DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[J.McDonald]

I thikn you are being a little too harsh on Metschan, but more importantly too harsh on the concept. As ever, Jim.

My main 'ouch' moment was when he was asked why the Jupiter-esque 70t LV in ESAS wasn't taken further. Anybody remotely interested in ESAS or Direct should be able to answer that: it's because no upper stage was added to that configuration, so 70t proved incapable of meeting requirements.
Instead, though, Metschan flooundered about and never answered the question. Obviously he was very nervous and/or thinking on a different level.

I did wonder if Ross being British (nowt wrong with that, miind) would rule him out as spokesman. Chuck Longton may be too old? Personally I don't care much for his style, he tends to be 'all guns blazing' in a very unhelpful way.

[J.McDonald]

The Reuters story on the public hearing did not even mention Direct or Metshcan. That has to be a cruel blow to some egos. I am sure that the Direct guys will claim that Reuters is another victim of "pressure brought to bear by NASA".

see http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSB274656

Oh yeah by that logic so will Orbital since they weren't mentioned either

[Me2]

What we witnessed was not the failure of a frail individual. What we witnessed was the failure of an idea- a very faulty idea.
.

wrong, it is a good idea and validated by Shannon's presentation.

Ares isn't going to survive, it will be replaced by a combination of some of the presentations.

As for your Boeing comment, it would be ULA and not them.

[JimMcDade]

As Dr. Chiao explained to Metschan, the Direct cannot be judged without knowing the identity of the claimants. I agree that the NLS/Direct concept can fly, but so can all of the other alternatives presented to the panel.

For example, the EELV advocates are named and on the record with their studies. Metschan came across as a tin-foil hatter with all of his Capricorn I type conspiracy allegations about "blood in the water" and "pressure brought to bear". I can't, and nobody can say that the Direct "insider engineers" don't actually exist, but it is equally true that Steve, Ross, or Chuck cannot prove that those "renegade engineers" do exist.

Chiao and the other panel members are not going to take Direct seriously as long as it remains driven by a faith-based conspiracy theory fronted by a few charismatic, charming and likable guys. The Direct concept will never make it to the serious discussion level as long as this remains the case. Now is the time for a brave renegade to act like a real man or woman and come to the rescue for Metschan and company. It's now or never.

If such a hero steps forward, Chiao, Augustine and even this insignificant observer will look at Direct more seriously.

Sadly, that will not happen. Direct is little more than a castle in the clouds. But, my challenge stands. Is there anybody in the Direct camp with both serious Ares I engineering credentials and the guts to come out of the shadows?

[winkhome]

The Reuters story on the public hearing did not even mention Direct or Metshcan. That has to be a cruel blow to some egos. I am sure that the Direct guys will claim that Reuters is another victim of "pressure brought to bear by NASA".

see http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSB274656

Mr. McDade -

Out of all due respect - I'll be honest with you - the short time I have visited and minimally participated on this site, it has been in the areas related to Direct and Ares. That said I am left with the following question - do you ever add anything positive to the conversation? You are either talking down, or smacking down. It might be nice to have the power of your convictions behind you - but come on - you do not make it a very welcoming place to come and learn something, much less hold a discussion...

[J.McDonald]

Direct cannot be judged without knowing the identity of the claimants.

Why not? Can't NASA, or preferably an independent body, dust off NLS and see if it works?

[Rick]

Well, lucky you - honestly. Now, I am hoping to go to work for a company like that "soon" - interviewed last week and I am waiting...

However, I have seen it in action - you work in a place that "breaks your spirit or you soul" it does happen. It can happen in an organization in various ways - system wide down to a single office. In a perfect world we could all contribute in a positive way - but many of us are often not allowed.

Dale, "I" have nothing to do with it. It is common practice to at least have an ethics adviser at least, for situations where there are employee conflicts and such. This is common practice. If an employee decides not to contact ethics, for whatever reason, I blame the individual.

I do not disagree that every company has an ethical ethics person or ethics department, I will grant you that. It does not however negate what my opinion is here.

I'll stop there as I don't want to go off topic in this thread.

[Rick]

Mr. McDade -

Out of all due respect - I'll be honest with you - the short time I have visited and minimally participated on this site, it has been in the areas related to Direct and Ares. That said I am left with the following question - do you ever add anything positive to the conversation? You are either talking down, or smacking down. It might be nice to have the power of your convictions behind you - but come on - you do not make it a very welcoming place to come and learn something, much less hold a discussion...

Dale,
I respect your idea's an opinions. I also am not one to censor, delete or ban anyone that has a different viewpoint that another may not like.

I do not agree with everything Jim says, you say or others with different opinions. As that is the case, I would hope that you do understand and others do as well, that because someone holds a drastically different way of seeing things, I do not believe my site should take a hit because of it.

You are not the first to express this opinion, and all I've tried to do is have a vehicle that allows members to express what they want, short of personal attacks.

In regard to having to say anything positive, I can count on one hand of Direct/EELV supporters that have mentioned anything positive about Ares.

Just my opinion.

Thanks for listening.

[Me2]

In regard to having to say anything positive, I can count on one hand of Direct/EELV supporters that have mentioned anything positive about Ares.

That is why they are Direct/EELV supporters because they think Ares is not a positive.

As for personal attacks, everyone of McDade's post is one against the Direct team. "tin-foil hatter "

As for the technical merits of the Direct proposal, McDade does not have the credentials to make an informed opinion about it and therefore he attacks the people. Direct has been validated, it is was done by MSFC and it is called NLS. Ares I and V don't meet CxP requirements and so Cxp is changing the requirements. The same logic (tweaking requirements) can be applied to Direct and EELV, which will provide a cheaper and better solution for CxP tranportation needs. For example, if 50% of the money covers 90% of the requirements, then it is not worth the other 50% for 10% of the requirements. This type of analysis was never done for ESAS

[winkhome]

Dale,
I respect your idea's an opinions. I also am not one to censor, delete or ban anyone that has a different viewpoint that another may not like.

I do not agree with everything Jim says, you say or others with different opinions. As that is the case, I would hope that you do understand and others do as well, that because someone holds a drastically different way of seeing things, I do not believe my site should take a hit because of it.

You are not the first to express this opinion, and all I've tried to do is have a vehicle that allows members to express what they want, short of personal attacks.

In regard to having to say anything positive, I can count on one hand of Direct/EELV supporters that have mentioned anything positive about Ares.

Just my opinion.

Thanks for listening.

Fair enough - I really do thank you for maintaining the site. I have no problem finding fault with an idea - but I think that with that comes a degree of respect from one person to another. I think we all have something we can learn from one another - but civility is key.

As for good things about Ares - again, I thought the original idea was great - but the minute Ares I started to fall short and Orion had to start shedding capability the powers that be should have actively done something - at that point for RED flags started going us. Ares V again - original concept - great - now, to call it a potential white elephant I think is a vast understatement.

As for what other people say - well, they are indeed all entitled to their opinions, and I for one respect that, as long as it is done in a respectful way...

[Rick]

Thanks for response Dale, I do appreciate it.

[Rick]

As for the technical merits of the Direct proposal, McDade does not have the credentials to make an informed opinion about it and therefore he attacks the people.

No offense to anyone here, but there is no proof that the folks behind Direct have any credentials to be authoritative regarding Direct, as no one knows who they are.

Even Steve at yesterdays commission admitted that he doesn't know some of them.


I would say then, that your theory above is invalid.

[J.McDonald]

I can count on one hand of Direct/EELV supporters that have mentioned anything positive about Ares.

Count me in as one of those. Ares-I offers a theoretical safety advantage in using two engines and two stages, one separation event. Of course this only becomes an advantage once flight history surpasses that of competing systems, which will take a long time in the case of Jupiter, and will likely never happen in the case of EELV. Ares V offers the largest payload capacity of any reasonable SDLV, which as a statement in itself is a good thing. But when combined with budgetary constraints that advantage goes away.

[Rick]

Okay, you're finger number one John!

Oh, it's not a bad finger btw....

[JimMcDade]

I never said that NLS or Direct would not fly. I never challenged the technical quality of Direct or the EELVs. It is pointless, if not misleading, to question my professional rocketry credentials. The startling claims about Ares I are coming from Direct and EELV fans- not from me.

I admit that I am mad as heck with the Direct people. They launched a campaign of character assassination and unfounded lies that was based on innuendo and rumors. Their exploitation of the gullible and the credulous is what made me angry and turned me hard against their campaign.

Opinions, that's all that I offer- along with some facts about the background of the Direct team members. Credentials do count when it comes to offering something that is much larger than just opinions. The Direct team made major accusations of corruption against the working engineers and managers at NASA.

The Direct team came out of the internet and began pushing a borrowed launch vehicle concept and originally presented it as if it were their own. My credentials don't matter since I am not initiating any charges that that Ares or Direct or EELV are technically and fiscally faulty. Neither am I accusing NASA of a vast conspiracy to cover up Ares I problems- problems which Direct has never been able to validate.

The Direct team, just like Apollo moon hoaxer Bart Sibrel, seemed to relish playing the phony role of persecuted reformers, courageously taking on the corrupt NASA feds. A lot of people bought into it all. It's easy to sympathize with people who claim to be a repressed minority. It's easy to beleive that NASA is another corrupt agency, run by incompetent, unethical crooks.

Credentials are important. The first thing I have always heard during the introductions at university seminars and major hearings was the credentials of the expert presenters. When potential contractors present their responses to an RFP, the company credentials are a crucial consideration.

Metschan and Direct are offering claims and a proposal that are not backed by credentialed professionals or witnesses. From the start, Direct and others also displayed ignorance of the process by mistakenly treated ESAS as if was intended to be a road map and not as a starting point.

I am less than two years from finishing my Masters in Engineering, but my are of concentration is not any sort of "rocket science". Fortunately, you don't have to be a credentialed rocket scientist to detect baloney. I posted the steps for evaluating claims on the Yahoo site a short while back.

I would like to offer some choice adjectives that could adequately express my conclusions about the entire crew of DirectLauncher.com, but too many people mistakenly confuse such potent words with what otherwise would be considered an ad hominem attack.

I can remember the early days of internetworking when there were only several thousand of us who used tools like email. There weren't very many stupid people on the net back then, but those days are gone forever. Phishing, malware and other net scams have become more prolific as more and more people have become connected. I am not surprised the Direct culture captured so many minds. The best thing about that hearing yesterday is the fact that the Augustine panel members now know the "ground truth" about the Direct gang.

PS - Isn't it ironic that Atlas V fans point to early Ares I development woes when Atlas itself had the most troubled beginnings of any US booster in history. In the 1950s, Atlas explosions were almost commonplace, yet Atlas eventually became one of the all-time greats.

[Me2]

PS - Isn't it ironic that Atlas V fans point to early Ares I development woes when Atlas itself had the most troubled beginnings of any US booster in history. In the 1950s, Atlas explosions were almost commonplace, yet Atlas eventually became one of the all-time greats.

Not a valid comparison. We learned rocket science on Atlas. Ares I has the advantage of over 50 years of experience and it still has basic problems. Ares I should be as easy as the Falcon 9. There will be mud on the face of Steve Cooke and his MSFC cronies when Falcon 9 flies successfully. Especially if it beats I-X.

Direct aside, that is the issue I have with Ares I.

[JimMcDade]

Me2 pointed out that, "Ares I has the advantage of over 50 years of experience" .

I agree with you there. That is one reason why Ares I has had very few problems in comparison to Atlas V. Now, if you buy into the entire Direct conspiracy claim that NASA is lying and covering up showstopper caliber problems, I can't help you.

We could argue back and forth until Ares I flies or dies, but I would prefer to hear one of those alleged Ares I renegade engineers show some guts and expose any Ares I shortcomings.

I don't trust the government so much, but I trust them more than I trust that Direct circus troupe and their bumbling ringmaster who just slipped on the bull doo-doo when he finally got the opportunity to stand in the center ring with a bullhorn.

[Me2]

I agree with you there. That is one reason why Ares I has had very few problems in comparison to Atlas V..

Atlas V doesn't have any problems.

Ares I has many problems, more that it should have. You just don't hear about them.

1. It's performance is too low for Orion. CxP is misrepresenting the data. The weight allocated to Orion was too low.

2. TO, it is still there and still a problem. It has not been resolved.

3. Human rating. Ares I couldn't mean the requirements and hence the requirements were changed in May 2008. The requirements that poo poo the EELV's.

4. Cost. numbers ranging from 15 to 31 billion. Any of these are too high and unaffordable. They don't even justify precursor work for Ares V, which is become less and less since the it will use more than 5 segments.

5. Many problems have been "documented" in the " successful" Ares I PDR. NASA previously only had green, yellow and red. Green-yellow and yellow-red were used to "soften" the bad story.

6. Other examples of issues, upperstage and booster were misclocked on the drawings.

[Rick]

1. It's performance is too low for Orion. CxP is misrepresenting the data.

So, I would surmise you are indicating some type of conspiracy ...

[JimMcDade]

Rick, The NASA cover-up conspiracy list as compiled by the Anti-Ares I crew grows longer and longer.

According to the various "anonymous" sources quoted by Direct and alternative proponents:

1- Ares I will never clear the launch tower. It will drift into the tower and tumble into the ground!

2- Ares I is just too tall and skinny to fly. It is impossible to keep the thrust vector aligned with the center of gravity. Even if Ares I is lucky enough to miss the launch tower, it will still tumble into the ground!

3- If Ares I is extremely lucky and survives #1 and #2, column buckling will overcome the "stick" and it will crumple into a ball of flaming debris!

4- If the ultimate fluke happens and Ares I survives #1, #2, and #3, it will rattle so severely that it will shake apart and/or kill the astronaut crew!

5- If either the Gods or passing space aliens intervene and saves Ares I from #1, #2, #3 and #4, Ares I will run out of gas long before it reaches the required orbital velocity and altitude.

Man o' man! those NASA engineers must be real idiots, eh!

The closest thing to a clue that the Direct people have is the concern about costs. It's not that Ares I costs too much though. The root cause of the cost problem is that the Ares I project has never received an adequate funding level.

I really like the Shuttle-derived, side-mounted cargo option that we saw at the hearing. That actually might turn out to be a good alternative to Ares V.

Unless, Metschan shows up at the next Augustine hearing with some disguise-wearing "secret witnesses" and some real answers to the panel member's questions, Direct will go down as the laughingstock of this review process.

That's not "blood in the water" as Metschan claims. It's just the red faces of the fans of his DirectLauncher as they witnessed his embarrassing and bumbling performance on NASA TV.