NASA's Ares I and Orion - ENTIRELY WITHOUT MERIT

The Ares I launch vehicle, and its Orion mega capsule, have no
scientific, technological, physical or financial foundation at all.

NASA's Ares I and Orion are entirely without merit.

And you are saying this as an expert. I'd suggest you are no more an expert
than I am, but I admit it!

I do have my doubts that this vehicle will ever actually do anything useful
myself, but its hard to see what the next step would be otherwise.

I think designing a new launch vehicle from bits of old vehicles seems to
be a bit pointless when there are expendables around that could be adapted
faster and cheaper. I also feel that just turning the clock back to a
capsule is a bit of a bad thing in the eyes of the public who I think see it
as a backward step.

How much of this is pr, and how much other constraints, I have no idea.

The fact seems to be that us humans have a deep seated need to get hands on
and find out stuff, but a logic argument for doing so is hard to come by.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"kT" wrote in message
...
The Ares I launch vehicle, and its Orion mega capsule, have no scientific,
technological, physical or financial foundation at all.

NASA's Ares I and Orion are entirely without merit.

"kT" wrote in message
...
The Ares I launch vehicle, and its Orion mega capsule, have no scientific,
technological, physical or financial foundation at all.

NASA's Ares I and Orion are entirely without merit.

Why do you keep giving off on Ares / Orion in every post you make? I have no
doubt that NASA chose the best architecture to go back to the Moon that lies
within its budget. The Apollo days (where enormous sums where invested in
the space program to 'catch up' with the Soviets) are long gone and NASA has
to make do with what they get from Conrgress. Given the politics involved
(yes, politics and jobs / constituents DO matter these days) I think they
chose the most feasible architecture. If a huge sum of money was available
no doubt there are better ways of doing it (i.e. not using the SRB's, Single
Shot to the Moon without Rendevouz etc.) I believe NASA can be rightfully
proud of itself.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Aug 15, 4:02*am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
And you *are saying this as an expert. I'd suggest you are no more an expert
than I am, but I admit it!

I do have my doubts that this vehicle will ever actually do anything useful
myself, but its hard to see what the next step would be otherwise.

I think designing a new *launch vehicle from bits of old vehicles seems to
be a bit pointless when there are expendables around that could be adapted
faster and cheaper. I also feel that just turning the clock back to a
capsule is a bit of a bad thing in the eyes of the public who I think see it
as a backward step.

How much of this *is pr, and how much other constraints, I have no idea..

The fact seems to be that us humans have a deep seated need to get hands on
and find out stuff, but a logic argument for doing so is hard to come by.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
*graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ _________________________*________________________ ___________

"kT" wrote in message

...



The Ares I launch vehicle, and its Orion mega capsule, have no scientific,
technological, physical or financial foundation at all.

NASA's Ares I and Orion are entirely without merit.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This has been the goal for the agency since the moon landings. It
took a generation of Americans who saw nothing but costs and dedicated
efforts to marginalize the whole enterprise with science fiction -
before they got to this point.

When the Chinese launch their advanced fission free nuclear pulse
spacecraft mid-century, we will be too far down the curve to respond,
let alone participate equally. Which is too damned bad - and the
century of American leadership in space will be over.

Brian Gaff wrote:

And you are saying this as an expert. I'd suggest you are no more an expert
than I am, but I admit it!

I've studies the problem for decades, and recently I revisited the
problem in yet another two year study, and then I wrote a report :

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/

Now that you mention it, I guess that does make me an expert.

I do have my doubts that this vehicle will ever actually do anything useful
myself, but its hard to see what the next step would be otherwise.

Put some small lightweight three man capsules on both medium EELVs.

I think designing a new launch vehicle from bits of old vehicles seems to
be a bit pointless when there are expendables around that could be adapted
faster and cheaper.

Give this man a public service medal!

He's an expert in launch vehicle architecture.

I also feel that just turning the clock back to a
capsule is a bit of a bad thing in the eyes of the public who I think see it
as a backward step.

A 25 metric ton capsule in a solid rocket booster? Give us a break!

How much of this is pr, and how much other constraints, I have no idea.

Have you considered corruption and incompetence?

The fact seems to be that us humans have a deep seated need to get hands on
and find out stuff, but a logic argument for doing so is hard to come by.

With corruption and incompetence, money always comes to mind.

About the only thing salvageable from this would be the Ares I upper
stage. I could use something like that for my SSME based rocket.

Otherwise, the way forward is now very clear :

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/

It's gonna be fantastic people!

