That seems to be the popular opinion around here, but when confronted with comments from Griffen and others adressing the Jupiter Direct group issues I didn't see any technical responses. Of course I've been away a lot so feel free to point out any I missed. I personally don't feel qualified to judge anyrhing other than that good engineers are having a legitimate technical disagreement on the best path forward which is not uncommon.

It only takes a slight disagreement on objectives and priorities for engineers to come up with very different solutions. In this case we have a lot of similarities in the solutions but a few significant differences based on different assessment of whether certain problems can be over come and how big a launch capacity we need. I'm for the biggest launch capacity we can get as long as the ARES 1 problems really are surmountable. It is ridiculous in my book to abandon real world tests that are about to be conducted because one paper conflicts with another on whether or not a problem has a solution.

Regards,
Mark