DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[Me2]

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.

The ESAS was not an open study to find a architecture for the VSE. The answer was predetermined and it was written to support the "answer". Boeing and LM were told to keep quiet. I knew this before their was a Direct. If you research NSF, you will see arguements between Ross and I to this affect. That was back when Ross was an Ares hugger. Ross wrote pro Ares articles for NSF and interviewed the Upper stage manager

[Rick]

The ESAS was not an open study to find a architecture for the VSE. The answer was predetermined and it was written to support the "answer". Boeing and LM were told to keep quiet. I knew this before their was a Direct. If you research NSF, you will see arguements between Ross and I to this affect. That was back when Ross was an Ares hugger. Ross wrote pro Ares articles for NSF and interviewed the Upper stage manager

Wow. That is some charge Me2.

NSF is an excellent site, and Chris has done a remarkable job with it. His forums however are strewn with conspiricy theories, just like the one you mentioned that you cannot prove.

Don't even go there regarding Ross. He lived with my family for a good period of time. You know nothing about the man.

[Me2]

His forums however are strewn with conspiricy theories, just like the one you mentioned that you cannot prove.

My point existed before NSF was created.
I can prove it, just not all the juicey stuff in an open forum. But here is some. In this report, griffin proposes the stick before he is administrator

http://www.planetary.org/programs/pr...udy-report.pdf

Proof that Ares is a work progam

"The selection of one or more on approaches ultimately may depend more
on political factors than on cost. For example, will it be acceptable to use a Delta IV or a Sea Launch Zenit-2 to launch astronauts to the ISS if it means closing the VAB and Launch Complexes 39A and B"

[Me2]

His forums however are strewn with conspiricy theories, just like the one you mentioned that you cannot prove.

My point existed way before NSF was created.
I can prove it, just not all the juicy stuff in an open forum. But here is some. In this report, griffin proposes the stick before he is administrator

http://www.planetary.org/programs/pr...udy-report.pdf

Proof that Ares is a work progam

"The selection of one or more on approaches ultimately may depend more
on political factors than on cost. For example, will it be acceptable to use a Delta IV or a Sea Launch Zenit-2 to launch astronauts to the ISS if it means closing the VAB and Launch Complexes 39A and B"

NASA paid more than $27 million for 11 companies to do studies
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsy..._concepts.html

None of them came up with the stick. Griffin comes in and of course we get the Shaft for an LV,

[Rick]

Me2,
That's not what I was referring to in regard to providing proof. I am speaking of the following quote:

"The answer was predetermined and it was written to support the "answer". Boeing and LM were told to keep quiet."

I find this outrageous.

Btw, I suppose the people that were involved in the 2004 :

Extending Human Presence

into the Solar System

are incorrect, and misguided too?

[Rick]

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

Less credible than lets say, a resin model maker?

[J.McDonald]

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.

Understood. As I said above, I've become used to enjoying technical discourse with forum users at NSF; I expected something similar here.
In another thread you did direct me towards NASA's rebuttal of the Direct proposal, but in that report I saw nothing to back up NASA's statement that Direct would cost more in the near-term. I still find that statement perplexing. I guess this forum is not the place to seek the answer, though.

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.

Well, to me, an uneducated outsider, the Direct team have presented a concept which makes an awful lot of sense. I can relate it to what little I know of rocket science, and it seems to work. My 'proof' is simply that it appears to be a good idea.
By contrast NASA's Ares design seems to fall short in many areas (well, cost and schedule, mainly). Of course, it's a more elaborate concept and so my basic undertanding of science and economics tallies with the idea that Ares would cost more.
Except that I believe in Newtonian physics, it's got nothing to do with a 'belief' system. It is not a matter of faith.

The only reason I haven't swallowed the Direct plan hook, line, and sinker, is that I know that that implies that NASA are 'wrong'. And I don't want to have to believe that. But my hesitation to believe that NASA are wrong is not, in itself, enough for me to dismiss Direct. After all, NASA have made mistakes in the past.

The reason I am so, so pro-Ares, is that I am pro-NASA.

And proud of it, by the sound of things. You presumably have 100% faith in the management of NASA.

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.

Erm, I don't really understand this. It seems a contradictory statement. If you were really interested in how rockets work, would you not yourself be wondering how Direct can work out more expensive than Ares, as NASA claims? Or how an EELV could compete technically with Ares-1?

[Me2]

Less credible than lets say, a resin model maker?

yes

[Rick]

yes

What qualifies his credibility?

[Rick]

Well, to me, an uneducated outsider, the Direct team have presented a concept which makes an awful lot of sense. I can relate it to what little I know of rocket science, and it seems to work. My 'proof' is simply that it appears to be a good idea.

Who are these people? Not the ones pushing it, the ones engineering it. All I hear is that they are anonymous.

And proud of it, by the sound of things. You presumably have 100% faith in the management of NASA.

No, I do not have 100% faith in NASA's management. I don't have 100% faith in any organizations management. NASA does have a baseline, and a track record. Their successes far outweigh their failures.

More than that, I tend to trust an organization who actually name names publicly, instead of hiding in a shroud of secrecy, that are engineering launch vehicles. I have no idea who these people are, what their motives are, or if they even exist.

Erm, I don't really understand this. It seems a contradictory statement.

Nor should you have John. It was a grammer error.
It should have read:

"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 NOT dismissing Directs inability to accept NASA's launch vehicle decision making. "

[Me2]

What qualifies his credibility?

He is not the only member of the team. But as far as Ares goes, he was smart enough to change his opinion of it

[Rick]

He is not the only member of the team. But as far as Ares goes, he was smart enough to change his opinion of it

That's it?

I was looking for real qualfying experience. Technical experience. The same experience that you are imposing on pro-Ares proponants.

What are they?

[Me2]

That's it?

I was looking for real qualfying experience. Technical experience. The same experience that you are imposing on pro-Ares proponants.

What are they?

Ross at least has independent thought, McDade just regurgitates NASA spin

[Rick]

Ross at least has independent thought, McDade just regurgitates NASA spin

McDade, oh by the way, his first name is Jim, is not allowed to hold his own personal philosophy? Again, you don't know Jim, nor do you know Ross.

Your critique is in essence, irrelevant.

By the way, what is your name? Or is your indentity part of the shroud of secrecy that anti-Ares folk cling to.


P.S. I enjoy the debate Me2.

[Andrew]

Well, to me, an uneducated outsider, the Direct team have presented a concept which makes an awful lot of sense.

Didn't the DIRECTers just put up a side-by-side comparison where the Jupiter used a 5 segment SRB and a 10 meter core versus Ares...which would have the same thing?

It's interesting that you suggest Rick has, in essence, blind faith in NASA Managers and believe them "100%." It sure seems you have a similar level of trust in DIRECTs numbers which have yet to be verified by anyone other than their own classified Wizards of Smart.

Are they right or wrong? Who knows (I sure don't). But months ago Tierney was crowing that a highly reputable independent organization had conducted an impressive analysis of Ares versus DIRECT and DIRECT won hands down.

Let's take that at face value and assume that it is true. If so, where is it? Why not release it? Really, what is the purpose in sitting on it? Tierney says it is because the highly reputable independent organization hasn't given clearance for it to be released...okay...but why wouldn't they?

In the end, maybe Steve Cook isn't a liar, maybe DIRECT has truly been evaluated by NASA and rejected, and the situation is well in hand.

Of course, as night follows day, I'm sure you respond that you still have these pesky questions and a failure by someone to answer them is reflective of a failure of the Ares concept. Even if so, we're glad you're here!

-Andrew

[Andrew]

Ross at least has independent thought, McDade just regurgitates NASA spin

Tierney just restates what he is "educated" on from his backroom team of allegedly 57-69 engineers.

Tierney has no education or experience with what he daily states as conclusive facts.

Tierney even today is talking about DIRECT with 5-seg SRBs and a 10 meter core. After hearing for so long from Steve Metchan about how a 5-seg SRB is a death warrant for the Astronaut Corps, his "new" numbers certainly make one take a moment and wonder what is going on in his head.

McDade and Tierney are both good guys.
McDade and Tierney believe they have the high ground of truth.
McDade and Tierney are not just regurgitating spin; they are making their case. And while I agree with one of them, it's still Jim Dandy.

-Andrew

[Me2]

McDade and Tierney are not just regurgitating spin; they are making their case. And while I agree with one of them, it's still Jim Dandy.

McDade hasn't brought up one point that is independent of or different than NASA's, hence he is regurgitating spin.

[Andrew]

McDade hasn't brought up one point that is independent of or different than NASA's, hence he is regurgitating spin.

Taking a position similar to another is not "regurgitating spin," it's making a unified case in support of a position. Your bias is as prevalent as anyone else's. Indeed, you speak of Tierney having "independent thought" but only so far as he agrees with you and opposes a plan NASA has. Except his "independent thought" is only as a funnel for others who pour a version of history into his head that a goodly number of others disagree with and for which Tierney refuses to deviate. His "spin" is, in the end, similar to yours concerning this issue. To suggest that McDade is worse than Tierney because the former takes a NASA-friendly position and "spins" while the latter is a wizened expert knowledgeable in the ways of the world and anti-Ares is the very definition of "spin" for which you seem so opposed.

"Spin" is loaded language. You are better than that.

-Andrew

[Rick]

Andrew,
Yes, I am sure that Me2 is better than that. The problem in most probability is that he has no other argument that he can prove.

The end result is those who are not in his camp are discredited. Those IN his camp are given a pulpit to speak from, even if they are not qualified to do so.

[Andrew]

The only reason I haven't swallowed the Direct plan hook, line, and sinker, is that I know that that implies that NASA are 'wrong'. And I don't want to have to believe that. But my hesitation to believe that NASA are wrong is not, in itself, enough for me to dismiss Direct. After all, NASA have made mistakes in the past.

Yeah, and so has DIRECT. It was called DIRECT 1.0.

Ares is slammed in many corners for making adjustments as the process goes along and its detractors point and yell that it is reflective of an underlying failure on the part of program managers.

On the flip side, though, DIRECT has already had a massive restructuring from 1.0 to 2.0. And just today, with Tierney using in DIRECT calculations a 5-seg SRB and a 10 meter core (just like Ares), one person has already posited that we may be witnessing the birth of DIRECT 3.0!

If there is such a DIRECT 3.0 plan unveiled (and I FULLY admit that that is wild speculation), it would mean that the DIRECT plan has undergone two massive rewrites. Evidently that is fine for DIRECT but if Ares encounters even one design issue, it's pointed to as a sure sign of failure.

Meanwhile, how has DIRECT shown that their methodology to support their claims of cost savings on their design for developing Jupiter’s core system is correct? I haven't seen anything convincing and since their independent analysis evidently has to stay under wraps and in "double secret probation," I guess we'll never know.

-Andrew