DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[kraisee]

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.

[kraisee]

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.

[kraisee]

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.

[Pheogh]

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

[kraisee]

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.

[kraisee]

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.

[MikeAtkinson]

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.

[MikeAtkinson]

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?

[kraisee]

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.

[MikeAtkinson]

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]

[kraisee]

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.

[kraisee]

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.

[clongton]

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.

[MikeAtkinson]

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.

[MikeAtkinson]

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?

[Ben the Space Brit]

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!

[clongton]

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.

[dlapine]

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"

[Ben the Space Brit]

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

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'.

[MikeAtkinson]

I think I've found the horizontal lander http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/09/lockheed-martin-lunar-landers-revealed/