DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[Me2]

1. PS- The ULA CEO Michael Gass was almost as shaky as Metschan when he had his turn at the podium. he also had incomplete numbers at had and could not explain some key aspects of his proposal. It appears that the 2014 fly date for a man-rated EELV was just pulled out of the air. The cost claims and risk numbers were also questionable.

2. The vast majority of the actual Ares I engineering community living in the Huntsville area are perplexed by the strange commentary coming from unidentified Space Coast residents who claim to be "insiders" in the Ares I project. There are not that many engineers working at KSC who would be in a position to authoritatively comment on the progress, or lack of progress, with Ares I.

3. Meanwhile, back in the real world...

1. Who says they are questionable? You? You don't have the knowledge to make such a call or even an opinion on it. Your comments are just as biased as you say the Direct people are. ULA's numbers were validated by NASA in 2005. 2014 is easily achievable and has a lot of pad. That is more than 4 years.

2. How would you know? There are many organizations* at KSC (not to mention engineers) that are in a position to authoritatively comment on the progress, or lack of progress, with Ares I. The data is readily available. There are status meeting all the time. Every change to the vehicle has an impact on the launch site.

*The CxP liaison office, the MSFC resident office, the launch vehicle processing office (they are doing shuttle and will do ARES), the Launch Services Program (who have been consulting MSFC)

3. The real world doesn't include Aerospace's report, NASA give them bogus initial conditions. The report still bit NASA in the ass because it said that Orion on Delta IV is doable.

The cost savings are even more, see the EELV thread.

[Me2]

1. First off Me2... it is "von Braun" with a lower case "v"

2. and that said, his team basically invented modern rocketry after building on the Goddard early steps.


3. Your statement that there is no need for partial vehicle testing today is your opinion as an individual. Let us all keep that clear- it is ONE person's opinion. In the case of the Ares I, it is a fact that a large team of engineers say that there IS a need to test in this manner and their management agrees- thus it is funded, being stacked and is going to launch.

1. Not at the beginning of a sentence.

2. Incorrect and an urban myth. Von Braun's team only invented modern rocketry for NASA and somewhat the Army. JPL invented it for the rest of the country. Contrary to popular belief, Von Braun's team was not involved in the development of all rocketry in the US. He was just the most visible and vocal. Atlas, Thor, Titan, and Navaho were developed without von Braun's team.

3. An opinion held by many and not just me. Incorrect, there were a bunch of manager that said there was need for an admiral's test to show "progress". The need for Ares I-X (especially at its cost) would not survive an independent review.

[klydemorris]

1. Not at the beginning of a sentence.

Doh! Ya' got me on that one Me2! Nice shot.

[Rick]

Why not? Can't NASA, or preferably an independent body, dust off NLS and see if it works?

I think the perception by the anonymous people ( I say people, as there is no proof that any of them are engineers) working on Direct exudes paranoia, due to their distrust of their employer(s), evidently.

It's not a good place to start to obtain the trust of NASA, in my opinion.

[Rick]

That is why they are Direct/EELV supporters because they think Ares is not a positive.

I don't think that is the case at all. I believe for the most part they frown upon NASA, as they aren't the ones stacking a launch vehicle in the VAB, or infrastructure changing in preparation of Ares, and not their preferred design.

Whether anyone considers Ares a positive or a negative, that's a personal opinion, and everyone has one.

[Rick]

1. Way offbase and incorrect. Von Braun team did not know rocket science (large vehicles and clustering) at the time. Saturn I was to develop engine clustering techniques. It was not to support the development of an operational vehicle. That changed mid stream in its development.

Saturn I and Titan weren't the only partial launches, it was everyone until the Minuteman. Atlas A has no sustainer engine, Vanguard used Viking single stage engine. That was also the reason for the Thor, it wasn't anymore than a first stage.

There is no need for of testing of partial vehicles after the early 60's, see Delta IV, Atlas V, Pegasus, STS, Saturn V, Minuteman, Peacekeeper, Midgetman, Pershing, Titan II, etc. Once we learned rocket science, partial test launches went to the wayside.

2. There would be no point to that type of test launch, it would be a waste.

All that aside, Ares I-X is still not like the Saturn I test flights. Saturn I never flew with only 4 or 6 out of 8 engines or a portion of the 9 tanks replaced with dummy tanks. That is my real issue with I-X, the 4 segment booster with a dummy segment. I have no problem with the I-Y test with a full up 5 segment booster. The cost of the I-X is not worth the real data that it will provide.

PS don't understand the Titan II comment.

Your definition of "Rocket Science" differs greatly from the ACTUAL definition Me2:

Here's the ACTUAL definition of Rocket Science:


Rocket science is an informal term for aerospace engineering concerning rockets which launch spacecraft into or operate in outer space.
Due to the complexity and depth of this area of engineering (requiring mastery in subjects including mechanics (fluid mechanics, structural mechanics, orbital mechanics), flight dynamics, physics, mathematics, control engineering, materials science, aeroelasticity, avionics, reliability engineering, noise control and flight test.

It sure seems like Ares I-X is performing rocket science to me.

[Rick]

Rick, I understand that you have to work with or live around some of these argumentative people and that you have to be extra gentle with them.

Jim,
I'm not extra gentle with anyone I don't think. I speak my mind, and TRY to be objective at the same time, as this is my site, and don't want to mix my opinions with the site itself, which I am trying hard to keep impartial.

As far as living near or working with them, that doesn't bother me a bit.

[JimMcDade]

1. Who says they are questionable? You?

2. How would you know?

3. The real world doesn't include Aerospace's report, NASA give them bogus initial conditions. The report still bit NASA in the ass because it said that Orion on Delta IV is doable.

The cost savings are even more, see the EELV thread.

1- The members of the Augustine commission, that's who. Go back and listen to the Q&A. ULA' CEO sounded alot like like Spinal Tap singing, "Gimme Some Money" at the hearing. What we saw was a sales pitch, peppered with assumptions and ULA's beliefs that EELV would be faster and cheaper that Ares I. The net savings of switching to EELV appear to be wiped out when Ares V completion is considered. In fact, switching to Delta IV would add "$14.1 billion - $16.6 billion to the cost of developing the Ares V moon rocket", according to a NASA report that neither you or I can confirm or debunk.

If NASA is told to forget about going to the moon and to forget about building a heavy-lift Saturn or Nova class booster, then EELV would be cheaper. That could happen if President Obama reverts to his original stance on human space exploration.

Back to the NASA/ULA disagreement: It does appear that NASA and Aerospace don't trust each other. ULA fed it's preferred numbers to Aerospace when finally given the opportunity. Those numbers differed from NASA's numbers, but that does not prove that NASA's numbers were wrong nor that NASA was conspiring against ULA and EELVs. ULA was implying that Griffin and Cooke were conspiring against EELVs. Can you prove that NASAs internal numbers are not as good as ULA's?

2- I know because what I said is the "ground truth" as Metshcan likes to say. None of this garbage is originating out of the Huntsville engineering team. I will post some workforce allocation numbers later.

3- The Aerospace report has been dismissed as being “wildly off base” by NASA according to some reports. I can't, and you can't prove that NASA is wrong or right. We don't have all of the information required to pass judgment, but perhaps the Augustine panel will find the truth.

You and others assume that the NASA handling of the Aerospace issue is some kind of a smoking gun. You and others assume that NASA intentionally "tricked" Aerospace into supporting their decisions and is guilty of a giant conspiracy. Perhaps it was a mistake, or perhaps it is inconsequential. Let's see what the commission concludes. I happen to think that this is an overplayed card.

Aerospace is an Air Force created consulting firm, that's all. Their word is neither binding or final.

Are you willing to accept the final report of the Augustine commission even if you disagree with the conclusions? I am.

[Me2]

1- ULA's beliefs that EELV would be faster and cheaper that Ares I.

2. The net savings of switching to EELV appear to be wiped out when Ares V completion is considered. In fact, switching to Delta IV would add "$14.1 billion - $16.6 billion to the cost of developing the Ares V moon rocket",

3. . Can you prove that NASAs internal numbers are not as good as ULA's?

4. - None of this garbage is originating out of the Huntsville engineering team.

1. It is also NASA's belief, just not NASA CxP.

2. No, Look at the EELV thread, Ares I is going to cost 35 Billion, there is plenty to be saved that can be applied to Ares I

3. NASA's EELV group validated those same numbers back in 2005 for OSP. The NASA report with numbers was embargo. I know, I was one of the authors of the report and have a numbered copy on my desk.

4. Incorrect, the garbage IS originating out of the Huntsville engineering team. Its engineering products are crappy and subpar. The lack of experience is painfully obvious.

[Rick]

We should be harping on Congress and the President to increase the HSF budget for God sakes!

If the friggin' budget was more than 1% there would be 300 less posts in this thread.

If money is the issue, which it appears to be, do something about it!

[Rick]

Sorry for the frustrated outburst.

We are going round and round about the same issue.

I'd like to shift this conversation ( and I use that term reluctantly) to a constructive reasoning as to why Ares is subpar to Direct, Direct is subpar to Ares.

EELV discussions are beyond the scope of this thread.

Me2, I asked you months ago if you would be interested in moderating the EELV forum. I'd appreciate the courtesy of at least a reply either way.

[JimMcDade]

Rick, you are correct. We are mixing apples and oranges here and it can get confusing.

Me2, can you contact me and provide some specifics from the report that you worked on?

Somebody is making up numbers on these EELV estimates anyway, but nobody here- including Me2- can prove which side is doing the creative accounting. He is apparently involved in some internal agency squabble/grudge and uses InsideKSC as an opportunity to vent his frustrations.

Me2 and I are quoting different sources. My $14.1 billion - $16.6 billion numbers on switching to EELV came directly from a current NASA study, not a 2005 study. Me2 is a Marshall hater to the bone, but that does not make him wrong. He is emotional and insulting at times, but I think he is just plain wrong. I am willing to change my mind if new facts come to light.

Me2's temperament is not helping his cause, so I have to wonder what happened to hurt him so. Me2 should step up to the plate and request an opportunity to meet with his intellectual peers on the review panel on a confidential basis. I would have great respect and admiration for him if he did. He is wasting his time just preaching to inferiors about the evil plot against EELV.

I promise that I won't say anymore about Me2 after this post.

I still want to know if he is prepared to accept the outcome of the Augustine commission or will he keep up his vendetta if things don't go his way.

[Rick]

I think it is more than that. Awhile back, NSF members were instructed to 'avoid my website like the plague', which peaked the interest of non-Ares fans.

That's OK. I think Me2 has a point to prove, and as always, I will accept his or anyone else's.

[winkhome]

We should be harping on Congress and the President to increase the HSF budget for God sakes!

If the friggin' budget was more than 1% there would be 300 less posts in this thread.

If money is the issue, which it appears to be, do something about it!

Money is only part of the problem and we ALL know that if we own up to it or not.

[Rick]

Actually I don't Dale. But that's ok. Since I support Ares, I probably have a bit more insight?

I am waiting to get blasted now since I might actually know what I am talking about.

[JimMcDade]

Lesson from history:

Titan II had terrible thrust oscillation problems and other man-rating issues that required major design modifications for Gemini. The cost of that project just about tripled- from $350 million to more than $1,000,000,000 as a result. That's 1960s dollars!

Ares I is comparable to Titan II in the sense that both boosters were the first to rely on unprecedented propellants for the first stage. Ares I has a solid propellant first stage and Gemini Titan was the first time NASA used hypergolic fueled first stage.

Cost estimates for NASA hardware are almost always way-off on the low side. Even if NASA is now a seasoned space agency after more than 50 years of experience, the cost projections are as bad as they always have been.

We should consider that the present-day aerospace contractors will also see that their estimates are out of line. Will the Augustine panel conclude that it is smarter to cancel an in-progress project such as Ares I- where the cost increase issues and technical issues have been largely nailed down- for the sake of accepting the face value of paper estimates for alternatives that either exist as non man-rated military missiles (as Titan II was) or only exist in a proposal document?

