DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[Pheogh]

http://www.space.com/news/090730-ft-moon-budget.html   Augustine Committee Says Moon Within Reach

Dunno, it also says this:

"The Obama administration's 2010 budget for NASA represents a $26.5 billion cut from previous projections.

Gary Pullium, a vice president with The Aerospace Corp., said NASA won't be able to return to the moon by 2020 under those constraints. "Given our assessment of the 2010 budget and what we believe about cost and schedule, we just simply said there is not enough money in this budget in the near term to do the human lunar return," he said."

Does he mean we can't go back by 2020 under Obama's budget cuts at all?  Or just with the current Ares program?

I would love to know that as well. I am starting to get the impression that all of this only relates to Ares (The program of record). The reason I say this is because I think it is clear that 90 days is not sufficient enough time for the commission to chart all the alternatives from a schedule and budgetary standpoint. Their time constraints only allow aerospace to check "violates the laws of physics" arguments in regards to alternatives.

So going forward the first step will have to be canceling Ares on the grounds that there isn't enough money and then perhaps another "90 day" "in depth" (cost and schedule specific) study to look at which of the alternatives provides the nation the most capability towards the exploration goals the WH is interested in supporting?

[deltaV]

What spacecraft is DIRECT planning on using to deliver cargo to the ISS? One obvious option is an Orion with an extra module attached for the cargo, but that would put ISS cargo IOC at the mercy of Orion.

Is there some other spacecraft that could be used on a J-130 for cargo delivery to ISS? Perhaps 2-3 SpaceX Dragons, Orbital Cygnuses, ESA ATVs, or Japanese HTVs towing a dumb box with most of the cargo? Or adapt avionics from one of those vehicles for a 10x larger craft? The craft would not need much delta-V (just docking and deorbiting) so how hard can it be?

[Drapper23]

Ross has stated that with a smaller NASA budget he can still effectively carry out the Direct Mission Plan to the Moon & Mars.

[fotoguzzi]

I hope the Port Canaveral revelers sneak out some chicken wings for the rest of us!

[robertross]

What is especially troubling to me even more, is that especially after today, there seems to be this mounting consensus that if we extend shuttle and ISS we lose exploration outside of LEO?

This runs completely opposite of what DIRECT presented to the committee. So where is the disconnect? cost, schedule or both. What am I missing here? Ross?

mars.is.wet brought this up many pages ago on this thread, and I agree with his point: by the time all is said and done, there is barely enough for about 2-3 lunar missions a year (or something to that effect). A lunar base is simply not affordable, and we heard that point blank by the commission today. ISS goes to 2015 as of now. If they want 2020, it will have to come from additional funding, no two ways about it. Because: Jupiter-130 IOC is 2013, but it's not flying a manned Orion just yet. Even if it is fully operational by 2014, that's one year before they expect (and hope) something like Orion on D4H or COTS-D is flying there to free launch facilities for other missions. So there is 1 year before 2015 with planned ISS termination.

What the Direct team have the upper hand on is a vehicle that leverages many of the existing shuttle stack capabilities so that there is very little to re-invent (unlike Ares I/V).

The commission is considering the broad proposal base at the moment. Plus, Aerospace is still doing their analyses of the various options to present to the commission. Once they have the costs and schedules vetted, we should see that Direct have been very close to the mark.

Unfortunately, as much as we get teased, get our hopes up, then dashed, then turned around again, it is all just the process we are following. We need to see the final Augustine report to know who's does what, and who gets a thumbs down. And after all that debate, we still have to wait for the President to decide a course of acction, and THEN we have to see IF Congress funds it, and THEN we need to see how MUCH the subcommittee gives in the way of funding dollars.

Oh it's still a long road ahead of us.

[Lancer525]

Still politics as usual...

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20090729/D99OD1C81.html

Especially the last few sentences...

[Jorge]

On the political front, its difficult to imagine the augustine panel telling Nasa "we think you are wrong and you are going in a different direction and you are going to like it or else".

And the reason why it's difficult to imagine is that it's way outside the panel's charter. Not only are they not chartered to make decisions like that, they are not chartered to even recommend a particular path.

[jawisa1]

Does anyone know where I can watch the last few public hearings online as they are not posted on the commision's website?

James

[robertross]

On the political front, its difficult to imagine the augustine panel telling Nasa "we think you are wrong and you are going in a different direction and you are going to like it or else".  Of course, the "or else"  might mean a house cleaning.  Direct 3.0 seems to be the goldilocks rocket,  yet Nasa seems passionately committed to Delay 3.0 (Ares I,V) to big, and to small.
Is there any chance they are right?

Direct isn't the goldilocks rocket, it's just an architecture that makes sense.

