DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[Khadgars]

Luke,
Thanks for joining the conversation. Your input is certainly anticipated!

I agree with most of what you expressed, sans the "Stick really is a joke" comment.

Forgive me for not agreeing with you, but as one person who is involved with Ares I, I can with the most confidence tell you, that the many people that are working on it and make sure it succeeds, do not consider it a joke at all.

Everyone involved is trying so very hard to make sure it works the first time and every time.

Whether one believes that another launch vehicle would be better, is nearly a moot point.

The time is late this evening, and don't have the energy to really expand on my thoughts, as I have to go to work to KSC tomorrow, and work on Ares I, among other duties.

Just wanted to give my thanks and appreciation for the work you are/will do with Ares.

With that out of the way, saying Ares I is a joke is a joke in of it's self. People are forgetting Ares I has the potential to be the safest,most reliable human rated space vehicle ever created. It has the least amount of moving parts, only two separation events based heavily upon a rocket motor that has only one in flight failure in over 30 years. If people don't like the cost of it that is one thing, but bashing it's technical capabilities is premature imo.

[J.McDonald]

Yes, Ares-I could in theory be a very safe launcher. Assuming that the design concept is more important than other factors- like flight history and rate. I hope NASA are more realistic with their LOC/LOM figures than they were last time they designed a manned launcher.

Personally, this emphasis on crew safety for a flight to LEO worries me a little. With this level of risk-aversion nobody will ever go beyond LEO again. NASA themselves estimate that several individual events of a lunar mission are four times more dangerous than the ascent to LEO. A crew is estimated to be 20 times more likely to be killed on a lunar mission than they are on riding an EELV to orbit.

[Rick]

I guess this begs the question, when has lunar travel not been dangerous?

[Luke]

Thanks for the reply Rick, and thanks for your work on The Stick. I really do Appreciate it, and I do think you guys will make it work. I guess I should qualify my comment and restate it - something like; The Stick is a practical joke...

By this, I mean that it is literally designed to be economically impractical [maximum employment retention and political carryover to Ares V,] and that a solid rocket motor is the least optimal [and dirtiest] way to propel a manned orbital vehicle [ATK needs its wings clipped.]

Thanks for being such a sport about a potentially inflammatory comment. The overarching point that I was trying to make is that the Ares crowd and the Direct crowd each have valid points, and that both camps have gotten rather parochial.

My personal [uneducated] view is that we need an F-1 class LOX/Kero engine [1,000,000+ lb thrust,] and that we need big, cheap, dumb boosters. It is crazy wasteful to use LH2 or solids [or especially a combination of the two] for a first stage.

If you're working on the Stick, then you might as well make it the best it can be

-Luke

From Rick:

Re: DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

---

Luke,
Thanks for joining the conversation. Your input is certainly anticipated!

I agree with most of what you expressed, sans the "Stick really is a joke" comment.

Forgive me for not agreeing with you, but as one person who is involved with Ares I, I can with the most confidence tell you, that the many people that are working on it and make sure it succeeds, do not consider it a joke at all.

Everyone involved is trying so very hard to make sure it works the first time and every time.

Whether one believes that another launch vehicle would be better, is nearly a moot point.

The time is late this evening, and don't have the energy to really expand on my thoughts, as I have to go to work to KSC tomorrow, and work on Ares I, among other duties.
__________________
Thanks,

Rick - Inside KSC Site Owner

[Luke]

Welcome to the site, Luke. Hope this doesn't seem like starting off on the wrong foot, but a few points I'd like to bring up:

Not at all. I'm pleased that you took the time to address my comments. I'm not looking for unanimous agreement - it is definitely the right foot

150t is an arbitrary figure. Why not 140t? 200t?
'Certain' people would advocate a 100t launcher that you'd use in a dual-launch program. Higher flights rates mean better economy and better safety. And as a little bonus it appears that this slightly smaller LV would fit much more easily into existing STS-heritage infrastructure.
This capability is still five times the capability of any other space-faring nation.
Further, AFAIK NASA is not allowed to sell launch services. And no other country would have the need for such a capability. To think that they do is just pie-in-the-sky.

