DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3

[MP99]

Because of the much higher flight rates planned under DIRECT, a J-130/DHCUS would cost somewhere around $195m and a J-246 would tip the scales at just under $320m.

Hmm, that's less than the numbers I'd seen before. Are you excluding the costs of launch operations? That would probably be the right number to use for a fair comparison, assuming launch operations with a different launcher would have similar costs.

I guess that must be down the road once "disposable" SSME's are under production.

Early 3xSSME's @ $60m each = $180m just on their own.

cheers, Martin


Edit: I got my figures wrong! Please see http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15541.msg397373#msg397373.

[MP99]

If so, what kinds of probes with what kinds of capabilities would we be feasably looking at sending out?  Larger obviously.  How much compared to current probes like Cassini, New Horizons, MERs, MESSENGER, etc? 

Possibly the biggest limitation to New Horizons is that it would have needed to be much heavier to brake itself into orbit.

As a result, after a ~10yr flight, the probe will perform a high-speed flypast, instead of maybe months or longer in orbit.

cheers, Martin

I think NH is a flyby mission.

I said it was a flypast.

Is that different to a flyby?

cheers, Martin

[mmeijeri]

I guess that must be down the road once "disposable" SSME's are under production.

Early 3xSSME's @ $60m each = $180m just on their own.

The variable costs for a J-130 I'm aware of are as follows:

2 x 4 seg SRB: $56M
3 x SSME: $96M
1 x Common Core Booster: $32M
1 x Aft Thrust Structure $12M
1 x PLF: $5M
launch operations: $50M

total $251M

Additional costs for J-232:

2 x J-2X: $16M
1 x Upper Stage: $24M

[William Barton]

I guess that must be down the road once "disposable" SSME's are under production.

Early 3xSSME's @ $60m each = $180m just on their own.

The variable costs for a J-130 I'm aware of are as follows:

2 x 4 seg SRB: $56M
3 x SSME: $96M
1 x Common Core Booster: $32M
1 x Aft Thrust Structure $12M
1 x PLF: $5M
launch operations: $50M

total $251M

Additional costs for J-232:

2 x J-2X: $16M
1 x Upper Stage: $24M

Even if you live with the $180mln SSME cost, that's still only $335mln per JS-130. That's not outlandish for a vehicle that size, compared to the cost of a Delta IV-H launch, for example. The next size up for that schema would be JS-241, totalling $427mln. That's not outlandish in our current context. It does suggest lunar architecture should become expeditionary, rather than excursionary, as soon as practical. More science/exploration bang per buck.

[spacecase]

Did you see the report on Biomedical Challenges for Long Duration Lunar Habit (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16840.0)?

I would feel a lot better if NASA went with a launch architecture that has margin to work with, like Direct.

Radiation shielding for long duration stays (more than a week) is going to be a challenge and I'm afraid Aries isn't up to the task. Flags and footprints will be all we can afford (economically & biologically).

There's a lot to be said about a system that gives you options.

[Xentry]

hmmm... "even" the European ATV does it? Really? The ATV is a pressurized, 21-ton vehicle, 10.5m long and 22m wide if you include the solar panels... Wouldn't that make it the largest, heaviest vehicle ever with a fully automated docking system?

Didn't mean that to be taken as a "lesser"; that wasn't the intent - not at all. Sorry for the misinterpretation. The point is that automated docking is not black magic and there's no reason for it to be avoided based on pilots preferring to do it themselves.

(...)

The technology is available and functioning on other spacecraft and has proved its dependability for a very long time now.

No problem, and sorry if the reaction seemed/was excessive. My point was that the most comparable case (mass-wise) to DIRECT probably is the ATV due to its size (just the pressurized volume is comparable to that on the Apollo lunar missions!).
Also, I totally agree that the technology is there, and just because the DART experiment a few years back went bad, it doesn't mean that if it was committed, the US couldn't quickly and independently develop the technology. It probably could.

Still, is automated rendezvous really a technology on the critical-path, when both the Shuttle and Apollo are/were able to do it manually? In my view it's just a desirable technology. I just don't see why it would stand in the way of performing the initial lunar flights...

[Kaputnik]

If so, what kinds of probes with what kinds of capabilities would we be feasably looking at sending out?  Larger obviously.  How much compared to current probes like Cassini, New Horizons, MERs, MESSENGER, etc? 

Possibly the biggest limitation to New Horizons is that it would have needed to be much heavier to brake itself into orbit.

As a result, after a ~10yr flight, the probe will perform a high-speed flypast, instead of maybe months or longer in orbit.

cheers, Martin

I think NH is a flyby mission.

I said it was a flypast.

Is that different to a flyby?

cheers, Martin

My bad! Somehoe I didn't see that line in your post! 

[clongton]

hmmm... "even" the European ATV does it? Really? The ATV is a pressurized, 21-ton vehicle, 10.5m long and 22m wide if you include the solar panels... Wouldn't that make it the largest, heaviest vehicle ever with a fully automated docking system?

Didn't mean that to be taken as a "lesser"; that wasn't the intent - not at all. Sorry for the misinterpretation. The point is that automated docking is not black magic and there's no reason for it to be avoided based on pilots preferring to do it themselves.

(...)

The technology is available and functioning on other spacecraft and has proved its dependability for a very long time now.

No problem, and sorry if the reaction seemed/was excessive. My point was that the most comparable case (mass-wise) to DIRECT probably is the ATV due to its size (just the pressurized volume is comparable to that on the Apollo lunar missions!).
Also, I totally agree that the technology is there, and just because the DART experiment a few years back went bad, it doesn't mean that if it was committed, the US couldn't quickly and independently develop the technology. It probably could.

Still, is automated rendezvous really a technology on the critical-path, when both the Shuttle and Apollo are/were able to do it manually? In my view it's just a desirable technology. I just don't see why it would stand in the way of performing the initial lunar flights...

IMO, Manual/Visual docking should be the SOP, at least for the beginning, with automated docking being introduced as it becomes available. As it matures, it should gradually become the SOP, but always at the pilot's discretion. Once it is actually SOP however, new pilots, as they are trained, should be taught and expected to use the system, without neglecting their ability to take over manually when needed.

[Xentry]

I will double-check with my source, but my current understanding is that the capability was developed after STS-107 during the time when some people were pushing for a crew-less Orbiter option.   I've been told that the system has been integrated since RTF, but isn't used because crew performance has been so exceptional over the years.   But I will double-check.

Last time I checked, the GNC program, which aids in docking, runs on laptop computers, not on the actual shuttle computers.

My guess is you're thinking of the "auto land" capability rather than automated rendezvous and docking. 

Seriously doubt the automated docking GNC system could ever be installed on the Shuttle. I just don't see the Shuttle running an GNC system external to its DPS, which on the other hand would absolutely be a must since the AP-101S computers run at just a little over 1 MFLOP... By the way, here is a webpage describing those wondrous 65-lb machines:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/orbiter/avionics/dps/gpc.html

[kraisee]

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15541.0;attach=129140;image

I cannot see how the "Orion Extracts Altair and Support Cradle" part meant to be done. Wouldn't the exhaust of the ACS on the Orion doing this impact on the Altair?

I've been lurking on NSF for awhile now. Keep up the good work on DIRECT

Remember that the RCS packs on Orion aren't pointing straight up/down.   They're canted at 45 degrees from the centerline.   That means that their thrust is angled away fairly safely.

Here's the best (!) image I could find at short notice:



Can you see that the thrusters are actually tucked in behind the 'forward bulkhead' of the Service Module?   That arrangement will mean Altair never gets the plume from Orion's RCS impinging directly upon it.

Ross.

[kraisee]

Ross, Chuck,

If you can get yourself invited to the rumoured 60-day review, it seems to me that even if they concede the common platform argument, and they buy the upper stage with the truflate chuck in the side, and they go along with the turn the ET in a big giant lathe meme (sorry, couldn't resist a little ribbing), and even the price savings angle, they can come at you with schedule. 

I know that some of the veterans here look askance at your timetables.  If someone challenges you with, well, you could do it, but it will take a good ten years to do it, do you have a card you can flip down on the table? 

If DIRECT were to be greenlighted, would it not take a while for everyone to buy in on the idea and get their oars synchronized?  There might be time lost just in juggling humans for a while.

This why there MUST be a review which details all the alternatives and shows precisely why the decisions are made the way they are.

ESAS is clearly full of holes, so this review needs to be transparent from start to finish.   It needs to fairly judge all the candidates and rate them in all the necessary categories like ISS phase, Lunar phase, NEO phase, Mars phase with sub-categories for each detailing budget, schedule, performance, workforce etc etc.

Only once we can all see a review is fair, unbiased and was clearly done to select the best option for the program -- only by showing the all of facts and showing how each option truly does stack-up against each other, that's the onyl real way to get people to support a decision which they might not initially have supported.

Speaking for myself, if there were an independent report, which we felt was conducted fairly and openly with all stakeholders having input at every stage of the process, even if the final result didn't go our way, I could support the winner on grounds of it being the "best option for NASA" -- whatever that option might be.

And I know that I'm not alone.   I think 99.9% of the entire industry could accept such an answer -- just as long as they got a truly fair hearing.

With a fair decision, I think everyone could get behind the one solution and we wouldn't have all these different factions fighting turf wars.   If we don't solve that issue at the root, we'll just be setting up another program which gets changed around again 4 years from now...

Ross.

[kraisee]

Because of the much higher flight rates planned under DIRECT, a J-130/DHCUS would cost somewhere around $195m and a J-246 would tip the scales at just under $320m.

Hmm, that's less than the numbers I'd seen before. Are you excluding the costs of launch operations? That would probably be the right number to use for a fair comparison, assuming launch operations with a different launcher would have similar costs.

That's the full cost for the launch vehicle, including launch ops.   It does not include the costs for the spacecraft though -- Orion/Altair/Cargo would be extra.

There is a real cost benefit to be found by using the RL-10's in mass production (~72+ per year, more inc. EELV).   That keeps the JUS flight costs down nice and low.

Ross.

[kraisee]

I guess that must be down the road once "disposable" SSME's are under production.

Early 3xSSME's @ $60m each = $180m just on their own.

cheers, Martin

Please forgive me, but I'm going to growl at you:  GRRRR!   

The $60m figure which is often quoted for SSME, is based only upon a single, very limited, production run of 3 units on a single contract done in the mid-1990's.

Two thirds of that cost is Fixed and remains pretty much the same irrelevant of whether you make 3 units or 30 units.   Only one third of that is actually the per-unit Variable cost.

3 units cost $120m Fixed + $20m Variable each = $180m = $60m each when amortized.

10 units cost $120m Fixed + $20m Variable each = $320m = $32m each.

30 units cost $120m Fixed + $20m Variable each = $720m = $24m each.


And this is the cost profile for the regular *reusable* Block-IIA SSME currently used on Shuttle, not even for the disposable 'cheap' variant.   Rocketdyne themselves have indicated that in production units of just 3 at a time, they could reduce the SSME costs down 33% to $40m per unit for a disposable variant.

And I'm not even factoring in the real-world economies of scale reductions yet either -- which drop the costs slightly further.

MP99, sorry I really don't mean to pick on you, but every time someone mentions the $60m figure, it perpetuates wrong information and frustrates me because we've got ourselves a tough enough 'sell' without the opposition clinging hold to such false figures and trying to use them against us.   I want to dispel this myth before it ever gets started.

Ross.

[kraisee]

I guess that must be down the road once "disposable" SSME's are under production.

Early 3xSSME's @ $60m each = $180m just on their own.

The variable costs for a J-130 I'm aware of are as follows:

2 x 4 seg SRB: $56M
3 x SSME: $96M
1 x Common Core Booster: $32M
1 x Aft Thrust Structure $12M
1 x PLF: $5M
launch operations: $50M

total $251M

Additional costs for J-232:

2 x J-2X: $16M
1 x Upper Stage: $24M

Jeez, where are those numbers coming from?   A lot of them are quite out of date now.

I'll see about getting a new breakdown put together for you.

Ross.

[mmeijeri]

That's the full cost for the launch vehicle, including launch ops.   It does not include the costs for the spacecraft though -- Orion/Altair/Cargo would be extra.

There is a real cost benefit to be found by using the RL-10's in mass production (~72+ per year, more inc. EELV).   That keeps the JUS flight costs down nice and low.

Can you say which numbers in my earlier post are out of date / wrong? My total for J-130 is $251M and that is not even counting the DHCSS, substantially more than your $195M and it can't be due to lower costs of RL-10. And this might be a good moment to acknowledge that even though I despise the JUS and hope it is never developed, it will have at least some synergy with commercial manned spaceflight in the form of reduced prices for RL-10's. Not as much synergy as I'd like, but not nil.

[mmeijeri]

Jeez, where are those numbers coming from?   A lot of them are quite out of date now.

I'll see about getting a new breakdown put together for you.

Lol! The dangers of two people posting at the same time... The numbers are from your AIAA paper, updated by your recent postings and possibly mangled by yours truly.

[kraisee]

Can you say which numbers in my earlier post are out of date / wrong?

I'll have to go look the numbers up and extract them from the relevant spreadsheets.

Without actually doing that, I'll give you my initial impression:

The SRB numbers look pretty reasonable to me.   The SSME still look high at our baseline flight rate.   The Core+TS figures are high because there are ways to reduce them which we didn't know back in the AIAA paper.   And launch ops is actually a fixed cost item, not variable, so is apportioned across all the flights that year -- at our planned baseline of ~12 flights per year that gets nice and low.

I haven't got any more details until I extract the actual numbers for you.


EDIT:   I will concede that in the very earliest years, those just after the J-130 becomes operational -- around 2013 thru 2016 -- where we have not yet ramped up to the full flight rate, your costs are closer.   But that is a transition period and will not last, so we aren't judging things by that.

Ross.

[mmeijeri]

Thanks! Looking forward to the actual numbers, once you get a chance to look them up.

[cgrunska]

looking at that picture ross posted, is the big square on the base of Altair where the moon rover is located?

[fotoguzzi]

Ross, Chuck,

If you can get yourself invited to the rumoured 60-day review,

This why there MUST be a review which details all the alternatives and shows precisely why the decisions are made the way they are.

Thanks, Ross!

I guess what my tin ear doesn't hear is:  Does the DIRECT team:

a) present itself as a space agency in miniature (with a program director with energy as boundless as the space he would like to explore) and present its shadow programme--a flip chart at the ready for every conceivable question that could be raised. Or,

b) posit to the committee that Ares I is not very useful and that as concepts, the J-xxx is about as far along as Ares V.  With that as a basis, present the strengths of the infrastructure, common platform, and reused personnel.  And stop there.  Rather than have a bill of materials all ready to go, just present the basics of the launch system and concede that it may come out much differently when the full space agency commences the design phase. Or,

c) other.

DIRECT, so far, seems to be a preparation for a).  But does the a) approach allow the enemy to knock out one specific piece and imply that the rest of the specifics are invalid?  The b) way would show the good points, allow the space agency to claim the design from scratch, and be a squishier target to hit.  Design a launch vehicle? Us?  Naw, we are just designing a concept.  We'll let the space agency design the vehicle to this broad framework we propose.

Thanks.

(Modify: typo)