DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[Rick]

I am not the admin. You are suppose to have higher standards, yet you are no better.

As for elsewhere, McDade is an *** here and there

Me2, do you mind? I don't particulary care about what you think about Jim McDade, nor do I believe others do either.

Cool it with the personal attacks.

[klydemorris]

Indeed- Jim has friends here, count me as one of them.

In a attempt to steer us back on course...

Direct (Jupiter 120) has its boasters and its detractors. It seems to me that all launch systems started out as just a "made up" rocket. Numbers for such a program, today, however, are simply too easy to throw out in front of everyone and say- "These are the facts." Let's all remember that Ares I started out the same way and gets the exact same flack thrown at it by the anti-Ares I/Pro-Direct folks as they throw back at the Ares I people. The breaking point is what IS funded and what ISN'T funded. That is the differance between a made-up rocket and actual hardware.

If the Congress and OMB decides tomorrow to defund Ares and fund Direct, all of those made-up numbers will be pounded into real numbers and the system will be made to work by engineering out all of the problems one-by-one. Likewise, if Ares I continues to be funded and the powers that be lose intrest in Direct, it will remain a really nice .PDF and nothing more. One of the few things that was actually correct in that almost fictional movie "The Right Stuff" was the line "You know what makes this bird go up?... Funding."

A more intresting discussion here would be one that takes a good look at what direction the funding winds are blowing here in DC.

[Rick]

In a attempt to steer us back on course...

A more intresting discussion here would be one that takes a good look at what direction the funding winds are blowing here in DC.

Thank you for steering this thread back on track!

[Rick]

Indeed- Jim has friends here, count me as one of them.

Ditto

[Rick]

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."

Andrew, John, if you don't mind I will take a stab at this one.

I can from past experience and knowing Andrew as well as I do, tell you his answer was not meaningless, nor nonsense.

The staff here, which comprise of more team members that Andrew and myself are well aware that NSF is a great resource. I believe that he, and myself at times get tired of hearing it. Hence his "Super" reply. I visit there too by the way.

We are also aware that this website needs more watering to grow and few weeds pulled if need be.

Now BACK TO THE THREAD

[ATSF90East]

Count me in as a proud friend of Jim's too!

Bruce Sebring

[klydemorris]

One of the errors that we all tend to make- and this is a simple Human Factors thing- is assuming that everyone who has any intrest in spaceflight is just as deeply involved in these debates as we are. The fact there are people who are up to their armpits in in that actual hardware and development who have never even seen NSF or this site. Perhaps most are like that. Once one gets away from the forums and threads, you find that real world attitudes are different.

One intresting exercise is that of sales of my model rocket kits. The hottest seller, by far, is the Saturn V kit. The next hottest seller is... the Ares I-X. followed closely by the Ares I. The shuttle kit has slipped to 4th in recent months (Sales will pick up during the next shuttle mission- they always do). Now- I'm working on a Direct, Jupiter 120 kit and hope for a release in the weeks ahead. I'll be real intrested to see how it sells against the Ares I kits. No bets here folks- I've found that there's no way to guess what the public will buy. I thought that the Titan IIIC MOL kit would be huge... it is not.

It's just a little, intresting, micro-view of the rocket/space buff public.

[Me2]

Once one gets away from the forums and threads, you find that real world attitudes are different.

And many think Ares is the wrong way to go.

[klydemorris]

Depends on how one defines the word "many." To some, it means the number of individuals that the person believes to be of a like mind with that person. To others it mean a majority of individuals involved in the subject. Thus your statement is ambiguous. Now if we were to hear from several thousand individuals who all logged onto this site and stated that Ares I is the "wrong way to go" I'd agree with you. However, if it is just one or two indivuals of a like mind... as we've seen here, come out and say they agree with you- I would not call that "many."

Let us not forget the DC factor here either. A crowd of Me2 clones could come storming down the crawler way toward the VAB chanting against the Ares I-X, (or just to be current with today's thinking- chanting "Change" "Yes we can") and if no one but the Orlando Scent paid any attention, what all those Me2s think would not matter a hill of beans, because ALL of the ultimate decisions are made here in DC and not on the internet and not on the keyboard of an Ares I critic- unless said critic happens to reside in DC and has been assigned the power to make changes by the President and the Congress. Thus- if you have one such person of actual authority log on tell us he or she thinks that the Ares I is the wrong way to go- we could say, "Yes- that is actually many."

The folks promoting Direct would do well, however, to find either of the presidential candidates and hand him a model of the Jupiter 120 as the press snaps photos... that could equate to change... well... at least an empty promise of change.

[Rick]

Looks like the Direct talk is barely a whisper now. Maybe they are gearing up for something big?

[Ares_Is_Go]

DOubtful

[JimMcDade]

A big THANK YOU to my friends here. I am proud that you guys consider me to be a friend.

I have no problem with the people who say don't like me or my opinions. I admire their honesty, even if they are wrong about whatever point it is that they disagree with me on.

Some people don't care for my methods of discounting hoaxes and the outrageous claims of questionable characters, but I have never been sued for slander or libel.

My infrequent ad hominem proclamations are always appropriate for establishing the ulterior motivations that drive an individual beyond tyhe bounds of credibility. I confirm the facts prior to sharing them with others. - Jim McDade

[Rick]

Very well said Jim. You should receive all the credit you deserve.

[slowcooker]

I find it interesting that Direct 2.0's discussions sure has fizzled into barely a whisper across the web.

I suspect that the quiet is misleading. I doubt that Direct is dead, although what emerges would/could be different in many respects from the current paper design. Calling Direct a fraud, as some have done here, is probably more a reflection of personal opinion and NIH than an actual analysis of the system that might emerge should it be funded. I have never known a system to move from simulation to operation without significant change.
Meanwhile, the quiet is probably due to the run-up to the elections, the elections themselves, the holidays, and the transition. Many are waiting to see what Obama plans to do about NASA, which many still consider an impaired organization (I'm neutral on the subject).
My contacts within the transition team say that serious consideration is being given to at least seriously reviewing The Stick. There are many outside (and not a few inside) the NASA community who feel it is seriously flawed and will fail in the long term. These people would prefer to call a halt and generate a design with a greater prospect of success, more general utility, higher payload, and freedom from some of the physical problems of The Stick. The downmass limitations of The Stick/Orion combination contribute to this, especially as more attention is being given to increased utilisation of the ISS.
Unfortunately it is widely supposed that Griffin is personally invested in The Stick because of similar concepts he worked with earlier in his career. Some worry that alternative designs will not, therefore, get a fair hearing.
My personal sense is that The Stick is too limited in capability and too troubled to rate continued funding. Its limitations also are imposing limits on Orion, and more as time passes.
Finally, there is a general sense on the transition team that the time has come for a less mission-specific approach to space flight and, instead, an approach that would see more general-purpose systems designed for use within a growing 'space infrastructure.' After all, there is much more to do in space than simply send missions to the moon and Mars, and some insiders would like to see long-term developments leading to a 'go anywhere, do anything' approach, giving broad, early, useful access to the inner solar system.
There also is a strong sense that NASA should be removed from its operational role.
With all this in mind, my personal expectation is that the VSE is due for major revision under Obama, although not cancellation. A new NASA administrator is a near 100% possibility.

[Rick]

Hi Slowcooker,
First, thanks for joining Inside KSC. Your opinions are valued and we look forward to more of your insight.

As far as what you said, I do not disagree with you in many respects. My re-occurring mantra is that NASA is so far along into Ares, it should at least be given the benefit of the doubt.

In some circles unfortunately, that does not and will not happen. Direct 2.0 is not a fraud in my opinion. It is a good idea that came along too late in the game, so to speak.

As far as Obama goes, I am more worried about his constantly changing positions regarding manned space flight. There have been rumors of his desire to do away with Ares, use an EELV, launch on Chinese and European launch vehicles. There has not been as far as I know, any consideration of Direct. Not that, that is good or bad, just that its not being considered it appears at this particular time.


Anyway, thanks again for joining!

[Me2]

Is this quiet?

[Rick]

It was a good article.

Unfortunately, as I have said in the past, its a good rocket, just too late in the game.

[J.McDonald]

On the 'too late' part...
NASA was made aware of the DIRECT proposal three years ago. It is based on the NLS concept which passed PDR many moons ago. Ares-I has only just passed PDR, and that without flying colours.
Secondly, Ares-I was proposed in 2005 to enter service in 2011; by 2008 it was slipping to a FOC in 2016. So as of today it is actually further away from operational status than it was when the program started!

If you were mid-stream and your horse collapsed and died on you, would you still say it was wrong to change horses?

[Rick]

If you were mid-stream and your horse collapsed and died on you, would you still say it was wrong to change horses?

No, not at all. But the analogy is not valid as this horse has not collapsed and died.

[J.McDonald]

No, not at all. But the analogy is not valid as this horse has not collapsed and died.

No, but OTOH it is further from the other side of the river than when it started trying to cross!
This analogy is getting a bit thin....