NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV/SLS) => Topic started by: kraisee on 03/21/2008 06:37 PM

Title: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/21/2008 06:37 PM
Starting a new thread because the other one just hit 250 pages!

Please continue discussions here.   Chris will lock the old thread now.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Alpha Control on 03/21/2008 07:16 PM
I guess I'm the first one here!  :)

Looking forward to following the continuing discussions.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 03/21/2008 07:48 PM
Quote
Alpha Control - 21/3/2008  4:16 PM

I guess I'm the first one here!  :)

Looking forward to following the continuing discussions.
No Fair! I was driving. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/21/2008 08:02 PM
At was stage Ares V will be easier to develop than Jupiter-232? (It also defines the point after which DIRECT will no longer be relevant).

I just wonder what are the chances of a future where Ares 1 exists, but Ares V gets replaced by DIRECT-like alternative.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/21/2008 08:34 PM
Is there a point where Ares-V is easier to develop?

Considering that both Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232 together cost less than *either* Ares-I or Ares-V separately, the point of loss is a long way off.   I would say that up until ~2 years before Ares-V becomes operational Jupiter would still be a strong competitor.

Of course, that assumes Ares-V ever receives funding in the first place - which seems virtually impossible at this stage according to almost everyone I've talked to in the last 6 months.   More than 90% of the NASA folk involved in CxP I have spoken with all-but laugh at the idea.   Right now they're all just praying they keep their jobs in an Orion-to-ISS world.

Right now I think Constellation is heading straight for the total-cancellation brick-wall where even Ares-I will be thrown out.   What I'm most concerned about avoiding is that the whole VSE gets thrown out at the same time.

On the one hand are the "shut it all down" crowd (Obama for example) and on the other are those who believe NASA when they tell them Ares-I/V (VI?) is the only way to get VSE working (most people in Congress and the Public).

But the truth is that the VSE is a *great* plan for the US to follow.   It is purely the *IMPLEMENTATION* - in the form of Ares - that what is sucking all the life out of the effort and creating such vast delays and high costs.

There are viable alternatives.   And that is why we're working our butts off to get ours recognized before its too late.

As a group, our #1 overriding priority is to ensure we don't lose the moon, Mars and Beyond plans.   Nothing else - vehicle design included - matters to us compared to that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/21/2008 09:22 PM
I apologize for asking a question that I`m sure was already asked and answered, but the first thread is a bit too long to read.

What, in short, are the reasons that NASA currently pursues Ares I\V? (I mean - how they explain it, and not what may be behind it.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/22/2008 03:55 AM
I'm quite happy to answer questions again Eerie.   I'm sure you aren't the only person who has come to DIRECT since these questions were first asked :)


The current response from NASA for more than a year has boiled down to: "Its what were are already working on. We need to continue. Its too late to change".


The real reason is simple though.   A small group of people came up with the basic idea before Columbia but there was no funding available to study it fully so they just sat on it.   Key individuals were obviously Mike and Scott, but there were others too.

When the VSE was announced O'Keefe wanted to abandon the STS infrastructure to remove development costs.   This was not popular in Washington.   O'Keefe left NASA.   There are no coincidences.

Griffin was appointed because he had a proposal which he claimed would not get bogged down with two or three years of studies trying to find a solution.   He had a pre-potted solution ready to go.   He got the job.   He implemented his solution.

They got rid of people who were doing such studies internally and brought their own team in to validate the concept with the ESAS Report.   I think most informed people these days believe ESAS was a wash.

The sad fact is that Ares-I/Orion has since gotten bogged down by its own two years of endless studies - the result of not doing a proper analysis first - and it looks like there are now plenty more delays coming down the pipe too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 03/22/2008 08:25 AM
Ross, is there perhaps another issue here: That adopting DIRECT would put the whole Shuttle-era in an even worse light; because DIRECT, by its very nature, is virtually the shuttle system, but with more than triple the capacity, and is also much simpler and cheaper to boot? ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/22/2008 08:53 AM
Quote
Michael Bloxham - 22/3/2008  4:25 AM

Ross, is there perhaps another issue here: That adopting DIRECT would put the whole Shuttle-era in an even worse light; because DIRECT, by its very nature, is virtually the shuttle system, but with more than triple the capacity, and is also much simpler and cheaper to boot? ;-)

But was it the current administration that built the Shuttle system?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 03/22/2008 12:46 PM
Shuttle, as a system, played a completely different role in spaceflight. It was specifically designed to be a reusable winged spacecraft, which VSE does not require. Replacing Shuttle with Orion is not an indictment of Shuttle by any stretch of the imagination. It is an acknowledgement that for the VSE, we need a different system. It’s simply time to move on, that’s all.

The debate now centers around the launch system for Orion; and from among all the potential candidates, DIRECT is the best.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/22/2008 01:02 PM
clongton; Shuttle what used lately to carry people to ISS and back, so Orion is kind of a replacement for that function...

But my point was that I don`t see how adopting DIRECT will show Shuttle in a bad light. I mean, it supposed to be the opposite, DIRECT is almost Shuttle, just without the plane...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/22/2008 09:27 PM
I think that the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 made it explicitly clear that Congress *wants* a Shuttle-derived solution and doesn't see much, if anything, bad from such a position.

And as long as we address all of the safety issues we identified after Columbia was lost, we essentially keep all the good part of Shuttle, but can remove all of the bad.

But there are Shuttle derivatives and there are Shuttle derivatives.   Not all are equal.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: KSC Sage on 03/22/2008 09:52 PM
Ross,

By chance, has your team looked at the Jupiter 120 using the RD-180 engine on the core stage?  (I know its a political issue)  I would assume two RD-180s would be about the same thrust as two RS-68s, but I don't know if the tanks would have to change for the different type of propellents (RP1 vs H2).  Just as a thought on maybe a faster development and cheaper engine.

Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 03/23/2008 02:42 AM
I'm no real fan of what the Ares program has turned into, but, as far as I can tell, the plan was an okay plan to start with.  They just didn't know a couple of technical things - 1) that the SSME wouldn't be useful in the plan, and 2) that the SRBs shake too much to be used without additional damping.  When they couldn't air start the SSME, they had to dump the SSME for the ARES 1 in favor of a gas-generator cycle engine (J-2X) that had lower ISP.  The SSME was also more costly than they assumed, and they dumped it from the ARES V and replaced it with the RS-68.

So what happened?  The four segment SRB couldn't provide sufficient impulse needed to lift the ARES 1 upper-stage and payload to the necessary separation velocity.  The RS-68 fell short of the needed performance.  The result was a switch to a five-segment ARES V first stage, and the widening of the ARES V core stage from 8.5 meters (ET diameter) to 10 meters.  In one fell swoop, every common component with the space shuttle transportation system was removed from ARES.  It ceased to be an upgrade which only required a few new structural elements (upper-stage tank set, thrust structure, shroud) and became a development project for two completely new rockets.

The politics is another story.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/23/2008 02:45 AM
KSC Sage,
There would have to be a lot more extensive changes to the tanking.   The density of RP1 is radically different from LH2, and the proportions required are also considerably different.   There would be virtually no commonality to the existing ET tanking.

But the key issue is that RP-1/LOX does not have anywhere near the efficiency in vacuum of LH2/LOX.   RP-1/LOX has great thrust, and so are very good options for lower-down in the atmosphere, but you want high efficiency once you get up into vacuum and are just trying to build velocity to reach orbital speeds (the bigger portion of any ascent).

RP-1/LOX works really great for first stages and boosters.   LH2/LOX is far better for upper stages or stages which fly all the way from the ground to orbit - which is what the Jupiter-120 Core (and Shuttle) does.


Now, the Jupiter-232 Core is disposed of part way through the flight.   There is some potential advantage to re-designing it to use RP-1/LOX at some point in the future.   The Upper Stage takes over for the last half of the flight, so high-density, high-thrust performance is desirable there and efficiency is not so important.

But to really keep costs and schedule down, DIRECT chooses not to build two rockets - but to reuse the first one as the basis for a "big brother".   We choose to re-use the same Core from Jupiter-120 - the booster which closes the "gap" to the smallest possible amount.

An RP-1 option might be a future upgrade option at some point in the future when we have lots of money available.   Until then, this option just provides a very realistically achievable solution without breaking the bank.

We were told in no-uncertain-terms that NASA had veto'd use of a Russian engine and would even bother to look at any proposal which included one.   We were also told that F-1, F-1A and RS-84 were all considered too expensive to consider on the critical path to close the gap.   Of course, in the light of 5-seg SRB and J-2X I'm not convinced of this, but that was what we were told we must avoid to have any chance at all.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula2 on 03/23/2008 11:29 AM
Yes, within reason, propellant density is more important than Isp for a first stage.

A Single Stage To Orbit IS a first stage.

A LOX / RP-1 core using ET derived tanking and RD-180 engines, should put more mass into LEO than J-120, WITHOUT needing any SRB's. It would, however, need 6 or 7 engines. Not 2 plus 2 SRB's.

But yes, using RD-180's is politically unacceptable, and so is stopping use of SRB's.  So Direct is the best all around solution to ALL the requirements.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 03/23/2008 01:27 PM
I'm a huge proponent of a LOX/RP-1 booster stage, but I wholeheartedly agree that DIRECT is not a good application for it in the near future.

You can certainly build an 8.4m core stage that burns RP-1 instead of LH2, but aside from the diameter, everything else would be significantly different.  

Even if you have a politically-viable and immediately-available RP-1 engine right now... if you go with RP-1, it's not DIRECT anymore.  It's probably better-classed as an 8.4m Atlas-derivative.

DIRECT's biggest advantages over Ares how little it "rocks the boat".  Same boosters, similar core tankage, and compared to Ares, dramatically-minimized pad/VAB changes.  

Despite all of RP-1's thrust advantages as a booster stage, it adds complications that DIRECT intentionally avoids.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 03/23/2008 01:50 PM
Quote
BogoMIPS - 23/3/2008  10:27 AM

I'm a huge proponent of a LOX/RP-1 booster stage, but I wholeheartedly agree that DIRECT is not a good application for it in the near future.

You can certainly build an 8.4m core stage that burns RP-1 instead of LH2, but aside from the diameter, everything else would be significantly different.  

Even if you have a politically-viable and immediately-available RP-1 engine right now... if you go with RP-1, it's not DIRECT anymore.  It's probably better-classed as an 8.4m Atlas-derivative.

DIRECT's biggest advantages over Ares how little it "rocks the boat".  Same boosters, similar core tankage, and compared to Ares, dramatically-minimized pad/VAB changes.  

Despite all of RP-1's thrust advantages as a booster stage, it adds complications that DIRECT intentionally avoids.
You are absolutely correct; we specifically avoid anything like that for the foreseeable future. All kinds of possibilities present themselves later down the line however. For example, see the post over on the DIRECT Derived Vehicles thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=12377#M260221
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 03/23/2008 02:08 PM
I just want to note here people.

What Obama says while on the road and what he will do behind the desk are two TOTALLY different things.

I advise the Direct team to not name names when talking politics of the big dogs. If they have anyone that wants to check up on this they may not take kindly to such talk.

Don't get me wrong! I love Direct. I love it not because of the fact that is the first system designed outside the norms of the industry, but to the fact that I believe it is the ONLY remaining politically possible near term solution for a moon landing and large cargo to orbit.

I get the whole Obama = delays etc.. etc... but lets be clear here.

You are either going to have McCain (Extremely Unlikely due to events in the past few years, Only way he wins is Clinton gets the democratic nomination and screws up badly) or Obama (Extremely Likely)

So with that in mind perhaps you need to FOCUS these efforts on convincing the Obama Administration that Direct is a VIABLE solution that can be done SOON rather than praying for Ares-V funding later.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 03/23/2008 02:20 PM
How many MLPs will be modified, and how long will each take?  I believe shuttle started out with two MLP's during the 80's while the last one was only finished in the early 90's.  For Jupiter-120 flights I can see only needing one at first then maybe a back-up, but with Jupiter-232 dual launches it seems prudent to have three.

Edit:  Also, I remember there being mentioned using Orion as a servicing platform on the DIRECT side.  Have you considered using a modified Strela crane for robotics operations?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Wolverine on 03/23/2008 04:40 PM
Quote
Zachstar - 23/3/2008  11:08 AM



You are either going to have McCain (Extremely Unlikely due to events in the past few years, Only way he wins is Clinton gets the democratic nomination and screws up badly) or Obama (Extremely Likely)

So with that in mind perhaps you need to FOCUS these efforts on convincing the Obama Administration that Direct is a VIABLE solution that can be done SOON rather than praying for Ares-V funding later.

Sorry but that is your opinion, not fact.  It is not extremely likely that Obama will be President.  You kind of act as if he's already won.  You may believe that or want that, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.  All polls currently show McCain beating Obama and Clinton.  Now a lot can happen between now and November, but Obama is not a space-friendly guy.

But if the case were that Obama became POTUS, he would strip NASA of it's money to pay for education, and manned space flight in this country would be in even more jeopardy than it is now with the current NASA overlorld.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/23/2008 04:51 PM
Quote
Zachstar - 23/3/2008  11:08 AM

So with that in mind perhaps you need to FOCUS these efforts on convincing the Obama Administration that Direct is a VIABLE solution that can be done SOON rather than praying for Ares-V funding later.

That's one of the reasons why we've mentioned it here actually.

We haven't had any success getting in contact with any of his staff.   Repeated attempts are just not getting through.   It seems to be the typical thing of all campaign trails being so busy that everything else essentially becomes just 'noise' in the background.

The DIRECT v2.0 Thread actually got over 2 million reads according to Chris (the forum counter shows a much lower number, I know) so we are hoping that *someone* with a connection to Obama, or better still one of his staff, can find an opportunity which we could squeeze a contact through to get this proposal looked at.

We are 100% convinced that the Obama believes what he says, but that the premise for those comments is historic evidence showing NASA's wasteful tendencies.   We believe that an argument for a much greater return for taxpayers investment dollars would be acceptable to him and his campaign.   We just don't believe anyone has been able to get such a message to him yet.   We are trying - and this is a really easy place to put a message which might spark something down the line.

I don't think the guy is a bad candidate, I'm just not in favour of his stance on this particular subject.   And I think he can still be persuaded otherwise by the right *efficient* proposal.   I just want a chance to try to offer such a thing up to him :)

So if any of you good readers happen to know someone inside the campaign who might be able to get a contact for us - please give us a shout.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/23/2008 05:06 PM
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 23/3/2008  11:20 AM

How many MLPs will be modified, and how long will each take?  I believe shuttle started out with two MLP's during the 80's while the last one was only finished in the early 90's.  For Jupiter-120 flights I can see only needing one at first then maybe a back-up, but with Jupiter-232 dual launches it seems prudent to have three.

Edit:  Also, I remember there being mentioned using Orion as a servicing platform on the DIRECT side.  Have you considered using a modified Strela crane for robotics operations?

We need one on the same schedule as Ares-I - handover immediately after the Hubble mission.   Ditto for VAB High Bay 3.

It can be modified in a fairly short period of time once the designs are prepared - 6-9 months actual choppin' and weldin'.    It would initially be used for test fitting with a suitable non-flight module built speedily at Michoud from spare parts and new sections, and assembled with some 'spare' SRB segments.

We would however be targeting a real test flight (call it Jupiter-120-X) for 2 months before the last Shuttle flies.   While this would use human-rated SRB's, the main engines would be totally regular RS-68's as flown on Delta-IV today and everything above the new LOX Tank (PLF, CEV, LAS) would be dummy hardware - some of which would have flown on the then-canceled Ares-I-X.

Second test flight (Jupiter-120-Y) would be about a year later in 2011.   LAS eject would be tested, as would payload deployment with an automated Block I CEV.   Some additional human-rated RS-68 engine test flights can be performed using Delta-IV if necessary, and our RS-68 budget analysis would allow for one or two of those if necessary.

A third test flight is, at present, "optional" depending entirely on the schedule for fielding the human-rated RS-68.   We want to fly it on the Y flight, but is a Z is also required, we just do it.

While it is not essential, we would like to have one backup MLP before beginning crew flight ops.   IOC - Initial Operational Capability (AKA "First Crew flight to ISS") for Jupiter-120/Orion is currently set for September 2012.   FOC - Full Operational Capability (allowing 180 day stays at ISS) follows about 6 months later.

The third MLP could either go into service for Jupiter-120 or go straight from Shuttle to test-fit work in preparation for Jupiter-232 in the 2012-2013 time frame.   Jupiter-232-X would fly around December 2014.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rsp1202 on 03/23/2008 05:23 PM
Quote
kraisee - 23/3/2008  11:06 AM
We would however be targeting a real test flight (call it Jupiter-120-X) for 2 months before the last Shuttle flies . . . Second test flight (Jupiter-120-Y) would be about a year later in 2011.

Boy, do you know how good that sounds? That's the space program working as it should. If only.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/23/2008 05:31 PM
Yes we do.   It closes the workforce "gap" to zero at both Michoud and also at KSC.

I have some awesome charts I'd like to show you all, but I'll chat with the other DIRECT guys about releasing those first.   Give me a day or two ;)

Sure, we aren't flying astronauts for two years, but we've already paid for Soyuz through to the end of 2011.   We may as well use those and leave a US crew "up there" for the 9 months of actual 'gap' between the last Soyuz and the first Orion.   I think that's more than manageable.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 03/23/2008 05:45 PM
Ross, does conversion of the MLP rule out it's use by the Shuttle? Or in other words can the MLP be duel use, Jupiter 120 & STS?

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 03/23/2008 06:15 PM
kraisee, One of the reasons in my view they may be avoiding the contact is that it will likely lead to the problem of NASA admin. Which leads to more questions about the people he will pick for the various jobs.

The current admin is not looking too great in my view and the next president will have little issue replacing him. And if Obama wants to strip down NASA for education stuffz  he will likely put some kind of "NASA is about exploitation" Pro-ISS past 2016 or whatever admin. That will be a disaster for the VSE because the Ares-V will never be properly put forward for funding.

Yall may want to discuss amongst yourselves suggestions for a new NASA admin. One that can cut to the chase on this exploration stuff and is not completely owned by vested interests in my view.

As even if Obama accepts the proposal you can bet the the current system will push back as much as it can. This will quickly get politically ugly.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/23/2008 09:43 PM
The key is to get Obama to simply allow the first step - the closure of the gap with a Shuttle Derived vehicle that isn't Ares-I - in this case we're trying to get Jupiter-120.   If he must pull the rest of the plan for 5 years, that's up to him, but this way we at least don't lose the *capability* to do it later.

Ares-I isn't enough to keep the infrastructure intact over a 10 year gap to Ares-V.   With just Ares-I and a delay to Ares-V out to 2024 the workforce will be cut to a fraction of its current levels.   The infrastructure in place now to build all the Shuttle hardware will be scaled back and all the talent & experience will find other careers and be lost to NASA - exactly like after Apollo.

Jupiter-120 is enough though, to sustain a viable and seriously robust science program on top of the Orion ISS missions - not least of which fully enabling ISS too.   So even an extended pause in LEO doesn't kill off the entire workforce & infrastructure.   It remains ticking over throughout the 'pause years'.


But the real key isn't what Obama wishes to do, but what Congress does.   The President simply has to nominate a replacement for Griffin who is open enough to *start* this.   At that point the actual power behind the decisions actually transfers entirely to Congress.   They dictate what money NASA gets and where it must be spent and the Administrator, irrelevant of personal goals, basically has to do what Congress authorizes them to do.   That's the law.   The President can essentially only offer advice from that point onward.   We would all hope the two factions can agree, but in the case of a disagreement Congress always wins because Congress controls the money.

The key for us, is to get someone at the helm of NASA acceptable to both sides.   At that point the President won't (actually can't) block Congress from a VSE program if Congress wishes to do it anyway, but Congress can provide a different way to get the education money the President wants - just another way.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: copernicus on 03/23/2008 10:04 PM
Ross,

   I am a BIG fan of DIRECT, but I do have one nit to pick regarding language.  I have noticed in
the DIRECT proposal on your website, and in your entries on NSF, that the term "crewed" is used.  
Please don't take this personally, but I cringe when the English language is contorted for reasons
of political correctness.  The proper terms should be "manned" or "unmanned."  These are not
terms that imply gender-superiority, but, are simply grammatically correct.  
   I also note that NASA uses the term "crewed," but they are part of the political system.  
If one hears that term, instead of reading it, then it comes across as "crude," which sounds
repulsive.  Perhaps, however, it may be a good term to use for the Ares-1!  
   It is interesting that the Pentagon still uses the terms "manned" and
"unmanned" for their aircraft, e.g. UAV.  


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cb6785 on 03/23/2008 10:49 PM
Quote
We need one on the same schedule as Ares-I - handover immediately after the Hubble mission.   Ditto for VAB High Bay 3.

What's your plan if NASA decides to proceed with the Ares-I plan, let's say (as a worst case) right up to the point before Ares-I-X and then realizes it won't work and decides to turn to DIRECT? Can you start from this point the same way as you would start from the moment after STS-125 (giving just a delay of 8 month or so) or would bigger problems arrise from the new configurations?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/23/2008 11:12 PM
Quote
copernicus - 23/3/2008  7:04 PM

Ross,

   I am a BIG fan of DIRECT, but I do have one nit to pick regarding language.  I have noticed in
the DIRECT proposal on your website, and in your entries on NSF, that the term "crewed" is used.  
Please don't take this personally, but I cringe when the English language is contorted for reasons
of political correctness.  The proper terms should be "manned" or "unmanned."  These are not
terms that imply gender-superiority, but, are simply grammatically correct.  
   I also note that NASA uses the term "crewed," but they are part of the political system.  
If one hears that term, instead of reading it, then it comes across as "crude," which sounds
repulsive.  Perhaps, however, it may be a good term to use for the Ares-1!  
   It is interesting that the Pentagon still uses the terms "manned" and
"unmanned" for their aircraft, e.g. UAV.

That's my choice.   I would probably use the term "manned" if I were alone on this, but we *are* trying to appeal to the political masters with this too.   Therefore we're doing what needs to be done.   If that means changing a few letters around to make some folk feel more comfortable in this Pee Cee age, then we'll just do it and bite our collective tongues.   Ultimately there's no technical difference between "human rating" vs. "man rating" or between "crewed" vs. "manned".   As long as the work is right, the name used is pretty irrelevant for us.   Call it "banana rated" for all I care - just as long as it ends up being really safe for all genders of human beings, man and woman alike :)

We know that some people think that the Pee Cee thing is a bit of a waste of time and effort, but that is still a lot less of an issue than if we actually offended a potential supporter by using a term they respond very dis-favorably to.   We're just doing what we must to avoid conflict at cross-purposes to what we're trying to really accomplish.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 03/23/2008 11:16 PM
Quote
copernicus - 24/3/2008  9:04 AM

Ross,

   I am a BIG fan of DIRECT, but I do have one nit to pick regarding language.  I have noticed in
the DIRECT proposal on your website, and in your entries on NSF, that the term "crewed" is used.  
Please don't take this personally, but I cringe when the English language is contorted for reasons
of political correctness.  The proper terms should be "manned" or "unmanned."  These are not
terms that imply gender-superiority, but, are simply grammatically correct.  
   I also note that NASA uses the term "crewed," but they are part of the political system.  
If one hears that term, instead of reading it, then it comes across as "crude," which sounds
repulsive.  Perhaps, however, it may be a good term to use for the Ares-1!  
   It is interesting that the Pentagon still uses the terms "manned" and
"unmanned" for their aircraft, e.g. UAV.  



People created the English language. The reason why "manned" and "unmanned" have been used in the past is that society was once Male dominated. People need to remove this bias from the english language as it is a major flaw in the language. "Crewed", "Staffed" are viable words as long as they are defined or redfined to mean what is intended. we need to work on removing gender-bias from our language to ensure it has relevence in the future.
The pentagon is still a male-dominated institution so it is using language appropriate to such a state.
We can be better than that. Direct is, in my opinion, using the correct approach by removing gender references from its documents. The most obvious benefit is that it prevents one from assumng the proposal is aimed at a specific gender and thus opens up readership and hopefully leads to support from a braod cross-section of the community.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/23/2008 11:26 PM
Quote
cb6785 - 23/3/2008  7:49 PM

How's your plan if NASA decides to proceed with the Ares-I plan, let's say (as a worst case) right up to the point before Ares-I-X and then realizes it won't work and decides to turn to DIRECT? Can you start from this point as you would start from the moment after STS-125 (giving just a delay of 8 month or so) or would bigger problems arrise from the new configurations?

We believe the changeover can happen in ~6 months.   At that point by removing the need for all new liquid engines, SRB's, Primary Tanking, Manufacturing equipment and launch processing equipment, our schedule is compressed noticeably.

The critical development issues are fairly well known already - Making sure the RS-68 is re-qualified and has the extra equipment needed for humans to fly with it.   Making sure the tanking is re-specified to handle the different loads and forces upon it within the definitions of the existing manufacturing systems.   Creating the new Aft Skirt and Thrust Structure and creating the new LOX tank sections and Fwd Skirt.

The PLF is relatively straight-forward.   The Orion is well defined already if we simply put all the ZBV parts back in again.

MLP changeover date will probably dictate the date of the first test flight IMHO.   Orion will dictate the date of the first crew flight - but by deleting most of the costs for new engines and SRB's we free up money to throw at Orion to expedite it's deployment date as soon as possible.


There are going to be hurdles, without doubt.   Big development programs like this always have them.   But ours are pretty well understood already and so far have no show-stoppers.

The best bit is that we are flying all the engines currently, so we *KNOW* they essentially work already.   We fly the 102% RS-68 on Delta-IV today.   We fly the SRB's on Shuttle today.   We fly about 70% of the same tanking on Shuttle today too.   Everything else is an "evolution" not a new invention like 5-seg SRB and Ares-I U/S.   This takes an awful lot of the mystery and risks out of the development process right from the start - and puts us a long way up the path compared to Ares-I.

Also, we are fighting continually to squeeze a very slim margin payload (Orion) onto a vehicle barely, if at all, capable of lifting it (Ares-I).   This is causing increased costs and massively increased schedule delays too.   We can by-pass these entirely because we have more than double the payload mass margin to close the first requirements (getting crew servicing capabilities to ISS).   We could afford to "waste" more than 20 tons of payload and still close the requirements.

Thus, we can create a relatively simple "Block_I" design for the Core tanking with the intention of flying it half a dozen times and refining it - exactly as Shuttle went from the initial SWT to LWT after the first 6 flights.

Bottom line is that we have most of the technology already flying in some fashion already, and we do not have to pull out every stop just to fly the first mission to ISS.

We can leave a lot of refinement work for the Block-II configurations later - once we have real flight experience under our belts.   This is a big advantage we will have development-wise compared to Ares-I.

Jupiter-120 IOC would be ~48 months after the Go! order is issued.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cb6785 on 03/23/2008 11:43 PM
Thanks! IMO DIRECT's the way to go and your information is really giving hope that there's a good chance to see effectiv space exploration not just decades from now but within the next years. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/23/2008 11:46 PM
Quote
copernicus - 23/3/2008  7:04 PM

Ross,

   I am a BIG fan of DIRECT, but I do have one nit to pick regarding language.  I have noticed in
the DIRECT proposal on your website, and in your entries on NSF, that the term "crewed" is used.  
Please don't take this personally, but I cringe when the English language is contorted for reasons
of political correctness.  The proper terms should be "manned" or "unmanned."  These are not
terms that imply gender-superiority, but, are simply grammatically correct.  
   I also note that NASA uses the term "crewed," but they are part of the political system.  
If one hears that term, instead of reading it, then it comes across as "crude," which sounds
repulsive.  Perhaps, however, it may be a good term to use for the Ares-1!  
   It is interesting that the Pentagon still uses the terms "manned" and
"unmanned" for their aircraft, e.g. UAV.  



The term is widely used
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 03/24/2008 05:55 AM
Ross I completely understand about the congressional situation. However, Unless the republicans gain back more seats... (I have to admit tho this is extremely possible with the lack of action from the current congress which in my view was voted in to do something about the war)

Well then its obviously likely that they will not go against the delay or whatever he proposes. They could delay it for 50 years and only Texas, FL, and a few other people will complain about it... Nobody really cares about space anymore in comparison to the past..

The only thing I am really REALLY scared about is that the president decides that the ISS is their political playground and shifts the efforts back towards it again.

Sure COTS will get more funding then they could dream of and the Soyuz will be flying more often than Bill Clinton on Air force One (Joke people) Yet you can kiss going to mars before we get some kind of advanced VASIMR or somthin goodbye.

The thought of ISS creaking on up there in 2020 is beyond scary. Yet many people support such an idea.

Have you called many of the candidates for congressional seats this year?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: stefan1138 on 03/24/2008 01:26 PM
It seems direct has received some attention with one democratic comentator:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/22/145022/460/803/482266
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/24/2008 01:42 PM
Quote
stefan1138 - 24/3/2008  10:26 AM

It seems direct has received some attention with one democratic comentator:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/22/145022/460/803/482266

Bill White is a member of this site
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: stefan1138 on 03/24/2008 01:49 PM
Quote
Jim - 24/3/2008  9:42 AM

Quote
stefan1138 - 24/3/2008  10:26 AM

It seems direct has received some attention with one democratic comentator:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/22/145022/460/803/482266

Bill White is a member of this site
 






UPS! :) Stefan


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/24/2008 02:38 PM
Zachstar;

What`s so scary about ISS up there in 2020, if it get`s more COTS funding? Commercial space is good.   :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 03/24/2008 03:02 PM
ISS will become THE excuse to not go to the moon and mars.

Thanks to years of rather annoying other nations. Our next president may want to keep ISS going which drains an enormous amount of funds.. He/she will call it a international gateway to peace or whatever.... The point is it will distract the masses and few will really care that we arent walking on the moon in 2020.

As for private space getting there. I have heard ideas about how to get Dragon AROUND the moon. Yet a real program to actually land on there is almost out of the question for private space. No SpaceX is not going to pull the BFR out of it's hat before 2020 btw.

And forget mars.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 03/24/2008 03:10 PM
Quote
Zachstar - 24/3/2008  12:02 PM

ISS will become THE excuse to not go to the moon and mars.

Thanks to years of rather annoying other nations. Our next president may want to keep ISS going which drains an enormous amount of funds.. He/she will call it a international gateway to peace or whatever.... The point is it will distract the masses and few will really care that we arent walking on the moon in 2020.

As for private space getting there. I have heard ideas about how to get Dragon AROUND the moon. Yet a real program to actually land on there is almost out of the question for private space. No SpaceX is not going to pull the BFR out of it's hat before 2020 btw.

And forget mars.

If SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy and Dragon both wind up working, it seems like the fuel depot concept would be front and center, when it comes to getting to the Moon, at least.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 03/24/2008 03:16 PM
Wow more of this fuel station stuff again?

What fuel? hypergolics? How is private industry supposed to do all that support work?

And tho I love SpaceX we are into 2008 and there has been no Falcon 1 launch...

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/24/2008 03:22 PM
Zachstar;

To tell you the truth, I don`t particularly care about Moon and Mars landings. Without lower cost of launch, nothing will come from them anyway that can`t be done by robots. And since in an absence of a Space Race we can`t expect larger funds, the only way to make launches cheaper is increase efficiency. And to do so, we must have real commercial competition.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 03/24/2008 03:31 PM
Which will mean little more than SpaceShip3 or Dragon. IE Rich people will pay to go into orbit to dock to a Bigelow station and come home.

For the average user it will mean NOTHING until they suddenly discover a way to go into orbit without a chemical rocket. Which will be FAA certified when? 2075?

DIRECT is now. DIRECT means vessels based on VASIMR can be built and sent to mars. DIRECT means a REAL program to return to the moon.

I love private space as much as the next guy. However, When it comes to anything past a flyby of the moon. The .gov needs to be the one doing it for the time being.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 03/24/2008 03:38 PM
Another way to increase efficiency and lower operations costs is to do evolutionary development, instead of revolutionary development. An example of revolutionary development is the Ares-I/V architecture, and an example of evolutionary development is DIRECT, which is the topic of this thread. We started, not with clean sheets of paper, but with what we already have and is already paid for and asked, “what else can we do with this besides Shuttle?”. The result is the Jupiter launch vehicle family, which saves years off the schedule and tens of billions of dollars off the development and operations costs.
The other subjects are off topic and should go to their own threads.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/24/2008 03:43 PM
Zachstar;

Even if we find a way to go to space tomorrow without a rocket, what does it mean for average user? What is there in space that you can`t get on Earth?  :bleh:

And being able to go to space and dock to Bigelow station will mean much for more people than you think, because experiments in space will become much easier to do.

Anyway, enough with the philosophy. What I meant is, governmental institutions are inherently inefficient. It`s been proven to death by various communist countries. So if you PERSONALLY want to get to Mars someday, the only way it can be done is through commercialisation.

Of course, there is the possibility that space can`t be commercialised because no profit can be done there. In which case, you will never get to Mars, regardless of DIRECT or whatever.  ;)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 03/24/2008 04:09 PM
Quote
Zachstar - 24/3/2008  12:31 PM

Which will mean little more than SpaceShip3 or Dragon. IE Rich people will pay to go into orbit to dock to a Bigelow station and come home.

Sorry to go off topic, but there is a common misconception that Bigelow is constructing an orbiting hotel.  The truth is that he is  developing a private commercial complex, where research/manufacturing can be performed.

Now for the Direct related question.  I know that after Challenger the shuttle was barred from commercial flights. Would Jupiter have the same affliction?  There may not be much of a market though, but just in case.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/24/2008 04:18 PM
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 24/3/2008  12:09 PM
Now for the Direct related question.  I know that after Challenger the shuttle was barred from commercial flights. Would Jupiter have the same affliction?  There may not be much of a market though, but just in case.

Will there be a market for very large satellites in GTO?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/24/2008 05:30 PM
Quote
Eerie - 24/3/2008  1:18 PM

Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 24/3/2008  12:09 PM
Now for the Direct related question.  I know that after Challenger the shuttle was barred from commercial flights. Would Jupiter have the same affliction?  There may not be much of a market though, but just in case.

Will there be a market for very large satellites in GTO?

The answer to that is how many Ariane V's have flown to GTO with a single payload.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/24/2008 05:53 PM
Quote
kevin-rf - 24/3/2008  1:30 PM
The answer to that is how many Ariane V's have flown to GTO with a single payload.

So the answer is no?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/24/2008 06:17 PM
There is currently an agreement between NASA and DoD that NASA will not fly any commercial payloads.

But agreements can always be revised if/when circumstances change, and NASA having a capability to lift payloads double or quadruple that of DoD would create a situation where NASA would be in a different market class and would not be competing with the EELV's.   In such a situation, if there was *demand* for such capability, DoD and NASA could likely find a new arrangement.

I would venture to say that as a NASA operation it would likely be a slow thing.   One flight per year maybe.   But there is an option to make it a commercial operation as well.   Either leasing LC-39's facilities from NASA or building something new.   Jupiter-120 as a commercial operation has excellent cost profiles being able to launch twice the payload of satellites as either EELV system currently, yet for quite a bit less than double the cost.   There is certainly a potential economic business model there.   No idea whether anyone will have a go at that or not though - that's a whole other question.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/24/2008 09:48 PM
Quote
kraisee - 24/3/2008  3:17 PM

There is currently an agreement between NASA and DoD that NASA will not fly any commercial payloads.


Ross.

It is not a NASA/DOD agreement, it is a US law that forbids NASA from launching commercial payloads.  It is the Commercial Space Act
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 03/24/2008 09:50 PM
Quote
kraisee - 24/3/2008  3:17 PM

There is currently an agreement between NASA and DoD that NASA will not fly any commercial payloads.

But agreements can always be revised if/when circumstances change, and NASA having a capability to lift payloads double or quadruple that of DoD would create a situation where NASA would be in a different market class and would not be competing with the EELV's.   In such a situation, if there was *demand* for such capability, DoD and NASA could likely find a new arrangement.

I would venture to say that as a NASA operation it would likely be a slow thing.   One flight per year maybe.   But there is an option to make it a commercial operation as well.   Either leasing LC-39's facilities from NASA or building something new.   Jupiter-120 as a commercial operation has excellent cost profiles being able to launch twice the payload of satellites as either EELV system currently, yet for quite a bit less than double the cost.   There is certainly a potential economic business model there.   No idea whether anyone will have a go at that or not though - that's a whole other question.

Ross.

Actually I was thinking more on the lines of lunar supply with the J-232's starting out with a lunar COTS.  However I guess I can see something of a GTO use for J-120, but with Ariane and the EELVs out there, wouldn't be too sure with shat seems to be a saturated market.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/25/2008 02:02 AM
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 24/3/2008  6:50 PM

Actually I was thinking more on the lines of lunar supply with the J-232's starting out with a lunar COTS.  However I guess I can see something of a GTO use for J-120, but with Ariane and the EELVs out there, wouldn't be too sure with shat seems to be a saturated market.

Agreed.   I don't honestly see NASA using Jupiter's for much beyond ISS & Hubble in LEO (there's actually quite a lot of work possible there!) and then Lunar and Mars exploration programs.   Beyond that, at most I see another telescope or two going to orbit and the Mars Sample Return mission being enabled (mostly because they're having *extraordinary* difficulties getting it down to a weight an EELV Heavy can even consider lifting).

I think anything beyond that would fall to a commercial implementation (which I know ATK wants from Ares, so I would figure would also be equally applicable to Jupiter).

The market for ~20mT lift capabilities *is* saturated already.   Ariane and Proton get most of the commercial work and the US launchers are only competitive here because there is a law stating the US isn't allowed to buy foreign assets ahead of US assets.   Its effectively a subsidization.

Trying to squeeze a new niche out of this arena can only be done if you can radically reduce costs (Space-X's hope) and undercut the wide range of competition in the central marketplace or by providing a service nobody currently covers - such as larger payload carrying capabilities.

For a human space flight program though, you don't need to explicitly offer it as a commercial venture.   It needs to be a world better value than the suck-it-dry Shuttle Program has been for the last 25 years, but the number one reason for that has been the hand-labor costs involved in the "Orbiter" element of the system.   As long as the new system is truly cost-effective, there is no specific requirement to ever commercialize it.

Of course, it would be nice to *have* the asset for the intended purpose and then to *maybe* have some commercial operations push for use of it.   That is what it will really take - a company like Bigelow lobbying Washington for commercial use of a 50-100mT NASA launch system - to enable the current rules to be changed, laws to be revised and agreements to be amended.

But I'm quite happy if the system does nothing more than get humans beyond LEO within my lifetime.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/26/2008 02:43 AM
Quote
kraisee - 25/3/2008  1:02 PM
Of course, it would be nice to *have* the asset for the intended purpose and then to *maybe* have some commercial operations push for use of it.   That is what it will really take - a company like Bigelow lobbying Washington for commercial use of a 50-100mT NASA launch system - to enable the current rules to be changed, laws to be revised and agreements to be amended.

But I'm quite happy if the system does nothing more than get humans beyond LEO within my lifetime.

Ross.

This is a daft question, I know, but what if private industry just bought the rocket direct from ATK etc and rented the pad? Call it a Zeus 232 and use it for those as-yet-undetermined big commercial payloads. SpaceX is already sort of doing this with LC40, although it just amounts to use of the pad; pretty much everything else involved is their problem.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/26/2008 02:53 AM
I think the idea is unlikely at best, but if it were to be done NASA would certainly require priority at its own Pads.

As long as they get that they might theoretically be open to the idea of a commercial agreement allowing the corporations to lobby for access.

You just need to get ATK, Boeing, Lockheed and NASA to switch rails from the Ares and invest the money developing this instead because the private sector isn't going to be able to afford to develop any Heavy Lifters even with so much manufacturing and launch infrastructure already in place.

The purely-private sector - which I define as that which operates without reliance upon Federal budgets - is currently led by Space-X with a considerably smaller vehicle.   Jupiter is considerably larger.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/26/2008 02:55 AM
Quote
Lampyridae - 25/3/2008  11:43 PM
 SpaceX is already sort of doing this with LC40, although it just amounts to use of the pad; pretty much everything else involved is their problem.

Not really.  Spacex is using the real estate and not the systems of LC-40.  It is the same thing Boeing did at LC-37 and LM at LC-41
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jimvela on 03/26/2008 03:36 AM
Quote
Jim - 24/3/2008  4:48 PM

Quote
kraisee - 24/3/2008  3:17 PM

There is currently an agreement between NASA and DoD that NASA will not fly any commercial payloads.


Ross.

It is not a NASA/DOD agreement, it is a US law that forbids NASA from launching commercial payloads.  It is the Commercial Space Act

Jim is correct, and anyone dabbling in statements about this would do well to read the actual act.

PUBLIC LAW 105–303—OCT. 28, 1998
Commercial Space Act of 1998. 42 USC 14701.

http://corport.hq.nasa.gov/launch_services/PL_105_303.pdf

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/26/2008 03:38 AM
Quote
Jim - 26/3/2008  1:55 PM

Quote
Lampyridae - 25/3/2008  11:43 PM
 SpaceX is already sort of doing this with LC40, although it just amounts to use of the pad; pretty much everything else involved is their problem.

Not really.  Spacex is using the real estate and not the systems of LC-40.  It is the same thing Boeing did at LC-37 and LM at LC-41

Sorry, I phrased that badly. I meant SpaceX brings all its own equipment to the party: hoses, gantry, radar, vending machines etc.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/26/2008 03:52 AM
Quote
jimvela - 26/3/2008  2:36 PM

Quote
Jim - 24/3/2008  4:48 PM

Quote
kraisee - 24/3/2008  3:17 PM

There is currently an agreement between NASA and DoD that NASA will not fly any commercial payloads.


Ross.

It is not a NASA/DOD agreement, it is a US law that forbids NASA from launching commercial payloads.  It is the Commercial Space Act

Jim is correct, and anyone dabbling in statements about this would do well to read the actual act.

PUBLIC LAW 105–303—OCT. 28, 1998
Commercial Space Act of 1998. 42 USC 14701.

http://corport.hq.nasa.gov/launch_services/PL_105_303.pdf


SEC. 204. SHUTTLE PRIVATIZATION.
(a) POLICY AND PREPARATION.—The Administrator shall prepare
for an orderly transition from the Federal operation, or Federal
management of contracted operation, of space transportation systems
to the Federal purchase of commercial space transportation
services for all nonemergency space transportation requirements
for transportation to and from Earth orbit, including human, cargo,
and mixed payloads. In those preparations, the Administrator shall
take into account the need for short-term economies, as well as
the goal of restoring the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s
research focus and its mandate to promote the fullest
possible commercial use of space. As part of those preparations,
the Administrator shall plan for the potential privatization of the
Space Shuttle program. Such plan shall keep safety and cost
effectiveness as high priorities. Nothing in this section shall prohibit
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration from studying,
designing, developing, or funding upgrades or modifications essential
to the safe and economical operation of the Space Shuttle
fleet.


Sounds like a very different direction 10 years ago. Here it says they wanted NASA to use nothing but commercial launch services. I presume this effort fell flat on its face? It would be interesting to see a privately-run Jupiter-232 with NASA just paying for flights. I wonder how this would work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/26/2008 07:59 AM
Quote
jimvela - 26/3/2008  12:36 AM

Jim is correct, and anyone dabbling in statements about this would do well to read the actual act.

PUBLIC LAW 105–303—OCT. 28, 1998
Commercial Space Act of 1998. 42 USC 14701.

http://corport.hq.nasa.gov/launch_services/PL_105_303.pdf


There was an amendment in 2004.   Don't forget to cross reference the changes.   The 1998 document is no longer entirely up-to-date.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 03/29/2008 05:48 PM
From
http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/what_is_direct.htm:

    * Shorter "gap" after the Shuttle retires (3 years vs. 5)
    * Earlier return to the Moon (2017 vs. 2019)

These two points basically follows one from another. May be interpreted as attempt to artificially inflate "good points"

    * Delete all risks associated with a second new launch vehicle
    * Delete all costs associated with a second new launch vehicle

These two points are very similarly looking. At first I even thought that they are tha same. I don't know, maybe rephrase one of them to make it look different?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 03/29/2008 06:35 PM
Quote
gospacex - 29/3/2008  2:48 PM

From
http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/what_is_direct.htm:

    * Shorter "gap" after the Shuttle retires (3 years vs. 5)
    * Earlier return to the Moon (2017 vs. 2019)

These two points basically follows one from another. May be interpreted as attempt to artificially inflate "good points"

    * Delete all risks associated with a second new launch vehicle
    * Delete all costs associated with a second new launch vehicle

These two points are very similarly looking. At first I even thought that they are the same. I don't know, maybe rephrase one of them to make it look different?
Shorter "gap" is a completely different issue having to do with not being required to lay off over 10,000 people. Earlier return to the moon is only partially related to the shorter gap in that returning to flight sooner does shorten the schedule, but the DIRECT architecture does several other things more efficiently than Ares which brings this about.

Risks and Costs are 2 completely different things.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/29/2008 07:09 PM
Quote
gospacex - 29/3/2008  2:48 PM

From
http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/what_is_direct.htm:

    * Shorter "gap" after the Shuttle retires (3 years vs. 5)
    * Earlier return to the Moon (2017 vs. 2019)

These two points basically follows one from another. May be interpreted as attempt to artificially inflate "good points"

There is certainly a relationship between the two points, but they are two separate issues.

It would be possible to say a single thing like "Reduces the entire deployment schedule by 2 years" and cover both bases, but that would assume that everyone reading it is already familiar with the dates as currently assumed by CxP.   If they aren't, there isn't any point of reference.

That is why we mention the two primary objectives of CxP right now and place them specifically in context in order to clarify what we actually get for this change-over to DIRECT.

Closing the gap is very important.   Getting back to the moon two years earlier is also very important.   We aren't managing to do just one or the other, but we get to do both.


Quote
   * Delete all risks associated with a second new launch vehicle
    * Delete all costs associated with a second new launch vehicle

These two points are very similarly looking. At first I even thought that they are tha same. I don't know, maybe rephrase one of them to make it look different?

Very good idea.   I'll have a look at it again as soon as I get a few free minuted to be creative :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 03/29/2008 08:02 PM
Quote
kraisee - 29/3/2008  3:09 PM
I'll have a look at it again as soon as I get a few free minuted to be creative :)

Actually I was reading PDF from the website and noticed approx. a dozen or less small typos and the like. How can I report them to the team (preferably not thru this forum)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/29/2008 10:17 PM
We're aware of most of them.   We were seriously under the gun when producing that huge report and doing last-minute re-writes and edits right up to the point where AIAA started burning CD's for the conference! :)

Some typo's were missed, and there are a few other minor errors, but it is now too late to go back and re-do them now because the paper has been published officially thru AIAA.

We're just going to leave it "as is" and have moved on to newer documentation.

You could send a list to me by PM or via the e-mail address on the main site if you like, but I honestly don't think we're going to re-publish that document again.   You may therefore prefer not to put all that time in to do a proof-read :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jkumpire on 04/01/2008 02:53 AM
Gentlemen,

I would ask you for a moment of patience, because I am going to ask a very simple question, since that is all I can ask:

After all the discussion about Direct vs. Ares vs EELV, vs any other alternative, why is it that NASA sticks with Ares?

After a ton of reading here and other places, Direct claims every advantage over Ares there is. I will assume your analysis is spot on. Why then is NASA sticking totally to Ares w/o even incorporating some of your ideas, or even publishing a fact sheet saying why Ares is more valid than Direct's vision or alternative?

Reading so much of the discussion leads me to say some people are not rational in the debate. Even at the beginning of STS, there was some internal logic as to why STS took the form it did. NASA won some arguments about STS over AAP/Saturn as the future of the American space program. The recent discussions are trying to prove there is no reasonable alternative to Direct that competes with it.

If Direct is the better alternative, what you are asking me and other lay people to believe is that NASA's leadership is so beholden to Ares they are willing to destroy NASA for this idea. Or, the politics are so warped in Washington that NASA is forced to follow a second-rate idea that costs more money to do less for some real or imagined political constituency. Or, that the NASA director is so  vain, that he will get rid of the opponents to Ares and surround himself with yes men to push his personal idea of VSE, even if 2009 comes and the new president dumps it, or 2015 comes and Ares doesn't work. Why would he risk America's space future on something that has holes all through it when a better alternative is bubbling around the Internet?  

I just don't understand either the engineering or the politics: Either Ares is not a dog as opposed to Direct, or NASA is blowing its foot off with a howitzer for the vision of its leader, or some political gain. It makes no sense.

I hope I have made myself clear here, help me to understand what I am reading, or missing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/01/2008 08:50 AM
A great question.   If this becomes an off-topic discussion, I'd prefer it go in a separate thread, but let me put forth the best explanation I've heard so far for this...

The tragic loss of Columbia inspired NASA, The President and both houses of the US Congress all equally re-consider the Space Shuttle and to decide a different direction was needed for NASA after 30 years of that program.

A while before Columbia Mike Griffin and a group of colleagues had been considering alternatives outside of NASA.   Scott Horowitz had an SRB-based launcher.   Griffin wanted a big Mars rocket and needed a way to make such a $30bn rocket appeal to Congress.   But there was some common ground between the two rockets, and building the small one could offset a lot of the costs for the second.   A small team formed around this idea.

When Sean O'Keefe left, Griffin had his chance.   O'Keefe left the agency in the position of doing a lot of studies - all based upon EELV architectures which Congress was strongly against because of the jobs situation.   By all accounts they made it *very* clear they wouldn't accept an Administrator who would abandon the STS infrastructure.

Griffin put his plan forward as one which was ready to go.   A plan that didn't need two years of study to implement, and which protected the STS workforce.

While he was the third selectee, he was the first to accept the job.

He came in, threw out all of the "spiral" developments and did what he felt he had to do in order get the program moving as quickly as possible.   This approach was done for a good reason:   Because Shuttle Retirement in 2010 was fast approaching and a replacement had to be ready in double-quick time.   I really can't fault him for that train of thinking.   There's an awful lot of sense in that approach given the circumstances.

The ESAS Report was produced in order to justify the plan.   It was a wash, and everyone knew it.   Griffin quickly put his team - who were the ones most familiar with the new approach and ready to leap upon it - in the top management spots in order to get things moving fast.

Thus he set forth.

However, there have been a lot of unexpected hurdles along the way because the systems proposed changed quite a lot, and changed quite quickly.   They became very un-related to existing Shuttle hardware, and that meant both the costs and schedule impacts were very significant indeed.

And the technical problems they have encountered (low performance, TO, Orion ZBV etc) have ultimately meant we never did avoid the two years of studies anyway.   Worse though, they continue 'studying' the problems because the solutions are still evading them.   All the while, management is still trying to hustle the program through its milestones.

The program reviews are supposed to be going from milestone to milestone, shadowing the DAC.   They haven't been.   DAC-1 should take you up to the SRR milestone.   DAC-2 should take you from there through to PDR.   The DAC's are currently quite a ways behind the milestones, which is completely the wrong way around.   The engineering is behind the management - which isn't a good arrangement.

Anyway, why stick at it even given such a difficult position to fight from?

At this point, Ares-I is the *only* way for Griffin to ever get his "big rocket" - which has always been his personal goal - ask anyone who worked with him at APL or OSC or anywhere else.   He's really *driven* by rockets like Saturn-V.

If Ares-I fails, his big rocket also fails, and that would mean he also fails - at least to himself, anyway.   Of course nobody wants to fail, that's totally normal and true of Mike, you or I.   Thus, to achieve his goal, he is "sticking the course" no matter what - and essentially praying for a miracle to come from somewhere.

Even if Ares-I doesn't ever fly a crew, it still pays for J-2X and 5-segment SRB - both of which he needs for the big rocket.   He has no reason to abandon Ares-I - even if it never flies.

At this point, to do anything else would - to Griffin - bring shame down upon him personally and would bring ridicule down upon NASA as an agency from all the folk who told him two years ago that it was a poor solution.   But worse still, he believes it would shake Congress' confidence, and The President's confidence in NASA.

I don't believe he is thinking about how much worse it will be if he continues to try to drive this square peg into a round hole - only to find the whole thing is screwed up permanently and will never work properly again.    You can't strip the threads off of a bolt and expect it ever to hold something firmly again.

IMHO he has forgotten the fact that the people in Washington couldn't give a rats a$$ about what rocket NASA uses, just as long as they protect the jobs and don't waste time and money on just another bl**dy boondoggle like ISS has proven to be - which is precisely what Ares is shaping up to be.

And if there's any doubt at all, the politicians *are* watching NASA messing around with Ares right now and are not impressed at all.

It's not too late though.   Griffin's career is tied to whether he makes the *PROGRAM* work.   It is not tied to which *LAUNCHER* he makes - it never was.

I just hope his academic smarts aren't the only smarts he's got.   He needs some street smarts right now.   He's found his car is breaking down in the bad part of town late at night, and his academic savvy are just not going to help him at all here.

Ross.

=2c.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/01/2008 04:36 PM
Can the first stage of the Ares V get the Orion to the ISS?
SRB etc. optional.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Takalok on 04/01/2008 05:45 PM
Quote
kraisee - 1/4/2008  4:50 AM

A great question.   If this becomes an off-topic discussion, I'd prefer it go in a separate thread, but let me put forth the best explanation I've heard so far for this...

.......

I just hope his academic smarts aren't the only smarts he's got.   He needs some street smarts right now.   He's found his car is breaking down in the bad part of town late at night, and his academic savvy are just not going to help him at all here.

Ross.

=2c.

Great summary!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/01/2008 09:11 PM
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 1/4/2008  12:36 PM

Can the first stage of the Ares V get the Orion to the ISS?
SRB etc. optional.

Sadly no.

You have to realize that the Core of the Ares-V is almost the same size as both the S-IC and S-II stages of the Saturn-V put together.   It's truly gargantuan.   And it weighs an awful lot - around 150mT dry and about ten times that when fully fueled.

But with five engines it drains of all its propellant before it would ever reach orbit.   And if you don't fly it with three engines - enough to make the propellant last to reach orbital speeds - it then hasn't got enough power to get off the ground.   It's a catch-22 situation.

Ares-V basically only works in a fairly similar configuration to Ares-V.   There's little flexibility to the design.   The best they came up with was Ares-IV, which used the Upper Stage of Ares-I on top of the Ares-V Core/booster package - but that made a very tall and ungainly rocket which was thrown out already.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/02/2008 02:04 AM
The 6-engine Ares V (VI?) might get off the ground though, although it's heckuva expensive and ATK would want their SRBS on it.

If you're going to use an all-liquids launch then you're talking D-IV Heavy. Anything else is a waste of time. Still, could a Jupiter-232 core stage launch an Orion to ISS without SRB and J-2X? I think that's been asked before, though...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 04/02/2008 03:56 AM
With a second stage, yes. Otherwise, no.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 04/02/2008 01:37 PM
Basically , even 5-seg or 6-seg SRB's are too small for the Ares-V core. The thing weighs nearly twice as much as a shuttle ET or Jupiter core. Separation takes place too low and slow, wasting a lot of that extra propellant. You would need 4 x 4-seg to get the same relative performance as the other two.

This is why the J-232 puts only a little less mass in orbit, despite being quite a bit smaller than Ares-V.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 04/02/2008 09:22 PM
Direct Team

Soon I hope to start PR efforts on forums such as Democratic Underground to grow support for the hopeful Obama Administration to stop this madness with Ares 1 and go with DIRECT.

I think the fact that Direct was more or less a grassroots effort will resonate well with them and together we can go on a sensible path towards replacing the shuttle. And a path that is not nearly so easy to cancel as Ares V currently is.

Direct is a way to "Hope" in my view. Instead of relying on some distant dream later we can have the basis of travel to the moon soon and on the books now rather than 2016.

I hope those who are for McCain will do similar efforts such as on Free Republic to gain support there as well.


I think the discussion is just about over and we have our choices that we need to make. If we can't admit Ares 1 is a failure at what it was supposed to achieve and go with something different then we have no business thinking about returning to the moon.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 04/02/2008 09:59 PM
Ross, Chuck, Stephen & Co:

In a related vein to Zachstar's comment, are you folks trying to make inroads with the three remaining candidates' policymakers in this field (such as Lori Garver for the Clinton campaign)?

Seems like those would be fairly important people to be talking to right now.


Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 04/02/2008 10:00 PM
Hey - Direct is on the agenda for tomorrow's Ares hearing in Congress!

See here:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/house-may-attac.html

and check out page 9 of the hearing doc:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2008/Space/3apr/Hearing_Charter.pdf

What are the chances that some of the congresscritters will ask some good questions of Dr. Griffin & co and get some straight answers?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rocketguy101 on 04/02/2008 10:49 PM
Wow--somebody has been listening!!  Cool!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/02/2008 11:06 PM
While the Wired article indicates its a party issue it actually isn't.   There's support for this push on both sides of the aisle.

Ross
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Joffan on 04/02/2008 11:49 PM
Quote
kraisee - 2/4/2008  5:06 PM

While the Wired article indicates its a party issue it actually isn't.   There's support for this push on both sides of the aisle.

Ross
Good to hear it. Even the perception of a particular issue being split down party lines can turn off a lot of people, no matter how good the case.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 04/03/2008 12:14 AM
I hope that NASA switches to DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/03/2008 01:10 AM
Great to see mention of Direct in the document. I hope the right questions get asked, for example

The DIRECT proposal indicates that development costs are approximately halved, since only one medium sized vehicle is developed using existing Shuttle elements and infrastructure with minimum modifications. This is compared with the current solution of developing two very different size vehicles requiring extensive changes to existing Shuttle elements and infrastructure. Do you agree with these DIRECT cost estimates?

The DIRECT proposal indicates that by using the existing Shuttle solid rockets and  external tank modified with two updated commercially available rocket engines, it would be ready to launch the Orion spacecraft to the International Space Station in 2012. The current vehicle being developed is expected to be available in 2015, due to having to develop a longer solid rocket, a new upper stage, a new rocket engine, and solve other problems such as thrust oscillations. Do you think DIRECT's estimate of a three year earlier launch date is possible?

The Shuttle program is expected to end in 2010. What would be the impact on Kennedy Space Center job losses if Orion could be launched in 2012, compared to waiting for the current vehicle to launch in 2015?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 04/03/2008 01:57 AM
Quote
kraisee - 1/4/2008  4:11 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 1/4/2008  12:36 PM

Can the first stage of the Ares V get the Orion to the ISS?
SRB etc. optional.

Sadly no.

You have to realize that the Core of the Ares-V is almost the same size as both the S-IC and S-II stages of the Saturn-V put together.   It's truly gargantuan.   And it weighs an awful lot - around 150mT dry and about ten times that when fully fueled.

But with five engines it drains of all its propellant before it would ever reach orbit.   And if you don't fly it with three engines - enough to make the propellant last to reach orbital speeds - it then hasn't got enough power to get off the ground.   It's a catch-22 situation.

Ares-V basically only works in a fairly similar configuration to Ares-V.   There's little flexibility to the design.   The best they came up with was Ares-IV, which used the Upper Stage of Ares-I on top of the Ares-V Core/booster package - but that made a very tall and ungainly rocket which was thrown out already.

Ross.

Using my CEPE version 1.2 spreadsheet, I estimated the Ares V (51.0.39) "core only" payload to a 51.6 degrees 55.5 x 222 km orbit at -11500 kg. So this core would have to be about 31.5 mT lighter to be able to put send the CEV to the ISS. Interestingly, the J-130 "core only" is a much better SSTO vehicle as it has a CEPE estimated payload capacity of +3700 kg for the same orbital parameters.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 04/03/2008 03:12 AM
If people wish to write, here is a link to the members of the commitee:

http://science.house.gov/about/members.htm.  You need to write and contact your congressman ASAP.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 04/03/2008 04:42 AM
Having Direct at the conferance last year..has helped Direct and I hope that Direct becomes Ares III!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/03/2008 05:18 AM
Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 2/4/2008  9:10 PM

Great to see mention of Direct in the document. I hope the right questions get asked, for example

The DIRECT proposal indicates that development costs are approximately halved, since only one medium sized vehicle is developed using existing Shuttle elements and infrastructure with minimum modifications. This is compared with the current solution of developing two very different size vehicles requiring extensive changes to existing Shuttle elements and infrastructure. Do you agree with these DIRECT cost estimates?

The DIRECT proposal indicates that by using the existing Shuttle solid rockets and  external tank modified with two updated commercially available rocket engines, it would be ready to launch the Orion spacecraft to the International Space Station in 2012. The current vehicle being developed is expected to be available in 2015, due to having to develop a longer solid rocket, a new upper stage, a new rocket engine, and solve other problems such as thrust oscillations. Do you think DIRECT's estimate of a three year earlier launch date is possible?

The Shuttle program is expected to end in 2010. What would be the impact on Kennedy Space Center job losses if Orion could be launched in 2012, compared to waiting for the current vehicle to launch in 2015?

It's a very complex balancing act, but we have an approach which doesn't harm the workforce at KSC or MAF at all.

Because we are avoiding most of the costly engine and booster development work, and avoiding the high costs of replacing all of the manufacturing infrastructure and launch infarstructure - utilizing what we have rather than building all-new - we save a lot of cash year-on-year in the budget.   The number obviously varies each year, but we're talking about $1.5-2.5bn each year thru 2012 and even more after that because we don't have any second launch vehicle development program at all.

We use some of this cash to accelerate the hardware development we are doing, such as the Jupiter Core, human-rating of the RS-68 and the Orion spacecraft.

We are able to fund a very aggressive Test Flight schedule out of KSC (Jupiter-120-X - Q4 2010, Jupiter-120-Y - Q3 2011, Jupiter-120-Z (maybe) Q1 2012).   Together with the MPTA and a Test Fit article this will represent 5 additional ET-sized items flowing through MAF along-side the last ET's are being produced for Shuttle - and all on (mostly) the same equipment.   This essentially eliminates the "gap" in production at MAF entirely, and means there are only two 6-month long gaps between the test-flights at KSC - which would be more than manageable.

See the charts below to get a feel for how the parallel production of the External Tanks would go.

We have analysed the budget in a LOT of detail and are confident the work can be apportioned to get Jupiter-120 operational by September 2012 with a greater than 85% confidence level.





Just FYI:   The Dark Blue Upper Stage marked "JUS-4" and accompanying "JCS-14" shown on the far right of the second chart represent one of the pair of Core/EDS combinations which will actually land our first crew back on the Lunar surface in 2017.


The #1 long-pole item driving our schedule is the Orion spacecraft though - not the launcher and not the facilities.   The RS-68 human rating effort is #2.   And the DDT&E for the new Aft Skirt/Thrust Structure/Plumbing arrangement is #3 - although Orion is likely to be ~12 months longer than either of those.

To that end, we are proposing that with Jupiter-120's high performance envelope the Orion project just put all the ZBV safety hardware back in to the design (making the Astronaut Corp much happier in the process and replacing the Land Landing baseline to help encourage re-usability in the future) and then just press straight on to PDR without further delays.   Mass would no longer be a critical issue for the program, and evolutionary improvements can be included in the design as we gain flight experience over the 5.5 years (11 missions) of operations before attempting a full-blown Lunar Landing mission.   That shortens development time now, and provides us with sufficient time to also make a Block-II improved variant for those missions.

We further propose that we don't require the new 10,000lbf thrust OME variant to be ready for the first flights of Orion.   Orion will be placed directly into stable 220x100nm, 51.6deg orbit by the Jupiter-120 Core for all ISS missions (because of the payload module).   So the spacecraft will not have to perform any long burns to reach stable orbit itself.   This means that the current 6,000lbf thrust OME from Shuttle would be powerful and efficient enough to be utilized for orbital maneuvering duties in LEO.

Further, there are going to be a handful of OME's from the Shuttle Program in 2010 with useful 'life' still available.   To save time (and budget), these should be utilized on the first Block-I Orion spacecraft.   They can later be replaced for the Lunar missions by either the more powerful 10KOME's or even potentially by a Methane-based engine if it proves to be desirable (needs trade studies).   But neither of those developments would stand in the way of Orion flying to ISS with a crew in the 2012 time frame.

With the budget analysis we have just completed, we can match NASA's 65% confidence level in saying Orion will be ready for Initial Operational Capability (IOC) by September 2012.   We are >85% confident it will be ready by March 2013 as a backup date.


This budget process has been specifically tailored to allow us to fully-fund both KSC and MAF to their current FY2008 budget levels from Shuttle Retirement at the start of FY2011 all the way through FY2020.

The transition is considerable, make no mistake.   But because of the inherent commonality to Shuttle in utilizing the SRB's unchanged and re-using an ET-derived Core Stage, we are in a very strong position to make use of all the staff across just a 2-3 year gap.   There is an awful lot of work needing to be done and we have worked out ways and means to keep everyone busy.   As part of this plan, we have added about one dozen smaller projects to "take up the slack" during the "transition years" while we await hardware from the EDS and LSAM projects.

We are planning a lot of workforce "shuffling", but no large rounds of layoffs.   The *only* staff reductions we are planning for, is simply not to replace those staff lost to natural retirement processes.


We are not yet ready to present the budget charts publicly, sorry, but they have been worked out in finite detail to accommodate the above schedule for all elements.   Currently the proposed DIRECT budget matches the top-line figures for NASA's FY09 Budget Request thru 2013.

After 2013 however, the top-line budget numbers part ways from NASA's projections.   With only the one launch vehicle project DIRECT remain permanently $1.1 to $3.2bn below NASA's current plans in every year from 2014 thru 2020.   Yet this lower budget includes 12 extra showcase missions such as the "Apollo-8" Lunar Crew Flyby in 2013 and two more HSM's in 2014 and 2019.


I haven't had any chance to update this comparison chart with these latest (even worse) figures - this data is from 2007 - but it's still similar, so this'll do for now in order to just demonstrate the difference in terms of workforce effects between the approaches:-




Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 04/03/2008 08:47 PM
Excellent charts Ross. With the recent consideration of returning to a 4 segment booster for Ares-1 can't help but wonder whether all this info is out of date now !!! J2X is still the long pole so Direct has the advantage regardless.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 04/03/2008 09:40 PM
Here's an idea: reduce core stage dry mass by launching the tankage upside down. This takes loads off of the LH2 tank and reduces its mass by more than the mass penalty of greater LOX tank loading. A new feedline and tank wall thickness would be required.

How would this affect the numbers (including cost)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/03/2008 10:01 PM
Quote
tnphysics - 3/4/2008  5:40 PM

Here's an idea: reduce core stage dry mass by launching the tankage upside down. This takes loads off of the LH2 tank and reduces its mass by more than the mass penalty of greater LOX tank loading. A new feedline and tank wall thickness would be required.

How would this affect the numbers (including cost)?


That doesn't work.  CG is too far aft
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steve G on 04/03/2008 10:15 PM
I apologize if this has been asked before, but is a Griffin partial Face Saving Compromise, is there any future potential of a 5 segment SRB for the Direct architecture?  This assumes that we start off with the 4 seg SRBs and then evolve to a 5 segment derivative with a more capable upper stage.  This way Griffin at least gets to keep his 5 segment SRB.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/03/2008 10:16 PM
Quote
Jim - 3/4/2008  6:01 PM

That doesn't work.  CG is too far aft

They just ignore that problem with Ares-I though!

Yeah, I know... ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/03/2008 10:32 PM
Quote
Jim - 3/4/2008  4:01 PM

Quote
tnphysics - 3/4/2008  5:40 PM

Here's an idea: reduce core stage dry mass by launching the tankage upside down. This takes loads off of the LH2 tank and reduces its mass by more than the mass penalty of greater LOX tank loading. A new feedline and tank wall thickness would be required.

How would this affect the numbers (including cost)?


That doesn't work.  CG is too far aft

I think having a beam through the center of the Hydrogen tank wouldn't be such a great idea either.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 04/04/2008 12:30 AM
From another thread;

Quote
renclod - 3/4/2008  3:38 PM

Quote
Chris Bergin - 3/4/2008  9:00 PM
No. He said that Direct does not work due to the laws of physics. While that is a strange comment,

Dr. Gilbrech said a different thing, a very precise thing.

Transcript:

1:25:50 into the podcast
Mr. Lampson: Dr. Gilbrech, one of the more controversial decision in the exploration program was the decision to develop the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles rather than modifying the existing EELV family use by DOD. In addition some have criticized NASA for developing two new launch vehicles rather than a single launch vehicle as proposed in the so called "Direct" concept. Did NASA examined the alternative of using either an EELV-based architecture or the Direct architecture instead of the Ares I and Ares V approach - and if so, why did you wind up rejecting those approaches ? You can provide more detailed answer...[inaudible]... whatever you can now.

Dr. Gilbrech: Yes, sir...[reject EELV]... The other one you mentioned, the Direct launcher, there was a similar achitecture like that that was in the ESAS ...Ummm... the claims for the Direct launcher... we've actually had our Ares projects look at that and we can't justify based on laws of physics the performances that were being claimed by that approach... so ... we don't claim to have a market on good ideas but we also like to go investigating and make sure they're credible, and we beleive we have the best architecture on the books.

[next question]


Quote
renclod - 3/4/2008  4:05 PM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 4/4/2008  2:00 AM

Now that definitely sounds like a reference to the original v1.0 review done by Dr. Stanley and company.

When and where did we last publicly run POST 2 on Direct v2 performance claims ?!

Your conclusion does not hold water, sorry.


So Ross, when was the last time a POST 2 analysis was run on Direct v2, anyway?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 04/04/2008 02:34 AM
Quote
Jim - 3/4/2008  6:01 PM

Quote
tnphysics - 3/4/2008  5:40 PM

Here's an idea: reduce core stage dry mass by launching the tankage upside down. This takes loads off of the LH2 tank and reduces its mass by more than the mass penalty of greater LOX tank loading. A new feedline and tank wall thickness would be required.

How would this affect the numbers (including cost)?


That doesn't work.  CG is too far aft

I knew that that was the problem on STS with its side-mounted Orbiter and SSME's, but the RS-68s are on the bottom of the Core on the Jupiter, and S-II and S-IVB both had rear-mounted tanks. Are things different for the Jupiter Core? I am thinking thrust unbalance under engine-out conditions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/04/2008 03:48 AM
Norm,
The same question was asked over on the Hearing thread, so here's the same answer :)

Not sure when CxP ever did a series of runs.

Our last POST run was performed by staff from MSFC for us in early February into our 27.0.x series. Both Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232 configurations were run, in both CLV and CaLV configurations to both 130nm, 29.0degree and also 220nm, 51.6degree orbits - for a total of 8 separate runs. The results came back approximately 2% higher than our own numbers, as tends to be the case with most of our runs.

Ross.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/04/2008 03:57 AM
Quote
Steve G - 3/4/2008  6:15 PM

I apologize if this has been asked before, but is a Griffin partial Face Saving Compromise, is there any future potential of a 5 segment SRB for the Direct architecture?  This assumes that we start off with the 4 seg SRBs and then evolve to a 5 segment derivative with a more capable upper stage.  This way Griffin at least gets to keep his 5 segment SRB.

It's certainly an option.   There was a lot of work done by ATK into creating a 5-segment SRB for Shuttle, which would continue to utilize the standard mounting points on the External Tank.

We would be able to support a very similar arrangement.

Our position is that as long as we can save a lot of money by not developing them, we don't want to spend anything we don't have to.   But at a certain point - probably around 2013 when the first test flight is due - it will be too late to save anything significant, so they'd probably get baselined at that point because more performance is always nice.

As a political compromise to get this working, they aren't bad either.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/04/2008 02:01 PM
Quote
kraisee - 4/4/2008  6:48 AM

Our last POST run was performed by staff from MSFC for us in early February into our 27.0.x series...

Quote
kraisee - 3/4/2008  4:35 PM ( from another thread,  #264705)

... got the current 2x Jupiter-232 architecture with 240mT IMLEO performance.

Dual J-232 with 240mT IMLEO - did you get that through POST , Ross ?

Last time it was 109mT. Now is 120mT. I'm not saying not possible, just asking.

Thanks.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/04/2008 09:00 PM
IMLEO includes the burnout mass of the EDS Stage itself - which normally isn't mentioned as part of the "payload" in any other context but Lunar missions.

Two payloads in orbit plus the one EDS you use for TLI equal approximately 240mT IMLEO with Jupiter.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: osiris on 04/05/2008 01:51 AM
I am relatively new on this site and I would like to start by saying that it is a very good and interesting site for a long time amateur of rocketry, astronautic an astronomy like me. I am a french Canadian (sorry for my bad English) and no I am not a rocket scientist like some of you (actually I am an economist).

I read a lot of threads about Direct, Constellation and Orion and I have some comments and questions for the Direct team.

I think that;

i) first, the Ares 1 rocket will never work and fly. The new President (whoever he or she is) will kill it in 2009.
ii) the danger is that, given the failure of the Ares (after the X-33), NASA credibility will suffer and a new President could, in that context and given the economic context, flushed the whole thing and go back to a very simple ELO vehicule (Taxi) for the station send by a Delta IV rocket (to save the political apparence of a human space program
iii) this could happen eventhough there is a cheaper, faster and safe alternative which is Direct
iv) It is very sad to see that the only reason why NASA is in this situation is the ego of some of its leaders. Egos run the world... This situation could kill human flight at NASA and waste a lot of human capital linked to STS. I am very dissapointed by NASA. The little boy in me that miss school to watch the first space shuttle launch is sad.
v) Politicaly, Direct is suffering from the fact that it is perceived has a external to NASA solution and not has a solution built by the best brains of NASA. NASA is using that to try to destroy the credibility of Direct.

It seems to me that the Direct Team should try to;

i) focus on trying to convince the 3 Presidential candidates. The problem though is that from the moment where a candidate will make Direct his or her baby the other candidate will feel the need to back another option just to be different.
ii) focus on the fact that Direct rely on existing technologies that were design, built and used by NASA and for NASA. Also, initially Direct was design at NASA. It is NASA.
iii) find some very high profile scientists to back the project.
iv) Try to create a group of actual and ex- astronauts to back the project
v) show to the Obama team that Direct is less expensive than Constellation and part of these savings could finance education (I know it means that NASA would get less money but under the current economic context it might be necessary to save the Vision).
vi) may be another compromise to do to convince Obama would be to keep Mars only has a long run unschedule goal and be very gradual not to scare the politician that has a lot more priorities. These steps could be first the Jupiter 120/Orion then the EDS/Altair then the lunar architecture, not everything at once.
vii) try to develop a Direct option for a lunar architecture that does not rely on fuel depot. Just to show that it could do it.

I also have couple of questions;

i) it is obvious that the development and the R&D cost of Direct is way less important then Constellation, but what about the operation costs (variable costs)? I am thinking about for a lunar mission - Constellation 3 five segments boosters + 5 (or 6) RS-68 and 2 J2-X vs - Direct 4 four segments boosters + 6 RS-68 and 4 J2?
ii) It is my understanding that the SSME is a very safe and reliable engine. Does the RS-68 is as safe then the SSME? Could-you use 3 SSME for the Jupiter 120 and 4 for the Jupiter 232?
iii) For ELO missions the Jupiter 120 has a excess capacity that could be unused for some ISS missions for instance. How does the operation cost of a single Jupiter 120 compare to the cost of a single Ares 1 rocket?

Thank you to all the Direct Team. You are possibly in the process of saving NASA human space program.

That was my humble contribution to the discussion.

René :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/06/2008 10:10 PM
Norm Hartnett - 23/1/2008 1:30 PM in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11584&start=76 asked:

"I would like to challenge both the DIRECT group and the EELV group to respond to this speech on a point-by-point basis.
Good luck."

I haven't seen any arguments for Ares I & V over DIRECT or EELV, so is there someone in the Ares I & V group who can give good technical reasons why Ares is superior to either DIRECTS or EELV? Good luck.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: copernicus on 04/06/2008 11:55 PM

   I think that the DIRECT team has won a major victory in the release of the GAO report on the
"issues" plaguing the Ares-1.  Mind you, this is not THE victory, but still, it is a victory.  In addition,
it appears that the media has noticed DIRECT and is now willing to mention it as a distinct alternative
to the ESAS approach.  Also, a Congressman was willing to ask a question regarding DIRECT during a NASA
oversight hearing.  These are all major steps in getting DIRECT accepted and approved.  
    If Congress and the next President look at DIRECT, they will want to know more about how it can
achieve manned lunar landings.  That is where I believe that the DIRECT team needs to do a little more
work.  As it now stands on the DIRECT web site, the downloadable documents all mention, and describe,
the propellant-depot scheme for lunar missions.  I believe, however, that I saw on this web site a comment
from Ross mentioning that this propellant-transfer scheme is no longer the official mission design for
lunar DIRECT missions.  It seems, as I recall, that the DIRECT team now proposes a simpler mission design.  

   1.  Could you explain, in detail, this new lunar DIRECT mission design?  
 
   2. Could the DIRECT team update their website with this new scheme?  

  I think that as we approach the time when DIRECT becomes official NASA policy, that
the DIRECT team needs to state clearly how a manned lunar mission is achievable with
DIRECT launchers and why that mission design is better than the Are-1/Ares-5 alternative.  



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/07/2008 12:45 AM
Quote
osiris - 5/4/2008  11:51 AM
I think that;

1. first, the Ares 1 rocket will never work and fly. The new President (whoever he or she is) will kill it in 2009.

2. focus on trying to convince the 3 Presidential candidates. The problem though is that from the moment where a candidate will make Direct his or her baby the other candidate will feel the need to back another option just to be different.

3. it is obvious that the development and the R&D cost of Direct is way less important then Constellation, but what about the operation costs (variable costs)? I am thinking about for a lunar mission - Constellation 3 five segments boosters + 5 (or 6) RS-68 and 2 J2-X vs - Direct 4 four segments boosters + 6 RS-68 and 4 J2?

5. ii) It is my understanding that the SSME is a very safe and reliable engine. Does the RS-68 is as safe then the SSME? Could-you use 3 SSME for the Jupiter 120 and 4 for the Jupiter 232?

6. iii) For ELO missions the Jupiter 120 has a excess capacity that could be unused for some ISS missions for instance. How does the operation cost of a single Jupiter 120 compare to the cost of a single Ares 1 rocket?

Thank you to all the Direct Team. You are possibly in the process of saving NASA human space program.

That was my humble contribution to the discussion.

René :)

Bienvenu au NSF, René!

I'm not part of DIRECT but these are commonly asked questions so I'll just answer them for you as best I can (apologies for assumptions and mistakes... :P ).

1. It can fly, it's not breaking the laws of physics. It's whether it can fly safely, cheaply and soon. Which it can't, by all accounts.

2. Team DIRECT are following most of your suggestions. There is support all over the place but Obama and Clinton are too busy thrashing each other to bother with paper rockets. McCain might be a possibility.

3. That requires big changes to the launch pad and crawler. Current Jupiter requires little in the way of change. Some very big Jupiter derivatives were sketched out but Jupiter is currently big enough for any payload.

5. SSME just too expensive ($50m versus $20m for man-rated RS-68, $12m for ordinary RS-68). Also underperforms for lunar missions, RS-68 actually better.

6. A bit more expensive I believe but there's 20-30 tonnes payload available. Jupiter-120 plus Orion can haul shuttle-class payloads for about 1/3 the price, or so I believe.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: osiris on 04/07/2008 01:02 AM
Thank you for your responses. On the SSME vs. RS-68 issue, I knew that the SSME is more expensive but I wonder if the man-rated RS-68 is as safe as the SSME which flew a lot more without a single incident (I believe). Also I agree that the Ares I can fly but I think it will not happen because it will be to costly and unsafe for the next administration.

René
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rsp1202 on 04/07/2008 01:40 AM
Quote
copernicus - 6/4/2008  4:55 PM
I think that the DIRECT team has won a major victory in the release of the GAO report on the
"issues" plaguing the Ares-1. Mind you, this is not THE victory, but still, it is a victory. In addition, it appears that the media has noticed DIRECT and is now willing to mention it as a distinct alternative to the ESAS approach. Also, a Congressman was willing to ask a question regarding DIRECT during a NASA oversight hearing. These are all major steps in getting DIRECT accepted and approved.

You're overstating the case. The GAO report dumps on Ares, but doesn't push Direct. Media coverage that parrots NASA's line that Direct doesn't measure up, is not a positive. And a congressman asking a question at this hearing doen't constitute much of anything. A major victory in the near-term would be a fair hearing re: Direct v2 before Congress.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/07/2008 03:02 AM
Quote
osiris - 7/4/2008  11:02 AM

Thank you for your responses. On the SSME vs. RS-68 issue, I knew that the SSME is more expensive but I wonder if the man-rated RS-68 is as safe as the SSME which flew a lot more without a single incident (I believe). Also I agree that the Ares I can fly but I think it will not happen because it will be to costly and unsafe for the next administration.

René

Well, the RS-68 was originally a low-cost expendable version of the SSME. The SRBs have failed catastrophically once, but were retained with a few mods. Anyway, catastrophic failure is what Orion LAS is for. I guess most of the safety gains came from that little rocket on top. At least 1 Soyuz crew has been saved by it IIRC.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 04/07/2008 03:18 AM
Quote
osiris - 4/4/2008  9:51 PM
I also have couple of questions;

i) it is obvious that the development and the R&D cost of Direct is way less important then Constellation, but what about the operation costs (variable costs)? I am thinking about for a lunar mission - Constellation 3 five segments boosters + 5 (or 6) RS-68 and 2 J2-X vs - Direct 4 four segments boosters + 6 RS-68 and 4 J2?
ii) It is my understanding that the SSME is a very safe and reliable engine. Does the RS-68 is as safe then the SSME? Could-you use 3 SSME for the Jupiter 120 and 4 for the Jupiter 232?
iii) For ELO missions the Jupiter 120 has a excess capacity that could be unused for some ISS missions for instance. How does the operation cost of a single Jupiter 120 compare to the cost of a single Ares 1 rocket?
René :)

Rene:
If you dig through the posts in the first Direct 2.0 thread or through the Direct proposals, you'll find more detailed costing info. But basically:
J-120 has a variable cost of $140 million vs Ares I @ $130 million
J-232 has a variable cost of $220 million vs Ares V @ $280 million

Direct has $1.9 billion in fixed annual costs vs Ares $2.9 billion.
Plus, as you mention, Ares also requires many billions more in development and engineering costs.

So, for each baseline lunar mission, Ares costs $410 million for the launch vehicles vs @440 million for Direct. But by needing to support only one launch vehicle, Direct saves over $1 billion per year in fixed costs. The result is that Direct ends up costing far less per year for the same number of Lunar missions. Or, to put it another way, with the current manned spaceflight budget, NASA can only afford 2 lunar missions per year with Ares (and no ISS) - but for the same budget, Direct can support 4 lunar missions per year (or perhaps 3 ISS missions and 3 lunar missions).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: osiris on 04/07/2008 03:41 AM
These numbers are very interesting. It makes you wonder why NASA choose ARES I and V?

I just saw that there is another Thread about that question...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/07/2008 07:07 AM
Quote
jml - 6/4/2008  10:18 PM

If you dig through the posts in the first Direct 2.0 thread or through the Direct proposals, you'll find more detailed costing info. But basically:
J-120 has a variable cost of $140 million vs Ares I @ $130 million
J-232 has a variable cost of $220 million vs Ares V @ $280 million

Direct has $1.9 billion in fixed annual costs vs Ares $2.9 billion.
Plus, as you mention, Ares also requires many billions more in development and engineering costs.


There's a DIRECT chart I've seen and refound in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Commonality_DIRECT.jpg

which shows the variable cost of each DIRECT flight at $140 million per flight. Was that DIRECT 1.0, and if so why have the costs increased so much?

At $140 million J-120 is competitive for ISS resupply though not including the fixed costs is unfair competition on other launchers.

I can't think of any other demand for a J-232 apart from VSE. Though Bigelow is trying to learn how to make low cost space hotels. A single J-232 launch could put up quite an impressive hotel, especially if the External Tank were retained.

Either way, the fixed cost show the challenge is to get the flight rates up. This has provided impossible with STS, but should be feasible with DIRECT 2.0.

I'm actually coming round to thinking DIRECT 2.0 is as good as a commercial approach based on EELVs, Falcon, Zeniths and Protons.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/07/2008 07:18 AM
Quote
jml - 6/4/2008  10:18 PM

Or, to put it another way, with the current manned spaceflight budget, NASA can only afford 2 lunar missions per year with Ares (and no ISS) - but for the same budget, Direct can support 4 lunar missions per year (or perhaps 3 ISS missions and 3 lunar missions).

I would have thought that 2 missions per year is not sufficient to maintain a base of any sorts, or to build anything substantial in the way of lunar infrastructure.

If crew surface time is six months, then the best Ares can do is crew exchange. Without the surface infrastructure, crew stay time is limited and all NASA have is Apollo plus. Why not call the missions Apollo 18, 19 etc.

With 4 missions however, 2 could be cargo missions, and 2 could be crew exchange. Anyone know the latest estimate for what DIRECTS 2.0 could deliver as cargo to the lunar pole?

Once some infrastructure is deployed, crew stay could be extended to 6 months and beyond, making a base viable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 11:55 AM
Quote
osiris - 4/4/2008  9:51 PM

I am relatively new on this site...(SNIP)

Then welcome to the site René!

Lots to answer, been away for the weekend. I'll try to answer everyone, but I will also *try* to be brief!   Yeah, I know! :)

Before I begin, thanks to both jml and Lampy for answering your questions before I could.   Much appreciated guys!


Your thoughts are right on the mark IMHO René.

Good suggestions.   We're doing most of those already.   Will look at the others too. Thank-you for your contribution.

Questions:
i) The operational costs are a mix of both fixed and variable costs.   The variable element changes depending on flight rate too.   It's a complex calculation, but the fixed part represents the bulk by a long way.   DIRECT essentially cuts the fixed costs by a little over $1bn per year and takes a 'hit' of only $10-40m per Lunar mission.   It's a good trade in my opinion.   There is also the fact that Jupiter Core is used more often too, and that actually brings the per-unit cost down considerably so you don't *actually* suffer that 'hit' anyway :)   An even better trade IMHO.

ii) RS-68 has a short flight history so far, so it is too early to really tell if there are any design glitches in there.   So far it has operated perfectly though, which is a good early indication.   RS-68's main benefits though are that its gas-generator system operates at much lower stress levels (indicated by the much lower Isp) than the staged combustion process of SSME, and also the fact that while it produces roughly twice as much thrust as SSME it has 80% fewer parts in its construction.   Ultimately that really means there is less to go wrong.   So far they have never had a major engine-wide failure of an RS-68 in flight nor even in testing.   I don't believe anyone really knows what it takes to kill one yet.   By comparison, SSME's testing suffered 12 major engine-wide failures during testing with, thankfully, none in-flight yet.

iii) Oh boy.   *Big* subject this.   And complicated by "1-vehicle, 2-launch" solution we're employing compatred to the "2-vehicle, 2 launch" solution employed by Ares.   Ours shares a lot more of its operational costs between our two configurations of the same vehicle compared to Ares' two completely different vehicles - so we're always going to be cheaper.   Here are the details:

Ares-I:
Development: ~$14,400m
Fixed: $800m/year.
Variable: $130m/flight @ 1 per year, $105m/flight @ 4 per year.

Ares-V:
Development: ~$15,000m
Fixed: $2,000m/year.
Variable: $240m+90m (for the EDS)/flight @ 1 per year, $194m+$73m/flight @ 4 per year

Jupiter-120:
Development: ~$9,500m
Fixed: $900m/year.
Variable: $140m/flight @ 1 per year, $113m/flight @ 4 per year, $102m/flight @ 8 per year

Jupiter-232: (J-120 has already paid Fixed Costs for SRB + Core, so just add EDS + 1 more RS-68):
Development: ~$4,000m
Fixed: $800m/year
Variable: $110m/flight @ 1 per year, $93m/flight @ 4 per year

Thus the baseline of: 2 ISS per year + 2 Lunar Crew per year + 2 Lunar Cargo per year total up to:-

Ares: $29.4bn Development (non-recurring). $2,800m Fixed, $1,488m Variable = $4,288m per year (recurring).
DIRECT: $13.5bn Development (non-recurring). $1,700m Fixed, $1,374m Variable = $3,074m per year (recurring).

Difference: $15.9bn Development (non-recurring).   $1.214bn per year (recurring).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 04/07/2008 12:10 PM
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  2:18 AM

Quote
jml - 6/4/2008  10:18 PM

Or, to put it another way, with the current manned spaceflight budget, NASA can only afford 2 lunar missions per year with Ares (and no ISS) - but for the same budget, Direct can support 4 lunar missions per year (or perhaps 3 ISS missions and 3 lunar missions).

I would have thought that 2 missions per year is not sufficient to maintain a base of any sorts, or to build anything substantial in the way of lunar infrastructure.

If crew surface time is six months, then the best Ares can do is crew exchange. Without the surface infrastructure, crew stay time is limited and all NASA have is Apollo plus. Why not call the missions Apollo 18, 19 etc.

With 4 missions however, 2 could be cargo missions, and 2 could be crew exchange. Anyone know the latest estimate for what DIRECTS 2.0 could deliver as cargo to the lunar pole?

Once some infrastructure is deployed, crew stay could be extended to 6 months and beyond, making a base viable.

On April 3rd, Hinners testified about the prospects of a lunar exit strategy to free up the resources needed for a Mars mission.

If there is to be a lunar exit strategy, building infrastructure would be a bug, not a feature.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 12:11 PM
Quote
copernicus - 6/4/2008  7:55 PM

I think that the DIRECT team has won a major victory in the release of the GAO report on the
"issues" plaguing the Ares-1.  Mind you, this is not THE victory, but still, it is a victory.  In addition, it appears that the media has noticed DIRECT and is now willing to mention it as a distinct alternative to the ESAS approach.  Also, a Congressman was willing to ask a question regarding DIRECT during a NASA oversight hearing.  These are all major steps in getting DIRECT accepted and approved.

Agreed.   As a first step, its great.   But to keep the analogy going lets all make sure we realize that this is a full 25-mile marathon ahead of us and that is just one step taken so far.


Quote
If Congress and the next President look at DIRECT, they will want to know more about how it can achieve manned lunar landings.  That is where I believe that the DIRECT team needs to do a little more work.  As it now stands on the DIRECT web site, the downloadable documents all mention, and describe, the propellant-depot scheme for lunar missions.  I believe, however, that I saw on this web site a comment from Ross mentioning that this propellant-transfer scheme is no longer the official mission design for lunar DIRECT missions.  It seems, as I recall, that the DIRECT team now proposes a simpler mission design.

That is correct.   We still want the Propellant Depot's, but we realize that they aren't very paletable at present.   We realize that to have any chance of being acceptable we need a much more similar arrangement to that planned right now because that is what people are familiar with.   So we have come up with just such a solution.


[/QUOTE]   1.  Could you explain, in detail, this new lunar DIRECT mission design?[/QUOTE]

We are preparing a revision to our old v1.2 documentation which will hopefully come out later this week.

Essentially it boils down to one Jupiter-232 launching with nothing but the maximum possible quantity of propellant on-board its Upper Stage.   That is followed a few days later by the mission flight bringing up the Crew in the Orion plus the LSAM.   The mission package then docks to the awaiting EDS and performs the TLI.   Orion Transition to LSAM occurs before the docking with the EDS, which will result in the same 'eyes out' TLI approach.   There is an alternative to this baseline whereby the LSAM/Orion remain attached to the PLF and stay in launch configuration after separating from their launcher.   This whole 3-part unit docks to the EDS and performs TLI.   Then the Orion transitions and extracts the LSAM en-route to the moon.   Performance is lower though because you carry the mass of the PLF thru TLI.

Either way though, we are 'wasting' almost 20mT of lift performance on the mission flight which could be utilized in the future to enhance the overall performance.

We would like to push for a crasher stage for the LSAM too, because this could *drastically* increase performance in this arrangement, but again, we don't think its paletable so are leaving it out of our baseline solution for now.


Quote
  2. Could the DIRECT team update their website with this new scheme?

It's been in-work for a while, but is very nearly complete.   Please expect it shortly.


Quote
I think that as we approach the time when DIRECT becomes official NASA policy, that
the DIRECT team needs to state clearly how a manned lunar mission is achievable with
DIRECT launchers and why that mission design is better than the Are-1/Ares-5 alternative.

Agreed.

I am also writing a simple web-page up to showcase the performance requirements for achieving the Lunar missions as proposed in ESAS.   They will showcase fairly simply how our architecture is able to "close" the required performance targets and how far Ares still has to go.   I think you will all be quite surprised to see the numbers for yourselves.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 12:15 PM
Quote
Lampyridae - 6/4/2008  8:45 PM

Bienvenu au NSF, René!

I'm not part of DIRECT but these are commonly asked questions so I'll just answer them for you as best I can (apologies for assumptions and mistakes... :P )...(SNIP)

All correct as far as I can tell, thanks for the summary while I was away.

Although I would alter the Obama/Clinton thing.

I'm not writing either of them off as potential DIRECT supporters yet.   We are beginning to make inroads to both their campaigns and I think they're both quite open to realistic options for reducing the cost and schedule for Shuttle's replacement as long as it also protects the voting workforce.   9,000 votes has to be worth a few seconds sound-bite! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 12:20 PM
Quote
rsp1202 - 6/4/2008  9:40 PM

Quote
copernicus - 6/4/2008  4:55 PM
I think that the DIRECT team has won a major victory in the release of the GAO report on the
"issues" plaguing the Ares-1. Mind you, this is not THE victory, but still, it is a victory. In addition, it appears that the media has noticed DIRECT and is now willing to mention it as a distinct alternative to the ESAS approach. Also, a Congressman was willing to ask a question regarding DIRECT during a NASA oversight hearing. These are all major steps in getting DIRECT accepted and approved.

You're overstating the case. The GAO report dumps on Ares, but doesn't push Direct. Media coverage that parrots NASA's line that Direct doesn't measure up, is not a positive. And a congressman asking a question at this hearing doen't constitute much of anything. A major victory in the near-term would be a fair hearing re: Direct v2 before Congress.

That would indeed be a major victory.

But what has happened so far is all encouraging steps towards that goal as far as I'm concerned.

While GAO hasn't said anything about DIRECT, it has questioned the Ares officially.   We won't ever get a hearing unless there are doubts about Ares, so that report is going to be quite valuable to us.

Steady progress is all we need to convince people.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 12:30 PM
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  3:07 AM

There's a DIRECT chart I've seen and refound in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Commonality_DIRECT.jpg

which shows the variable cost of each DIRECT flight at $140 million per flight. Was that DIRECT 1.0, and if so why have the costs increased so much?...(SNIP)

Zoiks! That's an old version of that chart.   I *really* need to update that... :)


Quote
I'm actually coming round to thinking DIRECT 2.0 is as good as a commercial approach based on EELVs, Falcon, Zeniths and Protons.

Took me a while to realize that myself, but you're right.   Jupiter could certainly carry a number of satellites to LEO (or GEO with an upper stage like either Centaur-V2, Delta-IV or the full EDS) in a single flight, or could fly some extremely large or heavy (or both) payloads which can't eve be conceived of currently.

By all accounts ATK are really trying to make a commercial launcher out of Ares-I.

I personally don't see any sense in them trying to get into the already-saturated EELV/Proton/Ariane/Falcon-class market though.

There's insufficient business there right now to be competitive - unless you can get your costs down to Space-X's claimed figures and that ain't happening with Ares-I for damn sure.   Taking a different chunk of the market - one nobody else has a chance of competing in - such as the 50mT class - would mean you have the whole of that world cake all to yourself.   J-120 as a commercial launcher could be fairly interesting IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 12:32 PM
Quote
osiris - 6/4/2008  11:41 PM

These numbers are very interesting. It makes you wonder why NASA choose ARES I and V?

I just saw that there is another Thread about that question...

Yes.   It's taken a few years, but more and more and more people are coming to that realization.   Its been true from the start (ESAS), but very few people ever realized it.

It should be noted that folk on here - like Jim - were saying so from day #1 too.

I just hope its not too late.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/07/2008 12:32 PM
Bill White: "On April 3rd, Hinners testified about the prospects of a lunar exit strategy to free up the resources needed for a Mars mission.

If there is to be a lunar exit strategy, building infrastructure would be a bug, not a feature."

Perhaps the aim should be to make an exit strategy unviable. An exit strategy from lunar operations would confine NASA to Low Earth Orbit for a few more Administrations.

Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  7:11 AM
We would like to push for a crasher stage for the LSAM too, because this could *drastically* increase performance in this arrangement, but again, we don't think its paletable so are leaving it out of our baseline solution for now.

This is interesting. Could you elaborate on the terms "crasher stage" and "drastically"?

I can't see in the architecture document the method for delivering cargo only? Can this be done with a single launch?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 12:42 PM
Quote
Bill White - 7/4/2008  8:10 AM

Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  2:18 AM

Quote
jml - 6/4/2008  10:18 PM

Or, to put it another way, with the current manned spaceflight budget, NASA can only afford 2 lunar missions per year with Ares (and no ISS) - but for the same budget, Direct can support 4 lunar missions per year (or perhaps 3 ISS missions and 3 lunar missions).

I would have thought that 2 missions per year is not sufficient to maintain a base of any sorts, or to build anything substantial in the way of lunar infrastructure.

If crew surface time is six months, then the best Ares can do is crew exchange. Without the surface infrastructure, crew stay time is limited and all NASA have is Apollo plus. Why not call the missions Apollo 18, 19 etc.

With 4 missions however, 2 could be cargo missions, and 2 could be crew exchange. Anyone know the latest estimate for what DIRECTS 2.0 could deliver as cargo to the lunar pole?

Once some infrastructure is deployed, crew stay could be extended to 6 months and beyond, making a base viable.

On April 3rd, Hinners testified about the prospects of a lunar exit strategy to free up the resources needed for a Mars mission.

If there is to be a lunar exit strategy, building infrastructure would be a bug, not a feature.

That depends on how you classify the exit strategy though Bill.

If you're going to abandon everything you've done on the moon, then you're also going to have to mothball your launch infrastructure for "x" years too - because you won't have any destinations to go.

But if your exit strategy only refers to continuing the Lunar build-up - but retains the routine operational aspects of Lunar usage you will be keeping your launcher infrastructure well-oiled while developing the Mars hardware.   At that point the cost to send a few crew rotations to the moon is actually a fairly small amount.

IMHO, DIRECT has this one fairly well covered.   By cutting the operational costs, we can back-off the Lunar program to a 'tick-over' pace once we have an established presence there.   We can further share costs of missions with foreign partners lifting propellant to the Depot, and that free's up a very nice chunk of cash (about $1.5bn added to the $2bn from ISS budget when it is retired) every year to *also* pursue the Mars program.   I think $3.5bn per year is going to be sufficient for that program to get really moving given the fact that the LV's, Orion and a related Lander System are already fully funded in addition.

I therefore don't believe that under the DIRECT architecture it has to be an "either/or" situation.

I have no doubts that there's no choice under Ares without getting extra cash from Congress, but that's not something I want to rely upon.   Ares' high operational costs make it a cul-de-sac solution for the moon if we ever want to go to Mars.   It forces us to choose one or the other, not both.

I think DIRECT would allow us to realistically afford to have BOTH though - and I *really* like that idea :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/07/2008 01:09 PM
I would like to echo Ross’ comment about being able to retain both the lunar and Martian programs. The early years of the lunar program, if handled properly, could build up infrastructure that is designed to be operated and maintained by multi-national agencies. If part of that initial buildup is, as Ross stated above, and as the team has espoused in several other places, a depot-based architecture, then more and more of the cost of maintaining the human presence on the lunar surface will begin to spread out over several nations and other NGOs. The lunar base or outpost will be manned by multi-national crews, whose presence is paid for by their respective national agencies. Over time, even commercial entities should be able to participate and, if executed properly, NASA’s role on the surface will switch to being one of an “enabler”, rather than an exploiter.

As this paradigm becomes more and more the norm, the Mars efforts will gradually begin to gain momentum, funded in part by monies released from NASA’s previous role on the lunar surface as that cost becomes increasingly spread among others.

When the Vision espouses us returning to the moon to stay, far too often that is misinterpreted as a strictly American effort and presence, funded strictly using American sources. Nothing could be further from the real meaning of that vision. It is to be a human presence, funded from human sources, spread across the spectrum of humanity, with America picking up its share of the tab, not paying the whole tab. In the beginning it will be an American effort but that should change as rapidly as possible to a multi-national effort. It all depends on the wisdom of the leaders we pick to manage the affairs of the nation and the civil space agency.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 01:15 PM
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  8:32 AM

Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  7:11 AM
We would like to push for a crasher stage for the LSAM too, because this could *drastically* increase performance in this arrangement, but again, we don't think its paletable so are leaving it out of our baseline solution for now.

This is interesting. Could you elaborate on the terms "crasher stage" and "drastically"?

Sure.

A "Crasher Stage" adds a disposable 'stage' to the LSAM.   Exactly as you dispose of stages during ascent to get rid of mass, you can also 'stage' during descent.   You can dispose of un-necessary mass part-way through the descent and make the final lander configuration considerably lower mass.   It also improves your final performance by a considerable amount.

In this context, there are difficulties with the height of the current LSAM - even inside the 10m payload fairing.   It's nearly four stories tall, which means that its Center of Gravity is going to be very high indeed as it comes in to land with empty descent stage tanks.   That makes its stability an issue.

If you could offload, say, 75% of the fuel needed for descent to a simple stage which you dispose of 5-10 miles above the Lunar surface, your Lander's Descent Stage can be a lot smaller.   You improve your payload performance too.

What I picture is something like perhaps a 5.4-6.4m diameter Wide Body Centaur with 2-4 RL-10's being mounted immediately under the much shorter LSAM.   This unit can then perform some of the TLI burn to get increased performance.   It also performs the LOI burn 'braking' into Lunar orbit, and then performs about 75% of the Descent burn too.   The much smaller LSAM itself "stages" and completes the last of the Descent.   Payload to the surface is much improved - not just by the use of the staging approach, but also through the use of the 20mT of spare lift performance we have on the "mission" J-232 flight.

The Crasher itself continues to fall in the Lunar gravity well after staging, but that is perfectly safe for the people on the ground because there will still be a lot of horizontal velocity relative to the ground.   It will continue a ballistic trajectory and will impact many, many miles downrange of where the LSAM is trying to land.   You just need to keep a "range" clear downrange during landing operations.

We believe this is good for placing the *equivalent* of a 32-34mT lander on the Lunar surface (25mT is the current target NASA can't even achieve) - although the Descent Stage will *actually* be a lot smaller.

The down side is that there is an extra staging event and there are extra engines - all of which increase risk to the crew.   The questions then become "by how much?" and "is it worth it?"

We think its certainly worth investigating thoroughly before making *any* firm architecture decisions.   We are of the belief that considering the number of staging events they've already gone through to get to this point, that this isn't all that big of a deal.   While we don't have numbers either way yet, we think its going to trade very well.   But politics is preventing us from even considering it for our baseline at the moment.

I'll try to whip-up a drawing for you if I have time today.


Quote
I can't see in the architecture document the method for delivering cargo only? Can this be done with a single launch?

Yes.   A single Jupiter-232 has approximately 80% of the "throw" capability of Ares-V.   It can do almost everything Ares-V is planned to do, and if there's a shortfall you can fly one extra flight every four to make up the difference.

One extra flight every few years is a lot more economically sound than spending $15bn extra in development and another $1.2bn every year.

And once we do get the Propellant Depot architecture up and running it raises the theoretical limit for each Lunar Lander (lifted dry on a single J-232) to around 180-200mT!   The real limit is ultimately defined by how much fuel you can afford to lift.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 04/07/2008 01:38 PM
Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  7:42 AM

I think DIRECT would allow us to realistically afford to have BOTH though - and I *really* like that idea :)

Ross.

Me too, of course. And I say that as a fellow who originally came to space advocacy from the Mars-side.

Therefore I believe I need to advocate "the other side" of ESAS versus DIRECT as creatively as I can since talking about more "lunar infrastructure" to those folks who wants Mars will only enhance their opposition rather than their support.

You will need to demonstrate the capability to go to Mars via DIRECT within a reasonable time frame and without massive new funding and without a lunar exit strategy.

When I quipped that you need to persuade Robert Zubrin I was serious, if we use Zubrin as a placeholder value for the Mars-lovers in general.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 01:49 PM
I would *LOVE* to engage Dr. Zubrin in a deep discussion of how to make our systems viable with his, but given that we're a bit of a hot potato currently I understand if he wishes to keep out of this for now.

But something behind the scenes would be well worthwhile for our 2008 AIAA paper - which is already well underway.   It going to focus upon Mars and the reverse-engineered architecture for the moon which will act as an "analogue" for those later missions.

Zubrin's skills and the whole Mars Society skill-base would be *amazingly* valuable if we can put it together with a 100mT launch system along with Propellant Depot facilities in LEO (at least).

We are currently suggesting Mars should be achievable around 2031.

One 'cute' thing I do like in our plan is the suggestion to test some of our full-size Mars EDL systems with a Mars Sample Return mission a number of years before committing crews.   That would potentially get us around some of the restrictions imposed currently against dedicated Mars/human development work.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 04/07/2008 02:14 PM
Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  8:49 AM

I would *LOVE* to engage Dr. Zubrin in a deep discussion of how to make our systems viable with his, but given that we're a bit of a hot potato currently I understand if he wishes to keep out of this for now.

Ross.

The 2008 Mars Society Convention is in August.

Could you present a preliminary or abridged version of the 2008 AIAA paper, or at least some of the Mars-centric elements of the paper?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/07/2008 03:47 PM
Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  8:15 AM

In this context, there are difficulties with the height of the current LSAM - even inside the 10m payload fairing.   It's nearly four stories tall, which means that its Center of Gravity is going to be very high indeed as it comes in to land with empty descent stage tanks.   That makes its stability an issue.

Ross.

Thanks - for cargo unloading, the current LSAM presents huge challenges. You want to unload 18 tons of cargo (only 3 tons in lunar g) from a height of 10m! What mass is wasted on the unloading mechanism.

A crasher stage would have huge benefits for cargo landing.

On the other hand, it doesn't take us towards reusable architectures, which might be desirable if ISRU becomes an option.

Have you also looked at drop tanks which get some of the benefits of a crasher stage without the restart issue? Needs a deep throttling engine though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/07/2008 03:54 PM
Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  8:15 AM

And once we do get the Propellant Depot architecture up and running it raises the theoretical limit for each Lunar Lander (lifted dry on a single J-232) to around 180-200mT!   The real limit is ultimately defined by how much fuel you can afford to lift.

Ross.

Direct has some interesting possibilities here, though I understand for now you want to make it as comparable as possible to Ares.

There's a thread here on Momentum Exchange Tethers. A single J-232 launch could put in place a tether able to move a 10 ton propellant delivery from a low orbit into a Lunar Transfer Orbit - perhaps for rendez-vous at L1. A Falcon 9 launch per month could then give 10 tons of LOx per month at L1, or in a HEEO. Would that help?

What's really clever with Direct 2.0 is the approach "here's what we can do with minimum capital expenditure, and here are all the future possibilities".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/07/2008 03:58 PM
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  11:47 AM

Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  8:15 AM

In this context, there are difficulties with the height of the current LSAM - even inside the 10m payload fairing.   It's nearly four stories tall, which means that its Center of Gravity is going to be very high indeed as it comes in to land with empty descent stage tanks.   That makes its stability an issue.

Ross.

Thanks - for cargo unloading, the current LSAM presents huge challenges. You want to unload 18 tons of cargo (only 3 tons in lunar g) from a height of 10m! What mass is wasted on the unloading mechanism.

A crasher stage would have huge benefits for cargo landing.

On the other hand, it doesn't take us towards reusable architectures, which might be desirable if ISRU becomes an option.

Have you also looked at drop tanks which get some of the benefits of a crasher stage without the restart issue? Needs a deep throttling engine though.
Ross and I have actually been doing a fair amount of brainstorming on this kind of design and both scenarios (crasher stage and drop tanks) have their own significant benefits. My *personal* preference is for drop tanks without needing another engine start during the descent, but it is more difficult to arrange.

As to your comment regarding the ISRU, we don’t know yet if that is something we will actually be able to do on a scale that is economically viable. We *think* we can, but truth be told, we really don’t know that. The best policy therefore, imho, is to design for what we know, being fully aware that as other additional technologies become viable (ISRU), *IF* they become viable, there may need to be a new lander design at sometime in the future, because that would actually be an architecture change. I do not think it wise to invest heavily in a lander design that depends on our ability to execute an ISRU capability that we are not capable of yet and don’t know that we could actually do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/07/2008 04:43 PM
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  11:54 AM
 A Falcon 9 launch per month could then give 10 tons of LOx per month at L1, or in a HEEO. Would that help.

Why Falcon 9?  And once a month? Using how many pads?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 08:23 PM
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  11:54 AM

What's really clever with Direct 2.0 is the approach "here's what we can do with minimum capital expenditure, and here are all the future possibilities".

That's it in a nutshell.   It levers the Heavy Lift system we have right now into a system which can allow us to do anything we like in the future.

50mT Lift coupled with 100mT Lift *for a reasonable cost*, done by keeping both in the same basic system based very closely upon on existing hardware is a good investment because it opens so many doors which are currently closed to us today, yet the price isn't too high.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/07/2008 09:22 PM
Quote
Jim - 7/4/2008  11:43 AM

Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  11:54 AM
 A Falcon 9 launch per month could then give 10 tons of LOx per month at L1, or in a HEEO. Would that help.

Why Falcon 9?  And once a month? Using how many pads?

According to the NASA tether paper, the tether mass can launch about 1/8th of its mass on a monthly basis. The tether paper assumed a Zenith Sea Launch (20 tons) and a regular 2.5 ton payload.

A J-232 can deliver a tether system of about 130 tons (including ET as counter mass). Assuming the same ratio, we have about a 15 ton capability. That makes Falcon 9 a bit light weight at 10.5 tons, especially given the need for a plane change to an equatorial orbit. (So would be launched from Kwajein or Kouranu, or both).

A Zenith sea launch might also be an option, though the launch rate would be difficult.

Though of course, if a J-232 really can deliver 100 tons of fuel to LEO for $200 million, then a tether may not be financially viable. (A SEP reusable upper stage might still be).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 09:32 PM
I like the concept of a "Propellant Barge".   As long as you can essentially eliminate boiloff issues using active cooling systems, there's aren't many problems with it taking time to get to different places - that just becomes a logistics issue then.   I see a lot of good potential architecture options which can utilize depots in locations other than LEO.

* LLO will be great once you have ISRU facilities and a reusable lander system.

* EML-1 / EML-2 offer great staging areas for exploration missions beyond Earth's gravity well.

* SEL-2 also offers very valuable options for staging missions headed out into the deeper solar system.

Having the capability to deliver large quantities of propellant to any of these locations opens the door to new architectural options we can exploit in the future.   That's always a good thing to keep in mind while we are essentially developing the initial "highway system" here - which is what I see as the true underlying purpose of the VSE/USSEP.

Tethers, SEP and Ion propulsion all offer interesting technology paths for these architecture growth options and they should all be pursued and allowed to mature.   It would be nice to have the available funding to do so though.   I don't see that happening with Ares in the mix though. This is a specific area where having 1 launcher, not 2, makes a lot more sense.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 04/07/2008 09:35 PM
Quote

Yes.   A single Jupiter-232 has approximately 80% of the "throw" capability of Ares-V.   It can do almost everything Ares-V is planned to do, and if there's a shortfall you can fly one extra flight every four to make up the difference.

One extra flight every few years is a lot more economically sound than spending $15bn extra in development and another $1.2bn every year.

And once we do get the Propellant Depot architecture up and running it raises the theoretical limit for each Lunar Lander (lifted dry on a single J-232) to around 180-200mT!   The real limit is ultimately defined by how much fuel you can afford to lift.

Ross.

Hi Ross,
Would the same upper stage be used for single lauch cargo only as it would for dual launch? developing multiple upper stages would increase development cost and would provide a reason not to support direct. I've seen graphics of Diret with a large number of upper stage varieties. this worries me a bit.

Nathan.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 09:59 PM
Nathan,
We're baselining for a single Upper Stage only.

Using the Lockheed Martin WBC (or Boeing ACES for that matter) Upper Stage the difference in mass between a stage optimized for dry Cargo carrying vs. a stage optimized for propellant Cargo carrying is pretty small - just a couple of mT difference.

Our opinion is that it isn't worthwhile developing multiple stages for that sort of small gain.   We'd rather throw that sort of 'big money' into something more effective instead.


There have been multiple stage designs through the course of DIRECT's evolution over the last two years because we haven't closed the door on any options until we've had a specific reason to close it.   We don't like taking options off the table completely.   That and whenever we make a change to the system we spend time to optimize the configuration to get the best performance out of it.   The J-232's Upper Stage has gone through a series of evolutions along the development cycle so far, and will likely see yet more changes before we're done :)

The key though, is that we like the fundamental flexibility in the system.   While we have a baseline (consisting of just Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232) which we believe can do everything on the list of requirements for the next 12-20 years or more, there *are* alternatives within the architecture which might be suitable if the requirements were ever to change.

The design approach can support a wide variety of options *if* there is any worthwhile purpose for them.   What you normally see us talking about here on NSF is usually just the "best fit" for the current set of requirements.   We then throw in a sprinkle of the 'options' just to demonstrate that we aren't tied to any single solution - that there are more options available beyond our baseline proposal.


For example, while we are not actually proposing these options be built, there are *potential* situations where it might become economical to consider the Jupiter-221 or 231 configurations for example.   They work very economically indeed as 1-launch Lunar solutions if all your propellant is being delivered to an awaiting Depot by a large number of foreign partners - a scenario we hope will become a reality one day, but which we are not banking upon.

Also *potentially* if there were ever a specific requirement which demanded a 150mT or 180mT lifter (although I can't think of any off the top of my head) then there are Core and Upper Stage combinations which we can implement to get us there such as the Jupiter-254 Heavy.

Those are just *potential* options though.   We just aren't recommending them as optimal for our current  requirements.


But for now, our baseline only consists of the Core vehicle (Jupiter-120) with a single upgrade of an Upper Stage (making it into a Jupiter-232).   This Upper Stage is carefully optimized for the maximum possible delivery of propellant to LEO because that's the most demanding aspect of the architecture.   This same stage design is then re-used for the crew flight where it doesn't have to be quite so optimally suited - it's close, but not quite optimal.

This chosen approach keeps development and operations costs to a minimum yet maximizes the performance of the 1-vehicle, 2-launch Lunar architecture we are proposing and also provides an much earlier and very cost-effective means to convert Shuttle into a new system to close the "gap" after the Orbiter's are retired.


In addition, the exact same Upper Stage can also fully support the 1-launch solution we envision if/when we get the Propellant Depot operational and have international partnerships to fill it up.

The same Upper Stage can form the basis of the Propellant Depot too.

The same Upper Stage can also form the basis for a very effective Mars architecture too.   We have 4-, 5- and 6-launch architectures mapped out in rough already, although they work best with once you have the Propellant Depot systems.


Therefore we believe that this particular baseline solution of a single Upper Stage works extremely well for all these different scenario's.   We don't foresee any requirement for additional elements beyond this which will be needed to fulfill all the current LEO, Lunar or Mars applications.   If something new did crop-up though, we have done our homework sufficiently that we are confident we have flexibility enough to face any new challenges.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/07/2008 10:24 PM
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  4:47 PM
{snip}

On the other hand, it doesn't take us towards reusable architectures, which might be desirable if ISRU becomes an option.
{snip}

Refuelling the lander at a propellant depot goes a long way to producing a reusable architecture.  Design the ascent stage to be reusable.  We may be able to make fuel and fuel tanks on the Moon but it is going to be a long time before engines can be made there.  So a partially expendable descent stage may be simpler.

A reusable rocket that carries both landing and ascent fuel will be enormous.  A sling may be a better way of getting ISRU propellant to the depot than a rocket.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 10:27 PM
Vacuum.Head,
I would recommend that you post your 'radical ideas' in its own thread here in the "Alternative Exploration" section of the forum.

Begin slow and as simple as you can.   Lay out the basic reasoning behind your thinking and lay out the broad strokes of what you're proposing.   Then fill in the blanks of the basic idea as it begins to be discussed.

Its very difficult to get across any sort of highly technical ideas immediately in one hit.   Trust me :)

You often need a simple "primer" to get people initially to think along the direction you're after.   Once you have people interested and considering the issue, then that is the time when you can cover the solution and only once you have that can you hope to begin to get more technical details across.

Just a suggestion :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Vacuum.Head on 04/07/2008 11:29 PM
Thank you Ross! We shall see :-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: strip mine the moon on 04/08/2008 12:20 AM
Crasher stage?  Why not have a crew lander(s) that lands a crew only.  Then land the cargo/habitat on a its own dedicated lander.  The crew lander would carry a beacon device that would allow the cargo/habitat to make its own initial approach.  The crew lander would handle the final approach.    The crew lander could be smaller aka Apollo.  Cargo/habitat lander has to be similar in mass to a crasher stage.  One advantage is that the cargo/habitat doesn't get fried when the ascent stage of the crew lander goes back up.  This gives you a habitat to visit over and over, assuming you can restock it.  Just a thought.  Hate to see things trashed or filled with trash and deorbited.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Cale on 04/08/2008 12:35 AM
Dear Ross & Chuck,

Having been a big fan of Orbiter Space Simulator for a few years, I stumbled upon Antonio's Direct v.01 addon and was very impressed.  In his readme file, he referred to your real-life proposal.  I've read it and have been blown away.  I won't try to go too much into superlatives; suffice to say that I pray that smarter minds prevail and your proposal (which is infinitely more sensible and realistic than the current Ares I/Ares V approach) comes to fruition.  Alas, I'm Canadian and don't have a congresscritter or senator to write.

I do have a question regarding the proposal.  In the Lunar Architectural studies, you mention an Apollo 8 style mission.  I completely agree with your assemssment that such a mission could indeed recapture the public's attention and fascination.  I wasn't too sure in looking at the loadout for such a proposed mission (some of the images from the PDF I downloaded didn't print very well):

1.)  Would it use a 2-engine or 3-engine CCB?
2.)  Would the EDS have 1 or 2 engines?
3.) Would the EDS be jettisoned after TLI?  Based on the current specs I've seen for Orion, it has a max delta V of ~1800 m/s.  This seems tight for the CEV to do both LOI and TEI.  One of the key arguments for switching to the JLS would that it would allow for a more robust, lunar-capable CEV.  Does your proposal base this proposed mission on updated specs?

The reasons for my curiosity is twofold.  One, just personal interest.  Plus, I've been playing around with Antonio's addon and have constructed a scenario that includes a one-engine EDS on top of a Jupiter 120 (think that makes the entire stack a Jupiter 221) and want to see if I can do it "by the book" as much as possible.

I wish you gents the best of luck in convincing the higher-ups at NASA and Congress in re-evaluating the current planned implementation of the VSE.

Respectfully,

Cale Nicholson
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/08/2008 12:55 AM
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  5:22 PM

A J-232 can deliver a tether system of about 130 tons (including ET as counter mass). Assuming the same ratio, we have about a 15 ton capability. That makes Falcon 9 a bit light weight at 10.5 tons, especially given the need for a plane change to an equatorial orbit. (So would be launched from Kwajein or Kouranu, or both).

A Zenith sea launch might also be an option, though the launch rate would be difficult.

Though of course, if a J-232 really can deliver 100 tons of fuel to LEO for $200 million, then a tether may not be financially viable. (A SEP reusable upper stage might still be).

Zenith is not viable.  US gov't can't use it.

Question still stands, why just Spacex?  They haven't even launched one yet.  They haven't proven capable of doing the mission
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: osiris on 04/08/2008 01:32 AM
Ross & others,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

René
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/08/2008 02:10 AM
Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  10:15 PM

Quote
Lampyridae - 6/4/2008  8:45 PM

Bienvenu au NSF, René!

I'm not part of DIRECT but these are commonly asked questions so I'll just answer them for you as best I can (apologies for assumptions and mistakes... :P )...(SNIP)

All correct as far as I can tell, thanks for the summary while I was away.

Although I would alter the Obama/Clinton thing.

I'm not writing either of them off as potential DIRECT supporters yet.   We are beginning to make inroads to both their campaigns and I think they're both quite open to realistic options for reducing the cost and schedule for Shuttle's replacement as long as it also protects the voting workforce.   9,000 votes has to be worth a few seconds sound-bite! :)

Ross.

Hmmm, I had written off both the Dems but I'm sure Obama could make a U-turn (he is after all, a politician). Good to hear you are making progress with them! Now if I was voting, it would come down to the really important things... like which one has a 5 o'clock shadow during the big debate...

Seeing as how Florida's often been a deciding vote, I think it would be good to sweeten the NASA crowd, plus a larger number of "vacuum heads" out there, although they're not conveniently located in one state that could go either way... and let's not forget that most of those 9 000 workers will have spouses that can vote as well!

Quote
By all accounts ATK are really trying to make a commercial launcher out of Ares-I.

Ah hah... I thought their COTS proposal looked a little too familiar!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/08/2008 02:17 AM
Quote
Cale - 7/4/2008  8:35 PM

Dear Ross & Chuck,

Having been a big fan of Orbiter Space Simulator for a few years, I stumbled upon Antonio's Direct v.01 addon and was very impressed....(SNIP)

Glad you found it and enjoyed it.   We were amazed at Antonio's work when we first saw it too.   Since then he has continually provided us with endless brilliant artwork to benefit the DIRECT effort.   I know he has been working on an update for Orbiter recently, but computer issues have been slowing his work up a bit.

A Jupiter-221, as you correctly identify it, with an optimized EDS should be more than capable of launching an Orion to the moon.   It should have considerably more impetus than is actually needed.

We are actually working on a configuration whereby we launch a human-rated Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage inside the PLF under the CEV to accomplish this mission even before the EDS is ready to fly.   We're aiming for the year immediately following Orion becoming operational - December 2013 would be really special being the 45th Anniversary of the original Apollo 8 mission.

As you've already noticed, the Orion's dV budget is indeed very tight for this mission.

We know the configuration can achieve at least a highly elliptical Lunar Orbit with this, but we're still fine-tuning whether we can get it down into circular, or even near-circular Low Lunar Orbit.

The full-size Jupiter EDS would have sufficient propellant to perform (most of) the LOI as well - just as long as the J-2X can be restarted a sufficient number of times.   Watch this space for an announcement whenever we finalize this mission profile - its coming.

If you have a go at the Delta-IV variant of this mission and get it working, make sure to take notes.   They might give us some interesting pointers for the real analysis :)   Antonio has previously done quite a few "Beta-Test" profiles for the team using Orbiter.   It's a pretty good simulator for early testing of the practicality of ideas like this.

BTW, Antonio is here on this forum too.   He can probably answer any detailed questions you may have about implementing the DIRECT Orbiter addon - although you probably ought to start a "DIRECT in Orbiter" thread of some sort for that discussion.

Thanks for your support,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/08/2008 02:22 AM
Quote
osiris - 7/4/2008  9:32 PM

Ross & others,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

René, its a pleasure.   We *try* to answer most questions if we can.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/08/2008 03:32 AM
Quote
kraisee - 8/4/2008  3:17 AM

We know the configuration can achieve at least a highly elliptical Lunar Orbit with this, but we're still fine-tuning whether we can get it down into circular, or even near-circular Low Lunar Orbit.

High Lunar Orbit will work providing you find something to photograph.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/08/2008 06:57 AM
Quote
Jim - 7/4/2008  7:55 PM

Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  5:22 PM

A J-232 can deliver a tether system of about 130 tons (including ET as counter mass). Assuming the same ratio, we have about a 15 ton capability. That makes Falcon 9 a bit light weight at 10.5 tons, especially given the need for a plane change to an equatorial orbit. (So would be launched from Kwajein or Kouranu, or both).

A Zenith sea launch might also be an option, though the launch rate would be difficult.

Though of course, if a J-232 really can deliver 100 tons of fuel to LEO for $200 million, then a tether may not be financially viable. (A SEP reusable upper stage might still be).

Zenith is not viable.  US gov't can't use it.

Question still stands, why just Spacex?  They haven't even launched one yet.  They haven't proven capable of doing the mission

At the moment, Zenith, Proton are the lowest cost operators. Spacex is expected to join them. Based on the costs of Directs, even with a tether, Atlas and Delta are probably too expensive.

US Government can use them all. Just won't.

It's a bit like some Westerner who only buys products made in his country. His choice to pay double, his stupidity. (Unless you take the view that NASA is not there to explore, boldly go etc, but to dish out pork and create state employment :) )


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/08/2008 11:54 AM
Quote
alexterrell - 8/4/2008  2:57 AM

At the moment, Zenith, Proton are the lowest cost operators. Spacex is expected to join them. Based on the costs of Directs, even with a tether, Atlas and Delta are probably too expensive.

US Government can use them all. Just won't.

It's a bit like some Westerner who only buys products made in his country. His choice to pay double, his stupidity.



Wrong.  US Gov't  (not just NASA) can't use Zeniths or Proton.  It is against the Commercial Space Act (a law).  Know what you are talking about before making statements.  

"Probably too expensive"  That doesn't cut it.   Use factsbefore making statements.

Spacex is "expected" to join them.  Spacex is not pregnant.   It is not a sure thing.  Why isn't the same thing said the Tesla electric car.   Isn't it going to take out Ford and GM?

Look in the mirror first before calling "some" Westerns stupid.   There are reasons for such laws.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 04/08/2008 01:24 PM
It is in my opinion that Direct could become the Soyuz of the future.  The workhorse of future Moon and Mars missions.  If it is ever implemented.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/08/2008 10:50 PM
Quote
Jim - 8/4/2008  6:54 AM

Quote
alexterrell - 8/4/2008  2:57 AM

At the moment, Zenith, Proton are the lowest cost operators. Spacex is expected to join them. Based on the costs of Directs, even with a tether, Atlas and Delta are probably too expensive.

US Government can use them all. Just won't.

It's a bit like some Westerner who only buys products made in his country. His choice to pay double, his stupidity.



Wrong.  US Gov't  (not just NASA) can't use Zeniths or Proton.  It is against the Commercial Space Act (a law).  Know what you are talking about before making statements.  

"Probably too expensive"  That doesn't cut it.   Use factsbefore making statements.

Spacex is "expected" to join them.  Spacex is not pregnant.   It is not a sure thing.  Why isn't the same thing said the Tesla electric car.   Isn't it going to take out Ford and GM?

Look in the mirror first before calling "some" Westerns stupid.   There are reasons for such laws.


A bit off topic - should have said USA can but won't use them. Last time I checked, the USA was a sovereign state allowed to make its own laws. If the USA prefers that NASA be first and foremost an employment agency, then that's the choice of the USA. A European country on the other hand would not have this choice, being bound by supra-national laws.

There are no facts on costs yet, so we can't use them. What would Boeing charge in a competitive tender for 24 Delta IV launches over a 2 year period?

Apart from Musk, Tesla has no similarities to Spacex. Tesla will have as much impact on GM and Ford as internet retailers had on Walmart and Macys. Falcon 1/9 are surer things than Ares I/V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 04/09/2008 12:46 PM
Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  6:55 AM

iii) Oh boy.   *Big* subject this.   And complicated by "1-vehicle, 2-launch" solution we're employing compatred to the "2-vehicle, 2 launch" solution employed by Ares.   Ours shares a lot more of its operational costs between our two configurations of the same vehicle compared to Ares' two completely different vehicles - so we're always going to be cheaper.   Here are the details:

Ares-I:
Development: ~$14,400m
Fixed: $800m/year.
Variable: $130m/flight @ 1 per year, $105m/flight @ 4 per year.

Ares-V:
Development: ~$15,000m
Fixed: $2,000m/year.
Variable: $240m+90m (for the EDS)/flight @ 1 per year, $194m+$73m/flight @ 4 per year

Jupiter-120:
Development: ~$9,500m
Fixed: $900m/year.
Variable: $140m/flight @ 1 per year, $113m/flight @ 4 per year, $102m/flight @ 8 per year

Jupiter-232: (J-120 has already paid Fixed Costs for SRB + Core, so just add EDS + 1 more RS-68):
Development: ~$4,000m
Fixed: $800m/year
Variable: $110m/flight @ 1 per year, $93m/flight @ 4 per year

Thus the baseline of: 2 ISS per year + 2 Lunar Crew per year + 2 Lunar Cargo per year total up to:-

Ares: $29.4bn Development (non-recurring). $2,800m Fixed, $1,488m Variable = $4,288m per year (recurring).
DIRECT: $13.5bn Development (non-recurring). $1,700m Fixed, $1,374m Variable = $3,074m per year (recurring).

Difference: $15.9bn Development (non-recurring).   $1.214bn per year (recurring).

Ross.

Ross,

Due to workload and personal difficulties such as my parents declining health, I have not kept up with the forum this year and I am just now catching up.  There has been a lot of great discussion.  

I put the above numbers in a spreadsheet and all of my calculations matched yours except for Direct's $1,374m Variable cost for the baseline of 2 ISS per year + 2 Lunar Crew per year + 2 Lunar Cargo per year.  I tried several combinations but could never get the $1,374m Variable cost.  I am sure that I have a misconception or wrong number somewhere.  Could you break that one out in more detail please?

CSJ
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/09/2008 01:17 PM
Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  4:49 PM

I would *LOVE* to engage Dr. Zubrin in a deep discussion of how to make our systems viable with his, but given that we're a bit of a hot potato currently I understand if he wishes to keep out of this for now.

But something behind the scenes would be well worthwhile for our 2008 AIAA paper - which is already well underway.   It going to focus upon Mars and the reverse-engineered architecture for the moon which will act as an "analogue" for those later missions.

Zubrin's skills and the whole Mars Society skill-base would be *amazingly* valuable if we can put it together with a 100mT launch system along with Propellant Depot facilities in LEO (at least).



Ross.

Guess what...

The Mars Society is pleased to announce the addition of Dr. Scott Horowitz and Richard Heidmann to our Board of Directors. These two distinguished gentleman will join an already prestigious Board that includes Dr. Robert Zubrin, Dr. Penelope Boston, and Declan O'Donnell.

"I am very happy that Doc Horowitz and Richard Heidmann have agreed to join our board," said Zubrin. "With the help of these two talented and accomplished individuals, we will be able to make major breakthroughs towards advancing the cause of human Mars exploration."




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/09/2008 01:39 PM
Quote
Nathan - 8/4/2008  12:35 AM

Quote

Yes.   A single Jupiter-232 has approximately 80% of the "throw" capability of Ares-V.   It can do almost everything Ares-V is planned to do, and if there's a shortfall you can fly one extra flight every four to make up the difference.

One extra flight every few years is a lot more economically sound than spending $15bn extra in development and another $1.2bn every year.

And once we do get the Propellant Depot architecture up and running it raises the theoretical limit for each Lunar Lander (lifted dry on a single J-232) to around 180-200mT!   The real limit is ultimately defined by how much fuel you can afford to lift.

Ross.

Hi Ross,
Would the same upper stage be used for single lauch cargo only as it would for dual launch? developing multiple upper stages would increase development cost and would provide a reason not to support direct. I've seen graphics of Diret with a large number of upper stage varieties. this worries me a bit.

Nathan.

The same question goes for LSAM/Altair. Would a unique lander design lend itself to triple uses ? (single launch - dual launch - re-fuel at depot)

ESAS's 1.5 architecture is flexible. Single Ares V - Altair - cargo only. Dual launch Ares I/V for manned mission. Both types of mission use a single unique lander design- just the payload is different: ascent module plus single digit tonnes cargo (I/V), or double digit tonnes cargo only (V).

IMHO.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/09/2008 03:17 PM
Quote
alexterrell - 8/4/2008  6:50 PM

1.  If the USA prefers that NASA be first and foremost an employment agency, then that's the choice of the USA. A European country on the other hand would not have this choice, being bound by supra-national laws.

2. There are no facts on costs yet, so we can't use them. What would Boeing charge in a competitive tender for 24 Delta IV launches over a 2 year period?

.

1,  Again, it is the US gov't (DOD, NRO, NOAA, etc) and not just NASA that can't use Zenith and Proton.

2.  It doesn't matter because spacex can't launch that many
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/10/2008 04:10 AM
Quote
renclod - 9/4/2008  9:39 AM

The same question goes for LSAM/Altair. Would a unique lander design lend itself to triple uses ? (single launch - dual launch - re-fuel at depot)

For DIRECT there are a few options.

The Dual launch (w/ CEV) is the default.   The closest pure cargo option would actually be a dual launch solution still.

A single J-232 launch would be about 80% that of an Ares-V in all aspects including mass on the lunar surface.   The LSAM would need to be scaled to suit to get optimum performance though, so this would no longer be ideal for the 2-launch solution...

There are a number of options.   An LSAM suitable for both missions could be designed with optional tanks and optional engines - but that would be an expensive option to pursue.

One approach we've been looking at is the Crasher Stage though.   Both missions could be supported by simply varying the size of the Crasher element.   Barrel stretches to the tanking would be the only required changes to support virtually any realistic configuration.

This approach actually allows for a fairly huge variance in LSAM size.   It can theoretically support both single and dual launch options, perhaps even three-launch for *really* big payloads.   The key to making that work would be having an engine with deep cycle capability able to support the largest planned mission.   The same engines would be operated below max for many instances, but operating an engine below maximum stress levels is not a bad thing! :)

I'll try to get some drawings and numbers put together soon, but I've got my hands full with other things right now so please be patient.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/10/2008 04:20 AM
Quote
renclod - 9/4/2008  9:17 AM

The Mars Society is pleased to announce the addition of Dr. Scott Horowitz ... to our Board of Directors.

Great.   Just the right person to be advising Zubrin.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/10/2008 07:29 AM
Quote
kraisee - 9/4/2008  11:10 PM

This approach actually allows for a fairly huge variance in LSAM size.   It can theoretically support both single and dual launch options, perhaps even three-launch for *really* big payloads.   The key to making that work would be having an engine with deep cycle capability able to support the largest planned mission.   The same engines would be operated below max for many instances, but operating an engine below maximum stress levels is not a bad thing! :)

I'll try to get some drawings and numbers put together soon, but I've got my hands full with other things right now so please be patient.

Ross.

I suppose the limit is a fully fueled LSAM plus cargo needs to mass less than the J-232 launch load, which would imply 50 tons of cargo at least.

I look forward to the figures / drawings.

Cargo is very important if the aim is a lunar base. If however, the aim is to undertake Apollo 18, 19, 20 etc, then cargo is relatively unimportant. I'm still not sure what the aim is.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rsp1202 on 04/10/2008 01:19 PM
Quote
kraisee - 9/4/2008  9:20 PM

Quote
renclod - 9/4/2008  9:17 AM

The Mars Society is pleased to announce the addition of Dr. Scott Horowitz ... to our Board of Directors.

Great.   Just the right person to be advising Zubrin.

If there was only some way to get him on board the Chinese program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 04/10/2008 09:01 PM
Chuck asked me to move this question about the Commercial Ares-1 vehicle to this thread:

Ok, ok, This not conspiracy talk, and I am not attempting to change this into a DIRECT thread,.. buuuuut, If you will just bear with me because I honestly don't know the answer. Would ATK stand to make more money with the 5, 5,5, 6 Segment SRB R&D development through the Ares program, plus the Commercial launch market,.. OR ... Would they be more profitable with the published Jupiter Series flight rate of the Standard 4-Segment SRB?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/10/2008 09:08 PM
Quote
Pheogh - 10/4/2008  5:01 PM

Chuck asked me to move this question about the Commercial Ares-1 vehicle to this thread:

Ok, ok, This not conspiracy talk, and I am not attempting to change this into a DIRECT thread,.. buuuuut, If you will just bear with me because I honestly don't know the answer. Would ATK stand to make more money with the 5, 5,5, 6 Segment SRB R&D development through the Ares program, plus the Commercial launch market,.. OR ... Would they be more profitable with the published Jupiter Series flight rate of the Standard 4-Segment SRB?
We have actually looked at this and over the long haul, because of the anticipated flight rate based on using Jupiter in lieu of Ares-I, ATK would make more money servicing the 4-segment RSRB for the Jupiter than they would on the 5-segment RSRB for Ares-I. Of course, the ATK executives would need to be willing to set aside their big bonus for developing the 5-segment booster if it were actually halted. But there remains the possibility that the 5-segment development effort could get so far down the line that it becomes more appropriate for DIRECT to incorporate it instead of shutting it down. That decision would be based entirely on political concerns and ATK's development schedule. If that were to happen, ATK would make even more money with the Jupiter than with the Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/11/2008 02:50 AM
Quote
alexterrell - 10/4/2008  3:29 AM

I suppose the limit is a fully fueled LSAM plus cargo needs to mass less than the J-232 launch load, which would imply 50 tons of cargo at least.

Works best with Propellant Depot.

That limit becomes 108mT *dry* spacecraft mass then.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/11/2008 02:58 AM
Quote
alexterrell - 10/4/2008  3:29 AM

Cargo is very important if the aim is a lunar base. If however, the aim is to undertake Apollo 18, 19, 20 etc, then cargo is relatively unimportant. I'm still not sure what the aim is.

Yes, it does seem pretty hazy right now.

I can't speak for NASA, but here is what we propose:   Starting around 2018 we begin a 5-year concerted effort to try to land as many cargo modules as we can, in order to build a viable habitat on the Lunar surface.   DIRECT can afford 6 Lunar missions per year for Ares' cost of just 2 missions.   That's about 20 Cargo-only missions (full 2-launch size) plus 10 Crew/Cargo missions in that 5 year period - that's an awful lot of hardware and exploration we can do relatively quickly.

20 Cargo-only missions should be more than sufficient to build a fairly descent outpost.   As soon as that is completed, we would begin to scale-back the Lunar efforts by re-directing all the experienced Lunar hardware development teams to the Mars effort - aiming for a Mars Mission attempt around 2031.

During the 'scale-back', we would assume Lunar flight rate would reduce to 2 crew rotations to the Lunar surface per year, with 1-2 cargo missions to support them.   Hopefully we can encourage International Partnerships to help offset some of the costs too, but we aren't banking upon it - just to be safe.

Somewhere around 2031 we send our first crewed Mars mission - while continuing our exploration of the moon - albeit at a slower pace for a time.

The Mars technologies also allow us to explore other targets too - such as NEO's.   We can then begin a regular (1 per year or so) long-duration mission program over time visiting lots of interesting sites.

But essentially once all the development work is finally scaled back (mid 2030's), having achieved the realistic goals of the VSE, we would then have sufficient monies to be able to sustain a very robust human exploration program regularly visiting the moon, Mars and a good number of NEO's all at the same time.

This, to me, seems to be an effective way to create mankind's first-generation "highway network" infrastructure enabling robust human expansion beyond this biosphere to a variety of useful destinations.

The development monies, now free'd up after creating the Mars/NEO capability, could then be turned to a variety of possible purposes around 2035-40.   My personal preference would be to seriously begin utilizing the vast resources then made available to us in all *three* destination programs.

That's what our budget forecasts allow DIRECT to do with only an inflationary increase to NASA's budget every year.   I've seen NASA's costings, and I'm 100% convinced the Ares solution couldn't possibly hope to afford anything like the same though.   DIRECT allows this effort to encompass the Moon and Mars and NEO's - not "or".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/11/2008 07:19 AM
Hmm, this gets more and more interesting. I wonder what a Jupiter mission launched by Jupiter rockets could be like? Ironically it would directly leverage off a lot of lunar experience, and ISRU on Callisto would be a doddle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/11/2008 12:43 PM
Just for S&G’s I took a few minutes yesterday to go back and listen to President Bush’s speech on January 14, 2004, when he announced the VSE. He very specifically spoke about spacecraft for planetary missions being “assembled on and launched from” the moon in order to avoid the expense of climbing up earth’s gravity well every time for every mission. But I have seen nothing of this in CxP releases. I bring this up because the last few posts have nibbled around the edges of transitioning from a lunar to a Mars centric architecture in terms of how many lunar missions per year considering Jupiter vs. Ares launches.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/11/2008 03:49 PM
Chuck,

If the objective is to build an industrial base on the moon capable of assembling and launching large complex spacecraft from the moon, then it will be in the next century before we get to mars and not in current year + 30.  Of course, perhaps I am misinterpeting this as "building", but in either case we will have to lift components, tools, etc from earth to the moon, so I don't see the short term value.  Long term perhaps.  But in the short term, its easier to launch from earth and go DIRECT to Mars.  
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/11/2008 03:55 PM
Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008  11:49 AM

Chuck,

If the objective is to build an industrial base on the moon capable of assembling and launching large complex spacecraft from the moon, then it will be in the next century before we get to mars and not in current year + 30.  Of course, perhaps I am misinterpeting this as "building", but in either case we will have to lift components, tools, etc from earth to the moon, so I don't see the short term value.  Long term perhaps.  But in the short term, its easier to launch from earth and go DIRECT to Mars.  
Mike,
I’m not suggesting that is what we should do. All I am saying is that is what the President actually said. I only mentioned it because of the direction the conversation was heading and wanted to see if anyone else had noticed that and was wondering how others viewed his statement in light of the desire to use the moon as a way-stop vs. an assembly and launching location. Personally, I do not support such a scheme in the near term.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/11/2008 05:15 PM
Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008  10:49 AM

Chuck,

If the objective is to build an industrial base on the moon capable of assembling and launching large complex spacecraft from the moon, then it will be in the next century before we get to mars and not in current year + 30.  Of course, perhaps I am misinterpeting this as "building", but in either case we will have to lift components, tools, etc from earth to the moon, so I don't see the short term value.  Long term perhaps.  But in the short term, its easier to launch from earth and go DIRECT to Mars.  
I assume whoever wrote that speach knows that. What I suspect he means is a middle ground of launching LOx, and maybe Hydrogen, to L1 and then staging the mission at L1.

I'd actually argue that even in its almost literal sense (build an industrial base on the moon capable of supporting the creation of large Mars ships in Earth orbit), this would be a faster way to Mars colonisation than Mars Direct, based on Directs v2.0 architecture.

Of course, for Mars flags and footprints, the moon is a waste of time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/11/2008 05:19 PM

Chuck,

 <sigh> It seems I frequently misinterpet what you reference vice what you mean.  Sorry.  I think that such a capability is possible, on the other hand, you don't see an industrial base being emplaced in Antarctica which is pretty remote by itself.  :)

 Mike

 

Quote
clongton - 11/4/2008 11:55 AM
Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008 11:49 AM Chuck, If the objective is to build an industrial base on the moon capable of assembling and launching large complex spacecraft from the moon, then it will be in the next century before we get to mars and not in current year + 30. Of course, perhaps I am misinterpeting this as "building", but in either case we will have to lift components, tools, etc from earth to the moon, so I don't see the short term value. Long term perhaps. But in the short term, its easier to launch from earth and go DIRECT to Mars.
Mike, I’m not suggesting that is what we should do. All I am saying is that is what the President actually said. I only mentioned it because of the direction the conversation was heading and wanted to see if anyone else had noticed that and was wondering how others viewed his statement in light of the desire to use the moon as a way-stop vs. an assembly and launching location. Personally, I do not support such a scheme in the near term.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/11/2008 05:22 PM

I don't think Flags and Footprints is a wrong thing to do, provided it is undertaken as a part of a rational expansion.

 To me, Flags and Footprints = reconnaissance, like Amundson and Perry's trips to the south pole.

Next, establishment of outposts, expanding to science stations.  Finally, as resources are found and methods made to extract them, and, preferably, manufacture of products or exploitation of resources to trade with Earth, will then foster the ability to drive an economy in space.

I think for the foreseeable future, the best we will be able to get to is outposts/science stations.  An interplanetary economy is far off.

I worry about the Viking Syndrome.

Mike 

 

 

Quote
alexterrell - 11/4/2008 1:15 PM
Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008 10:49 AM Chuck, If the objective is to build an industrial base on the moon capable of assembling and launching large complex spacecraft from the moon, then it will be in the next century before we get to mars and not in current year + 30. Of course, perhaps I am misinterpeting this as "building", but in either case we will have to lift components, tools, etc from earth to the moon, so I don't see the short term value. Long term perhaps. But in the short term, its easier to launch from earth and go DIRECT to Mars.
I assume whoever wrote that speach knows that. What I suspect he means is a middle ground of launching LOx, and maybe Hydrogen, to L1 and then staging the mission at L1. I'd actually argue that even in its almost literal sense (build an industrial base on the moon capable of supporting the creation of large Mars ships in Earth orbit), this would be a faster way to Mars colonisation than Mars Direct, based on Directs v2.0 architecture. Of course, for Mars flags and footprints, the moon is a waste of time.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 04/11/2008 05:28 PM
Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008  12:22 PM

I don't think Flags and Footprints is a wrong thing to do, provided it is undertaken as a part of a rational expansion.

 To me, Flags and Footprints = reconnaissance, like Amundson and Perry's trips to the south pole.

Next, establishment of outposts, expanding to science stations.  Finally, as resources are found and methods made to extract them, and, preferably, manufacture of products or exploitation of resources to trade with Earth, will then foster the ability to drive an economy in space.

I think for the foreseeable future, the best we will be able to get to is outposts/science stations.  An interplanetary economy is far off.

I worry about the Viking

Quote

Key question is - do you need manned flight for reconnaissance?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/11/2008 10:02 PM
My personal opinion is that we do need to develop ISRU technologies, but that we should have the capability to go on even if they prove so difficult and expensive when we finally do try them, that they are deemed untenable.

The Mars Direct approach of catalyzing the atmosphere for the return propellant looks to be simple enough that it will likely be a workable technology.   As long as the cost/mass for it doesn't kill the idea it should be considered for Mars missions.

But mining the Lunar regolith for oxygen or other materials is a long way from being proven so far.   We haven't ever mined anything.   We have never tried separating such materials in space.   We have never tried processing and refining those materials in space either.   There are a lot of high cost developments going to be needed before the moon is going to release her resources to us in useful quantities - by which I mean quantities measured in tons per year to Lunar Orbit.

We need to begin this process as soon as possible, so we can begin learning what we need to learn though.   We need precursor ISRU missions in the manifest IMHO.   A handful of different vying technologies all given the opportunity to prove their value.   From there NASA can budget for a larger scale solution.   And from those tests, eventually, NASA can hopefully settle on an architecture and a specification fof the heavy equipment which needs to be lofted to the moon - assuming the cost structure does not end up being prohibitive of course.

IMHO, this is an area where a Commercial Operator would actually do better than NASA.   NASA should perform the tests, get the hard data results and then hand the operational aspects to some sort of "Bigelow"-like operation who take that knowledge and run with it commercially.

But I don't see this happening overnight.   I see lots of maintenance issues for such hardware (when we the last time you saw a mine on Earth that didn't require extensive routine maintenance work? Does anyone realistically expect a maintenance-free solution?).   I therefore see a permanently staffed outpost of some sorts will be a requirement in order to perform that maintenance at the very least.   Not yet mentioning maintenance of the launchers used to deliver propellant to orbit too.

This is going to be a big and quite expensive operation far exceeding the size and scope of "sortie" missions or even the scientific outpost NASA has been proposing - but which is no longer being funded BTW - though that's a topic for a different thread I think.

I believe that Lunar, Martian and asteroid ISRU capabilities will be needed for the long-term exploration, exploitation and colonization of our solar system and the sooner we can get these capabilities on-line the better.   But we have to start slow and build up to these heavy-industry capabilities and not expect them to magically appear overnight.   This is going to take a lot of planning and work to get anywhere near to a useful capability even in the medium-term of this program - especially at current funding levels.

All we are working on right now are the initial exploration moves.   The infrastructure follows behind this push.   But this push has to happen or the infrastructure will never come.   So our most important goal is to get these early steps right and allow ourselves to build systems which we can use for a long time to come.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/11/2008 10:12 PM
Key question is - do you need manned flight for reconnaissance?
-----
One percent for me!

Mind the "gap".


I certainly think so.  Even Steve Squyres said what takes his rovers 8 hours to do, a man could do in a minute.  That doesn't mean you can't use robotic probes to conduct pre-recon missions so that you put your manned recon parties in the best places.  And the best way to do that may well be have a manned orbital spacecraft dropping them on the planet so they can be controlled, monitored, and augmented in real time...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/11/2008 10:18 PM
With regard to schemes using estoric means of propulsion (tethers) and talk of lunar/martian bases mining and processing materials and launching them from their surface to do the same with Astroids, my feeling, perhaps foolhardy, is that the average American hears of them, thinks they are harebrained, says those people at NASA are nuts, and chooses not to support the space program.

That same person may well support the program if the program is presented in a rational build up with a series of intermediate steps.

Similary, I believe that these steps, if they last longer than 8 years, are doomed to failure because of the short attention span of the President, congress, and the american people.  You better accomplish the goal within 8 - 10 years, and have a series of these goals to tie them together in a long term plan.  Taking so long to return to the moon, much less go to Mars, will probably fail to garner much support in the long run.

Just my opinion of course.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/11/2008 10:56 PM
Agreed.

Nobody in DC seems interested in anything much beyond the next political cycle.   The funding issues surrounding even the Lunar program is "way out there" to the vast majority of members of Congress.   Only a very small handful are even considering much beyond that.

What they are most interested in right now is a solid solution to close the gap, within the current budget and which doesn't put thousands of American's out of work.

Give them that 3-box solution the way they like it and the rest becomes a sell which you just don't have to really do until some time after 2010.   You must have it planned and in the bag, but you won't actually be asked very much about it.


That essentially means that the #1 priority right now is making the transition from Shuttle to Orion as painless and as fast as possible.

Once you get that approved, phase 2 later-on will be evolving that base into the Lunar architecture.

Once you have secured that funding you will be trying to plan phase 3 where you actually utilize that architecture for a while to make the development worthwhile.

Only then will you really begin to talk about anything beyond the moon in phase 4.

Each of these phases would 'broadly' be considered to fit within a political cycle, one following the next in a series, building upon accomplishments and stretching further with each successive success.   Each is an individual step in the greater path.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/12/2008 06:30 PM
I don't recall where I said I would whip up some drawings to show a notional Crasher Stage, but here is a very quick'n'dirty image to show the approximate arrangement.

It is *very* notional, but should set the stage sufficiently enough to show the option clearly.



Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/13/2008 08:33 AM
Currently testing of the lunar lander and crasher stage are constrained until the large cargo launch (J-232 or Ares-V) vehicles fly.  Some sort of ferry launchable on an EELV (or J-120) would be useful to take an unmanned lander to low lunar orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/13/2008 08:55 AM
Quote
kraisee - 11/4/2008  11:02 PM

My personal opinion is that we do need to develop ISRU technologies, but that we should have the capability to go on even if they prove so difficult and expensive when we finally do try them, that they are deemed untenable.

The Mars Direct approach of catalyzing the atmosphere for the return propellant looks to be simple enough that it will likely be a workable technology.   As long as the cost/mass for it doesn't kill the idea it should be considered for Mars missions.

Getting things to Mars from the Earth is so expensive and uses so much fuel that to produce a net saving any ISRU equipment we send has to be reusable.  That includes the Mars launch vehicle used to carry the fuel from the surface to the fuel depot.  If each of the experimental ISRU equipment, experimental Mars RLV, fuel depot and cargo SEP ferry [Mars version] can all be kept under 45 mT then they can be lifted to LEO by a J-120.  Experimental versions can be smaller than the real ones.

Rather than throw away any say methane produced it could be sent to low lunar orbit for use in moon landing and returning people to Earth.  Methane can also be used at EML2.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/13/2008 09:32 AM

Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008  11:12 PM

Key question is - do you need manned flight for reconnaissance?


That depends on what you mean by reconnaissance.  We can probably have machines on Mars extracting chemicals from Mars's atmosphere.  Interesting to see if they can run unmanned.

If 2CO + O2 = 2CO2 can be turned into ISRU rocket fuel a commercial product may exist.

Machines to process regolith could be tested on the Moon whilst the big rockets needed to get people to the planets is tested.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/13/2008 12:02 PM
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/4/2008  5:32 AM

Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008  11:12 PM

Key question is - do you need manned flight for reconnaissance?


That depends on what you mean by reconnaissance.  We can probably have machines on Mars extracting chemicals from Mars's atmosphere.  Interesting to see if they can run unmanned.

If 2CO + O2 = 2CO2 can be turned into ISRU rocket fuel a commercial product may exist.

Machines to process regolith could be tested on the Moon whilst the big rockets needed to get people to the planets is tested.

Andy,
Any ISRU done on the moon would have no applicability to Mars. The transferability of Lunar ISRU to Martian ISRU is a common misconception. We are dealing with chemical processes that require the same chemicals in both places before it can be transferred. Moon and Mars have different chemical elements in their soil, while the Martian atmosphere and the lunar atmosphere, tenuous as it is, are utterly different. In essence, other than the basic "concept", there isn't anything in lunar ISRU that could be used on Mars.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/13/2008 12:13 PM
Quote
clongton - 13/4/2008  1:02 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/4/2008  5:32 AM

Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008  11:12 PM

Key question is - do you need manned flight for reconnaissance?


That depends on what you mean by reconnaissance.  We can probably have machines on Mars extracting chemicals from Mars's atmosphere.  Interesting to see if they can run unmanned.

If 2CO + O2 = 2CO2 can be turned into ISRU rocket fuel a commercial product may exist.

Machines to process regolith could be tested on the Moon whilst the big rockets needed to get people to the planets is tested.

Andy,
Any ISRU done on the moon would have no applicability to Mars. The transferability of Lunar ISRU to Martian ISRU is a common misconception. We are dealing with chemical processes that require the same chemicals in both places before it can be transferred. Moon and Mars have different chemical elements in their soil, while the Martian atmosphere and the lunar atmosphere, tenuous as it is, are utterly different. In essence, other than the basic "concept", there isn't anything in lunar ISRU that could be used on Mars.

I have noticed.  This was on the unmanned rather than Moon <=> Mars reuse.

On Mars we make carbon monoxide and oxygen from gasses.

On the Moon we make magnesium, iron and oxygen from solids.

Both experiments can go on whilst the large rockets are being developed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/13/2008 12:40 PM
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/4/2008  7:13 AM

On Mars we make the carbon monoxide and oxygen from gasses.

On the Moon we make magnesium, iron and oxygen from solids.

Both experiments can go on whilst the large rockets are being developed.

It would be good to see some competitions launched followed by some research followed by lunar precursor missions to trial some of the technologies.

Do NASA have a large vacuum chamber with simulated lunar regolith, temperatures, radiation and gravity? (Just kidding on the last one).

These should then lead into precursor missions (seperate thread) testing Lunar diggers, solar towers, bulldozers, and ISRU (Lox production, and if possible, polar water production).

I don't really see a need for more than one manned mission (if that) to the moon before most of the components of a base have been landed and part assembled.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/14/2008 02:55 AM
Quote
kraisee - 13/4/2008  4:30 AM

I don't recall where I said I would whip up some drawings to show a notional Crasher Stage, but here is a very quick'n'dirty image to show the approximate arrangement.

It is *very* notional, but should set the stage sufficiently enough to show the option clearly.

Ross.

I like that approach you took with the LEM design option. You can remove the barrel sections from the lander and use an RL-10 instead for the landing, meaning fewer alterations overall. More options could include using methane / LOX RL-10 for the ascent stage, although that might mean using a common RL-10 engine with different tankage for descent... maybe reducing the height and diameter of the descent stage even more, using the spherical LOX tanks as the basis for the methane. There's some knock-on benefits from that, such as making the stuff easier to store and scavenge, as with all-hypergolic ascent and descent stages.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/14/2008 06:42 AM
You can also change the length of the Crasher Stage using simple barrel stretching techniques to vary the amount of capability it has too.

If you then also combine this with Propellant Depot facilities you essentially make the system unlimited in capability.   As long as the Descent Engine can handle the final mass you can land it.   So we want NASA to *start* out with this in mind, flying a Descent Engine 50% more powerful than initially needed - so the systems doesn't have to be completely redesigned at great cost when we 'up' the capability.   That's actually a great option anyway, because operating an engine at 67% should make it even more reliable - a good feature to have while we're still 'finding our feet' in the early missions.


You can fairly easily put more RL-10's (or even a J-2X) on the Crasher Stage and increase Descent performance in a relatively simple evolutionary step-by-step process over the next 30 years of this program.   The program ends up significantly bigger and more capable than we start out with, but the cost to upgrade is kept small if designed-in from the start like this.

And this approach is *far* more closely related to what we ultimately need to do for Mars missions than the current architecture is...   It would be good learning for us.

A single Jupiter-232 would easily be able to launch the CEV, LSAM and Crasher in a single flight if you fill 'er up at a Depot.


And finally, this completely removes the 4-day EDS/Crew rendezvous limit of the current architecture too.   The crew mission only flies when there's enough propellant waiting for them.   With active cooling on the Depot, you can launch 1, 5 or 30+ days late and have no further concerns.


This is an option which we strongly believe is a *LOT* better than the current architecture.   It's cheaper, simpler and has vastly more growth capability.

We aren't yet including it in our baseline though, because we have a big enough fight on our hands just getting DIRECT accepted :)   But the Jupiter LV is not the be-all and end-all of the larger DIRECT architecture.   Our AIAA paper was designed to give a glimpse of some of the options we create by abandoning the 2-vehicle solution and pursuing a 1-vehicle solution which evolves directly from the existing Shuttle hardware.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/14/2008 09:03 AM
Quote
kraisee - 14/4/2008  9:42 AM

We aren't yet including it in our baseline though, because we have a big enough fight on our hands just getting DIRECT accepted :)   Ross.
So... glimpses aside... what is the "Direct" current architectural baseline ?

I would like to see it in simple terms. NASA current:

1/ Cargo to ISS: COTS; single launch
2/ Crew to ISS: Ares I / Orion; single launch
3/ Cargo to Luna: Ares V / Altair / xx tonnes cargo; single launch
4/ Crew to Luna: Ares I / Orion + Ares V / Altair / Ascent Module / x tonnes cargo; dual launch


"Direct" team's proposal, current (please fill in baseline):
1/
2/
3/
4/

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/14/2008 09:09 AM
Quote
kraisee - 12/4/2008  1:30 PM

I don't recall where I said I would whip up some drawings to show a notional Crasher Stage, but here is a very quick'n'dirty image to show the approximate arrangement.

It is *very* notional, but should set the stage sufficiently enough to show the option clearly.

Ross.

This looks much better, but its still got the payload 6 (?) metres or so off the deck. Would it be worth revisiting the LM proposal for a long thin lander with close to ground level unloading?

For a base (as opposed to Apollo 18 etc), you might expect the first payload to have some sort of fork-lift truck (lowered by built in crane on the first cargo lander?). That would be quite a big forklift truck.

Or maybe some sort of wheeled crane that astronauts assemble? (In 1/6g that might be lighter than a forlift truck).

Or could you fit the landers with ramps? But that would need to be quite a long ramp to climb 6m or so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rsp1202 on 04/14/2008 02:14 PM
Quote
alexterrell - 14/4/2008  2:09 AM
This looks much better, but its still got the payload 6 (?) metres or so off the deck. Would it be worth revisiting the LM proposal for a long thin lander with close to ground level unloading?

I'm watching development of the Mars Science Lab "flying crane" descent stage. Scaled up, it solves some problems with "tall" LM landers -- especially cargo versions -- essentially having to land on a graded parking lot to reduce tip-over. Obviously, unloading becomes easier, too. But the crane design raises certain other concerns.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/14/2008 09:55 PM
Quote
alexterrell - 14/4/2008  5:09 AM

Quote
kraisee - 12/4/2008  1:30 PM

I don't recall where I said I would whip up some drawings to show a notional Crasher Stage, but here is a very quick'n'dirty image to show the approximate arrangement.

It is *very* notional, but should set the stage sufficiently enough to show the option clearly.

Ross.

This looks much better, but its still got the payload 6 (?) metres or so off the deck. Would it be worth revisiting the LM proposal for a long thin lander with close to ground level unloading?

I think the general opinion within NASA is not to take a fresh approach, but is instead to try to replicate the successful approach already proven during Apollo - but with improvements.

This is just an option to make this approach work better.   The question of whether to abandon the proven Apollo style of lander at all is really beyond the scope of what this is doing here.

There are so many powerful pro's and con's involved in such a radical change in approach that we aren't even going to try to get involved in that discussion :)   This is just an option to consider if we continue down the previously successful Apollo path, an option enabled more easily by the DIRECT approach to LV's.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/14/2008 10:13 PM
Quote
renclod - 14/4/2008  5:03 AM

Quote
kraisee - 14/4/2008  9:42 AM

We aren't yet including it in our baseline though, because we have a big enough fight on our hands just getting DIRECT accepted :)   Ross.
So... glimpses aside... what is the "Direct" current architectural baseline ?

I would like to see it in simple terms. NASA current:

1/ Cargo to ISS: COTS; single launch
2/ Crew to ISS: Ares I / Orion; single launch
3/ Cargo to Luna: Ares V / Altair / xx tonnes cargo; single launch
4/ Crew to Luna: Ares I / Orion + Ares V / Altair / Ascent Module / x tonnes cargo; dual launch


Sure...

"Direct" team's proposal, current (please fill in baseline):
1/ Cargo to ISS: Utilize best combination of Progress, ATV, HTV and COTS - all single launch.

2/ Crew to ISS: 2012 - Jupiter-120/Orion (Can carry additional ~20mT payload with every flight) - single launch.

2b/ Crew Luna Flyby: 2013 - Jupiter-120+D-IV-US/Orion - single launch.

2c/ Hubble Servicing Mission #5: 2014 - Jupiter-120/Orion - single launch.

2d/ Mars Sample Return Mission: 2015 - Jupiter-120+D-IV-US - single launch.

3/ Cargo to Luna: 2017 - Jupiter-232/EDS + Jupiter-232/Altair; ~75mT LSAM thru TLI (CxP Target: ~53.6mT, CxP Current: ~41.2mT) - dual launch (smaller single launch also possible w ~42.9mT)

4/ Crew to Luna: 2017 - Jupiter-232/EDS + Jupiter-232/Orion + Altair; ~78.1mT thru TLI (CxP Target: 75.1mT, CxP Current: ~61.4mT) - dual launch.

Hope that helps

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/14/2008 10:54 PM
Quote
kraisee - 14/4/2008  6:13 PM

2/ Crew to ISS: 2012 - Jupiter-120/Orion (Can carry additional ~20mT payload with every flight) - single launch.
Ross.
As Administrator of NASA, one would expect that Dr Michael Griffin would be astute enough to recognize the obvious. However, I would like to point out something here that "should" be obvious, but it obviously isn't obvious to Dr Griffin. He has stated, in a speech, that Jupiter is too much for LEO operations. Now check this out:

1. Jupiter can deliver a manned spacecraft to ISS, accompanied by ~20mT of payload.
2. Shuttle can deliver a manned spacecraft to ISS, accompanied by ~20mT of payload.

That makes Orion/Jupiter very nearly a one-for-one functional equivalent of Shuttle.

Somebody please tell me why that makes the Jupiter "too much" for LEO operations.
Unless Dr. Griffin also thinks that Shuttle is "too much" for LEO operations?

 :o
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/15/2008 03:36 AM
Deliberately or otherwise, Dr. Griffin is mistakenly assuming that all 2-launch solutions would use the Lunar vehicle unchanged for supporting ISS missions - i.e. a 100mT+ launcher.

This would be the case for a vehicle like Atlas Phase 3B, but is not the case for DIRECT's Jupiter LV's.

Jupiter plans around the 100mT launcher for 2-launch Lunar use.   But we don't conform to Griffin's assumptions from that point on.   We use that same vehicle, but without the upper stage to produce a smaller and less costly launcher capability with sufficient performance to comfortably lift Orion CEV's to ISS.

I would actually agree with Dr. Griffin that a 100mT+ launcher would be too much for ISS servicing.   Which is precisely why we have never proposed such a thing.

Of course, its rather convenient for Dr. Griffin not to acknowledge that a Lunar vehicle could be configured to be smaller.   Proliferating the *idea* - as he did in his STA presentation - that you could never use a 100mT Lunar vehicle in a smaller configuration serves only the 1.5-launch solutions argument - even though it is clearly incorrect to anyone familiar with DIRECT.

Essentially at STA he said a 2-launch solution was cheaper, simpler, quicker and better performing and that the only reason not to go down that path was because it was too big for ISS use.

Our reaction to that has always been "wow - if that's all that's wrong with it I'm sure we could still make do even if there were no other choices - but I'm glad we do have another choice".

We have taken even that underpinning out from under his argument by proposing the Jupiter-120 configuration *of the same vehicle*.

And as Chuck says, Jupiter-120 CLV has enough in its back pocket to also allow us to replicate the current lift capabilities of Shuttle: Crew + ~20mT to ISS.   That capability would offer a lot of options down the 30-40 year long road we are mapping out - not to mention open doors to 50mT unmanned payloads in a 10m diameter fairing - a capability *nobody* in the world currently possesses.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/16/2008 01:38 PM
We are just finalizing the release of an updated "simple" document based upon our old v1.1.2 summary, updated and re-worked to showcase the current baseline for DIRECT v2.0.

It's not going "live" just yet, but here is an early glimpse for everyone here on NSF at the draft copy which looks 'just about there'.

This represents the first clear view for everyone of the baseline we have been refining for the last few months since the AIAA 2007 paper.   As you will see, there are some changes - most critical being the deletion of the 'Lox transfer module' from the AIAA baseline.   Propellant Transfer is now out of the baseline and we still close all of NASA's performance targets correctly.   PD is now a growth option, not a requirement - albeit a growth option which we are still explicitly recommending.



Enjoy,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/16/2008 02:38 PM
This looks good, but I still want to see the one-pager that goes straight to the point on why we should switch from Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 04/16/2008 03:29 PM
Ross: A recommendation.  You had one picture somewhere where you depicted the 10m core of the Ares V in white, rather than in the ET's orange color.  I thought it helped visually to indicate that there is more "different" here than meets the eye (8.4m to 10m diameter is hard to discern in a document).  

You might think about doing the same in this new document.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 04/16/2008 04:30 PM
Dark Side Lunar based VLBA  Radio Telescope   (DALI)

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/080416-tw-telescope-moon.html

Would this be a good candidate for placement by Jupiter based launchers?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 04/16/2008 05:55 PM
Quote
Lee Jay - 16/4/2008  3:38 PM

This looks good, but I still want to see the one-pager that goes straight to the point on why we should switch from Ares.
A one-pager would be good, but I also think this 'short' document is still too wordy. Wide, dense paragraphs, with long run-on sentences. It's not an easy read. What's your specific audience for this piece?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Cale on 04/16/2008 07:17 PM
Ross & Chuck,

Noticed in a post above that you're proposing a "lunar flyby" using the D4H upper stage.  Does this mean you would scrap the "Apollo 8" mission profile entirely, or just put it off to a later date as a J-2X EDS is available?

I've tried an Apollo 8 style mission using Direct in Orbiter but (based on the Delta IV US specs) don't have enough propellant to get into lunar orbit.  Are you still basing your plan on the current 606 CEV's delta v of ~1800 m/s?

Cheers,

Cale

P.S. Am going to open a "DIRECT in Orbiter" thread as per your suggestion.  Hopefully you'll like the screenshots!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 04/16/2008 07:38 PM
Quote
Lee Jay - 16/4/2008  9:38 AM
This looks good, but I still want to see the one-pager that goes straight to the point on why we should switch from Ares.

I read the file. Wow! I like it. I really like it! Good job Ross!

As to one-pager-ness, well, that can be a separate document.
However, this one may benefit from trimming down in places too.

Like here:

> While no specific architecture has yet been selected for a manned Mars mission, most scenarios explored so far require between 300 to 500mT in LEO depending on In   Situ   Resource Utilization ( I S R U ) architecture and propulsion technologies/assumptions.

Well, USRU is really not a topic of discussion in DIRECT paper, so you can safely just end the sentence at "500 mT".



> Main Engines: The 3 familiar Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) are designed to be reused approximately 20 times before requiring replacement. Because these are reusable engines, they are expensive to manufacture. To be utilized on a disposable stage like this they would be too expensive to be realistic. DIRECT proposes to use the considerably less expensive Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne RS-68...

Again, use of RS-68 is not a point of contention between NASA and you. You do not need to explain why you don't use SSME. First two sentences can be removed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 04/16/2008 07:46 PM
Page 8:

> As with Ares-I and then with Ares-V also, new plumbing.

A verb is missing. Probably "new plumbing is required" ?


> Even that could be reduced to just 0.01% per day if active cooling.

Same here.


Hmm...

> Both Lockheed-Martin and Boeing have completed studies into low boil-off as low as 0.1% per day with passive systems. Even that could be reduced to just 0.01% per day if active cooling.
DIRECT is not dependent   in any way   on these technologies, but they would greatly enhance the potential for an orbital Propellant Depot system in the future   which can be very valuable indeed. [another paragraph snipped]

Well... but your paper is not about propellant depots! This text also can be removed if you want to trim down the document.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/16/2008 10:56 PM
Can the J-130 (J-232 without EDS) perform any useful missions?
For example to send an Orion to EML1/2  (the service module may need to carry more fuel).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/16/2008 11:37 PM
Ross, please check [email protected]

I did a rather extensive edit that may hopefully assist you in clarifying/shortening the paper
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/16/2008 11:49 PM
The introduction needs to say what DIRECT is.

"DIRECT is a family of space rockets able to lift people and heavy cargoes into orbit around the Earth.  The Jupiter-120 is designed to lift astronauts and their space capsule into orbit - initially for docking with the International Space Station (ISS).  The larger Jupiter-232 launch vehicle can lift over 100 metric tons of cargo into space.  Working together the Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232 can send people and a lunar lander to anywhere on the moon.  The combination is also ideal for in space construction of large machines like the Mars Transfer Vehicle."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 04/17/2008 02:37 AM
i AGREE...who is the paper for?  Also--what about talking about employment?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/17/2008 01:27 PM
Thanks for the feedback so far guys.

This paper is essentially a "what has changed?" reference to show how our baseline has matured since the September 2007 AIAA paper.   It serves as a new, more up-to-date reference point and replaces some of the 6-month old data there.

Its secondary role is as a "primer" for anyone new to DIRECT or for anyone who didn't ever want to wade through the full 131 page AIAA paper.   It's not designed to be a 'soundbite' one-page piece, but a reasonably comprehensive reference summary touching on most of the key points.   It therefore wasn't planned to be uber-short - my target was to keep it under 20 pages, so I'm quite comfortable with this length.

I think that yes, the employment information is missing when it does need to be included.   I will add a relevant page or two because that is such a critical concern.   I will probably have to expand the costs section to do so though...

I will also look over all of the edit suggestions and integrate many of them - thank-you.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/17/2008 01:34 PM
Aside: DIRECT Witch Hunt Information request

We have information that there is a new round of witch-hunts to try to close down any sources who have been assisting DIRECT.   This is apparently in response to the fact that Congress is beginning to ask "questions" - as the hearing on the 3rd proved.

If anyone here works within the agency and hears of such a thing occurring, or feels pressured themselves, we are collecting such information.

If you wish to, please contact us by Private Message (PM) here on NSF - that should help protect your identity - even from us!   You should contact either myself (user: kraisee) or Chuck Longton (user: clongton).

Thanks,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 04/17/2008 10:32 PM
Quote
kraisee - 17/4/2008  8:27 AM

Thanks for the feedback so far guys.

This paper is essentially a "what has changed?" reference to show how our baseline has matured since the September 2007 AIAA paper.   It serves as a new, more up-to-date reference point and replaces some of the 6-month old data there.

Its secondary role is as a "primer" for anyone new to DIRECT or for anyone who didn't ever want to wade through the full 131 page AIAA paper.   It's not designed to be a 'soundbite' one-page piece, but a reasonably comprehensive reference summary touching on most of the key points.   It therefore wasn't planned to be uber-short - my target was to keep it under 20 pages, so I'm quite comfortable with this length.

I think that yes, the employment information is missing when it does need to be included.   I will add a relevant page or two because that is such a critical concern.   I will probably have to expand the costs section to do so though...

I will also look over all of the edit suggestions and integrate many of them - thank-you.

Ross.

Ross, it would be interesting to add in your document the Baseball card of the J-120 + Delta IV US rocket to be used for "Apollo 8" and unmanned exploration missions. This is an interesting SDLV/EELV hybrid rocket with good payload capability for a relatively low cost once you have the J-120.  This rocket would be called "J-221" I guess.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 04/18/2008 12:06 PM
What about using the Jupiter (either version) to launch large Space Station modules?

The J-232 could build the ISS in just a few launches.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/18/2008 12:25 PM

Quote
clongton - 15/4/2008  9:54 AM  Unless Dr. Griffin also thinks that Shuttle is "too much" for LEO operations?   :o

 

Who doesn't? Shuttle is cargo and crew. The new vehicle shouldn't mix the two.
 

It shouldn't matter, though, if you are indeed providing that 20 mT for free (over Ares I - if I understand, you claim the DIRECT to ISS with 20mT payload will cost the same as Ares I, per flight)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/18/2008 12:50 PM

Quote
kraisee - 15/4/2008 2:36 PM And as Chuck says, Jupiter-120 CLV has enough in its back pocket to also allow us to replicate the current lift capabilities of Shuttle: Crew + ~20mT to ISS.

Sounds good but NASA may not want it. Cargo and crew don't mix anymore, and this recommendation was made in the context of the shuttle. You are talking about replicating the shuttle lift capabilities
 

How do you respond to the possibility that your liquid fuelled first stage is not as 'reliable' as the RSRB on Ares I? ...TO will put the crew at risk? etc. - Engineers are working on the problems. No engineering will remove the liquid engines from Direct.

This could be interpreted as marginally addressing the real vehicle requirements (crew no. 1, no crew and cargo), while satisfying those that don't exist (payload).

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 04/18/2008 02:41 PM
It's a common misunderstanding that crew and cargo cannot be mixed.  There is no law anywhere out there that makes this illegal.  It was a recommendation of the CAIB this be implemented, not a requirement.  Besides, there is no issue with launching cargo in the same launch as long as the there is an escape mechanism from the crew.  This of course, is a function of design and design of the shuttle does not allow for any real practical escape.  

Think of it this way.  How many of you would seriously buy a car where it only had seats and no trunk or any way to carry anything else?  That is essentially what the crew from cargo folks are arguing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/18/2008 02:59 PM
Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008  10:41 AM

Think of it this way.  How many of you would seriously buy a car where it only had seats and no trunk or any way to carry anything else?  That is essentially what the crew from cargo folks are arguing.

No, That is incorrect  analogy.  Crew and cargo together would be like a bus that has people and cargo in the same area.

A car with luggage is ok
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/18/2008 03:00 PM
I have spent the last couple of days pouring over the CAIB report, which is a vast document. There is absolutely no statement of intent, or even any recommendation, anywhere within the CAIB report that I could find which actually recommends separating crew from cargo as a design parameter for any follow-on spacecraft design. It's an urban myth. I believe the statement actually comes from a press conference statement by the head of the CAIB sometime after the release of the document. As such, it does not have the same force of recommendation. It is his personal opinion, without the force of the CAIB behind it. NASA is under no obligation to comply what-so-ever.

If anyone can actually find a statement to the contrary, I will gladly retract this, but the document is huge and I’ve been over it 3 times. No joy. Like I said, if anyone can find it, I'd appriciate that. Your turn.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 04/18/2008 03:19 PM
Quote
Jim - 18/4/2008  9:59 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008  10:41 AM

Think of it this way.  How many of you would seriously buy a car where it only had seats and no trunk or any way to carry anything else?  That is essentially what the crew from cargo folks are arguing.

No, That is incorrect  analogy.  Crew and cargo together would be like a bus that has people and cargo in the same area.

A car with luggage is ok

Huh? it's the same analogy.  Ok, so as it stands right now Orion will have some lockers to carry the crew's spare underwear.  I think you're splitting hairs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 04/18/2008 03:21 PM
The no crew + cargo safety argument has always seemed a little odd to me. No crew without LAS seems more to the point. Shuttle doesn't carry crew and cargo "in the same area." Cargo goes in the payload bay. What's in the crew cabin with the crew is "luggage." The Shuttle could have been designed with an ejectable, thermally protected crew cabin, although at considerable payload cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/18/2008 03:22 PM
No it is not. , a bus with people and cinderblocks and boxes of motor oil  (cargo, not luggage)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 04/18/2008 03:45 PM
No crew + cargo makes sense when regarding a follow on to the shuttle. If you want to launch something on the shuttle, to take advantage of the launch environment (trunion pins, no need for separate RCS etc) then you have to launch people to control the shuttle. You are there by endangering the people even if the mission could be done without them.

If it can be put on an unmanned rocket then do so.

However I think the risk off adding cargo to a J-120 is different, so long as the people are launching anyway, and there is some extra space then cargo is ok. So long as it doesn't add risk to the mission.

Make sense?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 04/18/2008 04:05 PM
Quote
nacnud - 18/4/2008  10:45 AM

No crew + cargo makes sense when regarding a follow on to the shuttle. If you want to launch something on the shuttle, to take advantage of the launch environment (trunion pins, no need for separate RCS etc) then you have to launch people to control the shuttle. You are there by endangering the people even if the mission could be done without them.

If it can be put on an unmanned rocket then do so.

However I think the risk off adding cargo to a J-120 is different, so long as the people are launching anyway, and there is some extra space then cargo is ok. So long as it doesn't add risk to the mission.

Make sense?

No.  You are contradicting yourself.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 04/18/2008 04:20 PM
Quote
Jim - 18/4/2008  11:22 AM

No it is not. , a bus with people and cinderblocks and boxes of motor oil  (cargo, not luggage)

I don't actually know what interstate buses haul in their payload bay (the space under the passenger bay) other than passenger luggage, or what the federal regulations are for such cargo. I do know that several years ago, an airliner full of passengers went down in the Everglades because hazardous cargo that was certainly not passenger luggage ignited in the cargo hold. I suspect (though I do not know) that airliners still carry passengers and cargo together. Are trains required to carry either passengers only or cargo only? I have no idea, but when I see them going by, it does look like some trains have a mixture of coaches and boxcars. I suspect the reason buses don't have passangers and cinderblock together in the passenger compartment is economic and logistical. Possibly merely a matter of tradition. Buses are set up the way buses have always been set up (in my lifetime, at least), and I don't recall seeing any with easy-disconnect seating.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/18/2008 04:42 PM
There is need to risk crew to launch a GEO spacecraft or any other type, even with an escape system.  That is the same argument that is now championing UAVs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: texas_space on 04/18/2008 04:51 PM
Quote
Jim - 18/4/2008  11:42 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008  12:07 PM

Quote
Jim - 18/4/2008  10:22 AM

No it is not. , a bus with people and cinderblocks and boxes of motor oil  (cargo, not luggage)

Fine.  There is no point arguing with you about something this stupid.  All hale Jim, the man who (thinks) he knows everything!

Have some experience on projects other than shuttle and maybe then you will know something

There is need to risk crew to launch a GEO spacecraft or any other type, even with an escape system.  That is the same argument that is now championing UAVs.

Doesn't this point to the US developing an auto-docking system for station modules like the Russians have used for years on Mir and ISS?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 04/18/2008 04:55 PM
We have ordered parts, that were delivered by bus before.  We picked them up at the bus station.  Now, I think the reason, no crew and cargo, is because some cargo to space has fuel on board, like satelites with hypergols, which is dangerous.  Not much protection on the shuttle between the crew and cargo.  With J-120 you do have some distance, protection, and an excape rocket during launch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 04/18/2008 06:00 PM
The point of my analogy is that flying crew and cargo is not and has never been a bad thing.  The criteria for crew and cargo could be launched together would be the following:

1.  Obviously, you will not be launching something that has nothing to do with the reason the crew is going into space
2.  The next government manned launch vehicle is going to be in use for some time.  It makes sense to design it so that some useful cargo (this is not meant to include the basic support equipment - clothes, food, etc - that will be carried on Orion as "cargo") could be brought along with the crew so that in the future as new mission possiblities appear it may not require multiple launches.  
3.  The crew needs a have an abort system that can give them a reasonable chance of survival during all phases of launch, which again depends on design of the vehicle.  

This was the point I was making above about the silliness of having a pure crew launch vehicle where just the crew and the underwear are carried on one rocket and everything else on another.  It is unfortunate that some have tried to twist the meaning of that simple statement by droning on about buses and motor oil.  I do wish Ares 1 had better performance where this possiblity could be offered because I believe it's a distinct possibility that a mission could be derived in the future that would require something in orbit other than Orion but less than what would be required for an Ares 5 and you could avoid multiple launches all together.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/18/2008 06:07 PM
Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008  2:00 PM

This was the point I was making above about the silliness of having a pure crew launch vehicle where just the crew and the underwear are carried on one rocket and everything else on another.  It is unfortunate that some have tried to twist the meaning of that simple statement by droning on about buses and motor oil.  I do wish Ares 1 had better performance where this possiblity could be offered because I believe it's a distinct possibility that a mission could be derived in the future that would require something in orbit other than Orion but less than what would be required for an Ares 5 and you could avoid multiple launches all together.

 See Progress and Soyuz.   Silliness, I don't think so.  Prefect examples of not mixing.  

Orion doesn't need to do cargo when there is CRS (COTS II)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/18/2008 06:09 PM
Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008  2:00 PM

The point of my analogy before I was accussed of knowing nothing by a know-it-all who likes to pretend to be some higher power on a message board, is that flying crew and cargo is not and has never been a bad thing.  The criteria for crew and cargo could be launched together would be the following:

1.  Obviously, you will not be launching something that has nothing to do with the reason the crew is going into space
2.  The next government manned launch vehicle is going to be in use for some time.  It makes sense to design it so that some useful cargo (this is not meant to include the basic support equipment - clothes, food, etc - that will be carried on Orion as "cargo") could be brought along with the crew so that in the future as new mission possiblities appear it may not require multiple launches.  
3.  The crew needs a have an abort system that can give them a reasonable chance of survival during all phases of launch, which again depends on design of the vehicle.  

This was the point I was making above about the silliness of having a pure crew launch vehicle where just the crew and the underwear are carried on one rocket and everything else on another.  It is unfortunate that some have tried to twist the meaning of that simple statement by droning on about buses and motor oil.  I do wish Ares 1 had better performance where this possiblity could be offered because I believe it's a distinct possibility that a mission could be derived in the future that would require something in orbit other than Orion but less than what would be required for an Ares 5 and you could avoid multiple launches all together.
Which is one of the many advantages of the Jupiter-120 over the Ares-I and the Jupiter Launch Vehicle Family over the Ares-I/V system. Versatility, flexibility, adaptability, expandability and affordability.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 04/18/2008 06:09 PM
Quote
Jim - 18/4/2008  1:07 PM

Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008  2:00 PM

This was the point I was making above about the silliness of having a pure crew launch vehicle where just the crew and the underwear are carried on one rocket and everything else on another.  It is unfortunate that some have tried to twist the meaning of that simple statement by droning on about buses and motor oil.  I do wish Ares 1 had better performance where this possiblity could be offered because I believe it's a distinct possibility that a mission could be derived in the future that would require something in orbit other than Orion but less than what would be required for an Ares 5 and you could avoid multiple launches all together.

 See Progress and Soyuz.   Silliness, I don't think so.  Prefect examples of not mixing.  

Orion doesn't need to do cargo when there is CRS (COTS II)


We're not the Russians and we're talking about doing other things than servicing a station.  If you would read before pouncing, you would see I talk about future missions.  I'm talking about giving the system some flexibility to meet future requirements.  None of that has to do with Orion, ISS or COTS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 04/18/2008 06:39 PM
In the past few days I have been watching the HBO miniseries From the Earth to the Moon (might be my 100th time watching some of these episodes). The one lesson that can be learned from watching this series is that the Saturn V didn't just fall from the sky like some gift from God. Changes had to be made along the way. The first Moon landing is more than a decade away...NASA changed their entire method of rendevous only a few years before the first Moon landings.
Apollo succeeded because NASA didn't say, "We're too far along now to make change".

I know NASA has been trying to replicate Saturn I and Saturn V with Ares I and Ares V, but if this really is the goal, in my opinion Jupiter 120 is a closer replacement for the Saturn I. It just seems like the perfect launch vehicle.

Ross and co...keep pushing for this guys, it really seems all the dominoes are starting to be put in place. Now we just need someone to make them fall.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 04/18/2008 06:42 PM
Quote
Jim - 18/4/2008  12:42 PM

There is need to risk crew to launch a GEO spacecraft or any other type, even with an escape system.  That is the same argument that is now championing UAVs.

That seems like an issue of degree, not kind. Even if you buy into the all-things-to-all thinking on the Shuttle, it could have been flown unmanned for missions where crew was unnecessary to the mission. Even before Challenger, I was concerned about the then upcoming Centaur G mission (Galileo, I think), which seemed to be tempting fate. There has to be a reasonable middle ground between a LAS-less crew riding up with a crygenic upper stage in the cabin with them and saying anything much bigger than a boxed lunch has to ride up on its own rocket.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/18/2008 06:50 PM
Quote
William Barton - 18/4/2008  12:20 PM
 I suspect (though I do not know) that airliners still carry passengers and cargo together. Are trains required to carry either passengers only or cargo only? I have no idea, but when I see them going by, it does look like some trains have a mixture of coaches and boxcars.

Ever sit at logan watching the line of little white boxes containing live lobsters march up the conveyor into the cargo hold? Yes airlines do mix cargo with cattle, er humans in order to maximize revenue for each flight. It is a risk they are willing to take, recently a cargo jet had to divert to logan because in the cargo hold was 10 tonnes of minched onions bringing the crew to tears. Bad things can happen.

Cargo mixed with passengers only makes sense if they are going to the same place. Airlines don't drop off lobsters in colorado on passenger flights headed to florida. At the same time FedEx does not fly passengers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/18/2008 08:10 PM
This cargo question is really stupid.  While there may be (and probably are) sound reasons not to mix hazardous cargo with a crewed vehicle such as a satellite with hyprgolics, there is no reason why staples (food, water, general supplies) or non-hazardous repair parts, or other items needed to sustain the space station cannot be carried in a seperate payload manual underneath the CEV, that is then pulled from the launch vehicle and attached to the ISS by the CEV for unloading as needed.  It need not even have the ability to have the crew move through the whole vehicle.

By this reasoning, we cannot mix the lunar module (seperate vehicle with hazardous propellents) on a launch vehicle (if we had one) that was capable of lifting the Orion/Artimis at the same time.  Further, when Orion docks with the EDS/Artemis stack, then it is again transporting cargo during the LOI burn.

Therefore, the preferred mission architecture should be Orion is propelled to the moon by its own EDS as is Artemis, and they rendevoz in lunar orbit.  Orion than returns alone.

Buses transport passengers and cargo, as do airplanes.  And for the record, at least in 1991, FEDEX did indeed move passengers.  However, we did not have any cargo in the passenger compartment with us.  It was all in the cargo bay.  We even had seats and stewardesses.

The army has a few rules about mixing people and cargo and cargo and cargo.

wounded are not evacuated with the dead.
Class III (fuel) and Class I (food) are not carried on the same truck.
Class III (fuel) and Class V (ammo) are not carried on the same truck
Dead can be moved on anything going back to the logistic trains, so long as there is no wounded.
Wounded should be moved on ambulances, but can be moved on anything that has room for them, medical condition permitting.

While some rules like this may make sense for the space program, the matra Do not mix crew and cargo should be discarded.  It is not a law, it is a policy and those (and even laws) can be changed.

Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/18/2008 08:17 PM
Quote
mike robel - 18/4/2008  2:10 PM
While some rules like this may make sense for the space program, the matra Do not mix crew and cargo should be discarded.  It is not a law, it is a policy and those (and even laws) can be changed.
Mike

I agree.  It seems like the logical rules should be:

- Don't launch a crew to deliver cargo if the crew is not needed for the task.

- If you do launch crew and cargo together, be able to separate the crew from the cargo in an abort situation.

As a side note, ATV-1 is carrying a wide variety of mixed cargo, including tons of toxic stuff as well as food and drinking water.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 04/18/2008 08:26 PM
Quote
kevin-rf - 18/4/2008  2:50 PM

Quote
William Barton - 18/4/2008  12:20 PM
 I suspect (though I do not know) that airliners still carry passengers and cargo together. Are trains required to carry either passengers only or cargo only? I have no idea, but when I see them going by, it does look like some trains have a mixture of coaches and boxcars.

Ever sit at logan watching the line of little white boxes containing live lobsters march up the conveyor into the cargo hold? Yes airlines do mix cargo with cattle, er humans in order to maximize revenue for each flight. It is a risk they are willing to take, recently a cargo jet had to divert to logan because in the cargo hold was 10 tonnes of minched onions bringing the crew to tears. Bad things can happen.

Cargo mixed with passengers only makes sense if they are going to the same place. Airlines don't drop off lobsters in colorado on passenger flights headed to florida. At the same time FedEx does not fly passengers.

I won't be surprised when the day arrives that airline passengers fly at the convenience of the cargo, and if the seats get any smaller I'll be more comfortable riding with the lobsters.  :laugh: I think that's the point most people are trying to make. Often the cargo and crew are headed for the same place. Riding comsats on the Shuttle was politics. Not to mention no LAS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/18/2008 10:05 PM
It is not so much about, not mixing crew and cargo,

as it is about,

not mixing an exploration program with a nascent LEO commercial venue.

The CAIB edict in question must be read like... no cargo bay (full or empty) in the crew escape item, and no cargo bay in the crew entry item. Where "cargo" and the crew item are comparable in mass and volume, not orders of magnitude apart.

NASA's Ares projects are worked as part of an exploration architecture. The ISS, from NASA's vantage point of view, will soon stop being an exploration item. While crew transport to LEO is still rare and demanding, cargo to ISS no longer counts as exploration.

IMHO

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 04/19/2008 12:56 AM

Quote
MB123 - 18/4/2008  8:50 AM

How do you respond to the possibility that your liquid fuelled first stage is not as 'reliable' as the RSRB on Ares I? ...TO will put the crew at risk? etc. - Engineers are working on the problems. No engineering will remove the liquid engines from Direct.

Hmmm... would this seem to be a reasonable response:
 

Ares I CLV: 1 new, never before flown 5-seg RSRB + 1 new, never before flown, air-lit J-2X. If the liquid engine doesn't start, LOM occurs and crew abort required.

Direct J-120 CLV: 2 existing, proven 4-seg RSRB + 2 ground-lit, existing, proven RS-68. If the liquid engines don't start on the pad, countdown is halted and we try again a few days later after the problem is fixed.

Yep, one of these sounds risky to me and one doesn't. No amount of engineering removes the liquid engines from either vehicle.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 04/19/2008 01:05 AM
Quote
jml - 18/4/2008  8:56 PM

Quote
MB123 - 18/4/2008  8:50 AM

How do you respond to the possibility that your liquid fuelled first stage is not as 'reliable' as the RSRB on Ares I? ...TO will put the crew at risk? etc. - Engineers are working on the problems. No engineering will remove the liquid engines from Direct.

Hmmm... would this seem to be a reasonable response:
 

Ares I CLV: 1 new, never before flown 5-seg RSRB + 1 new, never before flown, air-lit J-2X. If the liquid engine doesn't start, LOM occurs and crew abort required.

Direct J-120 CLV: 2 existing, proven 4-seg RSRB + 2 ground-lit, existing, proven RS-68. If the liquid engines don't start on the pad, countdown is halted and we try again a few days later after the problem is fixed.

Yep, one of these sounds risky to me and one doesn't. No amount of engineering removes the liquid engines from either vehicle.


Not to mention Ares I: LOM occurs if it shakes itself into a billion pieces upon ascent.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/19/2008 01:23 AM

Yes yes the finer points of crew and cargo are well discussed, but - I am talking about shuttle-class cargo.

If the direct alternative to Ares I has the same lift capacity as the shuttle - as Ross is marketing it, I doubt it would be sensibly used for food, consumables, etc. You would have to not use it at all.

You would have to launch an MPLM every time.

Best left to unmanned/commercial launchers

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/19/2008 03:35 AM
My interpretation of CAIB on this subject is twofold:-

1) That the next crew spacecraft must not be compromised in any way in order to accommodate a payload.   Orion is a pretty good interpretation of this aim, but Orion is completely unaffected if the payload flies as a separate module below it.

2) That a payload that has nothing to do with a crew should not be flown with a crew.   There's a big difference between a communications satellite and an MPLM or LSAM.   One has nothing to do with a crew, the other has considerable crew relationship.


There is no common sense at all in not utilizing lift 'capability' just as long as it is easily available and doesn't compromise crew safety.

It just isn't an option with Ares-I.   It would become an option with Jupiter.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 04/19/2008 03:39 AM
Ross, in the Baseball cards of your document version 2.0.1 (17 April 2008), you have significantly increased the burnout mass of the Jupiter core stage (by about 6 mT) compared to the baseball cards you promulgated on 16 March 2008.  I saw also that you called this heavier core stage Block 1.  Are the 16 March 2008 core stage data what you expect to achieve with the Block 2 optimization?

By the way, the J-2X Engine thrust level in lbs (273,500 lbs) showed in the J-232 baseball card does not match the metric values displayed (116,120 kgf/1,139,134 N)

One more issue with your latest document: The figures 15 and 16 show an ISP of 448 for the LSAM. The LSAM is expected to be equiped with RL-10B engines, not the J-2X. So it would be better to change the LSAM ISP to 462 to match the RL-10B value.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: taka2k7 on 04/19/2008 03:41 AM
Quote
kraisee - 17/4/2008  7:34 AM

Aside: DIRECT Witch Hunt Information request

We have information that there is a new round of witch-hunts to try to close down any sources who have been assisting DIRECT.   This is apparently in response to the fact that Congress is beginning to ask "questions" - as the hearing on the 3rd proved.

If anyone here works within the agency and hears of such a thing occurring, or feels pressured themselves, we are collecting such information.

If you wish to, please contact us by Private Message (PM) here on NSF - that should help protect your identity - even from us!   You should contact either myself (user: kraisee) or Chuck Longton (user: clongton).

Thanks,

Ross.

Interesting.  I had actually written to my local Representative to ask him to ask NASA to give DIRECT a good look at.  I don't work for NASA however.  I hope my letter didn't contribute to the witch hunt.   :o

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: taka2k7 on 04/19/2008 03:49 AM
One disadvantage of a mixed crew / cargo launch is delays due to issues with the cargo.  I expect that resupply missions wouldn't have this problem, but any time your launching anything sufficiently complex, you may well run into launch delays.

There are probably work arounds to maintain the economics and avoid a crew only Juputer 120 launch though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/19/2008 04:39 AM
Quote
PaulL - 18/4/2008  11:39 PM

Ross, in the Baseball cards of your document version 2.0.1 (17 April 2008), you have significantly increased the burnout mass of the Jupiter core stage (by about 6 mT) compared to the baseball cards you promulgated on 16 March 2008.  I saw also that you called this heavier core stage Block 1.  Are the 16 March 2008 core stage data what you expect to achieve with the Block 2 optimization?

Yes.   Actually we think we can probably beat even those March 16 numbers by a good few more mT.   But we're being uber-uber-uber conservative given NASA's recent tack of suggesting our performance defies the laws of physics :)


Quote
By the way, the J-2X Engine thrust level in lbs (273,500 lbs) showed in the J-232 baseball card does not match the metric values displayed (116,120 kgf/1,139,134 N)

Oops.   I copied the wrong number from my spreadsheet!   The correct values are 124,057.51kg, 273,500.00, lb. 1,217,004.21N

Thanks for spotting that before this is actually published.   Its a problem I've had before with these, because the baseball card has to be written completely manually every time in CorelDRAW.   With all the numbers I have here, it can be very easy to copy the wrong cells from my tables - and that was a perfect example!

I'm trying to double and triple check the numbers myself, but this is why I released a draft first :)


Quote
One more issue with your latest document: The figures 15 and 16 show an ISP of 448 for the LSAM. The LSAM is expected to be equiped with RL-10B engines, not the J-2X. So it would be better to change the LSAM ISP to 462 to match the RL-10B value.

PaulL

Latest CxP baseline seems to be more conservative.   There is a preliminary LSAM document on L2 showing 448s for the p771-B lander concept.

Whenever we see various numbers in published documents, we usually always assume we should always use the lowest performance versions.   That way, we're baselining to the minimum capability and any improvements which we get are a very welcome addition.

If we instead baseline to a higher value nearer to the top of a given 'range' of values and the actual achievable value ends up going 'low', then we will be forced to chase extra performance elsewhere.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 04/19/2008 05:07 AM
Nice, easy to read and understand, well illustrated summary. Any chance of making the fonts bigger in Figures 15 and 16 as they are so small now that they are an exercise in pain to try and read ? ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/19/2008 05:24 AM
The Core Stage essentially IS the second stage.   It is just made big enough that it can be lit on the ground to ensure engine start is nominal before committing to a launch.   Shuttle has experienced 6 such off-nominal engine starts in its history and aborted the launch safely in each case because it was still bolted to the ground.   This gave the program the chance to fix each of those problems before successfully launching the same spacecraft and payload a few days later.   Aborting in-flight totally messes that up.


It has been a long time since a major engine had a catastrophic failure enough to take out the whole stage.   The major elements such as Turbo-pumps and Combustion Chambers are pretty well understood pieces of hardware these days, and are designed to shut down safely in all but the most unusual situations.   The vast majority of liquid engine failures represent a fairly safe shutdown.   In the case of a crit. failure though, there's about 50ft between the Crew Module and the Stage itself.   That's a lot more than Ares-I is going to offer.   That buys you extra time to to safely abort ahead of any harmful explosive wave-front energies.   Also the J-2X engine on Ares-I is a lot closer to the Orion than the RS-68's will be on Jupiter.


I strongly believe that as part of any abort procedure due to critical structural failure on either Ares-I or on Jupiter in the first two minutes of flight, that the SRB's be automatically terminated just after the Orion's LAS fires.   I would rather throw away some SRB hardware than have the chance of them chasing after the crew as the LV breaks up.   I think its essential to make sure the boosters don't go flying on their own like they did after Challenger.   This is an issue for all large-scale SRB-based vehicles carrying crews and I think the same solution needs to be applied to all.


Jupiter's Core is designed to keep structural integrity if all main engines do shut down during the SRB phase.   If the MPS shutdown is benign, the mass of the big Core Stage would 'hold the SRB's back' while the crew aborts away.   Depending upon a pre-determined point in the flight, if the SRB's still present any danger, they should automatically be terminated before they pose any risk to crews.   The key is that if there is a clear and present danger to the crew, our computers should do it and we should not have to wait for range safety to do it.


Having a second engine on the Jupiter-120 though, gives you a lot more ATO capability than a single engine design would ever have.   Lose one engine, or even just find that one engine produces lower thrust than expected and in *most* situations Jupiter can carry on and complete the mission as an 'engine-out ATO'.   Lose the single Ares-I engine or lose some thrust and its always going to be an abort - going to just -11x100nm it just doesn't have any margin to do otherwise.   Jupiter can continue in many scenarios where missions would become failures on Ares-I.   There are some situations where Jupiter-120 has Abort to Orbit capability as early as T+45 seconds into the flight.


And as a bit of an aside, don't forget that RS-68 and J-2XD engines are both less "stressed" engines than the full J-2X. will be.   They will both operate at lower internal pressures than J-2X must.   That's always going to help reliability.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/19/2008 03:11 PM
Quote
jml - 19/4/2008  11:56 AM  

Quote
MB123 - 18/4/2008  8:50 AM

How do you respond to the possibility that your liquid fuelled first stage is not as 'reliable' as the RSRB on Ares I? ...TO will put the crew at risk? etc. - Engineers are working on the problems. No engineering will remove the liquid engines from Direct.

Hmmm... would this seem to be a reasonable response:
 

Ares I CLV: 1 new, never before flown 5-seg RSRB + 1 new, never before flown, air-lit J-2X. If the liquid engine doesn't start, LOM occurs and crew abort required.

Direct J-120 CLV: 2 existing, proven 4-seg RSRB + 2 ground-lit, existing, proven RS-68. If the liquid engines don't start on the pad, countdown is halted and we try again a few days later after the problem is fixed.

Yep, one of these sounds risky to me and one doesn't. No amount of engineering removes the liquid engines from either vehicle.

The J2-S engine has been extensively developed since Apollo. Yeah, sure, the J2-X has not flown, but neither has a man-rated RS-68. Which of the two will require more development?

The question I was referring to was in-flight loss of an engine during the first stage - this is an abort for J-120, it is far less likely to occur on Ares I.

However, I will have to conceed, per Ross' earlier post, that the J-120 appears to have a better chance to ATO in a single engine-out case during the second stage. Ares I will be relying on the reliability of the J2-X which, I assume, will be a relatively simple engine.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 04/19/2008 04:36 PM
I have to agree with Ross--remember SpaceX last launch?  Problems with fuel about main engine starting--SpaceX just stopped the launch--cannot do that with Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 04/19/2008 05:15 PM
The next generation space shuttle, like its predecessor, will serve many masters, as a cargo ship, a scientific laboratory, a docking platform, and a crew habitat. But according to Mark Fisher, Marshall Space Flight Center's manager of Exploration Systems, the next shuttle will be designed to "separate cargo from crew." It looks like NASA made/thought about the requirement in the design phase.

That change is one lesson learned from flying the current shuttle for the last quarter century: human spaceflight has made cargo more expensive, and cargo can "potentially" make human spaceflight less safe.--2004.

Gehman replied emphatically, "Separate the cargo from the people as soon as possible." -congressional hearing Sept. 04 2003 AFTER CAIB released report.

CAIBs' Conclusions

The following synopsis focuses on what appear to be the major questions being asked about the CAIB's findings about the tragedy and recommendations on the future of the shuttle program. All quotations are from the CAIB report unless otherwise noted.

What Caused the Columbia Accident? The Board "recognized early on that the accident was probably not an anomalous, random event, but rather likely rooted to some degree in NASA's history and the human space flight program's culture." (p. 9) Therefore, it also looked at "political and budgetary considerations, compromises, and changing priorities over the life" of the shuttle program, and "places as much weight on these causal factors as on the ... physical cause...." (p. 9)

The physical cause was damage to Columbia's left wing by a 1.7 pound piece of insulating foam that detached from the left "bipod ramp" that connects the External Tank1 to the orbiter, and struck the orbiter's left wing 81.9 seconds after launch. The foam strike created a hole in a Reinforced Carbon-Carbon (RCC) panel on the leading edge of the wing, allowing superheated air (perhaps exceeding 5,000oF) to enter the wing during reentry. The extreme heat caused the wing to fail structurally, creating aerodynamic forces that led to the disintegration of the orbiter. (Described in detail in Chapters 2 and 3.)


Regarding organizational causes, the Board concluded the accident was -

... rooted in the Space Shuttle Program's history and culture, including the original compromises that were required to gain approval for the Shuttle, subsequent years of resource constraints, fluctuating priorities, schedule pressures, mischaracterization of the Shuttle as operational rather than developmental, and lack of an agreed national vision for human space flight. Cultural traits and organizational practices detrimental to safety were allowed to develop, including: reliance on past success as a substitute for sound engineering practices..., organizational barriers that prevented effective communication of critical safety information and stifled professional differences of opinion; lack of integrated management across program elements; and the evolution of an informal chain of command and decision-making processes that operated outside the organization's rules. (p. 9)


The Board found that there is a "broken safety culture" at NASA (pp. 184-189). Schedule pressure (pp. 131-139) related to construction of the International Space Station, budget constraints (pp. 102-105), and workforce reductions (pp. 106-110) also were factors. The Board concluded that the shuttle program "has operated in a challenging and often turbulent environment...." (p. 118) "It is to the credit of Space Shuttle managers and the Shuttle workforce that the vehicle was able to achieve its program objectives for as long as it did." (p. 119)

Should the Shuttle Continue to Fly? The Board concluded that "the present Shuttle is not inherently unsafe" but the "observations and recommendations in this report are needed to make the vehicle safe enough to operate in the coming years." (p. 208) CAIB "supports return to flight for the Space Shuttle at the earliest date consistent with an overriding consideration: safety." (p. 208) NASA has a target of March/April 2004 for return to flight, and Adm. Gehman stated in an interview on PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on August 26 that he saw no reason why NASA could not meet that schedule.

The CAIB report contains 29 recommendations (listed below)-23 technical and six organizational-of which 15 must be implemented before the shuttle returns to flight status. The others are "continuing to fly" recommendations assuming the shuttle will be used for years to come. The Board recommended that, if the shuttle is to be used beyond 2010, that it be recertified (p. 209). But the Board said it reached an "inescapable conclusion"-


Because of the risks inherent in the original design of the Space Shuttle, because the design was based in many aspects on now-obsolete technologies, and because the Shuttle is now an aging system but still developmental in character, it is in the nation's interest to replace the Shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for transporting humans to and from Earth orbit. (p. 210-211. Emphasis in original.)

Why Did NASA Decide Not to Obtain Imagery from DOD Satellites to Assess the Damage? A central question during the investigation was why NASA did not ask the Department of Defense (DOD) to image the shuttle with its high resolution ground- or space-based systems to help assess whether the orbiter had been damaged by the foam. The Board found (pp. 140-172) that three requests for imagery were made by NASA engineers but through incorrect channels, plus there were several "missed opportunities"when managers could have pursued the issue. One request did reach the appropriate DOD personnel, but NASA canceled the request 90 minutes later. The Board concluded that the likely sequence of events was that the chair of STS-107's Mission Management Team (MMT), after informally learning that there had been a "request" for imagery, called three other MMT members and determined that none knew of a "requirement" for imagery. CAIB cited a flawed analysis of the extent to which the orbiter might have been damaged by the foam that was too readily accepted by program managers, a low level of concern by program managers, a lack of clear communication, a lack of effective leadership, and a failure of the role of safety personnel as reasons why the imagery was not obtained. Whether such images would, in fact, have shown the damage remains unclear, but the Board recommended that such images now be taken on all shuttle missions.

Could the Crew Have Been Saved? The Board concluded that the crew died from "blunt trauma and hypoxia" (lack of oxygen) after the crew cabin separated from the rest of the disintegrating shuttle and, itself, disintegrated; there was no explosion. (p. 77) The Board asked NASA to evaluate two options for returning the crew safely if the degree of damage had been understood early in the mission: repairing the damage on-orbit, or rescuing the crew with another shuttle mission. The repair option "while logistically viable....relied on so many uncertainties that NASA rated this option 'high risk.'" (p. 173) The rescue option "was considered challenging but feasible." (p. 174)

What Are the "Echoes" of Challenger? Former shuttle astronaut Sally Ride served on the Rogers Commission that investigated the January 1986 Challenger accident, which claimed the lives of seven astronauts, and on CAIB. During the Columbia investigation, she said she heard "echoes" of Challenger as it became clear that the accident resulted from NASA failing to recognize that a technical failure (bipod ramp foam shedding) that had occurred on previous shuttle flights could have safety-of-flight implications even if the earlier missions were completed successfully. In the case of Challenger, it was erosion of seals (O-rings) between segments of the Solid Rocket Booster, which had been noted on previous missions. Some engineers warned NASA not to launch Challenger that day because unusually cold weather could have weakened the resiliency of the O-rings. They were overruled. CAIB concluded that "both accidents were 'failures of foresight'" and the parallels between them demonstrate that: "the causes of the institutional failure responsible for Challenger have not been fixed"; "if these persistent, systemic flaws are not resolved, the scene is set for another accident"; and that while individuals must be accountable for their actions, "NASA's problems cannot be solved simply by retirements, resignations, or transferring personnel." (p. 195)

CAIB's Recommendations and Observations

CAIB's 29 recommendations are compiled in Chapter 11 of its report. Adm. Gehman stated at the Board's August 26 press conference that there is no hierarchy in the recommendations-all have equal weight. The Board also made 27 "observations" in Chapter 10. Following are abbreviated versions of the recommendations-separated into those that must be implemented prior to Return to Flight, and those that are "continuing to fly" recommendations-and observations. Some have been combined for brevity.

Return to Flight (RTF) Recommendations. CAIB recommends that NASA:


initiate an aggressive program to eliminate all External Tank foam shedding;
initiate a program to increase the orbiter's ability to sustain minor debris damage;
develop and implement a comprehensive inspection plan to assess the structural integrity of the RCC panels, supporting structure, and attaching hardware;
develop a practical capability to inspect and effect emergency repairs to the orbiter's thermal protection system (TPS) both when near the International Space Station and when operating away from it, and accomplish an on-orbit TPS inspection;
upgrade the ability to image the shuttle during its ascent to orbit;
obtain and downlink high resolution images of the External Tank after it separates from the orbiter, and of certain orbiter thermal protection systems;
ensure that on-orbit imaging of each shuttle flight by Department of Defense satellites is a standard requirement;
test and qualify "bolt catchers" used on the shuttle;
require that at least two employees attend final closeouts and intertank area handspraying procedures when applying foam to the External Tank;
require NASA and its contractors to use the industry-standard definition of "foreign object debris";
adopt and maintain a shuttle flight schedule that is consistent with available resources;
implement an expanded training program for the Mission Management Team;
prepare a detailed plan for creating an independent Technical Engineering Authority, independent safety program, and reorganized space shuttle integration office; and
develop an interim program of closeout photographs for all critical sub-systems that differ from engineering drawings.

Continuing to Fly Recommendations. The Board recommends that NASA:


increase the orbiter's ability to reenter the atmosphere with minor leading edge damage to the extent possible;
develop a better database to understand the characteristics of Reinforced Carbon- Carbon (RCC) by destructive testing and evaluation;
improve the maintenance of launch pad structures to minimize leaching of zinc primer onto RCC;
obtain sufficient RCC panel spares so maintenance decisions are not subject to external pressures relating to schedules, costs, or other considerations;
develop, validate, and maintain physics-based computer models to evaluate Thermal Protection System damage from debris impacts;
maintain and update the Modular Auxiliary Data System (MADS) on each orbiter to include current sensor and data acquisition technologies, and redesign the MADS so they can be reconfigured during flight;
develop a state-of-the-art means to inspect orbiter wiring;
operate the shuttle with the same degree of safety for micrometeoroid and orbital debris as is used in the space station program, and change guidelines to requirements;
establish an independent Technical Engineering Authority that is responsible for technical requirements and all waivers to them, which should be funded directly from NASA Headquarters and have no connection to or responsibility for schedule or program cost;
give direct line authority over the entire shuttle safety organization to the Headquarters Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, which should be independently resourced;
reorganize the Space Shuttle Integration Office to make it capable of integrating all elements of the Space Shuttle Program, including the Orbiter;
develop and conduct a vehicle recertification prior to operating the shuttle beyond 2010 and include recertification requirements in the Shuttle Life Extension Program; and
provide adequate resources for a long-term program to upgrade shuttle engineering drawings.

Observations. Chapter 10 lists 27 observations-"significant issues that are potentially serious matters that should be addressed ... because they fall into the category of 'weak signals' that could be indications of future problems." Therefore, NASA should:


develop and implement a public risk acceptability policy for launch and reentry of space vehicles and unmanned aircraft;
develop and implement a plan to mitigate the risk that shuttle flights pose to the general public;
study the Columbia debris to facilitate realistic estimates of the risk to the public during orbiter reentry;
incorporate knowledge gained from Columbia in requirements for future crewed vehicles in assessing the feasibility of vehicles that could ensure crew survival even if the vehicle is destroyed;
perform an independent review of the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Quality Planning Requirements Document to address the quality assurance program and its administration, consolidate KSC's Quality Assurance programs under one Mission Assurance Office that reports to the Center Director, require quality assurance managers to work with NASA and perhaps DOD to develop training programs, and examine which areas of ISO 9000/9001 truly apply to a 20-year old research and development system like the space shuttle;
use statistical sampling for Quality and Engineering review of work documents for the next shuttle flight (STS-114);
implement United Space Alliance's (USA's) suggestions for process improvement;
create an oversight process to statistically sample the work performed by USA technicians to ensure process control, compliance, and consistency;
make every effort to achieve greater stability, consistency, and predictability in Orbiter Major Modification planning, scheduling, and work standards;
better understand workforce and infrastructure requirements, match them against capabilities, and take actions to avoid exceeding thresholds;
continue to work with the Air Force on aging systems, service life extension, planning and scheduling, workforce management, training, and quality assurance;
determine how the shuttle program office will meet the challenges of inspecting and maintaining an aging shuttle fleet;
include non-destructive analysis of the potential impacts on structural integrity when evaluating corrosion damage, make long-term corrosion detection a funding priority, develop non-destructive inspections to find hidden corrosion, and establish orbiterspecific corrosion rates for orbiter-specific environments;
do not use Teflon and Molybdenum Disulfide in the carrier panel bolt assembly;
mitigate galvanic coupling between aluminum and steel alloys;
review the use of Room Temperature Vulcanizing 560 and Koropon;
assure the continued presence of compressive stresses in A-286 bolts in their acceptance and qualification procedures;
consider a redesign of the "hold-down" bolt system;
reinstate a safety factor of 1.4 for the solid rocket booster attachment rings;
assess whether upgrading to digital test equipment will provide the reliability and accuracy needed to maintain the shuttle through 2020; and
implement an agency-wide strategy for leadership and management training that provides a more consistent and integrated approach to career development.

General Deal's Supplemental Views

Air Force Brig. Gen. Duane Deal, a CAIB member, wrote a "supplement" that is scheduled to be published in Volume II as Appendix D. Some of the views in the supplement were reported by the media on August 27. CAIB supplied a copy of the document to CRS, emphasizing that it represents supplemental, not dissenting, views.

Gen. Deal expressed concern that NASA may not fully implement the CAIB's recommendations, and particularly its observations. "History shows that NASA often ignores strong recommendations; without a culture change, it is overly optimistic to believe NASA will tackle something relegated to an 'observation' when it has a record of ignoring recommendations." He said the supplement is written from the perspective of someone "who fears the [CAIB] report has bypassed some items that could prevent 'the next accident' from occurring-the 'next' O-ring or the 'next' bipod ramp." He believes the observations should have been characterized as "'strong signals' that are indications of present and future problems" rather than "weak signals" that could indicate future problems. Among the areas he listed as needing further attention are: Quality Assurance (unresponsive management, staffing levels, grade levels, inspector qualifications, employee training, providing necessary tools, government inspections, and quality program surveillance); Orbiter Corrosion; Solid Rocket Booster External Tank Attach Ring; Crew Survivability; Shiftwork and Overtime; security of Redesigned Solid Rocket Motors when they are shipped from the manufacturer; and security at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility where the External Tanks are assembled.






Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/19/2008 05:29 PM
Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 19/4/2008  1:15 PM

That change is one lesson learned from flying the current shuttle for the last quarter century: human spaceflight has made cargo more expensive


That is the biggest reason
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 04/19/2008 05:40 PM
Jim--

1.  The report DID not say to seperate cargo and crew--That was one persons openion.
2.   Cargo with crew "can"  make human spaceflight less safe.  This does not mean that it allways does.  Remember he is talking about the Space Shuttle.  Separate cargo and crew does not necessary imply that you have two vicheals one for cargo and one for people as NASA is planning.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 04/19/2008 06:54 PM
Quote
kraisee - 18/4/2008  11:39 PM

Quote
By the way, the J-2X Engine thrust level in lbs (273,500 lbs) showed in the J-232 baseball card does not match the metric values displayed (116,120 kgf/1,139,134 N)

Oops.   I copied the wrong number from my spreadsheet!   The correct values are 124,057.51kg, 273,500.00, lb. 1,217,004.21N

Thanks for spotting that before this is actually published.   Its a problem I've had before with these, because the baseball card has to be written completely manually every time in CorelDRAW.   With all the numbers I have here, it can be very easy to copy the wrong cells from my tables - and that was a perfect example!

I'm trying to double and triple check the numbers myself, but this is why I released a draft first :)


Ross.

Hese's a few more errors in the basesball cards:

-The RS-68 sea level thrust numbers are different for the J-120 (663,000 lbs) and J-232 (656,000 lbs) data.

-For the J-232 data, the RS-68 Vac Thrust value in N should be 3,340,614 N to match the J-120 data.

-The J-120 LEO Cargo orbit perigee numbers (68 nm, 36.72 km) do not match.

PaulL

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 04/19/2008 07:11 PM
I was able to relocate the image I was referring to that depicted the Ares-I and V liquid stages without the usual orange insulation color.  It was from the Space Show PPT slides (attached).

This image helps to make a clear illustration that, despite similar appearances, the Ares-I and Ares-V liquid stages are quite different from the STS ET.  It really helps drive home (for me) that there are more dissimilarities than meets the eye here.

Maybe pretty minor, but for the non-technical audience controlling the purse-strings, every little bit might help.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/20/2008 03:19 AM

Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 20/4/2008  4:40 AM  Cargo with crew "can"  make human spaceflight less safe.  This does not mean that it allways does.  

But it does mean that it can. So why do it? And to the same quantitative extent as the Shuttle (mT), not just astronaut's underpants -When you've been directed to hold crew safety as the no. 1 priority.

I think it unlikely, in a cursory sense, that the 25mT over Ares I is for free in all relevant respects (safety, $$$, etc.). Even if it I am wrong today, the relevant climate may change (i.e. Space Shuttle), and it may cost NASA later.

It is clear to me that the Direct team are arguing NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB.

IMO, arguing (on the engineering front) that the J-120 is more suitable than Ares I to satisfy NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB, will be very difficult.
 

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/20/2008 03:34 AM

Quote
BogoMIPS - 20/4/2008  6:11 AM  I was able to relocate the image I was referring to that depicted the Ares-I and V liquid stages without the usual orange insulation color.  It was from the Space Show PPT slides (attached).  This image helps to make a clear illustration that, despite similar appearances, the Ares-I and Ares-V liquid stages are quite different from the STS ET.  It really helps drive home (for me) that there are more dissimilarities than meets the eye here.  Maybe pretty minor, but for the non-technical audience controlling the purse-strings, every little bit might help.

Why have you shown the ET-derived component painted white on Ares? 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 04/20/2008 06:54 AM
Quote
MB123 - 20/4/2008  1:19 PM

Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 20/4/2008  4:40 AM  Cargo with crew "can"  make human spaceflight less safe.  This does not mean that it allways does.  

But it does mean that it can. So why do it? And to the same quantitative extent as the Shuttle (mT), not just astronaut's underpants -When you've been directed to hold crew safety as the no. 1 priority.

I think it unlikely, in a cursory sense, that the 25mT over Ares I is for free in all relevant respects (safety, $$$, etc.). Even if it I am wrong today, the relevant climate may change (i.e. Space Shuttle), and it may cost NASA later.

It is clear to me that the Direct team are arguing NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB.

IMO, arguing (on the engineering front) that the J-120 is more suitable than Ares I to satisfy NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB, will be very difficult.
 


I think it is fair to say that Direct meets all of the VSE/CAIB recommendations. Direct does seperate crew and cargo, provides crew escape options and provides addtional abort options while still on the pad (since all engines are lit on the pad not some mid-flight). The crew/cargo thing is not an issue. The issue is that NASA is not planning for a flat budget.
If NASA doesn't switch soon it will lose it's chance to go anywhere. J-120 has most of the hardware for the lunar booster. Ares-1 doesn't.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/20/2008 01:13 PM
Quote
MB123 - 19/4/2008  11:34 PM

Why have you shown the ET-derived component painted white on Ares?
Because NASA consistently shows them in the same orange color as the STS systems, leaving the unsuspecting observer believing the blatantly false impression that they are the same as the STS items. If it "looks" the same, it must "be" the same. Even though they "say" it's derived, the simple fact of the matter is that it is NOT the same at all. It is a totally and completely NEW design that only "resembles" STS hardware. Everything about what NASA is doing is completely new. What NASA is doing is playing a smoke and mirrors game, designed, in my opinion, to dupe the Congress into thinking that they are doing what the Congress instructed them to do while they are, in fact, doing something entirely different with the money Congress allocated. There is literally nothing left from the original STS hardware that is part of the completely new design - nothing except the color. But they are extremely keen to leave the impression that it's the same, and that is a falsehood. It is not the same, not by a long shot and not by many billions of dollars.

Congress instructed NASA to build a heavy lift launch vehicle and a crew launch vehicle that were directly derived from existing and flying STS hardware.  If NASA had done that, their design would look exactly like the ones on the right - the Jupiter. But instead they are building what you see on the left - something completely new that only looks like STS hardware. The final "trick" (because that's what it is imho) to sealing the falsehood is to keep the same orange color as STS hardware. Well we won't allow it. It is not the same as STS so we refuse to let it look like the STS. We call it for what it is - a completely new, clean sheet design. Congress did not want NASA to do that and the Administrator knows that, so to cover the trail, they make it "look" like STS. So we are calling it what it is - a smoke and mirror - end run around the Congress to get the Congress to pay for what the Administrator wanted to build instead of what the Congress told him to build. If you don't believe me, go take a look at what the Administrator designed as the Mars launch system when he was part of the Planetary Society - long before he became Administrator. Interestingly, it "looks" exactly like the Ares launch system. IMHO, he came into this job with the new design already fixed, long before the ESAS whitewash job was ever commissioned.

Disclaimer: All this is in my humble opinion of course. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Past statements of intent of people before coming into power may or may not be indicative of current efforts after coming into power, regardless of how closely they resemble each other.

FWIW
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 04/20/2008 02:04 PM
Quote
MB123 - 19/4/2008  10:34 PM
Why have you shown the ET-derived component painted white on Ares?

