DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[cro-magnon gramps]

"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.
"\

it should be noted, that Shuttle extension had two phases discussed; one, that the WH has already agreed to an extension of the present manifest of flights, so that technical delays will not be held against the time frame of Fall or end of 2010, but to allow for safer flights, delays will not cause the manifest to drop flights off the roster...
two, there was discussion of 2014/15 flight extension, where it was decided that the likely funding would not be available, and an extension to 2012, which was considered more credible considering funding restraints... as well, the extension of the ISS past 2015 was discussed, with regard to the Shuttle flights to complete the station ie spare parts and science experiments... which in the end leads me to believe that Ares 1/5 is a dead issue, even though this week we have seen the 'true believers' give presentations that were near to blind faith...

[brihath]

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"

I talked with Jeff after the meeting with an observation that I really liked the PD discussion.  He noted that his sub committee felt that this option must be more closely examined.  I was really impressed with the amount of press the PD concept got.  The feeling was that it could be a real game changer WRT beyond LEO operations and encouraging commercial space investment.  I remember that statement that sending up fuel or oxygen was "cheap" compared to developing and launching satellites.  It was interesting to hear that from somebody from the commercial space arena.  There were moments of excitement in the room during yesterday's hearings, and the PD idea was one of them.

[cro-magnon gramps]

I talked with Jeff after the meeting with an observation that I really liked the PD discussion.  He noted that his sub committee felt that this option must be more closely examined.  I was really impressed with the amount of press the PD concept got.  The feeling was that it could be a real game changer WRT beyond LEO operations and encouraging commercial space investment.  I remember that statement that sending up fuel or oxygen was "cheap" compared to developing and launching satellites.  It was interesting to hear that from somebody from the commercial space arena.  There were moments of excitement in the room during yesterday's hearings, and the PD idea was one of them.

while I was online watching, from start to finish, there was an air of 'these are possible IF' about the discussions... it was as if a balloon had been popped and the panel was (cautiously) brain storming... I was surprised to hear from the chair, that the various sub committees were not to interact in discussion outside of the Public Hearings... still, it made for some interesting live programming...
   one comment from the Infrastructure Manager at KSC, at the end of his presentation, extolling where they had come and the new stuff for the Ares/Constellation project: we can accomodate any configuration of LV... it was a small comment, but it came at the end, and was a departure from his Ares/Constellation ladened speech... acknowleging that they were probably not going to be baseline, and something new from the panel was coming forward...
   I am optimistic that Direct will become the baseline, but having seen in the thread the 1 year extention because of MSFC inability to carry projects to completion, I am nervous about the outcome... while Ross and Team are looking forward to a long vacation after all their hard work over the years, I can't help but wish that they would be given the reins to carry this through to completion... impractical as that is...

[kraisee]

Having a time pressure on the launch crew is just not a good idea IMO. Again Please correct me if I am wrong.

agman25, I wouldn't call it "time pressure".   Both launchers would be fully checked-out and readied on the Pads, ready to launch.   The EDS flight would go and 90 minutes later the crew/cargo flight would get its first opportunity to attempt a launch.   If that doesn't work for any reason, DIRECT could actually support one launch attempt every day for the next 4 days and there is even an opportunity to try for the 5th day too in some circumstances.

There are then three back-to-back opportunities, 90 minutes apart, to send the 'stack' thru TLI on that 5th day.

That is the only real 'time pressure' -- but that's because those windows for the TLI only occur every ~14 days or so.


But 5, perhaps 6, opportunities is not all much 'pressure', especially as you would only 'waste' an EDS even if you couldn't make it.   In the current 1.5 launch arrangement you also 'waste' an Altair if the crew can't launch for any reason.

And actually, the real specifications which we have for EDS boiloff would actually allow the EDS to have a workable LEO loiter time well above 14 days -- so theoretically, a single mission could actually get TWO TLI opportunities.


[quote[I agree. LOR-LOR is safer despite the performance advantage in other methods.

An LOR-LOR approach would have killed the Apollo 13 crew, so I'll debate whether its "safer" or not.

I'd happily accept nsc with lor-lor. I'd happily take nsc as it is following DIRECT principles even though, again, it is lower performance. I wold assume that the Basic version is the best we will get though - perhaps with 5 seg booster upgrade.
Direct is fantastic - NSC is fantastic for the same reasons.

NSC has lower performance, lower safety, higher development costs and higher operational costs.

To me, that adds up to quite a big difference.

Direct is better for future growth but future growth needs to be paid for.

The development of an EDS is a task required by all architectures wanting to go beyond LEO.   For DIRECT, this cost is all you really have to absorb because the design is prepared to take it straight out of the box.   Its not so easy to integrate with any of the other designs, and that means its going to take longer and cost more to do.

I would say that anything which increases the costs and schedules like that is probably something you want to be avoiding, no?

Ross.

[kraisee]

2017 was the estimated date before Aerospace Corp pointed out that DIRECT hadn't included the MSFC's ability to make mountains out of molehills.  The IOC has been moved to 2018 to absorb the civil service inefficiency coefficient.

Not quite.


We went into Aerospace Corp with the attached manifest.   As you will see, there are a total of five test flights in the Jupiter manifest, which take you through 2017 (J-130-X, J-130-Y, J-241-X, J-241-Y and J-241-Z).   The first IOC Jupiter-241 flight would then be early in the following year (2018).   That was what WE proposed.

It appears their analysis says the J-241 can actually do better than that -- by two years!


But Jupiter-24x is not the element which will determine the Lunar Landing -- Altair is the critical piece who's schedule will drive the date of the first mission.   Anyone who think Altair will take less than 8 years to develop from now, is smoking something pretty strong and I guarantee that even that schedule will slip if NASA budget continues to be squeezed by the White House and Congress any further.

So, IMHO, even if we got the green light TODAY, it would be extremely difficult to make a 2017 Lunar mission return date and I would suggest 2018 is more realistic at this point.

But if the green light isn't given for another 6 months, that schedule will slip by the same amount -- guaranteed.   And while I'd love government to be fast and efficient in making such decisions, I don't think anyone believes this is going to magically happen the day the Augustine Committee reports (end of August).

I currently think 2018 is still quite possible.   But if it takes until October/November to actually announce the new direction, its probably 50:50 it would slip to 2019.

But 2020 was the 'target' set out in the original VSE, so this still achieves that target with room to spare, so that's all good.   And compared to what the Committee said yesterday, 2024 for Ares, we're in much, much better shape.

Ross.

[Danny Dot]

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%.

Converting to metric is going to kill somebody someday 

I forgot it was times 3 and "add a little".  For some reason I had 15 feet diameter stuck in my head.  This is going to hurt.  Maybe quite a bit.  Drag on Orion post LAS burn is a big, big problem. 

Thanks for catching my gross incompetence as an engineer.  Next time can you PM me 

Seriously, post it here so all using the model can make an update.

Danny Deger

[simon-th]

Converting to metric is going to kill somebody someday 

Well, then let's convert to metric once and for all. The rest of the world has already done so...

[Danny Dot]

snip
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.

Y'all need to get with the Orion folks and find out if LAS is the long pole in the tent.  My guess is the software updates needed are worse than the hardware design issues.  You might ask if they could go back to unguided sense you don't fly at the insane dynamic pressure of the death trap Direct is going to replace.

If Sally Ride is correct the more realistic date for Orion is 2017, and adding a sustainer is 12 months, General Bolden will not like that much.

Danny Deger

Has Ross learned to say y'all yet?

[strangequark]

Not quite.


We went into Aerospace Corp with the attached manifest.   As you will see, there are a total of five test flights in the Jupiter manifest, which take you through 2017 (J-130-X, J-130-Y, J-241-X, J-241-Y and J-241-Z).   The first IOC Jupiter-241 flight would then be early in the following year (2018).   That was what WE proposed.

It appears their analysis says the J-241 can actually do better than that -- by two years!


But Jupiter-24x is not the element which will determine the Lunar Landing -- Altair is the critical piece who's schedule will drive the date of the first mission.   Anyone who think Altair will take less than 8 years to develop from now, is smoking something pretty strong and I guarantee that even that schedule will slip if NASA budget continues to be squeezed by the White House and Congress any further.

So, IMHO, even if we got the green light TODAY, it would be extremely difficult to make a 2017 Lunar mission return date and I would suggest 2018 is more realistic at this point.

But if the green light isn't given for another 6 months, that schedule will slip by the same amount -- guaranteed.   And while I'd love government to be fast and efficient in making such decisions, I don't think anyone believes this is going to magically happen the day the Augustine Committee reports (end of August).

I currently think 2018 is still quite possible.   But if it takes until October/November to actually announce the new direction, its probably 50:50 it would slip to 2019.

But 2020 was the 'target' set out in the original VSE, so this still achieves that target with room to spare, so that's all good.   And compared to what the Committee said yesterday, 2024 for Ares, we're in much, much better shape.

Ross.

How long would it take to develop a LEM-sized mini-Altair. Something with common engines and non-long-pole systems to the big Altair? I ask, because it'd be politically interesting if a marginal landing could be done in 2016. Assuming such a mini-Altair wasn't a complete white elephant, and could be used as a test bed for the real deal.

