|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 .. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
another "developed internally..." idea from NASA to have a mass saving Orion's landing on LAND option
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
another "developed internally..." idea from NASA to have amass saving Orion's landing on LAND option
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 . |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
another "developed internally..." idea from NASA to have amass saving Orion's landing on LAND option
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 . |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
another "developed internally..." idea from NASA to have a mass saving Orion's landing on LAND option
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
another "developed internally..." idea from NASA to have amass saving Orion's landing on LAND option
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
another "developed internally..." idea from NASA to have a mass saving Orion's landing on LAND option
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CxP Issues "Cease and Desist" Order on Land Landing for Orion | Jeff Findley | Policy | 5 | December 12th 07 03:57 PM |
The "Venus/Mercury Radar Reflection Conjunction Anomaly", is a firm motive to question Special relativity and a support for the idea of "Planetary lightspeed frame dragging" by a so called LASOF. ( Local Anti-Symmetrical Oscillati | [email protected][_2_] | Misc | 8 | November 9th 07 05:57 AM |
The (suggested) Orion "side landing" on LAND allows (also) the option to install four (VERY SAFE) "shock absorbing" astronauts' seats! | gaetanomarano | Policy | 0 | August 11th 07 09:50 PM |
MOST RELIABLE Orion's Solar Panels - just FOUR moving parts (in total) vs. 46 parts of the Orion's "Butterfly" | gaetanomarano | Policy | 4 | May 21st 07 07:44 PM |
Circumcise Moon Landing: NASA "loses" Original tapes | Linux Utilisateur | Misc | 1 | August 9th 06 08:35 AM |