DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[Rick]

I find it interesting that Direct 2.0's discussions sure has fizzled into barely a whisper across the web.

[Me2]

Lull before the storm

but seriously, HST problems are going to delay Ares I-X around 6 months

[Rick]

Lull before the storm

but seriously, HST problems are going to delay Ares I-X around 6 months

Yes, heard that today at work.

I doubt there is any lull before the storm though.

[Bob]

It is quiet because direct is over.

[Rick]

Bob,
It's been over for awhile now.

Unfortunately, DIRECT folks don't want to admit it.

[J.McDonald]

Hmmm. Maybe, like me, they've got frustrated.
At first, the two-launcher idea seemed to be an almost self-explanatory good idea, but one hat NASA might not have considered, or at least not in that exact configuration. They are now obviously aware of the idea, and continue to reject it. Ares is getting bigger, slower, and more expensive all the time making the Direct advantages seem even more obvious. Yet still it is deemed not to be the right answer.
I continue to be confused about how the idea can be seen as completely without merit by NASA. Just see my many, many questions of this forum which remain unanswered.

[Andrew]

I continue to be confused about how the idea can be seen as completely without merit by NASA. Just see my many, many questions of this forum which remain unanswered.

That you believe your questions have been ineffectively answered on Inside KSC is reflective of a decision by NASA to "ignore" all the "facts" regarding DIRECT v. Ares? Wow, we've got the power!

-Andrew

[Rick]

That you believe your questions have been ineffectively answered on Inside KSC is reflective of a decision by NASA to "ignore" all the "facts" regarding DIRECT v. Ares?

That appears to be the key. They are being ignored.

[JimMcDade]

Direct 2.0 was never taken seriously by anybody in the real-world space exploration community. Other than the people who started that quest for fame and media recognition and the innocent people who bit on the pseudo-technical Direct 2.0 presentation, that alternative proposal never got off of the ground anywhere- with the notable exception of one lazy journalist at the Orlando Sentinel.

The technical proof that was mailed to me by the Direct 2.0 second-level engineering source was laughable. It's time to move on.

[Me2]

Direct 2.0 was never taken seriously by anybody in the real-world space exploration community.

Since you are not part of the "real-world space exploration community", you wouldn't know and therefore your statement is a lie.

[Rick]

Since you are not part of the "real-world space exploration community", you wouldn't know and therefore your statement is a lie.

(Why I always respond to these posts, still has me bewildered, but here goes )

Me2, is it at all possible that Jim could possibly be correct? How do you jump to a conclusion that he is lying? Is it because you didn't like what he wrote? In all honestly, Direct doesn't have a chance in you know where to gain favor with NASA.

Also, I thought you were an EELV kinda guy? At least EELV makes sense if Ares fails.

[Me2]

(Why I always respond to these posts, still has me bewildered, but here goes )

Me2, is it at all possible that Jim could possibly be correct? How do you jump to a conclusion that he is lying? Is it because you didn't like what he wrote? In all honestly, Direct doesn't have a chance in you know where to gain favor with NASA.

Also, I thought you were an EELV kinda guy? At least EELV makes sense if Ares fails.

No, because
1. As I said, he is not in the "real-world space exploration community" and therefore doesn't know what it going on in it.

2. Independent of online forums and websites, I was emailed the Direct proposal from two different NASA sources (e.g. the real-world space exploration community). Watercooler talk topics have centered around EELV or other SDLV's for Orion vs the Stick, the Shaft, the Whorowitz rocket, Mikey's folley, etc

3. There is dissatisfaction among some (not the just the direct group) about direction of the Agency and its "choice" of launch vehicle. The consensuses is that Ares will set back the gov't manned spaceflight

4. I am an EELV guy but I will call out McDade. He is just as bad as the Direct guys, just in the opposite direction in his mindless backing of Ares. He is just as clueless about the agency.

[Rick]

.

2. Independent of online forums and websites, I was emailed the Direct proposal from two different NASA sources (e.g. the real-world space exploration community). Watercooler talk topics have centered around EELV or other SDLV's for Orion vs the Stick, the Shaft, the Whorowitz rocket, Mikey's folley, etc.

I visit alot of water coolers at KSC. In the industrial area, the north end, CCAFS, and the NSLD in Cape Canaveral, and rarely if ever hear anything about Direct. EELV is however a different story. As I AM in the real-world space exploration community, what I say has bearing per your definition. I do know several personally that choose not to believe it, and they too are NOT in the real-world space exploration community. Does the rule that you are using apply to them as well, or only pro-Ares people.

3. There is dissatisfaction among some (not the just the direct group) about direction of the Agency and its "choice" of launch vehicle. The consensuses is that Ares will set back the gov't manned spaceflight

Agreed. However, 'some' do not constitiute a majority and due to this, Direct will fail.

4. I am an EELV guy but I will call out McDade. He is just as bad as the Direct guys, just in the opposite direction in his mindless backing of Ares. He is just as clueless about the agency.

You do not know Mr. McDade, and therefore do not have the authority to brand him in that light. You have the right to, but your conviction of being judge and jury is way off base Me2.

[Bob]

+1

[Me2]

1. I visit alot of water coolers at KSC. In the industrial area, the north end, CCAFS, and the NSLD in Cape Canaveral, and rarely if ever hear anything about Direct. EELV is however a different story. As I AM in the real-world space exploration community, what I say has bearing per your definition. I do know several personally that choose not to believe it, and they too are NOT in the real-world space exploration community. Does the rule that you are using apply to them as well, or only pro-Ares people.


2. Agreed. However, 'some' do not constitiute a majority and due to this, Direct will fail.


3. You do not know Mr. McDade, and therefore do not have the authority to brand him in that light. You have the right to, but your conviction of being judge and jury is way off base Me2.

2. I would not expect normal shuttle and KSC workers to know anything about Direct. They don't work launch vehicle architectures or do anything outside of shuttle. Just as that there were few KSC people on the ESAS.

The point was that McDade said Direct was "never" taken seriously, which is false. If he means that it was officially considered is also wrong. Direct is the same as the LV 24 configuration in the ESAS.

3. Never said anything about Direct as going forward. Just having issue with the "never"

4. McDade's articles on this site and his posts on other forums are plenty of evidence to brand him as a Stick hugger. His feable attempts to discredit EELV options are also proof that he is ESAS koolade drinker. He is just as unobjective and biased as the Direct group is.

[J.McDonald]

That you believe your questions have been ineffectively answered on Inside KSC is reflective of a decision by NASA to "ignore" all the "facts" regarding DIRECT v. Ares? Wow, we've got the power!

-Andrew

Well, I don't have a hotline to Mike Griffin. I guess I've become accustomed to being able to talk directly (haha) with the Direct team over at NSF, and ask any questions I want to, and get almost immediate answers. This forum seemed to represent the 'other' camp so naively I thought I could get the same level of information. Unfortunately, my technical questions here have, without exception, fallen completely flat. I honestly expected that if people like Jim McDade could be bothered to dig up personal details about Steve Metschan, then he might have looked at other problems with Direct too. But apparently not. In fact, to generalise, nobody on this forum actually seems interested in how rockets work. And that's a bit of a shame, IMHO.

If anbody is interested, I still have a big list of unanswered questions; I have Direct's side of the story already, but I'd like to know that I've got the complete picture.

[Rick]

They don't work launch vehicle architectures or do anything outside of shuttle. Just as that there were few KSC people on the ESAS.

Heh, yeah, right Me2. You must be a new employee at KSC, to even suggest the first statement.

You must think that KSC workers are oblivious to the future, or stupid, or both.

4. McDade's articles on this site and his posts on other forums are plenty of evidence to brand him as a Stick hugger. His feable attempts to discredit EELV options are also proof that he is ESAS koolade drinker. He is just as unobjective and biased as the Direct group is.

And you are an EELV hugger. So? I'll just ban Jim's viewpoints on this site to keep him from him defending his right to his own opinions. (not)

Better yet, use the 'ignore' function here, and it will free you of his idea's all together.

Absurd.

[Me2]

Heh, yeah, right Me2. You must be a new employee at KSC, to even suggest the first statement.

You must think that KSC workers are oblivious to the future, or stupid, or both.

Been at the center for more than 20 years, that's why I know my statement is right.

Yes, KSC workers know launch vehicle ground operations and putting the pieces together. Few to none know anything about launch vehicle design. They don't deal with flight performance, fairing sizes, spacecraft loads, etc. KSC workers are not involved in knowing whether Ares V needs 5 or 6 engines to meet mission requirements. This is working a launch vehicle architecture.

Also when I said "outside of the shuttle", I was lumping Ares in with the shuttle since it is just more of the same things. So I stand by statement that most of KSC doesn't know anything outside of the shuttle.

[Me2]

And you are an EELV hugger. So? I'll just ban Jim's viewpoints on this site to keep him from him defending his right to his own opinions. (not)

Actually, I am more of an Ares hater. EELV or/and Direct is better for NASA

Never said anything about banning, just that McDade's opinions are just as biased as the Direct group's and he is less credible.

[Rick]

Well, I don't have a hotline to Mike Griffin. I guess I've become accustomed to being able to talk directly (haha) with the Direct team over at NSF, and ask any questions I want to, and get almost immediate answers. This forum seemed to represent the 'other' camp so naively I thought I could get the same level of information. Unfortunately, my technical questions here have, without exception, fallen completely flat. I honestly expected that if people like Jim McDade could be bothered to dig up personal details about Steve Metschan, then he might have looked at other problems with Direct too. But apparently not. In fact, to generalise, nobody on this forum actually seems interested in how rockets work. And that's a bit of a shame, IMHO.

If anbody is interested, I still have a big list of unanswered questions; I have Direct's side of the story already, but I'd like to know that I've got the complete picture.

As I've mentioned in prior posts, in other threads, I really do not believe it is Inside KSC's job, or its members here, or its over 2,000 Yahoo group members to do NASA's job for them. NASA has released technical information for you to plow through. You of course have the right to disagree with its math or not believe it at all.

It IS Directs responsibility to PROVE as to why NASA is wrong. Whether one likes the outcome of the direction of Ares, is certainly up for debate. For one, I do appreciate the posts here, even when they are way off base in my belief system.

The reason I am so, so pro-Ares, is that I am pro-NASA. Some things that have been said about its management and its decisions on other websites are vial. God forbid there is any criticism regarding Directs proposal or its followers. as its labeled as a personal attack.

For some odd reason, I believe NASA, and I do NOT think there is a cover-up or some other ludicrous plan, that are put out on blogs by NASA detractors or alternate proposal seekers on forums that try and in some cases succeed to put the space agency in a bad light to discredit them. No, I am not a kool-aid drinker. I AM a realist, however.

I've been interested in how rockets work since I was 12. I am now 53, and still am interested in how they work. I am so interested in how they work that I am dismissing Directs inability to accept NASA's launch vehicle decision making.

Sorry for the diatribe, but at times, the distrust of NASA's engineering and its management gets under my skin.

So there!