DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[fotoguzzi]

Baseball cards:  It appears that the shortest of the J-130s (70.9 m) is listed as having a 10 m x 10 m payload.  I also question if some of the *.jpegs match the *.pdfs.  Perhaps someone with some knowledge could go through the cards and see if there are discrepancies?

[simon-th]

It seems that some are  a bit over confidant, inferring that the moon is for beginners and nasa is ready for a mission of greater complexity.

Human spaceflight is always hard. No matter where you go.

The discussion Moon vs. Mars human exploration is however a point of what makes sense to do. After all, there isn't even a debate about WHETHER humans should go to Mars in the science community, but the question is when.

Personally I'd say, robotic missions on the Moon can achieve enough data and research. The big plus for the Moon is its proximity when it comes to robotic missions, there just isn't any long time lag between two commands. You can do robotic missions in real-time on the Moon's surface. That's really different for Mars. Real-time work can only be done with a human crew on the surface. So, unless there is a quantum leap in robotics and AI soon, it really makes a lot of sense from an exploration/science point of view to go to Mars. And we shouldn't forget that Mars is also much more interesting than the Moon because it is a planetary body which could have housed life in the past, has an atmosphere, 24-hour days etc. etc.

[StuffOfInterest]

Getting back to the non-political side for a bit.  Is the team still feeding information to the Augustine committee (and its adjuncts) or have they moved more into the analysis phase?  If the information work has slowed down hopefully the DIRECT website can be brought up to date.  There is still a lot of technical info on the site which hasn't been updated to 3.0 yet.

Also, Ross, you provided some of the artwork used on the DIRECT Wikipedia page.  Unfortunately, much of that artwork is  now out of date with the move from 2.0 to 3.0.  Is there any chance of getting some updated artwork for the page?  A Google search for "Direct Launcher" has the wiki page as the 2nd item in the list (right behind the main website) so it is worth making that page look as good as possible (with thanks to those who have been editing it).

[ar-phanad]

Getting back to the non-political side for a bit.  Is the team still feeding information to the Augustine committee (and its adjuncts) or have they moved more into the analysis phase?  If the information work has slowed down hopefully the DIRECT website can be brought up to date.  There is still a lot of technical info on the site which hasn't been updated to 3.0 yet.

Also, Ross, you provided some of the artwork used on the DIRECT Wikipedia page.  Unfortunately, much of that artwork is  now out of date with the move from 2.0 to 3.0.  Is there any chance of getting some updated artwork for the page?  A Google search for "Direct Launcher" has the wiki page as the 2nd item in the list (right behind the main website) so it is worth making that page look as good as possible (with thanks to those who have been editing it).

Wikipedia was where I first learned about DIRECT. I think that keeping it up-to-date is a very important venture.

[JMSC]

I'm starting to lose track..

Is a Direct 3.0 Thread?  Or is it a U.S./NASA Politics thread?
Although it seems the two are irrevocably intertwined..

I think it is just a matter of the state we are in. To me, the engineering side of Direct 3.0 is mostly done. Sure the design always evolves, but right now the Direct Team is playing the political game.

So it would be impossible to have a Direct 3.0 thread without discussing the political side of things.

As long as pretty-much all space money comes from the US Treasury, you can make a very safe bet that the politics will continue to be the driving force behind everything in this business.

From a personal perspective, when I started this, nearly 4 years ago, my only real interest was the launchers and the spacecraft.   I knew nothing about the politics, nor the budget aspects.

But I quickly came to the understanding that without the politics falling into line the money won't flow.   And without the money, NOTHING else happens.   Steve Squires said of the Mars Exploration Rovers that they "follow the water", well to understand the US Space Program you must always "follow the money". . .

Ross.

Ross, great explanation on why building a broad political base of support for DIRECT is important.  I've spent most of my career with government agencies, civilian and defense and having a strong political coalition behind you can't be underestimated, in particular when a project runs over budget or behind schedule, there are always competing interests that are ready to pounce once a program runs into trouble if it doesn't have a good political base of support and right now ARES seems to be in that category.

