Total Members Voted: 315
Quote from: heroineworshiper on 02/02/2010 06:03 pmInteresting that all the Direct supporters now support shutting down the lunar program completely. What the heck would make you think that? It's almost certainly untrue.As a DIRECT supporter (sort of), I voted no in this poll, but I'd still like to see a shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle being stacked in the VAB, rolled out on the MLPs and crawlers, and launched from LC-39 a and b. And, yes, I'd like some of these launches to have people on them destined for locations beyond Earth orbit.
Interesting that all the Direct supporters now support shutting down the lunar program completely.
but not the launch pads because of Ammonium Perchlorate contamination.
Quote from: heroineworshiper on 02/02/2010 06:03 pmbut not the launch pads because of Ammonium Perchlorate contamination.No such thing. That is not hazard
Quote from: vt_hokie on 02/02/2010 05:20 pmI said yes, because I think a sensible, pragmatic restructuring (perhaps along the lines of DIRECT) makes a lot more sense than throwing away a national treasure and betting everything on the private sector, with no set goals or timetables and hence no way to measure failure or success. Last time I checked, economic theory says companies measure success or failure the old fashioned way: profit. Unlike governments, which can spin results whatever way they wish, companies go out of business if they don't provide value.Unless they are GM [Government Motors], of course.
I said yes, because I think a sensible, pragmatic restructuring (perhaps along the lines of DIRECT) makes a lot more sense than throwing away a national treasure and betting everything on the private sector, with no set goals or timetables and hence no way to measure failure or success.
There is something that is really bothering me- and it is that people are committing the same mistake with this new direction that they did the last time... and the time before that.They are assuming that this "plan" will come to fruition and judging it based upon that assumption. Given history, what is more likely: that a) commercial space will take the reigns and lead us back into LEO within a reasonable budget and before the touted 2017 IOC of Orion/Ares, or b) we will be back here again on this very same forum discussing NASA's redirection from some new blue-ribbon planel in 2016 appointed by the newly elected GOP executive branch because this current realignment of focusing on R&D has failed to bear fruit?
{snip}We need a goal.
There is something that is really bothering me- and it is that people are committing the same mistake with this new direction that they did the last time... and the time before that.They are assuming that this "plan" will come to fruition and judging it based upon that assumption.
Dissapointing to see the voters throw away 50 years of Apollo hardware. The VAB, Saturn launch pads, crawler transporter, launch control centers, orbiter processing facilities, & basically the entire North half of KSC is going to be shut down. They may allow visitors inside the VAB but not the launch pads because of Ammonium Perchlorate contamination.Interesting that all the Direct supporters now support shutting down the lunar program completely. Do any Americans still think individual thoughts or do they just copy whatever the latest ruler says?
Maybe it'd be easier to swallow if we were asking the commercial sector to provide transportation beyond LEO rather than just to LEO. I think people are getting sick of waiting for us to move beyond ISS!
Quote from: Lee Jay on 02/02/2010 06:07 pmQuote from: heroineworshiper on 02/02/2010 06:03 pmInteresting that all the Direct supporters now support shutting down the lunar program completely. What the heck would make you think that? It's almost certainly untrue.As a DIRECT supporter (sort of), I voted no in this poll, but I'd still like to see a shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle being stacked in the VAB, rolled out on the MLPs and crawlers, and launched from LC-39 a and b. And, yes, I'd like some of these launches to have people on them destined for locations beyond Earth orbit.I look at this as having a silver lining, by pushing so much of this on contractors, NASA could encourage more frugally designed HLV options. While I'd *like* a DIRECT rolling out, I'd still cheer on a 7-core Delta heavy, or a Falcon 99 Superheavy.
Nope. This is a completely different approach.Suppose someone was going something crazy, over and over again, and expecting different results. Then, one day, they stop doing the crazy stuff, and try a rational approach.THAT'S what going on here.NASA has done the Big State Project approach many times and failed. Now, they are doing something different. You are assuming that the purchase of commercial space transportation could fail, because NASA has failed so many times before, but this one ain't on NASA.Do you really believe that there is some barrier out there that would prevent private companies from developing more affordable space transportation? If so, please identify that barrier.
No. I am sorry that this will cause some hardship in those working in the industry but I do not believe that we need to "retain the skilled workforce." The problem with the skilled workforce is that it is hard to tell who is skilled. All I know is that at 1.5 billion per launch the shuttle derived hardware can not be all that valuable, and the workers who produce this hardware, no matter how skilled, are too expensive.I am so thankful that CxP is cancelled becuase now there is a real possibility of open competition. The Direct guys should no more than anyone how frustrating it can be when an organization with so much power is sullied by special interests. I welcome the new Mercury 7 over Griffin's pork barrel jobs program.
As a DIRECT fan, I celebrate this decision, for it follows the DIRECT program, even if it does not the vehicle within it.
Quote from: Downix on 02/03/2010 01:25 amAs a DIRECT fan, I celebrate this decision, for it follows the DIRECT program, even if it does not the vehicle within it. Well I, for one, welcome our NewSpace overlords. (sorry. couldn't resist) I think DIRECT phase 3 would have been the ultimate "Constellation" architecture. A good mix of prudent design with commercial opportunity. I'm just not very confident this new direction will lead to anything tangible - it all feels very cancellable to me. If something like Boeing's ACES-based lunar architecture is chosen - that would be fine. But if all they are going to do is spread the money to little startups like Sierra Nevada, then it's just a stunt. Why don't we sign up Kistler one more time?