DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[J.McDonald]

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

You're assuming that each of the options are equal. The whole point of EELV and Direct approaches is that there may be time and costs savings to be had.
What is so good about Ares that it justifies the expense of replacing a whole load of infrastructure, and of waiting eleven years from program incpetion to first operational flight?

[J.McDonald]

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

-Andrew

Understood. So, to make the voices go away, can you say that the reasons that Ares outperforms Direct are ITAR restricticted?

[J.McDonald]

Second verse, same as the first.

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

Need to stop there. I've read that, and I can see that there are flaws in Direct's proposal, but there's a lot of aspects of NASA's analysis that I don't understand. The main one is the statement in the press release about 'higher near term costs' which is not analysed any further, and simply does not seem to add up. How can developing 5-seg SRBs and rebuilding the Michoud tooling, the barge, the CTs, the VAB high-bays, the crawlerway, and the pads, cost less than not doing those things?

In fact the analysis doesn't seem to covers costs at all, unless I've missed something.

[Me2]

Regardless how you feel about the Direct concept, the group is right wrt Ares and its problems

[Rick]

You're assuming that each of the options are equal. The whole point of EELV and Direct approaches is that there may be time and costs savings to be had.
What is so good about Ares that it justifies the expense of replacing a whole load of infrastructure, and of waiting eleven years from program incpetion to first operational flight?

John,

Are you factoring in issues that might arise, as in actual or perceived problems if an alternative is selected if Ares is scrapped, and either Direct or EELV are chosen instead?

In other words, are the above solutions not going to experience growing pains, or will they work perfectly if Ares is replaced knowing all the work that has been put into it? Could not similar issues with an alternatve set back Constellation years?

[Rick]

Regardless how you feel about the Direct concept, the group is right wrt Ares and its problems

Even if that's the case, my issue is that there is a blanket perception that NASA cannot fix/work through the issues from the Direct people and in yo ur case it appears.

I don't buy that nor do the majority that are involved with the Ares project.

But will I be correct to assume that you think the majority are wrong, and you and the Direct people and a few dozen others are right?

[Andrew]

Understood. So, to make the voices go away, can you say that the reasons that Ares outperforms Direct are ITAR restricticted?

Can't confirm it. Can't deny it. I know, that doesn't satisfy you.

-Andrew

[Andrew]

The whole point of EELV and Direct approaches is that there may be time and costs savings to be had.

*May* is indeed the operative word. What do the DIRECTers believe may be the biggest problem they have (assuming all the equipment is intact) for them to implement their program? Have you heard them admit that even one aspect of their architecture design has risk? How easily do they gloss over any potential roadblocks in the redesign of their core?

What is so good about Ares that it justifies the expense of replacing a whole load of infrastructure, and of waiting eleven years from program incpetion to first operational flight?

11 years before Ares I? (I know, you meant Ares V).

-Andrew

[J.McDonald]

John,

Are you factoring in issues that might arise, as in actual or perceived problems if an alternative is selected if Ares is scrapped, and either Direct or EELV are chosen instead?

In other words, are the above solutions not going to experience growing pains, or will they work perfectly if Ares is replaced knowing all the work that has been put into it? Could not similar issues with an alternatve set back Constellation years?

I don't think Direct is as much of a 'fresh start' as it might appear.
NASA just added an engine and half an SRB segment to Ares-V. This is in addition to previous changes such as EDS tanking diameter. Goodness knows where they'll stop with that design.
Conceptually, is it any different to propose removing engines and reducing tank diameter? Because that's how you morph Ares into Jupiter. So a lot of the work already done would have needed to be done anyway- starting up the J2X program, signing contracts, looking at ET-derived core stages, etc etc.

Further, with Jupiter's raison d'etre being its closer commonality with existing STS hardware, and it being a smaller and simpler design, you would think that, on balance, it might be expected to encounter fewer problems that Ares with all of the new deveopment needed there.

[J.McDonald]

11 years before Ares I? (I know, you meant Ares V).

-Andrew

Um, 2015-2004= 11 years.

[Rick]

I don't think Direct is as much of a 'fresh start' as it might appear.
NASA just added an engine and half an SRB segment to Ares-V. This is in addition to previous changes such as EDS tanking diameter. Goodness knows where they'll stop with that design.
Conceptually, is it any different to propose removing engines and reducing tank diameter? Because that's how you morph Ares into Jupiter. So a lot of the work already done would have needed to be done anyway- starting up the J2X program, signing contracts, looking at ET-derived core stages, etc etc.

Further, with Jupiter's raison d'etre being its closer commonality with existing STS hardware, and it being a smaller and simpler design, you would think that, on balance, it might be expected to encounter fewer problems that Ares with all of the new deveopment needed there.

Thanks for the post John.

I must say though, much of what you are saying are assumptions that there are no 'kinks' in the system, so to speak. The 'signing contracts' is of a particular problem as the Direct people apparantly have no real idea about contractual agreements or how they work, or the time spent just to make a insignificant change in many cases.

All I hear is that they can be modified without any real problems. That is just not the case.

[Rick]

Um, 2015-2004= 11 years.

So, to further my argument, we'll throw away 4 years of work on Ares, nearly 5 and switch to an alternative that needs to be built from scratch (talking about Direct here, not EELV), and don't let NASA and its contractors work on the present system to do what they have done before and successfully build an actual launch vehicle?

Nah...

What do we do with the existing hardware already built and some of it shipped to KSC (Yes, I know its Ares I-X, the dreaded non-Ares vehicle.)?

Toss it out?

Sorry, I don't subscribe to that, but that's me.

[Me2]

I don't buy that nor do the majority that are involved with the Ares project.

But will I be correct to assume that you think the majority are wrong, and you and the Direct people and a few dozen others are right?

Most of the majority don't know launch vehicle architectures and only are getting a paycheck. Just like you, most don't know about the EELV's or other architecture. If ask them what the ESAS is, you will get a blank stare.

There are thousands that feel the way I do. You have to get out in the "real" spaceflight world and not just the spin NASA feeds you.

Take away the NASA groups and contractors working on Ares and you will find most of the Aerospace world is against Ares.

[Me2]

What do we do with the existing hardware already built and some of it shipped to KSC (Yes, I know its Ares I-X, the dreaded non-Ares vehicle.)?

Toss it out?

Why not? It can go in the same pile as X-33. No big deal.

As for real hardware, Upperstage and Orion simulator are just hunks of metal, recycle it. The booster can be reused for a shuttle mission.
the rest is minor

[Rick]

Most of the majority don't know launch vehicle architectures and only are getting a paycheck. Just like you, most don't know about the EELV's or other architecture. If ask them what the ESAS is, you will get a blank stare.

There are thousands that feel the way I do. You have to get out in the "real" spaceflight world and not just the spin NASA feeds you.

Take away the NASA groups and contractors working on Ares and you will find most of the Aerospace world is against Ares.

Me2,
First, thanks for all the compliments and telling me what I do and do not know and how I arrive at my conclusions.

I find your comments offensive.

I am guessing that the thousands that feel that way, are like you and don't want to divulge their identity?

Figures.

Lets move on. Sheesh.

[Me2]

Me2,
1. First, thanks for all the compliments and telling me what I do and do not know and how I arrive at my conclusions.

2. I am guessing that the thousands that feel that way, are like you and don't want to divulge their identity?

1. You stated that you didn't know the EELV's capabilities. I rest my case

2.
http://www.spacetransportnews.com/
http://www.spacepolitics.com/

read the comments from the posters. Many are in the field and are knowledgeable. Many use their names and are known industry wide

http://rocketsandsuch.blogspot.com/

Very negative forum but has the inside info. Has yet to be proven wrong. Not affiliated with Direct but subscribes to the same "conspiracy" (which exists in some form) as Direct

[Andrew]

Most of the majority don't know launch vehicle architectures and only are getting a paycheck. Just like you, most don't know about the EELV's or other architecture. If ask them what the ESAS is, you will get a blank stare.

There are thousands that feel the way I do. You have to get out in the "real" spaceflight world and not just the spin NASA feeds you.

Take away the NASA groups and contractors working on Ares and you will find most of the Aerospace world is against Ares.

Okay, okay, okay. I've read Rick's response and your counter-response. Let's just take a few seconds of "time out" and realize that you/me/J.McDonald/SpaceNut/Rick/whoever all in the end want the same thing...a viable launch architecture and a stiff drink. Okay, maybe I'm the only one who wants a nice glass of Tennessee sour mash.

Anyway, Me2, we really do enjoy your posts under your alter-ego on NSF and your pro-EELV solution. You speak of thousands of others who agree with your position (not just about Ares, but about EELV). I, for one, would very much appreciate you telling those in that large group who you are familiar with that this site would be MOST WELCOME to have their input. If Inside KSC becomes the center of the EELV universe, I give not one wit. But as a guy who would, if Ares were shut down, prefer an EELV solution, it would be nice to have ready access to those who can fill in the holes with such a solution.

No reply necessary and the next time I'm down I'd be most welcome to purchase you and Rick a drink at Kings Duck Inn. Have a good evening!

-Andrew

[Rick]

I, for one, would very much appreciate you telling those in that large group who you are familiar with that this site would be MOST WELCOME to have their input. If Inside KSC becomes the center of the EELV universe, I give not one wit.

That would be fine with me, and would welcome it.

[JimMcDade]

Can't we all just get along? Seriously, the internet has created new opportunities for millions of hecklers and cynics who realize that NASA and most government agencies are easy targets for cynical attacks via the internet.

Government officials are having a hard time coping with cultural change in this instance. They used to be able to get away with carefully and slowly releasing selected information while pretty much ignoring the paranoid cranks and cynics who yelled from the crowd at press conferences or wrote wacky letters to the local newspaper.

The internet has unleashed all sorts of fruitcakes and now no arena of public life is free from these kind of half-baked assaults.

The general inability to read and think critically amongst the general population, no matter how many academic degrees that an individual may possess, just plays into the hands of cranks like the Direct 2.0 crowd. If the web had been around when Adolph Hitler was writing Mein Kampf, we might all be dead or at least speaking German now. Angry words have tremendous power.

The cool, calculated responses of government bureaucrats are generally wasted on those who automatically equate government with incompetence, corruption, and waste. We should always be suspicious of government, but we should equally fear those who embrace single-minded obsession.

The glaring flaws in the character and morality of Metschan and company do not mean that we should automatically dismiss their claims, but their transparent motivations did influence the intellectual process that routed them to their conclusions. Passion and prejudice caused them to take shortcuts that allowed them bypass the path of more reasoned and logical investigation. Unwavering devotion to an presumed and cherished conclusion forced them to reverse engineer a NASA conspiracy that exists only in their minds. It's the moon-hoax conspiracy melody all over again- just with different lyrics.

[Rick]

That would be fine with me, and would welcome it.

No word yet from Me2, although he was here today.

Are you out there Me2????