Talk:DIRECT

message: the fantasy DIRECT rocket is clearly DEAD (or NEVER BORN, to be exact) so, why this Wiki page hasn't been yet deleted???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.221.30.32 (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Schedule shifting to the right

message: I have removed this article from the categories "NASA" and "Space Shuttle program," and removed the Constellation infobox. I am concerned that the article's inclusion in these categories may be misleading; I've dealt with what I've found, but there may be other instances.MLilburne 15:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed categories

message: This article is informative and factual, but comes off too much as a DIRECT fan page. Maybe if someone could tone down the boosterism (haha) a bit... Monomalo 09:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral POV

message: I removed this from the article for cleanup and citation:
Despite the changes made on DIRECT 2.0, ATK "Safe, Simple, Soon" website advocating for Ares I and Ares V SDLV has published a so-called "mythbusters" section. This section quotes Dr Doug Stanley criticism made about Direct 1.0, without having asked permission nor opinion to Direct designer.
The entire article needs work, but this paragraph jumped out at me as being a bit attackish, or rough. It can probably go back in after some polishing up. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Search for "EDS".  This article was clearly plagiarized and plagiarized badly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.192.193 (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be more precise, if this article was "clearly plagiarized", give us source and use the regular WP:COPYVIO procedure. Scorpene (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: this article was obviously plagiarized

message: Evidently I'm not real enough to edit the main page, but if I was, I would remove the trailing 's' in the [space shuttle solid rocket boosters] link, so that it would work.
Cwmagee (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: copy editing

message: Advantages and disadvantages should certainly be after the Design section, no?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.208.127 (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of sections: Advantages after Design?

message: I find it difficult to believe that the name "DIRECT" is completely by accident, considering the Mars Direct plans were based around the identical concepts. This isn't entirely surprising, given Martin's involvement in MD planning. Yet this obvious historical link is not mentioned by anyone in DIRECT, or at least not in this article? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OR? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh puh-leeez, Mars Direct is not OR. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but your comment about the names being similar is... --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always been under the impression that this is actually the case, but I don't have a source for it. It seems obvious to me that Mars Direct and Direct are closely related, but we need the source to avoid a WP:OR issue. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

text: My understanding was that the name was derived from it being a more direct SDLV than Ares (ie using more of the same systems as STS rather than modified or new ones). Not sure though. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That too... I thought it was a little of both. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nothing about Mars Direct?

message: The whole workforce section is basically a plea to NASA to let people keep their jobs.  I'm betting this section was written by someone who's future in NASA is in limbo because of Ares.  "thousands of these knowledgeable and skilled people" "And such employment would keep those valuable skills and knowledge within the agency" are prime examples of this.24.114.252.237 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Workforce

message: Regarding the exploded view of the Jupiter 232 rocket (see DESIGN section)... In order to reach the moon there would have to be two launches of the Jupiter 232, one with the Jupiter upper stage the second carrying the Orion capsule and Lunar lander into Earth orbit. As powerful a rocket the Jupiter 232 is it cannot deliver all three elements in one launch.Jalanp2 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: DESIGN  Jupiter 232

message: I was thinking of cleaning up the article when DIRECT got to v3.0.  The drawings on the directlauncher.com site are now showing v3.  I will add a small section right now, but if anyone else was going to do major work on the page, please mention it here so we aren't at cross purposes. Fotoguzzi (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: DIRECT v3 and time to clean up this article?

message: I altered an early sentence from DIRECT will do blah, blah to the DIRECT team hopes to blah, blah.  To me, that was the only blatant sentence early in the article.  There may be stuff that is optimistic, but to me, by nature a proposal has to be somewhat optimistic.  Later in the article I have accumulated all the stuff from earlier versions.  Some of that I agree is either outdated or too much like a sales pitch.  
Let me know specifics, and I will try to fix those first. (fotoguzzi) 131.252.247.119 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the first half of the article to further enhance objectivity (it was already objective for the most part). I stopped at Direct 3.0 and will continue later on. Personally I think the advertising tag and the copy editing tag can be removed already. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I however am a little bit concerned about some statements which aren't sourced (for instance that one about RS-68). Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The second part was much harder to edit. A lot of information is repeated two or three times and sometimes even more often. The "Program risk" section and the "Schedule" section need considerable work. Preferable tables should be used to compare the current Ares baseline with the proposed baseline. Duplicate information or information not relevant to the article at all should be removed. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Article written like an advertisement

