DIRECT question for Oberg, Simberg, Spencer, et. al.

Forgive me if this has been asked of the "experts" here already, but
I'm wondering what you guys make of the "DIRECT Launcher" proposal at
http://www.directlauncher.com/ (or http://www.directlauncher.com/Test_Site/
for their new site.) The AIAA-Houston August issue of "Horizons" also
has an interesting article on the project, available for download at
http://www.aiaa-houston.org/ .

As I'm sure you know, DIRECT is being promoted as an "open source,"
single-launcher alternative to Ares I and Ares V, and uses much more
shuttle-derived hardware (both flight and ground service) to loft,
they claim, some three times the payload of Ares I in DIRECT's initial
version; to do it several years sooner; and to do it at a savings of
tens of billions of dollars.

I must say as a layman that I find the financial, technical, and
political arguments of DIRECT proponents to be extremely compelling.
However, I am just a layman. Any thoughts on the matter from experts
in the field?

Second, in another, now seemingly desperate attempt to shave weight
from the Orion CEV in attempt to save their anemic booster of choice
(Ares I) NASA recently dropped the requirement that the Orion land on
land. One wonders what a cash-strapped Defense Department thinks of
NASA committing it to billions in future expenditures field fleets of
splashdown recovery forces?

I have yet to see any of this discussion make the mainstream media,
but with Ares I continuing to falter, I suspect we will.

Finally, as I said, I don't know that DIRECT is the answer, but I'm
becoming *extremely* doubtful that Ares I/V is either, and am curious
what experts make of the situation.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

.

Loading