>>> this is a true scoop! >>> found on NSF (yes! on NSF.direct.lobby.com!) the FINAL EVIDENCE that "Direct" was born (at least) THREE MONTHS AFTER my FAST-SLV idea!!! >>>
gaetanomarano
as I've already said SEVERAL TIMES and EVERYWHERE on the web, my FAST-
SLV was/is NOT a "new rocket", like all old shuttle-derived concepts
(or the LATER "Direct", that's only a BAD COPY of my idea) but a
"rocket kit" built with the SAME Shuttle's parts (SRBs, SSMEs, ET)
just rearranged in a different (in-line) configuration to SAVE giant
amounts of &D time and
money... the (time/money-saving) "kit" was MY idea, not the
rocket... :)
but.. was born first the "egg" (FAST-SLV) or the chicken (Direct) ???
well, about the FIRST that had this idea, I've found a true scoop!!!
found on NSF (yes! on NSF.direct.lobby.com!) the FINAL EVIDENCE that
"Direct" was born (at least) THREE MONTHS AFTER my FAST-SLV idea!!!
I've published my FAST-SLV concept in May 12, 2006 on my website:
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html
and (in the same days) I've posted my idea and the link to my article
on several Space forums and blogs around the world
now, just read this (now saved on my HDD...) NSF thread started on
July 13, 2006:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3307.0;all
well, in this July 18, 2006 post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3307.msg50478#msg50478
the forum user "edkyle99" said...
"One alternative ESAS option, for example, called for the development
of only one, "mid-size" launch vehicle (90-100 tonnes to LEO). The
study found that a lunar mission performed with two such launchers
would cost less than the current "1.5 Launch" mission."
then, one day and five posts later, the forum's user kraisee (the
nickname of Ross Tierney, that, later, has become the head and
spokesman of the Direct-lobby...) replied to Ed Kyle in this July 19,
2006 post (3.5 months AFTER my article and posts) saying...
"That option has me curious. Pure hypothetical: Two 4-seg SRB's plus
three 500,000lb thrust engines (Shuttle) today is enough to launch
116mT to ISS. Replace the three SSME's with two RS-68's and you'd get
very similar performance, but you can do so in a simpler in-line
arrangement, and spend less cash. The Payload would require an OMS
system to performa the final circularisation burn, but the ol' space
tug idea would seem to suit that role nicely. The two Shuttle's OMS
Pods mass a total of about 20mT, including the integral RCS systems,
so my guess would be you could launch 100mT of useful payload on each
flight. NASA wouldn't need to pay for 5-segs (yet, although they'd be
nice as an upgrade later), wouldn't need to plan extensive changes to
the MLP's or Pad Structures and could retain much of the current
infrastructure for both SRB's and ET processing. Depending on it's
expected LOC figures, it might be a realistic, less costly and quicker
system to get operational."
that was the SAME thought and ideas of my FAST-SLV article... just 3.5
months later... :)
in other words, its CLEAR, that, he has had """his""" true-shuttle-
derived concept idea ONLY in July 19, 2006, over 3.5 months LATER my
FAST-SLV article and my LOTS of posts on several space forums and
blogs!!!
so, ONE MONTH LATER (and OVER FOUR MONTHS AFTER my FAST-SLV article)
in this (saved...) August 15, 2006 post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3613.msg57114;topicseen#msg57114
kraisee/Tierney said...
"Of course, I'll plug my "Direct" SDLV solution One single launcher
based on all the good bits of current STS hardware, with very few
modifications. Only one development cost, not two. The same
vehicle is powerful enough to fly crew or cargo - or both! It uses
well-known, already man-rated, systems throughout and has a full
workforce ready to work on it right now. Cut the cost and dangers of
the Orbiter completely out of the program and open the moon up with
just one payment for one launch vehicle to develop, not two. Direct
Shuttle Derivative. 2x4seg, 3xSSME, 73.5mT to LEO. Add an EDS and
this 2.0 launch solution costs about half the cost of Ares-I and Ares-
V together per year, yet it does more. For a total of less than
$2.5Bn, you could launch 3 complete 4-man Lunar missions, plus two 6-
man missions to the ISS, each of which would allow an extra 48 ton
payload module to be brought along at the same time to resupply the
station. The unlikely looking Ares-I & Ares-V choice NASA had been
planning, would have cost about $3.2Bn for just TWO 150mT Lunar
missions with TWO CEV-only ISS missions, and would not offer any extra
payload capacity to ISS. Resupply missions would cost extra again.