Exactly. :)  This should be the reaction of anyone who looks at the picture.  It forces the question!!!

A stage that's wider, longer, and different SRB attach points than an ET is not "ET-derived" (IMO).
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 04/20/2008 03:53 PM
Quote
clongton - 20/4/2008  8:13 AM

Because NASA consistently shows them in the same orange color as the STS systems, leaving the unsuspecting observer believing the blatantly false impression that they are the same as the STS items.

Using your own mind-screwing to fight NASA`s mind-screwing is lame. It puts you on the same level with them, and you are supposed to be better, aren`t you?

What you should do is CLEARY emphasize the fact that your proposal is a direct derivation, while NASA`s is not. Write it in large letters on every poster of yours.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/20/2008 05:02 PM
Quote
Eerie - 20/4/2008  4:53 PM

What you should do is CLEARY emphasize the fact that your proposal is a direct derivation, while NASA`s is not. Write it in large letters on every poster of yours.

Be careful when using knocking copy, it can backfire very badly.

 
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 04/20/2008 05:41 PM
Quote
Eerie - 20/4/2008  10:53 AM
Using your own mind-screwing to fight NASA`s mind-screwing is lame. It puts you on the same level with them, and you are supposed to be better, aren`t you?

We're talking about convincing politicians here.  What you call "mind-screwing" I call "lobbying".

Like it or not, it's a part of the system.

As such, I see nothing wrong with portraying your concept more positively (in this case, more STS-derived) than the alternative.

I would agree that "going negative" in the underdog role, much like a presidential campaign, should be avoided due to its capacity to backfire.  

But highlighting a positives of your concept compared to the alternative has to be fair game, and that means showing your concept in every possible better light.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/20/2008 06:27 PM
Quote
MB123 - 19/4/2008  11:19 PM

Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 20/4/2008  4:40 AM  Cargo with crew "can"  make human spaceflight less safe.  This does not mean that it allways does.  

But it does mean that it can. So why do it? And to the same quantitative extent as the Shuttle (mT), not just astronaut's underpants -When you've been directed to hold crew safety as the no. 1 priority.

I think it unlikely, in a cursory sense, that the 25mT over Ares I is for free in all relevant respects (safety, $$$, etc.). Even if it I am wrong today, the relevant climate may change (i.e. Space Shuttle), and it may cost NASA later.

It is clear to me that the Direct team are arguing NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB.

IMO, arguing (on the engineering front) that the J-120 is more suitable than Ares I to satisfy NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB, will be very difficult.
 


The whole issue is moot anyway.   Ares-I's November IS-TIM risk analysis is lower than Jupiter-120's:-

Ares-I LOC: 1 in 1256
Jupiter-120 LOC: 1 in 1413

NOTE: Both numbers derived using NASA's own CxP risk assessment methodology - assessment performed by staff at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL


Irrelevant of whether you fly it with an extra cargo module or not, if crew safety is truly the overriding goal, then Ares-I is no longer the safest choice according to NASA's own calculations.

The whole issue that Jupiter-120 can allow cargo to go with the crew if required, is relegated to being just a useful extra bonus feature available with Jupiter-120, but unavailable with Ares-1.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/20/2008 06:47 PM
Quote
BogoMIPS - 20/4/2008  10:04 AM

Quote
MB123 - 19/4/2008  10:34 PM
Why have you shown the ET-derived component painted white on Ares?

Exactly. :)  This should be the reaction of anyone who looks at the picture.  It forces the question!!!

Bingo!

Asking more questions about NASA's current path is what this is all about.   Ask enough, and anyone will come to the same conclusions many folk here have already.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/20/2008 07:22 PM
Nathan ,
Quote
- 20/4/2008  9:54 AM
I think it is fair to say that Direct meets all of the VSE/CAIB recommendations.
Agreed.

Quote
Direct ...provides addtional abort options while still on the pad (since all engines are lit on the pad not some mid-flight).
Not true with the manned lunar missions (Orion with J-232).

Even worse, "Direct" wants to fly Orion with two widely different launcher configs :

1/ J-120 for ISS; no air-lit stage, but RS-68s burn to orbital insertion (currently not possible)

2/ J-232 for manned lunar missions; air-lit 2xJ-2X upper stage; RS-68s burn suborbital (as currently experienced)

This (one CEV two CLV) is not a good architectural choice if safety is paramount.

Comparatively , the ESAS' unique Ares-I / Orion config is an epitome of engineering rationale.

Quote
J-120 has most of the hardware for the lunar booster. Ares-1 doesn't.
Not true. If we even mention "the lunar booster" then we think trans lunar injection, "EDS" -  the J-2X engine that J-120 intentionally delays.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/20/2008 10:29 PM
renclod,
If you think CxP isn't planning to fly Orion on Ares-V you haven't been watching the plans closely enough.   Ares-V has always been planned, right from ESAS CaLV, to be human-rated.   They aren't doing that just for the fun of it.

I would suggest you re-consider your points in that context too.   And don't forget to include the fact that Ares-V's LOC is still below 1 in 900 currently - not achieving ESAS' minimum safety level - *and* that this is with the Ares-V configuration which is still short of 13mT performance to the moon right now.   The configuration they do have which 'closes' correctly has a pair of additional liquid boosters on it, in addition to the pair of SRB's!   It's LOC is laughable.

Except for the EDS, which will be new whatever vehicle we choose, the Jupiter 4-segment RSRB's will have been in safe operational use for 21 years by the time we use them for the first Lunar return mission (2017).   The RS-68 main engines will have been in operation for 15 years by then, and the Core Stage will have five years of operational use under its belt in that configuration, and a further heritage of 31 years in External Tank form behind it also.   While we are 'delaying' J-2X delivery, we are still going to fly about the same number in testing as Ares plans to prior to the Lunar missions - we are planning a lot more (4 + 1 unmanned landing precursor) test flights than CxP (1) before attempting a Lunar landing - and we use twice as many J-2X's each time - by the time of our first landing we will have flown 12 J-2X's - CxP is only planning to fly 11 J-2X's by their first human landing attempt!   And our Lunar launchers will share most of the current manufacturing, launch processing and launch ops, not just with Jupiter-120, but also with *Shuttle*.   That adds what will be nearly thirty years more experience to the DIRECT Jupiter-232 Lunar launcher knowledge base right there.


What track record will Ares have in 2019 when attempting their first landing?   3 years with operational RSRBV (that only assuming they don't actually switch to composite cases for Ares-V) and 3 years with an operational J-2X.   No direct heritage to ET on Ares-V or Ares-I U/S.   And don't make the mistake of thinking there will be any relationship between Ares-I Al-Li U/S and Ares-V's composite EDS.   No heritage at all with pads, manufacturing launch ops, ground ops etc.

More significant than all of that though, is we retain all of the experienced staff from Shuttle, ready and able to deal with the issues which may arise.   People with 20+ years experience with these same fundamental systems.   Who haven't been forced out of the agency in 2010.   We offer a smooth transition for all these people, so they can retain the experience and keep it going through into the new program.   Experienced staff from day-1.   What's *that* going to be worth to your operational safety, eh?

And as an aside, Shuttle also runs out its program a lot safer too.   Workers aren't spending all their efforts trying to find new jobs and homes because they know they will be keeping their jobs - instead they are spending the efforts on the job at hand - flying Shuttle safely - because they know their futures are pretty secure.

As a total aside; we have actually run an analysis of Jupiter-232 with the original J-2 engines and J-2S engine performance.   Our architecture *still* closes correctly even with those lower powered engines.   We have *that* much margin in our back pockets!   We could theoretically abandon J-2X development altogether and just put the old Apollo engines - which are already human-rated - straight into production.   We can only imagine the cost savings and schedule savings that might offer.   Its an option, although there are existing contracts in place for J-2X, so we are still baselining to use them.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/21/2008 12:03 AM
Quote
kraisee - 21/4/2008 5:27 AM
Quote
MB123 - 19/4/2008 11:19 PM

Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 20/4/2008 4:40 AM Cargo with crew "can" make human spaceflight less safe. This does not mean that it allways does.

But it does mean that it can. So why do it? And to the same quantitative extent as the Shuttle (mT), not just astronaut's underpants -When you've been directed to hold crew safety as the no. 1 priority.

I think it unlikely, in a cursory sense, that the 25mT over Ares I is for free in all relevant respects (safety, $$$, etc.). Even if it I am wrong today, the relevant climate may change (i.e. Space Shuttle), and it may cost NASA later.

It is clear to me that the Direct team are arguing NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB.

IMO, arguing (on the engineering front) that the J-120 is more suitable than Ares I to satisfy NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB, will be very difficult.

The whole issue is moot anyway. Ares-I's November IS-TIM risk analysis is lower than Jupiter-120's:- Ares-I LOC: 1 in 1256 Jupiter-120 LOC: 1 in 1413 NOTE: Both numbers derived using NASA's own CxP risk assessment methodology - assessment performed by staff at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL Irrelevant of whether you fly it with an extra cargo module or not, if crew safety is truly the overriding goal, then Ares-I is no longer the safest choice according to NASA's own calculations. The whole issue that Jupiter-120 can allow cargo to go with the crew if required, is relegated to being just a useful extra bonus feature available with Jupiter-120, but unavailable with Ares-1. Ross.

Ross, if your LOC numbers remain constant I can only hope the Direct implementation of the VSE is adopted. Withstanding heavy cargo that I have not looked at closely enough. Too far off IMO to do any reliable analysis.

Do you really need to resort to colour tricks though? haha. Doesn't rub me the right way, but engineers are far too analytical to respond well to this sort of thing. Hopefully it works as you intend it.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/21/2008 12:13 AM
Quote
MB123 - 20/4/2008  8:03 PM
Do you really need to resort to colour tricks though? haha. Doesn't rub me the right way, but engineers are far too analytical to respond well to this sort of thing. Hopefully it works as you intend it.

Philip is our artistic expert in this.   He suggested that we needed some way to visually emphasize that the Ares-V's 10m diameter Core is totally different hardware from the current 8.4m diameter Shuttle ET - to demonstrate clearly that Jupiter's Core is far more closely related.   Colour seemed like a very reasonable and simple way to show this visually for those folk unaware of the details behind the actual hardware (as I assume most NSF folk are by now).   The Ares-V Core actually has more in common with the white Saturn-V Core in dimensions - although none of that manufacturing/processing hardware exists today either.

NASA has been doing a fairly excellent job of making it appear that the Ares-V hardware shares a lot of commonality.   We're merely pointing out that this currently held "perception" is actually inaccurate.

Its a little "cheesy" yes, but if it gets the correct message across, I can live with some cheese for once - and those who know me, know I *really* don't like cheese :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 04/21/2008 01:16 AM
I agree what is wrong with using color to make a point?  Nothing.  People BOLD, put things in RED to make a point that this is differant than the rest, so pay attention.  If the audiance catches that the ET is white and not orange, and asks questions why?  Who cares!!  The only people who care are people who do not want certain facts to stand out.  

I for one, liked the orginal ESAS.  There were some grumbles here and there, but I thought it was OK.  Then someone points to a vicheal than may be cheaper, and safer--I looked at it a bit more and then I really liked it.  

If NASA thinks its budget will go up in the near future---think again.  It might have a small increase, but will probably will be flat.  Counting in inflation, that is a budget decrease.  As Mr. Griffin said, no increase---push schedule to the right--"Pay as you Go".  Push schedule to far to the right, and no-one will care about it, and the program will be cancelled and there will be no Ares V.  Ares I without Ares V, does not buy the US anything.  I would rather see the Ares money invested somewhere, anywhere else.  If at the start of a 20+ year program you see signs of problems, red flags should be going off in everyone's head.  ESAS is becoming like the Space Shuttle and ISS development programs all over again.  When was Space Station Freedom promised?  When will the actual construction finish?  Will it be what it started out to be?  NOPE!  The same with the Space Shuttle.   Before we get too heavly invested in ESAS, let us take some time and really think if ESAS is the best way to spend our tax dollars.  I work for a public agency, and I hate seeing our money going to waste.  If we continue under NASA's present course---10 years from now people will scracthing their heads at what we did wrong!  As Harod Gehman wrote to Sen.   Milkulski in March 04, "Indeed..the bottom line of the future part of our Report  is to replace the shuttle asap, and the keep this risk equation in mind when developing the replacement system.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/21/2008 07:01 AM
Ross, while I understand your desire to show the difference in tank diameters between Ares V and Direct, I think doing it by colouring the Ares-V white is the wrong approach. If Ares V gets built, it will have the same insulation as the ET and will be orange in colour. To show it as white is a misrepresentation of what the Ares V vehicle will look like.

If you want to show the diameter difference, give a cross section of the tanks overlapping and centered within each other. There will be three diameters, 10 m Ares V, 8.4 m ET/Direct and 5.5 m for Ares-I. These two different diameters for Ares are a large part of what causes Ares I/V to be so expensive compared to Direct.

An alternative approach is to perhaps use red, yellow and green to show differences between the vehicles. Red for new, yellow for modified and green for unchanged.

Ares-I SRB yellow, US red
Ares-V SRB yellow, core stage red, EDS red
Jupiter 120 SRB green, core stage yellow
Jupiter 232 SRB green, core stage yellow, EDS red

If the Ares-V SRB are to use composite casing and HTPB, then its SRB would go red. This will result in an all red Ares-V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 04/21/2008 09:03 AM
Quote
renclod - 21/4/2008  5:22 AM

1/ J-120 for ISS; no air-lit stage, but RS-68s burn to orbital insertion (currently not possible)

No air lit stage is an advantage for J-120 over Ares-1. Why isn't burning the RS-68 to orbit possible?


Quote
This (one CEV two CLV) is not a good architectural choice if safety is paramount.
Where is safety compromised specifically?

Quote
J-120 has most of the hardware for the lunar booster. Ares-1 doesn't. Not true. If we even mention "the lunar booster" then we think trans lunar injection, "EDS" -  the J-2X engine that J-120 intentionally delays.


Splitting hairs. By Most I am obviously refering to everything except EDS.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/21/2008 10:54 AM

Quote
Nathan - 21/4/2008  8:03 PM  
Quote
renclod - 21/4/2008  5:22 AM  1/ J-120 for ISS; no air-lit stage, but RS-68s burn to orbital insertion (currently not possible)
 No air lit stage is an advantage for J-120 over Ares-1.

It's possible, but Ross' overall LOC numbers are the overiding factor.

I recently read the original safety assessment for Ares (from 2006) - it determined the booster, which at that stage was about as common with the STS as the J-120 is now, had LOC probability -much- better than the current J-120, and it still used an air-started second stage.
 

Quote
Why isn't burning the RS-68 to orbit possible?  

The RS-68 isn't rated to this burn time yet.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: pierre on 04/21/2008 11:51 AM
I think that this discussion about launchers LOC numbers is focusing a bit too much on a single tree and forgetting the rest of the forest. It's true that all deadly space accidents until now occurred inside Earth's atmosphere (during launch or re-entry), but this isn't the most dangerous part of a mission beyond LEO: we are talking here about launchers that have all less than 1/1000 LOC probability (well, except Ares V), but an entire lunar mission may have a LOC above 1/100 (IIRC I have seen an 1/66 estimate somewhere).

So the safer launcher is the one that can put more mass in TLI, because the extra mass can be used for putting more redundancy for the parts of the mission where the bigger dangers are. I'm not an astronaut, but if I were I would probably feel safer in a lunar mission with two Jupiter-232 launches than a can-barely-make-it Ares I+Ares V combo (assuming that Ares V will ever get built); because it's not the launch the part I'm more concerned about.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/21/2008 11:56 AM
renclod;
The Jupiter does not use the J-2X. It used the “D” variant, which is lower thrust, and is significantly less stressed. Unlike the J-2X, the 'D' variant is real heritage to the J-2 while the J-2X has far too many new things in it with exceedingly high operating limits. I would also take a wait and see attitude with this engine, but not with the J-2D. It more closely resembles the J-2, which has a history of successful airstarts on actual missions.

As for it not being possible for the RS-68 to burn thru to orbital insertion, you are drawing a conclusion on insufficient data and only a single data point.

The current certification of the burn time for RS-68 on the Delta-IV is at the point it is because that is the burn time the customer requested certification for. Engine burn time certification is exceptionally expensive and usually involves running the engine thru to self destruction, so one doesn’t pay for certifications one is not going to need. In the case of the Delta, that’s all that was needed. In the case of the Jupiter, we will need to pay for the certification. It just so happens however, that the PWR certification teams have already burned this engine for the time required for the Jupiter to achieve orbital insertion. You will find that data on PWR internal documentation, but not on any publicly releasable documents unless you have several tens of millions of dollars to pay for the paper. But the PWR engineers have informed us what the engine is actually capable of. We need it to burn for the length of time it takes to achieve orbital insertion, and we have been told that the engine will easily do that. We have charts and graphs which show the burn times achieved, but these charts and graphs do not bear the authority of a certification because they have not been paid for. But it will not be actually flown that way until the cash has crossed hands, the certification process actually done, officially this time, and the certification issued. We have included an extremely large sum of money in our budget to accomplish this. Don't forget that NASA has also chosen this engine, and they also need it to burn for a similar length of time.

The RS-68 is an exceptionally good engine, and is capable of far more than it is "certified" for; easily good enough to push the Jupiter-120 to orbital insertion, and easily good enough to lift the Jupiter-232 high enough for the EDS to take the lunar stack thru TLI.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 04/21/2008 12:07 PM
Quote
MB123 - 21/4/2008  5:54 AM
Quote
Why isn't burning the RS-68 to orbit possible?  
The RS-68 isn't rated to this burn time yet.

"not rated for" does not mean "impossible".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/21/2008 05:02 PM
Quote
kraisee - 20/4/2008  1:27 PM

The whole issue is moot anyway.   Ares-I's November IS-TIM risk analysis is lower than Jupiter-120's:-

Ares-I LOC: 1 in 1256
Jupiter-120 LOC: 1 in 1413

NOTE: Both numbers derived using NASA's own CxP risk assessment methodology - assessment performed by staff at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL


They really shouldn't give numbers like this. It implies the numbers are accurate, when they're not. Any model can only take into account know factors. What kills astronauts are unexpected, unknown factors.

The figures for the Jupiter might be approximate, because its using known components, and a known design.

The assessment for the EELVs (1 in 900 IIRC) may also bear some semblance to reality.

The figures for Ares I might as well have been made by a random number generator. A new vehicle is much more likely (I don't say probable) to fail in an unexpected manner not in the computer model. That applies to Falcon 1 and Ares I. (I believe Donald Rumsfield had a quote about it).


 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 04/21/2008 05:50 PM
Quote
kraisee - 21/4/2008  12:29 AM
Except for the EDS, which will be new whatever vehicle we choose, the Jupiter 4-segment RSRB's will have been in safe operational use for 21 years by the time we use them for the first Lunar return mission (2017).
I guess you meant 31 years  ;)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 04/21/2008 06:19 PM
Steven,

The artist here :)

I can certainly appreciate as an engineer or a space enthusiast how one might feel that the recoloring of the Ares V core stage is a cheap trick but I assure you it was not, it is purely communicative. Direct is in the throws of a massive publicity push right now and it became very clear during a survey pass of the "general public" (that rely more on the imagery they see; than the pdf, and engineer reports we see) that they couldn't understand why Direct was "more" shuttle derived than the Ares program. "THE" first comment out of their mouth was in regards to how they look the same???

In making this simple change to the imagery we have effectively removed this misconception and it has meant all the difference in the public perception. It is not our intent to deceive anyone (and for the record we are not, unless we are altering the performance numbers by adding the white paint :P) , but to allow those who don't know any better (particularly those who are not on NSF) to ask more questions about what NASA is doing and if Direct might be offering a better solution. It has had a profound effect in public perception and communication of our cause.

I am certain that the reason it may be so off putting to some on this thread it is because we have essentially changed the only remaining element that makes the Ares program an SDLV solution


Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Alpha Control on 04/21/2008 06:52 PM
I agree with the point being made here to change the color of the Ares V core stage.  

At the scale that most of the charts are, it's not obvious at a glance that a 10m orange core is larger than the 8.4m core.  The color change helps to emphasize the difference.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/21/2008 06:59 PM
Quote
Alpha Control - 21/4/2008  2:52 PM

I agree with the point being made here to change the color of the Ares V core stage.  

At the scale that most of the charts are, it's not obvious at a glance that a 10m orange core is larger than the 8.4m core.  The color change helps to emphasize the difference.
Especially because by leaving it the same color as STS, NASA was masking the fact that the 10m Ares core was completely different. That difference accounts for many billions of dollars, and without the color change, that difference is not obvious. The color change catches the eye in a manner that nothing else really could.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mrbliss on 04/21/2008 07:06 PM
Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 21/4/2008  2:01 AM

An alternative approach is to perhaps use red, yellow and green to show differences between the vehicles. Red for new, yellow for modified and green for unchanged.

Ares-I SRB yellow, US red
Ares-V SRB yellow, core stage red, EDS red
Jupiter 120 SRB green, core stage yellow
Jupiter 232 SRB green, core stage yellow, EDS red

If the Ares-V SRB are to use composite casing and HTPB, then its SRB would go red. This will result in an all red Ares-V.

I'm just a cheap-seat-sitter in this forum, but this approach seems like good idea.  Instead of an image that mixes reality (shuttle colors) with 'dramatic' highlights, clearly color-code the vehicles to *show* what changes, and what stays the same.  
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 04/21/2008 07:44 PM
Quote
mrbliss - 21/4/2008  3:06 PM

Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 21/4/2008  2:01 AM

An alternative approach is to perhaps use red, yellow and green to show differences between the vehicles. Red for new, yellow for modified and green for unchanged.

Ares-I SRB yellow, US red
Ares-V SRB yellow, core stage red, EDS red
Jupiter 120 SRB green, core stage yellow
Jupiter 232 SRB green, core stage yellow, EDS red

If the Ares-V SRB are to use composite casing and HTPB, then its SRB would go red. This will result in an all red Ares-V.

I'm just a cheap-seat-sitter in this forum, but this approach seems like good idea.  Instead of an image that mixes reality (shuttle colors) with 'dramatic' highlights, clearly color-code the vehicles to *show* what changes, and what stays the same.  

I agree  completely

red- Yellow - Green
Red- yellow - Gray

These schemes  are used all the time in the Auto Industry for  graphics showing model  year to year changes. Very effective.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/21/2008 07:56 PM
Quote
Nathan - 21/4/2008  12:03 PM
Why isn't burning the RS-68 to orbit possible?
That's not what I said ... "RS-68s burn to orbital insertion ... currently not possible"
Read the Direct v2 original thread pages 224 to 226.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/21/2008 08:04 PM
We did a few other comparisons to see what looked best.   While we settled on the colour change, the below chart was very seriously contemplated too.   It was deemed to be too complicated for a very brief presentation slide though - it needs a little too much explanation to be "instantly understood".

It just wasn't deemed "intuitive".



Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/21/2008 08:22 PM
Quote
renclod - 21/4/2008  3:56 PM

Quote
Nathan - 21/4/2008  12:03 PM
Why isn't burning the RS-68 to orbit possible?
That's not what I said ... "RS-68s burn to orbital insertion ... currently not possible"
Read the Direct v2 original thread pages 224 to 226.
There have been lots of discussions with the PWR guys regarding the ablative nozzle issues and burn time thru to a J-120, engine-out abort to orbit. The RS-68 is more than adequate for the abort to orbit burn time, which is considerably longer than a nominal orbital insertion burn. A couple of test engines exceeded that ATO time by almost 30%. This is simply a non-problem. But it still has to go thru the “official” certification process, which will cost a considerable amount, for which we have adequately budgeted.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/21/2008 09:08 PM
The list of "not currently possible" things includes:-

5-segment SRB for Ares-I (2016)
Composite 5-segment SRB for Ares-V (2019)
J-2X for Ares-I & V (2016)
J-2XD for Jupiter-232 (2017)
RS-68 human-rated - N/A
RS-68A 106% (2012 for USAF)   <<< This is the basis for the Jupiter-120's engine
RS-68B 108% (2019 for NASA)


ALL of those require development work before we will ever use them.

While some are more expensive than others and some take a lot longer than others, in all cases it means at least hundreds of millions of dollars and a number of years to get them ready.

At least, some of the hardware must be changed on each of those to get them working.   That's a fact of life:   None of these engine systems can be used entirely as they are today.

In the specific case of Jupiter's 102% RS-68's, the current expectation is that the hardware being developed by USAF for its non-human-rated 106% RS-68A will form the basis for a NASA variant.   The NASA variant of RS-68A would however include a different ablative nozzle designed specifically for its implementation.   It needs to be optimized for thin atmospheric/vacuum use, to the point where flow separation does not occur at Sea Level (somewhere around 32-34 Area Ratio) and will possibly be made of a thicker ablative material able to sustain the additional burn time.

It should be noted that our performance analysis however, is *not* yet assuming any performance improvements above the existing RS-68 nozzle performance - that remains our baseline for performance assumptions, albeit the engine we are using has had a little over 600kg "growth" added to it already.

DIRECT has *always* assumed a maximum of $1bn worth of budget for such work, while current estimates place the actual value more in the $200-400m range, so we feel we have lots of margin there.   Most of the NASA-specific work can be performed at the same time as the USAF's ongoing work to create RS-68A for Delta-IV, and would not affect USAF's schedules at all.   Test Stands are already built and are in-use.   A good number of RS-68's are already built and sitting on the shelf.   Some of those could easily be purchased for additional testing purposes.   This has all been dealt with a while ago by our PWR contacts though.    There is nothing revelationary about this.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 04/21/2008 09:42 PM
Quote
kraisee - 21/4/2008  3:04 PM

We did a few other comparisons to see what looked best.   While we settled on the colour change, the below chart was very seriously contemplated too.   It was deemed to be too complicated for a very brief presentation slide though - it needs a little too much explanation to be "instantly understood".

It just wasn't deemed "intuitive".



Ross.

Nevermind intuitive it's superb, it shows the detailed breakdown very well in the simplest way possible and I actually learnt new information from it today ;) It should go *somewhere* and not be lost to the public.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/21/2008 09:44 PM
Quote
Stephan - 21/4/2008  1:50 PM

Quote
kraisee - 21/4/2008  12:29 AM
Except for the EDS, which will be new whatever vehicle we choose, the Jupiter 4-segment RSRB's will have been in safe operational use for 21 years by the time we use them for the first Lunar return mission (2017).
I guess you meant 31 years  ;)

Yep.   Doh!

:)

R.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/21/2008 09:46 PM
Quote
marsavian - 21/4/2008  5:42 PM

Nevermind intuitive it's superb, it shows the detailed breakdown very well in the simplest way possible and I actually learnt new information from it today ;) It should go *somewhere*.

Its actually from a draft of another presentation which we have not yet released to the general public - even here on NSF.   We are planning to do so, but not just yet.

We actually went with an even simpler, clearer approach than this.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/21/2008 10:03 PM
The current RS-68 was determined to have a maximum burn duration of 1,200 seconds - clearly enough, even for Jupiter.

Each RS-68 is actually certified to operate up to 1,800 seconds - approximately 4 times the expected burn duration of a Jupiter-120.   Even in a worst-case Engine-out scenario occurring at ~T+45 sec, the actual burn duration of a single RS-68 in-flight, would still be less than half of the certification limit.


Of the 12 engines used to certify RS-68, five were operated to 2,500 seconds and three of those were operated to 4,000 seconds - limited only by the cooling water pond at the test stand getting close to empty!   PWR have indicated to us that they believe RS-68 could go a fair bit beyond that if there was a larger water pond.


No major failures occurred during RS-68 certification, even to these limits.


It would not surprise me if, as part of human rating, we would probably want to see a dozen engines run up to that same 4,000 second point.   But existing data showing all three engines which have ever attempted this have done so successfully so far, would seem to strongly indicate this shouldn't be too much of a problem once given a suitable budget.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/21/2008 10:21 PM
Quote
kraisee - 22/4/2008  1:03 AM

The current RS-68 was determined to have a maximum burn duration of 1,200 seconds - clearly enough, even for Jupiter.

Each RS-68 is actually certified to operate up to 1,800 seconds - approximately 4 times the expected burn duration of a Jupiter-120.  

Of the 12 engines used to certify RS-68, five were operated to 2,500 seconds and three of those were operated to 4,000 seconds - Ross.

With the current ablative nozzle attached ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/21/2008 10:30 PM
Frankly Ross, you could probably draw a Saturn V and the Ares V and draw arrows from the Saturn V 1st stage fuel tank to the Ares 1st Stage fule tank and from the S-4B J-2 to the EDS J-2 to show that "heritage" as well as the shuttle "derived" components, which seem to have as much in common with Ares V as does the Saturn V.  And, for that matter, draw the Delta IV to show the FS-68 going to both...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/21/2008 11:17 PM
Quote
renclod - 21/4/2008  6:21 PM

With the current ablative nozzle attached ?

That is my current understanding, yes.

Although we still assume that we will need a different nozzle for Jupiter - if not for extra ablator material, then at least to get best performance by re-optimizing its area ratio for post-SRB operation in near-vacuum conditions (> 26nm).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nullset on 04/22/2008 02:00 AM
On the color coding of the cores, I'd recommend you use false color and not play the game the way NASA is. In your graphic use a legend stating something like "5m parts are blue, 8m parts are green, 10m parts are yellow, 4 segment SRBs are orange, 5 segment SRBs are red". Then use your pictures of the Ares I & V, the Shuttle, and Jupiter-120 to color the tanks accordingly.

As for the RS-68, I asked some questions about it awhile back. At that time it was said that "off-the-shelf" the engine with its 2 power settings and nozzle shape _could_ carry a Jupiter-120 to orbit, but the ablative nozzle likely needed beefing up. Would the DIRECT team restate what the present mix of current and to-be-developed-or proven engine technology being baselined for the Jupiter-120?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/22/2008 02:19 AM
Regarding RS-68, what we plan to use is whatever hardware USAF is producing at the time - to ensure we are sharing production costs as much as possible.   There is no point in using the 'old' hardware if it means doubling the costs because USAF is now building all-different hardware.

USAF will likely be producing the upgraded RS-68A 106% hardware, and it is expected that this will probably be the heart of the engine we will also use.   But one never knows if such plans might be shelved before being completed, so we aren't banking on that extra performance yet.

We are continuing to use the existing performance levels (102% sea-level optimized) for all our analysis work - although we are assuming a ~600kg heavier variant of the engine.   We close all the performance targets using these baseline settings.   If we do get a performance boost down the road, that's certainly nice to have.   But we don't *have* to have them.   We work perfectly okay even without them.   The expectation is that we will actually end up with slightly improved performance over the current baseline engine, but we just aren't assuming any improvements over what's flying right now.   Its a counting chickens vs. eggs thing...

We do wish to develop a new vacuum optimized area ratio nozzle to be included to get the best performance out of this system and we are also assuming a full human-rating testing program, with appropriate development work for human-specific use is included in both our schedules and costs analysis.   And then we're putting large margins on top of both of those to make sure we aren't low-balling anything.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/22/2008 04:24 AM

Ross, do you speculate that NASA will want to man-rate the Ares V?

Chuck, the expensive certification documents that you described earlier, is that the case for a man-rating of the RS-68 also?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/22/2008 11:06 AM
Quote
MB123 - 22/4/2008  12:24 AM

Ross, do you speculate that NASA will want to man-rate the Ares V?

Chuck, the expensive certification documents that you described earlier, is that the case for a man-rating of the RS-68 also?


There is no speculation, NASA said the Ares V will be manrated from the beginning.

manrating applies to all components, including the RS-68
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/22/2008 11:26 AM
Quote
MB123 - 22/4/2008  12:24 AM

Ross, do you speculate that NASA will want to man-rate the Ares V?

Chuck, the expensive certification documents that you described earlier, is that the case for a man-rating of the RS-68 also?

Certification will include man-rating.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/22/2008 12:23 PM
Quote
clongton - 22/4/2008 10:26 PM
Quote
MB123 - 22/4/2008 12:24 AM

Ross, do you speculate that NASA will want to man-rate the Ares V?

Chuck, the expensive certification documents that you described earlier, is that the case for a man-rating of the RS-68 also?

Certification will include man-rating.

Jim and Chuck, 

Yeah, I meant, in the same token that Chuck is confident the extended burn time certification is simply a matter of producing a document, is this also the case for the man-rating? i.e. not requiring major works to achieve the certification, only the exercise of the actual certification process itself.

Michael.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/22/2008 12:32 PM
Quote
MB123 - 22/4/2008  8:23 AM

Quote
clongton - 22/4/2008 10:26 PM
Quote
MB123 - 22/4/2008 12:24 AM

Ross, do you speculate that NASA will want to man-rate the Ares V?

Chuck, the expensive certification documents that you described earlier, is that the case for a man-rating of the RS-68 also?

Certification will include man-rating.

Jim and Chuck, 

Yeah, I meant, in the same token that Chuck is confident the extended burn time certification is simply a matter of producing a document, is this also the case for the man-rating? i.e. not requiring major works to achieve the certification, only the exercise of the actual certification process itself.

Michael.

No to both cases. Both man rating the engine and certification of burn time are going to require more than just paperwork. In the case of man rating, health monitoring systems will need to be added and tested. In the case of certification, the engine is currently tuned for optimal performance at sea level. We are going to want to retune the engine for vacuum operations, which will probably require a slightly different nozzle area ratio. None of this is difficult, nor does it require any new technology development at all, but it is expensive and time consuming.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 04/23/2008 05:48 AM
Quote
Nullset - 21/4/2008  10:00 PM

On the color coding of the cores, I'd recommend you use false color...
Without wanting to be pedantic, the posted image with the white Ares tanks does exactly what it's supposed to do; show you that Direct is more shuttle derived than Ares. It does it in a heartbeat. It is intuitive and impactful. The descriptions and explanations can come later and can be very persuasive to the technical people looking at the data. However it is the image that will get people to pay attention to that data. It will get them to look further than Ares' orange tanks and think that it's all the same and that it's all shuttle derived. It will get the target audience to actually ask the leading questions that the Direct team has the solid answers for and that's the way to be most persuasive. Once someone sees the image and asks "Why are the Ares tanks white when they're supposed to be the same as the shuttle, aren't they?" you have them! Answer the questions, inform them, let them make up their own minds. That's the key.

And don't think that this doesn't work with people who supposedly are well educated, knowledgeable about the technological or budgetary or even the political details. People's minds work in consistent ways and we, as humans are very, very visual. Use the image to get the audience to ask the questions you want them to ask. Subsequent images can be more technically correct or pass on more information. The leading image has to get the audience to open their minds to what you're saying. If they go into the meeting with the impression that both Ares & Direct are equally shuttle derived, they'll never listen to you. You need to shake that belief, fostered by NASA, and then you can get them to, possibly, see you point. The white versus orange image does that in spades and is a great piece of persuasive graphics.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Firestarter on 04/23/2008 06:37 AM
Status update Direct guys? Anything happening behind the scenes?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/23/2008 07:11 AM
There's *always* stuff going on behind the scenes :)

I know that's tantalizing, but there are many fingers in many pies right now.   Some will work out, others won't.   We're hoping that on-balance we're going to be very happy.

Right now, I'm fixing up the v2.0.1 document for release with help from everyone here on NSF - Thank-you to all who have suggested improvements so far.

We also have a Powerpoint presentation which has been 'doing the rounds' for over a month now - actually the one where that STS > Jupiter-120 animation came from - which I am tweaking for release to you guys here on NSF over the next few weeks (we're getting a voice-over done for it including our vocal "spiel" that goes with it!).   Look forward to that as soon as we can get it done out there.

There are a *LOT* of other things all going on at the same time in private though.   Some are technical, others are economic.   Some are political, others workforce-related.   We do plan to release it all sooner or later, but it has to stay behind closed doors for a while first to do its magic.

I'm sorry I can't be more specific right now, but some of this is a little sensitive.   I'm sure you understand.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/23/2008 07:26 AM
Tantalising, indeed. Fingers crossed for you guys.

With regards to the graphic, if for some reason you needed some other visual way of differentiating the tanks other than orange/white, you could always go with a green shading showing direct (pun intended) components and red shading showing what has to be built from scratch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/23/2008 07:39 AM
Thanks for the well wishes.

I don't know what we're going to do about the graphics.   There are a lot of different opinions which have been expressed, but I don't see that there is any "clear winner" yet...

I think for now we will just stick with what we've got.   Not because it's necessarily best, but mostly because its less work not to have to re-do it again at this point :)

We have been very busy recently - I'd venture to say snowed under in fact.   Our efforts somewhat reminds me of the stereotypical "Swan" - graceful and serene on the surface, but madly paddling away just out of sight!

We may very well re-visit this issue because it does seem to garner some strong opinions from many quarters, but it will have to be when things quieten down a little - but I can't even guess when that might be!

I do want to thank everyone for contributing to the color debate though.   It has been very informative and will be useful down the line as we continue to evolve the DIRECT architecture and publicity material.   But don't let that be a signal to close the discussion - please continue - this is all valuable feedback.

Hmmm.   3:45am.   I should prolly go get some sleep...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 04/24/2008 11:58 AM
Quote
renclod - 22/4/2008  5:56 AM

Quote
Nathan - 21/4/2008  12:03 PM
Why isn't burning the RS-68 to orbit possible?
That's not what I said ... "RS-68s burn to orbital insertion ... currently not possible"
Read the Direct v2 original thread pages 224 to 226.

yes you did. The Direct folk have already acknowledged that this will have to be part of the qualification testing and is included in their budget estimates. It is also not expected to be a problem.

Time the NASA folks started building the thing I think.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 04/25/2008 09:04 PM
I don’t know if it is too late for this suggestion or not but FWIW.

During the recent House hearing on ISS utilization there were some pithy questions asked of Girst.

http://actionforspace.blogspot.com/2008/04/congressional-hearing-on-iss-status-and.html

If the Direct folks can address the questions asked by the Representatives to NASA in Direct’s new presentations it may help with the case for Direct.

One of the major concerns remains the question of consumables, not spares, consumables. The GAO has repeatedly emphasized that, even with a successful ATV, HTV, Progress, and some form of COTS, there remains a substantial shortfall in consumables. The House and Senate have not gotten anything like a satisfactory answer to this issue in the last year so far as I can tell.

With regard to spares, with the rumored reorganization of the shuttle manifest to move the 2 contingency flights to the end of the manifest and the possibility that those flights may not happen, NASA has already stated that ATV, HTV, and Progress are unable to make that up. Nor are they able to carry any of the major spares that might be required from 2010-2016. Direct should address both the currently manifested spares on the contingency flights and any others that may be needed.

There remains substantial congressional interest in AMS, CAM, and other unfinished hardware as well as the numerous experimental racks that have not been completed or have not flown. Utilization of the remaining three MPLM for transport of racks might be desirable and this could include bringing up the PLM, which ESA has offered to construct at a cost of 22m Euros, to the ISS. The addition of this module would strengthen the ISS and enhance the relationship with the International Partners. Direct should address these issues in as substantive a way as possible.

There is concern about down mass; can Direct offer any solution to improve down mass capabilities from the ISS? Down mass is vital for many of the experiments and production facilities planned for the ISS National Lab and ATM the only down mass capability is 132lb on the Soyuz. In addition the Kibo External Platform was specifically designed to exchange external unpressurized cargo from the shuttle to the platform and back for return to Earth. Can Direct offer JAXA this kind of capability?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/25/2008 09:14 PM
Norm,
Very true.   We should try to send something to the panel there answering every one of their queries and showing that NASA's presented options aren't the only ones which are actually available.

I know everyone in the DIRECT Team is a little snowed under right now, so perhaps some of the readers here would like a chance to contribute by offering up a summary of their own for us to base such a message upon?


Regarding downmass options, the *only* thing which I would imagine possible would be either a modified Orion cargo spacecraft variant (expensive) or perhaps something COTS-derived like a Dragon (much cheaper) could be flown.   It would need to include a large docking hatch (MPLM equivalent) so that it would offer a downmass capability for even the largest cargo items on ISS.   Such a cargo carrier could fly inside the PLF of either uncrewed or crewed flights.   If located under the crewed Orion it could either be guided to station by the crew, or make its own automated way to station.

The Jupiter is certainly powerful enough to do the lifting work to bring such a module up.   And such a Cargo Return Vehicle could also be afforded if we are no longer spending all those billions developing Ares-V as well.   So theoretically, it is a system which looks plausible - as long as there is sufficient downmass requirement to make the development worthwhile.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bigfootindy on 04/25/2008 09:49 PM
I've been a long time lurker here and have two things.  Ross - can you change the link from the directlauncher.com page to this thread instead of the frozen one?

Also, I set up a story at Digg.com which links to the directlauncher.com site:

http://digg.com/space/A_safer_faster_and_less_expensive_alternative_to_Ares

Digg it and let's try to get the word out!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/25/2008 10:58 PM
Changed the link, applied for a Digg account, and will try to get our web guys to add a "Digg It" button on the site soon.

:)

I recall somebody else suggested that once previously, but I think it just didn't happen because we were heavily pressed for time on something else...


Is there any way to include a picture embedded into that Digg page?   I've got some suggestions...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 04/25/2008 11:13 PM
Dugg.

Oh dear, I've been avoiding joining for ages....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacediver on 04/26/2008 12:07 AM
The basis for an automatic system to return significant mass back to earth surface could be an ARD-capsule derived reentry module as it was tested on the Ariane 503 flight.

This capsule could be launched on top of an ATV propulsion module, replacing the pressurized ATV-module. It can be launched on an Ariane 5 or, as an alternative, on a J-120 manned flight.
For docking to the ISS a separate small pressurized module with the docking mechanism on top of the reentry capsule is necessary.

After automatic docking the capsule can be loaded with the return payload. After undocking from the ISS the propulsion module performs the reentry maneuver. The propulsion and the docking adapter modules are then jettisoned prior to reentry.

This system should be possible at much lower cost than a cargo version of  an Orion capsule because it is not based on a manrated system and can be more “designed to cost”.

AFAIK such a system was foreseen as a further development of the ATV from the beginning.

Spacediver

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/26/2008 12:17 AM
Quote
Jim - 22/4/2008 10:06 PM
Quote
MB123 - 22/4/2008 12:24 AM

Ross, do you speculate that NASA will want to man-rate the Ares V?

Chuck, the expensive certification documents that you described earlier, is that the case for a man-rating of the RS-68 also?

There is no speculation, NASA said the Ares V will be manrated from the beginning. manrating applies to all components, including the RS-68

Why does NASA want to man rate the Ares V? Was it not the plan to make the crew launcher safer, cheaper, and more flexible by removing the requirement for a huge payload? I thought the Ares V RS-68 already exists? It will have to be man rated for Ares V?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bigfootindy on 04/26/2008 12:44 AM
I think I have to put the picture on it since I posted it - feel free to PM me with a pic or a link and I'll see if I can add it.  Thanks Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bigfootindy on 04/26/2008 12:46 AM
Oh, one thing.  Beware of the Digg effect if it hits the front page of Digg - the site may take a bit of a hit :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: James Lowe1 on 04/26/2008 01:36 AM
Quote
bigfootindy - 24/4/2008  8:46 PM

Oh, one thing.  Beware of the Digg effect if it hits the front page of Digg - the site may take a bit of a hit :)

Not anymore. It used to be a bit of a craze, but not anymore, unless it's something like pictures to a celebrity naked, or some geek programming hacks. Small site now, won't generate much.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 04/26/2008 02:20 AM
Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008  1:00 PM

The point of my analogy is that flying crew and cargo is not and has never been a bad thing.  The criteria for crew and cargo could be launched together would be the following:

1.  Obviously, you will not be launching something that has nothing to do with the reason the crew is going into space
2.  The next government manned launch vehicle is going to be in use for some time.  It makes sense to design it so that some useful cargo (this is not meant to include the basic support equipment - clothes, food, etc - that will be carried on Orion as "cargo") could be brought along with the crew so that in the future as new mission possiblities appear it may not require multiple launches.  
3.  The crew needs a have an abort system that can give them a reasonable chance of survival during all phases of launch, which again depends on design of the vehicle.  

This was the point I was making above about the silliness of having a pure crew launch vehicle where just the crew and the underwear are carried on one rocket and everything else on another.  It is unfortunate that some have tried to twist the meaning of that simple statement by droning on about buses and motor oil.  I do wish Ares 1 had better performance where this possiblity could be offered because I believe it's a distinct possibility that a mission could be derived in the future that would require something in orbit other than Orion but less than what would be required for an Ares 5 and you could avoid multiple launches all together.

Seems to me this entire argument is largely based on misconstrued intentions.   All the arguments about motor oil and cinder blocks is irrelevant.  

The basic idea, which is quite correct  IMHO, is that crew and cargo cannot be in the same vehicle element.   That's why the original plans for carrying Centaur liquid stages in the shuttle cargo bay were scrapped.  Carrying volatile liquid fuel INSIDE the SAME vehicle used to carry the crew is an invitation to disaster.  Can you imagine the prospects of a Shuttle carrying Centaur in an abort trying to land with a crew in a damaged orbiter loaded down with a fuelled liquid rocket stage INSIDE THE SPACECRAFT??  Not a good idea.  

Now, if you're sitting in a SEPERATE SPACECRAFT ELEMENT, say a capsule with an escape rocket that can readily seperate itself from the LV and ANY payload and do an abort, the reasons for such a prohibition go away.  Even if the LV has a bad day, and the cargo goes down with the ship, the capsule is designed to make a safe abort from the stack.  No problem...

It's sorta like hauling 6 filled gas cans in the front seat of your car.... not a great idea.  Any spills and the fumes will run you out of town.  But hauling them in the back of the pickup, seperate from the 'crew compartment' and any spills can evaporate to the atmosphere.   That's a FAR better analogy AFAIC... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/26/2008 02:53 AM
Quote
spacediver - 25/4/2008  8:07 PM

The basis for an automatic system to return significant mass back to earth surface could be an ARD-capsule derived reentry module as it was tested on the Ariane 503 flight.

If it has sufficient downmass capability, that would be a good option IMHO.   It would also be a nice unique capability which ESA could introduce into the mix which nobody else is so-far addressing - and that's likely to present a good business opportunity.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/26/2008 02:57 AM
Quote
bigfootindy - 25/4/2008  8:46 PM

Oh, one thing.  Beware of the Digg effect if it hits the front page of Digg - the site may take a bit of a hit :)

I've got 15,000Gb of transfer per month.   Didn't even even 1% of that when we had multiple copies of our AIAA paper going all over the place.   Hit about 5% when we got Slashdotted about a year ago...

Shouldn't be too much of an issue.

In fact I'd welcome so much traffic that our host can't cope with it!    Bring it on!!! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/28/2008 08:14 AM

Quote
luke strawwalker - 26/4/2008 1:20 PM
Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008 1:00 PM The point of my analogy is that flying crew and cargo is not and has never been a bad thing. The criteria for crew and cargo could be launched together would be the following: 1. Obviously, you will not be launching something that has nothing to do with the reason the crew is going into space 2. The next government manned launch vehicle is going to be in use for some time. It makes sense to design it so that some useful cargo (this is not meant to include the basic support equipment - clothes, food, etc - that will be carried on Orion as "cargo") could be brought along with the crew so that in the future as new mission possiblities appear it may not require multiple launches. 3. The crew needs a have an abort system that can give them a reasonable chance of survival during all phases of launch, which again depends on design of the vehicle. This was the point I was making above about the silliness of having a pure crew launch vehicle where just the crew and the underwear are carried on one rocket and everything else on another. It is unfortunate that some have tried to twist the meaning of that simple statement by droning on about buses and motor oil. I do wish Ares 1 had better performance where this possiblity could be offered because I believe it's a distinct possibility that a mission could be derived in the future that would require something in orbit other than Orion but less than what would be required for an Ares 5 and you could avoid multiple launches all together.
Seems to me this entire argument is largely based on misconstrued intentions. All the arguments about motor oil and cinder blocks is irrelevant. The basic idea, which is quite correct IMHO, is that crew and cargo cannot be in the same vehicle element. That's why the original plans for carrying Centaur liquid stages in the shuttle cargo bay were scrapped. Carrying volatile liquid fuel INSIDE the SAME vehicle used to carry the crew is an invitation to disaster. Can you imagine the prospects of a Shuttle carrying Centaur in an abort trying to land with a crew in a damaged orbiter loaded down with a fuelled liquid rocket stage INSIDE THE SPACECRAFT?? Not a good idea. Now, if you're sitting in a SEPERATE SPACECRAFT ELEMENT, say a capsule with an escape rocket that can readily seperate itself from the LV and ANY payload and do an abort, the reasons for such a prohibition go away. Even if the LV has a bad day, and the cargo goes down with the ship, the capsule is designed to make a safe abort from the stack. No problem... It's sorta like hauling 6 filled gas cans in the front seat of your car.... not a great idea. Any spills and the fumes will run you out of town. But hauling them in the back of the pickup, seperate from the 'crew compartment' and any spills can evaporate to the atmosphere. That's a FAR better analogy AFAIC... OL JR :)

I think this is the most interesting topic i've posted on in this forum...

IMO, and in a 'clean sheet' sense, overall vehicle mass is (perhaps not linearly) inversely proportionate to crew safety - with the exception of redundant systems designed to increase crew safety.

If your goal is to create an LV that is the most safest crew vehicle ever (i.e. Ares), you would not give it a payload (i.e. an mplm).

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 04/28/2008 03:46 PM
Quote
MB123 - 28/4/2008  3:14 AM
IMO, and in a 'clean sheet' sense, overall vehicle mass is (perhaps not linearly) inversely proportionate to crew safety - with the exception of redundant systems designed to increase crew safety.

If your goal is to create an LV that is the most safest crew vehicle ever (i.e. Ares), you would not give it a payload (i.e. an mplm).

I do see your point, but I don't think I agree.  You should look at what the payload itself is, and if it contains anything that would pose additional risk to the crew (radiation sources, fuels, etc.).

If you are carrying some cargo with a couple RTGs and some hypergols, then I could see that cargo posing some additional risk to the crew.  But, as long as the launcher you are working with can handle the additional mass-to-orbit, I don't think (IMO) that makes it inherently less safe.

Now, cargo mass that is non-separable from your crew module (such as a Shuttle cargo bay) could make abort more dangerous.  If your crew can abort away from the launcher without having to bring the cargo with it, I don't think it poses any additional risk.

In fact, in the event of a series launcher, the cargo may actually have a positive effect on crew safety, by placing a blast-wave absorber in between the crew and the LV, givng the automatic abort perhaps another few milliseconds to react.

IMO, "separate crew from cargo" doesn't have to mean separate launchers... Just separate components in the mission vehicle allowing the crew to abort without the cargo if need be.

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 04/28/2008 03:57 PM
Quote
MB123 - 28/4/2008  3:14 AM

If your goal is to create an LV that is the most safest crew vehicle ever (i.e. Ares), you would not give it a payload (i.e. an mplm).


That's a common misperception and people also assume incorrectly that it is now a law.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with carrying a payload with the crew if the mission, the reason you are sending people there in the first place, can benefit from it.  

If the crew has a reasonable chance at escape, dependent on the design of the vehicle, then it does not matter if there is anything behind them or not.  In fact, it can be argued, again dependent on the design of the vehicle, it may be cheaper and more operationally effective to launch in one vehicle versus two.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/29/2008 12:14 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 29/4/2008 2:57 AM
Quote
MB123 - 28/4/2008 3:14 AM If your goal is to create an LV that is the most safest crew vehicle ever (i.e. Ares), you would not give it a payload (i.e. an mplm).

 

That's a common misperception and people also assume incorrectly that it is now a law. There is absolutely nothing wrong with carrying a payload with the crew if the mission, the reason you are sending people there in the first place, can benefit from it. If the crew has a reasonable chance at escape, dependent on the design of the vehicle, then it does not matter if there is anything behind them or not. In fact, it can be argued, again dependent on the design of the vehicle, it may be cheaper and more operationally effective to launch in one vehicle versus two.

Fair enough. I can see how it would be misinterpreted as a law. It is not a law.

I used to think that it's authority came from the fact that it is NASA's interpretation of the needs of US space flight, but now that I've heard they want to man-rate ares V I am confused.

Ah, your argument is growing support in my mind. If they are man-rating Ares V, they have no needs basis to provide Ares I.

If my interpretation is correct then NASA could not man-rate Ares V while remaining in line with their interpretation of the needs of the program. It appears my interpretation is not correct. Unless they are drawing a line between Ares I and Ares V such that the former has much higher flight rates than a crewed version of the latter.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 04/29/2008 02:20 PM
Florida politics (Orlando Sentinel):

Senator Bill Nelson (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasafuture2908apr29,0,2177790.story):

Quote
VIERA - Florida voters could hold the key to the future of NASA's plans for human spaceflight and, with it, the fate of the Kennedy Space Center, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson told Brevard County commissioners and nervous space-industry officials and workers Monday.

"The next president is going to decide a lot [about the space program]," Nelson said during a presentation to a daylong county space workshop. "And East-Central Florida has an opportunity to influence the next president because, at the end of the day, Florida is going to be important this November."

The article also offers commentary consistent with Rand Simberg's Popular Science essay:

Quote
Nelson said that Floridians need to press their case on the presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Clinton was the first candidate to outline support for "robust human spaceflight" and is seen as NASA's biggest booster of the three. But there are questions on how committed she is to the Bush administration's plans for exploration to the moon and then Mars.

McCain recently worried space supporters by backing a plan to freeze all federal discretionary spending -- including NASA's budget -- except on defense and homeland-security programs.

Obama supports human spaceflight but wants to use money from NASA to fund education reforms.

Is this an unstated reference to DIRECT?

Quote
Former congressman Bob Walker, now a lobbyist working for Brevard County, told the workshop that all the candidates were starting to question whether NASA's choice of vehicles to go back to the moon -- especially the Ares rocket that has been dogged by political and technical difficulties -- was a mistake.

Nelson said he thinks "basic politics" could change the way the candidates view the space program.

and then there is this:

Quote
Nelson will hold a hearing on the KSC job losses in Brevard in June. He said NASA did not want him to hold the hearing because it would "stir people up." NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage would not confirm nor deny Nelson's claim but said: "If any congressional committee schedules a hearing involving NASA, we will be there to support it and answer any questions."

Very interesting . . .
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tedcraft on 05/03/2008 04:33 PM
Ross,

Any idea when the Direct 2.0.1 will be "officially" released?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 05/03/2008 09:28 PM
Another thing that might want to be "casually" mentioned is how the Jupiter series would be a good complement to the EELV program for DoD and and intelligence work.  I think the Air Force/NRO/others would be very interested in a rocket that could lift an 8m diameter lens on a reconnaissance satellite, while other payloads would stay on EELV.  Ares V will not be in any economic area for either agency to use, while maybe once a year Jupiter-120 flight should be much more affordable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/04/2008 01:33 AM
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 3/5/2008  5:28 PM

Another thing that might want to be "casually" mentioned is how the Jupiter series would be a good complement to the EELV program for DoD and and intelligence work.  I think the Air Force/NRO/others would be very interested in a rocket that could lift an 8m diameter lens on a reconnaissance satellite, while other payloads would stay on EELV.  Ares V will not be in any economic area for either agency to use, while maybe once a year Jupiter-120 flight should be much more affordable.

No, they shouldn't.  The DOD and NRO don't have requirements for anything other than EELV's.   This has been stated over and over at conferences.   Also Direct is not on the west coast.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 05/04/2008 01:53 AM
Quote
Jim - 3/5/2008  9:33 PM

No, they shouldn't.  The DOD and NRO don't have requirements for anything other than EELV's.   This has been stated over and over at conferences.   Also Direct is not on the west coast.

I realize that there is no requirement, jsut saying that there exists the possibility for it to happen if such a design is warranted.  EELVs are definitely the sole booster for the government for now, however I just threw out the large telescope as a future capability if ever desired.  Also for polar flights Jupiter can do the dog leg approach from Kennedy (i know it will never fly out of vandenburg)  Of course that gives a large performance hit, but a 8 meter diameter telescope would be more concerned with volume rather than mass one would suppose.  However it is again a nice to have rather than a requirement, but the capability to do so would score a few brownie points.

however this is far as I am going, I know better than to argue with Jim.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/04/2008 03:53 AM
Quote
tedcraft - 3/5/2008  12:33 PM

Any idea when the Direct 2.0.1 will be "officially" released?

We've been working on some other things recently which are a little more time critical.   That and a few days in my sickbed have meant I just haven't had the time to write the changes up fully yet.   I'll get to it soon though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/04/2008 04:08 AM
Pentagon *is* interested.   I will say no more.

My own interest is to make an 8m dia. replacement in LEO for Hubble.   JWST has its purpose all the way out at EML-2, but an LEO-based scope also has proven its worth already.   Having a straight replacement for Hubble, which we can continue to maintain, would be a nice opportunity.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/04/2008 01:58 PM
Quote
tedcraft - 3/5/2008  12:33 PM

Any idea when the Direct 2.0.1 will be "officially" released?

Release Candidate is now here

Enjoy,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 05/04/2008 02:36 PM
Great job Ross and team! Good balance of graphics and presenting sufficient "meat" behind the ideas in a clear and condensed presentation that won't overwhelm the average reader(congress critter?).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/04/2008 02:56 PM
That's essentially the aim of this doc, so thanks! :)

If the eagle-eyed viewers here think the bugs have been fixed (and hopefully I haven't introduced many new ones!), then this document will go up on the site some time Monday/Tuesday.

I'm also getting a mildly re-edited version of a PowerPoint Presentation ready for release right now too which has been out there for about 6 weeks or so 'doing the rounds'.   That should be ready in the next day or two too - although I'm not including the voice-over which we were going to add.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/04/2008 02:59 PM
No mention of earlier support for the ISS on the title page makes it sound like a moon rocket, and only a moon rocket.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/04/2008 03:06 PM
Interesting point that.   I'll tweak it.

Although, having worked all night on a few of these docs now, I'm off to the beach where I can catch some zzz's...

I'll do the tweaking later :)

Thanks to all who offer feedback though.

Beach "Sunday School" beckons...   And I ain't talkin' about anything involvin' a bible... ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 05/04/2008 04:05 PM
Figures 14 and 15 have font sizes which are not easily read at 100% magnification or when printed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 05/04/2008 05:29 PM
Quote
This single vehicle, called “Jupiter”, would be capable of supporting either Crew or Cargo missions for both Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and the far larger Exploration missions going on to the Moon, Mars and Beyond.

I would say instead "This single vehicle or “Jupiter”, would be capable of supporting either Crew or Cargo missions for both International Space Station logistics flights and the far larger Exploration missions going on to the Moon, Mars and Beyond.

Quote
The configuration of the vehicles also has additional
benefits not accounted for so easily.
 

I think this line is unnecessary, just axe it as it just does not sound right.

Quote
Additionally, with multiple engines on the Core Stage, (and also later the Upper Stage) this provides a level of redundancy.

Instead how about:

Additionally, multiple engines on the core and later Upper stage provides an increased level of redundancy not available on Ares-I.

I haven't read the rest, but I need to eat.  Maybe someone else can proof read it some more.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/04/2008 05:50 PM

Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 4/5/2008  12:29 PM
I haven't read the rest, but I need to eat.  Maybe someone else can proof read it some more.

I proof-read the whole thing and provided comments off-line.  However, I suspect we'll get a lot of redundancy unless we post the comments where all can see them.  Here's what I found.  

The text from the presentation is indented for reference.

   
·        Pg. 2 - This is an incomplete sentence…

   

“By replacing the two expensive Ares Launch Vehicles with a single Launcher more closely related to the existing Shuttle systems.”


·        Pg. 2 – These are very long (~63 words vs. recommended 25 word max) one-sentence paragraphs which contain awkward phrasing

   

“By removing all of the key long-lead-time, highly expensive and technically challenging components from the critical development path to fielding Shuttle’s replacement in the short-term and by choosing to only rely upon existing flight hardware as the basis for all major systems, DIRECT can become operational many years sooner – thus “closing the gap” after Shuttle from 5 years, to just 2 years.

   

This, coupled with the lower development costs, will make it an affordable proposition to realistically retain the Shuttle’s workforce in order to prevent a repeat of the disastrous “brain-drain” which occurred in the 6 year hiatus between the Apollo Program and Shuttle during the period 1975-1981.”

 

                                                                                                     

 

Consider the following single-paragraph alternative:

   

“By removing key long-lead-time components from the critical development path and basing all major systems on existing flight hardware, DIRECT closes the post-shuttle ‘gap’ from at least 5 years to 2 years.  As a consequence of a faster development time, this approach reduces the costs associated with developing the STS replacement system and prevents a repeat of the disastrous ‘brain drain’ that occurred between the Apollo and Shuttle programs.”  

 


 

“[N]ew J-2X engines, new Upper Stages” are listed in Pg. 2, Para 3 as being a “bad” thing, yet they’re included in figure 1 as being pieces of the 232.  This is confusing to anyone not familiar with the whole Jupiter system and the rationale for the choices made ad infinitum.  You should make clearer that their inclusion on the 232 removes them from the critical path of the 120.  That’s done later in the article, but by that point it’s too late unless the reader already knows it.  I don’t have any suggestions on how you can do this, but it would be good if you can figure a way to address it.

 

 


 

·        Pg. 3, Para 1 – I’d recommend “exceed” instead of “achieve”.  “Achieve” allows the reader to assume that the system just barely passes muster.  We both know that this isn’t the case.

 

 

Both of the proposed Launch Vehicles in this proposal, Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232, achieve NASA’s minimum requirements

 
 

 

·        Pg. 3, last Para – “exceeds Shuttle” doesn’t make grammatical sense.  It can exceed the Shuttle’s performance, or the Shuttle’s charisma, or whatever.  We’re missing a noun?  Perhaps “…its performance exceeds that of the Shuttle…”

 

   

“An important feature of the Jupiter launch system is how its performance exceeds Shuttle
from day one…”

 


·        Pg. 8, Para 1 – Remove “also” and “too”.

 

 

As with Ares-I and Ares-V also, new plumbing is required too.

 


 

·        Pg 8 - “Figure 10 demonstrates both the 8.4m and 10m Fairings.  No it doesn’t.  Both references to Figure 10 on this page should refer to Figure 9.

 

Cheers! 

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kenny008 on 05/05/2008 12:19 AM
Ross,

Looks like most the Figure numbers are off by one, starting around page 7.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kaa on 05/05/2008 02:24 AM
Ross and team, you are doing a fantastic job, however your writing can I think be a bit more, well, direct. I had a go at the introduction and reworked it as follows...


We propose to replace the current two Launch Vehicle (Ares) implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) with a single Launcher (Jupiter) directly derived from the existing Shuttle system.

This “DIRECT” Shuttle-derived launcher exceeds all VSE payload and safety requirements for Crew and Cargo missions to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), the Moon, Mars, and Beyond. Compared to Ares, it reduces development costs, schedule and risks, cuts the human spaceflight gap after the Shuttle retires in 2010 from 5 to 2 years, and retains the NASA and contractor workforce.

DIRECT achieves this by minimizing new technology. Jupiter uses unchanged the human-rated Shuttle 4-segment Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB), the USAF Delta-IV RS-68 main engines, and converts the current Shuttle External Tank (ET) into a Core Stage atop which flies the new Orion spacecraft. In contrast, Ares has to develop new 5-segment SRB’s, new J-2X engines, new Upper Stages and all-new manufacturing and launch facilities.

The DIRECT Shuttle replacement bases all major systems on existing flight hardware and has no key long lead-time, highly expensive and technically challenging components on the critical development path. This enables DIRECT to start operating three years earlier than Ares and significantly “close the gap” in US human spaceflight.

This faster schedule, coupled with the lower development costs, will make retaining the Shuttle workforce an affordable proposition and prevents a repeat of the disastrous “brain-drain” which occurred in the 6 year hiatus between the Apollo Program and Shuttle during the period 1975-1981.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/05/2008 02:35 AM
(Page 2)  Change:

“This proposal defines a high-level alternative to NASA’s current Launch Vehicle plans designed to support the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE). By replacing the two expensive Ares Launch Vehicles with a single Launcher more closely related to the existing Shuttle systems.

Such a “DIRECT” Shuttle Derivative would reduce development costs and significantly “close the gap” after the Space Shuttle retires in 2010 – thereby protecting the Shuttle’s workforce. This single vehicle, called “Jupiter”, would be capable of supporting either Crew or Cargo missions for both Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and the far larger Exploration missions going on to the Moon, Mars and Beyond.”

To
“This proposal defines a single launcher alternative to NASA’s expensive current plans for two new Ares launchers that reduces development costs, protects the existing workforce and significantly “closes the gap” from five years to only two.  This vehicle – called “Jupiter” can supporting Crew or Cargo missions in support of the International Space Station (ISS), other Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and the futre missions to the Moon, Mars and Beyond.”

Rationale:  Provides a stronger, short paragraph introducing your work.

Page 6

Change:

Main Engines:
The 3 familiar Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) are designed to be reused approximately 20 times before requiring replacement. Because these are reusable engines, they are very expensive to manufacture and maintain. To be utilized on a disposable stage like this they would be too expensive to be realistic. DIRECT proposes to use the considerably less expensive Pratt &
Whitney Rocketdyne RS-68 engine borrowed from the US Air Force’s Delta-IV program – an engine one and a half times as powerful as SSME, but designed to be inexpensive enough to be disposable – and already planned to be utilized on NASA’s future Ares-V.

The ESAS Report identified the RS-68 as a good option for NASA’s new program, and clarified that human-rating the engine should be a fairly routine process given that it is already a flight-certified unit. For DIRECT, we have deliberately retained the performance of the existing engines rather than upgrading them in any way. This removes the significant development costs incurred by requalifying the RS-68 to 106% maximum power needed for Ares-V and erases all schedule impacts from our development path. Only the process of human-rating, such as adding health monitoring systems and backup actuators is required – a task NASA has already undertaken.

To:  

Main Engines:
Like the planned Ares V, DIRECT proposes to use the considerably less expensive Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne RS-68 engine borrowed from the US Air Force’s Delta-IV program.  Unlike the Ares V, Jupiter uses the unmodified RS-68s instead of upgraded engines to 106% maximum power.  Using the current RS-68, reduces development costs, makes the engine easier to man-rate, and significantly reduces the development schedule for the engine.  Indeed, Only the process of human-rating, such as adding health monitoring systems and backup actuators is required – a task NASA has already undertaken.

Rationale:  Selling the non-use of the SSME is not needed, as it is already of the development path.  A shorter section makes the point more quickly with less confusion for the reader.

Page 9

Delete the following

“DIRECT is not dependent – in any way – on these technologies, but utilizing a stage design with an eye towards these systems in the future would greatly enhance the potential for an orbital Propellant Depot system in the future – which can be very valuable indeed. See Figure 16.

With a Propellant Depot in orbit the high cost of lifting the large quantities of propellant could easily be shared with foreign partners. A series of unmanned launches could re-fill the tanks without depending upon NASA’s resources. In return for such valuable supplies, partner nations would earn seats or payload space on Lunar & Mars missions. This would allow NASA to offset some of the high costs for Exploration while never giving up any of the key technologies required to explore our solar system to any foreign power. It would allow foreign nations to provide substantial and direct support to the program, and would in the process, also create a new commercial market for launch providers to compete for business from countries who do not have a space launch program of their own but who still wish to purchase seats on nationally prestigious Lunar missions.”

Rationale:  Keep this to your booster.  Talking about propellant depots dilutes the message and can give the impression of a complicated assembly sequence like the ISS, which can cause loss of support among the public and congress.  

Change:

Using a pair of the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne’s new J-2X engines (actually the lower thrust “D” variant is all that is required for Jupiter), currently due to be qualified around 2015 for NASA, this stage will more than double the performance of the Jupiter-120. And the same stage will also act as a highly efficient Earth Departure Stage (EDS). DIRECT has so far engaged Lockheed Martin’s Atlas/Centaur team, with 40 years experience, who have confirmed the viability of such a stage.

To:

Direct uses simpler, lower thrust Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne’s J-2D instead of the more complicated and expensive J-2X, that will take until 2015 to qualify.  This contributes to a smaller development budget and the closure of the 5 year US manned spaceflight gap to only 2 years.  And, even the J-2D will double the performance of the Jupiter-120 from __________ to ___________.

Rationale:  Shows your alternative first instead of talking about NASA’s plan.  Shorter paragraph enhances understanding.  Reference to LMCO is not needed, make it a footnote.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/05/2008 03:06 AM
Or just add the sentence "Compatible with the proposed orbiting Propellant Depot".  This shows that the DIRECT team has planned ahead and will alleviate fears that the Depot will produce major operational problems.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/05/2008 06:04 AM
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 4/5/2008  11:06 PM

Or just add the sentence "Compatible with the proposed orbiting Propellant Depot".  This shows that the DIRECT team has planned ahead and will alleviate fears that the Depot will produce major operational problems.

There isn't a"proposed" one in NASA's plans.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 05/05/2008 10:42 AM
Quote
kaa - 4/5/2008  9:24 PM
reworked it as follows...
...for Crew and Cargo missions to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), the Moon, Mars, and Beyond. ...

Just not to trip on that pesky prohibition to work on anything Mars-related, do not mention it explicitly:

to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), the Moon, planets, and beyond.

:cool:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 05/05/2008 10:46 AM
Quote
kraisee - 4/5/2008  4:58 PM

Release Candidate is now here

Enjoy,

Ross.

You propose to operate all 3 (or 4) configurations , contemporaneously (multiple flights of different configs in one year, and year after year). Example, 2018 in the release candidate:

3 x J-120/Orion + 2 x J-232/Orion + 2 x J-232/unmanned.

Can it be done with only 2 launch pads ? How are the fixed structures going to look ? Crew access at different heights (single pad for manned configs) ? Or two roller coasters, one for each pad ?

Is there a rational division of 3/4 configs between 2 pads ?

(just asking !)

edit: what I consider to be the 4th configuration (most unlikely) is J-120/unmanned

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/05/2008 02:55 PM

From www.SpacePolitics.com:  

"On Wednesday morning, May 7, the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing titled 'Reauthorizing the Vision for Space Exploration'”.
 

 

 

1) Does anyone know if DIRECT is up for discussion?

2) Does anyone know how DIRECT stands in the eyes of "George Whitesides, executive director of the National Space Society"?  He's apparently on the list of witnesses who will be speaking at the hearing.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 05/05/2008 04:01 PM
Quote
kraisee - 4/5/2008  4:58 PM
Release Candidate is now here

Enjoy,

Ross.

In the AIAA 2007 paper, J-232/Orion ejects the LAS at T+322 seconds, post u/s ignition (T+292 sec.)

In the ReleaseCandidate pdf, LAS jettison shows at T+274 sec., prior to the u/s ignition (same T+292 sec.)

Is it mandatory, or not, to keep the LAS until after u/s ignition ?

(just asking !)


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: copernicus on 05/05/2008 06:05 PM

As for a Fuel Depot, I will refer to Mike Griffin's comments of November 15, 2005 to the
conference of the American Astronautical Society.  You can find this speech by "googling"
the phrase " 'Mike Griffin' 2005 AIAA"  -  note that this is erroneously labled as remarks to
the AIAA instead of the AAS.  

Late in his speech, starting on page 7, Griffin was very enthusiastic about the use of orbital fuel depots.  He felt
that they should not be on the critical path for the return to the Moon, but that they should
come into play for manned Mars missions and later exploration of the Moon.  He also mentions inflatable
habitats, such as Bigelow's modules, could be used for manned support of the Fuel Depot.  
All in all, it looks like Griffin is a supporter of your concept to eventual use orbital re-fueling.  

Also, I feel that the DIRECT Team is in a great position to influence the space policy of the next
President.  You may recall that when Bill Clinton came to office in 1993, he ordered the
re-design of the Space Station.  The ISS is a result of Clinton's efforts to re-organize the project,
and to make it manageable, both technically and financially.  
I feel that the next President, whoever he or she is, will make a similar effort with the VSE.  
The DIRECT Team has done the leg work to make their proposal the logical one to adopt.  

As for NASA's recent reports on plans to mitigate the vibration issues with Ares-1, I feel that
they also lay the groundwork for the next administration to terminate Ares-1 and move to DIRECT.
With these reports, NASA has now officially documented the shortcomings of Ares-1.  
The next administration can see for themselves, with these reports, that a new way is needed.  



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/05/2008 07:48 PM
Quote
Jim - 5/5/2008  7:04 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 4/5/2008  11:06 PM

Or just add the sentence "Compatible with the proposed orbiting Propellant Depot".  This shows that the DIRECT team has planned ahead and will alleviate fears that the Depot will produce major operational problems.

There isn't a"proposed" one in NASA's plans.

Boeing or Lockheed Martin would be the natural proposer of a commercial Propellant Depot rather than NASA.  Similar to this one from Boeing, which assumes NASA is a customer for the fuel:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/constellation/references/presentations/Potential_Impact_of_LEO_Propellant_on_NASA_ESAS_Architecture.pdf
,
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/05/2008 08:07 PM
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 5/5/2008  3:48 PM

Quote
Jim - 5/5/2008  7:04 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 4/5/2008  11:06 PM

Or just add the sentence "Compatible with the proposed orbiting Propellant Depot".  This shows that the DIRECT team has planned ahead and will alleviate fears that the Depot will produce major operational problems.

There isn't a"proposed" one in NASA's plans.

Boeing or Lockheed Martin would be the natural proposer of a commercial Propellant Depot rather than NASA.  Similar to this one from Boeing, which assumes NASA is a customer for the fuel:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/constellation/references/presentations/Potential_Impact_of_LEO_Propellant_on_NASA_ESAS_Architecture.pdf
,

That doesn't change the fact that is it just plain stupid to say it is compatible with a non existent depot where nothing is defined.  It is just like saying a car you are looking at to buy has to fit in a undefined garage of an unknown house you might or might not buy in the future

Don't want to give detractors reasons to  to find issues with.  
Direct wants help, not more work, so give them something useful or say nothing at all.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/05/2008 09:32 PM
Okay, I've incorporated some of the suggestions.   I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback on this, in particular here on this thread Lee Jay, marsavian, Ronsmytheiii, kttopdad, kenny008, mike robel, AM Swallow and gospacex have all offered very welcome suggestions - to list but a few!

