a (nov. 7) Flight International article CONFIRMS that the Ares-1 has problems to fly

..

this (nov. 7) F.I. article CONFIRMS that the Ares-1 has problems to
fly:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-launcher.html

as predicted/evaluated in my (nov. 4) ghostNASA article:

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

and in this Jul. 28, 2006 article about the 5-segments SRB motor:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/011srb5.html

..

this is the first image of the Orion's mockup that NASA has built for
tests:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...ockup2_546.jpg

well...it looks very much like MY "sliced Orion":

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/031easyways.html

just look at the (small) distance between the door and the capsule top
line...

..

On Nov 7, 4:32 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
.

this (nov. 7) F.I. article CONFIRMS that the Ares-1 has problems to
fly:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...nasa-admits-si...

as predicted/evaluated in my (nov. 4) ghostNASA article:

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

and in this Jul. 28, 2006 article about the 5-segments SRB motor:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/011srb5.html

.

this is the first image of the Orion's mockup that NASA has built for
tests:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...ockup2_546.jpg

well...it looks very much like MY "sliced Orion":

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/031easyways.html

just look at the (small) distance between the door and the capsule top
line...

.

This is old news. NASASpaceflight.com has been saying it for months

wrote:
On Nov 7, 4:32 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
.

this (nov. 7) F.I. article CONFIRMS that the Ares-1 has problems to
fly:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...nasa-admits-si...

as predicted/evaluated in my (nov. 4) ghostNASA article:

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

and in this Jul. 28, 2006 article about the 5-segments SRB motor:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/011srb5.html

.

this is the first image of the Orion's mockup that NASA has built for
tests:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...ockup2_546.jpg

well...it looks very much like MY "sliced Orion":

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/031easyways.html

just look at the (small) distance between the door and the capsule top
line...

.

This is old news. NASASpaceflight.com has been saying it for months

What are they saying about the significance of packing 300,000 pounds of
cryogenic fuels on an extremely light weight and structurally advanced
upper stage, since you can't seem to come up with an answer yourself.

Considering that such an extremely advance upper stage has recently been
stretched in order to incorporate more fuel. Any comments, Mr. Talking
out your ass without even a website with designs and numbers to show US.

On Nov 7, 3:25 pm, kT wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 7, 4:32 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
.

this (nov. 7) F.I. article CONFIRMS that the Ares-1 has problems to
fly:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...nasa-admits-si...

as predicted/evaluated in my (nov. 4) ghostNASA article:

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

and in this Jul. 28, 2006 article about the 5-segments SRB motor:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/011srb5.html

.

this is the first image of the Orion's mockup that NASA has built for
tests:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...ockup2_546.jpg

well...it looks very much like MY "sliced Orion":

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/031easyways.html

just look at the (small) distance between the door and the capsule top
line...

.

This is old news. NASASpaceflight.com has been saying it for months

What are they saying about the significance of packing 300,000 pounds of
cryogenic fuels on an extremely light weight and structurally advanced
upper stage, since you can't seem to come up with an answer yourself.

Considering that such an extremely advance upper stage has recently been
stretched in order to incorporate more fuel. Any comments, Mr. Talking
out your ass without even a website with designs and numbers to show US.

Obviously it'll take considerably more applied fly-by-rocket energy
for getting their 25 tonnes into safely orbiting our moon, especially
if that's accomplished within 3 days of leaving ISS in their rocket
dust, not to mention that it's too bad they still do not have even so
much as an R&D prototype fly-by-rocket lander, and that most
everything of their Apollo wizardly technology is sort of MIA (as in
poof, gone with the wind).

Makes you wonder as to how the heck they ever accomplished those
original Apollo missions, with merely a 60:1 ratio worth of rocket/
payload and their having a nearly 30% inert GLOW factor to deal with.
Was Earth's gravity of that much less way back then?
--
Brad Guth

On Nov 7, 6:25 pm, kT wrote:


Considering that such an extremely advance upper stage has recently been
stretched in order to incorporate more fuel. Any comments, Mr. Talking
out your ass without even a website with designs and numbers to show US.


No comment, none needed. There is nothing significant.

My website?
NASA.gov
It my employer's

But speaking of an ass

wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:25 pm, kT wrote:

Considering that such an extremely advance upper stage has recently been
stretched in order to incorporate more fuel. Any comments, Mr. Talking
out your ass without even a website with designs and numbers to show US.


No comment, none needed. There is nothing significant.

Nothing at all significant about 300,000 pounds of cryogenic fuel loaded
onto an upper stage that weighs only 35,000 pounds? Au contraire, fair
pony tailed minion. I sense a thrust to weight breakthrough here, that
does not require the assistance of a very large five segment horses ass.

My website?
NASA.gov
It my employer's

But speaking of an ass

That would be the stick, and the asses who are designing it.

On Nov 10, 10:21 am, kT wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:25 pm, kT wrote:

Considering that such an extremely advance upper stage has recently been
stretched in order to incorporate more fuel. Any comments, Mr. Talking
out your ass without even a website with designs and numbers to show US.

No comment, none needed. There is nothing significant.

Nothing at all significant about 300,000 pounds of cryogenic fuel loaded
onto an upper stage that weighs only 35,000 pounds? Au contraire, fair
pony tailed minion. I sense a thrust to weight breakthrough here, that
does not require the assistance of a very large five segment horses ass.

My website?
NASA.gov
It my employer's

But speaking of an ass

That would be the stick,

That make's real sense. The stick is an "ass". Not!
Obviously by someone who does know squat about anything and it not in
the aerospace business

You don't have to tell me that the stick is bad. Known it for years.

The problem is you don't known why. And it is not the upperstage

wrote:
On Nov 10, 10:21 am, kT wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:25 pm, kT wrote:
Considering that such an extremely advance upper stage has recently been
stretched in order to incorporate more fuel. Any comments, Mr. Talking
out your ass without even a website with designs and numbers to show US.
No comment, none needed. There is nothing significant.
Nothing at all significant about 300,000 pounds of cryogenic fuel loaded
onto an upper stage that weighs only 35,000 pounds? Au contraire, fair
pony tailed minion. I sense a thrust to weight breakthrough here, that
does not require the assistance of a very large five segment horses ass.

My website?
NASA.gov
It my employer's
But speaking of an ass
That would be the stick,

That make's real sense. The stick is an "ass". Not!
Obviously by someone who does know squat about anything and it not in
the aerospace business

I'm in the intellectual property business.

I have a website with lots of numbers, do you want to look at it?

Mineth numerals maketh sense : http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky

You don't have to tell me that the stick is bad. Known it for years.

Yes, you really are a rocket scientist.

The problem is you don't known why. And it is not the upperstage

You're right, there is nothing wrong with that upper stage, except,
well, the oxygen is in the wrong location for atmospheric flight, the
engine is the wrong engine for atmospheric flight, and it's greatly
overdesigned for a booster, that apparently, due to weight reductions
and the inevitable failure of Bush's moon program, it no longer needs.

Actually, the engine doesn't exist, but I have some that do.

Is this you?

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...-99PP-0204.jpg

Hey look, it's a dead astronaut. Way to go Jim! Let me guess, you really
are a rocket scientist!

I wish you many and various mass and performance surprises and solutions
to be revealed November 22, 2007.

On Nov 10, 12:21 pm, kT wrote:

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...ges/medium/KSC...

Hey look, it's a dead astronaut. Way to go Jim! Let me guess, you really
are a rocket scientist!

I wish you many and various mass and performance surprises and solutions
to be revealed November 22, 2007.

What an asshole!

That in itself discredits anything you have to say and that attitude
will be prevent anything you propose to be dismiss without regard to
its validity. You are doomed to be marginalized and ignored just
like gaetanomarano

On Nov 10, 12:21 pm, kT wrote:
wrote:

I'm in the intellectual property business.

I have a website with lots of numbers, do you want to look at it?

Mineth numerals maketh sense :http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky

Looks like your intellectual property isn't worth squat