DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[cixelsyD]

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.

[TrueBlueWitt]

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.

[mars.is.wet]

"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.

[ugordan]

Or more recently, Alan Bean and Harrison Schmitt...

Why, what'd they say?

[MP99]

"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

[Lobo]

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.

[Lancer525]

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.

[brihath]

Lancer525:

Touche'.  My point exactly.

DIRECT got what they wanted, an independent review of their idea and data.

[clongton]

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.

[Pheogh]

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?

[clongton]

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.

[renclod]

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 ?

[clongton]

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.

[cixelsyD]

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.

[brihath]

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.

[alexterrell]

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+.

[alexterrell]

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.

[cixelsyD]

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.

[cro-magnon gramps]

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...

[kraisee]

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.