World Space Organization

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
From what little can be gleaned from the Augustine Commission report, NASA
seems to favor putting the payload and/or Orion on the side of the ET
rather than atop it like in DIRECT, so you basically end up with a manned
Shuttle C.

I see this as a political maneuver to make "shuttle derived" launch vehicles
look bad. There are huge safety issues with putting crew on the top/side of
a side-mounted shuttle derived launch vehicle. In other words, putting the
worst of the shuttle derived vehicles up against Ares V makes Ares V look
better.

But the bottom line is that the budget is very tight (and absolutely won't
get better anytime soon) and NASA simply does not have the budget to develop
and fly *two* new launch vehicles. And if you had to choose between
developing either Ares I or Ares V-Lite, which would you choose?

The alternative is NASA "sticks to its guns" and pushes the bloated Ares V
and Congress and the Administration both say "No f-ing way" and EELV's get
the nod going forward.

It's time for NASA to choose between EELV and Ares V-Lite because anything
more expensive will be shot down as too expensive. And don't think that
can't happen. Look at how many times Space Station Freedom/ISS was forced
to be redesigned due to NASA's ballooning costs and slipping schedules.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon