NASA backs rocket design

[Inside KSC News Feeds]

NASA officials say they are sticking to plans to develop a rocket called Ares I after rumours surfaced that it was considering switching to a design based on the boosters that send the space shuttle into orbit. Ares I is being created to take astronauts into space after the shuttle fleet retires in 2010, although it won't be ready until 2014.

Last week, a blog published by the Orlando Sentinel, Florida, reported that the design had fallen out of favour after serious vibrations arose in tests. Doug Cooke of NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate says he has heard no such talk among senior management. The agency says it has found a way to cancel out the vibrations using giant springs at the base of the rocket.

Stephen Metschan, an engineer promoting an alternative rocket called Direct 2.0, claims that the spring system has safety issues of its own. "If that one system goes down, you're gone."
http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo? (http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?) http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=a18a17b826cd87bf043b8a8783b9899e

More... (http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?i=a18a17b826cd87bf043b8a8783b9899e)

[Rick]

As much as DIRECT 2.0 supporters won't like this, it is now time for this movement to quietly disappear.

The friction that could be caused by continued disregard of NASA's decision making would be foolish and a detriment to the space agency.

[JimMcDade]

Stephen Metschan, the DIRECT 2.0 engineer proffers the ridiculously obvious observation that, "If that one system goes down, you're gone." Duhhh. All rockets that fly now or have ever flown have identifiable single points of failure that could result in tragedy or loss of the vehicle. The DIRECT 2.0 design is likewise susceptible to such failures.

For that matter if the "one system" that we call brakes fail on your automobile, you would not have a very good day. Metschan and his DIRECT 2.0 anti-NASA pals are just a gang of intellectually immature malcontents who wish that they were participants in the REAL space program. NASA is in fine shape, especially when one considers how cash-starved the agency has been since 1968 when Richard Nixon assumed the US Presidency and NASA was put on a subsistence budget. Imagine how far along we might be now if we had landed on Mars in 1984 as was once planned?

[JimMcDade]

The strategy of Direct 2.0 has been to simply echo, amplify, distort and exaggerate every NASA/contractor team progress Ares I development update that contains any report that might be considered negative in nature. In reality, the Ares I team has encountered the historically typical weight, thrust, and oscillation problems that every booster team in history has faced and overcome. I doubt that any member of the Direct 2.0 team has ever been close enough to touch a rocket booster, with the exception of museum and display pieces that millions have touched.