DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[cixelsyD]

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...

The problem as I see it is that nobody outside the forum knows this. IMHO this is the most important part of the cost argument for Direct, besides the fact that there will only be one LV designed. I don't think it's been emphasized enough.

In fact I'm extremely hopeful for direct thanks to the margins, I think it will just as likely be underbudget to develop assuming people get out of the way.

[Arthur]

I am not too worried about all of this. I mean, let's step back and take a look at all of this.

-Cx tries another FUD attack...Ares is not dead, but highly unlikely with the current budget. Unless congress decides to give NASA a bigger budget, Ares ain't happening.

-An all EELV solution will never happen. The job losses would never be allowed by Congress.

-The only option left is that medium-lift sweet spot that Direct and Not Shuttle-C fill. NSC is difficult for the crew launch and not ideal for future heavy lift needs.

I think when you look at it, Direct is that sweet spot in the launch vehicle options.

Now if only the the Engineering decisions were made by Engineers, it would be DIRECT by a landslide.

[zapkitty]

Re: figures...

... the question would be: if Aerospace did the NASA figures that wouldn't automatically be a mark against Aerospace... it would depend on exactly what figures NASA gave Aerospace to work with...

[Ben the Space Brit]

With reference to the rumours flying that NASA is planning to announce it is moving CxP to an exclusively Ares-V-derived launcher archetecture:

NASA is proposing to send humans back to the Moon with a four-engine shuttle-derived booster. Two near-identical vehicles will be used to carry out this mission.  You know, that sounds strangely familiar from where I'm sitting... but we mustn't crow.  Oh, what the heck, let's do it.

[William Barton]

Ares III for LEO, Ares IV for the Moon. None of this DIRECT nonsense, you see...

[Pheogh]

With reference to the rumours flying that NASA is planning to announce it is moving CxP to an exclusively Ares-V-derived launcher archetecture:

NASA is proposing to send humans back to the Moon with a four-engine shuttle-derived booster. Two near-identical vehicles will be used to carry out this mission.

I must be asleep at the wheel, where is this statement from?

[cixelsyD]

With reference to the rumours flying that NASA is planning to announce it is moving CxP to an exclusively Ares-V-derived launcher archetecture:

NASA is proposing to send humans back to the Moon with a four-engine shuttle-derived booster. Two near-identical vehicles will be used to carry out this mission.  You know, that sounds strangely familiar from where I'm sitting... but we mustn't crow.  Oh, what the heck, let's do it.

Real question is the size of the tank and what boosters.... could still be in trouble if they're the large tank and 5 segment deal.

[zapkitty]

re: ... mini-shipyard...

.... apparently if you name it Spacedock a spatial distortion automatically relocates it to a random L point and quadruples its facilities ...

... a bit much for what's supposed to be an inexpensive and Direct-style beginning effort at a much-needed and long overdue bit of space infrastructure that will complement Direct...

... not because of NASA EDS FUD, but because it would greatly expand the use of space-assembled probes and modules that don't need to carry expensive automated docking gear...

... now... once the original has been proved out in LEO I can see another version being assembled by the original mini-shipyard and boosted out to wherever next gen space operations are staged...  a starting seed package sort of deal...
 

[Ben the Space Brit]

With reference to the rumours flying that NASA is planning to announce it is moving CxP to an exclusively Ares-V-derived launcher archetecture:

NASA is proposing to send humans back to the Moon with a four-engine shuttle-derived booster. Two near-identical vehicles will be used to carry out this mission.

I must be asleep at the wheel, where is this statement from?

Two seperate rumours reported by Keith Cowling over on NASAWatch.com and also by our own Ross (kraizee) Tierney.  Apparently, MSFC are looking at a two-launch LOR lunar archetecture using Ares-IV-Classic (a Ares-V core with an Ares-I upper stage).

[cro-magnon gramps]

Re: figures...

... the question would be: if Aerospace did the NASA figures that wouldn't automatically be a mark against Aerospace... it would depend on exactly what figures NASA gave Aerospace to work with...

if we take that attitude, then all the competitors numbers might as well be false, and the Commission is staffed by a bunch of either incompetents or NASA hacks... certainly that would not be in the best interests of the President... or the American People... to have a commission that fails in it's duties... if NASA does give inaccurate numbers then I would have to believe that the people of Areospace and the people on the Commission, would be able to see that, and react accordingly... D-minus... go back to the Sandlot...

[zapkitty]

Re: figures...

... the question would be: if Aerospace did the NASA figures that wouldn't automatically be a mark against Aerospace... it would depend on exactly what figures NASA gave Aerospace to work with...

if we take that attitude, then all the competitors numbers might as well be false, and the Commission is staffed by a bunch of either incompetents or NASA hacks...

could you chill on that already?

I was referring to the numbers work that Aerospace did for NASA before the commission. Before any commision-set parameters...

[cixelsyD]

An Ares V core + J2X upper stage... still sounds pretty poor compared to direct if you think of development cost vs utility.

I wonder why MSFC is changing CxP so closely to when the augustine commission comes out with a report. A half baked plan at the last minute won't garner any approval. A month is simply not enough time.

Couldn't they work together with the commission, ask for a heads up on which way the wind is blowing and work with them to make the transition as easy as possible?

[kraisee]

I think there's a bit of confusion above, so let me try to clarify:

Prior to the committee, NASA came up with NASA's own numbers -- nobody else was ever involved.   This is true for CxP and also for NSC as well.

When the committee came together they got Aerospace Corporation to examine everyone's claims and asked Aero to come up with their own assessment as to how valid each is.   That was the first time Aero got involved -- and we are still awaiting the detailed results of all those studies.

Aero were not involved in creating NASA's numbers in the first place.   Just wanted to clarify that.

Ross.

[cixelsyD]

Thanks Ross, that makes me feel a lot more confident about the commission. I actually thought you had contacted Aerospace on behalf of direct and that they would report to the commission only on direct, not on all the options. This makes them much more independent, sorry for doubting you guys, I just didn't know the situation.

But how can NASA come up with its own number without review... seems a bit shady. No oversight at all.

Out of curiousity what rockets have Aerospace reviewed in the passed, I'd like to know their record.

[zapkitty]

I think there's a bit of confusion above, so let me try to clarify:

Prior to the committee, NASA came up with NASA's own numbers -- nobody else was ever involved.   This is true for CxP and also for NSC as well.
Ross.

Then I was mistaken and I owe Gramps an apology. I thought they were involved with processing NASA's Ares numbers before the commission was announced.

[Drapper23]

Both Ross & Chuck have stated that the Aerospace Corporation has validated the Direct 3 cost data.  Since Direct 3 will cost much less than Ares, I believe this ultimately will be the most important factor to The White House & Congress--provided Direct is technically sound & protects the NASA workforce--both of which it does. Regarding Congressional concerns about costs of the Ares & Orion vehicles, I will quote Chairman Alan B. Mollohan(NASA Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman) on April 29,2009. On that day Chairman Mollohan stated,"The price tag for Orion & Ares continues to mount, and there are considerably unknowns as to whether NASA's plans for the Ares & Orion vehicles can be executed within schedule & current cost estimates."

[Nathan]

On the EDS docking issue: Couldn't the Altair be designed with two docking ports on opposite SIDES rather than top & bottom? EDS can dock to one side, Orion to the other. The docking ports can double as surface egress hatches. Would that solve the problem?

[kraisee]

Thanks Ross, that makes me feel a lot more confident about the commission. I actually thought you had contacted Aerospace on behalf of direct and that they would report to the commission only on direct, not on all the options. This makes them much more independent, sorry for doubting you guys, I just didn't know the situation.

Nah, Aerospace (like any company) only works for money.   If we had ever tried to get them to analyse DIRECT for us, our little band of rebels could never have afforded their fee!

But how can NASA come up with its own number without review... seems a bit shady. No oversight at all.

YES!!!

This is another of the major questions we have.   Where is the guy looking over their shoulder?   Where is the guy who they HAVE to satisfy in order to be allowed to proceed?   Shouldn't everyone involved in the development always know that someone INDEPENDENT is above them and has the ability to say they are wrong, in order to keep them honest?   Isn't having that extra layer of checks & balances not a fundamental requirement of any good design process?


What the upper management of CxP have created right now, is essentially a Fox guarding the Hen-house situation.   There is no real independent oversight at all.   The watchmen and the watched are all paid out of the same pot, by the same management!   And if nobody has noticed, that management appear to have their own private agenda which they are hell-bent on squeezing through the door irrelevant of any other factors.

Is it any wonder that this whole situation is collapsing entirely under its own weight?


IMHO, this debacle has only demonstrated that NASA desperately needs to be re-organized.

The agency needs to set standards, define requirements and then be the oversight organization keeping everyone else honest.   The actual rocket development work needs to be done by one or more separate organizations:   Commercial ones like ATK, Boeing, Lockheed Martin etc.   It will still all have to be done in Huntsville -- to keep the money flowing to the various Senator's satisfaction -- but NASA should not be in control of both Development AND Oversight at the same time -- there need to be checks and balances.


NASA should primarily be responsible for Oversight.   That and pure R&D -- but that's a separate topic!

Out of curiousity what rockets have Aerospace reviewed in the passed, I'd like to know their record.

Not sure.   From what I have learned so far, I think they do most of their work for DoD, but have done a lot of independent assessments for NASA, NOAA and a range of other organizations too.   But specific projects, I don't know.   You'd have to ask someone else...

Ross.

[alexterrell]

Without wanting to sound too optimistic, it seems Ares 1 / V is dead.

If a "Direct" type of launcher is chosen, will NASA,
a. Start from scratch
b. Take the Direct concept, validate it, embrace it and deploy it

Option b would save about 1 - 2 years, and a corresponding amount of money, because early concept design, prior to PDR, takes time.

Option a risks heading off to a Not Invented Here hatchet job. Engineers who have been working on Part Number 3714 for Ares 1 really feel it ought to fit into the new "Direct" architecture.

So how do you brainwash smart Ares engineers to love Direct?

[wannamoonbase]

Without wanting to sound too optimistic, it seems Ares 1 / V is dead.

If a "Direct" type of launcher is chosen, will NASA,
a. Start from scratch
b. Take the Direct concept, validate it, embrace it and deploy it

Option b would save about 1 - 2 years, and a corresponding amount of money, because early concept design, prior to PDR, takes time.

Option a risks heading off to a Not Invented Here hatchet job. Engineers who have been working on Part Number 3714 for Ares 1 really feel it ought to fit into the new "Direct" architecture.

So how do you brainwash smart Ares engineers to love Direct?

If it is true that NASA is looking at an Ares V derived vehicle.  then let us refer to the Ares IV or Ares derived vehicle, not DIRECT.

6 months after a change people would be use to using different terminology.  Remember outside our own small corner of the world not everyone pays attention to this stuff.

If adopted the DIRECT team has always said they would be happy to step back and let NASA run with it.  Hopefully they get a chance to prove this.

I love the DIRECT concept and I think it would be a great vehicle to see being developed and launched (and evolve).