-
#140 by Lampyridae on 08 Apr, 2008 02:10
-
Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008 10:15 PM
QuoteLampyridae - 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...
)...(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!QuoteBy 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! -
#141 by kraisee on 08 Apr, 2008 02:17
-
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. -
#142 by kraisee on 08 Apr, 2008 02:22
-
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. -
#143 by A_M_Swallow on 08 Apr, 2008 03:32
-
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. -
#144 by alexterrell on 08 Apr, 2008 06:57
-
Quote
Jim - 7/4/2008 7:55 PM
Quotealexterrell - 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 )
-
#145 by Jim on 08 Apr, 2008 11:54
-
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.
-
#146 by spacenut on 08 Apr, 2008 13:24
-
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.
-
#147 by alexterrell on 08 Apr, 2008 22:50
-
Quote
Jim - 8/4/2008 6:54 AM
Quotealexterrell - 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. -
#148 by csj on 09 Apr, 2008 12:46
-
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 -
#149 by renclod on 09 Apr, 2008 13:17
-
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."
-
#150 by renclod on 09 Apr, 2008 13:39
-
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 asingleunique lander design- just the payload is different: ascent module plus single digit tonnes cargo (I/V), or double digit tonnes cargo only (V).
IMHO.
-
#151 by Jim on 09 Apr, 2008 15:17
-
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 -
#152 by kraisee on 10 Apr, 2008 04:10
-
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. -
#153 by kraisee on 10 Apr, 2008 04:20
-
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. -
#154 by alexterrell on 10 Apr, 2008 07:29
-
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.
-
#155 by rsp1202 on 10 Apr, 2008 13:19
-
Quote
kraisee - 9/4/2008 9:20 PM
Quoterenclod - 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. -
#156 by Pheogh on 10 Apr, 2008 21:01
-
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? -
#157 by clongton on 10 Apr, 2008 21:08
-
Quote
Pheogh - 10/4/2008 5:01 PM
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.
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? -
#158 by kraisee on 11 Apr, 2008 02:50
-
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. -
#159 by kraisee on 11 Apr, 2008 02:58
-
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.
)...(SNIP)