DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[ar-phanad]

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...

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?

[robertross]

"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).

[zapkitty]

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...

[Drapper23]

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

[kraisee]

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.

[kraisee]

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...

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.

[zapkitty]

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.

[robertross]

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).

[zapkitty]

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? 

[kraisee]

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.

[Sesquipedalian]

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.)

[MagDes]

I've added an engine graphic, but feel free to take it out if you prefer.

[MagDes]

Or maybe this:

[MP99]

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

[fotoguzzi]

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.

[SoFDMC]

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...

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?

[Lab Lemming]

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...

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.

[StuffOfInterest]

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.

[engstudent]

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  lol

[kttopdad]

As was stated earlier, be sure to remove the extra apostrophes.  The RL10s don't own anything, so you can't say "RL10's".