message: []
Launch Escape System
The Ares LES is called LAS.  I would think a reference in the article should either:
a) show as LAS in the article but link to LES (as it was in a previous revision), or
b) point to the LAS section of Orion_(spacecraft), or
c) go to an LAS redirect page by whatever wikipedia.org method that i am not aware of.
Suggestions?  Fotoguzzi (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Launch Escape/Abort System

message: I shortened and combined those two sections (program risk and schedule) which had overlapping information. Some further work on the article might still be required. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued the clean up + added some photos

message: This article is getting very long. Can we split the technical details on the rocket into a separate article (perhaps Jupiter (rocket) with the missile becoming a hatnote), and leave the less technical details of the proposal and its history here. --GW… 17:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed split

message: Since DIRECT is a replacement for Ares, there need to be some comparisons.  I think the article has too many, however.  Also, finding references that aren't from the same two or three blogs is not easy.  For instance, I believe DIRECT has looked into altering the existing three Mobile Launch Platforms.  I have seen a NASA powerpoint where Ares I will get three new lightweight MLPs and Ares V will be able to use modified existing platforms until new ones are made.  What I don't know is whether either Ares could launch from Launch Complex 39A and LC-39B.  It is hard to know whether multi Ares V launches would be practical.  I guess if you have enough MLPs, then, it is.  
That is just one fact in the article that cannot really be documented.  Most other facts are like that.  I welcome anyone who can do some good searching and find relevant documents.
Then, what cannot be documented should be carved away from the article. Fotoguzzi (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: On the difficulty of finding references

message: Please note, there is a community of experts on this topic active at the NASAspaceflight.com website.  An active thread discussing this topic may be reviewed and used to contact these experts. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside resource for more information on this article

message: The Augustine Committee presentation is mentioned in the body with a citation. I believe the citation was removed from the article lead because it wasn't controversial and its removal would keep the lead as attractive as possible. I would like to remove the  tag if others agree. Fotoguzzi (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the reference from the body of the article that you mention.  Citations should be left in the lead and anywhere else, just look at International Space Station.  It has 30 citations in the lead of the article and it is an FA. Aalox (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed on Augustine Committee presentation

message: the Constellation program is DEAD and the Ares-1 and Ares-5 rockets will never born 
DIRECT and JUPITER are only "fake rockets" of the (never built) Ares rockets, so, it's time to delete these whole articles from wikipedia (where only FACTS are allowed)
.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.111.22 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not "fake", any more than the 1960s Nova was fake; they were seriously and verifiably proposed, only never adopted.  The proposers appear to have been genuinely knowledgeable rocket people.  Almost all major launch vehicles have gone through numerous competing proposals and revisions before final adoption.  Like their historical antecedents, these did have some influence on the discussion of what should be the best structural elements for the revised US space program, and it would be POV to suppress them entirely, though their importance is likely to fade away in the next few years.  No doubt when the final form of the US post-shuttle heavy launch system is settled, we will be in a better position to put DIRECT and JUPITER in proper perspective.  Deletion is surely not appropriate now, though revision, and possible eventual incorporation into some technical history of the evolution of the NASA post-shuttle launch system, is likely to be desirable in the next months and years as things play out.  Wwheaton (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: fake rockets not allowed on wikipedia - proposal to delete article - countered

message: If you look on Direct's website, they have a new project.  The new rockets seem nothing more than crazy, but they're at least worth briefly mentioning (Unless it's the result of someone who hacked the website)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.22.212 (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is still notable. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 17:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is not notable. It should be just a passsing mention in an article History of US Heavy Launch Vehicle concepts (1975 - 2020) Hektor (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Direct Project 2

message: Substituted at 12:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment - from June 2008

message: [Article could explain:] Which parts of DIRECT were adopted by SLS, which were not ? Do the proposers of SLS refer to DIRECT ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What influence did DIRECT have on SLS