NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV/SLS) => Topic started by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 03:45 pm

Title: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 03:45 pm
Now that DIRECT v3.0 has been shown at ISDC, it is time to open a specific thread for appropriate discussions here.

Over the course of today I will try to upload a variety of material to kick this thread off properly.

I will leave the v2.0 thread open for any continued discussion about the older variant of DIRECT, but this should now become the new primary discussion thread.


I will start this thread by uploading the latest animation sequences.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/01/2009 03:48 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diD20nLA8YM
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Alpha Control on 06/01/2009 03:48 pm
Great to be here, and congratulations on the new animation. Can't wait to get home and see it.  Chuck, I beat you to the thread! :)

Edit: so much for being first!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 03:49 pm
MPEG 4 version.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/01/2009 03:51 pm
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.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 03:52 pm
WMV version.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Alpha Control on 06/01/2009 03:52 pm
Ross, thanks for the link to the "The Space Show". Looking forward to tuning in tomorrow night.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 03:57 pm
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.

It refers to the fact that the "barrel" section of the LOX tank is "extended" instead of using the Ogive section.


Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 06/01/2009 03:59 pm
Is there a summary of updates somewhere from 2.0 to 3.0?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 03:59 pm
Here are some more "treats" from Philip...

Enjoy,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/01/2009 04:04 pm
Love the detail in those renders. Very nice :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/01/2009 04:07 pm
I never tire of watching that video
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 06/01/2009 04:07 pm
Wallpaper, yum!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 04:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 06/01/2009 04:11 pm
Fantastic, Ross. Thank you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/01/2009 04:11 pm
Ross, very nice presentation.

Why is the "ET 8.4m Forward Skirt" there ? Is it a structural member to relieve the LOX tank from loads ? Why ? What are the implications ?
Is the LOX tank not a structural member ? (does not carry loads ?) Why ?

TIA.

 


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Alpha Control on 06/01/2009 04:12 pm
Beautiful images. The detailing is excellent, especially on the SSMEs and the EDS. They almost look like photos of an actual kit buildup.
Now where can I buy one? :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/01/2009 04:13 pm
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. 

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 04:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 04:25 pm
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.

Depending on how much heritage each part has, we have between 10% and 20% structural margins for every sub-element of the Core Stage design.   The Thrust Structure and Fwd Skirts are all-new, so those elements have full 20% margins.   In comparison, the LH2 tank domes are *very* similar to Shuttle's, so we're only using 10% margins for those structures.

And that is all in addition to meeting the basic 1.4 FS requirement.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/01/2009 04:25 pm
great job on the illustrations and goodluck with the review pannel DIRECT.

also :: somebody should update http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT after all the details are up at the DIRECT site.


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Stephan on 06/01/2009 04:28 pm
Do you plan to use the RL-10B-2 with noozles already extended ? The skirt seems long enough to allow that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 04:33 pm
Do you plan to use the RL-10B-2 with noozles already extended ? The skirt seems long enough to allow that.

No.   The nozzle is not designed or qualified to fly in the extended position during first-stage flight.

You also want it retracted to provide maximum clearances when jettisoning the Core/Interstage.   Retracted, there is plenty of space around the engines, but extended the Interstage gets pretty close to the nozzles as it falls away.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/01/2009 04:40 pm
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 ?
See, NASA Constellation's Ares I-X (yes, I know, anathema ! lol) has "a 14,000-pound forward skirt [] constructed entirely of the same kind of armored steel used on Abrams A-1 tanks and armored Humvees"

Jupiter's forward skirt is build of what ?

TIA again, (hope I'm not abusing your patience).

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/01/2009 04:43 pm
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. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/01/2009 04:45 pm
Also, what is a "Human Rated SSME" (meaning, is there a not-human-rated SSME) in the animation?  Made sense for RS-68, for SSME, not so much.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/01/2009 04:47 pm
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 to 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.

This may not work because it may not be possible to do Prox Ops with Orion with a big payload on its nose.  Having said this, the Russians may do something like this with their auto docking of the big modules.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/01/2009 04:52 pm
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

Would an ATV fit inside the Shroud? Could lift one basically "for free" if the case.  let it do it's own docking. 

Although long term, a seperate Pressure Shell for cargo would seem to be a better solution.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/01/2009 04:54 pm
Thanks for the updates Ross!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/01/2009 05:01 pm
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.

I thought about making ARSLM have an untended launch capability but that would mean a lot of extra avionics and more work on the software.  A dumb-dumb remote triggered auto-descent system is sufficient for an Orion-tended launch profile.

With reference to the two renders of 'exploded' Jupiter LVs, I have to say that the touch I like is the two little human figures in the bottom left corner.  It emphasises just how much bigger than the Apollo the Orion is.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/01/2009 05:04 pm
Updated the facebook group with some of the Direct 3.0 images and video:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=45545713366
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/01/2009 05:05 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/01/2009 05:16 pm
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.



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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 06/01/2009 05:17 pm
Two quick notes all.

These animations are primarily intended for a less sophisticated audience as a teaching tool. The engineering accuracy (hope you are all sitting down) is not the most important element. The primary purpose is to show how the SDLV transformation occurs. So as it relates to the forward skirt the most important "transitional" component here is to illustrate that we modify the ogive "tank top" to a "regular" top. For all intensive purpose to the lay person these are internal structures to the foam (which is visually what they know best) so we needed to show it removed and then replaced.

This philosophy carries through to the SSME's as well. I think we can all agree that a significant and commonly trumpeted issue is "what" and "what is not" man rated. So the use of "human rated" in the titling is simply a way of highlighting that the engines have in fact passed this gate.

I know there will be some holes and inconsistency's but in general the animation is simply trying to communicate a whole lot in a small amount of time.

Philip

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/01/2009 05:18 pm

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/01/2009 05:19 pm
I also like the inclusion of the alternative Ares names for the Jupiter vehicles, Ares 3 and Ares 4. I think it really shows that Jupiter is willing to work with Ares and provide a smooth transition from Ares 1 / Ares 5 to Direct.

Whether it was intentionally done to allow NASA to save some face or not, they can certainly do so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/01/2009 05:20 pm
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?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/01/2009 05:20 pm

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.  If the Delta needs foam that is a sign Jupiter needs foam.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/01/2009 05:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: psloss on 06/01/2009 05:23 pm
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.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/01/2009 05:29 pm
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.

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.

Speaking of which.. 
Ross... any further word on dropping vectoring control on SRB nozzles?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: John Duncan on 06/01/2009 05:30 pm
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.

Phenomenal job done by all!  It will be difficult to see the concept being ignored by the commision now, unless the fix is already in AGAIN.

Hopefully not.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Harlan on 06/01/2009 05:33 pm
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!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/01/2009 05:35 pm
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.


It would be nice to some day have a "Direct Evolution" image, similar to the Stick Evolution on here. It would be interesting to see how the baseline vehicles have evolved over the span of all this. I'm sure with all of the baseball cards it would be quite easy.
But right now I'm sure the Direct Team has a lot more to worry about, let the history books be written after.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/01/2009 05:38 pm
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 foam on the ET is the mehtod of insulating the tank from the ambient temperature.  Wtihout it the boil-off would be huge and given the tank is loaded about 12 hours prior to flight (could be less with a Jupiter-like vehicle but still significant time prior to T-0) you need some method of insulation. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 05:48 pm
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 ?

Its done that way purely for the purposes of keeping the animation sequence 'simple' and 'short'.

Furgedaboudit :)

Seriously though, the animation shows the LOX tank as one part, and then just to save time, "everything else" (foam covering, Fwd Skirt, Payload Interface etc. all come into the picture at the same time.   Obviously that isn't how manufacturing actually takes place!   LOL


Quote
Jupiter's forward skirt is build of what ?

Primary structural material for the panels is Al 2219.   There are some parts made from Al-Li 2090 too.   Essentially it will be somewhat similar to the current Interstage.   The Fwd Skirt area would also integrate the fittings for the upper Core Stage umbilical connections as well as the GOX re-pressurization lines and electrical cable tray too.

There's a fair bit of 'stuff' going on up there :)


Quote
TIA again, (hope I'm not abusing your patience).

Not at all :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 06:00 pm

Do you still need the foam now that the orbiter is gone?

Oh yes.   Deffinately.   You don't want chunks of ice falling down onto anything below.   Think about an ice collision with one of the Aft SRB Booster Separation Motors, or perhaps a large chunk of ice hitting the Aft SRB mountings?   Anything like that would make for a pretty bad day.


Quote
How much does the foam weigh?

TPS & TCS together mass ~1,884kg.

An ice layer would mass an awful lot more than that and you would carry quite a lot of it all the way up to some pretty high altitudes, so your performance would hurt.


Quote
I 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.

Simple rule:   You don't want anything falling of and hitting anything else.


Quote
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.

Don't think Delta does because it uses foam the same way as Shuttle.   But Atlas has a thin layer build up on its LOX tank (higher temp than LH2 tank).   Most of it is shed before Max-Q.   It is designed to handle it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 06:12 pm
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?

Correct.


Quote
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.

There is also the issue of having to pump LH2 "upwards" into the Shuttle's belly.   The bottom of the LH2 tank can't be very far below that point or your flow would run into some fairly significant problems.


Quote
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.

Not always.   You can actually relocate the attach point from the Fwd Skirt area of the SRB to the bottom of the Upper SRB Segment.   That technique is how the Shuttle Program intended to upgrade to 5-seg SRB's without changing the size of the ET.   Precisely the same technique could be done for Jupiter too.


Quote
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?

You are correct that 25% is not the right figure.   A full 'segment' is 320" long.   The LH2 barrel would have to stretch by that much.   The LOX tank would need a similar capacity increase too.   Together they would increase gross propellant capacity by about 278,826kg.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 06:21 pm
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.

Slight gimballing of one or more of the engines with provide the correction for the offset.

Its the exact same technique you'd have to use in the event of an engine-out situation.   So the capability would have to be developed into the avionics suite anyway -- as such, it's not an "additional" concern.

Our Marshall guys have already analyzed this in a fair bit of detail.   It turns out that if just one engine applies the counter-thrust, it would lose less than 1% of its performance, so the effect is essentially in the realm of 'noise'.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 06:26 pm
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!)

That all depends on the exact timing of the event.   If it happens early enough in the flight, while still in the thick atmosphere, then the need for a high Angle of Attack in the airflow would necessitate an abort, but that early in the flight, if you lose an engine the mission will be an LOM anyway.

Once out of the atmospheric effects, the Core and PLF structure is designed to handle a maximum AOA offset cause by such worst-case engine-out situations.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jarmumd on 06/01/2009 06:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 06:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/01/2009 06:53 pm
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.

To me, Jim, that is mainly an engineering issue.  Okay, a complex and likely very expensive engineering issue but just that nonetheless.  I'll let those who know more about shock absorbers and force mitigation to decide exactly how we are going to get old EXPRESS pallets, experimental results and the like down in one piece.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/01/2009 07:11 pm
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.

Seems this would significantly simplify fight software control logic and also reduce some integration work.. and as you say, one less thing that could fail and cause an LOM or LOC.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/01/2009 07:25 pm
...
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/01/2009 07:57 pm
...
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.



I found reference that suggests SSMEs can gimbal plus or minus 10.5 degrees..

What are the max Gimbal angles for an RS-68?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 08:03 pm
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.

We have some Orion engineers who have spent quite a lot of time analyzing this precise issue.

The attachment points aren't that much of a concern, because a mounting ring would support the Orion using the same points as at present on the 'wide' part of the SM.   As you say, there might possibly be a need for some slight re-design of the SM, but the structure right now appears to meet all of the different expected loads of a J-130 and J-246 flight already, without breaking the 1.4 FS.

This is because the structure is actually pretty strong already.   It has been designed to cope with the >1000psf Max-Q, 4-g acceleration and TO effects created by the Ares-I.

On Jupiter-130, to start with we fly through a much more benign flight environment (~700psf, 3.0g acceleration, no TO) so that reduces the loads considerably right out of the gate.

In addition, the SM is effectively removed from the load path, so it only has to support its own mass in tension.   From what we can tell so far, the design "as is" is plenty strong enough to support those different loads without change.


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.   If we could remove that load, future variants of the CM could be made a fair bit lighter.   So we are investigating ways of potentially taking the LAS mass loads through the BPC and straight into the PLF, bypass the CM structure altogether.   It's just a design exercise right now, but could offer some interesting advantages later.


For now, our priority is to create a situation where the Orion project can stop worrying about weight limitations, high Dynamic Load Environments and Thrust Oscillation-related issues entirely.   And coupled together with greater funding available sooner, they can hopefully press-on as swiftly as possible towards a much sooner IOC with no further delays.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/01/2009 08:07 pm
...
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.

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.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: pierre on 06/01/2009 08:33 pm
Would an ATV fit inside the Shroud? Could lift one basically "for free" if the case.  let it do it's own docking.

Yes, if Jupiter can lift an Altair (which is frakking huge!) then pretty much anything else can fit inside it.

You can probably put on it two fully-loaded ATVs side-by-side and an Orion on top: Jupiter 130 should happily handle them volume- and mass-wise.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/01/2009 08:38 pm
Ross & team: you all did a stellar job with that video & images. Thank-you so very much for all the hard work you obviously put into it.

Since I took a more in-depth view of this proposal long ago, I knew THIS architecture was the way to go. Simple and elegant. Bravo!!

Fingers crossed for this fall & the panel's findings.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/01/2009 08:48 pm
...
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/01/2009 09:03 pm
...
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.



I'm not sure I fully grasp where you're going with that so please correct me if I’m misinterpreting, but we have many trades ongoing that target several elements of the stack, including but not limited to the CM. It is of interest however, that in spite of its "relative" light weight, the CM is the only part of the entire stack that has to be accounted for mass-wise right from T-0 on the ground to "chutes deployed" when back in the atmosphere. Ten kilos saved off the CM are dramatically more effective for delta-V conservation for the overall mission than 10 kilos saved off the core for example, because it needs to accounted for all the way out and back, even to the size of the parachutes.

The key in intelligent mass reduction is to do it because it make sense, not because the booster in anemic. We do want to make the CM as light as possible, but not at the expense of such things as MMOD for example. An Orion fleshed out for a Jupiter flight would restore most of those systems that Ares left in the parking lot.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/01/2009 09:05 pm
...
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.




I think he's claiming that Direct is getting an "unfair" advantage as it can lift much more to orbit than necessary for any version of the CM.

Not seeing where the unfairness lies- if Direct has the lift capacity to push a "safer" Orion into orbit than the Aries I, why wouldn't one mention it, and consider that when choosing the launch vehicle?.

It's not as if the Direct folks were the ones deciding that such safety features, as originally designed, were unnecessary. In a rational world, the weight of the baseline Orion design, with all the bells and whistles included, would be the standard of measurement, and launch vehicles incapable of lifting it simply wouldn't be considered. Such as the Aries I, for instance. :)

Don't see this as a Direct issue at all. No siree.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/01/2009 09:10 pm
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.

That was lame :)

And when the CEV design crew sends written pleas to the LV design crew to please stop jacking them around by forcing round after round of CEV mass cuts to make up for the LV's ever-dwindling performance?

When safety systems that were judged needful for the full performance of the CEV are eliminated because the LV just can't hack the LV's specified performance?

(and as of the latest update. Ares-1 still can't do its job..)

The ability of Direct to restore the CEV to its designed functionality might embarrass the NASA admins... but it's certainly nothing for the Jupiter people at NASA to be ashamed of.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 06/01/2009 09:25 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: pierre on 06/01/2009 09:36 pm
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?

Yes, Ross wrote in another thread that the DIRECT team proposes to fly a man-rated Delta IV Heavy around 2014; the DIVH upper stage uses an RL-10B-2, so the Jupiter 246 upper stage will have it off the shelf in 2017 for the (hopefully) first flight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: duane on 06/01/2009 09:39 pm
Got a question about the aft thrust structure. You have 4 mount points for engines, and with a 3 engine setup the middle engine is not mounted in the center. I assume this is just to reduce costs etc

But, I was wondering if this 3 engine setup  induces  a imbalance in the thrust, and the engine opposite from the two paired together has to do any special gimbaling during ascent to compensate, or is this not a issue at all.

Just curious because it looked a bit odd, and was the first thing that caught my eye.

Thanks a bunch!
Duane
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/01/2009 09:40 pm
This question is answered on the first page of this thread

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17295.msg414447#msg414447
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/01/2009 09:40 pm
That was lame :)

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".

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: duane on 06/01/2009 09:53 pm
This question is answered on the first page of this thread

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17295.msg414447#msg414447

Whoops sorry about that, I guess I did not skim the thread very well.
Thanks

Duane
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rv_rocket on 06/01/2009 10:15 pm
The new Direct 3.0 material looks totally awesome! Thanks Ross and team! The graphics and video look incredible!
Best of luck with the commission too!

Go Direct Go!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/01/2009 10:25 pm

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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/01/2009 10:36 pm
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.

Ross.
By the way what would be the lifting capacity with just two SSME's?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/01/2009 10:53 pm
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.

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.

Could you please address this issue.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/01/2009 11:07 pm

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...


Bad kitty. No catnip for you tonight  :(
He has a legitimate position to take and is explaining it. Allow him to express his point of view and then we can all discuss it. After all, everyone ultimately wants the same thing - for NASA to be successful.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: pierre on 06/01/2009 11:34 pm
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.

I'm not part of the DIRECT team, but keep in mind that a regen and human-rated RS-68 costs more that the current garden-variety one and a disposable SSME can be gradually made cheaper than the current reusable ones. Near the end of "DIRECT v2.0 thread 3" (IIRC) Ross mentioned that the difference in cost is $5-10 million.

Moreover using SSMEs you also save the huge development costs for both the regen RS-68 and the J-2X.

Not to mention it's too late to use a human-rated regen RS-68 if we want to close the "gap".
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/01/2009 11:53 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/01/2009 11:55 pm
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

Common Extensible Cryogenic Engine (CECE), yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL-10#Common_Extensible_Cryogenic_Engine
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/01/2009 11:56 pm

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

Welcome to the forum Adam.

Ross has addressed this before, but I can fill in some details.

Aside from what was already posted, it also comes down to economies of scale: the more you make, the cheaper they are. So if you take an engine that's already man-rated, and tell them to double or triple production, the costs come down for each engine.

The current RS-68 cannot work as intended for Direct (or Ares V) due to base heating, so they needed a substitute that would work in a pinch: space shuttle SSME. Over time, they could try and reduce costs somewhat since they will be disposable, or bump up the performance above 104.5% to get a little extra kick. The beauty too with that (of the engine doesn't cato) is you have other engines you can use.

Also: $40M difference each is NOT going to break the bank in the short term compared to Ares-I or Ares V, let's be honest with ourselves.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/02/2009 12:12 am
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.

Ross.
By the way what would be the lifting capacity with just two SSME's?


This is the baseball card for J-120, to an ISS-aligned orbit:-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/BaseballCards/J120-41.4000.08100_CLV_30x100nmi_51.6deg_090521.pdf (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/BaseballCards/J120-41.4000.08100_CLV_30x100nmi_51.6deg_090521.pdf)

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/02/2009 12:16 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/02/2009 12:48 am
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.

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


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/02/2009 12:50 am
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.

wannamoonbase
There were 10 Saturn-I flights before the J-2 came online.
The last 6 all had an upper stage that was powered by a cluster of 6 RL-10 engines.
All six stages functioned properly and placed the payload into the intended orbit.
NASA was *extremely* pleased with the performance of this stage *and* the RL-10 cluster.
In addition, they are already planning to use the RL-10 to power the Altair descent stage (see above).
They would be very hard pressed to explain why they liked it then but not anymore, especially when it will take a FULL lunar spec Orion and Altair to the moon and back, with margin. What's not to love?
Cheers
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jeff.findley on 06/02/2009 12:55 am
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.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/02/2009 12:57 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/02/2009 12:59 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 06/02/2009 01:00 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/02/2009 01:01 am
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.

Thanks
I think it would be a little hypocritical of NASA to bemoan a cluster of 6 RL-10s when every time they rode Soyuz with the Russians they went up on a cluster of *20* engines on the 1st stage!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/02/2009 01:02 am

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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/02/2009 01:06 am
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. There is no middle ground. It's not like a 6 engine cluster of proven RL-10s is something novel and untried. They've already flown it - 6 times with a 100% success rate!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/02/2009 01:07 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/02/2009 01:08 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/02/2009 01:13 am
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 ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/02/2009 01:16 am
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 was talking about with SSMEs, as is in-context for this thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kcrick on 06/02/2009 01:19 am

Just got finished watching the video. Fantastic!!

Love the artwork too!  More Direct wallpaper!

Good luck with the Augustine commission!

Kevin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/02/2009 01:34 am
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.  Redirect the corporate welfare to ATK from development to production.  They will certainly still get their money.

Edit: Too many ripple effects (costs) on other components too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/02/2009 01:39 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/02/2009 01:43 am
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.

I don't know - it was already at least partially developed and tested for STS years ago.

Quote
Edit: Too many ripple effects (costs) on other components too.

Name some, because I don't see them.

EDIT:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster#Five-segment_booster
They were going to add it right to the existing Shuttle stack, so impacts on other components must be pretty minimal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/02/2009 02:10 am
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.

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

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: luke strawwalker on 06/02/2009 02:49 am




Quote
I 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!  :) 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: luke strawwalker on 06/02/2009 03:20 am

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...

Man that's an awesome looking piece of machinery...  gorgeous!  So the JUS would be about 6 feet more in diameter, and a bit longer I take it, and use the same (6) RL-10 cluster only with the newer extendable nozzles?? 

Awhile back somebody posted a link to the specs and history of the S-IV stage, maybe from astronautix or something??  Can someone repost that link??  TIA!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 06/02/2009 03:42 am
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.

No, they would have to admit nothing of the sort. It matters not one bit what risks the astronauts themselves are willing to sign up to, if the surrounding society has become risk-averse. Like I said, you do what you have to do to make the beating stop. This is a bigger issue than the RL-10.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: CFE on 06/02/2009 03:58 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/02/2009 08:53 am
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.


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?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 09:04 am
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?


There are two factors to consider:

1) ULA believe that the Delta-IV Heavy can be human-rated (including both RS-68 and RL-10B-2 human-rating) for somewhere about $500m in less than 4 years.   DIRECT is allocating a 100% margin to that cost figure and is setting aside $1 billion to complete that effort -- and we don't really need the engine until 2016/17, so we have plenty of additional time too.   We don't think that's a very demanding schedule.

2) There are explicit clauses in NASA's documentation which allow for systems with proven flight experience to be "qualified" as human-rated simply because of their previously demonstrated reliability.   In particular, the clause regarding 1.4 Factor of Safety is one clearly mentioned which can be waived if the hardware in question has a sufficiently well-proven history under its belt already.   My question is this:    If RL-10 doesn't fit this clause, what would?   I can't think of many pieces of hardware which have a longer record of success compared to RL-10.   Many more of them have flown than even the venerable SSME's or SRB's.


Now, I don't mena in any way to diminish the fact that all hardware which isn't currently human-rated, but which is intended for human use, is going to have to have to face the rigors of a full re-qualification effort anyway.

That process is a multi-year effort and isn't a cheap, nor is it an easy one.   But RL-10 has already proven how reliable it is over a 40-year long period flying on all sorts of vehicles from Atlas to Delta, to Titan and even Saturn and Shuttle.   Given that excellent history, I for one don't believe RL-10 will have too many problems vaulting this hurdle.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 06/02/2009 09:15 am

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...

Ha! That's fantastic!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 09:38 am
...
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 ?

I'm out of my depth with that question.   It *sounds* about right from what I've heard previously, but I'm working on old conversations from over a year ago.   I'll have to check with the guys actually working that side of things to see what the current state of play is.


Quote
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.

The J-130 certainly has sufficient performance to allow Orion to grow quite a lot (+50mT anyone?) and still successfully perform ISS missions.   Similarly, the 2-launch J-246 Lunar Architecture has sufficient reserves to allow for a fair bit of growth there too -- although not quite as much (+4mT or so).

There are a whole list of items which have been "left in the parking lot" of the Orion's design at present.   There is sufficient performance to add a number of those items back into the design, either immediately, or as part of a Block upgrade some time after IOC/FOC.

Now, whether you could add those same items and still have a spacecraft able to be launched by anything else, well that depends upon the specific launcher's performance envelope.

By all accounts the performance margins on Ares-I would not allow for any of the heavier items (land landing airbags for instance) to be re-integrated into Orion's design.

Could Delta-IV Heavy or Atlas-V?   Our information (confirmed by Aerospace Corps review) actually says the current Delta-IV Heavy could lift the current Orion but would probably need its RS-68A upgraded main engines (due FY2012) before it will be able to lift a heavier, upgraded Orion.   Similarly, Atlas-V Heavy could certainly lift an upgraded Orion too.

At this point I have no clue whether Falcon-9 Heavy would ever be able to loft Orion.   It's simply too soon to tell with any degree of confidence, but if the vehicle attains the planned performance, and especially if Space-X does develop their LH2/LOX Upper Stage, I would think it probably would have sufficient performance to loft a heavier Orion.


I don't really see why it is a question of being 'fair' to point out that Ares-I won't be able to lift an upgraded Orion when all the other systems seem able to.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 10:00 am
Hi, I am new to this forum, so please forgive any inadvertent mistakes.

Stan,
Welcome to the forum, you'll find it is a great resource for *everything* space-related, not just DIRECT stuff.   Enjoy it!


Quote
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.

Agreed.


Quote
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.

What people don't realise is that the $60m figure which so often gets thrown around for the SSME is actually based upon a very limited production run of just three units in one contract.

Just building three units of anything is a very inefficient way to pay for them because it doesn't allow the producer to spread-out the set-up or production costs much.   You really want a production line to make a lot more units if you can, but in the case of the Space Shuttle Program this high cost was acceptable because the program only needed 3 units due to the fact that each engine was going to get re-used so many times.

If you decided to put the SSME into "mass production", say at least 12 per year, you can get that per-unit price down a *LOT*.   The cost for totally standard SSME Block-IIA units, as flown on Shuttle, could drop to more like $40m per unit in the production numbers we need for the early Jupiter program (averaging 16/yr thru ~2017).

By the time we really start to ramp-up the Jupiter Program though (we're aiming to fly twelve Jupiter 24x's per year = 48 SSME's per year), around 2020, we would like to get a cheaper, expendable variant developed to drop that cost to more like $30m per unit.


Now, the current RS-68 (non-Human-Rated , 102% Thrust, Ablative Nozzle) costs around $15m each for Delta-IV.

The RS-68B variant which NASA wanted to use for Ares-V (Human Rated, 108% Thrust, Ablative Nozzle) was to cost a little over $20m per unit.   But the Base Heating effect means that engine is unworkable for that vehicle.

Ares-V now has to use a Regeneratively Cooled Nozzle to survive the Base Heating Environment.   That limits the choices to either go to SSME like we have, or to choose to re-develop the RS-68 into a Regen system.   The version they would need would be the RS-68 Regen (Human Rated, 108% Thrust, Regen Nozzle) and it is expected to cost around $25m each.


So the final difference in cost between the two "target" engines is actually pretty small.

The biggest difference is that we have one extra main engine (+$35m) on each Jupiter Core Stage than we were planning when we were using RS-68's.   That is a cost penalty, but we are offsetting some of that difference by removing the higher-cost J-2X from the Upper Stage and replacing it with a cluster of much smaller and lower-cost RL-10's instead.   Overall, the increase per flight is now pretty minimal, but more importantly -- acceptable.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 10:23 am
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.

That limitation is more to do with PWR than with NASA IMHO (crikey, these acronyms are getting silly...)

Let me show you how this actually needs to be handled -- from the 40,000ft level at least, noting that the devil is always in the details.   To put it in the most basic terms possible, but each contractor will fight very very hard, bringing all their Senators, House members and lobbyists to bear in order to ensure that they receive what they consider to be a "fair share" of the program.

In this case, PWR will be "denied" the J-2X development money and the RS-68B development money, so they will want something in return or you can bet your bottom dollar they will fight tooth-and-nail against any such plan.

I therefore present you with the following to make up the difference:

1) A human-rating program for Delta-IV's engines (RS-68A and RL-10B-2)
2) A nice lucrative contract to re-develop the SSME over the next decade into a disposable unit
3) An architecture aiming to ultimately need 48 SSME's each year plus 72 RL-10's each year.

Result:   PWR makes just as much money from this plan, perhaps even slightly more.   Thus PWR are willing to sign-on and all their Senators, House representatives and Lobbyists then start to fight *for* the change.


No, this is not Utopian.   Nobody ever said dealing with large corporations and central government programs had anything to do with Utopia.   We don't live in Utopia -- we're going to need a really robust space program to be able to go find that world... :)

Like it or not, this is just the slightest bit of insight into how you actually need to plan things out if you ever want to really get things done instead of simply dreaming about them -- and I really am only just barely skimming the surface here.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/02/2009 10:27 am
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.

IMHO, J-2X has too much thrust for a lunar-class upper stage.  It performs more like a first stage engine for a smaller LV -- Ariane 5 Vulcain, for example.

Is a single-engine upper stage really a good idea?  I would think that, in an ideal world, designers would want 3-5 engines on the upper stage to balance engine-out capability with mass/cost.

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.

RL-60 fully exploits the per-nozzle thrust potential of the efficient and simple expander cycle.  It's the most powerful cryogenic engine that doesn't need a separate combustion chamber for propellant delivery.

With RL-60, the upper stage has four engines, which in my view is preferable to either one engine or six engines.  The descent stage can use one RL-60, preferably with upper stage LOI.

As for the ascent stage, that has always seemed to me like a job for pressure-fed hypergolics, perhaps an AJ-10, just like the Orion SM, and for much the same reasons.

The RL-10 is a fine upper stage engine, but because it produces less than half the potential thrust of the expander cycle, its thrust to mass ratio suffers.

One doesn't need a spreadsheet to figure out that, of the available options, RL-60 has both the highest specific impulse and the highest thrust to mass ratio, and therefore will give the best performance.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 10:33 am

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.

I agree with you.   RL-60 also has a lot of application beyond NASA too.   Both EELV's could use it, the Japanese wanted it for their H-II as well, and it would probably make for a really good unit to power a cryo US for Falcon 9 Heavy too.   If Jupiter and all those were to use it, the production costs would get real interesting :)

The only problem is if the budget really is going to be as tight as it is shaping up to be, "use what you've got now" is going to become an ever-more important refrain for us all to have in the back of our minds.

IMHO, the lowest "programmatic" risk approach is to implement an RL-10 solution first, and then *IF* you have sufficient budget down the road a bit, you can still implement an "upgrade" later.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 10:45 am
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.

I think I saw a figure around 7.2m a while back.   I'll have to go find it again.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 10:48 am
It really stands out as an efficient ISS vehicle. Just two SSME's and a core tank.

Don't forget the SRB's! :)


Quote
I guess with ~20mT of margin (ie just Orion) that would maximise the engine-out. When does engine-out become available with this vehicle?

Without additional payload?   No idea, I haven't seen those analysis yet.

With ~20mT of additional payload, the SSME/J-120 doesn't have much engine-out capability at all, only really in the last 60 seconds of the ascent.

That's one of the many reasons why we lean more favourably towards the J-130 configuration -- the extra engine not only gives you significantly greater performance, it also give you a lot more abort capability too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/02/2009 11:16 am
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

IMHO, the best way to play this is to push the RL-10 as an initial 'interim' solution as part of the "simple, safer, sooner" paradigm.  You have S-IV heritage on your side.  This arragement is largely a known quantity and a flown configuration (although the numbers will need to be 'tweaked' a little for the A- and B-families).  You get your 100t payload HLLV quickly.

However, you also continue J-2X and 5-seg RSRM as upgrade paths for the J-2xx.  Not only does that keep Marshall, MSFC and ATK happy but could ultimately lead to further cost reductions and performance improvements.  Even if neither are ultimately adopted (a decision at least five years away at Orion IOC), you at least keep the jobs for now, something that will please Messrs Nelson, Shelby, et al.

IMHO, RL-60 should be focussed primarily as an EELV upgrade, with the ultimate goal of a 'Centaur-II' family of common upper stages based on it.  An RL-60-based EDS could also easily be used in concert with JS-130 and Orion to service an EML-1 transit station without needing an Altair for LOI, should that ever become a part of NASA's plans.  Ultimately, unless I've misread ULA's materials, there should be a Delta-IVH-Max configuration, with RS-68A, SRBs and RL-60 that should have close to the same performance to ISS as JS-130, which should give even greater launcher redundancy for manned LEO options.

On the subject of J-2X, I undersand that the estimated performance figures have taken a hit recently, causing the Ares-V team more headaches.  To what point would J-2X's performance have to decay where you would need to consider a 2 x J-2X upper stage powerplant again?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Hermit on 06/02/2009 11:23 am
Hi,
Leroy Chiao, one of the members of the Augustine Panel has invited the public to post suggestions regarding the future of HSF on his blog at: http://leroychiao.blogspot.com/

He sounds open minded and it would probably be worthwhile to show him just how much support Direct 3.0 has.

See his post from Monday June 1st.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/02/2009 11:32 am
He sounds open minded and it would probably be worthwhile to show him just how much support Direct 3.0 has.

Not automatically a bad idea, but let's try avoid SPAMming the poor guy, okay? ;)

[EDIT:]

FWIW, here is the text of the comment that I left.  I tried to be as professional and as complete as possible:

Quote
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

Yes, I did say: "interact directly with some of the team".  Ross, Chuck and Philip don't have problems answering questions from Mr. Augustine and his colleagues do they? ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/02/2009 12:24 pm


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...

True, but if my memory hasn't completely shorted out, no MANNED Saturn flew in that configuration. As soon as they had the J-2, they switched to it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/02/2009 12:24 pm
Hi I'm new to this forum too. I won't pretend, I don't know all that much about rocketry, I'm just an undergrad physics and economics major. Direct seems like really good, well thought out stuff, that must be important if so many people would devote so much time with little to no funding to a project.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/02/2009 01:07 pm
If avionics is one of the long poles for the (unmanned) J-130, why not leverage existing hardware (http://www.lolife.com/2008/11/prelude-iphone-rocket/).

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: John Duncan on 06/02/2009 01:24 pm


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





Hey, those are nice!  I'll have to print that out and look it over.

Thanks!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 01:26 pm
Hi I'm new to this forum too.

Welcome to the site cixelsyD, (Nice name BTW!)


Quote
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.

The cost profiles for all the engines follow a traditional "Learning Curve", where there is a large "fixed" cost for setting up the production line and paying all the salaries, and then there is a smaller per-unit "variable" cost.   I've attached a chart which roughly details the current costs for all three engines we're talking about here, just for reference.

As you can see, if the fixed costs can only be amortized across a very small number of production units per year, the individual product costs are pretty steep -- for all of the solutions.   They all start to level-off around a dozen units per year and only gradually drop from there onward.

Not since the start of the Shuttle program have SSME's been produced in the 'flat' part of this curve.   But there's no reason why they can't be.

The published RS-68's costs ($15m each) are all based on an assumption of 6x Delta-IV's and 4x 5-engine Ares-V's per year = 26 units per year.   Add the extra costs for a human-rated Regen variant and this is where you end up.

This is why it is SO important to always question what the yardstick is.   Because if you don't know that, you will always be comparing Apples and Oranges -- in this case most people accidentally end up comparing the cost of SSME's at 3 per year vs. the cost of RS-68's at 26 per year.


Quote
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.

That will all depend upon the available budget down the road.

Though personally, I want to see us fund more missions which can produce real *results* instead of simply funding development work just for the sakes of "make work".

As for Mars -- A Jupiter-246 can lift 100 tons of *dry* spacecraft to LEO at the start of a mission.   With a Depot architecture, that 100 ton spacecraft could then be topped-off with 500 tons of propellant (for both TMI and MOI) and you never need to develop any new launch vehicle hardware at all.

Its not the launch vehicle which really improves your capabilities, its the introduction of the Depot architectures which really open-up virtually unlimited capability for missions to NEO's, Mars, Jovian or Saturn destinations.

The one exception to that, IMHO, is some form of in-space nuclear propulsion system.   That is a development path which would offer a potentially enormous step-up in capability.   If we're going to improve the vehicles 10, 20 or 30 years down the road, that's the way to really go -- if the budget allows.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/02/2009 02:07 pm
So what is the plan, if any, for the Augustine Commission?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/02/2009 02:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 02:25 pm
Right now, we are waiting for an official invite to present to them.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/02/2009 02:42 pm
Right now, we are waiting for an official invite to present to them.

Ross.

And if it doesn't come?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/02/2009 03:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/02/2009 03:24 pm
Right now, we are waiting for an official invite to present to them.

Ross.

And if it doesn't come?

If the Augustine Commission fails to incorporate a substantive evaluation of the Direct 3.0 architecture into its deliberations - in a transparent fashion - its final report shall deserve (and will receive IMHO) far less credibility and political support than it would otherwise receive and going forward thereafter, NASA shall have a more difficult time rallying public support.

A candid, transparent honest evaluation is all that I am referring to (or seek) combined with a vigorous rejection of arguments premised on fait accompli.
 
This observation is also true for every other significant architecture option out there, including the leverage capabilities found in ISRU and propellant depots, and the need to integrate commercial opportunities and non-US participants into the VSE. 

To do otherwise shall undermine the political viability of the VSE and shall damage NASA as an agency.

To avoid these bad consequences, we should all endeavor to spread the idea that closed minds will not build the  political consensus needed to sustain NASA in the years and decades to come while doing this as politely and professionally as possible. 

= = =

As for Team Direct (of which I am merely a fan-boy) if it becomes apparent that they shall be frozen out of the process, the insiders should deliberate amongst themselves in strict confidence concerning how to best handle that situation and then act at a time and place and in a manner of their own choosing -- without telling us first (as much as I would love to eavesdrop on those conversations).

Hopefully, it won't come to that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/02/2009 03:27 pm
Thank you Ross for your very thorough response. Is there an equivilant forum someplace for the Ares program I wonder?

How does Direct 3 change your plans for test flights? As Constellation progresses and nears closer to when it first services the ISS, that makes switching to direct less viable, would you happen to know an approximation for when it would be too late to switch? In your Direct 2.0 timeline you already have a test article delivered to KSC in May 2009, now an impossiblity since no decision to switch to Direct has been made.

The Augustine commission delivers in late August I believe? Does that give you plenty of time to develop and test?

Edit: Also, when will the direct site be updated with Direct 3? I'd love to read through the presentation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 06/02/2009 03:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/02/2009 04:03 pm
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?

I get your point, but the entire DIRECT approach seems to be make as few changes to the existing STS stack as possible.

Maybe it is an easy (in the grand scheme of things) modification, but it isn't needed *right now* to close the targets.

Why complicate things more than you have to right now?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 04:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Yegor on 06/02/2009 04:51 pm

What is "SSME Bk-IIA" and "SSME Bk-III"?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/02/2009 05:12 pm
what % thrust are SSMEs being run at?
given  no re-use could they be pushed higher?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/02/2009 05:42 pm

What is "SSME Bk-IIA" and "SSME Bk-III"?

Short answer:

SSME BK-IIA = Space Shuttle Main Engine Block IIA (current model)

The Block III is a proposed update to the current version- I don't remember offhand if the Block III is designed for lower costs or better performance.

Direct 3.0 only requires the current Block IIA version to get the job done.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/02/2009 06:01 pm
what % thrust are SSMEs being run at?
given  no re-use could they be pushed higher?

I believe that it's still 104%, same as current shuttle engine practice.

Good question, I have no idea. If only there were a rocket scientist nearby...  ;D

But, I think it's safe to say that Direct 3.0 has enough spare lift capacity for J-130 that the extra thrust isn't needed, or desired for safety reasons during the normal flight regimes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/02/2009 06:08 pm
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.

If Jupiter 246 flies, I expect the Jupiter family to fly as long or longer than the Shuttle itself (40 years as of April 2011). I would expect to see things like simplifcation of SSME and development of a follow-on upper stage engine (RL-60 or J-2X, perhaps). But if it just flies, it will give us a lot of options. Affordable or not, 40 years of Saturn V would have meant a different space program across the board. I always like to imagine one of the proposals, an unmanned Mars lander probe the size of the LM, actually having happened in the 1970s.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/02/2009 06:13 pm
It'll be 30 years in April 2011, not 40.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: psloss on 06/02/2009 06:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/02/2009 06:28 pm
It'll be 30 years in April 2011, not 40.

I knew I should've taken off my shoes before attempting that calculation...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/02/2009 06:43 pm
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.


Ah interesting- The current baseball cards show Block IIA for some reason.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/02/2009 07:06 pm
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.


Jupiter has multiple tweaks which could improve performance (5-seg SRB's & a core stretch give about 30% IIRC).

Apollo ended up needing a much larger vehicle than they'd expected. Since DIRECT is designed to close the mission without needing those tweaks, they make great growth options if it turns out extra performance is required. It's also quicker & cheaper to develop if you don't have to make unnecessary changes, and they can always be added in a block II or block III version.

DIRECT is littered with margins and growth options - one of it's strongest features.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/02/2009 08:10 pm
It'll be 30 years in April 2011, not 40.

I knew I should've taken off my shoes before attempting that calculation...

Depends if you count from the date of design or first flight.  I use to use first flight.  But the longer I'm an engineer the more I prefer design.  So I think your closer to 40 than 30. 

Some of the switches on the flight deck are probably closer to 50.

Can't not 100% right or wrong by going either way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/02/2009 08:37 pm
what % thrust are SSMEs being run at?
given  no re-use could they be pushed higher?

1) Currently the SSME runs at 104.5% thrust.

2) Somewhere back in the old Direct threads, Ross had indicated tests donw on the SSME which went up to at least 109% IIRC, and passed without issue. All that happens is you reduce life expectancy on certain components. Since they aren't destined to be reused anyway on Jupiter, they could easily attain that, probably more.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tnphysics on 06/02/2009 08:57 pm
What is the maximum power level the SSMEs could be run at,considering that they will not be reused?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: GraphGuy on 06/02/2009 09:00 pm
What is the maximum power level the SSMEs could be run at,considering that they will not be reused?

Probably the standard 109% max, otherwise you would need to requalify them, etc.  Not worth it and Jupiter doesn't need the extra thrust in the first place.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/02/2009 09:02 pm
The wikipedia article on the SSME has pretty good info on the throttle capabilities, as well as links to NASA's press kit. The press kit is pretty technical, and has detailed list of the upgrades to the SSME on page 4. The release is old enough that the Block II engines weren't in service at that time, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine

http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/scom/216.pdf

109% thrust is doable, and has been tested. In fact, the second reference document on the Wikipedia page is NASA's 1993 report of the SSME Assessment team, http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930012456_1993012456.pdf , and it states that 109% thrust is part of the design.

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.

So the maximum rate for the SSME's is not the same as the maximum safe rate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: psloss on 06/02/2009 09:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 06/02/2009 09:57 pm
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.


Indeed, the report lists the Pratt & Whitney turbopumps as "proposed improvements" in the table of contents, so it seems pretty clear to me that this assessment of 109% throttle was performed assuming the old turbopumps.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tnphysics on 06/02/2009 10:04 pm
Okay, so what is the maximum safe power for the Jupiter?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tnphysics on 06/02/2009 10:18 pm
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.



Interesting. I thought that the extra mass that had to be carried through LOI would kill the performance.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: pierre on 06/02/2009 11:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 11:22 pm
tnphysics,
We are assuming 104.5% is the maximum for all Jupiter's.   That allows for emergency use of the 109% setting if ever required due to an in-flight anomaly.

It is possible that at some point in the future, the 109% setting might be sufficiently qualified for regular use on cargo-only flights though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2009 11:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/03/2009 12:08 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/03/2009 12:40 am
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?

Oooh - new thread partys over so soon? Back to buisness?  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: psloss on 06/03/2009 12:49 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/03/2009 12:56 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/03/2009 12:57 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/03/2009 01:00 am
Well once Direct 3.0 is officially launched, it is as simple as visiting Directlauncher.com and downloading the presentation. However, the best way to get the data they need to go right to the source, ie meet with the Direct Team in person.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/03/2009 01:11 am
I'm not too worried about that since one of the members has a blog and many people have posted links and support comments for Direct. I'm pretty sure the commission won't ignore Direct if they know about it. Direct is quite clearly at the forefront of alternatives to Ares I/V, and will IMHO be a main subject of the panel.

I think the main questions the commission will face are the viability of switching, whether Direct or Ares will truly meet stated requirements. Perhaps it will even try to hammer out a compromise between the two teams. I'm very optimisitic about the commission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rsp1202 on 06/03/2009 01:20 am
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.


That's correct. G12 was launched after Agena.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/03/2009 01:21 am


(http://www.apollomissionphotos.com/104ksc66pc340.jpg)

This sort of thing *has* been done before.

Ross.

Nope, photoshop.  There haven't been simultaneous space launches
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/03/2009 01:50 am
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 agree with you Gladiator and Mars.. right now is NOT the time to be a day late and dollar short!

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. 

Someone out there a magician with web sites and getting data loaded? 
DIRECT team seems like they could really use some more help on the outside.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/03/2009 01:58 am

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. 


I'm sorry, but I don't know how you can say that.

Consider this: If they had released the rebuttal WAY back when Griffin left (to be assured it was met with favourable eyes), it would be buried in a pile.

The new administrator, the one who truly needs to see this at first glance, may not be confiremd for another month.

The same goes for the Augustine panel. I have no doubt Direct will have it's day in the limelight, and on that day it will be ready for the world to see. Just in the nick of time will do nicely.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tnphysics on 06/03/2009 02:15 am
Is their a way to use the excess CLV lift capacity without propellant transfer, other than using elliptical orbits?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/03/2009 02:25 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: DigitalMan on 06/03/2009 02:25 am
Ross, I know you've done lots of graphs on cost comparisons, however, considering the questions about cost that come up regularly, is there a breakdown in the new presentation such as:

1) Components that will be used as is, no changes whatsoever

2) Components that have to be altered

3) New components

4) Requalification efforts

5) ?

There is also the changes to infrastructure to consider.  A simple, clear table with a side-by-side comparison of the vehicles (including Ares) showing where the components come from and where the $$$ and time are needed can eliminate a lot of potential doubts (or at least restrict them to components that aren't already flying and well proven).  Even if you plan to keep costs in a separate presentation an at-a-glance table could be easier to grasp even though these concepts are discussed throughout the 2.0 presentation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/03/2009 02:35 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Andy USA on 06/03/2009 03:13 am
Thank you Ross for your very thorough response. Is there an equivilant forum someplace for the Ares program I wonder?


Yes here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=collapse;c=3;sa=collapse;#3 Top section is Ares, second section is Orion, third section is Ares V and Lunar. Your currently in the four section, which is for alternatives.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/03/2009 03:35 am
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 that

Quote
A 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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 04:14 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Gregori on 06/03/2009 04:44 am
I have a stupid question about the upper stage.....

Are the RL-10 engines restartable in space like the J2X?

Do they need to be restartable?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 04:48 am
There are no stupid questions! :)

Yes, RL-10's are already designed to be re-startable.

And yes, they will need to be.   A typical Lunar EDS missions would need them to burn once to complete the launch, injecting the Upper Stage/Payload into circular Low Earth Orbit.   Then they will loiter there for some time (up to 5 days in some situations), and they will then need to then perform the TLI Burn as well.

One of our alternative architecture options also uses them to "brake" into Lunar Orbit as well, so in that particular scenario they would actually see them being used three times.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 04:53 am
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']
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/03/2009 04:54 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 05:09 am
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.

DIRECT intends to use Delta-IV Heavy starting in 2014/15 for lifting routine crew rotation missions to ISS.   (Note: We chose DIVH for a number of reasons, but one of which is because its upper stage is larger than the current Centaur and thus has a greater potential "throw" capability -- and we want to use that on top of Jupiter-130 for some very specific missions).

We are designing the Jupiter-130 to be able to do crew+cargo missions to ISS, but we expect to really only need those for a handful of missions around 2012-2015.   The key intention of using these early flights is as a "stepping stone" to enable us to transition the Shuttle workforce smoothly across the "gap" and into the Exploration Program more effectively.

Because the human-rated EELV schedule doesn't affect many jobs, the priority for us is to expedite the SDLV system as much as possible.


We ultimately intend that the primary focus of the Jupiter systems will move to 'beyond LEO' missions after 2015/16 though, although the capabilities in LEO will still prove useful from time to time (Hubble Servicing Mission #6, anyone?).

We wish to phase most ISS duties over to EELV/COTS systems around 2015 or so, with only the odd Jupiter delivering any required "big stuff" to ISS only once every few years after that.


In addition to ISS duties, we intend to provide a lot of work to the EELV-class systems around 2018/19/20 to begin delivering some pretty serious quantities of propellant to an orbiting Depot in LEO, in support of 'advanced' HSF Exploration missions.

I'm talking about somewhere around 400-600 metric tons of LH2/LOX being delivered to LEO every year, so that would require a *lot* of EELV-class flights.   There's a great opportunity there to get all the commercial operators to really compete for those contracts -- and that sort of competition is good for everyone.

The same Depot arrangement opens the door for foreign partners to also 'buy' seats and payload mass on missions heading to the Moon, Mars or Beyond too.   And all nations who don't have their own space programs would need to contract for Propellant Deliveries on the world launch services market -- and US companies can compete for that business as well!

We believe this is a pretty good model which combines all the strengths of SDLV, EELV and COTS systems into one unified program and "spreads the wealth" quite fairly to everyone.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/03/2009 05:19 am
Understood.  Thanks for the response, Ross.  I think the 'synergy' of various factors/currently operational capabilities may well come into play as NASA 'gets managed past the ESAS'
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TranquillityBase on 06/03/2009 06:00 am
Just finished reading ithe ISDC Direct presentation.

Well done Ross, Chuck and Co. 

I liked the structure and the way you tackled the NIH syndrome head on.  Anyone not familiar with what Direct offers, must, after reading this, question the folly of Ares!

Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 06:10 am
Over on the DIRECT v2.0 thread, I just noticed Jon posted the below comment.

If there is anything else there which I've missed, please re-ask it here.

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

In this precise architecture, yes, it seems to.

We're getting 17,084kg landed payload to the Lunar surface using the 'regular' EOR-LOR LSAM-does-LOI approach and we're getting 19,147kg using the alternative EOR-LOR EDS-does-LOI approach.

Even more interestingly, the Descent Module is roughly half the size too -- and that solves an awful lot of Landing Stability and Cargo-Unloading problems as well.

We are still "growing" our confidence levels with this approach, but it seems pretty solid.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/03/2009 06:11 am
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".
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 06:29 am
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".

That's an incredibly fine line to tread.   And yes, I know we've stepped over it a few more times than we would have liked.   But I would venture to say that it has been much harder to avoid offending *anyone* than it is to design the darn rocket! :)

Seriously though, you're right to point that out.

We do try to minimize it as much as possible, but sometimes there is no real alternative to get the message clearly across except to draw comparisons and point out certain flaws -- and that's a process which will *always* make some folk very uncomfortable.   Its unavoidable in the situation we're in.


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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: DustinD on 06/03/2009 07:26 am
Thank you for the preview kraisee.

Edit - I found the answer to my question.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 06/03/2009 08:45 am
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.   

Ok!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: joncz on 06/03/2009 10:14 am

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"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/03/2009 10:30 am
Here's a probably dumb question that pertains equally to Shuttle and all SDVs:

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? Particularly for the SRBs, are the attach points located where they are relative to overall SRB length, or could you add segments above the existing attach points?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/03/2009 10:33 am
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 ;).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/03/2009 10:34 am
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/03/2009 11:05 am
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.

Ross,

Luckily I knew the venue was "The Space Show" and was able to Google for it.

I caught the last half of the show, and you were very eloquent and handled skeptical questioners with aplomb.  Practice makes perfect!

Since I missed the first half of the show, I don't know if you covered the following point.  Many of the callers were challenging you about how DIRECT could possibly be so much more affordable and capable than ARES.  I didn't hear you put forward my favorite aspect of DIRECT: that you are replacing two separate, duplicative, and entirely new development efforts (Ares-I and Ares-V) with the evolution of an existing launcher (Shuttle) into a new inline configuration (Jupiter-130).

I think DIRECT would be entirely justified in calling Jupiter an evolution or adaptation of existing Shuttle technology, rather than a new development effort, much more so than Ares can claim.  Ares is designed to look like it is Shuttle derived, but there really is very very little carried over.  On the other hand, DIRECT uses the same boosters, the same main engines, as much of the same ET as possible, and almost all of the existing tooling and infrastructure.  Ares can't claim any of those commonalities, and they're doing it twice!

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/03/2009 12:19 pm
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']

NICE
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/03/2009 12:36 pm
Very impressed with the presentation. GREAT JOB!


BTW: Appendix Slide 77 still references J-120 and J-232..
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/03/2009 01:00 pm
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?


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mnewcomb on 06/03/2009 02:13 pm
Guys, this is just an incredible piece of work. The presentation is put together extremely well and is very clear with regard to what can be achieved.

I especially love how the SSMEs pop right out of the shuttle and get placed on the bottom the external tank.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/03/2009 02:14 pm
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?

Two reasons;

1. Avoid competing directly with the same lift-class as the EELVs.  Jupiter doesn't want to be the full-time LEO ferry rocket for ISS missions.  It wants to "aim higher".

2. 2-engine SSME variant does not have very robust engine-out capabilities.  That extra engine gets you more contingency options and safety.

Edit: Typo.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: usn_skwerl on 06/03/2009 02:25 pm
Excellent presentation, guys! That really does put things into perspective. Save me a seat on Orion would ya? I don't want to fly on Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/03/2009 02:31 pm
Awesome presentation! That timeline gives me goosebumps. The idea of getting a replacement for the shuttle on the pad by 2012 is exciting. I hope the Augustine Commission and you guys can make it a reality! I can't see how you wouldn't support direct if you showed them the timeline (not to mention the costs).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ehb on 06/03/2009 05:58 pm
The MP3 of Ross Tierney's Space Show presentation is now available at http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1167 (http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1167)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/03/2009 08:19 pm
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).

If the SRB is stretched (eg 4-seg to 5-seg) without core stretch, the casing has the strength to easily re-locate the attach point so that it still goes to the thrust beam. 5-seg will be re-qualified anyway, so this isn't a huge issue. I believe this is the scheme that was intended if the Shuttle was to be upgraded to 5-segs. (Simplifying, just add another segment above the existing attach point).

The thrust beam is very important for ameliorating Thrust Oscillation (ref Ares I issues).

If the core is stretched without an SRB stretch, it's hard to see how the SRB could attach to a new, higher thrust beam point.

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.

5-seg SRB's don't add a huge amount of payload (~7mT, I think [that may be for RS-68 vehicle]), but they then enable a core stretch, which adds ~25mT (again, IIRC, and that may be for RS-68 vehicle). Also found this:-

Quote

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


I must admit, I'm fascinated whether a core stretch with 4-seg SRB's would even lift off the ground / perform as well as a non-stretched vehicle. It seems as if the larger fuel load should override the hit during the SRB phase (more mass, no / little extra thrust), but...

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/03/2009 08:22 pm
Ross also recently posted about moving the lower attach point (in the event of a 7-9% downwards stretch of the core):-

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.

Basically, the current lower SRB attach point is a strong point on the tank - where the barrel section joins to the dome.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Cale on 06/03/2009 08:41 pm
Just looked at the PowerPoint presentation, Ross.

Outstanding job as always :)

Best,

Cale
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/03/2009 09:08 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/03/2009 09:13 pm

What would we call an Ares III CLV + Ares IV CaLV archticture? 1.75 launch?

NASA can call it anything they like :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 09:18 pm

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"


Yeah, I err, ummm, meant to do that! Honest guvna'  ::)

Seriously, thanks for the correction Jon, I've fixed the original post now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/03/2009 09:21 pm
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
"All right. Let's get on with it." — T. Keith Glennan, first NASA administrator, regarding the space program, 7 October 1958.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 09:35 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 09:37 pm
What would we call an Ares III CLV + Ares IV CaLV archticture? 1.75 launch?

My shortlist of suggestions:-

Affordable.
Viable.
Reasonable.
Sensible.
Workable.
Doable.

Take your pick!   I'm sure there are other names too :)


Ohhh, you meant *that* sort of name...    ;D

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/03/2009 09:43 pm


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.

Maybe it will take another Sputnik to get us back on track. I remember it well... God, what a waste Not to do Direct!

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tnphysics on 06/03/2009 09:52 pm
Another elliptical orbit approach:

CLV US/LSAM/CEV and EDS rendezvous (but do not dock), light engines, and do 1st part of TLI in formation with each other. When CLV US runs out of prop docking and the rest of TLI follow.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/03/2009 09:53 pm
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 that

Quote
A 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?

Yeah I think NASA does a terrible job of selling themselves. NASA TV is pretty hit and miss. They don't narrate a lot of stuff, and they could sound a little more excited about their work. Even if they have to bring less on a shuttle trip, I'd love to see some stuff in HD. HD on the moon, HD videos from Mars. Perhaps we'll know less in the short run than if we brought another instrument along, but it will encourage more funding for more trips in the future.

On the other hand the last video of the launch from the point of view of the SRBs was amazing! Looked unreal. They need more of THAT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tnphysics on 06/03/2009 09:54 pm
What is staged-TLI? Sorry, probably buried in one of the 2.0 threads, but probably impossible to find.


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 10:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Fequalsma on 06/03/2009 10:33 pm
Ross -

The presentation looks great!  Well done!

Can you post a .pps that doesn't have the line-by-line
transitions on the slides?  Or a .pdf of the presentation?

Thanks!
F=ma

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 10:41 pm
We will do that with the final version.   This is just a Preview.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 06/03/2009 11:14 pm
We need to include this in the next presentation Ross, my heart almost stopped.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 11:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/03/2009 11:33 pm
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?

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2009 11:44 pm
Is the space the welding tool takes up needed so bad they can't just let it sit there for a while?

Good points -- and ones we have been wondering about ourselves.   There are a number of salient points to consider...

MSFC has been working with a set of the new Ares-I welding tools in Huntsville already, doing prototyping work.   Those tools could certainly be utilized to make a limited run of test stages.

The first flight-stage (Ares-I-Y) isn't going to be needed for another 4-6 years (depending on whether you listen to the "public" schedule or the "internal" one, respectively), one does have to wonder "why the rush?".

I personally believe its a Scorched Earth policy.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/03/2009 11:46 pm
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.

Staged TLI is a good idea. Good practice for Mars mission assembly. Also useful if you want to do a NEO mission. Leave off the Altair, and you've got a lot more fuel to burn in the second EDS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/04/2009 12:27 am

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.


Aw shucks, sir. Glad to help...   ;D


Shoot.... hard to believe we could be back doing moon flybys in 4 years with no interruption in our MSF program.


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??
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 12:32 am

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 12:34 am

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


Do you think he'd take a meeting?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 06/04/2009 12:36 am
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.

Does that mean the nearly-full EDS fires first?  Wouldn't it be better to do it the other way around, in order to be able to dump the dry mass of one EDS as fast as possible?

EDIT:  Never mind; that would add an absolute minimum of one undocking and one docking, assuming both stages are pointed in the same direction...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 12:40 am

snip

Do you think he'd take a meeting?

cheers, Martin

Not being tongue a cheek one bit, the answer is yes.  I am sure he would go to a Direct meeting if he was invited.  He is more than willing to listin to people -- even if they aren't saying what he wants to hear.  I found this to be a very rare trait at NASA.

When I first turned Entry Guidance upside down in his office that day, I could tell part of him wanted to throw the idiot out of his office (the idiot in this case was me.)  But he listened carefully and by the end of the hour he was my first convert to the new way to think of Entry Guidance.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/04/2009 12:49 am
How about an image with the Orion coming around into an Earthrise with "Direct: 2013 Yes We Can!" on the bottom.

I know the "Yes we can" is a cliche already, but we gotta fire up the imagination of the non-space geeks. And with the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 rapidly approaching I think it's a perfect time.



I don't think you'd need stickers on the bottom of that poster.
http://rocketsandsuch.blogspot.com/2009/05/ares-idol-or-idle.html (http://rocketsandsuch.blogspot.com/2009/05/ares-idol-or-idle.html)


Thank you for your time,

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 06/04/2009 02:02 am
Direct Team,

Just read the ISDC 09 Presentation and like the other commenters on the site I just want to say it looks fantastic!  I have followed the progress of Direct for a while and one of the most interesting things seems to be that everytime you crunch the numbers starting with the 2007 presentation for 2.0 then 2008 presentation and so on Direct seems to look better and better when compared to Ares.

The delta in development costs seems to increase more and more in Directs favor, the return to manned flight looks better and better in Directs favor, along with mission safety and other critical parameters.  And you haven't even bothered yet to factor in the additional Ares I delay costs, 11m core, RS-68 regen and all of the other changes in the Ares baseline costs. 

It would be interesting to know if anyone with a good knowledge of the Ares program has developed a rough cost overun projection for Ares current $34 Billion development estimate.  I don't think it will be a trivial amount.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/04/2009 02:05 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 06/04/2009 02:11 am
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.
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.

Given the distance between Launch Pad 39A and 39B, would this be a possibility if they tried launching two Jupiter rockets at the same time?

EDIT: In addition the main directlauncher website could use a major update. Also the new Direct 3.0 video presentation didn't show clearly the configuration of the 3 and 4 SSME engines at the base of the fuel tank.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/04/2009 02:26 am
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".  :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: sdsds on 06/04/2009 03:40 am
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."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 03:41 am
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".  :)

Hahahaha!   For some bizarre reason, that made me laugh heartily.   Ta!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/04/2009 03:55 am
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".  :)



Note to self: make appointment to have glasses checked.

:cheers: !!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/04/2009 04:05 am
Hey Ross, as long as you're up...

Great job on the presentation slides for ISDC09!  I finally got a chance to review the whole thing this evening.  I think you and the rest of the DIRECT team hit that one out of the ballpark.

Do I recall correctly that you had recorded the actual presentation on video?  I would love to see that, and I'm sure many others here would too.

Regarding the HSF Review, do you think statements against DIRECT like "violates the laws of physics" will be taken at face value by the panel?  I really doubt it myself, but the way things have been going since 2005, you never really know.

If I was on the panel, I would not allow testimony from anyone with a proposal against anyone else's, only testimony for their own proposal.  Then the panel can weigh the pros and cons of each and come to their own conclusions.

Thanks,
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 06/04/2009 05:56 am
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."
I guess that more or less answers one of my questions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 07:48 am
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.


For anyone interested, I posted some speculations on a staged-TLI + 2nd-EDS-for-LOI + 2nd-EDS-used-again-for-crasher + lighter Altair a couple of months ago. See Scheme:- Separate launches with crasher EDS (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16163.msg389002#msg389002), and an earlier post here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15541.msg372226#msg372226) (btw both sets of figures are massively over-estimated). I had to read it three times before I believed that "staged TLI" was listed in the ISDC presentation (I'm not claiming anything, just chuffed that I'd spotted it).

NB DIRECT have occasionally used the term "Mission Manoeuvring Stage" for a post-TLI stage, such as the 2nd EDS.



My meanderings on the subject included multiple errors (wrong launch capacities, margins, etc, etc, etc), and the very early pre-release version of Ross's spreadsheet that I mangled up has moved on massively in the intervening couple of months.

But I could land 40% more cargo mass than the standard architecture.



One major thing that I did find necessary for any staged-TLI architecture, was to lift Altair & Orion on separate flights - something that NASA seemed to consider absolutely mandatory for a while, although that's gone quiet recently. See crewed J-246 launch with crasher (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pcph2gasB0biI5O95AWvscA&gid=4), for instance. I think this is a major plus point of the staged-TLI, staged-descent approach.

Basically, by biasing the fuel onto the MMS instead of EDS, the mass of both EDS & EDS/MMS interstage is geared away substantially. Of course, this also maximises burn time after the EDS has been dropped away.

This may also allow both Altair & Orion to fly under custom, light PLF's which drop during flight (per Ares I & Ares V).



Although I struggled to match the cargo of standard DIRECT on crewed flights, I now realise I'd made two errors:-

1) by always staging Altair 75% into the descent, Altair was only part fueled for crewed missions. By always loading 6mT of fuel in the Descent Stage I found performance improved across the board. I suspect staging higher in the descent would improve performance still further (with a cryogenic stage), but I was trying to stick to the GR&A's (which, BTW, seem to be biased towards a hypergolic lander with a crasher architecture).

2) for a crewed launch, MMS+Altair launches first. I was applying 10% margins to this flight - copied from the standard DIRECT twin-launch cargo mission. I now don't see any point in this - if there's a performance shortfall on the Altair flight, the crew will sit on the ground and watch in frustration as the Altair crashes back to Earth unused. (Or maybe Altair could perform an impromptu cargo-only mission, and the next crewed launch tries to set down next to it). Using 100% of the Altair flight capacity lands 1mT more mass than DIRECT, rather than 2mT less as suggested in my previous post.

See http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rd1Fu8PVP1kg3a4rEHa-ioA&output=html (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rd1Fu8PVP1kg3a4rEHa-ioA&output=html) for a hacked-together example of this (again, ignore the figures, other than as comparison against the other spreadsheets linked from my previous post).

cheers, Martin

PS Ross - my simulations seemed to show that if you put Orion & Altair on separate flights, the MMS has a larger fuel load, which gives you a higher gearing on both the EDS & EDS/MMS interstage. It also lets you lighten the Altair PLF, and use an Ares-I-style "early discarded" Orion PLF.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 07:53 am
One other major thing.

Once you have the staged-TLI thing up-and-running and mature, it's possible to perform a twin cargo launch, then launch Orion on an EELV.

This 2.5 architecture can simultaneously land both crew and massive cargo in a single mission, certainly more cargo than CxP's cargo-only flight (14.7mT).

2x J-246 + 1x EELV lands crew & more cargo than 2x Ares V + 1x Ares-I.

Of course, there are many reasons not to do this, but it's an option for much later in the schedule.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/04/2009 08:51 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/04/2009 09:28 am
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?

The performance of 6 x RL-10B-2 through TLI is better than the J-2X.  The team still have a 1 x J-2X upper stage proposal, just in case the program is retained for political reasons (not loosing thousands of jobs at PWR when they cancel the program).

Quote
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.

It is a matter of power.  Four SSMEs will lift more weight than three.  The fourth SSME in the JS-246 is to lift the additional dead weight of the JUS/EDS upper stage. 

On the JS-130, IIRC, the third engine is solely to give the launcher the extra power it needs to carry cargo as well as the Orion all the way to orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/04/2009 09:34 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 10:24 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 10:27 am
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.

Its Artistic License :)

The Orion has sufficient propellant to insert into an elliptical orbit around the moon.   How low the Apolune will be is still a matter for debate, but we believe it would be quite reasonable -- the Orbit will certainly be enough to get a duplicate of the famous Apollo-8 'Earth Rise" picture again.

Potentially, with a high enough Apolune though, the potential exists to consider a new 'spectacular image' which has not been attempted before in high-quality -- that of the moon situated in front of the Earth -- both in the same shot.   We have not yet even attempted to work out the precise details for achieving such a shot, but the idea is rather appealing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 10:30 am
One of the biggest obstacles to a staged-TLI, staged-descent architecture is that you'd prefer not to do it for the early missions!

Unfortunately, you have to build a lighter Altair to make this work, so you are stuck with staged descent & EDS-for-LOI. Lighter/shorter Altair has many reasons to justify it's existence, so this shouldn't be so much of a problem.


But can you start with a standard DIRECT launch (combined Orion & Altair CLV + separate EDS, single-phase TLI), then move to separate launches & staged TLI later???


To join the EDS & MMS you need a fairly heavy structure, and this naturally flies on top of the EDS. That's not a problem for staged-TLI (see below), but it really screws up a standard DIRECT-style launch & TLI. Basically, the 4mT+ interstage reduces EDS fuel by the same amount. End of (using LV-40 figures, and an out-of-date spreadsheet).

The only way I was able to get this to close was to have the interstage lift on the CLV flight instead of the EDS flight, and quite frankly I have trouble seeing how to make that work.

The closest I could come was to leave the core-to-MMS interstage in place during ascent, then re-use this as the EDS-to-MMS interstage during TLI.

I have no idea whether it is possible to leave the interstage in place during ascent, but suspect not since RL-10 is radiatively cooled.

One option I did come up with was to break the interstage into two or more segments, then hinge them away from the engines during ascent. Post-ascent, the interstage would hinge back into place to dock with the EDS (then be dropped post-TLI).

Problem - I presume this would interfere with the RCS.

It might also be possible to implement an RL-10-extending-nozzle type scheme in reverse (lift the interstage segments up the EDS body during 2nd stage of ascent, then back down to dock with EDS).


Word of warning - I don't know how these numbers would stack up using LV-41 launch vehicles and a more up-to-date (ie realistic!) spreadsheet.

cheers, Martin


(**) In a separate-launch, staged-TLI architecture, you want to maximise the mass of the MMS launch. This naturally allows the interstage to be lifted between EDS & PLF on the EDS launch.

For a crewed launch, the body of the interstage also naturally encompasses the body of the SM, reducing the CLV PLF to a simple EDS-style one + LAS.



For a standard-DIRECT-launch (Orion + Altair on CLV, EDS flies separately), the extra mass just stopped my spreadsheet from closing.

Don't know whether LV-41 would suffer the same problem?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 10:30 am
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 tell you, it sure is nice to be able to debate amongst "which of the many options we can use", rather than being locked-in to any single option.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 10:38 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/04/2009 10:58 am
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

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/04/2009 10:59 am
How does the DIRECT schedule compare with that of the Saturn 1, which as far as I can tell is the last NASA rocket that was built from pre-existing components?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 11:27 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/04/2009 11:38 am
Sorry to bother but does anyone have the link to the Jupiter CaLV (any) with the big PLF?

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 11:41 am
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.

Saturn-I also had to create and install all new launch infrastructure. In the case of DIRECT the infrastructure is already in place and requires modification, not replacement. That removes a lot of effort from the schedule.

In addition, Saturn-I, while created from a lot of pre-existing flight hardware, was still a totally new configuration. Granted, Jupiter is not Shuttle, but the degree of commonality between the Shuttle "stack" and what the Jupiter will be has led the folks that do our scheduling to believe we can fly in the fall of 2012 if we get the word in the fall of 2009 to proceed. That would be a 3-year program.

That speed is practically unheard of and even we were skeptical, but the guys that do this for a living insist that it is very feasable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 12:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/04/2009 12:02 pm
I've always wondered, if Jupiter IRBM had been the basis of Delta instead of Thor IRBM (which I guess means there would have been an extended Juno II evolution), would that have helped defray the costs of ongoing Saturn I and then IB production.

Even of Jupiter 130 can't be ready by 2012, Jupiter 246 is certainly doable by 2016 at the latest, which would put Contellation at least 4 years ahead of where it is now (and get us to the Moon possibly as much as 7 years sooner--I don't believe even 2020 is possible anymore; I think 2023 is probable).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 12:06 pm
William, even if we don't get a "GO!" signal until the start of the new Financial Year (October 1) we believe we could still manage a 2012 IOC date while retaining decent schedule/cost margins.

That date is actually going to be dictated by how much Orion can be accelerated using monies which were going to go to things like 5-seg SRB, J-2X and Ares-V.

No, the Jupiter isn't "simple" to develop, but the longest-pole in the schedule for the Jupiter (Avionics) is still not going to be as long as for Orion.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/04/2009 12:14 pm
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?

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/04/2009 12:15 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 12:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/04/2009 12:19 pm
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.

Do you have the exact same view(scale) of any J-24x with standard fairing?
It would be an easy "photoshop" job for Mike if you do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/04/2009 12:21 pm
I was thinking that too ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 12:26 pm
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.


Presumably once you have a two-EDS in-space config, you could lift a "J-2466", ie two EDS's, with the top one empty to be filled from the depot.

Effectively, a 350mT fuel capacity in a 30mt compound EDS, launched on a single flight.

Even launch them part-fuelled on a J-120 (sub-orbitally?).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 12:27 pm
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?

We have pretty high confidence with that.   We understand that Orion could already be sped-up to early 2014 even without any significant budget increases (the IOC schedule is currently dictated by J-2X for Ares-I).   That assumes it still has to deal with things like Ares-I's nasty flight dynamic environment, TO issues and continuing weight-scrubs.

If we can remove a lot of those difficulties by providing a much more powerful launcher which doesn't fly through such a rough environment, that would make the Orion Project's job a lot easier than it currently is.   We have extremely high confidence that doing this would allow the schedule to move to the left.

Further, with additional budget, it can be pushed to the left even more.   That all depends upon how much money we have available though.

Right now our current cost projections would allow for almost $1 billion extra to be spent in FY10, another $1 billion extra to be spent in FY11 and about $800 million to be spent in FY12 to speed things up.   That's an extremely *serious* amount of money.

Together this would make a very positive difference to the Orion's schedule and we believe it is sufficient to shift the IOC schedule approx 18 months to the left, to Sept 2012.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 12:28 pm
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?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 12:34 pm
BTW, Ross, do you have any use for a slightly-better-performing J-130?

Extra performance is always good.   What, precisely, did you have in mind?


Quote
How much extra performance do you need to be able to comfortably use it for the crewed role?


For large unmanned cargo's extra performance is often useful, but Jupiter-130 will already be in a completely new class of performance, so 'extra' will be a pretty 'relative' term ;)

For ISS missions Jupiter-130 already has *lots* of spare performance, so we  don't need extra there.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 12:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Eerie on 06/04/2009 12:43 pm
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?

You forget that you placed Altair and Orion between two heavy objects.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 01:53 pm
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.


Ross,

Concept: "Jupiter one-and-a-quarter", or "23% core stretch, no new hardware".


Start with J-246.

Remove the engines, thrust structure, RCS & avionics from the Upper Stage. Call it an "Upper Tank" instead of "Upper Stage".

Shrink the interstage (doesn't need to accommodate engines), remove ullage motors & separation hardware. Make it into a second intertank.

Run H2 & O2 feed lines down the side of the core, feeding one of the SSME's.

Et voila! A 23.5% "core stretch" (735mT + 175mT) without messing up the existing core, or building anything new. It's propellant cross-feed, but no separation events, so that doesn't sound too difficult or dangerous to me.

Call it J-140UT. Should have burnout mass about 16mT higher than J-130. I'm presuming the UT would be a bolt-on to the core, so not disrupt build of non-UT vehicles.




Obviously, the existing three engines on J-130 each consume 33% of the core fuel.

With 23.5% additional fuel in the Upper Tank, the fourth SSME will burn out early (when the core still contains a 30% fuel load).

Magically (would you believe it), the burnout happens at exactly the right moment to stop the vehicle from exceeding 3g. Honest, I didn't do that on purpose, it just happened.



Can J-140UT at least match J-130 to 130x130, 29 deg?

Compare J-246 with 93.6mT payload vs J-140UT with 71.4mT payload. Offload propellant from the core to match GLOW's. We're going to treat J-140's burn after consuming a full core of fuel (728mT) as "2nd stage". (I know J-130 & J-246 trajectories are pretty different, but the comparison is fascinating).

Initial flight is identical to J-246 (other than earlier LAS discard), right up to the point where the 4th SSME burns out 94% into the "1st stage" burn.

J-246 continues to burnout with all four engines (remaining 6% of burn).

J-140UT burns the same amount of fuel, but with three engines, so "1st stage" burn is 102% duration. Slightly higher gravity losses, compensated by earlier LAS discard. Dead heat so far?

J-246 now stages.

The fascinating thing? Even with core + intertank + Upper Tank (helped by a lighter payload) the Propellant Fraction of J-140UT is 96.5% of the J-246's U/S + payload !!!

Bear in mind that the Upper Stage wastes some fuel starting it's engines, and has only 1/6th the T/W, so will have higher gravity losses.

I reckon it should be a flat bust between the two vehicles, even bearing in mind lower SSME Isp.

This only "proves" that a J-140UT with propellant offload can match a standard J-130 (trajectory differences excepted).



The interesting question is whether brimming the tanks actually allows the vehicle to lift more payload, or would just make it bog down. 3xSSME's instead of 6xRL-10's should overcome any gravity losses during the "2nd stage" of ascent.

In fact, we're only talking about another 70-80mT of fuel, another 8.5%-10%. I guess that would be a pretty small additional payload, but maybe enough to enable the crew launch role?

This vehicle retains much of the simplicity of J-130, but if the "4th SSME" fails, you're carrying a huge mass of fuel that you can't access. Instant LOM.

Other than that (!), this vehicle should retain most of the LOM / LOC benefits of J-130, and the Upper Tank only requires the cheapest elements of the upper stage.



I'd guess that J-256UT may also be possible, ie both Upper Tank & Upper Stage. 23.5% would burn out the fifth engine just a few seconds early, and 16mT burnout geared 3:1 is a pretty neat trade for another 175mT of core fuel and an additional engine.



You could also achieve the same thing by stretching the core O2 tank (common to all vehicles), and add an H2-only tank above that. Link the two H2 tanks together, and you can achieve any stretch you like, to feed any number of engines for any duration you choose, and no worries about one engine failing and leaving a lot of fuel inaccesible.

J-130 performance would be affected, but you don't really care about that.

A 33% O2 core stretch would impact J-246 payload by less than 1mT, but also makes J-256 possible.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 01:54 pm
One more...


Concept, "J-141UT" or "J-140UT with JCS (Jupiter Circularisation Stage)".


Start with J-140UT.

Keep the Upper Stage functional, but fit only a single RL-10 (maybe an "a" rather than a "b-2"). This does mean the fuel system must be able to perform both cross-feed to the core and feed to it's own RL-10.

Fly to a 30 x 100 delivery orbit, but burnout the 4th SSME early, to leave a little fuel in the tank.

After sub-orbital insertion, discard the core. Although there is cross-feed between JCS & core, you've got half an hour to perform the separation.

Use the remaining fuel to circularise. Since this is only a 55m/s burn (?), the burnout mass of the JCS is pretty much irrelevant.

Now you've got Altair, Orion & PLF in a circular orbit without having to worry about them each performing their own burns to circularise. If JCS separation fails, you've still got the option for Orion and Altair to perform their own circ burns as a fallback.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/04/2009 02:28 pm
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.


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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/04/2009 02:34 pm
Constellation Program Faces Furthur Delays  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-nasa-rocket-troubles-060409,0,2918308.story
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 02:40 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 02:45 pm
Mars and Danny;
In the same way we have maintained performance and mass margins throughout the design process to be used as needed, we have also maintained cost and schedule margins as well. That is the principle reason that you have not seen the dates move in sync with everything else; we use the margins to try to maintain schedule as much as we reasonably can. We have been concerned with trying to keep to schedules that will preserve the workforce in an as-intact condition as possible. But you are correct. We have just about used up what time margins there are and unless decisions are made soon which get this underway, you will see schedule dates change as well. So far we haven’t had to do that but it’s getting very close to the time when we will need to.

You are also correct in that the subgroups the panel creates to vet the proposals will expect to see cost and schedule data in much greater detail than what we have been able to publically post here. Significant portions of it are based on contractor proprietary data and that’s why it hasn’t been detailed here. But the Commission has a vehicle for that which will allow us to expand on what we present in more detail and still protect that data under the Sunshine Law provisions of the Commission. They will receive the necessary data under those provisions in more detail than what we can do here on the forum or on the website.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 02:47 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 03:02 pm
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

Man rating the Delta involves *primarily* human rating the RS-68. DIRECT wants this to happen as rapidly as possible because it is not our desire to be the LEO crew transfer launcher. That’s a job for EELV-class launchers.

Nothing is going to happen before this fall until after the Commission completes its work. Assuming that NASA were directed to move in the direction of deploying DIRECT, or something very much like it, we would sincerely hope that the Commission would also recommend authorizing the RS-68 HR program for crew LEO access. We have taken the position for over 16 months now that whichever vehicle is ready to provide crew access to LEO first gets to fly first. Jupiter is prepared to provide LEO access until the Delta can assume that role if it doesn’t actually go first. But once that capability is operational, then we will be focusing on the extra-LEO goals of the VSE along with any payloads that are beyond the EELV capacity or that actually require that a crew accompany the payload.

DIRECT is not designed for LEO operations, but will care for them *until* the LEO transportation system of EELV-class vehicles is online. LEO belongs to an EELV class launcher, not the Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/04/2009 03:07 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 03:14 pm
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?

Quite honestly we can’t.
We are the men and women in the trenches that do the work, but we are not the ones that actually run the agency.
Once NASA takes over and takes control of this effort, it will be completely out of our hands and in theirs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 03:15 pm
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?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 03:32 pm
How will Direct prove that it will be upheld?

As Chuck say, its virtually impossible to 'prove' any such thing.

One advantage which we do have though, is that a large portion of our cost profile simply isn't guess-work -- its based on actual flight systems which are in use right now.   The 4-segment SRB's are a completely "known" quantity in terms of costs.   The SSME's are a "known" factor too, although they haven't bee built in a few years, we do know precisely what is involved with doing so.   The External Tank shares roughly 70% of the planned Jupiter Core Stage work, so a significant part of its production is not based on estimates and projections, but on real cost profiles.

Without doubt, that doesn't cover *all* of the landscape, but it does cover a pretty sizable portion.   That reduces the range where the 'guesswork' *can* apply.


But even then things can happen which aren't expected.  So, on top of all those figures, you always want to have a nice healthy "comfort zone" of cost margin in your back pocket, which will essentially be used when your estimates are wrong! :)

For DIRECT, we apply our cost margins on an element-by-element basis.   Low risk items, such as elements which are, or have been, already in production, like 4-seg SRB, SSME, parts of ET/Core etc., typically still have a healthy margin applied -- in this case we have a blanket of 25% *minimum* cost margin on all elements.

Elements which have some partial previous heritage have a higher margin applied, ranging from 30% thru to 45%, these include things like the Payload Fairings and the LOX tank for the Core Stage.

For brand-new elements, like the Thrust Structure and the Upper Stage, we are applying a maximum of 50% margin over the projected costs, which is pretty generous.

When you average it all out, we're getting about 38% total cost margin over the entire "full wrap" Jupiter development effort.   We think that's a fair approach.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/04/2009 03:52 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/04/2009 03:57 pm
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.

Ah yes... respectively, these are for the crew or "office" module, the depot module and last but certainly not least the hangar module of Spacedock 1...

Just so ya know :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 04:06 pm
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?

Both will be flying long before the Ares-I. How far the Delta will be upgraded beyond the initial crew access capability by the time Ares-I flies I don't know, but the Jupiter could already be turning her sights on the moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 04:11 pm
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.

That would apply to my comment that "you could also achieve the same thing by stretching the core O2 tank ... add an H2-only tank above that. Link the two H2 tanks together" ...but not to the rest of the post.



The bulk of my post was for J-130 core to feed 3x SSME's as normal. The 4th SSME and Upper Tank form a completely independent system - but under the control of the main vehicle's avionics. No dual-tank, shared pressurisation, between-tank transfers, etc, etc.

If you like, think of it as a 1x SSME Upper Stage with a long feedline that happens to burn in parallel with J-130 instead of after.


Quote
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?

Well, how easy is that? You'd need to qualify a new core.

You've already qualified the existing vehicle with this configuration of core & upper stage/upper tank, adding the 4th SSME & associated piping should be a much smaller job, shouldn't it?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 04:19 pm
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?

From our studies, both EELV and Jupiter-130's IOC and FOC schedule will be dictated by Orion, not the launchers.   Essentially they will both be able to do the missions on the same date.


As for which of those two launchers is quicker?   That's an interesting debate.

RS-68's current design does not comply with the 1.4 Factor of Safety so there is a big question whether it can fly on a waiver or if it must be re-designed.   And neither engine is so-far qualified for human operations.   Nor either of the stages.   Those will take time to qualify.   But a qualified Avionics suite for human use is probably the long-pole in the entire development path for a Delta-IV Heavy CLV.

SSME is fully human-rated already, so too are the 4-seg SRB's.   But the Core Stage is a pretty big development/qualification task -- although the manufacturing is ready to take that task on almost immediately.   However, yet again, qualifying the Avionics is still going to be the long-pole of the whole effort.


There really isn't a lot between them, unless the RS-68 needs a significant re-design, in which case that will take longer, but I don't expect so.

If the budget allows, we could very well end up with both IOC vehicles on the Pad at the same time.   If the budget gets very tight, I would expect one to be prioritized.   The decision will actually come down to money.

In that situation, the Delta doesn't help save any jobs.   But getting Jupiter operational as fast as possible does -- so I would expect that effort to be the one which is prioritized.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 04:36 pm
Well, how easy is that? You'd need to qualify a new core.

It's not trivial, but it is viable as long as you have a somewhat healthy budget.

I'd hazard a guess and say if you chose to ground 1/4 of your flights across a five year period, that should go a long way towards paying for such an evolutionary bit of development work.

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.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 04:53 pm
Depending on the amount of mods required, I think the schedule risk to man rating a Delta is the lowest.  Direct still needs a lot of work which adds risk to the schedule.  'This may be an issue you need to address.

I also think ULA is in better shape to do the work on time than NASA is.  A big part of the schedule risk is in the organization that is going to do the work.  ULA has a better track record than NASA at this point.  I know a very big part of DOD picking a contractor is an assessment of the ability of the contractor to do the work.  But, it will be difficult for NASA to admit ULA is better at designing launchers than they are.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/04/2009 04:55 pm

Great point Chuck.  That is why I find the 2012/2013 dates that don't change as the calendar moves and SSP assets are removed so insulting ... and a great disservice to the credibility of DIRECT.  It works contrary to the way any project I've programmed and makes me wonder what else is wrong under the hood.

Without saying more, that is also how the analysis teams for the panel will see DIRECT if the schedule and costs are not presented more credibly.


The answer is in the switch of engines from the to be man-rated in the future RS-68B to already man-rated SSME, it has made Orion the critical path again. DIRECT has bought back 1-2 years of schedule that was lost since v1.0 by being even more Direct ;). Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 04:57 pm

Great point Chuck.  That is why I find the 2012/2013 dates that don't change as the calendar moves and SSP assets are removed so insulting ... and a great disservice to the credibility of DIRECT.  It works contrary to the way any project I've programmed and makes me wonder what else is wrong under the hood.

Without saying more, that is also how the analysis teams for the panel will see DIRECT if the schedule and costs are not presented more credibly.


The answer is in the switch of engines from the to be man-rated in the future RS-68B to already man-rated SSME, it has made Orion the critical path again. DIRECT has bought back 1-2 years of schedule that was lost since v1.0 by being even more Direct ;). Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

Basically we have until the end of this fiscal year, more or less, where our current schedules are good. After that we may need to adjust. We'll see.

Orion has always been the pacing item. In v2.0 Jupiter and Orion were much closer than they are now, with Orion still becoming operational after the Jupiter. In v3.0 there is a lot of new, additional schedule time between Jupiter being ready to fly and Orion being ready to fly because the Jupiter schedule has moved to the left. By making the switch in engines we have shaved considerable time off the schedule. We learned at ISDC that Orion could be brought in to early 2014 just by freezing the specs where they are so they can actually go build it. Late 2012 is just not that big a leap from there (~18 months) if we can also send proper funding their way, say an additional $1 billion a year diverted from Ares-I starting from fy 2010.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 05:16 pm
Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

That raises a very interesting point...

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Ross.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/04/2009 05:19 pm
Definitely pack your schedule. If you previously had schedule margin, and it's now been eaten up, you should add it back in. You'll still be in better shape than constellation, right?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 05:21 pm
We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.

What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to simply kill-off any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/04/2009 05:22 pm
I propose a new PPT slide that compares the schedule "long poles" to better illustrate Gap mitigation issues:

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

Orion (when available)

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

DIVH EELV
     - RS-68 human rating

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

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

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

AND

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


Great point Chuck.  That is why I find the 2012/2013 dates that don't change as the calendar moves and SSP assets are removed so insulting ... and a great disservice to the credibility of DIRECT.  It works contrary to the way any project I've programmed and makes me wonder what else is wrong under the hood.

Without saying more, that is also how the analysis teams for the panel will see DIRECT if the schedule and costs are not presented more credibly.


The answer is in the switch of engines from the to be man-rated in the future RS-68B to already man-rated SSME, it has made Orion the critical path again. DIRECT has bought back 1-2 years of schedule that was lost since v1.0 by being even more Direct ;). Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

Basically we have until the end of this fiscal year, more or less, where our current schedules are good. After that we may need to adjust. We'll see.

Orion has always been the pacing item. In v2.0 Jupiter and Orion were much closer than they are now, with Orion still becoming operational after the Jupiter. In v3.0 there is a lot of new, additional schedule time between Jupiter being ready to fly and Orion being ready to fly because the Jupiter schedule has moved to the left. By making the switch in engines we have shaved considerable time off the schedule. We learned at ISDC that Orion could be brought in to early 2014 just by freezing the specs where they are so they can actually go build it. Late 2012 is just not that big a leap from there (~18 months) if we can also send proper funding their way, say an additional $1 billion a year diverted from Ares-I starting from fy 2010.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/04/2009 05:28 pm
We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.

What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to simply kill-off any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.

Ross.

I think 48 months sounds about right to cater for unknown unknowns ;). Still show it as excess margin though to illustrate your best case scenario of sub 3 years. Get your guys to apply percentage confidence factors to the lower and upper bounds just like Ares I. What you are proposing, a Shuttle rocket repackage in effect with existing components, shouldn't take NASA more than 4 years to implement.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2009 05:29 pm
Well, how easy is that? You'd need to qualify a new core.

It's not trivial, but it is viable as long as you have a somewhat healthy budget.

I'd hazard a guess and say if you chose to ground 1/4 of your flights across a five year period, that should go a long way towards paying for such an evolutionary bit of development work.

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


Quote
But if you plan to do it at all, you would be better-off doing it straight out of the box and developing the vehicle first time around with that included.

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

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

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


Quote
The questions I want to know though, are:

1) What reason justifies the added expense?
2) What capability would it provide that can't be obtained another, cheaper, way?

If the answers to both of those are persuasive, then its worthwhile considering.

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


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

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

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

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/04/2009 05:30 pm
We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.

What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to kill any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.

Ross.

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

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

i.e. . . .

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

What about a 70% confidence level?

Absolute "best case" and (almost) absolute "worst case" ??
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 05:35 pm
Good ideas guys, thanks.   I'll see what I can come up with graphics-wise.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/04/2009 05:36 pm
Of course, we also need to add this same 48 month contingency to Ares 1, if we are to compare apples and apples.

Right?

And what would that give us for Ares 1? 2018? 2019?

We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.

What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to simply kill-off any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.

Ross.

I think 48 months sounds about right to cater for unknown unknowns ;). Still show it as excess margin though to illustrate your best case scenario of sub 3 years. Get your guys to apply percentage confidence factors to the lower and upper bounds just like Ares I. What you are proposing, a rocket repackage in effect, shouldn't take NASA more than 4 years to implement.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/04/2009 05:48 pm
Of course, we also need to add this same 48 month contingency to Ares 1, if we are to compare apples and apples.

Right?

And what would that give us for Ares 1? 2018? 2019?

We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.

What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to simply kill-off any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.

Ross.

I think 48 months sounds about right to cater for unknown unknowns ;). Still show it as excess margin though to illustrate your best case scenario of sub 3 years. Get your guys to apply percentage confidence factors to the lower and upper bounds just like Ares I. What you are proposing, a rocket repackage in effect, shouldn't take NASA more than 4 years to implement.

DIRECT fans have to start losing the attitude just about now at least for the duration of the Commission. Let Ares speak for itself or not, as an outside/underground concept DIRECT has to be ultra-credible and professional in its own right regardless of what EELV/Ares do or not do. Even 5 years still beats Ares I so it really doesn't matter the degree, it will close the gap earlier.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/04/2009 05:49 pm
What are the most recent "kg to LEO" figures if we were to compare Ares 1 and DIVH?

How many of Orion's potential features need to be left in the parking lot using DIVH?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/04/2009 05:59 pm
DIRECT fans have to start losing the attitude just about now at least for the duration of the Commission. Let Ares speak for itself or not, as an outside/underground concept DIRECT has to be ultra-credible and professional in its own right regardless of what EELV/Ares do or not do. Even 5 years still beats Ares I so it really doesn't matter the degree, it will close the gap earlier.

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

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

= = =

A proposed motto for the Augustine Commission:

Quote
"For a successful technology," Richard Feynman concluded, "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 06:04 pm
What are the most recent "kg to LEO" figures if we were to compare Ares 1 and DIVH?

How many of Orion's potential features need to be left in the parking lot using DIVH?

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

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 06/04/2009 06:11 pm
What are the most recent "kg to LEO" figures if we were to compare Ares 1 and DIVH?

How many of Orion's potential features need to be left in the parking lot using DIVH?

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

Danny Deger

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

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/04/2009 06:11 pm
What are the most recent "kg to LEO" figures if we were to compare Ares 1 and DIVH?

How many of Orion's potential features need to be left in the parking lot using DIVH?

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

Danny Deger

Current Orion? As in the current post-diet Orion or the pre-diet Orion?

If we are talking about shortening development schedules, isn't it rather vital to give the Orion Team a guaranteed minimum figure for launch vehicle capability?

Until they know a minimum guaranteed mass to LEO figure how can they possibly design a space vehicle?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 06:15 pm
What are the most recent "kg to LEO" figures if we were to compare Ares 1 and DIVH?

How many of Orion's potential features need to be left in the parking lot using DIVH?

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

Danny Deger

Current Orion? As in the current post-diet Orion or the pre-diet Orion?

If we are talking about shortening development schedules, isn't it rather vital to give the Orion Team a guaranteed minimum figure for launch vehicle capability?

Until they know a minimum guaranteed mass to LEO figure how can they possibly design a space vehicle?

L/M is working to 606 and for this Block-I we would not improve it.
We would recommend a Block-II go back to the parking lot and reintigrate from there.
That's the fastest way to get her in the air.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/04/2009 06:22 pm
Quote from: Bill White
Of course, we also need to add this same 48 month contingency to Ares 1, if we are to compare apples and apples.

Right?

DIRECT fans have to start losing the attitude just about now

Ahh... the reek of imperial imperiousness!

Conflate much?

Quote
at least for the duration of the Commission.

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

Quote
Let Ares speak for itself or not,

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

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

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

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

Call  it a prediction instead. One I'd bet money on.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 06:29 pm
My understanding of the conclusions which were in the Aerospace report (and note that I have not seen the actual document, merely spoken to people who have) is that they determined that the current RS-68 powered Delta-IV Heavy could lift the current Orion with nice comfortable margins and flying a blackzone-safe trajectory.   However it would apparently take the RS-68A engines, due in 2012, to be able to lift a heavier Orion including such things as the ~1400lb of Land Landing hardware.

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

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 06:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/04/2009 06:38 pm
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/
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 06:38 pm
My understanding of the conclusions which were in the Aerospace report (and note that I have not seen the actual document, merely spoken to people who have) is that they determined that the current RS-68 powered Delta-IV Heavy could lift the current Orion with nice comfortable margins and flying a blackzone-safe trajectory.   However it would apparently take the RS-68A engines, due in 2012, to be able to lift a heavier Orion including such things as the ~1400lb of Land Landing hardware.

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

Ross.

Here is a quote from an article from this site:

"The results for both the Delta IV-H and Atlas V-H are encouraging, and point towards large margins on both the ISS and Lunar Orion vehicle. However, that is only part of the story.

ISS (requirement of 19.2 t). Delta IV-Heavy = 24.2 t. Atlas V Heavy = 25.4 t. Lunar (requirement of 21.8 t). Delta IV-H = 26.3 t. Atlas V-H = 27.3 t,” noted information acquired by L2.

The Delta IV-H numbers include use of the RS-68A, which is an upgraded version of the current RS-68 - currently undergoing testing and due to come into service in a few years time."

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/04/study-eelv-capable-orion-role-griffin-claims-alternatives-fiction/

On talking about Ares in front of the Commission, I don't think Direct should say a word, except maybe to compare your cost and schedule to theirs.  I think its warts are very visible to all.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/04/2009 06:39 pm
This approach how will LEO docking with EDS be done? Using Orion’s docking port or one under the Lunar landar.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/04/2009 06:42 pm
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?
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 06:49 pm
Serious question: what part(s) of the post?

The last paragraph is out of order.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/04/2009 06:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/04/2009 06:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/04/2009 07:04 pm
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)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/04/2009 07:32 pm
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.

Quote
2. 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

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/04/2009 07:49 pm
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.

I listened to this a few days ago when searching for ISDC coverage online.  I didn't find what I wanted, but I did find this.

It was not really bad, and Jeph was trying to be informative, but it could have gone better.

I left a long comment 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.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/04/2009 07:59 pm
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 agree.  It is one thing for me as an outsider to say NASA picked Griffin's pet rocket, but Direct needs to stay above this.

Maybe you can say NASA might have over reacted to safety in picking Ares I, but that was before trust oscillation and control problems were known and Direct mitigates these problems very well.   This is the truth.  I have first hand knowledge Scott Horowitz loved his stick 100% for crew safety.  And I can tell you at the time, we didn't have a clue about TO or the control problems.  You might also mention Ares I was picked based on a 4 segment SRB and an airstart SSME.
Summary response, "NASA probably made a good decision based on what they knew at the time, but things have changed and Ares I is not as good as it once was."

On safety, it is simple to point out having an abort system and putting the capsule on the top is a big improvement to shuttle.  On the Challenger comments, Direct can survive a joint leak.  I would recommend adding an off the shelf IR or UV sensor to look up the side of the SRBs and look for a leak.  This is very common technology for aircraft to look for incoming missiles.  I don't like the implication in the podcast that joint leaks are rare and therefore "OK".  Detect the leak and abort off of it.

On Jupiter being "smaller" than Ares V, the response was not good.  Simply say Ares V also requires a launch of Ares I for the crew and Direct is going to use 2 Jupiters that combined carry more than an Ares I and V and combined cost a lot less.  Use the size of Ares V against it because it requires new SRBs and a new upperstage engine.  Trying to say a single Jupiter can lift more than a single Ares V is not a good idea.  If you do have an advanced growth idea that can carry more, state it as that.   Stick with the baseline to get us to ISS and the moon.

As a person that used to sell technical systems, I recommend having a response to "What is the down side of your design?"  Everyone you brief may ask this.  Maybe that Ares V can send a cargo mission to the moon with a single launch, and the fact that Ares I uses a single SRB while you use 2.  How about the extra LEO docking required.  BTW single launch for cargo to go to the moon is not as important now that outposts are off the table.

I hope this helps y'all polish your brief. 

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/04/2009 08:17 pm
I believe Ross might have said earlier that the Ares V internally now has grown in size due to inefficiencies in the RS68, not to mention it needs 7 engines instead of 5. I think the biggest problem with Ares right now is that it just gets bigger, more expensive and delayed by YEARS. If you point out that Ares isn't over it's delays I think it would be hard not to choose an alternative. It's highly suggestable that with Ares we won't reach the moon by 2020 no matter what is done. Getting there by 2020 I think was the main critera that Obama wants.

I mean Ares V can't get any bigger now according to Ross's interview, or else the VAB won't be big enough. That means any more problems, and payload sizes will have to decrease.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/04/2009 08:32 pm
Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

That raises a very interesting point...

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Ross.



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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 06/04/2009 08:32 pm
We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.

What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to simply kill-off any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.

Ross.

No if you are confident of the schedule then say so. Schedule is one of the reasons we support direct and one of the drivers for adopting direct.

I'd suggest including conditions in the schedule however, such as "funding for this must start then", " Dependant on this" etc. Then there is complete openness on the possible reasons for delays.

Considering this can lead to the development of a real wort case scenario schedule that assume nothing goes as planned.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/04/2009 09:00 pm
2019?
heads.
implement.
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.
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.

I wonder if it is fair to compare budget, schedule, and infrastructure advantages.  In other words, if DIRECT shows it's advantages with an apple-to-apple comparison, is that unprofessional?  It is possible that the other systems might present their information in a way that is hard to compare, and one of DIRECT's selling points is not detected?

I will leave the touchy subject of performance comparisons to others.

Modify: typo


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/04/2009 09:08 pm
Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

That raises a very interesting point...

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Ross.



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 ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/04/2009 10:33 pm
Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

That raises a very interesting point...

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Ross.



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 ?

IMHO, Don't disappoint the customer... Much.  While the 3 year schedule has built-in the knowable unknowns, in project management, it is legitimate to schedule an arbitrary period of unknowable unknowns. So I would create a 4 year schedule which is what the Orion team really needs and use the additional available funds to start development of the Really big payoff item which is the Fuel Depots.

I am enamored with the EML Architecture as expounded in Direct V2.0.  Using fuel depots, it is "easy" to create an efficient transportation network throughout cislunar space and onto mars.  The smaller delta-v's from one depot to the other allow very good mass ratios allowing conservative designs.  I believe in KISS.

Stan 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/04/2009 11:17 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2009 11:50 pm
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.



Gawd! You know - the election is OVER - EIGHT months ago - so can we please get past this stuff? Let it go already. This thread is NOT about Obama vs. Bush and it is NOT about Left vs. Right or about Democrat vs. Republican so *get back on topic* - please.

(Slowly pulling my finger away from the alert button - one time only)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: WellingtonEast on 06/05/2009 12:53 am
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.


Hi,

As a long time lurker, great job the Direct guys and good luck. 

It might sound negative, but I keep seeing parallels between NASA and ancient Rome.  Rome ruled the world with leading technology and clear direction but then lost its way as it turned inward and rested on past glories.

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??

Cheers   



Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 02:07 am
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.

I have both posted a comment there and also directly e-mailed the hosts of the show to see about options for providing corrections.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 02:22 am
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?

I am attempting to produce some Mission Profile diagrams to demonstrate the different potential options, but with everything else that has been going on yesterday and today, it is taking me a lot more time than I had hoped.   Please be patient -- they are in the pipeline.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/05/2009 02:24 am
On the Direct 3.0 video to the Augustine Commission, I agree with mars.is.wet in general that videos in such a forum are not good.  But your video has no audio and really is more of a moving PowerPoint presentation you can talk to while it plays in the background.  If you treat it like this, I think it would work.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 02:28 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 02:34 am
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.

But realize that they will likely control the machine ... and if they ask questions, your timing will get off.  Like the supreme court, its actually not much about the presentation and more about the questions.  If you are lucky they will read your material ahead of time.  Usually the charts are due 3-5 days before.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 03:09 am
Ross, I had a long involved post typed up, but it got lost because my session timed out before I submitted it.  Arggh.

But what I wanted to suggest is that you simplify your materials by omitting the numeric suffixes.  When you refer to the Jupiter-130 and the Jupiter-246, people naturally assume you are referring to two separate vehicles.   I have lost count of the number of times that you or Chuck has pointed out that the Jupiter has a common core, and that the J-130 core is identical to the J-246 core.  The numeric suffix is a spiffy and concise way of distinguishing between the LEO and the Lunar versions, or better yet the single-stage and the two-stage versions, but it is confusing to newcomers and lay people.

The concept seems obvious once you "get" it, but people just do not intuitively grasp it.  Or they use the opportunity to sow a little confusion by treating them as two separate vehicles even when they know darn well that they are not.  (NASA Analysis, anyone?)  To most lay people, two separate names imply two separate vehicles.  Even people who are obviously industry insiders repeatedly get this issue confused.

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.

Only when the industry insiders need more detailed info, that is when you can whip out the baseball cards and spreadsheets, and all of the possible variants.  Otherwise, make the effort to just refer to it as "Jupiter".  I think that will help clear up some of the confusion, and make for a clearer message.

Just an idea!

Mark S.


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Cale on 06/05/2009 03:26 am
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.

Hopefully, if we get the Orbiter version fully up-and-running, that could serve as a further visual aid.

Best,

Cale
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/05/2009 03:43 am
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".
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/05/2009 03:52 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 03:58 am
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".


Yeah, it's hard to come with a good way of distinguishing them without creating the impression of multiple vehicles.  You and I know what "J-130" and "J-246" mean, it is good shorthand and clear to those who are in the know.

Even the professionally written article in Popular Mechanics failed to make this issue easily understandable, and that was with the full cooperation of the DIRECT team.

So I think the best thing to do is not create the confusion in the first place.  Always refer to the vehicle as just "Jupiter".  For instance, instead of saying "The Jupiter-246 is capable of launching over 100 metric tonnes to low Earth orbit", one could say "The Jupiter launcher, with its powerful upper stage added, can launch over 100 tonnes to LEO".  Sure, it is a little longer to write, but it makes clear that it is still the same vehicle that is used for LEO operations.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 04:12 am
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.

I agree that it is easy once you "get it".  But if it was that obvious and easily understandable, it wouldn't constantly be brought up so often in these very threads.  Or in other online forums and blogs, or even official NASA documents.  This confusion has already been used by DIRECT detractors to muddy the waters, as seen in the NASA Analysis document.  Two names = two vehicles.

After all, was creating Delta-IV as simple as adding an upper stage to Delta-III?  Was going to Atlas-III as simple as adding an upper stage to Atlas-II?  Or even Atlas-III to Atlas-V?   Just because a launcher has the same first name with some kind of difference in suffixes, does not imply that the vehicles are identical at all.  If fact, I would say the opposite, that any difference in rocket names, even just a suffix, normally means a major difference between the two vehicles.

Anyway, the point is probably moot this late in the game.  Just thought I'd throw it out there...

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 08:15 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/05/2009 08:56 am
Jupiter phase 1 & Jupiter phase 2

Jupiter basic & Jupiter enhanced

Jupiter single & Jupiter staged

Jupiter basic & Jupiter EDS

cherrs, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/05/2009 09:04 am
Jupiter & Jupiter Plus sounds good to me. Or maybe even Jupiter Medium & Jupiter Heavy?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/05/2009 09:08 am
How about Jupiter and Jupiter++. :-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SimonFD on 06/05/2009 09:12 am
How about Jupiter and Jupiter++. :-)

Aha! A programmer!  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/05/2009 09:23 am
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.

There's no need to scrap the number designations, just refer to them using more common terms when talking to the media.

Just refer to the J-130 as simply the 'Jupiter' and the J-246 as the 'Jupiter Plus'. Simple.

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/05/2009 09:30 am
You could even apply the new terms retrospectively; i.e. you could henceforth refer to ALL your J-130's, J-120's etc. as 'Jupiters' and all your J-232's, J-246's, etc. as 'Jupiter Pluses'. That seems like the most intuitive solution to me.

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 09:46 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/05/2009 09:48 am
Quote from: Bill White
Of course, we also need to add this same 48 month contingency to Ares 1, if we are to compare apples and apples.

Right?

DIRECT fans have to start losing the attitude just about now

Ahh... the reek of imperial imperiousness!

Conflate much?

Quote
at least for the duration of the Commission.

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

Quote
Let Ares speak for itself or not,

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

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

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

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

Call  it a prediction instead. One I'd bet money on.


See, the above is an example of a 'bad attitude', going into a commission 'where you want to be liked and persuasive'.  NASA may ignore and consign to 'them quaint Direct rockets and internet posters'  Surely, you want to be above this.

You are not 'taking NASA on' (in fact Direct depends on NASA's *infrastructure and manpower*, otherwise what use is it?  No, you are attempting to convince NASA (and the NASA individuals ) to implement its goal differently.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/05/2009 09:54 am
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.

Yeah thats good, but when used in conversation I can imagine "Jupiter with Upper Stage" evolving into either "Jupiter Plus" or "Jupiter Heavy" real quick. Might as well capitilize on it now ;-)

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/05/2009 10:04 am
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".

Like Mike, I like this.  You can keep the model numbers on the actual documentation (if they ask, let them know what the model numbers mean - lots of the commission members have aerospace/scientific backgrounds so they would 'get' the concept) but, in the presentation, use the 'Jupiter' and 'Jupiter with Upper Stage'.  It is quick and emphasises the proposal's big major upside in manufacturing and infrastructure terms: the common core for both models.  You can be sure it would impress the industry pros on the commission.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 10:05 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 10:07 am
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.

I wouldn't think of it as a name change.  More of a clarification and simplification of your message.

Can anyone name a rocket with suffixes as different as -130 and -246 that had identical common cores?  I know that DIRECT is trying to be clear, and the suffix is easy to understand once you know the code.  But it is also easy misuse, and easy to use to spread false impressions.

From what I can see, a common first name simply implies membership in a development series, or the property of a single manufacturer.  DIRECT's usage is innovative and concise, but it goes against common industry practice.  Which means you are having to work harder than you need to, to get your message across.

I think Jupiter++ is catchy, but it is once again appealing to those who already know what it means.  Most people would just think it was a typo.  I like "Jupiter" and "Jupiter with Upper Stage" as the default usage.

Thanks for all of the thoughtful replies!

Go DIRECT!
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: usn_skwerl on 06/05/2009 10:17 am
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 am Jeph.


Um, excuse me Ron, but I did in fact mention that I was not 100% positive of my numbers, and I didn't claim to be an expert on DIRECT. But I did say a couple of times; "if I remember correctly" and I provided my opinions. I'm not trying to put egg on anyone's face, and I would appreciate if you didn't try to throw me under the bus. I have nothing but respect and good intentions for the effort of the Direct team. I misquoted by saying 2016, erring on the side of caution, which still puts direct ahead of Ares.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 10:21 am
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

Seconded! 

It goes against the nature of the anonymous Internet, but we all need to exercise more restraint.  The easiest way to do this is not even mention your detractors or their program(s).  When someone takes potshots, by all means jump in and defend DIRECT.  But be polite and always include a link to directlauncher.com, so other readers can always find the full scoop for themselves.

We can't always go around saying "But but Ares....".  DIRECT stands on its own.

Mark S.

P.S.  "Founder", niiiice.  It has a certain cachet, doesn't it?  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 10:28 am
I am Jeph.

Ah ha!   You're Jeph! :)

Yeah, there's a few bits which I would like to amend in that piece.   Not your fault, and as you say you did qualify your statements, but the wrong info is still "out there", so it still needs fixing.

I've been in contact with Ben (the host of that show) already.   We're talking about a possible appearance.

Having said that, I am actually a touch concerned with Ben's "forget about anything but Ares" attitude from last night's podcast though.   In my experience, when people have already made up their mind like that, its usually a complete waste of my time trying to persuade them otherwise.

You've obviously spent a lot more time chatting with Ben, so I would appreciate your 'take' on his attitude.   Is he an immovable object, or is he open to reasoned arguments?

I just don't want to end up wasting my time.   I just have so many other important tasks to get done right now, so I want to highly prioritize my efforts over the next two weeks and get the best possible value out of my time.   I'm concerned that Ben might end -up being be a "forlorn hope", in which case I would be better-off focusing on something more beneficial.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 10:30 am
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.

Hi Jeph!  Ross said earlier that he has in fact emailed the hosts, and also left a comment.  I know he's going to be very busy for the forseeable future, but maybe he can take a few minutes for an online interview.

Don't take Ron's comments personally, you were getting the message out to a wider audience, which is what counts.

Mark S.

Edit: Ross beat me to it!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/05/2009 10:39 am
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

Ross, well spoken.  As for me (non direct, non ares, pro eeeee...veeeee ya know what I'm talking about) it's just added a bit of more respect and attention to pay to you folks.

(with professional respects, seriously kudos for this architecure even if I disagree with it long term)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 10:39 am
We can't always go around saying "But but Ares....".  DIRECT stands on its own.

Agreed, for a while now (the Rebuttal being an exception) we have actually tried to tone down all our vitriol.

Now we want to explicitly try to dial it down completely -- to zero.


BTW, its still okay to use Ares as a reference point for technical comparison purposes -- as long as the tone remains neutral.

Ares is well recognized, so being able to draw technical comparisons to it is not a problem.   People can continue to say things like "Ares-I can lift xxx while Jupiter-130 can lift yyy to LEO".   Comparing the two in that sort of situation is perfectly acceptable still -- as long as the tone remains neutral.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/05/2009 10:43 am
But if I may state so, we need more folks like Ross, Chuck, etc...   their designs may not materialize with NASA, but the energy and the intellectual design capacity will resonate with the private enterprizes, and design.

Even if I disagree mostly often, thank you Direct team for the persistance and the effort at 'poking NASA'
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: usn_skwerl on 06/05/2009 10:44 am
I don't get "star struck" often. but it truly is a treat to be able to meet the head brains (or any not-so-head brains) behind Direct. Should we ever meet, odds are good that I'd have tons of questions, and maybe some hair-brained ideas for the project. But I digress...

With the Direct face to face "tale of the tape" comparison to Ares, Ben's opinions can be swayed, as he has a tendency to focus on facts placed before him and ask for more information. If you can spare ~30 minutes (perhaps more?) for a pile of "spicy" questions from the chatters, I feel even the skeptics aside from our beloved Ben would have their opinions swayed by you within minutes. Direct really does stand alone!

I do apologize if I caused any turmoil, but it was for a good cause and I'd rather not intentionally toss FOD into the chamber. I'm just passionate about manned spaceflight and the right way to approach it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 10:51 am
Jeph,
If its not a lost cause, I'd be willing to do a whole series of shows and *really* get into the nitty-gritty as much as the listeners can take! :)

Tuesday I did a 2-hour radio show with David Livingston over on The Space Show (http://thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1167) and frankly, I think we really only scratched the surface.   I think we would probably need 3 or 4 more shows if we wanted to fully cover all the relevant ground in reasonable detail -- including answering all the listener's questions.

I don't know if Ben is interested in such a thing, but I could try one show there, and if there's demand, I could do a whole series of follow-ups -- until there's no further demand! ::) LOL

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: usn_skwerl on 06/05/2009 11:03 am
I listened to that show, and commend you for it. Thanks so much for the interview! That was the first time I had listened to the space show, and found it so interesting that I was reluctant to pause it at times to listen to the wife :D

If he's open for it, I'm certain that a few of the skeptics would listen to the interview, and want more info. I believe Ben may have a gues on next week, but if you guys can work something out, I strongly feel many of us would appreciate the solid facts verbalized and condensed in the interviews, versus the hundreds of pages located here. I'm not trying to sound critical or lazy, but hearing the leaders/experts talk about it has a tendency to make the logic become cohesive and stick inside the squishy grey spine warmer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/05/2009 11:11 am
Is the space shuttle launch video used in your direct presentation one of missions on which a panel member flew?  If so, that might seem kinda awkward.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 11:20 am
No, its not.   We're safe from that perspective.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 06/05/2009 11:24 am
I listened to Space Show, and the part where Ross answers the "why DIRECT is better than EELVs?" question still sounds suboptimal.

Ross, in answering that question, you sounded somewhat dismissive of EELVs. IIRC it sounded roughly as: "... If we'd decide to stay in LEO, then EELVs are acceptable". This would ruffle some feathers for EELV huggers.

I suggest to be more friendly towards EELVs. Basically, phrase your response like "If we'd decide to stay in LEO, then EELVs probably are the best rockets to support that. If we'd decide to go to the Moon, it can also be done with EELVs, but it will cost more. For Moon program, a LV with at least 50+ tons to LEO is able to be significantly cheaper. ..."

You do not say "ELLVs suck, DIRECT rocks". You say "EELVs are fine rockets, but for Moon program, DIRECT (also a fine rocket) is cheaper"

There is nothing to lose for you by doing this, because if we do end up limited to LEO, neither DIRECT nor Ares would happen anyway.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/05/2009 11:31 am
I aggree with the previous post by gospacex, currently flying D4s and A5s will only help (not to mention it'd help NASA, Joe the taxpayer and etc....)  Why piss against the wind?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 11:58 am
The EELV's are extremely worthwhile systems.   But they are simply not optimal for human missions to the Moon or Mars.   Sorry to be so blunt, but that's the uncomfortable truth of the matter.

There are three primary reasons why the EELV's aren't gaining much ground in the Exploration office at NASA, nor within Congress:-

Firstly, the EELV-class vehicles do not have a sufficiently large payload volume, which is important on Lunar missions because you want the widest possible landing footprint for your spacecraft in order to ensure stability and reduce the chance of accidentally tipping the spacecraft over in any rough landing situations.   Then, for human Mars missions later, we are going to need a really large heatshield because the atmosphere in Mars is so thin.   There ain't no way to lift a 10m, 12m or 15m diameter single-piece heat-shield on an EELV.


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 there is the problem is the total life-cycle cost.   Yes a *single* EELV probably costs less than a *single* Jupiter.   But when you require between 8 or 10 EELV's to launch every mission, the total mission will cost is a LOT more than just 2 Jupiter's.


But more than any of those issues, there is one factor which dominates the argument -- and its one which is inescapable:   Politics.   You won't get *ANY* support for EELV's from *ANY* of the space Senators or House members because they offer no means to retain the Shuttle workforce -- and the political figures are working damned hard to retain that income for their states.   Threaten to take that away and they will de-authorize your program -- Congress already did precisely that -- to O'Keefe/Steidle.   They replaced that plan with a plan from a guy who promised to retain the Shuttle workforce (the fact that his plan is still going to devastate the workforce is a separate discussion).   Unless the EELV camp can clearly define *PRECISELY* how they intend to retain the workforce, they are not going to find *ANY* political support in Congress -- and it is Congress who choose how much money actually gets provided, not the President -- this time around either.


Having said all that, there is still a place for EELV's within the program, though.   But it needs to be carefully tailored to their specific capabilities and within an acceptable political and budgetary framework.

In DIRECT we have explicitly set aside TWO place settings at the table for EELV/COTS systems.   Firstly, we intend that they take over most of the routine crew rotation missions and logistics cargo supplies to ISS.   Their capabilities and costs are ideally suited to these roles.

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?

That plan is also intended to bring EELV's costs down to the point where they are finally going to be competitive with other systems in the global satellite market today too -- and we hope they will be able to bring new international contracts to these shores because of that.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 06/05/2009 12:04 pm
Ross, I agree with all these points. I knew this all from your previous posts already. I am suggesting different wording in your presentation, I am not saying you are factually wrong.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 12:09 pm
Okay, sorry, I misunderstood your intent.   I'll take a look and see what wording might be more suitable.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/05/2009 12:13 pm
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

Hooray.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 01:16 pm

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.

As I have said for weeks, short time periods are normal for panels like this.  This is not a slam, it is pro forma.

*might* is not the operative word.  without detailed technical backups including cost and schedule methodologies approved by these guys

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/pae/organization/cost_analysis_division.html

Your proposal won't make it into the analysis phase, and your costs and schedules will be disregarded outright.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gin455res on 06/05/2009 01:17 pm
Ross,
Are you in the states, as without wanting to sound like your mum, I've noticed you posting at times that look to me like you never sleep (possibly a bit of parental exaggeration)? However, it may be because i'm in the UK and all the times are a bit confused.  I hope you are not burning yourself out.

As a layman, I think the effort you are making, is very important and commendable. Given the political constraints I've heard you outline on the space show, plus the clear benefits of not having to develop much new hardware, I find the direct scheme very persuasive - a  virtual 'no brainer'.

Do you have any representatives in the team, or even independent outsiders who are well acquainted with direct,  that you could suggest answer questions like those that would be asked by people like ben. Not only would this give you more time to work on other priorities, it would also give more of an appearance of a team effort.

You are always clear that you represent a fairly substantial team of experts, that's not at issue and you come across well, but more faces/voices might  (or might not!  - it's just a thought) reflect the size of the team better, in a psychological/marketing sense. 

Or is it a deliberate team strategy to have you as the main spokesperson?



 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/05/2009 01:58 pm

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.

I wanted to focus on two items which I think are related: PD and the politics of EELV.

I understand that the PD is a technology risk, but in the Direct V3.0 presentation slides 37 and 38, it is praised as a high value technology.  I think that this is an issue that Von Braun wanted solved 40+ years ago, and if we had solved it, this thread would not be discussing lunar or even Mars exploration but Jupiter and Saturn.  The PD represents a political opportunity by spreading the wealth.  Lets take the risk, lets just start early. After all,  you can test the system using Jupiter-130.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 02:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/05/2009 02:27 pm
I agree that we should adopt a totally non-antagonistic attitude towards NASA at this time. Let's forget the conflicts of the past & just present the Direct 3 program to them & the Augustine Committee!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/05/2009 02:31 pm
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.

In 1972 humans left the moon and have not returned since because we did not have a sustainable technology within the cost constraints available.  Propellant Depots  can change that. Ares1/AresV vs. Direct is more than just specific launchers, its about space architecture.  If we don't change the paradigm, we simply won't get to the moon let alone mars.  After all, the taxpayer thinks we've already done it, why do it again?

IMHO

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/05/2009 02:31 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 02:32 pm
Ares FY10 Budget Slashed by $360m

http://www.al.com/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/business/124419337485270.xml&coll=1


For three years we have been predicting that this would happen to any proposal trying to build TWO different launch vehicles.

NASA is going to need to change its plans -- soon -- or the VSE will not survive this.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 02:52 pm
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.

When we explain the idea to them, and explain the benefits, their eyes have, quite literally, grown very *wide* with realization.   I actually think it may have made at least as big of an 'impression' than the entire rest of the proposal.

Now, this particular panel isn't made up career-politico's per se, but I would suggest that many of the panel are at least well versed and are politically savvy.

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.   It reduces the cost of the EELV/COTS satellite launchers which should finally make the US competitive on the international launch market again.   At opens the door to major practical involvement by international partners -- without ever handing any partner the keys to the car, which prevents any partner from ever disabling the whole architecture if political winds ever turned very sour down the road.   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.

Each of those is a significant benefits worthy of presenting on their own.   Together they make quite a formidable argument.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/05/2009 02:53 pm
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

Now PD becomes "very high risk".

Let me see if I can make a couple of statements that we can all agree upon.

1)  Direct v3.0 is the best way to create a heavy lift capacity the case for which Ross has done such a great job of presenting.
2)  While a two launch system promises to get us back to the moon, it while still not be "cheap'
3)  Without Propellant depots, it is impossible to go to mars.

Now here is the point that I would like to make:

  With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.

With that I will shut up and thank everyone for their patience.

Stan

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 02:53 pm
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

That's the key. 

MULTIPLE Presentations  Anyone with a credible idea has to be allowed to speak.  That means that multiple DIRECT folks (or DIRECT supporters) can present multiple connected or disconnected parts of an architecture if they are structured right.  Don't need to acknowledge the connection between them, but they can reference each other.

Also gives a sense of the larger, diverse DIRECT team ... and that others have leveraged the DIRECT info (even if it is the same team and not technically correct).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 02:57 pm
Multiple Presentations?

Yikes -- the coordination is tough enough just doing this one...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 02:59 pm

  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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/05/2009 03:08 pm
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.

Gee Ross,  thanks for saying it so well

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 03:11 pm
Multiple Presentations?

Yikes -- the coordination is tough enough just doing this one...

Ross.

Keys to any organization are a clear vision, effective direction and delegation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/05/2009 03:16 pm

  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.



PD is not "low risk", and the most important factor in risk reduction is Time.  Start early. Your point about flight rate, is correct and the lower the incremental costs, the more likely to have high flight rates.

Now, what about my point concerning no Mars without PD.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 03:23 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/05/2009 03:24 pm
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.


Okey dokey!!!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 03:28 pm

  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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 03:32 pm
Keys to any organization are a clear vision, effective direction and delegation.

Agreed.   But it gets a lot trickier if your resources are very finite :) LOL

Ours are. :(

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/05/2009 03:33 pm

  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.

Again you hit the nail on the head.  I did mispeak, you got it right.  More missions per $, not fewer total $.

Thanks

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 03:38 pm
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.

mars,
Where are you getting those cost estimates from?   They're a lot higher than what I've been seeing.   I've been seeing figures around $25bn spread over 12 years, which is roughly $2bn per year -- or what we're currently spending on ISS.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 03:39 pm
Okay, I'm gonna bugger-off for a while.   I need to go get some real work done :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/05/2009 03:41 pm
Ross and Team,

Quick question.
I know you've been looking for ways to make the J-130 work to put the CSM and LSAM into orger to dock with the EDS launched on a J-246.

Just out of curiosity, what more do you need performance wise from the J-130 to accomplish that (without each having to do it's own circulization burn)?

I think it's a great idea if you can make it happen, saves a 2nd EDS.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 04:02 pm
NASA News Bulletin clip

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 04:13 pm

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.

I could quote the dissection of SEI (not the full architecture) I did letter and verse, or any number of other Mars costs studies I have seen, but rather than that, I'll do it by complexity and similarity.

(all inflated to today's dollars, tomorrow's dollars will cost more ;-)

Apollo - $175B
Skylab - $13B
Shuttle - $35B
Hubble - $6B (original estimate of a "copy" was $1BFY08)
Station - $35-$100B (depending on book keeping)
TSAT (without launch, est at cancellation) - $26B

A Mars mission is more complex than any of these ... and costs increase logarithically with complexity.  See attached graphic from this ... and see what happens when you underfund or have too ambitious a schedule (epic fail!):

http://ses.gsfc.nasa.gov/ses_data_2008/080603_Bearden.ppt

Finally, remember that today's space industry cost much, much more than the industry of the 1970's and 1980's to pay for an order of magnitude improvement in reliability and mission assurance.  The TSAT costs are your best guide, a Shuttle in today's world would cost at least $50B.

I would bet my house there is no way to do it for $2B a year.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/05/2009 04:14 pm
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".

This works very well, but pedantically "Jupiter" is the generic name of the vehicle.

If you want to be specific, perhaps "Jupiter with Upper Stage" and "Jupiter without Upper Stage", which makes the point very well, but is rather cumbersome. After the first couple of mentions in any conversation you'd probably start using "Jupiter with" and "Jupiter without". Acceptable in a conversation or a forum, but not appropriate for the commission, for instance.

For the commission, I presume "one core, two vehicles" is a point you'd press firmly at the start of the presentation, and that should do the trick. They presumably know one end of a rocket from the other.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/05/2009 04:36 pm
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


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?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/05/2009 04:45 pm

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

I think this is the perfect way to do it.  Maybe show a single Jupiter in the future can do a lunar cargo mission if a depot is in place.  Single launch lunar cargo is one of the strengths of Ares V over Jupiter.

Just make sure depots and Direct 3.0 are not tied at the hip and someone on the Commission says, "I don't think we are ready for depots, we better not use Direct 3.0."

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/05/2009 05:06 pm
As I understand things, Direct 3.0 is very well positioned to take advantage of the leverage offered by propellant depots however Direct 3.0 is not dependent upon the deployment of depots to fulfill VSE objectives.

Is this an accurate summary?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/05/2009 05:24 pm
Any launch vehicle is in position to take advantage of a prop depot as long as the payload it is carrying is capable of topping off the tanks. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 06/05/2009 05:48 pm
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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: loomy on 06/05/2009 06:01 pm
3)  Without Propellant depots, it is impossible to go to mars.

As as been said, that isn't worth mentioning to Augustine in the DIRECT presentation, because it could hurt the DIRECT presentation by confusing it.  They are separate enough topics that it should be in a vision for space presentation only.  "Vision for space by DIRECT".

Also just because the PD thing is so up for debate. (I think the moon resource mission should happen before an earth PD and therefore before a stroll on mars.  And by the time that happens we might have new earth launch vehicles that don't need the old earth PD.  Or maybe an earth PD could be built and sent to the moon.  In any case it is all up for debate, and that debate is different than today's launcher debate)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/05/2009 06:21 pm
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 by putting the CSM on top.  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.

Although, I suppose the Devil's advocate postion of that would be is a PD would mean NASA could scrap Ares 1 entirely and only need Ares V.
Put the CSM on top like Saturn, with a partially fueled EDS.  top off the tanks from the PD and off you go.  And save a bunch of money and headaches by not developing Ares 1.

Of Course...so could Direct...with a launcher 2/3 the size of Ares V...in 4-5 years less time...for a fraction of the development costs....

Hmmm....
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/05/2009 06:32 pm
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.



Thats the point I was trying to make.  AresI/AresV is a repeat of the Saturn V strategy with a complicating twist: Two launches.  Thats like if  back in 1969 they had required a Saturn IB launch with each Saturn V launch.  The architecture is a dead end.  With Direct, a PD is much better leveraged because the Jupiter platform covers a sweet spot in the payloads needed for both the launch of the orion/altair as well as the EDS and the Depot allowing a single launch of the Jupiter to cover the mission requirements, and we all know that Jupiter is CHEAPER.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/05/2009 06:33 pm
Ross,

I'm currently listening to the Space Show.

One thing that I think should have been strongly pushed - that Jupiter is just a shuttle-sized version of Ares V.

In trying to persuade your audience regarding a vehicle they know little about, that's a persuasive argument - NASA chose this basic route, just a different size.

It also pushes the line that work on Ares V should be pretty applicable to Jupiter.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2009 07:48 pm
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/05/2009 08:08 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/05/2009 08:14 pm
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'll try to, if they schedule an event for somewhere in California.  I know some of the other groups I'm working with will probably be presenting as well, but they'll also be pitching their own approaches with depots on the side, so maybe a presentation just about depots would make sense.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2009 08:16 pm
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

Go for it Jon.
The more voices we have pitching depots as central to future HSF, the better off we all will be.

It will be a long time (unfortunately) before hsf beyond LEO goes nuclear. In that case, only the persence or lack of of full scale depots will make the difference between "missions" (boots and flags) and a true expanding human presence in the solar system.

Depots are key - they are central. It can be frustrating trying to help people understand that sometimes. You and I may differ on some things and on how we view it being implimented, but we live in the middle of the same page on that core belief.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/05/2009 08:24 pm
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.

True but it shows the savings of Direct 3.0 may be attractive to Obama since he can have his cuts, while actually accelerating the program instead of delaying it. This would make it an easier sell.

Quote
Quote
2. 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

True, but saving those jobs would make the unemployment figures look better. So unless Obama’s real plan is to totally destroy the U.S. economy in hopes of becoming a dictator he would want to save those jobs. Besides that’s quite a few votes that would be more likely to go his way in 2012, than if he lets those people loose there job.

Quote
Quote
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.

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.

But Bush is Obama’s shape goat. Any thing that goes wrong he, blames on Bush. I’ve already seen it. This would give Obama a clearly visible chance to undo a perceived Bush mistake that would have cost jobs. Ether way he looks good.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/05/2009 08:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/05/2009 08:41 pm
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.

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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/05/2009 08:54 pm
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2009 09:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2009 09:03 pm

...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!

That's an opinion not shared by lots of folks. In any case, it's ok to speak politically about DIRECT but editorializing Obama's motives on "other" matters trends very closely to taking this off topic. Trust me - that's hard to rein in once it gets started. Please don't go there. Thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Fequalsma on 06/05/2009 09:06 pm
Chuck -

I rather like it!  Simple and DIRECT!

F=ma

How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 09:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Fequalsma on 06/05/2009 09:11 pm
Ross -

Sorry, but I wouldn't get too excited about this.  It's from a
news clipping service called bulletinnews.com that NASA gets
access to.  They provide summaries and links to aerospace
industry, national and international news stories each weekday.

F=ma

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2009 09:12 pm
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 and let NASA get on with astounding the world.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/05/2009 09:20 pm
Where did you find the NASA bulletin. I looked on their news page and couldn't find that.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 09:22 pm
Thank you for the sentement but we would really rather just fade into the mist...

The mark of the truly heroic: humbleness.  Unfortunately for you, I don't think your loyal (rabid?) fan base will let that happen.  :)

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/05/2009 09:28 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/05/2009 09:30 pm
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?

Jupiter-III and Jupiter-IV  ??

Then you have room for a future upgrade of something like a stretched core, 5-seg booster as a Jupiter-V?

Or perhaps rewide a bit.  The Saturn 1B was designed to get into LEO.
As the J-130 is has the same goal, maybe go with "Jupiter -1" for that.
Save "Jupiter-2" for a future stretch core, 5-seg booster possible upgrade"
The J-246 would be a "Jupiter-III".  With "Jupiter-IV and Jupiter-V" available for potential future upgrades in those.

Or perhaps even more Basic:
J-130 as baseline in Direct 3.0 becomes "Jupiter 1"
J-24x as baseline in Direct 3.0 becomes "Jupiter 2"
Jupiter 1 for a "single stage" LV
Jupiter 2 for a "two stage" LV

Future upgrades to Jupiter 1 or 2 would then become a "Jupiter 1B", "1C" , "1D" etc and Jupiter 2B, 2C, 2D, etc.

Each letter denotes a specific configuration.
for example.  "Jupiter 1" is standard baseline.  1B has block-III disposable SSME's, 1C has those engines plus 5-seg SRB's.  1D has all of that and a core stretch.  etc.  or whatever the upgrade path went to first.

Then, like the old Saturns, the abbreviations become "JIB, JIIC, etc"



Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 09:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/05/2009 09:42 pm

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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/05/2009 09:46 pm
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

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

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." When you have no upper stage it's just the Jupiter rocket carrying Orion. Perhaps its a little difficult because the Jupiter Core stage does in fact change with an upper stage with the extra SSME, though naming wise you could just ignore it in public relations.

I think the Direct team can emphasize that the Ares I/V rockets need a lot of development work, that isn't a necessity to land on the moon, leading to taxpayers dollars being spent where they didn't need to be. Wasn't one of this administration's mottos, "eliminating unnecessary government spending"?

Edit: Mark wrote a much more succinct version of what I tried to say as I was writing my post.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gin455res on 06/05/2009 09:50 pm
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'.

Heavy also seems to already be used conventionally for 3 parallel staged cores.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dnavas on 06/05/2009 10:01 pm
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....  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/05/2009 10:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/05/2009 10:10 pm

Jupiter it was born, Jupiter it should stay.  And leave the techie detail suffixes to the engineers.

Mark S.

I think most here probably don't really care what NASA calls it, as long as they switch to and build it!

They can call it the "Exploder-1" and "Exploder-2"  if they want, as long as they build it.
;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/05/2009 10:14 pm
Well ,there are many different sizes of upper stages. Different engine configuations as far as I can tell, since Jupiter is so versitile. Naming them after Jupter's Moons sounds good, as long as you have fewer than 8 different types of upper stages. Naming the stages separately emphasizes (for me anyway) that the Shuttle stack can lift more than Shuttles, which seems to be hard for some people to wrap their minds around.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/05/2009 10:22 pm
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'.

Heavy also seems to already be used conventionally for 3 parallel staged cores.
"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".
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/05/2009 10:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2009 10:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/05/2009 10:45 pm
I'm just guessing here, but the biggest point of emphasizing a single rocket would be the idea of mass production (so to speak).

I mean if someone compared Ares V and Jupiter 246 side by side, you would see it as a down grade unless you realized you could launch many more 130s and 246s than Ares I and Vs. I know Ross showed me a chart of engine costs as a function of production. Since you're making 4-6 (hopefully) jupiter rockets a year you applied that cost analysis to ALL rocket parts, not just engines correct?

Surely the cost/ upper stage decreases by a lot of you launch 2-4 a year instead of 0-1. To me thats one of the biggest attractions of Direct, the mass production of a set of space launch vehicles.

Edit: I dunno about calling it Centaur, isn't that name copyrighted or something? If you can get it, it's intuitive and a great name; it probably would make the ULA guys happy to be given tip of the hat when the upper stage lifts off. First hearing it, Centaur makes me think of "work horse". Probably not a bad image.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/05/2009 11:22 pm


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"  ;)

Jupiter/ACUS is a little cumbersom, the mythology upper stage is kind of a cool idea.
As for Jupiter's kids, "Io" wouldn't be bad, but "Callisto, Ganamyde, and Europa" are a little cumbersome.

Going with "Zeus" might work.  Zeus is Jupiter's counterpart in Greek Mythology, so the two go together anyway.  Even when googling one or the other, they are used synonimously.

Jupiter, and Jupiter/Zeus.

in that same vein, "Thor" might worlk, Norse god of Thunder.
"Jupiter/Thor".  one syllable, nice and easy off the tounge.

another idea is perhaps a clever alternative name for Thunder or Lightning, as Zeus/Jupiter is the God of Thunder and hurls lightning bolts, so you could consider Jupiter hurling the JUS skyward as the god might hurl a lighting bolt.
Possibilities for Lighting:  Lightning (English), Fulgur (Latin), Blitzen (or perhaps "Blitz", German), Eclair (French), Rayo (Spanish), Fulmine or Lampo (Italian), Lyn (Norwegean), Hiraganan (Japanese), Keravnos (Greek).
 
Possibilities for Thunder: Thunder (obviously), Rai (Japanese), Raijin (Japanese God of Thunder),  Tonitrus (Latin), Tuono (Italian), Bronto (Greek).

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/05/2009 11:30 pm
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)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/05/2009 11:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2009 11:33 pm
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.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 06/05/2009 11:33 pm
Quote
Eclair

uh...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2009 11:34 pm
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.

Some of NASA's finest hours began their journeys on a Centaur.
NASA has been using the Centaur, proudly, for 40 plus years.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/05/2009 11:38 pm
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.  :)

I LOL'd. Just brainstorming. Probably to reduce confusion you should use a name that's already in use as upper stage (like centaur as you said), just because having another new name in there might bring us back to the confusion of having 2 separate rockets. The emphasis should be on the Jupiter Core, especially early in the program. You can probably just name the upper stage later so you have Jupiter rocket lifting Orion and Jupiter rocket lifting upper stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/05/2009 11:49 pm
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.

Another possibility is "Valkyrie".  It's not too odd like "chimera", and it's common enough in English that it's not too associated with a foreign culture (although It's obviously Norse in Origin) as deltaV mentioned.
Valkyries are usually portrayed as women warriors either with wings themselves, or riding horses with wings.  Either way, flight capable to the heavens, so it actually fits pretty good with an EDS.  Probably would make for a pretty good eye-catching logo too.

Zeus, Thor, or Valkyrie.

All good possibities I think.

Or just call it "Bolt" as in "lighting bolt" or "thunder bolt" as in what Jupiter/Zeus hurls about.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/05/2009 11:56 pm
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 noticed that my blog (Selenian Boondocks) was also getting a lot of hits from a NASA News Bulletin site a while ago.  Unfortunately it wasn't a public site, so I couldn't see what they were saying about me.  :-)

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/06/2009 12:55 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2009 12:58 am

There is a difference between what is used in presenting and selling it to NASA et al, and what will be best for official designations. The Ares-III and IV designations better from a public relations stand point, since sounds more like an upgrade than a big change.

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
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/06/2009 01:01 am
Regarding the naming convention, I would like to add the following suggestion -

We have the JUPITER core stage

add to it the Jupiter Upper Stage - JUS

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

JUPITER with JUS :)

and yes, we already had this, some times the obvious gets missed :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2009 01:18 am
Regarding the naming convention, I would like to add the following suggestion -

We have the JUPITER core stage

add to it the Jupiter Upper Stage - JUS

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

JUPITER with JUS :)

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


OMG! What's in your jus? Can I have some?  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/06/2009 01:19 am
There is a difference between what is used in presenting and selling it to NASA et al, and what will be best for official designations. The Ares-III and IV designations better from a public relations stand point, since sounds more like an upgrade than a big change.

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

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

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

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

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 06/06/2009 01:30 am
Not Thor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_(rocket)) - there's already been a rocket called that.

Oh wait...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Gregori on 06/06/2009 01:36 am
Perhaps you could call them:

Jupiter+ and Jupiter-   !!!

I don't know, just a suggestion!!

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

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

:):):)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/06/2009 01:39 am
Chiron was the Centaur-in-chief, And is represented in the sky by Sagittarius, so if you want to go for a slash name, Jupiter/Chiron or Jupiter/Sagittarius might work.

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

Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages.

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

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

Mark S.


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

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

Just musing a little here.

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

In either case, there's no doubt that you are talking about a single rocket, with or without an upper stage. The specific designations could be reserved for the technical discussions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: DLK on 06/06/2009 02:06 am
By the way, did you know that Caesar Augustus built a temple dedicated to Jupiter, the Temple of Juppiter Tonans, because he was almost struck by lightning?  Tonans means "thundering" in Latin.  Augustus/Jupiter, Augustine/Jupiter, hmm.  Coincidence?  Maybe...  ;)

Since we're talking Roman gods, how about something a bit more unusual, like 'Bacchus' ? Should leave a good impression...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/06/2009 02:09 am


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

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

Just musing a little here.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Shuttle without the shuttle (in essence).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mrbliss on 06/06/2009 02:10 am
so you get JUPITER with JUS (pronounced "JUICE")

JUPITER with JUS :)

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

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

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

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

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/06/2009 02:25 am
Perhaps the names should reflect the fact that J-130 can only be used as an earth orbit launch vehicle while J-24x supports beyond earth orbit missions.

Maybe Jupiter LEO and (just plain) Jupiter?

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

Jupiter Shuttle may or may not be a compelling name for J-130.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Captain Kirk on 06/06/2009 03:40 am
Forgive me if this was already posted, but the panel now has a site where the public can ask questions and provide comments:

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

But as Ross already warned before, play nice.

You can also email them documents directly.

Here's my two cents to the Committee:

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

I hope it helps!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kch on 06/06/2009 03:51 am
... J246 would be Jupiter Plus ( upperstage and 4th engine added)

:):):)

... add the 5-seg SRBs, and you have Jupiter Plus Plus (though I'm sure someone would "object" to that) ... ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/06/2009 05:17 am
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?

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


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

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


Remember KISS: Keep it Simple, Studs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 06/06/2009 05:17 am
Here's my two cents to the Committee:

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

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

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

Having read through the past five pages I think using 'Jupiter' and 'Jupiter Heavy' like those used for the Delta and Atlas series would be better in that it sticks with the industry's nomenclature. Besides, given the long term goals that DIRECT is set, it is likely private enterprise will be building some of these rockets in the future.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 06:01 am
The current Jupiter naming convention is more akin to the Atlas-V numbering designations such as 401, 421 or 552.   It represents a single vehicle (Atlas-V / Jupiter) which is flown in different configurations (552 / 246).

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

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

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

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 06/06/2009 06:19 am
The current Jupiter naming convention is more akin to the Atlas-V numbering designations such as 401, 421 or 552.   It represents a single vehicle (Atlas-V / Jupiter) which is flown in different configurations (552 / 246).

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

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

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

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

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

The people directly involved in presenting the proposal really have to keep their cool. I wish them all the best of luck.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 06:51 am
We've given this same basic (continually evolving) presentation a number of times now, to political figures, the TT, a variety of industry groups, more than a couple of advocacy groups and a plethora of conferences over the last three years.

