On Aug 24, 10:05 am, gaetanomarano wrote:
.

despite they've deleted my forums' accounts from january 2006...
(both) NSF.direct.lobby.com's and new-uplink.space forums' "self-
styled experts" seems STILL look at my website and my blog for some
good ideas...

the first was NSF with the (FAST-SLV-like but FOUR months LATER)
"Direct" launcher... as explained (with new and strong evidences) in
this article:http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/033directstruestory.html

and now is the new-uplink.forum's time with "their" ARES-H concept:

http://www.space.com/common/communit...Page=ForumDisc....

the "ARES-H" concept and launch architecture looks pretty close my
"AresX" rocket first published 15 months ago in this May 20, 2007
article:http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/029aresX.html

however, I apprecciate very much the effort the uplink.forum's
"experts" made (at least) changing my "X" with an
"H"... ...and, of course, the "ARES-H" (like the died-at-
birth "Direct") is just a BAD copy of my idea!

my AresX concept was (mainly but not only) suggested to SAVE very much
R&D time and money and hardware costs, developing just ONE rocket (the
bigger AresX) to carry an entire (and bigger) lunar-convoy unmanned to
LEO

then, the crew should be launched with a (very much cheaper) COTS
manned capsule (like the SpaceX's Dragon or an human-rated Orbital's
Cygnus) to fully delete the Ares-1 rocket and SAVE very much on R&D
costs!

while, the new-uplink.forum's "experts" suggest to still develop and
build a resized Ares-L111 and use TWO Ares-L111 per lunar
mission!!! ...one to launch the Orion and half the propellents, the
second to launch the SM and the further half amounts of propellents!!!

that means to (at least) double the costs (the bigger Ares-H + TWO
Ares-L111 for each mission!!!) and increase by 50% the risks of
failure (three rockets per mission that need to have a perfect and no-
delays launch, rather than two ESAS launches)

particularly useless and absurd in the "ARES L111" (why that sounds
pretty much like MY "Ares 33"???...) launch architecture is the SECOND
Ares-L111 launch to just send a further 4 mT propellents' refuel to
the Orion!

also, this twin-Ares-L111 launch architecture needs TWO Orion's SM
main (Shuttles' OMS-derived) engines to work... one to move the Orion
and another to move the SM while in orbit (that needs TWO orbital
navigation systems, too...)

using an AresX-class (sorry... an "Ares-H"...) bigger-payload rocket,
it's clearly simpler to carry that extra-propellents in small tanks
put between the EDS and the Altair... like suggested in this ghostNASA
article:http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/011orbitalrefuel.html

of course, also the new-uplink.forum's guys (like happened on NSF's
with the Direct-guys) think, believe and say that they're "experts"
just becoause they add some "hobby-level" Delta-V calculations to
"their" (original...) rockets concepts...

"calculations" and "experts" always debunked and demolished by NASA
engineers... like happened with the Direct-concept/guys...

.

Clark/"Me"/Jim/Charlie/me2/
ImnotadirectguybutIloveit/"n"othernicknames' comment: "clueless and
non viable" ...or... "I know that the "Ares-H/Ares-L111" concepts
(like "Direct"...) was held in a secret drawer from 1997 ...but
(sorry) I can't give any evidence of that..."

.

NSF and especially of the Canadian uplink.space.com sites are deathly
afraid to rock that Zionist/NAZI DARPA boat, that which NASA keeps
afloat with our hard earned loot.

Did you take any notice the latest two fiascos, of their "Photos of
crashed Orion test capsule" as reentry via parachutes and that most
recent of their “NASA test rocket explodes (ATK's ALV X-1)”, and as to
why is mainstream media not giving this kind of spectacular and spendy
events full televised coverage?

Why is our mainstream media buying along with the usual DARPA/NASA
provided context of damage-control?

Clearly one of the ATK's ALV X-1 flight control thrusters wasn't
working, but all others seemed to be functioning. So why terminate
their flight so close to the ground?

Clearly the multiple chute deployed method of performing a safe and
reliable deorbit/reentry technology "Photos of crashed Orion test
capsule" is simply too complicated for our NASA to cope with. But
still without having a viable fly-by-rocket lander or something better
than shuttle, what other as-built alternatives do we have?

btw, what's the all-inclusive cost of their latest "ATK's ALV X-1",
plus payloads and collateral damage fiasco? (in billions of dollars?)

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth