Author Topic: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2  (Read 1356591 times)

Offline PaulL

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #560 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

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #561 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.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2008 03:34 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline yoda

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #562 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?

Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #563 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.

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #564 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.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #565 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.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2008 09:41 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #566 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.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2008 11:43 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • Ottawa, ON
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 616
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #567 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.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #568 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.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2008 12:25 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #569 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.

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • Ottawa, ON
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 616
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #570 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.

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • Ottawa, ON
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 616
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #571 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.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #572 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.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2008 01:55 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline PaulL

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #573 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

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #574 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.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #575 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

Offline PaulL

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #576 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

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #577 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.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2008 02:59 am by gladiator1332 »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #578 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.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2008 05:53 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #579 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.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2008 06:19 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0