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

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

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/06/2009 07:17 am
Upperstages only get names when they are independent projects from the booster (Agena, Able, Centaur, etc).  The Saturn upperstages weren't named, they just had numerical designations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: duane on 06/06/2009 07:31 am
We've given this same basic (continually evolving) presentation a number of times now, to political figures, the TT, a variety of industry groups, more than a couple of advocacy groups and a plethora of conferences over the last three years.

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

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

Ross.

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

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

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

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

Good luck!

Duane
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: duane on 06/06/2009 07:32 am
Is there a set date when the directlauncher.com website will be upgraded to Direct 3.0?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/06/2009 08:31 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/06/2009 11:08 am
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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/06/2009 11:21 am
It's easy.  Just remember that Altair is hundreds of light years away from Orion, and in the opposite direction.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2009 11:29 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 06/06/2009 12:07 pm
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.

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.   
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/06/2009 12:37 pm
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)

Don't do the 'minus' thing as that has negative connotations. 

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"

Stretched-core versions can be the "Jupiter-Max" (with the permutations discussed above).  An RL-60 or J-2X JUS-equipped launcher gets the 'Plus-2' or 'Plus-3' suffix respectively.  Hell, if ULA can get away with talking about 'Phase 1' and 'Phase 2' replacements for Atlas-V, I think that you can do the same thing so long as you don't go crazy.  Emphasise such things are for the future, though, not something that will be absorbing R&D dollars from the outset.

Whatever you do, don't use the name Centaur for the JUS, as I'll bet that's a ULA trademark or something.  The last thing you need to do is get the CLV subcontractor angry at you for using their nomenclature for your product.  I like the suggestion of 'Saggitarius'.  As has been pointed out, it nicely references the Centaur technology legacy on the design but has its own meme of speed and accuracy (the arrow from a bow).

One thing to emphasise is that J-246 is the goal and the baseline product.  J-130 is a downgraded 'economy' version for LEO operations that, with some work, could be made to do some of the same things.

"We are proposing to develop and build the Plus core from the start, Mr. Chairman.  The regular Jupiter is a variant of that optimised for LEO missions."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/06/2009 12:49 pm
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." 

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 12:54 pm
Is there a set date when the directlauncher.com website will be upgraded to Direct 3.0?

We have been working feverishly on that for a while now.   I *think* everything is finally in place to do an update later today.   Keep your fingers crossed.

I haven't yet seen what the guys have come up with, so I'm not actually sure how extensive this update will be -- it will be a surprise to me just as much as for you! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: randomly on 06/06/2009 01:00 pm
The major selling point for Direct seems to be that

 it uses existing engines and SRBs and therefore avoids the huge development costs AND lengthy development times of solutions like Ares which require new engines (5 seg RSRM, J2-x, RS-68 regen).

I would put that concept in any answer to 'what is Direct?'

It also reduces developmental risk of delays and cost overruns by using legacy hardware and facilities.

All the solutions can get the job done, the difference is largely in the budget, timeline, and development risk.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/06/2009 01:11 pm
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." 


Yeah, I was worried about that sentence, too, but I wanted to illustrate that two "medium" launchers are better than one big and one small, especially because that's the size that derives directly from the Shuttle.  I consciously omitted direct references to Ares or Constellation, but it still has a somewhat confrontational edge to it that I don't really know how to soften.  In my view, however, some formulation of this argument has to be articulated, because after development costs and workforce transitions are behind us, this is why DIRECT will continue to have lower operational costs than Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/06/2009 01:20 pm
While I'm a fan of the old "Thor Able" style naming convention, I think you lose the "brand identity" you have now if you do something too crazy.

The hard part is that too many "J-xxx" variants are out there now to keep them straight... even in the appendices of your own ISDC presentation.  Throw in the engine change between V2 and V3, and you're even more confused.

While the "options" are extensive and one of DIRECT's best features, talking about or showing baseball cards, or even a list of their names just makes it too complicated.

If you want to show the diverse configuration options, make a new version of the old "silhouette lineup" graphic you had back in the DIRECT v1.0 days where you showed the footprint and side-view of each vehicle with a payload bar graphs behind them rather than show all of the different names... and make sure your "recommended" configurations stand out on such a graphic.

If you think you need to, name your "recommended" configurations ala the old "Thor Agena" convention, and stop there.

J-130 == Jupiter
J-246 == Jupiter ACUS
Apollo 8 Redux == Jupiter Delta (???)

...and retain the "Heavy" designator to refer to 5-segment SRBs (but again, other than an offhand appendix mention, silhouette lineup, or response to a committee question, don't go there right now).

P.S. while I like "Jupiter Centaur" more than "Jupiter ACUS", you're better off not using that name to tie you to an existing upperstage design (and vendor) right now, IMHO... even one as venerable as Centaur.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/06/2009 01:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2009 01:25 pm
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". And please note that while we frequently use the term "246", remember that that is a designation that describes only one of four possible Jupiter configurations. It could be a 241 (1xJ-2X), a 244 (4xRL-60), a 246 (6xRL-10B-2) or a 247 (7xRL-10A-4). So while we are promoting the 246 because of schedule and lack of engine development, it is not correct to say the 246 is the baseline. We are "suggesting" that NASA baseline the 246, but that will be their choice. For now, it's just the "Jupiter" and it is understood to be Core plus Upper Stage.

As most of you know, I go all the way back to Sputnik, so I guess that makes me an old fart. But seriously, I have always liked what we did back in the day when we combined different things to make a flight configuration. We ended up with things like Nike-Ajax, Atlas-Centaur, Atlas-Agena, Thor-Agena and Thor-Able for example and it was instantly understood that we had a Thor rocket with an Able upper stage. I guess that's why the thought occurred to me of Jupiter-Centaur, like Atlas-Centaur. *IF* the JUS ended up actually being a big Centaur, then that would be a proper designation, but as was pointed out above, it wouldn't be right to adopt that name now. But to me, the simplest way forward to having a very generic name for general conversation would be combining the names of the core and the upper stage. That assumes however that the JUS would actually have a name, which right now it does not and, as Jim pointed out, neither did Saturn. So I would suggest that going forward when speaking generically we simply say "Jupiter" and when speaking specifically, we continue to identify the 130 and 246 for now.

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.

For the record, the naming convention we currently use is actually excellent because it very accurately describes the launch vehicle. Believe me, that was not an easy thing to accomplish. You would not believe the agony we went thru to arrive at what we have. Interestingly, once we had it and stood back and looked at it, it was obvious that it was a no-brainer. "Duh"  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rocketguy101 on 06/06/2009 01:38 pm
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".

As far as the name--leave it alone.  It is simple and direct.  You are talking to pros.  If there is a news interview or non-industry magazine article, then use the Jupiter and Jupiter with an upper stage monikers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 01:40 pm
The video works best when you have a commentary running over the top -- which is how we typically utilize it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/06/2009 01:46 pm
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...

At this stage of the game I think Ross and the Team have it right - there are bigger issues and challenges to deal with, given the name and the convention with it are three years old and already in general industry configuration.

So, in the words of John Lennon - "Let it be, let it be..." :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/06/2009 02:34 pm
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.

Your original post on the topic was excellent. I think the last sentence in this post is right on the mark. So how about changing the line slightly to "simpler, sooner and cheaper". In my book simpler is always safer, so you can imply it without attacking anyone.  Remember the KISS principle.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 02:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/06/2009 02:56 pm
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.


Chuck,

sorry, I'm confused now!!

ISDC 2009 is written to this naming scheme, and I'm certain both yourself & Ross have been using it extensively, as far back as I can remember. I'm only confused if I understand correctly that this hasn't been correct / official usage up until now.

I know that I consciously copied that usage from your posts, and have been using it myself, I think since some of my earliest posts (D2.0T2 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.0), I think). Maybe I've caused more confusion than comprehension because of that?


As I understand it:-

Jupiter when talking about both variants, or non-specific elements of the vehicle.

Jupiter programme for the LV programme. (Comparable to Ares programme (ie I followed by V), I think?).

J-1x0 or J-1xx - when referring to core-only vehicles.

J-2xx - when referring to vehicles with upper stage.

J-24x specific core config with NASA-can-pick-one upper stage.

DIRECT for Jupiter launcher + in-space operations (comparable to CxP, I think).



I also notice that ISDC 2009 referred to DIRECT phase 1 & phase 2 for J-130 & J-24x respectively. Jupiter phase 1 & phase 2 seem to strongly convey phased development of a single vehicle, and map to J-1xx & J-2xx, so avoid any confusion nicely.

Of course, if you develop a block II core as part of phase 2, you'd then start using it with J-130 also, and then you're into "phase 1 J-130" and "phase 2 J-130".

Ignoring that issue, how about using this language in front of the commission - hammers home the "one vehicle, two versions" message every time you mention it. DIRECT phase 1 & 2 also map to Jupiter phase 1 & 2.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 03:03 pm
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.

Other than the numerical changes caused by the RS-68 > SSME switch, that naming convention has been consistent for quite a while.   It remains so.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/06/2009 03:24 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 03:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/06/2009 03:54 pm
Just to be perhaps in tune with the current administration my suggestion is "Affordable, Flexible, Responsible"

I would emphasize not only that Jupiter has a much larger connection with the shuttle stack, but that Ares I and Ares V are much more related to each other (in an effort to control costs per launch). But since the shuttle stack has already been tested, ballooning costs are a low risk. With Ares I/V, ballooning costs and inefficiencies of one will directly impact the other. The original plan of cost savings could lead to cost increases for Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: DigitalMan on 06/06/2009 04:35 pm
Ross, since you're a brit, perhaps you might be drawn to the name:

Transformational Exploration Architecture

:-))
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/06/2009 04:36 pm
Could we have a separate naming thread? (or not at all)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/06/2009 04:44 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/06/2009 04:46 pm
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.

Why does it have to be stuck in the paradigm of threes? Why can't a fourth be added:

Affordable, Sustainable, Flexible, Fiscally Responsible.

That's a decent turn of phrasing, IMHO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 06/06/2009 04:56 pm
Aren't "Affordable" and "Fiscally Responsible" kinda similar?  Combined with "Sustainable", it starts sounding a little redundant...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 04:57 pm
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

Thankfully, there are *TWO* dictionary descriptions for this word.   I explicitly use it to mean:

"Excess, Superfluity, also : Profusion, Abundance"

...not the other one ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 06/06/2009 05:02 pm
"Feasible, Flexible, Performance"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/06/2009 05:03 pm
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

To an extent I disagree...look at the MAC commericals that attack Microsoft....It depends on what your message is.  If you are the underdog, sometimes you have to attack the big guy. 

Remember the pepesi challenge....you know who they were attacking.....this is war and the future of the US human sapcefligjt for the next 20+ years.  You can be timid and go home...but sometimes you have to come out and deliver those body blows!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 05:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/06/2009 05:36 pm
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! ;-(
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: loomy on 06/06/2009 05:42 pm

Thank you for the sentement but we would really rather just fade into the mist and let NASA get on with astounding the world.

amen and thank you for THAT sentiment
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/06/2009 06:00 pm
Could we have a separate naming thread? (or not at all)

I say we just call it the GruntMaster 6000, and get on with it...  ;-)

Seriously though, as much fun as naming discussions are, I'm with m.i.w. on this one.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/06/2009 06:02 pm
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'
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/06/2009 06:11 pm
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.

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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 06/06/2009 06:12 pm
A minor redraft here?

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.

How about:

"Second, DIRECT goes to the moon with two launches of the Jupiter vehicle, derived DIRECTly from the Shuttle system, instead of two quite different launch vehicles, each of which is less closely related to the Shuttle."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/06/2009 06:30 pm
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'

Since It was my comment about performance that appears to have gotten Hip's Irish up, let me clarify.  Simply put Ares V is bigger that Jupiter with upper stage( what the marketing name?).  To call Jupiter High performance may muddy the waters.  On the other hand it is: Affordable, Sustainable and Flexible which Ares is not.

Adam
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 06:36 pm
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.

Ahh, my good and dear friend Philip!   How could I have forgotten it was him!   Bad Ross!!! ;)

Might have something to do with burning too many candles at both ends, sorry Philip for the flaws of the ol' grey matter!

Ross.

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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2009 06:38 pm
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"

???

I got my Verbosity right here...

Ross (heading out for a few hours -- 'tis the weekend after all!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/06/2009 06:39 pm
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"

???

Ross (heading out for a few hours -- 'tis the weekend after all!)

OK by me

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 06/06/2009 06:42 pm
It will be a challenge to convince NASA that DIRECT's intention is to save their goal of going to the moon and Mars.

Something along the lines of, 'We're not against NASA, we want NASA to succeed even in these lean times and this is why we are proposing this'.

For those who don't know, NASA's official website has updated its video gallery on its Constellation program, the timing suggests it has something to do with the upcoming Commission.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/index.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/06/2009 07:07 pm
I am therefore going to amend all of the Baseball Cards now.


Ross,

if you're going to re-issue, at least one of the 29 deg baseball cards is described as an ISS vehicle, which I think is incorrect.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/06/2009 07:17 pm
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.


OK, here's a question. It's not intended to be contentious, just looking for a little insight.

Would it be fair to say that Ares V is what you get from "what's the most we can lift per launch with Shuttle-type hardware"?

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"?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/06/2009 07:21 pm
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.


Ross,

again, I always thought that was the definition of DIRECT (possibly assumed from the AIAA-2007-6231 paper). Certainly using the phrase explicity in that way is completely consistent with the informal way that you both have been using it up until now (I'd be very sensitive to any other usage), which is good for anyone Googling and learning about DIRECT from a mixture of old & new statements.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/06/2009 07:24 pm
It will be a challenge to convince NASA that DIRECT's intention is to save their goal of going to the moon and Mars.

NASA already knows this, it just thinks its way will do the job better. The argument is technical, it should remain that way with any emotion left aside. DIRECT 3.0 is technically and fiscally ready, Ross/Chuck have the right attitude now to present it in the best light, calm and measured. I also suggest they present a copy of their rebuttal after their presentation talk as reading material to be left behind as no doubt Hawes will already have the original study in his mind when judging, minus all the controversial accusatory bits though ! The IDEA has to do the shouting now, not its fans or presenters. Less is more now so close to prime-time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/06/2009 07:27 pm
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"?
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?

Edit: insert: "and interoperate with existing Shuttle operations" somewhere.

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.

Edit: comma removal; apostrophe removal
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/06/2009 07:39 pm
On the less confrontational tone:

If the Committee will review all material fairly, then there is no reason to elbow anyone in the ribs.  If the Committee is fixed, then it doesn't matter what is said. 

The fact that the Committee was called is a good omen that someone important would like to take a pause--and this is a good reason for a cessation of hostilities.

Modify: Now to find a nice way to say that it is not nice to destroy existing infrastructure if you haven't designed YOUR rocket yet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/06/2009 08:06 pm

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!

Agreed, cautious optimism is the best way look at it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/06/2009 08:14 pm
"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"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/06/2009 08:21 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2009 08:25 pm

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.

Now that I agree with. They can call it anything they want to so long as they fly it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jeff.findley on 06/06/2009 08:53 pm

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.


And because a Mars mission, even nuclear, will need so much propellant, likely LH2, this will require multiple launches over some period of time, even with in-space assembly.  In order to enable this, storage of LH2 in LEO will need to be perfected.  Note that this is one of the main stumbling blocks for LEO fuel depots as well.

Also, note that in-space assembly would also require the ability to connect multiple LH2 tanks in LEO and feed that LH2 either to a LH2/LOX engine or a nuclear engine.  Note that this is another of the main stumbling blocks for LEO fuel depots.

What stumbling blocks are left for a LEO fuel depot that are not also shared by an in-space assembly architecture for a Mars mission?

Propellant depots would be a "game changing" technology for manned space exploration, specifically exploration of Mars.  One of the biggest pitfalls of NASA's current approach to implementing ESAS is that it contains nothing game changing.  Because of this, it appears to me to be as economically unsustainable as Apollo.  If politicians see it the same way, ESAS is doomed unless NASA changes direction, and soon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/06/2009 09:08 pm
...
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 ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 06/06/2009 09:16 pm
"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"

robert-

Ooooohhh...I LIKE that last one!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2009 09:18 pm
...
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/06/2009 09:21 pm
...
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 ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2009 09:24 pm
...
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. Jupiter is sized to properly do the full-up lunar mission without a propellant depot at all. That would be a 2xJupiter launch. But once a depot comes online we could do a full-up mission with a single launch. That's the way we sized it, so that while we don't *need* a depot, unlike Ares-V we are not the enemy of a depot and are properly sized to take full advantage of it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/06/2009 09:36 pm
...
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 06/06/2009 09:43 pm
...
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 ?



The Jupiter 246 that lifts the crew and Altair has 15+mT of spare margin that is not used because the EDS launched on the previous flight can't push it thru TLI. Thus, propellant is offloaded on the crew flight to improve the flight performance margin.

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. There are two reasons why Ares is not sustainable: development costs break the bank and yearly program costs are too high to allow a high flight rate.

The problem that Ares has is that it face development costs that in excess of $30-40 billion dollars that must be paid before the first lunar mission. NASA's budget simply can't support with without $2-3 billion per year more, and the gutting of most of NASA's other departments to fund Ares. 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.

DIRECT spends less than $13 billion before it's first lunar mission, requires no budget increases, and can reinstate funding to other areas of NASA.

The second facet of costs are the yearly costs, which are broken down further still into two parts: recurring infrastructure costs (fixed costs) and the actually cost of each Jupiter rocket (variable costs). DIRECT saves roughly $1-2 billion per year for fixed costs vs. Ares, depending on a few factors.

In addition, 2 Jupiter 246's cost between $400-500 million (depending on flight rate) and 1 Ares I + 1 Ares V will cost in excess of $600 million.

Total lifecycle savings thru 2020 are in excess of $20 billion for DIRECT.

We need an architecture that can still achieve the moon even if NASA faces budget cuts. DIRECT can still support full ESAS lunar missions even if Obama reduces NASA's budget, just that we'd only fly 3-4 per year vs. 6-8 that we can do with the existing budget. If this isn't sustainable, I don't know what is.

According to NASA's own numbers, Ares needs that $2-3 billion budget increase just to achieve those 3-4 missions per year. This is not sustainable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/06/2009 10:07 pm
...
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.

IMHO?

Small steps. Since Direct 3.0 is more than capable of fulfilling VSE requirements without depots why include depots on the initial critical path?

If Direct were adopted, the advantages of leveraging Jupiter 246 missions with depots will soon become blindingly obvious.

Unless some unknown unknowns arise in the development of depots.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/06/2009 10:43 pm
...
 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.
Quote
  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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/06/2009 10:51 pm
Counting components can lead you in a humorous direction. For example, counting RSRM segments alone:

2x JS-246 = 16 segments (4x 4seg)

AI + AV = 16 segments (1x 5seg + 2x 5.5seg)

Then, of course, you have the problem of 14x RS-68regen vs. 8x SSME and 12x RL-10 vs. 2x J-2X...

It looks to me like 2x JS-246 and AI + AV are pretty much equivalent on the component count axis. So all that's left to compare is which one requires the most development $$$...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/06/2009 10:58 pm
...
 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.
Quote
  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.



How much cargo can a single-launch JS-246 deliver to the lunar surface? I think if Direct wins out, it will be due to reduced up front development costs/time, at which point someone will have to look at no longer trying to mimic the Constellation endpoint EOR-LOR payload architecture. That architecture is retained to make comparisons easier. I can think of several other architectures that would make sense, once you're looking a two same size rockets, rather than big/little. LOR-LOR was my favorite for a long time, but lately I've begun to wonder if LSR might not make more sense. That gives you a manned lander with anytime/anywhere landing and return capability (because no LOR). If you want rovers or to build a base, you just land the cargo first. It's pretty easy to imagine a base built up by dropping a dozen cargo landers first (say 10 base components and two utility rovers), followed by one or more crewed landers. Even if the crew somehow lands 50km from the cargo, the rover can come get them. But first, we have to have a an HLLV that can get aloft before being cancelled...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 06/06/2009 11:38 pm

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.

1) Huh? Isn't the point of ISRU to reduce the amount of cargo flights...?

2) What does the Ares V do that 2x Jupiter 246's or 1x Jupiter 246 and a propellant depot can't do, for less money?

3) Sustainability is about having a system that fits the needs, budget, and schedule. There is no need for a 180mT launcher because there isn't any lunar or martian component that a 100mT launcher can't lift. What doesn't break down into 100mT pieces that does break down to 180mT pieces? Ares V won't be sustainable because it will be too expensive to fly more than 3-4 times per year. For less money, DIRECT could double that *mission* rate. (The flight rate would be doubled again, because 2x Jupiter 246's are used per lunar mission vs. 1x Ares V)

You aren't going to get Ares V anyway, because there won't be any funding for it. Ares I breaks the bank. Right now, DIRECT is the only way to get a HLLV that is politically feasible.

Quote
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.

The 'numbers' for DIRECT are done by the same people who do the numbers for Ares, using the same methodologies. You either believe them both, or believe neither. In fact, DIRECT's numbers have more confidence in them because they are closely matched to currently flying systems.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 06/06/2009 11:54 pm

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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/06/2009 11:55 pm

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.

That's why it's cheaper and faster to launch those resources from Earth.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Gregori on 06/07/2009 12:48 am
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)






Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 06/07/2009 01:35 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Captain Kirk on 06/07/2009 03:13 am
Here's my two cents to the Committee:

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

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

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

Thanks, SoFDMC.  I think you've hit the nail on the head with the idea that NASA knows its 'game over' for the lunar return, in this budgetary environment, with the Ares I/V plan.  With Direct 3.0, NASA gets three things while still cutting the budget:  a new versatile launcher, a new crew transport vehicle and a feasible, sustainable way to go back to the Moon.  Let's hope that this committee is not hell-bent on EELV's only.  That will completely cut out any possibility of a return to the Moon any time soon, because of no heavy lifter.  :(
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Varn on 06/07/2009 09:03 am
First off, I guess since this is my first post I should provide a bit of background information.  One of my earliest memories growing up was watching the Challenger incident, live.  I have always held an interest in our space program, but I must admit, often over the years there usually ends up being maybe one shuttle flight a year that I pay attention to.

I remember being online chatting with a group of friends when word of Columbia broke.  My reaction was OMG, this is going to set the space program back 2 years minimum.  Everyone else was shocked that I could say such an insensitive thing... 7 people had died!  Well, they did sign up for it.  I don't feel that spaceflight needs to be 100% risk free.  It is a dangerous place.

I first learned of DIRECT a couple years back via a brief mention on CNN.  I was curious enough that I went online, checked it out for myself.  I've been periodically returning to check on updates, and since the website only tantalizingly refers to DIRECT 3.0 (and no details), I had to chase you guys here for more information.  At first I was totally stumped why you guys would abandon the J-2 in favor of the SSME, upon reading through this thread (and yes, I've read all of this 3.0 thread), it seems perfectly clear now.

It was mentioned earlier of professionals accusing DIRECT of being a LEGO rocket.  Actually, that's a perfect analogy.  That's what makes DIRECT so promising.  Start with what exists as DIRECT 3.0 now.  5 years down the line, J-2X looks man-rated and good to go?  Then start prep on a block 20 unit.  Take the extra time in the middle to do some upgrades to perhaps support the 10m ET that Aries V has planned.  Throw in the 5 segment SRBs.  Build LC-39C.  Outfit it for a taller then 100m rocket.  Build a 2nd VAB, one with only 2 bays, something that can handle, say 150m rockets.  Use one of the bays as the "new" hurricane refuge, use the other to finish the top 50m of anything else done in the current VAB.  Frees up the hurricane refuge slot from that building for another usable 100m buildup spot.  Unless Mars missions become commonplace, that should more then handle the Jupiter needs until 2030 at the earliest.  I would expect that even if there became the need for a 150m Jupiter model, it would still be the more rarely used configuration.  It would definitely be the exception to the rule.  (But 2040/2050 are coming, we might need those 150m bays more frequently!  I will likely live to see that.)

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.

By my estimate it might only be required once a decade to use this capability.  The ISS might need a bit more return to earth capability, so perhaps it might be as frequent as every few years until that is retired.  (As a taxpayer tho, we've paid so much over so long, we don't even have it finished yet and we're planning on retiring it?  Huh?  There has to be a way to keep the ISS relevant for at least another 10 years.  Perhaps Jupiter is a way to manage that.)

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).

I had a few other things to say, but I guess I've fired off enough ammo for questions to leave it at that.

Varn
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/07/2009 10:09 am
...
 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.


One of the architectures that DIRECT is currently considering is staged-TLI / staged-descent.

Such a cargo mission can land way more payload than a single Ares V launch, and only requires a single Altair, which is the most expensive element of the mission.

That's a worthy payback for the hassles of docking in LEO (which will be automated anyway), and should be a lot cheaper per Kg.

A single-launch Jupiter cargo mission can still land a substantial payload, and may be cheaper per Kg than Ares V cargo.



Quote
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.

Actually, it just requires a lot of mass on the Moon.

DIRECT is much cheaper at doing that, which gets your outpost up and running quicker.

It also offers the possibility to drop a much larger single item on the Moon (maybe 25mT??). There may be no need to do that for a hab module (just guessing).

Is ISRU machinery going to be heavy? Is it going to be less complex (and therefore cheaper) to build an ISRU unit in 25mT chunks than 15mT chunks?



In fact there is another option - 2.5 launch.

Add an EELV-launched Orion onto a two-launch Jupiter cargo stack, and you can land a crew and more-than-14.7mT-of-cargo in a single mission.

That's 2x J-24x + 1x EELV exceeding the capabilities of 2x Ares V + 1x Ares I, for a lot less money.

There are many ways this sort of mission could go wrong, so suspect the LOM figures would be pretty bad, but a scrubbed launch or failed rendezvous of Orion would still allow a "consolation" cargo-only flight.

This probably is one of those times when separating crew from cargo is just the safest way to go. Still, it's a possibility. Maybe makes most sense for a NEO mission - one shot, the cargo you carry with you is all you're ever going to have.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/07/2009 10:28 am
...
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.


There is no inconsistency here.

DIRECT claims that Ares costs too much to ever get to the stage of flying a Lunar mission. If Jupiter can be delivered within foreseeable budgets / budgets that have historically been available, it can therefore save the Lunar mission from certain cancellation.

Propellant Depots offer the promise of cheaper and massier missions, but are not required to save the whole programme from cancellation.

It can't be denied that PD's require additional development (whether the amount is "Jon Goff" small, or "NASA" large), and they add some risk to the programme.

Getting Jupiter accepted is the important step to "save the Moon".

I suspect this would cause NASA to kick off a whole new study about the best architecture to utilise a 100mT launcher, and PD's may make a dramatic comeback at that point.

It's important to differentiate between DIRECT offering architectural choices - "Jupiter is feasible, see all the different ways that it can be made to work" - and DIRECT demanding unnecessary changes to CxP.

NASA will have done trade studies in far more depth than you or I can achieve. Modify the assumptions and lets see what comes out of a re-run of those studies.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/07/2009 10:44 am
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.

I think you turned my question about the Ares V programme vs Jupiter into a response about Jupiter.

The fundamental difference between Ares V & Jupiter is the payload-to-LEO requirement.

It would be a hugely persuasive argument in favour of Jupiter if one could claim that Jupiter is the vehicle that NASA themselves would have chosen / designed given "cheap mass to LEO" instead of "maximum single payload to LEO" as their requirement.

My question - is that something that could reasonably be claimed?

It seems to be implied by the "Ares III" / "Ares IV" language in the ISDC presentation, but I'm surprised that DIRECT aren't pushing it with all their might. "NASA chose this design of vehicle, we just shrunk it 50%".

cheers, Martin

PS yes, I'm aware of the LOC rationale for putting crew on a simpler vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/07/2009 11:07 am
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.

I suspect it would require a massive re-development effort of the Shuttle to make that work.


Quote
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.

The only way I can see that working is with a standard Shuttle stack, except the ET has a J-130-style O2 tank and Orion / LAS on top.

Unfortunately, Orion + LAS exceeds Shuttle's cargo capacity (assuming the payload bay is empty), and the shortfall would be even worse if the ET had to be retained through the OMS burn.

Worse still, the ET would shed huge amounts of popcorn (MMOD risk) and would have to be de-orbited, adding yet further mass.

I'd speculate it would be cheaper to create a dumb custom 8.4m "cargo reentry vehicle", and carry it under Orion as payload on a J-130.



"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.



Quote
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).

That's the wrong comparison.

You need to compare the mass of shuttle+ET+payload vs J-130+payload. Also don't forget, Shuttle drops the ET before it reaches orbit, which gives it an advantage.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2009 12:16 pm
...
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 ?

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.

First, our Lunar program begins in "Phase 2" -- Phase 1 being ISS/LEO support with Jupiter-130 and Delta-IV Heavy HR.

In Phase 2, a fairly 'regular' 2-launch architecture needs to essentially lift all the elements, dock them together and go.   One of the key drivers for such an architecture is just how much propellant you can loft inside the EDS, ready for the TLI.   In our 2-launch architecture we aim to maximize that as much as possible by using a dedicated flight just for the EDS, with all the other hardware flying on the other launch.   This means that the size of the EDS is defined by the total amount of propellant needed to complete ascent and also then perform the TLI after loitering for a few days in LEO first.

Now, in order to reduce manufacturing costs, you really don't want to have two different-sized EDS's in production.   You *could* do that, but it would be more expensive and this whole architecture is intended to cut hardware costs as much as possible so that more missions can be afforded instead, so it would be 'against the grain'.

So, the second flight doesn't need a full load of propellant in its Upper Stage because it won't be performing any TLI burns, only the ascent burn.   When calculated, it turns out that the stage only requires roughly half of its total propellant capacity to be filled (the exact percentage changes between J-241, 244, 246 and 247, but all are around half).

This is what you are seeing in the baseball cards.   The same design of Upper Stage is used for both tasks -- to keep costs down -- and the design is optimized to make the most of the more performance-sensitive of the two launches.


But this "baseline" 2-launch Mission Profile is actually intended to be fairly short-lived anyway.

It creates the initial Lunar capability, which is perfectly sufficient for everything we need to do, but which doesn't offer much in the way of potential for significant future improvement.

So the DIRECT architecture proposes that Propellant Depot technologies be developed as soon as can safely & affordably be done.   Once those can be deployed, the DIRECT architecture would then switch from the 2-launch Jupiter solution, and would instead begin to use a 1-launch Jupiter solution, along with an LEO Depot.

The Depot itself would be kept filled by a combination of International Partnership contributions provided in exchange for crew seats/payload mass to the Lunar surface, or by domestic propellant delivery contracts to the commercial operators.   We expect that the split would be roughly 50/50 between these two and are estimating that total demand would be in the 800-1200mT range per year.

In this architecture the EDS, LSAM and CEV would all be launched together on the one flight.   In LEO, the EDS would be re-filled at the Depot and the mission would proceed from there.

The underlying goal here is to reduce NASA's cost per mission, so that more missions can be funded.   Using International Partners to lift valuable resources to LEO is a major contribution, and utilizing commercial operators to continue lifting US propellant requirements is not only ensures the best value for those resources, but also creates a thriving domestic launch market as a very desirable side-effect.

This approach also potentially opens the door to the possibility that an even larger LSAM Descent Module could also be re-filled in at the same time too, thus increasing total Lunar performance for every mission.   With sufficient propellant, a cargo LSAM in the region of 150mT is possible via this "Phase 3" architecture, yet would still be launched (dry) as part of a 1-launch architecture.   No other architecture can get close to that level of performance -- and this is also very Mars-forward.


Also, the Lunar Cargo mission profile was omitted simply because of time constraints.   We still plan such missions, we simply didn't have the Mission Profile drawing ready in time to show!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2009 12:27 pm

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).

Correct.   We have been low-balling the performance for all Jupiter's.   We want extra margin at every level of the design, development and implementation.   We have been adding additional margin to the hardware designs, the cost profiles and the schedules, all to ensure we don't produce an option which is too 'aggressive' or 'over enthusiastic' in any of those ares.

Over the years most of the members of our team have watched, or even participated in, so many programs which have reached too far, or which have painted a picture that's a little too rosy for reality.   None of us want that to happen this time, so we determined very early on, that our pictures would all need to include plenty of additional margins to protect from unexpected developments, schedule slips and performance shortfalls.

You have successfully identified the added performance margin in your comparison to Shuttle.   Yes, in reality we expect Jupiter's total injection mass to be right around Shuttle's (real expectation is around 83mTto 30x160, 28.5deg).   But right now, we are deliberately low-balling that figure in all of our documentation.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/07/2009 12:30 pm
..........
Edit: I also wanted to ask you this, why did you omitted the lunar cargo mission description from the ISDC'09 presentation ?
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.
..........
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 $$ greatly outweighs ops $$.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2009 12:35 pm
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, cargo or crew.   Although it should be noted that we only require a Jupiter-130 to loft the cargo-only LSAM to 130x130nmi, not the full Jupiter-246.   And we are currently trying to find a reasonable way to use a Jupiter-130 for the Crew missions too -- but that is still "in work" at this time.


But 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/07/2009 12:45 pm
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.

Thanks Ross.  After I posted that question, I went back and found the D3 lunar cargo mission profile image, "DIRECT_v3.0_Mission_Profile_-_Phase-1_Lunar_Cargo_EOR_090501.jpg".  It shows two J-2xx launches for the cargo flights, launching a 79.7 mT LSAM, with a 38.4 mT landed mass on the Moon.

Would a J-1xx be able to handle the Altair launch at that weight, or would the LSAM and landed mass have to be scaled down?

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2009 01:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/07/2009 02:48 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/07/2009 02:54 pm
I don't see any problems at all with the LSAM doing its own circ burn.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/07/2009 03:34 pm
From the news section:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17353.0

Which links to this article:

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090607/NEWS02/906070319


When Ross last mentioned this the upshot was that even in the dire event of a Jupiter first stage explosion the Orion would stand a measurably better chance of getting away due to the far more benign launch regime of the Jupiter.

Does this latest news affect those assessments?

And what's with Hanley's "Accidents will almost never happen with Ares so it's all good!" routine...?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Varn on 06/07/2009 03:36 pm
"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.  The main difference was that instead of an ET, they used a main rocket.  Also, instead of using solid rockets for "boosters" they used liquid fueled boosters because their technology in regards to solid rockets were lacking.

I know this kinda info has only just became public knowledge in the last half dozen years, but seriously....

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/07/2009 03:39 pm
I don't see any problems at all with the LSAM doing its own circ burn.

Danny Deger

If the Jupiter-130 is really that close to doing the job, then I don't have a problem with LSAM doing the circ burn either.  In fact, having Altair do its own circularization burn would seem to be the perfect "test case" for LSAM checkout in orbit.  You wouldn't want the cargo LSAM get all the way to the point of LOI before finding out the descent engine won't light!

That being the case, DIRECT can modify its lunar cargo profile to save the cost of a JUS + SSME.  Of course it's still two-launch and an in-orbit berthing, which will still leave the Ares-V proponents a little ammo for taking potshots.

Alternatively, if there is only a 2-3 mT discrepancy when using the J-130 to launch the cargo LSAM, couldn't you just trim that off of the target cargo mass?  The current DIRECT lunar cargo profile already lands more mass than Ares is planning to, from what I understand.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/07/2009 03:48 pm
Just a thought.  The discussion in this thread of alternative mission profiles using the Direct Architecture reinforces in my mind just how flexible it really is and how well it leverages legacy technologies.

Ross, as you noted earlier flexibility is important... I really believe it is the central point from a technology standpoint.

IMHO

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/07/2009 04:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 06/07/2009 04:49 pm

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).

Incidentally, I don't think you removed the mass of the SSMEs when you were estimating. An SSME is about 3.5 mT. So that's 10,500 kg that you need to subtract. Which does bring the weight pretty close to the J-130 payload capability.

Quote
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.

I believe MP99's point was that the transmission of the load to the core(which for Jupiter would be modified to handle in-line loads), becomes as issue. Sure, the TVC can handle the effect on the vehicle as a whole (it does now, quite well), but that doesn't matter if the orbiter gets ripped off of the side. Which means you have to make sure the redesigned core can handle the load transmission from the orbiter, and the axial loads it would experience in a normal case. I'm not an ET guy, so I'm not sure what that would entail, other than maintaining the side mounts. However, you're still compromising the design for what is probably a marginal capability.

The point is, it's probably doable, but if all you're looking to do is preserve downmass, a purpose built module that launches on top of the stack is probably gonna be a much better option. My gut feeling (based off of my "extensive" 11 months of experience in the program) is that you could probably build said module for a heck of a lot less than it would cost to maintain all the necessary orbiter infrastructure.

EDIT: Fixed quotes, added a disclaimer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/07/2009 05:05 pm
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.

I wish senior management would re-read their history books. It isn't just NASA that has tried the immortal vehicle argument...

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/187231765_530fd2b403.jpg?v=0)

Unsinkable anyone?




Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/07/2009 06:28 pm
...
 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.
Quote
  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.



I agree you need an Ares V for that one-shot cargo mission but an original stretched 8.4m SSME Ares V classic from which you can derive a 5-seg stretched 8.4m Ares III as a (CEV + mission module/LSAM) CLV. The current Ares V won't be built until way past 2020 if Ares I is built as well under the new leaner exploration budgets. Ares and Direct will have to meet half-way if all the original VSE goals are to be met (Moon/Lunar Outpost/Mars) within budget and schedule and without needing a propellant depot or excessive flights. Such an architecture could unite the currently competing sections of MSFC, they just have to be told first by the Commission they can't have the current unrealistically expensive Ares I/VII combination. It could be both Direct and an asymmetrical Ares 1.5 solution if compromise and imagination is shown by all the parties for the greater good.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2009 08:10 pm
I hate to say it marsavian, but that isn't an affordable option.

The budgets are going to get pretty tight starting in 2010 and by all accounts we need to start bracing ourselves for even further cuts in the 2015 time-frame too.

That limits our options severely.

The option to build two new launch vehicles -- of any combination -- essentially died when the money originally promised for the VSE failed to turn up.   All we are ever going to realistically get now is one -- and it needs to be as low cost as possible if we are to be able to afford to maximize its use.

I would far rather swap the cost of ten, or even twenty, extra launches for a second launcher.   The launches will always produce results, but the development is really just "make work".

The important key is defining what your requirements are and then building something which meets those aims -- and doesn't go beyond them just for the sakes of "wanting" to.

The current requirements, to me, seem to be (in no particular order):-

1) A significantly safer launch system than Shuttle.   ESAS defined Shuttle as having an LOC around 1:200, and set the bar for any new acceptable system to be at least 1:1000 -- making a 5-times improvement.   That seems reasonable to me.

2) Protect the skilled and experienced workforce from Shuttle.

3) Leverage existing systems in order to lower both the development cost, the operational cost and also the schedule for deployment.

4) Leverage the existing commercial capabilities in order to lower costs and also make them more competitive on the world market.

5) Assist and support the wave of New.Space commercial companies to mature so that they can offer their added capabilities and technologies to the mix.

6) Do not entertain any plans which require the US to abandon the ISS just a few short years after completing it.

7) Be able to provide crew rotation and logistic supplies to ISS as soon as possible after Shuttle has retired.

8 ) Be able to extend the life of the ISS beyond 2020 if the funding allows.

9) Return humans to the Moon by 2020.

10) Send humans to a Near Earth Object somewhere around 2020 -- as opportunities present themselves.

11) Aim to send humans to Mars by 2030.

12) Create a plan which can use serious contributions from International Partners.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/07/2009 08:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/07/2009 08:36 pm
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  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bluea on 06/07/2009 09:24 pm
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?

Because that would be a pretty sizable "depot" right there.

IOW: How much additional fuel would a Jupiter Core (either three or four engines) need to lift the main tank, minimal new upper tank and nothing else to a "Stable enough" orbit? (Stable enough to rendezvous with and tug the rest of the way to LEO).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/07/2009 09:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/07/2009 10:19 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/07/2009 10:20 pm
No need for manned operation, it's in an inconvenient orbit and it would be hazardous for the station.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zeke01 on 06/07/2009 10:21 pm
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.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12338.0

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.

zeke
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/07/2009 10:23 pm
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.
I think you turned my question about the Ares V programme vs Jupiter into a response about Jupiter.

The fundamental difference between Ares V & Jupiter is the payload-to-LEO requirement.
M99, Yeah, I stepped over your message.  Thank you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/07/2009 10:51 pm
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.

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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/07/2009 11:00 pm
Quote
Because that would be a pretty sizable "depot" right there.

Refer ZapKitty's post re why this is not feasible. There are other difficulties, too.

An Upper Stage provides a much better basis for design of a depot.



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?


Ross made it plain that cross-connecting an Upper Tank to the core would be a considerable development programme. The tanks require pressurisation to maintain strength during launch, one brief drop in pressure and disaster is inevitable. This is more complex than it seems, when the original rationale was something cheap & simple.



Anyway, J-130 already lifts itself & 71.4mT of payload to 100x100 @ 29 deg, and presumably somewhat less to a higher (more long-term stable) orbit. After this, the core has to be actively de-orbited.

Even J-120 looks like it should be able to lift itself plus some tens of mT of payload to a stable orbit. (NB this my presumption based on J-120 BB card).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/07/2009 11:04 pm
"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.

Well, you definitely got me there!

I've only been here about a year, and I'm not an insider either, just a programmer with an interest. Dunno why I thought that was how Buran flew - I never really got very interested in the Russian programme. Should have checked before making such a comment, but posted in a hurry.


Quote
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).

OK, Thanks.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/07/2009 11:15 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Hermit on 06/07/2009 11:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/07/2009 11:50 pm
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.

To clarify, my crazy proposal is to have some sort of insulation on the tank while on the pad but remove the insulation sometime between say T-60 seconds and T+1 seconds.

Why would the ET being cooked during launch be a problem?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/07/2009 11:56 pm

Why would the ET being cooked during launch be a problem?

Because it might melt.  It is just aluminum.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Hermit on 06/08/2009 12:04 am
Hmmm... [deep thought]...
Insulating the ET right up to launch might mitigate the problem, especially since there is no orbiter to endanger. Not sure if the falling ice might yet damage the boosters. It could be possible.

I was thinking that the 'cooking' might over-pressurise the H2 tank.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/08/2009 12:05 am

Why would the ET being cooked during launch be a problem?

Because it might melt.  It is just aluminum.

Danny Deger

According to http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/114022main_TPS_FS.pdf

"Insulation in the areas of the tank subjected the highest heating is somewhat thicker—between 1.5 to 3 inches thick."

That quote confirms that heating during launch is a problem. I withdraw my pre-launch insulation removal proposal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/08/2009 12:12 am

Why would the ET being cooked during launch be a problem?

Because then the tons of liquid hydrogen being pumped at insane rates into the inferno of the SSME's would start... bubbling.

Bubbling in the feed pipes to the turbopumps.

"Cavitation" would be a technical term for it.

"Impromptu Launch Abort System stress test due to unplanned launch vehicle disassembly." would also do... :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/08/2009 01:55 am
How about throwing a modified and empty ET on top of a Jupiter130 stack - an ET without the foam insulation which would be a navigational hazard.  An empty uninsulated ET wouldnt have structural issues on ascent, would it?  Also how tall would it be?  Could it be stacked in the current VAB? 

I wonder if crosswinds on this kind of stack would be a problem while on the pad, it would look silly.  Silly ideas are supposed to look silly though  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/08/2009 02:37 am

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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/08/2009 04:12 am
It is the pivotal yeah indeed. The decisions made over the next 6 months may affect the next 20 or more years.

At least Direct keeps our options open. With it, the possibilities are endless. It can support a more Earth-based exploration in LEO, or it can support the whole Moon, Mars, Beyond deal.

I don't like systems that will set us down one track. I want something that keeps all of the options open.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/08/2009 04:14 am
What if, in addition to the 109% thrust you fly a "black zone" trajectory and jettison the payload fairing earlier (which you can do if you leave the atmosphere sooner)?  After all, there is no abort re-entry that you have to worry about with just cargo.

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 09:56 am
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.

Second, the Jupiter's optimum trajectories all appear to be Blackzone Safe by default (I'm sure there are some unusual configurations which might not be, but all the ones we are recommending are safe), so there are no performance advantages to be traded there.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 10:18 am
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.

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.


Quote
Depots can have their own solar arrays to power active cooling equipment to minimize boil off.

Correct.   In fact some of the best designs for Depots have a large sunshield deployed all around them thus:

(http://www.thespacereview.com/archive/1127a.jpg)


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 :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 10:29 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/08/2009 10:49 am
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 think that this is a good argument against the 'LEO Hub' super-space station beloved of some posters.  The environments required for different applications, combined with safety issues, drives up costs and reduces usability.

IMHO, I would say that a minimum of three LEO stations would be needed as a starting point - A 'super-ISS' dedicated research platform, a multi-tank fuel depot (to encourage robust usage) and a LEO Transport hub for docking, maintaining and resupplying lunar surface delivery shuttles, robot tugs and the occasional beyond Earth/Moon MTVs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 11:13 am
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.

I might want to put the depot in a coplanar higher or lower orbit than ISS, "just in case." I'm not sure what a major leak or rupture would do in terms of orbital debris risk. I think LOX and LH2 would disperse rapidly under their own vapor pressure, but I'm not sure about RP-1 and various hypergols. Kerosene in particular might coagulate into something like tarry lumps under vacuum conditions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 11:21 am
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

You are right, and Jupiter 130/Jupiter 246 has the same problem. It's also worth remembering Ares I (zero engines) and Ares V (7 engines) don't mean anything, with regard to the LV configuration, they just commemorate Saturn I and Saturn V, where the roman numerals were a legacy from the Saturn C-1 and C-5 nomenclature, which originally stood for the number of F-1 engines involved. There's really no reason not to call the Jupiter xxx vehicles Ares V-A and Ares V-B. They're not that different from Ares V "Classic" (a.k.a. JS-252H) anyway.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 11:26 am
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  ;)

There was never really anything wrong with Ares V "Classic" as far as a going-to-the-moon machine goes. It would have been perfect for a direct-ascent version of Apollo, as a latter-day Saturn C-8. The problem was Ares I was based on some false assumption, including the notion that it could somehow "pay for" 50% of the Ares V development. Instead, it almost doubled it. Ares V "Classic" remains a growth option for Jupiter, if ever needed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 11:49 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/08/2009 12:00 pm
Jupiter & Jupiter Heavy then

internally and technically you can deal with the standard naming convention of Jupiter-1XX and 2XX.  Im not sure this is even neccessary though, If I can get that the J-246 is just a J130 with an extra SSME(which the avionics and thrust structure are already designed for in the J-130) and an upper-stage most people can get it.  Even congress-critters.   ;D




Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/08/2009 12:34 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/08/2009 12:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 12:48 pm
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. I don't honestly know if nomenclature counts for anything, although I do see a number of people here (who I'd expect to know better) perceiving "two names = two rockets." And there seems to be a conscious deception on the part of Boeing and LM also supported by people here, that Atlas and Delta are both "one rocket each," start to finish, despite the fact that, for example, Atlas V doesn't have much in common with Atlas SM-65. It's probably much too late now for any of that to matter, and we'll know what's going to happen in just a few months.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/08/2009 01:08 pm
My vote would be to distance yourself completely from the Ares name..

If NASA adopts Jupiter and chooses to name it Ares-? to save face.. that's fine.

Right now having only ONE Jupiter name with configuration variants(ala EELVs) makes a lot more sense to me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 01:08 pm
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.

Russia is building a new spaceport in its far east, just northwest of Japan:

"The Council said that the key program of Russia's space industry (at least as regards ground infrastructure) would be the construction of a space center in the Far East, which will provide Russia with an independent space window. The new space port, called Vostochny, will be built on the sight of a disused military space complex in the Amur region."

High inclination orbits will still be needed to accomodate this spaceport.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/08/2009 01:22 pm
What's the inclination from Japan's launch site.. If you want to keep them in the Depot game?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: John Duncan on 06/08/2009 01:41 pm
How about:

J-130 = Jupiter Launcher Vehicle
J-130H = Augmented Jupiter LV
J-246 = Jupiter Heavy
J-246H = Jupiter Heavy Augmented

Just throwing it out there....  :)







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"

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 01:45 pm

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.




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.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/08/2009 03:08 pm
Ross,

From the MLAS Thread about the problems with the current Ares I LAS:

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 03:19 pm
What's the inclination from Japan's launch site.. If you want to keep them in the Depot game?

Japan's Tanegashima is around 30.4deg.
Europe's Kourou is around 5.2deg.
China's Jiuquan is around 41.1deg.
China's Xichang is around 28.0deg.
India's Sriharikota is around 13.7deg.

I believe that all are capable of launching to an ISS-compatible 51.6deg inclination.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 03:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 03:28 pm
Ross,

From the MLAS Thread about the problems with the current Ares I LAS:

Quote
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.

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.


Ah Yes, a little bit of history.  Von Braun never trusted SRB's and that is the primary reason he insisted that the saturn V 1st stage be liquid despite a lot of pressure for a quick and dirty solution. But the past is past and we have 20 years worth of safety in the Shuttle SRB as long as manufacturing vigilance continues.

It amuses me that the USAF is concerned given that they wanted to use SRBs as part of their military Gemini program.

This is all the more reason to leave the SRB's at 4 segments for a long time until a 5 segment is thoroughly tested or used only for cargo.  Ah, who needs it with the current Jupiter performance.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/08/2009 03:30 pm
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.

Yeah.  41ish degrees would give you everything except for launches from Baikonur.  51.6 would give you pretty much everyone.  I think I had a blog post about some of these issues a few years back.

Quote
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 :)

Yeah, you actually don't want the solar arrays near the sunshield.  It doesn't work thermally.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 03:32 pm
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'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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ballew on 06/08/2009 03:33 pm
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.

Ford never used Edsel or Pinto model names strictly because of negative associations with the names.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 03:43 pm
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 a really detailed analysis for just how effective the shield actually is though...   Which is a pretty important factor! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 03:47 pm
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...

I don't have a copy of the document, it was a hardcopy in a collector's library which I sat and read for an hour, making a few short notes.   I'll try to locate a copy and scan it in for you if I can.   It was fairly rudimentary though, clearly still in its early planning stages.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 03:47 pm
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.

Given the small risk( how small?), is the increase in safety really worth the increase in weight?

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/08/2009 03:54 pm
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.

Ross,
Good point reminding people of that.  and yea, you'll probably want to stay away from phrasing and terms that seem to be mocking or belittling NASA and Ares.

I'd recommend sticking with "Safe, Simple, Soon", but use it in this context.
Use it in conclusion, something like, "In Conclusion, we feel we have demonstrated that the Jupiter architecture can deliver a system a robust functional system within current budget constraints.  A system that will truely be, 'Safe, Simple, and Soon'. "

So, you don't seem to be mocking it, or spinning it.  More like, you are trying to deliver on the promise NASA made of "Safe, Simple, and Soon".

Almost as if it were 1966 and the current NASA plans had a high likelyhood of not reaching the Moon by the end of the decade, and you come in and say, "We feel THIS system will get us to the moon by the end of the decade within budget, and truely deliver on JFK's challege to us!"

Just a thought...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 03:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 03:57 pm
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.

Amen!!!!

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/08/2009 04:01 pm
"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"

How about, "Ross Tierney...a boy and his rocket..."?

;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SimonFD on 06/08/2009 04:08 pm
Sorry for continuing the naming thread but this just occured to me.......
Why not hide all the individual config details behind a monicker based on destination.

eg

Jupiter LEO
Jupiter Lunar
Jupiter Mars
Jupiter <insert NEO name here>

etc etc
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/08/2009 04:12 pm
Given the small risk( how small?), is the increase in safety really worth the increase in weight?

Stan

Only if you have a launch vehicle that doesn't already have a negative mass margin.. ;) 

When you have lots of positive margin you can easily afford such saftey items.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/08/2009 04:12 pm

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.

It isn't Russia, it is a Russian company.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/08/2009 04:14 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 04:14 pm
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.

But we aren't changing the naming at this stage.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 04:20 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/08/2009 04:21 pm
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.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 04:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/08/2009 04:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/08/2009 04:43 pm
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 04:47 pm
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.
 

First, 6 syllables is very nice when it is properly balanced 3+3.

Second, Ganymede refers to a class, all Jupiter Upper stages regardless of technical composition.

Third, and most important, Jupiter and Ganymede are already astronomically linked which makes it a natural concept to communicate to the public.

I like Ross's idea.

IMHO

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 06/08/2009 04:55 pm
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'...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 05:02 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 05:07 pm
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.

Given the history of the rocket name "Jupiter," you could call them Juno III and Juno IIIC... There's even a case for retroactive naming! I distinctly remember Explorer I being launched by Jupiter-C and only finding out about the Juno I name from history books. And, of course, Juno II is the LV derived from the original Jupiter... (And, as a kid, knowing about Jupiter and Saturn, I waited in vain for a rocket named Uranus.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 05:10 pm
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

There's always Amalthea (Jupiter's nursemaid)...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/08/2009 05:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/08/2009 05:17 pm
Are you going to provide any sort of side-by-side crew safety comparison using the methodology you've adopted from NASA?

I can see them accepting the most recent 1:2800 LOC calculation from Ares unless they have a reason to question it.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/08/2009 05:20 pm
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!

Yeah.  There are people looking for it.  There is a window that is open and is quickly closing, "public" meetings or not.  Given that there is an analysis team, the public meeting is not the most important part of this process.  They need as much detailed technical data as possible, with no expectation that you will get to 'splain it to them.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 05:26 pm
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.

May I suggest the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage.

Please consider this a phase 4 item, after PD we're going to do a lot of flying so I don't want any SRB fireballs.

IMHO

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/08/2009 05:27 pm
One thing I wonder is, just how safe does a spacecraft have to be? There's nothing to stop you from putting aircraft ejection seats in a capsule (like Vostok and Gemini), alongside the LAS, giving you redundant escape systems.  Ejection seats would save you from recovery chute failure, for example. Add in redundant blast shields (one for each stage and a third for the heat shield) and you still won't have eaten much of Jupiter 130s performance margin. Of course, I imagine at some point the extra safety equipment would begin to pose its own risks to LOC/LOM numbers...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/08/2009 05:44 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/08/2009 06:28 pm
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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: imjeffp on 06/08/2009 06:29 pm
Jupiter LEO
Jupiter Lunar
Jupiter Mars
Jupiter <insert NEO name here>

etc etc

Jupiter Jupiter?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/08/2009 06:36 pm
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.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 06:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/08/2009 06:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 06:55 pm

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.
 

That’s not correct. Let me use some “notational” numbers, that are not real but make the point.

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.

Now suppose Jupiter #1 launches with a $3 billion dollar spacecraft and meets up with a depot, where it pays 5 TIMES the previous rate for propellant. There is no Jupiter #2 launch.
Total cost for the depot-enabled mission: $7.5 billion dollars.
Total savings by using the depot? $1.8 billion dollars.

The company that filled the depot just walked away with a huge profit because they filled the depot with propellant, which is dirt cheap, using 5-6 dirt cheap rockets, and charged NASA 5x the going rate for ground delivered propellant.

NASA saved $1.8 billion dollars.
Somebody else charged NASA $1.5 billion dollars for propellant they paid $2.5 million for. Sure, they had to pay for their dirt cheap rockets, but it’s still a huge bottom-line profit for them.

I don’t care how much it cost the depot supplier to fill the depot.
I know, and like, two things:
* I save $1.8 billion dollars on my mission.
* The depot supplier made a killer profit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/08/2009 06:57 pm
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.

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.
I'm sure this method has been reviewed and rejected, just wondering why the current base-line is superior to it.
Especially if there was a way to fill the JUS by docking the stack (unchanged from launch config) Orion first into a port at the rear of the fuel tank in LEO.  Seems like about as simple of a docking maneuver as you can have then. Nothing flipping or rotating, or coming abreast.
(To tell truth, I've not heard any explain the anticipated method of docking the stack with the depot for single launch depot lunar missions.
Orion's docking ring or some other way?)
Just catching up nice and easy from behind.
You'd have to have the stack rigged with lines to run from Orion's docking ring to the tanks on the empty JUS.

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.
 
Doable?

I suppose if you can get the CSM/LSAM launched on a J-130 that would be better because you have the minimum amount of hardware (only 1 JUS and no disposable tank) .  But it -seems- like if you were going to launch two J246's for a non-depot lunar mission, this method would be cheaper (no engines expended on the disposable tank), and require more simple docking maneuvers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: stockman on 06/08/2009 06:58 pm

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 ??? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 06:59 pm
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...

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.

And remember Falcon 9 is designed to be fully reusable and is CHEAP.

IMHO

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 07:02 pm

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 ??? 

Jupiter#1 = $3 billion
Jupiter#2 = $3 billion
Spacecraft on Jupiter #1 = $3 billion
Propellant on Jupiter#2 = $3 million

3 billion + 3 billion + 3 billion + 3 million = 9.3 billion
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 07:03 pm
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.

These are valid points and deserve a more detailed review than I can provide right now.  I however do believe that you are underestimating
the thrust and overestimating the weight of the first stage of the Falcon 9.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/08/2009 07:04 pm

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/08/2009 07:04 pm
6 F9s around a J246 core and upper stage wouldn't even have a 1:1 T/W ratio at liftoff (or it would, but barely so - don't have the latest numbers handy).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kch on 06/08/2009 07:05 pm

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?  ;)  )
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/08/2009 07:05 pm
3 billion + 3 billion + 3 billion + 3 million = 9.3 billion

9.003 billion, Chuck.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 07:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: stockman on 06/08/2009 07:09 pm

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?  ;)  )


Thank you... that adds up in this example now for me... :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/08/2009 07:12 pm
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


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 07:17 pm

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?


reply to 1: Maybe

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.

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.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/08/2009 07:22 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 07:23 pm
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 Jupiter is flown without its upper stage to provide a bridge until COTSD and manrated EELVs can service most LEO demands.  Jproper Jupiter 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 (:

In-line markup mine - to facilitate conversations about naming conventions.
Trying to make the Jupiter be understood as ONE rocket, not 2.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2009 07:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 07:34 pm
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.

quoting from Base Ball cards:

SRB 1,298,513lb Gross weight, 2,892,649lbf at sea level, vacuum ISP 269.1

From Space X site:
Falcon 9 1st stage, 625,000 lbs gross weight (est.), 1,100,000 lbf at sea level, vacuum ISP 304.

I don't have the code to do a full fledged calculation but I think a Jupiter Core will carry an Orion to orbit safely using it.

Please remember, for now we stick to SRB.  This was future after propellant depot speculation.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/08/2009 07:40 pm
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.

Okay, but the numbers matter.  If the Jupiters are $3B their cost to deliver payload to LEO is much higher than EELVs, if they are $0.3B, their cost is much lower than EELVs, and that matters as to which strategy is most cost-effective overall.

Notional numbers:

1) 1x Jupiter (gold plated) - 100T Prop - $3B
2) 6x DIV heavy - 100T Prop - $2B
3) 1x Jupiter - 100T Prop - $0.3B

#2 makes more sense than number 1, but not as much as #3.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/08/2009 07:40 pm
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......
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mike robel on 06/08/2009 08:00 pm
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



I prefer Einstein's quote "Make everything as simple as possible, then simplify".  At least it is attributed to einstein.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/08/2009 08:03 pm

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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jml on 06/08/2009 08:09 pm
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.



Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/08/2009 08:31 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 06/08/2009 08:45 pm
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.



just jumping in, to say "we've lost a lot of good people over the past 50+ years because nobody thought it worth while implementing safety features, because the vehicle seemed safe. if Jupiter has the capacity then I say implement. if your not implementing, who wants to be the one delegated to contact the next of kin!"
  This isn't WW2, this is peacetime, and no one should have to fly a vehicle that isn't safe to 200%, when the technology and dollars are there...
   End of Rant....
now I need a sugar fix... off to the donut shop... ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/08/2009 08:52 pm
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.


Not that this statement isn't reason enough, but having accurate and up to date information on the website would be helpful. You've already made a formal public presentation of Direct 3.0.

Are you folks holding back for some reason other than lack of time?
Is there some reason not to disseminate the Direct 3.0 proposal on the internet just yet?

Getting the updated info out there would seem to be a matter of priority.

If you're lacking for manpower, just ask. Some of us know computers and stuff.  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 08:55 pm
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.

They better wait a little longer because we have not yet even been given a "no later than" date to submit our data to the commission.

We are continuing to prepare our data for submission about 3-5 days prior to our presentation (i.e. around the 12th to 14th June).

I will state right here, right now:

Anything they are analysing right now IS NOT CURRENT DATA.

I really hope that we don't have to go through the wringer with this analysis being based on out-of-date data like happened last time.

If Mike Hawes' team would like to contact me, we can supply him with a "heads up" of the latest data before it is all 'beautified' for the presentation.   info at directlauncher dot com.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/08/2009 08:56 pm
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

Jon, maybe the tug doesn't need to impart all of the de-orbit delta v.

Just push the empty tank outside of your depot bounding box and deploy a tether terminator device and let gravity take care of it for you. That saves the fuel needed for the tug to go low & slow enough to de-orbit the tank and then climb back to the depot.

As for inclination, I see good reasons for using the precise ISS orbit for the depot, just a few minutes ahead or behind which would allow a low delta v "day trip" from ISS while maintaining a decent distance between the facilities.

This would also avoid crossing orbits, thereby ruling out potential interference. Maneuver to match the precise ISS trajectory at all times -- just hit each point in space a specified number of minutes before or after ISS gets there.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/08/2009 09:02 pm
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.


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).



Think of it this way - the EELV lifts a "mini-PD" that has to "loiter" only long enough to rendezvous and transfer. There should be enough extra fuel left over to allow a long EDS loiter period. This would really relax the requirement to launch CLV shortly after CaLV, and allows a long window for the EELV flight.

Residual fuel in the mini-PD could be used for longer duration PD tests.

My thinking is this would make a superb milestone along the way to a full PD and phase 3.

Call it phase 2.5.

cheers, Martin


Edit: actually, presuming the mini-PD is predecessor to a fully-fledged PD, swap (1) & (2), and launch the mini-PD first. Don't launch EDS until the mini-PD checks out OK.

Much less risky than a full PD for early missions, and even if PT fails, crew & Orion / Altair / Lunar payload (most expensive elements of the mission) are still safely on the ground. You might even be able to save the EDS with a second mini-PD launch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 09:04 pm

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.



Okay,  Let me remind you that I was speculating in good  faith and I am willing to wait for the passage of decades to find out the truth.  I remember exactly where I was on July 20, 1969 when Neil armstrong said: Houston, Tranquility Base here... the Eagle has landed.  I will wait another 40 years, if necessary.

reply to 1:  I agree to disagree.

reply to 2: You are correct.  but whatever liquid fueled booster to choose from, cheaper to use one that is proven.

Reply to 3 and new point:  Better a cluster of engines than a single one.  Safer liquid than solid.

IMHO

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/08/2009 09:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 09:39 pm
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 think you've got it!

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2009 09:40 pm
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.

Exactly Bill, you've got it in one.

Cryogenic Propellant Depots are a technology which isn't mature yet and should not be included the critical path to success.

You must implement an architecture which can work without them and can still achieve all your goals.

But then, if/when you do finally get the technology operational, then you can begin using it to expand your horizons considerably.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/08/2009 10:19 pm

reply to 1:  I agree to disagree.


I know it is too many, it is not an opinion
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/08/2009 10:40 pm
Ross,

From the MLAS Thread about the problems with the current Ares I LAS:

Quote
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.
<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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 10:42 pm

reply to 1:  I agree to disagree.


I know it is too many, it is not an opinion

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.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 10:45 pm
Ross,

From the MLAS Thread about the problems with the current Ares I LAS:

Quote
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.
<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

I understand that back in the 60's the USAF man-rated the UA 1205 SRB by arranging to have the top blow in the event of failure.  Would this work now, given better sensors and realtime control systems?

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/08/2009 10:50 pm
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.


One would presume that the "Jupiter EDS" method would be the most efficient way to deliver propellant, ie double the size of the US's tanks (and maybe use an RL-60 engine, if available).

This also gives the advantage that it may be possible to recover some of the residuals (if not required to de-orbit the stage).

Maybe with an ET-style ogive H2 tank on top, it could fly with a very minimal PLF, too (my speculation).

DIRECT have also suggested that fuel tankers may fly with lower margins than a mission carrying a valuable satellite.

There will still be a hit for the fuel transfer hardware, see Jongoff's post re this.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/08/2009 10:54 pm

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. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/08/2009 10:58 pm

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. 

Thank you for your input.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 06/08/2009 11:42 pm
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 being open for scrutiny?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/08/2009 11:53 pm
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?


This about sums the situation up.  Things will hopefully change June 17th.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/09/2009 12:02 am
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


Well I hate to start this up again since it finally seems to have petered out.

But I would like to say that I am surprised and humbled that so many smart people would participate in a conversation about a little suggestion that I made two days ago.  It's been very interesting to see the different directions that people take when given a common starting point.

No more suggestions, I just want to say:  Thanks everyone!

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/09/2009 12:10 am
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.





Why not launch it on the 1 Jupiter, and then offer seats on the mission for a minimum contribution of say $100 million or something to the propellant Jupiter?
I guess the goal is to try to get the commercial EELV's in on the action, and thus drive down there costs with a market to sell to.
I suppose if the cost is about a wash, then these is that advantage to the EELV's.  Just seems more efficient to be able to do it in one launch, rather than 6 or 8 or however many smaller ones.
*shrug*
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/09/2009 12:16 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/09/2009 12:41 am


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>


Seems like you are now introducing more docking and complexity to the mission.

I'm just saying, if you could get a J-130 to launch a disposable tank into LEO (it would need an OMS I imagine to prevent it tumbling or something, and ullage motors to deorbit it) and then rendevous your J-246 stack (CSM/LSM/Empty EDS) as a whole unit with that tank and transfer fuel.
It would basicaly be an EDS without the engines.  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.  once the CSM/LSAM/EDS stack docks with it and transferrs the propellent, it deorbits and is disposed of.
Yea, you are kinda throwing the "depot" away every mission, but you are throwing away 5-6+ EELV tanks anyway to fill a depot between Lunar missions.  So would you be any money down?  I dunno, that's why I ask.  Seems like one orbital tank, with a docking rink and whatever is needed to transfer propellents would just be a lot simplier than doing it many times over for the EELV's.
Plus your docking maneuvers are almost no different than the planned Ares docking of the CSM to the rest of the stack.  (Not that Direct's docking plan is undoable or anything, but seems like it's be easier)

So, Pro's:
1 fuel launch vs. several EELV launches
 1 simple docking manuever (assuming the stack can simply rear-dock to the tank...I'm no expert, maybe I'm over simplifying this in my head).
Don't waste a 2nd set of JUS engines.

Con's:
requires a propellent transfer for the lunar mission (although this isn't a cont compared to the depot plan, but vs. the baseline architecture).

Requires that the J-130 can loft the tank into a circular LEO Orbit.  I think ROss said something to the effect that that could be done with 5-seg boosters?  But it's predicated on getting that to work.

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.

This way gets it done with one Fuel launch.
Just curious.  There may be some glaring reason it won't/can't work.
But since no one has explained very well how they plant to dock the stack to the depot and fuel up for the later depot "single launch" missions, I don't know what those reasons might be.

:)

Does the stack come abreast of the depot and fuel up side by side?
Is Orion still pointing forward and docks with it's docking ring (the way I was assuming)?
How exactly will this happen?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: alexw on 06/09/2009 01:27 am

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).

Hi, folks,

Fascinating work; Direct 3.0 looks persuasive. Thank you all (especially the anonymous NASA engineers) for your dedication!

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:

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).

3. Title legibility: if you print out the "baseball card", you can scarcely read the titles. Try a (finer?) font which works better at small sizes, and increase the point size -- there's plenty of room to expand below the existing title but above the curve (and once you get rid of the grey background and horizontal rules, it won't seem to "overlap".)  Also, add more space between the title and the the units, so they don't run together into one block from a distance.

4. Both axes: completely unreadable except on high zoom. Again, font size needs to be bigger (though I realize you have little room).

5. Horizontal axis is probably time, in seconds, but has no label and no units.

6. The numbers are also written sideways, which is usually a bad idea because the reader has to turn their head. The precise times for each segment (e.g. max-q, or staging) probably aren't that important, so write the numbers horizontally, and reduce the number of labels if needed for room (ie, ticks every 100 seconds, instead of every 50).

7. The "Velocity" plot has two curves; what's the difference between the red and the blue? May need a chart legend  (*inside* the chart, not the way Excel defaults) or just label the curves. Also, when printed out on mono printer, the two colors are indistinguishable. Try using different patterns, e.g. a solid line and a dotted line.

After doing the easy stuff above:
7. Since each triple-stack of plots uses the same horizontal axis, and you are pressed for space, try stacking the plots so that they share the x-axis labels. The y-gridlines (if you add them above) or tickmarks (if not) will align the eye with the numbers. One clear set of labels can be much better than three sets of illegibles.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/09/2009 01:50 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/09/2009 02:15 am
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:

Switching to a different plotting program may not be worth disrupting the work flow, but the other suggestions, especially choosing a better background color and introducing much more subtle horizontal and vertical grid lines, make sense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/09/2009 02:17 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 06/09/2009 02:20 am

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. 

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2009 02:35 am
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!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/09/2009 02:50 am
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/09/2009 02:55 am
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!)

Congrats on landing PBS, good luck!

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 06/09/2009 03:04 am
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!)

This is obviously massively low priority, given how busy you guys are these days ;-), but I'm curious what the plan is on relocating the forward sep bolt for the 5-seg Heavy configurations. For the 4-seg, it's currently located on the forward skirt (not a booster segment). It seems that shifting it to the SRM case might be a bit of a big deal. I know the forward and aft skirts decently, but not so much the SRM itself. I'm curious what any SRM folks might have to say about that kind of case modification. Again, this is just idle musing on my part, based on the "Heavy" configuration in the new baseball cards.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/09/2009 03:11 am
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!)

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/09/2009 03:16 am
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!

I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to one Dr. John P. Holdren.

There was a question about who called for this review..  and his name was the Answer.   

Noticed In Wiki... that way back in the days of Apollo he suggested building more CO2 emissions free Nuclear power plants to help slow down global warming.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/09/2009 03:17 am

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!

Seconded!  YAY!!!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jml on 06/09/2009 03:24 am
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?

Yes, when considering just the variable costs of delivering 100T of propellant to orbit, the cost per kg is likely higher for an EELV/Soyuz/Ariane/F9/HII-A/Long March/Zenit than a J-232. (No, 40 Progress flights capable of delivering only 2.5 tons each wouldn't be a reasonable way to do it.)

The issue is that NASA doesn't just get to launch an unlimited number of J-232s each year. 

A depot makes economic sense if it means that NASA doesn't pay to get that propellant to LEO out of their limited exploration budget envelope, and an international partner pays that cost instead.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 06/09/2009 03:31 am
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!)
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.

By the way when directlauncher.com going 3.0?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/09/2009 03:43 am
Is the naming correct for slide J246H.5003.08001_EDS_090608.jpg?

Under boosters "Design Heritage" it shows: "Shuttle RSRM -Flown Unchanged"   Although the graphic is 5-seg

Also The main Vehicle graphics for J246H-41.5003.10050_CLV_090608.jpg  and J246H-41.5004.10050_CLV_090608.jpg do not appear correct, they both show 4-seg boosters.
The J247H CLV card graphic also shows 4seg Boosters.

edit:
Figured out the Dual sets..
VERY confusing have 2 sets of J-246s Normal and  Heavy.. one with RL-10A-4-2 and one with RL-10B-2
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 06/09/2009 03:45 am
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

Different RL-10 variants. One uses RL-10A-4-2, the other uses RL-10B-2.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/09/2009 03:49 am
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.

Yeah, okay.  Someone wake me when that happens.  I'll be taking my dirt nap, hopefully at least 50 years from now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/09/2009 04:29 am
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.

Quote
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.

I think those words are perfect candidates to replace Safer, Simpler, Sooner
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/09/2009 05:38 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/09/2009 05:49 am
Good job, that Direct question is really climbing. Keep up the support!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bluea on 06/09/2009 06:02 am
If you look at all of the 247 and 247H cards, they are all listed as being "4 segment RSRMs". The graphics, however, have two different sizes of SRBs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/09/2009 07:40 am
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

And me!

I also added a question about whether they will consider a shift in VSE priorities from lunar missions to a manned mars mission so you can vote for that one too if you like...

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/09/2009 08:03 am
Propellant depots help spread mission cost across multiple partners, and they greatly reduce the development cost of empowering large missions, but the more launches required to supply the necessary propellant mass, the more expensive each mission is likely to become.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2009 10:44 am
Thanks for the eagle eyes spotting the booster identification errors on the baseball cards.   I have amended the cards appropriately.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/09/2009 10:52 am
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.

The first relationship gives the amount of depot propellant needed to fully exploit a single-launch mission.  The second gives the amount of payload that fully exploits a single-stage TLI.

The second approach has promising 3-launch solutions.  An unmanned reusable propellant transfer spacecraft derived from Orion might mass less than 15 mT.  Two Jupiters with these spacecraft would lift about 175 mT of propellant.  One of them would fill the other, then deorbit its JUS and reenter for reuse.  Then a third Jupiter lifts a 100 mT LSAM, and the remaining tanker fills the spent EDS before reentering. 

For a crew mission, the Orion CEV is then launched on an EELV, and the combined 120 mT payload is pushed through TLI by the fully-fueled EDS.  For a cargo mission, the LOI and deorbit propellant mass is replaced with cargo, since the EDS has 20 mT of post-TLI propellant.  This leverages the landed mass benefit of EDS LOI and staged descent for cargo (which uses a different LSAM anyway) without adding risk for crews.

With Jupiter as the propellant launch vehicle, just two launches are necessary to supply the largest single-Jupiter cargo or crew (with EELV) missions that DIRECT can support with a propellant depot.  As long as the EDS is one JUS, there's little reason to have a larger propellant depot.  Propellant transfer is sufficient.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2009 11:02 am
butters,
There is an argument to be made to use the Jupiter's for lofting propellant too, but it doesn't serve the wider goals which would probably be termed "national interest".

The nation's interests are better served by encouraging the commercial operators to compete for contracts in order to lower their prices -- because those services will then be competitive on the International Market, and *that* would help to bring hundreds of millions of dollars worth of trade to US shores every year -- trade for which none of the domestic launchers are currently competitive in.


As a second issue, you have all seen the cost curves for hardware on these threads, no?   You can easily see that if you make any of this equipment in 1s, 2s or even 4s, they each cost an awful lot more than if you can make then in 10s or 12's, right?

Well that isn't just true for launch vehicles -- it is equally true for spacecraft as well -- Orion and Altair are prime examples.   If we build four Altair's per year the cost for each one is going to be incredibly high.   But if we could make a production line churning out 12 per year, along with a flight rate which can match that production rate, the cost per Altair drops significantly and each Lunar mission becomes a much more cost-effective proposition -- not to mention that we can also get an awful lot more done each year too!

So what we are trying to create, with DIRECT, is an architecture which maximizes the launch infrastructure as much as possible to improve the cost profile for each mission as much as possible.

What we are really trying to aim for with DIRECT is an architecture which can realistically, affordably and sustainably launch one Lunar mission per month, with each mission consisting of 1 Jupiter-24x, 1 Orion, 1 Altair and either a crew or 15-20mT of cargo.   That maximizes the capabilities of the launch infrastructure and also brings both the Orion costs and the Altair costs down into the lower part of the curve too -- maximizing their cost-effectiveness also.

But the existing infrastructure simply can not launch an equal number of Jupiter fuel deliveries to match that flight rate.   So we have no choice but to go get that by some other means.

Thus, please step forward ULA, Space-X, Orbital, XCOR, Scaled Composites etc. etc.   We have about 400-600mT of business for you guys to compete for.

In addition to that we also want International Partnerships to pick up the balance.   Partners such as Russia, Europe, Japan, India, China and anyone else with their own launch systems can supply propellant themselves, but any other nation can also come too -- by simply purchasing propellant delivery launch services on the global market -- and hopefully domestic launchers will then be competitive enough to capture some of that business too!

It's a potential win-win for everyone involved.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/09/2009 11:03 am
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.

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.

Maybe it's just quibble, but it jumped out at me right away.  And I'm not even "in the business".  Now is not the time for cute.  Now is the time for steely-eyed rocket men and engineers with the Right Stuff.

Mark S.

P.S.  Ross: Good luck with your PBS interview (if you haven't already had it.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Hermit on 06/09/2009 11:03 am
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.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2009 11:10 am
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.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2009 11:15 am
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.)

To give an example figure, if Atlas-V could max-out its production facilities and produce ~40 units per year, the cost for each would drop to around 50-55% of current levels, when assuming 6 per year is current.

The comparative cost curves looks something like the chart attached.

And it is important to keep in mind that the spacecraft also follow a very similar pattern too, which is why producing more each year is always more economical.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/09/2009 11:26 am
Ross, One Jupiter launch per week looks like a real deal.  I would consider 52 launches per year a reasonable program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/09/2009 11:33 am

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'm with Alex on cleaning up the charts.. the gray backgrounds with tthe heavy Horizontal Axis Gridlines distracts from the main graphic and throws off the balance of the page

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/09/2009 12:03 pm
I think the Blackzone Safe logo looks good.
......
Ross.

Thanks Ross!  I respect your judgement, of course.  I was just letting you know what jumped out at me.

You know I'm your biggest cheerleader!

Best of luck,
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mrbliss on 06/09/2009 12:24 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/09/2009 12:35 pm
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.

NASA should use EELV for launching Orion.  That's the perfect sized payload, and it would be a major vote of confidence.  And more robotic science missions, please.

How much propellant can a 20 mT launcher actually deliver after you take the spacecraft dry mass into account (avionics, thrusters, docking, propellant transfer hardware, etc.)?  The dry mass ratio is substantially greater for smaller spacecraft, since they have to carry much of the same hardware that larger ones would.

EELVs are good for a lot of applications, but lifting 100+ mT of anything isn't one of them.  They get killed on the overhead of launching so many times and expending so much dry mass.  With Jupiter, there are fewer launches, and there's enough margin to make the spacecraft reusable.

I also expect it to take longer to develop a depot architecture based on EELV than a transfer architecture based on JUS.

But ultimately, it makes little sense to develop a 100 mT launch vehicle if we're not going to use it whenever we want to lift 100 mT.  Ares V is a one-trick pony.  Jupiter is way more flexible.  It can achieve higher flight rates not only because it's cheaper, but also because it can do more things.

DIRECT has already been approached by ESA about the possibility of launching space station modules on Jupiter.  That's business that EELV would love to have, but with Jupiter in the picture, the only way they get that business is if NASA turns it down.

If DIRECT is adopted by NASA, I expect more parties, many of them commercial, to become interested in Jupiter for heavy lifting to LEO.  Jupiter could open up the markets that many of us have wanted EELVs to open, except a lot sooner.  NASA can prevent Jupiter from stunting EELV growth by making it a one-trick pony, but if they don't, it will.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/09/2009 12:38 pm

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/09/2009 12:41 pm
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

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/09/2009 12:44 pm
Agree

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.

Quote
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.

I think those words are perfect candidates to replace Safer, Simpler, Sooner

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/09/2009 12:47 pm
NASA isn't allowed to design anything that won't fit on a current launch vehicle.  So it's a catch-22.


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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Hermit on 06/09/2009 12:52 pm
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.


But since EELVs can only launch 20mT, their flight rate would be 5x the flight rate of Jupiter if used for propellant. And that would considerably affect production rates and costs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/09/2009 12:52 pm
No, NASA was doing JIMO, which was huge.  NASA has yet to use a Delta IV Heavy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/09/2009 01:09 pm

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. 

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.  Whoever orbits the first space hotel could make an unreasonably large fortune.  Is that potential not worth the investment?

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/09/2009 01:11 pm
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.

"Certified" programs and compliance logos are usually at least nominally indepenent from the vendor in question.  "Self certified" usually means buzzword-compliant and not much more.  Claiming that Jupiter CLV is "Certified Black-Zone Safe" implies some sort of independent certification program for proposed CLV's.  Not a bad idea, but I don't think we're there yet...

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/09/2009 01:18 pm
I'm afraid I'm not a fan of the black-zone logo, either.

Just put it as text under the blue line, with "Ascent performance for Jupiter-xxx protects for...". It fits perfectly down there.

If someone raises a concern about black zones, it will take them 10 seconds to go back and find the info.

Presuming that members of the panel are familiar with the black-zone spat, this will only come across as an oblique dig at NASA. Although text contains the same information, this is far more neutral and simply another spec - one whose presence is justified because it's an important one for a crewed flight.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/09/2009 01:19 pm

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.

1.  Incorrect.  No one has even used the max capability that is available now.  No sense in building a 747 if the 707 isn't being fully utilized.

2.  No. There is no guarantee.
a.  there is no cheap transportation to get the guests to the hotel
b.  the hotel can be launched on existing vehicles, see Bigelow.
c.   Bigelow's problem, see a. above.

3.  You don't know how things work. No one is going to loan any one the billions for a LEO payload because there is no business case.  There is no money to be made with a Direct class payload.  Name one other than hotel.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/09/2009 01:42 pm
@ Jim, above

Yes, off topic but a direct response to the above. Shifting everything about making money to the Direct applications thread is probably best.

Anyway, Jim wrote:

Quote
There is no money to be made with a Direct class payload.  Name one other than hotel.

Televise microgravity sports from inside a large volume.

The current large Bigelow could be adequate. Even the ESA ATV offers more than sufficient volume for a "wrestling variant" and the J-130 could loft even larger Bigelow habitats than the current largest version known to the public. Since open volume is the goal, fitting out the interior isn't that important, reducing the cost of designing a really big Bigelow habitat.

Encourage teams to compete from nations around the world funded by local sponsorships. Team Rio, Team Tokyo, Team Los Angeles, Team Portugal, as examples. Two man teams would need a single Soyuz which would be quite affordable at professional sports marketing rates.

Shenzou and Dragon are other possibilities and well as an Atlas V lofted big Gemini light taxi optimized for delivering five - pilot and four players - to this facility.

Maximize the stadium's cross section (use low mass, low cost ancillary inflatables if necessary) so it is readily visible in the night sky, place at 51 degrees (precise ISS orbit just sufficiently behind to never interfere) and sell the name rights.

The stadium name rights phenomenon won't be going away (IMHO) even if the slumping economy is causing a temporary down turn.

Then sell exclusive game console rights -- EA Sports, X Box, Nintendo, Wii and so forth -- those numbers wouldn't be trivial, either.

= = =

I foresee NASA being very politically opposed but I think the economic case is far from hopeless.

Team Direct should also remain utterly silent about (oblivious to?) these possibilities for these same political reasons.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2009 01:54 pm
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 a 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.

With luck, that will allow the costs to be amortized efficiently for all the elements, Jupiter, Orion, Altair, both EELV vehicles and any others which make it into the marketplace, such as Falcon and Taurus-II -- plus any new competitors who wish to enter the market in the coming years.   If we have a market, the entire industry can expand to fill it.

What we need to create is an economically viable system for the next 30 years, one which will allow us to expand throughout this solar system in a cost effective manner.

Ross (BTW, they are filming this over my shoulder as I type this -- getting some background shots!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/09/2009 01:59 pm
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!)

Cool!  When will the PBS piece air?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/09/2009 01:59 pm
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.

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? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: scotty125 on 06/09/2009 02:25 pm
I'm affraid I'm not a huge fan of the BZS logo either.  I understand what you were trying to accomplish, but I think the "Black Zone" bit could still be interpreted as taking digs at NASA.  Now if the logo were maybe an astronaut in a couch with a graph of the trajectory in the background and the words "Human Rated Trajectory" or some such, that might be OK, but even then you might be better of without it, at least for your presentation to the Commission.  Amongst your supporters here...no issues.

Knock 'em dead with the interview...on tonight's News Hour?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Gregori on 06/09/2009 03:14 pm
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???
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 06/09/2009 03:21 pm
Perhaps of interest, on the HSF question followups, the DIRECT 3.0 question is now in the lead at +176 to only +167 for the 2nd place entry.

http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/09/2009 03:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/09/2009 03:32 pm
Not to be too incendiary here, but do you think that the Ares-I could ever earn the "Certified Black-Zone Safe" seal of approval?  That would be a hoot to see that logo painted on the side, right below the NASA logo.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ballew on 06/09/2009 03:43 pm


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:


I like Alex's suggestions on the charts.


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.



I don't think the logo needs to be on the baseball cards that are presented to the HSF review panel.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/09/2009 04:10 pm
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.

Modify:  (But I would buy a blackzone-safe tee-shirt!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Sotar on 06/09/2009 04:24 pm

Hi Ross & Team,

I’ve been lurking since January and have read the some of the v2.0 threads and all of the v3.0.   The concept of Direct / shuttle C actually occurred to me when I was a kid some 20 years ago, so you could say I’ve been a long time supporter.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2009 04:31 pm
Ross (BTW, they are filming this over my shoulder as I type this -- getting some background shots!)

Cool!  When will the PBS piece air?

Well, that's a wrap!   9am thru 12:30pm.   Whew.

Right now, they think it will air on or around June 18th as part of The NEWSHOUR with Jim Lehrer.

They're off to get some footage at KSC now, and they want to film our Presentation to the Augustine Commission too.

Ross (wiping off *makeup*...)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 06/09/2009 04:41 pm
Right now, they think it will air on or around June 18th.   They want to get our Presentation to the Augustine Commission too.   

*That* would be great.  I was hoping there would be some way to video-cast the presentation, and a professional crew from PBS beats a Handycam web-cast.  Plus, having PBS show an interest in the DIRECT approach sends a clear message to the panel members that DIRECT has a high level of public interest.  (However, I suspect they already know that.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2009 04:43 pm

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, but 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/09/2009 04:47 pm

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/09/2009 04:48 pm
Re: "black zone safe"

Attached is on of the cards with the emblem.

My take: Substitute simple text.

FWIW
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/09/2009 04:48 pm

Any chance DoD would be willing to step forward on this?

It isn't real if they don't.  There are always "advance project" types that look into thing like this.  They aren't the partyline.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2009 04:50 pm
For a two launch lunar mission, would that time be shortened on occasion to achieve once per month, on average?

In Phase 2, we are aiming for 2 launches every two months, with only a short gap between each.

In Phase 3, we would aim for more like 1 per month, with relatively equal gaps between each.


Quote
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? 

Currently CxP's baseline requires the EDS/LSAM to be launched and then the CEV must join it within 4 days.

A whole extra day is allocated for rendezvous, docking and checkout and the mission will proceed towards the moon, always on the 5th day (lunar alignments with 29.0deg LEO are very specific and this is essentially a one-time window for each mission to perform the TLI.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2009 04:52 pm
Is that information that the commision will have.. or should be presented for consideration?

We will be providing that information to the commission, although won't be including it in our 30 min Presentation.


Quote
Any chance DoD would be willing to step forward on this?

No idea.   That's their call entirely.   Would be nice though...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/09/2009 05:01 pm
Ross, baseball card check...

LV41.4000.10050 is "Blackzone Safe"
LV41.4000.10051 is not.

Vehicle ascent performance trajectory charts are identical.

Same with LV41.5003.10050 and LV41.5003.10051

Identical trajectories and launches.  The only difference is the presence of a crew vehicle.

If you're going to label things as "Blackzone Safe", label them all... even the cargo-only variants... unless they are truly flying a trajectory you wouldn't put an Orion on EVER.

Wouldn't it be more powerful to state that "all of our proposed configurations and trajectories are blackzone-free" than try to "brand" it on every baseball card?

I tend to agree that just a text statement about "Blackzone-free Trajectory" in the "Ascent Performance" area of the baseball card would be a little more palatable.
[Edit: Typo]

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/09/2009 05:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/09/2009 05:09 pm
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.


Scroll down on the first page.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2009 05:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/09/2009 05:17 pm
Who chose the top two questions?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/09/2009 05:26 pm

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?

DOD spent a fortune on Shuttle Facilities at Vandenberg which they mothballed.  Would DOD be able to leverage them?

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rocketguy101 on 06/09/2009 05:31 pm
I gotta side w/ the non BZS folks--the logo does look a little cheesy for this level of presentation.  I like the text idea.

And the slide are pretty hard to read.

I was #218 on the commission page
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/09/2009 05:31 pm
Who chose the top two questions?
Stephen Colbert.

 ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/09/2009 05:38 pm
Who chose the top two questions?

The ones that were answered were "feeder" questions, like putting your own dollar in the empty tip jar.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Gregori on 06/09/2009 05:42 pm
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.

Hmmmm that's really not all that much better.

I was wondering about the possibility of ESA cooperating with NASA on the the lunar and Mars programs, by building a second Jupiter launchpad and facilities at Korou...

ESA has previously done a deal with Russia to launch Soyuz from Korou.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2009 05:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/09/2009 05:48 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/09/2009 05:54 pm

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.

BINGO!
My point exactly. 
Why couldn't those partners buy seats on a lunar mission from NASA the way we and the ESA do from Russia on Soyuz?

It's logical "We have the most efficient launcher for the amount of propellent needed.  It's costs $X to launch that propellent mission, so for $Y, you can get a seat on that lunar mission".
Probably a lot easier logistically if NASA is doing all the launches...not that that'd be a deal breaker or anothering...just more efficient logistically.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2009 05:55 pm
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

Thanks for putting it up there!

One point though:

While I love the Colbert Report, I do *NOT* want this vote to be diminished.   I don't want a 'wave' of people adding their support purely because "its the cool thing to do".   The issues which the Augustine Commission has to tackle are just too damn important to trivialize that way.

I thank everyone who feels strongly about this issue and I encourage each and every one of you to speak-up about all of your concerns, utilizing that voting system to have your say on ALL the subjects which are of interest to you.

So if you are still deciding whether to go vote for DIRECT there -- and even if you already have voted -- I implore you to go (back) and spend some time there, look at all of the subjects being voted upon, and then go vote for at least 2 or more other subjects which are of real importance to YOU.

Have your FULL say.   Be heard.   Be DIRECT!

Go vote now:-

http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/09/2009 05:56 pm
To me Jupiter 3.0 seems really well suited to build an ISS 2.0. Though I guess it's just one of the options in the air right now, the sizes of both launchers could be effectively utilized. I suppose that this path wouldn't get a lot of support though since there's a "been there done that" mentality with the public when it comes to space flight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/09/2009 06:06 pm
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.

Ok, I found it.  I thought it was one of the answered questions, and was looking at those.
This question isn't answered, so what exactly is there to go look at right now?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dcbecker on 06/09/2009 06:08 pm

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/09/2009 06:08 pm

DOD spent a fortune on Shuttle Facilities at Vandenberg which they mothballed.  Would DOD be able to leverage them?


Delta-IV has taken over SLC-6
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: scotty125 on 06/09/2009 06:11 pm
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

Dan, asked the same question myself yesterday.  I hope one of us makes it on the list, cuz that's the $6.4B question...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/09/2009 06:14 pm
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.

That is not real, just pie in the sky talking.  Just like JIMO.  The NRO would not allow Delta-IV pad to shutdown.  The pad is currently being upgraded to handle a D-IV Heavy and this is the mission requiring the RS-68A.

The actual pad at SLC-6 can no longer support a shuttle type vehicle.  The MST has been greatly modified, the pad mount was modified.  It would be cheaper and quicker to build a new pad for Direct.

I remember SDIO talking the same way back in the day.  They talked big and thought they carried a big stick.  They never launched any of their large payloads: Zenith Star, NPBIE, Starlab, Talon Gold, etc
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bad_astra on 06/09/2009 06:15 pm
I don't mind voting on the issues, and voted on each one. I submitted my own regarding Shuttle-C, though I doubt it will show up.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ballew on 06/09/2009 06:17 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/09/2009 06:36 pm

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. 

Quote
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.

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.


kttopdad,

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.

Seems more logical to just offer seats on a lunar mission for contributions to the fuel flight of that mission.  Launch a tank with a simple RCS system, ulage motors, and docking ring so that it can maintain a stable orbit.  The CSM/LSAM/empty EDS stack is already set up to maneuver into position to dock with a depot, so that is good to go.  Once it fuels, it continues onto TLI, and the ulage motors deorbit the tank for disposal.
Two launches, with one being subsidized by our international parters.
NASA and ESA buy seats on Soyuz right?  It'd be the same thing.
"The tanker launch costs $X, so a seat on that lunar mission requires a $Y contribution"

So, I see the theory.  Just the idea that 5+ "ATV's" plus their launchers is going to be financially appealing enough to the partners to want to do it.  There's only 4 seats on a lunar mission anyway, and I think we'd want NASA to have at least two of those.  So a partner wanting to get a seat would have to pony up 2-3 flights for a seat.

My numbers are probably WAY off, but someone from the team said several pages back that 2 Jupiter launches would be around $400-500 million depending on how many are built per year.  So assume 1 jupiter would be $200-250?
How much is a Delta 4 Heavy or Atlas 5 Heavy flight?  I'd read currently the D4H was in the $200 million range?, or maybe more.  A bargin compared to the shuttle, but right around the Jupiter flight, no?
Ok, so maybe that drops with mass production to around 100 million.
So 2-2.5 EELV's cost about as much as a Jupiter.  So you are double the price for EELV's vs. Jupiter right out of the gate.  Then add the fact that each will have to be an autonomous or remote ATV to dock with the depot.
If you had a permanent Depot, then a single launch Jupiter tanker mission would have all the same equipment as each of the EELV's...but one set rather than 5+.
and if you had my idea of a disposable dept, then it really only needs RCS and enough avionics to hold a stable orbit.  The CSM/LSAM/empty EDS stack will dock with it, it doesn't have to dock with anything itself.

Just seems if NASA offered a seat on a lunar mission for $100 million, that might seem to be a real bargan to our partners vs. them having to pony up a couple EELV's with tanker ATV's at the likely price of a few hundred million at least.

But I could certainly be wrong!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/09/2009 06:38 pm

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.

I'm sure they will show up eventually. They are both valid questions and looking at some of the others on there, I am sure there is no reason they wouldn't appear.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/09/2009 07:00 pm
EELV is a term that only applies to two ELV's, Delta IV and Atlas V
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 06/09/2009 07:01 pm

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 put in that same question several days ago.  Still not up as of this morning.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/09/2009 07:10 pm
......
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.


Wow!  For a lurker, that's pretty sharp.  :)   I like the slide, it really empasizes the "oneness" of Jupiter.  It goes right along with the naming simplification effort recently discussed.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/09/2009 07:31 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/09/2009 07:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2009 07:39 pm
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!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/09/2009 08:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/09/2009 08:54 pm
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.

Especially since the tug technologies have now been flight demonstrated by Orbital Express, XSS-11, and a few other missions.  A productized version of those tugs would be necessary, but for the most part it wouldn't be a science project--just an engineering one.

With a properly done tug-based architecture, the minimum economic delivery size may end up being in the single-digit tons range.  Which is good, because the first commercial RLVs are unlikely to be EELV-sized behemoths.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/09/2009 08:58 pm
I think the Blackzone Safe logo looks good.

That logo looks like marketing rather than engineering. I agree with those who are suggesting replacing it with plain text.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/09/2009 08:58 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/09/2009 09:01 pm
http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Faces+Further+Budget+Slash+Supporters+Criticize+Decision/article15372.htm

Sorry if you have to copy paste the link, I can't get the buttons on the post screen to do anything.

Does a cut like that change Direct in a way? Congress says they're doing a wait and see approach, holding funding until the Commission or the new Admin chooses a path for HSF. If this happens when Direct 3.0 is chosen, would that hurt Jupiter like Bush hurt Ares by cutting funding during early years?

I'm not sure if a smaller budget makes Direct look better or worse...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mrbliss on 06/09/2009 09:06 pm
While we're picking on the (truly awesome) Baseball Cards...

Would it be possible to move the "# Engines / Type" in the Core Stage and Upper Stage sections to the top of each section?  That would help me to quickly identify the specific configuration I'm looking at.

If the various Baseball Cards all start to blur together after I look at a few, then I figure other people might have the same problem.

Oh, and I'll second the notion of "Black Zone Safe" T-shirts.  Those sound great!

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/09/2009 09:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/09/2009 09:41 pm
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 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/09/2009 09:41 pm
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.

The latest J-246 (with RL-10B-2) EDS BB card uses 99.9mT prop to achieve 79.1mT thru TLI. With a 13mT burnout EDS, that's a Propellant Fraction of 0.52.

Assuming the same PF (slightly optimistic, gravity losses will be slightly higher), 100mT payload + 13mT EDS requires 122.6mT TLI propellant.


Quote
2) JUS holds 175 mT of propellant; 175 mT of propellant pushes about 120 mT of payload through TLI.

Again assuming the same PF (now definitely somewhat optimistic due to gravity losses), 175.5mT gross prop less 1.7mT residuals can push ~147mT payload + 13mT EDS thru TLI.

cheers, Martin

PS I think those thru-TLI payloads include an ASE. Early missions are about 1.3mT. PD missions (ie (2)) the ASE drops to under 1mT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/09/2009 09:45 pm
DOD spent a fortune on Shuttle Facilities at Vandenberg which they mothballed.  Would DOD be able to leverage them?


DIRECT have previously issued baseball cards for a Vandenberg launch.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/09/2009 09:46 pm
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 :)

The La Grange points are the true space cross-roads and may well be the location of humanity's first true spaceship versus spaceship warfare.

And actually, Fregats are remarkably capable little modules. How much does one cost?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/09/2009 09:46 pm
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.


Jupiter's EDS is simply an Upper Stage with tanks doubled from the size required for ascent.

It's my presumption that a similar concept would work for EELV - just double the size of the tanks & maybe add a second RL-10 or replace with an RL-60.

That way, you already have RCS & avionics (& MPS if you need it), and additional dry mass is reduced to the absolute minimum.

Docking and other function obviously needs to be added, but I wonder whether that needs to add a lot of mass, just additional RCS fuel & sophistication of the avionics.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/09/2009 09:48 pm
[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.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/09/2009 09:53 pm
It doesn't seem like it would take an enormous amount of work to convert ATV into a tug.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/09/2009 10:48 pm
EELV is a term that only applies to two ELV's, Delta IV and Atlas V

Thanks for the correction.  "EELV Class rocket" would be more accurate when describing the variety of 20-25mt launchers out there like the two EELV's, Araine, Proton, Falcon, etc.
:)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/09/2009 10:56 pm
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

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. (Once you are in a stable orbit, doesn't take much to gently nudge mass around, when it's unmanned and you really don't have time constraints like you woudl with manned vehicles)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/09/2009 10:56 pm
[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.

My thoughts were to make the interface standard, and if it's done in the US, get it ITAR approved (which is quite possible to do, it just take time, money, and lawyers).  I'm thinking something like a panel, with certain sized passive connector ports (different size or connector style for different fluids), some sort of hand-hold or docking target, and possibly some sort of reflector or other simple passive aid for the tug.  Then let the individual launch companies do the rest of the tank however they like.  Remember, different LVs will have different capacities, different PLF diameters, etc.  Leaving those flexible and only constraining the interface seems like the way to go.  The other thing is if you standardize the tanking interface like that, you can also allow people to incorporate such systems into their upper stages, and then they can also be customers as well as suppliers.

You'd actually be surprised what you could do even with a stock Centaur stage if you could top it up in LEO..........

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/09/2009 10:58 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/09/2009 11:10 pm
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 don't know what Ross and Chuck's thoughts on it are.  I'm not with DIRECT.  I sometimes help the DIRECT guys on the side (I've introduced them to a few people in the past), but for me propellant depots are my primary focus.  I was just commenting on here, since the propellant depot conversation seemed relevant.

Quote
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?

It depends a lot on how you're doing the depot.  You really want either a tug or a manned stage (like an Orion) to do the prox ops instead of having each tanker stage be an actual full-blown spacecraft.  Going the progress/ATV/Dragon route (ie making the propellants just another cargo on a full-blown spacecraft) for the tanker flights is a great way to guarantee that it will be very expensive and take lots of launches. 

As soon as you're trying to do smaller tanker deliveries, a tug *really* starts shining.

Quote
If it is, I haven't heard about it.

Yeah, just to be clear, I don't speak for DIRECT, and am not part of "the plan".  That said, tugs are part of *my* plan (and really should be part of any plan that wants to be serious about propellant depots or orbital assembly).

Quote
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.

The idea of a pre-depot "disposable depot" isn't that crazy.  In fact, I was up till about 1am last night running the numbers on just such a concept.  Even using existing launch vehicles, you can just about do a 2-3 person Apollo-esque lunar architecture using a "disposable depot" concept...but that's a conversation for a different thread (once I've written the idea up on selenianboondocks).

Quote
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+.

Maybe it would.  On the other hand, there are also benefits of high flight rates.  Not to mention, you can size the tug a lot smaller (read a lot cheaper) if it doesn't have to haul 100mT lots around.

Quote
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.

Nope.  Something Jupiter sized is definitely going to drive the size up, just by the prox-ops propellant requirements.  Plus thruster sizing for control authority and such...Admittedly I'm not a spacecraft designer, but it really seems like you'd need a much bigger vehicle to handle something that big (or a couple of smaller vehicles working in tandem).

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/09/2009 11:11 pm
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.

Possibly.  I suppose the only way to know for sure is to have some NASA rep approach our partners and ask  them. 
"If we put a permanent depot in LEO to fuel a 1-launch Jupiter lunar mission would you be more interested in exchanging fueling missions on your launchers for a seat on that mission, or contribute a pre-determined amount to NASA launching a larger fueling mission?  Our estimateds are that you doing it yourselves will cost 2-3 times more than if NASA does it.  Which would you rather do?"

That's hypothetical, as I am tossing around subjective costs here.
But it does seem like the real cost of doing several EELV-class launches would be significantly more than one Jupiter launch.
But let's say the cost of our partners doing it themselves was on par with paying NASA to do it.  Lets say it's only 1.1 or 1.2 times the amount that they'd pay NASA if they did it.  It's still to their advantage to pay NASA to do it.  Why?  Because if there is a LOM on the tank launch for any reason, that's on NASA and any partners that purchased a seat wouldn't have to pay any more.  But if they had a LOM on one of their EELV class launchers, they are just out that money.  It's a "fixed" cost vs. a "variable" cost.  If NASA charges $100 million per seat, that is a fixed cost.  You pay it, and you get a seat, period.  Fixed cost.  If you want to send up your own launcher, and have a LOM, then you have to send up another if you still want that seat.  OR if your overhead and costs for your launchers are a little more than you planned.  Variable costs.  Or at least potentially variable costs.
Being in the manufacturing industry, I can attest to this.  Some times we sell equipment we can built ourselves, or buy from a vendor.  And if your margins are tight, it's adventageous to purchase that equipment from your vendor, because you know what your cost is exactly.  IF you build it, then your cost is variable, depending on any number of variable expenses.  Unforseen problems in the building, delays in part deliveries requiring you to expidite freight, your producting is training a new guy so there's an extra 20 hours of production time that gets built into the cost, etc.

Maybe I'm overthinking it here.  :)
But I'd actually be pretty surprised if our partners would rather launch their own fuel rather than pay NASA, unless launching their own fuel can be notably cheaper than paying NASA.

As always, I could be wrong...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/09/2009 11:14 pm
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

If there are on-going lunar missions that can use the depot - if it existed - then there is your (first) "market".
NASA actually becomes an "anchor store".

That's the beauty of Jupiter wrt depots.
It is big enough to do the mission without a depot by employing a 2-launch approach. But if a depot is available, it can do the same mission with 1 launch.

DIRECT *deliberately* creates the initial market for a depot.
By being economical enough to support multiple missions per year, the lunar exploration effort becomes sustainable. Because it is sustainable, there is sufficient confidence in a reasonable ROI for commercial entities to put some skin in the game and go for it.

It won't happen overnight. But it will happen.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/09/2009 11:22 pm
WRT the details of a depot, DIRECT has stayed away from advocating any one of several promising approaches. We are convinced of the value of the depot-based architecture but that has not been our focus. We have looked at several different ways that are proposed to approach it, but we have decided to leave those things to the people who know a great deal more about it than we do. When we speak of depots, it is to make sure that they are part of the architecture's long range plan. We speak of them in generalities and leave the details to folks like Jon, and Dr Beinhoff, who have forgotten more than we collectively know and still know more than us.

Depots ARE the gateway to the solar system - of that there can be no doubt. The only question is how do we solve the chicken and egg dilemma? We believe that the DIRECT approach offers a viable way forward to address that.

It's not perfect - and we never claimed it to be - but it's a start. As far as I am aware, no one else has been able to offer a solution that actually gets past the chicken/egg diffuiculty, like DIRECT has done.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/09/2009 11:29 pm
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

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/10/2009 01:12 am
A Propellant Depot has other uses, for instance it can be used to send satellites to GEO.  This means that the design of the depot, tug and refill tanker can be debugged before the manned lunar missions need them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bluea on 06/10/2009 01:31 am
I'm just bringing up the question of how you refill them.

There's a dramatic difference between the question "How would you refill them now?" versus "What's the best long-term approach?"

The reason there are people vehemently insisting that a depot is better long-term is part of a chicken-and-egg problem.

No one's ever built a depot.
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/10/2009 01:41 am

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.


They are more in the 5-7g range.  Spacecraft are more rugged than people think
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bluea on 06/10/2009 02:16 am
How high could we go in g-forces for a dumb-tank? The only crucial piece being the off-course-abort explosives mechanism.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Robo-Nerd on 06/10/2009 02:41 am
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.


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.

The basic Jupiter J-246 launcher consists of a Common Core Booster (CCB) and a Jupiter Upper Stage (JUS), plus provisions for payloads (fairings, structural mountings, etc.).
The CCB consists of a modified Space Shuttle External Tank (developmental item, but built on existing 8.4 m tooling), fitted with four Space Shuttle Main Engines (non-developmental items), mounting two four-segment Reusable Solid Rocket Motors (non-developmental items), and mounting or having provisions for a Guidance and Avionics package (developmental item).
The JUS consists of tankage (developmental item), fitted with six RL-10 engines (non-developmental item, except for human-rating qualification), and mounting a Guidance and Avionics package (developmental item, but possibly identical with the Guidance and Avionics package for the CCB). The JUS is explicitly sized to be large enough to function as an Earth Departure Stage (EDS) to perform the Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) maneuver for the Orion/Altair combination for lunar exploration missions.
The provisions for payloads (fairings, structural mountings, etc.) are all developmental items.

DIRECT 3.0 proposes a "two launch" Jupiter J-246 lunar exploration mission as its baseline: the first Jupiter J-246 launcher does not carry payload, but instead places a nearly fully-fueled JUS into LEO to act as an EDS (a small amount of the JUS propellant is used to circularize its orbit); the second Jupiter J-246 launches within four days and carries the Orion/Altair combination into LEO as payload, which then docks with the first JUS (EDS) to create the full TLI "stack" (EDS/Altair/Orion) for human lunar exploration missions.

DIRECT 3.0 further proposes a specialized mission configuration for human LEO operations, such as International Space Station (ISS) support. The JUS is removed from the basic Jupiter J-246 launch vehicle, along with one of the SSMEs. This creates the Jupiter J-130 launcher configuration. The Jupiter J-130 launcher then carries the Orion spacecraft plus other mission payload (e.g. replacement ISS modules) into LEO. The Jupiter J-130 launcher configuration would be developed first as risk reduction for the full Jupiter J-246 launcher.

DIRECT 3.0 further proposes a specialized mission configuration for initial "return humans to lunar orbit" operations, such as an "Apollo 8 Reprise" mission. The Jupiter J-130 launcher carries an Orion spacecraft/Delta IV Upper Stage "stack" into LEO as payload for TLI.

DIRECT 4.0  ;D proposes a reduced cost "two launch" lunar exploration mission as its baseline: the first launch is a Jupiter J-130 launch vehicle fitted with a modified JUS as payload, with the minimum number of JUS engines required to attain the proper orbit, and with the JUS fitted with propellant transfer equipment (pumps, etc.) and docking equipment needed to effect propellant transfer. (This configuration takes advantage of reduced engineering flight margins made possible based on actual flight experience with the Jupiter launcher. In the ideal case, this modified JUS would not need to be fitted with any engines at all.); the second launch is a Jupiter J-246 launcher with the Orion/Altair combination as payload integrated on top of the JUS (EDS) as the TLI "stack". However, the JUS for this Jupiter J-246 launcher has also been modified to accept propellant transfer from the first launch's JUS. This new Jupiter J-246 configuration then becomes the standard human lunar exploration launch vehicle going forward.

DIRECT 5.0  ;D proposes a "one launch" lunar exploration mission as its baseline. As in DIRECT 4.0 the refuelable TLI "stack" (JUS(EDS)/Altair/Orion) is launched by the Jupiter J-246 (as modified, above). However, the lunar launch mission now refuels at a permanent cryogenic propellant depot in LEO that can be refueled by a wide variety of launchers as the economic situation dictates -- EELV-class existing launchers, Jupiter J-130 tankers (as in DIRECT 4.0), notional COTS "big dumb boosters" optimized for low cost, etc. NASA would pay a market-driven "price per pound" for propellant in orbit, and other nations could buy their way onto lunar exploration missions by purchasing the fuel for TLI, etc.

Cheers,
     - Osa
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/10/2009 03:56 am
http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php

273 votes for the Direct 3.0 question. Wow! But who actually answers the questions to the HSF Plans Committee? An overworked junior staffer paraphrasing an answer? Or somebody actually on the Committee putting finger to keyboard?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: DustinD on 06/10/2009 04:48 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/10/2009 05:31 am
Thanks for the news Dustin! The new site looks great!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/10/2009 06:52 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 06/10/2009 11:02 am
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.

The updated site is excellent. 

The FAQ page needs to be updated with the V3.0 information, however.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/10/2009 11:37 am
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.

I believe the intention is to create incentives and markets to support significant reductions in launch costs below current EELV and even the projected Jupiter launch costs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 06/10/2009 11:43 am
How high could we go in g-forces for a dumb-tank? The only crucial piece being the off-course-abort explosives mechanism.

Range safety wouldn't be the crucial piece. The explosives used for RSS LSCs are very insensitive to quasi-static loading (and you'd be amazed at what dynamic environments they'll take, even at low frequency). I'm guessing it would be something structural, or maybe aerothermal that would be your limiting factor (Jim? Or other wiser minds?). As far as where it optimizes, I don't know, but I would be fairly surprised if you're looking at less than 10 or 20 gs, and I wouldn't be extremely surprised by several hundred.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/10/2009 11:44 am
No, NASA was doing JIMO, which was huge.  NASA has yet to use a Delta IV Heavy.
And they canned it.

Venus sample return- preliminary study canned when it was shown that conventional propulsion would be too big for existing launchers.  Ditto Mars.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/10/2009 11:46 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/10/2009 11:54 am
Guys, the Direct website is a mess.
The FAQ is still 2.0
The manifest is still 2.0
The discussion page lists the current discussion as "Direct v2.0 discussion thread #3"
The Intro for "What is Direct" still has v2.0 numbers in it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/10/2009 12:04 pm
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.


At catastrophic failure at launch could damage the pad.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/10/2009 12:07 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 12:40 pm
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]

You've got it pretty close Osa.

The J-246 Upper Stage does a little more significant part of the ascent as well, not 'just' a circ. burn.

The sections you name DIRECT 4 and 5 are what we refer to as Phases -- in this case both are actually implemented together as "Phase 3" for DIRECT v3.0's architecture plans.

Other than that, "I think he's got it!"

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 12:43 pm
Updating the Baseball Cards again, this time uploaded to the site.

Removed the BZS logo (I liked that!) and replaced it with some simple text in the regular flow.

Also corrected a few of the other errors which had been mentioned.

http://directlauncher.com/media.htm


We're still in the process of updating the website, and I note a few of you have already noted that not all the pages have been updated yet.   But they are coming as soon as time allows.   With the Augustine Commission hearing only a week away we are *seriously* snowed under, so please be patient.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 06/10/2009 01:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 01:21 pm
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.

Very much agreed Steven.   This approach does seem to work, but we are still building our confidence in it, because there are some "complications"...

Because there is such a small amount of time between MECO and when the spacecraft reach the apogee of their insertion orbit (only about 20 mins), there is simply no chance of performing a rendezvous, docking and extraction of the Altair.   That's not a safe option for this approach.

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.

Obviously, this approach is more complicated than the approach planned for the 2x Jupiter-246 system.    With certain factions set against DIRECT, we simply not willing to baseline this approach at this time because there are factors in there which detractors could latch on to.   So for now, this will simply have to remain as one of the many "alternative approaches" which DIRECT's inherent flexibility would allow to be utilized.


Quote
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.

The Jupiter's will never be available commercially.   Period.   They will never be allowed to "compete" with the commercial operators.


Quote
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.

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.

Steven, this isn't just about NASA.   There are more widespread issues at work behind the scenes here -- there are other national strategic goals for the US Space Program which are under consideration as part of this too.   One of the key issues for the administration here in the US today is encouraging the commercial sector to grow and to use NASA as a tool to make that happen.

So this isn't entirely about making each mission the lowest possible cost -- this is about keeping the costs reasonable, but creating a system which will *ALSO* allow commercial operators to grow their capabilities and become more competitive on the international stage.   That is a MUCH bigger strategic national objective for the government here than simply paying the lowest buck for each mission to the moon.

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.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 01:26 pm
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

Are you guys still having those issues, or are they resolved now?

If it was only temporary, I'm guessing you may have been accessing the site while the update was being implemented and all the new files were being uploaded.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 01:41 pm
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?

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.

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.


The overall intent of all this, is to provide a launch vehicle solution which has the maximum possible flexibility for use in just about any mission profile we can come up with.   Only if the community knows what this can do, will they start working out how they might be able to use it for their own purposes.


Quote
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.

Thanks for the heads-up.   Now fixed.   Also the JPEG link was broken too -- also fixed.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mrbliss on 06/10/2009 02:00 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 02:06 pm
Let me know if this continues, we can't find anything at this end yet, but if its a persistent issue I want to get it resolved.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 06/10/2009 02:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/10/2009 02:24 pm
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 .
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/10/2009 02:43 pm
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


I think you are in good shape for a manned 30x100 "orbit".  In the world of Shuttle, this is in the "OMS 1 not required" category.  The crew could coast up to 100 and do an OMS 2 and be in a 100xsomething higher and be OK for orbit ops at this point.  Even if you had to do a burn right after MECO, the shuttle used to do this all the time when we needed an OMS 1 burn.

I don't see you ever needing to design a system to do a controlled deorbit of the core.  This would be a very complex and expensive system to design.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/10/2009 03:03 pm
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

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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 03:36 pm
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".

Aargh.   I thought I had caught that already :(

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?


Quote
2) Is there a technical overview document for DIRECT 3.0 similar to the AIAA 2007 paper for 2.0?

Nothing as comprehensive as the 131 page AIAA 2007 paper, no.   We have released some 20-30 page 'summary / update' documents since then.

We are working on the latest v3.0 one of these right now.   It will be uploaded both here and on the site as soon as it is ready.


Quote
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 wonder how I managed to stick on a CaLV card  ???   Removed now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 03:39 pm
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...

Hmmm.   I was just uploading a LOT of files to the site, I wonder if that's what is causing the issue.   I'll ask Tech Support.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/10/2009 03:44 pm

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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 04:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 04:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/10/2009 04:20 pm
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.

The Jupiter's will never be available commercially.   Period.   They will never be allowed to "compete" with the commercial operators.

[/quote]

Ross,

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).

If anyone else has a mission they want to send fuel up for themselves, more power to them.  NASA can simply take care of their own fuel, and require some financial support for partner countries wanting to put boots on the Moon.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/10/2009 04:45 pm
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.

But if you tanked with a Jupiter, then you'd only need one set of those systems, rather than 5+.  1/5 the cost of systems right there.
Built in reasonable quantities, the Jupiter fule modules could be made quite economically too I'd imagine.

Trust me, I'm not trying to really argue anything here.  Just trying to really find out why the intention is to use multiple EELV class fuel launches vs. a single Jupiter (talking about NASA lunar missions only, not other commercial interests), other than a vague notion of creating a bit of an artificial market for the EELV industry (artificial in the sense that there seems to be a more efficient and economical method in Jupiter, but going with EELV's anyway).
And just haven't really heard a good explaination.  Some people have answered by extoling the virtues of depots, which I wasn't denying.  And others have mentioned wanting to promote the EELV industry. 

But is there really a -good- reason not to use a Jupiter tanker for NASA lunar missions?  I mean something I can sink my teeth into where it is glaringly obvious EELV's are the way to go?
That's all I'm looking for.  :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/10/2009 04:49 pm
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.

According to charts in http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2001/03.html historical failure rates of rockets are about 1 in 10. Manned vehicles have a somewhat better record, for example the shuttle has demonstrated a roughly 1 in 70 LOC so far. Is there any launch vehicle out there that's demonstrated a good reliability rate by having 100 consecutive successes?

A 1 in 50 failure rate is actually suggesting a greater degree of reliability than has been demonstrated by all but the most reliable rockets. When transporting fuel why not aim to achieve say a 1 in 5 failure rate? Buying 6 vehicles when you need 5 successes only adds 20% to your costs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 04:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/10/2009 04:56 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/10/2009 05:01 pm
Oh, as an asided.

I just listened to Ross's radio interview.    How come you Brits always sound so darned polite?

;)


PS:  Good interview, you make a lot of great point and he seemed to give you some rein to say your piece.  Be nice if you could get some TV exposure like that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 05:10 pm
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?

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of different ways it could be done.   At this time we are open to every possible alternative and we want to hear fresh ideas from all voices.


Some (not all) of the questions which we have already been working on are:-

Do you dock, or do you simply rendezvous and grapple using an RMS?

Do you retain the PLF (and maybe even the LAS) all the way to the Depot in order to maximize the crew abort capabilities, or do you transition the Orion around and rely upon the LSAM Ascent Module for all of your escape capabilities?

Do you utilize an active pumping mechanism to transfer the propellants or which of the many passive systems can be utilized instead?

Is it safe to transfer both propellants at the same time, or one after the other?

Could you design the system to lift the LH2 as part of the crew launch, and only need to transfer the much heavier LOX?

Do you need the Depot+Stack to rotate or be accelerated in order to settle the propellants prior to transfer?

How do you achieve that?

What power systems will the Depot require?   If solar, how do you ensure that visiting spacecraft don't interfere with them?

What insulation systems will the Depot Require?   If mylar, how do you ensure that visiting spacecraft don't interfere with them?

What will be the natural losses during the in-space transfer process?

How reliable will the valves and pipework be in the LEO environment?

Will the Depot require re-boosting from time to time?

What inclination orbit should it be placed into?   29deg is fairly optimal for KSC, but if we want Russian involvement 51.6deg is better, even absorbing the 6-7% loss of performance out of KSC to that orbit.

Should the Depot be designed for servicing work when necessary, or do you simply have 'spares' ready to lift at a few months notice?



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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/10/2009 05:19 pm
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.

Ahhh....now there's a point.  Do you have any idea what that maximum production number is?  Obviously you can maintain whatever launch rate you have for Direct's baseline by refueling a depot with a Jupiter, as you are still launching two per mission. 
Are 12 jupiters per year about the max capacity?  Any way to ramp that up if they are pumping out more than a megar handful per year as they have been for the Shuttle for decades?  Expand the facility maybe?

Maybe there could a be compromise.  Assume 12 Jupiters per year is the absolute max the facility and churn our, and they can't do a single Jupiter more under any circumstances.  Well, maybe you refuel half your flights with Jupiters and then contract EELV's for the other half.
Now you are looking at 8 Lunar flights wer year, one about every 6-7 weeks.  Be nice to do more, but that's a pretty healthy number.
And your costs are down.  :)

My terpediation is how willing our partners will be to drop the enormous amount of coin required to shoot off a few EELV's to fill the depot for a seat on a lunar mission, unless those EELV-class costs and tankers come way, WAY down. (which they could).  Maybe at first, but after that?
Sure, probably many countries would pony up so they can have the first Brit, or Russian, or Frenchie, or German, or Japanese, or Italian, or Canadian on the surface of the Moon.  But after each country gets it's boots and flag on the Moon, will they still want to pony up hundreds of millions for multiple EELV-class tanker flights per lunar mission?
They just might be more willing to chip in a lower cost to NASA to launch a refueling flight on a Jupiter.  If the saving is a few hundred million per mission, they might be more eager to do that than many around these parts think.  Especially with how little most foreign countries set aside for their space programs.  Often makes what we spend on NASA seem generous.
:)

So, just hypothosizing that increasing Jupiter production might be a more efficient growth option than depending on zillions of EELV-class launches.
Really all depends on what our partners want to do, especially after they get that first citizen on the Moon.  I think there will be a real enthusiasm to get that first citizen of theirs on the Moon, but that may peter out if the cost to them is excessive.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/10/2009 05:24 pm
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.

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 05:29 pm
Lobo,
As I'm sure you are aware, there are maximum production numbers and there are maximum production numbers! :)

*Theoretically* the infrastructure which will support the Jupiter systems will be capable of a flight rate as high as 22-24 launches per year -- the critical limit being the Core Stage & Upper Stage manufacturing.

*Realistically* I would be surprised to see much beyond about half of that as being an 'routinely' achievable rate.   So we are aiming our efforts at around 12 Jupiter launches per year, with two of those probably being Jupiter-130 Science/LEO missions and the rest being exploration-focused.

While 12 launches per year could place 48 people on the Lunar surface every year, or 240+ tons of cargo on the Lunar surface every year, with the capability to launch 12 Jupiter launches that is still a reasonable number to allow for continuous access to the Moon (4 1-launch missions per year) whilst also supporting at least one NEO exploration mission and also a 6-launch Mars mission effort as well.

I don't believe any other proposal is even trying to create an affordable system which could hope to do that.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/10/2009 05:30 pm

>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.

Ahhh, very interesting.  Ok, I didn't know there were so many options.  Thanks for all the info.

One question.  Could the stack be left in launch config, as you mentioned, with the PLF and spacers intact, just removing Orion's cover.
And could there be a method of transferring the propellents through Orion's docking ring, through piping that would down the inside of the PLF to the EDS.
The though was to have all the plumbing installed in the stack, so that a simple docking of the stack with the depot (disposable or permanent).  Attaching the nozzles (hatch could be opened and astronauts could actually do it manually...I think) and turn on the valves would be it.
Afterwards, when the PLF is jettisoned, so is the plumbing.

Seems like that would be pretty simple, but as I am no rocket scientist, there may be a number of reasons it's unfeasable.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/10/2009 05:30 pm

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.

Just wait a long, long, long time and the earth's rotation will slow down sufficiently.

Keep up the good work!!!

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/10/2009 05:34 pm
Some of these depot questions are like trying to decide which flowers will look best in what part of the garden over against the garage when all you have is an ad in a newspaper for a plot of land for sale that's totally forrested and overgrown. You are trying to nail down details that may not even exist by the time we get there.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/10/2009 05:39 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/10/2009 05:42 pm

>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.

Yes indeed!  The enormously increased amount of things that can be done are how you guys drug me over from the Ares camp to begin with.  :)

And I know all the depot talk is putting the cart in front of the horse.

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.
Would that be easier and/or cheaper than your current baseline?
I assume you guys had already considered it and rejected it for some reason, just wondering what that reason was. 
And that sparked quite a discussion about depots in general!  :)
So then I wondered if it'd just be easier and cheaper in the long run to go with the single launch disposable depot/tank concept rather than a permantent depot filled by multiple EELV tankers.
Which sparked some more discussion.  Good stuff all.

But anyway, just wondering if you guys had considered sending up a tank first, then CSM/LSAM/empty EDS stack, and refill in LEO, vs your current plan?
Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 05:47 pm
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?

The limit for Shuttle was always dictated by the 3-4-weeks of processing needed at the Pad after rollout, but before each launch.   That's what a "Clean Pad" approach really tries to address -- a reduction in work needed at the Pad.

With the systems we are proposing for Jupiter (M-LUT on the ML and FSS at each Pad), we believe can get that processing time down below 14 days at the Pad -- maybe as little as 10-12 for a Jupiter-130.

Most of the savings come by mating and checking-out all of the Vehicle <> Launch Tower umbilical connections inside the VAB before rolling-out, but there are other factors.   At that point, the number of VAB High Bays and available MLP's becomes the limiting factor and the refurbishment of the MLP's after each flight is one of the biggest single 'delays' -- up to 28 days to prepare it for the next round of stacking ops, which is very similar to Shuttle.

With 2 Pads, 2 MLP's and 2 VAB High Bays, we could launch about 8 Jupiter-246's per year.

With just one extra MLP, we could increase that to 12 per year.

At that point we need an extra High Bay to get to 16 per year.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/10/2009 05:58 pm
.......
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.
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.

Then having payloads for 24 flights would be something else.

Interesting idea though.

12 seems to be a reasonable maximum.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 06:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 06:06 pm
Then having payloads for 24 flights would be something else.

Wouldn't it be nice to implement an architecture where that is our biggest limitation?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SimonFD on 06/10/2009 06:12 pm
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.

Jumping in whilst Ross is talking depot stuff......
I believe that the Jupiter core can achieve a circular orbit without needing to restart the engines by modifying the ascent profile.

I also belive Shuttle could do this as well but choose not to to alllow the simplest disposal of the tank (no extra motors or control required).
In a shuttle-like ascent profile, orbit circularisation would be provided by Orion SM engine (as Ares I does).

Not a rocket scientist so if anyone disagrees............
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 06:18 pm
You are correct SimonFD.

All of our trajectories shown on the Baseball Cards assume direct-insertion to those listed orbits.   No engine restarts are included in any of those Baseball Cards.

Obviously for any sub-orbital injections like 30x130nmi, a second burn will be required eventually, but how that will be achieved is going to be mission-specific.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/10/2009 06:50 pm
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.

Surely.  :)

Good information, these are the things that I was wondering.  Thanks for indulging a layman on this stuff!

Yes, that's a good point about the short stay tank.  I thought parhaps just a tank with a basic RSC system, might be fairly easy/cheap to do, compared to a whole full 2nd JUS.  But didn't know, so I asked.
I think if you can ge the J130 to be able to loft the CSM and LSAM into a stable circular orbit, that would really make for saving and simplicity.
Then you aren't wasting a 2nd JUS, or a disposable tank.  Minimal waste, which is always a bonus.

Out of curiosity, besides having the CSM and LSAM separate and perform their own circulization burns, which would currently allow a J130 to get them into LEO, what other ways could the J-130 get the CSM and LSAM into circular LEO without needing to do those separate burns?
Would an upgrade to a 5-seg booster do it?  Or stretching the core a bit?
Or some other method.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 06:54 pm
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.


Quote
EELV is perfect for CEV.

J-130 is too much for baseline LSAM, but nothing less will do, and there's room for growth.

J-130 is more powerful than necessary for CxP's current LSAM, but is "just right" for the ~30% larger LSAM which our architecture can actually support.


Quote
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).

Actually the J-24x's are all capable of lofting the larger LSAM which we want for DIRECT.   Even then they still have a little spare performance which actually goes to waste :(


Quote
In Phase 3, J-24x is not to be used to lift TLI propellant, even though it would be more cost-effective than EELV.

Depends on how you look at it.   Yes, the Jupiter could lift it for a lower $$$ figure.

But if a foreign partner pays for all the fuel, the cost to NASA is $ 0.00 -- Got anything cheaper?.

Not to mention that doing this will also have the minor side-effect of invigorating an entire industry sector too...


Quote
The only reason to use EELV rather than J-24x to lift propellant is to increase EELV flight rates.

The real reason to use EELV for lifting fuel is to allow the Jupiter's to focus on increasing the overall MISSION RATE.

Jupiter and EELV is a much more powerful combination than either Jupiter or EELV alone.

I personally don't give two hoots about increasing EELV flight rate.   I care about increasing MISSION flight rates.   If that means EELV's and Jupiter's both need to fly a lot, that's okay with me.


Quote
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.

I wish people would understand that it is the political dynamics which are the thing that really controls this whole business.   It is "how much money is my state getting?" which is the real key question for every one of the people in charge.   And only when you follow the money will you really understand how this industry really works.

But that money is always ultimately expressed in a more tangible manner:   Jobs.


Jobs = Political support = Funding for the whole Program.

No Jobs = No Political Support = No Funding for the whole Program.


Any plans which are ever to have the slightest chance of working have no alternative but to take these two equations firmly into account at their very core.


Jupiter-130 is the lever which we intend to use to smoothly transition the workforce from Shuttle Program to the new Exploration Program.

EELV employs ~3,000 people currently.   There is simply no way for them to absorb the 12,000 people from Shuttle.

So EELV, no matter how good they are or what they might cost, is simply never going to be the "Jobs Bridge" which the Politicians are searching for.

It is a sad thing, but it is still a fact:   No matter how good EELV's might be, without a concerted effort to preserve as many Shuttle Jobs as possible, EELV will not get much in the way of political interest.


Quote
Maybe J-24x is the interim vehicle to tide us over until EELV is ready to lift CEV and support a depot architecture.

I'd love to go straight to J-24x, but the money simply isn't there to do it on the same schedule as J-130.

J-130 can fly in 2012.   J-24x won't fly before 2015 at the very earliest.

The corporations and workforce can weather a 1-2 year gap.   They can't hope to weather a 5 year gap.


Quote
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.

Don't forget that that extra capacity in Phase 3 allows for *MUCH* larger Lunar missions to be flown too -- we are aiming the architecture to be able to ultimately support 50mT cargo deliveries to the Lunar surface.

And the capacity will also prove extremely useful for Mars later too.


Quote
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/10/2009 07:11 pm
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.

Or they'll start working in some reusability.  I know that at least LM was looking at mid-air recovering some components like the propulsion section for Atlas V.  It doesn't make sense to do the development if you're only flying 3-4 times per year, but if you're flying 5-10 heavies per year, all of the sudden it can actually start creating real savings.

More importantly, if there's 400-600mT of steady demand that NASA can't compete with, you're going to see people trying to develop small RLVs for the market.  Those may take a while, but the sooner we have a depot and some demand, the sooner that process can get started.  At that point, it's quite likely that the price per kg in orbit for the propellant can come *way* down, even compared to Jupiter.

Quote
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.

As I said earlier, depots and RLVs are the only way we're going to get the cost of beyond-LEO transportation low enough to become truly spacefaring.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/10/2009 07:13 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 07:30 pm
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.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/10/2009 07:32 pm
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).

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.

Quote
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.

Well...for me, the allure of depots has always been that the development cost could be much lower than building and operating new HLVs.  You can build a depot, tugs, and launch a heck of a lot of propellant for the amount it would cost to build and operate Jupiter for say 10 years....but that kind of sentiment would likely get me burned at the stake in this crowd.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/10/2009 07:35 pm

....but that kind of sentiment would likely get me burned at the stake in this crowd.

~Jon

Nah (takes match away and drops it into a bucket of water)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 07:37 pm
Hmmm.

Ross. (looks for a new match... ;) )
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/10/2009 07:44 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/10/2009 07:55 pm
.......
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.
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.

Then having payloads for 24 flights would be something else.

Interesting idea though.

12 seems to be a reasonable maximum.

With 2x launches per lunar mission, you'd run up against the lower limits pretty quickly. 8 launches would only be 4 lunar missions. In the early, excursionary days, that'd probably be plenty, but if you wanted to do a moonbase, land rovers, head out to some NEOs, etc., the limitations would start to pinch. Especially if this worked out and Obama was succeeded by somebody a little more space minded. Imagine early 2017 with ISS running, one or more NEOs on the agenda, manned lunar missions begun, and maybe Mars front and center again. 12 launches a year would be pretty tight. We should be so lucky!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/10/2009 08:08 pm
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.

Well, you'd probably want some sort of attitude control while the tug is coming to pick them up, but that's something that the LV upper stage can provide for a brief duration.  But yeah, that's the whole point of the tug, it allows you to specify some sort of generic propellant transfer interface both for tankers and for tankees, and you keep all the heavy, expensive bits on the part that stays at the depot, and doesn't either have to be launched every time, or have to go through TLI every time.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 08:10 pm
William,
You just made me smile!

Quote
8 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/10/2009 08:19 pm
Well, once we started doing 4 or more lunar missions per year, it would be time to deploy depots to EML-1 & EML-2, together with fully reusable lunar landers (RLLs) and lunar ISRU LOX production.

And using the Direct 3.0 architecture with depots the time for doing that could very well be before 2025.

Jupiters as a fuel tanker? Eh, they are too valuable for that mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/10/2009 08:23 pm
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.  If past is prologue, Altair will wind up being heavier than expected and preclude this configuration.

J-24x allows for growth in the CEV+LSAM configuration, but J-130 allows for the same amount of growth lifting LSAM on its own.

The political consensus, if there is one, is that COTS should take over ISS crew rotation as soon as possible.  So why would there be objections to launching CEV on EELV as long as SDLV is needed for LSAM and, at least initially, EDS?  This only creates more jobs; it doesn't destroy any.

Of course J-130 will come first, before J-24x is ready.  My point is that while J-130 is the first step toward J-24x, the latter is ultimately the interim vehicle.  It gets us to the moon until the depot architecture is ready.  Then it is no longer necessary and J-130 lives on as the LSAM launcher and general-purpose super-heavy lifter.

In a depot architecture, none of the pieces are large enough to require J-24x.  Only LSAM (and perhaps the propellant depot) is large enough to require J-130.  Everything else can be lifted on EELV if those are the vehicles we want to fly more and make cheaper.

I agree that the way to reduce cost in the long run is to increase flight rates.  This implies launching our payload on the fewest number of different vehicles so that each vehicle flies more frequently.  We could launch everything on Jupiter.  We can't launch everything on EELV.  That's why my previous suggestion was to drive up Jupiter flight rates and invite partners to share the cost in exchange for seats or other access to missions.

But if we'd rather reduce the cost of EELV than Jupiter, then the logical approach is to launch everything we can on EELV and only use Jupiter when absolutely necessary.  Every CEV lifted on Jupiter is a lost opportunity to fly an EELV and decrease their cost, including the cost of supplying the propellant depot.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/10/2009 08:26 pm

Jupiters as a fuel tanker? Eh, they are too valuable for that mission.

Exactly the point.
As much as we are able to do, our resources ARE limited.
If we're going to mount the kind of exploration effort that the VSE envisions, we cannot afford (not $$) to use up Jupiters for delivering propellant to orbit. We would like EVERY Jupiter to be delivering a full blown mission to a propellant depot that is ready and waiting for us.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/10/2009 08:45 pm
William,
You just made me smile!

Quote
8 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, that's something I never really took to heart either until he said that (assuming it's affordable, which Direct clearly helps in that respect).



Now, I hate to be the one to put the cold shower on, but come everyone..Ross is great at helping us all out with info, but this depot stuff (and the rest) is detracting from what has already been pointed out by him as a limited timeframe. He's the worst one of the bunch (no insult intended)...too easy to help us out & explain things.

Please...let the team get on with the task at hand. Too much at stake to be worried about depots & launch facilities. We have to convince a nation how important this is (well, at least a blue ribbon panel).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2009 08:52 pm
Yeah, you're right, I'm going to have to limit my time on here for the next week or so.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/10/2009 08:52 pm
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  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/10/2009 08:56 pm
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.

Agreed!


Only bad this is that it might distract them from asking questions because they'd keep looking at it going "But Nay-Say said Direct wouldn't work. It can't be that simple, can it?"   ???

 ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/10/2009 08:58 pm
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  :)


NO - NO
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 06/10/2009 09:02 pm
I've been looking at the Direct 3.0 animation, as well as the older one, and I have the following suggestions:

1) Rather than pausing the video when indicating a particular part of the rocket, just make the animation slower. The pauses really bother me, for some reason.

2) Bring back the highlighting of the parts of the rocket. That really helps draw people's attention.

3) For the parts that go on the core for the single stage, but go on the upper stage for the two stage rocket, make sure they don't disappear off the screen. If necessary, move them off to the sides, but keep them in view so people don't think they're new part of the rocket rather than parts you've already shown.

Also, would it be possible to do similar animations for changes to the VAB and the pad. I realize that would be a lot of work, but it would be pretty cool and potentially very useful for some presentations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/10/2009 09:06 pm
William,
You just made me smile!

Quote
8 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.

Yr. Welcome!! (next rock..)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/10/2009 09:08 pm

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.

Jon,

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).
So even if the early cost of Jupiter is $300 million or so, you are talking around 5 EELV class launches to put up what a Jupiter can.
If those are D4H's, that's upwards of a billion dollars to buy your seat on a Lunar Mission.
Like I said, there are 4 seats on a lunar mission, and NASA would probably want at least 2 of thsoe for NASA.  So if two partners want to split the cost of a Jupiter, they are around $150 million each.  Much cheaper than the 1/2 Billion on the D4H.

Now, lets advance both the EELV and Jupiter to a high production rate.  Jupiter comes down to around $200 million? (again, going on the numbers I've seem toss around here).  Lets say you get D4H down to what?  $100 million?  You are still talking $200 million vs. 1/2 Billion in fueling flights.

So, let's say NASA were to settle on a nice, fixed "contribution" for others to get a seat on a a lunar mission of around $100 million.
2 seats per flight more or less cover the depot fuel costs.

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??

So I don't know where you get your $300-$500 million numbers for a seat from NASA.  Those are more like the numbers they'd fork out for their part of EELV class refueling launches.
:)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/10/2009 09:13 pm
This is something I've been harping on publicly for the past 5 years or so:

We have an HLLV (STS) that, with some relatively modest upgrades, based on existing hardware, can put a 100mT payload in LEO. That HLLV is supported by an existing infrastructure that, with relatively modest and relatively inexpensive upgrades (updated high bays, some new crawlers and MLPs) can be launched at a rate of roughly one every 15 days. That gives us the capability to put 2400mT of payload into LEO per year. There is absolutely nothing with the reach of our technology that won't *easily* fit within those limits, and within the budget that we can realistically project. ISS and/or successor. Moon. NEOs. Mars. It's all within reach, if only we make the right choices, right now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/10/2009 09:20 pm
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

Oh, no worries there!  Wasn't wihining, just saying I was making some assumptions there because I hadn't really got an answer...so if my logic was way off, that was why.
:)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/10/2009 09:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/10/2009 09:34 pm
Here are suggestions on the cost/kg chart http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/charts/LV_Cost_per_kg_to_LEO.gif .

(1) For divisible goods like fuel the number of launches is not as important as the total upmass, so it would be nice if the horizontal scale on the cost per kilogram chart were changed from launches per year to kilograms per year. The plot would show "[recurring] cost / kg" vs. "kg / year".

(2) The cost per kilogram numbers seems to only include recurring yearly operating costs, not one-time costs such as building launch pads, vehicle assembly buildings, and other facilities. I at least would understand the tradeoffs between different launchers better if there were a cost per kilogram chart for one-time costs, showing one-time costs per kilogram to orbit as a function of launcher and launch rate. NASA already has a certain number of shuttle facilities so this chart would likely have a very different shape than the recurring one, with cost per kilogram initially decreasing as flight rate goes up but then increasing once the shuttle facilities are fully utilized and we have to build a new VAB, new launch pads, and the like. I suggest a second chart with "one-time cost / (kg / year)" vs. "kg / year".

In particular, roughly how expensive would it be to build a new VAB, launch pad and manufacturing facilities to enable NASA to launch say 50% more Jupiters than presently planned?

(3) For rational decision-making marginal cost is more useful than average cost. Marginal versions of the above two, i.e.  "d (recurring cost / year) / d (kg / year)" vs. "kg / year" and "d one-time cost / d (kg / year)" vs. "kg / year", would be handy for those of us with knowledge of economics.


If you send me the data for the cost/kg chart I'd be happy to make a prototype of what I have in mind.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mrbliss on 06/10/2009 09:44 pm
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/10/2009 09:48 pm
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.

Is the baseline to have the LSAM perform the LOI burn like Apollo?
I know there was talk about maybe having the EDS do it.
And reguardless of the baseline, -can- the EDS do the LOI burn?  Or is all propellent burned through TLI?

Would having the LSAM do it's own LEO circ burn allow it enough fuel left for it to perform the LOI burn and lunar descent if that's still the baseline?

As far as your detractors go, good point.  They'll already try to make hay out of the more complicated docking requirements of Direct, trying to make it sound like a deal breaker, add a little more complexity to it, and it'll be like handing them the club to beat you with.

But -if- Direct were to get selected, THEN drop that suggestion to the NASA boys as they are converting to the new architecture.
"Oh, by the way, the CSM and the LSAM are EACH spacecraft with their own main engines and RCS/OMS systems.  They can do their own circ burns and maneuver for docking easily enough.  Then you can Use the cheaper Jupiter 130 instead of the 2nd, more expensive Jupiter 246, trimming the cost of a lunar mission further.  Just a thought...*hint* *hint*"
;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/10/2009 09:51 pm
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.

It seems a little excessive to prohibit NASA from competing at all. How about simply requiring NASA to charge a commercially plausible price? I mean a price that includes not only the incremental cost of building one more vehicle, but also a fair share of the costs of VAB, manufacturing facilities, launch pads, etc. Also include costs that NASA doesn't explicitly pay such as the value of the land NASA uses. Also include a substantial profit margin. I'll take a wild guess that the resulting price would be between half a billion and a billion dollars per J-2xx, much greater than the 200-300 million incremental cost.

Basically make the price high enough so that if industry builds a vehicle roughly as efficient as Jupiter then NASA would be priced out of the market.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/10/2009 10:00 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jeff.findley on 06/10/2009 10:12 pm
Why should there be a law requiring NASA to purchase propellant launches from commercial providers if Jupiter would be cheaper?

Demand for commercial propellant launches would be a welcome market for launch vehicles.  Hopefully new markets will encourage development of newer, cheaper, launch vehicles. 

The airplane analogy would be air mail service.  At the time, the government really didn't need mail to travel by air, but it helped create a new market for the budding airline industry.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/10/2009 10:13 pm
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

Yea, having the tankers each needing to be their own ATV I think would just make EELV class tankers really cost prohibitive.  The ATV the ESA built and sent to the ISS was pretty spendy I thought.  A few hundred million at least?  The math will be hard pressed to work them.  If you can just launch a dumb tank and have a tug grab it and take it to the depot, now you can drive down costs.  However, what happenseif that tank starts to tumble and doesn't have any type of RCS?  That's my concern with the "dumb/cheap EELV tank" method.

And as an aside, not to get too far afield here (but I am), I think one of the most obvious ways to trim -majory- dollars from lunar missions is a reusable LSAM.  Anyone know the dollar figures on how much each of those babies are going to cost?  Even at mass production?
Seems if you can reuse one, even if it's only a couple times, you can save enormous money per mission.  I don't know if you can refuel the RCS/OMS systems efficiently, so that could be a limit to how many times you can reuse it.  But if you designed it with enough RCS/OMS propellent for say 4 missions, that could really save some bucks.  Because it doesn't have to survive atmosphereic reentry, multiple ascents/descents shouldn't cause much wear and tear on it. 
Not sure if hyperglolics or cryos would be best for that, but as long as you are reusing the hardware, that's the important thing. 
NASA could land a "cargo package" at the intended exploration site.  Then plan say 4 missions there, the service life of an LSAM, then crews can just rotate to the site, 2weeks down, and the next crew 2 weeks after that (down for a lunar day, and gone for the lunar night.  a 2-week night would be hard to get much exploration done anwyay)
If you have a permanent base say at the South Pole, then you use it for 4 crew rotation and send up another.  Longer if you can figure out how to refuel the RCS/OMS systems.  Perhaps additional RCS/OMS fuel can be landed on a cargo lander, and the surface crew and refuel it on the surface, which will allow far greater flexability than on orbit.

But, I'm getting a little far afield.  Just waxing philisophical.  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/10/2009 10:27 pm
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).

Well, that's all about spin and politics.
You wouldn't be "selling" a seat on a lunar mission.  You'd be "flying joint mission with your international partners where they've provided a certain amount of financial support for the mission."

See how much more diplomatic that sounds?  It goes on like that today with teh Shuttle.  You can't sell a seat on the Shuttle, but we have international astronauts fly up on it to the ISS right?  And isn't that as part of an agreement with the ESA or JAXA for contributions in other areas, say building a module for the ISS (so we don't have to), or flying up an ATV to resupply the ISS (so we don't have to)?

We "sell" seats on the shuttle now by other names.  The joint lunar missions would work in the same way.
maybe instead of "buying" the propellent launch, they'd "buy" an LSAM, or a cargo lander mission or something.  There'd be a negotiation and some type of barter contract hammered out just like there was for the ISS.  Them sending up their own LV's to fuel a depot is just another way to barter in that contract.
So this bit about "seats on a Jupiter are not for sale" is moot.  Of course they are.  Unless we only want to sent Americans to the Moon, period.
It'll just be called something different.
We're not going to take Hans for Sven for Pierre to the moon if we're not getting something back from their countries in return.  Nor have we taken them to the ISS on the Shuttle unless we've gotten something in return.



Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/10/2009 10:34 pm
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.

Quote
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).

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/10/2009 10:39 pm
It seems a little excessive to prohibit NASA from competing at all.

It is by law prohibited to provide commercial services.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/10/2009 10:42 pm
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?

It has nothing to do with ULA.  The law came about in 1987-1988.

NASA is the gov't, it should be buying services that commercially available not provide them
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 06/10/2009 10:49 pm
NASA is *supposed* to only design/build when they can't buy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/10/2009 10:56 pm
It's NOT a commercial service if we pay for it on April 15.

If Bigelow wants to launch something on Jupiter, that's a commercial service.

If NASA wants to launch propellant on EELV, that's a government contract, and to require the government to contract out for services it can provide more cost-effectively on its own is privatization run amok.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/10/2009 11:15 pm
If NASA has to use "commercial" providers whenever possible, then Ares I is illegal and Jupiter can't launch Orion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 06/10/2009 11:37 pm
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.

It is to the letter of the requirements. Not the spirit of the requirements. So it must qualify on all counts. At this moment they are correct.

But that may not be the case soon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: PDJennings on 06/10/2009 11:38 pm

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).


Your price information is a bit dated.  Prior to the recession, Protons were getting nine figures.  The recent AsiaSat launch contract ILS poached from Land Launch was revealed to cost $80m, which I suspect is at the low end of the current range.  There have been no meaningful bulk buys (10+) of commercial launch services since the early 90s, and even many of these were cancelled prior to fulfillment.  By nature, it is not an industry that lends itself to bulk buys.

Having said that, whether a Proton goes for $60m or $120m, US launchers will never be commercially competitive unless the US government subsidizes all but the marginal cost of the launch vehicle as a matter of national policy, as several other countries do.  In addition to that, there has to be a commitment to launch rate, with slots available for commercial opportunities on a commercial time scale (18-24 month callup).  ULA could capture a third of the commercial market under those conditions, easily.  It (CLS) has done in the past.

As expensive as it would be to subsidize EELVs in the commercial market, at least these launchers are well-tailored to the GTO market.  Subsidizing any shuttle-derived launcher, even Jupiter, for commercial launches would make no sense technically, as well as being (at present) unlawful.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/10/2009 11:54 pm
Ross,

I can see why you've produced the Heavy cards - 92mT thru TLI for the J-246H! Enough to turn some new heads, maybe.

But J-246 & J-246H both show TLI dV as 3,215m/s. I presume it should be higher for the Heavy (as supported by a 1.2mT reduction in gross TLI performance vs payload fuel).

This is repeated across all the J-24x vs J-24xH EDS cards.

BTW, with a 1% FPR (~32m/s), I don't think it's worth reporting the TLI dV figure to 5 digits, especially as all the decimals on these figures are ".0". Just show "3,205" or similar.



The J-244H EDS card is missing the "protects for ... engine out" messages below the blue line.


I think a single-launch J-246H cargo config can push 60mT-ish thru TLI (for a maxed-out ascent). That's enough to land a useful payload. Would it be worth producing one single-launch cargo BB card - maybe just the J-246H or J-244H? Sorry, I know the first one is probably the hardest to produce.

cheers, Martin

Edit 5dp -> 5 digits.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/11/2009 12:09 am
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.

Quote
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).

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


Well, the numbers I was throwing around are just WAG's.  I'm sure the NASA guys would figure out just what 1/4 the cost of a lunar mission would cost and then put the number for 1 of 4 seats accordingly.

I'm just saying I'd be interested to see if our parners would rather make a "financial contribution" to NASA  for a spot on a "Joint International Lunar Mission", i.e. buying a seat on Lunar Orion, vs. the option for them to send up their own EELV class launchers instead, if that will cost them significantly more.
If it's the same or cheaper, then obivously they do it themselves.
People around here seem to think they'll preferr to do it themselves because they'll get the cost down to be cheaper, but I'm a little skeptical on how the numbers will actually work out.  :)

As far as Zenit goes, that can only lift 13.7 mT to LEO, so it'd take 8 Zenits to put up what one Jupiter can.  At let's say $80 million a shot, that's still $640 million to fill a depot for a lunar mission.  Jupiter will do it for half that out of the gate.  Proton can put about 21mT, so you'd need at least 5 of those at at least over 100 million each.  Better, but still dubious as to if that can beat a Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/11/2009 12:21 am
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.


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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bluea on 06/11/2009 12:22 am
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?

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/11/2009 01:35 am
Can we put things like Aquarius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarius_Launch_Vehicle) on there?

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.
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/11/2009 04:25 am
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.

No, I'm suggesting that we launch Orion on EELV so that J-130 can lift LSAM with substantial margin for growth.  We don't need Jupiter to lift Orion.  We need at least J-130 for LSAM and J-24x for EDS.

I agree that EELV is not THE answer.  I especially think that EELV is not the answer to propellant depot supply.  But EELV is a good answer for lifting Orion, and assigning it that role is good politics.

Jupiter is absolutely required to lift LSAM, so the Shuttle-related infrastructure and workforce is safe.  J-130 allows for over 50% LSAM growth.  With J-24x, the LSAM can grow to over twice the baseline.

J-24x is the best propellant lifter for the job.  Can several EELVs do it?  Sure, but with J-24x, we'll never need more than two launches and one propellant transfer to lift a fully-fueled EDS.

A fully-fueled EDS can push enough mass through TLI for a 100 mT LSAM launched on J-24x and Orion CEV launched on EELV.  J-24x lifting CEV+LSAM wouldn't exploit a fully-fueled EDS.

So my argument is to launch Orion on EELV, EDS/propellant on J-24x, and LSAM on J-130 until we can do the propellant transfer to enable growth and develop an LSAM large enough to require J-24x.

In Phase 2, this adds an EELV and subtracts one JUS per mission.  The Phase 3 mission is three Jupiter cores, at least two with JUS, one of them also with reusable Orion-based propellant transfer tug, the third (with or without JUS) for LSAM, and Orion on EELV.  The tug, and perhaps LC-39C, are the only major developments required for Phase 3.

It only takes one more Jupiter per mission and one JUS-to-JUS propellant transfer to totally max out the DIRECT architecture.  Or we could make it much more complicated with numerous EELVs supplying a long-lived propellant depot...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/11/2009 04:28 am
Okay, I can't find the post that critiques the DIRECT v3 video.  Agreed that when the parts stop, it seems like the video has frozen.  Maybe it needs a running nixie tube clock somewhere in the frame. [Modify: Well, it has the moving whatevers on the side!]

It would be nice to show the missing tooth formation of the three engines in four holes.  More explanation necessary, but honesty is the best policy within the time constraints and clean layout of the video. [Modify: Well, it _does_ show the gap!  The fourth engine is hidden behind one of the RSRMs.]

Rather than Ares 3/4, could the CLV-nn and CL-nn nomenclature be used?

Finally, it would be fair to note that the ET would have to be heavily modified per NLS 1992 or whatever.  I do like the video, though!

Modify: It would be helpful to have the moon the highest, the space station in the middle, and leo the lowest on the left.  It is fine as a _final_ video, though.  It will hold until September!



 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/11/2009 07:29 am
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. (**)

As a side-effect, this allows a much larger CLV payload, and re-fuelling the EDS allows that larger payload to be pushed through TLI.

cheers, Martin

(**) 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.

Even this scheme could use J-24x - crew launches on J-24x, un-docks from the launch Upper Stage and docks to a fully-fuelled EDS. The Upper Stage which carried the crew through launch then loiters whilst tankers re-fuel it, and it becomes EDS for a subsequent mission.

Now each mission can have ~90mT payload instead of 77.2mT and each mission uses one core and one EDS, it's just that the TLI EDS is not the Upper Stage from the launch.

Using this scheme, the crew doesn't launch until they know that their EDS is fully-fuelled, checked out and ready to use, and the depot doesn't have to survive in LEO for years, cycling through re-fuel / empty / re-fuel. Fail of the "one-and-only" depot could lose you a billion dollars worth of fuel and halt all flights until another could be launched.

This avoids the risk of LOM if fuelling of the EDS fails, which requires crew to abort & land having achieved nothing.

Why do most depot schemes assume there will only be one depot? Don't argue whether depot should be at 29 deg, 56 deg, LEO, L1, L2 - put one or more at each location. NB long term goal, not early days!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/11/2009 09:24 am
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.  :(

You're missing the part of my proposal where CEV launches on EELV.  J-130 has plenty of margin for LSAM.

Quote
Phase 3 (depots) will always launch crew / CLV on a J-24x because it needs the Upper Stage as the EDS. (**)

Each Phase 3 mission requires at least one J-24x to lift the EDS, but that doesn't mean LSAM and/or CEV must launch on J-24x.  Two J-24x can lift a fully-fueled EDS with one propellant transfer, enough TLI performance for a double-size LSAM that maxes out J-24x plus CEV on EELV.  But we could also launch a 1.5-scale LSAM that maxes out J-130 and partially offload the two J-24x propellant lifters.

Quote
(**) 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.

Right, that's my scheme.  First launch an unloaded J-24x, then another J-24x with an Orion-based reusable propellant transfer tug.  They rendezvous, and the tug empties its JUS into the first JUS, which becomes the EDS awaiting LSAM rendezvous.  The tug then separates from the EDS, deorbits its empty JUS, and reenters for reuse.  If the LSAM launches on J-24x, it would likely deorbit its spent JUS and use the waiting EDS to avoid a second propellant transfer.  Then, after the LSAM and fueled EDS are integrated, CEV launches on EELV.

The absolute largest mission that can be supported under DIRECT Phase 3 with any kind of depot-like setup can be launched with three J-24x and one EELV.  With an EELV-based depot architecture, we need one J-24x and at least 10-12 EELVs for the maximum Phase 3 mission.  I don't think there's any question which approach is cheaper, simpler, and sooner.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/11/2009 09:31 am
Interesting article posted at Spaceref:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=31472

It seems that NASA is asking for proposals about how to use CxP to maintain observatory-class vehicles as far afield as SEL-1 and -2.  Whilst most of this appears to be an (overdue) request for thoughts about the value of maintenance against shorter lifespan and quicker replacement, it seems that they are seriously looking at doing things like maintaining vehicles like SOHO or JWST to increase their lifespan.

Over on NASAWatch, I have left a comment reminding everyone that Orion/SSPDM is perfect for the job and can be single-launched by J-130 to LEO. ;D I'm not sure what the launch archetecture for an SEL maintenance mission would be, but with J-246's TOI payload being well over two Orion weights, I'm sure that it wouldn't be too much of a problem.

Just a heads-up to Ross & Co: The Augustine Commission might ask you guys about this, so keep the mission profile for ISS servicing on hand and let them know that it is more-or-less the same thing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/11/2009 09:58 am
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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/11/2009 10:36 am
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...

Any LEO payload beyond 30 mT can only fly on Jupiter, and J-130 may be only 50% more expensive than Delta IV-H, so I would say the minimum economical payload for J-130 would be 30-45 mT, depending on how badly the payload needs to be launched.

For example, Orion to ISS is a high-priority payload, so NASA may launch a few 25 mT payloads on J-130.  That's an extreme case where politics is likely a factor in choosing Jupiter over EELV.

But it a more ideal world, the 45 mT baseline LSAM should be among the smaller payloads for J-130.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/11/2009 10:55 am
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/11/2009 11:02 am
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...

*IF* Jupiter is chosen, one of the things that will come under review in the 2017-2020 timeframe is whether or not we want to continue ISS (which will require a lot of maintenance by 2020, as its major compoenents will have been on orbit for anywhere from 10 to 22 years). The choice will pretty much be extension, no-extension, or replacement. If Jupiter can easily be expanded into the 24-launch flight rate, then a "permanent" replacement station can easily be designed with 50-100mT components that could be "swapped out" at the end of their life. It's also the point at which "depot" begins to make easy sense. It's also the point at which multiple 100mT stations begin to make sense. You could have a zero-gee research lab, an orbital hangar (for very large spacecraft assembly and repair), a depot, whatever, all perhaps co-orbital so crews could go back and for if needed. And once you were building 50-100mT modules, you could talk putting them in EL- and SE- points, in LL0, and eventually using as transhabs. You could do it with EELVs and their class-cohort (Ariane, Proton, etc.) but it would be, by definition, more complex, and seemingly more expensive. Jupiter is a short path to greater capability, and once in place, will need some important tasks in order not to be cancelled. *IF* it gets the nod, we space cadets should start picking out good candidate missions and get those memes launched into the noosphere, where they can do some good.

(If Jupiter is selected, there's a major novella about that future waiting inside me. SF is how I launch ideas into the noosphere, and I wouldn't discount the effects of "Harvesting the Near Earthers" and "Fellow Traveler" [the novel of which the Ad Astra article is an appendix] had on people like Garver).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 06/11/2009 12:11 pm
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!

One option to consider is splitting Jupiter into a child article such as "Jupiter (rocket)".  Keep "DIRECT" as the overall architechture and policy description but have the new article cover technical aspects of the vehicle itself.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 06/11/2009 12:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: chuck34 on 06/11/2009 02:12 pm
I've been lurking for a while, and posted a few times, so please forgive me if I'm out of line.

I've been thinking about the presentation the the Blue Ribbon Panel.  If you are really limited to only 30 min, and that's including questions, you have a really tough job in front of you.  But I'm thinking the easiest way to do this quick and dirty is just to explain that the current orbiter weighs X amount (minus the SSMEs).  That is all basically "dead weight" (wings, landing gear, etc).  So just explain to the panel that Direct just does away with all the dead weight, and puts the good bits on top of the ET.  The animation does a good job of that, and you guys will have all the back-up material.  But I don't see the need to go into too much detail in such a short time.

Thanks for listening to my idea, even though you guys probably know much better than I on how to handle this sort of thing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 06/11/2009 02:36 pm

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/11/2009 03:17 pm

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

Agree.  I think those number are right on target, unless a new, radically different infrastructure is developed. 

Numbers to the contrary that we have seen (using the same infrastructure) are likely to be viewed as fiction by the commission.  They have the same sense of "expected cost" as we do.  And there is very little chance that EELVs and HSF will share significant infrastructure.

If numbers come in substantially lower, they will be very suspicious and may not be swayed by data.  Data can be more easily fabricated than experience.

Same goes for schedule.  Great point on the "total cost" of higher flight rates as well.  That is something many miss.  And this is a time of shrinking (either in real dollar or inflastion adjusted) HSF budgets.  Science is not better.  NASA will be lucky to get 2% per year increases when the rest of the budget will have to start shrinking inflastion adjusted (it will happen).

 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/11/2009 03:28 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/11/2009 03:31 pm
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?  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/11/2009 03:49 pm
Ross & team -

I know you guys are busy with prep work, however, where are "we" at on the video of the ISDC presentation - is it out there and I missed it or has it been placed on the back burner for now??

Thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/11/2009 05:24 pm
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?  :)

Well, since I was talking about future hypotheticals, "once" can mean "sometime between now and when the Sun goes out"...

;-)

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/11/2009 06:40 pm
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.  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MagDes on 06/11/2009 06:48 pm
Ok so just so I'm clear on the propellant depot economics:

[1] We basically have a supply and demand issue. There are only 8-12 Jupiter LV available per year which limits supply causing the partner seat cost to go up to the point where it becomes feasible for them to launch their own propellant. Further, it becomes necessary if NASA decides to launch 8 Jupiters per year, which only carry mission hardware.

[2] Partners tend to favour launching they're own vehicles because they're spending the peoples money on jobs within their own boarders (read investing in and stimulating their own economies).

[3] The mission hardware and S/C costs have to be included in the costs of the partner seats, not just the launch vehicle costs. Including the cost of the mission hardware also raises the partner seat cost to the level where it becomes more attractive for them to launch propellant.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/11/2009 08:34 pm
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)


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mrbliss on 06/11/2009 08:49 pm
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?

Cautiously, yes it does seem strange.  I'm definitely a "DIRECT amazing people", but I've always worried about their stated money and schedule figures.

However, to throw in a couple of twists ...

"Shuttle costs" typically include the cost associated with the orbiters.  Jupiter and EELV are typically compared sans payload costs.  I expect that makes a huge difference.

Part of the reason EELVs cost so much is the low flight rates.  The typical Jupiter costs are based on a "frequent" flight rate. 

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/11/2009 08:49 pm
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)




Actually, it doesn't seem strange, when you look at the underlying assumptions. EELV costs are partly determined by the infrastructure cost of maintaining the program, which includes, for national security reasons, supporting two parallel EELV systems (and DIVH has nothing on the Atlas side for comparison: there is no AVH flying, plus DIV uses American-made engines, whereas AV uses Russian-made engines [our workers do cost more]). Jupiters costs are inferred from known infrastructure and production costs associated with STS. Kistler, Kelly, VentureStar have (had) none of those things. One good way to see how the inferences work is to compare Shuttle per flight costs, which amortize the infrastructure and include "reusability" overhead, with Shuttle per flight non-recurring costs. If the Shuttle were expendable, it'd be cheaper too, if it weren't the fact you can't divorce it from the $4bln "fairing." Which is exactly what Jupiter 130 does. SRBs, SSMEs, ET... no Orbiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: stockman on 06/11/2009 08:58 pm
Hope this is not off topic.. Just an observation on your web site.. The WMV pointer that is highlighted below brings me to a "website can not be found - 404 error" - looks like this link may be broken... FYI only
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/11/2009 10:06 pm
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)


No, it only seems strange to you.  ;)
*kidding*

Well, for cost purposes, I'm just going by what the Direct guys have been throwing around as "post-development" costs.  Obviously if you include the costs of development into the first several Jupiters, then the price is higher.  But as a depot scheme wouldn't come into play until much farther down the road after the Jupiters have been rolling off the assembly line for some time, that's why I figured comparing post-development costs.
As to those costs, a large part of an STS flight is the shuttle's refurbishment and maintenance.  If you can break out the price of the ET, the SRB's, and then add the price of 3 or 4 SSME's that will be consumed, and you have a pretty good base price Estimate.  Add some educated estimates for the avionics, engine skirt, and any RCS Systems that may be required, and you probably have a pretty good cost estimate of a Jupiter.
Don't you think?  Afterall, the bulk of components of a Jupiter are flying today.  (As opposed to Ares 1 or 5 which truely do only exist in an excell spreadsheet.  ;)   )

And yea, you can buy an EELV today, and not a Jupiter.  But with no Jupiter, you probably have no depot, ever.  If Ares V ever does fly (which is debatable due to budget constraints discussed often on this forum) it likely won't benefit from a depot because you can't do a lunar mission with Ares 1 only, and Ares V doesn't carry Orion, so you are locked into that 2 launch architecture permanently.  The only thing a depot might do for Ares is allow for a larger LSAM or something.

So, if Direct isn't chosen, this whole topic is really moot.  There will be no depot ever, and thus no debate as to if an EELV is a better way of refilling it than a Jupiter or not.

So one must -assume- Jupiter exists to even talk about a depot.
And one must -assume- that if it exists, it came in at prices relatively close to what the Direct team is putting out, otherwise it would meet the same fate that Ares is likely to, massive budget overruns and then indefinate postponement, and not exist.  So again, the discussion it moot then.

so you assume at some point Jupiter and EELV's will be like two loaves of bread on a shelf, or you can't talk aobut depots period.
That clarify things a bit?
:)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/11/2009 10:25 pm
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.

Quote
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)

Thanks for saying it better than I could.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mrbliss on 06/11/2009 10:25 pm
So one must -assume- Jupiter exists to even talk about a depot.

EELV's can use depots, too!  Launch your empty EDS on a DIVH, fuel it up at the handy depot, meet up with the Orion/Altair stack, and off you go...

Obviously, the *details* are much different than Jupiter's depot use, but it's still about leveraging on-orbit operations to enable larger beyond-LEO activity.

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: guru on 06/12/2009 12:18 am

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)

We already know how much it costs to maintain the space shuttle infrastructure.  Jupiter would use the same infrastructure and most of the same vehicle elements.

Quote
and with more stringent requirements (human rating)

The space shuttle is man rated.

Quote
costing the SAME (or less) as EELVs

It compares the price of Jupiter at a high flight rate to EELVs at a low flight rate.  Not apples to apples, but even if the EELVs were priced using the higher flight rate, the Jupiter would still be competitive on a cost per unit of mass to orbit basis.

Quote
that are subsidized by the Air Force and that providing much less performance?

So the EELVs would cost as much as the shuttle if the military weren't subsidizing it?

Quote
The difference is that you can buy an EELV today.

Until last month, the government could have purchased more shuttle flights with minimal change to the cost per flight.  Again, the Jupiter 130 is a modified STS stack.

Quote
The Jupiter costs (and this is not a slam, but it is a simple fact) are on in an Excel spreadsheet somewhere.

That's fair, but I should point out that all of Ares V's, some of Ares I's, and all of the spiral EELV development versions' projections are also in a spreadsheet.  A particular vehicle that hasn't been built could still be priced reasonably well in a spreadsheet assuming the vehicle uses known methods and ready to use technologies.

Quote
And yet so many people compare the two as if they were two loaves of bread at the grocery store.

Like you, most of us have little else to go on aside from our knowledge of the space shuttle system and EELV costs, but that's enough to get a grasp on things.  Remember, some of the people who price Ares are also pricing DIRECT, and a blue ribbon panel could gain access to those projections.

Quote
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)

Show me a working SSTO rocket with aerospikes and lobed composite tanks, a working orbital space plane that is towed behind a 747, or a fully reusable two stage to orbit launch vehicle, and you might have a point regarding cost projections.  Since these are not mature technologies, their cost projections are bound to have inaccuracies.

The Jupiter, however, would use existing SRBs, SSMEs, and core stages made using mostly existent ET tooling, in a configuration and flight profile that have already been flying with known costs for almost 30 years.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/12/2009 12:39 am

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?


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.

The bigger costs are the workforce and the man-rating requirements, which already exist for Jupiter, but still get factored in.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 12:41 am
Guru, you missed my point in several places.  I hope it was intentional.

Why is the carrying cost for DIRECT plus a few (or more flights) a year less than Shuttle?  Orbiter maintenance is a very small piece of the pie.

Ares + Orion costs about what a Shuttle costs on a per-year basis, with some low marginal flight cost.

Why is DIRECT so much less than Shuttle or Ares I/Orion? (total cost per year, not per flight)

Again, a higher flight rate does reduce the per flight and margin costs, but the TOTAL costs go up.  You can't get twice the flights for half the cost.

Have you seen the BoE for DIRECT?  If so, how do they compare with similar launch systems that are flying, particularly Shuttle?  Because all I have seen is bottom line development costs and cost per marginal flight ... nothing on carrying costs or element by element estimates. 

Agree on the Ares/Orion (the system) cost vs. DIRECT, both are projections.  But Ares/Orion have 4 years of sharpening the pencil to benefit.  Remember that the SSP had lots of things "grandfathered in" (process, environmental, others) due to it's 1970's design heritage.  Neither Ares/Orion nor DIRECT will have that benefit ... that is why the Ares/Orion numbers are so much higher than expected and why DIRECT (if developed) will likely blow the estimates you have seen out of the water.

Finally, the infrastructure costs for EELV is almost 4x what the USAF thought it would be.  That was basically with existing technologies and modern designs (which, by leveraging SSP, DIRECT doesn't have). Why should we believe that DIRECT has cracked that nut and that these "super low prices" are credible?

I agree that the panel should be able to do apples to apples comparisons ... but don't be surprised when the operations costs for DIRECT are so high as to be indistinguishable from Ares/Orion (or higher).  I know the methods and the people doing the work, know that and the outcome is fete accompli.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 12:42 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/12/2009 01:07 am
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?

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

Yes, the Jupiter does seem on the low side as a comparison between the Atlas as they are 'similar' in design, and Atlas hasn't been man-rated. And yes, these are 'projected' costs for 12 flights/year (amortized) = $2.3-$3B/year.

How the worforce costs are actually factored in, I can't say, but obviously both vehicles need a workforce.

To me, the value is a much greater capability than Ares or EELV for a cost much less than SSP for the flight rate. If they come in low, it's still a bargain compared to the alternatives.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 02:00 am
So, my question remains.   How can Atlas pay $200M per flight (plus the $750M in yearly shared EELV infrastructure) and Jupiter be $200M per flight, given the higher requirements (payload and safety), older technology base, and the same assumed flight rate? 

And let's not make the same mistake the SSP made.  They assume a huge flight rate and then had to carry the ops burden forever at the lower rate.

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?

Let's look at 2020.  Assuming $500M for a CEV, $500M for 2 Jupiter launches, $500M for an EDS and $1B for a lander, and $500M for mission specific costs and operations, you get a mission cost of ~$3B.   ISS is gone.  The Obama budget allows for $6B (FY2016) in HSF costs ... that's 2 lunar missions.  What pays for EELV, lunar outposts, NEO missions, and Mars development?  Who pays for the other 8 Jupiter missions? There is no money left if a lunar mission costs $3B, even if 4 Jupiter launches (to the Moon or ISS) only costs $250M, much less what it will really cost at the lower flight rate.

The flight rate of 12 per year is overstated by a factor of at least 2-3, and therefore the per flight costs (even if you have your fixed costs right, which I doubt) are way too low.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/12/2009 02:11 am
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.

Doesn't seem strange at all. You're taking this huge piece of very delicate machinery, with thousands if not millions of parts, and is pretty fragile to boot, off the side of the thing. Then you put that fraction of the overall mass of the orbiter on the bottom of the tank, and then you put a less complex, easier to maintain spacecraft that has much less mass on top of the stack. That big white thing on the side of the ET costs a whole lot more than you think to maintain and fly. It isn't some "small piece of the pie". It's a very big piece of the pie.

STS has been flying for three decades. You'd think that people know by now how much it costs to produce and fly the things. Take off the most expensive pieces, replace them with something less expensive and less complex to maintain, and the price is going to be lower, especially if you fly more of them. Q.E.D.

I don't want to rain on your parade, but I honestly can't see how anyone could say "it MUST cost more than they're saying!" when all the facts and figures are laid right out there in plain view. If it is such a big concern, then go do all the work that the DIRECT team have done, to find out where they get their figures from. It isn't like they haven't shown everyone their work...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/12/2009 02:12 am
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?


Putting aside the specific costing for the moment (at least from me, until I check at work tomorrow)...what can you get with the lift performance & timeframe that Jupiter offers? NOTHING.

I understand where you're coming from, and I do agree we don't need to latch ourselves onto another architecture that sucks all funds away from other program (SSP, Ares...). I also believe much of what has been touted for exploring the planets is not affordable under the current plans.

Direct is the ONLY architecture which covers off SO MANY of the issues off the checklist.
1. Performance
2. Schedule
3. Scalability
4. Workforce retention
5. Current infrastructure utilization
6. LOWER COST = fundable in the future = less risk of getting cancelled in tough economic times.

Even if the numbers do work out 100% in the end, you WILL HAVE SOMETHING in the end. (Note: that's not a statement directed at you, by those in the larger community).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 02:15 am
It isn't like they haven't shown everyone their work...

Can you point me to the cost analysis/BoE you are referring to?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 02:18 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/12/2009 02:23 am
Robert, while your qualitative argument is powerful and most of your points salient, the costs do matter. 

Thanks, and yes I know.
Quote

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.


I still don't think the USA can afford it, and supporting the ISS may be all the WH/Congress may be interested in after this review (based on cost & blunders). But if they did fund a lunar architecture, it will take a heck of alot more money (imo) to support anything beyond Apollo style missions.

I'll check my portable HD tomorrow at work on Ross' previous costing data.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 02:35 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/12/2009 02:43 am
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.


I have no idea what the correct cost numbers are..

However..  how in the world would we ever afford the current VSE which would cost much more to Develop(HUGE bill for Ares-V still to come) and still cost more per mission than DIRECT?

Perhaps the Commission may be able to sell higher Exporation Budget if they convince Obama he's actually getting good value for his dollar.. Something that's he's certainly NOT convinced is happening with the current Architecture.

Also guessing the Direct 2.0 numbers included substantial costs for J-2X
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 02:49 am
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).

Do you really think that the president is going to raise NASA's budget by $2B a year in this political climate?  The same president that said he wanted to reduce the NASA budget by $3B to pay for education over 5 years?  The same president that put in a marker for less money this year? 

He's a fan, it is just #127 on his list of current priorities.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/12/2009 04:51 am
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).

I agree that if DIRECT is stuck with a $6B/year funding wedge, it is going to have a hard time getting back to the moon, much less getting to 12 flights per year.  And I agree that with Constellation, you probably wouldn't even be able to pay for flights after paying all the overhead...but I'm not convinced that has to be the case with EELVs.  I think that even with only $6B/year for exploration, that an open-architecture (EELVs at first, but done in a way that if someone else can bring a launcher to the table, they can play too) could make it to lunar capabilities, and eventually leverage its way up to more sophisticated capabilities...

...that said, in interest of not having Ross go digging for the match again, I'll save this discussion for a different thread.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 06/12/2009 06:15 am
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.

Jupiter wins because a bigger rocket, *all other things being equal*, has lower $/kg figures.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 06/12/2009 06:21 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 06/12/2009 06:46 am
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)

Bingo. You are not the only one.

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/12/2009 07:27 am
Also guessing the Direct 2.0 numbers included substantial costs for J-2X


Figure 132 lists both J-2XD and RS-68 (unstated, but ablative).

DIRECT 3.0 uses SSME, of course, so avoids those up-front development costs, and should have known handling costs.

An upper stage development programme will be needed - I presume HR of the RL-10 would be the cheapest of the upper stage engine options.

Of course, these are development costs.

cheers, Martin

PS At least if there are cost overruns on Jupiter, you're starting from a lower base point.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 06/12/2009 07:47 am
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."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/12/2009 08:05 am
On baseball cards

(Using layman's terms 'cuz I know I will get busted.)  Is there not place on the cards to convey the total oomph from 2 x RSRM + 3 x SSME-Block-2 versus 2 x RSRM + 4 x SSME-Block-2 and 6 x RL10B-2 ? 

I realize they are not firing simultaneously, and the graphs show how complicated it would be to describe this kind of information in words, but there is some satisfaction in being able to do some mental math:  4 x 600 bhp Hemis = 2400 bhp--that should be enough for 400 mph!

Other than the graphs and the kg-to-orbit, is there another way to show how much the extra SSME contributes to the J-246's performance?

Modify: comma
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/12/2009 09:22 am
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.

I think there is a much better alternative. The obvious solution to me is that Altair and Orion stay joined together using the payload fairing. 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.

Another small advantage of the J-130/J-246 architecture is that the crew access arm only has to be on one level, for J-130. If using J-130 for some missions and J-246 for others, you would need two arms, unless you build a longer PLF for J-130 missions to reach the J-246 arm height.

Quote
The Jupiter's will never be available commercially.   Period.   They will never be allowed to "compete" with the commercial operators.

That is true, however there is a way around this rule which international partners routinely use. This is with the exchange of services. For example, Italy built Node 3 for NASA in exchange for access to ISS. No money ever changes hands. The same thing would apply with using Jupiter. Italy builds a $300M Module which they give to NASA in exchange for a ride to the Moon. Much cheaper than spending $900M trying to launch 100 t of propellant using EELV class vehicles.

Quote
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.

I think as long as NASA is willing to allow international partners to ride on Jupiter in exchange for services, there is no incentive for US companies or international partners to develop their own heavy lifter (50 to 100 t to LEO). Look what happened with ISS. Both Europe and Japan did not develop their own crewed spacecraft or space station. Why? I think it was because they had no need to as they could get access to the ISS via the Space Shuttle or Soyuz at relatively low cost. China does not have this access. I think that is one of the main reasons why they developed their own crewed spacecraft.

If NASA tells their international partners the only way you're getting a ride to the Moon is by providing propellant, one possible outcome is that they will go and develop their own heavy launcher to reduce the cost per kg. In doing so, they will have to build a large upper stage, which could also be used as an EDS. Russia has the Soyuz. All they need is a Lunar module which I'm sure ESA or JAXA would be very happy to build. Why then give NASA propellant for a measily ride when the international partners can have their very own Lunar program?

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/12/2009 10:46 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bobthemonkey on 06/12/2009 11:17 am
There is a state subsidy issue to consider with Ariane, is there not?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/12/2009 11:59 am
Presumably the EELV's have to pay off some of their development costs, which at least for Delta IV, are substantial.  And their current flight rates are very low.

But still.  You'd think that if an Atlas is using half a Zenit engine, it wouldn't cost that much more...

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/12/2009 12:19 pm
There is a state subsidy issue to consider with Ariane, is there not?

Didn't someone point out, upstream, that USAF is subsidizing EELV? Is one being counted and the other not? I interpreted what was said to be, EELV is expensive despite being subsidized by USAF. I don't know the answers. Is the only reason Zenit is so cheap because it's being subsidized by underpaid labor? I am mindful of the treaty that set a floor on the international price of Proton launches.

There's a point here: Jupiter costs are being questioned not because anyone has solid facts and figures and a way to make apples-to-apples comparisons, but simple because it doesn't pass the "smell test" generated by people who "think" those costs are somehow impossible. The classic example of this reasoning is comparing Jupiter to long ago failed and not completed programs, as if the figures for Jupiter were equally and wholly imaginary. They're not: "Jupiter 100" has been launched successfully well over a hundred times. The guesstimates for getting from STS to Jupiter 130 are almost certainly inaccurate (how could they not be? It's an estimate.), possibly off by as much as 50%, maybe even 100%, but they're not going to be off by orders of magnitude because they're not plucked from thin air. Suppose instead of $200mln, each Jupiter 130 costs $400mln? That's still more than competitive. $600mln? You're still getting more for your money than DVH (and remember: there *is* no Atlas V Heavy flying to compare it with). $800mln? Then you're in the same ballpark as 2xDIVH, but you're then comparing multiple launches to a single launch (and 6 cores vs. 1). Finally, there is a direct upgrade path from Jupiter 130 to Jupiter 246. What's the equivalent for EELV? It's Phase 2, and then you're talking development and cost numbers that are at least as imaginary as the Jupiter numbers are accused of being. Anyone who applies as "smell test" to Jupiter needs to apply the same "smell test" to EELV. And look at how much EELV really turned out to cost. Does anyone think Phase 2 will turn in a better cost result?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 01:34 pm
PS At least if there are cost overruns on Jupiter, you're starting from a lower base point.

Cool.  If that is the way it worked, we should have estimated $1 to start.  That way we could have had a billion percent cost growth and still been better than Ares I. 

(sorry, a bit snippy, but bad estimates ... if they are bad ... don't tell you anything about expected cost ... in fact, they cause you to have too little resources to start and make the final cost higher ... it's a complex world)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 01:37 pm
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."

Great post K

That works, and I would have (and did) buy that story in the ESAS timeframe.  Today, the argument is a bit harder to sell.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/12/2009 01:40 pm
I won't be able to look for the costings until later tonight or tomorrow, sorry. In the meantime...

We seem to be looking at this from two perspectives:

1) Are the numbers accurate for Jupiter, and if not, why?
2) We have fixed $$$ currently allocated for VSE, with the potential for this to be reduced in the coming years (unless Congress/WH either changes direction or steps up to the plate).

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.

The point is, whatever we choose as an architecture has to at least fit into the $$$ currently allocated for VSE. Anyone else beleive the current path, or the other options, fit the bill??? I know they don't, for what you get.

To me, the lunar base is only a dream, not a reality. I actually bought the Space:1999 DVD series last night to remember the good old days.

But once we have an affordable and scalable launch system, we can make some of those dreams come true, wthout being tied to either an under-performing or ridiculously expensive architecture. Jupiter makes that happen, plain and simple.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/12/2009 01:43 pm
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.

But they all do, and always will. Jupiter just leverages everything you currently have without re-inventing the wheel.
Also, EELV needs major upgrades to get to what Jupiter can give you in a much shorter timeframe, and it will be man-rated.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 06/12/2009 01:45 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/12/2009 01:47 pm
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.

Yes, I know, I was estimating and a bit off the hip, but those were for comparison purposes on what could be done based on existing capabilities (IIRC) vs costs, not actual current flight rates.

If they can do 8 launches of D4H, that cost naturally goes down per flight. I also didn't specify the actual Atlas launch vehicle required for that purpose.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 01:55 pm
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.

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".

As pointed out the costs are actually unimportant to the VSE at this point, but they will be important to the panel.

What I'm saying is that if Jupiter's costs are too low, don't pass the panel's "smell test", then are blown out of the water by independent estimates (ongoing) ... what does that do for the credibility of the parts of the DIRECT presentation that they can't verify.

As I said before, the believability of a presentation is measured by it's weakest points.  You learn that even if you have the greatest idea in the world, you often get laughed out of the room if you get the math or spelling wrong too often.

*actually trying to help*
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 01:58 pm
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

Good post Analyst.  And by their track record, some of the CEOs and aerospace seniors on the panel have better noses than most.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/12/2009 02:13 pm
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)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 02:19 pm
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)

I'm glad you asked!  Same as I always ask for, whether from DIRECT, a contractor, or a NASA center.

Three words.  Basis of Estimate. 

Tools used, assumptions, methods used, confidence level methodology.  TRL assumptions, code base, code-reuse.  Requirements for things like LOC ("as good as we get" is not a requirement), turn time, reliability.  You get the picture.

You give me that, I don't need names.  But I either need to know the name (which implies the method, the quality and the integrity ... Joe Hamaker comes to mind) or details on the process (which is then independent of the person except for the integrity, which I can suspend belief on). 

Without either of those, and given the disparity in expected costs, credibility suffers.  And I'm an easy grader compared to someone like Norm Augustine and Wanda Austin.

This (even including your brush with NASA leadership and Congress-people) is like going from low-A ball to the major leagues in one step ... you show a bad swing and you won't get a chance to show your defense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/12/2009 02:32 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fotoguzzi <- sample rocket table on the wikipedia.org page

Please let me know if this is  a) not harmful  b) better than what is up now at http://wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT

You have my permission to take it and publish it yourself if you wish.  I won't put it up on the site until a number-cruncher type passes it.

I found the wikipedia.org rocket template just as I was finishing.  I haven't looked at it to see if there are fields more germane to this particular launch system.

Thank you.

Modify: clarify; and thank you, private messagers
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/12/2009 02:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 02:36 pm
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.

Great.  That is good news.

Can you answer how you will avoid disclosure via the FACA process?  From what I understand, the material you give them will all be posted anyway.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/12/2009 02:51 pm
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

To be honest, your smell test doesn't pass the smell test, because it looks like you're biting an apple, sniffing an onion, and then claiming the apple doesn't pass the smell test. (Surely everyone remembers the old grammar school smell test, where you blindfold someone and do exactly the opposite?)

For example, when you suggest:

"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."

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). I think most of the EELV supporters here would burst into flames if you suggested that. 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. 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.

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). 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. 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. But bringing in SpaceX (or any other unrelated program) is political posturing.

PS: I always get mixed up about the higher/lower usage for LOC/LOM numbers here. Linguistically, ratios are supposed to be treated like fractions, so 1:1000 is "lower" than 1:500, but I'm not sure that's right in engineering usage. I always feel more comfortable saying (in this context) 1:1000 is "safer" than 1:500.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/12/2009 02:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 03:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 03:04 pm
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/12/2009 03:12 pm
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.


Straw men are a dime a dozen. I haven't attacked the use of the term "smell test," but have suggested that using anything like a "smell test" constitutes political posturing. In fact, you haven't given any numbers of your own, and you didn't start out making cost caparisons between Ares I/V, Jupiter, and Shuttle (all of which are very apt questions). The "smell test" I'm objecting to is the one between the projected costs given by the DIRECT team for Jupiter and the known costs for EELV (DIVH and some AV5xx variants), couples with insinuations that because of those cost comparisons, DIRECT cost estimates don't pass that same "smell test," and therefore DIRECT is equivalent to a list of never-flown failed LV programs from the past. That is what I am objecting to, and what I am calling political posturing.

Now as for your current comment about Ares/Orion, DIRECT/Orion (properly, Ares I/Orion and Jupiter 130/Orion) and Shuttle costs, there are some much more interesting a valid questions to be asked. DIRECT's point rests heavily on having that higher flight rate. 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 03:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/12/2009 03:21 pm
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).


I don't think you're right. Challenger was a big deal, not because of the pretty fireworks in the sky, but because a pretty teacher was killed. The public barely notices much more spectacular explosions, even when (as in the case of the famous Titan explosion) they make it on TV. Nonlethal risks do not become prohibitively expensive. How much did the airliner that went down in the Hudson recently cost? No one cares, because no one was killed (other than maybe the insurance company). Quite honestly, unless range safety fails and a Jupiter 246 or Ares V comes down on Miami, public opinion will be limited to the people who watch the talking loons on FoxNews and MSNBC, which is far fewer than those networks would like us to believe.

PS: A telling, unrelated case in point, public reaction to the Exxon Valdez event. It wasn't the wrecked ship or the lost oil, or even the mess on a bunch of icy beaches not used by human swimmers that caused the uproar, it was the news footage of all the dirty dead birds that upset the public. I think if a Jupiter 246 explodes over the Atlantic within sight of shore, it will be a one-day wonder on the news, unless, by bad luck, the falling debris happens to wipe out a pod of blue whales.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/12/2009 03:32 pm
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.


I agree we've about exhausted the smell test discussion, but one amusing aside: In my view, it's more like saying because a Jag for $10,000 doesn't pass the smell test, there for a Toyota Echo for $6,000 doesn't pass the smell test. Technically, both is true, but one is off by a lot more than the other.

As far as the flight rate goes, I didn't say anything about absolute program costs. I meant Jupiter depends on that high flight rate to get its budgetary "savings" by accomplishing the same tasks for less money, and that was specifically referring to lunar flights (2x Jupiter 246 will cost less than Ares I + Ares V, and assuming Orion + Altair are identical in both programs). The comparison between lunar and Shuttle is inapt, of course, but it was under discussion. It's Jupiter 130 vs. Shuttle vs. Ares I on the ISS side. And, of course, EELV/Orion creeps over that horizon too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 06/12/2009 03:35 pm

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 03:46 pm
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mnewcomb on 06/12/2009 04:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 06/12/2009 04:19 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/12/2009 04:27 pm
Yeah, I don't know where you guys (mars.is.wet and Analyst) are trying to go either, or what you are arguing against.

DIRECT says that their plan is cheaper to develop than Ares because they are developing a single vehicle instead of two.  And that much of the expensive engine development is avoided.  Do you agree or disagree with DIRECT's position on development costs, as compared to Ares?

DIRECT says that their operational costs will be cheaper than Ares because there will be a single production line with experience and costs shared across all Jupiter vehicles, whereas Ares will have two separate production lines, two separate assembly and integration efforts, and two separate and incompatible launch facilities.  Do you agree or disagree with DIRECT's position on operational costs, as compared to Ares?

If you agree with those two positions, then it is just a matter of the scale of the savings of Jupiter over Ares that DIRECT hopes to achieve.  So I don't see how bringing EELV or SpaceX into the argument has anything to do with the amount of savings of DIRECT over Ares.

If you don't agree with those two positions, then I don't see how you could be in favor of DIRECT over Ares.  Or are you really trying to make a case for EELV, by way of saying that Jupiter can't be as good as DIRECT thinks/hopes it will be?

Forget EELV, forget Shuttle, forget SpaceX.  Is DIRECT a better way forward than Ares or not?  Because that is what the choice before the Augustine panel will boil down to.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Paul Adams on 06/12/2009 04:33 pm
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
Orion costs are going to apply to whatever vehicle you put it on, I don't get your point.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mnewcomb on 06/12/2009 04:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/12/2009 04:40 pm

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. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/12/2009 04:44 pm
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.

I for one based on all the coversation and study think that is should be a significant degree less when the shuttle is removed from the mix, even if you were to add in the Orion - which you probably should not since payload is a seperate item - otherwise if you were to loft a $10 billion dollar "payload item" one could label it a "$10 billion + launch.  The shuttle though cannot be seperated from the STS system, thus unlike DIRECT and Jupiter, the shuttle costs must be included.

Yes???
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/12/2009 04:46 pm

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.

Ahh, thanks for the correction!  I'd thought Apollo's LEM did the LOI burn for some reason.

Ok, so, my question remains, is there enough propellent in the baseline Direct for the EDS to perform LOI?  I suppose since the Jupiter EDS hasn't been built yet, maybe that question cannot be answered.
A better question I suppose is:  if you made the EDS with enough propellent so it could perform both TLI and LOI, and thus reduced the propellent weight of the LSAM, are you within the weight limits of a Jupiter 2 launch architecture?  Do you gain anything or is it just a wash?
Can you get more landed mass on the lunar surface?

What if the EDS was also large enough to then perform the beginning of the descent burn of the LSAM, before it jettisoned it to be disposed of on the lunar surface as LSAM then performs the rest of the descent?

Is anything gained?  If not, there's not reason to do it.  Just seems like the EDS is really it's own spaceship that could be used for more than just TLI and the LEO circ burn.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/12/2009 04:48 pm

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

Rather than go through these things over and over again (I disagree with you, but I also have nothing genuinely new to say, and "in other words" isn't worth the effort involved in typing them), I'll just answer your item 8, which is new:

8. Because SpaceX is totally irrelevant to the topic under discussion. Comparing DIRECT to SpaceX is like comparing CxP to Jaymar Associates (the company responsible for handling intellectual rights to Bozo the Clown).

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 06/12/2009 04:50 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/12/2009 04:52 pm
Couple of interesting links put DIRECT in the mainstream:
http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/jsp/welcome.jsp?source=rss&isbn=038798190X
http://www.springer.com/astronomy/space+exploration/book/978-0-387-98190-1
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/12/2009 04:55 pm

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. 

I don't think we know what we're disagreeing about either. Words, probably. Other than that, it drifts off into different architectures that are difficult to compare in a way that really makes sense. It's like comparing Jupiter 246 with Ares V. Which Ares V, the 5-SSME one that could just as well be called Jupiter 252 Heavy? Or the 7-RS-68r one that could just as reasonbly be called Delta VII-AD?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 06/12/2009 04:57 pm
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
Orion costs are going to apply to whatever vehicle you put it on.

Very true. 

Might I point out that we don't have EELV costs?  We have EELV prices.  If ULA or some other company were to manufacture Jupiter launch vehicles, the prices would be substantially higher than the costs estimated by Direct.

Might I also point out that ULA has no obvious self-interest in reducing costs (and thus prices)?  IIRC, as a 'cost plus' provider, reduced costs mean reduced profit, unless they can increase volume. ITAR effectively bars them from the international sat market, and there is not enough US volume to make it worthwhile.

Therefore an argument against Jupiter cost estimates, based solely on EELV prices, is clearly not valid.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/12/2009 05:06 pm
The idea that Jupiter is "less capable" than Shuttle is not an easy case to make. That Jupiter 130 + Orion + SSPDM *would be* less capable (but more safe) than Shuttle *is,* is true on the face of it. But 2x Jupiter 246 + Altair + Orion plainly does a job that Shuttle could only do by flying perhaps 10x missions, ferrying up hardware and fuel for orbital assembly. And would 2x Jupiter 246 really be more expensive than 8x DIVH missions (involving, among other things, 24 cores)? The 2-Jupiter lunar mission involves 1 EOR event, the DIVH equivalent involves 8. What does that do to LOC/LOM numbers? For that matter, if you integrate 8 DIVH launches into a single mission, do the reliability numbers calculate serially? How does that compare statistically with one launch of a 24-engine LV?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/12/2009 05:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 06/12/2009 05:13 pm
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

Analyst,

What is the current cost of Orbiter processing? Assuming 4 flights per year, and including SSME refurbish.

What is the current cost of SRB recovery and refurbish. Assuming 4 flights per year.

What is the current cost of ET manufacture. Assuming 4 flights per year.

What is the projected unit cost per Orion? Assuming 4 flights per year.

What is the cost of new SSME manufacture? Assuming 12 units 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?

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/12/2009 05:32 pm

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.
Certain?

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/12/2009 05:45 pm
..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.

That's something I hadn't thought about. 

How does Jupiter power the TVC hydraulics?  Shuttle-derived APU?  Engine heat?  Battery?  How about JUS? 

Once on-orbit, I prefer photovoltaics over fuel cells any day.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 06/12/2009 05:47 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 06/12/2009 05:49 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/12/2009 05:57 pm
Once on-orbit, I prefer photovoltaics over fuel cells any day.

For long-duration, sure. But the orbiter's fuel cells can generate impressive amounts of power - 21kW continuous, 36kW peak 15 minute burst. For comparison, the ISS arrays provide around 30kW. I'm sure Orion will have a lower power draw than the STS orbiter, though (anyone have a number to hand?)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/12/2009 05:58 pm
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)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 06/12/2009 06:04 pm
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. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/12/2009 06:14 pm
Yea, the case that the Shuttle is much more capable than Orion and JUpiter is a REAL stretch I think.

STS -can- do a few things that Orion/Jupiter (or Ares) can't, true enough.  But we don't really need those capabilities now that we have a permanent space station.

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.
If you are out traveling, but have no place to stay when you get there, then an RV is very useful.  However, if you are going somewhere that's far away and a long, LONG drive, but there's a hotel there, then you don't need that huge RV, but a pickup will get you there, with some cargo, for far far less.
The Semi truck will get you there for about the same as the large RV, maybe even less, but with a whole trailer load of cargo.
That's why trucking companies use Semi trucks instead of RV's.  :)
And that's why most people don't commute in an RV, they use a car or a truck.

Before we had a space station, we needed to haul up our own station each time into LEO so we had room to work, do experiements, etc.
Now we have the ISS so we don't need to haul our own station up with us.  It severly cuts into the amount of payload you can loft, and you have to haul it back home with you.
By going from the Shuttle to Orion, you quadruple the payload you can loft for the same amount of fuel/energy.  The ISS could have been built in a hand full of flights rather than the 30 some flights the current ISS will have before it's finished.  Even if you figure the cost per flight is actually the same as STS rather than significantly less as the Direct team states, you loft the same mass in 4-6 flights of Jupiter rather than around 30 flights of STS.  Additionally, your assembly is many times more simple, and the cost of that mass is significantly cheaper and more reliable because more components are able to be integrated on the ground rather that EVA's in orbit.

So, really the only ability that we loose with the Shuttle is our ability to loft a moble Space station to whatever orbit we want, and the ability to return significant downmass.  But the first is not much of an issue with the ISS, and I don't really know how important the latter is.  What exact high price, high value cargo have we needed to return?
There's some reusable logistics modules, but those are really a development to use the shuttles's capability rather than a necessity.
A disposable logistic module could serve about as well.

And the only satilite we ever serviced with the Shuttle (that I am aware of) is the Hubble...and imagine what kind of telescope could be launched on a Jupiter for $1 billion rather than nursing Hubble along at that cost per repair flight?

Additionally, Orion's shape is necessary to return from lunar orbit, and much safer for LEO mission because it's heat shield is protected from launch debris and orbital debris.

So, you loose some things, but gain many more.  Most importantly, you gain the ability to finally leave LEO, something the shuttle really never can do unless, like William said, you use it to assemble some vehicle that can leave LEO.  Probably only take another 30 flights like the ISS  ;)

We need to quit trying to haul cargo and commute in a big RV!
It's really a horribly inefficient way to do either of those things.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/12/2009 06:22 pm
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.

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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/12/2009 06:26 pm
"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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 06:28 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 06:31 pm
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)

And the tug comes from where exactly? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/12/2009 06:33 pm
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.



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...?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 06:33 pm
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...

No more money = no more moon.  You need a minimum of $2B a year and likely $4B mroe than you have now to have a vibrant Moon/NEO/Mars program.  ESAS had them on a $10B a year glidepath, Griffin was handed an $8B a year path, and now we are left with $6B a year for HSF.  Ares/DIRECT/EELV are inconsequential in the big picture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ballew on 06/12/2009 06:34 pm
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.



These round numbers are base upon how many flights per year?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 06:36 pm
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). 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 06:38 pm
These round numbers are base upon how many flights per year?

Sorry, corrected it.   2 per year, which is how I have the data.  More flights costs more ... so more than $3B total.  More flights doesn't help the top line cost or the bottom line budget.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jml on 06/12/2009 06:39 pm
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

With Direct, basically not much more than $4 billion per year covers everything except Altair. Altair alone is another $4 billion / year if you have to keep a production line open to manufacture a new one for each lunar mission. That Altair cost should be similar for any launcher - Direct, Ares, or EELV, although as you can see on the sand charts, CxP is currently estimating far less for the fixed costs involved with Altair.

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.)

(http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/charts/Program_Cost_DIRECT_Detailed.gif)

(http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/charts/Program_Cost_Ares_Detailed.gif)

(http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/charts/Program_Cost_EELV_Detailed.gif)



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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 06:42 pm
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. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ballew on 06/12/2009 07:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: alexw on 06/12/2009 07:43 pm
Pardon if I interject a different question into this (legitimately very interesting) cost-comparison discussion.

I don't fully understand the performance figures for J-24x on the baseball cards, partly given the mixing of the 2-launch EOR plan, and the distinction among labels for payload, usable ascent propellant, and usable post-ascent propellant.

 Do I have the following right?

1) The point of the J-24x stack is for the combination of J-140 + JUS-EDS to put the JUS-EDS into LEO, plus payload, where the JUS-EDS is now a powerful trans-lunar locomotive (multiply-restartable engines and multi-day or -week loiter ability), but with empty tanks.
         (incidentally, it consumes about 73000kg of propellant along the way, but that is not relevant to the missions)


2) The "payload" can then consist of either a) heavy stuff in front of the JUS-EDS, or b) extra propellant in the much-oversized tanks, or any combination thereof, up to a total mass of ?????? kg.

       (about 91670 kg, for J-246 into 28.5 deg 130x130nmi?)


3) If you /choose/ the payload to be entirely cargo on the front, the now-empty JUS-EDS (dry mass + residuals ~ 13000kg) is done, finished (barring depots).


4) If you /choose/ the payload to be entirely post-LEO propellant (for which the tanks are still oversized to accommodate future ideas about refueling/depots), that partially-fueled-locomotive can then push a /separately launched payload/ into TLI of ???????? kg.

       (about 79053kg, for J-246 into 28.5 deg 130x130 nmi)


5) If you /choose/ the payload to be a /mix/ of post-LEO propellant + cargo, the maximum amount of cargo that partially-fueled-locomotive can push, /on on its own/, into TLI, is ???????? kg.
 
        (not sure?)


6) The various payload and cargo numbers change slightly, by about 5000kg, depending on which payload shroud you use to accommodate taller or wider cargo, and whether you inject into 130nmi circular (multi-day parking orbit) or elliptical (highly-temporary parking orbit)
 (the differences among the .08001, .10050, and .10051 versions).

Am I reading the numbers correctly?

Thanks,
-Alex
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/12/2009 07:48 pm
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.

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 the most cost effective and productive option and you could still just have the J-130 and Orion built in a $6bn budget until a change of government/heart took place and you could still be on the Moon within 2 terms from that change of heart. There is absolutely no point waiting 6-8 years for Ares I unless you think its alleged safety benefits are better than having a multi-purpose vehicle like Direct and you are then prepared to fund the Ares V(II).

The reality of Ares I development has shown that so many qualities about it are still unknown due to its unique design to make even the assumption that it will be a working rocket at the end of it nevermind the safest not a rock solid one. PDR is still not complete and yet Direct's predecessor, NLS, has already passed its easily.  I love the idea of a humungous Ares V and a theoretically safest Ares I but if no-one is going to fund the pair of them as a pair no matter the cost or time or effort then it's just daydreaming and a waste of everyone's time and MSFC should be put to work on more realistic option(s). 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 06/12/2009 07:56 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/12/2009 08:02 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 06/12/2009 08:20 pm
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

So Analyst with all your extensive informed historical information, in this political climate we find ourselves in, which option has the best chance of not only saving HSF but leaving the door open to beyond LEO operations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MagDes on 06/12/2009 08:38 pm
Does anyone have a link to the article that says the gov. is limiting the HSF budget to $6B/year? Thanks,
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mike robel on 06/12/2009 08:41 pm
I am reminded of Scotty in Star Trek VI

"But you haven't got 6 weeks, so I'll do it for you in 2."

"Mr Scott, have you always multiplied your repair estimates by a factor of 3?"

"Certainly, sir.  How else do you expect me to keep my reputation as a miracle worker."

From my Army experience, I learned everything takes longer than you want and costs more than you want, so we should probably just, as a gross ass estimate, multiple the costs by 3, the time by 3, and cut Ross' flight rate by 1/3.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/12/2009 08:41 pm

And the tug comes from where exactly? 


Someone who wants to launch satellites weighting more than 7 tonnes to GEO and does not want to wait for Ares V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/12/2009 08:43 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jml on 06/12/2009 08:47 pm
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.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 06/12/2009 08:51 pm
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

Jon

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

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 06/12/2009 09:00 pm
Took a quick glance, do you know where the LOM/LOC numbers are located. Is there a thread talking talking about this architecture I would love to know more?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 09:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/12/2009 09:09 pm
Let's all get along ;)

http://rocketsandsuch.blogspot.com/2009/06/hatfields-vs-mccoys-sequel.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 09:27 pm
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jml on 06/12/2009 09:51 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 06/12/2009 09:53 pm
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.


you forgot in a nutshell,.. :) j.k.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 10:16 pm
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.


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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/12/2009 10:24 pm
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!

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/12/2009 10:26 pm
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.

$10B for 2 EELV-based lunar missions per year?  I still don't believe those numbers.  I thought those were for more like 4 or 6 ESAS-sized missions per year.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/12/2009 10:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/12/2009 10:31 pm
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

No, those numbers come from DIRECT 2.0.  I can't recall if the publicly released CE&R studies showed cost estimates.  Not that I actually believe those numbers on the EELV side.  Looking at the sand chart, I don't know how they're getting over 3.5B per year for two lunar missions worth of EELV flights for instance.  If you're flying 10-20 EELVs per mission, and you're already accounting for fixed cost elsewhere, there's no way they're going to stay that expensive.  Either that or the EELV guys were either ignorant of their own costs or dishonest when they were talking with Robert Bigelow.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: libs0n on 06/12/2009 10:33 pm
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.

That's only supposition on your part.

EELV is the only option where the infrastructure costs are distributed among other customers: the DoD's large interest, unmanned science missions, payloads for other government customers, and any new commercial business the launchers attract when their cost comes down due to increased flight rate.  These other launchers also serve as a means of assuring line vehicle reliability due to the opportunity to identify any problems that pop up in these non-lunar mission launches. 

An appropriately configured EELV(I prefer the description commercial) architecture will be open to competition from nacsent industrial competitors, such as SpaceX, which may be able to compete on a cost metric.  EELV is the only option where the incipient NASA payload demand is innately up for grabs to future players, and future players enticed into the market precisely because of that large payload demand.  NASA is also more divorced from the launch vehicle equation and can take advantage of these better competitors as they arise. The cost structure, and launch vehicle structure of a lunar mission is going to be different in the later years of the lunar missions compared with year 1; the commercial option is an evolving launch market, and offers the prospect of continuing progress in the launch vehicle domain.

The EELVs can support lunar missions.  The EELVs can support NEO missions.  Mars?  We're not going to Mars for a long long time and I'm willing to bet on the outcome of 20-40 years of progress in the commercial launch arena providing more affordable options to realizing Martian missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/12/2009 10:38 pm
70-80mT of the J-130 will triple any EELV capability for not much more unit cost.

I know that's the claim, but the problem is that some of us aren't buying that.  Especially if the DoD is required to pay the full cost of the Jupiter-130 (ie marginal plus its share of the operating cost). 

Quote
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.

As Jim and others have pointed out, missions that large are going to be few and far between because they cost so much money.  Do you really want to risk a $5B satellite on a single launch.  And it's not just launch risks either.  Megaprojects don't have much better record than cheap projects as far as reliability goes.  I just don't see too many Jupiter-sized science missions, especially with NASA's tight budget going forward.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 10:40 pm
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?

I'm OK with that math.  I took out the recent congressional markup and a few other things that I know about that have to be funded ... but that still only leaves you with a transportation system ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 10:46 pm
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.

Please stop with this falacy.  Not without additional funding.  Which there is none of.

EELVs do not have low flight rates because they cost too much.  They have low flight rates because mission costs are too high ... and payload costs for DoD are 70%+ of launch costs.

Likewise science.  Although launch and mission costs are about equal, there is only 1 EELV mission per year.  Why do you think they primarily buy Delta II's and now will buy Taurus II's when they are available?

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.

There are no missions or money out there waiting for a larger launch vehicle.  All require budget increases.  Maximum flight rate due to DoD and NASA for a DIRECT-like capability is 1 flight per year ... not nearly enough to drive per mission costs down. (based on their available budgets and past behavior when cheap launches like Ariane V (free) or Titan IV were available)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: scotty125 on 06/12/2009 10:48 pm
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.


And therin lies the rub...at $6B per year, it doesn't really matter if you pick Direct or EELV (I'm assuming Ares is DOA for the moment) for the short term.  You're stuck with depressingly low flight rates until ISS goes away or someone ponies up more dough.  Even without ecconomies of scale until further down the line, Direct does at least preserve a chunk of the current workforce, and the construction requirements are not terribly exotic.  At least you end up with a system more versatile than the stick and the wicket (sorry for the cricket reference) and on the off chance that the ecconomy does come back or the guy in office only gets 4 years instead of 8, we don't have to wait until 2020+ to start lofting really big payloads to (fill in your favorite destination here.)

EELV gets you an immediate fix, as DIVH at least exists along with the infrastructure to get it off the ground, but to do anything big there, you are tied to a second launcher, or multiple launches and the dreaded depots.  Hell, you could put a boilerplate Orion and a real escape tower on a Delta and probably fly a REAL test next year...

That's the real issue with the gap.  If we don't stop flying for at least a couple of years, there's just not enough $$$ to do everything we'd like to get done.  And just between us, I don't think you'll see human footprints on Mars in the lifetime of anyone who's currently an L2 member.  I turn 50 next year, and I'm not sure I'll even see anyone get back to the moon, no mind about NEO's or Lagrange points...It's not all we'd like, but let's at least get the best bang we can for the buck.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mnewcomb on 06/12/2009 11:07 pm
The EELVs can support lunar missions.  The EELVs can support NEO missions.

With what? 10+ launches over a course of a year?

I do agree that money will be tight and as a nation we have to decide to go beyond LEO, but EELVs are not going to take us there.

If we lose Jupiter we will be in LEO for a very long time until we make a major step forward in propulsion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 06/12/2009 11:29 pm
Hi,
I'm losing track of this thread as it seems to be page after page of bickering rather than discussion. So to pull it back to the Architecture AS-IS:

Does anyone know if Ross & Co are actually meeting with the Augustine Panel or are they having a hard time getting an appointment?

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: libs0n on 06/12/2009 11:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 11:39 pm
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 ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/12/2009 11:40 pm
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.

Agree.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/13/2009 02:01 am

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mnewcomb on 06/13/2009 02:08 am
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?

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: CJM on 06/13/2009 02:19 am
As i'm now living in DC I might try and show up to the public hearings on the 17th - does anyone know if Ross and Company have a specific timeslot then? Is there an agenda available for the meeting?

Not that cheers from the audience would help, but maybe some silent moral support :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kch on 06/13/2009 02:21 am

Is it easier to plow a field with 1,000 chickens or 2 oxen?


ROTFLMAO!  You do have a way with words -- I'd pay to see that ... ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Scotty on 06/13/2009 02:25 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 06/13/2009 03:06 am
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.

Nice. Truth is I'd be happy if the only result of the  commission is to cancel Ares1. We can still retain jobs and capability by bringing forward the Ares V development and testing. Orion LEO mission launches can be contracted out to EELV or other commercial companies if the launch capacity is available.

It is not a given that Ares V would evolve into Jupiter as the goal seems to be to build the biggest launch system possible so that we are ready for Mars etc.
I'd really like to see Mars as the early goal with vehicle testing on the moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 06/13/2009 03:09 am
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 ...


It's the bickering that I am objecting to rather than the subject matter. I'd like to see some professionalism return to the debate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/13/2009 05:44 am
Analyst,

What do you mean, my kind of questioning?  I was trying to get some clarification of your position.  Anyway, this is a discussion board, not a court of inquiry.  If you feel you are being treated too harshly just because I asked for clarification, then you don't have to answer, there is no penalty for remaining silent.

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.

See above.

Quote

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.

Based on what?  Does it even matter?  Shuttle is going to be retired, period.  There is no crew escape system, which we were painfully reminded of in 1986.  The TPS is fragile and vulnerable to damage, as we also painfully learned in 2003.  So comparing Shuttle costs to Orion costs is a false argument.  The highest cost is the cost in astronauts' lives, and Orion (with LAS) is designed to be safer.  Monetary cost is a secondary consideration, and it was not the reason for retiring the Shuttle.

Quote
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.

We don't know what the HSF budget going forward is going to be.  When it was flatlined in the latest NASA budget, it was explicitly stated that the numbers will depend on the results of the HSF review, and NASA's plans going forward afterward.

Quote
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.

So that answers one of my questions, you are trying to make an argument for EELV.

Quote
"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

Shuttle is not an option.  At all.  It is not an option going forward, and it is not a valid comparison for costs.  If Obama had wanted a Shuttle extension, he would have (at least) ordered the preservation of Shuttle infrastructure and tooling by the end of April, which did not happen.  Shuttle is now a historical system, it just hasn't had its final run yet.

We need a way forward, not a way to stay in LEO.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/13/2009 05:55 am
Sorry, that came across way more argumentative than I intended.  It's late, I'm tired, and you two have been running amok with doom and gloom for the past couple of days.  Ross and Chuck are obviously heavily distracted.  :)

Peace,
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 06/13/2009 08:23 am
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.



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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Reck on 06/13/2009 08:33 am
Hello everyone. I am a bit late to the game, but would like to offer two observations and a suggestion.

Observation 1) It seems clear that any version of the small Jupiter is superior to the Ares I in terms of cost, safety, schedule, and payload.

Observation 2) The debate between Jupiter/Jupiter and Ares/Ares is subject to, shall we say, shifting assumptions in a way that naturally places the full DIRECT architecture at a disadvantage.

Suggestion: Focus on the much more easily proven argument that the small Jupiter is superior to Ares I for any mission, regardless of heavy booster it is paired with. In short; reframe the debate into Jupiter/Ares vs. Jupiter/Jupiter.

If the suggested argument is successful in reframing the debate, the small Jupiter will get built, and, regardless of the heavy launcher recommended by the Augustine Panel now, a heavy version of Jupiter will be strongly positioned to go forward.

--------

I have read much about this wonderful project, but have a few questions/verifications for those who are more familiar with the numbers and plans.

1) Is small Jupiter + Ares V cheaper than Ares I + Ares V?
2) Can small Jupiter and Ares V be processed together for no more trouble than Ares I and Ares V?
3) Can anyone argue (well) that Ares I is better than small Jupiter for the missions Ares I is intended?

Thank you all,

Chad
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ballew on 06/13/2009 10:43 am

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.

That was my point; VSE will be another NASA program that failed to meet its objectives because of a lack of funding and support, not necessarily due to a technical failures or design flaws.

While NASA gains knowledge and experience from these failed and/or incomplete programs, I’m tired of seeing budget resources wasted because the Executive and Legislative branches fail to fully fund and support these programs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/13/2009 11:44 am

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.


1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Unknowable. That's based on future undefined payloads.
4. Unknowable. That's based on future undefined payloads.
5. Unknowable. HSF budget will be a function of the results of the Augustine Commission. Try again next year.

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. 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.

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.

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. Me, I'm going to the moon and I'm willing to pay for it.

Jupiter/Orion less capable than the present system?     ....     I think not.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/13/2009 12:04 pm
Here's a little food for thought from one of Ross' earlier posts in another thread. No significant backing to the numbers, but worth a re-read, at least wrt Ares/D4H:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13584.msg305375#msg305375

Here's something else to consider with the speculation of abandoning ISS to go to the moon & beyond:

Who is to say that the money saved from not having ISS is going to be directed towards a lunar architecture? If we lost ISS in 6 months due to failure, would Congress decide to divert those freed up funds to suport VSE, or just be thankful they don't have to dole out more money? I'll leave that for you to decide in your own mind, maybe in another thread. My take is they would call it a day and save some money for something else.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 06/13/2009 12:19 pm
I hate to continue a thread arguing between Jupiter and Shuttle, but there are a few numbers which I find interesting.  According to the "Space Shuttle orbiter" page on Wikipedia, the Shuttle has an empty weight of just under 70,000kg and
GLOW of about 109,000kg.  To me, that empty weight is the more interesting part.

If you remove the main engines from the shuttle and either reduce the wing size (only large now for cross range capability) or reshape the body into a lifting body design (think X-24A or X38) you could probably get that weight down below 50,000kg.  Now you have a reusable space truck which can go on top of the Jupiter 1XX launcher.  This is probably how the Space Shuttle should have been designed in the first place.

Why would you build such a thing?  The only reason I can see for building a craft like this is if you need a large down mass capability.  The nice thing about the MPLMs for ISS is that racks can be taken to the station and brought back down again.  I fear this is lost with the current plans going forward.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/13/2009 01:07 pm

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.

This is EXACTLY the reason I'm such a strong DIRECT supporter.. The launch system is incredibly flexible and allows for a wide range of future payload options. 

DIRECT is a Turbo-Diesel Heavy Duty Truck Chassis..  You can mount anything you like on the rear frame..  a crew cab with a regular cargo bed.. Put a large cargo box on it..  a camper if you wanted.. or even make it a refuelling tanker..  J-2xx adds dualies, long range tanks and a 5th wheel hitch for hauling heavier loads out of LEO.

Ares-1 is little more than an overpriced micromini(Originally literature claimed as a mid-size) with a asthmatic 3 cylinder engine trying to haul a full load of people and gear up a mountain.

Ares-5.. as currently incarnated.. is a Massive(outrageously expensive) Semi-truck for carrying Oversized loads.. except the rig keeps getting longer for more power(can't pull necessary grade) and to keep it within dimensional limit's it's left with a very short cargo bed..  thereby limited to very dense cargos and has almost ZERO flexibility.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/13/2009 01:22 pm
"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...

The 2 seater?  No wait I think you can squeeze 4 into a nano. ;)

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/13/2009 01:49 pm

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).
Quote
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

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

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/13/2009 02:16 pm
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 from concern trolls well-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 :)



Mars.is.wet has an industry viewpoint, and to whatever extent, DIRECT are the "rebels" trying to persuade the industry to move in a different direction.

The commission are going to mostly have an industry viewpoint.

MIW is patiently pointing out (in a largely very calm and level-headed way) a / the (?) common industry viewpoint.

Whilst I suppose it's conceivable that he's been planted here to distract / misdirect the DIRECT guys (your apparent contention), he's doing a good job of hiding it in my view. It read it that he wants NASA to have a heavy lift capability and he'd be OK with Jupiter.

I presume that any challenge that MIW puts their way is something that they will get from the commission, either directly or in closed discussion after they leave. Their backup documentation needs to be able to answer those questions.

DIRECT seem confident that they have answers to these questions, but it doesn't do any harm to sharpen their arguments before having their one-and-only shot at making things happen, especially if a question is raised which they weren't quite expecting.


The time is mostly over for rambling discussions about technical options and mission architectures - there's no time to validate them to include them in a commission presentation. And they're not really necessary - we know DIRECT can push ~80mT thru TLI using a very straightforward approach, and can lift close to 200mT IMLEO if a different approach is preferred later. (And lots more again with 5-segs).

DIRECT's challenge now is to get chosen, to persuade the commission that their programme works as well as their vehicle. That it breaks neither the laws of physics, nor those of project management.

cheers, Martin

PS Recent hot-headedness probably is distracting.


Edit: ack - cross-posted with MIW, but composed before I read his - honest.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 06/13/2009 02:48 pm
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.

1) It does make sense: Your payload is Orion, you put it into LEO, nothing more. Every beyond requires an EDS and / or a mission module, and this costs you beyond $3 billion. You replace the Shuttle in LEO with Orion in LEO. Only the latter is much less capable.

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.

3) Sure Orion/Jupiter can go to the moon. Given the money. With the budget you have now (and – if you are lucky – in the future), it can’t. So in this not unlikely situation you end up with much less (in LEO) than you have today. But granted, you have the option whenever your miracle comes.

4) Yes, it will cost more. And I don’t see the will nor the budget to cover this. Wasn’t there in the last 40 years, why now? I repeat: In the not unlikely situation of no more cash you end up with much less (in LEO) than you have today.

5) You are willing to pay, but the majority of the taxpayers are not. And in a democracy … you know.

6) Yes it is less capable. Unless you have more money to use its full potential. Same can be said for many other systems, including Shuttle. Given more money, they will live up to its full potential.

Analyst

PS: @zap: Everyone who does not agree with you is trolling. Well, nice point of view. :( You are correct, better never ask, just take anything at face value. Makes life simpler, but also makes for some surprises later on.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jongoff on 06/13/2009 03:00 pm
Yay.  This argument again.

Skylab: 1 launch, 77mt, 283m3
ISS: 25+? launches, 300mt, 358m3

Hmm, you'll note that ISS has almost 4 times as much mass.  ISS wasn't launched by "25mT vehicles" so much as it was launched by a single specific 25mT vehicle.  If it had been designed to launch on ELVs as well, we could've launched much more spacious modules.  A single EELV can put up a module that's roughly 200-220 m^3, though only 25mT.  But I'm digressing.

Quote
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.

Maybe not.  The shuttle was very expensive.  Had they developed ISS to be launched by shuttle or ELVs, it would likely have been a lot cheaper to do that than to keep the Saturn V line open.  Remember, that the Saturn V line was tieing up almost all of NASA's space transportation budget with its fixed costs.  Could we even have developed a station as sophisticated as ISS if we had been spending several billion a year just keeping the Saturn V line open (and presumably flying something so we weren't just paying people to sit around on their butts).

Quote
I'm pretty sure that assembling 4 big modules would likely be less time consuming.

Yeah, but all other things weren't equal, and they aren't equal again.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/13/2009 03:01 pm
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). 

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?"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/13/2009 03:12 pm

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).

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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/13/2009 03:15 pm
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.


Hope I didn't mis-represent you above. I've got close to posting the above a couple of times recently.

I haven't got a clue when it comes to the money side of things, but... (as above).



BTW, from http://hsf.nasa.gov/allAnswers.php (http://hsf.nasa.gov/allAnswers.php):-

Quote
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.


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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/13/2009 03:19 pm
Okay, hold on guys. You are both right and both wrong on two different issues (I'll only point these two out):


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.


Chuck: We need both upmass and downmass for ISS. These ORUs aren't lunch boxes, and we only just started a 6-person crew and look at all the issues with TVIS, Elektron, OGS, WRS, radiators & ATA, batteries (to name a few). Also, for all the samples they will be processing inthe comoing years, there will be a need to bring some back; even blood collection has a mass, and a cryo cooler system isn't the tiniest payload. Sure some could fit into Orion, but not everything.

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.

Having a Jupiter launch all that extra mass, ORUs, a more capable Orion (original baseline)...that's what we are here to promote, and damn it I can't for the life of me understand how NASA has let things get so out of hand. Shooting oneself in the foot is bad enough, but to bleed yourself to death by not having surgery is an even worse crime, not only to all of us here, but to the general taxpaying public.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 06/13/2009 03:42 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/13/2009 04:14 pm
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)?

For Shuttle, 2 launches per year. (that was your question)
For Orion, 2 Orions ;-)

I don't think you asked about Jupiters in that post.
Quote

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?"

thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/13/2009 04:17 pm
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/13/2009 04:23 pm

BTW, from http://hsf.nasa.gov/allAnswers.php (http://hsf.nasa.gov/allAnswers.php):-

Quote
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.


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.

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.

But good suggestion.  It is certainly a hope.  But ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/13/2009 04:26 pm
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


Is that really relevant?

Are there any other options on the table which replace Shuttle with a vehicle of equivalent capabilities?


If one was proposed later, would Jupiter be a sensible way to lift it to orbit?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/13/2009 04:29 pm
Regarding what capability we are losing with Shuttle, would appreciate it if everyone would post their opinions here

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17442.new#new

I've always contended that we will miss Shuttle when it is gone ... we have to realize that Orion as proposed does a different mission (one which I favor OVER Shuttle), but one that is not at all the same.  The Shuttle is a capability that none of us will likely see in our lifetimes, and that is something to be reflected on (IMO).

Without saying "but with more money, VSE can do that too", what will you miss about Shuttle when it is gone?  I think you will be surprised at how much there is that we won't have once its gone.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/13/2009 04:30 pm
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

Why do you keep bringing Shuttle into the argument?  Shuttle is not an option going forward, neither is any CEV except 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.

The good thing is that with Jupiter there is plenty of extra lift capability, so Orion could always just take a mission module with airlock and RMS with it if needed.  If I remember correctly, Shuttle didn't always have an airlock on every flight either.

Mission flexibility is one big advantage that DIRECT has over Ares, at any cost.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/13/2009 04:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/13/2009 04:59 pm
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.

Someday, when we have a thriving space-based economy, and people are actually living (and making their living) in space, we will once again need a reusable winged launch vehicle.  But not until the flight rate makes it much more economical than expendables.  And not until the safety and reliability issues are addressed once and for all.

Right now, we just need to focus on building the space economy, and not shooting ourselves in the foot (repeatedly and with enthusiasm).

The Shuttle is a historical artifact from a future that no longer exists.  Let's find the best way forward into the best future we can make, now that the old one is gone.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/13/2009 05:07 pm

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.


Am I the only one that sees similarities between the end of the shuttle and the end of SR-71? 

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/13/2009 05:08 pm

BTW, from http://hsf.nasa.gov/allAnswers.php (http://hsf.nasa.gov/allAnswers.php):-

Quote
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.


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 ...

But specifically, does it make a difference if the commission specifies up-front that a certain funding level (say 50% more) will be required to actually undertake exploration?

Whilst Congress may refuse to fund "the show" when the time comes, it's harder to argue "how much more??" when their predecessors went into the plan with their eyes open.



Quote
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.

I thought that 2010 & the development years weren't the big problem? DIRECT's "Lunar Flyby" is ~7 years away, and true exploration some time after that.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Paul Adams on 06/13/2009 05:09 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/13/2009 05:27 pm
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/13/2009 06:56 pm
Gentlemen,

I would propose it is time to move on; the merry-go-round is getting a little tiresome.


Yeah, very. But it seems to have died down recently anyway.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/13/2009 07:11 pm
The following is not intended to start up the go-round again or to inflame things. It's just an explanation of my observation.

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.

The problem that I was indicating is not whether I think "someone's a troll"... the problem is that the repetitive nature of the subthread had become indiscernible from troll activity.

This was because some posters seem to be more intent on hammering home their points of view re: Direct costs than with exploring the parameters of the issues so as to find possible solutions... the issues in question being Direct's catch-22 situation with certain information.

Now Direct is at fault for not having handy answers to current 3.0 finances available on the web site or elsewhere... even if they're not allowed to directly source some of those  answers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/13/2009 07:15 pm
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).


If I understand MIW's posts correctly, he's saying Jupiter is a fairly minor component of the run costs of a Lunar mission.

That's what it should be - the taxi that takes you to the airport. "Cheap kilos to orbit" is the whole point of heavy lift.

NASA already has estimates for the costs of an Orion and an Altair, and there's no reason why DIRECT would say "Altair will cost less than NASA say".

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/13/2009 08:59 pm

Am I the only one that sees similarities between the end of the shuttle and the end of SR-71? 


No, because no matter what they say there is other black and white stuff flying out there (manned or unmanned) that took it's place.


You really don't think Burt Rutan makes his living just off Scaled?  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 06/13/2009 09:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/13/2009 09:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/13/2009 09:46 pm

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.

The only problem with the J-120 is that it doesn't have useful engine-out.
But then neither does Ares-I which also requires an air start of an upper stage engine. We've never flown either Ares-I engine before but we've flown lots of J-120 engines over 30 years. We know all about these engines and they are good. So we could do that. It's a perfectly fine CLV in that regard.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/13/2009 09:51 pm
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 root of my apparent misunderstanding of your earlier posts (and distinct from my suggestion that "smell test" is political posturing) stemmed from thinking you meant SSMEs would be $300mln apiece. I actually have said in the past I think $60mln per engine should be used as a benchmark figure, until/if STME production is begun and a different figure is available. So I certainly agree $240mln is a reasonable maximum guesstimate figure for SSMEs alone on JS-246. The other issue is using DIVH as a comparative benchmark. It shouldn't cost as much as it does.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/13/2009 10:05 pm
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/13/2009 10:29 pm
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...


er... in another dimension I would have sworn that they were speaking of payload mass, not launcher mass.

The "battleship versions of probes as flight articles" argument that Jim disparages.

My version would be "Where before you'd only launch one probe you now can launch five... two pairs of identical probes launched to two different objectives... with the option of doing wonderful interferometer-type magic should both probes of a set survive to reach their destination... and an oddball probe that goes off to a far corner of the solar system and sulks by itself..."

Just a thought... :)

Edit: An inappropriate line break was summarily unexecuted.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/13/2009 10:45 pm
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!

I wish I could. So far no one's been able to show me a rationale that accounts for the high cost. I asked about the comparative cost of Ariane V, to which someone suggested a government subsidy, but all that does is obscure the "real" cost of one more LV. Development costs on LVs make some sense (and are not that far off commercial airliner development costs), but not production costs. And remember, a generation back I worked on USN nuclear submarines, described at the time as the world's largest and most complex "handicraft products." What is worth $200mln about an Atlas V? (I won't even attempt to ask about DIVH!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/13/2009 11:02 pm
If you are asking seriously, it is the touch labor. 

I'm not sure subs are much cheaper ... and may be more expensive

A 1998 study estimated that the United States spent $2 trillion in 1996 dollars (to account for inflation) on all strategic nuclear forces throughout the Cold War. Submarines took about one-third the total: $320.5 billion for the ballistic-missile submarine program, plus $97 billion for the missiles; $46 billion for the submarine share of naval nuclear propulsion research, development, testing, production, and operations; and $220 billion for attack submarine construction, weapons, and related systems.

An aerospace person-year is approaching $300k.  Given the number of people that touch it at the factor, transport, hazardous materials, at the launch site, launch integration ... It takes 18 months to build a launch vehicle and at that rate it is almost 400 people full time.  Add in software, range support, communications, mission assurance and I think $200M for a launch seems about right.

Most of it is in the upper stages though ... those are very complex, and very lightweight.  Even more so for DIRECT.

Shoot, SSME costs $80M (or $50 expendable) ... Or how about this ... a (relatively) high production 747 costs right at about $200M.  I would expect a low production launch vehicle (which has to provide 10x+ the energy in a shorter time) and without a human in the loop to fly it to actually cost more.

Seems about right to me.  And there is an subsidy on every foreign launch vehicle I can think of.  It keeps high tech jobs in their areas and keeps their launch teams sharp with higher flight rates (not that it saves them money). 

p.s. the sub guys were lying to you ;) ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/14/2009 02:17 am
Is this a fair summary:

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.

It seems to me that Direct is the most efficient way to leverage shuttle assets into far space exploration, as it is large and flexible enough to apply to space stations, telescopes, lunar, NEAR, and even Mars.

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/14/2009 04:53 am
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.

From the little I've seen that sounds right.

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?

According the the DIRECT 3.0 slides the big rocket infrastructure, i.e. what's needed for J-130, is only around $2 billion/year. The rest goes to the upper stage, Orion, and especially Altair.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Seer on 06/14/2009 09:22 am
"I wish I could. So far no one's been able to show me a rationale that accounts for the high cost. I asked about the comparative cost of Ariane V, to which someone suggested a government subsidy, but all that does is obscure the "real" cost of one more LV. Development costs on LVs make some sense (and are not that far off commercial airliner development costs), but not production costs. And remember, a generation back I worked on USN nuclear submarines, described at the time as the world's largest and most complex "handicraft products." What is worth $200mln about an Atlas V? (I won't even attempt to ask about DIVH!)"

William, the price of EELV's are high because the U.S goverment has to pay for the overhead of two sets of production facilities and two launchpads. That is then divided by about 5 launches. At a higher rate, say 10 per year of each family - the rate they expected back in the 90's - the price would probably fall to about half the current amount.

There's an article by Edgar Zapata about EELV costs on the web if your interested.

As for mars.is.wet's comment about foreign subsidy, your wrong. Ariane receives no subsidy, nor to my knowledge does Proton receive any. Certainly Sealaunch doesn't (who would subsidize them, and why?).

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/14/2009 11:15 am

As for mars.is.wet's comment about foreign subsidy, your wrong. Ariane receives no subsidy, nor to my knowledge does Proton receive any.


Incorrect.

 Ariane does receive a subsidy.  The development of new versions and upgrades are paid for by ESA.  Personnel are paid for by ESA.  Around 20% of ESA's budget is LV related.

Proton is heavily subsidized.  The launch crew is military.   Khrunchev relieves gov't money.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/14/2009 11:26 am

There's an article by Edgar Zapata about EELV costs on the web if your interested.


He has no idea about what he is talking about.   He doesn't even work on ELV's. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/14/2009 12:00 pm
It should be noted that all these discussions about  the exact amount of the NASA budget are meaningless until the Augustine Committee presents its recommendations to The White House & Congress. If Direct is chosen as the USSEP launcher, the NASA budget will probably be increased. The reason I believe this is that the primary reason the White House & Congress don't want to fund the USSEP is their concern about the technical problems associated with Ares 1. These problems are,of course, leading to massive USSEP cost overruns. If those concerns are eliminated by a switch to Direct 3, The White House & Congress will be much more willing to fund the USSEP at a higher level. My own Congressman, Alan B. Mollohan(House NASA Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman), has expressed deep concerns about Ares 1 cost overruns & technical problems and has reduced NASA Exploration funding until the Augustine Committee makes it recommendations. These reductions are primarily reductions in Ares 1 funding. In fact a few days earlier during his subcommittee's opening meeting, Rep. Mollohan stated, "The price tag for Orion and Ares continues to mount, and there are considerable unknowns as to whether NASA’s plans for the Ares and Orion vehicles can be executed within schedule and current cost estimates. These cost increases occur within finite annual budgets, and as such, cost increases in one program likely mean reductions in another. Given these fiscal realities, it is incumbent upon NASA to have far more reliable cost estimates at the time missions are proposed; effective management tools and empowered managers in place to minimize cost increases and schedule slippages; and greater transparency in NASA’s budgeting and execution to improve program costs, budgeting, review and oversight. This is an ongoing process and one that continues today. " He also stated at that time, "At some point, it seems clear that the walk must match the talk, and that funds must follow policy. But the problem is not mid-level career staff at the Office of Management and Budget: the President, the Administrator and the Congress are responsible for defining NASA’s missions and then ensuring that funds are there to support those missions. However difficult it is, the appropriate choice is one of two things – to put more money on the selected missions, or to select and fund fewer missions within a constrained budget. We can’t have our cake and eat it too with NASA. Let me be clear – I’m all for putting more money on missions. I would hope that the new Administration and the new Administrator share my view."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 06/14/2009 12:23 pm
Excuse my ignorance, but what is USSEP?

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/14/2009 12:37 pm
Hahahahahahaha....

United States Space Exploration Program.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/14/2009 01:07 pm
Just a suggestion:

With this feeling that some seem to have that beyond-LEO may be nixed for a presidential term or two due to budget pressures, maybe we need to look at Jupiter-130-based ISS utilisation and exclusively J-130-launched American HSF more seriously. 

We already know that the J-130 can deliver new ISS components.  AMS may or may not be a candidate, depending on decisions on shuttle extension, as may the proposed PLM (essentially an MPLM modified to remain permanently attached to the station to act as an extra stowage module).  What about other modules that could be launched via Orion/Jupiter? AFAIK, the CAM was completed but, after schedule changes, was grounded and is now a gate guardian outside a JAXA facility somewhere.  Could it be brought back to flight readiness at a reasonable cost to be flown up by a J-130? IMHO, CAM was one of the parts of the ISS that could have seriously made its unique mark on human-operated space science.

Another issue that would need to be addressed is cargo downmass.  Apart from the (currently theoretical) Dragon-C and ARV version of the ATV, there is no large-volume down-mass capability after shuttle retirement.  Jim has already pointed out the high-g loads experienced by capsule-based landing systems.  However, that said, could a MPLM-derived Autonomous Return Logistics Module, say a huge bell-shaped water recovery RV, be made to work given appropriate funding?

I also think that the 'budget beyond LEO' options need to be addressed again.  One option that comes to mind is a two-launch 'mini-CxP' lunar landing system using Orion/J-130 and Mini-LSAM/J-130 with Centaur upper stages to act as the EDS in the payload fairings.  This would be a LOR mission with both modules carrying out TLI, transfer orbit and LOI seperately.  If practicable, this could also be modified to allow some shorter-duration NEO encoutner missions (with TOR after TOI).  Is that possible?

I want to emphasise that I hate the thought of return-to-the-Moon and beyond-Earth/Moon being cancelled.  However, as a state agency, NASA must live within its means as imposed by its political masters.  So, I think it is reasonable to start thinking of how Direct's development savings could be brought into line with a possible new political reality.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/14/2009 01:30 pm
Ben, now you are answering the questions that the commission will most likely be struggling with.  Good on you.

As for DIRECT leading to additional funding, maybe that will be the "good reason" folks will accept if DIRECT isn't chosen.  There wasn't more money to add (commensurate with the potential value perceived by this administration).

IMO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: PaulL on 06/14/2009 01:48 pm

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.


That is a simple but interesting way to calculate the cost of Direct moon missions.  If the crew missions were limited to 1 J-130 + J-24x and cargo missions to only one J-24x, the overall cost for 2 ISS and 2 manned/2 unmanned lunar missions would be $6.8 B:

 8 x Jupiter Core = $3.6B
 4 x Orion = $800M
 4 x Altair = $1.6B
 4 x JUS = $800M

For 2 ISS and 1 manned/1 unmanned lunar missions the cost would be $5.5 B:

 5 x Jupiter Core = $3B
 3 x Orion = $700M
 2 x Altair = $1.2B
 2 x JUS = $600M

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/14/2009 01:54 pm
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). 

@ 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/14/2009 01:56 pm
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/14/2009 02:05 pm
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!!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/14/2009 02:06 pm
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.

Well, if all we can do is get the transportation capability (crew and cargo), we make do with what we have got. 

We stretch out lunar surface endurance as long as possible, staging out of the LSAM, supported by a cargo lander.  Fourteen days surface endurance? It is no six-month expedition in a moonbase, but it is better than a 3- or 4-day surface stay (AFAIK, the current record).

We do NEO encounters using minimum-change Orion/Altair missions (perhaps trading un-needed propellent for further consumables).

We squeeze every useful bit of science that we can out of the investment in the ISS.

We hope that, if NASA can demonstrate that it can run itself responsibly, when the budget situation finally turns, J-246 and a far more robust human space exploration program will become a reality.  We don't know what the future holds, but we can plan for likely outcomes and show that we are ready to weather hard times.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/14/2009 02:06 pm
Jupiter is a "shovel-ready project", is it not?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/14/2009 02:07 pm
@ 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.

Fair enough.

But we can guess based on prior statements, even if they were amended to be more politically neutral later in the campaign.

If elected President, Senator Barack Obama plans to delay Project Constellation for at least five years, putting the saved money into a new $10-billion-a-year education program that would, in essence, nationalize early-education for children under five years old to prepare them for the rigors of kindergarten and beyond. ... As I have discovered in recent weeks, Obama is personally adamant about this approach, if the details of its implementation remain hazy. (April 7, 2008, The Space Review)

Obama Education Plan
http://obama.3cdn.net/a8dfc36246b3dcc3cb_iem6bxpgh.pdf

In addition, his recent budget request not only cuts HSF budget (admittedly with a promised review by the commission ... but why CUT if you support it, you know it is much harder to add back later?) but it also reduces the rate of growth of the NASA top line which HSF had counted on.  NASA traditionally sees 5% inflation a year, the new assumptions are 0-1% growth, which is a net cut.

After ESAS, HSF had assumed it would get almost all of the 3% budget growth President Bush had allowed them through 2020.  Science and Aeronautics were flat.  Now Science and Aeronautics are getting a greater percentage of the limited inflationary growth and HSF is flat.

Finally, while the budget says "will be adjusted based on the panel", task statement to the HSF Panel says "stay within current budget projections" (which are the reduced projections). It will be hard for the panel to realistically project asking for more money given that written restriction.  If he wants them to ask for more money, why is that specific edict in there?

Not saying I know he won't ask for more money.  But I challenge you to find any suggestion that he will to counter these hints to the affirmative.

But I hope he does.


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/14/2009 02:17 pm
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/14/2009 02:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 06/14/2009 03:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ballew on 06/14/2009 03:08 pm
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.

It’s all about Political Return on Investment and don’t count on it all being about just what Obama and/or the Democrats are willing to spend. Constituents of certain politically powerful Republicans will certainly benefit or be hurt by whatever is ultimately decided. That will be a big stick for Obama to use to get other programs pushed through Congress.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: PaulL on 06/14/2009 03:15 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/14/2009 03:32 pm
...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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/14/2009 05:03 pm
[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..."

In other words, only do projects that are so low risk that they probably could be done commercially.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/14/2009 05:04 pm
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

That's a nice lowest cost DIRECT option and also allows you to do an Ares V classic for say Lunar Outpost/Mars way in the future if you allow space for two more SSMEs to start with. 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/14/2009 05:18 pm
FYI one of the baseball cards still has the old blackzone safe logo: http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246-41.4004.10051_CaLV_090606.pdf .
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/14/2009 05:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/14/2009 06:27 pm
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). 

Yes, and that was the whole point all along. While man-rating the Atlas V/D4H vehicles seems to some as a 'why bother if we have J-130' question, it doesn't address the other 'political' issues of the NASA workforce.

If we get any of either of the EELV vehicles man-rated, there's a good chance that, with a sufficient flight rate, it can not only help get other HSF missions off the ground, it helps the satellite launch business with a lower cost vehcile due to economies of scale. Another good thing with reduced EELV costs is a cheaper propellant depot architecture sustinance program (initially).

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/14/2009 06:34 pm
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.

Exactly. Besides, there should be sufficient time to 'throw in' an extended core into the production matrix to allow full-scale testing. The beauty of two pads, even with some sort of shuttle extension. Allow mods to be pre-placed as required.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/14/2009 06:42 pm
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.

I'm seeing this cut-back as a way for NASA to spend within its means. They ALWAYS come back for more funds, citing technical isues...blah blah blah.

They were told not again, but it is still going on. So fine, do with less, and learn. Once you have proven you can work within your means (also with a sane architecture) then you can have your money to 'play' with your rockets. I am seeing many parallels with GM these days. Apparently they are now 'getting back' to business. NASA needs to do the same.

Why throw more money developing a less capable rocket? So you can spend more money on more launches to make up the difference? I don't think so. It's all bass ackwards now. It needs to be righted.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/14/2009 07:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/14/2009 07:21 pm
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.

No they don't if 5-seg is your unavoidable starting point which it maybe for politics and I also think for technical reasons. The stretched 8.4m core with 5-seg just gives you too much performance to ignore. A starting endpoint which is Ares V classic can allow for all sorts of DIRECT cheaper derivatives to start off with down to J-120. J-246 is just not remotely as good as Ares V classic for a one launch mission and it would be cheaper in the long run to start with the latter endpoint if you want to be true to all the goals of VSE like Lunar outpost and Mars. You would also only need a J-130 rather than a J-246 to lift the CEV/LSAM with healthy margin and leaving the stack intact. ESAS always had the CaLV right, it was the CLV that was wrong.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/14/2009 07:22 pm
The 5-segment SRB and core stretch, though, are relatively simple and inexpensive compared to 10m diameter core and RS-68R. 

Ares V wouldn't be such an absurd design if it used SSME.  It's too early to call RS-68 a failure, but it certainly doesn't seem to be less expensive than SSME given its substantially inferior performance.

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.

Was ULA hoping for Ares V or DIRECT 2.0 to drive down the cost of RS-68?  Is Delta IV a dead end?  It seems like they should have developed J-2X instead of RS-68 and made it a lot more like Ariane 5.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kch on 06/14/2009 07:52 pm

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.


Now isn't *that* a thought!  Wonder how much performance improvement you'd get from SSME-powered Delta IVs (Medium and Heavy) compared with the RS-68 versions?  Might be enough to balance out the increased engine cost ... and the annual SSME production quantity would go up, which should drive the individual engine cost down (for DIRECT and D4 both).  Hmmm ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/14/2009 08:07 pm
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


Ross is clear that SSME's would be a lot less than that.

Anyway, how much do two SRB segments cost compared to an SSME?

cheers, Martin


Edit and not counting the substantial cost of development. IIRC that development cost alone would pay for all the SSME's on the first 15-20 J-24x launches, and that's not including the savings on two segments per flight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 06/14/2009 08:21 pm
Mass produced SSMEs can go below $30 million apiece.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/14/2009 08:23 pm
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.

Liquid hydrogen isn't a great fit for first stage engines in general.  It only really works well as a sustainer with solid (or kerolox) boosters, as in Shuttle, Jupiter, Ares V, or Ariane 5.

IMHO, Ariane 5 should be considered the canonical example of an EELV-class LH2 booster.  It's essentially a mini Jupiter, because those are the proportions that work best. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/14/2009 08:33 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/14/2009 08:44 pm
What size Bigelow module could you get with a single DIRECT launch?

My calculations show.. that it would be mass limited.. But still over the completed pressurized volume of ISS in a single launch.

They're saying the BA330(330 cubic meteres) will weigh in at 23mT.  The design seems to scale better with size.. so Im guessing at least 1500 cubic meters on a 100mT  J246.

If you could make it light enough, the total volume you could get from a single Bigelow Style module(that would fit in a 10Mx30M fairing) would exceed 4000 cubic meters.. or on 12 Meter fairing perhaps even 6000+ cubic meters

Of course there would be a lot more launches required to outfit such a beast.

But it boggles my mind that you could easily put more pressurized volume up with a single launch than we will ever have at ISS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/14/2009 08:53 pm
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.


The core stretch to retain the equivalent attach points with a 1-seg SRB stretch is a lot of extra mass.

This matches better with 5 engines than 4, and I can't imagine 3 would be optimal.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kch on 06/14/2009 09:41 pm
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.

For a human-rated DIVH variant, you'd save the time and cost involved with human-rating the RS-68, as well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/14/2009 11:09 pm
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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kch on 06/14/2009 11:14 pm
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.

Quote
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.

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.

That's what I was wondering -- thanks!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/14/2009 11:25 pm
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

Ah yes, but I'm not advocating have ALL of them launch Orion during a year, only to be DESIGNED to launch Orion.

Either D4H or Atlas will still use existing infrastructure & have their own launch manifests WITHOUT Orion. Build and test the hardware, and once certified, make up 1/2 dozen upper-stage items. The health monitoring elements would still used on their normal flights. I'm sure they could design in parallel to have the sensors removed for a standard/CaLV design, but I'm sure the costs cancel out or are close in the end.

If the panel (or WH/COngress) decides to use EELV all the way, then the options are wide open for EELV capability changes, and we take a step back in heavy lift capability.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/14/2009 11:40 pm
It would work without bigger boosters, but it wouldn't be cost-effective.

I should note that Delta IV already has this problem to begin with.  Switching from one RS-68 to two SSMEs just makes it worse because of the cost of the engines.

If we followed the Ariane 5 design template based on RS-68 instead of Vulcain, the SRBs would scale up to the size of Shuttle's, and the performance would nearly double that of DIVM.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: faadaadaa on 06/15/2009 12:03 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/15/2009 12:20 am
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.

As the famous saying goes: it's not like LEGO blocks.

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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: faadaadaa on 06/15/2009 12:39 am

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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/15/2009 12:51 am
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.

Ugghh, second time post. computer locked up first time.


Food for thought. Think of it this way:

When you look at a shuttle launch, the SRB plumes go off to either side, and the SSME away from the tower. If you have 2 more SRBs, one plume would go with the SSME in the same trench (not a good idea), and the other?? Towards the launch toward.
Turning the vehicle 45 degrees doesn't help either (too wide a plume then).

Best with a new pad, but the $$ are too high. besides, nothing wrong with the two that are there now (at least for Direct)  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/15/2009 01:03 am
4 SRB's are too heavy for the MLP, crawlers and crawler way. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/15/2009 04:32 am
4 SRB's are too heavy for the MLP, crawlers and crawler way. 

So is Ares V, right?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/15/2009 04:46 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 06/15/2009 05:08 am

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).
Quote
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

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


Without wanting to re-start the argument, a little clarification:

1)  SSME re-furb is taken out, but added back in as Jupiter Core marginal cost.  We can argue til the cows come home about disposable SSME costs at whatever flight rates, but I went with average $30M each @ 30+ p.a. with 20 'free' ones factored in. Plus $60M for 2 SRB's plus $50M for ET derived core.

2) I based Orion cost on your $300M each @ 2 p.a.  Maybe $400M fixed & $100 marginal each is not the correct breakdown, but is seems reasonable, and if fixed costs are higher, the numbers get better.

3) JUS I based on ET fixed costs plus 33%. ( Remember, the ET is effectively an upper stage, just one lit on the ground. ) Marginal rate was tricky but $40M plus $60M for 6 RL-10's @ 60+ p.a. seems reasonable.

4) Altair? Who knows? I just doubled Orion costs.  If commonality of systems and propulsion elements is pushed, I don't see why it need be over $1B @ 4 p.a., and I don't think it's sustainable at that level.


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 06/15/2009 05:09 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/15/2009 10:41 am
Direct 3.0 technical question:
With the switch from RS-68 to SSME, how do you generate hydraulic power for gimballing the engines?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: John Duncan on 06/15/2009 01:15 pm
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!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 06/15/2009 02:16 pm
The Chinese don't matter. I would not bring this up: Sound way too desperate (Yes, Griffin did it for this very reason).

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/15/2009 03:33 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 06/15/2009 04:23 pm
What are the latest developments in terms of whether or not the Direct proposal will be accepted? Does everything hinge on the Augustine commission? Do we know what Bolden's perspective is, and could that affect Direct's chances either way? (apologies if I've missed an obvious answer somewhere)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/15/2009 04:41 pm
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.

I assume that the new seals (and pipes) can be tested using a sounding rocket or a satellite weighing less than 400 kg?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: duane on 06/15/2009 07:29 pm
Will a jupiter do a roll maneuver after clearing the tower? If so, why?

Thanks!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/15/2009 07:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/15/2009 08:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: duane on 06/15/2009 08:55 pm
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.

Ok thanks! A older launch simulation vid showed what looked like a 180 degree roll. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 06/15/2009 09:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/15/2009 10:01 pm
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!

Agreed.

with the trillions being tossed around already, a few billion a year increase in NASA funding would barely get noticed.  If there was will on the Democrat side to increase funding, it'd be increased in a blink.

Funny with the massive growth of government and irresponsible spending, the one government department they seem to suddenly go fiscally conservative on is NASA.

This is why I'm skeptical of there being much positive in the HSF area for the next several years.
(I hope I'm wrong, trust me :)  )
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/15/2009 10:10 pm
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.

Actually William, the Repblicans didn't have control of the Senate from 2000-2002, as Jim Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent and then caucused with the Democrats.  The Republicans only controlled the senate from 2002-2006.

And I didn't notice Drapper saying the Republicans didn't over spend or underfund NASA, did he?  So how is this relevant in the discussion of HSF and NASA -today-?
Are you trying to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/15/2009 10:25 pm
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!!


Here here!

I think most politicians, including probably Obama, really miss the potential foreign relations and domestic pride possibilities of a robust HSF program again.  We can look back to the kind of national pride, and world wonder during NASA's hay-day and see what it could be.  sure, the Cold War and Space Race played parts in that, but there's still a lot of price and good will to be harvested from NASA if politicians would back and promote it openly and vigorously.  By -not- doing that, which has been the status quo for several decades now, then it almost becomes a liability, because any special interest group can come along and say, "Wouldn't those billions be better spend helping to feed hungry children, or to protect abused wives?, or to provide affordable education?  Or to privide people with healthcare" and on and on like that.

When people are excited about something, then they don't mind funding it (often there's better way's to spend money in a home than a new big-screen TV, but a new TV is pretty exciting so somehow...it finds a way to get funded).
But if no one in the house really wants the TV, then it's going to be hard to justify the expense.

We probably can't recreate the excitement of Apollo, but I think with the right utilization and promotion by politicians, there's a lot of grain to be harvested there.  But unfortunately, none choose to do that.
Once some public excitement is generated, then funding flows easier.

IMHO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/15/2009 10:29 pm
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!


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/15/2009 10:46 pm

I assume that the new seals (and pipes) can be tested using a sounding rocket or a satellite weighing less than 400 kg?
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 06/15/2009 11:00 pm
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 ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/15/2009 11:13 pm


Yes, we're not intentionally neglecting you ;)

Good to hear.  But don't worry about us!
Focus solely on the presentation!

Then you can come give us the report aftwards.  To quote Charlie Duke, "You've got a bunch of guys about to turn blue.  We're breathing again, thanks a lot."

:)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rv_rocket on 06/15/2009 11:32 pm
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.

Hey, but it's the top Question they have!
 
Good Luck Ross and Team!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/15/2009 11:32 pm
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!




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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/15/2009 11:34 pm
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 good luck DIRECT team.  I imagine a lot of work is being done to tailor the most important aspects of the presentation into a 30 minute session that would require the commission to have a longer look at a later time without shortchanging its primary points. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/15/2009 11:37 pm

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...
;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 06/16/2009 12:06 am
Since it's the 40th Anniversary of Apollo 11 coming up soon, it would be a golden opportunity for Obama to speak on how important manned spaceflight is to our country and the world.

I'll be watching and listening to what he has to say next month.

 :-\
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/16/2009 12:22 am

I assume that the new seals (and pipes) can be tested using a sounding rocket or a satellite weighing less than 400 kg?
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.

Good.  A ground interface means that it can be tested without a rocket.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Vacuum.Head on 06/16/2009 12:52 am
To drop out of high dudgeon mode (don't ask)
As a fanboi, following since Ver 1.0... Just a brief note to wish Ross, Chuck, Phillip, António and the rest of the Rebel Rocketeers all the best for your 30 minutes in the Light.

"Turn your face to the sun and the shadows fall behind you."  (Maori Proverb)

/hdm
Edit: ...and Steve Doh!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/16/2009 01:05 am
I'll be away to send this in time, so best of luck team Direct!
May your words fall upon favourable ears.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: PaulL on 06/16/2009 01:23 am
...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.

Ross indicated in a previous post that the J-231H would have a LEO payload sightly below 90 mT. This is suprisingly low considering that the latest baseball card for the J-130H has a LEO payload of more than 85 mT.  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.  Further more, the old baseball card for the Direct 1.0 EDS rocket (2 RS-68 Regen main engines which have about the same thrust than 3 SSMEs but lower ISP) showed a LEO payload of 98,232 kg despite using 4 segments SRBs instead of the 5 segments SRBs which would be used for the J-231H.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/16/2009 01:43 am

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...
;)


You mean I can get to see Ross make his presentation live on NASA TV? Really?

What time would that be then? Anyone know?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: scotty125 on 06/16/2009 01:55 am
I belive they go on at 3:30 Eastern time.  We should be able to follow along on NASA TV online using the media channel...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/16/2009 02:09 am
Thanks Scotty. Great sig by the way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: scotty125 on 06/16/2009 02:21 am
Thanks Scotty. Great sig by the way.

Thanx Michael...be nice if the commission and the administration took it to heart wouldn't it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/16/2009 02:22 am
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.

The problem is presumably that the upper stage weighs more than 3 SSMEs can handle once the boosters burn out.

Masses from 130H card:
Core stage mass at burnout: 70 tons
Core stage fuel: 730 tons
Vacuum thrust for 3 SSME: 670 tons
Payload: around 80 tons
Upper stage mass (from 241H card): 220 tons

The boosters drop off after around 1/4 of the core stage fuel is burnt, say 550 tons of fuel left. Total mass of rocket after booster separation = 70 + 550 + 80 + 220 = 920. Total thrust after booster separation = 670 tons. I'm not a rocketeer but I bet that a thrust to weight ratio of around three quarters so early in the ascent is a recipe for getting your performance eaten by gravity losses. These back of the envelope calculations suggest that a 231H would be accelerating downwards once you take gravity into account for quite a while.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2009 02:30 am
I expect NASA TV will actually be covering the LRO/LCROSS launch, which is happening at precisely the same time.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 06/16/2009 02:40 am
Sputter, spit ... what?  I thought evening 18th was the earliest for LRO/LCROSS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/16/2009 02:42 am
I expect NASA TV will actually be covering the LRO/LCROSS launch, which is happening at precisely the same time.

Ross.

I wonder if that will be shown on the NASA TV Public Channel and the hearing will be shown on the Media Channel.

Either way, it is right in the middle of my grueling 5 hour Survey of Electricity summer class, so I will have to watch a replay.

Also, I wonder if a full replay will be posted on the Human Spaceflight Review webpage?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Fletch on 06/16/2009 02:45 am
From http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Breaking.html (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Breaking.html)

June 17, Wednesday
9 a.m. - Review of Human Space Flight Plans Committee Public Hearing (9 a.m. - 5 p.m.) - HQ (Media Channel)
1 p.m. - LRO/LCROSS Launch Coverage (launch @ 3:51 p.m.) - KSC (Public and Education Channels)

Nice try Ross, we will be watching  ;)

**Mental Note: Thursday my time**
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/16/2009 02:52 am
I'll get to watch the first 3 1/2 hours...I'll have to find a way to record the rest, just in case if they don't post a video on the Panel's site.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 06/16/2009 02:58 am
The web site for the Augustine Commission http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/meetings/06_17_meeting.html  says:

Watching the Event on NASA TV
NASA TV will be live-broadcasting the event with a stream to the NASA TV Media channel. From any internet-capable computer, use www.nasa.gov/ntv and click on the "Media Channel" link.

Cheers to Ross and all the diehards.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 06/16/2009 10:21 am
For those of us who can't access NASA TV at work, hopefully there will be a recording available after the fact.  Might be something worth posting at the directlauncher.com website.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/16/2009 10:39 am
NASA TV schedule now updated to reflect bump in Lunar launch due to SST change.

It looks like they will cover the whole hearing.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Breaking.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: John Duncan on 06/16/2009 12:41 pm
Ok, Team DIRECT, it's time to hit one out of the ballpark!

Go Team!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: LMSenus on 06/16/2009 01:55 pm
Best of luck, guys!  I've blocked the time on my calendar so I make sure to watch. 

I sincerely hope this does not fall on deaf ears.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 06/16/2009 02:43 pm
What are you doing on the forum?  Shoo!  Study!  Prepare!  Take a day off from work if you have to!

;)

Seriously, good luck, and I hope you guys hit a grand slam with this one.  And I hope you're not reading this forum post until after you've already done that. :P
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Paul Adams on 06/16/2009 02:46 pm
Good luck to the Direct team. I know you will do a great job.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/16/2009 04:06 pm
Good luck! Knock their socks off.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kcrick on 06/16/2009 04:14 pm
 
Go DIRECT team !  Good luck ! This is the big one ! I hope to watch it live, but if not, I'm sure hoping it'll be recorded somehow and available for viewing later.

And they should mention to the commission that the DIRECT plan involves the Jupiter rocket AND  EELVs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/16/2009 04:16 pm
Hmmm... We need to make up a faux banner like they put up before a Shuttle launch.

Ross & gang, Thanks for all your hard work. May it pay off tomorrow.

GO DIRECT!!!!!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/16/2009 04:23 pm
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.

Well, I think the whole concept of Direct is shuttle derived, which anything kerolox wouldn't be.  So while it may not be the "best" it's the best way to utilize the existing tech and infrastructure.

I asked this question awhile back and I think it got spun into it's own thread, so this might do the same.  But from what I've gathered from the folks much more knowledgable than me about such things, is yea, kerolox makes for probably the best option for the 1st stage.

I think the Energia design has a lot that can be looked at.  The "Energia II" concept looks like it'd be pretty promising, designed to be totally reusable with everything flying back and landing on a runway.
Obviously that'd require a booster stage for even just LEO missions.

Then you could possibly Leog it, where just the could launch payloads in the 30-40mt range.  Say Orion with comfortable margin, or perhaps a small reusable spaceplane like Dreamchaser for ISS LEO missions.  Then you could add 2, 4, or 6 kerolox flyback boosters to it depending on the mission.  So hypothetically, depending on how many boosters you added, you could fly payloads like 60, 80, or 100mt.
Or however the math worked out.

Or something a little simplier, something like Direct, but with a Kerolox core with the same SRB's.  solid SRB's have their pro's and con's.  I think a pro is it gets the LV off the pad and moving faster, where kerolox and cryo seem to take awhile to get moving.  Satrun V took forever just to clear the pad.  The Shuttle seems to get moving faster. Some guys looked at video of the 2 Energia launches, they are all kerolox, and it appeared that it took awhile to get moving.
So perhaps there's something to be said for SRB's and a Kerolox core.
Others would know more about that than I.

One other possibility is to have an "all booster" core.  Say 2, 4, 6, or 8 independent kerolox flyback boosters that can be joined together to form the 1st stage, without any "core" per se.  Just pick the number of boosters for the mission requirements. Then then payload will need a booster stage to get into circularized orbit.  But it sounds like kerolox isn't very good in vacuum, so maybe that's for the better (from what I've heard anyway).

I keep mentioning the flyback boosters because it sounds like that's really the only way to have a reusable engine/booster that can be legitimately reused without needing a tone of money to refurbish after it's dunked in the ocean.  I think the SRB's get away with it a little better since a solid rocket motor is pretty basic.  A full engine won't handle the salt water well I think.  Plus is far cheaper to land them back at KSC rather than sending boats out to get them.

But again, that's all moot because it's not an option right now, unless a private company develops it.


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/16/2009 04:26 pm
About the Commission:

We have 30 minutes to do a presentation and answer questions. The questions will likely be generated more on the data sent in previously as on the presentation. The real analysis takes place later and will be extensive. We will make our presentation, tell them who we are and what we can do for the nation’s HSF program.

There are other options that will be presented, some of them pretty damn good. We are not the only players in this game. Each of us brings something to the table that the nation needs and none of us has everything the nation needs. The commission will pick and choose with the overall needs of the HSF program in mind. It is unlikely that their recommendation will be just one of the options presented. It is more likely that the recommendation may be a combination of two or more. There are many paths into the future and DIRECT is THE best one for only a few of them; there are others, just as valid, but that would require different solutions. We have total confidence in what we have done, but whether or not it is the best fit for the path finally chosen is yet to be determined.

We will give it our best shot and then go home. Thank you all for your expressions of support. Personally, I believe this process will be fair and I will be fine with their final recommendation, whatever it is.

Now I have to go pack. See you later.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/16/2009 04:30 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/16/2009 04:55 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/16/2009 05:22 pm

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.


Guys - I'm rootin' for ya.

A 30 mins presentation didn't sound like a big deal. 30 mins on the opening day, with this agenda, is something to be proud of.


You know, I never really believed the "review" would come, then I couldn't really believe (as in pinch myself) that the commission really was it. Finally, it's sunk in.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/16/2009 05:45 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/16/2009 06:05 pm
NASA-Agenda Released For June 17,2009 Augustine Committee Meeting-Direct Scheduled For 3:30 PM.        http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/jun/HQ_M09-108_RUSHSFC_Agenda.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/16/2009 08:51 pm
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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/16/2009 08:54 pm
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...


I was thinking along the same lines..  Set it up like Launch day coverage..

One thread for "Live coverage" and one for Woots?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mrbliss on 06/16/2009 09:00 pm
I'm guessing there will be a 'Live Thread' for the entire day, not just the 3:30 - 4:00 slice.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/16/2009 09:49 pm
I just want to say good luck to the Direct Team! Regardless of what happens tomorrow, you guys did a hell of a job getting this far.

I'll be stuck in class when Direct gets presented, but I'll record it to watch later.

GO DIRECT!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/16/2009 10:03 pm
We will give it our best shot and then go home.
Nice post, Chuck.  Good luck to all!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/16/2009 10:49 pm
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

First, he doesn't strike me as someone who is dishonest.  Second, schedule isn't the only reason to do EELVs (which is what DIRECT is proposing for the Ares I role) over Ares I.  Finally, because of the EELVs, DIRECT's J-1x0 isn't critical path to closing the gap between STS retirement and Orion to ISS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rocketguy101 on 06/16/2009 10:58 pm
I put an announcement on my model build thread (http://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=122613) to let the modroc community know about the committee presentation!!

Good luck!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/17/2009 12:04 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/17/2009 12:08 am
Hang in there, Ross! The best is yet to come!!!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 06/17/2009 12:12 am
Hang in there, Ross! The best is yet to come!!!!

Amen. Good luck and congrats to everyone on the team. May this be the end of the beginning.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 06/17/2009 01:52 am
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

Ross, we took in a cat last winter, name's Jaeger, according to his tag... just a cold stray, with a face full of scars and an ear that has droop from one too many fights... he's a peaceable cat, we have 7 other cats and he says hi, and minds his own business... but there is a cat in the neighbourhood that doesn't take kindly to him... kinda reminds me of you guys on the team... bit beaten up over the years but still polite and friendly... when the dust clears tomorrow and history is written, just know that the folks here at the homestead have been with you in spirit and on the net...

go getem boys...
 
 gramps
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/17/2009 01:53 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/17/2009 01:58 am
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

That's sounds good to me. I wonder how familiar they're with DIRECT 3.0.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/17/2009 02:12 am
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

Use the Force, Ross...

(Weeeell, somebody had to say it, right?)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/17/2009 06:34 am
I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.
:)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 06/17/2009 11:42 am
I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.
:)

Surely the DIRECT Team will be up to the challenge!

(And don't call me Shirley)

Seriously, good luck to Ross and company.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/17/2009 12:00 pm
Good luck, guys.

BTW, can we assume that the LRO launch is staying on the 18th now that the shuttle is scrubbed?  They don't bump back forward, do they?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/17/2009 12:33 pm
Good luck guys, we're all rooting for you.

Go Direct!

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/17/2009 01:33 pm
I recently sent detailed Direct 3 information to Chairman Alan B. Mollohan. Rep. Mollohan is the Chairman of the House of Representatives NASA Appropriations Subcommittee. He is a very strong supporter of NASA & a very strong supporter of manned space flight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/17/2009 01:51 pm
I'm watching the coverage of the Review Committee on the web, and DIRECT just got a GREAT mention.

The speaker was saying that ESAS has had many paths it could take, some of them are different than others, and "one that is well known is DIRECT."

 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."

Not really a plug, per se, but it was an acknowledgment that DIRECT is serious.

WTG Team!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/17/2009 02:11 pm
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."

That is a slightly misleading statement, I think.  It ignores that most of the actual grunt figures work was done by NASA people on their own time.  Still, as the driving force was extra-Agency, I think I see their point.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/17/2009 02:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 06/17/2009 02:49 pm
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.

The good folks at http://www.spacevidcast.com/ tend to podcast such things.  They had good coverage of the ISDC 2009 conference.  They're broadcasting the hearings right now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/17/2009 03:30 pm
Ben: I totally agree.

Two things have been on my mind all day today, from the time I awoke.

1) If anyone says, "But NASA says that DIRECT violates the laws of physics!" I hope that someone on the team points out to the panel that DIRECT is heavily based on the NLS which passed its PDR in the early 90s. Ares has not yet even approached that milestone.

2) I hope that someone points out to the panel that it was actually NASA personnel who have done all the number-crunching, using NASA's tools for this sort of thing, and because of that it is a viable NASA design. Those engineers who are working on Ares can't be assumed to only know what they're doing when they're working on Ares. They have to be assumed to know what they're doing when they're working on anything.

I'm watching it, as my very slooooooow connection allows, and I have just seen some Representative make himself look bad, by saying that "Ares V holds the promise of returning us to the moon..." Apparently, he doesn't have all the figures. He's supposed to be reading some statement by another Rep. We'll see.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/17/2009 05:42 pm
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nasa-television

This is working for me with a decent connection.  Please let everyone know what else is working for them!  Go, team, go!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/17/2009 07:22 pm
Show time!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 06/17/2009 07:23 pm
*fingers crossed*
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/17/2009 07:47 pm
I'm watching, but I have no sound!

I hope they're doing well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 06/17/2009 07:54 pm
Watching on NASA TV now.  Wish I'd realized this was on earlier.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/17/2009 07:59 pm
Wow! "Who are you guys?" Laughter.  Stephen: "Blood in the water."

Well, my blood pressure is elevated.

-- Congrats for a gutsy performance!

Modify: CORRECTION: Steve Metschan not Philip, our apologies. #nasahsf
Punctuation, and I don't feel so bad for mixing my Metschans!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/17/2009 08:01 pm
I didn't get to see it, so the live coverage thread was critical.

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?

From what little I've seen, they don't seem to have mentioned their version of the Return to the Moon very much.  Well, I think that was a good idea.  DIRECT's version of RttM is pretty much public record and the Commissioners' underlings can get them a copy of the presentation from their website if they want it.  However, by focussing on what DIRECT can do for LEO spaceflight and beyond Earth/Moon, Steve cleverly showed that, whatever decisions about goals are eventually reached, Jupiter has the flexibility to carry them out.  The implication, although not stated directly, is that Ares is purely a moonshot archetecture and is necessarily limited outside that 'comfort zone'.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 06/17/2009 08:04 pm
I only caught the last ten or fifteen minutes, some good points but also unfortunately some poor ones. Gut feeling is that a more focused approach would have been better.

I thought the question about why the 70t SDLV in ESAS which closely resembles Jupiter wasn't chosen, was badly handled. All Steve needed to say was that two launches of that vehicle would be insufficient, because none of these configurations assumed an upper stage. :(
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: NSF Webmaster on 06/17/2009 08:05 pm
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)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/17/2009 08:06 pm
I think it went well.

I have no reason whatsoever to Armchair Quarterback Steve, I think he did remarkably well standing up there, knowing that tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of people were watching.

I think that the panel realizes that the DIRECT Launch System is a serious player. I hope they take it as seriously as it needs to be taken, and that Mr. Augustine wasn't just being polite. I also think (based on the question asked "Who are you guys?") that the panel understands that there are reasons why most of the guys doing the number-crunching have to stay in the background, if they want to keep their jobs. I think that because of that, they'll ask the right questions of the right people. They know that Ares is in big trouble. That's why they exist in the first place.

Bravo, Steve, Ross, Chuck, Greg, and the rest of the team! Bloody well done!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/17/2009 08:07 pm
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. 

As others have noted, I think some of the easy answers came out a bit harsh.  He had a good moment when he implied that getting to the bottom of all the options is what the Committee is for.

More when my heartrate decreases.

I think going from 30 to 20 minutes at the last minute might have hurt.  He was understandably nervous, but I think got the message across. 

The panel asked if they could talk to them later.  His response was good!

Again, good job!  Glad it wasn't me up there!

Modify: Add text


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Baskii on 06/17/2009 08:07 pm
When he was asked about the other members of the team, he seemed a little uncertain.  I was just hoping that he would simply say that most of the team are actually from within NASA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Baskii on 06/17/2009 08:18 pm
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.



Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/17/2009 08:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 06/17/2009 08:28 pm
I think it is worth noting that the committee seemed fairly interested in follow-up. Sure it could have been presented better, sure it could have been presented [much] worse. But I think the biggest factor will be how receptive the committee members are by default.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Baskii on 06/17/2009 08:28 pm
Yes, good point and sorry if I came across too negatively.  I have nothing but respect for Steve for getting up there and of course I remain a Direct amazing people!  You're absolutely right to say that all the other Direct documentation has been made available to them - the presentation is the tip of the iceberg.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/17/2009 08:37 pm
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)


Frak me!   That was quick!!!   Thanks!

Ross (still on a high -- and getting ready to head off to dinner with some *very* interesting people).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/17/2009 08:38 pm
Thanks to everyone for tuning in!

Glad you all seemed to enjoy it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/17/2009 08:38 pm
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 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Baskii on 06/17/2009 08:40 pm
Enjoy the dinner Ross, you deserve it!
Well done to all of you - I think there is a lot of interest in Direct from the panel, and it will get a fair hearing this time.

Thanks to everyone for tuning in!

Glad you all seemed to enjoy it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/17/2009 08:40 pm
Thanks to everyone for tuning in!

Glad you all seemed to enjoy it.

Ross.

That was great! Congrats!

So thrilled to have seen it live. nuts to work.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: EE Scott on 06/17/2009 08:42 pm
Too many missed opportunities.  I hope the behind the scene stuff is more effective than the presentation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/17/2009 08:44 pm
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.

I also recommend the Direct team bring up the very high dynamic pressure of an Ares I launch.  I don't think the Ares I LOC numbers reflect the risk to the crew because of this.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/17/2009 08:47 pm
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 . . .
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/17/2009 08:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/17/2009 08:50 pm


Frak me!   That was quick!!!   Thanks!

Ross (still on a high -- and getting ready to head off to dinner with some *very* interesting people).

Let us know when you've uploaded the transcript of THAT meeting!!!   ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/17/2009 08:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: EE Scott on 06/17/2009 08:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/17/2009 08:56 pm
Behind-the-scenes collaboration between DIRECT and Shuttle-C teams? [/tinfoilhat] ;) Just trying to anticipate the uproar on The Write Stuff, especially after ULA basically called NASA a bunch of liars.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bobthemonkey on 06/17/2009 08:56 pm
AIUI today is the tip of the iceberg. The commission will be presented with a lot more in depth information.

I get why DIRECT went for the big picture route, but the fact that the other presentations went down the more 'technical' route did make you stand out (for better or worse).

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: NSF Webmaster on 06/17/2009 08:57 pm
Public Comments & Closing Statements now available in the Video Section

Click Here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17485.new#new)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/17/2009 08:57 pm
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.

I said it before and couldn't say it any better now.   Well said!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/17/2009 08:59 pm
WADR to Direct, from a amazing people...


Overall, it was good. The first part of the presentation went VERY well, the morphing video and commentary was excellent. The part about fuel depots got a bit off track, but the comparison chart shot massive holes in Ares I.

Not being able to ID the engineers putting the numbers together will hurt, and that will need to be addressed someday for the program to succeed. Very strong concluding statement of the 3 recommendations.

I have no doubt that the presentation got their attention, and Ross's dinner will be very interesting.

Good job!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/17/2009 08:59 pm
Thanks for the upload, can't wait to watch the presentations after work!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mjcrsmith on 06/17/2009 09:02 pm
Hopefully as a result of today’s hearing, there will be ways for the “behind the scenes” team to be able to come forward and present their data.  John Shannon’s comments were encouraging.

Congrats to the Direct team.  Well done!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/17/2009 09:02 pm
Very impressed with John Shannon.  If there's any way for DIRECT to bring him into the fold...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Sotar on 06/17/2009 09:11 pm

A critique

In my job I do a lot of presentation critiques and have given a lot and caught a lot of flack over presentations.   The presentation it self wasn’t anything new compared to what has been published here before, therefore presenting it should have been a slam dunk.

Certainly Steve “the presenter” was under a lot of pressure and stress.  If I had to critique his presentation skills I would say it was a B-.  When you compare it to the SpaceX presentation which was arguable the most polished it was maybe a C.  On presentation style he relied extensively on note cards, which is good to keep on track, but he relied too much on them.

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 something like "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” (tongue in cheek)   and “why is Jupiter safer?”   which response was in the right direction but was not clearly articulated
-   In line stack, separating crew from launch vehicle
-   Ability to carry a ballistic shield, or Water barrier
-   Able to add back features removed due to performance of Ares I
-   Learning’s from the STS to monitor the SRB’s for issues

Overall good effort but didn’t have the WOW effect I hoped it would.

Agreed it was great to have Side Mount as a follow up as it did highlight a lot of plus factors for Jupiter.

I also agree with the comment of too many Missed Opportunites.

I really wish you’d kill the Ares3-4 naming convention!

Again comments from just a lurker, so forgive me if I came of critical instead of just matter of fact.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/17/2009 09:16 pm


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!


I would have to agree on these points too. I cringed at the Ares 3/4 notation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/17/2009 09:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/17/2009 09:21 pm
From the "Who are you guys?" comment, I got the impression they were expecting a bunch of guys who could not walk their talk. Instead Direct presented solid engineering with hard numbers, and came off as Professionals with the country's interest at their core.

I have no doubt their presentation opened a lot of doors that previously were shut.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/17/2009 10:03 pm
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.

Well they were in the audience. I was surprised Mike didn't get one of them to come up as the others did to qualify the remarks & questions asked. No matter, it's water under the bridge.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/17/2009 10:37 pm
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison To The Augustine Committee-"Finally, I want to stress my belief that you must be able to consider any and all possible options and alternatives to ensure the continuation and future success of the US human spaceflight programs. I believe it is essential for your review to be unconstrained by any binding consideration, whether budgetary or programmatic. We in the Congress and, I believe, the Administration, must be given a clear picture of what is attainable and what resources would be required. We will then be in a position to make the judgments necessary to achieve the best possible and most affordable result for the American taxpayer."  http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=28477

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/17/2009 10:42 pm
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.

Gee its almost as if Shannon was a plant to support Direct.  God works in mysterious ways.

Really Direct looked good and the questions from the panel were not hostile.  I think that today's presentations, taken as a whole, made the current NASA management plan look like a fantasy.  The commission will take Direct seriously.

My favorite solution.  Space X for LEO, Direct for the Moon and Mars. I thought that Elon Musk's comment about making more engines than anybody but the Russians, and next year making more than them was very significant.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/17/2009 10:43 pm
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. 

Good luck in the follow up work DIRECT!  Its sounds like you've made a solid base hit and you are in the game.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: EE Scott on 06/17/2009 10:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/17/2009 11:22 pm
Are we able to view the leaked ESAS appendices?  If this is something from months ago that I downloaded and forgot to read, my apologies.

But I sure don't remember what was in them!

Modify: Ah, L2; that's why.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 06/17/2009 11:23 pm
Guys, early on, Phil McAlister seemed somewhat impressed with the amount of feedback they've received from the HSF site and the Twitter followers. He also pointed out a few questions/comments and mentioned that the committee would be reviewing all of the feedback. Would this be an opportunity for us to increase DIRECT's visibility to the committee?

Just a thought. Their contact page is here: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/contact_us/index.html (http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/contact_us/index.html)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 06/18/2009 12:04 am
my comment to the commission

why the commission should recommend Direct v3.0

When the Shuttle was first developed, a version of Direct was studied, it was rejected based on emotions, it wasn't as sexy, it didn't have the sizzle that Shuttle had. Now, decades later we have another project selected for the same reasons, and going down the same path: Ares 1 & 5; Direct will use proven components & bring us back to where we should have been if the Shuttle had not been chosen: on the moon soon, moving towards a Mars landing by 2030. Give our children the legacy of Deep Space!

David born 1948, aka Cro-magnon Gramps

500 characters... must been on a tight budget  :D :D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/18/2009 12:34 am

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. 


Yes, Mike did a reasonably good job touching as many bases as possible with science, especially a JWST servicing mission, much like Hubble.

To me, the biggest punch, for a Q&A standpoint, was the PLF size. That drove home to the panel (imo) the unique reasons why current EELVs may not be the best alternative, and they used Mike Griffin's comment on it (that it's best NOT to send up lots of small chuncks, but fewer bigger ones) as their showcase piece. Bravo :)

If the commission wants to look deeper into the Direct background (struggle) and possibly get insider names, they may just see this whole pandoras box open and see the light of day with Direct as the best choice, and why Ares is the way it is.

And one more thing. I have never actively promoted team members from coming out in the open, but when I saw that reaction by the panel to the 'who are you' response by Mike, something inside me felt that those team members were probably watching, and thinking to themselves, maybe this is my time. Not saying they should. I'm saying maybe they may now feel compelled in their own right, to add credibility to the claim.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 06/18/2009 01:58 am
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 :)

It doesn't hurt that he has that sexy accent.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/18/2009 02:03 am
Is it possible that with Griffin gone NASA "leadership" realize the corner they are being driven into, but lack the ability to extract themselves by themselves - as silly as that sounds - it happens - so perhaps John really meant what he said.  To me, and perhaps I am the one being a bit "dinkish" here (It's ok if I call myself something - right?) :)  but I found 99% of what John said far more supportive of DIRECT than of ARES I/V when it is all said and done - but just to be sure, I am going to rewatch it.  I thought EELV also came on way strong.  I think the committee has a REALLY HISTORICAL call to make.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/18/2009 02:16 am
The Force was strong with these ones.

Well, I think it triggered enough interest (fortuitously coming after Shuttle-C haha) that it might start gathering real momentum. I must check out the EELV pitch now.

And so what if Steve was shaky, heck it's the moment we've all been waiting for! Like Chris said, way to go for one comment on a discussion forum... to this!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Robo-Nerd on 06/18/2009 02:18 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/18/2009 02:38 am
Regardless of what the panel decides, I think today was a small victory for true Shuttle-Derived concepts. Between Direct and NASA's "Not Shuttle-C", I think it shows that SDLVs may have the upper hand so far.

I feel we are going to see a move towards some type of EELV / New Space LV for ISS, and some type of SDLV for Cargo and Exploration. Whether that will be an inline Direct-like concept or a side mounted concept remains to be seen.

Right now, I feel an inline concept has the upperhand, as even during the side mounted presentation their were quick hints that an inline concept is safer or better.

EELV smoked the competition for quick affordable access to the ISS, but they have nothing on SDLV when it comes to lunar, mars, and other heavy lift.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 06/18/2009 03:08 am
What would it gain Augustine to dissimulate about Direct?  In public?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kch on 06/18/2009 03:16 am
What would it gain Augustine to dissimulate about Direct?  In public?

Gain?  Nothing whatsoever -- just the opposite, in fact.  For that reason, I doubt he would (or did) do that.  Time will tell ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rv_rocket on 06/18/2009 03:18 am
Thanks Chuck, Ross, Steve and all the other contributors! Getting to this point, receiving the fair hearing that we've all hope for and hardly dared dream would come true, is an amazing feat! Congratulations, Thanks!, and good luck at your dinner Ross!!

If Mr. Shannon is offering an olive branch, perhaps it's time to accept and see where it leads? (carefully!!) I don't know what he's like in private, but his public persona has impressed me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Baskii on 06/18/2009 08:26 am
Hi Osa,

I watched you delivering your statement to the panel and was impressed by your clarity and concision.  I think you summed the situation up extremely well and I hope the panel will take it on board.
(I don't suppose Ross mentioned who his dinner dates would be, by the way?) ;-)

Regards

Baskii

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/18/2009 08:56 am
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.

I think it is worth remembering the background to Direct's appearance to understand this. 

Direct has been previously portrayed by NASA essentially as a bunch of cranks supported by a small cabal of malcontents within the agency.  I have no doubt that, prior to the hearing, this is more-or-less what the Commissioners expected to have and this would explain their reactions and body language.  FWIW, I think this might also explain the Commissioners' strong response to Steve's comments about the team's NASA members fearing reprisals.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: EE Scott on 06/18/2009 10:19 am
I have a hard time convincing myself that the Commission could go from their skeptical, almost incredulous body language toward the presenter/presentation to actually recommending Direct in late July/early August.  My perception is that the gap of credibility was not significantly closed by the June 17 proceedings, and indeed it seemed to indicate an almost hostile reaction to Direct.  I hope I am wrong, but I was really surprised at the lack of openness to the Direct plan.  Will they take the data seriously when they give the plan a serious going over?  I hope so, but they acted like maybe they didn't think they could trust the numbers. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/18/2009 10:45 am
@ EE Scott

Fortunately, the Commission's opinion isn't going to be the most important factor.  No matter how credible they consider the Direct spokesmen, if their own analysts confirm that the figures presented in the backup material are credible, then they must take them as read.

Oh, I haven't ruled out some face-saving compromise such as a sudden 'resurrection' of the in-line NLS proposals (in a form that looks suspiciously like Direct but which we are assured isn't) just so they don't have to say that the 'cranks' are right.  Of such self-deceit is the executive office-level mind made.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: EE Scott on 06/18/2009 10:52 am
I hope you're right.  It should be an interesting summer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/18/2009 11:05 am
Let's assume for the sake of argument (and after seeing yesterday's commission meeting), that, in the end, VSE is required to be NASA/DoD/Contractor management friendly. The de-gapping, ISS-supporting, Moon-soonest way forward:

Shuttle extension to 2012.

Orion on Atlas V in 2013.

Not-Shuttle-C/Orion to a NEO and/or Not-Shuttle-C/Orion/SSPDM to ISS in 2015/.

2x Not-Shuttle-C/Orion/Altair Lite to the Moon in 2016.

And, bearing in mind the switch from SSME to RS-68 a year into Ares I/V, some time after the above ball has started being carried down the field, NASA could decide they can gain more payload by switching Not-Shuttle-C to an in-line solution and still get to the Moon by 2016.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ANTIcarrot on 06/18/2009 01:03 pm
The Direct 3.0 presentation says that Orion is the pacing item for manned Jupiter flights. What exactly are the pacing items on Orion itself?

If the pacing items are crew support and reentry systems, could a partially incomplete orion (version 0.8?) be used as as Orbital Transfer Vehicle to deliver large payloads to the ISS before the crewed version was available? Looking at the proposed manifest, it looks like there's spare capacity. Or would orion probably still have more serious problems at that time?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/18/2009 01:41 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/18/2009 02:59 pm
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?


If you're going by the baseball cards, don't worry about those figures.

The J-130 can get to 130 nmi, but with a somewhat smaller payload.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nate_Trost on 06/18/2009 03:14 pm
Orion on Atlas V in 2013.

ULA was proposing Orion on Delta IV Heavy by 2014. Atlas V manned flight in 2013 was not Orion, but an unspecified vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/18/2009 03:29 pm
@ MP99

Don't forget that both Orion and Altair have their own MPS, which would allow them to change orbital altitude to rendezvous with a parked EDS. 

If anything, that is one of the simplest ways to do it - Put the crew modules on a parallel but lower orbit and wait until they are in the right position, then carry out two burns, the first to bring apogee up to the EDS's altitude, the second to bring up perigee.  After that, it is merely a case of using the RCS to dock with the EDS and lighting off the RL-10s to go to the Moon. ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/18/2009 03:59 pm
My sense of the situation is that the public hearing was for the public (us), not so much for the commission.  Decisions aren't made in public meetings.  Otherwise C-SPAN would be a lot less boring.

If the presentation made any impression on the panel, it will be subsequently overwhelmed by the facts and figures, dinners and phone calls to come.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Sotar on 06/18/2009 04:20 pm


I firmly believe that direct is the best solution available to us. It is certainly better than side mount, and EELV just doesn't have the mass or volume capacity to support anything but ISS.   I hope the commission can over come the politics and gaming and come to the same conclusion. 

The team has done a great job championing the proposal.

----------------

if only rational people ran the world.....
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/18/2009 05:03 pm


....and EELV just doesn't have the mass or volume capacity to support anything but ISS.   


Not so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/18/2009 05:56 pm
....and EELV just doesn't have the mass or volume capacity to support anything but ISS.   
Not so.
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/18/2009 06:00 pm
Yesterday Steve mentioned that certain NASA employees were reluctant to publicly express their deep concerns about Ares 1(Constellation Program) out of fear of retaliation. Chairman Augustine then called Steve's "fear of retaliation" comments  "serious charges". Secondly, at the end of Steve's presentaion ,Chairman Augustine stated he would give the Direct plan "serious consideration".
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mnewcomb on 06/18/2009 06:57 pm
Not so.

EELV can put a 10m diameter payload in orbit!? Why didn't you say so!?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/18/2009 07:01 pm
Drapper,
I'm aware that at least one of our contacts have already contacted the committee on their own -- even before I've had any chance to put out the requests...

I hope that at least a handful will agree to come out and speak to the commission now.   Of course, the best thing they can do is pass along the DOCUMENTATION which demonstrates their concerns straight to the committee members.

I've never been able to see any of that stuff myself, but the committee has Presidential authority to scrutinize all that sort of thing.   There are no problems with CxP personnel passing stuff to the panel members.

I personally don't think its productive pointing fingers or laying blame anywhere, but it'll be nice to get some validation of some of our claims through official channels for a change.   That's going to be a fairly unique experience for us!   And it will create credibility, which is the important thing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mnewcomb on 06/18/2009 07:09 pm
(http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/skylab/skylab4_inside.gif)

EELV can lift that much volume?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Stephan on 06/18/2009 07:13 pm
EELV can lift that much volume?
Where is Charlie ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mnewcomb on 06/18/2009 07:28 pm
(http://www.anoushehansari.com/faqs/grax/images/24d%20Inside%20ISS.jpg)

I can't believe we are even entertaining EELV as meeting our lift requirements, 'cause the above is what you get with EELV launchers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 06/18/2009 07:30 pm
She's not bad, what's your problem j.k. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/18/2009 07:52 pm
Is the EELV vs Direct 3.0 size comparison really appropriate for this thread?

I do admit I like the photos. It's nice to see a visual component for an argument when you are discussing the relative merits of two solutions. If you guys are gonna continue to discuss this, please include more photos.

More importantly,

Congrats to all of the Direct folks for hanging on long enough to get a shot to present the program before the commission.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: libs0n on 06/18/2009 08:06 pm
mnewcomb,

Tell me what EELVs put ISS up.  You've ventured down a bizarre tangent that has nothing to do with the actual topic raised, of whether EELVs could support lunar missions.

ISS has more volume than Skylab.  Appearances can be deceiving.  And I think you'll find that the interior of Orion and Altair are much more cramped than that, even with your heavy lifter.  The only thing on the lunar missions that make use of the volume of a heavy lifter are the propulsion elements, and they can take a different form while still allowing for a lunar mission.  EELVs can launch the mass a lunar mission requires, and are more in a position to do so than the Shuttle stack is in currently.

Are we rebuilding ISS?  No.  Why your hangup on ISS volume and assembly methods then, when we're talking about the lunar missions?  I'll make a point that ISS was successfully assembled into a form that could not fit on any heavy lifter.  If the actual assembly took too long for you, blame that on NASA depending upon its own launch capability, rather than turning to the more comprehensive launch market, like the EELV options.  EELVs or similar vehicles could have also achieved the aim of launching the ISS in a more cost and time advantageous manner than the Shuttle. 

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/18/2009 08:25 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 06/18/2009 08:35 pm
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

Even if the LOC numbers favor Ares I, (an unknowable until more information is released from NASA about their methodology), Direct wins on so many other areas (cost, resource protection, mission start dates, etc) that the commission must take the concept seriously.

Any further public briefings can be polished, but the Direct foot is now in the door.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 06/18/2009 08:38 pm
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?"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 06/18/2009 08:42 pm
... 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 06/18/2009 08:43 pm
Any further public briefings can be polished, but the Direct foot is now in the door.  :)

Woo-hoo!

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/18/2009 08:58 pm
... 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.


You need to be careful in stating you can add things like land landing back into Orion.  The current CM mass is limited by the parachutes.  A bigger CM would need a chute redesign.  I think radiation shielding and supplies to wait on the moon for a rescue mission if needed would be good things to add.  The docs at JSC are very concerned about a solar event during a lunar or Mars mission.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/18/2009 09:34 pm
Good point Danny.

It's easy to add things back in if you don't have to redesign and consider cost or schedule.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/18/2009 11:12 pm
Good point Danny.

It's easy to add things back in if you don't have to redesign and consider cost or schedule.

Its easy to redesign when mass margins are big.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 06/18/2009 11:39 pm
Would it be a big headache to redo the chutes? I know they've done lots of PTV tests already but surely there's enough time to do them again? Is there an issue with packaging volume on Orion?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/19/2009 12:10 am

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'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.
A HLV list Direct could put that in LEO in 4 launches.  You'd probably need a few additional flights for assembly and odd shaped components like trusses or solar panels.
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, FAR less in space assembly, and more systems could be unitized on the ground as opposed to connecting together in orbit.
It would likely cost less in just harward because it's cheaper to do work on the ground rather than in orbit.  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.

If the wide open spaces of Skylab are a problem, then you just layout your modules differently this type.  I honestly have no clue why people keep thinking that's an argument for those little <5 meter sardine cans vs. 8+ meter modules.  You just layout the inside so you are never more than about 6-7 ft from something to grab ahold of.
Plus you could still have one module left more open for excercise and to let the astronauts have a little elbow room.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/19/2009 12:26 am
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?"


I think the reaction of the panel was to be expected, as you said, The Direct Team is not made up of your usual breed of rocket scientists (not to discredit the team's hard work at all).

I think if I were in their position right now, I would be skeptical of Direct as well. It's wishful thinking for the to fall in love with Direct right on the spot.

The panel has to appear fair and balanced. They couldn't show emotion for one concept versus another. This isn't American Idol...they aren't going to come out right on the spot for or against a concept based on one presentation.

The presentations were for the public and a way to open discussion with the panel. What is really important is the data.

If showmanship is what we are going off of to determine the future of US manned spaceflight, then our space program is screwed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/19/2009 12:37 am
I would say that Ares I is more dangerous than J-130 for the following reasons:

Ares-I:
New Thrust Oscillation Mitigation.
New Upper Stage engine.
New Upper Stage.
New 5-segment solid rocket booster (using casings from existing SRB).

Jupiter:
Existing Thrust Oscillation Mitigation.
Existing 4-segment solid rocket booster.
Existing SSME Main Engines
New Core Stage (using current 8.4 m ET tooling).

I believe what kills astronauts is bad engineering and bad management. I think these two events are much more likely than random component failures. Ares-I is an all new design and despite the best efforts by engineers, engineers will make mistakes, and so in my opinion there is a much greater chance of being killed on Ares-I than on Jupiter.

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."

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2009 12:53 am

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.

1.  You can't say it is more reliable.  Actually, a problem with one of the big module means you lose more capability

2.  The logistics of big modules on the ground will be expensive.  There is no place to built, transport and process them.

3.  Many of the +30 shuttle flights were utilization and crew swaps.  It took less to built the ISS. Also the cost of the very expensive HLV has to be taken into account.

4.  I don't know either.  the 5 meters is big enough
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/19/2009 01:03 am
After waiting 20+ years for a space station I would be okay with a skylab like station.  Launch a new one every 4 or 5 years on a big booster and get on with the science, if that is the actual objective.

The modular ISS configuration has always been a shuttle make work project.  Use as many astronauts and STS flights as possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mnewcomb on 06/19/2009 01:11 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HelixSpiral on 06/19/2009 01:43 am

"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.

Wouldn't the fairing pieces need to be deorbited somehow?  I know they would decay fairly soon at 130x130 nm, but not being able to control when and where it comes down would be an issue.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/19/2009 02:18 am
As the PLFs have a large surface area compared to their mass, the PLFs should quickly re-enter due to drag. I believe the PLFs should burn up. In Apollo 9, the S-IVB/SLA/LM/CSM were put into orbit. As part of the Transposition and Docking maneuver, the SLA is first ejected. So, it was no problem back them to let the SLA panels re-enter on their own.

(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4009/images/4-287a.jpg)

If using J-246 to launch Altair and Orion, both the JUS and PLF are put into orbit. In this case, the JUS would need to deorbit using its maneuvering engines. The PLF would re-enter on its own.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/19/2009 02:43 am

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."

Would a duplex fibre optic connection allow the pilot to fly the Altair assembly by wire from within the Orion?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/19/2009 03:02 am
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."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/19/2009 03:33 am
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:

Quote
"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)

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: usn_skwerl on 06/19/2009 05:36 am
A question from the peanut gallery;

Does the ET (core) need any structural modification along its length to support the upper stage (thickened walls, ribs and/or spars, etc)?

If so, what needs to be changed/added?

Thanks
Jeph
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ppb on 06/19/2009 08:10 am
--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 a long time lurker come into the light, I want to start off by congratulating Steve, Ross, Chuck and the others for their unrelenting efforts to get this nation’s human spaceflight activities back on track.  Getting in front of Norm was huge—your foot truly is in the door with the rest of the body soon to follow, I hope.  You’ve come a long way since I first heard mention of “Stubby” (a NASA establishment pejorative, no doubt) to the very impressive architecture known as DIRECT, v3.0.  The Internet really is a powerful tool for bringing together ideas, even if they’re suspiciously regarded by the powers-that-be.

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?

Enough for now.  Kudos once again to the whole DIRECT crew.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2009 08:13 am
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?

too expensive to fly anything in a 10m fairing
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 06/19/2009 09:34 am
And your good story to get money from the taxpayer is?

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/19/2009 10:12 am
And your good story to get money from the taxpayer is?

Analyst

Unemployed?  Underemployed?  Come work for NASA and help explore the universe.

We don't necessarily need their money if we can get their time.  Imagine if people could sign up to work for NASA, and their funding would expand or contract according to how many people they employ.  Other discretionary programs would work similarly, and the people would allocate funding among the programs by working on the projects they support.

It's a jobs program.  We set a bunch of compelling objectives like landing on the moon or covering rooftops with solar panels and let people sign up to work full time on these projects.  A certain minimum number of people need to sign up to activate each project, and the more people sign up, the more the project can accomplish. 

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.

Where do we get the money to pay the workers?  We create it from nothing and deposit it in their checking accounts, just like we do with the "war on terror" supplementals.  The Fed will buy the T-bonds at near zero percent.  And the economic activity associated with putting the nation's unemployed back to work is well worth the extremely low interest debt.

But this is getting OT...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/19/2009 10:58 am
And your good story to get money from the taxpayer is?

Analyst

Humans to Mars by 2020 ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/19/2009 11:21 am
The big problem with "space program as jobs program for the masses" is, it relies on economic theory a lot of people don't believe in (though I myself do) and even more people seem unable to conceptualize correctly. Let's say (hypothetical-what if) we had the necessary technical workforce and latent industrial capacity to do a Mars By 2020 program. Direct hire would be (these are hypothetical figures, of course, not to be taken as in any way real) 100,000 engineers at $200,000/year average. Secondary would be hundreds of thousands of industrial workers and technicians working for the contractors and subcontractors. Teritiary would be millions of infrastructure and support personnel (diesel engine mechanics, road repair people, etc., etc.). Quarternary would be tens of millions of service workers, and so full employment would be achieved. And the common argument against it: "Why not just use the money to pay people directly?" It's why we have welfare, even though the overwhelming majority of people would really rather have better jobs instead. (Quibblers notice: I said *better* jobs, not any crappy job. Given a choice between $6/hr to do nothing, or $6.50 to clean toilets all day, most people will rationally choose "do nothing.")
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 06/19/2009 11:27 am
And your good story to get money from the taxpayer is?

Analyst

Humans to Mars by 2020 ;-)

That's what I'm talking about. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2009 11:33 am

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2009 11:36 am

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...

And it is unrealistic.   Most workers (more that 90%) in the space program don't work for NASA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/19/2009 11:58 am
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.


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?

Crew & Altair would still launch safely at 104.5%, but you might then be able to utilise all the capacity up to the "additional 10% margin".

I know J-130 gets close to lifting the CLV at present, but only by using a "no additional margin" payload. Of course, this is a simpler vehicle, so that may be a sensible trade. What point in the launch can you survive one engine out (assuming everything else running smoothly)?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 06/19/2009 12:17 pm
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:

Yes. Here is even better one!

Quote
"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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/19/2009 12:22 pm

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?  How much additional volume? Any?

J-130 is close to the price of a D-IV Heavy and provides 4 times the lift capability of Atlas-V(not the measly incremental increase offered by D-IVH).. not to mention 8 to 24 times the volume!

D-IV Heavy (5dx5m) = ~100m^2
J-130(10dx10m) = ~785m^2   (with option to go up to 3 times that using 30m barrel)

It's all about economics.. No one(except AF) is willing to fork over another 200-300million(they could spend on payload) for the small incremental lift improvement offered by D-IVH. 

If J-130 lift capability was available at roughly same price.. the economics make a lot more sense!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2009 01:43 pm

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?

It isn't twice as much cost.

Performance wise
To GTO around 4400 kg more, which is greater than 50%

To GSO around 2300kg  more, which is greater than 55%

Doesn't include the RS-68A mod.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mnewcomb on 06/19/2009 01:57 pm
too expensive to fly anything in a 10m fairing

JWST is up to $4.5 billion estimated cost and a 2 year delay.

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?

They are also dropping instruments left and right to keep it under 6.2mt. Isn't miniaturization very expensive?

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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jeff.findley on 06/19/2009 02:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2009 02:25 pm
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.


1.  Where has it been stated that the mirror is the culprit? 

2. What miniaturization?  Which instruments have been dropped?

3.  JWST is not a data point for your claim.  Ariane V is not a small volume/mass launcher.  Where is it stated that a larger spacecraft wouldn't have the same problems?  They exist for any spacecraft no matter what the launch vehicle is.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: loomy on 06/19/2009 03:12 pm
Quote from: jeff.findley
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 think you said that in a strange way.  They weren't "so many" launches like that's a bad thing.  A more KSC friendly inclination would have been less friendly to the other people building the station, which certainly IS a bad thing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/19/2009 04:53 pm
Is it possible to merge all of the various Direct threads that have popped up into one thread? It is a little confusing with 4 different threads, and most of them talking about the same thing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/19/2009 05:10 pm
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.

Possibly, but mass/volume was the driving reason obviously.  Especially using a 10m PLF, you can fit 4 Unity sized modules in one PLF I believe.
With the Shuttle, you are constrianed to 4.6 meter wide by 18.3 meters long, regardless of where you are putting it in LEO.
I believe the Direct guys have said they can go up to a 12m PLF with little difficulty, and that really gives you a lot of flexability especially for odd-shaped components like truss structures or solar panels.

So even if you could shave a few flights off the STS construction with a better orbit, you are still talking a ISS-sized station bening lofted in 6-7 launches, or about 1/4 to 1/5 the flights the current one will take.  Plus you could have it put together in probably a year, rather than the Decade the ISS will have taken (if you exclude the delay in construction from the Columbia accident, I think it was still around 8 years or so planned construction time.  Now we're looking at like 12 years).
The lengthy construction caused it's own problems, as it needed to be serviced and supplied during all the interim years.  It took so long to build that several additional flights were required so it could be staffed and not floating dead for a decade while it's being build.
But you could avoid that with the accelerated assembly schedule of a HLV.  Put it together in say a year, and then send a crew up in Orion on a D4H, or J-130 with Orion and a payload full of supplies (water, food, etc) to turn on the lights and open for business.

Would save a bundle of money, expenese, time, and headaches that way vs. the way the ISS was build i think.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: libs0n on 06/19/2009 05:20 pm
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.

Look at your argument from a different perspective.  ISS and JWST are existing projects that would not make use of the volume capability of heavy lift.  Future mega projects where more volume could be applicable such as those will be a minority subset of all projects.  Using the commercial vehicles to launch the lunar mass will lower their incremental cost to other users.  This will have benefit to the wider swath of missions that would not utilize a heavy lifter.  The benefits from possibly utilized volume capability in specific and rare instances versus the benefits of lower costs in many more instances.  A commercial solution will also offer advantages to NASA projects that can be more advantageous than that of larger volume capability.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2009 05:28 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/19/2009 05:29 pm
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... 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/19/2009 06:31 pm
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?

If you flew a Jupiter-246 with 109% thrust on the SSME's for the EDS flight you would boost performance to around 104.5mT to 130x130nmi, 29.0deg.

But the expectation is that the SSME's would be 5 times more likely to go wrong if you do that, so we don't think its all that good of an option.

Although there are no crew and no spacecraft on board, the EDS launcher itself is not cheap.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/19/2009 06:38 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/19/2009 06:45 pm
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've been catching up on some much-needed rest this morning, but I'm back on the ball again now and I've been doing a lot of follow-up coordination work so far following the committee hearing.   Lots to do, very little time.   So no real change there then :)

I have yet to go look at the 3-minute presentations, but will try to look them all over before the day is out.   Without even seeing them, I'm pretty sure some will be very good indeed (which is precisely why I asked folk to do them in the first place!).   And yes, I'm hoping we can pinch suggestions from many of them, not just one! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kch on 06/19/2009 06:47 pm
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 may not be available until after it's been broadcast.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/19/2009 06:49 pm

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.

Jim,

I know you're a sharp guy, so I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but your statement makes no sense.
I'm not rocket scientist (I just play one on TV).  But if you use a HLV that's 80% the same as the HLV that -already- flying, just with the engines relocated and less the dead weight of a spaceplane, you are trying to say that the development of that vehicle will be SOOOOO expensive, that it will consume ALL of the money saved by launching around 25 less rockets?
That is a statement that's stunningly unbelievable.
pulling a number right out of my arse and say that STS (less orbiter costs) or Jupiter (less Orion Costs) would cost $500million per launch.
25 saved luanches is 12.5 billion saved.    If it's more than that, then it's even more saved.
If the development of Jupiter costs $12.5 billion, then you probably should be talking to Ross and Co because their development numbers for Direct were way less than that.  So either the Direct team has grossly understated their development costs, or your statement, to use your words, is a "complete fallacy".  Perhaps my description of it was overly simplistic and optimistic, but I just cannot see how all of those saved flights only break even with the development cost of Jupiter.

Your next point about launch limitations due to budget constraints is valid.  That is a good point.  But I think you WAY ahead of the game with a handfull of launches, vs around 35 for the current ISS.
More realisitically, they would wait until they had all of the modules built and ready to go, then you launch a couple of "core" mudules in on year that are designed to function without the entire station completed (like the original core components of the ISS were), then get a shakedown crew up there to man it and get it checked out, then send the remaining modules up at a couple a year as budget allows.  You could still have some 150-200mt in orbit and operational right from the jump, which is have the size of the complete ISS, and the rest up and assembled in say conservatively the next 2 years.  And you still have the advantage of more hardware being assembled on the ground rather than in LEO.

We're able to launch 4-5 STS per year now, so the statement about only being able to launch 1 component per year on a Jupiter doesn't make any sense.
The only problem would be the number of Jupiter's needed for ongoing lunar missions, but likely you wouldn't put up a new ISS until you were ready to pear back other projects to focus on that.
And it would be another ISS, so there'd be a certain amount of international help assumed like the current ISS.

But regarless, my whole point was really to wind the clock back and compare the ISS path using what was available at that time in the STS and Proton, vs. if a HLV like Jupiter or Saturn was available at that time, and how radically different that assembly schedule would have looked.
STS -is- a HLV, that can only carry an EELV sized payload.  Not good efficiency or economy in that.  Had each of those HLV launches been able to cary an HLV sized payload, we would have put 3500mt in LEO rather than 700 (counting that several of the STS flights were carrying supplies and such, since the finished ISS I think is only around 400mt.  35 launches of STS and Proton at about 20mt each vs. 35 launches of Jupiter at about 100mt each)
You don't need 3500mt thrown into LEO obviously, but that's about what roughly 35 launches would have given you.  You'd have only needed around 7 launches.

That was all my point was...





Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/19/2009 06:50 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/19/2009 06:55 pm
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?

The NEWSHOUR piece was rescheduled so is airing for the first time tonight.

I've been told to expect the website version of the show to be available somewhere around Monday or so.

We have been given permission to reproduce the segment on our own website as long as we give it the proper attribution, although our web Guru is taking a long weekend so don't expect any updates 'till Monday anyway.

I don't know if any of the video guys here on NSF are planning to capture it, but if anyone does *I* can place a copy on the directlauncher.com website and link to it from the front page if they're willing to do so (anyone who is planning to record it, please PM me).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kch on 06/19/2009 06:56 pm
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?

Looks that way (and I think Ross said a while back that it was to be broadcast today, IIRC).  If you look at the right side of the NewsHour page, there are descriptions of what's on for today's broadcast, and this looks likely:

"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."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/19/2009 06:58 pm
One thing Ross, I think that under costs presentation there should have been a third pie chart with a crew version.

Overall very good, looking at some of the comments I thought it would have been a disaster, but not really.

Also, I think it would be a good idea for some people who have been working on the project and faced adversity to go talk to Mr Shannon.  In college I have had very bad professors/advisers, so I would go to another adviser/teacher who was not necessarily in the same program but who would listen and make recommendations to me and raise issues with others if needed.  So please go talk to him!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/19/2009 08:06 pm
Thanks for the update on the schedule Ross. I'll try and catch it, I'm pretty sure the only TV I get is public television (not even local channels!) so lucky for me!

One thing Ross, I think that under costs presentation there should have been a third pie chart with a crew version.

Yeah, this issue can really be spun as either a non apples-apples comparison, or it can be spun to show that Direct is more versatile. The shuttle HAS to have a crew for it's cargo, there is no choice. Ares I CAN'T have a cargo version for the ISS. Direct can be whatever is needed, and spinning that properly makes it look a lot better.

I hope that was clarified after the presentation (you had dinner with some "very important" people right?)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/19/2009 10:02 pm
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Andy USA on 06/19/2009 10:57 pm
Some completely pointless posts on here, some of which should really have gone in the reaction thread, but deleted it back to keep it on track.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/19/2009 10:59 pm
I think we just lost some posts?

I noticed the Space.com article refers to the older Direct 2.0 architecture (i.e. J-232) instead of the newer rockets. Someone needs to let them know.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 06/19/2009 11:24 pm
Ross, Chuck,

Check your email for an important message.  I suggest you act on it quickly and strike while the iron is hot and make sure these are the Team answers with some verifiable data and facts behind them if possible.  I didn't want to answer for your Team.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/19/2009 11:39 pm
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.


Given the above (from the Commssion reaction thread), quick re-post of something I posted whilst you guys were incommunicado. Relates to phase 3 / depots / single launch.

Your baseline for phase 3 has a single launch, re-fuel from depot, then TLI.

Instead use the EDS itself as a depot - probably in concert with a tug.

Perform a single launch of J-24x, rendezvous with tug & depot-EDS, discard the empty ascent JUS, dock to the full JUS/EDS, perform TLI.

The discarded JUS now docks with the tug and becomes the depot. The next flight doesn't launch until you have confirmation that sufficient fuel is onboard, and the crew don't have to be present during risky PT operations. The JUS from that flight becomes the next depot, and the cycle continues.

As I say, a tug is probably required because you want to keep the EDS as cheap & light as possible.

Note that phase 3 mission ops match phase 2 almost exactly - discard ascent JUS, dock to EDS, then TLI.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 06/19/2009 11:52 pm
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???
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 06/20/2009 12:06 am
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???

On my local PBS station (east coast) The News Hour replays at 11 pm, it probably does on other stations as well. Sorry, I don't have DVR or any other way to record it.

P.S. I havent had a chance to say so before, but I think you guys are doing a great job, both here and before the Augustine commission. My best wishes to the team.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 06/20/2009 12:09 am
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?

ET will be re-designed a bit, it won't be literally 100% the same. However, Shuttle's ET is actually having worse stresses and loads because of asymmetrically mounted Orbiter. Thus Jupiter's ET promises to be simpler.

Anyway, designing a tank for ELV so that it can take specified loads is not hard engineering problem nowadays.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/20/2009 12:22 am
The interview should be at 6 on the west coast, at least in the LA area. I can't wait to watch it!

Thanks for the response gospacex. I agree with your name!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/20/2009 12:31 am
 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/20/2009 12:32 am
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?


As you say, forces on Shuttle ET are off-centred. ET is designed around these stress paths.

Jupiter's core is based on the ET, but made more symmetrical because of the simpler load path, and beefed-up to handle the stresses from the engines in the new boat-tail.

DIRECT have also been very conservative with their mass estimates for these upgrades. This ensures NASA can build the new tank without having to agonise over saving a gramme at every possible opportunity. Once multiple flights have flown, it will become clear where mass can be shaved off and still leave safety margins.


Quote
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!

There are two issues here.

SRB's provide a very bumpy ride, and the thrust beam acts just like a spring or suspension, smoothing out those bumps - it can flex by several inches in doing this.

However, there could still be an issue with resonances between SRB & elements of the Shuttle/ET or Jupiter if they match frequencies. DIRECT are confident this won't be an issue.

Ares I has a problem because the vehicle suffers an alignment of frequencies towards the end of the burn, and doesn't have a thrust beam to absorb the impulses from the RSRM. NASA are still working through trades on how best to ameliorate this.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/20/2009 12:39 am
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.


And did you notice during John Shannon's piece, when asked why they chose Ares I + V, they did not say that Ares I provided better crew safety (was it Jeff Hanley who fielded that question?)

I may be mistaken, but I though that was actually the main rationale for choosing 1.5 launch, which then super-heavy lift to achieve the mission.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/20/2009 01:05 am
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...

In addition to gospacex's and MP99's replies to you another detail:

The NLS study explored this thoroughly... even to the point of listing the precise milling parameters to be entered into the machinery that fabricates the ETs to cause them to turn out Cores instead.

As the ETs have evolved a bit since then the exact settings in the NLS docs don't apply anymore but there's no doubt that the switchover can be done  and that the converted ET can handle the loads.

The NLS study... conducted by NASA itself to the point of a PDR review... said that the basic Direct concept would work.

It was only Griffin's administration that suddenly started claiming otherwise.

edit: typo
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 06/20/2009 01:34 am
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.

Yeah, I had to rewind to be sure I heard that right.  Beautiful!  And accurate, to an extent.  The mistake (IMHO) with the Ares program wasn't in the initial conceptualization; it was that they didn't cut it off when it became obvious that it had more problems than there was money/time to fix.  Yes, I know that the 1.5 launch architecture was Griffin's pet design from long before he was NASA Administrator.  Yes, the ESAS was cooked from the start.  However, the design wasn't completely horrible.  The sin lie in not considering other options when it became obvious that it wasn't working.  Hubris.

Now, with Griffin gone and the problems just getting worse, NASA management seems to be willing to state that Ares may not be the best way forward.  Nice!  Only a few years too late for a seamless transition to a better solution, but nice nonetheless.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 06/20/2009 01:47 am
Now I know how Ross can spend so much time on these fora, get the work done that he does for DIRECT, run a business and presumably have some kind of life outside of all of this:  He's YOUNG!  So, Ross, once you save NASA, what are you going to do for a follow-on?  It's not like you're retired and can rest on your laurels.  This is going to be a *hard* act to follow.  You're not going to know what to do with your new-found free time when this is all over.  :)

I just watched the NewsHour piece.  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.  It was a brilliant piece of work for DIRECT.  Lovely!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/20/2009 01:53 am
I thought it was great, albeit a bit short. I suppose they have time constraints. They also didn't really get into what problems Ares I and V are having, except with that one engineer. I think it's more concerning for the public to see the schedule slip so much, which is something I didn't think was emphasized enough. Going from ready in 2012 to ready in 2015+ probably 2016 for Ares I ALONE is something that worries me.

The previous poster was right, Ross is a lot younger than I thought. I'm happy he plugged the forum!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/20/2009 02:18 am
I'm actually 35 in a few months time.   Mind you, I keep getting carded in some bars, so I guess I must still look an awful lot younger! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ehb on 06/20/2009 03:18 am
Just watched the Newshour piece.  I thought it was very positive for Direct.  Augustine said - paraphrasing "If Einstein came in to my office during WWII and said he could split the atom and end the war, would I kick him out?" - Implying that all ideas must be seriously looked at.  I was a bit concerned the "anonymous" direct engineer wasn't as anonymous as he should have been. (Unless they used a body double).

Congratulations to the Direct Team for the excellent work to get this far!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ehb on 06/20/2009 03:26 am
FYI - The mp3 audio for the newshour segment is available online

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/)
Check the right column under "Moon and Beyond"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/20/2009 04:31 am
Did anyone record it?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/20/2009 04:36 am
Did anyone record it?

Ross.

I have it on my DVR, and have the ability to transfer it to DVD but from there, I'm at a dead end.  If I can help though I would be happy to do so - just let me know!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 06/20/2009 04:41 am
Ross, nice to put a face a voice to one of Direct's spokespeople.  Cheers to Steve, Chuck and all the rest.

The PBS segment aired tonight here in Phoenix.  Short, but hinted that Ares was in trouble, and the emphasis in the segment on Direct was encouraging.

The 3 minute thread is doing a great job creating material advocating Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/20/2009 04:44 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/20/2009 04:52 am
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.

OK - I will see what I can do now quick.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/20/2009 07:30 am
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/20/2009 08:04 am
Ross managed to clearly articulate the "one rocket, between the sizes of Ares I and Ares V, launched twice" argument and get it aired on national TV.  Good job!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/20/2009 10:02 am
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!


Well I'm impressed with that - really clearly summarises the debate about Ares, where Jupiter might fit in, and the role of the commission. Coming in cold, someone could get a good basic understanding.

A real coup, and all the better for setting DIRECT properly in context. Will be interesting to see if traffic increases to directlauncher.com or these threads.



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.

Journalistically, consider the audience. Were they already aware of the issues with Ares and that other plans exist? This piece gets that across really clearly. Other options would just have confused things.

Anyway, EELV etc is a whole 'nother piece really - NASA abandons operating rockets completely.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/20/2009 11:06 am
Direct website is down.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pedantic Twit on 06/20/2009 11:10 am
Direct website is down.

It's just you. (http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://www.directlauncher.com/) :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/20/2009 12:45 pm
Direct website is down.
It's just you. (http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://www.directlauncher.com/) :)

I like the concept :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/20/2009 12:48 pm
I like the concept :)

Have a look at this one (http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/downforeveryoneorjustme.com), those guys have a sense of humour. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: daver on 06/20/2009 12:51 pm
Augustine's said "money is the driver", and "it boils down to what can we afford".

With those two statements, I'd say Ares won't make the cut.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/20/2009 01:42 pm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/   PBS Newhour website now has MP3 link to "Tom Bearden Examines the Future Of NASA's Manned Spaceflight(Direct 3)" report.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/20/2009 01:58 pm
OK, the Direct site must be blocked from work.  Last I checked it (from home this afternoon), you still had the Direct 2.0 FAQ up.  You should probably prominenly label that as 2.0, so people don't start getting confused. 

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:

Direct 3.0 FAQ

Q: What is Direct?
A: See link. (link to the “what is direct” page)

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.

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.

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.

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: 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 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 to the task.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/20/2009 03:17 pm
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:


Tossed, together?! I'm impressed.

I think the answer to Q3 is close, but not quite right.


I'd also suggest "One uses 6x RL 10B-2 engine ... The other uses 6x RL 10A-4-2". Note the 10A engine name (from the BB card). May be easier to just use "10B" & "10A" and just link to the BB cards for details.

Maybe also worth mentioning that the 10B-2 is more efficient, but the 10A-4-2 doesn't need to extend it's nozzle to work safely.


It would also be good to see a comment that SSME, RL-10 & 4-seg have great reliability records (John Shannon said over 1 million seconds burn experience with SSME).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/20/2009 03:23 pm
Very Nice!!

Respectfully, may I suggest....

Q: Is Direct safe?

A: Spaceflight will never be 100% safe, there will always be risks involved just as there are when with driving your car. 

That being said, Direct is less dangerous than many alternatives.  The Jupiter rocket uses the existing solid rocket boosters and main engines now used on the Shuttle, which NASA has 30 years of space flight experience with. In many cases, Direct is still able to reach a safe orbit even in the event of a main 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.




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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/20/2009 03:24 pm

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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/20/2009 03:29 pm

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).

You might want to review Shannon's comments during the presentation of the (Not Shuttle C) N-S-C - he said something about the advantage of using the same base vehicle for both cargo and crew or something like that - if memory serves me correct - going to rewatch that today or tomorrow...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/20/2009 04:01 pm
I would also add an answer to the "Who Are You Guys?" question in the FAQ. I think there was a nice breakdown posted in one of the threads on here. This would be a good spot to include it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 06/20/2009 04:20 pm
Not sure about the term 'nasty surprises'- maybe 'unknowns' would sound less colloquial.

Also need to mention the issue of why, if it's such a good idea, NASA haven't picked it themselves. Something like this:

Q: Was Jupiter, or 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.

Q: Why haven't NASA changed from Ares to Jupiter?
A: Ares-I was designed to offer the highest possible crew safety, with Ares-V giving the greatest possible lift capacity. These are laudible ambitions and, had technical and budgetary issues not interfered, would have allowed a strong lunar program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Tez on 06/20/2009 04:22 pm
I just had a mental image of a T-34 tank being delivered to the ISS. :D
That really underlines the lift capabilities of Jupiter in a way that mere tonnage figures cannot convey.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/20/2009 04:39 pm
It doesn't really underline anything as it's not how it works.

Yes, Jupiter the rocket may deliver things to an parking/departure (like TLI) orbit (with limited caps)

The last mile, approach, docking/berthing to ISS (or any other station) is a whole new spacecraft with its own considerable costs and mass.  Equally, the higher the payload (final) mass the more complex the 'last mile' machinery is going to be (controling the moments, and keeping ISS safe from collision of a multiton mass)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Tez on 06/20/2009 05:42 pm
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. )
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 06/20/2009 06:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/20/2009 07:03 pm
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"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/20/2009 07:04 pm
Thank-you for doing that!   You're the first to post a video file of the piece!   My GF was very happy to see it at last!

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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kch on 06/20/2009 07:08 pm
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"


Or maybe "Tanks for the lift!"  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/20/2009 07:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/20/2009 07:21 pm
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. )

Sure, have fun.  I just hope this levity doesn't carry over to the presenters to NASA, Augustine commission.  They need as little of that as they can get already.  (personally, I think Direct overdid on levity a day past)

There is a tug in the scheme.  Design and present the tug.

[edit]Consider this seriously for Direct's sake.  Sometimes it all looks like a bunch of folks tossing idle ideas over the fire over here which is fine too.  (no offence meant!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 06/20/2009 07:23 pm
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."

The SSPDM is nice, but it doesn't have the same impact as a tank.  Are there any American-made tanks that (combined with the Orion) will max-out the J-130?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/20/2009 08:28 pm
Please don't say you can just throw a bunch of raw ore and crap (abrahms tank?)  with Jupiter into an Earth orbit.   There is a goal and a means between the parking orbit and the final destination (ISS?)  How do you do that?  Thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 06/20/2009 10:24 pm
All right.  It just so happens that I know a few 3d graphics artists. :)  Two posters and the source render are attached.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/20/2009 10:34 pm
Quote
tank!

It was a dumb joke when I first made it ;)

Tanks.

A test depot with a test tug.

One that cheaply uses currently flying tech and vehicles as preparation for cryo depot R&D.

A prototype storable fuel depot using ISS propellants... and two test tugs.

Image: (too complex for use! but might help get tank-minded on right track? oversimplifies a lot.)

A panoramic ISS shot. Apparent  distance of approx 150 meters from the station with Earth in background.

In foreground is the test depot. A generic-looking space probe labeled "Mercury Twilight Lander" is being jockeyed by a test tug into position for refueling while an ATV labeled "Propellant" approaches the depot. Meanwhile the other test tug is reboosting ISS.

Labels on the sides of the depot tanks:

FUEL: CAPACITY 15 TONS

and

OXIDIZER: CAPACITY 15 TONS.

The tug at the depot has a clearly visible nameplate:
ROSCOSMOS BRAND GENERIC TUG: mass 3.2 tons.
(Obviously a Progress cut down and beefed up as a tug)

In the middle distance a block I Orion is overseeing things as a clearly marked J-130 falls away.

We don't say that the Orion rode up with the fuel so don't worry :)

Text:

"Don't worry about ISS... Direct can loft a permanent propellant depot that will enable all partners to contribute to reboosting the station at will... and it will enable them to launch more science missions than ever before."

"And Direct can lift the depot and the tugs needed to do this in one launch."   

Much too busy. But will you tank-brains please get back with the program? :)

Edit: added more nudity
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/20/2009 10:37 pm
All right.  It just so happens that I know a few 3d graphics artists. :)  Two posters and the source render are attached.

Now that's hilarious.  "We're DIRECT. Don't mess with us!"

Are those to scale?  The tank seems a little small.  Aren't they more than 5m (16ft) long?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/20/2009 10:43 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/20/2009 10:44 pm
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

Thanks Danny, shadow puppet engineering continues to proliferate.  Sometimes hard to tell the facts from the fantasy without a scorecard.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/20/2009 11:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/20/2009 11:40 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/20/2009 11:47 pm
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?


And it will STILL be the component on which the entire Jupiter system will be waiting...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/21/2009 12:14 am
In hindsight, saying that Direct can launch tanks or sperm whales or any other large non-spaceworthy objects probably just gives ammunition to the "Too big of ISS" argument.  No more posting after midnight for me.

All right.  It just so happens that I know a few 3d graphics artists. :)  Two posters and the source render are attached.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/21/2009 01:16 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 06/21/2009 01:32 am
Well, this is actually informative and interesting, and taken on board...

Thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/21/2009 04:09 am
I started and I couldn't stop... All additions bolded. Replaced text is struck through.

It's gone 5:00 AM and I should probably stop now...


I'm afraid this is based on an earlier version of the document, so some merging will be required if you want to encompass any of this stuff.

cheers, Martin


Quote
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 first number digit 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 digit is the number of engines on the first stage.  For Direct 3.0 these are all SSME engines SSME's- the same engine that is on the Space Shuttle.

The third number digit 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 for to the 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 of the Direct Jupiter 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 circumvent this problem these problems, the design team chose to switch to the SSME which power powers 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

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 06/21/2009 12:07 pm
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. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/21/2009 03:35 pm
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 is very good.  Put it in a word document and Direct Team can put a link to it and away it goes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/21/2009 03:38 pm
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 first number digit 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 digit is the number of engines on the first stage.  For Direct 3.0 these are all SSME engines SSME's- the same engine that is on the Space Shuttle.

The third number digit 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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/21/2009 03:42 pm
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 first number digit 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 digit is the number of engines on the first stage.  For Direct 3.0 these are all SSME engines SSME's- the same engine that is on the Space Shuttle.

The third number digit 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.

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.


The following "Q:" already says:-

Quote
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.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/21/2009 03:51 pm
This is what I see as to some of the work awaiting the Direct team.

1.  Frequently Asked Questions.
     Amount of work needed: low.  Take some what is already out.  Can allways  update.  Priority:  medium.  Version 1 could be up within 1 day and update it within 1 week when have other questions and answers that you want to put into it.

2.  Supplemental answers to questions:
    Amount of work needed:  Meduim.   Most work already down.  Higher priority than FAQ.

3.  Who is Direct Slide/breakdown:
     Amount of work needed: meduim.  Some work already done.  High priority.  Have to be careful to protect people's id.

4.  Direct 3 minute presentation.
     Amount of work needed:  Medium to high.
     Can take some of the simpler ideas and maybe implement, while taking time to work on some of the high value, but more time needed ones.  Meduim priority.

5.   Animation of Direct going to moon--Phase 2
      Amount of work needed: Higher
      See Direct going to ISS and then moon.  Meduim priority--can be used by news organizations, etc.  Since commission is going across country--if ready for news groups in that area, good marketing.  Direct has to sell the idea to Commission and the American people. Begin mentioned on PBS and Popular mechanics has helped, but need to reach a larger audiance and the general public.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 06/21/2009 04:52 pm
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. :)

With appreciation to Ross, Chuck and others for mining their previous commentary, let me try StuffOfInterest's request.

What is the SSME?

The SSME is the Space Shuttle Main Engine.  This engine has been flying for thirty years.  The engine is ready for test flights of the Jupiter right now.  The SSME enables the Jupiter to use the RL-10 engine for the upper stage. That means that we have the potential to go all the way to the moon with 'NO' new engine development.

Since the Ares program was started in 2005, the Ares V has switched engines several times (RS68 is the ablative engine and RS68r is the regenerative engine, where LH2 circulates through the skirt before being burned, just as the SSME does):

Timeframe              Ares         Jupiter
Post ESAS              SSME       SSME
Direct 1.0                 RS68        RS68r
Direct 2.0                 RS68        RS68
Direct 3.0                 RS68r       SSME

The Direct team has adjusted its choice as data has become available.

Recently, base heating analyses showed that the RS68 ablative options were not viable for Ares V and , and at this point DIRECT returned to SSME.  See additional information in the Base Heating Problem question.

With regard to cost, if you put the SSME into "mass production", say at least 12 per year, you can get that per-unit price down.   The cost for totally standard SSME Block-IIA units, as flown on Shuttle, could drop to more like $40m per unit in the production numbers we need for the early Jupiter program (averaging 16/yr thru ~2017).

By the time the Jupiter Program ramps up (we're aiming to fly twelve Jupiter 24x's per year = 48 SSME's per year), we would like to get a cheaper, expendable variant developed to drop that cost to more like $30m per unit by 2020.

Ares-V now has to use a Regeneratively Cooled Nozzle to survive the Base Heating Environment.   That limits the choices to either go to SSME like Direct 3.0 has, or to choose to re-develop the RS-68 into a Regen system.   The version they would need would be the RS-68 Regen (Human Rated, 108% Thrust, Regen Nozzle) and it is expected to cost around $25m each.

At this level, the cost differences per engine are negligible compared to verall costs per launch.


What is the Base Heating Problem?


Base Heating is heating of components at the base of a rocket due to engine exhaust.  Also, some engines use gas generation to power the turbopumps, which burn gaseous fuel and oxidizer, and the exhaust is also dumped into the base area.  If the heat becomes too great, components can fail.

On the Delta IV (DIV), which uses the RS68, you get airflow around each Core -- even between the Cores on the Heavy.   And the engine nozzles are never more than about 3ft away from the airflow, so the that doesn't allow much space for heat to build-up in a low-pressure area below the stage.

The 8.4m diameter of the Jupiter (or 11m in the case of the new Ares-V)  punches a much bigger hole through the air.   This causes two problems.   First it creates an area of very low pressure all around the engines and the recirculating gasses caused by Plume induced Flow Separation (PIFS) are "attracted" into that area because of that.   Second, the larger diameter means that less air flows down around the engines to 'push' the collecting hot gasses away from that area, so the heat simply builds and builds in that region.

The Base Heating problem was the reason Ares V moved to the RS68 regen in 2009.  Since Ares V abandoned the RS68 due to Base Heating problems, the Direct Team followed suit, returning to the SSME, which was the original choice made by ESAS.

A Regen RS-68 cannot be made operational before 2016 at the very earliest.   That would then determine the earliest possible IOC date if you go down the RS-68 path.   But SSME is ready to start test flights right now.   From a schedule perspective, there has been no question for Direct 3.0 about using the SSME.


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 06/21/2009 06:05 pm

Timeframe              Ares         Jupiter
Post ESAS              SSME       SSME
Direct 1.0                 RS68        RS68r
Direct 2.0                 RS68        RS68
Direct 3.0                 RS68r       SSME

A quick note: that table was drawn up by me, from memory, in a post several months ago. You might want to check it for accuracy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/21/2009 06:30 pm
This is what I see as to some of the work awaiting the Direct team.

6. List of perceived disadvantages to DIRECT and how to explain them honestly but favourably.  I'm thinking off-hand of:

a) Popcorn in space
b) Extra manoeuvres compared to Ares
c) Too big (meaning expensive) for low earth orbit
d) Upper stage mass fraction ratio
e) Politically impossible
f) Will take forever to make -- it is rocket science, after all
g) You can't make a rocket as cheaply as claimed by DIRECT

I guess this is more for the FAQ than directed at HIP2BSQRE.

Modify:

h) Should we trust the calculations and cost estimates of a bunch of bitter, anonymous, disgruntled employees?
i) Doesn't Ares I use LC-37? Can DIRECT launch more than two vehicles from the two LC-39 pads in a reasonable amount of time?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/21/2009 06:44 pm
. . . 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.
People can use my wikipedia.org sandbox space to hash this out if they wish:

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/21/2009 08:43 pm
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. :)

I'd probably put this between:-

Q: What about the H at the end?
        and
Q: Why are there so many different technical data summaries?



Quote
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.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/22/2009 12:11 am
. . . 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.
People can use my wikipedia.org sandbox space to hash this out if they wish:

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 06/22/2009 12:49 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/22/2009 12:56 am
. . . 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.
People can use my wikipedia.org sandbox space to hash this out if they wish:

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 am also attaching a Word document.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 06/22/2009 04:15 am
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.

Ares I project management don't appear to understand this concept. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/22/2009 06:52 am
Why does the Direct plan consider engine-out capability for the RL-10 based EDS?  If the lander also uses RL-10 engines, you'd have to be crazy to continue the mission after losing an identical engine on the EDS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rosbif73 on 06/22/2009 07:12 am
Quote
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.

At first reading I wondered quite what was unfortunate about this. How about adding 'Unfortunately (from a nomenclature point of view) ...'

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/22/2009 07:22 am
Quote
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.

At first reading I wondered quite what was unfortunate about this. How about adding 'Unfortunately (from a nomenclature point of view) ...'

Yeah, on re-reading I wished I'd phrased it differently, too.

How about "Confusingly, both...".

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rosbif73 on 06/22/2009 07:37 am
How about rewording it completely:
Confusingly, "J-246" could therefore refer to either 6xRL10a or 6xRL10b variants.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/22/2009 07:51 am
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.

How about:-

Quote
Two such vehicles can fly NASA's planned Lunar missions, but with greater safety margins & redundency and with performance to spare.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/22/2009 07:52 am
How about rewording it completely:
Confusingly, "J-246" could therefore refer to either 6xRL10a or 6xRL10b variants.


Yes, I like.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/22/2009 07:53 am
As a formatting option, how about:-

Quote
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.



Quote
J-24x is able to carry a payload into LEO which is purely fuel, when it is also known as EDS.



Quote
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, so no Altair/EDS docking is required for this.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/22/2009 09:53 am
--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.

Thanks for your reply. Checkout the launch video of Ares-I at nasa.gov (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/aresl/index.html). This clearly shows the PLF panels around the service module being jettisoned during launch. You are right there will be some plume impingement from the downward thrusters onto the PLF. However, as this configuration is only used for a short while, the impingement should not be a problem, but it does need to be investigated. Also, as the Altair engine only fires for a short time at apogee, I would expect the heating to be minimal. Nevertheless, this would also need to be investigated.

Quote
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?

As the PLF mass is 7.2 t, having to carry the PLF during TLI is a significant mass penalty. This reduces usable TLI mass from 79.1 t to 71.9 t which I believe is just above NASA's requirement. Note that as Altair would not have to carry Orion, it should be reduced in mass.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/22/2009 10:41 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rosbif73 on 06/22/2009 11:38 am
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.

I don't see any adjectives, only an adverb ;) 

You're probably right that the whole sentence is superfluous anyway, If we do keep it, to pre-empt unstated questions, perhaps it could be reworked as:

The six-engine options of either RL10 variant would be referred to as "J-246", though this potential ambiguity will of course disappear once the final choice of engine is made.

But why are we sitting here picking nits when Martin has written an excellent FAQ that should be posted ASAP?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mrbliss on 06/22/2009 04:30 pm
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?

I know this is a highly unlikely scenario, and a lot of work goes into making sure it doesn't happen on STS.  But it's definitely a LOC event for Shuttle.  If it's *not* necessarily a LOC event for DIRECT, that is a huge boost in terms of safety (or at least, a huge boost to perceived safety).

It's also (AFAIK) the last major "designed-in" catastrophic failure mode.

Apologies if this has been previously asked/answered.

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 06/22/2009 05:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/22/2009 08:38 pm
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.

Just to add to that, SRB vectoring would also be included in that. If the vehicle DID manage to clear the pad, then destruct timing would be critical to ensure it had sufficient height to be far enough out to sea. Both scenarios are VERY unlikely, but either or could happen. Another advantage of having Orion & LAS on TOP of the vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/22/2009 08:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/22/2009 09:02 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/22/2009 09:10 pm
I agree with you completely.   If you can point me at the closest time machine, I'll go back and fix it too.

All I can do now is try to make sure nobody continues with this tack and that we do build those bridges.   After all, who is going to build Jupiter if not NASA?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/22/2009 09:14 pm
If you can point me at the closest time machine ...


Hmm, DIRECT 4.0?  ;D

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/22/2009 09:16 pm
snip

What do you want?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/22/2009 09:17 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/22/2009 09:28 pm
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?

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/22/2009 09:44 pm
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 can't speak for anyone else, but in my criticism of the draft rebuttal, I repeatedly stressed that I was much more concerned with the DIRECT team's reluctant acceptance of the criticism, suggesting a chronic pattern of tone-deaf political instincts:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17077.msg408741#msg408741

Quote
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.

Then two posts and 15 minutes later, Ross writes:

Quote
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! :)

I want to make sure you guys in the front office learn your lesson and don't screw it up for all the engineers who are working nights and weekends on this, for all of us supporters who want DIRECT to succeed, and for yourselves.

You have a problem.  This isn't the first time it's happened.  You need to get over it.  Okay?

BTW, Ross, your work on the PBS piece was EXCELLENT.  Very well done!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/22/2009 09:47 pm
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?


Probably not but people do funny irrational things when they are publicly prodded and goaded.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/22/2009 09:59 pm

BTW, Ross, your work on the PBS piece was EXCELLENT.  Very well done!

Is that PBS piece on line anywhere?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/22/2009 10:00 pm

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.

So you are officially standing behind EELV for CLV to ISS (or COTS)??
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/22/2009 10:00 pm

BTW, Ross, your work on the PBS piece was EXCELLENT.  Very well done!

Is that PBS piece on line anywhere?

NSF video section.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/22/2009 10:10 pm
I had a quick legitimate question and then a really stupid idea.

1)  In layman's terms, what modifications need to be done to the STS ET to make the Jupiter core?  Specifically, are there internal load structures that support the asymetric loading of the shuttle that will be removed?  Or just the external mounts?

2)  The reason I ask is a really stupid idea for a possible growth option.
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.

If the ET redesign for Jupiter could no longer handle those loads, then it's a moot point.  Obviously you don't want to redesign those back in once they've been taken out.  Just wondering if internally, the core could still handle loads from those side mount points.

Just wondering if that could down the road be a growth option for Jupiter to then add another 20 or 30 mt or whatever of lift capacity, for potentially larger lunar payloads or Mars payloads.

The reason I mention it being Kerolox rather than SRB is then the existing crawler -should- be able to carry it, as it would be fueled on the launchpad.

Stupid idea I'm sure...just wondering if someone could indulge me for a moment.  ;)

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/22/2009 10:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/22/2009 10:51 pm
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.

Now let's make sure I've got this straight:

Not only did you send the wrong presentation script to the committee... but your speaker ad-libbed further fuel for the fire?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 06/22/2009 11:38 pm
Hmmm maybe we need a team in front of the front-of-house team...
[/only half joking]
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 06/22/2009 11:53 pm

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.

I believe what has to happen right now is damage control, the sooner, the better.  Dan Deger offered to assist with contacts to both John Shannon and Wayne Hale.  I hope the DIRECT Team is taking advantage of that.  Plus John Shannon offered the olive branch at the hearing immediately following the DIRECT presentation. 

I don't think it could be more clear than that......carpe diem!

(edited typo on 6-23)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/23/2009 12:16 am
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 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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/23/2009 12:24 am
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?

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/23/2009 02:16 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/23/2009 02:20 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/23/2009 02:31 am
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?


My guess would be that they would be straining at a gnat and swallowing an elephant if they said that. I think that the people in ULA who have been designing these things for decades have enough presence to say to a NASA that doesn't have any active upper stage designers that they would not be correct making such a statement.

But that's just my opinion...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/23/2009 03:00 am
How can we help?
Is the FAQ useful?

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/23/2009 03:01 am
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.

I agree. We can sit here for the next 10 years and analyze every blink of an eye during that speech, but that will get you guys no where.

What I am wondering, there are more public meetings listed on the Augustine site. I wonder what will be presented at those. I wonder if it would be possible to get one of the NASA engineers to appear before the panel. That would be something now would it!  :)

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veedriver22 on 06/23/2009 03:04 am
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.
A little professional preparation could be a good thing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/23/2009 03:51 am
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.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/23/2009 04:30 am
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.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 06/23/2009 04:36 am
...
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.

If ULA say the JUS is reasonable, even conservative, that's good enough for me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/23/2009 04:53 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ppb on 06/23/2009 06:21 am
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.
Ross—
Wow—I didn’t realize I was opening a can of worms.  I’m sorry to hear the community is divided with “antagonists” on both sides.  I haven’t been reading the ESAS rebuttal thread where most of this has played out.  I’m still not exactly sure what exactly the two sides are, but if it’s strictly the mention of the J-130 Orion/Altair CLV, then I’m in complete agreement that this argument (if that’s the crux of the matter) is way premature.  Let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees.

The followup posts seemed to meander into Steve’s Augustine hearing presentation, which I’m not sure is related, unless in the general sense of some internal team disagreements.

I absolutely agree the time is now to line up behind the simplest (most DIRECT) scheme you can conjure, and not give any ammunition to the opposition.  My only intent in my idea was to have a single LEO docking, get rid the the TLI “ride backwards” ,and to a lesser extent, the formation flying of two guided vehicles, which like you said, is probably perfectly safe.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/23/2009 11:02 am
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.

I'm not throwing anybody under the bus. Steve did a fine job up there, standing in front of a Presidential Panel with TV cameras broadcasting out worldwide staring at him. Remember, we are engineers who believe in a cause, not polished public speakers.

There was too much theoroizing was going on endlessly and it was necessary to do rumor control before we could put it to bed here on NSF. Truth is sometimes a bitter tonic but it stops the rumors cold.

It's history. Now we move forward. No more discussion of history please.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/23/2009 12:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/23/2009 12:19 pm
I suspect that would require retiring ISS next week, rather than 2016 or 2020.

How about a joint ESA-NASA effort?

I don't have the exact numbers but I think ESA's budget is about 1/10 of NASA.  Like NASA, this has to go to many different programs as well as its day-to-day operations.  ESA wouldn't be able to do much to reduce the cost to NASA's budget of such an effort.

I suppose, if ISS and Return-to-the-Moon were dropped by all partners, who then diverted their entire spaceflight budgets to a 'Mars or Nothing' objective, a Mars flyby could be on the cards by 2020 but I couldn't see Congress funding such an ambitious goal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/23/2009 12:26 pm
Why does it take so long? Is it possible to go to Mars with DIRECT approach already in 2019?

No
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/23/2009 12:45 pm
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


Well, most importantly, the Upper Stage is carried through to orbit, and another Kg of mass here reduces the payload to orbit by the same amount.

Also, as EDS, this is dead weight which has to be pushed through TLI.

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.

Since NASA are carrying out the analyses for the commission, if they say "needs more mass to be Human Rated", then Jupiter is once again at risk of "can't close the mission" / "breaks the laws of physics".


Two work-arounds for this:-

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.

2) Don't Human Rate the J-246 at all. Use J-130 as the crew vehicle only. Margins are tight for this, and may push Jupiter down the 5-seg route to close with comfort.

Note that Ross reports he's getting a lot of challenges re J-130 as the CLV. I think (2) may be the reason for this, ie eliminate both J-246 and J-130 as viable CLV's, and Jupiter / DIRECT is dead.


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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/23/2009 01:59 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/23/2009 02:04 pm
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.

Two word - FUNDING & COMMITMENT
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/23/2009 02:30 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dcbecker on 06/23/2009 02:38 pm
An off the wall question:

Shannon said avionics and software will eat your lunch. I'll buy that.
You've got engineers working rocket design in the back rooms. What prevents back room software design from being done? Even if it is considered throwaway when the real vehicle is being done, assuming it is, it is often useful to have something to work from as a prototype. I suspect there are a lot of space geeks with software engineering background that would love to play with this stuff, myself included.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/23/2009 02:43 pm
Why not to combine the forces and put Man on the Mars by the 2010s?

Because it would wipe out all other operations and programs.  That means no Hubble, Spitzer, MERs, LRO, Herchel, Plank, Venus Express, MRO, Cassini, New Horizons, Dawn, Messenger and innumerable others.  In HSF terms it would also mean no ISS and a total stand-down until the first hardware tests begins.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 06/23/2009 03:30 pm
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.

Very good!  Thanks for the explanation.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/23/2009 04:07 pm
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

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.

In a recent conversation via email with Bernard Kutter, the Manager of the Atlas Advanced Systems group, he said to me:
Quote
You all are certainly welcome to reference Centaur’s 0.905 mass fraction and the fact that mass fraction should increase as stages get larger.

In reference to his statement about the mass fraction getting better as the stage gets bigger, remember that the JUS is built from material that is both stronger and lighter than what the Centaur is built from. Plus, the tank mass is really quite small, so increasing the tank size does not drive the stage mass up linearly.

Centaur does this and has been doing it for 40 years. NASA can't even come close yet. And that's not a slam on the NASA designers - not at all. It is simply unrealistic to expect that, without any contractor help (because NASA wanted it that way) the inexperienced NASA designers would be able to duplicate in a few months what LM developed over many years, actually decades of effort.

So to simply answer the question: NASA is, at this time, incapable of duplicating the Centaur efficiencies and the stage mass fraction. But the Jupiter Upper Stage is, in essence, a big Centaur. It is designed around the Centaur design parameters and employs Centaur proprietary design elements. It is unrealistic to expect that NASA could match it. They can't.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 06/23/2009 04:07 pm
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'm NOT a structural engineer, but as I understand it, a bigger tank needs thicker walls to contain the same pressure. Shape has a big effect, variation away from a sphere requires more strength.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_vessel
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Hermit on 06/23/2009 04:29 pm
Is there a video of the Augustine Commission, even if in segments (i.e. the DIRECT talk)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Aexalon on 06/23/2009 04:41 pm
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)

Don't forget the budgets of the individual space agencies of e.g.
* France (CNES, ~1.7G€ - 0.72G€ ESA contib = ~0.98G€)
* Germany (DLR, ~1.3G€ - 0.65G€ ESA contrib = ~0.65G€)
* Italy (ISA, ~1G€ - 0.37G€ ESA contrib = ~0.63G€)
Which brings the total budget of European Space Agencies to a somewhat more impressive ~5.86G€ or ~8.2G$, about half NASA's.

Then again, one might then want to start including DoD Space budgets on the US side (20-25G$), at which point Europe starts looking pretty insignificant again.

Still, I'd like to conclude that partnering with us Europeans should not be written off merely on a basis of unequal size of possible commitments; The differences are not that large.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/23/2009 05:39 pm
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?


OK, the quick version...

DIRECT has a single Upper Stage design, which is designed to do three things:-

1) EDS makes it safely to orbit.

2) Crew makes it safely to orbit. This JUS is then discarded.

3) EDS then performs TLI.


Human Rating is required for (2) and (3), but all the stresses are encountered in (1) and (2).

Split the roles. Design the EDS to make it to orbit OK, then be crew-safe for TLI. If the EDS fails during ascent, it's not the end of the world.

Design a "battleship" crewed JUS which is crew-safe during the ascent.

You can't stop NASA from changing your JUS PMF values.

But you should be able to ask / demand that if they're going to do that, they do it in the least damaging manner, and calculate separate PMF values for optimised CLV JUS & EDS JUS. You'll just have to accept the hit in extra development costs.

For now, this is just about getting DIRECT accepted. There's nothing wrong with saying "we disagree with NASA, but DIRECT is still viable even with NASA's assumptions".

Maybe later it will turn out that both roles can be safely achieved with a single US design, and everyone will be happy.



Now, the longer version...

Start with the assumption that NASA won't give Human certification to a JUS which is so light.

Also assume that this is only because of stresses during launch, ie over 3g during first stage burn, TO from the SRB's, large aero forces. Watch a video of Shuttle astronauts during launch - a bit scary.

Third assumption - TLI should be a relatively gentle affair by comparison, topping out at less than 0.75G with 6x RL-10's.


OK, here's the point. Fly the EDS exactly as per the current design. Maybe NASA says it has a 1-in-whatever chance of failing during launch, so accept that risk. Yes, it's a LOM, and a very public failure, but it's just fuel. Use the same argument that says fuel is cheap, and beyond a certain point it's not worth improving the LOM on a fuel-only mission. A version of the "depot" / fuel tanker argument.

What you do need to do is make sure the EDS has enough strength to be Human Rated for the docking and TLI phases. You'd also need to be certain that it has survived the ascent and is still in a safe condition before sending up crew & Altair - dunno how you'd do that, but I'm not a rocket scientist.


One big feature of DIRECT is that the EDS launch is the critical limiting factor for through-TLI mass. There's lots of spare launch capacity / margin on the crewed flight.

Use some of that capacity to fly a "battleship", "crew safe" version of JUS in the CLV role.

The easy option is to just make a super-strong version of the existing JUS design, ie still oversized tanks, but much stronger. Drop the stage PMF from ~0.94 to 0.92 (dry mass up from 11.25mT to 15.2mT) and the CLV can still make it into orbit with decent margin to spare. Note that the only changes required to the CLV BB card are to increase dry & burnout mass by 4mT, and reduce the "100%" payload figure by 4mT (91.1mT down to 87.1mT). That's an 8.2% margin for an 80.0mT CLV launch.


Alternatively, crew launch actually needs less than 80mT of fuel, so create a "battleship" 80mT-capacity JUS. Even assuming the dry mass stays the same as EDS, the BB card will be unaffected, and that would be a stage PMF of below 0.88. That's still over 10% margin on the CLV launch, and a battleship JUS.

A sensible middle ground? Maybe a 0.9 PMF CLV JUS with RL-10a's, so also eliminating the need to extend nozzles during crewed ascent and a longer CLV interstage to equalise vehicle heights. (But leave EDS as RL-10b's to maximise Lunar performance - you're OK once the nozzles have extended).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 06/23/2009 05:47 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/23/2009 06:00 pm
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.


Chuck,

NASA don't seem to be saying these stages are impossible, they seem to be saying that making a Human Rated version will increase the mass so much as to invalidate the whole architecture.

My highlighting:-

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.



This is the point of my post, above.

Specify a 1.4 FOS version of the JUS for CLV use.

If the EDS makes it into orbit, the existing design will have 1.4 FOS for the TLI role.

You don't need 1.4 FOS for the EDS during ascent.

cheers, Martin

Edit FS->FOS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/23/2009 06:05 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 06/23/2009 06:26 pm
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! ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/23/2009 06:33 pm
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! ;)


The Centaur people don't seem to have any problem with a human rated Centaur. No mass increase required.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/23/2009 06:58 pm
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.

Ross,
I understand, I was saying something "like" a Zenit, in that it's a functioning kerolox booster, with at least some future designs as a flyback booster.  We'd make something that's wholly US, with probably RD-180US engines or some other US kerolox engines.

Yea, I know it'd be expensive, and not something even entertained by Direct officially, and nothing that would even be doable for many years.
But someday, when we are a decade into the new architecture or so, when some people start to think of what might some day replace Jupiter, they might start thinking if the next thing might be a little more efficient.
So perhaps, somewhere on the back burner, a flyback (or non flyback) kerolox booster is developed to be used as a stand alone light lifter like Zenit, or a booster that could be attached to a new core. 
Obviously if we could start from scratch, Direct as it is wouldn't be the optimum.  I've asked around here and people smarter than me have said as much.  But possibly the next system could be more towards that than this SDLV will be.
Myself, I think something like an Energia system would be a good evolution. A stand alone core (Energia is hyrdolox, but ours could be kerolox) that by itself could launch some reusable crew vehicale of some type in the 25-30mt range.  Maybe the next gen Orion, or maybe something like Dreamchaser.  Then you can strap on these kerolox flyback boosters as the mission requires in two's.  2, 4, or 6 (or whatever).

Ok, so fast forward 10-20 years, and a contractor is working on a new kerolox flyback booster that can fly stand alone.  This new booster could serve on a future NASA LV that will replace the Jupiters at some point.
So, they are wondering how and if this will work.
Would the Jupiter core still retain the ability to side mount a booster as the ET does with the Shuttle structurally?  Or would those have been removed entirely when the ET is redesigned for Jupiter?
If it still can mount a side booster, then could this new imaginary kerolox booster be mounted on it, to give JUpiter an upgrade in lift capacity?  Maybe about then NASA is looking at sending a mission to Mars, and being able to lift and extra 30mt or whatever this new booster could add would be desireable. 
That's all my stupid question was about.  Purely hypothetical, and non-applicable to Direct's first several phases.  :)
And I mentioned Kerolox as it could be fueled on the pad, so that the crawler could still transport Jupiter + Kerolox booster from the VAB to the pad, something it couldn't do with a 3rd SRB.

Whatever replaces Direct could then be designed to have these Kerolox boosters rather than the SRB's, as Butters alluded to, but that'd be a new vehicle entirely and not Jupiter.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/23/2009 07:06 pm
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.

Ross is right about all the key issues. "No Bucks, No Buck Rogers" Politically and technically we want to preserve the shuttle workforce.  That is the technical point of Direct/Jupiter: we reuse what we can and people are your biggest asset.  Money is what this is all about.  How can two new rockets, one of which will be the biggest rocket of all time be cheaper than a retread model? The numbers can't add up.  Furthermore, Ross is on the money as far as the division of labor.  COTS/EELV for ISS, and LEO Jupiter for the Moon, Mars and Beyond.  If we focus  on money and people Direct/Jupiter wins hands down for anything beyond LEO.

By the way, I really liked the EML architecture presented in the Direct 3.0 presentation appendix.  Lots of cargo on the moon even before PD.  Also sets up EML as a logical PD point.

Great Job Ross, its a tough job to herd cats.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 06/23/2009 07:32 pm

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/23/2009 07:36 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/23/2009 07:44 pm
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

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/23/2009 07:56 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 06/23/2009 08:01 pm
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

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MagDes on 06/23/2009 08:12 pm
The entire HSF Review meeting from the 17th is replaying right now on NASA TV:

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html
or copy and paste this into media player:
http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1369080&segment=149773

Alternatively, the Direct portion is available here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17484.msg422526#msg422526
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/23/2009 09:03 pm
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.

Which is weird because, when you read some of Dr. Griffin's interviews, he made it pretty clear that he was hoping to see a human-rated Ares-V in the fullness of time.  The only explanation I can think of is that the plan was to build a non-human rated core and then HR it later on when there was cash available for the work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/23/2009 09:13 pm
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.

Okay, so really, nothing has changed, since I knew EELV (D4H) was the preffered option all along. Scared me there!

I guess this goes hand-in-hand with Aerospace Corp's presentation saying D4H is cheaper for Orion to ISS.  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/23/2009 10:12 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 06/23/2009 10:51 pm
Have to say, I do like that idea of differentiating between the ascent and TLI loads on the EDS. Clever.
One thing that crosses my mind is that the J130 carrying Altair+Orion becomes ever more appealing, since you no longer need the battleship JUS. Presumably if 5segs were adopted you could do this with margin to spare?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 06/23/2009 11:06 pm
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

For us less educated, here is an examination of the source (possible) of MIW quotation http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1074641

Whether I agree with him or not, I'll leave well enough alone, as it takes us OT and away from the healing of 'antic-dispositions' (Hamlet), which is our proper duty now.

Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/23/2009 11:32 pm

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

Yea, Engeria had a lot of good concepts.  The Energia 2 is pretty cool.  Fully reusable with a flyback shuttle core.
However, given the difficulties with out shuttle, I'd imagine that'd prove to be far to complex and costly.  But the concept flyback Zenit boosters for the Energia 2 are interesting.  And if you blended the Energia 2 with the Vulkan, that's more what I'm thinking.  You start off with a core that can launch some nominal payload by itself.  A CEV, or future smaller reusable LEO spaceplane like DReamchaser or something.  Then start adding boosters as the mission dictates.

An interesting alternative is to have the "core" be a load support element only, with no tankage or engines, just acting as a hub to connect your various flyback booster confirurations too.  On top of this structural core, you have a 2nd hydrolox stage that would take your payload into LEO, or out of Earth orbit if necessary. (could have two upperstages, one for LEO only, and a much larger one for leaving Earth orbit)
That way your boosters are your whole 1st stage thrust, and the core is a cheap, disposable thing, rather than tanks and engines that are disposed of.  You still expend an upper stage, but I think that'd be cheaper than a whole tanked core with engines. (guessing).

Both configs would be interesting, and possibly very versitile.  You can have a medium, heavy, and super-heavy launcher all in one.  As far as I know, a kerolox flyback booster should be economical to replace.  Maybe replace the engines, and send the old ones back to the manufacturer for refurbishment, or breaking down and parted out.  (reuse what can be, and toss the rest).  You -should- be able to just swap out the engines, reset the wings, inspect the booster, and basically just strap it onto the next core. *shrug*


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/24/2009 12:47 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/24/2009 12:59 am
I was looking through my hard drive for a document, and ran across the photos of the J-130 and J-246 that I built for the ISDC last month. I didn't get to see any of the photos that were taken at the conference, but I thought I'd share a few photos of the models here on the thread.  :D

They were built at 1/72 scale, which means they're fraking huge, but it was a pretty good build, and I was happy with the results. This is the Paper Rocket everyone is talking about...  ;D

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/Direct%20ISDC%20Build/engine-03-1.jpg)
Engine Skirt showing 4th SSME removed for J-130 configuration.

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/Direct%20ISDC%20Build/srbs-2.jpg)
RSRMs. Didn't realize when I was designing them, just how big they would end up. I suppose I didn't think it through, but after I had physical pieces, I was astounded at the size at 1/72 scale.  :o

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/Direct%20ISDC%20Build/core-01-1.jpg)
Here is the completed Core of the DIRECT JLS (Jupiter Launcher System)

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/Direct%20ISDC%20Build/130-cev-1.jpg)
J-130 Payload section, with Orion CEV. Note the soda can for scale...

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/Direct%20ISDC%20Build/payloads-1.jpg)
Here is the J-130 Payload, the JUS with 12m Payload Fairing, and the Interstage shroud.

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/Direct%20ISDC%20Build/J-130-complete-1.jpg)
The assembled J-130 vehicle. About four and a half feet tall.

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/Direct%20ISDC%20Build/J-246-complete-1.jpg)
The assembled J-246 vehicle. A little less than five feet tall.

I would love to know if anyone here was at ISDC and saw them.  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/24/2009 01:04 am
Wow those are huge and they look great!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 06/24/2009 01:09 am
Those are magnificent!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMS on 06/24/2009 01:12 am
Excellent job.
Would love to see a real J-246 in my lifetime.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/24/2009 02:45 am
Thanks, guys... I had a few teeth-gnashing, hair-rending moments during the build, and I always second-guess myself, so I really appreciate your comments!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2009 03:45 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 06/24/2009 05:21 am
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.

I have the paper version of LRO on my desk.  When can we get the J-246?

Nice work!!!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/24/2009 06:03 am
Sweet models Lancer!  Wow.  I wish I had that kind of talent.

Nicely done.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/24/2009 08:06 am
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?



deltaV,

many thanks for pulling those together, and yes my questions above were simply intended to understand "why".

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/24/2009 08:07 am
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



Yup, hands up, you got me. I thought that black helicopter was following me home tonight.

I'm just frustrated (as many are) not to understand the basis for NASA's mass estimates for JUS - nicely summarised by deltaV's post as just above. I'm embarrassed to have tried to "mine" such information from your post, and I should have known that Ares V is Human-Rateable. Sorry.

Chuck seems happy just to point out the Centaur people are OK with the mass estimate. That seems to result in Chuck being disappointed when the Commission announces that "NASA says that DIRECT breaks the laws of physics". OK, I exaggerate for effect, but simply railing that NASA have it wrong seems guaranteed to lead to failure for DIRECT.

You made the statement "the difference comes when they throw the "human rating" switch", and that statement seemed explicit enough that it was worth exploring. The point of my proposal was to ask "can DIRECT still work whilst accepting that?" It's not a difficult question, and I thought it neatly side-stepped the whole dispute (if it works). Get DIRECT chosen, then resolve the dispute with detailed engineering studies afterwards.

The thing I particularly liked about it was it allows the commission to say "NASA & DIRECT disagree about JUS mass, but it doesn't matter because DIRECT can still perform as claimed. If DIRECT's mass estimate is wrong we'll just have to develop two JUS variants."

Is there any way to find out if separate designs for CLV JUS & EDS JUS would allow DIRECT to pass NASA's review?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2009 08:46 am
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.

In essence, a stage is either safe to fly and has sufficient margins to be acceptable for its intended purpose (Crew on top) -- or it does not.   You may as well design the thing and get it right only once.

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.

Since then, a dozen different variants of Centaur have flown, a whole series of Upper Stages for Delta vehicles have flown and the SLWT Shuttle External Tank (which has a pmf of 0.96 and is a human-rated operational stage) was the last NASA stage to be developed, yet it was actually designed, not by NASA, but by Lockheed Martin.


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.

And lets not forget that Delta and Centaur Upper Stages are currently operational and flying with successful recent development programs under both of their belts within the last decade.   The direct comparison here is that the last NASA-designed Saturn-V stage flew before I was born.   And I'll be 35 in September.   Who is the authority?   The organization with no demonstrable history at all in my lifetime?   Or the organization with multiple successful development efforts throughout that period, all the way through to today?

To be arguing over who is right, given the vast gulf in real-world experience, is just beyond comprehension to me. There simply is no comparison.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/24/2009 09:14 am
Okay, what is everyone's fixation with the upper stage mass ratio?
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.

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".
Thanks, Mark.  Thanks, Martin,

What is reduced (no L3 margin) in layman's terms?

Does this issue get better or worse with non-circular orbits?

I note again that the baseball card orbits differ for the (recommended) J-130 and J-246. 

Modify, snipping.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2009 09:32 am
fotoguzzi,
The TLI Payload performance requirement for CxP's baseline missions was originally calculated thus...

2008 CxP Mass Requirement at TLI:

20,185kg Orion
45,000kg Altair
900kg Airborne Support Equipment    (this is the Cradle Altair sits upon)
5,000kg L2 Margin (L2 = Level 2 Program Management, i.e. Jeff Hanley's office)
4,000kg L3 Margin (L3 = Level 3 Project Management, i.e. Steve Cook's office)
TOTAL:   75,085kg = 75.1mT


The L3 Margin was deleted and the Requirement was lowered by 4,000kg in mid-2008 because Ares-V was simply found to be incapable of sending 75.1mT thru TLI.

Latest info is it can't even send 71.1mT either, but that's another subject entirely (seen docs indicating the CARD will be dropping to 66.9mT and I've heard one unconfirmed rumor that some recent results say Ares-V is actually only capable of around 59mT).



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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/24/2009 10:17 am
It's been suggested several times, but I haven't seen a definitive answer - is there a reason why Altair can't perfrom the circ. burn while still connected to Orion via the PLF?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2009 10:25 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/24/2009 10:30 am
But still not something you want to baseline :) Gotcha.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/24/2009 10:53 am
Martin,

. . . Lockheed Martin.  . . .
Is there any way Bernard Kutter could contribute to the current Committtee process.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2009 10:58 am
I don't have a clue.   I think that probably depends on whether the Committee tries to contact him or not.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/24/2009 10:59 am
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'm not sure I understand why recirculation would be a problem at the altitude where the circularization burn would take place. I thought the problem for the lower stages was due to aerodynamic forces (i.e., interacting with the atmosphere). Not that I really understand aerodynamics beyond once having been taught the phyisical behavior of ideal gases.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/24/2009 11:10 am
I have the paper version of LRO on my desk.  When can we get the J-246?

Nice work!!!!

To be perfectly honest, I don't have any plans to release the plans... Mostly because I was in such a huge hurry to get them done and out the door, that I don't think I kept much of the part designs.

I suppose I *could* try to re-create those parts that are different from the first set I did, but I can't promise any time frame.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/24/2009 11:16 am
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.


Quote
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.

So ultimately, it comes down to persuading the committee that ULA know better than NASA.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: PaulL on 06/24/2009 11:42 am

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 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jml on 06/24/2009 02:11 pm
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?


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 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/24/2009 02:30 pm
(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 already know that. Would it be possible for someone to answer my two questions quoted above?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 06/24/2009 02:35 pm

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


Gramps, the slides that I saw during the live broadcast were gibberish anyway, nothing you can really do about that. The PDFs are available at the HSF site:

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/meetings/06_17_meeting.html (http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/meetings/06_17_meeting.html)

Jesse
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/24/2009 03:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 06/24/2009 04:24 pm
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."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/24/2009 05:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/24/2009 05:39 pm
That is a good article, and great support from someone who is very important and very well known.
You guys are doing great.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/24/2009 06:20 pm
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?


From what I understand, the J-130 with a 5-seg booster can get Orion and LSAM into circ LEO without them having to do the burn themselves.
That's great!

But I think the question really is, how much -more- money needs to be spent in order to bring the 5-seg booster online?  I'm pretty sure it would be ready in time for the first lunar mission, from what I understand.

The question is, what's the cost comparison between what would still need to be spent to have the 5-seg booster ready to launch (development, testing, man-rating?) vs. the cost of the 2nd JUS/extra SSME on the J-246.
How many flights do you get before you recoup the expenses of the 5-seg booster?  I have NO idea what these costs are.
If you'd recoup the 5-seg costs relatively quickly by using the J-130 instead of a 2nd J-246, then it'd probably be a pretty good idea to finish that development.  However, maybe it would take 25 lunar missions before you'd recoup those 5-seg costs, in which case, it would probably be worth it to just stick with a 2 J-246 launch, with a possible look into the CEV and LSAM eventually doing their own circ burns, once the program is off and running.

On the flip side, could a J-130 be used with a Centaur to get CEV and LSAM into circ orbit?  You'd save the 4th SSME, and I'm sure the off-the-shelf Centaur would be less expensive than the larger, but only partially fueled 2nd JUS.
Could the J-130 loft that stack and would the Centaur have the performance needed?
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/24/2009 06:24 pm
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.

The Direct team should get him to speak publicly in support of Direct especailly to newspapers, new shows, etc and to the Commission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/24/2009 06:33 pm

We talk with Buzz all the time.

Really?
Awesome.
I love Buzz.  He's a personal hero of mine (as are many of the Original Apollo/Genini/Mercury astronauts).
Wasn't he the Astronaut that punched that moon-landing conspiracy theory nut awhile back?

He is a guy I'd love to meet in person some time.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/24/2009 06:41 pm
Ok, got a few JUS questions.  THese have probably already been addressed at some point, but I don't recall reading them, so if someone can indulge me, that'd be great.

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.

If you could use two existing upper stages, that seems like an interest Block 1 at least.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/24/2009 06:51 pm
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.

Could Orion be connected to Altair with some kind of light weight connector so it could jettison the PLF and not have to carry it, but still be connected?
The weight of Orion would still be supported by the PLF through launch (as Altair I'm sure wouldn't be able to take the launch loads of supporting Orion)  so no launch loads would be on the connector or Altair during launch, but once the PLF was ejected, it'd provide enough support for the much lighter thrust load of the circ burn.

in fact, in that same vein, could such a connect stay on through TLI?
It'd simplify the docking greatly if the EDS had just an Orion docking ring, so that stack docked wtih the EDS and performed the TLI burn, then undocked in lunar orbit (or LE1), then separated for the Orion/Altair docking.
Possible?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/24/2009 07:03 pm
Buzz Aldrin will present his space plan(including Direct Launcher) to the Augustine Committee. As Popular Mechanics(August,2009) states, "The Augustine committee has scheduled four public meetings during the course of the review, and Aldrin will present this plan to its members before they communicate their results to the administration in August." Buzz's comments to the Augustine Committee could really be a game changer. We may have just won the ballgame! http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html?nav=RSS20&src=syn&dom=yah_buzz&mag=pop
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2009 07:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 06/24/2009 08:24 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: faadaadaa on 06/24/2009 08:38 pm
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.

Just my 2 cents 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2009 08:38 pm
Ares-I wouldn't be inside the triangle for a start, it would be outside, as far away from "Cheap" as possible -- but not even vaguely close to "Good" nor "Fast" either.

Ares-V would be inside, but would be heavily biased towards "Good" (in this case massive performance), but would be as far away from "Fast" and "Cheap" as can be.

"Not Shuttle-C" would be slightly to the "Fast" of the center-line, about one quarter up from the bottom, not in the center, but not too far away.

Jupiter-130 would be just a fraction below the center.

Jupiter-246 would be slightly above the center and just to the right of the center-line, being ever-so-slightly "Cheaper" than "Faster".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2009 08:48 pm
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.

Difficult to show in a 2 dimensional chart though :)

All of the options being proposed for Crew use all offer a significant improvement in safety compared to what we have today.   The inclusion of a LAS, coupled together with a small crew spacecraft who's heatshield is completely protected throughout the entire mission is a massive step forward in safety on its own and all indications are that its inclusion -- on any vehicle -- is likely to improve safety by an order of magnitude.

If you wish to believe the official statistical LOC figures being thrown around (and I do not) then you can argue whether one vehicle will have one accident every 300 years, 400 years, 500 years or every 600 years, but those arguments are hyperbole at best and I don't believe any launch vehicle will ever actually be *that* safe within my lifetime.   The truth is that if we realistically get any vehicle above 1 in 100 crew loss, we will be doing well and if we can achieve double that we will be doing extraordinarily well.

Yet the statistical LOC calculation remains the current 'yardstick' by which we measure crew safety today.   So I make note of the fact that ESAS clearly defined the acceptable requirement for statistical LOC to be 1 in 1000, or better.

With the exception of Shuttle-C, all of these vehicles meet that statistical requirement by a comfortable margin.

And the current policy, according to NASA itself, is that either a launcher meets the safety requirements, or it doesn't.   All of these do.   To argue "by how much" is actually a fairly moot point IMHO.

Its the same as car crash testing -- either you earn 5 stars or you don't.   The 'degree' by which you exceeded the requirements to achieve those 5 stars, is actually a fairly esoteric issue.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 06/24/2009 08:52 pm
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

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/24/2009 08:58 pm
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



Buzz is his own man and has his own agenda. He is not a member of the DIRECT team and even has alternative proposals of his own. Our dialogue with him is mostly conversational with emphasis on HSF, not this or that architecture. He has his own plans and DIRECT can help with some of them and other architectures can help with others. To the extent that DIRECT helps his plans he is happy to voice that, but it is unlikely that he will ever be "in" the DIRECT camp until DIRECT is actually the selected launch system.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 06/24/2009 09:01 pm
We talk with Buzz all the time.
[/quote]

The Direct team should get him to speak publicly in support of Direct especailly to newspapers, new shows, etc and to the Commission.
[/quote]

It would be neat to answer up when somebody asks, Who are you guys?, "Well we are Buzz Aldrin and the Rebel Alliance." 

I would personally stack one Buzz Aldrin against one former NASA administrator anyday.  The real beauty of Direct is that it isn't really very complicated.  Once, you buy of on the simply stated logic of:

Use what you have - Shuttle Stack;
Minimize development costs - Use 4 segment boosters, SSME, 8.4 m tank;
Meet CxP performance goals - A JUS RL-10 powered upper stage + Altair + Lunar capable Orion; and
Protect the shuttle work force - Don't wait until 2017 to start ISS flights or later than 2017 to launch a true heavy lift SDLV.  You've got to get this thing operational by 2012/2013.

You pretty much arrive at a solution that looks a lot like DIRECT as long you don't force personal preferences in such as I want to build a rocket bigger than the Saturn V.

I think Buzz does a pretty good job of presenting the basic DIRECT logic in his own homespun way and I hope he will make a presentation to the Augustine Panel in the not too distant future, with at least some time dedicated to how DIRECT really does meet the needs of a rational CxP architecture.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2009 09:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/24/2009 09:17 pm
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.

When did he have his "first independent assessment"?  Will he publish/let Direct publish the independant review? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/24/2009 09:19 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2009 09:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/24/2009 09:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2009 09:25 pm
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?

I don't know.   The team responsible are trying to get their Exec's to sign-off on it.   I guess we will only know when/if they decide to get into the ring and fight for what they want, or not.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/24/2009 09:27 pm
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.

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?!?!?"  ::)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2009 09:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/24/2009 09:30 pm
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.

Ah, that is beautiful!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: PaulL on 06/24/2009 09:31 pm
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.

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.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/24/2009 09:31 pm
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.

That just made my day.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/24/2009 09:36 pm
Maybe Buzz Aldrin should bring up this new NASA Direct 3 analysis & demonstate to the Augustine Committee why it is totally inaccurate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/24/2009 09:37 pm

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.

Ross,

Based on the latest news from Boeing, I'd compare the 787 to Ares I and Jupiter to a good, solid 756/777.


Respectfully,
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2009 09:40 pm
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.

Paul, its not quite as simple as that :)   (is it ever?)

Adding hardware to a stage designed for one thing, in order to make it do another is not as easy as it might first appear.   What you're talking about there is moving some pretty massive loads into a separate structure operating in parallel to the regular one.   And that second structure doesn't have the weight benefits of being a pressure vessel, so it must be mechanically strong all on its own -- and that means its not likely to be light-weight.

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.

I would suggest that maximizing TLI propellant lift capacity is probably 90% of the entire ball game.

So the critical factor must always be to heavily optimize the system for the EDS role and only then begin to examine what else the same hardware can do in other situations.

And besides, performance-wise, the J-130/J-246 architecture works already.   The concerns are now primarily about the procedures which are necessary to make it as safe as can be.


Of course, Propellant Depot's change the whole dynamic, but it is not wise to include such unproven technologies in the critical path to early success.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/24/2009 09:44 pm
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.

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. Perhaps what you should also have done for argument's sake was take NASA's pmf figure and produced a DIRECT version that could have done the mission with it, 2 * Ares V Classics (with one J2-X) with a J-130H/J-140H ISS version ?  It could have been added as a rebuttal appendix. NASA is the encumbent, they get to chose the rules of the game and not meeting those rules for whatever valid reasons may just be counted as an automatic fail in this game as Mars is Wet is claiming. I'm not sure you guys are grasping this basic fact.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/24/2009 09:50 pm

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?!?!?"  ::)

Answering to both:

Well if the Augustine panel requests additional info, or a one-on-one meeting...you can flat out tell them THIS is what is now taking place, the same way it happen last time, which brought about the rebuttal. You can set them straight, because you don't REALLY need to impress NASA at the moment, you need to impress the panel.

And as I pointed out in that thread, I saw the presentation for the second time, and it was still great. We  have all been over-analyzing, myself included. Still a little weak on the lunar architecture though and too heavy on science, which begs the question if there was some purpose to that?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/24/2009 10:00 pm
Ross or Chuck, Does the Augustine Committee allow you to submit additional of follow-up data? In other words, can you just voluntarily give them additional data or request a follow-up meeting?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/24/2009 10:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/24/2009 10:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/24/2009 10:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/24/2009 10:34 pm
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.

I was only wondering about the mindset going in:

If you know the WH is more interested in science, servicing the ISS, and a Mars architecture some day, then they hit the right notes. Did they have prior knowledge? Probably not, but one never knows. The Direct team has been pushing the moon since DAY 1, why would you 'seemingly' abandon it in front of the panel???

That's my mind thinking in weird ways.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: guru on 06/24/2009 10:38 pm

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/24/2009 10:54 pm
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

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 06/24/2009 10:59 pm

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.


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

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/24/2009 11:13 pm
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  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/24/2009 11:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Eric Hedman on 06/24/2009 11:43 pm
There is on question that is nagging me about all the architectures using the Orion capsule that I don't remember reading anything about (maybe I missed it), but if Orion is returning from the Moon and the weather turns bad at the landing/splash down site, how rough of weather can the Orion hanging from parachutes take?  And how far out does the Orion have to be to significantly shift landing sites?  Just curious.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/25/2009 12:27 am
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.

I can tell you where some of that went straight away. No common bulkhead. All you need to do is show Direct's EDS slide side by side with the NASA one.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/25/2009 12:32 am

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/25/2009 12:42 am
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.

I don't think NASA will voluntarily switch back to SSME, because then they have something very like Direct and then it's just a short step away from ditching the Ares I and switching to 2-launch.

Hmmm, funny how a single 8.3m 4seg Ares V with 5 SSME could put the whole stack through TLI, yet now 2 x 4SSMEs J-246 can only lift the same as 2  x 3SSME Not Shuttle-C with its sidemount losses.

I hope somebody at the Augustine Panel takes note of this.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: guru on 06/25/2009 01:01 am

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


Consider the differences between the SSME based vehicle compared in the report you referenced and the "Classic Ares V" from ESAS (www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/ESAS_report.html ... underlining in the shown attachment added by me) as shown in these two attachments.

At the time of ESAS, the official recommendation was to use 2 J-2S engines on the EDS.  This, according to the ESAS report, could lift a 44.9 mT lander with 1.4 tonnes of spare margin.

The later report that claims a 41 mT capability uses an EDS with only 1 x J-2X.  Notice how the two versions that use the J-2S on the later report conveniently also use a new propellant mixture for the SRBs, not allowing for a comparison against PBAN based SRBs with a 2 x J-2S engined EDS as originally specified in the ESAS report.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 06/25/2009 01:37 am

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.

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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/25/2009 01:51 am
This is all going to make a very good book someday.

I really just hope this panel does its business differently. I have no problem with groups pitching their ideas and fighting for their side. However, when you start fudging numbers, and changing around configurations to make your case stronger, then you've crossed the line in my book.

NASA has really screwed the pooch on this one.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/25/2009 01:54 am

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.

Nice chart. Shouldn't that be J-2X instead of J-2S?

Personally I hope J-2X isn't cancelled. It's a good engine, it's development just shouldn't be on the critical path.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bluea on 06/25/2009 02:02 am
What would the performance of a J-256 look like? (5xSSMEs)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 06/25/2009 02:03 am
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 architecture) 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 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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/25/2009 02:08 am
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

Great post. I think it sums up how a lot of us feel. Ross and the guys, as well as all of us "amazing peoples" love space flight and what NASA does.

It angers me to see Cx shoot themselves in the foot with this architecture.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/25/2009 02:18 am
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.

I added those two engines and adjusted the axes.

Edit: added a few more engines.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 06/25/2009 02:27 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/25/2009 02:35 am
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.

And when you already put a man on the Moon, it's pretty tough to believe an argument of "we can't build that".

Saying Jupiter can't be built because it defies the laws of physics...isn't that what they told those two guys from Ohio who had that crazy flying machine idea?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/25/2009 06:39 am
duh!).
subjective to me.
...isn't that what they told those two guys from Ohio who had that crazy flying machine idea?
More like, isn't that what the Ohio guys might have told Glenn Curtis in 1904 or so?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/25/2009 07:31 am
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.


ULA say they can build a stage with certain mass & performance, NASA say they can't. Let ULA prove it.

So how about a COTS-style programme? NASA develops the core, whilst providing "seed-corn" or milestone funding to ULA to develop Jupiter Upper Stage, but ULA take most of the risk. If the stage doesn't perform, they don't get paid.

If the stage does perform, they get a certain guaranteed level of business over a 10 year period to earn back their investment. Set the price up-front, with minor adjustments up or down for allowable minor variations in performance (if JUS really is conservative, they'd earn a bit more per stage for a higher payload).

I don't know whether this would also provide a basis for ULA to then develop their high-performance EELV common upper stage, which would provide benefit down the road to DOD, too?


NASA gets it's upper stage without having to make an up-front investment, so the programmes can run in parallel.

Downsides:-

* this implies the US would / could be ready sooner, which might rush the development of the Altair / Lunar Orion.

* ULA would have to price their stage to recover their investment at commercial interest rates. Could their basic design be cheaper than NASA's anyway (pure speculation on my part, but I think DIVHCUS is quite reasonably priced)?

* Big, big downside - if ULA fails to deliver, CxP is in deep trouble.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/25/2009 07:32 am
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.


That's even going to make 2x J-246 Heavy a bit of a stretch to close CxP, isn't it?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/25/2009 07:45 am
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.


The J-246 EDS baseball card gives a 79mT payload through TLI.

So a 79mT CLV lift can be accomodated.

The J-246 CLV baseball card can only lift an 84mT payload to orbit with appropriate levels of safety for a crew (ie "with additional 10% Reserve"). The notional payload for the crewed vehicle is a lot higher than it appears to be because the margin is effectively also payload that needs to be accounted for.

5mT unused CLV lift is as close as you'll ever get to two fully-utilised identical vehicles.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/25/2009 07:47 am
Its just *begging* to have a couple of photo re-touches...   Adding names to the back of shirts etc...
Ah, that is beautiful!
Kind of ties up today's America in one panel.  Very funny!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/25/2009 10:03 am
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}

It sounds like the Direct team needs to follow the political parties and set up a Rapid Rebuttal Group.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jeff.findley on 06/25/2009 12:10 pm
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.

It seems likely to me that the core + two beams stage will be less mass efficient than a core stage optimized for carrying an upper stage plus payload.  This is not the way to go.  Direct has it right.  You need the highest performance on the J-24x vehicle, so you optimize for that.  So what if the J-130 isn't optimized?  It's not the vehicle that needs the highest performance.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jeff.findley on 06/25/2009 12:17 pm
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.

That and you have to be careful to separate engines that are actually fully developed and flying from "paper" engines.  The SSME is flying.  The RL-10 is flying.  The J-2X isn't.  Upgraded RS-68 engines are in development, but aren't flying.

I'll take an operational engine over a "paper" engine any day.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/25/2009 12:18 pm
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.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jeff.findley on 06/25/2009 12:29 pm
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.

What you say is true, especially the cost part.  Developing two separate thrust structures and piping not only increases development costs, but would also likely increase operational costs, because now you've got to manufacture two different thrust structures.  To keep all of this straight will cost more money.  You don't want a component to be accidentally manufactured to the wrong specs.  This could potentially lead to two sets of tooling, procedures, and etc. 

Also, this is a slippery slope.  Aerospace engineers love optimization problems.  Your "specific 3-engine & 4-engine thrust structures & piping" proposal could quickly morph into two completely different optimized stages.

Again, I think Direct has it right.  Develop one launch vehicle and just launch the core stage plus SRB's minus one main engine.  The money you'll save in manufacturing and operations costs are a bonus on top of the development cost savings.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dukeruckley on 06/25/2009 01:51 pm
I apologize if this has been posted before (I only skimmed about three pages back).  Buzz Aldrin mentions DIRECT in this Popular Mechanics article (although he mentions the 232 configuration).

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html

Keep up the good work and I'll just go back to lurking again :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: John Duncan on 06/25/2009 02:02 pm
Can any of the team characterize the sort of information (if any) the Commission is requesting?  I'd think you could work out what their line of thinking was on DIRECT by looking at the questions or requests they submit.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 06/25/2009 02:06 pm
More fundamental question, have they requested anything else?  Is there a timeline for when they want additional information?  I know the analysis teams are already cranking on their hamster wheels and abaci, so it would have to be soon to have an impact.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/25/2009 02:16 pm
I'll take an operational engine over a "paper" engine any day.

[tongue in cheek]

Oh, I don't know Jeff...

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/Direct%20ISDC%20Build/greelt-f1.jpg)
F-1 by Greelt at 1/48 scale.

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/Direct%20ISDC%20Build/greelt-j2.jpg)
J-2 also by Greelt at 1/48 scale.

Some of those paper engines are pretty darn cool if you ask me...

[/tongue in cheek]
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/25/2009 05:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/25/2009 06:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/25/2009 06:45 pm
Agreed.   Given the enormous amount of ground which they must cover, the review team really are going to have their work cut out for them.

I hope the panel reserves some specific time to *really* be able to think things over fully and that they don't end up having to rush it to make any specific deadline.

We all need these decisions to be handled the right way this time.   But I think this panel can do it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/25/2009 06:49 pm
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".


Quote
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.

Makes explicit the choices re plane change burns that Ross has often mentioned previously.

Not suggesting anything sinister here, and I've certainly seen this information presented from NASA before. I wonder what prompted to make this point so explicitly here?



Quote
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.

(My highlighting).

Paraphrase - "DIRECT will never match Ares I's pLOC numbers".

I find it fascinating that 1x J2-X gives better numbers over a cluster of RL-10's with tolerance to a benign single failure.

Understand the point re solid vs multiple SSME's.

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?



Quote
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.

Paraphrase - "the mass changes as applied for the analyses are clearly documented in the HR policy, and have been briefed to ASAP".



There's some other interesting stuff in there, too.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mike_B on 06/25/2009 06:53 pm
Sorry to hear that NASA's analysis is once again flawed. Maybe the tools they're using can't model the upper stage properly. Anyway, I seem to recall a Popular Mechanics article on Direct where an aerospace executive (Bernard Kutter according to the article) went on record that ULA could indeed produce the upper stage. Has that fact been made known to the Commission? Perhaps ULA's findings and independent reviews confirming your findings would help counter NASA's claims.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/25/2009 07:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/25/2009 07:35 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/25/2009 08:06 pm
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.

Butters,

Ok, you now make me ask a lot more questions than the first time.  :)
To help me understand what you just described better, maybe you can explain a few of your comments.

Briefly, what are the advantages/disadvantages to renevous at EML1, EML2, and lunar orbit.  Apollo went to orbit, correct?
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?

In either L1R or L2R, the CSM would stay there, and the LSAM would decend to LLO, with the descent stage performing LOI, and then firing more to degrade that orbit slowly until you're over your landing zone, correct?
And the advantage with this is the CSM doesn't need to escape lunar gravity, so it doesn't need that fuel?  It just nudges itself out of the lagrange point and falls back to Earth?  How would that work at the L2 point?  It'd fall to the moon would it not?  Would it do a swing by to the L1 point, then fall to Earth?  Seems like it'd need some fuel for that, that the L1 points wouldn't require.

Why did Apollo take the CSM and LEM to LOI?
How do you come to a stable position at a lagrange point?  Does it require an insertion burn like orbit, or do you escape with just enough velocity so you coast to a stop right at the lagrange point and require no braking burn? 

Just not sure how that works, so when you are whipping out terms about masses to rendevous, etc. I was a bit lost.  :)

So when I understand that better, that will help be understand your ideas better.
So, are you saying that if the CSM and LSAM were each launched separately, with an L2 rendevous, they could each utilize a 5m Centaur?  And the LSAM mass could be reduced from 45mt to 20mt because it doesn't need to  perform LOI for itself and the CSM?  Would it still be as capable?  Would lit only be 25mt lighter of propellent?  That seems like a lot.

So what you are saying is that by launching the LSAM and CSM separately, and having them rendevous at the L2 point, you could use the already developed Centaur, Orion and Altair with as much hardware and as capable as the current Ares baseline, and launch them on a Pair of J-130's?

So why isn't that the baseline???
Is the rendevous and docking at L1 or L2 complex and dangerous or something?
Otherise, why worry about a new 8.4m upper stage?  And the somewhat tricky docking in LEO of the LSAM and CSM with the 8.4m EDS?

Man, now you really have me curious!  :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/25/2009 08:30 pm
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.

Agree 100%. Great to hear though!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/25/2009 08:36 pm

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.

Not to take this any further OT, but that brings to mind the comments made by the ULA rep at the panel hearing on D4H: 2x FS for untested systems, 1.4 FS for tested systems with (around) 1.2 FS as noted.

Ares I should have 2x FS throughout.

I'm sure the commission will weigh these points in their overview: tested vs untested systems (IE: rockets).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/25/2009 09:14 pm
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).

While I'd love to see it, I don't believe that mission is possible by 2022 because of funding shortages.

The only way to afford it, would be to close ISS, close the Lunar Program and close the NEO options as well, then dedicate everything for the next 15 years to the Mars effort alone.

I think it's a better option to pursue a stepping-stone approach which allows us to afford to go to all the destinations.

It might take a little longer to get to Mars, but I'd prefer a solution which allows Lunar, NEO's, Phobos and Mars -- all -- within 25 years than a program which concentrates on any "one trick pony" solution in 15 years.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/25/2009 09:30 pm
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.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/25/2009 10:33 pm
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.

That's good news.  They can't say: "Who are you people?" anymore.  They know the answer now because they've met you. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/25/2009 11:27 pm
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.

The 30 day trip assumes the energy is coming from a nuclear reactor and that the heavy concrete and lead shielding used on nuclear sea ships is not needed.  Three to four month trips may be possible using solar powered VASIMRs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/25/2009 11:43 pm
{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.

Quote

Why did Apollo take the CSM and LEM to LOI?
{snip}

Because that is what NASA planned when man still had not left LEO.

Over simplifying, Apollo found EML-1 and EML-2 and realised how useful they would be, next time.  This is the next time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2009 02:52 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2009 06:16 am
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.)

William,
Sorry I missed this post earlier.

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.

What NASA has been missing for many, many years is "vitality".   We have been locked in the mode of "same old thing" for way too long.   Yes, each mission is a challenge.   Yes, each mission is worthwhile.   But the sad fact is that the public switched off a long time ago and only tunes in again once in a while when NASA does something new and different, or when things go horribly wrong.

If we had strong public interest, it would translate to strong political interest as well.   And that would ultimately mean that the budget wouldn't be such a problem.

But the *ONLY* way to accomplish that is to plan a program which can:

a) Afford to do pay for a wide range of new missions, both human and robotic

b) Ensure we have an affordable, yet powerful and extremely flexible and reliable, infrastructure beneath all the endeavours.


What CxP is currently doing isn't meeting any of those objectives.   It is busting the budget on the launch vehicles alone, it is duplicating existing capability when there really is no need, it is creating a huge capability which just isn't going to be an economical one, and it is preventing any money being provided to pay for any interesting missions -- even costing so much as to force the cancellation of many aspects of this program which it was supposed to support in the first place (Pressurized Lunar Rover & Lunar Base for example).


Something has to change.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/26/2009 07:05 am
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.

(The rocket equation is given by dv = ve*ln(1+mp/mf) where dv = 1.01*3175 = 3206.8 m/s is TLI delta-V (1.01 factor is flight performance reserve increase), ve = 4393.4 m/s is J-2X exhaust speed, mp is propellant mass and mf is final mass. Rearranging the rocket equation have mf = mp/(exp(dv/ve)-1) = 0.93*mp. Therefore 1 kg loss of propellant results in 0.93 kg loss in payload.)"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/26/2009 07:27 am
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.

My calculations show that the total propellant mass for separate burns by Orion and Altair is 2% greater than for for a single burn by Altair. This is because Altair uses its more efficient LOX/LH2 engine.

Injection Orbit: 56x241 km
Orbital insertion delta-V: dv = 55 m/s
Orion exhaust speed: veo = 3098.9 m/s (316 s ISP)
Altair exhaust speed: vea = 4167.8 m/s (425 s ISP)
Orion mass: mo = 20.2 t
Altair mass: ma = 45.0 t
PLF mass: mplf = 5.7 t (the LAS is 7.3 t see J246-41.4004.10050_CLV_090606.pdf (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246-41.4004.10050_CLV_090606.pdf))

Rocket equaltion: dv = ve*ln(1+mp/mf)
dv = delta-V
ve = exhaust speed
mp = propellant mass
mf = final mass

Rearrange: mp = mf*(exp(dv/ve)-1)

For Orion  mp = 20.2*(exp(55/3098.9)-1) = 362 kg
For Altair mp = 45.0*(exp(55/4167.8 )-1) = 598 kg
Total propellant = 363+598 = 960 kg

For Orion/Altair/PLF mp = (20.2+45.0+5.7)*(exp(55/4167.8 )-1) = 942 kg

Thus separate burns uses 18 kg or 2% more propellant than a single burn.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/26/2009 07:31 am
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.


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.


I got this wrong recently in claiming that a 4mT increase in EDS mass would make DIRECT struggle to match CxP's 71mT TLI requirement, using 2:1 disadvantage.

That should have been 3mT (from 13mT to 16mT burnout), due to the 3:1 disadvantage.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/26/2009 07:33 am
For Altair mp = 45.0*(exp(55/4167.8)-1) = 598 kg


I notice you edited this to add a space to remove the smiley.

You can also just tick the "don't use smileys" tickbox.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/26/2009 07:40 am
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.

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.

Using the rocket equation shows this. Have

mp = propellant mass
ms = EDS burnout mass
mc = TLI mass
dv = delta V = 1.01*3175 = 3206.8 m/s
ve = exhaust speed = 4393.4 m/s for J-2X

Rocket Equation: dv = ve*ln(1+mp/(ms+mc))

Rearranging mc = mp/(exp(dv/ve)-1) - ms = 0.93*mp - ms

Say ms increases by 1 kg to ms2 = ms+1. Then mp decreases by 1 kg to mp2 = mp-1. Then

mc2 = 0.93*mp2 - ms2
      = 0.93*(mp-1) - ms -1
      = 0.93*mp - ms - 0.93  -1
      = mc - 1.93

That is, TLI mass is decreased by 1.93 kg as expected.

You can also just tick the "don't use smileys" tickbox.

OK, thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: usn_skwerl on 06/26/2009 08:47 am
I didn't notice if my question was answered already. I didn't find it, so forgive me if it's there. Does the ET (core) need any mods internally (ribs and spars for example) to support the thrust structure and payload?

Thanks
Jeph
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/26/2009 09:08 am
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.

 ???

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 06/26/2009 11:13 am
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".

Quote
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.

How many moving parts does the GEM 46 have?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdBwjtgHDi8
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jeff.findley on 06/26/2009 12:19 pm
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.


Thanks for this update.  I personally think that if the panel makes contact with enough members of the team, they'll be more willing to believe that Direct had to move underground to avoid persecution. 

The presentation to the panel about side-mounted SDV's started off with the presenter essentially saying there was no sane reason for Direct to go underground.  It was a direct attack on Direct.  I'm sure that presenter didn't feel threatened because there are so many downsides to a side-mount SDV that upper management wouldn't be threatened by that presentation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 06/26/2009 01:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/26/2009 02:37 pm
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.

Ross,

First, let me say you and the gang are doing a terrific job.  And I am a true believer in the KISS principle.  But there is one flaw in your argument,  We've already done LOR. Is EOR-LOR that much harder? Where has  all the knowledge disappeared to?  It's time to explicitly put in place an architecture that will support the true long term goal of going beyond Cislunar space.  I can assure you that architecture using Jupiter launch vehicles would cost less that the current dead end NASA CxP, one spot on the moon, 1.5 launch architecture.  Indeed I would argue that go slow has many advantages and since I personally remember where I was on July 20, 1969, I feel I can argue that if I can be patient so can others.

Respectfully and sincerely yours,

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gregzsidisin on 06/26/2009 02:57 pm
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.

 ???



Just wanted to say that Shannon's / NASA's "Not Shuttle C" is actually similar to a proposal I made in 2003 for a "Shuttle B":

http://www.nsschapters.org/ny/nyc/Shuttle-Derived%20Vehicles%20Modified.pdf

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zzs.html

The main similarity is in permanently attaching the engines to the ET. 

I did advocate using RS-68 engines, which would have significantly lowered performance.  It's interesting that now, after the SSME has been rejected as too expensive for so many previous concepts, people are saying that expending SSMEs isn't so bad, especially if you produce them in decent numbers.

I'm tickled that Shannon's Side-Mount has similarities to Shuttle B - I got to tell him so after the public hearing.

However, I'm also concerned that people will look at this and conclude that the reduced capabilities and growth potential will be worth a perceived political expedience (i.e., save jobs quickly).

A side-mount solution may have been best used alongside the current STS, to do heavier lifting alongside the human-carrying vehicle.  Although then the question might have become, why have that big Shuttle Orbiter anyway?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/26/2009 03:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/26/2009 04:00 pm
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.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 06/26/2009 04:04 pm
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.


That's what I was/am hoping, especially with Buzz coming out for Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 06/26/2009 04:09 pm
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.


Is that insider information, or wishful thinking?

Jesse
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/26/2009 04:24 pm
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.


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.

BTW, DIRECT don't claim that a CxP-analogue is the most efficient way to utilise two Jupiter launches, but it allows a straight apples-to-apples comparison with Ares / CxP - if DIRECT can do that, then there shouldn't have to be a discussion "yes, DIRECT could do the Moon, but we don't like aspect x, y & z of the necessary Lunar architecture".

If Jupiter does get selected, there is an option to re-optimise the Lunar architecture, since Altair isn't really very far into it's development programme at the moment. But that would be for NASA to decide. I'm sure one or two people would have some suggestions to make (me included).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: John Duncan on 06/26/2009 04:49 pm
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.

That's OK, I'm just glad to hear that they are interacting with the team.  If there had been nothing but silence, it would have a chilling effect on ya'lls efforts.

:)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: John Duncan on 06/26/2009 04:53 pm

<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.


NASA spends WAY too much time under the radar.  They need to keep themselves in the public eye.  Shuttle has become "yawn" boring unless it's something different.  (to the regular peeps, not me)

NASA needs to spend a few dollars on self marketing, and quit using the BAD news reports to get press time. (such and such broke and wasted x dollars, etc.)

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2009 05:10 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/26/2009 05:14 pm

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..
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/26/2009 05:33 pm

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..


These are clearly marked on the "EDS" baseball cards, both in terms of what upper-stage engine-out can be tolerated during ascent & TLI, and in the gross delta-V assumed for the quoted thru-TLI mass.

For instance, see http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090606.pdf (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090606.pdf)

See "ascent performance protects for..." and "TLI dV (Adj. for Gravity Losses)". Unfortunately, the TLI dV figures are still incorrect on the Heavy cards (showing same as the non-heavy cards despite a lower T/W ratio).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2009 05:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/26/2009 06:01 pm
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.

Well, you know my thoughts on the subject of margins, love 'em.

Unfortunately, this hides Jupiter's additional margins under a bushell and this could be interpreted that you can't calculate the gravity losses correctly. As you saw, the fact that standard & heavy versions use the same figure made me assume they were mistaken (I posted the same comment at the time the latest cards were issued).

I wonder whether the J-246 & heavy would be better represented as:-

3,191.5m/s (+1.75% FPR)
3,202.5m/s (+1.40% FPR)

cheers, Martin


Edit: PS if you're going to issue updated cards or other specs/docs to the commission (not for the above, just on general principals), do you feel you should start maintaining a revision history (perhaps as a separate sheet, or maybe a simple list of changes attached with any bundle of updated docs)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/26/2009 07:18 pm
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.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2009 08:09 pm
Lobo,
   Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying.

   Here on NSF, 'vanilla' was probably the key person who helped open all our eyes to the concept of an EML rendezvous and at the time it looked an awful lot less 'expensive' than the EOR-LOR approach in terms of dV.

   That is because to get Global Access to the Lunar surface using the EOR-LOR approach appeared, initially, to require a large 700m/s+ additional "Plane Change" burn as part of the LOI process.

   Some careful study though, has proven that this high-dV Plane Change burn actually isn't necessary on the outbound flight (it is still required as part of the 3-burn TEI to support Any Time Return though).   There is a very clever process whereby you inject your spacecraft into orbit around the moon and wait a while for the moon to naturally rotate under you, so that your alignments work out much better.   It gets you somewhere around 97% global coverage without ever needing that 700m/s+ Plane Change Burn.

   This EOR-LOR+Loiter works extremely well and the worst-case time required to spend loitering in LLO still makes the mission no longer in duration than the EML options, so there is essentially less risk too (not to mention two fewer major burns required as well).

   The final result is that an EOR-LOR+Loiter architecture actually uses the least dV in total.


   The only real downside, is that windows for injecting the mission through TLI are less common than for EML.   You get an opportunity to go to the moon once every two weeks or so with the EOR-LOR approach, whereas you get an opportunity to go to either EML once a day.

   But when you actually work out the logistics of preparing the spacecraft, the launchers, dockings etc etc, you quickly realize that *at best* you really need to shoot for a single TLI window anyway -- so nothing is really lost by choosing to target just one attempt every 2 weeks.

   Here is a compilation of all the dV requirements which I posted elsewhere recently:-

Outbound (doesn't include Descent, so add 2,030m/s to all options):

EOR-LOR+Loiter Outbound:   4,125m/s / 3-7 days (varies depending on latitude)
EML1 Outbound (Direct):   4,543m/s / 7 days
EML1 Outbouad (Retrograde):   4,489m/s / 15 days
EML1 Outbouad (Prograde):   4,279m/s / 26days
EML2 Outbound (Direct):   5,233m/s / 7 days
EML2 Outbound (Swing By):   4,334m/s / 12 days


Return from 70deg Latitude (includes Ascent):

EOR-LOR Return (3.6 day):   3,433m/s
EML1 Return (3.3 day):   3,914m/s
EML1 Return (4.3 day):   3,455m/s
EML1 Return (5.3 day):   3,359m/s
EML2 Return (4.5 day):   3,810m/s
EML2 Return (5.5 day):   3,351m/s
EML2 Return (6.5 day):   3,255m/s


   Now, that isn't to say the EML's have no purpose -- they DO.   But the fact is that they do actually require higher performance and they also increase the complexity of what is an already difficult and highly dangerous mission (1 in 50 chance of losing a crew already).

   I personally *love* the idea of using the EML's -- there are lots of really interesting and cool uses for them.   But I also recognize that the first few missions to the moon really need to be as simple as we can possibly make them -- to reduce the risks.   Just take a moment to contemplate what would happen to the whole program if we lost the first crew during a landing attempt...

   Once we have established the basic capability, that is the time to start adding capabilities, greater performance and to expand the approach.

   Apollo took things as simply as could be done for the first three missions, but then they rolled-out the J-missions which improved capabilities noticeably.   Lets follow a similar pattern -- but with an affordable approach, we can keep on expanding and improving the architecture constantly.

   Lets just get that first "giant leap" under our belts to begin with though.   Babies start-out by Crawling, then Walking and progress on to Running.   If they try running straight away -- its a sure-fire way to hurt themselves.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 06/26/2009 08:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2009 08:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/26/2009 08:53 pm

Since Lobo brought up the subject again, I will take the liberty to elaborate my earlier comments.  My intent was to support the notion of having a baseline plan was an architecture that would leverage Lunar ISRU to support both Cislunar and beyond Cislunar operations.

First let me focus on Ross' comments, and let me state that I am using the EML Architecture from the ISDC 2009 PDF as my starting point. 

Saving the mass of the LSAM by reusing it allows cargo to be substituted and the large expense of the LSAM to be saved.  Ross is correct that the delta-V is greater, but it is a true anytime anywhere architecture.  It lays the foundation for Propellant depots  Yes, we would have to master fuel transfer, and yes reusable LSAM is not trivial, but it is technology we can build on rather than throw away. Furthermore there is an advantage to EML in that a fallback to a man on the moon could be a skylab type station at EML that would use advanced telerobotics.  At either EML1 or EML2 realtime control (<200ms reaction time) is possible.  This would allow a practice of the Mars situation where EML substitutes for Phobos or Deimos.  This would be meaningful and a lot cheaper than putting a base at the Lunar South Pole and within the capablilites of the Jupiter LV.


Concerning your principles of management.  They are correct in principle.  But remember,  it is important that steps 3 and 4 provide concrete intermediate deliverables that are valuable in their own right.  That is one of the Big problems with ARES I/V.  There is no reward till the end.  With a Jupiter LV strategy we can think in turns of ISS 2.0, Propellant Depots, and EML Human operations allowing a perfect dress rehearsal of a Mars Exploration Project.

Looking forward to your comments

Stanley

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.

Now LOBO,

First, Ross is strictly speaking correct about EML delta-V requirements, but I hope I have shed some light on my objections.

Concerning an Apollo 13 type problem, you are correct about the particular problem cannot be duplicated.  I think that the life boat in convenient but to be honest,  the joint strategy LSAM/CM strategy protects you for only a fraction of the mission.  If you want to be paranoid, better think of something else.

Sincerely, Stan

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.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 06/26/2009 09:12 pm
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.  :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/26/2009 09:20 pm
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.

Dear Ross,

Let me apologize for not realizing that you were replying to LOBO while I was trying to write something.

I will merely remind you of your own comments:

First,
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)

Second,
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.

Third,
Werner Von Braun did not do PD because he did not have enough time.

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.

What do you think?

Stan

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 06/26/2009 09:20 pm
One of the ways to overcome the "no lifeboat" objection for 2-launch LOR is to divide your CEV crew accommodation into a smaller reentry vehicle and a "flight module" more or less like the Soyuz Orbital Module. You could either nose-mount it like Soyuz (more work for LES, but easier to jetison at any point in mission, if required) or aft mount it like MOL and Almaz (accept risk presented by through-heatshield hatch). A 5mT CM like Apollo could easily accommodate 6 crew (5 were planned for the Skylab rescue vehicle), and I've seen diagrams of versions carry up to 8 crew. I favor aft-mounted because it makes it easier to plumb a redundant set of OMS thrusters, giving you three ways to get home from LLO (SPS, OMS-1, and OMS-2). Either way, you get living/storage space, some redundant life support option. And finally, an aft mounted "flight module" would work in a lunar-surface rendezvous architecture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2009 09:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/26/2009 09:51 pm
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.

Ross,

Don't you see the jobs are in closing the gap.  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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/26/2009 10:08 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/26/2009 10:13 pm
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

Dear Danny,

All voters are the same. But really, Jupiter is the key.  We now know that 20Mt lift is too low and 100Mt meets all the needs.  That was the problem with SaturnI/V, too small/too big. Jupiter is just right. It fills the range nicely and the infrastructure is ready.

Respectfully yours,

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2009 10:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/26/2009 10:36 pm
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,

Sorry for the delay, I also have a real job, thank God I'm self-employed.  I agree with  Jupiter/ORION up ASAP, stretching out Shuttle as needed because as you guys stated, if you need the people they are not an expense.

I also agree that a moon by 2020 date will garner public support.  I also agree that a moon flyby will also help garner public support.  I just think that the moon landing should use an architecture that we can grow with and I think that the EML architecture that was presented at ISDC 2009 is a perfect starting point. Make the LSAM reusable/refuelable and, technically and cost wise,  everything else follows from there.

I can assure you, I believe we are on the same page.

Respectfully yours,

Stan

P.S.  I still think that HDTV from a tele-operated moon buggy would still get a good audience.

P.P.S.  Remember, 40 years ago the LM was also the long pole in the landing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/26/2009 11:45 pm
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.  :)


Very approximate figures...

If you use 2x J-130 in a 2x "Apollo flyby" mission, then you are limited to 2x ~20mT through TLI (~26mT fuel, subtract ~4mT used to push DIVHCUS itself through TLI, high gravity losses due to single RL-10B-2). But this has major logistical issues.

"Direct injection" increases payload on the Lunar Flyby mission, but you can't use this for dual launch - both vehicles would have to launch about the same time. May be possible if Altair launches at the previous window, then has a very long LLO loiter (which increases risk & boiloff).

Even if you fly two conventional flights to LEO, DIVHCUS has a very short loiter time, which still forces you to launch two J-246's very rapidly, increasing crew risks (pressure to launch despite problems) and chance of LOM (second vehicle fails to launch in time).

May be possible to launch J-130 to a higher orbit to increase thru-TLI mass, but I suspect not massively.



With 10% margin, J-246 crewed can lift ~70mT "net mass" to LEO (ie net of the fuel necessary to push the EDS through TLI). ~34mT thru TLI.

With 10% margin, J-246 cargo can lift ~77mT "net mass". ~37mT thru TLI.



2x DIVHCUS LOR-LOR therefore limits you to ~40mT thru TLI.

2x J-246 LOR-LOR gets you ~71mT thru TLI - just barely scraping CxP's requirements, but distributed in a way that requires both Orion & Altair to be re-designed.



Repeat of caveat - those figures are very approximate (eg "TLI mass + EDS = half of available fuel, less a little bit").

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/27/2009 02:52 am
Just to clarify Martin's rough figures:   A pair of Jupiter-246 launchers are actually good for more like 79mT thru TLI.

And a J-246 CLV can also lift almost 94mT to LEO, so with 10% additional margins that would be about 84mT.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/27/2009 01:40 pm
Just to clarify Martin's rough figures:   A pair of Jupiter-246 launchers are actually good for more like 79mT thru TLI.

...with EOR-LOR (as per baseline). The benefit here is that the docking in LEO requires only a single EDS to be pushed through TLI, consuming ~14mT of fuel which can't be used for payload.


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)

...consuming ~28mT of fuel which can't be used for payload.


Quote
yet your launchers aren't any bigger to compensate for that extra mass.

With 10% margin on the CaLV flight, combined launch payload is actually 11mT worse than EOR-LOR. A double whammy.


Quote
And a J-246 CLV can also lift almost 94mT to LEO, so with 10% additional margins that would be about 84mT.

84mT CLV in LEO. Orion must perform it's own TLI for LOR-LOR, so "wastes" ~14mT of fuel pushing 2nd EDS through TLI, thus 70mT "net-of-EDS".

Further fuel would be used braking EDS during LOI.



For the equivalent CaLV / Altair-only flight, starting with ~90mT in LEO results in ~36mT through TLI, which I think is enough for Altair to perform it's own LOI. But I don't see how you could perform a two-launch cargo mission with this architecture, unless you put the payload on the non-Altair flight and use the 2nd EDS for part of the descent. Altair / payload dock in LLO???

cheers, Martin

Edit: don't see how you could perform a two-launch cargo mission
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/27/2009 06:20 pm
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.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/27/2009 06:26 pm
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).

A reusable lander needs a depot/tanker anyway.

Quote
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.

Perhaps if you insist on using LOX/LH2. Which also interferes with depots. So you shouldn't insist on LOX/LH2 for a first generation lander.

Quote
Both of those would drive the near-term development costs of a reusable lander much higher than for a smaller disposable unit.

Debatable.

Quote
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.

And the fact that a reusable lander makes an SDLV superfluous is just a happy coincidence?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/27/2009 06:39 pm
Wow, you're getting really snarky these days.   Perhaps you need more fiber in your diet :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/27/2009 06:41 pm
Responding substantively to arguments will do just fine.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/27/2009 06:52 pm
No...

Ross is right, It was a bit snarky.

Ross, I seek a truce while I go lick my wounds.  Thanks for your patience.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/27/2009 07:13 pm
Very well, I note a substantive response hasn't materialised yet and I will patiently wait and see if one shows up later.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/27/2009 07:25 pm
Very well, I note a substantive response hasn't materialised yet and I will patiently wait and see if one shows up later.

In my opinion, EELV class launchers plus depots could work to get us back to the Moon (and there were many proposals for these types of architecture back in day of Admiral Steidle's spirals) however:

(1) Congress wasn't interested;

(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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/27/2009 07:33 pm
I agree. While an all EELV architecture is possible, and would work, I think tossing out the Shuttle workforce will not be something Congress will ever allow. I hope the EELV crowd soon realizes this, and starts pitching for a EELV CLV and a Shuttle Derived cargo option. An all EELV architecture will never be allowed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 06/27/2009 07:49 pm
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.

The dual-EDS approach may have perhaps 5 mT more dry mass through TLI, requiring perhaps 15 mT more to LEO, but it doesn't leave 30 mT of unused LEO performance on the pad.

So, in the end, dual-EDS may push perhaps 5 mT more payload through TLI than EOR-LOR using the same two launch vehicles, but the difference is relatively small.

Ultimately, the more significant difference is the lower development costs of a smaller EDS than could also achieve higher flight rates and lower operational costs by doubling as an upper stage for EELV.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/27/2009 07:54 pm
(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;

This is undoubtedly true. But what if heavy lift is a mistake? And consider that EELVs are larger than any operational foreign launcher anyway and their payload can be more than doubled by going to EELV Phase 1. And in the longer term: depots can help establish RLVs, small ones at first and then bigger ones that could take people to orbit. The US can choose to try and relive its glory days or to establish a lead in RLVs and remain a leader in the future. To me the choice is obvious. But that doesn't mean it will be easy of course.

Quote
(3) I believe Jupiters plus depots provide far greater value for the money spent than EELV plus depots;

I respect your opinion, but I do not share it. The shuttle stack costs an awful lot of money in fixed costs. And more importantly, an exploration program that uses depots for the lander could give an enormous boost to the struggling launch industry and do so very soon. Especially if the landers are reusable. Just the other day we heard about SeaLaunch going under. We regularly hear rumours about the difficulty SpaceX is in. Imagine having 75mT of lander propellant available for commercial launchers per moon mission and having the money to buy those launches by not having to build a brand new lander each time.

Quote
(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.

You are absolutely right not everyone is enthusiastic about depots, although the same goes for heavy lift. But consider that non-cryogenic orbital refueling has been operational for more than 30 years. The US first demonstrated an experimental capability in 1984 and more recently in 2007 with Orbital Express. And hypergolic landers are more than 40 years old. Hypergolic thrusters have been used continuously for longer than that, they are highly reliable, they are used on the Shuttle and Delta 2 today and are planned for Orion and the Altair ascent stage.

Quote
Go back to 2004 and the original CEV proposals. Much of what you advocate, Martijn, was expressly proposed at that time.

I think they proposed cryogenic depots back then. I agree those are a much harder sell, though probably unfairly so.
 
Quote
However, Congress seemed unimpressed. The shuttle workforce is merely part of "why" at least IMO.

It probably wasn't the only factor, but I suspect it was the most important one. Of course, times have changed. The Augustine commission now has to look at the moon and "other interesting destinations beyond LEO", ways to stimulate commercial space and international competitiveness of the US launch industry.

Another thing is that HLVs have a coolness factor. If they weren't so expensive, I'd want one too. Watching a Saturn V launch must have been awe inspiring. But if we ever want to establish a spacefaring society, we must move beyond such emotions and depend on cold hard facts. And I don't think those support an HLV, regardless of whether it is based on EELV or SDLV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/27/2009 07:56 pm
Very well, I note a substantive response hasn't materialised yet and I will patiently wait and see if one shows up later.

[snark]

From what I've seen, it wouldn't matter what substantive response is given. It wouldn't satisfy those who dislike anything other than status quo.

[/snark]

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/27/2009 08:00 pm
For the same mass through TLI, two relatively small EDS may have higher dry mass than one large EDS.

Possible, but not obvious to me. The JUS is very heavy and you have to haul all that mass through TLI. The DHCSS has a burnout mass of about 4.5mT and four of those could carry a similar amount of cargo through TLI. What is the burnout mass of the JUS, something like 30mT?

Quote
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.

So you can't even use this HLV efficiently without having a depot first. And once you have a depot, you don't need the HLV anymore...

Quote
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.

This is something I could live with. In fact I have argued for this energetically, but the DIRECT team refuses to consider it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/27/2009 08:06 pm
No, we *HAVE* considered it.   You just don't want to listen though.

We have worked out the performance, the safety, the budget and the political repercussions.   And the approach you suggest has very significant flaws in more than one of those areas.

You don't want to hear that though -- it conflicts with your established thought processes.   Unfortunately, human nature means people have always had a habit of ignoring whatever conflicts with their beliefs.   Sadly that's how most wars have started throughout history.   And it also helps explain how we got this unaffordable Ares solution in the first place too.

The times I have tried to explain, all I get is this sort of snarkiness and rejections.   So what is the point in me engaging?   It's not like I haven't got enough to work on already that I can afford to waste my time trying to convince someone who seems so dead-set on not listening.

Sorry, I have more important things to do than beat my head against a brick wall.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/27/2009 08:07 pm
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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
EELV doesn't do it.

Quite possible. Regrettable, but possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/27/2009 08:16 pm
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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
EELV doesn't do it.

Quite possible. Regrettable, but possible.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/27/2009 08:30 pm
No, we *HAVE* considered it.   You just don't want to listen though.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/27/2009 08:31 pm
You just don't listen do you?

Huh? I just agreed with you there.

Quote
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.

As you wish.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/27/2009 08:37 pm
The best way to kill Ares once and for all is for DIRECT and ULA to pursue a common upper stage.

That is a very bad idea.  There is no synergy in it, it will only muck up things. 

The EELV upperstages have the avionics in them.  Direct and EELV shouldn't have common avionics.  Also don't want NASA messing with the EELV hardware and imposing "bad" requirements.  Also the upperstage interfaces with 3 different pads would be horrendous.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/27/2009 08:41 pm

Quote
Both 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/27/2009 08:44 pm
Quote
You are absolutely right not everyone is enthusiastic about depots, although the same goes for heavy lift.

And therefore we need to pursue both in a manner that allows a transition to one or the other if the one of these options does not work out.

I also remain very much unpersuaded that EELV + depots will be less expensive than DIRECT + depots for delivering massive amounts of payload to the Moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/27/2009 08:47 pm
No, it would.  No question about it.

Very interesting, I'd love to hear more. This might not be the right thread for it though. I'll start a separate thread here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17636.0).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/27/2009 08:57 pm
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.

Actually, if you go back and re-read my comments on all those issues, I have more-often-than-not said that many of those capabilities are desirable in the longer term.   I'm very careful to always try to keep my options open because I feel that's the only way to ensure you never get trapped in a corner (one of Ares' key issues IMHO).

My concerns spring from there often being such a very big difference between what we might "want" and what we can "actually do".   The reasons for those differences cover all sorts of areas, from political to economic, from technical to logistical -- and they are always inter-related -- as if it wasn't complicated enough! :)

I have tried to explain in most situations and I think most people here are beginning to get a much better feel for the inter-relationships between the politics of Congress, the White House and the Corporate players and how those then relate to the funding.   I think most people are realizing that a technically perfect solution still isn't going to work if it doesn't fit the budget or the schedule envelopes.   And I think people are generally beginning to realize how the politics and the technical details are all married together as well.

The *only* way to get a workable solution -- specifically I mean one which doesn't result in yet another review committee in 4 years time -- is to find an HOLISTIC solution which takes into account all of these different competing factors and makes sure to explicitly hit each and every one of these nails down fully without leaving any standing to get "'snagged-up-on" later.


What I'm telling you, is that the option you support misses the mark in a number of these areas -- the most notable of all being the political support, and whether you wish it were the case, or whether you like it, the fact remains that without strong political support the funding will be a *total* bust and everything else hinges upon that.

No, I personally do not like this dynamic.   I think it needs to be different.   But that's a fight I'm not interested in getting involved in, so I am spending my energies promoting a solution which has carefully studies all these different factors and which has deliberately gone out of its way to hammer every one of those nails firmly into their correct and acceptable positions.

You are free to think differently.   But until you acknowledge and understand how each of these different factors all affect each other -- and until you work out precisely how each can and must be addressed, you don't have much chance of coming up with a solution which will be accepted.

I wish there were a chart I could point to to show how all the important factors all link together.   When I have more time, perhaps I'll draw one up, but you've got to get to grips with this dynamic.   Forget about the technical stuff for a while and concentrate on working out the money and politics -- because without them, you are going nowhere.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 06/27/2009 09:06 pm
Martijn,

How many members of the Augustine Committee do you believe are open to being persuaded to declare "L-point staging, non-cryogenic depots and horizontal landers" to be the favored option for immediate implementation by NASA and to sign their name to that recommendation within the next 60 or 90 days?

I believe the answer to this question would be "ZERO"

Perhaps that is unfortunate but that too is a political constraint faced by space enthusiasts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/27/2009 10:35 pm
Let me start this by saying I really don't know to what depth the committee is going to get into the technicalities of these missions and to what degree they are going to recommend certain choices over others.   I'm not privvy to any of those discussions.

But the fact remains that the supporting evidence regarding EML staging being better than LLO is pretty thin and there is actually evidence which says it isn't actually the case.   Further, its opposition has already been proven to work 7 times before for crewed missions and there is a lot to be said for re-treading a successful path.

Similarly, the evidence that a horizontal lander works better than a vertical one is equally as unproven and open to debate still.   So far I'm only aware of one proposal for such, and even that documentation indicated it was a preliminary study which had not been thoroughly investigated yet.   And again, 9 crewed missions have flown the vertical arrangement successfully already.

I think there are very strong arguments for depot's and it seemed clear from Jeff Greason's comments during the June 17th hearing that he, at least, is supportive of them already.   But whether they should be included in the critical path to success is a debate which the panel are assured to have.   I don't know which way they will go on that and I can see both sides to the argument, although I lean towards the more conservative approach of keeping them clear of the critical path to success, but trying to bring them online as soon as possible after that milestone is achieved.


But I have been through a similar process myself over the last 4 years with this project.   We have covered much of the same ground as the committee must now do in the next 60-90 days.   We all know where our analysis led us, but I suspect the committee will be starting with a different set of assumptions.   Where that will lead them, I can't tell but it wouldn't surprise me to see it lead a similar way.

I don't think any of us can predict where this will all land.   The only thing for sure at this point:   The committee has much work ahead of it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/27/2009 10:52 pm
Here's a link to a NASA study (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031872_2007031894.pdf) that involves a horizontal lander. There's a much older concept developed by NASA in the eighties that Dennis Wingo is fond of. It's described in this (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1286) article. There was also an internal NASA document leaked on NASA watch that had a horizontal lander in it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/27/2009 10:56 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/27/2009 10:57 pm
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.

Watched it again. It was William Anders:-

Quote
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.

Wow, that's "the right stuff"!!! But, put that in context, he also said:-

Quote
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.


Frank Borman himself said:-

Quote
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.

 :o

Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/27/2009 11:26 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/27/2009 11:50 pm

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 apologize Ross.
I guess my statements where not entire hitting the mark. And to be qualify further, the statement of ISS wasn't directly at you or your team, but the American people in general. And I know you DID qualify my original remarks on the J-130 not being pushed by your team, but it was in fact J-130 CaLV you were going to fly to ISS for spares.

I'll just shut up now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 06/28/2009 12:02 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Gregori on 06/28/2009 12:35 am
Giving NASA the benefit of the doubt that they can eventually iron out all Ares I issues, that separation of crew and cargo is safer approach, that the stick would be eventually cheaper (per flight unit) and safer (fewer parts that can fail) and all those LOC/LOM figures that its managers have been throwing out......


I was thinking today about the possibility that Direct 3.0 could lead to an Ares I rocket being developed in the future. This is kinda like how Ares I is supposed to lead to Ares V, but in total reverse.

Ares I is an untested and experimental configuration, with lots of new parts to be developed etc etc  Such advanced and complex things shouldn't be on the critical path. Do the fancy complex experimental stuff later!!!


If we already had a Jupiter Rocket flying, it could be gradually upgraded incrementally and some of the technologies developed for it could be used in the future to develop Ares I or something similar.

For example, the J130/J246 might be upgraded with 5 segment boosters in the future! If these work fine and are safe over a few flights, an Ares I type configuration could be tested with these to validate the concept. If it developed, it will be sharing the same production and have commonality with the heavier Jupiter rockets. If these tests fail, we still have the good old J130/J246 to fall back on.

If NASA ever upgrades the upper stage of the Jupiter rockets to something like a J2X, an air startable SSME or an RL60.....these might be also be tested on an Ares I in the future.


(please don't shoot me!!!!) :D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/28/2009 03:04 am
Just out of curiosity, how much could a J-246 loft to venus (as in landing and/or orbiting?)  A probe with extra Shielding to withstand the crushing surface temperature/pressure sounds like a good unmanned use.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 06/28/2009 03:34 am
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.

Nite Ross.  Sweet Dreams.  Best wishes to all the Direct Team, and to all the pro and con commentators on this forum.  Having been a space nut for 55 years, and watched the failures and successes, I have nothing but wonderful awe at what we have accomplished and what we have yet to do.

See you all Monday morning, bright eyed and bushy tailed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/28/2009 03:45 am
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.

Or, I suppose everyone could print out paper rockets tonight and spend tomorrow gluing them together.

Modify: word order
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/28/2009 04:08 am
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.

Maybe there has been a thread somewhere on whether there is a functional distinction between a booster and a first stage.  Perhaps one of the abacus-heads here can tell me if my perception that there is a difference is at all valid. 

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. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/28/2009 05:51 am
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. 

If your 1.5 SSMEs were burned all the way from lift-off to orbit (impossible with an in-line config) then yes, I suspect that logic is correct (half the mass of the shuttle into orbit).

But Ares 1 is inline and thus has to be 2-stage.

Ironically the 1.5 stage option is probably safer too (all engines are ground-lit and no critical staging event).

Edit: AFAIK mass fractions are also usually poorer for smaller rockets as well...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Vacuum.Head on 06/28/2009 08:56 am
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.
Not just Monday..
Whilst applauding and appreciating your herculean task of acting as the spokesperson/ technical support/ agony aunt for the DIRECT Team. Enough already!
IMHO you have achieved your stated goal: a proper peer review of the proposed architecture. The only meetings you should now be entertaining are those with various 'interested parties' with the influence to make DIRECT a reality. To all the (other) amazing people out there I would suggest that we back off and let the man take a serious break!
To the critics start your own threads about how it will never work!
Perhaps we will visit to critique.
 
PLEASE Ross. Symptoms of stress (angina?) are not good, bearing in mind you know what. ONE DAY is not enough! I would suggest a week... hell a take month, you deserve it!
Trust me I'm a First Aider.
I suspect your doctor would be even more succinct!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JPK on 06/28/2009 10:30 am
Re the direct teams discussion with the commission.
Has the subject of the political order to separately
Launch crew and cargo.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JPK on 06/28/2009 10:39 am
Sorry something went wrong with my last post!
I seem to have lost the last 1/3 of:-
Re the direct teams discussion with the commission.
Has the subject of the political order to "separately
Launch Crew and cargo", instead of "separating the
Crew and cargo", been considered?
 
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/28/2009 03:11 pm
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.

I designed them for 1/72, so there may be slight scaling issues with the reduction to 1/144. I am not going to take the time to do a test or beta build, so if anyone wants to do it for me before the plans get finalized, please send an email to: lancer 525 at g mail dot com.
:)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 06/28/2009 09:57 pm
To that end, I am preparing to release the plans for the 3.0 versions of J-130 and J-246.

I wonder what would happen in the halls of NASA if two foot high models of the J-130 started to appear on people's desks?  :o

To that end, looking forward to the plans!  Having never tried a paper model before, it could be and interesting project.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 06/28/2009 11:20 pm
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:

Quote
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.

A bit narrow minded?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/29/2009 12:03 am
Someone needs to send that guy some knowledge. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/29/2009 12:37 am
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:

Quote
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.

A bit narrow minded?

I suppose the existing SSME's and SRB's with nearly 30 years of flight history don't could for much.

Must not be an investigative journalist.  Especially when the first Ares 1 test flight is twisting in the wind.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/29/2009 01:11 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 06/29/2009 01:50 am
Moon Rocket Test Is On Shaky Ground.  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-nasa-rocket-troubles-062809,0,3135683,print.story
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/29/2009 02:08 am
Not surprising...

On a more positive note, I just ran across a photo I haven't published yet of just how much different in size the two versions of the DIRECT models are...

Here's a photo of the RSRMs for both models next to each other.

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/th_srbcomparison.jpg) (http://s109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/?action=view&current=srbcomparison.jpg)

Click on the thumbnail to see the full size photo. I was amazed when I saw this, and I built the things!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/29/2009 09:21 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 06/29/2009 09:44 am
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: VoodooForce on 06/29/2009 10:35 am
New Scientist has a writeup (http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/nasas-next-rocket) of current options.



Quote
What were fringe alternatives a few months ago are now being seriously considered.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rosbif73 on 06/29/2009 11:06 am
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?

I've just added it (as a redirect to the main DIRECT article).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/29/2009 12:01 pm
We can all come back Monday, with clearer, refreshed heads.

Good idea?

Ross.
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 morning, Ross!

Really, if you need it, take some more days off.  It's a long slog until October and we need you sharp and healthy!

I hear the Appalachian Trail is lovely this time of year.

Modify: punctuation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mr.columbus on 06/29/2009 12:47 pm
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.

Mars first is something that is not going to happen. Back to the Moon is the logical conclusion to start with when we talk about human spaceflight.

Considering that under normal circumstances (no Cold War + first human space flight in the 1960s), the first Moon landing would have been in the 1980s or 1990s, it makes a lot of sense to concentrate on the Moon first. Not from a scientific point of view, just from a technological and financial point of view.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MagDes on 06/29/2009 01:15 pm
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.

The Commission has very little time to make an informed comparison of the proposed launchers. While I'm sure they will consider the expandability of these vehicles to support advanced missions, I don't think it will be their primary focus. However; Buzz Alderin and others are proposing a Mars now architecture (although even Buzz thinks we should kick some more rocks over on the moon first). I'm sure there's a thread here at NSF but Buzz has been in the news lately promoting his plan:
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200927/3951/Buzz-Aldrin-calls-for-focus-on-manned-Mars-mission
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/29/2009 01:19 pm
Not to be disrespectful, but this IS a DIRECT thread guys...can we please keep the thread clean and talk about Buzz & Mars in a proper thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: DLK on 06/29/2009 01:58 pm
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.
-Dan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: PaulL on 06/29/2009 02:15 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/29/2009 02:22 pm
Comments have to be *approved* by the author
Is Florida Today like a 'normal' newspaper?
The author claims he is filtering only for profanity and libel. Not sure on the 'normal' question.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben Joshua on 06/29/2009 02:53 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/29/2009 02:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/29/2009 03:17 pm
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.


And J-120 seems OK in this role anyway - just over 40mT w/o margin.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jml on 06/29/2009 03:19 pm
That's a question I initially wondered about too.

The problem seems to be that developing 3-segment SRBs would be just as costly and time consuming as developing 5-segment SRBs. Plus having to develop and manufacture multiple versions of the core adds to the cost and complexity too.

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. A Direct 3.0 JS-120 (2 x SSME) or Direct 2.0 J-110 (1 x RS-68) would be the result.  A search back through the Direct threads will show you that this has been considered. However, these versions would not have the same level of engine-out capability as the baselined versions. And there seems to be a desire by the Direct team to not make the same mistake as Ares I in duplicating existing EELV launch capabilities.
 

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/29/2009 03:25 pm

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/29/2009 03:40 pm
use a partial propellant load.
There is no such thing as partial propellant loads for launch vehicles. 
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?

Has the partial issue been resolved (at least at the layman level of this forum) before?

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jml on 06/29/2009 03:48 pm
No doubt about A. (And no doubt about the limited utility of this concept).

But I have a question about B.
Is propellant offload the more correct term? Or would this really mean putting in new fill sensors partway up both the LOX and LH tank?


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

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/29/2009 04:13 pm
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:

Quote
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.

A bit narrow minded?

I wrote a piece last night and it is up on the website.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Paul Adams on 06/29/2009 04:23 pm
Which web site, I would like to read it.

Thanks,

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: iontyre on 06/29/2009 04:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 06/29/2009 04:56 pm
use a partial propellant load.
There is no such thing as partial propellant loads for launch vehicles. 
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?

Has the partial issue been resolved (at least at the layman level of this forum) before?


As Jim points out, you simply have sensors at specific levels. Industry does make capacitive sensors and so on, but they have to be flight qualified and be able to work in that environments.

Having sensors placed at specific points would be easy enough I think once you know the specific locations you are looking for. if you need your missions to fly at 100% fill and 75% fill, you have specific sensors at those locations, with corresponidng hi/lo sensors for each.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bad_astra on 06/29/2009 05:00 pm
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?

Search the site for Stumpy.

Redesigning the core would incur a lot of extra cost for no  reason, and you risk putting your payload, including people, right on level with the SRB's. For a crewed mission that would not be ideal. At least with not-shuttle-c, it would be possible to eject away from the stack almost perpendicularly. With this sort of direct-stumpy, you'd be in the direct line of fire. Also, why would there be a need for one?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 06/29/2009 06:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 06/29/2009 06:23 pm

As Jim points out, you simply have sensors at specific levels.

Not that simple.  Conditioning the propellants and getting them into the engine start box would be harder.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/29/2009 06:26 pm
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.

If something needs to be flown that requires a LV with with less performance than a Jupiter-130, fly it on an EELV. The Jupiters are designed to compliment the EELV's; not compete with them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 06/29/2009 06:31 pm
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.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 06/29/2009 06:55 pm
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.
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.)   

I will claim faulty memory and conclude that all Jupiter launch profiles assume full tanks.  My memory tickle is that some profiles would only work with a partially filled JUS.

Is there precedence for that?
 

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/29/2009 08:18 pm
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.  :-[
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/29/2009 08:19 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/29/2009 10:36 pm
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


I like the idea of a refuellable EDS...

Presuming you're going to use a tug to intermediate between tanker & depot, the mass penalty & sophisticated hardware on the depot could be fairly low. So make the EDS itself into a depot.

Starting with a fuelled depot/EDS in orbit, launch J-24x CLV or CaLV.

Discard the ascent upper stage, dock with EDS & perform TLI.

Discarded JUS now becomes the new depot, starting with the ascent residuals and will later become EDS for the following flight. That flight doesn't ascend until EDS is fuelled and checks out ready for TLI.

Every Jupiter launch gives you both a payload and a future EDS. J-24x allows you to launch the maximum payloads into LEO, and each JUS gets recycled for a following flight.



With this scheme you can also use tankers to enhance the standard phase 2, two-launch mission. These are tests / precursors for the full phase 3 with depots.

Launch a standard EDS with 100mT of fuel. Use tanker(s) to fuel it up to 132mT (plus a little more for gravity losses and the mass of refuelling hardware).

A CaLV with an 86mT payload can be pushed through both TLI & LOI. NASA's standard 11.2mT Altair can then land a 31.5mT payload.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 06/29/2009 10:54 pm
Does that need its own thread?  It's an interesting idea.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/29/2009 11:00 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/29/2009 11:13 pm
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

There are various options depending on whether you wish to refuel the lander in LEO or low lunar orbit.

"Ion/vasimr tugs for non time critical cargo."
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12475.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12475.0)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: RickFischer on 06/30/2009 01:51 am
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/30/2009 02:40 am
I like the idea of filling up partial loads with some sort of standardized asteroid data probes.  They could have a prospector function as well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 06/30/2009 02:43 am
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.



If it's successful it will likely present a totally false image of a functioning design. 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 strengthened 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. But to prevent a "bad PR" possibility, I have been told from multiple sources that this area of the Ares-I-X has been structurally beefed up so that it cannot possibly bend, far beyond what is even remotely possible with a real Ares-I.

If that is true then this "test" flight is a fake. It's those kinds of things that give us pause. I have not been able thus far to get NASA to either confirm or deny this condition and to me that is worrisome. If true, it would appear that some things on this "test" vehicle are being done for the sake of PR instead of actually "testing" its capability, and in so doing, the vehicle, and its resulting flight data is being severely compromised for the sake of public image. After the "successful" flight is concluded we won't know what flight data we can trust and what data we cannot because it is all compromised. That is NOT how to design and test a launch vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jarmumd on 06/30/2009 03:10 am
... 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.

Clongton, I can't speak for Ares I-X, but if you are claiming that structural analysis of the Interstage shows it failing during Max Q... Well, I don't know where you get your information from, but its not correct.  There is a maximum shear and bending load for the IS.  This is the load which the structure is designed to.  Then analysis is done using the most recent models to determine if the new designs meet or exceed the design limit.  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).

I guess if you are saying that the IS cannot be designed to the loads in the weight requirements, well, I can't speak to that...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/30/2009 03:24 am
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/30/2009 04:17 am
I know, I thought that too, but I think he just needs to rewrite his sentence.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 06/30/2009 04:40 am
I think it means that a part designed to handle a specific load fails due to a materials or manufacturing defect, rather than the actual loads exceeding the design capability.

I did hear, a while back, that the Ares I-X interstage had failed to handle the designed loads during testing. I expect they've beefed it up since then.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jarmumd on 06/30/2009 04:51 am
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!

The Interstage will fail, when the failure of another system causes an abort condition.  It will not fail under allowable max q or max q-alpha conditions.

Thanks....   ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/30/2009 04:55 am
This is not an Ares I-X thread. Get it back on topic please.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/30/2009 06:27 am
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?

EDS gets to lift itself to a higher orbit without the burden of a payload (the entire point of the scheme), but does this actually reduce post-ascent fuel by more than any savings above?



I suspect this would only work if the rendezvous orbit is elliptical (130nmi perigee?), which I understand makes both rendezvous & TLI very tricky in practice.

I also suspect that we'd be talking about modest apogee increases, since cargo flies on J-130 and crewed mission has only ~5mT unused launch capacity to 130x130 anyway.



However, I did wonder if a J-246 CaLV might make use of this for occasional "super cargo" flights. I'd hoped that assembly in GEO might be possible, but hadn't realised just how little increment there is between GTO & TLI, so that's a non-starter.

However, JUS could still put Altair into an orbit with a pretty high Apogee I think, and the fuel savings accelerating EDS-on-its-own to the same orbit seem as if they might be worthwhile.

But this is presumably a non-starter due to EDS & Altair orbiting repeatedly through the Van Allen belts?

I also found an interesting blog entry by Jongoff on this subject. Please note the caveats, but I believe DIRECT would expect to target a single TLI opportunity per mission anyway. (Rendezvous presumably still an issue, though):-

http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/02/orbital-mechanics-tricksiness-to-increase-the-frequency-of-tli-opportunities-for-leo-depots/ (http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/02/orbital-mechanics-tricksiness-to-increase-the-frequency-of-tli-opportunities-for-leo-depots/)

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/30/2009 07:37 am
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.

The assumption that ml (total mass of first and second launch) is fixed in not true for Direct. The first launch carrying the EDS is maxed out. The second launch carrying Altair and Orion is about 20 t less than available in the J-246. If EDS stage mass increases by 1 kg, then the payload available in the second launch also decreases by 1 kg. However, the cargo mass decreases by 2 kg due to the loss in performance of the first EDS, so overall, the total mass into LEO of the second launch decreases by 1 kg (+1 kg from EDS -2 kg from payload = -1 kg).

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.

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.

Thanks very much for that information Ross. The RL-10B-2 has an exhaust speed of 4530.7 m/s (462 s ISP). This means the loss from 1 kg of propellant is 1/(exp(dv/ve)-1) = 1/(exp(3247.15/4530.7)-1) = 0.95. Thus, an EDS increase of 1 kg results in 1.95 kg loss in TLI mass, not much different than the 1.93 kg loss with the J-2X.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 06/30/2009 10:57 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 06/30/2009 01:27 pm
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


Simply, the EDS launch can lift a certain mass to orbit. This is simply the mass of fuel (the payload figure on the baseball card) and the mass of the EDS itself.

There's no magic involved - if the EDS is 1Kg heavier, that allows 1Kg less fuel to be lifted into orbit. (Total mass of EDS + fuel remains the same). That hasn't impacted anything yet, we've just got 1Kg more EDS & 1Kg less fuel in orbit.



Post-ascent, the fuel propels the combined mass of the EDS & spacecraft through TLI.

If the EDS is 1Kg heavier, than that's 1Kg that has to come off the spacecraft. (Similar to above, total mass of EDS + spacecraft remains the same, just the balance shifts).



In addition to the above, 1Kg of fuel is required to push each 0.93 Kg of payload through TLI, so a 1Kg drop in available fuel reduces the payload through TLI by another 0.93Kg.



The total deficit for each 1Kg extra fat on the EDS mass is therefore 1Kg + 0.93Kg = Steven's 1.93Kg.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: anonymous1138 on 06/30/2009 01:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/30/2009 02:43 pm
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.

it is a very good article.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 06/30/2009 04:21 pm
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.

Has the DIRECT team ever spoken at an AIAA Houston meeting?  Elon Musk spoke a couple of years ago, and was very well received by the JSC-heavy audience.  I'd love to hear Ross speak at the same venue and get a reading on the interest/support in this community.  (Yes, I work @ JSC). 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/30/2009 04:47 pm
GREAT ARTICLE! I hope the Augustine Panel gets a copy, as I think it provides perfect answers to some of the questions they asked during the presentation to the panel.
That is the text book response to the "Who are you guys?" question.

I think it was an honest interview and really hit the issues well. It wasn't crazily "Pro-Direct", it really came off as here's what we have, and this is why it will work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 06/30/2009 07:09 pm
Excellent article indeed :) - What's the readership of the magazine? Is it something you'd see on coffee tables at JSC?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 06/30/2009 07:51 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/01/2009 12:58 am
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.

Thanks for posting the link!

That was a great interview with Ross...yes, I too hope the Augustine Commission gets wind of it, and that the readership expands to some more influencial people.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Robo-Nerd on 07/01/2009 02:07 am
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.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: PaulL on 07/01/2009 03:02 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JonSBerndt on 07/01/2009 03:15 am
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.

Jon Berndt
Past Editor
Current Assistant Editor
AIAA Houston Horizons
www.aiaa-houston.org/horizons
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Robo-Nerd on 07/01/2009 03:21 am
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.)

A follow-on question for the DIRECT Team: Shannon's presentation (Slide 7 of 28, Systems Architecture Phasing Strategy) calls for "One Fault Tolerant" systems (upper left block of the matrix). I take this to mean "Two String" or "Dual Redundant". I know that certain flight critical systems on the Shuttle are much more redundant than "Dual Redundant" (as I recall, the Shuttle main flight computers are Quad Redundant). What redundancy is baselined for the Jupiter series of launch vehicles under the DIRECT architecture? How does this compare with "Not-Shuttle-C" and with existing launchers such as Delta IV and Atlas V? Thanks,
     - Osa
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/01/2009 07:15 am
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


Excellent, Paul, that's exactly the sort of analysis I was hoping for.

Many thanks, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/01/2009 10:49 am
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.
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.
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?

<brain explodes>

I guess to understand the argument, I would need a table that looked something like:

vehicleGTOGSO
J-130 mT payload
J-246 mT payload
J-246 mT fuel
Combined mT
Combined m/s

Where the first four rows would be mT delivered to TLI and the fifth row would be the velocity necessary to achieve each of the two orbits.  Perhaps the J-130 fuel wouldn't need to be broken out; it would be enough, but the J-246 fuel could be broken out to understand better the tradeoffs of going to each orbit. 

If I follow the argument, I would expect that the larger mass contribution from the J-130 would be offset by the extra fuel consumed by the J-246 to reach the velocity necessary to meet the J-130 at that orbit?

Also, I presume this illustration is close to what we are describing?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE5-3/gso.jpg

Thanks, again!

Modify: J-130 for J-246.  Add table thoughts

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: PaulL on 07/01/2009 03:18 pm
fotoguzzi, probably the best thing for you to do is to "play" with the CEPE spreadsheet yourself to find cargo/propellant payload estimates for the J-130 and J-246 at various orbits heights.  You can find the tool at www.paul.enutrofal.com 

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: YesRushGen on 07/01/2009 04:17 pm
...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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 07/01/2009 08:20 pm
...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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/01/2009 08:46 pm
...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.

I'll second that; from my limited perspective it seemed to me that Shannon was most likely trying to take momentum away from the Direct presentation to build credibility for his own argument. I'm sure he's a great guy, but I think that statement was in poor form.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/01/2009 11:51 pm
Ross or Chuck, Can you brief us on the status of your present communications with the Augustine Committee? Are these contacts continuing? Have you contacted Shannon's SDHLV group?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/02/2009 06:40 am
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.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/02/2009 06:57 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: VoodooForce on 07/02/2009 11:08 am
Looks good to me but then again I mainly use my calculator to write 58008 and similar words  8)

Interesting read though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ah_mini on 07/02/2009 12:22 pm
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.

This sort of thing can only be a boost for Direct. I have been following Dr Pietrobon's examinations of the Direct proposal for a number of months and he can't be accused of being a "amazing people" at all. If anything, he's been a firm but fair critic. This paper demonstrates that the Direct 3.0 EDS is well within the bounds of physics and not some "pie in the sky" proposal that can't work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: riverbird on 07/02/2009 01:07 pm
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 ?)   
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 07/02/2009 02:02 pm
It's worth noting that the common bulkhead tank in the current single engine Centaur only accounts for about 40% of the dry mass. About 850kg.

Also the first stage of J-246 would put the EDS a long way towards orbit, allowing a much lower thrust to weight ratio. Initially about 0.35:1 compared to about 1:1 for S-IVB.  6 x RL-10 would be slightly heavier than a Saturn J-2, but the associated thrust structures might not need to be as strong.

Apparently the Lockheed analysis said the Direct design was 'conservative', which is also encouraging.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/02/2009 02:16 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Malderi on 07/02/2009 07:26 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 07/02/2009 08:03 pm
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.   

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Malderi on 07/02/2009 08:25 pm
Quote
Theoretically 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Seer on 07/02/2009 08:40 pm
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 that Steve. I have a few questions.

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.




Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 07/02/2009 09:01 pm
Quote
Theoretically 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.


To answer your question, one Ares V will cost upwards of $500 million- and that number refers to the old Ares V 6x RS-68B, 5.5 seg boosters, and a J2-X. The new one uses some number of more expensive RS-68'R' engines to cope with the base heating issues, so the cost per flight will rise.

Anyway, a Jupiter-246 costs $240 million per flight and a Jupiter-130 is $160 million at the CxP planned flight rate (adjusted for Jupiter's 2 launch cargo missions). Together, that is a $400 million cargo flight compared to Ares V's $500 million+ (and that's a significant +).

The last that I heard, LOM on Ares V was in the 1:79 range per flight, while Jupiter 246's is in the 1:440 range per flight.

So when you look at the numbers, it's not 'waving away the 2 flights.' The DIRECT dual launch cargo profile costs less than Ares while delivering more payload and increased reliability. The 1 launch cargo mission's value is a myth.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 07/02/2009 09:03 pm
How do the figures for Ares 1 and Ares V change if they use a common bulkhead?

Ares I does use a common bulkhead and Ares V's design hasn't matured enough to define whether or not it will use one.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/02/2009 09:22 pm
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Malderi on 07/02/2009 09:34 pm
Quote
So when you look at the numbers, it's not 'waving away the 2 flights.'

And that's exactly the data I was looking for. Saying that two launches builds flight experience is waving it away. Saying two launches is still cheaper than one, with better LOM numbers, is not waving it away. I expected the LOM numbers for a two-launch system to be worse than a single-launch, and finding out that it isn't is a welcome surprise. I'm a little curious about how it would work regarding pad usage, since you'd need both pads for cargo launches, and I imagine a 3rd pad would come in handy if the plan involves a two-launch lunar mission every few months.

I do have some further questions, though, concerning the software development. I'm on the software team at USA, although I'm somewhat new to it, and have done a little work on Orion so far and will be starting full-time on it in a few months. Are you guys really taking into account software development schedules with the IOC dates? I know Orion is the long-pole, but the Orion FSW is Orion's long-pole. We have the basic FSW for the pad aborts done, but that's essentially "prototype" stage for the real thing. Every time PDR and IOC dates go to the right, our schedules *also* go to the right. Moving them left by 4 years now simply does not seem possible from my perspective. Even with the money, getting all the extra developers up to speed on the systems and domain knowledge would be impossible. So much testing and simulation software still is in the PowerPoint stage of development, and major facilities like CAIL are still a ways away.

I'm still new to the whole DIRECT thing, so I'm curious if there are any FSW folks on the team and what sort of detailed schedules/estimates they have that make 2012 feasible for the software. I'm still not entirely up to speed on all the Orion management, schedules, etc., so that's why I'm wondering if there are any experienced Orion FSW folks you're working with.

I realize this is a somewhat accusatory tone, and I really don't intend that, but I'm extremely curious where this data is coming from. Thank you in advance - it's great that all the designers, etc. are so open with the figures and constraints, and that there's a single place I can post annoying questions and get great answers to!  :)

Edit: And Ross, congratulations, that's great news.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/02/2009 09:44 pm
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/02/2009 10:43 pm
Okay, I'll stick around a little longer ;)

Malderi, The software for Orion is one of the major long-pole items determining the whole schedule -- that and the launcher's avionics too.

Orion Project seems totally confident that they can meet March 2014 IOC schedule, even on their current budget projections -- which I must point out are quite seriously constrained at present due to lack of budget.

The real question is how much sooner those long-pole items can each be advanced if additional resources become available and if their job were to get a bit easier.

DIRECT is attempting to delete a lot of current development costs from the budget profiles.   Jupiter-130 doesn't need any engine development costs.   DIRECT also proposes to completely remove the need (and thus costs) for developing a second launcher too.   And on top of that, Jupiter re-uses quite a lot of existing infrastructure too.   Not only does that all mean that Jupiter simply requires "less work" in order to accomplish in the first place, but more importantly all of those things help to reduce the total development costs by quite a substantial amount.   That money can then be used to fund things like accelerating Orion software development and testing -- and those are currently budget-constrained items which can be accelerated thru the use of extra cash.

DIRECT's current budget projections indicate that because of all these different savings, we would have nearly a billion dollars of spare budget available in FY11 and FY12, compared to the current Ares development costs.   By using some of that money and injecting it into Orion early enough, that schedule can be advanced.

Our contacts within the Orion Project all confirm that an IOC Block-I Orion spacecraft could be advanced by up to 18 months (to September 2012) with sufficient budget resources focused correctly on the critical items.


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.   I really am only just scratching the surface of what is a very complex and highly inter-related issue -- and, sorry, but I really don't have time to get into the real nuances here.   But the long-and-short of it is that it can be done if only the will and the motivation are there to make it happen.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/02/2009 10:48 pm
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. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/02/2009 10:51 pm
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!

Hear, hear. I concur 200%

And yes, I would like to see Boeing's March 2005 EML-1 architecture implemented using Jupiters rather than Delta IVH. With depots and lunar ISRU and everything else.

= = =

(Or is it here, here. I'd hate to start another toe/tow the line kerfluffle.)

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 07/02/2009 10:54 pm
Ross, Steve & Chuck,

I think Charlie Duke said it best: "You've got a bunch of guys about to turn blue. We're breathing again. Thanks a lot."



Good luck to the team on stage 2.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 07/02/2009 10:56 pm
You're safe ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/02/2009 11:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/02/2009 11:04 pm
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.

I am greatly encouraged by this. Thank you!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 07/02/2009 11:08 pm
You're safe

No, he's not:

kerfluffle

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kerfuffle
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Malderi on 07/02/2009 11:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/02/2009 11:12 pm

...  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 had to take a step back at that one.
Granted, he was only presenting, but to not know the options if you intend to present a VSE option???

I'm becoming more convinced than ever that MSFC became a black hole of information where nothing escapes, even good designs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/02/2009 11:16 pm

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.


Bet the GF was happy for you taking a whole day off :)

Great to hear Direct is getting a serious look AND that you are presenting more info. I think that puts to rest any worries many had about the comment by Mr. Augustine after the presentation.

Great job all!

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/02/2009 11:16 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/02/2009 11:21 pm

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  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/02/2009 11:25 pm
You're safe

No, he's not:

kerfluffle

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kerfuffle

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kerfluffle
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 07/02/2009 11:25 pm

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 ;).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/02/2009 11:27 pm

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 concur with this.

Does NASA top brass "really" want EELV for Orion + shuttle C as their only Plan B?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/02/2009 11:34 pm
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.


As I understand it, Ares hopes to land 14,794 Kg for each cargo mission. There is some question whether Ares V can lift anything like enough mass to achieve this - they've already had to abandon "L3" margins, which could end up with Altair's designers having to perform the same weight-saving contortions as Orion-on-Ares-I.

DIRECT can land over 19mT from it's two-launch scheme (30% more), which as Marsman points out above is actually cheaper than a single Ares V launch. Also, critically, the Lunar Lander is very expensive, so landing more mass per flight saves a bucket-load of money there, too.

DIRECT are claiming a much lower dollar-per-kilo for mass landed on the Moon, and that really makes a difference to what you can do when you get there. Considering that DIRECT's big thing is the Jupiter launcher, it's perhaps not obvious that their intention is to make the cheapest vehicle per kilo, leaving the maximum budget for sexy hardware - crew vehicles, landers, habitation modules, Lunar rovers and mission planning, crew training, etc, etc.

Saturn was cancelled because it just cost too much to run. DIRECT are desperate for this not to happen to Jupiter.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/02/2009 11:44 pm
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.

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)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/02/2009 11:47 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/02/2009 11:47 pm

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 don't like my head to spin  :(

But I would endure THAT to see Direct chosen as the best way forward  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 07/03/2009 12:00 am
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kerfluffle

It appears to be simply a common misspelling.  Most online dictionaries don't have it, and some are smart enough to ask if you meant "kerfuffle" instead (although dictionary.com has both forms, as well as kafuffle, curfuffle, and gefuffle, the kerfluffle entry isn't linked to the others and the etymology is less accurate).  Whether it should be considered a word or not probably depends on one's philosophy of language...

Also, it's interesting - and oddly encouraging, now that DIRECT is guaranteed a detailed review - to see that the level of knowledge about DIRECT in certain areas of NASA is so low.  It's better than having to scale a wall of misinformation every time you talk to someone...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2009 12:40 am
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 ;).

While I agree with the sentiment, the reality is that the upper management of CxP have invested their entire reputations and careers into the current Ares architecture.

This means that until the day when Ares is actually replaced with a specific alternative, don't expect MSFC to be allowed to officially look at, let alone endorse, any other options.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2009 01:23 am
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?

Again, I'm going to deliberately gloss-over the details (!), so please read everything below in the understanding that there is a TON of unspoken back-story.

The basic approach would be to pursue an Orion with four "Blocks":-

Block-I would essentially be Orion's design "as is" right now -- simply expedited as much as humanly possible.   65% says Sept 2012, 95% would be March 2014.   This Block would have an absolutely minimal amount of automation, relying upon the trained crew to do as much of the work as possible.

Block-II variant would follow within ~2 years and would incorporate a lot of the missing automation capabilities for ISS duties plus all of the 'missing' capabilities which are currently in the "parking lot" which the performance of the Jupiter allows to be re-integrated again (radiation protection, land-landing system, redundant systems, greater life-support facilities).

Block-III variant would come even later, to support the initial short-duration (7-30 day) stay Lunar operations with all of the associated systems.

Block-IV variant would add capabilities for long-duration (6-month +) missions and would also be capable of helping to support NEO missions as well.

That's the basic approach.   The devil is still in the details though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2009 01:29 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/03/2009 01:35 am
Any word on the cease and desist request?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2009 02:18 am
Any word on the cease and desist request?

I haven't heard anything official.

CxP's orders are still in-place instructing MAF to remove large amounts of the External Tank tooling.   But it seems that the contractors on the ground who are tasked with that activity are "finding too many other things to keep them busy" and so aren't getting around to doing any more work on that.   Seems they are choosing to wait for the Augustine Committee results to come out before proceeding.

They clearly want a solution which will re-use the current equipment and the current staff.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2009 02:30 am
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.

Just got my flight reservation in so it's the 3 of us once again (yea!). See you guys at LAX.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2009 02:31 am
The Three Musketeers ride once again! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2009 02:50 am
Let's see Pheogh do that one. :)

He won't be able to do any artwork for a while -- the poor guy is on an extremely well-earned vacation until the 14th!

Having brought up Philip's name, I guess I can't resist showing this off, although I'm not sure I'm really supposed to...

He's been working on a set of highly detailed drawings based upon the Jupiter design, yet nothing to do with the engineering CAD ones which the NASA guys have come up with.   Using reference material from the SLWT Bible (available in L2) and from the NLS documentation on NTRS, he's been doing these "artists impression" drawings with an incredible amount of detail so that we can publicly show this set! :)

You can't easily see it in here, but the level of detail the guys has gone into here is *phenominal*, with details down to each individual panel being a separate and *accurate* piece for all the tanking barrel sections, domes and main ring frames throughout, plus anti-vortex panels and even slosh baffles in the LOX tank too.   All of the parts include the relevant weld lands and even all of the waffle-panel pockets are correctly formed (and he tells me he made them so that they are all easily adjustable too!).   As he left it, he was in the process of routing the plumbing here (shhh, don't tell him that it isn't quite right yet, I'll let him know after he gets back!) and he has begun forming the outer structure of the tapered engine compartment too.   Although it isn't shown here, he has also already completed one of the Thrust Structures concepts we have as well -- although there are some *very* interesting discussions going on about that right now.

Here's a quick teaser of where he was just before heading away on vacation.

And yes, you are allowed to drool.   I certainly did!   Just clean up the place afterward, okay?

;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/03/2009 02:53 am
That's really cool Ross!  All of you deserve a break, didn't mean to call him out. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2009 03:00 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2009 03:12 am
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.

Oh, zap kitty is going to call you on that one Ross!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Fequalsma on 07/03/2009 03:13 am
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!

F=ma


Using reference material from the SLWT Bible (available in L2)

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2009 03:17 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Fequalsma on 07/03/2009 03:20 am
Weren't you outta here several posts ago?


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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2009 03:23 am
Weren't you outta here several posts ago?

Is that a subtle hint?   :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Fequalsma on 07/03/2009 03:23 am
Just looking out for ya, mate.


Weren't you outta here several posts ago?

Is that a subtle hint?   :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/03/2009 03:36 am
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 depends on what kinds of risk the US is willing to take. There are nasty tradeoffs involved.

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.

And it's not just flight software. You need to pare back ground software as well. Malderi mentioned the CAIL, but there's more to it than that. There is also the Core Trajectory System (CTS), which is the Orion software for the MCC, and the Constellation Training Facility (CxTF), which is the Orion mission simulator. CTS would have to be accelerated, which is problematic, especially in light of MCC's expanded role in vehicle monitoring now that the onboard automation is gone. 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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2009 03:48 am
With sufficient budget increases, we are very confident that everything can be ready for a Block-1 Orion for flight in 2012, except the FSW. We are slightly less confident of that. 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, there is still the brick wall that there is only just so much you can do at a time REGARDLESS of how much money you throw at it. Coding the FSW is an incredibly arduous task and at some point it cannot be accellerated any further. It's just going to take the time that it will take. Can it be done? Absolutely, but someone is going to have to decide real quickly that the Block-1 FSW will be minimal, suitable for flight testing a Block-1 spacecraft, knowing full well that there is much work yet to be done on it. The longer we wait before that decision is made, the less likely that date becomes.

The FSW is THE long pole for getting Orion in the air. But be assured - we're working on it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2009 04:45 am
Jorge,
You've clearly got an excellent grasp of the situation.   I've heard a lot of discussions covering all the ground you have there, plus some more besides.

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).

C'mon, that isn't really a very fair portrayal.

The display screens don't need to be replaced at all, they're perfectly serviceable and a basic software suite can still utilize them without hardware changes becoming necessary in this regard.   Sure, they won't offer the full range of features, but they can still offer all of the critical feature sets which are required even in early missions.

Development of all those basic systems are already well under way, but what we're saying is shift the focus from 50% basic / 50% advanced software to a more 90% basic / 10% advanced balance and accelerate the basic software so that it can be deployed earlier.


Quote
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.

Yes, that's one of the excellent suggestions which has already been floated.   And there's no real reason not to either, especially as the first Orion crew won't even dock to ISS anyway.

Lets not forget what we're really 'trading' here is:

a)  First crew flight including automated docking in 2015

for

b) First crew flight under mostly manual control in 2012, with automated systems to follow as an upgrade around 2014/15.


Yes, the earlier flights are more rudimentary -- but at least they're happening.   The only viable alternative is that you have to fly all the crews on the Soyuz!   Which do you prefer?


Quote
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.

Not required.   Critical systems are the only ones which need to be covered and they can be done in time.   The more advanced systems could either be phased in gradually later, or can be implemented as part of a single larger upgrade effort rolled-out at one single time.


Quote
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.

I have heard discussion about this and this concern isn't currently a big one.   The worst-case scenario still seems to be that as long as the basic functionality is all that must fly by Sept 2012, they can still accomplish the hi-fidelity versions of all those systems and leave the more advanced feature sets until later.


Quote
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.

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?

I just don't see that ever happening on any mission.   The CDR and PLT will always be fully trained to take over any aspect of a mission from the computers and the training will be just as intensive either way.   So this really just a choice between two identical options -- the only difference being that one crew 'will' perform the mission tasks and the other only 'might' have to perform the mission tasks.


Quote
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.

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.

And all the rest, all of the more advanced feature-sets, are all "delta'd" off into a later variant -- we suggest it be implemented as part of a full Block-II upgrade which would also add back functionality such as land landing capabilities.


Quote
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?

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.

Then, roughly two years later we deploy an upgrade which includes a lot more automation and fly a more 'regular' Orion package from there onwards.

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.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Malderi on 07/03/2009 04:59 am
Jorge, Clongton, kraisee, and others,

Thanks again for the very informative details. Even if I don't share your confidence on the 2012 date, at least I know ya'll have a good grasp of the situation and its difficulties. Even with all you've shown off already, I was worried you were "assuming a spherical horse of uniform density", as the saying goes, when it came to the FSW, which unfortunately is an issue a lot of non-software-engineers seem to have.

Also,

Quote
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

Sounds good to me! :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2009 05:12 am
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.

   Assuming for a second that the 95% confidence dates came true, our plan would actually have the Shuttle manifest "stretched" (not extended, just stretched) out to 30th September 2012.

   The first Jupiter test flight (J-130-X) would still occur well before then, around March 2012.   The second (J-130-Y) and third (J-130-Z) test flights would occur roughly 6 and 12 months later in 2013.   The first (IOC) crew would then fly Jupiter-130-1 6 months after that.

   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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/03/2009 05:18 am
Malderi,
   Just between you and me (nobody else is reading this, right?)

Ross.

I'm still awake Ross.  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/03/2009 05:19 am
I call it Prion. Not for any disdain for the design but because, like the self-perpetuating misfolded proteins of that name, it's an Orion that has been folded, spindled, mutilated and generally bent way out of shape on the anvil of Ares-I's shortcomings.

And now, in short, to get Prion to fly by 2012 the FSW must also be folded, spindled, and mutilated... but to a degree that exceeds in scope the physical hammering that Prion has already taken?

Not looking for a soundbite... that's seems to be what I'm hearing here from all of you.

And given that, and the compromised nature of Prion to begin with, and the way that unfortunate shuttle design decisions still haunt is to this day... is it really worth the risk of catching yet another case of Mad Spaceship Disease just to get something airborne by 2012?

So... what if Shuttle gets extended...

... or for the sake of fending off that EELV strike force lurking off the starboard bow "what if a newspace-brand capsule is online by 2012-13"... :)

... so given such a break of two years and the requirement to only launch boilerplate Orions in the meantime to test LV systems... what could be added back to Orion by an IOC date of 2014?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 07/03/2009 05:20 am

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?

But back in 1964 NASA was inventing Apollo from scratch. The systems required for Orion may not be "lego blocks" ready to be pulled off the shelf and plugged in, but in 2009 we don't have to invent systems like avionics and life support from scratch. Material for structures like the heat shield and large parachutes have already been invented, and in many cases the material in 2009 is far superior to what was available in the 1960s. Not to mention the greater computing power available for design compared to the Apollo days.

Perhaps this analogy may be incorrect, but it seems that designing Orion is like going from the 1903 Wright Flyer to the 1905 Flyer. We have the basic engineering from Mercury/Gemini/Apollo, now it needs to be refined and updated for Orion.


Thank you for your time, apologies if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/03/2009 05:39 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2009 05:40 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2009 05:47 am
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.

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.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/03/2009 07:51 am
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.


It's plain that this has the potential to turn into DIRECT's "TO" - it's Achilles Heel. I don't mean that John Shannon's comments came as a surprise - you've been clear that this is a big area.

DIRECT aren't the only guys suggesting early Orion flights, so this is plainly an issue that the Commission will be looking to satisfy themselves about independently. Just need to make sure your comments match what the Orion FSW team are gonna tell them.

It seems to me the commission have two things they could infer from the Orion element of DIRECT:-

1) DIRECT make different statements about Orion FSW schedules than the FSW team themselves are prepared to make. Casts doubt on the rest of the DIRECT proposal.

2) Consistent message, but commission decide that regardless of what they're told, these dates are unrealistic. Doesn't impact confidence in DIRECT, but impacts the "gap reduction" argument of EELV & SD-HLLV just as much.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/03/2009 08:09 am
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.


Steven,

superb.

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?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/03/2009 09:10 am
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 ?)   

Thanks. I remove the engine mass in my analysis as engines can vary quite a bit in their mass. For example the J-2 is at 1438 kg compared to the J-2X at 2472 kg, even though they have similar thrust and performance. The J-2X is much heavier since it uses an ablative nozzle. Thus, by removing the engine mass, I can obtain a model just for the tanks and structure. You can then add the mass of your favourite engine.

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.

I havn't contacted Direct directly. :-) I thought I would post it here first for comments.

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?

My calculations show that a cargo only single J-246 launch could send 41,275 kg through TLI (not including ASE of 500 kg and LSAM cradle of 890 kg). Assuming a delta-V of 3559 m/s (including 1% reserve) to land on the Moon this would require 22,896 kg of propellant (exhaust speed of 4399 m/s). The Altair descent stage is 11,194 kg. This would leave 22.9-11.2 = 11.7 t of cargo landed on the Moon. Note that Altair has a usuable propellant load of 26.0 t, so it would need to be greatly enlarged or another stage added in order to take advantage of the 79.1 t TLI capability of a dual launch.

A crewed single J-246 launch can send 38.7 t through TLI (the crewed launch is less due to the weight of the payload fairing (PLF) being carried into LEO and the launch abort system (LAS) being carried during the core burn). The Saturn V could send 46.3 t through TLI.

How do the figures for Ares 1 and Ares V change if they use a common bulkhead?

Ares 1 does use a common bulkhead and AlLi 2195 for its upper stage. As can be seen in Table 2 of the paper, it has ratio of 7.92% and a propellant mass of 138 t. When plotted, it is above the Al 2219 common bulkhead model. This would indicate to me an overly pessimistic design. Using the AlLi 2195 common bulkhead model with 15% margin, we obtain a stage mass of 8,788 kg (10,928 kg original), which would increase payload mass by 10,928-8,788 = 2,140 kg.

The Ares-V EDS has a ratio of 8.57% and a propellant mass of 254.2 t. This stage uses separate tanks and AlLi. As this is above the average line, this too indicates to me an overly pessimistic design. Using the AlLi 2195 common bulkhead model with 15% margin, we obtain a stage mass of 14,751 kg (21,795 kg original), which would increase TLI mass by 21,795-14,751 = 7,044 kg.

Quote
Would the use of composite tanks result in lower mass than the al-li common bulkhead? This obviously ignores cost considerations.

Theoretically, yes as I believe composite materials have a higher specific yield strength.

Quote
Also, is it possible to design a composite common bulkhead? I'm thinking of reusable vehicles that might benefit from them.

For a common bulkhead what needs to be done is to join the bulkheads to the insulation layer without any airgaps. I don't see why this can't be done with composites, as composites are built up in layers anyway. An interesting paper to read on the use of composites for resuable vehicles is

J. A. Martin, "An evaluation of composite propulsion for single-stage-to-orbit vehicles designed for horizontal take-off," NASA TM X-3554, Nov. 1977.

I myself proposed a vertical take off horizontal landing RLV with composite tanks and a common bulkhead.

S. S. Pietrobon, "A flexible reusable space transportation system (http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/nsto.pdf)," J. of the British Interplanetary Society, vol. 53, pp. 276-288, May/June 2000.

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.

Thanks for those words of encouragement Ross. I wasn't sure if it would be suitable for me to submit my paper to the Augustine committee, but I will now do so.

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)

Thanks very much for your comments and for the correction.

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?

Thanks for your comments Martin. The only criteria I know that NASA requires for crew rating a stage is a 1.4 factor of safety. If the Saturn V S-II met this criteria then the models I obtained should meet NASA's requirement (the common bulkhead model goes through the S-II point, with the AlLi 2195 common bulkhead model being 26% below that). Going from an industry standard of 1.25 to 1.4 would increase stage mass by 12%.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/03/2009 10:28 am
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.







Steven,

many thanks - those are larger gains than I had hoped.

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?

Quote
Disadvantages are trying to dock in a highly elliptical orbit and radiation exposure from the Van Allen radiation belts

Yup, both big issues I believe.



Can I now throw a spanner in the works and maybe push my luck re analysing a slightly different situation?

NASA's lander is designed to perform both LOI & descent, and does this for both the crewed and cargo missions. DIRECT follows the same flight plan for crewed flights, but Altair's 15mT landed payload isn't enough for DIRECT's TLI capability. DIRECT 3.0 therefore uses the EDS to perform both TLI & LOI, which results in a ~62mT lander carried all the way to LLO, and ~20mT landed payload. This is with ~27% Altair prop offload, so landed payload is limited by EDS delivery to LLO.

Therefore, would it be possible to re-run the numbers for max-mass-to-LLO-with-EDS-performing-both-TLI-and-LOI? I made a quick hack of Ross's spreadsheet, and I get a CaLV JUS fuel load of ~17mT, Apogee-raising burn of 808 m/s, lander mass of ~72mT, and landed payload of ~25mT.

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?

This eliminates concerns re elliptical orbit rendezvous and only requires a single orbit through the Van Allen belts (or multiple orbits if that's too hurried for the EDS transplant).

There's no doubt that HEOR would make for a more risky mission profile, but you "simply" replace one TLI burn with three separate burns, with the initial burns simply taking place one HEO earlier than it would in a normal mission. EDS transplant takes place under some time pressure, too. But given that this could land a mass which is othewise beyond DIRECT, it might find use for occasional extreme payloads.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2009 11:06 am
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,
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/03/2009 01:01 pm
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/03/2009 01:22 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/03/2009 02:47 pm
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,
 

Since you are coming out to CA and the LA area, do you want any help from the Direct supporters in the area? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/03/2009 02:51 pm
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!

That is great news!  I figured the Direct Team was pretty busy due to the lack of postings.  I wish you all the best in your presentation to the Aerospace Corporation.

Does the Direct Team anticipate having "expert witnesses" on hand who can speak authoritatively to the data, or is that step not yet on the agenda?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/03/2009 02:51 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/03/2009 02:54 pm
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,
 

Since Direct is coming to CA, it would do some good to some marketing out here.

1.  Send a short DVD and a summary to the local papers and new organizations.  Maybe use something from explain Direct in 3 minutes.  There are lot of new organizations out in socal--latimes, foxnews, KABC, KCBS, KTLA, etc.  You could have a science/space piece for them and what Direct would mean to CA/LA and NASA.  Write to some of the papers in Long beach--where boeing has an office, or the valley offices, etc.  You can get the word out.  When the commission comes to CA, it would not hurt if there is a positive news article in the local paper or news. 

2.  Send information out/handout leaflets at the Aerojet facility in Canoga Park when the commission happens to be out in LA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/03/2009 02:55 pm
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

I can think of one other, the American Revolution.  Instead of the Internet the methods used to spread the word included print media as well as small town inns, where patriots met and shared information and ideas.  It was in the final analysis a grass roots movement.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/03/2009 02:58 pm
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/03/2009 04:28 pm
Quote from: zapkitty
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.

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...

But, although this is a Direct thread, even the Direct team acknowledges that Orion can't be all about Direct :)

Could the alternatives eventually loft a fully-capable original spec Orion... ?

... and an airlock?

Quote from: kraisee
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 :)

... because it isn't a modern spaceship without a toilet and an airlock... ;)

Quote from: kraisee
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.

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...
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Wolverine on 07/03/2009 04:54 pm
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?

This to me is part of what America is about.  A group of like-minded individuals toiling in a grass-roots manner for a common goal because they care, not necessarily for financial gain, etc....  It always does seem to be a group of private people to stand up and say, "hey wait, there might be a better way!"

Kudos!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veedriver22 on 07/03/2009 05:02 pm
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!

Yes,  time to pull out all the stops.   If need be get some training.
Are there any anvenues for those who might want to contribute financially to the effort?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 07/03/2009 05:51 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/03/2009 06:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2009 06:22 pm
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...

That's the problem zap: "as time permits". We're out of time. The only chance we have to minimize the gap is to get the current 606 design in the air. To do anything else extends the gap by at least a year.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/03/2009 07:42 pm

Quote
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.

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?

No, I'm saying that the relative lack of automation - *not* just *GNC* automation - means that even the manual flying will require more people. When it is a 1-2 person task, you can put dedicated Orion pilots in the Operator 1-2 seats and the ISS crew will not need to be trained on Orion systems. When it is a 3-4 person task, there is no way not to get the ISS crew involved, and that means training them.

The key thing to understand is that Orion will be just as fly-by-wire as the shuttle. There was never *any* plan to train the crew to fly Orion in the event of a *total* computer failure - such an event would be an LOC scenario, just like it is on the shuttle. So even the training for *manual* flying was going to rely as much as possible on the automation provided by the system, even if the *GNC* automation was malfunctioning.

Defer that automation, and you increase the tasking on the crew, requiring more crewmembers to get involved, and therefore trained.

Quote
Quote
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.

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.

With all due respect, I'll take my firsthand perspective over your secondhand perspective.

Quote
Quote
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?

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".

...i.e. Block I.

Quote
   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.

It may be flyable, but it may not be *safely* flyable.

Quote
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.

Bottom line: the more you try to accelerate it, the more you increase risk.

And Musk might have something to say about alternatives.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/03/2009 08:19 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/03/2009 11:09 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/03/2009 11:43 pm
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?

Why not?

You keep loading the question...

Do you believe the Direct people should stop talking to each other ?

Or do you just want them to stop offering better solutions when NASA screws up?

Or what?

Again it comes down to the question you keep avoiding: What do you want?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/04/2009 12:00 am
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/04/2009 12:28 am
(No one seems to notice my messages at all, but here goes nothing...)
anything they would like to call it.
Now is the time for the BIG guns to come out!
Are there any anvenues for those who might want to contribute financially to the effort?
You could start here, unless you meant something else:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17295.msg430407#msg430407
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/04/2009 01:00 am
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.

Put it on the website as well the call for assistance.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/04/2009 01:05 am
I think Chuck already got his ride, but the idea of a "general fund" remains a good one.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/04/2009 01:13 am
I keep saying, and this may only be the second time, is it time for an IPO?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 07/04/2009 01:50 am
I think they're too busy right now for an IPO  ;D

I hear SpaceX was thinking about it though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/04/2009 02:23 am
I think they're too busy right now for an IPO  ;D
I hear SpaceX was thinking about it though.

The real problem with an IPO is the presentation of the business model...

I mean exactly what happens when you tell a bunch of venture capitalists that your business case is in trying to get a government agency to behave rationally... and that the only profit will be measured in civic brownie points?... ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Joffan on 07/04/2009 03:06 am
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?
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 :( .
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/04/2009 03:23 am
Quote from: mars.is.wet
My 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.

Correct.

.... And yet he keeps asking the same question...

... with different phrasing but always with the same emphasis...

... so I keep asking him what he wants.

And now I toss out the reverse just for discussion... to try to lure him out :)

Would there be anything wrong with the Direct team maintaining its status... say as an admin-neutral NASA policy think tank?

In reality there'd be some pros and a couple of serious cons to that particular idea... but that's not the point.

The point is to try to get this person to discuss what it is about Direct that worries him so damn much.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 07/04/2009 03:27 am
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!

In aviation history I'd nominate the Rutan Voyager. I'd also nominate Noble's Thrust SSC. Of course, neither of those was rocket science but still some pretty impressive engineering and done without government involvement.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 07/04/2009 06:52 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/04/2009 10:16 am
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?

Same as here on Earth... to enable them to get a lot more done and done more quickly with their limited time and crew.

Nominal capsule operations were designed around the use of the more advanced software. The use of the less-capable software will be temporarily throwing a  wrench in things... seriously increasing the crew work load during critical operations and thus impacting safety.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/04/2009 10:17 am
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?


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.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/04/2009 10:39 am
That should stifle most dissent.

You might want to reconsider your choice of words...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/04/2009 11:10 am

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

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.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17295.msg430407#msg430407

Folks can also PM me if they would like to participate. A full accounting of every penny donated will be provide to any donor who wants it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Giovanni DS on 07/04/2009 12:04 pm
The link is broken, is the paypal account associated to [email protected] ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/04/2009 12:18 pm
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.

Essentially Ross simply states what I stated above and asked anyone interested in donating to send him a PM for details. My post above basically says you can also PM me. And no, it is not connected to [email protected] as that email is not connected to PayPal. PM me for details.
Regards
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/04/2009 12:33 pm
The link appears to be fixed now.
Thanks AnalogMan.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/04/2009 01:31 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/04/2009 01:45 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/04/2009 01:52 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/04/2009 02:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/04/2009 02:35 pm

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.
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.

Quote
We would then go back to see if our husbands and wives still recognized us.
Wouldn't that be something!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/04/2009 03:04 pm
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.

I agree--this is what the Direct team has been asking for all along.  But remember it is the ground rules that can make or break a presentation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Robo-Nerd on 07/04/2009 04:07 pm
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.



I would like to second Chuck's comment re mars.is.wet's positive contribution. I am not a member of the DIRECT team (although I am a supporter), and the only thing I actually know about DIRECT is what has been published in this forum, plus the few external articles (e.g. Popular Mechanics, etc.), and Steve's presentation to the Augustine committee. mars.is.wet has always had very constructive comments on this forum, with a very measured tone, and a sophisticated approach to the actual political-technical environment that DIRECT has to live in to succeed. He's trying to help, guys!

Cheers,
     - Osa
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/04/2009 04:17 pm
From the Ares-I Development thread:
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."

Even if DIRECT is finally approved, even this contract is transferable, with the appropriate legal hurdles managed, to the Jupiter. They could easily perform the same function on the JUS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jml on 07/04/2009 04:41 pm
@mars-is-wet:

I think the issue here is that some of your pushing and prodding of the Direct team has occasionally been incorrectly interpreted as something other than constructive criticism by some of the amazing peoples and that pesky kitty. (Don't get me wrong - I think you've been doing an invaluable service to the team in getting them to consider issues and viewpoints they wouldn't have seen on their own).

Let me try to ask you a somewhat personal question without zap's tone.  If it isn't something that you particularly want to answer (or if the mods find it inappropriate), please accept my apologies for asking. (But I am interested in your opinion).

The question:
What do you think is a good way forward for US manned space exploration at this point?

Orion/EELV and COTS-D to the ISS for the next 20 years (since that's all that we can really afford)? EELV to the moon? STS forever? Full steam ahead with CxP and damm the budgets? Scale back VSE to within our means with some flavor of 2 or 3 launch shuttle-derived system? Or something else?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/04/2009 05:00 pm
... personal...

Personal? Actually, no. I understand that you are helping Direct as best that you are able.

But your harping on this point of "will Direct continue?" and your apparent disregard of the multiple responses by the Direct team members to the contrary were obvious indications that there was something else going on with the reasoning behind your questions.

Quote from: mars.is.wet
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.

And the answer, as was obvious all along, is that you do not entirely trust the Direct team to keep their word... and you trust the bulk of the Direct supporter base even less.

That bit of honesty is what I was after.

Well, given dichotomies such as the "ban on NASA attacks" and the actual presentation... there'd be reason enough for such worry.

Unfortunately the way you keep harping on it made it sound as if you are intent on getting everyone to accept in advance the Commission findings by fiat... i.e. no questioning of results is allowed.

And you will undoubtedly have noted that the responses from the base in that regard have been: "Let's see the Commission's work first."

And is there anything wrong with that? You want the Commission results respected... but would you want them accepted on blind faith? There will be many questions as to any Commission finding and no small amount of skepticism.

Critical evaluation is inevitable. By the team... and by the supporters.

Quote from: mars.is.wet
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?

Actually... no. :)

You see, it cuts both ways... you want the process respected but you must also understand that there is no going back entirely to the old ways... there will always be the possibility of this "internet thing" happening again in some form or another.

NASA will have to learn to live with it and hopefully adapt to it and make use of it. Because people who've found their voice will tend to keep on using it.

Quote from: mars.is.wet
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.

Nope. Believe it or not.

...

So... in conclusion... what was this hooraw all about?

I think it was just a side-effect of "NASA meets the internet." 

All those opinionated, oft-misinformed and all-too-vocal people talking about NASA... and then using their numbers and the organizing ability of the net to get things done that were never done before.

Shocking, wasn't it? :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/04/2009 05:27 pm
Let's not let this get out of hand here. The question has been asked - and answered. Let's move on.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 07/04/2009 05:59 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/04/2009 06:10 pm

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.

Thank you - it does help!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/04/2009 06:44 pm
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.

Modify: And not to trivialize the pre-US Civil War Underground Railroad . . .
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/04/2009 06:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/04/2009 07:11 pm
Will there ever be DIRECT v4.0?
My question to others has been, if it is not selected ... will the rebel alliance continue?
(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. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 07/04/2009 07:28 pm
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:
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/04/2009 07:55 pm
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 have to agree with that sentiment.   Over the years we have had an awful lot of criticism to deal with, but in a lot of cases when it has been constructive (and even when it hasn't), it has usually resulted in us taking an even closer look at that point.   Such situations have allowed us to refine the idea, either by helping us to confirm that the point was correct, or the fresh perspective has opened up a new, sometimes better, option which had not been considered previously.

We've now got 3+ years of hard work in on this concept and it has been polished-up pretty well these days.   I know I have personally sometimes come across as 'dismissive' when people make suggestions/criticizms -- and that usually because that ground has already been trodden.   But whenever there is something suggested which I don't think would work, I'm still aware that I'm not an expert in these fields, so I still pass it along, irrelevant of my personal consideration.   And a few times those suggestions have resulted in changes -- perhaps not quite in the way suggested, but the review of the issue resulted in an improvement somehow.

We've been a fairly open team and lots of people have had opportunities to feed suggestions to us either privately or even here on the forum.   Simply because so many voices have had input over the years, these days most suggestions have been examined previously.   But there are still occasions today where a critical comment results in changes.   I've been coordinating with some team members who are dealing with exactly such points just in the last few weeks and engineering work continues even now.

A Devil's Advocate is, IMHO, one of the most valuable members of any team.   They're there to ensure you always stay honest with yourselves, with the concept and with others too.   And that's critical.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SpaceWarper on 07/04/2009 08:26 pm
Hello!
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 07/04/2009 08:32 pm
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.

Do you understand that this means developing THREE (!!!) launch vehicles? NASA is in deep trouble today developing only two...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/04/2009 08:36 pm
(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 as Direct is internet-based the profanity level of the written campaign will need to be monitored closely.

Quote from: fotoguzzi
But the majority of the Alliance forces will likely return to to their basements to work on 22nd-century problems and not hurt anyone.
 

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.

Quote from: fotoguzzi
If there were to be a pogrom against the collaborators, you might see a flare-up in Rebel activity.

I understand that an underground habitrail is being set up to ferry refugees away from NASA and to the western U.S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/04/2009 08:39 pm
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.

That's the first I have heard of anything like that. Got details? Send them to me by PM or email. There's no need to take this thread off-topic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/04/2009 08:49 pm
LOL - I don't think he's serious Chuck
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SpaceWarper on 07/04/2009 09:01 pm
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...

My math say that makes four.  ;)   Reducing the budget for Constellation is reasonable like half a circle because you want to draw cheap a half circle: you will get something useless.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/04/2009 09:19 pm
Having both means simplicity to the mission planing and a general flexibility.
NASA is in deep trouble today developing only two...
to draw cheap a half circle: you will get something useless.
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.

Don't think of DIRECT as proving Ares wrong, think of DIRECT as affirming the ET/SRB ideal.

Modify: I now think SpaceWarper was suggesting that the DIRECT variants could span the Ares range.  If that is what he meant, it is mostly true except that the J-120 has no engine-out capability for humans.  For a bulky, not-so-dense cargo, perhaps it would fill a need that the other vehicles couldn't?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/04/2009 10:41 pm
That should stifle most dissent.

You might want to reconsider your choice of words...


OK, you tell me what you think I meant, and I'll tell you if that was actually what I really meant.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/04/2009 11:07 pm
Quote from: zapkitty
Quote from: MP99
That should stifle most dissent.
You might want to reconsider your choice of words...
OK, you tell me what you think I meant, and I'll tell you if that was actually what I really meant.

It's not what you meant... it's what you said :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/04/2009 11:13 pm
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 wrote a previous post that suggested a wishy-washy level of support for M.I.W, but in hindsight was not emphatic enough.

I'd like to reiterate and strengthen that support - M.I.W has been the most important contributor, bar none, to this thread over the last 3-4 months. Although I also felt the same way at the time of my previous post, I now regret not being sufficiently forthright to actually state this.

This post is intended to rectify that state of affairs.

I've purposefully not read most of the subsequent comments, but this is intended to stand regardless of any subsequent comments posted in this forum.

I also regret a previous posting where I imputed an AVUS vs JUS meaning that was pretty desperate and completely unjustified. I hope that M.I.W will continue to engage with me if I raise questions of suitable import.

Quote
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.

Good.

Quote
I stop lines of discussion when asked

Too readily, in fact. One snide remark from a non-DIRECT poster shoud not be reason to abandon a line of argument. (This is merely encouragement to continue such arguments).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/04/2009 11:36 pm
Quote
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: zapkitty
Quote from: MP99
That should stifle most dissent.
You might want to reconsider your choice of words...
OK, you tell me what you think I meant, and I'll tell you if that was actually what I really meant.

It's not what you meant... it's what you said :)

My post was intended to be quite explicit.

As long as the commission posts full details of any modifications of the proponent's schemes that go into the final consideration, and these are obviously supportable by a majority of the space community, then what possible basis does the DIRECT community have for a "we was robbed" attitude?

Does your post imply that you would continue a "DIRECT is he one-true-way" stance in the light of such an open decision-making process?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/04/2009 11:46 pm
...

May the Puma Sisters preserve us...

Chill.

Then google "stifle dissent"

Then a discussion can perhaps ensue as to whether using a phrase most commonly associated with the authoritarian suppression of dissenting views by fiat is perhaps not the best way to describe the end game of Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 07/05/2009 12:34 am
If the review is as professional and unbias as appears this is probably the best thing to happend to space exploration and hsf in 30 years.  Very exciting.  Very interesting. Good luck with phase 2 DIRECT. 

Got Hope?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/05/2009 02:16 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 07/05/2009 03:45 am

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.

If you skip lunch that's $5-$10 you could donate to Direct.

We could start a Direct Lunch Supporters Club.  ;D


Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: madscientist197 on 07/05/2009 07:28 am
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.

Considering the amount of time and effort that the DIRECT team has put into their proposal, I think it is the least we can do. One way or another, irrespective of the outcome of the Augustine Commission, the DIRECT team has been vindicated by coming this far. It will be interesting to see whether any other groups in the future following in your footsteps!

Kick arse, guys.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: daver on 07/05/2009 11:48 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/05/2009 12:48 pm
If the review is fair and transparent, then it will be hard to complain.

If they come back saying that the solid bismuth interstage required for man-rating will need nuclear propulsion to work, then you gotta wonder...

As for the commission's findings, the only thing that would really upset me would be if they recommended gutting science to fund the CxP overspend...

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/05/2009 01:45 pm
Quote
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.

Hmm, did I miss this?  Any one have a link?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/05/2009 02:18 pm
Not a public meeting.  Pictures at http://hsf.nasa.gov.

Looks like it was primarily the ISS/Shuttle team (Ride team) only, which seems strange.  Didn't see LEO access, Integration, or Exploration teams there.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Andy USA on 07/05/2009 02:44 pm
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

That new SD HLLV presentation he speaks about is on L2.

Also, Chris' latest,
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/07/constellation-top-risks-orion-loses-unmanned-capability/

, 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/05/2009 03:04 pm
Any other non-public meetings we should know about?  Maybe there's another great alternative out there!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/05/2009 03:10 pm
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

Quote
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.

I wonder if it will be possible to get a copy of that Boeing presentation. Interested in seeing how Boeing-Direct compares to the Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mr.columbus on 07/05/2009 03:38 pm
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

While the article has some interesting information on what has been going on recently, it misrepresents a lot of things.

For starters the quote of 79.9mt to LEO and 54mt to TLI for Not-Shuttle-C don't work out. Neither if they mean 54mt for a two-launch scenario or one-launch scenario.

The 2014 date is wrong as well, the timetable is 4 years from the go ahead - 2014 is the operational date, not the first launch date.

The claim of only 2 crew on Orion is also misleading at best, and wrong at worst. Orion on NSC with crew can easily pull the maximum crew size of 6 to the ISS or any LEO orbit. Whether a lunar mission will have a crew of 4 on the lander or only 3 or 2 is a question which can only be answered if the architecture is looked at in more detail. Right now, nobody said that a lunar lander with a 2-launch NSC architecture won't be able to take 4 crew to the lunar surface.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mr.columbus on 07/05/2009 03:39 pm

, 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.

Looking forward to that article!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/05/2009 04:07 pm

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.

I see this on many facets:

I am a strong proponent of ISS, and this architecture will do so much for protecting the large cargo upmass & volume that I see being required. As a Canadian, this protects our involvement in and partnership with NASA and the goals of manned spaceflight.

My love of spaceflight will make my vacation revolve around it, not just for a shuttle launch, but to see that next great rocket launch from KSC.

How many people involved with the space industry have or will lose someone they know to the uncertainty (and certainty) that lies ahead? This is a small investment in THEIR future.

But most importantly, how many have travelled? Do you know the costs? Do you know the pain of connecting flights, or cost-restricting flights to get to your destination at a reasonable time to relax and be prepared for the day ahead?

I wish the Direct team all the best in their meeting, and hope many of their internal members can make it to provide that 'face' behind the numbers, or the encouragement they need to make this the turning point in the future of the CxP program.

God Bless.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/05/2009 04:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/05/2009 04:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/05/2009 05:05 pm
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.

No apology necessary.

Let's hope so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/05/2009 05:09 pm
...

Chill.

Then google "stifle dissent"


Hmm, yes, very poor choice of words.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/05/2009 05:15 pm
New SpaceDaily.Com article discusses Direct Launcher.  http://www.space-travel.com/reports/US_manned_space_flight_in_doubt_40_years_after_moon_walk_999.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/05/2009 06:45 pm
Quote
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.
Hmm, did I miss this?  Any one have a link?
I will eat a horseshoe if zapkitty's splinter group quip turns out to have been accurate!

More seriously:  is there an Earth Departure Stage version?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/05/2009 07:42 pm
I wonder if the "Direct" like option Boeing presented looked similar to this concept from the "Launch Vehicle Options for Exploration" document that dates back to April 2004:

http://www.spacecongress.org/2004/Panel-4/2Collins.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/05/2009 08:09 pm
On another note...has the Direct Team had any contact with anyone from Orbital Sciences? If you recall, in their initial CEV proposal they called for a launch vehicle very similar to Jupiter. It used a Shuttle-ET derived core, SSMEs, and a Delta IV upperstage.

I wonder if their engineers have any data to throw into the pot. At least it can show that not only NASA has arrived to this type of configuration in the past.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/05/2009 11:43 pm
When presenting to the Aerospace Corp. has the Direct Team asked about doing doing a webex and teleconferance?  That way you can have experts from around the country help spport your presentation.  Your Subject Matter Experts (SME)could listen in, you could do the presentation and answer questions, but if you could not, then your SME would be available to answer the question.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/06/2009 04:46 pm
Ross,

HSF Review has announced three new public meetings this month. Will Direct have any involvement in these?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/06/2009 04:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/06/2009 05:26 pm
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).

Sweet, that's good news!

I read the EDS report too, and that seems like a good independant validation.

Looking forward to hear more updates of what you can say, and when you can say it.
:)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Idol Revolver on 07/06/2009 06:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/06/2009 06:14 pm

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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/06/2009 06:17 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/06/2009 06:22 pm

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.



I saw ESA has plans for ATVs with docking ports on both ends(why the thrusters on bottom are so far outboard).  J-130 could launch 2 or 3 of those ATVs stacked together.. that would be some serious cargo delivery(although still stuck with the relatively small Russian hatch size).

Would it be possilbe to link 2 or 3 ATV hulls with thrusters and avionics only on one module to keep cost down and maximize upmass?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/06/2009 06:48 pm
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?

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.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Idol Revolver on 07/06/2009 06:59 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/06/2009 07:05 pm
The amount of asymmetrical force is the same, just spread over 2 dimensions.

... and a reminder that Ross has quoted estimates that the impact of the asymmetry on payload to LEO is approx 200 kg ... it's just not enough to worry about.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/06/2009 07:24 pm
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.

That would be good to see a favourable outside review, or at least get an idea of how Direct is being received by the committee.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/06/2009 07:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HLBJR on 07/06/2009 08:32 pm
Has anyone noticed this week's edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology?  Here's the link to the Ares I article:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/aw070609p1.xml&headline=NASA's%20Ares%20I%20Starting%20To%20Take%20Shape%20at%20Marshall&channel=awst

More importantly, right after the Ares I article is an article titled "Augusting Panel Studying Several Options to Ares I" discussed all of the "competitors" at the hearing but the real bonus is this article features a large picture of Direct!!  Kudos to AWST for putting the Direct photos before some of the other options.  I cannot link the article as it requires a log-in to read.

Harvey Brown
Delray Beach, FL
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/06/2009 08:34 pm
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.

Oh, right. I had that all messed up. I only remember seeing the DC meetings, and their news updates today said "now planning three public meetings at the end of July."

Regardless, I'm anxious to get any info about the committee's perspective on Direct. Hopefully they have something to say about it during these meetings.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/06/2009 10:28 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/06/2009 10:44 pm
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?


Send a PM to clongton for specific info.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/07/2009 07:54 am
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, and the lower structural mass of the Altair's DM together result in adding about 2mT of landed payload capacity to all Cargo missions and about 1mT extra payload capacity to Crew missions.

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.

Anyway, enjoy!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mr.columbus on 07/07/2009 08:08 am
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.

I know that's not really a specific question on the charts you just posted, but could you briefly say why DIRECT is not considering LOR only 2-mission profiles? That is two launches each with an EDS, one with Altair, the other one with Orion?

P.S. it's probably been answered by the DIRECT team before...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/07/2009 08:14 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mr.columbus on 07/07/2009 08:22 am
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.

Thanks for the answer, Ross.

I was just wondering about it again, because NSC is baselining LOR with suborbital staging at 30nm x 120nm and then doing the TLI burn after a 6 hour loiter period. Of course that might not be the most efficient way to do it (after all, you really have to have 2 EDS stages...) and you lose any lifeboat LSAM function (if that's really something we need to worry about with Orion) but it provides some obvious advantages that a EOR configuration doesn't have (less stress on a dual launch timetable, because your lunar lander in LLO with hypergolics can wait for quite some time before you launch crew; etc.).

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/07/2009 08:24 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: VoodooForce on 07/07/2009 08:29 am
minor irritatingly nitpicking point but the Land Landing occurs on a blue bar.... You could transition it from blue to brown/green or leave it how it is. Just made me do a double take if I had read it correctly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/07/2009 08:36 am
Voodoo,
Mostly its because every other chart like this always uses a shade of blue for that bar and I was simply copying the 'standard'.   I think the standard was chosen because if you look at that Earth 'marble', Blue is the dominant colour irrelevant of the fact that we all live on the green/brown bits...

It doesn't help that I just can't find a shade of green/brown that I like as much either.

Wishy-washy excuses, I know! :)   But I'm still gonna leave it as it is... :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mr.columbus on 07/07/2009 08:59 am
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.

Thanks for the answer. Where do you get that performance loss from compared to EOR? Just due to having 2 EDS stages? There are benefits from no loiter time in LEO and no EOR too performance wise (no circularization burn etc.).

Just to go through some cargo-mission numbers of NSC (single-launch cargo mission):
112mt to 30nm x 120nm with EDS (gross - no margins) - 100mt net
53mt to TLI with dry EDS (EDS shutdown) (gross - no margins) - 48mt net
35mt to TLI net payload
28mt LSAM in LLO (net with margins - after LSAM performs LOI) - that's the number Shannon was talking about before the Commission

Orion launches separately to LLO - the LSAM requires some fuel for loiter in LLO only, docking is performed by Orion with LSAM being the passive spacecraft, so the LSAM mass won't be much lower than 28mt even after LOR.

Your crewed mission profile you just posted states 46.3mt total mass injected to LLO with a 20.2mt for Orion. That's 26mt for the LSAM in LLO compared to the 28mt NSC LSAM. I know that's an apples to oranges comparison because you have additional internal margins on top of the 10% arbitrary NASA margin (and we don't know whether NSC has them) and your profile is a J-246 + J-130 2-launch architecture rather than a two J-246 profile. Still I wonder where your LOR profile really loses performance compared to the presented NSC proposal. Could you tell me (if you have that handy in your LOR profile calcs) what the net payload mass after TLI is for a single J-246 launch is?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/07/2009 09:17 am
Your Altair size is essentially limited because you have to split the LEO lift performance of a single Jupiter-246 between the LSAM's mass and the TLI Propellant to send it thru TLI -- and the fact that this flight must also fly with a significantly heavier PLF also has a slight detrimental effect on lift performance too.

Roughly, you end up with a split of somewhere around 58mT of Propellant and about 28mT for the LSAM -- and the LSAM still has to perform its own 950m/s LOI burn at the other end.

The CEV flight can't help this situation because the penalty it pays for using a low-Isp hypergolic engine to perform its LOI means it is a lot less efficient and ends up inserting with no spare payload performance to speak of.

This means the system's total performance is limited by the LSAM flight, and that flight must split its lift performance in half!   That ain't good.

The pair of EDS masses going through TLI is a further penalty which the system as a whole has to pay.


Comparatively, the EOR approach allows the full lift performance of a Jupiter-246 flight to be maximized to allow the maximum TLI performance as much as possible.   At that point you size the LSAM to the maximum it can handle -- and that's a pretty high figure.

In the case of the "EDS performs LOI" option above, the sizing works slightly differently: You're now using the same amount of EDS propellant to perform both TLI *and* LOI.   Obviously, something has to change to allow that to work.   That change is that the LSAM must get smaller -- specifically the Descent Module.   Well, that's okay because you can now offload ~13mT of DM propellant which was going to be used for LOI!   And that allows you to make the DM quite a bit smaller too -- for a total mass saving of somewhere around 18mT.   So now your EDS is pushing 18mT less mass thru TLI, and that leaves a pretty descent amount of fuel in the EDS -- enough to perform the LOI later (you obviously optimize all the factors to get the best performance out of this, as you would with any architecture).

Overall it balances-out that there is a slight improvement (about 10%) in total Lunar payload delivery performance, created mostly by a) the higher efficiency RL-10B-2 engines [459.0s] on the EDS performing the LOI instead of the LSAM [448.6s], plus b) the benefit of the LSAM DM structure mass being smaller all through the Descent burn as well.

Factor in all the other points I mentioned above regarding safety, cost and ease-of-access and this really quickly begins to look like a good approach.


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).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mr.columbus on 07/07/2009 09:34 am
Thanks Ross for the detailed explanation.

Quote
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).

Just to clarify the 28mt LSAM number of the NSC proposal, that is AFTER the LSAM has performed LOI (see attached slide)

Gross payload to TLI is 40mt
Net payload to TLI is 35mt = 35mt LSAM after TLI
LSAM does LOI and ends up at 28mt in LLO

As to Orion - yes NSC baseline is that the EDS does LOI which would mean
Gross payload to TLI with EDS is 53mt
Net payload to TLI with EDS is 48mt (with a 20.2mt Orion)
EDS does LOI burn and injects Orion into LLO

P.S. Shannon compared this 28mt LSAM with BOTH the 15mt LM of Apollo (which is 15mt in LLO) and 45mt Altair (which is NOT 45mt in LLO). It was an apples to oranges comparison with the Altair baseline.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/07/2009 10:15 am
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.


Another thing that bothers me about that concept is that they're disposing of that 10.4mT PLF waaay too early -- around ~40nmi!!!   :o

That's going to be cooking through about 145 BTU/sq ft/sec which is in the same realm as our Core Stage Base Heating issues!!!   I wish em' luck trying to fly a mylar-covered LSAM through that.   Standard GR&A's say fairings must stay until the BTU's get down to 0.1/sq ft/sec -- which doesn't normally happen until around 72-75nmi.   But if you hang on to that huge PLF that much longer, it'll really hurt the payload figures a lot -- because that'll be well into second stage, and second stage isn't anywhere near as powerful as first stage.

Ahhh, I really haven't got time to do this...

Must...Concentrate...on...DIRECT...data...for...Aerospace...Corp...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 07/07/2009 10:21 am
British Thermal Units per Square Foot per Second :D love those imperial units
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/07/2009 10:28 am
Ross, I really like this new approach.  But I was wondering, how dependent is it on the RL10B-2 engine?  If the extendable nozzles are not human ratable, can the RL-10A-4-2 version of the EDS (6 or 7 engine) still make this work?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/07/2009 10:43 am
Yes, they will work.   But you'll lose a little performance due to lower Isp.

Mind you, your EDS is also a little lighter with them, so its really a case of "swings and roundabouts"...

And the B-2's extendable nozzles *ARE* human ratable.   They are simply considered to have a slightly higher failure likelihood (its still great reliability, just not necessarily excellent).   We already protect that issue by *always* assuming at least one engine-out on all flights though.   That totally covers our butts in rare case should one ever fail to deploy a nozzle correctly.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/07/2009 10:48 am
Here is a really interesting idea that has emerged as NASA has fleshed out the SDLV-Sidemount concept. 

http://www.onorbit.com/node/1188

In essence, what we see here is an ATV bus acting as the propulsion and navigation module for a 'barge' mimicking the mounting frames in the shuttle payload bay to carry MPLMs and other non-pressurised ISS logistical carriers designed to be mounted in the shuttle payload bay.

Now... where have I seen that idea before, hmmm? ;) Maybe next they'll be suggesting putting a docking adapter, a crew transfer module and a remote manipulator arm on this thing. 8)

Just out of interest, Ross, what is the maximum size of SSPDM? Could it be lengthened to carry two MPLMs or an MPLM and multiple unpressurised logistical racks? The ATV element wouldn't be required as it would have an Orion as a 'truck' to tow it to the ISS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mr.columbus on 07/07/2009 11:46 am
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.


Ross, you don't have to take the time (I urge you not to respond to this post! ;-) - then I would be the winner of this debate... I'm joking of course...). I just was curious about DIRECT and a LOR architecture, that's all. And I was basically only reiterating the NSC proposal as described in the public meeting as well as the additional information on L2 in the revised presentation.

With regard to how they are supposed to get a 35mt LSAM (net) to TLI. I think their calculation is pretty straight forward.

Their gross mass in a 30nm to 120nm reference orbit is 112mt (that is payload plus fully fueled J2-x EDS) - I can't verify that claim. At an isp of 448, 1.3 MN for the J2-x and a suborbital burn time of 298 seconds and an additional burn later on of 177 second provides you with 53mt to TLI gross - it's pretty simple to verify that claim, the numbers work out. This figure is a straight figure, no margins applied anywhere from suborbital staging to that point.

Then they just applied the 10% margin and got to 48mt, that is payload plus dry EDS. According to their estimate the dry mass of the EDS is 13mt (with margins). That sounds reasonable compared to the J2-x upper stage of Ares I which has a 17mt dry weight but needs to hold double the propellant and has different proportions (5.5m diameter vs. 7.5m diameter) altogether. Voila, they are at 35mt for the LSAM after TLI.

On the jettison of the fairing - their assumption is, and I quote from their updated presentation: "jettison carrier aero fairings (26,004 lbm) at 259 sec at 348kft; heating rate = 0.1 BTU/ft²-sec" (so they assume a fairing jettison at 57nm or 106km).

P.S. don't get upset with me debating NSC here. I am in favor of an in-line design because it has a lot of benefits over a side-mounted. It just has to fit into the budget - just as NSC has and needs to be capable of performing the mission we want it to perform.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Harlan on 07/07/2009 12:38 pm
The thing that worries me in this new proposal is the "90 minute to 4 day" window to successfully launch the 2nd vehicle. If you get some unexpected bad weather, or a leaky H2 valve, or something else that delays the 2nd vehicle by 5 days, that first EDS stage is totally wasted and will have to be deorbited, right? That sounds really really risky (cost-wise) to me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/07/2009 12:52 pm
@ Harlan,

That is just a consequence of any multi-launch archetecture.  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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 07/07/2009 01:47 pm
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.

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? 

If the EDS does not fire engines to reach orbit, are we not really talking about a Jupiter-140 with an EDS cargo?

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/07/2009 02:15 pm
OK, question time.

In this drawing it appears that the EDS _is_ the upper stage of the Jupiter-246. 
Correct
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Malderi on 07/07/2009 02:22 pm
Okay, so that's a pretty interesting architecture, Ross. But what does that do to crewed missions? Now you're doing a 2-launch cargo mission - how would that work with crewed missions? You couldn't use the same LSAM DM, right? So you're developing two DM structures to do this, which doesn't seem quite worth it. Additionally, if the depot stuff ever happens, you'd be right back to the fat DM, right?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 07/07/2009 02:52 pm
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 07/07/2009 03:19 pm
The RL-10's on DC-X got a pretty good workout too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/07/2009 03:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/07/2009 04:10 pm
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/07/2009 04:25 pm
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.

DIRECT has not had on-orbit fuel transfer in its baseline since the AIAA presentation in 2007, if I recall correctly.  Shortly after that, a higher level of analysis was completed, which showed that depots and on-orbit fuel transfers were not needed to meet CxP requirements.  The final DIRECT 2.0 and current DIRECT 3.0 proposals are simple two-launch missions with on-orbit berthing of CEV+LSAM to the EDS.

Ross's most recent post shows how having the EDS perform the LOI can reduce the LSAM to a manageble size and still have acceptable payload to the lunar surface.  The current CxP plan has the LSAM doing the LOI burn, so the LSAM is huge.  The astronauts would be climbing up and down a 10m ladder to get to the surface, which is bad enough.  But how are you going to offload 20mT of cargo from the cargo-only LSAM when it's 30 feet off the ground?  That's what this is about.

DIRECT presentations still include depots as a forward-looking option, which tends to confuse people.  It would keep things simpler if depots were left out completely, but the DIRECT team continues to include them.  Even though they are used as FUD fodder against DIRECT.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Harlan on 07/07/2009 04:39 pm
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. At least until launchers start launching on time an order of magnitude better than they currently do! Are there any proposals for a Lunar mission based on any of the currently proposed architectures that have more flexibility in their loiter time? I assume this would rule out LH2 as a propellant...

(Anyway, the shifting of the LOI to the EDS and reducing the LSAM size is clever!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/07/2009 04:58 pm
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.

I believe that the Jupiter Upper Stage/EDS is based on COLD technology from the ACES/ICES(?) programs, so DIRECT could baseline a 30-day loiter with passive cooling.  However, DIRECT quotes only a 4-day LEO loiter in order to maintain apples-to-apples with Ares.  If my understanding is correct, then I don't see any value to degrading DIRECT's quoted capabilities just to match Ares' shortcomings.  Maybe Ross or Chuck could zip in a quick reply to clear this up, between marathon prep sessions.  :)

I also seem to recall that CxP originally required a 30-day LEO loiter for the EDS, but it was waived (surprise!) when Ares could not meet the requirement.  Amazing how requirements vanish when they are eventually found to exceed the current program's capabilities.  You know, little things like max-Q limits, max acceleration limits, land landings, crew size, autonomous operation, land anywhere/leave anytime, etc., etc.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 07/07/2009 05:33 pm
Shannon is a descent and honest man

Does that mean he's down to earth?

(sorry! Just one of my pet peeves is people confusing decent with descent)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 07/07/2009 05:51 pm
(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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/07/2009 06:03 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/07/2009 06:31 pm
(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.

I can understand how CxP would be leery of depending on a single J2X for LOI in addition to Upper Stage and TLI duties.  After all it is a new engine and there is no engine-out capability.  But the Jupiter Upper Stage will be using six RL10B2 engines in a cluster, with one- or two- engine-out capability designed in from the start.  The added redundancy and established operational history should help mitigate those concerns, if they are communicated to the HSF Panel / decision makers.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/07/2009 06:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/07/2009 06:51 pm
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.  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.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Arthur on 07/07/2009 06:52 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mr.columbus on 07/07/2009 06:56 pm
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

And we shouldn't forget that the 2004/2005 industry study came up with a cost estimate for their Shuttle-C proposal (which was quite a bit more complicated in its design than the current Shannon proposal) similar to the 6.6 billion official estimate for Not-Shuttle-C Block I and Block II.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/07/2009 08:41 pm

Ahhh, I really haven't got time to do this...

Must...Concentrate...on...DIRECT...data...for...Aerospace...Corp...

Ross.

Ya boy! You do that.

More numbers and details to look at in a funny way
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/07/2009 08:45 pm
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


I agree too. Very good remarks mars.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/07/2009 08:54 pm
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!!

 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/07/2009 08:58 pm
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!!

 

Remember though, we're not talking about HIS cost estimates. They are ones generated by a team and he is presenting this option. He may not tolerate someone 'fudging' the numbers, but if he is not made aware of certain facts, I can certainly understand not putting the onus on him.

Anyway, I am so pumped for the team this week.
Go Direct, Go Direct, Go Direct!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/07/2009 09:07 pm
Anyway, I am so pumped for the team this week.
Go Direct, Go Direct, Go Direct!  :)
I second that emotion!  And the crowd goes wild...
U-S-A! U-S-A! ...um ... I mean ...  JUP-I-TER!  JUP-I-TER!  :D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 07/07/2009 09:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/07/2009 09:42 pm
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.

I don't think it's that serious an issue. That's like saying it can only be a viable architecture if it was presented by an established company. Direct is more complex than that. Besides, if the panel took every presentation and accepted, say, just the numbers, does that mean that they would be the best because someone says it's true?

The fact that they are getting a one-on-one is proof they made an impact. However you want to cut the pie, they offer a viable solution (the best imo).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 07/07/2009 10:14 pm
That's exactly what we're trying to do: provide an Apples-to-Apples comparison of DIRECT and Ares. The data that is go to the Aerospace Corp is about the Jupiter launch vehicles, closing the gap to the ISS, EOR-LOR, and the items accociated with that. All of the stuff about propellant depots, EDS performing LOI, Staged TLI, telescope servicing missions, etc is secondary.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/07/2009 10:30 pm
In the recently answered questions, the committee said (about 10 times), "The committee will not be making recommendations."  Does anyone know how they will be assessing merit (I sent in a followup question to that effect, dunno what the loiter time in moderation is)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/07/2009 11:35 pm
What are the real costs of the NASA's Constellation program? http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/07/what-are-the-real-costs-of-nasas-constellation-program.html   "Whatever the cost, sources close to the Augustine committee, say panel members have serious doubts about the $35 billion figure now being used by agency officials." This last statement in the Orlando Sentinel.Com article strongly suggests that the Augustine Committee has larely decided against the Ares 1& 5 architecture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Khadgars on 07/07/2009 11:46 pm
Anyway, I am so pumped for the team this week.
Go Direct, Go Direct, Go Direct!  :)
I second that emotion!  And the crowd goes wild...
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? ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/08/2009 12:05 am
Leroy Chaio's twitter says He's headed for commission work in LA
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 07/08/2009 12:15 am
Anyway, I am so pumped for the team this week.
Go Direct, Go Direct, Go Direct!  :)
I second that emotion!  And the crowd goes wild...
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.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/08/2009 12:18 am
Anyway, I am so pumped for the team this week.
Go Direct, Go Direct, Go Direct!  :)
I second that emotion!  And the crowd goes wild...
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/08/2009 12:22 am
Anyway, I am so pumped for the team this week.
Go Direct, Go Direct, Go Direct!  :)
I second that emotion!  And the crowd goes wild...
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/08/2009 12:31 am

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.

LOL. I totally forgot about that...so true (in this case). Let's hope it bears fruit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/08/2009 12:33 am
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!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/08/2009 02:05 am
Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/08/2009 02:48 am
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.


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/08/2009 05:04 am
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.



Ares may be dead--but it is stand sorry to say. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/08/2009 06:05 am
<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.


NASA has done a lot of architecture work on CxP.

If DIRECT make their proposal work with the "existing" spacecraft, they're going out on much less of a limb than "everything new, everything uncertain".

DIRECT have worked tirelessly to demonstrate an alternative architecture, closely modelled on CxP, but with better margins & better performance. Even the transition from RS-68 to SSME was only done after much soul-searching, and the benefits of that were pretty unambiguous.


"... with minimal emphasis on the fact that things get MUCH better if more substantial architecture changes are made."

Agreed. Strongly agreed. I presume the panel can be relied on not to push the session in the direction of "forget Altair, what about those alternatives, then?"

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/08/2009 06:54 am
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!!

WOW! I didn't see that. Got a link?
Coming up for air and would like to see that.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Xentry on 07/08/2009 10:35 am
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/
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 07/08/2009 11:01 am
Quote from: Xentry
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mr.columbus on 07/08/2009 11:20 am
Quote from: Xentry
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.

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.

I have looked at the article, I only see some things which aren't exactly necessary and not suitable for an encylopedia - mostly things like "the team asserts" and "the team said" etc. without any references and some sentences which may be construed as to mean that the current baseline is for a fact the wrong choice. Looking at the wiki talk page and history page, I think someone already took an effort to change the page. So expect that the tag be removed from that page.

It's a long article and has a lot of information in it, it might just be that people are concerned because of the lack of a variety of references and sources (basically, the main source is the DIRECT team).

But hey its wikipedia, if someone takes the time to write it, others will read it and criticize what was written - that's just how wiki works.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 07/08/2009 01:00 pm
Ok thanks.

The Jack Cafferty link shows that despite a strident portion of the population not wanting any more space exploration, citing reason such as the economy, there's a larger portion who says funding the human space program is what will bring this country forward, and benefit the country and the economy in the long run.

All the more reason to keep pushing for DIRECT, keep it going guys.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 07/08/2009 01:47 pm
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)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/08/2009 02:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: lewis886 on 07/08/2009 02:50 pm
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.


looks like only roughly $434 billion so far...
and even only $824 billion when adjusted for inflation to 2007 dollars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: sandrot on 07/08/2009 03:24 pm
Has this pic ever been posted here?

1964-08-01, rollout of a S-IV stage.

The 6 RL-10's look good.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 07/08/2009 03:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 07/08/2009 03:36 pm
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.
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.

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?'
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/08/2009 04:08 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/08/2009 04:13 pm
According to Wayne Hale's Twitter..

"The HSF review apparently intends to review every option and listen to every advocate before forming any conclusions. Admirable!"

So everyone is still playing on the same field.. no options have been cut yet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Stephan on 07/08/2009 04:17 pm
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/08/2009 04:57 pm
Quote
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.

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?

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.

Either way, using the EDS to do as many burns as possible and getting maximum usage from that spacecraft just seems smart to do. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 07/08/2009 04:59 pm
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.

Perception is reality in the "modern world" - you see it or hear it, therefore it is.  NASA depends on the days of glory to carry it forward and lack of good PR is what you are seeing with most if not all of these individuals.  And that is just the tip of the iceberg as it were...

Let us hope that DIRECT and Jupiter reengage the public interest in a positive way!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/08/2009 05:02 pm
Quote from: Xentry
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.

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.

Since when does Wikipedia care if their listings sound bias?  Almost all of their politicial listings have a very overt bias.  A little hypocritical for them to be complaining about Direct's listing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/08/2009 05:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/08/2009 05:17 pm
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.

We did, it's just that our supply of unobtainium has been completely depleted since then.  :)   That's what we get for wasting all of our natural resources carrying buckets of money (trillions of $$) into orbit for disposal!

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/08/2009 05:21 pm
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.
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.

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?'

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.

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'ss 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 werent' 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.,  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rocketguy101 on 07/08/2009 05:29 pm

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
Apollo 11 since they were already bored w/ moon flights by A13!! (at least pre explosion)--unbelieveable...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/08/2009 05:35 pm
For one day I wish those who see spaceflight as waste would live in a world where we never launched into space.

Let's see them exist without their cell phones, GPSs, satellite TV, weather forcasting...it isn't just tang and tempurpedic mattresses.

We spend more money figuring out new ways to kill other human beings, when some of that funding could go towards space.

It was said during Apollo we discovered ourselves, not just the Moon. I think people have forgotten that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/08/2009 05:41 pm

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
Apollo 11 since they were already bored w/ moon flights by A13!! (at least pre explosion)--unbelieveable...

Unfortunately, you make a very good point.  But to expand, after Apollo 13, people didn't want to spend as much money on space, but you didn't have this almost disdain for space spanding that you do today.  What do you hear today?  "Why are we waisting all this money on space when we need Universal Healthcare and to feed the starving children in American now!"
It's not that they don't want to spend the money, they just want to spend it on things that put money in their pockets.  And that's the major differnece between now and the end of NASA's hayday.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 07/08/2009 05:51 pm
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.

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.,  :)
Actually I believe you pretty much nailed it.

It's rather a downer to realize some of us have become less of what we once were.

Anyways back to this DIRECT issue and making a working rocket out of it...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/08/2009 05:53 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/08/2009 05:53 pm
It's worth pointing out that - ultimately - the survival of the human race depends on this.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/08/2009 05:56 pm
Anyway, I am so pumped for the team this week.
Go Direct, Go Direct, Go Direct!  :)
I second that emotion!  And the crowd goes wild...
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.  :)

That's pretty much on the money. Good "synapse"  :P

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/08/2009 05:59 pm
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).

Correct.   As long as we retain 5 working RL-10's thru ascent, the performance envelope can survive the loss of one.

Then for TLI, we assume a worst-case situation where we lose another of the cluster.

Protecting for both of those eventualities adds an enormous amount of redundancy to the system.   Amazingly enough it still closes the performance targets with plenty of reserve!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/08/2009 06:07 pm
Quote from: Xentry
By the way, a couple of days ago Jack Cafferty at CNN
the administrators of Wikipedia are warning that the article on DIRECT has been 'written like an advertisement',
that's just how wiki works.
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!

Modify: disclaimer


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/08/2009 07:14 pm
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.

Either way, using the EDS to do as many burns as possible and getting maximum usage from that spacecraft just seems smart to do. 
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/08/2009 07:19 pm
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.

Either way, using the EDS to do as many burns as possible and getting maximum usage from that spacecraft just seems smart to do. 
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.

Ahhhh...gotcha.  Thanks for the info there, I didn't look at that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Tez on 07/08/2009 07:28 pm
Anybody want some icons?
I use these three for my desktop shortcuts to this thread and STS-127.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Arthur on 07/08/2009 07:45 pm
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.

Stepping back from the details to see the Big Picture, if the goal is to establish a permanent human presence on another world, then the biggest complaint is not "how much we have spent" but "how little we have gotten for it". After half a century of work:

Apollo proved that we could put a man on the moon in the 1960's.

Then we spend 40 years proving that we can build a station in orbit using none of the Apollo hardware/infrastructure.

Now we are engaged in the new vision to rebuild an Apollo-like rocket (Ares/Constellation) to go to the moon and mars using none of the STS or ISS technology/infrastructure.

Based on the "dream" of establishing a permanent human presence on another world, Apollo appears to have been a money-pit that did nothing to achieve the "dream", the ISS/STS appear to have been a money-pit that did nothing to advance the dream, and the Ares/Constellation appears to be an attempt to duplicate the Apollo money-pit.

Where is the progress towards an articulated goal that doesn't land in the 'Star Trek' bin?
How much further along Von Braun’s “Colliers” outline of man’s journey into space are we really?
At first glance, it sure looks like we’re still in 1960.

That’s where DIRECT shows promise to move us a little closer to the “dream” and why I am rooting for it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/08/2009 08:05 pm
Anybody want some icons?
I use these three for my desktop shortcuts to this thread and STS-127.


Nice work!  Thanks!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/08/2009 08:08 pm
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.

Either way, using the EDS to do as many burns as possible and getting maximum usage from that spacecraft just seems smart to do. 
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.


Ahhhh...gotcha.  Thanks for the info there, I didn't look at that.

I'm not saying J-2S isn't worth a look if the tooling existed to build one without having to go through the Human rating process again.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: sandrot on 07/08/2009 09:16 pm
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.

Yes, we did. I want to go back to Steven Pietrobon's JUS analysis and see what were the numbers for S-IV. It needs to be scaled up to 8.4 m diameter but...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/08/2009 10:48 pm
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.

Either way, using the EDS to do as many burns as possible and getting maximum usage from that spacecraft just seems smart to do. 
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.

Ahhhh....gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/08/2009 11:07 pm

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?


Well, a horribly uninformed electroate has a lot to do with it.  People see this high-tech stuff, and think it much be costing a lot more than it really does.  The quibbles over a couple Billion in the NASA budget is utterly laughable when you look at what's spent on Medicare, Education, and military spending per year.  Just the pork alone in the omnibus spending bill could have funded NASA at current levels for some time.  For the $800 billion pork bill (ummm...I mean "stimulus bill") how much "stimulus" was in there for NASA?  Very little...compared with the billions being spent on things like analyzing cow farts and figuring out the impact of global warming on the mating habits of the fruit fly and the like.

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.  Before our 24 hours news cycle, the nightly news only had enough time to report on important things, so they didn't waste time with all that garbage.  People saw less news but it was of high quality.  Now it's mostly tabloid TV.  And NASA isn't sexy enough unless one female astronaut goes a little bonkers, or there's an accident and people die.  instead, they play to the lowest common denominator.

Again, like I said, if there was some really interesting things going on in NASA, that would be sexy enough to get some air time, and some public interest.  New boots on the Moon or Mars or a NEO.  When New Horizons gets to Pluto that will probably generate some pretty interesting pictures and press releases.  More people floating around the ISS isn't very interesting to those of us who aren't space nuts. 

I don't think there some concerted effort to kill NASA per se.  There are certainly those interested in taking money from a program like NASA and buying more hand-out votes with it to get them more power...so they'll always be talking about the excess of NASA and how we could be "feeding the starving American Children" or some such thing with that money, and misleading the public to think a lot more money goes to NASA than really does.  (Of course, we really have an obesity propblem with our kids, certainly not a starvation problem, but don't let the facts get int the way of pandering for more votes!).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: DLK on 07/08/2009 11:37 pm

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.
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.
Thanks for the info - Dan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/09/2009 12:08 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 07/09/2009 12:11 am

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.,  :)

WADR Lobo, I'd cite Hubble as one of the things NASA has done right even though they screwed it up at the start, and the interest in the Mars Rovers. I'd also cite the interest in movies such as Apollo 13 and In the Shadow of the Moon as showing that people are still interested in HSF. Hay-ull, look at the interest in the new Star Trek movie, even.

IMHO, the problem is when projects are dragged out... and dragged out.. and dragged out.. by the time the ISS was fully assembled people didn't care anymore. It was old news. OTOH, as soon as China sends a manned capsule around the moon I think you're going to hear people in the US howl.



Quick queston for the Team, how's the fundraising going? Are you at a "Block 1" level, or Block 2 or 3? Could you still use some funds? I know you guys hate to ask, but this is the homestretch.


Respectfully,

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 07/09/2009 12:13 am
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.


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). 

Then there is the need for engineers to solve problems related to physics and hydraulics but these problems are more than your average building mechanical and electrical systems, and the public knows it requires thousands of employees working to launch just one rocket.

And then there's the way the media report facts. Yes, a space shuttle may cost $20million (I don't know the exact figure), but the way it is reported, in addition to the space shuttle's rather clunky appearance gives the public the impression that if this particular vehicle is that expensive and easy to undergo catastrophic failure, then everything NASA has must be more expensive than gold, which in turn leads to the erroneous conclusion that NASA must suck money faster than the combined Devastator-Decepticon can suck anything into its mouth.

What they fail to consider is that a single aircraft carrier, despite its use of mostly conventional technology, costs at least 3 times as much as a single shuttle mission to build(~US$6billion vs US$2billion), and costs US$1 million on average a day (~US$365million/year) just to stay away from the scrapyard.

Multiply that by the total US aircraft carrier fleet, and in addition to nuclear missile carrying 'Boomer' subs, and yeah the US$45 billion dollar B-2 'Spirit' bomber program. And the country is still building the new Gerald R. Ford class supercarrier, the first of the class being built already set to cost US$5.1 billion (wiki figures).

Now that definitely adds up to trillions, not counting the land forces of one of the world's largest armies and other sectors of the sea and air forces which are equally as massive and expensive to maintain.

I wonder if anyone of these anti-NASA types would insist they sell off all but a small number of carriers sufficient for mainland defense.

I think I rest my case. Let's go back to issues concerning DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/09/2009 07:07 am
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?

This is additional delta-V applied at the end of the existing ascent burns.

Quote
Therefore, would it be possible to re-run the numbers for max-mass-to-LLO-with-EDS-performing-both-TLI-and-LOI?

I calculate the following cargo masses (mc) landed on the Moon with total Altair propellant mass (mp3). No Orion is carried. There are four burn sequences at the Moon, Lunar orbit injection (LOI), plane change (PC), low Lunar orbit (LLO), and powered descent initiation (PDI). The change over from the second EDS to Altair is governed to maximise landed cargo. This occurs when mp3 is maximised but is less than the total Altair propellant load of 27,302 kg.

Single J-246 launch: mc = 6,280 kg, mp3 = 22,825 kg. Altair performs LOI, PC, LLO and PDI.

Single J-246 launch: mc = 6,793 kg, mp3 = 27,302 kg. Staged TLI with Altair performing 12.3% of TLI burn.

Dual J-246 launch with single TLI burn: mc = 14,280 kg, mp3 = 26,509 kg. EDS performs LOI. Altair performs PC, LLO and PDI.

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 staged TLI burn: mc = 21,047 kg, mp3 = 26,667 kg. EDS performs LOI and PC. Altair performs LLO and PDI.

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.

Attached are the mass budgets and the program I wrote to perform the calculations.

Quote
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.

With an elliptical orbit, most of the time is spent in the radiation belts. Since rendezvous can take four to five days this would be unhealthy for the astronauts. A higher apogee would increase time in the belts.

Quote
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?

Basically, you would launch so that at perigee in a few days time, the spacecraft would be in the right position. I think it should be possible to do this. You can always raise or lower your orbit to get the spacecraft into the right position, but this takes time.

Quote
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?

Yes, that sounds like a good way of doing this.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/09/2009 07:12 am
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.


I believe NASA's preference for a single engine is because it gives better LOM / LOC figures, not that it couldn't fly. I think it's fair to say DIRECT believe their design gives better safety in the real world.

NASA's problem is whether the estimate for the tanking element of JUS is realistic.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/09/2009 07:14 am
A bit late, but here are my comments on the Direct presentation to the Augustine committee. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361841main_14%20-%20DIRECT_HSF_Commission.pdf

p.2 l.5 between -the- Shuttle
l.7 on -the- humans
l.9 Build -the- _a_ base

p.5 l.3 how to -the-
In "Uses Exisisting Transportation" the transporter for the NLS core is different to that for the ET.

p.6,7,8,9,25,26 Ares-I Upper Stage is orange, not white.

p.8,9 Ares-V Core is orange, not white.

p.10 l.3 is an_ asset
l.4 -12- _7_ -IOC- Jupiter vs. 1 Ares _operational_ flight -thru- _to_ March 2017 [I count 7, not 12 operational Jupiters to March 2017.]

p.11 l.5 Safety_and_ Capability

p.13 The Earth Climate Monitoring image is of the Orbcomm communication satellites, which are not used for climate monitoring.

p.14 For the Shuttle system at $2.6B and 81 t I calculate $32,100/kg (slightly smaller than the $32,385/kg value given (value given to nearest $5). For Direct at $1.9B and 389 t I calculate $4,885/kg (slightly larger than $4,815/kg value given). This reduces the improvement from 6.7 to 6.6.

p.16 l.13 NASA's_ own ... that _the_ DIRECT

p.22 l.8 Fortunately,_ thirty

p.24 12/5 = 2.4 times the diameter, not 2.5. 77/25 = 3.1 times payload increase, not 3.5. 105/25 = 4.2 times payload increase, not 4.5.

p.25 l.1 from -the- Ares
[The Direct vehicle is quite a different configuration to STS with the payload on top instead of the side, so the dynamic environment has not yet been proven.]

p.27 l.3 _For_ Jupiter-130,_ -by- using existing

p.29 The near Earth object image shows an international Moon Motel.

p.30 l.1 -The- Jupiter-130

p.38 Bottom left hand corner. Should that be "Jupiter-130 (Crew)" instead of "Jupiter-140 (Crew)"? For 6xRL10B-2 Single TLI Burn a 0% margin is showing a TLI mass of 81.3 t whereas current baseball card is 79.1 t. Based on 1.93 payload loss, 71.1 t require TLI mass, and 9.4 t dry mass (excluding engines), I calculate a maximum margin of 44%, compared to 59% shown in graph.

p.39 Baseball card values do match up values given, e.g., 80.7 t TLI versus 79.1 in card.

p.43 In the drawing, the swing arms of the Ares-I Tower are between the Jupiter and MLUT. How can the swing arms get out of the way when they are stuck between Jupiter and the MLUT? I think these swing arms should be on the other side of Jupiter.

p.45 l.4 Why is their a sub-orbital staging event? Shuttle C can put 60 t (other designs can put greater than 70 t) directly into LEO without an upper stage. This is sufficient for both Orion and its payload. The payload will need to make a small burn to circularise orbit, but this is also true for J-130.
l.5 The payload shroud can be modified so that it carries the weight of Orion from Orion's base, just like in Ares-I.
l.6,7 For LEO missions, an upper stage is not needed.
Another disadvantage of Shuttle-C is that it has less payload performance than Jupiter.

p.46 Ares-I/V does provide access to the ISS if ISS is extended beyond 2015, so the question should be modified to "...to the ISS _before_2015_?". For the last question if no other country develops a Lunar program, then the US will remain in the lead ragardless of which launch vehicle is chosen. Perhaps the question should be rephrased to "Do we _guarantee_that_we_ remain the ...".

p.48 J-130 has a 78 t LEO capability, not 50 t.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/09/2009 08:07 am
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.

Many thanks for taking the trouble to do this analysis.

You are using higher delta-V figures for the Lunar manoeuvres than Ross's spreadsheet, but interesting to see a substantial payload lift from HEOR.


Quote
Quote
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?

This is additional delta-V applied at the end of the existing ascent burns.

...

Quote
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?

Yes, that sounds like a good way of doing this.

This seemed like the most practical & safest way to achieve rendezvous whilst avoiding most of the issues of synchronising two elliptical orbits. It also keeps additional exposure to the Van Allen Belts to a day or so.

It just seems this is a necessary step before anyone would consider using this scheme.

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?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 07/09/2009 08:15 am
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

I was allowing for one engine out during LEO & TLI, hence 6 & 5.

IIRC, Altair doing the LOI would just use a single RL-10 anyway.  The depleted JUS + Orion + smaller Altair would have a similar mass to Orion + bigger Altair at LOI, so the thrust requirements should be comparable.

6 engines for LOI might be too much thrust. Would Orion and Altair be docked using LIDS at that time?

Would it be advantageous to drop 3 or 4 engines (Atlas style) after or during TLI?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/09/2009 09:53 am
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mr.columbus on 07/09/2009 10:01 am
One question about J2-x vs. RL-10.

The engine-out capability of 6 RL-10 if the upper stage is supposed to do LOI is of course of great importance for LOM numbers. But what about LOC? Could a failure of the J2-x engine actually mean a LOC event? After all Orion does have enough delta-v available to do a circumlunar abort. For a single one burn J2-x scenario, a LOM event would be in the 1:1000 range, NASA says that "The probability of failure to restart of the J-2X is 33% more likely than the previous start." which for a 3 burn LOI would mean a considerable LOM risk, but actually not really a big LOC risk.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 07/09/2009 11:59 am
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!
Anytime, just say it if you need us to do anything.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kcrick on 07/09/2009 12:09 pm
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've been following the goings on of DIRECT for the past couple of years and can't believe where you guys have taken us !!! An independent review! And now the opportunity to show the real technical details to the commission!

I really believe that in the end, DIRECT is the way to go!!

Thank you DIRECT team!

You're showing us the way !!!

Kevin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/09/2009 12:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: John Duncan on 07/09/2009 12:36 pm
It may be only the three of you in there, but all of us have got your back.

Go Team!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/09/2009 01:08 pm
Best wishes for a safe trip and a successful meeting, to all of the DIRECT team members. 

I stumbled upon NSF less than a year ago, and it's been a wild ride, just watching and participating in the small vicarious ways that I have.

What is most amazing to me is that DIRECT, that ragtag Internet cabal of secretive industry insiders, has been chosen to be the champion, representative, and defender of the inline SDLV concept to the Augustine panel.  After all the internal and external studies on that subject that have been done since the late 70's, after NLS passed its PDR in the early 90's, and even after other corporate heavyweights had devised their inline SDLV concepts, it has fallen to the grass-roots people, the engineers in the trenches, the Internet cheerleaders (ahem), and the insiders afraid for their careers, to bring this most obvious and obviously excellent architecture together.  Who would have believed it even one or two years ago?

So no matter what happens tomorrow or anytime in the next few months, you guys on the DIRECT team have done an amazing feat.  Don't let anyone tell you different.  DIRECT may not be chosen, or it may be chosen and then mutilated beyond recognition, but to have gotten even this far is far more than almost anyone could have expected.

Of course, I expect more.  :)

When the Augustine panel does end up rating DIRECT as the best and most affordable option, and after the industry picks its collective jaw up off the floor, I expect the DIRECT team to be pulled into a maelstrom of activity and attention that will make the past few months look like a vacation on the beach.  Don't say you weren't warned!

Cheers,
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 07/09/2009 01:22 pm
Congratulations, DIRECT Team, for getting the review you've asked for.  Good luck and may the best launcher win. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/09/2009 01:25 pm
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.


Best of luck to all of you tomorrow. We're all behind you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/09/2009 01:30 pm
Good luck guys!

And remember to check the version number on your presentation.
;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/09/2009 01:46 pm
Good luck guys!

And remember to check the version number on your presentation.
;)

Good Point!!

And Ross, please don't be afraid to do most of the talking! You know this stuff inside and out. 

Hopefully you'll have Wifi there or some other connection and can send messages out as necessary if there's information you don't have on hand.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/09/2009 01:52 pm
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 07/09/2009 02:05 pm
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.


Kind of "Apollo-esque"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 07/09/2009 02:54 pm
Godspeed, Team Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/09/2009 02:54 pm
Congrats on getting the review you have been working towards! Good luck, and I hope all goes well. It has surely been a great ride.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Quintus on 07/09/2009 03:40 pm
The very best of luck to the Direct Team. To follow history in the making like this is just extraordinary......and wonderful!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: foltster on 07/09/2009 04:02 pm
Good luck guys!  Been following DIRECT for 2 years now, just keep up the good work and professionalism!

-Scott
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Paul Adams on 07/09/2009 04:05 pm
Best of luck guys, if commom sense prevails and DIRECT is selcted, the entire team will have made history. Just remarkable!

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/09/2009 04:17 pm
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.

Sorry, South Carolina.

"Extreme right-wing propaganda?"

Well it sounds like you are into extreme left-wing propaganada to construe anything like that out of my comments.  ;)
Please elaborate and be -specific-.  And please do so in a PM to me so we don't get off topic on this thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/09/2009 04:20 pm
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!

Sweet!  Good luck Ross and team!  Knock 'em dead!

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/09/2009 04:46 pm
Friday represents the culmination of all our hard work. 
May the best rocket win!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 07/09/2009 04:53 pm
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mr.columbus on 07/09/2009 05:06 pm
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!

30 minutes of public presentation is one thing, hard data is another. I doubt the committee members (and their staff! - let's not forget that there are a lot of other people assisting the committee members in their assessment) are that much influenced by a presentation. They'll look at the numbers, the technical specifications, the advantages, the disadvantages, the outside estimates from Aerospace (which will also be based on data) and then come to a conclusion.

In any event, I wish the DIRECT team members who are meeting with Aerospace good luck. It's not only a meeting which promotes their proposal it is also part of the recognition they deserve personally because they put a lot of effort and passion into their work without gaining anything financially from it or expecting to gain anything from it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/09/2009 05:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/09/2009 06:06 pm
Ross and Team,

This presentation is probably not the place for this, but I think the presentation of Not Shuttle-C and the presenter made an impression on the panel.  As other have mentioned, although it's probably not much savings vs. Direct in development costs in reality, in -perception- it looks like something you could just slap together and have flying by Christmas.  And as the say, perception is reality.

I'd put some comparison/contrast bullet points of Direct vs. NSC in your back pocket.  A sheet with a comparison like you had for Ares, of what is used that's existing, and what needs modification or development (like Avionics, the perception is you can use the same avionics unchanged, but point out both NSC and Direct will need new avionics).

Not saying you necessarily even bring it up at this review, but if the panel is swayed away from Ares at all, obviously Direct and NSC will be the two contenders, and NSC has a little "star power" with John Shannon, and a -perception- of needing very few changes to existing STS to get flying.  So it might not hurt to have a game plan floating around for that contingency.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/09/2009 06:07 pm
Guys,

your day has come. You've earned it.

Give 'em it straight down the line - the stuff you've been planning, the numbers & details you've worked so hard for. Give 'em margin and redundancy, and why this should be the easiest, safest & most capable way to the Moon and back.

I'd agree with other's advice - keep the narrative simple and present the "alternative" stuff as a sweetener at the end.

Give 'em the Moon with two launches, ASAP.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 07/09/2009 06:12 pm
This is my first post on this website.  I, like many of you here and still lurking, have followed Direct quietly hoping and pushing for a day like tomorrow.

The data (or numbers) will speak for itself.  I just hope the panel is truly impartial.  For if it is, it is in my personal opinion that Direct will be strongly considered. 

I feel very good with the leadership of Team Direct.

Remember...  I always tell my clients to be humble, approachable, and credible. 

When you humble yourself you make yourself less threatening and thus approachable.  We have been approached by the Augustine Commission and now it is our turn to shine. 

I know we are credible.

Respectfully,
RS327

PS  If funds or additional exposure is needed, feel free to ask. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/09/2009 06:19 pm
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.

Whole-heartingly agree 100% with every word. Great post.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/09/2009 08:12 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/09/2009 08:30 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/09/2009 08:31 pm
One can hope, eh Danny?

I hope you get your confirmation. I'm sure we all do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Alpha Control on 07/09/2009 11:44 pm
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!

Ross, Chuck, and Stephan,
I wish for great success for you tomorrow. We all stand behind you!
It is indeed a day that many thought would never come.  I'll be wearing my honorary "Team DIRECT" tie to show my support!  :)
All the best,
David
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/10/2009 12:00 am
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.


Well, you guys are the "right stuff" at the right time. I hope you 3 and all the others get your VIP tickets for the first Jupiter-130 liftoff.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/10/2009 12:07 am
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

A very hopeful rumour at the least. Well, I hope some folks at NASA still remember to set aside some 50+ VIP seats.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/10/2009 12:36 am
Good luck with the data presentation you three!


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: scotty125 on 07/10/2009 12:38 am
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.

My thanks to the DIRECT team for speaking out against an ill concieved project and offering a real alternative rather than just hot air and hyperbole.  Thanks also to Chris for providing in NSF a haven where professionals and amatures alike are free to gather and discuss a wide range subjects and ideas.  No matter the outcome of the current hearings, both DIRECT and NSF can be proud of their (our) part in the process of furthering the Vision.

Go get 'em, guys!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 07/10/2009 01:03 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/10/2009 01:23 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/10/2009 01:28 am

The thing is, if they say an inline configuration won't work, then they just killed Ares V.

THANK YOU!

I was waiting for someone to notice that (not that it isn't already dead from its own weight).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/10/2009 01:32 am
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

Okay, we'll keep it among 'friends'  ;)   (of Direct)  :)

Although if you put it on L2 instead...it would have stayed there  ;)

Oh well. We needed something to keep us busy until Jupiter's parent (I mean STS-127) launched.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/10/2009 02:05 am
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
And 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/10/2009 02:33 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 07/10/2009 02:40 am
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
And 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.

fotoguzzi, most of the news over the past few days has indeed been very good.  And if NASA really is serious about examining 2-launch in line SDLV architectures we could see an approach like Jupiter adopted by the time the next federal fiscal year rolls around.

Malcom Gladwell author of blink, outliers and of course the tipping point might call this particular time a tipping point.  Basically a time when "the levels at which the momentum for change becomes unstoppable."  Hopefully, we are seeing a point where the wisdom of developing a single SDLV derived vehicle and using 2 launches of that vehicle to go to the moon is moving from being an outlier supported by a relatively small number of people to becoming simple accepted common sense.

There are of course several 2-launch SDLV solutions from not-Shuttle C to using two Ares V classics, but for me the DIRECT team has done a pretty good job of convincing me that if you want to produce results quickly (e.g. a manned launch before the next election cycle and the moon either right before or after the 2016 cycle) and you want to do it within budget then the Jupiter is really the only way to go.

John
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/10/2009 02:41 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 07/10/2009 03:47 am
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?

However, I'm sure they could play the same games that have been played to-date by the pro-Ares upper echelon NASA management - tweak the entry conditions to make the computations come out the way they want.  I don't think they are, but I'm not popping the champaign until we know more about what they're doing (if anything) and why they're doing it.  There have been "studies" by NASA before that have not come out favorably for DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rv_rocket on 07/10/2009 04:01 am
Whoo!!! Ross, Chuck and everyone else on the Direct team, Congratulations!!

We know you will do a great job! We really appreciate all your hard work. Thank you, Thank you Thank you!

The Direct amazing people club will certainly be raising a toast to all of you tomorrow night!!  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/10/2009 04:25 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/10/2009 04:42 am
Glad to see you made it there okay, Ross.  Don't stay up too late, you need to be sharp and on your toes tomorrow!

Best of luck to you all.
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/10/2009 05:15 am
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/10/2009 05:31 am
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!
  maybe this reaction from 2005?

Looking at the 3D model I made for the heavy lifter (based on released pictures, please see above) I ended up with a total height of +/- 109m (using 5 segment SRB and 4xSSME powered ET having around 56m height + 40mx10m fairing... this gives 109m-56m-40m=13m for interstage + second stage).  All these numbers seem to suggest that the second stage may have more length / fuel / performance than what was initially being considered (that bigger second stage also seen in some other pictures).

So, forgetting dubious names, that's why I'm thinking about the possibility of that heavy launcher to be equipped with two different kinds of second stages… One more for LEO, another for Moon missions… That "Moon second stage" would also be used for Mars missions… Please have in mind that there is the possibility of NASA considering LEO assembly for such missions instead directly sending stuff to red planet.

Of course that my point of view is very limited… If only I could have more free time I would do another crude Orbiter implementation (this time for the heavy lifter) and "test" a few stuff around…

Summing up: I have the impression (possibly very wrong one) that the heavy lifter will have at least a choice between two different upper stages, both having the same diameter, but different lengths (perhaps 8m to 10m difference, making the Moon stage to have the double of the lenght of the LEO stage) and possibly different engine setup, all that depending of the type of mission being planned.

However, this is just me talking to the air… I'm no engineer
(looking forward for more details about the 60 day study…)

António

I think you're basically right.

However, I can see a logical progression of development for both the CEV launcher and the SDLV, starting with a smaller variant and upgrading to the full specifications.   I think that's sensible and economical too.

I'll try running more numbers as soon as I can and confirm some of this.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: akranzel on 07/10/2009 05:55 am
Just wanted to wish all the DIRECT people good luck with the presentation tomorrow.
You've done a great job both designing this thing and explaining it, and now you have a chance to actually get it built. I'll be here from work tomorrow, eagerly watching for status updates.

 -Adam
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Calphor on 07/10/2009 06:01 am
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.

There is a lot on the RSRM that needs changed/refreshed. The primary insulation material needs to be changed due to material issues (chrysotile (its other name is a very bad word)). The primary ablative for the nozzle needs to be changed because of material obsolescence/unavailability (NARC). Cleaning solvent, etc, etc, etc... The RSRM is an established motor, but it could use a good refresh/requal to avoid many of the materials issues that it now faces.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/10/2009 06:11 am
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? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/10/2009 06:16 am
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!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3307.60

Quote
edkyle99 - 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/10/2009 06:43 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/10/2009 06:47 am
I've read it before, but I cannot seem to find it lately.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3307.60

Quote
edkyle99 - 18/7/2006  4:58 PM
The study found that a lunar mission performed with two such launchers would cost less than the current "1.5 Launch" mission.   
That option has me curious.
Went back and looked at it myself earlier. That is where it all began.
Thanks, Ross and Gladiator (and Ed for the setup!).  The 2009 Ross seems a bit more mellow than the 2006 Ross!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/10/2009 06:50 am
I would like to thank everyone who provided feedback on my "Analysis of Propellant Tank Masses" paper. I submitted the paper to the Augustine committee last Monday. Attached is the updated paper.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/10/2009 07:12 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mr.columbus on 07/10/2009 07:33 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: usn_skwerl on 07/10/2009 07:46 am
The best of luck to you guys!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/10/2009 07:57 am
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.

(My highlights).


Steven,

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).


However, I do have my own concerns with the "light lander" variant.

The cargo mission shows a 7.7mT lander (26.8 landed less 19.1 payload = 7.7mT).

The crewed mission requires a lander no more than 7.8mT (14.7mT landed, less 6.4mT Ascent Stage, less 0.5mT cargo = 7.8mT). That's a 4.4mT reduction in lander mass for a <14mT reduction in fuel load, and that seems pretty adventurous. Also, the crewed lander is usually 1mT heavier than the cargo version.

Still, if the experts in the background say that's feasible...

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/10/2009 08:02 am
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.


Jupiter assumes considerable modifications of ET to become the core tanking.

I think saying that NASA disagreed about how much mass must be added to ET to create a core is just saying the same thing from a different direction.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/10/2009 08:31 am
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?

Very little I would think. There may even be a small benefit since you would be spending more time at perigee during the burn. Losses come about from not performing the burn at the lowest point in the orbit.

6 engines for LOI might be too much thrust. Would Orion and Altair be docked using LIDS at that time?

Yes. Lets see with small Altair

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


Thrust from six RL-10B-2 is 660.6 kN. Therefore maximum acceleration is 11.3 m/s^2 or 1.16g. Force from Orion is 228.8 kN. I don't know if LIDS can handle that.

Quote
Would it be advantageous to drop 3 or 4 engines (Atlas style) after or during TLI?

There would be an advantage, but this adds additional complexity and failure modes.

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.

Hmm, maybe they need to remove that constraint as it is limiting their performance. The EDS burn of 438 m/s (margin not included) is 65 m/s short of a 100x10,000km HLO eliptical orbit (503 m/s) so a staging would be required. I'll need to modify my program so that the EDS only does LOI to HLO. Altair can then do plane change, circularisation, DOI and descent.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mr.columbus on 07/10/2009 08:34 am
Has anyone looked at a lunar architecture design of the J-241 Heavy (that is keeping the J2-x as the upper stage engine and adding 5-segment SRBs)? The DIRECT numbers state 120mt gross to LEO.

Anyone want to estimate whether (in a pure LOR or a EOR-LOR scenario) this could lead to a 6-crew ORion and a lunar lander landing capable of delivering a crew of 6 to the lunar surface? It would be something like the current baseline architecture on steroids...

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 07/10/2009 09:17 am
Good luck to the DIRECT team.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 07/10/2009 09:38 am
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Fletch on 07/10/2009 10:43 am
Quote
There's plenty of non-US members here you know!

I am with Crispy. 

I have been "sitting on the outside looking in" for over 12 months now.  I was too young to remember the last Apollo flights but remember the 1st Shuttle flight.  The possibility of Direct and the chance to be excited by human space exploration again is fantastic (and this time take my kids along for the ride).

Good luck to the Direct team. 

Will continue to watch from afar for the good news.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 07/10/2009 12:42 pm
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3307.60

Quote
edkyle99 - 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.

Wow.  That means that the three-year anniversary of the start of the DIRECT effort is in 9 days.  Celebrations anyone?  I'm in the JSC area.  Anyone who is interested in hoisting a pint on the 19th, PM me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 07/10/2009 12:50 pm
Quote
simonbp - 19/9/2007  5:53 PM

Witness Ye The Birth of a Forum Legend!

Quote
kraisee - 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 ;)

How prescient!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/10/2009 12:52 pm
Does anyone know when the guys go into their session & how long they're likely to be in there?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/10/2009 01:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/10/2009 02:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/10/2009 02:16 pm
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.

Right.   If they present at 9 AM, it will be 12 noon Eastern time, 11 AM Central, 10 AM Mountain, etc.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/10/2009 02:50 pm
They start at 8, about 3 hours. Badging at 730. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/10/2009 02:59 pm
I think I may have missed a post, who and where are they meeting today?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/10/2009 03:05 pm
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

Man, I hate *.PDFs,  and man I'm embarrassed to get the time zones backwards!  -> Back to bed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dcbecker on 07/10/2009 03:07 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Stephan on 07/10/2009 04:11 pm
Ross, Chuck, and Stephan,
I wish for great success for you tomorrow. We all stand behind you!
Thank you but I have nothing to do with that.
Oops maybe you meant Stephen ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/10/2009 04:19 pm


This is the big enchilada!

Dan
[/quote]

first, my appologies for messing with Phillips and other's work
second, for everyone who has stopped breathing, relax, this IS a big day, but not the end of the road by a long shot... Ross asked a little while ago, if Nasa doesn't build Jupiter, who will... well, I have ideas on that, but they are OT so will refrain from upsetting Chris etal
third, ok Zap, here is my reply to your tease ;) just waiting for the right time... and while it may seem foolish, there is a bit of seriousness behind it... Leaping ahead <30 years, it may just be possible some corp like Boeing, that produces large aircraft for public transportation, may just do something like this... 30 passengers per trip, several time a week, on a craft that never returns to earth, restartable engines and fuel depots... why not... my preference though is for side mounting launch into space on a ET without a second stage... does anyone think the ET/jupiter 130 could lift an ET stripped of insulation and launched dry, either inline or side mounted...
  ok, off to lurk some more...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 07/10/2009 04:33 pm
A small note, on the history of Direct: I seemed to remember that the earliest version still had SSMEs, but obviously not. It must have been RS68 and then when things got serious, moved to RS68-regen for the full v.1 proposal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/10/2009 04:49 pm
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

I've seen a 1000 posts congratulating them and wishing them luck, I just didn't see the one telling me what for...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: riverbird on 07/10/2009 04:55 pm
Good luck with the Aerospace Corp meeting to provide a review for the Augustine Committee !  (and thanks for all the hard work)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/10/2009 05:10 pm
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.

I think something to consider other than just raw numbers that might work out to the large lander being slightlyer better at landing mass, there is another large advantage tot he EDS doing the LOI burn.  That is that Altair really hasn't been  designed yet, and if you don't have to build in the capability for it to have to do LOI, then you have more flexability on what you put into LOI.  regular Altair, a cargo variant, or perhaps a fully reusable lander eventually?  Perhaps a cargo lander with a large pressurized rover for long explorations of hte surface?  Seems like it'd be easier to design these options if you don't have to build LOI burn capability into them.
Just from a flexability standpoint.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StarGeezer on 07/10/2009 05:25 pm
Good luck to the Direct team on their presentation.
I think, that of all shuttle replacement ideas so far, the Direct proposal is IMHO the best.
 The not-shuttle-C and Direct, to me, are essentially similar proposals. The commonality is 2 srb's and ET with motors. The Direct proposal is the best because it allows more options than say not-shuttle-C.
  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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/10/2009 05:35 pm
  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.

Hi, welcome.

John Shannon said in his not-Shuttle-C presentation that "SSME reuse is a myth" (paraphrased from memory). It obviously works, but don't expect it to be cheaper than building disposable SSME's for each flight.

On that basis, it's really not worth recovering the engines.

There is also a performance penalty on the vehicle which can't be justified.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/10/2009 05:42 pm
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.
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.

It just so happens that the DIRECT not bad idea might turn out to be pretty good.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 07/10/2009 05:51 pm
The Press Release on today's meeting is up on the DIRECT website.

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT-Launcher-Release-070709.pdf

Since I believe my introduction is buried in an old DIRECT thread, I'm David Harris with the DIRECT team. I've been with the team for about a year and a half, working with the rest of the 'front office' team, abet a little more behind the scenes. Before then, I was a Constellation staff writer for this site. Since Ross and Chuck have been buried, I've been trying to go thru this thread and answer the most important questions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/10/2009 06:16 pm
Hi David.  It's nice to know that someone is minding the store.

The DIRECT website lists Steve Metschan, Chuck, Ross, Antonio, and Philip Metschan as members.  Other than them, and now yourself, can you tell us who the other "front office" members of DIRECT are?  I've heard various numbers mentioned, like 9 or 10 people, but I don't think I've come across any names.

I'm just a little curious, and if it's something that the DIRECT team doesn't want to publicize, that's fine with me.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 07/10/2009 06:27 pm
Yes, that page on the website is a little out of date. If you will notice, we did update the FAQ and many other parts of it to reflect v3.0.

There are 9 in the 'front office.' If they want to identify themselves, that is up to them individually. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/10/2009 06:57 pm
. . . 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. 

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:
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 07/10/2009 07:30 pm
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.

Quote
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:

The baseline is still Jupiter-246 with Orion/Altair and a second Jupiter-246 with the EDS. Using the Jupiter-130 for the Orion/Altair launch is an additional option that is being presented to the Aerospace Corp team. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/10/2009 07:36 pm
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.

Quote
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).
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 07/10/2009 07:46 pm

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!

The Jupiter-246 always has an upper stage powered by 6x RL-10-B2 engines. A Jupiter without an upper stage (and a core stage SSME removed because it doesn't have to lift the heavy mass of the EDS) is called a Jupiter-130.

When launched with Orion and Altair as the payload on top of the EDS, the stage burns almost all of its propellant to get Orion and Altair to orbit. When launched with nothing on top, the stage burns half of its propellant to get to orbit, but because it wasn't pushing any payload on top, it needs less propellant to get to orbit and thus it will have propellant left over when it gets there. This 'leftover' propellant is what is used to send the stack thru Trans Lunar Injection. This is really simplified, but does it make sense?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: guru on 07/10/2009 07:52 pm
So, I know no one can go into specifics, but, generally speaking, how did the meeting with Aerospace Corp go today?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Alpha Control on 07/10/2009 08:03 pm
So, I know no one can go into specifics, but, generally speaking, how did the meeting with Aerospace Corp go today?

We're still waiting to hear. It's just 1pm there, so if the meeting's over maybe they're on a lunch break?

We almost need a Live Thread for this! :)  I know I'm on pins and needles. (I have a good bottle of wine chilling in expectation of their report!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/10/2009 08:43 pm
It is going to be an interesting night. However, more than likely the public will not hear from Aerospace until one of the public meetings. There is one on 28th, 29th, and the 30th. I wonder if they will present their report and findings then.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/10/2009 09:24 pm
"People come and go so quickly here, Toto!"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MKampe on 07/10/2009 09:43 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/10/2009 09:52 pm
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,
Thanks, David!

What it means to me is that the Shuttle OMS pods are heavier/doing-A-LOT-more than I had thought, or that eight segments and three SSMEs are not as capable as I thought.  It makes it all the more clear why the earnest desire for an orbital Conoco station.

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?)

Thanks much for the attention!

Modify:  grammar
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/10/2009 09:55 pm
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

Very good first post, MKampe.  I think you hit the most salient points.

Welcome to the NSF Forums!
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/10/2009 09:57 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/10/2009 10:00 pm
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

Outstanding, Chuck.  You all have a safe trip home.

We all look forward to hearing more....
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/10/2009 10:03 pm
@clongton,

Congratulations and good news on the apparent unbiased analysis Aerospace Corp is doing. 

So they didn't way it "defies the laws of physics" to build a launch vehicle with 2 SRBs and 3 SSMEs   :-\

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/10/2009 10:09 pm

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

The forum can start breathing again... terrific job, proud of you three... sounds like the enquirers wanted to dig deep, which is good... now get some rest, and we don't want to see your avatars until at least Monday evening... rest well, spend time with family, GF and wishing you a smooth flight home...

Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/10/2009 10:11 pm
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.

Outstanding!  Will there be any further technical exchanges or meetings before the HSF Review Panel concludes their work?  I would assume that even a four hour meeting would leave some questions unanswered.

For instance, it would be nice if the Aerospace Corp team would write up their understanding of DIRECT and let you review it before it gets submitted to the Panel.  That would give you a chance to clear up any miscommunications or misunderstandings.  It would be a shame if something egregious slipped through because it was "obvious" and ASS-U-ME'd, instead of being explicitly conveyed.

Like, the fact that the DIRECT baseline for lunar missions is two J-246, with no fuel transfer or depots required.  :)

Congrats to all, and go get your well deserved R&R.

Mark S.

Edit: Whoops, my eyes skipped over this line for some reason:
Quote
We spent a lot of time comparing notes to clarify what our baseline actually is.

Didn't mean to sound snarky!  Cheers!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Alpha Control on 07/10/2009 10:11 pm
Excellent report, Chuck!  That's very encouraging, and it clearly sounds like it was a thorough and competent review.

I echo the many kudos posted above. You all have earned a nice break. I'll be raising my glass in honor of your efforts this evening!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 07/10/2009 10:13 pm
Congratulations, Chuck.  I'm glad it seems to have gone as well as it could have. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Far North on 07/10/2009 10:14 pm
Even though I've been aware of the DIRECT proposal for only 2 months and have been following the thread for only a few weeks, I still feel taken along with all this elation. Glad to hear that DIRECT has achieved so much!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/10/2009 10:16 pm
Yes, let's hope all the specific answers will be forthcoming.  And that that there is some reference material outside of DIRECT to draw on.  That's good news!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 07/10/2009 10:21 pm
Job well done to the Direct Team.

Maybe reason will prevail.  At least maybe some taxpayers dollars won't be wasted.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rv_rocket on 07/10/2009 10:37 pm
Great news Chuck, Thanks to all of you!

We sure hope you get a lot more questions to answer!! :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Integrator on 07/10/2009 10:42 pm
Well done, well done, it sounds like you reps had all the data and information at hand to answer all of the questions.

Molodetz!

INTEGRATOR
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mjcrsmith on 07/10/2009 10:56 pm
Congrats to the Direct Team!  Amazing accomplishment.  It has been a privilege to watch this unfold and I am looking forward to what is to come.

Take some time to decompress.  I am hoping that the team will have plenty of work to come!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/10/2009 11:13 pm
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.)
I think there might be a 3) and 4).

Former administrator Griffin used the word government eleven times in his prepared remarks to the Space Transportation Association in January 2008.  In his final (presumably less-prepared) speech in January 2009, he evoked Eisenhower's hoary admonition to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." (No links because they are from competing space-blogs.)

I think to the administrator, it was vital to

3) have a non-military, yes-government, and, of course, yes-ATK LEO solution. 

4) The decision to go with a tiny / huge combo over two similar rockets is not as obvious.

The DIRECT folks have on many occasions pointed out that their rockets meet the November 2005 Exploration Systems Architecture Study guidelines as well as NASA's choices.

I think your 1) and 2) are able to be answered.  My 3) and 4), I think, are still a bit of a mystery.

But today is the day to say, Congratulations, DIRECTheads!!, seen and unseen and Chris, too.  It was an honour to be allowed to watch the sausage-filler being ground, seasoned, re-ground, hammered out flat, augmented, and re-ground again.  I am confident that all fingertips have been removed from the final product.

Modify: less bolding, more punctuation, more silliness.







Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Malderi on 07/10/2009 11:21 pm
Congratulations to the DIRECT team on the review. It's great to hear there's an independent review is ongoing, no matter what the end result is.

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.

Obviously, a detailed analysis would be difficult given the lack of real-world performance numbers, but a ballpark figure of "10% increased LEO payload" or something would be interesting.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Eric Hedman on 07/10/2009 11:21 pm
Congratulations one and all.  Just remember the battle isn't over.  Even if the Augustine commission recommends Direct completely or maybe in conjunction with an EELV for early Orion launches to the ISS, there is still Congress and the entrenched interests to deal with.  The next step may be to organize a concerted effort to e-mail, snail mail, call, show up at Congress members' town hall meetings, etc.  Don't let this die a yard short of the goal line.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/10/2009 11:38 pm
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.

It has been a privilege to have done my part for this team so far and I'm going to treasure the experience of working with so many heartfelt and dedicated professional individuals.

We've each got long journey's home and we are all going to take a few days off to recover from all the very long nights and days recently, not to mention gallivanting thousands of miles across the country to boot! :)

I'd like to say I'm sorry I haven't been around on the boards for a while.   I know you all understand the reason, but I am looking forward to 'hanging out' here again soon, hopefully some time over the weekend after I've flown home again and caught up on some of my much-needed sleep!

And let me just take a moment to also express my sincere thanks for all the support from you all here too.   You probably don't realize how much of an impact your interest, backing, critique and energy have all helped each and every member of the Team.   We couldn't have come so far without you.

So with that, I'm off to get 30 minutes shut-eye!

Ross -- Hoping to get back into the KSC area in time for the launch tomorrow -- just as long as all three of my flights work as planed :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: anonymous1138 on 07/10/2009 11:50 pm
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.

The DIRECT "movement" got a win, today, and it's great to see that the hearing that was hoped for by so many (myself included) took place today. I hope that the process continues to be objective, for the benefit of us all. It would be really great to see DIRECT come out on top - a launch vehicle that grew from grass roots (or rather from the back room engineers), from the bottom up. A launch vehicle by the people and for the people.

The process (as I have seen it from the outside) is a lot like the best of the Open Source Software approach, where software is "out there" for the public to see and comment on, rip to shreds if need be, and to refine and improve under the guidance of a broad base of experience and viewpoints.

Fingers crossed ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/10/2009 11:52 pm
. . . 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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 07/11/2009 12:03 am
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.

That's an interesting concept!  I would suggest that rather than a basic aerospike to go with a linear aerospike like the one that was being developed for the X-33/VentureStar.  A linear aerospike could replace the line of four SSME's without a major change to the overall shape of the bottom of tank thrust structure.

Being that the VentureStar linear aerospike was going to be modular (I believe it was going to use seven segments) for a J-130 equivalent you could leave off one or two of the outside sections to reduce the total engine output.  Also, I don't think the linear aerospike would have the base heating issue which was the concern when Direct (and Ares-V) was going to use the RS-68.

I did a quick check on Wikipedia.  The XRS-2200 which was developed for the X-33 had  204,420 lbf thrust at sea level(ref (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_aerospike)).  The SSME has 400,000 pounds(ref (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSME)).  With this, and ignoring the engine weight for the moment, it would take eight 2200's to replace the four SSME's.  The XRS-2200 is 90 inches wide(ref (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020017580_2002014463.pdf)).  Eight of these would to be a total width of 720 inches or 60 feet which is 18.29 meters.

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.

Anyway, thanks for putting up with my rambling.

Edit...

I just looked up the specs on the RS-2200 which was going to be the big brother to the XRS-2200(ref (http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rs2200.htm)).  431,004 lbf sea level thrust at 2.36 meters across.  You could actually fit two of these on the bottom of a Jupiter but you still would only have the equivalent power of two SSME's.  Still not workable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/11/2009 12:50 am
Congrats to the team for finally getting the independent review! It's been a long time coming!

Well good luck, and here's to Direct!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/11/2009 01:26 am
clongton, Ross, et al,

Congratulations.  I'm proud of you guys.  As Ross said, whether DIRECT is selected you have accomomplished a herculean task. 

I've worked with on a few meetings with some of the truly professional people described in clongton's description and it really is a special feeling.  For an engineer to be in a meeting with smart, motivated, objective people it's a real treat.

I feel lucky for having had brief exposure to it.

I think Direct makes sense, especially with the SSMEs.  I think you have a really good shot.

Either way, your efforts and use of this virtual community have made history and will be in books in the future.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: scotty125 on 07/11/2009 01:27 am
There's plenty of non-US members here you know!

Sorry folks, didn't mean to offend anyone's sensibilities.  Truth be known, I started life as Brit like Chris and Ross, but have been a naturalized citizen here for the last 30 years.  I treasure my roots in the UK, and there are times when I'm not as obviously a flag waver, but you've got to admit, there aren't many places where a scenario like this could take place!

Yours Aye!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: buzz123 on 07/11/2009 01:29 am
Just wanted to say congrats on finally "getting your day in court"!  Glad you were able to get an unbiased review!  Sounds like things went as great as could be expected!  I guess the hard part now will be waiting to see what the final verdict is.  No matter how things finally turn out, all of you have already won a great victory just getting to this point!  At least this break should give you a chance to finally get some much needed rest.  You definitely earned it!  Congrats again! 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jimvela on 07/11/2009 01:42 am
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.

Today is a good day.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kcrick on 07/11/2009 01:57 am

Congrats to the DIRECT team on a good meeting! Just managed to find out how it went by going back thru the last few pages. Glad to hear that it went well and it looks like we're getting the independent review that we've always wanted!

Again, congrats and get some R & R! You guys deserve it!

Kevin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/11/2009 01:57 am
A big ol' w00t! for the DIRECT team. Good rumblings are coming out of NASA and other places, it seems! Perhaps rumblings not unlike a J-130?

Quote
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.

Not a linear aerospike but perhaps something that could be arranged in a toroid shape? Aerospikes have their own drawbacks anyways, one of them being increased weight (which eventually killed the X-33).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/11/2009 02:13 am
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.

Foto, I apologize for using PDF, but at the time, it seemed like the most portable file format to use for a dual-purpose document like a Media Release. Post on the website, and also send straight to media outlets. In the future, all releases will be done in DOC and PDF format, for ease of use.

Thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HappyMartian on 07/11/2009 03:13 am
To everyone on the Direct Team and all of the Direct/Jupiter fans, Great Job!

SSMEs are an important human asset that have played a major part in getting people into orbit for almost three decades. It would be wise to let the SSMEs continue to perform for at least a few more decades.

Direct/Jupiter makes excellent use of what we have and know and the system can evolve into whatever is needed for the near future.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/11/2009 03:30 am
The forum can start breathing again...

"You got a bunch of guys about to turn blue."
~Charles Duke, CAPCOM
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Malderi on 07/11/2009 03:37 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steve G on 07/11/2009 03:48 am
Congratulations to the Direct team!  You guys are amazing to have fought so many seemingly hopeless battles and manage to preserver to get your independent review.  Regardless of the outcome, hopefully Charlie Bolden will be inspired by you and your team’s dedication to the ultimate human journey and reward all those engineers who had worked so hard on Direct.

You guys are the Right Stuff.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 07/11/2009 04:24 am
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 ;).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 07/11/2009 05:20 am
...just as long as all three of my flights work as planed :)
hur hur hur :P

And a big hearty congratulations to the entire DIRECT team (both seen and unseen) for achieving your first major milestone!  Here's to many more of those to come! :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/11/2009 07:28 am
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.

You guys must be over the Moon.

That's wonderful news.


Quote
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.

The lead-up must have been very stressful as well. Come back when you're re-charged.

The nice thing about a Friday meeting - if they're gonna come back with supplementary questions, they're probably gonna be on Monday.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/11/2009 07:43 am
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.
Foto, I apologize for using PDF,
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.)

(Or whatever document type the Committee likes!)

Modify: /me hates *.docs!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Giovanni DS on 07/11/2009 07:43 am
Congratulations to the DIRECT team, it has been a privilege for me to see how the DIRECT project evolved since the beginning.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/11/2009 08:31 am
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).

I believe it would be fairer to say CAIB was a rationale for choosing Ares I, with Ares V & the rest of CxP following as a consequence.


Quote
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

One word of caution here. Ares I was intended to be a simple project, but it turned out much harder than expected. DIRECT re-uses engines & SRB's, and morphs ET into core, but Ares could equally say a lot of work had already been done on 5-segs and they were re-using SSME for AIUS.

The great thing about DIRECT is that it has been a very open process. Many talented people have criticised or critiqued, and DIRECT believe they have the answers. Even better, this makes a pre-prepared list of issues & concerns that Augustine will satisfy themselves about when they look at the detailed data. Thankfully, John Shannon's not-Shuttle-C presentation has done a lot of DIRECT's work in this regard - this is a guy who's in the loop when it comes to Shuttle hardware.

TO & maybe SSME air-start would have been early warning signs if Ares had gone through a similar external review - maybe performance, too.

If DIRECT gets chosen under those circumstances, it should be in a much stronger position than Ares was at the start of it's development process, especially if Shuttle extension gets the nod.

cheers, Martin

Edit: PS: Initial work on Ares V has also helped Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MikeMi. on 07/11/2009 08:32 am
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...

+1 from me  ;)

I would like to also congratulate DIRECT team. I hope You will be awarded soon for Ya obstinacy :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/11/2009 08:53 am
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.


Quote
PS. 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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/11/2009 01:19 pm
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.


Quote
PS. 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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/11/2009 01:23 pm
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.

Quote
PS. 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... and left us 40 years in LEO... if we don't have the higher goal firmly implanted in the minds of people, and WHY, then we are at risk of again being treated like children, whose parents will say, 'now go play with your new toys, but don't go across the street.' the street representing further exploration... we have to get away from that mindset, 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've seen it here on this forum, where people of different countries have contribute to the goal of Direct, it is time that the world authorities caught up with the Internet and Twitter generation and saw the hand writing on the wall... we are one world... Toto, I don't think we are in Kansas anymore... truly the pebbles have voted, and the boulders had better listen, the avalanch started 15 years ago, and is not going to be stopped...

Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 07/11/2009 01:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/11/2009 01:40 pm
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 ;).

I second that motion!  I recommend a "victory party" at the Cape.  I'll even drive over from Tampa for the event!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/11/2009 01:57 pm
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

Thanks for the update Chuck. I am so very pleased your team finally had your say, it it sounds like it went very well. Enjoy your rest, all of you - it is well deserved.

And thanks, from all of us, the people following all this, for your hard work in trying to give us hope in a future for manned spaceflight on this continent. We are just armchair quarterbacks; you guys are the heroes of the day. Congratulations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/11/2009 02:11 pm
Now we need to prove side mount crew abort is not a good idea. 

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 07/11/2009 02:13 pm
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.

The original aerospike design was round.  It had a longish spike down from the center of the engine, from which the name was derived.  The flames belled out from the entire bottom of the craft, letting the atmosphere act as a variable bell.  However, there's nothing magic about an aerospike.  The bell (or lack thereof) is just about the least significant portion of an engine.  It was useful in a linear configuration on the X-33 becuase you could use thrust differentials along the aft of the airframe to handle your steering and such.  In a configuration like a regular lift vehicle, especially one where there are other engines involved (SRBs), a bell-less (aerospike) engine has more drawbacks than advantages.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/11/2009 02:14 pm
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.

Your missing the point, I am not advocating a political based alliance, but a social networking/scientific based alliance, let the politicians and Space Agencies (the boulders) be bipassed, let the people speak freely... Direct has proven it can be done... it may start with Direct, or it may already have started elsewhere in the science-sphere, but it will happen... the old ways are going down, the new are just flexing their muscles, let them get a vision of their power and then get out of the way or be trampled... new institutions are being created even as we speak, and a new culture is being born, I won't see it, just as Charlamagne didn't see the Ist Europe, but it will happen... and what better way then mankind banding together to go to another planet...

Dave

got bounced by a Thunderstorm,
    To bring this back OT, I believe that given the will of the people (1776) this can be done... Direct is not just a design idea, it is a way forward, regardless of who does the building... there are so many opportunities for variation in the design based on the common core, that it is hard to see it being discarded, but it was once, and it may be again...
     I asked in a previous post, could the J-130 lift a side mounted or inline ET tank that was stripped down and flown empty; the graphics more or less said why, but here is the rational: if it is capable, then fuel depots are that much closer in time... a side mounted wingless shuttle, w/no capability of returning thru the atmosphere may seem strange, but it is the logical next step, w/space based maintenance of the rockets and the fuel depots we have the capability of sending more people into space; Why... because people want to go... some to stay, but some just as tourists or for research... with other vehicles capable of returning to earth or landing on the moon, orbiting space stations to visit... then Mars sorties are not that far off; all based on a Jupiter core and a Shuttle Derived Line of Vehicles... it isn't about one rocket but a fleet of rockets and shuttles, built around the one core, augmented by commercial, and other vehicles of various classes...
    Ross asked who will build the shuttle if Nasa doesn't... well, how about this, keep the infrastructure if possible, or rent it, buy the parts from the people who make them (Boeing, ATK etc) and have a publicly funded group set up to manage it... no gov't $$ involved... we got Chuck over to the meeting, and I am sure, there was more will to send him enough to fly several times that distance... sure it is a daunting task organizing it... but it is not beyond the capability of todays society... 50 years ago it was a Sit-com on tv, junkyard owner builds manned rocket... today, we have the reality in the US, where people with vision are doing it, and not out of the junkyard...
     I'm no scientist, but I do know history, and this is it... shown the benefits, people will get involved and push things forward... that is the trend I see... hopefully we won't have to go public to fund it, but I do believe we have to go international to keep it going...
    Chris this is not entirely OT, it is a talking point about the capabilities of the Direct approach and it's evolution as I see it... if someone thinks it should have it's own thread, 'make it so' ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/11/2009 03:34 pm
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.

Quote
PS. 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...

Hmm, I don't know.

