1 / 26

The Jupiter Launch System A Direct Derivative of the Space Transportation System

The Jupiter Launch System A Direct Derivative of the Space Transportation System International Space Development Conference Washington DC, May 29 th 2008. -NASA Authorization Act of 2005.

georgia-duran
Download Presentation

The Jupiter Launch System A Direct Derivative of the Space Transportation System

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Jupiter Launch System A Direct Derivative of the Space Transportation System International Space Development Conference Washington DC, May 29th 2008

  2. -NASA Authorization Act of 2005 “The Administrator shall, to the fullest extent possible consistent with a successful development programuse the personnel, capabilities, assets, and infrastructure of the Space Shuttleprogram in developingthe Crew Exploration Vehicle, Crew Launch Vehicle, anda heavy-lift launch vehicle.” DIRECT Delivers what Congress Authorized “The best civil space policy to have been enunciated by a president in four decades or more, and the best authorization act to be approved by the Congress since the 1960s.” – Dr. Mike Griffin STS Jan. 22, 2008

  3. A DIRECT Derivative of the Space Transportation System

  4. DIRECT ‘is’ the Historic NASA STS Derived Approach Step 1: Go to http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp Step 2: Type in “National Launch System” or “Shuttle Derived” into the search box Result: Over 190 detailed studies from 1978 to 2005 that use the DIRECT approach. True STS derived systems have three things in common • They Retain the STS Stack configuration • They Reuse the 4-Segment SRB • They Keep the STS External Tank at a 8.4m dia. Ares-I and Ares-V do none of these three things National Launch System (NLS) Shuttle-C Shuttle-B Mars Direct’s Ares Buzz Aldrin’s Aquila

  5. $14.4 Billion* $9.5 Billion March 2016** September 2012 DIRECT Maximizes the Space Transportation System Ares-I Jupiter-120 New 5-Seg. SRB Existing 4-Seg. SRB New J-2X Engine Existing RS-68 Engine New Configuration Existing Configuration STS New Infrastructure Existing Infrastructure New Upper Stage No Upper Stage Total Development Cost Operational Date Bottom-line: DIRECT Closes the Gap within the Current Budget *GAO Figure ** March 2016 recently revealed

  6. DIRECT Removes the Workforce “GAP” at Michoud • Jupiter core re-uses all existing Shuttle tooling • Parallel construction of Jupiter cores and Shuttle External Tanks • Jupiter test articles at Stennis and KSC before Shuttle retirement • Jupiter Upper Stage begins production 2 years earlier than Ares-V

  7. One year slide in last 3 months DIRECT Removes the Workforce & Flight “GAP” at KSC • The Jupiter vehicles are delivered to KSC before Shuttle retires • The First Jupiter flight occurs 2 months before last Shuttle flight • 11 Jupiter vs. 7 Ares-I flights thru 2015 – requires full workforce • The Jupiter can fly 20mT of mission payload with each crew 3

  8. Man-rating of the DIRECT Engine is Five Years Ahead of Ares GAO Assessment of the Ares-I J-2X Engine* • - The J-2X is a new engine development on the critical path for ISS return • NASA is trying to do 29 rework cycles in only 7 years vs. 9 years for SSME • The J-2X has insufficient testing facilities DIRECT uses the proven RS-68 *GAO-08-186T April 3, 2008

  9. NASA Admits the Benefits of One Launch System Speech by Dr. Michael D. Griffin Space Transportation Association 22 January 2008 P “The most obvious split involves launching two identical vehicles” P “This method … was to be employed [for Apollo]” P “Costs are lower because of only one launch vehicle development” P “Recurring costs are amortized over a larger number of flights” P “Knowledge of system reliability is enhanced by … flight experience” We agree 100% with Dr. Griffin that one Launch System is Superior. O “However… [this] is vastly over designed for ISS logistics.” This is Dr. Griffin’s Single Point of Contention with DIRECT It is true that two Jupiter-232, which has an upper stage, places more mass in orbit than the Ares-I + Ares-V for the Lunar mission. The Jupiter-120 doesn’t use an upper stage though, making this variant a close match for the ISS Crew and Logistics capabilities of Shuttle

  10. O P $14.4 Billion Total Development Cost $9.5 Billion March 2016 Operational Date September 2012 DIRECT is Ideally Suited for both the ISS & VSE Missions Ares-I Jupiter-120 No Mission Payload No ISS Logistic Mission Payload Robust ISS Logistics No ISS Modules ISS is Left Unfinished Delivers ISS Modules We Can Finish ISS STS Non-Reusable Orion Water Landing Reusable Orion Land Landing Lunar Class Orion? Lunar Class Orion = Less capable than the Space Shuttle more expensive than an EELV = More capable than the Space Shuttle and less expensive than Ares-I The Jupiter-120 is More Capable ,available Sooner and needs Less Money

