Even though House and Senate appropriators are moving ahead with bills that provide modest funding increases for NASA, some organizations are still pressing Congress for a much larger budget increase. Yesterday a group of organizations led by the AIAA formally asked Congress to increase NASA’s budget by $1.4 billion, about five to ten times the increase that currently exists in the two versions of the appropriations bill. That increase would bring NASA up to its authorized level, and would mitigate the current problem of NASA “being asked to accomplish too much with too little.” The organizations also play the education and competitiveness card, citing “a shrinking workforce in the science and engineering disciplines, and a calamitous decrease in the number of students choosing to carry on this commitment in the future.” (The House letter and Senate letter are posted on the AIAA public policy web site.)
Interesting tidbit of information but it is often a good idea to step back and look at the forest rather than individual trees.
Two points – where does the additional money come from? What program are they gonna cut, DoD?? Hiighways and bridges?? There is no where to cut – so they should be honest and admit that this would be additional deficit spending. On top of the enormous debt we are piling up today.
Second point – what is a Moon mission (let us not even talk about Mars right now, we don’t have anywhere near the technology to survive a two way trip to Mars) going to cost and will we have the budget to buy the whole thing?? If we do not have the budget to buy the whole thing then are we buying a Moon trip or are we buying a new launch vehicle/system that we will soon find an actual use for? Perhaps just to go back and forth to the Station with – as long as the Russians will permit us.
So – wouldn’t it be good to hear the Congress and NASA and whoever tell us that: they propose additional deficit spending to buy a vehicle and when we have it we will figure a use for it!! That is what they are actually asking for. Sadly I have to point out a hard reality.
With any luck, by the time the Orion (what ever it turns out to look like) is actually in test, we will see the Virgin Galactic ships routinely flying. Possibly working on stopping at a Bigelow orbital hotel after that.
And we can look forward to flying on commercial spacecraft while we try to decide how to pay for all of the deficit spending from several years ago.
But seriously, with the federal budget bitterly contested, we may be looking at another year on the continuing resolution. Maybe we will have an actual budget in a couple of years.
Charles
who does not post this lightly or with any glee
Yes, Charles, cut DoD. It’s about time we put our future ahead of destructive imperial fantasies.
Space exploration, particularly manned space exploration, has always been a Nationalistic endeavor which is primarily lead by the President along with those in the legislators that directly benefit. Add a few nationalist here and there throughout the country and that’s your core space support group in Washington not counting the lobbyists/companies also on the receiving end of NASA funding.
In addition both the Senate and House oversight committees will generally promote higher budgets for NASA due to the local benefits in their respective districts. No big surprise, they wouldn’t be doing their jobs if they didn’t do this. Put another way would a representative from North Dakota lose is job over not bringing home the next round of farm subsides or Ares-1 funding? While even the rep in North Dakota will still have NASA supporters in his district (for Nationalistic reasons) he won’t lose an election over Ares-1 on way or the other like he would from not winning farm subsides. That’s why the President is the natural place where Nationalistic support across America is accumulated for NASA. If the President is AWOL than NASA loses a vital component of its broader support base.
In addition, while the NASA committees obviously help produce the NASA budget requests for vote in the Senate and House the fate of whatever budget they produce is ultimately determined by an interaction between the President and the broader House/Senate leadership. With the President AWOL and a “less†Nationalistic leadership in control of the legislature, the prospects of a fully funded NASA VSE program doesn’t look good until we get a positive change in both branches in 2008 and even then the money won’t start to really flow until 2010.
That means the oversight role of the NASA committees is even more important than usually over the next 3 years because inefficiencies in approach can not be mitigated by more money in the present environment. This is why the only solution to this problem is to work on a different approach that achieves the objects of VSE within the currently constrained budget. Approaches like DIRECT. The solution must come from inside the Space community not by placing our hopes on those outside the Space community.
Mike’s current “go as you pay†plan works for digging ditches and filling them up again as well. In fact more money applied to this approach just moves more dirt faster. Efficient utilization of whatever resources falls out from the political process is always a good idea, in good and bad times.
Stephen Metschan: “This is why the only solution to this problem is to work on a different approach that achieves the objects of VSE within the currently constrained budget. Approaches like DIRECT. The solution must come from inside the Space community not by placing our hopes on those outside the Space community.”
Huh? Mike Griffin only listens to Congress when he has no choice – and he does so because they control his budget and can pass laws that make him do things. Why is he going to listen to you are anyone else inside “the space community”? Do you control his budget?
Hate to break the news to you but the current architecture is Mike Griffin’s personal concept. He does not take – or listen to – external technical advice.
Oh yes – no one is going to pay much attention to “DIRECT” when it exists only as a website with only one person’s name on it i.e. a guy who sells rocket models.
The current budget climate in Washington is vaguely reminiscent of 1973 when Nixon was in deep political trouble with Congress along with an unpopular war percolating through American society. Nasa got a bastard then with today’s Space Shuttle and Nasa may well find Congress similarly inclined to short change its endevors with VSE, Orion and launch vehicles even if Nasa executes its plan to perfection.
If Griffin is wrong about the CLV and Orion, god help Nasa when they go back to Congress with version 2.0.
Keith: “Huh? Mike Griffin only listens to Congress when he has no choice – and he does so because they control his budget and can pass laws that make him do things. Why is he going to listen to you are anyone else inside “the space communityâ€? Do you control his budget? “
That’s not how it works.
The NASA Administrator and staff works directly with Executive and Legislative branches and they work with him. His job is to make sure he can technically execute on a plan that fits the budgetary and political objectives of the Executive and Legislative branches. Mike is not some Moses come down from the mountain with “thou-shalt build the Ares 1&5 as the almighty has configuredâ€.
The directions that he was given in the law that authorized VSE is more vague and closely follows the Aldridge report namely;
1) VSE must be Sustainable over several decades with regular, visible demonstrations of ongoing progress and success.
2) VSE must be Affordable not requiring huge peaks in annual funding or significant decreases in other important NASA initiatives.
3) VSE’s implementation plan must represent a Credible stewardship of the taxpayer’s dollars that leverages the current infrastructure and workforce whenever possible.
On those points NASA’s currently plan receives failing markers across the board. At some point the NASA legislative committees and the executive branch need to start exercising their fiducial responsibility in overseeing this whole affair debacle before it gets worse.
Keith: “Hate to break the news to you but the current architecture is Mike Griffin’s personal concept. He does not take – or listen to – external technical advice. “
Concerning the current architecture and Mike this is exceedingly old news. Where he broke faith with those that appointed him was his original direct derivative of the STS is now only superficially based on STS. Concerning external technical or any other advice for that matter that is the focus of his problems. He is surrounding by at least two levels of management that fire or threatens any messenger with bad news, problems or other ideas that could solve those problems.
All failed leaders have this in common. Whether Mike is as personally insular as his administration’s actions would indicate I would not know. He clearly though has surround himself with people that place their own egos and power trips above the best interests of the American space program.
Keith: “Oh yes – no one is going to pay much attention to “DIRECT†when it exists only as a website with only one person’s name on it i.e. a guy who sells rocket models.â€
Is saying that E=mc2 more correct from Einstein than me? Is it not true regardless?
You might want to brush up logical fallacies in debate specifically;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Back to the real debate, is there anything wrong with the DIRECT proposal? Unlike NASA we want to solve problems not hide from them.
Or is debate just going to revolve around the assertion that NASA has never been just plain dead wrong from time to time. How dare we mere mortals question the all knowing NASA?
While we’re on the topic of the omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence attributes of NASA, can NASA design a CEV heavier than a NASA designed Ares-1 can lift it?
The current budget climate in Washington is vaguely reminiscent of 1973 when Nixon was in deep political trouble with Congress along with an unpopular war percolating through American society.
You might throw in the deficits attending a war run on top of big tax cuts (cf Vietnam + the Kennedy-Johnson cuts). Some of us have been suggesting this since VSE was rolled out.
I don’t think that STS would have been a whole lot better had NASA received its full request in 1973 — even that was absurdly lowballed. But we’re agreed on the general principle that given anything like typical overruns and delays, ESAS is a dead man walking.
Steve: I don’t know where you live – but I have been here in Washington for 20 years. Hate to break the news to you but things do not happen the way you think they do with regard to NASA, Congress, and WH. Not even close. Its a game with people working off of their own agendas and listening to – or ignoring – everyone else as they see fit.
As for the Direct thing – its just Powerpoint engineering with a rocket model hobbyist’s name affixed.
Oh yes, one other thing: I have email from you a few months ago wherein you dumped on the whole Direct idea – and that your idea was better – now you support Direct? I am confused.
Keith: “Steve: I don’t know where you live – but I have been here in Washington for 20 years. Hate to break the news to you but things do not happen the way you think they do with regard to NASA, Congress, and WH. Not even close. Its a game with people working off of their own agendas and listening to – or ignoring – everyone else as they see fit.â€
Over the last 5 years I’ve been in DC about 20 times, the traffic flow almost makes sense to me now
Concerning their own agendas I agree 100%, why would it be any other way? That is precisely why DIRECT works for the legislators and ESAS doesn’t. Mike’s plan has everyone sitting on their thumbs for five-seven years or massive layoffs take your pick. If he really drops the ball we’ll get both.
I’m working of my own agenda as well which is to construct a program that can actually achieve VSE within my life time. Given that I was two years old when Apollo 11 happened it would be very pathetic indeed if it didn’t happen again within a normal person’s lifetime.
Keith: “As for the Direct thing – its just Powerpoint engineering with a rocket model hobbyist’s name affixed.â€
DIRECT has a positive lunar margin NASA has admitted it has negative lunar margins even before PDR (big no no ). What NASA is doing is doing an only the fly reduction in the mission requirements until Ares 1 can work. Of course DIRECT can follow right along with lower cost and time approaches. I also don’t envy the designers of Orion or Ares-I as they chase the requirement of the day around.
What is your point? Please stick with the facts. A 2xHLV solution is going to have inherent advantages over NASA’s one and a half plan. It seems to me if your going to bite the bullet in going with a two launch lunar architecture you shouldn’t have such different vehicles. Double your launch rate using a common vehicle, increase your total mass in orbit by +30% all while at a lower upfront and long term cost sounds like a win win to me. Oh and keeping a bunch of NASA centers and contractors doing what they do best which isn’t sending them to unemployment line or having them sit on their hands.
Concerning PowerPoint that’s all you can do when NASA is busy burning piles of money that should be directed at building up from what they have in STS by fielding the Jupiter-120. Which is a true STS derived vehicle with lots of margin to lift Orion plus is directly upgradeable to the Jupiter-232 Lunar 2xHLV architecture with little alteration of manufacturing, assembly and launch infrastructure. The Ares plan doesn’t even come close to any of this. Not all STS derivative plans are created equal.
Once again what’s with the ad hominem attack. What do you have against model builders? Were you in terrible plastic model glue accident?
We are really trying to work real problems within the proposal and have received tremendous insight on how to do this right by those who think the emperor is stark naked. Some of those people are actually rocket scientist who work for NASA and its contractors they just have this thing called a job the want to keep. They are also patriots who don’t like to seeing billions of dollars go up in flames and want America to succeed at achieving VSE. After publishing the letter about the threat filled environment at NASA I would think you would understand that of which I speak.
Keith: “Oh yes, one other thing: I have email from you a few months ago wherein you dumped on the whole Direct idea – and that your idea was better – now you support Direct? I am confused.â€
Please resend me the Email, I checked everything I have ever sent to you and can’t find one “dumping†comment. Our respective proposals, AIAA Space 2006 and Direct V1, had a lot in common specifically when you look at the entry level STS derived vehicles in both proposals. By working together on Direct V2 we have produced an even stronger proposal. All made possible by working the problems and building on the advantages both our proposals had as opposed to denying problems and threaten all those who dare question whether the emperor has clothes or not.
Again, besides the fact that you don’t like model builders, is their anything factually wrong with the V2 overview posted on the DIRECT web site?
I really want to know how a Powerpoint presentation without any named authors – except a model builder – is going to have the earth shattering effect y’all seem to think it is going to have.
Oh, and please don’t wave the ‘patriot’ angle at me especially when they won’t use their own names …. yawn.
“I really want to know how a Powerpoint presentation without any named authors – except a model builder – is going to have the earth shattering effect y’all seem to think it is going to have.”
DIRECT 2 and Jupiter 120 deserve more credit than this. They are the effort of many man-hours of current and retired NASA employees and contractors, working in their free time to develop a solution to fix NASA’s ESAS problems. (Something Mr. Cowing should especially appreciate.) They leverage many of the same analytical tools used in ESAS. They identify and call out particular hardware combinations that ESAS completely overlooked. The lead writers of the proposal have demonstrated considerable technical, budget, and policy depth in very lengthy threads over at nasaspaceflight.com, like this one:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7868&posts=994&start=1
If independently confirmed, they could shave years off the post-Shuttle gap, produce a lunar-capable lifter from the get-go, free up funding to restore lost science missions and aeronautics research, and do so with Shuttle-heritage hardware that actually has heritage. In an earlier version, they earned the review and critique of ESAS lead Doug Stanley and even forced ATK to post a response on one of their lobbying websites. (A proposal that forces the competition to post arguments against it is arguably the definition of a reasonably, perhaps dangerously, credible proposal.)
I’m all for calling out pure PowerPoint/Photoshop proposals and engineering as such (e.g., Marano’s incessant postings on Transterrestrial Musings and HobbySpace).
But DIRECT is not that. We shouldn’t paint all grassroots efforts to fix the VSE the same color. I have no time or ego invested in DIRECT, and am agnostic as to what should or will have to replace ESAS/Ares/Orion, whether it’s DIRECT, EELV, or a flying saucer. But credible proposals like DIRECT 2/Jupiter 120 deserve a fair hearing, especially in Washington.
My 2 cents… FWIW.
Don’t bring in this shuttle gap nonsense, If NASA and congress really didn’t want an ISS transportation gap they’d have LM strap a small capsule onto an Atlas 401.
Keith: “I really want to know how a Powerpoint presentation without any named authors – except a model builder – is going to have the earth shattering effect y’all seem to think it is going to have.
Oh, and please don’t wave the ‘patriot’ angle at me especially when they won’t use their own names …. yawn.â€
Keith, Step 1 ) Go to http://www.directlauncher.com/
Step 2) Select the “Proposal†tab (3rd down on the left)
Step 3) Download the proposal by selecting the “DIRECT_V2.02.pdf†link
Step 4) Read the authors list on page 1
Would it make you happier if we signed with the statement like “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor†?
Given that you posted this recent slice of heaven below surrounding what it is like to dare question the dictates of the self-anointed at NASA you should be well aware of this.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/05/petty_politics.html
I’m having a hard time understanding why you can’t draw the connection between DIRECT vs ESAS like you obviously can for other leadership problems at NASA?
Again, besides the fact that you don’t like model builders, is their anything factually wrong with the V2 overview posted on the DIRECT web site?
By the way the extended DIRECT team is 98% Model builder free if that helps
Most of our team is composed of those pesky logical Engineers who like things they design to actually work as advertised.
The Washington beltway Mandarins will need a few more years to realize that not all expertise resides within their own ppt docs. Its that pesky Web that AlGore invented, its enabled hordes of other very bright people go global with funding, expertise, ideas and manufacturing. With Washington, its never hard to figure out what they’re thinking as they work towards contract awards(feed the primes). Can’t say that about Bigelow, a discount hotelier that now has two operational space stations in orbit. Who would have predicted that 5 years ago? Anybody care to predict what Rutan is up to? Anybody imagine that Musk would be preparing both an automotive challenge to Toyota and GM while challenging Boeing, LMT and the Euro’s with low cost launchers aimed directly at their businesses? The debate about VSE is interesting, but to my eyes, even if it fails, there will be plenty of shock and awe as the private world starts making money sending people into orbit or elsewhere.
Look, I have been posting things provided by anonymous sources (not anonymous to me BTW) for a decade. I understand the whole ‘risk my job issue’ rather well. But I have to say, based on that experience, that when I see something like this Direct concept where there is ABSOLUTELY NO ONE associated with it – by name – except a guy who sells toy models of rockets, I really have to wonder why.
If sooooo many people have contributed to it – and it is soooo technically astute and sexy, why is NO ONE willing to take credit for it – or at least lend it credence by virtue of association – even in closed-door, behind-the-scenes interactions?
I am all for shuttle-derived options and still wonder why a Shuttle-C issue was dismissed so early – but a concept that exits only online in Powerpoint (or PDF) with no authors leaves me wondering if the basic, technical underpinnings are accurate.
Kieth: “I am all for shuttle-derived options and still wonder why a Shuttle-C issue was dismissed so early – but a concept that exits only online in Powerpoint (or PDF) with no authors leaves me wondering if the basic, technical underpinnings are accurate.â€
Keith please read the authors list. Are we not “Authors†with “names� If you prick us do we not bleed:) Trust me, others at NASA are absolutely scared to death about having their names on document that makes so much sense. As they should be. I don’t even want to know their names just their professional advice on our ideas. That’s all.
There is the PowerPoint statement again. What would you have us do? NASA is already in the process of burning the money we would use to actual pull this off. If it helps we also use the same key tools NASA uses for ascent and mission planning. Oh and spreadsheets, word documents and pdf’s. You know the same format NASA uses to distribute their ideas that show negative margins even before PDR. I would love to be cutting metal on an approach with positive margins before PDR that works within the budget and closes the American access to space gap right now, but until legislators figure out that Mike’s has their precious districts on a path over a cliff it won’t happen. There are a few rays of sunshine on this front but this takes time as you know not the least of which is the NIH factor. In the end we are taking a sack of groceries to a tank fight. Hey it worked in Tiananmen square maybe it will work inside the beltway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tianasquare.jpg
All we are attempting to do is to get the powers that be to evaluate what the best STS derived approach is. If Rand, CBO, OMB and NASA were to do a direct assessment of DIRECT vs ESAS we would come out on top by every measure possible, cost, time, safety, extensibility, performance etc. I agree this would have to happen before DIRECT would ever be implemented as all ideas that we implement as Nation should be honestly evaluated by organizations with that charter to advise those that spend the taxpayers dollars.
.
We are only suggesting that Mike’s 1.5 plan is not the only nor the best STS derived approach we could pursue as a nation to get America out of LEO and off to the Moon and Mars.
Rand, CBO, etc. aren’t going to be asked (i.e. paid) to do a study about this Powerpoint document if they do not know who developed it and how they developed it. Where are the engineering studies, etc?
Kieth: “Rand, CBO, etc. aren’t going to be asked (i.e. paid) to do a study about this Powerpoint document if they do not know who developed it and how they developed it. Where are the engineering studies, etc?â€
That’s what Rand, CBO, OMB and NASA do at the request of the Executive and Legislative branches. NASA spends more in one day going in the wrong direction than this study would cost altogether. John Houbolt had a little unpopular idea once called Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. You may have heard of it? It was ultimately studied “officially†after his initial (1960s PowerPoint equivalent papers) in greater detail by the actual mission planners. And surprise surprise surprise the found out that even an idea that is outlined in on paper can be in fact true in all its detailed actual implementation in the real world.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/monograph4/splash2.htm
It’s actually an interesting read on how it takes more than just a good idea to overcome a bad idea held by the experts as the only way to do something. It also takes a little pressure. For NASA it was that their plan couldn’t put someone on the before the end of the decade where as his could.
“Do we want to go to the moon or not?â€
John C. Houbolt – November 15, 1961
Question posed in Letter to Dr. Robert C. Seamans Jr, NASA Associate Administrator
I wonder what Mike’s answer to that question would actually be. More to the point “is the Ares-1 more important than going to the moon?†It’s all too likely we will only get to develop “one” vehicle after STS. Why not make it a vehicle that is actually a direct derivative of STS and can actually do more than what we have had to work with for the last thirty years, which is less than 25mT to orbit? Pretty much what all other space capable countries, and the list is growing, can do.
Enjoy your fantasies…
That’s why we are doing this. We don’t “enjoy” watching NASA’s current “fantasies” go down in flames fueled by burning plies or our tax dollars intend for a program that is vital for America’s self-image.
You’re a very confused person given what you post about NASA on NASA watch but disagree with me here. Maybe you’re not real Keith Cowing
Okay, what have you done with him? Or am I talking with the Keith Cowing’s evil alter ego 
You can get off your soapbox now.
The difference between the DIRECT team and Houbolt is that Houbolt was not afraid to put his name and identity on his recommendation. If the DIRECT team really wants to get serious about this, they need to come out of hiding and really push it. Otherwise, it will be dismissed just as Kieth stated.
Yes, it would be ideal for them to hide their identities and let you and the non-NASA/non-Contractor employees remain anonymous, but you must not be trapped in idealistic thinking when dealing with stubborn people.
Typo correction:
I meant – “Yes, it would be ideal for them to hide their identities and let you and the non-NASA/non-Contractor employees be their representatives, but you must not be trapped in idealistic thinking when dealing with stubborn people.”
Keith: “You can get off your soapbox now.â€
Okay Keith, we have established that you don’t like soap boxes or model makers but is their anything wrong “specifically†with the Direct V2 overview?
Destinationspace: “The difference between the DIRECT team and Houbolt is that Houbolt was not afraid to put his name and identity on his recommendation. If the DIRECT team really wants to get serious about this, they need to come out of hiding and really push it. Otherwise, it will be dismissed just as Kieth stated.â€
Step 1) Go to http://www.directlauncher.com/
Step 2) Select the “Proposal†tab (3rd down on the left)
Step 3) Download the proposal by selecting the “DIRECT_V2.02.pdf†link
Step 4) Read the authors list on page 1
And we are pushing it as best we can.
Destinationspace: “Yes, it would be ideal for them to hide their identities and let you and the non-NASA/non-Contractor employees be their representatives, but you must not be trapped in idealistic thinking when dealing with stubborn people.â€
All that will do at this phase is get the few people with common sense within NASA and its contractors working directly on VSE fired. I don’t think any solution to this problem starts with getting rid of clear thinkers. Do you?
It’s not their job in the present environment to dare challenge the all knowing NASA leadership. That oversight role is for the Legislative and Executive branches. My prediction is that if the FY08 NASA budget gets shot down in flames by the broader Legislature the NASA oversight committees will begin to look for other ways to protect their districts within the limited budget. Which will necessarily start with cutting out absolutely everything that is not necessary to transition the current STS into an inline HLV, i.e. the bare bones Jupiter-120? From that point we will be in a position to add an upper stage one more engine to get to 2xHLV that puts more mass in orbit than the Ares 1/5 plan.
a modest recommendation if you really want Direct to be heard about more and considered. Partner with NSS, SFF or some other larger organization, and work through them.
Let them print flyers and smuggle them into NASA centers. Ask questions about Dv2 on “ask the administrator” corner. Get some interviews with mainstream aviation/space media.
None of this costs any significant money, and can be done without harming anyones careers.
Just maintaining a website and endledds threads on forums wont get any serious traction.
Rand, CBO, etc. aren’t going to be asked (i.e. paid) to do a study about this Powerpoint document if they do not know who developed it and how they developed it. Where are the engineering studies, etc?
