Zachstar - 23/3/2008 11:08 AMYou are either going to have McCain (Extremely Unlikely due to events in the past few years, Only way he wins is Clinton gets the democratic nomination and screws up badly) or Obama (Extremely Likely)So with that in mind perhaps you need to FOCUS these efforts on convincing the Obama Administration that Direct is a VIABLE solution that can be done SOON rather than praying for Ares-V funding later.
Zachstar - 23/3/2008 11:08 AMSo with that in mind perhaps you need to FOCUS these efforts on convincing the Obama Administration that Direct is a VIABLE solution that can be done SOON rather than praying for Ares-V funding later.
Ronsmytheiii - 23/3/2008 11:20 AMHow many MLPs will be modified, and how long will each take? I believe shuttle started out with two MLP's during the 80's while the last one was only finished in the early 90's. For Jupiter-120 flights I can see only needing one at first then maybe a back-up, but with Jupiter-232 dual launches it seems prudent to have three.Edit: Also, I remember there being mentioned using Orion as a servicing platform on the DIRECT side. Have you considered using a modified Strela crane for robotics operations?
kraisee - 23/3/2008 11:06 AMWe would however be targeting a real test flight (call it Jupiter-120-X) for 2 months before the last Shuttle flies . . . Second test flight (Jupiter-120-Y) would be about a year later in 2011.
We need one on the same schedule as Ares-I - handover immediately after the Hubble mission. Ditto for VAB High Bay 3.
copernicus - 23/3/2008 7:04 PMRoss, I am a BIG fan of DIRECT, but I do have one nit to pick regarding language. I have noticed in the DIRECT proposal on your website, and in your entries on NSF, that the term "crewed" is used. Please don't take this personally, but I cringe when the English language is contorted for reasons of political correctness. The proper terms should be "manned" or "unmanned." These are not terms that imply gender-superiority, but, are simply grammatically correct. I also note that NASA uses the term "crewed," but they are part of the political system. If one hears that term, instead of reading it, then it comes across as "crude," which sounds repulsive. Perhaps, however, it may be a good term to use for the Ares-1! It is interesting that the Pentagon still uses the terms "manned" and "unmanned" for their aircraft, e.g. UAV.
copernicus - 24/3/2008 9:04 AMRoss, I am a BIG fan of DIRECT, but I do have one nit to pick regarding language. I have noticed in the DIRECT proposal on your website, and in your entries on NSF, that the term "crewed" is used. Please don't take this personally, but I cringe when the English language is contorted for reasons of political correctness. The proper terms should be "manned" or "unmanned." These are not terms that imply gender-superiority, but, are simply grammatically correct. I also note that NASA uses the term "crewed," but they are part of the political system. If one hears that term, instead of reading it, then it comes across as "crude," which sounds repulsive. Perhaps, however, it may be a good term to use for the Ares-1! It is interesting that the Pentagon still uses the terms "manned" and "unmanned" for their aircraft, e.g. UAV.
cb6785 - 23/3/2008 7:49 PMHow's your plan if NASA decides to proceed with the Ares-I plan, let's say (as a worst case) right up to the point before Ares-I-X and then realizes it won't work and decides to turn to DIRECT? Can you start from this point as you would start from the moment after STS-125 (giving just a delay of 8 month or so) or would bigger problems arrise from the new configurations?
stefan1138 - 24/3/2008 10:26 AMIt seems direct has received some attention with one democratic comentator:http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/22/145022/460/803/482266
Jim - 24/3/2008 9:42 AMQuotestefan1138 - 24/3/2008 10:26 AMIt seems direct has received some attention with one democratic comentator:http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/22/145022/460/803/482266Bill White is a member of this site