DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[Drapper23]

I don't think President Obama will wait until 2059 for a manned Mars flight. Around 2030 is Buzz Aldrin's goal. However, Buzz realizes the importance of manned missions to the Martian Moons Phobos & Deimos. Thoses will occur in the 2020's. Finally if any form of life is discovered through our unmanned Mars exploration program, all of these timetables will be accelerated.

[MP99]

I don't think President Obama will wait until 2059 for a manned Mars flight. Around 2030 is Buzz Aldrin's goal. However, Buzz realizes the importance of manned missions to the Martian Moons Phobos & Deimos. Thoses will occur in the 2020's. Finally if any form of life is discovered through our unmanned Mars exploration program, all of these timetables will be accelerated.

I'd say those are realistic goals.

10-ish years to get back to the Moon.

15-ish years to learn how to do a standalone two year mission in an ISS-type environment (with rad shielding).

20-ish years to add landings to the Mars mission.

I do worry about the budget to operate on the Moon whilst also preparing for Mars, though.

cheers, Martin

[Lab Lemming]

Falcon 9 is well down the road to Human Rated certification. EELV Heavy has not even started down that path.

On the other hand, Delta IV, Delta IV heavy, and Atlas V have actually flown.

[robertross]

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".

I'm starting to see that too.

[brihath]

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?

Did you consider cost and development time to design and test a Mars Mission Module and Lander?  Both are needed for the Mars mission.  We can baseline some data from the ISS for long term residence in space, but more work needs to be done WRT reliability.  The ISS depends on regular resupply of needed spare parts, and we will not have that capability during Mars transit.  All of these systems will need to be tested in orbit for an extended period of time to ensure the crew can survive transit and return, plus mission time on the surface.

[Arthur]

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  !

The time lag between start of development and first mission flight is too long to start and stop development. If you "Cancel the Altair lunar lander" it will be forever. Somewhere down the road you will need to begin from ground zero to create a new Lander development program.

Looking at recent history, we cancelled the Apollo/Saturn program (for now) in order to develope a fully reusable "Space Truck" (the Shuttle). Now is the 'later' when we need to reinvent all of the Saturn/Apollo capabilities again. How much of the old design are they reusing? Virtually none.

NASA, in my opinion, does not need to 'save money' as much as it needs to 'achieve goals'. Congress can write a blank Trillion Dollar check if they feel the cause justifies the expense, NASA (and We the People) need to show that HSF is not just money wated on nothing.

Steady funding.
A clear vision.
Demonstrable progress.

HSF ... Lunar Outpost ... Mars Colony.

... And it starts with a Shuttle derrived, Saturn-esque launch vehicle like DIRECT. Broad shoulders to lift the heavy loads.

[Jim]

1.  Note:  Orion + EELV Heavy = Falcon 9 Heavy + Dragon + $$$$$$$$$.

2.   (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.

3.  Falcon 9 is well down the road to Human Rated certification.

4.  EELV Heavy has not even started down that path.

5.  Dragon is scheduled to fly next year, Orion is not. COTS is already funded, Orion is already funded, EELV Heavy for Orion is not.

6.  EELV for Orion just really seems silly.

7.  Since Dragon uses the common docking adapter,?

1.  That doesn't make any sense.  Dragon does not equate to Orion. So the comparison is meaningless

2.   Unfounded and baseless statement.   Show me where Spacex has taken away launches from ULA. Lockheed and Boeing don't launch Atlas and Delta anymore.  Spacex didn't make the cut for the last 4 launch services that NASA bought.

3.  Based on whose requirements?  If there is such a thing as "Human Rated certification", NASA has not been involved with Spacex on this.  Also since Spacex has no COTS D contract, it is not working on an abort system which requires a health monitoring system.  Another baseless claim

4.  Only thing they basically need is the health monitoring system

5.   EELV heavy has already flown.  Only Orion integration needs to be done

6.   No, what is sillier and asinine, is basing decisions on an unproven and unflown launch vehicle.   There won't even be enough flight history to even make this decision in 2011.

7.  What common docking adapter?  Right now, Dragon only uses a common berthing mechanism.

This is one of the most ludicrous posts I have seen in awhile.  Let's stick to serious ideas.