Further to what Jorge points out, and he is 100% correct, NASA is always being told what to do by Congress based on budgets, so there is nothing new with the 'concept' of making changes.

But in a different context, if the commission, by use of Aerospace, makes it known that the current Ares I/V is unworkable and unfundable based on cost and schedule issues, then the President would be in a position to decide how to make best use of NASA's capabilities to further his goals, and those of the nation, and something that Congress can feel confident in adopting. If they choose against Ares I/V, then it means the current architecture no longer fits into their plans, and NASA has to obey by changing gears.

[robertross]

Does anyone know where I can watch the last few public hearings online as they are not posted on the commision's website?

James

The comment on today's live commission thread was that Monday at the earliest was when we would likely see it again (based on the last hearing). We might be lucky and someone recorded it and will post on the Video thread...

[Danny Dot]

snip

But the lower dynamic pressure on the Jupiter provides options that the Ares doesn't have; specifically the ability to pull Orion much further away from the vehicle in an abort. Our initial analysis shows that if Orion aborted off a Jupuiter it would be in the safe zone; not by much, but safe. Since then we have refined the abort trajectories and have added additional distance between the SRB's and the aborted Orion. And that still leaves us the option, which Ares doesn't have, of a more powerful LAS to take Orion even further away.

Direct dynamic pressure does help.  But I want to go on the record, something like a simple change to debris radius or propellant burn rate puts the Orion back into trouble.  I am also concerned the up trajectory Ross invented put Orion at a low dynamic pressure at the time it needs to open its drogue.  This issue needs to be looked at.  It could be a show stopper. 

It is my opinion (at this time) a sustainer is needed.

Danny Deger

[cixelsyD]

Aerospace is doing all the cost analysis, will they be doing safety analysis too? I remember hearing today from CxP that they will have no blackzones. But since they lie through the teeth is there someone to check that this will be followed up on, or will the standards suddenly change to fit them?

J-130 and 241/246 are all black zone free right?

[Danny Dot]

Aerospace is doing all the cost analysis, will they be doing safety analysis too? I remember hearing today from CxP that they will have no blackzones. But since they lie through the teeth is there someone to check that this will be followed up on, or will the standards suddenly change to fit them?

J-130 and 241/246 are all black zone free right?

If they mean the blackzones caused by killing the crew with G forces on entry, they are OK.  If they mean killing the crew because the radiant heat from the SRB debris catching up with Orion and melting the chutes, they are in deep, deep trouble.

They are thinking about a reserve drogue to mitigate the problem.  An astronaut asked me how long he had to open the reserve after the primary melted.  I did some analysis with my model and told him "10 seconds".  He asked me how long he had to do something if the reserve melted.  I told him without analysis, "You have the rest of your life." 

Not a true story, but by the standards of fighter pilot humor, I think pretty funny.

Danny Deger

[TrueBlueWitt]

snip

But the lower dynamic pressure on the Jupiter provides options that the Ares doesn't have; specifically the ability to pull Orion much further away from the vehicle in an abort. Our initial analysis shows that if Orion aborted off a Jupuiter it would be in the safe zone; not by much, but safe. Since then we have refined the abort trajectories and have added additional distance between the SRB's and the aborted Orion. And that still leaves us the option, which Ares doesn't have, of a more powerful LAS to take Orion even further away.

Direct dynamic pressure does help.  But I want to go on the record, something like a simple change to debris radius or propellant burn rate puts the Orion back into trouble.  I am also concerned the up trajectory Ross invented put Orion at a low dynamic pressure at the time it needs to open its drogue.  This issue needs to be looked at.  It could be a show stopper. 

It is my opinion (at this time) a sustainer is needed.

Danny Deger

To quote myself.. 

Another thought.. is there a window between the prop tank(Direct), AUS(Ares) debris and the SRB destruct debris where you could have the LAS diverting Orion toward vertical, and let the SRB(s) go by before you blow them?

Not sure if this was before or after Ross "invented" this vertical trajectory for the LAS.

There are dozens and dozens(hundreds perhaps) of my better ideas running around in software many(or not so many) engineers use today  (MSC NASTRAN, LMS VL, Altair products.. Patran (PDA/MSC)) that I never got credit for..  not that I'm bitter or anything.     LOL!

[Steven Pietrobon]

Danny, I understand the Orion diameter is 5.0 m. This gives a radius of 8.2 ft, not 7.5 ft as used in your simulations. This would increase drag on the capsule by 20%.

[brihath]

snip

But the lower dynamic pressure on the Jupiter provides options that the Ares doesn't have; specifically the ability to pull Orion much further away from the vehicle in an abort. Our initial analysis shows that if Orion aborted off a Jupuiter it would be in the safe zone; not by much, but safe. Since then we have refined the abort trajectories and have added additional distance between the SRB's and the aborted Orion. And that still leaves us the option, which Ares doesn't have, of a more powerful LAS to take Orion even further away.

Direct dynamic pressure does help.  But I want to go on the record, something like a simple change to debris radius or propellant burn rate puts the Orion back into trouble.  I am also concerned the up trajectory Ross invented put Orion at a low dynamic pressure at the time it needs to open its drogue.  This issue needs to be looked at.  It could be a show stopper. 

It is my opinion (at this time) a sustainer is needed.

Danny Deger

We discussed this at dinner following the Hearing and that is what Ross was saying too.  I think there was a consensus among all of us there that a sustainer is needed.  Fortunately, Direct is one of the options that has the margin to accomodate this, but it would add development time to Orion's schedule.  The estimate discussed was at least 12 months.

[Drapper23]

"Ride also presented two options that add more flights to the shuttle program, including one plan that would continue operating the system through 2014. That scenario, which has no credible cost estimate, would be a dramatic departure from NASA's current plans.

Experts said a lengthy extension of shuttle operations should only be on the table if NASA scraps its Ares rocket and goes to a next-generation booster derived from the shuttle"(Spaceflightnow-July 30,2009) http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0907/30augustine/ This SpaceFlightNow quote means that the Augustine Committee statement that they don't have enough funding for a full manned lunar Mars program refers to the Ares Program not Direct 3.
"\

[YoungMethuselah]

Hello Caps,

Just seen this on New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327194.300-orbiting-gas-station-could-refuel-lunar-missions.html

[deltaV]

Direct dynamic pressure does help.  But I want to go on the record, something like a simple change to debris radius or propellant burn rate puts the Orion back into trouble.  I am also concerned the up trajectory Ross invented put Orion at a low dynamic pressure at the time it needs to open its drogue.  This issue needs to be looked at.  It could be a show stopper. 

It is my opinion (at this time) a sustainer is needed.

Danny Deger

We discussed this at dinner following the Hearing and that is what Ross was saying too.  I think there was a consensus among all of us there that a sustainer is needed.  Fortunately, Direct is one of the options that has the margin to accomodate this, but it would add development time to Orion's schedule.  The estimate discussed was at least 12 months.

Here are three crazy ideas to help solve the SRB debris during abort problem.

1) Danny's simulation has the debris expanding more along the path of flight than in other direction, presumably because different debris particles have different sizes and hence drag to mass ratios. Neither being above nor below the debris field sound like fun, so it seems to me that the proper direction to escape the debris field is to go out of plane, in the third dimension (that Danny's spreadsheet doesn't simulate). Might thrusting the LAS 15 degrees out of plane help?

2) The Orion has more than enough velocity to get away; the only problem is it's going in the same direction as the debris cloud so its velocity is not useful. The troublesome aborts occur inside the atmosphere, so why not deploy a pair of small wings to gradually convert Orion's forward velocity into out-of-plane velocity? Hopefully these wings could be made somewhat lighter than the sustainer would be.

3) How hard would it be to make a drogue that can handle high temperatures? For example make the entire drogue out of the titanium shape memory alloy used in high-end eyeglasses. Might a tougher drogue be lighter than a sustainer rocket?

Update: according to http://www.mdc.umn.edu/nitinol_facts.pdf nitinol is only superelastic over a roughly 50 degree C range and is heat treated using temperatures around 400 degrees C. So the drogue would deploy superelastically but then lose its superelastic properties as it heats up. That might be OK as long as it would retain sufficient tensile strength. According to http://www.shape-memory-alloys.com/data_nitinol.htm its melting point is around 1300 degrees C. Does anyone know how much tensile strength nitinol retains at high temperature?

[cro-magnon gramps]

Hello Caps,

Just seen this on New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327194.300-orbiting-gas-station-could-refuel-lunar-missions.html

to be noted, that Depots and PT is not in the baseline of Direct, but is on the wish list for Future Vision, but does feed into Direct's capabilities and strong points...

also, the last comments from the panel: Jeffery responding to Bo's comment; Bo - is it time now to start thinking about commercial fuel stations in space; Jeffery - it is time to be thinking about them, but not planning; (paraphrased, not word for word quote)

there was a huge amount of comment on Fuel Depots yesterday, and I got the impression, that this was going to go toward either a Flexible Path option, or as a "IF CONGRESS WILL PROPERLY FUND HSF/EXPLORATION" option that will be one of the two options to be presented to the WH... the other option being put forwrd to the WH/CONGRESS "THIS IS WHAT WE CAN AFFORD ON THE MISERLY, PENNY PINCHING BUDGET YOU'VE GIVEN NASA"