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

..

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

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

..

"gaetanomarano" wrote in message
...
.

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

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

.

1) It's a completely different system to 'your' design.

2) In the first paragraph, it's spelled "overweight" not "overweighted".

3) You have a major problem with your CAPS LOCK key.

4) You have a major colour problem with your text

5) There's too much highlighting of said text.

6) While you give NASA credit for the fist image, you don't mention where
you got the image or the information.

7) I wasn't aware that NASA had already abandoned the land-landing
option. Where did you get this information?

8) You mention the idea of an "Orioncopter"
(http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles...ioncopter.html) - isn't that from
Roton? You don't mention this.

9) Replacement of both the parachute and airbag system on Orion with a
rotary system would increase, not decrease mass.

On Apr 15, 4:02*pm, "Alan Erskine" wrote:

1) * *It's a completely different system to 'your' design.

no, but MY design is WAYS better

7) * *I wasn't aware that NASA had already abandoned the land-landing option.

just do a Google search to find several articles about that

isn't that from Roton?

no, it's not the (ridiculous) Roton, it's an independent small study
published by AIAA (soon I'll update my Orioncopter article with an
image adn a link)

9) * *Replacement of both the parachute and airbag system on Orion with a rotary system would increase, not decrease mass.

that's why I've put a question mark at the end of the article's title

.

On Apr 15, 4:02*pm, "Alan Erskine" wrote:

Replacement of both the parachute and airbag system on Orion with a
rotary system would increase, not decrease mass.

however, plase note that, the main goal of the Orioncopter design is
NOT to save mass but to accomplish a helicopter-like precision landing
at KSC

.

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
"gaetanomarano" wrote in message
...
another "developed internally..." idea from NASA to have a mass saving
Orion's landing on LAND option:

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

1) It's a completely different system to 'your' design.
snip

"gaetanomarano" needs to be killfiled by everyone. He's a loon.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

On Apr 15, 10:40 am, gaetanomarano wrote:
On Apr 15, 4:02 pm, "Alan Erskine" wrote:

1) It's a completely different system to 'your' design.

no, but MY design is WAYS better

Your designs are never better and not even plausible


isn't that from Roton?

no, it's not the (ridiculous) Roton, it's an independent small study
published by AIAA (soon I'll update my Orioncopter article with an
image adn a link)

Yours is a more ridiculous idea

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
"gaetanomarano" needs to be killfiled by everyone. He's a loon.

Yeah, but the problem with kf-ing him is that someone might just take him
seriously; if 'we' ask questions (logic Vs illogic will always win out in
the end), he might also learn things.