I've said it before in other threads -- I have two good friends who are (fairly) senior personnel at JSC and they reiterated to me again only recently that they and many of their colleagues believe that ARES 1 is a joke and a Kludge. I Quote: "An almost fetishistic design by someone who should have known better -- Ares 1 has little or no chance of working as advertised".
Also, at Fuddruckers Restaurant not all that long ago, I ran into an ex-Shuttle Astronaut whom I hadn't seen in 11 years and had a good conversation with him. He had some business at JSC that afternoon. When I mentioned Ares 1 as a concept, he just rolled his eyes...
Look: any Ares 1 supporters out there (outside of NASA) who bash 'Direct' and other alternatives -- how much more anecdotal evidence do you really need, that this thing, Ares 1, is a dog? It barks, guys!! Don't you get it?! This is from the horse's mouths, from people with Phds in Engineering -- people who design spacecraft and systems for a living. People who work and walk the halls of one of NASA's most important centers. And 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, but they may very well become pariahs, at least under the current regime, or miss out on promotions etc. These people have kids in college and mortages -- they don't want to jeopardize these things.
If something isn't done soon to improve the prospects for a new crew launcher system, then the next Presidential Administration, particularly one gentleman, will cancel America's Return To The Moon. For those of us who have pushed for decades for humans to leave Low Earth Orbit....
The consequences are too dire to stomach again. God help us...
Nathan - 7/1/2008 12:21 PMThe question is invalid. Belief is not required, only objective study.
Indeed, is the word "belief" intended to mean "support" or perhaps even "trust" (as in do we trust the numbers in the proposal)?
The question is not useful so I decline to vote or add voting options.
William Barton - 7/1/2008 12:21 PMLook at it this way: Jupiter 232 would not be harder or more expensive to develop than Ares V, and would be ready sooner because there's no need for Ares I.
kraisee - 7/1/2008 7:22 AMNo real surprise, but I voted "If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes".BTW, William - you bring up an excellent point - EELV CLV's. I think they're a good idea. I've said on more than one occasion that there is room for them along-side DIRECT. I would like a human-rated launch architecture covering each of the 20mT, 50mT and 100mT realms. That would give us the maximum possible flexibility for the 21st Century.Ross.
JIS - 7/1/2008 8:20 AMQuoteWilliam Barton - 7/1/2008 12:21 PMLook at it this way: Jupiter 232 would not be harder or more expensive to develop than Ares V, and would be ready sooner because there's no need for Ares I. Agree 100%.There won't be much difference between Jupiter 232 and Ares V if ever developed. They are very similar launchers.The difference is that Ares V needs somewhat more development and can deliver more cargo. NASA has chosen Ares V/1 approach because they believe that a LOT OF CARGO IN SINGLE LAUNCH is needed for the Moon and Mars. NASA also believe that Ares V derrived vehicle (Ares 1) will result in VERY SAFE launcher.DIRECT delivers less cargo and less safe vehicle. For less money??? We don't know. ESAS says no (overall architecture and capabilities) and there is no other reliable source (if you don't believe "rumour factory").If this NASA belief fails in LOT OF CARGO IN SINGLE LAUNCH or VERY SAFE launcher than all architecture collapses.
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.
rumble - 7/1/2008 1:45 PMThe options basically read like this:1) Direct is BS2) Direct is GOLD and is flawless3) Direct is seriously flawed 4) Direct is a good proposal but needs to be refined before blueprints can be drawn.Easy. Option 4.
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
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.
2) Do we need it? I don't think so, because it forces a continuation of the NASA manned spaceflight paradigm. NASA needs to divest itself of its self-imposed requirement (belief?) that only it can operate human launch services. Commercial alternatives exist, or would exist if given a chance by NASA. Maintaining a NASA launch capability for the sake of preserving some jobs is just plain stupid in the grand scheme of things. The weight of that workforce is holding back what the US could achieve if it allowed industry to do what industry does best, and stuck to doing what government should do.