:::scratches Head:::::: why don't we just use the Saturn V design , we know it works, sure update the LM and CM electronics but we do have a known working design...

All I can say is "unbelievable."

When a person / entity / organization begin(s) to believe its own press; i.e: "I am Michael Griffin, I am smarter than all of you, and I won't consider any alternatives to a plan that I know will fail," it is clear to me that Griffin is lighting the match that burns our ships in the harbor of history.

Precisely demonstrating why our government is failing us, Griffin will not do the right thing by this nation, and consider the merits of Direct v2.0.

Considering the estimates of Direct v2.0's payload capability of 30 metric tons minimum to LEO, and 200 metric tons to the Moon easily eclipsing Ares I and V analogs, we must ask why NASA refuses to take another look at the Direct v2.0 potential.

It is time to ask our elected officials to step-up-to-the-plate of responsible leadership, and demand an apples-to-apples review of the launch vehicle strategy of the Constellation program.

I am writing all of my elected officials in DC tonight, and I challenge the readers of NasaWatch to do the same.

If we don't challenge this situation, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Of course, maybe like Mike Griffin, we just want a position and a paycheck, and do not care what happens to our civilization after we are gone from the "big picture."

One last point: Griffin likes to compare himself to the character “Spock” in Star Trek.

Spock would never sacrifice Enterprise, or
Starfleet, for his own personal agenda or gain.

Think about it.

This argument over paper rockets is obnoxious. We have the rockets we need to explore the Moon and beyond today, right now, sitting on the pad. The Delta IV and Atlas V along with our international partner's fleet offerings can do everything that civil, military and commercial space want.

A "launcher neutral" policy opens up the Solar System faster, better and (in volume) cheaper. It also enables new players (SpaceX, etc) to participate as their vehicles come online. This requires verboten things like staging in LEO and propellant transfer depots, but those issues are trivial compared to the cost and delay (decades) while waiting for these new "One Solution to Rule" rockets.

On top of all this, the vendors have offered to cover the costs of man-rating or building the long-duration packages for their upper stages.

I must confess when I first read that AIAA brief I wondered what those guys were smoking. Fuel storage and transfer on orbit? Not only is that a new technology, it's a whole new space operation - lots of risk there. Nothing wrong with dismantling the existing launch pads they're 30 plus years old anyway, so the use of existing infrastructure is moot. I could go on - it's a dumb plan.

Have faith in the NASA guys, they know what they're doing - or will you all wring your hands all the way up to the first successful flight and then say "yeah but..."

We're not trying to resurrect the Saturn 5. We're trying to resurrect the Soviet N-1.

Ares VI; why not? Six 1st stage engines are better than 5 ... 5 solid rocket segments are better than 4. Back in the late 1970s, Saturday Night Live paradied Gillete's then new twin-blade razor with a fake commercial for a 3-blade model. Years later, there are now 3, 4, and even "Mach 5" 5-blade razors. To paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard in one of the Star Trek movies, there are plenty more Roman numerals ...

In-space fuel transfer & storage new technologies? I'm pretty certain the Russians have been doing them both for nearly thirty years! [They've been doing automated docking for even longer.]

Without these "new" technologies, we may as well go back to the Saturn V. Without in-space refueling (among a few other capabilities), we'll be severely hampered with a 1960s-style throw-away-as-you-go architecture all the way out to Mars...assuming we ever get that far. Such an antiquated self-limiting approach makes even sustained lunar operations doubtful.