DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[winkhome]

Rick -

Hope you had a great holiday!

Question - are you able to speak to what Boeing is up to with their "proposed" (not sure if that is the right word) alternative architecture / vehicle? Thanks...

[Rick]

Dale, hope you had a good holiday too.

I cannot really address what I know to the fact its proprietary information. I hope you understand.

[winkhome]

Dale, hope you had a good holiday too.

I cannot really address what I know to the fact its proprietary information. I hope you understand.

I figured that might be the case. Are you able to comment on what has been shown publically?

[J.McDonald]

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?

I'll interpret that as a comment and not an answer. Out of interest, Rick, what would your opinion be on whether an expensive HSF program is 'A Good Thing'?

To answer your point, then, well I'm sure you know the arguments already. There is no 'proof', there never is until you've finished the job and counted up the costs. However it stands to reason that when modifying an existing design to do a new job, the further down the line of modification you go, the more surprises are likely to be lurking. Secondly, the Direct guys are confident that they have a lot of mass margin which can help to mitigate problems that will arise. Ares-I in particular never had very big margins, nor are these margins easy to add in due to the nature of the design itself.

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.

Are we talking at cross-purposes? I am stating that it is silly to claim that an expensive HSF programme is inherently good, on the basis of its economic impacts on the rest of the country. My proof for this is that NASA's HSF budget is falling in real terms. New money is not being found to support expensive changes after all.
Another 'proof' would be a thought-experiment: "hey guys, we've found a new way to build the capsule out of platinum, it'll cost more than aluminium so let's go for it, cos high costs are GREAT!". You see, it is silly.

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.

People also care about those supporting STS, who are currently being laid off AFAIK. People care that there will be a gap in NASA manned launches of five or more years. Some people care about this issue so much that they would prefer a shuttle replacement that was compatible with shuttle extension, or at least compatible to a higher degree than currently possible, thus allowing the gap to be closed (subject to funding, I admit). Some people believe that such a shuttle replacement would be a little earlier on the pad too, thanks to its increased commonality. Etc.

As to complexity, there is a real myth that all Direct supporters don't think NASA can make Ares fly. A few will make allegations, and there are indeed issues that are cause for concerns, but very few seriously think the agency unable to resolve them.
Essentially, the thinking is that a two-launch profile using similar/identical vehicles will be more cost-effective and faster to develop than 1.5-launch, regardless of whether or not 1.5 launch can be made to work.

Your last point is rather well made. Obviously I am not an industry insider. Many, many Direct fans and supporters are not either. But there are plenty of insiders who do support Direct. I don't think any of them post here, unfortunately, with the possible exception of Danny Deger who is an 'ex insider' I suppose. However they can be found on NSF quite easily.

[Rick]

Looks like Direct is quiet again. (Dare I say that..)

I guess everyone that is involved with any alternative vehicle is waiting for the axe to fall at the end of August.

[spacefan]

Looks like Direct is quiet again. (Dare I say that..)

I guess everyone that is involved with any alternative vehicle is waiting for the axe to fall at the end of August.

Direct is out of the game (if it was ever in the game). If LAS on the crew version of Shannons not shuttle C works out it would be safe to say constellation has priced itself out of the market.

[J.McDonald]

Looks like Direct is quiet again. (Dare I say that..)

I guess everyone that is involved with any alternative vehicle is waiting for the axe to fall at the end of August.

I wouldn't say quiet. I've been away a few days and am struggling to keep up with the NSF thread. It seems they've been very busy giving info to Aerospace Corp.

[spacefan]

I wouldn't say quiet. I've been away a few days and am struggling to keep up with the NSF thread. It seems they've been very busy giving info to Aerospace Corp.

How do you rate their chances bearing in mind there is a serious proposal on the table that is even more direct than Direct?

[Rick]

I wouldn't say quiet. I've been away a few days and am struggling to keep up with the NSF thread. It seems they've been very busy giving info to Aerospace Corp.

I was being just a bit sarcastic. I know they've been speaking with Aerospace Corp. Not sure exactly why however, except to have a legit company on their side.

[JimMcDade]

Direct has been dead.

The sky is usually appears blue in color at midday unless the sky are overcast or polluted.

(Sorry, I just wanted to see if Me2 will reject both of those conclusions since they came from me.)

All we can do now is wait for Obama to make his "We choose to not go to the moon right now!" speech at some rally somewhere. I seriously doubt that he will actually make a speech that is dedicated exclusively to space policy. It would not be very inspiring to hear a President say what we can't or won't do in space.

It is already clear from the Augustine proceedings that Ares I is still on as the eventual HSF machine, but Ares V and any plans beyond the LEO NASCAR orbit are up in the air.

One particular well-known former flight controller who is oft quoted tells me that he already is feeling sick as he contemplates the President's space policy.

[Khadgars]

Direct has been dead.

The sky is usually appears blue in color at midday unless the sky are overcast or polluted.

(Sorry, I just wanted to see if Me2 will reject both of those conclusions since they came from me.)

All we can do now is wait for Obama to make his "We choose to not go to the moon right now!" speech at some rally somewhere. I seriously doubt that he will actually make a speech that is dedicated exclusively to space policy. It would not be very inspiring to hear a President say what we can't or won't do in space.

It is already clear from the Augustine proceedings that Ares I is still on as the eventual HSF machine, but Ares V and any plans beyond the LEO NASCAR orbit are up in the air.