[Jim]

2) Whatever happened to the **Really Slick** mobile-VAB they were going to use for Shuttle Launches from Vandenburg? That was pure genius!

Huh? 

 It was't a VAB, only a shelter with a crane.  It wasn't "pure genius! ", how do you think Atlas, Delta, and Titans were built up in the past using MST..   This is just SOP.

And what would be the cost of such a launch pad?  Or the vehicle that needs such a pad?  Or what missions would justify such expenditures?

[JohnFornaro]

I do like the suggestion of Orbiting Mars and Venus first.  Why the rush to Phobos and Deimos?  But don't cancel Altair.

This would fit into the HSF, Lunar Outpost, Mars Colony scenario.

Differing with Jim yet again... I think Elon has started munching the crumbs that Lockheed and Boeing are ignoring.  That could turn into lunch, if he starts doing successful launch services.  Kinda like the dog nose at the picnic table.  If you turn away for a fraction of a second, there goes your cheeseburger!  Big if, I know, but he's making a great effort, IMO.

[Hermit]

At the Space Frontier Foundation, New Space 2009 event, there was a talk called "Orbital Fuel Depots: Fueling the future" given by Masten Space Systems. Its great that there are more people out there selling this idea.
http://newspace2009.spacefrontier.org/agenda.php

[Jim]

I think Elon has started munching the crumbs that Lockheed and Boeing are ignoring.

What are Lockheed and Boeing are ignoring?

[bad_astra]

When was the last Athena launch?

[Lobo]

A thought on stretching the Shuttle programme to close the gap with J-130.

Jupiter is founded on the idea of retaining the expertise on the ground necessary to fly reliably. This is stuff that's locked away in people's heads, and once they're gone, that knowledge is gone with them. How many of these are the famous grey-beards that won't be around forever anyway?

If the remaining Shuttle flights are stretched out, does that mean that the staff on the ground would be less busy day-to-day - at least until they start planning ops processes for Jupiter?

Would this give NASA the time to start a documentation programme - get a lot of that knowledge written down?

* The ops unique to Shuttle would be nice to have for historical purposes, but not critical.

* Document the Jupiter-relevant stuff as it exists now, and keep it updated as part of the development process for the new Jupiter ops.

The fixed costs for stretching the Shuttle programme are high. Would this be a way to demonstrate getting extra value out of those costs?

cheers, Martin

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?

[bad_astra]

It would be easier to integrate the HLV if the Shuttles are pushed into the next couple of years.

[Lobo]

Do you recognize this concept? I've had it saved for a while and forgot about it.

The first option has 4 SRB's.   The added weight of those definitely requires a new Crawlerway & Crawler Transporters, probably also requires new Concrete Hardstands at both Pads and may even require the VAB's floor to be reinforced.   Costs the Earth.   Never gonna happen.

Ross.

Could Zenit-style (American made) kerolox boosters be possible to put in place of those extra two SRB's without all of the added expense you mentioned here?  Wouldn't have the same thrust as the SRB's, but would have more thrust than J-246, and thus more loft capability?

[Stephan]

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. 

I love the H2G2 quote

[Lobo]

So a HLV could significantly reduce the cost of flagship missions.

Costs for the launcher are just a fraction of a flagship mission.

And that is exactly why spending more on a launcher to reduce all the other costs might make sense.

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.

Operations can be simplified and shortened by using direct trajectories instead of complex trajectories with gravity assists. Avoiding a gravity assist means two years less you have to keep the team together. Surely that is worth a lot of money.

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.

Nobody says that you have to use the full payload capacity. There are various scenarios where building a 10mt spacecraft will be cheaper than building a 7mt spacecraft. Especially if 7mt is the upper limit for your launcher, and due to some unforeseen weight growth the spacecraft ends up with a weight of 7.5mt.

Here’s the thing.  Yea, most of the cost is in the mission and hardware complexity, not the launcher per se.
However, that totally ignores how the capability of the launcher drives the complexity of the mission.
JWT is a great example.  They are having to come up with this incredibly complex way to fold that large mirror to fit into a small PLF, and then have it deployed remotely, and reliably, because if just one joint or motor doesn’t work just right, you have a billion dollar piece of space junk out there.
Having a large LV with a larger PLF and more lift capacity could have reduced the complexity of JWT my may fold, and thus reduced the cost by many fold.
A Jupiter could launch JWT with a larger, non folding mirror, with far fewer complexities and variables.  Your costs would be significantly less than JWT is adding up to now.