[JimMcDade]

I think it is more than that. Awhile back, NSF members were instructed to 'avoid my website like the plague', which peaked the interest of non-Ares fans.

That's OK. I think Me2 has a point to prove, and as always, I will accept his or anyone else's.

Rick, The NSF ban on InsideKSC is exemplary of the low-brow, mob mentality that governs the Direct forum on NSF. That insular and overly protective directly led to that embarrassing performance by the Direct leader at the Augustine hearing last week. Direct cannot withstand objective review.

We are badly outnumbered and battered, but we will be vindicated by the continuing events.

[winkhome]

Actually I don't Dale. But that's ok. Since I support Ares, I probably have a bit more insight?

I am waiting to get blasted now since I might actually know what I am talking about.

Why do you assume that lack of support = lack of knowledge or lack of insight??

Do I work on the project - no. At the same time I consider myself largely free of the internal piles of "stuff" that often blinds people to the forrest...

I have no desire to blast you. As I have said before, and will continue to say - I appreciate your inside perspective and opinion. How ever - I read a ton of outside stuff - most of it is completely free of any DIRECT influence, and I am lucky enough (I think) to have developed some relationships with some very long term press people that seem to also know what they are talking about - some might view that (they are in the press) as a negitive - but I enjoy information, I enjoy understanding how things work and how things happen and I recognize that we live in a far from perfect world.

Money would help fix things - but money cannot buy us out of some issues - rarely do problems ever have a single solution - that was my point.

So - are you will to say that a simple application of MORE money will fix all the problems of Ares I?

[winkhome]

Lesson from history:

Will the Augustine panel conclude that it is smarter to cancel an in-progress project such as Ares I- where the cost increase issues and technical issues have been largely nailed down?

Mr McDade - what evidence do you have of this?

[Rick]

Why do you assume that lack of support = lack of knowledge or lack of insight??

Do I work on the project - no. At the same time I consider myself largely free of the internal piles of "stuff" that often blinds people to the forrest...

I have no desire to blast you. As I have said before, and will continue to say - I appreciate your inside perspective and opinion. How ever - I read a ton of outside stuff - most of it is completely free of any DIRECT influence, and I am lucky enough (I think) to have developed some relationships with some very long term press people that seem to also know what they are talking about - some might view that (they are in the press) as a negitive - but I enjoy information, I enjoy understanding how things work and how things happen and I recognize that we live in a far from perfect world.

Money would help fix things - but money cannot buy us out of some issues - rarely do problems ever have a single solution - that was my point.

So - are you will to say that a simple application of MORE money will fix all the problems of Ares I?

Ok, lets start at the beginning here.

Dale, I was not referring to you at all in regard to the 'blasting' comment. I've found you more than fair on this website.

Money seems to be everything. If you watched the Augustine Commission on television, funding was a huge part of the equation. It is what it is.

I also respect your knowledge regarding the debate that surrounds choices of launch vehicles. Having said that, I HOPE you are not aware of proprietary information from NASA and its subcontractors. What you don't know, is part of my beliefs that one, Direct doesn't have a shot, although its a good rocket. I do believe its a good alternative to Ares V however.

I'll part from the paranoia of anonymity and tell you that I work for the Boeing Company at KSC, and much of my work is in support of Ares. My other responsibilities include Shuttle and ISS support.

I must say, its refreshing for ANYONE involved in this debate to expose themselves in this atmosphere. Since I work for Boeing, what I know is proprietary, and will not under any circumstances divulge what I know. It's not because I am afraid, or not that do not know what I am talking about, its due to a competitive edge in the bidding process, which by the way, has been going on for years now in the case of Ares.

Having said that, I hope I am given the benefit of the doubt in regard to my statements the last year or so. I'm not fudging facts, and I am not criticizing other people or plans, I am not discounting anything. All I am doing is trying to get across that I am not speaking in a void.

Thanks!