It had me convinced...

[Rick]

That is not a given

1. The new administration could shake up things. Ares is only safe with Griffin around
2. Ares I-X could fail and Congress demand a shakeup
3. Ares could fail the PDR reconvene

X-33 was canceled after a new launch site, engine and airframe were built. It is never to late to cancel a program

Then WE, who work for NASA or the subcontractors involved, need to work as hard as we possibly can to make sure that Ares 1-X does NOT fail.

Those who are in the NASA family should support this program, even if we do not agree.

[Me2]

Then WE, who work for NASA or the subcontractors involved, need to work as hard as we possibly can to make sure that Ares 1-X does NOT fail.

Those who are in the NASA family should support this program, even if we do not agree.

Supporting that is wrong and a waste of the taxpayer's money is not right.

This is independent of Ares I debate.

[Rick]

Supporting that is wrong and a waste of the taxpayer's money is not right.

This is independent of Ares I debate.

Me2,
You of course have the right to express your opinion. As do I, as does anyone else here.

I do not agree with your quote above, not in the least. It would be a certain waste of taxpayers money to start over, by scrapping the 4 years of work already done.

That is my choice, as yours is to disagree.

[J.McDonald]

So does everybody agree to disagree?
I started this thread because I'd heard things that made me think there was a better way than Ares. Technical, objective, reasons that involved spending less money, having more certain outcomes, and making things happen faster.

Despite seven pages of material I remain as convinced as I ever was. I am not interested in Jim McDade's vitriolic opinion of the Direct authors. I understand that some contracts have been signed, but I do not believe that that is a good enough argument in itself. If an alternative is significantly better, it may be worth the penalty of contract termination or renegotiation. Plus, as Me2 has pointed out, NASA has cancelled a lot more human spaceflight programs than it has completed, in it's recent history.

[Rick]

So does everybody agree to disagree?
I started this thread because I'd heard things that made me think there was a better way than Ares. Technical, objective, reasons that involved spending less money, having more certain outcomes, and making things happen faster.

Despite seven pages of material I remain as convinced as I ever was. I am not interested in Jim McDade's vitriolic opinion of the Direct authors. I understand that some contracts have been signed, but I do not believe that that is a good enough argument in itself. If an alternative is significantly better, it may be worth the penalty of contract termination or renegotiation. Plus, as Me2 has pointed out, NASA has cancelled a lot more human spaceflight programs than it has completed, in it's recent history.

John, I agree to disagree. My opinion, although probably not what you wanted to hear, is mine anyway.

For what its worth, I am shocked at times as to how much a minority of people distrust NASA, its engineers, and its management. It makes me cringe. That is probably due to the fact that I find it an honor to work for them. I know my position means little to many out there, but, there it is.

For what it is worth, Jim's comments are correct in my opinion. Although much of this conversation did not include Direct, Direct has polluted the alternative launch vehicle discussion as a whole. EELV especially is lumped into the Direct crowd wrongly, due to Direct's distaste and hate for NASA in some arguments they try and justify.

If you find my words "vitriolic" as well, that's okay.

As much as there has been disagreement in this thread, I found it important, as I have learned things that I did not know. I hope that applies to others as well.

[Me2]

Me2,
You of course have the right to express your opinion. As do I, as does anyone else here.

I do not agree with your quote above, not in the least. It would be a certain waste of taxpayers money to start over, by scrapping the 4 years of work already done.

1. The ESAS is less than 3 years old. So it isn't that much to be scrapped
2. If the alternative is cheaper to develop and operate and quicker or at worse comes online at the same time as Ares I would, why is that called a waste of taxpayer's money?

[Rick]

1. The ESAS is less than 3 years old. So it isn't that much to be scrapped
2. If the alternative is cheaper to develop and operate and quicker or at worse comes online at the same time as Ares I would, why is that called a waste of taxpayer's money?

Because the EELV alternative is not going to happen? Just my opinion of course.

Also, prior to you editing the post, you asked if my job was on the line if the current Ares course continues.

Not really. As I said in a different thread, I am a 'site' person. Yes, I support Ares, but also FSSO, GPS and ISS. The contract with ISS extends far longer than Shuttle.

My opinions are not based on a fear of losing my present employment.

[J.McDonald]

John, I agree to disagree. My opinion, although probably not what you wanted to hear, is mine anyway.

For what its worth, I am shocked at times as to how much a minority of people distrust NASA, its engineers, and its management. It makes me cringe. That is probably due to the fact that I find it an honor to work for them. I know my position means little to many out there, but, there it is.

For what it is worth, Jim's comments are correct in my opinion. Although much of this conversation did not include Direct, Direct has polluted the alternative launch vehicle discussion as a whole. EELV especially is lumped into the Direct crowd wrongly, due to Direct's distaste and hate for NASA in some arguments they try and justify.

If you find my words "vitriolic" as well, that's okay.

As much as there has been disagreement in this thread, I found it important, as I have learned things that I did not know. I hope that applies to others as well.

Yes, it's a shame that the Direct movement appear to generate such strong feelings. Personally, I do not believe that I am 'anti-NASA', but I like to understand what is going on.
I followed the creation of the original Direct scheme; I believed that it might be a viable option which NASA had simply overlooked. That version was examined by Doug Stanley, and the assumed isp of its regen RS68 shown to be unrealistic. After that, I had a lot less faith in the Direct idea, primarily because NASA were now aware of the concept and were rejecting it.
When Ares-V had its recent growth spurt, though, I started wondering again about costs and the harsh realities that might be faced in future budgets. The idea of designing a rocket that fits the current infrastructure seems very sensible to me- slightly less bang for an awful lot less buck, or so you would think. Yet NASA's report on Direct version 2 claims higher near and long term costs. I do not understand that claim, and it's almost as though NASA feel they need to refute every aspect of the Direct plan, which makes me confused if not suspicious.

[Spacenut]

Nasa is Nasa. Direct is.... well, a nice idea.

[J.McDonald]

Nasa is Nasa. Direct is.... well, a nice idea.

Not sure what you mean by that. They are not analogous terms.
Woudl you say, for example, that NASA is NASA, but LV13 is a nice idea, or NLS is a nice idea? Because that's more like the comparison you're trying to make.

[Andrew]

I do not understand that claim, and it's almost as though NASA feel they need to refute every aspect of the Direct plan, which makes me confused if not suspicious.

So what is it you want? NASA to keep defending Ares in light of DIRECT or not? They try to demonstrate that they feel DIRECT is a failed concept (their position), and you are "suspicious"? But then you want more information from them! Geez!

-Andrew

[Spacenut]

Not sure what you mean by that. They are not analogous terms.
Woudl you say, for example, that NASA is NASA, but LV13 is a nice idea, or NLS is a nice idea? Because that's more like the comparison you're trying to make.

JMcDonald,
I was using a bit of sarcasm possibly??? I trust Nasa, not a group of individuals that refuse to release a report they say they have.

[J.McDonald]

So what is it you want? NASA to keep defending Ares in light of DIRECT or not? They try to demonstrate that they feel DIRECT is a failed concept (their position), and you are "suspicious"? But then you want more information from them! Geez!

-Andrew

The press release, dated June 2008, said that none of the Direct claims (lower near-term cost; faster FOC; lower operational costs; better sfaety; improved performance) were correct. To back these up I was directed to a 2007 report which does not mention costs, a pretty big ommission. Presumably, since they came to their conclusion, they have reasons, no?

Oh, and my 'suspicions' stem from the completely counter-intuitive assertion that Direct would cost more in the near-term than Ares, which basically means that NASA believe that developing 5-seg boosters, rebuilding the pads, rebuilding the crawlers, rebuilding the crawlerways, and building a new barge, will somehow not only be free of charge but actually cost less than not doing those things. Does that make snese to anybody here?

[J.McDonald]

JMcDonald,
I was using a bit of sarcasm possibly??? I trust Nasa, not a group of individuals that refuse to release a report they say they have.

Personally, trust doesn't come into it. All I'm trying to do is understand things here. I don't really care what the Direct people say, and I don't follow their discussions on a regular basis. But I do know two things: Ares-I seems like a complete waste of time and money, and despite what NASA have said, building a rocket that fits the infrastructure has got to be cheaper than tearing it all up and starting again.

[Andrew]

Personally, trust doesn't come into it. All I'm trying to do is understand things here. I don't really care what the Direct people say, and I don't follow their discussions on a regular basis. But I do know two things: Ares-I seems like a complete waste of time and money, and despite what NASA have said, building a rocket that fits the infrastructure has got to be cheaper than tearing it all up and starting again.

Uh, okay! Let's move on, then.

-Andrew

[J.McDonald]

John, why is "cheaper" always the best alternative?

This question has come to roost.

I thought I'd re-read this thread just to check who were the 'others' who had attempted to persuade me of the merits of Ares over Direct. It makes quite interesting reading. Nobody was ever able to give me any technical or budgetary reasons why Direct was inferior, the cloest being the 'too late to change' argument.
Well it looks like there's going to be change anyway, now. What a crying shame it's taken so long as we may have reached the point where Ares would actually be quicker to finish. What a mess.

[Rick]

Yes, what a mess, especially for those who work for the space program.

Today is going to be a bad day.

[Rick]

This question has come to roost.

I thought I'd re-read this thread just to check who were the 'others' who had attempted to persuade me of the merits of Ares over Direct. It makes quite interesting reading. Nobody was ever able to give me any technical or budgetary reasons why Direct was inferior, the cloest being the 'too late to change' argument.
Well it looks like there's going to be change anyway, now. What a crying shame it's taken so long as we may have reached the point where Ares would actually be quicker to finish. What a mess.

After having some much needed coffee, I will expand a bit.

I never envisioned, nor did I expect that this site, nor its users were required to defend the POR, Direct or any other vehicle or program.

I think the roles should have been reversed actually. Those who question NASA's intentions, and or its technical data need to go to NASA, not here for that. Having said that, I encourage debate here, with very little guidelines. Pehaps that is my fault, perhaps not.

Thanks as always for your input John.

Rick

[J.McDonald]

Well all the best for you and everyone else who works in the space program. Today may not be all bad news- overall budget increase, plus $6bn for commercial spaceflight, it might just be a reshuffling exercise. The money is still going to be spent, we just have to guess where it's going now.

[Rick]

The money is still going to be spent, we just have to guess where it's going now.

This is the part that bothers me most.