DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[randomly]

use a collection of 1 kiloton 'flash bulbs'.

[gospacex]

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*.

[Analyst]

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

[alexw]

...   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

 

[gospacex]

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...

[Marsin2010]

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

[Lab Lemming]

      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.

[Jim]

Delay to 2011 was robotics related.

Actually environment is issue

[Lab Lemming]

As in contamination, or as in dust, time, and cold interfering with moving parts?

Delay to 2011 was robotics related.

Actually environment is issue

[Jim]

cold, necessitating a redesign

[Lab Lemming]

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

[Drapper23]

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.

[scotty125]

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...

[kkattula]

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".

[HIP2BSQRE]

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.

[HIP2BSQRE]

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?

[HIP2BSQRE]

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.

[MKampe]

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.

[Nathan]

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.

[firehauck]

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  !