DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 4

[space nut]

This is a shedule I came up with so please see if it is doable.
Forget the unemployment and bickering , what does it take to get there
with the plan as it is. It could be Jupiter , It could be new.

see attached shedule.

[FinalFrontier]

This is a shedule I came up with so please see if it is doable.
Forget the unemployment and bickering , what does it take to get there
with the plan as it is. It could be Jupiter , It could be new.

see attached shedule.

Very interesting. I would encourage everyone to look at this.

[FinalFrontier]

Its very unlikely that fy 2011 will pass and if it does it will last one year and thats it, next year Congress wil tear into it an ethier change it completly or defund it. More likely it won't pass at all this year. Prepare for an ares ressurection .

By the time FY 2012 budget is going through Congress the Falcon 9 and possibly the Taurus II will have flown.  The Ares I can then be described as the fifth rocket.

Yep I dislike Ares 1. I mean, Ares 1-x looked cool (until staging lol) , but the actual rocket can't do the job it was intended for. Also: Its mind bogglinly expensive and we have EELVS that can do its job. Or we can just launch the crew on an HLV along with the rest of the stack (for beo)
But we will see, maybe congress will have some sense.....

[tankmodeler]

I said Block I.  That's the LEO version.  The MMOD, radiation, and thermal environments are exactly the same for this version as for the CRV version, it performs the exact same sequence of maneuvers, and unless I've misunderstood the planned mission sequence for Orion on Ares I to ISS, it has to remain docked at the station for similarly long periods of time.

Yes, I know you did, but, and I might be wrong here, so forgive me if I am, but the plan for the LEO Orion was to strip to 4 seats, short fuel the lunar SM and only deliver & swap out crews on ISS. I didn’t think that 6 month stays at the ISS were envisioned. If that last is true, then my comments still obtain. If the stay was supposed to be 6 months, then some of my comments need to be modified slightly, but the majority of my comments are still relevant.

The only difference I can see is that the life support system for the CRV version doesn't have to operate during the multi-day phasing orbit approach to the station.  But considering how far advanced the design is already, would you really save much by nerfing the life support system?

I maintain that it wouldn’t be just the life support system, The SM, at least would be significantly changed and if the stay on station is changed to 5+ years, then a LOT of systems will be very different to satisfy the needs of such a long dormancy period. W.r.t. the SM, as I said, the thrust, propellant, power and expendables needs would decrease drastically. The ship would probably go to batteries (no solar cells), It could probably get by with a small cluster of solids to perform re-entry burn (like Mercury & Gemini), all the life support could likely be contained inside the capsule, power & health monitoring systems would have to be capable of integration with the ISS systems, etc.

Those are huge changes. The lifeboat Orion stops looking something like an Apollo CSM and more like a fat Mercury capsule with some sort of protection for the TPS and a retro pack strapped to the ar$e.

Of course, this is all speculation. It’ll be years before anything like a real configuration emerges from the current programmatic confusion and the systems requirements phase that will follow any restart.

Paul

[Nathan]

This is a shedule I came up with so please see if it is doable.
Forget the unemployment and bickering , what does it take to get there
with the plan as it is. It could be Jupiter , It could be new.

see attached shedule.

What's Mars Pheobus?

[daveklingler]

This is a shedule I came up with so please see if it is doable.
Forget the unemployment and bickering , what does it take to get there
with the plan as it is. It could be Jupiter , It could be new.

see attached shedule.

What's Mars Pheobus?

I'm guessing that would be a 250,000 lbf nuclear thermal rocket originally designed for a 1978 Mars mission.

[Nathan]

I think an extension to the shuttle program is Direct's best chance.
If we extend two years we can still transition to Jupiter HLV program.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6984728.html


So maybe we should be asking congress to do this; extended shuttle and make a decision on HLV prior to shuttle program shutdown.

Partially funded by Constellation transition.
This may mean that Orion is lost though as it would have been partly funded by the transition money too i expect.

[space nut]

Sorry guys
This is a corrected spelled version of the spreadsheet.

For the record I'm like most, extent the shuttle a few, start Jupiter
as it makes the most logical sense.

Maybe it should be a line from a movie

" what does logic got to do with space travel "

[JohnFornaro]

As was pointed out in another thread, there's a good possibility that Congress might not deal with the FY2011 BSE, largly because of the inertia effect, particularly with controversial or difficult decisions:

...Based on this I would say that the probability of NASA starting FY11 under a Continuing Resolution at FY10 levels, with the statutory prohibition against Constellation termination in place, approaches unity.

So, when Chuck asks the gentle reader, (paraphrased) "Why is the Prez ignoring what seems to be a logical, productive way forward?" and then answers the question with the observation that perhaps removing NASA's political support is the answer to the question, I think he may be wrong.  But he also may be right.

Intuitively, it seems that ending our HSF program would not be received well by the American voter, so such an intent would have to be surreptitiously encacted, taking abusive advantage of the typical voter's short attention span as encouraged by the media, particularly the internets media.  The secretive nature of the BSE roll-out, for example, lends circumstantial evidence to support this.

But the meme of the security dangers that come along with the end of US HSF is out of the bag, and well known to many in Congress, which adds to the controversy and difficulty of determining the new funding arrangements and prioritization of missions.  This would argue for a Continuing Resolution as a convenient way to kick the can down the road, preserving the workforce and the POR for another year, so I think this needs to be considered as well.

Adding to the complexity:

...Jupiter offers lower cost-to-LEO than any existing launch system, for chemical. It also gets the investment in launch systems out of the way to enable investment in nuclear...

Which should be shouted from the rooftops a bit more loudly, I think, since this is more likely how we'll get to Mars in those fabled "39" days.

...There is *intense* bipartisan anger directed at the president over this space bill. Danderman's assertions on this website about the opposition being "fragmented" are pure FUD...

I feel the need to stand up for Danderman, at least regarding his comment about "fragmented opposition" to the FY2011 BSE.  While most people outside of the administration seem to be against the President's BSE, they are indeed "fragmented" in the sense that there is no unity among them about the best way forward for American HSF.  At least that's the way I read his comment.  YMMV.

[Jorge]

I said Block I.  That's the LEO version.  The MMOD, radiation, and thermal environments are exactly the same for this version as for the CRV version, it performs the exact same sequence of maneuvers, and unless I've misunderstood the planned mission sequence for Orion on Ares I to ISS, it has to remain docked at the station for similarly long periods of time.

Yes, I know you did, but, and I might be wrong here, so forgive me if I am, but the plan for the LEO Orion was to strip to 4 seats, short fuel the lunar SM and only deliver & swap out crews on ISS. I didn’t think that 6 month stays at the ISS were envisioned. If that last is true, then my comments still obtain. If the stay was supposed to be 6 months, then some of my comments need to be modified slightly, but the majority of my comments are still relevant.

The stay time was supposed to be six months.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Hmm: http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=6%3A7I%276D%26X%5BR%5B%2ES%40GOP4S%5EQ%3AO%225J%40%22%5FP%20%20%0A&urla=%25%2ARD%26%220%20%20%0A&urlb=%21%2A%20%20%20%0A&urlc=%21%2A0%20%20%0A&urld=%28%2A%22H%25%22%40%2AEUQX%20%0A&urle=%27%282D%27%23P%3EDW%40%20%20%0A

[Downix]

Hmm: http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=6%3A7I%276D%26X%5BR%5B%2ES%40GOP4S%5EQ%3AO%225J%40%22%5FP%20%20%0A&urla=%25%2ARD%26%220%20%20%0A&urlb=%21%2A%20%20%20%0A&urlc=%21%2A0%20%20%0A&urld=%28%2A%22H%25%22%40%2AEUQX%20%0A&urle=%27%282D%27%23P%3EDW%40%20%20%0A

Anyone else notice anything... familiar?

[dougkeenan]

The variant naming system seems somewhat familiar.

[SpacexULA]

Some of it looks like it was directly lifted from Direct, am I seeing things?

[93143]

I didn’t think that 6 month stays at the ISS were envisioned.

Well, Jorge says they were.  So that's settled.

I maintain that it wouldn’t be just the life support system, The SM, at least would be significantly changed and if the stay on station is changed to 5+ years, then a LOT of systems will be very different to satisfy the needs of such a long dormancy period. W.r.t. the SM, as I said, the thrust, propellant, power and expendables needs would decrease drastically. The ship would probably go to batteries (no solar cells), It could probably get by with a small cluster of solids to perform re-entry burn (like Mercury & Gemini), all the life support could likely be contained inside the capsule, power & health monitoring systems would have to be capable of integration with the ISS systems, etc.

First, the five-year requirement is probably not realistic.  Even Obama wouldn't ask LM to build one (1) Orion, and then sit on the production line in case the single manufactured unit is ever used and needs to be replaced.  That's beyond retarded.  (Even so, a Block III Orion needs to still work after a Mars mission, so five years might not be as big a challenge as it sounds...  either way, it's not a way to save money.)

Second, the changes you're describing are very fundamental design changes.  Orion is already designed.  It's too late to rework it into an optimized LEO-only CRV.

I suspect the CRV Orion design will be very close to the Block I Orion, and not significantly less expensive.

Hmm: really interesting link

Hmm indeed...

Now what would those numbers look like with RL-10-B2 or a fixed-nozzle equivalent?  How about a high-mass-fraction ACES-type stage (this is Boeing, after all) that wouldn't need a loiter skirt?

[FinalFrontier]

Hmm: http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=6%3A7I%276D%26X%5BR%5B%2ES%40GOP4S%5EQ%3AO%225J%40%22%5FP%20%20%0A&urla=%25%2ARD%26%220%20%20%0A&urlb=%21%2A%20%20%20%0A&urlc=%21%2A0%20%20%0A&urld=%28%2A%22H%25%22%40%2AEUQX%20%0A&urle=%27%282D%27%23P%3EDW%40%20%20%0A

Anyone else notice anything... familiar?

Elements of DIRECT are all through the Inline configurations........ this is interesting. 
However, seems like some of the earlier configs as well are in here, note that rs 68 is included, also a ET core stage with no srb, with core ssme or rs68 (we know that doesn't work right?)

[Mark S]

Hmm: http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=6%3A7I%276D%26X%5BR%5B%2ES%40GOP4S%5EQ%3AO%225J%40%22%5FP%20%20%0A&urla=%25%2ARD%26%220%20%20%0A&urlb=%21%2A%20%20%20%0A&urlc=%21%2A0%20%20%0A&urld=%28%2A%22H%25%22%40%2AEUQX%20%0A&urle=%27%282D%27%23P%3EDW%40%20%20%0A

Anyone else notice anything... familiar?

Elements of DIRECT are all through the Inline configurations........ this is interesting. 
However, seems like some of the earlier configs as well are in here, note that rs 68 is included, also a ET core stage with no srb, with core ssme or rs68 (we know that doesn't work right?)

No, Boeing only proposed the RS-68 variant.  The crew-only core-only version (without SRBs) could not use the SSME, it would not generate enough thrust.

Mark S.

[Downix]

Hmm: http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=6%3A7I%276D%26X%5BR%5B%2ES%40GOP4S%5EQ%3AO%225J%40%22%5FP%20%20%0A&urla=%25%2ARD%26%220%20%20%0A&urlb=%21%2A%20%20%20%0A&urlc=%21%2A0%20%20%0A&urld=%28%2A%22H%25%22%40%2AEUQX%20%0A&urle=%27%282D%27%23P%3EDW%40%20%20%0A

Anyone else notice anything... familiar?

Elements of DIRECT are all through the Inline configurations........ this is interesting. 
However, seems like some of the earlier configs as well are in here, note that rs 68 is included, also a ET core stage with no srb, with core ssme or rs68 (we know that doesn't work right?)

No, Boeing only proposed the RS-68 variant.  The crew-only core-only version (without SRBs) could not use the SSME, it would not generate enough thrust.

Mark S.

In theory, would it be possible to make a boattail that could feed either the RS-68 and SSME depending on need?

[Ben the Space Brit]

Some thoughts on the Boeing HLV presentation.

Firstly... It seriously freaked me out when I opened the PDF and saw graphics that were so reminiscent of the official DIRECT literature.

Secondly, I found it interesting that Boeing believes that the strengthened Jupiter-SH CCB is capable of launch without the structural support of the SRMs for crew-only launch.  I guess you could call that configuration the J-140SN (N for 'No Solids').  I presume that Boeing's thrust skirt is is built a lot more heavily than the DIRECT version so as to take the weight of the CCB.

Finally, a little tinfoil-hat wearing.  It is interesting that Boeing used the demonstrably-inferior Ares-V EDS concept for their presentation.  However, I have a possible explanation for this.  The common-bulkhead EDS is very much Centaur-derived.  If they used this in their presentation, it would heavily imply that they were co-operating with Lockheed-Martin on this project.  It might be politically awkward at this point if Boeing, LM and ATK were all seen as co-operating in an alternate launcher archetecture.  Then, later on, when NASA tells Boeing that its EDS is not acceptable, Lockheed can come forward and say: "Hey! We've got a Centaur-derived design that is perfect for this... Call it the ACES-181 or something..."

Closing note: Boeing's radial fuel depot is an interesting concept, as is their linkage of it with an HLV's lifting capability.  The use of a single modified ACES upper stage always had the feel of an experimental prototype.  The monster that Boeing proposes is a serious bit of infrastructure.


[edit]
@ Downix,

I believe that the ESAS study concluded that a non-stretched tank with four SSMEs could launch 25t to the ISS orbit.  However, a long time has passed since then (time enough for a more detailed assessment) and I don't know how much penalty Boeing calculates is heavier load-bearing boat-tail imposes on the design.

[MP99]

Closing note: Boeing's radial fuel depot is an interesting concept, as is their linkage of it with an HLV's lifting capability.  The use of a single modified ACES upper stage always had the feel of an experimental prototype.  The monster that Boeing proposes is a serious bit of infrastructure.

For a little more on the radial PD, see the page 13 of this ULA document:-

Realistic Near-Term Propellant Depots: Implementation of a Critical Spacefaring Capability

D. Boeing Multi-Launch Dual-Fluid Depot Concept

The Boeing propellant depot architecture, shown below in Fig. 11, would include two independent depots in LEO, a reusable propellant carrier and a low-cost launch vehicle, such as the SpaceX Falcon 9. Each depot would consist of a central truss and six tank modules derived from the Delta IV Heavy upper stage. Each depot would be sized to provide sufficient propellant to fill the ESAS Reference Architecture LSAM DM and to replenish the EDS propellant used during ascent³⁷.

The truss and empty tank modules would be launched individually on Falcon 9 launch vehicles. Each tank module has a capacity of 25mT. Propellant would be delivered to the depot by reusable propellant carriers with a capacity of 9.4mT each. Propellant carriers would be berthed to the propellant transfer port on the depot truss. A robotic arm removes and releases the propellant carrier following propellant transfer. Propellant carriers would be able to be used a maximum of 10 times before being replaced. A reusable transfer stage is included in the growth plans for the Boeing Depot Architecture.

A multiple-tank configuration depot with central truss was selected based on Boeing’s trade study of 13 different concepts.³⁸ Atlas V and Delta IV upper stages were considered as depot tank modules. The Delta IV Heavy upper stage configuration was chosen because the depot capacity requirement could be met with six tank sets instead of the eight required if the stock Atlas V Centaur upper stage were used. Propulsion and avionics system modifications along with additional thermal protection and micrometeoroid and orbital debris shielding were defined and mass properties estimated.

The depot modules would incorporate Orbital Express autonomous capabilities for rendezvous and proximity operations.. The truss would include two robotic arms to berth depot storage tanks, propellant carriers and EDS to appropriate locations.

Propellant depot capacity was defined by the LSAM DM propellant capacity and the EDS propellant used during ascent. LSAM DM propellant mass, as studied by the NASA ESAS team, varied between 25 and 30mT³⁹. Boeing estimated LSAM DM propellant mass to be 25mT based on the ESAS CaLV Case 2 mass allocation⁴⁰. The EDS contained 490,744 lbm (222.6mT) at lift-off and 219,443 lbm (99.5mT) remained upon reaching LEO. Therefore, a LEO propellant depot would have to provide a minimum of 147mT to the EDS and LSAM DM.

Table 2. A Comparison of Four Near-Term Depot Concepts

<snip>

Multi-Launch Modular Depot

Advantages
• Large depot capacity, 150mT LO2/LH2 and larger
• Integral robotic arm makes berthing of visiting vehicles much easier
• Capable of zero boil-off operations or at least very low boil-off.
• Could be combined with the dualfluid design above to yield very large propellant depots, >450 mT LO2/LH2 capability
• Depot and propellant launch not in mission critical path

Disadvantages
• Requires multiple launches
• Requires orbital assembly (albeit mostly autonomous)
• Large station has substantial stationkeeping requirements

³⁷ Bienhoff, D, “The Potential Impact of a LEO Propellant Depot On the NASA ESAS Architecture,” Space Technology & Applications International Forum (STAIR-2007), Albuquerque, NM, 11-15 February, 2007
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/constellation/references/presentations/Potential_Impact_of_LEO_Propellant_on_NASA_ESAS_Architecture.pdf (added link, MP)

³⁸ Chandler, F., Bienhoff, D., Cronick, J., and Grayson, G. “Propellant Depots for Earth Orbit and Lunar Exploration”. AIAA-2007-6081. September 2007.

³⁹ NASA Exploration System Architecture Final Report, Tables 4-21 and 4-23
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/140635main_ESAS_04.pdf

⁴⁰ NASA Exploration System Architecture ESAS Final Report Figure 6-43
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/140637main_ESAS_06.pdf