Not to beat a dead horse but one political area that I haven't seen addressed much is the internal NASA politics of manned space flight vs. space science, earth science and aeronautics.  Much of the problem ARES seems to have is that Dr Griffin was paying for a large part of his program by trashing the budget's for science related activities (e.g. non-MSFC programs).  In their confirmation hearings both Bolden and Garver promised to put more emphasis on funding science and aeronautics related activities, since these activities have almost as many supporters in the Senate as manned space flight does, albeit generally in California, Virginia and States other than the Gulf Coast.

Some of the strongest aspects of DIRECT is that 1) It doesn't require savaging the budgets of non-manned space flight programs, and 2) it actually supports these programs by providing a launcher that is cheap enough to use and can do things we are currently unable to do, large diameter space telescopes, single launch mars return missions, etc.  I have often felt that the person who pounds the last nail into ARES coffin will be an earth science geek who just can't stomach what the Griffin I and V will do to her programs.  I hope you have been able to reach out to this crowd as they do seem to have the new administrator's ear and significant representation on the Augustine Commission, to me DIRECT seems like an 80/20 win for more than just the supporters of manned space flight programs.

John

[jeff.findley]

I love to speculate about where we should have been right now assuming the Saturn vehicles had enjoyed sustained support for the last 40 years, but the bottom line is that after Apollo 12 support and the political will evaporated.

Take a look at a graph of NASA's budget and it's clear that "support and the political will" evaporated long before Apollo 12.


http://en.wikivisual.com/images/1/1a/NASA_budget_linegraph_BH.PNG

[iontyre]

It seems that some are  a bit over confidant, inferring that the moon is for beginners and nasa is ready for a mission of greater complexity.

Human spaceflight is always hard. No matter where you go.

The discussion Moon vs. Mars human exploration is however a point of what makes sense to do. After all, there isn't even a debate about WHETHER humans should go to Mars in the science community, but the question is when.

Personally I'd say, robotic missions on the Moon can achieve enough data and research. The big plus for the Moon is its proximity when it comes to robotic missions, there just isn't any long time lag between two commands. You can do robotic missions in real-time on the Moon's surface. That's really different for Mars. Real-time work can only be done with a human crew on the surface. So, unless there is a quantum leap in robotics and AI soon, it really makes a lot of sense from an exploration/science point of view to go to Mars. And we shouldn't forget that Mars is also much more interesting than the Moon because it is a planetary body which could have housed life in the past, has an atmosphere, 24-hour days etc. etc.

Actually, I have never understood the feeling that a manned mission to Mars without an actual landing would be a waste of time.  What you need to do is include several robotic landers on that mission that could be controlled in realtime by astronauts in orbit of Mars.  Instead of the MER landers only going a few hundred meters a most, you could safely drive kilometers a day if necessary to explore from orbit.  LOTS could be done to scout out potential human landing sites that would take far longer by remote earth-based robotic control.  I call this the Mars Orbital Workshop (MOW).  This sort of mission seems like a great first step to eventual colonization.

With Direct we could probably mount such mission by the mid 2020's!

[MP99]

As linked from the Augustine Commission requests feedback on beyond LEO operations thread, I've just noticed this document (dated 2nd July) at nasa.gov:-

Download the current Subgroups Progress Report (pdf, 23k)

Subgroup on Access to Low Earth Orbit

Mr. Bejmuk, subgroup lead, said Aerospace is conducting an assessment of technical cost, schedule and other considerations for Constellation, as well as the proposed Side-Mount, Shuttle-Derived, and Heavy-Lift Vehicle. (Mr. Bejmuk noted the differences between Side-Mount and Shuttle C.) To maintain a level playing field, he said all the technologies under review – including the DIRECT proposal and the vehicles being developed by Orbital Sciences and SpaceX – should be evaluated in the same fashion, and he is working to arrange that.

That's a report that will be worth reading.

cheers, Martin

[fotoguzzi]

Also, Ross, you provided some of the artwork used on the DIRECT Wikipedia page.

Wikipedia was where I first learned about DIRECT. I think that keeping it up-to-date is a very important venture.

I have been trying to sort existing content into logical groups and trim redundancies.  I think the order of the sections makes some sense now.  I have about gotten the v2.0 material out of the text.  I think the next step is to trim out some of the Ares I/Ares V comparisons.  It is important in a DIRECT article to say why its better than the other option but maybe not in every other sentence!  I welcome good writers to help trim out the redundancies in the article.  It reads a bit slowly because of all the attempts to make it _neutral_.  Compared to other wikipedia.org articles, it seems a bit clunky (and long!) to read.

v3.0 artwork would be appreciated!  I see that Philip public-domained most of the items the article now has.

Modify: change words

[cixelsyD]

From what I hear Bolden seems ready to jump on board what the Augustine Commission recommends. He was definately setting us up for a change of pace with his whole "we want you to hear the bad news from us".

Personally I think direct's chances are very good, or at least some iteration of it.

[kraisee]

Actually, I have never understood the feeling that a manned mission to Mars without an actual landing would be a waste of time.  What you need to do is include several robotic landers on that mission that could be controlled in realtime by astronauts in orbit of Mars.  Instead of the MER landers only going a few hundred meters a most, you could safely drive kilometers a day if necessary to explore from orbit.  LOTS could be done to scout out potential human landing sites that would take far longer by remote earth-based robotic control.  I call this the Mars Orbital Workshop (MOW).  This sort of mission seems like a great first step to eventual colonization.

With Direct we could probably mount such mission by the mid 2020's!

iontyre,
A slight variant on that has been discussed within the DIRECT Team (we discuss most options, so don't take this as any sort of 'baseline' recommendation or anything), but if the crew were to station themselves on Phobos instead of simply in Mars orbit, they would also be able to investigate that moon at the same time.   You would potentially get double the science return from the same mission.

And that mission would be in the same class as an NEO mission -- albeit a longer duration version.

For Phobos > Mars communications we would probably also need a handful of comsats situated around Mars beforehand too.

Ross.

[William Barton]

iontyre,
A slight variant on that has been discussed within the DIRECT Team (we discuss most options, so don't take this as any sort of 'baseline' recommendation or anything), but if the crew were to station themselves on Phobos instead of simply in Mars orbit, they would also be able to investigate that moon at the same time.   You would potentially get double the science return from the same mission.

And that mission would be in the same class as an NEO mission -- albeit a longer duration version.

For Phobos > Mars communications we would probably also need a handful of comsats situated around Mars beforehand too.

Ross.

What are the dynamics of getting back and forth between Phobos and Deimos? Be nice if you could get two moonlets for the price of one.

[kraisee]

Also, Ross, you provided some of the artwork used on the DIRECT Wikipedia page.

Wikipedia was where I first learned about DIRECT. I think that keeping it up-to-date is a very important venture.

I have been trying to sort existing content into logical groups and trim redundancies.  I think the order of the sections makes some sense now.  I have about gotten the v2.0 material out of the text.  I think the next step is to trim out some of the Ares I/Ares V comparisons.  It is important in a DIRECT article to say why its better than the other option but maybe not in every other sentence!  I welcome good writers to help trim out the redundancies in the article.  It reads a bit slowly because of all the attempts to make it _neutral_.  Compared to other wikipedia.org articles, it seems a bit clunky (and long!) to read.

v3.0 artwork would be appreciated!  I see that Philip public-domained most of the items the article now has.

Modify: change words

I'm back into writing documentation for the Augustine Committee so I'm a touch busy again, but I have most of the artwork already to hand.   Can you please PM me with some details as to precisely what you need and I'll get it put up there for you.

Ross.

[kraisee]

From what I hear Bolden seems ready to jump on board what the Augustine Commission recommends. He was definately setting us up for a change of pace with his whole "we want you to hear the bad news from us".

Personally I think direct's chances are very good, or at least some iteration of it.

Same here.   I think we're going to get this.   And frankly, I'll be glad when the agency grabs the ball, because I'll finally be able to stop running so hard!   I'll be able to take my first vacation in more than two years!   The day we can hand everything over to NASA can't come too soon for me!

Ross.

[Lobo]

iontyre,
A slight variant on that has been discussed within the DIRECT Team (we discuss most options, so don't take this as any sort of 'baseline' recommendation or anything), but if the crew were to station themselves on Phobos instead of simply in Mars orbit, they would also be able to investigate that moon at the same time.   You would potentially get double the science return from the same mission.

And that mission would be in the same class as an NEO mission -- albeit a longer duration version.

For Phobos > Mars communications we would probably also need a handful of comsats situated around Mars beforehand too.

Ross.