  11. The Jupiter-120 is Easily Extensible to New Mission Types ISS Crew ISS Crew & Logistics ISS Elements & Hubble Servicing Crew Lunar Flyby Cargo Probes MSR etc. Lunar & Mars Missions

  12. DIRECT Expands & Joins Manned and Unmanned Efforts Finish the ISS Mars Sample Return Hubble Service JWST Service

  13. DIRECT Enables an Apollo-8 Mission Much Sooner Imagine an ‘Apollo 8’ Lunar Flyby Mission before 2013 - Three Years Before the first flight of Ares-I to the ISS

  14. The Jupiter-120 Protects Our Heavy Lift Infrastructure

  15. Add a 2nd Stage and LSAM and we can Return to the Moon

  16. DIRECT Produces a More Capable Lunar Program Speech by Dr. Michael D. Griffin Space Transportation Association 22 January 2008 “The most obvious split involves launching two identical vehicles” “This method … was to be employed [for Apollo]” “Knowledge of system reliability is enhanced by flight experience”

  17. DIRECT Saves Money Now and Later Speech by Dr. Michael D. Griffin Space Transportation Association 22 January 2008 “Costs are lower because of only one launch vehicle development” “Recurring costs are amortized over a larger number of flights”

  18. DIRECT is the Best Based on a Recent Internal NASA Study • These are the results of an 8-week Internal NASA Study performed in October/November 2007. • A leaked memo from Constellation indicates that NASA began to prepare an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for Jupiter-120.

  19. It is Too Late to Switch Horses Now

  20. We Agree, It is Too Late to Switch Horses Now STS is the horse we are on Next launch is this Saturday

  21. The Jupiter is a Direct Derivative of STS Same Foot Print We Agree, It is Too Late to Switch Horses Now STS is the horse we are on Next launch is this Saturday

  22. The Jupiter is a Direct Derivative of STS Same Foot Print We Agree, It is Too Late to Switch Horses Now Ares Retains < 5% of the STS Hardware or Infrastructure Common Upper Stage Different Upper Stages New 10m Tank STS is the horse we are on Next launch is this Saturday Existing Reusable 4-Segment SRB Breaking News Al-Li Disposable 5.5-Segment SRB New 5-Segment SRB Same 8.4m Tank Even Longer Tank Six RS-68 Engines Different Foot Print

  23. Summary DIRECT is Safer, Simpler and Sooner Even now the Jupiter-120 is four years ahead of the Ares-I Dr. Griffin agrees that one launch system costs less than two launch systems Dr. Griffin agrees that one launch system is the obvious and safest approach Congress directed us to leverage the STS infrastructure and workforce Ares utilizes < 5% of the STS infrastructure and < 25% workforce Jupiter utilizes > 95% of the STS infrastructure and >75% workforce Jupiter provides new capabilities while lowering operational costs below Ares-I DIRECT ‘is’ the NASA engineering recommendation Over 100 NASA studies over 35 years agree with the DIRECT approach ESAS Appendix 6a-f confirms our cost and performance numbers NASA studies done late last year confirm that DIRECT is the best approach

  24. Ares-I/V EELV/COTS DIRECT No Yes Yes The Critical Decisions before America Now • Manned Missions to Mars ? • No we are at least 6 Presidential and 12 Congressional cycles away • Manned Missions to Near Earth Object ? • No we are at least 4 Presidential and 8 Congressional cycles away • Manned Missions to the Lunar Surface ? • No we are at least 2 Presidential and 4 Congressional cycles away Do we continue United States access to the ISS ? Do we save the United States’ second Heavy Lift system ? No No Yes Do we remain the leading space faring nation ? No No Yes

  25. We must not make A New Mistake Dr. Michael D. Griffin NASA Administrator August 31, 2005 AIAA Space 2005 Conference & Exhibition “From 1975-1981, between the retirement of the Apollo-Saturn system and the first flight of the Shuttle, the United States did not have the capability to send humans into space, our country was not driving the space exploration agenda, and our aerospace workforce was decimated. We lost valuable people from the program, people who never came back. We lost valuable skills that were relearned with difficulty, or not at all. We lost momentum. Let us learn from these experiences. Let us not repeat them. Let us at least make a new mistake.” • Protect key STS infrastructure from destruction by Ares-I • Perform an independent evaluation of the Jupiter-120 vs. Ares-I • Review the recent internal NASA study endorsing Jupiter-120/232 The Key to the Next 50 Years Starts with Clear Thinking Today

  26. Fifty years after the Space Age began America must once again answer the same question that began it. Do we want to be the “world’s leading space faring nation”? -President John F. Kennedy www.directlauncher.com

More Related