Author Topic: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2  (Read 921054 times)

Offline Wolverine

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 70
    • Santos Design Solutions
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #20 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.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 414
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #21 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.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 414
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #22 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.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #23 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.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 414
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #24 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.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #25 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?

“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Zachstar

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2490
  • Washington State
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #26 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.


Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 414
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #27 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.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline copernicus

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #28 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.  



Offline cb6785

  • First Officer A320 / Simulator Instructor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1194
  • EDDS/STR
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #29 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?
You know, if I’d had a seat you wouldn’t still see me in this thing. - Chuck Yeager

-------------------------------------------------------
Carsten Banach

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 414
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #30 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.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #31 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.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 414
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #32 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.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline cb6785

  • First Officer A320 / Simulator Instructor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1194
  • EDDS/STR
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #33 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. :)
You know, if I’d had a seat you wouldn’t still see me in this thing. - Chuck Yeager

-------------------------------------------------------
Carsten Banach

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #34 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

Offline Zachstar

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2490
  • Washington State
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #35 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?

Offline stefan1138

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #36 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

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #37 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

Offline stefan1138

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #38 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



Offline Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 775
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #39 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.   :)

Tags: