Nice

[JimMcDade]

That is a very nice looking presentation. Jupiter looks fantastic.

The logic behind the argument against the present VSE architecture needs a bit of work. We all strive to not allow our love for a favorite idea or concept to cause us to turn-off potential supporters by haphazardly tossing a few bombs at the standard bearers of the opposing viewpoint. History teaches us that revolutionary ideas suffer and wait when the frustrated revolutionaries resort to open attack as opposed to offering up positive arguments.

The fatal weakness of this alternative proposal lies in the argument that frames the proposal, not the proposal itself. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions that are true only if one accepts the truth of the conclusion. The argument comes across as, "the ARES concept is bad because the ARES concept is bad."

Further, the conclusion that, "Any successful VSE program will absolutely require an open environment in which legitimate concerns receive more than sophomoric and/or threatening responses from a few middle managers at NASA.", comes across more like an attack against NASA and the "forces beyond the control of NASA", than an argument for Direct 2.0.

It would be advantageous to remove the collective ad hominem statements, circular arguments, post hoc, ergo propter hoc claims, non sequitars and allow this proposal to stand on its merits as opposed to discounting the defenders of the current VSE architecture by appealing to the emotions, prejudices and passions of readers. There is a more than a hint of venom and anger behind this proposal as it is presented here.

Even so, the biggest problem for this concept is that it's just too late in the game to ever see Jupiter fly.

[kraisee]

Fair point Jim, I understand what you're saying.

To us, we're already familiar with a lot of the nuances behind the scenes, but I guess most viewers of this probably aren't quite so familiar.

Even the 'open environment' issue ultimately boils down to the same thing, that our engineers tell us quite regularly of their experiences inside the agency regarding how 'closed' things are at present. I guess that we've just gotten used to how things are being done at present and haven't been able to share that with others yet. I'm not even sure how we can share that with others yet either. It's going to take them to speak out for themselves I suppose. Hopefully forums like this ought to give them that sort of opportunity to 'vent' anonymously when they need to. That would expose the issue to the greater audience and then they'd become a lot more familiar with the topics too.

You are right though, we *are* criticizing NASA for that. Actually, that's not quite right. We are criticizing NASA's Administration for that. I've said a number of times that we are continually amazed by the vast majority of the people within the agency - the troops on the ground continually amaze us with their knowledge, experience, dedication, skill and caliber. We have nothing but the utmost respect for them. It is their bosses who are the ones forcing them into untenable positions. Positions which are killing Ares-I and Ares-V one bite at a time. Those projects are most definitely in serious trouble these days and the engineers have been saying so for well over a year. Only recently though are management finally realizing just how screwed up things have gotten.

But nobody wants to take responsibility, nobody wants to stand up and risk their careers by saying "guys, we really need to re-think this" because *E*V*R*Y*O*N*E* who has so far tried has been shouted out of Administrators office, has been sacked, or has been re-located to a different department where they have no further say in the program.

When that's the environment they have to deal with under Mike Griffin's tenure, nobody is willing to risk their next promotion, or their retirement package, by speaking out.

There was a great quote in "From the Earth to the Moon" by Grumman boss Tom Kelly in the episode "Spider" essentially says (regarding a landing leg problem which they just worked out had a problem) 'This is bad. But you didn't try to hide it or cover your ass. You came straight out and told me. We aren't getting out of the parking lot, let alone going to the moon if we can't detect and fix issues like this instead of covering them up'. I'm paraphrasing, but that's the jist of the comment.

The current NASA Administration has forgotten this lesson of Apollo. Over the last 3-4 years they have created an environment (deliberately or mistakenly) where it is currently just better to keep quiet and not challenge management. Unless THAT changes Tom Kelly is correct: We will not be going back to the moon at all - no matter what rocket we choose to use.


This is the sort of thing which is happening which we hear about going on weekly at present, and we've been hearing about such things for nearly two years now. I guess we're just used to hearing this. We make our decisions, and our presentations in the full knowledge of this stuff. But I guess many readers aren't quite so familiar. I think this is what you've noticed. Until the situation can change though, tailoring our argument to just stand alone is a very sensible suggestion. I'll see what we can do.

Ross.

[JimMcDade]

NASA is not the fresh, innovative agency that it was when it was brand new. The agency has long since become a typical Washington bureaucracy where creative, new ideas or open dissent are sometimes met by ostracism or even dismissal. NASA workers are indeed served well by following the "company line" as it is defined by NASA leadership. This condition is shameful, but it is the way that all government institutions work. It is also a sad but true fact that NASA is all we have to work with when it comes to moving forward in space.

DIRECT is a technically awesome and logical concept. It is unfortunate that technical quality and logic have nothing to do with how things get done in Washington, D.C., or in any government office, anywhere on Earth.

DIRECT does not stand much of a chance simply because it doesn't cover all of the political bases that a proposal needs to win approval in Washington. Pertinent History Lesson: Remember when NASA suddenly decided that the Cape was not the proper place to run space missions, and Houston was mysteriously selected as the best place to build the Manned Spacecraft Center(MSC)?

MSC was built in Houston because that move filled all of the political parameters required to get the MSC project endorsed by the power brokers who possessed the clout to move NASA appropriations through the legislative and administrative branch approval process. Technical and logical qualities had absolutely nothing to do with the choice of Houston as the new home for NASA flight operations. Politics, big money, and personal power plays are at the core of he so-called compromise process that makes America work.

DIRECT did not fly at the start simply because it was an politically unsanctioned technical concept. The ARES/Orion concept was sanctioned by both sides of the aisle with powerful Democrats and Republicans pushing the Constellation proposal through the Congress.

The odds that those Washington power brokers will come out and saying, "Oops, we were wrong. Let's change course and go DIRECT!" are no better than they were when a few very smart and honest analysts realized that the Space Transportation System (Shuttle) was a budgetary and technical turkey, well before the first piece of Columbia was fabricated at Palmdale in 1975. I have never met a politician or bureaucrat who is able to swallow his ego and fess up to incompetence, unless he/she is about to go to jail. (Or already in jail, as the case might be.)

DIRECT may or may not be technically superior to the current space system of choice, but, as was the case with STS, it will be made ready to fly. America is still wealthy enough to force-fit whatever it wishes to into its space plans.

If the ARES/ORION vehicles can't carry out the mission requirements as described in the original concept, then those requirements will be changed as many times as necessary---as was the case with the Space Shuttle when it became painfully obvious that the Shuttle could not perform as required by concept specifications. The Shuttle was supposed to fly every two weeks, drastically reduce payload costs, serve as the sole satellite delivery vehicle, serve the Pentagon from Vandenberg, and do a lot of other things that its compromised design eliminated from its repertoire. But the Shuttle still goes up and down, doesn't it? Politics, not the laws of Isaac Newton make our American spaceships fly. To twist the old RIGHT STUFF Buck Rogers phrase, "No satisfied, fat-cat politicians, no bucks for NASA."

[kraisee]

Jim,
With Ares-I now confirmed as having a 6 year gap, and with the Ares-I/V pair together going to cost three times as much to fly as Shuttle does today, don't you agree that the current plans are not creating a sustainable program - it is precisely creating a replica of the vastly high costs of Apollo - costs which ultimately doomed the program after only 6 successful landings.

It is a lesson which John Marburger specifically said of the Presidents review of the VSE - that we must make a sustainable and affordable program or we will simply lose it just like we did before.

What's better for the nation? An unsustainable program which gets canned within a decade (if it flies at all). Or a program which is more affordable and more likely to be funded in these difficult economic times.

I would suggest that the 'fat cats' will even benefit more from a long-term program that we can realistically achieve, not another canceled NASA boondoggle because we stretched too far - again.

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -George Santayana

Ross.

[Andrew]

What's better for the nation? An unsustainable program which gets canned within a decade (if it flies at all). Or a program which is more affordable and more likely to be funded in these difficult economic times.

A more uneven and biased question I have not heard in quite a long time.

-Andrew

[JimMcDade]

Andrew said: "A more uneven and biased question I have not heard in quite a long time."

<!-- / message --> Jim says: It's called "begging the question", and it is a fatal error in logic. The truth of the conclusion that Jupiter-120 should replace Ares is assumed by the premises that purport to prove that conclusion. Where's the beef? Where's the math? Where's the secret documentation and the bad reports on Ares? None of those things exist. We can't blindly accept so-called secret revelations and undocumented evidence that are eerily reminiscent of so many conspiracy theories.

Sending Jupiter-120 to the ISS or anywhere short of the moon would be much more wasteful of NASA resources than the current plans to use a King-Size (Ares I) and/or a Super-Size (Ares V) as prescribed for a particular mission.