Another example is the lunar missions.  Before the Saturn V, they were thinking of ways to do it with the smaller boosters available at the time.  All required multiple launches and complex docking and redezvous at a time when none of that had ever even been done yet.  So they developed the Saturn V to –reduce- the complexity of the lunar mission to acceptable levels to risk humans doing.

So, the capabilities of the launchers available (both lift ability and volume capacity) are very closely tied to mission expense/complexity/reliability.   That’s just a fact.
If for no other reason, than you can just launch more fuel, which will get the mission to it’s destination faster, so yea, you don’t have to keep the team together for as long, and don’t have to design as much “deep sleep” capability into a probe, and fly a much more simple trajectory. 

[kraisee]

Before catching up on the rest of the thread here, a few people have PM'd me to ask about arrangements for the Committee Hearing on the 30th July in Cocoa Beach.

My general plan right now is to attend the hearing itself from 8am to 4pm and then at the end, to do a few more meet-and-greets with some folk afterwards for about an hour or so.   Around 5pm I would like to gather together our group in the Lobby of the Hilton Cocoa Beach Oceanfront so that around 5:30pm we can all head-off to dinner from there.

If I can get a fairly firm head-count I would like to book a table at Fishlips in Port Canaveral.   Directions from the Hearing are here.

So anyone who intends to be there, please PM me (again) now.

Ross.

[kraisee]

Could Zenit-style (American made) kerolox boosters be possible to put in place of those extra two SRB's without all of the added expense you mentioned here?  Wouldn't have the same thrust as the SRB's, but would have more thrust than J-246, and thus more loft capability?

Theoretically, anything like that could be done.   It would help a lot if there were a domestically produced Kero-LOX engine of course.   And the Pad would have to be designed to support such a configuration.   And the whole stack would need to be re-qualified for the different loads which it would experience.   None of that is trivial.   But theoretically; sure.

Ross.

[Analyst]

So a HLV could significantly reduce the cost of flagship missions.

Costs for the launcher are just a fraction of a flagship mission.

And that is exactly why spending more on a launcher to reduce all the other costs might make sense.

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.

Operations can be simplified and shortened by using direct trajectories instead of complex trajectories with gravity assists. Avoiding a gravity assist means two years less you have to keep the team together. Surely that is worth a lot of money.

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.

Nobody says that you have to use the full payload capacity. There are various scenarios where building a 10mt spacecraft will be cheaper than building a 7mt spacecraft. Especially if 7mt is the upper limit for your launcher, and due to some unforeseen weight growth the spacecraft ends up with a weight of 7.5mt.

Here’s the thing.  Yea, most of the cost is in the mission and hardware complexity, not the launcher per se.
However, that totally ignores how the capability of the launcher drives the complexity of the mission.
JWT is a great example.  They are having to come up with this incredibly complex way to fold that large mirror to fit into a small PLF, and then have it deployed remotely, and reliably, because if just one joint or motor doesn’t work just right, you have a billion dollar piece of space junk out there.
Having a large LV with a larger PLF and more lift capacity could have reduced the complexity of JWT my may fold, and thus reduced the cost by many fold.
A Jupiter could launch JWT with a larger, non folding mirror, with far fewer complexities and variables.  Your costs would be significantly less than JWT is adding up to now.

Another example is the lunar missions.  Before the Saturn V, they were thinking of ways to do it with the smaller boosters available at the time.  All required multiple launches and complex docking and redezvous at a time when none of that had ever even been done yet.  So they developed the Saturn V to –reduce- the complexity of the lunar mission to acceptable levels to risk humans doing.

So, the capabilities of the launchers available (both lift ability and volume capacity) are very closely tied to mission expense/complexity/reliability.   That’s just a fact.
If for no other reason, than you can just launch more fuel, which will get the mission to it’s destination faster, so yea, you don’t have to keep the team together for as long, and don’t have to design as much “deep sleep” capability into a probe, and fly a much more simple trajectory. 

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.

Analyst