Ares I Passes PDR

[Andrew]

6. MSL, MRO, X-37, MER, Chipsat, Juno,

Well, I'm convinced then. We should shut Ares down right now because while NASA says it passed the PDR, you say it didn't. Feel better, guy?

-Andrew

P.S. I do concede your point on the "red-yellow" issue, by the way. I just disagree that there is the equivalent failure "situation" that you speak of.

[Rick]

Rick, These kooks are not going to back-off. Don't let them raise your blood pressure. Just have a laugh and ponder their sad plight.

I have been debunking hoaxes for a number of years. One of the common traits of conspiracy theory hoaxes is the inability of hoax leaders to withdraw their claims and just walk away. When someone gets so far and so deep into a flawed belief system, the personal price for admitting defeat and withdrawal from the cult of belief has grown painfully high.

To admit defeat is to invite stinging ridicule, public humiliation, embarrassment, and all of the other negative things that become indelibly associated with their name. Nobody wants their personal or professional reputation to be ruined when reality overtakes their climb to glory.

It is easier to just continue the fraud and exploit every opportunity to point out "newly uncovered evidence" that the flawed contentions can be vindicated. That newly uncovered evidence is always flawed, of course, but the obsessive drive to find vindication behind any crack or crevice is irresistible.

DIRECT 2.0 is indeed a dead issue as far as NASA and Washington leadership is concerned. The mainstream media, short of the Orlando Tribune and its affiliated newspapers never picked up the DIRECT 2.0 scam. A Google news search illustrates how quickly this hoax faded from the scene. Perform a GOOGLE news search for DIRECT 2.0. DIRECT 2.0 is getting no play in any mainstream media resource. Reality has caught up with and passed this fraud. These guys have been forced back into a few dark corners on the internet.

These guys are still trying to win friends and influence in the US Congress and other government offices. The politicians are probably an easy target, in their view. The political science and law majors who man the front-office of legislative offices are taught to treat ALL visitors with deference and courtesy. They are told to listen to all complaints, no matter how weird or odd those complaints might be. It also helps that those staffers are not engineers or science majors. They have no idea what Ross and Stephan are talking about. DIRECT 2.0 visitors to these offices have know notion that they are just getting the standard "treatment" when those staffers listen as if they were VIP guests.

I can assure you that they have a good laugh when the strange "rocket-man" visitors leave the office. Congress is solidly behind the Ares I program. That support is also bipartisan. The desire to replace the Space Shuttle soon is shared across party lines.

As you and Andrew know, we know a lot more specifics about these clowns than we care to say here. If we had no class we could tell what we know and ruin some reputations. I hope that i don't have to do that.

Jim,
I'm not bothered at all actually. I do get frustrated when I receive the run-around, or non answers.

I do not think that questioning NASA's decision making is a bad thing. I do think that its NOT a good thing not to be able to backup claims, insult administrators, disparage engineers, without providing any proof. Its meaningless to me.

[Me2]

Ares PDR Was Not As Smooth As NASA Says It Was

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...dr_was_no.html

[Rick]

Ares PDR Was Not As Smooth As NASA Says It Was

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...dr_was_no.html

Is this not why they are "Preliminary"? Which is why it's called a PDR?

Your topic in bold, is editorial comment.

I did find the verbatim comments quite interesting though.

Thanks for the link.

[Me2]

Is this not why they are "Preliminary"? Which is why it's called a PDR?
.

there are certain requirements that are suppose to be met at the PDR
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayD...#_Toc159347556

It seems that they didn't meet them. Another proof is that a delta PDR is required

[Me2]

Did Ares I pass PDR?

"The whole PDR was is wash. This is just the tip of a much larger iceberg. A month before the PDR there was a dry-run where the Astronaut Corps, Safety & Mission Assurance and Life Sciences all refused to sign-off. S&MA was bullied into line by HQ, LS folded without a fight and the management of the Corps was persuaded to ignore the rest of the astronauts grievances (many of which were held over since SRR, because they were told Preliminary Design was the time to bring them up, not System Requirements) in return for a promise they would be heard at CDR. It had nothing to do with the pressure from HQ management who told them their management careers were on the line depending on which way they swung and improving ones management career seems to be far more important than actually making sure something's going to work.
And lets not forget the fact that the "Yellow-red" [sic] category has never existed in a major program before. Everything has always been 3 color traffic light. For Ares-I PDR though, we added two new 'intermediary' colors "Green-Yellow" and "Yellow-Red". Our management was then persuaded to dump all 11 of our "Red" problems in the next category down, purely because we can't pass PDR if anything remains in the "Red" and Ares-I's schedule would be screwed if PDR was delayed at all. Just forget about the fact that it doesn't meet the criteria, we need to press on anyways and we're expected to just fix it all later.
........ This is already worse than X-33 ever was. ....."

[Rick]

Just forget about the fact that it doesn't meet the criteria, we need to press on anyways and we're expected to just fix it all later.

Me2,
I am guessing then that your opinion is one of that NASA will not be able to fix the issues that you are presenting? Are you absolutely sure if this?

[Me2]

Me2,
I am guessing then that your opinion is one of that NASA will not be able to fix the issues that you are presenting? Are you absolutely sure if this?

Define fix. Will is be safer, sooner or cheaper than the alternatives? Or will it be a boat anchor on NASA, saddling it with an expensive, redundant launch system that comprises the payload (Orion) requirements reducing its capabilities while using a large portion of the budget

[Rick]

Define fix

Actually, I am asking you, as you used that word in your prior post.

What fixes are you referring to, that cannot and can be 'fixed'.

[Me2]

Actually, I am asking you, as you used that word in your prior post.

What fixes are you referring to, that cannot and can be 'fixed'.

Anything can be fixed given time and money. Will meet requirements? Yes, since they can change them as they see fit and it is happening

[Rick]

Anything can be fixed given time and money. Will meet requirements? Yes, since they can change them as they see fit and it is happening

So, you are implying that NASA is altering factual information?

[J.McDonald]

They already have altered requirements. For example, Orion land landing, Ares-I fault tolerance. Going further back in time, they have even altered Orion's diameter. I see no reason why this process cannot cotinue.

[Me2]

So, you are implying that NASA is altering factual information?

No, I am stating that NASA will make it so Ares I can lift some type of Orion.
Changing requirements includes reducing the crew from 6 to 4

[Rick]

Thanks John for the clarification!

I totally misread Me2's post.



Sorry Me2.

[Rick]

No, I am stating that NASA will make it so Ares I can lift some type of Orion.
Changing requirements includes reducing the crew from 6 to 4

Me2, a subjective answer, but as stated, I misread your original post.