B
barrykirk
Guest
I would assume that the upper management of NASA, Mike Griffon specifically has heard of or read the direct proposal. <br /><br />Has anybody heard if they have made any comments about DIRECT? <br /><br />The silence from above is strangely deafening. Almost like DIRECT is being delibertly ignored by Griffon and other policy makers in upper management at NASA. I can think of three possible reasons for this. <br /><br />1) They have seen DIRECT and have good reasons to reject it. <br />The reason to reject it could be either political or technical. If the case against DIRECT was technical, then NASA would have issued an official proclamation by now to silence the DIRECT crowd. Since the silence has been deafing, the good reason to reject it would have to be political. <br /><br />2) They don't know about DIRECT <br />I can't believe that this is the case. <br /><br />3) They are saving DIRECT to introduce it at a later date. <br />The reason to save it for a later date, might be just part of a negotiation. So, should Congress or a new President reject the ARIES I and/or V, NASA has a fall back position to save the program. Another way of putting it would be that they are holding their ace card for use at a later date when it will do more good. If this is the case, the silence makes sense. <br /><br />I don't believe option 2 is the case. If option 1 is the case, then DIRECT will most likely never see the light of day. Unless a higher power, ( Congress ) mandates DIRECT. <br /><br />Therefore I'm hoping for option 3, but I'm hoping that the time to play that ace card is fast approaching. The longer it is held, the less valuable it becomes. <br /><br />Has anybody heard anything different?<br /> <br /><br />For those unfamiliar with DIRECT.<br /><br />www.directlauncher.com <br /><br />This has been a major topic of discussion on the www.nasaspaceflight.com website on the thread