DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[JimMcDade]

Mr McDade - what evidence do you have of this?

I don't have evidence and I don't need evidence. I am not the party making the extraordinary conspiracy accusations concerning Ares I.

The burden of evidence in on the people (accusers) who say that NASA is lying when the engineers like Steve Cook say that the Ares I issues are nailed down.

The problem for the conspiracy people is the inconvenient fact that there is NO evidence that NASA is lying about Ares I. People can make claims all day and night, particularly when they hide behind internet alias handles, but only the gullible or foolish will buy into those claims without substantive proof.

You are welcome to cite and reference any proof that you discover. I wish you luck.

One by one, the technical claims of Ares I shortcomings failed to pass critical evaluation. The more ambiguous claims about schedule and costs are all that Direct has left in their arsenal. All official reports coming out of the Ares I indicate that there are no technical showstoppers such as TO, payload capacity, column buckling, or launch drift. Nobody has produced a single shred of evidence to prove anything to the contrary. If you think there is such evidence and you have seen it, then please copy that evidence in your next reply.

I am sure that the Ares I office and the anti-Ares I naysayers will continue to go back and forth about schedule and cost issues. Those particular claims are actually debatable while the technical issue claims remain closed due to lack of evidence to support them.

It is still a free country. If claims and accusations are your standard of evidence, then feel free to run with that.

I used to have a friend who, after learning that I had recently made a major purchase, never failed to say, "You should have talked to me before you bought that. I could have saved you a lot of money." That annoying habit was his way of maintaining some twisted form of prestige. Even if he actually did know how to save me some money, it was too late to do anything about it. He could have just said, "That's a nice car." or, "That's a nice TV". Later, I did go to him first a few times before buying. That wrought some mixed results. For example, driving 500 miles to the port of entry to buy something usually resulted in a net loss compared to buying locally.

The point of this tale is that the cost or price of any particular thing is not always so easy to determine in advance. Unexpected events, hidden costs, ordinary inflation, and bid process related manipulation are a few of the frequent complications that shatter cost projections. Schedule projections suffer from similar shortcomings. A bid competitor always promises to accomplish fulfillment faster than he is equipped to do.

Direct needs hard evidence, not just claims and opinions. Show me something with a "renegade" Ares I engineer's signature on it. And don't tell me that you can't produce that evidence because "pressure is being brought to bear". A "renegade" engineer would know that he/she is in a dead end job at this point. Why not be morally upright and expose the ruse? The renegade knows that he will lose his job and that his name will be associated with a major engineering disaster, potentially ruining is/her professional reputation. Yet, this "renegade" continues to plod on, unwilling to stand up and halt what one of our InsideKSC posters once called "criminal" activity.

BTW- Direct is now in version 3. Should we now refer to Direct as the Ship of Theseus?

[JimMcDade]

Check out this commentary posted on Space Travel.com. (There is a brief excerpt copied below for your convenience.)

Everyone Has A Better Idea

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/..._Idea_999.html

The staff at Launchspace is aware that the alternative advocates are only presenting the up side of their proposals. NASA, unlike the alternative presenters who came before the Augustine panel, cannot be accused of relying on "exaggerated claims of high performance, fast schedule or low cost" before the Augustine panel, according to this article.

I, of course, agree that there is no way that any of the alternatives can possibly become operational before Ares I without spending an enormous amount of money on a major crash program. If some of the alternatives enjoyed the same duration of lead time that Ares I has consumed, they might very well have flown faster than Ares I, but we cannot rewind history and undo that which is done.

If an alternative is chosen to replace Ares I and/or Ares V, that project team would encounter its own unique set of schedule and cost incurring unknown unknowns. That has happened to every man-rated rocket ever flown. It is unrealistic to think that any of the alternatives would be immune to delays and cost inflation.

Here is the excerpt:

"It was not surprising that the first public hearing was filled with briefings on several alternative approaches that were not selected by NASA as the winning launcher and spacecraft designs. According to the presenters, every one of the alternatives would have been cheaper, better and faster than Ares I and Orion.

And, NASA continued to defend its selections. All of this is not unexpected. Every alternative offering has been aired before, and rejected by NASA. However, there is one refreshing aspect to the proceedings.

