I don’t know how many of you have actually read the Direct v2.0 AIAA pdf* but it seems to me it’s the alternative that retains most jobs. It also retains contracts for the same companies that have gotten contracts for the ESAS/Constellation approach. I.e. Direct v2.0 introduces a minimum of political and contractual noise while supplying an approach that is much more practical and feasible than the present ESAS/Constellation implementation.

The EELV and/or COTS alternatives do not retain most of the workforce however the Direct v2.0 seems likely to be so much cheaper that it frees up more than necessary resources to utilize either or both of those for LEO missions/ISS and then in addition have enough left over to take the pressure off the rest of NASA and the rest of the VSE.

Does anyone know whether the Representatives have been thoroughly briefed on this solution? Someone should also brief them on the current laudable efforts of John Benac & co at http://www.actionforspace.com (linked in John’s comment further up).

* Click my name to go to the Direct website and it’s available in both high and low resolution right there on the front page.

READER: No, NASA should focus on developing lunar hardware and leave the launching to existing solutions. CEV ? Fine, there is no commercial option on the offer right now, so build it, but make it fit on and launch it using existing launchers on market.

And for chrissake, start working on the actual lunar hardware.

I think this is where the real space policy debate should be focused. It would be wonderful if this was the core debate.

NASA should be focused Beyond Earth orbit, and should hand off LEO immediately (e.g. COTS and ISS crew/cargo services), on hand-off other space transportation needs as much as absolutely possible.

I think the Aldridge Commission was saying this.

– Al

With a website dedicated to enabling would be space activists to move on their representatives, rather than paying membership dues to some organization and hoping that they do it for them, We can get more pressure on the representatives to know and do what we want them to do.

http://www.actionforspace.com

Why does it always seem to degenerate into an either-or question? We need both.

Both ideas are crap, and we need to do everything we can to encourage them to get over the idea that space vehicles must be own by Nasa to be serious. In fact, I’d argue we’d be much better off if Nasa didn’t own the vehicles at all.

Point being – don’t argue for CEV or shuttle – argue for something better.

Ferris correctly points out:

Charles said: “We have the option of either spending additional money on Orion/Constellation or Shuttle.”

Ferris said: “Charles, those most certianly are not our only options. The options available to us through Commercial space should not be so quickly cast aside – ”

And I do agree with Ferris – the commercial option (flying some derivative of Delta or Atlas or a newish vehicle) would be much better than either of the two options that I discussed. However I did not want to extend an already long comment; I was attempting to analyze the shallow conclusion of the Senator from Florida.

Charles

We have the option of either spending additional money on Orion/Constellation or Shuttle.

Charles, those most certianly are not our only options. The options available to us through Commerical space should not be so quickly cast aside – indeed, I’d rather Nasa take a budget cut, lose the shuttle, and end CEV/Ares I if the remaining money was redirected at things like Dragon, Dreamchaser, Arctus, and many of the other commerical spacecrafts being pursued. We are much likelier to see them fly, more often and at a reduced price, than shuttle or CEV.

I stand by that statement.