DIRECT launcher article in AIAA Houston Horizons

The Summer 2007 issue of Horizons has been posted. Horizons is the
online newsletter produced by the AIAA Houston section that covers
local AIAA activities and events and features notices of upcoming
paper presentations, general interest items, local aerospace stories,
and relevant commentary. In this issue:

· From the Editor: An "Open Source" Launch Vehicle Family?
· Chair's Corner
· A DIRECT Approach
· Staying Informed
· Membership Page
· AIAA Historic Aerospace Site Plaque at NASA/JSC
· Virgin Galactic Training for Travel Representatives
· Summary Report: The 2007 Annual Technical Symposium
· Student Essay: To Boldly Go
· Student Essay: You're a GO for Launch
· The Engineering and Sciences Contract Group
· The Space Settlement Design Competition
· The International Space Development Conference 2007
· Elon Musk of SpaceX Addresses AIAA Houston
· Calendar
· Cranium Cruncher
· Odds and Ends
· Conference Presentations/Articles by Houston Section Members
· AIAA Local Section News

You can find the new issue at the AIAA Houston Horizons web page:

http://www.aiaa-houston.org/horizons

JON S. BERNDT
Editor, Horizons Online Magazine
AIAA Houston
www.aiaa-houston.org/horizons
email: editor * at * aiaa-houston . org

Jon wrote:

Jon wrote:

In this issue:

· * * From the Editor: An "Open Source" Launch Vehicle Family?

Sounds great, an Open Source Launch Vehicle Family, a paradigm shift.

http://www.aiaa-houston.org/horizons

I'll have to read the article. :-)

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

On 12 Ago, 16:14, Jon wrote:
The Summer 2007 issue of Horizons has been posted. Horizons is the
online newsletter produced by the AIAA Houston section that covers
local AIAA activities and events and features notices of upcoming
paper presentations, general interest items, local aerospace stories,
and relevant commentary. In this issue:

· From the Editor: An "Open Source" Launch Vehicle Family?
· Chair's Corner
· A DIRECT Approach
· Staying Informed
· Membership Page
· AIAA Historic Aerospace Site Plaque at NASA/JSC
· Virgin Galactic Training for Travel Representatives
· Summary Report: The 2007 Annual Technical Symposium
· Student Essay: To Boldly Go
· Student Essay: You're a GO for Launch
· The Engineering and Sciences Contract Group
· The Space Settlement Design Competition
· The International Space Development Conference 2007
· Elon Musk of SpaceX Addresses AIAA Houston
· Calendar
· Cranium Cruncher
· Odds and Ends
· Conference Presentations/Articles by Houston Section Members
· AIAA Local Section News

You can find the new issue at the AIAA Houston Horizons web page:

http://www.aiaa-houston.org/horizons

JON S. BERNDT
Editor, Horizons Online Magazine
AIAA Houstonwww.aiaa-houston.org/horizons
email: editor * at * aiaa-houston . org


..

MY EMAIL TO AIAA and HORIZONS EDITOR (about "Direct")

..

To: AIAA and Horizons Editor

I'm sorry for the powerful "Direct" lobby... but the FIRST rocket of
this kind is my "FAST-SLV" published on my website in May 12, 2006 and
(in the same days) on SEVERAL space forums and blogs like NewMars,
HobbySpace, Universe Today, etc.

The (similar) NASA (?) "Stumpy" was published on NSF in July 2006 and
the (original...) "Direct Launcher" in August 2006 on NSF (FOUR MONTHS
AND HUNDREDS POSTS LATER MY "FAST-SLV" CONCEPT).

Ok, I've not a "FAST-SLV" lobby... that's why "Direct" has a full
(never deleted in last nine months) Wikipedia "commercial" article,
while, my Wiki FAST-SLV links are regularly deleted whitin a few
hours... but, if the FREEDOM of the U.S. Press is TRUE (and STILL
exists) I believe that AIAA (and ALL space websites, forums and blogs)
should publish this email to evidence WHO (me) WHEN (four months
before "Direct") and WHERE (on my website) the idea of Single Launch
Vehicle (built with ready available, cheap and man-rated STANDARD
Shuttle-derived hardware) was FIRST proposed:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

Best Regards

Gaetano Marano

..

On Aug 12, 7:32 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:

MY EMAIL TO AIAA and HORIZONS EDITOR (about "Direct")

To: AIAA and Horizons Editor

I'm sorry for the powerful "Direct" lobby... but the FIRST rocket of
this kind is my "FAST-SLV" published on my website in May 12, 2006 and
(in the same days) on SEVERAL space forums and blogs like NewMars,
HobbySpace, Universe Today, etc.

The (similar) NASA (?) "Stumpy" was published on NSF in July 2006 and
the (original...) "Direct Launcher" in August 2006 on NSF (FOUR MONTHS
AND HUNDREDS POSTS LATER MY "FAST-SLV" CONCEPT).