Yes 150t is an arbitrary figure. For the record, I put 150t+, by which I meant greater than 150t. I think a 100t launcher is a great idea, and we have a couple of great candidates; we should field one asap.

In addition, I think we should build a super heavy 150t+ launcher, and that's what NASA should be tasked with, because anything smaller can be done better, faster, and cheaper by other parties - IMHO.

Your point about NASA being prohibited from competing in the launch market is well taken; I think the legislation should be modified, so NASA can compete above 40t - then the lower limit should be moved to 60t, 80t, 100t, etc., as the launch market is developed.

Nations do not need to go into space period. I do think however that nations [or groups of nations] would pay $2Billion plus [eventually] to launch huge payloads, if the service were available. Think how much cheaper [and quicker/better] the ISS would have been, were such a capability extant.

Private property rights need to be recognized in space as well, to jump start some of these things, like colonizing and prospecting NEOs. This stuff is not financially pie in the sky at all. Large corporations frequently raise this kind of capital to expand infrastructure. It wouldn't be that hard with a few million tons of nickel/iron and a few thousand tons of platinum as collateral.


Was that a misprint? If not, I agree. Commercial companies could develop a new LV faster, better, and cheaper, because commercial is where the design experience is these days. NASA hasn't designed and flown a new manned spacecraft since the 70s.

It was not a misprint, we do agree on at least one thing. Having said that, I think the model works best when NASA engineers push the envelope researching things that are less [or not] practical at present, letting private industry develop the things with a nearer return potential. The licensing of Transhab tech to Bigelow is an excellent example of this. As a technology becomes near practical, Nasa should license it to American companies and cut it loose.


Nice idea but unlikely. You can't just stick a manned payload onto another vehicle. Those launcher have no manned access at the pads, for starters. The Orion would have to have a lot of propellant offloaded to fit onto those vehicles, and that means it wouldn't help you out at all for a lunar mission. Overall, though, it would be a good idea, if it could be made to work.

I don't know whether there are standard launcher interfaces or crew access criterion for such a vehicle [NASA should develop such standards.] Your point that there are many obstacles to this is well taken, but I think it would be in everyone's best interest to begin such standardization, and that this is the kind of leadership NASA should be engaged in.


Agreed!

Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my post; I readily acknowledge that most of you know more about all this than I do. I'm more interested in bringing fresh perspective to the debate.

[Steering vigorously back on topic] Perhaps Direct 2.0 is quiet, because they are very busy right now.

Just a guess...

[Luke]

Rick,

First off, please accept my apologies for the sloppy nature of my posts. As I have said I have been lurking for quite a while, but had never posted, so I am just learning the conventions. Please don't hesitate to educate me regarding said conventions.

Luke,
Thanks for joining the conversation. Your input is certainly anticipated!

I agree with most of what you expressed, sans the "Stick really is a joke" comment.

Forgive me for not agreeing with you, but as one person who is involved with Ares I, I can with the most confidence tell you, that the many people that are working on it and make sure it succeeds, do not consider it a joke at all.

Everyone involved is trying so very hard to make sure it works the first time and every time.

Whether one believes that another launch vehicle would be better, is nearly a moot point.

The time is late this evening, and don't have the energy to really expand on my thoughts, as I have to go to work to KSC tomorrow, and work on Ares I, among other duties.

Regarding my off-color "...the Stick is a joke" comment. I saw on another thread that anticipated launch costs for the Stick are $120Million/launch. Is this true? What does that cover [the launch vehicle and the actual event sans development?] How does this compare with launch costs for other [historical/adjusted for inflation] and proposed crew launch vehicles?

How many Sticks could be produced/launched annually?

[J.McDonald]

Rick might be able to answer this more authoritatively than I can, but AFAIK the $120m doesn't cover the fixed costs, not does it amortize development costs.
If NASA were allowed to sell Ares-I flights at that cost, they would massively undercut the commercial launchers. Unfortunately this wouldn't happen because
a) they're not allowed to
b) there is no (current) commercial need for heavy LEO payloads- you'd need a third stage to get into the GEO market
c) the cost when fixed/development costs are included would actually be far higher.

[Khadgars]

Rick might be able to answer this more authoritatively than I can, but AFAIK the $120m doesn't cover the fixed costs, not does it amortize development costs.
If NASA were allowed to sell Ares-I flights at that cost, they would massively undercut the commercial launchers. Unfortunately this wouldn't happen because
a) they're not allowed to
b) there is no (current) commercial need for heavy LEO payloads- you'd need a third stage to get into the GEO market
c) the cost when fixed/development costs are included would actually be far higher.

Ares I wasn't designed to launch commercial payloads and as you have stated isn't even allowed, I don't understand why this is part of the argument. An EELV solution can only be cheaper (in the long run) if it also replaces Ares V and launches 8+ times per mission which, by many is considered to be ridiculous. Not to mention the huge amount of the workforce that would be lost if NASA went with an EELV.

Luke, in response to some of your comments on a better launch vehicle, I think a lot of us could come up with a better design given a clean sheet. How ever that wasn't and isn't the case in regards to the VSE, it was meant to be shuttle derived. Bringing clean sheet designs into the argument doesn't do the reality of the situation much good

[J.McDonald]

Ares I wasn't designed to launch commercial payloads and as you have stated isn't even allowed, I don't understand why this is part of the argument.

I mentioned it to head off the inevitable questions that get asked whenever somebody quotes a figure of $120m for Ares-I vs. $500m for a similar capacity EELV.
IMHO, there is no way that Ares-I will work out that cheap. It puts them in SpaceX territory.

[Rick]

Thanks for the reply Rick, and thanks for your work on The Stick. I really do Appreciate it, and I do think you guys will make it work. I guess I should qualify my comment and restate it - something like; The Stick is a practical joke...

By this, I mean that it is literally designed to be economically impractical [maximum employment retention and political carryover to Ares V,] and that a solid rocket motor is the least optimal [and dirtiest] way to propel a manned orbital vehicle [ATK needs its wings clipped.]

Thanks for being such a sport about a potentially inflammatory comment. The overarching point that I was trying to make is that the Ares crowd and the Direct crowd each have valid points, and that both camps have gotten rather parochial.

Luke, no problem at all. I've become rather thick skinned, when SOME armchair engineers (not you, nor JMcDonald)) bash something that they are not even involved with, at any level.

I've been more concerned recently with the current US Administration's fluid policy about the future of manned spaceflight. In other words, I am wary of any post Shuttle programs future. Having said that, I appear to be one of the few that believe that NASA and its contractors involved with the VSE know what they are doing.

Anyway, thanks again for joining the discussion.

Rick

[JimMcDade]

I have been busy of late and it is nice to come back here and read the recent comments by Luke and the usual cast here at InsideKSC.

Regarding Rick's comment about President's Obama's fluidity, I share those concerns.

It appears that the administration is adopting the core hardware elements of the VSE, but the bigger questions is, "Where will Obama send Ares I and Ares V and how often will those rockets be used in the future?"

Ares I will certainly become the very busy ISS/LEO prime vehicle. I suspect that manned lunar missions might come few and far between, perhaps one every two or three years, if Obama is to be a two-term President.

Obama is aware that China and Russia are going to go to the moon and he realizes that US prestige will suffer at home and abroad if the USA drops out of the lunar game. If US prestige suffers, Obama's public image suffers. He has to keep the moon within NASA's scope of activities. Obama may turn out to be the most effective moon pitch-man since JFK. Just watch.

I disagree with the critics who say that the moon is a been there, done that destination. The moon is important for reasons other than science or technological prowess. The moon is incredibly symbolic and it is something that almost every human being can see with their own eyes. A new, but peaceful moon competition could revive the old international prestige competition that made Apollo possible.

Prestige has always been one of the primary motivations driving the quest for space. The USA will not drop out as long as China and Russia continue to pursue the moon as a target of their national ambitions.

PS- I saw that Wayne Hale strongly endorsed the Ares vehicles a day or two ago. Does anybody have the copy of his statements?

[Luke]

I couldn't agree more with your comment about the value in returning to the moon. I also think a lunar base will eventually [not too far off I hope] become an integral part [along with orbital and Lagrange stations] of a space faring infrastructure, which I believe is STILL very important, even with HLLVs, which I support. The HLLV's are better suited to get that infrastructure lifted more economically - then other LVs will benefit from vastly increased utility.

I think Obama, like other democrat presidents before him, will follow public opinion, while trying to support the illusion of leading it. I do think Obama is a credible statesman, and I hope [I think] he will be wise enough to keep all of our space exploration options open, so that when the winds of public opinion shift [when the Russians or Chinese pose a credible challenge,] we will be positioned to pursue an aggressive exploration strategy.

[JimMcDade]

Luke, you use the force well. I am not your father, but I think you will do well here at InsideKSC.

Ares I is still rolling along just fine, according to the REAL reports. Those supposedly intractable problems have been knocked down, one-by-one. The real challenge for space exploration supporters is in maintaining the national will to explore space and return to the moon in light of this shaky economy.

[Luke]

Luke, you use the force well. I am not your father, but I think you will do well here at InsideKSC.

Ares I is still rolling along just fine, according to the REAL reports. Those supposedly intractable problems have been knocked down, one-by-one. The real challenge for space exploration supporters is in maintaining the national will to explore space and return to the moon in light of this shaky economy.

Thanks Jim,

It can be difficult to separate rumor from fact, especially when agendas collide. As I have said, I have no particular axe to grind, and I have my own reservations about the Stick, while seeing merit in some of the Direct 2.0 and EELV ideas - but it seems counterproductive to human space exploration in general to crusade against Ares to the point of manufacturing pseudo-data at this juncture. Maybe some of these folks don't want us in space at all, and the rhetoric is just a smokescreen...

I am admittedly somewhat impatient with the political realities that require us to implement technically less optimal solutions like Ares, Direct, or EELV - but I want the chosen solution, which is Ares at this point, to succeed.

I hope the Stick works out, that it turns out to be as safe, reliable, and cost effective to launch as we've been told it should be. I also hope that it will be quickly rendered irrelevant by developments in the growing New Space movement [Falcon 9/Dragon among others.]

Ares V will not be rendered irrelevant in any case, precisely because it is NOT economical to operate, it is relatively high risk, it fills a requisite [if unacknowledged] need for a true space faring civilization, and ONLY NASA can realistically do it within the next ten or twenty years. Ares V is the key, and I hope it evolves into a 200t+ launcher for all of our sakes.

I have the utmost respect for the folks at NASA, be they Ares cheerleaders or Direct 2.0 or EELV renegades, but [forgive me for saying so] this is bigger than they are. Some folks at NASA are going to lose their jobs, and this is regrettable - just as regrettable [and no more so] than all the other folks out there who are losing their jobs and having to make difficult adjustments in these challenging times.

NASA should not be permitted to sell subsidized launches below cost to undercut the private sector as they did in the early days of the shuttle [and they are not,] but they should be allowed to sell expensive, super heavy launches that no one else can do [if there are any takers] and invest that money into furthering this nation's interests in human space exploration. We could probably launch a better [if not bigger?] ISS than the one we have now in ONE LAUNCH of a 200t+ lifter. How much has ISS launching and assembly cost so far?

IMHO NASA needs to focus on super heavy lift and advanced propulsion, because these are the things the private sector can/will not do at this time. For the other stuff, I like the COTS model and the various prizes designed to engage the private sector more than the traditional big [defense] contractor model.

[Sheepishly] Ok, getting off soapbox now and donning flame resistant apparel. By all means, disagree with me vociferously - but let's keep our eye on the ball - and get a permanent human presence beyond earth orbit.

[J.McDonald]

Luke, I don't see why you cling to the 200t+ mantra. Where are the payloads? The most powerful LV in the world at present, Delta IVH, hardly flies at all! By that metric, a launcher nearly ten times the capacity would fly, what, once every ten years?
Do you completely discount the advantages of increased flight rate? I have heard that most of the delays and stoppages during the last Delta heavy countdown were to do with the team being 'out of practise'. It would be interesting to contrast a Delta launch with say a Soyuz countdown, which happens so often I bet the staff could practically do one in their sleep.

If we opt for a smaller LV, maybe 100t, then it can fly twice as often. More chances to iron out teething problems. More willingness to fly test flights too since each one would cost much less.
It just so happens that by choosing such a size of vehicle, we can also choose to save the current STS infrastructure, which saves money, and it also happens that if we choose that size, a realtively economical version of it can be flown sans one engine and the upper stage, and that could feasibly replace the Stick.
Third, and very importantly, if we choose essentially a single vehicle, and develop it instead of the Stick, it is much more resistant to cancellation. The US will commit to replacing its human to LEO capability. But does anyone really trust the current administration to do anything more than that?
If we developed the first stage of a HLLV instead of the Stick, then wouldn't we be in a better position for a luanr return if and when the political will and budget was there?

My personal preference is for the widest launcher possible compatible with a 50-75t payload. No individual element of a lunar of Mars mission need weigh more than that. However if we want to keep things to two-launch I must confess that I am very much persuaded by the Direct plan.

[J.McDonald]

FYI, the DIRECT team have just re-baselined to SSME from RS68.
This move appears to have been initiated following studies into base heating issues on Ares-V. The environment of two 5-segment SRBs plus size ablative RS68s has, apparently, caused concern. DIRECT were initially confident that their smaller SRBs and having half the numbers of RS68s made them immune from this problem, although 'just in case' they designated a new aft fairing shape to improve airflow to the base of the vehicle.
It appears that NASA have been studying the SSME option closely and the 'higher costs' issue appears to be less of a problem than previously thought. In light of this, DIRECT have decided to change to SSME to take advantage of increased performance whilst removing the base-heating issue.
The more efficient SSME allows a longer core burn time which in turn allows a smaller EDS. This has allowed DIRECT to move away from twin J2Xs to only one engine, in line with NASA's own plans. However, according to the DIRECT team, a six RL10 option could now be on the cards as a substitute for the J2X EDS, which could bring schedule and cost benefits.

One very interesting thing to watch for is if this switch is followed by a NASA baseline switch to SSME as well. DIRECT seem to be predicting this and, if it happens, I think it would strengthen my belief that the DIRECT team do indeed have people 'on the inside' as they claim. If NASA do not switch, then I can only become less confident about that.

[Rick]

Well, we will see what happens. As NASA has experienced growing pains with Ares, so has Direct.

I hope Direct eases up a bit on NASA in lieu of the apparent changes they are implementing on their drawing board design.

[J.McDonald]

Is there any word on the Ares RS68 issue?
I hope people don't use this as an opportunity to bash the 'other side'. I don't get the impression that the DIRECT team would hold it against NASA if the ablative RS68 can be made to work on Ares-V. The two options do seem to be very close run when you consider all of the factors- heating, performance, cost.

As always, the main argument is at the concept level. One medium launcher which fits existing facilities, vs. one big and one small which do not.

[Rick]

Nope, no bashing allowed. I am making sure this website stays in the agreement with NSF that Ross and I worked out.

I hope my prior comments did not appear to be of the bashing nature, as they were not intended to be.

[Luke]

Hey Jim,

Thanks for responding; sorry for my delay responding in kind.

Luke, I don't see why you cling to the 200t+ mantra. Where are the payloads? The most powerful LV in the world at present, Delta IVH, hardly flies at all! By that metric, a launcher nearly ten times the capacity would fly, what, once every ten years?
Do you completely discount the advantages of increased flight rate? I have heard that most of the delays and stoppages during the last Delta heavy countdown were to do with the team being 'out of practise'. It would be interesting to contrast a Delta launch with say a Soyuz countdown, which happens so often I bet the staff could practically do one in their sleep.

I can't agree with your characterization of me clinging to a mantra

I think 50t, 100t, and 200t+ launchers all have their place and should be pursued by NASA. Smaller launchers can be done more cost effectively by private enterprise, as will each larger class, in succession, as launch rates climb. I think NASA should do these larger launchers, specifically because they are not cost effective at this time.

In my view, as a technology becomes economically viable, NASA needs to foster private involvement and get out of that business. I hope that in twenty-five years, NASA is out of the launcher business altogether and is developing advanced propulsion.

Where are the payloads for a 200t+ launcher? One ISS class orbiting station would justify such a launcher in cost savings. One Lagrange station for cislunar infrastructure, one permanent lunar base, one Phobian (sp,) or Martian base, or one NEO capture mission - any one of these would justify such a launcher by itself.

