New Jupiter Class Launcher

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

holmec

Guest
Very nice pdfs.<br /><br />still have to go through it thoroughly, but two objections come to mind immediately:<br /><br />1. There is no separating crew launches from cargo launches, thus an decrease in safety over the Ares I.<br /><br />2. You loose launch capabilities if you don't have an Ares V. Which I think your going to need because of future demand.<br /><br />What I do like about it:<br /><br />1. using existing STS components that are unmodified and minimally modified.<br /><br />2. using proven rocket configuration from rockets like Saturn 5 and STS. <br /><br />What I think is bogus:<br />The argument that Ares I is just the same as EELVs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
uh, it aint brand new, its been in development for what .. like two years now, and been discussed on net boards for quite some time. I believe there was a lengthy thread about V1 of it beaten around on uplink M&L as well.<br />Also, it wont replace CEV as Direct is proposing a LAUNCHER, not spacecraft.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Interesting. I guess the first thing that comes to mind (before I actually read through the site) is that the Jupiter name is already on a family of rockets. That could potentially lead to confusion, especially since they were relatively small rockets. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> 1. There is no separating crew launches from cargo launches, thus an decrease in safety over the Ares I. </i><br /><br />The DIRECT pictures show otherwise. They clearly show several different payload options, including CEV and ATV, CEV and a disk, a lunar lander with "dummy CEV" above it (perhaps other cargo) and a huge empty "bullet" payload fairing. That is an unfair call on something that DIRECT provides better options than ARES.<br /><br /><i>> 2. You loose launch capabilities if you don't have an Ares V. Which I think your going to need because of future demand. </i><br /><br />DIRECT has growth options up to 250t, IIRC. ARES/HLV demand is projected to be flat unless a commercial demand emerges. NASA can only afford so many launches per year.<br /><br /><i>> What I think is bogus:<br />The argument that Ares I is just the same as EELVs.</i><br /><br />That argument doesn't even make sense. They are completely different. Who wrote that?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
Another "manned" spacecraft is not classified as cargo.<br /><br />The disk is a blast shield
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>> What I think is bogus:<br />The argument that Ares I is just the same as EELVs.<br /><br />That argument doesn't even make sense. They are completely different. Who wrote that?<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Got it from the "AIAA Space 2007 Conference & Exposition" PDF in the preface where it mentions that Ares I replicates the launch capabilites of the EELVs and the argument is that's a waste. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>> 1. There is no separating crew launches from cargo launches, thus an decrease in safety over the Ares I.<br /><br />The DIRECT pictures show otherwise. They clearly show several different payload options, including CEV and ATV, CEV and a disk, a lunar lander with "dummy CEV" above it (perhaps other cargo) and a huge empty "bullet" payload fairing. That is an unfair call on something that DIRECT provides better options than ARES.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Right. IMHO ESAS the way it is now, makes it not possible (or less possible) to launch a crew with cargo (large cargo like a LM), thereby keeping the safety of the crew, on launch, consistent, known, and standard. While the 'Direct' approach gives flexibility to the launch vehicle, and thereby decreasing safety. <br /><br />In other words I'd much prefer a launcher dedicated to crew launches than a launcher that can do it all. Specialized systems tend to work better and more economically than general purpose systems. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
J

jschaef5

Guest
"Specialized systems tend to work better and more economically than general purpose systems. "<br /><br />specialized systems are more economical? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"Specialized systems tend to work better and more economically than general purpose systems."<br /><br />Not with launch vehicles. More launches of the same vehicle is more safer<br /><br />"While the 'Direct' approach gives flexibility to the launch vehicle, and thereby decreasing safety. "<br /><br />This is baseless and has no meaning
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> Another "manned" spacecraft is not classified as cargo.<br />The disk is a blast shield</i><br /><br />I was indicating that Direct is more flexible than the poster was describing. Blast shield? Is it for aerobraking or what?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> The blast shield is just proposal to increase crew safety</i><br /><br />Very interesting. It could provide some protection against core-stage explosions. Would it help against errant SRBs? <br /><br />Direct is very interesting, they appear to have done a lot of their homework. Jim, do you think it would work as advertised?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
L

l3p3r

Guest
<br />Excellent!<br /><br />In my opinion this is exactly what's needed! Also IMO, sending people and cargo separately, then mucking about trying to stick ships together .... really seems quite silly!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"While the 'Direct' approach gives flexibility to the launch vehicle, and thereby decreasing safety. "<br /><br />This is baseless and has no meaning<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well then, the next time a chef asks you for a knife and you give him a swiss army knife you may be surprised that's he's angry with you.<br /><br />Multi function knives, multifunction guns, all have the same problem. They do many things but not well.<br /><br />So with any system.<br /><br />If you use a specialized system as it was designed to do over and over again, you will find that procedures get honed and systems get tuned, your operation costs drop to a minimal.<br /><br />But if have to use a multifunction system and do it differently every time, your operational costs soar, there's learning curves every step of the way, and also at every step greater potential for mistakes and accidents.<br /><br />That's why factories are built and operate the way they do, to cut time and costs. <br /><br />BTW jim, though you said 'no' your explanation agrees with mine:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Not with launch vehicles. More launches of the same vehicle is more safer<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Exactly my point, that is the same vehicle configured the same way is safer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
If the mandate is to use shuttle components, then Direct is a better vehicle than the stick
 
C

crix

Guest
The Direct architecture is discussed exhaustively (for me) on nasaspaceflight.com. It's been in development for a good while now.<br /><br />My question is what ultimately is the point of this paper, practically speaking? Could NASA even conceivably switch over to this architecture at this point?
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
Actually your point is still wrong and your argument is more applicable to my point. <br /><br />1. It doesn't matter whether there is a manned capsule or a cargo canister on top of a the launch vehicle. The same processes would be used to launch them. Just as the same processes right now are used for a comsat or a Mars probe. <br /><br />2. Your idea has less launches on more vehicles, which decreases safety. There isn't enough manned flights to get proficient . For instance, there is only a requirement for 2 CEV launches a years and maybe 4-6 cargo launches. 2 flights a year is not a good flight rate to maintain proficiency, especially for a manned system. 6-8 on the same vehicle would be better.<br /><br />3. A launch vehicle used for cargo and capsules would be able to have a higher flight rate which would allow for more monitoring of trends. <br /><br />4. Also most launch vehicles are swiss knives. There isn't specialization needed for a manned launch or any others<br /><br />
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"Could NASA even conceivably switch over to this architecture at this point?"<br /><br />Never too late to change
 
N

no_way

Guest
In addition to launching the crew with cardo argument: there is no fundamental reason why safety of an astronaut is more important than safety of multibillion dollar hardware, that lots of people have put several years of hard work and significant parts of their careers in.<br />
 
R

radarredux

Guest
>> <i>"Could NASA even conceivably switch over to this architecture at this point?"</i><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Never too late to change</font>/i><br /><br />It seems highly unlikely, however... at least that was my initial response.<br /><br />Upon reviewing <b><i>all</i></b> the changes that have already taken place with the Ares program since it was first announced (the article provided a nice summary), biting the bullet and making a wholesale change to the DIRECT approach doesn't seem as bad anymore.<br /><br />I hope the upper management at NASA doesn't let their egos get in the way and at least give this an honest and detailed analysis.</i>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
There will be a change. Might not be Direct, but there will be a change. Doc won't be there to champion his baby
 
J

josh_simonson

Guest
Also, if 2/3 of the launches of the rocket are unmanned, that means 2/3 of launch failures will not endanger astronauts and the problem can be fixed before flying astronauts again (and tested with an unmanned payload without half a decade of hand wringing before returning to flight). <br /><br />If STS flew 200 unmanned missions in addition to the manned ones (say replacing ELV flights) the kinks would have been worked out sooner and the death toll would be lower.
 
R

rocketscientist327

Guest
I have absolutely no faith in this concept. Jim, is this what you have been working on? Is this why you don't like Falcon?<br /><br />Jim, this is a great system, a hell of a lot better than Ares 1 and 5, but it will never happen. Ever.<br /><br />#1 It makes way too much sense<br /> a. Uses 89% of STS<br /> b. Faster turn around than Ares 1 & 5<br /> c. Scalable<br /> d. Direct to moon option<br /> e. Keeps personnel employed, lesson learned from Apollo to STS<br /> f. Used for bigger missions besides manned exploration<br /> g. Can haul new segments and expand ISS if we wanted to<br /><br />The only drawback I see is 407 million US in 2005 dollars for a Jupiter 120. It is going to be mighty expensive for one of those 232s. <br /><br />And this is why I love Falcon. <br /><br />However, the loads the Jupiter system can port into orbit is so amazing. Better than Ares V. It is nice.<br /><br />I would love to see some Mars missions with serious backbone to them. Not just the smaller missions we do now.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br />Rocket Scientist 327<br /><br />
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
1. I am not working on this. This is a private study and not NASA<br /><br />2. You can't say "ever"<br /><br />3. Falcon can't do any of the missions Direct can do<br /><br />4. Falcon's costs are yet to be seen<br /><br />5. I know what falcon really is <br /><br />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY