It had me convinced...

[J.McDonald]

Hi, this is my first post here, and it seems like an excellent forum and font of knowledge! I have been following the Direct proposal as it has evolved over on Nasaspaceflight forums and have found that it is treated somewhat differently here.
Given that I merely a lay person with no particular connection with any aerospace company or agency, I was quite convinced that Direct 2.0 would be cheaper and faster to develop than Ares I & V, for the following (simplistic) reasons:
- No need to develop a 5-segment RSRM
- No need to alter facilities to support 10m tanking or greater roll-out mass of the Ares-V.
- Development and support of a single vehicle rather than two
- As a smaller vehicle, with greater commonality with STS, J232 ought to be cheaper than Ares-V, although less powerful.

In addition to these potential costs savings, I was swayed by the idea that a vehicle with greater commonality with STS could surely be produced sooner, and further that having J120 ready in the mid 2010s would place the VSE in a much stronger position to survive any future budget cuts- surely a prudent way to operate.

It would appear that NASA has found otherwise, and today I found a link on this forum to a release stating so. However I simply do not understand how, for example, the Jupiter core stage could cost any more to develop and build than an Ares-V core stage. I also noticed an error in that report in which the J120 was said to be too expensive because it had three RS68s and a J2X-powered upper stage; that, of course, is a description of the J232 configuration.

Thanks for any replies,

John

[JimMcDade]

Hi, this is my first post here, and it seems like an excellent forum and font of knowledge! I have been following the Direct proposal as it has evolved over on Nasaspaceflight forums and have found that it is treated somewhat differently here.

John, DIRECT 2.0 is a typical, widely-believed hoax that is supported by partial-truths, misinformation, and irrelevant, but cleverly framed, supporting claims. A tremendous number of people have been fooled by the pseudo-technical nature of DIRECT 2.0 claims and documentation. The only only opponents of Ares I and Ares V that you should take seriously are those people who have a philosophical difference witht the VSE concept in general. Many of those people are generally disappointed with any post-Shuttle plans that don't include and Apollo-scale program for going to Mars.

It is true that VSE is a shoestring budget approach that turns-off those who have grandiose dreams of a more robust space program. The problem for NASA is that they know that Washington will not significantly increase NASA funding for a lunar and Mars program that costs more than the existing NASA appropriation growth plans. Ares I and Ares V is all we are going to get.

The DIRECT 2.0 Jupiter concept is not suitable for meeting VSE objectives for several reasons, some technical and some that have more to do with processes.

1-The most glaring problem is that Jupiter is absurdly overpowered and expensive for ISS servicing missions. Jupiter is underpowered for the lunar and Mars mission profiles dictated by VSE.

2- The Ares I vibration issue has been grossly exaggerated by the posters on Nasaspaceflight and DIRECT 2.0 bloggers. The vibrations, under the most conservative predictions, may cause astronaut vision to be blurred during the final few seconds prior to staging of Ares I. The DIRECT 2.0 forum writers claim that astronauts could be killed by these vibrations. It is just one unfounded claims amongst their other bizarre exaggerations and ad hominem assaults that are pointed at the engineeris and NASA officials who point out the flaws in the DIRECT 2.0 weirdness.

3- The DIRECT 2.0 technical argument is nothing but a Powerpoint presentation cobbled together by a group of individuals who lack any relevant education, profesional experience, or otherwise credible qualifications in the fields of propulsion or with spacecraft systems.

The DIRECT 2.0 crowd may appeal to some people simply because they because they have a professional looking PowerPoint presentation and they say some startling things about NASA conspiracies, George Bush, Michael Griffin, and NASA managers. That is about all they have, and that is just not enough to shut down Ares I devlopment. DIRECT 2.0 cannot and does not offer supporting studies and engineering documentation to support their claims. They have cleverly borrowed from work done by others. They are good at moving facts and figures around in order to create superficial illusions, but that is about all that they are good at.

4- DIRECT 2.0 is not a quicker solution as is claimed. In fact, changing to DIRECT 2.0 architecture would reset the VSE program timetable back to 2004. New RFP proposals and a new competitive bid process woujd be required in order to meet federal competitive bid requirements. There are no shortcuts.

John, There is a lot more to tell you, but I am a bit busy today with real world work. I hope this helps.

[Rick]

John,
Let me take a stab at this. I'm out of the country on vacation, typing this on my Blackberry, so it will be kind of short for now.

Jims point #4, is to me the reason why Ares will continue in my opinion. The contracts already awarded are too far along to reconfigure and or rebid.

Some folks forget as well that NASA employs very smart, adaptable people as well as its contractors do to amend/fix issues that arise.

I know this is a generic response to your specific question, but I do not have facts in front of me here in France.:-)

As I work for one of those contractors at KSC, I can with great confidence tell you that whether it be Direct or some other alternative design, they are not being considered seriously.

I wish I could tell you more, but alas, due to proprietary and other considerations, I cannot.

When I return home, I will however answer your specific question you originally posed,unless someone else can do it first.

BTW, thanks for joining!

[JimMcDade]

I recently received an interesting, but anonymous email from an individual claiming to be a NASA "civil servant", who told me that, "Any one with a half a brain can see Ares I is in trouble and is not OK." I replied to the email and told the writer that I agree with him totally that the DIRECT 2.0 core of hoaxers are indeed operating with the accumulative power of half of a brain. I also asked for his help in pointing me to any shred of evidence that any DIRECT 2.0 claim is substantive. I doubt that my request will be answered.

A lot of intelligent people have been sucked into this DIRECT 2.0 flap. I give credit to Stephen Metschan for taking public-confidence-in-NASA-killing crankology to a new level of sophistication with his mighty PowerPoint skills and internet forum-blog slamming orchestration. In the final analysis, DIRECT 2.0 is just another run-of-the-mill conspiracy conspiracy that has been elevated to a new level of pseudo-sophistication.

Bart Sibrel, Ralph Rene, the British conspiracy-hugger Michael Jackson, Alex Roland, and the bar-code fearing Mary Stewart Relfe, must all be jealous of Metschan's masterful initiating and marketing of a conspiracy theory that is so shabbily built upon rumor, dreadfully weak evidence and that is absolutely unsupported by a single shred of forensically viable evidence.

The inability of Metschan's crew to answer questions about their claims and sources is always explained by a proclaimed desire to protect "inside sources". That is classic conspiracy theorist methodology that I and many others have observed again and again as we search for truth. Why would an honest-to-goodness inside source turn to a software peddler from Washington state to act as the channel for such critical and powerful informations?

Surely, at least one of the 57 "inside" engineers that DIRECT 2.0 claims to have would have the good sense to contact an investigative reporter at the Washington Post, TIME magazine, NBC News, CBS News, or some other credible, investigative institution that owns a sound reputation for exposing public corruption while protecting the anonymity of sources.

There are many credible agencies that would leap at the chance to shoot down NASA and any Bush-related program such as the VSE. Why place your professional reputation as an engineer and your career fate in the hands of a group of space amateurs who spend too much time playing space cadet on the World Wide Web? (Me too! I must acknowledge my own sever case of space cadet syndrome.) DIRECT 2.0 has no sound 1st Amendment standing that would allow them to protect the identity of sources.

The news agencies mentioned above have firmly established 1st Amendment standing and lots of expensive attorneys to help them maintain that standing. Metschan is not an experienced, trained investigator or a credible professional journalist. Metschan is just the owner of a very small business that scored a few very small business software contracts with NASA in the past (Through a federally mandated small business support program) who touts his $85 annual fee American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics associate membership that thousands of space fans also own. Click here and you can join too:

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=181

The almost Manson Family-style air of exclusivity, and the frequently proclaimed privileged access to information from up to "57 engineers", and the general air of arrogance that is coming from the DIRECT 2.0 core are all common conspiracy conspiracy characteristic.

One not-so-cute example of what I call stealth arrogance that came from DIRECT 2.0 is their humble offer to save NASA officials from public humiliation by offering NASA the permission to take their supposedly technologically superior Jupiter rocket concept and re-designate it as a member of the Ares class of rockets. In other words, DIRECT 2.0 is saying, "We don't care what they call it. NASA can even claim it as their own. As long as they use our plan, we will stoically accept their decision to accept our superior design and we shall press-on, secure in the knowledge that we saved America's space program from disaster. We don't need praise, recognition, credit and adulation. We are munificent. We are highly insightful, intellectually blessed, beings who have a higher calling than those NASA managers."

The obvious fact that DIRECT 2.0 claims have been publicly shot-down by Ares program managers and other NASA officials who have day-to-day oversight of the program is simply ignored by DIRECT 2.0 leaders who have invested so much of their personal integrity in this sham that are unable to withdraw is also typical of most failed conspiracy claim movements.

All that said, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Ares I or the VSE will be eventually canceled. If that cancellation happens however, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the faulty and irrational claims of the DIRECT 2.0 committee.

[J.McDonald]

Thanks, Jim, but I don't really feel that helps me understand the situation any better! Regardless of whomever is behind 'Direct', or their motives, to a lay-person like me it still seems to have some merit. I'll reiterate:
1) Sticking with 4-seg SRBs must be cheaper and faster than designing around 5-seg
2) An 8.4m core allowing use of existing tooling and ground facilities must be cheaper than upgrading to a 10m core
3) Designing and operating one vehicle rather than two ought to save an awful lot as well.
4) NASA says that the 'Jupiter' core would cost more to develop than was estimated by the 'Direct' team. That may be so, but it surely cannot cost any more than the Ares-V core, being smaller and more similar to current hardware.

The above seems self-evident to me. Thus far, I have yet to be persuaded otherwise.
Yours expectantly,

John

[Rick]

John,
As you await a response to the questions you've asked above, I am wondering if you read my reply a couple posts ago?

Does what I wrote regarding existing contracts carry any weight in your thinking?

If not, why not? If it does, why does it?

Thanks and I look forward to your response.

[J.McDonald]

Rick,
yes I did see your post- maybe I did not digest it fully. It's hard to gain much of an understanding of the contract issue when I'm not privvy to specifics and details.
Essentially, are you saying that all the contracts have been issued for both Ares vehicles, and that there are very significant penalties attached to withdrawing from these?
Thanks,

John

[JimMcDade]

John, It is not a matter of formal penalties, per se, that would make it too costly switch to the DIRECT 2.0 fantasy or some other booster concept. It is a matter of federal competitive bid regulations and processes. The entire process that began following the January 14, 2004 announcement of the Vision For Space Exploration would be effectively wiped-off the map and an entirely new design selection and competitive bid process would start. We don't have enough space or time here to teach a law school course in federal contract processes, so I will leave it up to you to learn all of the details about that. I have academic and professional experience with the subject and I can tell you that it is boring and aggravating at the same time.

The real penalty is a lot of lost time and an enormous amount of lost money that NASA would probably never get back.

The DIRECT 2.0 folks are not living in the real world if they don't understand that.

If DIRECT 2.0 can show a single test result or calculation that proves ARES I won't fly, I could buy into that part of their argument--- the part that claims ARES I will not fly.

Unfortunately, the entire approach of DIRECT 2.0 toward ARES I, is based upon rumor, exaggeration, irrelevant material, personal attacks against NASA management, and claims that cannot be supported. I refuse to accept any claim that is not supported by verifiable, factual premises. I wish they could show me as much as a single computational fluid dynamics result that could verify their claims. They can't do that, as no such data exists.

