Evaluation of Alternative Vehicles

[Rick]

I wouldn't even attempt to hazard a guess, as I do not know what they are discussing privately. I do think that the 4 year history of Ares should not be discounted either by funding, nor real or manufactured problems that are being thrown around out there on the WWW.

To be honest, it gets tiring to listen to others (not You) gripe about NASA and how they are covering up, lying or bending the truth regarding Ares.

As one who works in the NASA family, I find it degrading.

[Me2]

.

To be honest, it gets tiring to listen to others (not You) gripe about NASA and how they are covering up, lying or bending the truth regarding Ares.

As one who works in the NASA family, I find it degrading.

I find it degrading that NASA IS "covering up, lying or bending the truth regarding Ares"

[Rick]

If only you could back any of that up Me2

[J.McDonald]

I think I can back up the statement that NASA have been 'bending the truth'.

The ESAS appendices were recently released. In the ground rules and assumptions used in the analyses, NASA set a strict max-q limit for all vehicles. Except the stick, which was allowed a higher one. Go figure. Secondly, they used a model for upper-stage mass which has never been used to build a read stage. This model was used to 'disprove' the low dry mass claimed for the Jupiter upper stage. It was also used, incredibly, to attirube a higher mass to EELV upper stages than those stages actually have- up to 50% higher dru mass in fact. To quote Jon Goff, "if your model and reality don't agree, your model is wrong".

This is truth-bending, plain and simple. The idea is to make the Stick look better.

This all looks very bad for NASA of course, which is presumably why people have been making FOI requests to have the appendices made public for many years. It took a change of president to make them come to light.

[Me2]

Directs credibility will become much more prevalent if anyone who has taken part in the engineering process has the guts to expose themselves for the good of the idea.

That won't happen, hence my original statement.

Care to retract this?

[Rick]

Not quite yet.

[J.McDonald]

Just re-read these posts. Slightly surprised that in the intervening months nobody has challenged my assertion that NASA has been guilty of 'bending the truth'.

[Rick]

Just re-read these posts. Slightly surprised that in the intervening months nobody has challenged my assertion that NASA has been guilty of 'bending the truth'.

It won't be me. There has been enough truth bending that can be shared by everyone that has a stake and or an opinion.

[Rick]

Just re-read these posts. Slightly surprised that in the intervening months nobody has challenged my assertion that NASA has been guilty of bending the truth.

Three years have nearly gone by. Do you still feel the same?