Is it just me, or is there a pattern developing here?

[Rick]

I am finding it rather interesting that many (with an exception of one post I think it is from JMcdonald), are ignoring thread postings that reference already in place contractual agreements with NASA sub-contractors.

I am reading lots about engines, thrust variables, weight issues and such, but barely a word about the contracts in place, that has assured NASA's Ares I choice as one of the reasons NASA is going to use Ares I and not any other launch vehicle alternative.

I find it curious at a minimum.

[Andrew]

Rick:

The pattern is that DIRECT is the most amazing plan in the history of the universe. Indeed, DIRECT now has plans to fix Hubble, go to ISS, go to the Moon, visit Vulcan, and brew some of the best darn tasting beer you have ever had! DIRECT is even going to lower taxes and defeat Islamic Terrorists.

The clear message from the Wizards of Smart on the DIRECT team is that these contacts can be thown aside with nary a complaint because, according to them, it's done all the time with the government. Further, as Ross Tierney points out, he's already worked it out so every contractor and sub-contractor will get a share of the pie and won't have any complaints.

Indeed, DIRECT believes it can do what has never been accomplished in the history of government contracting and its followers, who continue to only hear one side of the story from a group of people who (like me) have no experience in spaceflight engineering and believe that DIRECT is the be-all, end-all for NASA, continue to not question "how" DIRECT knows what it says it knows and "why" everything is secret with them.

Oh, well. It's their time if that's how they want to spend it. And those that follow can listen all they want to a software designer, a guy who works on submarines, and a plastic model builder...because, remember, they have 57 NASA engineers (who they won't name), internal documents (which they won't produce), and an evaluation from an independent group saying DIRECT is the winner (which they won't release). Sounds good to me!

-Andrew

[JimMcDade]

There are some people who are outside of the Direct cult who might object to Ares I and Ares V for reasons other than passion, prejudice and devotion to a wild conspiracy theory. It is unfortunate that their voices are being drowned-out by the relentless DIRECT 2.0 fanataics. There may be some sound ideas and thoughts floating around that are not so far out in left field.

I have heard from several people who preface their message with, "I am not a proponent of DIRECT 2.0, but here is my problem with Ares (I or V)......................."

Healthy disagreement about the chosen designs and the general VSE architecture is one thing, but the primary core activists of DIRECT 2.0 have been wandering through Fantasyland. (apologies to Walt Disney)

Although it is far too late to cancel Ares I, it would be nice to hear a fair, public discussion about possible alternative proposals to Ares V and the VSE.

The official reports coming out of NASA still indicate that Ares I is still on track and running inside the margins. DIRECT 2.0 has totally disappeared from credible media coverage. Their brief splash in a second-tier, but othewise fine newspaper, quickly dried up and faded into oblivion. If it were not for InsideKSC and their own effort to keep their fantasy alive through NSF and other DIRECT web forums, nobody would be talking about DIRECT 2.0 at all.

[Andrew]

The official reports coming out of NASA still indicate that Ares I is still on track and running inside the margins.

Jim, I am shocked. Those reports from NASA are obviously falsified! Ross Tierney tells us that all the time! Why, Ares is "going to hit a brick wall" as he keeps telling his NSF disciples week after week after week and that it's going to be canceled any day now! Well, after the next President is sworn in. Okay, after the next President has time to look at the situation. No, wait...it's after the mid-term elections for the next President. Hmmm, maybe Ares will be canceled [insert new theory here].

Maybe Ross doesn't know what he's talking about! Nah, that would be too simple, wouldn't it? And, yet, many continue to believe the model builder from another country over our own space agency.

-Andrew

[J.McDonald]

I think the problem is that we're all going in circles round each other.

If I may take the liberty of paraphrasing:

'Dissenters': here are some technical reasons why I prefer EELV/Direct/Other to Ares I and/or V.
'Non-Dissenters': the decision has already been made, NASA chose Ares, and nothing is going to change that now.
'Dissenters': But what about the technical issues?
'Non-Dissenters': They can be solved. Why question a decision that was made four years ago?
(continue ad infinitum...)

Personally, as a borderline on-the-fence possible dissenter myself, I'm starting to find it all a little frustrating. Like I've said on other threads, there are some interesting arguments in favour of an approach other than the one that was chosen. I'd like to know how much water these hold. Yet so far, in several posts, I've not had much in the way of technical answers to them. Instead, the replies have questioned people and motives. That's not what I'm interested in.

There seems to be a very strong anti-Direct feeling among certain people here- 'stake through the heart' talk and suchlike. I wonder if these same people can actually answer my questions, if they feel so strongly on the issue.

[JimMcDade]

Repeated, unrealized predictions of imminent doom, soon followed by new predictions of imminent doom are characteristic of all doomsday hoaxes. The doomsday predictions are essential to maintaining the vitality of a conspiracy hoax such as DORECT 2.0. There are always new suckers who stumble upon the latest startling predictions and then join up, but the conspiracy old heads are unable to withdraw from the conspiracy theory in spite of the repeated credibility setbacks resulting from the failed predictions. They are in too deep to withdraw. They just keep hoping either something catastrophic will happen to make it appear that their fantasy actually came true, no matter how tangental that calamity is, or that people will just eventually walk away and forget that they were once suckered into a cult of belief. Sad.

[Andrew]

Repeated, unrealized predictions of imminent doom, soon followed by new predictions of imminent doom are characteristic of all doomsday hoaxes. The doomsday predictions are essential to maintaining the vitality of a conspiracy hoax such as DORECT 2.0. There are always new suckers who stumble upon the latest startling predictions and then join up, but the conspiracy old heads are unable to withdraw from the conspiracy theory in spite of the repeated credibility setbacks resulting from the failed predictions. They are in too deep to withdraw. They just keep hoping either something catastrophic will happen to make it appear that their fantasy actually came true, no matter how tangental that calamity is, or that people will just eventually walk away and forget that they were once suckered into a cult of belief. Sad.

Jim: I don't think that is what J.McDonald wants. He wants hard facts to counter DIRECT because he isn't satisfied with the hard facts that NASA has already released with their prior analysis of DIRECT. Thus, he wants some sort of magic "Non-ITAR" genie to provide him more facts and information other than what has already been released by the Agency.

Am I right, J.McDonald?

Fair enough, but it's going to be impossible to "prove a negative," I think.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be difficult, J.McDonald. I just worry that you aren't ever going to be satisfied to the degree you want.

-Andrew

P.S. If you want to lay out your questions one-by-one again, feel free. Just don't be insulted if the result still doesn't meet with your satisfaction!

[Rick]

I think the problem is that we're all going in circles round each other.

If I may take the liberty of paraphrasing:

'Dissenters': here are some technical reasons why I prefer EELV/Direct/Other to Ares I and/or V.
'Non-Dissenters': the decision has already been made, NASA chose Ares, and nothing is going to change that now.
'Dissenters': But what about the technical issues?
'Non-Dissenters': They can be solved. Why question a decision that was made four years ago?
(continue ad infinitum...)

Personally, as a borderline on-the-fence possible dissenter myself, I'm starting to find it all a little frustrating. Like I've said on other threads, there are some interesting arguments in favour of an approach other than the one that was chosen. I'd like to know how much water these hold. Yet so far, in several posts, I've not had much in the way of technical answers to them. Instead, the replies have questioned people and motives. That's not what I'm interested in.

There seems to be a very strong anti-Direct feeling among certain people here- 'stake through the heart' talk and suchlike. I wonder if these same people can actually answer my questions, if they feel so strongly on the issue.

John,
I was hoping that this particular thread would concentrate on the non-technical aspects of the Ares/Direct debate, but that's ok too.

I am not anti-Direct. I am pro-NASA.a pretty big distinction in my mind.

As I wear a NASA badge with pride where I work, I choose to believe a space agency that has just celebrated its 50th year anniversary, rather than a group of people that have been trying to alter the course of Ares for two years.

I know this too will not satisfy your continued curiosity, but that is my take on a situation where Direct has taken , aggresive arrogant stance against an organization that has had a proven track record for five decades.

I choose NASA and its expertise. to get us where we need to go.

[J.McDonald]

Perhaps the technical aspects are better addressed in the thread I started ('It Had Me Convinced...')
I'm not sure that proving a negative is what's needed, though. I have been asking about specifics and getting generalities in return. Even trying to get anybody to agree that a smaller version of Ares-V (i.e. J232) would be cheaper to develop is like getting blood out of a stone, when frankly it is blindingly obvious to me that a smaller version of the LV will be cheaper.
Anyway, since I've said that personalities, motives, et. al. are not my thing, I'll not spend too much more time in this thread and will direct my questions elsewhere.

John

[Andrew]

Even trying to get anybody to agree that a smaller version of Ares-V (i.e. J232) would be cheaper to develop is like getting blood out of a stone, when frankly it is blindingly obvious to me that a smaller version of the LV will be cheaper.

John:

"Blindingly obvious," eh? Well, if that is your position, then it is like trying to prove a negative. Since you are going to return to the other forum you started concerning your technical questions, let me ask you this:

If it's "blindingly obvious," why don't you think NASA is going for a smaller version of Ares-V. Not looking for a technical answer...just curious about your thinking.

For now, I'm outa here! Gotta get ready to see UGA destroy Central Michigan tomorrow ! Ya'll have a super weekend.

-Andrew

P.S. John, where are you located, BTW? You ever been down for a launch?

[Andrew]

I am not anti-Direct. I am pro-NASA: a pretty big distinction in my mind.

Well said. And with some in the higher echelons of the "Project DIRECT" speaking of incompetence, conspiracy and intentional decisions to destroy manned spaceflight on the part of the 9th Floor at HQ in D.C., it's easier to see how people in your position would take the vitriol DIRECTers spew with a dim view.

-Andrew

[Rick]

Perhaps the technical aspects are better addressed in the thread I started ('It Had Me Convinced...')
I'm not sure that proving a negative is what's needed, though. I have been asking about specifics and getting generalities in return. Even trying to get anybody to agree that a smaller version of Ares-V (i.e. J232) would be cheaper to develop is like getting blood out of a stone, when frankly it is blindingly obvious to me that a smaller version of the LV will be cheaper.
Anyway, since I've said that personalities, motives, et. al. are not my thing, I'll not spend too much more time in this thread and will direct my questions elsewhere.

John

John,
With the most due respect, I will tell you that in my case anyway, its not my job to defend NASA's technical decision making. I.believe you should be contacting them directly, and the engineering staff that have released their response to Direct. As you've seen on multiple occasions here, I have been concentrating on other factors that have impacted NASA's decisions. It appears that for some reason no one that "is on the fence" or those that oppose Ares, seems to want to discuss.

[Me2]

John,

I know this too will not satisfy your continued curiosity, but that is my take on a situation where Direct has taken , aggresive arrogant stance against an organization that has had a proven track record for five decades.
.

That track record includes Challenger, Columbia, X-33, HST, X-34, SLI, OSP, X-38, etc. What is common in most of these? MSFC, an organization that hasn't designed a launch vehicle in more than 30 years.

It is not just Direct that has taken such a stance. There are many others in the agency

[Rick]

Really.

Please name the individuals in the agency that feel the same way as your rogue movement does.

I am betting there are 57 of them.

[Rick]

I had a pretty good feeling I would not receive a response to my question to the post above.

Is it because it is a secret, or because there aren't any that support the anti-stick position of any note?

[Me2]

Really.

Please name the individuals in the agency that feel the same way as your rogue movement does.

I am betting there are 57 of them.

1. There are plenty of people that have nothing to do with Direct and most don't even know that Direct exists that are against the Stick
2. Actually there are more than 57, but they nor I am a part of Direct.
3. They are at KSC, the people you refer to (the 57) are mostly at MSFC and JSC
4. They are not shuttle workers nor do anything related to the shuttle or ISS, yet they know more about launch vehicle design than shuttle workers (or even MSFC).
5. Since you are at KSC, you should know the organization that they are part of.
6. Years ago they raised objections and pointed out problems with the ESAS but were ignored. Since they have no dog in the fight (they have tasks and a future that are independent of the shuttle and the Ares), it didn't matter and they have no reason to do anything career limiting.

[Andrew]

1. There are plenty of people that have nothing to do with Direct and most don't even know that Direct exists that are against the Stick
2. Actually there are more than 57, but they nor I am a part of Direct.
3. They are at KSC, the people you refer to (the 57) are mostly at MSFC and JSC
4. They are not shuttle workers nor do anything related to the shuttle or ISS, yet they know more about launch vehicle design than shuttle workers (or even MSFC).
5. Since you are at KSC, you should know the organization that they are part of.
6. Years ago they raised objections and pointed out problems with the ESAS but were ignored. Since they have no dog in the fight (they have tasks and a future that are independent of the shuttle and the Ares), it didn't matter and they have no reason to do anything career limiting.

WHO are they, again? Because I think that was the question.

-Andrew

[Me2]

NASA civil servants and contractors. I am not going to reveal names.

[Andrew]

NASA civil servants and contractors. I am not going to reveal names.

Of course not! You're just going to tantalize us with allegations about what they think. Okey dokey.

-Andrew

[Me2]

Of course not! You're just going to tantalize us with allegations about what they think. Okey dokey.

-Andrew

Ask anyone who worked OSP