NASA has been forthcoming about its technical challenges in developing the selected launchers and spacecraft. There have been no exaggerated claims of high performance, fast schedule or low cost concerning the current approach.

All in all, NASA engineers have been honest about the progress of their designs. Unfortunately, the Augustine Panel may be little more than a distraction to the ongoing challenges that NASA already faces. With such little time and small staff, it is doubtful the panel can make any valuable recommendations that will dramatically improve the human exploration program.

The most likely outcome seems to be a reaffirmation of the current program with a list of minor suggested high-level programmatic and funding recommendations. For practical and cost reasons, it is probably too late to save the shuttle from retirement. A change from Ares I to another option at this time could result in major schedule delays and cost increases."

[klydemorris]

1. It is also NASA's belief, just not NASA CxP.

Gee Me2, I am happy to hear that we have someone here with the ability to speak universally for ALL of NASA. Indeed you must be all knowing and all seeing... or... is this just one of your wide crap-spreading brush strokes designed to make readers think that you speak for a huge, yet silent group that actually does not exist?

[winkhome]

Ok, lets start at the beginning here.

Dale, I was not referring to you at all in regard to the 'blasting' comment. I've found you more than fair on this website.

Money seems to be everything. If you watched the Augustine Commission on television, funding was a huge part of the equation. It is what it is.

I also respect your knowledge regarding the debate that surrounds choices of launch vehicles. Having said that, I HOPE you are not aware of proprietary information from NASA and its subcontractors. What you don't know, is part of my beliefs that one, Direct doesn't have a shot, although its a good rocket. I do believe its a good alternative to Ares V however.

I'll part from the paranoia of anonymity and tell you that I work for the Boeing Company at KSC, and much of my work is in support of Ares. My other responsibilities include Shuttle and ISS support.

I must say, its refreshing for ANYONE involved in this debate to expose themselves in this atmosphere. Since I work for Boeing, what I know is proprietary, and will not under any circumstances divulge what I know. It's not because I am afraid, or not that do not know what I am talking about, its due to a competitive edge in the bidding process, which by the way, has been going on for years now in the case of Ares.

Having said that, I hope I am given the benefit of the doubt in regard to my statements the last year or so. I'm not fudging facts, and I am not criticizing other people or plans, I am not discounting anything. All I am doing is trying to get across that I am not speaking in a void.

Thanks!

You work for Boeing - cool So do you work for "Boeing" Boeing or for ULA??fficeffice" />>>
>>
I do not know if I would necessarily know if something was proprietary or not - I have rarely ever seen anything - most of it is stories, or related experience and the like.>>
>>
I am not really sure where to being and not bore you and the forum - this is more appropriate to the welcome page as opposed to DIRECT.>>
>>
I grew up in northern ffice:smarttags" />lace>Ohiolace> on lace>Lake Erielace> - little town of lace>Port Clintonlace>. My parents own(ed) a boat storage, repair, and marina facility www.winkeboat.com and so transportation has always been a passion - though cars never really did it for me. Also - everyday a Ford Trimotor for Island Airlines flew over our home - it was a really neat experience flying on it. I had an uncle who worked for the govt as an inspector and I know he did something with Rockwell and the shuttle - he had a plaque on the wall. We had customers and family friends that worked at Plum Brook in Sandusky, and at what is now Glenn Research in Cleveland - forget the old name, and Wright Patt in Dayton - so growing up I had lots of people to talk to and then as a kid they were always bringing me "stuff" with the coolest artist illustrations of all kinds of different vehicles and things - wish I would have saved more of it. My godmother and I were going to grow peaches on the moon >>
>>
My first memories of the Cape were in 1974 - we delivered a boat to a customer and spent the day touring the facility - a friend of my father's worked there and we got a little of the behind the scenes tour. Skylab was up and they had the stool for the smaller Saturn up. Working there was a goal until sophomore geometry ended that dream. I figured if I could only barely survive the class how was I going to be an engineer – so I started studying history and politics, and economics – my dad being in business was involved in a lot of local and state stuff so I got to meet Sen. Glenn, and Metzembaum (sp) and other politicians…>>
My older brother broke his back in an accident, and while the Cleveland Clinic largely fixed him, which then required me to work more fully in the family business out of High School. So I eventually manage the business for a while, then I drove truck, returned to the business, and at the end of 2001 finally went back to school – June of 2004 I graduated with an AAS in Architecture and Construction Engineering, and in 2009 a BS in Construction Management. All while raising five children with my wife of, soon to be, 22 years! All the while I have study, maintained relationships and stayed focused on what NASA and the space program have been up to. I have also tried to follow what is going on in industry as well – but most of the time there; you only really know what they want you to know…>>
I also try to keep the economic, political, engineering, historical perspective going while evaluating what is going on. I think all too often “people” look at what is going on as a singularity, failing to look at what is happening in a wider context – and perhaps more importantly, what has happened before. Space exploration and vehicles are a perfect example of the roads not taken, and those roads are littered by many, many vehicles some made it off the drawing boards, many did not. So while I do not know per see the nuts and bolts, and the ratios and such of some of the machines, like Ares I & V I do understand their relative context within a historical context – and I think that is of value, and it should be considered. I think that, along with money, along with technical solutions to various issues all need to be considered.>>
> >
So there is some of my history, and background, and so perhaps we, you, I and the others within this forum can have a little better, and respectful understanding of one another – at least that is my sincere hope.>>
> >
Regards – Dale Winke

