New Mars Forums

.

COTS actually IS a good idea and a revolution of the past NASA policy about space hardware contractors, but the practical application of COTS is VERY BAD and FLAWED in several points

that since to-day's COTS is just a DUPLICATION (of research, efforts and vehicles) with ready (or soon) available (or old) things rather than the development of NEW things

my opinion about "What's wrong in COTS" (and HOW to do it BETTER) is explained in this new ghostNASA article:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/020wrongcots.html

.

ask NASA & C. about it, or search yourself, you'll find NOTHING

also, it's hard to say that about the ESAS plan, since, that plan, itself, is a long list of possible options about everything, from engines to rockets to capsules, etc. but there is no MLAS in the ESAS...

NASA dont't say they have invented it in 2006, but only that Mr. Griffin has made a draw of an SM side-LAS (something like the Kliper side-LAS) on a napkin in 2006... so, we can evidence that fact with the carbon-14 test of the Griffin's napkin...

.

.

EIGHT months ago, I've proposed MY idea of an "underside-LAS":

in my April 5, 2007 article:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/020newLAS.html

then, last december, NASA has proposed the "MLAS" as a possible tower-LAS alternative:

exposed in this article:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5300

AGAIN... OF COURSE... they say that have "invented" it in 2006...

"invented it before", "devloped internally", "already thought", etc. ...it's going to be a classic with my ideas...

however, but there is NOT any PUBLIC evidence of that... NO 2006 news, NO 2006 articles or .pdf on the NASA site, NOTHING

what's really curious and funny, is that LOTS of "experts" have written critics and insults against me in the past months saying "how much" my ideas was unfeasible, not a good engineering choice, bad, heavy, etc. etc. etc.

while NOW that a similar idea (but not good like MY idea) is proposed by NASA, everybody take it seriously, or are silent...

.

thanks for the idea but all my proposals (rockets, refuels, capsules, etc.) and opinins (SRB, Ares-1, etc.) are about the "interplanetary trasportation" (not a generic "science and technology") also, each argument is so different to be difficult to follow (for me and the readers) in a single "mega thread" ... if a thread has with a mix of 10, 20 or more arguments, the users MUST read also the post they don't like ... since this section hosts (surely good) arguments like "flingers", "magnetic acceleration rings", "H2O+UV", "warp drive", etc. I hope there is enough space to host arguments about the ARES-1, ORION, ARES-5, ALTAIR, ESAS, MOON MISSIONS ARCHITECTURES, ROCKETS, ETC.

[post update] please note that, nearly ALL arguments in my blog and/or posted here, involves very important problems, like:

- the spaceflights' safety

- the astronauts' lives

- the ESAS plan chances of success

- the NASA/ESAS/VSE budget and its use

- the (manned and unmanned) rockets' design flaws

- etc.

.

.

Could a crane with HALF its max power lift TWICE the weight??? Clearly, it CAN'T.

But that's EXACTLY what "should" happen with the (latest) Ares-1 second stage!!!

The problem is explained in detail in my new article "Ares-1 second stage MYSTERY"

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/017aresmystery.html

.

the Apollo CSM, SM and LEM was SMALLER than Orion, SM and Altair, but had enough life support for a moon mission

.

I admit that, when I read news like this, I don't resist to write... "I've said it n months ago" or "I've published an article on my website", etc.

however, that news is not little since it's a BIG CHANGE, a "180° turn" in the ESAS architecture!!!

so, I believe, it has enough merit to have a full thread

also, the brief F.I. article doesn't explain WHY the moon missions may fail with the old architecture, while, my article explain it in details

last, why a few links to my articles would be "spam" while thousands links to NSF, BAUT, FI, etc. would be not?

Merry Christmas to you, cIclops

.

.

in the same page of the animation I've added a second (static) image with some moons in a city's skyline:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/014manymoons.html

.

.

I've UPDATED my "Ares-1 can't fly" article...

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html

...with an interesting thing found on the web:

Two years ago, when I've FIRST remarked on a Space forum the problem of the lack of a "safe lift-off abort mode" in the upcoming Ares-1, I was (literally) submerged by lots of critics and insults, but, now, surfing the web, I've found and SAVED (a "disliked" web page can disappear overnight...) a very interesting June 12, 1997 Boeing's News Release titled "Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"...

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/199 … 70612.html

...where the Boeing LFBB Program Director Ira Victer said that... "LFBB will use liquid propellants and will be fully throttleable and capable of safe shutdown. SRBs, which use a solid propellant, cannot be turned off once ignited... "The result is a booster system [the LFBB] more tolerant of engine failure and less likely to require mission aborts," Victer said. "In addition, hazardous booster operations in NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Vehicle Assembly Building are eliminated, since LFBB fueling operations would occur on the launch pad, much the way the Shuttle's external tank is loaded today".

Then, in this ten-years-old document, BOEING (clearly) seems agree with me...

However, I'm not against the SRBs used as 1st stage of a rocket for manned launches... my only concern is that, this solution, needs many safety, structure and acceleration tests made NOW (not in 2009+) then, BEFORE any "final decision" about the Ares-1.

.

from the january 2004's Bush press conference to the september 2005 NASA press conference (and a futher year) the official date was: 2010 Shuttle retirement, 2012 first manned CEV launch, 2018 first (new) manned moon mission (a date that already appeared "too long" when announced...)

the "september 2014" date is about one year old, while, the "march 2015" date is a few months old and the "May-July 2016" date is just a few days old

more funds may help, but can't change the 6+ years J-2X R&D timeline nor add more power to the Ares-1

after so many delays (4+ years added in the first two years of the ESAS plan...) they can't admit its the "nth" delay, but, unfortunately, in ALL complex plans, if you add six months to one of its steps, the entire plan slips of (at least) six months...

.

.

from this Nov. 16, 2007 SpaceRef article:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1244

"NASA sources also report that the 6 month slip in the Ares 1 PDR (Preliminary Design Review) recently announced could impact the first launch of humans aboard an Ares 1 by as much as 14-16 months beyond the announced first flight date of March 2015"

did you have realized that Orion will be ready in 2012 but will not fly (then, will be "freezed" four+ years) until the Ares-1 will be (IF will be) ready for manned launches in June 2016+ ...and that the american manned-flights' GAP will be (now) of (at least) SIX years (+ further delays) ...and the first lunar landing could slip to 2022+ ...and all that (including the four+ years delay) happened in the first two years (late 2005 / late 2007) of the ESAS plan ???

that mainly (if not ONLY) due to the Ares-1 problems:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html

.

about the measurement systems confusion... in the Ares-V specs NASA doesn't use "mT" for metric tons but "MT" that sounds as "MILLION TONS"...

.