>>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

GCNRevenger · 2008-03-25 11:00:45

Gaetano, this is a discussion message board to get informed, propose, and debate various topics about spaceflight. Because there are many different topics, the board is divided up into many threads, but if you post lots of stuff into a thread that isn't related to that topic then you are personally disrupting the necessary organizational structure of this board. Also, starting large numbers of new threads for every little idea about a particular vehicle you come up with competes for screen space with other threads that are more focused on a wider variety of topics. Hence, you damage the ability of the board to function coherently and fulfill its purpose. This is why you have been asked, reasonably I might add, to keep your new ideas and discussion thereof about the particular vehicles of the Constellation project confined to a single thread.

Second, I think you have obviously and repeatedly used dishonest discussion tactics and an actively annoying typing style for self-gratification at our expense. You take credit for things that are objectively simple, you place your judgment on par or even above professional aerospace engineers, and you do not take one second of time to make your posts unobtrusive or inefficiently use screen space, unless you are prodded to do so. This shows that you are inconsiderate of others on the board, and are here to show off your ideas and receive praise for them, and not to inform nor discuss nor debate anything in good faith.

This is not about majorities rule or your "rights:" your posts use up space on our board without honestly contributing to what the board is about. Unsolicited posts, advertising something for the benefit of someone else at our expense, particularly in an annoying style of writing... what does that sound like? SPAM! Heck, you've even burned about 100 lines of screen space in the past dozen posts for less words than half of this one.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-25 11:31:29

the only waste of time and words I know (posting on space forums) is those I must lose every day to reply to insults and personal attacks rather than just talk of real things ... about my proposals, I believe it's better to suggest one or more alternatives and concepts rather than post only critics (like several users do on several space forums and blogs)

cIclops · 2008-03-26 13:31:29

Comments and opinions are welcome in all topics, but not promotions of websites and personal business. Please respect the topic.

idiom · 2008-03-31 05:44:15

NASA considered over 20,000 different designs for the Ares-1 which would have included Underside LAS as a matter of course.

It is a well established design going back decades.

Perhaps you got the idea from Canadian Arrow, the most recent (before your proposals) public discussion of such a design?

Circa 2001:

Crew Cabin Escape System
During every aspect of the flight, the crew cabin can be separated from the first stage, and initiate a recovery sequence based on the altitude and flight dynamics of the vehicle. As described previously, the four solid rockets can be ignited at any point during the flight, including a zero altitude launch pad abort. Flight stability has been achieved by ensuring the second stage is a stable vehicle on it's own. Design changes during the last year have enabled the removal of the lattice style stablization fins. During a zero altitude abort the crew cabin will reach a height of 5000 ft where it will deploy its main recovery parachutes. The access hatches on the crew cabin can be explosively blown off for quick exit of the vehicle.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-31 07:59:13

...from Canadian Arrow...

as already explained several times on space forums, the difference between the Apollo/Orion's tower-LAS, the Kliper's side-mounted LAS, the Griffin's ("napkin sketch") SM side-mounted LAS, the NASA "MLAS", this (new for me) Canadian Arrow proposal and the (possible) use of the SM engine as LAS vs. MY "underside-LAS" is the WEIGHT

MY design might allow to SAVE up to 4 mT of mass from the (expected) 6.4 mT Orion's tower-LAS, to launch the Orion with a smaller Ares-1 built with a standard SRB 1st stage

with a more powerful and expensive rocket, EVERY abort system is good, also the one you posted here about the V2... the Canadian Arrow...

do you have a link to the canadian-V2 discussion?

.

idiom · 2008-03-31 14:36:17

No particualr links to it although there is a bunch over at the Apce fellowship.

My point was, that it is fine to say 'I have been an advocate of Nasa doing X instead of Y for ages'. Its completely within limits to say 'I told you so'.

Its entirely different to claim to have invented X or to claim to have advocated X first. Generally with Nasa, by the time Y has been announced X has already been studied and rejected.

