JIS - 7/1/2008 10:37 AMQuotepad rat - 7/1/2008 3:10 PMI voted #4, but I don't like "Direct". Nor do I like Ares. In fact, I don't even like ESAS and think it's very likely that the lunar missions will be canceled by either the next or some future administration.Why I don't like Direct:1) Supporter's assertions - it will cost *this* much, it will fly by *this* date. Designs at this stage of development simply cannot make such statements of fact, particularly if NASA is involved. And before anyone protests that no such claims have been made, go back and read some of the strident statements made by some in the argument for "Direct". A lot of them sure sound like guarantees to me. Can "Direct" work? Sure it can, it's not revolutionary. I think you should have voted 3) as you raised a serious doubt about DIRECT numbers. I think we can't count you as a true believer.
pad rat - 7/1/2008 3:10 PMI voted #4, but I don't like "Direct". Nor do I like Ares. In fact, I don't even like ESAS and think it's very likely that the lunar missions will be canceled by either the next or some future administration.Why I don't like Direct:1) Supporter's assertions - it will cost *this* much, it will fly by *this* date. Designs at this stage of development simply cannot make such statements of fact, particularly if NASA is involved. And before anyone protests that no such claims have been made, go back and read some of the strident statements made by some in the argument for "Direct". A lot of them sure sound like guarantees to me. Can "Direct" work? Sure it can, it's not revolutionary.
clongton - 7/1/2008 3:45 PMQuoteI think you should have voted 3) as you raised a serious doubt about DIRECT numbers. I think we can't count you as a true believer.JIS. What are you doing? You don't ask somebody to vote and then critisize what they choose. You created option 1-3 and pad rat didn't like them. Period.
I think you should have voted 3) as you raised a serious doubt about DIRECT numbers. I think we can't count you as a true believer.
pad rat - 7/1/2008 4:14 PMI voted for this:If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changesThe numbers I doubt do not change the technical viability of the system. It can work as presented as there is nothing revolutionary about the concept. I just doubt the cost and IOC date projections.......
JIS - 7/1/2008 5:28 PMI think that costs, schedule and technical feasibility are equally important for architecture success.
kevin-rf - 7/1/2008 8:34 AMQuotebad_astra - 7/1/2008 9:30 AMDirect is a good, grassroots idea. It needs to be refined and completed by NASA. I don't know that it will, but then anything after Nov this year is guesswork. I'll go with option 4.01-20-09, after that it is anyone's guess.
bad_astra - 7/1/2008 9:30 AMDirect is a good, grassroots idea. It needs to be refined and completed by NASA. I don't know that it will, but then anything after Nov this year is guesswork. I'll go with option 4.
tankmodeler - 7/1/2008 1:31 PMHaving worked as an aerospace engineer for 20+ years, if Ross, Chuck, Steve, & the Team have actually been carrying 20-50% margins for some cost & performance variables, then Direct has a real chance of coming in within the time & budgets presented. Sure things may not be exactly as presented by the time a Jupiter program actually flew, but intrinsically, it will be closer to the mark than Ares will be to the proposals made when it was started. I've worked on enough programs where, because of a bad choice early on, or additional requirements added too late, you are continuously trying to put 10 pounds of fecal matter in the 5 pound container. These programs always have the same feel to them: the continuing chasing from one problem to another, the never-quite-getting all the boxes ticked at the same time, the steady decline in capability and performance, the one solution causing a new and different problem, lack of margins too early, the erosion of real mission requirements. Not to mention the steady drift in schedule & budget. They have a consistent feel that is evident even from a distance. Ares I exhibits this syndrome in spades.Option 4. It makes sense. Direct makes sense. Ares I doesn't.Paul
TrueGrit - 7/1/2008 1:31 PM Ares I is a mistake driven out of the Columbia investigation that improperly blamed launching crew & cargo together (had nothing to do with the failure). .
Jim - 7/1/2008 2:13 PMQuoteTrueGrit - 7/1/2008 1:31 PM Ares I is a mistake driven out of the Columbia investigation that improperly blamed launching crew & cargo together (had nothing to do with the failure). .It wasn't due to Columbia, it goes back to Challenger. And separating crew & cargo is a good rule, where the cargo is not related to the crew's mission, (just like Challenger)
mike robel - 7/1/2008 4:00 PMAfter due thought, I had to vote for I am not qualified to offer an opinion. BUT, as I have learned that most proposals change after they are accepted by the government, I have to think that current option 4, it would need major changes to be accepted by NASA is most likely.
savuporo - 8/1/2008 1:55 AMQuoteMATTBLAK - 7/1/2008 1:51 AMAnd it's for this reason that many of them are keeping quiet -- they may not actually lose their jobs for speaking out against Ares 1I have nothing against DIRECT, and voted for it, but this sounds awfully like a conspiracy theory, which i have become to dismiss immediately, unless some solid proof is supplied.Without any actual evidence of voice suppression in this matter, i would guess they are quiet because they feel theres nothing to shout about.
MATTBLAK - 7/1/2008 1:51 AMAnd it's for this reason that many of them are keeping quiet -- they may not actually lose their jobs for speaking out against Ares 1