Direct 2.0 is from the anonymous engineers within NASA. They are the ones saying billions of dollars and years of time can be saved with their design.

So, robots don't need launch vehicles too?

Indeed, some want to launch Orion on proven satellite launchers like Atlas V and Delta 4. The distinction between 'man-rated' and rockets 'only' for satellites isn't as great as you might think. When YOU have a $100 million communications satellite aboard, you want it to have as much chance of reaching orbit as if there were someone aboard. (And remember, 'cargo' flies on 'man-rated' commercial aircraft every day…)

That 'really worthwhile' location may be in the outer solar system (Titan?). Do you want to have no more manned capability than now exists, then try to jump suddenly to a deep space manned mission?

Do you believe robots don't need launchers as big as manned ones? See above. And, that's also because of overall launch costs for *any* payload. Trust me, if inexpensive heavy-lift were available, you WOULD see unmanned probes worthy of them. What if you want another Hubble-sized observatory, after the shuttle? What if you want a decent Pluto orbiter, not the screamin' flyby that New Horizons will be? You assemble in orbit from multiple small launches (and that DOES need humans) or you launch in one big piece. Rockets don't care if their payloads have a heartbeat or not.

Meanwhile, some want to make a satellite launcher variation of the Ares-1 booster, but commercial interest in this supposedly 'man-rated' launcher for their cargoes seems to be underwhelming…

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/04/what_fresh_hell.html

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=6025

And for those who wonder why go back to the Moon…because we're not finished with it. Will we be saying in 30 years "Why go back to Mars? What about the Moons of Jupiter?" Exploration is NOT a leapfrog series of 'Flags and Footprints' missions to the next planet. It's just like unmanned probes in that you continue to learn more (and utilize/colonize where practical) about where you've been, AS you go on to learn more.

When the first starship heads out to Alpha Centauri, we may STILL be learning something new about the Moon…or, for that matter, the Earth.

The DIRECT concept itself has been around for about 20 years. It came up originally in the 80s after the Challenger disaster prompted NASA to look into if there are safer alternatives then the shuttle. When NASA decided that the shuttle was safe and to continue with the shuttle program, the DIRECT plan was shelved, that is, until recently when it was examined again as DIRECT 2.0.

I can understand NASA's desire to create a shiny new rocket but the costs in money, time, performance and jobs is too much for me to look over. I think the pros and cons of both programs need to be seriously compared with the outcome of finding out which can get us back to manned space flight faster, cheaper and safer.

There is a huge discussion about DIRECT on NASASpaceFlight.com:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.0

The prospect of limitless, cheap & safe energy is the main reason for going back to the Moon in practical terms.

Of course, other things like moon bases, launch points, telescopes on the far side etc. are all just extras that can happen to help sell it politically.

But it's all about power in the end.

The Space Shuttle has been a valuable tool, losing it is a mistake.

What a visionary leader would do in this predicament is to maintain Nasa's expanding mission envelope while providing for them an allowance to spend on future space ship designs.

Constellation is the best of what we can make with what we know now, and returning to the moon is important.
…But We also have to be sure some money is spent on developing new ships for the future.

Direct purpose is to limit the gap and costs. Ares is to get us to the Moon.

We've flown enough times around Earth. Its time to move towards another world.

If folks are pointing out that NASA's enhancements to those off-the-shelf components are costing more money – well no kidding! The Ares V will clearly outperform the Jupiter 232 in terms of Earth-to-LEO and Earth-to-Moon payload. In fact, the Ares V will have more takeoff thrust than the might Saturn V did. And we're going to need it to get the right equipment to the Moon if we are going to make a permanent presence there.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say this is someone's ploy to take advantage of folks who don't know any better and try to divert funds from current projects to theirs just to make money.

I'm one of those who thought than the Constellation was a Space Shuttle without Shuttle and wanted a "new X-33" or a "Rotary Rocket concept". I thought, again as with the origin of Shuttle… lots of Billions to get less than before because the Lobbies live of the overcosts… until I read the documentation of this project.

Ok, we have Internet, Laptops and Mobile Phones, but we have worse rockets than in the 60's and no intention of this to change. So, as we have to work with the parts of the Shuttle, at least make it smart. And what I have read seems more smart and more versatile than ARES.

The Ares-I is "structuraly" dangerous, and with a little of wind the crew will be in danger. And the Ares-V is a Shuttle rocket with the changes needed to make if far expensive. In this thing I agree with the document.

All the money is for change the look of the Shuttle rocket, the less is for developing new and interesting technologies.

And I like to see in this project some theories being thinked in the development of the european and russian projects to go to the moon: "Reuse what you send to the space"

Friends from USA, makes all us a favour, don't take whatever NASA give you.

Make them to work smart. Or all the humanity will get another loss of 40 years in Space Exploration as with the Shuttle.

If this was a purely political move, I'd bet NASA would have opted to re-use as much tried and tested technology to get back to the Moon. Constellation on the other hand will have a lot of issues to iron out before a successful return mission is possible. Now China is looking like they have the tech to land a man on the Moon first, surely the fastest NASA route to the Moon would be a prime candidate?

Let's just hope Constellation isn't delayed… that would be costly politically and financially…

If you are motivated to write and express your opinion one way or the other. Ensure you include the house with the huge lawn on Pennsylvania Ave as well as your local representative or senator.

The people who sound most interested in pushing the 'Direct 2.0' plan are those that would stand to make a lot of money from it, so they're not exactly unbiased sources.

Okay, undeserved sarcasm there. I think its safe to say that it is.

So the thing to do is get political right back: if you want to see something done, send a nice letter to your congressman, and even better, send some to the House Science Committe. It is an election year, and the economy is pretty crappy. They might do something about it..

Of course, the Ares lobbyists might have already convinced them that spending more money on a less capable vehicle is the way to go.