DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[J.McDonald]

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

Sorry if that offended you! I chose that word because your belieef in the need for 200t HLLVs doesn't appear to be backe dup by anything of substance. I could easily say, why not 220t? Why not 500t? but without justification there is no point.

I think 50t, 100t, and 200t+ launchers all have their place

You may think that, but on what evidence? The most powerful launcher in the world today barely flies- there are certainly no commercial payloads for it, only a few DoD ones, at a rate of about one every two years. The heavy versino of Atlas-V is all set to go if somebody would pony up the funding, but nobody wants a 30t launcher that badly.
The only need for a capability greater than commercial and EELV rockets can already deliver, is for manned spaceflight. And it is only the US who are in a position to need new manned spaceflight vehicles, for the VSE. Are you suggesting that the VSE should be supported by a combination of new heavy launchers? Heck, why use just two new rockets when you could use four!
A lunar sortie requires about 190t IMLEO. At predicted budgets and flight rates these will happen about twice a year. You cna break that up different ways- CxP want a 25t and a 165t launch. DIRECT want a pair of 110t capable vehicles. IMHO, a trio of 60t vehicles would be good. But nobody is seriously advocating more than one type of HLLV for this project.
Let's sya you get your 200t launcher. Fine, it'll fly twice a year for VSE. What doe syour 100t launcher do? What does the 50t launcher do?

If you're thinking 'new ISS', or 'new Hubble', or 'heavy interplanetary probes' then think again. Just because you have built a rocket doesn't mean anybody will buy a ride on it. The payloads have to be funded too. Launch providers the world over have excess capacity, not enough people are buying rockets. You want to think long and hard before adding another one to the marketplace.

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.

Couple of points here:
- why will launch rates climb? Who's paying for all of this?
- there is little or no business case for developing any size of rocket. Good luck to SpaceX and OSC because they're the only ones trying, and the magins will be slim if they pull it off. Any sensible investor shoudl walk away from LV development. OTOH, just because it cannot be done at a profit, why should the design work of new LVs not be done by the aerospace companies? One of the strongest arguments against Ares is that NASA haven't developed a manned space launcher for thirty years whilst LM and Boeing have design teams who recently produced the EELVs and know what they are doing. Further, these companies would almost certainly undercut a public sector organisation anyway.

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.

Why are NASA even in the LV business? Well, as I said above, they aren't really, they haven't built one in years. All the expertise is in the contractors. NASA could easily get out of the business if they wanted to. And, yes, advanced propulsion is where they should be.

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.

Again, who is going to pay for these? Having the launcher doesn't mean that the capability will be used.
How many science missions did Saturn-V fly?
Even Skylab could have been launched on the Saturn 1b, it was an accident of history that it wound up on a larger LV.

Don't know if this is a good analogue, but near where I live is a 'business park' which was built at public expense. Big landscaped green spaces, roads, streetlights, signposts, a new roundabout on a major road to divert traffic to it. The idea was that by investing in this, companies owuld move in and bolster the local economy. More than five years later, one unit has been let to a children's nursery, and the remaining 90% of the site remains bare.
So if you build it, they might not come, actually.

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.

No, you misinterpreted me. I wasn't suggesting that we use multiple EELVs for everything. I was merely trying to illustrate how underused current 'heavy' capacity is. There is production capacity for 40 delta-IV cores annually, yet only about 6 fly in any given year. If there is so little demand for a 25t payload, what demand will there be for 200t?

Secondly, I am very much aware of the minimum sizes for manned hardware. The LSAM needs a 10m fairing and will weigh about 50t. An EDS to get it to the moon would weigh about 80t. Orion is 25t. There is nothing even approaching 200t here.
Similarly, on Mars missions, then the Mars landers would need the widest possible paylaod fairings and would only weigh about 20-30t each. The Mars Transfer Vehicle would most likely be ISS-derived and thus done in 20t chunks. As a worst case scenario which assumes no advanced propulsion technologies, you would need a whopping great EDS for the TMI burn, but even so this could be achieved using depots, refuelling, or stacked stages. It would make no sense to develop an enormous launcher to fly once every two years just to deliver a TMI stage.

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?

Very hard to say! It all depends on the vehicle and the business running it. On the one hand, each additional Shuttle mission costs very little compared to the fixed costs, but on the other hand OSC are targetting the Taurus-II at being profitable over just two flights per year.

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.

SpaceX and OSC don't have the skin to put in.
ULA is made up of contractors who are getting something out of CxP anyway so would be shooting themselves in the foot.

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.

. Yup. But there is less commonality between the Ares vehicles than was supposed to happen- the SRBs are different.

[Luke]

Hey Jim,

I was not offended by your "mantra" comment at all; I was making light fun of it, because I did not think I had been around long enough to have established a mantra.

Clearly there are things we agree on, and things we do not. I advocate building the biggest launcher realistically possible given the current circumstances [because it will be the last for quite some time,] while you seem to advocate building it just big enough to launch the biggest component of the currently envisioned moon mission [because it will be more cost effective.] So, while not ideal solutions by any means; Ares more closely approximates my solution, while Direct 2.0 more closely approximates yours.

I think we agree that either NASA should not be in the launcher design business at all; or if they are, then they should restrict themselves to designing capability that doesn't already exist. I think neither of us would complain if Ares OR Direct 2.0 designs were seen through and achieved viable launchers. Either set of launchers can move us forward in a positive way, in terms of manned exploration of space beyond earth orbit, which we both advocate. I think we both agree that EELVs MIGHT provide a more practical solution up to 75t launchers. We both also seem to want NASA back in the advanced propulsion game. I think we will both be extremely disappointed if a ton of money is spent, no viable launchers get developed, and NASA limps along as it has for decades.

As you say, there is no evidence that a 200t+ launcher would be utilized, and it is an arbitrary size. Of course there is no hard evidence that it would not be utilized and that it would not change the entire landscape of manned space exploration, perhaps accelerating it by decades. I chose it, because it is right at the edge [or perhaps just beyond the edge] of what's being considered, and because, as you say, there is currently no business case for it. I think history will show that if we as a species ever seriously extend our presence beyond earth orbit, that 200t+ launchers will be a routine part of the mix. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I have a question for you. Why is NASA back in the launcher design business, rather, how did it happen?

I do think launchers around 50t, 75t, 100t 150t, 200t+ will get developed eventually, and that they will get used [if infrequently in the case of the really big ones.] They will likely look modular, much like the current crop of EELVs or Falcon 9/Falcon 9 Heavy. As you say, heavy versions of Atlas and Delta already exist on paper and are just waiting for a customer. I think they can be developed and utilized much more economically than NASA or even ULA are prepared to accept. Again, we'll just have to wait and see. I can certainly understand the need to wait to develop a specific class of launcher, till there is a customer for it. For example, the 150t launcher might only exist on paper until someone 'ponied up the money' as you say, much like the Heavy version of Atlas you refer to. Nevertheless, much of the development work of that rocket is done, so it can be put into service relatively inexpensively.

I disagree with your statement that the NewSpace companies have no skin to put in the game, but I see where you're coming from. They certainly don't have the capital to eat the entire development cost of a launcher. I was thinking more along the lines of COTS-style milestones that are only paid upon successful completion, so the company puts a little skin in the game to achieve each milestone and does not have the option of 'going over budget.' If they go over budget, then they can quit and eat the cost to date [other companies can try to step in,] or they can finish the milestone and recover part of their costs.

The government's current method of dealing with engineering [defense] contractors is a relic of WWII and the Cold War, when time and secrecy were considered far more important than money. These days, we can restrict the budget for a project, break it into milestones, and let companies compete for them openly.

It seems to me that what's really needed is an F1 class KeroLOX engine that is regeneratively cooled, and that it would be a shrewd move for NASA to offer $200-$500 million in a COTS-style competition for companies to develop it. With this engine, you could more easily build any of the launchers we have been discussing. It could also be used to replace SRBs with liquid strap-ons, and it could be used for that larger verson of the EELV-style modular heavy lifters I referred to above.

I'll see you over in Clean Sheet Designs

-Luke

[J.McDonald]

Hey Jim,

By the way, it's John! There's too many Jims around here already

I think we agree that either NASA should not be in the launcher design business at all; or if they are, then they should restrict themselves to designing capability that doesn't already exist. I think neither of us would complain if Ares OR Direct 2.0 designs were seen through and achieved viable launchers. Either set of launchers can move us forward in a positive way, in terms of manned exploration of space beyond earth orbit, which we both advocate.

Yes, NASA should do payloads, not LVs, unless nobody else can create the capacity.
Would I be happy to see Ares come to light? Maybe. But what if a future administration decides to concentrate on LEO rather than the moon? With Ares-V, the HLLV would be mothballed and we'd lose the lunar capacity. With Direct, the upper stage would be lost, but the basic capacity retained. An EELV upper stage or a comparatively cheap/simple/quick evolution of an EELV upper stage would regain us that capacity. The first stage, SRBs, and launch facilities would all be retained. This makes the Direct way much more rugged and future-proof.

I think we both agree that EELVs MIGHT provide a more practical solution up to 75t launchers.

It depends on what you're launching. IMHO, clustered EELVs are the way to go if you want to get 75t into LEO at the lowest cost. But this is unsuitable for wide Mars payloads and the reliability will suffer with the clustered approach. So 'practical' is not the term I'd use!

We both also seem to want NASA back in the advanced propulsion game. I think we will both be extremely disappointed if a ton of money is spent, no viable launchers get developed, and NASA limps along as it has for decades.

Absolutely. Just imagine if NASA had baselined a cislunar [insert-your-choice-of-advanced-propulsion] tug ferrying propellant to a reusable lander at L2. Plenty of issues in the way, but IMHO a better use of development funds than building a huge rocket that is never more than a launch failure or change in political winds away from cancellation.

As you say, there is no evidence that a 200t+ launcher would be utilized, and it is an arbitrary size. Of course there is no hard evidence that it would not be utilized and that it would not change the entire landscape of manned space exploration, perhaps accelerating it by decades. I chose it, because it is right at the edge [or perhaps just beyond the edge] of what's being considered, and because, as you say, there is currently no business case for it. I think history will show that if we as a species ever seriously extend our presence beyond earth orbit, that 200t+ launchers will be a routine part of the mix. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

If we pour all our money into a massive LV, there will be nothing left for payloads. If we build one and it turns out not to be needed, it will be cancelled, as Saturn and Energia were.
The 200t launcher is the least of our problems in changing the nature of manned spaceflight. It needs political will, and a bucketload of cash.

I have a question for you. Why is NASA back in the launcher design business, rather, how did it happen?

I'm not sure. Some say that they just like it that way, a sort of control-freak thing. Maybe Rick or someone else on here can ofer an insight?

[Rick]

Hopefully because their track record indicates that NASA is capabable of doing it?

[J.McDonald]

That's a tough one to back up, Rick.
Many moons ago, NASA developed Saturn, costing a lot of money but meeting schedule and performance requirements.
Then they tried STS, which failed to meet schedule, went a little over budget, and quite considerably fialed to achieve all of its objectives (cost, flight rate, safety).
Since then? NASP... X33... OSP... etc. Not the best of track records.

By contrast, private companies developed the EELVs recently and coparatively succesfully.

Is it, I wonder, a question of 'ownership'? Do NASA feel that they must project manage any SDLV? Is it impossible to hand over Shuttle technology to a private company for further development?

[Rick]

I realize that it is a tough task. If I remember correctly, Saturn was a success. I was basing my statement on past history, and the current 'Apollo on steroids" mantra, and my opinion is more experienced based, than funding based.

Yes, the Saturn program was not cost effective, but what succesful program really is?

The STS issue, is a horse of a different color. It was a compromise, which has had its tragedies, but also its successes and was under severe funding issues.

One gets what they pay for.

It always helps

[Luke]

Sorry John.

I'll not conflate you with another Jim again

I think we agree that NASA should only [if at all] be designing launchers that have unique capabilities. Ares I is obviously redundant and not remotely cost effective.

Ares V is arguably unique - nothing else comes close; whether it provides value commensurate with the cost is debatable.

In some ways, Direct 2.0 seems a more cost effective, practical approach to shuttle derived launch vehicles to suit a lunar mission [in addition to current missions,] but I don't see the value in maintaining the shuttle infrastructure.

I get that there are specific stakeholders that want to continue the status quo, but NASA needs to serve the American people first right? In this context, Constellation and Direct 2.0 seem like competing strategies that serve competing minorities; they both represent a disservice to the American people [to varying degrees.]

Both Constellation [with the Stick] and Direct 2.0 [with Shuttle infrastructure] rely on sunk cost analysis to make their individual cases. Any economist [or business guy] can tell you that sunk costs are specious. NASA needs to understand that economic laws are no more flexible than the laws of physics [they actually use the same math.]

If NASA wishes to continue to attempt to design launch vehicles, let them compete against others outside NASA, and let an independent body [answerable to the president and/or OMB] make the call.

Maybe it'll take numerous shuttle debacles and a Constellation FUBAR to bring some pragmatism and common sense to American space policy.

[Me2]

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,

Incorrect as usual. Orion only has 2 ISS missions a years and 1-2 lunar missions. It will be less busy that any other vehicle in its class

[Me2]

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,

Incorrect as usual. Orion only has 2 ISS missions a years and 1-2 lunar missions. It will be less busy that any other vehicle in its class.

Ares I is only for Orion and is not going to fly other payloads, basically prevented so by law and economics.

[Me2]

Ares I is still rolling along just fine, according to the REAL reports. Those supposedly intractable problems have been knocked down, one-by-one.

They have not been knocked down, they still exist and still are causing problems and more are coming to head.

[Luke]

I think it was on this thread that I asked about any truth to the rumor that Orion might be limited to four crew, even to ISS. I was assured that this was NOT the case.

Now it seems that this idea has found its way to the mainstream press and is gaining credibility; it has been recently cited as among the strategies being considered to prevent more slippage on the Constellation development/mission schedule.

Maybe Direct 2.0 has advocates [moles] a little higher in the food chain than previously speculated - perhaps even a female deputy frequently at loggerheads with Mike Griffin.

Is this an example of an issue being 'knocked down?'

Perhaps rather than label Constellation [the Stick and Orion at least] as "Apollo on Steroids," we should call it "Soyuz on Steroids."

Spaceflight is difficult/important enough; don't you guys think it behooves NASA to simply take ALL the lessons from ALL past launchers and design the safest. most reliable, practical and cost effective launcher possible?

It feels like [to someone with absolutely no real information] there are changes afoot. Direct 2.0's relative silence at this time does give me the feeling there is a lot going on behind the scenes.

I have to comment as an outsider, that the bickering between Constellation and Direct 2.0 looks just like the highly partisan bickering in Congress, quibbling on how best to maintain the status quo of spending tax-payers' money without proper accountablility.

There are real changes coming in government and the status quo [like it or not,] and if they successfully kill/limit F-22, I think you can say goodbye to shuttle-derived whatever: Constellation AND Direct 2.0 - and NASA can finally apply its limited resources to real progress.

As an outsider, I wish to point out how close Constellation and Direct 2.0 really appear to the layman. The Stick really represents the fundamental difference - lose the Stick, and Constellation [Ares V] is "Direct 2.0 on Steroids."

Why is NASA so committed to the legacy/infrastructure of the least practical/cost effective launcher in the history of spaceflight? [Sardonically] Is there an internal conspiracy within NASA to prevent human progress in space?

Are the current employees and subcontractors incapable of developing different tankage for KeroLOX first stages? Is launching such a vehicle beyond them?

If so, are the jobs of the incumbents more important than the jobs of those who would replace them? Shouldn't we be talking in terms of NET job losses or gains when analyzing launchers and infrastructure? It seems as though beaurocracies really do evolve to resist change at any cost...

As an ardent U.S. human spaceflight and exploration advocate, I am mortified at the incredible waste of resources to duplicate existing capabilty. NASA should let The Launch Alliance, Spacex, Orbital, or any other American company who can demonstrate the capability loft stuff for them on a competitive basis.

If they [NASA] insist on designing something; work on scramjet, rapid turnaround orbital spaceplanes, HUGE lifters [Atlas VII 200t+,] advanced propulsion, space nuclear power supplies, or ANYTHING that doesn't already exist in a more practical form. At least this way the costs can be somewhat justified with new capability.

It makes ZERO sense to rationalize any NASA launcher development program using sunk costs or operational savings. Sunk costs are just that, and NASA will never conduct launch operations as cost effectively as a private entity. Sunk costs and operational efficiencies are only effective arguments for getting NASA out of the launch business.

From here, Constellation looks like the vision of corrupt beaurocrats at the top of the NASA food chain, cooked up in collaboration with entrenched contractors and politicians to maximize graft; while Direct 2.0 looks like the vision of self-interested mid and lower level engineers, and operations personel to maximize their own version of graft [job security.]

It looks just like the classic standoff between management and labor. I strongly suggest that Constellation and Direct 2.0 advocates within NASA take a long, hard look at what is happening in the American automobile industry. This is your future, should you continue on your current trajectory.

I'm reminded of the old adage, "Give them enough rope, and they will hang themselves..." NASA is doing a fine job of that in terms of launchers.

[JimMcDade]

In spite of what some bloggers and posters are claiming, the Orion crew compliment reduction is unrelated to the power of Ares I. This development is being misrepresented by the anti-Ares Conspiracy theorists as they desperately attempt to sustain their cherished hoax. It's just more misinformation from the rag-tag propaganda ministry of Ares I haters.

The Orion weight problem (About 200 pounds) has no connection whatsoever to the Ares I. The weight issue is connected to the desire to return to earth on land with the parachutes in the event that only two of the three parachutes deploy.