Not all of the suggestions were adopted, sorry, but I think that between the various options we have a pretty good document now.   Here is one final review if you wish!

I'll try to deal with some of the questions here now...

Thanks,

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/05/2008 09:35 PM
Quote
kttopdad - 5/5/2008  10:55 AM

From www.SpacePolitics.com:  
"On Wednesday morning, May 7, the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing titled 'Reauthorizing the Vision for Space Exploration'”.

1) Does anyone know if DIRECT is up for discussion?

We hope so.


Quote
2) Does anyone know how DIRECT stands in the eyes of "George Whitesides, executive director of the National Space Society"?  He's apparently on the list of witnesses who will be speaking at the hearing.

I have contacted him personally.   We were going to approach all of the advocacy groups soon, but this hearing has prompted a fast-track contact.   That's okay though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/05/2008 09:39 PM
Quote
gospacex - 5/5/2008  6:42 AM

Quote
kaa - 4/5/2008  9:24 PM
reworked it as follows...
...for Crew and Cargo missions to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), the Moon, Mars, and Beyond. ...

Just not to trip on that pesky prohibition to work on anything Mars-related, do not mention it explicitly:

to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), the Moon, planets, and beyond.

:cool:

Mars is a bit of a two-edged sword.   Some prominent people don't want to go to Mars, but many others do.   Leaving a reference to it out would expose DIRECT to claims of "can't do Mars, eh?" which is clearly wrong.

So, we're limiting mention of it to the context which NASA and the government has already mentioned - specifically in the common phrase "Moon, Mars and Beyond".   This way we can show the system will support Mars with no problems, but keep the argument of Mars-only technology out of the conversation.

It's a workable compromise.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/05/2008 09:41 PM
Quote
renclod - 5/5/2008  12:01 PM

Quote
kraisee - 4/5/2008  4:58 PM
Release Candidate is now here

Enjoy,

Ross.

In the AIAA 2007 paper, J-232/Orion ejects the LAS at T+322 seconds, post u/s ignition (T+292 sec.)

In the ReleaseCandidate pdf, LAS jettison shows at T+274 sec., prior to the u/s ignition (same T+292 sec.)

Is it mandatory, or not, to keep the LAS until after u/s ignition ?

(just asking !)

Oops.   My mistake!   I have multiple versions of the performance analyses here.   That was a version designed for maximum possible performance, not maximum safety.   While its not "mandatory", I don't actually imagine anyone would wish to use such a flight profile. A bad mistake on my part to show those numbers, so thanks for spotting that.

I have updated the reference pages in the document with the very latest analysis results from today - with the LAS jettison occurring after U/S separation.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tedcraft on 05/05/2008 09:46 PM
Ross,

The release version looks good.  Congratulations to the team.

The only other comment I can offer is regards to costs.  I see that there are occasional references to costs, but I don't see any comparisons.  Is this intentional for this document?  I guess if I were a congressman, I'd probably ask for the bottom line - How much will it cost or how much does this save?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/05/2008 10:43 PM
Ross,

I think the document is much tighter now, but it probably deserves another go over.  I would add an executive summar and then go through the main text and relentlassly delete redunencies and any way to further condense the text.  I would aim at a document only 10 pages long, 11 with an executive summary.

But, I if you think this is a good stopping point, I can support this too.

Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/05/2008 10:43 PM
Good point.

Hmmm. Will see if I can easily integrate this...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/06/2008 01:31 AM
Okay, Revision 10 now includes a Cost section.



Responses welcome please.

I'm thinking this still needs a specific workforce section.   Yes / No?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: AndrewSTS on 05/06/2008 02:08 AM
Quote
kraisee - 5/5/2008  8:31 PM

Okay, Revision 10 now includes a Cost section.

Responses welcome please.

Ross.
Looking good.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/06/2008 02:17 AM
WRT to workforce, I think it is enough to say Direct preserves the work force due to the extensive reuse of components and shortened gap.  Again, main focus should be the booster
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rocketguy101 on 05/06/2008 02:18 AM
Could you enlarge the font on Figure 6?  The cost graph is a little hard to read, even at 118%
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/06/2008 02:22 AM
Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  2:31 AM

I'm thinking this still needs a specific workforce section.   Yes / No?


The main document needs a single line on workforce and contract amendment.  The details are internal to the space community so they should go into an annex with a separate cover.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kaa on 05/06/2008 02:39 AM
It would help to get the bottom line cost numbers into the introduction - just the $33B vs $13B from figure 5.

Also, figure 1 shows the J-232 with new J-2X and Upper Stage but this isn't mentioned in the text of the introduction. Perhaps a sentence on the end of paragraph 4 something like "For missions beyond LEO the Jupiter launch vehicle requires a new Upper Stage with J-2X engines, however, in contrast to Ares, these are not necessary for ISS missions so their development can be deferred to later in the decade."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/06/2008 02:48 AM
Ross, if you do more significant editing, you may wish to consider these suggestions.  Sorry they didn;t hit me the first time.

Page 3:  Change

The Jupiter-120 has no Upper Stage, and all engines are lit on the ground prior to liftoff. As has already occurred 6 times during the Space Shuttle Program, when a fault is detected during the engine start-sequence, the main engines can be safely shut-down and the launch aborted before committing the crew to a potentially dangerous flight.

Additionally, multiple engines on the Core Stage and later Upper Stage of Jupiter-232 provides an increased level of redundancy not available on Ares-I. If one engine should need to be shut down before the flight is complete, there are many instances where a multiengine system can still continue safely to orbit. Without multiple engines, any engine problems will always necessitate a crew abort – a process which typically places the crew at considerable risk itself.

To:

Like the Space Shuttle, the multiple engine, single stage Jupiter-120 first stage, lights all engines are lit on the ground prior to liftoff enabling fault detection software to shut down the main engines prior to SRB ignition, as has happened 6 times in the STS program.  Ares I, with its single solid fuel 1st stage does not have this capability.

The Jupiter 232 provides the same capability, and with its two-engine EDS allows abort to orbit scenarios, which has occurred once in the STS program, which again, Ares I cannot provide since its second stage also has only one engine.

Rationale:  Simpler structure, emphasized commonality of approach with shuttle system

Page 3:  Change

ISS and Cargo-only Missions:

The US today possesses two Launch Vehicle systems in the 20-25mT lift class, the Atlas-V and the Delta-IV. NASA currently proposes to build a third vehicle, Ares-I, in this same class at a cost of some $14.4 billion over a 9 year period. Yet to reach for the Moon NASA then still requires a second much larger launcher to also be built at a similar cost.

With between 38-48mT of lift capability every flight the entry-level Jupiter-120 will have no equal in the world. Combined with the significantly larger 8.4m, 10m or even 12m diameter Payload Fairing the Jupiter-120 will be able to support much larger physical payload size than the current 5m limits of all current systems. This opens the door to a far wider range of crewed and un-crewed missions than America has been able to consider at any time during the last 30 years.

To:

The US currently operates two vehicles in the 20-25mt lift class, the Atlas V and Delta IV.  NASA’s Ares I duplicates the capability of these already existing and successful boosters at a cost of $14.4 billion.  And, after completing the Ares I, NASA will still have to build Ares V at an estimated cost of ****** to reach the Moon.

Jupiter 120 provides an immediate lift capability of 38-49mT which is larger than any other booster in the world, and can loft additional capability with larger fairings than any booster America has operated in the last 30 years.  The reduced development costs of the Jupiter-120/232 program translatea to the supporting more missions at a higher flight rate then the currently planned 4 missions per year to the ISS using Ares I.

Rationale:  Simpler structure

Page 6
Change

Internal cost assumptions for NASA’s current Ares-I vary wildly between $4 billion and $7,5 billion.

To  

Internal cost assumptions for NASA’s current Ares-I vary wildly between $4 billion and $7.5 billion.

Decimal Point

Page 6:  Change

DIRECT has used the methodology employed by GAO, not NASA, to estimate its costs. The costs for existing elements such as the SRB’s, External Tank, the RS-68 engines are well documented already, as are the budgets for the existing manufacturing and launch processing facilities. It is therefore possible to extrapolate many of the costs for much of the Jupiter launch vehicle’s production and operations budgets from these existing cost structures.

To:

DIRECT uses accepted GAO methodology for cost estimates.  The budgetary costs for elements such as the SRB’s, External Tank, the RS-68 engines, general manufacturing and launch processing facilities and costs are well documented already, and enable us to extrapolate cost estimates for the Jupiter launch vehicle’s production and operations budgets from these existing well known and documented cost structures.

Rationale:  simpler structure, doesn’t paint NASA in a bad light.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/06/2008 03:44 AM
Great suggestions.   I have included those, and updated the Costs section, adding a few more graphs on an extra page at the same time (had space to fill once I had to increase the size of Fig 6).

Other than typo's in the new bits, I think I'm going to go with this - Rev 11.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 05/06/2008 09:14 AM
Rev 11 looks great, especially diagrams!

I failed to find any serious things to change, only minor nitpicking:

"This faster schedule... will make retaining the Shuttle workforce an affordable proposition and prevents a repeat of the disastrous brain-drain"

"will make" and "prevents" are mismatched. Change to "makes" and "prevents", or to "will make" and "will prevent".


"This  DIRECT  Shuttle-derived launcher exceeds all VSE payload and safety requirements for Crew and Cargo missions to the International Space Station (ISS). It would also be capable of supporting all of the far larger VSE missions to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond. Compared to Ares, it significantly reduces development costs, schedule and risks, cuts the human spaceflight gap after the Shuttle retires in 2010 from 5 to 2 years, and retains the NASA and contractor workforce."

Replace "would also be capable" by "is capable", since all other verbs are already in "simple present" form.


"Like the planned Ares-V, DIRECT proposes to use the considerably less expensive Pratt & Whitney, Rocketdyne RS-68 engine borrowed from the US Air Force s Delta-IV program."

Less expensive compared to what?


"By choosing to "use what you' have" rather than starting from a blank slate,"

stray apostrophe at the end of "you"


"can launch payloads massing twice as much any other launcher in the world today"

Missing "as". Should be "as much AS any"



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 05/06/2008 12:17 PM
Page 7, paragraph 2, "operation" should be "operating"

Page 8, Main Engines: "considerably less expensive" - less expensive than what? This is a hangover from when you mentioned SSME here.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: CJM on 05/06/2008 12:37 PM

On page 3 the last sentence in this paragraph:

The Jupiter-232's Upper Stage provides the same
capability with its two-engine EDS allowing Abort To
Orbit (ATO) scenarios, which have also occurred in the
Shuttle Program. Again, Ares-I cannot provide this
safety capability since its Upper Stage only a single
engine.

 Should be:

Again, Ares-I cannot provide this
 safety capability since its Upper Stage has only a single
 engine.

 

Just a small typo, looks great overall, good work...  

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/06/2008 02:14 PM
Hey Ross,

Revision 11 is really good.  The introduction is strong, clear and concise.  The figures are great.  Figures 4 through 9 are especially telling.  Everyone else has given great ideas and I have none other than some nitpicky cleanup.  

In the “Mars & Beyond” section on page 4, It seems to hang a little.  Perhaps a simple single sentence might help such as “As shown in Figure 3, Direct is fully capable of supporting missions to Mars.”

The positions of Figure 7 and Figure 8 need swapping.

Figure 20 should have “Anytime Return” checked as it is on Figure 21.  It gives the impression that anytime return is not possible for the early lunar missions.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 02:19 PM
Quote
Removing all these key long-lead-time components from the critical development path to fielding Shuttle’s replacement in the short-term and by choosing to re-use existing flight hardware as the basis for all major systems, DIRECT will become operational many years sooner – thus “closing the gap” after Shuttle from 5 years, to just 2.

These should be equivalent - either add a "By" to "Removing" or remove the "by" before "choosing".
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 02:26 PM
Quote
In addition, the extra payload capacity of Jupiter can allow for additional safety equipment to be flown to provide further safety to crews.

This is a really important point given that one of the cost-drivers in the Orion program is the constant re-engineering necessitated by the constantly-reducing performance of the Aries-I.  The safety systems are a large part of what is being jettisoned to make the Orion lighter.  Yes, this is mentioned later in the presentation, but I think it's a key selling point and should be repeated.  It would be nice to reflect that at this point in the presentation.  Perhaps something like this:

"In addition, the extra payload capacity of the Jupiter 120 will allow for safety equipment that has been removed from the Orion design due to payload limitations of the Aries-I to be reincorporated into the craft.  The spare lift capacity of the Jupiter 120 would even allow additional safety features to be added in the future to provide further safety to crews, equipment and missions."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/06/2008 02:28 PM
Ross,

Figure 4 should show Ares 1-Y flight in 2013.  (It slipped from 2012).

Does Figure 9 include Ares 1-X & Y workforce adjustments?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 02:29 PM
Quote
An important feature of the Jupiter launch system is how its performance exceeds Shuttle
from day one...

"An important feature of the Jupiter launch system is how its performance exceeds that of the Shuttle from day one..."
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 02:35 PM
Quote
DIRECT contends that only one new vehicle, flown in both a small and large configuration can perform all the missions.

I think a little emphasis of this key point would not be unreasonable.  Plus, "a small and large configuration" should either be "a small and a large configuration" or "small and large configurations."

"DIRECT contends that only one new vehicle, flown in both small and large configurations can perform all the missions with greater efficiency than a two-vehicle architecture can acheive."
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 02:36 PM
Quote
While at the same time this single vehicle will require only one, significantly smaller development program, a single operation support system, and one common launch and manufacturing infrastructure based closely upon the STS systems in use today.

Commas run amok...

"While at the same time this single vehicle will require only one significantly smaller development program, a single operation support system and one common launch and manufacturing infrastructure based closely upon the STS systems in use today."
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 02:44 PM
Quote
Operational Costs are drastically cut compared to Ares, by the simple expedient of operation one vehicle system instead of two, lowering Fixed costs and raising flight-rates in order to amortize these costs across a larger number of units makes each unit significantly more cost effective.

This is a run-on sentence and should be split in two.

"Operational Costs are drastically cut compared to Ares, by the simple expedient of operation one vehicle system instead of two.  Lowering Fixed costs and raising flight-rates in order to amortize these costs across a larger number of units makes each unit significantly more cost effective."
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 03:05 PM

To reduce spamming everyone with thread update notifications, I'll put the rest of my comments in this post.  Sorry for the multiple posts thus far.  I didn't figure there were that many findings to report.   :)

Quote
Indeed, Only the process of human-rating, such...

Should be...

"Indeed, only the process of human-rating, such ..."

 



Quote
Like both Ares vehicles, new avionics systems will be required – and it is likely that the avionics system will be the most time-consuming development element of this entire program, yet even that is assisted by sharing such close commonality with existing STS and EELV programs.

This is a run-on sentence.


I question the wisdom of including the idea of on-orbit refueling depots in this presentation.  The idea is not core to the DIRECT idea, and its inclusion gives detractors ammunition.  The idea of a fuel depot, and all that it implies, applies equally to the Aries architecture as it does to the DIRECT architecture.  It isn't a unique selling feature of DIRECT, so it doesn't really belong here.  My $.02.

 

Good work, all.

 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/06/2008 08:37 PM
I have integrated most of the suggestions. Another big thank-you to everyone who has taken the time to contribute.

Here is Rev12 with all those tweaks included.


A couple of quick replies as well:-

csj - My understanding is that there have been two fairly recent delays to the Ares-I-Y schedule.   One set it back by about 6 months, the other a further 10-12 months (also pushing Orion 4 to 2016 now).   The latest information I've received says mid-2014, which is why I have tweaked the manifest to show that.   If there is more recent info that I missed (been ill, so quite possible), I'm more than willing to change it again, but I just haven't *seen* it yet.   If you have a link to a post or something, I would like to see it before 'going to press' with this.

kttopdad - Actually Propellant Depots are a major part of the "DIRECT Architecture" - which is the umbrella plan we have encompassing the whole program.   They just aren't a major part of the "Jupiter Element" and aren't a complication we wish to include while we are getting the operation underway.    We want the info 'out there' and showing it in the logical upgrade path beyond 2020 does no harm IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/06/2008 09:36 PM
Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  3:37 PM

csj - My understanding is that there have been two fairly recent delays to the Ares-I-Y schedule.   One set it back by about 6 months, the other a further 10-12 months (also pushing Orion 4 to 2016 now).   The latest information I've received says mid-2014, which is why I have tweaked the manifest to show that.   If there is more recent info that I missed (been ill, so quite possible), I'm more than willing to change it again, but I just haven't *seen* it yet.   If you have a link to a post or something, I would like to see it before 'going to press' with this.


Ross,

I have an old article dated 9/5/2007 about the Ares I-Y launch slip but I may have read it wrong:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5221

Quote
'Ares I-Y launch date slipped from 9/2012 to 8/2013,' noted impacts within the schedule, based on the pros and cons of the manifest options NASA has to consider, with 'Orion 4 - the first manned Orion flight - slipping from 9/2014 to 8/2015,' being threatened on one of the schedule impact notes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 09:47 PM

Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  3:37 PM
kttopdad - Actually Propellant Depots are a major part of the "DIRECT Architecture" - which is the umbrella plan we have encompassing the whole program.   They just aren't a major part of the "Jupiter Element" and aren't a complication we wish to include while we are getting the operation underway.    We want the info 'out there' and showing it in the logical upgrade path beyond 2020 does no harm IMHO.

Ross.

Gotcha.  Thanks.

Other findings.  (I bet you regret the day you ever put this out for general review!   :)  )



Quote
...1989-2993 “National Launch System” (NLS) effort...

I'm guessing this should be 1989-1993?  I've heard of long-range planning, but this seems a little extreme.  :)


Quote
The comparable results are shown in Figure 6, with approximately a $1 billion difference between Ares and Jupiter approaches.

 

This doesn't state that the difference in cost favors the Jupiter.  Perhaps "...$1 billion savings of the Jupiter approach over that of Ares."

 


Quote
By reducing the impact of development costs, and by bringing forward the schedule so many years provides the necessary cost leverage to allow the workforce to be retained.

 

This is grammatically questionable.  Perhaps "By reducing the impact of development costs, and by bringing forward the schedule so many years, DIRECT provides the necessary cost leverage to allow the workforce to be retained.

 

 


Figures 7 and 8 are numbered right-to-left.  Is this on purpose?

 


Quote
Like the planned Ares-V, DIRECT proposes to use the considerably low-cost Pratt &
Whitney, Rocketdyne RS-68 engine borrowed from the US Air Force’s Delta-IV program.

This should be either "considerably lower-cost" or "low-cost".  I presume you're comparing it to the costly development of the J-2X, so I would use the first option.

 


Quote
As with Ares-I and Ares-V also, new plumbing is required too.

 

I still don't like this phrasing.  Awkward.  "As with the Ares-I and Ares-V, the Jupiter will also require new plumbing."  Or how 'bout this:  "The Jupiter-related ET plumbing changes will be on par with those of the Ares-I and Ares-V."  Anything but the original.

 


Quote
This less costly approach of adding an Upper Stage, is all that is required to enable lunar missions with 20% more performance than NASA plans.

 

Extraneous comma.

 


 

Can you tell I work on documentation for a living?  I just want to say that I really appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this project.  I think y'all are on the right track from an engineering prospective.

Regards,

Karat-Top Dad (I have three red-headed little girls.)

 

 

 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 05/06/2008 09:53 PM
Quote
kraisee - 15/4/2008  1:13 AM

Quote
renclod - 14/4/2008  5:03 AM

.. what is the "Direct" current architectural baseline ? ... in simple terms... NASA current:
...
3/ Cargo to Luna: Ares V / Altair / xx tonnes cargo; single launch
...
3/ Cargo to Luna: ... Jupiter-232/EDS + Jupiter-232/Altair ...- dual launch ...
Ross.

One quick question, Ross: how do you propose sequencing this dual launch (pure cargo) in time: same 90 minutes to 4 days (like for manned missions) ?

Thank you.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/06/2008 09:55 PM
How about, Like Ares I/V, Jupiter requires new plumbing for the fuel system, but this is mimimized by being able to reuse portions of the existing tankage, since we retain the ET diameter and tooling.

Instead of ""As with the Ares-I and Ares-V, the Jupiter will also require new plumbing." Or how 'bout this: "The Jupiter-related ET plumbing changes will be on par with those of the Ares-I and Ares-V." Anything but the original.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/06/2008 10:02 PM
Ross,

First of all get better!  We don't allow sickness around here:)

I like the updates.  However, this sentence reads funny to me:

Quote
"Operational Costs are drastically cut compared to Ares, by the simple expedient of operation one vehicle
system instead of two."

My grammer isn't that great but should the above sentence have have the "of" moved?  or perhaps there is a better way of wording it?

"...expedient operation of one vehicle..."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 05/06/2008 10:06 PM
Ross, your current document only covers LOR moon missions.  If I remember well, your AIAA document had a EML1-EML1 moon mission. Are missions through L1 still being considered or are you now concentrating on LOR missions?

PaulL
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/06/2008 10:15 PM
Ross I feel a bit silly.  I have jumped around on the forum searching for something and read  about you being sick somewhere along the way.  But that was about a month ago when you wrote that.  I got confused.  I hope that you aren't sick.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/06/2008 10:23 PM
Quote
renclod - 6/5/2008  5:53 PM

One quick question, Ross: how do you propose sequencing this dual launch (pure cargo) in time: same 90 minutes to 4 days (like for manned missions) ?

Essentially it will be the same as for crew missions.   And that in turn will be exactly the same as  Ares - with both vehicles being processed in rapid-succession and using both Pads in parallel.

A cargo mission about 80% the size of an Ares-V mission could be done on a single flight, but for the cost of the extra launcher you can get a lot more cargo and only have the costs of building a single type of descent stage and flying it more often - amortizing costs far more effectively.

The ideal scenario is to launch the CaLV flight first and check it out in orbit, and then have the expensive Spacecraft and Crew join it after we know that launch was successful - 90 minutes later.

Ares is aiming to launch the Crew first, which we could also do, but if the EDS flight never gets off the ground in time, you would lose an awfully valuable Spacecraft.   There are pro's and con's either way.   Myself, I'd prefer to launch the EDS first and keep the crew out of harms way until you must.


Either way, the second launch has two attempts per day, for four days.   This gives you 8 separate attempts to rendezvous successfully.

With Jupiter's extra payload capability we aren't actually limited to the Ares "4 day window" - I see no show-stoppers for why we couldn't support at least a 12 day "window" with Jupiter.


Anyway, in terms of processing, each Jupiter-232 Lunar flight will spend about 6-7 weeks in one of the VAB High Bays where they will be completely prepared for flight.   Assembly & checkout of both vehicle and final checkout of the payload will be performed prior to roll-out.   All of the Vehicle-to-MLP umbilical connections will be made and tested inside the VAB, leaving relatively little work to do at the Pad.

The vehicle will be rolled out approximately 10-14 days prior to liftoff, and a final checkout will be performed there once the MLP is fully connected to the Pad.   The equivalent of a Terminal Countdown Demonstration Test (TCDT) will be performed at the Pad to validate all systems, and then the countdown will go ahead.

At that point a final few jobs need doing like fitting the SRB igniters, and everything should be ready to fly.


The bottle-neck for DIRECT is not actually the Pads in this architecture.   Its the VAB High Bays.   There are only two High Bay's (#1 & #3 - both facing the Ocean) currently fitted with Work Platforms prepared to process Shuttle's which we would (mostly) re-use.

With < 8-week turn-around and three MLP's, the facility would have a through-put of about 12-13 Jupiter-232 launches per year.

FYI: Jupiter-120 would spend only about 4-5 weeks in the VAB, so you could get a lot more of those through the doors if you wished.


If a 3rd VAB High Bay were refitted for Jupiter operations, the limiting factor then transfers over to the 3 MLP's.    You can sustain a flight rate as high as 16-18 Jupiter-232's per year with no real problems with just 3 MLP's.

To go much above that would require a 4th MLP to be built and the 4th High Bay to be refitted too.   While a flight rate as high as 24 per year is theoretically possible, I don't ever see Jupiter flight rates going above the 12-16 per year level, so this should be unnecessary - unless we simply wish to take logistics pressure off of the VAB - or perhaps if we wished to keep a "rescue vehicle' on permanent standby.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/07/2008 01:17 AM
Quote
csj - 6/5/2008  5:02 PM

Ross,

First of all get better!  We don't allow sickness around here:)

I like the updates.  However, this sentence reads funny to me:

Quote
"Operational Costs are drastically cut compared to Ares, by the simple expedient of operation one vehicle system instead of two."

My grammer isn't that great but should the above sentence have have the "of" moved?  or perhaps there is a better way of wording it?

"...expedient operation of one vehicle..."

I think it should read "Operational Costs are drastically cut compared to Ares by the simple expedient of operating one vehicle system instead of two."  This gets rid of the extraneous comma after "Ares" and changes "operation" to "operating".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/07/2008 02:14 AM
Quote
PaulL - 6/5/2008  6:06 PM

Ross, your current document only covers LOR moon missions.  If I remember well, your AIAA document had a EML1-EML1 moon mission. Are missions through L1 still being considered or are you now concentrating on LOR missions?

PaulL

We still have the EML mission profiles, but it has been made plainly clear to us that NASA won't currently entertain any approach which doesn't use EOR & LOR staging exclusively.   The same is true for Propellant Transfer technologies also - they are essentially veto'd at this time.

Essentially the agency as a whole wants to limit the activities to simply reproducing the Apollo approach first and foremost.   The key being that they wish to rebuild that long-lost capability, and once they have that back, then they will progress onwards from that firm foundation.   We can understand that position even though we would probably prefer to jump in a little deeper at the start.


So we are playing within the current rules.   Specifically, we are closing all of the performance targets *without* any of those enhancements - all while Ares still can not.   And that actually puts us in an incredibly strong position.

But we still have the EML staging options and Propellant Depot plans already planned out as the logical upgrade options - they offer such improvements that they are going to be extraordinarily difficult to ignore for long.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/07/2008 02:17 AM
Totally off-topic, but no I haven't been well for a while.   I just don't usually like to talk about it much.   I'll be fine.   Don't worry about it. :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/07/2008 03:44 AM
Quote
csj - 6/5/2008  5:36 PM

I have an old article dated 9/5/2007 about the Ares I-Y launch slip but I may have read it wrong:
(snip)

I think the only place I have seen this stuff publicly is in L2 on this thread - although I must admit there is no specific mention of the Ares-I-Y flight itself - just a generic "slip" to all the Ares schedules.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=12738&posts=26&start=1

I have seen other unreleased documentation which seems to confirm this, and the mid-2014 might have been there.   Sorry I can't provide a link - I only saw those in hardcopy.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/07/2008 04:03 AM
Quote
kttopdad - 6/5/2008  5:47 PM

I bet you regret the day you ever put this out for general review!   :)

Actually no, not at all.   Quite the reverse actually.   This is *exactly* the sort of feedback I was hoping to get.

Just today alone, I've had my head buried in PowerPoint presentations (about to be released here), incredibly detailed budget spreadsheets (never to be released), reviews of technical documentation about ESAS LV-24/25 and NLS and a host of other pretty heavy stuff.   So actually, editing this has a bit of "fresh air" in terms of my day's efforts of DIRECT :)

And then I have my real job too...


But I'm the one who should really be thanking you - and all the others here - who have helped hone this document.   I really appreciate the effort you've all gone to and I think this is looking far better now than when I put it in for review first - and in that it closely resembles the entire DIRECT effort as a whole.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/07/2008 04:25 AM
Okay, that's enough editing.   Time to press on with it...



The DIRECT Summary v2.0.1

The updated baseline since AIAA "Space 2007" last September.

Ross
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 05/07/2008 10:41 AM
Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  9:14 PM

Quote
PaulL - 6/5/2008  6:06 PM

Ross, your current document only covers LOR moon missions.  If I remember well, your AIAA document had a EML1-EML1 moon mission. Are missions through L1 still being considered or are you now concentrating on LOR missions?

PaulL

We still have the EML mission profiles, but it has been made plainly clear to us that NASA won't currently entertain any approach which doesn't use EOR & LOR staging exclusively.   The same is true for Propellant Transfer technologies also - they are essentially veto'd at this time.

Essentially the agency as a whole wants to limit the activities to simply reproducing the Apollo approach first and foremost.   The key being that they wish to rebuild that long-lost capability, and once they have that back, then they will progress onwards from that firm foundation.   We can understand that position even though we would probably prefer to jump in a little deeper at the start.


So we are playing within the current rules.   Specifically, we are closing all of the performance targets *without* any of those enhancements - all while Ares still can not.   And that actually puts us in an incredibly strong position.

But we still have the EML staging options and Propellant Depot plans already planned out as the logical upgrade options - they offer such improvements that they are going to be extraordinarily difficult to ignore for long.

Ross.

It is too bad that NASA does not want to consider EML1 missions as this would resolve their Ares I/Orion payload/mass problem (although it would then require more delta V from the LSAM to go to the moon) as returning to earth from L1 takes less propellant than from LLO.

For Jupiter, do you know if the J-120 with a Delta IV US can send to L1 an Orion with enough propellant in the SM to do L1OI and TEI burn?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 05/07/2008 04:48 PM
I was thinking the same thing recently, Paul.  I've been poking around in your CEPE spreadsheet to try and puzzle out the answer myself.

[My Usual Disclaimer: I admittedly have no clue what I'm doing.  My rockets are made out of Legos.]

J-120 can put ~47mT in LEO.  Lunar Orion control mass is supposed to be ~22mT I think, and that's supposed to include fuel for Orion to do TEI, right?  

L1OI is just greater than 1:1 fuel:mass with a J-2-derivtive if memory serves, so in theory, you could probably grow a Lunar Block SM for Orion to perform L1OI and TEI.

Alternatively, you could look at a J-221d (5m delta u/s) where the u/s provides dV to launch and L1OI and have Orion to TEI.  The Delta u/s looks like it could put ~18mT at L1... So that doesn't look like enough "oomph" for an EML1 Jupiter-u/s without some growth.

However, a J-221 using an u/s similar to the DIRECT proposal with a J2-S (not J-2XD or J-2X even) seems to be able to put ~36mT at L1.  Now *that* I'd like to see.  I can imagine quite a useful architecture starting out of EML1 with 36mT launches.  

Heck, for that mass, you could pretty easily build up a reusable LSAM and/or an EML1 station to replace ISS or serve as a propellant depot.

J-232 looks better for LEO-to-LLO operations, but J-221 looks viable to my untrained eye, if you start looking at staging missions at EML1.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 05/07/2008 05:31 PM
Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  3:23 PM

Quote
renclod - 6/5/2008  5:53 PM

One quick question, Ross: how do you propose sequencing this dual launch (pure cargo) in time: same 90 minutes to 4 days (like for manned missions) ?

Essentially it will be the same as for crew missions.   And that in turn will be exactly the same as  Ares - with both vehicles being processed in rapid-succession and using both Pads in parallel.

...

The ideal scenario is to launch the CaLV flight first and check it out in orbit, and then have the expensive Spacecraft and Crew join it after we know that launch was successful - 90 minutes later.

...

Ross.


It seems to me that in order to launch the crew 90 minutes after the CaLV was launched ... the crew would have to be sitting in the capsule, rocket fueled and almost ready to go while the CaLV was blasted off a few miles away.  Is that in the plans?  It seems like that might violate some sort of safety protocol ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/07/2008 07:23 PM
Quote
imcub - 7/5/2008  1:31 PM

It seems to me that in order to launch the crew 90 minutes after the CaLV was launched ... the crew would have to be sitting in the capsule, rocket fueled and almost ready to go while the CaLV was blasted off a few miles away.  Is that in the plans?  It seems like that might violate some sort of safety protocol ...

See Gemini Titan and Atlas Agenda GTV launch scenarios
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/07/2008 09:54 PM
In Figure 9 of the DIRECT Summary, the RED bar legend is "Compulsory Redundancies".  Should this be "Compulsory Reductions"? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/07/2008 10:08 PM
"Redundancies" is a euphemism in the US (and perhaps elsewhere) for people you are going to lay off as unneeded.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 05/07/2008 10:10 PM
Quote
Jim - 7/5/2008  12:23 PM

Quote
imcub - 7/5/2008  1:31 PM

It seems to me that in order to launch the crew 90 minutes after the CaLV was launched ... the crew would have to be sitting in the capsule, rocket fueled and almost ready to go while the CaLV was blasted off a few miles away.  Is that in the plans?  It seems like that might violate some sort of safety protocol ...

See Gemini Titan and Atlas Agenda GTV launch scenarios

OK ... I did ... thanks!   And Ross ... never mind ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 05/07/2008 10:14 PM
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=9d3e2a7b-cb72-4569-9c9c-b66b645a1de9

rtsp://video.webcastcenter.com/srs_g2/commerce050708.rm (starts at about 15mins in)

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/KranzMarch6.pdf (Kranz starts from 38mins in the audio, 47mins on architecture, 58mins for Jupiter-120 question, 1hour 38min for EELV question )
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/JohnsonFreeseWrittenStatement.pdf
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/TarantinoUSRAWrittenTestimony.pdf
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/BobDIckmantestimonyFinal.pdf
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/WhitesidesStatementReauthorizingtheVisionforSpaceExploration.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 05/08/2008 01:48 AM
Quote
BogoMIPS - 7/5/2008  11:48 AM

I was thinking the same thing recently, Paul.  I've been poking around in your CEPE spreadsheet to try and puzzle out the answer myself.

[My Usual Disclaimer: I admittedly have no clue what I'm doing.  My rockets are made out of Legos.]

J-120 can put ~47mT in LEO.  Lunar Orion control mass is supposed to be ~22mT I think, and that's supposed to include fuel for Orion to do TEI, right?  

L1OI is just greater than 1:1 fuel:mass with a J-2-derivtive if memory serves, so in theory, you could probably grow a Lunar Block SM for Orion to perform L1OI and TEI.

Alternatively, you could look at a J-221d (5m delta u/s) where the u/s provides dV to launch and L1OI and have Orion to TEI.  The Delta u/s looks like it could put ~18mT at L1... So that doesn't look like enough "oomph" for an EML1 Jupiter-u/s without some growth.

However, a J-221 using an u/s similar to the DIRECT proposal with a J2-S (not J-2XD or J-2X even) seems to be able to put ~36mT at L1.  Now *that* I'd like to see.  I can imagine quite a useful architecture starting out of EML1 with 36mT launches.  

Heck, for that mass, you could pretty easily build up a reusable LSAM and/or an EML1 station to replace ISS or serve as a propellant depot.

J-232 looks better for LEO-to-LLO operations, but J-221 looks viable to my untrained eye, if you start looking at staging missions at EML1.

Using my CEPE spreadsheet version 1.3 (which I plan to put on my web site this weekend), I found that the J-120 + Delta IV US (with RL-10B engine) can send a manned net payload of 18,630 kg toward L1.  Assuming a CEV burnout mass of 12 mT and an ISP of 320, an initial mass of 18.63 mT would provide an overall delta V of 1380 m/s.  That would be enough to do both the L1OI and TEI burns which are about 650 m/s each.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/08/2008 07:49 AM
Hot on the heels of the v2.0.1 documentation, I have also uploaded a new 59Mb PowerPoint Slide Show Presentation.



PowerPoint Presentation
+
Movie File

Save both of these files in the same folder on your computer if you wish the animation on Slide 3 to work correctly.


If you don't have PowerPoint installed, there is a free viewer application available called PowerPoint Viewer 2007.


I say 'new', but actually this is actually a 7-week-old document.

This a slightly redacted version of a presentation which Chuck, Stephen and myself gave to members of Congress and their staff during a trip to Washington D.C. about 7 weeks ago.

Those particularly observant amongst you may recall "things going on" around then, which we couldn't talk about.   Well, we have not released details of this until now, but with Congressional hearings occurring this week, we figured that now would be a good time to release a public version of this - and yes, the public version has had a few elements removed - sorry, but we have been requested to leave a few bits un-published.

The in-person presentation went with a vocal accompaniment.   I have not included a voice-over in this file because it is already fairly large (that, and we haven't had time to do any recordings!) but here is a transcript for you to read if you are interested.

This presentation formed a 15-20 minute piece, with the rest of the meetings essentially being devoted to a Q&A section.

I will not discuss *any* details of these meetings - I consider them confidential.   All I will say is that the response was generally excellent from both Houses of Congress and also from both sides of the aisle too.

I'm very glad to *finally* be able to show this to you all, so please enjoy this very small glimpse into just a little bit of our recent (and on-going) activities.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 05/08/2008 08:50 AM
Can someone out there make sure Gene gets a copy of this?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 05/08/2008 10:34 AM
Ross & Co,
Well done. The slideshow hits the mark. Simple and effective. Very well done.
Nathan
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 05/08/2008 12:06 PM
You Tube the video, especially after narration is added?

That is a proven route for achieving widespread cross platform distribution of video.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: on 05/08/2008 12:06 PM
Excellent presentation ! - Slide-by-Slide, body blow by body blow - I wanted to throw the ESAS towel in - it was getting brutal :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 05/08/2008 12:59 PM
Quote
Bill White - 8/5/2008  1:06 PM

You Tube the video, especially after narration is added?

That is a proven route for achieving widespread cross platform distribution of video.

Absolutely.

EDIT: Actually, this video is already online

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuPtOKLCmzo

That's an excellent presentation - especailly the leaked NASA stuff. It must have been hard for the audience to object to any of your arguments. Very good job. Very slick and pretty too - these things really matter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Joffan on 05/08/2008 01:15 PM
Fantastic presentation. Well done, and were there any questions?

Here's a concern for you, possibly mentioned before, but the shuttle sometimes seems to struggle (not just now, but a few times it seems to me) with external tank delivery. In the proposed phase for Moon landings which has a higher launch rate than current shuttle program, would the equivalent fuel tank for Jupiter constitute a bottleneck?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 05/08/2008 01:39 PM
Quote
Joffan - 8/5/2008  8:15 AM

Fantastic presentation. Well done, and were there any questions?

Here's a concern for you, possibly mentioned before, but the shuttle sometimes seems to struggle (not just now, but a few times it seems to me) with external tank delivery. In the proposed phase for Moon landings which has a higher launch rate than current shuttle program, would the equivalent fuel tank for Jupiter constitute a bottleneck?

No. The shuttle tanks have been delayed due to post-Columbia safety upgrades that were necessary because the orbiter TPS is vulnerable to ET foam shedding. That would not be the case for any vehicle that puts the spacecraft atop the tank.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/08/2008 01:41 PM
That was a good presentation, Ross.  I'm usually critical of you for making things too complex for general consumption (explaining stuff to space-flight enthusiasts and engineers is orders of magnitude different from explaining it to the lay-public and Congress), but that one was pretty much right down the middle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/08/2008 01:44 PM
Quote
Joffan - 8/5/2008  9:15 AM

Fantastic presentation. Well done, and were there any questions?
Yes. Lots and lots of questions from *everyone* we saw; without exception. One of the agencies had scheduled 30 minutes after the presentation for Q&A, but they kept us there busily answering questions for 2 ½ hours.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/08/2008 02:20 PM
Quote
Jorge - 8/5/2008  7:39 AM

Quote
Joffan - 8/5/2008  8:15 AM

Fantastic presentation. Well done, and were there any questions?

Here's a concern for you, possibly mentioned before, but the shuttle sometimes seems to struggle (not just now, but a few times it seems to me) with external tank delivery. In the proposed phase for Moon landings which has a higher launch rate than current shuttle program, would the equivalent fuel tank for Jupiter constitute a bottleneck?

No. The shuttle tanks have been delayed due to post-Columbia safety upgrades that were necessary because the orbiter TPS is vulnerable to ET foam shedding. That would not be the case for any vehicle that puts the spacecraft atop the tank.

Katrina didn't help matters either.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/08/2008 04:44 PM
That is a very powerful effective presentation.  It is simple, straightforward and to the point.  I am surprised about the internal memo ... though I should not be.  I am very thankful for the fact that you guys took the time and effort to travel and make the presentation to both congresses.

Keep up the good work.  
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 05/08/2008 05:10 PM
Quote
Lee Jay - 8/5/2008  9:20 AM

Quote
Jorge - 8/5/2008  7:39 AM

Quote
Joffan - 8/5/2008  8:15 AM

Fantastic presentation. Well done, and were there any questions?

Here's a concern for you, possibly mentioned before, but the shuttle sometimes seems to struggle (not just now, but a few times it seems to me) with external tank delivery. In the proposed phase for Moon landings which has a higher launch rate than current shuttle program, would the equivalent fuel tank for Jupiter constitute a bottleneck?

No. The shuttle tanks have been delayed due to post-Columbia safety upgrades that were necessary because the orbiter TPS is vulnerable to ET foam shedding. That would not be the case for any vehicle that puts the spacecraft atop the tank.

Katrina didn't help matters either.

Hmm, true, and MAF will still be hurricane-prone after 2010.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Cale on 05/08/2008 07:18 PM
Fantastic job on this gentlemen.  Very concise and you do a very adroit job of hoisting Dr. Griffin on his own petard.  If his sole objection to DIRECT is that it's "over-qualified" for ISS missions, that should be easy to overcome.

Good luck on getting Congress & NASA convinced.  A lot of people are rooting for you!

Cheers,

Cale
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 05/08/2008 07:56 PM
...you do realize that the JWST will be at SEL2, not EML2 - right?

Otherwise, looks good!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/08/2008 08:28 PM
Quote
93143 - 8/5/2008  1:56 PM

...you do realize that the JWST will be at SEL2, not EML2 - right?

Otherwise, looks good!

What a clever place to put a telescope....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 05/08/2008 08:28 PM
93143,

I was in charge of that graphic, not that I doubt you but could you point me to documentation.

thank you
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/08/2008 08:29 PM
Quote
Pheogh - 8/5/2008  2:28 PM

93143,

I was in charge of that graphic, not that I doubt you but could you point me to documentation.

thank you

"Location    1.5×106 km from Earth  (Sun-Earth L2)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWST
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 05/08/2008 08:31 PM
Thank you, Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/08/2008 08:35 PM
Quote
Pheogh - 8/5/2008  4:28 PM

93143,

I was in charge of that graphic, not that I doubt you but could you point me to documentation.

The imagery is fine.   It was the voice-over which was in error - and that was me!!

Fixed now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 05/08/2008 08:38 PM
Thanks Ross! I have been sitting here trying to figure out what was wrong.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 05/08/2008 09:38 PM
Will the new PowerPoint presentation be added to the website?

Any objection to my posting links to the presentation at various locations on the Internet?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/08/2008 09:56 PM
Philip is working right now to integrate new links in a stylish manner onto the website.   They'll go live as soon as we can get them done!

I'm pushing to get the animation on the front page too :)

And Bill and everyone else - Please DO link those as much as possible - but make sure to say that the animation must be downloaded separately and must be in the same folder as the PowerPoint Presentation for it to work (bl**dy PowerPoint...)

The Permanent Links are (use Right-click > Copy Link):-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT%20Presentation.pps - PowerPoint File
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT%20Presentation.wmv - Movie File

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT%20Presentation.txt - Voiceover


And

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.1.pdf - Summary Updates


And

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-HighRes.pdf - AIAA Paper HiRes
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf - AIAA Paper LoRes


Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/08/2008 10:48 PM
The Powerpoint 2007 viewer is having problems downloading from the CNET site.  Here's a link to the Microsoft download server:

PowerPoint 2007 Viewer
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rocketguy101 on 05/08/2008 11:03 PM

Quote
kraisee - 8/5/2008 4:56 PM  everyone else - Please DO link those as much as possible -

Okey dokey, I put them in my build thread on the Rocketry Forum.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/09/2008 12:56 AM
Ross, all I get when I attempt to open or save your new files is a "txt" file and the screen fills with asci characters if I attempt to open it directly.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/09/2008 01:08 AM
Does anyone else feel like they're participating in a little piece of History?  I LOVE the internet!  :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/09/2008 01:52 AM
I just watched the DIRECT_Launcher_01B.wmv video showing a Jupiter 120 launch at http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/video.htm.  I noticed an error that y'all may want to address (given that the title of the video link is "Work In Progress").  At the launch, all 4 engines (2xR68 and 2xSRB) appear to light off at the same time.  One of the advertised advantages of the DIRECT system is the post-ignition hold-down while the liquid engines are run through their diagnostic routine before the SRBs are lit.  This is an important thing, and is missing from the video.  My $.02.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 05/09/2008 02:19 AM
Quote
kraisee - 8/5/2008  4:56 PM

Philip is working right now to integrate new links in a stylish manner onto the website.   They'll go live as soon as we can get them done!

I'm pushing to get the animation on the front page too :)

And Bill and everyone else - Please DO link those as much as possible - but make sure to say that the animation must be downloaded separately and must be in the same folder as the PowerPoint Presentation for it to work (bl**dy PowerPoint...)

The Permanent Links are (use Right-click > Copy Link):-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT%20Presentation.pps - PowerPoint File
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT%20Presentation.wmv - Movie File

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT%20Presentation.txt - Voiceover


And

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.1.pdf - Summary Updates


And

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-HighRes.pdf - AIAA Paper HiRes
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf - AIAA Paper LoRes


Ross.

Thanks!

I see you beat me to the Space Politics thread where I've been wanting to post all day:

"Look at This! -- Look at This! -- Look at This!"

Add: Maybe you should steal Gene Kranz' line since the Jupiter 120 is the best fit for a DC-3 / carrier rocket analogy I've ever seen.

Combine DIRECT with an EML architecture, ISRU LOX, and a fully reusable LSAM and the cost per pound ON THE LUNAR SURFACE falls through the floor.  But maybe that gets ahead of the message control needed for Congress right now. I dunno, maybe not.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DLK on 05/09/2008 02:26 AM
Thanks for posting this, Ross. I think it did a perfect job of getting your point across. I thought the 'stomach punch' presentation was most effective.
-Dan
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/09/2008 03:21 AM
Quote
Bill White - 8/5/2008  10:19 PM
Maybe you should steal Gene Kranz' line since the Jupiter 120 is the best fit for a DC-3 / carrier rocket analogy I've ever seen.

Gene Kranz is a national hero, so we don't really want to get into any sort of dispute with him, even though we strongly disagree.

What I will say though is a point Stephen mentioned to me after the Hearing - paraphrasing:-

Quote
Krantz said we need to "stay the course" - a phrase we've heard from Griffin's lips before.   But Ares is not what we have *TODAY*.

Shuttle is what we have today.

And Jupiter is the logical evolution of *that* system.   Ares is not.   If we truly want to stay the course, *Ares* is actually the "different" option - the one we must change trains to catch.

Jupiter-120 is actually the "stay the course" option.

Its a damn good point IMHO and cuts right to the heart of the issue.

We threw Saturn away and replaced it with something overly expensive and without the same capabilities.

Today we are throwing Shuttle away and replacing it with Ares-I which won't be cheaper, and has less capability again.

Its exactly the same mistake we made before -  simply varnished over by claiming its Shuttle-Derived when 95% of it is actually all-new.

In Kranz's analogy Jupiter would be the equivalent of the B-52"H" variant - the latest and most modern evolution of a basically good system with a lot of heritage.

Ares-I is the B-1 - too damned expensive and too little capability - replicated by other cheaper systems - to make it worthwhile using - and Ares-V is going to be so expensive it will be a Spruce Goose and will be lucky to fly even once.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 05/09/2008 08:28 AM
You should include the movie and the powerpoint in a single zip file for distribution.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simcosmos on 05/09/2008 10:38 AM
Hi kttopdad

Launch Sequence

Not sure if understood your comment:

Quote
kttopdad - 9/5/2008  2:52 AM

I just watched the DIRECT_Launcher_01B.wmv video showing a Jupiter 120 launch at http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/video.htm.  I noticed an error that y'all may want to address (given that the title of the video link is "Work In Progress").  At the launch, all 4 engines (2xR68 and 2xSRB) appear to light off at the same time.  One of the advertised advantages of the DIRECT system is the post-ignition hold-down while the liquid engines are run through their diagnostic routine before the SRBs are lit.  This is an important thing, and is missing from the video.  My $.02.

The video does show the RS-68 being started a few seconds *before* lift off! Then, at T-0, both SRB are ignited and the launcher clears the pad. Do not understand where is the "error" or how can you say that are seeing the RS-68 + SRB starting at the same time (?) :)




About the 'work in progress' label

The video in question has been released in October 2006 but would like to remember that the 3D models and performance implementation seen there are older than that... In fact, those components have been released to the public (NASA Direct SDLV v0.1 addon for Orbiter Space Flight Simulator) before the reformulation of the DIRECT Effort, as we know it today.

The above only to say that, since then, have been updating the visuals + related performance implementation and mission simulations to current specs. Some of these updates and respective evolution, like in the case of visual representations, are clearly visible when browsing several of the DIRECT related materials (AIAA-Houston Horizons Newsletter from Aug.2007, the AIAA-2007-6231 paper, PowerPoint presentations, performance 'baseball cards' prepared by Ross, etc).

Despite the currently online addon version is outdated, people can still use the available 3D models as 'dummy' visual placeholders for new performance data / Jupiter configurations, as long as knowing what to do and how to properly edit the respective files. Related with this, please see the comments available on the following flickr entry:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/2384027158/




Images about my always-ongoing work in progress are also shared in any of the following locations (beyond the mentioned related pdf, ppt, etc, together with Ross + Philip's drawings / renderings):

a) my site's Instant Shots / News / WIP area (right side, in the front page: older previews also available if clicking here)

b) my site's LivePics page
(thumbnail of currently uploaded image + link available in this forum's signature)

c) simcosmos' flickr, where most of the pictures seen in the LivePics usually end up (sometimes in higher resolutions), gaining also a description: main link available in forum's signature, link for specific DIRECT photo set here). Might one day also open an account at youtube and share there development / Orbiter simulator videos about Exploration missions supported by DIRECT Architecture.

d) last but not least, have also made a project entry in a page dedicated to simcosmos' Orbiter simulator Projects or past collaborations (this page can also be visited - from the site's front page - if clicking in 'Orbiter' (left menu) and then in 'My Addons + WIP'); the interested can also click here for DIRECT's entry.

António
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 05/09/2008 01:13 PM
Question to Chris B...  Does this milestone deserve some front page coverage here, or is this not considered "real" space news?  

Sorry to put you on the spot Chris, personally I think this deserves one of your great summary write ups!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 05/09/2008 01:59 PM
I think NSF already walks a fine line of wanting to maintain some media objectvity here, as the majority of public discussion around the topic happens here.  And I think they've done it pretty well for the most part, to this point.

For the sake of both the site, and for the proposal, I would understand if Chris didn't do so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/09/2008 02:13 PM
Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 9/5/2008  9:13 AM

Question to Chris B...  Does this milestone deserve some front page coverage here, or is this not considered "real" space news?  

Sorry to put you on the spot Chris, personally I think this deserves one of your great summary write ups!
Chris’ impeccable journalistic standards, including even handed reporting of facts without bias and resistance to jumping on anybody’s bandwagon is one of the reasons the DIRECT team is pleased to hold these discussions on NSF. We know without a doubt that we will get a fair shake from the owner of the forum. I would expect that Chris’ involvement will remain as it is; simply providing a place where the proposal can be presented, with all its assets and flaws, in an unbiased manner, so that everyone can participate in the discussion and know that they are not getting spin from the journalist that owns the forum. Thank you Chris.

Now the day that DIRECT is selected to replace the Ares launch architecture, then it becomes genuine news and I expect that Chris would do one of his excellent pieces at that point. At this point however, DIRECT is a proposal, on a par with other proposals, having both supporters and detractors. As such there is a great deal of discussion about it and a lot of participation in conversations concerning it. But if you look, I think that you will find only the rarest of comments from Chris, and when he does, they are usually more related to the proper use of the forum rather than about the proposal itself. I would expect that Chris will only comment on DIRECT to the extent that it, like any other proposal, becomes newsworthy. Recent events not withstanding, we are not there yet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 05/09/2008 02:29 PM
Recent events:  

"DIRECT goes to Washington".. sounds like a catchy movie title and a good story doesn't it?  

Hopefully this story has a happy ending and gets told some day!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 05/09/2008 02:34 PM
Quote
kraisee - 8/5/2008  11:21 PM

Quote
Bill White - 8/5/2008  10:19 PM
Maybe you should steal Gene Kranz' line since the Jupiter 120 is the best fit for a DC-3 / carrier rocket analogy I've ever seen.

Gene Kranz is a national hero, so we don't really want to get into any sort of dispute with him, even though we strongly disagree.

What I will say though is a point Stephen mentioned to me after the Hearing - paraphrasing:-

Quote
Krantz said we need to "stay the course" - a phrase we've heard from Griffin's lips before.   But Ares is not what we have *TODAY*.

Shuttle is what we have today.

And Jupiter is the logical evolution of *that* system.   Ares is not.   If we truly want to stay the course, *Ares* is actually the "different" option - the one we must change trains to catch.

Jupiter-120 is actually the "stay the course" option.

Its a damn good point IMHO and cuts right to the heart of the issue.

We threw Saturn away and replaced it with something overly expensive and without the same capabilities.

Today we are throwing Shuttle away and replacing it with Ares-I which won't be cheaper, and has less capability again.

Its exactly the same mistake we made before -  simply varnished over by claiming its Shuttle-Derived when 95% of it is actually all-new.

In Kranz's analogy Jupiter would be the equivalent of the B-52"H" variant - the latest and most modern evolution of a basically good system with a lot of heritage.

Ares-I is the B-1 - too damned expensive and too little capability - replicated by other cheaper systems - to make it worthwhile using - and Ares-V is going to be so expensive it will be a Spruce Goose and will be lucky to fly even once.

Ross.

Be careful with your analogies.   Just read recently the much maligned B-1 is now the bomber of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan. B-52's are too big and based too far away.. They have for the most part been stood down, as have the B-2's which are overkill and incredibly expensive for the current mission.  Seems the B-1 has finally found purpose in life.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ninja on 05/09/2008 02:51 PM
Ross,

    Would it be possible to eventually post a pdf version of the new powerpoint presentation similar to the "Space Show" document at the DIRECT Launcher site? It would be a big help to those of us cursed with slow connections.  Many thanks in advance.

                                                                                                 EdH
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Skinny on 05/09/2008 03:03 PM
Attached is an 1-1 conversion to a PDF file.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: shostetler on 05/09/2008 03:10 PM
So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 05/09/2008 03:10 PM
Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 9/5/2008  9:34 AM

*  *  *

Be careful with your analogies.   Just read recently the much maligned B-1 is now the bomber of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan. B-52's are too big and based too far away.. They have for the most part been stood down, as have the B-2's which are overkill and incredibly expensive for the current mission.  Seems the B-1 has finally found purpose in life.

The DC-3 / C-47 Dakota is the ideal analogy for the Jupiter 120 (IMHO).

Wikipedia:

Quote
The Douglas DC-3 is an American fixed-wing, propeller-driven aircraft whose speed and range revolutionized air transport in the 1930s and 1940s. Because of its lasting impact on the airline industry and World War II, it is generally regarded as one of the most significant transport aircraft ever made.

Jupiter 232? Extend the analogy with the DC-4 / C-54 Skymaster.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ninja on 05/09/2008 03:34 PM
Skinny

          Much appreciated!

                                    EdH
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 05/09/2008 04:36 PM
Quote
shostetler - 9/5/2008  10:10 AM
So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.

Assuming you designed your module from the outset that way, yes.  However, an external shell to deal with aero-loads is not useful once you are in orbit.  Being able to shed that mass at some point on the way up (once out of the majority of the atmosphere) may result in a net heavier module making it to your end location.

However, the existing, grounded ISS modules were all built with the intention of being snug within a Shuttle payload bay.  They aren't designed to deal with aero-loads.

If you decide to design a new ISS module, and a Jupiter (or Ares V for that matter) is available vehicle for getting it there, you would likely design that module with an 8.4m or 10m diameter.  You would still likely sit inside a fairing/shroud though, as you don't want to carry a heavy 8.4 or 10m aeroshell all the way to ISS, just to the trailing edges of the atmosphere.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 05/09/2008 04:49 PM
Quote
shostetler - 9/5/2008  11:10 AM

So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.

Existing ISS modules were designed to be launched inside the payload bay.  Sticking them in a payload shround, on a strongback to mimic the shuttle payload bay attach points, seems to be the easiest way to launch these payloads.

Designing a module which would be its own payload shround is possible.  However, designing a station module to have both micrometeorite protection and be able to handle the aerodynamic loads of a launch has challenges of its own.  Note the problems that Skylab had during luanch.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/09/2008 05:00 PM
Quote
simcosmos - 9/5/2008  5:38 AM

Hi kttopdad

Launch Sequence

Not sure if understood your comment:

...

The video does show the RS-68 being started a few seconds *before* lift off! Then, at T-0, both SRB are ignited and the launcher clears the pad. Do not understand where is the "error" or how can you say that are seeing the RS-68 + SRB starting at the same time (?) :)

Sorry.  My eyes were a bit blurry by the time I watched the video.  I just watched it again and saw the error of my ways.

Quote
About the 'work in progress' label

I didn't mean anything by the comment.  I thought the phrase "work in progress" meant that you were still tweaking it.  Hence my comment about the (perceived) ignition sequence error.

Quote
Images about my always-ongoing work in progress are also shared in any of the following locations (beyond the mentioned related pdf, ppt, etc, together with Ross + Philip's drawings / renderings):

a) my site's Instant Shots / News / WIP area (right side, in the front page: older previews also available if clicking here)

b) my site's LivePics page
(thumbnail of currently uploaded image + link available in this forum's signature)

c) simcosmos' flickr, where most of the pictures seen in the LivePics usually end up (sometimes in higher resolutions), gaining also a description: main link available in forum's signature, link for specific DIRECT photo set here). Might one day also open an account at youtube and share there development / Orbiter simulator videos about Exploration missions supported by DIRECT Architecture.

d) last but not least, have also made a project entry in a page dedicated to simcosmos' Orbiter simulator Projects or past collaborations (this page can also be visited - from the site's front page - if clicking in 'Orbiter' (left menu) and then in 'My Addons + WIP'); the interested can also click here for DIRECT's entry.

António

It's great to have so many pictures of the system.  It helps.  Sorry for the confusion.  Too many hobbies, not enough sleep.  :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/09/2008 05:01 PM
Perhaps this should go to a different thread because we are straying away from the Jupiters, but I will offer this as a thought about the aeroshell:

The old Atlas ICBM, which launched the first American into orbit, John Glenn, was made with what is known as “balloon construction”. The skin was so thin and so light that it would literally collapse under its own weight. No way would it stand up to the rigors of being launched into space. Then they pressurized it. It became tough as nails. I personally had the opportunity back in the day to actually hit one with a hammer (it was sort of a right of passage at the ICBM base where I was stationed). That hammer sprang back at me so fast that it almost clocked me in the face. Everybody laughed at me and I was now a member of the "group".

The application would be this. There is no reason an aeroshell can’t be made the same way. It would be EXTREMELY light and very, very tough. That would allow a larger payload module to be mounted and then the shell wrapped around it and pressurized. It doesn’t take much pressure and off it goes. At the top of the atmosphere the clamps are released and under its own pressure it splits into its petals and is jettisoned.

That’s one way to reduce the mass penalty of the aeroshell and reassign that mass in a useful way to the payload. Just a thought.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 05/09/2008 05:38 PM
I really like that idea, Chuck.  It's practical and very creative.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/09/2008 05:40 PM
Quote
clongton - 9/5/2008  1:01 PM
. At the top of the atmosphere the clamps are released and under its own pressure it splits into its petals and is jettisoned.

.

There are several issues:

 the split lines, trying to keep them air tight and yet allowing them to be field joints.

The Altas needed mechanical support while unpressurized

The actual "hoops", tank segments had to be held in frames while being welded together.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/09/2008 05:47 PM
Quote
Jim - 9/5/2008  1:40 PM

Quote
clongton - 9/5/2008  1:01 PM
. At the top of the atmosphere the clamps are released and under its own pressure it splits into its petals and is jettisoned.

.

There are several issues:

 the split lines, trying to keep them air tight and yet allowing them to be field joints.

The Altas needed mechanical support while unpressurized

The actual "hoops", tank segments had to be held in frames while being welded together.
There are even more issues than that; for example the problem of mounting and hanging the petals  after payload integration. How do you support and manipulate them? I don't know. This would not be an easy thing to do by any means. But if some smart people put their heads together, I bet they could come up with a practical way to test it.

Anyway, just a little thinking outside the box.
BTW, the next guy to hit the Atlas didn't duck fast enough. The hammer almost knocked him off the platform and did raise a knot on his forehead. Evrybody laughed later, and we took him out and got him drunk.  :) A good time was had by all.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/09/2008 06:39 PM
It may be better to compare the Jupiter 120 to the C-130 and the Jupiter 232 to the C-17, as these aircraft are probably more well known to the general public than the DC-3/C-47 DC-4/C-54 are now.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 05/11/2008 01:00 AM
Quote
Jim - 9/5/2008  12:40 PM

Quote
clongton - 9/5/2008  1:01 PM
. At the top of the atmosphere the clamps are released and under its own pressure it splits into its petals and is jettisoned.

.

There are several issues:

 the split lines, trying to keep them air tight and yet allowing them to be field joints.

The Altas needed mechanical support while unpressurized

The actual "hoops", tank segments had to be held in frames while being welded together.

Weld it up to encapsulate the payload and make it airtight... use very small linear shaped charges to cut the weld seams at fairing jettison.  It would have to be jigged up while unpressurized to weld together though.  

The bigger problem I see is the pressure differential between the interior of the payload and the pressure inside the payload fairing.  You'd have to be very careful in your pressure control to prevent 'imploding' your station module or other payload.  Sorta like blowing compressed air into the fuel bowl of a carbuerator will collapse the fuel float (don't ask me how I know this)  

Sure you can up the pressure inside your station module/payload to equalize the force inside/outside of the payload, but when the fairing blows... POOF!  You'd have to do some very careful engineering and either have some way to RAPIDLY reduce the pressure inside the module or use some other method or combination thereof to assure the payload remains safe.  

Doable but requires some very good engineering!  OL JR :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 05/11/2008 03:34 AM
Back somewhat on topic, does DIRECT have anyway to replace the Shuttle's GAS program?  It seemed like a great way to get commercial/education involvement, and it would be ashame if such cooperation vanished after the shuttle.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/11/2008 07:47 AM
Quote
shostetler - 9/5/2008  11:10 AM

So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.

Absolutely correct.

Skylab was launched in precisely that manner.

It all depends on the exact nature of the payload itself, as to whether this is a good way to utilize it.

There are many factors involved, such as dynamic loads, aero-heating, weight, cost and schedule which go into determining how a payload needs to be designed & flown.   Often there is a performance (mass) penalty for payloads which has to include the additional weight of a PLF structure within it, so you would prefer to dispose of the PLF and make the skin of the spacecraft much lighter.

But *theoretically*, yes, a payload (such maybe as a Space Telescope) with an 8.4m diameter outer mould-line could be designed so that its outer skin also acts as part of the PLF.

Its possible, though not always desirable.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/11/2008 08:07 AM
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 10/5/2008  11:34 PM

Back somewhat on topic, does DIRECT have anyway to replace the Shuttle's GAS program?  It seemed like a great way to get commercial/education involvement, and it would be ashame if such cooperation vanished after the shuttle.

I guess you are referring to the Get Away Special Program?

I see no reason why DIRECT couldn't continue it in a healthy manner pretty-much as-is.

It isn't particularly costly, we have very healthy levels of performance on all ISS-bound missions and it is an excellent NASA outreach program allowing some real contact between students and the US Space Program - which is an excellent source of motivation for them.

The only issue is that of returning payloads to Earth.   I don't expect any provision is being made for Orion to be able to do it easily, but this would be a wonderful opportunity for a COTS system to demonstrate its mettle.


The SSPDM (see below) is being designed to be a simple tubular aluminum space-frame truss structure.   It would not be difficult to attach such containers to either the inside or even the outside of the SSPDM structure.

As the image below shows, we are even considering an additional truss structure on either side of the Payload Bay "edges" allowing easy access to specific additional hardware during spacewalks.   They may or may not be included in the final designs, but the GAS modules could be mounted there too.



Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2008 01:12 PM
Quote
luke strawwalker - 10/5/2008  9:00 PM

Weld it up to encapsulate the payload and make it airtight... use very small linear shaped charges to cut the weld seams at fairing jettison.  It would have to be jigged up while unpressurized to weld together though.  

Doable but requires some very good engineering!  OL JR :)

Still not viable.  Welding exposes the payload to EMI, contamination, etc.  Inspecting the welds would be an issue too.  Also the time from pre- encapsulation to launch is excessively long.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2008 01:13 PM
Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2008  3:47 AM

Quote
shostetler - 9/5/2008  11:10 AM

So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.

Absolutely correct.

Skylab was launched in precisely that manner.


Ross.

Because it already was a former upperstage.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2008 01:18 PM
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 10/5/2008  11:34 PM

Back somewhat on topic, does DIRECT have anyway to replace the Shuttle's GAS program?  It seemed like a great way to get commercial/education involvement, and it would be ashame if such cooperation vanished after the shuttle.

GAS program was canceled years ago, Columbia timeframe.  It stopped taking application long before that.  

NASA trying to start the PPOD/cubesat program for this
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/11/2008 02:27 PM
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  9:18 AM

NASA trying to start the PPOD/cubesat program for this

That's interesting.   Any idea what the current hopes are for launching those?   COTS?   ISS partners?

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/11/2008 02:39 PM
Quote
Skinny - 9/5/2008  11:03 AM

Attached is an 1-1 conversion to a PDF file.

Thanks for doing that.

One thing though - the PDF version doesn't have quite the same "impact".   The points on the different pages pop-up one after another boom, boom, boom - and that presentation style has quite a powerful overall "punch" to it, which isn't quite the same when presented as a static page.

I'd recommend the pdf to get a quick look, but then when you leave the computer, let it spend a bit of extra time downloading the full Presentation and video - I think you'll appreciate it - but I could be accused of being biased ;)

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2008 03:11 PM
Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2008  10:27 AM

Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  9:18 AM

NASA trying to start the PPOD/cubesat program for this

That's interesting.   Any idea what the current hopes are for launching those?   COTS?   ISS partners?

Ross.

Neither, the "other" NASA missions that have higher launch rates:  ELV's with unmanned spacecraft
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 05/11/2008 06:09 PM
Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2008  3:39 PM
One thing though - the PDF version doesn't have quite the same "impact".   The points on the different pages pop-up one after another boom, boom, boom - and that presentation style has quite a powerful overall "punch" to it...

Be careful with having too many transitions though, I sometimes end up trying to guess just what the next effect is going to be rather than watching the presentation ;)

Still reading the transcript at the same time as the presentation gives a really good impression of DIRECT.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: shostetler on 05/12/2008 07:01 AM
Quote
BogoMIPS - 9/5/2008  11:36 AM

Quote
shostetler - 9/5/2008  10:10 AM
So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.

Assuming you designed your module from the outset that way, yes.  However, an external shell to deal with aero-loads is not useful once you are in orbit.  Being able to shed that mass at some point on the way up (once out of the majority of the atmosphere) may result in a net heavier module making it to your end location.

However, the existing, grounded ISS modules were all built with the intention of being snug within a Shuttle payload bay.  They aren't designed to deal with aero-loads.

If you decide to design a new ISS module, and a Jupiter (or Ares V for that matter) is available vehicle for getting it there, you would likely design that module with an 8.4m or 10m diameter.  You would still likely sit inside a fairing/shroud though, as you don't want to carry a heavy 8.4 or 10m aeroshell all the way to ISS, just to the trailing edges of the atmosphere.

So, in theory a module could be designed that would be 10m in diameter, but what would be the absolute largest length? 30ft in diameter is nothing to sneeze at. Seems almost fitting to create a super module that could be part of a selling point for the DIRECT concept in lieu of the modules that weren't launched on the STS. Especially if that interior 28 ft or so of space would be built on a vertical platform with 8 ft ceilings, with a large meeting room at the bottom or something. Even on a horizontal scale, having a work area nearly 28 ft wide and however long would be awesome... just.. well, awesome.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 05/12/2008 09:11 AM
In theory, couldn`t you make a module with radius larger than the rocket?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 05/12/2008 10:57 AM
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  9:13 AM

Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2008  3:47 AM

Quote
shostetler - 9/5/2008  11:10 AM

So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.

Absolutely correct.

Skylab was launched in precisely that manner.


Ross.

Because it already was a former upperstage.

Wasn't part of the problem during the Skylab launch that the outer surface of the SIVB was no longer outermost? My vague recollection was, there was a deployable meteoroid shield that tore off during ascent.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 05/12/2008 11:46 AM
It might interest people to know that the centrifuge in the Discovery in 2001 is 35ft in diameter...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/12/2008 11:54 AM
Quote
Crispy - 12/5/2008  7:46 AM

It might interest people to know that the centrifuge in the Discovery in 2001 is 35ft in diameter...
10.7 meters
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/12/2008 01:10 PM
Quote
nacnud - 11/5/2008  2:09 PM

Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2008  3:39 PM
One thing though - the PDF version doesn't have quite the same "impact".   The points on the different pages pop-up one after another boom, boom, boom - and that presentation style has quite a powerful overall "punch" to it...

Be careful with having too many transitions though, I sometimes end up trying to guess just what the next effect is going to be rather than watching the presentation ;)

Still reading the transcript at the same time as the presentation gives a really good impression of DIRECT.

We only have a single type of transition in the Presentation - "Appear".   We didn't want it about the effects, we just wanted the information to build-up in a specific way.   Once one point is made, the next just follows hot on its heels, and the next, and the next.   It just produces a 1-2-3-4 punch effect.

Oh, one exception - we do have a nice dissolve between the Jupiter-120 to Jupiter-232 image on pages 12/13.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/12/2008 01:15 PM
Quote
shostetler - 12/5/2008  3:01 AM

So, in theory a module could be designed that would be 10m in diameter, but what would be the absolute largest length? 30ft in diameter is nothing to sneeze at. Seems almost fitting to create a super module that could be part of a selling point for the DIRECT concept in lieu of the modules that weren't launched on the STS. Especially if that interior 28 ft or so of space would be built on a vertical platform with 8 ft ceilings, with a large meeting room at the bottom or something. Even on a horizontal scale, having a work area nearly 28 ft wide and however long would be awesome... just.. well, awesome.

We have 8.4m, 10m and 12m diameter PLF's already planned.   The barrel sections are currently baselined at 10m length for each of them (and some of the cone above that can also be utilized), but that can change dependent upon further trades.

We figure it wouldn't be very difficult to use a 20m long barrel section on any of these launchers - although that would reduce maximum payload mass slightly due to the added weight of the larger PLF.

Longer is probably also possible, but 20m long x 10m or 12m dia makes for a vast volume already.   I can only imagine what Bigelow could do with that...

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 05/12/2008 02:38 PM
Quote
William Barton - 12/5/2008  6:57 AM

Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  9:13 AM

Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2008  3:47 AM

Quote
shostetler - 9/5/2008  11:10 AM

So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.

Absolutely correct.

Skylab was launched in precisely that manner.


Ross.

Because it already was a former upperstage.

Wasn't part of the problem during the Skylab launch that the outer surface of the SIVB was no longer outermost? My vague recollection was, there was a deployable meteoroid shield that tore off during ascent.

One main solar array ripped completely off (it was also attached to the outside of (what was) the SIVB shell.  The micrometerorite/thermal shield deployed, and was ripped off.  Debris from the micrometeorite/thermal shield jammed the remaining main solar array so it wouldn't properly deploy.

Luckily the first crew was able to deploy a thermal shield from the experiment airlock and was able to free the jammed solar array during a spacewalk.

This approach isn't without risks.  It's likely easier just to make your space station fit inside a payload fairing.  Then your station can be designed in much the same way that the ISS pressurized modules were designed (i.e. the thermal and MMOD shielding).

Jeff
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/12/2008 08:34 PM

Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  3:37 PM
kttopdad - Actually Propellant Depots are a major part of the "DIRECT Architecture" - which is the umbrella plan we have encompassing the whole program.   They just aren't a major part of the "Jupiter Element" and aren't a complication we wish to include while we are getting the operation underway.    We want the info 'out there' and showing it in the logical upgrade path beyond 2020 does no harm IMHO.

Ross.

I found a fun presentation from Boeing last fall on this subject.  It's title is "LEO Propellant Depot:  A Commercial Opportunity?".  I think the most interesting point is that Boeing, a provider of launch services, bases the case around using the SpaceX Falcon-9 as the vehicle of choice for fueling the station.  Here's the link to it for your viewing pleasure.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2007/presentations/20071003.bienhoff.pdf

Dean

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Maxim_NZ on 05/12/2008 10:24 PM
Ross,

Just wanted to pass on a big thanks for making the presentation available to all nasaspaceflight members. It's looks to me the hard technical yards have been done, (this was the easy part) As with any initiative in governments big and small the hard yards are 'the sell' - so pleased to see members of congress have been briefed. No doubt this campaign will continue and we hope you would be able to share progress with us on this front as is appropriate.

I hope that history will show how good men spoke up and saved the shuttle launch infrustructure with a system known initially as direct/jupiter (hey call it Ares and pick any model number, most here reading this wouldn't care) This built a dependable and flexible launch system at a fair price, and saved many hard working men & womans livelyhoods after the shuttle retired.

History has shown STS was built on a cheaper than hoped for cost which dictated cheaper Solid Boosters SRB's over Liquid flyback boosters and an Orbiter spec'd by a committee - however flawed & fragile the design, you have give credit for the amazing system that is today. I hope the Apollo derived shuttle infrastructure which is key to launch today is not totally ripped down before the Powers that be wakeup and see what the trenches have been advocating.