Ok, I've not a "FAST-SLV" lobby... that's why "Direct" has a full
(never deleted in last nine months) Wikipedia "commercial" article,
while, my Wiki FAST-SLV links are regularly deleted whitin a few
hours... but, if the FREEDOM of the U.S. Press is TRUE (and STILL
exists) I believe that AIAA (and ALL space websites, forums and blogs)
should publish this email to evidence WHO (me) WHEN (four months
before "Direct") and WHERE (on my website) the idea of Single Launch
Vehicle (built with ready available, cheap and man-rated STANDARD
Shuttle-derived hardware) was FIRST proposed:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

Best Regards

Gaetano Marano

.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gaetano:

Let me say that even though DIRECT was announced in October 2006, it
had been worked on for the year prior to that. And even then, the
concepts had some heritage from previous NASA designs. In fact, I
recall a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle design more than fifteen years ago
that bears a resemblance to DIRECT - and your design.

It's not about who is first, or even who came up with what idea. It's
about keeping an open dialogue to ensure that the Vision for Space
Exploration gets the best possible tools to fill the needs. It's not
about any individual's vanity.

Jon

On 13 Ago, 04:26, Jon wrote:
On Aug 12, 7:32 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:







MY EMAIL TO AIAA and HORIZONS EDITOR (about "Direct")

To: AIAA and Horizons Editor

I'm sorry for the powerful "Direct" lobby... but the FIRST rocket of
this kind is my "FAST-SLV" published on my website in May 12, 2006 and
(in the same days) on SEVERAL space forums and blogs like NewMars,
HobbySpace, Universe Today, etc.

The (similar) NASA (?) "Stumpy" was published on NSF in July 2006 and
the (original...) "Direct Launcher" in August 2006 on NSF (FOUR MONTHS
AND HUNDREDS POSTS LATER MY "FAST-SLV" CONCEPT).

Ok, I've not a "FAST-SLV" lobby... that's why "Direct" has a full
(never deleted in last nine months) Wikipedia "commercial" article,
while, my Wiki FAST-SLV links are regularly deleted whitin a few
hours... but, if the FREEDOM of the U.S. Press is TRUE (and STILL
exists) I believe that AIAA (and ALL space websites, forums and blogs)
should publish this email to evidence WHO (me) WHEN (four months
before "Direct") and WHERE (on my website) the idea of Single Launch
Vehicle (built with ready available, cheap and man-rated STANDARD
Shuttle-derived hardware) was FIRST proposed:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

Best Regards

Gaetano Marano

.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gaetano:

Let me say that even though DIRECT was announced in October 2006, it
had been worked on for the year prior to that. And even then, the
concepts had some heritage from previous NASA designs. In fact, I
recall a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle design more than fifteen years ago
that bears a resemblance to DIRECT - and your design.

It's not about who is first, or even who came up with what idea. It's
about keeping an open dialogue to ensure that the Vision for Space
Exploration gets the best possible tools to fill the needs. It's not
about any individual's vanity.

Jon- Nascondi testo tra virgolette -

- Mostra testo tra virgolette -

..

Jon

the Direct concept was first posted on NSF in August 2006, however
(August or October) it's always SEVERAL months AFTER my FAST-SLV
concept was first published on my website and many important space
forums and blogs (that all space "experts" read daily...)

in latest months, when I've said that on some space forums and blogs,
I've received answers similar to yours here "it had been worked on for
the year prior to that" but, when I've asked them to have an EVIDENCE
of that (from a reliable and credible source) they haven't posted
NOTHING (since that evidence, simply, doesn't exists)

about NASA studies, that could be made (then rejected) but, if the
Direct guys are aware their concept is NOT NEW (since already
proposed, months/years before, in my website or by NASA studies) why
do they propose it as a product of their minds/studies??? (and why do
they insist to propose a Xerox-copy of a NASA project?)

and, yes, the (real/main) problems is NOT about "who is first" nor
"individual's vanity" but it's much WORSE since it's a problem of
journalists' HONESTY and of FREEDOM of Press!

I think/believe that every (really free and honest) journalist, space
magazine, news website, forum, blog, etc. that KNOW my proposals (like
you now) should publish articles, reviews, posts, etc. ALSO on them
(clearly evidencing WHEN that proposals was FIRST published)

COULD an important US newspaper say that the first man in space was
Glenn rather than Gagarin?

clearly NOT ...but THAT is EXACTLY what happens DAILY with the
"original" Direct concept!

COULD Wikipedia publish a full article on Glenn while DELETING all
links to articles about Gagarin?

should be NOT ...but THAT is EXACTLY what happened in last nine months
with Direct and my FAST-SLV

it's a problem of HONESTY and FREEDOM OF PRESS ...not of vanity...

or, maybe... the "Direct" lobby has so much "power" on Press than US
Presidnts could never "dream" to have... ?

gaetano

..

On Aug 13, 8:42 am, gaetanomarano wrote:

and, yes, the (real/main) problems is NOT about "who is first" nor
"individual's vanity" but it's much WORSE since it's a problem of
journalists' HONESTY and of FREEDOM of Press!

Now you are going out of line and becoming annoying. Nobody on DIRECT
to my knowledge has claimed that they are first in anything - in fact
if you read the article carefully (without being blinded by your own
ego) then you will see. Neither DIRECT nor your concept are completely
original. Since Horizons has published an article on DIRECT, are you
now claiming that Horizons must also publish an article on your
concept - and every other concept that someone comes up with. I've
received some emails that suggest that your complaint sounds like
"sour grapes" (envy and jealousy at the publicity that DIRECT is
getting) - and it does. DIRECT did not gain any notice because of a
"lobby", which implies the concept has no merit, but because it has
appeal to them. Nobody is stopping you from trying to raise awareness
of your concept, which it appears you have been doing, without the
success you crave.

Read the article again and tell me where there was any dishonesty. If
you are not satisfied, you can raise the question on
forums.nasaspaceflight.com in the DIRECT v2.0 thread.

Jon

"Jon" wrote in message
oups.com...
You can find the new issue at the AIAA Houston Horizons web page:

http://www.aiaa-houston.org/horizons

Thanks for posting this link. The articles there look pretty interesting.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

"Jon" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 13, 8:42 am, gaetanomarano wrote:

and, yes, the (real/main) problems is NOT about "who is first" nor
"individual's vanity" but it's much WORSE since it's a problem of
journalists' HONESTY and of FREEDOM of Press!

Now you are going out of line and becoming annoying.

He posts all of his drawings on his web site and makes all sorts of claims
about them without providing any engineering analysis to back up his claims.
And his drawings are all over the map like he's taking a shotgun approach at
things.

Now it looks like he's starting to use these drawings to claim he came up
with such and such idea first. Shame on him.

This is why I've got gaetanomarano in my killfile.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

On 13 Ago, 16:12, Jon wrote:
On Aug 13, 8:42 am, gaetanomarano wrote:

and, yes, the (real/main) problems is NOT about "who is first" nor
"individual's vanity" but it's much WORSE since it's a problem of
journalists' HONESTY and of FREEDOM of Press!

Now you are going out of line and becoming annoying. Nobody on DIRECT
to my knowledge has claimed that they are first in anything - in fact
if you read the article carefully (without being blinded by your own
ego) then you will see. Neither DIRECT nor your concept are completely
original. Since Horizons has published an article on DIRECT, are you
now claiming that Horizons must also publish an article on your
concept - and every other concept that someone comes up with. I've
received some emails that suggest that your complaint sounds like
"sour grapes" (envy and jealousy at the publicity that DIRECT is
getting) - and it does. DIRECT did not gain any notice because of a
"lobby", which implies the concept has no merit, but because it has
appeal to them. Nobody is stopping you from trying to raise awareness
of your concept, which it appears you have been doing, without the
success you crave.

Read the article again and tell me where there was any dishonesty. If
you are not satisfied, you can raise the question on
forums.nasaspaceflight.com in the DIRECT v2.0 thread.

Jon



..

Jon

clearly you're NOT obliged to publish anythings you don't want to...
but a correct journalistic work should include to talk, publish and
add links to the concepts that have (or could have) "inspired" the
(most recent) proposal (NO MATTER if the previous concept was
developed by NASA, ESA, Boeing, etc. or by a small blogger...)

in other words, if a recent song (just) "seems" inspired to an old
Beatles' song, ALL (really) free, correct and honest music's
journalists/critics should point that in ALL their TV/web/newspapers'
articles, forums' posts, blogs' comments, books, etc.

this is my opinion, of course, and anyone is free to follow it or
not...

gaetano

..

On 13 Ago, 17:06, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Jon" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Aug 13, 8:42 am, gaetanomarano wrote:

and, yes, the (real/main) problems is NOT about "who is first" nor
"individual's vanity" but it's much WORSE since it's a problem of
journalists' HONESTY and of FREEDOM of Press!

Now you are going out of line and becoming annoying.

He posts all of his drawings on his web site and makes all sorts of claims
about them without providing any engineering analysis to back up his claims.
And his drawings are all over the map like he's taking a shotgun approach at
things.

Now it looks like he's starting to use these drawings to claim he came up
with such and such idea first. Shame on him.

This is why I've got gaetanomarano in my killfile.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

..

I'm sorry for the "Direct" lobby/religion's devotees, but the
"concept" actually is EVERYTHING (and add some calculations is just a
detail) since the "core" of (both) my "FAST-SLV" concept and the (four
months LATER) "Direct" proposal is to use STANDARD and READY AVAILABLE
motors, engines, tanks, etc. (rather than build two new rockets) to do
everything FASTER and save LOTS of billion$$$

..