A further fact check: Orion has NOT been permanently limited to a crew compliment of four. The parachute issue will continue to be worked according to Orion program leader Jeff Hanley.

[Me2]

In spite of what some bloggers and posters are claiming, the Orion crew compliment reduction is unrelated to the power of Ares I. This development is being misrepresented by the anti-Ares Conspiracy theorists as they desperately attempt to sustain their cherished hoax. It's just more misinformation from the rag-tag propaganda ministry of Ares I haters.

The Orion weight problem (About 200 pounds) has no connection whatsoever to the Ares I. The weight issue is connected to the desire to return to earth on land with the parachutes in the event that only two of the three parachutes deploy.

Only someone clueless would think this. In fact, it is due to the power of Ares I, actually the lack of power of Ares I.

And to use an example that McDisinformation is so fond of using. This didn't happen on Apollo because the Saturn had excess performance to absorb spacecraft weight increases. The problem is Ares I should have never gone forward because it is performance constrained. As McDisinformation would say, spacecraft always gain weight and therefore the launch vehicle should always have excess performance.

Obviously, the ESAS, the great engineers at MSFC, and CxP didn't learn from the past

[J.McDonald]

Luke, I agree with your point of view almost entirely. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that Lori Garver is a closet Direct fan-girl though

If you believe the DIRECT numbers, they reckon an appropriate SDLV can be cost effective. I have no idea what the real numbers would be of course, but there is some logic in removing the orbiter and its highly expensive maintenance from the equation.

Like you, I take the confirmation of reduced crew size as a sign that DIRECT really do have people 'on the inside', because they have been talking about this for months.

@ Jim: I agree that the crew reduction is more of an Orion than Ares issue, and that it is supposedly an interim measure. However with Jeff Hanley desperately trying to save 2015 FOC, and the 'usual suspects' talking about 2017 as the real date, will there be enough Orion flights to the ISS to ever get past 'interim'? At two per year and ISS retirement somewhere between 2016 and 2020, it hardly seems worth calling it 'interim' as surely the majority of Orion flights to ISS will only carry four crew, under this plan.

[Rick]

I very rarely step into a conversation to issue a warning regarding personal attacks, which I am doing now.

If those who post cannot make their point without including personal attacks, the members involved will be suspended for a nominal period of time, and the thread(s) will be locked, as I am not pro pruning prior posts.

If there is any ambiguity regarding the forum rules, which each member has been prompted to read, please re-read them.

[Rick]

Good post John.

I would say however, that even if Direct's claims are indeed true, they have not made any inroads with NASA, to even suggest a change in it's current course.

I am sure that someone will say that there is a coverup of some sort, which I just don't buy.

[JimMcDade]

John, that was a nice post.

I still think that we are seeing another repeat of the historical pattern that goes back to the earliest days of rocketry. The Soviets had their own internal controversy when the R-7 engines could not deliver adequate thrust in order to orbit the 2,700-pound scientific satellite (Object OD-1) back in 1957. Korolev decide to put the much lighter (184-pound) and simpler PS-1 (AKA Sputnik I) on top of the R-7 instead. He was immediately confronted by angry criticism originating within the R-7 State Commission.

Korolev was confident that R-7 would come along in time, but he knew that he had a better chance of beating the Americans into orbit with the 22-inch diameter PS-1. He was correct, of course, and he was able sustain political support and hold on to his rocket team, thanks to the success of choosing to launch with the PS-1.

Likewise, NASA plans to start off with an Orion crew compliment of four until the six-seater configuration is ready. Critics are blasting this plan just as loudly as the Soviet scientists and cynics blasted Korolev when he chose to fly the PS-1 rather than wait on Glushko to improve his engines.

Upon further review, Korolev was right, and I hope that NASA is too. Ares I appears to be unfairly getting the blame for all of Project Constellation's problems, even when those problems are not assignable to Ares I.

The delays caused by the addition of the HST servicing mission and the usual unk-unk issues that occur with every large program have been artfully exploited by the Ares I detractors. Some people keep throwing everything they can pick up at Ares I, hoping that something will stick. So far, nothing sticks.

[Me2]

Some people keep throwing everything they can pick up at Ares I, hoping that something will stick. So far, nothing sticks.

It is sticking very well. The POS called the stick will never fly. Mark my words

[Rick]

It is sticking very well. The POS called the stick will never fly. Mark my words

Can we wait until August 31st to make that decision? Yes, its a four segment booster with a simulator, but its still a stick.

[Ares_Is_Go]

Agree.

How can anyone know if the STICK works or not until it is tested?

Conjecture works.......sometimes I think.