Not sure I agree with the DC-3 analogy, more like an R-7 with tons of room in the trunk and heaps more potential! The soviets have not thrown away the basic Korolev design, yet America has been thru how many complete redesigns of manned launch systems? (let's not elaborate here on how safe the last few Soyuz returns have been)

Other than the driving purists - who wants to take a  2 door Mazda Miata/MZ-5/Roadster on long trip when you can't stop for supplies? - or would you rather go in something with backseats and huge boot + ability to tow/hitch up a trailer?

I admit back when read of the 'stick' idea was published on spaceref + others long before nasaspaceflight was born, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but with the amount of changes to SRB, and actual payoad delivered to orbit, throwing away the STS launch system/infrastructure and it's ability to put significantly greater magnitudes of payload to orbit is going to be a huge step back. I don't want to see the great (Moon/Mars/Asteroid) landing in my 50's or 60's.

Thanks for updates Direct Team. :-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 05/13/2008 02:41 PM
Quote
kttopdad - 13/5/2008  7:34 AM

Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  3:37 PM
kttopdad - Actually Propellant Depots are a major part of the "DIRECT Architecture" - which is the umbrella plan we have encompassing the whole program.   They just aren't a major part of the "Jupiter Element" and aren't a complication we wish to include while we are getting the operation underway.    We want the info 'out there' and showing it in the logical upgrade path beyond 2020 does no harm IMHO.

Ross.

I found a fun presentation from Boeing last fall on this subject.  It's title is "LEO Propellant Depot:  A Commercial Opportunity?".  I think the most interesting point is that Boeing, a provider of launch services, bases the case around using the SpaceX Falcon-9 as the vehicle of choice for fueling the station.  Here's the link to it for your viewing pleasure.

...

Space-X Falcon 9 may be code for "what we could build Delta IV's for, if we were launching one a week, and lower cost actually meant more profit, although we'd have to call it the Delta IV Lite (or something) to avoid awkward questions"   :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/13/2008 03:58 PM
Quote
kkattula - 13/5/2008  10:41 AM
... we'd have to call it the Delta IV Lite (or something) to avoid awkward questions"   :)

Or use a low energy upper stage (like used on the DeltaII)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 05/13/2008 04:04 PM
Well maybe....

Another point of interest is that the upper stage of the F9 is already muted as being reusable. I wonder how much it would take to enlarge the upper stage tanks so that the residual fuel after second stage cut off would be the payload. I suppose you'd need to add some RCS and docking capability but it seems like a cheap option.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/13/2008 04:41 PM
Quote
nacnud - 13/5/2008  12:04 PM

Well maybe....

Another point of interest is that the upper stage of the F9 is already muted as being reusable. I wonder how much it would take to enlarge the upper stage takes so that the residual fuel after second stage cut off would be the payload. I suppose you'd need to add some RCS and docking capability but it seems like a cheap option.

Are we talking LOX/LH depo's or LOX/Kero depo's... Besides we are getting way off topic  :cool:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 05/13/2008 04:41 PM
DOH, although RP-1 has less boil off issues...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/13/2008 06:20 PM
Quote
kevin-rf - 13/5/2008  11:41 AM

Quote
nacnud - 13/5/2008  12:04 PM

Well maybe....

Another point of interest is that the upper stage of the F9 is already muted as being reusable. I wonder how much it would take to enlarge the upper stage takes so that the residual fuel after second stage cut off would be the payload. I suppose you'd need to add some RCS and docking capability but it seems like a cheap option.

Are we talking LOX/LH depo's or LOX/Kero depo's... Besides we are getting way off topic  :cool:

Is this off topic?  A stated part of the DIRECT v2.0 plan is LEO refueling infrastructure.  Contrast/Compare the DIRECT plan with other plans seems a valid use of this thread.  
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/13/2008 07:05 PM
Quote
kttopdad - 13/5/2008  2:20 PM

Quote
kevin-rf - 13/5/2008  11:41 AM

Quote
nacnud - 13/5/2008  12:04 PM

Well maybe....

Another point of interest is that the upper stage of the F9 is already muted as being reusable. I wonder how much it would take to enlarge the upper stage takes so that the residual fuel after second stage cut off would be the payload. I suppose you'd need to add some RCS and docking capability but it seems like a cheap option.

Are we talking LOX/LH depo's or LOX/Kero depo's... Besides we are getting way off topic  :cool:

Is this off topic?  A stated part of the DIRECT v2.0 plan is LEO refueling infrastructure.  Contrast/Compare the DIRECT plan with other plans seems a valid use of this thread.  
It's not off topic so long as it relates to DIRECT. Remember, DIRECT isn't the launch vehicle - it's the architecture. Jupiter is the launch vehicle. In the DIRECT architecture, Orbital Propellant Depots can play a prominent part and are well spoken of in the AIAA paper we presented last year. Just be careful to keep the discussion DIRECT-centric. That will ensure that it remains on-topic. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jongoff on 05/13/2008 07:36 PM
KKatulla,
Quote
Space-X Falcon 9 may be code for "what we could build Delta IV's for, if we were launching one a week, and lower cost actually meant more profit, although we'd have to call it the Delta IV Lite (or something) to avoid awkward questions"   :)

At least when I asked him, Dallas Bienhoff said that they felt using SpaceX for the propellant launches would be much more affordable than if they did the launches themselves.  From what I understand, they'd rather build, launch, and operate the depot, and buy propellants from whoever else is cheapest--that's the way they maximize their profits, not by trying to keep all the propellant launches in-house.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/13/2008 07:40 PM
Quote
jongoff - 13/5/2008  3:36 PM

KKatulla,
Quote
Space-X Falcon 9 may be code for "what we could build Delta IV's for, if we were launching one a week, and lower cost actually meant more profit, although we'd have to call it the Delta IV Lite (or something) to avoid awkward questions"   :)

At least when I asked him, Dallas Bienhoff said that they felt using SpaceX for the propellant launches would be much more affordable than if they did the launches themselves.  From what I understand, they'd rather build, launch, and operate the depot, and buy propellants from whoever else is cheapest--that's the way they maximize their profits, not by trying to keep all the propellant launches in-house.

~Jon
Jon, that is *exactly* the model DIRECT is aiming for; a commercial entity like Boeing that owns and operates the depot, with the propellant launches being supplied from the market. Such a model opens enormous oportunities.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 05/13/2008 09:15 PM
How much sense does it make to create a depot for just LOX? Easier to control boil-off, denser, quite compact. Sure, having the fuel & oxidiser in one place would be great, but would a LOX-only depot be a good way to "stepping stone" the technology? Would it produce noticable gains for missions beyond LEO?

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/13/2008 09:30 PM
Quote
tankmodeler - 13/5/2008  5:15 PM

How much sense does it make to create a depot for just LOX? Easier to control boil-off, denser, quite compact. Sure, having the fuel & oxidiser in one place would be great, but would a LOX-only depot be a good way to "stepping stone" the technology? Would it produce noticable gains for missions beyond LEO?

Paul
That is an excellant first step and is, in fact, the way DIRECT sees the technology demonstrator beginning. Over 80% of the propellant lifted to orbit on a mission is LOX. The ability to lift mission cargo instead and get the LOX on orbit opens the the solar system to chemically powered vehicles.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/13/2008 11:04 PM
Quote
kttopdad - 12/5/2008  9:34 PM
I found a fun presentation from Boeing last fall on this subject.  It's title is "LEO Propellant Depot:  A Commercial Opportunity?".  I think the most interesting point is that Boeing, a provider of launch services, bases the case around using the SpaceX Falcon-9 as the vehicle of choice for fueling the station.  Here's the link to it for your viewing pleasure.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2007/presentations/20071003.bienhoff.pdf

Dean



A space propellant depot does not have to be operated by an aerospace company, a chemical company for instance could see the opening bid price of $10000/kg for LOX and get very interested.  Liquid gas firms have lots of experience in moving flammable cryogenics over long distances.  They may contract the depot construction out to say Boeing.  Multinational oil companies can afford to pay for a depot and would not hesitate in buying launch services from a third company.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 05/13/2008 11:33 PM
The 'one' problem I see with that idea (commercialization of a fuel depot) would be no different than the problems faced here on terra-firma with high gas prices. You have all this hardware built for on-orbit re-fuelling and they go and start jacking up the rates. Then you have little choice but to pay the higher prices, unless you want to scrap your 'gas-guzzler' and go for a a different fuel alternative. Sound familiar?

Just presenting scenarios. I like the whole concept of orbital refuelling though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/14/2008 12:30 AM
Quote
robertross - 14/5/2008  12:33 AM
The 'one' problem I see with that idea (commercialization of a fuel depot) would be no different than the problems faced here on terra-firma with high gas prices. You have all this hardware built for on-orbit re-fuelling and they go and start jacking up the rates. Then you have little choice but to pay the higher prices, unless you want to scrap your 'gas-guzzler' and go for a a different fuel alternative. Sound familiar?

Use competition.   Two depots run by different companies.  Ensure that they do not set up a cartel.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 05/14/2008 01:06 AM
Why have two depots when the reoccurring cost of launching the propellant is likely to be the cost driver? Let NASA contract the depot directly with a cost + deal and then use COTS principles to get the propellant up there.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/14/2008 01:17 AM
Ross and Team.

After a lot of trouble - none of your fault - I was able to successfully download the presentation off of my work computer intact.  All my computers at home somehow managed to corrupt the file.

Anyway, a most commendable effort.  I can only hope it carries the day as I think the Jupiter is the best LV we can get in the short term to support the VSE.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/14/2008 04:58 AM
Quote
clongton - 13/5/2008  3:40 PM
Jon, that is *exactly* the model DIRECT is aiming for; a commercial entity like Boeing that owns and operates the depot, with the propellant launches being supplied from the market. Such a model opens enormous oportunities.

And purely as an aside: We're currently planning that the Boeing contract for the Ares-I Upper Stage will be modified into the Upper Stage contract for Jupiter-232.   That Upper Stage, with a potential capacity of some 245mT LOX/LH2, would make an ideal Point of Departure to go make a Propellant Depot from.

And nacnud - I think NASA would build the first systems in order to guarantee the infrastructure is created, probably as you describe.   After that though, I do see opportunities for commercial alternatives replacing it if commercial companies decide they can make some money from it.

I would welcome a couple of competitors, but I don't necessarily see the interest level there yet for us to rely upon when making the architectural choices we need to make now.   Therefore I think NASA will need to initially secure the infrastructure independent of commercial forces.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/14/2008 10:00 AM
Quote
nacnud - 14/5/2008  2:06 AM

Why have two depots when the reoccurring cost of launching the propellant is likely to be the cost driver? Let NASA contract the depot directly with a cost + deal and then use COTS principles to get the propellant up there.

On a cost plus deal there is a built-in incentive to use the most expensive launcher.

Two depots give a built in redundancy against anything going wrong with one of the depots.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 05/14/2008 10:49 AM
Quote
kttopdad - 12/5/2008  4:34 PM

Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  3:37 PM
kttopdad - Actually Propellant Depots are a major part of the "DIRECT Architecture" - which is the umbrella plan we have encompassing the whole program.   They just aren't a major part of the "Jupiter Element" and aren't a complication we wish to include while we are getting the operation underway.    We want the info 'out there' and showing it in the logical upgrade path beyond 2020 does no harm IMHO.

Ross.

I found a fun presentation from Boeing last fall on this subject.  It's title is "LEO Propellant Depot:  A Commercial Opportunity?".  I think the most interesting point is that Boeing, a provider of launch services, bases the case around using the SpaceX Falcon-9 as the vehicle of choice for fueling the station.  Here's the link to it for your viewing pleasure.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2007/presentations/20071003.bienhoff.pdf

Dean




How cost effective is the reusable tanker they show here?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 05/14/2008 02:32 PM
I apologize for being a little late in the "thank yous" but I was rather busy with finals last week. But thanks anyway for making that presentation available. It was something I hoped you guys would provide for a long time, a down to the point, idiot proof, presentation of DIRECT. Great job, and I think this is really going to pay off for the DIRECT Team big time!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 05/14/2008 04:49 PM
Quote
William Barton - 14/5/2008  6:49 AM
How cost effective is the reusable tanker they show here?
Who knows? I don't think there's enough detail to tell.

It would probably be a LOT more cost effective if it was brought up to the depot by a tug as opposed to carrying all the electronics & engines for rendezvous up each time.

A tug based rendezvous plan may be effective enough to allow you to dispose of the resupply ships each time. Make them really dumb and cheap, like jerrycans, and then use the tug to carry the expensive stuff and be the expensive element.

I like the modularity of their design although I dare say it's not as thermally efficient as a monolithic tank concept. The modularity would allow you to actually start serving customers earlier with a smaller installed cost at start. It would also allow you redundency in the tankage as well as the possibility of storage unit replacement if one is damaged as opposed to replacing a monolithic tank. You could also eject a tank to save the depot if something really bad occurred.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 05/14/2008 07:01 PM
Quote
tankmodeler - 14/5/2008  11:49 AM

It would probably be a LOT more cost effective if it was brought up to the depot by a tug as opposed to carrying all the electronics & engines for rendezvous up each time.

Why not make depot itself be a tug? It already has lots of fuel. Just add navigation system and let it catch the "canisters".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/14/2008 07:12 PM
Quote
Eerie - 14/5/2008  3:01 PM

Quote
tankmodeler - 14/5/2008  11:49 AM

It would probably be a LOT more cost effective if it was brought up to the depot by a tug as opposed to carrying all the electronics & engines for rendezvous up each time.

Why not make depot itself be a tug? It already has lots of fuel. Just add navigation system and let it catch the "canisters".
Too inefficient. The depot will be much larger than a propellant canister and have a lot of external appendages that could be damaged in the effort to snare a propellant canister, especially if it's tumbling. We're much better off to either use a specialized tug or let the propellant canister itself have navigation & propulsion. But I vote for the tug.

In the beginning however, the propellant canister will most likely have navigation & propulsion, and we'll switch to the tug as the technology matures.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 05/14/2008 07:19 PM
Quote
clongton - 14/5/2008  3:12 PM

Quote
Eerie - 14/5/2008  3:01 PM

Quote
tankmodeler - 14/5/2008  11:49 AM

It would probably be a LOT more cost effective if it was brought up to the depot by a tug as opposed to carrying all the electronics & engines for rendezvous up each time.

Why not make depot itself be a tug? It already has lots of fuel. Just add navigation system and let it catch the "canisters".
Too inefficient. The depot will be much larger than a propellant canister and have a lot of external appendages that could be damaged in the effort to snare a propellant canister, especially if it's tumbling. We're much better off to either use a specialized tug or let the propellant canister itself have navigation & propulsion. But I vote for the tug.

In the beginning however, the propellant canister will most likely have navigation & propulsion, and we'll switch to the tug as the technology matures.

If you had the resuable tanker shown in the Boeing presentation, it could probably be adapted for other uses. If itself modularized, you could swap out the tank for a cargo bay.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/16/2008 02:02 AM
All this off topic discussion on depo's has me wondering,

How many thermo cycles, fill/drain, fill/drain could the tanks take before they have to be replaced? Cycling from LH temps is probally pretty harsh on a tank. Once filled would you be limited to how much residuals you needed to leave behind to keep the tanks at cryo temps to prevent thermal cycling?

One more reason not to go with a monlithic set of tanks?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/16/2008 02:19 AM
My understanding is that cryo propellants in zero-g will usually cling to the walls due to surface tension.   They typically create a void in the center of the tank.

With appropriate construction and active cooling (a very sensible thing for a depot to have) the tank walls exposed to the cryo propellant should not experience much in the way of thermal cycling.   They will usually be sheltered behind a shade, will be double-walled structures so the pressure vessel itself won't be exposed to sunlight even in situations where the shade isn't working (perhaps during a docking event).   And the tanking of a reusable Depot shouldn't be drained to completely empty, because keeping some cryo liquid in the tanks will actually help avoid many thermal issues.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/16/2008 04:42 AM
This is simply a thought to share.  The Jupiter Common Core non-aft thrust structure sections ought to be faster and more cost effective to manufacture than the current external tank.  The reason is two-fold.  

1.   90-10 theory.  90% of the ET manufacturing is mostly automated and requires relatively little hands-on effort.  For instance, the acreage TPS application is automated.  The last 10% is a different story.  It is very labor and QA intensive.  The Ice Frost Ramps installation is a good example.  The acreage foam is cut out to the metal, the pressline brackets are installed, the pre-molded lower section is installed, then the presslines, then the upper pre-molded sections and finally sanded down.  This whole process is very slow due to the heavy QA activities designed to insure that this TPS does not easily come off and impact the orbiter.  Obviously, the vast majority of this QA is not necessary for the CCB.
2.   Much of this hand applied TPS is not even necessary anymore due to the use of titanium alloys.  Therefore, even the labor cost is reduced.  Currently, this TPS is left on because any change to the ET protuberances must be qualified and it is simply not worth the time and cost.  However, the CCB must qualify to begin with thus any unnecessary TPS can be removed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/16/2008 11:00 AM
csj,
I totally agree.   A lot (note I didn't say 'all') of the touch-labor surrounding TPS application to the ET can go-away with the in-line configuration.   It just isn't necessary.   That wouldn't hurt the costings at all ;)

Other "commonality" advantages include the re-use of the tank dome gores for the LOX Fwd Dome (different center sections for each obviously), the re-use of the Intertank jigs (correct word? I forget...) for manufacturing the Fwd Skirt and the Aft Skirt and re-use of the LH2 tank barrel manufacturing equipment to make the new LOX tank barrels as well.

New anti-vortex baffles are needed for the LH2 tank, with the LOX being modified to suit a wider diameter LOX feedline (22" as opposed to today's 17").

The Thrust Structure is going to be new, but they are a well-understood and quantified engineering solution, so isn't too big of a hurdle.   And the one for Jupiter is still a lot smaller and less complex than the one they're already planning for Ares-V.

The TPS for the Aft is something NASA would still need to do a lot of research into.   Whether to just use a hot metal structure (Saturn-V) or cover it with some sort of dedicated TPS material (ET) is going to be an interesting engineering project for someone.   I would make a guess that regular ET foam won't be sufficient for the backwash from the MPS though.

But the avionics are going to be the biggest job on Jupiter IMHO and I can't even guess what'll be involved there.   I'd hope there's EELV hardware which would apply though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/16/2008 05:01 PM
Kraisee,

I agree that the biggest challenge for the CCB will clearly be the avionics.  The cable trays may need to be larger if more cables are needed.  As far as plume recirculation is concerned, there is a fair amount of that going on now with the shuttle.  However, I do not know that much about TPS technology and how it could be best used on the CCB.

csj
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 05/16/2008 05:16 PM
Quote
kevin-rf - 15/5/2008  10:02 PM
How many thermo cycles, fill/drain, fill/drain could the tanks take before they have to be replaced?
As many as you design it to take.

Like many engineering issues in many disciplines this sort of question doesn't have a set answer. If you qualify some of the conditions, then an answer can be given but a bald question like "how many cycles can it take" for something that doesn't exist is answered with "You design it  from the start to take as many as you find you need". :)

If, for some reason you thought that you needed, I mean really needed, 50,000 full thermal cycles, then you pick materials & designs to get you to 50,000 cycles with the agreed-upon level of reliability.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/17/2008 11:32 AM
I believe that the current requirement for Shuttle ET's is 13 cryo cycles (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).    A cryo cycle being defined as either a cryo-fill or a tank pressurization event.

IIRC, I saw someone say that the most any flown Shuttle tank has ever experienced was about 7 cycles, so there appears to be a fairly comfortable margin there according to existing flight history.

It would seem logical for Jupiter Core's to have a similar requirement.

I'm not sure what part of the tank is the long pole on this though - whether its brittleness of the Al-Li structure, or bonding adhesive of the foam, or seals or whatever.   It could very well be a number of different but inter-related factors together.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 05/18/2008 02:07 PM
Quote
kraisee - 16/5/2008  6:00 AM

But the avionics are going to be the biggest job on Jupiter IMHO and I can't even guess what'll be involved there.   I'd hope there's EELV hardware which would apply though.

Ross.

Ross, it would be very advantageous for the J-120+Delta IV US rocket if the Jupiter rockets could use Delta IV derived avionics. I am not an expert, but at first glance this seems to be a logical choice anyway as it is already designed to control 3 RS-68 engines.  It would be nice if you could "recruit" in your Direct supporting team ULA/Boeing professionals familiar with that avionics system.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/18/2008 02:40 PM
Bad advice.  
1.  Delta avionics system is archaic.  It doesn't know what time is and therefore can't do planetary windows greater than one second.  Also it can't do yaw steering
2.  It is the same system as the Delta II, circa 1995
3.  Controlling multiple engines is not a big deal, just as the Atlas V avionics is also designed for a 3 core heavy but it can also handle a two engined centaur.
4. There was a reason NASA choose Atlas avionics for Ares I-X
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 05/18/2008 04:52 PM
Quote
Jim - 18/5/2008  9:40 AM

Bad advice.  
1.  Delta avionics system is archaic.  It doesn't know what time is and therefore can't do planetary windows greater than one second.  Also it can't do yaw steering
2.  It is the same system as the Delta II, circa 1995
3.  Controlling multiple engines is not a big deal, just as the Atlas V avionics is also designed for a 3 core heavy but it can also handle a two engined centaur.
4. There was a reason NASA choose Atlas avionics for Ares I-X

Well, that makes it surprising that Boeing won the Ares I avionics contract.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/18/2008 05:04 PM
Quote
PaulL - 18/5/2008  12:52 PM

Quote
Jim - 18/5/2008  9:40 AM

Bad advice.  
1.  Delta avionics system is archaic.  It doesn't know what time is and therefore can't do planetary windows greater than one second.  Also it can't do yaw steering
2.  It is the same system as the Delta II, circa 1995
3.  Controlling multiple engines is not a big deal, just as the Atlas V avionics is also designed for a 3 core heavy but it can also handle a two engined centaur.
4. There was a reason NASA choose Atlas avionics for Ares I-X

Well, that makes it surprising that Boeing won the Ares I avionics contract.

PaulL

It is an avionics production contract and not a design contract.  NASA (MSFC) designed the architecture.  Ares avionics will not have Delta heritage (nor Atlas).

The Delta Avionics group is in Denver and not Huntsville, where this contract will be run out of
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ted on 05/18/2008 06:16 PM
Is the NASA(MFSC) designed ARES 1 Avionics System a sound design?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/18/2008 08:58 PM
Quote
PaulL - 18/5/2008  10:07 AM

Quote
kraisee - 16/5/2008  6:00 AM

But the avionics are going to be the biggest job on Jupiter IMHO and I can't even guess what'll be involved there.   I'd hope there's EELV hardware which would apply though.

Ross.

Ross, it would be very advantageous for the J-120+Delta IV US rocket if the Jupiter rockets could use Delta IV derived avionics. I am not an expert, but at first glance this seems to be a logical choice anyway as it is already designed to control 3 RS-68 engines.  It would be nice if you could "recruit" in your Direct supporting team ULA/Boeing professionals familiar with that avionics system.

PaulL

We actually have some already (from there and other projects too) but the whole subject is just a touch over my head still :)

What I do know is that the control systems for the RS-68 are a different set of systems from the avionics systems - at least in this context.   Ultimately they present their data to the avionics systems for interpretation, and in return the avionics systems themselves don't directly control the engines, they essentially just issue instructions to the boxes which do.

It is my understanding that the Ares (though not the Ares-I-X) avionics systems are mostly being designed afresh.   I would be happy with this approach for DIRECT, or an Atlas derivative, or even a Boeing derivative.

Jim's objections aside, the fact remains that the Boeing avionics systems have an excellent flight history on Delta-II and Delta-IV so far.

A human-rated evolution of those same systems will likely identify any weaknesses which they might still have, and will likely solve them and provide new backup systems as well.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tedcraft on 05/19/2008 06:46 PM
Ross,

Is there going to be an update to Direct 2.0.1?  I've looked at the directlauncher website and haven't noticed any reference to the latest version.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 05/19/2008 08:17 PM
Quote
kraisee - 7/5/2008  1:23 AM

The bottle-neck for DIRECT is not actually the Pads in this architecture.   Its the VAB High Bays.   There are only two High Bay's (#1 & #3 - both facing the Ocean) currently fitted with Work Platforms prepared to process Shuttle's which we would (mostly) re-use.

With < 8-week turn-around and three MLP's, the facility would have a through-put of about 12-13 Jupiter-232 launches per year.

...
If a 3rd VAB High Bay were refitted for Jupiter operations, ...
Ross.

Interesting bit from ESAS.REPORT.07.PDF :
Quote
The current Quantity Distance (QD) restriction of 16 SRB segments in the VAB applies, although ESAS has initiated a NASA reassessment of this requirement. The current 16-segment restriction is not believed to be a major restriction with the ESAS 1.5-launch solution for the two lunar mission per year rate.

What's the word lately, the QD restriction still applies ?

[this is just a simple request for info  :) ]

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/19/2008 09:55 PM
tedcraft,
Our web guru's are taking a look at it today.   Hopefully it will go up.   If not, I'll just implement some quick'n'dirty fix tonight myself until they get around to it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/19/2008 10:01 PM
Quote
renclod - 19/5/2008  4:17 PM

Interesting bit from ESAS.REPORT.07.PDF :
Quote
The current Quantity Distance (QD) restriction of 16 SRB segments in the VAB applies, although ESAS has initiated a NASA reassessment of this requirement. The current 16-segment restriction is not believed to be a major restriction with the ESAS 1.5-launch solution for the two lunar mission per year rate.

What's the word lately, the QD restriction still applies ?

I honestly don't know for sure.   I will make inquiries and get you a solid answer as soon as I can.

My initial reaction though, is that you could still stack two Jupiter's at the same time even if limited by this requirement.   Segments for the next vehicle(s) would be held over at the separate SRB processing area (I forget the technically accurate name) until one or other vehicle rolls out.

If we wanted to expand beyond 12-13 flights per year (unlikely, but not impossible) by bringing on-line a third VAB High Bay, then we would probably have to get this requirement amended.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 05/19/2008 10:14 PM
Quote
kraisee - 19/5/2008  6:01 PM

Quote
renclod - 19/5/2008  4:17 PM

Interesting bit from ESAS.REPORT.07.PDF :
Quote
The current Quantity Distance (QD) restriction of 16 SRB segments in the VAB applies, although ESAS has initiated a NASA reassessment of this requirement. The current 16-segment restriction is not believed to be a major restriction with the ESAS 1.5-launch solution for the two lunar mission per year rate.

What's the word lately, the QD restriction still applies ?

I honestly don't know for sure.   I will make inquiries and get you a solid answer as soon as I can.

My initial reaction though, is that you could still stack two Jupiter's at the same time even if limited by this requirement.   Segments for the next vehicle(s) would be held over at the separate SRB processing area (I forget the technically accurate name) until one or other vehicle rolls out.

If we wanted to expand beyond 12-13 flights per year (unlikely, but not impossible) by bringing on-line a third VAB High Bay, then we would probably have to get this requirement amended.

Ross.

If you want to go past 12 a year, wouldn't there need to be a revamp of the ET/Jupiter production line at Michoud?  I seem to recall that the max production there was 12 a year.  Also, how much time does the absence of the orbiter preparation give you for processing vs Orion?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/19/2008 11:53 PM
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 19/5/2008  6:14 PM

If you want to go past 12 a year, wouldn't there need to be a revamp of the ET/Jupiter production line at Michoud?  I seem to recall that the max production there was 12 a year.  Also, how much time does the absence of the orbiter preparation give you for processing vs Orion?

Actually the limit at Michoud is a lot higher than that.   The *facilities* can handle more than 20 units per year (my understanding is that the current estimate for a Jupiter-class ET-derived Core Stage would be 23 per year).   The limiting factor right now is that they just don't have sufficient *staff* to go much beyond about 6-8 ET's per year at present.

I'm a little sketchy on the details, but many moons ago the staffing was cut by about 1/3rd (sounds like one whole shift to me) in one of the many pre-Columbia cost saving measures.   I understand the cuts predated O'Keefe.

And the hurricane Katrina displaced other workers from there too.   I don't believe Michoud is actually running today with quite the same size workforce as it had pre-Katrina.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/22/2008 05:02 AM
We are in the process of getting the corrected links to the documents sorted out on the website currently!

We should also be getting the extended version of the Shuttle > Jupiter-120 animation some time soon too, courtesy of Philip Metschan.   Correcting a few details and extending the process all the way out to Jupiter-232 this time! :)   We will post it as soon as it is ready.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 05/22/2008 03:59 PM
Just saw the following article about Obama:
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080522/NEWS01/805220340/1086

It sounds like he is not a lost cause when it comes to spaceflight, and may be one candidate who would be willing to make change to the VSE instead of charging forward with the current plan. And since he wants to cut down on wasteful spending, something like DIRECT, which delivers more for less, would be right up his ally.
Has there been any effort to contact some of Obama's people? and with his new pledged support for the VSE, now might be a good time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 05/22/2008 05:17 PM
Quote
gladiator1332 - 22/5/2008  10:59 AM

 and with his new pledged support for the VSE, now might be a good time.

Where do you get that?  I have never heard Obama say he supported the VSE.  He said he supported Orion.  There's a big difference.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: JSC Phil on 05/22/2008 05:50 PM
Quote
gladiator1332 - 22/5/2008  10:59 AM

Just saw the following article about Obama:
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080522/NEWS01/805220340/1086

It sounds like he is not a lost cause when it comes to spaceflight, and may be one candidate who would be willing to make change to the VSE instead of charging forward with the current plan. And since he wants to cut down on wasteful spending, something like DIRECT, which delivers more for less, would be right up his ally.
Has there been any effort to contact some of Obama's people? and with his new pledged support for the VSE, now might be a good time.

This is becoming annoying. You can't throw that link on to several threads and claim it is either a change of policy, because it isn't, or in anyway hands encouragment for a concept that NASA is not working on. These sorts of posts undermine what is an interesting subject, but nothing more. Sure, it's not as hilarious as Shuttle-C, but you can be sure Obama has never heard of Direct, and I doubt he could name Ares/Orion without prompting.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/22/2008 06:48 PM
Quote
JSC Phil - 22/5/2008  12:50 PM
... you can be sure Obama has never heard of Direct, and I doubt he could name Ares/Orion without prompting.

It is hard to know what he knows.  His background is law (Harvard 1991).  

I work with attorneys frequently (I'm an electrical engineer), and am both stupefied and amazed at what they know.  Some of them seem to only know law in its core form.  It is possible to actually watch their eyes glaze over at the mention of basic electrical terminology like "volts" and "amps".  (They, of course, could quickly get the same response from me when citing detailed legal terminology.)  Others are veritable geniuses who immerse themselves in the intricate technical details of their cases to such an extent that they can challenge my level of knowledge with their questions.  These are the types who are also often aficionados of many things (history, geography, food, music, etc.).

Given his work history in the legal profession (he worked for a Chicago law firm), Obama has probably never been involved in legal cases that involved aerospace issues.  On the other hand, he did travel to Russia with Sen. Lugar to examine WMD nonproliferation issues, so he certainly has had opportunity to learn about some aspects of the field.  

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 05/22/2008 08:42 PM
Quote
JSC Phil - 22/5/2008  1:50 PM

Quote
gladiator1332 - 22/5/2008  10:59 AM

Just saw the following article about Obama:
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080522/NEWS01/805220340/1086

It sounds like he is not a lost cause when it comes to spaceflight, and may be one candidate who would be willing to make change to the VSE instead of charging forward with the current plan. And since he wants to cut down on wasteful spending, something like DIRECT, which delivers more for less, would be right up his ally.
Has there been any effort to contact some of Obama's people? and with his new pledged support for the VSE, now might be a good time.

This is becoming annoying. You can't throw that link on to several threads and claim it is either a change of policy, because it isn't, or in anyway hands encouragment for a concept that NASA is not working on. These sorts of posts undermine what is an interesting subject, but nothing more. Sure, it's not as hilarious as Shuttle-C, but you can be sure Obama has never heard of Direct, and I doubt he could name Ares/Orion without prompting.

I never claimed that he stated he wanted change in the VSE. For all I know he could stick with Ares. However, since Ares I and V are quickly becoming the more expensive route, I can see Obama looking for a less expensive option...EELV or SDLV. Since EELV is not acceptable that leaves DIRECT.
Also note in the post above I suggested that one of Obama's people be contacted, not the man himself. I do not expect Obama to be knowledgeable on every facet of NASA, but this is why Candidates and Presidents have advisers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/23/2008 01:22 AM
A question to the DIRECT guys,

That motion running throught the political plumbing, about 3 extra shuttle flights... plus money for accelerating Ares I, do you think it will materialise? I think the AMS flying is a nice point, frankly I'd love to see the CAM fly as well (too bad it's rusting in a parking lot).

I like the bit about ISS continuing to fly, as well. In order for human spaceflight to really continue, there has to be a destination. Developing ISS access is one way to encourage human access to space.

http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/tariqmalik/

Still, this is a LOT of money. This indicates that there is support for NASA, but isn't this going in the wrong direction? Is there any way this bill could be altered, say to give a couple of extra billion to something else, say DIRECT? Or is it indicative of support for NASA to continue down the money spiral of Ares I? Seems like there are two camps in Congress over Ares I.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/23/2008 07:41 AM
Quote
Lampyridae - 22/5/2008  9:22 PM

A question to the DIRECT guys,

That motion running throught the political plumbing, about 3 extra shuttle flights... plus money for accelerating Ares I, do you think it will materialise?

My personal opinion is that, in order: Yes and no.

I think Congress is going to push very hard for one or two more Shuttle flights - even if it means extending Shuttle into 2011.

I don't think there is going to be any new money for Ares-I though.   I think there's a fair chance that the agency will get some more money to re-fund Science and Aeronautics back to their appropriate levels again (a good thing IMHO), but I don't see CxP getting any extra.   At this point I think Congress would actually change to a cheaper system rather than pay more for Ares-I.



Quote
I think the AMS flying is a nice point, frankly I'd love to see the CAM fly as well (too bad it's rusting in a parking lot).

I like the bit about ISS continuing to fly, as well. In order for human spaceflight to really continue, there has to be a destination. Developing ISS access is one way to encourage human access to space.

http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/tariqmalik/

Still, this is a LOT of money. This indicates that there is support for NASA, but isn't this going in the wrong direction?

There is a lot of political and public support for NASA as an agency, and for the idea of going back to the moon in an affordable manner.

There is no support, however, for an overly expensive solution and there is no support for radically increasing NASA's current budget.   Ares is gaining a lot of skepticism in the halls of power currently, but they haven't yet decided what might be better.   More than anything I don't believe that most people in Congress even know what the alternatives *are* - and are thus tied to the only solution they have so far been presented - that of Griffin's Ares-I/V plan.

Getting the word out about a viable option is a very time consuming process, but we are having some success.


Quote
Is there any way this bill could be altered, say to give a couple of extra billion to something else, say DIRECT?

The bill is most definitely going to be altered.   The Senate still has to write its amendments before it ever goes for a signature at the White House - that's the totally normal process for such a bill.   What those amendments might be, I don't know.   I don't think they will simply instruct NASA to build DIRECT though.   They might however start a process to double-check whether NASA's current plan is a good one or not and if it is found wanting, they may decide to assess other options in an independent way.   It ultimately depends on whether they still believe NASA or not.


Quote
Or is it indicative of support for NASA to continue down the money spiral of Ares I?

Right now, that's exactly what is happening.   Congress is currently trusting that the the "fox" is securely guarding the "hen-house".   Congress just has no other source of information on this subject other than Mike Griffin on the whole subject.   But his congressional popularity right now is below that of Nixon during Watergate or Michael Brown (FEMA Director) immediately after hurricane Katrina.   So Congress is finally beginning to ask tough questions of him - and rightly so IMHO.   Further, the GAO seem to be on his case and are providing a separate review - an independent one which isn't controlled by NASA upper management in any way - and their independent reviews of Ares-I and Orion are painting a rather ugly picture so far.   And Congress listens to GAO because its made up of their own people.

What that means for DIRECT...   I don't yet know.   From where I'm sitting, its not bad news.


Quote
Seems like there are two camps in Congress over Ares I.

There are those who are not yet questioning the fox, and those who are.   But when GAO steps in and points out serious problems, neither group will ignore it.

The big division is going to be between the LEO-only vs. VSE camps - which will be the big debate after Ares collapses.   I predict the next 6-12 months are going to be very interesting.   I hope that Ares-I sinking down the drain doesn't suck the whole VSE along with it.   That is a *very* real danger.

All IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 05/24/2008 06:41 PM
I have to say Ross, that that is an honest-to-goodness account of how I see that whole thing from up here in Canada. I wonder when the GAO is supposed to report its findings? That may be when the stopwatch starts...counting down (imo).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/26/2008 08:10 PM
GAO have already released review documentation for both Ares-I and Orion - neither of which has been particularly complementary so far.

I understand they are working on many more.

I would like to see GAO tackle a review of Ares-I-X (why spend $800m on a model rocket flying no final-spec hardware at all), a review of Ares-V performance in the context of achieving the Lunar objectives (13mT below targets) and I'm awaiting a review of NASA's 2008 budget (overspent in Q1, Q2 so there isn't sufficient funding for Q4).   GAO would find lots of dirt if they get stuck in to any (better still all) of those subjects IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 05/28/2008 02:36 AM
I thought today's article about Direct was very good.  I would give it a "b+/A-".

Couple of points:

The removal of lunar-class mission reliability and crew safety systems from Orion late last year in order to pass the upcoming non-independent PDR is disingenuous to anyone who understands spacecraft and lunar architecture design.  With DIRECT there is no need to engage in this expensive and time-consuming bait-and-switch behavior ahead of PDR...Fourth, unlike the duplicative Ares 1,...


Was there not a nicer way to say this?  Your points are much more effective when you are being contructive .

"We strongly agree with Dr. Griffin that the VSE needs a heavy-lift launch system. Fortunately, we already operate a Saturn 5 class heavy-lift launch system. Every time the STS launches it place more mass into orbit than the Saturn 5. "---

Did not Griffin say something like this in speech...maybe you could have used some of his words?

The power of freedom paragragh--very effective.

The Law of Physics sentence--GREAT!

The ending paragraph---GREAT A+
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 05/29/2008 02:37 AM
Before I get caught up in other things, I want to wish your team all the best this weekend for your presentation in Washington at ISDC2008.
"Most" here pray you can turn some heads and show a better way forward.
Good luck, and give 'em hell!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/29/2008 10:13 AM
Thanks for the well-wishes.

I'm sure Stephen has already seen them here.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/31/2008 01:48 PM
Just letting you all know that we have a new 'animation' coming very soon with the evolution now progressing from STS to J-120 and on to J-232 as well - and showing some data too.

It was shown at ISDC (which went very well indeed according to Steve, BTW) as part of the presentation there.

I'm going to try to get it up here in time for the Shuttle launch (Go Discovery!).

Watch this space :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/02/2008 05:05 PM
Question for Ross and the DIRECT team:  Why bother with the J-232? 

It looks like a J-221 could put 37-38mT through TLI.

J-232 looks like around 41-41.5mT through TLI.

The second engine on the upper stage actually costs you payload to LLO (though probably gains you in LOC/LOM numbers).  But the third core engine is really only getting you.

It seems like if you are looking at the two launch architecture, two J-221s can do the job (LOR or L1R), without having to design a thrust structure for the core stage that can accept 2 or 3 engines, and get to the ~75mT target for lunar ops.

A 2-engine core seems to save you a little up-front cost (2 and 3 engine certification), and a little recurring cost for lunar ops (1 less RS-68 and J2-?).

While I'll be the first to agree the variable engine core gives you a heckuva lot more versatility, it looks (potentially) unneccessary.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2008 10:09 PM
BogoMIPS,
As you have noticed, there is a huge amount of flexibility on the concept.   The reason we have baselined what we have, is because we have looked at NASA's current ground rules and provided one solution which addresses those very specifically.

Paraphrasing, NASA wants:-

* 2 launches max for Lunar missions
* EOR - LOR mission profile
* No Propellant Transfer Initially
* A 45mT LSAM
* A 20.1mT CEV


With those specifically as our target, we have selected the Jupiter-232 of all the many possible configurations, as being the one which launches the correct mass for Lunar mission requirements like this and it does so with just a little bit of useful spare capacity. Further, it is a safe enough configuration to meet NASA's LOC targets too, so crew can fly upon it.   Jupiter-232 just 'strikes the right balance' for the missions which NASA has shown it wants to do.

The Jupiter-221 solution can not meet these specific requirements.   Ultimately it couldn't quite fly the correct size lander.

Now, if the requirements are allowed to change, there are a variety of other solutions possible.   For example, with the Propellant Transfer option, I believe a 2 x Jupiter-221 or 231 configuration could probably still close the requirements correctly.

But convincing NASA to even consider such changes has been tantamount to blasphemy in the current management environment.   So we have simply chosen to pursue 'as close an approach as possible' to NASA's own baseline.

You are absolutely correct to identify that this baseline is NOT the only reasonable path which we can follow.   It is simply the one which fits NASA's *current* requirements most accurately.   If the requirements were to change, I believe we have a lot of flexibility available to meet whatever new targets we must.


Just for the record, I believe that a mission profile using 2 Jupiter-232's and Propellant Transfer, is capable of sending a 53mT LSAM moonward with the Orion (73mT cargo-only LSAM).   That's a real nice improvement over the baseline which is possible without changing the LV's at all.   All it really requires is a Depot in orbit - and everyone knows that's coming sooner or later.   But by not spending $15bn developing Ares-V and not spending $1bn per year operating Ares-V as well, I think the Depot is affordable much sooner with DIRECT than it ever could be with Ares.

Oh, and I should possibly mention also that re-qualification of the Core will have to be done anyway as soon as you add the Upper Stage to the configuration.   Loads and aero all change anyway, so adding the third engine for that phase is virtually just "noise" when you look at the budgetary level.   Having the flexibility right from the start to use either two or three main engines on the Core allows for an even wider range of potential variants without the really expensive development costs of really changing things down the line if we find ourselves needing more performance.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2008 08:47 AM
New High-Def Animation is in from Philip.   This was shown at ISDC.

HD STS to Jupiter-232 Animation (http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-232.mov) (15.7Mb).

Enjoy!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2008 09:46 AM
Also uploaded to YouTube now too...

http://www.youtube.com/v/C6WCHefUJgc

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 06/03/2008 12:20 PM
Excellent video, very clear and informative.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/03/2008 02:25 PM
Amazing video! You took information and images that would take up 40 pages in a report and put it all into one 2 minute video. It really gets the point to the viewer in a way that I think is more effective than any report could ever be.

Great start with the STS launch as well, it is something that we have all seen countless times and it really drives home the point at how similar Jupiter is.

If NASA ever switches to Jupiter, they really have most of the visual work done for them. This video is better than anything that has come out of the Ares visual side of things, atleast from an information standpoint.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: veedriver22 on 06/03/2008 04:12 PM
 You should create a similar video for ARES, including the VAB and launch pad changes.  The shuttle parts could be droped into a waste basket. That would drive home the point in a big way.   

 Not sure how difficult this would be but it would be cool to put in a running time line and a money graph that would build as the videos progress.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 06/03/2008 05:45 PM
Jim Mills at the Hill.com wrote this column dated June 2nd, 2008 (http://thehill.com/jim-mills/space-exploration-on-the-cheap-america-misses-its-moment-2008-06-02.html) and one quote is as follows:
Quote
I don’t think most Americans, space buffers or not, are yet quite aware that for all intents and purposes our manned space program will go dark between 2010 and 2015, the period of time between the shuttle’s final flight and the day we get our next generation of rockets built.

During that time we will need to rely on the Russians so we can hitch rides into space and minimally keep up with our partnering obligations to the Space Station. Unbelievable.

Thankfully, some members of Congress are agitating for more NASA dollars to try to cut down that five-year non-flight window to two, maybe three years. But shame on us all for being in this position in the first place.

Here is the text of an e-mail I have just sent to him:

Quote
Mr. Mills -
 
I have just now read your 6/2/08 column on space exploration and was struck by this passage:
 
>> I don’t think most Americans, space buffers or not, are yet quite aware that for all intents and purposes our manned space program will go dark between 2010 and 2015, the period of time between the shuttle’s final flight and the day we get our next generation of rockets built. During that time we will need to rely on the Russians so we can hitch rides into space and minimally keep up with our partnering obligations to the Space Station. Unbelievable.Thankfully, some members of Congress are agitating for more NASA dollars to try to cut down that five-year non-flight window to two, maybe three years. But shame on us all for being in this position in the first place. <<

More dollars from Congress probably won't close "the gap" between Orbiter retirement and first flight for Ares 1 due to scheduling issues with the technology development. Neither the 5 segment solid rocket booster nor the J-2X upper stage engine currently exist and simply throwing money at the problem will not materially advance the timetable.

But there is another option (called DIRECT 2.0) which has been created by anonymous NASA engineers unhappy with the ESAS spaceflight architecture chosen by Dr. Michael Griffin.

Here is a movie that explains the DIRECT concept:
 
http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-232.mov
 
YouTube version:
 
. . .
 
Here is the DIRECT website:
 
http://www.directlauncher.com/
 
The discussion forum at nasaspaceflight - dot - com offers considerable background information.
 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.525
 
I have absolutely NO connection with the work being done by the DIRECT team and I am merely a fan of their approach. I am also NOT an engineer and cannot personally vouch for the accuracy of their data and projections however as a taxpayer and a voter I strongly believe Congress should take a close look at DIRECT 2.0 and also require NASA to make public the engineering details for their ESAS approach, DIRECT, Shuttle C concepts and EELV options.
 
In light of your column dated 6/2/08 I believe you will find it worth your while to investigate DIRECT and the intersection of politics and the NASA launch architectures.
 
Sincerely,
 
Bill White

I figure it can't hurt . . .

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2008 05:53 PM
Thanks for taking the time to do that Bill.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 06/05/2008 03:47 AM
Thanks for taking the time to do that Bill.

Ross.

Ross, there are requests  for a soundtrack (http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/6/4/21528/93375/?pid=0#c13) for the video.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 06/05/2008 05:32 PM
While this is well known in manufacturing, I thought this description from the Encyclopedia Astronautica entry on the Saturn I might be useful in trying to describe one advantage (same diameter as shuttle ET) of DIRECT over Ares V to congress members:

"The major costs of tooling for the fabrication of missile tanks and main structure is related to the diameter. Changes in length cost little or nothing in tooling. How the tanks are divided internally, or the structure reinforced inside, or the kind of structural detail that is used at the end in order to attach the structure to a big booster below, or to a different size stage above, have very little effect on tooling problems. However, a change in diameter sets up a major question of tools, costs, and time."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 06/05/2008 05:36 PM
Same applies to comparison of DIRECT to Ares I.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/05/2008 07:19 PM
CxP is introducing new tooling for Al-Li tank fabrication at MSFC and Michoud. More FSW.

It is called PROGRESS.

"Changes in length cost little or nothing in tooling." It costs a lot in facility mods.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2008 07:30 PM
CxP is introducing new tooling for Al-Li tank fabrication at MSFC and Michoud. More FSW.

It is called PROGRESS.

"Changes in length cost little or nothing in tooling." It costs a lot in facility mods.
I want to say something, but the stupidity of it keeps me dumbfounded.
But what the hell, we've got gobs and gobs of money to spend, right?
It's coming out of our ears we have so much.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/05/2008 08:18 PM
Chuck,

Somewhere in the NASA Charter, right in the beginning I think, there is this drive for USA tech supremacy.

To be honest, you must admit that the first and foremost goal for NASA is not to fly twice as many lunar missions for the budget, as it is to advance the technology at the bleeding edge in the country that funds those flights.

Hence the difficult challenges are welcomed.

Solving once and for all the big solid booster's T.O.; new, performant friction stir welding tools; new J-2X engine with berillium-free alloys; larger SRB; large composite dry structures; best new avionics; new SRB flex liners; new, largest ever parachutes; new designed mobile launchers and pad structures; darwin-istically designed Orion; manifolded solid rocket motors; and the list goes on and on.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 06/05/2008 08:20 PM

It is called PROGRESS.


That's debatable.


"Changes in length cost little or nothing in tooling." It costs a lot in facility mods.

The point of the quote was that it costs a lot in tooling to change the diameter.  Facility modifications only need to be made if the tank is made longer.

The Jupiter LV wouldn't change the diameter.  Ares I does, and Ares V would.  No tooling exists for the Ares V core, so that will still cost a lot, too.

The Jupiter LV doesn't significantly change the length.  Ares V does by making it longer.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Cale on 06/05/2008 08:31 PM
Chuck,

Somewhere in the NASA Charter, right in the beginning I think, there is this drive for USA tech supremacy.

To be honest, you must admit that the first and foremost goal for NASA is not to fly twice as many lunar missions for the budget, as it is to advance the technology at the bleeding edge in the country that funds those flights.

Hence the difficult challenges are welcomed.

Solving once and for all the big solid booster's T.O.; new, performant friction stir welding tools; new J-2X engine with berillium-free alloys; larger SRB; composite dry structures; best new avionics; new SRB flex liners; new, largest ever parachutes; new designed mobile launchers and pad structures; darwin-istically designed Orion; manifolded solid rocket motors; and the list goes on and on.



I think this is an important part of the NASA mission, but given the coming budget constraints, is this realistic?

I've recently re-read the AIAA 2007 paper and several things you mention above are discussed. 

1) The increased lift capacity of the J120 over Ares I (~50mT vs. 22mT) gives flexibility in Orion development (such as making it truly lunar-capable).  Isn't it true that many of the recent re-designs of Orion are due to performance constraints of Ares I?

2)  I'll be the first to say that I'm no engineer, but how does going Direct affect the choice of top-flight avionics packages?  Doesn't the built-in lead time the J120 has over the Ares help in this development?  Again, as a history major having little knowledge in engineering, I'm honestly wondering how Direct affects this.

3)  With lunar missions well in the future (after 2015), doesn't this provide enough time for development of the J-2X?

Just checked out the video and powerpoint presentations, Chuck.  Still hard for me to fathom why Griffin et al are stonewalling the release of that appendix to the public and Congress.  Great job!  A lot of us "dreamer, liberal-arts types" are hoping you folks prevail :)

Cheers,

Cale

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 06/05/2008 08:32 PM
Somewhere in the NASA Charter, right in the beginning I think, there is this drive for USA tech supremacy.

To be honest, you must admit that the first and foremost goal for NASA is not to fly twice as many lunar missions for the budget, as it is to advance the technology at the bleeding edge in the country that funds those flights.

Hence the difficult challenges are welcomed.

Solving once and for all the big solid booster's T.O.; new, performant friction stir welding tools; new J-2X engine with berillium-free alloys; larger SRB; composite dry structures; best new avionics; new SRB flex liners; new, largest ever parachutes; new designed mobile launchers and pad structures; darwin-istically designed Orion; manifolded solid rocket motors; and the list goes on and on.


I agree with you about NASA's mission to advance technology.  But NASA also exists to maintain national prestige, and that's hard to do when the Chinese and Indians have beaten you back to the moon.

DIRECT's premise isn't to avoid the challenge of creating these technologies.  It's premise is to avoid putting these advanced technologies in the critical path of maintaining national prestige.  NASA can add those technologies (like the J-2X and bigger solids) to improve performance when they come out of development a few years later.  Regarding the parachutes and the like, the US will most likely be developing Orion either way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2008 08:58 PM
Chuck,

Somewhere in the NASA Charter, right in the beginning I think, there is this drive for USA tech supremacy.

To be honest, you must admit that the first and foremost goal for NASA is not to fly twice as many lunar missions for the budget, as it is to advance the technology at the bleeding edge in the country that funds those flights.

Hence the difficult challenges are welcomed.

Solving once and for all the big solid booster's T.O.; new, performant friction stir welding tools; new J-2X engine with berillium-free alloys; larger SRB; composite dry structures; best new avionics; new SRB flex liners; new, largest ever parachutes; new designed mobile launchers and pad structures; darwin-istically designed Orion; manifolded solid rocket motors; and the list goes on and on.
Those are all good goals and I would expect NASA to be at the leading edge of addressing them. But that's not the point. If this were being done in conjunction with a program that was going to be viable and sustainable, then I would agree. The whole reason this thread and this subject even exists is because we believe that the Ares program is unsustainable and by the time the current NASA administration finally realizes that they have been chasing an extremely expensive dead end we will have destroyed our only heavy lift capability and will have taken a giant step backward. We will no longer be the leader in space, not because someone else beat us, but because we threw it away. That's the stupidity I'm speaking of.

The Congress did not direct NASA to do those specific things. It *did* direct NASA to build a heavy lift capability *using, to the maximum extent possible* the existing STS hardware, facilities, infrastructure and workforce. That’s what Dr Griffin was told to do and that is exactly what he is *NOT* doing. He is deliberately destroying as much of the STS infrastructure as he can, as fast as he can, in the mistaken belief that when the Congress finally figures out it has been duped, it will be too late and will grudgingly agree to continue down the path of building the biggest, badest heavy lift rocket to ever strain the ground on which it was sitting, because there is no longer any other choice. That’s what Dr Griffin is doing. He believes that the dismantling of the Saturn capability was a mortal sin, and that the STS and ISS efforts are decadal wastes of time and effort. He wants to get rid of them and get them out of the way so that he can replace the Saturn class heavy lift capability that he believes with all his heart should never have been abandoned. He is on a crusade – nothing else. And he is using the Congress to do it.

If it weren’t for the total unsustainable nature of the Ares architecture he is trying to build to do this with I would be 100% behind him. But it’s not sustainable, and, in my opinion (and many others) it will never be built. But by the time the Congress realizes that we will no longer have the facilities, infrastructure and hardware to use; they will have been destroyed, exactly as Dr Griffin planned. The workforce will have been disbanded and scattered across the face of the nation. He wants to make it impossible for us to ever go back to an STS-based architecture because he believes that will leave us stuck in LEO. The irony is that his Ares approach is going to end up doing just that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2008 09:24 PM
The real advances in technology will be for the spacecraft, not the launch vehicles.   The bleeding edge hasn't been in LV's for twenty-plus years.

Pressure Tanking Vessels are just not where there's any "technology lead" to be had.   Avionics, yes.   High performance engines - yes.   But in those areas DIRECT and Ares are equal.


Let us not forget that the LV's are just a tool for enabling those high-tech spacecraft to get going.

But if we suck the budget dry with hugely expensive LV's we will never have enough money left over to spend on the important stuff - like more Orion's and Altair's.   Shuttle showed us the error of that, and Ares is supposed to triple its costs...

The LV portion entirely boils down to maximizing the amount of payload for a given $ amount.   NASA's current baseline of approximately 750mT launched per year  is expected to cost $7.5-9bn using the two Ares vehicles.

DIRECT could do the same job for under $4bn.   And we can back that claim up because the *existing equipment* costs are all totally documented for Shuttle/Delta-IV and we are simply not changing very much of it.


If we had $7.5bn - the *low ball* Ares LV estimate not including spacecraft - we could launch 40 Jupiter-232's for that.   Mind you, the infrastructure couldn't support that flight rate.   We actually hit the buffer-stops around 32 vehicles per year at a cost of approximately $6.5bn, but I think we could live with 3,200mT of annual lift capacity.

Using the upper-bounding figure, for $9bn per year, instead of paying for just Ares-I and Ares-V and still needing to pay for the CEV and LSAM, DIRECT could pay for 10 *ten* full Lunar missions INCLUDING the spacecraft.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/05/2008 09:29 PM
Chuck,

If CxP is currently destroying something, it is also replacing that with new, advanced capabilities.

I think your post here (and many, many other in the same vein) places too much emphasis on Dr.Griffin.

Remember Dick Truly and SEI ?

Do you really think that NASA as an institution with a formidable inertial culture can be derailed like that ?

I don't think so. The little I've learned about NASA and space exploration do not support a "Direct" type of method, id est: use what you got, cut any challenging development for the "sustainability"s sake, throw launch muscles at the mass problem, keep the launch pad you have and hope the bricks will hold, defer development for only after we start operating... no.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2008 09:45 PM
renclod,
CxP is destroying usable *advanced* and*modern* capabilities like SLWT ET manufacturing in order to make two new systems which just are not meeting any of its targets. We have demonstrated an option which can meet its targets and just doesn't need that sort of heavy investment in the LV's. So I ask you: What is the specific *benefit* to replacing it all at great cost if it isn't actually *necessary*?

There's a major difference between needing to invest to guarantee a result and spending extra on "yet another NASA boondoggle".   I suggest that NASA's current approach is more the latter than the former.


The key issues here are efficiency and sustainability.   Ares has neither.   It is front-loaded with high costs to get Ares-I operational.   It is mid-loaded with high costs to get Ares-V operational.   And it is also rear-loaded with high costs to keep two disparate launch vehicles operating at the same time at costs which shock even me!

Ares is ultimately creating a situation where the best-case scenario is that we can only ever afford to go to the moon once or twice a year.   At that flight rate each mission will cost well over $5bn.

How long do you realistically think Congress and the American tax-payer will accept that sort of cost?   Do you really think they'll keep paying that amount for such limited results? Wouldn't it give ammunition to all those who argue that NASA isn't worth it? Wouldn't it then not be cheaper to just cancel the program exactly as we have seen before with Apollo?

This direction - Ares-I followed by Ares-V - only leads in two directions:   One is to another boondoggle like ISS, the other is straight to an early program grave.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/05/2008 10:20 PM
Ross,
Quote
There's a major difference between needing to invest to guarantee a result and spending extra on "yet another NASA boondoggle".   I suggest that NASA's current approach is more the latter than the former.

I disagree to characterize "NASA's approaches" as "boondoggles".

Totally and absolutely.

What are you talking about ?!  Mercury, Gemini, Saturn/Apollo, Shuttle, ISS ?!

None was done to guarantee techological advance but all did it. Because the aim was high, always.

I hate this "NASA boondoggle" thing. Show me who when where did the better ones.

Or show me funds better spent.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/05/2008 10:49 PM
I agree with you about NASA's mission to advance technology.  But NASA also exists to maintain national prestige, and that's hard to do when the Chinese and Indians have beaten you back to the moon.

Let us be clear, noone is going to beat NASA at the "back to the moon" game. NASA did this 5 times already.

Quote
DIRECT's premise isn't to avoid the challenge of creating these technologies.  It's premise is to avoid putting these advanced technologies in the critical path of maintaining national prestige.

USA "national prestige" and the "Jumpiter-120" have nothing in common IMO, more, they are mutually exclusive.

The "Direct"s premise is exactly that, "to avoid the challenge of creating these technologies".

Quote
NASA can add those technologies (like the J-2X and bigger solids) to improve performance when they come out of development a few years later.
No they don't need such performance as they throw the holly grail of manned space exploration - that is existing technology , like J-2S ( ?!) or orbital inserting RS-68 ( ?! ); also current welding tools at Michoud and existing I beams and angles and bricks and reebars and platforms and barges - to the problem.

Quote
Regarding the parachutes and the like, the US will most likely be developing Orion either way.

What way ? with or without parachutes ?! lol I was talking about SRB recovery. Parachutes.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/06/2008 10:26 AM
The real advances in technology will be for the spacecraft, not the launch vehicles.   The bleeding edge hasn't been in LV's for twenty-plus years.

Pressure Tanking Vessels are just not where there's any "technology lead" to be had.   Avionics, yes.   High performance engines - yes.   But in those areas DIRECT and Ares are equal.

Although the NASA folk may not be tasked with pushing technological innovations for their new rocket, perhaps it is in their hearts and minds to do so. If that is the case, you need to make sure these points get across!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2008 11:23 AM
Although the NASA folk may not be tasked with pushing technological innovations for their new rocket, perhaps it is in their hearts and minds to do so. If that is the case, you need to make sure these points get across!

I understand what you're saying - but the issue boils down to whether we will actually be able to afford it or not.

There is very little radical new technology in the 5-segment SRB. There is no new materials research or technology in the J-2X or the RS-68 upgrade - they're both new, but they are both evolutionary upgrades which aren't pushing the boundaries of what we already know. There is certainly no drastic "technological innovation" in increasing the diameter of the tanking to 10m from 8.4m.

But there is a LOT of cost involved in doing these things and it is all paid for with tax-payer's hard earned money. NASA has been tasked with doing a job - essentially returning humans to the moon and going on to Mars. This task will be more than hard enough and costly enough that we do not need to be adding any extra costs just because some folk would like a bit more of a challenge. That's crazy talk :)

There are going to be challenges aplenty in this program and if that's what some people are after, there are going to be lots of opportunities to join teams doing challenging things without making every single element over-challenging and over-costly.

Now, don't get me wrong. There is certainly room for some modernization.   We need to replace the 25 year old technology in the Avionics packages and in the computers which control everything (no more 486's! :) ), but that's all common whether you looking at Jupiter or Ares. Modernizing those systems between programs is 'par for the course' for both.

But changing all of that is going to cost $30bn to develop for an agency which is cash-strapped enough and it is. Worse still, it is going to produce a launch system which bleeds the agency for 43 to 53% (best and worst case scenarios) of its entire annual budget every single year - without even paying for the spacecraft yet, those will be additional on top.

To put that into perspective, Shuttle today - including the crew carrying spacecraft - costs 19% of the annual budget and is considered to be *the* most expensive rocket system anywhere in the world.

My question is this: Is this *really* economically viable?


I don't think so and nor do a group of at least 57 NASA engineers & managers who don't believe this so strongly that they are sticking their personal necks out to assist us.

We have come up with an alternative which removes vast swathes of the LV costs (both development and operations) and allows the agency to concentrate most of its development efforts (funding), not on the LV's, but on the far more complicated and crucial spacecraft - the bits which *are* going to need the bleeding edge innovative technology and research which you mention. If folk within the program are really looking for a challenge, those are the programs where they should be seeking a position. Those are the programs which really going to provide that sort of challenge.

We are just minimizing the LV development by reusing what the US tax-payer has already paid for as much possible in order to make a new man-rated heavy lift system which is affordable enough to develop and is affordable enough operate a LOT every year - to get the best possible value from the investment.

Existing 4-segment SRB manufacturing is just as modern as the 5-seg production line will be. We will also be re-using almost all of the modern friction-stir Al-Li 2195 welding SLWT production facilities already in place at MAF - which is exactly what Ares expects to do, but has to replace everything just to cope with the different diameter structures.


Essentially we're keeping Shuttle costs, but deleting the hugely expensive Orbiter element and replacing that with Orion.

What that ultimately does is cut about a billion dollars out of the current Shuttle operations costs every year. Therefore a similar 7 missions per year schedule as we fly at present would cost only ~$2bn a year.

Add in the cost of the EDS and you get back up around $3bn per year again at that flight-rate - but now you're launching 700mT per year, not 110mT as on Shuttle.   So the same Shuttle money is now buying about 6 times the capability.


But the latest details are emerging from NASA regarding how expensive all this new equipment is going to be to operate both Ares vehicles.   To do that same amount of lifting as I just described is going to cost NASA more than $4bn *more* every single year. That's equivalent to an extra quarter of the entire yearly budget for the whole agency which you deprive the organization of which could instead be utilized to pay for more Exploration missions, more Aeronautics research or more Science every year.

Where is the sense in doing that?

More importantly, where is the benefit in doing that?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2008 12:22 PM
It is appropriate to restate occasionally, mostly because there are new forum members continually joining who haven’t been with us for this whole journey that DIRECT is not designed to be the best, most efficient way of transitioning from the Shuttle era into a space-faring civilization. It is designed to do one thing only, and to do it very well: Given the limitations and very *specific* directions imposed by the Congress in the Space Authorization Act of 2005, it is designed to provide what the Congress directed be provided, in the most efficient and capable manner possible. It is not a clean sheet approach and does not try to push the envelope on technology development. Those are two specific things that the Congress did NOT want done.

Every one of the 5 “public face” members of the DIRECT  team would have preferred a different approach to leaving the Shuttle era behind and moving on to the moon, Mars and beyond. But DIRECT was not designed to express those. It was design to provide what the Congress directed be built, and to provide the most capability possible under that direction. Unlike Dr Griffin, we left our personal preferences behind and teamed together to create what the Congress said it was willing to pay for.

All the talk about pushing the envelope and bleeding edge technology is completely irrelevant in regards to DIRECT because the Congressional direction was to avoid those things completely, and that is very specifically why DIRECT avoids them as well. The Congress directed NASA to create a crew and heavy lift capability, using to the maximum extent possible, the STS hardware, infrastructure, facilities and workforce as the foundation for the VSE earth launch capability. The new congressionally authorized launch vehicle was to be evolutionary, not revolutionary and was to reuse, not replace the STS investment. Congress very deliberately wanted to leverage the investments made over the last 40 years and use what we have, and replace/upgrade only what was necessary.

That is why you will not find any bleeding edge technology on any of the Jupiter launch vehicles. That is why we were able to create a launch vehicle family that could get us back into space so quickly, and with so much additional capability. It was our desire to replace the launch capability of Shuttle with as little fanfare as possible, making sure we could reach the moon, and let the nation invest its treasure, as the Congress wanted, mainly in the new spacecraft, Orion and Altair, that would carry us out into the solar system.

That is what the Congress wanted, and, completely unlike Ares, that is what DIRECT delivers.

The Ares architecture is in total opposition to everything the Congress wanted. It was sold in such a manner to make it look like what the Congress wanted, and once authorized, immediately began its transformation into what the Congress did NOT want – a clean sheet design based *entirely* on a launch system that Dr Griffin, and others, had designed years before he became administrator. He entered office with the design already settled and the ESAS 60-day study was a complete cover designed to make it look like all the other possibilities had been properly vetted and eliminated based on technical merit. The reason it was able to be accomplished in *only* 60 days is because the conclusion was predetermined before the committee even met on day 1. And that is a quote from a person who was asked to be on the committee but withdrew when he learned of this. The majority of the 60 day effort was spent editing, not evaluating, to make sure that the “study” would reach the “correct” conclusion. And that conclusion was the Ares architecture, which looked sufficiently like what the Congress wanted to get it past their examination. But like I said, once the ink was dry, it immediately began its metamorphosis by switching the MPS from the SSME to the RS-68. Everything else followed on after that initial change. There may still be a couple more things to come to make it complete. Dr Griffin described it as “Apollo on steroids”, a shrewd selection of words. What he really meant was “Saturn on steroids”. His aim all along has been to resurrect and increase the Saturn-V capability. He is, and always has been, a “big rocket” guy.

So in brief, Ares is designed to produce  what Dr Griffin designed  (http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/aim_for_mars/study-report.pdf) years before coming to NASA, while DIRECT is designed instead to produce what the Congress directed be built. Dr Griffin is leading a crusade to resurrect the pre-STS era monster launch vehicle capability, while, DIRECT is designed to produce what the Congress said it wanted, and could afford to pay for. That’s the difference. These are two fundamentally different goals. That also explains why Dr Griffin wants to destroy as much of the STS infrastructure as he can, as fast as he can. He wants to make sure that there is no way back, leaving the Congress with no choice but to proceed with *his* personal vision, instead of *the” Vision.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 06/06/2008 03:18 PM
What are you talking about ?!  Mercury, Gemini, Saturn/Apollo, Shuttle, ISS ?!

None was done to guarantee techological advance but all did it. Because the aim was high, always.
Let's take a look at those programs for just a moment. I'll leave out Shuttle as it was a completely new launcher and the ISS because there's no launcher at all, but let's look at the first three US manned systems.

Did NASA engineers and program managers, when faced with the challenge of putting men in space or on the moon, start out to build challenges and new technology into the LVs? No. They picked existing LVs where possible specifically to reduce challenges, risks & costs. The Redstone was a minimally modified land based IRBM. The Atlas was a minimally modified ICBM. The Titan was a modified ICBM. The Saturn 1 was a cluster of tanks from two IRBMs with as little new structure as possible. Only the Saturn V was new from the ground up and that was in response to the significantly more challenging lunar mission payload requirements. Nothing else could do the job.

As an engineer working in the aerospace industry for over 20 years, if I went into a program manager's office and said, "hey, let's not use something less risky, but lets just push the envelope for the hell of it, cause it'd be cool." I'd get my head handed back to me on a platter and my butt shown out the door of the plant. There are more than enough risks involved in any spacecraft design to suit even the most masochistic engineer without purposely planning to to do new things just for the hell of it.

I can tell you that it never, never, never happens. You just do not plan to do things in a new way if you can possibly avoid it. You end up having to do new things because the mission is new or the ultimate performance requirements are new or the environment is new, but not because you simply want to do something new.

Scientists do stuff simply because it's new and God love 'em for it. But they are not put in charge of space programs and neither should they be. They do not understand risk or schedule or cost. They understand the search for new and the thrill of learning new things from failure and the wide open possibilities of investigation. But not cost or schedule or risk. That's an engineer's task. Our job is to rein in the desire to do new stuff simply for the sake of doing it and get the job done as safely and for as little money as possible.

New technology comes as a result of having picked challenging missions to try to accomplish. Every time you try to accomplish these missions, though, you try to do it in the least risky way possible. And that means you use as much old tech as you possibly can, because it reduces the risk to the challengine mission.

Starting out to design brand new technology when modified existing technology would do the trick, is just plain bad engineering. It just is.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/06/2008 07:20 PM
Quote
New technology comes as a result of having picked challenging missions to try to accomplish.

Exactly.

ESAS picked the challenging missions. Minimal launcher for crew transport to ISS. Single launch for cargo to the Moon. Those two combined for manned lunar exploration.

"Direct" picked the no challenge path. Minimal mods to the Shuttle stack. And then let's see what can we do with that.

We can maybe replace the Shuttle's capabilities. That's not what the VSE is about. If the VSE wanted to replace and improve the STS, then it would have stated so. Replacing STS is a vision in itself and if pursued it should prod NASA to come up with an optimised design; J-120 is a joke, not a design born out of a vision.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 06/06/2008 07:48 PM
Quote
New technology comes as a result of having picked challenging missions to try to accomplish.

Exactly.

ESAS picked the challenging missions. Minimal launcher for crew transport to ISS. Single launch for cargo to the Moon. Those two combined for manned lunar exploration.

"Direct" picked the no challenge path. Minimal mods to the Shuttle stack. And then let's see what can we do with that.

We can maybe replace the Shuttle's capabilities. That's not what the VSE is about. If the VSE wanted to replace and improve the STS, then it would have stated so. Replacing STS is a vision in itself and if pursued it should prod NASA to come up with an optimised design; J-120 is a joke, not a design born out of a vision.

You miss the point. The mission is to get people to the ISS & the moon. The mission is not to use a particular launcher to accomplish that mission, that is the solution to the mission. The engineering part of that solution is to do it cheaply, on schedule and with low risk. The launcher isn't the mission, the endpoint is. Get people to the moon on a small budget. That's challenging enough. Why make it more difficult by saying, oh, yeah, do it with a gutless, small, expensive launcher for the people and a completely different, bloated, hyper-expensive launcher for the cargo? The VSE is the mission. The ESAS is an engineering solution to that mission which, as it turns out, is not good engineering.

"ESAS picked the challenging missions."
ESAS is an overly risky solution to the VSE mission.

Direct is a much more elegant solution to that mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2008 08:43 PM
Quote
New technology comes as a result of having picked challenging missions to try to accomplish.

Exactly.

ESAS picked the challenging missions. Minimal launcher for crew transport to ISS. Single launch for cargo to the Moon. Those two combined for manned lunar exploration.

"Direct" picked the no challenge path. Minimal mods to the Shuttle stack. And then let's see what can we do with that.

We can maybe replace the Shuttle's capabilities. That's not what the VSE is about. If the VSE wanted to replace and improve the STS, then it would have stated so. Replacing STS is a vision in itself and if pursued it should prod NASA to come up with an optimized design; J-120 is a joke, not a design born out of a vision.
What you fail to mention is the fact that by using the DIRECT approach, we are actually able to accomplish the ESAS requirement of lunar global access, anytime return. For all its massive, mind boggling size and extremely high budgets, Ares can't do it. It just can't do it.

But the Jupiter-232 launch architecture absolutely can do it, with margin to spare. It can even put a larger LSAM on the lunar surface than the ESAS asked for. And it does it *without* needing to go back to Congress and ask for more money. It does it with the current level of funding. That's graphic proof that bigger and newer is not always better.

Congress was wise to draft an appropriations bill that required evolutionary rather than revolutionary development.
But Griffin has chosen to circumvent the clear Congressional direction and build his own *new* rocket instead.
And his "minimal" rocket, Ares-I, can't even put a lunar capable Orion into LEO. It is totally incapable of any LEO servicing at all, while the smaller version of DIRECT, the Jupiter-120, is perfectly sized for that.

The Ares architecture "might" actually get us to the moon with a minimal ESAS mission, limited to where it can go and how long it can stay, while the Jupiter architecture will give us the entire lunar surface with bigger LSAMs, and with stays unlimited by return windows. You tell me which is better.

It remains to be seen whether or not Dr Griffin will be held accountable for circumventing the Congress.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2008 08:46 PM
Extremely well said Paul!

You have caught the nexus of the issue very succinctly and accurately there.   Thank-you.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/06/2008 08:53 PM
tankmodeler:

ESAS produced an architecture before the engineering solution. AKA 1,5 launch. That is the response to the VSE where "get people to the ISS" means just that, not "replace the Shuttle". And where "get people to the moon" rationally includes pure cargo transport to give those people a place to live and things to work on once they live there.

"Direct" is an engineering solution - cheap, on schedule, low risk - in search for an architecture.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2008 09:08 PM
"Direct" is an engineering solution - cheap, on schedule, low risk - in search for an architecture.
Engineering solutions are good things:
1. It is not cheap, it's just, unlike Ares, fiscally responsible.
2. Actually it runs ahead of schedule, like being able to actually do an Apollo 8 style lunar mission THREE years before the first real Ares-I would even fly!
3. Not low risk - just less risk. Taking unnecessary risks just for the glory of "risking it" is stupid.
4. Isn't searching for anything. It fully does the complete ESAS missions, which the Ares can't actually do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2008 09:11 PM
DIRECT, as you say, is an engineering solution - cheap, on schedule, low risk (compared to Ares-I anyway!).

