again... I was RIGHT about the (bad) ESAS architecture 21 monthsago

..

21 MONTHS ago I've published the article "Great part of the VSE moon
missions may fail":

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/004.html

where I've explained WHY the moon missions may fail with the 1.5
launch architecture

then, I've started some discussions about this problem, like this on
the BAUT forum:

http://www.bautforum.com/space-explo...-may-fail.html

and now (21 months after my article) NASA admits (but not acknowledge)
that a problem exists

that's why they have changed the moon missions' architecture to launch
the Ares-1 before the Ares-5:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...oncept-of.html

but they have lost 21 months to do that

so, why they don't (simply) adopt my suggestions (since they READ my
website) saving time and money?

..

On Dec 23, 7:05 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
.

21 MONTHS ago I've published the article "Great part of the VSE moon
missions may fail":

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/004.html

where I've explained WHY the moon missions may fail with the 1.5
launch architecture

then, I've started some discussions about this problem, like this on
the BAUT forum:

http://www.bautforum.com/space-explo...part-vse-moon-...

and now (21 months after my article) NASA admits (but not acknowledge)
that a problem exists

that's why they have changed the moon missions' architecture to launch
the Ares-1 before the Ares-5:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...nasas-moon-mis...

but they have lost 21 months to do that

so, why they don't (simply) adopt my suggestions (since they READ my
website) saving time and money?

.

More lies and BS. switching the launch order doesn't cost any money or
time nor has NASA lost time

On 24 Dic, 02:03, wrote:

More lies and BS. switching the launch order doesn't cost any money or
time nor has NASA lost time

EXACTLY the SAME reply posted on TheSpaceport.us (do you are the
"Integrator" of DIRECTspaceflight.com and TheSpaceport.us???) and the
SAME answer:

1. the change is (again) a clear evidence that I was RIGHT while ALL
the ESAS writers, readers and "expert" supporters was WRONG

2. the saving is not in the rockets but in the missions, with the past
architecture a failed mission due to "sum of delays" of the second
launch (Ares-1) means lose a very expensive Ares-5 and Altair, while,
with the new architecture only a less expensive Ares-1 is lost, then,
the architecture change could save big amount of time and money

..

On Dec 24, 5:21 am, gaetanomarano wrote:


2. the saving is not in the rockets but in the missions, with the past
architecture a failed mission due to "sum of delays" of the second
launch (Ares-1) means lose a very expensive Ares-5 and Altair, while,
with the new architecture only a less expensive Ares-1 is lost, then,
the architecture change could save big amount of time and money


This answer shows a complete lack of understanding. There are no
"savings" with this change, just a reduction in risk

On Dec 24, 5:21 am, gaetanomarano wrote:

EXACTLY the SAME reply posted on TheSpaceport.us (do you are the
"Integrator" of DIRECTspaceflight.com and TheSpaceport.us???) and the
SAME answer:

Why change a good post? Cut and paste work good in this cases