Just stick to quietly posting your ideas an views on your blog or in books and magazines. If your thoughts are of value (and probably even if they aren't) people will start to listen. And if someone flogs your ideas let other people notice. Then you will be considered a Genius or a prohpet... instead of a spammer.

The big advantage of an integrated abort system is that you still get to fire it during ascent, instead of tossing it overboard. So not only does it save weight indirectly, it increases payload directly.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-31 18:32:57

No particualr links...

links (and date) are very importants to support claims, that's why I put a date on every article and post their links on several forums and blogs including some that can't be edited by me

again, there is a BIG difference between the Griffin/CanadianArrow/Kliper SM/2ndstage/shuttle SIDE-mounded concepts and MY "underside-LAS" since ALL systems you quote (INCLUDING the Canadian Arrow that has TWO stages) need to DOUBLE the power and weight of the LAS (vs. the tower version) to lift (both) Orion and SM (Griffin/NASA) 2nd stage and crew cabin (Canadian Arrow) the full shuttle (Kliper) while MY concept may cut to HALF (or less) the weight of the LAS vs. the tower version (and SAFER)

'I told you so'

I still say (and will say) that, and the reason is the (few months ago) MLAS concept, because...

if they have already evaluated (but rejected) a MLAS/underside-LAS concept, there is NO reason to talk NOW of a (known bad) LAS design... while...

if they have invented (years ago) the MLAS (and believe as a good alternative) there is NO reason to talk of it NOW rather than in the ESAS plan (or BEFORE it)

it only a matter of LOGIC ... the logic teachs us that NASA should talk of a good concept in the main VSE document (the ESAS plan) OR (if it's a bad concept) NEVER talk of it, NOT in the ESAS plan, NOT now, NOT in future!

assuming the Canadian Arrow escape system is born in the date you claim, it's clearly a Kliper derivative (and the Kliper is born years before it) that lifts (both) 2nd stage and crew cabin (then it's NOT efficient) while MY underside-LAS may CUT the LAS mass to HALF (if compared to a towerLAS) or to 1/4th (if compared with the newV2 and the Kliper)

the newV2 escape system is safe, but adds twice the weight, if uses fast solid motors, while it's not too heavy but UNSAFE if uses the 2nd stages engines that need too much time to start burn (and an exploding rocket doesn't give so much time, if you want to save the crew) that's why (both) Apollo and Orion (and Soyuz/Shenzhou too) have NOT used/will use the SM engine to escape from a 2nd stage explosion, or the 2nd stage to escape from a first stage explosion, etc.

the day a new.space company or a space agency will adopt MY (mass saving and SAFER) underside-LAS (both) you and NASA will discover that it's better than a tower-LAS...

remember that (despite it was only a concept) everybody knows the Kliper and it's escape system, but I've never said to NASA "please, adopt the Kliper LAS that's better and safer than your towerLAS" since the effort of my design was NOT to (simply) put the LAS in another position (like the Griffin/newV2/Kliper concepts) but SAVE as much mass as possible, and the result is MY undersideLAS that has many (but smaller and lighter) solid motors joined to the Orion's TPS "cover" (a thing NEVER made nor suggested before)

.

cIclops · 2008-04-01 01:13:29

The big advantage of an integrated abort system is that you still get to fire it during ascent, instead of tossing it overboard. So not only does it save weight indirectly, it increases payload directly.

If it's such a big advantage, why have all abort systems implemented so far not been used as part of the launch system? The answer is that an abort system is designed for that one specific task. How could such a system be used as part of the standard launch system without adding mass and more complexity? This system has to be as reliable as possible, if needed it MUST work. The extra impulse it provides is small compared with the upper stage and extremely violent. It's used when either the first or upper stage fails, and therefore has to be independent of both. It's better to keep the escape system outside the launcher and eject it as soon as possible rather than try to integrate it.

gaetanomarano · 2008-04-01 01:36:32

If it's such a big advantage, why have all abort systems implemented so far not been used as part of the launch system? The answer is that an abort system is designed for that one specific task. How could such a system be used as part of the standard launch system without adding mass and more complexity? This system has to be as reliable as possible, if needed it MUST work. The extra impulse it provides is small compared with the upper stage and extremely violent. It's used when either the first or upper stage fails, and therefore has to be independent of both. It's better to keep the escape system outside the launcher and eject it as soon as possible rather than try to integrate it.

I agree 100% (also) since that kind of "soft" LAS is (simply) not workable, unsafe and unfeasible because the "integrated" 2nd stage "engine AND abort system" can be solid OR liquid, NOT both... if it's solid (and burns fast) it CAN work as LAS but NOT as 2nd stage engine (that need a low and long thrust) while, if it's liquid (and burns slow) it CAN work as 2nd stage but NOT as LAS since it needs too much time to start, burns slow and has a lower thrust in a long time... and an exploding rocket never give so much time to save the crew... it's to "soft" ...that's why the LAS has a so fast and high acceleration (10G or more) that (itself) can be a risk for the crew

.

idiom · 2008-04-01 04:43:08

I meant 'an' advantage.

If it is fired beyond the abort zone then it may sitll be pulling more than the abort weight tempering its thrust somewhat.

I meant integrated as in if it is not needed to abort then its thrust can be be added to the system. An abort tower has to use its engines to get itself out of the way even when its not needed.

gaetanomarano · 2008-04-01 15:02:13

I meant integrated as in if it is not needed to abort then its thrust can be be added to the system. An abort tower has to use its engines to get itself out of the way even when its not needed.

over a year ago, when the early rumors about an "underpowered Ares-1" started running the web, a further rumor said that NASA was evaluating the option to use the LAS as "3rd stage" to reach the orbit (rather than just jettison it) ... the only problem is that, with ALL Orion's crew put under 10G before enter the orbit, we'll have more astronauts dead than flyes after spraying an insecticide...

.

idiom · 2008-04-02 01:54:33

If it was fired before jettisioning the second stage then it won't hit 10G's but its at the point where the second stage isn't going to explode.

Or even with just the Service Module. 10G's is what happens when it leaves the service module behind.

It might get a bit extra into orbit.

If you don't fire an underside LAS then you have to carry it to orbit anyways.

gaetanomarano · 2008-04-02 02:17:46

If it was fired before jettisioning the second stage then it won't hit 10G's but its at the point where the second stage isn't going to explode.

probably not 10G but not so "soft" ... it's the nature of the LAS to be FAST since, if it's not enough fast, it can't save the astronauts

If you don't fire an underside LAS then you have to carry it to orbit anyways.

the underside-LAS is not fired but jettisoned before reach the orbit like every other LAS

.

cIclops · 2008-04-02 02:27:10

the underside-LAS is not fired but jettisoned before reach the orbit like every other LAS

As it's between the second stage and the capsule, it can't be jettisoned before the upper stage and so it has to be carried higher. The top mounted system is ejected just after second stage ignition and is therefore more efficient.

gaetanomarano · 2008-04-02 02:49:07

the underside-LAS is not fired but jettisoned before reach the orbit like every other LAS
As it's between the second stage and the capsule, it can't be jettisoned before the upper stage and so it has to be carried higher. The top mounted system is ejected just after second stage ignition and is therefore more efficient.

despite my underside-LAS is (about) half the weight a tower-LAS and 1/4th the weight of a side-mounted-LAS (then it can reach the orbit without big payload cut) my suggestion is to jetttison it at the same point of the flight of a tower-LAS since the LAS motors can be put outside the SM fairing

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-04-05 03:44:50

.

many web billionaires (like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Paul Allen, etc.) already invest in (or start) new.space companies

thanks to the iPod and iPhone success Apple has $18 billion CASH, Microsoft wants spend $44 billion to buy Yahoo!

so, these (and other) big companies have enough money to buy NASA several times or just start a new "NASA 2.0"

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/027applenasa.html

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-04-05 03:51:36

.

from this NSF article:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5394

"Interestingly, amid rumors of a configuration change in the offing, the first documented note of switching to a four segment Ares I with two J2-X upper stage engines gained a mention as a direct possibility of solving the TO problem."

then... this:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html

however, if they want to go back to a 4-segments SRB, they can (simply) develop an SSME-class J-2X, that I've called "J-2Y":

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/006superengine.html

that change is easy, since the J-2X is in its early steps and will be ready to fly within 6+ years

also, a more powerful 2nd stage engine, may help the underpowered Ares-5 to reach its (planned) 130 mT max payload goal

.

JoshNH4H · 2008-04-05 13:03:02

-

I'm going to guess that this ISN'T EVER GOING TO HAPPEN

-

-
This is what I see when I look at your posts, by the way.

gaetanomarano · 2008-04-14 21:04:58

.

another "developed internally..." idea from NASA to have a mass saving Orion's landing on LAND option:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/028orionlanding.html

.

SpaceNut · 2008-04-17 07:04:33

One of the major problems with talking about the complete Orion, Ares family of rockets has to do with when the vision was announced and when you joined as there is a lot of water under the bridge as the features intended to be made from shuttle parts.

Originally when the capsule was indicated as being reuseable I questioned the effects of a water landing on internal components being exposed to the salt air as well as droplets of water from landing.
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1681

Much in the way of going from where we were to start the path for a new vehicle to be developed took on the acronym of being called Shuttle derived (SDV) and crew exploratory vehicle (CEV) as the names were undefined as well as what parts would be made use of.

Under these many threads much was talked of from duplication of systems to redundancy as these effect safety. Loss of crew is not an option and Nasa will not be able to face another such event an keep going.

So the efforts to use what works safely has been an approach towards part selection and design concepts to be used from the past all the way up to current applications of the various parts to be used.

Many parts are being revisited to make them safer for use the design of them are being tweaked to get preformance and they are being tested as we go towards a final rocket to be used design. It is this process that is the justification for the possibly higher costs for the finally rocket build and no corner cutting should be allowed.

So things like your underside LAS needs to be put in this thread rather than the ones created for progress status.

gaetanomarano · 2008-04-17 09:12:02

So things like your underside LAS needs to be put in this thread rather than the ones created for progress status.

no, since I've already posted about the underside-LAS in its own thread (IIRC) while, in the status thread, I've just compared the giant and heavy tower-LAS with the Tour Eiffel...

.

GCNRevenger · 2008-04-17 11:46:33

So things like your underside LAS needs to be put in this thread rather than the ones created for progress status.
no, since I've already posted about the underside-LAS in its own thread (IIRC) while, in the status thread, I've just compared the giant and heavy tower-LAS with the Tour Eiffel...
.

Which is spam

zhar2 · 2008-04-28 17:58:54

.
another "developed internally..." idea from NASA to have a mass saving Orion's landing on LAND option:
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/028orionlanding.html
.

Wow that new.nasa bit is toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo far fetched and unrealistic by a long way that its infact impossible.

I think you may already be on the moon.

dryson · 2008-05-04 17:58:05

Not to be the prude of group, but a monkey could see through this sham.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2008-03-25 11:00:45

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#27 2008-03-25 11:31:29

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#28 2008-03-26 13:31:29

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#29 2008-03-31 05:44:15

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#30 2008-03-31 07:59:13

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#31 2008-03-31 14:36:17

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#32 2008-03-31 18:32:57

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#33 2008-04-01 01:13:29

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#34 2008-04-01 01:36:32

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#35 2008-04-01 04:43:08

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#36 2008-04-01 15:02:13

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#37 2008-04-02 01:54:33

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#38 2008-04-02 02:17:46

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#39 2008-04-02 02:27:10

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#40 2008-04-02 02:49:07

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#41 2008-04-05 03:44:50

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#42 2008-04-05 03:51:36

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#43 2008-04-05 13:03:02

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#44 2008-04-14 21:04:58

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#45 2008-04-17 07:04:33

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#46 2008-04-17 09:12:02

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#47 2008-04-17 11:46:33

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#48 2008-04-28 17:58:54

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

#49 2008-05-04 17:58:05

Re: >>> another "developed internally..." idea from NASA >>>

Board footer