One particular well-known former flight controller who is oft quoted tells me that he already is feeling sick as he contemplates the President's space policy.

Jim, to me their appears to be quite a bit of momentum for the NSC in the Augustine Commission which would preserve our heavy lift capabilities. In all honesty the Ares I is a pathetic vehicle if it doesn't have it's bigger brother Ares V. If Ares I is all that we would get out of the CxP then I think it would be very prudent for all in NASA to lobby for the NSC, as it appears to be the closest and easiest path to maintaining the VSE or anything that resembles it.

[Me2]

Direct has been dead.

It is already clear from the Augustine proceedings that Ares I is still on as the eventual HSF machine

Far from it

[Rick]

Far from it

Care to elaborate?

I wasn't aware you were an integral part of the Augustine Commision Jim

Please provide intricate details concerning your statement above.

Also, do you dismiss Sally Rides recommendations?

[Rick]

Also, are you going to Cocoa Beach tomorrow for the public hearings?

[spacefan]

Care to elaborate?

I wasn't aware you were an integral part of the Augustine Commision Jim

Please provide intricate details concerning your statement above.

Also, do you dismiss Sally Rides recommendations?

Did she recommend anything? I thought she concluded there would be no advantage in terms of the Gap to change architectures. Did she offer her opinion on the pricetag?

[Rick]

Sorry, reccomendations was the wrong term to use. They were "suggestions from a study", which I copied from another thread here, with the link:

http://insideksc.com/showthread.php?p=10780#post10780

Dr. Ride: "Just looking at this and applying our best judgment, we think it's wise to assume a two-year slip in the Constellation IOC, just for prudent planning at this stage."

She attributed the gap problem to inadequate budgets, not strictly technical flaws in the Ares/Orion hardware. Her committee concludes that the remaining Shuttle missions realistically need until at least March of 2001 to be completed. Their estimate for Ares I/Orion IOC is in March 2017- after the ISS retirement.

Ride suggested adding an additional Shuttle mission to help close the gap or restarting the external tank line at the Michoud Assembly Facility to extend the STS until 2014.

She also proposed extending the operational life of ISS.

The study led by Dr. Ride concludes that that any possible schedule advantages from EELV or other alternatives would be negligible at best, even if NASA decided to write-off the three billion bucks already spent on Ares I.

If the Ride report counts, it is not encouraging news for the alternative proponents in spite of the honest expression of concern about Ares I and Orion progress.

[spacefan]

So all the architectures a pretty much of a muchness in terms of closing the gap (thats how i would interpret your post). Other factors will have to decide.

I do think it prudent to extend STS. As much as i admire soyuz, US manned spaceflight should not be held hostage to your relationship with russia especially as Joe Bidden seems busy undoing Barak Obama's good work in that regard.

[Rick]

So all the architectures a pretty much of a muchness in terms of closing the gap (thats how i would interpret your post).

I'm not sure what you mean.

[JimMcDade]

It is human nature to apply selective hearing and vision when we atempt to defend our preferences. It is, however, a matter of fact that- thus far- the "broad but shallow criticisms" of Ares I and Project Constellation have not been confirmed by the Augustine sanctioned studies.

The investigative process has NOT verified various allegations about crippling Ares I technical shortcomings or out of control costs. The investigation has revealed that Ares I is experiencing nothing other than the typical birthing pains seen before in other NASA projects.

Dr. Augustine says that the panel will offer a broad list of options to President Obama, including the option of keeping Project Constellation intact. Political imperative can and does rule over technical facts, so anything can happen. However, the Obama honeymoon with the media and public is fading fast, so it is becoming harder and harder for the President to justify his change orders.

Change will actually increase overall costs and will have negligible effect on closing the gap, if Ares I/Orion are considered separately. Ares V and going to the moon and Mars is another matter and it is more likely that that side of the project will suffer some cutbacks or major changes.

Disagree, toss insults, and rant all you want, but this analysis has more credibility than the anonymous allegations and conspiracy theories that are presently being embraced by thousands of credulous web posters.

[spacefan]

It is human nature to apply selective hearing and vision when we atempt to defend our preferences. It is, however, a matter of fact that- thus far- the "broad but shallow criticisms" of Ares I and Project Constellation have not been confirmed by the Augustine sanctioned studies.

The investigative process has NOT verified various allegations about crippling Ares I technical shortcomings or out of control costs. The investigation has revealed that Ares I is experiencing nothing other than the typical birthing pains seen before in other NASA projects.

Dr. Augustine says that the panel will offer a broad list of options to President Obama, including the option of keeping Project Constellation intact. Political imperative can and does rule over technical facts, so anything can happen. However, the Obama honeymoon with the media and public is fading fast, so it is becoming harder and harder for the President to justify his change orders.

Change will actually increase overall costs and will have negligible effect on closing the gap, if Ares I/Orion are considered separately. Ares V and going to the moon and Mars is another matter and it is more likely that that side of the project will suffer some cutbacks or major changes.

Disagree, toss insults, and rant all you want, but this analysis has more credibility than the anonymous allegations and conspiracy theories that are presently being embraced by thousands of credulous web posters.

I have no objection to keeping constellation alive, its not my taxes paying for it. But to me Ares 1 doesn't make any sense without Ares5.