I tell you what and hey I am willing to accept I was wrong if I was. Shannon led the SD-HLV group. It looks like Hanley (unlike what I actually said) made the comment on Sidemount safety. Now if Hanley was working for Shannon then Shannon owns what Hanley was saying. That is management. If Hanley was not working for Shannon then I hereby present my apologies to Shannon. Even though it does not change the fact that Sidemount is not safe for crew.

I told you why I think it is an unsafe vehicle for crew. I’ll repeat it briefly: Unsafe abort on pad, on ascent with adverse pitch and the same issue as Ares-I with still-burning SRBs. Take the LAS away and you change the problem quite a bit. BUT the vehicle I saw did indeed have a LAS. It does not matter in my mind that Shannon or Hanley or anyone said it was unsafe. I will admit to you that it is the only document I had to go by. Is it enough? Maybe not but if NASA one way or another says it is not safe then I think it is enough. Does it agree with my own conclusions? I will probably never know unless they publish the results or if I run the entire analysis. As I said before, it is MY opinion. I also will tell you this: The study you referred to from JSC is far from enough to draw any conclusion on its safety. And NO I am not saying they are lying. I am saying it is not a complete study you can derive any conclusion from. There is a BIG difference. No it is not sophistry.

“Let’s see first you were a bigger expert on HLV than the people doing the research, but now you are not. Then it was crucial that Shannon had repudiated the Side Mount, but now it doesn’t matter that the supposed repudiation came from (former CxP Manager) Hanley and not Shannon. Finally, you are now the new Nostradamus and can predict the future into infinity.”

Okay Joe. Point to me where I said I was a bigger expert. Please do and if I did say so then I’ll accept your comments. In the mean time you should try and consider your arrogance and insulting tone.

“With your arrogant and insulting tone, coupled with your complete lack of knowledge about the very basics of the organization you are attempting to characterize, you managed to get me to respond one more time than intended. But that is it. Babble on to your hearts content.”

Arrogant and insulting? How did you say? “doctor heal thyself”?

“The only one making a fool of himself around here is you.”

We shall see. We shall see. Soon.

Other more neutral observers might want to ask why previously you made such a big deal of it being Shannon who supposedly said this, but now (as you concede Shannon did not say it) consider it unimportant.

“More reference: “Space Shuttle Manager (SSP) John Shannon was tasked with setting up a team to evaluate the SD HLLV (Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle – or HLV for short) due to the commonality with the existing shuttle stack.” So again Shanon was in charge of the whole thing. Wow big deal you’re making.”

Hanley was not ever a part of that team; other more neutral observers might wonder why Hanley would be writing a summary for a study in which he did not participate. Since all there is for “evidence” is a short quote from the minutes of an MOD meeting referencing something presented at some other meeting by Hanley, you do not even know if this is directly related to the “Shannon Study”. Hanley was, at that point, already beleaguered as CxP manager and trying to defend his base line architecture (Ares I/Ares V). It is hardly surprising that he would take an opportunity to say something derogatory about one of the competitor booster designs (Av Week had just printed a favorable article on the Side Mount calling it “NASA’s Plan B”).

“Substance? Still waiting.”

You would not recognize substance if it bit on the “arm pit”.

common sense wrote @ February 6th, 2011 at 1:52 am
“And also you questioned my assessment that Sidemount was dangerous. NASA confirmed this through the quoted memo, at least. The fact you don’t like it does not change the fact Sidemount is dangerous for a crew. And that is that. No matter how much hmm spinning you try.”

Second hand quotes derived from meeting minutes referring to an (un-sourced) Study Summary is not a NASA position. There are study summaries out there saying all kinds of things (including that the Side Mount works – you have been provided links to some of them – but reject them out of hand) and they are not an official NASA position either. You are now willing to accept Hanley’s assertion (which you tried so hard to pass off as Shannon’s) as fact because it is what you want to believe. That is not spin, that is simple fact.

“But it does not matter, really you should get your mind around this. Sidemount will not, NOT, sea the light of day. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever.”

Let’s see first you were a bigger expert on HLV than the people doing the research, but now you are not. Then it was crucial that Shannon had repudiated the Side Mount, but now it doesn’t matter that the supposed repudiation came from (former CxP Manager) Hanley and not Shannon. Finally, you are now the new Nostradamus and can predict the future into infinity.

With your arrogant and insulting tone, coupled with your complete lack of knowledge about the very basics of the organization you are attempting to characterize, you managed to get me to respond one more time than intended. But that is it. Babble on to your hearts content.

The only one making a fool of himself around here is you.

But it does not matter, really you should get your mind around this. Sidemount will not, NOT, sea the light of day. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever.

“Any more discussion of this topic with you is pointless and I am now exiting this particular “conversation”.”

Nah, you’re so much fun to talk with.

It does not matter whether in the end Shanon or Hanley said this or that. Shanon presented the Sidemount to Augustine, Shanon was in charge of SD-HLV. Hanley’s study show the sidemount takes a hit on safety. The point is not who at NASA said it. The point is that NASA said it. That NASA reported this to its own leadership therefore including the WH.

More reference: “Space Shuttle Manager (SSP) John Shannon was tasked with setting up a team to evaluate the SD HLLV (Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle – or HLV for short) due to the commonality with the existing shuttle stack.” So again Shanon was in charge of the whole thing. Wow big deal you’re making.

Substance? Still waiting.