[winkhome]

I don't have evidence and I don't need evidence. I am not the party making the extraordinary conspiracy accusations concerning Ares I.

Well - if you are going to support Ares, I would like to see the evidence supporting your claims, otherwise I have no choice but to assume that your statements are simply opinions and are not necessarily fact.

[/QUOTE]The burden of evidence in on the people (accusers) who say that NASA is lying when the engineers like Steve Cook say that the Ares I issues are nailed down.[/QUOTE]

I do expect the same from the DIRECT people and those that take issue with Ares.

You must admit (or not I guess) that the budget has changed, the evaluation criteria has changed, and that the spec that Ares I and V were expected to meet has changed. Not only that but as some have phrased it - the goal posts have been shifted to make things happen, and lastly, the Orion that was originally proposed is not the Orion we are getting, and that has been a result of Ares issues not Orion issues, and many of the issues that Orion has source back to Ares.

[/QUOTE]The problem for the conspiracy people is the inconvenient fact that there is NO evidence that NASA is lying about Ares I. People can make claims all day and night, particularly when they hide behind internet alias handles, but only the gullible or foolish will buy into those claims without substantive proof.

You are welcome to cite and reference any proof that you discover. I wish you luck.

One by one, the technical claims of Ares I shortcomings failed to pass critical evaluation. The more ambiguous claims about schedule and costs are all that Direct has left in their arsenal. All official reports coming out of the Ares I indicate that there are no technical showstoppers such as TO, payload capacity, column buckling, or launch drift. Nobody has produced a single shred of evidence to prove anything to the contrary. If you think there is such evidence and you have seen it, then please copy that evidence in your next reply.

I am sure that the Ares I office and the anti-Ares I naysayers will continue to go back and forth about schedule and cost issues. Those particular claims are actually debatable while the technical issue claims remain closed due to lack of evidence to support them.

[/QUOTE]

OK - this is what I can tell you based upon what I am familiar with - in the Architectural and construction field we do schematic design work and that goes into design development and that goes into construction drawings and those then get developed in part into shop drawings, and then you build your building. It doesn’t always go exactly like that but ff things are done right each one of those phases are done full and to the satisfaction of the various parties – owner, builder, construction manager, government, consultants, etc. Now I believe this process matches up to the various forms of PDRs, DDRs, CDRs, etc. from the various reports I have read, and press conferences I have watched, and people I have spoken to, the process for Ares I has been all over the place and has not fully completed (successfully?) the processes to move forward and yet “they” are building hardware. Based on what I know, have been taught, and what I have practiced in the real world – what I see going own, as many others have said is a recipe for disaster. I would love to be wrong, I want to be wrong, but unfortunately I do not think I am, but only time will tell. I can also tell you that 1 – I am a big enough and secure enough person to admit to you and this forum in total that when the day comes and I am proven wrong, I will admit that is the case with no disclaimers or caveats. 2 – If the Augustine commission cames back in support of Ares I, I am willing to live with it. However, I am sincerely worried, like John Shannon stated (I believe) that the funding is never going to happen for Ares V in its present incarnation and either it will be significantly changed and then funded or it will be cancelled and who knows what will follow it – perhaps the not-shuttle C iteration – who knows. We live in interesting times, and I think the next few months will be even more so.fficeffice" />>>
> >
Again – I would appreciate it if you would provide evidence as well. In all fairness, I like to learn, and I like to see for myself, and if I can be directed in the right way to the right stuff, I would be honestly grateful. It is perhaps not so much a professional courtesy but simply a common one. Thank you! >>

