more complicated
None of the ESAS TLI claims have proved accurate including Ares V which has had to be enlarged considerably from the SSME Classic to what they have now and it still comes up short so you can't rely on ESAS.
Ares V classic wasn't dumped because of a performance deficit (it probably would have worked pretty well), it was dumped on a supposed cost of engine basis. So, NASA picked less efficient engines, and then wondered why making Ares V bigger and bigger wasn't having the desired effect... it didn't help any that upgrades to the RS-68 weren't hitting their performance targets (per Ross statements), or that the core stage was too heavy for the crawlerway.
I don't know for sure what the real (as opposed to supposed) motivation was for dumping Space Shuttle Main Engines, Space Shuttle External Tanks (or at least very close approximations), and Space Shuttle SRBs from vehicles that were supposed to be Space Shuttle derived, but replacing them with unbuilt (hence needed development), untested (hence unknown performance), and unproven (hence unknown reliability) hardware sure has made the whole process a lot more complicated
Quoted for truth. Perhaps that post should have been mailed to the Augustine Commission ;)
That's a pretty concise summary of the situation. As I've argued before, RS-68 and J-2X are disappointing engines whose development has come at the cost of fielding much more promising engines such as RS-84 and RL-60. Delta IV will probably be the first and last vehicle to use RS-68, and J-2X (aka Vulcain reinvented for the NIH-afflicted) will probably never fly.
I agree. But until this data is made public, or at least shows itself in some documented form, there is no way to alert the panel. Telling them you heard water-cooler talk that NASA did another review of Direct is not going to help.
You need to have the documents from NASA and the ESAS documents right there to show them side by side, and ask where the missing 15 tons went.
None of the ESAS TLI claims have proved accurate including Ares V which has had to be enlarged considerably from the SSME Classic to what they have now and it still comes up short so you can't rely on ESAS.
Ares V classic wasn't dumped because of a performance deficit (it probably would have worked pretty well), it was dumped on a supposed cost of engine basis. So, NASA picked less efficient engines, and then wondered why making Ares V bigger and bigger wasn't having the desired effect... it didn't help any that upgrades to the RS-68 weren't hitting their performance targets (per Ross statements), or that the core stage was too heavy for the crawlerway.
Ares I on the other hand, was dumped because the upper stage engine supposedly couldn't be made to air start, so they picked a less efficient engine, made the first stage bigger, and wondered why making the thing bigger wasn't having the desired effect... it didn't help any that the J-2X design was having a hard time hitting its performance targets (again, per Ross' statements), or that the first stage was too long to avoid resonance with the upper stage.
I don't know for sure what the real (as opposed to supposed) motivation was for dumping Space Shuttle Main Engines, Space Shuttle External Tanks (or at least very close approximations), and Space Shuttle SRBs from vehicles that were supposed to be Space Shuttle derived, but replacing them with unbuilt (hence needed development), untested (hence unknown performance), and unproven (hence unknown reliability) hardware sure has made the whole process a lot more complicated
And I think NASA is sorta coming to their senses on this. Shannon stated in his presentation that making the SSME expendable was not as bad as they first thought. I believe he went as far to say that it was just a "myth" that the SSME was too expensive to just throw away.
It is good that Direct came to this conclusion a bit earlier than NASA. So far Ares V is sticking with the RS-68, but I could see that changing if the panel is going to stick with the current plan.
It was because it couldn't deliver a 45mT lander.
p13-14
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070002798_2007001569.pdf
Edit: I just made such a chart; see attached (page 2). Don't look too closely at the ISPs; Merlin and SSME have relatively poor vacuum ISP because as first-stage engines they are optimized for sea-level ISP. The fuels aren't shown explicitly on the chart but the ISP indicates the fuel.
Edit: I just made such a chart; see attached (page 2). Don't look too closely at the ISPs; Merlin and SSME have relatively poor vacuum ISP because as first-stage engines they are optimized for sea-level ISP. The fuels aren't shown explicitly on the chart but the ISP indicates the fuel.
Which reminds me -- I just heard that NASA has gone and produced a new "Analysis" into DIRECT 3.0 in which the same old BS is apparently doing the rounds -- yet again.
While I've only heard a few details, they're b*tching about the pmf being something which NASA is unable to build (yeah, we know that, which is precisely why we want Industry to handle that element because of their much greater experience instead, duh!).
Which reminds me -- I just heard that NASA has gone and produced a new "Analysis" into DIRECT 3.0 in which the same old BS is apparently doing the rounds -- yet again.
While I've only heard a few details, they're b*tching about the pmf being something which NASA is unable to build (yeah, we know that, which is precisely why we want Industry to handle that element because of their much greater experience instead, duh!).
Ross, I honestly do admire you Chuck and the rest of the team for putting up with this for around 3 years now. In order to have an honest comparision of the benefits of each system its necessary to come to a simple agreement that yes DIRECT (a 2-launch architerure) can do the same job as the Ares 1.5 launch architecture. Maybe a 2-launch architecture will cost more than the DIRECT team says, maybe Ares I is theoretically safer, or maybe we really do need a monster cargo launch vehicle for Mars and other missions. However, as long as NASA management can reduce this to a my expert said vs their expert said (and by the way who is their expert) they can essentially freeze the conversation in place and avoid doing the really important comparisions or asking the important questions about what is the most effective way to return to the moon and push mankinds presence further into space.
Don't give up the fight, it should be self evident to anyone who has looked at the all of the various shuttle derived architectures proposed over the years that an SDLVs are excellent for launching payloads ranging from 50 mt to around 130 mt without too much in the way of extensive rengineering of the basic components, and Jupiter or something very similiar to it can launch 110 mt like the team claims and ergo send the required mass through TLI. The fact that NASA upper management seems so intent on dismissing the obvious just shows that they really do understand how weak their claims are that Ares is the safest, simplest, least costly, quickest and best way to meet the nations stated exploration goals, and that if the firewall is breached there will simply be no way to justify Ares based on the really important questions dealing with the cost and performance of potential exploration architectures.
PS Although I am basically just a civil/environmental engineer, and not an aerospace or rocket guy by any stretch of the word I can say I do admire NASA a great deal and if not for Apollo and the Shuttle would have probably have pursued a career in accounting something else just as dreadfull. I just have a problem when a leaderships collective pride in their solution blinds them from allowing an honest assesment of that solution or alternatives.
John
Cool stuff, thanks for the chart. If I may make a humble suggestion though, change the specific impulse scale to 250-500, maybe in major increments of 15, minor of 5 to give it more fidelity. I would also add the RL-10A-4-2 and J-2X.
Which reminds me -- I just heard that NASA has gone and produced a new "Analysis" into DIRECT 3.0 in which the same old BS is apparently doing the rounds -- yet again.
While I've only heard a few details, they're b*tching about the pmf being something which NASA is unable to build (yeah, we know that, which is precisely why we want Industry to handle that element because of their much greater experience instead, duh!).
Which reminds me -- I just heard that NASA has gone and produced a new "Analysis" into DIRECT 3.0 in which the same old BS is apparently doing the rounds -- yet again.
While I've only heard a few details, they're b*tching about the pmf being something which NASA is unable to build (yeah, we know that, which is precisely why we want Industry to handle that element because of their much greater experience instead, duh!).
That seems pretty weak. If rebuttals of Direct are no longer about performance, safety or cost, I think they're out of ideas. If that's all they have, they're just dragging their heels, and I would lose a lot of faith in the Augustine Commission if they didn't see that.
We can't get that built, or we *won't* get that built. Seems pretty subjective to me.
More like, isn't that what the Ohio guys might have told Glenn Curtis in 1904 or so?...isn't that what they told those two guys from Ohio who had that crazy flying machine idea?duh!).subjective to me.
It really seems like a DIRECT/ULA alliance would be the best way to counter NASA's FUD about upper stage pmf.
The alliance should propose a common upper stage (5m Centaur with 45 mT GLOW) to be used on Atlas/Delta (expended after ascent) and Jupiter (fueled EDS).
With this common upper stage as the EDS, J-130 puts a 25 mT spacecraft through TLI. With L2 rendezvous, both CEV and LSAM are less than 25 mT through TLI.
ULA needs a new upper stage to get the most out of their existing first stages. DIRECT needs a new upper stage to get out of earth orbit. NASA can't develop these upper stages, but ULA can.
So tell ULA that if NASA chooses DIRECT for lunar missions, they'll get funding to develop the 5m Centaur they've been wanting, but they need to convince NASA that it doesn't violate the laws of physics.
Which reminds me -- I just heard that NASA has gone and produced a new "Analysis" into DIRECT 3.0 in which the same old BS is apparently doing the rounds -- yet again.
While I've only heard a few details, they're b*tching about the pmf being something which NASA is unable to build (yeah, we know that, which is precisely why we want Industry to handle that element because of their much greater experience instead, duh!).
And they're trying to depict the architecture as only being able to send a 29mT lander through TLI.
Since the Direct baseline architecture is 2 J-246's, with two JUS's, one fully fueled, one fueled just enough for LEO of CEV/LSAM.
Could both JUS's be partially fueled, and have a rendevous in LE1 or LLO? You have to expend two anyway, couldn't the docking procedures be simplified that way?
Also, in that vein, if a Centaur or D4US (are they the same? Don't know much about them, if they are two terms for the same upper stage or not) can take Orion around the moon for an Apollo 8 type flyby, could one be used to take the LSAM there too, again for a LE1 or LLO rendevous?
I know fueled LSAM is heavier than Orion, so I don't know.
But now I'm curious.
You've just stumbled upon what, in my view, is the biggest weakness of the EOR-LOR mission profile. Try as you might, you can't distribute the total payload evenly among multiple identical launch vehicles without on-orbit propellant transfer.
If the DIRECT ethos can be distilled to "one kind of vehicle launched multiple times", then EOR-LOR is a questionable mission profile, a holdover from the 1.5-launch approach that doesn't make as much sense in a 2-launch architecture.
The DIRECT 3.0 architecture calls for one launch of about 100 mT and another of about 70 mT. It's not really a 2-launch architecture, hence the heavily-offloaded J-24x CLV and the barely-viable J-130 CLV alternative.
Kind of ties up today's America in one panel. Very funny!Its just *begging* to have a couple of photo re-touches... Adding names to the back of shirts etc...Ah, that is beautiful!
Which reminds me -- I just heard that NASA has gone and produced a new "Analysis" into DIRECT 3.0 in which the same old BS is apparently doing the rounds -- yet again.
While I've only heard a few details, they're b*tching about the pmf being something which NASA is unable to build (yeah, we know that, which is precisely why we want Industry to handle that element because of their much greater experience instead, duh!).
And they're trying to depict the architecture as only being able to send a 29mT lander through TLI.
{snip}
I am not looking here at developing 2 Jupiter cores. What I am suggesting is to develop a lighther core which could be used with 3 SSME engines and an engine plug for the J-130. The same core could be used with 4 SSME engines, two vertical support beams and an upper stage to create a J-24x. The idea here is to permit the use of the J-130 for the lunar CEV+LSAM flight. The EDS flight on a J-24x is not the problem here as it has plenty of margin compared to the J-130 CLV flight.
That's a pretty concise summary of the situation. As I've argued before, RS-68 and J-2X are disappointing engines whose development has come at the cost of fielding much more promising engines such as RS-84 and RL-60. Delta IV will probably be the first and last vehicle to use RS-68, and J-2X (aka Vulcain reinvented for the NIH-afflicted) will probably never fly.
Eeek too many different types of engines to keep track of! I'm wishing I had a scatter plot with thrust on the horizontal axis (log scale), ISP on the vertical axis and one labeled point per engine, with symbol type denoting propellants. Does such a plot already exist or should I make it myself?
Edit: I just made such a chart; see attached (page 2). Don't look too closely at the ISPs; Merlin and SSME have relatively poor vacuum ISP because as first-stage engines they are optimized for sea-level ISP. The fuels aren't shown explicitly on the chart but the ISP indicates the fuel.
One way that you could increase J-130's performance by a coupla mT - have specific 3-engine & 4-engine thrust structures & piping.
J-130 programme should not be affected in either cost or schedule, but there would be additional costs for phase 2 / J-24x development - substantial costs, I'd guess.
I'll take an operational engine over a "paper" engine any day.
John & mars,
I really don't feel comfortable discussing that in public without seeking permission from the panel first.
Lets just say that they have been asking questions, we are preparing data for them and some of the team have made contact directly. And the contacts have all been good so far.
We have decided to leave it entirely to the panel themselves to control the release of all such materials and discussions for themselves according to their own policies.
Ross.
During our available time, we strongly made the point that, being an integrated architecture, the most significant driver that sizes much of the architecture is lunar global access. This is by far the most dominant driver in how much mass must be delivered to translunar injection. Indeed, with our present baseline, the size of the rocket and lander alone do not enable global lunar access - to attempt that would result in a rocket that is too large to reasonably build. That's just the physics of the problem. So we utilize all of the parameters at our disposal (lander propulsion load, loiter time in lunar orbit, etc) to open the hardest to reach places to exploration with what we considered a reasonable heavy lift launch vehicle to lift the necessary mass out of Earth's gravity well - and sure enough, several of the most interesting sites are in such locations. We also pointed out that we had scaled back our Ares V and Altair assumptions to supporting only equatorial and polar landings (while still protecting a reasonable level of cargo delivery capability for establishing an outpost) and the cost variance was only roughly 10 percent cheaper.
Much attention has been focused on the probability of loss of crew (pLOC) as a figure of merit in determining the crew launch aspect of the architecture, and we expressed that the ESAS pLOC numbers were all using the same methodology and that the value was in the comparative results and not in the absolute numbers. Very simply, Ares' clear advantage is in the comparative simplicity of its first stage (the shuttle SRM) and use of a single gas generator cycle upper stage engine. These two attributes alone provide substantial robustness over, for example, a more complex liquid pump fed first stage and a multiengine upper stage - simply put, they are more complex with more moving parts. What Ares affords us, in accordance with the findings of the CAIB, is a crew launch system that has the potential to achieve unmatched safety in human spaceflight history. And this is not just a Constellation 'claim' as some would suggest, but has been validated by independent experts in the field of physics based probabilistic risk assessment. There will be much more provided on this topic as well.
On the topic of 'human rating', it is clear that the panel will want to hear more on this topic as well. The term gets thrown around in the community without a consistent understanding of what 'human rating' means. NASA's human rating 'policy' is clearly documented, but Constellation is the first program to really attempt to apply to a design in a practical manner. Our overall approach to human rating has been briefed to the ASAP, as has our program-wide approach to risk-based design that chooses robustness over blind fault tolerance in engineering these systems. All of our external review has largely validated this approach to date.
I watched a fascinating Apollo documentary last night, and interesting to see comments re the violence of takeoff on Apollo 8 - the guys actually thought they'd impacted the pad. How does that compare to expected levels of Ares I TO, if it happens?
Even with the mitigation efforts, TO on Ares-I is expected to still be able to impart up to +/- 2.0g of vibrations on the Crew Module, although seat isolators are hoped to reduce that for the crew themselves.
Ross.
Since the Direct baseline architecture is 2 J-246's, with two JUS's, one fully fueled, one fueled just enough for LEO of CEV/LSAM.
Could both JUS's be partially fueled, and have a rendevous in LE1 or LLO? You have to expend two anyway, couldn't the docking procedures be simplified that way?
Also, in that vein, if a Centaur or D4US (are they the same? Don't know much about them, if they are two terms for the same upper stage or not) can take Orion around the moon for an Apollo 8 type flyby, could one be used to take the LSAM there too, again for a LE1 or LLO rendevous?
I know fueled LSAM is heavier than Orion, so I don't know.
But now I'm curious.
You've just stumbled upon what, in my view, is the biggest weakness of the EOR-LOR mission profile. Try as you might, you can't distribute the total payload evenly among multiple identical launch vehicles without on-orbit propellant transfer.
If the DIRECT ethos can be distilled to "one kind of vehicle launched multiple times", then EOR-LOR is a questionable mission profile, a holdover from the 1.5-launch approach that doesn't make as much sense in a 2-launch architecture.
The DIRECT 3.0 architecture calls for one launch of about 100 mT and another of about 70 mT. It's not really a 2-launch architecture, hence the heavily-offloaded J-24x CLV and the barely-viable J-130 CLV alternative.
With LOR-LOR, L1R-L1R, or (especially) L2R-L2R, the CEV and LSAM each have their own upper stage for TLI and insert themselves into rendezvous orbit separately.
The key thing to understand is that the LSAM actually masses less than the CEV when it separates for lunar descent. The LSAM is only heavier than the CEV at liftoff because it does the LOI burn for itself and the attached CEV.
Remember, the Apollo CSM was much more massive than the LM, mostly because the CSM did the LOI burn for the combined mass. Whichever spacecraft does LOI becomes much bigger than the other.
But if both spacecraft do LOI and their rendezvous masses are similar, then their TLI masses are similar, and therefore their LEO requirements are similar, and they can be lofted on identical launch vehicles.
With LOR-LOR, the rendezvous mass of the CEV is notably higher than the LSAM, because now it has to do its own LOI instead of relying on LSAM. So the CEV drives launch vehicle requirements.
But with L1R-L1R or (especially) L2R-L2R, the CEV takes a cheaper round trip to the rim of the moon's gravity well. This increases LSAM mass, but it decreases CEV mass by a much greater amount, and the combined effect helps even out the rendezvous masses.
With L2R-L2R, CEV liftoff mass is roughly the same as with EOR-LOR (depending on trajectory), even though it does its own LOI, and LSAM liftoff mass is dramatically reduced to about 20 mT, not much less than the CEV.
Either J-130 or Not Shuttle-C could lift a 25 mT spacecraft with a 45 mT EDS to put it through TLI. With a 2-launch L2R-L2R profile, this is enough for the baseline lunar mission.
Additionally, this same 5m Centaur-derived EDS could double as the new upper stage for EELV, and it would only make sense for ULA to lead the development, rather than NASA/MSFC.
This mission profile allows for the development of a significantly smaller upper stage that's much more versatile and would see higher flight rates. It also allows for the development of a significantly smaller LSAM descent stage with a lower center of gravity for landing stability.
The number of SSMEs expended per mission is reduced to six, global access to the lunar surface without expensive plane-change maneuvers, and global communications relay to earth via CEV at EML2.
If you try to replicate a 1.5-launch EOR-LOR architecture with one kind of launch vehicle, the closest you can get is DIRECT. But for a true 2-launch architecture, L2R-L2R makes more sense.
John & mars,
I really don't feel comfortable discussing that in public without seeking permission from the panel first.
Lets just say that they have been asking questions, we are preparing data for them and some of the team have made contact directly. And the contacts have all been good so far.
We have decided to leave it entirely to the panel themselves to control the release of all such materials and discussions for themselves according to their own policies.
Ross.
Ross:
You and the team probably do need to be very careful in what you say about your interactions with the commission. I think you did that above. I wouldn't give any specifics about anything though.
However, good to know they are following up.
It's amazing to me how quickly the commission is to conduct itself. basically 2 to 3 months to do the whole thing. Very impressive. I wish you the best of luck.
Even with the mitigation efforts, TO on Ares-I is expected to still be able to impart up to +/- 2.0g of vibrations on the Crew Module, although seat isolators are hoped to reduce that for the crew themselves.
Ross.
At those kind of alternating loads you have to start looking at Metal fatigue.. not just Ultimate and Tensile strength. I would want a higher FS for material in that envirnoment.
I like your DIRECT approach, but there is one major problem. The manned Mars mission is still in the too-distant future (2032 or something).
Everything MUST be done in order to chop at least 10 years from the current DIRECT proposal. Please, look at this thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17615.0).
Lets just say that they have been asking questions, we are preparing data for them and some of the team have made contact directly. And the contacts have all been good so far.
You'd never manage a Mars landing by 2022, but you might manage Phobos. (Or some such data, I haven't looked at the potential launch windows.)
But what if VASIMR works well? In theory it can reduce the one-way trip time to 30 days.
One month to Mars, one month on Mars, and one month to Earth. That's only three months! Doesn't sound too risky anymore.
{snip}I can understand EML1, as you are between the Earth and Moon. For L2R, you'd need to be on the far side of the moon? Wouldn't that burn extra fuel to get there than L1R?Possibly. The plan is to use the Moon's gravity as a brake, that saves a lot of fuel.
Why did Apollo take the CSM and LEM to LOI?
{snip}
It's possible that a succession of non-lunar-landing missions, done at about one year intervals, might excite the public interest in (and willingness to pay for) a Mars landing, which would speed things up. Say, a lunar orbital mission (view or nearby Moon), a visit to Webb (view of Earth from much farther than the Moon), a visit to a "nearby" NEO (round trip of a few weeks), then a visit to a more "remote" NEO (round trip of a few months), finally a trip to Phobos. None of that would require the massive investment a Mars landing would require. And the view of Mars from Phobos must be staggering. You'd never manage a Mars landing by 2022, but you might manage Phobos. (Or some such data, I haven't looked at the potential launch windows.)
The most critical factor in any 2-launch Lunar mission architecture is maximizing the amount of propellant lofted to LEO for the TLI. Anything which might reduce that capacity, reduces Lunar performance by a factor of more than 3, so if you lose just 300kg of TLI propellant to LEO, the effect is actually that you lose about 1 full ton of payload performance actually being sent to the moon.
It's theoretically possible. It's a 7.3mT PLF so that's a significant weight penalty which will increase the propellant needed to do the burn.
The most critical factor in any 2-launch Lunar mission architecture is maximizing the amount of propellant lofted to LEO for the TLI. Anything which might reduce that capacity, reduces Lunar performance by a factor of more than 3, so if you lose just 300kg of TLI propellant to LEO, the effect is actually that you lose about 1 full ton of payload performance actually being sent to the moon.
The factor of three is incorrect. I reported this error in my Direct Rebuttal review. Here is what I wrote.
"p.71 Direct claim that for every kg of EDS stage mass increase, this results in 3 kg loss in payload mass through TLI. This is incorrect. You first lose 1 kg of payload mass due to EDS stage mass increase. You then lose 0.93 kg by not having the extra 1 kg of propellant available. Total payload loss is 1.93 kg, 35% less than what Direct claim.
For Altair mp = 45.0*(exp(55/4167.8)-1) = 598 kg
But the burnout mass of the EDS through TLI is also increased by 1 kg, which consumes an additional 1.07 kg of fuel which is unavailable for injecting payload.
1.93 + 1.07 = 3.0 kg reduction.
You can also just tick the "don't use smileys" tickbox.
Taking some snippets from http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=31601 titled "NASA ESMD Internal Memo from Jeff Hanley: 6/20 Cx Update - Moving Forward".QuoteMuch attention has been focused on the probability of loss of crew (pLOC) as a figure of merit in determining the crew launch aspect of the architecture, and we expressed that the ESAS pLOC numbers were all using the same methodology and that the value was in the comparative results and not in the absolute numbers. Very simply, Ares' clear advantage is in the comparative simplicity of its first stage (the shuttle SRM) and use of a single gas generator cycle upper stage engine. These two attributes alone provide substantial robustness over, for example, a more complex liquid pump fed first stage and a multiengine upper stage - simply put, they are more complex with more moving parts. What Ares affords us, in accordance with the findings of the CAIB, is a crew launch system that has the potential to achieve unmatched safety in human spaceflight history. And this is not just a Constellation 'claim' as some would suggest, but has been validated by independent experts in the field of physics based probabilistic risk assessment. There will be much more provided on this topic as well.
John & mars,
I really don't feel comfortable discussing that in public without seeking permission from the panel first.
Lets just say that they have been asking questions, we are preparing data for them and some of the team have made contact directly. And the contacts have all been good so far.
We have decided to leave it entirely to the panel themselves to control the release of all such materials and discussions for themselves according to their own policies.
Noted that the June 22 issue of AW&ST's coverage of the Augustine Commission (on page 40) didn't have a single mention of Direct but did mention everything else, including Not Shuttle C.
???
EML-1 and EML-2 are primarily useful for architectures planning to use re-usable landers and ISRU -- neither of which is going to happen cheaply, nor soon.
If you aren't, they actually cost more in terms of delta-V than the EOR-LOR/Loiter plan which is currently baselined.
Another concern, is that if you fly the Orion separately from the Altair, you have no Apollo-13 style "lifeboat" capability at all and that results in a significant hit to your overall mission safety.
Given a fixed starting mass delivered to LEO by two vehicles, the bottom line is that the EOR-LOR/Loiter is THE most efficient means to get to the Lunar Surface and back with the current requirements for Global Access and Any Time Return capability. It delivers the highest payload mass to the surface for every flight -- which is the real yardstick you need to measure things by.
EML-2 would make for a truly wonderful staging area for any mission heading out into the rest of the solar system though. If you could assemble all of your Mars (and later Jovian) vehicles there and fuel from the Lunar surface that would make for a stunning capability.
But trying to establish that sort of architecture straight out of the gate on day 1 is like planning to build a complete national highways system in a single week. You're biting off more than you can realistically chew in one mouthful, and all you're actually going to end up doing is choking on it -- and a Lunar Landing is already a *really* big bite all on its own without ever trying to complicate it in any way.
No, what really you need to do is a very simple business and management technique:
1) Identify where you are and what resources you have right now.
2) Identify where you wish to be and what resources you need to get there.
3) Identify means to break that "giant leap" into a series of smaller, easier, steps.
4) Begin the process of achieving each of those steps, in order, in an orderly manner.
5) When you achieve the last of those steps you will have reached your ultimate target. Job Done. What's next?
Ross.
Noted that the June 22 issue of AW&ST's coverage of the Augustine Commission (on page 40) didn't have a single mention of Direct but did mention everything else, including Not Shuttle C.
???
No, the increase in EDS mass has already been accounted for. You are counting this twice. EDS mass increases by 1 kg, TLI payload mass decreases by 1 kg. 1 kg less propellant means 0.93 kg less payload.
No, the increase in EDS mass has already been accounted for. You are counting this twice. EDS mass increases by 1 kg, TLI payload mass decreases by 1 kg. 1 kg less propellant means 0.93 kg less payload.
Weird, I get yet another answer: 1.48 kg less payload per extra kg of JUS.
As you showed
mc = 0.93*mp - ms. (1)
Let ml denote the amount of mass we can put in LEO using two J-2xx launches. This mass includes 2 JUS stages, so
ml = mc + 2ms + mp (2)
hence
mp = ml - mc - 2ms. (3)
Substituting (3) into (1) we get
mc = 0.93*(ml - mc - 2ms) - ms
mc*(1 + 0.93) = 0.93 * ml - 2.86 ms
mc = (0.93 / 1.93) ml - (2.86 / 1.93) ms
So every 1 kg increase in JUS dry mass decreases mc by 2.86/1.93=1.48 kg.
The above assumption that ml is fixed implicitly assumes that both J-2xx's are maxed out payload-wise (counting propellant for TLI as part of payload) and that the only wasted mass carried to LEO by the non-EDS J-2xx is the dry weight of that JUS. In other words both launches should each carry exactly half of mc + mp. The extent to which this is possible is a function of what exactly is being injected into TLI.
Noted that the June 22 issue of AW&ST's coverage of the Augustine Commission (on page 40) didn't have a single mention of Direct but did mention everything else, including Not Shuttle C.
???
Keep an eye out for a DIRECT only story.
Noted that the June 22 issue of AW&ST's coverage of the Augustine Commission (on page 40) didn't have a single mention of Direct but did mention everything else, including Not Shuttle C.
???
Keep an eye out for a DIRECT only story.
No, the increase in EDS mass has already been accounted for. You are counting this twice. EDS mass increases by 1 kg, TLI payload mass decreases by 1 kg. 1 kg less propellant means 0.93 kg less payload.
Weird, I get yet another answer: 1.48 kg less payload per extra kg of JUS.
As you showed
mc = 0.93*mp - ms. (1)
Let ml denote the amount of mass we can put in LEO using two J-2xx launches. This mass includes 2 JUS stages, so
ml = mc + 2ms + mp (2)
hence
mp = ml - mc - 2ms. (3)
Substituting (3) into (1) we get
mc = 0.93*(ml - mc - 2ms) - ms
mc*(1 + 0.93) = 0.93 * ml - 2.86 ms
mc = (0.93 / 1.93) ml - (2.86 / 1.93) ms
So every 1 kg increase in JUS dry mass decreases mc by 2.86/1.93=1.48 kg.
The above assumption that ml is fixed implicitly assumes that both J-2xx's are maxed out payload-wise (counting propellant for TLI as part of payload) and that the only wasted mass carried to LEO by the non-EDS J-2xx is the dry weight of that JUS. In other words both launches should each carry exactly half of mc + mp. The extent to which this is possible is a function of what exactly is being injected into TLI.
John & mars,
I really don't feel comfortable discussing that in public without seeking permission from the panel first.
Lets just say that they have been asking questions, we are preparing data for them and some of the team have made contact directly. And the contacts have all been good so far.
We have decided to leave it entirely to the panel themselves to control the release of all such materials and discussions for themselves according to their own policies.
Ross.
<snip>
I completely agree with you. I believe that NASA ought to look at doing something "interesting" every year, and doing at least one "showcase" mission (preferably 2) every Presidential term. And I don't limit that to HSF either -- there are a number of "showcase" robotic missions which I believe should be funded too.
Ross.
dv = delta V = 1.01*3175 = 3206.8 m/s
dv = delta V = 1.01*3175 = 3206.8 m/s
Steven, that is correct, but only applies to J-2X variants.
For RL-10 variants you will need to account for greater gravity losses and it would also be wise to account for the worst-possible-case of engine-out circumstances too.
For our 6-engine J-246 EDS configurations we think the worst possible engine-out scenario under which Mission Control would wish continue the mission would be in the case of a 1-engine-out during ascent, followed by a 2nd-engine-out for TLI, with both issues occurring at engine ignition. That would result in only 4 functioning RL-10's and only 2/3rds of 'nominal' thrust levels for the TLI Burn.
Given that as a worst case, we determined that the dV requirement would be 3,215m/s + 1% FPR = 3,247.15m/s. That is the figure we have been assuming for all our internal calculations of this configuration.
Ross.
dv = delta V = 1.01*3175 = 3206.8 m/s
Steven, that is correct, but only applies to J-2X variants.
For RL-10 variants you will need to account for greater gravity losses and it would also be wise to account for the worst-possible-case of engine-out circumstances too.
For our 6-engine J-246 EDS configurations we think the worst possible engine-out scenario under which Mission Control would wish continue the mission would be in the case of a 1-engine-out during ascent, followed by a 2nd-engine-out for TLI, with both issues occurring at engine ignition. That would result in only 4 functioning RL-10's and only 2/3rds of 'nominal' thrust levels for the TLI Burn.
Given that as a worst case, we determined that the dV requirement would be 3,215m/s + 1% FPR = 3,247.15m/s. That is the figure we have been assuming for all our internal calculations of this configuration.
Ross.
While it's great to have that kind of robustness in your architecture, that doesn't give you an apples to apples comparison with Ares.. And unless you are very clear about how robust DIRECT really is in this regard, your system will appear much less efficient than it could be.. Would be interesting to see what numbers NASA uses when trying to calculate DIRECT's TLI capabilities..
Martin, there are additional margins in there to cover all such dispersions. From day 1, we have always tried to err or the side of caution in all such things.
In this particular example, the regular Jupiter-246 actually only requires 3,191.5m/s to perform the TLI including all calculated gravity losses. The Jupiter-246 Heavy actually requires 3,202.5m/s.
But both systems actually use the figure of 3,215m/s (+1% FPR). The result is that one has about 12.5m/s of surplus margin while the other has 23.5m/s surplus margin.
Irrelevant of what CxP want to do, we have always preferred to include a little extra "comfort" zone in all our calculations. The considerable performance of the 2-launch system allows us to include lots of these small additional margins in all sorts of places. This is just one.
Ross.
EML-1 and EML-2 are primarily useful for architectures planning to use re-usable landers and ISRU -- neither of which is going to happen cheaply, nor soon.
If you aren't, they actually cost more in terms of delta-V than the EOR-LOR/Loiter plan which is currently baselined.
Another concern, is that if you fly the Orion separately from the Altair, you have no Apollo-13 style "lifeboat" capability at all and that results in a significant hit to your overall mission safety.
Given a fixed starting mass delivered to LEO by two vehicles, the bottom line is that the EOR-LOR/Loiter is THE most efficient means to get to the Lunar Surface and back with the current requirements for Global Access and Any Time Return capability. It delivers the highest payload mass to the surface for every flight -- which is the real yardstick you need to measure things by.
EML-2 would make for a truly wonderful staging area for any mission heading out into the rest of the solar system though. If you could assemble all of your Mars (and later Jovian) vehicles there and fuel from the Lunar surface that would make for a stunning capability.
But trying to establish that sort of architecture straight out of the gate on day 1 is like planning to build a complete national highways system in a single week. You're biting off more than you can realistically chew in one mouthful, and all you're actually going to end up doing is choking on it -- and a Lunar Landing is already a *really* big bite all on its own without ever trying to complicate it in any way.
No, what really you need to do is a very simple business and management technique:
1) Identify where you are and what resources you have right now.
2) Identify where you wish to be and what resources you need to get there.
3) Identify means to break that "giant leap" into a series of smaller, easier, steps.
4) Begin the process of achieving each of those steps, in order, in an orderly manner.
5) When you achieve the last of those steps you will have reached your ultimate target. Job Done. What's next?
Ross.
DIRECT's architecture (using EOR/LOR CxP analoague) is limited by the TLI capability of the EDS launch. Variations in payload & launch vehicle capacity just adjust the level of margin on the crewed flight.OK, I agree with Steven's analysis now.
EML-1 and EML-2 are primarily useful for architectures planning to use re-usable landers and ISRU -- neither of which is going to happen cheaply, nor soon.
If you aren't, they actually cost more in terms of delta-V than the EOR-LOR/Loiter plan which is currently baselined.
Another concern, is that if you fly the Orion separately from the Altair, you have no Apollo-13 style "lifeboat" capability at all and that results in a significant hit to your overall mission safety.
Given a fixed starting mass delivered to LEO by two vehicles, the bottom line is that the EOR-LOR/Loiter is THE most efficient means to get to the Lunar Surface and back with the current requirements for Global Access and Any Time Return capability. It delivers the highest payload mass to the surface for every flight -- which is the real yardstick you need to measure things by.
EML-2 would make for a truly wonderful staging area for any mission heading out into the rest of the solar system though. If you could assemble all of your Mars (and later Jovian) vehicles there and fuel from the Lunar surface that would make for a stunning capability.
But trying to establish that sort of architecture straight out of the gate on day 1 is like planning to build a complete national highways system in a single week. You're biting off more than you can realistically chew in one mouthful, and all you're actually going to end up doing is choking on it -- and a Lunar Landing is already a *really* big bite all on its own without ever trying to complicate it in any way.
No, what really you need to do is a very simple business and management technique:
1) Identify where you are and what resources you have right now.
2) Identify where you wish to be and what resources you need to get there.
3) Identify means to break that "giant leap" into a series of smaller, easier, steps.
4) Begin the process of achieving each of those steps, in order, in an orderly manner.
5) When you achieve the last of those steps you will have reached your ultimate target. Job Done. What's next?
Ross.
Well,
I'm absolutely NOT an expert in this area...or even have enough knowledge to talk about it intelligently. ;-)
Just been reading some people talking about a significant amount less propellent needed if there's an EML-2 rendevous. So you are saying it would take more propellent to rendevous there with the CSM and LSAM each launched with their own EDS? (something more like a D4US).
I don't know, so that's why I found that idea very intriguing.
And I don't really see how that'd be any more complicated. You just sent LSAM out ahead to get into a halo orbit. Once that's there, you launch Orion to rendevous with it, transfer crew, and descend.
Are there added complexities to that vs. the current baseline? Seems the docking would be a little easier than what Direct has baselined, as there is no docking with the EDS.
Myself, I was initially just asking if there would be an advantage to possibly launching the CSM and LSAM on separate J-130 flights with two Centaur or D4US to get them through TLI for LOR. That way, each performs it's own LOI, and so the weights should be more balanced without LSAM braking the stack, and thus being significantly heavier than the CSM.
That's how Shannon showed for Not-Shuttle-C, and it seemed like if you could get away with two cheaper J-130's, and two exising upper stages (or this common EELV upper stage I hear talk about) then that might make a lunar mission cheaper.
You mentioned being able to do an Apollo 8 like Lunar mission with the CSM and an existing Centaur EDS, correct?
If the LSAM didn't have to brake the CSM, would it be lightened enough to do the same thing?
If so, would a LOR be a possiblity, and would it eliminate the requirements for the more complicated docking maneuvers in LEO required by two J-246's or one J-246 and one J-130?
The whole bit about EML2R was just something Butters and some others were mentioning as a way to use even less propellent and lighten the launch weights. But I have no way to tell if that's accurate or not.
As far as the Apollo 13 lifeboat concept. I guess you wouldn't have that in that LOR method. But you don't have it coming back anyway after the ascent stage is jettisoned, so you really only have the lifeboat one way anyway. An Apollo 8 type flyby would have no lifeboat. And since the SM is not using cryo's this time (as I understand), an Apollo 13 type failure really can't happen.
It could still be struck by a meteor or something though.
Lobo,
The other problem with a 2-TLI approach like your describing, is that you are choosing to boost more mass through TLI (a second EDS), yet your launchers aren't any bigger to compensate for that extra mass.
We have carefully examined quite a few such concepts in the past (heck, we even baselined one about two years ago -- and then canceled that move when we did an even more intensive study and found it wasn't actually better). The Gains are never equal to the Penalties.
The rule of thumb needs to always be "minimize the mass of the spacecraft & EDS hardware going through TLI". That's the only way to increase the payload mass given any 'fixed' launch capability.
Of course, the whole question becomes fairly moot once you institute a Propellant Depot architecture in LEO (followed later-on by other Depots at other convenient locations depending upon ISRU capabilities). At that point your practical limits are then determined only by the dry mass and volume of your spacecraft -- and a 100mT launcher with a 10m diameter PLF offers truly *vast* performance in that situation.
And that is the capability which then lends itself very well towards Mars, NEO's and Beyond.
The real question is how to get from where we are today, to there, while meeting all of the requirements of cost, schedule, safety, workforce, performance, commercial involvement, international partnerships etc etc -- as I've listed so often before. Hitting ALL of those "hot-buttons", not just one or two of them : That's the *real* trick.
Ross.
So, Ross let us relax the schedule constraint, because the public does'nt give a damn, and let us create meaningful intermediate deliverables, such as a space operations center first at LEO and next at EML1, then we have HDTV from realtime controlled robots on the moon scouting the surface,not just 6 inches an hour. Then we land on the moon with the possibility of an actual rescue from the second LSAM at EML1.
So, Ross let us relax the schedule constraint, because the public does'nt give a damn, and let us create meaningful intermediate deliverables, such as a space operations center first at LEO and next at EML1, then we have HDTV from realtime controlled robots on the moon scouting the surface,not just 6 inches an hour. Then we land on the moon with the possibility of an actual rescue from the second LSAM at EML1.
How -- precisely -- does that attempt to buy the political votes needed to keep the funding?
No Bucks, No Buck Rogers. You've got to address the budget concerns first and foremost -- and right now the key issue there is "jobs". Without addressing that now, before Shuttle retires, everything else is just a pipedream.
Ross.
snip
If you use the shuttle workforce, thru Jupiter LV, you're protecting the jobs. Everything else can then be stretched out. NASA gets PR through intermediate deliverables, which can be made affordable, and Senator Nelson gets to protect KSC.
Am I making sense?
Stan
snip
If you use the shuttle workforce, thru Jupiter LV, you're protecting the jobs. Everything else can then be stretched out. NASA gets PR through intermediate deliverables, which can be made affordable, and Senator Nelson gets to protect KSC.
Am I making sense?
Stan
A big problem here is the current workforce at KSC is largely technical blue collar. Jupiter will need lots of money for engineering development. I don't see how there is not a gap for the need of all those people the process the shuttle at this time. Maybe retraining them to build a new tower is possible, but even that is a stretch.
Danny Deger
Stan, Maybe we're on the same page, but your comment that "the jobs are in closing the gap" doesn't seem to fit with your earlier comment "relax the schedule constraint".
My concern is that the key to protecting the jobs is not simply going with Jupiter, but it really boils down to getting that Jupiter flying as quickly as possible as well.
If we implemented a plan which re-targeted the Jupiter-130/Orion IOC flight to 2015, you're ultimately going to have the same job losses Ares-I plans today.
The critical factor is bringing that date forward as much as possible -- and maybe also stretching out the current Shuttle manifest as well to close the 'gap' from that direction too.
And simply flying Orion on EELV, while it does 'close the gap', it doesn't help the workforce *at all*.
As for the rest of the schedule, yes, I don't think it matters a vast amount when we actually land on the moon -- but I do think that "before 2020" is still fairly important. With Jupiter, I think there is a fair bit of margin in the schedule there though so things are 'movable'.
Once we decide to solve that issue that way, then we can decide precisely the shape of the architecture we want to implement and break that down into the best set of stepping-stones and "bite-sized" budgetary chunks which will allow us to get there.
But IMHO, we still need the Lunar Flyby and Landing prioritized ahead of most other things in order to garner renewed public and political financial support as early as possible in the new Program. For one reason or another I just don't see ISS or L1/L2 getting any public interest at all and I don't see NEO, Phobos or Mars being possible sooner than a Lunar Landing.
Ross.
Ross,
Excellent description, thank you very much for breaking it down for me!
Good to know that the baseline is at least one of the more efficient plans.
I wouldn't think the injection window every other week would be that big of a problem, unless there was a docking delay in LEO that caused you do miss your window, then you'd have a LOM. Where if you had a window every day, there -should- be enough safety factor in the mission to loiter a day and go the following day. But that's fairly easy to compensate for, just launch a day early, in case there's any delays with getting the docking done.
As far as the extra mass for the 2nd EDS, I can't comment intelligently as I don't know much about them, just going on the thought that perhaps a pair of smaller, 5m EDS like the one you plan to use for your proposed Apollo 8 style flyby. I guess maybe that the two of them wouldn't mass any more than one larger 8.4m new EDS. maybe you could use two existing EDS's, rendevous in lunar orbit, and basically save the need for a new larger EDS and the somewhat more complicated docking process of docking the stack with the EDS in LEO.
If all you had to do was dock the CSM and LSAM in lunar orbit, that just seems easier (from a perspective of someone who doesn't know much about it).
But if the two smaller EDS's actaully mass more than the new JUS, then yes, you'd have to launch more mass, or cut mass from the LSAM.
I was just working with the APollo 8 style proposal and some speculation. :)
Just to clarify Martin's rough figures: A pair of Jupiter-246 launchers are actually good for more like 79mT thru TLI.
Lobo,
The other problem with a 2-TLI approach like your describing, is that you are choosing to boost more mass through TLI (a second EDS)
yet your launchers aren't any bigger to compensate for that extra mass.
And a J-246 CLV can also lift almost 94mT to LEO, so with 10% additional margins that would be about 84mT.
Stan,
Haven't got much time, so I'll be brief. Assuming you want a similar payload capacity, a reusable lander is going to be an awful lot bigger than the current one (which makes these missions untenable as a 2-launch system without also bringing Depot technology in to the critical path as well).
It's also going to require an awful lot more engineering in order to achieve the necessary reliability given that there won't be any way to realistically perform maintenance upon it between missions.
Both of those would drive the near-term development costs of a reusable lander much higher than for a smaller disposable unit.
Also, isn't a reusable system a bit of a stretch for the first generation of Lander? I agree that's where we ought to go eventually, but can we realistically do so from day 1? I don't think so.
Very well, I note a substantive response hasn't materialised yet and I will patiently wait and see if one shows up later.
(2) Russia and China can do EELV class plus depots far cheaper than we can -- it may seem odd, but heavy lift is where the US has superior capability;
(3) I believe Jupiters plus depots provide far greater value for the money spent than EELV plus depots;
(4) Not everyone believes in depots and therefore an architecture that REQUIRES depots will face a more difficult political fight than an architecture that facilitates depots.
Go back to 2004 and the original CEV proposals. Much of what you advocate, Martijn, was expressly proposed at that time.
However, Congress seemed unimpressed. The shuttle workforce is merely part of "why" at least IMO.
Very well, I note a substantive response hasn't materialised yet and I will patiently wait and see if one shows up later.
For the same mass through TLI, two relatively small EDS may have higher dry mass than one large EDS.
But remember, the DIRECT 3.0 baseline calls for a heavily-offloaded 100 mT CLV lifting only 70 mT, because the single EDS can't push any more through TLI.
As I've said before, J-130 with a 5m Centaur (25 mT through TLI) offers great synergy between SDLV and EELV. The best way to kill Ares once and for all is for DIRECT and ULA to pursue a common upper stage.
In reality, there is absolutely NO way that any system that does not maintain the economic and political necessities of workforce retention, infrastructure maintenance, and cost-effectiveness will ever be permitted.
It would be political suicide for any Congressional Representative or Senator to advocate such a thing, because the voters respond to only one thing most of the time. Their pocketbooks. So, given that constraint, which will probably never be removed, you do the best with what you got, in the simplest manner, first. That is, and always will be the driving consideration.
EELV doesn't do it.
In reality, there is absolutely NO way that any system that does not maintain the economic and political necessities of workforce retention, infrastructure maintenance, and cost-effectiveness will ever be permitted.
Agreed on the probability (not certainty) of workforce retention. But there is no way SDLV is cost effective. That might not stop the politicians, but there is no reason to claim SDLV is cost-efficient.QuoteIt would be political suicide for any Congressional Representative or Senator to advocate such a thing, because the voters respond to only one thing most of the time. Their pocketbooks. So, given that constraint, which will probably never be removed, you do the best with what you got, in the simplest manner, first. That is, and always will be the driving consideration.
Agreed it would be hard, though not necessarily suicide. But SDLV is definitely not what we have today or the simplest thing. That would be EELV. The shuttle is what we have today, and it is incapable of remotely realistic lunar missions.
It's one thing to say SDLVs are a political necessity, it's quite another to say that they are technically desirable. I think the first is regrettably likely true. And yet people who should know better keep claiming they are technically necessary.QuoteEELV doesn't do it.
Quite possible. Regrettable, but possible.
No, we *HAVE* considered it. You just don't want to listen though.
You just don't listen do you?
I'm with Ross here... I'm not going to beat my head against a brick wall with someone who just doesn't listen...
EOD.
The best way to kill Ares once and for all is for DIRECT and ULA to pursue a common upper stage.
QuoteBoth of those would drive the near-term development costs of a reusable lander much higher than for a smaller disposable unit.
Debatable.
No, it would. No question about it.
You are absolutely right not everyone is enthusiastic about depots, although the same goes for heavy lift.
No, it would. No question about it.
I have long given up on convincing you and somewhat regret having spent so much energy on it. But you regularly make disparaging statements about alternatives such as L-point staging, non-cryogenic depots, horizontal landers etc that are not backed up by the facts. I think I'll keep pointing that out.
But IMHO, we still need the Lunar Flyby and Landing prioritized ahead of most other things in order to garner renewed public and political financial support as early as possible in the new Program. For one reason or another I just don't see ISS or L1/L2 getting any public interest at all and I don't see NEO, Phobos or Mars being possible sooner than a Lunar Landing.
Ross.
I watched a fascinating Apollo documentary last night, and interesting to see comments re the violence of takeoff on Apollo 8 - the guys actually thought they'd impacted the pad. How does that compare to expected levels of Ares I TO, if it happens?
At no point in the history of Mercury, Gemini or Apollo did the crew ever experience greater vibration forces that +/- 0.6 g.
Even with the mitigation efforts, TO on Ares-I is expected to still be able to impart up to +/- 2.0g of vibrations on the Crew Module, although seat isolators are hoped to reduce that for the crew themselves.
Even a nominal Ares-I/Orion mission would still routinely subject the crew to the maximum vibration environment experienced on any previous system (0.6 to 0.8g).
Ross.
I felt like I was a rat in the jaws of a big terrier. The thrashing was violent, and you couldn't see the instrument panel. I was sure we were hitting the launch tower. Fank Borman told me later that he took his hand off the critical launch abort handle for fear that, er, he would activate it inadvertently. He said he'd rather die than make a false abort.
Although I didn't share it with Valerie at the time, I thought our chances were about one in three of not making it back.
Everything was secondary other than the mission. Nothing mattered as much as doing your job. Cis and the family were in second place, and that's not easy to say, but it happens to be true, and I'm not going to sit here and be namby-pamby about it, it was true that I was more interested in that succeeding than anything else in life at that point in my life.
But IMHO, we still need the Lunar Flyby and Landing prioritized ahead of most other things in order to garner renewed public and political financial support as early as possible in the new Program. For one reason or another I just don't see ISS or L1/L2 getting any public interest at all and I don't see NEO, Phobos or Mars being possible sooner than a Lunar Landing.
Ross.
I almost fell off my chair when I read this Ross, but I guess I saw it coming with your statement on forgetting the J-130 for ISS.
You beleive people will vote lunar (or Mars) over ISS? If that's the case, they are in for a rude awakening when they get a repeat of the cancellation of the Apollo program.
But IMHO, we still need the Lunar Flyby and Landing prioritized ahead of most other things in order to garner renewed public and political financial support as early as possible in the new Program. For one reason or another I just don't see ISS or L1/L2 getting any public interest at all and I don't see NEO, Phobos or Mars being possible sooner than a Lunar Landing.
Ross.
I almost fell off my chair when I read this Ross, but I guess I saw it coming with your statement on forgetting the J-130 for ISS.
You beleive people will vote lunar (or Mars) over ISS? If that's the case, they are in for a rude awakening when they get a repeat of the cancellation of the Apollo program.
Robert,
I've never said "forget J-130 for ISS". J-130 to ISS is a corner-stone of the entire effort -- it is the initial milestone and it is the lever which addresses the workforce/political dimension. Yes, J-130's duties towards ISS will ultimately get replaced later by EELV/COTS -- but that's only once it has done its job, which is to ensure the early political support for the whole program and also to created the foundation for the Lunar launch systems to come later.
And in my comment there, where did I say *ANYTHING* about "voting" for ISS/Lunar/Mars/NEO? Never said it. Never. Those are your interpretations and words, not mine.
What I said was that there is no public interest in ISS -- and that's the absolute truth. Even here on the Space Coast, where I would expect the greatest number of 'fans' of all things space, the average joe on the street here is totally bored of ISS and most question why we've spent a hundred billion dollars for it given that it hasn't produced any major discoveries yet.
Yet, if you had actually asked me how a vote would go, instead of simply putting your words in my mouth, I would have said that even though ISS doesn't have a lot of public interest, I think that the public probably would still vote to extend the life of ISS beyond 2020.
Please, I always try incredibly hard to be straight-forward and very precise with what I say and what I write. If I use the word "interest" it means "interest", not "vote".
Ross.
I think everyone is beginning to show signs of some pretty serious stress, me included. Its not much of a surprise given just how screwed-up the program is right now and just how important this is to all of us.
So, I'm going to make a radical suggestion: Lets all just take Sunday off, take a drive, go to the beach, have couple of drinks, whatever. Just nobody switch on your computers! Lets all get the frak away from our LCD screens for just one single, but complete, day!
We can all come back Monday, with clearer, refreshed heads.
Good idea?
Ross.
Lets all get the frak away from our LCD screens for just one single, but complete, day!It would be interesting to see a water colour of DIRECT or maybe a sculpture. That would be a cool Sunday project.
I was thinking today about the possibility that Direct 3.0 could lead to an Ares I rocket being developed in the future.I'm not a ballistics boffin, but I think one of the lessons of Ares I is that if you are going to use incredibly heavy Solid Rocket Boosters, use them to boost something incredibly heavier, and get rid of them as soon as possible. After Ares I gets rid of that slug of weight, it has to use its second stage and payload to achieve orbit.
Modify: A different thought experiment: If you somehow attached a 1/2-mass ET and the equivalent of 1.5 SSMEs to the SRB, you might expect to be able to fly a 1/2-mass shuttle into orbit (and here is where I hope someone can gently explain why this is fallacy). Ares I gets 1/4 of the Shuttle's mass into orbit. This efficiency loss might have been the trade-off for a design that was thought to be simple to construct and safe to operate.
I think everyone is beginning to show signs of some pretty serious stress, me included. Its not much of a surprise given just how screwed-up the program is right now and just how important this is to all of us.Not just Monday..
So, I'm going to make a radical suggestion: Lets all just take Sunday off, take a drive, go to the beach, have couple of drinks, whatever. Just nobody switch on your computers! Lets all get the frak away from our LCD screens for just one single, but complete, day!
We can all come back Monday, with clearer, refreshed heads.
Good idea?
Ross.
I suppose everyone could print out paper rockets tonight and spend tomorrow gluing them together.
To that end, I am preparing to release the plans for the 3.0 versions of J-130 and J-246.
For now, Direct is a rocket on Powerpoint slides only. There are several solid alternatives years closer to being ready to launch. NASA doesn't have time right now to go back to the drawing board and start fresh.
John Kelly at Florida Today has a not too kind article (http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/06/you-weigh-in-on-nasas-next-rocket.shtml) referencing DIRECT. This guy seems to think that the Ares 1-X is as good as a final launch vehicle. His final paragraph shows an interesting attitude:QuoteFor now, Direct is a rocket on Powerpoint slides only. There are several solid alternatives years closer to being ready to launch. NASA doesn't have time right now to go back to the drawing board and start fresh.
A bit narrow minded?
I think everyone is beginning to show signs of some pretty serious stress, me included. Its not much of a surprise given just how screwed-up the program is right now and just how important this is to all of us.Thanks for all your efforts in bringing DIRECT to the fore at the Augustine Commission, and thanks to all the guys out there who are working on the DIRECT rocket. Great presentation as well.
So, I'm going to make a radical suggestion: Lets all just take Sunday off, take a drive, go to the beach, have couple of drinks, whatever. Just nobody switch on your computers! Lets all get the frak away from our LCD screens for just one single, but complete, day!
We can all come back Monday, with clearer, refreshed heads.
Good idea?
Ross.
What were fringe alternatives a few months ago are now being seriously considered.
There is no Wikipedia article: Jupiter 246 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jupiter_246&action=edit)
Please, can someone write an article?
Good morning, Ross!We can all come back Monday, with clearer, refreshed heads.We look forward to the day when the Jupiter rocket lands a man on the moon, and see better clearer pictures of Earth and the moon than the ones we have to make do from the 1960s and 70s for now.
Good idea?
Ross.
Can you, please, tell me more about this Augustine Commission?
Q: Can we expect the results of the Comission to bring clarity - and a set timeline - to the manned Mars mission?
A: The committee's work is scheduled to be complete in August. The committee does not want to prejudge outcomes before it has had a chance to complete its assessments.
So, we do not have much more time left to tell them about the importance of the manned Mars mission in the late 2010s or the early 2020s. Is anyone doing anything for this?
I appreciate the work done here, but we need real goals - the Mars. The space agencies must co-operate. They must realize this.
Can you, please, tell me more about this Augustine Commission?Q: Can we expect the results of the Comission to bring clarity - and a set timeline - to the manned Mars mission?
A: The committee's work is scheduled to be complete in August. The committee does not want to prejudge outcomes before it has had a chance to complete its assessments.
So, we do not have much more time left to tell them about the importance of the manned Mars mission in the late 2010s or the early 2020s. Is anyone doing anything for this?
I appreciate the work done here, but we need real goals - the Mars. The space agencies must co-operate. They must realize this.
I went over to the article, and tried to post a comment. Comments have to be *approved* by the author, so don't bet on him allowing any dissent... Jerk.Is Florida Today like a 'normal' newspaper? If so, they might have a Letters to the Editor section, in which you could get your points across.
Ross,
I know you're very busy at the moment, but can I ask how much mass J-246 can lift to GSO, and to GTO?
Many thanks.
cheers, Martin
The author claims he is filtering only for profanity and libel. Not sure on the 'normal' question.Comments have to be *approved* by the authorIs Florida Today like a 'normal' newspaper?
Given the large payload capacity of Jupiter, even without an upper stage, would the Jupiter family of LVs be rounded out (more appealing to the Augustine Group) by a Jupiter "Junior" with a shortened ET core and 3 segment SRMs, to fill in the payload gap between current EELVs and the Jupiter?
Given the large payload capacity of Jupiter, even without an upper stage, would the Jupiter family of LVs be rounded out (more appealing to the Augustine Group) by a Jupiter "Junior" with a shortened ET core and 3 segment SRMs, to fill in the payload gap between current EELVs and the Jupiter?
Too expensive of a development for the little utility it will seen.
Given the large payload capacity of Jupiter, even without an upper stage, would the Jupiter family of LVs be rounded out (more appealing to the Augustine Group) by a Jupiter "Junior" with a shortened ET core and 3 segment SRMs, to fill in the payload gap between current EELVs and the Jupiter?
An easier route to a Jupiter with closer to EELV payload capability is to remove one engine from the standard-length core and use a partial propellant load.
I understand that DIRECT has intended to use partial fills for certain missions. In light of the above, is this an option that should be discarded?use a partial propellant load.There is no such thing as partial propellant loads for launch vehicles.
An easier route to a Jupiter with closer to EELV payload capability is to remove one engine from the standard-length core and use a partial propellant load.
There is no such thing as partial propellant loads for launch vehicles. That is just like a new vehicle.
A. every analysis would have to be redone.
B. There are no partial fill sensors. LV have empty and 100% level sensors with a few having other levels like 1, 5, 98, 99, 101
John Kelly at Florida Today has a not too kind article (http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/06/you-weigh-in-on-nasas-next-rocket.shtml) referencing DIRECT. This guy seems to think that the Ares 1-X is as good as a final launch vehicle. His final paragraph shows an interesting attitude:QuoteFor now, Direct is a rocket on Powerpoint slides only. There are several solid alternatives years closer to being ready to launch. NASA doesn't have time right now to go back to the drawing board and start fresh.
A bit narrow minded?
I understand that DIRECT has intended to use partial fills for certain missions. In light of the above, is this an option that should be discarded?use a partial propellant load.There is no such thing as partial propellant loads for launch vehicles.
Has the partial issue been resolved (at least at the layman level of this forum) before?
Given the large payload capacity of Jupiter, even without an upper stage, would the Jupiter family of LVs be rounded out (more appealing to the Augustine Group) by a Jupiter "Junior" with a shortened ET core and 3 segment SRMs, to fill in the payload gap between current EELVs and the Jupiter?
As Jim points out, you simply have sensors at specific levels.
Given the large payload capacity of Jupiter, even without an upper stage, would the Jupiter family of LVs be rounded out (more appealing to the Augustine Group) by a Jupiter "Junior" with a shortened ET core and 3 segment SRMs, to fill in the payload gap between current EELVs and the Jupiter?
Too expensive of a development for the little utility it will seen.
LH2 doesn't cost that much. LOX is dirt cheap. If you've got a 40 t payload for a 70 t launcher, gain a little margin and fly some ballast for the rest.
Better still, come up with a useful, somewhat modular payload you can add to any underweight launch. My favourite would be volume-produced, semi-autonomous, SEP probes with a solid kick motor. Maybe a ton or two each, in a multi-round dispenser. Send them out to NEO and main belt asteroids, with some basic instruments and a lot of data storage. Or customize the instrument package for particular tasks.
Perhaps previous partial/slosh/baffle talk was about the Jupiter Upper Stage? (I find at least one thread on the subject that was ended due to proprietary data.)As Jim points out, you simply have sensors at specific levels.Conditioning the propellants and getting them into the engine start box would be harder.
From what I have read recently, Ares 1-X probably will be a final launch vehicle, since when it goes off course, blows up, or crashes due to the vibrations we will finally be done with this silly design.
snip
Precisely one of the advantages of Propellant Depots. If you got a 50t payload and a 70t lift capacity, send up some propellant and the lift capacity isn't wasted.
Stan
snip
Precisely one of the advantages of Propellant Depots. If you got a 50t payload and a 70t lift capacity, send up some propellant and the lift capacity isn't wasted.
Stan
I am leaning to like inflight refueling as a starting step to a depot. Send up an unfueled lander and gas it up in orbit. Much simpler architecture than a depot. I love the idea that if the launcher carrying the fuel fails, the mission does not.
Danny Deger
My key point to the Direct team is the term "refueling" is probably better than the term "depot". The former implies a much simpler operational concept.
Danny Deger
From what I have read recently, Ares 1-X probably will be a final launch vehicle, since when it goes off course, blows up, or crashes due to the vibrations we will finally be done with this silly design.
The sad part is, if this were to happen, USAF has said that the self destruct command may not work, and Ares I-X might rain debris over populated areas. How's that for PR. It would literally be raining wasted tax payers dollars.
Of course, NASA says the USAF's numbers are a bit exaggerated and that their numbers say its ok. Who do you trust...the department that will do just about anything to save the stick, or the United States Air Force. Jeez people, it's just getting ridiculous. :-[
From what I have read recently, Ares 1-X probably will be a final launch vehicle, since when it goes off course, blows up, or crashes due to the vibrations we will finally be done with this silly design.
The sad part is, if this were to happen, USAF has said that the self destruct command may not work, and Ares I-X might rain debris over populated areas. How's that for PR. It would literally be raining wasted tax payers dollars.
Of course, NASA says the USAF's numbers are a bit exaggerated and that their numbers say its ok. Who do you trust...the department that will do just about anything to save the stick, or the United States Air Force. Jeez people, it's just getting ridiculous. :-[
For curiosity sake, why does it seem that everyone fears that it will fly and God forbid, work?
This isn't pointed at the quoted poster, but a question in general. What happens if the flight is successful? Would some of you give credit to its engineering development and success?
Now, it it explodes, veers into the launch pad etc, I'm with you guys CLOSE to %100.
... Let me identify just one area of *extreme* concern with the Ares-I; the structure between the 1st and 2nd stages. Structural analysis of this area shows it possibly failing at max-q and causing the launch vehicle to actually bend in half in flight. This area cannot be beefed up enough to overcome that because the thrust oscillation problem needs this area to be as elastic as possible. Strengthening this area also stiffens it, which is bad for the TO.
The latest models do not exceed the shear and bending limits at the IS. Thus there is no "possibility" of it failing during flight (with exception of a failure).
The latest models do not exceed the shear and bending limits at the IS. Thus there is no "possibility" of it failing during flight (with exception of a failure).
No way this is a serious post.
What you said was: It can't fail unless it fails.
The problem is, NASA really thinks this way. Unbelievable!
Ross,
I know you're very busy at the moment, but can I ask how much mass J-246 can lift to GSO, and to GTO?
Many thanks.
cheers, Martin
Using the CEPE spreadsheet, I got a GTO net estimate for the J-246 of 49.1 mt. This was obtained with a US propellant offload of 30% to maintain the total rocket mass at about 2,175 mt.
PaulL
mc = (0.93 / 1.93) ml - (2.86 / 1.93) ms
So every 1 kg increase in JUS dry mass decreases mc by 2.86/1.93=1.48 kg.
The above assumption that ml is fixed implicitly assumes that both J-2xx's are maxed out payload-wise (counting propellant for TLI as part of payload) and that the only wasted mass carried to LEO by the non-EDS J-2xx is the dry weight of that JUS. In other words both launches should each carry exactly half of mc + mp. The extent to which this is possible is a function of what exactly is being injected into TLI.
Forgive me for injecting myself in this very technical exchange, but I see something that may be the thing that is being overlooked. First, let me qualify myself and say that I am not now, nor have I ever been any kind of engineering/mathematically inclined individual.
Having said that, 1.48 doubled is 2.96, and rounding off to whole numbers is three, so could it not be possible that this is a means of being hyperconservative in the calculations to determine loss of payload per gain of kg of stage? I mean, if NASA keeps saying that DIRECT violates the laws of physics, then wouldn't it make sense to say "when we gain 1kg in the upper stage, we lose almost 1.5kg of payload, so let's be really conservative and say we lose double that."
Couldn't that be where it comes from?
Or, as I suspect, is it that I don't have the ability to describe what I'm thinking well enough to have anyone follow my line of reasoning? :D
For RL-10 variants you will need to account for greater gravity losses and it would also be wise to account for the worst-possible-case of engine-out circumstances too.
For our 6-engine J-246 EDS configurations we think the worst possible engine-out scenario under which Mission Control would wish continue the mission would be in the case of a 1-engine-out during ascent, followed by a 2nd-engine-out for TLI, with both issues occurring at engine ignition. That would result in only 4 functioning RL-10's and only 2/3rds of 'nominal' thrust levels for the TLI Burn.
Given that as a worst case, we determined that the dV requirement would be 3,215m/s + 1% FPR = 3,247.15m/s. That is the figure we have been assuming for all our internal calculations of this configuration.
Forgive me for injecting myself in this very technical exchange, but I see something that may be the thing that is being overlooked. First, let me qualify myself and say that I am not now, nor have I ever been any kind of engineering/mathematically inclined individual.
Having said that, 1.48 doubled is 2.96, and rounding off to whole numbers is three, so could it not be possible that this is a means of being hyperconservative in the calculations to determine loss of payload per gain of kg of stage? I mean, if NASA keeps saying that DIRECT violates the laws of physics, then wouldn't it make sense to say "when we gain 1kg in the upper stage, we lose almost 1.5kg of payload, so let's be really conservative and say we lose double that."
Couldn't that be where it comes from?
Or, as I suspect, is it that I don't have the ability to describe what I'm thinking well enough to have anyone follow my line of reasoning? :D
I understand your reasoning, but it is incorrect. Deltav made an incorrect assumption that ml is fixed when it is not. Arbitrarlaly doubling that value to try and fit the factor of three value being stated by Direct is non-sensical as it is margin of 100%, not 5% to 15% that are typically used.
As I suspected, it is that I don't have a good enough understanding of what's going on to be able to comment on it. Thanks for the humbling reminder, Steven.
I've never claimed to be a mathematician, rocket scientist, or engineer of any kind. I just glue paper together. ;D
AIAA Houston has posted their latest issue of AIAA Houston "Horizons" here just this morning:
http://www.aiaa-houston.org/
There's an interview in that issue with Ross Tierney about DIRECT.
AIAA Houston has posted their latest issue of AIAA Houston "Horizons" here just this morning:
http://www.aiaa-houston.org/
There's an interview in that issue with Ross Tierney about DIRECT.
AIAA Houston has posted their latest issue of AIAA Houston "Horizons" here just this morning:
http://www.aiaa-houston.org/
There's an interview in that issue with Ross Tierney about DIRECT.
An article just appeared in the Houston Chronicle describing Shannon's Not-Shuttle-C. The gist of the article is
1) NASA upper management is starting to hedge their bets and propose options other than the Ares architecture.
2) The SDHLV was proposed to the Augustine Commission with NASA's blessing.
3) The SDLV is "not connected with another group of space program workers who drew up a different alternative to Ares."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6504772.html
Ross,
I know you're very busy at the moment, but can I ask how much mass J-246 can lift to GSO, and to GTO?
Many thanks.
cheers, Martin
Using the CEPE spreadsheet, I got a GTO net estimate for the J-246 of 49.1 mt. This was obtained with a US propellant offload of 30% to maintain the total rocket mass at about 2,175 mt.
PaulL
Paul,
many thanks.
There has been some discussion recently re the unused capacity of CLV & CaLV launches in DIRECT's two-launch architecture.
My question:- can some delta-V burden be shifted from EDS onto CLV / CaLV by increasing the height of the rendezvous orbit?
For instance, in a cargo mission CaLV will lift ~61mT to 130x130nmi, where J-130 has the capacity for 77mT to 30x130nmi (without margins). I presume J-130 + Altair burn could lift a modestly higher mass to a modestly higher orbit.
Would there be a useful reduction in TLI delta-V?
Excellent article indeed :) - What's the readership of the magazine? Is it something you'd see on coffee tables at JSC?It's electronic only. The issue a couple of years ago that had the initial story about DIRECT was one of the most-downloaded issues in the past four years, at 40,000+ downloads, IIRC. Average downloads per issue are around 7,000. Not a whole lot, but I expect this one to be downloaded more than the average.
An article just appeared in the Houston Chronicle describing Shannon's Not-Shuttle-C. The gist of the article is
1) NASA upper management is starting to hedge their bets and propose options other than the Ares architecture.
2) The SDHLV was proposed to the Augustine Commission with NASA's blessing.
3) The SDLV is "not connected with another group of space program workers who drew up a different alternative to Ares."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6504772.html
I just finished watching the video of John Shannon's Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle ("Not-Shuttle-C") presentation and reviewing his slides off-line afterwards. This brings up two questions for the DIRECT Team:
1. Shannon fairly explicitly invited NASA members of the DIRECT Team to come talk with him (although he did not use those exact words). Has anyone taken him up on his offer, and what was the result?
2. Shannon's point about software being the "long pole in the tent" is right on the money in my view (I managed a technical software program for several years). Has the DIRECT Team taken the approach that Shannon outlined and looked at using the existing Shuttle avionics systems (including flight software) until replacements have been developed and qualified? If so, what was the result (is this already in the DIRECT 3.0 baseline, or is it being considered)?
One last thought: I'd rather have DIRECT than "Not-Shuttle-C", but I'd rather have either one of them sooner than the existing Ares train wreck. Shannon mentioned some very specific risk-reduction work that needed to be done for "Not-Shuttle-C" (the shock interaction with the side-mounted Orion's Launch Abort System (LAS) was explictly mentioned, and I think there was at least one other specific item mentioned as well). Some "after hours" work by the DIRECT Team that had applicability to both DIRECT and "Not-Shuttle-C" might pay dividends in the long term -- many commenters have mentioned that Shannon made DIRECT's basic points for them although the vehicles were different.
It is good to have a fallback for any plan, including DIRECT. "Not-Shuttle-C" might be such a fallback.
Cheers,
- Osa
Edit: Changed "NASA members of the DIRECT Team" to just "the DIRECT Team", plus some other similar edits for clarity. (It was not my intention to "call out" to members of the team who wish to remain anonymous.)
Ross,
I know you're very busy at the moment, but can I ask how much mass J-246 can lift to GSO, and to GTO?
Many thanks.
cheers, Martin
Using the CEPE spreadsheet, I got a GTO net estimate for the J-246 of 49.1 mt. This was obtained with a US propellant offload of 30% to maintain the total rocket mass at about 2,175 mt.
PaulL
Paul,
many thanks.
There has been some discussion recently re the unused capacity of CLV & CaLV launches in DIRECT's two-launch architecture.
My question:- can some delta-V burden be shifted from EDS onto CLV / CaLV by increasing the height of the rendezvous orbit?
For instance, in a cargo mission CaLV will lift ~61mT to 130x130nmi, where J-130 has the capacity for 77mT to 30x130nmi (without margins). I presume J-130 + Altair burn could lift a modestly higher mass to a modestly higher orbit.
Would there be a useful reduction in TLI delta-V?
Increasing circular orbit height is not an efficient way to reduce TLI delta-V requirement. For example, using the CEPE spreadsheet, you can find that the manned TLI delta-V requirement from a 241 km circular orbit is shown to be 3,161 m/s. For a 296 km circular orbit, it would be 3,150 m/s for a saving of 11 m/s. But to go from a 241 km circular orbit to a 241 km x 296 km orbit you need a 16 m/s burn and then another 16 m/s burn at apogee to achieve a 296 km circular orbit. Therefore, you would end up "spending" 32 m/s to only save 11 m/s.
PaulL
Thanks, both of you. I can almost follow the argument. Do I understand that it is the J-246 that spends the 32 m/s to save 11 m/s? However, it meets up with the other vehicle that has 16 mT more than might have been expected?Increasing circular orbit height is not an efficient way to reduce TLI delta-V requirement. For example, using the CEPE spreadsheet, you can find that the manned TLI delta-V requirement from a 241 km circular orbit is shown to be 3,161 m/s. For a 296 km circular orbit, it would be 3,150 m/s for a saving of 11 m/s. But to go from a 241 km circular orbit to a 241 km x 296 km orbit you need a 16 m/s burn and then another 16 m/s burn at apogee to achieve a 296 km circular orbit. Therefore, you would end up "spending" 32 m/s to only save 11 m/s.can some delta-V burden be shifted from EDS onto CLV / CaLV by increasing the height of the rendezvous orbit?how much mass J-246 can lift to GSO, and to GTO?Using the CEPE spreadsheet, I got a GTO net estimate for the J-246 of 49.1 mt. This was obtained with a US propellant offload of 30% to maintain the total rocket mass at about 2,175 mt.
For instance, in a cargo mission CaLV will lift ~61mT to 130x130nmi, where J-130 has the capacity for 77mT to 30x130nmi (without margins). I presume J-130 + Altair burn could lift a modestly higher mass to a modestly higher orbit.
Would there be a useful reduction in TLI delta-V?
vehicle | GTO | GSO |
J-130 mT payload | ||
J-246 mT payload | ||
J-246 mT fuel | ||
Combined mT | ||
Combined m/s |
...snip
1. Shannon fairly explicitly invited NASA members of the DIRECT Team to come talk with him (although he did not use those exact words). Has anyone taken him up on his offer, and what was the result?
...snip
...snip
1. Shannon fairly explicitly invited NASA members of the DIRECT Team to come talk with him (although he did not use those exact words). Has anyone taken him up on his offer, and what was the result?
...snip
I would be shocked if we were the only two membere here wondering about this very question! I think the silence indicates that perhaps someone has made contact, or at least that there is interest in doing so.
If it did, or will happen, my guess is that it would not be openly discussed.
...snip
1. Shannon fairly explicitly invited NASA members of the DIRECT Team to come talk with him (although he did not use those exact words). Has anyone taken him up on his offer, and what was the result?
...snip
I would be shocked if we were the only two membere here wondering about this very question! I think the silence indicates that perhaps someone has made contact, or at least that there is interest in doing so.
If it did, or will happen, my guess is that it would not be openly discussed.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that *any* NASA upper management speaker who followed after the "blood in the water" DIRECT presentation would have said the exact same thing... "Gee, I never saw anything like you're describing, and I'd never do something like that. Come talk to me and it'll be OK." Nobody's going to admit to foul deeds, and everyone would say the same words in that situation.
I'm not saying that Mr. Shannon isn't a great guy. I have a lot of respect for the JSC/Shuttle folks. I'm just saying that his response to the DIRECT assertion that foul play has occurred was predictable and therefore a degree of caution on taking him up on his offer is reasonable.
There has been some discussion recently re the unused capacity of CLV & CaLV launches in DIRECT's two-launch architecture.
My question:- can some delta-V burden be shifted from EDS onto CLV / CaLV by increasing the height of the rendezvous orbit?
First Launch:
first burn propellant mass = mp1 = 8237 kg
first burn reserve propellant mass = mr1 = 79 kg
boiloff propellant mass = mb = 2998 kg
second burn propellant mass = mp2 = 88959 kg
second burn reserve propellant mass = mr2 = 633 kg
ullage mass = mu = 1723 kg
------------------------------------------------------
Total propellant = mp = 102629 kg
pre HEOR RCS propellant usage = mrc1 = 266 kg
pre HEOR RCS propellant = mrc2 = 184 kg
------------------------------------------------------
Total RCS propellant = mrcs = 450 kg
Total propellant = mp = 102629 kg
Total RCS propellant = mrcs = 450 kg
Dry stage mass = ms = 11238 kg
ASE = mase = 500 kg
------------------------------------------------------
Total stage in LEO = mt = 114817 kg
Exhaust speed ve = 4501.25 m/s (459.0 s ISP)
dv1 = ve*ln(1+mp1/(mp-mp1+mrc2+ms+mase)) = 336 m/s
dv2 = ve*ln(1+mp2/(mu+mr2+mrc2+ms+mc)) = 2879 m/s
Second Launch:
first burn propellant mass = mp3 = 7649 kg
first burn reserve propellant mass = mr3 = 74 kg
ullage mass = mu = 1723 kg
------------------------------------------------------
Total propellant = mp = 9446 kg
pre HEOR RCS propellant usage = mrc1 = 266 kg
pre HEOR RCS propellant = mrc2 = 184 kg
------------------------------------------------------
Total RCS propellant = mrcs = 450 kg
Total propellant = mp = 9446 kg
Total RCS propellant = mrcs = 450 kg
Dry stage mass = ms = 11238 kg
ASE/LSAM Cradle/Altair/Orion = mc = 85530 kg
------------------------------------------------------
Total stage in LEO = mt = 106664 kg
dv3 = ve*ln(1+mp3/(mr3+mu+ms+mrc2+mc)) = 336 m/s
Here's an independent analysis showing that that Direct 3.0 EDS is theoretically possible, but I recommend that a 15% margin be added due to the new techniques used in the Jupiter EDS. Key to Direct achieving its low mass EDS is the use of a common bulkhead and Aluminium Lithium alloy. Any comments and corrections welcome.
Here's an independent analysis showing that that Direct 3.0 EDS is theoretically possible, but I recommend that a 15% margin be added due to the new techniques used in the Jupiter EDS. Key to Direct achieving its low mass EDS is the use of a common bulkhead and Aluminium Lithium alloy. Any comments and corrections welcome.
I have a question concerning the lunar architecture, one that might've been handled before, but unfortunately I haven't gone through this whole thread - I've read most of it, but not all.
One of the primary advantages of the Ares I/V architecture (theoretically) is the ability to do a single-launch cargo mission for lunar base resupply. Is there any way for a J-246 (or variant) to do this? Or would all cargo missions require a two-launch system? Would a depot architecture be required for a "single-launch" cargo mission?
Theoretically possible, yes, but at reduced performance.
Here's an independent analysis showing that that Direct 3.0 EDS is theoretically possible, but I recommend that a 15% margin be added due to the new techniques used in the Jupiter EDS. Key to Direct achieving its low mass EDS is the use of a common bulkhead and Aluminium Lithium alloy. Any comments and corrections welcome.
QuoteTheoretically possible, yes, but at reduced performance.
Thanks for the great answer, but roughly speaking, how much reduced performance?
I know Ares V's are going to cost a billion or more to launch. Waving away two launches as "building flight experience" and "increasing confidence" sounds nice until you realize that they're also still very expensive. One of the primary reasons that the 1.5 architecture (theoretically, on paper, etc.) is so nice is because the "1" part of that is so capable, however expensive it may be. What are the cost and LOM numbers for a single Ares V cargo-to-surface mission versus a dual launch 246/130? As much as the LOC numbers matter, a LOM on a cargo mission could seriously impact base ops and even cause an untended situation. I imagine they'd trade some reduced performance for a significant increase in reliability.
How do the figures for Ares 1 and Ares V change if they use a common bulkhead?
So when you look at the numbers, it's not 'waving away the 2 flights.'
Ross, Steve & Chuck, Gentlemen you have done a magnificent job! I look forward to your comments about your future communications with the Augustine Commission. Best wishes as you lead us back to the Moon ,Mars & the other great explorations of the 21 Century!
Good luck Ross.
Happy to hear that Shannon was approachable as he promised. I know I have heard some try to vilify his efforts as a ploy to just keep Ares, but I feel he really has the best interests of human spaceflight in mind.
Good luck Ross.
Happy to hear that Shannon was approachable as he promised. I know I have heard some try to vilify his efforts as a ploy to just keep Ares, but I feel he really has the best interests of human spaceflight in mind.
From what I have seen so far, Shannon is a descent and honest man and isn't involved in anything like that (there are others who are, but not him).
He presented NSC because he was asked to do so, and because he does think it is a cheaper option to Ares. He appears to have been unaware of either DIRECT or NLS prior to that hearing and has now begun to examine them in greater detail. I can't predict how that might change his viewpoint, if at all. Only time will tell that.
From the relatively brief communications I've had with him, I am personally convinced that Shannon wants the very best, most affordable option for NASA's Human Spaceflight Program to be able to succeed in this effort to reach beyond LEO. I think we can all support him in that.
Ross.
You're safe
kerfluffle
Now, please, don't imagine for one second that it is all as 'easy' as I've just made it out to be -- it isn't. The devil is always in the details and the number of details and how they all affect each other is simply stupefying in this case. But it can be done if only the will and the motivation are there to make it happen.
... He appears to have been unaware of either DIRECT or NLS prior to that hearing and has now begun to examine them in greater detail. I can't predict how that might change his viewpoint, if at all. Only time will tell that.
Ross.
I note a few people have asked about our contacts with the committee. Obviously, I can't really talk about any details, but a little while ago we got confirmation that DIRECT was accepted as one of the options to be studied in detail. We are currently working on supplying technical information to the analysis, which will culminate in myself and Steve flying out to California at the end of next week to answer detailed questions in-person. In short: We're in and we're doing what needs to be done. That's all I'm going to say about that.
Now, please, don't imagine for one second that it is all as 'easy' as I've just made it out to be -- it isn't. The devil is always in the details and the number of details and how they all affect each other is simply stupefying in this case. But it can be done if only the will and the motivation are there to make it happen.
Thank you for the reply. I'm not quite as confident as you on the money acceleration thing - software is one of those things that throwing money at it really won't help the problem. It doesn't matter if you can hire a dozen or a billion programmers, you still have to train all of them, and get them working with the (rather unusual) tool set and development practices, not to mention the domain knowledge. That isn't something that can be parallelized. The famous quote is that getting nine women pregnant can't make a baby in one month, or something to that effect.
I feel much more confident on the 2014 IOC date if we get the word *now* to delete PowerPoint from our machines and start firing up the compilers. I have precisely zero confidence in the ability to meet 2012, no matter how much money (or willpower) is thrown at the problem. There simply isn't the infrastructure, and there's too many long poles in the long pole. To get even a late 2012 Orion launch, that means that things like CAIL would have to be up and running by end of 2011, which means the simulator hardware and software should be targeted to Septemberish 2011, which is really only *two years* from now. And there's *none* of that yet. Hell, there's whole major decisions on CAIL that haven't been decided yet, and to the best of my knowledge not a single line of code has been written for it yet, at least as of a few months ago. For point of comparison, Shuttle has well over a million lines of Category-A simulator software, math models, static analyzers, and so forth. That's all been built up over 35-odd years, and we'd need a good bit of that (or more) for CEV.
This isn't a knock on DIRECT at all. The more I read about it, the more I like it, and the more I admire everyone working on such an elegant design. Advertising that DIRECT would be ready by 2012 is great, but advertising that you'd have Jupiter/Orion IOC at the same time isn't. There's not a chance on this planet that the entire simulator, hardware, and software infrastructure can be ready in 3 years. Even 2014 would be difficult, but maybe possible given the extra cash and the hiring process for everyone initiated now.
Ross, I wish you and everyone else the best of luck in front of the Commission. I know lots of people out here at JSC are buzzing about it, at least, those with their head above the sand :) I know ya'll have a great proposal, and here's hoping they will listen.
You're safe
No, he's not:kerfluffle
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kerfuffle
Ross, I wish you and everyone else the best of luck in front of the Commission. I know lots of people out here at JSC are buzzing about it, at least, those with their head above the sand :) I know ya'll have a great proposal, and here's hoping they will listen.
Good to hear feedback like that! Maybe MSFC can get the buzz too ;)
Ross, I wish you and everyone else the best of luck in front of the Commission. I know lots of people out here at JSC are buzzing about it, at least, those with their head above the sand :) I know ya'll have a great proposal, and here's hoping they will listen.
Good to hear feedback like that! Maybe MSFC can get the buzz too ;)
If they are told Ares V and Another Rocket is not ever going to happen they will get behind DIRECT so fast your head would spin ;).
I have a question concerning the lunar architecture, one that might've been handled before, but unfortunately I haven't gone through this whole thread - I've read most of it, but not all.
One of the primary advantages of the Ares I/V architecture (theoretically) is the ability to do a single-launch cargo mission for lunar base resupply. Is there any way for a J-246 (or variant) to do this? Or would all cargo missions require a two-launch system? Would a depot architecture be required for a "single-launch" cargo mission?
Theoretically possible, yes, but at reduced performance.
The DIRECT 3.0 baseline for lunar cargo missions is to launch the EDS on a Jupiter-246 and Altair on a Jupiter-130.
There are a couple of advantages to this- namely it increases flight rates which lower costs and build confidence in the vehicles. This scenario also allows lunar cargo payloads far in excess of the Ares V single launch system- 17-20mt compared to >30mt with DIRECT at a lower cost than the Ares V single launch.
Here's an independent analysis showing that that Direct 3.0 EDS is theoretically possible, but I recommend that a 15% margin be added due to the new techniques used in the Jupiter EDS. Key to Direct achieving its low mass EDS is the use of a common bulkhead and Aluminium Lithium alloy. Any comments and corrections welcome.
Thanks for making this point far more eloquently than I have (and I've tried multiple times - keeps bouncing off the Reality Distortion Field every time). From my chair, Orion flying at all in 2012 is a fantasy, no matter what resources are thrown at it.
Good to hear feedback like that! Maybe MSFC can get the buzz too ;)
If they are told Ares V and Another Rocket is not ever going to happen they will get behind DIRECT so fast your head would spin ;).
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kerfluffle
If they are told Ares V and Another Rocket is not ever going to happen they will get behind DIRECT so fast your head would spin ;).
Thanks for making this point far more eloquently than I have (and I've tried multiple times - keeps bouncing off the Reality Distortion Field every time). From my chair, Orion flying at all in 2012 is a fantasy, no matter what resources are thrown at it.
Okay, given that capsules are not normally interchangeable... and leaving STS extension aside... is there any way to get a viable crew transport on top of a US launcher by 2012?
And... if not... then would it be a better use of the new timeline and of the funding released by using Direct to drop "Prion" i.e. Block I and go back to the full Orion configuration?
Any word on the cease and desist request?
We are currently working on supplying technical information to the analysis, which will culminate in myself and Steve flying out to California at the end of next week to answer detailed questions in-person. In short: We're in and we're doing what needs to be done. That's all I'm going to say about that.
Let's see Pheogh do that one. :)
That's really cool Ross! All of you deserve a break, didn't mean to call him out. :)
That's really cool Ross! All of you deserve a break, didn't mean to call him out. :)
He'll never know -- he's on vacation! ;)
You know what they say about "While the Cat is Away..." ;)
Ross.
Using reference material from the SLWT Bible (available in L2)
Ross -
The SLWT SDH is located in the public-access General Discussion/Historical Spaceflight area, not in L2.
Glad to see you're making good use of it!
Ross -
The SLWT SDH is located in the public-access General Discussion/Historical Spaceflight area, not in L2.
Glad to see you're making good use of it!
Ah, my mistake. Thanks for the correction. And yes, it is a very handy reference to see how the ET is put together. The parallels to Jupiter are fairly obvious too :)
Ross.
Weren't you outta here several posts ago?
Weren't you outta here several posts ago?
Is that a subtle hint? :)
Ross.
Thanks for making this point far more eloquently than I have (and I've tried multiple times - keeps bouncing off the Reality Distortion Field every time). From my chair, Orion flying at all in 2012 is a fantasy, no matter what resources are thrown at it.
Okay, given that capsules are not normally interchangeable... and leaving STS extension aside... is there any way to get a viable crew transport on top of a US launcher by 2012?
It requires ruthless simplification of the flight software. You can't get there from here just by deferring the GNC automation from the flight software, with all that implies (such as the "push the big red button to take me home now" CRV mode; the crew will need to hand-fly the undocking and sep from ISS, as they now do on shuttle). You will probably also have to defer all but the most critical non-GNC systems management software. The crew will have to make do with Apollo-style (and early shuttle-style) switches and steam gauges (which will have to be squeezed into the cockpit somehow).
You also need to defer a good bit of the rendezvous burn targeting software. Cut it back to the level that the shuttle has now. Let the MCC target those burns, as they do now for the shuttle.
May have to bite the bullet and make Orion's command/telemetry system as "plug-compatible" with the shuttle as possible (with all the ugly kludgification that implies), so that some existing MCC shuttle software can be used for the initial flights.
CxTF may have to use lower fidelity software models in order to be ready in time to train the first crews. That is especially problematic now that the crew will have to fly the vehicle and manage its systems.
The whole idea was to maintain the focus of the crew's training on ISS rather than the ride to and from. Now they'd need at least a year of training to do it (and even that would be bare-bones, probably a third of what Young and Crippen had for STS-1, or Schirra and co. had for Apollo 7). The current ISS training flow takes two years. So starting from fall 2012 and working the schedule backwards... do you see a problem there? I sure as hell see a problem there.
Can it be done? Sure it can, but everything - and I mean everything - would have to fall into place just so and work the first time. Would be helpful if the public is willing to risk an "Apollo 1" moment during that headlong rush. Somehow I don't think they'll be as forgiving this time.
Orion is facing a moment of truth similar to that faced by Apollo in 1964, when the weight crisis hit and Block I and II were redefined. But NASA had a budget of $34 billion back then, in today's dollars, and that would rise to around $44 billion at the peak in FY1966. And they still couldn't deliver Block I *safely* in 1967. So why would it be reasonable to expect NASA to deliver a Block I Orion safely in 2012, on about half the budget?
Once you expand the staff, put them in nice comfortable chairs, promise their families they will get all-expense paid vacations after Orion flies and anything else you can think of
Malderi,
Just between you and me (nobody else is reading this, right?)
Ross.
Orion is facing a moment of truth similar to that faced by Apollo in 1964, when the weight crisis hit and Block I and II were redefined. But NASA had a budget of $34 billion back then, in today's dollars, and that would rise to around $44 billion at the peak in FY1966. And they still couldn't deliver Block I *safely* in 1967. So why would it be reasonable to expect NASA to deliver a Block I Orion safely in 2012, on about half the budget?
I'd say that if they could at least add back the toilet we'd be golden but that could be misinterpreted :)
And just to drift a bit: How far out would an inflatable airlock be? I'm thinking an external one carried up as payload on non-ISS missions.
Malderi,
Just between you and me (nobody else is reading this, right?) I don't like the "65% Confidence Level" thing at all. I've always been about nice healthy margins and high degree's of confidence myself, so I don't like the notion of planning anything to fail 35% of the time -- the whole idea just doesn't sit well with me.
I personally prefer using our 95% confidence level, which is March 2014 for IOC. Just for comparison purposes, I believe that the internal Ares-I/Orion IOC date at 95% confidence is some time in mid-2018 right now -- so the difference is vast.
<snipped>
The first (IOC) crew would then fly Jupiter-130-1 [somewhere around March 2014].
So MSFC would have a little more time to develop the vehicle, JSC would have more time to develop Orion, Michoud and KSC would both be processing hardware for launches and the Jupiter Program's first flights would still overlap with the end of the Shuttle Program.
I personally think that is eminently "do-able" and is completely worthy of the 95% confidence level. It would be nice to have it occur faster, obviously, but that would still be quite sufficient IMHO.
Unfortunately, because CxP keeps using the "third of the time will fail" 65% measure, we have little choice but to keep showing things apples-to-apples.
Ross.
Here's an independent analysis showing that that Direct 3.0 EDS is theoretically possible, but I recommend that a 15% margin be added due to the new techniques used in the Jupiter EDS. Key to Direct achieving its low mass EDS is the use of a common bulkhead and Aluminium Lithium alloy. Any comments and corrections welcome.
Great article, Steven.
In the Analysis of Propellant Tank Masses article (tank2.pdf file), why is the "dry mass less engine mass" used instead of just the dry mass when determining the mass/propellant ratio ? (and would it make a difference ?)
Have you contacted the Direct team about your analysis? I hope that they put it on the website and submit it to the Comission as well. It is a good piece of work.
One of the primary advantages of the Ares I/V architecture (theoretically) is the ability to do a single-launch cargo mission for lunar base resupply. Is there any way for a J-246 (or variant) to do this? Or would all cargo missions require a two-launch system? Would a depot architecture be required for a "single-launch" cargo mission?
How do the figures for Ares 1 and Ares V change if they use a common bulkhead?
Would the use of composite tanks result in lower mass than the al-li common bulkhead? This obviously ignores cost considerations.
Also, is it possible to design a composite common bulkhead? I'm thinking of reusable vehicles that might benefit from them.
And I was sent a copy of Steven Pietrobon's Jupiter Upper Stage analysis this morning. It's a very interesting read. I hope he sends a copy to the Committee himself -- as a completely independent source. I don't think we should have any involvement in that because as a stand-alone piece, it carries much greater impact than if it came from us. I would like to say "thank-you" to Steven for putting the time and effort into studying that though.
That was a great read Steve, thanks!
I agree with Ross, sending it along to the Augustine Commission independently would be of great benefit.
Small typo change at the bottom of page 2: structures (should be structure's)
The suggestion seems to be that NASA are OK with the JUS mass for cargo duties, but additional mass is required for Human Rating.
Is there anything you can add about that aspect?
There has been some discussion recently re the unused capacity of CLV & CaLV launches in DIRECT's two-launch architecture.
My question:- can some delta-V burden be shifted from EDS onto CLV / CaLV by increasing the height of the rendezvous orbit?
Yes it can. This is called high Earth orbit rendezvous (HEOR). I studied this previously with Direct 2.0. Here are the Direct 3.0 results. The EDS stage is first put into an elliptical orbit of 241x1525 km. This requires a delta-V of 336 m/s. The EDS of the second launch also does the same burn (Orion performs transposition and docking before burn). This second EDS separates and Altair/Orion docks with the first EDS in the elliptical orbit. The EDS then does a 2879 m/s burn at perigee to complete TLI (336+2879=3215 m/s). My calculations (given below) show TLI mass increases from 79,053 kg to mc = 85,530 kg, an 8.2% increase. Calculations below. Disadvantages are trying to dock in a highly elliptical orbit and radiation exposure from the Van Allen radiation belts.
Disadvantages are trying to dock in a highly elliptical orbit and radiation exposure from the Van Allen radiation belts
So, what is the current status of DIRECT? Can you give a short summary?
Will there ever be DIRECT v4.0?
(No one seems to notice my messages at all, but here goes nothing...)
So, what is the current status of DIRECT? Can you give a short summary?
Will there ever be DIRECT v4.0?
(No one seems to notice my messages at all, but here goes nothing...)
Good morning Urvabara;
Your messages do not go unnoticed, believe me. It's just that we are so extremely busy these days that we don't have a lot of time to respond. You may have noticed that with the exception of Ross' flood of posts over night, for which I will reprimand him because he was *supposed* to be getting at least some sleep, we haven't been around much for a while.
As for current status - well after presenting to the Augustine Commission 2 weeks ago, we took a short breather (3-4 days) and then started working on getting ready for a possible meeting with Aerospace Corp, should DIRECT be selected for closer examination. Well late yesterday we did indeed receive an invitation to address the analysts at Aerospace Corp and will be traveling to California for a Friday, July 10th meeting at their corporate HQ. We have to have our documentation package sent to them no later than Tuesday, but they prefer Monday. So we are working on that. The documentation is extensive and exhaustive and even once sent we still need to continue working on the details of the presentation itself so we most likely won't be on here much until after we return from the meeting next weekend.
As for DIRECT 4.0, our hope is that any such vehicle will actually be a NASA adaptation of the work, called anything they would like to call it.
Best regards,
Clongton, Ross and the rest of the DIRECT team,
Good work and best wishes with your upcoming meetings. Aerospace could be tough. Have they told you what information they are going to want to see?
If not I suggest asking them what they are interested in seeing. If not them then ask someone else what information they are going to want to see. Data, calculations, sources, assumptions, budget numbers etc.
Knock em dead!
I have to say, the DIRECT initiative is one of the most interesting things I've ever had the privilege to witness, even as a bystander. Has anything like this ever happened in modern American history?
So, what is the current status of DIRECT? Can you give a short summary?
Will there ever be DIRECT v4.0?
(No one seems to notice my messages at all, but here goes nothing...)
Good morning Urvabara;
Your messages do not go unnoticed, believe me. It's just that we are so extremely busy these days that we don't have a lot of time to respond. You may have noticed that with the exception of Ross' flood of posts over night, for which I will reprimand him because he was *supposed* to be getting at least some sleep, we haven't been around much for a while.
As for current status - well after presenting to the Augustine Commission 2 weeks ago, we took a short breather (3-4 days) and then started working on getting ready for a possible meeting with Aerospace Corp, should DIRECT be selected for closer examination. Well late yesterday we did indeed receive an invitation to address the analysts at Aerospace Corp and will be traveling to California for a Friday, July 10th meeting at their corporate HQ. We have to have our documentation package sent to them no later than Tuesday, but they prefer Monday. So we are working on that. The documentation is extensive and exhaustive and even once sent we still need to continue working on the details of the presentation itself so we most likely won't be on here much until after we return from the meeting next weekend.
As for DIRECT 4.0, our hope is that any such vehicle will actually be a NASA adaptation of the work, called anything they would like to call it.
Best regards,
I have to say, the DIRECT initiative is one of the most interesting things I've ever had the privilege to witness, even as a bystander. Has anything like this ever happened in modern American history?
I can't think of any. Even if Direct is not picked, the effect has already been significant.
I don't think it could have happened without the internet. We all need to chip in to help Chris pay for his servers. It has got to cost him a lot of money to keep this site up and running.
Danny Deger
So, what is the current status of DIRECT? Can you give a short summary?
Will there ever be DIRECT v4.0?
(No one seems to notice my messages at all, but here goes nothing...)
Good morning Urvabara;
Your messages do not go unnoticed, believe me. It's just that we are so extremely busy these days that we don't have a lot of time to respond. You may have noticed that with the exception of Ross' flood of posts over night, for which I will reprimand him because he was *supposed* to be getting at least some sleep, we haven't been around much for a while.
As for current status - well after presenting to the Augustine Commission 2 weeks ago, we took a short breather (3-4 days) and then started working on getting ready for a possible meeting with Aerospace Corp, should DIRECT be selected for closer examination. Well late yesterday we did indeed receive an invitation to address the analysts at Aerospace Corp and will be traveling to California for a Friday, July 10th meeting at their corporate HQ. We have to have our documentation package sent to them no later than Tuesday, but they prefer Monday. So we are working on that. The documentation is extensive and exhaustive and even once sent we still need to continue working on the details of the presentation itself so we most likely won't be on here much until after we return from the meeting next weekend.
As for DIRECT 4.0, our hope is that any such vehicle will actually be a NASA adaptation of the work, called anything they would like to call it.
Best regards,
Quote from: zapkittyI'd say that if they could at least add back the toilet we'd be golden but that could be misinterpreted :)
And just to drift a bit: How far out would an inflatable airlock be? I'm thinking an external one carried up as payload on non-ISS missions.
Even the small Jupiter-130 can lift about 50 tons of additional payload in addition to the Orion. What do you want to lift? An M-60 Patton Tank? Okay, we can do that...
And yes, the toilet is one of the things currently out in the 'parking lot' which we want re-integrated into the Block-II variant. That and a little more drinking water for the crew :)
The key is to change the Orion as little as possible between now and the first flight, and minimize the amount of work (time) needed. Lets just get it flying as quickly as possible and then proceed to upgrade it and make it the spacecraft we were originally promised.
I have to say, the DIRECT initiative is one of the most interesting things I've ever had the privilege to witness, even as a bystander. Has anything like this ever happened in modern American history?
So, what is the current status of DIRECT? Can you give a short summary?
Will there ever be DIRECT v4.0?
(No one seems to notice my messages at all, but here goes nothing...)
Good morning Urvabara;
Your messages do not go unnoticed, believe me. It's just that we are so extremely busy these days that we don't have a lot of time to respond. You may have noticed that with the exception of Ross' flood of posts over night, for which I will reprimand him because he was *supposed* to be getting at least some sleep, we haven't been around much for a while.
As for current status - well after presenting to the Augustine Commission 2 weeks ago, we took a short breather (3-4 days) and then started working on getting ready for a possible meeting with Aerospace Corp, should DIRECT be selected for closer examination. Well late yesterday we did indeed receive an invitation to address the analysts at Aerospace Corp and will be traveling to California for a Friday, July 10th meeting at their corporate HQ. We have to have our documentation package sent to them no later than Tuesday, but they prefer Monday. So we are working on that. The documentation is extensive and exhaustive and even once sent we still need to continue working on the details of the presentation itself so we most likely won't be on here much until after we return from the meeting next weekend.
As for DIRECT 4.0, our hope is that any such vehicle will actually be a NASA adaptation of the work, called anything they would like to call it.
Best regards,
Really get the business that has validated the Direct's figures to send it to the commission and be willing to step into the light and do an interview with NASAspaceflight, etc. That would really help. Now is the time for the BIG guns to come out!
zap -- That's not quite the right way to look at it.
The "feature set" of the vehicle would be identical from a hardware perspective. Same capacity, same fuel load, same RCS system, same MPS, same crew size, same heatshield, same solar arrays, same life-support system, same docking system.
The only real difference is that the software would not be so "automated" in the early versions. What I'm really talking about is that all the OMS, rendezvous, docking, departure and de-orbit burns would be performed by the crew, not the computers.
But isn't that what happens currently on Shuttle though? So why would that be unacceptable, especially as it is only a 'short term solution'?
Either way, by 2015 the Orion would be full-spec one way or the other. But with one option, you could have up to 6 additional missions under your belts with the crew actually flying the spacecraft.
That's all we're really talking about here.
Ross.
If the basic system does the job why not stick with that?
Yeah and there's a long way between Block I and Block II and III ... that's why I'd think it best to field as capable a craft as time permits first time out. Take advantage of a shuttle extension should one occur etc etc. Put the damn shielding back...
QuoteThe whole idea was to maintain the focus of the crew's training on ISS rather than the ride to and from. Now they'd need at least a year of training to do it (and even that would be bare-bones, probably a third of what Young and Crippen had for STS-1, or Schirra and co. had for Apollo 7). The current ISS training flow takes two years. So starting from fall 2012 and working the schedule backwards... do you see a problem there? I sure as hell see a problem there.
Forgive me, but I don't really buy that argument.
Are you trying to say that Orion crews will not be fully trained to perform every aspect of the mission even in the case of computer failures?
QuoteCan it be done? Sure it can, but everything - and I mean everything - would have to fall into place just so and work the first time. Would be helpful if the public is willing to risk an "Apollo 1" moment during that headlong rush. Somehow I don't think they'll be as forgiving this time.
As I said above, the people I have spoken to believe that there is a 65% chance of achieving that date with a basic software package solution and no further 'significant' changes to the Orion's underlying requirements.
QuoteOrion is facing a moment of truth similar to that faced by Apollo in 1964, when the weight crisis hit and Block I and II were redefined. But NASA had a budget of $34 billion back then, in today's dollars, and that would rise to around $44 billion at the peak in FY1966. And they still couldn't deliver Block I *safely* in 1967. So why would it be reasonable to expect NASA to deliver a Block I Orion safely in 2012, on about half the budget?
All we're proposing here is still to get the Fully Operational Orion flying around 2014/15, but that we implement a simplified "stop-gap" variant intended to "close the gap".
The launcher could be ready by then, so we're simply trying to find a way to get Orion into a workable form by the same time -- sure, it won't have all its whistles and bells, but it would still be flyable as an interim option.
Bottom Line: You don't have to do it, but its the only way to close the gap and the only real alternative remains Soyuz.
So, what is the current status of DIRECT? Can you give a short summary?
Will there ever be DIRECT v4.0?
One way or the other, DIRECT should be OBE (overcome by events) within two months. Either as the new of the new Cx or as one of the alternatives "not selected".
Sounds strange, doesn't it?
My question to others has been, if it is not selected ... will the rebel alliance continue?
I have to say, the DIRECT initiative is one of the most interesting things I've ever had the privilege to witness, even as a bystander. Has anything like this ever happened in modern American history?I was going to cite George Harrison in Bangladesh and Bob Geldof and others in Africa, but they aren't American.
You could start here, unless you meant something else:Are there any anvenues for those who might want to contribute financially to the effort?Now is the time for the BIG guns to come out!(No one seems to notice my messages at all, but here goes nothing...)anything they would like to call it.
Call for Assistance:
One of our team would like to make the trip next week to help us with the analysis report. We don't have sufficient funds to cover the flight costs of about $550 though and we don't have any corporate funding (believe me, there is no money in being involved in a Rebel Alliance!)
So, we are putting out a call for assistance.
If you can help us out, even just a portion, please PM me or e-mail [email protected]
Thank-you, in advance, for any assistance.
Ross.
I think they're too busy right now for an IPO ;D
I hear SpaceX was thinking about it though.
One way or the other, DIRECT should be OBE (overcome by events) within two months. Either as the new of the new Cx or as one of the alternatives "not selected".The answer has been pretty consistent that a full review would satisfy the Direct team. No doubt there could be a few hold-outs who would claim that any review that comes up with the "wrong" answer was not sufficient full or impartial, but I imagine that the core of the Direct effort will effectively disband with the Augustine Commission results and possible knowledge transfer. If the commission fails to reach a conclusion - which is not impossible - anything could happen, or more likely nothing :( .
Sounds strange, doesn't it?
My question to others has been, if it is not selected ... will the rebel alliance continue?
Quote from: mars.is.wetMy question to others has been, if it is not selected ... will the rebel alliance continue?The answer has been pretty consistent that a full review would satisfy the Direct team.
I have to say, the DIRECT initiative is one of the most interesting things I've ever had the privilege to witness, even as a bystander. Has anything like this ever happened in modern American history?I was going to cite George Harrison in Bangladesh and Bob Geldof and others in Africa, but they aren't American.
Oh, well, neither is Ross!
If the basic system does the job why not stick with that?
Because Orion wasn't designed to be an overgrown and overpriced Apollo clone that's less capable than Soyuz in some ways.
Orion was designed to be a capable deep-space ship... before the Ares-I debacle forced the design into the current "Prion" state.
6 crew to 4 to 3... radiation shielding removed... mmod shielding removed... land anywhere removed... cislunar cruise supplies capacity removed... toilet removed... and more besides...
Through no fault of the Orion design crew the "Prion", as initially planned to be deployed, would not be worth the money or effort... unless it can be guaranteed that it would be restored to a fully usable state as soon as feasible.
This is a case where Griffin's blunders have seriously impacted any actual attempts at exploration for some years to come.
I meant the flight software. If the basic version of the software does the job and it is similar to what astronauts do on the shuttle at the moment - then why not just stick with that?
So, what is the current status of DIRECT? Can you give a short summary?
Will there ever be DIRECT v4.0?
One way or the other, DIRECT should be OBE (overcome by events) within two months. Either as the new of the new Cx or as one of the alternatives "not selected".
Sounds strange, doesn't it?
My question to others has been, if it is not selected ... will the rebel alliance continue?
That should stifle most dissent.
In terms of a general fund, if a Direct Team member could set up a paypal account I'd bet in a few hours we could raise enough donations to buy the Team first class tickets to the conference.
Steve
The link is broken, is the paypal account associated to [email protected] ?I am also having difficulty with the link. It is reply # 1831 on this thread. Depending on how you view this thread, it is on page #123, the second post down from the top.
Chuck, What is the exact nature of the relationship between the Augustine Commission & the Aerospace Corporation? Did the Augustine Commission assign the Aerospace Corporation the role of carrying out detailed analysis of lunar-Mars launch systems?
You always want to make it personal. So let's do so for one post.
Nothing about DIRECT worries me except that the some members of the group are thinking less strategically than necessary to work within the system which will eventually be required for its success. I would wager that I have done more, on many more occasions, to help DIRECT than you have. Talking to all levels of the process including this fine body, and each needs help in a different way.
I never call out or question personal motivations or bias for posts, I stop lines of discussion when asked, and I'm not a snide grammar cop. I contribute technical, programmatic, and tactical facts to a team that is starving for them, both on the forum and privately.
I worry that interactions with the analysis team have shown me that the jump from internet sensation to serious contender has been a stride too far (so far), and that this execution and lack of understanding may be hurting a chance for a concept like DIRECT to succeed. I hope for better in the next iteration.
That independent and neutral members of the commission process that have read these boards or are informed of their content liken the DIRECT phenomenon to a cult ... and that they arrived at that conclusion through objective data not any bias or desire for a particular outcome. Thankfully they will still do a full and fair accounting of the DIRECT concept, because they are professionals.
And that if this result is not to everyone's liking, that the phenomenon that is DIRECT will be tempted to continue to "tear down" whatever path is chosen rather than support an Agency for which support is severely lacking (see also, loss of $30B in funds since ESAS). We are building inherently high risk rockets and spaceships based on the designs of others ... no path will be without chance and mistakes. But some people want to vault from Freedom to Serenity and are are not sufficiently satisfied with states in between to support them.
You love to get under people's skin and contribute little other than snippy personal commentary that contributes massively to shared misinformation on how things are, and little how they might actually become. Isn't there an internet name for that?
Yeah, you got under my skin for a post. Enjoy your Strunk, your Emily Post, and your piddling psychic victory for the rest of the day.
Chuck, What is the exact nature of the relationship between the Augustine Commission & the Aerospace Corporation? Did the Augustine Commission assign the Aerospace Corporation the role of carrying out detailed analysis of lunar-Mars launch systems?
I am worried about the relationship between NASA and the Aerospace Corp. I saw excerpts of a draft Aerospace EELV study showing Atlas V Heavy was actually cheaper that Delta IV Heavy and either could lift Orion with ample margin.
The presentation to the HSF Committee didn't show Atlas at all by the direction of NASA and had a "redesigned" upperstage with an RL-10 "derivative" having little margin -- read lots of development dollars
. I suspect the customer (NASA) didn't like the draft and directed Aerospace to change the story. The Direct team needs to watch over their shoulder.
Danny Deger
I too can say the same thing (though not part of the Direct team). If you read back in the posts at the time of the rebuttal's emergence, mars has been a true contributor, offering exceptional advice.
I can personally vouch for mars.is.wet's contribution to the efforts of the DIRECT Team. His assistance has always come at timely points and has always, always been invaluable. And he is not even a member of the team, but an independent person who cares. Thank you mars.
We would then go back to see if our husbands and wives still recognized us.Wouldn't that be something! :)
Chuck, What is the exact nature of the relationship between the Augustine Commission & the Aerospace Corporation? Did the Augustine Commission assign the Aerospace Corporation the role of carrying out detailed analysis of lunar-Mars launch systems?
I am worried about the relationship between NASA and the Aerospace Corp. I saw excerpts of a draft Aerospace EELV study showing Atlas V Heavy was actually cheaper that Delta IV Heavy and either could lift Orion with ample margin.
The presentation to the HSF Committee didn't show Atlas at all by the direction of NASA and had a "redesigned" upperstage with an RL-10 "derivative" having little margin -- read lots of development dollars
. I suspect the customer (NASA) didn't like the draft and directed Aerospace to change the story. The Direct team needs to watch over their shoulder.
Danny Deger
Aerospace Corp's "customer" is the Augustine Commission, and by extension, President Obama. They have nothing to gain by doing anything but a completely fair, totally impartial and technically competent analysis. We believe that is exactly what they will do.
You always want to make it personal. So let's do so for one post.
Nothing about DIRECT worries me except that the some members of the group are thinking less strategically than necessary to work within the system which will eventually be required for its success. I would wager that I have done more, on many more occasions, to help DIRECT than you have. Talking to all levels of the process including this fine body, and each needs help in a different way.
I never call out or question personal motivations or bias for posts, I stop lines of discussion when asked, and I'm not a snide grammar cop. I contribute technical, programmatic, and tactical facts to a team that is starving for them, both on the forum and privately.
I worry that interactions with the analysis team have shown me that the jump from internet sensation to serious contender has been a stride too far (so far), and that this execution and lack of understanding may be hurting a chance for a concept like DIRECT to succeed. I hope for better in the next iteration.
That independent and neutral members of the commission process that have read these boards or are informed of their content liken the DIRECT phenomenon to a cult ... and that they arrived at that conclusion through objective data not any bias or desire for a particular outcome. Thankfully they will still do a full and fair accounting of the DIRECT concept, because they are professionals.
And that if this result is not to everyone's liking, that the phenomenon that is DIRECT will be tempted to continue to "tear down" whatever path is chosen rather than support an Agency for which support is severely lacking (see also, loss of $30B in funds since ESAS). We are building inherently high risk rockets and spaceships based on the designs of others ... no path will be without chance and mistakes. But some people want to vault from Freedom to Serenity and are are not sufficiently satisfied with states in between to support them.
You love to get under people's skin and contribute little other than snippy personal commentary that contributes massively to shared misinformation on how things are, and little how they might actually become. Isn't there an internet name for that?
Yeah, you got under my skin for a post. Enjoy your Strunk, your Emily Post, and your piddling psychic victory for the rest of the day.
I can personally vouch for mars.is.wet's contribution to the efforts of the DIRECT Team. His assistance has always come at timely points and has always, always been invaluable. And he is not even a member of the team, but an independent person who cares. Thank you mars.
As for what would happen if DIRECT isn't selected well, after the inevitable disappointment, we would hope to do exactly the same thing that we would do if DIRECT is selected; fully support the final decision made by the Administration and fade away quietly into the mist. If DIRECT is selected, we would hope to turn everything, lock stock and barrel, over to NASA and let them have it - all of it. After all it began as their own design in the NLS. We would then go back to see if our husbands and wives still recognized us. If DIRECT is not selected we will do exactly the same. That's the goal and the intent.
The Augustine Commission and the professionals at Aerospace Corporation are all professionals, dedicated to doing the best job they can and to the best of my knowledge, the only thing any of them are predisposed to is to provide the best recommendations they can, in as impartial a manner they can, to the Obama Administration. They don't have a dog in this hunt and are only interested in doing the best job they can, and they are all very, very good at that.
Knowing that, we are satisfied that we have actually achieved the one primary goal we have always stated from the very beginning; that of getting a level playing field analysis, which would include DIRECT, Ares, the EELV's and the COTS efforts. We have always said that if we got that we would support the results even if it wasn't DIRECT. We have that and we are satisfied with it.
As a result we intend to support the final decision made by the President based on the fully impartial and technically accurate analysis provided to him by the Augustine Commission.
ATK Awarded Contract for Ares I Upper Stage Ullage Motor
http://atk.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=118&item=932 (http://atk.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=118&item=932)
"The motors provide acceleration of the upper stage during stage separation from Ares I first stage. This acceleration process not only settles the liquid fuel and oxidizer in the upper stage tanks which provides continuous liquid flow to the J2X main engines, but also assists in the separation of the two stages. Each motor burns for approximately four seconds and provides a combined thrust of 40,000 pounds."
... personal...
And that if this result is not to everyone's liking, that the phenomenon that is DIRECT will be tempted to continue to "tear down" whatever path is chosen rather than support an Agency for which support is severely lacking (see also, loss of $30B in funds since ESAS). We are building inherently high risk rockets and spaceships based on the designs of others ... no path will be without chance and mistakes. But some people want to vault from Freedom to Serenity and are are not sufficiently satisfied with states in between to support them.
You love to get under people's skin and contribute little other than snippy personal commentary that contributes massively to shared misinformation on how things are, and little how they might actually become. Isn't there an internet name for that?
Yeah, you got under my skin for a post. Enjoy your Strunk, your Emily Post, and your piddling psychic victory for the rest of the day.
Hi Steve
This is something we resisted doing for a long time but we are pretty well tapped out. The PayPal account is set up. And at least one team member still needs assistance. Any help for him, in any amount at all will be greatly appreciated. No amount is too small as every penny counts. This is an expensive trip and we have been operating out of our own pockets for over 3 years now, usually returning home with only enough left to get the car out of airport parking.
Hi Steve
This is something we resisted doing for a long time but we are pretty well tapped out. The PayPal account is set up. And at least one team member still needs assistance. Any help for him, in any amount at all will be greatly appreciated. No amount is too small as every penny counts. This is an expensive trip and we have been operating out of our own pockets for over 3 years now, usually returning home with only enough left to get the car out of airport parking.
Done. Glad I can help.
amazing peoples and Lurkers, time for us to step up.
I have to say, the DIRECT initiative is one of the most interesting things I've ever had the privilege to witness, even as a bystander. Has anything like this ever happened in modern American history?Not to trivialize the post-war US civil-rights movement, but the civil-rights movement has some parallels to the way this operation has gone.
(Trying not to be too provocative) If the unthinkable happens and the Committee and space community buy the DIRECT swindle whole, it still has to get the attention of the President (who may be a bit busy this Fall) and buy-in from Senators Shelby and Nelson. I could see the Alliance getting involved in letter-writing campaigns to Congress, perhaps.Will there ever be DIRECT v4.0?My question to others has been, if it is not selected ... will the rebel alliance continue?
Regarding mars.is.wet
I forget who said "If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you." A Devil's Advocate only makes you look at your positions harder, helps you find flaws in them, and makes you stronger.
:cheers:
I did read here the suggestion to rename J121 and J232 and put them into the Ares-family A1,2,3,5. I like that Idea - and more with the background of my question above. Planning the missions will sure be be more simple with having this spectrum for payloads.
If you could use both hardware from Constellation and DIRECT, what would that mean for the moon and missions to?
(Sorry if anyone did already ask that.)
I think Ares-I is a better match to access the ISS while J121 would better deal with the moon. Ares-V may carry heavy station-modules and heavy facilites while J232 deal with the less heavy equipment. Having both means simplicity to the mission planing and a general flexibility.
(Trying not to be too provocative) If the unthinkable happens and the Committee and space community buy the DIRECT swindle whole, it still has to get the attention of the President (who may be a bit busy this Fall) and buy-in from Senators Shelby and Nelson. I could see the Alliance getting involved in letter-writing campaigns to Congress, perhaps.
But the majority of the Alliance forces will likely return to to their basements to work on 22nd-century problems and not hurt anyone.
If there were to be a pogrom against the collaborators, you might see a flare-up in Rebel activity.
Afraid not... a splinter group of Direct is already working up plans to replace the Orion capsule with a sawed-off section of an Orbiter crew compartment.
They claim it can launch in 2010 and will cost 33% of what Orion costs while carrying a crew of 7. They say it will be a more "Direct" derivation of an SDLV.
I think Ares-I is a better match to access the ISS while J121 would better deal with the moon. Ares-V may carry heavy station-modules and heavy facilites while J232 deal with the less heavy equipment. Having both means simplicity to the mission planing and a general flexibility.
Do you understand that this means developing THREE (!!!) launch vehicles? NASA is in deep trouble today developing only two...
DIRECT is like the small-block Chevy. Maybe it's too much motor for a Vega, and it might not be enough for an Impala, but it's here, its what people know, and it fills a gap.to draw cheap a half circle: you will get something useless.Having both means simplicity to the mission planing and a general flexibility.NASA is in deep trouble today developing only two...
That should stifle most dissent.
You might want to reconsider your choice of words...
Quote from: zapkittyOK, you tell me what you think I meant, and I'll tell you if that was actually what I really meant.Quote from: MP99That should stifle most dissent.You might want to reconsider your choice of words...
I would wager that I have done more, on many more occasions, to help DIRECT than you have. Talking to all levels of the process including this fine body, and each needs help in a different way.
I never call out or question personal motivations or bias for posts, <snipped> I contribute technical, programmatic, and tactical facts to a team that is starving for them, both on the forum and privately.
I stop lines of discussion when asked
From my point of view, the commission need to publish the basis of the analysis that they use for each option, and explain where this differs from the figures given by their proponents.
The commission have been chosen for their expertise, and shouldn't have trouble justifying their selections.
That should stifle most dissent.
Quote from: zapkittyOK, you tell me what you think I meant, and I'll tell you if that was actually what I really meant.Quote from: MP99That should stifle most dissent.You might want to reconsider your choice of words...
It's not what you meant... it's what you said :)
...
I just wanted to quickly pop onto the forum here and say a very big thank-you to everyone who has answered our call for assistance. The response has been fantastic!
So Thank-you to each and every one of you who has offered your help to us.
As a Brit, please consider it a deep compliment when I say this is very much in the spirit of the July 4th celebrations.
Again, Thank-you.
Ross.
It's a pleasure. I just want to ask people to donate whatever they can. 5 bucks, 10 bucks, 50, 100, whatever you can spare.
The DIRECT folks are giving a lot of themselves, let's put our money where our keystrokes are and show them we care about manned spaceflight too.
It's a pleasure. I just want to ask people to donate whatever they can. 5 bucks, 10 bucks, 50, 100, whatever you can spare.
The DIRECT folks are giving a lot of themselves, let's put our money where our keystrokes are and show them we care about manned spaceflight too.
So, what is the current status of DIRECT? Can you give a short summary?
Will there ever be DIRECT v4.0?
One way or the other, DIRECT should be OBE (overcome by events) within two months. Either as the new of the new Cx or as one of the alternatives "not selected".
Sounds strange, doesn't it?
My question to others has been, if it is not selected ... will the rebel alliance continue?
On June 26, in Huntsville, Ala., Boeing engineers presented committee members with a range of alternatives, including a rocket that resembles Direct's project: a shuttle external tank and solid rocket boosters with a capsule on top.
Another write up in the Orlando Sentinel.
Moon alternatives gaining traction
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-space-alternatives-rising-07070509jul05,0,2722764.story
Another write up in the Orlando Sentinel.
Moon alternatives gaining traction
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-space-alternatives-rising-07070509jul05,0,2722764.story
On June 26, in Huntsville, Ala., Boeing engineers presented committee members with a range of alternatives, including a rocket that resembles Direct's project: a shuttle external tank and solid rocket boosters with a capsule on top.
Dean Acosta, Boeing Space Exploration communications director, said that the committee asked for the presentations and that the company remains committed to Constellation. "Changing plans now would only add to the gap [between the last shuttle flight and first launch of its replacement], limiting America's access to space and putting a talented, experienced aerospace industry workforce at risk," he said in a statement.
But Boeing also presented a second design that looks almost exactly like the current shuttle, except that the orbiter mounted on the side of the fuel tank is replaced by a podlike container resembling a giant car-top carrier.
Another write up in the Orlando Sentinel.
Moon alternatives gaining traction
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-space-alternatives-rising-07070509jul05,0,2722764.story
, and I know he has another coming on the workforce and a write up of the SD HLLV presentation, which is a new one that was refined after the Shannon presentation.
The DIRECT folks are giving a lot of themselves, let's put our money where our keystrokes are and show them we care about manned spaceflight too.
Agree. This is the ralying cry people. This is Direct's shot with a one-on-one meeting with the committee, and having their team members there is so important.
Agree. This is the ralying cry people. This is Direct's shot with a one-on-one meeting with the committee, and having their team members there is so important.
A nit, but I believe the meeting is with the analysis team. The meeting will be far more technical and far less visionary than the committee meeting. Thankfully, it will also be 3 hours (give or take).
I doubt if any of the committee members (including Dr. Austin and Dr. Ride who are both affiliated with Aerospace) will be there.
Agree. This is the ralying cry people. This is Direct's shot with a one-on-one meeting with the committee, and having their team members there is so important.
A nit, but I believe the meeting is with the analysis team. The meeting will be far more technical and far less visionary than the committee meeting. Thankfully, it will also be 3 hours (give or take).
I doubt if any of the committee members (including Dr. Austin and Dr. Ride who are both affiliated with Aerospace) will be there.
Okay, apologies if that is the case, but either way it still is their one-on-one chance to prove their concept in detail.
They may also be able to bring to light many details that can't be made public, including costs & technical information.
...
Chill.
Then google "stifle dissent"
I will eat a horseshoe if zapkitty's splinter group quip turns out to have been accurate!QuoteOn June 26, in Huntsville, Ala., Boeing engineers presented committee members with a range of alternatives, including a rocket that resembles Direct's project: a shuttle external tank and solid rocket boosters with a capsule on top.Hmm, did I miss this? Any one have a link?
Ross,
HSF Review has announced three new public meetings this month. Will Direct have any involvement in these?
I've been in 'away' mode for a number of days now, sorry, you wouldn't believe how busy I've been.
I actually managed to take a whole day off last Sunday, which if you know me, you would actually be quite shocked to hear! :)
Since then, the effort on this has just been at fever-pitch and isn't likely to slow down for a while, so I won't be around here much -- sorry.
I'd like to start just by saying thank-you to everyone who has e-mailed me or PM'd me recently. I have not been able to get back to everyone yet, but I have been keeping up-to-date with all the contacts and I thank everyone for their comments, suggestions, notifications and assistance so far and I look forward to more.
I note a few people have asked about our contacts with the committee. Obviously, I can't really talk about any details, but a little while ago we got confirmation that DIRECT was accepted as one of the options to be studied in detail. We are currently working on supplying technical information to the analysis, which will culminate in myself and Steve flying out to California at the end of next week to answer detailed questions in-person. In short: We're in and we're doing what needs to be done. That's all I'm going to say about that.
On a slightly different subject, I've spoken with John Shannon. He told me that before the hearing on the 17th June he was unaware of the DIRECT concept. I have made sure he is now a lot more familiar with it and more familiar with the NLS concept which it is based upon too. I'm continuing to follow-up and hope to meet with him again soon.
And I was sent a copy of Steven Pietrobon's Jupiter Upper Stage analysis this morning. It's a very interesting read. I hope he sends a copy to the Committee himself -- as a completely independent source. I don't think we should have any involvement in that because as a stand-alone piece, it carries much greater impact than if it came from us. I would like to say "thank-you" to Steven for putting the time and effort into studying that though.
Ross (heading back into 'away' mode again for about another week).
Okay, given that capsules are not normally interchangeable... and leaving STS extension aside... is there any way to get a viable crew transport on top of a US launcher by 2012?
Why are the four SSME's on the bottom end of the jupiter core arranged in a line, not a square shape? A square shape would seem to allow more airflow between the engines, since they would be spaced further apart.
Okay, given that capsules are not normally interchangeable... and leaving STS extension aside... is there any way to get a viable crew transport on top of a US launcher by 2012?
yea, SpaceX and the Dragon capsule should be able to do it.
But the Direct team thinks they can do it too by funnelling savings on the Jupiter launcher into Orion.
Myself, I think that if Dragon can deliver what they plan, that will take the heat off of Orion's timeline. Once astronauts can get on a US launcher and launch from the Cape, "the gap" won't be as urgent. (maybe that's what NASA is thinking with Ares). So if J-130 is ready a few years before Orion, as long as Dragon is taking Astronauts to the ISS, J-130 can still take up large ISS logistics modules with a ton of supplies, and/or replacement components until Orion's ready to go up on it.
Why are the four SSME's on the bottom end of the jupiter core arranged in a line, not a square shape? A square shape would seem to allow more airflow between the engines, since they would be spaced further apart.
Inline places them farther from the Solids(which reduces heating).. also tapered thrust structure/ tail cone should provide more airflow around the engines.
Although with using SSMEs I'm not sure if the "inline" configuration is nearly as critical as it would have been for RS-68? Is this just a carryover from J-232 work?
The amount of asymmetrical force is the same, just spread over 2 dimensions.
I was wondering the same thing. My reason was that the asymmetry of thrust with 3 engine configuration should be less if they are arranged 2 x 2 under neath the core than inline 1 x 4.
(Certainly much less than side mount.)
The amount of asymmetrical force is the same, just spread over 2 dimensions.
Ross,
HSF Review has announced three new public meetings this month. Will Direct have any involvement in these?
Those are the same three that were on the calendar
July 28, 2009 Public Meeting (Houston, TX)
July 29, 2009 Public Meeting (Huntsville, AL)
July 30, 2009 Public Meeting (Cape Canaveral, FL)
Will be interesting to see if they take another "public" statement from a group that has already spoken.
Should probably be someone from "outside" ;) the group for maximum benefit.
The meetings were just announced today. Previously the 2 in DC were the only public ones.
The meetings were just announced today. Previously the 2 in DC were the only public ones.
*shakes head*
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17342.msg416661#msg416661
The Houston public meeting was added, and the order is different, but the others were known a month ago.
I've been out of town for over a week and was just trying to catch up on the thread.
Does the Direct team still need donations for that extra plane ticket?
If so, what'st he Paypal account info for donations?
Posting this because its fresh.
For a couple of weeks we have been considering this. Unfortunately the conops for it simply aren't finished, so we're not ready to change the baseline to this yet, but if everything works as it appears to... Well, this is a preview :)
Anyway, we will be taking this to Aerospace Corp as a "seriously interesting alternative".
Do NOT make the mistake of comparing the regular CxP TLI performance metric (71.1mT) with this one -- the two metrics are simply NOT compatible with each other.
The only 'close' way to compare would be to add the LOI propellant load left in the EDS -- which is around 14.5mT or so, but even that still wouldn't be a true apples-to-apples comparison.
The high Isp of the RL-10B-2 seems to thoroughly kick-the-butt of the regular EOR-LOR profile, adding about 2mT of landed payload capacity Cargo missions and about 1mT extra payload capacity to Crew missions.
Anyway, enjoy!
Ross.
Oh we did consider LOR for the longest time, heck about 2 years ago (IIRC) we even baselined it for about 6 months or so! :)
But when we ran the detailed numbers we found that no matter which way you cut it, if you decide to drag the extra mass of a second EDS through TLI, its mass cuts into your total lunar payload mass delivered to LLO & the surface.
We loved the idea (I still do), but in practice we had to admit that it just could not deliver as much performance to LLO/Surface as a single EDS EOR-LOR configuration can. And sending CEV and LSAM together is also simpler and a bit safer (Apollo-13 lifeboat) too.
Ross.
A quick followup, I just threw the current J-246 through an LOR profile and at best it looks like it would only be good for sending an LSAM only capable of delivering about 8.8mT of cargo to the lunar surface -- which is less than half the payload of the EOR-LOR EDS performs LOI approach above.
Given that NSC has only about 75% of the performance of a J-246 they're talking about a *really* small system...
Mind you, don't forget that our plan calls for these 2-launch missions to be only a 'temporary' solution too. Ultimately we want the Depot architecture and a 1-launch Jupiter-246 mission. That's the mission profile we're aiming for, everything before it is "building blocks" designed to get us there in smaller, less risky, steps.
Ross.
BTW, I haven't had much time to go through Shannon's presentation (I saw the technical documentation about a month before the committee hearing and reviewed it then) and I think you'll find that 28mT is actually for the LSAM at TLI, before it performs it's LOI. That tallies with what I saw previously and tallies with what he actually said during his 30 minute piece (the bit where he asked Doug Cooke whether the current LSAM was 45mT).
Something doesn't add up somewhere, but I really don't have the time to nail down precisely what it is, sorry. One point is that my calc a second ago includes our arbitrary 10% additional margins, which would probably bring performance down into the same realm as NSC -- not sure, but that's probably part of it.
As a starting point, a 28,282kg LSAM in LLO will mass approx 17.7mT after a 2,030m/s Descent.
What I'm trying to figure is how NSC can loft a 35mT LSAM thru TLI in the first place. It doesn't add up with the regular dV requirements including all the FPR's and margins. I think they're missing a margin or two somewhere.
For a couple of weeks we have been considering this. Unfortunately the conops for it simply aren't finished, so we're not ready to change the baseline to this yet, but if everything works as it appears to... Well, this is a preview :)
OK, question time.Correct
In this drawing it appears that the EDS _is_ the upper stage of the Jupiter-246.
Does the EDS have to fire its engines to reach orbit or is it a passive payload all the way to 130nm?Yes it does. The "payload" in this case is the leftover LOX/LH2 that will be used for the TLI and LOI burns. You could use a separate dedicated stage for these burns, but that would add complexity and additional dead weight (engines, etc). Ares-V also uses this method for its combination Upper Stage / EDS.
For the cargo mission profile, why is there an ascent stage on top of the lander? If the cargo delivery is one way it seems like you are adding extra weight for the ascent module hardware interfaces which could be replaced with a simpler mount to the descent module.I would guess that the illustration reuses a boilerplate image for the cargo-only profile, and that the actual cargo-only LSAM would not include an ascent module.
QuoteDoes the EDS have to fire its engines to reach orbit or is it a passive payload all the way to 130nm?Yes it does. The "payload" in this case is the leftover LOX/LH2 that will be used for the TLI and LOI burns.
It is also a problem for the Ares system, which is also a multi-launch (although I don't know the on-orbit loiter time for the AVEDS).My understanding is that Ares I is launched first so that there is no rush to launch humans to a perishable Ares V cargo. If the Ares V fails to launch, you are out the 0.5 in the 1.5 nomenclature.
It is also a problem for the Ares system, which is also a multi-launch (although I don't know the on-orbit loiter time for the AVEDS).My understanding is that Ares I is launched first so that there is no rush to launch humans to a perishable Ares V cargo. If the Ares V fails to launch, you are out the 0.5 in the 1.5 nomenclature.
It is nice to see a mission architecture which is not dependent on transferring fuel from one EDS to another in orbit. This simplifies the architecture quite a bit.
It is also a problem for the Ares system, which is also a multi-launch (although I don't know the on-orbit loiter time for the AVEDS).My understanding is that Ares I is launched first so that there is no rush to launch humans to a perishable Ares V cargo. If the Ares V fails to launch, you are out the 0.5 in the 1.5 nomenclature.
That was the original idea. However, IIRC, they've since changed it to cargo first and then crew, partly because Ares-I is expensive in its own right and throwing away a crewed launch (plus expendable capsule) would shoot the budget for the entire year to bits. Additionally, if there are problems with the Ares-V, you can't leave the Orion in orbit waiting for problems to be fixed. You can do that with the cargo launch (at least in theory).
I went and looked at the Direct 3.0 slides, and they also show a 4-day max loiter, so this new mission model is no worse. (My mistake!) What's Constellation's theoretical loiter time? If I were designing a multiple-launch mission, I'd really want something like a 4-week loiter time before I had to throw away the first cargo and start over.
Shannon is a descent and honest man
(Anyway, the shifting of the LOI to the EDS and reducing the LSAM size is clever!)
(Anyway, the shifting of the LOI to the EDS and reducing the LSAM size is clever!)
I just want to point out that the EDS doing LOI is *not* the baseline right now, and is just one of those 'options' that needs to be investigated. The obvious benefit is the reduction of Altair mass, but that must be traded against another engine restart 3 days after the last firing and another 3 days of loiter time while stack coasts to the moon.
We're trying to keep an Apples-to-Apples comparison to Constellations requirements for the time being (even though they're not the best for DIRECT), and that means that Altair performs the LOI burn.
According to Keith Cowling at NASAWatch.Com, "The Augustine Commission has been provided with some rather detailed internal cost data - not all of which synchs with the current publicly avowed numbers." http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/07/ares_costs_unde.html Here's a logical question. If NASA's internal cost extimates show higher Ares costs than those publicly reported, do internal cost estimates exist for their SDHLV that show higher costs than those they have publicly reported.
IMO opinion, it should be the goal of the DIRECT team to present the simplest data necessary to show that DIRECT is (if it in fact is) superior to the alternatives (without directly comparing) and let the architecture work be done later. Not reams of random data, but data focused on proving that DIRECT is cheaper, less risky, and quicker than the alternatives as a "drop in" replacement ... with minimal emphasis on the fact that things get MUCH better if more substantial architecture changes are made.
According to Keith Cowling at NASAWatch.Com, "The Augustine Commission has been provided with some rather detailed internal cost data - not all of which synchs with the current publicly avowed numbers." http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/07/ares_costs_unde.html Here's a logical question. If NASA's internal cost extimates show higher Ares costs than those publicly reported, do internal cost estimates exist for their SDHLV that show higher costs than those they have publicly reported.
Based on my experience with working over the years with Mr. Shannon, I doubt they have an internal cost different than what will be reported to the HSF Committee.
Danny Deger
Ahhh, I really haven't got time to do this...
Must...Concentrate...on...DIRECT...data...for...Aerospace...Corp...
Ross.
IMO opinion, it should be the goal of the DIRECT team to present the simplest data necessary to show that DIRECT is (if it in fact is) superior to the alternatives (without directly comparing) and let the architecture work be done later. Not reams of random data, but data focused on proving that DIRECT is cheaper, less risky, and quicker than the alternatives as a "drop in" replacement ... with minimal emphasis on the fact that things get MUCH better if more substantial architecture changes are made.
From my experience participating in the 'dog and pony' shows that are part of securing government contracts, I agree with "mars.is.wet" that success is better served by focusing like a laser on how YOUR solution fits the "client's" stated objectives better/faster/cheaper/with less risk than the other solutions. Focus the presentation on how your option exceeds their requirements.
Only after you have the committee nodding in agreement (perhaps more difficult in your chosen venue) should you mention any extraneous (above and beyond) benefits. We often save the added benefits for a clincher during the follow up questioning.
Good luck,
Arthur
Quote from Danny Dot at 6:51 PM Today--"Based on my experience with working over the years with Mr. Shannon, I doubt they have an internal cost different than what will be reported to the HSF Committee. Mr. Shannon will simply not tolerate such an unethical thing to happen on his watch. Neither will General Bolden. Some men of honor are finally coming into power at NASA." Thanks Danny. It's good to hear Mr. Shannon's cost estimates are accurate!!
Anyway, I am so pumped for the team this week.I second that emotion! And the crowd goes wild...
Go Direct, Go Direct, Go Direct! :)
As I pointed out in a PM, the more "options" and "advantages" like 30-day loiter, propellant depots, changes in the baseline architecture (e.g. EDS LOI) that DIRECT proposes the harder it will be for the analysis team and then the commission to recommend it.
As I pointed out in a PM, the more "options" and "advantages" like 30-day loiter, propellant depots, changes in the baseline architecture (e.g. EDS LOI) that DIRECT proposes the harder it will be for the analysis team and then the commission to recommend it.
Absolutely! Is this falling on deaf ears? Prior to the presentation, I recall many people advocating a simple and concise approach. What Steve delivered was, of course, very visionary and broad instead. Whilst watching it live I was horrified as he dug deeper into tangential issues which IMHO weaken the core argument.
IMHO, if Jupiter is chosen, it will be in spite of the associated DIRECT architecture alternatives.
Anyway, I am so pumped for the team this week.I second that emotion! And the crowd goes wild...
Go Direct, Go Direct, Go Direct! :)
U-S-A! U-S-A! ...um ... I mean ... JUP-I-TER! JUP-I-TER! :D
Anyway, I am so pumped for the team this week.I second that emotion! And the crowd goes wild...
Go Direct, Go Direct, Go Direct! :)
U-S-A! U-S-A! ...um ... I mean ... JUP-I-TER! JUP-I-TER! :D
I've been away for quite some time, but glossing over some of these replies it appears I missed something important or soon to be important.
Any one have a quick synapse of what the DIRECT team is about to journey into? ;)
Anyway, I am so pumped for the team this week.I second that emotion! And the crowd goes wild...
Go Direct, Go Direct, Go Direct! :)
U-S-A! U-S-A! ...um ... I mean ... JUP-I-TER! JUP-I-TER! :D
I've been away for quite some time, but glossing over some of these replies it appears I missed something important or soon to be important.
Any one have a quick synapse of what the DIRECT team is about to journey into? ;)
Anyway, I am so pumped for the team this week.I second that emotion! And the crowd goes wild...
Go Direct, Go Direct, Go Direct! :)
U-S-A! U-S-A! ...um ... I mean ... JUP-I-TER! JUP-I-TER! :D
I've been away for quite some time, but glossing over some of these replies it appears I missed something important or soon to be important.
Any one have a quick synapse of what the DIRECT team is about to journey into? ;)
The team is getting a one-on-one to present details of their architecture on either Thursday or Friday (pretty sure it's Friday).
What is it that Chuck kept quoting? "First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." I will be feverishly awaiting updates from our usual suspects on the weekend.
QuoteDoes the EDS have to fire its engines to reach orbit or is it a passive payload all the way to 130nm?Yes it does. The "payload" in this case is the leftover LOX/LH2 that will be used for the TLI and LOI burns.
Wow, three burns for the EDS engine: LEO, TLI, and LOI. Nice that they have some engine out capability. The RL-10B is going to have a real workout.
It is nice to see a mission architecture which is not dependent on transferring fuel from one EDS to another in orbit. This simplifies the architecture quite a bit.
Long, long term, it would be nice to see a resusable EDS which could fuel up at the depot, take a craft to the moon, bring it back to LEO, and then go back to the depot for another fill up. I know, dreaming.
As I pointed out in a PM, the more "options" and "advantages" like 30-day loiter, propellant depots, changes in the baseline architecture (e.g. EDS LOI) that DIRECT proposes the harder it will be for the analysis team and then the commission to recommend it.
They only have 2 weeks to normalize and compare the alternatives, this is not a full architecture study ...
As several astute posters have writtten, the proposal has to be simple enough to be easily understood and selected ... easy enough to compare to and be selected over the other alternatives. If only the "inline SDLV" is chosen ... then the rest can be worked in future iterations.
If the "inline SDLV" path is not chosen because there are complications, technology risks, alternative architectures, unknowns, and conflicting visions ... you know what will happen. The analysis team needs to rack and stack (a fairly turn the crank process) multiple concepts in a matter of weeks. For all I know they may be just doing LV comparisons at their level, and the architecture stuff may fall to another team or to nobody ... in which case that data is actually harmful to the goals of DIRECT.
Doesn't matter if they are real or imagined. Imagine if you go into a car dealership for a new car. They offer you not only a replacement for the car you have but one that slices and dices, has the latest in hot technology, might or might not be a convertible, and one whose price tag is highly variable depending on execution. It also means you have to change how you go to the store, how you go to work, and how many people you generally take to lunch. All doable, but the amount of change will make anyone but a space-geek (and most members of the commission and the government are not space geeks) nervous and say "I think I'll stick with what I was planning to do" ...
IMO opinion, it should be the goal of the DIRECT team to present the simplest data necessary to show that DIRECT is (if it in fact is) superior to the alternatives (without directly comparing) and let the architecture work be done later. Not reams of random data, but data focused on proving that DIRECT is cheaper, less risky, and quicker than the alternatives as a "drop in" replacement ... with minimal emphasis on the fact that things get MUCH better if more substantial architecture changes are made.
This has not seemed to be their direction in past iterations, and that path will not serve them well in this attempt. Again, IMO.
If Ares is DOA, then is normalizing against it going to hurt DIRECT vs. EELV or Sidesaddle? No point doing apples to apples if they are looking for a different taste.As I pointed out in a PM, the more "options" and "advantages" like 30-day loiter, propellant depots, changes in the baseline architecture (e.g. EDS LOI) that DIRECT proposes the harder it will be for the analysis team and then the commission to recommend it.
They only have 2 weeks to normalize and compare the alternatives, this is not a full architecture study ...
As several astute posters have writtten, the proposal has to be simple enough to be easily understood and selected ... easy enough to compare to and be selected over the other alternatives. If only the "inline SDLV" is chosen ... then the rest can be worked in future iterations.
If the "inline SDLV" path is not chosen because there are complications, technology risks, alternative architectures, unknowns, and conflicting visions ... you know what will happen. The analysis team needs to rack and stack (a fairly turn the crank process) multiple concepts in a matter of weeks. For all I know they may be just doing LV comparisons at their level, and the architecture stuff may fall to another team or to nobody ... in which case that data is actually harmful to the goals of DIRECT.
Doesn't matter if they are real or imagined. Imagine if you go into a car dealership for a new car. They offer you not only a replacement for the car you have but one that slices and dices, has the latest in hot technology, might or might not be a convertible, and one whose price tag is highly variable depending on execution. It also means you have to change how you go to the store, how you go to work, and how many people you generally take to lunch. All doable, but the amount of change will make anyone but a space-geek (and most members of the commission and the government are not space geeks) nervous and say "I think I'll stick with what I was planning to do" ...
IMO opinion, it should be the goal of the DIRECT team to present the simplest data necessary to show that DIRECT is (if it in fact is) superior to the alternatives (without directly comparing) and let the architecture work be done later. Not reams of random data, but data focused on proving that DIRECT is cheaper, less risky, and quicker than the alternatives as a "drop in" replacement ... with minimal emphasis on the fact that things get MUCH better if more substantial architecture changes are made.
This has not seemed to be their direction in past iterations, and that path will not serve them well in this attempt. Again, IMO.
<snipped>
IMO opinion, it should be the goal of the DIRECT team to present the simplest data necessary to show that DIRECT is (if it in fact is) superior to the alternatives (without directly comparing) and let the architecture work be done later. Not reams of random data, but data focused on proving that DIRECT is cheaper, less risky, and quicker than the alternatives as a "drop in" replacement ... with minimal emphasis on the fact that things get MUCH better if more substantial architecture changes are made.
This has not seemed to be their direction in past iterations, and that path will not serve them well in this attempt. Again, IMO.
If Ares is DOA, then is normalizing against it going to hurt DIRECT vs. EELV or Sidesaddle? No point doing apples to apples if they are looking for a different taste.
The latest issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology has an article entitled "Contenders" on page 46. The Direct alternative is described on an equal footing with all the other launch alternatives. About 25% of the page is taken up with the rendering of Jupiter on the launch pad at KSC. It is is ONLY photo with the article.
Aviation Week.....Who woulda thunk it?
Go Direct!!
By the way, a couple of days ago Jack Cafferty at CNN also mentioned Jupiter as an alternative to Constellation (I guess he meant Ares) mentioning it could cut Ares costs by 50%. The rest of his segment was quite negative, but hey, Jupiter was the only alternative he mentioned, so I guess that's good, right?That's good. Jack Cafferty's one of the few out there in the media I like.
Quote from: XentryBy the way, a couple of days ago Jack Cafferty at CNN also mentioned Jupiter as an alternative to Constellation (I guess he meant Ares) mentioning it could cut Ares costs by 50%. The rest of his segment was quite negative, but hey, Jupiter was the only alternative he mentioned, so I guess that's good, right?That's good. Jack Cafferty's one of the few out there in the media I like.
A bit off-topic, the administrators of Wikipedia are warning that the article on DIRECT has been 'written like an advertisement', and has numerous errors in grammatical and neutrality issues. They further suggest if the article is considered 'blatant advertising' and needs major rewriting to be 'encyclopedic', it may be submitted for deletion.
May I suggest someone with the time and expertise on the subject do something. I could help out with the grammar and language, but the technical data like launch load, rocket thrust etc. might require someone with expertise in that field.
By the way, a couple of days ago Jack Cafferty at CNN also mentioned Jupiter as an alternative to Constellation (I guess he meant Ares) mentioning it could cut Ares costs by 50%. The rest of his segment was quite negative, but hey, Jupiter was the only alternative he mentioned, so I guess that's good, right?
Here's the link:
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/06/in-light-of-natl-debt-what-priority-should-the-space-program-have/
Some guy wrote in to complain about all the trillions of dollars that we have wasted on the space program. Have we spent even a single trillion dollars over the entire lifetime of NASA yet? I doubt it, but maybe someone here has some actual numbers.
There is a general perception held by the American public that NASA is a very large portion of the federal budget. I don't know how this idea got started, or who is perpetuating it, but NASA is in danger of losing the 0.7% that it currently gets if this animosity is not corrected. Surely every Senator and Congressman knows the score, and yet there is also animosity in those quarters. What's up with the NASA hate?
Mark S.
They further suggest if the article is considered 'blatant advertising' and needs major rewriting to be 'encyclopedic', it may be submitted for deletion.Then I would recommend that the DIRECT supporters here (members or lurkers) register on Wikipedia and edit a few articles. If (heaven forbid) it actually is nominated for deletion, we may need those votes to keep it.
Some guy wrote in to complain about all the trillions of dollars that we have wasted on the space program. Have we spent even a single trillion dollars over the entire lifetime of NASA yet? I doubt it, but maybe someone here has some actual numbers.It's possible that these naysayers see rockets and the technology and expertise required and erroneously assume they must cost more than anything else in the world.
There is a general perception held by the American public that NASA is a very large portion of the federal budget. I don't know how this idea got started, or who is perpetuating it, but NASA is in danger of losing the 0.7% that it currently gets if this perception is not corrected. Surely every Senator and Congressman knows the score, and yet there is also animosity in those quarters. What's up with the NASA hate?
Mark S.
If lighting an RL-10 three times is considered a little risky, (which I doubt), you don't need all six engines for TLI. IIRC, four are enough, five add a little margin.
One is probably enough for LOI. So:
6 engines for LEO
5 engines for TLI
1 engine for LOI (plus 5 slightly less trusted spares)
If lighting an RL-10 three times is considered a little risky, (which I doubt), you don't need all six engines for TLI. IIRC, four are enough, five add a little margin.IIRC, DIRECT baselines 6 RL-10 but "only" 5 working to LEO (1 engine out) and 4 to TLI (2 engine out).
QuoteDoes the EDS have to fire its engines to reach orbit or is it a passive payload all the way to 130nm?Yes it does. The "payload" in this case is the leftover LOX/LH2 that will be used for the TLI and LOI burns.
Wow, three burns for the EDS engine: LEO, TLI, and LOI. Nice that they have some engine out capability. The RL-10B is going to have a real workout.
It is nice to see a mission architecture which is not dependent on transferring fuel from one EDS to another in orbit. This simplifies the architecture quite a bit.
Long, long term, it would be nice to see a resusable EDS which could fuel up at the depot, take a craft to the moon, bring it back to LEO, and then go back to the depot for another fill up. I know, dreaming.
Having the EDS do all 3 burns is a good plan, especially when running all 6 of those good ol' RL-10B's. Fail to do LOI with the LSAM then it's a case of whoops, free return time folks, no ticket refund.
Saves a bucket with the J-2X development, too. I wonder if 6xRL-10Bs would be enough to send a Mars ship on its way?
By the way, a couple of days ago Jack Cafferty at CNN also mentioned Jupiter as an alternative to Constellation (I guess he meant Ares) mentioning it could cut Ares costs by 50%. The rest of his segment was quite negative, but hey, Jupiter was the only alternative he mentioned, so I guess that's good, right?
Here's the link:
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/06/in-light-of-natl-debt-what-priority-should-the-space-program-have/
Some guy wrote in to complain about all the trillions of dollars that we have wasted on the space program. Have we spent even a single trillion dollars over the entire lifetime of NASA yet? I doubt it, but maybe someone here has some actual numbers.
There is a general perception held by the American public that NASA is a very large portion of the federal budget. I don't know how this idea got started, or who is perpetuating it, but NASA is in danger of losing the 0.7% that it currently gets if this perception is not corrected. Surely every Senator and Congressman knows the score, and yet there is also animosity in those quarters. What's up with the NASA hate?
Mark S.
Quote from: XentryBy the way, a couple of days ago Jack Cafferty at CNN also mentioned Jupiter as an alternative to Constellation (I guess he meant Ares) mentioning it could cut Ares costs by 50%. The rest of his segment was quite negative, but hey, Jupiter was the only alternative he mentioned, so I guess that's good, right?That's good. Jack Cafferty's one of the few out there in the media I like.
A bit off-topic, the administrators of Wikipedia are warning that the article on DIRECT has been 'written like an advertisement', and has numerous errors in grammatical and neutrality issues. They further suggest if the article is considered 'blatant advertising' and needs major rewriting to be 'encyclopedic', it may be submitted for deletion.
May I suggest someone with the time and expertise on the subject do something. I could help out with the grammar and language, but the technical data like launch load, rocket thrust etc. might require someone with expertise in that field.
Has this pic ever been posted here?
1964-08-01, rollout of a S-IV stage.
The 6 RL-10's look good.
Has this pic ever been posted here?
1964-08-01, rollout of a S-IV stage.
The 6 RL-10's look good.
Wait, I thought NASA said such an upperstage defies the laws of physics? It seems we did just that in the 1960s.
Some guy wrote in to complain about all the trillions of dollars that we have wasted on the space program. Have we spent even a single trillion dollars over the entire lifetime of NASA yet? I doubt it, but maybe someone here has some actual numbers.It's possible that these naysayers see rockets and the technology and expertise required and erroneously assume they must cost more than anything else in the world.
There is a general perception held by the American public that NASA is a very large portion of the federal budget. I don't know how this idea got started, or who is perpetuating it, but NASA is in danger of losing the 0.7% that it currently gets if this perception is not corrected. Surely every Senator and Congressman knows the score, and yet there is also animosity in those quarters. What's up with the NASA hate?
Mark S.
Most of the negative comments are accompanied with complaints of the current economic situation and unemployment with the general mood being, 'Why space exploration over me?'
Unfortunately, for the general public you have to back that up to
The fact NASA hasn't done anything really awe-inspriing since Apollo 17 certainly hasn't helped the case any, and helped the "victim mentaliity" people further castigate and marginalize NASA spending.
IMHO anyway., :)
Unfortunately, for the general public you have to back that up to
The fact NASA hasn't done anything really awe-inspriing since Apollo 17 certainly hasn't helped the case any, and helped the "victim mentaliity" people further castigate and marginalize NASA spending.
IMHO anyway., :)
Apollo 11 since they were already bored w/ moon flights by A13!! (at least pre explosion)--unbelieveable...
That's the argument regardless of the economy. It's just louder now that the troubled economy is at the forefront of politics. Given how many people had money to shell out to go to the Michael Jackson funeral, obviously people still have extra money.Actually I believe you pretty much nailed it.
You have to understand that almost 50% of the country pays no federal taxes, and are in effect just floating by at the expense of the other 50%. While many of these people are just in legitimate and temporary financial straights, many are there because it's easy, and they're getting by on the government dime...which is to say the dime of you and me that pay taxes.
Often there's a mentality of these people that they are "victims" and society owes them their free lunch. And if you feel that way, you feel anything that's not somehow directly benefiting you, like military spending, foreign aid, and NASA, is competing for money that would otherwise be yours.
i.e., "If we weren't wasting -trillions- of dollars on space, we could be giving ME more money visa vi welfare, extended unemployment benefits, socialized healthcare, government subsidized housing loans, 'cash for clunkers', etc"
When that's your mentality (and it is of an ever growing segment of America's population) then you can't grasp spending money for the quest for knowledge or the greater good.
"Give me mine, and screw everyone else" is the mentality unfortunately.
And as that segment grows, it represents more and more votes, which then has the attention of politicians pandering for those votes to stay in office or get in office...which is more and more where we are today, and part of the reason it was less of an issue in the 60's, 70's and 80's. Yea, there was a space race with the Soviets, and that was a large part too. But the vast majority of Americans didn't have that victim mentality, so spending on things that didn't directly put money in their pocket in the form of handouts was more poular in the past than it is today.
The fact NASA hasn't done anything really awe-inspriing since Apollo 17 certainly hasn't helped the case any, and helped the "victim mentaliity" people further castigate and marginalize NASA spending.
IMHO anyway., :)
That's the argument regardless of the economy. It's just louder now that hte troubled economy is at the forfront of politics. Given how many people had money to shell out to go to the Michael JAckson funeral, obviously people still have extra money.
Anyway, I am so pumped for the team this week.I second that emotion! And the crowd goes wild...
Go Direct, Go Direct, Go Direct! :)
U-S-A! U-S-A! ...um ... I mean ... JUP-I-TER! JUP-I-TER! :D
I've been away for quite some time, but glossing over some of these replies it appears I missed something important or soon to be important.
Any one have a quick synapse of what the DIRECT team is about to journey into? ;)
By definition, synapses are very short. However, a synopsis can be quite a bit longer. Here's my stab it it...
Ross, Chuck, Steve and some number of other, behind-the-scenes DIRECT folks are working full-speed-ahead preparing additional material for a command performance for the Aerospace engineers. They've been almost invisible on the forum, spending their time on detailed engineering details to be presented to the reviewers.
The general atmosphere is one of hopeful anticipation, spiced with infrequent but happy comments from Ross/Chuck. The review will be soon since the time-line for this whole thing is very short. After that, we hope to hear lots of juicy details, but so far the DIRECT team has been fairly quiet on the inner workings of the Commission process.
Lots of flavor in that synaptic dump. I'm sure others will add more left-brain commentary. :)
If lighting an RL-10 three times is considered a little risky, (which I doubt), you don't need all six engines for TLI. IIRC, four are enough, five add a little margin.IIRC, DIRECT baselines 6 RL-10 but "only" 5 working to LEO (1 engine out) and 4 to TLI (2 engine out).
I see the advert banner has been removed. I would argue that (after first identifying the proponent) it's okay to take the proponent's point of view in an article about a proposal, but I guess every sentence has to have a disclaimer. Oh, well!that's just how wiki works.Quote from: XentryBy the way, a couple of days ago Jack Cafferty at CNNthe administrators of Wikipedia are warning that the article on DIRECT has been 'written like an advertisement',
You know, it seems to me you could almost just dust off the plans to the old J-2S and build that. it was made to be cheaper and more simple than the J-2, and it had more thrust and weighed less than 6 RL-10B's. You'd loose engine out capability. But the J-2S worked, had quite a bit of test firing, adn you woudln't need to develop the J-2X.The downside of J-2S is the ISP was only 421 sec.. Much lower than RL10B's or J-2X. The mass savings of the J-2S is probably more than outweighed by the additional fuel that would be required.
Either way, using the EDS to do as many burns as possible and getting maximum usage from that spacecraft just seems smart to do.
You know, it seems to me you could almost just dust off the plans to the old J-2S and build that. it was made to be cheaper and more simple than the J-2, and it had more thrust and weighed less than 6 RL-10B's. You'd loose engine out capability. But the J-2S worked, had quite a bit of test firing, adn you woudln't need to develop the J-2X.The downside of J-2S is the ISP was only 421 sec.. Much lower than RL10B's or J-2X. The mass savings of the J-2S is probably more than outweighed by the additional fuel that would be required.
Either way, using the EDS to do as many burns as possible and getting maximum usage from that spacecraft just seems smart to do.
But yea, even back in the 70's, Americans have the attention span of a gnat, and a freightenly small number can see beyond their own nose when it comes to anything. It's much worse now in our instant sound-bite society.
Anybody want some icons?
I use these three for my desktop shortcuts to this thread and STS-127.
You know, it seems to me you could almost just dust off the plans to the old J-2S and build that. it was made to be cheaper and more simple than the J-2, and it had more thrust and weighed less than 6 RL-10B's. You'd loose engine out capability. But the J-2S worked, had quite a bit of test firing, adn you woudln't need to develop the J-2X.The downside of J-2S is the ISP was only 421 sec.. Much lower than RL10B's or J-2X. The mass savings of the J-2S is probably more than outweighed by the additional fuel that would be required.
Either way, using the EDS to do as many burns as possible and getting maximum usage from that spacecraft just seems smart to do.
Ahhhh...gotcha. Thanks for the info there, I didn't look at that.
Has this pic ever been posted here?
1964-08-01, rollout of a S-IV stage.
The 6 RL-10's look good.
Wait, I thought NASA said such an upperstage defies the laws of physics? It seems we did just that in the 1960s.
You know, it seems to me you could almost just dust off the plans to the old J-2S and build that. it was made to be cheaper and more simple than the J-2, and it had more thrust and weighed less than 6 RL-10B's. You'd loose engine out capability. But the J-2S worked, had quite a bit of test firing, adn you woudln't need to develop the J-2X.The downside of J-2S is the ISP was only 421 sec.. Much lower than RL10B's or J-2X. The mass savings of the J-2S is probably more than outweighed by the additional fuel that would be required.
Either way, using the EDS to do as many burns as possible and getting maximum usage from that spacecraft just seems smart to do.
Thanks everyone for the replies. I get the "me first" attitude, that is also a serious problem for the country, but this is something else. My questions are 1) Who or what is promoting the idea that NASA has a large portion of the federal budget, 2) What is their purpose or agenda, and 3) What can we (or NASA) do about it?
Among other things, this thread has been a real education to me. I'm especially impressed with the effects of relatively small changes of Isp on the resulting system.
The downside of J-2S is the ISP was only 421 sec.. Much lower than RL10B's or J-2X. The mass savings of the J-2S is probably more than outweighed by the additional fuel that would be required.
But the people are largely uninformed. That's the fault of both themselves, and the media, which consideres the picadillos of a governor of North Carolina or the OD death of Michael Jackson to be more newsworthy then the advancments in knowledge and science from space exploration.
The fact NASA hasn't done anything really awe-inspriing since Apollo 17 certainly hasn't helped the case any, and helped the "victim mentaliity" people further castigate and marginalize NASA spending.
IMHO anyway., :)
As I said earlier it could be the perception by these sectors of the public that rockets are complicated in nature ("rocket science" is a common metaphor for something that is extremely complicated and difficult to understand, although I am sure programmers working on Bill Gates' next software or CPU designers at Intel would disagree).That's the argument regardless of the economy. It's just louder now that hte troubled economy is at the forfront of politics. Given how many people had money to shell out to go to the Michael JAckson funeral, obviously people still have extra money.
Thanks everyone for the replies. I get the "me first" attitude, that is also a serious problem for the country, but this is something else. My questions are 1) Who or what is promoting the idea that NASA has a large portion of the federal budget, 2) What is their purpose or agenda, and 3) What can we (or NASA) do about it?
Even at the height of the cold war back in the 60's, NASA never had more than a 5% share of the budget. Now it is down to 1/10th of that, a very meager 0.5%. I don't know where these people went to school, but even 5% is a long way from "a large portion" of the budget. Significant, yes, but not large.
Is a nickel a large portion of a dollar? Of ten dollars? That's where the disconnect is. Would you be significantly better off with $10 instead of $9.95? And the perception is so widespread, and so obviously wrong, that I don't understand how or why it is being perpetuated.
If it were just the hoi polloi voicing this attitude I would not be concerned. But it is also commentators, politicians, op/ed writers, and news media who continue to discuss the "huge NASA budget" as if it were 20% or more of the federal pie. Very seldom (if ever) do you read an article about NASA without the writer commenting on "how expensive" the space program is. Why is that? Do articles about national parks make pointed observations about how expensive they are to keep and maintain? Same with many other federal programs. Something is going on here, statistically speaking, because I don't think there are any other federal programs that get 0.5% of the budget that receive anywhere near this much negative attention.
Mark S.
Can I ask whether the "first burn"s are from an initial circular LEO orbit, or just additional delta-V applied on the end of the existing ascent burns?
Therefore, would it be possible to re-run the numbers for max-mass-to-LLO-with-EDS-performing-both-TLI-and-LOI?
Also, I'd appreciate any thoughts re the harshness of the Van Allen belt at the altitudes encountered, and whether having a higher apogee pushes the craft through a worse environment.
Re the issues with rendezvous in an elliptical orbit - do you think these can be worked around? I believe the issue is basically that you have very limited window(s) for launch and long EDS loiter times?
Would it be feasible to start the mission to the current plan, ie loiter EDS in circular LEO, launch CaLV and manoeuvre into proximity. Then instead of simple dock and TLI, both EDS's perform almost-synchronous apogee-raising burns. I am presuming that the elliptical orbit would have a long enough period to permit a safe dock & EDS swap, allowing TLI burn to take place at the first perigee?
Has this pic ever been posted here?
1964-08-01, rollout of a S-IV stage.
The 6 RL-10's look good.
Wait, I thought NASA said such an upperstage defies the laws of physics? It seems we did just that in the 1960s.
Therefore, would it be possible to re-run the numbers for max-mass-to-LLO-with-EDS-performing-both-TLI-and-LOI?
...
J-246/J-130 with single TLI burn: mc = 15,563 kg, mp3 = 27,302 kg. EDS performs TLI, LOI and 20% of PC.
...
Dual J-246 launch with HEOR: mc = 23,428 kg, mp3 = 27,302 kg. First EDS perfoms HEOR1, TLI, LOI, PC and 17.8% of LLO. Increased payload mass as interstage not carried.
QuoteCan I ask whether the "first burn"s are from an initial circular LEO orbit, or just additional delta-V applied on the end of the existing ascent burns?
This is additional delta-V applied at the end of the existing ascent burns.
...QuoteWould it be feasible to start the mission to the current plan, ie loiter EDS in circular LEO, launch CaLV and manoeuvre into proximity. Then instead of simple dock and TLI, both EDS's perform almost-synchronous apogee-raising burns. I am presuming that the elliptical orbit would have a long enough period to permit a safe dock & EDS swap, allowing TLI burn to take place at the first perigee?
Yes, that sounds like a good way of doing this.
If lighting an RL-10 three times is considered a little risky, (which I doubt), you don't need all six engines for TLI. IIRC, four are enough, five add a little margin.
One is probably enough for LOI. So:
6 engines for LEO
5 engines for TLI
1 engine for LOI (plus 5 slightly less trusted spares)
Jupiter can tolerate one JUS engine out at any point during the ascent to LEO, including failure to start, so that's "5 engines for LEO".
EDS can tolerate any two engines out at any point during TLI, so that's "4 engines for TLI".
I agree there should be a lot more engine out capabilty during LOI, since gravity losses are much lower. However, less engines means a longer, weaker delta-V, which will put the stack in a different orbit than planned. I don't know how much of a problem that would be.
cheers, Martin
Well, here I am sitting in Orlando airport again, writing a brief message to y'all!Anytime, just say it if you need us to do anything.
It's a little bit of dejavu I suppose :)
I've got three flights ahead of me today, until I finally get together with the other Musketeers at LAX this afternoon, so I probably will get a couple more chances to check-in here again!
I would like to say an extremely big personal thank-you to everyone who assisted us with this trip. Your generosity has been overwhelming and leaves me very humble and grateful. For your contribution to this, Please consider yourselves honorary members of Team DIRECT!
After more than three years at this, we are finally getting the independent review we have been calling for. Friday represents the culmination of all our hard work. It has been one he'll of a ride and I'm so pleased to have been able to take this journey with all of you. Thank-you!
Well, here I am sitting in Orlando airport again, writing a brief message to y'all!
It's a little bit of dejavu I suppose :)
I've got three flights ahead of me today, until I finally get together with the other Musketeers at LAX this afternoon, so I probably will get a couple more chances to check-in here again!
I would like to say an extremely big personal thank-you to everyone who assisted us with this trip. Your generosity has been overwhelming and leaves me very humble and grateful. For your contribution to this, Please consider yourselves honorary members of Team DIRECT!
After more than three years at this, we are finally getting the independent review we have been calling for. Friday represents the culmination of all our hard work. It has been one he'll of a ride and I'm so pleased to have been able to take this journey with all of you. Thank-you!
I BELIEVE Ross is already in the air as I write this so he’ll see it later between flights. I will be heading off to the airport myself shortly to make my own way to LAX where I will meet up with the others later this evening in LA.
I also want to say how amazed I was at the generosity shown us. After 3 years of work, we had reached the point where we were about to achieve the single main goal of an independent, professional and technically competent review on a level playing field and we were looking at the very real prospect of not being able to get there because our personal funds were depleted. When the assistance began to come in I felt very, very humbled and overwhelmed by the response.
We are all very, very grateful for the help. Please know this; while it will be a limited number of people actually in the room, we are acutely aware that we are only there because of the generosity of folks like you.
Thank you all very, very much.
Good luck guys!
And remember to check the version number on your presentation.
;)
I BELIEVE Ross is already in the air as I write this so he’ll see it later between flights. I will be heading off to the airport myself shortly to make my own way to LAX where I will meet up with the others later this evening in LA.
I also want to say how amazed I was at the generosity shown us. After 3 years of work, we had reached the point where we were about to achieve the single main goal of an independent, professional and technically competent review on a level playing field and we were looking at the very real prospect of not being able to get there because our personal funds were depleted. When the assistance began to come in I felt very, very humbled and overwhelmed by the response.
We are all very, very grateful for the help. Please know this; while it will be a limited number of people actually in the room, we are acutely aware that we are only there because of the generosity of folks like you.
Thank you all very, very much.
But the people are largely uninformed. That's the fault of both themselves, and the media, which consideres the picadillos of a governor of North Carolina or the OD death of Michael Jackson to be more newsworthy then the advancments in knowledge and science from space exploration.
Actually, it was the Governor of SOUTH Carolina...
But you're 99% correct. If you would take all the extreme Right-wing propaganda out of your entire statement, it would be perfect.
The real promise of DIRECT, in my view, is that it offers an expandable flexibility that no other option on the table can match. With ONE launcher, we can add or subtract whatever pieces we need to make it do the mission required. And still have margin. If there is another launcher that could take us back to the moon and then on to Mars like DIRECT can, then I'd love to know what it is.
Well, here I am sitting in Orlando airport again, writing a brief message to y'all!
It's a little bit of dejavu I suppose :)
I've got three flights ahead of me today, until I finally get together with the other Musketeers at LAX this afternoon, so I probably will get a couple more chances to check-in here again!
I would like to say an extremely big personal thank-you to everyone who assisted us with this trip. Your generosity has been overwhelming and leaves me very humble and grateful. For your contribution to this, Please consider yourselves honorary members of Team DIRECT!
After more than three years at this, we are finally getting the independent review we have been calling for. Friday represents the culmination of all our hard work. It has been one he'll of a ride and I'm so pleased to have been able to take this journey with all of you. Thank-you!
Friday represents the culmination of all our hard work.May the best rocket win!
Good luck guys!
And remember to check the version number on your presentation.
;)
Good luck guys!
And remember to check the version number on your presentation.
;)
Not to dampen down the enthusiasm- I am 100% behind DIRECT and its team- but please do bear in mind the mistakes that were made at the first presentation to the panel. Give whatever information is needed to show DIRECT in the best light. Fingers crossed for you all!
To Ross, Chuck, et al:
I have been following the evolution of Direct for more than a year. I am so happy the Direct Team is finally getting the independent review they have been wanting.
I think you have a lot to be proud of and thankful for. The dedication of all those who devoted their own time and money to this effort is nothing less than amazing!
I am no rocket scientist myself, but I believe in the Direct proposal because it just MAKES SENSE. I hope the data bears this out.
You are all patriots in the truest sense of the word.
Godspeed and good luck.
Brian Hathaway
Also, Kudos to Chris Bergin and his team for offering and maintaining this site. For all of us space enthusiasts it is a blessing.
I hope Danny doesn't mind me adding this link & his news. Thought it should be shared here.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17760.msg432987#msg432987
Well, here I am sitting in Orlando airport again, writing a brief message to y'all!
It's a little bit of dejavu I suppose :)
I've got three flights ahead of me today, until I finally get together with the other Musketeers at LAX this afternoon, so I probably will get a couple more chances to check-in here again!
I would like to say an extremely big personal thank-you to everyone who assisted us with this trip. Your generosity has been overwhelming and leaves me very humble and grateful. For your contribution to this, Please consider yourselves honorary members of Team DIRECT!
After more than three years at this, we are finally getting the independent review we have been calling for. Friday represents the culmination of all our hard work. It has been one he'll of a ride and I'm so pleased to have been able to take this journey with all of you. Thank-you!
I BELIEVE Ross is already in the air as I write this so he’ll see it later between flights. I will be heading off to the airport myself shortly to make my own way to LAX where I will meet up with the others later this evening in LA.
I also want to say how amazed I was at the generosity shown us. After 3 years of work, we had reached the point where we were about to achieve the single main goal of an independent, professional and technically competent review on a level playing field and we were looking at the very real prospect of not being able to get there because our personal funds were depleted. When the assistance began to come in I felt very, very humbled and overwhelmed by the response.
We are all very, very grateful for the help. Please know this; while it will be a limited number of people actually in the room, we are acutely aware that we are only there because of the generosity of folks like you.
Thank you all very, very much.
I hope Danny doesn't mind me adding this link & his news. Thought it should be shared here.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17760.msg432987#msg432987
Don't go spreading this around as true. I am looking for confirmation from people at Marshal.
Danny Deger
I hope Danny doesn't mind me adding this link & his news. Thought it should be shared here.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17760.msg432987#msg432987
Don't go spreading this around as true. I am looking for confirmation from people at Marshal.
Danny Deger
I hope Danny doesn't mind me adding this link & his news. Thought it should be shared here.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17760.msg432987#msg432987
Don't go spreading this around as true. I am looking for confirmation from people at Marshal.
Danny Deger
It's probably a very good idea to hold off on any enthusiasm for this until we know more about the motivations behind it. One possible explanation is that they're throwing man-hours at the problem with the intent of torpedoing an in-line configuration like DIRECT. "Hey, guys, go do an analysis of an in-line SDHLV, but use these really bad engines and these really stupid constraints in order to show that it won't work." I'm *not* saying this is the case. I'm just saying that until we know more about *why* they are doing this study, we shouldn't assume they're fans of DIRECT.
The thing is, if they say an inline configuration won't work, then they just killed Ares V.
I hope Danny doesn't mind me adding this link & his news. Thought it should be shared here.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17760.msg432987#msg432987
Don't go spreading this around as true. I am looking for confirmation from people at Marshal.
Danny Deger
NASA's Ares partners say they're open to moon-rocket ideas http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-asecnasa-partners-bail-070909070909jul09,0,1857977.storyAnd in the last sentence of the article it sounds like even NASA is open to moon-rocket ideas! I remember when you got in trouble for even thinking about another rocket during your off-hours.
NASA's Ares partners say they're open to moon-rocket ideas http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-asecnasa-partners-bail-070909070909jul09,0,1857977.story Good Luck & Best Wishes to Ross, Chuck & Steve!
NASA's Ares partners say they're open to moon-rocket ideas http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-asecnasa-partners-bail-070909070909jul09,0,1857977.storyAnd in the last sentence of the article it sounds like even NASA is open to moon-rocket ideas! I remember when you got in trouble for even thinking about another rocket during your off-hours.
NASA's Ares partners say they're open to moon-rocket ideas http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-asecnasa-partners-bail-070909070909jul09,0,1857977.story Good Luck & Best Wishes to Ross, Chuck & Steve!
Somehow I missed a whole Direct page today, with both Chuck's and Ross' parting words on it as the head to LAX.
I have been priveledged to follow along at such an opportune time. The hardest part was going back and reading EVERY single post in every Direct thread (plus the other related ones). It sounds daunting but it was well worth it. It didn't take long however for me to realize that this just made sense and was the best rocket design out there for doing all the things we want to do, in a way we could one day afford it, and keep an industry and a nation's dream alive.
Good luck, and Godspeed the Direct team.
Onto Drapper's post & link. Thanks!
One thing very encouraging (if there was any doubt):
"Lockheed and Boeing may not be the only companies hedging their bets. According to a well-placed industry official, a top executive from ATK, which has a nearly $2 billion contract to design Ares I's solid rocket first stage, told an industry teleconference last month that ATK would not oppose a switch to another design that used ATK's solid rocket boosters."
It was later denied, stating Ares-I as safer, but we all know the details behind that. As the team (Ross) has said many times, there is no worry about ATK following along, the Jupiter gives them lots of business for decades to come.
The thing is, if they say an inline configuration won't work, then they just killed Ares V.
Would someone (someone not in California) please locate Ross's original post from 2006? Obviously, there wasn't a DIRECT forum thread back then. . . .maybe this reaction from 2005?
I've read it before, but I cannot seem to find it lately.
Thanks!
NASA's Ares partners say they're open to moon-rocket ideas http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-asecnasa-partners-bail-070909070909jul09,0,1857977.story Good Luck & Best Wishes to Ross, Chuck & Steve!
Somehow I missed a whole Direct page today, with both Chuck's and Ross' parting words on it as the head to LAX.
I have been priveledged to follow along at such an opportune time. The hardest part was going back and reading EVERY single post in every Direct thread (plus the other related ones). It sounds daunting but it was well worth it. It didn't take long however for me to realize that this just made sense and was the best rocket design out there for doing all the things we want to do, in a way we could one day afford it, and keep an industry and a nation's dream alive.
Good luck, and Godspeed the Direct team.
Onto Drapper's post & link. Thanks!
One thing very encouraging (if there was any doubt):
"Lockheed and Boeing may not be the only companies hedging their bets. According to a well-placed industry official, a top executive from ATK, which has a nearly $2 billion contract to design Ares I's solid rocket first stage, told an industry teleconference last month that ATK would not oppose a switch to another design that used ATK's solid rocket boosters."
It was later denied, stating Ares-I as safer, but we all know the details behind that. As the team (Ross) has said many times, there is no worry about ATK following along, the Jupiter gives them lots of business for decades to come.
It also gives them business for decades to come with the SRB they have worked with for the last two decades. As far as ATK is concerned it would be business as usual. Maybe a bit more ideal when compared to Ares I and Ares V where configurations, segments, and formulas are being changed.
Ahhh, that was a nice sunset here in Los Angeles, in the shadow of LAX.
We have work to do tonight, just to polish the details ahead of the meeting tomorrow. Keep all those fingers and toes crossed for us.
Ross.
[/quote)
There are Direct followers in LA.....Do you need them to help in any way ? Maybe the Direct team can meet up with the Direct team after the meeting?
Would someone (someone not in California) please locate Ross's original post from 2006? Obviously, there wasn't a DIRECT forum thread back then. . . .
I've read it before, but I cannot seem to find it lately.
Thanks!
Quoteedkyle99 - 18/7/2006 4:58 PM
One alternative ESAS option, for example, called for the development of only one, "mid-size" launch vehicle (90-100 tonnes to LEO). The study found that a lunar mission performed with two such launchers would cost less than the current "1.5 Launch" mission.
- Ed Kyle
That option has me curious.
Pure hypothetical: Two 4-seg SRB's plus three 500,000lb thrust engines (Shuttle) today is enough to launch 116mT to ISS.
Replace the three SSME's with two RS-68's and you'd get very similar performance, but you can do so in a simpler in-line arrangement, and spend less cash.
The Payload would require an OMS system to performa the final circularisation burn, but the ol' space tug idea would seem to suit that role nicely. The two Shuttle's OMS Pods mass a total of about 20mT, including the integral RCS systems, so my guess would be you could launch 100mT of useful payload on each flight.
NASA wouldn't need to pay for 5-segs (yet, although they'd be nice as an upgrade later), wouldn't need to plan extensive changes to the MLP's or Pad Structures and could retain much of the current infrastructure for both SRB's and ET processing.
Depending on it's expected LOC figures, it might be a realistic, less costly and quicker system to get operational.
Ross.
Posting this because its fresh.
For a couple of weeks we have been considering this. Unfortunately the conops for it simply aren't finished, so we're not ready to change the baseline to this yet, but if everything works as it appears to... Well, this is a preview :)
...
In addition to higher performance, other advantages include safer LV for Crew, lower-cost CLV, Altair lander is much more stable during landing, Altair is also easier to unload cargo from, Altair is also easier for crews to climb up to/down from.
Thanks, Ross and Gladiator (and Ed for the setup!). The 2009 Ross seems a bit more mellow than the 2006 Ross!I've read it before, but I cannot seem to find it lately.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3307.60Went back and looked at it myself earlier. That is where it all began.Quoteedkyle99 - 18/7/2006 4:58 PMThat option has me curious.
The study found that a lunar mission performed with two such launchers would cost less than the current "1.5 Launch" mission.
The thing is, if they say an inline configuration won't work, then they just killed Ares V.
Yeah, I've always wondered how DIRECT can defy the laws of physics when The Beast that Ares-V has grown into is considered a model of engineering excellence. What?
The thing is, if they say an inline configuration won't work, then they just killed Ares V.
Yeah, I've always wondered how DIRECT can defy the laws of physics when The Beast that Ares-V has grown into is considered a model of engineering excellence. What?
The devil is in the details.
NASA assumed Jupiter could not be built at the mass claimed, which meant less payload could be delivered to LEO.
cheers, Martin
Posting this because its fresh.
For a couple of weeks we have been considering this. Unfortunately the conops for it simply aren't finished, so we're not ready to change the baseline to this yet, but if everything works as it appears to... Well, this is a preview :)
...
In addition to higher performance, other advantages include safer LV for Crew, lower-cost CLV, Altair lander is much more stable during landing, Altair is also easier to unload cargo from, Altair is also easier for crews to climb up to/down from.
My analysis is that using a smaller Altair will cost you in payload performance. This is simply because a lot less propellant is carried by Altair in the J-130 launch which is wasting what is available. My calculations show for cargo only missions that the small Altair has a payload of 20.0 t compared to 22.1 t payload with the large Altair, a 9.5% decrease. I would expect a similar payload decrease with a crewed mission.
For the large Altair flight, the EDS performs 46.1% of LLO while the large Altair performs 53.9% of LLO and PDI. For the small Altair the EDS performs 100% of LLO. Initial mass in LEO is 59,780 kg for large Altair compared to 46,450 kg for small Altair.
Ross gave a value of 19.1 t for the small Altair payload, but I was not able to replicate that value since I had to estimate the propellant and dry mass for the small and large Altair. With more accurate information, I should be able to replicate Ross's values. Attached below is a zip file containing my mass breakdown and the program I wrote to calculate the values.
The thing is, if they say an inline configuration won't work, then they just killed Ares V.
Yeah, I've always wondered how DIRECT can defy the laws of physics when The Beast that Ares-V has grown into is considered a model of engineering excellence. What?
The devil is in the details.
NASA assumed Jupiter could not be built at the mass claimed, which meant less payload could be delivered to LEO.
cheers, Martin
And that there would be other problems, especially with the structural loads on the current ET which DIRECT wants to use. Ares V is supposed to use a completely new 10m core stage which will be designed and built to required specifications.
How much of a delta-V penalty would there be in achieving LEO, then later boosting Apogee, compared to a simple insertion straight into the elliptical orbit?
6 engines for LOI might be too much thrust. Would Orion and Altair be docked using LIDS at that time?
Altair 23,615 kg
Orion 20,185 kg
ASE 1,390 kg
Residual 1,723 kg
RCS 128 kg
EDS 11,238 kg
--------------------
Total 58,279 kg
Would it be advantageous to drop 3 or 4 engines (Atlas style) after or during TLI?
DIRECT don't allow a burn to be staged between vehicles in their calculations. Your "large Altair" analysis needs to be constrained with either EDS or Altair performing each burn.
Ross's spreadsheets also compute using CxP's 950 / 28.5 / 19.4 / 2030 m/s for LOI / PC / DOI / descent (replace 950 m/s with 889 m/s for a cargo flight).Thanks for that information. I was using 950 m/s for LOI for the cargo flight, as that was on the sheet that Ross gave. I presume the low PC and DOI values are done using the RCS?
I joined NSF about 6 months ago, and at that time counted myself as an EELV proponent. Since then, having followed many of the threads on both EELV and DIRECT, and given the current ecconomic realities, I have swung firmly into the DIRECT camp. The rich and varied discourse, both logical and passionate, available here has provided much food for thought, and is a shining example of what makes this the greatest country in the world
There's plenty of non-US members here you know!
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3307.60Quoteedkyle99 - 18/7/2006 4:58 PM
One alternative ESAS option, for example, called for the development of only one, "mid-size" launch vehicle (90-100 tonnes to LEO). The study found that a lunar mission performed with two such launchers would cost less than the current "1.5 Launch" mission.
- Ed Kyle
That option has me curious.
Pure hypothetical: Two 4-seg SRB's plus three 500,000lb thrust engines (Shuttle) today is enough to launch 116mT to ISS.
Replace the three SSME's with two RS-68's and you'd get very similar performance, but you can do so in a simpler in-line arrangement, and spend less cash.
The Payload would require an OMS system to performa the final circularisation burn, but the ol' space tug idea would seem to suit that role nicely. The two Shuttle's OMS Pods mass a total of about 20mT, including the integral RCS systems, so my guess would be you could launch 100mT of useful payload on each flight.
NASA wouldn't need to pay for 5-segs (yet, although they'd be nice as an upgrade later), wouldn't need to plan extensive changes to the MLP's or Pad Structures and could retain much of the current infrastructure for both SRB's and ET processing.
Depending on it's expected LOC figures, it might be a realistic, less costly and quicker system to get operational.
Ross.
Went back and looked at it myself earlier. That is where it all began.
Quotesimonbp - 19/9/2007 5:53 PM
Witness Ye The Birth of a Forum Legend!Quotekraisee - 18/7/2006 11:13 PM
Pure hypothetical: Two 4-seg SRB's plus three 500,000lb thrust engines (Shuttle) today is enough to launch 116mT to ISS. Replace the three SSME's with two RS-68's and you'd get very similar performance, but you can do so in a simpler in-line arrangement, and spend less cash.
...
Depending on it's expected LOC figures, it might be a realistic, less costly and quicker system to get operational.
-snip-
Simon ;)
Huh, 1 year 2 months from first inception to AIAA presentation.
And if rumors be true it could well be a legend that extends beyond the Forum and into the realms of reality.
Norm ;)
Does anyone know when the guys go into their session & how long they're likely to be in there?No, but I just realized the day is starting three hours earlier than they are used to.
Does anyone know when the guys go into their session & how long they're likely to be in there?No, but I just realized the day is starting three hours earlier than they are used to.
Does anyone know when the guys go into their session & how long they're likely to be in there?No, but I just realized the day is starting three hours earlier than they are used to.
Three hours later, actually. They should be well rested! For me, coming from Dallas, trips to the west coast are great, and trips to the east coast are a bear. At least when it comes to getting my body clock adjusted to local time.
Mark S.
I think I may have missed a post, who and where are they meeting today?http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT-Launcher-Release-070709.pdf
I think I may have missed a post, who and where are they meeting today?One post? I think you missed about 1000 posts. They are getting the independent review we've been waiting for. With Aerospace Corp, which is doing the review for the Augustine Committee. This is the big enchilada!
Ross, Chuck, and Stephan,Thank you but I have nothing to do with that.
I wish for great success for you tomorrow. We all stand behind you!
I think I may have missed a post, who and where are they meeting today?One post? I think you missed about 1000 posts. They are getting the independent review we've been waiting for. With Aerospace Corp, which is doing the review for the Augustine Committee. This is the big enchilada!
Dan
Posting this because its fresh.
For a couple of weeks we have been considering this. Unfortunately the conops for it simply aren't finished, so we're not ready to change the baseline to this yet, but if everything works as it appears to... Well, this is a preview :)
...
In addition to higher performance, other advantages include safer LV for Crew, lower-cost CLV, Altair lander is much more stable during landing, Altair is also easier to unload cargo from, Altair is also easier for crews to climb up to/down from.
My analysis is that using a smaller Altair will cost you in payload performance. This is simply because a lot less propellant is carried by Altair in the J-130 launch which is wasting what is available. My calculations show for cargo only missions that the small Altair has a payload of 20.0 t compared to 22.1 t payload with the large Altair, a 9.5% decrease. I would expect a similar payload decrease with a crewed mission.
For the large Altair flight, the EDS performs 46.1% of LLO while the large Altair performs 53.9% of LLO and PDI. For the small Altair the EDS performs 100% of LLO. Initial mass in LEO is 59,780 kg for large Altair compared to 46,450 kg for small Altair.
Ross gave a value of 19.1 t for the small Altair payload, but I was not able to replicate that value since I had to estimate the propellant and dry mass for the small and large Altair. With more accurate information, I should be able to replicate Ross's values. Attached below is a zip file containing my mass breakdown and the program I wrote to calculate the values.
How about, to recover the ET motors, the boattail separates from ET after ET sep... then a clamshell heatshield that is built into the boattail as a skirt, folds under the engines of the boattail to allow recovery?
Disclaimer - I am not an engineer.
How about, to recover the ET motors, the boattail separates from ET after ET sep... then a clamshell heatshield that is built into the boattail as a skirt, folds under the engines of the boattail to allow recovery?I'm not an engineer either, but the time for good ideas for a shuttle replacement was long before the shuttle was put to bed. Now as the structures are being dismantled around the orbiters, the main requirement is not that the idea is good, but that the idea is not bad.
Disclaimer - I am not an engineer.
. . . we did update the FAQ and many other parts of it to reflect v3.0.Could the direct faq provide a vague outline of a DIRECT v3.0 two-launch lunar mission? I realize that may have changed as late as this week, but it would be useful to have an idea of which vehicles and which payloads.
Could the direct faq provide a vague outline of a DIRECT v3.0 two-launch lunar mission? I realize that may have changed as late as this week, but it would be useful to have an idea of which vehicles and which payloads.
I presume that J-130 with CEV/Orion/Altair, and J-246 with EDS is/has been a baseline? I also presume that J-130 CEV/ORION and J-246 EDS/Altair is a no-go under any circumstances (except in the case of a minimal Altair with the EDS performing the lunar orbital insertion).
Thank you.
Modify: Except:
That's where my little brain detonates. I don't know what the 2 part of a non-EDS J-246 would be. As a someone who buys Popular Mechanics for the pictures, a J-246 without an EDS sounds like an inline V-8 car engine or a 2-wheel unicycle.Could the direct faq provide a vague outline of a DIRECT v3.0 two-launch lunar mission? I realize that may have changed as late as this week, but it would be useful to have an idea of which vehicles and which payloads.
We can look into that.QuoteI presume that J-130 with CEV/Orion/Altair, and J-246 with EDS is/has been a baseline? I also presume that J-130 CEV/ORION and J-246 EDS/Altair is a no-go under any circumstances (except in the case of a minimal Altair with the EDS performing the lunar orbital insertion).The baseline is still Jupiter-246 with Orion/Altair and a second Jupiter-246 with the EDS.
That's where my little brain detonates. I don't know what the 2 part of a non-EDS J-246 would be. As a someone who buys Popular Mechanics for the pictures, a J-246 without an EDS sounds like an inline V-8 car engine or a 2-wheel unicycle.
I hope that at least one other person is as confused. Thanks!
So, I know no one can go into specifics, but, generally speaking, how did the meeting with Aerospace Corp go today?
Thanks, David!I hope that at least one other person is as confused. Thanks!When launched with Orion and Altair as the payload on top of the EDS,
If I understand all this properly:
Ares was a direct evolution from the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board- as were Constellation, Orion, and the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE). All well and good. The problem is, as Ares has developed it has failed on two points:
1) The hardware is becoming less and less shuttle derived (as originally specified to shorten any gap between available systems and to save cost) and is turning into a new major R&D effort.
2) As the hardware evolves, it is becoming increasingly less capable at the same time. Ares-I is no longer even capable of lifting the originally specified Orion capsule with the full suite of safety enhancements (e.g. air bags for landing on ground and water, etc.)
The original plans for achieving the VSE are still valid. If we are abandoning key elements just to justify Ares-I's existence, then we are thinking backwards. Ares-I has outlived it's original design philosophy and as such should be abandoned.
I personally would prefer to see MY TAX DOLLARS spent on the Direct 3.0 approach. This is by far the most capable and fiscally responsible approach for achieving the (actually) well-thought-through VSE
We have completed the meeting with Aerospace Corp. It lasted nearly 4 hours. The meeting went very well, with the questioning being very thourough. These guys had clearly done their homework and knew what they were doing. I was also impressed by their level handed treatment of the data and their clearly neutral stance on the subject matter. We made our presentation and they asked their questions, which led to other places in the presentation, which led to other questions, etc, etc. We spent a lot of time comparing notes to clarify what our baseline actually is. We felt like we were participating in a professional problem solving meeting. Steve did a stirling job with the presentation, while he, Ross and I fielded questions as they arose. It actually felt like we were participating in a well run TIM.
We have been advocating for 3 1/2 years for an independant assessment on a level playing field. All 3 of us believe we actually got that today.
The 3 of us are going to go get a bite to eat, get a little rest and then begin to make our long way home. We are all extremely tired so you probably wont see us posting for a couple of days.
Cheers
We have been advocating for 3 1/2 years for an independant assessment on a level playing field. All 3 of us believe we actually got that today.
The 3 of us are going to go get a bite to eat, get a little rest and then begin to make our long way home. We are all extremely tired so you probably wont see us posting for a couple of days.
Cheers
We have been advocating for 3 1/2 years for an independant assessment on a level playing field. All 3 of us believe we actually got that today.
We spent a lot of time comparing notes to clarify what our baseline actually is.
1) The hardware is becoming less and less shuttle derived (as originally specified to shorten any gap between available systems and to save cost) and is turning into a new major R&D effort.I think there might be a 3) and 4).
2) As the hardware evolves, it is becoming increasingly less capable at the same time. Ares-I is no longer even capable of lifting the originally specified Orion capsule with the full suite of safety enhancements (e.g. air bags for landing on ground and water, etc.)
Well, it has been a long, and sometimes difficult journey. We set ourselves the goal of being heard by independent experts on a level playing field -- and that's what I believe we got today.
Whether we 'win' or not, we have accomplished what we originally set out to do. Irrelevant whether something similar to DIRECT is chosen the idea is now being considered fully and without bias -- and that's all we ever wanted.
. . . all three of my flights work as planed :)If you guys haven't separated yet, i hope you made time for at least one snapshot!
Sort of an off-the-wall question, but has anyone on the DIRECT team ran the numbers for a hypothetical Jupiter core stage fitted with aerospike engines? Obviously, for the purposes of gap reduction, this wouldn't work, and as a later upgrade would certainly require a significant redesign. But given the wide range of altitudes the Jupiter core stage goes through, it would be interesting to see what sort of performance benefits might be gained. Additionally, given the fact that many of these would be used over the years, a development effort might be worthwhile from a cost perspective too.
There's plenty of non-US members here you know!
We have been advocating for 3 1/2 years for an independant assessment on a level playing field. All 3 of us believe we actually got that today.
Oops. I think I just talked myself out of that idea. Unless an engine with at least three times the performance to length ratio can be developed the linear aerospike would stick so far out the sides of the rocket that it would look more like wings. That works for the VentureStar since it had such a wide back end. That doesn't work for a round structure like the Shuttle External Tank.
I think I may have missed a post, who and where are they meeting today?http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT-Launcher-Release-070709.pdf (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT-Launcher-Release-070709.pdf)
Man, I hate *.PDFs, and man I'm embarrassed to get the time zones backwards! -> Back to bed.
The forum can start breathing again...
Oops. I think I just talked myself out of that idea. Unless an engine with at least three times the performance to length ratio can be developed the linear aerospike would stick so far out the sides of the rocket that it would look more like wings. That works for the VentureStar since it had such a wide back end. That doesn't work for a round structure like the Shuttle External Tank.
We have been advocating for 3 1/2 years for an independant assessment on a level playing field. All 3 of us believe we actually got that today.
Well, it has been a long, and sometimes difficult journey. We set ourselves the goal of being heard by independent experts on a level playing field -- and that's what I believe we got today.
...just as long as all three of my flights work as planed :)hur hur hur :P
We have been advocating for 3 1/2 years for an independant assessment on a level playing field. All 3 of us believe we actually got that today.
The 3 of us are going to go get a bite to eat, get a little rest and then begin to make our long way home. We are all extremely tired so you probably wont see us posting for a couple of days.
No worries! I was just having some fun <emote>. But since you brought it up--If it were me: html to read, printer friendly pdf or something to print. (And I wonder if scalar vector graphics would work in lieu of Ross's 7,000 px x 7,000 px files.)Foto, I apologize for using PDF,I think I may have missed a post, who and where are they meeting today?http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT-Launcher-Release-070709.pdf (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT-Launcher-Release-070709.pdf)
Back to bed.
If I understand all this properly:
Ares was a direct evolution from the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board
- as were Constellation, Orion, and the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).
All well and good. The problem is, as Ares has developed it has failed on two points:
1) The hardware is becoming less and less shuttle derived (as originally specified to shorten any gap between available systems and to save cost) and is turning into a new major R&D effort.
...
I personally would prefer to see MY TAX DOLLARS spent on the Direct 3.0 approach. This is by far the most capable and fiscally responsible approach for achieving the (actually) well-thought-through VSE
I have a petition (http://www.petitiononline.com/mars2019/), but it is extraordinary difficult to get even 200 names on it! I would like to send it to the Augustine Commission, if it had a few thousand names at least...
First of all, you have done a terrific job with your DIRECT approach. Thank you!
The enthusiasm should not be over yet; we need real goals. A manned Mars mission in the 2030s is hardly a "real goal". We need that much sooner. 10 years should be enough. Let's put Man on Mars no later than 2019! That would be possible with international co-operation.
PS. I have a bad feeling that we are never going to Mars.
First of all, you have done a terrific job with your DIRECT approach. Thank you!
The enthusiasm should not be over yet; we need real goals. A manned Mars mission in the 2030s is hardly a "real goal". We need that much sooner. 10 years should be enough. Let's put Man on Mars no later than 2019! That would be possible with international co-operation.
The Moon was "one giant leap" back in 1969, and I think you underestimate how much that's still true today. It's a huge undertaking, and a superb stepping stone to a Mars mission. Mars is so far away, there must be a vast amount of experience & confidence in the systems before it is even attempted.
Apollo tested it's systems in LEO & LLO before landing. CxP will (and should) test it's systems on the Moon before anyone will even think of going to Mars.
I'm aware of the differences re dust types, wind, solar panels & ISRU, but there are a lot of systems which would be directly transferable, too.QuotePS. I have a bad feeling that we are never going to Mars.
I have the opposite view - that politicians will be much happier to sanction a Mars mission once we have gained confidence from Moon missions.
cheers, Martin
First of all, you have done a terrific job with your DIRECT approach. Thank you!
The enthusiasm should not be over yet; ~snip~ Let's put Man on Mars no later than 2019! That would be possible with international co-operation.
The Moon was "one giant leap" back in 1969, and I think you underestimate how much that's still true today.QuotePS. I have a bad feeling that we are never going to Mars.
I have the opposite view - that politicians will be much happier to sanction a Mars mission once we have gained confidence from Moon missions.
cheers, Martin
and I agree that rather than a NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, we need a BROADER BODY that lifts it beyond the National into the HUMAN (HUMAN AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION) where all can contribute, regardless of what country they were born in, towards a sustained and healthy exploration of this new frontier...
We have been advocating for 3 1/2 years for an independant assessment on a level playing field. All 3 of us believe we actually got that today.Well, it has been a long, and sometimes difficult journey. We set ourselves the goal of being heard by independent experts on a level playing field -- and that's what I believe we got today.
John Houbolt would be proud. I'd like to add my sincerest congratulations to this din of cheers. I deeply appreciate what all of you, front office and back, have done and sacrificed to get us what would seem impossibly far. I know we're not in the homestretch yet, but with optimism, I look forward to seeing exactly what Jupiter can and will do.
P.S. If you ever do another meetup in Canaveral, drinks are on me ;).
We have completed the meeting with Aerospace Corp. It lasted nearly 4 hours. The meeting went very well, with the questioning being very thourough. These guys had clearly done their homework and knew what they were doing. I was also impressed by their level handed treatment of the data and their clearly neutral stance on the subject matter. We made our presentation and they asked their questions, which led to other places in the presentation, which led to other questions, etc, etc. We spent a lot of time comparing notes to clarify what our baseline actually is. We felt like we were participating in a professional problem solving meeting. Steve did a stirling job with the presentation, while he, Ross and I fielded questions as they arose. It actually felt like we were participating in a well run TIM.
We have been advocating for 3 1/2 years for an independant assessment on a level playing field. All 3 of us believe we actually got that today.
The 3 of us are going to go get a bite to eat, get a little rest and then begin to make our long way home. We are all extremely tired so you probably wont see us posting for a couple of days.
Cheers
Oops. I think I just talked myself out of that idea. Unless an engine with at least three times the performance to length ratio can be developed the linear aerospike would stick so far out the sides of the rocket that it would look more like wings. That works for the VentureStar since it had such a wide back end. That doesn't work for a round structure like the Shuttle External Tank.
That makes sense - would it be possible to place them in two rows, 4 in each? Obviously that still would need some reshaping, and might run into more base heating issues.
Still, just hypothetically ignoring the impossibility of it all - as engineers sometimes like to do - what sort of performance gain would you get from putting 8 XRS-2200's on the back instead of 3 or 4 SSME's? Or even going for a lower acceleration and using 6 or 7, perhaps? I'm just curious, because if the performance gains would be hefty, it would be a very interesting long-term development project. And while a Jupiter isn't quite an SSTO, it's certainly close. And, again, the common engines across all of it might justify the development costs for a better, more powerful aerospike engine of some sort.
and I agree that rather than a NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, we need a BROADER BODY that lifts it beyond the National into the HUMAN (HUMAN AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION) where all can contribute, regardless of what country they were born in, towards a sustained and healthy exploration of this new frontier...
A international project like that will have even more layers of paperwork than NASA => even more $$$ spent ineffectively.
First of all, you have done a terrific job with your DIRECT approach. Thank you!
The enthusiasm should not be over yet; ~snip~ Let's put Man on Mars no later than 2019! That would be possible with international co-operation.
The Moon was "one giant leap" back in 1969, and I think you underestimate how much that's still true today.QuotePS. I have a bad feeling that we are never going to Mars.
I have the opposite view - that politicians will be much happier to sanction a Mars mission once we have gained confidence from Moon missions.
cheers, Martin
Hey Martin, Urvabara,
my two cents worth... while I agree with you Martin that there is a high fence to leap still to get to the moon, I don't think it is as high as in the 60's... then we knew nothing about the enviroment or the dangers... it was all first hand exploration... today we have greater technical and information expertise, which should make the hitting of the moon less like shooting a penny with a rifle at 1 mile, and more like hitting a beach ball at the same distance... Jupiter has the technical capability and the knowledge base to do it is now world wide...
The important thing to remember, we had the capability in the late 70's and the polticians ducked...
The Moon was "one giant leap" back in 1969, and I think you underestimate how much that's still true today. It's a huge undertaking, and a superb stepping stone to a Mars mission. Mars is so far away, there must be a vast amount of experience & confidence in the systems before it is even attempted.
Apollo tested it's systems in LEO & LLO before landing. CxP will (and should) test it's systems on the Moon before anyone will even think of going to Mars.
I'm aware of the differences re dust types, wind, solar panels & ISRU, but there are a lot of systems which would be directly transferable, too.QuotePS. I have a bad feeling that we are never going to Mars.
I have the opposite view - that politicians will be much happier to sanction a Mars mission once we have gained confidence from Moon missions.
cheers, Martin
You have to walk before you can run. If we cannot successfully and repeatably do a three day trip to moon, who in their right mind is going to sanction and pay for a 1 year trip to the mars?
But isn't the purpose of DIRECT to save money? Saving money + doing international co-operation = the stars are the limit.
If I understand all this properly:
Ares was a direct evolution from the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board
I believe CAIB resulted in a "must be as safe as possible" attitude.Quote- as were Constellation, Orion, and the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).
I don't think VSE came out of CAIB in any real way, it came from an initiative of George Bush snr, which may have been driven by Shuttle retirement and what-can-we-do with the replacement vehicle(s).
If I understand all this properly:
Ares was a direct evolution from the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board
I believe CAIB resulted in a "must be as safe as possible" attitude.Quote- as were Constellation, Orion, and the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).
I don't think VSE came out of CAIB in any real way, it came from an initiative of George Bush snr, which may have been driven by Shuttle retirement and what-can-we-do with the replacement vehicle(s).
No, he's right. CAIB led very directly to VSE.
Our number one favorite option is to build Ares I and V but right now there is no money to do that. If the money is not there, the money is not there
DIRECT is a viable rocket but the cost is high also. I think they have underestimate their costs
However, in the end, aren't they roughly the same vehicle once they enter service? Jupiter-130 and SD-HLV use 3 SSMEs and 2 4 seg boosters. Both require and upperstage to be useful for the Moon. Same vehicle, different configuration.
In summary, basically it is a close (and cheaper) equivalent of JS-130 for LEO applications only. If it is selected, that will be an early warning that all beyond-LEO objectives have been cancelled for the forseeable future.
In summary, basically it is a close (and cheaper) equivalent of JS-130 for LEO applications only. If it is selected, that will be an early warning that all beyond-LEO objectives have been cancelled for the forseeable future.
I don't really see that. What purpose would it serve? For HSF in LEO an EELV heavy is just about right. Look what the Soviets have managed with 21t at a time on Proton.
I suppose there's the 'Skylab' argument but whatever way you cut it you simply don't need that much delivered four to seven times per year to LEO. Not unless you're throwing away your space station every couple of months, or hosting a crew of dozens of people, and I doubt they could afford the Orions to support such a concept.
The more you look at it, the more it seems that we will get either Direct, and the moon, or EELV, and the ISS.
However, in the end, aren't they roughly the same vehicle once they enter service? Jupiter-130 and SD-HLV use 3 SSMEs and 2 4 seg boosters. Both require and upperstage to be useful for the Moon. Same vehicle, different configuration.
There are two significant differences. Firstly, sidemount isn't easily turned into a manned launcher because of the position of its payload mount (fitting a Orion/LAS on that thing won't be easy). Secondly, because of the nature of the sidemount cargo pod, there is a much lower payload diameter limit.
In summary, basically it is a close (and cheaper) equivalent of JS-130 for LEO applications only. If it is selected, that will be an early warning that all beyond-LEO objectives have been cancelled for the forseeable future.
Annular aerospikes
Shannon in a Flight Global article on the SD-HLV:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/07/shuttle-derived-heavy-lift-veh.html#more (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/07/shuttle-derived-heavy-lift-veh.html#more)QuoteOur number one favorite option is to build Ares I and V but right now there is no money to do that. If the money is not there, the money is not thereQuoteDIRECT is a viable rocket but the cost is high also. I think they have underestimate their costs
Here is my question...how can Direct cost more than Shuttle-C?
In summary, basically it is a close (and cheaper) equivalent of JS-130 for LEO applications only. If it is selected, that will be an early warning that all beyond-LEO objectives have been cancelled for the forseeable future.
I don't really see that. What purpose would it serve? For HSF in LEO an EELV heavy is just about right. Look what the Soviets have managed with 21t at a time on Proton.
If the money is not there, the money is not thereQuoteDIRECT is a viable rocket but the cost is high also. I think they have underestimate their costs
Here is my question...how can Direct cost more than Shuttle-C?
I think it is clear now that the SD-HLV came out of left field. I fully expected NASA management to go down with the Ares-Ship.Is it possible that when it became clear that theme of the Committee was going to be alternatives rather than a review of Ares, that someone higher up said, why don't you take three guys and whip up our alternative?
The main problem/worry/concern I have is that while DIRECT wins the technical battle in terms of cost/capability/time, the politics and media spin are definitely still very slanted in favor of the Ares camp. The sons of Griffin are still winning this fight..great architecture isn't enough by itself.
The main problem/worry/concern I have is that while DIRECT wins the technical battle in terms of cost/capability/time, the politics and media spin are definitely still very slanted in favor of the Ares camp. The sons of Griffin are still winning this fight..great architecture isn't enough by itself.
How can you say that? There is the Augustine Commission going on. The head of the Space Shuttle Program presented an alternate launch vehicle, different than Jupiter. EELV is being discussed. Bolden at his confirmation hearing did not call out Ares by name. Contractors who have contracts for Ares 1 are actually talking about different launch vehicles. NASA itself says it is open to the idea.
I do not see your logic or the anything to support this.
I KNOW I'm out of my depth here [snip] ....I've become very passionate about DIRECT. It absolutely is the right solution for the job(s).
snip
self-aggrandizement.
snip
nefarious.
And if you read the two accident reports, you will find out that NASA culture is worse than most.
I KNOW I'm out of my depth here [snip] ....I've become very passionate about DIRECT. It absolutely is the right solution for the job(s).
These statement do not seem to be based in engineering or good decision making. Statements like this appear to border on religion. Faith is a powerful force among humans.
I KNOW I'm out of my depth here [snip] ....I've become very passionate about DIRECT. It absolutely is the right solution for the job(s).
These statement do not seem to be based in engineering or good decision making. Statements like this appear to border on religion. Faith is a powerful force among humans.
snip
NASA design and acquisition is different from the operational culture, which has had the documented flaws. Different people in different organizations.
snip
snip
NASA design and acquisition is different from the operational culture, which has had the documented flaws. Different people in different organizations.
snip
I found the NASA culture problems documented in the two accident reports to be alive and well in the design and acquisition teams I worked in. For example, it is well know dissent was not welcome at the Ares I PDR and at the TO TIM at Ames. I worked DOD programs for many years, and dissent was welcome there.
Danny Deger
It is possible that even if DIRECT were green-lit, that similar good faith studies might snag on all the in-orbit assembly steps and that another 1.5 architecture would emerge: A J-130 as Ares I and a reborn monster son of Ares V with solved base heating.In fact, the studies were done very open minded, mostly because Griffin asked for them.Different people in different organizations.I worked DOD programs for many years, and dissent was welcome there.
Danny Deger
I actually consider the side-mount SDV to be just as "DIRECT" as the Direct V3 concept.
The idea is to develop as little as possible and both concepts do that. I would support either. If Ross & co were to propose Side-mount SDV as Direct V4 I suspect that many on the forum would scream out that this is the way to go!
If the safety of the launch abort can be assured I can see no reason not to support side-mount SDV. It should be developed in conjunction with DeltaIV crew launch for LEO. Indeed a two launch solution using a small lunar lander may work (1 EELV launching the orion plus 1 SM-SDV launching the small (~10 tonne)Lunar lander & EDS). Prepositioned cargo would be needed to make this option useful on the surface I think.
Launch abort during a roll manouver is a serious concern though for Side-mount SDV.
an old pastor friend of mine had a saying, which cut down on a lot of stupid suggestions for projects, "The man with the vision gets the job!"
how be it, that we make it mandatory that the person with the vision or chief proponents of a LV system, have to be the first to test fly it... perhaps we would get rid of a lot of this stupid manouvering and head butting... just a thought...
Now we need to prove side mount crew abort is not a good idea.
Danny Deger
Conspiracy---
That word, that notion really needs to fall out of fashion.
So a good solution could be NSC + manrated EELV as a first step and then evolve the system toward an inline configuration for lunar/mars missions.
Giovanni
But NSC + manrated EELV would require 3 NSC plus a EELV for the Moon mission (without a PD) wouldn't it?
It also means there is man-rating the EELV ( ~$6B) and no transfer of experience between the cargo and manned launchers.
I KNOW I'm out of my depth here [snip] ....I've become very passionate about DIRECT. It absolutely is the right solution for the job(s).
These statement do not seem to be based in engineering or good decision making. Statements like this appear to border on religion. Faith is a powerful force among humans.
And that is the problem. There are some on here who worship at the alter of Direct. They KNOW it's the best solution. They BELIEVE in it, etc, etc, etc because, in my opinion, they can interact with some of the folks. Yet in the same breath, they claim they are not engineers and are not familar with anything but the superficial layer. Very strange.
Jupiter has merit. It is being considered along with other various options. However, going off the deep end and calling out conspiracies - even though that word was never mentioned that is what you are saying - takes it a bit far and borders on being a crazed groupie.
I KNOW I'm out of my depth here [snip] ....I've become very passionate about DIRECT. It absolutely is the right solution for the job(s).
These statement do not seem to be based in engineering or good decision making. Statements like this appear to border on religion. Faith is a powerful force among humans.
And that is the problem. There are some on here who worship at the alter of Direct. They KNOW it's the best solution. They BELIEVE in it, etc, etc, etc because, in my opinion, they can interact with some of the folks. Yet in the same breath, they claim they are not engineers and are not familar with anything but the superficial layer. Very strange.
Jupiter has merit. It is being considered along with other various options. However, going off the deep end and calling out conspiracies - even though that word was never mentioned that is what you are saying - takes it a bit far and borders on being a crazed groupie.
I can tell you, truthfully, that because a knowledgeable, connected man with major and noteworthy space websites was attacked by some Direct 'groupies' or 'amazing peoples' (choose your appellation) in the recent past -- because he was skeptical about 'Direct' -- he responded by always advocating anything BUT Direct. The more militant have to watch they don't upset the smart and the powerful in this spaceblog community: sometimes devotion has a price.
I KNOW I'm out of my depth here [snip] ....I've become very passionate about DIRECT. It absolutely is the right solution for the job(s).
These statement do not seem to be based in engineering or good decision making. Statements like this appear to border on religion. Faith is a powerful force among humans.
And that is the problem. There are some on here who worship at the alter of Direct. They KNOW it's the best solution. They BELIEVE in it, etc, etc, etc because, in my opinion, they can interact with some of the folks. Yet in the same breath, they claim they are not engineers and are not familar with anything but the superficial layer. Very strange.
Jupiter has merit. It is being considered along with other various options. However, going off the deep end and calling out conspiracies - even though that word was never mentioned that is what you are saying - takes it a bit far and borders on being a crazed groupie.
I can tell you, truthfully, that because a knowledgeable, connected man with major and noteworthy space websites was attacked by some Direct 'groupies' or 'amazing peoples' (choose your appellation) in the recent past -- because he was skeptical about 'Direct' -- he responded by always advocating anything BUT Direct. The more militant have to watch they don't upset the smart and the powerful in this spaceblog community: sometimes devotion has a price.
snip
NASA design and acquisition is different from the operational culture, which has had the documented flaws. Different people in different organizations.
snip
I found the NASA culture problems documented in the two accident reports to be alive and well in the design and acquisition teams I worked in. For example, it is well know dissent was not welcome at the Ares I PDR and at the TO TIM at Ames. I worked DOD programs for many years, and dissent was welcome there.
Danny Deger
snip
NASA design and acquisition is different from the operational culture, which has had the documented flaws. Different people in different organizations.
snip
I found the NASA culture problems documented in the two accident reports to be alive and well in the design and acquisition teams I worked in. For example, it is well know dissent was not welcome at the Ares I PDR and at the TO TIM at Ames. I worked DOD programs for many years, and dissent was welcome there.
Danny Deger
In fact, I would say ... that DIRECT has been instrumental in initiating the biggest sea change in the history of the American space program.
In summary, basically it is a close (and cheaper) equivalent of JS-130 for LEO applications only. If it is selected, that will be an early warning that all beyond-LEO objectives have been cancelled for the forseeable future.
I don't really see that. What purpose would it serve? For HSF in LEO an EELV heavy is just about right. Look what the Soviets have managed with 21t at a time on Proton.
I have to disagree. Side-mount isn't about crew transport or even about launching new ISS modules, it is about ISS resupply. That ATV/MPLM 'wagon train' idea that NASA has put about indicates that they want sidemount to be the main logistical resupply vehicle for the ISS.
However, if beyond-LEO is cancelled, I can also see an "ISS-2" becoming a future project, for which such a machine would be useful.
Dual "Jupiter"-launch cargo mission to a lunar outpost is never, ever going to happen.
In fact, I would say ... that DIRECT has been instrumental in initiating the biggest sea change in the history of the American space program.
A big sea change in the USA space program, NOW, means dropping the lunar outpost.
It is my theory that "Direct" will not fly - yet "Direct" could be instrumental in killing the moon station. I really, really, really hope I'm wrong.
Dual "Jupiter"-launch cargo mission to a lunar outpost is never, ever going to happen.
We have completed the meeting with Aerospace Corp. It lasted nearly 4 hours. The meeting went very well, with the questioning being very thourough. These guys had clearly done their homework and knew what they were doing. I was also impressed by their level handed treatment of the data and their clearly neutral stance on the subject matter. We made our presentation and they asked their questions, which led to other places in the presentation, which led to other questions, etc, etc. We spent a lot of time comparing notes to clarify what our baseline actually is. We felt like we were participating in a professional problem solving meeting. Steve did a stirling job with the presentation, while he, Ross and I fielded questions as they arose. It actually felt like we were participating in a well run TIM.Excellent work. From the sound of things this is the best an alternative proposal could hope for. As always, facts and logic put forth without hidden agendas work better.
We have been advocating for 3 1/2 years for an independant assessment on a level playing field. All 3 of us believe we actually got that today.
The 3 of us are going to go get a bite to eat, get a little rest and then begin to make our long way home. We are all extremely tired so you probably wont see us posting for a couple of days.
Cheers
Heck, the lunar outpost was dead on arrival in 2004, Mars even more dead. There simply was no, is no and will no money for it. Independent of architecture.
Analyst
Check out Wayne Hale's blog about the time he postponed a Shuttle launch because of weather issues at an abort site.
"Over the next centuries, the European countries repeatedly decided to go forward, by fits and starts . . . into the world for trade, treasure, discovery, and glory. They immersed the west in new ideas, new technologies, and new innovations. . . . The Chinese course lead inexorably to stagnation, then dissolution, then decay, and finally to destruction."
Mr. Derbyshire's conclusion is that "The lawyerly mandarins of the Obama administration have no interest in science or in imaginative enterprises of any kind, . . . Perhaps our country . . . is in for a few centuries of introverted, creativity-free stagnation under bossy literati, until something unexpected comes banging on the door to wake us from our opium dreams."
So we both see the same consequences of terminating our exploration. All that we have done to date will be pointless, left without even suitable monuments for future generations to wonder at. Only those bold and persistent enough to build on the past explorations will reap the transforming benefits.
Stopping now would put the United States on the ash heap of history, just like those Chinese who burned their fleet six centuries ago.
Heck, the lunar outpost was dead on arrival in 2004, Mars even more dead. There simply was no, is no and will no money for it. Independent of architecture.
Analyst
Agree with the rest of your post, but you really think it was DOA?
When announced, O'Keefe had OMB agreement to ask for $100B+ through 2020 for exploration and that ISS extension would not count against that money.
Even _I_ believe you can go to the Moon for $100B. ;)
After that we had resurgence of science (us vs. them inside NASA), Katrina, other Shuttle bills, and a flattening of out-year budgets that decimated any shot.
lkm makes a great point.
It would be a lot easier to get more (or just keep current levels of) money if you are a shining example of a well managed program which is continually accomplishing its goals, than if you're a program constantly late, over-budget and which Congress has lost faith in its management capabilities.
Ross.
This is just an off hand observation from a long time lurker, but accepting that NASA's biggest problem is not technical but public support surely what's most required now is a change in narative.
lkm makes a great point.
It would be a lot easier to get more (or just keep current levels of) money if you are a shining example of a well managed program which is continually accomplishing its short-, medium- and long-term goals, than if you're a program constantly late, over-budget and which Congress has lost faith in its management capabilities. NASA is a great agency, but it has far too much bureaucracy, has become seriously inefficient and the last half decade it has been under really poor management.
Now that the top of that management is no longer there, changes are finally possible and need to be embraced. And anyone who's determined to get in the way of that change needs to get a classic NASA "lateral transfer to obscurity".
Ross.
Ross, Back in time for the launch this afternoon I see. Excellent job on the west coast.
Paul
Ross, Back in time for the launch this afternoon I see. Excellent job on the west coast.
Paul
Yeah, I'm going to go view it from SR-528, specifically from the North-East 'hill' on the causeway overpass. I'll be wearing my "Be DIRECT" T-shirt, so if anyone else is there, feel free to come up and say hi!
Ross.
Heck, the lunar outpost was dead on arrival in 2004, Mars even more dead. There simply was no, is no and will no money for it. Independent of architecture.
Analyst
Agree with the rest of your post, but you really think it was DOA?
I will be there for 128, but sadly not this one. Have you been able to view a launch 'up close' from KSC itself yet - or is your photo posted at all the guard gates with 'shoot on site' written along the top? ;-)
I will be there for 128, but sadly not this one. Have you been able to view a launch 'up close' from KSC itself yet - or is your photo posted at all the guard gates with 'shoot on site' written along the top? ;-)
Paul, I've been lucky enough to see launches from all sorts of interesting places. My first launch was STS-97 from Jetty Park, which lit-up the whole night sky really beautifully.
After that I caught 100, 108, 112 and 113, a few from the NASA Causeway using a Visiotr's Center ticket, and the rest from public sites. Missed STS-107 though.
I was established here in Florida by the time of Return To Flight, and I was invited by KSC Center Director Jim Kennedy to go to the VIP bleacher at the Sat-V center to watch Discovery on STS-114. I was seated just 4 rows behind Laura & Jeb Bush (see image below). *That* was a real experience, I tell ya! And I've been lucky enough to see two more launches from that same site since then.
I saw the penultimate Titan-IV site from the Saturn-V center too -- it happened during the Astronaut Scholarship Gala Dinner event there, right between the main course and desert -- and it was really great that USAF re-scheduled the launch to fit that timing for us all! LOL ;)
More recently, I've seen Shuttle launches from the Turning Basin, the Press Site and even in front of the LCC too, all courtesy of official invitations from KSC personnel.
I think the only place which I have not actually seen a launch from so far is the Titusville water-front. I will be sure to do that at least once before the program retires.
If there were any place I would like to see a launch from though, it would be from the Playalinda beach. It's not open to the public, or even staff during a launch, but man that would be an incredible site to see a launch from.
BTW: KSC "generally" is in favour of DIRECT. Of everyone I've met at KSC an awful lot of people there seem to know me already -- but so far, even the security folk, seem typically very happy to see/meet me! I never know how to react though, I'm a very shy person and I'm always sorta embarrassed to be recognized. It's a pretty weird experience!
Ross.
John Shannon just contacted me and asked for another copy of my book from lulu.com. Apparently Wayne Hale "borrowed" the copy I sent Mr. Shannon. I need to make sure I re-read the STS-37 short-landing story. Wayne was the flight director and could have done thing differently. But, Wayne was probably the best flight director ever and I need to make sure I say this in my book.
Anyway, John agreed getting the crew on the top of the ET is the way to go (yeah!!), but he told me he wasn't sure NASA can afford it. Unlike Griffin, Horowitz, and Ivins in 2005, Mr. Shannon knows that an archticture that can't be built within the budget will go down in flames. He is very dedicated to this concept.
This tells me team Direct needs to convince NASA they can afford Direct. Maybe a story on delta dollars to put the crew on top and the engines on the bottom. On the plus side, the abort system for on top is probably cheaper to design. You need to include changes to support systems to go inline. John mentioned to me this was a concern of his.
He is also very concerned about flight software development. While Direct will need more changes to flight software than side mount will, I think the team can sell Direct as being able to use "current" software. John's concern isn't so much things like changing gains in the autopilot because the engines have been moved, but more the timing issues of the software interface with the hardware. He has a vision of minimum change in this area. Team Direct can look at this as well. Maybe a software emulator of the GPCs running in a modern computer. I think the Orion computers and/or the computers designed for Shuttle Cockpit Avionics Upgrade can run an emulator to run GPC software.
I am going to bounce the idea off of Charlie Bolden for him to talk to team Direct. He may think it would be showing favor, but we can see.
Danny Deger
John Shannon just contacted me and asked for another copy of my book from lulu.com. Apparently Wayne Hale "borrowed" the copy I sent Mr. Shannon. I need to make sure I re-read the STS-37 short-landing story. Wayne was the flight director and could have done thing differently. But, Wayne was probably the best flight director ever and I need to make sure I say this in my book.
Anyway, John agreed getting the crew on the top of the ET is the way to go (yeah!!), but he told me he wasn't sure NASA can afford it. Unlike Griffin, Horowitz, and Ivins in 2005, Mr. Shannon knows that an archticture that can't be built within the budget will go down in flames. He is very dedicated to this concept.
This tells me team Direct needs to convince NASA they can afford Direct. Maybe a story on delta dollars to put the crew on top and the engines on the bottom. On the plus side, the abort system for on top is probably cheaper to design. You need to include changes to support systems to go inline. John mentioned to me this was a concern of his.
He is also very concerned about flight software development. While Direct will need more changes to flight software than side mount will, I think the team can sell Direct as being able to use "current" software. John's concern isn't so much things like changing gains in the autopilot because the engines have been moved, but more the timing issues of the software interface with the hardware. He has a vision of minimum change in this area. Team Direct can look at this as well. Maybe a software emulator of the GPCs running in a modern computer. I think the Orion computers and/or the computers designed for Shuttle Cockpit Avionics Upgrade can run an emulator to run GPC software.
I am going to bounce the idea off of Charlie Bolden for him to talk to team Direct. He may think it would be showing favor, but we can see.
Danny Deger
John Shannon just contacted me and asked for another copy of my book from lulu.com. Apparently Wayne Hale "borrowed" the copy I sent Mr. Shannon. I need to make sure I re-read the STS-37 short-landing story. Wayne was the flight director and could have done thing differently. But, Wayne was probably the best flight director ever and I need to make sure I say this in my book.
Anyway, John agreed getting the crew on the top of the ET is the way to go (yeah!!), but he told me he wasn't sure NASA can afford it. Unlike Griffin, Horowitz, and Ivins in 2005, Mr. Shannon knows that an archticture that can't be built within the budget will go down in flames. He is very dedicated to this concept.
This tells me team Direct needs to convince NASA they can afford Direct. Maybe a story on delta dollars to put the crew on top and the engines on the bottom. On the plus side, the abort system for on top is probably cheaper to design. You need to include changes to support systems to go inline. John mentioned to me this was a concern of his.
He is also very concerned about flight software development. While Direct will need more changes to flight software than side mount will, I think the team can sell Direct as being able to use "current" software. John's concern isn't so much things like changing gains in the autopilot because the engines have been moved, but more the timing issues of the software interface with the hardware. He has a vision of minimum change in this area. Team Direct can look at this as well. Maybe a software emulator of the GPCs running in a modern computer. I think the Orion computers and/or the computers designed for Shuttle Cockpit Avionics Upgrade can run an emulator to run GPC software.
I am going to bounce the idea off of Charlie Bolden for him to talk to team Direct. He may think it would be showing favor, but we can see.
Danny Deger
snip
Have you heard anything more on the rumor that Marshall was looking into some type of inline "Ares V-light" design?
Danny, that is an amazing post!
The only thing I find a little worrying is that the current shuttle configuration with the orbiter and crew next to the fuel tank came about as a result of budget constraints.
After 51L and 107 the cries came from every quater that the crew must never again be put next to the tank.
However, once again, we are now hearing that we cannot afford to put the crew on top.
We can afford it, it is a case of convincing those who hold the purse strings that it needs to be done for safety reasons, plain and simple.
Avionics are not near my confidence level for posting on, but I don't believe an emulator would work (as in pass the NASA criteria for safe crewed flight). Again I might be off base, but it seems scary. Also, if you are in the game 100%, taking a hit on the timeline for the avionics so that you only need to do it once, might be the better compromise.
...
Team Direct can look at this as well. Maybe a software emulator of the GPCs running in a modern computer. I think the Orion computers and/or the computers designed for Shuttle Cockpit Avionics Upgrade can run an emulator to run GPC software.
Danny Deger
snip
However, once again, we are now hearing that we cannot afford to put the crew on top.
We can afford it, it is a case of convincing those who hold the purse strings that it needs to be done for saftey reasons, plain and simple.
If DIRECT is funded correctly now, there is no reason that it could not operate for another 30 years - plenty of time to develope the next generation launcher on a more realistic and cost effective time line.
Paul
snip
However, once again, we are now hearing that we cannot afford to put the crew on top.
We can afford it, it is a case of convincing those who hold the purse strings that it needs to be done for saftey reasons, plain and simple.
If DIRECT is funded correctly now, there is no reason that it could not operate for another 30 years - plenty of time to develope the next generation launcher on a more realistic and cost effective time line.
Paul
I am in the Texas 22nd District. My congressman is Pete Olson and he is on board to increase funding to get the job done right. The two Texas Senators are on board also. Everyone out there, email your congressman to increase funding enough to get the crew on top. Congressman Olson told me our emails are tabulated and your Congressmen will listen. We spend $30B like it is nothing to keep a
Wall Street firm from folding!!!
Go to www.hsf.nasa.gov and email them a letter. They are also listening to us.
Danny Deger
Ross Tierney has stated several times that even if the $3 billion+ in cuts that President Obama is considering for Exploration Systems are approved, then the Direct 3 Launch System can still easily accomplish its mission. Who said that Direct cannot operate in the existing budget or even less?
snip
I will be sending the committee an email this week. Not as a supporter of one architecture vs another, but as someone concerned about the prospect of launching crews in a side launch configuration.
Compromises were made during Shuttle development due to budget. I do not want us making the same mistakes once again.
Ross Tierney has stated several times that even if the $3 billion+ in cuts that President Obama is considering for Exploration Systems are approved, then the Direct 3 Launch System can still easily accomplish its mission. Who said that Direct cannot operate in the existing budget or even less?
I think some people might be skeptical on cost. Griffin told congress in 2005, Ares I and V wouldn't cost that much to develop. I am certain he knew it was going to cost more.
We can all agree Direct will probably cost more to develop than side mount. I haven't seen the Direct money analysis, so I can't comment directly. But, I can tell you I think 3 years is too optimistic on schedule.
I am certain if the same team that is "attempting" to develop Ares takes over Direct, the entire Federal Budget will consumed before Direct flies ::)
Danny Deger
He is also very concerned about flight software development. While Direct will need more changes to flight software than side mount will, I think the team can sell Direct as being able to use "current" software. John's concern isn't so much things like changing gains in the autopilot because the engines have been moved, but more the timing issues of the software interface with the hardware. He has a vision of minimum change in this area. Team Direct can look at this as well. Maybe a software emulator of the GPCs running in a modern computer. I think the Orion computers and/or the computers designed for Shuttle Cockpit Avionics Upgrade can run an emulator to run GPC software.
I think some people might be skeptical on cost. Griffin told congress in 2005, Ares I and V wouldn't cost that much to develop. I am certain he knew it was going to cost more.
Ross Tierney has stated several times that even if the $3 billion+ in cuts that President Obama is considering for Exploration Systems are approved, then the Direct 3 Launch System can still easily accomplish its mission.
What? Are they CUTTING the NASA budget?
They should (at least) DOUBLE the current NASA budget.
Anyway, John agreed getting the crew on the top of the ET is the way to go (yeah!!), but he told me he wasn't sure NASA can afford it.
Only firm story is they are looking a smaller ARES V tank diameter to find the "optimum" diameter.
Wasn't there once a big food fight on this forum about changing the DIRECT PLF to a bi-conic or tri-conic design? The FEA types said it would take months to model this unproven design. The aero-elasticity types said something similar. (At least that was the way that I remembered it.)Who said that Direct cannot operate in the existing budget or even less?We can all agree Direct will probably cost more to develop than side mount.
What? Are they CUTTING the NASA budget?
They should (at least) DOUBLE the current NASA budget.
I think some people might be skeptical on cost. Griffin told congress in 2005, Ares I and V wouldn't cost that much to develop. I am certain he knew it was going to cost more.
I can categorically say you are wrong in your certainty.
Ross, Can you help us out here concerning Direct costs? Please supply some detailed data which verifies your cost evaluations for Direct. By the way, how did the Aerospace Corporation respond when you discussed your Direct Launcher cost evaluations?
Maybe a software emulator of the GPCs running in a modern computer. I think the Orion computers and/or the computers designed for Shuttle Cockpit Avionics Upgrade can run an emulator to run GPC software.
The upgrade cost to turn the Block-I NSC into the larger, heavier, Block-II variant has forgotten to account for the fact that NSC-II plans to hang 213 metric tons on the side of the ET instead of the SHuttle's current design limit of 125mT. That's a 70% increase in mass loading on the side of the ET.
Ross,
can you break that 213mT figure out a bit?
There was some surprise expressed the last time you mentioned that figure, but I think you were "heads down" preparing for Aerospace at the time.
cheers, Martin
Have any of you guys gotten to talk to the current top astronauts (Brent Jett, Steve Lindsey, etc.) on the benefit of riding on top of the ET. They might be a strong advocate for riding on top of the stack.
Can you get John Shannon on board on the delta dollars to build Direct vs. side mount?
The upgrade cost to turn the Block-I NSC into the larger, heavier, Block-II variant has forgotten to account for the fact that NSC-II plans to hang 213 metric tons on the side of the ET instead of the Shuttle's current design limit of 125mT. That's a 70% increase in mass loading on the side of the ET. Anyone who thinks the ET doesn't need to be redesigned at that point is deluding themselves.
QuoteCan you get John Shannon on board on the delta dollars to build Direct vs. side mount?
I tried to have dinner with him last night, but he needed to waive off. We're currently trying to re-schedule.
snip
We've been told by a couple of current astronauts that to speak with us carries the penalty of flight line repercussions, so very few are willing to take that chance. But a few still have. Those few have no doubts that riding above the booster, especially riding 45 ft ahead of it, is a major benefit.
snip
I was merely relating a brief example to show how some of us should be more polite and watch what we say. Most of us in the 'SpaceBlogosphere' should be on the same side, doing our part to build a better future for space exploration, NOT indulging in pointless turf & ideas wars.
Whoever talks to John Shannon or Charles Bolden or Leroy Chiao or Norm Augustine or anyone else in position to change history, make sure they understand the majority of our Ares-1 development costs have been spent on understanding our induced environments:
aerodynamics
aerothermal
liftoff acoustics
ascent acoustics
vibroacoustics
thrust oscillation
pogo
plume induced flows
cryogenic environments
venting
debris
etc
etc
etc
No matter what the vehicle looks like, combination of new OML with new trajectory means we will have to do it all over again folks. Just ask for how the money has been spent, breakdown by discipline. Software costs are a drop in the bucket in comparison.
While I wouldn't say software is a "drop in the bucket", I strongly agree that the cost of bringing the alternatives to the level of maturity that Ares I currently has will be much, much more (in time and money) than their proponents think.
2012 indeed!
I wonder whether it would be possible to use this documentation to build a GPC in modern silicon using Field programmable gate arrays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-programmable_gate_array)?
cheers, Martin
Whoever talks to John Shannon or Charles Bolden or Leroy Chiao or Norm Augustine or anyone else in position to change history, make sure they understand the majority of our Ares-1 development costs have been spent on understanding our induced environments:
aerodynamics
aerothermal
liftoff acoustics
ascent acoustics
vibroacoustics
thrust oscillation
pogo
plume induced flows
cryogenic environments
venting
debris
etc
etc
etc
No matter what the vehicle looks like, combination of new OML with new trajectory means we will have to do it all over again folks. Just ask for how the money has been spent, breakdown by discipline. Software costs are a drop in the bucket in comparison.
Oh, and can someone convince Jim that they can just reuse the shuttle software on this cheaper shuttle-derived solution?
Ares I had a screwball configuration (largest solid rocket to fly) and extremely harsh induced enviroments (max-q is what, 1100 psf?) that make understanding the thing both difficult and extremely important. A more sane configuration would be easier on both counts.One would hope. ::)
I have worked in both environments analysis and software development so I understand the level of effort it takes in both worlds. In my experience it is usually easier (read cheaper) to simplty recode than to use what was used before. The technology is just advancing too quickly. Take the functionality you want and recode it in a more modern language or environment.
Anyone who claims they can reuse 25 year old software, especially in these highly specific, mission specific flight systems, is trying to pull a fast one.
Anyone who claims they can reuse 25 year old software, especially in these highly specific, mission specific flight systems, is trying to pull a fast one.
On Mr. Shannon, buy him a half dozen martinis then get him to sign a document that states he supports inline. That is how my ex got me to propose to her ::)
Are you trying to get him fired, Ross? <emoticon>They might be a strong advocate for riding on top of the stack.QuoteCan you get John Shannon on board on the delta dollars to build Direct vs. side mount?I tried to have dinner with him last night, but he needed to waive off.
Expert Predicts 7,000 KSC Jobs Will Be Lost When Shuttle Retires. http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/07/live-at-ksc-expert-predicts-7000-jobs.shtml
Altitude where you go transonic and the max Q are significant drivers. But too many badly designed protuberances, other poor design choices can really drive the level of analysis effort up. When the design space is so tight you can't change one thing without directly and adveresly affecting three other critical metrics, your margins are too low. An integrated system will naturally have dependencies, but you also need some space, some forgiveness, some flexibility to work the trades that invariably come up. This has been a major problem with Ares-1 from the beginning.
No matter which option is chosen, flight software is going to have to be rewritten. Direct, EELV, SD-HLV, Ares, are all going to have to require flight software rewrites. Now some might be a bit easier than others, however, in the end it is going to be a large endeavor. The only way to avoid this is to just keep flying the Shuttle.
Just curious.... what language is used for FSW?
Just curious.... what language is used for FSW?
Just curious.... what language is used for FSW?
Just curious.... what language is used for FSW?
for the Shuttle
Given when it was first written, it is some sort of high level assembly ...
no friendly GUI to build that! The software is too big to fit into memory all at once, so different operational modes are loaded as "overlays". Most of today's software designers would not even recognize it as any language at all.
For those people that think new software can be written quickly, I found the attached diagram that shows that new operational increments (OIs) take about 28 months to write and test. That is, just to put in modifications takes over 2 years ... and some people believe they can have a flight test of a fully new vehicle GNC etc. by that time ...
The 4 or 5 diagrams on the pages following this one show just how complex the software change process is ... and why new software that is HR will be far more complex than people imagine.
http://search.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2222&page=42
The software needs to be fully dual redundant for flight critical functions (doesn't exist on EELV), this software is written and tested separately and runs on separate processors. It can't have any interactions with the primary flight software in order to be truly redundant, but the decision to fail-over is obviously one of the critical points.
The software needs to be fully dual redundant for flight critical functions (doesn't exist on EELV), this software is written and tested separately and runs on separate processors. It can't have any interactions with the primary flight software in order to be truly redundant, but the decision to fail-over is obviously one of the critical points.
Which Ares doesn't do either and NPR 8705.2B doesn't require it. Same goes for 777 and 787. Boeing found it was not worth it.
Modern ELV's have not had a failure due to bad software, only bad constants which would apply to BFW too.
I'll state again that I am not a programmer, although I have done some in the past. But I am an engineer and from what I have seen on projects, and in consumer products is that software design and programming has room for significant improvement.LOC is a poor measurement, especially if you are counting on the assembly level. Two different processors can have two wildly different LOC, and the "bigger" can often times be faster.
One area of improvement would be knowing just how much to include. More memory, more processor power doesn't have to mean expanding the size or capability of the software. If the shuttle with all of it's complexity (wings etc) is 400,000 LOC why is a capsule 1,100,000?
Maybe there are good reasons, but it seems like a software party to me.
On another thought I can't wait to have a crew vehicle that doesn't have as many weather constraints as shuttle. Getting STS off the ground is so hard I can't believe congress has let it fly this long.
personal pet peeve---SLOC is a meaningless metric to characterize SW capability or complexity. It is still used in industry to estimate developer labor costs, which is also meaningless. Just take any Powerpoint presentation or Word document and 'save as HTML' (one mouse click) and count the lines of code you can generate in 10 seconds.
Write a contract with SLOC in it and the number of lines of code becomes an equal qualifier with performance. Code requirements should be written for functionality and ease of maintenance. All the SLOC metric does is encourage writing of bloated, impossible-to-maintain code, inflated development costs and growing maintenance costs down the road.
In most cases in my experience managers and contract writers have no idea what a reasonable ratio of SLOC to code functionality complexity is, so they don't even know what to specify. Look up how many lines of code are in Windows OS. This is what sits on the typical PC, and it does not count any of the applications.
Sorry about the rant...
I'm a programmer, but not in the aerospace industry. I was kind of surprised to see C++ listed for Orion software development. Is C++ becoming standardized for avionics programming now? I can't think of a single language that gives you more ways to shoot yourself in the foot (or head), except maybe C and assembly.
Mark S.
I'm a programmer, but not in the aerospace industry. I was kind of surprised to see C++ listed for Orion software development. Is C++ becoming standardized for avionics programming now? I can't think of a single language that gives you more ways to shoot yourself in the foot (or head), except maybe C and assembly.
Mark S.
I'd love to see the source code for this kind of software. Programming languages are evolving into style more than substance, nowadays, though C++ is a step before that evolutionary point. The only reason the object models in the different .Net languages are different is because of where the original languages came from. Clients demand C#.Net because of the mistique of C, rather than its inherent superiority over any other .Net developer environment. Anyone remember LISP?
I actually program LISP, kind of necessary for OpenFirmware. And C# I find hobbled by .NET, personally. Can do more with it in Mono than I can in .NET, and it runs on more systems to boot.I'm a programmer, but not in the aerospace industry. I was kind of surprised to see C++ listed for Orion software development. Is C++ becoming standardized for avionics programming now? I can't think of a single language that gives you more ways to shoot yourself in the foot (or head), except maybe C and assembly.
Mark S.
I'd love to see the source code for this kind of software. Programming languages are evolving into style more than substance, nowadays, though C++ is a step before that evolutionary point. The only reason the object models in the different .Net languages are different is because of where the original languages came from. Clients demand C#.Net because of the mistique of C, rather than its inherent superiority over any other .Net developer environment. Anyone remember LISP?
. . . long-pole . . .Hmmm, Ares I is somewhat shaped like a long pole. I would hate for that to be used unfairly in a graphic or chart.
Hmmm, Ares I is somewhat shaped like a long pole. I would hate for that to be used unfairly in a graphic or chart.Then we would need to point out that long poles tend to break in the middle. Then the job doesn't get done. :)
If I'm reading the baseball cards correctly, the ASE for J246-CLV (1390kg) is almost three times the mass of the EDS version (500kg). What's up with that?
For a lunar mission, if one J-246 were launched with Orion and another with Altair, could either JUS serve as the EDS?
Modify: I guess a better question to ask: Is the amount that a J-246 can launch and still have enough JUS fuel left over to take everything to lunar orbit somewhere between 22 mT and 46 mT?
In that case, you are sending 2 EDS through TLI with the same propellant, so your performance is that much less.For a lunar mission, if one J-246 were launched with Orion and another with Altair, could either JUS serve as the EDS?
Modify: I guess a better question to ask: Is the amount that a J-246 can launch and still have enough JUS fuel left over to take everything to lunar orbit somewhere between 22 mT and 46 mT?
What I meant was, send each to earth orbit, and attach, say, Orion to the other JUS/Altair, throw Orion's JUS away, and send the remaining JUS/Altair/Orion stack to lunar orbit.
If I'm reading the baseball cards correctly, the ASE for J246-CLV (1390kg) is almost three times the mass of the EDS version (500kg). What's up with that?
If Altair is lifted by the final stage in the same way as Ares-V then ASE now = 890kg (latest figure is actually 842kg inc. managers reserves). If Altair needs to transfer from one stage to another, it will carry its cradle with it, but the cradle will require 462kg (we assume 500kg) of additional 'latches' on both its launch vehicle and also its target EDS too in order to connect/disconnect.
personal pet peeve---SLOC is a meaningless metric to characterize SW capability or complexity. It is still used in industry to estimate developer labor costs, which is also meaningless. Just take any Powerpoint presentation or Word document and 'save as HTML' (one mouse click) and count the lines of code you can generate in 10 seconds.
Write a contract with SLOC in it and the number of lines of code becomes an equal qualifier with performance. Code requirements should be written for functionality and ease of maintenance. All the SLOC metric does is encourage writing of bloated, impossible-to-maintain code, inflated development costs and growing maintenance costs down the road.
In most cases in my experience managers and contract writers have no idea what a reasonable ratio of SLOC to code functionality complexity is, so they don't even know what to specify. Look up how many lines of code are in Windows OS. This is what sits on the typical PC, and it does not count any of the applications.
Sorry about the rant...
I'm not sure what would be a good replacement for SLOC - standard possible operations?
If I'm reading the baseball cards correctly, the ASE for J246-CLV (1390kg) is almost three times the mass of the EDS version (500kg). What's up with that?
...
Team Direct can look at this as well. Maybe a software emulator of the GPCs running in a modern computer. I think the Orion computers and/or the computers designed for Shuttle Cockpit Avionics Upgrade can run an emulator to run GPC software.
Danny Deger
all very cool. I asked this question once before, but never saw a reply. would still appreciate being 'educated'. How practical is it to get software help from outside? I'm sure we have some talented SW designers around, some maybe even out of a job, that would be willing to donate some off-time. I dont have any illusions about writing the final product, but I'm sure there are tons of tools, simulators, prototypes, and support software that might fall under the realm of possibilities. or is this completely and obviously out of the question?
Great, to DIRECT's propellant depot, lightweight upper stage, and ET repurposing; add: extreme/pair programming.If these people were allowed to run full-speed, even with the process burdens of a CMMI Level-5 software organization, I have confidence they could get the job done in the time required. But maybe I'm biased... They're my friends. :)I think the Orion computers and/or the computers designed for Shuttle Cockpit Avionics Upgrade can run an emulator to run GPC software.How practical is it to get software help from outside?
As a member of the Flight Software team for the ISS, I'm of the opinion that the right people can get the job done but market incentives are directly opposed to letting that team do it. The contracts to build Ares/Direct/Whatever are cost-plus, so the motivation of the contractors is to put as many engineers as they can on the project. We could have built the software for the ISS with half of the engineers we had, if they were the right half, and it would have been simpler and faster. However, we were saddled with a lot of barnacles who contributed very little and were hindered by a management focus on billable hours vs. efficient operations. I work with some of the most amazing engineers I've ever had the pleasure to work with, and most of them are bored to tears, unable to operate at their full potential. We end up losing so many of the young, hot software engineers to Amazon and tech start-ups because they're not allowed to work at their potential in our team. If these people were allowed to run full-speed, even with the process burdens of a CMMI Level-5 software organization, I have confidence they could get the job done in the time required. But maybe I'm biased... They're my friends. :)
As an aside on some of the earlier discussions, C++ isn't necessarily the problem. And yes, Lockheed used C++ for JSF avionics and is borrowing heavily from that experience. Of course, the JSF software has plenty of problems too, so nobody's quite sure *why* they're using it as a starting point, but whatever. The coding standards include things like no dynamic memory allocation, no diamond inheritance, and lots of other things. Some things aren't prohibited but need a waiver to use - I think recursion falls under this area, but I don't remember.
Perhaps we need a seperate thread for software design discussions? :)
Someone is paying attention. Thanks Martin! :)
I have to ask Dr. Pietrobon if he thinks it's worth saving a JUS at the price of 2 tonnes on the lunar surface. (I think that's the trade?)
John Shannon-"They(Direct) have a viable rocket, but I think they have underestimated their costs". (...)It's interesting to see that Direct has changed from "magic physic / powerpoint engineering / whatever" to viable. And it's said by an important NASA person.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/07/13/329456/return-to-the-moon.html
Question: How viable is the 4-seg Ares I light that I have heard about? Would a down-sized Orion still be useful for lunar missions? If so, perhaps a 2.5 launch achitecture could be made to work (1 Jupiter 130 w/ LSAM, 1 Jupiter 236 EDS, 1 Ares I light w/ Orion)?
Once Mr. Shannon realizes that Direct 3 is only slightly more expensive(Ross says about 5%) or slightly less expensive(Ross says about 5%) than the SDHLV(NSC),he may decide to make a public statement supporting the Direct Launcher to the Augustine Committee.
Once Mr. Shannon realizes that Direct 3 is only slightly more expensive(Ross says about 5%) or slightly less expensive(Ross says about 5%) than the SDHLV(NSC),he may decide to make a public statement supporting the Direct Launcher to the Augustine Committee.
Interesting way to test the "Blood in the water" claim.........
I know what you mean about billable hours vs efficient operations. I've worked contract jobs before, and they were singularly the most boring ones I've ever had. I spent too much time in hurry up and wait. Altho on my last one I did get time to watch the 3rd season of Star Blazers while I waited......
Team Direct can look at this as well. Maybe a software emulator of the GPCs running in a modern computer. I think the Orion computers and/or the computers designed for Shuttle Cockpit Avionics Upgrade can run an emulator to run GPC software.
Danny Deger
all very cool. I asked this question once before, but never saw a reply. would still appreciate being 'educated'. How practical is it to get software help from outside? I'm sure we have some talented SW designers around, some maybe even out of a job, that would be willing to donate some off-time. I dont have any illusions about writing the final product, but I'm sure there are tons of tools, simulators, prototypes, and support software that might fall under the realm of possibilities. or is this completely and obviously out of the question?
As a member of the Flight Software team for the ISS, I'm of the opinion that the right people can get the job done but market incentives are directly opposed to letting that team do it. The contracts to build Ares/Direct/Whatever are cost-plus, so the motivation of the contractors is to put as many engineers as they can on the project. We could have built the software for the ISS with half of the engineers we had, if they were the right half, and it would have been simpler and faster. However, we were saddled with a lot of barnacles who contributed very little and were hindered by a management focus on billable hours vs. efficient operations. I work with some of the most amazing engineers I've ever had the pleasure to work with, and most of them are bored to tears, unable to operate at their full potential. We end up losing so many of the young, hot software engineers to Amazon and tech start-ups because they're not allowed to work at their potential in our team. If these people were allowed to run full-speed, even with the process burdens of a CMMI Level-5 software organization, I have confidence they could get the job done in the time required. But maybe I'm biased... They're my friends. :)
Question: How viable is the 4-seg Ares I light that I have heard about? Would a down-sized Orion still be useful for lunar missions? If so, perhaps a 2.5 launch achitecture could be made to work (1 Jupiter 130 w/ LSAM, 1 Jupiter 236 EDS, 1 Ares I light w/ Orion)?
I would think that if Ares I Lite was built the decision NOT to build Jupiter would also have been made. The development cost for the Lite would preclude spending money on anything else in this current budget environment.
And if you have J-130 you don't need any flavour of Ares......
All IMHO ;D
So the question is can a 4-seg Ares I still lift the Orion that you need for lunar missions?
The point is that if you go back to 4-seg, what do you use to power your upperstage?
Any thoughts on this? Direct 2.0 Heavy? Ares V Light? How will this work with RS-68 if Base heating really is as big of an issue as they're saying?
Would Jupiter and NSC both be subject to the extensive launch delays which plague many shuttle missions?
Would Jupiter and NSC both be subject to the extensive launch delays which plague many shuttle missions?
No, they don't have to worry about weather at RTLS, AOA and TAL sites.
Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin recently wrote Augustine, the review panel's chairman, saying that the idea was feasible but that he did not support it.
"The dual-Ares 5 launch does offer considerably more capability to the Moon than the baseline Ares 1/Ares 5 scheme," he wrote to Augustine in an e-mail last week that was copied to the Orlando Sentinel. "However, it also comes at much greater marginal cost, and therefore I do not, and we at NASA in general did not, recommend it for the baseline approach."
QuoteFormer NASA Administrator Mike Griffin recently wrote Augustine, the review panel's chairman, saying that the idea was feasible but that he did not support it.
"The dual-Ares 5 launch does offer considerably more capability to the Moon than the baseline Ares 1/Ares 5 scheme," he wrote to Augustine in an e-mail last week that was copied to the Orlando Sentinel. "However, it also comes at much greater marginal cost, and therefore I do not, and we at NASA in general did not, recommend it for the baseline approach."
Quote"...therefore I do not, and we at NASA in general did not, recommend it for the baseline approach."
"We at NASA"? Who's the "we"?
Last time I checked.. Mr. Griffin.. you do NOT work for, or speak for, NASA . or did I miss something?
4 segment could use a multiple RL10 upper stage?
So the question is can a 4-seg Ares I still lift the Orion that you need for lunar missions?
The original Ares 1 used 4seg booster with SSME powered US which, on paper, would have been able to lift the lunar Orion.
It turned out, however, that air-startable (and re-startable) SSME was too expensive/complex to produce. So instead they decided to go with a new engine (J2x) to power the upperstage which, unfortunately, was less capable than the SSME. This resulted in the decision to develop the 5-seg SRB which should have allowed the lunar Orion to reach its orbit targets.
The point is that if you go back to 4-seg, what do you use to power your upperstage? As there isn't anything off the shelf (if there were surely it would have been used by now) you'd have to embark on a new engine development plan (ie more cash....and lots of it). Remember that current Ares 1 targets are (according to some) not being met without weight savings on the Orion spacecraft.
A lunar capable (ie heavier) Orion would seem to need more performance, not less, from its launcher.
Again IMHO and IIRC!!! :D
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa-ares-moon-mission-changes-071409,0,2316961.story
Any thoughts on this? Direct 2.0 Heavy? Ares V Light? How will this work with RS-68 if Base heating really is as big of an issue as they're saying?
Quote"...therefore I do not, and we at NASA in general did not, recommend it for the baseline approach."
"We at NASA"? Who's the "we"?
Last time I checked.. Mr. Griffin.. you do NOT work for, or speak for, NASA . or did I miss something?
He used past-tense (did) when refering to NASA, present-tense (do) for himself.
Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system that parks at the ISS, but needs refueling before it's journey? Cuts the weight needs per-launch. You would just need to carry the crew capsule + fuel for the "moon-taxi".http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa-ares-moon-mission-changes-071409,0,2316961.story
Any thoughts on this? Direct 2.0 Heavy? Ares V Light? How will this work with RS-68 if Base heating really is as big of an issue as they're saying?
I think the most interesting quote was from end of the article quoting Griffin's letter to the Augustine commission, "The dual-Ares 5 launch does offer considerably more capability to the Moon than the baseline Ares 1/Ares 5 scheme," he wrote to Augustine in an e-mail last week that was copied to the Orlando Sentinel. "However, it also comes at much greater marginal cost, and therefore I do not, and we at NASA in general did not, recommend it for the baseline approach."
If he admits that well two Ares V rockets could do the mission but it would be just way too much horsepower, can't this be construed as Griffin admitting two downsized Ares V rockets would be just right. Perhaps two Jupiter 246 rockets or a Jupiter 241 with a J-2X engine? Retaining the J-2x engine could be enough to allow NASA to claim the Ares V downsized or Ares IV as they would call it with a J-2X could be construed as a not-Jupiter, Jupiter in-line SLDV.
Anyway, however NASA decides to cut the mustard it does sound like a consensus is starting to form that a 2-launch architecture using a single rocket beats a 1.5 launch architecture anyday of the week. And what is needed is something smaller than the Ares V that retains a great more commonality with the existing shuttle hardware. Sounds to me kind-of like a not Jupiter, Jupiter
John
Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system that parks at the ISS, but needs refueling before it's journey? Cuts the weight needs per-launch. You would just need to carry the crew capsule + fuel for the "moon-taxi".
Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system that parks at the ISS, but needs refueling before it's journey? Cuts the weight needs per-launch. You would just need to carry the crew capsule + fuel for the "moon-taxi".
This might have been good to start working on a bit earlier than one year before shuttle retirement. DIRECT is a gap-filler that happens to be not bad.Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system . . .I love that idea.
Further apply the idea such that all trips to Mars has to come from Moon itself because of low gravity, which would be like what the early explorers did by covering the Pacific, i.e. island hopping. Here we can call it planet hopping.Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system that parks at the ISS, but needs refueling before it's journey? Cuts the weight needs per-launch. You would just need to carry the crew capsule + fuel for the "moon-taxi".
I love that idea.
Jesse
QuoteFormer NASA Administrator Mike Griffin recently wrote Augustine, the review panel's chairman, saying that the idea was feasible but that he did not support it.
"The dual-Ares 5 launch does offer considerably more capability to the Moon than the baseline Ares 1/Ares 5 scheme," he wrote to Augustine in an e-mail last week that was copied to the Orlando Sentinel. "However, it also comes at much greater marginal cost, and therefore I do not, and we at NASA in general did not, recommend it for the baseline approach."
Okay. It seems marginal costs are perhaps the last remaining issue. But if the 2-launch is more capable than the original 1.5 launch, then isn't increased marginal cost a moot point? I mean, sure it costs more bucks, but you get more bang, right?
Anyway, however NASA decides to cut the mustard it does sound like a consensus is starting to form that a 2-launch architecture using a single rocket beats a 1.5 launch architecture anyday of the week. And what is needed is something smaller than the Ares V that retains a great more commonality with the existing shuttle hardware. Sounds to me kind-of like a not Jupiter, Jupiter
John
Could it be that Direct 3.0, being the " Long Shot " is starting to lead the field ? This would solve alot of problems and get us flying sooner.
QuoteFormer NASA Administrator Mike Griffin recently wrote Augustine, the review panel's chairman, saying that the idea was feasible but that he did not support it.
"The dual-Ares 5 launch does offer considerably more capability to the Moon than the baseline Ares 1/Ares 5 scheme," he wrote to Augustine in an e-mail last week that was copied to the Orlando Sentinel. "However, it also comes at much greater marginal cost, and therefore I do not, and we at NASA in general did not, recommend it for the baseline approach."
Okay. It seems marginal costs are perhaps the last remaining issue. But if the 2-launch is more capable than the original 1.5 launch, then isn't increased marginal cost a moot point? I mean, sure it costs more bucks, but you get more bang, right?
This "marginal cost" quote is misleading because it compares the "Not Jupiter" (NJ) downsized Ares-V launch cost to the Ares-I launch cost. Of course one launch of a NJ is going to cost more than launching a single Ares-I. But we are not going to the moon with one launch of anything, Ares-I or NJ. We have to launch two (2) rockets; either an Ares-I plus an Ares-V or 2xNJ. So a much better cost profile would be to compare the "mission" launch of 2xNJ to an Ares-I/V launch cost. When we do that, we find that 2xNJ mission launch cost compares very favorably to the Ares-I/V mission launch cost.
This "marginal cost" quote is misleading because it compares the "Not Jupiter" (NJ) downsized Ares-V launch cost to the Ares-I launch cost. Of course one launch of a NJ is going to cost more than launching a single Ares-I. But we are not going to the moon with one launch of anything, Ares-I or NJ. We have to launch two (2) rockets; either an Ares-I plus an Ares-V or 2xNJ. So a much better cost profile would be to compare the "mission" launch of 2xNJ to an Ares-I/V launch cost. When we do that, we find that 2xNJ mission launch cost compares very favorably to the Ares-I/V mission launch cost.
Me too. But, changing the plan a little bit, why not have the CEVs and Altair launch in advance to the ISS to be able to check the spacecraft in space before moving on to the Moon? The EDS would then be launched and once it is in a similar orbit to the ISS, the CEV+Altair would detach from the ISS and link up with the EDS before performing TLI.Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system that parks at the ISS, but needs refueling before it's journey? Cuts the weight needs per-launch. You would just need to carry the crew capsule + fuel for the "moon-taxi".
I love that idea.
Jesse
This "marginal cost" quote is misleading because it compares the "Not Jupiter" (NJ) downsized Ares-V launch cost to the Ares-I launch cost. Of course one launch of a NJ is going to cost more than launching a single Ares-I. But we are not going to the moon with one launch of anything, Ares-I or NJ. We have to launch two (2) rockets; either an Ares-I plus an Ares-V or 2xNJ. So a much better cost profile would be to compare the "mission" launch of 2xNJ to an Ares-I/V launch cost. When we do that, we find that 2xNJ mission launch cost compares very favorably to the Ares-I/V mission launch cost.
Very interesting article. Too bad this is all happening now and not 2 years ago when it could have shortened the gap.
Higher production rates of flight equipment is essential to reducing per unit costs and improving reliability.
Combining operations for both vehicles has efficiencies throughout the program.
Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system that parks at the ISS, but needs refueling before it's journey?
Not exactly, though I see your point. You can still go to the moon from the ISS, but the geometry is more complicated, giving you less launch opportunities. Same thing goes for the return.Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system that parks at the ISS, but needs refueling before it's journey?
The ISS is in the wrong orbit. You can't go to the Moon from there.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Australian_rules_football_slang. . . " Long Shot " . . .Two years ago we had no chance, we needed four back-to-back hail-Mary
And anyone who knows me, will realize that for *me* to be quote a football analogy, especially an American football one, is very unusual indeed! ;) I don't even follow "Soccer"...
The ISS is in the wrong orbit. You can't go to the Moon from there.
This "marginal cost" quote is misleading because it compares the "Not Jupiter" (NJ) downsized Ares-V launch cost to the Ares-I launch cost. Of course one launch of a NJ is going to cost more than launching a single Ares-I. But we are not going to the moon with one launch of anything, Ares-I or NJ. We have to launch two (2) rockets; either an Ares-I plus an Ares-V or 2xNJ. So a much better cost profile would be to compare the "mission" launch of 2xNJ to an Ares-I/V launch cost. When we do that, we find that 2xNJ mission launch cost compares very favorably to the Ares-I/V mission launch cost.
By the way, how much stuff is left at MAF?Could it be that Direct 3.0, being the " Long Shot " is starting to lead the field ? This would solve alot of problems and get us flying sooner.We have differences of opinion regarding methods, but the ultimate goal is exactly the same for us all.
This "marginal cost" quote is misleading because it compares the "Not Jupiter" (NJ) downsized Ares-V launch cost to the Ares-I launch cost. Of course one launch of a NJ is going to cost more than launching a single Ares-I. But we are not going to the moon with one launch of anything, Ares-I or NJ. We have to launch two (2) rockets; either an Ares-I plus an Ares-V or 2xNJ. So a much better cost profile would be to compare the "mission" launch of 2xNJ to an Ares-I/V launch cost. When we do that, we find that 2xNJ mission launch cost compares very favorably to the Ares-I/V mission launch cost.
I thought 2 Jupiters were supposed to be in general less expensive than 1 Ares 1/1 Ares V?
And anyone who knows me, will realize that for *me* to be quote a football analogy, especially an American football one, is very unusual indeed! ;) I don't even follow "Soccer"...
Ross.
This might have been good to start working on a bit earlier than one year before shuttle retirement. DIRECT is a gap-filler that happens to be not bad.Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system . . .I love that idea.
The ISS is in the wrong orbit. You can't go to the Moon from there.
Ben,
Actually, yes you can.
The downside is that you lose about 6-7% of launch performance on every flight if you're going to 51.6deg instead of 29.0deg.
Ross.
Agree entirely.This might have been good to start working on a bit earlier than one year before shuttle retirement. DIRECT is a gap-filler that happens to be not bad.Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system . . .I love that idea.
There's no way I would recommend trying to apply this to the immediate plans, I just think it's a good idea. Challenges aside (and what good idea doesn't have a few challenges?), it does have considerable merit.
Not exactly, though I see your point. You can still go to the moon from the ISS, but the geometry is more complicated, giving you less launch opportunities. Same thing goes for the return.Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system that parks at the ISS, but needs refueling before it's journey?
The ISS is in the wrong orbit. You can't go to the Moon from there.
It is also VERY important to remember that the DIRECT architecture, with it's family of Jupiter launch vehicles, is designed to support a very specific national policy of returning Americans to the moon and extending the human presence into the solar system, beginning with Mars. It is further designed around the implementation legislation, the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, which required the use/reuse of existing Shuttle hardware, infrastructure and workforce, to the extent possible.
I think it is fair to say that a significant percentage of people on NSF either support DIRECT or at least acknowledge that DIRECT supports that national policy. But it is also important to note that should national policy change, that DIRECT may or may not be the best tool for supporting that policy. Remember, DIRECT is a tool of the policy, not the other way around. While a lot of us are convinced that the Jupiters are the best vehicles to use to get back to the moon, if the President comes out and changes policy and says we will defer the lunar return for a few years, then the Jupiter may no longer be the best fit.
I say this just to remind folks of what I've said several times, and repeated above, that DIRECT is a tool of national policy. We believe that it is the right tool for the job. But the goal is to support the policy in the best way possible, using the right tool. If national policy changes, DIRECT may or may not be the right tool to support that policy; depending on what that new policy is. As much as I want to see Jupiter fly, if the President changes policy to exclude the moon for a while, we could be looking at an entirely different HSF program, supported by different launch vehicles, in support of that different policy.
As much as I want to see Jupiter lead us into the solar system, I want to be real here. I think the current policy is the right one, but if policy changes, all bets are off. Let's not count our chickens before they hatch.
It is also VERY important to remember that the DIRECT architecture, with it's family of Jupiter launch vehicles, is designed to support a very specific national policy of returning Americans to the moon and extending the human presence into the solar system, beginning with Mars. It is further designed around the implementation legislation, the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, which required the use/reuse of existing Shuttle hardware, infrastructure and workforce, to the extent possible.
I think it is fair to say that a significant percentage of people on NSF either support DIRECT or at least acknowledge that DIRECT supports that national policy. But it is also important to note that should national policy change, that DIRECT may or may not be the best tool for supporting that policy. Remember, DIRECT is a tool of the policy, not the other way around. While a lot of us are convinced that the Jupiters are the best vehicles to use to get back to the moon, if the President comes out and changes policy and says we will defer the lunar return for a few years, then the Jupiter may no longer be the best fit.
I say this just to remind folks of what I've said several times, and repeated above, that DIRECT is a tool of national policy. We believe that it is the right tool for the job. But the goal is to support the policy in the best way possible, using the right tool. If national policy changes, DIRECT may or may not be the right tool to support that policy; depending on what that new policy is. As much as I want to see Jupiter fly, if the President changes policy to exclude the moon for a while, we could be looking at an entirely different HSF program, supported by different launch vehicles, in support of that different policy.
As much as I want to see Jupiter lead us into the solar system, I want to be real here. I think the current policy is the right one, but if policy changes, all bets are off. Let's not count our chickens before they hatch.
While I understand the point of your post, I still think that Jupiter 130 would be a viable option even for LEO-only.
1) Even with a policy change, I do not see NASA abandoning the Shuttle workforce and infrastructure anytime soon, so I find a Delta IV Heavy only architecture not possible.
2) Not-Shuttle-C could get the job done, however, crew launch is not as safe as it would be on Jupiter 130. Right now, NASA is unsure if it is even possible.
The only other Shuttle-Derived option that would be possible and LEO only is Ares I. I really hope this is not the option NASA goes with. However, this could be the reason for their sudden change of heart when it comes to other options.
At least Direct and Not-Shuttle-C have the capability to do a lunar mission if we so decide to. Ares I, I think they have realized, is a dead end without Ares V. And Ares V ain't happening in its current form folks.
QuoteFormer NASA Administrator Mike Griffin recently wrote Augustine, the review panel's chairman, saying that the idea was feasible but that he did not support it.
"The dual-Ares 5 launch does offer considerably more capability to the Moon than the baseline Ares 1/Ares 5 scheme," he wrote to Augustine in an e-mail last week that was copied to the Orlando Sentinel. "However, it also comes at much greater marginal cost, and therefore I do not, and we at NASA in general did not, recommend it for the baseline approach."
Okay. It seems marginal costs are perhaps the last remaining issue. But if the 2-launch is more capable than the original 1.5 launch, then isn't increased marginal cost a moot point? I mean, sure it costs more bucks, but you get more bang, right?
This "marginal cost" quote is misleading because it compares the "Not Jupiter" (NJ) downsized Ares-V launch cost to the Ares-I launch cost. Of course one launch of a NJ is going to cost more than launching a single Ares-I. But we are not going to the moon with one launch of anything, Ares-I or NJ. We have to launch two (2) rockets; either an Ares-I plus an Ares-V or 2xNJ. So a much better cost profile would be to compare the "mission" launch of 2xNJ to an Ares-I/V launch cost. When we do that, we find that 2xNJ mission launch cost compares very favorably to the Ares-I/V mission launch cost.
Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system that parks at the ISS, but needs refueling before it's journey? Cuts the weight needs per-launch. You would just need to carry the crew capsule + fuel for the "moon-taxi".
You need to develop:
1) The MTV itself;
2) The refuelling system;
3) The lander (will it be an integrated transfer vehicle/lander - that's possible but would need a lot of work);
4) Find funding for the resupply/reconditioning cycle;
5) Fund multiple launches per mission, maybe as many as three.
It is a workable idea but an expensive one in the short term. For all its high repeated costs, the idea of disposable hardware has the attraction of fewer up-front commitments.
I get the feeling that Griffin is still playing the same game he has from the start of ESAS. Basically dismissing any other concept other than a variation of his large Ares V rocket. A dual launch of a 10m Ares core even if downsized would likely be more expensive than launching 1 Ares I and 1 Ares V given the very high cost of the Ares V rocket.It's simple - he doesn't believe in any flight rate. You do one short sorties as you can afford them, throttle back when you cant. Having more launches per mission in a low flight rate environment doesn't work so well.
It may be just me, but It still sounds like he believes he get's to set the terms of the debate, and his terms are that you can't just simply use a standard size shuttle tank, you've got to supersize the basic LV it if you want to go to the moon. With that kind of logic it's no wonder any alternative no matter how much sense it might make couldn't get any traction.
...
Not exactly, though I see your point. You can still go to the moon from the ISS, but the geometry is more complicated, giving you less launch opportunities. Same thing goes for the return.Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system that parks at the ISS, but needs refueling before it's journey?
The ISS is in the wrong orbit. You can't go to the Moon from there.
...with a LTV and reusable lander, now you are looking at a true single launch Lunar Mission architecture.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa-ares-moon-mission-changes-071409,0,2316961.story
... Because of the way solid rockets burn, computer simulations show the Ares I would vibrate like a giant tuning fork on its climb to orbit, threatening to incapacitate or kill the crew and shake the rocket to pieces...
1) Even with a policy change, I do not see NASA abandoning the Shuttle workforce and infrastructure anytime soon, so I find a Delta IV Heavy only architecture not possible.
Because they "answer to a higher authority" :Dhttp://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa-ares-moon-mission-changes-071409,0,2316961.storyQuote from: the Sentinel article... Because of the way solid rockets burn, computer simulations show the Ares I would vibrate like a giant tuning fork on its climb to orbit, threatening to incapacitate or kill the crew and shake the rocket to pieces...
So will the Sentinel staff be upbraided by certain NSF regulars for daring to say such a thing? ;)
1) Even with a policy change, I do not see NASA abandoning the Shuttle workforce and infrastructure anytime soon, so I find a Delta IV Heavy only architecture not possible.
Well I don't think NASA would have any choice in the matter if The WH decides/Congress pushes for an EELV-only solution. The current policy helps on many fronts, including NASA workforce retention, NASA contractors' hardware & workforce, and launch facilities.
I do not see NASA abandoning the Shuttle workforce and infrastructure anytime soon
I do not foresee Congress allowing the President to direct NASA to abandon the Shuttle workforce and infrastructure anytime soon
from Directlauncher at twitter:
Positive communication with Aerospace continues as they validate and work to ensure the accuracy of Jupiter performance calculations.
5 minutes ago from web
w00t ;D
IMHO, it is better phrased as follows:QuoteI do not foresee Congress allowing the President to direct NASA to abandon the Shuttle workforce and infrastructure anytime soon
IMHO, it is better phrased as follows:QuoteI do not foresee Congress allowing the President to direct NASA to abandon the Shuttle workforce and infrastructure anytime soon
Yes, that would be the best way to phrase it. Thanks.
"...The main power would come from several RS-68 liquid-fuel engines, like the ones now used on the commercial Delta IV rocket."
Sorry to join this late but no one has asked about the above quote? Especially in relation to this:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/12/ssme-ares-v-undergoes-evaluation-potential-switch/
"Another major factor that the study is likely to consider is that the SSME may be better suited to mitigating the plume impingement and base heating issues on Ares V, which is currently a major issue that is being worked on Ares V."
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa-ares-moon-mission-changes-071409,0,2316961.story
Any thoughts on this? Direct 2.0 Heavy? Ares V Light? How will this work with RS-68 if Base heating really is as big of an issue as they're saying?
LOL, I think it is a rule of thumb that all aerospace projects go over time by 1/3 and cost at least 1/3 more than anticipated. Everything takes longer to do and costs more than you think it will.Even when you account for it - Hofstadter's Law
My new office has no windows. Very depressing. But it makes me concentrate on work more. Must think deep thoughts about NASA's future.
If you want a frugal, fast, efficient program, you want a RS68 ablative if you can accept the base heating of 2-3 engines.http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa-ares-moon-mission-changes-071409,0,2316961.story
Any thoughts on this? Direct 2.0 Heavy? Ares V Light? How will this work with RS-68 if Base heating really is as big of an issue as they're saying?
No one bit on the question.. Like you.. I thought it was quite important.
If you want a frugal, fast, efficient program, you want a RS68 ablative if you can accept the base heating of 2-3 engines.http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa-ares-moon-mission-changes-071409,0,2316961.story
Any thoughts on this? Direct 2.0 Heavy? Ares V Light? How will this work with RS-68 if Base heating really is as big of an issue as they're saying?
No one bit on the question.. Like you.. I thought it was quite important.
If you want a frugal, fast, efficient program, you want a RS68 ablative if you can accept the base heating of 2-3 engines.http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa-ares-moon-mission-changes-071409,0,2316961.story
Any thoughts on this? Direct 2.0 Heavy? Ares V Light? How will this work with RS-68 if Base heating really is as big of an issue as they're saying?
No one bit on the question.. Like you.. I thought it was quite important.
"accept"? Its not as if I can choose whether or not I want to "accept" the first law of Thermal Dynamics? I don't understand what you mean by this?This is why no one is talking. One needs to run very detailed sims. Takes time and many competing issues that you know.
"accept"? Its not as if I can choose whether or not I want to "accept" the first law of Thermal Dynamics? I don't understand what you mean by this?This is why no one is talking. One needs to run very detailed sims. Takes time and many competing issues that you know.
But I believe 2x RS68 ablative works.
And yes TrueBlue, the idea would be speed. Plus your fallback option to DIV.
NASA: $3.3 billion * 5 = $16.5 billion
RSA: 0.30 * $20.0 billion = $6.0 billion
ESA: 0.70 (?) * $20.0 billion = $14.0 billion
Total: $16.5 billion + $6.0 billion + $14.0 billion = $36.5 billion > $20.0 billion. Should be enough for a manned mission to Mars.
What do you think?
Yes and yes.
You're assuming an 8.4m core using current tanking as a basis without stretch?
Anything larger probably won't fly with only 2x RS68.. Even then I think J-120(Direct 2.0) was only 50mT to LEO or so.. plenty for ISS but more difficult to build a Lunar architecture.. at least w/o depots.
Or are you supposing a "Heavy" variant with 5-segs?
Edit: should've previewed this before posting
Yes and yes.
You're assuming an 8.4m core using current tanking as a basis without stretch?
Anything larger probably won't fly with only 2x RS68.. Even then I think J-120(Direct 2.0) was only 50mT to LEO or so.. plenty for ISS but more difficult to build a Lunar architecture.. at least w/o depots.
Or are you supposing a "Heavy" variant with 5-segs?
Edit: should've previewed this before posting
Yes to 5 segs. Already (mostly) paid for.
"Yes" to 8.4 core.. on that I'm clear..
Then yes to "no stretch"? 5-segs? Depots?
If not for the lunar mission, what would be the point of an Ares-I class vehicle after the ISS is de-orbited in 2016*?
No ISS and no Orbiter with the ability to carry a SpaceLab-size module makes even LEO a pretty worthless place IMO. Jupiter still leaves the ability to fly a MOL-type mission doesn't it?
*Not that I believe ISS is gonna be deorbited anytime soon, isn't that still the official position?
If not for the lunar mission, what would be the point of an Ares-I class vehicle after the ISS is de-orbited in 2016*?
No ISS and no Orbiter with the ability to carry a SpaceLab-size module makes even LEO a pretty worthless place IMO. Jupiter still leaves the ability to fly a MOL-type mission doesn't it?
*Not that I believe ISS is gonna be deorbited anytime soon, isn't that still the official position?
Seems like stupidity[is there a gentler word I can use here?] is always the official position.
By the way, how much stuff is left at MAF?
2) Not-Shuttle-C could get the job done, however, crew launch is not as safe as it would be on Jupiter 130. Right now, NASA is unsure if it is even possible.
IMHO, it is better phrased as follows:QuoteI do not foresee Congress allowing the President to direct NASA to abandon the Shuttle workforce and infrastructure anytime soon
Yes, that would be the best way to phrase it. Thanks.
The problem with your revision, is Congress, by virtue of how much money it allocates to NASA, what restrictions it places on its use, and how long it takes them to do so, may well cause the loss of the work force in spite of any Presidential wishes to the contrary. (And I am unconvinced that the President really has NASA in say, his top 10 list). Since NASA is a (small) part of a larger appropriation bill, it is likely that he would not veto it, regardless of the budget decision.
By the way, how much stuff is left at MAF?
Most everything. The work order is in place from CxP to remove it, but the staff on the ground are 'delaying' the work by finding too many other things to be getting on with :)
They know that the wind is definitely changing.
Ross.
2) Not-Shuttle-C could get the job done, however, crew launch is not as safe as it would be on Jupiter 130. Right now, NASA is unsure if it is even possible.
Apparently there is an extremely serious show-stopper to Shuttle-C flying with an Orion.
I'm trying to get more details and will release them as soon as I'm confident about them, but if what I'm hearing is correct, that option is DOA.
Ross.
By the way, how much stuff is left at MAF?
Most everything. The work order is in place from CxP to remove it, but the staff on the ground are 'delaying' the work by finding too many other things to be getting on with :)
They know that the wind is definitely changing.
Ross.
Ah, bless them :)
LOL, I think it is a rule of thumb that all aerospace projects go over time by 1/3 and cost at least 1/3 more than anticipated. Everything takes longer to do and costs more than you think it will.
Yes to 5 segs. Already (mostly) paid for.
"Yes" to 8.4 core.. on that I'm clear..
Then yes to "no stretch"? 5-segs? Depots?
2) Not-Shuttle-C could get the job done, however, crew launch is not as safe as it would be on Jupiter 130. Right now, NASA is unsure if it is even possible.
Apparently there is an extremely serious show-stopper to Shuttle-C flying with an Orion.
I'm trying to get more details and will release them as soon as I'm confident about them, but if what I'm hearing is correct, that option is DOA.
Ross.
IMHO, it is better phrased as follows:QuoteI do not foresee Congress allowing the President to direct NASA to abandon the Shuttle workforce and infrastructure anytime soon
Yes, that would be the best way to phrase it. Thanks.
The problem with your revision, is Congress, by virtue of how much money it allocates to NASA, what restrictions it places on its use, and how long it takes them to do so, may well cause the loss of the work force in spite of any Presidential wishes to the contrary. (And I am unconvinced that the President really has NASA in say, his top 10 list). Since NASA is a (small) part of a larger appropriation bill, it is likely that he would not veto it, regardless of the budget decision.
Actually, thinking about this after I posted and went offline...
It is precisely Congress & the WH that put us here by allowing shuttle to be terminated (and not paying close enough attention to the nonsense behind the scenes). So in effect, the jobs were going one way or another.
2) Not-Shuttle-C could get the job done, however, crew launch is not as safe as it would be on Jupiter 130. Right now, NASA is unsure if it is even possible.
Apparently there is an extremely serious show-stopper to Shuttle-C flying with an Orion.
I'm trying to get more details and will release them as soon as I'm confident about them, but if what I'm hearing is correct, that option is DOA.
Ross.
As I recall, one option being proposed is to use EELV-only for Orion and sidemount variants for cargo only.
Wouldn't an inability to fly Orion on shuttle C (or the not shuttle C variant) be irrelevant in that scenario?
Or is mixing two launch vehicles to accomplish a lunar mission also DOA?
Doesn't the Jupiter 130 - flown as soon as possible - minimize those losses? Especially if blended with a 2012 Orbiter extension?
Why go with a 2.5 (actually 3) launch architecture, when you can go with Direct and have just 2?
That's why.
LOL, I think it is a rule of thumb that all aerospace projects go over time by 1/3 and cost at least 1/3 more than anticipated. Everything takes longer to do and costs more than you think it will.
if one is lucky.
Shuttle and station reduced capability and still over-ran more than that. MSL and JWST are following right behind.
Doesn't the Jupiter 130 - flown as soon as possible - minimize those losses? Especially if blended with a 2012 Orbiter extension?
Bill, if you read back to the original post, my response was in reference to the case if we went with EELV/D4H only, which I do not advocate. Yes, J-130 saves the workforce (for the most part).
As I recall, one option being proposed is to use EELV-only for Orion and sidemount variants for cargo only.
Wouldn't an inability to fly Orion on shuttle C (or the not shuttle C variant) be irrelevant in that scenario?
Or is mixing two launch vehicles to accomplish a lunar mission also DOA?
Why go with a 2.5 (actually 3) launch architecture, when you can go with Direct and have just 2?
That's why.
Ah, I see now.
Two cargo shuttle Cs and an EELV per lunar mission, not one of each each. Yep, that should be DOA as well.
LOL, I think it is a rule of thumb that all aerospace projects go over time by 1/3 and cost at least 1/3 more than anticipated. Everything takes longer to do and costs more than you think it will.
if one is lucky.
Shuttle and station reduced capability and still over-ran more than that. MSL and JWST are following right behind.
Don't want to get off topic, but is there a sense as to why this is? If corporations routinely finished projects way behind and over budget, they would be out of business. Is it due to poor scope definition, requirements creep, or cost-plus contracts? It just seems like Project Mgmt on the development side within NASA needs to be refocused. seems like it happens in DoD too (TSAT).
Doesn't the Jupiter 130 - flown as soon as possible - minimize those losses? Especially if blended with a 2012 Orbiter extension?
Bill, if you read back to the original post, my response was in reference to the case if we went with EELV/D4H only, which I do not advocate. Yes, J-130 saves the workforce (for the most part).
All roads appear to converge, don't they?
Ares? Too expensive
Shuttle C? Too little performance and perhaps not Orion capable.
EELV only? Job losses and the need for oodles of launches to do the Moon.
What options remain? Only DIRECT, right?
I also recall working through this exact same logic several years ago. ;-)
How do you sustain any system with few, if any, missions?
Shuttle-C is a system which will have no flights in the mid-years. But it will still have all the costs -- roughly three times higher than an EELV, yet with no flights.
That's a recipe for premature cancellation. And that's why a lot of EELV-only supporters are trying to promote it -- because they know it can be swept away quite easily once Shuttle has already gone.
Ross.
Yes to 5 segs. Already (mostly) paid for.
"Yes" to 8.4 core.. on that I'm clear..
Then yes to "no stretch"? 5-segs? Depots?
I don't want to see the 5 seg boosters carry over to "Not-Drect". I think they open up a whole new can of worms for development and should be avoided.
The only thing I think should be carried over is the development done on the J-2X.
LOL, I think it is a rule of thumb that all aerospace projects go over time by 1/3 and cost at least 1/3 more than anticipated. Everything takes longer to do and costs more than you think it will.
if one is lucky.
Shuttle and station reduced capability and still over-ran more than that. MSL and JWST are following right behind.
Don't want to get off topic, but is there a sense as to why this is? If corporations routinely finished projects way behind and over budget, they would be out of business. Is it due to poor scope definition, requirements creep, or cost-plus contracts? It just seems like Project Mgmt on the development side within NASA needs to be refocused. seems like it happens in DoD too (TSAT).
Rather than go off topic (which would be easy here), try these references
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09306sp.pdf
http://ses.gsfc.nasa.gov/ses_data_2008/080603_Bearden.ppt
http://www.incose.org/huntsville/charts/The_Portfolio_Effect_Reconsidered_for_HRC_INCOSE.ppt
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F4161231%2F4144550%2F04161728.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4161728&authDecision=-203
Several of which were written by Aerospace.
Looking at the reasoning, same thing will most likely happen to EELV, side-mount, or inline SDLV to different degrees.
Advanced EELV also 'works' from a technical, schedule and cost perspective -- but they offer no realistic means to transition the workforce -- so they will never get the political and financial backing from Congress.
It all comes down to that chart NASA made in October 2007 in that report being written for Griffin which got itself canceled because it said the wrong thing (see my re-make of the chart which is attached).
The only real difference, is that today the Ares one actually has even less "Green" on it and even more "Red".
Ross.
Yes to 5 segs. Already (mostly) paid for.
"Yes" to 8.4 core.. on that I'm clear..
Then yes to "no stretch"? 5-segs? Depots?
I don't want to see the 5 seg boosters carry over to "Not-Drect". I think they open up a whole new can of worms for development and should be avoided.
The only thing I think should be carried over is the development done on the J-2X.
I disagree. Most of the development work for a side mounted 5 segment SRB is done at this point. Much of the design work took place prior to the Columbia accident, and 5 segment motors are already being assembled. It's inline TO for an Ares I first stage that is causing the difficulty.
J-2X on the other hand, is barely out of CDR, and won't even have the turbopumps on the test stand for another year and a half or so.
Still, I would like it if both are kept for a Not-DIRECT vehicle. I think it would be nice to get some use out of that new test stand that they are building at SSC, and a sea level version of the J-2X (without the extension) could be useful for large RLVs at some point. But I don't see what the J-2X does for DIRECT that a cluster of RL-10s can't do, while I do see a multi-ton payload advantage to using 5 segment SRBs.
It would be politically advantageous to use both the 5 segments SRB and the J-2X engine currently under development in the final Jupiter rocket architecture. I am wondering, however, if a significant ammount of development/testing money could be saved by not man-rating these two systems. This could lead to the design of a J-241H EDS rocket (big enough to do both TLI and LOI burns) to be used with a man-rated J-130 CLV+LSAM rocket.
PaulL
Not exactly, though I see your point. You can still go to the moon from the ISS, but the geometry is more complicated, giving you less launch opportunities. Same thing goes for the return.Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system that parks at the ISS, but needs refueling before it's journey?
The ISS is in the wrong orbit. You can't go to the Moon from there.
...with a LTV and reusable lander, now you are looking at a true single launch Lunar Mission architecture.
It seems that once you have an established route, a small reusable lander would come in handy for crewed missions.
For the return leg, though, I would much rather have a spacecraft capable of a direct entry if needed, than a (less robust) transfer vehicle...
You'd be better off with a J246H (or J244H if the RL60 ever happens). The high thrust J2X is better for ascent, but worse for orbital maneuvering, due to the high thrust and (relatively) low efficiency.
Question for the team:
How soon could a cargo-only J130 be flying? Would it help gap closure if you could loft ISS extra segments (or hastily assembled science missions, or military mystery boxes) with that for a few years while finishing the Orion/ software/ human rating?
2) Not-Shuttle-C could get the job done, however, crew launch is not as safe as it would be on Jupiter 130. Right now, NASA is unsure if it is even possible.
Apparently there is an extremely serious show-stopper to Shuttle-C flying with an Orion.
I'm trying to get more details and will release them as soon as I'm confident about them, but if what I'm hearing is correct, that option is DOA.
Ross.
2) Would a tank explosion like Challenger kill the crew regardless of the LAS because you are next to the tank rather than above it? Not only are you closer to the source of the explosion, but the shockwave is coming at you from 90 degrees to your g-force orientation. The astronauts are facing up in their couches to best protect them from the g-forces of launch. If hit from a shock wave from behind inline to that orientation, that would give maximum chance to survive as they’d be accelerated in the direction they are already accelerating in. With NSC, they’d be accelerated in a direction 90 degrees to that. The couches aren’t orientated to that. Sort of like how fighter pilots can handle around 9 g’s (I think) when pulling up because that’s what the seats and g-suits are designed for. But if they took a sudden 9g push to the right or left, it might very well break their neck.
Ross, any chance the October 2007 report will see the light of day through a FOI request, or through the Augustine Commission’s work? Also, what the heck is an EELV-Hybrid? A combination of EELV and Shuttle parts, or something else?
2) Would a tank explosion like Challenger kill the crew regardless of the LAS because you are next to the tank rather than above it? Not only are you closer to the source of the explosion, but the shockwave is coming at you from 90 degrees to your g-force orientation. The astronauts are facing up in their couches to best protect them from the g-forces of launch. If hit from a shock wave from behind inline to that orientation, that would give maximum chance to survive as they’d be accelerated in the direction they are already accelerating in. With NSC, they’d be accelerated in a direction 90 degrees to that. The couches aren’t orientated to that. Sort of like how fighter pilots can handle around 9 g’s (I think) when pulling up because that’s what the seats and g-suits are designed for. But if they took a sudden 9g push to the right or left, it might very well break their neck.
The Kerwin report established that the initial acceleration was *not* enough to kill the Challenger crew. So the answer is, no.
It would be politically advantageous to use both the 5 segments SRB and the J-2X engine currently under development in the final Jupiter rocket architecture. I am wondering, however, if a significant ammount of development/testing money could be saved by not man-rating these two systems. This could lead to the design of a J-241H EDS rocket (big enough to do both TLI and LOI burns) to be used with a man-rated J-130 CLV+LSAM rocket.
PaulL
Ross, any chance the October 2007 report will see the light of day through a FOI request, or through the Augustine Commission’s work? Also, what the heck is an EELV-Hybrid? A combination of EELV and Shuttle parts, or something else?
No chance at all -- it was never completed, so doesn't actually "exist" as a finished document.
The group writing it submitted the preliminary results up to Griffin's office and two days later the whole team doing the study was disbanded and the members were scattered to the farthest corners of the agency.
Ross.
So Ross, will you ever offer Jupiter-130/246 models? I might have to pick up one, although I can wait as you are understandably busy (I would love to see lego make a Jupiter model, dont ask why...)Make it a model rocket and I'll buy two. 8) Altho technically you might be able to kitbash one using a shuttle kit.
The Kerwin report established that the initial acceleration was *not* enough to kill the Challenger crew. So the answer is, no.
So, what do the next few weeks look like (that you can divulge)? Is there anything the rabble can do to help?Or is mixing two launch vehicles to accomplish a lunar mission also DOA?If NASA and members of Congress want to protect the Shuttle infrastructure & workforce, Shuttle-C is simply not the right path.
I'm putting out a request for Shuttle-C "VIPA VAC 3" and "VAC 5" reports from 2004 if anyone here has access to them.
Ross.
The Kerwin report established that the initial acceleration was *not* enough to kill the Challenger crew. So the answer is, no.
Not to quible, but that was a rapid and complete structural failure of the ET due to the SRB pivoting and ripping it to shreds. Could a worse case lead to a real detonation and impart higher loads on the capsule?
Awaiting Ross's Shuttle C bread crumbs...
So, what do the next few weeks look like (that you can divulge)? Is there anything the rabble can do to help?
I'm putting out a request for Shuttle-C "VIPA VAC 3" and "VAC 5" reports from 2004 if anyone here has access to them.You should cross-post in the Shuttle-C thread! (Maybe a Shuttle thread, too.)
So Ross, will you ever offer Jupiter-130/246 models? I might have to pick up one, although I can wait as you are understandably busy (I would love to see lego make a Jupiter model, dont ask why...)
2) Would a tank explosion like Challenger kill the crew regardless of the LAS because you are next to the tank rather than above it?
Well, I don't see it as an extreme DOA case, but one of justification. Again, these alternatives have merit, but stacked up against a 2-launch common rocket core like Direct, they begin to lose that beauty.Call me stupid... but what does 'DOA' stand for?
I'm still in favour of a D4H being able to loft Orion, along with J-130, but I doubt the financial (or political) realities will see that through.
Dead On Arrival
foto,
Already have x-posted. And yes, I've seen the 15 page SSEC document already. No, what I'm trying to find is documentation dealing with the Side-Mount dynamic environment fairing jettison loads.
And before anyone asks, no this isn't related to the 'showstopper' for Shuttle-C/Orion which I hinted at previously -- this is something else.
What these 2004 VIPA VAC 3 and VAC 5 documents apparently detail, is the analyzed dynamic loads around fairing jettison. According to a really solid source tonight, while the off-axis engines are still firing, jettisoning such a large and heavy fairing in-flight causes major bending loads throughout the stack.
Not to mention that the "huge off-axis Orion on the front will only make it worse too". I'm simply putting out a call to try to rustle-up the actual documentation which shows this...
Ross.
The only way Shuttle-C can lift sufficient payload is by using a 2.5-launch architecture -- 2 Shuttle-C's lifting about 160mT to LEO plus an EELV lifting Orion.
Question for the team:
How soon could a cargo-only J130 be flying? Would it help gap closure if you could loft ISS extra segments (or hastily assembled science missions, or military mystery boxes) with that for a few years while finishing the Orion/ software/ human rating?
There are no ISS extra segments to loft.
Diverting money to "hastily assembled science missions or military mystery boxes" might help KSC's gap but it will make JSC's worse, by diverting money that could have been used to finish Orion.
Ask someone else to pay, and play big rocket diplomacy. If you can get a J130 + DIVUS up by Dec 2011, ...
Ask someone else to pay, and play big rocket diplomacy. If you can get a J130 + DIVUS up by Dec 2011, ...
Dec 2011 sounds REALLY optimistic to me.
They still have real work to do making J130 a complete engineering design rather than a detailed preliminary design.
Could we build even a pair of new current generation space shuttles by the end of 2011?
I would suspect we would get a Jupiter flying NET Q4 2014 if give a go ahead at the first of the year.
I expect to see Ares I dropped and Ares V re-specced to something like the Jupiter's design (I seriously doubt that NASA would accept DIRECT wholesale). If they decide against the gamble, then I see nothing but a takedown of VSE and re-approach. Perhaps the shuttle will get more of an extension to avoid too many job losses, with EELVs slowly taking over on the cargoless ISS taxi runs. Everything else will be left up in the air until the next presidential term.
How's my crystal-ball reading? ;)
That sounds like something the Acme Rocket Company tried.How's my crystal-ball reading? ;). . . mach of[f] a cliff . . .
Seems to me that what needs to be done now is to hand the Direct concept over to NASA while at the same time allowing NASA to run with the ball and save face at the same time
2) Would a tank explosion like Challenger kill the crew regardless of the LAS because you are next to the tank rather than above it?
You should note that Challengers tank did not explode. It disintegrated as a direct result of structural failure of the aft dome and the intertank section. The resulting massive release of liquid Hydrogen and liquid Oxygen resulted in a massive vapor-cloud, that did NOT explode. There was a lot of localized combustion within this cloud, but no such thing as an actual explosion. Had the ET exploded, than the crew compartment of Challenger would have been completely destroyed. The fact that it largely survived the break-up of the orbiter is mostly contributed to the fact that the ET did not explode, but break-up.
Still, you would not want to have a repeat of the Challenger-type of ET failure with an Orion mounted to the side of the ET.
Ask someone else to pay, and play big rocket diplomacy. If you can get a J130 + DIVUS up by Dec 2011, ...
Dec 2011 sounds REALLY optimistic to me.
They still have real work to do making J130 a complete engineering design rather than a detailed preliminary design.
Could we build even a pair of new current generation space shuttles by the end of 2011?
Starting from July 2009 there is no way you would make end of 2011. Even if you could have the core stage physically built you wouldn't have a completed article.
Understood.
I was only 13 when it happened, looked like an explosion to me. :)
I suppose technically it did explode, but it didn’t “combust”. The LOX and LH2 flashing to vapor and ripping the ET apart I think would still be considered an explosion, but they didn’t ignite, so it wasn’t a combusting explosion.
Like if you were scuba diving and the scuba tank suddenly structurally failed, it’d likely kill you and it’d probably be considered that it exploded.
But good clarification.
Anyway, that’s really not the point, I was just saying –perhaps- the lateral g-forces from it might kill or severely injury the crew. I remember hearing that they thought the Challenger crew might have survived the initial explosion, but had no idea in what condition they were in. It was just a SWAG I was postulating based on Ross’s comments. Maybe it’s not a problem. *shrug*.
Seems like even if they survived, those loads could be much harder on the crew than inline shock loads in the direction of acceleration, just from and engineering standpoint.
They might survive, but be paralyzed or have broken bones, etc.
Seems less than ideal at best anyway.
"We're assuming any solution they choose would have some liquid propulsion in it ... We're ready to support any architecture they recommend," he says.
PWR Offers Shuttle Engine Alternative
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Engine071509.xml&headline=PWR%20Offers%20Shuttle%20Engine%20Alternative&channel=space
Quote"We're assuming any solution they choose would have some liquid propulsion in it ... We're ready to support any architecture they recommend," he says.
Maybe reading into that statement a little too much, but I'd say this sounds pretty promising to me. At least they think an Ares I only solution will not be the way we go.
I think everything is lining up for a Direct vs SD-HLV show down.
But as was previously said, SD-HLV may already have a show stopper.
So, could PWR modify the SSME to the disposable design without needing to "re man-rate it"? Or do any variants of an engine need to be fully man-rated with those expenses?
PWR Offers Shuttle Engine Alternative
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Engine071509.xml&headline=PWR%20Offers%20Shuttle%20Engine%20Alternative&channel=space
The company also would manufacture additional engines using the existing SSME design while beginning work on a modified design that incorporates advances in the construction of nozzles and combustion chambers. That would be ready to go into production within 3-4 years. Maser estimates the modified SSME would cost two-thirds to four-fifths of the original model - depending on the number ordered - and would be "a little more expensive" than the company's RS-68 engine "but in that ballpark."
The question now is, will NASA be able to discredit these industry findings, and if so, how? Or even more tellingly, why? Manned space flight at NASA is in danger of going under, and DIRECT is throwing them a life preserver. Why does NASA keep pushing it away?
... SSME could be produced for just a little more than the RS-68, given consistent production orders.
... PWR also confirms DIRECT's plan for evolutionary development of a disposable SSME to help reduce costs further.
PWR Offers Shuttle Engine Alternative
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Engine071509.xml&headline=PWR%20Offers%20Shuttle%20Engine%20Alternative&channel=space
Once again, we see that the DIRECT team's assertions about the viability of Jupiter components validated by the industry. First it was Kuttner's comment about the conservative design of the Jupiter Upper Stage. Now we have PWR weighing in on SSME production rates and costs.QuoteThe company also would manufacture additional engines using the existing SSME design while beginning work on a modified design that incorporates advances in the construction of nozzles and combustion chambers. That would be ready to go into production within 3-4 years. Maser estimates the modified SSME would cost two-thirds to four-fifths of the original model - depending on the number ordered - and would be "a little more expensive" than the company's RS-68 engine "but in that ballpark."
Since the release of DIRECT 3.0, Ross has stated many times that the SSME could be produced for just a little more than the RS-68, given consistent production orders. Others keep quoting the $60M cost of SSME using current stop-and-go production rates. PWR also confirms DIRECT's plan for evolutionary development of a disposable SSME to help reduce costs further.
DIRECT is on a roll. The question now is, will NASA be able to discredit these industry findings, and if so, how? Or even more tellingly, why? Manned space flight at NASA is in danger of going under, and DIRECT is throwing them a life preserver. Why does NASA keep pushing it away?
Mark S.
PWR is recommending that J-2X development continue, but has also told the Augustine panel that it could develop a different-sized upper-stage engine if needed
PWR Offers Shuttle Engine Alternative
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Engine071509.xml&headline=PWR%20Offers%20Shuttle%20Engine%20Alternative&channel=space
Hmmmm...very interesting. Sounds like PWR is onboard for a switch to SSME. Which is good, awhile back I'd read a few things about them shutting down the SSME production facilities and that it might be hard to restart them, etc. But it sounds like that wouldn't be a real problem. And the new disposable SSME would be "in the ballpark" of the RS-68...and I'm assuming that's the non-human rated, non-regen RS-68?
If so, then the human rated regen RS-68 might be more than the disposable SSME.
Plus there's enough engines already paid for to get 5 J-130 flights up. Should be enough to get a few test flights, maybe an ISS cargo flight, and maybe the first Orion flight?
So, could PWR modify the SSME to the disposable design without needing to "re man-rate it"? Or do any variants of an engine need to be fully man-rated with those expenses?
PWR Offers Shuttle Engine Alternative
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Engine071509.xml&headline=PWR%20Offers%20Shuttle%20Engine%20Alternative&channel=space
Hmmmm...very interesting. Sounds like PWR is onboard for a switch to SSME. Which is good, awhile back I'd read a few things about them shutting down the SSME production facilities and that it might be hard to restart them, etc. But it sounds like that wouldn't be a real problem. And the new disposable SSME would be "in the ballpark" of the RS-68...and I'm assuming that's the non-human rated, non-regen RS-68?
If so, then the human rated regen RS-68 might be more than the disposable SSME.
Plus there's enough engines already paid for to get 5 J-130 flights up. Should be enough to get a few test flights, maybe an ISS cargo flight, and maybe the first Orion flight?
So, could PWR modify the SSME to the disposable design without needing to "re man-rate it"? Or do any variants of an engine need to be fully man-rated with those expenses?
Here's the elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring:
THERE ARE NO AVIONICS IN EXISTENCE TO OPERATE THE SSME EXCEPT FOR THE SHUTTLE!
Where are you going to get the avionics and FSW for a disposable SSME, regardless of whether you do NSC, Direct, or "Not Direct"...
There's an entire development effort that I've not seen anyone address.
The baseball cards show J-246 at ~90 nmi at MECO. How would that altitude differ between, say, an EDS-only launch versus 90 mT payload launch?
PWR Offers Shuttle Engine Alternative
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Engine071509.xml&headline=PWR%20Offers%20Shuttle%20Engine%20Alternative&channel=space
Hmmmm...very interesting. Sounds like PWR is onboard for a switch to SSME. Which is good, awhile back I'd read a few things about them shutting down the SSME production facilities and that it might be hard to restart them, etc. But it sounds like that wouldn't be a real problem. And the new disposable SSME would be "in the ballpark" of the RS-68...and I'm assuming that's the non-human rated, non-regen RS-68?
If so, then the human rated regen RS-68 might be more than the disposable SSME.
Plus there's enough engines already paid for to get 5 J-130 flights up. Should be enough to get a few test flights, maybe an ISS cargo flight, and maybe the first Orion flight?
So, could PWR modify the SSME to the disposable design without needing to "re man-rate it"? Or do any variants of an engine need to be fully man-rated with those expenses?
Here's the elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring:
THERE ARE NO AVIONICS IN EXISTENCE TO OPERATE THE SSME EXCEPT FOR THE SHUTTLE!
Where are you going to get the avionics and FSW for a disposable SSME, regardless of whether you do NSC, Direct, or "Not Direct"...
There's an entire development effort that I've not seen anyone address.
Seems to me that what needs to be done now is to hand the Direct concept over to NASA while at the same time allowing NASA to run with the ball and save face at the same time
That has been and is the standing policy of Direct at all times... if NASA wants to swipe the concept, file off the serial numbers and slap a NASA logo on it... then that's just fine with the Direct team.
PWR Offers Shuttle Engine Alternative
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Engine071509.xml&headline=PWR%20Offers%20Shuttle%20Engine%20Alternative&channel=space
Hmmmm...very interesting. Sounds like PWR is onboard for a switch to SSME. Which is good, awhile back I'd read a few things about them shutting down the SSME production facilities and that it might be hard to restart them, etc. But it sounds like that wouldn't be a real problem. And the new disposable SSME would be "in the ballpark" of the RS-68...and I'm assuming that's the non-human rated, non-regen RS-68?
If so, then the human rated regen RS-68 might be more than the disposable SSME.
Plus there's enough engines already paid for to get 5 J-130 flights up. Should be enough to get a few test flights, maybe an ISS cargo flight, and maybe the first Orion flight?
So, could PWR modify the SSME to the disposable design without needing to "re man-rate it"? Or do any variants of an engine need to be fully man-rated with those expenses?
Here's the elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring:
THERE ARE NO AVIONICS IN EXISTENCE TO OPERATE THE SSME EXCEPT FOR THE SHUTTLE!
Where are you going to get the avionics and FSW for a disposable SSME, regardless of whether you do NSC, Direct, or "Not Direct"...
There's an entire development effort that I've not seen anyone address.
You need to build new (expandable) avionics modules. Yep.
But look at the NSC proposal in detail. What Shannon basically proposed are 4-6 flights of a Block I vehicle, which would salvage every spare part and actual flight part of the current Shuttle stack - which includes avionics currently used in the active orbiters. Of course once those (and the 14 SSMEs which are available) are gone, you need to come up with a replacement.
I was drawing a line at 384.1 sec. and coming up with ~90 nmi. I'm wondering if a J-246 with Orion/Altair would be at the same place at 384.1 sec as a J-246 with just the EDS.The baseball cards show J-246 at ~90 nmi at MECO. How would that altitude differ between, say, an EDS-only launch versus 90 mT payload launch?
Most of them actually insert directly into 130x130nmi circular.
Which one are you referring to?
Ross.
Here's the elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring:
THERE ARE NO AVIONICS IN EXISTENCE TO OPERATE THE SSME EXCEPT FOR THE SHUTTLE!
Where are you going to get the avionics and FSW for a disposable SSME, regardless of whether you do NSC, Direct, or "Not Direct"...
There's an entire development effort that I've not seen anyone address.
One would note 14 SSMEs is only enough for four Block I flights (with 2 engines left over). Are there inactive SSMEs in existence that could be salvaged for one last flight? Using up exist STS stack components could help bring the IOC of NSC leftwards a year or so, compared to waiting for new parts to be ready. I assume that's accounted in the plan.
I was drawing a line at 384.1 sec. and coming up with ~90 nmi. I'm wondering if a J-246 with Orion/Altair would be at the same place at 384.1 sec as a J-246 with just the EDS.The baseball cards show J-246 at ~90 nmi at MECO. How would that altitude differ between, say, an EDS-only launch versus 90 mT payload launch?
Most of them actually insert directly into 130x130nmi circular.
Which one are you referring to?
Ross.
(My motive is to understand some of the basics so I can continue to consolidate and clean up the DIRECT wikipedia.org article.)
Thanks.
... SSME could be produced for just a little more than the RS-68, given consistent production orders.
... PWR also confirms DIRECT's plan for evolutionary development of a disposable SSME to help reduce costs further.
Good to know. Cheap expendable RS-25's combined with the cheap high pmf ICES/ACES EDS technology could only mean one thing...
Ares V is back in business ! Forget the 11 m dia / 5.5 seg / HTPB / base heating. The 1.5 architecture for the moon base rules !
I wonder, why did PWR lied to NASA back in 2005/2006 when the swing to RS-68 (for big life cycle cost savings) was decided... ? When did PWR got "cheap RS-25" faith ?
>>> and would be "a little more expensive" <<< no kidding !
Edit: in the end, The Augustine Commission II is God's Gift for NASA ! All kinds of cheap, high performance items are coming out of the woods !
Edit 2: cheap/easy air-startable RS-25 next ! Come on ! There's still time !
I’m not programmer, so maybe I am WAY off here. But could the portion of the shuttle avionics be borrowed/copied/reproduced for Direct? Meaning, the control of the SSME’s would be very similar on Direct to that of the shuttle. They start, they throttle up, they gimbal, they throttle back, they cut off. Their position is different, but their function and launch cycle operation should be pretty similar.
Good to know. Cheap expendable RS-25's combined with the cheap high pmf ICES/ACES EDS technology could only mean one thing...
Ares V is back in business ! Forget the 11 m dia / 5.5 seg / HTPB / base heating. The 1.5 architecture for the moon base rules !
http://thenonist.com/index.php/annex/comments/3749/
I hope this does not spoil the Gemütlichkeit. I thought it was pretty funny.
(fotoguzzi thinks zapkitty is somehow involved)
Here's the elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring:
THERE ARE NO AVIONICS IN EXISTENCE TO OPERATE THE SSME EXCEPT FOR THE SHUTTLE!
Good to know. Cheap expendable RS-25's combined with the cheap high pmf ICES/ACES EDS technology could only mean one thing...
Ares V is back in business ! Forget the 11 m dia / 5.5 seg / HTPB / base heating. The 1.5 architecture for the moon base rules !
That's sarcasm, right?
First of all, you couldn't get enough SSME's mounted under an 11m tank
Second, WBC/ICES was never a part of the Ares-V upper stage design. According to the AVUS experts, such technology did not bring any benefits (mass savings) to the table. The current AVUS calls for traditional LOX/LH2 tanks with the usual intertank in between.
Third, the entire 1.5 architecture has been pretty thoroughly thrashed lately.
If PWR can build cheap expendable RS-25's then why was it necessary to switch to RS-68 ?
http://thenonist.com/index.php/annex/comments/3749/
(fotoguzzi thinks zapkitty is somehow involved)
... and also the total weight of a higher Isp Ares V would be less which is important if it is getting too big for the support infrastructure.
... and also the total weight of a higher Isp Ares V would be less which is important if it is getting too big for the support infrastructure.
Wasn't Ares V already too big for the support infrastructure back in its last SSME incarnation?
Congratulations to NASA. Another common core stage success! I hope not all the software is reused. It would be nice for a mission to be able to span calendar years.But could the portion of the shuttle avionics be borrowed/copied/reproduced for Direct?Its not really the engine controllers which need to be updated. . .
Sorry, that was a moment of confusion from my end -- it finally clicked that you are correctly talking about Core Stage MECO, not US SECO. Its amazing how few people actually get that right and I've become somewhat "used" to it being used incorrectly that I didn't expect to see it used correctly. Sorry, my fault.
FYI: J-246 CLV stages (Core > JUS) at 163km altitude, at a velocity of 7,000m/s.
Ross.
According to the baseball cards, the EDS and CLV stage at the same speed and altitude. Is that correct? If so, how does the EDS get to orbit using only half the fuel. If not, where does the EDS stage?
Also, where do the spent cores land?
Sorry, that was a moment of confusion from my end -- it finally clicked that you are correctly talking about Core Stage MECO, not US SECO. Its amazing how few people actually get that right and I've become somewhat "used" to it being used incorrectly that I didn't expect to see it used correctly. Sorry, my fault.
FYI: J-246 CLV stages (Core > JUS) at 163km altitude, at a velocity of 7,000m/s.
Ross.
According to the baseball cards, the EDS and CLV stage at the same speed and altitude. Is that correct?
If so, how does the EDS get to orbit using only half the fuel. If not, where does the EDS stage?
Also, where do the spent cores land?
According to the baseball cards, the EDS and CLV stage at the same speed and altitude. Is that correct?
Near enough the same, yes.QuoteIf so, how does the EDS get to orbit using only half the fuel. If not, where does the EDS stage?
To get to orbit you only require about half a tank full inside the EDS. You either offload the rest and take up an equivalent amount of payload on top, or you fill the tanks and carry up that extra fuel as your payload. Either way, you're lifting the same amount of mass and using the same amount of propellant to get it there.
Its just that the EDS tanks are sized so as to allow you to carry up all of the TLI propellant in addition to the normal load needed just to get to orbit.QuoteAlso, where do the spent cores land?
J-24x Cores come down in the Mid-Atlantic. They don't even get close to the other side.
J-130 Cores come down depending entirely on the specific mission profile being flown. Some profiles inject the entire Core into circular LEO and in those cases you would get to select where to bring it back down again with a controlled de-orbit burn. Sub-orbital injections would typically target either the center of the Pacific or Indian Ocean's for safe disposal -- but that all depends on the specific mission.
Ross.
Thankfully though, courtesy of Ares, there is already a contract in place with Boeing to produce a new Avionics suite for NASA's next generation of launch vehicle. Yes, the specification changes quite a bit and that will increase the cost somewhat, but the contract is in place right now and is "close enough" that it could still be re-specified in order to suit the Jupiter much, much quicker than having to go through a full contract cancellation & re-bid process.
Jim,
Purely for clarity I'd just like to mention that for a *long* time now, we have consistently been saying that it is the Avionics which will be the long-pole in the development of the Jupiter.
I just want to make sure that you know that we know about this one already and are dealing with it :)
I just didn't like being lumped-in with that "everyone is ignoring" comment :)
J-24x Cores come down in the Mid-Atlantic. They don't even get close to the other side.
J-24x Cores come down in the Mid-Atlantic. They don't even get close to the other side.
So do you think anyone will be interested in retrieving slightly used Jupiter cores from the sea bottom?
Seems to me that they would be considered legal salvage under maritime law.
Of course they would probably hit engine-first, at who-knows what speed, but the heavier components might come through mostly in one piece.
They will not survive entry.
snip
you'd be stuck with a 40MHz computer with 1MB of memory until you had the time & money to rewrite *everything* from scratch for the VMC later.
Heck, a good percentage of the FSW code - and the messiest parts of it - are related to ignoring switch throws that might cause problems, so the crew doesn't bump one accidentally on orbit and release a payload before the doors have opened ... that sort of thing.
snip
you'd be stuck with a 40MHz computer with 1MB of memory until you had the time & money to rewrite *everything* from scratch for the VMC later.
Heck, a good percentage of the FSW code - and the messiest parts of it - are related to ignoring switch throws that might cause problems, so the crew doesn't bump one accidentally on orbit and release a payload before the doors have opened ... that sort of thing.
A 40MHz/1MB computer currently flies the ascent just fine -- and that is with display software, on orbit burns, RTLS entry guidance and autopilot, etc. It should work just fine to control either Direct or side-mount ascents forever. Orion will have its better computer to make better crew displays, etc. I don't see any reason need to upgrade the computers for ascent.
Danny Deger
They will not survive entry.
The J-246 cores are not going anywhere near orbital speed or altitude at staging, right?
Were the Saturn-V first stages ever located or salvaged? I never heard if they were, but it would be the equivalent.
They will not survive entry.
The J-246 cores are not going anywhere near orbital speed or altitude at staging, right? So comparing them to Columbia is not valid. Were the Saturn-V first stages ever located or salvaged? I never heard if they were, but it would be the equivalent.
FYI: J-246 CLV stages (Core > JUS) at 163km altitude, at a velocity of 7,000m/s.
According to the baseball cards, the EDS and CLV stage at the same speed and altitude. Is that correct? If so, how does the EDS get to orbit using only half the fuel. If not, where does the EDS stage?
If I'm reading the baseball cards correctly, the ASE for J246-CLV (1390kg) is almost three times the mass of the EDS version (500kg). What's up with that?
For a lunar mission, if one J-246 were launched with Orion and another with Altair, could either JUS serve as the EDS?
Modify: I guess a better question to ask: Is the amount that a J-246 can launch and still have enough JUS fuel left over to take everything to lunar orbit somewhere between 22 mT and 46 mT?
Question: How viable is the 4-seg Ares I light that I have heard about?
Would a down-sized Orion still be useful for lunar missions?
An alternative idea, what if the bottom module, with the engines, were ejectable and reusable. Say upon the point that the main tank is shedded, the bottom portion could eject and parachute down in some safe manner?
You need to build new (expandable) avionics modules. Yep.
But look at the NSC proposal in detail. What Shannon basically proposed are 4-6 flights of a Block I vehicle, which would salvage every spare part and actual flight part of the current Shuttle stack - which includes avionics currently used in the active orbiters. Of course once those (and the 14 SSMEs which are available) are gone, you need to come up with a replacement.
Unfortunately the hardware which the Shuttle systems currently run upon is completely antiquated. And worse, there are no real equivalents today which are code-compatible any more either so they're almost impossible to build in significant numbers -- so you really have few options but to start afresh.Is there any way for a normal citizen to get ahold of the existing shuttle system controller specs? You say there's nothing capable of running the existing software, but I'm curious what hardware currently runs it, to see if a bridge could be built. (you just hit my area of enjoyment, replacing ancient hardware to run specialized software)
Ross.
An alternative idea, what if the bottom module, with the engines, were ejectable and reusable. Say upon the point that the main tank is shedded, the bottom portion could eject and parachute down in some safe manner?
You need to build new (expandable) avionics modules. Yep.
But look at the NSC proposal in detail. What Shannon basically proposed are 4-6 flights of a Block I vehicle, which would salvage every spare part and actual flight part of the current Shuttle stack - which includes avionics currently used in the active orbiters. Of course once those (and the 14 SSMEs which are available) are gone, you need to come up with a replacement.
Unfortunately the hardware which the Shuttle systems currently run upon is completely antiquated. And worse, there are no real equivalents today which are code-compatible any more either so they're almost impossible to build in significant numbers -- so you really have few options but to start afresh.Is there any way for a normal citizen to get ahold of the existing shuttle system controller specs? You say there's nothing capable of running the existing software, but I'm curious what hardware currently runs it, to see if a bridge could be built. (you just hit my area of enjoyment, replacing ancient hardware to run specialized software)
Ross.
Oh cool, I drive past them most mornings. But I figured it would be propriority. Never hurts to ask however.Unfortunately the hardware which the Shuttle systems currently run upon is completely antiquated. And worse, there are no real equivalents today which are code-compatible any more either so they're almost impossible to build in significant numbers -- so you really have few options but to start afresh.Is there any way for a normal citizen to get ahold of the existing shuttle system controller specs? You say there's nothing capable of running the existing software, but I'm curious what hardware currently runs it, to see if a bridge could be built. (you just hit my area of enjoyment, replacing ancient hardware to run specialized software)
Ross.
Honeywell in Clearwater FL makes and services the SSMEC. I have a friend who works on it. I am sure the info is all proprietary, though.
Why does the J130 use ullage motors to deorbit the core, instead of using them to circularize the payload at the apogee of a suborbital launch? It seems that putting the motors on the core reduces similarities between the J130 and J24x cores.
Why does the J130 use ullage motors to deorbit the core, instead of using them to circularize the payload at the apogee of a suborbital launch? It seems that putting the motors on the core reduces similarities between the J130 and J24x cores.
As I understand it, after running some simulations, the team decided that there wasn't enough time between MECO and apogee for the Orion to pick up the SSPDM or whatever other cargo is in the PLF and then perform orbital circularisation with its MPS. The only way around that is to have the LV put the spacecraft into a stable circular orbit and later de-orbit it with the ulage motors.
Oh cool, I drive past them most mornings. But I figured it would be propriority. Never hurts to ask however.Unfortunately the hardware which the Shuttle systems currently run upon is completely antiquated. And worse, there are no real equivalents today which are code-compatible any more either so they're almost impossible to build in significant numbers -- so you really have few options but to start afresh.Is there any way for a normal citizen to get ahold of the existing shuttle system controller specs? You say there's nothing capable of running the existing software, but I'm curious what hardware currently runs it, to see if a bridge could be built. (you just hit my area of enjoyment, replacing ancient hardware to run specialized software)
Ross.
Honeywell in Clearwater FL makes and services the SSMEC. I have a friend who works on it. I am sure the info is all proprietary, though.
Just curious, but who here would be interested in a get-together around KSC on the evening of the 30th -- after the Committee Hearing in Cocoa Beach?
I'm thinking about a meal at a local restaurant and we can have a few drinks and while away the hours.
Let me know if you would be interested.
Ross.
Jupiter has been described as a one-and-a-half stage vehicle
I know Ross has previously explained where the other 28kg goes - I think it's related to the proportion of post-ascent fuel which boils off before TLI.
Just curious, but who here would be interested in a get-together around KSC on the evening of the 30th -- after the Committee Hearing in Cocoa Beach?
I'm thinking about a meal at a local restaurant and we can have a few drinks and while away the hours.
Let me know if you would be interested.
Ross.
I always understood the term stage-and-a-half to include strapons, such as on the R-7, not just engines, as in Atlas. By that standard, Jupiter 130 is stage-and-a-half.
I'd love to have local get-togethers to hoist a pint in celebration of reaching the long-standing goal of getting an independent review of all available options on a level playing field. Perhaps on the day that the Augustine Commission presents its report?
I always understood the term stage-and-a-half to include strapons, such as on the R-7, not just engines, as in Atlas. By that standard, Jupiter 130 is stage-and-a-half.
But look at the NSC proposal in detail. What Shannon basically proposed are 4-6 flights of a Block I vehicle, which would salvage every spare part and actual flight part of the current Shuttle stack - which includes avionics currently used in the active orbiters. Of course once those (and the 14 SSMEs which are available) are gone, you need to come up with a replacement.An alternative idea, what if the bottom module, with the engines, were ejectable and reusable. Say upon the point that the main tank is shedded, the bottom portion could eject and parachute down in some safe manner?
Jupiter has been described as a one-and-a-half stage vehicle
Martin,
Please be very careful using that term. It actually means something very specific which has nothing at all to do with Jupiter.
I know Ross has previously explained where the other 28kg goes - I think it's related to the proportion of post-ascent fuel which boils off before TLI.
Engine purge after shutdown.
Ross.
Ooo, I know that, well, the older AP101 it's based on. Derived from the IBM S/360 mainframe, using core memory. I cut my mainframe teeth on the 360! (don't mind me geeking out a bit, have not been able to enjoy any mainframe time in over a year)Oh cool, I drive past them most mornings. But I figured it would be propriority. Never hurts to ask however.Unfortunately the hardware which the Shuttle systems currently run upon is completely antiquated. And worse, there are no real equivalents today which are code-compatible any more either so they're almost impossible to build in significant numbers -- so you really have few options but to start afresh.Is there any way for a normal citizen to get ahold of the existing shuttle system controller specs? You say there's nothing capable of running the existing software, but I'm curious what hardware currently runs it, to see if a bridge could be built. (you just hit my area of enjoyment, replacing ancient hardware to run specialized software)
Ross.
Honeywell in Clearwater FL makes and services the SSMEC. I have a friend who works on it. I am sure the info is all proprietary, though.
Actually, there is am interesting 1987 paper describing the newer version of the shuttle computers. It's named "The New AP101S General-Purpose Computer (GPC) for the Space Shuttle". It's not available for free on the Internet, though that could be arranged ;-)...
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1458005
You might also be interested in a more high-level description with lots of fun details here (and, also not available free of charge) here http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=358234.358246
But look at the NSC proposal in detail. What Shannon basically proposed are 4-6 flights of a Block I vehicle, which would salvage every spare part and actual flight part of the current Shuttle stack - which includes avionics currently used in the active orbiters. Of course once those (and the 14 SSMEs which are available) are gone, you need to come up with a replacement.An alternative idea, what if the bottom module, with the engines, were ejectable and reusable. Say upon the point that the main tank is shedded, the bottom portion could eject and parachute down in some safe manner?
69,892kg Usable Ascent Propellant
102kg Ascent In-Flight Losses
2,896kg Ascent Flight Performance Reserve
99,896kg Usable Post-Ascent Propellant
1,009kg Post-Ascent Flight Performance Reserve
1,723kg Unusable Residuals
=========
175,491kg Total
=========
175,519kg Maximum Gross Propellant
The 2896kg listed as Ascent Flight Performance Reserve is the same as the Pre-TLI Overboard mass, is that right? Also, CLV values are identical except for the Usable Post-Ascent Propellant value?
69,892kg Usable Ascent Propellant
102kg Ascent In-Flight Losses
2,896kg Ascent Flight Performance Reserve
99,896kg Usable Post-Ascent Propellant
1,009kg Post-Ascent Flight Performance Reserve
1,723kg Unusable Residuals
=========
175,491kg Total
=========
175,519kg Maximum Gross Propellant
Every time I add those six numbers I get 175518. Metric system? Banker math?
Does the Direct team have any plans to have a presence at the Huntsville Public Meeting on the 29th?
Does the Direct team have any plans to have a presence at the Huntsville Public Meeting on the 29th?
Sounds like another fund raiser is in order...
I'd love to have local get-togethers to hoist a pint in celebration of reaching the long-standing goal of getting an independent review of all available options on a level playing field. Perhaps on the day that the Augustine Commission presents its report?
That's exactly what I'm planning.
As we get closer to the 30th, I'll get everyone to confirm so that we can book a table large enough at a restaurant in the area.
Ross.
Does the Direct team have any plans to have a presence at the Huntsville Public Meeting on the 29th?
I would be very grateful if someone could please ensure this gets recorded somehow!
Is there a radio equivalent of the stage/film good-luck charm "break a leg"?
Ross.
I would be very grateful if someone could please ensure this gets recorded somehow!
FWIW, following the link to NPR it appears their website has MP3 links for prior shows.
Please - everyone - do not be dissuaded from recording this just in case I'm wrong, but it appears that NPR records its shows and makes the audio available after the fact.
Is this a TV show? If it is what channel? Or is it a radio show? I can't quite figure it out.
I would be very grateful if someone could please ensure this gets recorded somehow!
FWIW, following the link to NPR it appears their website has MP3 links for prior shows.
Please - everyone - do not be dissuaded from recording this just in case I'm wrong, but it appears that NPR records its shows and makes the audio available after the fact.
Is this a TV show? If it is what channel? Or is it a radio show? I can't quite figure it out.
Dr. Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 Astronaut & Moon-walkerAnd lunar geologist, too!
Dr. Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 Astronaut & Moon-walkerAnd lunar geologist, too!
Modify: selenologist?
I recall reading that one of the "funnies" on STS-1 was the fact that Columbia's wings were stressed almost to their limit, due to aerodynamic forces. As a result, future launches used a modified trajectory that placed less stress on the wings, but at the cost of payload capacity.
Since Orion won't have wings, has anyone realized that Jupiter-130 could go back to using the more efficient original trajectory? I would assume someone has, but I haven't read about it anywhere. (Or maybe someone did mention it, but not in layman's terms. ;))
Is there a radio equivalent of the stage/film good-luck charm "break a leg"?
Ross.
Ross, CB slang "Eighty-eight (love and kisses) and seventy-three (best regards) "
Bumping this since I don't think it got noticed...I recall reading that one of the "funnies" on STS-1 was the fact that Columbia's wings were stressed almost to their limit, due to aerodynamic forces. As a result, future launches used a modified trajectory that placed less stress on the wings, but at the cost of payload capacity.
Since Orion won't have wings, has anyone realized that Jupiter-130 could go back to using the more efficient original trajectory? I would assume someone has, but I haven't read about it anywhere. (Or maybe someone did mention it, but not in layman's terms. ;) )
Bumping this since I don't think it got noticed...I recall reading that one of the "funnies" on STS-1 was the fact that Columbia's wings were stressed almost to their limit, due to aerodynamic forces. As a result, future launches used a modified trajectory that placed less stress on the wings, but at the cost of payload capacity.
Since Orion won't have wings, has anyone realized that Jupiter-130 could go back to using the more efficient original trajectory? I would assume someone has, but I haven't read about it anywhere. (Or maybe someone did mention it, but not in layman's terms. ;))
Announcement:
I would be very grateful if someone could please ensure this gets recorded somehow!
Regards,
Ross Tierney
www.directlauncher.com
www.launchcomplexmodels.com
--
"Why is there not more thinking in the direction
of developing the simplest scheme possible?"
-- John C. Houbolt, 1961
I have some questions about this report...
Firstly, from what I can read the "Secondary Effect" concerns here appear to be mostly related to the 7,900ft diameter flaming debris (4000deg F) zone being dangerous for the nylon in the parachutes (<400deg F).
But isn't the LAS supposed to get the CM more than 4,000ft away from the vehicle before jettisoning the LAS/BPC, right?
So how do the parachutes get exposed to these conditions given that the BPC will still be covering them and protecting throughout this portion of the flight? Would they not be outside of the 7,900ft diameter of the blast zone before exposing the parachutes, no?
I don't see this explicitly dealt with in the report. Can we be sure this study has taken that all into account?
My key concern would be that there are chunks of flaming debris chasing the Orion's heatshield at 250ft/sec. I'm not sure the LAS can get the CM away that fast. But that's certainly a "Primary Effect" issue -- I suspect there is a separate document dealing with those though.
WRT DIRECT, I say this makes a really good case for the addition of the 500kg 5.0m Boron-Carbide/Kevlar shield which we suggested be located between the SM & CM. If it were designed in such a way as to still be attached as the LAS blasts the CM away, it would offer additional protection to any crew in such a predicament. And the Jupiter's can comfortably accommodate the mass penalty for both ISS and Lunar missions too.
Ross.
Since the study is based on the spray pattern from the TitanIV-A20 failure, does direct have the same weakness?Do I recall correctly that asbestos parachutes was one of the early items cut during the Orion Zero Base Vehicle program?
Is there a radio equivalent of the stage/film good-luck charm "break a leg"?
Ross.
Ross, CB slang "Eighty-eight (love and kisses) and seventy-three (best regards) "
A little weirded-out by the "love and kisses", but the "best regards" are extremely welcome, thanks! ;D
Ross.
Kevin,
I posted the following over on that thread:QuoteI have some questions about this report...
Firstly, from what I can read the "Secondary Effect" concerns here appear to be mostly related to the 7,900ft diameter flaming debris (4000deg F) zone being dangerous for the nylon in the parachutes (<400deg F).
But isn't the LAS supposed to get the CM more than 4,000ft away from the vehicle before jettisoning the LAS/BPC, right?
So how do the parachutes get exposed to these conditions given that the BPC will still be covering them and protecting throughout this portion of the flight? Would they not be outside of the 7,900ft diameter of the blast zone before exposing the parachutes, no?
I don't see this explicitly dealt with in the report. Can we be sure this study has taken that all into account?
My key concern would be that there are chunks of flaming debris chasing the Orion's heatshield at 250ft/sec. I'm not sure the LAS can get the CM away that fast. But that's certainly a "Primary Effect" issue -- I suspect there is a separate document dealing with those though.
WRT DIRECT, I say this makes a really good case for the addition of the 500kg 5.0m Boron-Carbide/Kevlar shield which we suggested be located between the SM & CM. If it were designed in such a way as to still be attached as the LAS blasts the CM away, it would offer additional protection to any crew in such a predicament. And the Jupiter's can comfortably accommodate the mass penalty for both ISS and Lunar missions too.
Ross.
As I posted on that thread too, the issue seems to be high drag near Max Q will prevent the LAS from taking Orion far enough to get out of the debris field. Inside that field, Air Temperature will be high enough to melt parachutes. A blast shield can't protect the chutes once deployed.
4,000 ft at pad abort does not equate to nearly the same near Max Q.
On the other hand, Direct Max Q will be substantially lower than Ares I. Max drag, not the same thing, should also be a lot lower.
On the gripping hand, Direct CLV could afford a substantially heavier LAS to get clear of the debris zone in the worst case scenario.
Announcement:
"To The Moon"
NPR -- Science Friday with Ira Flatow
(broadcast Friday, July 17th, 2009)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200907171
Guests:
Alan Bean, Apollo 12 Astronaut & Moon-walker
Dr. Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 Astronaut & Moon-walker
Andrew Chaikin, Author and Journalist
Ross Tierney, Founder of The DIRECT Team
I would be very grateful if someone could please ensure this gets recorded somehow!
Regards,
Ross Tierney
www.directlauncher.com
www.launchcomplexmodels.com
--
"Why is there not more thinking in the direction
of developing the simplest scheme possible?"
-- John C. Houbolt, 1961
I think the only still unanswered part is whether there is precedence for launching a partially-full upper stage. Is it merely a matter of filling the LOX tank (I presume the H2 tank is always filled) until a sensor in the middle of the tank lights up, or does it mean modifying the tank structure for a partially-full launch?
Is there a radio equivalent of the stage/film good-luck charm "break a leg"?In french, we'd say "Merde !". No need to translate ;)
I think the only still unanswered part is whether there is precedence for launching a partially-full upper stage.
On the gripping hand ...
It's not drag on the chutes, it's drag on the capsule slowing its getaway during LAS fire.
An SRB explosion would lead to a widespread rain of burning chunks of propellant at varying speeds for quite a while. If the Orion is within that, it can't open it's chutes coz they'll melt.
The chutes don't even have to be hit. The radiant heat alone is too intense.
As I posted on that thread too, the issue seems to be high drag near Max Q will prevent the LAS from taking Orion far enough to get out of the debris field. Inside that field, Air Temperature will be high enough to melt parachutes. A blast shield can't protect the chutes once deployed.
4,000 ft at pad abort does not equate to nearly the same near Max Q.
On the other hand, Direct Max Q will be substantially lower than Ares I. Max drag, not the same thing, should also be a lot lower.
On the gripping hand, Direct CLV could afford a substantially heavier LAS to get clear of the debris zone in the worst case scenario.
As I posted on that thread too, the issue seems to be high drag near Max Q will prevent the LAS from taking Orion far enough to get out of the debris field. Inside that field, Air Temperature will be high enough to melt parachutes. A blast shield can't protect the chutes once deployed.
4,000 ft at pad abort does not equate to nearly the same near Max Q.
On the other hand, Direct Max Q will be substantially lower than Ares I. Max drag, not the same thing, should also be a lot lower.
On the gripping hand, Direct CLV could afford a substantially heavier LAS to get clear of the debris zone in the worst case scenario.
Isn't one of DIRECT's many benefits over the STICK that the Max Aerodynamic pressure is far, far lower?
Doesn't that mean that the LAS should have a much better chance of clearing the blast zone during this time that it would with the stick? Or at least there would be a much smaller window where it would be vulnerable?
As I posted on that thread too, the issue seems to be high drag near Max Q will prevent the LAS from taking Orion far enough to get out of the debris field. Inside that field, Air Temperature will be high enough to melt parachutes. A blast shield can't protect the chutes once deployed.
4,000 ft at pad abort does not equate to nearly the same near Max Q.
On the other hand, Direct Max Q will be substantially lower than Ares I. Max drag, not the same thing, should also be a lot lower.
On the gripping hand, Direct CLV could afford a substantially heavier LAS to get clear of the debris zone in the worst case scenario.
How good is the capsule insulation? Spending any amount of time within a 4000deg environment would be very bad for the crew, never mind the parachutes.
Well... given a successful LAS escape from the LV... once the LAS is above the debris field the chutes deploy and will keep the capsule above the debris field.
So that leaves the question of the thermal updraft from the field... is it a worry?
Well... given a successful LAS escape from the LV... once the LAS is above the debris field the chutes deploy and will keep the capsule above the debris field.
So that leaves the question of the thermal updraft from the field... is it a worry?
For the times in question, will the aborted capsule come down in the see, or on land?
If on land, the capsule may come down into the debris on the ground.
If at sea, the chunks would presumably be "safed" almost instantly (as long as they land before the capsule)?
cheers, Martin
How good is the capsule insulation? Spending any amount of time within a 4000deg environment would be very bad for the crew, never mind the parachutes.
The bottom is pretty good - it has a TPS! But I'm guessing, not robust enough to cope with big impacts?
Doesn't help if flaming chunks of SRB drop onto the top / sides of the capsule, either.
And there's the parachutes, of course.
cheers, Martin
It's a sad day for Ares-I because it cannot afford a heavier LAS with more propellant that might allow it to escape. To have the USAF show that there is an Ares-I "Black Zone" that actually kills the crew if it is ever breached is a bitter pill to swallow.
As I posted on that thread too, the issue seems to be high drag near Max Q will prevent the LAS from taking Orion far enough to get out of the debris field. Inside that field, Air Temperature will be high enough to melt parachutes. A blast shield can't protect the chutes once deployed.
4,000 ft at pad abort does not equate to nearly the same near Max Q.
On the other hand, Direct Max Q will be substantially lower than Ares I. Max drag, not the same thing, should also be a lot lower.
On the gripping hand, Direct CLV could afford a substantially heavier LAS to get clear of the debris zone in the worst case scenario.
Isn't one of DIRECT's many benefits over the STICK that the Max Aerodynamic pressure is far, far lower?
Doesn't that mean that the LAS should have a much better chance of clearing the blast zone during this time that it would with the stick? Or at least there would be a much smaller window where it would be vulnerable?
It's a sad day for Ares-I because it cannot afford a heavier LAS with more propellant that might allow it to escape. To have the USAF show that there is an Ares-I "Black Zone" that actually kills the crew if it is ever breached is a bitter pill to swallow.
Is the bottom of Orion especially strong as part of coping with re-entry loads? I'd presume not, it's designed to cope with more of a thermal challenge than massive stresses / impacts.
Here's something I've been wondering: How much Delta-V could you get out of a Jupiter 246 carrying a fully-fuelled Orion (as currently envisioned) and something like a 10mT Bigelow mdoule? There are some pretty interesting NEOs with relatively short (3 - 6mo) flight times and less than 16kps delta-v requirements. Eros would be cool, since it's 22km in diameter, and delta-v would only be 15kps. Unfortunately, I think the one-way flight time would be on the order of 298 days. Phobos is "closer."
But I struggle to see how you toughen the underside / TPS, without having to then carry that cover all the way through to TEI.
ah, just yank another crew member out of Orion... ;)
It's a sad day for Ares-I because it cannot afford a heavier LAS with more propellant that might allow it to escape. To have the USAF show that there is an Ares-I "Black Zone" that actually kills the crew if it is ever breached is a bitter pill to swallow.
ah, just yank another crew member out of Orion... ;)
Here's something I've been wondering: How much Delta-V could you get out of a Jupiter 246 carrying a fully-fuelled Orion (as currently envisioned) and something like a 10mT Bigelow mdoule? There are some pretty interesting NEOs with relatively short (3 - 6mo) flight times and less than 16kps delta-v requirements. Eros would be cool, since it's 22km in diameter, and delta-v would only be 15kps. Unfortunately, I think the one-way flight time would be on the order of 298 days. Phobos is "closer."
I think you have hit upon the biggest head of many nails - think of all the possibilities something like that would open up. We could have crews and missions scattered all over the place!
Mission question for J246 EDS and CLV/CaLV: is the latter flight (whenever it happens) expected to ascend to a direct (!) rendezvous with the former? That is, there's no staging orbit/catch-up like shuttle/ISS?
Watch this space. We should have some answers within the next few days.
Ross.
LOL. When would we NOT watch this space??? :)
But I struggle to see how you toughen the underside / TPS, without having to then carry that cover all the way through to TEI.
Remember that the current Orion design has to complete its own ascent. It uses around 2 tons of fuel to get from where Ares-I drops it (-11x100nmi @ 70nmi) to where it needs to be (130x130nmi circular) to be able to dock with Altair.
Jupiter can place it FULLY LOADED, straight into circular orbit along with the Altair. Without even needing a re-design, that 2 tons of extra SM fuel could, instead, be used to cover any additional TEI performance needs incurred by adding a 500kg 'blast shield' into the design.
In other words, the current Orion design can do the job.
And the rest of the architecture has sufficiently large margins to be able to send that heavier Orion to the moon too.
Overall, you could add about 3 tons of mass (enough to also add back Land Landing and some other discarded systems from the "parking lot" too) and *still* comfortably close all of the performance requirements with full margins.
Ross.
Mission question for J246 EDS and CLV/CaLV: is the latter flight (whenever it happens) expected to ascend to a direct (!) rendezvous with the former? That is, there's no staging orbit/catch-up like shuttle/ISS?
No, there is always a phasing orbit.
Mission question for J246 EDS and CLV/CaLV: is the latter flight (whenever it happens) expected to ascend to a direct (!) rendezvous with the former? That is, there's no staging orbit/catch-up like shuttle/ISS?
No, there is always a phasing orbit.
Thanks. What is the fuel budget for that maneuver?
Oh boy, I'm a nervous wreck!
Head to head with Jack Schmitt at the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11! Wow.
Ross.
Oh boy, I'm a nervous wreck!
Head to head with Jack Schmitt at the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11! Wow.
Ross.
Fuel budget is, to first order, unaffected by phasing. Large phase angle means you stay in a lower orbit longer and a small phase angle means you raise your orbit quicker. Total delta-V is the same. Phasing is done to expand launch window.
First football, now baseball - homerun performance. I do hope someone encourages Dr. Schmitt to examine the details with an open mind.
First football, now baseball - homerun performance. I do hope someone encourages Dr. Schmitt to examine the details with an open mind.
Let's hope that the aerospace report is made public and we all will be able too (examine the details). Just out of curiosity how likely is this? Would you imagine there to be confidential information from the presenters that would prevent this from happening?
With that in mind you could add 25mT (maybe more?) of "debris retaining" structures to each SRB and still comfortably make orbit with margins intact.
Did anybody record this? I just caught the end of it.
It is highly unlikely that we will hear anything publicaly from Aerospace Corp.
It is highly unlikely that we will hear anything publically from Aerospace Corp.
Irrelevant. Will these sunshine laws we've heard so much about in relationship to this committee enable a public review of the data touted as being the Direct data?
And even with ITAR and proprietary restrictions, will the Direct team be able to check that they haven't been deliberately shafted a third (or is it fourth) time?
To forestall knee-jerk reactions and attempts at faux diplomacy: It does not matter one way or the other how ethical or impartial Aerospace or the committee may actually be.... is the response just going to be "trust us"?
So how much sunshine will there actually be?
Let's hope that the aerospace report is made public and we all will be able too (examine the details). Just out of curiosity how likely is this? Would you imagine there to be confidential information from the presenters that would prevent this from happening?
Both the Jupiter-130 and Jupiter-24x vehicles fly a much more benign trajectory than Ares-I and that the Max-Q forces are substantially lower. Ares-I typically subjects the vehicle to around 1,200psf (+/- 100psf) during its Max-Q, whereas Jupiter produces more like 650psf (+/- 100psf).
Ross, latest official trajectories (i.e. somewhat old) show a nominal MaxQ of 850psf, with a few cases of ~1050psf. What trajectories are you using to give those numbers?
Did anybody record this? I just caught the end of it.
I missed it too. It looks their older shows all have mp3 recordings posted. We may have to wait until they get that done for this show too. I have no idea how long that might take. Maybe a few hours, maybe a few days.
Unless someone else made a copy?
Mark S.
... we believe... We have no reason to believe that there is any reason what-so-ever to believe otherwise.
... we believe... We have no reason to believe that there is any reason what-so-ever to believe otherwise.
You've trotted out the party line and failed to answer the question. The irony is somewhat amusing.
I don't care about your belief system. I want the facts.
Ross, YOU DID A DAMN FINE JOB!! great going...Did anybody record this? I just caught the end of it.Unless someone else made a copy?
The Augustine Committee's charter makes it clear that they must release everything they get hold of. Of course, some materials might be classified and they won't be able to release those, but everything else *has* to come out.
Just listening to the show again, I have to 110% agree with Andrews closing comments regarding getting us out of LEO again. That was a really great line to close the show on.
Ross.
Just listening to the show again, I have to 110% agree with Andrew Chaikin's closing comments regarding getting us out of LEO again. That was a really great line to close the show on.
Ross.
I have not heard any discussion of directing contact to the White House or Congress directly (around/over the Chain of Command, always my MO). I would recommend that to all.
Just listening to the show again, I have to 110% agree with Andrews closing comments regarding getting us out of LEO again. That was a really great line to close the show on.
Ross.
Ross- I just listened to the show and you offered an outstanding polemic regarding DIRECT. I don't think you are going to have to buy any drinks on the 30th. You ably served the Direct cause with an excellent point by point argument. Nice job standing your ground respectfully with a couple of the Apollo Program's finest. Great job!!
Thanks for all the compliments guys. The response really makes me feel very humble.
And you lot really have no clue just how terrified I get doing these things! :) But I survived. And its all for a great cause, so I guess I need to just keep on doing it :)
Ross.
Brihath,
According to: http://galaxywire.net/tag/augustine-commission/
The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee will hold three public meetings July 28-30. The meetings are open to news media representatives. No registration is required, but seating is limited to location capacity.
The first meeting will be July 28 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. CDT at the South Shore Harbour Resort and Conference Center, 2500 South Shore Blvd. in League City, Texas. Agenda topics include NASA’s Johnson Space Center operations, NASA’s Constellation program, committee sub-group reports and public comments.
The second session will be July 29 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. EDT at the Davidson/U.S. Space and Rocket Center, 1 Tranquility Base, in Huntsville, Ala. Agenda topics include NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center operations, committee sub-group reports, NASA’s Constellation program and public comments.
The third public session will be July 30 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. EDT at the Hilton Cocoa Beach Oceanfront Grand Ballroom, 1550 North Atlantic Avenue, in Cocoa Beach, Fla. Agenda topics will include NASA’s Kennedy Space Center operations, committee sub-group reports, NASA’s Constellation program and public comments.
I believe this is correct.
Ross.
Brihath,
According to: http://galaxywire.net/tag/augustine-commission/
The third public session will be July 30 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. EDT at the Hilton Cocoa Beach Oceanfront Grand Ballroom, 1550 North Atlantic Avenue, in Cocoa Beach, Fla. Agenda topics will include NASA’s Kennedy Space Center operations, committee sub-group reports, NASA’s Constellation program and public comments.
I believe this is correct.
Ross.
Public Meeting - Washington, D.C.
August 5th, 2009 - TBD
Washington, D.C.
No Pre-Registration Required
Wow, just listened the NPR segment. Nice job Ross.
I've got great respect for any astronaut, let alone someone who went to the moon, but there were points in the conversation that reflected less on the person and more on the NASA, "not invented here" mentality.
One of the guests, astronaut Alan Bean, replied to Ross's description of DIRECT with a really telling statement.
"I've spent 18 years at NASA ... and NASA had developed a wonderful methodology in making trade offs between these kinds of ideas... sometimes, early on, I would go against them, but I was found to be wrong, so I don't go against this NASA methodology anymore."
Announcement:
"To The Moon"
NPR -- Science Friday with Ira Flatow
(broadcast Friday, July 17th, 2009)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200907171
Guests:
Alan Bean, Apollo 12 Astronaut & Moon-walker
Dr. Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 Astronaut & Moon-walker
Andrew Chaikin, Author and Journalist
Ross Tierney, Founder of The DIRECT Team
I would be very grateful if someone could please ensure this gets recorded somehow!
Regards,
Ross Tierney
www.directlauncher.com
www.launchcomplexmodels.com
--
"Why is there not more thinking in the direction
of developing the simplest scheme possible?"
-- John C. Houbolt, 1961
The Committee wants your comments on #3
Download a Graphic of the Committee Subgroups Structure and Membership (pdf, 277k)
Download the current Subgroups Progress Report (pdf, 23k)
Exploration Beyond LEO: Process and Progress (pdf, 144k) (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/368722main_Beyond_LEO_07_12_09.pdf)
This document describes the process and progress of the Exploration Beyond LEO Subgroup. The document presents some preliminary scenarios for U.S. human space flight that the subgroup is analyzing. The Committee wants your comments on this document and on the scenarios presented.
Specifically, the “Exploration Beyond LEO” subcommittee will examine the following questions:
1. What are the appropriate destinations and sequences of exploration for human exploration beyond LEO;
2. What should be the mode of surface exploration (if any);
3. What is the strategy within the human space flight program for coordinating human and robotic exploration;
4. What are the assumed launch vehicle(s) to LEO (in terms of mass to orbit and shroud diameter);
5. What are the options for in-space fuel/oxidizer storage and transfer;
6. What is the role that space technology research and development will play;
7. What is our strategy for engaging international partners in the development of the program;
8. What is our strategy for engaging commercial entities?
The first subcommittee-defined scenario, Lunar Base, is a close derivative of the current program, with some simplifications.
Lunar Global is a scenario in which a base or
outpost is not assembled on the Moon, but instead the Moon is explored by a coordinated series of extended duration human sorties and robotic exploration. In both these cases, implications for subsequent Mars exploration will be considered.
Moon to Mars, or more completely Moon on the way to Mars, is a scenario in which the primary objective is Mars exploration, and all systems are designed for Mars. Only when it is beneficial to use the Moon as a true test bed for these Mars exploration systems will flights to the Moon be conducted.
Mars First is a plan to exclusively pursue human exploration of the Mars as fast as possible, without using the Moon as a first destination.
Finally, Flexible Path is a scenario that allows humans to visit a wide number of inner solar system bodies, objects and locations, but not go to the surface of those with deep gravity wells. Destinations besides Moon and Mars would include the Earth-Moon and Earth-Sun Lagrange points, near-Earth objects (NEOs) and the moons of Mars. There is nothing implied in this scenario that surface exploration might not follow, simply that exploration would first exploit all that could be done without landing on a planetary surface.
So Ross, will you ever offer Jupiter-130/246 models? I might have to pick up one, although I can wait as you are understandably busy (I would love to see lego make a Jupiter model, dont ask why...)Make it a model rocket and I'll buy two. 8) Altho technically you might be able to kitbash one using a shuttle kit.
I put plans to scratch build a J-120 (Direct 2.0) on Rocketry Planet (http://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3093). Video of the flight is here on the Direct site (http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/DavidStriblingFlyingJupiter/Jupiter120_Launch_17Oct2008.wmv)
Make it a model rocket and I'll buy two. 8) Altho technically you might be able to kitbash one using a shuttle kit.
i like that flexible path idea..It's basically the exploration path that Robert Farquhar advocated in the March-April 2008 Issue of the Planetary Society Report. He called the Moon Base proposal a cul-de-sac which would suck up all money for decades to come. On this forum, his articles on Lagrange points are well known. They make the logical long term jumping off points for the rest of the Solar System.
Subgroup on Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit
Dr. Crawley, who leads this subgroup, said that he expects them to analyze
approximately five destination-based scenarios to present to the full Committee. He described the intended method for analyzing each scenario. The subgroup has developed eight questions, the answers to which would help shape the subgroup’s analysis and determine any potential recommendations to the full committee. Two of the questions allow the subgroup to match up the beyond-LEO cases with those leading to LEO. One is the question of what launch vehicles are available; the other is the potential for in-space fuel depots and fuel transfers. The subgroup will also examine assessments of technology, engaging international partners and commercial ventures. In addition to the five subgroupdefined scenarios, several other good comprehensive architectural studies will be examined. One of these is a joint ESA/NASA study completed last year, and another is the report coming out of a “blue sky exercise” that NASA Advisory Council Chairman Dr. Kenneth Ford is leading.
Oceanfront??? I'll bring my suit and flip-flops! :-)
So Ross, will you ever offer Jupiter-130/246 models? I might have to pick up one, although I can wait as you are understandably busy (I would love to see lego make a Jupiter model, dont ask why...)Make it a model rocket and I'll buy two. 8) Altho technically you might be able to kitbash one using a shuttle kit.
Dr. Zooch is supposed to be coming out with a Jupiter model rocket... (user "zerm" here on the board) Maybe PM him for more information...
Later! OL JR :)
I read "No Pre-Registration" to mean that if we are there early enough, we can get in. True?
Just curious Ross, how did you get a invitation for that show?
Just curious Ross, how did you get a invitation for that show?
The show's producer came to us.
Ross.
Just curious Ross, how did you get a invitation for that show?
The show's producer came to us.
Ross.
That is great news Ross, let's hope there are more in the pipe line...
Whats this about Meet the Press? I haven't had a chance to catch up with the thread.
"If you believe that I have a bridge I want to sell you,"?!They are American heroes. They probably just didn't know much about Direct. If you didn't have the background info, and some guy gets on the line saying he's got an idea that can do the same thing for a fraction of the cost from the agency that you worked for and loved, you might think they were a little "generous" in their estimations. I listened to it, and they didn't sound like they knew much about Direct.
WHAT?!
Its one thing not to be familiar with the concept but quite another to insult the person offering an alternative before you understand what hes saying. I know these guys have been to the moon and are real american heroes. But they are just men, and they were mistaken, and less than inspirational IMHO.
How can they compare a concept being vetted by the Aerospace Corporation at the orders of the Augustine Commission to by as ridiculous as buying a bridge to nowhere?! I was disappointed by these comments and probably didn't get as much as I could from the rest of the segment because of it.
Ross handled this much better than I would've. I think I would've said something regrettable. You did great Ross.
Woe that would be nice, I used to watch MTP every week during the political season.
Oceanfront??? I'll bring my suit and flip-flops! :-)
Definitely. And don't forget your Factor 50 too -- The mid-Summer Florida sunshine will burn you badly in less than an hour if you don't.
Ross.
So Ross, will you ever offer Jupiter-130/246 models? I might have to pick up one, although I can wait as you are understandably busy (I would love to see lego make a Jupiter model, dont ask why...)Make it a model rocket and I'll buy two. 8) Altho technically you might be able to kitbash one using a shuttle kit.
Dr. Zooch is supposed to be coming out with a Jupiter model rocket... (user "zerm" here on the board) Maybe PM him for more information...
Later! OL JR :)
I've been fiddling with plans for a parallel staged J-130 for a while now, but I'm having some difficulty finding out enough information on how to separate the RSRMs from the core, and still have the core, RSRMs, and Orion recover separately. I'm also thinking about doing the J-246 as a paralell two stager, with the same recovery options.
It's not nearly as easy to design a flying model as it is to make a static one out of paper.
If any of you guys who are working on the flying model need any help with textures or skins, shoot me a PM and I'd be happy to work with you.
I should have the plans for the J-130 and J-246 in 1/144 scale out by the end of next week, I hope.
And if any of you guys build them, please share your photos and build experiences. I'm always looking at ways to improve the instructions sheets.
;D
I have not heard any discussion of directing contact to the White House or Congress directly (around/over the Chain of Command, always my MO). I would recommend that to all.
First, welcome to the forum! You'll find a LOT of engineers and experienced people on this site and I just get a feeling you are going to find yourself quite at home here! :)
Could I ask you to clarify what sort of 'contact' you are specifically talking about there?
Ross.
Direct is mentioned here:"Maverick engineers" indeed. Great way to look real ignorant.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032118/ns/technology_and_science
Not a bad article....but could be better.
Direct is mentioned here:"Maverick engineers" indeed. Great way to look real ignorant.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032118/ns/technology_and_science
Not a bad article....but could be better.
Showing independence in thoughts or actions.
We have no reason to believe that there is any reason what-so-ever to believe otherwise.I believe I also have no reason to believe that you have no reason to believe otherwise :)
With that in mind you could add 25mT (maybe more?) of "debris retaining" structures to each SRB and still comfortably make orbit with margins intact.
I can answer that... no.
To terminate thrust the steel case must be unzipped. When that happens any addons that attempt to "contain" the debris will fail under the pressure of the still-burning fuel.
With that in mind you could add 25mT (maybe more?) of "debris retaining" structures to each SRB and still comfortably make orbit with margins intact.
I can answer that... no.
To terminate thrust the steel case must be unzipped. When that happens any addons that attempt to "contain" the debris will fail under the pressure of the still-burning fuel.
It seems to me the biggest problem is not that the SRB fails, but that debris is spread over such a wide area that once the LAS has burnt out the capsule must descend through the debris field.
Is there any chance that a structure could slow down the ejecta and reduce the spread of debris?
It seems to me the biggest problem is not that the SRB fails, but that debris is spread over such a wide area that once the LAS has burnt out the capsule must descend through the debris field.
Is there any chance that a structure could slow down the ejecta and reduce the spread of debris?
Oceanfront??? I'll bring my suit and flip-flops! :-)
Definitely. And don't forget your Factor 50 too -- The mid-Summer Florida sunshine will burn you badly in less than an hour if you don't.
Ross.
Ross- I can relate. I live in Tampa. I can tell you a story about my first trip to Florida in my college years for an AFROTC convention, getting cooked on the beach and then having to wear my Mess Dress to a banquet of 2000. Boy did THAT hurt! I learned my lesson way back then.
Just FYI: We are getting an analysis done into where the Orion ends up in relation to the debris field in the even of a worst-case SRB explosion. It's going to take some time to complete though.
In the interim, I've tried running a very simple comparison and my own figures -- which HAVE NOT BEEN VALIDATED YET -- indicate that if an SRB detonated at Max-Q (T+50 sec) on a Jupiter-130 flight would result in the LAS getting the Orion CM away ahead of the debris field and out to a distance of some ~8,900 meters (~29,000ft) before the LAS/BPC is actually jettisoned from the CM. This would be well outside of the debris field.
The crew gets exposed to roughly 16G during this abort.
Its still only a *very* rudimentary result, but I think it is a very encouraging preliminary result.
*IF* it can be validated, it would mean that this issue is not a concern for Jupiter.
I'll keep you all informed of the more detailed results as I receive them.
Ross.
With that in mind you could add 25mT (maybe more?) of "debris retaining" structures to each SRB and still comfortably make orbit with margins intact.
I can answer that... no.
To terminate thrust the steel case must be unzipped. When that happens any addons that attempt to "contain" the debris will fail under the pressure of the still-burning fuel.
It seems to me the biggest problem is not that the SRB fails, but that debris is spread over such a wide area that once the LAS has burnt out the capsule must descend through the debris field.
Is there any chance that a structure could slow down the ejecta and reduce the spread of debris?
Not within a reasonable mass budget, no.
So Ross, will you ever offer Jupiter-130/246 models? I might have to pick up one, although I can wait as you are understandably busy (I would love to see lego make a Jupiter model, dont ask why...)Make it a model rocket and I'll buy two. 8) Altho technically you might be able to kitbash one using a shuttle kit.
Dr. Zooch is supposed to be coming out with a Jupiter model rocket... (user "zerm" here on the board) Maybe PM him for more information...
Later! OL JR :)
I've been fiddling with plans for a parallel staged J-130 for a while now, but I'm having some difficulty finding out enough information on how to separate the RSRMs from the core, and still have the core, RSRMs, and Orion recover separately. I'm also thinking about doing the J-246 as a paralell two stager, with the same recovery options.
It's not nearly as easy to design a flying model as it is to make a static one out of paper.
If any of you guys who are working on the flying model need any help with textures or skins, shoot me a PM and I'd be happy to work with you.
I should have the plans for the J-130 and J-246 in 1/144 scale out by the end of next week, I hope.
And if any of you guys build them, please share your photos and build experiences. I'm always looking at ways to improve the instructions sheets.
;D
Check these out:
http://www.rocketryforum.com/ (http://www.rocketryforum.com/)
http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/index.php? (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/index.php?)
http://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/ (http://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/)
You can search the forum for the specific information you're looking for. There was a good post not long ago on this specific question of SRB seperation ideas for high power rockets. There is an interesting "tube within a tube" design with capped ends that have a small charge of black powder installed in them that are electrically fired by a flight computer or timer at SRB burnout. The small BP charges seperate the boosters. The SRB's could use standard high-power motors with BP ejection charges or be more sophisticated with electronic deployment of the chutes. I'd expect any upper stage would make use of a flight computer or timer to ignite the upperstage engines, be they either black powder motors or composite propellant. The 1/70 scale would make an AWESOME rocket and be large enough to house the necessary electronics and large rocket motors.
A smaller model with dropping SRB's deploying their own chutes and a staged core would be cool but probably more difficult, but DEFINITELY less expensive!
There's an interesting Delta IV Heavy that drops its boosters after burnout, a fairly big model, and I'm not sure what method he used for the seperation-- I'm sure you can find it by searching the forum.
Good luck! OL JR :)
I think the question which really needs to be answered regarding exploding SRB's, is exactly *how* they come apart.
An SRB has a lot more area on the sidewalls than on the top/bottom. My question is that in the event of a severe over-pressurization, do those 'sides' blow out sideways, or all around?
That report seems to suggest they make a large 'ball', but they also say that's just an assumption and that the camera angle doesn't really allow a precise analysis.
But I think we really need to see some real analysis before relying upon that assumption though.
If 80-90% of the structures is actually blown "sideways" instead of up/downwards, that will alter the danger levels.
Ross.
That report seems to suggest they make a large 'ball', but they also say that's just an assumption and that the camera angle doesn't really allow a precise analysis.
I know this has been covered before, but does the LAS have a concept of up, or does it merely head in the direction it was pointing when the switch was thrown?If 80-90% of the structures is actually blown "sideways" instead of up/downwards, that will alter the danger levels.Keep in mind the SRB can rotate 90 before it is destroyed.
I know this has been covered before, but does the LAS have a concept of up, or does it merely head it the direction it was pointing when the switch is thrown?
I think the question which really needs to be answered regarding exploding SRB's, is exactly *how* they come apart.
An SRB has a lot more area on the sidewalls than on the top/bottom. My question is that in the event of a severe over-pressurization, do those 'sides' blow out sideways, or all around?
That report seems to suggest they make a large 'ball', but they also say that's just an assumption and that the camera angle doesn't really allow a precise analysis.
But I think we really need to see some real analysis before relying upon that assumption though.
If 80-90% of the structures is actually blown "sideways" instead of up/downwards, that will alter the danger levels.
Ross.
I think the question which really needs to be answered regarding exploding SRB's, is exactly *how* they come apart.
An SRB has a lot more area on the sidewalls than on the top/bottom. My question is that in the event of a severe over-pressurization, do those 'sides' blow out sideways, or all around?
That report seems to suggest they make a large 'ball', but they also say that's just an assumption and that the camera angle doesn't really allow a precise analysis.
But I think we really need to see some real analysis before relying upon that assumption though.
If 80-90% of the structures is actually blown "sideways" instead of up/downwards, that will alter the danger levels.
Ross.
Well there is only one way to answer this question effectively, we need to blow up an SRB. That would get people interested in spaceflight again....
Just FYI: We are getting an analysis done into where the Orion ends up in relation to the debris field in the even of a worst-case SRB explosion. It's going to take some time to complete though.
In the interim, I've tried running a very simple comparison and my own figures -- which HAVE NOT BEEN VALIDATED YET -- indicate that if an SRB detonated at Max-Q (T+50 sec) on a Jupiter-130 flight would result in the LAS getting the Orion CM away ahead of the debris field and out to a distance of some ~8,900 meters (~29,000ft) before the LAS/BPC is actually jettisoned from the CM. This would be well outside of the debris field.
The crew gets exposed to roughly 16G during this abort.
Its still only a *very* rudimentary result, but I think it is a very encouraging preliminary result.
*IF* it can be validated, it would mean that this issue is not a concern for Jupiter.
I'll keep you all informed of the more detailed results as I receive them.
Ross.
Has John Shannon accepted?I'd love to have local get-togethers to hoist a pint in celebration of reaching the long-standing goal...As we get closer to the 30th, I'll get everyone to confirm so that we can book a table large enough at a restaurant in the area.
So Ross, will you ever offer Jupiter-130/246 models? I might have to pick up one, although I can wait as you are understandably busy (I would love to see lego make a Jupiter model, dont ask why...)Make it a model rocket and I'll buy two. 8) Altho technically you might be able to kitbash one using a shuttle kit.
Dr. Zooch is supposed to be coming out with a Jupiter model rocket... (user "zerm" here on the board) Maybe PM him for more information...
Later! OL JR :)
I've been fiddling with plans for a parallel staged J-130 for a while now, but I'm having some difficulty finding out enough information on how to separate the RSRMs from the core, and still have the core, RSRMs, and Orion recover separately. I'm also thinking about doing the J-246 as a paralell two stager, with the same recovery options.
It's not nearly as easy to design a flying model as it is to make a static one out of paper.
If any of you guys who are working on the flying model need any help with textures or skins, shoot me a PM and I'd be happy to work with you.
I should have the plans for the J-130 and J-246 in 1/144 scale out by the end of next week, I hope.
And if any of you guys build them, please share your photos and build experiences. I'm always looking at ways to improve the instructions sheets.
;D
Check these out:
http://www.rocketryforum.com/ (http://www.rocketryforum.com/)
http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/index.php? (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/index.php?)
http://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/ (http://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/)
You can search the forum for the specific information you're looking for. There was a good post not long ago on this specific question of SRB seperation ideas for high power rockets. There is an interesting "tube within a tube" design with capped ends that have a small charge of black powder installed in them that are electrically fired by a flight computer or timer at SRB burnout. The small BP charges seperate the boosters. The SRB's could use standard high-power motors with BP ejection charges or be more sophisticated with electronic deployment of the chutes. I'd expect any upper stage would make use of a flight computer or timer to ignite the upperstage engines, be they either black powder motors or composite propellant. The 1/70 scale would make an AWESOME rocket and be large enough to house the necessary electronics and large rocket motors.
A smaller model with dropping SRB's deploying their own chutes and a staged core would be cool but probably more difficult, but DEFINITELY less expensive!
There's an interesting Delta IV Heavy that drops its boosters after burnout, a fairly big model, and I'm not sure what method he used for the seperation-- I'm sure you can find it by searching the forum.
Good luck! OL JR :)
I've never built a model rocket before, so I can tell you on first inspection that some of these techniques are way beyond me. Flight computer? I don't have the first idea how that would work. All I've ever seen are the kits that you could get at Wal-mart, so I will probably give up the idea of making a flying model, or at least leave it to those who know more than I do.
Thanks for the links!
Actually Danny is right, there is no guarantee that when the booster goes pop, it sill still be flying 'straight up' -- it *could* blow at a relative angle of 90 degrees, so we need to be sure the Orion is even protected in that situation.
Anyway, here are my current results after a little more refinement...
Note that Orion continues for Approx 15 more seconds before the LAS/BPC are jettisoned.
Ross.
Whilst it looks like the capsule will remain above the debris throughout the descent, it doesn't seem that it would take much of an adverse wind during the parachute phase to make the capsule land amongst the debris.
I think the question which really needs to be answered regarding exploding SRB's, is exactly *how* they come apart.
An SRB has a lot more area on the sidewalls than on the top/bottom. My question is that in the event of a severe over-pressurization, do those 'sides' blow out sideways, or all around?
That report seems to suggest they make a large 'ball', but they also say that's just an assumption and that the camera angle doesn't really allow a precise analysis.
But I think we really need to see some real analysis before relying upon that assumption though.
If 80-90% of the structures is actually blown "sideways" instead of up/downwards, that will alter the danger levels.
Ross.
Well there is only one way to answer this question effectively, we need to blow up an SRB. That would get people interested in spaceflight again....
LOL!
Actually Danny is right, there is no guarantee that when the booster goes pop, it sill still be flying 'straight up' -- it *could* blow at a relative angle of 90 degrees, so we need to be sure the Orion is even protected in that situation.
Anyway, here are my current results after a little more refinement...
Note that Orion continues for Approx 15 more seconds before the LAS/BPC are jettisoned.
Ross.
18 meters is way too close to be setting off the range package. The blast from the ET would kill Orion. Make sure you have a good model for drag on every thing (numerical integration?) and then probably need to monte carlo the attitude and time of destruct of the post abort Jupiter. Also 75 m/sec for debris might be too small. I think the Air Force had faster debris. Also, Orion has a steerable LAS. It doesn't have to burn straight ahead. This might help.
I am thinking if the debris field is 7,900 foot radius, the impulse from the LAS will need to be increased even at the smaller dynamic pressure of Jupiter. The good news is Jupiter can carry a bigger LAS.
Danny Deger
The 2896kg listed as Ascent Flight Performance Reserve is the same as the Pre-TLI Overboard mass, is that right? Also, CLV values are identical except for the Usable Post-Ascent Propellant value?
Yep. You don't want to be carrying any additional mass thru TLI which you don't have to.
So a 'nominal' mission should arrive in LEO with that 2.9mT of extra mass. You will want to dump it before the TLI.
Ross.
Payload capacity
The payload capacity of Ares V to low earth orbit, according to NASA, is 188,000 kg. This is more than the largest proposed Jupiter rocket (J-246 Heavy with 5 segment SRBS) which is claimed to lift about 120,000 kg to LEO [33]. For potential Mars missions the currently envisioned Ares V would have a significant advantage for any mission architecture[citation needed].
Although in the case of a Mars mission it can be argued that the internal payload fairing diameter is the limiting factor, not mass, due to Mars EDL limitations. The DIRECT team have studied payload fairings of up to 12m diameter and even beyond for the Jupiter launch vehicles[citation needed]. The Jupiter rockets are also shorter in height than the Ares V, permitting very long payload fairings and thus greater total internal volume than possible with the taller Ares V which quickly encounters restraints due to height limitations within the Vehicle Assembly Building at KSC.
Actually Danny is right, there is no guarantee that when the booster goes pop, it sill still be flying 'straight up' -- it *could* blow at a relative angle of 90 degrees, so we need to be sure the Orion is even protected in that situation.
Anyway, here are my current results after a little more refinement...
Note that Orion continues for Approx 15 more seconds before the LAS/BPC are jettisoned.
Ross.
Orion is carried well away from the debris during LAS burn, but the elements of debris represented by the blue ring were imparted a wholly lateral velocity in the explosion, whilst the capsule has continued to accelerate in the direction of ascent (mostly upwards, small lateral component).
As a result, they have very similar lateral velocities.
Also, the capsule has higher total velocity and is much less dense than the debris, so I wouldn't be surprised if it suffers more deceleration, further decreasing the lateral separation (rate of increase, at least).
Whilst it looks like the capsule will remain above the debris throughout the descent, it doesn't seem that it would take much of an adverse wind during the parachute phase to make the capsule land amongst the debris.
Is there any way that the LAS can steer to impart a much larger lateral component to the velocity after T+51? Would that be desirable?
cheers, Martin
Interesting - your AIAA 2007 paper talks about using depot to overfuel the EDS for a 10% margin on the TLI.
I guess later analysis has shown more benefit in reducing stresses on the TLI engines by keeping the burn as short as possible?
How does the SRB failure issue effect the idea of the manned Jupiter using the 5 segment SRB. Seems that the 5 segment SBR would move the failure closer to the capsule, and cause a 20 percent increase in the power of the failure.
I have read that part of the Direct plan is to allow ATK to continue to develop the 5 segment SRB.
How does the SRB failure issue effect the idea of the manned Jupiter using the 5 segment SRB. Seems that the 5 segment SBR would move the failure closer to the capsule, and cause a 20 percent increase in the power of the failure.
Could this kill Ares I, a man rated Ares V (which some are talking about now) with it's 5.5 segment SRB, and Jupiter heavy manned with the 5 segment SRB?
Interesting - your AIAA 2007 paper talks about using depot to overfuel the EDS for a 10% margin on the TLI.
I guess later analysis has shown more benefit in reducing stresses on the TLI engines by keeping the burn as short as possible?
Its more about maximizing performance.
When no depot is used, you maximize performance by dumping any excess mass overboard prior to TLI.
But if a Depot is involved, you can still meet all your performance targets *AND* still be able to add an additional margin as well. That's a nice feature of that architecture.
Ross.
I think the question which really needs to be answered regarding exploding SRB's, is exactly *how* they come apart.
An SRB has a lot more area on the sidewalls than on the top/bottom. My question is that in the event of a severe over-pressurization, do those 'sides' blow out sideways, or all around?
That report seems to suggest they make a large 'ball', but they also say that's just an assumption and that the camera angle doesn't really allow a precise analysis.
But I think we really need to see some real analysis before relying upon that assumption though.
If 80-90% of the structures is actually blown "sideways" instead of up/downwards, that will alter the danger levels.
Ross.
I thought the report concluded that it was *radiative* heating that destroyed the chutes. If so, being ahead of the debris cloud doesn't necessarily bring you to safety. A large and hot debris cloud can radiate a lot of heat.
Better make sure the chutes are white.
Ross-
A while back you mentioned a "showstopper" for Ares I, and as I recall, you stated the abort scenario was not the issue, but rather, something else.
I was curious when this other showstopper will be discussed, and where it will be posted. Will it go on the Ares I development thread?
Thanks.
I think you're actually referring to the Showstopper for Not-Shuttle-C -- which was the Abort motor always rupturing the LOX Tank above, and in close proximity to, the Orion.
With this latest SRB report, I'm actually even more concerned about the Not-Shuttle-C placing the Orion so much closer to the SRB's too, but that's a side issue (excuse the pun).
The only real 'showstoppers' which I'm aware of with Ares-I is that it a) has not been an affordable proposition at any time of its existence, b) a crewed Ares-I will never actually fly until at least 7 years after Shuttle has retired -- even if CxP cuts the test program down to nothing and increases risks at every level by doing so, and c) it has such p*ss-poor performance that its margins are nothing but a very bad joke.
But, other than that, its fine... ::)
Ross.
Made a typo in the last post I made , changed it...
What makes something into a lunar capsule, I mean they both don't touch the surface of the moon, is it just based on how many supplies can be carried?
What makes something into a lunar capsule, I mean they both don't touch the surface of the moon, is it just based on how many supplies can be carried?
Interesting - your AIAA 2007 paper talks about using depot to overfuel the EDS for a 10% margin on the TLI.
I guess later analysis has shown more benefit in reducing stresses on the TLI engines by keeping the burn as short as possible?
Its more about maximizing performance.
When no depot is used, you maximize performance by dumping any excess mass overboard prior to TLI.
But if a Depot is involved, you can still meet all your performance targets *AND* still be able to add an additional margin as well. That's a nice feature of that architecture.
Ross.
It seem strange to me that 10% additional fuel from a depot is margin, but 2.9% additional fuel which was unused ascent FPR is a burden.
More fuel for the same burnout mass will give you more delta-V, and therefore margin. Whilst I can understand concerns that a longer burn puts more strain on the engine, depot architecture can handle much higher payloads, which would increase burn times substantially.
I thought the "Pre-TLI Overboard Mass" was boiloff (the figure listed on the J-246 EDS sheet would give you nearly 8 days of loiter @ 0.35% per day)?
cheers, Martin
A question for anyone who wishes to answer.
If "we" are able to carry with us additional fuel supply to the moon, might we have enough that on the return to Earth that the mission not need to immediately enter the atmosphere, but rather reenters Earth orbit, and then lands when and where it wants?
hopefully that makes some degree of sense??? Thank you!
By the way - Ross, great job on NPR - as everyone else has stated!
A question for anyone who wishes to answer.
If "we" are able to carry with us additional fuel supply to the moon, might we have enough that on the return to Earth that the mission not need to immediately enter the atmosphere, but rather reenters Earth orbit, and then lands when and where it wants?
hopefully that makes some degree of sense??? Thank you!
By the way - Ross, great job on NPR - as everyone else has stated!
Others will probably answer with more details, but the velocity change needed to enter earth orbit on a Lunar return would require a velocity change similar to a TLI burn on the outbound leg. In Apollo, that velocity change was handled during atmospheric reentry. Depending on mass it could be a substantial amount of fuel.
It's an exponential problem, and I guarantee the prop mass would end up far, far higher than the mass of the heat shield.
Ross-
A while back you mentioned a "showstopper" for Ares I, and as I recall, you stated the abort scenario was not the issue, but rather, something else.
I was curious when this other showstopper will be discussed, and where it will be posted. Will it go on the Ares I development thread?
Thanks.
The only real 'showstoppers' which I'm aware of with Ares-I is that it a) has not been an affordable proposition at any time of its existence, b) a crewed Ares-I will never actually fly until at least 7 years after Shuttle has retired -- even if CxP cuts the test program down to nothing and increases risks at every level by doing so, and c) it has such p*ss-poor performance that its margins are nothing but a very bad joke.
But, other than that, its fine... ::)
Ross.
A question for anyone who wishes to answer.
If "we" are able to carry with us additional fuel supply to the moon, might we have enough that on the return to Earth that the mission not need to immediately enter the atmosphere, but rather reenters Earth orbit, and then lands when and where it wants?
hopefully that makes some degree of sense??? Thank you!
By the way - Ross, great job on NPR - as everyone else has stated!
Others will probably answer with more details, but the velocity change needed to enter earth orbit on a Lunar return would require a velocity change similar to a TLI burn on the outbound leg. In Apollo, that velocity change was handled during atmospheric reentry. Depending on mass it could be a substantial amount of fuel.
great job on the NPR show - got the points across really well.I just ran through it twice. Ross certainly has a gift for tailoring the message to the audience. He spent a lot of time on the budget because that was the theme at the time he came on, but he also managed to fully describe the concept and get in some simple to understand performance numbers. All under heavy pressure!
luke & lancer,
Can I ask you guys to start a specific spin-off thread to discuss the model rockets?
The discussion is great and I've been following along closely myself (one day I'd like to build one of these myself!) but we have a hard enough time justifying that DIRECT isn't a 'paper rocket' without including discussion here of real 'paper rockets'! It could very easily lead a newcomer to the concept to the wrong conclusion.
This concern goes away if it gets its own dedicated thread :)
Ross.
If "we" are able to carry with us additional fuel supply to the moon, might we have enough that on the return to Earth that the mission not need to immediately enter the atmosphere, but rather reenters Earth orbit, and then lands when and where it wants?
Ross-
A while back you mentioned a "showstopper" for Ares I, and as I recall, you stated the abort scenario was not the issue, but rather, something else.
I was curious when this other showstopper will be discussed, and where it will be posted. Will it go on the Ares I development thread?
Thanks.
I think you're actually referring to the Showstopper for Not-Shuttle-C -- which was the Abort motor always rupturing the LOX Tank above, and in close proximity to, the Orion.
With this latest SRB report, I'm actually even more concerned about the Not-Shuttle-C placing the Orion so much closer to the SRB's too, but that's a side issue (excuse the pun).
The only real 'showstoppers' which I'm aware of with Ares-I is that it a) has not been an affordable proposition at any time of its existence, b) a crewed Ares-I will never actually fly until at least 7 years after Shuttle has retired -- even if CxP cuts the test program down to nothing and increases risks at every level by doing so, and c) it has such p*ss-poor performance that its margins are nothing but a very bad joke.
But, other than that, its fine... ::)
Ross.
Ross, I guess you don't consider the latest Air Force analysis showing a 1 minute blackzone for Ares I's flight regime a showstopper, even though imaginary blackzones were show stoppers for EELVs? Just to be sure on this one, I would think it would be a showstopper, but I guess in Ares I case the issue would fall under just throw even more money at the problem to build a more powerful launch escape system.
John
On a related subject, I was wondering re depots.
Obviously, this was part of the initial Augustine presentation on opening day. Have depots / phase 3 been a part of the later, more detailed submissions?
Obviously, if you can say.
cheers, Martin
With all the talk around re-focusing NASA towards a Mars goal (I've just latley heard Neil, Buzz, Mike, & Gene all support this) I was wondering what your own views on the subject are, and to what degree you have shared these with the Augustine guys.
Obviously, this was part of the initial Augustine presentation on opening day. Have depots / phase 3 been a part of the later, more detailed submissions?
Specifically, the “Exploration Beyond LEO” subcommittee will examine the following questions:
1. What are the appropriate destinations and sequences of exploration for human exploration beyond LEO;
2. What should be the mode of surface exploration (if any);
3. What is the strategy within the human space flight program for coordinating human and robotic exploration;
4. What are the assumed launch vehicle(s) to LEO (in terms of mass to orbit and shroud diameter);
5. What are the options for in-space fuel/oxidizer storage and transfer;
6. What is the role that space technology research and development will play;
7. What is our strategy for engaging international partners in the development of the program;
8. What is our strategy for engaging commercial entities?
With all the talk around re-focusing NASA towards a Mars goal (I've just latley heard Neil, Buzz, Mike, & Gene all support this) I was wondering what your own views on the subject are, and to what degree you have shared these with the Augustine guys.Obviously, this was part of the initial Augustine presentation on opening day. Have depots / phase 3 been a part of the later, more detailed submissions?
I just heard Buzz being interviewed on POTUS (Sirius/XM radio station). He was all over depots (and their commercial implications) and moving on to Mars. He has a meeting with Mr. Obama this afternoon, and that's what he's going to lobby for. Everything he said in the 15-minute interview seemed to fit very well with what DIRECT has been advocating all along. Very interesting conversation.
I know that Ross/Chuck have talked with Mr. Aldrin in the past, and that he was marginally in sync with DIRECT (approaching things from a different-but-not-hostile direction). Does anyone have a read on his position re: DIRECT these days?
Propellant Deposts are #5 on the list of questions (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17295.msg439977#msg439977) being explored by the "Exploration Beyond LEO" sub-group of the Augustine Commission. And #8 is another component advocated by the Direct Team.
The team has been relatively quiet of late. I keep refreshing the baseball card page expecting to see a Fratricide-Safe sticker to go along with the Blackzone-Safe one.
I was wondering what your own views on the subject are
Mars should be the primary goal and no later than 2019. I was born almost 15 years after the Apollo 11 flight and I definitely not want to be fifty (or older) when the first crew lands on Mars.
For those centered on Direct, there's an interesting post in the EELV thread :)
Looks like Ares-I might go the way of the dodo....enter Jupiter.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17671.msg441996#msg441996
Doesn't sound like anything new, just CxP coming to grips with their own mortality.
I'd be willing to bet the delay of Ares IX is going to be the nail in the coffin. It's a SRB with dummy stuff attached and they can't get it up and running let alone a full Ares IX
The thing that fraks me off, is if you went to NASA's website you'd think everything there was going according to plan. Like TO is just a "minor issue", they don't talk about delays or anything. If I have to go elsewhere to find accurate news on CxP how honest does that make them look.
Lies of ommission seem to be the standard nowadays. It makes me furious, and I can't trust anything that comes out of www.nasa.gov anymore.
/rant
For those centered on Direct, there's an interesting post in the EELV thread :)
Looks like Ares-I might go the way of the dodo....enter Jupiter.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17671.msg441996#msg441996
I would think that this is someway connected with the rumor that Marshall was looking at a scaled-down Ares V that Danny Dot brought up on here.
The only problem I have with this '"Ares IV" is the fact that it continues to use the larger Ares V core. More development needed there then using the old 8.4m core. Ares V also remains unchanged...which I take to mean the 6x RS-68 and 5.5seg boosters. This requires extensive infrastructure changes.
Close, but still not cutting it for me. They need to scale it down to the point where we have as much infrastructure commonality with the STS as possible.
For those centered on Direct, there's an interesting post in the EELV thread :)
Looks like Ares-I might go the way of the dodo....enter Jupiter.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17671.msg441996#msg441996
I would think that this is someway connected with the rumor that Marshall was looking at a scaled-down Ares V that Danny Dot brought up on here.
The only problem I have with this '"Ares IV" is the fact that it continues to use the larger Ares V core. More development needed there then using the old 8.4m core. Ares V also remains unchanged...which I take to mean the 6x RS-68 and 5.5seg boosters. This requires extensive infrastructure changes.
Close, but still not cutting it for me. They need to scale it down to the point where we have as much infrastructure commonality with the STS as possible.
It has to start somewhere...
Perhaps when they go through the paces now they might just find a more 'Direct' architecture that fits the bill.
Ending Ares-I is the first step.
I wish they'd stop dilly-dallying around, just grab the ball from us and run with it.
Progressing with a program that is affordable, sustainable, which closes the gap in a short period of time, which allows all contractors and states to stay in the game at acceptable funding levels and which will actually allow the agency to do the job at hand is the best way to save face, IMHO.
The political world is going to want heads for the debacle we are in. If those heads continue to drag this out any longer it will only look worse for them IMHO.
The only way they have a chance of saving their careers at this point is to move forwards with a much better, more thoroughly thought-out plan at this point -- a plan which hits *ALL* of the nails firmly on the head this time, not just a few.
DIRECT could actually save their butts -- if they're willing to let it. If not, I think their civil service careers are going to effectively come to an end in a matter of weeks. Its entirely up to them at this point.
Ross.
Actually that brings up a good question:
Who actually does give the order to change plans at NASA. Does the president the power to force NASA to change... does the Administrator have any actual power at all? What if both have legal power to choose what is best for NASA.
I'm guessing that the president says what NASA's objective must be, and the administrator takes what he views as the necessary steps to carry it out.
Politics of space flight =/
Likely not. People will be up in arms as it's a "luxury" expenditure in the eyes of the majority.
it's a shame really
Likely not. People will be up in arms as it's a "luxury" expenditure in the eyes of the majority.
it's a shame really
Think about it. If you spend $35 billion on the space program, where do you think that money goes? Do they box it up, offload it on the lunar surface and scatter it there? No. It's ONE HELL of an economic stimulus package. Every dime of that money gets spent right here in salaries, mortgages, rents, groceries, clothing, gas for cars, going to the movies, spending in the retail outlets, families going to restaurants, kids buying school lunches, etc, etc. It ALL STAYS HERE FOLKS! It gets spent in the economies all over the country. The space program is an economic boon to the nation! Apollo raised the economies if many states and regions. Those areas are better off to this day than if Apollo had not happened.
I wish they'd stop dilly-dallying around, just grab the ball from us and run with it.
Progressing with a program that is affordable, sustainable, which closes the gap in a short period of time, which allows all contractors and states to stay in the game at acceptable funding levels and which will actually allow the agency to do the job at hand is the best possible way to "Save Face".
The political world is going to want heads on blocks for the debacle we are currently in. If those heads continue to drag this out any longer it will only look worse for them.
The only way they have a chance of saving their careers at this point is to move forwards with a much better, more thoroughly thought-out plan at this point -- a plan which hits *ALL* of the techno-econo-political nails firmly on the head this time, not just a select few of them.
DIRECT could actually save their butts -- if they're willing to let it. If not, I think their civil service careers are going to effectively come to an end in a matter of weeks. Its entirely up to them at this point.
Ross.
Apparently the market has not developed a heat shield material independently of the space program.it's a shame reallyThe space program is an economic boon to the nation!
I was wondering what your own views on the subject are
Mars should be the primary goal and no later than 2019. I was born almost 15 years after the Apollo 11 flight and I definitely not want to be fifty (or older) when the first crew lands on Mars.
I'm already over fifty, and we're not even back to the Moon yet, much less Mars ... just hoping it happens while I'm still here to see it! ;)
Apparently the market has not developed a heat shield material independently of the space program.
Just that one requirement for Orion might spawn a range of new products or improve existing products. That material or any other space spin offs may end up commonly used in society with hardly a thought as to its origin.
If the "Captains" ego's are interfering too much that they simply aren't willing to change their minds, then perhaps they should go down with their ship then.
But they don't have to. All they have to do is get past this stupid schoolyard "Anything but DIRECT" mentality and they too can be saved, along with all the passengers.
But the water is up to their ankles already and it is now time to make that final choice.
Ross.
Apparently the market has not developed a heat shield material independently of the space program.
Just that one requirement for Orion might spawn a range of new products or improve existing products. That material or any other space spin offs may end up commonly used in society with hardly a thought as to its origin.
?
Orion's heat shield material was developed by the space program... half a century ago.
CBS Poll-July 20,2009-Majority of Americans favor sending humans to Mars- http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/20/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5173978.shtml
Likely not. People will be up in arms as it's a "luxury" expenditure in the eyes of the majority.
it's a shame really
Think about it. If you spend $35 billion on the space program, where do you think that money goes? Do they box it up, offload it on the lunar surface and scatter it there? No. It's ONE HELL of an economic stimulus package. Every dime of that money gets spent right here in salaries, mortgages, rents, groceries, clothing, gas for cars, going to the movies, spending in the retail outlets, families going to restaurants, kids buying school lunches, etc, etc. It ALL STAYS HERE FOLKS! It gets spent in the economies all over the country. The space program is an economic boon to the nation!
If the "Captains" ego's are interfering too much that they simply aren't willing to change their minds, then perhaps they should go down with their ship then.
But they don't have to. All they have to do is get past this stupid schoolyard "Anything but DIRECT" mentality and they too can be saved, along with all the passengers.
But the water is up to their ankles already and it is now time to make that final choice.
Ross.
I'd call it "moving deck chairs around, on the Titanic!!"
modify: perhaps the Titanic isn't the ship to compare this to... just reading about Jupiter being hit by 'something BIG', and NASA JPL being involved... perhaps Mike became obsessed with Constellation/Ares 1 & V (to the detrement of other departments)... it took him down and is about to take down a few of his crew who can't let go of the harpoon/stick...
I'm starting to lose track..
Is a Direct 3.0 Thread? Or is it a U.S./NASA Politics thread?
Although it seems the two are irrevocably intertwined..
Apparently, I'm an inaccurate. I thought I had read that they were baking from scratch. Nope!Apparently the market has not developed a heat shield material...Orion's heat shield material was developed by the space program... half a century ago.
I'm starting to lose track..
Is a Direct 3.0 Thread? Or is it a U.S./NASA Politics thread?
Although it seems the two are irrevocably intertwined..
Is it overly ambituous to say that we can & should send people to Mars? Ridiculous!! We could have sent people to Mars in the 1980s!!!. I agree that we must focus on the correct launch vehicle for manned lunar, NEO, Phobos & Mars missions, but we shouldn't lose sight of the destinations. That's why we need Direct 3. It allows us to visit all of these destinations safely & at a reasonable timetable & cost.How things might be different today if we had reached Mars by that time.
I'm starting to lose track..
Is a Direct 3.0 Thread? Or is it a U.S./NASA Politics thread?
Although it seems the two are irrevocably intertwined..
I think it is just a matter of the state we are in. To me, the engineering side of Direct 3.0 is mostly done. Sure the design always evolves, but right now the Direct Team is playing the political game.
So it would be impossible to have a Direct 3.0 thread without discussing the political side of things.
It seems that some are a bit over confidant, inferring that the moon is for beginners and nasa is ready for a mission of greater complexity.
Getting back to the non-political side for a bit. Is the team still feeding information to the Augustine committee (and its adjuncts) or have they moved more into the analysis phase? If the information work has slowed down hopefully the DIRECT website can be brought up to date. There is still a lot of technical info on the site which hasn't been updated to 3.0 yet.
Also, Ross, you provided some of the artwork used on the DIRECT Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT). Unfortunately, much of that artwork is now out of date with the move from 2.0 to 3.0. Is there any chance of getting some updated artwork for the page? A Google search for "Direct Launcher" has the wiki page as the 2nd item in the list (right behind the main website) so it is worth making that page look as good as possible (with thanks to those who have been editing it).
I'm starting to lose track..
Is a Direct 3.0 Thread? Or is it a U.S./NASA Politics thread?
Although it seems the two are irrevocably intertwined..
I think it is just a matter of the state we are in. To me, the engineering side of Direct 3.0 is mostly done. Sure the design always evolves, but right now the Direct Team is playing the political game.
So it would be impossible to have a Direct 3.0 thread without discussing the political side of things.
As long as pretty-much all space money comes from the US Treasury, you can make a very safe bet that the politics will continue to be the driving force behind everything in this business.
From a personal perspective, when I started this, nearly 4 years ago, my only real interest was the launchers and the spacecraft. I knew nothing about the politics, nor the budget aspects.
But I quickly came to the understanding that without the politics falling into line the money won't flow. And without the money, NOTHING else happens. Steve Squires said of the Mars Exploration Rovers that they "follow the water", well to understand the US Space Program you must always "follow the money". . .
Ross.
I love to speculate about where we should have been right now assuming the Saturn vehicles had enjoyed sustained support for the last 40 years, but the bottom line is that after Apollo 12 support and the political will evaporated.
It seems that some are a bit over confidant, inferring that the moon is for beginners and nasa is ready for a mission of greater complexity.
Human spaceflight is always hard. No matter where you go.
The discussion Moon vs. Mars human exploration is however a point of what makes sense to do. After all, there isn't even a debate about WHETHER humans should go to Mars in the science community, but the question is when.
Personally I'd say, robotic missions on the Moon can achieve enough data and research. The big plus for the Moon is its proximity when it comes to robotic missions, there just isn't any long time lag between two commands. You can do robotic missions in real-time on the Moon's surface. That's really different for Mars. Real-time work can only be done with a human crew on the surface. So, unless there is a quantum leap in robotics and AI soon, it really makes a lot of sense from an exploration/science point of view to go to Mars. And we shouldn't forget that Mars is also much more interesting than the Moon because it is a planetary body which could have housed life in the past, has an atmosphere, 24-hour days etc. etc.
Subgroup on Access to Low Earth Orbit
Mr. Bejmuk, subgroup lead, said Aerospace is conducting an assessment of technical cost, schedule and other considerations for Constellation, as well as the proposed Side-Mount, Shuttle-Derived, and Heavy-Lift Vehicle. (Mr. Bejmuk noted the differences between Side-Mount and Shuttle C.) To maintain a level playing field, he said all the technologies under review – including the DIRECT proposal and the vehicles being developed by Orbital Sciences and SpaceX – should be evaluated in the same fashion, and he is working to arrange that.
I have been trying to sort existing content into logical groups and trim redundancies. I think the order of the sections makes some sense now. I have about gotten the v2.0 material out of the text. I think the next step is to trim out some of the Ares I/Ares V comparisons. It is important in a DIRECT article to say why its better than the other option but maybe not in every other sentence! I welcome good writers to help trim out the redundancies in the article. It reads a bit slowly because of all the attempts to make it _neutral_. Compared to other wikipedia.org articles, it seems a bit clunky (and long!) to read.Also, Ross, you provided some of the artwork used on the DIRECT Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT).Wikipedia was where I first learned about DIRECT. I think that keeping it up-to-date is a very important venture.
Actually, I have never understood the feeling that a manned mission to Mars without an actual landing would be a waste of time. What you need to do is include several robotic landers on that mission that could be controlled in realtime by astronauts in orbit of Mars. Instead of the MER landers only going a few hundred meters a most, you could safely drive kilometers a day if necessary to explore from orbit. LOTS could be done to scout out potential human landing sites that would take far longer by remote earth-based robotic control. I call this the Mars Orbital Workshop (MOW). This sort of mission seems like a great first step to eventual colonization.
With Direct we could probably mount such mission by the mid 2020's!
iontyre,
A slight variant on that has been discussed within the DIRECT Team (we discuss most options, so don't take this as any sort of 'baseline' recommendation or anything), but if the crew were to station themselves on Phobos instead of simply in Mars orbit, they would also be able to investigate that moon at the same time. You would potentially get double the science return from the same mission.
And that mission would be in the same class as an NEO mission -- albeit a longer duration version.
For Phobos > Mars communications we would probably also need a handful of comsats situated around Mars beforehand too.
Ross.
I have been trying to sort existing content into logical groups and trim redundancies. I think the order of the sections makes some sense now. I have about gotten the v2.0 material out of the text. I think the next step is to trim out some of the Ares I/Ares V comparisons. It is important in a DIRECT article to say why its better than the other option but maybe not in every other sentence! I welcome good writers to help trim out the redundancies in the article. It reads a bit slowly because of all the attempts to make it _neutral_. Compared to other wikipedia.org articles, it seems a bit clunky (and long!) to read.Also, Ross, you provided some of the artwork used on the DIRECT Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT).Wikipedia was where I first learned about DIRECT. I think that keeping it up-to-date is a very important venture.
v3.0 artwork would be appreciated! I see that Philip public-domained most of the items the article now has.
Modify: change words
From what I hear Bolden seems ready to jump on board what the Augustine Commission recommends. He was definately setting us up for a change of pace with his whole "we want you to hear the bad news from us".
Personally I think direct's chances are very good, or at least some iteration of it.
iontyre,
A slight variant on that has been discussed within the DIRECT Team (we discuss most options, so don't take this as any sort of 'baseline' recommendation or anything), but if the crew were to station themselves on Phobos instead of simply in Mars orbit, they would also be able to investigate that moon at the same time. You would potentially get double the science return from the same mission.
And that mission would be in the same class as an NEO mission -- albeit a longer duration version.
For Phobos > Mars communications we would probably also need a handful of comsats situated around Mars beforehand too.
Ross.
Could a rover be sent to Phobos first to scout it out? Or would it drift off because of low gravity? Phobos has about 1/1000 the gravity of Earth, so if you had a 1000lbm rover it'd weight 1 lbf on Phobos, not much but it seems like it should stay on the surface as long as it didn't drive too fast. A solar powered rover could explore a lot about Phobos ahead of any potential manned mission there. I'd think.
1) It doesn't require savaging the budgets of non-manned space flight programs, and
2) it actually supports these programs by providing a launcher that is cheap enough to use and can do things we are currently unable to do, large diameter space telescopes, single launch mars return missions, etc.
Nope! The illustrations will do for now. Figure out the flaming parachute problem and whatever else for the Committee. The wiki can wait!I'm back into writing documentation for the Augustine Committee so I'm a touch busy again, but I have most of the artwork already to hand. Can you please PM me with some details as to precisely what you need and I'll get it put up there for you.v3.0 artwork would be appreciated! I see that Philip public-domained most of the items the article now has.Also, Ross, you provided some of the artwork used on the DIRECT Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT).Wikipedia was where I first learned about DIRECT. I think that keeping it up-to-date is a very important venture.
Modify: change words
Could a rover be sent to Phobos first to scout it out? Or would it drift off because of low gravity? Phobos has about 1/1000 the gravity of Earth, so if you had a 1000lbm rover it'd weight 1 lbf on Phobos, not much but it seems like it should stay on the surface as long as it didn't drive too fast. A solar powered rover could explore a lot about Phobos ahead of any potential manned mission there. I'd think.
There's a plotline in Heinlein's Space Family Stone where someone performs a (partial, IIRC) orbit of Phobos after taking a running jump.
Always wondered how realistic that was.
cheers, Martin
The scale of *some* (certainly not all) of the missions which SMD wants to do today is pushing the limits of current ELV/EELV launch assets to their breaking point -- or at the very least to the point where it results in significantly higher overall costs in order to squeeze a payload into a vehicle which just isn't the right size.
I would estimate that this doesn't affect 80% of planed missions at all. But the other 20% (I'm only talking one mission every 2-5 years or so) -- typically the larger, more expensive ones to start with -- could benefit from greater capabilities as long as they don't break the bank.
I'm certain something could be sent to scout the area.
There are some unique design challenges for operating in such low gravity, but I'm sure that its nothing which a skilled team couldn't tackle with some innovative new thinking. And the chances are that some of the technology which they invent to tackle those problems would translate into applicable capabilities which a human team could also use later.
Sounds to me like a perfect mission for a Jupiter-130/DHCUS to loft...
Ross.
Re: Wiki
And can someone PLEASE get rid of those frakkin' Ares images, would ya? Let them "advertise" those launchers on their own pages, not ours :)
Ross.
Re: Wiki
Can I also ask those good people who are editing the wiki to use the full "Jupiter-xxx" naming convention instead of the truncated "J-xxx" one please?
Re: Wiki
And can someone PLEASE get rid of those frakkin' Ares images, would ya? Let them "advertise" those launchers on their own pages, not ours :)
Ross.
"Ares V has a low LOM risk factor"
Huh, really?
We had no flagship since Cassini in 1997. MSL may be one (kinda), but it is far from the EELV limit. This leaves JWST, 24 years after HST.
This is the timescale we are talking: Less than once per decade. As I said, even the rare expensive missions avoid Delta IVH. And you won't be cheaper than Delta IVH, considering you need an upper stage. I don't believe in your cost numbers, sorry.
Analyst
Re: Wiki
Just uploaded this file to possibly replace the "Family" image.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DIRECT_Jupiter_Config_Options.jpg
R.
NASA administrator optimistic about manned space flight reviews; confident gap between shuttle and replacement will not be drawn out. http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/current.html
"I don't want anyone to think I have any doubts whatsoever that the Augustine committee is going to bring in a group of options that will include something that is incredibly attractive. I would not be surprised if they brought in an option that was incredibly incredibly attractive, but we couldn't do for one reason or another.
So my guess ... is the options he's going to bring in are going to be options that don't prolong the gap. I don't want to second guess, but I would be surprised if he brought in an option that said OK, it's worth waiting 10 years for."
4) JIMO was outright canceled because the cost of nuclear propulsion were and are astronomical, fitting Delta IVH or not. No launcher can help here.
That's excellent! There's your 3 minute direct presentation! Very clear about what's being done.
For those individuals interested in the manned exploration of Phobos & Deimos, they should study the PHD mission of Dr. Fred Singer & Dr. Brian O'Leary,Etc. In addition, the Russians are planning to launch the Phobos-Grunt Sample Return Mission in Oct,2009. http://www.geoffreylandis.com/Footsteps.pdf http://www.astronautix.com/craft/phdposal.htm http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/phobosdeimos2007/pdf/7021.pdf http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1985lbsa.conf..801O&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos-Grunt
Ross, I understand you are pushing your booster, but there are serveral problems with your post:
1) I am not sure the planned probes to Mars in the late 1960ies ("Voyager", not the outer planets Voyager launched in 1977), would have fit a Titan. But anyway, probably they were smaller than the Saturn V maximum capacity because even back then, with nearly "unlimited" budgets, they could not afford them being big.
2) Surveyor never used Titan but Atlas Centaur.
3) The MSL trouble hasn't much to do with launch mass, they don't even use the heaviest Atlas (551), nor the even bigger Delta IVH. They would have real trouble with anything larger (size and mass) than the MSL aeroshell during EDL. Whis is the limiting factor, and not because of fairing size, but because of EDL aerodynamics.
4) JIMO was outright canceled because the cost of nuclear propulsion were and are astronomical, fitting Delta IVH or not. No launcher can help here.
5) JWST: I don't know exactly what their problems are. Likely very special and demanding instruments, extremely tight tolerances etc. Comparing the total overrun to the launch vehicle cost and suggesting a larger launcher would result in no overrun is not valid. Mass does not solve anything. This is a common myth. If it were true, every simple satellite would use Delta IVH, and Pegasus et al. would be out of business.
6) MSR: What is the problem with two launches? You need several independent vehicles anyway (lander, return vehicle, maybe an extra rover with the lander or seperate), why not diversify the risk?QuoteThe scale of *some* (certainly not all) of the missions which SMD wants to do today is pushing the limits of current ELV/EELV launch assets to their breaking point -- or at the very least to the point where it results in significantly higher overall costs in order to squeeze a payload into a vehicle which just isn't the right size.
If this were true, at least some projects would be using Delta IVH, the current maximum. Only they don't, not even missions in their planning stage (Outer planet flagship). SMD can't afford these. Both Atlas 551 launches are high energy (NH in 2006 and Juno in 2011, look how rare they are).QuoteI would estimate that this doesn't affect 80% of planed missions at all. But the other 20% (I'm only talking one mission every 2-5 years or so) -- typically the larger, more expensive ones to start with -- could benefit from greater capabilities as long as they don't break the bank.
We had no flagship since Cassini in 1997. MSL may be one (kinda), but it is far from the EELV limit. This leaves JWST, 24 years after HST.
This is the timescale we are talking: Less than once per decade. As I said, even the rare expensive missions avoid Delta IVH. And you won't be cheaper than Delta IVH, considering you need an upper stage. I don't believe in your cost numbers, sorry.
Analyst
That's excellent! There's your 3 minute direct presentation! Very clear about what's being done.
Excellent indeed, but one last suggestion...
... and I don't know if it will work, my vision is twisted and blurred at its best and I haven't seen a straight line in over a decade...
... as in the attached, but have the two cores rotated just enough to show the 3 SSME - 4 SSME difference. If that works at a usable scale (I did this at 1600% :) ) then you'll have covered all the bases...
Quote"I don't want anyone to think I have any doubts whatsoever that the Augustine committee is going to bring in a group of options that will include something that is incredibly attractive. I would not be surprised if they brought in an option that was incredibly incredibly attractive, but we couldn't do for one reason or another.
I like part of this quote, as it seems he is open to new ideas from the Augustine Commission. The second part worries me however. What would be the reasons we couldn't do something? Hopefully he means schedule and funding wise, as I would hate for "Not Invented Here!" be a reason for not going forward with an option.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=17295.0;attach=153016;image)
I like this iteration best. Punctuation says eliminate the apostrophes after the acronyms. That aside, do we have permission to use this or a similar derivative for Wiki?
This may be a stupid question, but how are the umbilicals supposed to work on the DIVUS?
That's excellent! There's your 3 minute direct presentation! Very clear about what's being done.
Excellent indeed, but one last suggestion...
... and I don't know if it will work, my vision is twisted and blurred at its best and I haven't seen a straight line in over a decade...
... as in the attached, but have the two cores rotated just enough to show the 3 SSME - 4 SSME difference. If that works at a usable scale (I did this at 1600% :) ) then you'll have covered all the bases...
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=17295.0;attach=153016;image)
I like this iteration best. Punctuation says eliminate the apostrophes after the acronyms. That aside, do we have permission to use this or a similar derivative for Wiki?
I'm concerned that the second Core Stage implies a second development effort -- which is not the case. Remove it and this will be good to go.
Ross.
Guys: 2 ideas.
1) Just move the core on the left 1 spot over to the left, keeping it 'as-is' (no US), and have the rotated core on the far right, just past the last US (no US). Makes the diagram a little wider, but covers the profiles.
or
2) Just above the J-130 & US, show the bottom config with a square border around it with a caption (bottom view).
I'm concerned that the second Core Stage implies a second development effort -- which is not the case. Remove it and this will be good to go.
Ross.
Knew you were going to say that... :)
I wouldn't have suggested it if it didn't serve a purpose in showing that the 3 SSME and 4 SSME cores are in fact the same core. Which is why I qualified my post by wishing the cores to be slightly rotated to show 3 and 4 SSME's respectively.
Or maybe this:I do like your version four. I'm not sure how important it is to hide engine asymmetry. It's shown in the expanded drawing, for instance.
One thing I want to ask regarding the iteration; why is it necessary to show the cutaway diagrams that have nothing in them, when those that show capsules or the lander inside for potential users gauge the size for their cargo should suffice?Excellent indeed, but one last suggestion...
... and I don't know if it will work, my vision is twisted and blurred at its best and I haven't seen a straight line in over a decade...
... as in the attached, but have the two cores rotated just enough to show the 3 SSME - 4 SSME difference. If that works at a usable scale (I did this at 1600% :) ) then you'll have covered all the bases...
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=17295.0;attach=153016;image)
I like this iteration best. Punctuation says eliminate the apostrophes after the acronyms. That aside, do we have permission to use this or a similar derivative for Wiki?
I'm concerned that the second Core Stage implies a second development effort -- which is not the case. Remove it and this will be good to go.
Ross.
That's excellent! There's your 3 minute direct presentation! Very clear about what's being done.
Excellent indeed, but one last suggestion...
... and I don't know if it will work, my vision is twisted and blurred at its best and I haven't seen a straight line in over a decade...
... as in the attached, but have the two cores rotated just enough to show the 3 SSME - 4 SSME difference. If that works at a usable scale (I did this at 1600% :) ) then you'll have covered all the bases...
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=17295.0;attach=153016;image)
I like this iteration best. Punctuation says eliminate the apostrophes after the acronyms. That aside, do we have permission to use this or a similar derivative for Wiki?
I'm concerned that the second Core Stage implies a second development effort -- which is not the case. Remove it and this will be good to go.
Ross.
Or maybe this:
Bolden: NASA 'cannot continue to survive on the path that we are on right now'
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/07/bolden-nasa-cannot-continue-to-survive-on-the-path-that-we-are-on-right-now.html
Death Knell for NASA's Ares 1 Rocket http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html The article states that the USAF SRB study will also kill the Direct Launcher. Ross, What is you SRB explosion analysis showing for the Direct Launcher? I know that your preliminary analysis showed that it(Direct launched CEV) can survive a SRB explosion,but what is your more detailed analysis showing?
Or maybe this:
Death Knell for NASA's Ares 1 Rocket http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html The article states that the USAF SRB study will also kill the Direct Launcher. Ross, What is you SRB explosion analysis showing for the Direct Launcher? I know that your preliminary analysis showed that it(Direct launched CEV) can survive a SRB explosion,but what is your more detailed analysis showing?
Death Knell for NASA's Ares 1 Rocket http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html The article states that the USAF SRB study will also kill the Direct Launcher. Ross, What is you SRB explosion analysis showing for the Direct Launcher? I know that your preliminary analysis showed that it(Direct launched CEV) can survive a SRB explosion,but what is your more detailed analysis showing?
This appears to be a deduction by "Henry Spencer, computer programmer, spacecraft engineer and amateur space historian".
IIRC the Air Force analysis says at the lower dynamic pressure of Direct, it should be OK. I am working a 3 DOF simulation as we speak.
Danny Deger
This appears to be a deduction by "Henry Spencer, computer programmer, spacecraft engineer and amateur space historian".
Google the name. Henry knows more about spacecraft design and history than nearly anyone else I've ever known, despite the "amateur" title. The virtual "I Corrected Henry" t-shirts were given out very, very rarely in the heydays of the Usenet sci.space.* discussion groups.
His criticisms are generally valid but of course, until the analysis is done they may not be in this case.
There's no doubt this is a serious issue, but I'm not sure he's in a position to speak authoritatively on this issue. Of course, he may have inside info, but doesn't seem to claim so.
cheers, Martin
Or maybe this:
One thing I would like to suggest...
Instead of "3-4 SSME" make it clearer by saying "3 or 4 SSME"
Initially, I saw it as "three-fourths SSME" even though it wasn't a slash. Let's take the confusion out and do the simplest thing first.
There's no doubt this is a serious issue, but I'm not sure he's in a position to speak authoritatively on this issue. Of course, he may have inside info, but doesn't seem to claim so.
cheers, Martin
You've got to be kidding me. Henry Spencer knows what he's talking about.
Danny, What do the initials IIRC mean?
HARRY SPENCER vs. JIM in a steel cage match!!!
(hehe)
HARRY SPENCER vs. JIM in a steel cage match!!!
(hehe)
No contest, Jim on a TKO. He's a real spacecraft engineer ;).
Death Knell for NASA's Ares 1 Rocket http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html The article states that the USAF SRB study will also kill the Direct Launcher.IIRC the Air Force analysis says at the lower dynamic pressure of Direct, it should be OK. I am working a 3 DOF simulation as we speak.
Danny Deger
It looks like LAS does not need to be made more powerful regarding thrust, it just needs to have a "sustainer" tailoff to pull Orion farther from the hot debris cloud. This should be relatively easy to do, since DIRECT has plenty of margins.
It looks like LAS does not need to be made more powerful regarding thrust, it just needs to have a "sustainer" tailoff to pull Orion farther from the hot debris cloud. This should be relatively easy to do, since DIRECT has plenty of margins.
Seems so. Spencer's article seems more about Ares I than alternatives, though I do think that this would also be the final nail in the coffin for using Not-C for Orion.
Death Knell for NASA's Ares 1 Rocket http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html The article states that the USAF SRB study will also kill the Direct Launcher.IIRC the Air Force analysis says at the lower dynamic pressure of Direct, it should be OK. I am working a 3 DOF simulation as we speak.
Danny Deger
Henry Spencer does know what he's talking about - *usually*; but NOT in this case. We have had no contact with him and he has made no inquiries for data. He does not know or understand DIRECT and has made no attempt to educate himself about it before speaking. He has offered NO data to substantiate his claim except for the USAF report, which was exclusively about Ares-I, not DIRECT. His conclusion about DIRECT is a leap of faith and an unwarranted extension of non-applicable data based solely on the Ares-I report. It completely ignores the fact that the USAF itself has indicated that a vehicle with a much lower dynamic pressure for max-q would likely be alright. Our own analysis has already indicated that both Jupiters, with far lower dynamic pressures are in the safe zone and Orion would survive the event.
Mr. Spencer is apparently expressing his own *well-known* preference for the all-EELV solution.
Bolden: NASA 'cannot continue to survive on the path that we are on right now'
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/07/bolden-nasa-cannot-continue-to-survive-on-the-path-that-we-are-on-right-now.html
Death Knell for NASA's Ares 1 Rocket http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html The article states that the USAF SRB study will also kill the Direct Launcher.IIRC the Air Force analysis says at the lower dynamic pressure of Direct, it should be OK. I am working a 3 DOF simulation as we speak.
Danny Deger
Henry Spencer does know what he's talking about - *usually*; but NOT in this case. We have had no contact with him and he has made no inquiries for data. He does not know or understand DIRECT and has made no attempt to educate himself about it before speaking. He has offered NO data to substantiate his claim except for the USAF report, which was exclusively about Ares-I, not DIRECT. His conclusion about DIRECT is a leap of faith and an unwarranted extension of non-applicable data based solely on the Ares-I report. It completely ignores the fact that the USAF itself has indicated that a vehicle with a much lower dynamic pressure for max-q would likely be alright. Our own analysis has already indicated that both Jupiters, with far lower dynamic pressures are in the safe zone and Orion would survive the event.
Mr. Spencer is apparently expressing his own *well-known* preference for the all-EELV solution.
The positive thing to do in this case, is to contact him and provide him the data. Please ask yourself--what result do you want? He can do a correction or he can ignore it. But at least the Direct team has supplied him with the information.
Thanks for all the feedback. I've tried to accommodate as much of it as I could. If anyone sees anything else let me know.Since you have put the SSME counts in the green lines there isn't really a need to keep it in the blue lines now. Other than that I think it looks quite good.
Thanks for all the feedback. I've tried to accommodate as much of it as I could. If anyone sees anything else let me know.
Since you have put the SSME counts in the green lines there isn't really a need to keep it in the blue lines now. Other than that I think it looks quite good.
Thanks for all the feedback. I've tried to accommodate as much of it as I could. If anyone sees anything else let me know.
You're also showing a DHCUS + Orion on top of the J-246 vehicle. I don't think there is any mission which would require that config.
Thanks for all the feedback. I've tried to accommodate as much of it as I could. If anyone sees anything else let me know.
Yes. They said that 'engine out' requires the assembly to deal with asymetrical loads already, so it is no big deal.Thanks for all the feedback. I've tried to accommodate as much of it as I could. If anyone sees anything else let me know.
Hello-
For the 3-SSME configuration, the Bottom View graphic shows an asymmetric configuration for the SSMEs. Is this intentional?
-mk
Thanks for all the feedback. I've tried to accommodate as much of it as I could. If anyone sees anything else let me know.
Hello-
For the 3-SSME configuration, the Bottom View graphic shows an asymmetric configuration for the SSMEs. Is this intentional?
-mk
Remove the images of the engines. Everyone who sees the 3-engine config for the first time asks "must be a better way than that". No reason to raise baseless concerns when we know the config is the most efficient and the design must cope with off-axis forces in the event of engine-out anyway.
Hello-
For the 3-SSME configuration, the Bottom View graphic shows an asymmetric configuration for the SSMEs. Is this intentional?
-mk
I have no graphic skills, but how about this: Put the image of the Common Core in the middle, and have one arrow going left with the text "Core w/3 SSMEs, no upper stage", and another arrow going right with the text "Core w/4 SSMEs plus upper stage". That should cover everything, right?
Maybe have no PLF or stage above the Common Core in the middle, just maybe the words "Common Core".
Mark S.
... I'd even go so far as to put "one SSME removed" in the left green arrow, and "all 4 SSMEs" in the right arrow.
Going from the 3 engined version to the 4 would require new flight control software, right.
Going from the 3 engined version to the 4 would require new flight control software, right.
Regarding the engine configuration:
Our team at MSFC have been studying the engine arrangement for quite a while and they tell me a change is likely to come down the pipeline soon.
The "Tapered" design we have right now actually started out life when we were still using the RS-68's to power the Jupiter Core Stage. It was intended to maximize airflow around the base of the vehicle in order to try to reduce the buildup of hot plume gasses at the base of the vehicle in order to help make the ablative nozzles on the RS-68 work.
Well, from analysis we still decided to go with the regeneratively cooled (and already human-rated) SSME's instead. They simply don't need quite so much attention paid to the base heating concerns as they can survive in a much harsher environment than the RS-68's.
But the taper remained, non-the-less.
Well, the latest analysis is coming down the pipeline and the engineers want a more optimized solution tailored to suit the SSME's. And so they are thinking about a clustered arrangement once again -- albeit a cluster which still has a bit of a taper all around it!
Now, be aware that this is NOT yet ready to be included as a Baseline change, but it is a glimpse into what I personally think will eventually happen in the none-too-distant future.
You can see clearly which engine would be removed (in red) for the 3-engine Jupiter-130 arrangements.
Ross.
Regarding the engine configuration:
You can see clearly which engine would be removed (in red) for the 3-engine Jupiter-130 arrangements.
Ross.
Regarding the engine configuration:
You can see clearly which engine would be removed (in red) for the 3-engine Jupiter-130 arrangements.
Ross.
I guess it is not a concern of having the SSME so close to the SRB nozzle?? If the engine configuration was rotated 45 degrees, it has less plume impingement (I would think) but really lessens the heating between nozzles.
Regarding the engine configuration:
You can see clearly which engine would be removed (in red) for the 3-engine Jupiter-130 arrangements.
Ross.
I guess it is not a concern of having the SSME so close to the SRB nozzle?? If the engine configuration was rotated 45 degrees, it has less plume impingement (I would think) but really lessens the heating between nozzles.
I still like the inline engine configuration for some reason. Sure, we're all used to seeing "cluster" configurations, but does that mean inline won't work? Plus, inline still has the benefits of keeping the SSMEs as far away from the SRBs as possible, and it would have better airflow.
And it's not just the recirculating hot gases that cause base heating, there would also be considerable radiative heating too. Radiation varies with the square of the distance, so a little more distance can make a big difference.
Mark S.
Do Jupiter PLFs break into two or four pieces at jettison?
I guess it is not a concern of having the SSME so close to the SRB nozzle?? If the engine configuration was rotated 45 degrees, it has less plume impingement (I would think) but really lessens the heating between nozzles.
Thrust structure and piping likely lighter as well. Ross.. any numbers on how much mass can be saved going to the "cluster" configuration?
Hello all,
I have been following the Direct proposal for several weeks now and I have to say, as a pure layman that your proposal makes the most sense.
I do have several questions that I have not been able to resolve by reading through the threads here on this site and reviewing the Direct website. My questions are in regards to the ET - I see from the video that the Et is to be stretched -why is this necessary? Also, is there any increased loads caused by the in line thrust configuration that will cause the need for the ET to be strengthened?
Sorry, I am sure that this topic was probably one of the first issues that were discussed!
Mark
Hello all,
I have been following the Direct proposal for several weeks now and I have to say, as a pure layman that your proposal makes the most sense.
I do have several questions that I have not been able to resolve by reading through the threads here on this site and reviewing the Direct website. My questions are in regards to the ET - I see from the video that the Et is to be stretched -why is this necessary?
Also, is there any increased loads caused by the in line thrust configuration that will cause the need for the ET to be strengthened?
Sorry, I am sure that this topic was probably one of the first issues that were discussed!
Death Knell for NASA's Ares 1 Rocket http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html The article states that the USAF SRB study will also kill the Direct Launcher. Ross, What is you SRB explosion analysis showing for the Direct Launcher? I know that your preliminary analysis showed that it(Direct launched CEV) can survive a SRB explosion,but what is your more detailed analysis showing?
They ought to name a fairly large sized hole on the moon after you guys!
:)
You can see clearly which engine would be removed (in red) for the 3-engine Jupiter-130 arrangements.
The final results aren't in yet, but I have been told that this arrangement is more efficient to the tune of somewhere around 1,200-1,500lb or so.
They ought to name a fairly large sized hole on the moon after you guys!
:)
That can be taken multiple ways :D I'm sure there is a group of Ares I folks that would like to more than put team direct's name in a hole on the moon ... Still great job, great job. They need to name the first return to the moon landing site after the team.
The inline configuration would seem to have more control authority - which downrange could lead to removing the SRB TVC, which would seem to save more on cost and some on weight than this arrangement.
I suppose you should see if you have enough control authority with two engines to not need the SRB TVC.
You can see clearly which engine would be removed (in red) for the 3-engine Jupiter-130 arrangements.
Ross, why a diamond configuration instead of a triangular configuration with a engine in the center so that you could remove the center engine for the Jupiter-130? Is it because the diamond configuration provides optimal tapering of the thrust structure? Is the diamond shape better suited for the existing structure of the external tank?
Hi Everyone, I have been lurking around here since DIRECT was in v2.0.
I’m looking forward to Bolden announcing soon that NASA is changing its plans to a rocket more DIRECTly based on existing space shuttle hardware. ;D
Just a question that occurred to me today. In various rocket launches I have seen the pay load flaring is dumped as soon as the rocket is out of the atmosphere, so as not to carry unnecessary weight up to orbit I assume. In the images of Jupiter it looks like Orion is attached to the core with the PLF, if so dumping the PLF is therefore not an option. If the PLF then has to be carried all the way up to orbit how is the PLF then deorbited so that it doesn't cause a debris problem? Now that I think of it how is the core deorbited? Would it be advantageous to attach Orion to the core with some kind of column so that the PLF could dumped as soon as possible? Just a thought.
I'm sure this has been considered before, I'm just curious. Thanks.
Hello all,
I have been following the Direct proposal for several weeks now and I have to say, as a pure layman that your proposal makes the most sense.
Thanks Mark, and welcome to the site. Besides DIRECT-related materials you will find a wealth of other space-related information here, enough to satisfy all tastes!QuoteI do have several questions that I have not been able to resolve by reading through the threads here on this site and reviewing the Direct website. My questions are in regards to the ET - I see from the video that the Et is to be stretched -why is this necessary?
Actually, the ET's capacity remains exactly the same as at present. But some new structures are needed at the top and bottom in order to place the engines at the bottom of the Core and to allow payloads to be stacked on the top.
One of the key differences is that the current LOX Tank (the Ogive (teardrop) shaped tank at the top of the ET) is not the right shape, nor is it actually strong enough to support the weight of much above it -- so we actually replace that entire tank with a design which can be built on the same manufacturing equipment which makes the lower LH2 tank. The purpose of re-using that equipment instead of making brand-new tooling, is mainly to reduce costs and to minimize schedule impacts after Shuttle retires.
Having said that, we have looked at the possibility of a moderate Core Stretch as well (5ft stretch downwards towards the engines on the LH2 tank). It really doesn't buy you much extra performance at all, in either Jupiter configuration -- perhaps 1.5mT more. But it comes at additional development and manufacturing costs -- and there are more efficient ways to get that sort of performance boost if you ever needed it in the future.QuoteAlso, is there any increased loads caused by the in line thrust configuration that will cause the need for the ET to be strengthened?
Yes. Not so much for our three-engine Jupiter-130 configurations, but certainly for the 4-engine Jupiter 24x systems.
The reality is that just about every panel and every ring-frame will change in some fashion or another compared to ET. But those changes are relatively subtle and are all well within the manufacturing capabilities of the existing tooling at the Michoud Assembly Facility today. The Jupiter Core Stage will be designed to cope with its own specific environments, but the design needs to be done with one eye firmly on the currently available facilities instead of assuming everything will need to be replaced.QuoteSorry, I am sure that this topic was probably one of the first issues that were discussed!
A few times, but its always worth covering ground again because there are so many new people coming around to this general approach every day. So please, keep asking your questions!
Ross.
The PLF "petals" don't stay in LEO for long though. They are relatively lightweight structures and have a high area:mass ratio, so in a low Low Earth Orbit such as 130x130nmi, their orbit will naturally decay fairly quickly and they will re-enter within a few days, so they aren't much of a concern.
Also, a bit of clarification-- I presume the reason no tank stretch is baselined even though the fourth SSME would be added to the tank (increasing fuel use per second by 25%, which would require a 25% tank capacity increase to sustain the same burn length of time) is that the core stages ~25% earlier, therefore not needing the extra fuel for the extra engine to maintain the same burn duration. Is this correct??
Thanks! OL JR :)
But we have some indications that removing the SRB's TVC and re-qualifying the SRB's without them would actually incur a fairly expensive up-front cost which we don't like, so we're putting this option on the back-burner for now.
The 5-seg programme presumably includes re-qualification.
If 5-seg can't or simply isn't cancelled, could the TVC change be qualified within the same budget (ie pay for the development, and re-qual comes along for free).
I know that you recommend staying with 4-segs, but NASA may be committed, or simply be happy to pay for the performance boost.
I have just been told to prepare for a new round of FUD from CxP regarding the Altair > EDS docking arrangement.
Apparently they're about to try to attack DIRECT for this "fatal flaw".
I just thought I would pre-empt their attack by putting this information "out there" well ahead.
Ross.
I have just been told to prepare for a new round of FUD from CxP regarding the Altair > EDS docking arrangement.
Apparently they're about to try to attack DIRECT for this "fatal flaw".
I just thought I would pre-empt their attack by putting this information "out there" well ahead.
Ross.
I have just been told to prepare for a new round of FUD from CxP regarding our Altair > EDS docking arrangement.
Apparently they're about to try to attack DIRECT for this "fatal flaw".
I just thought I would pre-empt their attack by putting this information "out there" well ahead of their attempts.
Ross.
... If docking two vehicles in space is a "fatal flaw" now, then NASA is in deep doo-doo.
I have just been told to prepare for a new round of FUD from CxP regarding our Altair > EDS docking arrangement.Calling Dr. Pietrobon! Dr. Pietrobon to the launchpad - Stat!
... Any idea in which direction this attack will come from? "One if by land, and two if by sea" or where?
Updated source imagery.
How should I portray the Delta Heavy Cryogenic Upper Stage?
Is the single example good enough to give the idea that it could actually be utilized on any/all of the configurations?
I think I got all that :)
Maybe it is a valid critique that needs to be addressed? Did your source tell you it was an "attack" ... or simply a concern? The bunker mentality is decidedly not helpful on either side.
Either way, they see DIRECT as their biggest "threat", so they are trying to pull something out of the hat to try to discredit us -- again -- while they try to get that new architecture "established".
Looks like the same old, same old bullsh*t all over again. What ever happened to quality leadership in this country?
Ross.
Maybe it is a valid critique that needs to be addressed? Did your source tell you it was an "attack" ... or simply a concern? The bunker mentality is decidedly not helpful on either side.
Maybe it is a valid critique that needs to be addressed?We have a variety of engineering options for making the rear-docking work ...
Anyway, apparently CxP are trying to promote another ridiculously expensive 2-launch LOR mission architecture, but with a docking in LEO first, to transfer extra propellant from the Orion's EDS to the Altair's EDS.
Maybe it is a valid critique that needs to be addressed?We have a variety of engineering options for making the rear-docking work ...
Presumably this has something to do with the "blind" docking?
If so, regardless of the motivation, I can see where a reasonable person might express concern.
Hi,
Without seeing a picture - I am confused why there is a risk of regarding the EDS attachment mainly because as I am having difficulty seeing how the EDS - Altair - Orion will stack together.
Hi,
Without seeing a picture - I am confused why there is a risk of regarding the EDS attachment mainly because as I am having difficulty seeing how the EDS - Altair - Orion will stack together.
This diagram is on the directlauncher website:-
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_3.jpg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_3.jpg)
It's a hangover from DIRECT 1.0, but I believe it's pretty close to the current plan (although this shows Altair + Orion launching on a J-130, when it would now launch on a J-24x). Also, launch is currently planned to 130x130nmi, instead of 160x160.
cheers, Martin
ok, a FUD attack is at hand!
why panic... they have a sinking ship, and crap careers going down the toilet...
my big question is this, where is John Shannon's 'surprise' now regarding Steve's comment at the Augustine hearing... is he going to comment...
is it time to get an ASBOs out on this crew... Charlie's first order of business has to be to clean house... this cannot pass un-noticed by either of them...
modify - definition: ASBOs (Anti-Social Behavioral Orders) are explicitly intended to deal with bad juvenile behaviour ...
Maybe it is a valid critique that needs to be addressed?We have a variety of engineering options for making the rear-docking work ...
Presumably this has something to do with the "blind" docking?
If so, regardless of the motivation, I can see where a reasonable person might express concern.
ok, a FUD attack is at hand!
why panic... they have a sinking ship, and crap careers going down the toilet...
my big question is this, where is John Shannon's 'surprise' now regarding Steve's comment at the Augustine hearing... is he going to comment...
is it time to get an ASBOs out on this crew... Charlie's first order of business has to be to clean house... this cannot pass un-noticed by either of them...
modify - definition: ASBOs (Anti-Social Behavioral Orders) are explicitly intended to deal with bad juvenile behaviour ...
Gramps:
Bolden's a Marine. He understands the old Navy saying "A new broom sweeps clean" pretty well, I think. It should only be a matter of time.
Can someone tell me what FUD means? I suspect that because of the "F", you may need to PM me the answer ::)
I sent General Bolden a copy of my novella. If that doesn't get him to realize he needs to clean house, I don't know what will. I think the culture at NASA, especially in CxP, is going to change in the next couple of months. Shuttle Program is already doing a good job -- as far as I can tell.
Danny Deger
Looks like the same old, same old bullsh*t all over again. What ever happened to quality leadership in this country?
Ross.
snip
forgot that the Marine's are a Navy outfit... good point... will be watching...
snip
Hi,
Without seeing a picture - I am confused why there is a risk of regarding the EDS attachment mainly because as I am having difficulty seeing how the EDS - Altair - Orion will stack together.
This diagram is on the directlauncher website:-
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_3.jpg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_3.jpg)
It's a hangover from DIRECT 1.0, but I believe it's pretty close to the current plan (although this shows Altair + Orion launching on a J-130, when it would now launch on a J-24x). Also, launch is currently planned to 130x130nmi, instead of 160x160.
cheers, Martin
last time I checked Orion does not dock to altair first, instead they ride "Eyeballs out" the Orion/Altair combination stays inline, separates from the second stage, then docks the end opposite of Orion to the EDS
snip
forgot that the Marine's are a Navy outfit... good point... will be watching...
snip
Don't ever tell a Marine he is part of a "Navy outfit" :o
Danny Deger
... Any idea in which direction this attack will come from? "One if by land, and two if by sea" or where?
Oh noes! NASA's learned about teh EDS Docking Black Zone!!! What are we going to do?! ???
Hi,
Without seeing a picture - I am confused why there is a risk of regarding the EDS attachment mainly because as I am having difficulty seeing how the EDS - Altair - Orion will stack together.
This diagram is on the directlauncher website:-
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_3.jpg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_3.jpg)
It's a hangover from DIRECT 1.0, but I believe it's pretty close to the current plan (although this shows Altair + Orion launching on a J-130, when it would now launch on a J-24x). Also, launch is currently planned to 130x130nmi, instead of 160x160.
cheers, Martin
last time I checked Orion does not dock to altair first, instead they ride "Eyeballs out" the Orion/Altair combination stays inline, separates from the second stage, then docks the end opposite of Orion to the EDS
Thanks for the link however the picture shows a combined launch of the Altair and Orion so does not answer my question because I thought the aim was for a duel Jupiter launch to spread the load.
Hence if you spread the load,
1. why wouldnt you beef up the Orions service module and remove the EDS function from Altair
2. or in a case of a one way Altair cargo launch, why not move the EDS function from Altair to a separate Service Module docked like orion would.
Hmmm .. might have a crack at making my own pick to explain myself better.
cheers
Hi,
Without seeing a picture - I am confused why there is a risk of regarding the EDS attachment mainly because as I am having difficulty seeing how the EDS - Altair - Orion will stack together.
This diagram is on the directlauncher website:-
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_3.jpg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_3.jpg)
It's a hangover from DIRECT 1.0, but I believe it's pretty close to the current plan (although this shows Altair + Orion launching on a J-130, when it would now launch on a J-24x). Also, launch is currently planned to 130x130nmi, instead of 160x160.
cheers, Martin
last time I checked Orion does not dock to altair first, instead they ride "Eyeballs out" the Orion/Altair combination stays inline, separates from the second stage, then docks the end opposite of Orion to the EDS
Thanks for the link however the picture shows a combined launch of the Altair and Orion so does not answer my question because I thought the aim was for a duel Jupiter launch to spread the load.
Hence if you spread the load,
1. why wouldnt you beef up the Orions service module and remove the EDS function from Altair
2. or in a case of a one way Altair cargo launch, why not move the EDS function from Altair to a separate Service Module docked like orion would.
Hmmm .. might have a crack at making my own pick to explain myself better.
cheers
The first J-246 carries the Orion and Altair to orbit, using the Jupiter Upper Stage (JUS) strictly as an upper stage, and with the JUS only partially fueled. Once in orbit, the Orion and Altair will separate from the JupiterCoreUpper Stage and wait for the EDS to show up.
The second J-246 carries nothing on top of the Jupiter Upper Stage except for a small aerodynamic fairing. This JUS is completely fueled, and doubles as the Earth Departure Stage once the Altair and Orion have mated with it. So the real payload for this launch is the fuel needed for the TLI burn.
The Altair mates with the EDS, then the Orion docks with the Altair, then the EDS lights its gaggle of RL10B-2 engines, and it's off to the Moon.
I'm not sure if the Altair and Orion carry out this sequence separately or docked. I guess it could go either way. But the Altair will need autonomous EDS mating capability anyways, in order to support unmanned cargo missions to the Moon.
That's my understanding, I hope it helps! Ross, you can jump in and correct me now.... :)
Mark S.
Edit: D'oh! First paragraph, JUS not Core.
It's not blind docking. It's automated docking. The Russians have been doing it for decades and the ESA just did it. The only fundamental difference is this one doesn't involve an airlock. That actually makes it easier.
Another FUD Attack! Ross, Enough is Enough! Hit back hard & fast.If your opponent is swinging wildly, keep your chin out of the way and let him wear himself out.
snip
forgot that the Marine's are a Navy outfit... good point... will be watching...
snip
Don't ever tell a Marine he is part of a "Navy outfit" :o
Danny Deger
I'm not sure that automated docking is something you should rely on, and pilots have this tendency to like piloting. I would be surprised if this objection wasn't raised, but ymmv.
-Dave
snip
forgot that the Marine's are a Navy outfit... good point... will be watching...
snip
Don't ever tell a Marine he is part of a "Navy outfit" :o
Danny Deger
Like telling a Brit he is European?
Mark, you said that the 246 sends the crew and altair into orbit, I think there's a 130 that's configured for Altair+Crew, can you use that as well? I'm a bit confused, why would use a 246 when a 130 can do the job?
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J130-41.4000.10050_CLV_30x130nmi_29.0deg_090608.pdf
Edit: I just saw on the baseball cards, the 246 lifts all of that to a much higher orbit.
But still, why have a 130 that can lift an altair + orion?
Oh ok, I guess I got confused because it has the J130 with Altair and Orion in the "Official Recommended Option" in the media section of directlauncher.com
Configuration Option 2c : Jupiter-246 (RL-10B-2) – [Official Recommended Option]
Jupiter-246 EDS LV w/ minimal fairing, to 130x130nmi, 29.0°
PDF | JPEG
Jupiter-246 Crew + Cargo LV w/ 10.0m dia x 5.6m long fairing, to 130x130nmi, 29.0°
PDF | JPEG
Oh ok, I guess I got confused because it has the J130 with Altair and Orion in the "Official Recommended Option" in the media section of directlauncher.com
Its alright to have official single-stage and dual-stage options. I think on the same page it might be good to describe an official ESAS dual-launch lunar mission.Oh ok, I guess I got confused because it has the J130 with Altair and Orion in the "Official Recommended Option" in the media section of directlauncher.comReally? I'll have to get that fixed with our web guru.
Personally, I think that would be a great time to test the Altair's systems, including the main descent engine. Otherwise, you won't find any possible engine failures until the LOI burn.
I also want to point out that there are a number of different ways to allow a crew to handle the "reverse docking" of the Altair onto the EDS themselves -- and without having to rely upon any technology like cameras or screens too.
I also want to point out that there are a number of different ways to allow a crew to handle the "reverse docking" of the Altair onto the EDS themselves -- and without having to rely upon any technology like cameras or screens too.
Ross.
I also want to point out that there are a number of different ways to allow a crew to handle the "reverse docking" of the Altair onto the EDS themselves -- and without having to rely upon any technology like cameras or screens too.
I also want to point out that there are a number of different ways to allow a crew to handle the "reverse docking" of the Altair onto the EDS themselves -- and without having to rely upon any technology like cameras or screens too.
Sounds like a periscope, like on Soyuz
Question about the new trust structure:
Will the strengthening required for the 4 SSME thrust make the core strong enough to stand on its own? If not, how much additional strengthening would that require?
It would be a good, forward-thinking idea to build the core in a way that the SRBs can be replaced without having to re-engineer the entire vehicle.
I also want to point out that there are a number of different ways to allow a crew to handle the "reverse docking" of the Altair onto the EDS themselves -- and without having to rely upon any technology like cameras or screens too.
Ross.
BUMP!
(technical question getting buried by FUD talk)Question about the new trust structure:
Will the strengthening required for the 4 SSME thrust make the core strong enough to stand on its own? If not, how much additional strengthening would that require?
It would be a good, forward-thinking idea to build the core in a way that the SRBs can be replaced without having to re-engineer the entire vehicle.
I also want to point out that there are a number of different ways to allow a crew to handle the "reverse docking" of the Altair onto the EDS themselves -- and without having to rely upon any technology like cameras or screens too.
Not sure yet Paul. Still gathering information.
Apparently this is all because they were told -- two weeks ago -- that Ares-I is dead (still trying to confirm where that order came from) and so CxP's management are now desperately running around like headless chickens trying to come up with some sort of alternative "2-launch Ares-V-Lite" option in order to protect their already-doomed careers.
And they want to remove us as the leading competition.
Mind you, this does seem to fit perfectly with the other information we've been getting recently: That CxP have been very quietly trying to move all of the Ares-I staff over to Ares-V for about two weeks now... The "effect" becomes clear with this "cause".
Anyway, according to multiple sources who attended a recent TIM, CxP management are now trying to promote another ridiculously expensive 2-launch LOR mission architecture, but with a docking in LEO first, to transfer extra propellant from the Orion's EDS to the Altair's EDS.
Talk about trying to polish a pig!!!
Either way, they see DIRECT as their biggest "threat", so they are trying to pull something out of the hat to try to discredit us -- again -- while they try to get that new architecture "established".
Looks like the same old, same old bullsh*t all over again. What ever happened to quality leadership in this country?
Ross.
... It would be a good, forward-thinking idea to build the core in a way that the SRBs can be replaced without having to re-engineer the entire vehicle.... The structure will certainly be strong enough to support itself. ... Also, if you design things for 'hypothetical' situations which might or might-not happen in the future...
Wasn’t one of the CxP programs primary objections to Direct 1.0 your initial proposal to transfer propellant between upper stages? I thought they considered this an unacceptable risk and continued to hammer at it and criticize DIRECT for the maneuver long after it was removed from DIRECTs baseline mission profile. If they are adopting this option after publically calling it dangerously unacceptable the directors at CxP must really be desperate.
John
....snip....
Looks like the same old, same old bullsh*t all over again. What ever happened to quality leadership in this country?
Ross.
Wasn’t one of the CxP programs primary objections to Direct 1.0 your initial proposal to transfer propellant between upper stages? I thought they considered this an unacceptable risk and continued to hammer at it and criticize DIRECT for the maneuver long after it was removed from DIRECTs baseline mission profile. If they are adopting this option after publically calling it dangerously unacceptable the directors at CxP must really be desperate.
Also, didn’t you say in the past using an LOR mission profile would reduce payload by 20 percent. I am starting to get very conspiratorial in my thinking, but it seems like using an underperforming LOR mission is the only way they can still justify building a big 10m core rocket to accomplish a 2-launch mission, and that Griffin’s ghost is still running the show over at CxP constantly saying, “No make it big, it has to be bigger than the Saturn V or else …”
Wasn’t one of the CxP programs primary objections to Direct 1.0 your initial proposal to transfer propellant between upper stages? I thought they considered this an unacceptable risk and continued to hammer at it and criticize DIRECT for the maneuver long after it was removed from DIRECTs baseline mission profile. If they are adopting this option after publically calling it dangerously unacceptable the directors at CxP must really be desperate.
John
Yeah, what he said.
Plus, if NASA puts fuel transfer back on the table, how much would that benefit DIRECT? Could the JUS on the J-246 that is used to launch the CEV and LSAM be fully fueled instead of partially fueled? Or would that make it too heavy? If possible, how much fuel would be left over once the JUS+CEV+LSAM reaches LEO? Any leftovers could be transferred to the EDS, which should be about half empty after making it to orbit.
How much mass could a fully fueled JUS/EDS place in LLO, assuming it did both TLI and LOI burns?
Mark S.
given the large PLF's that you have for the J130, have y'all considered launching the crewed J130 with a longer fairing so that the height of the capsule on the pad was the same as for the J246? This would allow more commonality for tower access, etc.
(edit)
It would also buy you a few tenths of a second in case of a catastrophic failure.
(end edit)That's excellent! There's your 3 minute direct presentation! Very clear about what's being done.
Excellent indeed, but one last suggestion...
... and I don't know if it will work, my vision is twisted and blurred at its best and I haven't seen a straight line in over a decade...
... as in the attached, but have the two cores rotated just enough to show the 3 SSME - 4 SSME difference. If that works at a usable scale (I did this at 1600% :) ) then you'll have covered all the bases...
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=17295.0;attach=153016;image)
I like this iteration best. Punctuation says eliminate the apostrophes after the acronyms. That aside, do we have permission to use this or a similar derivative for Wiki?
I'm concerned that the second Core Stage implies a second development effort -- which is not the case. Remove it and this will be good to go.
Ross.
Hi,
Without seeing a picture - I am confused why there is a risk of regarding the EDS attachment mainly because as I am having difficulty seeing how the EDS - Altair - Orion will stack together.
This diagram is on the directlauncher website:-
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_3.jpg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_3.jpg)
It's a hangover from DIRECT 1.0, but I believe it's pretty close to the current plan (although this shows Altair + Orion launching on a J-130, when it would now launch on a J-24x). Also, launch is currently planned to 130x130nmi, instead of 160x160.
cheers, Martin
last time I checked Orion does not dock to altair first, instead they ride "Eyeballs out" the Orion/Altair combination stays inline, separates from the second stage, then docks the end opposite of Orion to the EDS
Thanks for the link however the picture shows a combined launch of the Altair and Orion so does not answer my question because I thought the aim was for a duel Jupiter launch to spread the load.
Hence if you spread the load,
1. why wouldnt you beef up the Orions service module and remove the EDS function from Altair
2. or in a case of a one way Altair cargo launch, why not move the EDS function from Altair to a separate Service Module docked like orion would.
Hmmm .. might have a crack at making my own pick to explain myself better.
cheers
Can someone tell me what FUD means?
Danny Deger
Of course, for Cargo-only flights, the PLF is disposed of normally during ascent, as soon as aerodynamic heating drops to 0.1BTU/sec/sq ft -- which is typically around 70-75nmi altitude.
I have just been told to prepare for a new round of FUD from CxP regarding our Altair > EDS docking arrangement.Calling Dr. Pietrobon! Dr. Pietrobon to the launchpad - Stat!
Of course, for Cargo-only flights, the PLF is disposed of normally during ascent, as soon as aerodynamic heating drops to 0.1BTU/sec/sq ft -- which is typically around 70-75nmi altitude.
Or in metric, 1136 W/m² at 130-139 km (about the same as the Sun's radiation).
Can someone tell me what FUD means?
Danny Deger
It means fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Maybe it is a valid critique that needs to be addressed? Did your source tell you it was an "attack" ... or simply a concern? The bunker mentality is decidedly not helpful on either side.
No question about it -- its another attack, in the spirit of "getting rid of those meddling kids".
We have a variety of engineering options for making the rear-docking work -- and a number of options which don't even need it (especially if CxP are going to include prop transfer anyway!).
But since when were facts allowed to get in the way of a good round of FUD? ::)
Ross.
I also want to point out that there are a number of different ways to allow a crew to handle the "reverse docking" of the Altair onto the EDS themselves -- and without having to rely upon any technology like cameras or screens too.
Sounds like a periscope, like on Soyuz
That's one of the options, yes.
Ross.
Not sure yet Paul. Still gathering information.
Apparently this is all because they were told -- two weeks ago -- that Ares-I is dead (still trying to confirm where that order came from) and so CxP's management are now desperately running around like headless chickens trying to come up with some sort of alternative "2-launch Ares-V-Lite" option in order to protect their already-doomed careers.
And they want to remove us as the leading competition.
Mind you, this does seem to fit perfectly with the other information we've been getting recently: That CxP have been very quietly trying to move all of the Ares-I staff over to Ares-V for about two weeks now... The "effect" becomes clear with this "cause".
Anyway, according to multiple sources who attended a recent TIM, CxP management are now trying to promote another ridiculously expensive 2-launch LOR mission architecture, but with a docking in LEO first, to transfer extra propellant from the Orion's EDS to the Altair's EDS.
Talk about trying to polish a pig!!!
Ross.
If they are going to dock in LEO they might as well make it a proper EOR-LOR mission (and dock the CEV and LSAM) but with propellant transfer which obviously has suddenly now matured as a technology fit for NASA exploration use ;). What they are proposing is really a EOR-LOR-LOR mission which is unnecessarily complex and more risky.
[My thinking is that there would be four attachment points, with cameras at each point on Altair looking at their respective attachment points on the EDS.
Question: When docking Orion/Altair stack to EDS, do you have to have any functional electrical (or otherer) connection at all, or will mechanical latching be sufficient? In other words, can you radio control the EDS, either from ground or from Orion for its entire part of the mission? It seems likely you can design a mechanical docking system whose radial orientation is irrelevant to its function. As long as no plugs have to be plugged, or fuel lines connected, you just have to make sure the two parts stay locked together during acceleration.If power or data connections are required I would expect they could use a variant of the ISS arm's power and data grapple fixture. One connection gives mechanical, power, and data together. It could start out mounted on the bottom of the Altair but be detached and left with the JUS/EDS when that section is jetisoned.
I was thinking you might have some ideas about avoiding the dock.I have given this some thought, but Buzz Aldrin is your man. He did his PhD on rendezvous.I have just been told to prepare for a new round of FUD from CxP regarding our Altair > EDS docking arrangement.Calling Dr. Pietrobon! Dr. Pietrobon to the launchpad - Stat!
It's not blind docking. It's automated docking. The Russians have been doing it for decades and the ESA just did it. The only fundamental difference is this one doesn't involve an airlock. That actually makes it easier.
4 The thought being this is -- you can 12:46:01
5 kind of see the approach, normal solid rocket 16:11:19
6 booster separation, fairing separation, you hit 16:11:23
7 MECO and off goes your upper stage with 16:11:25
8 autonomous rendezvous and docking capability -- 16:11:29
9 which actually if we would have launched this 16:11:32
10 morning, we were going to demonstrate the 16:11:34
11 autonomous rendezvous and docking capability. 16:11:36
12 We put some sensors on in the payload 16:11:39
13 bay of Endeavour and we'll demonstrate that 16:11:42
14 software and I hope -- although doing it within 16:11:46
15 eight flights is going to be difficult. I hope 16:11:48
16 to have the capability to demonstrate the 16:11:53
17 shuttle autonomous docking to the ISS. At least 16:11:55
18 we'll get the sensor data and then put it on the 16:11:56
19 ground through simulation and be able to show 16:11:59
20 that. 16:12:02
Hi,
Without seeing a picture - I am confused why there is a risk of regarding the EDS attachment mainly because as I am having difficulty seeing how the EDS - Altair - Orion will stack together.
This diagram is on the directlauncher website:-
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_3.jpg (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_3.jpg)
It's a hangover from DIRECT 1.0, but I believe it's pretty close to the current plan (although this shows Altair + Orion launching on a J-130, when it would now launch on a J-24x). Also, launch is currently planned to 130x130nmi, instead of 160x160.
cheers, Martin
last time I checked Orion does not dock to altair first, instead they ride "Eyeballs out" the Orion/Altair combination stays inline, separates from the second stage, then docks the end opposite of Orion to the EDS
Question: When docking Orion/Altair stack to EDS, do you have to have any functional electrical (or otherer) connection at all, or will mechanical latching be sufficient? In other words, can you radio control the EDS, either from ground or from Orion for its entire part of the mission? It seems likely you can design a mechanical docking system whose radial orientation is irrelevant to its function. As long as no plugs have to be plugged, or fuel lines connected, you just have to make sure the two parts stay locked together during acceleration.
Can someone clarify this for me.
Jupiter-130 Crew + Cargo LV w/ 10.0m dia x 10.0m long fairing, to 30x130nmi, 29.0°
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J130-41.4000.10050_CLV_30x130nmi_29.0deg_090608.pdf
Is this version of Jupiter supposed to be launched with this one, to have a lunar mission?
Jupiter-246 EDS LV w/ minimal fairing, to 130x130nmi, 29.0°
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090606.pdf
I mean you have all these options, i'm just not sure which are supposed to be used with what for a lunar mission.
If you use a: Jupiter-246 Crew + Cargo LV w/ 10.0m dia x 5.6m long fairing, to 130x130nmi, 29.0°
What's the cargo, and EDS? Altair? It just looks like there's a lot of extra volume that's not in use.
Can someone tell me what FUD means?
Danny Deger
It means fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
I have just been told to prepare for a new round of FUD from CxP regarding our Altair > EDS docking arrangement.
Apparently they're about to try to attack DIRECT for this "fatal flaw".
I just thought I would pre-empt their attack by putting this information "out there" well ahead of their attempts.
Ross.
An idea in which direction this attack will come from? "One if by land, and two if by sea" or where?
The website has died >:(Try this :
I think the latest FUD means that the Constellation people know "they're dammed if they do & they're dammed if they don't". They know that we're at check position on the chess board--one move away from mate--and it's becoming increasingly difficult to protect their King from being taken!!!
I have just been told to prepare for a new round of FUD from CxP regarding our Altair > EDS docking arrangement.
Apparently they're about to try to attack DIRECT for this "fatal flaw".
I just thought I would pre-empt their attack by putting this information "out there" well ahead of their attempts.
Ross.
I think the latest FUD means that the Constellation people know "they're dammed if they do & they're dammed if they don't". They know that we're at check position on the chess board--one move away from mate--and it's becoming increasingly difficult to protect their King from being taken!!!
Problem is, their King is already gone. He's been gone since January 21. They have a new King. And they need to start doing the right thing, right now.
I don't know about anyone else, but I am absolutely infuriated that these civil servants are wasting MY taxpayer dollars with their continued efforts to do anything and everything except what they're supposed to be doing. They are supposed to be making the most efficient, flexible, and capable launch vehicle they can build. They aren't doing that. This is the kind of office-politics crap that gives NASA a bad name, and I for one am sick and bloody tired of it.
All the evidence is there. The reality of the situation is so obvious that anyone other than a complete and total dolt can see it.
Could the JUS on the J-246 that is used to launch the CEV and LSAM be fully fueled instead of partially fueled? Or would that make it too heavy? If possible, how much fuel would be left over once the JUS+CEV+LSAM reaches LEO? Any leftovers could be transferred to the EDS, which should be about half empty after making it to orbit.
Could the JUS on the J-246 that is used to launch the CEV and LSAM be fully fueled instead of partially fueled? Or would that make it too heavy? If possible, how much fuel would be left over once the JUS+CEV+LSAM reaches LEO? Any leftovers could be transferred to the EDS, which should be about half empty after making it to orbit.
Why would you transfer propellant from the EDS the stack is already riding? Wouldn't it be better to do it the other way around, and eliminate one undocking and one docking maneuver? Tanking Mode, anyone?
Could the JUS on the J-246 that is used to launch the CEV and LSAM be fully fueled instead of partially fueled? Or would that make it too heavy? If possible, how much fuel would be left over once the JUS+CEV+LSAM reaches LEO? Any leftovers could be transferred to the EDS, which should be about half empty after making it to orbit.
Why would you transfer propellant from the EDS the stack is already riding? Wouldn't it be better to do it the other way around, and eliminate one undocking and one docking maneuver? Tanking Mode, anyone?
Good point! If PT is allowable now, then it would eliminate the need to undock and transfer to the other JUS/EDS. There goes NASA's "docking blackzone" argument...
Mark S.
Could you do a J-246 launch with Orion and Altair.. put just enough fuel in EDS to reach orbit. Then refuel the EDS from a tank launched on a J-130? That would eliminate the Altair to EDS docking.. although adding PT step(through an "inter-tank" located attachment point?)
Does the mass math work out here?
Disclaimer: IANARS
A really stupid thought, but what if Jupiter and the Shuttle infrastructure were rejected, and dismantled, right down to the last nut and bolt... what would it cost to rebuild it all, by private enterprise, and what time frame are we talking about...
ok that is stupid thought #1
#2... if Jupiter were funded, and we needed a tanker mode launch vehicle, what are the restrictions on farming it out to private enterprise, to build on their dime, and we buy the vehicles as needed... meanwhile they are in R&D mode for going to Propellent Depots in 4-5 years, independent of NASA...
just throwing out the idea, that perhaps while Congress may not fund these through NASA, what about PI funding it's own research and development NOW, to support the NASA initiatives that Jupiter would bring about...
modify: PI = Private Industry/Enterprise
A really stupid thought, but what if Jupiter and the Shuttle infrastructure were rejected, and dismantled, right down to the last nut and bolt... what would it cost to rebuild it all, by private enterprise, and what time frame are we talking about...
ok that is stupid thought #1
#2... if Jupiter were funded, and we needed a tanker mode launch vehicle, what are the restrictions on farming it out to private enterprise, to build on their dime, and we buy the vehicles as needed... meanwhile they are in R&D mode for going to Propellent Depots in 4-5 years, independent of NASA...
just throwing out the idea, that perhaps while Congress may not fund these through NASA, what about PI funding it's own research and development NOW, to support the NASA initiatives that Jupiter would bring about...
modify: PI = Private Industry/Enterprise
Corporations these days can't see past the next quarter's earnings, much less plan massive multiyear multibillion $$ programs. Only billionaire visionaries like Elon Musk can drive a company to take those kinds of risks, and there aren't too many like him.
I like DIRECT's plan to buy propellant launches from private industry for depot filling duty. It stimulates the private sector, and gets NASA a much needed capability. It also stimulates competition by creating a new commodity market, LOX to LEO.
Otherwise, I think you can forget private space ventures, other than the (relatively) safe and stodgy satellite launch business.
Mark S.
Thought-for-the-day - if NASA are desperate enough to start suggesting PT schemes, does this mean many of the people on the ground still genuinely believe that DIRECT does break the laws of physics, perhaps just in this "docking" issue if nothing else? If Ares is gone, and "DIRECT doesn't work", do they actually believe they're fighting against EELV / evolved EELV instead of DIRECT?
cheers, Martin
if Jupiter were funded, and we needed a tanker mode launch vehicle, what are the restrictions on farming it out to private enterprise, to build on their dime, and we buy the vehicles as needed... bring about...I think that is where Chuck's chicken and egg argument comes in. Who goes first?
Thought-for-the-day - if NASA are desperate enough to start suggesting PT schemes, does this mean many of the people on the ground still genuinely believe that DIRECT does break the laws of physics, perhaps just in this "docking" issue if nothing else? If Ares is gone, and "DIRECT doesn't work", do they actually believe they're fighting against EELV / evolved EELV instead of DIRECT?
cheers, Martin
Sigh. It's really irritating how they *really* HAMMERED us for suggesting PT in our 2007 AIAA paper and now they are putting the idea out there themselves in a totally desperate attempt to find an "anything but DIRECT" solution to the corner they have painted themselves into. The sad part is that we told them over 2 years ago they were painting themselves into a corner but they brushed us off like so much pollen on a spring day. Sad, very sad.
if Jupiter were funded, and we needed a tanker mode launch vehicle, what are the restrictions on farming it out to private enterprise, to build on their dime, and we buy the vehicles as needed... bring about...I think that is where Chuck's chicken and egg argument comes in. Who goes first?
Thought-for-the-day - if NASA are desperate enough to start suggesting PT schemes, does this mean many of the people on the ground still genuinely believe that DIRECT does break the laws of physics, perhaps just in this "docking" issue if nothing else? If Ares is gone, and "DIRECT doesn't work", do they actually believe they're fighting against EELV / evolved EELV instead of DIRECT?
cheers, Martin
Sigh. It's really irritating how they *really* HAMMERED us for suggesting PT in our 2007 AIAA paper and now they are putting the idea out there themselves in a totally desperate attempt to find an "anything but DIRECT" solution to the corner they have painted themselves into. The sad part is that we told them over 2 years ago they were painting themselves into a corner but they brushed us off like so much pollen on a spring day. Sad, very sad.
A wild "what-if"...
Who is the one guy in middle/upper management (other than Gen. Bolden) who has the authority to suggest work on Jupiter begin, and who was part of whomever it was who 'brushed off" the overture?
What if the team wrote this guy a polite letter, explaining to him that the team told them about this two years ago, and that he had the power to stop NASA from being a total laughingstock, to reinvigorate the workforce, and to put the entire agency on the fast track to re-establishing the VSE in a cost-effective, safe, sustainable manner, if only you recommend work begin immediately on Jupiter? It's gut check time now, and we would rather you come out as a hero, instead of going down with the sinking ship...
What if?
;D
I'm sorry not to be an alarmist, but what about waiting for the Committee to release its findings, the President to mangle them, the lobbyists to distort them, and then Congress to gut them.What if the team wrote this guy a polite letter, . . .Thought-for-the-day - if NASA are desperate enough to start suggesting PT schemes, . . .Sigh. It's really irritating how they *really* HAMMERED us for suggesting PT in our 2007 AIAA paper . . .
A really stupid thought, but what if Jupiter and the Shuttle infrastructure were rejected, and dismantled, right down to the last nut and bolt... what would it cost to rebuild it all, by private enterprise, and what time frame are we talking about...
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090722-ares1-rocket.html
Ares 1-X looks like it got pushed back another 2 months. With any luck, NASA will shift gears before it launches, and they can recycle it back into an SRB for a Jupiter flight. :)
I am not too worried about all of this. I mean, let's step back and take a look at all of this.
-Cx tries another FUD attack...Ares is not dead, but highly unlikely with the current budget. Unless congress decides to give NASA a bigger budget, Ares ain't happening.
-An all EELV solution will never happen. The job losses would never be allowed by Congress.
-The only option left is that medium-lift sweet spot that Direct and Not Shuttle-C fill. NSC is difficult for the crew launch and not ideal for future heavy lift needs.
I think when you look at it, Direct is that sweet spot in the launch vehicle options.
I am not too worried about all of this. I mean, let's step back and take a look at all of this.
-Cx tries another FUD attack...Ares is not dead, but highly unlikely with the current budget. Unless congress decides to give NASA a bigger budget, Ares ain't happening.
-An all EELV solution will never happen. The job losses would never be allowed by Congress.
-The only option left is that medium-lift sweet spot that Direct and Not Shuttle-C fill. NSC is difficult for the crew launch and not ideal for future heavy lift needs.
I think when you look at it, Direct is that sweet spot in the launch vehicle options.
The problem is, they could choose to do nothing, other than push back their milestone dates for CxP. Put all funding into Ares 1 to get SOMETHING flying back to LEO, and then Ares V just sorta putters around indefinately until a new administration down the road at some point steps in and either cancels it, or gets behind it and gets it finally built. And that could be some time, irregardless of party. The mistake is assuming that they will have to decide -something-...they don't, they can just let CxP wither on the vine for the forseeable future. THAT's my biggest concern and a all-too likely outcome, unfortuantely. Or even worse, Ares V gets cancelled up front and NASA gets only enough to get Ares 1 flying. Everything else is diverted to other areas.
So let's all hope they do make a new decision, and not "do nothing".
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090722-ares1-rocket.html
Ares 1-X looks like it got pushed back another 2 months. With any luck, NASA will shift gears before it launches, and they can recycle it back into an SRB for a Jupiter flight. :)
You should see the new Halloween theme Ares I-X poster they came up with.
What Cx does with our tax dollars when they aren't coming up with reasons to not go with Direct: ;D
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090722-ares1-rocket.html
Ares 1-X looks like it got pushed back another 2 months. With any luck, NASA will shift gears before it launches, and they can recycle it back into an SRB for a Jupiter flight. :)
But then you have that gap to worry about. The gap has been called unacceptable by many. So pushing the schedule back more is unlikely. You can reduce the gap by going with EELV for CLV, but even then they would not go EELV only and would go with some type of SDLV.
I think Cx is starting to realize that their vehicles are no longer that "just right" option. Hence them going into panic mode lately.
PS: I -hope- CxP is legitimately considering Direct! My fingers are crossed. :)
That "Unzip SRB at Max Q" test is actually needed.
The question is... the max q of which LV?
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090722-ares1-rocket.html
Ares 1-X looks like it got pushed back another 2 months. With any luck, NASA will shift gears before it launches, and they can recycle it back into an SRB for a Jupiter flight. :)
You should see the new Halloween theme Ares I-X poster they came up with.
What Cx does with our tax dollars when they aren't coming up with reasons to not go with Direct: ;D
Ewwwwwwww......
Man, that -IS- scary!!
You could cut the irony with a knife. The idea of sticking with Ares is scary...and they'll launch the first test flight on Halloween.... hmmm....
"Trick" or treat?
Um....trick?....
I thought a detonation was when the nozzle got plugged with a liberated chunk of propellant or some such. A deliberate destruct should produce a more or less benign loss of casing pressure, and a fireball rather than a casing explosion. Still unsurvivable for Shuttle, but not for Orion...
Or am I wrong?
Ewwwwwwww......
Man, that -IS- scary!!
You could cut the irony with a knife. The idea of sticking with Ares is scary...and they'll launch the first test flight on Halloween.... hmmm....
"Trick" or treat?
Um....trick?....
More irony:
What do you do when you are really scared...shake uncontrollably ;D
The study showed that in a standard abort scenario where the Ares I SRB is destroyed by the Flight Termination System
DESTRUCT: FTS linear shape charge at MET = ~42 seconds, 17k ft-agl, 4.4k ft downrange, 1,000 fps (comparable to the discussed capsule abort hazard).
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/07/interview-with-ross-tierney-of-direct.html
Interview with Ross Tierney of Direct Launch by Sander Olson
Here is an interview with Ross Tierney. Mr. Tierney is a representative of the of the Direct Launcher organization, which has a proposal to get to the moon using NASA shuttle components and other existing technology. This Jupiter rocket system could also be used to go to near-earth objects and possibly even Phobos and Mars. The Direct Launch system is based on the Jupiter rocket, which can provide all of the capabilities of the NASA Ares system in less time and at a fraction of the cost.
Hope this has not been posted yet. This is one of my favorite blogs
But then you have that gap to worry about. The gap has been called unacceptable by many. So pushing the schedule back more is unlikely. You can reduce the gap by going with EELV for CLV, but even then they would not go EELV only and would go with some type of SDLV.
I think Cx is starting to realize that their vehicles are no longer that "just right" option. Hence them going into panic mode lately.
Unacceptable to many, but the only guy that really matters is the President, and he really hasn’t shown much public interest one way or the other. Even during the Apollo 11 celebrations on Monday, the Apollo astronauts kept dropping “hints” that we need to go back to the moon and/or Mars, and the President kept sorta diverting the discussion to NASA will continue to lead in science but no specific mention of “human exploration”. One astronaut (I missed which one) in a speech he gave that day to some group or other, came right out and said something to the effect of, “Mr. President, it’s time to get on with it and send humans to the Moon and Mars!” (Paraphrasing)
Unfortunately I didn’t hear anything from the President about exploring. Just vague generalities about Apollo’s inspiration to him as a kid and others, and the science that was accomplished that would be continued.
It may be nothing, but I was very disappointed that he didn’t mention human exploration on such a day when he and the country was celebrating manned space exploration.
But regardless, like I said, if they “do nothing”, they’ll probably continue Ares 1 as planned, gap or no, but basically suspend most Ares V development. Perhaps even shorten it up a bit since they wouldn’t be doing much with Ares V, the LSAM, etc. I think they’d need at least that. At least something to show they are doing something still. Once they have their new rocket, talk of going back to the moon settles down into “long term” projections and goals.
PS: I -hope- CxP is legitimately considering Direct! My fingers are crossed. :)
But then you have that gap to worry about. The gap has been called unacceptable by many. So pushing the schedule back more is unlikely. You can reduce the gap by going with EELV for CLV, but even then they would not go EELV only and would go with some type of SDLV.
I think Cx is starting to realize that their vehicles are no longer that "just right" option. Hence them going into panic mode lately.
Unacceptable to many, but the only guy that really matters is the President, and he really hasn’t shown much public interest one way or the other. Even during the Apollo 11 celebrations on Monday, the Apollo astronauts kept dropping “hints” that we need to go back to the moon and/or Mars, and the President kept sorta diverting the discussion to NASA will continue to lead in science but no specific mention of “human exploration”. One astronaut (I missed which one) in a speech he gave that day to some group or other, came right out and said something to the effect of, “Mr. President, it’s time to get on with it and send humans to the Moon and Mars!” (Paraphrasing)
Unfortunately I didn’t hear anything from the President about exploring. Just vague generalities about Apollo’s inspiration to him as a kid and others, and the science that was accomplished that would be continued.
It may be nothing, but I was very disappointed that he didn’t mention human exploration on such a day when he and the country was celebrating manned space exploration.
But regardless, like I said, if they “do nothing”, they’ll probably continue Ares 1 as planned, gap or no, but basically suspend most Ares V development. Perhaps even shorten it up a bit since they wouldn’t be doing much with Ares V, the LSAM, etc. I think they’d need at least that. At least something to show they are doing something still. Once they have their new rocket, talk of going back to the moon settles down into “long term” projections and goals.
PS: I -hope- CxP is legitimately considering Direct! My fingers are crossed. :)
I would have been surprised if he said anything significant. He convened a Presidential Commission to look at the issue and offer up alternatives, but the deadline for that is still in the future. By making remarks of any significance, he would have been jumping the gun. Frankly, I was surprised that he went for the photo op with them.
Let's give the Augustine Commission time to do their work and make their recommendations. His new NASA Administrator has been very vocal about where his sentiments lie, and I believe Charlie Bolden is way too smart to blindside the President with his opinions.
I think we just need to give the process time to work. The DIRECT team got what they wanted with the hearings, an impartial review of the alternatives.
They better pick Direct...I mean, what the hell am I going to do if we don't have any more Direct threads. ;)
They better pick Direct...I mean, what the hell am I going to do if we don't have any more Direct threads. ;)
They better pick Direct...I mean, what the hell am I going to do if we don't have any more Direct threads. ;)
Think of whatever they pick as quasi-Direct, almost Direct. They may even put the NASA emblems on different spots just to say it's not Direct I sure don't think it will be the status quo. I'm sure there will be plenty of things for many good threads to come.
They better pick Direct...I mean, what the hell am I going to do if we don't have any more Direct threads. ;)
Think of whatever they pick as quasi-Direct, almost Direct. They may even put the NASA emblems on different spots just to say it's not Direct I sure don't think it will be the status quo. I'm sure there will be plenty of things for many good threads to come.
We can call them "Not-Direct" threads. ;D
Before you're planning books, remember the Commission and Bolden still have some decision making to do, I'd wait on the champagne before everything is certain.
You may end up with Ares V + Not Shuttle-C..
Unacceptable to many, but the only guy that really matters is the President, and he really hasn’t shown much public interest one way or the other. Even during the Apollo 11 celebrations on Monday, the Apollo astronauts kept dropping “hints” that we need to go back to the moon and/or Mars, and the President kept sorta diverting the discussion to NASA will continue to lead in science but no specific mention of “human exploration”.
I would have been surprised if he said anything significant. He convened a Presidential Commission to look at the issue and offer up alternatives, but the deadline for that is still in the future. By making remarks of any significance, he would have been jumping the gun. Frankly, I was surprised that he went for the photo op with them.
I was thinking you might have some ideas about avoiding the dock.
Bolden said his main job over the next few months will be to champion an "agreed-upon compromise strategy to get first to Mars and then beyond. And we don't have that yet."
So in short: Shuttle C is too small. Ares V is too big. Both together are too expensive. But the Jupiter is just right?
So in short: Shuttle C is too small. Ares V is too big. Both together are too expensive. But the Jupiter is just right?
With current technology, none of the different heavy lift vehicles (NSC, Ares V or Jupiter) proposed can provide lift capacity volume-wise of a large enough heatshield to allow decently sized modules (50t+) to be landed on Mars with a conventional approach. Actually, the upper limit on the current technology (Viking shaped heatshield) used for Mars landings is about 2tons whatever you do.
For a Mars mission, we will have to come up with new technology in any event. There are many concepts, from additional inflatable heatshields to aerobracking into orbit first and then do heatshield + powered descent etc. etc. Even looking at a several segment heatshield to get to 25m+ diameter is an option.
However, a Mars mission according to current planning (with Moon first) is at least 30 years out. Using payload volume and diameter constraints as an argument against heavy lift rockets solely because of heatshield issues on a potential Mars missions, when we don't even have the technology to land anything in the 50t range on the Mars surface no matter which heatshield approach we use right now is a bit far-fetched in my opinion.
So in short: Shuttle C is too small. Ares V is too big. Both together are too expensive. But the Jupiter is just right?
With current technology, none of the different heavy lift vehicles (NSC, Ares V or Jupiter) proposed can provide lift capacity volume-wise of a large enough heatshield to allow decently sized modules (50t+) to be landed on Mars with a conventional approach. Actually, the upper limit on the current technology (Viking shaped heatshield) used for Mars landings is about 2tons whatever you do.
Direct doesn't abandon the VSE. It gives us an architecture that can actually make it work with the dollars at hand.
What diameter Mars heat shield can the J-130 lift? Assume a made-to-measure PLF.
I would have been surprised if he said anything significant. He convened a Presidential Commission to look at the issue and offer up alternatives, but the deadline for that is still in the future. By making remarks of any significance, he would have been jumping the gun. Frankly, I was surprised that he went for the photo op with them.
Let's give the Augustine Commission time to do their work and make their recommendations. His new NASA Administrator has been very vocal about where his sentiments lie, and I believe Charlie Bolden is way too smart to blindside the President with his opinions.
I think we just need to give the process time to work. The DIRECT team got what they wanted with the hearings, an impartial review of the alternatives.
But folded that would give you a 30 meter heat shield...
But folded that would give you a 30 meter heat shield...I've always wondered why people dislike the segmented, folded heatshield for Mars payloads approach so much.
1. I think costs are a subject to debate when it comes to DIRECT. At least people like John Shannon think the costs are underestimated
A mini-shipyard adjacent to ISS would actually be sensible and leverage several factors... perhaps sufficiently to balance out the other issues associated with that inclination... so figure it won't be done.
<snip>
... Spacedock... well, a mini-spacedock... 50 frackin' years overdue but it'd cover the basics and be a valid beginning...
And this too could be an eventual part of Direct... albeit not baselined... once the FUD generators are cleared away.
1. I think costs are a subject to debate when it comes to DIRECT. At least people like John Shannon think the costs are underestimated
1. AeroSpace Corp has essentially validated our cost data. We're on the board.
2. John Shannon was "shooting from the hip" when he talked about our costs. *At that time* he had only "heard" that there was this thing called DIRECT and knew nothing about it. He knows a lot more now.
I was thinking you might have some ideas about avoiding the dock.
I havn't though of anything that hasn't been proposed before. A crazy idea is to have the PLF attached and have Orion dock with the EDS. This would involve large stresses on Orion, due to the weight of the Altair and the PLF above it.
1. I think costs are a subject to debate when it comes to DIRECT. At least people like John Shannon think the costs are underestimated
1. AeroSpace Corp has essentially validated our cost data. We're on the board.
2. John Shannon was "shooting from the hip" when he talked about our costs. *At that time* he had only "heard" that there was this thing called DIRECT and knew nothing about it. He knows a lot more now.
Good to here that AeroSpace Corp agrees with DIRECT's assessment. I appologize and wonder why Shannon made the remark. Without data backing up his opinion, he shouldn't have said anything about costs.
1. I think costs are a subject to debate when it comes to DIRECT. At least people like John Shannon think the costs are underestimated
1. AeroSpace Corp has essentially validated our cost data. We're on the board.
2. John Shannon was "shooting from the hip" when he talked about our costs. *At that time* he had only "heard" that there was this thing called DIRECT and knew nothing about it. He knows a lot more now.
A mini-shipyard adjacent to ISS would actually be sensible and leverage several factors... perhaps sufficiently to balance out the other issues associated with that inclination... so figure it won't be done.
<snip>
... Spacedock... well, a mini-spacedock... 50 frackin' years overdue but it'd cover the basics and be a valid beginning...
And this too could be an eventual part of Direct... albeit not baselined... once the FUD generators are cleared away.
As long as we're speculating, a shipyard/spacedock, imo, would be best located at EML-1. That eliminates any orbital inclination difficulties, enables any space-capable nation to get there, enables lunar global access with anytime return, allows lunar isru resources to play a part, and is an ideal point of departure and point of return to/from anywhere in the solar system.
1. I think costs are a subject to debate when it comes to DIRECT. At least people like John Shannon think the costs are underestimated
1. AeroSpace Corp has essentially validated our cost data. We're on the board.
2. John Shannon was "shooting from the hip" when he talked about our costs. *At that time* he had only "heard" that there was this thing called DIRECT and knew nothing about it. He knows a lot more now.
Chuck-
Your last statement speaks volumes to me. Is there more you can share on the topic about how John Shannon was brought up to speed about DIRECT, or is it too soon to discuss that publicly?
And outside of the magnetic field, it means that anyone working there gets roasted when there is a CME.
EML1 is great for a depot, but unless you are actually going to make spacecraft on the moon, it doesn't make much sense to put your shipyard so far from Earth.
We have 25+ years experience working in the LEO environment with MIR, ISS, and the earlier space stations. Why throw all that away?A mini-shipyard adjacent to ISS would actually be sensible and leverage several factors... perhaps sufficiently to balance out the other issues associated with that inclination... so figure it won't be done.
<snip>
... Spacedock... well, a mini-spacedock... 50 frackin' years overdue but it'd cover the basics and be a valid beginning...
And this too could be an eventual part of Direct... albeit not baselined... once the FUD generators are cleared away.
As long as we're speculating, a shipyard/spacedock, imo, would be best located at EML-1. That eliminates any orbital inclination difficulties, enables any space-capable nation to get there, enables lunar global access with anytime return, allows lunar isru resources to play a part, and is an ideal point of departure and point of return to/from anywhere in the solar system.
1. I think costs are a subject to debate when it comes to DIRECT. At least people like John Shannon think the costs are underestimated
1. AeroSpace Corp has essentially validated our cost data. We're on the board.
2. John Shannon was "shooting from the hip" when he talked about our costs. *At that time* he had only "heard" that there was this thing called DIRECT and knew nothing about it. He knows a lot more now.
Chuck-
Your last statement speaks volumes to me. Is there more you can share on the topic about how John Shannon was brought up to speed about DIRECT, or is it too soon to discuss that publicly?
There's not much to tell. We've had a couple of conversations with him and talked about it. That's it. When looked at thru fud-proof glasses it's not that hard to see. John's an honest, open minded guy who doesn't dismiss anything "just because". There was no "campaign" to educate him. We just told him what DIRECT is and is not. He gets it. But he still works for NASA and has a job to do. While he's officially championing NSC, as per his employer's instructions, you notice that he is also not fudding DIRECT either. Both DIRECT and NSC work. DIRECT does the VSE as defined while NSC scales it back a fair amount. It all depends on what the mission ultimately ends up being. We happen to believe that DIRECT is the better solution.
Don't read too much into what I said about John knowing more now than then. That's easy to accomplish with anyone with just a conversation or two.
1. I think costs are a subject to debate when it comes to DIRECT. At least people like John Shannon think the costs are underestimated
1. AeroSpace Corp has essentially validated our cost data. We're on the board.
We can call them "Not-Direct" threads. ;D
We can call them "Not-Direct" threads. ;D
Indirect Threads? ;)
And outside of the magnetic field, it means that anyone working there gets roasted when there is a CME.
EML1 is great for a depot, but unless you are actually going to make spacecraft on the moon, it doesn't make much sense to put your shipyard so far from Earth.
We have 25+ years experience working in the LEO environment with MIR, ISS, and the earlier space stations. Why throw all that away?
We can call them "Not-Direct" threads. ;D
Indirect Threads? ;)
We're all getting a little giddy here, aren't we? :) We've spent a long time waiting, so I think a little exuberance is not out of line.
Mark S.
straight out of the mouth of an Apollo astronaut
Don't set yourselves up for a big letdown. The best doesn't always win. I experience this every weekend at the track. The best stock car does not always win. There are a lot of non-technical things that come into play that the car team can't control. And there are lots of things that DIRECT has no control over, like what the President decides the mission needs to be.
For the stated mission, there is no doubt that DIRECT is THE best solution. But what if political or economic realities change the mission? Will DIRECT still fit? We don't know. It depends on a LOT of things that we have no control over.
Selection of the launch system is a political decision, not a technical one. We have done all we can from a technical perspective. Now it's up to the politics and trying to predict the outcome of any political decision is a crap shoot. It's anybody's guess.
straight out of the mouth of an Apollo astronaut
Not to belittle Buzz's points at all, but being an Apollo astronaut by itself doesn't necessarily mean you're qualified to judge something. Remember Ed Mitchell and his UFO mumbo-jumbo? ::)
Buzz is a pretty vocal space advocate, however. He has taken an active role in sustaining a vision for HSF. I'm not sure comparing him to Ed Mitchell is valid.
Buzz is a pretty vocal space advocate, however. He has taken an active role in sustaining a vision for HSF. I'm not sure comparing him to Ed Mitchell is valid.
I know it's not valid. That was to show two different ends of the "Apollo astronaut" spectrum. My point was that even his statements don't necessarily carry much weight with the powers that be, just because he's an Apollo astronaut. Though it certainly can't hurt DIRECT, either.
Well that was intersting.. Some "Direct" Hater.. Gaetano Marano was spewing all kinds of anti-direct FUD on the HSF Facebook page..This guy is a parrot, repeating this good ol' "Direct guys stole my idea".
Well that was intersting.. Some "Direct" Hater.. Gaetano Marano was spewing all kinds of anti-direct FUD on the HSF Facebook page..This guy is a parrot, repeating this good ol' "Direct guys stole my idea".
I think it's more interesting to speak with a brick wall.
Well that was intersting.. Some "Direct" Hater.. Gaetano Marano was spewing all kinds of anti-direct FUD on the HSF Facebook page..This guy is a parrot, repeating this good ol' "Direct guys stole my idea".
I think it's more interesting to speak with a brick wall.
Is there a set date for when the Augustine Commission must release their report?
My point was that even his statements don't necessarily carry much weight with the powers that be, just because he's an Apollo astronaut.
What information tells you he doesn't have much influence with the powers that be?
Well that was intersting.. Some "Direct" Hater.. Gaetano Marano was spewing all kinds of anti-direct FUD on the HSF Facebook page..This guy is a parrot, repeating this good ol' "Direct guys stole my idea".
I think it's more interesting to speak with a brick wall.
Yeah, he spams every space forum that he's not banned from, and the comment section of every mass-media space article that gets published online. I can recognize his style before I ever see his name or the URLs he spews everywhere.
I have him on auto-ignore. Let's drop any further mention of him, it just strokes his ego.
Mark S.
Well that was intersting.. Some "Direct" Hater.. Gaetano Marano was spewing all kinds of anti-direct FUD on the HSF Facebook page..This guy is a parrot, repeating this good ol' "Direct guys stole my idea".
I think it's more interesting to speak with a brick wall.
PS: I -hope- CxP is legitimately considering Direct! My fingers are crossed. :)
CxP? Remember to untangle and flex your fingers occasionally to prevent severe cramps over that long duration...
The Augustine commission is where any hope for sanity lies.
My point was that even his statements don't necessarily carry much weight with the powers that be, just because he's an Apollo astronaut.
What information tells you he doesn't have much influence with the powers that be?
Read again what I said - "don't necessarily carry much weight". Politicians being politicians, it's not about HSF with them, it's about pork. Hence all these (to us) logical ideas on advancing HSF most effectively don't carry much weight. The fact they're coming from someone who actually walked on the moon don't matter much either. But all of this is just IMO and certainly off topic.
Ten years from now, after MOON LANDING II, hollywood will want to make a movie about you guys. Based on the bestselling book "Rocket Rebels", or something thereabouts. And, as one who will miss the triumphal re-entry of the space shuttle, soaring down out of the heavens, soon to be replaced by an ignominious thud in the desert, has the Direct team ever considered an inline mini shuttle, something like the Russian Clipper?
straight out of the mouth of an Apollo astronaut
Not to belittle Buzz's points at all, but being an Apollo astronaut by itself doesn't necessarily mean you're qualified to judge something. Remember Ed Mitchell and his UFO mumbo-jumbo? ::)
Who validated AresI/V costs? If it was just Aerospace again, I wouldn't be so confident in the numbers for Direct.
Saying that "we use the same cost analysis" as NASA will maybe get NASA on your side, but is the equivilant of saying "just like NASA our cost estimates are completely unrealistic".
I know you've give Direct plenty of margins, but from a PR standpoint, claiming to use the same cost analysis methodology as NASA isn't excatly a good thing.
Who validated AresI/V costs? If it was just Aerospace again, I wouldn't be so confident in the numbers for Direct.
Saying that "we use the same cost analysis" as NASA will maybe get NASA on your side, but is the equivilant of saying "just like NASA our cost estimates are completely unrealistic".
I know you've give Direct plenty of margins, but from a PR standpoint, claiming to use the same cost analysis methodology as NASA isn't excatly a good thing.
"The Augustine Commission and Aerospace Corporation are in essence trying to create an objective baseline on which to evaluate all cost proposals. Although it is still preliminary we believe that the Aerospace Corporation has been able to validate our figures."
(Ross Tierney-July 23,2009 Next Big Picture Interview) This statement is extremely significant. In my opinion, it means that Direct now stands an extremey good chance of becoming the next US Manned Spacelight Launch System. http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/07/interview-with-ross-tierney-of-direct.html
Or more recently, Alan Bean and Harrison Schmitt...
"The Augustine Commission and Aerospace Corporation are in essence trying to create an objective baseline on which to evaluate all cost proposals. Although it is still preliminary we believe that the Aerospace Corporation has been able to validate our figures."
(Ross Tierney-July 23,2009 Next Big Picture Interview) This statement is extremely significant. In my opinion, it means that Direct now stands an extremey good chance of becoming the next US Manned Spacelight Launch System. http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/07/interview-with-ross-tierney-of-direct.html
Absolutely not true at this point. I am not sure where this information came from.
And outside of the magnetic field, it means that anyone working there gets roasted when there is a CME.
EML1 is great for a depot, but unless you are actually going to make spacecraft on the moon, it doesn't make much sense to put your shipyard so far from Earth.
We have 25+ years experience working in the LEO environment with MIR, ISS, and the earlier space stations. Why throw all that away?
Because an extra delta-v of 3.77 is km/s needed to bring spaceships back from L1. Eventually the interplanetary spaceships will be built at LEO but refuelled and repaired at the L1 Spaceyard IMHO.
Goodness gracious, no need to shout me down, I want Direct to succeed, it's not like I'm trying to kill it. Just opening some constructive dialogue...
If NASA used aerospace corp. to confirm their costs for AresI/V as well, does that make the Direct less favorable? If aerospace corp used better methodology for Direct, maybe you should emphasize it when you reference Aerospace corp, otherwise people would confuse their cost analysis as being the same one that NASA used for Ares (like I did).
My point is: the general consensus on this tread is CxP and NASA management lie to us about Ares I/V all the time. If we assume they lied to us about original costs, then saying Direct uses the same methodology as NASA leads to the logical conclusion that Direct is likely to lie to us. This (hopefully) is not true, but the conclusion is reached nevertheless. I think you should change the emphasis to explain why you think your numbers not only match NASA critera, but exceed it.
Lancer525:
Touche'. My point exactly.
DIRECT got what they wanted, an independent review of their idea and data.
Lancer525:
Touche'. My point exactly.
DIRECT got what they wanted, an independent review of their idea and data.
So, where does that leave us? Correct me if I am wrong but has not the biggest point of contention with DIRECT and its members been credibility (of the data)? Now *if* it were true that this has been put to rest, again where does that leave us?
1. AeroSpace Corp has essentially validated our cost data. We're on the board.
.. .. ..
If you are used to hearing "$35 billion, $35 billion" all the time and someone comes along and says "no, $8.5 billion".. .. ..
1. AeroSpace Corp has essentially validated our cost data. We're on the board.
What exactly "essentially" means ?
The devil is in the details... ?
Can you expand on "We're on the board." statement? With my limited English I could understand "we're on board", but there's a difference... .. ..
If you are used to hearing "$35 billion, $35 billion" all the time and someone comes along and says "no, $8.5 billion".. .. ..
I think the $35 ($36 in other places) billion is the total cost from now to IOC (2015, 65% confidence), for CxP. All included.
Orion alone is $6-to-$9 billion.
Are you sure $8.5 bln "Direct" / $35 bln CxP is apples-to-apples ?
Ok, I think you guys are misunderstanding my point: I AM NOT SAYING DIRECT IS LYING. I AM NOT SAYING I DON'T BELIEVE THE COST ANALYSIS. You guys are a little overzealous to attack criticisms that aren't there.
What I am saying is that emphasizing similarities between NASA and Direct is not exactly a good thing. I have seen time and again arguments from Direct that said "the same people who are running our numbers are the same ones who run NASAs, so we're fine". Saying that alone is not sufficient, you must say that Direct was much more agressive in terms of margins, in how it was BETTER.
The status quo at NASA for years has been a day late and a dollar short, so saying you are equal does nothing in your favor. This is not about the facts themselves, but about conveying them in a way that is more positive for Direct. I honestly don't know who did Ares' numbers, if it wasn't aerospace corp then we have no real problems to begin with.
If we assume NASA lied to us about Ares, then saying "we are just like NASA" is not a good thing. This is not about numbers, this about communicating that Direct can be trusted. I know that everyone here besides maybe Analyst believes that Direct's numbers are legit, but when you put it to the public who hasn't been following since day 0, they are going to be sceptical.
If NASA adopts Direct do you think critics of NASA won't start making the same argument? They'll say this is NASA wasting our money again, because they won't be informed that the cost analysis was more legit than what was done for Ares.
Perhaps it is because I'm cynical, but when I hear independent review, I have to ask how "independent" is it? Was the Ares cost analysis "independent"? To be clear I am not accussing the independent reviews of being biased, I'm saying people won't always just simply take your word as the truth, because NASA has lied to us so many times. People in this forum may trust Direct, but I think that trust may not extend so easily to people outside.
Though DIRECT is far less ambitious than Ares as a technological step forward, so there should be a lot more certainty about costs, performance and safety than with Ares.
The status quo at NASA for years has been a day late and a dollar short, so saying you are equal does nothing in your favor. This is not about the facts themselves, but about conveying them in a way that is more positive for Direct. I honestly don't know who did Ares' numbers, if it wasn't aerospace corp then we have no real problems to begin with.
Though DIRECT is far less ambitious than Ares as a technological step forward, so there should be a lot more certainty about costs, performance and safety than with Ares.
