Quote:
Originally Posted by mugaliens
As for the economics of DIRECTv3, they claim it's much better than Ares, while some naysayers here have said otherwise, but without having said how, otherwise.
So how, otherwise?
|
That is quite backwards. it's the direct proponents that has to show How direct is cheaper.
Keep in mind that the Direct website itself is performing the concorde fallacy when most of it's savings claim stems from dropping Ares I considering that a fairly large chunk of Ares I is already a sunk cost.
The last claim that the Direct would require less redesign is patently false. the shuttle ET requires extensive modifications in order to be used in the manner proposed both in direct's jupiter and the Ares V configurations. these costs will remain virtually the same for both vehicles.
Reading trough the website for direct.
They use a lot of charts for costs that are not sourced nor are the numbers behind those charts made available so that one can check the claims out oneself. this is a FATAL flaw when it comes to convincing me at least to have any confidence in those numbers.
When looking at the pretty charts i also see that the estimates for parts of the architecture that should remain more or less the same like the fixed maintenance and payroll costs for ground infrastructure. these should not change by over 1 bill considering that both direct and ares needs 2 launch pads and the same accompanying maintenance of these.
Again. without any sourced numbers that are proven to come from anywhere else than somebody's fluffy dreams it becomes impossible to compare anything in any meaningful manner.
If a car salesman were to try to sell me a car with charts like these, instead of showing the real numbers and assumptions behind them. I would tell him to go packing.
