Return of Direct Launcher -- Direct 2.0

[gunsandrockets]

http://www.directlauncher.com/<br /><br />http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Public/DIRECT-II_Heavy_Specs.jpg<br /><br />http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Public/DIRECT-II_Standard_Specs.jpg<br /><br />

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Did I read that correctly? This configuration can put 225 tons in Lunar orbit each mission? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[docm]

110 mT to LEO, 101 mT to TLI delivery LEO & 104 mT to ISS @ single launch.<br /><br />You were reading the pounds <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />To get 225 mT you'd have to use the TeamVision Jupiter III<br /><br />Page.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

It appears the claims for the Direct idea are being scaled back to more realistic numbers. But I think there is a faster and cheaper way to get a crew launch vehicle and fit it into a reasonable lunar architecture.<br /><br />The Direct scheme of using a heavy lift vehicle for a crew launcher is wasteful.

 

[jimfromnsf]

Don't denigrate the Direct proposal by associating it with the name Ares

 

[docm]

THAT we can agree on <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[pmn1]

What exactly happened, i stopped watching the thread on NASA spaceflight for a while, went back to have alook at it again following the initail post and there seems to have been a bit of a slanging match. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

website updated May 10<br /><br />Documentation added and feedback requested.<br /><br />http://www.directlauncher.com/

 

[gunsandrockets]

<Don't denigrate the Direct proposal by associating it with the name Ares ><br /><br />Okay, I'll denigrate it in other ways!

 

[jimfromnsf]

"The Direct scheme of using a heavy lift vehicle for a crew launcher is wasteful."<br /><br />And the shuttle isn't? <br /><br />There are many times transportation conveyances do not operate at full capacity. <br /><br />The Saturn IB had excess capacity. Having excess capacity at the beginning allows for larger safety margins. <br /><br />The "wasted" excess capacity is offset by the cost savings of the program <br /><br />I perfer EELV derivatives for a CLV but Direct 2.0 is better than the stick

 

[j05h]

<i>> I perfer EELV derivatives for a CLV but Direct 2.0 is better than the stick</i><br /><br />Anything is better than the Stick. The OSP plan shouldn't have been canceled. Capsule or HL20 on both EELVs should have continued, it looks like Lockheed has realized they need to spearhead it sans-NASA for now. What chance do you give of ARES I and V flying?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[keermalec]

I don't get it: the payload to LEO goes from 46 tons for the Jupiter 120 to 106 tons for the Jupiter 232, simply by adding a 3rd stage? That is pretty amazing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Similar difference applied for a 2 vs 3 stage Saturn V

 

[jimfromnsf]

Inertia may allow the Ares I to fly but then again how many other programs have be cancelled midstream

 

[j05h]

<i>> Inertia may allow the Ares I to fly but then again how many other programs have be cancelled midstream</i><br /><br />We can only hope. DIRECT is an interesting proposal, but I still think the right way is building/flying EELV sized payloads. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

I got kicked off of nasaspaceflight.com for criticizing aspects of the "DIRECT" thread. Seems there are certain people who are allowed to criticize others--often in a nasty abrupt manner--then there are the rest of us. Oh well. <br /><br />I have nothing in particular for or against DIRECT except that NASA wants a small and a big launch vehicle and the DIRECT people keep trying to shove one medium size vehicle down their throats. Its like if I went to a car dealership to buy a Honda Civic to drive my family around town in and a tractor trailer to haul cargo across country and the salesman keeps telling me I would be better off with a van since I can make it do both jobs! If I have learned one thing as a self employed person that is sometimes you got to spend the time and the money to do something the right way and not shoot yourself in the foot for the long run by taking the cheap and quick way out. <br /><br />I was more than happy to let the DIRECT people have their fun until they started talking about petitioning and lobbying congress to kill Ares I. Personally I feel that congress hired people to do a job and we should let them do it--beside they have looked into DIRECT-like options for decades with greater scrutiny than a grass roots movement could. We don't need a space program run by, or even f***ed up by a bunch of model rocket builders, low to middle level engineers and assorted other space hobbyists with an anti-NASA axe to grind and a sereous case of "not invented here" syndrome. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"If I have learned one thing as a self employed person that is sometimes you got to spend the time and the money to do something the right way "<br /><br />That does not apply to Ares I