The status quo at NASA for years has been a day late and a dollar short, so saying you are equal does nothing in your favor. This is not about the facts themselves, but about conveying them in a way that is more positive for Direct. I honestly don't know who did Ares' numbers, if it wasn't aerospace corp then we have no real problems to begin with.
Ok, I think you guys are misunderstanding my point: I AM NOT SAYING DIRECT IS LYING. I AM NOT SAYING I DON'T BELIEVE THE COST ANALYSIS. You guys are a little overzealous to attack criticisms that aren't there.
What I am saying is that emphasizing similarities between NASA and Direct is not exactly a good thing. I have seen time and again arguments from Direct that said "the same people who are running our numbers are the same ones who run NASAs, so we're fine". Saying that alone is not sufficient, you must say that Direct was much more agressive in terms of margins, in how it was BETTER.
<snip>
Direct from the get go, has been building in margins of excess capacity, whether it has been in financial accounting, LV ability, etc... so that their LV description will not be seen as 'over' zealously efficient or cost effective... they used the NASA methodology in principal only... ie took the book keeping protocols and used them...
Ares / Constellation, instead of building in margins for potential problems, over exaggerated their potential and under accounted for their costing of the development of the LV... this has now left them in the position of having a weak bird and an inflated budget requirements...
they used the same book keeping methodology as Direct, but applied different parameters to their numbers...
I am not too worried about all of this. I mean, let's step back and take a look at all of this.Now if only the the Engineering decisions were made by Engineers, it would be DIRECT by a landslide. :)
-Cx tries another FUD attack...Ares is not dead, but highly unlikely with the current budget. Unless congress decides to give NASA a bigger budget, Ares ain't happening.
-An all EELV solution will never happen. The job losses would never be allowed by Congress.
-The only option left is that medium-lift sweet spot that Direct and Not Shuttle-C fill. NSC is difficult for the crew launch and not ideal for future heavy lift needs.
I think when you look at it, Direct is that sweet spot in the launch vehicle options.
With reference to the rumours flying that NASA is planning to announce it is moving CxP to an exclusively Ares-V-derived launcher archetecture:
NASA is proposing to send humans back to the Moon with a four-engine shuttle-derived booster. Two near-identical vehicles will be used to carry out this mission.
With reference to the rumours flying that NASA is planning to announce it is moving CxP to an exclusively Ares-V-derived launcher archetecture:
NASA is proposing to send humans back to the Moon with a four-engine shuttle-derived booster. Two near-identical vehicles will be used to carry out this mission. You know, that sounds strangely familiar from where I'm sitting... but we mustn't crow. Oh, what the heck, let's do it. ;D
With reference to the rumours flying that NASA is planning to announce it is moving CxP to an exclusively Ares-V-derived launcher archetecture:
NASA is proposing to send humans back to the Moon with a four-engine shuttle-derived booster. Two near-identical vehicles will be used to carry out this mission.
I must be asleep at the wheel, where is this statement from?
Re: figures...
... the question would be: if Aerospace did the NASA figures that wouldn't automatically be a mark against Aerospace... it would depend on exactly what figures NASA gave Aerospace to work with...
Re: figures...
... the question would be: if Aerospace did the NASA figures that wouldn't automatically be a mark against Aerospace... it would depend on exactly what figures NASA gave Aerospace to work with...
if we take that attitude, then all the competitors numbers might as well be false, and the Commission is staffed by a bunch of either incompetents or NASA hacks...
I think there's a bit of confusion above, so let me try to clarify:
Prior to the committee, NASA came up with NASA's own numbers -- nobody else was ever involved. This is true for CxP and also for NSC as well.
Ross.
Thanks Ross, that makes me feel a lot more confident about the commission. I actually thought you had contacted Aerospace on behalf of direct and that they would report to the commission only on direct, not on all the options. This makes them much more independent, sorry for doubting you guys, I just didn't know the situation.
But how can NASA come up with its own number without review... seems a bit shady. No oversight at all.
Out of curiousity what rockets have Aerospace reviewed in the passed, I'd like to know their record.
Without wanting to sound too optimistic, it seems Ares 1 / V is dead.
If a "Direct" type of launcher is chosen, will NASA,
a. Start from scratch
b. Take the Direct concept, validate it, embrace it and deploy it
Option b would save about 1 - 2 years, and a corresponding amount of money, because early concept design, prior to PDR, takes time.
Option a risks heading off to a Not Invented Here hatchet job. Engineers who have been working on Part Number 3714 for Ares 1 really feel it ought to fit into the new "Direct" architecture.
So how do you brainwash smart Ares engineers to love Direct?
I think there's a bit of confusion above, so let me try to clarify:
Prior to the committee, NASA came up with NASA's own numbers -- nobody else was ever involved. This is true for CxP and also for NSC as well.
Ross.
Then I was mistaken and I owe Gramps an apology. I thought they were involved with processing NASA's Ares numbers before the commission was announced.
NASA administrator.Thanks Ross, that makes me feel a lot more confident about the commission.If we had ever tried to get them to analyse DIRECT for us, our little band of rebels could never have afforded their fee! :)QuoteNo oversight at all.Where is the guy looking over their shoulder?
Where is the guy looking over their shoulder?
NASA administrator.
President.
GAO.
But folded that would give you a 30 meter heat shield...
There are lots of different folding techniques. You can get a 30m heatshield into a 7.5m diameter payload fairing. You basically have a core heat shield of 7.5m and segments from the outer heat shield folded upright around it all in the 10m length.
And no, you don't need an EVA to assemble a segmented heathshield. Actually folding techniques have been used in space forever and they work. Automatic bolting works as well.
I've always wondered why people dislike the segmented, folded heatshield for Mars payloads approach so much. As far as I see it, as long as we stay with conventional Mars descent techniques (that is a heatshield and later on parashutes and some powered descend for the last part) going with segmented heatshields makes the most sense. Rather than having to design your modules around constraints of a 10m, 12m or 15m heathshield (depending on the diameter of your payload fairing) you can just design your modules and design the appropriately sized heatshield for it.
Where is the guy looking over their shoulder?
NASA administrator.
President.
GAO.
Griffin proposed it, so wasn't interested in questioning it.
President wasn't a rocket scientist so didn't know How to question it.
GAO Did question it, multiple times, but was ignored each time.
Oversight Score: F Minus.
Ross.
Without wanting to sound too optimistic, it seems Ares 1 / V is dead.
If a "Direct" type of launcher is chosen, will NASA,
a. Start from scratch
b. Take the Direct concept, validate it, embrace it and deploy it
Option b would save about 1 - 2 years, and a corresponding amount of money, because early concept design, prior to PDR, takes time.
Option a risks heading off to a Not Invented Here hatchet job. Engineers who have been working on Part Number 3714 for Ares 1 really feel it ought to fit into the new "Direct" architecture.
So how do you brainwash smart Ares engineers to love Direct?
It bears repeating. I said: "Ours and theirs cost profiles do not match line for line, but overall we are in the ballpark"
Some have taken that to mean that the "validation" arrived at approximately the same number as us. Not true. I apologize if that's the impression given. What was "validated" was that our numbers were not "unreasonable". That's why I used the term "ballpark". Our numbers were "reasonable" enough to not be dismissed. That's an important distinction.
To put this in perspective, "nobody's" cost figures worked out exactly as stated. To end up "in the ballpark" after scrutiny is like teeing off and the golf ball landing on the green. That doesn't get you a score yet, just puts you within range of the score. It validates your efforts to score and makes you a credible player. It recognizes you as a genuine contender. That's where we are.
I've never truly understood why NASA (or even the DIRECT team) simply didn't adopt the basic Mars Direct architecture. There would be no issues now. It has a heavy lifter. It has technology that can be used/tested on the moon. It gets a Mars program happening quickly and relatively cheaply.
The only extra element needed is Delta IV or Falcon9H launch of Orion for LEO missions.
Ross/Chuck,
Maybe you guys can take a guess at this, but for me the trouble with estimating the Ares program costs has always been which version of the Ares V rocket do you cost out. The old five engine RS-68 5.5 segment 10m core which is what the $35 billion figure is based on? Or the current 6 RS-68 engine 5.5 segment rocket, or the Godzilla-7 with RS-68 regenerative engines, 6 segment boosters, and an 11m-core monster that may be needed to close the performance gap?
DIRECT seems pretty reasonable to cost out since at worst it seems like you might need to go to 5 segment boosters or a J-2X upper stage if your upper stage mass fractions turned out to be as bad as NASA claims they would. But the Ares V could need something like 50 percent margins just to account for all the uncertainty with the design. I doubt Aerospace Corp would share with you much in the way of how they are dealing with this, but I was curious if anybody had any thoughts on this aspect of the Augustine Commission.
John
We actually calculated that the mission would still be able to close CxP's 71.1mT thru TLI performance targets even if that Managers Reserve was increased to 5,000kg! And we informed Aerospace Corp of that finding too.
We deliberately refrained from publicizing these details because we didn't want to tip-off the competition before Aerospace Corp was finished with its analysis.
Ain't I a stinker!!!
Muwahahahahahah! ;D ;D ;D
Ross.
Ross/Chuck,
Maybe you guys can take a guess at this, but for me the trouble with estimating the Ares program costs has always been which version of the Ares V rocket do you cost out. The old five engine RS-68 5.5 segment 10m core which is what the $35 billion figure is based on? Or the current 6 RS-68 engine 5.5 segment rocket, or the Godzilla-7 with RS-68 regenerative engines, 6 segment boosters, and an 11m-core monster that may be needed to close the performance gap?
That $35m figure is for development of the current baseline launch vehicles, which is:-
Ares-I - 5-seg, J-2X, 5.5m Upper Stage
Ares-V - 5.5seg, 6x RS-68B (ablative), 10m Core Stage, J-2X, 10m Upper Stage
This does include both manufacturing and launch facility modification costs as well.
Regen RS-68 will be extra to develop. Estimated vary between $500m and $1bn for a human rated Regen variant.
Godzilla-7 would be more expensive still. Most of the difference would be for extra infrastructure costs to support that vast Core Stage structure. But every flight would also require an extra RS-68 Regen too, which doesn't help their costs any.QuoteDIRECT seems pretty reasonable to cost out since at worst it seems like you might need to go to 5 segment boosters or a J-2X upper stage if your upper stage mass fractions turned out to be as bad as NASA claims they would. But the Ares V could need something like 50 percent margins just to account for all the uncertainty with the design. I doubt Aerospace Corp would share with you much in the way of how they are dealing with this, but I was curious if anybody had any thoughts on this aspect of the Augustine Commission.
John
Actually, we took care of that already :)
The EDS version which we actually submitted for review to the Augustine Committee included 2,500kg of additional "Managers Reserve" on the Upper Stage mass allocation, and was powered by a J-2X.
This resulted in an Upper Stage dry mass of 14,656kg and a burnout mass of 16,431kg. The additional Manager's Reserve accounts for approximately 17% of the total mass allocation.
The pmf (NASA calc method: Usable Propellant/GLOW, not Regular pmf calc method: Gross Propellant/GLOW) was thus a much more reasonable 0.9164!
We did this to be extra-conservative, specifically for this review process to head-off the concerns about pmf and to ensure that any FUD spread by the competition could easily be discounted.
We actually calculated that the mission would still be able to close CxP's 71.1mT thru TLI performance targets even if that Managers Reserve was increased to 5,000kg! And we informed Aerospace Corp of that finding too.
We deliberately refrained from publicizing these details because we didn't want to tip-off the competition before Aerospace Corp was finished with its analysis.
I sure don't mind if the competition expended all their energies fighting this pmf issue behind closed doors. They can bi*ch and complain about our pmf as much as they like -- because it was pretty irrelevant for the variant which was actually being studied!
(http://www.alexross.com/CJ150.jpg)
Ain't I a stinker!!!
Muwahahahahahah! ;D ;D ;D
Ross.
Ross or anyone else in the know:
If the Augustine commission picks Direct and General Bolden Obama, and Congress agree, who should run the Direct development so it gets done right? Does NASA have anyone that should be moved into the position that won't screw it up?
The main reason why Zubrin's In-Line launcher, also called "Ares", was not considered is because it has a few technical concerns.
Firstly, it uses the more powerful 4-segment ASRM Boosters -- which were canceled for Shuttle after their costs went out of control. They were replaced by the SLWT, which produced a similar performance improvement.
Second, the Upper Stage has an engine in the SSME thrust class, but which also needs to produce 465s vac Isp -- which is approximately 13s better than SSME, yet needs to be air-startable and then re-startable too.
Both of these elements are pretty costly items which most people don't realize were included. You're talking about a similar cost ($1.8bn+) to the 5-segs in order to get the ASRM's and you're talking about a really serious development program ($2bn anyone?) to get that combined-higher-efficiency-SSME-air-start/re-start engine qualified for human use.
But if you swap those for existing systems (or J-2X in the case of the US engine), the performance for the vehicle drops significantly. But if it drops, it can no longer support the size of mission Zubrin was hoping for -- and that short-circuits the plan :(
Also, since that study was conducted its concepts have been refined a lot by Zubrin and the Mars Society. The "Mars Society Mission" seems to be the most recent iteration from that quarter and the mission size for MSM has grown since "Mars Direct" was first proposed. It wouldn't fit on two of Zubrin's Ares vehicles now anyway.
Ross.
Do you recognize this concept? I've had it saved for a while and forgot about it.
re: ... mini-shipyard...
.... apparently if you name it Spacedock a spatial distortion automatically relocates it to a random L point and quadruples its facilities ;)...
... a bit much for what's supposed to be an inexpensive and Direct-style beginning effort at a much-needed and long overdue bit of space infrastructure that will complement Direct...
... not because of NASA EDS FUD, but because it would greatly expand the use of space-assembled probes and modules that don't need to carry expensive automated docking gear...
... now... once the original has been proved out in LEO I can see another version being assembled by the original mini-shipyard and boosted out to wherever next gen space operations are staged... a starting seed package sort of deal...
QuoteBut how can NASA come up with its own number without review... seems a bit shady. No oversight at all.
YES!!!
This is another of the major questions we have. Where is the guy looking over their shoulder? Where is the guy who they HAVE to satisfy in order to be allowed to proceed? Shouldn't everyone involved in the development always know that someone INDEPENDENT is above them and has the ability to say they are wrong, in order to keep them honest? Isn't having that extra layer of checks & balances not a fundamental requirement of any good design process?
Direct from the get go, has been building in margins of excess capacity, whether it has been in financial accounting, LV ability, etc... so that their LV description will not be seen as 'over' zealously efficient or cost effective... they used the NASA methodology in principal only... ie took the book keeping protocols and used them...
Ares / Constellation, instead of building in margins for potential problems, over exaggerated their potential and under accounted for their costing of the development of the LV... this has now left them in the position of having a weak bird and an inflated budget requirements...
they used the same book keeping methodology as Direct, but applied different parameters to their numbers...
The problem as I see it is that nobody outside the forum knows this. IMHO this is the most important part of the cost argument for Direct, besides the fact that there will only be one LV designed. I don't think it's been emphasized enough.
In fact I'm extremely hopeful for direct thanks to the margins, I think it will just as likely be underbudget to develop assuming people get out of the way.
The main reason why Zubrin's In-Line launcher, also called "Ares", was not considered is because it has a few technical concerns.
Firstly, it uses the more powerful 4-segment ASRM Boosters -- which were canceled for Shuttle after their costs went out of control. They were replaced by the SLWT, which produced a similar performance improvement.
Second, the Upper Stage has an engine in the SSME thrust class, but which also needs to produce 465s vac Isp -- which is approximately 13s better than SSME, yet needs to be air-startable and then re-startable too.
Both of these elements are pretty costly items which most people don't realize were included. You're talking about a similar cost ($1.8bn+) to the 5-segs in order to get the ASRM's and you're talking about a really serious development program ($2bn anyone?) to get that combined-higher-efficiency-SSME-air-start/re-start engine qualified for human use.
But if you swap those for existing systems (or J-2X in the case of the US engine), the performance for the vehicle drops significantly. But if it drops, it can no longer support the size of mission Zubrin was hoping for -- and that short-circuits the plan :(
Also, since that study was conducted its concepts have been refined a lot by Zubrin and the Mars Society. The "Mars Society Mission" seems to be the most recent iteration from that quarter and the mission size for MSM has grown since "Mars Direct" was first proposed. It wouldn't fit on two of Zubrin's Ares vehicles now anyway.
Ross.
And this reactor comes from where?
Los Alamos has a one megawatt Heat Pipe reactor which has a mass of 493 kilograms. Two hundred reactors like this would have a mass of 98.6 metric tons.
Ross or anyone else in the know:
If the Augustine commission picks Direct and General Bolden Obama, and Congress agree, who should run the Direct development so it gets done right? Does NASA have anyone that should be moved into the position that won't screw it up?
That's the $64,000.00 question.
Isn't the Heat Pipe Reactor still at the theoretical stage?And this reactor comes from where?
Los Alamos has a one megawatt Heat Pipe reactor which has a mass of 493 kilograms. Two hundred reactors like this would have a mass of 98.6 metric tons.
And this reactor comes from where?
Los Alamos has a one megawatt Heat Pipe reactor which has a mass of 493 kilograms. Two hundred reactors like this would have a mass of 98.6 metric tons.
And this reactor comes from where?
Los Alamos has a one megawatt Heat Pipe reactor which has a mass of 493 kilograms. Two hundred reactors like this would have a mass of 98.6 metric tons.
That's 1 MW Thermal.
Doesn't include the electrical generation equipment or the huge radiators needed. Not to mention the inefficiency of conversion.
Ross, I understand you are pushing your booster, but there are serveral problems with your post:QuoteThe scale of *some* (certainly not all) of the missions which SMD wants to do today is pushing the limits of current ELV/EELV launch assets to their breaking point -- or at the very least to the point where it results in significantly higher overall costs in order to squeeze a payload into a vehicle which just isn't the right size.
If this were true, at least some projects would be using Delta IVH, the current maximum. Only they don't, not even missions in their planning stage (Outer planet flagship). SMD can't afford these. Both Atlas 551 launches are high energy (NH in 2006 and Juno in 2011, look how rare they are).
(...)
We had no flagship since Cassini in 1997. MSL may be one (kinda), but it is far from the EELV limit. This leaves JWST, 24 years after HST.
(...)
This is the timescale we are talking: Less than once per decade. As I said, even the rare expensive missions avoid Delta IVH. And you won't be cheaper than Delta IVH, considering you need an upper stage. I don't believe in your cost numbers, sorry.
If we assumed that the HSF program were to pick up all of the fixed operational costs for the system, leaving only the costs of the vehicle and its unique operations to be paid by SMD, a Jupiter-130/DHCUS CaLV flight should costs somewhere around ~$180m to SMD.
A thought on stretching the Shuttle programme to close the gap with J-130.
Jupiter is founded on the idea of retaining the expertise on the ground necessary to fly reliably. This is stuff that's locked away in people's heads, and once they're gone, that knowledge is gone with them. How many of these are the famous grey-beards that won't be around forever anyway?
If the remaining Shuttle flights are stretched out, does that mean that the staff on the ground would be less busy day-to-day - at least until they start planning ops processes for Jupiter?
Would this give NASA the time to start a documentation programme - get a lot of that knowledge written down?
* The ops unique to Shuttle would be nice to have for historical purposes, but not critical.
* Document the Jupiter-relevant stuff as it exists now, and keep it updated as part of the development process for the new Jupiter ops.
The fixed costs for stretching the Shuttle programme are high. Would this be a way to demonstrate getting extra value out of those costs?
cheers, Martin
Not really. Getting a lump of plutonium or whatever to produce 600MW thermal is the light weight part. Dumping 400MW into space is the heavy weight part. And 200MWe spinning generator is going to be heavy.
Los Alamos has a one megawatt Heat Pipe reactor which has a mass of 493 kilograms. Two hundred reactors like this would have a mass of 98.6 metric tons.
That's 1 MW Thermal.
Doesn't include the electrical generation equipment or the huge radiators needed. Not to mention the inefficiency of conversion.
True, but the point is that there is enough spare weight capacity to add those necessary features. Either (or more likely both) NTP or NEP are necessary innovations if beyond-LEO flight is going to be more than occasional excursions to Mars and NEOs. Such a lightweight reactor is a good starting place.
It also helps that our budget figures have also been packed with larger margins.
When all is said and done, J-130 development has roughly 20% additional margins on top of the 'standard' margins which are typically used.
Ross.
Has to be space qualified too. Sometimes that is a huge technology challenge.
Ross, I understand you are pushing your booster, but there are serveral problems with your post:QuoteThe scale of *some* (certainly not all) of the missions which SMD wants to do today is pushing the limits of current ELV/EELV launch assets to their breaking point -- or at the very least to the point where it results in significantly higher overall costs in order to squeeze a payload into a vehicle which just isn't the right size.
If this were true, at least some projects would be using Delta IVH, the current maximum. Only they don't, not even missions in their planning stage (Outer planet flagship). SMD can't afford these. Both Atlas 551 launches are high energy (NH in 2006 and Juno in 2011, look how rare they are).
(...)
We had no flagship since Cassini in 1997. MSL may be one (kinda), but it is far from the EELV limit. This leaves JWST, 24 years after HST.
(...)
This is the timescale we are talking: Less than once per decade. As I said, even the rare expensive missions avoid Delta IVH. And you won't be cheaper than Delta IVH, considering you need an upper stage. I don't believe in your cost numbers, sorry.
Analyst, I think your points are well taken; the fact is that nearly all science missions were flown on smaller boosters, essentially because that's all that science could afford. The obvious exceptions were the great flagships of Voyager and Viking on Titan IIIE (a time when NASA had no flying HSF), and Cassini on Titan IV, and what else? But as I understand it, this is not only a matter of cost, but of *historical accident*, pretty much caused by STS:
1) Titan IIIE (/w Centaur) was the key new platform enabling the big new science missions, but it was only flown 7 times because we were getting rid of expendables, replacing it with...
2) Shuttle + Centaur-G. IIRC, I've read that the USAF was mostly content with flying the Transtage and IUS from the orbiter, and it was NASA that really pushed Centaur. This was supposed to be the launcher for Galileo, and also Cassini and Ulysses I assume, and would it have been the launcher for Mars Observer and other missions in the 1990s and even now that both happend and could-have-been? But like SLC-6, it was close to ready before 51-L changed everything.
3) Titan IV (/w Centaur) was, as I understand it, an emergency backup plan by the USAF to replace the extra-heavy GTO weight of Shuttle/Centaur-G and the quick-responsive launch of Shuttle/IUS. Since the missions were all classified anyways, who cares what it cost -- what, $400 million each?
It's very notable that Titan IV was only used once by NASA (Cassini, presumably because they had no other choice), and not even for Galileo or Ulysses, which were saved only by inventive orbital mechanics. NASA had lots of other heavy stuff (like the TDRS satellites), which they could have launched that way. The average per-launch cost of shuttle is I guess similar to Titan IV, but -- and this is the key of course -- the fixed costs of STS were borne by HSF, and the *incremental* costs of flying an orbiter (/w Centaur-G, or IUS) were minimal.
4) Delta-IVH and Atlas VH -- there's a lot of talk about these, but as I understand it, they were both intended as a back-up replacement for Titan IV +IUS/Centaur for those same rare, extra-heavy, who-knows-or-cares-about-the-cost, classified GTO DOD missions. It's a kludge. Only the DOD could use them -- and rarely at that -- not science, not industry.
So, from the perspective of deep-space science, STS has been horrible. We built Titan IIIE, then threw it away; built Centaur-G, and never flew it; built Titan IV, which finally regained the throw-weight ability lost 15 years earlier, but it was a kludge affordable only by the DOD; and replaced that with DIVH, another kludge only affordable by DOD. Atlas V, either 551 or lesser varients, finally gives science a decent, semi-affordable high-energy launcher, 30 years later. Yes, it's still very expensive because a science mission has to go out and *buy it*, commercially, but of course It Wasn't Supposed To Be This Way (51-L).
But instead of harping on the past, what about the future of deep-space? We've done multiple Venus orbiters, the Jupiter orbiter, the Saturn orbiter, even a Mercury orbiter, and the Pluto Express. We're flying one more Jupiter orbiter (JUNO). But apart from Mars, what would planetary science really like to do?
* Jovian *lunar* orbiters: Europa, Ganymede.
* Saturnian *lunar* orbiter: Titan
* Neptune orbiter
* Europa lander. Europa *submarine*!
* Titan lander
These are all really high energy, high weight, because the basic task is to throw a giant mass of hydrazine out there, with some instrumentation going along for the ride. The lunar orbiters are barely possible with Atlas V 551 or Ariane V ECA or even (at Flagship cost level) DIVH/AVH. But the landers may not be, and the Europa submarine is probably the single greatest mission we can hope for in our lifetime (apart from optical interferometer space telescopes, for pretty much the same reason!)
Jupiter 130 could really change that.If we assumed that the HSF program were to pick up all of the fixed operational costs for the system, leaving only the costs of the vehicle and its unique operations to be paid by SMD, a Jupiter-130/DHCUS CaLV flight should costs somewhere around ~$180m to SMD.
Even if the costs double to $400 million, that's no worse than DIVH. Ross, how much mass could J130+DHCUS inject into TJI? And -- while we're dreaming here -- how much could Jupiter 246 throw to Jupiter?
Yes, these missions wouldn't happen very often, but they are the missions that would *write* the history books.
Now, what might be really nice is if it were feasible to fly Ariane V's ECA on J-130. For the big science missions, we are already sharing the cost of the probe with the Europeans, but someone's gotta pay for the launcher. Ariane V/ECA or Atlas V 551, there can be only one, since payment is in kind, not in cash. But if you could split it ... ? Ehh, never happen with export controls.
Even if J-246 is a long way away, or ultimately unaffordable for science (with the exceptions above), J-130 could really make a difference. Just with the solid motors, the huge payload fairing would (I'm guessing) change the face of Mars landers, without a revolution in EDL technology. With Centaur or DHCSS, you get everything else.
DIRECT would make a big difference to science. Ares I (hey, a moot point nowadays? :) would do practically nothing, and Ares V/Godzilla is a whole 'nother story, probably an illusionary capability as far as science is concerned.
We've already done a lot of the beginning stuff -- flybys and the first outer planet orbiters. Science would be very happy to piggyback on HSF paying the massive infrastructure costs, picking up only the incremental cost if J-130 is already flying often enough, as it does with Delta II, did with Shuttle/IUS, and would have done with Shuttle/Centaur. History turned out differently than planned, as in our collective dreams and nightmares and would-have-beens, could-have-beens about space-post-Apollo, and it's time to expunge those sins and disasters of history.
The irony is that that very salvation may come from the SSME and SLWT!
-Alex
Oh I don't know, making something out of radioactive fuel that can survive the 8 minute paint can shaker ride to orbit should add to many tons.
OK-
A couple of questions / ideas:
1) A couple of pages back, there was a graphic of a ET with 4 SRBs strapped to it. The follow-up mentioned that while scary-capable, that beast was also HEAVY- as in crack-the floor, break-the-back-of-the=crawler and dig-ruts-in-the-crawler-way HEAVY. Well- what about using 3 SRBs, or adding two (or more) of the midget-solids that Delta uses? Any benefit there without pushing things beyond their Young's Modulus?
2) Whatever happened to the **Really Slick** mobile-VAB they were going to use for Shuttle Launches from Vandenburg? That was pure genius! Couldn't something like that be used for Jupiter-Stupid-Heavy? You wouldn't need to completely re-engineer VAB, Crawlers, or the Crawler-Way- Just the Launch Pad(s). To keep costs down, you could limit the extra "beef" to one pad specifically for lofting your mother-in-law, her Luggage, House, SUV, 27 cats and enough food and Tidy-Cat for a voyage to Titan.
Ares III for LEO, Ares IV for the Moon. None of this DIRECT nonsense, you see...Let's hope they don't try to abbreviate Shuttle Inline Transport-1 and Shuttle Inline Transport-2
Ares III for LEO, Ares IV for the Moon. None of this DIRECT nonsense, you see...Let's hope they don't try to abbreviate Shuttle Inline Transport-1 and Shuttle Inline Transport-2
Modify: or transit
These are all good points. But it is worth pointing out that a number of other proposed missions get stranded at the study phase because they do not fit on an existing launch vehicle. Mars and Venus sample return are good examples of this. Mercury landers also fall into this category. And that is just planetary. We haven't even started talking big telescopes yet...
... These are all really high energy, high weight, because the basic task is to throw a giant mass of hydrazine out there, with some instrumentation going along for the ride. The lunar orbiters are barely possible with Atlas V 551 or Ariane V ECA or even (at Flagship cost level) DIVH/AVH. But the landers may not be, and the Europa submarine is probably the single greatest mission we can hope for in our lifetime (apart from optical interferometer space telescopes, for pretty much the same reason!)
And no, the missions won't get cheaper because they can have more mass. The costs come from the complexity, not the limited mass budget.
So a HLV could significantly reduce the cost of flagship missions.
So a HLV could significantly reduce the cost of flagship missions.
Costs for the launcher are just a fraction of a flagship mission. Even building the mission hardware is just a fraction. Most costs are incurred for development, management and planning and operations. An HLV instead of an Delta-IV H or an Atlas 551 won't decrease those costs. It's not going to be cheaper to design and build a 50mt spacecraft compared to a 7mt spacecraft, no matter what you do and which approach you take.
So a HLV could significantly reduce the cost of flagship missions.
Costs for the launcher are just a fraction of a flagship mission.
Most costs are incurred for development, management and planning and operations. An HLV instead of an Delta-IV H or an Atlas 551 won't decrease those costs.
It's not going to be cheaper to design and build a 50mt spacecraft compared to a 7mt spacecraft, no matter what you do and which approach you take.
1) So a HLV could significantly reduce the cost of flagship missions.
2) But due to the aerospace culture and politics of publicly funded projects, it probably won't happen.
No, but if you overspend a billion dollars folding a 6.5 meter mirror into a 5 mirror fairing, an 8.4m fairing is an easy way to simplify the mission.
And that is exactly why spending more on a launcher to reduce all the other costs might make sense.
1) Operations can be simplified and shortened by using direct trajectories instead of complex trajectories with gravity assists. Avoiding a gravity assist means two years less you have to keep the team together.
2) Surely that is worth a lot of money.
OK-
1) A couple of pages back, there was a graphic of a ET with 4 SRBs strapped to it. The follow-up mentioned that while scary-capable, that beast was also HEAVY- as in crack-the floor, break-the-back-of-the=crawler and dig-ruts-in-the-crawler-way HEAVY. Well- what about using 3 SRBs, or adding two (or more) of the midget-solids that Delta uses? Any benefit there without pushing things beyond their Young's Modulus?
If you really wanted to lift 200 tons or more in one vehicle while still using existing facilities, you would have to go kerolox. One could fit a 12 meter kerolox booster inside the VAB and it stll be light enough to transverse the crawlerway. No solids since they are very heavy. The Saturn V could have been upgraded by improving the existing F-1 engines to 2.2 million lbs of thrust, and the J-2 upper stages from 200k lbs each to the J-2X for about 275k lbs each. This would have gotten you into the 150-175 ton range. Modern construction methods, CC boosters, etc, and you can get 200 tons. It would require today a clean-sheet design. Do we have the time or money or will to do this?
* Jovian *lunar* orbiters: Europa, Ganymede.
* Saturnian *lunar* orbiter: Titan
* Neptune orbiter
* Europa lander. Europa *submarine*!
* Titan lander
These are all really high energy, high weight, because the basic task is to throw a giant mass of hydrazine out there, with some instrumentation going along for the ride. The lunar orbiters are barely possible with Atlas V 551 or Ariane V ECA or even (at Flagship cost level) DIVH/AVH. But the landers may not be, and the Europa submarine is probably the single greatest mission we can hope for in our lifetime (apart from optical interferometer space telescopes, for pretty much the same reason!)
Jupiter 130 could really change that.
Quote1) Operations can be simplified and shortened by using direct trajectories instead of complex trajectories with gravity assists. Avoiding a gravity assist means two years less you have to keep the team together.
2) Surely that is worth a lot of money.
1) You have to decide: Heavier spacecraft or faster trajectories. The first won't save you cost, the latter increases arrival speed (and therefore delta v, and therefore mass, larger tanks, longer burning engines ... or more complicated EDL.)
I vote for a Sedna orbiter, with HIRISE sized telescope. Seeing the first known Oort cloud object up close?!! YES!!!
And this is wrong too. Larger tanks means heavier spacecraft means different attitude control, thermal, structure ...
Quote1) So a HLV could significantly reduce the cost of flagship missions.
2) But due to the aerospace culture and politics of publicly funded projects, it probably won't happen.
1) You are wrong.
2) Has nothing to do with culture and politics. The complexity does not come from the limited mass budget, but from the tasks the spacecraft has to perform.
If it were otherwise, Pegasus, Taurus, Delta II ... all would be out of business and only the biggest launch vehicle would be used, even for a SMEX explorer. Heck, for a small satellite Delta IVH is heavy lift, yet they don't use it.
Quote1) Operations can be simplified and shortened by using direct trajectories instead of complex trajectories with gravity assists. Avoiding a gravity assist means two years less you have to keep the team together.
2) Surely that is worth a lot of money.
1) You have to decide: Heavier spacecraft or faster trajectories.
The first won't save you cost,
the latter increases arrival speed (and therefore delta v, and therefore mass, larger tanks, longer burning engines ... or more complicated EDL.)
2) Much less than you think. Spacecraft can sleep.
SMD won't use HLV. They can't afford it. They can barely afford a new mission here and there. They are looking for a Delta II replacement.
I vote for a Sedna orbiter, with HIRISE sized telescope. Seeing the first known Oort cloud object up close?!! YES!!!
And this is wrong too. Larger tanks means heavier spacecraft means different attitude control, thermal, structure ...
Agreed.... These are all really high energy, high weight, because the basic task is to throw a giant mass of hydrazine out there, with some instrumentation going along for the ride. The lunar orbiters are barely possible with Atlas V 551 or Ariane V ECA or even (at Flagship cost level) DIVH/AVH. But the landers may not be, and the Europa submarine is probably the single greatest mission we can hope for in our lifetime (apart from optical interferometer space telescopes, for pretty much the same reason!)
And this is the problem. These missions, on their own, independent of the launcher, are only possible at the flagship level. Or above, way above (Europa submarine, MSR ...). We know how often flagships happen.
And no, the missions won't get cheaper because they can have more mass. The costs come from the complexity, not the limited mass budget.To first order, agreed.
HLV may give new opportunities for science, in theory, but so did Saturn V and Shuttle. Only we don't have the money to use them. SMD surely does not have the budget. The only one who thinks he needs HLV is the beyond LEO HSF advocat.Saturn V is a bit of a red herring, because however much it was fantasized about within NASA et. al., there was no political support for it beyond Apollo 11. We didn't even fly all the ones built and paid for.
So a HLV could significantly reduce the cost of flagship missions.
Costs for the launcher are just a fraction of a flagship mission. Even building the mission hardware is just a fraction. Most costs are incurred for development, management and planning and operations. An HLV instead of an Delta-IV H or an Atlas 551 won't decrease those costs. It's not going to be cheaper to design and build a 50mt spacecraft compared to a 7mt spacecraft, no matter what you do and which approach you take.
I vote for a Sedna orbiter, with HIRISE sized telescope. Seeing the first known Oort cloud object up close?!! YES!!!
You did the numbers?
c) Bigger payload fairing means same Viking-technlogy EDL (biconic heatshield), giving bigger mass without developing a radical new EDL technology. Maybe. Has weight growth on MSL been a major driver of the overruns, or is it just instrumentation development? I'm asking.
Delay to 2011 was robotics related.
Delay to 2011 was robotics related.
Actually environment is issue
cold, necessitating a redesign
In my opinion, President Obama will adopt a manned lunar Mars program similiar to the one advocated by Buzz Aldrin shortly after he obtains the final report of the Augustine Committee.
I'm predicting a switch to:
Shuttle extension/slow down into 2012.
Something like Direct or NSC aimed at 2014/15 IOC.
Plus Orion on an EELV heavy.
Plus about $1B (over 3 or 4 years) thrown at a new version of COTS-D . Pretty much SpaceX Dragon and whatever ULA come up with. (Orion Lite, Dreamchaser?)
If any US manned laucher flies in 2012, 2013 & 2014, then, officially, "there is no Gap".
I'm predicting a switch to:
Shuttle extension/slow down into 2012.
Something like Direct or NSC aimed at 2014/15 IOC.
Plus Orion on an EELV heavy.
Plus about $1B (over 3 or 4 years) thrown at a new version of COTS-D . Pretty much SpaceX Dragon and whatever ULA come up with. (Orion Lite, Dreamchaser?)
If any US manned laucher flies in 2012, 2013 & 2014, then, officially, "there is no Gap".
I'm predicting a switch to:
Shuttle extension/slow down into 2012.
Something like Direct or NSC aimed at 2014/15 IOC.
Plus Orion on an EELV heavy.
Plus about $1B (over 3 or 4 years) thrown at a new version of COTS-D . Pretty much SpaceX Dragon and whatever ULA come up with. (Orion Lite, Dreamchaser?)
If any US manned laucher flies in 2012, 2013 & 2014, then, officially, "there is no Gap".
That's what I think will happen...everyone gets a slice of pie. NASA gets it laucher--1 not 2. Commerical space is a happy--COTS-D. ULA is happy--EELV for LEO. The ULA people should be very happy. The govt. pays for a manned version of an EELV. ULA gets to market it back to the govt. and then they can also market it to Bigelow.
I'm predicting a switch to:
Shuttle extension/slow down into 2012.
Something like Direct or NSC aimed at 2014/15 IOC.
Plus Orion on an EELV heavy.
Plus about $1B (over 3 or 4 years) thrown at a new version of COTS-D . Pretty much SpaceX Dragon and whatever ULA come up with. (Orion Lite, Dreamchaser?)
If any US manned laucher flies in 2012, 2013 & 2014, then, officially, "there is no Gap".
The recent statements by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden about his desire for a manned Mars Progarm are very important.
My document to the Augustine Commission. Please, give some comments and tips...
When is the last day to send a document to the Commission?
I don't think President Obama will wait until 2059 for a manned Mars flight. Around 2030 is Buzz Aldrin's goal. However, Buzz realizes the importance of manned missions to the Martian Moons Phobos & Deimos. Thoses will occur in the 2020's. Finally if any form of life is discovered through our unmanned Mars exploration program, all of these timetables will be accelerated.
Falcon 9 is well down the road to Human Rated certification. EELV Heavy has not even started down that path.
On the other hand, Delta IV, Delta IV heavy, and Atlas V have actually flown.
I'm predicting a switch to:
Shuttle extension/slow down into 2012.
Something like Direct or NSC aimed at 2014/15 IOC.
Plus Orion on an EELV heavy.
Plus about $1B (over 3 or 4 years) thrown at a new version of COTS-D . Pretty much SpaceX Dragon and whatever ULA come up with. (Orion Lite, Dreamchaser?)
If any US manned laucher flies in 2012, 2013 & 2014, then, officially, "there is no Gap".
The recent statements by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden about his desire for a manned Mars Progarm are very important.
My document to the Augustine Commission. Please, give some comments and tips...
When is the last day to send a document to the Commission?
Here's a fantastic savings for NASA to accomplish exciting goals. Hear me out.... Cancel the Altair lunar lander....... for now ! Focus on sending crews to the asteroids, Mars,Venus to orbit and document using the Direct 3.0 /Orion vehicle. Do you know how much cash would be saved ? In this way Nasa would accrue data on how to send the crews to these destinations. You don't have to land right now. When the economy gets better you would have all the information you would need to build bases and landers ! Remember Apollo 8 ? Man,they didn't land,but it was AWESOME !The time lag between start of development and first mission flight is too long to start and stop development. If you "Cancel the Altair lunar lander" it will be forever. Somewhere down the road you will need to begin from ground zero to create a new Lander development program.
1. Note: Orion + EELV Heavy = Falcon 9 Heavy + Dragon + $$$$$$$$$.
2. (Elon has already started eating Lockheed's and Boeing's lunch. Slowly for now, but that snowball is going to GROW!) There is just no valid reason to throw *limited* money down that many parallel paths.
3. Falcon 9 is well down the road to Human Rated certification.
4. EELV Heavy has not even started down that path.
5. Dragon is scheduled to fly next year, Orion is not. COTS is already funded, Orion is already funded, EELV Heavy for Orion is not.
6. EELV for Orion just really seems silly.
7. Since Dragon uses the common docking adapter,?
2) Whatever happened to the **Really Slick** mobile-VAB they were going to use for Shuttle Launches from Vandenburg? That was pure genius!
I think Elon has started munching the crumbs that Lockheed and Boeing are ignoring.
A thought on stretching the Shuttle programme to close the gap with J-130.
Jupiter is founded on the idea of retaining the expertise on the ground necessary to fly reliably. This is stuff that's locked away in people's heads, and once they're gone, that knowledge is gone with them. How many of these are the famous grey-beards that won't be around forever anyway?
If the remaining Shuttle flights are stretched out, does that mean that the staff on the ground would be less busy day-to-day - at least until they start planning ops processes for Jupiter?
Would this give NASA the time to start a documentation programme - get a lot of that knowledge written down?
* The ops unique to Shuttle would be nice to have for historical purposes, but not critical.
* Document the Jupiter-relevant stuff as it exists now, and keep it updated as part of the development process for the new Jupiter ops.
The fixed costs for stretching the Shuttle programme are high. Would this be a way to demonstrate getting extra value out of those costs?
cheers, Martin
Do you recognize this concept? I've had it saved for a while and forgot about it.
The first option has 4 SRB's. The added weight of those definitely requires a new Crawlerway & Crawler Transporters, probably also requires new Concrete Hardstands at both Pads and may even require the VAB's floor to be reinforced. Costs the Earth. Never gonna happen.
Ross.
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. :)I love the H2G2 quote ;)
So a HLV could significantly reduce the cost of flagship missions.
Costs for the launcher are just a fraction of a flagship mission.
And that is exactly why spending more on a launcher to reduce all the other costs might make sense.QuoteMost costs are incurred for development, management and planning and operations. An HLV instead of an Delta-IV H or an Atlas 551 won't decrease those costs.
Operations can be simplified and shortened by using direct trajectories instead of complex trajectories with gravity assists. Avoiding a gravity assist means two years less you have to keep the team together. Surely that is worth a lot of money.QuoteIt's not going to be cheaper to design and build a 50mt spacecraft compared to a 7mt spacecraft, no matter what you do and which approach you take.
Nobody says that you have to use the full payload capacity. There are various scenarios where building a 10mt spacecraft will be cheaper than building a 7mt spacecraft. Especially if 7mt is the upper limit for your launcher, and due to some unforeseen weight growth the spacecraft ends up with a weight of 7.5mt.
Could Zenit-style (American made) kerolox boosters be possible to put in place of those extra two SRB's without all of the added expense you mentioned here? Wouldn't have the same thrust as the SRB's, but would have more thrust than J-246, and thus more loft capability?
So a HLV could significantly reduce the cost of flagship missions.
Costs for the launcher are just a fraction of a flagship mission.
And that is exactly why spending more on a launcher to reduce all the other costs might make sense.QuoteMost costs are incurred for development, management and planning and operations. An HLV instead of an Delta-IV H or an Atlas 551 won't decrease those costs.
Operations can be simplified and shortened by using direct trajectories instead of complex trajectories with gravity assists. Avoiding a gravity assist means two years less you have to keep the team together. Surely that is worth a lot of money.QuoteIt's not going to be cheaper to design and build a 50mt spacecraft compared to a 7mt spacecraft, no matter what you do and which approach you take.
Nobody says that you have to use the full payload capacity. There are various scenarios where building a 10mt spacecraft will be cheaper than building a 7mt spacecraft. Especially if 7mt is the upper limit for your launcher, and due to some unforeseen weight growth the spacecraft ends up with a weight of 7.5mt.
Here’s the thing. Yea, most of the cost is in the mission and hardware complexity, not the launcher per se.
However, that totally ignores how the capability of the launcher drives the complexity of the mission.
JWT is a great example. They are having to come up with this incredibly complex way to fold that large mirror to fit into a small PLF, and then have it deployed remotely, and reliably, because if just one joint or motor doesn’t work just right, you have a billion dollar piece of space junk out there.
Having a large LV with a larger PLF and more lift capacity could have reduced the complexity of JWT my may fold, and thus reduced the cost by many fold.
A Jupiter could launch JWT with a larger, non folding mirror, with far fewer complexities and variables. Your costs would be significantly less than JWT is adding up to now.
Another example is the lunar missions. Before the Saturn V, they were thinking of ways to do it with the smaller boosters available at the time. All required multiple launches and complex docking and redezvous at a time when none of that had ever even been done yet. So they developed the Saturn V to –reduce- the complexity of the lunar mission to acceptable levels to risk humans doing.
So, the capabilities of the launchers available (both lift ability and volume capacity) are very closely tied to mission expense/complexity/reliability. That’s just a fact.
If for no other reason, than you can just launch more fuel, which will get the mission to it’s destination faster, so yea, you don’t have to keep the team together for as long, and don’t have to design as much “deep sleep” capability into a probe, and fly a much more simple trajectory.
Here's a fantastic savings for NASA to accomplish exciting goals. Hear me out.... Cancel the Altair lunar lander....... for now ! Focus on sending crews to the asteroids, Mars,Venus to orbit and document using the Direct 3.0 /Orion vehicle. Do you know how much cash would be saved ? In this way Nasa would accrue data on how to send the crews to these destinations. You don't have to land right now. When the economy gets better you would have all the information you would need to build bases and landers ! Remember Apollo 8 ? Man,they didn't land,but it was AWESOME !
This has been discussed before. The connection between mass and cost is not as you think. A HLV won't be of help for SMD. Not in the real world with very limited budgets.
What is the requirement for the number of manned flights NASA needs for ISS and LEO? If it 4 flights a year--then maybe ULA will get 2 flights and COTS will get 2...and after x years...out to bid??? Even if the contract was 4 flights for $1billion is that not alot cheaper than the shuttle?
This has been discussed before. The connection between mass and cost is not as you think. A HLV won't be of help for SMD. Not in the real world with very limited budgets.
Its not that Black and White.
It really boils down to this: Any mission currently considering a launcher in the cost range of Delta-IV Heavy, could fly on a Jupiter-130 instead with fewer weight & size restrictions. That *IS* of interest to many people within the science community -- more than a few have contacted us to say so!
Now, the number of missions considering such a cost is very low -- typically only the flagship missions can afford to even consider it. But they *DO* exist.
We think there might be two, perhaps three, a decade. But our current cost profile increases SMD's top-line budget to approximately twice its current level and that would allow for quite a few more small, some extra medium and one or two new large-scale missions to be funded.
One of the missions we really would like to see is a series of Hubble-like large space telescopes supporting 8.2m diameter mirrors. There are some fairly good arguments to be made for developing a fairly sizable 'batch' of such telescopes all at the same time and using them in parallel to look at lots of different parts of the sky at the same time. There's also the (admittedly remote) possibility that DoD might be interested in a very similar technology too and *might* consider sharing some of the costs for developing the new platform too. But we'll just have to see.
Ross.
Yea, I’d always understood that the Shuttle program was very expensive, that that until it was officially ended, funds and resources could really be freed up to really get after Ares (or Jupiter). So would stretching out the Shuttle program actually delay things? Better to remove the dead weight of that program to bring all your guns to bear on the new program?
Or could they effectively pull double duty with Jupiter and Shuttle at the same time?
Wouldn't the Terrestrial Planet Finder fit nicely? Isn't that supposed to be an array of very large telescopes. The key here is to look at missions that will have a large public support base. I know its important, but counting Carbon molecules in some interstellar cloud doesn't quite grab the attention of the public like taking a snapshot of Earth 2.0
I think there's a middle-ground though.
Some of the parts which need the longest to develop (engines, software etc) can start work now, on a relatively low funding level and simply 'tick away' in the background, getting work done, but without heavy costs.
Ross.
I think there's a middle-ground though.
Some of the parts which need the longest to develop (engines, software etc) can start work now, on a relatively low funding level and simply 'tick away' in the background, getting work done, but without heavy costs.
Ross.
There are advantages of developing engines and vehicles separately, once the engines are qualified their exact performance is known so the vehicle can be designed to that performance. If both engines and vehicle are designed together allowances must be made to account for possible performance shortfalls in the engines.
What options are there to lower the per launch cost of Jupiter?
One way would be to greatly increase the flight rate, 10x the flight rate may half the $/kg cost. However I see no possibility of launching once per week or more, there just is not likely to be the demand for that mass in orbit, and the total cost (rather than the cost per flight) would be too large for foreseeable budgets.
So what other options are there to lower costs?
Ross, I expect you have a pretty detailed list of tasks that need to be performed for Jupiter development, together with their costs and time-scales. Is it possible for you to post that list here or on the DIRECT web site?
[I realise it may not be possible, because it contains proprietary data or because it its flux]
The critical things, right now, seem to be determining just how big the lander can actually be, and how stable it will be when trying to land on rough, uneven, terrain when its tanks are almost dry. Those are turning into real challenges at present. But they can be solved and there are plenty of options still available.
Ross.
The critical things, right now, seem to be determining just how big the lander can actually be, and how stable it will be when trying to land on rough, uneven, terrain when its tanks are almost dry. Those are turning into real challenges at present. But they can be solved and there are plenty of options still available.
Ross.
The critical things, right now, seem to be determining just how big the lander can actually be, and how stable it will be when trying to land on rough, uneven, terrain when its tanks are almost dry. Those are turning into real challenges at present. But they can be solved and there are plenty of options still available.
Ross.
My *personal* favorite option is to go toward a horizontal lander design. It solves a LOT of problems, not the least of which is a tall, thin lander with empty tanks trying to set down on uneven ground without tipping over. Couple that with both the crew and any cargo that accompanies them, or the cargo on a cargo flight, are all close to the ground, not many meters up and nearly inaccessable.
What exactly do you mean by horizontal lander. Is it one where the habitation and fuel tanks are all on the same level (i.e. horizontal). Does that lead to balance problems?
The critical things, right now, seem to be determining just how big the lander can actually be, and how stable it will be when trying to land on rough, uneven, terrain when its tanks are almost dry. Those are turning into real challenges at present. But they can be solved and there are plenty of options still available.
Ross.
My *personal* favorite option is to go toward a horizontal lander design. It solves a LOT of problems, not the least of which is a tall, thin lander with empty tanks trying to set down on uneven ground without tipping over. Couple that with both the crew and any cargo that accompanies them, or the cargo on a cargo flight, are all close to the ground, not many meters up and nearly inaccessable.
What exactly do you mean by horizontal lander. Is it one where the habitation and fuel tanks are all on the same level (i.e. horizontal). Does that lead to balance problems?
Okay, sorry about this being a graphics- and sound-heavy fansite but this is the only pictures I could find in a rush.
Space: 1999 Eagle (http://www.space1999.net/moonbase99/technical_section.htm)
You see the basic horizontal lander concept here with some of its most obvious applications: pressurised crew/cargo carrier, unpressurised cargo carrier (including fuel transport) and mobile laboratory for surveys far from the outpost.
I have also attached a PDF of the NASA proposals (as leaked to NASAWatch), which look remarkably similar. I usually refer to their idea as the 'Altair-X'.
I think I've found the horizontal lander http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/09/lockheed-martin-lunar-landers-revealed/
Ah, that explains the concept rather simply.
Hmmm, wouldn't deceleration require that the vehicle be in a retrograde orientation? For that matter wouldn't landing require a tail-first burn and a rather abrupt attitude change? Sounds like something out of Doc E. E. Smith's Lensman.
That's assuming the under-thrusters were rather anemic.
Sorry if this was answered already or somewhere else, but I'll post it again in case it wasn't.
The hardware for the avionics for the J-130 is deployed on which part of the vehicle? The core? The capsule? Interstage?
Same question for the J-246.
Just wondering how the second stage of the J-246 maintains coordination with the avionics package on the J-130.
Ah, that explains the concept rather simply.
Hmmm, wouldn't deceleration require that the vehicle be in a retrograde orientation? For that matter wouldn't landing require a tail-first burn and a rather abrupt attitude change? Sounds like something out of Doc E. E. Smith's Lensman.
That's assuming the under-thrusters were rather anemic.
The best way to decelerator such a lander is belly first while in orbit and then rotate the lander’s tilt and the swiveling the decent engines as you approach landing, I used that technique in orbiter and it woks well.
Sorry if this was answered already or somewhere else, but I'll post it again in case it wasn't.
The hardware for the avionics for the J-130 is deployed on which part of the vehicle? The core? The capsule? Interstage?
Same question for the J-246.
Just wondering how the second stage of the J-246 maintains coordination with the avionics package on the J-130.
There is a common "Instrumentation Unit" ring which is always fitted just below the Payload Fairing.
That way, the same hardware unit can be mounted on top of either the Jupiter Core Stage or the Jupiter Upper Stage and can control all the stages below it.
Essentially its the same approach as Saturn.
Ross.
My work (?) here is done.
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. :)
This is what DIRECT is trying to propose: "Everyone Remain Where You Are" instead of "All Change Please".
But still, lets take advantage of the fact that a fair number (15-20%) of current Shuttle workforce are almost at retirement age. Lets allow these good people to retire from NASA (with their dignity intact) and lets save a bit of money in the process by simply not back-filling most of their positions. Over the next 5 years, we simply accept the natural ~3-4% retirement "attrition rate" and trim the total number of staff that way in order to save money.
Now, don't be under any illusion that this is a "simple" solution -- it isn't. Frankly, the details are a complete *&^*% to work out and it will NOT be a painless process for everyone. But, generally speaking, it *IS* a viable approach.
Ross.
...
It really boils down to this: Any mission currently considering a launcher in the cost range of Delta-IV Heavy, could fly on a Jupiter-130 instead with fewer weight & size restrictions. That *IS* of interest to many people within the science community -- more than a few have contacted us to say so!
Now, the number of missions considering such a cost is very low -- typically only the flagship missions can afford to even consider it. But they *DO* exist.
We think there might be two, perhaps three, a decade. But our current cost profile increases SMD's top-line budget to approximately twice its current level and that would allow for quite a few more small, some extra medium and one or two new large-scale missions to be funded.
One of the missions we really would like to see is a series of Hubble-like large space telescopes supporting 8.2m diameter mirrors. There are some fairly good arguments to be made for developing a fairly sizable 'batch' of such telescopes all at the same time and using them in parallel to look at lots of different parts of the sky at the same time. There's also the (admittedly remote) possibility that DoD might be interested in a very similar technology too and *might* consider sharing some of the costs for developing the new platform too. But we'll just have to see.
Ross.
The critical things, right now, seem to be determining just how big the lander can actually be, and how stable it will be when trying to land on rough, uneven, terrain when its tanks are almost dry. Those are turning into real challenges at present. But they can be solved and there are plenty of options still available.
Ross.
My *personal* favorite option is to go toward a horizontal lander design. It solves a LOT of problems, not the least of which is a tall, thin lander with empty tanks trying to set down on uneven ground without tipping over. Couple that with both the crew and any cargo that accompanies them, or the cargo on a cargo flight, are all close to the ground, not many meters up and nearly inaccessable.
...
It really boils down to this: Any mission currently considering a launcher in the cost range of Delta-IV Heavy, could fly on a Jupiter-130 instead with fewer weight & size restrictions. That *IS* of interest to many people within the science community -- more than a few have contacted us to say so!
Now, the number of missions considering such a cost is very low -- typically only the flagship missions can afford to even consider it. But they *DO* exist.
We think there might be two, perhaps three, a decade. But our current cost profile increases SMD's top-line budget to approximately twice its current level and that would allow for quite a few more small, some extra medium and one or two new large-scale missions to be funded.
One of the missions we really would like to see is a series of Hubble-like large space telescopes supporting 8.2m diameter mirrors. There are some fairly good arguments to be made for developing a fairly sizable 'batch' of such telescopes all at the same time and using them in parallel to look at lots of different parts of the sky at the same time. There's also the (admittedly remote) possibility that DoD might be interested in a very similar technology too and *might* consider sharing some of the costs for developing the new platform too. But we'll just have to see.
Ross.
You just highlighted one of the reasons against DIRECT/Ares IV: The incredibly small number of foreseeable science missions such a vehicle would cater to. Almost all currently planned missions can fit in available heavy launch systems and as technology progresses, even more will fit.
The purpose of a super-heavy launch system is to add capability to what won't be shrinking as technology progresses - humans. If two or three science missions come along per decade (like Hubble) that don't fit in available vehicles, they could easily buy space on a launch of a vehicle specifically designed for human infrastructure like the Ares V.
PS - I completely agree with increasing the number and size of orbiting telescopes, but don't think DIRECT/Ares IV is nessisary to accomplish this. Low-cost (relative term) heavy launch vehicles, like Falcon9, have the possibility of putting up large numbers of conventional telescopes. James Webb will give us a great view fairly soon and if a massive telescope is desired - Current technology limits its size not by weight or primary mirror, but the diameter of the secondary mirror. Available heavy launch vehicles could send a telescope a couple dozen meters across to the ISS.
How much do you think 1 Ares V flight is going to cost???
1. Low-cost (relative term) heavy launch vehicles, like Falcon9, have the possibility of putting up large numbers of conventional telescopes
2. Available heavy launch vehicles could send a telescope a couple dozen meters across to the ISS.
How much do you think 1 Ares V flight is going to cost???
CxP's own internal estimate is $1.4 billion for each Ares-V.
Ross.
That sounds a little extreme- where did you get that figure from? I've heard figures around $500-700 million variable per Ares V.
I'd just like to make a couple of suggestions for the DIRECT guysSpeaking as an NSF reader, since I'm not on the DIRECT team, but here are my observations:
1. One of the advantages of the Ares I/V approach is that it lands a large mass on the moon in a single launch.Only in theory. In practice, Ares-V does not exist and if it did it would be too expensive to fly very often.
2. NASA will claim (justifiably I think) that a lot of money and time has been spend on the Ares I upper stage, J-2X and the 5 segment solid and individually they seem to work.Sunk cost in a broken architecture should have no relevance on plans going forward. What matters is cost/performance going forward, and DIRECT excels in that regard.
I just thing you guys should do some calculations for how a 8.4 meter core would work with a Ares I upper stage with a J-2X and how much mass you can land on the moon in a single launch.AIUS does not fit well with the DIRECT architecture. It is not needed for LEO operations, and is too small for Lunar/NEO operations. J2X may be salvageable, as in the J-241 config, but it is heavy, underperformant, and gives the JUS/EDS no engine-out capability.
I am not qualified to judge whether an Ares I US with a 8.4 m core will work or if maximum mass landed per flight gives the most economical moonbase. I just think you should have the numbers ready.DIRECT was not created to save Ares. It was created to save NASA, or more specifically, the American HSF program.
Also please look at the LOR-LOR or EML-1/2 rendezvous situations. I understand that a lot of performance is lost if there are separate TLI's for Orion and the LSAM but it just seems to me that it is inviting trouble to expect two successful launches within a limited time period to do a lunar mission. Also you need two launch pads.DIRECT would be playing into Ares hands if they were to propose an LOR-LOR baseline. DIRECT has plenty of margins, but these scenarios would put DIRECT below the CxP targets and allow those still in power to automatically dismiss DIRECT.
Just a few suggestions. Admire your hard work.
This has been discussed before. The connection between mass and cost is not as you think. A HLV won't be of help for SMD. Not in the real world with very limited budgets.
Its not that Black and White.
It really boils down to this: Any mission currently considering a launcher in the cost range of Delta-IV Heavy, could fly on a Jupiter-130 instead with fewer weight & size restrictions.
The reason I said look at LOR-LOR and EML1/2 is that I believe that John Shannon's "Not Shuttle - C" LOR architecture is not a coincidence. I think that post Griffin NASA is looking at the whole EOR thing. Why else would you go with a hypergolic lander and lose even more performance.
Having a time pressure on the launch crew is just not a good idea IMO. Again Please correct me if I am wrong.
This has been discussed before. The connection between mass and cost is not as you think. A HLV won't be of help for SMD. Not in the real world with very limited budgets.
Its not that Black and White.
It really boils down to this: Any mission currently considering a launcher in the cost range of Delta-IV Heavy, could fly on a Jupiter-130 instead with fewer weight & size restrictions.
Any mission currently considering a launcher in the cost range of a Delta-IV Heavy and heading to a non-polar low earth orbit could fly on a Jupiter-130. You can't reach sun-sync out of KSC, the inability to restart the upper stage keeps perigees low, and the large upper stage cuts into payload quickly as orbital energies increase. I'd be very surprised if the Jupiter-130 has a non-zero payload to GTO; if it has a non-zero payload to Earth escape I'll eat my shoe.
It's the same issue as Saturn IB vs. Titan III.
And yes, you could theoretically make a Jupiter-131. The non-recurring development, integration, and ground facilities modifications costs will be very significant and probably outweigh the advantages.
Its a figure straight from CxP Documentation, dated October 2008, detailing the annual costs for operating the Lunar Program and the effect of adding or removing missions from the manifest.
Ross.
I'd just like to make a couple of suggestions for the DIRECT guysSunk cost in a broken architecture should have no relevance on plans going forward. What matters is cost/performance going forward, and DIRECT excels in that regard.
Speaking as an NSF reader, since I'm not on the DIRECT team, but here are my observations:
2. NASA will claim (justifiably I think) that a lot of money and time has been spend on the Ares I upper stage, J-2X and the 5 segment solid and individually they seem to work.
Mark S.
It really boils down to this: Any mission currently considering a launcher in the cost range of Delta-IV Heavy, could fly on a Jupiter-130 instead with fewer weight & size restrictions.
No.
Any mission currently considering a launcher in the cost range of a Delta-IV Heavy and heading to a non-polar low earth orbit could fly on a Jupiter-130. You can't reach sun-sync out of KSC, the inability to restart the upper stage keeps perigees low, and the large upper stage cuts into payload quickly as orbital energies increase. I'd be very surprised if the Jupiter-130 has a non-zero payload to GTO; if it has a non-zero payload to Earth escape I'll eat my shoe.
It's the same issue as Saturn IB vs. Titan III.
And yes, you could theoretically make a Jupiter-131. The non-recurring development, integration, and ground facilities modifications costs will be very significant and probably outweigh the advantages.
And yes, you could theoretically make a Jupiter-131. The non-recurring development, integration, and ground facilities modifications costs will be very significant and probably outweigh the advantages.
...
It really boils down to this: Any mission currently considering a launcher in the cost range of Delta-IV Heavy, could fly on a Jupiter-130 instead with fewer weight & size restrictions. That *IS* of interest to many people within the science community -- more than a few have contacted us to say so!
Now, the number of missions considering such a cost is very low -- typically only the flagship missions can afford to even consider it. But they *DO* exist.
We think there might be two, perhaps three, a decade.
You just highlighted one of the reasons against DIRECT/Ares IV: The incredibly small number of foreseeable science missions such a vehicle would cater to. Almost all currently planned missions can fit in available heavy launch systems and as technology progresses, even more will fit.
The purpose of a super-heavy launch system is to add capability to what won't be shrinking as technology progresses - humans. If two or three science missions come along per decade (like Hubble) that don't fit in available vehicles, they could easily buy space on a launch of a vehicle specifically designed for human infrastructure like the Ares V.
Meaning a J-231?And yes, you could theoretically make a Jupiter-131. .Very good point.
Meaning a J-231?And yes, you could theoretically make a Jupiter-131. .Very good point.
DIRECT has gone to great lengths to fit into the existing CxP framework, with the exception of the "1.5 launch" architecture. All other aspects (EOR-LOR, Altair performing LOI, etc) have been left in place to cause as little disruption as possible. Even though other options are possible and maybe even better/safer, such as having the EDS perform the LOI burn.
But then you don't have a J-130 any more.RS-68?? Err, how did the back-end of a Delta IV get into this? ???
(...)
Then, at the end of the day you have all of the expensive parts of a Delta IV-H (upper stage, avionics, 3 RS-68s plus assorted support hardware), PLUS the two SRBs, PLUS the manpower-intensive and payload-unfriendly LC-39. It's going to cost way, way more than a Delta-IV Heavy.
The BB cards have it as J-130+DIVHUS.
Chris has finally spilt the beans on shuttle extension in the Live Space Flight News Feed section of the forum.
I wonder how Shuttle extension affects DIRECT. Would the SSME production line have to start earlier than if they museumed the Shuttles next year?Chris has finally spilt the beans on shuttle extension in the Live Space Flight News Feed section of the forum.And has hinted in his new article that the SD-HLLV Not-Shuttle C concept is the current favorite alternative to Ares I / Ares V.
Everything completely horizontal, like any aircraft. Lockheed Martin actually has a pretty good concept. (If anyone here has the link, please post it.) If you're familiar with the old TV show Space 1999, take a look at the "Eagle Lander". Something along that concept.Here is the link for the study from LM :
Lowering the dynamic pressure doesn't help a lot in aborting off of an SRB. Even a LAS that weighs 22,600 pounds still has problems.
But then you don't have a J-130 any more.RS-68?? Err, how did the back-end of a Delta IV get into this? ???
(...)
Then, at the end of the day you have all of the expensive parts of a Delta IV-H (upper stage, avionics, 3 RS-68s plus assorted support hardware), PLUS the two SRBs, PLUS the manpower-intensive and payload-unfriendly LC-39. It's going to cost way, way more than a Delta-IV Heavy.
The BB cards have it as J-130+DIVHUS.
Where may I find these?
Thanks,
-Alex
Perhaps Jim will correct me, but I remember reading that significant work on the Pad(or new pad) would be needed to launch D-IVH out of Vandenberg..
Can we stick to the topic at hand, ie DIRECT 3.0? There are plenty of other threads for lander discussion.
I have a question as to why the Augustine Committee is favoring the SDHLV.To my understanding, the Committee has not favoured any plan. It seems to be giving them all a chance. Check back this Fall!
I have a question as to why the Augustine Committee is favoring the SDHLV. This launcher is obviously not as safe as the Direct launcher. Also Ross Tierney has stated that the cost of the SDHLV is within 5% of the Direct launcher--with some studies showing that the SDHLV is 5% more expensive that Direct. Again, given these facts, why is the Augustine Committee favoring SDHLV?
I have a question as to why the Augustine Committee is favoring the SDHLV. This launcher is obviously not as safe as the Direct launcher. Also Ross Tierney has stated that the cost of the SDHLV is within 5% of the Direct launcher--with some studies showing that the SDHLV is 5% more expensive that Direct. Again, given these facts, why is the Augustine Committee favoring SDHLV?
Safety is not everything, in particular if it breaks the bank or has other negative implications.
Cost numbers - in particular about the future - are a funny thing. They always change, upwards.
Analyst
Even if it's a relatively short jump from SDHLV to DIRECT, I can't imagine that happening in the next decade.
I have a question as to why the Augustine Committee is favoring the SDHLV. This launcher is obviously not as safe as the Direct launcher. Also Ross Tierney has stated that the cost of the SDHLV is within 5% of the Direct launcher--with some studies showing that the SDHLV is 5% more expensive that Direct. Again, given these facts, why is the Augustine Committee favoring SDHLV?
Safety is not everything, in particular if it breaks the bank or has other negative implications.
Cost numbers - in particular about the future - are a funny thing. They always change, upwards.
Analyst
If SDHLV wins, it would be an unfortunate choice - they take a big hit on payload diameter and restrict their future options.
But if the decision were made in SDHLV's favor - would the DIRECT underground continue to fight, or call it over?? Even if it's a relatively short jump from SDHLV to DIRECT, I can't imagine that happening in the next decade.
If NSC is selected it's because this process was NASA's way of getting out from under Ares without looking stupid. It would be an inside job, from my point of view.
I certainly hope this is not the case though. If the White House wants to kill exploration, then they will choose NSC.
Can someone just say point for point what advantages NCS has over Direct and vice versa?
If SDHLV wins, it would be an unfortunate choice - they take a big hit on payload diameter and restrict their future options.
Can someone just say point for point what advantages NCS has over Direct and vice versa?
NSC:
Existing Tank, SRB and SSME and software
Existing math models
Ability to use shuttle spares and spread development costs out
Identical pad and other infrastructure interfaces
Jupiter:
Existing SRB and SSME
In-line design
Theoretically allows for more growth options and variations
Can someone just say point for point what advantages NCS has over Direct and vice versa?
NSC:
Existing Tank, SRB and SSME and software
Existing math models
Ability to use shuttle spares and spread development costs out
Identical pad and other infrastructure interfaces
Jupiter:
Existing SRB and SSME
In-line design
Theoretically allows for more growth options and variations
Is a lunar mission even possible with NSC? Doesn't seem as if it has enough lift for a 2x lunar mission.
If NSC can't support a lunar mission, doesn't that rule it out in terms of VSE?
Why do you say it can't support a lunar mission? It can't perform the exact same lunar mission as currently baselined by CxP but that is unsustainable anyway so that is a good thing.
If NSC is chosen it will be an entirely political decision. IMHO, NSC is technically inferior to DIRECT and it's schedule/budget benefits are minor. However, it has "inside" NASA support (John Shannon) and it *looks* like a cost cutting measure whilst actually retaining jobs. Politicians, who love to try and appeal to all sides whilst actually doing nothing, may just consider this to be NSC's key advantage. I would imagine than any NSC adoption would see the end of the VSE as we know it as well.
One thing is for sure, if NSC wins it's the end of DIRECT. That shouldn't belittle the teams' accomplishments though, which have been remarkable.
Maybe I should have clarified my question a bit, I was sort of hoping for a side by side list of costs to develop, time of readyness/first test flights, mass to LEO moon etc...
Direct costs X (12 billion?) and NSC costs Y (6 billion?) I'm just guessing at numbers here, but I don't know where to find a condensed form with all the comparative info.
There's a whole lot of Direct vs Ares and NCS vs Ares (not so much maybe..) but nothing with them together.
Can someone just say point for point what advantages NCS has over Direct and vice versa?
NSC:
Existing Tank, SRB and SSME and software
Existing math models
Ability to use shuttle spares and spread development costs out
Identical pad and other infrastructure interfaces
Jupiter:
Existing SRB and SSME
In-line design
Theoretically allows for more growth options and variations
Is a lunar mission even possible with NSC? Doesn't seem as if it has enough lift for a 2x lunar mission.
If NSC can't support a lunar mission, doesn't that rule it out in terms of VSE?
Why do you say it can't support a lunar mission? It can't perform the exact same lunar mission as currently baselined by CxP but that is unsustainable anyway so that is a good thing.
From today's Augustine commision review
Based on Aerospace corp findings..
Ares I IOC: 2017
(actually Aerospace numbers showed even later, but Sally thought 2 years delay was "about right")
Shuttle Derived IOC: 2016
<rhetorical>Does that mean that CxP is all sunk costs now? <earnest>What spares, exactly, besides engines can you borrow from Shuttle? <earnest>And has anyone been able to convince Jim that you can reuse Shuttle software in Not-Shuttle-C?It can't perform the exact same lunar mission as currently baselined by CxP but that is unsustainable anyway so that is a good thing.Can someone just say point for point what advantages NCS has over Direct and vice versa?NSC:
Jupiter:
If NSC is chosen, why do you feel that the VSE will end as we know it? NSC is fully capable of getting crew to the moon, on a smaller budget while having the least amount of political obstacles.
From today's Augustine commision review
Based on Aerospace corp findings..
Ares I IOC: 2017
(actually Aerospace numbers showed even later, but Sally thought 2 years delay was "about right")
Shuttle Derived IOC: 2016
*snort* Dr. Ryde, as a scientist you ought to know that your conclusions should be based on evidence not 'what feels right'.
So, minus the political acceptability coefficient, that means Ares-I's IOC is what, 2018? 2019? Maybe even 2020?
Can someone just say point for point what advantages NCS has over Direct and vice versa?
NSC:
Existing Tank, SRB and SSME and software
Existing math models
Ability to use shuttle spares and spread development costs out
Identical pad and other infrastructure interfaces
Jupiter:
Existing SRB and SSME
In-line design
Theoretically allows for more growth options and variations
Is a lunar mission even possible with NSC? Doesn't seem as if it has enough lift for a 2x lunar mission.
If NSC can't support a lunar mission, doesn't that rule it out in terms of VSE?
Why do you say it can't support a lunar mission? It can't perform the exact same lunar mission as currently baselined by CxP but that is unsustainable anyway so that is a good thing.
Maybe I should have clarified my question a bit, I was sort of hoping for a side by side list of costs to develop, time of readyness/first test flights, mass to LEO moon etc...
Direct costs X (12 billion?) and NSC costs Y (6 billion?) I'm just guessing at numbers here, but I don't know where to find a condensed form with all the comparative info.
There's a whole lot of Direct vs Ares and NCS vs Ares (not so much maybe..) but nothing with them together.
I don't understand why NSC is so much more affordable than DIRECT:-
Both use comparable ground ops.
Both use 2x ET + 4x 4-seg SRB's + 6x or 8x SSME's
Both use 2x upper stages
Both use an Orion + LAS
Both use a lander, and one might assume they will require all the same subsystems and cost very similar amounts.
ISTM that they will have very similar costs, but DIRECT can land more payload / achieve more for that cost?
cheers, Martin
I don't understand why NSC is so much more affordable than DIRECT:-
Both use comparable ground ops.
Both use 2x ET + 4x 4-seg SRB's + 6x or 8x SSME's
Both use 2x upper stages
Both use an Orion + LAS
Both use a lander, and one might assume they will require all the same subsystems and cost very similar amounts.
ISTM that they will have very similar costs, but DIRECT can land more payload / achieve more for that cost?
cheers, Martin
Fewer development starts for NSC. You can stay with flight software of STS system. Fewer infrastructure changes. Block I vehicle development through spares of STS system. You can go back and look at 30 years of Shuttle flight data; analysis etc. which helps (you still need to do the development work of course...).
At the end, NSC is probably cheaper. How much? Well, nobody really knows. "Officially" it's about 2 billion cheaper. Whether those 2 billion are important in the grand scheme of things... who knows?
Would the current STS software really be viable for NSC? Just curious.
I don't understand why NSC is so much more affordable than DIRECT:-
Both use comparable ground ops.
Both use 2x ET + 4x 4-seg SRB's + 6x or 8x SSME's
Both use 2x upper stages
Both use an Orion + LAS
Both use a lander, and one might assume they will require all the same subsystems and cost very similar amounts.
ISTM that they will have very similar costs, but DIRECT can land more payload / achieve more for that cost?
cheers, Martin
Fewer development starts for NSC. You can stay with flight software of STS system. Fewer infrastructure changes. Block I vehicle development through spares of STS system. You can go back and look at 30 years of Shuttle flight data; analysis etc. which helps (you still need to do the development work of course...).
At the end, NSC is probably cheaper. How much? Well, nobody really knows. "Officially" it's about 2 billion cheaper. Whether those 2 billion are important in the grand scheme of things... who knows?
From today's Augustine commision review
Based on Aerospace corp findings..
Ares I IOC: 2017
(actually Aerospace numbers showed even later, but Sally thought 2 years delay was "about right")
Shuttle Derived IOC: 2016
*snort* Dr. Ryde, as a scientist you ought to know that your conclusions should be based on evidence not 'what feels right'.
So, minus the political acceptability coefficient, that means Ares-I's IOC is what, 2018? 2019? Maybe even 2020?
Aerospace Corp was projecting 1.5 year delay due to budget constraints and additional 2 year delay to resolve technincal issues.
In any case, Dr. Ride informed us that the Aerospace results for an SDLV for schedule (and therefore cost) are nowhere near those of the DIRECT team.
She also said that there are NO options (including EELV) that significantly reduce the gap.
snip
Would the current STS software really be viable for NSC? Just curious.
She also said that there are NO options (including EELV) that significantly reduce the gap.
Well that's no surprise, given Orion as the long pole.
Why do you say it can't support a lunar mission? It can't perform the exact same lunar mission as currently baselined by CxP but that is unsustainable anyway so that is a good thing.
I don't understand why NSC is so much more affordable than DIRECT:-
Both use comparable ground ops.
Both use 2x ET + 4x 4-seg SRB's + 6x or 8x SSME's
Both use 2x upper stages
Both use an Orion + LAS
Both use a lander, and one might assume they will require all the same subsystems and cost very similar amounts.
ISTM that they will have very similar costs, but DIRECT can land more payload / achieve more for that cost?
cheers, Martin
Fewer development starts for NSC. You can stay with flight software of STS system. Fewer infrastructure changes. Block I vehicle development through spares of STS system. You can go back and look at 30 years of Shuttle flight data; analysis etc. which helps (you still need to do the development work of course...).
At the end, NSC is probably cheaper. How much? Well, nobody really knows. "Officially" it's about 2 billion cheaper. Whether those 2 billion are important in the grand scheme of things... who knows?
NSC - without upper stage Block I vehicle: 72mt to LEO 120nm x 120nm (net)
NSC - with upper stage Block II vehicle: 82mt to LEO (net) and 35mt to TLI (net)
NSC - advanced vehicle with 5-segment SRBs, other growth options: 92mt to LEO (net) and about 40mt to TLI (net)
DIRECT - J-130 - a bit more than NSC Block I without upper stage
DIRECT - J-246 - a bit more to LEO than NSC Block II; I think there is no data on TLI for J-246 with a single launch (I haven't seen a number)
She also said that there are NO options (including EELV) that significantly reduce the gap.
Well that's no surprise, given Orion as the long pole.
Has the commission specified Orion as the determining factor for the 2016 date?
However, even before we get to that stage, the Commission will have to decide on what missions it will recommend. There is no point building a ~100t LEO payload launch vehicle if the only mission for the shuttle successor will be LEO science and observatory support. Similarly, the structured lunar program is only one option, others may require radically different capabilities. Will there be as lunar outpost? Will there be missions to the NEOs? Will there be a program of human exploration of the inner solar system (Mercury, Venus and Mars)?
Only after these options are evaluated will they look at the options open to them in terms of launcher. Will they want a seperate crew-only launcher (the '.5' in '1.5-launch')? Will they decide to harmonise on one type of launcher? Will they retain shuttle-derived or will it be so dangerous and limiting in capability that it will not be worth the cost savings?
In any case, Dr. Ride informed us that the Aerospace results for an SDLV for schedule(and therefore cost)are nowhere near those of the DIRECT team.
I can't think of a single time that Aerospace's results for schedule or cost have been too conservative (including for EELV). Can anyone else?
Versus for Not-Shuttle-C:Would the current STS software really be viable for NSC? Just curious.Direct would need more development dollars in big changes to the ET, engine plumbing, engine mounts, etc.
Wasn’t one of the CxP programs primary objections to Direct 1.0 your initial proposal to transfer propellant between upper stages? I thought they considered this an unacceptable risk and continued to hammer at it and criticize DIRECT for the maneuver long after it was removed from DIRECTs baseline mission profile. If they are adopting this option after publically calling it dangerously unacceptable the directors at CxP must really be desperate.
John
Yeah, what he said.
Plus, if NASA puts fuel transfer back on the table, how much would that benefit DIRECT? Could the JUS on the J-246 that is used to launch the CEV and LSAM be fully fueled instead of partially fueled? Or would that make it too heavy? If possible, how much fuel would be left over once the JUS+CEV+LSAM reaches LEO? Any leftovers could be transferred to the EDS, which should be about half empty after making it to orbit.
How much mass could a fully fueled JUS/EDS place in LLO, assuming it did both TLI and LOI burns?
Mark S.
And it has less to do with the various launch options, including but not limited to DIRECT, than it has to do with the schedule for Orion. In all cases Orion is the long pole and they don't believe L/M's IOC schedule for her. That pushed everyone's schedule to the right in the study. (the line-thru is mine)
http://www.directlauncher.com/The BB cards have it as J-130+DIVHUS.Where may I find these?
Click "Technical Performance Summaries"
For the Root Directory:
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/
(note the zip file of all of the cards)
Yes.. You probably should have ;)And it has less to do with the various launch options, including but not limited to DIRECT, than it has to do with the schedule for Orion. In all cases Orion is the long pole and they don't believe L/M's IOC schedule for her. That pushed everyone's schedule to the right in the study. (the line-thru is mine)
My sources say that it applies to LVs as well as Orion. I should have shut up and let the analysis report speak for itself in about 6-8 weeks. :)
Well, FUD goes this is probably the easiest to deflect... If NASA is now objecting to the idea of a backwards docking for the Altair but suggesting that a propellant transfer from one upperstage to the other serving EDS duty is a better option (for their proposal) then the same mission achitecture can still work perfectly fine-- One J-246 launches with the LSAM/CEV (or perhaps just the LSAM and the CEV rides up on the other rocket's upperstage, the one donating it's propellant to the EDS/LSAM stack waiting on orbit. The two rendezvous and dock (berth?) and transfer the props, undock, manuever away from each other, the Orion discards the now empty stage, rendezvous and docks to the LSAM, and the stack is ready to proceed with TLI...
Later! OL JR :)
In any case, Dr. Ride informed us that the Aerospace results for an SDLV for schedule(and therefore cost)are nowhere near those of the DIRECT team.
I can't think of a single time that Aerospace's results for schedule or cost have been too conservative (including for EELV). Can anyone else?
She did *not* specify DIRECT. They didn't like *anybody's* schedule. And it has less to do with the various launch options, including but not limited to DIRECT, than it has to do with the schedule for Orion. In all cases Orion is the long pole and they don't believe L/M's IOC schedule for her. That pushed everyone's schedule to the right in the study. (the line-thru is mine)
And it has less to do with the various launch options, including but not limited to DIRECT, than it has to do with the schedule for Orion. In all cases Orion is the long pole and they don't believe L/M's IOC schedule for her. That pushed everyone's schedule to the right in the study. (the line-thru is mine)
My sources say that it applies to LVs as well as Orion. I should have shut up and let the analysis report speak for itself in about 6-8 weeks. :)
If they are going to dock in LEO they might as well make it a proper EOR-LOR mission (and dock the CEV and LSAM) but with propellant transfer which obviously has suddenly now matured as a technology fit for NASA exploration use ;). What they are proposing is really a EOR-LOR-LOR mission which is unnecessarily complex and more risky.
It seems to me that NASA upper management keeps floating "Plan B" balloons that are actually designed to make the current CxP plan look good. "What, you don't like Ares-I? Well, then if you don't want that, here is what you will get instead. Ares-I doesn't look so bad, now, does it? Now be a good little boy and run along. Grown-ups are talking..."
So far we have Stumpy, Ares-IV/V, NSC, and now dual mini-Ares-V with fuel transfer. Did I miss any? I've never seen anyone fight the obvious and inevitable so vehemently. Fight to the bitter end, then down with the ship. And for what purpose? What do they hope to accomplish, at this point in time?
Mark S.
Ross, what can you tell us about NSC vs DIRECT in the minds of the committee? Do you have any observations to share?
Whuh? What date did you send to Aerospace for J-246? Was it earlier, I thought J 246 was the baseline for Direct.
Lancer525:
Touche'. My point exactly.
DIRECT got what they wanted, an independent review of their idea and data.
So, where does that leave us? Correct me if I am wrong but has not the biggest point of contention with DIRECT and its members been credibility (of the data)? Now *if* it were true that this has been put to rest, again where does that leave us?
It leaves us on a level playing field with all the other players, whose "real" data are being examined, along with ours, by a technically competent agency with no dog in the hunt; exactly where we wanted to be.
If Shuttle were extended and the SSMEs got used up, could the first batch of new SSMEs manufactured be somewhat more inexpensive/simple?
In other words, are there blueprints for something more STME-like or would a simplified engine have to be designed?
http://www.directlauncher.com/The BB cards have it as J-130+DIVHUS.Where may I find these?
Click "Technical Performance Summaries"
For the Root Directory:
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/
(note the zip file of all of the cards)
Yes, those are the regular J-120[H], J-130[H], J-24[1,4,6,6,7][H] cards.
But I don't see the card for J-130+DIVHUS, that MP99 was referring to?
Thanks,
-Alex
This configuration (we call it the "Jupiter-241 Aero") is not our official baseline. But it is what we believe will do best in this particular review.
Adding the "DIRECT - advanced" figures... J-246 Heavy & J-241 Heavy, ie std J-24x with 5-seg SRB's, but no other enhancements:-
EDS J-246H - 117mT net (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246H-41.5004.08001_EDS_090608.pdf) J-241H - 120mT net (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J241H-41.5002.08001_EDS_090608.pdf).
Crewed J-246H - 109mT net / 98mT with 10% addn'l margins (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246H-41.5004.10050_CLV_090608.pdf) J-241H - 112mT net / 101mT with margins (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J241H-41.5002.10050_CLV_090608.pdf).
Cargo J-246H - 115mT net / 104mT with 10% addn'l margins (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246H-41.5004.10051_CaLV_090608.pdf) J-241H - 119mT net / 107mT with margins (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J241H-41.5002.10051_CaLV_090608.pdf).
I get thru TLI figures of 46-48mT net crewed & 49-50mT net cargo. Note, those are my figures, but based on the gravity losses of a 200mT IMLEO two-launch mission, so should be conservative. (Reminder, these are for "Heavy").
Adding the "DIRECT - advanced" figures... J-246 Heavy & J-241 Heavy, ie std J-24x with 5-seg SRB's, but no other enhancements:-
EDS J-246H - 117mT net (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246H-41.5004.08001_EDS_090608.pdf) J-241H - 120mT net (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J241H-41.5002.08001_EDS_090608.pdf).
Crewed J-246H - 109mT net / 98mT with 10% addn'l margins (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246H-41.5004.10050_CLV_090608.pdf) J-241H - 112mT net / 101mT with margins (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J241H-41.5002.10050_CLV_090608.pdf).
Cargo J-246H - 115mT net / 104mT with 10% addn'l margins (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246H-41.5004.10051_CaLV_090608.pdf) J-241H - 119mT net / 107mT with margins (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J241H-41.5002.10051_CaLV_090608.pdf).
I get thru TLI figures of 46-48mT net crewed & 49-50mT net cargo. Note, those are my figures, but based on the gravity losses of a 200mT IMLEO two-launch mission, so should be conservative. (Reminder, these are for "Heavy").
I think we should compare "apples to apples" (at least "apples to apples" as far as "official" numbers are concerned), that is if we say "net" we should mean the net-number with the standard 10% margin on top of any regular NASA GR&As.
Such a comparison does provide (all net payloads (without EDS masses) with NASA GR&As + 10% additional reserve):
NSC Block II (7.5m dia - 11m long (net without EDS length) fairing): 35.1mt to TLI
...
NSC Block II with 5-segment SRBs and SSMEs at 109% (7.5m dia - 11m long fairing - cargo only): 91mt to 120nm x 120nm 29° orbit - no official TLI number - estimate: 39mt
NSC Block II (7.5m dia - 22m long (net without upper stage length) fairing) :
81.1mt (cargo) -
82.9mt (crew)
to 120nm x 120nm 29° orbit
If NSC is selected it's because this process was NASA's way of getting out from under Ares without looking stupid. It would be an inside job, from my point of view.
I certainly hope this is not the case though. If the White House wants to kill exploration, then they will choose NSC.
Ridiculous. What do you base that on? Or is it blind devotion to something else? What is choosen will be choosen for a variety of reasons.
Adding the "DIRECT - advanced" figures... J-246 Heavy & J-241 Heavy, ie std J-24x with 5-seg SRB's, but no other enhancements:-
EDS J-246H - 117mT net (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246H-41.5004.08001_EDS_090608.pdf) J-241H - 120mT net (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J241H-41.5002.08001_EDS_090608.pdf).
Crewed J-246H - 109mT net / 98mT with 10% addn'l margins (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246H-41.5004.10050_CLV_090608.pdf) J-241H - 112mT net / 101mT with margins (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J241H-41.5002.10050_CLV_090608.pdf).
Cargo J-246H - 115mT net / 104mT with 10% addn'l margins (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246H-41.5004.10051_CaLV_090608.pdf) J-241H - 119mT net / 107mT with margins (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J241H-41.5002.10051_CaLV_090608.pdf).
I get thru TLI figures of 46-48mT net crewed & 49-50mT net cargo. Note, those are my figures, but based on the gravity losses of a 200mT IMLEO two-launch mission, so should be conservative. (Reminder, these are for "Heavy").
I think we should compare "apples to apples" (at least "apples to apples" as far as "official" numbers are concerned), that is if we say "net" we should mean the net-number with the standard 10% margin on top of any regular NASA GR&As.
Such a comparison does provide (all net payloads (without EDS masses) with NASA GR&As + 10% additional reserve):
NSC Block I (without upper stage - 7.5m dia - 35m long fairing): 71.9mt to 120nm x 120nm 29° orbit
J-130 (without upper stage - 8.4m dia - 10m long fairing): 64.3mt to 100nmx100nm 29° orbit
NSC Block II (7.5m dia - 22m long (net without upper stage length) fairing) : 81.1mt (cargo) - 82.9mt (crew) to 120nm x 120nm 29° orbit
J-246 (10m dia - 5.6m long fairing): 84.3mt (crew and cargo) - 88.5mt (cargo only) to 130nm x 130nm 29° orbit
NSC Block II (7.5m dia - 11m long (net without EDS length) fairing): 35.1mt to TLI
J-246 (10m dia - 5.6m long fairing): no official data - estimate based on LEO cargo only numbers: 38mt
NSC Block II with 5-segment SRBs and SSMEs at 109% (7.5m dia - 11m long fairing - cargo only): 91mt to 120nm x 120nm 29° orbit - no official TLI number - estimate: 39mt
J-246H (10m dia - 5.6m long fairing RL 10B-2): 104.1mt to 130nm x 130nm 29° orbit - no official TLI number - estimate: 45mt
Caveat: Those are just numbers like they are presented up to now - we'll see a real apples-to-apples comparison once Aerospace publishes their analysis (if that is actually made available to the public...)
As others have asked before, how does DIRECT not lift a lot more than Not-Shuttle-C? Does the pod weigh nothing? Does inline thrust not help DIRECT at all?
It seems risible the fuss made over the DIRECT three-burner asymmetry when the new dark horse has an offset measured in car-lengths.
Other than the modified ET, what is DIRECT giving up that Not-Shuttle-C doesn't have to worry about?
Modify: clarify
Ross, I've been using the tems NSC & SDHLV for John Shannon's launcher. What is the exact phrase for his launcher?
I'm not sure if the Mobile Launch Platform mods have ever been detailed. I imagine it's a bit more than drilling four holes in the bottom of the MLP.Other than the modified ET, what is DIRECT giving up that Not-Shuttle-C doesn't have to worry about?There is no reason at all for anyone not to expect every future study will find precisely the same results too.
Whuh? What date did you send to Aerospace for J-246? Was it earlier, I thought J 246 was the baseline for Direct.
We don't have a single vehicle option. Yes, we think that J-246 is the best all-round package, but there are a number of other variants (J-241, J-244 and J-247) all of which would work extremely well.
For this Aerospace Corporation review we were only allowed to submit one single option though, so we had to pick which we thought would score the best given their measuring system. For a handful of specific reasons, we decided to submit a slightly modified version of our J-241 configuration.
The variant which we submitted was an optimized version of J-241, but using an Upper Stage which had an additional 2,500kg of "Managers Margin" included in its mass breakout in order to head-off the potential issues surrounding the pmf debate. This essentially brought the stage pmf broadly into line with the existing Centaur on Atlas-V, which has a proven and established flight record.
This configuration (we call it the "Jupiter-241 Aero") is not our official baseline. But it is what we believe will do best in this particular review.
Ross.
Every previous study of this situation (1977 Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicles, 1991 ALS/NLS and even 2005 ESAS as well) *ALL* determined the same basic facts:
[snip]
Ross, The only concern I have in Sally Ride's use of the Term SDHLV is the fact that on the title page of Shannon's June 17,2009 presentation to the Augustine Committee is the term "Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle". Because of this,I still have some concern she may have been refeering to the NSC.
Not sure if this is good or bad, but interesting nontheless. Sounds like the committee is considering delaying the Shuttle Retirement.
http://www.space.com/news/090729-nasa-shuttle-delay.html
Not sure if this is good or bad, but interesting nontheless. Sounds like the committee is considering delaying the Shuttle Retirement.
FWIW, extending shuttle will delay development and deployment of the next-gen vehicle unless extra money, ring-fenced for shuttle extension ops, is provided. The question is by how much.
Ross, The only concern I have in Sally Ride's use of the Term SDHLV is the fact that on the title page of Shannon's June 17,2009 presentation to the Augustine Committee is the term "Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle". Because of this,I still have some concern she may have been refeering to the NSC.
One of the slides Bo just showed at the Huntsville hearing clarifies this:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17962.msg448660#msg448660
It clearly states that according to the Committee's specific nomenclature, "SDLV" refers to both "Sidemount" and "Jupiter" -- as comparable systems. The term seems to be a "category" term, rather than a specific vehicle term.
I think that is as good a clarification as you're going to find until the report actually comes out.
Ross.
Not sure if this is good or bad, but interesting nontheless. Sounds like the committee is considering delaying the Shuttle Retirement.
We never would have guessed ;)
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/07/major-shuttle-and-iss-extension-drive-augustine-commission/
Ross,
Good to know. I had similar concerns. What that can maybe tell us is they really aren’t looking at an EELV anymore, or else they’d probably be calling it out as such. I hope they aren’t referring to Ares as “SDHLV” even though NASA keeps trying to tell us it is.
If not, sounds like they might have made the decision at this point to shift their focus to Jupiter and NSC. So could be down to a 50/50 call. Good. Worst case scenario then would be NSC which I think is still better than EELV or Ares. It’s less capable than Jupiter, but more capable than EELV, and far more affordable than Ares.
FWIW, extending shuttle will delay development and deployment of the next-gen vehicle unless extra money, ring-fenced for shuttle extension ops, is provided. The question is by how much.
I said it many times and say it again: This is a myth. Shuttle extension and development of a moderate new vehicle can coexist. CxP gets ~$3 billion now. You can develop a new vehicle for this. You only have to do it right: Orion on EELV.
I put a question in the simulator thread that got missed in all the recent action - looking down on the stack (oOo) do the fairing petals split like an 'X' or a '+' ? TIA
- An In-Line variant offers *SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER* Life-Cycle Operational Costs than an equivalent Side-Mount.
What are the reasons for this? All the other advantages have pretty obvious reasons, but I can't work out why side-mount has higher life-cycle costs.
FWIW, extending shuttle will delay development and deployment of the next-gen vehicle unless extra money, ring-fenced for shuttle extension ops, is provided. The question is by how much.
I said it many times and say it again: This is a myth. Shuttle extension and development of a moderate new vehicle can coexist. CxP gets ~$3 billion now. You can develop a new vehicle for this. You only have to do it right: Orion on EELV.
Incorrect. Orion on EELV is not a next-gen vehicle. It is a current-gen vehicle. Next-gen would be something like Ares-I (which doesn't exist), DIRECT (which needs to be integrated from modified extant components), NSC (as above) or Atlas-V Phase 2 (essentially a new rocket with some component commonality to existing ones).
Shuttle extension = less money to build new rocket. EELV =/= new rocket.
Please. You define "new" by the launch vehicle, the "rocket"?! Because it is the most visible part, used for only 8 minutes of the mission? Sorry, but this is a useless definition of "new".
The presenter from Aerospace corp today made it sound like this was only round one.. a way to sift down the selections.
He was very clear he thought more in depth architecture studies(by Aerospace Corp) were needed to make the final selection.
<snip>
My question is this: If it were to be combined with a moderate 2 year "stretch" (as opposed to an extension) to Shuttle's current 7-flight manifest, would that not see at least one of the three planned Jupiter test flights off the ground before the last Shuttle flew?
Gap? What Gap!
Ross.
I think everyone on this forum would love to see that almost iconic image of a Jupiter on the pad with a Shuttle on a distant pad become a reality. I alternate between that and another image as my desktop backgrounds. Lovely!
Lowering the dynamic pressure doesn't help a lot in aborting off of an SRB. Even a LAS that weighs 22,600 pounds still has problems.
I started a new thread, because this problem effects Direct, side mount, and EELVs. Take a look at my data there.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18071.0
Danny Deger
I've been working with Danny and we have a couple of options, one which seems to work quite well, even using the current LAS unmodified.
Danny is working to add a few more features to his calculator right now and we're going to re-run the simulations then and see where we are.
For now, give these values a try:-
1312 66 820 3 66 3 7.5 18 30 370000 2.75 0 19250 16007 100 250 0.5 3 15000 0
And use a "Thrust offset of LAS from velocity vector (degrees)" value of -15 (yes, negative).
That closely replicates the worst-case (@ Max-Q) environment for a Jupiter-130 heading for ISS, coupled with a worst-case 3-second delay on range safety.
Ross.
Very glad to hear that it's being worked.
"Thrust offset of LAS from velocity vector (degrees)"
Based on that statement, could I assume our hope lies in giving the LAS/capsule a different trajectory from the failing LV? Or is that already assumed in the default scenarios?
The debris cloud from the Titan IV was 3 miles (15,000 feet) across. 1,000 feet is not going to do any good if the SRBs go.
The debris cloud from the Titan IV was 3 miles (15,000 feet) across. 1,000 feet is not going to do any good if the SRBs go.
Lowering the dynamic pressure doesn't help a lot in aborting off of an SRB. Even a LAS that weighs 22,600 pounds still has problems.
I started a new thread, because this problem effects Direct, side mount, and EELVs. Take a look at my data there.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18071.0
Danny Deger
Danny, is there anything that approaches a potential solution to this, particularly pertaining to DIRECT?
Jesse
snipLowering the dynamic pressure doesn't help a lot in aborting off of an SRB. Even a LAS that weighs 22,600 pounds still has problems.
I started a new thread, because this problem effects Direct, side mount, and EELVs. Take a look at my data there.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18071.0
Danny Deger
Danny, is there anything that approaches a potential solution to this, particularly pertaining to DIRECT?
Jesse
I am thinking a sustainer needs to be added to the Orion abort motor. Direct can handle the mass, but I don't know if NASA can handle the probable schedule slip to Orion. The outer mold line will certainly change and this is going to hurt Orion schedule a lot.
snip
Okay, let me try to demonstrate what I'm talking about.
That is, if this screen capture works or not... Please let me know if you have problems reading this avi (XviD MPEG 4 format).
Ross.
Okay, let me try to demonstrate what I'm talking about.
That is, if this screen capture works or not... Please let me know if you have problems reading this avi (XviD MPEG 4 format).
Ross.
Okay, let me try to demonstrate what I'm talking about.
That is, if this screen capture works or not... Please let me know if you have problems reading this avi (XviD MPEG 4 format).
Ross.
No luck on work laptop(limited Video codecs).
Most likely I have a player on home system that will play it.
Ross,
I have probably missed the announcment of your get together tomorrow night. What time and where is it?
Sadly, my software test will keep me from gonig to the committee session.
Mike
I am thinking a sustainer needs to be added to the Orion abort motor. Direct can handle the mass, but I don't know if NASA can handle the probable schedule slip to Orion. The outer mold line will certainly change and this is going to hurt Orion schedule a lot.
Danny Deger
I am thinking a sustainer needs to be added to the Orion abort motor. Direct can handle the mass, but I don't know if NASA can handle the probable schedule slip to Orion. The outer mold line will certainly change and this is going to hurt Orion schedule a lot.
Danny Deger
I'm not sure if these options were asked/considered yet:
1) What about taking a performance hit on the SSME on ascent to reduce Direct's velocity? Just burn for longer. I say this to give an option if the schedule doesn't permit time to develop a new LAS (or add a sustainer). Once a new LAS is qualified & accepted, then this can be used with full performance from the stack.
2) Does an SSME shut-down or throttle-back help any during abort?
The current shuttle flight path includes a throttle-down during max-Q.I'm sorry, but that hurts...
I am thinking a sustainer needs to be added to the Orion abort motor. Direct can handle the mass, but I don't know if NASA can handle the probable schedule slip to Orion. The outer mold line will certainly change and this is going to hurt Orion schedule a lot.
Danny Deger
I'm not sure if these options were asked/considered yet:
1) What about taking a performance hit on the SSME on ascent to reduce Direct's velocity? Just burn for longer. I say this to give an option if the schedule doesn't permit time to develop a new LAS (or add a sustainer). Once a new LAS is qualified & accepted, then this can be used with full performance from the stack.
2) Does an SSME shut-down or throttle-back help any during abort?
Just wondering, on the shuttle if one SRB goes, won't both go? Is this debris cloud calculation done assuming both SRBs explode, or are we assuming just 1. Ares I only has one SRB albeit a larger one, so I would guess it's debris cloud is smaller.
The current shuttle flight path includes a throttle-down during max-Q.
I am thinking a sustainer needs to be added to the Orion abort motor. Direct can handle the mass, but I don't know if NASA can handle the probable schedule slip to Orion. The outer mold line will certainly change and this is going to hurt Orion schedule a lot.
Danny Deger
I'm not sure if these options were asked/considered yet:
1) What about taking a performance hit on the SSME on ascent to reduce Direct's velocity? Just burn for longer. I say this to give an option if the schedule doesn't permit time to develop a new LAS (or add a sustainer). Once a new LAS is qualified & accepted, then this can be used with full performance from the stack.
2) Does an SSME shut-down or throttle-back help any during abort?
I'm not sure if these options were asked/considered yet:
1) What about taking a performance hit on the SSME on ascent to reduce Direct's velocity? Just burn for longer. I say this to give an option if the schedule doesn't permit time to develop a new LAS (or add a sustainer). Once a new LAS is qualified & accepted, then this can be used with full performance from the stack.
On 1. I don't understand. Please explain more detail so I can model the abort conditions.
snip
Forgive my engineering ignorance, but is the same true for the MLAS? (or is that what you were referring to as the "LAS that weighs 22,600 pounds"?)
Jesse
Okay, let me try to demonstrate what I'm talking about.
That is, if this screen capture works or not... Please let me know if you have problems reading this avi (XviD MPEG 4 format).
Ross.
No luck on work laptop(limited Video codecs).
Most likely I have a player on home system that will play it.
Did you try VLC player?
I'm not sure if these options were asked/considered yet:
1) What about taking a performance hit on the SSME on ascent to reduce Direct's velocity? Just burn for longer. I say this to give an option if the schedule doesn't permit time to develop a new LAS (or add a sustainer). Once a new LAS is qualified & accepted, then this can be used with full performance from the stack.
On 1. I don't understand. Please explain more detail so I can model the abort conditions.
Right now Direct (and of course shuttle) runs the SSME at 104.5% of thrust. What if we back it down to 98% (or whatever turns out best) of thrust during ascent?? I'm not sure what the cut-off point would be where you need a certain minimum thrust level, but since there is margin in the Jupiters, dive into some of it to solve the crew abort scenario.
EDIT to add: And the SSME throttles down as it approaches Max Q as well, so if it stayed there, or throttled down even further while still keeping enough thrust, it could help in the critical phase(s).
I don't think this will help. At some point you are going to go through the same velocities. Reducing max q doesn't help a lot. If you can crank some flight profile numbers, I can take a look at them.
Danny Deger
If you can crank some flight profile numbers, I can take a look at them.
Danny Deger
EDIT to add: And the SSME throttles down as it approaches Max Q as well, so if it stayed there, or throttled down even further while still keeping enough thrust, it could help in the critical phase(s).
Shuttle already throttles down at max Q(what is Shuttle's Max Q?)... so this shouldn't be a big deal.. Might have a minor impact on performance. Someone would have to run those numbers.
I don't think this will help. At some point you are going to go through the same velocities. Reducing max q doesn't help a lot. If you can crank some flight profile numbers, I can take a look at them.
Danny Deger
Ah yes, but for the entire, what 190 sec? of SRB burn??
Once you lose the SRBs, your problem with them goes away as well. So cut back the SSME thrust during the ascent profile with the SRBs, and when they separate, throttle up and burn the SSME engines longer to get to orbit.
That's what I'm thinking.
snip
Forgive my engineering ignorance, but is the same true for the MLAS? (or is that what you were referring to as the "LAS that weighs 22,600 pounds"?)
Jesse
I am not 100% sure I understand the question, but I think the answer is the MLAS does not have a sustainer. I have made no effort to model this dog that probably can't be kept stable.
Danny Deger
snip
Sorry Danny, I meant to ask if the MLAS was equally doomed as the LAS. It does seem rather unwieldy, and I can't imagine that pitching it -15° under those conditions would leave any semblance of stability.
I guess I was just wondering if MLAS has a thrust advantage over the traditional LAS, and whether or not that would make a difference.
Jesse
Well, FUD goes this is probably the easiest to deflect... If NASA is now objecting to the idea of a backwards docking for the Altair but suggesting that a propellant transfer from one upperstage to the other serving EDS duty is a better option (for their proposal) then the same mission achitecture can still work perfectly fine-- One J-246 launches with the LSAM/CEV (or perhaps just the LSAM and the CEV rides up on the other rocket's upperstage, the one donating it's propellant to the EDS/LSAM stack waiting on orbit. The two rendezvous and dock (berth?) and transfer the props, undock, manuever away from each other, the Orion discards the now empty stage, rendezvous and docks to the LSAM, and the stack is ready to proceed with TLI...
Later! OL JR :)
Even better, as was pointed out to me, would be to launch the J-246+CEV+LSAM fully fueled (instead of 56% offload). Then launch the second J-246 with NO payload fully fueled (the EDS config). However instead of being the EDS, the second JUS is just a tanker, and transfers all of its remaining fuel to top off the CEV+LSAM+EDS. Thus, the LSAM never has to perform any docking in LEO, it remains attached to its launch EDS. Only the CEV detaches and then docks with the LSAM. This would give even better performance than the current DIRECT baseline.
Mark S.
If you can crank some flight profile numbers, I can take a look at them.
Danny Deger
Whoa, that's WAY out of my department...LOL.
I can come up with crazy (kraisee? LOL) ideas, and sometimes some good remarks (at least I think so), but math & orbital mechanics??? Not happening...lol.
Paging MP99... ;) :)
I don't think this will help. At some point you are going to go through the same velocities. Reducing max q doesn't help a lot.
Ah yes, but for the entire, what 190 sec? of SRB burn??
Once you lose the SRBs, your problem with them goes away as well. So cut back the SSME thrust during the ascent profile with the SRBs, and when they separate, throttle up and burn the SSME engines longer to get to orbit.
That's what I'm thinking.
400 psf is better than 1200 psf, but even that low dynamic pressure does not solve the problem.
Very glad to hear that it's being worked.
"Thrust offset of LAS from velocity vector (degrees)"
Based on that statement, could I assume our hope lies in giving the LAS/capsule a different trajectory from the failing LV? Or is that already assumed in the default scenarios?
Jesse,
Essentially what it does is pitch the Orion 'up' -- like a horse rider bringing up a horse to halt it more quickly -- instead of pitching it down in order to get it as far down range as possible.
Well, FUD goes this is probably the easiest to deflect... If NASA is now objecting to the idea of a backwards docking for the Altair but suggesting that a propellant transfer from one upperstage to the other serving EDS duty is a better option (for their proposal) then the same mission achitecture can still work perfectly fine-- One J-246 launches with the LSAM/CEV (or perhaps just the LSAM and the CEV rides up on the other rocket's upperstage, the one donating it's propellant to the EDS/LSAM stack waiting on orbit. The two rendezvous and dock (berth?) and transfer the props, undock, manuever away from each other, the Orion discards the now empty stage, rendezvous and docks to the LSAM, and the stack is ready to proceed with TLI...
Later! OL JR :)
Even better, as was pointed out to me, would be to launch the J-246+CEV+LSAM fully fueled (instead of 56% offload). Then launch the second J-246 with NO payload fully fueled (the EDS config). However instead of being the EDS, the second JUS is just a tanker, and transfers all of its remaining fuel to top off the CEV+LSAM+EDS. Thus, the LSAM never has to perform any docking in LEO, it remains attached to its launch EDS. Only the CEV detaches and then docks with the LSAM. This would give even better performance than the current DIRECT baseline.
Mark S.
That's basically what I was getting at... one 246 launches with the LSAM and Orion and achieves orbit with the tanks still half full. The other 246 launches with a fully tanked upperstage with only a fairing over the docking target/fuel transfer connections. It achieves orbit half full. The Orion can dock with it, and the prop lines connected (if a head on docking is desirable, a side berthing and fuel transfer might be preferable, dunno, really don't care, it's the idea that counts) and the props transferred from the bare stage to the TLI stack, which can then seperate and perform TLI at their leisure. In this scenario, Orion doesn't even have to seperate from the stack and dock to Altair in LEO; the stack can go through TLI just like Apollo did. Of course if it's not a problem for the LIDS to handle eyeballs out TLI, disposing of the slot panels might increase mass thru TLI.
THe other way could work nearly the same, Orion on one 246 which then sidles up to the Altair on the EDS in orbit, with half of the props remaining in both stages. The Orion transfers the props in it's upperstage to the EDS/Altair stack, moves off, expends the empty stage, and docks with the Altair eyeballs out ready for TLI.
Six one half dozen the other-- I'm sure SOMEBODY could tell us which is the best from the performance point of view, safety POV, etc...
Later ! OL JR :)
And it has less to do with the various launch options, including but not limited to DIRECT, than it has to do with the schedule for Orion. In all cases Orion is the long pole and they don't believe L/M's IOC schedule for her. That pushed everyone's schedule to the right in the study. (the line-thru is mine)
My sources say that it applies to LVs as well as Orion. I should have shut up and let the analysis report speak for itself in about 6-8 weeks. :)
I've had a dreadful day trying to get onto NSF without luck. Seems my local ISP's DNS is all shot to hell and back :(
I finally managed to get on this evening though and, boy, it has been busy around here, hasn't it? :)
I'm not sure what I'm allowed/should say regarding some of the things, but I'm going to speak out on this topic just to prevent any misconceptions happening in a vacuum of data.
The dates which we submitted to Aerospace Corporation were:
Jupiter-130 IOC -- March 2014
Jupiter-241 IOC -- 2018
We've seen some of the results already and without providing specific details, BOTH of those dates have been improved upon to the tune of at least 1 whole year and 2 years respectively -- which we aren't surprised about given that we packed all our schedules with plenty of surplus margins.
Given the analysis date of 2013, and lets assume it was "late" 2013, it would indeed be roughly 1.5 years ahead of Ares-I's "official" deployment date of March 2015. So that does seem to fit all of the comments made earlier today, no?
My question is this: If it were to be combined with a moderate 2 year "stretch" (as opposed to an extension) to Shuttle's current 7-flight manifest, would that not see at least one of the three planned Jupiter test flights off the ground before the last Shuttle flew?
Gap? What Gap!
Ross.
The reason I said look at LOR-LOR and EML1/2 is that I believe that John Shannon's "Not Shuttle - C" LOR architecture is not a coincidence. I think that post Griffin NASA is looking at the whole EOR thing. Why else would you go with a hypergolic lander and lose even more performance.
Having a time pressure on the launch crew is just not a good idea IMO. Again Please correct me if I am wrong.
Just wondering, on the shuttle if one SRB goes, won't both go? Is this debris cloud calculation done assuming both SRBs explode, or are we assuming just 1. Ares I only has one SRB albeit a larger one, so I would guess it's debris cloud is smaller.
There are three Jupiter 130 test flights planned, are there any ideas on how to use them? Obviously you could just launch non-functional dummy payloads, but that seems wasteful. Would something like a prototype propellant depot make a good payload?
Direct is better for future growth but future growth needs to be paid for.
Direct is better for future growth but future growth needs to be paid for.
An in-line SD vehicle offers more advantages over a side-mounted SD vehicle than just more future growth options.Lower safety, potentially higher operation costs, complexity and lower payload to orbit and TLI as well as constrained volume (diameter wise) are all matters that should not be disregarded when we talk about NSC.
Let's assume for a second that NSC is really cheaper to develop, in the grand scheme of things are 2 billion more for a DIRECT style in-line design really what we need to worry about when an in-line design provides advantages that NSC just doesn't have?
I think we all need to step back for second and look at the bigger picture. Which engineer in his right mind would design a side-mounted vehicle instead of an in-line vehicle on a clean-slate? Year, noone unless the payload doesn't fit on top of the rocket (like the Shuttle orbiter).
And wasn't it mentioned somewhere around here that the LAS abort motors would tear into the ET during an abort sequence of the NSC?
If not, what was that show-stopper that Ross mentioned?
And if there is a show-stopper, why is NSC still under serious consideration? Shouldn't we be factoring that into our comparisons?
And wasn't it mentioned somewhere around here that the LAS abort motors would tear into the ET during an abort sequence of the NSC?
If not, what was that show-stopper that Ross mentioned?
And if there is a show-stopper, why is NSC still under serious consideration? Shouldn't we be factoring that into our comparisons?
1. A preliminary abort mode assessment has already been done for NSC. There is a link to it on the dedicated NSC thread. It was determined there is enough margin between the ET and Orion so that an abort would not mean that Orion would touch the ET.
2. Personally I'd say there aren't any show-stoppers for NSC that mean you can't develop the vehicle and fly it. There ARE however issues that need to be worked out and that might mean schedule delays and more development costs.
3. NSC is under consideration. No doubt. We shouldn't fall in the trap that right now any option has been discarded - e.g. Ares I is still the baseline CLV and is NOT dead, even if most people around here think so.
2020 for the Moon is still doable.
Moon 2020? With DIRECT? That's probably worse than the current NASA plan. There must be a mistake. Maybe I haven't understood something?
Please, don't say that there was a multiyear margin and the 2017 was the "never-going-to-happen-optimistic" scenario. Please, say, that I am just having a nightmare and we are still going to the Moon by 2017 (or earlier).
Just a couple of days ago things were different. To the Moon by 2017. Now, it is 2020. Soon it is 2025? 2030? See? :(
So, we will NEVER see the first manned mission to Mars... I rest my case.
Please, do whatever is needed to keep up with the original Moon 2017 plan...no...this is pointless. I just lost all the enthusiasm towards manned spaceflights.
No, it was never 2017, not for J-241. It was 2017 for the J-246 (with the 6 x RL-10B-2 upper stage). However, the J-241 uses the J-2X engine, which still needs to be developed. That adds time onto the process straight away.
Can't they just stick to the J-246 or whatever allows the earliest mission to the Moon? Maybe they can develop the J-241 later (if it is even needed).
My two cents: Stick to the option that allows the earliest mission (2017?) to the Moon (including landing).
After thinking a bit..with all the talk going on..as they say.." Talk Is Cheap ".Let's have some action ! All that is going on with the commission is just,in my perspective, a lead weight. If Obama wants to really get something started he could say " Look..we have to keep to a certaint budget here..We must re-invent ourselves to be again a space fairing nation as was back in the days of Apollo. Keeping to that budget I am authorizing Congress to allocate funding for a new rocket called DIRECT 3.0 that will allow us to do almost immediately what needs to be done and close the gap vacated by the Shuttle retirement.Also with the DIRECT variants, the Moon,Mars and other destinations will be within our grasp"..................Obama has to take a leap of faith here....Sure it's a different time..but the time has come for a bold direction to be drawn out by our president. If it doesn't occur then the talking will continue without any major action !
After thinking a bit..with all the talk going on..as they say.." Talk Is Cheap ".Let's have some action ! All that is going on with the commission is just,in my perspective, a lead weight.
And wasn't it mentioned somewhere around here that the LAS abort motors would tear into the ET during an abort sequence of the NSC?
If not, what was that show-stopper that Ross mentioned?
And if there is a show-stopper, why is NSC still under serious consideration? Shouldn't we be factoring that into our comparisons?
1. A preliminary abort mode assessment has already been done for NSC. There is a link to it on the dedicated NSC thread. It was determined there is enough margin between the ET and Orion so that an abort would not mean that Orion would touch the ET.
2. Personally I'd say there aren't any show-stoppers for NSC that mean you can't develop the vehicle and fly it. There ARE however issues that need to be worked out and that might mean schedule delays and more development costs.
3. NSC is under consideration. No doubt. We shouldn't fall in the trap that right now any option has been discarded - e.g. Ares I is still the baseline CLV and is NOT dead, even if most people around here think so.
...though NASA will probably ruin everything and add years to those estimates...
There is an extremely serious safety hazard for the NSC abort mode which is under investigation. Remember that the abort motors are less than 10 feet away from the LOX tank on the ET. Remember also that the LOX tank walls are very thin and very pressure sensitive. The safety issue is that at the very instant of ignition of the abort motor, the ignition *shock wave* will disintigrate the LOX tank before the explosive bolts that will free Orion from the SM have even completed their de-couple.That envelops Orion in a cloud of LOX and tank debris with abort motors burning before she even leaves the stack. It's being looked at. No official results yet.
And wasn't it mentioned somewhere around here that the LAS abort motors would tear into the ET during an abort sequence of the NSC?
If not, what was that show-stopper that Ross mentioned?
And if there is a show-stopper, why is NSC still under serious consideration? Shouldn't we be factoring that into our comparisons?
1. A preliminary abort mode assessment has already been done for NSC. There is a link to it on the dedicated NSC thread. It was determined there is enough margin between the ET and Orion so that an abort would not mean that Orion would touch the ET.
2. Personally I'd say there aren't any show-stoppers for NSC that mean you can't develop the vehicle and fly it. There ARE however issues that need to be worked out and that might mean schedule delays and more development costs.
3. NSC is under consideration. No doubt. We shouldn't fall in the trap that right now any option has been discarded - e.g. Ares I is still the baseline CLV and is NOT dead, even if most people around here think so.
There is an extremely serious safety hazard for the NSC abort mode which is under investigation. Remember that the abort motors are less than 10 feet away from the LOX tank on the ET. Remember also that the LOX tank walls are very thin and very pressure sensitive. The safety issue is that at the very instant of ignition of the abort motor, the ignition *shock wave* will disintigrate the LOX tank before the explosive bolts that will free Orion from the SM have even completed their de-couple.That envelops Orion in a cloud of LOX and tank debris with abort motors burning before she even leaves the stack. It's being looked at. No official results yet.
snip
There is an extremely serious safety hazard for the NSC abort mode which is under investigation. Remember that the abort motors are less than 10 feet away from the LOX tank on the ET. Remember also that the LOX tank walls are very thin and very pressure sensitive. The safety issue is that at the very instant of ignition of the abort motor, the ignition *shock wave* will disintigrate the LOX tank before the explosive bolts that will free Orion from the SM have even completed their de-couple.That envelops Orion in a cloud of LOX and tank debris with abort motors burning before she even leaves the stack. It's being looked at. No official results yet.
snip
We're still thinking of "how to reduce max-Q to get around the problem", whilst Danny now tells us that max-Q is a relatively small part of the problem, thus why Jupiter is also affected.
cheers, Martin
The dates which we submitted to Aerospace Corporation were:
Jupiter-130 IOC -- March 2014
Jupiter-241 IOC -- 2018
We've seen some of the results already and without providing specific details, BOTH of those dates have been improved upon to the tune of at least 1 whole year and 2 years respectively -- which we aren't surprised about given that we packed all our schedules with plenty of surplus margins.
The dates which we submitted to Aerospace Corporation were:
Jupiter-130 IOC -- March 2014
Jupiter-241 IOC -- 2018
(snip)
I thought the committee stated or implied in one of the recent meetings that none of the options could reduce the gap before 2016 or something like that. Why would they say that if DIRECT can be ready for LEO in 2013? Can we conclude that the committee believes that Orion is the long pole?
There is an extremely serious safety hazard for the NSC abort mode which is under investigation. Remember that the abort motors are less than 10 feet away from the LOX tank on the ET. Remember also that the LOX tank walls are very thin and very pressure sensitive. The safety issue is that at the very instant of ignition of the abort motor, the ignition *shock wave* will disintigrate the LOX tank before the explosive bolts that will free Orion from the SM have even completed their de-couple.That envelops Orion in a cloud of LOX and tank debris with abort motors burning before she even leaves the stack. It's being looked at. No official results yet.
The HLV Crew Abort Assessment (preliminary report - headed by Doug Whitehead) does not mention that. Actually they mention that there are no recontact issue with the ET (page 32). Of course the assessment mentions there is a lot more work to do including "more detailed work on thermal and pressure effects in connection with plume interactions on ET". I however didn't see much on the issue of "shock interactions" other than that in the assessment.
snip
There is an extremely serious safety hazard for the NSC abort mode which is under investigation. Remember that the abort motors are less than 10 feet away from the LOX tank on the ET. Remember also that the LOX tank walls are very thin and very pressure sensitive. The safety issue is that at the very instant of ignition of the abort motor, the ignition *shock wave* will disintigrate the LOX tank before the explosive bolts that will free Orion from the SM have even completed their de-couple.That envelops Orion in a cloud of LOX and tank debris with abort motors burning before she even leaves the stack. It's being looked at. No official results yet.
Thank goodness. Plume impingement is a very real threat to the ET. Protecting the CM for Apollo was a lot of work.
Danny Deger
Ross,
I have probably missed the announcment of your get together tomorrow night. What time and where is it?
Sadly, my software test will keep me from gonig to the committee session.
Mike
l our schedules with plenty of surplus margins.
Can we conclude that the committee believes that Orion is the long pole?
A far as I know it has the same thrust performance as the LAS.
Danny Deger
Is plume impingement an issue for DIRECT as well?
Quote from: ar-phanad link=topic=17295.msg450174#msg450174Is plume impingement an issue for DIRECT as well?
Jesse, it exists on Jupiter, just like on Shuttle, but the design has been done in order to explicity work in that environment.
So, plume impingement still exists, but it is not a 'problem' on this vehicle.
Ross
That is an important sales pitch...which was not used in any of the presentations.(I am not a DIRECT teammember.) The Augustine presentation was a 20-minute recitation of a 30-minute presentation that was itself an abridgement of a 60-minute presentation from a month before.
Conversely, I see your point - throttling-down the SSME's (through to max-Q, not SRB burnout) seems to me like it should reduce max-Q.
But Danny's later post has covered this:-400 psf is better than 1200 psf, but even that low dynamic pressure does not solve the problem.
I think the confusion here is this started out as "an Ares I problem, because of the very high max-Q pressures".
We're still thinking of "how to reduce max-Q to get around the problem", whilst Danny now tells us that max-Q is a relatively small part of the problem, thus why Jupiter is also affected.
cheers, Martin
Conversely, I see your point - throttling-down the SSME's (through to max-Q, not SRB burnout) seems to me like it should reduce max-Q.
But Danny's later post has covered this:-400 psf is better than 1200 psf, but even that low dynamic pressure does not solve the problem.
I think the confusion here is this started out as "an Ares I problem, because of the very high max-Q pressures".
We're still thinking of "how to reduce max-Q to get around the problem", whilst Danny now tells us that max-Q is a relatively small part of the problem, thus why Jupiter is also affected.
cheers, Martin
Ah okay...
Wow, even 400 psf is high. Well, let's put it this way: if it's bad for Direct, it's bad for EVERYONE ELSE.
I'll play devil's advocate for once and say: NASA can (and must) solve this one :)
The dates which we submitted to Aerospace Corporation were:
Jupiter-130 IOC -- March 2014
Jupiter-241 IOC -- 2018
We've seen some of the results already and without providing specific details, BOTH of those dates have been improved upon to the tune of at least 1 whole year and 2 years respectively -- which we aren't surprised about given that we packed all our schedules with plenty of surplus margins.
I thought the committee stated or implied in one of the recent meetings that none of the options could reduce the gap before 2016 or something like that. Why would they say that if DIRECT can be ready for LEO in 2013? Can we conclude that the committee believes that Orion is the long pole?
http://www.space.com/news/090730-ft-moon-budget.html Augustine Committee Says Moon Within Reach
http://www.space.com/news/090730-ft-moon-budget.html Augustine Committee Says Moon Within Reach
Dunno, it also says this:
"The Obama administration's 2010 budget for NASA represents a $26.5 billion cut from previous projections.
Gary Pullium, a vice president with The Aerospace Corp., said NASA won't be able to return to the moon by 2020 under those constraints. "Given our assessment of the 2010 budget and what we believe about cost and schedule, we just simply said there is not enough money in this budget in the near term to do the human lunar return," he said."
Does he mean we can't go back by 2020 under Obama's budget cuts at all? Or just with the current Ares program?
What is especially troubling to me even more, is that especially after today, there seems to be this mounting consensus that if we extend shuttle and ISS we lose exploration outside of LEO?
This runs completely opposite of what DIRECT presented to the committee. So where is the disconnect? cost, schedule or both. What am I missing here? Ross?
On the political front, its difficult to imagine the augustine panel telling Nasa "we think you are wrong and you are going in a different direction and you are going to like it or else".
On the political front, its difficult to imagine the augustine panel telling Nasa "we think you are wrong and you are going in a different direction and you are going to like it or else". Of course, the "or else" might mean a house cleaning. Direct 3.0 seems to be the goldilocks rocket, yet Nasa seems passionately committed to Delay 3.0 (Ares I,V) to big, and to small.
Is there any chance they are right?
Does anyone know where I can watch the last few public hearings online as they are not posted on the commision's website?
James
snip
But the lower dynamic pressure on the Jupiter provides options that the Ares doesn't have; specifically the ability to pull Orion much further away from the vehicle in an abort. Our initial analysis shows that if Orion aborted off a Jupuiter it would be in the safe zone; not by much, but safe. Since then we have refined the abort trajectories and have added additional distance between the SRB's and the aborted Orion. And that still leaves us the option, which Ares doesn't have, of a more powerful LAS to take Orion even further away.
Aerospace is doing all the cost analysis, will they be doing safety analysis too? I remember hearing today from CxP that they will have no blackzones. But since they lie through the teeth is there someone to check that this will be followed up on, or will the standards suddenly change to fit them?
J-130 and 241/246 are all black zone free right?
To quote myself..snip
But the lower dynamic pressure on the Jupiter provides options that the Ares doesn't have; specifically the ability to pull Orion much further away from the vehicle in an abort. Our initial analysis shows that if Orion aborted off a Jupuiter it would be in the safe zone; not by much, but safe. Since then we have refined the abort trajectories and have added additional distance between the SRB's and the aborted Orion. And that still leaves us the option, which Ares doesn't have, of a more powerful LAS to take Orion even further away.
Direct dynamic pressure does help. But I want to go on the record, something like a simple change to debris radius or propellant burn rate puts the Orion back into trouble. I am also concerned the up trajectory Ross invented put Orion at a low dynamic pressure at the time it needs to open its drogue. This issue needs to be looked at. It could be a show stopper.
It is my opinion (at this time) a sustainer is needed.
Danny Deger
Another thought.. is there a window between the prop tank(Direct), AUS(Ares) debris and the SRB destruct debris where you could have the LAS diverting Orion toward vertical, and let the SRB(s) go by before you blow them?
snip
But the lower dynamic pressure on the Jupiter provides options that the Ares doesn't have; specifically the ability to pull Orion much further away from the vehicle in an abort. Our initial analysis shows that if Orion aborted off a Jupuiter it would be in the safe zone; not by much, but safe. Since then we have refined the abort trajectories and have added additional distance between the SRB's and the aborted Orion. And that still leaves us the option, which Ares doesn't have, of a more powerful LAS to take Orion even further away.
Direct dynamic pressure does help. But I want to go on the record, something like a simple change to debris radius or propellant burn rate puts the Orion back into trouble. I am also concerned the up trajectory Ross invented put Orion at a low dynamic pressure at the time it needs to open its drogue. This issue needs to be looked at. It could be a show stopper.
It is my opinion (at this time) a sustainer is needed.
Danny Deger
Direct dynamic pressure does help. But I want to go on the record, something like a simple change to debris radius or propellant burn rate puts the Orion back into trouble. I am also concerned the up trajectory Ross invented put Orion at a low dynamic pressure at the time it needs to open its drogue. This issue needs to be looked at. It could be a show stopper.
It is my opinion (at this time) a sustainer is needed.
Danny Deger
We discussed this at dinner following the Hearing and that is what Ross was saying too. I think there was a consensus among all of us there that a sustainer is needed. Fortunately, Direct is one of the options that has the margin to accomodate this, but it would add development time to Orion's schedule. The estimate discussed was at least 12 months.
Hello Caps,
Just seen this on New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327194.300-orbiting-gas-station-could-refuel-lunar-missions.html
"Ride also presented two options that add more flights to the shuttle program, including one plan that would continue operating the system through 2014. That scenario, which has no credible cost estimate, would be a dramatic departure from NASA's current plans.
Experts said a lengthy extension of shuttle operations should only be on the table if NASA scraps its Ares rocket and goes to a next-generation booster derived from the shuttle"(Spaceflightnow-July 30,2009) http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0907/30augustine/ This SpaceFlightNow quote means that the Augustine Committee statement that they don't have enough funding for a full manned lunar Mars program refers to the Ares Program not Direct 3.
"\
Hello Caps,
Just seen this on New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327194.300-orbiting-gas-station-could-refuel-lunar-missions.html
to be noted, that Depots and PT is not in the baseline of Direct, but is on the wish list for Future Vision, but does feed into Direct's capabilities and strong points...
also, the last comments from the panel: Jeffery responding to Bo's comment; Bo - is it time now to start thinking about commercial fuel stations in space; Jeffery - it is time to be thinking about them, but not planning; (paraphrased, not word for word quote)
there was a huge amount of comment on Fuel Depots yesterday, and I got the impression, that this was going to go toward either a Flexible Path option, or as a "IF CONGRESS WILL PROPERLY FUND HSF/EXPLORATION" option that will be one of the two options to be presented to the WH... the other option being put forwrd to the WH/CONGRESS "THIS IS WHAT WE CAN AFFORD ON THE MISERLY, PENNY PINCHING BUDGET YOU'VE GIVEN NASA"
I talked with Jeff after the meeting with an observation that I really liked the PD discussion. He noted that his sub committee felt that this option must be more closely examined. I was really impressed with the amount of press the PD concept got. The feeling was that it could be a real game changer WRT beyond LEO operations and encouraging commercial space investment. I remember that statement that sending up fuel or oxygen was "cheap" compared to developing and launching satellites. It was interesting to hear that from somebody from the commercial space arena. There were moments of excitement in the room during yesterday's hearings, and the PD idea was one of them.
Having a time pressure on the launch crew is just not a good idea IMO. Again Please correct me if I am wrong.
agman25, I wouldn't call it "time pressure". Both launchers would be fully checked-out and readied on the Pads, ready to launch. The EDS flight would go and 90 minutes later the crew/cargo flight would get its first opportunity to attempt a launch. If that doesn't work for any reason, DIRECT could actually support one launch attempt every day for the next 4 days and there is even an opportunity to try for the 5th day too in some circumstances.
There are then three back-to-back opportunities, 90 minutes apart, to send the 'stack' thru TLI on that 5th day.
That is the only real 'time pressure' -- but that's because those windows for the TLI only occur every ~14 days or so.
But 5, perhaps 6, opportunities is not all much 'pressure', especially as you would only 'waste' an EDS even if you couldn't make it. In the current 1.5 launch arrangement you also 'waste' an Altair if the crew can't launch for any reason.
And actually, the real specifications which we have for EDS boiloff would actually allow the EDS to have a workable LEO loiter time well above 14 days -- so theoretically, a single mission could actually get TWO TLI opportunities.
[quote[I agree. LOR-LOR is safer despite the performance advantage in other methods.
I'd happily accept nsc with lor-lor. I'd happily take nsc as it is following DIRECT principles even though, again, it is lower performance. I wold assume that the Basic version is the best we will get though - perhaps with 5 seg booster upgrade.
Direct is fantastic - NSC is fantastic for the same reasons.
Direct is better for future growth but future growth needs to be paid for.
2017 was the estimated date before Aerospace Corp pointed out that DIRECT hadn't included the MSFC's ability to make mountains out of molehills. The IOC has been moved to 2018 to absorb the civil service inefficiency coefficient.
Danny, I understand the Orion diameter is 5.0 m. This gives a radius of 8.2 ft, not 7.5 ft as used in your simulations. This would increase drag on the capsule by 20%.
Converting to metric is going to kill somebody someday :-\
snip
We discussed this at dinner following the Hearing and that is what Ross was saying too. I think there was a consensus among all of us there that a sustainer is needed. Fortunately, Direct is one of the options that has the margin to accomodate this, but it would add development time to Orion's schedule. The estimate discussed was at least 12 months.
Not quite.
We went into Aerospace Corp with the attached manifest. As you will see, there are a total of five test flights in the Jupiter manifest, which take you through 2017 (J-130-X, J-130-Y, J-241-X, J-241-Y and J-241-Z). The first IOC Jupiter-241 flight would then be early in the following year (2018). That was what WE proposed.
It appears their analysis says the J-241 can actually do better than that -- by two years!
But Jupiter-24x is not the element which will determine the Lunar Landing -- Altair is the critical piece who's schedule will drive the date of the first mission. Anyone who think Altair will take less than 8 years to develop from now, is smoking something pretty strong and I guarantee that even that schedule will slip if NASA budget continues to be squeezed by the White House and Congress any further.
So, IMHO, even if we got the green light TODAY, it would be extremely difficult to make a 2017 Lunar mission return date and I would suggest 2018 is more realistic at this point.
But if the green light isn't given for another 6 months, that schedule will slip by the same amount -- guaranteed. And while I'd love government to be fast and efficient in making such decisions, I don't think anyone believes this is going to magically happen the day the Augustine Committee reports (end of August).
I currently think 2018 is still quite possible. But if it takes until October/November to actually announce the new direction, its probably 50:50 it would slip to 2019.
But 2020 was the 'target' set out in the original VSE, so this still achieves that target with room to spare, so that's all good. And compared to what the Committee said yesterday, 2024 for Ares, we're in much, much better shape.
Ross.
Danny Deger
Has Ross learned to say y'all yet?
Well, then let's convert to metric once and for all. The rest of the world has already done so... ;) ;) ;)No, they didn't. At least not all of them. There are actually 3 countries that are still hapily using imperial system. Burma, Liberia and... well, United States. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication#Overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication#Overview).
Hello Caps,
Just seen this on New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327194.300-orbiting-gas-station-could-refuel-lunar-missions.html
Converting to metric is going to kill somebody someday :-\
Well, then let's convert to metric once and for all. The rest of the world has already done so... ;) ;) ;)
Danny, I understand the Orion diameter is 5.0 m. This gives a radius of 8.2 ft, not 7.5 ft as used in your simulations. This would increase drag on the capsule by 20%.
Converting to metric is going to kill somebody someday :-\
I forgot it was times 3 and "add a little". For some reason I had 15 feet diameter stuck in my head. This is going to hurt. Maybe quite a bit. Drag on Orion post LAS burn is a big, big problem.
Thanks for catching my gross incompetence as an engineer. Next time can you PM me ;D
Seriously, post it here so all using the model can make an update.
Danny Deger
Converting to metric is going to kill somebody someday :-\
Well, then let's convert to metric once and for all. The rest of the world has already done so... ;) ;) ;)
we're traditional English/Imperial here. get over it. :)
snip
1) Danny's simulation has the debris expanding more along the path of flight than in other direction, presumably because different debris particles have different sizes and hence drag to mass ratios. Neither being above nor below the debris field sound like fun, so it seems to me that the proper direction to escape the debris field is to go out of plane, in the third dimension (that Danny's spreadsheet doesn't simulate). Might thrusting the LAS 15 degrees out of plane help?
2) The Orion has more than enough velocity to get away; the only problem is it's going in the same direction as the debris cloud so its velocity is not useful. The troublesome aborts occur inside the atmosphere, so why not deploy a pair of small wings to gradually convert Orion's forward velocity into out-of-plane velocity? Hopefully these wings could be made somewhat lighter than the sustainer would be.
3) How hard would it be to make a drogue that can handle high temperatures? For example make the entire drogue out of the titanium shape memory alloy used in high-end eyeglasses. Might a tougher drogue be lighter than a sustainer rocket?
Update: according to http://www.mdc.umn.edu/nitinol_facts.pdf nitinol is only superelastic over a roughly 50 degree C range and is heat treated using temperatures around 400 degrees C. So the drogue would deploy superelastically but then lose its superelastic properties as it heats up. That might be OK as long as it would retain sufficient tensile strength. According to http://www.shape-memory-alloys.com/data_nitinol.htm its melting point is around 1300 degrees C. Does anyone know how much tensile strength nitinol retains at high temperature?
2) The Orion has more than enough velocity to get away; the only problem is it's going in the same direction as the debris cloud so its velocity is not useful. The troublesome aborts occur inside the atmosphere, so why not deploy a pair of small wings to gradually convert Orion's forward velocity into out-of-plane velocity? Hopefully these wings could be made somewhat lighter than the sustainer would be.
snip
Is there anyone else left in the commercial/international space industry working in Imperial Units?
On 1 and 2. Excellent ideas. It would take me a day or two to add the third dimension to the sim. My first guess is left and right will not be a lot better than the up Ross invented.
The following is an e-mail I ‘m sending to the Augustine Committee and my Senators. Any comments?
“In the early 1960’s NASA told us that the only way to go to the moon was by Direct Ascent or Earth Orbit Rendezvous. Then Dr. John Houbolt of Langley wrote a letter to Robert Seamans, Associate Administrator for NASA, saying that Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was a better way. Houbolt was chastised for going outside the chain of command but he was right.
Today, NASA tells us that Ares I/V is the way to leave Earth’s orbit. However, in the spirit of John Houbolt, a group of NASA engineers, scientist and ordinary people have come up with a better way and it is falling on deaf ears within NASA.
Jupiter Direct uses the same 4 segment SRB’s, the same diameter ET and the same shuttle main engines to produce a more powerful, versatile, expandable and safer vehicle than the two stage Ares I. It can support many of the safety features removed by Ares I, like landing on the ground, due to Ares weight restrictions plus it has addition margin to bringing payloads to the ISS. It can also be built sooner and save cost.
If and when commercial companies prove they can safely and consistently launch a man-rated vehicle into LEO then the Jupiter Direct can move on to a heavy-lift vehicle by adding the second stage that the Ares I needed just to launch the Orion crew capsule. The cost savings from building one vehicle that is expandable over two vehicles (Ares I/V) are obvious.
Direct is a vehicle we can afford now and expand later by adding a second stage, more powerful liquid engines and possibly fifth segment SRB’s. It can shorten or eliminate the gap at the end of the shuttle program. Why is NASA ignoring the Jupiter Direct vehicle even after Aerospace corp. has independently confirmed that the Direct team’s numbers are correct?
It’s time to put the “not invented here” attitude and ego’s aside and embrace a vehicle that is less expensive, more versatile and faster to build.”
snip
If you'd ever worked engineering problems.. you'd realize metric really does simplify any analysis work. snip
I suggest that you take out the last paragraph, which has a negative focus. Just focus on the positive with direct as a better solution. You could also add comments about job loss impact from the gap. It is a hot ticket with elected officials.
snip
If you'd ever worked engineering problems.. you'd realize metric really does simplify any analysis work. snip
I have worked many engineering problems. Imperial works great.
My big problem is I think imperial. My specialty is conceptual design, which lends itself well to engineering in one's head. When I engineer in metric on a conceptual problem, I convert to imperial to think about it, design the system in my head, then convert to metric for my costumer. I have tried and failed to think in metric, but it hasn't happened so far.
The only real problems is I think pounds mass, but calculate in slugs. I almost always think in feet, so the conversion to inches is not that big of a deal.
Metric has a similar problem. Many times it is better to think kilograms force, but you always calculate in Newtons.
Not to mention the changes to the infrastructure that are huge.
Danny Deger
snip
A parafoil could be a lightweight route to sustain horizontal motion and unlike X-38, after a few miles of travel it could be discarded in favor of traditional parachutes.
snip
I've seen him use it, but don't feel like hunting down the post. The true victory will be when he can properly use "all y'all".
Quote from: ar-phanad link=topic=17295.msg450174#msg450174Is plume impingement an issue for DIRECT as well?
Jesse, it exists on Jupiter, just like on Shuttle, but the design has been done in order to explicity work in that environment.
So, plume impingement still exists, but it is not a 'problem' on this vehicle.
Ross
Is this in reference to the base heating near the SSME? Or the LAS motors tearing into the ET during abort sequence? Danny's comment about plume impingement was preceded by a discussion pertaining to NSC's potential "show-stopper."
Sorry if I've over-complicated this!
Jesse
I see the objective as gaining the ability to move Orion laterally and thereby increase distance from the debris field or debris cloud - aren't we talking about falling bits of very hot solid propellant falling towards Earth from the exploded SRB?
How far would Orion need to move - laterally - to avoid coming down within and through the SRB debris cloud? One mile? (1.6 kilometers) Five miles? (8 kilometers) Ten miles? (16 kilometers)
Then all your sustainer motor needs to do is add sufficient altitude to allow the parafoil to achieve that lateral separation then the parafoil can be cut loose and the primary parachutes opened (the same ones Orion would use after a successful mission).
Thus the parafoil need only survive the heat long enough to get Orion that lateral separation rather than survive coming down through the debris.
= = =
Or, am I visualizing this wrong?
to be noted, that Depots and PT is not in the baseline of Direct, but is on the wish list for Future Vision, but does feed into Direct's capabilities and strong points...
Can the LAS motor achieve an 8000 foot separation above the debris cloud?
If a sustainer motor can do that, perhaps a parafoil can give 8000 feet of lateral separation as Orion comes down.
Edit to add: Combine Ross's "up" idea with a lateral capability so you don't need to go "up" quite as far -- just up enough to let the parafoil glide you clear.
And, the X-38 parafoils would seem far more capable than what is needed to achieve 8000 feet of lateral separation before opening the primary round parachutes.
Quote from: simon-thWell, then let's convert to metric once and for all. The rest of the world has already done so... ;) ;) ;)No, they didn't. At least not all of them. There are actually 3 countries that are still hapily using imperial system. Burma, Liberia and... well, United States. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication#Overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication#Overview).
Quote from: simon-thWell, then let's convert to metric once and for all. The rest of the world has already done so... ;) ;) ;)No, they didn't. At least not all of them. There are actually 3 countries that are still hapily using imperial system. Burma, Liberia and... well, United States. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication#Overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication#Overview).
Suppose Orion's abort trajectory added both additional altitude and lateral momentum prior to a parafoil being deployed.
...
A parafoil could be a lightweight route to sustain horizontal motion and unlike X-38, after a few miles of travel it could be discarded in favor of traditional parachutes.
snip
We discussed this at dinner following the Hearing and that is what Ross was saying too. I think there was a consensus among all of us there that a sustainer is needed. Fortunately, Direct is one of the options that has the margin to accomodate this, but it would add development time to Orion's schedule. The estimate discussed was at least 12 months.
Y'all need to get with the Orion folks and find out if LAS is the long pole in the tent. My guess is the software updates needed are worse than the hardware design issues. You might ask if they could go back to unguided sense you don't fly at the insane dynamic pressure of the death trap Direct is going to replace.
If Sally Ride is correct the more realistic date for Orion is 2017, and adding a sustainer is 12 months, General Bolden will not like that much.
Danny Deger
Has Ross learned to say y'all yet?
Just thought it was an interesting view. Probably cure more headaches than it’d cause to adopt SI units here in the US, don’t get me wrong. But the people the quickest to advocate that I don’t think really understand the flip side to it.
Converting to metric is going to kill somebody someday :-\
Well, then let's convert to metric once and for all. The rest of the world has already done so... ;) ;) ;)
we're traditional English/Imperial here. get over it. :)
If you'd ever worked engineering problems.. you'd realize metric really does simplify any analysis work. And simplify interacting with international partners to boot. Auto Industry realized that and switched 20 years or so ago.
to be noted, that Depots and PT is not in the baseline of Direct, but is on the wish list for Future Vision, but does feed into Direct's capabilities and strong points...
I'd just like to clarify that Propellant Depot's actually ARE on our baseline -- but they are for Phase 3 of our plans, not Phase 2. Let me explain:-
Phase 1: Close the Gap
Beginning Around: 2013
- Jupiter-130 to ISS, 20mT Orion + 40mT Payload
- Jupiter-130 for Hubble Servicing
- Jupiter-130 + Delta Heavy Cryogenic Upper Stage for "Apollo 8"-style mission
- Jupiter-130 (with or without DHCUS) available for large ~75mT IMLEO Science Missions
Phase 2: Initial Lunar Exploration
Beginning Around: 2018
- Jupiter-24x Dual-Launch Lunar Mission, No Propellant Transfer, ~80mT thru TLI
- Jupiter-24x Dual-Launch NEO Mission, No Propellant Transfer, Performance TBD
- Jupiter-24x Three-Launch Phobos Mission, No Propellant Transfer, Performance TBD
- Jupiter-130 (with or without DHCUS) available for large ~75mT IMLEO Science Missions
- Jupiter-24x available for very large ~100mT IMLEO Science Missions
NOTE: Lunar mission hardware is actually designed with Mars in mind
Phase 3: Advanced Exploration
Beginning Around: 2022
- Jupiter-24x Single-Launch Lunar Missions, EDS (and LSAM?) would be re-fueled in LEO from a commercially supplied Depot, payloads greater than 100mT are possible thru TLI
- Jupiter-24x Single-Launch NEO Missions, EDS would be re-fueled in LEO from a commercially supplied Depot, payloads greater than 100mT are possible.
- Jupiter-24x Dual-Launch Phobos Missions, EDS would be re-fueled in LEO from a commercially supplied Depot, payloads greater than 200mT are possible.
- Jupiter-24x Dual-Launch Mars Missions, EDS and Lander launched dry and both are fueled in LEO using Depot supplied by both commercial suppliers and international partners. IMLEO would be in the ~1,000mT class.
- Jupiter-24x Jovian Missions using Depot located either in LEO or at EML-2, depending upon the availability of Lunar ISRU. Exact mission profile TBD. IMLEO TBD.
- Jupiter-130 (with or without DHCUS) available for large ~75mT IMLEO Science Missions
- Jupiter-24x available for very large ~100mT IMLEO Science Missions
- Jupiter + Depot available for extremely large >200mT IMLEO Science Missions
Phase 2 is primarily designed as a 'stepping stone' to get from ISS to the full architecture, instead of trying to make a single "giant leap" straight from LEO to the full capability architecture.
Phase 2 'could' be skipped, but we think that from both a technological risk, from a cost/schedule risk and from an overall Programmatic risk stand-point, it is a better approach to include it as a 'stepping stone'.
Ross.
I say scrap the LAS, scrap the melting parachutes, scrap the sustainer motor. Use the weight savings to add reactive armor to the Orion and plow through the debris to escape to LEO. Then launch a rescue mission from the ISS. That’s how John Wayne would handle it.
[just kidding]
Just thought it was an interesting view. Probably cure more headaches than it’d cause to adopt SI units here in the US, don’t get me wrong. But the people the quickest to advocate that I don’t think really understand the flip side to it.
You can make it sound as complicated as possible, if that's what you want to stick with. But if you really want to convert, the way to do it is to make it a policy that all "new" stuff gets done in Metric, and only "legacy" stuff is maintained in Imperial units. I can guarantee you that if this approach was taken (and enforced), then pretty soon 90% of everything would be in Metric.
And for old farts (like me) who can't adapt, well, get used to doing conversions in your head.
We've been converting to Metric since I was in grade school. Let's get it over with!
Mark S.
I say bring back the F-1!!! 2 LRBs on each side of the core, 260 INCH diameter, 2 F-1s each. that'll get your blood pounding and do away with those propellent chunks!
Sorry, didn't realize the context (I was using my iTouch at the time, and I didn't read the previous page of comments).
I was referring to Plume Impingement at the Base of the vehicle.
For confirmation: There are no concerns about the LAS impinging on the vehicle below the Orion in the case of any aborts.
Ross.
I say bring back the F-1!!! 2 LRBs on each side of the core, 260 INCH diameter, 2 F-1s each. that'll get your blood pounding and do away with those propellent chunks!
Great idea, Mike.
Except for the fact that the F-1 would have to be completely and totally redesigned from the beginning, all over again. Or, one of the existing museum pieces could be disassembled piece by piece, part by part, and a full set of working drawings and detail drawings would have to be made, not to mention materials testing, static testing, and all the other associated engineering would have to be re-done from scratch, because all the plans, drawings, technical information and everything related to the engine was destroyed way back when STS was still in the proposals phase.
I have much hope for LRBs as an eventual upgrade to DIRECT or NSC. Would need development of a new engine though, since that is would re-building the F-1 would be analogous to anyway. Why does everyone like the idea of resurrecting it so much anyway? I seem to see similar ideas a lot.
all the other associated engineering would have to be re-done from scratch, because all the plans, drawings, technical information and everything related to the engine was destroyedThat is a myth. Blueprints on the F-1 exist as the Saturn V engines were recognized to be the most valuable aspects of the vehicle for the future, as much as possible of their documentation was preserved.
I have much hope for LRBs as an eventual upgrade to DIRECT or NSC. Would need development of a new engine though, since that is would re-building the F-1 would be analogous to anyway. Why does everyone like the idea of resurrecting it so much anyway? I seem to see similar ideas a lot.
Probably because it was the biggest, most powerful rocket engine ever built at the time. We're all enamoured of really huge, powerful, fire-breathing, smoke-belching, rumbly-thundering machines. Arrr, arrr, arrh, arrrrough! ;D
Judging by Energia boosters, 4 Falcon-9 first stages would do just fine. Also, they are already human-rated. ;)
Judging by Energia boosters, 4 Falcon-9 first stages would do just fine. Also, they are already human-rated. ;)
Ross,
Quick question that's probably been answered before. From a manufacturing standpoint, is there any difference between the J-130 and J-24x cores? Meaning, at Michoud would they just roll the exact some core off the assembly line, then at the VAB they put it together with the engine and upperstage config they want?
Or are there actually core differences between the two that would be manufactured a bit different at Michoud.?
Judging by Energia boosters, 4 Falcon-9 first stages would do just fine. Also, they are already human-rated. ;)
They are? I didn't know that. Rated to what standard?
Judging by Energia boosters, 4 Falcon-9 first stages would do just fine. Also, they are already human-rated. ;)
They are? I didn't know that. Rated to what standard?
COTS standard probably, since the falcon 9 was designed from the start to carry dragon.
all the other associated engineering would have to be re-done from scratch, because all the plans, drawings, technical information and everything related to the engine was destroyedThat is a myth. Blueprints on the F-1 exist as the Saturn V engines were recognized to be the most valuable aspects of the vehicle for the future, as much as possible of their documentation was preserved.
Much more here: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/588/1 (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/588/1)
You'd need to redesign the ET, since it only currently has two attachment points.
You'd need to redesign the ET, since it only currently has two attachment points.
Or design something to hold two Falcon-9 stages together, attach a pair of them, and leave ET as it is. :D
But Jupiter-24x is not the element which will determine the Lunar Landing -- Altair is the critical piece who's schedule will drive the date of the first mission. Anyone who think Altair will take less than 8 years to develop from now, is smoking something pretty strong and I guarantee that even that schedule will slip if NASA budget continues to be squeezed by the White House and Congress any further.
So, IMHO, even if we got the green light TODAY, it would be extremely difficult to make a 2017 Lunar mission return date and I would suggest 2018 is more realistic at this point.
But if the green light isn't given for another 6 months, that schedule will slip by the same amount -- guaranteed. And while I'd love government to be fast and efficient in making such decisions, I don't think anyone believes this is going to magically happen the day the Augustine Committee reports (end of August).
(Purposefully using layman's terms, and I haven't read all the posts yet; sorry): If you have the volume of the sphere / hemisphere (well, column, may be the most accurate as the debris descends) and the mass of solid fuel remaining at 20 -50 sec, could you get a zeroth-order approximation of air temperature?I haven't even started to model the effect of radiant heat from the field.
Falcon 9 Boosters might make some sense especially once(if) SpaceX developes their BFE(Big Falcon Engine)..With or without the BFE, you couldn't just use a F9 first stage as a booster just as you couldn't attach it to an ET easily. The structural loads on the F9 stage weren't designed to be compatible with the way SRBs transfer loads to the ET interstage crossbeam. F9 stages probably act like EELV solids transfer loads to the core - at the thrust structure level. Would only make sense seeing as F9 was meant to have 2 strapons like EELVs do.
High temp fabrics might be an option if close to a fireball. There are less exotic ones than the one you mentioned. Most increased mass and volume. Not a good thing to do to poor little Orion at this point. Remember it is close to PDR and the gap is growing.Rather than replacing Orion's main drogue, which needs to be very light to travel to the moon and back, how about a separate drogue that's jettisoned with the LAS? Might making a new drogue also reduce the effects on other parts of Orion's design?
Falcon 9 Boosters might make some sense especially once(if) SpaceX developes their BFE(Big Falcon Engine)..With or without the BFE, you couldn't just use a F9 first stage as a booster just as you couldn't attach it to an ET easily. The structural loads on the F9 stage weren't designed to be compatible with the way SRBs transfer loads to the ET interstage crossbeam. F9 stages probably act like EELV solids transfer loads to the core - at the thrust structure level. Would only make sense seeing as F9 was meant to have 2 strapons like EELVs do.
True enough.. and many other issues(supporting Massive Core on MLP)
I think we're just pining for a Kerolox replacement for the SSRMs.. Eliminate a lot of abort issues.
High temp fabrics might be an option if close to a fireball. There are less exotic ones than the one you mentioned. Most increased mass and volume. Not a good thing to do to poor little Orion at this point. Remember it is close to PDR and the gap is growing.Rather than replacing Orion's main drogue, which needs to be very light to travel to the moon and back, how about a separate drogue that's jettisoned with the LAS? Might making a new drogue also reduce the effects on other parts of Orion's design?
Rather than replacing Orion's main drogue, which needs to be very light to travel to the moon and back, how about a separate drogue that's jettisoned with the LAS? Might making a new drogue also reduce the effects on other parts of Orion's design?
Rather than replacing Orion's main drogue, which needs to be very light to travel to the moon and back, how about a separate drogue that's jettisoned with the LAS? Might making a new drogue also reduce the effects on other parts of Orion's design?
Or you could simply launch now with the heavier chutes for ISS, then upgrade the LAS for Moon mission
Be interesting to see if one could develop something that's a "drop-in" replacement for the RSRMs.
Re: exploding solid stages: Others and I have been bugging Danny about blowing the nozzle off the end of the SRB. Is that idea DOA? Would it take longer to make a two-part destruct than to put an upsidedown RSRM on top of Orion (the natural result if current trends continue)?
I have much hope for LRBs as an eventual upgrade to DIRECT or NSC. Would need development of a new engine though, since that is would re-building the F-1 would be analogous to anyway. Why does everyone like the idea of resurrecting it so much anyway? I seem to see similar ideas a lot.
Lobo and phantomdj;
The Jupiter-130 core *IS* the Jupiter-24X core. We did not design the Jupiter-130, but actually designed the Jupiter-24X. All the Jupiter-130 really is, is an incomplete Jupiter-24X. It is missing the upper stage and the 4th SSME. It is not a separate launch vehicle per se; rather it is just a "flight configuration" of the Jupiter launch vehicle. It is not optimized in any way and therefore flies with less performance than it could have if it were optimized. But its performance anyway is more than "good enough" and the benefit is that there is no core difference between the 2 flight configurations of the 130 and the 24X.
Re: exploding solid stages: Others and I have been bugging Danny about blowing the nozzle off the end of the SRB. Is that idea DOA? Would it take longer to make a two-part destruct than to put an upsidedown RSRM on top of Orion (the natural result if current trends continue)?
Blowing the aft exit cone extension (I assume that's what you're talking about) will do nothing to depressurize the RSRM, since the LSC is downstream of the nozzle throat. You'll reduce thrust, but not even come close to eliminating it.
I've had the impression that they actually meant blowing the entire nozzle off (including the throat, of course), which would do a much better job of uncorking the beastie ... ;)
I see the objective as gaining the ability to move Orion laterally and thereby increase distance from the debris field or debris cloud - aren't we talking about falling bits of very hot solid propellant falling towards Earth from the exploded SRB?
How far would Orion need to move - laterally - to avoid coming down within and through the SRB debris cloud? One mile? (1.6 kilometers) Five miles? (8 kilometers) Ten miles? (16 kilometers)
Then all your sustainer motor needs to do is add sufficient altitude to allow the parafoil to achieve that lateral separation then the parafoil can be cut loose and the primary parachutes opened (the same ones Orion would use after a successful mission).
Thus the parafoil need only survive the heat long enough to get Orion that lateral separation rather than survive coming down through the debris.
= = =
Or, am I visualizing this wrong?
Ross,
Over the last 3 public meetings Ares I/V got about 5 hours of "free" advertising but no mention of alternative vehicles (i.e. Direct) and their capabilities. Where was your rebuttal or 2 hours sales pitch?
I've had the impression that they actually meant blowing the entire nozzle off (including the throat, of course), which would do a much better job of uncorking the beastie ... ;)
I suspect that would make matters worse, to be honest. The SRM nozzle is a partially submerged design. I would wager that, unless you're planning on severing the case, you'd have a good chance of plugging the whole thing...until it ruptured that is.
Ross,
Quick question that's probably been answered before. From a manufacturing standpoint, is there any difference between the J-130 and J-24x cores? Meaning, at Michoud would they just roll the exact some core off the assembly line, then at the VAB they put it together with the engine and upperstage config they want?
Or are there actually core differences between the two that would be manufactured a bit different at Michoud.?
I've had the impression that they actually meant blowing the entire nozzle off (including the throat, of course), which would do a much better job of uncorking the beastie ... ;)
I suspect that would make matters worse, to be honest. The SRM nozzle is a partially submerged design. I would wager that, unless you're planning on severing the case, you'd have a good chance of plugging the whole thing...until it ruptured that is.
To add to Lobo's question, is the core strength the same whether it's just a 130 payload or a 24x 2nd stage and payload? Does it have to be reinforced?
I've had the impression that they actually meant blowing the entire nozzle off (including the throat, of course), which would do a much better job of uncorking the beastie ... ;)
I suspect that would make matters worse, to be honest. The SRM nozzle is a partially submerged design. I would wager that, unless you're planning on severing the case, you'd have a good chance of plugging the whole thing...until it ruptured that is.
Ross,
NASA are currently working on Altair, and they seem to be continuing with their projects whilst Augustine deliberates. Presumably they may then do the same until (if) WH/congress issue new orders.
Are they still working on Altair? How much will things be delayed if NASA keeps to the current (since Augustine was announced) course?
I had a thought.
Direct I think is suggesting using the D4H to fly Orion on ISS or LEo only missions, correct? And then J-130 for LEO missions when you want a payload as well?
I'm just wondering if going with the Falcon 9 Heavy woudn't be better. The reasons being:
1) Likely be less expensive than a D4H.
2) Will already be human rated, as the F9 will be carrying a crewed Dragon.
3) SpaceX Launch Complex 40 will already be set up for loading crews into capsules.
Yea, I know The F9 much less the F9H has yet to fly. But since Orion won't be developed for some time, seems like they would likely have one up before Orion's even ready.
I mean, they'll already be sending crews to the ISS on the Dragon via COTS, so why not keep all the human flight in the same system?
What say you?
I had a thought.
Direct I think is suggesting using the D4H to fly Orion on ISS or LEo only missions, correct? And then J-130 for LEO missions when you want a payload as well?
I'm just wondering if going with the Falcon 9 Heavy woudn't be better. The reasons being:
1) Likely be less expensive than a D4H.
2) Will already be human rated, as the F9 will be carrying a crewed Dragon.
3) SpaceX Launch Complex 40 will already be set up for loading crews into capsules.
Yea, I know The F9 much less the F9H has yet to fly. But since Orion won't be developed for some time, seems like they would likely have one up before Orion's even ready.
I mean, they'll already be sending crews to the ISS on the Dragon via COTS, so why not keep all the human flight in the same system?
What say you?
This is not a new idea. I had the impression that it had been either done before or at least looked at... What's wrong with severing the case?
Besides, even if you have to blow it at or below the throat, it would still reduce thrust significantly. The point here is not so much to make the destruct more benign as to make it happen farther away from the Orion.
ON the topic of blowing the SRB nozzle...
I thought this was SOP during recovery? The nozzle is blown before impact with the ocean, is it not? That means the hardware and procedures are already in place.
The forces will certainly rip the SRB off the ET, but that is OK.
Danny Deger
Thanks, Ross
I am primarily interested in acquiring a general understanding of the problem at a technical level suitable for a Congressional staffer.
And to acquire a low level understanding as to whether this could be a total "show stopper" for SDLV as a crew launch vehicle, in anticipation that the EELV-only guys will trot out this argument.
My understanding is that the current Ares 1 LAS is insufficient to allow the Orion capsule escape the debris cloud "column" prior to opening the parachutes and there is no margin to upgrade to a larger motor. Failure to escape the debris column will result in melted parachutes.
This leads to a question about whether the Jupiter 130 has sufficient margin to enhance the LAS motors sufficiently to allow the Orion capsule to escape the debris cloud column before parachutes are opened.
If I understand correctly, a steerable LAS sustainer motor could help fly Orion out of that debris column before opening the parachutes but would the mass penalties and technical challenges of that be prohibitive?