We had the technology in the 70's, but Chuck & Ross have said over & over that after cancellation of Apollo huge numbers of experienced technicians were lost, and less than 10% could be tempted back once they were needed for Shuttle.

One of the main planks of DIRECT is to retain the existing workforce who will be so essential to Lunar missions.

Even so, none of them will have direct experience of Lunar missions (or would at best have been very junior at the time). NASA are nervous enough about starting this adventure again that even seemingly simple steps like two dockings in LEO instead of one are enough reason to kick back against DIRECT. That doesn't seem to be spite on their part, they really do want to minimise risk and complication on early missions.

Regarding Mars - would NASA, today, even be willing to isolate a crew on ISS for two years? Is the technology up to it? The sense of isolation and stress should be hugely less than the first Mars mission.

One other thing - the development cycle for Mars takes a year or two to validate every change to a vehicle. Things will be much easier with Moon missions.

I wouldn't be surprised if Moon-then-Mars would actually achieve Mars earlier, and I think it's quite possible that Mars-first would lose at least one of the first three crews that attempted it, and maybe all three.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/11/2009 03:42 pm
Annular aerospikes
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Integrator on 07/11/2009 03:58 pm

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.


Quote
PS. 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?

I agree, we have many obstacles to overcome that involve performing a multitude of activities in low G, high radiation environments. To send people to Mars before we have learned these lessons would be irresponsible

Just as we had to learn how to function and maintain health and assemble large hardware of ISS in micro-G, it will require new techniques and new ways of doing things to function on the Moon and Mars, perhaps more like an Everest exploration than an undesea one.  Hard to say. 

Human radiation exposure is a key concern, learn to manage it on the Moon and we will have no trouble then in longer transits and on the Martian surface.  This is a primary objective for the next 15 years.  You will find new ways to shield which will lead to even greater innovations.

And most importantly, learning to operate on the moon will give us time to develop the propulsion and TPS systems that will be required for a much longer Martian journey and high velocity Earth return/reentry.  Explore the Moon and learn how to function there, and give us time to develop these technologies so we can perform a 4 month Martian sortie, rather than one that lasts over a year.

No, the Moon is within our reach, but we are not yet ready for Mars.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/11/2009 04:24 pm
A few points

If NASA is not ready for a new LEO system, how can it be ready for Mars?

If (round numbers) NASA does not have enough money for a $100B trip to the Moon, how will it save it's pennies for a $200B+ trip to Mars?

If the nation cannot keep funding for a 2025 trip to the Moon (best case current funding levels), how will it stay focused on a trip that is even further out?  NASA has lost $30B of projected funding since ESAS, $11B of it has already been realized.

If the nation ground its human space program to a halt after Columbia, how will it entertain a Mars mission with conservative LOC estimates considerably worse than the Shuttle?

Posters are right, we are not ready for Mars.

(need to get back on the topic of DIRECT though)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/11/2009 04:40 pm
But isn't the purpose of DIRECT to save money? Saving money + doing international co-operation = the stars are the limit.

I've waxed poetic why the launch system is not the problem when it comes to fixed costs.  Let's not recap but simply say that the $3B+ in fixed costs for DIRECT/Orion saves you NOTHING over Shuttle and maybe $1B/yr over Ares I+V/Orion. 

While it is some, it is not nearly enough to do anything meaningful related to Mars.  Or the Moon for that matter.

Today's NASA could not do Mars2019 with the entire NASA budget.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/11/2009 05:20 pm
Regarding th debate on what date should be set for a mars mission.  I don't think it's reasonable to set a date for mars when you don't even have dates for the moon or a LEO capable crew capsule.

If you build the pieces, Orion, Heavy Lift vehicle, engines and lander technology.  Then the decision to go to Mars in 8 years or 10 years is possible. 

The nice thing about Direct is that you don't need to spend the billions developing the SSME or the 4 segment SRB.  There is enough billions on the new core and the integration. 

NASA is not going to get the money to do it all from new.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/11/2009 05:21 pm


Hmm, I don't know.

We had the technology in the 70's, but Chuck & Ross have said over & over that after cancellation of Apollo huge numbers of experienced technicians were lost, and less than 10% could be tempted back once they were needed for Shuttle.

One of the main planks of DIRECT is to retain the existing workforce who will be so essential to Lunar missions.

Even so, none of them will have direct experience of Lunar missions (or would at best have been very junior at the time). NASA are nervous enough about starting this adventure again that even seemingly simple steps like two dockings in LEO instead of one are enough reason to kick back against DIRECT. That doesn't seem to be spite on their part, they really do want to minimise risk and complication on early missions.

Regarding Mars - would NASA, today, even be willing to isolate a crew on ISS for two years? Is the technology up to it? The sense of isolation and stress should be hugely less than the first Mars mission.

One other thing - the development cycle for Mars takes a year or two to validate every change to a vehicle. Things will be much easier with Moon missions.

I wouldn't be surprised if Moon-then-Mars would actually achieve Mars earlier, and I think it's quite possible that Mars-first would lose at least one of the first three crews that attempted it, and maybe all three.

cheers, Martin
[/quote]

Martin, I was around when the Avro was forced to stop development of the Arrow, here in Canada... I know what you are talking about... saw the pain... that is what I am NOT advocating... it wasn't just the engineers and draftsmen that were affected, but the whole community, from shop keepers to schools... many of the engineers and scientists went to the US... to the point that Canada now has virtually no national aeronautical industry of note...
   Ross and Chuck have been exemplary in explaining the political hurdles which dictate their approach... beyond the technical, which are probably easier to leap by comparison... I am not advocating Mars first... but I do advocate a robust goal oriented approach to space... I didn't want to use the word exploration, as I think it has gone beyond that... it is now Utilization...
    there are people who are willing to do the time in 'isolation', here on earth, and I believe if given the funding, it would be carried out in space... in the first 2 years of the Direct/Jupiter era, new space stations could be funded and flown, allowing for more humans in space for just that reason... more research and faster advancement...
   I look forward to the day, when families set up home in LEO... why not... I am sure there are many reasons, but the point is, that there is a will in the human spirit to adventure forth... sure there will be risks, as you have pointed out, but that goes with the human spirit to take risks... they can be minimized, but never eliminated... walking out the front door has risks, like slipping on ice this past winter, but life doesn't stop, the sun rises, and we learn to walk again... NASA has had a few falls at the front door... more drastic than a busted knee, but it has to get over that psychological hurdle and move forward... if every negative contingency has to be overcome before moving forward, then nothing will be accomplished... not sure who said it, but that says it... let's not say, ''It can't be done!" but "Let's sit down and figure out how it can be done!" Direct took that approach 3 1/2 years ago and look where they are... leap frog another 3 1/2 years and we could be on the moon with unlimited possibilities ahead of us... in space advancement, and Earth's economic recovery and development... we don't need wars to advance human condition, we need the challenges that wars provide without the devestation... Space has provided that in the past, and can NOW, not just Tomorrow...
   I know, I am not being seemingly practical minded, but we have had that approach for way too long... we know the risks, it is time for action...
    and time for me to go back into isolation ;) my appologies to Chris for going OT...
  Dave

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/11/2009 06:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/11/2009 06:18 pm
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.

 :-[

OK, many thanks. Apologies, MKampe.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/11/2009 06:24 pm
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

Quote
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

Quote
DIRECT is a viable rocket but the cost is high also. I think they have underestimate their costs

It seems like they have found their way out and a way to save face. It isn't because Ares I and Ares V are technical night mares, and it wasn't poor management...they didn't get the funding they thought they would.

Ok, so we get to hit the do-over button. It is time to realize we need to do more with less. That should be the new "Safe, Simple, Soon"...."More for Less". Both Jupiter and the SD-HLV give us this (with Jupiter being the preferred option obviously).

I think the Direct Team's next mission is to prove that the inline configuration is better than the side-mount option. I think the SD-HLV is becoming bigger competition now.

Here is my question...how can Direct cost more than Shuttle-C?

Ok, upfront development may be a little more with Jupiter due to the changes to the tank. Still, we have to develop an entirely new cargo pod and attach it to the ET differently.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/11/2009 06:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 07/11/2009 07:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/11/2009 07:55 pm
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.

I hope that Direct is the preferred option right now, but NASA seems to have its mind in other places by naming the Side Mount as their Plan B.

But time will tell.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/11/2009 07:56 pm
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.

Two points: One is your contention that sidemount isn't easily turned into a manned launcher may not matter. The existing STS stack simply hasn't failed in a way that the LAS would really have mattered much. The crew cabin survived the breakup of the Challenger stack, and, for foam strikes, the Orion (inside fairing) is higher in relation to the ET than anything on the Orbiter (how many foam strikes have there been on the Orbiter cockpit windows?). The second is simply this: even if it turned out to be true that SD-HLV were limited to LEO operations, it remains developmentally upstream of any and all in-line SDV designs and doesn't stop them from happening. SD-HLV is far closer to Jupiter 246 (for example) than Ares I is to Ares V. The cost delta for second phase development of a program like that would be smaller than current CxP. If SD-HLV is selected, we're less likely to lose the Moon than if the current program is continued as-is.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 07/11/2009 08:20 pm
Annular aerospikes

My concern with this design is that the plume from the engine could interfere with the solid rocket boosters.  To get enough power the engine diameter would likely be as big as the external tank.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/11/2009 08:21 pm
"Now we need to prove side mount crew abort is not a good idea." (Danny Deger Today)
This statement could be the deciding factor if Direct 3 wins over the SDHLV. We have had two shuttle crews lost in space accidents. We do not need to lose any more astronauts. Anything we can do to increase the LOC numbers we should do. If we put the astronauts in a payload module on the side of the ET, this will obviously mean a greater chance of the loss of the crew if there is a launch explosion. Assuming the SDHLV has a LAS , we still have a major problem with a launch explosion. Two of the Augustine Committee members are astronauts. The new NASA Administrator is an astronaut. I am sure that all of these astronauts are deeply concerned about crew safety, and will do everything possible to prevent more astronaut deaths!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/11/2009 08:43 pm
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)

Quote
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

Quote
DIRECT 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?


Here is my answer: It can't.

I can't believe that the culture of "Anything but DIRECT" is still so heavily entrenched at NASA. You'd think that Griffin was still pulling everyone's strings, and that there is not one single manager over there who is remotely able to think for themselves!

Just on the face of it, there's no way that DIRECT could cost more than Shuttle-C.

Let's see how Shuttle C would have to go:

Spend a lot of money to design and develop a whole new side mount cargo pod (structure to fit on the side, that contains useful things to be launched)

Spend a lot of money to try to design and develop a whole new side mount pod (see above) that has LAS capability with Orion aboard that actually works.

Spend a moderate amount of money to design how to install engines on the bottom of the tank.

Spend a lot of money to build new facilities to make and attach the brand new pod thing (see above) to the side.

Here's how DIRECT goes:

Spend a moderate amount of money to design how to put Orion on top.

Spend a moderate amount of money to design how to install engines on the bottom of the tank.

That's it. It's just plain common sense. Not to mention the fact that side-mount = dead crews when faced with a CATO. If they're on top, they at least have a fighting chance.

Now, that's just my opinion alone.

Sometimes, it frustrates me to no end when people will strain at a gnat and swallow an elephant. If any manager over at NASA honestly believes that *any* side-mount vehicle is going to be cheaper and better than DIRECT, they need to be fired, because they're not creative enough to get us back to the moon, and definitely not creative enough to get us to Mars.

And for those who would have us beleive that $1B here and $1B there is not enough, let me quote Everett Dirksen:

"A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon, you're talking about some real money."
 
We may not be able to do it all tomorrow, but unless people wake up and start thinking outside the box, we're never going anywhere. The first steps were taken yesterday. It doesn't seem likely that a whole agency who has fought everyone for years will suddenly change, but it is possible. Maybe Bolden will come in and prove that old Navy saying: "A new broom sweeps clean." I for one hope so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/11/2009 08:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/11/2009 08:59 pm
If the money is not there, the money is not there
Quote
DIRECT 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?

---8<---(fotoguzzi snips his own misinformation on how a crewed NSC would work) ---8<---

If any manager over at NASA honestly believes . . .
[/quote]
I wonder if we should analyze NASA footage to see if we are missing a wink every time NSC is mentioned.  (Or maybe a tic?)

Modify:  Omit my markup on Lancer's NSC bullet points.

P.S. This whole NSC thing reminds me of refillable toothpaste dispenser they used to sell.  When you went for the refill you didn't buy a bag each of whitener and cavity-killer toothpaste; you bought a wide outer body with external mixing nozzle and hinged cap and two bags of toothpaste hidden inside.  So effectively, all you kept from last time was the lightweight base that also served as the inside plungers.  It seemed a lot of pain and perplexion for something that was designed to replace a toothpaste tube and cap.

It kind of looked like NSC, now that I think about it more!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/11/2009 09:20 pm
From "Will son of Shuttle-C replace NASA's Ares?"
By Rob Coppinger(FlightGlobal.Com-June 29,2009) "Another issue to be resolved is the proximity of the Orion and its launch abort system to the external tank. This one issue saw a side mount crew launcher eliminated from NASA studies in 2005." In my opinion the SDHLV is not nearly as safe as the Direct Launcher!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/11/2009 09:25 pm
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. However, this concept came out of nowhere.

I hope the Direct Team comes out with some emergency comparison slide of Direct VS SD-HLV. I know we all didn't take Not Shuttle C as a serious threat at first, but now it has become serious.

I don't think the ultimate goal of the SD-HLV is to shoot down Direct, but I think it shows an "Anything But Direct" mentality currently present.

Could that be the reason Ares V is being given the bounce?...let's bury the beast before it shrinks into Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/11/2009 09:48 pm
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?

I was surprised at how little was said about Ares V.  I was expecting that Ares I might get a bit beat up, but that someone would come out and say, . . . but the heavy-lift side is going strong!  Here are the nifty ways the design is progressing.

Since they didn't say much at all about Ares V, that is why I believe they came up with the somewhat facetious, but certainly alternative NSC.

Slogan: Shuttle: 1 in 80 -- NSC: 1 in 81!!!

Modify: Addicted to the modify button
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: faadaadaa on 07/11/2009 10:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 07/11/2009 10:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/11/2009 10:58 pm
People love a good conspiracy story.  A grand plan of self-aggrandizement.  An evil spectre whose shadowy hand controls things after his death.  A host of dark disciples keeping the valient troops down.  Demons and elves around every corner.  Luddites sabotaging the space program.  Oh my!

Having lived in the maelstrom, let me tell you that NASA nor any other Agency is typically that interesting.  Just sometimes competent civil servants doing their best to do what they think their leadership has told them to do ... and wondering if it is right.  Some questioning in the halls, and then questions if the questioning is productive or distractive. 

Some people who want to do lots of additional studies with the government's money, and some tell them to stick to their knitting in order to make progress on the chosen way forward.  Every day it's a choice to support and believe what you've been told or to think outside the box.  It is true however that if you spend too much time outside the box or questioning your leadership and the box never gets built.

Sometimes there are major changes (SSME->J2; SSME->RS-68) that clearly show that the "not invented here" is NOT the monolithic law of the land.  Sometimes good ideas are missed due to bad engineering or bad decision making.  Sometimes pride or a desire to move things forward faster (remember, Congress thought pre-Griffin NASA was moving too slowly) miss important on/off ramps.

Very little of it is nefarious.  Most of it is just day-to-day life, same as in your office or place of business. 

But the people do love a good conspiracy story.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: faadaadaa on 07/11/2009 11:24 pm
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.

Have you NOT seen the continual articles in the media supportive of Ares?  Augustine Commission aside, this is more about politics, perception and dealmaking than capabilities.  If Ares continues on, it won't be because it's the best solution.  NASA supporting an alternative solution of their own, the one they've already spent eleven billion on?

I don't want to come across as sounding like a contrarian crank or looking for a pet conspiracy under every bed...I just think the political dimension is being vastly under considered. 

I KNOW I'm out of my depth here, but I'd be happy to have an offline discussion with anyone here about this same play currently going on in a different venue....I've become very passionate about DIRECT.  It absolutely is the right solution for the job(s).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/11/2009 11:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/11/2009 11:52 pm
snip

self-aggrandizement. 


... to enhance the power, wealth, position, or reputation of

Quote

snip

nefarious. 


: flagrantly wicked or impious : evil

I didn't observe nefarious from the high level NASA managers I worked with, but certainly saw lots and lots of self-aggrandizement  :o

And if you read the two accident reports, you will find out that NASA culture is worse than most. 

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 07/12/2009 12:00 am
Every organization or just a social gathering sufficiently large for non-trivial tasks has an amount of politicking, long held beliefs, experiences, ego clashes, etc...  You think SpaceX or any other company doesn't have this kind of politicking? 

Not only NASA as a whole but each center has them.  Shy aways from these issues at your peril.  It's not just a bunch of 'propeller heads' wise men and women dispensing clinical well measured non-biased judgments, but humans operating within an environment and their past experiences.

Has nothing to do with conspiracies and 'suppressing superior technical designs'.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Direct has similar issues itself.  'Politicking' within a social organization is as much a law of nature just as much as gravity is.  Better adapt and play it like a pro, or be ignored.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/12/2009 12:00 am
And if you read the two accident reports, you will find out that NASA culture is worse than most. 

NASA design and acquisition is different from the operational culture, which has had the documented flaws.  Different people in different organizations.

The people that brought you Ares I are design people/acquisition (well, if you can call them that given their lack of programmatic experience) ... the people that brought you Stumpy and side-mount SDLV are more in the line of operations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: faadaadaa on 07/12/2009 12:04 am
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 apologize for barging in on this discussion - I'm a newbie who's outside of the culture and industry that many of you are subject matter experts on.  I can however see correlations between what goes on in your industry and mine.  Those in the majority will always seek to maintain that majority.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 07/12/2009 12:05 am
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. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/12/2009 12:06 am

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/12/2009 12:11 am

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's all in how you ask.  The RS-68 decision came from outside of MSFC, outside of Cx, in fact it germinated outside of NASA.  Likewise the decision to go SI, which Griffin supported, was spearheaded from outside the Agency. 

Of course, under uncertainty and near-term cost pressures they have reverted, but that doesn't make the original decision anything like what you are describing.  In fact, the studies were done very open minded, mostly because Griffin asked for them.

That sort of thinking shows that they are not monolithically closed minded. Sometimes if sales aren't being made, it isn't the customers or the product but it might be the salesman.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/12/2009 01:17 am
Different people in different organizations.
I worked DOD programs for many years, and dissent was welcome there. 
Danny Deger
In fact, the studies were done very open minded, mostly because Griffin asked for them.
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.

It might appear to be a conspiracy, but there is an equal chance that a series of honest decisions would lead to that solution.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 07/12/2009 01:28 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/12/2009 02:40 am
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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/12/2009 02:52 am

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...

Won't work.  "Scotty Rocket" Horowitz (one of the proponents of Ares I) was an astronaut and would undoubtedly get on the first flight. 

On a completely different note ;-) lack of sense in launch vehicles might not give the person the best sense of whether or not to get on board.  But to be more fair, I'm sure most LV designers believe in their progeny enough to fly them, so it isn't a discriminator.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/12/2009 03:29 am
Hmmm....

Before "conspiracy" once again assumes its comforting role of scornfully dismissive epithet in NASA discussions... just who was it who falsified data about Direct in government reports in an attempt to shut down that discussion at that time?

That little thing, like all the other less-than-hagiographic tidbits from NASA's checkered past, cannot be overlooked in discussions of NASA's conduct and the term "conspiracy". It's true that it would be also be a mistake to judge NASA solely by those acts, but blithely using the phrase as a shutdown isn't wise... and leads to the peculiar recent events of the phrase being used for scornful dismissal even when NASA was actually caught red-handed doing it.

It's simpler to ask those who may claim less-than-straightforward-intent on NASA's part what objective evidence they have... i.e. evidence aside from their "feelings"... and it doesn't leave one holding the metaphorical bag later when some part of NASA or another falls off the wagon yet again.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Arthur on 07/12/2009 04:27 am
With all due respect to the greater expertise in the Aerospace Industry of those posting here, I suggest that : “It’s the Economy Stupid”.

In Civil Engineering/Architecture, our 25-person firm has been reduced to a single government client that represents about 80% of our current revenue. If we loose that client, we instantly become a 3 person firm. Down the street, the 100 person firm that we competed head to head with, has 2 people still employed just keeping the office open, so “it can’t happen to us” is not a luxury that we can afford.

The Federal Government is in even worse financial shape. Cost is not “a factor” it is THE FACTOR. I would suggest that NASA and the contractors are firmly aware that they are facing the 1970’s meltdown all over again. Ignore that reality and the ‘Space Program’ will be re-defined as launching robotic satellites using old military missiles.

A 100% new, expensive heavy lift rocket is off the fiscal table for at least a decade. If the moon is still obtainable (and I have serious doubts that it is unless someone else goes first and ‘national pride’ is at stake) it will only be achieved by cutting costs (and mission parameters) to the bone.

All of the shuttle technology derived options carry the political tailwind of preserving jobs.
So I wish DIRECT all the luck in the world at plotting a path for the survival of Humans in Space.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MKampe on 07/12/2009 05:38 am
Conspiracy---

That word, that notion really needs to fall out of fashion. Even in the example of the NASA rebuttal to Direct 2.0, it looks to me like the folks crafting the response were just simply wrong, mistaken, and/or ignorant.

This *is* rocket science, after all. Small differences in assumptions and starting points make all the difference in  the world.

In the case of Ares-I-- there is no denying that the legacy is tied firmly to Michael Griffin. I do not believe he was evil or devious about the program- but I do believe that he was probably overly passionate. He refused to abandon the idea even after it became apparent that NASA was sacrificing Orion just to save Ares-I. Big projects need big egos and big determination to see them through. This can work for and against what is truly *best* in the end.

Far too many NASA programs have ended with  overrun budgets, overrun timelines, and horribly compromised objectives. Some of this has to do with pushing technological boundaries, but just as much can be attributed to tail-wagging-the-dog decisions like committing a particular booster before a design has matured (it turns out that there may not be a way to make Project-XYZ's sensor and capability suite fit inside a Delta payload fairing, for instance).

Let's not make that mistake with Orion. Orion has the capability to become America's Soyuz- venerable, adaptable, dependable; as long as we give it margin and room to grow. That will never happen if we hobble it from the start. (please put the 0-crew option back in- likewise the airbags, upgraded solar panels/batteries, etc.). These systems are at the heart of what allows up to not only go to the moon, but stay there for a while- also to visit NEOs or even that perpetually far-off Mars mission... They are what also gives NASA the ability to save a crew from a Challenger-like (or Apollo-13-like) disaster.

Likewise- the Direct Core has the capability to be NASA's DC-3. There is incredible flexibility in the Direct approach. This particular suite of Shuttle-derived hardware is proven, robust, and powerful. By building upon that with new capabilities like in-orbit fuel depots, orbital transfer "tugs", and other modular/scalar technologies, it is easy to imagine this hardware continuing down a long, safe, and productive service life.

The Russian program should serve as a model that you don't always need something new and shiny. The SpaceX and Scaled Composites models show us that really cool, perfectly functional ideas don't have to cost an arm and a leg.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 07/12/2009 06:37 am
Now we need to prove side mount crew abort is not a good idea. 

Danny Deger

Not needed. Side mounted is for "cargo", unmanned. Use EELV for Orion. If the miracle budget for heavy cargo (EDS, Altair) does not come (and HLV is not needed), you have at least Orion to LEO on EELV.

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: butters on 07/12/2009 07:00 am
Conspiracy---

That word, that notion really needs to fall out of fashion.

Ah... the biggest conspiracy of them all is that there are no conspiracies.

History abounds with evidence of conspiracies.  Many forms of conspiracy -- the State, the Church, the Corporation, etc. -- have been institutionalized and broadly accepted in society. 

A conspiracy is simply an organized group of people pursuing common ends in part by keeping secrets from everybody else.  Especially in criminal conspiracies, the vast majority of the participants are usually unaware of the ends they are pursuing and/or the means by which they are pursuing them.

Conspiracy isn't the exception, it's the rule.  The formal name for our species may be "thinking man", but a more precise name might be "storyteller".  Many species exhibit complex thinking, but we're the only species known to compete by persuasive narrative in conflicts of ideas.  We aim to convince and, failing that, to deceive.  This is the human condition.  It's our nature.

Our variously high-minded ideals and the narrative arc through which we perceive society obscures the animal instincts we developed as nomadic tribesmen, but it does not suppress them entirely.  We identify and associate strongly with groups and/or causes.  We adopt an us vs. them mentality.  We feel entitled to anything we can take.  When we've exhausted one resource, we move on to the next.

We are NOT fundamentally good people.  We are bad people that are encouraged to be good with various degrees of success.  Most of us will lie, cheat, and steal if given the opportunity and motivation.  We can rationalize anything.  We're storytellers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 07/12/2009 08:47 am
Hi, I'm new here. This is my take on the various options:

EELV
Man rating the Delta IV is reasonably cheap and easy. Growth options to 100T exist but they are effectively a new vehicle, virtually every system (engines, stages, software, launch infrastructure) would have to be changed. The volume and diameter constraints seem to make Moon and Mars missions difficult, but it is a reasonable option if you want to only go to LEO. The Shuttle heritage (workforce, skills, industry base, SRB, SSME, etc) is abandoned.

This option would probably push towards a Propellant Depot architecture as large numbers of EELV launches would reduce the costs to all customers and the HLV version can be much smaller needing to only loft empty hardware.

For LEO access this is probably the cheapest solution, the cost of turning EELV into a HLV and limitations with regards to volume/diameter turn this into an expensive option for Moon and especially Mars access.

Ares
By far the most studied option, it has the advantage of being the baseline when considered in isolation. Keeping the mission architecture the same gives advantage to a system designed for that architecture. The other options (especially EELV) would benefit from changes to the mission architecture.

The problems with Ares I are well known, but it is the problems of having two dissimilar launchers with resultant high development and recurring costs which are the major problem. Experience gained from cargo flights is of little relevance to Ares I and so cannot be used to decrease LOC probabilities. There are large gaps between shuttle retirement and Ares I and especially Ares V IOC, this causes major problems for SRB, SSME, industry base and launch crew retention.

Not launching the crew on a vehicle with significant payload capacity means that some missions (e.g. servicing) are impossible without an Ares V launch as well pushing up mission costs and complexity so high that they will not be viable.

The large LEO mass of Ares V will work against a PD architecture, this makes commercial (and international) competition for propellant launch impossible, in the long term increasing costs and reducing capabilities.

The high very development costs and higher recurring costs of two dissimilar launchers make this the highest cost solution, so high that Ares V development must be in serious doubt.

Side Launch
This probably has the lowest HLV (72T) development cost of all the options.

There are centre of gravity issues with using a faring larger the 7.9m (?) or moving the boat-tail/payload-carrier higher up the vehicle. This causes issues for Moon/Mars mission as regard to payload diameter and crew safety. Whether these issues are solvable requires further study. If the crew safety issues can be solved, the LOC probability will be 20x less than for the Space Shuttle (10x from LAS, 2x from simpler systems).

Enhancement to 100T capability seems difficult without major and very expensive changes. This means that beyond LEO missions will probably not be launched fully fuelled and will need to be topped up with a 3rd flight or from a PD.

This is the least studied of the options, if its many issues can be solved, this is likely to be the cheapest launch option. How much the solutions put extra costs onto other stages of the missions is an open question. My gut feeling is that it will end up the second cheapest for the overall Moon/Mars missions.

Jupiter
J-130 is probably the second cheapest launcher loosing out to Side Launch due to greater software development and slightly less shuttle experience which is directly transferable. The differences in the cost are likely to be less than the difference between a well run and a badly run project, so either could turn out to be cheapest in practice. The additional costs of J-246 are modest compared to a heavy version of side launch or EELV.

Jupiter is the most flexible of the options. Jupiter is also sub-optimal for ISS crew rotation/resupply and some LEO missions, EELV class launchers are a better match for that, although Jupiter can do the job better than the Space Shuttle. This is a plus point, redundancy is capability is good.

The DIRECT set of mission architectures offers options not available on the other launchers. These have the potential to decrease costs, increase capability or both. Overall LOC is dependent on far more than just the launcher having more redundancy at the system level and options at the mission level can reduce both LOM and LOC probabilities.

My estimation is that Jupiter has the lowest overall cost for Moon/Mars missions and probably the lowest LOC probability as well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Giovanni DS on 07/12/2009 09:02 am
My opinion is that Direct would be the best overall option but I sure prefer NSC over the Ares.

From the Direct supporter point of view the NSC has the advantage to really preserve the STS infrastructure and to not prevent a future evolution into an inline configuration (Jupiter).

The safety problems could be resolved by launching the Orion on a manrated EELV, something that the Direct team always supported. NSC would be entirely dedicated to cargo launch.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 07/12/2009 09:12 am

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Giovanni DS on 07/12/2009 09:25 am
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 think it would require 2 NSC + an EELV for a "reduced" moon mission. Anyway I am not really supporting this solution for moon missions, the idea is to evolve the system in an inline solution (DIRECT) before attempting moon missions.

NSC would be good for reducing the gap and preserving the STS infrastructure.

Giovanni
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MATTBLAK on 07/12/2009 09:51 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Paul Adams on 07/12/2009 10:19 am
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.

'Attacked' is another very strong word. If this "connected man with major and noteworthy space websites" has a disagreement with supporters of any system - does not have to be DIRECT - and then goes out of his way to advocate anything but that system as a result, it seriously calls into question the worth of those web sites and his professionalism in my opinion.

There are two sides to every coin.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MATTBLAK on 07/12/2009 10:33 am
He has NOT been overt or offensive. And he HAS been professional. Please DON'T start accusing him of the opposite.

He told me some Direct supporters had badmouthed him very badly -- thinking I was one of those -- I had to assure him I wasn't, even though some of my comments were ambiguous at the time. That's all I'm going to say on the subject, but it's real. 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/12/2009 10:42 am
Is there such a thing as a powerful blogger?

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MATTBLAK on 07/12/2009 10:48 am
You KNOW there is!! Don't be facetious. Let's not over-analyse this. Otherwise, I may have to delete my original post and ask the moderators to delete this all back. Sheesh, can't a guy relate a true, cautionary tale without people jumping it? Or after more than a decade online, could I still be that naive? (rhetorical question).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/12/2009 12:12 pm
Yeah, I agree with MATTBLAK, OV-106, and others who may be hopeful for DIRECT but remain somewhat skeptical.  Everyone needs to chill out.  There is no need for name calling, conspiracy theorizing, or tinfoil hat donning at this point.  We are beyond that now.

DIRECT has had its day in court.  They have made multiple presentations at respected industry colloquiums (AIAA, ISDC) over the past three years.  They met with the Obama transition team back in the January/February time frame.  They were arguably instrumental in getting the HSF Panel created in the first place.  They made their presentation to said HSF Panel, in the same venue and manner as industry heavyweights, NewSpace advocates, and even NASA itself.  They had their extended meeting with an independent organization, whose mandated task was to take an objective look at the DIRECT proposal.  They have had every opportunity to take their best shots with the biggest movers and shakers in the industry.

I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that DIRECT has not been heard at this point in time.  In fact, I would say just the opposite, that DIRECT has been instrumental in initiating the biggest sea change in the history of the American space program.  Everyone just needs to have a little patience while this all plays out.  I'm not saying that "the fix is in" for DIRECT, just that it is the right answer to the questions that no one had been bold enough to ask up until now.  "Are we on the right course?  And if not, then what is the right course?"

Let's just all hope that the DIRECT team was able to provide answers to the highly detailed and technical questions that the Aerospace Corp. team was sure to have asked.  I hope and pray that they went in there with all of their ducks in a row.  They are still the underdog, and have to prove their positions with numbers and engineering, not speculation or guesstimates.  If there was any occasion to pull out all the stops, that was it.  Let's just hope they were successful!

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/12/2009 12:27 pm
Given that one of the Augustine committee members was on both disaster review boards, have you considered making a submission about how to fix NASA management structures?   It could probably be phrased in a way that would make it relevant under the charter's terms of reference.


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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/12/2009 12:36 pm

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

Check out Wayne Hale's blog about the time he postponed a Shuttle launch because of weather issues at an abort site.  I don't want to infer from it that everybody at NASA discouraged dissent or good decision making, but I am sure there were elements that did.  This type of behavior is normal in large organizations.  However NASA was warned twice that it had a culture that discouraged dissent and open discussion of issues.

However, having said that, I do believe an independent panel is the best path and our government has chosen it.  The Direct Team got what it wanted, and we must let the scenario play itself out.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/12/2009 12:38 pm
Mark S is smart.  I agree with his post.

No need for JFK or Roswell conspiracies.

At this piont future budgets is a bigger challenge than launch capacity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 07/12/2009 01:19 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 07/12/2009 01:31 pm
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.

Again, I don't see the need. How many times is NSC going to fly- no less than four a year I'd imagine. Let's say that half the upmass is useful cargo. That gives you 140t per year- as much as 20 ATVs. There is no need for this sort of upmass.

If NSC is used for ISS resupply it's going to spend an awful lot of time doing squat. A DIVH would do the same job much cheaper and, crucially, more frequently.

Secondly, if an 'ISS 2' is built, you could throw it up there with one year's worth of NSC flights. That sounds great, but you don't develop a new capacity just to fly four times. They didn't develop Saturn V just so it could launch Skylab.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/12/2009 01:33 pm
Dual "Jupiter"-launch cargo mission to a lunar outpost is never, ever going to happen.

Based on what?  A proposed "J-130/Altair-Cargo + J-246/EDS" mission would still be cheaper than a theoretical "Ares-V/Altair-Cargo" launch.  Of course since these are all "paper rockets" and projected costs, one could argue it either way.  Something of a moot point, I would say, and not something to make "never, ever" prognostications about.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 07/12/2009 02:37 pm
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.

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.

Direct is not killing the lunar outpost, to the contrary, it makes it a very little more likely (from 1% to 2% or so). Don't mix reason and result. Jupiter may be very unlikely, but not more unlikely than Ares V (and Ares I).

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 07/12/2009 02:38 pm
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
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.

Keep going and we'll have a moon mission in no time. Let's hope NASA doesn't keep to its 'anything but DIRECT' mentality.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/12/2009 02:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 07/12/2009 03:22 pm
Check out Wayne Hale's blog about the time he postponed a Shuttle launch because of weather issues at an abort site. 

And then scroll down to the previous two blog entries, one about the National Review article by article by John Derbyshire: 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nzc2NTYxMzVjNWRkMzc0YzQ0Y2VhNGI1ZGRkMTc2N2I (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nzc2NTYxMzVjNWRkMzc0YzQ0Y2VhNGI1ZGRkMTc2N2I)

And the previous entry to this on 10 June.  There Mr Hale writes about his analysis comparing space to exploration in the 15th century:

Quote
"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."

Then, on 29 June about John Derbyshire's article he notes:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/12/2009 03:33 pm
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.


Well to be fair all around, are we talking about going to the moon, or staying on the moon? We (US) could afford the former (briefly) but not the latter. If not the latter, then why the former, which is Apollo?

Anyway, I don't want to turn this into a moon/mars funding debate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: lkm on 07/12/2009 04:54 pm
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. Currently for the public at large the NASA story seems to be one of excelent technical people struggling under poor management resulting in stagnating results.
What DIRECT is offering however is more than just the most logical solution to a techno-political problem but a new and compelling narative for NASA of those engineers finally rising up and overcoming the entrenched management for the good of the Agency and the country. That's a good story, that's a positive, popular story. And the fact that there are so many rabid fanatical zealots preaching DIRECT is not a bad thing, it is a sign that the story can be sold to the American public, that it is something that can be easily understood and embraced as a good thing without any technical details.
It seems to me that the smartest thing NASA could do would be to embrace DIRECT and its supporters and plead mea culpa as part of its management change and strive forward under this new narrative. If the devotees are allowed to go out and proselytize and the pragmatic realists keep quiet, some measure of public interest and support may be regained. All that is required then is technical success in the program and the narrative would demand an improved budget environment.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/12/2009 05:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/12/2009 05:27 pm
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.

While I agree in principle, we have no evidence to this effect.  NASA's budget has been cut in years where they had spectacular successes and has been raised in years where they had some of the worst failures. 

It sounds good on paper and was one of Griffin's central tenets for funding the outpost and for Mars, but there isn't any proof in the historical data, for NASA or any other agency.  In fact, the most poorly managed agencies tend to get more additional funding.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/12/2009 05:33 pm
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.

No need to lurk lkm. Opinions and feedback are what this site is all about.

My POV is that it isn't necessarily a public support issue for NASA, but a political one. Public dissent hasn't stopped wars or ships to be built: politics has. So keeping the politicians happy (whether that puts them in a good light or not) is what counts. For that, it means contractors and corporations get funding for the services and products they provide. So the politics drives the economics.

How does this tie in with Direct and this thread? Good question. As has been stated many times, many of the current contract awards are still required (perhaps some modified). It also creates new ones, and more importantly continues shuttle-stack related contracts. With savings to be had, even if the budget remained the same, there is more money available for R&D, or actual hardware = more contracts.

Direct is a win-win for politicians. They just aren't getting the right information at the moment to make correct decisions (as in: jump on the right bandwagon to support their own agenda).

But please, this is an open forum. Discussion is healthy and encouraged. We all learn from discussion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Paul Adams on 07/12/2009 05:42 pm
Ross, Back in time for the launch this afternoon I see. Excellent job on the west coast.

Paul

 
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/12/2009 05:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Paul Adams on 07/12/2009 05:58 pm
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


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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 07/12/2009 05:59 pm
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?


Yes I do. I am talking about a base, not a "simple" landing. Even this (Apollo) is not affordable with the current budget nor (maybe barely) with the 2004 projections. Look at ISS, a LEO base, and its costs, infrastructure needs (support flights ...). And we need only half the delta v for LEO compared to a lunar round trip.

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/12/2009 06:13 pm
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, you can just make out Jeb's blue shirted arm and Laura's pink jacket in there).   *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 - -including an always-spectacular night-launch!

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 naturally a very shy person and I'm always sorta 'embarrassed' to be recognized.   It's a pretty weird experience, but 99% of the people I have met already know my name, or at least that of DIRECT and they have all seemed very pleased to say hi.   For me, its always a privilege to meet them though!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Paul Adams on 07/12/2009 06:19 pm
Hi Ross,

I hope you know that I am only pulling your leg! I will be at the Saturn 5 location for 128.

It's great to know that you have seen launches from so many different locations. Each one is amazing.

I am myself a Brit now living in Nevada, with a job that takes me to Florida a lot in the winters, so I count myself very fortunate to have seen a number of launches of shuttle and Atlas.

Enjoy the liftoff (hopefully) this afternoon.

Paul

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/12/2009 06:40 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/12/2009 06:44 pm
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

Thanks for the update! Shannon seems like a real down to Earth guy, as well as a realist. He seems to understand the principle of trying to do more with less funds.

Have you heard anything more on the rumor that Marshall was looking into some type of inline "Ares V-light" design?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Paul Adams on 07/12/2009 06:49 pm
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 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




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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/12/2009 06:50 pm
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

That is some very positive news Danny, thanks for passing that on to all of us!

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.

BTW: Great job on getting some exposure for your book!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/12/2009 06:55 pm

snip

Have you heard anything more on the rumor that Marshall was looking into some type of inline "Ares V-light" design?

Only firm story is they are looking a smaller ARES V tank diameter to find the "optimum" diameter.  But earlier I heard the biggest they can go is 36 feet an this is not big enough to meet the needs for a 1.5 launch lunar mission.  I doubt if they are thinking a smaller diameter is going to increase mass to orbit.  I think they already know it will not.  Reading between the lines, they may be thinking going to a smaller diameter to reduce upfront costs.  Then use two launches. 

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/12/2009 06:55 pm
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.


Of course doing an actual Orion abort test with a planned (not simulated) ET in-flight explosion would prove it's capable. They would see the explosion happens below, not beside them.

Yes, it all comes down to those who hold the purse strings.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/12/2009 06:59 pm

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.

Right. Not only must the flight software be fully certified, so must the emulator. Most emulators contain far too many lines of code for that to be economical. Emulators are useful on the ground but have no place running on flight hardware, IMO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dcbecker on 07/12/2009 07:02 pm
...
  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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/12/2009 07:05 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/12/2009 07:22 pm
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

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 07/12/2009 07:25 pm
Danny, that was an amazing post. Just want to take the opportunity to thank you for your participation in this forum.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/12/2009 07:29 pm
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?  We also know from President Obama's 2010 NASA budget document that The White House is willing to restore those $3billion+ in Exploration funding cuts after the Augustine Committee completes its work & recommendations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/12/2009 07:37 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/12/2009 07:42 pm

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.

Good for you.  Even y'all in Canada and those across the Atlantic are welcome.  I found the best way is to write a short letter and email that to them.  I didn't find a direct email method.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/12/2009 07:44 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/12/2009 07:44 pm
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

I think if Ares had worked as planned it would not have gotten as out of control.

But as soon as J-2X development, 5 seg, 5.5 seg and the Ares V debacle began then a red light should have gone on.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/12/2009 07:50 pm
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. 

Speaking as a software engineer; NASA is on to a loser if it tries using unchanged STS software in the J-130 or "Not Shuttle-C".  Unlike the Shuttle the J-130 is not an orbiter - that is the job of the Orion.  There is just no need for the docking software or the glass cockpit software.  Simply not using these routines will change the software/avionics timing relationships that using a CPU emulator was trying to preserve.  Discarding the external tank is very different from air-starting the upper stage engines in the J-246 which will need new software.

Some of the software can be reused.  Ensure that the programmers have access to the old source code and requirements.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/12/2009 07:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/12/2009 07:58 pm
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.

They are not cutting the NASA budget.  They are just not increasing it at the rate of inflation (especially with aerospace inflation higher than the economy as a whole) or at the rate they previously promised.

In addition, they are allocating HSF funds to science and aeronautics (as well as Shuttle and ISS), which leads less for exploration.

Some people call that a "cut", but it isn't a cut when you don't get a raise you were promised.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/12/2009 08:06 pm
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. 

All I can say is, if NASA isn't sure that it can afford something as simple as mounting an Orion on a J-130, then their budget is a serious mess.  IMHO, not even Orion/Delta-IVH would be a certainty in such an environment.

Still, it is good to know that senior managers at NASA take the concept seriously.  Who knows (and I don't know how likely this would be)? If the analysis shows that the concept is workable and can quickly show good results, Congress may offer a funding boost to get everything going!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/12/2009 08:16 pm
President Obama's Fiscal Year 2011-2013 budget projections cut over $3billion+from what President Bush had planned for Exploration systems in those years. However his NASA 2010 buget recommendation document states regarding these possible cuts, "Following the Human Spaceflight Review(Augustine Committee), the Administration will provide an updated request for spaceflight activities reflecting the review's results. Fiscal 2010 & outyear funding levels for exploration activities shown here represent the budget request if there were no changes to ongoing activities."  These statements are extremely important. They strongly indicate that the President is at least willing to support a NASA budget without those $3billion+ in cuts. They also indicate that The White House is deeply concerned about the Ares 1,etc. technical & funding problems. This is why the adoption of the Direct Launcher is so important.  Since Direct doesn't have these technical & funding problems, the White House will be much more willing to restore those funding cuts & thus fully fund the USSEP(VSE).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/12/2009 08:37 pm
Only firm story is they are looking a smaller ARES V tank diameter to find the "optimum" diameter.

I heard that it was the length which was being re-considered, not the diameter.

The 11m diameter "Godzilla 7" (as the MSFC guys & gals call it) seems impossible -- it simply doesn't fit at MAF.

And various CONOPS studies are apparently even showing that the enormously long 10m tank interferes with an awful lot of the current cranes and structures inside MAF too.

There's little doubt that retaining the current 8.4m diameter arrangement would be much easier and cheaper due to requiring fewer replacement equipment and fewer changes to the other supporting facilities.

I say "hooray" if they're starting to consider this approach.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/12/2009 08:42 pm
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.
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.)

And they are going to design a big giant enveloping pod that clips into a keel that itself is attached on stilts to the side of the ET? (And that's just the cargo variant.)

Oh, and can someone convince Jim that they can just reuse the shuttle software on this cheaper shuttle-derived solution?

Modify: Wasn't NASA buying vintage computer hardware on ebay to keep the existing shuttles going?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 07/12/2009 08:45 pm
What? Are they CUTTING the NASA budget?

They should (at least) DOUBLE the current NASA budget.

Because NASA is such an efficient organization?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/12/2009 08:47 pm
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.


OK.  How about "He was smart enough to know better"  ;)

I am certain that I knew the early budgets and schedules briefed to congress were not realistic -- not even close.  Unfortunately we didn't have a skeptical program office to look at his numbers before they were briefed to congress. 

On cost, keep in mind NASA needs to pay for the development of a bunch of stuff to get us to the moon.  Just new space suit development is going to be some serious money.

And "mars.is.wet" is correct about the term "cut". 

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/12/2009 08:51 pm
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?

Irrelevant of *how* you account for it, the development cost estimates for comparing J-130 vs. Block-I NSC are always in the order of no more than 5% difference -- and depending upon which study you examine, sometimes that 5% difference is actually *NOT* is NSC's favour.

Either way, the difference is small enough as to be essentially, irrelevant.


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.

When you factor that in, the cost to upgrade NSC to the heavy version is DOUBLE that of upgrading J-130 to J-24x.


Then factor in the safety improvements, the additional performance and the fact that the mission size does not need to be compromised with the In-Line and it's a pretty solid argument IMHO.

While I won't talk about the content of my own communications with John Shannon, I can say that his comments to me tally with Danny's.   He would be at least equally happy with Jupiter as with NSC.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/12/2009 09:03 pm
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 presume that the GPC is understood / documented in a great level of detail.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/12/2009 09:09 pm
Thanks, Ross. That's an excellent cost, safety & performance comparsion between Direct & SDHLV!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/12/2009 09:29 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/12/2009 09:35 pm
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

Sure.


And sorry, everything we discussed at Aerospace Corp is considered confidential by Team DIRECT.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/12/2009 09:40 pm
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? 

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/12/2009 09:46 pm
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.

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.


Quote
Can 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.   Its probably just as well, because I had had only about 6 hours sleep in as many days, so I wasn't likely to give all that good a show! ;)   I'm feeling much more human today...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/12/2009 10:20 pm

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.

Ross, in your interactions with Mr. Shannon, has this been brought to his attention?

Jesse
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Integrator on 07/12/2009 10:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/12/2009 10:48 pm
Quote
Can 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.


!!!

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/12/2009 10:50 pm
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


They are probably right, unfortunately.  But, things might loosen up since John Shannon is talking now.  I will see if I can light a fire under a couple of them.  Can you email me a good story on delta dollars to ride on the top of the stack?  I certainly don't think it will break the bank.

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  ::)

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/12/2009 10:52 pm
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.

One other minor thing along these lines...

I don't think it's helpful for people to leap into every mention of Ares V classic (outside the "Exploration Alternatives" forum) and say "oh that would be J-25x heavy, then".

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/12/2009 11:03 pm
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.

Excellent post.  People think that the money spent so far ($Bs) has been wasted, where it has really gone for learning all about the Ares configuration.

None of the work done on Ares has been done for Jupiter configurations nor for a side-mount (despite the excellent design studies, they are not design engineering) ... and it will need to be redone for any new concept. 

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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/12/2009 11:57 pm
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!


"... level of non-functional maturity that Ares I currently has..."

Corrected your spelling ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Xentry on 07/13/2009 12:00 am

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

That's actually a very interesting idea!
In Europe we're actually using FPGAs to simulate space qualified microprocessors. I am actually somewhat familiar with a particular experiment in which ESA is field testing GNC and Hazard Detection and Avoidance systems for planetary landing applications. The CPU in question doesn't even exist yet, but the company which is developing it (Gaisler Research) has made the VHDL code available to the space community for free, so that everyone can use commercially available FPGAs instead to test their algorithms.
Whether this approach could be used for the Shuttle GPCs is another question, of course, but it does look possible in principle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: yinzer on 07/13/2009 12:09 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/13/2009 12:16 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Malderi on 07/13/2009 01:10 am
Quote
Oh, and can someone convince Jim that they can just reuse the shuttle software on this cheaper shuttle-derived solution?

Coming from someone that works directly with the Shuttle software... no. Because you're wrong. Sorry. The Shuttle FSW is extremely specific, and the vast majority of it is crew interface and abort modes anyway. Additionally, the vast majority of non-FSW Category-A code is extremely specific to things like static analysis of the FSW, reconfiguring it between flights, etc. Not to mention all the T&V programs.

Bottom line: You might be able to reuse some of it, but not nearly enough to make a difference in the schedule or cost estimates, especially because you'd have to verify it all over again. Reusing the hardware (GPCs) might help some initially, because the VMC is a long-lead item, but there's a humungous difference between the GPC and VMC in both capabilities and architecture, so if you did reuse the GPC, 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Integrator on 07/13/2009 01:33 am
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.   ::) 

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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: yinzer on 07/13/2009 01:53 am
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.

Yeah.  One could imagine the SSME flight controller software being reused, but anyone talking about reusing the Shuttle GPC software is either deluded or dishonest.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/13/2009 01:57 am
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. 

I think the problem we are seeing now is that NASA has realized it bit off more than it could chew with Ares. But we can't forget that rocket science is difficult. Therefore searching for the easiest option is not the best solution. Sure, SD-HLV may be the easiest to develop, but how much harder is to just develop Direct?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/13/2009 01:59 am
Integrator:
Quote
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.

Absolutely. I find it's sometimes more reliable to just manually type rather than copy & paste code. Looking for and changing somebody else's little idiosyncracies are more time consuming than simply reading, cogitating, and entering it yourself.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/13/2009 02:43 am
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  ::)

I'm *definitely* gonna tell him you said that -- probably while presenting him with his first martini...

LOL :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/13/2009 02:44 am
They might be a strong advocate for riding on top of the stack.
Quote
Can 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.   
Are you trying to get him fired, Ross? <emoticon>
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/13/2009 02:49 am
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

NASA's own documentation on the issue has only been saying that for two years now...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: yinzer on 07/13/2009 03:14 am

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.

I wonder how much of this comes from MSFC never really getting beyond the preliminary design phase during the last however many years.  If you never get to the final design stage, flaws that only show up there will never get discovered.  Your "best" conceptual designers will end up being the ones who create concepts with lots of tricky integration problems that never show up because the program gets cancelled first.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/13/2009 03:17 am
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. 

Thing is, Ares I flight software is already at least 2 years into its architecting, requirements and coding.  This will need to be restarted.

Not saying it can't be done, but it is not trivial.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: madscientist197 on 07/13/2009 03:56 am
It depends on how generalised it is. Wasn't it intended to be shared by Ares V as well?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 07/13/2009 04:08 am
Just curious....  what language is used for FSW?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Malderi on 07/13/2009 04:23 am
Just curious....  what language is used for FSW?

Orion is using C++. I don't know about the Ares I avionics. Unlike Shuttle, which controls both the orbiter and the entire ascent (including commanding SRB ignition, etc.), the Orion FSW and Ares FSW are separate entities. I know the Orion FSW contains the abort determination logic, but beyond that, it's basically just along for the ride. All the GNC for ascent will be handled on the Ares side of things.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/13/2009 04:27 am
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.

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.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/13/2009 04:37 am
Some updates on Orion FSW

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/05/nasa-plans-orion-flight-softwa.html

Expected to be 1.1M SLOC (lines of code), the 400,000 SLOC of the Shuttle could be as little as 100k if a higher level language was used
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 07/13/2009 04:55 am
Just curious....  what language is used for FSW?

(edit: for the STS orbiter) custom real time language/environment called HAL/S
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/13/2009 04:58 am
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 ...

You're taking the name of the language far, far too literally. HAL/S may have been "retronym'ed" as "High-level Assembly Language/Shuttle" (in reality, the name is not an acronym), but in syntax it most resembles Fortran and in most areas requires about as much code as Fortran to perform equivalent tasks. In mathematical computations it is actually far more compact than Fortran due to its built-in vector and matrix operators.

Quote
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.

False. Any programmer old enough to remember Fortran will recognize it. I've attached the first sample program from "Programming in HAL/S".

Quote
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

All very true.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/13/2009 06:48 am
Other than COBOL style data structures and recursion there has been very little that reduces the number of line in a computer program since Fortran.  So +/- 20% the new software will be about the same size as the old.  This simplifies estimating.

The size of real time software tends to be driven by interactions between the inputs, including time.  Some advance thought about the data structures and how to minimise the interactions may save time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Integrator on 07/13/2009 11:21 am
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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/13/2009 12:55 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 07/13/2009 01:11 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/13/2009 01:26 pm

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.

This was one I fought the stick lovers at NASA over and lost.  During ascent, you can abort.  On orbit, a zero software hand flying backup mode can save the day. And, during entry, at that time had my "passive stability" requirement was in the system.  Plenty of ways to keep the crew alive if the software fails other than backup flight software. 

The issue was not even allowed to be debated.  The stick loving powers simply dictated BFS without a discussion.  This style was typical for driving the requirements to force competition to the stick off the table.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Downix on 07/13/2009 01:52 pm
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/13/2009 02:12 pm
LOC is a horrible metric, especially if you count autocode.

Higher level languages often produce more lines of code.

However, it is all we have at this point ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/13/2009 02:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/13/2009 02:27 pm
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 started off my programming career in 1982, doing some gaming work, and got one piece of advice that applies to all software design: "It isn't about cool code, it's about games that are fun to play."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: veryrelaxed on 07/13/2009 02:28 pm
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.

As an example of a precedent, JSF (Joint Strike Fighter)'s sw is written in C++  (coding standards for that: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3969122/Joint-Strike-Fighter-C-Coding-Standards )

There is also embedded subset of c++ with its own (informal) standard: http://www.caravan.net/ec2plus/index.html  Although the stress there is more on performance rather than safety (although it touches that too)  It's a combination of that and strict coding guidelines/methodology.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/13/2009 02:33 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/13/2009 02:37 pm
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 still run LISP routines whenever I have to open and use client's AutoCAD drawings. My programming days go back to well before windows and when a net was something you pulled a trout out of the lake with. I had a lot of trouble switching to windows because I really liked telling my pc exactly what to do. To this day I prefer DOS 3.1

But I have kept up and work with C++ all the time now. But I still think that people who program in assembler must live in houses with rubber walls. We won't even talk about the people who can program directly in binary. There really are folks like that!

My personal preference for 'fun' is Visual Basic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Downix on 07/13/2009 02:38 pm
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.

But i am in agreement about style vs substance.  I noticed it when Rebol and Java arrived in the 1990's.  Code became flashier, less about coding and more about presentation.  Personally, I feel that something is lost by doing that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/13/2009 02:40 pm
Okay guys, we're straying...

Yes, software is going to be a long-pole in the big picture for a Jupiter. Same holds true for Orion. Facts of life.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/13/2009 03:20 pm
. . . 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Arthur on 07/13/2009 04:20 pm
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. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/13/2009 08:00 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/13/2009 08:31 pm
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?

I'm just guessing, but I would think that an EDS configuration, which does not carry any payload other than itself, would need very little Airborne Support Equipment.  Once it's up, it's up.

On the other hand, a CLV configuration would require mating adapters, power sources, interfacing equipment, etc.  Those items would integrate the CEV and LSAM payloads with the Jupiter Upper Stage, which is not needed for the EDS.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/13/2009 08:45 pm
John Shannon-"They(Direct) have a viable rocket, but I think they have underestimated their costs". This quote from John Shannon is very important. It generally supports what Danny & Ross have said about John Shannon & the Direct Launcher. It also shows the importance of Ross Tieney personally correcting the misunderstanding John Shannon has about the costs of Direct 3. 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. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/07/13/329456/return-to-the-moon.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/13/2009 09:54 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/13/2009 10:19 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/13/2009 10:35 pm
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.

Modify:  Remove one word.
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/13/2009 11:03 pm
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.

Not without propellant transfer from the (soon to be discarded) JUS to the other JUS/EDS.  And in that case, you could make the JUS larger to accommodate the amount of extra prop to transfer, and the landable mass could be that much more.  Only a depot would be able to deliver better performance.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/13/2009 11:18 pm
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?


From Ross at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16163.msg373469#msg373469 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16163.msg373469#msg373469) (need to scroll down a fair bit):-

Quote
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.

500 + 890 = 1390 kg on the CLV / CaLV launch.

500 kg on the EDS launch.


During TLI, both the 500 kg latches from the EDS, and the 890 kg cradle from the CLV / CaLV launch are present.

The 500 kg of latches from CLV / CaLV remain with JUS and burn up as that re-enters.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/13/2009 11:34 pm
Someone is paying attention.  Thanks Martin! :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/14/2009 12:09 am
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 was always amazed by how much code I could strip away and get the same functionality. I'm not sure what would be a good replacement for SLOC - standard possible operations?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/14/2009 12:14 am
I'm not sure what would be a good replacement for SLOC - standard possible operations?

Still not a guideline though... no way to compare against intended operations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mike robel on 07/14/2009 12:24 am
Perhaps we need a seperate thread for software design discussions?  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/14/2009 01:50 am
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?

The ASE consists of three parts:

1) The Altair rests upon a fairly standard 842kg "Cradle" which supports its mass.

2) The "Cradle" is then attached to the Jupiter Upper Stage by use of a "latching mechanism".   This mechanism allows the Altair/Cradle to detach from the JUS as a single unit.   We have a number of designs for the latching system, but for now haven't settled on a specific design.   So for now, we just have a simple 500kg mass allocation, which appears to be more than enough for all the design options.

3) On top of the EDS, another 500kg "latching mechanism" awaits to allow the Cradle to attach to the final EDS.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 07/14/2009 01:54 am
...
  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.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/14/2009 02:01 am
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?
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.  :)
Great, to DIRECT's propellant depot, lightweight upper stage, and ET repurposing; add:  extreme/pair programming.

Modify: and
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Malderi on 07/14/2009 02:41 am
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 a member of the flight software team for Orion, and having worked on Shuttle (though not directly on the FSW)... everything you said is the same on our end.

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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/14/2009 03:12 am
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.

Thanks Malderi!  It's good to know that they are structuring the coding standards to limit some of the most troublesome aspects of the C++ language.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 07/14/2009 05:25 am
Perhaps we need a seperate thread for software design discussions?  :)

In 1964 I wrote my first program, solving vibrational and rotational chemical bond constants for the two Chlorine isotopes in HCl.

Over the past 45 years I have written in excess of two million lines of code for a variety of applications including hazardous waste inventory control.

Please create a separate thread for the discussion of software.

With regard to comments so far, I agree that LOC is ($#@*%$) unmentionable.

Functionality is everything.  If you can define a function (method), you can code it.  And if you cannot write a unit test prior to coding, go home and sit in the dark (gui aside).

Having written fortran, basic, visual basic, C# and SQL, I have concluded you can write crap in any language.  And I have seen a lot of that.

If it ain't got that swing, it don't mean a thing.  Beautiful code can be written and understood by modest programmers who have been trained by patient artists.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/14/2009 06:43 am
Someone is paying attention.  Thanks Martin! :)


 8)

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/14/2009 07:42 am
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?)

Both profiles were with J-246/J-130. One with a small Altair with the EDS doing LOI/PC/LLO and the other with a large Altair and the EDS just doing LOI. The latter gives a 2.1 t advantage.

Comparing J-246/J-130 with 2xJ-246, the latter picks up a further 5.5 t with staged TLI or 7.9 t with high Earth orbit rendezvous (HEOR).

The above numbers were using old data and may change.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Stephan on 07/14/2009 09:07 am
John Shannon-"They(Direct) have a viable rocket, but I think they have underestimated their costs". (...)
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/07/13/329456/return-to-the-moon.html
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 07/14/2009 09:22 am
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)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SimonFD on 07/14/2009 10:40 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SimonFD on 07/14/2009 10:42 am
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.........
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/14/2009 10:45 am
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.........

If Ares is so far down the tubes that either SDHLV or Jupiter have a real chance of being selected, the blood in the water may not be his.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Downix on 07/14/2009 10:47 am
...
  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.  :)
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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 07/14/2009 11:11 am
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

Right. But the Ares I lite, from one perspective is an opportunity for NASA to save face, or perhaps 'the stick' really is a great deal safer than launching the crew with cargo (not my own opinion but that of many at NASA). So there is plenty of incentive for NASA to continue with Ares I if the money is available. But if there is not enough cash for the massive Ares V in its current form then perhaps they can look at dropping development of the 5-seg and thereby reducing development costs for both vehicles (where Ares V also shrinks into something like the Jupiter). But Ares I is reduced to a less capable 4-seg. So the question is can a 4-seg Ares I still lift the Orion that you need for lunar missions?


Also a note to the web technician people: This text editor thingy is driving me insane! It keeps jumping up and down when I write stuff (and I can't see what I'm writing without scrolling down each time). Also, none of the buttons (italics, emoticons, etc.) have every worked for as long as I've been here at this site. Is this fixable on my side?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SimonFD on 07/14/2009 12:16 pm

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/14/2009 12:20 pm
Would Jupiter and NSC both be subject to the extensive launch delays which plague many shuttle missions?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/14/2009 12:23 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/14/2009 12:25 pm
The point is that if you go back to 4-seg, what do you use to power your upperstage?

I think that AIUS engine choices are slightly constrained by NASA's insistance on one engine only on a US.  If someone ignored that rule, how many RL-10s (of whatever variant) could you fit on the existing AIUS and, more importantly, could that engine do the job?

Of course, the whole need for a high-power upper stage engine is only necessary because of the short burn time of the SRM.  A Jupiter-130 could be described as a '1.5-stage to orbit' design.  Although there is still a staging event, I would wager that the lateral jettison of the RSRMs (successfully carried out, what, 125 times?) is a lot easier to arrange than an axial jettison.  SSME is proven for the total run from pad to LEO, so DIRECT 3.0 neatly side-steps a lot of the ELV questions for Orion launches to orbit.

@ Lab Lemming

Launches from KSC would be subject to the Florida weather, yes.  There is no getting around that; it is an immutable limitation of the launch site.

FWIW, one hopes that 30 years of experience with the shuttle would decrease some pad delays for J-130 or NSC as most of the hardware issues will have been addressed during STS.  However, as problems with the gasseous hydrogen vents have proven, that nice Captain Murphy always finds something new.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/14/2009 12:39 pm
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?

Hmmm... This could be referring to the 'SDLV-Inline' project team that Danny Dot told us MSFC had hurriedly scrambled last week.  Two-launch seems to be firmly back on the table as the lunar baseline.

I can't see RS-68 being retained unless some 'magic bullet' way of mitigating base heating has been unexpectedly found.  RS-68 (regen) is too much a long pole and NASA is feeling schedule pressure.  SSME is much more likely and easier to field now as opposed to rightward of 2015.

I'd expect to see 'Not-Jupiter-130' make an appearance, a ET-derived core with three SSME (with RS-25e going on the 'to develop' list for the medium-term) with four-seg RSRMs just for convenience and getting the thing done now rather than later.  This will be a direct shuttle replacement intended for ISS & observatory-class mission support.

Five-seg RSRM and J-2X will stay in development at a low pace in the unlikely event that beyond-LEO is given the green light within the next Presidential cycle.  As with the J-130/J-246, the beyond-LEO version will have an upper stage (J-2X for political reasons), extra core engines (five?) and five-seg RSRMs to boost performance.  With this in mind, we can expect an 'upgrade ready' thrust skirt with multiple engine position options.

I think that the distinctive feature of this from Ares-V Classic will be that they will no longer be talking about an axial stretch of the ET tanks.  "More SD Less Development" will be the watchword. 

So... Ares-III (Not Jupiter-130) for ISS and Ares-V (non-stretched core w. 5 x SSME, 5-seg RSRM and 2 x J-2X upper stage - say ~115t to LEO/50t through TOI) for beyond-LEO.

[EDIT - Sorry for the double post.  I didn't see TrueBlueWitt's post until after I had put up my previous reply)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2009 12:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/14/2009 12:56 pm
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.

Weather in the North Atlantic abort recovery zone for manned flights, though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 07/14/2009 01:09 pm
Quote
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."
 

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/14/2009 01:12 pm
Quote
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."
 

"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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Hermit on 07/14/2009 01:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 07/14/2009 01:53 pm

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
4 segment could use a multiple RL10 upper stage?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 07/14/2009 01:58 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/14/2009 02:08 pm
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.

Thanks.. Must not have had enough coffee yet this morning. brain's a little foggy still.  Or just becoming dyslexic as I get older.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Downix on 07/14/2009 02:11 pm
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".
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/14/2009 02:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/14/2009 02:24 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/14/2009 03:15 pm
Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system . . .
I love that idea.
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 07/14/2009 03:18 pm
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
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2009 03:19 pm
Quote
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."
 

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/14/2009 03:20 pm

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

I would tend agree, this is how this is starting to play out.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: starsalor on 07/14/2009 03:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/14/2009 03:34 pm
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.

My colleague Steve phrased it pretty well:

Two years ago we had no chance, we needed four back-to-back hail-Mary passes to close the gap going into half time.

At the start of the Augustine Committee though, we had gotten three of those hail-Mary passes, and while there is only 2 minutes left on the clock, the opposing team just fumbled the ball and we intercepted it.   We're now only one hail-Mary pass away from winning, and with three under our belts already we're beginning to get good at them!

This could really be the biggest turn-around in the history of the game.


The real thing to keep in mind though:   This is not actually about "them and us".   Nothing could be further from the truth.   Everyone involved has the same objective:   To give the agency we are all so passionate about, the very best chance to get humans back to Exploring the solar system once again.   We have differences of opinion regarding methods, but the ultimate goal is exactly the same for us all.   We should try to keep that in mind.



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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/14/2009 03:35 pm
Quote
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."
 

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.

Thanks Chuck! Very easy to forget when looking at all of this. Ares I is only the .5 of the 1.5 architecture. You still need that other launch in there.

Also, you have to look at the up front development with the Ares I/V plan. Ares V requires extensive modifications.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/14/2009 03:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Xentry on 07/14/2009 03:45 pm
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
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.

Of course, one could go even further with the idea...

Just design an easily attachable TPS (how hard could it be?) for the CEV, so that you could perform aerocapture when returning from the Moon and then go to the ISS instead of landing, allowing the CEV to become fully reusable, maybe lighter (due to the reduced g and heat loads on the TPS for aerocapture as opposed to a direct entry), and using less expensive vehicles for the final entry (Dragon, Soyuz or similar...).

At that point a J130+J246 lunar mission would also become perfectly feasible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/14/2009 03:46 pm
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.

If there were a switch tomorrow to some type of NJ, maybe using 4 seg and SSME, what is the earliest you see this launcher entering service?
Or one better, some type of Ares I-X like test?

It really seems Mike Griffin's refusal to see the light and downright stubbornness when it came to Ares has come back to bite us in the butt. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/14/2009 03:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Xentry on 07/14/2009 03:52 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/14/2009 03:55 pm
. . . " 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"...
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Australian_rules_football_slang

Apparently Hail Mary works Down Under, too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/14/2009 03:55 pm

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.

That's about 13-14mT of lost performance for a 2-launch architecture like the J-24x -- which would hurt your Lunar performance significantly.


The place where 51.6deg makes sense, is when you deploy a Depot.   Everyone in the international space community can then send fuel to 51.6deg.   And you can make up the performance losses by lifting 6-7% more fuel.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2009 04:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/14/2009 04:18 pm

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? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/14/2009 04:21 pm
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.   
By the way, how much stuff is left at MAF?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2009 04:22 pm

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? 

It is, and that's what I said.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/14/2009 04:24 pm

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.

Yea, shouldn't you be quoting a Cricket or Rugby analogy or something?
Something about scoring 200 runs off the bowler on the 4th day of the game to tie the score at 600 to 600 runs?  And then breaking for tea?
;)

guess it just doesn't have dramatic analagies that Football does. heheheh
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/14/2009 04:41 pm
Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system . . .
I love that idea.
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/14/2009 04:42 pm

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.

If we use EML rendezvous architectures I believe the performance losses of starting at 51 degrees are much less.

Even if the initial "critical path" excludes EML rendezvous architectures and reusable landers and lunar ISRU and low delta v / high delta t cargo deliveries these things are all necessary upgrades if we are serious about robust commercial development of the Moon.

Basically, I'd like to see NASA adopt the 2004/2005 Boeing CEV proposal (an EML-1 Gateway and a robust logistics pipeline to the lunar surface) but swap in Jupiters to replace of the Delta IVH, while finding other uses for DIV-H.

Jupiters offer fantastic capability for deploying the infrastructure needed for a robust logistics pipeline to the lunar surface such as ISRU plants, big lunar regolith movers, large lunar landers, etc . . .
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Xentry on 07/14/2009 04:45 pm
Why not a re-usable Earth-moon transit system . . .
I love that idea.
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.

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.
Agree entirely.
The way things are, it's pretty much Inline SDLV or bust.
So that certainly goes to the top of the stack.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/14/2009 04:52 pm
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.
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.

What about a Skylab type outpost in the correct orbit for lunar missions?  Basically, a single self contained module with solar power, automated for when it's unmanned, etc.  Then park your transfer vehicle there?  Maybe have some propellent tanks that can be filled and used to store propellents, but as they wouldn't be at the ISS, they wouldn't be a danger to it. 
But regardless of that, it could be a small, compact outpost to part your LTV at to keep it powered and monitored.
Orion would dock on one side, the LTV would be on the other side.   Orion would have some type of tankage with it to transfer propellents and consumables through the station to the LTV.

I'm assuming you'd have to couple this with a reusable Lunar Lander that would then be parked in lunar orbit or a EML point?  Because a station in LEO wouldn't help you with the LSAM.  A single Jupiter couldn't loft the CSM, LSAM, and enough propellent to refuel the LTV I woudln't think.

But, perhaps a better and simplier way to do it would be to make the outpost the LTV.  It parks in optimum LEO for lunar missions.  It’s basically a reusable JUS that has solar panels, propellent pumps, etc.  The CSM is launched with enough extra propellents on a J-130 to refuel the LTV that can take itself and the CSM through TLI and back.  (I’ll just assume for this case that a J-130 can lift that much propellent, as it’d be lugging it’s own mass back through TEI.  But the SM would be lighter because the LTV would be used for the return, and it wouldn’t be lugging the LSAM through TLI (reusable LSAM) )
So the SM is really more of the ISS config as it doesn’t need to perform TEI.

The CSM would have basically a trunk with the propellents for the LTV, that would be jettisoned after refueling.  You’d really need the J-130 to be able to insert the CSM into orbit though, and then deorbit the tank with ullage motors, or else the trunk will need it’s own engine.

Of course, that’s all way down the road.  But with a LTV and reusable lander, now you are looking at a true single launch Lunar Mission architecture.  You’d probably still want a cargo lander to drop off your heavy equipment, rovers, habitats, etc at a site you wanted to send a few missions to explore. 
But you’d be reusing a lot of expensive equipment, and that’s always a good thing.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/14/2009 05:00 pm
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.






Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: starsalor on 07/14/2009 05:10 pm
If the money was there,the Ares-5 would be used liked the old Saturn 5. Loft everything at one shot. But you are correct , using the Jupiter rocket for all applications is a no brainer ...........
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2009 05:19 pm
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.

Agreed.
Jupiter, in my opinion, is still the best way forward, even if policy dictates LEO for a while, specifically because it keeps future options open and "at the ready". But not everyone thinks like that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 07/14/2009 05:29 pm
Quote
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."
 

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.

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 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.

Fortunately Dr Griffen, and increasingly the people he left behind in positions at NASA are no longer able to set the terms of the debate and much of what they say just looks silly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/14/2009 05:42 pm
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.

Ben,
 we need to be working in short term envirment, while keeping to the spirit of a long term vision... with out that we are destined to always be falling short of our true capabilities... Direct is as the team sees it, seems to be a spring board to more than just a status quo for the next 20+ years... let's keep a vision of the possibilities ahead to 40+ alive, and worry about the funding then... the advances of areonautics in the 1920's to 30's would not have been possible without that sort of visionary attitude...
   one other point, a bit OT, why is it that everything in NASA LV/SV technology is tied to the public purse... where are the visionaries in private enterprise that could be aligned with this effort... or is it something to do with how NASA is structured that it can't take help or advice from the likes of SpaceX, etal... why can't Boeing, who produces passenger jets, put together a team to design an in space Moon shuttle... a couple of the nagging questions that keep cropping up in my reading here...

Dave

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/14/2009 05:44 pm
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 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.
...
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/14/2009 05:45 pm
If there was a switch to Direct, (or Not-Direct), of the some 9 billion in development costs I've seen tossed around by the Direct team for Jupiter, how much of that could be coverd by money already spent on Ares 1, if any?

Meaning, I think at least some 4-5 billion or more have been spent on Ares 1? so far?  (if that's inaccurate let me know, just throwing a number out there), Would say 2 billion of that money spent transfer over to the 9 billion in Jupiter development costs?  1 billion?  3 billion?
So that Jupiter would only really need say 7 billion in new spending?

Is anything already spent transferrable to Jupiter development?  Or will it all have to be flushed in a transfer?  Jupiter will still save money in the long run, just would suck if all the money spent thus far would be for not.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 07/14/2009 05:59 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Xentry on 07/14/2009 05:59 pm
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.
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.

...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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/14/2009 06:12 pm
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa-ares-moon-mission-changes-071409,0,2316961.story

Quote 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? ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/14/2009 06:20 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/14/2009 06:21 pm
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa-ares-moon-mission-changes-071409,0,2316961.story

Quote 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? ;)

Because they "answer to a higher authority"  :D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/14/2009 06:23 pm

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 would re-phrase the above passage

Quote
I do not see NASA abandoning the Shuttle workforce and infrastructure anytime soon

NASA is NOT the key decision maker, here. IMHO, it is better phrased as follows:

Quote
I do not foresee Congress allowing the President to direct NASA to abandon the Shuttle workforce and infrastructure anytime soon
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/14/2009 06:23 pm
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

SECONDED!

And thank-you !
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/14/2009 06:25 pm

IMHO, it is better phrased as follows:

Quote
I 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 07/14/2009 06:32 pm
"...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."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mike robel on 07/14/2009 06:36 pm

IMHO, it is better phrased as follows:

Quote
I 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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/14/2009 06:40 pm
All HSF launchers go overbudget - seems to be a rule. Shuttle and Saturn did bigtime!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mike robel on 07/14/2009 06:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/14/2009 06:53 pm
"...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."

To Quote myself from my original post of the story..
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/14/2009 06:55 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/14/2009 07:04 pm
Does anyone know what Wayne's new job at NASA is? Sounds like he's locked away in a dungeon.

http://twitter.com/waynehale
Quote
My new office has no windows. Very depressing. But it makes me concentrate on work more. Must think deep thoughts about NASA's future.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/14/2009 07:07 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 07/14/2009 07:15 pm

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.

"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?

further, I believe there are those (far more knowledgeable than I) that might take issue with your connection of "frugal, fast, efficient program" in connection with "RS68 ablative"

confused :-\
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/14/2009 07:17 pm

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.

That's a big IF.. and "fast" is relative as you still need to go through all the work to "man rate" it.. correct?

Although you could do unmanned X/Y type flights with the the engine as is if it's not "rated" in time..
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/14/2009 07:25 pm
"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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/14/2009 07:28 pm
"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.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2009 07:33 pm

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?

Not doable.  Russia doesn't have the money.  Neither does ESA.  36 billion is not enough to go to Mars.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/14/2009 07:41 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/14/2009 07:51 pm

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.

"Yes" to 8.4 core.. on that I'm clear..

Then  yes to "no stretch"? 5-segs? Depots?

Edit:  Nevermind.. I found your post in the "Augustine Commission" thread
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/14/2009 07:57 pm


"Yes" to 8.4 core.. on that I'm clear..

Then  yes to "no stretch"? 5-segs? Depots?
Yes to 5 segs. Already (mostly) paid for.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: imjeffp on 07/14/2009 07:59 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 07/14/2009 08:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/14/2009 08:22 pm
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.

The gentler word is "bureaucracy". NASA is *required* to have a plan to deorbit ISS when the US stops funding it. That is the *law of the land*, not a NASA policy. Until the US government *officially* authorizes funding for ISS operations after 2016, NASA must maintain this plan, even though "everybody knows" it will change.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/14/2009 08:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/14/2009 08:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 07/14/2009 08:58 pm
It's called a BFT ;). I think most of us saw it as purely a cargo carrier to be used with a EELV CLV and so it has proven.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/14/2009 08:59 pm

IMHO, it is better phrased as follows:

Quote
I 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/14/2009 09:00 pm
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  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/14/2009 09:01 pm
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.

Sweet! Thanks Ross.

Another plus for Direct (with or without EELV).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 07/14/2009 09:03 pm
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  :)

yeah that is great.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/14/2009 09:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/14/2009 09:15 pm


"Yes" to 8.4 core.. on that I'm clear..

Then  yes to "no stretch"? 5-segs? Depots?
Yes to 5 segs. Already (mostly) paid for.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/14/2009 09:25 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/14/2009 09:27 pm

IMHO, it is better phrased as follows:

Quote
I 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.

Doesn't the Jupiter 130 - flown as soon as possible - minimize those losses? Especially if blended with a 2012 Orbiter extension?

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/14/2009 09:29 pm
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?

Why go with a 2.5 (actually 3) launch architecture, when you can go with Direct and have just 2?

That's why.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/14/2009 09:33 pm

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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/14/2009 09:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/14/2009 09:38 pm
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/14/2009 09:39 pm

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. ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/14/2009 09:40 pm
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?

Cost makes it a dead option.

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.

That gets ridiculously expensive in the out-years.   And its more expensive in the near-years too when you realize how much more costly NSC-Block-II costs to develop *including* the necessary ET modifications in addition to the development of the EDS too.

Overall, it makes no sense.


There's another, even more fundamental problem though:

If if can't launch crew, exactly what payloads does Shuttle-C launch while we wait for Altair and the EDS to be ready?

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.

If NASA and members of Congress want to protect the Shuttle infrastructure & workforce, Shuttle-C is simply not the right path.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/14/2009 09:41 pm
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/14/2009 09:47 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/14/2009 09:50 pm

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. ;-)


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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/14/2009 09:51 pm
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.

The above is clear, concise and persuasive. Thank you!

= = =

This all should have been so darn obvious, years ago.

But I guess it was to the original DIRECT team.

= = =

Presumably every member of the Augustine Commission has been sent a large glossy copy of that red / orange / green chart. Right?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: guru on 07/14/2009 09:59 pm


"Yes" to 8.4 core.. on that I'm clear..

Then  yes to "no stretch"? 5-segs? Depots?
Yes to 5 segs. Already (mostly) paid for.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/14/2009 10:21 pm
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.



Mars-

Thanks for the links.  It will take some time to read them all, but a quick scan of the cause chart in the GAO report showed Complexity of Heritage Technology as a common driver among the four highest cost overruns.  Given that Direct makes its case on using Shuttle Heritage Technology, I can understand why the Aerospace Corp is focusing on cost and schedule estimates.  Add to that John Shannon's comment about FSW during the June 17th meeting, and there is even more to think about.

Looks like Ares I is having the same problems though.

This all piqued my interest because I attended a presentation yesterday by a local PMI member on why Project Management often falls short of expectations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 07/14/2009 10:59 pm

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.

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?

John
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: PaulL on 07/14/2009 11:04 pm


"Yes" to 8.4 core.. on that I'm clear..

Then  yes to "no stretch"? 5-segs? Depots?
Yes to 5 segs. Already (mostly) paid for.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/14/2009 11:08 pm
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.


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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/14/2009 11:13 pm
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.
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.

...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...

True enough.
I won’t go too in to this as there is already a reusable lander topic.
But yea, having direct reentry capability might trump any advantages of having a reusable LTV.

Myself, what I’d like to see is this (summarized)

1)   NASA picks a location on the moon that looks like they’d want to spend a few missions exploring (for science, mining, geology, or whatever). 
2)   NASA sends up a cargo lander to that location, that can land remotely obviously.  The lander would have the rover, an inflatable habitat and airlock, and supplies of consumables and provisions, along with any other equipment need for 2-3 missions to that site.  The lander can be sent in a slow TLI to optimize the amount of mass I can land, as there is no crew waiting, it can take it’s time.
3)   A reusable lander is placed into a parking orbit, or L1 or L2 (wherever is deemed optimum for reuse).  The lander has minimum habitation.  Basically is just enough room for 4 astronauts to land and ascent standing up like the original LEM.  The Lander is really designed to be robust, reusable, refuelable, and capable of extended periods of time parked in orbit (probably have retractable solar arrays and such).   It would have two engines side-by-side, with only one required for ascent and descent, so you can have engine-out capability without LOC or LOM.  The lander would have internal cargo lockers for bringing back lunar samples, and taking any specific smaller tools and equipment that didn’t get on the cargo lander.  These would be transferred manually when docked with Orion like Apollo.
4)   Orion is launched on a J-246 with an EDS and enough propellents and consumables to refuel the Reusable lander.  (As I don’t know, I am completely assuming a J-246 can launch Orion, an EDS, and enough fuel for the LSAM)  Orion is designed to be able to transfer those propellents via the hard dock with the LSAM.  (Less desirable but still workable would be manual fuel lines taken through the docking ring into the LSAM and hooked to fueling ports.  I’d rather there be some type of external automatic process once docked to keep those propellents out of the inside in case of any leaks…especially of some type of hypergols are used). 
5)   The LSAM lands by the cargo lander, and an extended mission is performed (assume 2 weeks, a full lunar day for starters).  The Cargo lander has enough consumables and provisions in case of some emergency.  LSAM failing, tipping over, struck by a meteor, or some other malfunction, etc.  Back at KSC, standard procedure is to have a new reusable LSAM on standby ready, and a Jupiter core ready to go in the VAB.  If the crew is stranded on the surface, the backup LSAM is put on the core and rushed to launch.  It would be designed to be remotely piloted (which you could do since it would be reused and not just thrown away every mission).  It would then land at the site, and evacuate the astronauts to their Orion.  Then the new LSAM is left in it’s parking orbit/L point, and the crew goes home.  That LSAM is then used and another backup LSAM is readied at KSC.

I have no idea how many times you could make a lander be reusable.  I’d hope at least 10 times before maybe the reliability of the engines or something are in doubt.  But really any reuse is better than none at all.  The cargo landers would be designed to be as “cheap” and “expendable” as possible, to keep their costs down, and you’d only use one of those for every several missions.
If the site is interesting enough to warrant more missions than you have the supplies for, then you send another lander, with perhaps more specific equipment.  If you wanted it to be a “base”, then you send several cargo landers ahead of the mission.
By not really using the LSAM when on the surface, you can minimized the amount of regoloth contamination it gets, as you aren’t tromping in and out several times.  It could have possibly an airlock/mudroom on it so that the suits with regoloth all over them won’t go into the cockpit.  Perhaps the hab on the surface has a way to help clean the suits prior to ascent, to keep contamination to the inside of the LSAM to a minimum.  (to me, a bunch of lunar dust all over the inside of the LSAM cockpit seems like something that could be a source of malfunction, but maybe it wouldn’t be that big of a deal)

Anyway, that doesn’t seem too far fetched to me.  It would reuse a complex spacecraft, as well as reducing your launches and launch costs.  And it wouldn’t be depot dependent (although you could certainly add that in the future.  But if you can haul up enough propellent and consumable on Orion, then you don’t necessarily need a depot to refuel).
And you can entertain other recycling methods, like having a rover capable of remote driving from an old landing site to a new one, so the cargo lander that goes to that can have other supplies than another rover. 

Ok, back to topic before Chuck comes and swats us on the knuckles.
;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/14/2009 11:15 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: PaulL on 07/14/2009 11:34 pm
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.


I agree with you that there is no real overall payload advantage to go with a the J-2X engine instead of the RL-10B. The main reason to go with the J-2X would be for NASA to say that the money spent on that engine so far is not wasted. 

However, some J-2X development/testing money could possibly be saved by not man-rating this engine or, may be, reverting to the less powerfull J-2XD version.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/14/2009 11:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/14/2009 11:49 pm
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.

You can’t say anything, but I can guess and start rumors.  ;)

My SWAG is the problems with a crew on NSC is thus:

1)   Can the LAS clear the shock barrier coming off the tank?
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/15/2009 12:47 am

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2009 01:08 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/15/2009 01:12 am

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.

One potential problem I see is that the largest area for the blast pressure to act against is at the bottom of the capsule.. with the LAS making the Cg artificially high.. the blast pressure would try to force the nose of Orion+LAS stack back toward the tank..  MLAS would keep Cg lower and might be less likely to "tip" back toward the tank.  Although with MLAS and perhaps even LAS there's always the potential the abort motor exhaust possibly cutting through the upper tank and perhaps setting off a detonation when there was just an engine failure or something like that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: DLK on 07/15/2009 01:51 am
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

As the J-246 hits such a sweet spot with the currently-available RL10 engines, I'd prefer to see the engine development bucks going to development of a better interplanetary engine, which is something I think would be desirable for a Mars mission. Also, continue development of the RS-84, for an eventual hydrocarbon-fueled SRB replacement booster. Neither of these development projects are in any current critical paths, methinks.

-Dan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/15/2009 02:02 am
Ross, Even though the Oct,2007 Report doesn't officially exist, does the Augustine Committee know about it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2009 02:10 am
Yes.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/15/2009 02:21 am
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...)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/15/2009 02:23 am
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.

Wouldn't there be archived copies of the draft version, reference materials, study results, etc?  That kind of stuff never really disappears.

Wouldn't there be a list of the study contributors, researchers, and team members?  Couldn't such a list be correlated against current employment positions and responsibilities?

These kind of actions can't always be made right, but surely these people can be compensated in some small way.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Downix on 07/15/2009 02:33 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2009 02:34 am
Problem is that having been 'hurt' once they don't want to stick their heads up a second time.   There are still a lot of Griffin's cronies within the agency who could still make their lives hell.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/15/2009 03:13 am

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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/15/2009 03:16 am
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.
So, what do the next few weeks look like (that you can divulge)?  Is there anything the rabble can do to help?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2009 03:23 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/15/2009 03:34 am
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.

Don't have access to this document on AIAA, and not even sure if it anything that you want, but it's what I dug up with a little googling..

It's from 2005 and it's titled:
 "Evaluation of a Shuttle Derived Vehicle (SDV) for Cargo Transportation"

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=Paper&gID=30166
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MKampe on 07/15/2009 03:34 am
Quote:

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...

For there to be a true detonation, at the very least, the propellant tank would have to remain whole- rapidly rising internal pressure from initial combustion leads to a runaway combustion/pressure scenario- eventually results in catastrophic failure of the containment vessel- hence detonation. If the tank is ripped to shreds, there can be no detonation- pressure has no chance to build-  just a very, tragically, unfortunate fireball like we saw with Challenger. So- I do not think the pressure wave would be lethal, but it may seriously hamper recovery- escpecially close to the ground where separation orientation could play a significant role. If Orion is pushed down and upside down in a ET-shredding event at 200-ft altitude, is there enough time for an escape system to re-orient the capsule prior to impact? All of this is MUCH simpler with a crew capsule on top- hence the recommendations post-Columbia to return to a capsule-on-top configuration. There were many reasons for that recommendation.

And while we have spent money building a five-stack SRB, we have not even begun to investigate how this five-stack would interact with the ET. The currently envisioned five-stack is designed to have only a load on top and (sadly) 19,000-lbs of useless, toroidal iron as a vibration dampener. There would still need to be money spent to redesign the new design and investigate what effects this sort-of-shuttle-derived piece of hardware may induce on the rest of the stack.

So- in the end, Direct seems truly to be the most, well, Direct approach. Hence the huge, growing, enthusiastic fan base- 'cuz it just makes the most sense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2009 03:36 am
So, what do the next few weeks look like (that you can divulge)?  Is there anything the rabble can do to help?

Right now, we all have to sit back and wait for the Augustine Committee to make their decisions and announce them on August 5th.

I have no clue which way they intend to jump.

Having said that, I really don't see much in the way of a realistic, workable, option to DIRECT -- except in the case of shutting down the VSE itself, and I sure as heck hope that doesn't happen.


The only things I am certain of:   The current architecture is essentially dead.   And, there are going to be BIG changes at NASA coming within the next month or two.   Beyond that; your guess is just as good as mine right now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/15/2009 04:16 am
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.)

I find a 15-page powerpoint, but you have probably found it too.

Modify: more parentheses
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/15/2009 04:27 am
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...)

Ron, and everyone else...

I'm working on finalizing the instructions and construction details for 1/144 scale J-130 and J-246, smaller versions of the 1/72 scale versions I built for this past May's ISDC in Orlando. I wasn't able to make it to the conference, but Chuck Longton actually has the models, and I presume, photos that were taken at ISDC before his camera gave out. I'd love to have someone who was at ISDC post pics of those huge beasts I built... the J-246 was almost 5 feet tall.

I only have two photos of the finished build that I took to send to Ross:

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/Direct%20ISDC%20Build/th_J-130-complete-1.jpg) (http://s109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/Direct%20ISDC%20Build/?action=view&current=J-130-complete-1.jpg)
J-130

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/Direct%20ISDC%20Build/th_J-246-complete-1.jpg) (http://s109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/Direct%20ISDC%20Build/?action=view&current=J-246-complete-1.jpg)
J-246

And just for comparison's sake, here's a shot of the SRBs. On the right is the 1/144 scale version, and on the left is the 1/72.
(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/th_srbcomparison.jpg) (http://s109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/?action=view&current=srbcomparison.jpg)
SRB Comparison

When the model plans and construction details are finished, they'll be available free of charge, from Niels Knudsen's paper model website, and Jon Leslie's paper model website, as well asthe Space Paper Modeler's group on Yahoo. If I can get him to host a free model kit, Chris Gutzmer of Ecardmodels will also have the plans.

It won't be long before they're ready for release. I'll post links when they are.


Edit: Reduction of photos from huge to normal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2009 04:29 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: woods170 on 07/15/2009 07:31 am

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: woods170 on 07/15/2009 07:36 am
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.

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.
Call me stupid... but what does 'DOA' stand for?

Regards,
woods170
(whose native language is Dutch, not English)  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/15/2009 08:23 am
Dead On Arrival

Little bit of exposition: It originated as a term used in medical reports that is used to describe the condition of patients who are transported to a medical facility such as a hospital but are not alive when they arrive either because they expired en route or because they are dead even before being transported.

So current slang uses include as a description of shipped equipment that arrives non-functional... and ideas that turn out to be doomed from the start.

Edit: ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ah_mini on 07/15/2009 09:46 am
It would seem to me that DIRECT has achieved something of a critical mass. It can no longer be dismissed as a "PowerPoint rocket" or something that "defies the laws of physics". Independent skeptics have admitted on this site that the Jupiter rockets are feasible, and even supporters of rival architectures like Shannon are also admitting this openly. Furthermore, it appears that the review panel and subsequent detailed evaluation was favourable towards DIRECT.

All of the above concessions are from a technical viewpoint. It seems the only bars to success now are the budget and schedule. Given the woeful ability of NASA to deliver Ares I on time and to budget, there must be doubts about DIRECT's figures in these areas, no matter how conservative, well-presented and backed-up they have been. The argument that the same engineers that botched Ares (even if it was a useless architecture forced on them) will botch DIRECT is powerful rhetoric, even if its factual base is limited.

So, the panel's decision will come down to whether they believe that DIRECT's money and time numbers are believable enough for them to gamble on it. If the go with the idea, 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? ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 07/15/2009 09:47 am
Good to hear that there will be changes in the next few months. And about time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/15/2009 11:47 am
While I'm as curious about the show stopper as everyone else, I'd rather you present it to Dr. Shannon over beers than post it here.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/15/2009 11:50 am

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.


That presumes
a. that the lunar architecture involving NSC requires more payload to TLI than what a 2-launch NSC scenario can provide
b. an EOR lunar architecture
c. that NSC is limited to 80mt to LEO in whatever configuration it could come to exist
d. that Orion on NSC is something which is impossible from a safety aspect due to shockwave interactions and other LAS issues

ad a. Any alternative to the current Ares baseline scenario will have to change the lunar architecture. If the choice were made to develop NSC, NASA would have to do with what 2 vehicles could provide, even if that for instance means limiting sortie missions to 2-crew or not having access to every landing location on the Moon. 3-launch missions with Orion on an EELV and 2 NSC are out of the question. Rather than such a complex, costly scenario, NASA would opt for an in-line vehicle or something else.

ad b. NSC is planned for a LOR scenario, not an EOR-LOR scenario. As a consequence NSC's TLI performance for single launch are relevant, not so much it's capacity for LEO. Single launch performance to TLI is 39mt gross.

ad c. NASA may opt to keep the 5-segment SRB development going. Regardless of the major changes that would be required for the Shuttle stack, this would mean a performance to LEO of about 90mt and a TLI performance of above 43mt (gross).

ad d. Unclear as of right now.

This whole post may actually belong to the dedicated NSC thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/15/2009 11:54 am
Ask someone else to pay, and play big rocket diplomacy.  If you can get a J130 + DIVUS up by Dec 2011, tell the ESA, Indians, Chinese, and Russians that you'll be sending 12 tons to Mars, and they're welcome to come aboard.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Arthur on 07/15/2009 12:57 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/15/2009 01:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mike robel on 07/15/2009 01:05 pm
I would suspect we would get a Jupiter flying NET Q4 2014 if give a go ahead at the first of the year.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/15/2009 01:27 pm
I would suspect we would get a Jupiter flying NET Q4 2014 if give a go ahead at the first of the year.

We should not forget that any decision that will be taken by NASA about an alternative to the current baseline will require quite some lead time.

E.g. if the Augustine Commission recommends that Ares I and Ares V should not be the baseline any more, NASA will not be able to "just pick the next alternative that sounds good". They will have to do an in-depth study of the alternatives, the related architecture, the possible cost schedule and timetable. That will take time, several months at least. It'd say any real development work on any alternative to Ares I and Ares V (be it DIRECT or anything else) will start in FY 2011 at the earliest. That being said, whether it will be possible to develop a vehicle within 4 years (Q4 2014 = beginning of FY 2015) is doubtful in my mind. First flight - maybe. Operational status, I don't think so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2009 01:54 pm
The limiting factor on IOC Schedule is the Orion.   According to that Project, it could be ready to fly IOC in March 2014, even without any serious injections of cash up front.

That is the long-pole in the schedule for us.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 07/15/2009 01:57 pm

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? ;)

I've been asking myself the same question.  Of course NASA's current leadership would never accept DIRECT wholesale with their not invented here mentality.  However, Bolden was a Marine Brig. General before being nominated to be NASA administrator.  I think given his background he is far more likely to say, I really don’t care what it is or where it comes from, just give me something that works!

Bolden was pushed by Senator Shelby and other Senators whose main interest was in preserving Shuttle jobs and keeping the money flowing for the Constellation program.  If DIRECT is the only way he can preserve Shuttle jobs, meet exploration goals, and live within the Obama Administration’s budget constraints, he might just adopt DIRECT more or less wholesale.  It think if we see some major shakeups in Constellation personnel over the next month or two as Ross has said it would be a good indicator NASA could be willing to go the DIRECT route.

Also, if there is one thing we have learned about NASA’s culture in the past four years it’s that the people appointed and put in place by an Administrator are willing to in essence march of a cliff to push that Administrator's agenda.  The people appointed by Griffen are pushing Ares to the very end despite the mounting evidence that it simply can’t do the job with the money that is available, and will be cancelled along with their careers.  I have no doubt that if Bolden reorganizes the Constellation leadership the new leaders will support him the same way the old leadership supported Griffen’s agenda.  Even if Bolden’s agenda is adopting the Rebel Alliance’s Death Star plans.

edit: March off a cliff, no one should actually mach off a cliff   :P
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StarGeezer on 07/15/2009 02:02 pm
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; perhaps from the viewpoint of the Direct concept as one that originated within NASA, perhaps as a 'skunkworks' project. After all isn't reuse part of NASA's directive here? Re-using talent from volunteer and ex-employees, even the public seems to me to fulfill some of this requirement. Does anyone have contacts within the NASA org that can get a sense that this may be possible?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/15/2009 03:22 pm
Ross, you should post those VAC document requests on the L2 shopping list, or HLV thread  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/15/2009 03:27 pm
How's my crystal-ball reading? ;)
. . . mach of[f] a cliff . . .
That sounds like something the Acme Rocket Company tried.

Modify: brackets
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/15/2009 03:38 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/15/2009 03:39 pm
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.

And Direct has said this many times in many places. 

Unfortunately NASA's actual response up to now has been... "Death to the heretics!"

Now perhaps the pitchforks and torches gathering outside the MSFC gates wasn't enough to jar them from their frantic revels... but could it be that the arrival of the monks of St. Augustine in the palace courtyard has finally gotten NASA's attention?

... or perhaps not...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/15/2009 03:42 pm

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.

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.


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: agman25 on 07/15/2009 03:56 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2009 04:01 pm
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.

December 2011 is out of the question.
Even our September 2012 date, just for the basic Jupiter (no Orion), is only at 65% confidence level.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JayP on 07/15/2009 04:06 pm


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.


You have the wrong analogy again. the ET didn't explode like a scuba tank would do because the preassure differential was nowhare as great. That kind of failure would result in a shockwave and shrapnel that would cause damage to surrounding objects. Neither of those effects happend to Challenger. The aft dome fell away from the vehicle and the intertank collapsed releasing the propelents that vaporized into the cloud we all saw.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/15/2009 04:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/15/2009 04:17 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/15/2009 04:22 pm
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.

True, but keep in mind since PWR makes liquid fueled engines, of course they will any architecture that is liquid fueled.  ATK might have a little different take.

And yea, looks like we are seeing NSC and Direct coalesce out as the two main contenders.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/15/2009 04:30 pm
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?

It's funny how NASA keeps getting hoisted on its in-house petards... :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/15/2009 04:37 pm
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.

Quote
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."

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/15/2009 04:59 pm

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.
[/quote]

Having worked for a decade almost, in an industry, where upper management felt that they had the ear of god, I believe that NASA has come to believe their own PR and can not see themselves as infallable, and NEED to listen to other's opinions... John Shannon may be an exception that proves the point... if his reaction at the Augustine hearing on June 17th to Steve's presentation was authentic, then he has been out of the upper management loop, ie Star Chamber... I am certainly hoping that is so, and is therefore reachable with logic and a sound approach from Ross... he would appear to be open and inquisitive about Direct's proposal... let's hope after the beer and martinis, there are 'wedding bells' in the future...

Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Tez on 07/15/2009 05:22 pm
Will Aerospace be one of the "sub-commitees" reporting to the panel at the upcoming meetings, and if so, which one?
And if not, anyone know when (or if) their report will be released to the public?

Sorry if this has been answered before but I don't recall if it has. :)
(Old geezer - goldfish memory) ???
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 07/15/2009 05:29 pm

... 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 !

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/15/2009 05:30 pm
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.

Quote
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."

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.

While it would not surprise me if NASA tried to discredit all of this...actually it surprises me that they have yet to. I don't think they really can. The Augustine Commission is looking over everyone's shoulder. Any attempt at an FOD attack now would just confirm Stephan's "Blood in the water" statement.

Therefore ironically, the only way to discredit Direct right now is to listen to them, as it makes such statements seem paranoid. But in the end, listening to Direct only makes it harder to ignore. So really it is a Catch 22 for NASA.

I also think some are realizing to continue the devotion to Ares now is career suicide. Until the commission comes out with their report, I don't think anyone at NASA is going to be too quick to fly any flag of support for any concept. Even Shannon was hesitant to fully endorse the SD-HLV.

I know many are worried on here that we are going to witness the end of manned spaceflight in August. However, to do so would be political suicide. Orion is going to fly on something. I think the commission will see that the Moon must be a part of our plans someday and will therefore "recommend" some launch vehicle that keeps all options open.



Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/15/2009 05:40 pm
I think this line from the av week article is interesting
Quote
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

So, they are saying that they can size the J-2X to what is needed by the EDS (Or Ares I Upper). Talk about covering all your bases.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jimvela on 07/15/2009 05:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/15/2009 06:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2009 06:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/15/2009 06:05 pm
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.

I can't comment on the total system, but a portion of the Avionics resides within the SSME Engine Controller, which is mounted on the engine.  Here is a quote from NASA Technical Paper 1932, dated 11/1981:

"To reduce the development risk and cost, the Honeywell HDC-601 airborne computer functional organization and logical design was selected as the central processing unit for the SSME: control application. This unit, along with specially designed input/output interfacing electronics, power supplies, and appropriate redundancy control electronics, was duplexed and packaged into a unit called the controller."

"Since each flight controller is mounted directly on an engine, the environment in which it operates is very severe. Therefore, special emphasis was placed on the mechanical design and packaging techniques of the electronic components and subassemblies. An extensive design verification (qualification) program was instigated and implemented to assure that the controller operates and survives under all the conditions to which it is exposed and for the number of missions for which it is designed."

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2009 06:05 pm
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.

Even more than that:   This is *precisely* what we WANT the agency to do.   Our current position is this:-

"We're on your side, we've been running the ball towards the line for three years, but its time to pass the ball to the rest of the team and let them go make the touchdown!   Here, take the ball..."

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/15/2009 06:08 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/15/2009 06:16 pm
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.
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. 

(My motive is to understand some of the basics so I can continue to consolidate and clean up the DIRECT wikipedia.org article.)

Thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/15/2009 06:22 pm


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.

Well, that needs to be developed for Ares, NSC, or Direct.  Anything –but- the Shuttle.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 07/15/2009 06:24 pm
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.

There are parts already manufactured and in storage for three more engines, bringing the total up to 17.  (Of those parts, one engine has already been assembled but not tested.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2009 06:27 pm
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.
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. 

(My motive is to understand some of the basics so I can continue to consolidate and clean up the DIRECT wikipedia.org article.)

Thanks.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2009 06:38 pm

... 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 !

There have been reports available, for many years, indicating that even at a relatively low production rate of just 10-15 per year, the current reusable SSME's costs could be driven down to around the $40m mark -- and that's before any savings are considered for an "expendable" version.

CxP simply ignored them though.   But that isn't really a surprise to anyone, is it?   ESAS/CxP management have clearly cherry-picked the reports they wanted regarding all sorts of things and conveniently ignored everything that didn't support their own position.   They've done this so many times before that I'm amazed anyone is still surprised about this.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2009 06:49 pm
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.

Its not really the engine controllers which need to be updated -- those can be reproduced at will and their hardware/software is already pretty well-proven.

Its more the guidance, navigation and master computers which control all the things like ordering the engines to gimbal by a certain amount in a certain direction to maintain the correct trajectory in-flight, or ordering the separation pyro's to fire -- its the 'god' computers on-board which are the ones needing to be re-done.

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.

It *might* be possible to retro-fit one or more current Shuttle computers into an early Jupiter test flight.   But all the data I have seen on this subject says that it would actually NOT be cheaper, nor would it take less time than starting with a more modern equivalent.   A pretty good "guiding light" in this situation is Ares-I-X, where they chose to use a modern Atlas controller instead of using a Shuttle one -- the exact same reasoning for doing that, also applies here.

But for the final versions, you really want a custom system designed specifically for the purpose -- and you really only want to do this expensive and time-consuming work just the one time.

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.   Further, from a political stand-point, given that in all likelihood LM would get the contract for the ET > Core Stage conversion work, I don't believe anyone would be against the idea of Boeing keeping their current contracts (modified) in order to keep on "spreading the wealth" -- which is an incredibly important political driving force within D.C.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/15/2009 06:59 pm
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?  I'm not completely sure if you're being serious or going for laughs.

First of all, you couldn't get enough SSME's mounted under an 11m tank to counter the enormous weight of the the vehicle.  The one advantage that the RS-68 has over the SSME is thrust, and in this case it would be required.

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.  The only people still jonesing for that white elephant are those whose entire career and reputation are riding on it.

Therefore I assume you were going for humor:  Ha ha, good one!

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/15/2009 07:05 pm
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)

Modify: Oh, it's from a previous 17 July. . . .
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/15/2009 07:53 pm
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)


Well, now that it is on a napkin, it meets Mike's definition of a real rocket ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2009 08:29 pm
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!

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 :)   We haven't been ignoring it.   Let me take a second to confirm that we are all-too aware of just how complex this element is going to be and how it will drive the schedule for the entire development effort of Jupiter.

I also want you to be aware that even with this impact accounted for, it is still the *Orion* which will be the final pacing item in the schedule -- not the Jupiter.   And, unsurprisingly, it will be the Orion's "Avionics" which will be determining their schedules too :)

I just wanted to make sure I removed any remaining ambiguity WRT to this.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 07/15/2009 08:43 pm
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?

Nope.

Quote
First of all, you couldn't get enough SSME's mounted under an 11m tank

I have never seen any public ref from NASA to a 11 m dia core Ares V. That's prolly from L2, or from confidential communication between "Direct" and ... MSFC ?

But it is perpetrated in this thread to show how grotesquely large the Ares V become.

The other things, like 5.5- or 6-seg, HTPB, composite case expendable - are options explored by NASA in order to increase Ares V performance - while removing the I-V commonality. Bad, very bad situation.

But Ares V performance was OK with a 8.4m core and RS-25 expendable engines. ESAS.

If PWR can build cheap expendable RS-25's then why was it necessary to switch to RS-68 ?

When was PWR honest, in 2005 or in 2009 ?

Quote

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.

But if this proposed technology is viable for the EDS, the A-commission should, before recommending a change of architecture, ask NASA to embrace such technology and reap the benefits.

Quote
Third, the entire 1.5 architecture has been pretty thoroughly thrashed lately.

Because there's the stench in the air... recession, failed stimulus, health care bill, etc. - so the lunar outpost is out of the picture. 1.5 is tailored for the outpost, not for another set of foot prints. 1.5 is a concept for sustainable lunar outpost build-up with large number of cargo/unmanned missions, not for a lunar exploration based on manned sorties - nobody needs that, and in any case robotics are more appropriate if the overarching goal was to thoroughly sample the lunar surface.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2009 09:00 pm
If PWR can build cheap expendable RS-25's then why was it necessary to switch to RS-68 ?

Unfortunately, ESAS underestimated the performance requirement by quite a bit.   They assumed that a 126mT (148mT if including the EDS Burnout mass for IMLEO) CaLV would be sufficient to accomplish the size and scope of mission they wanted.

Unfortunately, as the years have gone on, the reality of a 20.2mT Orion and 45.0mT Altair trying to perform a Lunar mission providing Global Access, Any-time Return capability for 4 crew staying for 7 day Sortie missions proved to require quite a bit more performance than that.

The reality is that the Ares-I and Ares-V together need to lift at least 200mT IMLEO and Ares-I can only do about 20mT of that.   That means that the Ares-V has been forced to grow in performance by about a quarter larger again.

To get that sort of additional performance would have required at least 3 more SSME's under a 10m Core -- for a total of 9 per vehicle!   That was deemed to be "pushing your luck" regarding engine failures on vehicles and would have resulted in a Loss of Mission rate somewhere below 1 in 60 -- which is simply unacceptable for such a costly vehicle.

The decision to switch to RS-68 was as much about reducing the costs for all the necessary engines as it was about increasing the performance of the vehicle.

Unfortunately, today, the current Ares-V is completely unaffordable as it is right now.   A 180mT variant of Ares-V using SSME would be even more expensive due to needing 50% more engines -- irrelevant of how much each costs.

That option simply isn't viable.   The design has backed them into such a tight little corner that CxP have no real choice any more but to create the Regen RS-68 instead -- and just have to stomach all those extra up-front development costs, plus the higher costs for the Regen variant itself too.

Its a horrible situation.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 07/15/2009 09:56 pm
If they used 9 SSMEs they would no doubt make it have engine-out capability to boost LOM figures. I also can't see any real price difference in the total cost of an Ares V with 9 SSMEs vs one with 7 regen RS-68s. I don't believe it was even considered, they just went straight to 5 RS-68s as it gave them the extra performance they thought they needed at the time and mars.is.wet also claims it was a political instruction too. No doubt it could be reversed if SSME was back in vogue 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/15/2009 10:04 pm
http://thenonist.com/index.php/annex/comments/3749/
(fotoguzzi thinks zapkitty is somehow involved)

Not me! Insufficient nekomimi.

As the Japanese and other countries make use of this most-advanced transportation technology when will the U.S. finally catch on and apply it to spacecraft?

One example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastech_360

Of course that's not the only use... deployed twin sensor arrays, paired hemiellipsoidal parabolic reflectors for solar thermal power systems, and there are several other potential uses besides.

The time will come... :)
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/15/2009 10:47 pm
... 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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 07/15/2009 10:52 pm
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. ;))
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 07/15/2009 11:12 pm
... 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?


Crawlerways would have to be reverified for any Ares V configuration but I was thinking more about the VAB.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/16/2009 12:09 am
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. . .
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.

Modify: changed some words
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/16/2009 12:46 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/16/2009 12:56 am
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.

The CLV vehicle's upper stage is only partially fueled, so the combined JUS+LSAM+CEV will weigh the same as the fully fueled JUS/EDS by itself.

At least, that's my understanding.  It's kind of hard to tell from the baseball cards, they don't list the total mass of the upper stage + cargo + propellant.

Mark S.

Edit: The spent core stage splashes down (uncontrolled) in the north Atlantic ocean.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/16/2009 01:03 am
Bolden and Garver confirmed by unanimous consent.  Get ready to rock!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2009 01:07 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2009 01:13 am
According to the baseball cards, the EDS and CLV stage at the same speed and altitude.  Is that correct?

Near enough the same, yes.


Quote
If 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.


Quote
Also, 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/16/2009 01:19 am
Has anyone ever launched a half-tanked rocket before, or will that be a new technology?

According to the baseball cards, the EDS and CLV stage at the same speed and altitude.  Is that correct?

Near enough the same, yes.


Quote
If 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.


Quote
Also, 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jimvela on 07/16/2009 01:33 am

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.   

I'm very much aware of the existing ARES Avionics contracts (and subcontracts). 

There are early development versions of some boxes about to go into test across the hallway from my lab.  Some of that testing is using hardware I've been building in my lab over the past few months   ;D

Quote
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 :) 

Fair enough, I shouldn't have lumped Direct in that camp.  Sorry. :)

My point is that even with a contract modification, there is significant design change to both the actual avionics boxes and to the FSW to support NSC, Direct, Not-Direct, etc.

Your point that Avionics will be a gating item is true.  I personally believe that FSW is a bigger challenge than the hardware is. 

For what it is worth, I'd love to hear that the effort is being re-tasked to build boxes for "don't call it DIRECT"... ;) For my peers, it would be WIN (get/keep work for us) and WIN (Get a better launch system for the nation).

All entirely my opinion and not necessarily those of my employer or its primes...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/16/2009 02:14 am
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.  What a great conversation piece an SSME would make in some rich person's living room!

Of course they would probably hit engine-first, at who-knows what speed, but the heavier components might come through mostly in one piece.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/16/2009 03:09 am
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?

They will not survive entry.

Quote
  Seems to me that they would be considered legal salvage under maritime law.

Seems to me that the Outer Space Treaty supercedes maritime law here, even after the debris hits the water. Anything launched into space by the United States government remains the property of the government for perpetuity.

Quote
Of course they would probably hit engine-first, at who-knows what speed, but the heavier components might come through mostly in one piece.

The tanks would break up and disintegrate early in entry. The engines would be effectively stripped down to the bare powerheads by aerothermal forces (see the Columbia SSMEs). The biggest surviving pieces would be the powerheads, pieces of the aft thrust structure, and the SRB thrust beam.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/16/2009 04:04 am
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.

Does the Outer Space Treaty apply to objects that never made it to space?

Anyway, it was not a serious proposal.  Just trying to make conversation here.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/16/2009 04:04 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2009 04:16 am
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


A FPGA emulator for that microprocessor can probably be found on the internet.  It may not be suitable for a real flight but should keep the programmers and electronic engineers happy whilst an accurately timed emulator is developed and certified.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/16/2009 04:16 am
They will not survive entry.

The J-246 cores are not going anywhere near orbital speed or altitude at staging, right?

They exceed 100 km altitude, which is the FAI definition of space. Velocity is not considered in the definition.

Quote
Were the Saturn-V first stages ever located or salvaged?  I never heard if they were, but it would be the equivalent.

They have not. No one has bothered because the US government would be entitled to take them back without compensation. There is no business case to be made for it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/16/2009 06:29 am
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.

Jupiter has been described as a one-and-a-half stage vehicle - J-24x completes most of the ascent before staging.

The upper stage only adds another ~2 km/s & 90km altitude to achieve orbit.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/16/2009 06:48 am
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?

Look at the element "Usable Ascent Propellant". On the J-246 (RL-10B-2) cards, the figure is 69,892kg on both cards.

Both vehicles lift about 100 mT to orbit, and both consume that same 69.9mT of fuel doing it. (NB CLV has a lower "Payload w/ regular NASA GR&A's", but that's after accounting for a LAS, air drag from a wider PLF, and a heavier PLF carried all the way to orbit).

For the CLV, you will see that "Usable Post-Ascent Propellant" is zero. Although the upper stage has capacity for 175,519kg of fuel, it's only part-fuelled with what it needs for ascent. This is the 56.91% "Propellant Offload".

For the EDS flight, the upper stage flies with it's tanks brimmed full. You will see that the "Usable Post-Ascent Propellant" figure is 99,896kg - this is it's payload. NB some of this is lost before TLI, as fuel boils off "loitering" (waiting in orbit for the mission to begin). A "LEO Loiter Period" of 5 days will result in boiloff ("Pre-TLI Overboard Mass") of 2,896kg.


In case it's also of interest...

Each of the burns (ascent, TLI), has an associated Flight Performance Reserve (Ascent FPR, Post-Ascent FPR). These are added to the fuel load to compensate in the case of a performance problem (failed engine, reduced thrust, etc). If some or all of the FPR is left from an earlier burn, it "rolls over" as increased FPR for subsequent burns.

The upper stage provides all the FPR for the ascent - the core burns until it is exhausted (whatever altitude / velocity has been achieved), then the upper stage has to have enough performance to complete the ascent.

At the end of the last burn, there is an amount of fuel which can't be safely used - the "Unusable Residuals". It is dead mass that must be hauled around but doesn't contribute to performance. Adding this to the dry mass gives the "burnout mass" - the mass which is used in all calculations of what performance can be achieved by burning the "usable propellant".


 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


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.



One final thing - the Ascent FPR above can't cope with a substantial performance problem during ascent. That's OK when just lifting fuel in an EDS, but could leave a crew performing a dangerous emergency re-entry, or the unnecessary loss of a valuable Altair.

CLV & CaLV flights limit payload to the "Payload w/ additional 10% Reserve", but carry the same fuel load in both core & upper stage. This should allow successful ascent in the event of a relatively early core stage engine failure.

This reduced payload matches superbly with the mass that EDS can push through TLI, which leads to a very balanced two-launch architecture.

cheers, Martin


Edit: re difference between "Total" and "Maximum Gross Propellant" - I can't add up!

The numbers add up to 175,491, with the final kg explained by rounding differences.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/16/2009 07:45 am
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?

The J246-CLV mass of 1390kg consists of 500 kg ASE and 890 kg for the LSAM cradle.

For a lunar mission, if one J-246 were launched with Orion and another with Altair, could either JUS serve as the EDS?

Yes.

Quote
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?

For a J-246/J-130 launch and with the EDS doing the whole LOI burn, 46.0 t is put into LLO. With the EDS only doing LOI and Altair doing LLO, 52.5 t is put into LLO. This was using old assumptions so these values might change.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/16/2009 08:04 am
Thanks to the four or five who have answered (and asked) JUS questions.  I know this is a retread to some, but it sure helps me (and maybe others?) to look at a problem from four or five different viewpoints.

I appreciate the efforts!

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?

Modify: plural, add retread question, recalibrate

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/16/2009 08:19 am
Question: How viable is the 4-seg Ares I light that I have heard about?

Its viable if you can get the SSME to air start for the upper stage (the J-2X is not efficient enough). I have heard conflicting reports as to whether SSME air start is viable. Some say its not. Others say it is (the problem is restarts are not viable).

Quote
Would a down-sized Orion still be useful for lunar missions?

The 3.9 m diameter Apollo capsule at 5.8 t is 61% of the mass of the 5.0 m Orion capsule at 9.5 t. A 4.5 m Orion would have 54% more volume than an Apollo CM and should weigh about 7.8 t, a 1.7 t saving. The 5.0 m Orion has twice the internal volume of the Apollo CM. Changing the diameter now though would add considerable delay to the program. As four astronauts are only going to the Moon, a smaller Orion could still so the job.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 07/16/2009 08:51 am
Thanks Steve. I was curious as to whether the Ares I 'lite' together with a downsized Ares V could constitute a plausible 'last gasp' for NASAs current 1.5 launch baseline.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/16/2009 11:07 am
Constellation's crewed mission places Altair + Orion in a Low Lunar Orbit, braked by the Altair. Altair then leaves Orion in LLO when it descends. Orion needs to be in LLO in order for the Ascent Module to rendezvous with it on the return journey. I understand why the crewed mission operates this way.


Is there any particular reason why cargo Altair must operate from the same low orbit? What would be the implications of delivering Altair to (say) 1,000 nmi circular orbit, then descending from there? Ascent module is not a constraint for a cargo mission, obviously.

Ross's GR&A's (from the CARD, I believe) have an 889 m/s LOI burn (for cargo), 19.4 m/s descent insertion and 2030 m/s powered descent. Would a change of orbital attitude simply shuffle the delta-V between these burns, or does LLO deliver minimum total delta-V in some way?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Downix on 07/16/2009 12:07 pm

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.
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Downix on 07/16/2009 12:12 pm
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.
Ross.
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)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/16/2009 12:14 pm

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.
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?

This has been suggested before.  The concept adds considerable complexity and development time to the system.  The selling point of Direct is to field a launch system that maximizes the use of shuttle hardware, thus making it more cost effective than the alternatives.  Adding a significant cost and schedule driver would make Direct less attractive. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/16/2009 12:16 pm
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.
Ross.
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)

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Downix on 07/16/2009 12:18 pm
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.
Ross.
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)

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.
Oh cool, I drive past them most mornings.  But I figured it would be propriority.  Never hurts to ask however.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/16/2009 12:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/16/2009 01:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simcosmos on 07/16/2009 02:29 pm
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.

Being a little more generic and making a quick personal comment, I would not characterize it as the only way to do it. Depending of several extra parameters, there could probably exist, in theory, alternative ways of keeping the SSME powered J130 core in a sub-orbital disposal trajectory for a CEV + [some sort of secondary payload/spacecraft] mission profile.

Of course that such alternative ways would mean, for example, extra considerations regarding the nature of the [secondary payload/spacecraft] (example: propulsion / control systems) and the integration method between such [secondary payload/spacecraft] with Orion vs overall launch vehicle integration too (vs ascent trajectory + post-MECO tweaks, etc).

António
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Xentry on 07/16/2009 04:00 pm
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.
Ross.
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)

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.
Oh cool, I drive past them most mornings.  But I figured it would be propriority.  Never hurts to ask however.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/16/2009 04:34 pm
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.

Man, I'd LOVE to do that.  Unfortunately I live in Spokane, Washington, and am about as far away from KSC as you can be and still be in the continental US.  ;)
Otherwise I'd love to get together and wax philisophical about NASA and Direct. 
One of these days I'd like to get down there and tour KSC.  Doubt I'll get down in time to catch a Shuttle launhc (which would be cool), but who knows, maybe I'll get to see a Jupiter Launch?  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2009 05:14 pm

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.

"Stage-and-a-half" typically refers to a design -- like the original Atlas-D boosters -- where a stage launches with a cluster of engines, but half-way through the flight, it shuts down some of those engines and then jettisons their weight, leaving the rest of the stage intact powered now by only one or two 'sustainer' engines to complete the flight.

While one of the three NLS designs was a stage-and-a-half-design, Jupiter does NOT do that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/16/2009 05:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2009 05:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 07/16/2009 05:23 pm
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'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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2009 05:24 pm
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.

That's a convention which isn't in general use worldwide.   The only place I'm aware of it being used is by the Russians on the Soyuz.   Even the Chinese don't use that naming convention for their similar Long March system.

The majority of programs consider all strap-on boosters to be a "Stage 0".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2009 05:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mrbliss on 07/16/2009 05:33 pm
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.

That was always my understanding.  But I wouldn't want to argue with Ross.

And I guess the shuttle would be "1 and two 1/2 stages".  1/2 for booster sep, and 1/2 for ET jettison.  Well, maybe ET would only be 1/4 (no engines on that tank!). ;)

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/16/2009 05:38 pm
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?

The engines can be replaced for less than the cost of refurbishment, anyway.

Your argument actually boils down to ejecting and attempting recovery of the avionics, not the whole boattail.


Actually, on Orion flights, the simplest way to do that would be to mount them remotely in the Orion (if space can be found).

cheers, Martin


Edit: fixed quoting.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/16/2009 05:43 pm

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.


Thanks for those.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Downix on 07/16/2009 05:48 pm
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.
Ross.
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)

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.
Oh cool, I drive past them most mornings.  But I figured it would be propriority.  Never hurts to ask however.

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
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)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/16/2009 05:49 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Downix on 07/16/2009 05:50 pm
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?

The engines can be replaced for less than the cost of refurbishment, anyway.

Your argument actually boils down to ejecting and attempting recovery of the avionics, not the whole boattail.


Actually, on Orion flights, the simplest way to do that would be to mount them remotely in the Orion (if space can be found).

cheers, Martin
[/quote]
Once you get to that stage, however, you may as well go fully disposable and instead ramp up production volume with a CR process to bring the costs down. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/16/2009 06:08 pm

 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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2009 06:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2009 06:26 pm

 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?

LOL!

Just not showing the decimals.   Here:-

Ascent Propellant:   69,892.21kg
Ascent FPR (1%):   2,895.87kg
TLI Propellant:   99,896.47kg
TLI FPR (1%)   1,009.06kg
In-Flight Losses:   101.87kg
Residuals:   1,723.27kg

Total Propellant:   175,518.76kg

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ballew on 07/16/2009 07:26 pm
Does the Direct team have any plans to have a presence at the Huntsville Public Meeting on the 29th?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jjnodice on 07/16/2009 07:47 pm
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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/16/2009 08:25 pm
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...

Anyone have an idea what's on the agenda for these?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 07/16/2009 08:52 pm
I don't understand where the IMLEO 208.1mT in the DIRECT_ISDC_2009.pdf for the PD comes from. I suspect this has been answered before, but I can't find it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2009 09:44 pm
Mike, the IMLEO figure represents the total mass of Orion, Altair, its ASE Cradle, the EDS and the TLI propellant inside it -- all together, specifically as they all stand just prior to making the TLI Burn.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2009 09:46 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/16/2009 09:47 pm
WOW!  Way to go Ross!!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/16/2009 09:49 pm
WOW!!!!  (grinning from ear to ear)

Awesome Ross. Congrats!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rv_rocket on 07/16/2009 09:58 pm
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.

Count me in!! I should be able to make it by 7pm. I'll try to get there earlier if I can.

And good luck on the NPR show!! :) :)
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2009 10:13 pm
Is there a radio equivalent of the stage/film good-luck charm "break a leg"?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2009 10:21 pm
Does the Direct team have any plans to have a presence at the Huntsville Public Meeting on the 29th?

We have more than a few team members in the area, but I'm not sure if any of them are willing to "break cover" publicly.

At the DC hearing there was a chap, Osa Fitch, who used his three minutes to make a case for something very similar to DIRECT.   I had no idea anyone else was going to say something so similar independent of us, but he did.   I managed to have a word afterward and was able to express my thanks to him for his comments.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that even if we don't get any team members to speak publicly, that we at least get a few more members of the public to make a very reasoned case, just as Mr. Fitch did.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/16/2009 10:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 07/16/2009 10:43 pm
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) "
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Aeroman on 07/16/2009 11:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/16/2009 11:17 pm
Heh,

Had a quick question.  With all the flap about the foam chunks breaking off on Yesterday's Shuttle Launch (I think NASA may put a hold on August's flight until they investigate it more)  I know it wont' be an issue for Jupiter or any inline configuration, but would the ET/Cores switch to some easier, less time consuming method of applying hte insulation because it won't matter if it breaks off during launch?
I know after COlumbia, they redesigned parts of the ET and the process of foam application to reduce the foam shedding, and I'm assuming this new process is slower, more expensive, adn more time consuming than the previous methods.  But would there be some cost savings for Direct in going to a faster, less precises method of foam coating?
It'd probably be nominal compared to overall costs, but every little bit helps.  Just wondering.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 07/16/2009 11:35 pm
Wow, Ross!  Great news on the NPR gig.  I hope it goes well - you're in some amazing company there (I'm re-reading Chaikin's book right now, as a matter of fact).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 07/16/2009 11:36 pm
Is this a TV show?  If it is what channel?  Or is it a radio show?  I can't quite figure it out.

NPR = National Public Radio
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/16/2009 11:38 pm
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.

This is a Radio program, and it is being streamed online at various stations around the country (USA, NOT Canada).. I will be listening on a Station in San Antonio, Texas, it seems to have a consistent stream... go to this URL and click on the icon for your favourite player... http://www.tpr.org/audio/listen.html... if it opens up in another player like it did me, (clicked on Windows, and opened up in Windamp) this is not a fault of the website, but your preferences... to get around that take the URL which shows in the blank page (this one, http://www.tpr.org/audio/kstx.asx) go to Windows player and click on File, top left hand corner of the screen, and then the drop down, Open URL, and paste the URL above in the screen that pops up... and then OK, and it should play in the Windows Player...
      happy listening, and Way to go Ross...

Dave

modified: before clicking on File, go to the NOW PLAYING tab and click on it... seems to work better that way... as well, you may want to test this out ahead of time, as doing it 2 minutes before the program starts is a bit late
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/16/2009 11:41 pm
Dr. Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 Astronaut & Moon-walker
And lunar geologist, too!

Modify: selenologist?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/16/2009 11:50 pm
Dr. Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 Astronaut & Moon-walker
And lunar geologist, too!

Modify: selenologist?

Punster also.  Got any Direct puns ready?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 07/17/2009 12:33 am
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. ;))
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2009 02:54 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/17/2009 02:57 am
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. ;) )

Ross or Chuck will probably jump in here, but if I remember aright, I think it has something to do with the G's pulled in the original trajectory not fitting with the ESAS requirements for the new launchers. They wanted something less than what that early trajectory was, probably because of this incident on STS-1.

At least, that's what I think.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2009 03:04 am
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. ;))

Sorry, missed that first time around.

Jupiter flies its own optimal trajectory.   It's somewhat similar to the Shuttle's -- which isn't a surprise given how similar they are in performance -- but there are some differences : This is one of them.

There are still stress/strain constraints which the Jupiter's structure has to remain within, but they are different than Shuttle.   All of the Jupiter's trajectories are designed to get the best out of that configuration.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 07/17/2009 03:10 am
Awesome.  Figured it would be something like that.  Cheers!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/17/2009 03:14 am
What time will the NPR piece air? I am interested in listening in

EDIT: sorry, just found it on the site...2-4PM for anyone else wondering

BEST OF LUCK ROSS!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/17/2009 03:35 am
That's some mighty high flying company Ross.. truly amazing how far your idea has gone! Enjoy!

Cheers!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cdhutch on 07/17/2009 03:48 am
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

Science Friday also shows up on the iTunes Store as a free podcast.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/17/2009 03:50 am
Direct question...

Nasawatch has a USAF power point that says a solid failure between 30 and 60 seconds into an Ares-I flight will kill the crew.

"USAF 45th Space Wing Study: Capsule~100%-Fratricide Environments (Implications for NASA's Ares-1 and Crew)"

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/07/usaf_orion_crew.html

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/fratricide.pdf

Since the study is based on the spray pattern from the TitanIV-A20 failure, does direct have the same weakness?

*Interesting that the USAF 45th comes out with this now. Talk about timing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2009 03:53 am
Kevin,
I posted the following over on that thread:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/17/2009 05:22 am
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?

*Probably not.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 07/17/2009 06:14 am
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.

Oh well, "go break a leg"...After 25 years in the theatre performing modern dance and ballet, I will grant you the right to "break a leg".

Cheers,

Dr. Dave

PS - take an extra bow for the Direct Team.  They deserve it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 07/17/2009 07:08 am
Kevin,
I posted the following over on that thread:

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/17/2009 07:27 am
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.


If LAS applies near the ground, parachutes must deploy relatively quickly.

Near Max Q, how much drag will there be on the debris? It seems a long delay before deploying the parachute should be acceptable. Indeed, you wouldn't deploy parachutes until drag has slowed the capsule down to speeds where they won't be damaged?

Are we talking about early deployment of a drogue?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/17/2009 07:48 am
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

Ross-  this is AWESOME!  Good luck on the broadcast!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 07/17/2009 08:08 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/17/2009 08:20 am
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?

The first and second stages of the Ariane 40 (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ariane.htm) were partially filled.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 07/17/2009 09:00 am
I have also read that Energia launched only partially-fuelled. But that was from information in the 80s and I've never seen it confirmed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Stephan on 07/17/2009 09:42 am
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 ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/17/2009 11:31 am
I think the only still unanswered part is whether there is precedence for launching a partially-full upper stage.


Is AVUS intended to launch partially-filled?

There would be a different fuel/payload balance between crewed and cargo-only flights.

The proportion of offload (if there is one), would be much lower, but it may set a precedent.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/17/2009 01:34 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: imjeffp on 07/17/2009 02:54 pm
Quote
On the gripping hand ...

A Niven fan!  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mrbliss on 07/17/2009 03:16 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/17/2009 03:19 pm
Regarding the Air Force "~100% Fratricide" report, and the LAS for DIRECT.

Would it be possible for the LAS to actually be a small solid stage attached directly under the CEV+SM, something on the order of the recent MLAS test vehicle?  I know it would be very heavy, but it would certainly be able to move the CEV out of any SRB detonation fireball.  The J-130, at least, has plenty of margin for this approach.  Might that not be a good idea, at least during the test flights?

Another concern regarding an SRB detonation is that even if the LAS is able to get the CEV out of the direct fireball and deploy chutes, wouldn't the superheated air from the fireball move upwards and eventually engulf the CEV on its way back down?  That might also be enough to melt nylon chutes, right?

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/17/2009 03:33 pm

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/17/2009 03:43 pm

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.

Jupiter's Max-Q is far more benign so this condition would likely not have the same outcome. But just to be sure we'll run the trajectory analyses with the LAS. Note also that because of the margin the Jupiter has, if it is necessary, we could use a better LAS that would guarantee escape to a safe distance. More to come later.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2009 03:52 pm
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.

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).

This means that the standard size LAS (which we are retaining "unchanged" specifically in order to reduce development costs and schedules) is far more effective in this configuration through the Max-Q period.

I'm in the process of collecting the necessary data in order to be able to simulate the abort myself, and some of our team are already investigating this themselves.   I'll only really get into it after the radio show though.

My gut reaction is that this is a much bigger problem for Ares-I than for Jupiter, but it requires further study to be sure of how serious it might be for Jupiter.

Watch this space.   We should have some answers within the next few days.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/17/2009 03:54 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/17/2009 04:26 pm

Just a thought on the SRB's. From what I understood of the report, way they "unzip" leads to this expanding shell that orion ends up inside of during parts, but not all points in the flight.

Now, if you have a bigger LAS that can get you outside of the "shell" you should be okay.

Also, if you change how they unzip. Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but there is a length wise charge that goes up the entire length of the motor breaking the case open. You could modify it with timers (pryro's) to drop the bottom segment off the SRB instantly reducing the pressure inside the motor and then unzip them length wise. This would lead to a much smaller expanding shell. Does nothing for an SRB that unzips itself, but it does help when it is commanded by the RSO.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/17/2009 04:30 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/17/2009 04:52 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/17/2009 04:53 pm
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

1 if by land
2 if by sea

hehe. sorry. I couldn't help myself :D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/17/2009 05:05 pm
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


Expanding my comment above - the Boost Protective Cover would be in place during a LAS abort.

Presumably this would be less fragile than the skin of Orion, and it may be possible to beef this up. How long can it be retained?

But I struggle to see how you toughen the underside / TPS, without having to then carry that cover all the way through to TEI.

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.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: chrisking0997 on 07/17/2009 05:10 pm
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... ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/17/2009 05:14 pm

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.



There is some irony there that a black zone has creeped up on Ares I, especially that it is the USAF that discovered it.  :P

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/17/2009 05:18 pm
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."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/17/2009 05:20 pm
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.

No. It's tough... much tougher than the Shuttle tiles (but then what isn't?) But it's not kevlar.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 07/17/2009 05:21 pm
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2009 05:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/17/2009 05:30 pm
ah, just yank another crew member out of Orion... ;)

Well I was just informed by a commenter (over at NASAwatch) that "Orion has not been gutted" so obviously Orion must have mass to spare! :)

... Ares supporters are space fans too, so I understand how this is hitting them out of left field...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/17/2009 05:31 pm
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... ;)

Launch the Orion unmanned so you won't need a LAS. The crew can be ferried up later on a Soyuz (or manned Dragon, if those turn out to exist), and we can call it a 1.5 + 0.5 launch architecture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/17/2009 05:37 pm
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!

That's something I've been harping about for decades: there's no reason at this point in exploration history to do the same mission over and over again, as if Columbus had made all his voyages to Hispaniola, and then his successors had continued "exploring" Hispaniola because the other islands had nothing more to offer, and as far as anybody knew, there weren't any unknown continents with fabulously wealthy and utterly defenseless native civilizations ripe for the plucking just over the horizon...

A mission a year to someplace new and different would certainly help keep the taxpayers happy. I'm still mad an Apollo LM never put down in Tycho!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/17/2009 05:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/17/2009 05:47 pm

Watch this space.   We should have some answers within the next few days.

Ross.

LOL. When would we NOT watch this space???  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/17/2009 05:53 pm
Soon the day will come when a fully outfitted Orion and its full-sized Service Module will be able to serve their rightful role...

...

... as a lifeboat in a properly-sized spaceship ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/17/2009 05:55 pm
LOL. When would we NOT watch this space???  :)

When we're watching that space over there...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/17/2009 06:08 pm
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.


And you've still got additional mT's of mass that can be added to the crewed launch on top of that without broaching your "10% additional margins for crewed vehicles".

I think SRB mass is geared about 10:1?

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.

Fix the problem at source.

Can we place a big kevlar wrap around the SRB's? Might that also help to mitigate other failure modes, such as Challenger (give more warning time, at least)?

Would be a big job to re-qualify the SRB's, though!

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/17/2009 06:17 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/17/2009 06:41 pm
Just tuned in to Science Friday..  Did I already miss Ross?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/17/2009 06:43 pm
Looks like DIRECT and Ross just being introduced!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/17/2009 06:43 pm
http://www.sciencefriday.com/


You can tune in here
http://umtv-live.rs.itd.umich.edu/wuom/miradio_intercept.asx
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/17/2009 06:46 pm
Harrison seems to be downplaying DIRECT..  I'm sure because he doesn't understand it.


Alan Bean:  Seems to be towing the NASA line as well.
Says "hasn't seen NASA make a mistake in methodology"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/17/2009 06:49 pm
Harrison blaming lack of funding for all NASA's constellation problems.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/17/2009 06:51 pm
Ross is doing a GREAT JOB!!!

GO ROSS!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 07/17/2009 06:53 pm
Great Job ROSS!!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/17/2009 06:54 pm
Don't hate to do it!  Take issue with it!

edited: Nice job Ross!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2009 06:54 pm
Oh boy, I'm a nervous wreck!

Head to head with Jack Schmitt at the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11!   Wow.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/17/2009 06:56 pm
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?

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 07/17/2009 06:57 pm
You did great and the sum up at the end couldn't have done more for the cause.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/17/2009 07:00 pm
First football, now baseball - homerun performance.  I do hope someone encourages Dr. Schmitt to examine the details with an open mind.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cdhutch on 07/17/2009 07:02 pm
Oh boy, I'm a nervous wreck!

Head to head with Jack Schmitt at the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11!   Wow.

Ross.

Great job, Ross.  I think you handled yourself well with the Apollo 17 LMP--I suspect he's not too familiar with DIRECT.  I would have been more worried had you started challenging him on geology.

Regardless, your team is getting a lot of good exposure.  Best of luck with the Aerospace analysis and the Augustine panel.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 07/17/2009 07:03 pm
Oh boy, I'm a nervous wreck!

Head to head with Jack Schmitt at the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11!   Wow.

Ross.

You could catch the nervousness at the end, but great conclusion.  I don't think I have heard a more succinct summary of why the Direct approach is better than the current approach.  One vehicle, more performance 200 mt vs 180 mt, lower development cost, lower operational cost and equal or better safety.

Also, it’s pretty obvious the NASA Alan Bean and Schmidt worked for is not the NASA that exists today.  It's interesting to hear how much it is ingrained their thoughts that NASA today works the same way today as it did during their time, all options are considered and the option that best meets the program goals is what is selected.   I really think your finish was excellent since Bean and Schmidt were obviously quite in the mindset that Von Braun is still in charge and Direct was dismissed by NASA because it was honestly considered and found to have missed the mark, not that it was summarily dismissed early on by ESAS.  Netiher one really had a comeback for your closing statement, other than the standard Brooklyn bridge remark which was old when Apollo was carrying astronauts to the moon.

John
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/17/2009 07:05 pm
Great job on the show Ross!

I think it was an issue of them just not understanding the concept. It is hard to get that across over the phone.

Jack Schmitt is correct to say that the funding hasn't been there. There is not argument there. I'm sure given the funding Ares could work. But you are dreaming if you believe such funding will ever materialize.
So let NASA continue to complain about the lack of funding...it is a moot subject.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/17/2009 07:06 pm
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.

"Stay in a lower orbit longer" - so the interceptor does not inject directly at 130nmx130nm, that spec just describes its performance capability?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 07/17/2009 07:10 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: yg1968 on 07/17/2009 07:14 pm
Did anybody record this? I just caught the end of it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/17/2009 07:15 pm
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?

It is highly unlikely that we will hear anything publicaly from Aerospace Corp. They were contracted by the Augustine Commission and it is that commission that will receive the results of the analysis.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/17/2009 07:15 pm
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.

The much simpler and much lighter option is to cut the top off of the SRB before unzipping it in order to equalize thrust while the LAS makes its getaway... but even that would be a massive design change, it might torch the capsule on exit anyway, it does not cover SRB casing failures (actual explosions), it delays and may even interfere with the final range safety SRB self-destruct... and may not even work the way we'd want it to.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/17/2009 07:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/17/2009 07:31 pm
It is highly unlikely that we will hear anything publicaly 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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/17/2009 07:44 pm
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?


FOR THE RECORD:

The DIRECT team has every confidence in both the ethical conduct and technical competence of the leadership and analysts at Aerospace Corp and the members of the Augustine Commission. We fully expect a totally impartial assessment of the various launch options to be provided to the Augustine Commission by the Aerospace Corp. The Augustine Commission will, per their charter, compile the data into a report that clearly details the options, and will provide that to the Obama administration, who will then, in consultation with the members of Congress and the new leadership at NASA, decide the future direction of HSF for this nation. We are confident that because of the work being done by the Commission and by Aerospace Corp, that the options provided will be presented clearly and fairly.

For three and a half years we asked for and worked to get an honest assessment of all the options, on a level playing field, and we believe that is exactly what we got. We have no reason to believe that there is any reason what-so-ever to believe otherwise.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2009 07:52 pm
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?

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.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jarmumd on 07/17/2009 07:56 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2009 08:05 pm
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?

That's what I was told came out of a Monte Carlo run performed by MSFC about 3-4 months ago.   I haven't seen them myself though, just repeating what I've been told.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/17/2009 08:05 pm
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.

sorry to take so long, but technical difficulties due to Seniors Moment ;) but here are two uploads
the bigger one is the full program... the small 10 minute segment is from the introduction to Werner Von Braun's interview from 1959, and to the end of the program... which includes Ross's part... I won't comment on the responses, but will say, Ross, YOU DID A DAMN FINE JOB!! great going...
  Dave

ok, seems the larger file is too large to upload, at 49mb, have some shrinking to do... brb ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2009 08:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/17/2009 08:14 pm
... 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/17/2009 08:19 pm
... 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.


The facts will be apparant when the report is presented to the administration.
For facts in hand you are just going to have to wait until then.
If it'll help you wait, I'll ship you a box of catnip by fedex :D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/17/2009 08:24 pm
Did anybody record this? I just caught the end of it.
Unless someone else made a copy?
Ross, YOU DID A DAMN FINE JOB!! great going...

Thanks CMG!  Much obliged...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/17/2009 08:28 pm
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.

Okay, that's much more clear :)

Lot's of interesting details to wonk later, but one question for now: Will you be in a position to detect any egregious errors, should such occur, in Aerospace's workup of your data before it's "too late"?

I know that their numbers will not exactly match your numbers in lots of things... and may be substantially different in some things... but I'm talking about things like accidentally substituting RL-10 numbers for SSME numbers etc etc. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2009 08:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ndb81 on 07/17/2009 08:31 pm
The time and dollars are real right now. Proposals always have to be adapted to availability of funds. Direct is not just about LEO, the Moon or even Mars. No intentional disrespect to the original Apollo team, but now is the time to embrace reuse, save cost and maintain safety for our current corps.

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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/17/2009 08:36 pm
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!! 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 07/17/2009 08:41 pm
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 also thought Ira Plato did an excellent job as host.  He was quite balanced and gave everyone time to resond and present their views.  I just wish he could do a full hour show on future manned space exploration options.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2009 08:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 07/17/2009 08:47 pm
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!! 

I second the motion.

Stan
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/17/2009 09:05 pm
Any word on where the Augustine Commission is holding the public hearing in Cocoa Beach on 7/30?  The NASA web site still says TBD.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2009 09:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/17/2009 09:16 pm
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.

You went to the wall and did more than survive, you made your point in a somewhat adverse environment... I don't think J.L. took kindly to your idea that Direct could do better than NASA... almost sensed a religious belief in the agency from him...
   anyway, try number 2 with the first 33 minutes of the program... cut out last 10 minutes which I already uploaded... and the station breaks and acreditations of the Public Broadcast supports... it is on the cusp of being too big, at 20.3mb, so this is a test ;) at 96kps... may have to reduce the kps some more if this does not work... ok, came back, cut to 80kps... 16mb... you got some strong protection there Chris ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/17/2009 09:18 pm
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.

