Doug Cooke (via Orlando Sentinel): "We value an open and robust debate of the technical and programmatic trades, ..."

Really? When?

Doug Cooke (via Orlando Sentinel): "... but key decisions on Orion and Ares concepts were made in 2005"

... based on assumptions now demonstrated to be invalid.

There may well be some valid reasons why the DIRECT concept is inferior to the one NASA has chosen. Show us, in an open and robust debate.

I have known Doug Cooke on a professional and personal basis for nearly 15 years. You have performed a significant disservice to integrity when you imply that he is basing his statements on his opinion alone...bad on you.

Editor's note Then Doug et al can provide the results of these studies and either prove that I have done a "disservice" as you suggest - or that he has.

I find it strange that they say that Jupiter will be unable to maintain a long term presence on the Moon, when all of the data I have seen have shown otherwise.
Now maybe if Doug would be so kind to show us the data that proves his point...however, I am pretty sure that data will only show that Jupiter is the way to go.

At this point nobody can be sure of the truth of either side.

The Direct guys aren't asking for much, just an independent review completely outside the influence of NASA management.

So why doesn't Congress instruct Rand Corp to do a completely independent evaluation of the technical merits of the Direct concept vs Ares, completely outside the influence of NASA management and lets get to the truth once and for all.

Instruct the GAO do a completely independent evaluation of the financial elements, completely outside the influence of NASA management.

Then with both technical and financial comparisons in-hand Congress would have some real data with which to make its decisions for a change.

Right now Congress has no oversight of NASA's activities what-so-ever. Nobody can really tell whether Ares is really best or if Direct might actually have found something important.

Without some sort of independent oversight Congress is running blind.

Some of the Direct folks had their FOIA's requests ignored.

Notice Doug Cooke only refers to '"direct" variation' and '"direct"-like concepts.' without ever specifying the particular launch vehicles as described in the Direct 2.0 proposal? He could be refering to almost anything.

Surely with all NASA's resources, he can provide a clear breakdown of the issue. The above imprecise statement would possibly be true if one used the bigger J-232 for ISS, and the smaller J-120 for the moon. But that's the exact opposite of what's proposed.

Obfuscating the issue is unworthy of NASA's proud history.

It appears to me that an independent review by GAO and perhaps an outside entity (RAND perhaps -- Corporation not Simberg) to offer a public and transparent apples to apples comparison of DIRECT 2.0 vs ESAS vs EELV options etc . . .

Perhaps a decision was made in 2005 and originally I thought the 4 segment RSRM plus SSME stick was a nifty solution.

But that did not work out, in part perhaps because the Administration did not fund NASA at levels consistent with its mandate. For the last three years Bart Gordon (D-TN) has been saying the same thing every spring -- Not enough money for NASA! -- with the Republicans in Congress standing by their POTUS and refusing to appropriate more money.

That alone is a sufficient reason (IMHO) to re-visit the entire architecture debate notwithstanding paint shaker issues, Ares VI issues and 5.5 segment issues rather than a safe simple soon 4 segement with SSME stick and early deployment of Ares V.

Since NASA (as in Management ) has so much confidence in its decision process and self adulation of their engineering prowness, let them ( Griffin, Cooke, et al ) be the first crew to fly on the Ares

Anon: So why doesn't Congress instruct Rand Corp to do a completely independent evaluation of the technical merits of the Direct concept vs Ares, completely outside the influence of NASA management and lets get to the truth once and for all.

The trade space is much broader than just the current Ares I/V and Direct concepts. It should also include EELV derivatives and COTS-based systems.

I agree that such an assessment could benefit NASA's exploration strategy by getting it on a more doable course. However, the impact may be very short-lived, since the new Administration will most assuredly want to reassess priorities and goals of the U.S. space program sometime next year.

Perhaps this could be one of the first achievements of the next Administration, to reassess space goals and quickly get our civil program on a more balanced course for meeting access to space requirements in the future.

Alternative headline:

"Too many cooks spoil the broth"

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

Good evening,

I really liked the story. I like that you have filed a Freedom of Information Request with NASA. I do not think that you will get a response, but I remain hopefull. I have filed and I am still waiting.

You call the people who are sponsoring Direct as "Direct Fan Boys..and I think that your ideas are half baked". As a journalist and person you are intitled to your reasons. Have you ever read the proposals, done interview(s) with the people behind Direct with an open mind? Maybe both the "Direct Fan Boys" and yourself could learn from each other? Tell them as a person, what you think is wrong technical/fiscally, etc with their models/assumpations. They may/may not surprise you. How does calling each other names improve any concept or produce printable news?

I am not saying that Direct is sliced bread, but why not give them benifit of the doubt until you have more information?

Editor's note: Oh yes, I have read their stuff.

Hey Keith,
In your next FOIA request please ask for the cost of sending a Navy fleet to recover the new Orions now that they are landing in the ocean. I'm sure that this system is going to be SOOO much cheaper than the shuttle...

As long as some NASA personnel (and others) continue to "Swift Boat" the "DIRECT" people and their concept, this will set a bad precedent for *ALL* Ares alternatives to be looked at. Whether or not the Jupiter/Direct concept is best for the future: they deserve a FAIR hearing. Mind you, under the current "Spock" regime, EELV alternatives never really got a fair look-in, either.

Editor's note: "Swift boat"? Yet another example of "DIRECT" Fan Boy arm waving.

From reading Doug Cooke's letter, it looked to me as if he was refering to the ESAS study rather than any new investigation. IIRC, ESAS included a concept similar (though not identical) to DIRECT. This would explain the repeated use of inverted commas when refering to "Direct" or "Direct"-like; Doug does not seem to be talking about DIRECT at all, but rather the ESAS version of a similar concept.
ESAS traded this "Direct"-like architecture against other architectures, including a concept similar (but no longer very similar) to the Ares I/V approach, as well as EELV-base approaches. Taking into account the many detailed differences between "ESAS-direct" and DIRECT, and between ESAS-Ares I/V and the current baseline, ESAS would not seem to be a very useful tool in comparing the two current concepts.
Saying that, I am still of the opinion that NASA needs to stay the course with Ares I/V rather than switch to DIRECT. Ares I/V has problems, but so does any development programme. If you divert resources to constant architecture trade-off studies every time there's a design change, you will never get off the Earth.