DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[Me2]

............. Other than the people who started that quest for fame and media recognition and the innocent people who bit on the pseudo-technical Direct 2.0 presentation, that alternative proposal never got off of the ground anywhere- with the notable exception of one lazy journalist at the Orlando Sentinel.

So how are you going to explain this away?

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exp...n/End_Run.html

How does that crow taste?

[Me2]

....... Unwavering devotion to an presumed and cherished conclusion forced them to reverse engineer a NASA conspiracy that exists only in their minds. .......

Wrong again.

1. It is not a hoax. The real hoax is the ESAS

2. It is not Direct's doing. The "conspiracy" existed before Direct

3. Both Boeing and LM said that they were told to back off. I know people from all 3 groups (it includes NASA) who know the story. Griffin and Horwitz wanted their Stick and that's all that mattered.

[Rick]

Wrong again.

1. It is not a hoax. The real hoax is the ESAS

2. It is not Direct's doing. The "conspiracy" existed before Direct

3. Both Boeing and LM said that they were told to back off. I know people from all 3 groups (it includes NASA) who know the story. Griffin and Horwitz wanted their Stick and that's all that mattered.

Me2,
You have lots of claims that you throw out there, but you can't prove any of them because the participants are all anonymous, including yourself, as are, except for a few, misguided souls who are pushing the mysterious conspiracy.

[J.McDonald]

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.

Just a small note here, I'd like to think that my interest in Ares vs. Direct stems from exactly the opposite stuation that you describe. Possessing an academic degree myself, albeit in an unrelated field, and being occasionally a rather critical person with the ability to both think and read (to at least a limited extent), my take on the situation is thus:

I read about Ares, thought- yeah, that's got to be better than STS. Then I heard of the idea that ditching the little rocket and building a smaller big rocket could work out cheaper, because you'd launch it twice as often. Then I heard that this smaller big rocket would happily fit within the current infrastructure. Suddenly it all started to make one heck of a lot of sense. As Ares-V has continued to grow, the amount of sense that the 'Direct' plan makes just keeps building, for me.

To find out why NASA wasn't choosing this approach, I came to this forum, and whilst nobody has been able to tell me in technical terms why the Direct plan is so unutterably evil and poisonous, I have been told numerous times to trust NASA, stick with what was chosen, don't waste my time looking at 'noise'. Unfortunately, these arguments do not really work for me because I am a little too cynical.

YMMV.

[Andrew]

To find out why NASA wasn't choosing this approach, I came to this forum, and whilst nobody has been able to tell me in technical terms why the Direct plan is so unutterably evil and poisonous, I have been told numerous times to trust NASA, stick with what was chosen, don't waste my time looking at 'noise'. Unfortunately, these arguments do not really work for me because I am a little too cynical.

You are going to restate your disappointment in the answers you get here how many more times? Just so I can keep track.

-Andrew

[J.McDonald]

You are going to restate your disappointment in the answers you get here how many more times? Just so I can keep track.

-Andrew

Why do you revel in the fact that the forum which your administrate is, from my point of view, essentially useless? I've been going round in circles here for ages. On NSF you actually get answers.

[Rick]

Why do you revel in the fact that the forum which your administrate is, from my point of view, essentially useless? I've been going round in circles here for ages. On NSF you actually get answers.

Ouch! That hurts John. If the website name was InsideAres.com, I'd understand your frustration, but alas, it's not. I originally created the forum for discussion purposes and not as a wiki site. Even though I work at KSC, which is why the site in some form or another for a decade now, my intention was for this version to be a place that was different than others and have a friendly atmosphere. NSF is a great website, with the owner and editor Chris, who spends much more time on that site than I could possibly match. This site is a passion of mine that started out as a hobby, and costs nothing. Maybe it would serve everyone well to remove the forums all together and use it as it once was as a repository for space related information. I for one am sorry that my sites forums have not met your expectations, and do apologize.

[J.McDonald]

Rick,
please accept my apologies as I think that this site as a whole is a worthwhile endeavour. My comment wasn't directed at you personally; I was just getting a bit frustrated with Andrew's attitude, because I do feel I've been gong round in circles for a while now.

John

[Rick]

John, not a problem and thank you for your support.

[Bob]

So how are you going to explain this away?

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exp...n/End_Run.html

How does that crow taste?

That article you are mentioning is reposted from an earlier date months ago! nothing new here.

[Andrew]

Why do you revel in the fact that the forum which your administrate is, from my point of view, essentially useless? I've been going round in circles here for ages. On NSF you actually get answers.

You get made-up answers about a made-up rocket. If you want a bunch of pap and nonsense, then you are right, you should go elsewhere.

-Andrew

[Andrew]

So how are you going to explain this away?

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exp...n/End_Run.html

How does that crow taste?

Dude, what is new about that article that hasn't been said before?

-Andrew

[Andrew]

Rick,
please accept my apologies as I think that this site as a whole is a worthwhile endeavour. My comment wasn't directed at you personally; I was just getting a bit frustrated with Andrew's attitude, because I do feel I've been gong round in circles for a while now.

With my attitude? I'm so sorry that after 20 times of hearing you complain and whine about not getting answers from NASA via this website by proxy that I took note.

-Andrew

[Me2]

Dude, what is new about that article that hasn't been said before?

-Andrew

The point is that Direct got press again and in a respected magazine

On another note, you got an attitude that is not becoming of a forum admin.

[J.McDonald]

You get made-up answers about a made-up rocket. If you want a bunch of pap and nonsense, then you are right, you should go elsewhere.

-Andrew

No, you get answers about most things spaceflight-related. I've learned a lot about Apolo, STS, and the EELVs at NSF.

[Andrew]

No, you get answers about most things spaceflight-related. I've learned a lot about Apolo, STS, and the EELVs at NSF.

Super!

-Andrew

[Andrew]

The point is that Direct got press again and in a respected magazine

On another note, you got an attitude that is not becoming of a forum admin.

About calling you 'dude'? Listen, buster, you are quite experienced in the art of "rude" yourself both here and elsewhere.

-Andrew

[J.McDonald]

About calling you 'dude'? Listen, buster, you are quite experienced in the art of "rude" yourself both here and elsewhere.

-Andrew

Do you think that referring to Me2 as 'dude' is the epitome of you at your least helpful and most obtuse? I can think of many other examples.

[J.McDonald]

Super!

-Andrew

As forum administrator, I am surprised to see that you are in violation of your own rules: "Please refrain from posting meaningless threads, one word (or short) non-sense posts, or the such."

[Rick]

So, suddenly everyone wants to run the forums here. Personally, I TRY and be objective, AND be able to point out my point of view without lambasted by a couple of my members (Not you JMcDonald).

As far as NSF is concerned, it is an excellent website, a great source of historical and current information. My only dig with it is a certain forum on that site that has a stinging cancer that grows day by day.

Am I allowed to say that here? As Sarah Palin would say: "You Betcha". Could I say what I want without getting banned regarding Direct on NSF? No way.

Everyone is allowed a say here. If ANYONE believes forum rules are being violated, do me a favor and PM me. Don't ruin a thread experience for others who don't want to have to sift through the muck.

Rick