Its architecture was fairly well defined in our AIAA 2007 paper (http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-HighRes.pdf). There are extensive options presented there - not least of which includes a baseline which was recently updated (http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.1.pdf) to match Constellation's mission requirements for the moon as presented in numerous documents on L2 currently.

The architecture is right there, already defined by CxP. Our baseline configuration is tailored to specifically meet those targets. The vehicle family could be tailored to any number of different architectures though, but maximum flexibility seems to be around the J-120/232 pairing. It is merely the choice to use this solution which is the only part of the jigsaw puzzle not yet in place.


And the rational option is the one which you have the money to actually build.

If we continue down the Ares diversion, we might get Ares-I and replicate EELV capability at a ridiculous cost but Ares-V is never going to be built and operated - there just isn't sufficient money to do it.

So an architecture which only gets *half* of its solution put into production is a fundamentally broken one architecture, wouldn't you agree? And without Ares-V, Ares-I is not going to get us anywhere except ISS.

DIRECT's first launcher though (Jupiter-120) *is* capable of performing 3-launch Lunar missions even if the J-232's Upper Stage never actually materializes. That's a backup solution we have even if NASA's budget got cut radically. And if NASA's budget is not cut, DIRECT enables a lot more missions than Ares for the same $$$ invested - creating a much more robust program. There are no down sides.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: quark on 06/06/2008 09:21 PM
Chart 13 of the ISDC presentation refers to an 8 week internal NASA Study.  Are the details of that study available?  Is there a reference?I'd like to understand the quantitative data behind the colors.  Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2008 10:55 PM
Quark,
We have been unable to obtain a copy of the final report.

What we understand is that a team was formed by someone at HQ to study the issue as a backup in case Ares-I's TO problems killed that plan outright.

This was all late last year, about a month or so after our AIAA paper came out. That paper got noticed so DIRECT was included - just to see the results. Nobody expected it to do well. The study was essentially completed within 4 of the 8 weeks allocated and all that remained was to write the report up all neat & tidy, but DIRECT really surprised the team assessing it.

We were contacted by the evaluators because the performance evaluations for the DIRECT option came out *higher* that our claims said they would. They were concerned that there might have been some sort of technical discrepancy somewhere which they had not accounted for and wanted to check their numbers against ours. When we explained we had 10% additional arbitrary performance margins over and above the regular GR&A allocations, that brought all their performance numbers all into line correctly. They were quite happy we had extra margins!

They then told us that of all the options which had been analyzed, ours was the only one to get all our criteria "in-the-green". The next closest was the Advanced Atlas Phase-2/3 option, but it failed the workforce retention requirements. Ares essentially scored the worst of all the options. We got a summary from them of all the results and what you see in our presentation is the exact information as it was given to us, just put into a pretty table by Philip.

We were told that now they had the performance discrepancy question resolved, the results of the study were going to be transmitted to HQ later that day or the following one, and the report would follow when it was typed up correctly.

We never heard from them again and attempts to contact the team members after that met with dead phone lines.

A few weeks ago we finally heard from one of the team who did this study and found out that two days after transmitting the result to HQ, the team was disbanded and the team all became persona-non-grata. Thus the paper was never completed. We don't have to try very hard to figure out why the group was so conveniently disbanded when they didn't say what management wanted them to say. But the results were still transmitted to HQ so they are in the records somewhere. We have spoken briefly with some of the people involved in the analysis since, but they do not want to risk their jobs again having already had a bad experience with management. We are still working to get hold of the original transmission which went to HQ and there are Congressional staffers also chasing it too. If we ever get it - and can release it - we will.


A rumor along a similar thread which we heard recently was that there was a similar analysis done by a different group at MSFC too, somewhere in "4487 & 4600, EV & ES". Word is that the results turned out the same. Who exactly did those, and for whom, we still aren't sure though and we've never heard from those people directly.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/07/2008 12:18 AM
Wow great post Ross...it is one thing to stick to your guns, its another thing to stick to your guns when the people "in the know" are telling you that you have armed yourself with the poorest performing model of firearm.

What has history taught us when the political higher-ups have not listened to the people on the front lines? Does Challenger, Columbia, hell even Vietnam ring any bells?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 06/07/2008 12:52 AM

DIRECT's first launcher though (Jupiter-120) *is* capable of performing 3-launch Lunar missions even if the J-232's Upper Stage never actually materializes. That's a backup solution we have even if NASA's budget got cut radically. And if NASA's budget is not cut, DIRECT enables a lot more missions than Ares for the same $$$ invested - creating a much more robust program. There are no down sides.

Ross.

Ross, do you intend to publish your 3 J-120 moon mission?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2008 03:32 AM
PaulL,
Nothing specific about it, no. Its an emergency backup solution if all else fails. We don't really want to make that big of a deal about it because 'certain' political positions may decide to use it as the baseline - and that would not be a good thing IMHO.

Just for you, the Delta-IV Upper Stage would be needed on each flight   As part of the human rating process we would suggest a slight stretch to the tanking too. A Wide Body Centaur could be used instead - if it's ever built. Such stages could be made to work pretty well with the Jupiter as the foundation if we were ever backed into such a corner.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: yoda on 06/07/2008 11:54 AM
Knowing that the cost per kg drives future technology decisions, below are a few questions.

For a cargo only flight, a one-way trip to the moon, how much mass is delivered with a dedicated J-232 flight and what is the estimate range of cost per kg (e.g. no ascent module)?

If the mission was simply to return mass from the lunar surface, what is the mass and cost per kg?

Any estimates on how low these costs per kilogram could be reduced with other configurations or compare with other launchers?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 06/07/2008 01:58 PM
Quark,
We have been unable to obtain a copy of the final report.

What we understand is that a team was formed by someone at HQ to study the issue as a backup in case Ares-I's TO problems killed that plan outright.

This was all late last year, about a month or so after our AIAA paper came out. That paper got noticed so DIRECT was included - just to see the results. Nobody expected it to do well. The study was essentially completed within 4 of the 8 weeks allocated and all that remained was to write the report up all neat & tidy, but DIRECT really surprised the team assessing it.

We were contacted by the evaluators because the performance evaluations for the DIRECT option came out *higher* that our claims said they would. They were concerned that there might have been some sort of technical discrepancy somewhere which they had not accounted for and wanted to check their numbers against ours. When we explained we had 10% additional arbitrary performance margins over and above the regular GR&A allocations, that brought all their performance numbers all into line correctly. They were quite happy we had extra margins!

They then told us that of all the options which had been analyzed, ours was the only one to get all our criteria "in-the-green". The next closest was the Advanced Atlas Phase-2/3 option, but it failed the workforce retention requirements. Ares essentially scored the worst of all the options. We got a summary from them of all the results and what you see in our presentation is the exact information as it was given to us, just put into a pretty table by Philip.

We were told that now they had the performance discrepancy question resolved, the results of the study were going to be transmitted to HQ later that day or the following one, and the report would follow when it was typed up correctly.

We never heard from them again and attempts to contact the team members after that met with dead phone lines.

A few weeks ago we finally heard from one of the team who did this study and found out that two days after transmitting the result to HQ, the team was disbanded and the team all became persona-non-grata. Thus the paper was never completed. We don't have to try very hard to figure out why the group was so conveniently disbanded when they didn't say what management wanted them to say. But the results were still transmitted to HQ so they are in the records somewhere. We have spoken briefly with some of the people involved in the analysis since, but they do not want to risk their jobs again having already had a bad experience with management. We are still working to get hold of the original transmission which went to HQ and there are Congressional staffers also chasing it too. If we ever get it - and can release it - we will.


A rumor along a similar thread which we heard recently was that there was a similar analysis done by a different group at MSFC too, somewhere in "4487 & 4600, EV & ES". Word is that the results turned out the same. Who exactly did those, and for whom, we still aren't sure though and we've never heard from those people directly.

Ross.

Ross-

So they offered up Direct as the best alternative and got beat up for it?  Oh, I hope those Congressional Staffers work for some of the members of the Committee on Science and Technology.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/07/2008 08:22 PM
I work for local govt.  there is politics involved like anywhere else.  If you make a case for something that your manager does not want or makes him/her boss  look bad...guess who may end up paying the price?  You.  There are govt. rules about that sort of thing, but who will write your performance evaluation? 

You have to be carefully what you say...you might not lose your job but your career may be over if say the wrong thing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2008 09:11 PM
Knowing that the cost per kg drives future technology decisions, below are a few questions.

For a cargo only flight, a one-way trip to the moon, how much mass is delivered with a dedicated J-232 flight and what is the estimate range of cost per kg (e.g. no ascent module)?

Let me start by saying that we are actually baselining 2-launch cargo-only missions, not just crew flights. The performance to the moon doubles (74mT lander), but the cost increase is just the individual unit cost for the Jupiter-232 which would be ~$160m at expected flight rates. It also completely removes any need for a different LSAM design between crew and cargo use - which creates a very significant cost saving itself.

This 2-launch profile would land a lander massing around 39.2mT on the Lunar surface, of which about 15mT would be the empty DS allowing about 24mT payloads to be delivered for a cost of about $1,050m. Call that ~$43,750 per kg to the Lunar surface.

A 1-launch CaLV Jupiter-232 could land approximately 80% of the mass of an Ares-V - somewhere around 23mT landed on the Lunar surface, of which an optimized DS would be about 11mT allowing about 12mT payloads to be delivered for a cost of $900m or so or ~$75,000 per kg.

For comparison, at the expected baseline CxP flight rate, an Ares-V 1-launch cargo flight will cost in the region of $1.4bn plus the LSAM adding another $993m or so. Meaning that the 12mT LSAM and 14.6mT of payload it can deliver will cost $2,393m or $163,904 per kg. Add $850m for Ares-I and $230m for Orion (again, at the expected flight rates) and you can work out crew mission costs too.


Quote
If the mission was simply to return mass from the lunar surface, what is the mass and cost per kg?

This answer depends on a lot of different factors. Is the return mass cargo or crew is a big one? 1-launch or 2-launch profiles?

Lets assume a crew in the 'regular' fashion, and assume DIRECT's expected mission flight rate of 6 per year (4 cargo, 2 crew until the Outpost is complete). We would expect a regular crew Lunar mission (2x J-232 CLV & CaLV, 1x Orion CEV, 1x Altair LSAM) to together cost about $1,230m each and a cargo mission to cost $1,050m. This adds up to a total program costing just under $7bn per year. This would deliver approximately 160mT to the Lunar surface annually, of which 97mT would be cargo, beginning in 2017. The only cost that doesn't include are the costs of the actual science packages and payload modules which would be delivered to the Outpost - but at a total cost of $7bn (Ares is $7.5bn best-case scenario *without* the CEV or LSAM!), I think you'll agree that we have spare funding to pay for whatever science payloads and hardware we might wish to use.


Quote
Any estimates on how low these costs per kilogram could be reduced with other configurations or compare with other launchers?

We're less than half the total cost of Ares. And we're a good portion below the cost of any architecture using a 9-launch EELV-class human & cargo-capable campaign. A clean-sheet HLLV system *might* be able to match or even slightly improve upon our costs, but it would kill the entire workforce in the process so will never get political approval. Even then a clean-sheet system would not have 25 years of cost-reduction efforts under its belts already - the heritage of Shuttle - so I doubt it could improve much on those figures.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2008 11:19 PM
Just a quick question - would anyone be interested in a DIRECT T-Shirt?   It would probably be about $19.99.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steve G on 06/07/2008 11:56 PM
I've been quiet for a while but keeping a daily update.  All I can say is that NASA seems to be as secretive as the CIA.  The present culture needs to be dismantled before NASA's shuttle architecture is.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 12:17 AM
SteveG,
You're absolutely correct. A civillian agency doesn't need to be this clammed-up unless it has something to hide IMHO.

I think it is important though, not to tar the whole agency for the actions of the few in the most influential positions. The present culture is an artifact which has been led from the top down - but it is not actually pervasive.

The culture will change of its own accord when new ideas are actually considered and are *rewarded* instead of being squashed like a bug and punished because they just don't fit with managements preconceptions.

It is understandable that staff just keep their heads down in the current environment. They have mortgages and kids college funds to pay - they just can't afford to speak up and I feel desperately sorry for them currently.

It reminds me of the episode "Spider" in Tom Hanks' "From the Earth to The Moon" HBO series, where the problem with the lander's legs is discovered by one of the engineers and his manager says (paraphrasing): 'you didn't try to cover it up, you told me as soon as you knew about it and if we don't discover these sorts of problems early enough we aren't ever going to get to the moon'.

*That* culture has been suppressed within the agency these days. If you speak up about a problem you're just as likely to have your head torn off these days and lose your career as anything else.

The opposite must happen - and it must be implemented by leadership from the very top down.

I honestly believe that most of the management even want this environment to change these days, but they are just as scared to step out of line with the current leadership because they've worked for a long time to build their careers to their current levels - they *really* can't afford to stick their necks out.

I think most everyone is welcoming the day Griffin goes and are praying for a change in *character* at the very top. I think & hope that that day is coming sooner than most people think.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/08/2008 12:53 AM
What is alarming is that this kind of culture exists only 5 years after Columbia. It is the very culture that the CAIB condemned.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steve G on 06/08/2008 01:01 AM
What is horrifying is the extent how malicious and conniving the upper echelons have become.  It's no longer a public department but a despotism.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steve G on 06/08/2008 01:16 AM
Ross, I just want to express, not as an expert, but as a space enthusiast since I was a kid, of how impressed with your efforts and the professionalism you exhibit.  My ears are burning whenever I read your posts, trying to hear the unspoken whispers between the lines. I'm certain the the powers in Washington know of the cancer in NASA and I sincerely hope for the sake of all of you guys in the space industry that the change from the top is sooner than later.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 01:38 AM
When we were planning our trip to D.C. back in March we had a few of the NASA folk volunteer to come with us to actually talk about their personal experiences.

But we found out that the law prevents them from lobbying the government and all such communications have to go through their agency leadership - in other word Griffin.

The only recourse is to use the whistleblower protection system - and none of them are willing to consider that.

I hear on a daily basis from people within the program, and what I hear doesn't make me at all comfortable. Amongst the engineers Ares-I is a joke, but its a joke nobody is laughing at and nobody is willing to speak out against because they've witnessed precisely what happened to colleagues who have. Nobody really thinks Ares-V will ever be paid for. And many are convinced the current plans will never get back to the moon. But comments in opposition to the leadership go unheard or punished and alternatives (of which DIRECT is just one of many) are merely ridiculed without ever being investigated properly - simply because they aren't the ideas which the leadership wants.

That the most famous US agency in the world - NASA - has lost sight of the fundamental tenets of the Freedoms underpinning the entire United States Constitution is a complete and utter disgrace in my option and is no way to showcase what the US really stands for.

These loyal workers who have given their all for this agency deserve much better than this. Instead, 2/3rds of them will be receiving a pink slip in about 2 years time.

Sorry. I don't usually let my emotions into my comments, but I have a lot of friends in the program and I hate to think of what's coming soon - especially so because we (DIRECT) seem to have found a reasonable way to avoid it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 06/08/2008 02:09 AM
PaulL,
Nothing specific about it, no. Its an emergency backup solution if all else fails. We don't really want to make that big of a deal about it because 'certain' political positions may decide to use it as the baseline - and that would not be a good thing IMHO.

Just for you, the Delta-IV Upper Stage would be needed on each flight   As part of the human rating process we would suggest a slight stretch to the tanking too. A Wide Body Centaur could be used instead - if it's ever built. Such stages could be made to work pretty well with the Jupiter as the foundation if we were ever backed into such a corner.

Ross.

I assume that the streching of the Delta IV US is to acheive the required delta V for your Apollo-8 mission.  Do you intend to publish the details of that mission or is it also a backup solution?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 02:16 AM
That one is more likely to go into print when we get some time to write it up.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/08/2008 02:22 AM
When we were planning our trip to D.C. back in March we had a few of the NASA folk volunteer to come with us to actually talk about their personal experiences.

But we found out that the law prevents them from lobbying the government and all such communications have to go through their agency leadership - in other word Griffin.

The only recourse is to use the whistleblower protection system - and none of them are willing to consider that.

I hear on a daily basis from people within the program, and what I hear doesn't make me at all comfortable. Amongst the engineers Ares-I is a joke, but its a joke nobody is laughing at and nobody is willing to speak out against because they've witnessed precisely what happened to colleagues who have. Nobody really thinks Ares-V will ever be paid for. And many are convinced the current plans will never get back to the moon. But comments in opposition to the leadership go unheard or punished and alternatives (of which DIRECT is just one of many) are merely ridiculed without ever being investigated properly - simply because they aren't the ideas which the leadership wants.

That the most famous US agency in the world - NASA - has lost sight of the fundamental tenets of the Freedoms underpinning the entire United States Constitution is a complete and utter disgrace in my option and is no way to showcase what the US really stands for.

These loyal workers who have given their all for this agency deserve much better than this. Instead, 2/3rds of them will be receiving a pink slip in about 2 years time.

Sorry. I don't usually let my emotions into my comments, but I have a lot of friends in the program and I hate to think of what's coming soon - especially so because we (DIRECT) seem to have found a reasonable way to avoid it.

Ross.

Quote
A philosopher once said "Faced with unattainable alternatives, you should consider the imperatives." Look around you, our imperative is right here.  In our bulkheads, and our planes, and our guns, and in ourselves. War is our imerative
  - Admiral Helena Cain
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 06/08/2008 02:54 AM

Let me start by saying that we are actually baselining 2-launch cargo-only missions, not just crew flights. The performance to the moon doubles (74mT lander), but the cost increase is just the individual unit cost for the Jupiter-232 which would be ~$160m at expected flight rates. It also completely removes any need for a different LSAM design between crew and cargo use - which creates a very significant cost saving itself.

This 2-launch profile would land a lander massing around 39.2mT on the Lunar surface, of which about 15mT would be the empty DS allowing about 24mT payloads to be delivered for a cost of about $1,050m. Call that ~$43,750 per kg to the Lunar surface.

A 1-launch CaLV Jupiter-232 could land approximately 80% of the mass of an Ares-V - somewhere around 23mT landed on the Lunar surface, of which an optimized DS would be about 11mT allowing about 12mT payloads to be delivered for a cost of $900m or so or ~$75,000 per kg.


It seems that the "desired" LSAM mass for Ares and Direct manned missions is about 45-47 mT. A same mass/size LSAM for unmanned cargo missions could be put in LEO with a J-120 rocket. Therefore, wouldn't it be more logical and economical for Direct to baseline their cargo missions on J-120+J-232 rockets instead of 2 x J-232 rockets?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/08/2008 02:58 AM
That one is more likely to go into print when we get some time to write it up.

Ross.

Not to get too far ahead, but if NASA were to be forced to drop J2 development, is there a current upperstage that could provide similar performance? Could a widebody centaur get the job done? I'm assuming the LOC / LOM numbers might take a hit, but it should be better than Ares I still.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 05:51 AM

It seems that the "desired" LSAM mass for Ares and Direct manned missions is about 45-47 mT. A same mass/size LSAM for unmanned cargo missions could be put in LEO with a J-120 rocket. Therefore, wouldn't it be more logical and economical for Direct to baseline their cargo missions on J-120+J-232 rockets instead of 2 x J-232 rockets?

PaulL

PaulL,
It's not quite as simple as that. You must also lift the 3mT of Airborne Support Equipment (the Adapter which contains the Pad>LSAM fueling lines) under the LSAM, and you must also lift the Level 2 & 3 Management Margins too which are 4mT and 5mT respectively for a total of 12mT of additional lift capability on top of the bare LSAM itself.   All of it must be pushed through TLI.

57mT to circular LEO is asking a bit too much of a Jupiter-120.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 06:04 AM

Not to get too far ahead, but if NASA were to be forced to drop J2 development, is there a current upperstage that could provide similar performance? Could a widebody centaur get the job done? I'm assuming the LOC / LOM numbers might take a hit, but it should be better than Ares I still.

WBC doesn't exist yet either though.

But yes, there are options. As I said a 3-launch architecture is possible using Delta-IV Upper Stages.

The current Atlas-V Centaurs don't have quite the same total throw capability dV wise, but they could also be utilized with a waiver for their 1.25 FS.

If ULA developed the WBC for Atlas-V it could also be used and would improve performance considerably. I'm kinda hoping this will be built anyway, because one of these 5.4m diameter units would make for an excellent Crasher Stage for the normal Lunar mission profile to use, enabling the LSAM DS to be made a LOT shorter - though that's another mission profile I need to write up.

LOC/LOM for all of these single RL-10 based Upper Stages would be affected by "about" 100/25 respectively or so, so would still be quite acceptable (1.25 FS assumed 'waived' or fixed).

Any of the RL-10's could be human rated fairly easily. RL-10B-2 as used on the Delta-IV US offers the highest Isp currently in production at ~465s, so that would be my preference.

There are a variety of other options too, like finishing the development the RL-60 (or whatever its called these days). All of which would enhance the package.


I'm hoping that this discussion is opening people's eyes to the vast array of options which DIRECT is compatible with. And that with the cost savings these things become *reachable* too. Its an important point to keep in mind - that our baseline is most certainly *NOT* the only way we are limited in going.


At the end of the day, J-2X development itself isn't much of a problem. The key issue with it is requiring it in order to "Close the Gap". If J-2X didn't impact the gap at all and we can close the gap without it, that's the most important issue. J-2X doesn't actually cost all *that* much - at least not as rocket engines go - and it isn't going to make or break NASA's budget on its own. But if it can simply come online whenever its ready, rather than trying to rush it into production, that has to be a much better solution for everyone - NASA, PWR, the Workforce and the Astronauts too. J-2X won't "go" unless NASA's budget is *severely* torn up first - and if that happens we may have much more serious problems with the program than just this one engine. The critical problem in such a scenario will be the LSAM - how to DDT&E that on a shoestring would be the biggest challenge in such a situation.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/08/2008 12:03 PM

PaulL,
It's not quite as simple as that. You must also lift the 3mT of Airborne Support Equipment (the Adapter which contains the Pad>LSAM fueling lines) under the LSAM, and you must also lift the Level 2 & 3 Management Margins too which are 4mT and 5mT respectively for a total of 12mT of additional lift capability on top of the bare LSAM itself.   All of it must be pushed through TLI.

57mT to circular LEO is asking a bit too much of a Jupiter-120.

Ross.
Try a 4 launch solution, fuel the LSAM from a fuel depot.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 06/08/2008 12:54 PM
When we were planning our trip to D.C. back in March we had a few of the NASA folk volunteer to come with us to actually talk about their personal experiences.

But we found out that the law prevents them from lobbying the government and all such communications have to go through their agency leadership - in other word Griffin.

The only recourse is to use the whistleblower protection system - and none of them are willing to consider that.

I hear on a daily basis from people within the program, and what I hear doesn't make me at all comfortable. Amongst the engineers Ares-I is a joke, but its a joke nobody is laughing at and nobody is willing to speak out against because they've witnessed precisely what happened to colleagues who have. Nobody really thinks Ares-V will ever be paid for. And many are convinced the current plans will never get back to the moon. But comments in opposition to the leadership go unheard or punished and alternatives (of which DIRECT is just one of many) are merely ridiculed without ever being investigated properly - simply because they aren't the ideas which the leadership wants.

That the most famous US agency in the world - NASA - has lost sight of the fundamental tenets of the Freedoms underpinning the entire United States Constitution is a complete and utter disgrace in my option and is no way to showcase what the US really stands for.

These loyal workers who have given their all for this agency deserve much better than this. Instead, 2/3rds of them will be receiving a pink slip in about 2 years time.

Sorry. I don't usually let my emotions into my comments, but I have a lot of friends in the program and I hate to think of what's coming soon - especially so because we (DIRECT) seem to have found a reasonable way to avoid it.

Ross.

I was wondering if the DIRECT Team has considered when you might go public with this?  Some who view these posts are authors or journalists.  This information would make great material for a news article in a major periodical, especially since the flaws mentioned are indicative of the organizational failures that brought about the Challenger and Columbia disasters.

I recall many years ago, an article in Parade magazine resulted in the establishment of the "hot line" between Washington and Moscow at the height of the Cold War, a development that probably helped prevent war between the two superpowers.

Perhaps a similar article about how the American taxpayer is being fleeced by developing a system that will not effectively meet the VSE goals set out by our government will get a public debate going, or a congressional investigation.  With this being an election year, the time may be right for such a move.

Since we have some members who are authors or journalists, perhaps they could weigh in on such an idea.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/08/2008 01:34 PM
I was wondering if the DIRECT Team has considered when you might go public with this?

Since we have some members who are authors or journalists, perhaps they could weigh in on such an idea.

Here's your problem... Prove it. 

While I may take Ross at his word if he says these things, a reputable journalist has to be able to verify the information he is writing about.

As Ross has pointed out, the unnamed individuals who have provided his with this information are not willing to make more public comments, and any documentation to back up this information is also unattainable as of this point.

So all you have right now is an OpEd piece, and that isn't enough to carry much weight to get a major, reputable media source to turn this into a story.

DIRECT has pretty much run its course as a technical discussion, at least as far as launch vehicles go.  It's a political issue now.

Assuming you believe everything the DIRECT team says, someone within NASA has independently verified their assertions about performance and architecture at this point.  So, in theory, the decision-makers "know" they can't win the fight by poking holes in the concept technically now.

But, they can continue to fight by poking holes in the concept in other ways.  They can dismiss it out-of-hand (if it were the right answer, we'd have gone that way).  They can dismiss the source (a bunch of online "fanboys", as it was once put).  They can say we're too far down the road with the chosen architecture to consider changing course now.

Unfortunately, at this point, NASA's Goliath is easier to hear than DIRECT's David.

What DIRECT needs now, in my opinion, is someone to deliver their message who cannot simply be dismissed out-of-hand by NASA management.  Someone who has enough clout to not simply dismissable by NASA as some group of online guys who don't know what they are talking about.

I don't know who that person is.  Maybe a Congress-member, a former Astronaut, or someone else who could appear on the mainstream media and say "there's a problem", and not just be dismissed as a naysayer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 02:37 PM
brihath,
I don't think we ever would. While we have some very serious problems with Griffin's implementation plans, we are all still very passionate about NASA as an agency and the VSE as its mission.

If we tried to push this aspect as some kind of corruption scandal leading to a full-blown Congressional Investigation we would only serve to bring in the anti-space lobby and the modern Walter Mondales who are just waiting for such an opportunity. They could do an awful lot more damage than even Griffin has done. Pursuing that path just isn't beneficial to anyone.

I think that we've probably had enough hard material for about a year to do that if we did want to. But we are *never* going to do it because it would hurt NASA as a whole and that's just not what we're about.

Griffin will be gone sooner or later anyway. Even if we just have to wait around for another half year, I believe we're going to get our independent review one way or the other and this never has to be a "big press thing". A relatively quiet changeover is what we'd prefer.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 02:41 PM
BogoMIPS,
You are dead on the mark there.

But we do have a few rather cool individuals who can be brought to bear when the time *is* right. That time is not quite yet though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DLK on 06/08/2008 06:36 PM
Quark,
We have been unable to obtain a copy of the final report.
<snip>
Ross.
Thank you so much for posting the particulars on this, Ross. As a US taxpayer, I resent the hell out of HQ's posturing, despite being a Huntsville area resident.  -Dan
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 06/08/2008 08:14 PM
brihath,
I don't think we ever would. While we have some very serious problems with Griffin's implementation plans, we are all still very passionate about NASA as an agency and the VSE as its mission.

If we tried to push this aspect as some kind of corruption scandal leading to a full-blown Congressional Investigation we would only serve to bring in the anti-space lobby and the modern Walter Mondales who are just waiting for such an opportunity. They could do an awful lot more damage than even Griffin has done. Pursuing that path just isn't beneficial to anyone.

I think that we've probably had enough hard material for about a year to do that if we did want to. But we are *never* going to do it because it would hurt NASA as a whole and that's just not what we're about.

Griffin will be gone sooner or later anyway. Even if we just have to wait around for another half year, I believe we're going to get our independent review one way or the other and this never has to be a "big press thing". A relatively quiet changeover is what we'd prefer.

Ross.

Ross-

I understand your point of view.  I am concerned that the idea of people being afraid for their jobs by not towing the "party line' sounds like more of the same viz. Challenger and Columbia.  I think it is admirable to look for a change after January, but I wonder if Mike Griffin is the whole problem, or just part of a larger culture that will continue after he is gone.  He just seems to be the latest in a line of leaders who stifled any open discussion about a number of issues.  Remember the way George Abbey ran the Astronaut Office or more recently, the investigation of the NASA Inspector General?  I am sure their are many honorable people in NASA who are doing the right thing, but fear retailation in their jobs.  I simply wonder how long it has to go on that good ideas and creativity get stifled by elements of what was once the government's "can do" agency.

I hope a quieter path is one that can happen, as I think DIRECT is the right idea for the time and situation that NASA currently faces, and I wish you all well in that endeavor.  I just hope that the changes you anticipate come about.

Another point to consider..when the anticipated layoffs come about and those who are now NASA employees become former NASA employees, the story may come out anyhow.  At that point in time however, it may be too late for DIRECT to benefit from the publicity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 08:43 PM
Thankfully Griffin will be out years before those staff are let go. Congress really doesn't like him so even if he stands for the job again next year I don't think they'd approve him this time.

The question is who will replace him and whether they will "stay the course" (which a bullsh*t phrase IMHO because Shuttle is the course we're actually on right now and DIRECT fits that far better than Ares-I does) or allow discussion of alternatives.

I foresee four possibilities:-

1) Obama gets his wish and strips $5bn out of NASA's budget for Education programs and the VSE effort goes away for at least a complete election cycle. We will end up with Ares-I being canceled because Orion to just ISS can be done  cheaper on an EELV.

2) We get a Griffin photocopy. We know Scott "Doc" Horowitz wants the job (so much for wanting to spend more time with his family...). Ares-I is built, Ares-V never gets built VSE ultimately ends up unaffordable.

3) We get a hardline EELV proponent who still won't listen to any alternatives - closed as Griffin, but in a different direction. We get a system which can go to the ISS first, but end up with a system which can't scale up beyond 1 or 2 Lunar missions per year and for which Mars is just a joke. We end up realizing in 10 years time that we just threw away the States' second HLLV system and now we regret it.

4) We get someone new, appointed to do the job who hasn't got any preconceived notions. Who demands a study (or follows the orders of Congress to) into the options in terms of cost, schedule, performance, workforce, safety and political requirements. I'll happily put DIRECT up against any of the other options in a fair fight like that and I'll abide by the results however they come out.

I don't think Congress will allow #2. I don't think Congress will actually allow a President to strip NASA's budget - they'll find him his money, but they'll choose where it comes from.

The rest is up in the air.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/08/2008 08:45 PM
But remember...when you are an ex employee, people might use these agruments:

 1.  Why are you an ex employee? 
 2. you are an ex employee with an axe to grind against your former boss.
 3, since you are a former employee--you don't know what you are talking about since "things have changed"....

these will be some of the agruments that could be used.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 09:24 PM
The change will come from the very top and will percolate down from there.

When new ideas are praised and people get bonuses and promotions for thinking deeply about new ways to do things - whether they are actually chosen or not - that is when the next layer will see how things have changed - and they will follow suit.

Griffin has surrounded himself with people who will tow his line. But when he's gone, if his replacement has a different fundamental attitude the hardliners will be encouraged out, just like Griffin put his own people in all the influential positions. Those who remain will see the new style and will adopt it or be displaced. It will percolate down from the top, tier after tier until the new approach saturates the whole agency.

But it can *only* happen with the right hands at the tiller. And that will be up to the President to propose and the Congress to approve. They are the people who provide the checks and balances and whether they like it or not, it is going to be their duty to fix NASA within the next year.

I think everyone in power knows this path has not gone the way it was supposed to. Armed with the new knowledge they have today, I hope they are particularly careful in their selection of NASA's new boss this time around.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/08/2008 09:42 PM
What parts of Direct are on the critical path?
What parts of Direct, have low, medium, high tech. and schedule risk? And what could be done to migrate/eliminate these risk?  Remember how Ares I and V started out and where they are now.
How would you classify the risk for the RS68'S in terms of schedule and technology?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 06/08/2008 10:33 PM
brihath,

{Snip}
Griffin will be gone sooner or later anyway. Even if we just have to wait around for another half year, I believe we're going to get our independent review one way or the other and this never has to be a "big press thing". A relatively quiet changeover is what we'd prefer.

Ross.

I have to wonder though, with the tooling ans facilities being dismantled, what would be the cost to bring the required items back in time? The cost wouldn't be the problem, more so the time.

Doubtful if it could be purchased due to commercial restrictions (ITAR worries perhaps). You almost wish you had a billionaire in your back pocket to buy the hardware and keep it in protective storage until needed...maybe even under Congressional lock and keep so it doesn't get torn apart or sold for scrap.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 11:02 PM
The four most primary items on the critical path are Avionics, RS-68 Human Rating, Aft Thrust Structure and the Orion spacecraft - with the latter being the long-pole dependent mostly on how much money we can make available to accelerate it. Our budget allows at least $500m extra above CxP's levels for the Orion program each year thru 2012.

The rest is down to pretty straight-forward (rocket) engineering and management.

The configuration is fairly simple just as long as NASA sticks to the basic principle of "change as little as possible" and refrains from doing upgrades here and there just because they can. All those do is push out the Gap more. They can be done as evolutionary upgrades, one at a time as the program is operated. That's how you avoid the cost and schedule "creep" which Ares has suffered from.

For the first Jupiter-120 the SRB's are a totally known quantity.

The ET base is also mostly known too and *DOES NOT* need to be totally optimized for the early flights - a Block-I 'heavyweight' super-strong structure can be flown initially and refined down later, once we have closed the damn gap already.


The RS-68 does have some interesting points to it though. The RS-68 is a flight-certified unit already and really only needs a health monitoring system and certification - and J-2X has to have those anyway *after* it has been developed. The RS-68 doesn't have to be developed first - it can essentially go straight into certification. The longer burn duration may require a new nozzle (we don't believe so, but we are assuming it does, just to be safe) to handle the additional heat soak of the longer burn. The health monitoring system has to be developed afresh, but PWR may be able to borrow some recent work from J-2X here though, neatly avoiding waste there.

And there is the question regarding whether we go use the existing 102% RS-68 as an initial base engine for the early Jupiter-120 flights (there are engines in stock right now which NASA could procure for immediate testing) or whether we could ride a human-rating program along-side the RS-68A 108% upgrade program which is going ahead for USAF. Such a thing would have to be done without disturbing their schedule obviously, so this is an open question still. Either works for us - we have been assuming we only have the performance of the base engine - but the trade study still has to be fully performed before we will know a final answer.

It's a rocket development program and no mistake, but it's not a radical leap too far into the unknown like Ares-I.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/09/2008 03:49 AM
For what it is worth Bill Gerstenmaier has a lot of Representatives and Senators saying nice things about him.

Anyone got a clue what he thinks of Constellation/Direct?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 06/09/2008 08:01 AM
Thankfully Griffin will be out years before those staff are let go.

I foresee four possibilities:-

1) Obama gets his wish and strips $5bn out of NASA's budget for Education programs and the VSE effort goes away for at least a complete election cycle. We will end up with Ares-I being canceled because Orion to just ISS can be done  cheaper on an EELV.

2) We get a Griffin photocopy. We know Scott "Doc" Horowitz wants the job (so much for wanting to spend more time with his family...). Ares-I is built, Ares-V never gets built VSE ultimately ends up unaffordable.

3) We get a hardline EELV proponent who still won't listen to any alternatives - closed as Griffin, but in a different direction. We get a system which can go to the ISS first, but end up with a system which can't scale up beyond 1 or 2 Lunar missions per year and for which Mars is just a joke. We end up realizing in 10 years time that we just threw away the States' second HLLV system and now we regret it.

4) We get someone new, appointed to do the job who hasn't got any preconceived notions. Who demands a study (or follows the orders of Congress to) into the options in terms of cost, schedule, performance, workforce, safety and political requirements. I'll happily put DIRECT up against any of the other options in a fair fight like that and I'll abide by the results however they come out.

I don't think Congress will allow #2. I don't think Congress will actually allow a President to strip NASA's budget - they'll find him his money, but they'll choose where it comes from.

The rest is up in the air.

Ross.
Looking from across the pond, it seems Obama is the favourite, and it seems he's not a fan of space exploration. Which may be good, because it'll rule out Option (2), which is broadly the current direction.

I do hope he doesn't go Option (1). I think in effect, abandoning progress in manned space flight would not please voters.

I hope he's a pragmatist and comes and asks "how can you deliver more, for less"?

Sadly I won't be replacing Griffin, but if I were, I'd happily spend 2 months on a trade-off study between possibilities (3) and (4). Without such a study, I don't know which is better, but I think you're overstating the case against (3). If you can put 25 tons in orbit that's enough. If you can do it frequently enough it'll be cheap(er).

I think Option (4) though has the advantage that it doesn't throw away all the work done to date. Whether the work done to date should be thrown away, is not an attractive question to ask.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2008 11:03 AM
There are other threads for discussing the political stance of the two Presidential candidates regarding space so I'd prefer not to turn this into another political thread PLEASE!

But I will comment on that subject by stating that our information says Obama is looking for a better way than NASA is currently on. In fact I think McCain would also welcome an even more robust agency with a mandate to return more for its investment than is currently planned.

I believe DIRECT could be the key to such an option and here's a fairly simplified outline of why...

DIRECT will be able to launch six full 180mT class Lunar missions per year for less than $8bn per year (CLV, CaLV, CEV and LSAM costs all inclusive, same costing method for CEV & LSAM used for all three options). Ares is going to cost between $11-13.5bn per year to do just four missions. For the same money as DIRECT the 9-launch EELV campaigns can launch only three.

That represents 47% of a fixed $17.1bn annual NASA budget spent on the Lunar & ISS programs by DIRECT. Ares represents a best-case scenario of 64% of NASA's budget (79% worst case). Percentages that high will squeeze *everything* else out even worse than today. Without a budget increase Aeronautics and Science will be choked off. Or - just like happened to Apollo - Ares will simply be deemed too expensive and will simply be closed down.


The key here is that DIRECT not only achieves an affordable level of expenditure, but it does so while accomplishing the Lunar objectives at 150% of the pace than Ares is supposed to even at its higher expenditure level, and does so at 200% the pace of the EELV option. That allows us to establish the outpost that much sooner. We can then obtain the scientific returns from there that much sooner too. And we can then proceed on to the next phase of the VSE sooner as a result - Mars.

Further, with an outlay below 50% of NASA's budget it is quite realistic that some development monies will still be available throughout this process to begin the work needed for Mars missions sooner.

With the Exploration efforts not sucking the budget dry too, the robotic science probes will not be squeezed out. In fact the Science and Aeronautics Directorates can be fully funded back at their ~2002 levels - which were about double todays levels.

This essentially means we could realistically "have it all" and we can do so without needing a budget increase for NASA:-

* We can continue to fully utilize and upgrade ISS thru 2020 and beyond.

* We can have a really strong Aeronautics research division once again.

* We can have a Science Directorate which is concurrently pursuing:-
 - A healthy satellite development program for Earth Science/Climate Change
 - A healthy robotic probe development program for Solar System/Universe investigations
 - A full and regular science utilization of the ISS (Orion & 20mT payload supported by COTS, ATV, HTV, Progress & Soyuz)
 - A Lunar outpost science mandate
...All at the same time!

* We can have a really robust Lunar program of 6 missions per year which is both sustainable (read: affordable) and open to expansion to 12 Lunar missions per year via the International Partnership options which we have suggested previously thru the use of a Propellant Depot and opens the commercial door for foreign investment in US commercial systems too - a two-for IMHO.

* And we would have money and development teams available after the Lunar architecture is developed to go straight into developing the Mars architecture next.


But most importantly - we just don't need a budget increase.

That sort of program, with ever-increasing capabilities and a lot of science return from multiple sources all at the same time, is the sort of thing which I believe all of the candidates could rally behind quite strongly. I just don't believe Obama would wish to cut a program which is doing all of this. This would be a program to *really* be proud of and to sing its praises regularly. And it is a program which he (or McCain) could change in half a year's time if they so choose. They would be remembered as having 'fixed' the mess created before them. That sort of thing appeals as a purely Presidential legacy thing too, not just sound fiscal and governmental policy.

The key is it just isn't *wasteful*.

It would generate a far larger return for the investment, and that is what I believe all of the candidates are really looking to see from NASA - rather than simply a repeat of Apollo.

They want to *see the value* and the numbers we've got demonstrate this system is able to do that like no other we can find.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2008 11:38 AM
Norm,
No idea about Gerst, I don't think we have ever attempted to contact him.

Of the people we have attempted to canvas for their opinions, the routine answer has come back in every single case all saying the same basic thing: 'as long as Mike Griffin is in charge I will support him fully'.

No real surprises there, but it is rather interesting how that qualifier is *always* included.

I just wish we could offer up some names to Congress. They have asked for our preferred options and we were unable to provide any because nobody will talk even off-the-record. They're just too concerned that their name might leak out while Griffin is still in charge. I can't blame them, even though it is very frustrating.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 06/09/2008 01:57 PM
tankmodeler:

ESAS produced an architecture before the engineering solution. AKA 1,5 launch. That is the response to the VSE where "get people to the ISS" means just that, not "replace the Shuttle". And where "get people to the moon" rationally includes pure cargo transport to give those people a place to live and things to work on once they live there.

"Direct" is an engineering solution - cheap, on schedule, low risk - in search for an architecture.
Renclod

You're still missing the point. Anything that describes how to do something is not a mission, it is a solution. VSE says "go to the Moon". Congress said "Go to the moon and keep as much of the Shuttle as you possibly can". Those are missions.

ESAS is a solution saysing how they want to go to the Moon. Achitectures are frameworks for solutions and are part of the solution. If you are changing the solution, then the architecture can change as well without changing the mission.

Quote
"Direct" is an engineering solution - cheap, on schedule, low risk
My God, sweeter words are never spoken to engineers and program managers. Complete the mission and be cheaper, on schedule and low risk? Holy Crap, where do I sign up? Does it matter what the actual framework of the solution is if it actually completes the mission in a cheap, on-schedule and low risk manner?

Ross & the team have a way to use (i.e. an architecture) those cheaper, on-schedule and lower risk rockets to get the prescribed vehicles to the Moon quicker than the current "solution". You just said so yourself. Why would anyone want to do so differently just to pay more, run late or incur higher risk?

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 06/09/2008 07:43 PM

The configuration is fairly simple just as long as NASA sticks to the basic principle of "change as little as possible" and refrains from doing upgrades here and there just because they can. All those do is push out the Gap more. They can be done as evolutionary upgrades, one at a time as the program is operated. That's how you avoid the cost and schedule "creep" which Ares has suffered from.


While I agree fully with this, you have to have a strong manager to push this philosophy through to all of the workers.  Too strong a manager, and changes which are truly necessary will end up being rejected.  In other words, you don't want someone as hard headed as Griffin in charge with a "shoot the messenger" type of management style.

Working on a new launch vehicle is something new and exciting.  Making small changes to "improve" the design is always very tempting.  Your requirements have to be crystal clear, but drawing a clear distinction between a "must" and "want" is often very difficult, especially when you're under pressure to get version 1.0 out the door as quicky as possible.

Jeff
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/10/2008 12:18 AM
Well, there _are_ also the non-zero probabilities that either Ares V gets built, or that Obama cancels Ares V, but Ares I is built anyway as a concession. But I digress...

1) I'm sure you guys have looked at a two-EDS/two-launch LOR approach. I'd prefer that, as it's one less required docking event. Could someone point me to where this is discussed?

2) One of Ares V's current advantages is its ridiculous wide faring, allowing less contorted Altair shapes. What is the practical limit to faring diameter on a Direct-class launcher?

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2008 03:49 AM
While I agree fully with this, you have to have a strong manager to push this philosophy through to all of the workers.  Too strong a manager, and changes which are truly necessary will end up being rejected.  In other words, you don't want someone as hard headed as Griffin in charge with a "shoot the messenger" type of management style.

Working on a new launch vehicle is something new and exciting.  Making small changes to "improve" the design is always very tempting.  Your requirements have to be crystal clear, but drawing a clear distinction between a "must" and "want" is often very difficult, especially when you're under pressure to get version 1.0 out the door as quicky as possible.

Jeff

Absolutely right, Jeff. This is going to have to come from the top down. And everyone is going to have to be given some sort of policy guideline that they should *consider* all new opportunities, but that they should all be weighed against a schedule impact requirement. If they don't need to be done for the "Block-I", but offer a good path for improvement (in performance or cost terms) then they should simply be deferred to the "Block-II" effort which will follow hot-on-the heels of the initial deployment.

Anything which will hold up the closing of the gap should be refrained from in the first iteration of the design. Those things should be implemented later as part of an evolutionary upgrade effort.

I also want to see a return to the days of Saturn where the vehicle can continually be improved upon. During Apollo the vehicles were upgraded in some fashion or other on a regular basis, with noticeable changes like the number of ullage motors on the S-IC/S-II Interstage being altered roughly every 3 launches! There were quite a few such improvements implemented to the Saturn-V over the course of its 18 flight history, and many more were waiting in the wings which should have come online a few flights after the program was prematurely cancelled (J-2S, F-1A being particularly notable examples). I don't want us to get stuck in the STS paradigm that we can't dare alter anything for 25 years until we are forced to by an accident.

But yes, management will have to be carefully briefed to make sure everyone is on the right page in this process.

Another similar thing I will point out is that the design isn't based around the Jupiter-120 configuration. The vehicle which we should design is the Jupiter-232 configuration, and then utilize the Core of that to make a smaller brother launcher which can be implemented sooner. We must be sure to start with the design for the Lunar-class vehicle (3 RS-68 engines and tough enough for a 250mT Upper Stage + 100mt payload) because designing the base Jupiter-120 and then upgrading it to Jupiter-232 spec later will be a *much* more costly proposition than starting with Jupiter-232's design and just flying it 'as is' in Jupiter-120 configration.

Its a key requirement in the DIRECT approach to getting the cost savings compared to Ares. Fail to do it the right way and the solution won't be any cheaper.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2008 04:03 AM
Well, there _are_ also the non-zero probabilities that either Ares V gets built, or that Obama cancels Ares V, but Ares I is built anyway as a concession. But I digress...

Congress is already expressing serious reservations about the costs for developing Ares-VI on top of Ares-I. And the latest annual operations costs are (quote) "a joke" to them according to my contacts.

I personally believe that Ares-VI now has an extremely minimal chance (<5%) of ever being built.


Quote
1) I'm sure you guys have looked at a two-EDS/two-launch LOR approach. I'd prefer that, as it's one less required docking event. Could someone point me to where this is discussed?

We used to prefer that too, but without an opportunity to fill up the LSAM's EDS on-orbit with a Propellant Depot, you end up with a noticeably smaller LSAM in the end, so it isn't a great way to proceed as your baseline initial mission profile to get the program started with. It's an 'upgrade' option for when you do have PD.

We did discuss this for a while back around the start of the original DIRECT v2.0 thread IIRC, but be aware that it isn't our recommended approach any longer. The onyl way to make it work now, without Propellant Transfer, is with an extra stage on top performing the TLI separately and also performing the LOI too. It can be done on the non-crew flight, but you need to develop another stage, which ain't cheap.

IMHO, the current 'equivalent' of this approach is that with the Propellant Depot you could essentially launch a CEV, LSAM (fueled or un-fueled) and near-empty EDS on a single Jupiter-232. You fill the tanks and just go. If International Partners are entirely paying for the fuel that one flight becomes all NASA has to pay for for each mission.


Quote
2) One of Ares V's current advantages is its ridiculous wide faring, allowing less contorted Altair shapes. What is the practical limit to faring diameter on a Direct-class launcher?

Simon ;)

The 10m PLF (same as Ares-VI) is our baseline for Lunar missions.   12m is quite possible on this vehicle too. ~15m is probably the maximum theoretical limit for a Jupiter-232 to safely handle, but looks a bit 'weird' :)

Here are the three most likely sizes which might be built. From left to right 8.4m (says 8.77, I know - its a typo!) diameter, 10.0m and 12.0m. The right-most is a 12m diameter PLF with two 10m long barrel sections making a truly vast container:-

(http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/tnJupiter-232_Payload_Options_External.jpg)
Click the image for a big version. (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/Jupiter-232_Payload_Options_External.jpg)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 06/10/2008 04:15 AM
We must be sure to start with the design for the Lunar-class vehicle because designing the base Jupiter-120 and then upgrading it to Jupiter-232 spec later will be a *much* more costly proposition than starting with Jupiter-232's design and just flying it 'as is' in Jupiter-120 configration.
This is going to be the hardest thing for the aerospace industry to "get". They must not build a optimised J-120. Someone will have to absolutely sit on those who would want to squeeze even more performance out of the J-120 by taking out J-232 capability. It will take a manager who has both an iron fist and is a "true believer" in this approach to make it happen.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2008 04:27 AM
I don't think it'll be that tough as long as the engineers are given the information right from the start.

*That* is going to take a major effort though, because the current program has been carefully divided up and separated. Information is not allowed to freely pass around between departments. This has largely been due to such information often leaking and being revealed when management don't want it to be. And the real reason why they don't want that information leaking has been because so much of Ares-I's information has been *embarrassing* to upper management! The management have been embarrassed every time the stupidity underlying the Ares-I concept has been revealed publicly so they have done what they can to prevent it happening - and also prevented information transfer within the program at the same time. That needs to be changed ASAP or we aren't getting out of the parking lot, let alone getting to ISS or the Moon, Mars and Beyond.


The engineers must be briefed *fully* that Jupiter-232 is the primary vehicle and that the Lunar missions are the primary concern which it should be optimized for as the #1 goal. It should be made clear from day 1 that Jupiter-120 is really just the 'poor cousin' which is just the same hardware as Jupiter-232, but is flown without one main engine and without the Upper Stage to make a simpler, cheaper and lower performance variant - one which can be flown while we are still waiting for the J-2X to be produced.

I think with that as long as they are given that fairly simple and clear information, the engineers will all understand exactly what their task really is.

Back it up by showing them precisely how Jupiter-120 already has plenty of spare performance for the ISS/LEO missions it will be performing anyway and I think they'll readily accept it. If they simply understand that Jupiter-120 doesn't need every ounce of performance enhancement in and of itself, I think they are smart enough to realize for themselves that Jupiter-232 is the vehicle they will need to put their real concentration upon in terms of optimization.

The only thing holding Jupiter-232 back from being deployed at the same time is the J-2X development long-pole. So we are just trying to get the vehicle - sans J-2X/Upper Stage - flying as soon as possible in order to "close the gap". Make sure everyone knows that Jupiter-120 is all about "closing the gap" as priority, not optimization. Jupiter-232 later will be about optimization.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/10/2008 05:08 AM
Ross, with so much extra tonneage lying around I wouldn't be surprised to see the science community suddenly start baying for dollars so they can launch the biggest, baddest X-ray vision polar ice satellite or whatever. Which is great for getting them onboard but a bit of an annoyance when it comes to the dirty business colonising the solar system.

I was considering a LH tankage payload, although I don't think it would need a 12m fairing; 100mT would probably fit easily into a 10m or maybe 8.3m fairing. 12m would net you about 200mT of propellant in a 25m tank. Other than a big lander, hab or telescope there's no pressing need I can see in the DIRECT architecture for a 12m fairing...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2008 06:40 AM
The current LSAM (~9.4m dia) still has a center of gravity up around the second story level at landing. That's *very* high still and will make it naturally susceptible to instability. A 12m PLF would allow it to pancake out some more, which would help.

Mind you, a Crasher Stage would increase performance and solve this issue too.

While 10m is probably good enough for most uses, DoD like the idea of really large PLF's for optical telescopes - the larger the better. Mars Entry can also be made easier with larger diameter payloads too. There are potential uses for 12m or even 15m in all these fields. Thankfully, Jupiter will be capable of handling that if ever needed.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/10/2008 07:17 AM

We did discuss this for a while back around the start of the original DIRECT v2.0 thread IIRC, but be aware that it isn't our recommended approach any longer. The onyl way to make it work now, without Propellant Transfer, is with an extra stage on top performing the TLI separately and also performing the LOI too. It can be done on the non-crew flight, but you need to develop another stage, which ain't cheap.

Or, you could increase the prop in Orion to allow it to LOI, and remove the according prop in Altair. So, Orion grows to ~30 tonnes, and Altair shrinks to ~40 tonnes. Scale the EDS to launch 40 tonnes to Earth-Moon L2, send the Altair first to L2 on a fully fueled EDS, and follow with the crew in the same model EDS, just underfilled. This way you get to use the full dV advantage of L2, while keeping the commonality between the two launchers, and minimizing risky dockings (docking with a depot is just as dangerous as docking with an EDS).

The 12 meter faring actually looks pretty good; it doesn't look nearly as goofy as the Atlas 401 faring...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2008 07:32 AM
It's an interesting idea Simon. You would have to strengthen the structure of the LSAM and docking hatch to support the additional mass of the CEV 'up there' which it would be carrying. And the CEV's low-Isp N2O4/MMH engine would require more propellant to perform the LOI burn than the hi-Isp LOX/LH2 engines on the Lander so your total IMLEO would have to be slightly higher, but it would make the LSAM lighter and that would improve its performance during descent. There's a very interesting trade study needed there to see whether it would produce a net increase in Lunar Landed Payload Mass performance or not, but there's possibly some mileage in there.


Going back to the original thought of the 2-launch LOR-only profile though, I don't think this would work because the CEV and LSAM fly separately by definition - unless you want to try dual-TLI firings with a rendezvous of the spacecraft somewhere en-route to the moon ... which sounds really tricky to me, although you do have three whole days of transit time there... Hmmm.

One option with an LOR-only approach might be for the CEV to bring a 'gas can' of LOX with it to LLO and top off the LSAM's LOX tanks when they dock there. Running the numbers will be "fun" trying to work that out :)

The real problem with 2-launch LOR-only option is that you end up pushing the extra mass of a second EDS (19.2mT) through TLI yet you don't have any more rocket power available. That becomes a 'mass penalty' compared to putting everything on/in a single EDS before TLI.


One LOR approach which might be an 'interesting' option would be sending the CEV to the moon on a Jupiter-120/Delta-IV-US vehicle on one flight, and then using a Propellant Depot to fill an EDS and the tanks of a truly *M A S S I V E* LSAM separately. A quick calculation and I think the limit would be somewhere in the region of a 250mT LSAM!!!

*That* could land some really big pieces of hardware if we ever needed to. And the refueling portion would be entirely an uncrewed process with a "0:0" LOC- i.e. 'crew-safe'.

I'd say that qualifies Jupiter as being pretty "flexible" and "upgradeable" :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/10/2008 04:12 PM
One thing I haven’t seen in the Direct discussions is the possibility that, for the first time, NASA may actually have sufficient margin to begin serious efforts to R&D a replacement for Direct while Direct is fulfilling the current “Mission”.

With Apollo there was no secondary mission to develop a replacement for the Apollo architecture and we ended up with The Gap. During Shuttle operations there was no secondary mission to develop a Shuttle II and we are facing another gap. With the ISS there has been no secondary mission to develop a follow-on station or a method of increasing the lifetime of the ISS through replacements and disposal of past certification modules.

With the budgetary efficiencies that Direct provides them NASA could increase the pace of fulfilling the VSE mission, could expand the unmanned science portion of the exploration mission, and/or could expand/extend the ISS. However, I believe an even better, long-term solution to the recurring gap problem would be a better choice. A congressionally mandated secondary mission of developing the technology needed for low cost LEO access with especially earmarked funds should be wedded to the VSE. While this would slow the pace of the primary Moon, Mars, and Beyond Mission it would enable NASA to avoid yet another gap and give NASA the ability to evolve the VSE beyond the current unsustainable plans.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2008 04:23 PM
The potential is there down the road for that, but the VSE is an expensive 30-40 year program any way you cut it.   It will use whatever funding is available to fulfill that mission first rather than developing a backup system. The priorities will be going to the moon, Mars, NEO's, building outposts on both and also building upgraded/replacement ISS.

I therefore suspect that NASA will probably invest all its development monies in those things once they have a stable and good value launch system to rely upon and won't build a backup. I therefore suspect that any replacement will, 30-40 years from now, probably come purely from the commercial sector and NASA just won't be involved and will by then improve upon and bypass NASA capabilities we can develop now.

I will stick my neck out and place a bet that whatever LV's NASA builds for the current efforts will end up being the last LV's NASA ever builds.

But I *do* think that with DIRECT, NASA would then have the funds available to do the important R&D work which will help enable those future developments. I don't see that ever being affordable with Ares without a significant (50%+) budget increase first.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/10/2008 07:45 PM
This is more what I was thinking (based on vanilla's musings here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1337.msg19934#msg19934 ):

1) A Jupiter+EDS launches an Altair directly to L2. A six-day transfer requires the same TLI dV as the current baseline (~3 km/s), but only around ~200 m/s to capture into an L2 halo orbit (as opposed to ~900 m/s for a low lunar orbit). So, the Altair has less dry mass (no Orion), but a bigger ascent stage, so I'd guess the mass goes down from the current ~50 tonnes to ~40 tonnes for similar cargo (though the cargo could be scaled by what the launch vehicle can provide). At any rate, this leaves a ready-to-go Altair at L2.

2) A Jupiter+Delta IV upper stage launches an Orion directly to L2. Again, because L2 is so much higher in the Moon's gravity well, the ~900 m/s dV the Lunar Orion already has is enough for both LOI and TEI. The Orion rendezvouses and docks with the Altair in the L2 halo orbit. Note that neither is ever docked when under thrust, relieving that structural load.

3) The Altair descends to the lunar surface while the Orion waits at L2. The crew does their actual mission, and then returns to L2 in the ascent stage (which is larger than the current baseline).

4) The crew transfers to Orion, which burns for TEI, and goes home.

Once some operational confidence has been gained on the two-stage Altair, it can be replaced by a single-stage, reusable version that docks to a propellant depot permanently at L2. The Orion would come to and leave from L2 just the same as before, except it would dock with the L2 depot/station.

And there you have it: A lunar architecture that uses Direct to solve the performance/schedule problems of Ares, while at the same time laying the groundwork for a proper space transportation infrastructure...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dunderwood on 06/10/2008 11:31 PM
This may be ignorance on my part, but would a spacecraft idling at L2 be in a blackout area?  I doubt we would be comfortable sending astronauts to dock with a spacecraft that we haven't had communications with in several days, which means you might need a communications relay network to maintain telemetry.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 06/11/2008 12:44 AM
Good question!

No, it wouldn't be in a blackout zone. You don't actually go to L2 but to an orbit about it that is larger than the diameter of the moon, you therefore have constant coms with earth and any vehicle there can act as a coms sat to the entire far side of the moon.

Search 'L2 halo orbit' for more info.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/11/2008 02:43 AM
I don't want us to get stuck in the STS paradigm that we can't dare alter anything for 25 years until we are forced to by an accident.

I don't think that is a fair statement. The Space Shuttle has had quite a few improvements made that wern't related to the accidents.

1) Lightweight Tank (no paint and removal of some of the internal stringers in the hydrogen tank)
2) Computers Upgraded
3) SSME Phase I (lots of small improvements)
4) SSME Phase II (lots of small improvements)
5) SSME Block I (Redesigned Liquid Oxygen Turbopump and Powerhead)
6) SSME Block IA (Main injector modifications)
4) SSME Block IIA (Large Throat Main Combustion Chamber, Block II low pressure oxygen and hydrogen fuel pumps)
4) SSME Block II (Redesigned Liquid Hydrogen Turbopump)
4) Super Lightweight Tank (use of aluminum-lithium alloy)
5) Glass Cockpit

I'm sure there have been many other minor upgrades and improvements in the Shuttle over the years.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/11/2008 03:13 AM
Plus, it's also a given that the science community will want flights to the farside, so a lunar communications network will probably be established anyway. Indeed, a lunar TDRS could be a mini-sat with a set of redundant JPL Electra UHF systems (as is on MRO) plus a redundant X-band system for DTE. The whole thing shouldn't mass more than 200 kg, so send a few on an Atlas...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/11/2008 08:20 AM
{snip}
One LOR approach which might be an 'interesting' option would be sending the CEV to the moon on a Jupiter-120/Delta-IV-US vehicle on one flight, and then using a Propellant Depot to fill an EDS and the tanks of a truly *M A S S I V E* LSAM separately. A quick calculation and I think the limit would be somewhere in the region of a 250mT LSAM!!!

*That* could land some really big pieces of hardware if we ever needed to. And the refueling portion would be entirely an uncrewed process with a "0:0" LOC- i.e. 'crew-safe'.

Assembling a moon base on Earth is probably easier than assembling one on the Moon.  One lunar landing is likely to be simpler than 5 in close proximity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rsp1202 on 06/11/2008 01:50 PM
The current LSAM (~9.4m dia) still has a center of gravity up around the second story level at landing. That's *very* high still and will make it naturally susceptible to instability.
NASA may plan on landing on the flats, but that's not where the most interesting and useful acreage always is. That's why I've liked this design:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: veedriver22 on 06/11/2008 01:56 PM
 Is there an ORBITER module for Jupiter?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 06/11/2008 05:34 PM
i posted this over in the thread about the new HR bill......
am interested in whether this is a good sign for DIRECT? maybe a sign that you guys are getting through to some congressional leaders?



Quote from: renclod on Today at 08:29 AM

      ...For example, the direction in the bill to limit NASA’s ability to dispose of Space Shuttle-related hardware is likely to severely disrupt ongoing Shuttle retirement and transition activities. Similarly, the specific wording of other provisions in H.R. 6063, including requiring all space observatories to be serviceable regardless of practicality....

endquote...



is it just me, or does that particular part seem good for DIRECT?  keeping space shuttle related hardware seems good (as DIRECT is obviously built on it) .... and making things serviceable is good, as that is something that could be done with DIRECT (as opposed to ares I).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/11/2008 05:52 PM
I posted this over in the thread about the new HR bill......
Am interested in whether this is a good sign for DIRECT? Maybe a sign that you guys are getting through to some congressional leaders?



Quote from: renclod on Today at 08:29 AM

      ...For example, the direction in the bill to limit NASA’s ability to dispose of Space Shuttle-related hardware is likely to severely disrupt ongoing Shuttle retirement and transition activities. Similarly, the specific wording of other provisions in H.R. 6063, including requiring all space observatories to be serviceable regardless of practicality....

endquote...



is it just me, or does that particular part seem good for DIRECT?  Keeping space shuttle related hardware seems good (as DIRECT is obviously built on it) .... and making things serviceable is good, as that is something that could be done with DIRECT (as opposed to Ares I).

Preventing the premature destruction of STS hardware and infrastructure was one of the key items on our agenda when we were in Washington last March.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Cale on 06/12/2008 01:17 AM
Is there an ORBITER module for Jupiter?

See this link:

http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=2720

The visual representation of the CCB is a bit dated, but it still flies and looks great.  You need to have Franz Berner's CEV-E installed if you want to jettison the CEV after MECO:

http://home.arcor.de/francisdrakex/

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Cale
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/12/2008 04:37 AM
Regarding ORBITER,
Antonio (simcosmos) is working on a new implementation of DIRECT to showcase the current configurations. His work has unfortunately been hampered recently by some fairly serious computer programs so its taking longer than hoped.   But rest assured it is coming.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simcosmos on 06/12/2008 09:58 AM
Regarding ORBITER,
Antonio (simcosmos) is working on a new implementation of DIRECT to showcase the current configurations. His work has unfortunately been hampered recently by some fairly serious computer programs so its taking longer than hoped.   But rest assured it is coming.

Ross.

Still about Orbiter Simulation of DIRECT Architecture:

As Ross mentioned, some hardware issues in the main development computer (which, among other things, did not have time yet to solve or even... fully replace) vs other things going on here (busy June + might have some Astronomy / Science Divulgation Activities in July) are preventing me from releasing updates to the really outdated 'zero-dot-one' addon version (which contains older components visuals as well very outdated performance implementation... I remember the reader to please note that such addon is pre-DIRECT v2 effort, as everybody knows it today, although the addon components might still be used as visual placeholders for updated performance and additional launcher / mission configurations - and even integration with additional addon components - if the final user knows how to properly do it by playing with the provided configuration files).


Would like to also write a quick note about using Earth-Moon Lagrange 2: this is something that have been trying to simulate in Orbiter but it is a little hard to navigate with the current tools (the lack of time does not allow me to properly prepare the 'flight plan' too, might need additional help for this, when the time comes).

In any case, hope that one of the eventual future releases of DIRECT Orbiter Simulator addon includes at least the J120 updates, possible integration with newer CEV (by fellow Franz 'francisdrake' Berner addon maker, or else some kind of mix between my own CEV SM files and Franz CM) plus some kind of integration / adaptation of DeltaIV Upper Stage so that people can play with several mission profiles (both crewed and robotic) for J120 launched missions.

Other thing that is delaying next release is the wish to update the launch pad and perhaps even implement some animated parts (else... hummmm... might decide to just repack the older 'dummy' pad and only include some updates to the MLP).

Regarding the bigger EDS, J232, LSAM, other mission components or any additional update: might delay the release for yet another addon version because would like to first tweak some aspects of the 3D models and components integrations.

Work in (slow) progress, but always going on, as possible

António
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/12/2008 06:48 PM
I would like a bit of help from the local community here please.

We are preparing for an event soon in the KSC area in support of NASA.   We want to utilize the event to try to try to bring DIRECT to a larger audience. One of the things we're planning to do is to hand out post-cards about DIRECT. Because it's KSC, the primary focus of the event is likely to be the impending job losses coming with Ares. We want to try to show how DIRECT can solve that problem facing this region. The same message will also apply at any other center too, but this is the one which I can actually turn up at!

We're thinking the standard DIRECT Jupiter-120 front cover image for the front of the postcard so people can put the pictures up on their refrigerators at home and in their cubilces at work (hint, hint we want people to do that!!!).

On the reverse we want a really powerful message in a very small amount of text. Philip is planning a subtle background image behind the text. So far we are thinking about something along the lines of:-


Quote
Over 2 out of every 3 jobs at KSC are going to be lost by 2011. According to NASA documentation submitted to Congress the current plan is to reduce the 9,000 strong workforce in place today down as low as 2,600 - just 29% of current numbers.

The DIRECT alternative is a simpler rocket to design and develop.   It would save approximately $5 billion of development cash compared to current plans that KSC contracts can be continued beyond 2010, keeping all staff employed and within the program through the transition years to the new Constellation Program.

The DIRECT alternative plan can also become operational 3-4 years ahead of the current Ares-I - now internally planned for launch in March 2016 - which closes the gap after Shuttle from 6 years down to just 2.5 years.

We urge you to support the DIRECT alternative by writing to both your Local and Congressional representatives and asking them to Be DIRECT!

I'd appreciate your suggestions for improvement.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 06/12/2008 08:41 PM
Ok, here's my first draft suggestion.... i basically just took your main points and boiled them to down to what i thought the essentials are....



Under the Ares Program:
   *Over 2 out of every 3 jobs at KSC will be lost by 2011
   *Ares won't be flying until 2016
   *Ares is much more expensive to develop & launch, so there will be far fewer launches for KSC workers to man.

DIRECT is an alternative solution that uses the existing shuttle stack rocket system (wording?)
Under DIRECT:
   *Since we keep the shuttle rocket system, we keep the shuttle workforce
   *DIRECT would be flying in 2012
   *Since DIRECT uses existing systems, it is cheaper to develop & cheaper to launch,
      which means more launches for KSC workers.

DIRECT is the best plan for the KSC and the best plan for NASA.
We urge you to support the DIRECT alternative by writing to both your Local and Congressional representatives and asking them to Be DIRECT!
www.directlauncher.com
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/12/2008 08:54 PM
Quote
1) Over 2 out of every 3 jobs at KSC are going to be lost by 2011. According to NASA documentation submitted to Congress the current plan is to reduce the 9,000 strong workforce in place today down as low as 2,600 - just 29% of current numbers.

2) The DIRECT alternative is a simpler rocket to design and develop.   It would save approximately $5 billion of development cash compared to current plans that KSC contracts can be continued beyond 2010, keeping all staff employed and within the program through the transition years to the new Constellation Program.

3) The DIRECT alternative plan can also become operational 3-4 years ahead of the current Ares-I - now internally planned for launch in March 2016 - which closes the gap after Shuttle from 6 years down to just 2.5 years.

4) We urge you to support the DIRECT alternative by writing to both your Local and Congressional representatives and asking them to Be DIRECT!

Those 4 paragraphs send the following messages:

1)   Job Loss.  It doesn't explicitly mention cause of job loss, i.e. Ares architecture.  I'm sure the KSC employees know the numbers very well.  What this postcard is trying to do is to educate them that their ills are a direct result of the Ares architecture and that there is a better alternative.  Don't bother telling them numbers they already know; educate them about the alternative right up front.

2)   DIRECT saves $ which saves jobs.  "The DIRECT alternative…"  Alternative to what?  Ares!  Don't be shy about making the contrast explicit.

3)   DIRECT closes the "gap".  Who cares?  Really.  At KSC they care about their jobs and the infrastructure that supports them.  Way down on the list after their mortgage and tuition for their kids is the fact that the "gap" exists.  If they had to choose between shortening the gap or keeping their jobs, their jobs would win every time.  If the Ares architecture could keep them their jobs at the cost of a gap, so be it.  We need to make a clear connection between Ares and their job loss.  The gap is a level of abstraction away from that fact.  I would say the gap doesn't belong on this post card because it's not directly related to the message we're trying to send –
Ares == job loss, DIRECT == job salvation.  The rest is gravy to the KSC population.

4)   Make noise in support of DIRECT.

I would argue that the core message of a post-card-sized delivery vector should be the following:

1)   Ares == severe job loss and crippling loss of infrastructure that supports those jobs.
2)   DIRECT == maximum STS heritage and therefore near zero impact to jobs and protection of infrastructure that supports those jobs.
3)   Time to make the change from Ares to DIRECT is right now, before infrastructure and jobs are permanently lost.
4)   Make noise in support of DIRECT.


Here's a stab at that message.  I'm not clear enough on the connection between congressional action and the Ares, so that will have to be massaged.


Quote
Ares will cost KSC 2 out of 3 jobs in the next two years.  That is a failed architecture that flies directly against the congressional mandate that authorized the VSE.  Congress wisely directed that the implementation of the VSE protect the national assets of the STS infrastructure and workforce, and Ares has failed to meet this mandate.

DIRECT is an alternative LV architecture that maximizes the STS heritage and therefore protects the existing infrastructure and reduces the workforce impacts to near-zero.

Critical no-return dates for the preservation of the STS infrastructure and workforce are rapidly approaching.  The decision to redirect the VSE implementation from a failed architecture to a better engineering solution must happen now, before the STS infrastructure is dismantled and the experienced workforce base is decimated.

Do the math and support DIRECT.  Write to both your Local and Congressional representatives today and tell them to Be DIRECT!

That's a lot of words, which makes for a poor communication tool.  I would suggest strategic use of bold, colors, etc. to provide the key message in a 3-second glance.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: veedriver22 on 06/12/2008 10:20 PM
 I don't know if there would be room on this card or not, but a good graphic would be to show a picture of ARES with only the shuttle derived parts.

 Also I think pictures are better than words.   You could show a time line with graphics showing workers so you could see it visually.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/12/2008 10:43 PM
3)   DIRECT closes the "gap".  Who cares?  Really.  At KSC they care about their jobs and the infrastructure that supports them.  Way down on the list after their mortgage and tuition for their kids is the fact that the "gap" exists.  If they had to choose between shortening the gap or keeping their jobs, their jobs would win every time.  If the Ares architecture could keep them their jobs at the cost of a gap, so be it.  We need to make a clear connection between Ares and their job loss.  The gap is a level of abstraction away from that fact.  I would say the gap doesn't belong on this post card because it's not directly related to the message we're trying to send –
Ares == job loss, DIRECT == job salvation.  The rest is gravy to the KSC population.


None KSC people care.  Neither Ares nor DIRECT are giving them jobs but they will be paying extra taxes to develop the rockets.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/12/2008 11:13 PM

None KSC people care.  Neither Ares nor DIRECT are giving them jobs but they will be paying extra taxes to develop the rockets.

nonsense as usual.   What extra taxes?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/12/2008 11:17 PM

None KSC people care.  Neither Ares nor DIRECT are giving them jobs but they will be paying extra taxes to develop the rockets.

nonsense as usual.   What extra taxes?
The taxes the US population are paying at the moment to support NASA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Scotty on 06/13/2008 12:29 AM
Ares or Direct, jobs will be lost at KSC.
The only difference is how many jobs will be lost and when the jobs will be lost.
Even if Direct is selected, many Shuttle workers will find their jobs phased out.
Examples:
1) Orbiter TPS workers
2) Orbiter hydraulics systems workers
3) Orbiter fuel cell system workers
4) Orbiter airframe workers
5) Shuttle payload workers
6) OPF workers
Large numbers, likely 90 % in each of those groups will be with out jobs even if Direct is selected.
On the other hand, Direct will continue to need most of the existing:
1) SRB work force
2) ET processing work force
3) VAB work force
4) Launch pad work force
5) MLP work force
The difference is about 1 in 3 jobs gone with Direct, vs 2 in 3 jobs gone with Ares.
Additionally, there will be a lot fewer blue collar, technical workers jobs lost, between the Shuttle retirement and the start up of Direct flight operations.
With Ares, about 4 in 5 blue collar jobs will be lost at KSC for 2 to 4 years between the Shuttle retirement and the starting of Ares flight operations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/13/2008 01:04 AM
Ares or Direct, jobs will be lost at KSC.
The only difference is how many jobs will be lost and when the jobs will be lost.
Even if Direct is selected, many Shuttle workers will find their jobs phased out.
Examples:

That's a good breakdown.  Thanks.

