kraisee - 16/1/2008 3:37 PMHahaha. Shows they haven't even bothered to look at the paper - its 131 pages! -Ross.
kraisee - 16/1/2008 12:37 PMHahaha. Shows they haven't even bothered to look at the paper - its 131 pages!EDIT: Just to be 100% crystal clear, I'm not actually trying to be insulting to Seattle Dave - it genuinely made me laugh in a humerous way. All I could think was underestimating the size of the largest AIAA paper in history by 40% deserved a "missed a bit" line! Perhaps I should have added a smilie to show I mean no offense: Ross.
Space101 - 18/1/2008 7:46 AMAnd don't give me that "They'd lose their job if they said so." You can't get sacked for opinions on a message board.
Space101 - 18/1/2008 7:46 AMI voted 3 ("If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul")This is a fun study, and has its cheerleaders, but only from armchair engineers. This site has bus loads of NASA and USA engineers on here and you try and find one who'll back Direct as a good idea. And don't give me that "They'd lose their job if they said so." You can't get sacked for opinions on a message board.
Space101 - 18/1/2008 7:46 AMI voted 3 ("If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul")This is a fun study, and has its cheerleaders, but only from armchair engineers. T
clongton - 18/1/2008 6:55 AMQuoteSpace101 - 18/1/2008 7:46 AMAnd don't give me that "They'd lose their job if they said so." You can't get sacked for opinions on a message board.Oh yes you *CAN*. And not just this board either. I am personally acquainted with several persons who lost their jobs for *EXACTLY* this reason. You need to take off your rose colored glasses and look at the real corporate world. It can be ugly. Especially if the man at the top is a bully.
Yegor - 17/1/2008 3:33 PMTotal votes 49.1. 1 Vote - (2%). DIRECT is just amateur study without any indepth analysis:3. 6 Votes (12.2%) If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul: 4. 37 Votes (75.5%) If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes: 5. 1 Vote (2%) I am not qualified to offer an informed opinion:9. 2 Votes (4%) DIRECT is better than Ares I/Ares V: 10. 2 Votes - (4%) This whole thread is based on one person's negative bias. What a joke. It's beneath this forum. No valid question: 1. DIRECT is just amateur study without any indepth analysis: 1 Votes - (2%)1. JIS3. If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul: 6 Votes (12.2%)1. CFE (I'd like for NASA to adopt the basic concepts behind DIRECT)2. Kaputnik (I really like DIRECT, and I think the basic idea of it is inherently better than the Ares designs)3. PaulL4. CEV Now5. Verio Fryar6. Seattle Dave4. If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes: 36 Votes (75.5%)1. MATTBLAK2. kraisee3. John Duncan4. rumble5. monkeyb6. spacediver7. bad_astra8. savuporo9. pad rat10. Giovanni DS11. Quintus12. fcrec13. TrueGrit14. tankmodeler15. JonSBerndt16. imfan17. marsavian18. HIP2BSQRE19. Steven Pietrobon20. jongoff21. luke strawwalker22. texas_space23. brihath24. Lampyridae25. veedriver2226. Norm Hartnett27. jml28. Lee Jay29. DLK30. clongton31. mattrog32. pierre33. Scotty34. C4NP35. anonymous113836. imcub37. Yegor5. I am not qualified to offer an informed opinion: 1 Vote (2%)1. davo-g9. DIRECT is better than Ares I/Ares V: 2 Votes (4%)1. William Barton2. Trever (I believe the J-232 to be superior to development of Ares 1 & V)10. This whole thread is based on one person's negative bias. What a joke. It's beneath this forum. No valid question: 2 Votes - (4%)1. rsp12022. Nathan
Jim - 18/1/2008 7:10 AMQuoteSpace101 - 18/1/2008 7:46 AMI voted 3 ("If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul")This is a fun study, and has its cheerleaders, but only from armchair engineers. TIncorrect. Many NASA and USA engineers do