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Seems there are certain people who criticize others--often in a nasty abrupt manner"<br /><br />You were amongst them

 

[jimfromnsf]

"except that NASA wants a small and a big launch vehicle" <br />Again this does not apply to Ares I. It is not a "small" vehicle

 

[jimfromnsf]

"congress hired people to do a job"<br /><br />Congress doesn't employ anyone in the federal gov't

 

[tomnackid]

My, my. Did that really require 4 seperate post? I think not.<br /><br />So basically all of that space boils down to "Is not!" and "Says you!" Very persuasive. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[vulture2]

>>I still think the right way is building/flying EELV sized payloads. <br /><br />I agree, unfortunately Delta IV management, after building the most technically impressive rocket, showed unfortunate short-sightedness and decided that it would be easier to make money from DOD than do the limited work required to man-rate it. Then they were caught cheating and lost most of their contracts, resulting in the merger with Atlas. Of course LM cheated to, using Russian engines on the Atlas, but wasn't penalized. However Delta and Atlas both work; I think either one would be more sensible than building the Ares. Direct is conceptually reasonable, but it's hard to see NASA, DOD, or private industry coming up with the development cost at this point.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"decided that it would be easier to make money from DOD than do the limited work required to man-rate it. "<br /><br />There was no "shortsightness" <br /><br />1. EELV was intended and designed for DOD payloads. <br />2. At their inception and through most of its development, NASA wasn't involved with EELV's and didn't have any requirements for them.<br />3. Limited work? 1.25 vs 1.4 factor of safety is not limited work, it is a total redesign. Also the redundancy requirements and other NASA mantrating requirements are not trival. <br />4. The true debate is whether NASA's manrating requirements are valid<br /><br />Using Russian engines was not "cheating", the DOD was fully aware of this.

 

[vulture2]

1. EELV was intended and designed for DOD payloads.<br />2. At their inception and through most of its development, NASA wasn't involved with EELV's and didn't have any requirements for them.<br />3. Limited work? 1.25 vs 1.4 factor of safety is not limited work, it is a total redesign. <br /><br /><br />Also the redundancy requirements and other NASA mantrating requirements are not trival.<br />4. The true debate is whether NASA's manrating requirements are valid <br /><br /> I did understate the cost, sorry. But I have read that only the second-stage thrust-bearing structure on the Delta really had to be redesigned. Atlas faces some similar mods. <br /><br />However I fully agree with your point 4, neither the design load safety factor nor the redundancy requirements seem to have any theoretical basis. To my knowledge no rockets have ever been lost due to inadequate design load safety factor, and despite the requirements for redundancy the shuttle has numerous potential single point failures, which are accepted because not much can be done about them.

 

[scottb50]

I'm thinking of four identical tubes, two liquid and two solid fueled for the First stage. The Upper stage would be the same as the First Stage except with smaller, and dual, engines. <br /><br />With a light weight outer shell, landing gear structure and Turbojet engines the First Stage would return automatically, or could be crewed and carry passengers to Space and back as a side attraction. Various length passenger Modules could plug into the First Stage depending on demand or available payload.<br /><br />I would expect 100,000 pounds payload and ten-twenty passengers to Space and back would work pretty well, though the capability would depend on other factors. Add more Segments over longer Tubes, or combine Modules, they can all plu-in to each other.<br /><br />Anytime people are involved I would insist on a crew, for cargo automated or teleoperated would work much better. Computers are great, but so far there are too many variables.<br /><br />If each liquid fueled Core is two, two Segment Modules, and roughly the size of a Delta, and the SRB Modules are four identical size Segments Attachmented like Legos, plug-in fittings in various sizes, they get locked in place by either automatic docking locks or manual dead-bolts, used in various situations. Each Segment has six plug-ins, a large one on each end and smaller but identical plug-ins around the center. The size of the structure connecting the Attachments could be determined by the load that particular structure is expected to bear.<br /><br />The Larger Attachments at either end are identical except the inner structures vary, one provides a mating surface for a single piece Tube and the other lets the Tube slide through, other than that the structure is identical. Simply various sized, but identical rings that plug into each other. Basically weaving fibers, tubular conduits would be good for services as well as adding strength into a nice tight package. You don't need any, resins.<br /><br />Take a single piece T <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>