Why would the Payload folks be gone.  Won't the DIRECT approach still need payload specialists?  Same with the Fuel Cell workers - Orion will need them, no?  Is it just a matter of timing, where those skills won't be needed for an extended period?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 06/13/2008 01:33 AM
Ares or Direct, jobs will be lost at KSC.
The only difference is how many jobs will be lost and when the jobs will be lost.
Even if Direct is selected, many Shuttle workers will find their jobs phased out.
Examples:

That's a good breakdown.  Thanks.

Why would the Payload folks be gone.  Won't the DIRECT approach still need payload specialists?

Only if the shuttle payload adapter is also built - and I would not consider that a done deal by any means. There is little justification for it if the shuttle flies out its remaining manifest.

Quote
  Same with the Fuel Cell workers - Orion will need them, no?

No. Orion has solar panels, not fuel cells.

Quote
  Is it just a matter of timing, where those skills won't be needed for an extended period?

Not really. They won't be needed, period, with that architecture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/13/2008 03:19 AM
1)   Ares == severe job loss and crippling loss of infrastructure that supports those jobs.
2)   DIRECT == maximum STS heritage and therefore near zero impact to jobs and protection of infrastructure that supports those jobs.
3)   Time to make the change from Ares to DIRECT is right now, before infrastructure and jobs are permanently lost.
4)   Make noise in support of DIRECT.

My very minimalist stab at it (following kttopdad's lead):

Rough stats, modify accordingly:

Under the Ares program, 2 out of every 3 jobs will be lost at KSC.
With DIRECT, those jobs can be saved.
Ares is a brand new rocket costing 3x what shuttle currently does.
DIRECT uses shuttle hardware, as per Congress.
The numbers speak for themselves. DIRECT works.
Time is of the essence. Write your Congressman.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/13/2008 03:51 AM

None KSC people care.  Neither Ares nor DIRECT are giving them jobs but they will be paying extra taxes to develop the rockets.

nonsense as usual.   What extra taxes?
The taxes the US population are paying at the moment to support NASA.

That is not "extra"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 06/13/2008 03:57 AM
This is where it gets lost for me.

DIRECT people shouldn't be saying: write to your congressman because DIRECT is the best - you can't make that claim.

You should be saying: I want an investigation, an inquiry, a qualified panel that -can- make the claim.

By saying 'it's the best' you risk loosing credibility (imo) and people will just brush DIRECT off.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/13/2008 04:28 AM
Ares or Direct, jobs will be lost at KSC.
The only difference is how many jobs will be lost and when the jobs will be lost.
Even if Direct is selected, many Shuttle workers will find their jobs phased out.
Examples:


Actually Scotty, that's not quite the way we're planning it. Let me go through these one by one to explain the "sort of thing I'm on about"...

:)

Quote
1) Orbiter TPS workers

Skilled manual labor positions. Can be re-trained to do a variety of things. Ideally suited to installing Thermal Blankets on our SSPDM modules and acoustic blankets in our Payload Fairings. Other unrelated work is possible too. Jupiter can provide work for these people during the transition years until they are needed by the LSAM/EDS/Outpost projects around 2015 or so.


Quote
2) Orbiter hydraulics systems workers

DIRECT's budget plans to re-fund Aeronautics division back to 2002 levels (about double today). Aeronautics will then need more trained staff in these fields. KSC has facilities for some new Aeronautic flight research, or some staff can be relocated (temporary or permanent) to Dryden or wherever they are needed. LSAM can use them back at KSC when its project ramps-up.

Yes, it's not perfect. Its inconvenient for some, but we can retain everyone who wants to keep their career within NASA.


Quote
3) Orbiter fuel cell system workers

LSAM will need these people eventually. So temporary work in related fields such as anything to do with Cryo LOX/LH2 would be a suitable location for the few years of the transition period. We need Delta-IV Upper Stages to be prepared and qualified for use on the "Apollo-8" Lunar Flyby. We need good people to work the test flights of the EDS in preparation for a Propellant Depot variant. These folk might be able to find a home in such project elements for a few years until LSAM is ready to take them.

Other missions now possible by Jupiter may also be able to utilize this expertise too. Mars Sample Return may utilize Fuel Cells. 8m diameter telescopes for NASA and/or DoD may also utilize Fuel Cells too. Large Europa/Titan missions ditto. With the Science Directorate re-funded to pre-Columbia budget levels these missions can be paid for and added to the manifest. They will thus require new staffing. If some of this work can be performed at KSC, great. If not, then re-location options may have to be investigated to other centers.


Quote
4) Orbiter airframe workers

We need approximately 10 new SSPDM's built from scratch. Each of these units will essentially be simplified Space Shuttle Payload Bay Structure without the rest of the Orbiter.

Who better to make replica parts of the Space Shuttle Airframe than the Space Shuttle Airframe workers? And these aren't exactly small projects. These guys will be kept quite busy for a number of years and can then find useful homes in the LSAM and Outpost projects later.


Quote
5) Shuttle payload workers

We have 5 Space Shuttle Payloads planned for launch in 2012 and 2013 alone. And more after that. It would be nice to retain these experienced guys and gals so we can process them all. They would also be the most logical people to process Lunar Outpost elements and any future upgrade modules going to ISS designed to extend its life beyond 2016.


Quote
6) OPF workers

One of the OPF's will need to be re-located at the Saturn-V Center sooner or later. Lets utilize these experienced staff who know the facility inside and out for a year or so and get them to manage a move of everything up the road a few miles and get it all set-up correctly ready for the Smithsonian to take over as a Museum. It would be the perfect venue to showcase whichever of the Orbiters is to be retired there at KSC.


Quote
Large numbers, likely 90 % in each of those groups will be with out jobs even if Direct is selected.

Our budget analysis allows KSC to be funded at 100% of its 2008 financial budget (see attachments below).

100% funding would allow every job to be protected after 2010. While Shuttle contracts will still expire, there will be the money available at the center to pay for "new work" during the transition years and than new work can pick up all of the surplus staff in the manner I have briefly tried to outline above.

The key is finding *productive* and *useful* work so that the workforce isn't just being paid "welfare checks". We certainly don't want that, and I don't even think the staff would want that themselves.

Jupiter comes on-line soon enough (2012) and has sufficient performance (>38mT to ISS) that we can add new mission hardware to the manifest. That all needs more bodies to do the work.

We pay for that because Jupiter-120 costs $5bn less to develop than Ares-I and Jupiter-232 costs $15bn less than Ares-V.


Deleting the costs associated with the 5-seg SRB, three all-new cryo stages, by slowing the J-2X development by 2 years, by deleting the massive changes needed at MAF, KSC and a variety of other infrastructure costs makes a big difference.   By choosing instead to re-use existing hardware (4-seg SRB, RS-68 & ET) this allows DIRECT to come online sooner while saving more than $5bn compared to Ares-I, and save another $15bn by not requiring Ares-V at all.

*That* is the money we then use to pay for keeping the staff and adding more mission hardware to the manifest. By also re-funding Science & Aeronautics to their full levels we can find work for all these people during the years between Shuttle ramping-down and CxP's new elements like EDS/LSAM/Outpost are ramping-up.

Its so difficult to explain it all here on the forum - but I hope I'm making it a bit clearer how we're trying to do what we're trying to do :)

Bottom line is:   We have sufficient budget to continue paying everyone at KSC, JSC, MSFC, SSC and MAF their salaries.   So all we have to do is provide *useful* and *productive* temporary work to "bridge the gap" and allow those who aren't actively involved in the Jupiter-120/Orion projects to still stay within the program during these 'transition years' - keeping them doing things which produce actual value.


Quote
On the other hand, Direct will continue to need most of the existing:
1) SRB work force
2) ET processing work force
3) VAB work force
4) Launch pad work force
5) MLP work force

Correct. Those jobs are also required as they are today because we would have test flights in 2010, 2011 and 2012 ahead of an operational flight in late 2012.


Quote
The difference is about 1 in 3 jobs gone with Direct, vs 2 in 3 jobs gone with Ares.
Additionally, there will be a lot fewer blue collar, technical workers jobs lost, between the Shuttle retirement and the start up of Direct flight operations.
With Ares, about 4 in 5 blue collar jobs will be lost at KSC for 2 to 4 years between the Shuttle retirement and the starting of Ares flight operations.

With all due respect our budget analysis (see below) shows we can retain at least 90% of the entire KSC workforce - and the reason for the other 10% would be only due to natural attrition (retirements etc.) and those positions would not be back-filled.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/13/2008 04:52 AM
This is an election year; rather than Congressmen, it's the two presidential campaigns that should be contacted. The best chance Direct has is the new administration wanting to leave its stamp on Constellation. The best way for this to happen is to get both candidates to make the survival of Constellation important. Direct may follow from there. Thus far, McCain seems amiable to this, while Obama is less certain. The Moon shouldn't be a partisan issue, or it will surely die...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/13/2008 05:04 AM
I don't know if there would be room on this card or not, but a good graphic would be to show a picture of ARES with only the shuttle derived parts.

All you'd see is the foam these days.   It sure wouldn't look much like a rocket.


Quote
Also I think pictures are better than words.   You could show a time line with graphics showing workers so you could see it visually.

The above graphs are a start in that direction...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/13/2008 01:24 PM
DIRECT people shouldn't be saying: write to your congressman because DIRECT is the best - you can't make that claim.

You should be saying: I want an investigation, an inquiry, a qualified panel that -can- make the claim.

I agree and disagree with what you're saying.  I agree that we want to avoid the appearance of hubris, and that we want to encourage the reader of the card to contact their representatives for an independent investigation into the whole thing.  However, we also need to at least mention DIRECT - after all, the DIRECT folks are paying for these cards.

How 'bout the following as a closing line on the postcard:

Quote
Do the math!  Write to both your Local and Congressional representatives today and tell them to ask DIRECT questions about Ares!

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/13/2008 01:52 PM

DIRECT people shouldn't be saying: write to your congressman because DIRECT is the best - you can't make that claim.

You should be saying: I want an investigation, an inquiry, a qualified panel that -can- make the claim.

Yes we can, based on 2 years of intense analysis done by design professionals all over the rocket design industry, including over 60 professionals from inside NASA and its contractors who assisted in the analysis on their own time.

Having said that, the independent investigation is what we are actually seeking from Congress because, while we may know it's the best, and it is, the members of Congress who have the authority to instruct NASA on what it is and is not to do don't know that yet. The independent investigation, done completely outside the influence of NASA, by someone like a Rand Corporation, will tell the story and validate the claim to the Congress what we have already demonstrated.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: veedriver22 on 06/13/2008 02:10 PM
 I was thinking of using symbols instead of bars.  I roughed up something that has both.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 06/13/2008 03:27 PM
Ok, I've tried to read the responses and make some revisions.... what do you think?



Under the proposed Ares Program:
   *Over 2 out of every 3 jobs at KSC will be lost by 2011
   *Ares won't be flying until 2016, so no launches for KSC workers for over 5 years.
   *Ares is much more expensive to develop & launch, so there will be far fewer launches for KSC workers,
        & no money for other interim projects to work on.

DIRECT is an alternative solution that uses the existing shuttle stack rocket system (wording?)
Under DIRECT:
   *Since we keep the shuttle rocket system, we keep most of the shuttle workforce
   *DIRECT would be flying in 2012, much smaller gap for KSC workers.
   *Since DIRECT uses existing systems, it is cheaper to develop & cheaper to launch, which means more
          launches for KSC workers, plus more money for interim projects to keep
          KSC workers employed in the 2 year gap.

DIRECT is safer, simpler, and sooner than Ares, and we will put DIRECT up against Ares in ANY independent study.  Write or call your congressman and tell them you want an independent study to show the best way forward for America's Space Program.
www.directlauncher.com
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 06/13/2008 04:53 PM
I don't know if it's been posted yet, in the last issue of AIAA Houston Horizons newsletter :

(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/3833/horizonscoverep8.png)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 06/13/2008 06:04 PM
This is an election year; rather than Congressmen, it's the two presidential campaigns that should be contacted. The best chance Direct has is the new administration wanting to leave its stamp on Constellation. The best way for this to happen is to get both candidates to make the survival of Constellation important. Direct may follow from there. Thus far, McCain seems amiable to this, while Obama is less certain. The Moon shouldn't be a partisan issue, or it will surely die...

Simon ;)

McCain and Obama are deluged with information. Getting them to even pay attention will be difficult.

On the other hand, local mayors, town council members, municipal managers and county officials in and around the Kennedy Space Center  (or Michoud LA and elsewhere) are an entirely different story.

These people have no "direct" influence over NASA policy however they do feed the local political organizations (Democratic and GOP) and if they start barking up the political food chain people higher up will start paying attention.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/13/2008 07:01 PM
I didn't mean the candidates themselves (obviously too busy), I meant the campaign staffers who might have control over space policy. Each candidate now has the full force of the party, which means staffers to handle lesser affairs, like space.

Also, don't get trapped thinking of this as a Florida issue: If Ares fails, then _all_ manned spaceflight centers will suffer, MSFC, SSC, GSFC, and JSC included. Has Huntsville's (centerist-Democrat) rep Bud Cramer been contacted? If Direct could be sold to him as plus, rather than a minus, to MSFC, that's a huge bonus...

On a completely different tack, how much can a Jupiter 232 inject directly to a trans-lunar trajectory? Back-of-the-envelop says about 40 tonnes (based on Ares V about 50 tonnes)...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/13/2008 08:17 PM
I would like a bit of help from the local community here please.

We are preparing for an event soon in the KSC area in support of NASA.   We want to utilize the event to try to try to bring DIRECT to a larger audience. One of the things we're planning to do is to hand out post-cards about DIRECT. Because it's KSC, the primary focus of the event is likely to be the impending job losses coming with Ares. We want to try to show how DIRECT can solve that problem facing this region. The same message will also apply at any other center too, but this is the one which I can actually turn up at!

We're thinking the standard DIRECT Jupiter-120 front cover image for the front of the postcard so people can put the pictures up on their refrigerators at home and in their cubilces at work (hint, hint we want people to do that!!!).

On the reverse we want a really powerful message in a very small amount of text. Philip is planning a subtle background image behind the text. So far we are thinking about something along the lines of:-


Quote
Over 2 out of every 3 jobs at KSC are going to be lost by 2011. According to NASA documentation submitted to Congress the current plan is to reduce the 9,000 strong workforce in place today down as low as 2,600 - just 29% of current numbers.

The DIRECT alternative is a simpler rocket to design and develop.   It would save approximately $5 billion of development cash compared to current plans that KSC contracts can be continued beyond 2010, keeping all staff employed and within the program through the transition years to the new Constellation Program.

The DIRECT alternative plan can also become operational 3-4 years ahead of the current Ares-I - now internally planned for launch in March 2016 - which closes the gap after Shuttle from 6 years down to just 2.5 years.

We urge you to support the DIRECT alternative by writing to both your Local and Congressional representatives and asking them to Be DIRECT!

I'd appreciate your suggestions for improvement.

Ross.

This is a great idea, and a method of advertising widely used on college campuses today. My fraternity calls them "Hot Cards". The key is to have as little text as possible on the back. People don't want paragraphs of information. It has to catch their eye, their interest, and get them to go to the DIRECT website.

Instead of text on the back, have you thought about using the graphic that shows Ares I/V, Shuttle, and Jupiter and shows what is thrown away with Ares and kept with DIRECT? There is less text and gets the point across. I'm afraid people will just ignore the plain text without the useful graphic to catch their eye.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/13/2008 08:52 PM
This is a great idea, and a method of advertising widely used on college campuses today. My fraternity calls them "Hot Cards". The key is to have as little text as possible on the back. People don't want paragraphs of information. It has to catch their eye, their interest, and get them to go to the DIRECT website.

Instead of text on the back, have you thought about using the graphic that shows Ares I/V, Shuttle, and Jupiter and shows what is thrown away with Ares and kept with DIRECT? There is less text and gets the point across.

Hmmm. Maybe the front side shows a really nice graphic of the Jupiter, almost collector item quality, and something on the back showing a stark contrast like on the left is a picture of the Ares-I/V but the background is a 1/2 empty abandoned town all overgrown with a few abandoned cars on the street and a long line of people going into a building with an "Unemployment" sign over the door, and on the right shows a pair of Jupiter-232's but the background is a bustling town with families all in smiles walking hand-in-hand with full shopping bags down a well kept and pleasant street. Something like that?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/13/2008 09:09 PM
I'd like Gladiator's idea better; glossy Jupiter 120 launch on the front, simple comparison of Ares and Direct on the back, with the website address prominent "for more information"...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/13/2008 09:40 PM
Yeah, it is great to have informative text, but with these Hot Cards, you want to catch the eye. The collectors item front is great, that keeps people from just throwing it away.
But you want them to flip it over and read the back as well...if they just see boring text it doesn't drive the point. The chart attached above is a perfect starting point, the graphics catch the readers eye, and it drives all of the points that you want to make home.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/13/2008 11:29 PM
OK, I did a slightly better dV analysis (backsolved to find effective dV to LEO, added L2 TLI dV of 3142.5 m/s, and solved for new payload). For a Jupiter 120 with a Delta IV upper stage, gross TLI payload was 20.9 tonnes. Adding in a faring, this is just enough for an Orion. For a standard Jupiter 232, single-launch L2 gross payload was 39.4 tonnes, about what I had guessed.

Interestingly enough, if I plugged the numbers for the 5.5 seg Ares V into the same analysis, I get a TLI payload of 39.7 tonnes; only 300 kg of extra payload for ~1,300 tonnes more GLOW!

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DLK on 06/13/2008 11:30 PM
Has Huntsville's (centerist-Democrat) rep Bud Cramer been contacted? If Direct could be sold to him as plus, rather than a minus, to MSFC, that's a huge bonus...
I don't know if he's been contacted or not. However, he announced (much to our surprise) that he's retiring, so I don't know if he could still wield the influence he did.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/14/2008 12:17 AM

This is a great idea, and a method of advertising widely used on college campuses today. My fraternity calls them "Hot Cards". The key is to have as little text as possible on the back. People don't want paragraphs of information. It has to catch their eye, their interest, and get them to go to the DIRECT website.

Instead of text on the back, have you thought about using the graphic that shows Ares I/V, Shuttle, and Jupiter and shows what is thrown away with Ares and kept with DIRECT? There is less text and gets the point across. I'm afraid people will just ignore the plain text without the useful graphic to catch their eye.

I like this idea.  If you move the text at the bottom of the graphic out to the sides, then there is room at the bottom for a message.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 06/14/2008 12:31 AM
kttopdad's card text edited.

IMHO, FWIW:

2/3 jobs lost --> 2 of 3 current jobs lost

(I believe it can fit)

= = =

By maximizing STS heritage, Jupiter 120 will minimize layoffs, infrastructure expense and overall program expense, slash several years from the looming gap in America's ability to put people into space and provide America a more robust capable space program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 06/14/2008 12:41 AM
Seems the Jupiter 120 would save the lunar program as I don't have much fate in Ares V getting funded in the present economic climate.

If you already have the means to launch people to the moon then it becomes a lot harder to justify cutting the lunar exploration program.

Political and economic survivability are one of the big issues I see with Ares V plus the nasty political fallout from spending billions reinventing the wheel as is the case with Ares I.

I also think the Brits could benefit from Jupiter as it would give another option on how to launch their HEM modules.

This case it could cut their cost since the Orion could eliminate the need to develop a propulsion system for the HEM modules other then a simple cold gas system.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 06/14/2008 01:22 AM
OK, I did a slightly better dV analysis (backsolved to find effective dV to LEO, added L2 TLI dV of 3142.5 m/s, and solved for new payload). For a Jupiter 120 with a Delta IV upper stage, gross TLI payload was 20.9 tonnes. Adding in a faring, this is just enough for an Orion. For a standard Jupiter 232, single-launch L2 gross payload was 39.4 tonnes, about what I had guessed.

Interestingly enough, if I plugged the numbers for the 5.5 seg Ares V into the same analysis, I get a TLI payload of 39.7 tonnes; only 300 kg of extra payload for ~1,300 tonnes more GLOW!

Simon ;)

Using an updated version of the CEPE spreadsheet I found the gross J-232 TLI payload to be 42.6 mT (fast manned trajectory) or 43.7 mT (slow unmanned trajectory).  The J-231 has a slightly better performance with 43.1 mT (fast manned trajectory) and  44.1 mT (slow unmanned trajectory). All above estimates are done with a 5,195 kg interstage and a 7,338 kg fairing.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/14/2008 02:45 AM
Seems the Jupiter 120 would save the lunar program as I don't have much fate in Ares V getting funded in the present economic climate.

Political and economic survivability are one of the big issues I see with Ares V plus the nasty political fallout from spending billions reinventing the wheel as is the case with Ares I.



I strongly agree.

 It is one of the things often overlooked. You can defend Ares I/V all you want, however, one thing still remains...getting the funding to build them.

Ares V has become nothing short of a joke. You are in absolute dreamland if you believe that the funding for such a project will ever materialize.

Direct saves the ISS, it gives us LEO, and when the time is right, we can go to the Moon. In the next 4 years congress is going to have to handle high gas prices, the war, and a possible recession. Giving NASA the funding to go to the Moon is not going to be one of their priorities. But as long as we have an architecture that can get us there, then we have a shot in hell.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/14/2008 05:30 AM
Thanks for these suggestions guys.   We're going to use some.

I won't show the results until the day of the event though - we don't want to give away too much too soon.

What I will say is that there will be more than one card.   You can collect the whole set! :)

Keep your suggestions coming. There's still a little bit of time to change these before we send them for printing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/14/2008 05:57 AM
We will be overly conservative - as always - with our published estimates.

A 1-launch Cargo Jupiter-232 with a 10m PLF can throw at least 40.9mT of useful payload mass thru a TLI of 3,175m/s.

I would be quietly confident of matching PaulL's figures though if we use only regular GR&A margins.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/15/2008 12:15 AM
What I will say is that there will be more than one card.   You can collect the whole set! :)

So how will those of us not in Florida get our hands on them?  Got any local contacts here in Houston (he asked with tongue firmly in cheek)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/15/2008 12:40 AM
A 1-launch Cargo Jupiter-232 with a 10m PLF can throw at least 40.9mT of useful payload mass thru a TLI of 3,175m/s.

Interesting...

If I assume a reusable, single-stage LOX/LH2 lander with an inert mass of 6500 kg, and an isp of 430 sec (to account for throttling losses), it can inject to L2, deposit a crew and 6500 kg of payload to the surface, and return to L2 with 27,004 kg of propellant, giving a total TLI mass of 40,004 kg...

Furthermore, if the lander then stays at L2 and waits for a tanker, it can land a crew and 1000 kg of payload for 18,826 kg of propellant. Thus, if a tanker of sufficient mass ratio could be produced, a single Jupiter 232/1 could fuel two lunar missions, cutting by a third the number of launches required...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/15/2008 01:08 AM
I've had a little more time to play with the postcard.  This is just a rough draft, working with the jpg file as a source, but it contains the elements I'd respond to on a post-card.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 06/15/2008 11:22 AM
I've had a little more time to play with the postcard.  This is just a rough draft, working with the jpg file as a source, but it contains the elements I'd respond to on a post-card.

Adding "NNN kg to LEO" under "Operational <YEAR>" will look even better
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 06/15/2008 01:02 PM
...
Interestingly enough, if I plugged the numbers for the 5.5 seg Ares V into the same analysis, I get a TLI payload of 39.7 tonnes; only 300 kg of extra payload for ~1,300 tonnes more GLOW!

Simon ;)

That's because Ares V is an inefficient design.  With a core twice as heavy as Jupiter or Shuttle ET, it really needs FOUR times 4-seg SRB's.

Otherwise it wastes most of that extra fuel.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/15/2008 01:07 PM
I've had a little more time to play with the postcard.  This is just a rough draft, working with the jpg file as a source, but it contains the elements I'd respond to on a post-card.

Adding "NNN kg to LEO" under "Operational <YEAR>" will look even better

I like that, especially when the payload capacity of the two systems directly impacts the CEV.  Ares cannot lift the full, lunar-ready CEV, so many things have been cut from the spacecraft.  In addition to just listing the relative lift capacities of the two vehicles, we should also address the implications of that data - crippled CEV vs. robust CEV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Scotty on 06/15/2008 01:57 PM
Word of caution:
DO NOT make claims of no jobs being lost if Direct is adopted, as that claim it totally false.
Even if Direct was the choice, it will still take less manpower to operate than does Shuttle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/15/2008 02:37 PM
Word of caution:
DO NOT make claims of no jobs being lost if Direct is adopted, as that claim it totally false.
Even if Direct was the choice, it will still take less manpower to operate than does Shuttle.

I agree, I think the word MINIMAL is the better choice. NASA itself has proven that Jupiter is the best when it comes to protecting jobs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/15/2008 02:49 PM
Scotty is right.

There's no sensible way to claim "No STS Job Loss" for DIRECT.

It's a credibility issue. If we claim that, and if there were any way to prove just one single job would be lost under DIRECT, then Griffin could lever a lot of questions regarding credibility at that point.

Our baseline costings certainly allow for KSC, MAF etc to be fully funded at 2008 levels. With that money we are planning a series of new contracts to take over in October 2010 when Shuttle hands out all of its pink slips.

But the workforce affected will still have to apply for new jobs and there are no guarantees the exact same people will end up being hired to do the exact same things. There is no way I can see to avoid a bit of a "shuffle" in this.

All we can realistically do is provide enough work to take up all 6,400 jobs at KSC (and we do the same at the other affected centers too, but this specific discussion is about this rally event happening in the KSC region) and make it clear to workers that those people who have already passed background checks and who already have experience in the Space Shuttle Program are going to clearly be preferential choices compared to a Mr. Joe Q Public who comes in fresh and green looking for a job in the new program with no background in it. The current staff will therefore be at the top of the lists for any such new work.

Its partially up to the staff involved in the end. We can only build the bridge half way.


For example, lets say that Jupiter & Orion would employ 3,000 Shuttle workers at KSC (just a figure to use in this example, not a precise number) but we have sufficient funding to continue employing the 6,400 we have today.

Say also that regular retirements and natural attrition account for the '400' so we have a nice neat 3,000 workers 'displaced' at the end of Shuttle. At that point we would simply be trying to use the spare cash we have saved from Ares-I to provide a sufficient number of new contracts to pick up those 3,000 staff.

Make no mistake: It's no small feat to manage such a thing. But the budget analysis looks capable of doing it alongside Jupiter & Orion development. Combined with with the greater lift capabilities of the Jupiter compared to the Ares-I, we can certainly make new *use* of that greater performance for new things which would simply be impossible with Ares-I.

We can do new *work* - all needing new *contracts* and *employees* - which Ares-I can only dream about. So we have the potential to allow us to keep the staff gainfully employed.

Bottom Line: I think we can safely say "Minimize STS Job Loss". But, as always, the Devil is in the Details.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 06/15/2008 02:49 PM
OK, I did a slightly better dV analysis (backsolved to find effective dV to LEO, added L2 TLI dV of 3142.5 m/s, and solved for new payload). For a Jupiter 120 with a Delta IV upper stage, gross TLI payload was 20.9 tonnes. Adding in a faring, this is just enough for an Orion. For a standard Jupiter 232, single-launch L2 gross payload was 39.4 tonnes, about what I had guessed.

Interestingly enough, if I plugged the numbers for the 5.5 seg Ares V into the same analysis, I get a TLI payload of 39.7 tonnes; only 300 kg of extra payload for ~1,300 tonnes more GLOW!

Simon ;)

Are you really sure ? The current 5-seg Ares V can do 56mT and the 5.5 seg 6 RS-68 Ares V should do 63mT.  Ares V gives you 50% more for all that extra cost over DIRECT.

p4
http://event.arc.nasa.gov/aresv/ppt/Saturday/2Sumrall/2Sumrall.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: veedriver22 on 06/15/2008 04:19 PM
I've had a little more time to play with the postcard.  This is just a rough draft, working with the jpg file as a source, but it contains the elements I'd respond to on a post-card.

Adding "NNN kg to LEO" under "Operational <YEAR>" will look even better

I like that, especially when the payload capacity of the two systems directly impacts the CEV.  Ares cannot lift the full, lunar-ready CEV, so many things have been cut from the spacecraft.  In addition to just listing the relative lift capacities of the two vehicles, we should also address the implications of that data - crippled CEV vs. robust CEV.

New infrastructure is ambiguos.   You could say New infrastructure including new mobile launch platform.   I also noticed that there is nothing regarding the safety, IE loc/lom numbers.   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/15/2008 05:04 PM
New Infrastructure covers a *lot* of ground.

* Destroy current tooling for Shuttle ET manufacturing
* New tooling at MAF for Ares-I Upper Stage.
* New tooling for Ares-V Core.
* New tooling for Ares-V EDS too.
* New transportation facilities (Pegasus barge) between MAF and KSC to handle Ares-V Core.
* Remove existing Shuttle ET checkout facilities
* New checkout facilities in the VAB for Ares-I U/S.
* Another for Ares-V Core.
* Again for Ares-V EDS.
* Destroy all the Ground Support Equipment for Shuttle
* Build all-new GSE for Ares-I and then do it all again for Ares-V
* Remove a dozen work platforms in the VAB currently configured for Shuttle
* Half a dozen new work platforms in one High Bay used to process Ares-I.
* Another half dozen new work platforms in the other two VAB High Bays which will be used for Ares-V's.
* New Crawlerway to Pads A and B for handling much heavier Ares-V stack.
* Two new 6-truck Crawler Transporters for Ares-V.
* Two all-new Mobile Launchers with associated Launcher/Umbilical Towers for Ares-I.
* Remove the existing Rotating Service Structures at both Pads.
* Remove the existing Fixed Service Structures at both Pads.
* Two new Emergency Escape Rollercoaster towers permanently affixed at each Pad.
* Three highly modified Shuttle MLP's forming the basis for new Mobile Launchers (now totalling 5!) for Ares-V - each with its own LUT too.
* 2 Modified SRB recovery ships for handling 5.0 or 5.5 segment SRB's.
* New SRB hoisting slip & facilities at Hangar AF for handling 25%-38% longer & heavier SRB's.
* Re-wire and re-build all of the electrical/computer/communication infrastructure between the LCC and Pads & vehicles, plus all the equivalent facilities at JSC too.

That's a list to start with - just off the top of my head.

And lets not forget increased maintenance costs for all that new stuff too.

I feel a song coming on...   To the tune of 12 days of Christmas...

Five massive Mobile Launchers,
Four refitted Firing Rooms,
Three refurbished High Bays,
Two rebuilt Crawlers,
And a Crawlerway across the faciliteee...

Yikes.   $$$.   $$$.   $$$.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/15/2008 05:20 PM
Quote from: Scotty
Word of caution:
DO NOT make claims of no jobs being lost if Direct is adopted, as that claim it totally false.
Even if Direct was the choice, it will still take less manpower to operate than does Shuttle.

There's no sensible way to claim "No STS Job Loss" for DIRECT.

It's a credibility issue. If we claim that, and if there were any way to prove just one single job would be lost under DIRECT, then Griffin could lever a lot of questions regarding credibility at that point.

I absolutely agree.  I should have put "Minimal" or something along those lines.  Kids were clamoring for pancakes, and I rushed a bit. 

Each of the bullet points on the draft card I worked up should be considered a place-holder for a point to be made.  "NNN" is an obvious example of that, but every point on the card should be hammered around to find the best verbiage.  My apologies for appearing to suggest the impossible with regards to job retention.

I hope that glaring problem don't detract from the basic idea which is an amalgam of several posters' suggestions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Scotty on 06/15/2008 05:26 PM
All in all I think the draft cards are very good.
You have to draw attention to the issues quickly and precisely.
I think the cards will do that job very well.
I'm really looking forward to the event.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 06/15/2008 07:09 PM
Something just occurred to me, regarding the card and what is being put on it... you are wanting to tailor this for the KSC event specifically, right?   Well, to me, a lot of the points about Ares might seem like positives to people whose jobs depend on NASA activities.   For example... New 5 seg SRB, New J2-X engine, New Config, New Infrastructure, New Upper Stage.... $14.4 Billion being spent..... those all sound like positives in a way .... like this is going to give them more work.... they might think "hey, NASA is doing all this new stuff and spending all this money, i'll definitely have a job in the new program"....  see what i mean?  is just a thought, but i think it's possible that having all that stuff on there could make it backfire a little...   just a thought...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/15/2008 10:39 PM
Are you really sure ? The current 5-seg Ares V can do 56mT and the 5.5 seg 6 RS-68 Ares V should do 63mT.  Ares V gives you 50% more for all that extra cost over DIRECT.

p4
http://event.arc.nasa.gov/aresv/ppt/Saturday/2Sumrall/2Sumrall.pdf

I had been using different numbers (not sure if newer/better). If Ares V can indeed actually launch 63 tonnes to TLI, then you can do a single-launch lunar mission, and Ares I is unnecessary...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/15/2008 11:05 PM
Simon,
Not quite. The current minimum requirement is 75.1mT thru TLI.

63mT would mean the LSAM would be ~12mT smaller than is actually needed.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 06/15/2008 11:32 PM
That 75mT though does contain about 10mT of margin does it not ? 65mT is still the actually required CEV/LSAM stack weight is it not ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/15/2008 11:35 PM
You can't plan these dangerous missions without such margins. That'd be a recipe for disaster.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/16/2008 01:46 AM
I don't know if there would be room on this card or not, but a good graphic would be to show a picture of ARES with only the shuttle derived parts.

All you'd see is the foam these days.   It sure wouldn't look much like a rocket.


I'd love to collect THAT postcard. An Ares V with everything ghosted but the foam. With something linking the ghosted parts to lost jobs. Or maybe the STS on one side saying "this goes" and a pile of orange foam saying "this stays."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/16/2008 01:50 AM
I don't know if there would be room on this card or not, but a good graphic would be to show a picture of ARES with only the shuttle derived parts.

All you'd see is the foam these days.   It sure wouldn't look much like a rocket.


I'd love to collect THAT postcard. An Ares V with everything ghosted but the foam. With something linking the ghosted parts to lost jobs. Or maybe the STS on one side saying "this goes" and a pile of orange foam saying "this stays."

Ooh!  I love that!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 01:54 AM
I'm still betting that they'll change the formula of the foam - just to make Ares-I/V 100% different from Shuttle and not just 99.999% different.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 06/16/2008 01:24 PM
Where is this memo showing NASA studying the DIRECT concept?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 01:28 PM
mnewcomb,
The "memo" is on the L2 section here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10925.msg215893#msg215893

The actual studies are a slightly different thing though.   The comparison study was done in Oct/Nov of last year and the team was disbanded before they could finish writing their official report because they didn't say what management wanted them to say.   Separate NASA teams also did their own comparison studies and validated the results which we have shown.

There was also a mutli-center Impacts Study done around the same time at KSC, MSFC, SSC & MAF that we know about.   We guess JSC also would have done one, but we just never heard about that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 06/16/2008 01:46 PM
Got an error going to the link:

The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 06/16/2008 01:47 PM
What are the chances, supposing VSE and ESAS are cancelled next Spring, that a consortium of ATK/Boeing/P&W (at least) would see the wisdom of developing the Jupiter 120 partly on their own dime, with some support from USAF and NASA (assuming manned ISS and unmanned solar system exploration constituencies survive)? It sure seems like if Ares I/V (and possibly all of Constellation) goes down in political flames, it would be smart for them to take a hard look at it. Might a commercial market for something like that evolve?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 01:56 PM
Got an error going to the link:

The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you.

You need to be a member of L2 to get access to that portion of the site.   That's where all of the interesting documentation always goes and only some of it percolates down to the rest of the site.   That memo hasn't been released outside of L2 by the looks of it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 02:02 PM
What are the chances, supposing VSE and ESAS are cancelled next Spring, that a consortium of ATK/Boeing/P&W (at least) would see the wisdom of developing the Jupiter 120 partly on their own dime, with some support from USAF and NASA (assuming manned ISS and unmanned solar system exploration constituencies survive)? It sure seems like if Ares I/V (and possibly all of Constellation) goes down in political flames, it would be smart for them to take a hard look at it. Might a commercial market for something like that evolve?

It will have to happen *fast*.   There isn't anything happening in that direction yet to my knowledge, but if ATK etc are beginning to see the writing on the wall I'd think it a very smart thing for them to open a dialogue between the other 'partners' and just have it ready as a backup for when (not if) Ares goes toes-up.

Not to do so puts all their eggs in the Ares-I basket and their shareholders won't be happy if that gets screwed up and there are no alternatives.   ATK is particularly at risk here because they have no other alternatives but an SRB-derived system.   At least Boeing and Lockheed each have EELV's to earn some money if everything Shuttle vanishes.   ATK's space division would be left totally excluded after 2010 if they haven't considered a backup plan that uses a different SDLV solution - like DIRECT.

Like I say - the biggest danger of all is that ESAS dies, but nothing is ready to replace it and Congress loses *confidence* in the program.   If that happens they could very well just decide to give up the whole VSE and stick to launching nothing but two Orion's to ISS for the next 20 years for the US Human Space Flight Program.

I currently give that a 50% probability of happening within the next 12 months.   From where I sit that is the #1 risk to the VSE today.

I just hope that DIRECT has made sufficient impact and been noticed by enough influential people by the time the crunch actually happens, that people will still rally around the VSE and try to find a better solution for its implementation.   DIRECT has gotten a lot of attention already, but has it got enough yet?   I surely hope so.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/16/2008 02:09 PM
1.  What are the chances, supposing VSE and ESAS are cancelled next Spring, that a consortium of ATK/Boeing/P&W (at least) would see the wisdom of developing the Jupiter 120 partly on their own dime,

2.  with some support from USAF and

3.  NASA (assuming manned ISS and unmanned solar system exploration constituencies survive)?
4.  Might a commercial market for something like that evolve?

1.  Zero.  They make more money on ESAS systems.  The ET is LM territory and not Boeing.  Boeing upperstage is out for Direct until an EDS is needed.

2.  there is no "real" USAF interest in Direct. 

3.  Direct is too big for them.  They don't even use a D-IV heavy.  They actually try to avoid using it. 

4.  There is no commercial market for this capability.  Comsats haven't maxed out Ariane V yet or Atlas V or even D-IV Heavy
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 02:33 PM
I don't completely agree with Jim.

1) The premise of William's question is based upon ESAS having already died.  In that situation none of the ESAS contractors would be making any money at all unless they have already been smart enough to consider backup plans like DIRECT before the crunch comes.   If ESAS dies the contractors Shuttle-related divisions will be scrabbling around searching for a solution which will still earn them money - and DIRECT can do that.   Oh, and Boeing would continue the Ares-I US contracts and IU contracts under DIRECT - but they would simply be re-specified for the J-232 EDS.   By the time this all actually pans-out it'll be 2010 anyway, so the Shuttle money will be on the cusp of becoming available anyhow.

2) True.   There is interest in what a Heavy Lift system can provide in terms of new capabilities. But nobody is yet putting any eggs in any specific baskets.   If we get a Heavy Lift system, there will be potential new classes of DoD payloads for it.   But until it actually happens nobody is banking on it.   DIRECT is just 'being studied'.

3) If ESAS dies, then NASA will be after a new solution which can service ISS, go to the Moon, go on to Mars and which will be affordable to do it all, yet they will also prefer a solution which saves jobs too.   If ESAS dies, then DIRECT is a clear option for them.

4) I tend to agree with Jim, although with the proviso that Arianespace is showing a way where a commercial Jupiter-120 might offer some real advantages - dual manifest launches (or tri- or quad- too).

Jupiter-120 is a fairly cheap rocket - as these things go - and sharing the cost with a couple of partners makes economic sense.   I believe that the US has (Jim correct me if I'm wrong) only done dual manifest launches for the military so far, not for commercial satellites.   But Arianespace does dual manifest all the time and its one of the reasons their system is so much cheaper than the competition.   Jupiter could certainly lift quite a few different payloads at once if anyone wanted to try.

As an aside, we know of one group who also looked at Jupiter from the perspective of being a launcher for a whole cluster of emergency comms/gps satellites if we ever got into a conflict which resulted in the bulk of US satellites being disabled.   They were considering that a single Jupiter could launch half a dozen such satellites in one shot and at least 'patch' US capability fairly quickly in such an emergency.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 06/16/2008 05:02 PM
4) I tend to agree with Jim, although with the proviso that Arianespace is showing a way where a commercial Jupiter-120 might offer some real advantages - dual manifest launches (or tri- or quad- too).
Ross, what would be the payload of a Jupiter 120 to TLI (DeltaV 1500 m/s) ?
I guess Jupiter 120 is more optimized for LEO (no upper stage) so what would it be with a Centaur stage for that kind of commercial launches ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 05:14 PM
Stephen,
A Delta-V of just 1500m/s is really low.

If you could do a TLI for that little amount of impulse (I'm dubious), you could send 61.5mT thru the burn using a Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage.   47.6mT with the Atlas-V Centaur-V1 (the main difference is the Centaur just has smaller fuel tanks).

A more 'regular' 3,175m/s dV for TLI would result in 21.1mT going through TLI with the DIVHUS and 16.8mT with the Centaur.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jimvela on 06/16/2008 05:16 PM
4) I tend to agree with Jim, although with the proviso that Arianespace is showing a way where a commercial Jupiter-120 might offer some real advantages - dual manifest launches (or tri- or quad- too).
Ross, what would be the payload of a Jupiter 120 to TLI (DeltaV 1500 m/s) ?
I guess Jupiter 120 is more optimized for LEO (no upper stage) so what would it be with a Centaur stage for that kind of commercial launches ?

Everyone should get this point very clearly:

By law,  NASA may not offer a launch vehicle for sale competitive with commercial launch services.  (not that NASA could even be price competitive with private industry)

There will never be a commercial launch on an ARES or Direct vehicle, ever, without additional legislative intervention from congress.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 05:21 PM
Very true Jim.   But equally true is that a commercial operation derived from the same equipment NASA uses is something Congress is fairly open to discussing if the contractors ever wanted to.

But neither Saturn nor Shuttle was ever economical enough for anyone to try before now.   If NASA made an economically viable launcher for a change though...

:)

Well, we know ATK have been trying hard to push for a commercial Ares-I already and the political world has been open to their plans so far.   And at one point Congress was supportive of a plan for USA to spin-off the whole Shuttle Program into a commercial venture, but USA didn't want the liability in the end.

While paperwork will certainly have to be pushed around, I don't think Congress would actually stand in the way of such a thing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: veedriver22 on 06/16/2008 06:14 PM
New Infrastructure covers a *lot* of ground.

* Destroy current tooling for Shuttle ET manufacturing
* New tooling at MAF for Ares-I Upper Stage.
* New tooling for Ares-V Core.
* New tooling for Ares-V EDS too.
* New transportation facilities (Pegasus barge) between MAF and KSC to handle Ares-V Core.
* Remove existing Shuttle ET checkout facilities
* New checkout facilities in the VAB for Ares-I U/S.
* Another for Ares-V Core.
* Again for Ares-V EDS.
* Destroy all the Ground Support Equipment for Shuttle
* Build all-new GSE for Ares-I and then do it all again for Ares-V
* Remove a dozen work platforms in the VAB currently configured for Shuttle
* Half a dozen new work platforms in one High Bay used to process Ares-I.
* Another half dozen new work platforms in the other two VAB High Bays which will be used for Ares-V's.
* New Crawlerway to Pads A and B for handling much heavier Ares-V stack.
* Two new 6-truck Crawler Transporters for Ares-V.
* Two all-new Mobile Launchers with associated Launcher/Umbilical Towers for Ares-I.
* Remove the existing Rotating Service Structures at both Pads.
* Remove the existing Fixed Service Structures at both Pads.
* Two new Emergency Escape Rollercoaster towers permanently affixed at each Pad.
* Three highly modified Shuttle MLP's forming the basis for new Mobile Launchers (now totalling 5!) for Ares-V - each with its own LUT too.
* 2 Modified SRB recovery ships for handling 5.0 or 5.5 segment SRB's.
* New SRB hoisting slip & facilities at Hangar AF for handling 25%-38% longer & heavier SRB's.
* Re-wire and re-build all of the electrical/computer/communication infrastructure between the LCC and Pads & vehicles, plus all the equivalent facilities at JSC too.

That's a list to start with - just off the top of my head.

And lets not forget increased maintenance costs for all that new stuff too.

I feel a song coming on...   To the tune of 12 days of Christmas...

Five massive Mobile Launchers,
Four refitted Firing Rooms,
Three refurbished High Bays,
Two rebuilt Crawlers,
And a Crawlerway across the faciliteee...

Yikes.   $$$.   $$$.   $$$.

Ross.
If you would send me a list of the facilities/equipment that will be lost or destroyed I could try and put a graphic together showing the facilities and the equipment dropping down into a waste basket.  In addition to the foam I believe they will be keeping the srb seqments unless I have missed something.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 06:21 PM
vee,
You can start with that list - it's probably >90% complete already and does hit all the major cost items.   I have added a few items since I first posted the message as I thought of them so its pretty comprehensive.

I personally think we will be adding "Pad A concrete hardstand" and "Pad B concrete hardstand" to the list soon too, but that's an opinion on my part, not yet documented in any way.


As for the rest, a famous quote from fictional character of Sir Francis Urquhart comes to mind.   But you'll have to go look that up to get my meaning.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 06/16/2008 06:28 PM
Stephen,
A Delta-V of just 1500m/s is really low.
Argh, sorry Ross I meant GTO (for satcom, with the usual DeltaV of 1500 m/s to GEO), not TLI.
Off course it changes everything in my request ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 06:30 PM
Stephan (got the spelling right this time!),
You know, I never did work out any rule of thumb for working out GTO stuff.

If 1,500m/s is what you need to do a transfer (Hohmann I assume) from LEO to GTO then the numbers above are still accurate for a 1,500m/s burn: 61.5mT w/ DIVHUS or 47.6mT w/ Centaur.

If not, all I need is the total dV for the transfer and I can get you some first-order numbers in minutes :)


One thing this does assume though, is that we're injecting the LEO payload (spacecraft & unused 'full' upper stage) straight into circular 130nm 29deg LEO. There may well be better trajectories available than that which can optimize performance further.   I seem to recall a recent GTO launch inserting initially into about 80x80nm first, which would obviously improve LEO payload delivery performance quite a bit.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jimvela on 06/16/2008 06:41 PM
I seem to recall a recent GTO launch inserting initially into about 80x80nm first, which would obviously improve LEO payload delivery performance quite a bit.

You wouldn't stay in orbit very long at 80x80nm... Has to be a staging event and burn or additional burn of the stage that got you there very shortly after arrival at that orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 06/16/2008 06:55 PM
Ross, I don't know what is the regular GTO from Florida. From French Guyana I know the GTO is about 250x36000 km, leaving the circularization burns to the satellites.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 07:00 PM
Agreed jimvela,
The mission is only a vague memory for me now (there have been so many over the last few years!) but it stuck in my mind specifically because I remember it inserting into what at the time made me go "wow - that's an incredibly low orbit" and I was left wondering if the satellite had been designed to cope with any 'heating effects' from being that low.

IIRC (!), they were there for half an orbit - somewhere around 45 mins or so - before the transfer burn took place.   It might have been something around 85x85, or even 89x89 possibly - but I don't think so because that doesn't actually 'shock' me in the way this did at the time.   I just remember the numbers started with 8's because they're pretty unusual, and my lasting memory of that flight is how surprised I was about the initial altitude.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 06/16/2008 07:27 PM
1.  What are the chances, supposing VSE and ESAS are cancelled next Spring, that a consortium of ATK/Boeing/P&W (at least) would see the wisdom of developing the Jupiter 120 partly on their own dime,

2.  with some support from USAF and

3.  NASA (assuming manned ISS and unmanned solar system exploration constituencies survive)?
4.  Might a commercial market for something like that evolve?

1.  Zero.  They make more money on ESAS systems.  The ET is LM territory and not Boeing.  Boeing upperstage is out for Direct until an EDS is needed.

2.  there is no "real" USAF interest in Direct. 

3.  Direct is too big for them.  They don't even use a D-IV heavy.  They actually try to avoid using it. 

4.  There is no commercial market for this capability.  Comsats haven't maxed out Ariane V yet or Atlas V or even D-IV Heavy

Your item 1 does rather beg the question. If ESAS is cancelled, then they will make nothing off ESAS systems. Do they really lack the wisdom to do anything on their own initiative? Maybe we donj't deserve to go to the Moon, or anywhere else, if that is so. For the rest of it, if it's true there is no commercial market for that capacity, are we saying there will never be such a market? I asked if one could evolve. Seems like you're saying no, never, can't happened, forget about it. Another reason maybe we don't deserve to go anywhere.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 06/16/2008 07:33 PM
4) I tend to agree with Jim, although with the proviso that Arianespace is showing a way where a commercial Jupiter-120 might offer some real advantages - dual manifest launches (or tri- or quad- too).
Ross, what would be the payload of a Jupiter 120 to TLI (DeltaV 1500 m/s) ?
I guess Jupiter 120 is more optimized for LEO (no upper stage) so what would it be with a Centaur stage for that kind of commercial launches ?

Everyone should get this point very clearly:

By law,  NASA may not offer a launch vehicle for sale competitive with commercial launch services.  (not that NASA could even be price competitive with private industry)

There will never be a commercial launch on an ARES or Direct vehicle, ever, without additional legislative intervention from congress.

That's not the question. Assuming ESAS is gone, meaning there would be no NASA launch vehicle called Ares, DIRECT, or Space Shuttle, would there be a market for a DIRECT-like commercial vehicle developed using the resources of the commerical entities that currently build the SRMs, ETs, and RS-68 engines? Really what we are talking about in Jupiter 120 is a second-generation EELV. Not to mention the fact that there IS no "commercial launch service" equivalent to Jupiter 120. It would be the first.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/16/2008 07:43 PM

That's not the question. Assuming ESAS is gone, meaning there would be no NASA launch vehicle called Ares, DIRECT, or Space Shuttle, would there be a market for a DIRECT-like commercial vehicle developed using the resources of the commerical entities that currently build the SRMs, ETs, and RS-68 engines? Really what we are talking about in Jupiter 120 is a second-generation EELV. Not to mention the fact that there IS no "commercial launch service" equivalent to Jupiter 120. It would be the first.

no,
1.  No market
2.  it still would need NASA resources
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 07:48 PM
I believe that yes, a commercial market exists where Jupiter could be very competitive indeed.

However, it would require the contractors to be totally ready and waiting to "catch" the Shuttle infrastructure when it is "dropped" in September 2010.

And I don't see any attempts yet in that direction.   The truth is that if they aren't ready and waiting to catch that ball when it comes at them, the infrastructure and workforce will be lost with no way to retrieve it.   Trying to get it back even just 3 or 6 months after Shuttle has closed-down, would be nigh-on impossible IMHO.   I don't think it could realistically be done 'after the fact'.

There would be a one-time-only opportunity to grab it and run, but *nobody* is currently even looking at that option.   There is precious little time for that situation to turn around by Sept 2010 if they wanted to do it.   These sorts of negotiations and company agreements take time and if they aren't ready, it just wouldn't ever happen.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/16/2008 08:00 PM
I believe that yes, a commercial market exists where Jupiter could be very competitive indeed.


What market?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 08:06 PM
On a different topic, I'd like to ask the general opinions of any engineers familiar with the RS-68 and J-2X here what they think of us possibly re-baselining to the 108% RS-68 and the 294,000lb thrust J-2X.

We've already got opinions from engineers within the team, but I'm really interested to hear other 'professionals' on this subject if they'd like to weigh-in on the discussion.   Non-pro's can chip in too, but the professionals are whom I'm really trying to canvas for their thoughts right now.


Our thinking is split currently on a number of different talking points, including...

RS-68:

Baselining the 102% RS-68 guarantees earlier operation, but would likely create a second production line at PWR for a while until the RS-68B is qualified later.

There are current units 'on the shelf' right now which NASA could purchase for qualification purposes and that would accelerate the human-rating process faster than waiting for USAF to finish developing the new variant.

We could use the 102% RS-68 on the early Jupiter-120 flights, and fairly easily qualify the more powerful variant in time for the Lunar missions around 2017 on a "Block-II" for Jupiter-232.


J-2X:

All J-2XD plans appear to have been completely dropped by NASA right now, so we aren't sure there is any tangible cost/schedule advantages any longer to sticking with the lower spec engines any further.


Both:

One thought we do have against any changes though, is that we *really* like having additional margins all over the place in this project because over on Ares we've clearly seen what can happen if you don't have enough margin and it ain't pretty.   These 'lower-spec engines' are handy margin to have in our back-pockets if we should ever need them.

Thoughts?   Opinions?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 08:30 PM

What market?

Still under the assumption that Ares has already died, the market for a commercially operated Jupiter would thus be three-fold:-


NASA:

Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services.   NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more - they could just buy launch services for the missions instead.

The odd probe/satellite which can't be launched on a smaller rocket - like an 8m diameter replacement for Hubble, a Mars Sample Return mission or some new JIMO-class spacecraft could all be lifted by Jupiter-120 quite easily.   Operated as a commercial domestic launcher, Jupiter could certainly do things no other service can.

DoD

Jupiter-120 can match and beat the $ per kg to GTO price point of either EELV program today if it launches just three flights per year in a single-manifest usage mode.

DoD has flown dual manifest missions previously on Titan-IV.    A similar capability would be possible with Jupiter-120 too.   But it would have a much larger payload capacity allowing either more satellites or larger satellites - or a combination.

Part of a satellites basic cost is because it is designed down to a minimum mass for launch.   If that is no longer such a tight requirement, satellite development and manufacturing cost can actually be lowered.   Jupiter has sufficient capability to practically remove any such limitations, so there are a few less tangible benefits too.

Commercial

As a purely commercial entity the Jupiter-120 can directly compete with current Ariane-V costs at a flight rate of just 5 per year.

If Jupiter-120 were to provide dual-manifest, tri-manifest or even quad-manifest capabilities on the commercial international market it could undercut Arianespace's cost structure and compete very directly in their markets.

Utilized in this manner and at a very moderate flight rate of just 6 per year, Jupiter-120's cost per kg would rival both China and Russian cost structures and would thus be able to compete for the international business they are currently enjoying - a market all other current domestic US launchers are just too expensive to compete for.



Please understand, I personally don't think anything like a commercial Jupiter-120 will ever actually happen.   I really don't.   I just don't see how industry would be able to afford to develop it without NASA's money doing that hard part first.   But its cost numbers are surprisingly good if it were built.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/16/2008 08:47 PM
NASA:

1.  Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services.   NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.

2.  The odd probe/satellite which can't be launched on a smaller rocket - like an 8m diameter replacement for Hubble or Mars Sample Return.   

DoD

3.  Jupiter-120 can match and beat the $ per kg to GTO price point of either EELV program today if it launches just three flights per year in a single-manifest usage mode.

4.  DoD has flown dual manifest missions previously on Titan-IV.    A similar capability would be possible with Jupiter-120 too.   But it would have a much larger payload capacity allowing either more satellites or larger satellites - or a combination.

5.  Part of a satellites basic cost is because it is designed down to a minimum mass for launch.   If that is no longer such a tight requirement, satellite development and manufacturing cost can actually be lowered.   Jupiter has sufficient capability to practically remove any such limitations, so there are a few less tangible benefits too.

Commercial

6.  As a purely commercial entity the Jupiter-120 can directly compete with current Ariane-V costs at a flight rate of just 5 per year.



1. If there is a commercial Jupiter, there is no NASA lunar program.  They are mutually exclusive.

2.  There is no 8m HST or MSR.  Therefore no market.  There has to be a market first.   The point is there is no market.  Didn't say that there weren't missions that could be done.

4.  There is a difference between dual manifested and multiple spacecraft. 

5.  bad reason.  You can't have this and multiple manifesting at the same time.  Bigger spacecraft have to pay for of the launch costs.  Also, since the launch costs are still relatively high, it still means that mass and size will be minimized for spacecraft.

3 & 6.  Your numbers are off or you are making the wrong comparison.

the 120 is not a GTO launcher.  You need to add the EDS
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 09:03 PM
Jim,
I was including a standard EELV Upper Stage in the GTO comparison, not the full-up EDS from Jupiter-232.   I don't see any commercial entity ever developing the J-2X nor that large Upper Stage when they can borrow one from an EELV and get a good portion of the same performance.

At the end of the day, the Jupiter-120 offers more than double the performance of an EELV Heavy for the same cost as an EELV Medium.

That's what 25 years of continual budget cuts have done to the cost profile of the Shuttle ET and SRB systems.   Today they are *very* lean, mean and and highly competitive.   But they are totally overshadowed by the 200,000lb gorilla of a spaceplane which they're currently associated with.   Take that out of the equation and give them a chance to shine on their own, and they're quite a surprise.

There's a very good *potential* commercial opportunity there - just as long as you can afford to develop it first!   That's the bit where I don't think it would ever happen on its own though, not unless ATK has a spare $7bn burning a hole in their accounts currently...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 06/16/2008 09:41 PM

There's a very good *potential* commercial opportunity there - just as long as you can afford to develop it first!   That's the bit where I don't think it would ever happen on its own though, not unless ATK has a spare $7bn burning a hole in their accounts currently...

Ross.

How much was ATK going to spend to buy MDA again?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 06/16/2008 09:42 PM

That's not the question. Assuming ESAS is gone, meaning there would be no NASA launch vehicle called Ares, DIRECT, or Space Shuttle, would there be a market for a DIRECT-like commercial vehicle developed using the resources of the commerical entities that currently build the SRMs, ETs, and RS-68 engines? Really what we are talking about in Jupiter 120 is a second-generation EELV. Not to mention the fact that there IS no "commercial launch service" equivalent to Jupiter 120. It would be the first.

no,
1.  No market
2.  it still would need NASA resources

Item 1 is the usual chicken/egg conundrum. If you build it, will they come? Or should you wait til they come before you build anything? Companies go broke making both choices at the wrong time. Bigelow is developing a space station on the assumption if they do, a market will develop. But there's no market now.

As for item 2, if VSE is cancelled completely (not just ESAS, but the whole idea of going to the Moon, Mars, Beyond, and maybe even ISS in our own ships, what happens to those resources?

Of course, if somebody built Jupiter 120 on their own dime, then there's a market or two could evolve. ISS. Bigelow maybe. And Congress could then tell NASA, there's a moon rocket for sale. Buy some and go.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 09:43 PM

There's a very good *potential* commercial opportunity there - just as long as you can afford to develop it first!   That's the bit where I don't think it would ever happen on its own though, not unless ATK has a spare $7bn burning a hole in their accounts currently...

Ross.

How much was ATK going to spend to buy MDA again?

$1.3bn I believe.   Still a *long* ways to go.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/16/2008 09:52 PM
Jim,
I was including a standard EELV Upper Stage in the GTO comparison, not the full-up EDS from Jupiter-232.   I don't see any commercial entity ever developing the J-2X nor that large Upper Stage when they can borrow one from an EELV and get a good portion of the same performance.

At the end of the day, the Jupiter-120 offers more than double the performance of an EELV Heavy for the same cost as an EELV Medium.

That's what 25 years of continual budget cuts have done to the cost profile of the Shuttle ET and SRB systems.   Today they are *very* lean, mean and and highly competitive.   But they are totally overshadowed by the 200,000lb gorilla of a spaceplane which they're currently associated with.   Take that out of the equation and give them a chance to shine on their own, and they're quite a surprise.


No way.  You are only counting on the incremental costs.  Most of the EELV cost is in the upper stage.  yes, the orbiter was the bulk of the cost, but you still have to fund the VAB, pads, CT, MLP's, JSC flight design, the IU is going to cost some bucks.  The thrust structure is going to have costs that will have to be amortized and will have high incremental

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 06/16/2008 11:02 PM
On a different topic, I'd like to ask the general opinions of any engineers familiar with the RS-68 and J-2X here what they think of us possibly re-baselining to the 108% RS-68 and the 294,000lb thrust J-2X.

J-2X:

All J-2XD plans appear to have been completely dropped by NASA right now, so we aren't sure there is any tangible cost/schedule advantages any longer to sticking with the lower spec engines any further.

Thoughts?   Opinions?

Ross.

Ross, if you go to the more powerful J-2X engine for the EDS, one thing you could consider is to switch to a J-231 rocket. The extra thrust of the J-2X could particially compensate for the removal of one engine. A J-231 rocket would have less "pure" LEO capability (all EDS propellant used to reach LEO) than the J-232 but more TLI payload capability thanks to its lighter EDS.  It would also make your rocket a bit cheaper.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 06/17/2008 01:57 PM
I am a non-pro and this is just my thought.

I'd say scrap em both. There are better engine and thrust designs on the drawing board that would do better for Direct in the long run when more mass to LEO is needed for Mars missions.

At the rate things are going mixed in with the obvious red tape as NASA converts I just highly doubt that we are going to have a flight to LEO before 2015 anyway.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/17/2008 04:39 PM
Why even bother with the J2-X?  J2-S performance levels could do the job.

At the rate Ares is going, I think RS-25d might not have been as expensive as initially thought...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/17/2008 04:42 PM
Using the same engines as are baselined for Ares V also helps on the "jobs" case, as PWR continues the same development work that they're already doing. In addition, it puts the emphasis on Direct being a more optimised configuration of Ares, rather than a completely different vehicle...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/17/2008 04:49 PM
Using the same engines as are baselined for Ares V also helps on the "jobs" case, as PWR continues the same development work that they're already doing. In addition, it puts the emphasis on Direct being a more optimised configuration of Ares, rather than a completely different vehicle...

Simon ;)

Actually, I think that makes a lot of sense. In the beginning we tried to keep as much in sync as we could with the Ares, for comparison sake, while always taking the less stressful and most economical option. But now both the stronger RS-68 and the J2X are much further along and barring some major fubar, are likely to be available anyway. So why not baseline them? Makes sense to me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/17/2008 10:39 PM
Dual J-2X (or dual J-2??? for that matter) EDS is problematic.

Quoting from 20080018610_2008018440.pdf @ ntrs :
Quote
For the EDS reignition, the J–2X will shift
to a secondary mode mixture ratio of 4.5 and attain roughly
241,000 lbf (1072 kN—82 percent) thrust to accommodate
load limits on the Orion/Altair lunar lander docking system
.

With the proposed dual engine EDS, and if the load limit issue stands, "Direct" would be forced to explore a bizzare single engine TLI / dual engine launch...



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 06/17/2008 11:01 PM
Dual J-2X (or dual J-2??? for that matter) EDS is problematic.

Quoting from 20080018610_2008018440.pdf @ ntrs :
Quote
For the EDS reignition, the J–2X will shift
to a secondary mode mixture ratio of 4.5 and attain roughly
241,000 lbf (1072 kN—82 percent) thrust to accommodate
load limits on the Orion/Altair lunar lander docking system
.

With the proposed dual engine EDS, and if the load limit issue stands, "Direct" would be forced to explore a bizzare single engine TLI / dual engine launch...


... or the unthinkable beefing of up the docking system.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/18/2008 02:22 AM
NASA:

1.  Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services.   NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.
{snip}

1. If there is a commercial Jupiter, there is no NASA lunar program.  They are mutually exclusive.


Public Relations definition of NASA lunar mission.

NASA LSAM
NASA astronauts
NASA lunar outpost
NASA sign on pad
NASA press release
NASA money.

That sounds like a NASA lunar mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2008 03:55 AM
NASA:

1.  Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services.   NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.
{snip}

1. If there is a commercial Jupiter, there is no NASA lunar program.  They are mutually exclusive.


Public Relations definition of NASA lunar mission.

NASA LSAM
NASA astronauts
NASA lunar outpost
NASA sign on pad
NASA press release
NASA money.

That sounds like a NASA lunar mission.


wrong again as usual.  The point is if NASA isn't funding Ares I & V or Direct, then NASA isn't funding lunar missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 06/18/2008 04:29 AM
A commercial Jupiter could be very useful to the satellite business since com sats mostly geostationary sats are getting bigger and heavier.
Don't believe me just compare the average sat from 15 years ago to one today and then one from 30 years ago you'll see a trend and they're getting huge.
24ton class vehicles may not be up to the job in the future since there are demands for higher data rates and smaller devices on the receiving end this means the com sat need to be more powerful in transmission power.

Though if we stick with Ares there is no moon program it'll continue to cost more and will get cut when congress realizes the damage it's doing to the other part of NASA.
Ares I with out Ares V doesn't equal a moon program and instead equals another X33 fiasco.

BTW I don't see why NASA can't just buy EELVs,Falcons, Taurus IIs etc other then pride.

I'm sure we can safely say the myth of Ares I being safer then an EELV has been throughly killed with all the evidence of instability and deadly oscillation issues etc.

On what someone said about docking port stress on a two engine EDS if the structural margins of LIDS are so narrow that a two engine EDS even with throttling would break it then we should not be using it.
That makes me wonder if it would have the usual pressure safety margin of being able to take 1.5 to 3x norm before failure NASA usually has on stuff.
The old Apollo LEM windows were pressure tested to over 25psig to verify the safety.

Might be best to beef it up so it can handle the stress this also will allow the standard to be used in the future on larger and heavier vehicles and space tugs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2008 04:37 AM
A commercial Jupiter could be very useful to the satellite business since com sats are getting bigger and heavier.
Don't believe me just compare the average sat from 15 years ago to one today and then one from 30 years ago you'll see a trend and they're getting huge.


wrong. Jupiter is too big.  Comsats have yet to max out current vehicles
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 06/18/2008 04:58 AM
wrong. Jupiter is too big.  Comsats have yet to max out current vehicles
[/quote]

Not yet but they are going to might take another 15 to 20 years but it's not a matter of if just when.

Still even now they could use it if it's very reliable to launch two or three big birds at once.
This would save on logistics and lower the over all cost but would increase risk since a failure will destroy 3 satellites vs one.

The DOD also could use it to replace large military payloads in bulk or test their solar power sat concepts.

Now space probes have already maxed out existing vehicles a few times and the same with space telescopes they just can't get enough payload it seems.

Then you have the emerging space tourism and space research market which could quickly find use for a vehicle the size of the J-120.

Though that last market might be better served by small RLVs or the experts on that market seem to think so.

But if you're building a space station like bigelow is there is no such thing as too big of a vehicle except maybe something crazy huge like Ares V but then it's not it being too big thats the issue it's that it's just too expensive for anyone to afford.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/18/2008 05:15 AM
If anything Com sats will get smaller; as Jim said, there is no commercial market for Direct...

If Direct is ever accepted, it will be as a new iteration of Ares (probably as "Ares II" and "Ares IV" or somesuch). The purpose of Ares, in both current and any future Direct iteration, is to launch Constellation missions, and not much else. Besides, I can't realistically imagine a flight rate much higher than STS, meaning all that capacity is need for lunar flights...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/18/2008 05:29 AM
The only other possibility will be for Mars Sample Return or other larger JIMO sized probes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 06/18/2008 05:48 AM
If anything Com sats will get smaller; as Jim said, there is no commercial market for Direct...

If Direct is ever accepted, it will be as a new iteration of Ares (probably as "Ares II" and "Ares IV" or somesuch). The purpose of Ares, in both current and any future Direct iteration, is launch Constellation missions, and not much else. Besides, I can't realistically imagine a flight rate much higher than STS, meaning all that capacity is need for lunar flights...

Simon ;)

I don't see them getting smaller and we're getting very close to the theoretical limits of solar cell efficiency.

Coms sats are not personal computer though they do have computers.
Instead they are radio relay stations in space so your not going to see
an 18KW sat shrunk down to something you can carry in your pocket for many of the same reasons you will not see a power plant become tiny.

But yes there are things they can do and are doing to make them lighter such as using Lipo batteries in place of nickel hydrogen cells , using ion thrusters in place of arcjet thrusters and use of composites in the structure plus lastly the recent developments in solar cells.

 Some stuff is just physics if you want to push a lot of data over a far distance over a wide area you need power.

Not everyone wants an 8 foot dish on their house to receive 100 HDTV channels from one sat.

Increases in satellite transponder power are one of the the main reasons as to why you can receive digital tv with an 18" dish now vs needing a eight foot dish as was the case 20 years ago.
The switch to KU band made the LNB and dish smaller too.

Very high power transponders are what made things like XM radio even possible.
Sat transponder output has grown from 4 watts for early C-band to 50 to 80 watts per channel.
Your typical Boeing 702 or Astrium E3000 have 18KW and 14KW solar arrays.

Though LEO and mid orbit sats can be much smaller as with Iridium only 700Kg each but these also need to be numerous for continuous coverage for obvious reasons.

But GEO sats are forced to be large machines unless you want the ground equipment to be large to gather a weak signal .
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/18/2008 07:28 AM

wrong again as usual.  The point is if NASA isn't funding Ares I & V or Direct, then NASA isn't funding lunar missions.

Irrelevant.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/18/2008 08:41 AM
Dual J-2X (or dual J-2??? for that matter) EDS is problematic.

Quoting from 20080018610_2008018440.pdf @ ntrs :
Quote
For the EDS reignition, the J–2X will shift
to a secondary mode mixture ratio of 4.5 and attain roughly
241,000 lbf (1072 kN—82 percent) thrust to accommodate
load limits on the Orion/Altair lunar lander docking system
.

With the proposed dual engine EDS, and if the load limit issue stands, "Direct" would be forced to explore a bizzare single engine TLI / dual engine launch...


... or the unthinkable beefing of up the docking system.



Beefing up the docking system ... hmm... I wonder why those square heads @ NASA didn't thought about such a simple solution. Why messing up with the J-2X power level when you can have even two engines and for example:

1/ replace the LIDS with CBM !

or
2/ keep the LIDS but stage an pre-TLI EVA to attach I beams between Orion and Altair !

or
3/ keep the LIDS but don't use it until after TLI (a la Apollo); this one was proposed by "Direct" some time ago, and mandates cutting openings in the shroud to let the solar arrays deploy.

The problem is not simple and I would say aggravates with increasing Orion's mass (in fact moment of inertia).

Another thing: what you make you must also break - this is a critical requirement, if un-docking Orion from Altair fails, it's a very bad situation, especially for return and entry. So any "beefing up" must take this into account too.

NASA solution so far: single J-2X EDS, reduced power level for TLI, disposable LIDS.

IMO.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/18/2008 11:21 AM

1/ replace the LIDS with CBM !


CBM is a berthing mechanism, not a docking port.  Also in Direct docking would only take place after TLI, so no worries for the docking system.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 06/18/2008 12:15 PM

Beefing up the docking system ... hmm... I wonder why those square heads @ NASA didn't thought about such a simple solution.


Yeah, I mean, why wouldn't those "square heads" want to add mass to a capsule from which they already had to strip multiple redundant safety systems (which weighed more than a beefed up docking system would) and mission capabilities because the Ares I rocket on which they intended to launch it couldn't even lift the original design?  I just don't get it either.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/18/2008 12:42 PM
Guys,
This whole issue of a commercial Jupiter is a moot point.   If NASA doesn't build it first, no commercial entity will.   Arguing about how it might or might not work is a completely pointless exercise given that overriding fact.

The *only* way a commercial Jupiter might ever fly would be in *addition* to a healthy and robust NASA operation running in parallel.   In that scenario all the arguments change anyway.   And I still believe there's less than a 5% chance of a commercial venture doing that even in such a positive environment.

So I'm going to ask that this topic be spun off from this point on into a separate thread - here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13504.msg291409#msg291409).   It has nothing to do with what we're trying to achieve here and I don't think a single person on the DIRECT Team really expects to see a commercial Jupiter launch.

If people want to argue about minutiae in such a hypothetical situation, please do so in the other thread.   Not this one.   Thanks.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/18/2008 12:48 PM

1/ replace the LIDS with CBM !


CBM is a berthing mechanism, not a docking port. 
Thanks for the clarification. It confirms what I already suspected after reading this:
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_lib/ICES01-2435.ISS_CBM.pdf

Quote
Also in Direct docking would only take place after TLI, so no worries for the docking system.

Let's ask Ross or Chuck about this. I'd say your "Direct" is off the baseline. My knowledge about "Direct" supports my post, i.e. Orion docking with Altair before rendezvous with the second J-232 (the one with fully fueled, dual engine EDS), so before TLI.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/18/2008 12:51 PM

Beefing up the docking system ... hmm... I wonder why those square heads @ NASA didn't thought about such a simple solution.

Yeah, I mean, why wouldn't those "square heads" want to add mass to a capsule from which they already had to strip multiple redundant safety systems (which weighed more than a beefed up docking system would) and mission capabilities because the Ares I rocket on which they intended to launch it couldn't even lift the original design?  I just don't get it either.

The answer of course is to go thru TLI on the J-2X “eyeballs in”, just like Apollo.
LIDS should not have to be designed as a structural member – that’s dumb.
Detach, rotate and re-dock after TLI, just like Apollo. The Ares architecture can’t do that, but the Jupiter-232 profile can do it. So the answer is, of course, don’t use the Ares. Fly the Jupiter instead. Problem solved.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2008 01:32 PM

1/ replace the LIDS with CBM !


Not doable.   CBM is not a docking system.  It is a berthing system.  Also it is "weaker" than a docking system
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Spacenick on 06/18/2008 01:38 PM
What about APAS-89? Then docking with Shenzhou and modified Soyuz/ATV would be quite easy or is LIDS as easy to implement for other nations as is APAS?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/18/2008 01:54 PM
NASA:

1.  Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services.   NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.
{snip}

1. If there is a commercial Jupiter, there is no NASA lunar program.  They are mutually exclusive.


Public Relations definition of NASA lunar mission.

NASA LSAM
NASA astronauts
NASA lunar outpost
NASA sign on pad
NASA press release
NASA money.

That sounds like a NASA lunar mission.


wrong again as usual.  The point is if NASA isn't funding Ares I & V or Direct, then NAS