Talk:DIRECT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Space Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
	WikiProject Solar System
	WikiProject Mars	Importance to Mars: Low
	WikiProject Moon	Importance to Moon: Mid
	WikiProject Spaceflight	Importance to Spaceflight: Mid
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article is within the scope of the Human spaceflight WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the manned exploration of space. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article contains material that originally came from a NASA website or printed source. According to their site usage guidelines, "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". For more information, please review NASA's use guidelines.

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Comments 2 Removed categories 3 Neutral POV 4 Criticism

[edit] Comments

In the first paragraph: "Developed independently from NASA, DIRECT proposes launch vehicles different from those NASA is developing in its Project Constellation." This sentence is not entirely accurate. DIRECT was not developed independently from NASA. It was a NASA concept. What the "DIRECT Team" is doing is really dusting off that concept and showing that it is a better alternative to Ares I/V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.208.164 (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This article really needs to make it clear that DIRECT has not been proposed by NASA and is not in any way an official part of Project Constellation. MLilburne 14:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Actually, DIRECT was originally a study conducted by NASA, themselves. They just chose Ares instead.

[edit] Removed categories

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)

[edit] Neutral POV

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)

[edit] Criticism

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)