now (with new data and images) my Altair lunar lander article isa true and detailed analysis of this spacecraft

..

I've just updated my Altair article with new data and images, so, it
now is a true and detailed analysis of the ESAS lunar lander:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/025badaltair.html

one of the most interesting things added is an evaluation (by
comparison with the Orion) of the real dimensions of the Altair's crew
cabin

..

"gaetanomarano" wrote in message
...
.

I've just updated my Altair article with new data and images, so, it
now is a true and detailed analysis of the ESAS lunar lander:


No it's not; it's rubbish!

On Mar 10, 9:49 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
.

I've just updated my Altair article with new data and images, so, it
now is a true and detailed analysis of the ESAS lunar lander:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/025badaltair.html

one of the most interesting things added is an evaluation (by
comparison with the Orion) of the real dimensions of the Altair's crew
cabin

.

Typical. Once again you are wrong and clueless

The Altair shown is not the true vehicle. It is the zero base
vehicle. A vehicle with the minimum requirements to do the job. It
has no redundancy and no extra margins.

wrote in news:789e4b17-1445-449f-88e2-25b3b62c6504
@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

There's a reason most of us have kill-filed the silly twit. He
doesn't listen to anyone because he can't conceive of being in
error. Ignore him and perhaps he'll finally go away. Or not.
Reason and logic doesn't work with his kind.

--Damon, who slept through the damned launch! Argh!

On Mar 10, 9:49 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
.

I've just updated my Altair article with new data and images, so, it
now is a true and detailed analysis of the ESAS lunar lander:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/025badaltair.html

one of the most interesting things added is an evaluation (by
comparison with the Orion) of the real dimensions of the Altair's crew
cabin

The first link in his incoherent rant, is this Av week article.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...&channel=space

The first line in the article is "An in-house NASA design team that is
sketching out a rough concept for the planned Altair lunar lander will
soon be joined by some early industry partners to help with a "minimum
functional" design that will be the starting point for an actual
lander."

So gaetanomarano is critiquing a lander that is not going happen in
the first place and it known to have issues and "minimum functions"

What a fool

On 11 Mar, 06:47, "Alan Erskine" wrote:

No it's not

do you have a link to a better article?

..

On 11 Mar, 07:00, wrote:

The Altair shown is not the true vehicle.

you're right, since, the final vehicle, could be even WORSE than this

the payload planned to land on the Moon in the early ESAS plan was 21
mT now reduced to just 17 mT

but the (current design) Ares-5 is largely underpowered, so, the final
payload landed could be LESS than this

if (both) Altair and Ares-5 will have no (deep) design changes, the
only solution will be, land on the Moon the crew version of the
Altair ...unmanned...

..

On 11 Mar, 08:26, Damon Hill wrote:

*Ignore him and perhaps he'll finally go away.

ignore the reality may only give bad surprises when that reality come
true...

.

On 11 Mar, 14:13, wrote:

So gaetanomarano is critiquing a lander that is not going happen in
the first place and it known to have issues and *"minimum functions"

first of all, without a deep change in the Ares-5 power and max
payload, these Altair "minimum functions" will always remain "minime"
or become (very much) "smaller"

second, a so expert "in-house NASA design team" CAN'T propose a so old
Apollo-like lunar lander concept, NOT EVEN AT IT'S FIRST
ATTEMPT !!!!!!!!!!

it's simply RIDICULOUS that (also) some, non-NASA, non-expert, non-
engineer peoples, are able to suggest (on websites, forums and blogs)
better (or, at least, different) ideas that this "in-house team" !!!!

.

On Mar 11, 10:23 am, gaetanomarano wrote:

it's simply RIDICULOUS that (also) some, non-NASA, non-expert, non-
engineer peoples, are able to suggest (on websites, forums and blogs)
better (or, at least, different) ideas that this "in-house team" !!!!


Whose says your wrong ideas are better? Your ideas for hardware are
all unworkable.