Could a rover be sent to Phobos first to scout it out?  Or would it drift off because of low gravity?  Phobos has about 1/1000 the gravity of Earth, so if you had a 1000lbm rover it'd weight 1 lbf on Phobos, not much but it seems like it should stay on the surface as long as it didn't drive too fast.  A solar powered rover could explore a lot about Phobos ahead of any potential manned mission there. I'd think. 

[kraisee]

I'm certain something could be sent to scout the area.

There are some unique design challenges for operating in such low gravity, but I'm sure that its nothing which a skilled team couldn't tackle with some innovative new thinking.   And the chances are that some of the technology which they invent to tackle those problems would translate into applicable capabilities which a human team could also use later.

Sounds to me like a perfect mission for a Jupiter-130/DHCUS to loft...

Ross.

[MP99]

Could a rover be sent to Phobos first to scout it out?  Or would it drift off because of low gravity?  Phobos has about 1/1000 the gravity of Earth, so if you had a 1000lbm rover it'd weight 1 lbf on Phobos, not much but it seems like it should stay on the surface as long as it didn't drive too fast.  A solar powered rover could explore a lot about Phobos ahead of any potential manned mission there. I'd think. 

There's a plotline in Heinlein's Space Family Stone where someone performs a (partial, IIRC) orbit of Phobos after taking a running jump.

Always wondered how realistic that was.

cheers, Martin

[Analyst]

1) It doesn't require savaging the budgets of non-manned space flight programs, and
2) it actually supports these programs by providing a launcher that is cheap enough to use and can do things we are currently unable to do, large diameter space telescopes, single launch mars return missions, etc. 

Your first point is valid. Your second point is not. It is the budget again. Have you ever seen a non HSF payload on Saturn V, 1B, 1?

And if it were not for Shuttle only policy in the 1980ies, you would likely have never seen Galileo or Ulysses or Magellan etc. using the Shuttle. Besides, Shuttle is EELV class anyway.

SMD does not have the budget, plain and simple. And we are not talking a few 100 million/years here.

Analyst

[kraisee]

Analyst,
   The difference is that none of the payloads being planned at the time of Saturn, were too large for the other expendables.   Even the Voyager probes and Surveyors could fit on Titan at the time and didn't require anything larger.

   But today there is a small -- but growing -- list of missions which either are experiencing difficulties or which simply do not fit on existing ELV assets.

   MSL is currently running into cost overruns due, primarily, to the need to cram it into a smaller launcher than they would like.   JIMO was outright canceled because the cost to get it to fit in even a Delta-IV Heavy's capabilities was deemed ridiculous.   JWST is currently running at a cost overrun of 7 times its launch vehicle's cost, again because they're trying to squeeze spacecraft capabilities into vehicle which couldn't support it without the payload having to include many expensive additional 'self-unwrapping features'.   And MSR is only going to work now as a 2-launch system with the Europeans picking up half the launch costs!

   The scale of *some* (certainly not all) of the missions which SMD wants to do today is pushing the limits of current ELV/EELV launch assets to their breaking point -- or at the very least to the point where it results in significantly higher overall costs in order to squeeze a payload into a vehicle which just isn't the right size.

   I would estimate that this doesn't affect 80% of planed missions at all.   But the other 20% (I'm only talking one mission every 2-5 years or so) -- typically the larger, more expensive ones to start with -- could benefit from greater capabilities as long as they don't break the bank.

   If we assumed that the HSF program were to pick up all of the fixed operational costs for the system, leaving only the costs of the vehicle and its unique operations to be paid by SMD, a Jupiter-130/DHCUS CaLV flight should costs somewhere around ~$180m to SMD.   While that won't ever compete with the ~$60m costs for a Delta-II or a ~$130m Atlas-401, it offers excellent value for those missions which are already have difficulty fitting on an EELV anyway.

Ross.

[fotoguzzi]

Also, Ross, you provided some of the artwork used on the DIRECT Wikipedia page.

Wikipedia was where I first learned about DIRECT. I think that keeping it up-to-date is a very important venture.

v3.0 artwork would be appreciated!  I see that Philip public-domained most of the items the article now has.
Modify: change words

I'm back into writing documentation for the Augustine Committee so I'm a touch busy again, but I have most of the artwork already to hand.   Can you please PM me with some details as to precisely what you need and I'll get it put up there for you.

Nope!  The illustrations will do for now.  Figure out the flaming parachute problem and whatever else for the Committee.  The wiki can wait!