On Aug 15, 10:40 am, kT wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:
And you are saying this as an expert. I'd suggest you are no more an expert
than I am, but I admit it!

I've studies the problem for decades, and recently I revisited the
problem in yet another two year study, and then I wrote a report :

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/

Now that you mention it, I guess that does make me an expert.


Actually that document confirms the opposite and it lacks the language
you profess to speak in: scientific and mathematical. It contains bad
verse and sentence/paragraph structure, which are signs of a deficient
"post Sputnik era" education

On Aug 14, 5:37*pm, kT wrote his usual anti-NASA
BS:
The Ares I launch vehicle, and its Orion mega capsule, have no
scientific, technological, physical or financial foundation at all.

NASA's Ares I and Orion are entirely without merit.

They wouldn't fund your upscale bottle rocket proposal?

wrote:
On Aug 15, 10:40 am, kT wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:
And you are saying this as an expert. I'd suggest you are no more an expert
than I am, but I admit it!
I've studies the problem for decades, and recently I revisited the
problem in yet another two year study, and then I wrote a report :

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/

Now that you mention it, I guess that does make me an expert.


Actually that document confirms the opposite and it lacks the language
you profess to speak in: scientific and mathematical.

That's what the Orbiter addon is for. You did load it and fly it, right?

I tried to simplify it as much as I could for you hillbilly retards.

It contains bad
verse and sentence/paragraph structure, which are signs of a deficient
"post Sputnik era" education

Awe shucks, charlie, you don't know nuthin neither.

Now charlie, if you don't mind, I'm busy testing combinatorially derived
geometric models of launch vehicle architectures on my mathematical and
physical simulator, in real time, on the supercomputer under my desk.

Since you seem incapable of criticizing the one that I have published,
there seems to be no urgent need to publish yet more of them, since most
of those involve throwing away huge quantities of engines and tankage.

Feel free to criticize my sentence structure right here and how, though.

eyeball wrote:
On Aug 14, 5:37 pm, kT wrote his usual anti-NASA
BS:
The Ares I launch vehicle, and its Orion mega capsule, have no
scientific, technological, physical or financial foundation at all.

NASA's Ares I and Orion are entirely without merit.

They wouldn't fund your upscale bottle rocket proposal?

The Ares I-X is an upscale bottle rocket proposal, being funded to the
tune of several billion dollars. My proposal is for a real rocket.

The smartest thing they did was that welding demonstration.

It's the only thing they've got here.

On 15 Aug, 12:54, wrote:
On Aug 15, 4:02*am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:





And you *are saying this as an expert. I'd suggest you are no more an expert
than I am, but I admit it!

I do have my doubts that this vehicle will ever actually do anything useful
myself, but its hard to see what the next step would be otherwise.

I think designing a new *launch vehicle from bits of old vehicles seems to
be a bit pointless when there are expendables around that could be adapted
faster and cheaper. I also feel that just turning the clock back to a
capsule is a bit of a bad thing in the eyes of the public who I think see it
as a backward step.

How much of this *is pr, and how much other constraints, I have no idea.

The fact seems to be that us humans have a deep seated need to get hands on
and find out stuff, but a logic argument for doing so is hard to come by.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
*graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ _________________________**_______________________ ____________

"kT" wrote in message

...

The Ares I launch vehicle, and its Orion mega capsule, have no scientific,
technological, physical or financial foundation at all.

NASA's Ares I and Orion are entirely without merit.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This has been the goal for the agency since the moon landings. *It
took a generation of Americans who saw nothing but costs and dedicated
efforts to marginalize the whole enterprise with science fiction -
before they got to this point.

When the Chinese launch their advanced fission free nuclear pulse
spacecraft mid-century, we will be too far down the curve to respond,
let alone participate equally. * Which is too damned bad - and the
century of American leadership in space will be over.- Hide quoted text -

I don't realy think this is the way to go. To some extent this
contradics what you are saying about solar power. Clearly to see the
far future you need a crystal ball although I must say that I feel the
next step involves solar power and the handling of laser/microwave
beams. This seems to me to be a much more feasible route than nuclear
pulses.

I must say I would see as the next stage is ion propulsion. This could
either be based on the spacecraft's own paddles or on lasers/
microwaves. If you are going beyond Mars you need lasers. I feel that
SSP will transmit the bulk of its power to Earth via microwaves, but
there are these niche areas. The ONLY way to make interstellar
journeys is by the Forward method which (in essense) is lasers.

David Gaff has talked about existing launchers. I feel that perhaps
one answer is a program to increase assembly capability in space so
that the transport of heavy indivisible loads becomes unnecessary.


- Ian Parker