Danny Deger

Has Ross learned to say y'all yet?

I've seen him use it, but don't feel like hunting down the post. The true victory will be when he can properly use "all y'all".

[thomson]

Well, then let's convert to metric once and for all. The rest of the world has already done so...

No, they didn't. At least not all of them. There are actually 3 countries that are still hapily using imperial system. Burma, Liberia and... well, United States. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication#Overview.

[Danny Dot]

Hello Caps,

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

I wish they would have addressed one time transfer as the first step.  No need for an additional (read big development dollars) depot.  Also, there may be a one time cryo temp diaphragm material out there.  No hope for a diaphragm on a depot because it will break with multiple uses.  Shuttle doesn't even embrace the industry standard of diaphragms for OMS and RCS because it is multiple use, and that is at room temperature.   Last but not least, no long term storage for just gassing up an EDS. 

Engineering a one time transfer is much, much easier and much, much lower risk than building a depot.  Lets start out by just gassing up the EDS in LEO, then we can make a depot later.

The distinction is big for someone like Augustine.  I can promise you as soon as he hears "depot" he starts his conceptual design algorithm running in the back ground, then the output is passed to his cost and schedule algorithms.  About the time you have completed 3 or 4 more sentences (and believe it or not he is still paying close attention to you), the output of cost and schedule come out and he thinks to himself, "Holy crap, nice idea but that is really expensive and is going to take a long time to develop."

Danny Deger

[mike robel]

Converting to metric is going to kill somebody someday 

Well, then let's convert to metric once and for all. The rest of the world has already done so...

we're traditional English/Imperial here.  get over it. 

[TrueBlueWitt]

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%.

Converting to metric is going to kill somebody someday 

I forgot it was times 3 and "add a little".  For some reason I had 15 feet diameter stuck in my head.  This is going to hurt.  Maybe quite a bit.  Drag on Orion post LAS burn is a big, big problem. 

Thanks for catching my gross incompetence as an engineer.  Next time can you PM me 

Seriously, post it here so all using the model can make an update.

Danny Deger

Personally I wish the Augustine comission would take up the mantel of forcing NASA to swtich to Metric..

Is there anyone else left in the commercial/international space industry working in Imperial Units?

[TrueBlueWitt]

Converting to metric is going to kill somebody someday 

Well, then let's convert to metric once and for all. The rest of the world has already done so...

we're traditional English/Imperial here.  get over it. 

If you'd ever worked engineering problems.. you'd realize metric really does simplify any analysis work.  And simplify interacting with international partners to boot.  Auto Industry realized that and switched 20 years or so ago.

[Danny Dot]

snip
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?

On 1 and 2.  Excellent ideas.  It would take me a day or two to add the third dimension to the sim.  My first guess is left and right will not be a lot better than the up Ross invented.

On 3.  This was looked at during Apollo and it was considered but not needed.  The capsule got far enough away the temps were OK.

High temp fabrics might be an option if close to a fireball.  There are less exotic ones than the one you mentioned.  Most increased mass and volume.  Not a good thing to do to poor little Orion at this point.  Remember it is close to PDR and the gap is growing.

To protect for 4000 degree chucks coming in direct contact, not going to happen.  I haven't even started to model the effect of radiant heat from the field.  I would need to go 3D to do this, so I might get started on it this weekend.  Any programmers out there that want to help -- please.  I am busing today become an expert on factor of safety and margins to help man rate the Delta.

Danny Deger

[phantomdj]

The following is an e-mail I ‘m sending to the Augustine Committee and my Senators.  Any comments?

“In the early 1960’s NASA told us that the only way to go to the moon was by Direct Ascent or Earth Orbit Rendezvous.  Then Dr. John Houbolt of Langley wrote a letter to Robert Seamans, Associate Administrator for NASA, saying that Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was a better way.  Houbolt was chastised for going outside the chain of command but he was right. 

Today, NASA tells us that Ares I/V is the way to leave Earth’s orbit.  However, in the spirit of John Houbolt, a group of NASA engineers, scientist and ordinary people have come up with a better way and it is falling on deaf ears within NASA.

Jupiter Direct uses the same 4 segment SRB’s, the same diameter ET and the same shuttle main engines to produce a more powerful, versatile, expandable and safer vehicle than the two stage Ares I.  It can support many of the safety features removed by Ares I, like landing on the ground, due to Ares weight restrictions plus it has addition margin to bringing payloads to the ISS.  It can also be built sooner and save cost.

If and when commercial companies prove they can safely and consistently launch a man-rated vehicle into LEO then the Jupiter Direct can move on to a heavy-lift vehicle by adding the second stage that the Ares I needed just to launch the Orion crew capsule.  The cost savings from building one vehicle that is expandable over two vehicles (Ares I/V) are obvious.