NASA has effective answered their equally unsupported claims about ARES I payload capability, so that is a non-starter.

The most disgusting behavior from DIRECT 2.0 is their spurious and ludicrous claim that Steve Cook and other NASA officials are conspiring to cover-up problems with ARES I. If you buy into that uncorroborated and therefore very offensive claim about, then you are lacking in the area of critical thinking, so I am just wasting time typing this. Conspiracy nuts will sometimes set about to destroy the careers of any authority who stands in the way of their ambitious plan to climb the pedestal of fame and glory. DIRECT 2.0 may or may not be orchestrating the chorus of naysayers and contentious cranks in mounting the obnoxious attacks against me, Steve Cook and anybody else who resists their efforts to saturate the public consciousness.

You are quite free to believe whatever you want. A lot of people believe that the federal government keeps dead aliens from Area 51 on ice. I am not saying that DIRECT 2.0 claims are as bizarre as the dead alien claims, but I am saying that the DIRECT 2.0 conclusion that Ares I will not fly, and that it will kill astronauts with deadly vibrations is just as bogus as the dead alien claims.

The DIRECT 2.0 folks respond to any criticism of their contentions by hurling insults at anybody who questions the supremacy of their conclusions. All I am asking them to do is to produce one viable shred of evidence that thrust oscillations make Ares I unworthy.

As far as your points about it seeming be be easier to do this or that, other than what the VSE/ARES I project team has done, I suggest that you read STAGES TO SATURN, A POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE SPACE AGE, and many other good books that illustrate how the recent trials and tribulations of the ARES I engineers are common to all major booster systems projects. Some of the loudest DIRECT 2.0 complainers are either too young to remember history or unread.

[Rick]

Hi John,
Not exactly. Ares since its inception was a pay as you go scenario as part of constellation. Contracts for Ares V are not on the table as of yet.

In regards to the Ares I contracts, many have been signed and already being implemented. In KSC's case, the contractor I work for has already moved nearly 500 employees into Ares, many from the ISS program. Many have relocated to support Ares.

The infastructure at KSC has also begun to evolve around Ares, which includes facilities, including Pad 39B,which is the most obvious change, with new lightning masts being constructed to accomodate the height of the Ares I vehicle. The prototype to be launched early next year.

I'm just speaking of KSC, as it has affected my employment as well, as I support Ares too.

For the record, I personally see nothhing wrong with Direct. I do have issues with their methodolgy and their arrogant stance toward NASA and its contractors.

Even the smallest change in an already awarded bid is potentially a show stopper. Some contracts would have to totally re-written or worse, the contracts would need to be re-bid.

I believe with the most certainty, that if Jupiter (A bad name in my opinion) had been brought to the table 4 years ago, instead of when it was, the chance of it succeeding would have been possible.

Unfortunately for those who support Direct, it's too late for that idea or any other alternative launch vehicle for that matter.

I hope what I've written helps, as it is the way things are proceeding.

They will NOT change.

Now, back to my well deserved vacation. :-)

[J.McDonald]

If DIRECT 2.0 can show a single test result or calculation that proves ARES I won't fly, I could buy into that part of their argument--- the part that claims ARES I will not fly.

To be honest that part of the argument has never been of any interest to me. I know that there are some issues with the development of Ares-I, but that's what you'd expect. If there is an argument against it, IMHO it is the EELV option, but I don't want to digress into that topic.

You are quite free to believe whatever you want.

I'm trying not to treat this as a matter of 'belief'. It's not that I doubt NASA's ability to build the right rocket. It's that I've seen some frankly rather convincing arguments, outlined in my original post above, that have yet to be dissproved. I do wish that this whole business was less emotional, and more factual.

[J.McDonald]

Apologies for interrupting your holiday, and thanks for your responses

Hi John,
Contracts for Ares V are not on the table as of yet.

That's not a surprise, I guess- it's a long way off yet. That being the case, would significant time and money might be saved by developing a smaller heavy launch vehicle derived from existing (4-seg SRBs, 8.4m tank) STS technology?

[JimMcDade]

Apologies for interrupting your holiday, and thanks for your responses



That's not a surprise, I guess- it's a long way off yet. That being the case, would significant time and money might be saved by developing a smaller heavy launch vehicle derived from existing (4-seg SRBs, 8.4m tank) STS technology?

It would be pure speculation to answer your time and money question at this stage in the Ares V process. Personally, I think it is time for NASA to stick with a chosen Shuttle replacement design proposal to the end. That is something that NASA has had trouble doing for quite a long time. ARES V is designed to perform the required jobs quite nicely. Ares I and Ares V are two parts of a coordinated space transportation system. Why speculate on something else that will probably just add more time to the Shuttle replacement process?

BTW- I am proud to announce that I am now permanently banned from the NASASpaceFlight.com forum after committing the terrible offense of asking the anti-ARES I/DIRECT 2.0 advocates for a single calculation or shred of viable evidence that would prove their claims. I am quite proud of this honor. Is NASASpaceFlight based in China? If not, they would be a good fit in the Ministry of Information there.

NASASpaceFlight appears to be determined to protect the unscrupulous from the scrupulous. I would not be surprised if they give Bart Sibrel his own Apollo Hoax forum in the near future. They could immediately ban any poster that dared to question Bart's conspiracy theory just as they are now acting to protect the DIRECT 2.0 rubbish.

Perhaps the NSF moderators were more upset by my comment that DIRECT 2.0 is nothing but a graphics-rich PowerPoint presentation that is not backed by a single engineering study or any verifiable facts. All DIRECT 2.0 has to show, other than their PowerPoint skill, is a bunch of rumors, misrepresentations, exaggerations, a misappropriated NASA CAD designer's angry resignation letter, and a small bunch of half-witted Metschan cultists who are determined to prove they are smarter than the working professionals who run the Ares I program.

[J.McDonald]

It would be pure speculation to answer your time and money question at this stage in the Ares V process.

Gotcha. Too far in the future. Nobody knows how much the 5.5seg SRBs, 10m core, and 6xRS68 configuration will cost to develop and operate, nor how long it will take.
Likewise an architecture based on 4seg SRBs and an 8.4m core is a similarly unknown quantity, with a similar amount of development work required, and with no operational experience to base costs upon.



A little OT for this thread, but about NSF forums...

Firstly, sorry to hear about you being banned. I find the forum a tremendous resource and have learned much from it, when all I had to go on previously was Mark Wade's site (how naive I was back then!).

I would not, however, characterise it as a home for Direct fans only. There are plenty of dissenters on that board. A few months ago I watched a tense exchange between Ross Tierney and Ed Kyle regarding the supposed Ares-I underperformance... the result of which was that Ross backed down quite a lot from his initial statements, which turned out to be based on 'sources that could not be revealed'. Yet Ed Kyle remaains a regular and valued contributor to the forum. There have been other incidents like this, but that's the one that comes to mind just now.

What I have seen in the past is debates spiral into personal attacks against other forum users, and that is never tolerated by the moderators. But that is their jobs. They are not part of the 'Direct' team, AFAIK.

As for what you say about moon hoaxes, there is an active thread right now on that very subject, and you won't find any conspiracists on there- so your point is a little exagerated.

Perhaps the NSF moderators were more upset by my comment that DIRECT 2.0 is nothing but a graphics-rich PowerPoint presentation that is not backed by a single engineering study or any verifiable facts. All DIRECT 2.0 has to show, other than their PowerPoint skill, is a bunch of rumors, misrepresentations, exaggerations, a misappropriated NASA CAD designer's angry resignation letter, and a small bunch of half-witted Metschan cultists who are determined to prove they are smarter than the working professionals who run the Ares I program.

