a NEW comparison image CLEARLY shows HOW MUCH my "underside-LAS"is BETTER than ANY Orion's tower-LAS

..

Now that NASA has unveiled the real (very big) size of the Orion's
tower-LAS it's 1,000,000 OF TIMES MUCH CLEAR that MY underside-LAS
concept is VERY VERY MUCH SMALLER and LIGHTER (then BETTER and SAFER)
than any tower-LAS design!!!

And, since "one image worth 1000 words", I've updated my article with
a (NASA tower-LAS vs. MY underside-LAS) image comparison that clearly
shows how much better it is!!!

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/029eiffeltowerlas.html

However, it's still unclear WHY did NASA wants to launch so much "dead
weight" with its Orion!!!

..

On Jun 7, 6:37 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
.

Now that NASA has unveiled the real (very big) size of the Orion's
tower-LAS it's 1,000,000 OF TIMES MUCH CLEAR that MY underside-LAS
concept is VERY VERY MUCH SMALLER and LIGHTER (then BETTER and SAFER)
than any tower-LAS design!!!

And, since "one image worth 1000 words", I've updated my article with
a (NASA tower-LAS vs. MY underside-LAS) image comparison that clearly
shows how much better it is!!!

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/029eiffeltowerlas.html

However, it's still unclear WHY did NASA wants to launch so much "dead
weight" with its Orion!!!

Because your underside-LAS can't work and you don't have the
capability to prove that it will.

wrote:

And, since "one image worth 1000 words", I've updated my article with
a (NASA tower-LAS vs. MY underside-LAS) image comparison that clearly
shows how much better it is!!!

And one high fidelity 3D Orbiter space flight simulation is worth a
million pictures.

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/029eiffeltowerlas.html

However, it's still unclear WHY did NASA wants to launch so much "dead
weight" with its Orion!!!

Because your underside-LAS can't work and you don't have the
capability to prove that it will.

I've been trying to encourage Geronimo to start testing his ideas out in
the Orbiter Space Flight Simulator but so far he hasn't made any effort.

The learning curve is rather high, but once you overcome that, it's
fairly easy to get order of magnitude demonstrations pretty precise.

Of course, I'm only interested in launch to LEO, so that simplifies
things for me somewhat.

On Jun 7, 3:37 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
.

Now that NASA has unveiled the real (very big) size of the Orion's
tower-LAS it's 1,000,000 OF TIMES MUCH CLEAR that MY underside-LAS
concept is VERY VERY MUCH SMALLER and LIGHTER (then BETTER and SAFER)
than any tower-LAS design!!!

And, since "one image worth 1000 words", I've updated my article with
a (NASA tower-LAS vs. MY underside-LAS) image comparison that clearly
shows how much better it is!!!

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/029eiffeltowerlas.html

However, it's still unclear WHY did NASA wants to launch so much "dead
weight" with its Orion!!!

.

The original DARPA LES (launch escape system) method as utilized by
their NASA/Apollo fiasco was another good reason as to why their all-
inclusive Saturn 5 inert GLOW was worth 30%

Hard to image any 30% inert method of fly-by-rocket getting the entire
Apollo package as specified into safely orbiting that physically dark
moon of ours, especially within a little over three days none the
less.

I think your "underside-LAS" is offering the better option that can be
rather easily supercomputer simulated. They need to save that weight,
that is if in fact it's ever going to accomplish that daunting task of
getting our rad-hard crew quickly to that physically dark and gamma
saturated moon of ours.

Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Jun 8, 10:29 am, kT wrote:
wrote:
And, since "one image worth 1000 words", I've updated my article with
a (NASA tower-LAS vs. MY underside-LAS) image comparison that clearly
shows how much better it is!!!

And one high fidelity 3D Orbiter space flight simulation is worth a
million pictures.

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/029eiffeltowerlas.html

However, it's still unclear WHY did NASA wants to launch so much "dead
weight" with its Orion!!!

Because your underside-LAS can't work and you don't have the
capability to prove that it will.

I've been trying to encourage Geronimo to start testing his ideas out in
the Orbiter Space Flight Simulator but so far he hasn't made any effort.

The learning curve is rather high, but once you overcome that, it's
fairly easy to get order of magnitude demonstrations pretty precise.

gaetanomarano wouldn't know the first thing to do in Orbiter. Plus he
couldn't properly estimate the weights involved, which is the whole
issue with his LAS design. He assumes it is lighter but has no work
to back it up. He just says it should be, which is totally wrong

On Jun 8, 11:29*am, wrote:
On Jun 8, 10:29 am, kT wrote:

wrote:
And, since "one image worth 1000 words", I've updated my article with
a (NASA tower-LAS vs. MY underside-LAS) image comparison that clearly
shows how much better it is!!!

And one high fidelity 3D Orbiter space flight simulation is worth a
million pictures.

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/029eiffeltowerlas.html

However, it's still unclear WHY did NASA wants to launch so much "dead
weight" with its Orion!!!

Because your *underside-LAS can't work and you don't have the
capability to prove that it will.

I've been trying to encourage Geronimo to start testing his ideas out in
the Orbiter Space Flight Simulator but so far he hasn't made any effort.

The learning curve is rather high, but once you overcome that, it's
fairly easy to get order of magnitude demonstrations pretty precise.

gaetanomarano wouldn't know the first thing to do in Orbiter. *Plus he
couldn't properly estimate the weights involved, which is the whole
issue with his LAS design. *He assumes it is lighter but has no work
to back it up. *He just says it should be, which is totally wrong

The underside design would have to be completely isolated from the
heat shield of the spacecraft, since you need the heat shield to be
pristine after you jettison the LAS after every normal liftoff. So it
has to be on some kind of framework, which, since it can't touch the
heatshield, needs to be a cradle attached to newly-designed hardpoints
on the lower side region of the capsule , which adds weight and all
kinds of structural implications and takes out some (if not all) of
the mass reduction you are seeking. Plus you KNOW your escape tower
is firing along the aerodynamic center of your capsule. You know no
such thing for a multi-rocket rig attached to the underside. Are the
motors steerable? You add a whole new control system, gimbal mounts,
etc.
Not saying NASA and company picked the very best option, but I'd trust
it more than I would a single image without any of the engineering
work to back it up.

Matt Bille
Sci/Tech news and comment:
http://mattbille.blogspot.com

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 10:29:05 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

gaetanomarano wouldn't know the first thing to do in Orbiter.

....Charlie, *enough*. Gaetanowhatever, ElfNazi, and pretty much every
single dip**** you're replying to are known trollng scum. Put them in
your killfile before everyone else here does that to *you*. The only
time we have to see their crap of late is when you're replying to
them, dammit.

Again, enough is enough.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

OM wrote:

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 10:29:05 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

gaetanomarano wouldn't know the first thing to do in Orbiter.

...Charlie, *enough*. Gaetanowhatever, ElfNazi, and pretty much every
single dip**** you're replying to are known trollng scum.

As opposed to say, known fascist scum, like Robert Mosley III of Austin
Texas. So fascist scum DEMAND that one choose between fascist scum or
trolling scum. You know, I'm gonna have to go with the trolling scum.

On 9 Giu, 00:05, Matt wrote:

The underside design would have to be completely isolated from the
heat shield of the spacecraft, since you need the heat shield to be
pristine after you jettison the LAS after every normal liftoff.

you're right, but the only purpose of my drawing is to show the
concept, it's NOT a "project" (that, clearly, needs study and tests)

..

On Jun 8, 8:21 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
On 9 Giu, 00:05, Matt wrote:

The underside design would have to be completely isolated from the
heat shield of the spacecraft, since you need the heat shield to be
pristine after you jettison the LAS after every normal liftoff.

you're right, but the only purpose of my drawing is to show the
concept, it's NOT a "project" (that, clearly, needs study and tests)

.

It is a bad concept that can't save mass