DIRECT 2.0: An Alternate Approach to Reality?
CHALLENGING THE DIRECT 2.0 CLAIMS CAN GIVE YOU A HEADACHE
By Jim McDade
Claim: A statement of something as a fact; an assertion of truth.
So far, all attempts to question the supremacy of the DIRECT 2.0 revolution against NASA and the Boeing Company have been countered with a barrage of insults, unsupported claims from non-engineers, logical fallacy, and slick deception. Be warned that an encounter with the DIRECT 2.0 rebel leads those who question DIRECT into a combination of a Lewis Carroll nightmare and two popular Monty Python skits, The Argument Clinic and The Witch Hunt.
Here is how a typical encounter with a DIRECT 2.0 proponent goes:
Question- How do you know that Ares I is a bad design?
Response of DIRECT 2.0 Advocate- Because it’s bad. NASA and its contractors are always suppressing good ideas and oppressing the engineers who think of those good ideas. Everybody knows that. NASA and those nasty corporations are at it again by denying that DIRECT 2.0 is superior to the Ares vehicles. Besides, we have nothing to gain by doing this.
Question- You are guilty of the logical fallacy of begging the question with that response. I repeat: How do you know Ares I is a bad design?
Response of DIRECT 2.0 Advocate- Because it looks like one. It looks like a stick! It vibrates! The engineers are having a real hard time getting it to work! Besides, we have nothing to gain by doing this.
Question- But don’t other solid rockets look like sticks. Solid rocket boosters are typically slim as they are structurally more robust than their thin-skinned, liquid propellant cousins. And as for the vibrations, can you show me the engineering study that shows this to be a show-stopper for Ares I? Can you show me proof, not bold claims, that Ares I will be a flop? By the way, who is the lead propulsion engineer behind your DIRECT 2.0 revolution? What are his/her qualifications to challenge the NASA and Boeing engineers and managers?
Response of DIRECT 2.0 Advocate- Well, we have to keep all of that information secret… but Ross is a terrific model maker! You have to trust us. We are smarter than most people, you know. Besides, we have nothing to gain by doing this.
Question- I agree that Ross is a terrific model maker and he is a great guy, but why are there no bona fide, qualified engineers signing off on this revolution the way that the famous Lunar-Orbit-Rendezvous rebel John Houbolt did? How can we respect your revolution if you can’t find a single propulsion engineer to support it?
Response of DIRECT 2.0 Advocate- Well, DIRECT 2.0 is a direct descendant of an original NASA study. It must be good since NASA created it. Besides, we have nothing to gain by doing this.
Question- But did NASA create that old concept to meet the requirements for the Project Constellation architecture.
Response of DIRECT 2.0 Advocate- No, but it’s still a beautiful concept. I don’t understand why you won’t believe me when I tell you that NASA and Boeing are wrong and they are lying to us about Ares I. Besides, we have nothing to gain by doing this.
Question- You are executing logical acrobatics again. I repeat: But did NASA create that old concept to meet the requirements for the Project Constellation architecture?
Response of DIRECT 2.0 Advocate- No but DIRECT will work, I promise. Besides, we have nothing to gain by doing this.
Question- But several NASA officials have gone public and put their names and careers on the line in defense of their machines. NASA and Boeing people have provided the public with an accounting of how the Ares vehicles were conceived and why your DIRECT 2.0 proposal is defective and wasteful. Why can’t you find a single qualified propulsion engineer to put his/her name on the line by countering the NASA and Boeing statements with a sound defense of your DIRECT proposal?
Response of DIRECT 2.0 Advocate- Who are you to question me and my friends? You aren’t qualified to question DIRECT 2.0! You are blind and you just don’t understand! You refuse to recognize the truth! We are doing this humbly and out of the goodness of our hearts. Who are you to question us? We have secret, inside sources that we have to protect. We have all kinds of inside connections and we have been specially chosen to lead this DIRECT 2.0 campaign for justice. You don't know what you are talking about! Trust us, our plan will eliminate those post-Shuttle layoffs. Besides, we have nothing to gain by doing this.
Question- So you are saying that NASA knew what it was doing when it funded the original study that gave birth to your revolution, but since then NASA has become arrogant, corrupt and stupid?
Response of DIRECT 2.0 Advocate- No, we are not saying that at all. We don’t care what NASA calls DIRECT 2.0 or the Jupiter vehicle. They can adopt our proposal and save face by calling it whatever they want and justify the switch as their own idea. We have no ego whatsoever. Hey, we got a huge write-up in the Orlando Sentinel, so we have to be right! Where's your huge write-up? Your not so special. Besides, we have nothing to gain by doing this.
Question- Really?
Response of DIRECT 2.0 Advocate- We have nothing to gain by doing this.
Bookmarks