DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[agman25]

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.

[yinzer]

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.

[Mark S]

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.

[TrueBlueWitt]

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.

[Danny Dot]

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

[Malderi]

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.

[JMSC]

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

[alexw]

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

[yinzer]

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.

[Analyst]

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

[alexw]

...
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

[fotoguzzi]

And yes, you could theoretically make a Jupiter-131.  .

Very good point.

Meaning a J-231?

[MP99]

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

[MP99]

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

[fotoguzzi]

Chris has finally spilt the beans on shuttle extension in the Live Space Flight News Feed section of the forum.

[alexw]

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

[simon-th]

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.

[fotoguzzi]

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

[Stephan]

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

[Ben the Space Brit]

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.  Being an amateur, I have no clue whatsoever if it will work.