Well, they certainly haven’t asked me.
Oh, you mean RAND.
<voice=”emily litella”>
Never mind…
</voice>
No “Rand”, he was trying to get you some consultancy work
Kert: “a modest recommendation if you really want Direct to be heard about more and considered. Partner with NSS, SFF or some other larger organization, and work through them. Let them print flyers and smuggle them into NASA centers. Ask questions about Dv2 on “ask the administrator†corner. Get some interviews with mainstream aviation/space media. None of this costs any significant money, and can be done without harming anyones careers. Just maintaining a website and endledds threads on forums wont get any serious traction.â€
Kert, thanks for the advice we have some of this beginning right now. We tried to get a write up in Aviation Week but they said it was too controversial. We received strong indications that they would get pressure from the big NASA contractors via advertising revenue via NASA strong arming them to do just that.
Every single contractor is running scared of NASA right now so they are generally waiting for the table scraps to drop on the floor after Mike covers his head count. I put even money on Commercial Human Space Flight industry beating NASA to delivering a crew to a space station at this point using 1/20 the money no less. Imagine if this happens in combination with serious problems with Ares-1 and negative Lunar margins across the board for the whole plan. The negative margins NASA is running with at this point in the design definition is unprecedented.
I think Lockheed/Martin felt it could get away with helping this Commercial effort once they were selected as the prime for CEV development. At least some American’s will be going into space after the Space Shuttle retires they just won’t be out of JSC.
This is why NASA is not playing to its strength with the Ares-1 by dumbing down of the STS. It makes more sense to build up from what they have now into an area that the ELV’s can’t touch, and form their defense of STS against ELV’s from that basis. The Jupiter-120 (2x the payload 4x the volume) of the best ELV could also do a number of exciting unmanned missions as well with out going over board in terms of spacecraft/mission cost like what the Ares-V would entail.
Kert, should this be in parallel or before the committee efforts? Our thinking was that until we get a major beltway group, OMB, CBO, Rand etc. to review the basic concept nobody is going to touch the idea for reasons the Keith doesn’t articulate well but are none the less fundamentally correct with how that town works. You don’t get access to those groups though unless the Executive and/or Legislative branches give you access. And they only grant that if they think the answer will benefit their political objectives.
So the order of operations as I understand it is.
1) Get the behind the scenes political support district by district.
2) From this the Executive and/or Legislative committees official request, Rand, CBO, others? and OMB (WH) do the studies.
3) After the official anointers and determiners of all things good in Washington agree that DIRECT is significantly better than ESAS the Executive/Legislative branches officially require that NASA together with Rand, OMB, CBO, others? evaluate the proposal.
4) All the news articles start up with “leaks†in parallel with this internal effort to help prepare the unwashed masses for the shift.
5) DIRECT becomes the new approach spun within the context of a limited budget and the Jupiter-120 is called the Ares-2 (for two engines) and the Jupiter-232 the Ares-3 (for three engines). The Ares-5 is still “offically” on the table for Mars but most likely will never be built because the Jupiter-244 (Ares-4) can deliever more payload to orbit. It’s a win win for everyone.
Aviation Week was just being polite to you with regard to your powerpoint presentation.
Keith: “Aviation Week was just being polite to you with regard to your powerpoint presentation.â€
No, you are incorrect. I know this for a fact. Not even you can be at all places at once Keith.
Let’s make this a little simpler. Have you even read the Direct V2 overview?
I know the Av Week folks rather well (there are things such as email and phone which allow human interaction, you know), and yes I read your powerpoint document.
Your document is being seen as an interesting cartoon around Washington.It sparks discussion, to be certain – but so does Doonesbury.
You guys need to take the next big leap and put something out with names, and data. THEN I and others will start to take the powerpoint thing more seriously.
Keith, now we are getting somewhere. Would a +80 page technical paper published at AIAA Space 2007 help? A paper that is internally reviewed by about 20 engineers on the inside and outside of the NASA?
Where is the paper? Who are the authors?