Looks like a very good alternative to me."
in that post he talks EXACTLY of MY idea of a TRUE shuttle-derived
single rocket with similar evaluations and the same time/cost saving
advantages!!! (like... "It uses well-known, already man-rated, systems
throughout and has a full workforce ready to work on it right now.",
"Shuttle Derivative.", "2x4seg, 3xSSME, 73.5mT to LEO.", etc.)
also, this seems the first post where he use the term/name "Direct"
for """his""" alternative single rocket concept as he explain in this
(saved...) August 24, 2006 post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3537.msg59690;topicseen#msg59690
saying... "Actually I didn't come up with the idea, so I don't want
the credit. The idea simply presented itself as the simplest possible
solution to take what we have now and make a better LV out of it.
Then when I checked, it had already been proposed and was actualy
anaylsed in the ESAS (the EOR-LOR option) - although with a few minor
changes, like putting the LOI burn on the CEV instead of the LSAM.
With the latter conclusions in the ESAS though, putting LOI on the
LSAM for the EOR-LOR option works even better than their CEV-LOI
option. But the decision appears to have already been made to go
with the 1.5 solution by that third stage of the anaylis. All I am
trying to do is promote the idea as the most effective design
available, fullfilling all the requirements better and covering all
the bases (economic, political, technical & performance) even better
than I believe any of the other alternatives do."
kraisee's post ending with... "To do that I have created a "face" and
a "name" for people to relate to it: "Direct"ly I'll take credit for
that, maybe."
and, today, that has been noticed/remarked also by another NSF user
("gladiator1332") in this new NSF thread's post:
(thank you very much gladiator1332 !!!)
then, """his""" idea was "adopted" by a "shadow group" of fired NASA
engineers and lobbyists (probably made by those who
have lost the "battle" for the NASA chiefs seats in 2005...) to
propose something "better" than the ("wrong") ESAS Ares-1/5 rocket/
architecture proposed by the (chief administrator seat battle's
winner) Mike Griffin... :) ...the same peoples that (now) hope/suggest
that the current NASA administrator will/must be FIRED by the next
President...
several times, on several space forums and blogs, the Direct-guys/
supporters/PR/propaganda-men have INSULTED me saying that "Direct" was
developed MONTHS or YEARS before my FAST-SLV concept/article/forum's
posts...
they said that there was ideas, concepts, drawings, study,
calculations, etc. made by "Direct engineers" in 2005 or before...
so, EVERYTIME, I've asked them to give me just ONE (small but reliable
and credible) evidence/source of their claims... but they have NEVER
posted NOTHING to support them and to demonstrate that "Direct" was
born BEFORE (maybe, months or years before) my FAST-SLV idea/concept/
proposal... :)
but the reason why they have NEVER posted any evidence nor source
about the true Direct origin is (simply) because, this kind of
evidence/source, DOESN'T EXIST !!!
there was NO Direct-idea, NO Direct-concept, NO Direct-drawings, NO
Direct-study, NO Direct-calculations, NO Direct-evaluations, NO Direct-
group, NO Direct-guys, NO Direct-lobby, NO Direct-supporters, NO
Direct-peoples, NO Direct-project, NO Direct-proposal, NOT EVEN the
"Direct" term/name, before MY article, since EVERYTHING was born on
NSF between July 18 and August 24, 2006 !!!
and this is the TRUE story of (MY) "FAST-SLV" vs. ("""their""")
"Direct"... :)
.
gaetanomarano
post edit and link missed:
then, one day and five posts later, the forum's user kraisee (the
nickname of Ross Tierney, that, later, has become the head
and spokesman of the Direct-lobby...) replied to Ed Kyle in this July
19, 2006 post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3307.msg50571#msg50571
BradGuth
You think our Zionist/Nazi DARPA gives a tinkers damn?
Otherwise, we can also assume you're not Jewish.
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
charlie...@yahoo.com
Again, it doesn't matter
charlie...@yahoo.com
enough to launch
116mT to ISS. Replace the three SSME's with two RS-68's "
Since FAST-SLV uses SSMEs and Direct uses RS-68's, they are NOT the
same idea
charlie...@yahoo.com
> they said that there was ideas, concepts, drawings, study,
> calculations, etc. made by "Direct engineers" in 2005 or before...
>
> so, EVERYTIME, I've asked them to give me just ONE (small but reliable
> and credible) evidence/source of their claims... but they have NEVER
> posted NOTHING to support them and to demonstrate that "Direct" was
> born BEFORE (maybe, months or years before) my FAST-SLV idea/concept/
> proposal... :)
>
you know why?
1. Because you aren't worth the effort
2. Direct is different from FAST-SLV
3. they know they were first.
charlie...@yahoo.com
http://www.teamvisioninc.com/downloads/AIAA-2006-7517-146.pdf
This paper was in work long before Direct and FAST-SLV
gaetanomarano
it's just an HEAVY EVIDENCE from the no.1 Direct-guy... :)
it shows that, before July 19, 2006, he has NO IDEA of Direct since
(both) concept and name born LATER... :)
.
gaetanomarano
> Since FAST-SLV uses SSMEs and Direct uses RS-68's, they are NOT the
> same idea
since my Smart has another color than your Smart they are not the same
car... :) :) :)
as Tierney explains in his post (linked here) he suggest to use two
RS-68s just since they have the same power of three SSMEs
then (later) NASA has scrapped the SSME (that will be no longer
manufactured) from the ESAS plan, so, every new concept must adopt
other engines
however, this MINOR change from MY basic FAST-SLV concept, is a BAD
choice, since, the SSME are already man-rated and 370+ times tested in
REAL manned flights aboard the Shuttles
that's why, MY concept, is BETTER and SAFER than Direct (that's ONLY a
BAD COPY of MY idea...)
.
gaetanomarano
> 1. Because you aren't worth the effort
no problem, since, now, there is a CLEAR EVIDENCE that I'm right in my
claims while they are wrong!
and that EVIDENCE comes from their own words and posts on their own
NSF.direct.lobby.com forums!!!
> 2. Direct is different from FAST-SLV
true, since Direct is ONLY a BAD COPY of my FAST-SLV concept
> 3. they know they were first.
yes... in their dreams... :) :) :)
just read THEIR WORDS on NSF... before July 19, 2006 they have NO IDEA
of "something" like a "Direct" concept... NOT EVEN the word/term/name
"Direct" that's born FIVE WEEKS LATER in the kraisee's August 24, 2006
post!!!
the TRUE Direct-guys words are BETTER than every other EVIDENCE... :)
.
gaetanomarano
> http://www.teamvisioninc.com/downloads/AIAA-2006-7517-146.pdf
> This paper was in work long before Direct and FAST-SLV
your "paper" has a DATE on it that's "19 - 21 September 2006" ...ONE
MONTH LATER the name "Direct" ...1.5 months LATER the early Direct
concept's post on NSF ...FIVE+ MONTHS LATER my FAST-SLV concept/
article/posts...
also assuming it was hold "in a drawer" for some time (despite I don't
understand the REASON to keep a document in a drawer for months if you
want that the entire world must know the ideas inside it... there is
NO LOGIC...) it can't be "so old" since it talks about (and use
original drawings from) the ESAS plan that was released and published
in the early days of 2006
my FAST-SLV article was published just FOUR MONTHS LATER the ESAS
plan, so, assuming your "paper" was "in a drawer" it should be a
matter of WEEKS...
however, I did NOT BELIEVE that your "paper" was already available
before my article, since, I've lots of EVIDENCE about the DATE of my
article, while, you have ZERO evidence that your "paper" was published
before my article... just your words... the words of a strong Direct's
supporter... :)
.
kT
How's you're ITALIAN launch vehicle going?
Hopefully better than ours.
gaetanomarano
> ITALIAN launch vehicle going?
the 100% italian VEGA seems a good rocket (despite not big enough to
launch a capsule) while the european Ariane-5 is very efficient and
reliable
the latter rocket could also launch a manned capsule (that I hope ESA
will have enough funds to develop, someday...)
.
kT
I was talking about YOUR Italian launch vehicle.
White paper. Clean sheet. Give it a try.
gaetanomarano
>
> I was talking about YOUR Italian launch vehicle.
>
> White paper. Clean sheet. Give it a try.
when I'll have something like the ESAS funds (or, at least, the SpaceX
funds) I'll develop my own rocket... :)
.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:c3a12618-2269-405b...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Boy is someone obsessed.
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
kT
I'm not asking you to develop it, Geronimo, I'm asking you to design it.
You're supposedly the big hotshot launch vehicle designer.
Show us YOUR stuff, not just petty modifications.
Clean sheet white paper, lets see it.
Dr J R Stockton
00hsc.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:37:43, gaetanomarano
<ma...@gaetanomarano.it> posted:
>the 100% italian VEGA seems a good rocket (despite not big enough to
>launch a capsule)
VEGA is 65% Italian : <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_%28launcher%29>
; VEGA could in fact orbit a Mercury spacecraft, judging by the masses
given in Wikipedia.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
gaetanomarano
> VEGA is 65% Italian : <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_%28launcher%29>
> ; VEGA could in fact orbit a Mercury spacecraft, judging by the masses
> given in Wikipedia.
the VEGA project is 100% italian, then, the VEGA company is shared
between other countries
yes, the payload mass is enough for a Mercury, but no one will build
today a capsule for one astronauts
Mercury was only an experimental spacecraft to test the early manned
spaceflights but with no commercial or space exploration purpose,
while, now, the Mercury payload is not enough for many ROBOTIC probes!
.
charlie...@yahoo.com
> your "paper" has a DATE on it that's "19 - 21 September 2006" ...ONE
> MONTH LATER the name "Direct" ...1.5 months LATER the early Direct
> concept's post on NSF ...FIVE+ MONTHS LATER my FAST-SLV concept/
> article/posts...
>
> also assuming it was hold "in a drawer" for some time (despite I don't
> understand the REASON to keep a document in a drawer for months if you
> want that the entire world must know the ideas inside it... there is
> NO LOGIC...) it can't be "so old" since it talks about (and use
> original drawings from) the ESAS plan that was released and published
> in the early days of 2006
Because it was written to be presented at a conference.
Not everything document is placed on the web or placed on it right
away.. The web is not the official depository of all documents.
9 - 21 September 2006 was the date of the conference
gaetanomarano
> Because it was written to be presented at a conference.
>
> Not everything document is placed on the web or placed on it right
> away.. The web is not the official depository of all documents.
>
> 9 - 21 September 2006 was the date of the conference
you really like to "climb the mirrors"... :)
I actually READ the documents (while, you, seems don't...) and, in the
TeamVision .pdf you can find dozens times the name/term "Direct" that
was born only in the August 24, 2006 kraisee's post on NSF
also, in the pag. 26 of the document, you can find "Our Proposal
September 2006" inside the image
then, the TeamVision concept was born TWO months AFTER the Direct
concept and FIVE months AFTER my FAST-SLV concept and article!!!
maybe, you can say they "had the idea in their minds"... :) ... but
that doens't matter and can't be proved... :) ..."their minds" is not
(and NEVER can be) an "evidence" of facts!
but... if and when "was in my mind before" will become an EVIDENCE,
please send me a mail, so, I can immediately SUE Apple for use "my"
iPod idea, Intel for use "my" microprocessor idea, Boeing for use "my"
Jumbo 747 idea, etc... :) :) :)
.
charlie...@yahoo.com
> On 24 Lug, 20:24, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Because it was written to be presented at a conference.
>
> > Not everything document is placed on the web or placed on it right
> > away.. The web is not the official depository of all documents.
>
> > 9 - 21 September 2006 was the date of the conference
>
> you really like to "climb the mirrors"... :)
>
> I actually READ the documents (while, you, seems don't...) and, in the
> TeamVision .pdf you can find dozens times the name/term "Direct" that
> was born only in the August 24, 2006 kraisee's post on NSF
>
> but... if and when "was in my mind before" will become an EVIDENCE,
> please send me a mail, so, I can immediately SUE Apple for use "my"
> iPod idea, Intel for use "my" microprocessor idea, Boeing for use "my"
> Jumbo 747 idea, etc... :) :) :)
>
Jupiter which is the Direct vehicle was born before "August 24, 2006
kraisee's post on NSF"
Something can be written down and not be on the web and still be
proof. They do not have to present it to you or anyone on the web.
Direct/Jupiter has no reason to prove anything to you. You don't
matter. you have no claim, Much more, you have no "court" or judge
to present your case to. No one cares who you are and what your
concepts are
Also, great job on getting kicked off yet another forum (hobbyspace)
gaetanomarano
> Something can be written down and not be on the web and still be
> proof. They do not have to present it to you or anyone on the web.
> Direct/Jupiter has no reason to prove anything to you.
I've posted my evidences... you have posted your (every day more)
angry chats... and everybody can judge with his mind... :)
> You don't matter. you have no claim,
so, why did you lose so much time posting againt me? :)
> Also, great job on getting kicked off yet another forum (hobbyspace)
bad for Clark, not for me
internet is like an OCEAN where EVERY blog (my blog or everybody else
blog) is just a DROP
the frustrated Direct-guys never can't stop the inherent freedom and
democracy that lives inside the web... NOT EVEN the Google giant, that
was able to stop my blog just a few days... :) :) :)
.
charlie...@yahoo.com
True words of someone who is paranoid
Clark is not part of Direct nor is he for Direct.
And it is good for Clark since he and the others don't have to see
your crap anymore
gaetanomarano
> Clark is not part of Direct nor is he for Direct.
probably he don't
of course, who can know better than a Direct-guy (like you) who IS
part and who is NOT part of the Direct's lobby? :)
.
charlie...@yahoo.com
I am not part of the the direct lobby. I don't care about it I am part
of the anti Ares I lobby. But more important, I am part of the anti
gaetanomarano lobby.