Flightglobal:

NASA's Moon rockets of choice face oblivion under President Obama's first budget, so will a new spin on an old idea win......

Author: Rob Coppinger

Date: 29 June 2009

Read the full article

With the way things have gone with ARES 1 - and NOT gone w/ARES V it wouldn't suprise me! I saw in the AAIA journal "HORIZON" an evaluation of the latest DIRECT 3.0/"ARES 3&4" submission and feel the Augustine panel would have to be brain-dead not to see: not merely it's short term advantages, but itS sutability as THE candidate for a versatile family of launchers that covers everything from LEO to Interplanetary.  It possesses the flexibility to accommodate myriad upper stage options as well and upgrading with 5.5seg. SRBs etc, making some versions at least equal to ARES V without that vehicle's MAJOR redesign.
NASA is not going to stand for that! Their NTSC concept is touted as MUCH cheaper and requiring even even less engineering and structural changes.  Desperation may well win out!  

 .

 no, it's an old, bad and wrong design... like the resized-Ares-5-called-Direct...

.

 The only thing wrong with it is the SRB's. But they scrapped the RS-84 that would have been perfect for strap-ons, safer and cheaper to upgrade - if WE MUST go American. Were it me, I'd go for the RD170/180 built under licence. But the STS pack IS existng tech'. After 35years it could be termed mature - what is needed. Reinventing the wheel is what causes delays - and so far has proved no better than "old, bad...."