Oceanfront???  I'll bring my suit and flip-flops! :-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 07/17/2009 10:08 pm
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.

Ross, according to the HSF Review (http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/meetings/index.html) website:

Public Meeting - Washington, D.C.
August 5th, 2009 - TBD
Washington, D.C.
No Pre-Registration Required

I read "No Pre-Registration" to mean that if we are there early enough, we can get in.  True?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Andrewwski on 07/17/2009 10:19 pm
http://www.filefront.com/14064565/Science_Friday_July-17-2009.mp3

Entire program from today, both first and second hours.  The first hour is the one on Apollo/NASA.  Ross is on at about 35 minutes in.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/17/2009 10:23 pm
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."

Listening to Ross succinctly describe the breakdown of the $30 billion Ares I/V costs versus the savings generated by building a single vehicle and reusing as much as possible was wonderful.

It was a serious response and was the perfect antidote to the when Harrison Schmitt interrupted him after Ross gave the $12 billion cost estimate for DIRECT.

"You know as well as I do that those kind of numbers are fict... are just kind of something that will change with time as other people realize that you have to reduce risk."

I've never understood why NASA would be so hostile to a good idea, before this.

Anyways, Ross did an excellent job in being professional and trying to bring the NASA people on board. He truly tried to avoid confrontation- I can see why you're the spokesman. :)


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/17/2009 10:35 pm
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."

 

With apologies to Al Bean, I am sure there we a lot of people who disagreed with that statement right after January 27, 1967.  Even back in the glory days there were failures of oversight and too much overconfidence in their designs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/17/2009 10:43 pm
I'm so jealous.  I'd love to meet any of the Apollo astronauts.  But Harrison Schmidt is one of my personal favorites.

Tell him "hi" from us Ross!
:)



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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: randomly on 07/17/2009 10:48 pm
Here's a link to the archived audio of the Science Friday show on the NPR site for those that missed it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106733865

I also want to express my appreciation to the Direct team for developing and pushing the Jupiter concept to national attention. It may be the only concept that preserves a useful HSF and HLV program in the face of the future budget pressures. Special thanks to Ross for his tactful, diplomatic, and marvelously effective advocacy of the Jupiter system. I doubt that DIRECT would have got anywhere near the traction or exposure it has without his seemingly endless energy to champion the concept with such tactful and rational arguments.

If it does come about that a Jupiter like SDLV 2 launch architecture becomes the new NASA baseline I'm sure egos will push it to being relabeled and respun as NASA derived. That would be unfortunate, for the very idea that a handful of 'renegade' engineers could buck the bureaucracy and push a launcher concept that becomes the future of NASA spaceflight is the quintessentially American triumph of the underdog story. It's actually a great message to send in these hard times.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 07/17/2009 10:58 pm
While searching through the HSF Committee web site, I ran across their request to review a series of documents for the second sub-group (Exploration Beyond LEO).  Right on the main page they say:
The Committee wants your comments on #3

The link takes you to:

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.

From their “Process and Progress” document

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?

Also:

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.


Are rhese a series of softball questions aimed at the strength of Direct?

Certainly Question 5 opens up the discussion of Propellant Depots, which have been discussed at length here.

And The Flexible Path scenario is my favorite:  don’t get bogged down in gravity wells until you know you really need to go there.  Let the robots do the work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/17/2009 11:02 pm
Just curious Ross, how did you get a invitation for that show?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: luke strawwalker on 07/17/2009 11:28 pm
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 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cgrunska on 07/17/2009 11:37 pm
i like that flexible path idea..
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rocketguy101 on 07/18/2009 12:13 am

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)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 07/18/2009 01:12 am
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.

So, is this invitation from the 475 nm Commission an invitation for someone not associated with Direct to give a three minute brief on how Direct answers key sub-group questions and the Flexible Path option?

Can we steal from the 3 minute presentation thread?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 07/18/2009 01:39 am
This is the Progress Report for the subgroup "Exploration Beyond LEO":

Quote
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.

Does any body have information on "the joint ESA/NASA study completed last year" or the "blue sky exercise of Dr. Kenneth Ford"?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/18/2009 01:41 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/18/2009 01:57 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/18/2009 02:17 am
I read "No Pre-Registration" to mean that if we are there early enough, we can get in.  True?

I guess.   Though your guess is going to be just as good as mine on this one!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/18/2009 02:32 am
Just curious Ross, how did you get a invitation for that show?

The show's producer came to us.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/18/2009 02:40 am
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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/18/2009 02:42 am
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...

Meet the Press would certainly be impressive.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 07/18/2009 02:50 am
"If you believe that I have a bridge I want to sell you,"?!

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 do this sort of myopian, tired brained thing all the time myself ;D But I expect more of the people NASA has sent into space).  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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 07/18/2009 02:52 am
Whats this about Meet the Press?  I haven't had a chance to catch up with the thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/18/2009 02:56 am
Whats this about Meet the Press?  I haven't had a chance to catch up with the thread.

I offered it up as a possible candidate for which show to "Directify" next.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 07/18/2009 03:06 am
Woe that would be nice, I used to watch MTP every week during the political season. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/18/2009 03:08 am
"If you believe that I have a bridge I want to sell you,"?!

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.


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.

You have to remember, for every decision NASA's made there's a 100 "napkin engineers" who have an idea they say would do it better and cheaper.  Most of the time it's BS.  So I'm not surprised by their somewhat dismissive views.  They've heard a ton of ideas over the years that weren't viable.
They are -real- American Heroes and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt any day of the week.
Buzz Aldren has done some research on Direct and has mentioned it as a viable alternative.  So opinion and familiarity varies among Apollo Astronauts.

I thought Ross did a good job of respectfully disagreeing with them.  To space nuts these guys are almost like living dieties.
Plus, NASA was a different place when they were there.  And people understood the risks of space travel better, and understood that it can never be a zero risk occupation.  I think it was Jim Lovell who said something to the effect of, "What we did back then was very bold.  But that was a time when people did bold things".

Funding is part of the reason we've been mired in LEO for so long, but lack of desire to take some risks is another (more due to politicians and the media not putting into context to the American people the inherent risks of space exploration.  And how astronauts gladly except those risks) reason.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/18/2009 03:42 am
Woe that would be nice, I used to watch MTP every week during the political season. 

Again, I was just offering it up as a suggestion...who knows if that would ever happen.

But since the next front after the Augustine Commission is congress, it may be a good place to start.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/18/2009 03:51 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: luke strawwalker on 07/18/2009 03:55 am
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://forums.rocketshoppe.com/index.php?
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 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/18/2009 04:14 am
Direct is mentioned here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032118/ns/technology_and_science

Not a bad article....but could be better.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ndb81 on 07/18/2009 05:08 am
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.

Specifically a call-in, email snail mail campaign to the WH and our senators, In my case Bill Nelson, and believe it or not even ol Mel Martinez may be a supporter. Let them know you're an engineer and what your concerns are, encourage them to ask the questions.

If we cant get buy-in on a more economical alt than Ares, the program could wither. The safety compromises are a critical risk.

Do the right thing, even if it risks offending the management chain.
I've survived it plenty of times.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ndb81 on 07/18/2009 05:09 am
BTW I watched the presentation, read through the PPTs -- outstanding job team. There's plenty of great detail there.

Bravo Zulu
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JAFO on 07/18/2009 08:33 am
Nice job Ross.

What really impressed me was that you had numbers ready off the top of your head about Jupiter launch mass vs cost vs Ares. There's a fine line between drowning in numbers to make your point vs using numbers to make it, and I feel you were able to do it very well.

I have a great deal of respect for Senator Schmitt, but you left him looking like a grumpy old man when he complained about how the numbers were going to change. Bravo Zulu!!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 07/18/2009 08:39 am
Direct is mentioned here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032118/ns/technology_and_science

Not a bad article....but could be better.
"Maverick engineers" indeed. Great way to look real ignorant.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/18/2009 10:57 am
Ross,

great job on the NPR show - got the points across really well.

As a specific rebuttal to "NASA always knows best", could have mentioned that Ares I turned out much harder than they thought, so those decision processes don't always work as well as he thinks. But that would have taken time, and probably diverted the whole conversation in the wrong direction. It was critical to get across the specific advantages of Jupiter, and that came across very slick & persuasive.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/18/2009 11:01 am
Direct is mentioned here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032118/ns/technology_and_science

Not a bad article....but could be better.
"Maverick engineers" indeed. Great way to look real ignorant.


From wiktionary:-

Quote
Showing independence in thoughts or actions.

Sounds OK to me, although I agree there are overtones to "maverick" that that definition doesn't capture well.

cheers , Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Crispy on 07/18/2009 01:50 pm
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 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/18/2009 06:01 pm
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?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/18/2009 07:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/18/2009 08:13 pm
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.

The problem is simpler than that: as the Ares I approaches Max-Q the dynamic pressure becomes so high that should the LAS need to be activated...


... FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER....

(sorry 'bout the caps, but a lot of people seem to be missing that point)

... then the the SRB's must be terminated to stop their thrust...

... and the LAS, hobbled by Ares I extreme Max-Q, can't outrun the resultant propellant debris field.

The capsule stays within the debris field all the way down.

Quote from: MP99
Is there any chance that a structure could slow down the ejecta and reduce the spread of debris?

As Jorge said, no. Should the remaining debris field prove to still be a problem for the alternative vehicles, which it probably won't,  then the solution would be a more robust LAS.

A more robust LAS that, unlike Ares I, they have the margins to handle.

The power of the current LAS is constricted by the need to fit it on Ares I. When that limitation is removed and the LAS beefed up then any remaining debris problem can be left behind... literally :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/18/2009 08:29 pm
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.

I recall a really stupid mistake I made on one of my first trips here. I spent the whole day at Palm Beach, from Sun-up to Sun-down.   I put Factor 30 on in the morning and didn't bother putting anything else on.

I went to the emergency room that night with 1st degree burns all over.

It wasn't fun.   I really don't recommend the experience to anyone.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/18/2009 08:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/18/2009 08:51 pm
Would it be worthwhile to consider the 6x SSME + ET SSTO concept (from Gary Hudson, I think) as a possible downstream Jupiter applications program? If the base Jupiter core is 4x SSME + ET (add RSRMs, subtract 1x SSME to get 130, add upper stage to get 246 or 241), then providing some way for the Jupiter core to stand on its own (without hanging off the RSRMs) and adding 2x SSMEs on the axis of the removed RSRMs gives you that SSTO. (Jupiter 060, maybe?)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MATTBLAK on 07/18/2009 09:08 pm
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.

One of my JSC friends told me a couple years back he believed the LAS wouldn't be able to take the crew to safety unless it was designed to inflict an 18-to-20-G load on the crew. When I relayed that opinion, from a Phd Engineer, to Dr Doug Stanley on an earlier Forum here (not sure where, here) -- Dr Stanley scoffed at this and implied I was playing the "I know a guy at NASA who says..." card.

Well, my friend was right. Just as he was about Thrust Oscillation. More than two years ago.

Go figure... :(
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/18/2009 10:09 pm
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.

I'm not trying to labour a point, but what sort of unreasonable mass budget would be required?

50mT per SRB, a lot more?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/18/2009 11:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/19/2009 12:12 am
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/19/2009 12:18 am
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.

Keep in mind the SRB can rotate 90 before it is destroyed. 

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 07/19/2009 12:24 am
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.

The report is a bit vague, but it looks to me as if the "unconservative" assumptions made on page 5 include assuming the imparted velocity is purely radial. The debris also has forward velocity of course ("mothership velocity"), which is assumed to be unaffected. In other words, the debris is already moving forward and is then blown sideways. The report analyses the trajectories of the debris particles under the influence of gravity and aerodynamic forces.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/19/2009 01:44 am
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 in the direction it was pointing when the switch was thrown?

Modify: verb tense; typo
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/19/2009 02:02 am
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?

The LAS mini-stack has an attitude control system, a solid motor with 8 valved ports around its circumference, that's controlled by the LAS systems.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/19/2009 02:28 am
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....
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/19/2009 03:16 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/19/2009 03:29 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/19/2009 04:48 am
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.
Has John Shannon accepted?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: luke strawwalker on 07/19/2009 05:21 am
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!

Oh, ok...  now I know more of where you're at...

The Electronics are sold for mostly high-power rockets using ammonium perchlorate composite propellants.  There are lots of suppliers for electronics-- most are rather simple accelerometer-based or pressure-transducer based (some a combination thereof) altimeters that sense when the rocket has reached apogee and ignite a black powder charge to eject the drogue, and then continue sensing the descent altitude and eject the main chute with another BP charge at a pre-programmed altitude, say 800 feet.  Some of the more advanced electronics systems can also perform other flight 'events' like airstart motors and such.  A lot of staging is performed with simple electronic timers programmed to ignite the upperstage motor after a given pre-programmed time after liftoff is detected (usually by an accelerometer). 

Starting out you want a simple rocket and can go from there... the Dr. Zooch Space Shuttle is fairly simple and like Direct itself can easily be tranformed into a Jupiter.  As I said, Dr. Zooch (zerm) is supposed to be coming out with a Direct Jupiter soon, or so he's said on the rocket boards in the recent past.  They aren't THAT difficult to build and are a blast to fly!  I have a build thread on the shuttle on the rocketry forum, crossposted to ye old rocketry forum and rocketry planet as well, including an 'upgraded' shuttle orbiter made to look like "Moonraker 5" from the Bond film of the same name. 

Good luck and don't be intimidated... they're really cool and no more difficult to build than any other model kit... :)  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/19/2009 09:28 am
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

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/19/2009 10:29 am
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.

What's needed now is data on the radiated heat  outside the debris field as a function of the field dispersion over time and what effects the thermal updraft might have  (if any effect at all)

So how long would it take to set up an SRB to fly solo with just enough ballast to keep TO within the tolerance range of instruments?

One that's instrumented to unzip itself as it passes through the range of Ares I's max-Q...

... and if Ares I has been sensibly shelved before that can be done then have it unzip at the max q of the next highest q'd contender...


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 07/19/2009 10:38 am
You have finally found a real use for Ares I-X, LAS design validation for Jupiter/Ares V ;).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/19/2009 11:07 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/19/2009 11:22 am
That's the height the capsule sits at on the rocket- he's assuming the SRB blows with no warning here.

Is it really a good idea to do lots of steering at Max Q?


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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/19/2009 11:37 am
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.


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?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 07/19/2009 01:42 pm
Hey guys. I was looking at the DIRECT article on wikipedia and read this section:

Quote
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].

Which prompted me to add this:

Quote
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.

Any help with citations please?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: anonymous1138 on 07/19/2009 03:07 pm
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



There are qbar*alpha limits to what the LAV assembly can withstand. Which leads me to thinking about MLAS ... I don't think MLAS would have the same problem. A thought experiment I've been considering (and I haven't thought this through entirely) is that with MLAS you might be able to get off the booster, gain some lateral separation, and then turn completely around ... putting on the brakes, so to speak. I would think that you might prefer to be behind the booster when it is destructed. The problem would be that you may not be able to gain enough lateral separation to avoid the SRB plumes. You'd maybe need a bigger MLAS to do this. That's where DIRECT comes in. :-)

Ascent abort in some regions is a very complicated effort. But, even with the well developed aircraft ejection seat technology being what it is, sometimes it still doesn't work. There isn't any 100% safe ascent abort system that will work for all cases. The idea is to spend the effort on prevention of the need for aborts in the first place, and give the crew at least a fighting chance for safely aborting throughout the entire ascent.

FYI, awareness of the problem of max q aborts and separation distance has been known at JSC for a long time, and it's been getting attention.

Edit: Spelling correction.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: NUAETIUS on 07/19/2009 04:03 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/19/2009 04:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/19/2009 04:14 pm
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.

The problem in hand is that the Orion LAS is unable to get the Orion far enough away from the Ares-I core to avoid the parachutes being destroyed by falling hot debris from the self-destruct of the core.  The implications for SDLV, both Side-mount and In-line, are being analysed at the moment.  The possibility exists that, as the aerodynamic forces acting on Orion on Ares-V, DIRECT and NSC are lower (by about 33%) than they are on Ares-I, the LAS might get the Orion clear of the pyrotechnic debris cloud.  A lot depends on the exact figures of the minimum safe distance, both for the debris cloud and the detonation shockwave from the range safety destruction of the liquid-fuelled component of the launch vehicle.

Worst comes to worst, NASA defaults to Atlas-V Phase 2 and 3 with Delta-IVH+ as the interim launcher until the two big Atlases are ready.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/19/2009 04:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/19/2009 04:23 pm
I have read that part of the Direct plan is to allow ATK to continue to develop the 5 segment SRB.

Not really.   We would prefer to save the money and just keep using the current Shuttle-spec 4-segs instead.

Having said that though, we do acknowledge that there is a purely political pork element which might mean we can't avoid the 5-seg boosters.


Quote
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.

That's correct.   The top of the 'active' part of the SRB would be located about 8 meters closer than at present.   And yes, the larger the booster, the more propellant and structure would be involved in such an explosion -- which does increase the potential danger somewhat.


Quote
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?

I think its a showstopper for Ares-I, but not for Ares-V or Jupiter.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/19/2009 04:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/19/2009 05:20 pm
Ross, What would happen to the SDHLV(NSC) launched Orion if there is a solid rocket booster failure? Is the USAF solid rocket booster failure study also a showstopper for the SDHLV(NSC)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/19/2009 05:27 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/19/2009 05:59 pm
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.

There are a few other models, combinations of the two you have shown, which would occur more prevelantly. For one case, move the centered explosion model to just below the nose cap, so it occurs further up. This is closer to a worst case (though not actually).

For this assumption, the ET attachement point is stronger, so the likelyhood of a rupture there is more remote than 180 degrees away, and slightly above or below the joints/rings.

Once the case ruptures, say opposite the upper SRB-ET attachment point, the 'explosion' expands the case outwards, relieving the internal pressures to the atmosphere. This adjusts the trajectory of the rocket to the left (port). If the TVC system cannot compensate, or the SSME gimbaling system, the differential forces could cause vehicle breakup. Now it 'hinges' on the strength of the ET-SRB attachment point. If this gives way, the SRB would fall away from the ET as the TVC is pointing the opposite way to compensate for the blowout forces at the top.

If at this point there is still sufficient pressure to propogate the 'explosion', the weakest point would likely be at the blowout point (though structural fatigue could cause a break at the mid-point). So now the SRB is ripping apart at the top, possibly blowing the nose cap towards the Orion, along with the hot gases.

How much of the resulting fireball & AP chunks reaches the capsule I cannot speculate, but the failure modes of the SRB are many and varied, and each presents unique issues (like ET impingement also causing an LH2/LOX fireball).

An approach to reduce SRB forward momentum during an abort would be to drop the throat/skirt as a module. Now you no longer can generate as much thrust, helping the cause.

Of course this all should be discussed in a new Direct abort thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/19/2009 06:02 pm

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.

Are you sure??? We DO want to find this capsule...  ;)

Perhaps a thin reflective mylar nano-coating would be better.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/19/2009 06:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/19/2009 06:25 pm
Out of curiousity, could  it be possible to just drop Ares I and go straight to EELV? I mean lets say dragon is ready to liftoff in 2012, even though it can't lift orion, can it be modified to still be useful for moon missions?

I don't think it's the best way, but it would be interesting, this is highly reliant on spacex, if they have a problem expect massive delays in everything...

Edit: Big error, said F9 instead of Ares I
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/19/2009 06:32 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/19/2009 06:34 pm



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.

Aaahhh....that's right, it was NSC.

I guess Ares I is OK with the exception of the "minor issues" you cited!  (LOL)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 07/19/2009 06:36 pm
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?

Whether the heat shield can take an Earth re-entry from a Lunar Orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/19/2009 06:43 pm
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?

There are a number of differences between LEO-only and lunar-capable spacecraft;

1. Life support & consumables - The free-flying mission length jumps from three or four days (ISS crew rotation) to 7-14+ days (lunar free-return or seven-day+ expedition);

2. Shielding - Outside of Earth's magnetosphere, the spacecraft will need better radiation shielding as nothing will be there to protect it from the Solar Wind and cosmic rays.  Additionally, it will need better thermal protection as there will be continual exposure to sunlight rather than a 45 minute day followed by a 45 minute night;

3. Propulsion - Some provision must be made for high-energy manoeuvres in deep space such as orbital insertion burns, plane change burns and other mid-course corrections; Either a powerful MPS on the spacecraft (like the hypergolic Apollo SPS engine) or a long-lifespan propulsion module (like the LH2/LOX Centaur);

4. Room to manoevure - Any flight over 7 days will seriously need to give the crew room to exercise and get out of each other's hair.  When the Apollo missions were in the early stages of being planned, the crew were going to stay in the CM for the entire flight to the Moon, only opening up the LEM for initial checks and then leaving it closed until after LOI; in practice, the LEM was used as an extended living area.  In mission durations >30 days, there would also need to be exercise equipment to ensure that the crew do not suffer serious muscle and bone degradation;

5. Heat shield - Re-entry from Return Orbit from the Moon is a lot more energetic than re-entry from LEO.  The heat sheild would either need to be thicker or be made of a tougher material.  Additionally, a space plane-style vehicle (such as the Dream Chaser) might even be unsuitable because the large re-entry heatshield would be vulnerable to interplanetary MMOD impacts.

Ironically, Orion has already lost several of the above features to fit onto Ares-I.  Putting them back in is one of the attractions of a heavier launch vehicle like the Jupiter family and the SDHLV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Tez on 07/19/2009 06:48 pm
Quote
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

I think it's probably because the "10%" is delivered by another vehicle whereas the "2.9%" is a load on the Jupiter first stage.

Then again my rocket science is based on bottles. ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 07/19/2009 07:20 pm
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/19/2009 07:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/19/2009 07:47 pm
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 will be a substantial amount of propellant in any case. You need to carry with you not just the prop needed to brake back into LEO, you also need the prop to accelerate *that* prop back toward Earth from lunar orbit, then the prop needed to decelerate *that* prop into lunar orbit...

It's an exponential problem, and I guarantee the prop mass would end up far, far higher than the mass of the heat shield.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/19/2009 07:53 pm
It's an exponential problem, and I guarantee the prop mass would end up far, far higher than the mass of the heat shield.

That's probably why spaceflight theorists like aerobraking so much.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/19/2009 08:19 pm
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.

I believe the probable Mike Griffin response to the above list would be "So what?"  ::)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/19/2009 08:39 pm
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.

With propellant depots in LEO and (say) L1/2, so long as you didn't mind the cost of lugging all the fuel and oxydizer from wherever you got it (Earth/Moon/NEOs, whatever), it seems possible (if costly) to visualize an Apollo-sized reusable lunar architecture. So long as you could refuel the SIVB at L1/2, you could just lug everything back and forth until it wore out. I think it would be an STS-class "academic exercise," but how much more expensive would it really be than expending the hardware every time? What we really learned with STS is, the cost break-point for RLV is right around what STS was originally supposed to have (and never came close).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/19/2009 11:14 pm
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!

I think an argument that is maybe inherent, but often not voiced, is that the NASA trade system that the astronauts alluded to has produced a great vehicle . . . and then they went and attached the Orbiter to it!

I sympathize with an Ares V engineer who wonders if his work will come to fruition, but at the same time I imagine the feelings of a Shuttle core stage designer who gets to see his thirty-year-old creation leap off the pad and out of Earth orbit.

Modify: Oh, and I forgot to wish happy third birthday to the DIRECT idea!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3307.60

It probably looked a bit shinier four years from the end of Shuttle than one year!

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/19/2009 11:42 pm
Money and fuel can be saved if the EML-1 to LEO propellant comes directly from LEO/Earth, without taking any long cuts via the Moon.

An electric propulsion tanker can probably use less fuel cycling between LEO and L1 than a chemical upper stage would use to transport the propellant.

Since about 50 tonnes of chemical propellant are needed to put a capsule at L1 into a LEO orbit manned trips will almost certainly perform a direct re-entry.

The best L1 to Earth re-entry route needs investigating.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/20/2009 01:32 am
Got a question for the direct team.

I've heard a few people here mention a cargo lunar lander.  I know this isn't anything with baseline, but is it something you guys have an idea about sitting on the back burner?

The idea is good, landing extra cargo for support of longer duration missions or multiple missions to a single location.  Just wondering if it's something you've thought about for Jupiter, and if so, would you launch a lighter one on a single J-246 launch, or a very heavy one on a J-130/J-246 type luanch?
What kind of landed masses would be achievable?

Just curious.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: luke strawwalker on 07/20/2009 06:25 am
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.

Sure, but I think we're done... Lancer can PM me if he needs any more info.  Thanks Ross... :) 

PS great job guys... :)  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Xentry on 07/20/2009 02:11 pm
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?

As some of the previous answers have noted, if you want to enter Earth orbit coming from a lunar return you might need to spend a large amount of fuel, which because you need to take to the Moon in the first place, will significantly impact your entire mass budget.
I suspect what you might be looking for is something called aerocapture followed by a later re-entry, that is:

1. you make a short atmospheric pass at a relatively high altitude in order to deplete just the right amount of energy to get into Earth orbit - this will hopefully get you into an elliptical orbit, with a high point at a safe enough altitude to remain outside the Earth's atmosphere, and a low point well within the atmosphere
2. when you reach the highest point in this preliminary orbit, you spend on the order of 100m/s to circularise the orbit at that safe altitude
3. once you've decided when and where to leave Earth orbit, you spend another 100m/s to bring the low point in the new orbit to well within the atmosphere, and
4. you perform the final re-entry and land.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 07/20/2009 03:34 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/20/2009 03:49 pm
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

Ares I can't lift a heavier LAS... no matter how much money you throw at it.

It's at negative performance margins now, with Orion gutted and the Orion SM having to act as a third stage to even finish the ascent to orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 07/20/2009 04:02 pm
Ross,

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.

Cheers,

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/20/2009 04:17 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 07/20/2009 04:25 pm
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

Martin, see <a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17295.msg439977#msg439977>my recent synopsis[/url] of the Augustine Commission sub-group "Exploration Beyond LEO"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 07/20/2009 04:30 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 07/20/2009 04:41 pm
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.

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 07/20/2009 04:45 pm
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.

Right.  But my questions related to Buzz, not the Commission.  Does anyone know how Buzz feels towards DIRECT these days?  His interview statements sounded like they came straight out of the DIRECT 3.0 literature.  I feel certain he's not a full-fledged amazing people, but do we have a reading on his feelings these days?  He's going to chat with the Prez in a couple of hours. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/20/2009 05:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/20/2009 05:31 pm
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.

1) The Fratricide Zone is a Blackzone.

2) The problem may well affect Jupiter somewhat, although Jupiter does not have Ares I's %100 kill zone.

3) I thought they were going to ditch those stickers before the Augustine presentation?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kch on 07/20/2009 05:46 pm
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!  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/20/2009 08:12 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/20/2009 08:23 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/20/2009 08:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/20/2009 08:30 pm
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

I agree. For example, there were rumors about Ares I-X delays for awhile. Then NASA announces Oct 31st as the new date. Still, if you go on the KSC Hot Pics site to look at images of the Ares I-X, Aug 30th is still the official date.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/20/2009 08:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/20/2009 08:40 pm
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.

And maybe they already anticipate that, and this is the best route to save face?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/20/2009 09:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/20/2009 09:02 pm
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.

How I see it, the Titanic is sinking and the last lifeboat is being lowered.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/20/2009 09:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/20/2009 09:08 pm
I've noticed that NASA's SDLV-Side-mount is usually given the shorthand designation 'Not Shuttle-C' or 'NSC' to differentiate from the specifically-named Shuttle-C proposals.  What is the bet that SDLV-In-line becomes known as 'ABD' for 'Anything But DIRECT'?

;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/20/2009 09:10 pm
That's okay by me...

My only concern is that they do need a name which conjures 'imagery' in the minds eye of members of the public.

But ABD is no worse than STS :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/20/2009 09:15 pm
Hey Ross, Steve or other Direct leaders, do you know how Bolden feels about Direct... he seems to be playing it pretty quiet. He hasn't really made large speeches of a new direction or whatnot. Will he probably just go along with what ever the Augustine Commission recommends?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/20/2009 09:19 pm
We have not yet had a chance to speak to Administrator Bolden about DIRECT and do not know his position on the subject yet.

As for how he will react to the Augustine Committee -- I'm not sure its going to be his call.   I believe that the Blue Ribbon group reports back primarily to the OSTP and the President's Science Adviser.

I'm sure there will be plenty of closed-door consultations, but I don't know what the relationship will be between the White House and E Street.   I hope its a good one.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/20/2009 09:32 pm
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 =/
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/20/2009 09:45 pm
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 =/

NASA is an Executive Agency. The President sets policy. The Administrator is there to execute the President's policy. The Administrator has as much latitude as the President wishes to give him wrt how he executes the policy, but ultimately it is the President’s who is responsible for the big decisions. The degree of latitude the President provides the Administrator ultimately depends on how much he trusts the Administrator to execute his policy. Unless you have a situation like the previous POTUS/Administrator where one didn't care and the other ran amok. But I don’t think you’ll see that with this POTUS/Administrator.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/20/2009 10:49 pm
I tend to agree, Chuck.  Personally, I think they will be a good team.  Also with Lori Garver in there, I hope the Administrator will get the President's ear now and then.  We'll see.

Whatever anyone's politics, the President seems inclined to act sooner rather than later on a number of issues.  Hopefully Space will get some priority, too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cgrunska on 07/20/2009 11:09 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/20/2009 11:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cgrunska on 07/20/2009 11:25 pm
Oh i know that! Not only that, but as a R&D field, NASA is (was) great! Maybe putting a few more billion back to allow for proper R&D and science spending would help that out...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/21/2009 12:32 am
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.

Oh absolutely. I've said this before too wrt paying for Soyuz launches during the gap.

The worst is the flip side when you pull funding. Whole towns disappear, and eventually, a way of life & a future for children.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/21/2009 12:36 am
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.

Well, a while back I had said that there WAS a way out of this mess. The path they 'apparently' are on now is NOT the right door. I give them to the end of the Augustine review. If they haven't come to their senses by then, heaven help them.

Surely Bolden knows about this through channels??? He could put a stop to it right away, couldn't he?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/21/2009 12:38 am
Robert,
The current plans also set a really bad precedent for those children:

If you grow up, go to university, learn valuable engineering and science skills, and put your hearts, minds and lives into the government backed space program which benefits the whole nation -- you need to expect the government to just discard you when they don't want you any more.

Its not quite the message I think we should be sending, is it?

One of my colleagues recently said: "When the President talks about American leadership in science and technology *these* are the people he is talking about. Its kinda hard to see how laying off your leaders and those who will train the next generation is acceptable?"

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/21/2009 01:00 am
it's a shame really
The space program is an economic boon to the nation!
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-off may end up commonly used in society with hardly a thought as to its origin.

Modify: grammar
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/21/2009 01:17 am
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!  ;)

I was 21 when Apollo 11 landed on the moon, I sure as shootin' don't want to wait another 40 years... the way things are goin' I'll probably not remember my own name by then ;( Direct is my last best chance at seeing another moon landing, this side of sitting on a cloud cheering them on... GO TEAM DIRECT!! ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/21/2009 01:19 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/21/2009 01:22 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/21/2009 01:23 am
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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/21/2009 01:36 am
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.


 Yes, and SpaceX has improved on that formula... so in my mind, the only space race that matters, is between SpaceX and NASA... RIGHT NOW, with Falcon 1 - launch 5, I'd say that SpaceX has the edge... unless NASA wakes up and smells the rocket fumes from the Pacific...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/21/2009 01:48 am
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

Yeah, well the majority of Americans think that money grows on trees, and think NASA is spending trillions of dollars.

I'd like Mars too, but honestly, lets just get a vehicle that can do SOMETHING before we start having large ambitions.


There was a bit of debate of the SpaceX vs NASA race in the spacex thread. It's honestly all a matter of delays. Will the Falcon 9 be delayed less than Ares I-X? Hmmm... I'm sort of leaning thinking the Falcon 9 will have a better chance of launching before the end of the year before Ares I-X
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: yinzer on 07/21/2009 02:05 am
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!

While true, this is irrelevant.

If we spent a $35 billion on public health care (say), the money also stays right here.  But in addition to all the salaries we pay nurses and doctors and lab techs, people get health care too!  If we spent it on roads or railroads or universities, we'd get the benefits of those instead.

Now I happen to think that space exploration is pretty awesome, and should probably continue to be funded at or a bit above its current levels.

But it's not a stunning endorsement to say that the money isn't rocketed into space, but spent here.  You have to find a pretty bad use of money for that not to be the case.

(note: the current war in Iraq is an example.  we spend a lot of money to on bombs, armored cars, and airplane parts.  not only do they end up destroyed, but they usually destroy something else in the process.  and lord knows how much petroleum we buy from overseas in the process...)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/21/2009 02:09 am
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...

"Some people say changing the cabinet around is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. That's not true; this administration isn't sinking. In fact, this administration is soaring; if anything, it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg. "'

=Stephen Colbert
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/21/2009 02:10 am
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..
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/21/2009 02:29 am
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..

While I admit my Ahab/Harpoon comment was obscure in regard to this thread, my underlying point is that so much can become added value with Direct, as Ross has repeatedly said... wrt the Jupiter planetary strike, coming near the anniversary of the Shoemaker/Levy impacts, and additionally, only becoming known by chance, the question of what the Jupiter LV could be used for becomes answered... a network of astroid/comet detectors out beyond the moon would be a must... without Direct, this is going to be impossible... if we are to survive long enough to become a space faring species, we have to be able to protect the one world we have... therefore, the Nasa Administrator and his Assistant, have as much interest in a capable LV for this and other Nasa endeavours as they have with reaching the Moon or Mars... be it Jupiter 130/246 or the Falcon 1/9... the Ares line is a DEAD-END
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/21/2009 02:47 am
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.
Apparently, I'm an inaccurate.  I thought I had read that they were baking from scratch.  Nope!

Modfiy: idiot id10t
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/21/2009 02:48 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/21/2009 03:07 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 07/21/2009 03:12 am
I do not know if this is a sign but I found the following VERY interesting this evening.

I was watching the "NASA Celebrates the Apollo Program - 40th Anniversary" on NASA TV

During the video montage of "the future" and where we are going - We saw an EDS with Orion and Altair - but guess what we did not see - Ares I and V which normally start the roll were missing.  Maybe I am seeing too much into it - and I had to shut it off and go to dinner, so maybe it popped up later - but that is where it should have been.

Did anyone else watch it this eveing?

Toughts anyone????
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 07/21/2009 03:14 am
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.

We would be probably talking about boat rides on Triton by now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/21/2009 04:24 am
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".

No, its not a perfect situation.   But the total amount of money actually coming into this industry from non-government sources is pretty darn small -- less than 5% of the total.

Its going to take a while for that to change -- and until it does, Congress and the White House are the actual "customer", and just like a guy buying a new car, the "sellers" have to make their solutions appeal to the customer, otherwise the customer simply starts shopping somewhere else.

On DIRECT, we have spend an incredible amount of time working out precisely how to address all of the critical issues in a comprehensive way:   Politics, Budget, Schedule, Workforce, Risk, Safety, Performance, Infrastructure, Mission Objectives and a host of other 'requirements' must all be addressed fully in order to get a truly acceptable solution.

Every other solution we have seen so far is aimed at appealing to only one or two specific companies, or one or two specific states.   They are all very short-sighted solutions.

My colleague Steve Metschan once phrased it thus:   "You shouldn't try to make 20% of the market 100% happy, you need to make 80% of the market 80% happy".

This has been *PROVEN* now -- twice -- in practice.

First, O'Keefe & Steidle proposed an all-EELV solution which promised to satisfy Boeing & Lockheed (~20% of the industry), but which would have resulted in ATK, KSC and MSFC essentially being shut down.   The political interests for those organizations fought back and we ended up getting those plans completely overturned.

The "opposition" didn't take very long to replace that plan with Griffin's plan, which switched it all around.   ATK and MSFC (~20% of the industry) were essentially put in the drivers seat and a few bones were carefully handed out to LM and Boeing to keep them quiet -- although those bones were often threatened any time either company stepped out of line.   Today that plan is also dying and is going to be replaced.


In both situations only a very small part of the market was ever satisfied, leaving the bulk of the market to fight hard behind the scenes to get things changed.   Neither plan lasted because of this.


Well, today we're about to choose a new, third, plan which its is safe to say will satisfy some and annoy others.   If it satisfies only 20% of the marketplace again, you can bet that within 3-4 years it too will be overturned as well -- the market is getting real good at overturning things!

But if we choose a solution which doesn't give total dominance to just one or two entities, but which carefully "spreads the wealth" in a reasonable and acceptable fashion, it can appeal to 80% of the market.   Those entities may not be 100% happy, as if they each got complete dominance, but if they are 80% happy with a good, fair share -- and if this plan includes at least 80% of the players -- then it will be a dominant GROUP, controlling 80% of the interests in this market.


This sort of "Alliance" is how you build a strong political position.

*NOBODY* else, except for DIRECT, has even attempted to suggest such an alliance.

We have excellent profits to be made for (alphabetical) Aerojet, Alliant Techsystems, Boeing, Pratt & Whitney, Rocketdyne, Lockheed Martin, Orbital Sciences, Space Exploration Technologies, United Launch Alliance, United Space Alliance and a host of other sub-contractors too.   And we are offering a solution which benefits MSFC, JSC, KSC, Stennis, Michoud and all the other centers as well.   The political aim is to keep the money which funnels from NASA to the various space states fairly intact and "as is".

Unfortunately, Senator Shelby is a hurdle here.   He has been fighting to get MSFC's budget doubled.   Well, that isn't going to happen and he isn't likely to be very happy about that.   MSFC won't double in size any more, but MSFC's $3bn/year budget also doesn't shrink at all under DIRECT's plans -- so it should still be an acceptable compromise (80% happy).    More than that, KSC, JSC, MAF, SSC, Ames, Glenn, Goddard and all the other centers (80%) don't have to shrink in order to pay for MSFC's expansion either -- and the Senators and House Representatives for all those areas need to push hard for their own states interests.

Its sad, but true, that the politics of the situation are at least as important as any other aspect of the program.   Getting the politics right is half the battle to making a program really work -- and if you fail to get the politics right (as we have twice before) you only guarantee the ultimate doom of the plans.

While it would be nice, you really can't remove the Politics from the equation.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MagDes on 07/21/2009 05:14 am
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. Now I'll bend anyone’s ear off trying to go through the list of NASA spin offs before their eyes glaze over, but the sad reality is that even if you have regular bold new missions people will lose interest until something goes wrong. Where does that leave us?

NASA and its contractors need something like Direct to leverage what they already do extremely well (field heavy launch vehicles), but for much less money. Only a robust, economical launch vehicle program, which can absorb the swells and troughs of the political cycle, has any hope of surviving in the long term. That’s the first thing Apollo was missing. The second thing Apollo was missing was a way for private business to participate and make money, directly off of the space infrastructure. This time, Direct lets us build a large, robust, sustainable, infrastructure in space as well as providing a business model for private industry to latch onto. For some reason, most people will undervalue the Space Program, but we’ve already seen that the space economy is large enough to lobby for itself. I believe they will continue to be successful in ensuring some reasonable level of funding for the Space Program. We just need a Program that won’t break the bank. 

The infrastructure the Direct team proposes seems like it could be sustainable in the long run, and that’s what space development desperately needs to be successful. They have restored the hope I lost 3 years ago when we started to see the cracks in the Ares program. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 07/21/2009 05:17 am
Also with international participants supplying fuel for depots in exchange for seats on space tours will make it that much harder for the government to quit the program, since its no longer solely their call.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/21/2009 11:55 am
Baseball cards:  It appears that the shortest of the J-130s (70.9 m) is listed as having a 10 m x 10 m payload.  I also question if some of the *.jpegs match the *.pdfs.  Perhaps someone with some knowledge could go through the cards and see if there are discrepancies?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/21/2009 12:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 07/21/2009 12:24 pm
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/21/2009 01:49 pm
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).

Wikipedia was where I first learned about DIRECT. I think that keeping it up-to-date is a very important venture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 07/21/2009 02:48 pm
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.

Ross, great explanation on why building a broad political base of support for DIRECT is important.  I've spent most of my career with government agencies, civilian and defense and having a strong political coalition behind you can't be underestimated, in particular when a project runs over budget or behind schedule, there are always competing interests that are ready to pounce once a program runs into trouble if it doesn't have a good political base of support and right now ARES seems to be in that category.

Not to beat a dead horse but one political area that I haven't seen addressed much is the internal NASA politics of manned space flight vs. space science, earth science and aeronautics.  Much of the problem ARES seems to have is that Dr Griffin was paying for a large part of his program by trashing the budget's for science related activities (e.g. non-MSFC programs).  In their confirmation hearings both Bolden and Garver promised to put more emphasis on funding science and aeronautics related activities, since these activities have almost as many supporters in the Senate as manned space flight does, albeit generally in California, Virginia and States other than the Gulf Coast.

Some of the strongest aspects of DIRECT is that 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.  I have often felt that the person who pounds the last nail into ARES coffin will be an earth science geek who just can't stomach what the Griffin I and V will do to her programs.  I hope you have been able to reach out to this crowd as they do seem to have the new administrator's ear and significant representation on the Augustine Commission, to me DIRECT seems like an 80/20 win for more than just the supporters of manned space flight programs.

John
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jeff.findley on 07/21/2009 03:35 pm
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.

Take a look at a graph of NASA's budget and it's clear that "support and the political will" evaporated long before Apollo 12.


http://en.wikivisual.com/images/1/1a/NASA_budget_linegraph_BH.PNG (http://en.wikivisual.com/images/1/1a/NASA_budget_linegraph_BH.PNG)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: iontyre on 07/21/2009 04:31 pm
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.

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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/21/2009 04:48 pm
As linked from the Augustine Commission requests feedback on beyond LEO operations thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17899.0), I've just noticed this document (dated 2nd July) at nasa.gov:-

Download the current Subgroups Progress Report (pdf, 23k) (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/368040main_July2_SubgroupProgressReports-Final.pdf)


Quote
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.


That's a report that will be worth reading.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/21/2009 04:55 pm
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.
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.

v3.0 artwork would be appreciated!  I see that Philip public-domained most of the items the article now has.

Modify: change words
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/21/2009 05:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/21/2009 05:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/21/2009 05:23 pm
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.

What are the dynamics of getting back and forth between Phobos and Deimos? Be nice if you could get two moonlets for the price of one.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/21/2009 05:28 pm
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.
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.

v3.0 artwork would be appreciated!  I see that Philip public-domained most of the items the article now has.

Modify: change words

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.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/21/2009 05:36 pm
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.

Same here.   I think we're going to get this.   And frankly, I'll be glad when the agency grabs the ball, because I'll finally be able to stop running so hard!   I'll be able to take my first vacation in more than two years!   The day we can hand everything over to NASA can't come too soon for me! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/21/2009 05:42 pm

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. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/21/2009 05:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/21/2009 05:57 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 07/21/2009 05:58 pm
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. 

Your first point is valid. Your second point is not. It is the budget again. Have you ever seen a non HSF payload on Saturn V, 1B, 1?

And if it were not for Shuttle only policy in the 1980ies, you would likely have never seen Galileo or Ulysses or Magellan etc. using the Shuttle. Besides, Shuttle is EELV class anyway.

SMD does not have the budget, plain and simple. And we are not talking a few 100 million/years here.

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/21/2009 06:14 pm
Analyst,
   The difference is that none of the payloads being planned at the time of Saturn, were too large for the other expendables.   Even the Voyager probes and Surveyors could fit on Titan at the time and didn't require anything larger.

   But today there is a small -- but growing -- list of missions which either are experiencing difficulties or which simply do not fit on existing ELV assets.

   MSL is currently running into cost overruns due, primarily, to the need to cram it into a smaller launcher than they would like.   JIMO was outright canceled because the cost to get it to fit in even a Delta-IV Heavy's capabilities was deemed ridiculous.   JWST is currently running at a cost overrun of 7 times its launch vehicle's cost, again because they're trying to squeeze spacecraft capabilities into vehicle which couldn't support it without the payload having to include many expensive additional 'self-unwrapping features'.   And MSR is only going to work now as a 2-launch system with the Europeans picking up half the launch costs!

   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.

   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.   While that won't ever compete with the ~$60m costs for a Delta-II or a ~$130m Atlas-401, it offers excellent value for those missions which are already have difficulty fitting on an EELV anyway.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/21/2009 06:20 pm
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
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.
Nope!  The illustrations will do for now.  Figure out the flaming parachute problem and whatever else for the Committee.  The wiki can wait!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/21/2009 06:35 pm
Re: Wiki

I've just updated the Commonality image at the top.   And I've replaced the Jupiter-120 Exploded image with a J-130 image instead.

I haven't got a current "family" image to replace the one there currently, so that'll have to wait a while.

And just taking a brief look through the rest of the article, I've two quick requests:-

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?

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/21/2009 07:00 pm
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

I'm sure there's math that could be done (far above me) that take into account body mass, running speed, jump "thrust", and gravity and figure out what would happen.  But man...I wouldn't want to be the first guy to give it a try even if the math says you won't just fly off into space!
;)

As an interesting aside, I wonder how fast you could run on Phobos?  Astronauts couldn't really "run" on the Moon, they either "skied", or loped, or hopped.  How fast can you stride before you are taking bounding leaps?  Wonder what the velocity you could actually achieve that way?
Might take one pus-off bound, and then jump when you touch again, like off a diving board.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 07/21/2009 07:07 pm
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?

Quote
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.

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).

Quote
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.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/21/2009 07:11 pm
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.

Maybe it could be a "crawler" instead of a roller, for perhaps better obstacle navigation.  It'd be an option since the legs would have to have only minimal strength.
Either way, I think there'd be some very interesting things to learn there.  It'd be a very interesting environment.  Enough gravity that you can -just- stand on it, and walk around, but so little gravity that "landing" and "taking" off would require only minimal propellents.  MAybe the Astronauts could literally push the spacecraft off of it themselves?  ;-)

anyway, Ross,
A Direct Question.  You mentioned it'd be a good mission for a J-130 and a Centaur US.  Off the top of your head, what sort of payload could that aroughly put into Martian-Phobos rendevouz orbit?

I do think such mission would really make the Jupiter's shine.  You can send very significant robotic payloads there for a fraction of what an Ares V launch would cost (With Arex V, your only choices for a robotic scouting mission is an EELV, or the massive Ares V and it's huge individual expense.  You have nothing inbetween)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/21/2009 07:12 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/21/2009 07:29 pm
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?


Done.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/21/2009 07:46 pm
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?

Maybe a muddy sentence...they may mean the number is low, as for example 1:250. 250 is a lower number than 2000, but in this case this is a bad thing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/21/2009 08:11 pm

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


My experience and assessments confirm this.

Even with increased budgets, SMD would be more likely to increase the rate of Discovery-class missions, or simply pay the extra cost of moving to EELVs once Delta II's are gone (unless Taurus II comes through on price/performance).

The idea of "flagship missions for everyone" (ESMD, SMD, DoD, IC) is a fallacy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/21/2009 09:05 pm
Re: Wiki

Just uploaded this file to possibly replace the "Family" image.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DIRECT_Jupiter_Config_Options.jpg

R.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/21/2009 09:09 pm
Re: Wiki

Just uploaded this file to possibly replace the "Family" image.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DIRECT_Jupiter_Config_Options.jpg

R.

Ross
Can you replace that with the one with the continuation arrows?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MagDes on 07/21/2009 09:19 pm
I think this one might be a little clearer :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/21/2009 09:29 pm
That's excellent! There's your 3 minute direct presentation! Very clear about what's being done.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/21/2009 09:29 pm
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&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos-Grunt
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/21/2009 10:10 pm
 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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/21/2009 10:21 pm
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


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.

Quote
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."

This seems rather damning for Ares. Ares will be pretty much coming online in 10 years. Is it worth waiting the 10 years?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: PaulL on 07/21/2009 10:34 pm

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.


May be a Jupiter-130+DIVHUS with its superior payload capacity could support a JIMO mission fitted with very large solar panels.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/21/2009 10:37 pm
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...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/21/2009 10:52 pm
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&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos-Grunt

Very interesting.  Thanks for the links.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/21/2009 11:25 pm
This may be a stupid question, but how are the umbilicals supposed to work on the DIVUS?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mike robel on 07/21/2009 11:35 pm
Voyager was supposed to be two landers lofted by one Saturn V.

Personally I think we should develop some  "simple" probethat we would dump by the dozens if not hundreds globally on mars sending weather and local geologic data in numbers such that we could lose 20 and it would not mattermuch. It would give us a long term global perspective





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?

Quote
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.

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).

Quote
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.

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

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/21/2009 11:49 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/21/2009 11:56 pm

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.


The ones that instantly come to mind are:

A) Congress (political).

B) Congress (financial).

C) Total use of EELV: Workforce

Since the Commission is only presenting options, the easiest one(s) may not be the best one(s).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/22/2009 12:33 am

(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?

From me, sure, but I swiped the original so... :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/22/2009 12:51 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 01:01 am
This may be a stupid question, but how are the umbilicals supposed to work on the DIVUS?

That's an excellent question and one which some of our guys have been studying for a while.

There are a few different options, but the leading one appears to be a "mini umbilical" mounted to the PLF's wall, and which connects to the DHCUS in a fairly regular manner.   It would fall away while still connected to the PLF.

Its not a simple arrangement and the dynamics are a little different compared to a regular T-0 umbilical, but it appears to be a workable option which would not require any re-design of the current DHCUS.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 01:03 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/22/2009 01:19 am
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.

(Something someone with access to 3D models of Direct 3.0 could do, for example ;) )

And yes, that would be a good reason to show a different version of the core. And all the basic questions about the design would have the answers displayed.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/22/2009 01:39 am
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/22/2009 02:06 am
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).

An even simpler idea would be to use the MagDes version that Ross prefers and modify it a bit by moving the arrow with the core label up a little bit and using the space below for two simple perspective views (or line drawings) of the bottom of the core side by side... on labled with smaller text "Core w/ 3 SSME" and the other labled "Same Core w/ 4 SSME"

That'd do the job and leave the primary MagDes image intact.

And yes, that's different from what I said a little bit ago... what about it?  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 02:31 am
Haven't got time to do the drawing myself right now, but how about a image of 3 SSME's under the Core stage at the start, along with another notation showing another 4 SSME's later on.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 07/22/2009 03:24 am
If my opinion counts for anything, I say don't bother showing the 3 SSME vs. 4 SSME difference on the wikipedia image -- use only the side-on view.  The purpose is to illustrate a simple concept clearly and quickly, and the more annotation there is, the less quick and the less clear the communication will be.

After all, there's nothing physically preventing the launch of a J-140, so it's not like the diagram would be inaccurate anyway.  (There may be practical reasons against it, but you could hypothetically do it if you wanted to.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MagDes on 07/22/2009 05:51 am
I've added an engine graphic, but feel free to take it out if you prefer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MagDes on 07/22/2009 05:59 am
Or maybe this:
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/22/2009 06:44 am
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.

That just reinforces that the two cores are different, without reinforcing that this is the only change.

Put text in the green arrows "3 SSMEs on common core", and "4 SSMEs on common core".

I'd also suggest adding a red arrow under the J-1x0 PLF's with text "No upper stage required". This is a critical part of the speed-to-market of Jupiter.

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.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/22/2009 09:50 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 07/22/2009 09:56 am
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.
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/22/2009 10:10 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 07/22/2009 10:16 am
Or maybe this:

I like this but I would add text to the arrows along the engine diagrams such as "3 x SSME" and "4 x SSME".  This keeps the arrows consistent with text and tells you what is going on with the piece at the bottom.  You can also then remove the SSME text from the core line arrow so it doesn't have to say "3-4".

Also, I tend to agree with SoFDMC regarding an empty payload fairing.  If the long fairings were shown in cutaway it would at least be consistent all the way across while showing the various sizes possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 07/22/2009 01:04 pm
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

Thats interesting, I watched a webcast of the event, he mentioned Mars in the context of the debate of how to get there and that its still up in the air. 

The Mars Society is supposed to address the Commission on the 5th I think.

He also said hes a hugger with respect to Lori Garver, but Danny Dot disagrees  ;D lol
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 07/22/2009 01:07 pm
As was stated earlier, be sure to remove the extra apostrophes.  The RL10s don't own anything, so you can't say "RL10's".   
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/22/2009 02:23 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/22/2009 02:32 pm
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?

The great thing about DIRECT is.. with all those Tons of excess margin.. you can always put a big enough LAS on it to clear the SRB explosion. 

No chance you can put a bigger LAS on the STICK.. at least not wtihout leaving EVERYTHING inside Orion in the parking lot.. including the crew.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/22/2009 02:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/22/2009 02:46 pm
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".

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/22/2009 02:47 pm
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?

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 07/22/2009 02:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/22/2009 02:57 pm
Danny, Have the Augustine Committee and/or The Aerospace Corporation been given any of the Direct technical data that verifies that the Direct Launched CEV(CM) can survive a SRB explosion?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/22/2009 02:57 pm

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

Excellent. I posted a reply on the NewScientist that:

1) the Direct program was aware of the issue and looking at it

2) the Direct launcher had a much lower Max Q and might not be affected this

3) and the Direct launcher had large enough margins to deal any necessary modifications, if it came to that.

These would imply that the author's conclusions weren't valid for Direct, his personal knowledge of spacecraft design notwithstanding.

Edited: for grammar
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jeff.findley on 07/22/2009 02:59 pm
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.

Absolutely true.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bad_astra on 07/22/2009 03:02 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/22/2009 03:05 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/22/2009 03:11 pm

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.

From his Wikipedia entry-

"He is a highly regarded space enthusiast and historian, and is a familiar and respected presence on several space forums, including Usenet and the Internet. From 1983 to 2007 Spencer has posted over 34000 message to the sci.space.* newsgroups. His knowledge of space history and technology is such that the "I Corrected Henry Spencer" virtual T-shirt award was created as a reward for anyone who can catch him in an error of fact. Thus far, there are few winners."

Great, this is the guy I try to correct. :)

Well, let's hope that in this case, he just didn't have enough information. Any expert can reach the wrong conclusion if denied enough information.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/22/2009 03:19 pm
Danny, What do the initials IIRC mean?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 07/22/2009 03:19 pm
He's wrong now in blankly stating all SDLVs will terminally suffer from this problem. It's only Ares I with its high max-q and zero effective margins that's been mortally wounded whether MSFC realizes it or not.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: lewis886 on 07/22/2009 03:21 pm
HARRY SPENCER vs. JIM in a steel cage match!!!   

(hehe)


EDIT:  but seriously though... i would be interested in Jim's opinion of this...  does he think this could be a serious enough issue to jettison the entire SRB-shuttle derived idea? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/22/2009 03:22 pm
Danny, What do the initials IIRC mean?

internet slang

If I recall correctly
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 07/22/2009 03:23 pm
HARRY SPENCER vs. JIM in a steel cage match!!!   

(hehe)

No contest, Jim on a TKO. He's a real spacecraft engineer ;).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 07/22/2009 03:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 07/22/2009 03:32 pm
HARRY SPENCER vs. JIM in a steel cage match!!!   

(hehe)

No contest, Jim on a TKO. He's a real spacecraft engineer ;).

Actually, Henry is too these days (or was; he did work on a Canadian satellite program, IIRC). 

In either case, Henry's an incredibly bright guy but isn't infallible.  Remember, this is a pretty specific issues here: the capability of the LAS to pull an Orion away from the stack during and around the period of max-q.  Lower the max-q, beef up the LAS (neither of which is possible for Ares I) and the problem should pretty much go away, especially given the statistical likelihood of the kinds of failure we're talking about here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/22/2009 03:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bad_astra on 07/22/2009 03:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MagDes on 07/22/2009 04:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/22/2009 04:06 pm
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.

Not necessarily. The problem with Ares-I is its high dynamic pressure at max-q. Neither NSC nor DIRECT suffer from that malady. The max dynamic pressure for both designs is much lower. Orion on a Jupiter would survive. We have not run numbers for NSC but it wouldn’t surprise me if its max-q numbers also allowed for spacecraft survival in this scenario. NSC has other issues however.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/22/2009 04:18 pm
Do Jupiter PLFs break into two or four pieces at jettison?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/22/2009 04:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/22/2009 04:21 pm
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

http://www.space.com/news/090721-sn-nasa-chief-bolden.html

Hmmm...not sure about Bolden.  I think the last thing NASA needs is a teary-eyed liberal Administrator greatly concerned about the environment rather than exploration.  And of course everyone is always concerned about safety, but if that is the overall goal, then you'll be too timid to do anything.

He did say it's inherently very risky too...so maybe some of this stuff is just rhetoric and PC stuff.  (And he's a former Marine, so I dunno what all that "crying" talk was about)  I hope so, or any Ares alternative may be DOA too.

Personally, I think they needed to tap a former Apollo astronaut as Director.  Buzz or Jack SChmidt or Cernan or Young.  Armstrong would be awesome, but he's a little too reclusive and likely would turn it down.
But can you imagine the Congressional appropriation committee hearing talking about NASA funding, and Armstrong or Aldren come in and lean in on the table and says something like, "So, tell me again how you are allocating money to study cow farts and the mating habits of field mice, but you can't afford any more money for NASA?  When I -went- to the moon, it's been heralded as the greatest acheivement of mankind.  Not field mice or cow fart studies.  Not bank bailouts or car company bailouts.  Are you guys -afraid- that the US might once again be accused of accomplishing something else that will be the greatest feet of all mankind?  Is that really such a bad thing?"

And watch the cowardly politicans cower in fear of going up against the first man on the moon with the cameras clicking...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/22/2009 04:32 pm
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.

I commented on NewScientist; he'll see it.
But seriously hip, if we contacted every naysayer we wouldn't do anything else. There wouldn't be any time. Remember - we are part timers with day jobs (8-hour days and 10 hours nights). Anyway, my lunch period is over so I have to go back to my assigned tasks of building submarines. Talk to ya'll later.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 07/22/2009 04:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/22/2009 04:43 pm
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 have the red arrow with "Common Upper Stage (6 RL-10s)". Is it possible to put a red-banner caption against the J-130 configs with "No upper stage required", since this is a critical aspect of the J-130 plan - simpler & cheaper. This may need to go above the PLF images, I guess.

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.

Conversely, you're not showing either Orion + Altair or Altair-only, which are the target missions for this vehicle. These would be Altair-only in the right-most inside-view config on J-130, and Altair in the two right-most inside-view configs on J-246.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/22/2009 04:45 pm
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.


I think it's important to keep hammering home that the core is "common" between the two configs, even if it means the diagram contains redundant data.

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.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/22/2009 04:50 pm
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.


Very high speed trip to some rock headed toward earth? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MKampe on 07/22/2009 05:51 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Arthur on 07/22/2009 05:59 pm
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
Yes. They said that 'engine out' requires the assembly to deal with asymetrical loads already, so it is no big deal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/22/2009 05:59 pm
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


Re my previous suggestion:-

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.


MK,

the 3-engine config is just the 4-engine config with one engine removed. This saves a lot of money over making special 3-engine & 4-engine structures.

It would be possible to make a structure with 5 engine mounts, so that the 3-engine vehicle could have it's engine in the middle.

But this reduces performance of both J-130 & J-24x by a couple of mT each.

Also, if one of the centre engines fails on J-24x, the vehicle has to be able to cope anyway, so there's really no reason to waste performance by moving the J-130 engine to the middle of the row.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/22/2009 06:01 pm

Hello-

For the 3-SSME configuration, the Bottom View graphic shows an asymmetric configuration for the SSMEs. Is this intentional?

-mk

Yep. The Common core has mounting points and plumbing for 4 SSME's. As the Jupiter-130 doesn't need the weight/thrust of the 4th engine, it's simply removed and the hole and plumbing connections capped off.

Makes it more common than using a different arrangement for J-130 versus a J-246.

There's a slight loss of efficiency in the asymmetrical thrust, but I believe that it only results in about 250kg less to LEO.

It's actually kind of elegant, in a functional, get the job done, don't waste taxpayer's money sort of way.

I've liked Direct's focus on getting the job done, even with all the other demands on it's design (safety, politics, contractor happiness, etc).

Also, what Martin said. :)

Edited: for spelling
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Idol Revolver on 07/22/2009 06:13 pm

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 don't think this got noticed amidst discussion of Henry Spencer's credentials. Either way, I agree. This seems to be the best approach, with one alteration. The upper stage part should be visible from the diagram so leave that bit out.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/22/2009 06:27 pm
... 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.

Make that "one SSME left off"... accurate and sounds quicker...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bad_astra on 07/22/2009 06:30 pm
I like the assymetrical image. It shows the J-130 as practical and modular, which, of course, it is.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: agman25 on 07/22/2009 06:33 pm
Going from the 3 engined version to the 4 would require new flight control software, right.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 07:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/22/2009 07:01 pm
Going from the 3 engined version to the 4 would require new flight control software, right.

Not if it was written to handle both configurations from the beginning.  Remember, the Jupiter will be getting all new avionics package.

Plus, the software has to handle engine failures anyway, so this functionality is basically "free".

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/22/2009 07:05 pm
Going from the 3 engined version to the 4 would require new flight control software, right.

No, you'd write the software to assume 4 engines, and be able to deal with the 3 engine case. That way you'd handle the default 3 engines at liftoff for a J-130 and a 1 engine out for a J-246.

I'm not saying there isn't a big variation in flight profile for a J-130 and J246, but given the various possible payloads, the flight avionics need to have enough flexibility to deal with something as minor as 1 less main engine.

That does bring up a question though-

If you put the avionics on the core for the J-130, where does it go on the J-246? Can't stay on the core, which you throw away during the staged ascent. I suppose that you could have a second package on the JUS, but then you have to handle coordination between the two packages during separation.

If the avionics do move to the JUS or the interstage for a J-246, that would imply a significant variation on the common core theme. Not unreasonable, just a variation.

Anybody have more info on this?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/22/2009 07:09 pm
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.

Hmmm, interesting.

OK, I admit, it looks less dorky than the current inline. Has almost a "Saturn V" appearance.

Whatever works- on the scale of "it makes a difference", appearance is pretty much at the bottom.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/22/2009 07:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/22/2009 07:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/22/2009 07:39 pm
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 would guess the potential advantage to this setup would be that thrust is only asymetric on one axis in the 3-engine configuration.. Like current shuttle.

Thrust structure and piping likely lighter as well.  Ross.. any numbers on how much mass can be saved going to the "cluster" configuration?



Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 07:41 pm
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?


Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/22/2009 07:41 pm

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.

Something to keep in mind is the plumbing from the ET. Having everything nested keeps it neat and compact, and close to symetrical as possible, whereas long runs of lines adds to differences in pressure drops & line velocities. It may not be much, but it could help in that regard.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 07:43 pm
Do Jupiter PLFs break into two or four pieces at jettison?

Four.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 07:51 pm
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.

Its a technical challenge for sure, but analysis from Ares-V shows that the environment doesn't really change much whether the main engines are right next to the SRB's or 10ft further away.

It isn't actually SRB's directly creating the heating.   It is more of a "secondary effect" which causes it: Specifically the recirculated hot gasses from the exhaust of all the engines which accumulate under the rocket in the low-pressure "hole" which the large diameter stage punches through the air.

So placing the SSME's closer to the SRB nozzles actually makes very little difference as that is not the primary cause of heating here.


The important aspect is going to be ensuring that the nozzles of the existing SSME's are qualified for the exact environment they will be facing. They should be because the environment on Shuttle is remarkably similar, even given the different engine layout.

But we aren't banking on that. As part of our cost/schedule profiles we have still been allocating margins to allow some modifications if required.   We could cover such options as adding 'batting' to the nozzles, or even a more radical bolt-on/bolt-off change to a channel-wall nozzle design if necessary (which would also reduce the production costs too).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 07:59 pm
Thrust structure and piping likely lighter as well.  Ross.. any numbers on how much mass can be saved going to the "cluster" configuration?

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.

The thrust structure in particular is a major improvement compared to the linear arrangement.   The structure for transmitting all the thrust up into the stage was fairly complex on the linear design, whereas this clustered design uses a much more traditional "Conical" structure, which is ideally suited to the task and is more optimal.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MarkM on 07/22/2009 07:59 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/22/2009 08:16 pm
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

First Mark, welcome to the site. I caution you however that this place can be addicting.

1. You probably misinterpreted the video. There is no core stretch. We use the ET core length as is.
2. Yes, there are additional forces that need to be dealt with and that has all been included in the design. This has resulted in a few subassembly parts being redesigned, but most of the ET strengthening comes from the tank walls being made just a little thicker. This is accomplished on the machines that are already in place by instructing them to mill a little less material as it shapes the barrel parts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 08:17 pm
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!


Quote
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?

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.


Quote
Also, 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.


Quote
Sorry, 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: luke strawwalker on 07/22/2009 08:19 pm
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 would seem to put NSC in the same predicament as Direct, only worse... LAS scenarios would be significantly harder off NSC than a Direct stack any day of the week. 

I would think that this isn't specifically a dealbreaker, but it certainly puts things in perspective-- Ares I DOES NOT have the margins to deal with this, so it would just have to 'suck up' the risk of LOC.  Jupiter DOES have more than enough margin to deal with this through a beefed up LAS, as does NSC, but NSC has the additional problems of aborting off a side-mount stack MUCH closer to the SRB's AND in close proximity to an oxygen tank-- a pretty tough place to be! 

Go Direct!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: agman25 on 07/22/2009 08:21 pm
You DIRECT guys are remarkable. The whole HSF thing is under review and you have made your pitch. Everybody will find out in a month or so if all this effort went waste and you guys are still refining your concept and putting more unpaid time into it.
They ought to name a fairly large sized hole on the moon after you guys!
 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MagDes on 07/22/2009 08:22 pm
I think I got all that :)
@ Idol Revolver:
I think I'll have to do another one the way you suggest.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 08:31 pm
The real problem for NSC is that any explosion of the SRB will be in much, much closer proximity to the Orion than either Ares-I or Jupiter.

On Jupiter-130, the Orion spacecraft starts out 3-4 times the distance further away from the SRB's than NSC.

When you have large chunks of exploding SRB steel casing chasing you at 250ft/sec a few tenths of a second really do mean the difference between life and death.

We aren't talking much margin, but our analysis indicates that if the Orion can detect and fire its LAS within just 2 tenths of a second after a catastrophic SRB failure occurs, it should be able to get away ahead of the blast-wave.

And 2 tenths of a second is a surprisingly reasonable amount of time for such a thing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/22/2009 08:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 07/22/2009 08:36 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jarmumd on 07/22/2009 08:37 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 08:39 pm
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.

If we're talking naming stuff, just pick the Jupiter and keep the name :)

Then lets all just get on with going to the Moon, Mars and Beyond as quick as we can!!!

That would be the best reward of all.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 08:42 pm
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.

That's actually been studied already and we are well in the green on that one.   There is plenty of control authority for just 2-engines on a Jupiter-130 to control the entire stack with margin to spare, and similarly a 3-engine Jupiter-24x works as well.

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.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zimdlg on 07/22/2009 08:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 08:48 pm
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?

I better volunteer that this issue is quickly getting out of my own personal depth with some of these questions, but my current understanding is that it's mostly about balancing the lateral thrust levels as much as possible in all "nominal" situations.   So even the default J-130 configuration works very well with the diamond arrangement in this regard.

It doesn't matter so much after SRB sep, but keeping the loads in check while those big powerful and heavy SRB's are attached is, apparently, an important factor.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 08:55 pm
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.

Again, welcome to the site!

You are exactly correct.   When flying with an Orion, the PLF is carried all the way to orbit, but this is also what happened on the Saturn-V as well, if you recall.   The procedure is essentially exactly the same for Jupiter as for Apollo.

The only difference in this regard between Apollo and Jupiter, is that the PLF's will be disposed of in LEO before the TLI, rather than afterward.

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.


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.



As for missions which take the Core Stage to orbit, those will require an Attitude Control System of some sort.   Our current plan is to integrate systems from the EDS element (RCS & avionics) into the Core for such missions.

But we are 'generally' moving towards a recommendation that all payloads (except Lunar of course) are injected into a sub-orbital insertion and then make a circularization burn either using their own propulsion systems, or perhaps using a separate module like the Shuttle's PAM-D or PAM-D2 to perform the circularization burn.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: luke strawwalker on 07/22/2009 09:29 pm
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!


Quote
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?

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.


Quote
Also, 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.


Quote
Sorry, 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.

Quick question, Ross et al...

What are the ramifications of a barrel stretch to the ET on both O2 and H2 tanks to 'optimize' the system for the 5 seg SRB??  What kind of performance gain could be had with this??  I haven't seen any difinitive information about this, as to whether it would be advantageous or not or what kind of performance gains could be had from it. 

Of course that's assuming that the five segment SRB's are even adopted-- The fact that the Not-Shuttle-C proposal made use of the four segment shuttle SRB's as-is was quite telling, IMO, because you would think that if development is far enough along they'd at least have adopted the five segment boosters in place of the four segment, as I'm SURE that NSC could use the performance boost because of the side-mount inefficiency losses, but of course if you're proposing a budget-driven least-cost solution (which NSC appears to be) then spending additional development and integration money on five segment SRB's may be too costly for the program to absorb. 

Just curious performance wise what a five-seg and tank stretch does for Jupiter 130 and Jupiter 246 performance. 

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 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Malderi on 07/22/2009 09:33 pm
Quote
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.

Okay, so they're out of the atmosphere, but do any pieces survive to the ground? Wouldn't want even a small piece to land on someone's house. Any studies on this?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 09:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/22/2009 09:43 pm
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 :)

Actually, adding the fourth engine would increase the fuel consumption rate by 1/3, or 33.333%.  The J-246 core ends up in the middle of the Atlantic ocean (instead of in orbit) due to its faster rate of fuel consumption, it lower speed at burn out, and its lower altitude.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/22/2009 09:45 pm
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.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 09:48 pm
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.

Absolutely.   It's one of the many options which are available if we simply choose to go down this path to start with.

The key is getting that choice made now though...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/22/2009 09:50 pm
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.

Imagine what would have happened if instead of executing witch hunts and trying to discredit DIRECT, all that energy were directed instead into implimenting the VSE. IMHO we might be in orbit with test vehicles already, with Shuttle still flying. Sigh. Here we go again.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/22/2009 09:51 pm
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.

Such an attack, if successfully carried out, would also preclude any NASA-originated two-launch solutions, unless the Gargantua-V Ares-V remains in its current configuration.  Anything smaller would require the Altair be launched with the Orion, just like DIRECT.  Only an Ares-V with a fully loaded EDS and a pre-attached Altair would obviate this "fatal flaw".

If docking two vehicles in space is a "fatal flaw" now, then NASA is in deep doo-doo.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 07/22/2009 10:03 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/22/2009 10:07 pm
... If docking two vehicles in space is a "fatal flaw" now, then NASA is in deep doo-doo.

Negative margins coupled with ever-increasing performance deficits added to 100% fatal "black zones" joined with years of flightless "Gap" all bundled together with still-ballooning budget overruns in the billions... this is not deep doo-doo already?

How low can they go?

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/22/2009 10:10 pm
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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/22/2009 10:10 pm
... 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?!  ???
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 10:17 pm
I really hope somebody has sufficient spine to make a real "example" of these idiots.

Augustine?   Bolden?   Garver?   Obama?   Holdren?   Anyone?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Paul Adams on 07/22/2009 10:23 pm
Ross,

Do you know how they will 'attack' - what media and what means?

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 10:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/22/2009 10:38 pm
Updated source imagery.

How should I portray the Delta Heavy Cryogenic Upper Stage?

On J-24x, would DHCUS be more likely to be used with a cargo, rather than crewed mission?


Quote
Is the single example good enough to give the idea that it could actually be utilized on any/all of the configurations?

Alternatively, show it standalone between the last J-1x0 config & JUS, and also perhaps as the first item to the right of EDS.

Would it be worthwhile to show Altair in the J-246 CLV & CaLV configs, and the J-130 CaLV config?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Paul Adams on 07/22/2009 10:41 pm
If this proves out and you information is correct, those that spend time trying to discredit other proposals should be sought out and made to justify their actions.

They are not paid to spend time and effort compiling any documents, let alone bogus ones, that discredit other proposal unless they are part of an impartial review. And we know that they cannot be impartial.

I hope those involved realize that there should be  - and hopefully will be - consequences for such actions.

This kind of thing really is sad and makes even us space nuts rather jaded.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/22/2009 10:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/22/2009 10:49 pm
I think I got all that :)

1) I think the second red arrow is redundant.
2) I think the text in the green arrows is fine, and references to SSME can be removed from the blue arrow.

I believe 93% of people will get it. and the other 58% won't be able to do the math, anyway.

Oh, and note to MagDes and Ross.  Most of the Pratt and Whitney literature shows RL10B-2 (only one hyphen). 

Good work, MagDes, no matter how many arrows and paragraphs of text this visual aid ends up with!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: WellingtonEast on 07/22/2009 10:49 pm
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.

In my limited knowledge, using the orginal apollo - LEM architecture as a starting point, I have presumed the following on the premise that Jupiter can loft larger masses than Aries 1- ( but less than Saturn V)

Option 1- For a one jupiter launch cargo only trip to the moon,  - the EDS docks to Altair using the same mechanism as Orion and performs the EDS and LOI. Compared to apollo, the weight saving would be no capsule, or earth return capacity hence enabling a larger Altair dedicated to the landing role.

Option Two - Looks exactly like apollo on steroids - The Service Module would be beefed to the max to cater for the larger CM and Altair dedicated to landing role.

Also I was thinking in the above scenario - the altair wouldnt risk beeing top heavy on landing with most of the fuel used up for EDS.


Pardon for being long winded, but if someone could point out the flaw in my logic - understanding, that would be helpful.

cheers
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/22/2009 10:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: adamsmith on 07/22/2009 10:58 pm

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.

Dear Ross,

There is some quality leadership in this country, but it is not in
Washington.  NASA has many good people, but as an organization it died when Challenger blew up and it failed to correct itself.  During Bush I, serious consideration was given to a total rebuild of the organization but since then it has turned into a high tech jobs program.  That is what I like about Direct, it takes a bad situation and turns it around by reusing technically sound components.

To play with your pigs metaphor, pearls from swine.

Stanley
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/22/2009 11:02 pm
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.


You're aware of the history of DIRECT + NASA + PT?

Can I just remind everyone that a DIRECT two-launch with PT from the "fuel launch" into the JUS under CLV / CaLV actually has greater performance than DIRECT's existing baseline? It removes the fundamental performance restriction of DIRECT - that you can't push more payload than a single EDS launch can manage, leaving some inaccessible payload on the CLV / CaLV launch. Now that can be more fuel & cargo (less mass of PT hardware).

If NASA are opening the door to PT, DIRECT just got even more attractive.

Quite frankly, if those details are correct, that's a stupidly inept way to try to kill DIRECT.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dnavas on 07/22/2009 11:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/22/2009 11:09 pm
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.

There's a much more obvious way to achieve that goal, but unfortunately, it needs EDS docking.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/22/2009 11:10 pm
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.


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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/22/2009 11:13 pm
While the inaccuracies of the New Scientist article, as well as the latest FUD anger me. I think it could be taken as a good sign. Cx is getting desperate.

To continue the Titanic analogy, the ship is starting its final plunge, all of the lifeboats have left, and we're down to deck chairs.

So the particular docking mode supposedly doesn't work. How does that kill the entire launch vehicle? The last time I checked, the possibilities are pretty much endless with Jupiter.

Direct has the upper hand right now. If Ares I is indeed dead, they can't attack an inline configuration too bad, as it will also kill Ares V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/22/2009 11:18 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rv_rocket on 07/22/2009 11:36 pm
Ross, Chuck,
The new base arrangement really looks good!

Also big thanks to the guys working on the Wiki, it's really coming along nicely, Great job!

Danny Dot, how about shooting an email to Charlie letting him know about how his Cxp engineering staff are spending their time!?
No wonder the project is so far behind and over budget!

On second thought, if NASA engineers really want to spend some time working on Direct..... move a few key managers out of the way,  and let em go! ;)

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/22/2009 11:40 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/22/2009 11:44 pm
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 ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/22/2009 11:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/22/2009 11:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/22/2009 11:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/23/2009 12:01 am
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.


hmmmm a reasonable person over 30 years of age maybe... but I live with a couple of 20 somethings, that use a joystick like we use a pen... and I don't think they are particularily unusual for their generation... I'm not saying they could do it without some simulator practice, but I am sure that if we allowed them their music banging in the background, they could zip it up after a few practice rounds...

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/23/2009 12:07 am
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.

forgot that the Marine's are a Navy outfit... good point... will be watching...

which reminds me to comment on the 'addictive nature' of this thread ;) come here first thing in the morning, before coffee or e-mails, and when I come in from appointments it is the first thing I check... I DON'T THINK I AM OBSESSED!! ;0
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/23/2009 12:12 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/23/2009 12:13 am
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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

it's work safe  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/23/2009 12:17 am

Looks like the same old, same old bullsh*t all over again.   What ever happened to quality leadership in this country?

Ross.

Afraid that's been gone for at least a couple decades Ross, sadly...
It's all about playing politics, being politically correct, and playing "CYA" now.
What's worse is when someone does come along that doesn't play that game, they are summarily destroyed and dispatched by the ones playing it.

As an old political cartoon goes, Two scientists are exclaiming, "We've just created the perfect politician.  He's smart, honest, and has integrity.   The problem is we can't get him elected!"


Welcome to America 2009.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/23/2009 12:18 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: WellingtonEast on 07/23/2009 12:21 am
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



 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/23/2009 12:22 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/23/2009 12:40 am
... 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?!  ???


Itteh bitteh Direct kitteh committeh... planning rebuttal...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/23/2009 12:45 am
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 Jupiter Core Upper 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/23/2009 12:55 am
Another FUD Attack! Ross, Enough is Enough! Hit back hard & fast.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/23/2009 12:58 am
The EDS uses about half its fuel to reach orbit, leaving the other half available for Trans-Lunar-Injection.

Logistically, I think the EDS is launched first.

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 Jupiter Core Upper 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dnavas on 07/23/2009 01:05 am
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.

I thought there was a visual wave-off procedure for ESA, and haven't the Russians done manual (override) docking in some cases?  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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/23/2009 01:07 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/23/2009 01:07 am
I wouldn't attack the docking so much as go after the steering used to maneuver to the docking.  It seems the pre-TLI stack might become unwieldy without some means to coordinate RCS systems.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/23/2009 01:16 am
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

My appologies, I will go no further in digging myself a deeper hole ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/23/2009 01:18 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/23/2009 01:20 am
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

Unless you plan on launching an Orion for the express purpose of mating the Cargo Altair to its EDS, the the Cargo Altair (at least) will need the ability to autonomously mate with the EDS.  And if you do it for the Cargo Altair, why not the Crew Altair?

The fully fueled and loaded Altair will be a massive amount of hardware to push around in orbit.  If it can be automated, it should be. That's what computers are for right?

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/23/2009 01:20 am
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?

or mistaking your Kiwi boss for an Ozzi ;(
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2009 01:23 am
Right now the baseline DIRECT approach calls for two Jupiter-24x vehicles to perform initial Lunar missions.

The first is optimized to lift the maximum possible amount of TLI propellant inside the EDS, because this is the main limiting factor determining the size of the whole mission.

The second flight lifts the Orion and the Altair to circular orbit.


There is an option which we are studying whereby the second flight might actually be performed by a Jupiter-130 instead, but the margins are pretty tight, so we have decided not to recommend that officially at this time.   But we continue studying it.


For Cargo-only missions where the Orion doesn't need to be lifted, the Jupiter-130 is perfectly suitable for the Altair lifting job.


Even then, this is really only a short-term proposition anyway.   The long-term goal for DIRECT is to replace this architecture arrangement as soon as possible with a 1-launch Jupiter 24x arrangement which refuels in LEO at a commercial Propellant Depot which is kept full by a combination of commercial suppliers and foreign partners.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/23/2009 01:25 am
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?

From what I understand, the J-130 actually could launch both, but not with the margins that DIRECT has committed to. They would have to each do their own circularization burns after the Core is jettisoned, and that is not SOP.

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.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/23/2009 01:28 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2009 01:38 am
Here are the two different mission modes I was talking about above.

The J-24x remains the baseline Crew Launch Vehicle for now though.

And there is a further option whereby the EDS performs the LOI instead of the Altair (allowing its Descent Module to be made a lot smaller), but that's a different discussion.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/23/2009 01:39 am
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

It sure does. (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J130-41.4000.10050_CLV_30x130nmi_29.0deg_090608.jpg)  I think that picture is a little misleading, and they (DIRECT) meant to show the cargo capability of the 10x10m fairing, using the Altair as example cargo.  Not so much the ability to launch the Altair in particular, just any large and heavy cargo.

Here is the recommended Lunar Mission configuration, a little further down the page:
Quote
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

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2009 01:44 am
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

Really?   I'll have to get that fixed with our web guru.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/23/2009 01:51 am
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
Really?   I'll have to get that fixed with our web guru.
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.

Whether by text or another illustration, I'm not sure what to recommend.

I'm not sure if there is an official single-launch specification (or even a single launch vehicle!).  There are a lot of possible orbits and payloads.

Modify: comma; more words

As long as you have your Committee homework done first!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2009 01:52 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Scotty on 07/23/2009 01:54 am
Never assume the side on the attack will win, but also never assume the side on the defense will loose.
Face it, engineering is mostly black or white, with very little gray in between. On the other hand, politics is all about shades of gray, with very little ever being simply black or white.
What is going on right now with the upper levels of Constellation Management has nothing to do with win or loose, engineering or politics; it is now strictly pure survival.
Constellation Management is now depending upon your point of view, either been pushed back into a corner, or they have painted themselves into the corner. It does not really matter how they got there, what is important to realize is that they are in the corner, with no way out.
They have their careers and professional reputations on the line; naturally they will not go down with out a fight.
Yes, they do see Team Direct as a bunch of meddling trouble makers. Put yourself in their position and how would you rationalize things?
Direct has a chance of winning, and being the recommendation to the White House from the Augustine Panel. But we have not won yet, and in the end we may not win.
I for one, will continue pushing for Direct, and will continue to support Direct right up until the decision is announced by the White House. At that time, the fight will be over one way or the other.
If the White House makes a sound, rational decision, all will be well and the US will have a good chance to once again travel out of LEO. On the other hand, if the decision is a poor one, the US will have lost the opportunity, and will be doomed to go around and around in LEO for the next 20 years.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2009 01:58 am
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.

There is a concern doing that though... Having been operated, an engine has to be purged of any remaining fuel/oxidizer/carbon buildup/whatever.

If it is planned to be used again, the purge has to be even more thorough because any residual material could cause major problems during a re-start.   And that can be made even more complex due to the constant heat/cold soaking during loitering in LEO, then on the 3-day voyage to the moon, and any loitering at that end too. Its not a show-stopper or anything, but it is a technical concern which is focused upon engine reliability, so needs to be very carefully traded against all other options.

Simple guideline: If you can get the chance to avoid it, you should.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dnavas on 07/23/2009 01:59 am
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.

Yep, that's probably the way to go.  And while for cargo you're still going to have to get over the automation hysteria barrier, I wouldn't think the astronaut corps would throw up a flag if you've got manual aborts and controls.

-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/23/2009 02:01 am
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.

So are you against automated docking of Altair with the EDS?  If so, how the Cargo Altair be handled?

I know that pilots like to fly, but this is more like pushing a loaded railroad car around in orbit with three degrees of freedom. Should pilots' preferences take precedence over safety and practicality?

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2009 02:06 am
Nope, automated docking is an important feature.   But I recognize that the Astronaut Corp is almost certainly going to want an astronaut to fly the manoeuver if there is one on-board.

And given that its always their asses which are on the line, they get the final say regarding all safety issues.   End of discussion.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/23/2009 02:08 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2009 02:09 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/23/2009 02:11 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/23/2009 02:12 am
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.

Wow. Three hours go by and I had 5 pages to peruse. Yikes! We're gonna hit 250 in no time at all!

More FUD. I'm not surprised. Management probably had none of that designing their 'stick'  ::)

Any chance someone made up an AIAA paper on this Altair docking method yet? Would be a great link to post on the website, or even as a follow-on document.

Saving bandwidth: Yes, this place is more addictive than chocolate! I better be careful during the day or I'll loose internet at work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2009 02:17 am
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.

Thanks for the bump.

The structure will certainly be strong enough to support itself.

The issue is that until you know what the configuration you wish to support is, you can not design the launcher, let alone the specific launch infrastructure elements needed to support it.

So you really have to decide which vehicle design you want and then build things to suit it. At that point changing things will, unfortunately, always incur costs.

Also, if you design things for 'hypothetical' situations which might or might-not happen in the future, you will incur penalties into this design which will inevitably increase its costs and lower its performance.   Better to optimize the design for the "here and now" and then deal with any future changes whenever they become necessary -- if at all.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rsp1202 on 07/23/2009 02:40 am
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.

These docking concerns were raised two years ago and answered with assurances that it would not be a problem. If NASA decides to finally make a stink about it, I do hope Direct has its ducks in order.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2009 02:56 am
I gotta say, if the rear docking of the LSAM to the EDS is the "worst" thing they can find about DIRECT, I think that we have done a pretty good job of putting together a very workable package!

This smacks of a last gasp from CxP management.   At this point, I really think they should probably be more focused on updating their resume's -- it'll do them more good.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 07/23/2009 03:56 am
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.

Ross/Chuck,

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  …”

John
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/23/2009 04:02 am
... 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...

You build your hydrolox and/or flyback boosters to plug'n'play where the SRBs go. (hah! take that you apostrophes!)

A combination of support from the mobile pad routed via swing arms through/around the boosters through the former SRB attach points.

In other words design any new boosters around the problem and leave Jupiter untouched.

Edit: trim, trim, trim
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/23/2009 04:14 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: DigitalMan on 07/23/2009 04:43 am
....snip....

Looks like the same old, same old bullsh*t all over again.   What ever happened to quality leadership in this country?

Ross.

This seems like a good time for a Jack Bauer thought of the day. 

According to Jack, good people wind up corrupt by starting to lie about something small, before you know it you've gone bad.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2009 04:45 am
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.

My thoughts precisely.

Seems the "Anything But DIRECT" attitude is now more important to them than getting the mission done properly.

What they don't seem to realize is that we aren't the enemy.   We've never been the enemy.   In fact, most of the people working on DIRECT are actually internal to the Ares program!   "They" are actually part of "us".

They could grab this ball from us and win this game so very, very easily if they only chose to.   We aren't interested in embarrassing them, we aren't interested in gaining a reputation or reveling in any "glory".   We just want a program which can really work while also being affordable.

Isn't that what all of us really want?   So *WHY* are some people so determined to keep this flippin' war going even one single day longer?   Can't we just put it all behind us and move forward as one united front?

The only other option is a very embarrassing "we had to remove the current Constellation Program Leadership", which really doesn't help anyone -- least of all NASA's reputation.

I hope that Cook, Cooke, Hanley & co. all realize that the axe has already been polished up and the axeman is already swinging it towards their necks.   They have very little time and they have run out of choices.   So why not try something truly desperate?   Why not take a serious look at DIRECT.   What is there to lose at this point?   If they ever tried to give it a fair look, I think they would actually agree that it really does have a good chance of working.   We have, for more than three years, been trying to persuade them to take this NASA-inspired idea* from us and make it their own!   Please!

It will truly make my day to be able to retire from this effort on the day I am convinced NASA is finally on a workable, affordable and sustainable path.   I'm looking forward to that day -- and I think it's only weeks away now.

* NOTE:   This is essentially NASA's own National Launch System idea anyway -- they already "own" it!


Quote
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  …”

It really does seem to be the only explanation for this continued path.   I've tried and tried to come up with a better explanation, and I've asked so many people close to Griffin & co.   But nothing else holds any water any more...

"Must be bigger than von Braun did" and "Anything But DIRECT" seem to be the current mantra's at that level.   I just don't understand it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/23/2009 04:57 am
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.

The CLV flight could, potentially, bring up anywhere up to 26,000kg of additional mass.

I haven't got time to do any precise calculations, but if there were some propellant transfer capabilities, that sort of extra mass allocation would sure as hell improve the performance of a system which already closes with comfortable margins!

Quick back-of-the-envelope calculations would seem to suggest it could produce anything up to about 10 metric ton improvement in payload performance thru TLI.   And that's assuming the PT equipment itself, plus transfer losses, accounted for 6,000kg -- which is a *very* generous estimate.

But I still wouldn't recommend it for the earliest missions.   K.I.S.S.   The first missions will be difficult enough even if we simplify them as much as possible.   We should find our feet first and then work to improve the systems.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/23/2009 06:10 am
BUMP!
Another technical question that got buried by the FUD talk...

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/23/2009 06:31 am
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


Simply, for the cargo-only mission, just leave the Orion off the mission. The rest is basically just the same.

Orion's SM is massively undersized to perform TLI, the EDS has it's own separate launch just to carry enough fuel to perform the job. SM uses less efficient fuel, so would have to be even bigger.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: guru on 07/23/2009 07:58 am
Can someone tell me what FUD means?

Danny Deger

It means fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/23/2009 08:01 am
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation)).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/23/2009 08:22 am
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!

I have given this some thought, but Buzz Aldrin is your man. He did his PhD on rendezvous.

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. A monitor in Orion would show each camera view in a quadrant. Using various distance measuring devices and watching the monitor the astronauts (or automated software) can slowly guide the Orion/Altair stack into dock with the EDS. Using optics, redundant cameras can be at each point, with a redundant monitor in Orion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Fletch on 07/23/2009 09:32 am
Quote
    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).

Thank goodness for other Aussies that talk in real units of measure  ;)

As for the latest FUD, CxP are obviously 'clutching at spanners'.  Quicker the Direct Team can nip this one in the bud, all the better.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Zapp on 07/23/2009 09:43 am
Can someone tell me what FUD means?

Danny Deger

It means fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

actually the info on wikipedia is rather good on this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 07/23/2009 09:44 am
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.

If they really find a huge problem there then can still go to moon with LOR-LOR. I prefer this method since it is a single element launch. EDS+Orion, EDS+Altair. Problem solved. Mass to the moon is reduced but since Altair isn't even designed yet that really shouldn't be an issue!
What hasn't changed is the actual jupiter rocket...

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/23/2009 10:44 am
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.

It seems to me that the current system of a centerline camera mounted in the docking assembly on Shuttle works well.  Has anyone gotten inputs from the Astronaut Corps on how well this has worked?  They have docked this way going back to the Shuttle-Mir missions, so there is a strong heritage.  I do not recall any issues with docking alignment or aborts/retries in the history of the system.  Perhaps there could be an automated system to a certain point with a handoff to manual control or the option of a manual override.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 07/23/2009 10:53 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/23/2009 11:06 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/23/2009 11:15 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/23/2009 11:21 am
One of the reasons I have periodically brought up lunar-surface rendezvous is because it solves orbital rendezvous questions, as well at the any-time return question. The cost is a perceived inflexibility in the architecture, but I don't think it's as inflexible as it seems, so long as the landing stage is treated as an independent entity whose job is to land "cargo" on the lunar surface in a single launch architecture. For manned flights, the ERV would be a class of "cargo" (albeit with some abort-related complexities). And you'd have to make sure you designed the ERV/CEV for flexibility that allowed it to fly independently of the landing stage, to ISS, to NEOs, etc. It's great to think about flexible, forward looking architectures involving fuel depots and the like, but I just don't think we are going to get that, this time around. LSR will support exursionary flights to the Moon with small crews, and expeditionary architectures with larger crews for pressurized rovers and bases. So long as the ERV/CEV is designed with flexibility in mind, if the political climate *ever* changes, depots and flights beyond cislunar space aren't forestalled.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/23/2009 11:21 am
[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.

Cameras may not be necessary.  Something as simple as four laser rangefinders may be all that is necessary.  The Orion's G/N system would be able to judge from differences in return time of the laser beams the angle of approach and distance to go to a literally inhuman level of precision.  Heck, with a radar/laser rendezvous system, the rendezvous could probably be automated (they already do this for cargo delivery to ISS - the Russians have done this with their Progress-class logistical vehicle since the 1970s). 

Two camera could be fitted on the Altair's nadir docking interface with two targets on the EDS interface.  That should be sufficient for alignment in case the automatic rendezvous system goes 'bye-bye'.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 07/23/2009 11:25 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/23/2009 11:43 am
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!
I have given this some thought, but Buzz Aldrin is your man. He did his PhD on rendezvous.
I was thinking you might have some ideas about avoiding the dock.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/23/2009 11:45 am
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.


John Shannon, "Not Shuttle-C" presentation to Augustine Commission (page 341 of transcript (http://www.nasa.gov/365627main_0617NASAMeeting.txt), my highlighting):-

Quote

         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

What was the system he was talking about?

It is some precursor to a system that could be used for automatic EDS / Altair docking?

STS-127 took up the SpaceX DTO (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/01/prcb-delta-127-dto-spacex/), but he seems to be describing something different? Or Are NASA using the data for their own experiements in the same direction?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/23/2009 11:53 am
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

I think this was mentioned as one option for launching sub-orbitally, then having Altair perform circularisation burn. But it's just one of several options.

BTW, I believe "eyeballs out" actually means "g-forces are pulling the eyeballs out of their sockets", not that "the crew are looking forwards out of the craft".

If this is correct, eyeballs-out is Orion & Altair docked nose-to-nose during TLI, as pictured in that diagram.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/23/2009 12:11 pm
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.

I don't think that should be any kind of technical issue.  That technology was handled over 40 years ago during the Gemini-Agena manned missions.  Perhaps someone else can weigh in on how the firing commands were handed off from Gemini to Agena.  Progress also does both fuel transfer and motor firings while docked to ISS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/23/2009 12:32 pm
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.


EDS = Earth Departure Stage - powers the spacecraft through TLI.
CLV = Crew Launch Vehicle - Altair + Orion. Includes LAS for crew aborts.
CaLV = Cargo Launch Vehicle - Altair only + 15mT or more of cargo.


Firstly, both crew & cargo missions launch an EDS (around 4-5 days before TLI), to a 130x130nmi, 29o orbit:-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090606.pdf

And yes, this is the card that you had identified.



For a cargo mission, the CaLV would then be this:-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J130-41.4000.10051_CaLV_30x130nmi_29.0deg_090606.pdf

This requires the Altair to perform a short burn when it reaches the 130nmi altitude to circularise the orbit from 30x130 to 130x130nmi.



For a crewed mission, the CLV would be this:-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246-41.4004.10050_CLV_090606.pdf

This delivers both Altair & Orion safely to 130x130nmi orbit without having to perform circ burns.

It might be possible to launch CLV on the J-130 config you identified, but it is very tight for margins, and there are issues about getting both Altair & Orion into the required circular orbit. The circularisation burns may impact on landed payload, too. The card is shown on the website because it's a "wouldn't it be nice if we could..." (and they may yet find a way).



For a cargo mission, there is also the option to perform a single launch, and use the upper stage as EDS to push as much to the Moon as possible.

This lands much less than CxP's requirement, but is a simple launch. Unfortunately, it "wastes" a very expensive Altair, so is not likely to be used:-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246-41.4004.10050_CLV_090606.pdf

Note that this cargo vehicle, is overkill for DIRECT's standard two-launch cargo mission (it can lift more to orbit, but the EDS can't then get that to the Moon). However, add in propellant transfer or High Earth Orbit Rendezvous and then you can land some very susbtantial payloads - way more than Ares V can achieve.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/23/2009 12:52 pm
Can someone tell me what FUD means?

Danny Deger

It means fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

I always thought it meant "False, Underhanded, Deceitful"

Learn something new every day...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 07/23/2009 12:57 pm
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?

I wouldn’t consider the CxP FUD an entirely bad sign at all.  If there is one big advantage CxP has over competing designs and organizations it is asymmetrical knowledge or insider’s knowledge of the process.  E.g. what is the Augustine council really thinking and what was Bolden really thinking when he spoke about interesting options, of which some will be politically unfeasible.  The fact that CxP wants to make such a late in the game attack would seem to indicate that DIRECT is definitely one of those interesting options and it’s also politically acceptable.  If that wasn’t the case why go to the trouble to try to discredit DIRECT so late in the game.

I think Ross hit the real nail on the head when he said where is the leadership in this.  CxPs leadership are civil servants, they aren’t even low level political appointees, and as such they have a duty to present all reasonable options for moving forward with CxP to the real decision makers, Bolden and Obama who will decide what to do about CxP, not Doug Cooke and company.  In the military, it is considered very important to bring all reasonable Courses of Action or COAs to a decision maker even if they are politically unpopular without inserting your own bias and givining the decision maker the information to make the best decision they can.  If the decision makers want to play political games that’s alright, but such blatant political games by the staff is neither encouraged nor tolerated.  I do hope that Bolden would see the attempts at sabotaging and handicapping the options presented to him for what they are, and take appropriate action.  A team that can’t honestly size up a situation is not an asset, it’s a liability.

John
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Idol Revolver on 07/23/2009 01:26 pm
The website has died >:(
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MKampe on 07/23/2009 01:36 pm
It's too bad that Ares is tied into CxP- Orion can and should be given whole-hearted support- or else it will get down-sized, have capabilities reduced, and will wind up compromise-ridden and worthless- wait, that's already happening all in the name of "reconfiguring" (saving) Ares.

If we design and build Orion properly, it has the potential of becoming or "Soyuz"- a reliable, flexible workhorse that serves us for decades to come. If we keep downsizing the design, it will wind up as the Space Shuttle- an albatross with some amazing innovation but lethal pitfalls and hobbled capability that places crippling limits on it's applications.

Orion has to have margins- for safety, capability, upgradability, and budget. In this program, especially if you want to talk about ever going to LEOs, Mars, or other exotic trips, we simply can NOT sacrifice the capsule design for a flawed booster. The booster needs to have those same margins for the same reasons. As far as I can see, Jupiter is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.

At some point, doesn't it become logical to analyze Ares (Ares-I at the minimum) from the standpoint of most failed federal programs kept alive beyond their usefulness- Fraud Wast and Abuse? Perhaps the CxP Team should be thinking about averting a GAO Probe, rather than saving a program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Stephan on 07/23/2009 01:43 pm
The website has died >:(
Try this :
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Idol Revolver on 07/23/2009 01:45 pm
Its back now. Must have been a temporary fault.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/23/2009 01:57 pm
I think the latest FUD means that the Constellation people know "their dammed if they do & their 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!!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/23/2009 02:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Arthur on 07/23/2009 02:19 pm
IIRC someone commented on a 3-5 engine base for NotShuttleC. Since DIRECT and NSC both build on STS technology, what would be the mission for a 5 SSME core? (or was it to accommodate 5 lesser engines)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/23/2009 02:53 pm
Funny how Ares-1 TO is a "resolvable technical issue"  while automated Altair Docking to EDS is a "show stopper"? 

Which of those problems would you rather tackle?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/23/2009 03:03 pm
Speaking of this docking "FUD"

As an option, could you use an ISS style CBM(does it have sufficient load capacity?) for the connection between EDS and Altair? 

I'd envision a small robotic arm on Altair or EDS for capture and guidance to berth.  And to make sure CBM release isn't a failure mechanism and to minimize Altair mass.. ditch the entire CBM by using pyrotechnic bolts to detach the CBM and adapter from Altair after EDS burn.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 07/23/2009 03:09 pm
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.

This might prove as silly in hindsight as attacking docked propellant transfer. Attacking an Altair/EDS docking procedure when NASA may be forced to do such a thing in the future will make the instigators look foolish unless there are *real* concerns and not just political ones.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jarmumd on 07/23/2009 04:01 pm
Ross and co,
   Have the DIRECT team considered the idea that the Orion, Altair, PLFs could all be removed as one unit, then this "ship" could be docked to the EDS (now it looks/works like apollo)?

I understand that this does not remove the total number of dockings, and add mass to the system as it leaves earth orbit, but you do remove the structural loads that would otherwise pass through altair, and don't have the time constraint of having to remove the altair in LEO (may free up orbital insertion options - rather than fully circularize).

With propellant depots, as I understand it, you would not need to do any docking/undocking until after leaving earth.  Essentially apollo with propellant transfer in LEO.

Now venturing into the realm of silly, imagine a "ship" with an interchangable engine/tank (EDS), payload bay with doors (1/2 PLF rigid, 1/2 PLF doors), and a dockable Orion/SM at the head.  Add a LLO propellant depot, and you get a reusable Payload Bay!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 07/23/2009 04:02 pm
So whats new with the DIRECT team?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/23/2009 04:09 pm
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.

Couldn’t agree more.  Unfortunately, if it’s your taxpayer dollars being wasted that you are upset about, then NASA is the least of our problems of what’s being wasted right now at various other levels of government.  Not a few billion, but –trillions-!

My frustration at NASA’s issues is more tied to them being counter-productive to getting a new, workable, affordable launch system up and running than my tax dollars being wasted.  I don’t like my tax dollars being wasted anywhere, but NASA’s the least of it.  That’s like saying we are angry about all of this shop lifting, when there’s record high rates of murder and rape going on in our neighborhood.
:(
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 07/23/2009 06:05 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/23/2009 06:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/23/2009 06:22 pm
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? 

I like the idea of having both a Dual J-246 and a J-246/J-130 options. 
Put them both out there with Cost vs Landed mass. 
Like NSC would have lower landed mass.. so could an early J-246/J-130 mission

Meeting the original NASA targets may not be an imperative, at least not for early missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/23/2009 06:36 pm
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? 

No, I don't think so.  The current EDS carries 172 mT of propellant, of which only 69 mT is consumed during launch (functioning as an upper stage).  That means DIRECT is planning on having over 97 mT left over for the TLI burn.

Since the J-130 can only lift 69 mT to LEO, that would leave you at least 28 mT short of what the EDS would need. It might be possible if the CLV JUS was fully fueled, and then just topped off by a tank launched on a J-130. But developing a separate tank might cost more than you would save by just using another JUS.  Remember, DIRECT wants to minimize development costs in order to expand operations, so less development is better.

Mark S.

Disclaimer: IANARS, nor on the DIRECT team.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/23/2009 06:49 pm
Disclaimer: IANARS

Ooh, I like that.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/23/2009 07:01 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/23/2009 07:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/23/2009 07:35 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/23/2009 07:36 pm
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.

Sigh.... can see where your coming from... and unless I win couple of hundred million in the lottery, all the vision in the world won't move me closer to seeing this in my life time... ok, thanks Mark...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/23/2009 07:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/23/2009 08:21 pm
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? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/23/2009 08:49 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/23/2009 08:53 pm
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? 

To me the Egg comes first, in the form of Jupiter, it's variants, and all the other LV that have niche missions... because without them the rest is just a pipe dream, built upon an unstable foundation (Ares)...
  get Jupiter, and the rest will fall into place, be it Falcon, Delta, or the other acronyms... but we need the visionaries with the money, outside of Congress/Governments, to get to the future of mankind... and while launching satallites and sub orbital tourists are fine, they are no more than a half step... the western world is crawling, where it should be running into space... doesn't anyone other then Elon, see the ultimate benefits to our nations... or we too busy navel gazing at our problems to look up and see a better way...

BTW totally OT, but unrepentant...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/23/2009 08:54 pm
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

At this point the only one inside the agency with that authority is the Administrator, and he is *not* going suggest any such thing pending the President's decision following the disolution of the Augustine Commission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/23/2009 09:13 pm
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 . . .
What if the team wrote this guy a polite letter, . . .
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.

Then, start grousing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/23/2009 09:18 pm
Like I said, it was a wild "what-if"...

All I can hope for at this point is that the ABD Crew remaining in NASA won't be able to find a way to muck things up just so they will be able to say "we knew it wouldn't work"...


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mrbliss on 07/23/2009 10:17 pm
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...

I've been thinking similar thoughts, except mine is more like, "if NASA really messes up HSF, could a not-for-profit organization do it better? cheaper?"

As you describe it, I doubt we'd see NP Jupiter.  The DIRECT team (well, Ross) has said more than once that Jupiter is not the optimal vehicle/system -- but it's the best idea right now, since we've already got the STS.  An NP would almost have to do a clean-sheet design; and they'd probably want to.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/23/2009 10:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/23/2009 10:58 pm
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.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/23/2009 11:05 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/23/2009 11:08 pm
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".
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/23/2009 11:12 pm
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".


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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/23/2009 11:14 pm
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?....
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/23/2009 11:23 pm
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.  :)

Nope!

That "Unzip SRB at Max Q" test is actually needed.

The question is... the max q of which LV?

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/23/2009 11:29 pm

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.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/23/2009 11:42 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/23/2009 11:47 pm
Why spend time making a poster that has an extremely unlikely chance of being accurate?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 07/23/2009 11:57 pm
That "Unzip SRB at Max Q" test is actually needed.

The question is... the max q of which LV?

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/24/2009 12:14 am
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?....

More irony:

What do you do when you are really scared...shake uncontrollably  ;D

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/24/2009 12:25 am
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?

Many people got that mistaken impression... mostly from hasty articles written with a decided eagerness to either:

A: Discredit the study as a  threat to Ares

or

B: Portray the study as the death knell of all SDLV's... long live EELV's!

The truth?

The study showed that in a standard abort scenario where the Ares I SRB is destroyed by the Flight Termination System, i.e. "unzipped" by the range safety package, at Ares I's high Q factors then the Orion LAS cannot pull far enough away from the resulting debris field to save the crew.

And that debris field, caused by the scattering of over a million+ pounds of still-burning propellant at that stage of the flight, will melt the parachutes of the Orion just by the radiated heat alone.

And the ballistiics have the Orion enveloped by the debris field all the way to the ground.

From 30 to 60 seconds MET it's 100% fatal for the crew of the Orion if the LAS is activated for any reason whatsoever... because the SRB must be terminated when the LAS goes into action.

100% fatal. A black zone. From the kindly CxP people who lied their asses off about EELV's being unusable because of blackzones. From the kindly CxP people who told everyone that Ares I was the only possible choice because it was the safest possible launcher.

As this situation is an artifact of Ares I's extreme flight dynamics and very high max q this news wasn't the fatal blow to SDLV's such as Direct arnd NSC that it was to Ares I as they each have a much lower max q...

... although it seems that NSC has its own LAS abort risks...

But the SDLVs are in the hightened risk range defined by the study so yes, an unzip test and plotting of the resultant debris field at the appropriate q for the LV that is selected would be useful.

As would an LAS abort test.

Edit: remembered to finish what I started...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/24/2009 12:46 am

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


That is too funny. Shake the ground, air, rocket...and faith in NASA.

But even scarrier is NASA trying to push a rocket they know is seriously flawed.

Maybe they get advertising revenue from all thesepromotional ads, like a sale going on??  LOL
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: NUAETIUS on 07/24/2009 12:49 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 07/24/2009 01:11 am
The study showed that in a standard abort scenario where the Ares I SRB is destroyed by the Flight Termination System

Quote from: USAF
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).

Okay, I fail.  I guess I didn't read the report carefully enough...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/24/2009 01:15 am
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

Thanks for the post. That was a great interview. I like the confidence in all of the answers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/24/2009 01:52 am

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/24/2009 02:05 am

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.

You are not going to hear Obama give any "we choose to go to the Moon" type speeches. To do so would be career suicide. Look what happened to Bush when he announced the VSE...every late night talk show host poked fun at it.
No wonder there were no more Moon related speeches from Bush.
Certain groups are looking to jump all over Obama for anything. So called "wasteful spending" on a Moon mission would be easy cannon fodder.

So it is all on the commission to find a plan that can work on a reasonable budget and time clock, and will not need much rallying from the President.

The VSE relied on a growth in funding. That needed political support and congressional interest...both of which will never happen. It is the world we live in and anyone who tries to work a plan around anything but this, then you are living in dreamland.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: daver on 07/24/2009 02:10 am
Great interview Ross.  I've really enjoyed reading the Direct threads over the last two years.  Direct makes so much sense and it sounds like your voices are finally being heard where it counts.   NASA was given an opportunity with the VSE and they have almost ruined any chance of returning to the moon.   I don't believe that VSE was underfunded.  I do believe that Ares rockets are to expensive to ever be affordable.   Thanks for caring enough about the future of manned space flight to take action and make a difference.  The Direct team looked into the future and predicted Ares would never survive. 

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/07/interview-with-ross-tierney-of-direct.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/24/2009 02:13 am
They better pick Direct...I mean, what the hell am I going to do if we don't have any more Direct threads. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Eric Hedman on 07/24/2009 02:28 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: daver on 07/24/2009 02:29 am
They better pick Direct...I mean, what the hell am I going to do if we don't have any more Direct threads. ;)


  I would guess that when the Direct threads end, there will be a book for us to read.  Yes?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/24/2009 02:34 am
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

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Eric Hedman on 07/24/2009 02:44 am
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



Absolutely
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/24/2009 03:33 am
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..
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/24/2009 03:41 am
"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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/24/2009 03:53 am
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..

You sir are correct, it is a bit soon to begin celebrating. However, since all of this began, this is about as excited as I have seen this Direct thread.

Things are happening and falling into place. It can go any way this August, but I still have my fingers crossed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: drdave on 07/24/2009 04:03 am
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.

Anybody who has watched Obama operate over the past six months knows he will let the process run out and then exert his influence at the moment when things are balanced and can tip either way.  Maximum effect from minumum (or maximum) effort.  Look at the way the health care issue has played out.  He has let Congress futz around with the issue until they have used uo their playing field.  He has now begun to bring his effort to bear.

He plays his hand close to the vest.  He smiles, makes small talk, and then moves.

I doubt any of us knows what he will do.  He may not have decided yet.  Not enough information to make an intelligent, and yes, a politically motivated decision.

So keep up the media campaign.  Keep up the pressure.  Write your congress critters (long hand, in ink).  Letters to editors, interviews, whatever you can do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/24/2009 05:00 am
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.

If one Jupiter carries both Altair and Orion, then its EDS does not have enough propellant to go through TLI. You either transfer propellant from another EDS (what von Braun called tanking mode (http://tanking mode)) or have the other EDS dock with the first stack (what von Braun called connecting mode (http://connecting mode)). Von Braun preferred tanking mode.

Another solution is developing a Nova class launch vehicle to launch Altair or Altair/Orion (like Saturn-V). However, this involves a huge development cost. There's also LOR-LOR. The latter was proposed by NSC so it should work for Jupiter. Ross says there's a 20% performance loss though due to launching two EDS stages to the Moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 07/24/2009 06:04 am
There is another issue with both NSC and Ares V which I think is being overlooked but may become increasingly important due to the recent refocusing to a manned mars mission by Bolden (see quote below) and others: Mars EDL issues.

If we want to land anything of reasonable size on the surface of Mars, you need a big heatshield (at least 10m, preferably 12+) and therefore a big payload fairing.

NSCs maximum PLF is 7.5m so thats not going to work. I think the maximum payload you can land with a 7m heatshield is around 7 tonnes or so...

NSC + Ares V goes against all logic (2 independent development programs, etc) so I don't think that'll ever happen.

Ares V by itself meets the payload volume criteria, with PLFs up to 12m or so. But even with a 12m heatshield, your surface payload is maybe only 20 tonnes or so max.

My sources tell me that payload delivered to Mars' surface is typically 17% of total mass delivered to LEO, so we can multiply that figure by 1/0.17 to find the launch vehicle that we need.

For that 20 tonne payload, it works out that we only need a launch vehicle with a 117 tonnes to LEO capability. Clearly the Ares V vehicle is way oversized for this.

But I believe it just so happens that the Jupiter rockets, with their allowance for big PLFs, would be quite suitable for Mars missions.

So in short: Shuttle C is too small. Ares V is too big. Both together are too expensive. But the Jupiter is just right?

Sounds familiar huh?

- Mike

--------------

From here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jc2d_p1DHvR8srpLfst9HA7oOBlQD99J1RG02
 
Quote
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."

Edit: Fixed breaks in link
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/24/2009 06:27 am

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/24/2009 06:48 am

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.

I know Bolden wants Mars in his lifetime. However, I always feel Mars is regarded as "tomorrow land" and is always 30 years on the horizon. The one good thing about the VSE was we would get our exploration gears going again with the Moon, and that would lead to other greater things.
The VSE is not flawed, the vehicles picked to carry it out were flawed. I would hate to see some "Mars Program" with the ISS. That's what NASA has been trying to the last 15 years. Everything we do in LEO is said to be preparing for Mars someday, but we are never actually building and designing the vehicles that will carry out the mission.

Direct doesn't abandon the VSE. It gives us an architecture that can actually make it work with the dollars at hand.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 07/24/2009 06:55 am

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.

I'm not that pessimistic. But in any case we can see that PLF volume is the driver, not mass. So NSC is still too small, and Jupiter is at least as good as Ares V.

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/24/2009 07:01 am

Direct doesn't abandon the VSE. It gives us an architecture that can actually make it work with the dollars at hand.

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 (like all costs of any large NASA development project are underestimated at first...)

2. As I said above, I don't think either Ares V or NSC means you can't do a Mars mission.

P.S. I am a proponent of a two-launch scenario with an in-line SDLV. I still think we shouldn't discredit other options with far-fetched arguments. The main arguments for any in-line SDLV are payload mass, only 1 launcher to be developed and some benefits on the time schedule as well as probably better safety numbers for crewed launch vs. NSC (and maybe even better than Ares I).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/24/2009 07:26 am
What diameter Mars heat shield can the J-130 lift?  Assume a made-to-measure PLF.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/24/2009 08:26 am
What this actually all leads to, once the MSFC AutoFUD response is disabled, is the fact that spaceships are best assembled in space :)

ISS itself is really not appropriate... not so much because of its inclination but more because they're supposed to be doing micro-g work there and that really doesn't go well with multi-ton masses being juggled at odd intervals....

... yes, the irony of that statement as applied to ISS does not escape me...

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.

(If NASA chooses Direct then you must figure that it's used up its quota of common sense for the decade :) )

Can a mini-shipyard... say one of the proposed shuttle payload transport pallets with added attitude control, electronics bay, cameras, a couple of Canadarms and a couple of SLASR arrays... can it make do at 23 degrees inclination? It's all basic stuff that's either ready to go or already had some research done...

Advantages: with the Orion teleoperating the arms the various components of the lunar stack can have any sort of stack rearrangement and prop tranfer done while the Orion is out of the immediate danger zone... and when everything is ready the Orion just docks to Altair as the cherry on top and off they go :)

... later expansions could have a converted JUS experimental depot parked adjacent for actual refueling operations and/or perhaps a MPLM serving as a control node and pressurised and temperature-controlled auxiliary supplies store with a nitrogen atmosphere and an airlock...  (yes, it's a valid mass saver: less goods hauled up equals more actual Orion launched.)

*(added: water!)

... 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.

The "Next Von Brauns" my ass... not a single friggin' orbital assembly facility anywhere in those plans.

Okay... I vented... but any errors or obvious showstoppers?

Edit: this'n'that
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/24/2009 08:35 am
What diameter Mars heat shield can the J-130 lift?  Assume a made-to-measure PLF.

... note: questionable data follows: Ross had mentioned a while back that previous musings on 15m diameter fairings looked like it was pushing the limit... actual applicability of that to the here-and-now is unknown...

But folded that would give you a 30 meter heat shield...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 07/24/2009 08:41 am


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.

You are not going to hear Obama give any "we choose to go to the Moon" type speeches. To do so would be career suicide. Look what happened to Bush when he announced the VSE...every late night talk show host poked fun at it.
No wonder there were no more Moon related speeches from Bush.
Certain groups are looking to jump all over Obama for anything. So called "wasteful spending" on a Moon mission would be easy cannon fodder.

So it is all on the commission to find a plan that can work on a reasonable budget and time clock, and will not need much rallying from the President.

The VSE relied on a growth in funding. That needed political support and congressional interest...both of which will never happen. It is the world we live in and anyone who tries to work a plan around anything but this, then you are living in dreamland.


[/quote]

It can be promoted as "economic stimulus", Which would be true.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/24/2009 09:07 am

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/24/2009 09:58 am
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.

That is the legacy of NASA.

People don't want the trouble of bringing in something new to an existing process because the usual NASA first response is drown the idea in "can't do that's" (whether truly relevant or not) and the usual second response by NASA to persistent followups is to bite heads off.

And yes, that's sad.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/24/2009 10:59 am
Slightly OT, the ideal PR name for an orbital shipyard would be "Stardock." It's the name of an old Fritz Leiber story (about the mountain on Nehwon where the gods built and launched the stars), but will resonate favorably with the taxpaying public, that watches TV shows named "Star (Whatever)."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/24/2009 11:17 am
I just read an interesting article in AW&ST regarding manned launch alternatives.  The article focused largely on NSC, but the main thrust (no pun intended) of the article was that PWR said restarting the SSME line was very doable.  A reduced cost SSME derivative could be available within 3-4 yrs at a cost of 2/3 to 4/5 of SSME cost, depending on volumes.  It would be a little more expensive than RS-68, but "in the ball park".

The bottom line to me is that the industry mindset is moving away from Ares I to an SDLV.  I believe that bodes well for DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/24/2009 11:45 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/24/2009 11:51 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/24/2009 11:52 am
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 hear that AeroSpace Corp agrees with DIRECT's assessment. I apologize and wonder why Shannon made the remark. Without data backing up his opinion, he shouldn't have said anything about costs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HOTTOL on 07/24/2009 11:52 am
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.




An alternative would be (1) to keep the Altair-PFL-Orion stack as is (2) to undock it from the empty US (3) to dock the stack on its Altair side to the EDS (4) to release Orion and to discard the PLF (5) and to dock the Orion (nose first) to Altair.
Et voilà (?!!)

François
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/24/2009 12:00 pm
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.

No problem. Ours and theirs cost profiles do not match line for line, but overall we are in the ballpark, and it's the totals that matter. As for Mr Shannon, it's the same with any corporate manager who is steeped in the company pronouncements. If you are used to hearing "$35 billion, $35 billion" all the time and someone comes along and says "no, $8.5 billion", you're initial reaction is going to be skepticism. His reaction was normal and quite expected. Had he said anything else I would have been very surprised.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/24/2009 12:24 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/24/2009 12:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/24/2009 12:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/24/2009 12:44 pm
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.

 Because it's still deep inside earth's gravity well and that makes everything much more expensive. Radiation mitigation can be designed into the facility while gravity-well expense cannot be designed out of LEO.
 
 Let's not take this too far afield of the topic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/24/2009 12:48 pm
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.

The key factor to me is that he is open minded. I got that impression watching his remarks on June 17th.  The fact that the DIRECT team has had some conversations with him is a good thing IMO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/24/2009 01:10 pm
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.


Well, that's just superb news. Another big step forwards.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mrbliss on 07/24/2009 01:24 pm
We can call them "Not-Direct" threads.  ;D

Indirect Threads?  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/24/2009 01:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/24/2009 01:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Josef on 07/24/2009 01:39 pm
Look!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOnlAUpYWoc&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOnlAUpYWoc&feature=player_embedded)

Regards

Josef

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/24/2009 01:43 pm
By the way, the current issue of Popular Mechanics has an advocacy article by Buzz Aldrin, exhorting us to go straight to Mars and not get sidetracked by a rehash of Apollo. 

Whether you agree with that position or not, the interesting thing is his position on a replacement for the Ares launchers.  He actually acknowledges that Ares is dead, then pushes for an evolutionary development to replace Shuttle.  And the two options he mentions by name are NSC and DIRECT!  He didn't express a preference, but just the fact that DIRECT is on Buzz's radar is amazing.

DIRECT is acknowledged as not just a viable option, but a leading contender, straight out of the mouth of an Apollo astronaut, on the record, in a national publication!  How long have we waited for that to happen?

Cheers,
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/24/2009 01:43 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ugordan on 07/24/2009 01:47 pm
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?  ::)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/24/2009 01:55 pm
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.


Chuck,

good call.

I will quietly take comfort from the fact that DIRECT now seems to have the "workable" sticker applied to both the technical and cost aspects.

At least it means that exploration is an option that the policians can reasonably choose.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/24/2009 02:21 pm
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.  I think the most important conclusion to take from the PM article is that there is more public discourse regarding HSF and that DIRECT is being mentioned as a viable alternative in more and more publications.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ugordan on 07/24/2009 02:32 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/24/2009 02:43 pm
Well that was intersting.. Some "Direct" Hater.. Gaetano Marano was spewing all kinds of anti-direct FUD on the HSF Facebook page.. 

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Washington-DC/Human-Space-Flight-Plans-Committee/103371548720?ref=nf


Made an attempt to put him in his place and cut through the FUD.  Althogh Ross's "4 years ago" statement was one he rabidly picked on.  I think he has an agenda/rocket of his own he's pushing.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/24/2009 02:45 pm
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.



What information tells you he doesn't have much influence with the powers that be?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: agman25 on 07/24/2009 02:46 pm
No. That guy is just plain crazy. Gaetano Marano I mean, not Buzz.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Stephan on 07/24/2009 02:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/24/2009 03:04 pm
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.

He is on several space blogs and puts the same theories out. I wouldn't be surprised if he claims he invented the internet as well.

I wrote back on that facebook group as well and explained that a Direct-like vehicle was suggested way back in 1978, a good 26 years before he made his "discovery".
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/24/2009 03:04 pm
Is there a set date for when the Augustine Commission must release their report?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/24/2009 03:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/24/2009 03:07 pm
Is there a set date for when the Augustine Commission must release their report?

No later than August 30th.  Be nice if it was sooner, but don't count on it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ugordan on 07/24/2009 03:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/24/2009 03:15 pm
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.

Good point. Deleted my comment on that page too, don't want to add more fuel to the fire.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/24/2009 03:16 pm
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.

I guess the difference is the DIRECT guys did something with it.  Ideas aren't worth anything unless you do something with them.  Found support, got people together, sold their idea, presented to peer groups, endured the gauntlet of ridicule and judgment.

I am impressed with the dogged determination that the DIRECT guys have displayed in moving their proposal forward.  They aren't a company trying to sell something.  Just enthusiasts with an idea.  Which is one reason why the panel could ask: "Who are you guys?"

It's true that the Jupiter vehicle was originally pitched by MSFC and others over the last 30+ years.  But DIRECT kept the flame alive and grew support in a time when the powers that be weren't looking for solutions.

For that well done.

I like DIRECT but I will support whatever the Augustine commission suggests.  Direct has the massive advantage of using existing and proven hardware and manufacturing technology.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/24/2009 03:36 pm
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.



That's why I am "crossing my fingers" and not "holding my breath"  heheheh
;)

But fair enough, good catch.  Let's just say I really hope the powers that be are legitimately considering Direct, or the President comes completely out of Left field and advocates doubling NASA's budget to get Ares done.  Either would be good, but I'm not holding my breath (or crossing my fingers) for the latter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/24/2009 03:41 pm
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.

Buzz has stayed in the limelight and has not gone off the deep end.  He is well respected in the space industry, from what I have seen.  Not everyone agrees with him, but you can't accuse him of being at any extreme end of the spectrum on any issue.

Point taken about politicians and pork. At least DIRECT is getting some recognition by the people who actually know something about space.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/24/2009 03:46 pm
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?

But like the "moon landings", the whole Direct movement is staged in a Hollywood backlot.  The Rebell Alliance doesn't really exist.  Just another conspiracy...

;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/24/2009 03:48 pm
Chuck, If The Aerospace Corporation has validated Direct's cost data, have they validated Direct's safety, performance, & schedule data as well?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/24/2009 04:05 pm
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?  ::)

Or more recently, Alan Bean and Harrison Schmitt...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/24/2009 04:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/24/2009 04:16 pm
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.

Wow, you're a ray of sunshine!  >:(

How do you know that Aerospace used the exact same methodology?

Wouldn't it be better to actually read what Chuck wrote and note that their analysis didn't track "line by line" but that Aerospace still validated the figures?

That means to me that they used whatever their own formula might be for figuring these things out, and still came up with figures close enough that there's no reason for you or anyone else to try to FUD the team's figures like that. IMHO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/24/2009 04:18 pm
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.

You are missing a key point here.  What DIRECT has been asking for all along is an independent analysis by a respected body.  The Aerospace Corporation is such a body, so DIRECT is getting what they wanted all along.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/24/2009 04:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/24/2009 04:44 pm
CixelsyD..
I have to agree with you.. The fact that the numbers were run by the same people inside Constellation at NASA as ran the numbers for AresI/V does not comfort me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/24/2009 04:47 pm
"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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ugordan on 07/24/2009 04:55 pm
Or more recently, Alan Bean and Harrison Schmitt...

Why, what'd they say?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/24/2009 05:00 pm
"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.


MIW,

can you clarify, does that relate to Ross's "we believe that the Aerospace Corporation has been able to validate our figures"?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/24/2009 05:12 pm
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.


I'd thought EML2 was the ideal place to construct A mars vehicle due to the ease of escaping Earth gravity from there?  Also easier station keeping than EML1 I believe. 

Myself, not to get off topic, is for a manned landing, you line up the Jupiters and start launching supplies, habitats, and equipment drop to the landing zone well ahead of the Astronauts.  You also launch and land the vehicle that will take the Astronauts from the surface back to Martian Orbit, so that it’s down, checked out, and ready to go before the Astronauts leave Earth.  You Also launch a “Supply depot” and put it in the Martian Orbit that the Astronauts are planned to eventually circularize at (this can even be at Phobos or Diemos).  The “Depot”  will have fuel and consumables for the return trip, and perhaps have the descent module there too.

Then you build a Mars Transfer Vehicle at EML2.  It could be nuclear rocket powered, and building it that far out would be better than LEO anyway incase something went south, you don’t want these reactors falling back to Earth.  You have everything non essential for the Transit already at Mars.  The MTV is just designed for the trip, with a shielded module in case of solar flares, NTR or possibly VASIMR to minimize transit time.  The longer you have to keep humans on life support, the more heavy supplies you have to bring, and the hard it is on the crew.  And EML2 would be a great launching points for such propulsion.

The ship enters Mars orbit and rendezvous with the “supply Depot”.  From there, a very minimum lander is deployed to the surface where the supplies and equipment are.  Just the very minimum to get the Astronauts down with a combination of Areobraking, heat shield, parachutes, and thrusters.  One way trip down.  The Ascent module is already on the ground.  A manned landing should be pretty darn accurate and should be able to get down very close to the equipment (obviously if you land too far away from your ascent module, you are screwed).

Supply drops should be able to be handled by individual J-246 launches.  The “supply depot” would probably need to be a few modules assembled in Orbit and then sent. 


An alternative to ELM2 would be LEO.  Build it there with a NTR or VASIMR, have it slowly spiral out of earth orbit unmanned.  Then just before it gets to escape velocity, shoot the crew out in an Orion that will catch up to them just then, dock, and then head on out so the crew doesn’t have to be on it during that first part.

The MTV would be refueled and resupplied for multiple transits.  The first missions would explore refueling insitu from hydrogen from surface ICE and mining the atmosphere, so future missions don’t need to have the return propellent sent.  But you wouldn’t want to count on that at first.  Eventually, the MTV would run on the 2-year orbital approach schedule to rotate crews.  Take a new one there, swap it out for the one there, and then come back.  The crews would spend 2 years – transit times on surface once enough supplies and infrastructure was there.

But this goes nowhere without an affordable, reliable HLV like Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/24/2009 06:29 pm
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.

I don't think that NASA used Aerospace Corp to do their calculations. NASA did them in-house, if I remember aright. Aerospace used a different methodology. Which has been said before.

Let's say that you get paid weekly in the amount of $158.92

Let's further say that you write in your checkbook the amount of deposit as $150.00

It would stand to reason, by simple mathematics, that you build up $8.92 per week over and above what you write in your checkbook.

After one year, you have an extra $463.84 in your checking account.

I've read on almost all of the threads, where the DIRECT team started with NASA's basic formulae, and built in additional margins to allow for nearly everything from performance to accounting. So it doesn't matter a bit whether or not the "same people" are doing the math. It doesn't even matter what the numbers actually are. It matters that if a toilet seat for the spacecraft costs $145,000, and you use the figure of $155,000, that you're going to come out ahead.

I take exception to your statement:

"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."

If you were "confused" it makes me wonder why. There is nothing confusing about it. NASA did their own analysis for Ares. It was clearly shown that the one they did for DIRECT was intentionally skewed almost to the point of being fabricated, and that the HSF Commission got someone outside NASA to check all the figures, which they validated. I am not the least bit confused about that. It is crystal clear.

I don't know exactly what the DIRECT team did, but I do understand that if they were angling for an independent review from the beginning, what sense would it make for them to fudge their numbers, knowing that someone would catch them someday, which would blow the whole thing? That not only assumes they're idiots, but that they didn't know what they were doing in the first place.

I don't think that's the case here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/24/2009 06:37 pm
Lancer525:

Touche'.  My point exactly.

DIRECT got what they wanted, an independent review of their idea and data.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/24/2009 06:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 07/24/2009 06:49 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/24/2009 06:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: renclod on 07/24/2009 06:56 pm
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 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 ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/24/2009 07:01 pm
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 ?



See my post #3230 above.
The numbers are notational, not explicit, and are for the launch system alone - including infrastructure but *not* Orion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/24/2009 07:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/24/2009 07:26 pm
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.

The role of the DIRECT Team here (Chuck or Ross, correct me if I am wrong) is to propose a viable alternative to the currently planned HSF launch architecture that reduces the gap and costs less.  Should DIRECT be adopted, NASA is the organization who will implement it.  Once that happens, the project will be subject to the same type of risk that large projects are subject to.

Granted, NASA has not always delivered on projects in terms of cost or schedule, and I am sure that Charlie Bolden has that on his plate to address.  There is a GAO Report that reviewed NASA's record WRT large projects and the record is not stellar:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09306sp.pdf

Actually, Mars.is.wet posted this link about a week ago and I found it to be enlightening reading.  Having said that, the current budget environment dictates that NASA will not likely see increases in its budget to implement HSF, so a lower cost alternative with less potential for schedule risk makes sense.

In the final analysis, though, if DIRECT is adopted it will become a NASA program, subject to the organizational deficiencies and inefficiencies that exist within it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: alexterrell on 07/24/2009 07:31 pm
I know DIRECT has the future option of using a fuel depot for it's architecture.

I dug up an old concept called PROFAC and made some updating suggestions, in the Advanced Concepts section. It is however a near term concept that could be launched in 1 J232 mission and provide 20 tons of LOX per month.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17984.msg445147#msg445147

It may be too near term for Advanced Concepts - so not many replies - but could help with Exploration Alternatives, 2020+.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: alexterrell on 07/24/2009 07:33 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/24/2009 07:38 pm

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.

Yeah, that's the reason I support them personally. It's why I believe the costs. Developmental work is always overbudget, and Direct has less of it. I just think if NASA adopts Direct it would be more easily defendable if you emphasize "we're better than the status quo" more.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/24/2009 07:55 pm
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>

Ok, jumping in where angels fear to tread...

what I think is missing here is a bit of logical reasoning...

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...

NOW... the Augustine Committee has contracted Areospace Corp to go through the figures that Direct had, and report back as to whether it was a viable option or not...
think of it as marking of an exam paper... not ever question answered is going to be an A... there are going to be a range of grades from A++ to D and E... from what Chuck has said, the report card came back with a broad variety of results, but NO failings... everything was in a passing grade... the result being, the INDEPENDENT assessment of the Direct figures have passed Direct out of the Sandlot League into the Big Leagues... or if you want an European comparison... Direct has been bumped up to the Premier League, and we will be playing against Chelsea and Liverpool...

But that is as far as the Augustine Commission is concerned... we are now competing with the big boys to get approval... but to carry your problematic scenario futher... yes we do have a problem if Direct is the team that is chosen to represent HSF in NASA, in that NASA's culture had to change, and realistic expectations that have been built into the Direct figures are not manipulated and fudged, as has been the case with Constellation/Ares... this the Direct Team can do nothing about... it is all in the hands of Charlie B. and the new NASA leadership...

as for who is validating NASA's numbers for the Augustine Commission, I certainly hope is not NASA themselves... I would hope that Areospace Corp has the contract to validate ALL of the competitors... INDEPENDENTLY, with no hand guidling from behind closed doors by NASA... this HAS to be a level playing field or the results are no better than pre chosen bid...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2009 07:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/24/2009 08:02 pm


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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Arthur on 07/24/2009 08:04 pm
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.
Now if only the the Engineering decisions were made by Engineers, it would be DIRECT by a landslide. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/24/2009 08:22 pm
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...

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/24/2009 08:32 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/24/2009 08:35 pm
Ares III for LEO, Ares IV for the Moon. None of this DIRECT nonsense, you see...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 07/24/2009 08:37 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/24/2009 08:38 pm
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

Real question is the size of the tank and what boosters.... could still be in trouble if they're the large tank and 5 segment deal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/24/2009 08:39 pm
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...
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/24/2009 08:49 pm
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?

Two seperate rumours reported by Keith Cowling over on NASAWatch.com and also by our own Ross (kraizee) Tierney.  Apparently, MSFC are looking at a two-launch LOR lunar archetecture using Ares-IV-Classic (a Ares-V core with an Ares-I upper stage).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/24/2009 08:52 pm
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... certainly that would not be in the best interests of the President... or the American People... to have a commission that fails in it's duties... if NASA does give inaccurate numbers then I would have to believe that the people of Areospace and the people on the Commission, would be able to see that, and react accordingly... D-minus... go back to the Sandlot...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/24/2009 09:05 pm
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...

could you chill on that already?

I was referring to the numbers work that Aerospace did for NASA before the commission. Before any commision-set parameters...

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/24/2009 09:16 pm
An Ares V core + J2X upper stage... still sounds pretty poor compared to direct if you think of development cost vs utility.

I wonder why MSFC is changing CxP so closely to when the augustine commission comes out with a report. A half baked plan at the last minute won't garner any approval. A month is simply not enough time.

Couldn't they work together with the commission, ask for a heads up on which way the wind is blowing and work with them to make the transition as easy as possible?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2009 09:39 pm
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.

When the committee came together they got Aerospace Corporation to examine everyone's claims and asked Aero to come up with their own assessment as to how valid each is.   That was the first time Aero got involved -- and we are still awaiting the detailed results of all those studies.

Aero were not involved in creating NASA's numbers in the first place.   Just wanted to clarify that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/24/2009 09:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: zapkitty on 07/24/2009 10:02 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/24/2009 10:03 pm
Both Ross & Chuck have stated that the Aerospace Corporation has validated the Direct 3 cost data.  Since Direct 3 will cost much less than Ares, I believe this ultimately will be the most important factor to The White House & Congress--provided Direct is technically sound & protects the NASA workforce--both of which it does. Regarding Congressional concerns about costs of the Ares & Orion vehicles, I will quote Chairman Alan B. Mollohan(NASA Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman) on April 29,2009. On that day Chairman Mollohan stated,"The price tag for Orion & Ares continues to mount, and there are considerably unknowns as to whether NASA's plans for the Ares & Orion vehicles can be executed within schedule & current cost estimates."
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 07/24/2009 10:03 pm
On the EDS docking issue: Couldn't the Altair be designed with two docking ports on opposite SIDES rather than top & bottom? EDS can dock to one side, Orion to the other. The docking ports can double as surface egress hatches. Would that solve the problem?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2009 10:05 pm
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.

Nah, Aerospace (like any company) only works for money.   If we had ever tried to get them to analyse DIRECT for us, our little band of rebels could never have afforded their fee! :)


Quote

But 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?


What the upper management of CxP have created right now, is essentially a Fox guarding the Hen-house situation.   There is no real independent oversight at all.   The watchmen and the watched are all paid out of the same pot, by the same management!   And if nobody has noticed, that management appear to have their own private agenda which they are hell-bent on squeezing through the door irrelevant of any other factors.

Is it any wonder that this whole situation is collapsing entirely under its own weight?


IMHO, this debacle has only demonstrated that NASA desperately needs to be re-organized.

The agency needs to set standards, define requirements and then be the oversight organization keeping everyone else honest.   The actual rocket development work needs to be done by one or more separate organizations:   Commercial ones like ATK, Boeing, Lockheed Martin etc.   It will still all have to be done in Huntsville -- to keep the money flowing to the various Senator's satisfaction -- but NASA should not be in control of both Development AND Oversight at the same time -- there need to be checks and balances.


NASA should primarily be responsible for Oversight.   That and pure R&D -- but that's a separate topic! ;)


Quote
Out of curiousity what rockets have Aerospace reviewed in the passed, I'd like to know their record.

Not sure.   From what I have learned so far, I think they do most of their work for DoD, but have done a lot of independent assessments for NASA, NOAA and a range of other organizations too.   But specific projects, I don't know.   You'd have to ask someone else...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: alexterrell on 07/24/2009 10:35 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/24/2009 10:45 pm
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?

If it is true that NASA is looking at an Ares V derived vehicle.  then let us refer to the Ares IV or Ares derived vehicle, not DIRECT.

6 months after a change people would be use to using different terminology.  Remember outside our own small corner of the world not everyone pays attention to this stuff.

If adopted the DIRECT team has always said they would be happy to step back and let NASA run with it.  Hopefully they get a chance to prove this.

I love the DIRECT concept and I think it would be a great vehicle to see being developed and launched (and evolve).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/24/2009 11:07 pm
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.



{peace, love, and tranquility} it's all good as the kids say... living with 7 kats gives one a distinct perspective on inter Kat relationships, and various personalities ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/24/2009 11:27 pm
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! :)
Quote
No oversight at all.
Where is the guy looking over their shoulder?   
NASA administrator.
President.
GAO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2009 11:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 07/24/2009 11:34 pm

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.

Yeah - I've always wondered why this concept is continually overlooked. It is a good solution.
Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct used this approach. His ARES Rocket was a shinning example of a Shuttle Derived Vehicle(payload remaining on top). If the engines were simply bolted on like in New Shuttle C rather than flying back to be reused  then it would be viable. Indeed it may be a good compromise between Direct & CxP & New Shuttle C.
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/24/2009 11:41 pm
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.

That's what the Air Force uses FFRDC's (like Aerospace, MIT, Sandia, etc) for.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2009 11:45 pm
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?


Speaking very bluntly, there are a LOT of engineers and managers within NASA who already think its a better plan.   We have a lot of grass-roots support at all of the major NASA centers, amongst both civil service and contractor employees.   Since we started this project, I have personally received well over 2,000 messages of support from people working within the program -- and I'm fairly sure that is just a small fraction of them.   While we have 69 employees on the Team itself, the support base is much, much larger than that.

There are some who still implicitly believe whatever their management tell them to believe.   All they really need is for their management to provide a different line and they'll follow that easily.

Then there's a whole bunch who simply don't care one way or the other.   To them its just a job and they will just work their days on whatever they're told to work on.

And finally, there is an ever diminishing group of hardcore Ares supporters.   They won't give it up, probably not even after it has already died and been swept away.   You're never going to convince them otherwise and its a complete waste of time to try.   While this group used to be very large, the realities of the budget, schedule and especially the workforce reductions, have turned most of the workforce away from this group now.   Today, this group is largely (not entirely, just mostly) made up of senior CxP managers who have chosen to tie their careers to Ares.   I'm expecting a "clean house" pretty soon though, so I don't think they will be a long-term problem.

All IMHO, of course.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/24/2009 11:48 pm
EELV didn't do too badly on its government cost estimates.  Nobody knows how much the contractors spent ... but the schedule was largely held, so it couldn't have been too bad.

I'm sure somebody like Aerospace was involved in that estimate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 07/25/2009 12:11 am
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.


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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: NUAETIUS on 07/25/2009 12:29 am
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.

Because Zubin is a great advocate, but he has always been a cult of personality.  That's the beautiful thing about the Direct, it's an great idea without a personality.  IF NASA adopted any of Zubrin's ideas, they would then have to deal with his ego, and with having a public advocate who would come out and undercut the changes they would have to make.

On the other hand, NASA can take the idea's from Direct that they like and use them without have someone as known as a Zubin or Peter Diamandis running around screaming they corrupted my idea.  Bad enough that Griffin would call the Jupiter 130 a "gimped" Ares V.

The other reason that NASA might adopt Direct, but didn't look at Zubrin is the Direct team went to GREAT lengths to take the giggle factor out of their work.  Through Direct 1, 2, and then 3, they did the hard work of PROVING their numbers, making the sausage of politics, and honestly working themselves to death.

It's real easy to have an idea in a forum, it's hard to write a book, but it's near deadly to write a proposal for a human space system, and then fix the holes.  Zubin has never went back and tried to fix his holes, or have his data evaluated by a 3rd party professionally, Direct has multiple times.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/25/2009 01:49 am
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.


Quote
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

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/25/2009 01:56 am

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.

I'll start calling you Ross 'Von Braun' Tierney soon!  LOL
See, NASA needs to get back to designing like this. Then there would be fewer problems!!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 07/25/2009 02:27 am
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.


Quote
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

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,

Thank you for your answer, it usually seems to be the unknowns that cause government program cost to spiral out of control.  E.g. the government doesn’t adequately define what they want a program to accomplish in the first place, “We really wanted an airplane that can fly twice as far as we asked for”.  Or the uncertainties in developing the new technology or equipment required to accomplish the mission as they have defined it.  5,000 kg of mass is quite a huge margin to add, around 30% if I’m thinking about things correctly, it should be hard for even MSFC to to come up with an upper stage to use up all of that margin and even if they could design such an underperforming stage, would it really be that hard to squeeze a little more performance out of the RL-10s! 

It looks like you guys really took the upper stage FUD seriously when developing DIRECT 3.0.  Maybe that explains why they want to attack your extra EOR docking vs. going after their favorite DIRECT 2.0 target which seemed to me to be the upper stage.

The thing I like best about DIRECT is that more than the competing designs it seems to remove the uncertainties associated with accomplishing CxPs return to the moon as NASA has defined it.  Even the NSC has more unknowns in terms of crew abort issues and fundamentally changing the flight dynamics of the shuttle stack by adding around twice the weight of the orbiter to the side.  It looks like the biggest uncertainties remaining are the avionics, which shouldn’t be too great of an issue since all designs will face this issue, even the NSC will need to update the shuttle avionics to some degree, and the extra docking in low earth orbit.  But heck if the Russians can reliably do it with 1950/60s era Soviet Technology we shouldn’t have too much trouble with it.

Good luck with the remaining month or so until the Augustine Commission releases its report.  Hopefully Obama can recognize a real bargain for the Nation’s Space program when it is offered to him.

John

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/25/2009 02:35 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Eric Hedman on 07/25/2009 03:19 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/25/2009 03:32 am
Brilliant question Eric.

Honest answer:   I'm not sure.

Wayne Hale seems to have some time on his hands since he did something to tick Griffin off and earned himself a Latteral Transfer to Obscurity (y've all noticed that, right?).   He shone very brightly after Columbia was lost and managed the Shuttle Program through one of its darkest times.   That tells me he's certainly got the skills to manage something this tough.   I'm just not sure how well versed he is as a "development" manager as opposed to an "operations" manager though -- they are subtly different jobs.

John Shannon also looks like a fine person for such a job, and with Shuttle closing in just 14 months time it looks like he would be available too.


While we need a new Associate Administrator for Exploration and we also need a new head of Constellation Program, I don't think we need a new head of Launch Vehicle Development at all.   The development work should really be done by the contractors now and NASA's role should be primarily about Oversight and Analysis.   NASA should clearly define the Standards which must be met, define the Requirements which the program needs to achieve and then let the contractors handle all of the details.   Mind you, NASA people should also be looking over their shoulders at every step of the way to ensure nobody is cutting any corners too!


For the more senior positions, I don't really know all of the NASA people at that level, certainly not well enough to be able to separate the good from the bad.   Someone else (Bolden/Garver presumably) is going to have to work that out and sift those who have been promoted to their highest level of incompetence from those who can actually do the job.

A particular concept which has worked in some other organizations facing such similar difficult reorganizations, has been to return EVERYONE back to the lowest ranks, put everyone back in the trenches again.   And then make everyone compete again for the management positions.   The best of all the available talent gets promoted, the others don't.   But that takes time to accomplish and time is something we don't really have much of right now.

One things for sure:   Bolden and Garver are going to have their work cut out for them identifying all of Griffin's cronies and exorcising the agency of their incompetence while leaving the quality personnel in place.   I hope the rot isn't so ingrained that they just have to amputate the entire limb of upper management entirely, even cutting away some good parts just to be sure.   I sure don't envy them the job, but I think a Marine Major General should certainly be up to the task.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/25/2009 03:34 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rsp1202 on 07/25/2009 03:47 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/25/2009 04:28 am
Do you recognize this concept? I've had it saved for a while and forgot about it.

I haven't seen that particular sheet before, but I have seen the performance and some cost results for all three of those configurations.   We calculated those configurations for ourselves back around the time of the original "Ares-IV" rumors -- whenever those were! :)

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.

The second option is plausible.

The third option is a pig.   You need to deep throttle all the engines in flight and then you also have to shut down two of the engines all in order not to breach the 4g limits.   And when you do that while carrying a 150ton Core Stage to LEO, the performance is barely enough to lift an Orion (about 30mT Gross).   Highly inefficient way to do what a Delta-IV Heavy can already do.

Personally, I think this approach misses the sweet spot by quite a distance.

YMMV of course.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Eric Hedman on 07/25/2009 05:10 am
Ross:

Thanks for the answer.  By the way, like me, you are up too late staring at your computer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 07/25/2009 05:26 am
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...
 

Exactly!  Eventually we ought to have a combined shipyard/depot/communication hub/crew haven in LEO, L1/L2, Mars orbit etc.

Build the first one in LEO, apply the lessons learned to improve the next one and the next.  Just don't change the design so much it becomes a new development each time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/25/2009 06:25 am
Quote
But 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?


Hmm, I thought that the OMB was supposed to fulfil that function?

But I'm very hazy on this aspect of things.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/25/2009 07:47 am


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.


I think that the ability to deliver the J-130 config with SSME's & 4-segs and without an upper stage (as can SD-HLV) is a great way to take a lot of the pressure off the overall development programme, and the built-in margins hopefully mean the speeded-up core development programme won't be a mad stretch. With avionics & Orion as the long-pole items, other programme elements have some natural give in their schedules, too.

Not having to rebuild the infrastructure and stretching or extending shuttle also helps a lot.

Even if J-130 doesn't achieve it's performance targets it can lose a huge percentage of it's payload and still be a useful vehicle. There's the option of a block II core developed alongside the upper stage, guided using real J-130 flight data.

Obviously, this would impact the Lunar mission, but adding 5-seg SRB's adds over 12mT - 15-17% to the thru-TLI performance. Also useful if Altair needs more L2/L3-type margins.

Whilst no-one would like to see those sorts of issues crop up, I absolutely love that the J-130 has so much performance margin in hand, and that there are obvious workarounds if J-2X performance also falls again or there are RL-10 HR issues (say can only fit a max of 5 "A"-spec engines).


I'm not suggesting that Jupiter has been over-optimistically estimated, but it's always great to have easy growth options in your pocket if you need them. Of course, these would increase costs, but not as much as where the development team need to find extra performance but none is easily available.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/25/2009 08:15 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 07/25/2009 09:53 am
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.

Still, the concept of the side mounted Engines could assist NASA if they  Choose Direct V2 and need to avoid the base heating problem... :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 07/25/2009 10:55 am
And this reactor comes from where?

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/25/2009 11:59 am
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.

Why would you go through the trouble to bundle 200 reactors when you can just develop a single one sized to your payload capacity?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/25/2009 01:17 pm
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.

I think they need someone from outside NASA.  Give that person deputies that know NASA and rockets. 

NASA's leadership and culture need new ideas and people after the failed development programs in the last 2 decades, shuttle accidents and cost over runs. 

There are people across the US that are use to running huge development programs for naval ships, helicopters, planes, submarines etc.  The skills needed to manage multi billion dollar technical programs exist.  Bolden being a Marine General can find those people and have the Pres. assign them to NASA. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SoFDMC on 07/25/2009 04:26 pm
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.
Isn't the Heat Pipe Reactor still at the theoretical stage?

http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&q=heat+pipe+reactor&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 07/25/2009 04:27 pm
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. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/25/2009 05:03 pm
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. 

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: alexw on 07/25/2009 10:16 pm
Ross, I understand you are pushing your booster, but there are serveral problems with your post:

Quote
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.

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

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/25/2009 10:44 pm
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

I like the way you think  :)
Great post.

NASA, hello, are you listening to this????
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: alexterrell on 07/25/2009 11:02 pm

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.
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/26/2009 01:31 am
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.

Could you describe and quantify what "typically used" means?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/26/2009 01:32 am
Has to be space qualified too.  Sometimes that is a huge technology challenge.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/26/2009 02:05 am
Has to be space qualified too.  Sometimes that is a huge technology challenge.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/26/2009 02:37 am
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...

Ross, I understand you are pushing your booster, but there are serveral problems with your post:

Quote
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.

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


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/26/2009 03:20 am

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.

Don't most high energy high density small sized nuclear designs use metalic and not oxide fuels? If you use a Na coolant could you not let the Na solidify and then melt it once in space before starting the device for the first time?

RTG's, though not the poster child for high power or power density seem to do just fine on the paint shaker ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MKampe on 07/26/2009 03:27 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/26/2009 05:16 am
The current baseline already exceeds all proposed payload requirements, so the money for bigger rockets would be better sent on more missions.  The main point of direct is to minimize development costs and spend the money exploring space.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/26/2009 05:44 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/26/2009 06:14 am
Maybe they would get more congressional support if they called it "Pretty Obvious Rocket Kludge"

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/26/2009 06:20 am
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...

Mars sample return isn't reality because of funding issues as well as technical constraints on any Mars surface payload upper mass, not because there aren't any launch vehicles to fly that mission. Ariane 5 does just fine for a simple, small Mars sample return mission.

ESA for instance assumes 5 different spacecraft for the mission anyway - an orbiter around Mars; a transfer stage; the descent module with a rover; an ascent module and an Earth reentry module which rendezvous with the ascent module in Mars orbit.

Right at that moment the costs are preventing the mission to go anywhere.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 07/26/2009 07:26 am
...   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.

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.

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rklaehn on 07/26/2009 09:13 am
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.

One could argue that a significant part of this complexity comes from the limited mass budget.

But avoiding technology development by using a simple, more massive system is so contrary to the current aerospace culture that it probably wouldn't happen even if a HLV was available.

Due to the politics involved in publicly funded missions, a dollar spent on developing for example an elaborate scheme for landing on mars is much preferable to spending a dollar on a larger launch vehicle to avoid having to use the elaborate landing scheme in the first place.

So a HLV could significantly reduce the cost of flagship missions. But due to the aerospace culture and politics of publicly funded projects, it probably won't happen.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/26/2009 09:55 am

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/26/2009 10:43 am
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.

An ideal solution would be to budget an extra decadal flagship into SMD with the money they save by scrapping Ares.  Afterall, they are probably the most popular thing NASA does these days (with possible exception of the rovers).  Just look how much more interest there was in the shuttle when it went to a telescope instead of the space station earlier this year.


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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rklaehn on 07/26/2009 10:56 am

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 07/26/2009 01:27 pm
Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

I doubt you have anything substantial supporting the claim JWST problems are the result of the folded mirror. More likely they have to do with state of the art science instruments with very narrow tolerances, very tight requirements for spacecraft pointing ...

I would support an extra flagship, instead of Ares I. Sure. but I would be even more happy if the only currently planned flagship (to Jupiter and Europa) stays on its 2020 schedule, which is very doubtful these days. One way or another, a HLV won't help here.

Quote
And that is exactly why spending more on a launcher to reduce all the other costs might make sense.

It does not work this way. Again, the tasks a spacecraft has to perform define its complexity, which defines its costs. More mass does seldom help here, and never helps enough to justify the higher cost for the launcher. Again, why is not everyone using the biggest vehicle available? Why are Pegasus et al. flying? Why?

Quote
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.

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.

You are looking for a problem for your solution.

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tamarack on 07/26/2009 02:04 pm
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?

I'm with you on making the most capable ARES V possible(3SRB), but there are many that think a half-size (DIRECT, ARES IV) will do just fine.
For almost all science missions, ISS resupply and LEO crew transfer - there is a slew of capable rockets that ARES I is supposed to join. If we intend on putting a lot of mass into space for sustained presence and exploration - larger rockets are cheaper/lb and do jobs half-sizes can't.
The arguments for half-size are: two rockets, though more expensive, can still put up enough mass for missions and might also carry science missions that are 4x too heavy for other launch systems. IMO half-sizes are a waste of time with no foreseeable need and the Constellation program seemed to agree when they approving the ARES V heavy/ARES I standard, but canceled the half-size ARES IV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/26/2009 02:04 pm
All of these posts are exactly why the DIRECT position is not an either-or stance on heavy/medium/light lift launchers. Light and/or medium lift launchers are more than sufficient for a lot of our space lift needs. But that's because the spacecraft they are lifting actually "fit" very well into the capabilities of the launcher. The most expensive part of any space mission, manned or unmanned, is the spacecraft. If a spacecraft is physically too large for any existing launcher, then the only way to lift it is to make it vastly more complex by turning it into some kind of transformer where it folds in on itself in Frankenstein-like fashion to enable it to fit the fairing. That can easily double or triple the cost of the spacecraft itself, calling into question whether or not the budget can even afford the mission. The solution is to use a launcher that is large enough to let the spacecraft fit in the fairing.

But now we have the question of how big is enough? Here is where we believe the Jupiter fits the bill nicely. We do not advocate building a huge launch vehicle, like the Ares-V, because it would have very little use. The expense cannot be justified by the flight rate. And yet there are times when that kind of lift capacity can prove to be very useful. The answer is to create a medium lift launcher with a high enough useful launch rate to justify its existence, and that can fulfill the heavy lift needs on demand by adding capability to that launcher thru use of an upper stage. In other words, build one launch vehicle that can fill both roles.

Anything that does not require the lift capability of a Jupiter can, and should, be flown on an EELV-class launcher, not a Jupiter. But when high-medium/heavy lift is needed, there just is no substitute for the right launch vehicle. The Jupiter-24X is that launch vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: spacenut on 07/26/2009 02:28 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/26/2009 03:31 pm
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?

The problems with that are many. Some are:

1) No F1 engines exist is production, so that's money and years away.

2) Since this is so big, and you would have (hopefully at least) something using existing facilities for regular launches, so what you need for his one would all have to be built from scratch. Again, more time and money.

3) Most of what you would need for HLV is non-crewed, so investing in EELV-upgrade of vehicles is best. So just pay ULA to build their biggest and baddest. In 15-20 years, you can have your 200T HLV. Leave it to the pros.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 07/26/2009 05:22 pm
   * 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.

I vote for a Sedna orbiter, with HIRISE sized telescope. Seeing the first known Oort cloud object up close?!! YES!!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 07/26/2009 05:27 pm
Quote
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.

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.)

Larger tanks and longer burns do not cost anything if they fit comfortably under LV's payload limit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 07/26/2009 05:58 pm
And this is wrong too. Larger tanks means heavier spacecraft means different attitude control, thermal, structure ...

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Eerie on 07/26/2009 06:05 pm
I vote for a Sedna orbiter, with HIRISE sized telescope. Seeing the first known Oort cloud object up close?!! YES!!!

You did the numbers?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/26/2009 06:45 pm
And this is wrong too. Larger tanks means heavier spacecraft means different attitude control, thermal, structure ...

I think you are guilty of 'glass half empty' thinking.  Yes, different weights, ratios of propellent to payload and so on would lead to its own issues.  However (and this is purely from an amateur standpoint), I'm sure that there is a way to balance all of this to improve performance.  The point is that a LV with a higher payload limit would give you the room to play around with various things to acheive that end. 

That is the case of the spaceborne nuclear reactor I mentioned earlier too.

After that, it becomes a funding issue.  Is America willing to pay $n million to answer all those nagging questions about the Oort Cloud, Europa, the Kuiper Belt Objects or whatever? We have the technology if you have the cash.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: rklaehn on 07/26/2009 07:01 pm
Quote
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.

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.

This is a strawman argument. I never made the claim that you should use the biggest available launcher for all missions. Obviously there is some kind of economical optimum for mission mass above which mass increases are no longer beneficial.

All I am saying is that there is frequently too much emphasis on squeezing a mission on the smallest possible launcher and that for some large missions (mars sample return, outer planet missions, large telescopes) the incremental cost of a heavy lifter launch could be lower than the cost caused by trying to launch with an EELV.

Quote
Quote
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.

1) You have to decide: Heavier spacecraft or faster trajectories.

Wrong. If you have sufficient excess capacity (as you would probably have when e.g. launching an outer planet mission on a jupiter instead of on an EELV heavy) you could accept some weight growth and still use a faster trajectory.

Quote
The first won't save you cost,

Super lightweight components are always more expensive than standard components. So why should having a larger weight budget available not save costs? You might argue that the cost saving does not justify moving to a bigger launcher, but that there is no cost saving whatsoever is just ridiculous.

Quote
the latter increases arrival speed (and therefore delta v, and therefore mass, larger tanks, longer burning engines ... or more complicated EDL.)

Wrong again. A direct trajectory to jupiter can have exactly the same arrival velocity as a trajectory using multiple gravity assists, but still arrive years earlier.

Quote
2) Much less than you think. Spacecraft can sleep.

Obviously the spacecraft does not have to be babysitted by the entire team while it is in transit. But the entire team has to be available at arrival. It costs money to guarantee that.

Quote
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.

But they can afford designing a very complex landing mechanism for MSL.

By the way: I think this is getting off-topic for the DIRECT thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Eric Hedman on 07/26/2009 07:10 pm
I vote for a Sedna orbiter, with HIRISE sized telescope. Seeing the first known Oort cloud object up close?!! YES!!!

Would there be enough light out at Sedna where an orbiter could get good images without a long duration exposure (might be difficult with a rotating object)?  How about a lander that has a flash for illumination plus some instruments to sample and analyze the surface?  The mission could also have a few surface penetrators.  If we go through the effort to get out that far, wouldn't it make sense to get a better idea just what this object is made of?  I for one would be interested in the results.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: randomly on 07/26/2009 07:46 pm
use a collection of 1 kiloton 'flash bulbs'.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 07/26/2009 08:14 pm
And this is wrong too. Larger tanks means heavier spacecraft means different attitude control, thermal, structure ...

No, unless the spacecraft designer is somehow does not know that tanks have to be that big, and therefore he and needs to _RE_design those things.
This is not supposed to happen if the program knows in advance what LV it will use and how much can it lift.

Look, we are arguing in circles by now. We say Jupiter may be helpful for unmanned missions. You say that it won't be, because historically SMD was seriously cash-strapped.

We are both right (because currently there is no way to know for sure what will happen):

Jupiter *may* be helpful. (The converse: "in no event Jupiter can be useful for unmanned missions" is obviously wrong).

But if SMD will still be surviving on a hunger diet, it *won't be able to use it*.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 07/26/2009 08:18 pm
Jupiter *may* be helpful. (The converse: "in no event Jupiter can be useful for unmanned missions" is obviously wrong).

But if SMD will still be surviving on a hunger diet, it *won't be able to use it*.


Very well said. Sums it up really good. And now let us talk about probabilities for these events. :)

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: alexw on 07/26/2009 08:26 pm
...   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.
    Agreed.

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. 

Shuttle, however, we *did* use for SMD. Shuttle+IUS launched Galileo, Magellan,  Ulysses, and Chandra. SMD didn't have to pay to develop IUS -- because it was built for all those DOD and TDRS satellites. SMD presumably had to pay only the incremental cost. My question is, would NASA have built all these probes if they had had to buy e.g. Titan IV + Centaur at commercial rates? I don't know. IUS (and it's hoped-for successor Centaur-G') were the launch platforms these science missions were enabled by and planned for.
Likewise, all those telescope missions that didn't use an upper stage (except possibly a Star motor.) SMD didn't have to pay to develop STS (umm, directly, that is, of course), but got to use it as the house launcher for most everything bigger than a Delta II.  That was part of the plan from the beginning.


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 think what's happening is that we are alluding to /different/ possible benefits from DIRECT for SMD missions.

   The first possible assertion is that a bigger launcher means lower mission costs,  (and hence more major missions). Obviously, for most missions, this isn't so. Every probe is a long custom development process, mostly instruments, partly bus, right?  (I'm curious about the ratio.) A bigger total mass means you can put more there, but that hardly means the costs automatically go down!  I never asserted this.

    Now, there are a few possible but questionable scenarios where a bigger launcher might possibly lower costs:
      a) Bigger payload fairing would have meant non-folding mirror on JWST. Maybe. As you say, I haven't seen a direct number that this is a major cost driver for JWST instead of instruments.
      b) Higher-energy upper stage means no need for long gravity-assist trajectories, means less time to keep the team together. Maybe. Haven't seen that that's a cost driver.
      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.

   Question: is there a case where a higher-energy launcher would have meant a more capable mission at little extra cost? Suppose Cassini had been able to carry considerably more hydrazine, or New Frontiers, with marginally beefier structures. An in-house J-130 + commercial Centaur/DCSS would hardly have cost more than Titan IV, no?  Would you really have to scale the RCS and main engine up a huge amount, or just extend the burn time?

  My major point, back above, had little to do with cost: that the flagship missions we can hope for in our lifetime -- however rare -- will need mass. Can you really do a Europa lander on the ~1000kg budget given by existing upper stages, even if it's a multi-billion flagship? At what point does the radical work to keep mass down drive development cost? DIRECT would change this, and the marginal cost of the Jupiter core over the Atlas core  **if anything** (or even the JUS over the Centaur in either case) would hardly be significant against total cost.

   I'm not suggesting major cost savings, I'm asking about capbility increases beyond the existing planetary orbiters we've launched at the same SMD political money level.


Lastly, here's a different issue, that I haven't seen raised here before. Right now, missions are designed to maximize scientific instrumentation given the mass budget (dicated mostly by the launcher) and cost budget (dicated in advance). Every mission is a custom spacecraft. But we've now developed a collection of deep-space-proven instrumentation of great capability, I'm thinking particularly of MARSIS and HiRiSE, plus the New Frontiers and JUNO and MESSENGER buses (are they related?). Would it be feasible to ressurect the old Planetary Observer idea of developing a common spacecraft? I'm guessing that wasn't very feasible before because of the desperate need for custom development to maximize science return at these weight classses. But a Jupiter or Saturnian lunar orbiter, or a Neptune orbiter, seem to be pretty similar problems (including P238 availability...) We already build flight spares; how much would it cost to build several copies? Each probe would not be /ideal/ for its task, but are there radical cost savings to be had if the platform re-used, and you need only pay for the launch and the mission team?

DIRECT, particularly JUS (if HSF is already flying it often) might make this feasible, in a way that it just wasn't at 1000kg.

I'm not trying to be starry-eyed about it; I'd like to understand more about the individual cost drivers.

-Alex

 


Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: gospacex on 07/26/2009 08:36 pm
I vote for a Sedna orbiter, with HIRISE sized telescope. Seeing the first known Oort cloud object up close?!! YES!!!

You did the numbers?

No.  (doing...) Hmm. Crudely: Atlas 551 launched New Horizons. Jupiter-246 lifts about 5 times more than Atlas 551.

It means that theoretically Jupiter-246 can throw 5 times more than New Horizons' mass to a similar trajectory (9 years to Pluto, encounter speed of 11 km/s).

Even best chemical propulsion can't have dV of 11 km/s with payload:GLOW ratio of 1:4. The craft consisting from 4 parts fuel and 1 part New Horizons won't be able to brake at arrival! :(

And New Horizons is rather light craft, only about half a ton.

So you are right, Pluto or Sedna orbiters can't be "simply" sent there even by Jupiter-246. They will require some tricks and more $$$ (two Jupiter-246 and on-orbit assembly? Ion engines? Slower trajectory?), and/or the craft should be scaled down to ~100kg. Tough...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsin2010 on 07/26/2009 09:48 pm
I have just sent the following to my congressman Rep. David Wu, D-Oregon.  Rep. Wu happens to be the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.  I have previously had excellent communications with Rep. Wu on matters relating to NASA funding and U.S. space flight policies.  I recently sent him a short note asking that he look into the problems with the Ares I development program.  Anyone who still needs (!) to write their congress person about Direct should feel free to use my text or modify it to suit.

"I would like to address again my extreme concern about the incipient disaster at NASA involving the unfortunate Aries I launch vehicle.  Hopefully, this mistake is about to be canceled by the Obama administration.  If not, it should be!  It is not working as promised and cannot even lift it's intended payload (the Orion command/service module) into Low Earth Orbit without three (!) burns of the Orion service propulsion system.  Please use any influence that you may have with any relevant party to convince NASA to switch to the Direct Jupiter launcher concept.  Jupiter is a much more cost effective, safe and expandable architecture which makes use of many existing elements of the Space Transportation System.  Jupiter would use  existing STS personnel and manufacturing tools.  It would use stock 4 segment STS solid rocket boosters, and three or four of the existing Space Shuttle Main Engines mounted on a slightly modified shuttle External Tank.  It would use the existing shuttle launch infrastructure almost as is.  No upper stage would be required to launch Orion into LEO as to the International Space Station but a second stage could be added to launch appropriate payloads for the return to the moon or other missions beyond LEO.  Direct/Jupiter was recently briefed to the Augustine Commission and is under analysis for same by the Aerospace Corporation. 

A short video illustrating the Jupiter concept, along with much supporting information, may be found at www.directlauncher.com.

It appears that Jupiter could be flying significantly before the predicted shuttle to Ares I gap (5/6 years?) would be closed."

Jim
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/26/2009 10:53 pm

      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.

Robotics, landing (sky crane), and weight.

Delay to 2011 was robotics related.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 07/26/2009 11:22 pm

Delay to 2011 was robotics related.

Actually environment is issue
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/26/2009 11:39 pm
As in contamination, or as in dust, time, and cold interfering with moving parts?


Delay to 2011 was robotics related.

Actually environment is issue
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 07/26/2009 11:50 pm
cold, necessitating a redesign
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/27/2009 12:52 am
In the interest of getting back on topic, maybe launching it on a J130 would allow them to fly 100 cubic meters of down comforters...

cold, necessitating a redesign
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/27/2009 02:39 am
The recent statements by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden about his desire for a manned Mars Program are very important. These statements are probably not being made in a political vacuum. They probably have been cleared by The White House & are a clue to what kind of program The President will advocate. 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. That program will likely utilize the Direct 3 Launcher(Jupiter) or a Direct Launcher very similiar to Direct 3.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: scotty125 on 07/27/2009 04:09 am
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.

Wow, and you thought Armstong's was a giant leap!  Our new President may in fact authorize a program whose end goal may be Mars sometime, probably 20-50 years, in the future, but keep in mind we'll be buying rides from the Russians starting in about 18 months, and that will most likely continue for the next 5 years.  At this point, we've had what appears to be a positive change in NASA leadership...I think if we get a revamped program where Ares I is replaced by DIRECT and consigned to hobby shop shelves as an Estes kit, ISS gets extended to 2020 (at least) and we begin to target some mission(s) beyond LEO, we should count ourselves as extremely fortunate.  There's still a small voice somewhere in the back of my mind that says it's conceivable the whole concept of HSF could be put on indefinite hold for the next 8 years, plus recovery time...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kkattula on 07/27/2009 04:29 am
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".
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/27/2009 04:44 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/27/2009 04:49 am
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".

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/27/2009 04:54 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MKampe on 07/27/2009 08:11 am
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".

With Launch delays, a shuttle slow-down doesn't really take much imagination.

ISS-extension also seems like a no-brainer.

HSF into the gap. That is where the future gets foggy. It's really hard to imagine funding for more than one NASA-mission launcher- e.g. both EELV and Direct (or-something) for Orion??!

Note:  Orion + EELV Heavy = Falcon 9 Heavy + Dragon + $$$$$$$$$.  (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. Falcon 9 is well down the road to Human Rated certification. EELV Heavy has not even started down that path. Dragon is scheduled to fly next year, Orion is not. COTS is already funded, Orion is already funded, EELV Heavy for Orion is not.

EELV for Orion just really seems silly. At the very worst, NASA could simply hitch rides on Falcon 9 for a while. Since Dragon uses the common docking adapter, is there a reason why you couldn't run a Falcon 9 Heavy / Dragon + Jupiter 24x / Altair mission to the moon as a sort of worst-NASA-budget-case scenario?

EELV / Orion is:
1) redundant for Crew-only capability -see Falcon 9 Heavy / Dragon
2) too small for Stuff (Altair et.al.)
2) in no way shuttle-derived (more expensive in NASA jobs and infrastructure)
3) is not funded (see redundant- COTS)
4) and therefore really makes no sense at all unless you're repaying back-room deals to campaign cronies, contract executives, and disenfranchised generals. (note- these can be perfectly valid POLITICAL reasons, but do not meet fiscal or technical tests)

No- the truly Grand Questions are:

1)  In what manner will the Augustine Commision review the VSE and to what manner it is serviced by Constellation / Orion / Ares as they currently exist?

2) In what manner will Obama and Bolden receive those reviews?

3) Will they Support, Re-Write, or Delete VSE / Constellation as originally conceived?
a)  Capsule-On-Top, smaller rocket for Peeps, Big Bertha (as long as we're using Estes metaphors) for Stuff.
b) Flexible architecture, ever-increasing goals that permit proof-of-concept and phased, modular development of technologies- these are why we are doinf ISS first, permanent moon occupation next (sorry Buzz and Neil- not Apollo rehashed- this is homesteading, not Lewis and Clark), followed by NEO or Mars to cap it off.

4)  Do the VSE / Constellation even fit with how they best see fit to utilize NASA as a fiscal priority and political tool?

NASA is a political beast- it must satisfy many interests- not just a simple balance sheet and the whims of a single leader like SpaceX, for instance.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 07/27/2009 08:57 am
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'd improve the format to take it from an opinion piece to a more professional article. Needs: Abstract, Introduction, Proposal, Discussion, Conclusion, Supporting data.
Starting with quotes is poor as it detracts from the point of the proposal, which is buried further into the document. The abstract is the most important part as it is the attention grabber.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: firehauck on 07/27/2009 09:18 am
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  !
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/27/2009 10:08 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/27/2009 10:19 am
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.


I'd say those are realistic goals.

10-ish years to get back to the Moon.

15-ish years to learn how to do a standalone two year mission in an ISS-type environment (with rad shielding).

20-ish years to add landings to the Mars mission.

I do worry about the budget to operate on the Moon whilst also preparing for Mars, though.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/27/2009 10:36 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/27/2009 11:17 am
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 starting to see that too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/27/2009 11:47 am
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?

Did you consider cost and development time to design and test a Mars Mission Module and Lander?  Both are needed for the Mars mission.  We can baseline some data from the ISS for long term residence in space, but more work needs to be done WRT reliability.  The ISS depends on regular resupply of needed spare parts, and we will not have that capability during Mars transit.  All of these systems will need to be tested in orbit for an extended period of time to ensure the crew can survive transit and return, plus mission time on the surface.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Arthur on 07/27/2009 12:37 pm
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.

Looking at recent history, we cancelled the Apollo/Saturn program (for now) in order to develope a fully reusable "Space Truck" (the Shuttle). Now is the 'later' when we need to reinvent all of the Saturn/Apollo capabilities again. How much of the old design are they reusing? Virtually none.

NASA, in my opinion, does not need to 'save money' as much as it needs to 'achieve goals'. Congress can write a blank Trillion Dollar check if they feel the cause justifies the expense, NASA (and We the People) need to show that HSF is not just money wated on nothing.

Steady funding.
A clear vision.
Demonstrable progress.

HSF ... Lunar Outpost ... Mars Colony.

... And it starts with a Shuttle derrived, Saturn-esque launch vehicle like DIRECT. Broad shoulders to lift the heavy loads.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 07/27/2009 01:03 pm

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,?


1.  That doesn't make any sense.  Dragon does not equate to Orion. So the comparison is meaningless

2.   Unfounded and baseless statement.   Show me where Spacex has taken away launches from ULA. Lockheed and Boeing don't launch Atlas and Delta anymore.  Spacex didn't make the cut for the last 4 launch services that NASA bought.

3.  Based on whose requirements?  If there is such a thing as "Human Rated certification", NASA has not been involved with Spacex on this.  Also since Spacex has no COTS D contract, it is not working on an abort system which requires a health monitoring system.  Another baseless claim

4.  Only thing they basically need is the health monitoring system

5.   EELV heavy has already flown.  Only Orion integration needs to be done

6.   No, what is sillier and asinine, is basing decisions on an unproven and unflown launch vehicle.   There won't even be enough flight history to even make this decision in 2011.

7.  What common docking adapter?  Right now, Dragon only uses a common berthing mechanism.

This is one of the most ludicrous posts I have seen in awhile.  Let's stick to serious ideas.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 07/27/2009 01:22 pm

2) Whatever happened to the **Really Slick** mobile-VAB they were going to use for Shuttle Launches from Vandenburg? That was pure genius!

Huh? 

 It was't a VAB, only a shelter with a crane.  It wasn't "pure genius! ", how do you think Atlas, Delta, and Titans were built up in the past using MST..   This is just SOP.

And what would be the cost of such a launch pad?  Or the vehicle that needs such a pad?  Or what missions would justify such expenditures?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/27/2009 02:19 pm
I do like the suggestion of Orbiting Mars and Venus first.  Why the rush to Phobos and Deimos?  But don't cancel Altair.

This would fit into the HSF, Lunar Outpost, Mars Colony scenario.

Differing with Jim yet again... I think Elon has started munching the crumbs that Lockheed and Boeing are ignoring.  That could turn into lunch, if he starts doing successful launch services.  Kinda like the dog nose at the picnic table.  If you turn away for a fraction of a second, there goes your cheeseburger!  Big if, I know, but he's making a great effort, IMO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Hermit on 07/27/2009 02:25 pm
At the Space Frontier Foundation, New Space 2009 event, there was a talk called "Orbital Fuel Depots: Fueling the future" given by Masten Space Systems. Its great that there are more people out there selling this idea.
http://newspace2009.spacefrontier.org/agenda.php
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 07/27/2009 03:42 pm
I think Elon has started munching the crumbs that Lockheed and Boeing are ignoring.

What are Lockheed and Boeing are ignoring?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bad_astra on 07/27/2009 03:53 pm
When was the last Athena launch?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/27/2009 04:24 pm
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

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bad_astra on 07/27/2009 04:30 pm
It would be easier to integrate the HLV if the Shuttles are pushed into the next couple of years.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/27/2009 04:35 pm
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.

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Stephan on 07/27/2009 04:46 pm
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish.  :)
I love the H2G2 quote ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/27/2009 05:04 pm

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2009 05:13 pm
Before catching up on the rest of the thread here, a few people have PM'd me to ask about arrangements for the Committee Hearing on the 30th July in Cocoa Beach.

My general plan right now is to attend the hearing itself from 8am to 4pm and then at the end, to do a few more meet-and-greets with some folk afterwards for about an hour or so.   Around 5pm I would like to gather together our group in the Lobby of the Hilton Cocoa Beach Oceanfront so that around 5:30pm we can all head-off to dinner from there.

If I can get a fairly firm head-count I would like to book a table at Fishlips (http://www.fishlipswaterfront.com/) in Port Canaveral.   Directions from the Hearing are here (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=1550+N+Atlantic+Ave,+Cocoa+Beach,+FL+32931+(Hilton+Cocoa+Beach+Oceanfront)&daddr=610+Glen+Cheek+Dr,+Cape+Canaveral,+FL+32920-4557+(Fishlips+Waterfront+Bar)&hl=en&geocode=FftnsAEdZfwx-yHypol5HA8MOQ%3BCZL33nPSEzkRFX16sQEdjeAx-yFwp7CyDmb-WA&gl=us&mra=pe&mrcr=0&sll=28.373419,-80.650115&sspn=0.141826,0.264187&ie=UTF8&z=14).

So anyone who intends to be there, please PM me (again) now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2009 05:21 pm
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?

Theoretically, anything like that could be done.   It would help a lot if there were a domestically produced Kero-LOX engine of course.   And the Pad would have to be designed to support such a configuration.   And the whole stack would need to be re-qualified for the different loads which it would experience.   None of that is trivial.   But theoretically; sure.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 07/27/2009 05:33 pm

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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. 


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.

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2009 06:06 pm
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  !

That's a fairly good point.   My concern with this is that you can't just make the Altair appear overnight when you DO want it.   It's going to take 8 years to develop, one way or the other, so if you put off spending any money on it for, say, 4 years, it will actually be 12 before it is ready.

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.

Then whenever there is money available, the rest of the project can then be more fully-funded.


Now, under DIRECT, our cost profiles delete a lot of other costs (5-seg, Manufacturing costs, Infrastructure costs, the whole Ares-V project etc), which actually free's up sufficient cash to allow Altair funding to go ahead at a fairly normal pace unhindered.   But you never know what's around the corner, so slowing Altair down is a viable option.

If Altair were delayed for any reason, there is a fairly good chance that the ISS 2.0 modules which ESA want to build, could then be used as independent Hab modules to support some NEO missions ahead of the Lunar effort and still stay on-budget.

That's what I love about our plans :)   Whichever mission is ready first can go ahead first -- we aren't locked into one path and one path alone!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2009 06:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2009 06:24 pm
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?

Right now the Constellation Program baseline is only 2 missions per year to ISS.

The CxP Lunar baseline only requires another 2 per year on top of that -- and only if those can be afforded too.


I, for one, want to see a more active space program than that, but it will need to be a lot more affordable than CxP's current plans.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 07/27/2009 06:50 pm
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.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2009 07:08 pm
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?

There's a very fine line which needs to be trodden here between retaining the experienced staff that you will still want involved and reducing your costs to free up budget for other things.   Its a helluva tightrope which must be walked.

The key is to understand what your current situation really is, and then to define the situation you want to be in at a given date somewhere down the road.

Then you have to work out how to get from point A to point B in the least painful way possible.

In the case of Shuttle > Jupiter transition, there's a fairly high degree of commonality between the two approaches and you're going to have obvious areas where you don't want to lose any staff at all (SRB, ET, SSME).   Whether Shuttle is extended, stretched or canceled, Jupiter needs all of those people on site and drawing their salaries in order to process the first test flight vehicles -- those costs will remain any way you try to cut it.

Now, if Shuttle continued to operate, a significant number of those people, facilities and costs could actually be shared between the two programs.   But, overall, in the end, you only need about 55-60% of the current Shuttle workforce to be retained processing Jupiter LV's (Orion is a different project with its own staff).

So what about the rest?   These are all trained staff who will have no comparable place in the new program (TPS tiles, RCS refurb, ISS payload processing etc).   Does that mean you just sack the whole lot of those people?   Hell no!   Many of these people may be "lowly technicians" but these are the ones who understand the real nuts and bolts so well that on a daily basis they lead the fight in identifying problems, taking corrective action and they are the "ground troops" who make the program really work as well as it does -- you want those valuable skills to be retained, although you're going to move them into other areas of the program.   The mindset and the skills which they have are incredibly valuable and they can -- and should -- be moved across to other areas of the new program if the budget allows.   There are going to be lots of new areas for them to move into:   Orion, Altair, EDS, Propellant Depot, lots of new Lunar Base elements, Jupiter Cargo Payload processing, ISS 2.0, NEO/Mars Hab modules and more than a few new payloads which we can't yet predict).

The fact is that a robust Exploration Program is going to be BIGGER (staffing wise) than the current Shuttle/ISS programs are.

So the real question boils down to whether you want to get rid of everyone who is trained and experienced right now, knowing that you will have to re-hire a whole new batch in 5-7 years time, but that these good people will have gone for good, or would you prefer to find a more reasonable way to bring your experienced people across from your current program and into the new one?


The key is "how do you handle the money?"

Well, from the "big picture" 40,000ft level, CxP plans currently call for KSC, JSC, MAF and SSC to all lose more than half their current staffing levels in order to allow MSFC's LV development departments to double in size.   Why does MSFC have to double in size?  Because they need to develop TWO new vehicles.

This equates to billions of dollars every year currently going to all those centers, but which has to be redirected to Huntsville.

This certainly helps to explain why Senator Shelby is so enthusiastic about building two new Ares vehicles (always "Follow the Money" in this business).

Well, MSFC doesn't have to build TWO new vehicles.   MSFC actually have sufficient staff right now to develop a single vehicle.   They don't need to expand (nor shrink) in that scenario.   So if NASA only orders one vehicle (ooo, lets say, "Jupiter") then MSFC doesn't have to strip all the other centers of their funding.   KSC, JSC, MAF and SSC can all remain funded at their standard levels -- which means they don't have to trim their staffing levels!

Okay, that's only a very "basic" view of the situation and the devil is always in the details, but it is a pretty accurate "big picture" view of what's going on.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2009 07:31 pm
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

You essentially try to do what they've done with Hubble -- You use it primarily for gathering science data, but every now and again you capture the public's attention with something really spectacular!

The public isn't going to be interested in, probably, 99% of the produce from such a telescope, or even a batch of such scope's.   But every so often a regular scientific image ends up being so beautiful, or so powerful, that it will always find its way onto the front page of a major paper and will end up on people's desktops as a result.

The precedent is already set, to show off the really spectacular stuff to the public, but continue using the equipment for its primary purpose all along. And the same approach has been used to great effect by other systems like the Mars Exploration Rovers too.   It will work just as well here -- although we're likely to get a lot MORE such "cool" imagery if we had 8 of these things flying around instead of just 1! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 07/27/2009 07:45 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 07/27/2009 07:50 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2009 07:51 pm

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.

Agreed.   We are starting from a fairly good position WRT engines in particular though -- the knowledge base for developing new engines is pretty solid these days and the final performance of an engine can be predicted with fairly high confidence thanks to that high level of experience.   Of course, nice healthy margins are always recommended too!

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 07/27/2009 07:54 pm
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]
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2009 07:54 pm
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?

Increased production is the main means to do it, although although "one a week" is a ridiculous target.

We're aiming for a point around 12 Jupiter's per year, although the infrastructure could theoretically handle around double that if the funding were ever available (don't hold your breath. I don't ever expect that to happen!).

But even 8 per year would still get you to a very reasonable price:performance point that would maximize the investment.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2009 07:59 pm
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]

I don't really have it all collated into one place.   It's all broken up into different elements, different locations and even different phases of the program timeline.

And the costs are all proprietary at that level.   Sorry, but I'm not going to release those publicly unless NASA does so first.   If you can get them to release it all, I'd be more than happy to follow suit, but I doubt they can be convinced to do that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/27/2009 08:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 07/27/2009 08:02 pm

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.

I assume at least some of those options involve taking advantage of a 10m (or 12m) payload faring to give a squat lander. That is in my opinion the main advantage of Jupiter over NSC.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 07/27/2009 08:05 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/27/2009 08:09 pm
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?

No, it wouldn't because it would have a very low centre of gravity and a very wide pad length. 

If you have a chance, look up an old British TV series called 'Space: 1999' and look at screenshots of the Eagle spacecraft.  This is an archetypal multi-role horizontal lander.  You have a cockpit at one end, an in-space propulsion system at the other, two sets of wide-spaced landing struts and a large gap in the middle with a structural spine from which is hung a mission module of some kind.

"That's just sci-fi" some might scoff... but NASA's current ideas for a horizontal reusable lander look a lot like that! ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/27/2009 08:09 pm
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?

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/27/2009 08:21 pm
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.


Edited: for "second stage"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/27/2009 08:24 pm
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'.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 07/27/2009 08:27 pm
I think I've found the horizontal lander http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/09/lockheed-martin-lunar-landers-revealed/
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/27/2009 08:34 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 07/27/2009 09:00 pm
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'.

The Altair-X looks like it was definitely inspired by Space: 1999 Eagle. My guess is that who ever came up with this design was Space: 1999 fan.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/27/2009 09:03 pm
I think I've found the horizontal lander http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/09/lockheed-martin-lunar-landers-revealed/

When I was a kid, I sketched out in detail, several pages, a lander that could be stowed in the shuttle's cargo bay that looked almost exactly like that. I called it the Locust Lander, since it looked vaguely insectoid.

Aside from the obvious, it's amusing to see that I may have been onto something.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ChuckC on 07/27/2009 09:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2009 09:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/27/2009 09:23 pm
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.

Um, that kinda looks like the engines are fixed and at the rear of the vehicle.

To have the engines on swivel mounts and get a reasonably equal thrust axis through the bottom of the craft, you'd almost have to move one to the front of the craft, located near the cockpit. See the design for the Russian yak-38, a vertical takeoff design.

Not to mention the weight penalty the vehicle would incur in structure for having thrust located 90 degrees off-axis. Ouch.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2009 09:23 pm
There are already plenty of dedicated threads for discussing the vertical vs. horizontal Lander design.

Please take the discussions of those to their correct locations as this thread is NOT the right place for them.

Thank-you.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/27/2009 09:28 pm
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.

Ah, that's what I was asking about.

Thanks. Makes sense not to reinvent the wheel
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 07/27/2009 09:52 pm
My work (?) here is done.

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish.  :)

All shiny! I'd have focused on a 12MW reactor as an initial step before going to the full 200MW version but there's nothing wrong with being bold.
Looks good - easy to read - abstract was very useful. I'd get behind this. DOE could fund the reactor development...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/27/2009 10:33 pm

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.

Ross, Remain Calm and Carry On! that sums up the first quoted paragraph..
   but there is a problem in your assumption that retirement exits of staff w/no replacements is a good thing... sadly, the longer you take the agency down that road, the more hide bound the management and staff are going to get, without that infusion of young and inovative techs and managers... the agency is not going to be as flexible... quick to accept a new opportunity or way of doing things... say you take the top age bracket of 55-65 out of the calculation, can you tell me the average age of the engineering department, or the management team... think about it... you don't need to post the results...

as well, you are going to find that when you do need those young minds, they will have either gone to commercial endeavours, (not necessarily in space or aeronautics) or because of lack of opportunity, perhaps decided not to persue higher education...
   
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tamarack on 07/27/2009 10:46 pm
...
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/28/2009 12:15 am
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.

Yea,
Make them look the “Eagles” from “Space 1999”.
;-)

Actually, I’ve seen some concepts for horizontal cargo landers.  Looks a bit like the Eagles from Space 1999.  A main engine to the rear does all the braking, then the RCS/OMS thruster pods at the 4 corners are designed to be able to produce enough down thrust for the final landing.  Then all of your cargo is inline and close to the ground.  Since you don’t have to design for an ascent stage, you can make it very cargo-friendly for offloading and maximizing landed volume.

I’ve been leaning towards really liking that coupled with a small (relatively) reusable crew lander.  It’d be refueled by Orion with a service module that would have large enough hypergolic tanks to both refuel the RLL, and take Orion back through TEI.  (Both the RLL and service module would use the same hypergolic fuel, so the RLL refill is “tanked” off the main tanks in the SM).  The lander would be one piece rather than two, and instead of two, with two redundant engines that could be switched back and forth in case of any engine problems on descent or ascent.  Since it’s one piece and relatively small (not designed for crew habitation on the surface per se, just for transits, dockings, and autonomous station keeping in lunar parking orbit.  Design focus on that and longevity.  The crew habitats would be on the cargo lander.

I don’t really think it’s that pie in the sky either.  I mean, why not reuse the hardware?  Would there have really been any reason the LEM couldn’t have been reused if it was one piece, and could have been refueled? (and had solar panels to keep it powered while parked in orbit and on the surface).  Per Direct, the EDS does LOI not the LSAM anyway, so once you have a Cargo lander down, and the RLL on station, you can do a single J-246 launch with the large “tanker” service module and Orion.  The only real obstacle is hypergolic propellant transfer in lunar orbit, but Apollo had obstacles too that they worked out with Apollo 9 and 10.  The LEM had never been tested, nor had LOR.  So you’d similarly have “practice” missions to be sure the technologies for transferring propellants and consumables to the RLL all worked as designed.  You’d have a cargo lander with your supplies and equipment before any attempt was made to land on the surface. 

The more I ponder it, the more I like it.  Makes sense, is not really any more complicated than the fully disposable Altair, and would save the cost of a new Altair every mission.   Your cargo landers could be made as inexpensively and “cheaply” as possible as no human life depends on it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/28/2009 12:29 am
Can we stick to the topic at hand, ie DIRECT 3.0? There are plenty of other threads for lander discussion.

Ross, I was wanting to make a comment to the Augustine Commission about the flexible path option. I'd like to advocate it, but I'd also like to show that DIRECT 3.0 is the best choice for this option over something like NSC and especially EELV.

Have you any thoughts how payload, economies of scale etc. would be applicable to the DIRECT case? I'm thinking for example that having 6 RL-10Bs would a key safety factor out there. Unfortunately J-246 could squeeze a NEO mission into one launch... impacting economies of scale, especially if there's only 1 or 2 missions a year (possible).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/28/2009 12:50 am
...
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???
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/28/2009 01:00 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 07/28/2009 01:03 am

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.

1.  More like a proven and higher performance vehicle like Delta IV heavy

2.  The ISS is the wrong place for a telescope
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Marsman on 07/28/2009 01:16 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/28/2009 01:22 am
That sounds a little extreme- where did you get that figure from? I've heard figures around $500-700 million variable per Ares V.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: agman25 on 07/28/2009 01:27 am
I'd just like to make a couple of suggestions for the DIRECT guys

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.
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.

I just think 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.

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.

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.

Just a few suggestions. Admire your hard work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/28/2009 01:51 am
I'd just like to make a couple of suggestions for the DIRECT guys
Speaking as an NSF reader, since I'm not on the DIRECT team, but here are my observations:

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Just a few suggestions. Admire your hard work.

Me too!

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: agman25 on 07/28/2009 02:07 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: yinzer on 07/28/2009 02:27 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/28/2009 02:30 am
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.

Doesn't the LOR-LOR plan have launch window constraints too?  Even more restrictive than EOR, right?  And right now, the Altair is not hypergolic but LOX/LH2.

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.

Many options have been looked at and discussed here, but ultimately DIRECT wanted to focus on the launchers only.  Once that little item has been checked off the list, the rest can follow.  :)

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/28/2009 02:54 am
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.

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..
So no Polar launches on D-IVH either.

And yes, I'm pretty sure J-130 would need a D-IV/WBC class upper stage to put significant mass into GTO or Earth Escape... or upgrade to a J-246 which would still be far cheaper than the Ares V behemoth.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/28/2009 03:13 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Malderi on 07/28/2009 05:36 am
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.

So, is that 1.4B for an Ares V, or 1.4B for an Ares V, EDS, and Altair? Either way, it's a huge number, far too large for even a flagship mission, but the numbers I've heard put it near a round billion, plus another couple hundred million for the Altair.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 07/28/2009 05:46 am
I'd just like to make a couple of suggestions for the DIRECT guys

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.
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.

Mark S.

Mark, I agree with you and in general I think it is always a bad idea to give too much weight to sunk cost for any project.  Additionally, while I'm sure the current NASA CxP management will have a hard time emotionally separating themselves from the taxpayers money and time they have invested in developing Ares I and V I don't think the Augustine Commission or the Obama Administration will have trouble with the choice. 

I believe Norm Augustine said the Augustine commission would not consider the sunk costs already spent on ARES and would just consider the marginal cost of all options going forward.  And as far as Obama goes he seems to have no problem moving past the $45 billion already spent on the F-22 and cancelling it, or the $3.6 billion spent on the new VH-71 presidential helicopter.  Which coincidentally is just a couple hundred million more than has been on Ares I so far.

John
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: alexw on 07/28/2009 06:05 am
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.

    You're right, of course, that the J-130, strictly speaking, could not possibly replace the DIVH -- it has no upper stage! By itself, it probably does have zero (or negative) payload to GTO.

   But I suspect that what Ross was referring to was launching a stock DCSS/ DIVHSS (how many names does this thing have?) on a J-130. The upper stage would be the same in the comparison, but the Jupiter core would easily lift that (31 tonnes?) plus payload all the way into LEO, without igniting the stage. Basically, you'd be paying for the Jupiter core plus SRBs, instead of three Common Booster Cores. I don't know what the performance to GTO, direct GSO, TMI, or TJI would be (Ross?) but it should be bigger than any other launcher in service, and you'd have (at least) two full engine starts available.

(Can the DIVH also lift the upper stage to LEO without ignition?)

Polar orbits and the like is a good question; could the J-130 fly a dogleg path out of KSC to high inclination orbits? With 5-seg SRBs, the shuttle would supposedly have been able to reach polar orbit, with the trajectory dodging well east to avoid the Canadian seaboard. How much mass could J-130 deliver to polar/LEO in such a trajectory? It shouldn't be negligable, since the DIVHSS plus any reasonable probe should be something like half the J-130's capacity to 28.5.


-Alex
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: yinzer on 07/28/2009 06:36 am
But then you don't have a J-130 any more.

You need pad mods to get LH2 and LOX up to the upper stage.  You need upper stage mods to get those umbilicals from the fairing to the stage.  You probably need upper stage structural mods to handle the increased payload mass.  You need upper stage avionics mods to handle the changed configuration (talking to the lower stage).  None of this is going to be done as part of the exploration stuff, so your science payload will have to pay for all of it.

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.

If you are trying to take a large payload to LEO and someone else pays the development costs, Jupiter-130 may be competitive with the Delta IV-H.  If you are trying to go to a higher orbit, a J-131 may be competitive with a Delta IV-H derivative when you get to double the current Delta IV-H payload capability.

But then you are in the situation of "if you have a science payload that's way too big for existing launchers, our new launch vehicle may be cheaper than other new launch vehicles.  But you don't, because you haven't filled up current launch vehicles and we took most of NASA's budget anyway."

Saturn IB-Centaur vs. Titan IIIE.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 07/28/2009 06:37 am
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.

Very good point.

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: alexw on 07/28/2009 06:54 am
...
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.

    No one is suggesting that DIRECT or Ares IV should be developed for the purpose of science missions. That would be a tremendous quantity of rocket dollars chasing the very few (though radically important) science missions, and completely backward priorities.

   But that's not the point. We don't get to choose to fund SMD instead of HSF. It's a political decision to fund HSF, period. The question is, given that HSF will probably fund Ares or DIRECT (or EELV-expansion), could science benefit in any way from that launcher?

 For most science missions, certainly not. And the budget starvation of SMD (Analyst's point) may make the whole question moot. But for some cases -- certain extremely interesting cases, where the cost of the launcher is already not so big -- J-130 or J-246 could possibly make a big difference.

If any science missions are funded at all.

-Alex

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/28/2009 06:57 am
And yes, you could theoretically make a Jupiter-131.  .
Very good point.
Meaning a J-231?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/28/2009 07:06 am
And yes, you could theoretically make a Jupiter-131.  .
Very good point.
Meaning a J-231?


No, it's J-1xx because only one stage is used during the ascent. DIVHUS is purely part of the payload delivered to LEO.

The BB cards have it as J-130+DIVHUS.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/28/2009 07:26 am
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.


As you say, DIRECT have chosen this approach to give an apples-to-apples comparison with CxP. There's nothing sacrosanct about this config of Orion + Altair, but the DIRECT proposal carries far more weight if it can work with these relatively mature designs.

DIRECT have always said that optimising the lander and/or mission profile would happen if DIRECT were chosen - NASA are simply going through that process for the other options, as you'd expect.

This seems to work in DIRECT's favour - Altair is still a strong option, but now different lander configs are on the table, too. With LV capabilities already understood, the panel are probably quite capable of working through mission profile options for themselves.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/28/2009 07:39 am
Chris has finally spilt the beans on shuttle extension in the Live Space Flight News Feed section of the forum.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: alexw on 07/28/2009 08:02 am
But then you don't have a J-130 any more.
(...)
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.
    RS-68?? Err, how did the back-end of a Delta IV get into this?  ???

The BB cards have it as J-130+DIVHUS.

    Where may I find these?

Thanks,
-Alex
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/28/2009 08:35 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/28/2009 08:45 am
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.
I wonder how Shuttle extension affects DIRECT.  Would the SSME production line have to start earlier than if they museumed the Shuttles next year?

Modify: extra word
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Stephan on 07/28/2009 09:19 am
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 :
http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/LunarLanderConfigurationsIncorporatingAccessibility20067284.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/28/2009 09:44 am
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. 

Okay, and I have come up with a possible solution.  Read about it HERE (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17353.msg447379#msg447379).  Being an amateur, I have no clue whatsoever if it will work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: yinzer on 07/28/2009 10:01 am
But then you don't have a J-130 any more.
(...)
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.
    RS-68?? Err, how did the back-end of a Delta IV get into this?  ???

Oh, did they change back to SSMEs?  Regardless, the SSME costs more than the RS-68 so the point still stands.  A Jupiter derivative that has the same payload to a high-energy orbit as a Delta IV-H will cost much more than a Delta IV-H.  Jupiter derivatives will only become cost-effective for much larger payloads than currently exist; payloads for which there is no money.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Arthur on 07/28/2009 12:35 pm
The BB cards have it as J-130+DIVHUS.

    Where may I find these?

Thanks,
-Alex

http://www.directlauncher.com/
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)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/28/2009 02:26 pm
Ross or Chuck, Is the SDHLV the current Augustine Committee favorite?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/28/2009 02:45 pm
It's not a beauty contest, from what I understand.  The panel will compile a list of reasonable options for HSF going forward, with the pros and cons and estimated costs for each.  They may have a favorite, but it is not part of their mandate to actually select the "best" plan.

It will be up to the President and Congress to decide which plan best fits our needs and goals going forward.  Which can be pretty scary, but that's the way it works.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jim on 07/28/2009 02:53 pm

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..


Which is in progress to support a 2010 launch
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/28/2009 04:00 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/28/2009 04:02 pm
Can we stick to the topic at hand, ie DIRECT 3.0? There are plenty of other threads for lander discussion.


yes, yes, yes...

But last time I checked, I thought the plan was to send the lunar lander up on a Jupiter, was it not?  So discussion about what kinds of options Jupiter could loft isn't really completely off topic then, is it?
Just say'in...

Unless the lander's getting up there on something other than a Jupiter??
So unless that's the case, people will be naturally curious what lander potential options might be available to send up on a Jupiter, since Altair isn't actually designed yet...
So while discussing Direct, it's bound to come up now and again
Just say'in...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/28/2009 04:32 pm
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!

Modify: cut down duplication.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 07/28/2009 04:45 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: sewand on 07/28/2009 05:08 pm
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. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/28/2009 05:19 pm
  Even if it's a relatively short jump from SDHLV to DIRECT, I can't imagine that happening in the next decade. 

Actually it's not a short jump. If you go for SDHLV and develop it, then developing an in-line design afterwards will cost a LOT more than going for an in-line design right away.

You can switch from Not-Shuttle C to a DIRECt rocket say 6-12 months into development without having too much wasted taxmoney. But if you do that you would have just added 6-12 months to the HLV development program once again by switching vehicle design AND architecture another time.

If NASA officially (!!!) opted for Not-Shuttle C they would stick with it. No question.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: HarryM on 07/28/2009 05:22 pm
Fewer pad mods for N-SC? (more important if shuttle is extended, which sounds likely...)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ah_mini on 07/28/2009 05:33 pm
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 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/28/2009 05:43 pm
Can someone just say point for point what advantages NCS has over Direct and vice versa?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: John Duncan on 07/28/2009 05:58 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 07/28/2009 06:04 pm
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. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/28/2009 06:06 pm
Current Commission Session going over Orion progress. Very interesting.
http://www.nasa.gov/145590main_Digital_Media.asx (http://www.nasa.gov/145590main_Digital_Media.asx)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 07/28/2009 06:07 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: bad_astra on 07/28/2009 06:10 pm
If SDHLV wins, it would be an unfortunate choice - they take a big hit on payload diameter and restrict their future options.

Not-C saves options like Direct and even Ares V by making them available further down the line while being the fastest method of preserving the shuttle based workforce and infrastructure, now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/28/2009 06:26 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Namechange User on 07/28/2009 06:29 pm
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. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: sewand on 07/28/2009 06:35 pm

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 I remember right, the NSC LM would be sized between the Apollo-era LM and Altair.  Small for the purposes of setting up a base, but larger enough for sortie missions. 

Is NSC large enough to conduct NEO "flexible path" operations?  I think they are some of the most intriguing missions out there. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Khadgars on 07/28/2009 06:35 pm
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/28/2009 06:51 pm
Of interest to DIRECT, on the current Augustine Hearing, Bo just asked a question of the Orion Program Manager, and very specifically stated that it was way too early for them (the Commission) to recommend *any* launch vehicle. To me that calls into question other reports that the Commission is favoring NSC.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/28/2009 06:55 pm
NSC: Requires new SW (maybe HW) for beefed escape system

Direct: Requires new SW (maybe HW) for beefed escape system

Shuttle: No escape system

Ares: No escape

Is that about right?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/28/2009 07:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/28/2009 07:44 pm
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.

Um, last cost quote from Ross on Direct's development costs was on the order of $8.5 billion- he brought it up during the forum discussion after his recent radio interview on NPR.

I don't believe that covers the costs for Orion/Altair, but I think that it's fair to compare just the development costs of each launcher in their right.

On a slightly different note, consider how wonderful it would be to be able to completely ignore Ares and move the discussion to the consideration of the merits of Direct versus NSC... :)

Reasonably certain we're not there yet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/28/2009 07:45 pm
@ cixelsyD

There are several issues that will determine launcher archetecture and budget is only one of them.  The others are political support, schedule (the gap), industrial capability retention and crew safety (dead astronaunts do not happy politicians make).

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 the end, I think the commission will come up with a range of options (missions a, b, c, d and so on) with perhaps the two best-value equipment archetectures for each.  Then, and only then, will the political debate in the White House and Congress begin.

Regarding NSC: Ultimately, I've always seen SDLV-Sidemount as the 'default' minimum-effort option if the Powers That Be decide they need a heavier shuttle-derived launcher but are not willing to pay for anything particularly elaborate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/28/2009 07:46 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: BogoMIPS on 07/28/2009 07:50 pm
Another interesting take from today's HSF review meetings were the presentation by the Astronaut Corps representative.  Here were my takeaways before I had to stop watching (unfortunately):

     1. Expect that you will only get one opportunity to design a heavy lifter in the next ~30 years, and it's right now.

     2. Mass is important, but volume is equally important.  We need the new system to offer both.

     3. We've been going to LEO for 50 years now.  We expect an order of magnitude improvement in ascent/descent safety, but accept that other mission areas will continue to be higher risk due to less experience.

     4. If the missing doesn't fit the budget, it's the wrong mission

     5. If we keep switching architectures, we keep extending the gap.

I think all of these bullet points play in DIRECT's favor:

     1. Jupiter is a heavy lifter that we can build now

     2. Jupiter offers the best upmass and upvolume than anything short of whatever flavor of Ares-V is currently baselined today

     3. Jupiter offers enough margin to add back options to improve Orion crew safety

     4. Jupiter's cost estimate is less of a dealbreaker, and at the same time offers more flexibility in mission profile

     5. Jupiter can re-use much of the work done with the Ares architecture without "losing it", or even simply *become* the Ares architecture.

I could be reading way too much into it, but the Astronaut Corps seemed to be lobbying against "NSC".
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/28/2009 07:51 pm
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. 

I was just going by the "71 man-rated, Metric tons delivered to TLI" standard that Direct had to meet to be "worthy" of consideration.

Being able to do that job should certainly be a point of comparison for NSC versus Direct at this time.

As the Augustine commission will decide on what missions should be accomplished, the baseline of comparison may certainly change in the future.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/28/2009 07:52 pm
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?

However, Aerospace Corp are generally quite conservative in their assumptions.  I suppose you can get away with shaving a year or two off both figures just on the basis that they are being cautious rather than make scheduling predictions that won't be met.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/28/2009 08:00 pm
Can someone just say point for point what advantages NCS has over Direct and vice versa?
NSC:
Jupiter:
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. 
<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?

Modify:  fudge quoting
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: SimonFD on 07/28/2009 08:05 pm
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.

Budget is the key word here. Especially after seeing Sally Ride's Doom&Gloom presentation.
There will be no money for full VSE due to reduced overall budget plus the requirement to keep the workforce during the humongous "gap".
That means that even though NSC would be able to get crew to the moon the only thing they'll be able to do (money wise) is walk around and look at the view (been there, done that!)

NSC (or Direct) initially will be a walk-on-the-spot exercise until political will backed by real cash and a definite goal is established.

All IMHO
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/28/2009 08:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/28/2009 08:12 pm
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. 


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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/28/2009 08:14 pm
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.

6.6 billion for NSC according to Shannon's 17 June presentation (which was a rough estimate but is backed by the 2004/2005 industry study)

8.5 billion for DIRECT according to 17 June presentation

4.5 years from go-ahead to first crewed launch for NSC (first test flight of a Block I NSC in 17 June presentation was at the end of FY 2013)

4 years for DIRECT according to the 17 June presentation

Operational costs? I would say about the same

More individual development starts for DIRECT, only about 8-9 development starts for NSC (one unique one - the side-mounted carrier).

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)

NSC - baseline lunar architecture - LOR-LOR
DIRECT - baseline lunar architecuter - EOR-LOR

More growth options for DIRECT than NSC

Payload fairing diameter: 7.5m NSC (potentially bigger payload fairing, but not much - probably 8m possible but e.g. not 10m)
10-12m DIRECT
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/28/2009 08:17 pm


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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/28/2009 08:31 pm


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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/28/2009 08:47 pm

Would the current STS software really be viable for NSC? Just curious.

Jim says not really.
Shannon says yes (on Block I flights they would fly nearly the same flight software and avionics).

I think the truth is somewhere in between.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/28/2009 09:47 pm


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?

What about man-rating? It seems as if it would be very hard to man-rate NSC, given ESAS and the recent USAF results for an SRB explosion. I thought we were past the point were NASA thought it prudent to hang the crew off the side of a fuel tank?

These costs all assume NSC can be man-rated and can launch an Orion. If it can't, what's the point? Nobody has the cash to develop EELV + NSC.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/28/2009 09:51 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/28/2009 09:51 pm
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.

Yes, and THAT sounds about right.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 07/28/2009 09:52 pm
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 missed that one. When did she say that?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/28/2009 09:56 pm
See above.  SDLV = 2016 compared with DIRECT's 2012/2013.  But the SDLV number must have a larger uncertainty band since less is known about it.

You aren't going to spend $1.2B a year for 7 years.  :)

She also said that there are NO options (including EELV) that significantly reduce the gap.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/28/2009 10:02 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/28/2009 10:02 pm

snip

Would the current STS software really be viable for NSC? Just curious.

I think Direct and side mount would be about the same in using current software and avionics.  Direct might need a little more work in changing the autopilot gains, but this is not a huge task. 

Direct would need more development dollars in big changes to the ET, engine plumbing, engine mounts, etc.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dlapine on 07/28/2009 10:05 pm

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/28/2009 10:05 pm
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?


OV-106 said that CxP was unsustainable (my highlighting above), ie costs too much to run long term. Obviously in this thread we are considering CXP-launched-via-DIRECT vs NSC-and-it's-architecture, and the run costs I quoted seem very similar.

Your comparison is of development costs. It may be reasonable to invest somewhat more (and presumably a bit longer gap) for a more-capable-for-similar-price launcher & architecture. (And BTW, Ross disputes whether NSC would actually be cheaper to develop).



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)

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").

Seems a reasonable trade if there are "a bit higher" up-front costs vs equivalent NSC config.

cheers, Martin


Edit: the highlighting ("unsustainable", "run long term") reads as emphasis - I was just trying to highlight different phraseology, not shout.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/28/2009 10:07 pm

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?

Not sure, but even if they didn't, it's still the one holding most everything up.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/28/2009 10:39 pm
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?

But some missions are easier with certain vehicles.

I suspect there will be somewhat of a circular process:-
* 1-2 launches can put certain stuff in orbit, divided certain ways;
* work out the worthwhile missions that the various vehicles can achieve;
* rate each practicable mission;
* work back the costs & suitability of each vehicle for each worthwhile mission.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/29/2009 12:33 am
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)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/29/2009 01:19 am
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.
Versus for Not-Shuttle-C: 

o A fully enveloped pod
o A cargo bay in the pod
o A joint at the front of the pod for upper stage / Orion
o A joint between the pod and the boattail (the boattail that presumably doesn't require big changes to engine plumbing and mounts)

All stuck off the side on stilts. 

To a guy who can't even fold a map, the ET challenge seems not much more difficult than all that.  Are none of those Not-Shuttle-C tasks even a little challenging?

And can DIRECT submit a redesign based on what Not-Shuttle-C is capable of carrying?

Modify: change word, add sentence
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 07/29/2009 01:24 am
I had written a diatribe... I will just say there is a shift in the paradigm, we are no longer talking about Ares but NSC.

How cool is this?

Ross and Co... keep on keeping on. 

I really feel that there are still some ABD people at the top but it is like a house of cards... the cat is out of the bag... people are starting to really examine Ares and Orion and folks, it ain't pretty.

People will be called to account.

I really hope we start really focusing on comparing and contrasting NSC and DIRECT while continuing to ensure Ares ends up where it belongs. 

And honestly, the fact that we have never thrown FUD, that we have always been honest with what we believe, and that we have never resorted to unscrupulous tactics only builds credibility.

I hope we continue to be humble, approachable, and credible.  I foresee more people reaching out to DIRECT team leadership.

Finally, I just want to say to the good people who are doing their best with what they have been given at Ares and Orion, this is not a personal attack on any of you.  You have played the hand you have been dealt.  I personally feel there are some really amazing engineers/people who raised a stink and asked the tough, and correct, questions. Once they realized the road that they were on they then fell in line like good solders and pressed on doing the best they could in the situation they were in.

I really hope we cherry pick the heck out of Ares and Orion and come up with a viable program sooner rather than later.

It is my humble opinion that DIRECT is our best hope for the future.

Respectfully,
RS327

/lurk on
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/29/2009 01:34 am
I agree RS327. I'm at that comfort level in my own right, that Ares-I doesn't exist as part of the new architecture.

Now add to that Shuttle extension VERY likely, if not a sure thing (but I'll hold my tongue for now). Hopefully that includes additional tanks = continued ET manufacturing for a short time.

It's comes down to: Ares IV/V, NSC, and Direct.

All use the ET (in its current or modified form) to work.
All use much of the workforce to pull off.
The first two can still revert back to Direct.

Now I think it comes down to the finish line for the committee to weed out the noise, and know that Direct offers larger payload fairings to orbit, is more in tune with the existing facilities, and isn't re-inventing anything.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/29/2009 01:35 am
mars.is.wet

If Orion really is the long pole in 2016.. 
Then her statement really said NOTHING about schedule for NSC.. Or Direct..  Did it?

Though she did infer that Shuttle Derived could be ready as much as 1.5 years before Ares I. Just not nearly early enough to close the gap.

Unless you have SPECIFIC data from Aerospace about Direct you're not sharing? 

Assumptions are not helpful.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: luke strawwalker on 07/29/2009 01:36 am
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.

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... 

If this is the best NASA can do to shoot you in the foot, they're more desperate than I thought... besides, as someone else mentioned, NASA is now proposing the very same propellant transfer that they FUD'd to death on various iterations of Direct 1.0.  I guess they miraculously figured it's not as difficult as they thought it was a couple years ago??  Which is it NASA?? 

Anybody wanna bet that if they decided a rear docking for the Altair/Orion was the only workable solution for their twin mini-Ares V architecture they would suddenly wave off any concerns about it??

Later!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/29/2009 01:40 am
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.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: alexw on 07/29/2009 01:47 am
The BB cards have it as J-130+DIVHUS.
    Where may I find these?
http://www.directlauncher.com/
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/29/2009 02:39 am
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.  :)
Yes.. You probably should have ;)

So are you inferring that Aerospace Corp believes Direct's in-line design (..if not schedule..) has the performance to be a viable option? 

I have to assume they are suggesting changes..  And would be curious how much of the schedule hit over Direct's numbers is driven by their proposed changes?

Pretty sad really.. 
Either Shuttle Derived Vehicle would still be ready at least a year and likely even more before Ares I.. That in spite of the 3-4 year head start Ares I has.. 

To me.. the big difference is... Direct can execute Constellation's mission as is.. 
NSC drives either a less capable mission..  or more complexity with more launches... or more schedule and cost hit for a "heavy" variant.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/29/2009 03:59 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/29/2009 04:01 am
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)


If L-M can't make the IOC date for the ISS version of the Orion, which seem very likley at this point, there is always the SpaceX Dragon.   Re last Friday's JSC Bolden Quote: "And the children shall lead us"...

http://www.spacex.com/DragonLab_DataSheet.pdf

 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 04:40 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 07/29/2009 04:53 am
I found I couldn't access these forums during the whole hearing either. Perhaps it was a bit overloaded or something?

Ross, what can you tell us about NSC vs DIRECT in the minds of the committee? Do you have any observations to share?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/29/2009 04:55 am
Whuh? What date did you send to Aerospace for J-246? Was it earlier, I thought J 246 was the baseline for Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: luke strawwalker on 07/29/2009 05:07 am
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.

I'm currently reading "The Case for Mars" by Bob Zubrin... it's an interesting read.  What I find most interesting and most disturbing is that the entrenched "our way or no way" mentality that led to the death of SEI has not changed one iota in the intervening 20 years!  There's the PLAN, the Gospel according to NASA, which requires Daddy handing over the keys to the new Corvette, the credit card, a handful of signed blank checks, the keys to the candy store, and a box of rubbers and patting them on the head and saying "go have fun".... NOT gonna happen in this universe...

Then everybody seems shocked and amazed when the thing finally gets shot down in flames and cancelled altogether... like that was NEVER a possibility whatsoever. 

Stupid thing is, this has been going on AT LEAST since Challenger, and that's been nearly 25 years ago... seems like SOMETHING would finally give and they'd realize "we gotta work with what we got, REALISTICALLY, not what we'd like to have if we won the lottery"...  That's what we all individually have to do in life...  but then again, they are a gov't agency, so expecting anything but institutional blindness, self serving interests ruling the day, and political bed-hopping just seems to be the only REAL purpose NASA has. 

The more I read about the history of all this, and the more I see of it every day, the more I think NASA needs to be broken up into a group of independent agencies that have to work together by committee instead of being ruled by the 'cults of personalities'...  Obviously the way it's set up and run NOW isn't working, so the alternative couldn't be much worse.  JMHO!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 05:14 am
Ross, what can you tell us about NSC vs DIRECT in the minds of the committee? Do you have any observations to share?

We don't have that sort of communication going with the committee, nor did we have with Aerospace Corp.   We provide information to them, they ask us questions, we provide more information to answer those.

But we aren't privy to any of their thoughts.   They keep those to themselves -- rightly so.

Believe me, we are just as interested in reading their report as you are!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 05:22 am
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/29/2009 05:29 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: luke strawwalker on 07/29/2009 06:14 am
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.

Remember the overriding importance here... it's not so much how the numbers were derived, IE it makes sense that Direct used the Ares approach to calculating costs... that way it's an apples to apples comparison...   The argument that "well, Cx's costs were wildly optimistic and have proved wrong, so that bodes ill for Direct too" is facetious when Direct's projected costs are already nearly an order of magnitude less than Ares costs, either projected or actual, have proven to be. 

It's like when I was house-shopping, and the first thing they'd do is run a credit check on my wife and I, and then only show us houses that stretched the limit on what they could possibly get us a loan for... when we asked to see houses that were significantly cheaper so we could afford to save, live more financially conservative, etc. they looked at us like we were crazy and didn't want to mess with us, so we went somewhere else that would do things OUR WAY.

Ares started out as 'more than they (Congress) wanted to pay' and has only gotten worse as time has passed.  Jupiter is starting off WAY down into the 'affordable' range, and when unforeseen costs crop up, as they SURELY will (as with anything) there will be a lot more 'cushion' to handle things before they get out of hand financially speaking. 

THAT is the important difference here nobody's mentioning... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 06:23 am
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?

It would take less than 2 years to put the current Block-II SSME's back into full production.

By some accounts, SSP has already issued the order to PWR because they wanted to ensure the long lead time items were ready in time in case of an extension.   So it could very well be less time than that.

You build those until the 'expendable' versions are ready and qualified,  and then you phase those in.


You do NOT want to be developing any new engines straight out of the gate -- New engine development work takes longer than any other aspect of rocket development -- avionics/software inclusive.   Delete it, defer it, reduce it wherever possible or it will dictate all of your schedules.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/29/2009 07:09 am
The BB cards have it as J-130+DIVHUS.
    Where may I find these?
http://www.directlauncher.com/
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


Alex,

sorry for delay, took me a while to find the link.

PRELIMINARY_090305_J130_40.4000.08100_CLV+DIVHUS__LUNAR_FLYBY__.pdf (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15541.0;attach=115699)
PRELIMINARY_090305_J130_40.4000.12301_CaLV+DIVHUS.pdf (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15541.0;attach=115695)

Reminder: these are for the "LV-40" version of DIRECT's design. (The underlying LV-41 J-130 has higher payload, and multiple other differences in the figures and vehicle / mission design). Also, these aren't even "final" versions of the cards for the LV-40 vehicle, but I think they might be the latest published versions with DIVHUS.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Malderi on 07/29/2009 07:30 am
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.

For curiosity's sake, could you share some of the reasoning for this? What particular criteria of the review made the 241 better than the 246? I was under the impression that the great engine-out capability of the 246 gave it bet LOC/V numbers than the others, but I admit, I haven't seen the detailed specs.

Additionally, will the review take into account Jupiter's "flexibility" in this regard? I.e., we can build the J-130 now, but is it considered a plus that we don't have to decide on the J-24x second stage until the requirements (and Orion) are better defined?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/29/2009 09:44 am

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...)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/29/2009 11:36 am
The NSC numbers from Shannon's proposal seem optimistic to me.  They obviously intend to use the ET unmodified in order to keep their development numbers down and their capacity numbers up.

That only works as long as the mass and dynamic loads of the payload carrier are exactly the same as the existing orbiter.  That may be a valid assumption for the initial LEO cargo version, if they are careful.  But there is no way they can claim that kind of commonality for the full-up lunar model with the Orion and upper stage.

The NSC stack masses almost 4.85M lbs for the EDS version, 300,000 lbs more than the LEO version.  The Shuttle currently maxes out at around 250,000 lbs at launch.  NSC carrier+payload maxes out at 586,000 lbs in the EDS version, which is more than twice what the Shuttle weighs.  And even the lighter weight LEO cargo version weighs almost 285,000 lbs, which is 15% more than Shuttle.

Wouldn't those kinds of differences require a full-up redesign of the ET?  And wouldn't that kind of work cost just as much (or more) than the DIRECT Common Core?  These additional loads would require a stronger and heavier ET, which would affect both the development time and the weight.  And who on Earth thinks its a good idea to hang a 290 ton asymmetrical load off the side of an ET?  Just put it on top where God intended and be done with it!

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/29/2009 11:41 am

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):


Those figures are comparing DIRECT-LOR with NSC-LOR, but I think we should be comparing DIRECT-EOR-LOR vs NSC-LOR (unless DIRECT would have to change mission profile to be selected). The relevant DIRECT figures are therefore "EDS TLI performance / 2-launch EOR" from the EDS baseball cards, ie payload, net of EDS, that can be pushed through TLI:-

J-246:- 79,053kg
J-246H:- 92,426kg

The various CLV & CaLV payload to LEO figures simply boil down to the statement that for those TLI's "CLV and CaLV can be lifted to LEO with more than 10% margins". (CLV on J-246, CaLV on J-130).

Quote
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

You're obviously not going to use 109% SSME's for a crew, but even if you did this would result in 78mT total through TLI (with 5-seg SRB's).

It shouldn't be a problem to max out the cargo TLI at 39mT, but you still need to max out the crewed TLI (35mT+) to maximise the total performance of the architecture. Once the lander TLI is maxed out, the only growth option seems to be to transfer cargo from Orion to Lander before descent?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/29/2009 11:46 am
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

(Formatting modified).

Why is the crewed figure higher than the cargo figure?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: John Duncan on 07/29/2009 12:11 pm
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. 

No blind devotion.  Just a mistrust of the current upper NASA management and their influence on contractors and/or industry leaders.

I said I hoped it would not be the case.  But if something odd comes out of it, then NASA management got to the White House and put their thumb on the scale.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: raketen on 07/29/2009 12:28 pm

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...)

Apples to apples means that one group does the analysis for the two systems and uses a common set of groundrules.

Also, consider the pmf of the upper stage.  What happens if NSC uses the pmf of the Direct's upper stage and vice versa?  That would be an interesting comparison
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/29/2009 01:27 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/29/2009 01:27 pm
Ross or Chuck, Yesterday at the Augustine Committee hearing did Sally Ride express a preference for the SDHLV(NSC)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 01:30 pm
There were no preferences expressed at all.

But I'd *love* to know how many times the words "Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle" and/or "SDLV" were used -- it was used a lot.   The reason that term was used, was a deliberate choice not to narrow the field down to either NSC or Jupiter.   If they wanted to specify one or the other, they would have used the correct specific names -- they chose to deliberately use the generic term instead.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/29/2009 01:39 pm
Ross, I've been using the tems NSC & SDHLV for John Shannon's launcher. What is the exact phrase for his launcher?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 01:39 pm
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

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:

- An In-Line variant offers greater performance than an equivalent Side-Mount.

- An In-Line variant offers greater crew abort safety than an equivalent Side-Mount.

- An In-Line variant offers slightly lower development costs than an equivalent Side-Mount.

- An In-Line variant offers *SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER* Life-Cycle Operational Costs than an equivalent Side-Mount.

- An In-Line variant offers much greater payload flexibility than an equivalent Side-Mount.


Every single previous study which NASA and the contractor networks have conducted over the last 32 years has found these same results whenever these two options are studied in an apples-to-apples comparison.

There is no reason at all for anyone not to expect every future study will find precisely the same results too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 01:45 pm
Ross, I've been using the tems NSC & SDHLV for John Shannon's launcher. What is the exact phrase for his launcher?

Here on NASASpaceFlight and on a few other websites the term "Not Shuttle-C" (NSC) has been coined.

John Shannon calls it "HLV", although he tells me he hasn't had any real involvement in it since the presentation on July 17th -- lets not forget that his day job is difficult enough just keeping Shuttle flying safely!

Personally I prefer to call it "NSC/HLV" -- because that identifies it accurately to anyone.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/29/2009 01:52 pm
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.
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.

Once modded to accomodate DIRECT, could a Shuttle ever use the same MLP again?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: JMSC on 07/29/2009 02:16 pm
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.

Ross,

Is it safe to assume that aerospace corps final numbers in evaluating the Jupiter will look something like:

ISS - approx. 67mt net for the J-130; NASA GR&A
(Jupiter-130 Crew + Cargo LV w/ 8.4m dia x 10.0m long fairing, to 100x100nmi, 51.6°)

EDS - approx. 103mt net; NASA GR&A
(Jupiter-241 EDS LV w/ minimal fairing, to 130x130nmi, 29.0°: note: I assumed approximately 2.5mt less to orbit given the extra 2.5mt reserve you added)

Given, your feedback that aerospace corp more or less agrees with your methodology for calculating performance I am assuming we should something very similar to the current baseball cards when the final report is released.

John
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/29/2009 02:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/29/2009 02:36 pm
Yeah, Shannon basically appropriated the generic term for his specific implementation.  That gets everyone to think any mention of SDHLLV is referring to his solution, instead of any Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle.

Microsoft does the same thing: Windows, Word, Excel, etc.  All generic terms appropriated for a specific solution.  Thus all Windows are MS Windows, all Word processors are MS Word, etc.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 02:38 pm
John,
Given that the Aerospace Corporation Report has already been completed and will be made public shortly anyway, why I can't see any reason not to publish the Baseball Cards for the variant which we supplied to them.

FYI, we understand that Aerospace were able to beat all these performance figures.

Enjoy.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/29/2009 02:45 pm
Ross & Mark, Thanks for clarifying the shuttle derived vehicle terminology!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jimvela on 07/29/2009 02:56 pm
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]

All true.  The upsides for a side mount vehicle seem to me to only apply when you keep flying STS while doing side-mount development and fly both types for a while:

+  You can keep the ET/SRB stack common between STS and sidemount
+  The sidemount option can go develop the next gen avionics because we'd need disposable avionics anyway for either side mount or inline
+  Same with developing throwaway engines
+  don't need any MLP/Pad modifications to be ready to fly either one, deferring costs (only partially true, as pad mods are already underway).

None of which precludes the development path from looking like this long-term:

+  Fly shuttle as long as possible
+  Do side-mount as soon as possible, keep flying STS along with side-mount.
+  do inline development to follow after shuttle retirement but still while flying side-mount.

These aren't my preferred way to proceed, but politics and budget realities may well push this as the only viable solution- particularly if the shaft truly turns out to be unworkable...

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 03:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/29/2009 03:26 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 07/29/2009 03:29 pm
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

We never would have guessed ;)

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/07/major-shuttle-and-iss-extension-drive-augustine-commission/
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/29/2009 03:30 pm
Not sure if this is good or bad, but interesting nontheless.  Sounds like the committee is considering delaying the Shuttle Retirement.

Well, given that the 2010 retirement date is rapidly looking unrealistic due to schedule slip, I think that some measure of extension was inevitable.  Given that ISS to 2020 is increasingly looking a 'given', then extending the shuttle to ensure that the station is properly supplied is a consequence.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 07/29/2009 03:53 pm
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.

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: firehauck on 07/29/2009 03:54 pm
I think there are way too many  " what ifs " here. I think in the back of everyones mind the consensus is the "Direct " is the way to go although they have to go through this  "Dog & Pony " show to get it implemented because thats the way our politics work. Remember " Hesitation leads to Stagnation " and we sure as hell do not need that in our manned space program. It has been that way for 30 some-odd years. I believe one thing was missing on the Augustine commision and that is this...No one thought to bring in all the Astronauts that fly the shuttle and the new appointees to hear their thoughts on the subject. Sure,a few maybe have, but it's the " Worker Bee that gets it done ..Not the Queen " ( no offense to Sally Ride here }. Hear what the men & women have to say and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that they would embrace the Direct approach hands down......
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: dougkeenan on 07/29/2009 04:34 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/29/2009 04:51 pm
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.



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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/29/2009 04:54 pm
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/

Ok, so I'm a little late to the party.  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/29/2009 05:01 pm

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.


There have been several hints or maybe just foreshadowing that DIRECT is going to be the option with the best qualifications.

1) Bo emphasized the need to use common rules and assumptions when evaluating all options.
2) Aerospace went to great lengths to explain their methodologies and criteria.
3) "SDLV" has been mentioned many times, which could apply to either Sidemount or DIRECT (and notably not Ares).
4) Many of the Panels questions have tended to probe the weaknesses of Ares.
5) Bo and others reiterated the importance of choosing the best plan for the long run, even if it is not the absolute cheapest at the outset.

All of those points tell me that there is a big surprise coming up, and that no one should count on the status quo.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/29/2009 05:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/29/2009 05:08 pm
Also:

6) SDLV options could have synergy with Shuttle extension.
7) Which proposals best support commercial access to LEO.
8] Plans must work well across the spectrum of manned missions.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 05:10 pm
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

The separation line will be aligned with the engine aero fairing at the bottom of the Core Stage -- to ensure maximum clearance to those fairings during ascent jettison events.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 07/29/2009 05:14 pm

- 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 05:36 pm
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.

The cost for the ET plus the Side-Mounted Carrier is simply higher than for an In-Line Core Stage plus a regular PLF.   In the simplest terms, the separate Carrier module + Boat-tail requires a second major production line facility.   Whereas the Core Stage approach can integrate it all into just one production line, albeit bigger than the current ET.   That reduces fixed costs by quite a bit.

There are also significant savings to be had in terms of ground support logistics for the simpler In-Line approach compared to trying to integrate everything (Engines, Boat Tail, Carrier, Interstage, Upper Stage, Payload Adapter, Fairing, Orion and LAS) all into a side-mounted Pod which must ultimately all be lifted into place as one single piece.

And the Block-II design hangs more than 60% greater mass on the side of the stack, so the External Tank is going to require a re-design anyway.   It will be even more expensive as a result.

The trade studies which went into ESAS have the most recent "apples to apples" cost comparison data for this -- and they are broadly consistent with the findings from the 1991 NLS study and the 1977 SDLV studies too.

ESAS indicated that the cost difference between the two arrangements was 44.8% greater recurring cost per launch vehicle for the Side Mount (LV-20) vs. the In-Line (LV-24/25).


NASA had this precise choice to make back in 1991 for NLS.   They had to choose between Shuttle-C, an In-Line SDLV design or a clean-sheet design.   They chose the In-Line SDLV and actually funded development of it for three years (it passed its PDR!) until Congress said that Shuttle and Titan-IV were sufficient and they would fund a third system.

But it was this cost difference which persuaded NASA to fund the In-Line SDLV approach instead of the other choices, even though the "recognition" factor for Shuttle-C was far, far greater.   The benefits of the In-Line were recognized and Shuttle-C couldn't hold a candle to it.

Not much has changed since then, except both Titan-IV and Shuttle are no longer going to be in the budget, so there is now room in the budget for a replacement.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Analyst on 07/29/2009 05:58 pm
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".

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/29/2009 06:04 pm
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".

Why is that? It can be just as costly as the mission payload itself.  It can be more costly (although that is rare).  And you are missing the core point of my argument:

This isn't about importance.

This isn't about relative cost as a total of the program.

This is about the fact that the EELVs are extant and the cost of making them Orion-ready, compared to building something new, are very low.

So it isn't new.  It is a conversion of existing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 06:07 pm
Okay guys, break it up!

EELV conversations go somewhere else please!   This discussion has no bearing on DIRECT.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/29/2009 06:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 06:10 pm
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.

Yes -- In particular a detailed cost workup and comparison.

I think this should have been ordered already, but with only 90 days to report, Norm Augustine didn't have any chance to get it completed on this deadline.

But I think it will have to be performed, one way or the other.   The only question now, is *WHEN* ?

I'll take a pure guess and say I hope it is one of the leading recommendations from this committee.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kttopdad on 07/29/2009 06:38 pm
<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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 07/29/2009 06:44 pm
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!

The big day for me will be when Chris replaces the Ares-I image on the NASAspaceflight.com banner with a Jupiter. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: firehauck on 07/29/2009 06:50 pm
C'mon Chris..Change the graphic to a Jupiter. You can always go back if Ares is chosen !
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/29/2009 07:38 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 07:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/29/2009 07:54 pm
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?

Jesse
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 09:45 pm
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.

   What that does is allows all of the flaming debris to continue downrange while the Orion virtually 'stops' its horizontal movement.

   The result seems to put at least 1,000ft between the CM and the nearest of the debris field while only requiring the standard Ares LAS hardware.

   I'm not yet certain that 1,000ft would be enough clearance, but it looks like a potential solution.   Of course, this is still only a very tentative result and Danny is working to refine his model even more right now, so we will see what happens then.


   The worst possible case scenario is that we need an additional sustainer engine incorporated into the LAS to ensure the Orion goes as far downrange as necessary to always avoid the debris field.   It might mass 1 or 2 or even 5 tons more, but we have plenty of spare performance margin available so it is still quite feasible.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: yinzer on 07/29/2009 09:50 pm
Edited because I can't read, or some previous post was unclear.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 09:52 pm
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.

No, I'm talking about 1,000ft OUTSIDE of the debris field.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/29/2009 09:54 pm
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.

We're talking 1,000 feet *more* than we already have, not *only* 1,000 feet. Initial analysis already puts Orion in the clear from a Jupiter, not by a lot, but *in the clear*. We're talking about increasing the margin by an *additional* 1,000 feet (maybe more). We like margin in everything, including this.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/29/2009 10:01 pm
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

Ross made good use of my model and came up with a clever idea that helped a lot.  In my opinion too close to declare victory.  For example I don't have enough confidence in the drag model of the SRB debris to say all is well.  When I simply increased the debris size from 1.5 foot radius to 3 foot radius, Orion was back into the debris field. 

Due to the lower dynamic pressure, Direct can probably get by with a 2 second delay to destroy the SRB.  This helps out.  Ares needs something like 3 seconds.  In both of these cases, SRB destruction has to be automated.  The timing is critical.  The SRB flies within feet of Orion about 5 seconds after abort.  It would be really, really bad if the 45th Space Wing guy blew up the SRB at this time.   If the SRB tumbled, it might tend to fly formation with Orion for a while, so training them to delay the destruct until the SRB clears Orion is not a good option.

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. 

We also don't know how close we can get to the radiating debris and not have the chutes melt.  I can add this to the model, but I need a copy of an Apollo report I use to have and even then it is at least two days full time to do this mod.  I would have to go 3 DOF instead of 2 DOF and literally track every piece of debris from the SRB.  Then there would be lots and lots of uncertainty on exactly how many and how big the pieces are.

It is amazing for me to think the low end lap top on my lap can actual do this work -- with margin to spare. 

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/29/2009 10:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2009 10:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/29/2009 10:34 pm
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
snip

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

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/29/2009 10:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mike robel on 07/29/2009 10:38 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/29/2009 10:39 pm
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.

AVI works for me.

This is not factoring for a sustainer, correct?

Are there any benefits from increasing the angle of the separate vectors, say to 20°? Or are there other problems associated with that?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/29/2009 10:55 pm
screen caps:
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 07/29/2009 11:06 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/29/2009 11:58 pm
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

Fishlips Restaurant
610 Glen Cheek Drive
Cape Canaveral, FL

I have 5:30 as the time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/30/2009 12:06 am

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/30/2009 12:22 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lab Lemming on 07/30/2009 12:23 am
Augustine commission has answered another batch of questions:

Q:   Would the committee consider calling for a moratorium on the disassembly of equipment and systems used by the Shuttle program which could be of value should an architecture other than Ares be selected for future development? If Constellation as currently formulated will continue unabated, wouldn't it be best to preserve other options as well?

A:   A moratorium as requested is outside the scope of the committee's charter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/30/2009 12:37 am
The current shuttle flight path includes a throttle-down during max-Q.

I'm sorry, but that hurts...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/30/2009 02:05 am

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?

On 1. I don't understand.  Please explain more detail so I can model the abort conditions.

On 2. It might.  This can easily be modeled by reducing the thrust of the post abort booster.  Can someone crank the numbers on the acceleration of the stack with Orion gone but the SRBs thrusting?  Here is a screen shot of a 1 G booster and 2 seconds of warning time. I would like to cover the Challenger like case where the the SRB breaks off the stack though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/30/2009 02:11 am
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.

I didn't model the total mass in the debris field at all.  I simply decided to model 100 randomly selected debris pieces.  Total debris field mass will be important in a radiant heat model.  And the most like case of SRB failure is range safety termination.  This will take out both SRBs at the same time.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/30/2009 02:12 am
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?

That includes, I think, both the SSME and the SRBs. The SRB propellant load is distributed throughout the tank to reduce thrust near max-Q. I assume DIRECT already has some measure of this.

Jesse
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/30/2009 02:13 am

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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/30/2009 02:14 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/30/2009 02:15 am
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?

Works fine at home.. even in Windows media player.. It was just my video codec challenged Work laptop that had issues.  Installing unsanctioned software is severely frowned upon by the company... Although at least I could on my laptop.. My workstation is totally locked down in that regard.. We can't even hide the taskbar!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/30/2009 02:16 am

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.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/30/2009 02:17 am

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/30/2009 02:22 am

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/30/2009 02:27 am
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...  ;)  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/30/2009 02:34 am

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.

About 742.21338738 psf.  Give or take a few significant digits.

Danny Deger

It is close to 740.  I have heard it was designed for 800, but operationaly is kept to about 740.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/30/2009 02:40 am

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.

It would change the first stage profile.  But I have played with the model enough to know changes to flight profile parameters don't help a whole lot.  For example I have run 45 degree velocity vector angle (gamma) and 75 gamma.  It helped a little.  400 psf is better than 1200 psf, but even that low dynamic pressure does not solve the problem.  Do you have a copy of the model and Excel.  It is easy to do work with.  Play with abort conditions and see if you can come up with something that helps.  I have tried and failed.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/30/2009 02:58 am
well you could always blow the core to push the boosters away, and there goes the baby.....
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/30/2009 03:01 am
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

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/30/2009 03:09 am

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

A far as I know it has the same thrust performance as the LAS. 

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: luke strawwalker on 07/30/2009 05:29 am
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 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/30/2009 07:41 am
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...  ;)  :)


Whoa yourself - sorry, I can't help with that!



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.

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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/30/2009 07:55 am
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.


Ross,

you're talking about turning the Orion almost 90o to the airflow at about 750 m/s (if I'm reading the figures off the performance diagrams correctly).

Earlier, someone raised an objection to fairly small steering angles - is this a realistic manoeuvre?

cheers, Martin
Title: Would MSFC manage Direct?
Post by: neilh on 07/30/2009 08:33 am
After watching what's been happening with the Ares I, I have to say that (although I'm sure the engineers are great) I hold the management at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in fairly low regard. This is compounded after reading Jon Goff's note over at Selenian Boondocks (http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/07/msfc-competency-bleg/) remarking how in the past 30 years Marshall doesn't seem to have managed a single major project which actually succeed -- certainly not any launch projects. They have had quite a few launch projects fail miserably though, like the X-33, X-34, SLI, etc.

That said, I'm a little bit worried about what might happen to Direct if managed by MSFC. What's the likelihood that Direct, if it were chosen by the White House/NASA, would in fact be managed by MSFC? Are there any management alternatives, or is MSFC the only center with a shot of handling such a large project?

Alternatively, can the design be mostly handled by the contractor, with NASA having more of an oversight role? I think the pre-ESAS shuttle-derived architectures may have proposed this sort of arrangement.

Given a scenario where Direct would in fact be managed by MSFC under, say, Steve Cook, what do you think the chances of it not failing are?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: PaulL on 07/30/2009 10:46 am
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 :)

Ross would have to confirm that, but I don't think that the Jupiter US is strong enough to take a payload and a full propellant load.  When a payload is carried (such as the J-24x CLV flight), the equivalent mass in propellant is removed in order to limit the total mass at no more than 200 mt. By the way, using this relatively "weak" US (optimized to carry propellant only) helps to achieve a very high pmf.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 07/30/2009 10:48 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: marsavian on 07/30/2009 10:55 am
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.

That's just awesome, you and the MSFC rebels come in under schedule while official MSFC comes in way over ;). I thought J-130 was a 4 year job and Aerospace obviously agree. It's good that you padded all your numbers with excess margins, you look the much better for it. Not only would there be relatively little gap but damn 2020 for the Moon is still doable. Great professional job by your team.
Title: Re: Would MSFC manage Direct?
Post by: marsavian on 07/30/2009 11:06 am
If the basic principles of DIRECT were adhered to I can't see how it could be screwed up. As long as no new engines were suddenly thrown in the mix like the way J2/RS-68 were substituted for SSME from the ESAS Ares I/V it should be ok. Pick a HLV end point whether it's J-241/6 or Ares V classic and stick to it, don't tinker, and build the earlier upperstage less variant asap so the manned spaceflight gap is minimized.
Title: Re: Would MSFC manage Direct?
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/30/2009 11:06 am
That's a pretty good question.  NASA politics being what it is, I'd assume that MSFC would end up with overall project management responsibility.  KSC and MAF would probably end up sharing 'hardware' for the Jupiter CCB because of their familiarity with the components in question.  The JUS/EDS would end up with whatever centres are currently doing hardware for the AIUS and AVEDS.

However, yes, MSFC would end up running the show.  I think that is why Aerospace Corp added a 12-month civil service inefficiency coefficient to the schedule for DIRECT and NSC. :D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: firehauck on 07/30/2009 11:08 am
MLAS was another waste of NASA's cash..Stick to the tower..The Russians have been using that system before some of you were even born.....
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Nathan on 07/30/2009 11:15 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tamarack on 07/30/2009 11:55 am
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.

OT-
Granted, almost anything can explode under the right circumstances (even a tub of water), solid fuel like the SRBs aren't the explosion risk - liquid fuel is. When a stack goes (like Challenger) the risk from the SRBs is not in the explosion, but the dispersion of burning fuel pieces.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tamarack on 07/30/2009 12:09 pm
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?

OT-
I'd vote for dirt, fertilizer and seeds with a thruster. Very cheap and almost no risk if it doesn't reach orbit / Good ISS experiment and infrastructure if it does.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/30/2009 12:19 pm

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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/30/2009 01:57 pm

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?

Jesse
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/30/2009 02:12 pm


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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/30/2009 02:38 pm


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.

I'm not falling into that trap. I just thought that a critical problem was being overlooked, that's all. Not overlooked by Shannon or the NSC proposal itself (I have no knowledge of that), just our collective brainstorming here in regards to DIRECT.

If it works, it works. I just want to get out of LEO, same as the rest of you.

Jesse
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/30/2009 03:00 pm
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?

Why should that be a mistake? I still think that this is a pretty good target for a poorly-funded project (which is what return-to-the-Moon is).  Remember, as things are going, it looks like funds are going to have to be shared with ISS up until 2020.  That is going to slow things down a lot.

I also think that I should point out that the current NASA plan is talking about return to the Moon by about 2028. :P

Quote
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).

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/30/2009 03:21 pm
Just a couple of days ago things were different. To the Moon by 2017. Now, it is 2020. Soon it is 2025? 2030? See? :(

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.

Quote
So, we will NEVER see the first manned mission to Mars... I rest my case.

Well, given that latest research suggests that humans can only survive 200 days (~7 months) outside of Earth's magnetosphere, we're obviously going to have to look again at propulsion and shielding for Mars anyway.  So Mars slips back.  The mid-2030s, optimistically.

Quote
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.

You need to keep faith. 

This isn't the Apollo era anymore - miracles are not possible because the money tap is not turned on so high.  If we want the stars, we are going to have to slowly and patiently claw our way up against the odds.  That means compromising with politicians and doing with less. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ah_mini on 07/30/2009 04:03 pm
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).

The J-246 is still the official baseline of DIRECT. However, the DIRECT team (to which I have no links) decided to present the J-241 to the panel as a much more conservative design, to avoid baseless FUD attacks that have been levied at the J-246 upper stage figures. If DIRECT were to get the go-ahead from the panel and was developed by NASA unchanged (very unlikely, but possible), then the J-246 would be researched more thoroughly with full NASA resources, with the J-241 as a fall back position should any unforseen issues arise. That's the beauty of having an architecture with proper margins (unlike Ares I/V).

At least, I think that was the idea... ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: firehauck on 07/30/2009 04:19 pm
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 !
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Arthur on 07/30/2009 04:22 pm
More important than 2017 or 2030 is the intent of the mission. I would much rather return to the moon to stay in 2030 (or even 2040) than plant a flag in 2017 as part of a program to plant a new flag on the moon every 50 years.

The flexibility of the DIRECT architecture leaves that door open in a way that Ares I with a shrinking payload does not.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/30/2009 04:24 pm
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 !

That'll really make the people at CxP upset, or at least it won't save any face for them. I'd rather see them bring up Direct behind the scenes and just get it done without any fanfare.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/30/2009 04:41 pm
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.


NO! The commission is only spending 90 days, for goodness sake! That's fast, not slow.

NASA has just spent four years working on Ares I. Do you think it would have been wasted time to have spent 90 days at the beginning of the project, dropped it and done something better instead?

The commission needs to spend a bit of time working through the options, and even with 90 days they don't have time to go into any depth.

Let the commission do their work. It is conceivable that they may offer an option which is attractive enough to congress & the WH that they will stump up additional funds to achieve it.

If you want more money for HSF - persuade the commission, and they will try to persuade the govt on your behalf.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/30/2009 04:44 pm


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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tamarack on 07/30/2009 04:56 pm
...though NASA will probably ruin everything and add years to those estimates...

OT -
When we wanted to break the sound barrier - civilian agencies couldn't get results. When we wanted men in space - we almost lost the best minds moving them to a civilian agency. NASA, like its predecessor, isn't built for results. It's built to create jobs and that takes more time and money...then more time and money...then more time and money...etc.

DIRECT is a great example of the indecisive merry-go-round, myopic 'vision' and political waffling of NASA. After billions of dollars, years of studies and design; The plan is a dusted-off, 30yr-old architecture with half the originally desired capacity. :facepalm: Only 10% reaches orbit and if we're going to pursue space with earnest, the systemic stagnation that makes up 90% of NASA must be dumped. Ad astra per aspera.

$0.02
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/30/2009 04:57 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mike robel on 07/30/2009 05:02 pm


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.

Well, I am just a layman, though very interested, but it appears to me any vehicle with large diameter solids that depends upon parachutes to land the crew in the event of an abort is going to have a problem with that big F****** Radiant Cloud.

Better break out the F-1 engine again...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/30/2009 05:06 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/30/2009 05:11 pm
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

Reducing q does help, but doesn't make the problem go away.  I think the biggest effect is being able to reduce the destruct time from 3 to 2 seconds.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 07/30/2009 05:14 pm
With DIRECT you could put a heavier, more capable abort system on the top, but would cut into what you can take up with the Orion no?   
I haven't been keeping up with the thread lately - has this already been run thru the number crunchers?   ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 07/30/2009 05:40 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/30/2009 05:54 pm
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?

I think that they added a huge 'pessimist coefficient' to the schedule to cover MSFC making an utter mess of things.  But, yes, Orion is still a long pole, possibly even more so with the modifications needed to the LAS to enable the crew to survive a SRM unzip.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/30/2009 06:20 pm

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.

That's what I was remembering earlier, it wasn't a recontact issue, it was the abort motor plume versus the ET hull. I'm just curious to see how this plays out.

Jesse
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/30/2009 06:21 pm
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

Is plume impingement an issue for DIRECT as well?

Jesse
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/30/2009 06:33 pm
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

Fishlips restaurant at Port Canaveral. Aiming to be there around 6-6:30pm USB.

Ross
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: firehauck on 07/30/2009 06:34 pm
Honestly..Do you think the Russians go thru all this to fly ? How many people have they lost...?? How many people have WE lost ?? They draw it up and basically go. I think being Too cautious is a downfall and a waste of time and money. We need to do better than what is happening now  !! If the Shuttle flys OK with it's set up, why do we have to go over this with the Direct configuration. Sure there are dangers but with-out that spaceflight wouldn't be what it is...Pick a design and fly it already !!! No wonder the citizens are losing interest..To much talk, Not enough action  !!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/30/2009 06:39 pm
l our schedules with plenty of surplus margins.
Can we conclude that the committee believes  that Orion is the long pole?

That is a fair conclusion.

Ross
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: riney on 07/30/2009 06:46 pm

A far as I know it has the same thrust performance as the LAS. 

Danny Deger

But considering it fully encapsulates the CM, I wonder if you could cram enough thermal insulation into MLAS to keep the 'chutes from melting as you fly through the aborted SRB's flaming-cloud-of-death. Assuming you had a launcher that could lift it all, mind.

--riney
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/30/2009 06:47 pm
Quote from: ar-phanad link=topic=17295.msg450174#msg450174
Is 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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/30/2009 07:25 pm
Quote from: ar-phanad link=topic=17295.msg450174#msg450174
Is 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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: engstudent on 07/30/2009 07:28 pm
3 minute DIRECT presentation just done by a KSC Engineer during the public comments section at the Augustine commissions Cocoa Beach meeting.

"Continuing working full speed on a project that is doomed for failure is demoralizing and frustrating." 

"DIRECT, just right"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mr.gold on 07/30/2009 08:02 pm
The problem, when addressing the Augustine Commission, is that you guys do not sell this idea. This is the optimal solution. This needs to be packaged and sold.

I attempted to contact Norman Augustine through his personal secretary at the Board of Regents for the Maryland University system. I wrote a lengthy report and forwarded it to his secretary. She assured me that she would forward that to Mr. Augustine. I do not know if I got through.

The letter stated some of the following...

The truth is that there does not need to be a Manned Spaceflight LEO gap if the Direct avenue is chosen. The physical geometries of the Pads 39A and 39B, the interior of the VAB, and the support facilities at Michoud and Nevada do not have to be changed all that much. The Shuttle can continue to fly while Direct 3.0 is being developed. From a point of Nat'l Security we do not need to depend upon Russian Soyuz for rides while our newest vehicle is being developed.

That is an important sales pitch...which was not used in any of the presentations. Please use it and let's get the Direct approach on the road...to save us time, bucks, and keep us flying. Thanks.

Mr.Gold
I Cor 13
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/30/2009 08:30 pm
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.

I believe you will find your points answered in the long presentation.  Further, DIRECT has met with the Aerospace Corporation in person and in followup correspondence. 

I believe that DIRECT has got the full message to the people who count.

(Oh, and they met with the Obama administration during the transition period.)

Modify: typo
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/30/2009 09:56 pm

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  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/30/2009 10:07 pm

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  :)

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 07/30/2009 10:17 pm
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?

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/30/2009 10:31 pm
http://www.space.com/news/090730-ft-moon-budget.html   Augustine Committee Says Moon Within Reach
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/30/2009 10:50 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Pheogh on 07/30/2009 11:03 pm
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?


I would love to know that as well. I am starting to get the impression that all of this only relates to Ares (The program of record). The reason I say this is because I think it is clear that 90 days is not sufficient enough time for the commission to chart all the alternatives from a schedule and budgetary standpoint. Their time constraints only allow aerospace to check "violates the laws of physics" arguments in regards to alternatives.

So going forward the first step will have to be canceling Ares on the grounds that there isn't enough money and then perhaps another "90 day" "in depth" (cost and schedule specific) study to look at which of the alternatives provides the nation the most capability towards the exploration goals the WH is interested in supporting?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 07/30/2009 11:14 pm
What spacecraft is DIRECT planning on using to deliver cargo to the ISS? One obvious option is an Orion with an extra module attached for the cargo, but that would put ISS cargo IOC at the mercy of Orion.

Is there some other spacecraft that could be used on a J-130 for cargo delivery to ISS? Perhaps 2-3 SpaceX Dragons, Orbital Cygnuses, ESA ATVs, or Japanese HTVs towing a dumb box with most of the cargo? Or adapt avionics from one of those vehicles for a 10x larger craft? The craft would not need much delta-V (just docking and deorbiting) so how hard can it be?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/30/2009 11:14 pm
Ross has stated that with a smaller NASA budget he can still effectively carry out the Direct Mission Plan to the Moon & Mars.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/31/2009 12:24 am
I hope the Port Canaveral revelers sneak out some chicken wings for the rest of us!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/31/2009 01:44 am

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?

mars.is.wet brought this up many pages ago on this thread, and I agree with his point: by the time all is said and done, there is barely enough for about 2-3 lunar missions a year (or something to that effect). A lunar base is simply not affordable, and we heard that point blank by the commission today. ISS goes to 2015 as of now. If they want 2020, it will have to come from additional funding, no two ways about it. Because: Jupiter-130 IOC is 2013, but it's not flying a manned Orion just yet. Even if it is fully operational by 2014, that's one year before they expect (and hope) something like Orion on D4H or COTS-D is flying there to free launch facilities for other missions. So there is 1 year before 2015 with planned ISS termination.

What the Direct team have the upper hand on is a vehicle that leverages many of the existing shuttle stack capabilities so that there is very little to re-invent (unlike Ares I/V).

The commission is considering the broad proposal base at the moment. Plus, Aerospace is still doing their analyses of the various options to present to the commission. Once they have the costs and schedules vetted, we should see that Direct have been very close to the mark.

Unfortunately, as much as we get teased, get our hopes up, then dashed, then turned around again, it is all just the process we are following. We need to see the final Augustine report to know who's does what, and who gets a thumbs down. And after all that debate, we still have to wait for the President to decide a course of acction, and THEN we have to see IF Congress funds it, and THEN we need to see how MUCH the subcommittee gives in the way of funding dollars.

Oh it's still a long road ahead of us.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/31/2009 01:47 am
Still politics as usual...

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20090729/D99OD1C81.html (http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20090729/D99OD1C81.html)

Especially the last few sentences...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Jorge on 07/31/2009 01:55 am
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".

And the reason why it's difficult to imagine is that it's way outside the panel's charter. Not only are they not chartered to make decisions like that, they are not chartered to even recommend a particular path.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: jawisa1 on 07/31/2009 02:38 am
Does anyone know where I can watch the last few public hearings online as they are not posted on the commision's website?

James
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/31/2009 02:46 am
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?

Direct isn't the goldilocks rocket, it's just an architecture that makes sense.

Further to what Jorge points out, and he is 100% correct, NASA is always being told what to do by Congress based on budgets, so there is nothing new with the 'concept' of making changes.

But in a different context, if the commission, by use of Aerospace, makes it known that the current Ares I/V is unworkable and unfundable based on cost and schedule issues, then the President would be in a position to decide how to make best use of NASA's capabilities to further his goals, and those of the nation, and something that Congress can feel confident in adopting. If they choose against Ares I/V, then it means the current architecture no longer fits into their plans, and NASA has to obey by changing gears.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/31/2009 02:48 am
Does anyone know where I can watch the last few public hearings online as they are not posted on the commision's website?

James

The comment on today's live commission thread was that Monday at the earliest was when we would likely see it again (based on the last hearing). We might be lucky and someone recorded it and will post on the Video thread...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/31/2009 02:57 am
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cixelsyD on 07/31/2009 03:01 am
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/31/2009 03:07 am
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?

If they mean the blackzones caused by killing the crew with G forces on entry, they are OK.  If they mean killing the crew because the radiant heat from the SRB debris catching up with Orion and melting the chutes, they are in deep, deep trouble.

They are thinking about a reserve drogue to mitigate the problem.  An astronaut asked me how long he had to open the reserve after the primary melted.  I did some analysis with my model and told him "10 seconds".  He asked me how long he had to do something if the reserve melted.  I told him without analysis, "You have the rest of your life."  :-[

Not a true story, but by the standards of fighter pilot humor, I think pretty funny.

Danny Deger

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/31/2009 03:37 am
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
To quote myself.. 

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?

Not sure if this was before or after Ross "invented" this vertical trajectory for the LAS. ;)

There are dozens and dozens(hundreds perhaps) of my better ideas running around in software many(or not so many) engineers use today  (MSC NASTRAN, LMS VL, Altair products.. Patran (PDA/MSC)) that I never got credit for..  not that I'm bitter or anything. ;)    LOL!

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/31/2009 08:00 am
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%.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/31/2009 12:28 pm
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

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/31/2009 12:29 pm
"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.
"\
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: YoungMethuselah on 07/31/2009 01:56 pm
Hello Caps,

Just seen this on New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327194.300-orbiting-gas-station-could-refuel-lunar-missions.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 07/31/2009 02:01 pm
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.

Here are three crazy ideas to help solve the SRB debris during abort problem.

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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/31/2009 02:11 pm
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"
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/31/2009 02:20 pm
"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.
"\

it should be noted, that Shuttle extension had two phases discussed; one, that the WH has already agreed to an extension of the present manifest of flights, so that technical delays will not be held against the time frame of Fall or end of 2010, but to allow for safer flights, delays will not cause the manifest to drop flights off the roster...
two, there was discussion of 2014/15 flight extension, where it was decided that the likely funding would not be available, and an extension to 2012, which was considered more credible considering funding restraints... as well, the extension of the ISS past 2015 was discussed, with regard to the Shuttle flights to complete the station ie spare parts and science experiments... which in the end leads me to believe that Ares 1/5 is a dead issue, even though this week we have seen the 'true believers' give presentations that were near to blind faith...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/31/2009 02:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/31/2009 03:13 pm

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.

while I was online watching, from start to finish, there was an air of 'these are possible IF' about the discussions... it was as if a balloon had been popped and the panel was (cautiously) brain storming... I was surprised to hear from the chair, that the various sub committees were not to interact in discussion outside of the Public Hearings... still, it made for some interesting live programming...
   one comment from the Infrastructure Manager at KSC, at the end of his presentation, extolling where they had come and the new stuff for the Ares/Constellation project: we can accomodate any configuration of LV... it was a small comment, but it came at the end, and was a departure from his Ares/Constellation ladened speech... acknowleging that they were probably not going to be baseline, and something new from the panel was coming forward...
   I am optimistic that Direct will become the baseline, but having seen in the thread the 1 year extention because of MSFC inability to carry projects to completion, I am nervous about the outcome... while Ross and Team are looking forward to a long vacation after all their hard work over the years, I can't help but wish that they would be given the reins to carry this through to completion... impractical as that is...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/31/2009 03:21 pm
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.

An LOR-LOR approach would have killed the Apollo 13 crew, so I'll debate whether its "safer" or not.


Quote
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.

NSC has lower performance, lower safety, higher development costs and higher operational costs.

To me, that adds up to quite a big difference.


Quote
Direct is better for future growth but future growth needs to be paid for.

The development of an EDS is a task required by all architectures wanting to go beyond LEO.   For DIRECT, this cost is all you really have to absorb because the design is prepared to take it straight out of the box.   Its not so easy to integrate with any of the other designs, and that means its going to take longer and cost more to do.

I would say that anything which increases the costs and schedules like that is probably something you want to be avoiding, no?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/31/2009 03:40 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/31/2009 03:49 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: simon-th on 07/31/2009 03:51 pm

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... ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/31/2009 03:56 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 07/31/2009 04:00 pm

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.

How long would it take to develop a LEM-sized mini-Altair. Something with common engines and non-long-pole systems to the big Altair? I ask, because it'd be politically interesting if a marginal landing could be done in 2016. Assuming such a mini-Altair wasn't a complete white elephant, and could be used as a test bed for the real deal.

Quote
Danny Deger

Has Ross learned to say y'all yet?

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".
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: thomson on 07/31/2009 04:03 pm
Quote from: simon-th
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).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/31/2009 04:05 pm
Hello Caps,

Just seen this on New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327194.300-orbiting-gas-station-could-refuel-lunar-missions.html

I wish they would have addressed one time transfer as the first step.  No need for an additional (read big development dollars) depot.  Also, there may be a one time cryo temp diaphragm material out there.  No hope for a diaphragm on a depot because it will break with multiple uses.  Shuttle doesn't even embrace the industry standard of diaphragms for OMS and RCS because it is multiple use, and that is at room temperature.   Last but not least, no long term storage for just gassing up an EDS. 

Engineering a one time transfer is much, much easier and much, much lower risk than building a depot.  Lets start out by just gassing up the EDS in LEO, then we can make a depot later.

The distinction is big for someone like Augustine.  I can promise you as soon as he hears "depot" he starts his conceptual design algorithm running in the back ground, then the output is passed to his cost and schedule algorithms.  About the time you have completed 3 or 4 more sentences (and believe it or not he is still paying close attention to you), the output of cost and schedule come out and he thinks to himself, "Holy crap, nice idea but that is really expensive and is going to take a long time to develop."

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mike robel on 07/31/2009 04:11 pm

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.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/31/2009 04:12 pm
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

Personally I wish the Augustine comission would take up the mantel of forcing NASA to swtich to Metric..

Is there anyone else left in the commercial/international space industry working in Imperial Units?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/31/2009 04:16 pm

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/31/2009 04:21 pm
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?

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.

On 3.  This was looked at during Apollo and it was considered but not needed.  The capsule got far enough away the temps were OK.

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.

To protect for 4000 degree chucks coming in direct contact, not going to happen.  I haven't even started to model the effect of radiant heat from the field.  I would need to go 3D to do this, so I might get started on it this weekend.  Any programmers out there that want to help -- please.  I am busing today become an expert on factor of safety and margins to help man rate the Delta.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: phantomdj on 07/31/2009 04:23 pm
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.”
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/31/2009 04:26 pm
Suppose Orion's abort trajectory added both additional altitude and lateral momentum prior to a parafoil being deployed.

Won't SRB debris fall straight down after the initial blast has dissipated?

If lateral momentum were imparted and a higher altitude attained prior to parafoil deployment wouldn't Orion have a better chance of coming down outside the debris field?

= = =

Edit to add: Maybe the parafoil could be sacrificial, intended to merely get Orion outside the debris field radius prior to a traditional parachute being deployed for actual landing.

More edit: X-38 actually landed under parafoil.

That is not necessary here as Orion merely needs to distance itself from the debris field radius before coming down.

Delta V initiated this idea, here:

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/31/2009 04:27 pm
snip

Is there anyone else left in the commercial/international space industry working in Imperial Units?


Very good question.  My airline maintenance buddy tells me there is a lot of imperial on even the Airbus.  I would love to know if Boeing has gone metric on the 787.  Same for US military aircraft.  Converting an industry and a country is a huge job.  You can't just, do it tomorrow.  Do you send all imperial unit airplanes to the bone yard tomorrow?

We are getting off topic a bit.  Units for Direct is an issue, but lets not hog the thread.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/31/2009 04:33 pm

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.

Ross?  I didn't see anything posted from you about this till well after my post. Of course it didn't take a "rocket scientist" ;) to see the opportunity to go "vertical".. so just as likely you came up with it on your own.  And you took time to run the numbers..
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/31/2009 04:35 pm
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.”


Send it in.  I heard Norm Augustine say yesterday that they appreciate public input and try to keep up with all the emails...they get a lot.  I suggest that you also send it to key players on House and Senate committees that have NASA oversight...committee Chairs and minority leaders on each one.

I suggest that you take out the last 2 paragraphs which have a negative focus.  The Committee is looking at Aerospace Corporation's data.  It is not being ignored.  You have to let the Committee do their work before passing judgement. 

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/31/2009 04:39 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: phantomdj on 07/31/2009 04:45 pm
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.

Agreed.  I'll change it to:

It’s time to embrace a vehicle that is less expensive, more versatile and faster to build.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/31/2009 04:45 pm
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

While in my personal life I still think completely in Imperial units.. I have always worked in Metric Units at work.. mm/T/s take a while to get used to I suppose.. A lot  like learning a second language..   

It would be great if every code would universally translate between units. Put them in in your preferred units.. even mixing and matching, and get them back out in the Units the customer wants.

I do realize it's not easy to switch. Although I would think transfer of information between NASA and the Science community has to be complicated at times by the Unit conversions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/31/2009 04:50 pm

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.


I am not sure I follow completely.  Is the idea to use a high temp parafoil to get away from the SRB debris?  If yes, why not just make a round chute out of the same stuff. 

Anyway, this would certainly be a bigger impact to Orion than adding a sustainer motor to the LAS.  Parafoils have to be controlled and guided.  You don't just open them.  Remember Orion is close to PDR.  Changes to it must be kept to a minimum. 

The X-38 parafoil idea was a huge mistake in my opinion.  Way to much work for too little gain.  While observing the program from the outside, I thought all the work might be worth it because almost any open field or airport in the world would become an landing site.  This would be really nice for the ACRV mission.   Later I found out because it shedded stuff like the chute covers up high, it basically needed the same size clear area as a round would have.  The program gained almost nothing to go to a parafoil.  To me it was just another NASA big ego running out of control to make his pet project.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/31/2009 04:56 pm
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".

In my part of Texas "all y'all" is not used much.  It is gramatically incorect.  Y'all is second person plural and I must use it to converse clearly.

I heard "all y'all" in Georgia and North Carolina.  Mostly by women trying to be sound cute.  The same type that like to call total strangers "Sugar".

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/31/2009 05:00 pm
Quote from: ar-phanad link=topic=17295.msg450174#msg450174
Is 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

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/31/2009 05:00 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/31/2009 05:11 pm
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?


Again, not 100% sure I capture your idea.  But if one could build a parafoil to survive a debris field, it could probably fly out of the debris field to let the rounds open in the clear.  The Air Force stated the debris field was about 8000 foot radius. 

I don't think that is going to happen.  This is not radiant heat from a liquid fireball.  It is huge chunks of high density propellant burning at 4000 degrees.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/31/2009 05:18 pm
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.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/31/2009 05:35 pm
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, bt 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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/31/2009 05:45 pm
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.



Do you have Excel?  If you do, it is easy to run it at home.  I am a bit busy to run your problem right now, but many someone else can do your run for you.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/31/2009 05:48 pm
Quote from: simon-th
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).


It’s a little more involved than just that.
Many countries use a mix of units, or at least hold on to some old conventions.  In England they still often give their weights in “stones”, but is different even than what we use in the US which is “US Standard” (which is similar but different than the British system of “Imperial”.)
In Australia, when measuring lumber, they still use “board-feet”.  So there are still some hold out conventions.

Common standards and measures are actually one of the greatest engineering inventions of the 20th Century (among the ASME top 10 inventions) because of how it broadly expanded commonality in design.  Prior to that, a “foot” could vary country to country.

That being said, I had a strength of materials professor in college who hated the SI system (interestingly enough “metric” and “SI” aren’t exactly the same thing.  SI doesn’t use all metric terms.  You won’t ever see a “hectometer” or a “centigram” in SI, etc)
He hated it because he said there was very little “intuitiveness” to it.  You can visualize what a “pound” or a “foot” is.  Mentally you can imagine a “pound per square inch”.  You know right off the top of your head about what a 1000 pounds is like, or 1000 miles.  We know immediate how much a gallon or 100 gallons is.  Or what 1 atmosphere feels like.
But, what does a Newton feel like?  What does a Pascal feel like?  What does 500 kg feel like?  (can you imagine without doing the conversion to pounds in your head?  Probably not).  Ditto for 1000 km. 
How much is 100 cubic meters?  But you know about what 100 gallons is, so it’s easier to mentially check your work.  If you are calculating the size of a hot tub you are building, and you come up with 5000 gallons, then you know you probably made a calculation error somewhere.  But if you come up with 18.9 cubic meters…did you make a mistake?  Yes, you did, but you have no intuitive feel for it.
We know intuitively we can live in 1 or 2 atmospheres.  And that 30 atmosphere will kill us.  But will 101,000 Pascals kill you?  How about 100 Pascals?  Or a million Pascals?  Do you –know- right away without doing a conversion?

If you have a 2010 Ford Mustang Shelby 500 GT, how many kilowatts of power does it produce?  You know how much 500 HP is, intuitively…but kW? *shrug*

Obviously the more we’d deal with things like kg and km’s, the more we’d get an intuitive feel for them.  But does anyone even in Europe who’s been using metric for some time now have a good feel for a cubic meter of water or a pascal of pressure or a Newton of force?  I think not really.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/31/2009 05:50 pm
Quote from: simon-th
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).

Those technical "giants" Liberia and Burma...   I do not think they represent the best justification for sticking with the old system! :)

Heck, even the country from which the "Imperial" name comes from changed over before I went to school...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: tamarack on 07/31/2009 05:56 pm
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.

Good chance a parafoil would take too long to deploy.

How much can we stall and flatten the debris cloud to give Orion room? ie: A downward shape-charge between the liquid tanks detonated just after Orion aborts. If it's going to blow, may as well use that force to our advantage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/31/2009 05:59 pm
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?

Why?  Is he from southern England?

LOL- Just kidding, Ross....I like your "drawl"! ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Mark S on 07/31/2009 06:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: phantomdj on 07/31/2009 06:04 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/31/2009 06:06 pm
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.?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: phantomdj on 07/31/2009 06:10 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Arthur on 07/31/2009 06:18 pm
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]
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mike robel on 07/31/2009 06:22 pm

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.

I'm an Army Officer, we think in gallons, meters, klicks, and kph.  However, some other army people think in pounds, knots, and feet.

While working on our battle simulation, we made the decision to have everything inside be in metric, but for display to the users we had to have English/Imperial.

I am comfortable in both.  When I scratch build modes, I usually convert everything to metric.  For real distances I think in both and convert all the time.

It ain't the governments place to tell us which system to use.  If an industry wants to switch, they can go right ahead.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/31/2009 06:25 pm
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 stand corrected... this I am seeing then as the Grand Vision, no... Thankyou Ross...
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: mike robel on 07/31/2009 06:26 pm
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]


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!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/31/2009 06:41 pm
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.

Sorry this is getting so far OT, but I wanted to point out that xkcd has long since solved all our problems:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/converting_to_metric.png
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/31/2009 06:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/31/2009 06:48 pm

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.

Ross, it occurred to me shortly afterwards that you were actually in the audience at the time. That would explain the confusion. :)

Thanks for clearing that up, though; one more thing we wouldn't have to worry about.

Jesse
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Idol Revolver on 07/31/2009 06:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/31/2009 06:53 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ugordan on 07/31/2009 06:55 pm
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
That 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.

That said, the tooling and manufacturing capability isn't there anymore and ideas of restarting F-1(A) production were floated around several years ago. IIRC the cost to restart production was estimated at $0.5 billion then-year dollars.

Much more here: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/588/1

EDIT: corrected estimated cost from article.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/31/2009 07:04 pm
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

I'll second that! And maybe an LRB would solve the debris cloud problems - the thought occurred to me a while back, too. Just hard to promote that idea at the onset, since (aside from all-new manufacturing aspect) we're trying to keep the infrastructure intact.

Might be nice someday, though.

Jesse
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Eerie on 07/31/2009 07:07 pm
Judging by Energia boosters, 4 Falcon-9 first stages would do just fine.  Also, they are already human-rated. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Idol Revolver on 07/31/2009 07:13 pm
Judging by Energia boosters, 4 Falcon-9 first stages would do just fine.  Also, they are already human-rated. ;)

You'd need to redesign the ET, since it only currently has two attachment points.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: brihath on 07/31/2009 07:13 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/31/2009 07:13 pm
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.?


Ross/Chuck have said that they want a core to come off the production line so it can be fitted with 3 engines for J-130, or 4 engines and an upper stage to make J-24x.

Keeps the costs down. Perhaps more importantly, it ensures someone doesn't fit a J-130 spec part to a J-24x core, causing a failure.

J-24x is the target vehicle, J-130 is over-specified for it's task, but it performs well enough - no reason to spend lots of money optimising it.


However, there was talk of a block II core some time ago. Build the initial J-130 with a bit of extra margin, reducing design costs & development time. Get some flight experience, then build a core really optimised for the J-24x role - hopefully this would be lighter so gives better Lunar performance.

Later Saturn missions had higher performance than earlier ones, and shuttle's current ET is the "Super Light Weight Tank" exactly why you'd think.


Note, the baseball cards & all mission plans are based on the current ("block I") spec of the core. None of them assume lighter / higher performing vehicles.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Idol Revolver on 07/31/2009 07:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/31/2009 07:25 pm
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.


http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20090729

First stage and interstage just completed qualification to "human rating saftey requirements" requirements for pressure loads.. and 1st stage also met those standards for Bending loads.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lancer525 on 07/31/2009 07:28 pm
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
That 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)

Interesting...

Much of what is available to the general public, in terms of historical documents and such, always repeats the myth you've just identified. Of course, the tooling, its design, and all the associated manufacturing necessities are still unavailable, and to re-start production of the F-1 would take funding that would better be spent on DIRECT.

Thanks for the link!
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Eerie on 07/31/2009 07:30 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/31/2009 07:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/31/2009 07:41 pm
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

Falcon 9 Boosters might make some sense especially once(if) SpaceX developes their BFE(Big Falcon Engine)..
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: MP99 on 07/31/2009 07:52 pm
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).


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?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/31/2009 08:01 pm
I haven't even started to model the effect of radiant heat from the field. 
(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?

Kind of like, how much firewood would it take to warm up the Astrodome.

Modiify: fudge quotes, add column
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ugordan on 07/31/2009 08:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: deltaV on 07/31/2009 08:11 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/31/2009 08:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 07/31/2009 08:28 pm

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.

I'd personally prefer those issues be used as an excuse to mature large hybrid technology. There's a lot of exciting stuff recently that indicates the regression rate problems are easily surmountable. Once you have that problem licked, they're a better choice as boosters for manned systems, IMHO. Keep ATK in the game as well, from the political side, as you're still casting large rubber composite grains, and the liquid side of it need not be terribly complex. Be interesting to see if one could develop something that's a "drop-in" replacement for the RSRMs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/31/2009 08:28 pm
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?

Cool idea. Where would you fit it, I wonder? You might have a multi-stage LAS...

Jesse
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/31/2009 08:28 pm
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
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: ar-phanad on 07/31/2009 08:31 pm
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

Maybe by that point adding a sustainer engine to the LAS wouldn't be causing any serious delays?

Jesse
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: clongton on 07/31/2009 08:36 pm
Be interesting to see if one could develop something that's a "drop-in" replacement for the RSRMs.

Interestingly enough, SpaceX has licensed the technology that was supposed to build the RS-84 kero-lox engines. I wonder what a SpaceX core that sported a pair of the BFR engines each would look like on either side of a Jupiter core (that's 4xF1-class kerolox engines total)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: fotoguzzi on 07/31/2009 08:44 pm
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)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 07/31/2009 08:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/31/2009 09:00 pm

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.

Agreed.  I think people like the F-1 because I think it was the most powerful kerolox engine ever made in the US, on the most powerful HLV ever flown.  “More power! More power!  *grunt* *grunt*.
They were producing muscle cars in the 60’s producing 400-500 HP with 450+ CI blocks too, which more more than most current “muscle” cars.  But they got 8 miles to the gallon and only ran for 100K miles if you were lucky before needing a full rebuild.  Today a car with an engine around 250 CI can produce 300 HP and be in a car that’s faster off the line, faster in the quarter, and faster top speed than the old muscle cars.
Sure, it’s not as –powerful- as the old Novas, Chavell’s, Fairlanes, Suber Bee’s or Chargers, but they’ll run for 200K miles, get over 20 MPG, and perform similar.
They don’t have the same HP as the old big blocks, but they’ll outrun and outlast the.

That’s the F-1 I think, and people are drawn to it like they are the old Muscle Cars.  We –could- build the old big blocks and old muscle cars today, but we don’t.  We build better and more reliable, higher performance,  and efficient cars.  But people still like to say they have the “biggest” or “most powerful”.

But the old F-1 was inefficient and very expensive from what I understand, part of the reason the Saturn V was powerful, but hugely expensive, and ultimately cancelled.
Today, instead of a 3-stage rocket, we have one or two stages with reusable boosters.  Kerolox boosters would be great for several reasons.  Today we should either start producing US made RD-180’s and use them in clusters, or develop a US equivalent of the Russian RD-170.  The RD-170 has about 200,000 lb more thrust than the old F-1 and is more efficient.  And I assume if the Ruskies are producing it, which they are, it’s not all that expensive to build.  (As much as I hate to admit it, the Russians are usually great examples of doing more with far less).  We can buy some RD-170’s and make our own versions easy enough, we don’t need to even reinvent the wheel.  PWR can build the RD-180’s if they want, but it’s cheaper to buy them from the Russians for the Atlas V.  Politics being what they are apparently it’s a big no-no for NASA to be launching US astronauts on Russian made engines.
But PWR can make US made RD-180’s if there was the political will and money to do it.  The designs are done, we just need to tool up a plant and start pumping them out as I understand.

So, if we want –bigger-, don’t dust off the Old F-1, make a US version of the RD-170 (1.75 million lb thrust opposed to the F-1’s 1.5 million lb thrust at sea level).  Or easier yet, start making US versions of the RD-180 so NASA can start using them (860K lbs thrust sea level) and use them in pairs or clusters of 3 on LRB’s.  The RD-180 is sorta an RD-170 cut in half away.  But you’d need at least 3 RD-180’s to come close to replacing one SRB.  2 RD-170’s would get you a little more performance than the SRB, so that might be a better way.  Unless you go to a 4 booster design like Energia.  But now you are pretty radically changing the layout of the core.  And it’s hard to say if you’d be spending more to try to refurbish the LRB’s because of the damage the water would do to the LRB vs. the more simple SRB.  I don’t know what those numbers would be.   The engines might have to be disposed of entirely after each mission.
And how big would those boosters be?  Your LV might look more like a D4H with 3 8.4m cylinders rather than the large central cylinder with two smaller SRB’s. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/31/2009 09:09 pm
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.

Ok, that was my question.  So when they leave Michoud, they'll look all the same and they guys putting them on the barge will have no clue if it's going to fly in J-130 configuration or J-24x?

Just curious.  If so, that's good.  Always cheaper to make more of one widget than less each of 2 different widgets...even if they are "similar" widgets.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kch on 07/31/2009 09:10 pm
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 ... ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 07/31/2009 09:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/31/2009 09:21 pm
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?


Bill, you might want to go watch Danny's video's on YouTube.   They explain the issue pretty well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQifKbJEeGs&feature=related

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTT052ifSYY&feature=related



There are a lot of complexities though.   First, you need to work out how quickly the SRB's blow compared to when the LAS fires -- it makes a BIG difference.   Second, you also need to work out the angle which the SRB's are firing compared to the LAS trajectory -- if the vehicle breaks up, they could be at a completely unexpected angle, as much as 90 degrees up or down from the angle of the 'mother' vehicle!   And third, you need to re-calculate across a wide range of trajectory times, with most of the problems around T+30 thru T+60 seconds or so.

It is a *VERY* difficult problem.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/31/2009 09:22 pm
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 have asked precisely the same question myself.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kch on 07/31/2009 09:29 pm
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.

That is the only way you'd get rid of the entire nozzle, isn't it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/31/2009 09:36 pm
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.?

The Cores would all be exactly the same as shipped from MAF.

Where the engines would be fitted is open to debate still.   There are good arguments for integrating them at MAF prior to transport, but if that work was done at KSC then it would offer one additional means for saving some of the Shuttle jobs there.   The debate goes on, but both options are viable.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: 93143 on 07/31/2009 09:37 pm
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 ... ;)

That's right; the idea is to remove the entire nozzle.  There have been comments to the effect that this eliminates most of the thrust, so I thought it would be a good preliminary to the unzip, taking the time pressure off by preventing the boosters from chasing the capsule.

There are three potential concerns I see right now.  1) Requalification.  You can't fly the current SRBs any more because they don't have this feature.  2) Weight.  Ares I can't use it.  Kinda beside the point, as this is far from the only reason to go Direct instead.  3) The unzip itself.  Does it work as well if the nozzle is off?  How small do the pieces get?  How small do they need to be?

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.

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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/31/2009 09:37 pm
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?

The Core Stage is designed one time, to handle the worst case loads for both flight options.   In practice the loads for the much bigger, heavier and more powerful Jupiter-24x tend to be the determining factor.

Design once, build once, fly in either configuration.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Bill White on 07/31/2009 09:38 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/31/2009 09:38 pm
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.

Good idea.  That would work just fine I think.  We did exactly that for the AGM-130.  Lots of fire comes out the back, but very little long duration thrust.  You get about a 10 fold increase in thrust for a few milliseconds until the pressure drops.  The forces will certainly rip the SRB off the ET, but that is OK.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Lobo on 07/31/2009 09:45 pm
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?
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/31/2009 09:45 pm
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?

Martin,
   The work being done on Altair is still extremely rudimentary and is being done at "drop in the water" levels of funding right now.   Essentially they're currently trying to get a feel for the vehicle before getting into the design cycles and review process properly.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: William Barton on 07/31/2009 09:55 pm
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 think any number of people here will tell you, "Falcon 9 Heavy is not a given." What I think is, if COTS-D Falcon 9/Dragon works out, there'll be no point in Orion on EELV to ISS. Dragon can just do the US crew rotations, and Orion will only ride on Jupiter 130 when there's a cargo involved (assuming any of this comes to pass--Jupiter 130 is not a given either, and maybe even Orion isn't a given).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: NUAETIUS on 07/31/2009 10:02 pm
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?

Off topic for this tread.  Search the forums, this has been suggested ad nauseumin other thread, bump one of those.  Crewed COTS has not been green flagged, and might never.

Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 07/31/2009 10:05 pm
Ross,

Out of curiosity, did you meet up with the person who gave the public comment at yesterday's session that was the equivalent of a DIRECT 3-minute presentation?  The guy deserves a 1st edition DIRECT lapel pin!  If not that, at least a handshake from DIRECT's most public face.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: Kaputnik on 07/31/2009 10:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 07/31/2009 10:11 pm

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.

I'm hypothesizing here, but I would be concerned about large transient moments on the vehicle if you severed the very aft portion of the case. I don't see how you would control the thrust vector on the SRM during the detachment process, and fear it could give you some very large, very random forces on the integrated stack. This is as opposed to unzipping the case, as that provides rapid depressurization of the motor. As far as blowing downstream of the throat, at best you'll cut the thrust in half, which still gives you 1+ Mlb in thrust. I guess you have a point though. Even if that's still a huge amount of thrust, if it buys you enough margin then it's worth it.

Quote
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 aft exit cone is blown during recovery, which is what I thought the discussion was initially about. The LSC is in place there. That will not depressurize the motor, since the LSC is well downstream of the throat, but will cut the thrust down. As mentioned above, if you're just trying to buy some margin there, then maybe it's worth doing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: strangequark on 07/31/2009 10:15 pm
The forces will certainly rip the SRB off the ET, but that is OK.

Danny Deger

My concern would be if it didn't do that fast enough, and you ended up pointing in some direction you wished not to go. What are yours thoughts on that Danny, cuz I am definitely beyond my demense on that topic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/31/2009 10:25 pm
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?


Its definitely not a "show stopper" for all SDLV's.   The worst possible case situation is you will have to make the LAS much more powerful in order to get the crew far enough away.

Just using Danny's First-Order tool you can tell that a LAS with 500,000lb of thrust, burning for 6.5 seconds is more than capable of EASILY getting a 20,500lb Orion Crew Module away from any possible danger, even in the WORST possible cases.

Of course, such a LAS masses over 30,000lb so you would need a launch vehicle able to loft it.   And that is where the differences come between some SDLV launchers and others...

Ares-I simply does not have sufficient performance to allow its LAS mass to grow by some 15,000lb.   If that's required, it would be a complete "show-stopper" for that concept.

Both Jupiter-130 and Jupiter-24x, on the other hand, can quite easily accommodate that growth -- and even more besides, if ever required.

Jupiter-130 and Jupiter-24x are both, far more capable systems, than Ares-I will ever be.

Ross.


PS -- Talking with Danny and an ATK guy about this problem, an additional sustainer engine does not seem to be a good idea at all.   It seems far better to increase the capability of the main abort motor and to shape the grain in order to give you a 'sustainer' effect (high-thrust star pattern to start, lower thrust cylindrical burn towards the end).
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: robertross on 07/31/2009 10:32 pm
It looks like we have a multi-facetted approach required for dealing with the SRB debris with a Jupiter, and some, most, or maybe all might require a trade study on. Of course, the more things that need to happen during an abort, the more things can go wrong.

1) LAS motor with sustainer** added
2) SRB nozzle & LSC release
3) Unzip SRB
4) Bigger LAS motor
5) Other possibilities

You do combinations of the above to find the best scenario for crew survivability.

Of course D4H has no solids, so doesn't have this problem; it only has politics to worry about (assuming Jupiter is chosen as the best path).

** edit: In reference to what Ross, just posted, this would be a new LAS motor with diferent characteristics.  Now this would eliminate the rest of the choices then, since it requires no additonal method to function & keeps LOC numbers high. Case closed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/31/2009 10:49 pm
Okay, here's the "worst case" scenario I was just talking about and what I would term as the "simple brute force" solution to it -- essentially boiling down to replacing the current Abort Motor with this larger one.

There are probably more elegant ways to make it work than this, but I'm providing this simply to show that this *is* a solvable issue for Jupiter.   What's needed now is "refinement".

This simulates a LAS activation at Max-Q (T+48s) on a Jupiter-130 CLV flight heading for ISS.

Further, it assumes the Core Stage breaks up instantly and the SRB's are released to accelerate towards the Orion at maximum acceleration (4g) for a period of 3.0 seconds before destruction -- essentially meaning they are allowed to pick up the maximum possible velocity in the same direction as the Orion before being blown.

The debris distribution shows parts from 0.5ft diameter to 3.0ft diameter, which should cover the full range of likely burning materials and high momentum case debris as well.

This also uses the corrected 8.2ft radius for Orion.

And this optimizes the Drogue deploy time for this situation (which would be an automated function).

This models a 500,000lb thrust LAS, with no sustainer, massing 31,655lb -- roughly 35% greater thrust, roughly double the burn time and almost twice the mass of the current design (Note: The calculator currently doesn't model the SRB thrust curve of the motor accurately, but Danny is looking into that as an improvement for his spreadsheet).

It produces a 10G 'punch' for the Orion & Crew -- which is well within the 18G Crew safety limits and is broadly similar to the current punch of the existing LAS.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/31/2009 11:14 pm
Well, we just hit the 250 page mark once again, so I am starting the "DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 2" thread here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18139.msg451519#msg451519

This thread will be locked now.

Ross.