I don't see why the NSF moderators would have had a problem with the first part of what you say there. It's the second half where it becomes more angry and personal that might cause them problems.
By the way I noticed that you were directed to the 'level 2' resource at NSF for verification of some of the 'Direct' team's claims, did you investgate this avenue?

[JimMcDade]

I can't get to the level 2 guy because I can't use the NSF PM tool now.

On the "Gotcha", that's not really fair. Were talking about the early stages of Phase A, as far as Ares V is concerned. There's not much point in arguing about unknown unknowns.

Manager of the Constellation Program Jeff Hanley said "We produced valid, executable conceptual designs for Ares V and Altair that meet the mission performance requirements, that is producing NASA’s next generation of human-exploration vehicles. The most stressing ones, of course, are to be able to go anywhere on the Moon and to be able to bring the crew home at any time.” (DIRECT 2.0 cultists will call Hanley a liar, naturally.)

I will try to find out if those Ares V cost projections are available yet. I do know that NASA knows what their budget limitations are because I just finished reading an article about that. The White House changeover could blow everything up that is not yet in the pipe, so ARES V is more vulnerable than ARES I. The ARES I process is too far along to be canned unless the US feels that it can either wait ten years or so to resume human space missions or spend an enormous amount of money cranking the STS production machinery back up.

For now, the primary focus is on ARES I. As ARES I program leader Steve Cook says, "We’re still on the same fundamental (ARES I) plan we laid out three years ago,” he said. “We’re hitting our milestones. . . . We’re making it through major design reviews with robust designs. We’re not marginal on performance.” (Steve has already been labeled a liar by DIRECT 2.0.)

[J.McDonald]

There's not much point in arguing about unknown unknowns.

Yeah, I guess you can call it an unknown, if to you the following statements make sense:
"We don't know if it'll cost more to develop a new 5-seg SRB than to not develop one."
"We don't know if it'll cost more to change the infrastructure to support a new 10m tank diameter than the current 8.4m"
"We don't know if it'll cost more to design around a vehicle whose roll-out mass and thrust at launch exceed those for which the current crawlers, crawlerway, and pad can handle, than to stay within those limits."

[Rick]

Apologies for interrupting your holiday, and thanks for your responses



That's not a surprise, I guess- it's a long way off yet. That being the case, would significant time and money might be saved by developing a smaller heavy launch vehicle derived from existing (4-seg SRBs, 8.4m tank) STS technology?

No apology needed. :-)

I believe you might be right concerning an Ares v alternative, but not an Ares I/Ares V alternative. Jupiter is overkill for Ares I at a minimum, and as mentioned before, Ares I which NASA plans to use without question is an express train that has left the station, some time ago.

Thanks for the thought provoking questions!

[JimMcDade]

The unknowns I was referring to are the final cost projections for ARES V. Remember, cheaper does not always mean better. A cost efficiency paradigm does not always work with choosing the best exploration systems. That kind of hard and fast paradigm condemned the STS. NASA is building space vehicles, not consumer electronics for Walmart. It is mission capability that the Ares V team is looking for, not cost or time savings. This is not a private enterprise where the bottom line is often all that counts. There certainly is a point of diminishing returns for ARES V or any project. Just hang on until the numbers come out.

[J.McDonald]

The unknowns I was referring to are the final cost projections for ARES V. Remember, cheaper does not always mean better. A cost efficiency paradigm does not always work with choosing the best exploration systems. That kind of hard and fast paradigm condemned the STS. NASA is building space vehicles, not consumer electronics for Walmart. It is mission capability that the Ares V team is looking for, not cost or time savings. This is not a private enterprise where the bottom line is often all that counts. There certainly is a point of diminishing returns for ARES V or any project. Just hang on until the numbers come out.

Yes, but all I was asking was 'would a smaller vehicle be cheaper'. I'm not suggesting that it would be better.
By the way, given that the Ares-V costs are apparently so nebulous at this stage, why is it a given that the 'Direct' designs would be more expensive to develop? How can this be stated when nobody appears to know the answers to anything about these costs?

About the diminishing returns aspect: that's what worries me. I've watched Ares-V grow bigger and bigger over the years and I'm wondering at what point it'll be too big to be affordable. I'm not a 'Direct' fan per-se, nor am I 'anit-NASA', I just want to see this VSE actually happen...

[Me2]

.

1-The most glaring problem is that Jupiter is absurdly overpowered and expensive for ISS servicing missions. Jupiter is underpowered for the lunar and Mars mission profiles dictated by VSE.

2- The Ares I vibration issue has been grossly exaggerated by the posters on Nasaspaceflight and DIRECT 2.0 bloggers. The vibrations, under the most conservative predictions, may cause astronaut vision to be blurred during the final few seconds prior to staging of Ares I. The DIRECT 2.0 forum writers claim that astronauts could be killed by these vibrations. It is just one unfounded claims amongst their other bizarre exaggerations and ad hominem assaults that are pointed at the engineeris and NASA officials who point out the flaws in the DIRECT 2.0 weirdness.

3- The DIRECT 2.0 technical argument is nothing but a Powerpoint presentation cobbled together by a group of individuals who lack any relevant education, profesional experience, or otherwise credible qualifications in the fields of propulsion or with spacecraft systems.

The DIRECT 2.0 crowd may appeal to some people simply because they because they have a professional looking PowerPoint presentation and they say some startling things about NASA conspiracies, George Bush, Michael Griffin, and NASA managers. That is about all they have, and that is just not enough to shut down Ares I devlopment. DIRECT 2.0 cannot and does not offer supporting studies and engineering documentation to support their claims. They have cleverly borrowed from work done by others. They are good at moving facts and figures around in order to create superficial illusions, but that is about all that they are good at.

4- DIRECT 2.0 is not a quicker solution as is claimed. In fact, changing to DIRECT 2.0 architecture would reset the VSE program timetable back to 2004.

5 - New RFP proposals and a new competitive bid process woujd be required in order to meet federal competitive bid requirements. There are no shortcuts.

I an not a Direct advocate, more of an EELV advocate and very anti-Stick. Even though I think the EELV's make the best solution for ISS missions, Direct is a better solution than the Stick

1 b. There are no requirements in the VSE that demand any particular architecture. NASA was going to use an EELV architecture before Griffin came in with the stick. If you are referring to the ESAS, that POS has be shown to be invalid. The 4 segment SSME stick was unworkable, as was the SSME Ares V. As for being "too puny", the current Ares I is also, since NASA has just changed the Orion ISS crew from 6 to 4 since the Ares i lacks the performance. So, just as NASA is changing "VSE/ESAS" requirements so that the Ares I can meet them, the same thing can be done so that Direct and/or EELV architectures can be use for ISS, lunar and Mars missions.

This point, 1b, is the most important point/argument of all. The requirements are not hard and fast nor are the results of the ESAS set in stone. NASA can change them to suit them. So that in itself is not enough to say that Ares I is the only way.

2. Wrong. The TO problem is a problem and a threat to crew health. 5x5 risk.

3. Very wrong. The Direct design was already validated by MSFC and other NASA centers. Direct is a derivative of the NLS inline design. NASA did many studies of this design. The change from STME to RS-68 is simple to analyze.

4. Wrong again. It might only go back to 2006 but it would still beat Ares I.

5. Not completely true. The Boeing instrument unit contract could remain as is. ATK is under contract for shuttle SRB's and that can be extended just as easily as the sole source contract for the 5 segment SRM. As for the Direct core, LM could do it as an extension of the ET contract, if not, then it would be the only contract that would need to be competed. The Boeing upperstage contract would be changed into the EDS contract.

[JimMcDade]

You can find all the relevant answers and the hard facts that address your technical objections- including the thrust oscillations- in the previous posts in this forum. Thanks.