I know who John Shannon is. He is the manager of the Space Shuttle Program (as he is identified in the article to which you link). I also know who John Shannon is not: (1) He is not the manager of MOD (a completely different division) where (based on the article from which you link) this quote originated. (2) John Shannon is not Jeff Hanley (the former CxP manager). In the article to which you link it is stated that it was reported (in an MOD briefing) that in another meeting (with Bolden) Jeff Hanley (not John Shannon) said the things you are attributing to Shannon (for crying out loud read your own cut and paste – “HLV study summary from (Mr) Hanley – Sidemount doesn’t buy anything and takes hit on safety.” Note (Mr) Hanley, not (Mr) Shannon).

“I have to say that I don’t even know what you are trying to say. If Hanley wants to make a statement he’s welcome to do it. So far nothing I know about. And maybe he’s better off saying nothing.
Substance my friend, try substance. Something that will not make you look like a fool. For once maybe?”

Physician heal thyself. You started off by asserting I live in an alternate reality, it’s certainly true I live in one alternate from yours (where the names Shannon and Hanley are so easily confused) and I am glad of it.

Any more discussion of this topic with you is pointless and I am now exiting this particular “conversation”.

Or should i say “alternate reality Joe”?

“I don’t care, but sense you keep claiming to be an expert and to know more than the people working HLV studies and that they are wrong (or are lying – Which is it, by the way?), I simply suggest you take your accusations directly to them. Why does that upset you so much?”

Where did I claim I was an expert? That I knew more than people working HLV? That they were lying? Man you are quite something else. Here again for your perusing: By John Shanon (Do you know who he is?):
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/bolden-review-hlv-friday-sidemount-doubt-in-linessme-boost/
“HLV study summary from (Mr) Hanley – Sidemount doesn’t buy anything and takes hit on safety.

“The quote you are using is a truncated (and therefore by deinition out of context) qoute from an MOD (Mission Office Directorate) briefing.”

Yeah out of context for sure: “Sidemount doesn’t buy anything and takes hit on safety.” Do you have the full text? Would you care to enlighten us then?

“Without knowing the full context of the statement it is impossible to access its meaning.”

Must be sophistry?

“More to the point it has nothing to do with “Shanon himself” (He is the Space Shuttle Manager)”

So what? Shanon presented the concept at the Augustine review. So you indeed are saying that Shanon does not know what he is talking about? So he went to the Augustine Committee but what? Right?
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361842main_15%20-%20Augustine%20Sidemount%20Final.pdf

” and it quotes Jeff Hanley (the then Ares project manager). Hanley was removed from the project (by Administrator Bolden) the following May for defending Ares too strongly. A lot of people (Ares I/Ares V supporters) really like Hanley, but are you sure you want to be quoting him?”

I have to say that I don’t even know what you are trying to say. If Hanley wants to make a statement he’s welcome to do it. So far nothing I know about. And maybe he’s better off saying nothing.

Substance my friend, try substance. Something that will not make you look like a fool. For once maybe?

“Maybe I am not a real expert, so why do you care so much?”

I don’t care, but sense you keep claiming to be an expert and to know more than the people working HLV studies and that they are wrong (or are lying – Which is it, by the way?), I simply suggest you take your accusations directly to them. Why does that upset you so much?

“But since you like statements from JSCso much here is one for you, by Shanon himself :
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/bolden-review-hlv-friday-sidemount-doubt-in-linessme-boost/
“HLV study summary from (Mr) Hanley – Sidemount doesn’t buy anything and takes hit on safety. .”
Does he know what he is talking about? What do you think? Expert…”

The quote you are using is a truncated (and therefore by deinition out of context) qoute from an MOD (Mission Office Directorate) briefing. Without knowing the full context of the statement it is impossible to access its meaning. More to the point it has nothing to do with “Shanon himself” (He is the Space Shuttle Manager) and it quotes Jeff Hanley (the then Ares project manager). Hanley was removed from the project (by Administrator Bolden) the following May for defending Ares too strongly. A lot of people (Ares I/Ares V supporters) really like Hanley, but are you sure you want to be quoting him?

“Why should I do anything you ask and thus validate your lack of imagination? ”

I will try and not consider all your faintly veiled insults but you don’t have to answer. I believ though I asked in a polite way as neutral as possible. For all I care I was trying to see if there was any thinking behind the 1000 ton spacecraft. And the other people you refer to may very well ask the same question. So basically you told me and them included to go hang dry somewhere. Good thinking.

“heavy nuclei radiation problem”

I don’t remember saying anything about radiation. See unlike some I don’t speak of that I don’t know. I may ask or I may research but since I do not have enough info I keep it to myself, even though I do have an opinion.

“It is not possible because you will not let yourself know.”

Yeah you know so much about me right? Who knows maybe we hang together at times. How fun would that be?

I write this stuff for the people who come here looking for information about space exploration- not for the regulars who have already made their minds up and cannot see any new perspectives. Their completely closed minds and refusal to accept anything that conflicts with their space vacation fantasy are a great sounding board. You make me look good. Why should I do anything you ask and thus validate your lack of imagination? You will not even admit to the most basic facts about space- such as the heavy nuclei radiation problem. I spell it all out exactly- and still someone posts a long comment about how it is not true at all; that active shielding has been tested in a lab that will solve the problem so my point is not valid. After I explicitly stated that this is the same smoke screen people have been throwing into the discussion for years. And you want me to “please” let you know something? It is not possible because you will not let yourself know.