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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
That one is more likely to go into print when we get some time to write it up.Ross.
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
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.