[Rick]

Thanks for the insight Dale, I appreciate it.

I work for Boeing proper. I tried to veer away from the ULA experience a couple years ago, since there were questions regarding workforce duplication.

I also agree with your last paragraph, in response to my post.


Thanks very much!

Rick

[JimMcDade]

Winkhome, First a tip: It appears that you are using a rich text editor to compose your postings before pasting them into the Inside KSC text entry box. That's what causes all of the smiley-face icons that appears in your post. Please use the Inside KSC text editor.

And now, my reply to your last post. I am sure that your are a very successful architect or draftsman. I won't lay an aphoristic lecture on you. That would probably be a waste of our time.

You obviously have your closely held convictions that frame your view of the world. I don't think I can change either your opinions or your ways of knowing in this limited venue. You have a right to keep going your own unique way.

I have a friend, a very successful businessman- VERY successful. One of his major outside interests is the JFK assassination and he is always willing to use a break to spend a few minutes enthusiastically offering his breakdown of various JFK assassination theories and why most other theories are faulty and why his chosen conspiracy theory is accurate and true.

I like my friend I enjoy the discussions. There are some glaring flaws in his JFK theory, but I know that he would feel insulted and hurt if I tried to nail him on key contentions that underpin his theory. Those flaws are the obvously the product of particular cognitive breakdowns that he is simply can't recognize. We all have our own cognitive shortcomings of various types.

Your construction business paradigm probably works well for you in your professional pursuits. That's a good thing as far as your personal welfare is concerned.

I understand your perception and interpretation of the, "PDRs, DDRs, CDRs, etc. from the various reports I have read, and press conferences I have watched, and people I have spoken to".

It is also clear to me that you have received some exaggerated or bogus information, but I don't have the right to tell you what you should believe or not beleive.

You are a new guy here and it would take you quite a while to read all of the preceeding discussions and even if you did read it all, you still might not arrive at the same destination I have.

Unfortunately, from wheer I sit, you are still largely living in and coming from the distorted perspective of that popular viral gestalt shared by most of the Direct advocates. So let's just agree to disagree until the Augustine panel and the President issue their final judgements.

You know what they say about opinions. Hang in there.

[winkhome]

First - Rick thank you. Again, I am here to learn, so I will probably be doing more reading than writing, but I can add something of value to the discussion or an idea, I will. However, if I think a question needs to be asked, or someone called on something, I will.

Second - Mr. McDade. As rule in much of life, I never single source anything - and that is even more important when it comes to obtaining information - I also avoid sources that are simply repeating somebody else, not having done any of the work to get the story straight, or close to it.

Project management comes in a whole bunch of different flavors - however, there is still an ultimate logic to the process.

It is one thing to examine history it is another to predict future outcomes. I believe that the often accepted, though often fought against rule of thumb is that the explanation often tends to be the simple one rather than the grand, multi-party, multi-part, conspiracy theory. by the way, I do believe men have landed on the moon

I may be a new guy here, but as I have stated, I am not new to the subject or the material - have I "seen it all" not by a long shot, that is why I continue to read, to look, to learn, etc...

As for agreeing to disagree - on some points I can live with that for now. But please, don't just assume that there will not be a bunch of stuff you and I will in deed be in ageement on - it does happen!

Not to inject religion into the discussion, but it also highlights my general belief of life in general - "an unquestioned faith is no faith at
all and at the first challenge will shatter and crumble into dust"

I do not know about the dust part, but I am a questioner - I question things, I questions other, but in all fairness I also question myself.

