DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[Andrew]

WRT wasting time, it is not as though you have anything to do with Constellation, Ares or NASA. We can do fine with out you. And we won't bother you while we are working on EELV for Constellation.

Balls-y! I like it .

Actually, I'm starting to come around to the 'ol EELV solution myself. Still very pro-Ares...but would be satisfied with the EELV door opening in lieu of other architectures (actually, I wasn't ever totally opposed).

-Andrew

P.S. At least EELV proponents aren't sitting around talking about conspiracies, quoting Burke, and inferring that they are in the fight against Evil (a.k.a. Griffin)!

[Rick]

I am not a member of the Direct team. I am barely a Direct advocate. So I suggest you ask these questions over at NSF where you will be guaranteed an almost instant reply from one of the team.



You know, when that report on Stephen Metschan lures me into joining this forum, I though to myself "finally- I'm going to find out just what is wrong with the Direct plan- the technical pitfalls and hurdles which make it unworkable will all be laid bare." I thought that, with such disdain shown for the plan, there must be a relatively obvious or at least explainable flaw in it.
After several weeks, though, I actually feel that the utter inability to answer any of my technical questions makes me more inclinced to believe that Direct is the right answer.

Done did try and ask Direct folks questions, online and in person. All I got was that Direct is better than Ares, Ares is bad because NASA is pushing it. Griffin is the worst Administrator in recent memory.

I've got to say John, my patience with the people I was conversing with was wearing pretty thin.

Ross Tierney was a moderator of the Direct 2.0 forum here for a few weeks, then stopped coming by. If you read the early threads, you will notice that those that asked reasonable questions were never answered after a short period of time.

Not answering legitiment questions, is frustrating. As said before, Direct has a responsibility in my opinion to prove NASA wrong, not the other way around.

I gave up trying to ask questions similar to what I posted orginally. I got the run-around and was told that I have no idea what I am talking about.

[J.McDonald]

Uh...okay? This is perhaps the fifth time some iteration of this statement has poured out from your keyboard. We get it. That's fine. You're unhappy. Too bad.

Yes, this is the loving, sharing, caring space forum

NASA has already released their rebuttal of DIRECT. Just because DIRECT thinks it's poo doesn't mean it is wrong. I'd recommend that you review it again, but the DIRECTers have already convinced you that it mis-evaluates their design. Okay, that's fine, as well!

More words in my mouth. Stop it.
The DIRECT team have convinced me of nothing. I didn't even know about hte rebuttal document until I was pointed to it on this forum.

Nary a peep has come up now that DIRECT seems to be using a 5 seg SRB and a 10 meter core...which was promptly changed back a few days later. Hey, they can switch numbers around on their phantom rocket all they want! It's all good in the neighborhood.

-Andrew

It's changing no more than Ares-V is. Not that I'm an expert on the matter but I believe that there was never a baseline 10m/5-seg; it was simply a thought experiment.

[J.McDonald]

1 down, 5 to go.

Can you elaborate?

[J.McDonald]

Balls-y! I like it .

Actually, I'm starting to come around to the 'ol EELV solution myself. Still very pro-Ares...but would be satisfied with the EELV door opening in lieu of other architectures (actually, I wasn't ever totally opposed).

-Andrew

P.S. At least EELV proponents aren't sitting around talking about conspiracies, quoting Burke, and inferring that they are in the fight against Evil (a.k.a. Griffin)!

What is it with you!!? Direct is just a version of Ares. Get rid of the little rocket, and strip down the big one a bit, then use it in a two-launch architecture.
An EELV solution will be far more of a change than Direct.

You seem to be against the Direct people, not the plan.

[Rick]

Direct is just a version of Ares.

Actually its not, and you of all people here should know that. If it was just a version of Ares, use Ares.

You seem to be against the Direct people, not the plan.

And he probably has good reason to feel that way John. He, like myself have been belittled by the Direct community for asking questions that they just did not want to respond to, because anything but Direct, is not what that cult like group of people wants to hear.

Best,
Rick

[Rick]

Can you elaborate?

Sure, it was regarding Me2's very intelligent answer to one of the questions I asked above. You took a stab at it as well.

[J.McDonald]

Actually its not, and you of all people here should know that. If it was just a version of Ares, use Ares.

Is the currently baselined Ares-V a version of its ESAS ancestor? It has about as much in common with the original 'Ares' as it has with the 'Jupiter' design. It's all the same hardware with a few alterations here and there to the number of engines and the diameter of the tanks. So I contend that a J232 is simply a version of Ares. They are both SDLV, just one of them is a lot more 'developed'.

Why not just use Ares? Hmmm. How about the need to replace huge amounts of infrastructure? Everything from Michoud to the barge to the VAB bays to the crawlers to the crawlerways to the pads themselves. That's gonna add up to a lot of money. That, and the deletion of the 2nd vehicle which duplicates EELV capabilities, is the whole of the point of Direct.

[J.McDonald]

Ah, right, I'll have another stab

Why does NASA have to respond to anyone that has an alternate plan? Is there some type of mechanism within the agency that forces them to do so?

Not that I'm aware of. But if their plan is so clearly the best one, you'd think they could repond without it being a big chore. Like when people question the use of RTGs, or ask if the moon landings were faked. Anybody with half a brain can be convinced that NASA is right on these issues. Is it that the explanation behind the superiority of Ares is so convoluted that it becomes hard and long-winded to explain?

How much money should NASA spend on PR (which is what it is) to respond to home grown designs?

I don't know if it is PR. They should be doing an effective job, and as their own desgns change they ought to evaluate alterative options. Just because DIrect arrived on their desks ready packaged as a proposal doesn;t mean it can't be included in the continuing design process for Ares.

If there is such a movement to replace Ares with a home grown design, why isn't Congress up in arms about it? I know on NSF there has been constant talk about notifying each member of the House and Senate about the benefits of Direct. If there is such an outcry, and such a pressing need to replace Ares with a home grown design, why have they not done that yet?

For completeness, because I said this before, it's not a top issue IMHO. The gap, of course, is changing that, but that might swing in favour of EELV instead.

Where is the independent study (or whatever it is called) that Direct says proves that Jupiter out performs Ares? It was never released.

Never heard of it.

Why do the Direct people constantly name call anyone who disagrees with them?

Again, I'll have to pass that one. No point asking me, I'm not a member of the team. I think I've made my position abundantly clear on personalities and motives already.

Why won't they name names of these few dozen engineers that came up with Direct? If they did, their credibility would probably increase.

For me, this is the same issue. I don't care who says something, I'm interested in what they say. Adolf Hitler was one of the first people to oppose smoking tobacco

[Andrew]

What is it with you!!?

What is it with you!!?!

Direct is just a version of Ares. Get rid of the little rocket, and strip down the big one a bit, then use it in a two-launch architecture.

That is perhaps the most inaccurate comment I've seen in a long while. Wait, you probably think Sputnik is just like the Hubble Space Telescope, right? And Juno I is just like the Space Transportation System. You've got all the answers, my man!

You seem to be against the Direct people, not the plan.

Because I think EELV wouldn't be a bad option in an alternative universe? Nice stretch...try again.

-Andrew

[Andrew]

Never heard of it.

You've never heard of the study that Ross Tierney has said publicly numerous times that is from a reputable, independent agency showing that DIRECT is the greatest thing since sliced bread?

He has and won't release it. Curious, I think!

-Andrew

[Andrew]

Yes, this is the loving, sharing, caring space forum

Absolutely! We even let you whine and whine about the same thing and still let you post!

It's changing no more than Ares-V is. Not that I'm an expert on the matter but I believe that there was never a baseline 10m/5-seg; it was simply a thought experiment.

To quote Me2: WRONG! It is always changing. 5-seg, 4-seg, x-seg. It changes like the wind. Ross used that actual comparison not as a "thought experiment" (whatever that is) but instead as his "gloves off" head-to-head proposal.

-Andrew

[Rick]

You've never heard of the study that Ross Tierney has said publicly numerous times that is from a reputable, independent agency showing that DIRECT is the greatest thing since sliced bread?

He has and won't release it. Curious, I think!

-Andrew

Exactly. I don't understand why they would keep a report/evaluation/determination or whatever they want to call it, under wraps.

And yes, there was much discussion about the study and that Direct was they way to go per the study.

My question is, does it exist?

[J.McDonald]

That is perhaps the most inaccurate comment I've seen in a long while. Wait, you probably think Sputnik is just like the Hubble Space Telescope, right? And Juno I is just like the Space Transportation System. You've got all the answers, my man!

Oh yeah, took the words out of my mouth, I was just about to launch a rant about how similar Sputnik and Hubble are, since they have the same engines and type of solid rocket booster and same type of upper stage engine. Oh, no, wait, I wasn't.

Apparently NASA can alter SRBs, tanks diameters, and number of RS68s, and all the while it remains as an Ares-V. So if they decided to go with an 8.4m tank, 4-seg SRBs, 3 RS68s, and 2J2Xs on the ED, what would you call that rocket?

Ares-V and Jupiter are built from the same parts. They have more in common than any other launch vehicle I can think of, even the Saturns.

Please explain what is wrong with my thinking, that I see these commonalities between Ares-V and Jupiter.

Because I think EELV wouldn't be a bad option in an alternative universe? Nice stretch...try again.

-Andrew

Oh, so you are against the plan too? Not that I expect an asnwer to this, of course, but... 'why'?

[J.McDonald]

To quote Me2: WRONG! It is always changing. 5-seg, 4-seg, x-seg. It changes like the wind. Ross used that actual comparison not as a "thought experiment" (whatever that is) but instead as his "gloves off" head-to-head proposal.

-Andrew

Haha, you've been paying closer attention to this than I have. Now that I think about it, you've probably got totally the wrong idea about me, and assume that I'm sitting here in a tinfoil hat wearing an 'I love Ross' T-shirt. In fact, I've presumed all along that Direct must be flawed and inferior. I'm just trying to find out why. But, like I've said a few times now, there no longer appears to be an easy answer to that.
A long time ago, when I did follow Direct at NSF quite closely, I saw that Doug Stanley's comments about the Regen RS68 and thought, yeah, that's why it doesn't work; game over. It appears to have bounced back, though, and I'd like to find out what the flaw is this time.

But of course, Andrew, neither you nor anybody else on this forum knows the answer to that, do you?

[Spacenut]

Maybe the information is ITAR related and cannot be revealed to the general public???

Give the guy a break.

[J.McDonald]

OK, if somebody does know the answer, and it is indeed ITAR restricted, then just say no.

Would that imply that NASA have invented some sort of new technology for Ares-V that puts it head and shoulders above anythign the Direct team could suggest?

[Andrew]

Oh, so you are against the plan too? Not that I expect an asnwer to this, of course, but... 'why'?

I have no idea how you jump to such incredible leaps of logic. I am pro-Ares. I want Ares to remain the prime program. IF Ares is canceled, DIRECT and EELV would both work; but I'm in the Ares camp.

If I'm driving a car to the store, I could also drive two other cars to the store. They'll get me there in different style, but they'll still work. That doesn't mean I don't want my first car to get the job done.

-Andrew

[Andrew]

OK, if somebody does know the answer, and it is indeed ITAR restricted, then just say no.

Would that imply that NASA have invented some sort of new technology for Ares-V that puts it head and shoulders above anythign the Direct team could suggest?

ITAR doesn't mean NEW technology. ITAR violations can take place with disclosing CURRENT technology.

-Andrew

[Andrew]

Haha, you've been paying closer attention to this than I have. Now that I think about it, you've probably got totally the wrong idea about me, and assume that I'm sitting here in a tinfoil hat wearing an 'I love Ross' T-shirt. In fact, I've presumed all along that Direct must be flawed and inferior. I'm just trying to find out why.

Second verse, same as the first.

It is inferior and the documentation is contained in NASAs previously released analysis.

"But, DIRECT says it is wrong and mis-interprets their numbers," you will no doubt note.

"Well, they are entitled to their opinion," I will reply.

"But shouldn't NASA continue to rebut every DIRECT proposition," you may reply.

"No, they are busy building Ares," I'll retort.

"Okay, let's go get a drink and have a cigar," you'll say and then we'll both go get drunk.

Hmmmm, maybe that last bit is wishful thinking .

-Andrew