If we opt for a smaller LV, maybe 100t, then it can fly twice as often. More chances to iron out teething problems. More willingness to fly test flights too since each one would cost much less.
It just so happens that by choosing such a size of vehicle, we can also choose to save the current STS infrastructure, which saves money, and it also happens that if we choose that size, a realtively economical version of it can be flown sans one engine and the upper stage, and that could feasibly replace the Stick.
Third, and very importantly, if we choose essentially a single vehicle, and develop it instead of the Stick, it is much more resistant to cancellation. The US will commit to replacing its human to LEO capability. But does anyone really trust the current administration to do anything more than that?

I am well familiar with the Direct 2.0 [dare I say it?] mantra

I find your quantitative reasoning limiting and reductionist. I suggest there is a qualitative difference between a 200t+ launcher and two launches of a 100t launcher or [god forbid] ten launches of a 20t launcher - there are things you can launch with a 200t+ launcher that you cannot break into two launches. Granularity of missions is an additional/unnecessary constraint that adds time, expense, and risk; that's why Apollo was developed in the first place.

Having said that, your point about launch rates is well taken... What do you suppose would be the incremental cost differences between ten launches of a 50t class vehicle, ten launches of a 100t class vehicle, and ten launches of a 200t+ class vehicle - sans development, infrastructure and other fixed/amortized costs?

I think Direct 2.0 advocates make some valid points, as do Ares, and EELV advocates. I think NASA ideas and programs should foster more competition, rather than fear it.

The politics of space need to change, and NASA can no longer be considered a jobs program. Let Ares, Direct 2.0, and EELV architectures compete openly with private solutions via a COTS-like competition in an ongoing way.

For example Direct 2.0 seems like a relatively efficient way to get a 50t class launcher going rather quickly; if Spacex, Orbital, or ULA believe they can do it quicker and cheaper [without compromising safety,] and if they are willing to put serious skin in the game [bet the company on their performance of the contract,] let them. There are plenty of other challenges out there for NASA to focus on.

If we developed the first stage of a HLLV instead of the Stick, then wouldn't we be in a better position for a luanr return if and when the political will and budget was there?

I agree with you, to the extent that the Stick is redundant. NASA can buy that capability much cheaper and sooner - at lower risk. As I understand it, the Stick is an enabler for Ares V. I don't necessarily buy it; but I see the reasoning.

Given that the Stick's capability can be easily outsourced, Delta IV can also be scaled up to 75t quicker and cheaper than Direct 2.0 - essentially leaving NASA 100t, 150t, 200t+ launchers to develop. If you think there is no need for such launchers, then there is no need for NASA to be in the business of developing launchers at all. It is inevitable that NASA will depart the launcher business - I personally believe NASA still has something to contribute in terms of super heavy lift launchers...

My personal preference is for the widest launcher possible compatible with a 50-75t payload. No individual element of a lunar of Mars mission need weigh more than that. However if we want to keep things to two-launch I must confess that I am very much persuaded by the Direct plan.

I think your squat launcher idea is cool and has some obvious merit. Virtually all missions discussed could arguably be done with 25t class launchers. My opinion is that larger launchers will accelerate the development of space exploration infrastructure and be huge enablers. Without them, we will continue to crawl at the same snail's pace since Apollo was abandoned...

The VSE is bold, and it needs to be; NASA is dangerously close to being relegated to paying ULA to loft earth observation satellites to monitor global warming...

It seems to me incredibly unproductive for NASA to be concerned with launchers at all. NASA can focus on THE MISSION, they can design lunar and martian cyclers, lagrange station and phobos infrastructure, insitu resource development, planetary base, and advanced propulsion technologies. They can say we want to buy 3/200t launches, 5/100t launches, 10/50t launches and 25/20t launches over the next five years. You guys develop the rockets on your nickel and you insure them, we'll guarantee the launch contracts - start bidding.

You tailor the contracts to achieve the desired result [including safety] by assigning responsibility and paying for performance [milestones.] You don't pay a contractor for development, then keep throwing more money at them, the more they screw up... and you certainly don't get bogged down internally with tit for tat over the details of developing TOOLS - you focus on the MISSION - that's leadership.

I hope the next administrator is an outsider and a rockstar, or things are going to get real depressing for government funded manned space exploration.