For now - enough said - it's lunch time

[Me2]

Gee Me2, I am happy to hear that we have someone here with the ability to speak universally for ALL of NASA. Indeed you must be all knowing and all seeing... or... is this just one of your wide crap-spreading brush strokes designed to make readers think that you speak for a huge, yet silent group that actually does not exist?

No, it is the same group (among others) that worked OSP, that includes Danny Dot. That is considered "NASA"

[Me2]

I

The burden of evidence in on the people (accusers) who say that NASA is lying when the engineers like Steve Cook say that the Ares I issues are nailed down.

Don't have to provide it, NASA already has. The problem is that you are not privy to the information. Just like all organizations, NASA does not release bad news to the public immediately. Especially those dealing with development items. They can hide them since they are not as visible as operations. Just like the change from 6 to 4 crew took months to reveal.
The current documentation says that Ares I TO issues are getting worse and also include I-X. Expect more delays to I-X.

[JimMcDade]

Me2, We will see as events unfold, but as you know "further delays" are not surprising on their own. The Space Shuttle has been flying for nearly years and I am beginning to lose count on the delays for the last launch and the next one coming up. Ares I-X, I-Y and I are brand spanking new. It would be more surprising if there were no schedule delays or problems.

I realize that you cannot provide specifics to support your claims, so the rest of us just have to wait and see. I hope that deep down, you understand why I cannot accept claims just on faith in an anonymous posting.

DIRECT claimed something like 60 renegade "engineers". So far, I can count possibly two who claim to be anonymous renegade engineers, but that could be the same person posting under two different aliases. I don't have your actual job title or your scope of responsibilities. Therefore, I can't really make a call on what you claim. I still have to remain skeptical without more information than you either can or will provide.

I am aware that Rick knows who you are and I am about 99% sure about your identity, but that's still no good as far as validation of your claims. My disagreement with you is not on a personal level. It's about the standards of evidence.

Again, you are not at liberty to release any evidence that would support your claims, so you are fighting with one arm tied behind your back. I realize that must be frustrating to you, but please try to understand where I am coming from as well. I need to either hear some official word from the Ares I team, or I need to have some verifiable evidence.

[Rick]

No, it is the same group (among others) that worked OSP, that includes Danny Dot. That is considered "NASA"

I respect Danny's viewpoints and also the trials and tribulations that has affected him.

Having said that, 1, 2, 3 or 50 NASA employees does not constitute NASA's position.

Nice try though!

[spacefan]

So Was the review panel the last roll of the dice for Direct? If they didnt impress the panel then surely they have no chance of Obama siding with them.

Where can they go from here?

[Rick]

Where can they go from here?

Acknowledge that they made a valiant effort, and let NASA tend to its own business as determined by the Augustine Commission.

Someone should write a book about the good and bad points regarding Direct, and let history evaluate its successes, and final failure.

[J.McDonald]

I sincerely hope that the panel are not judging the 2-launch inline SDLV approach by Steve Metschan's presentation delivery alone. If they cannot look past the person and see the idea, then I would be very surprised.

[spacefan]

I sincerely hope that the panel are not judging the 2-launch inline SDLV approach by Steve Metschan's presentation delivery alone. If they cannot look past the person and see the idea, then I would be very surprised.

I'm sure they have. Im not unsympathetic to direct I quite like the idea of some factory churning out a load of standard rocket components, it may even cost the american taxpayer less and I suspect that may be part of Directs problem.

All that "extra" money for constellation isnt being thrown into a furnace and burnt its going to the companies designing and building the rockets paying wages boosting local economies, no doubt some states will do better than other states. Pandering to special interests and good old fashioned pork has long and honored tradition in american public life, more so than in the UK. Point is Direct is up against some powerful interests that are quite happy with the way things are and nobody is seriously championing their position.

Even if the panel recomends Direct (which they wont) will Obama be willing to take on those special interests and senators. Killing direct is easy, he just needs to ignore it. Killing constellation is going to COST.

[J.McDonald]

I'm sure they have. Im not unsympathetic to direct I quite like the idea of some factory churning out a load of standard rocket components, it may even cost the american taxpayer less and I suspect that may be part of Directs problem.