Direct is a vehicle we can afford now and expand later by adding a second stage, more powerful liquid engines and possibly fifth segment SRB’s.  It can shorten or eliminate the gap at the end of the shuttle program. Why is NASA ignoring the Jupiter Direct vehicle even after Aerospace corp. has independently confirmed that the Direct team’s numbers are correct?

It’s time to put the “not invented here” attitude and ego’s aside and embrace a vehicle that is less expensive, more versatile and faster to build.”

[Bill White]

Suppose Orion's abort trajectory added both additional altitude and lateral momentum prior to a parafoil being deployed.

Won't SRB debris fall straight down after the initial blast has dissipated?

If lateral momentum were imparted and a higher altitude attained prior to parafoil deployment wouldn't Orion have a better chance of coming down outside the debris field?

= = =

Edit to add: Maybe the parafoil could be sacrificial, intended to merely get Orion outside the debris field radius prior to a traditional parachute being deployed for actual landing.

More edit: X-38 actually landed under parafoil.

That is not necessary here as Orion merely needs to distance itself from the debris field radius before coming down.

Delta V initiated this idea, here:

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.

A parafoil could be a lightweight route to sustain horizontal motion and unlike X-38, after a few miles of travel it could be discarded in favor of traditional parachutes.

[Danny Dot]

snip

Is there anyone else left in the commercial/international space industry working in Imperial Units?

Very good question.  My airline maintenance buddy tells me there is a lot of imperial on even the Airbus.  I would love to know if Boeing has gone metric on the 787.  Same for US military aircraft.  Converting an industry and a country is a huge job.  You can't just, do it tomorrow.  Do you send all imperial unit airplanes to the bone yard tomorrow?

We are getting off topic a bit.  Units for Direct is an issue, but lets not hog the thread.

Danny Deger

[TrueBlueWitt]

On 1 and 2.  Excellent ideas.  It would take me a day or two to add the third dimension to the sim.  My first guess is left and right will not be a lot better than the up Ross invented.

Ross?  I didn't see anything posted from you about this till well after my post. Of course it didn't take a "rocket scientist" to see the opportunity to go "vertical".. so just as likely you came up with it on your own.  And you took time to run the numbers..

[brihath]

The following is an e-mail I ‘m sending to the Augustine Committee and my Senators.  Any comments?

“In the early 1960’s NASA told us that the only way to go to the moon was by Direct Ascent or Earth Orbit Rendezvous.  Then Dr. John Houbolt of Langley wrote a letter to Robert Seamans, Associate Administrator for NASA, saying that Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was a better way.  Houbolt was chastised for going outside the chain of command but he was right. 

Today, NASA tells us that Ares I/V is the way to leave Earth’s orbit.  However, in the spirit of John Houbolt, a group of NASA engineers, scientist and ordinary people have come up with a better way and it is falling on deaf ears within NASA.

Jupiter Direct uses the same 4 segment SRB’s, the same diameter ET and the same shuttle main engines to produce a more powerful, versatile, expandable and safer vehicle than the two stage Ares I.  It can support many of the safety features removed by Ares I, like landing on the ground, due to Ares weight restrictions plus it has addition margin to bringing payloads to the ISS.  It can also be built sooner and save cost.

If and when commercial companies prove they can safely and consistently launch a man-rated vehicle into LEO then the Jupiter Direct can move on to a heavy-lift vehicle by adding the second stage that the Ares I needed just to launch the Orion crew capsule.  The cost savings from building one vehicle that is expandable over two vehicles (Ares I/V) are obvious.

Direct is a vehicle we can afford now and expand later by adding a second stage, more powerful liquid engines and possibly fifth segment SRB’s.  It can shorten or eliminate the gap at the end of the shuttle program. Why is NASA ignoring the Jupiter Direct vehicle even after Aerospace corp. has independently confirmed that the Direct team’s numbers are correct?

It’s time to put the “not invented here” attitude and ego’s aside and embrace a vehicle that is less expensive, more versatile and faster to build.”

Send it in.  I heard Norm Augustine say yesterday that they appreciate public input and try to keep up with all the emails...they get a lot.  I suggest that you also send it to key players on House and Senate committees that have NASA oversight...committee Chairs and minority leaders on each one.

I suggest that you take out the last 2 paragraphs which have a negative focus.  The Committee is looking at Aerospace Corporation's data.  It is not being ignored.  You have to let the Committee do their work before passing judgement. 

Just focus on the positive with Direct as a better solution.  You could also add comments about job loss impact from the gap.  It is a hot ticket with elected officials.