All that "extra" money for constellation isnt being thrown into a furnace and burnt its going to the companies designing and building the rockets paying wages boosting local economies, no doubt some states will do better than other states. Pandering to special interests and good old fashioned pork has long and honored tradition in american public life, more so than in the UK. Point is Direct is up against some powerful interests that are quite happy with the way things are and nobody is seriously championing their position.

Even if the panel recomends Direct (which they wont) will Obama be willing to take on those special interests and senators. Killing direct is easy, he just needs to ignore it. Killing constellation is going to COST.

There are two serious flaws with this argument.

Firstly, the idea that an expensive HSF program is A Good Thing is one of the most ludicrous and ignorant that I have seen used by Ares fans. Fortunately very few people are silly enough to espouse this argument- other than yourself and Jim McDade I cannot think of any right now.
The argument seems to be that, as Ares-V grows, and as Ares-I becomes ever more complex, the additional funding poured into these projects is a wholesome example of Keynsian economics and will boost the economy. This view is based on the assumption that NASA will recevie more and more money. Reality says that this is not, and will not, happen, and those that refuse to admit that are deluding themselves.

Secondly, the Direct guys are not actually advocating less spending on HSF. They are advocating a more value for money approach. Build a more economical LV and spend the money on more of them. So the money goes on missions rather than development. The amount going into the economy remains the same.


One more point. If you are worried about the cost to the 'pork' interests, then why on Earth are you a fan of Ares? The current plan is forcing a long gap and many layoffs. Part of Direct's argument is that by requiring less development, the operations people can be retained more easily, i.e. the cost is less.

[Rick]

Interesting conversation.

Now, if I could add my 10 cents.

Firstly, the idea that an expensive HSF program is A Good Thing is one of the most ludicrous and ignorant that I have seen used by Ares fans.

How much is less expensive, given an alternate vehicles progression? Is there proof that an alternate vehicle would not incur the same ballooning costs, especially when we're 5 years into Ares?

Fortunately very few people are silly enough to espouse this argument

Again John, please provide real proof that this is a silly idea. Remember, we're launching humans here, not a piece of machinery.

Does anyone care at all about those that are actually supporting Ares? It doesn't sound like it to me actually. So what if it becomes more complex? I personally believe, as I work with these people that their intelligence can actually handle complex issues. Forgive me for going against the grain on this one.

I also think, that many of the Ares detractors aren't even personally involved with the projects and do not include those who are in their summations.

[spacefan]

There are two serious flaws with this argument.

Firstly, the idea that an expensive HSF program is A Good Thing is one of the most ludicrous and ignorant that I have seen used by Ares fans. Fortunately very few people are silly enough to espouse this argument- other than yourself and Jim McDade I cannot think of any right now.
The argument seems to be that, as Ares-V grows, and as Ares-I becomes ever more complex, the additional funding poured into these projects is a wholesome example of Keynsian economics and will boost the economy. This view is based on the assumption that NASA will recevie more and more money. Reality says that this is not, and will not, happen, and those that refuse to admit that are deluding themselves.

Secondly, the Direct guys are not actually advocating less spending on HSF. They are advocating a more value for money approach. Build a more economical LV and spend the money on more of them. So the money goes on missions rather than development. The amount going into the economy remains the same.


One more point. If you are worried about the cost to the 'pork' interests, then why on Earth are you a fan of Ares? The current plan is forcing a long gap and many layoffs. Part of Direct's argument is that by requiring less development, the operations people can be retained more easily, i.e. the cost is less.

Actually I'm not pro Ares nor am I anti direct or EELV for that matter. I just want a permanent manned presence on the moon and possibly elsewhere in the solar system, I honestly dont care what system the US uses to get there and If the americans cant get thier act together I'd happily cheer the russians or the chinese on.

For all the merits of the direct proposal they dont have any powerful interests pushing it, and at the end of the day unless the "designers" man up and put thier names to it its just a powerpoint presentation floating around the internet and will be treated as such as by those in authority. Ares does have the benefit of being NASA's prefered option with loads of real engineers working on it.

[Rick]

My sentiments exactly Spacefan.